This seems like a shell game. Desire, will, and volition are being swapped around and whenever the heat is on one the other one is swapped into play. May we review this for a moment? Holding fast to this example, I'll remind that the initial statement from AMR was:
"God has no unfulfilled desires."
... for which the counter-example given straight in the language of scripture was:
Hosea 6:6-7 KJV
(6) For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
(7) But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.
AMR responded that Jesus (God) only desired to proclaim the commandment for mercy and knowledge, but not that he actually desired that the mercy and knowledge of God.
Which sounds circular. Sure.
Let me try.
You: God's desires don't go fulfilled all the time.
AMR: God's desires don't go fulfilled all the time.
You: God's will goes unfulfilled at times.
AMR: God's will is always fulfilled.
For me, James Hilston's post helps with clarity: God has a prescriptive and decretive will, as introduced (more in a bit).
The difference: Is it a shell game?
No, I don't believe so and in fact, would say that we and the Open Theist observe the same thing: God doesn't want Jack the Ripper, yet doesn't remove Jack the Ripper out of existence.
We both agree so there is really no argument and
I don't think, a need for frustration either. Rather, we are explaining why this happens but disagree on our respective answers to 'why.' I think the better part of dueling theologies is to understand the other person better. I LOVE btw, that two theologies can and do discuss these matters, very much different from one another, yet able to grasp (and hopefully appreciate) another child of God trying to wrestle and explain the things of God.
My immediate thought is that went directly against the express and implied meaning of the passage, because he clearly said he desired something which was not received. He didn't say "I desired to command mercy." So I reply by saying this was an artistic dodge, and provided an image of Neo as be bends over backwards to dodge bullets in the Matrix(TM).
AMR replies that this seems like dripping sarcasm and insulting to the cause of Christ, and then gives his rationale again, that: So in justifying his proof that "God has no unfulfilled desires" not only does he add another contradiction, but what does he give as the reason for his proof? He uses the very same thing he sought to prove, "for" (that means for reason of) "God has no unfulfilled desires."
Again, it is why I introduced Hilston. AMR believe God has a decretive and prescriptive will. Decretive (decree) happens. Always. Prescriptive (prescription for a malady) is remedial and interactive. Does it go 'unfulfilled?' In-as-much as man does or doesn't follow, the answer would be yes, but it doesn't yet answer regarding God's omniscience nor does it seek to try and answer for God. What I mean is, I can only answer regarding prescriptive will of God, in regards to how it relates to man, because I am 'one of us.' God's ways and thoughts are higher. I realize that gets me and a few others into trouble, but God said it, I didn't. I simply grasp where things stop being mine, my answer, my grasp, and where God's thoughts 'higher than mine (or your's) starts. With prescription, we know, as you've expressed even in scripture, God has told us, that He wants some things that don't happen Example: "...not willing that any should perish." However, we know that people do perish AND we know that whatever God ultimately decides, 'can' happen. That is, you acquiesce that God 'can' ensure all is saved. The Arminian and Open Theist say 'because God values freewill." It doesn't matter the answer, you also are distinguishing, with the Calvinist, that God can make a thing happen (one will that cannot be upset by anybody or anything because God IS able) and God can allow things to happen He doesn't desire.
Now let's look at your next statement:
That's circular reasoning (the proof was identical to the premise.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. |
All the shuffling in the world of swapping desire and will and volition doesn't change that the thinking required for such acrobatics or artful dodging could be used to prove anything no matter how flawed or false, 2 + 2 = 5 under such logic.
Question: Is both the Calvinist AND your belief circular and more, the same circular reasoning? Why or why not? This is a great place to have meaning where frustration may have preceded. Explain please why it is or isn't circular, why or how you are different from a Calvinist, etc.
Anyone who reads scripture at its face value can see that God has unfulfilled desires. But it requires a lot of elevated and sophisticated vocabulary to numb our eyes to the point where logical fallacies like circular reasoning can be expected to slip past unchallenged.
As I said above, I think there is a difference between God's decretive and prescriptive wills. It is a bit of a bummer Hilston's post on this from
www.JamesHilston.com got shifted or erased. I think he does a good job explaining the difference. AMR can speak for Himself, but to me, I think the difference between decretive and prescriptive wills is what is spoken of here AND it seems to me, we all understand this to some degree, because it is spoken of in Open Theist circles too. In the thread I gave, one example was Jack the Ripper. Even in Open Theism, God knows, at the time Jack is killing, and can stop the killing. Depending on how you phrase it, God desires the killing to not take place, yet something else allows it to happen. Is AMR right? Does God's desire come into play? Is it His desire, or an acted upon desire, that stops the killing? Has God ever stopped a killing in history before? (yes) Why? Why not again? Or always?
Often, a thread like this, for me, becomes more meaningful because it forces us to ask really important questions and better yet, seek God and His word for answers. It is, imho, the best kind of service we can render to one another :e4e: