Does God take pleasure in the death of the wicked?

[The Rogue Tomato]

I agree one hundred percent. However, this isn't necessarily the issue.

Here we have an all powerful God that can do anything He so desires.... actually doing something that doesn't please Himself. The Calvinist view creates a paradox. A paradox in which God actually takes divine action in Eternity Past....to create something that will actually causes Him displeasure.

I would like a Calvinist to explain why God would do this. Explain this Paradox.

It's not a paradox.  It only appears that way to you because you're conflating two completely different things simply because they both include the word "pleasure".

Explain how I'm conflating them... I'll listen... or rather read....

Both deal with God's pleasure. Now tell me how they are different. You've got to do better than your last response. You've got to realize that we are talking about a being WHO creates His own rules. Your view of God's rules... are that God has purposely created some for damnation. A damnation that brings Him no pleasure.

There is really only one answer that removes the paradox.

The answers are already in the thread. 

Tarheel Baptist put it this way:  "The good pleasure of His will mean,  in essence, His purpose was fulfilled." 

That's a good description.  It has nothing to do with taking pleasure (or not taking pleasure) in an individual action. 

Like I said, if a parent spanks his child (hopefully for righteous reasons), then he is doing it according to the good pleasure of his will (he is working out his purpose).  But he takes no pleasure in giving the spanking itself.  The only difference is that we don't have to hope God fulfills his will for righteous reasons.  We know he does. 

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]You've got to realize that we are talking about a being WHO creates His own rules...

Not even close.

...There is really only one answer that removes the paradox.

And that answer is trading in your arbitrary god for the true One revealed in Scripture.
[/quote]

You're obsessed with me. I feel honored to have a stalker.....

So you don't believe our God creates His own rules? Does He not choose who He is? Does He answer to someone's "Sovereignty"?

You're horribly lacking in anything remote theological.

 

[christundivided]

I agree one hundred percent. However, this isn't necessarily the issue.

Here we have an all powerful God that can do anything He so desires.... actually doing something that doesn't please Himself. The Calvinist view creates a paradox. A paradox in which God actually takes divine action in Eternity Past....to create something that will actually causes Him displeasure.

I would like a Calvinist to explain why God would do this. Explain this Paradox.

It's not a paradox.  It only appears that way to you because you're conflating two completely different things simply because they both include the word "pleasure".

Explain how I'm conflating them... I'll listen... or rather read....

Both deal with God's pleasure. Now tell me how they are different. You've got to do better than your last response. You've got to realize that we are talking about a being WHO creates His own rules. Your view of God's rules... are that God has purposely created some for damnation. A damnation that brings Him no pleasure.

There is really only one answer that removes the paradox.

The answers are already in the thread. 

Tarheel Baptist put it this way:  "The good pleasure of His will mean,  in essence, His purpose was fulfilled." 

That's a good description.  It has nothing to do with taking pleasure (or not taking pleasure) in an individual action.

1. Does God take pleasure in His will being fulfilled? Calvinist answer... Yes.

2. Does God take pleasure in the death of the wicked? Calvinist answer... No. Because its an individual action.

Is this a good summary of your answer?

Like I said, if a parent spanks his child (hopefully for righteous reasons), then he is doing it according to the good pleasure of his will (he is working out his purpose).  But he takes no pleasure in giving the spanking itself.  The only difference is that we don't have to hope God fulfills his will for righteous reasons.  We know he does.

Rogue.....I didn't create my child from nothing. I didn't have an absolute control over every aspect of its being. An all powerful God could have created a perfect being that will NEVER EVER displease HIM... in any way whatsoever.

Are you denying this?

You're comparison fails when comparing our children to the creative possibilities of God.

Calvinist go ever further. God could do anything He wanted to do and He choose to create something that displeased Him..... simply because He wanted to do it.

Now... why? Deal with the paradox.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]So you don't believe our God creates His own rules? Does He not choose who He is? Does He answer to someone's "Sovereignty"?

You're horribly lacking in anything remote theological.[/quote]

No. He doesn't make His own rules. Nor does He choose who He is or answer to anyone else's sovereignty. He acts and decrees (and can only act and decree) according to His innate nature; therefore, He will always act mercifully, justly, righteously, holy, honestly, and in accordance with every other quality He possesses. In fact, we have a single word that describes every bit of this: Love. That is why the Scriptures tell us that "God is love" because those attributes define Who He is.

It is also why Scripture also tells us that God cannot lie. He cannot lie because He is bound to His own nature1 and cannot violate it, quite different from a god that makes up his own rules as you have described. In fact, the god you described isn't unchanging, eternal, or inherently anything at all. That thing you claim to serve is a capricious monster who arbitrarily defines what is good or bad.2

If you are going to debate about theodicy and the inherent attributes of God, particularly in regards to the Euthyphro dilemma, I strongly suggest you absorb Augustine and Aquinas, for example from their writings City of God and Summa Theologica respectively. But what would I know? After all, I'm horribly lacking in anything theological.

