huh???? I don't know to what you refer regarding the "secret counsels." I've definately never appealed to them as evidence. Two wills? I don't subscribe to that interpretation -- that would require a contradiction amongst the persons of the Godhead. I do not believe there is any contradiction regarding the will of God. The sense in which he wills "all men to be saved" according to I Tim 2:4 is best explained by John Gill:
The salvation which God wills that all men should enjoy, is not a mere possibility of salvation, or a mere putting them into a salvable state; or an offer of salvation to them; or a proposal of sufficient means of it to all in his word; but a real, certain, and actual salvation, which he has determined they shall have; and is sure from his own appointment, from the provision of Christ as a Saviour for them, from the covenant of grace, in which everything is secured necessary for it, and from the mission of Christ to effect it, and from its being effected by him: wherefore the will of God, that all men should be saved, is not a conditional will, or what depends on the will of man, or on anything to be performed by him, for then none might be saved; and if any should, it would be of him that willeth, contrary to the express words of Scripture; but it is an absolute and unconditional will respecting their salvation, and which infallibly secures it: nor is it such a will as is distinguishable into antecedent and consequent; with the former of which it is said, God wills the salvation of all men, as they are his creatures, and the work of his hands; and with the latter he wills, or not wills it, according to their future conduct and behaviour; but the will of God concerning man’s salvation is entirely one, invariable, unalterable, and unchangeable: nor is it merely his will of approbation or complacency, which expresses only what would be grateful and well pleasing, should it be, and which is not always fulfilled; but it is his ordaining, purposing, and determining will, which is never resisted, so as to be frustrated, but is always accomplished: the will of God, the sovereign and unfrustrable will of God, has the governing sway and influence in the salvation of men; it rises from it, and is according to it; and all who are saved God wills they should be saved; nor are any saved, but whom he wills they should be saved: hence by all men, whom God would have saved, cannot be meant every individual of mankind, since it is not his will that all men, in this large sense, should be saved, unless there are two contrary wills in God; for there are some who were before ordained by him unto condemnation, and are vessels of wrath fitted for destruction; and it is his will concerning some, that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned; nor is it fact that all are saved, as they would be, if it was his will they should; for who hath resisted his will? but there is a world of ungodly men that will be condemned, and who will go into everlasting punishment: rather therefore all sorts of men, agreeably to the use of the phrase in #1Ti 2:1 are here intended, kings and peasants, rich and poor, bond and free, male and female, young and old, greater and lesser sinners; and therefore all are to be prayed for, even all sorts of men, because God will have all men, or all sorts of men, saved; and particularly the Gentiles may be designed, who are sometimes called the world, the whole world, and every creature; whom God would have saved, as well as the Jews, and therefore Heathens, and Heathen magistrates, were to be prayed for as well as Jewish ones.
Why is man unable to respond to God? Because God put in that position. That is why you now have to run to your potter defense.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying, since this conveys nothing according to the conventions of English grammar. what do you mean by "because God put in that position"? You're missing a verb.
And that's not "my potter defense." That's Paul's. Don't like it, no skin off my nose. Take it up with him. He wrote it, not me. But I warn you about scoffing about the plain teachings of Scripture. Those scoffs have a tendancy to bite you in the rear -- I know from personal experience. I, like you, was once a rabid anti-Calvinist, spouting a lot of the same objections you have. But they don't hold water, as I am willing to demonstrate, if you are willing to engage in dialogue, not name-calling or belittling.
Thats funny, Calvin, Piper, Spurgeon, Augustine, and Boettmer all make appeals to the secret counsels to explain that scripture does say that God does want all men saved and yet not all are being saved.
Thus, you have scripture contradicting scripture and the appeal to the hidden will of God
The sense in which he wills "all men to be saved" according to I Tim 2:4 is best explained by John Gill: Why is man unable to respond to God? Because God put in that position. That is why you now have to run to your potter defense. I'm not quite sure what you're saying, since this conveys nothing according to the conventions of English grammar. what do you mean by "because God put in that position"? You're missing a verb.
Excuse me, I was writing quickly. (By the way, I am not missing the verb(put) I am missing the object (man))
What I was pointing out is that it is God who put man in the sin state in the first place, through His Directive will.
According to Calvinism, everything happening is happening because God willed it, thus Adam sinned because God Decreed it as part of His directive will.
And that's not "my potter defense." That's Paul's. Don't like it, no skin off my nose. Take it up with him. He wrote it, not me. But I warn you about scoffing about the plain teachings of Scripture. Those scoffs have a tendancy to bite you in the rear -- I know from personal experience. I, like you, was once a rabid anti-Calvinist, spouting a lot of the same objections you have. But they don't hold water, as I am willing to demonstrate, if you are willing to engage in dialogue, not name-calling or belittling.
When did I call you a name? Paul is not using the Potter/clay to explain predestination, he is explaining to Israel why they have been set aside for the Gentiles (Rom.11:25)As for scoffing, Calvinism's only defense of its unscriptural postion is an appeal to secret counsels and how one ought not to question the great theological insights of Augustine and Calvin,
Now, if you want to engage in a dialogue that is fine with me, but the key question is going to be over unconditional vs conditional election, or why God chose some men and not all (or some different ones).
I think I know already what your reply will be to that ultimate question. (Rom.9:20-23). If you have another answer, then let me have it, I would be very interested in hearing it.