Preceptive will = (from the word precept or command) is His revealed moral will. Ex. Thou shall not..., Thou shall...
Decretive will = (from the word decree) that which God has determined shall come to pass which Eph. 1:11 says includes "all things."
***Are there things in the universe that God allows, but that he would have prefered did not occur (such as sin)?***
He allowed Satan to kill Job's children. The Chaldeans and the Sabeans killed Job's servants (murder). He used that to demonstrate to Satan that unselfish worship is possible. He used it in Job's life to teach him. He used it in my life to teach me and through me to comfort others.
He allowed Israel to have a king, Saul, rather than have God as their king. Yet even in establishing the role of king He replaced Saul with David, a type of Jesus, Our King.
***Do you see the paradox?***
Certainly there are questions I can't answer. I have said before Divine Sovereignty and Human Accountability are placed side by side, without explanation or apology.
Can I resolve the two fully? NO. Do I lose any sleep over it? I used to but haven't for 25 years.
I can't unscrew the inscrutible.
Here's the real paradox steve. If God is in as much control as RnMomof7 seems to think he is, then his control extends to the fact that he has declared all of my actions from the foundation of the earth and in essence controls whether or not I violate his commandments. If he wanted me to not violate his commandments, then he would not allow me to violate any of his commandments. But using Rn's logic, if I then sin, then I am sinning in accordance with "the good pleasure of his will." If I do good it is in accordance with the good pleasure of his will. indeed, if I pick my nose it is in accordance with the good pleasure of his will and anything that happens in the universe occurs only because God has declared it. This makes god the cause of my sin, and in essence makes me innocent of any of my own actions.
Taken to its logical conclusion and not even taken to its logical extreme, I cannot sin because all that I do is in accordance with the "good pleasure of his will." Therefore even if I am sinning, even if I am blaspheming God, it can only be said of me that "I do only those things that please the Father." If I do good, I am acting in accordance with his will. If I do evil I am acting in accordance with his will.
While the paradox is solved using this logic, it makes God the author of sin and it makes God pleased with sin.
The bible is filled with references about how God is disappointed with the actions of men. If men were only doing those things that were in accordance with the "good pleasure" of his will, then God could no more be disappointed in Hitler than he would be disappointed in Saint Peter, as every one of their actions were declared by God according to the Good pleasure of His will.
Of course neither of us believes that, but the logical extension of the Calvinist interpretation of the sovereignty of God and the lack of sovereingty of man makes the conclusion inescapable.
You use the word "allowed" a lot. Other Calvinists seem to say that the word "allowed" is too weak and that the proper word should be decreed or declared. Well, which one is it?
If God allows man to violate his commandments, are men exercising free will when they do so? And if God allows man to keep his commandments, are men exercising free will when they do so?
Is the sovereingty of God wholly incompatible with the idea that God, exercising his unlimited sovereignty, "allows" man to exercise limited sovereignty and to accept or reject the gospel based on the calling of the Holy spirit rather than forcing man to accept the gospel based upon the compelling of the Holy Spirit?