1 Much as you and I are bound by our own natures, something Rogue Tomato and others have been trying to tell you.
2 And, if that god-thing was, in fact, God, one could easily show that rape isn't evil because its rape, but only because that god-thing declared it so. That god-thing could just as easily decide rape (or any other thing) is actually good, and you would be obligated to follow.

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]So you don't believe our God creates His own rules? Does He not choose who He is? Does He answer to someone's "Sovereignty"?

You're horribly lacking in anything remote theological.

No. He doesn't make His own rules. Nor does He choose who He is or answer to anyone else's sovereignty. He acts and decrees (and can only act and decree) according to His innate nature; therefore, He will always act mercifully, justly, righteously, holy, honestly, and in accordance with every other quality He possesses. In fact, we have a single word that describes every bit of this: Love. That is why the Scriptures tell us that "God is love" because those attributes define Who He is.

It is also why Scripture also tells us that God cannot lie. He cannot lie because He is bound to His own nature1 and cannot violate it, quite different from a god that makes up his own rules as you have described. In fact, the god you described isn't unchanging, eternal, or inherently anything at all. That thing you claim to serve is a capricious monster who arbitrarily defines what is good or bad.2

If you are going to debate about theodicy and the inherent attributes of God, particularly in regards to the Euthyphro dilemma, I strongly suggest you absorb Augustine and Aquinas, for example from their writings City of God and Summa Theologica respectively. But what would I know? After all, I'm horribly lacking in anything theological.

1 Much as you and I are bound by our own natures, something Rogue Tomato and others have been trying to tell you.
2 And, if that god-thing was, in fact, God, one could easily show that rape isn't evil because its rape, but only because that god-thing declared it so. That god-thing could just as easily decide rape (or any other thing) is actually good, and you would be obligated to follow.
[/quote]

Rogue nor anyone else has said anything remotely similar to what you're saying. Solve the issue. Ask Rogue to agree with what you've written.

You have just removed "freewill" from God Himself. God can do anything. Have you read that before? I agree that God is who He is. His Divine Nature is impeccable. Yet, God can chose to do however He pleases. The Lawgiver is never subject to His own law.

I know such things are lost on you.... but you really should give up. You read a few things here and there and you think you have a handle on them....you have no experience in handling the Scriptures. None. Bye...

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

[quote author=christundivided]So you don't believe our God creates His own rules? Does He not choose who He is? Does He answer to someone's "Sovereignty"?

You're horribly lacking in anything remote theological.

No. He doesn't make His own rules. Nor does He choose who He is or answer to anyone else's sovereignty. He acts and decrees (and can only act and decree) according to His innate nature; therefore, He will always act mercifully, justly, righteously, holy, honestly, and in accordance with every other quality He possesses. In fact, we have a single word that describes every bit of this: Love. That is why the Scriptures tell us that "God is love" because those attributes define Who He is.

It is also why Scripture also tells us that God cannot lie. He cannot lie because He is bound to His own nature1 and cannot violate it, quite different from a god that makes up his own rules as you have described. In fact, the god you described isn't unchanging, eternal, or inherently anything at all. That thing you claim to serve is a capricious monster who arbitrarily defines what is good or bad.2

If you are going to debate about theodicy and the inherent attributes of God, particularly in regards to the Euthyphro dilemma, I strongly suggest you absorb Augustine and Aquinas, for example from their writings City of God and Summa Theologica respectively. But what would I know? After all, I'm horribly lacking in anything theological.

1 Much as you and I are bound by our own natures, something Rogue Tomato and others have been trying to tell you.
2 And, if that god-thing was, in fact, God, one could easily show that rape isn't evil because its rape, but only because that god-thing declared it so. That god-thing could just as easily decide rape (or any other thing) is actually good, and you would be obligated to follow.

Rogue nor anyone else has said anything remotely similar to what you're saying. Solve the issue. Ask Rogue to agree with what you've written.

You have just removed "freewill" from God Himself. God can do anything. Have you read that before? I agree that God is who He is. His Divine Nature is impeccable. Yet, God can chose to do however He pleases. The Lawgiver is never subject to His own law.

I know such things are lost on you.... but you really should give up. You read a few things here and there and you think you have a handle on them....you have no experience in handling the Scriptures. None. Bye...
[/quote]

I agree with what he's written. 

God cannot violate his own nature.  It's not an external limitation, as if God has to obey anyone.  It's a logical limitation.  Just like a rock cannot do anything except what rocks do.  It's not like the rock is being constrained by an outside force.  It's just that the rock is being a rock. 

 

[rsc2a]

Ask and ye shall receive. 

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]So you don't believe our God creates His own rules? Does He not choose who He is? Does He answer to someone's "Sovereignty"?

You're horribly lacking in anything remote theological.

No. He doesn't make His own rules. Nor does He choose who He is or answer to anyone else's sovereignty. He acts and decrees (and can only act and decree) according to His innate nature; therefore, He will always act mercifully, justly, righteously, holy, honestly, and in accordance with every other quality He possesses. In fact, we have a single word that describes every bit of this: Love. That is why the Scriptures tell us that "God is love" because those attributes define Who He is.

