Nature of God

Providence

Read 16700 times
Greg Koukl STR Radio Question
« on: May 14, 2009, 09:29:30 pm »
David versus Goliath

I nervously called Greg Koukl from "Stand to Reason" last Sunday. (see 20 min audio link below)

Greg Koukl is a man I love.

Keep in mind that;
My phone call was to point out that Greg's view doesn't make sense, based on his own article.
This is something that he is an expert in doing to others.
He has not only held his view for many years, he has studied and debated publicly for many years. I am a novice concerning Calvinism.


Greg's article (see link below)
God desires all to be saved but Man can thwart God's desire (I agree).

My argument

I quote Greg's own article word for word
"The simplest way to describe them is God's moral will--what He morally desires, but doesn't always take place (like salvation for everyone)"


God desires Person A to be saved.
God doesn't Elect Person A before they are born.

How did Person A thwart God's desire for Person A to be saved?
God thwarts His own desire?

Greg couldn't see how this defeats "Unconditional Election"for some time.

Then (at 17 mins 12 secs) he drops the bomb.

17:12 GK  

Maybe the phrase (AB Scripture) that God wants to save them ALL is a mistaken phrase. I DON'T THINK THAT GOD WANTS TO SAVE THEM ALL! IF HE (GOD) WANTED TO SAVE THEM ALL HE WOULD!

He repeats this a minute later.

18:06 GK
HE (GOD) DOESN'T WANT TO SAVE THEM ALL!"
IF HE (GOD) WANTED TO SAVE THEM ALL HE WOULD SAVE THEM ALL!

AB NOTE
We have established that man CAN thwart God's desire. Wouldn't it be logical to say that

1) God wants to save them all
2) This want/desire can be thwarted by man.

Therefore ALL are NOT saved and Election isn't unconditional.

20 minutes audio from str.org podcast - 12 May 2009
http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/587181/AB%20Call%20to%20Greg%20Koukl%20Calvinism%201.mp3

Greg's article
"Bad Arguments against Calvinism"
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5130


1

Gavagai

  • **
  • 390 Posts
    • View Profile
Greg Koukl STR Radio Question
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2009, 05:30:29 pm »
Great job. Unconditional election is demonstrably false. There are several problems with it besides the one you mentioned.
"I am not an atheist." - Albert Einstein

2
Greg Koukl STR Radio Question
« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2009, 11:14:02 pm »
"How did Person A thwart God's desire for Person A to be saved?
God thwarts His own desire?"

I think in the same way Person A can break God's Law, even though God desires that the law not be broken.



3
Greg Koukl STR Radio Question
« Reply #3 on: May 20, 2009, 03:26:09 am »
tbillings
"How did Person A thwart God's desire for Person A to be saved?
I think in the same way Person A can break God's Law, even though God desires that the law not be broken.

"Unconditional Election" takes place before the foundation of the world and without any foreknowledge of Person A's response to the gospel.

How can Person A thwart God's desire (according to Calvinism) before the foundation of the world?

ANSWER They can't.

That's my point!

To maintain a belief in "Unconditional Election" you must DENY (as Greg Koukl did twice) that God really desires/wants everyone to be saved.

Two Mutually Exclusive Scenario's

1)

a) Election is unconditional
b) God doesn't desire everyone to be saved

Those that He does not Elect go to hell forever.

or

2)
a) Election is conditional (based on foreknowledge)
b) God desires that all are saved

Those who thwart God's desire (a free will choice) go to hell forever.




4

Sam Harper

  • **
  • 134 Posts
    • View Profile
Greg Koukl STR Radio Question
« Reply #4 on: November 20, 2009, 11:52:03 am »
It seems to me that there's an obvious distinction between what a person desires but does not make happen and what a person desires and DOES make happen.  The first is what Calvinists call God's moral will.  The second is what Calvinists call God's sovereign will.  So God can both desire a person to be saved and not desire that same person to be saved as long these desires are taken in different senses--one being a moral desire and the other being a sovereign desire.  As long as they are taken in different senses, there's no contradiction.