God has no unfulfilled desires, else He is not God. What God wants, God gets. That Scripture accommodates human finitude in language we can understand is not a warrant to assume in error. Obviously if God wants something and it does not happen, then God really, really, did not want it to happen, for He is not impotent. Try not to elevate righteousness as something more important than all of God's attributes, for they all inhere one another. God
is His attributes. All of them.
Hence these sort of wants of God spoken of in Scripture must mean something other than your common assumption. God must want something far greater than what it is stated. Not all are saved. All would be saved if God genuinely wanted it to be so. A parent often allows the child to do something the parent knows will be harmful to a child. Ultimately the child learns the lesson, say, touching the hot pot. Obviously the parent's wants are distinguishable. On the one hand, the parent wants the child to behave properly, on the other hand the parent wants the child to learn the lesson of bad behavior. Both are properly described as wants, but the parent's true want is not going to be unfulfilled.
Similarly, God wants in the
prescriptive sense. He commands this or that, the
prescriptions for proper living. These commands are regularly disobeyed. But God also wants in the decretive sense. He decrees this or that. That so decreed is never not unfulfilled, else God is not God. Hence, we can think of God's will in several senses as seen in Scripture. There is the
will of desire, or the
will of decree. It is not that God is double-minded, like us finite creatures, only that we need to understand how God's will is spoken of within Scripture.
No. You do not understand the passage you allude to here. This is a common error. See:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?113575-OSAS&p=4485652&viewfull=1#post4485652
God is not a debtor to man, repaying man for his wise choices, giving him reasons to boast, as in:
[FONT="]“Lord, I thank thee that I am not like these poor, presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free will; I was born with a power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace as I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know that thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves… it was not thy grace that made us differ… I made use of what was given me, and others did not—that is the difference between me and them.”[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Src: Spurgeon, Sermon on John 5:40 “Free Will a Slave” The New Park Street Pulpit, 1855- 1856, Volumes I & II (Pilgrim 1975), 395-402.
[/FONT]
You want to claim the righteousness of God, yet deny Him mercy of giving what no one deserves? Odd. Yes, there is no dispute that the non-believer hates God, for all are born sinners, and sin because they are sinners. All in Adam are quite morally dead. Unable to choose wisely, able to not
not sin. That is not the original state in which man was created. The first man was created upright, mutable, inclined only to the good. The act of regeneration restores man to a semblance of that original state. God's act of regeneration makes man's moral constitution aright once again.
The plain fact is that all deserve only God's
justice, not His
mercy. Justice is getting what you deserve. Mercy is getting what you do not. Your view robs God of mercy entirely for you have a defective understanding of the state of all who are fallen in Adam. You see fallen man as just wounded, retaining some seed of goodness, that allows them to choose wisely. Yet, their neighbors who have this very same same seed of righteousness, choose badly. The only conclusion then is that there is something
special about you over your neighbor. Is this really how you see yourself in distinction from your neighbor? Think about it. Scripture knows nothing of this sort of arrogance.
No. What you are doing is claiming we operate from the same presuppositions
you do and therefore believe about our beliefs what
you believe about
our beliefs. This leaves no hope for honest discussion. You are just not asking questions rightly. I know of no Calvinist who refuses to answer sincere questions. Unfortunately, most of the time questions are asked with hidden agendas and odious motives that result in toadying to the crowd. No one need be obliged to participate in the sins of others.
Nanja and b57 are hyper-Calvinists, a heretical group, so any answer coming from them is no answer at all. Truster has not claimed to be a Calvinist as far as I am aware. That he has some similar soteriological views does not make him a Calvinist. That leaves Nang, who I am certain is a person always willing to answer honestly asked questions, as am I.
Unfortunately what passes for discussion in these matters with the anti-Calvinist is usually sweeping mischaracterizations. [FONT="]Even when the anti-Calvinist weighs in with something worthwhile, they soonwilt away as their views are examined, their logical conclusions demonstrated,and errors revealed. Under such careful scrutiny using the full counsel ofScripture, the anti-Calvinist retreats behind "
Too many words!" "
I did not say that!""
You assume what Idid not!" "
Youare a fool!" "
Iwon't respond until you apologize!" or whateverrationalization that will help them retain some modicum of face among thewatching mobs rather than driving the topic being discussed to ground.
[/FONT][FONT="]If we know one thing from Scripture it is that
ignoranceis not bliss, but the very stuff that sends a man off to his justdesserts. The sad view,
Just Me and My Bible,is not found in Scripture. Rather what we find is the writers of Scripture,speaking under the superintendence of God the Holy Spirit, admonishing thebeliever to confess that which he believes using the sound
patterns ofScripture (Rom. 6:17; Rom. 15:5-6; Phil. 1:27; Eph. 4:14; 2 Tim 2:13). A man thatcannot articulate a summary of
what he holds dear and
why he does so is a manthat is in rebellion against the very Scripture they cling to.
[/FONT][FONT="]AMR
[/FONT]