It is also why Scripture also tells us that God cannot lie. He cannot lie because He is bound to His own nature1 and cannot violate it, quite different from a god that makes up his own rules as you have described. In fact, the god you described isn't unchanging, eternal, or inherently anything at all. That thing you claim to serve is a capricious monster who arbitrarily defines what is good or bad.2

If you are going to debate about theodicy and the inherent attributes of God, particularly in regards to the Euthyphro dilemma, I strongly suggest you absorb Augustine and Aquinas, for example from their writings City of God and Summa Theologica respectively. But what would I know? After all, I'm horribly lacking in anything theological.

1 Much as you and I are bound by our own natures, something Rogue Tomato and others have been trying to tell you.
2 And, if that god-thing was, in fact, God, one could easily show that rape isn't evil because its rape, but only because that god-thing declared it so. That god-thing could just as easily decide rape (or any other thing) is actually good, and you would be obligated to follow.

Rogue nor anyone else has said anything remotely similar to what you're saying. Solve the issue. Ask Rogue to agree with what you've written.

You have just removed "freewill" from God Himself. God can do anything. Have you read that before? I agree that God is who He is. His Divine Nature is impeccable. Yet, God can chose to do however He pleases. The Lawgiver is never subject to His own law.

I know such things are lost on you.... but you really should give up. You read a few things here and there and you think you have a handle on them....you have no experience in handling the Scriptures. None. Bye...

I agree with what he's written. 

God cannot violate his own nature.  It's not an external limitation, as if God has to obey anyone.  It's a logical limitation.  Just like a rock cannot do anything except what rocks do.  It's not like the rock is being constrained by an outside force.  It's just that the rock is being a rock.
[/quote]

Do you realize how many paradoxes you just created?

I don't even know where to start... This needs its own thread.

 

[christundivided]

Ask and ye shall receive. 

Well.. that was a surprise to me. We'll see how many Calvinist agree with your arguments. Augustine never taught such. Your references are dishonest and misleading.

 

[rsc2a]

Ask and ye shall receive. 

Well.. that was a surprise to me. We'll see how many Calvinist agree with your arguments. Augustine never taught such. Your references are dishonest and misleading.

Honestly,  you shouldn't talk so often when you have no clue what you are talking about.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html

 

[Ransom]

Honestly,  you shouldn't talk so often when you have no clue what you are talking about.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html

Hey. It's CU. Even if Augustine actually taught this, CU is always so right that reality must be wrong and mentally deficient for daring to contradict him.

 

[christundivided]

Ask and ye shall receive. 

Well.. that was a surprise to me. We'll see how many Calvinist agree with your arguments. Augustine never taught such. Your references are dishonest and misleading.

Honestly,  you shouldn't talk so often when you have no clue what you are talking about.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html

Honestly,... you shouldn't post a link to an article hundreds of words in length and claim something. Quote what you feel teaches such in the link. You dishonest hack....

 

[christundivided]

Honestly,  you shouldn't talk so often when you have no clue what you are talking about.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html

Hey. It's CU. Even if Augustine actually taught this, CU is always so right that reality must be wrong and mentally deficient for daring to contradict him.

You know Augustine didn't teach such. This is the reason you used the word "if".

 

[Ransom]

You know Augustine didn't teach such. This is the reason you used the word "if".

Congratulations. You're now officially a walking self-parody.

 

[christundivided]

You know Augustine didn't teach such. This is the reason you used the word "if".

Congratulations. You're now officially a walking self-parody.

Why don't we just settle this like men and have a debate on the subject? You can't claim you're ignoring me. You've been throwing one liners my way for some time now.

 

[Ransom]

Why don't we just settle this like men and have a debate on the subject?

Snort. There's nothing to debate. I actually read the Augustine page rsc2a linked to, and it says what you say it doesn't.

 

[christundivided]

Why don't we just settle this like men and have a debate on the subject?

Snort. There's nothing to debate. I actually read the Augustine page rsc2a linked to, and it says what you say it doesn't.

Where? Provide a quote. Neither of you have provided a quote from the page.

 

[Ransom]

Where? Provide a quote. Neither of you have provided a quote from the page.

Obviously you never bothered reading it yourself. Go do some homework, little boy, and stop getting underfoot.

 

[christundivided]

Where? Provide a quote. Neither of you have provided a quote from the page.

Obviously you never bothered reading it yourself. Go do some homework, little boy, and stop getting underfoot.

Obviously you lied when you said you read it. Keep being dishonest in posting links and not referencing specifically the evidence in said link. You know this standard practice in any debate.

Sorry for being "underfoot". I'm just looking to get some crumbs that fall from the "master's" table. I'm getting a little hungry though. Your diet has gotten rather nauseating.

 

[Mathew Ward]

Ask and ye shall receive. 

Why would you chide folks for pulling verses out of context and yet do the same?

But from the article...

Prayers, also, are of avail to procure those things which He foreknew that He would grant to those who offered them; and with justice have rewards been appointed for good deeds, and punishments for sins.