IAN: I too believe God is logical - but that His logic is often higher than ours.  That does not mean it is illogical, only that ours fails to rise above our natural limits.  The book of Job is indicative of that.  Just look at the logic of Job's comforters.

BJK: Yeah, look at their logic... it's faulty.  I don't understand your point.

IAN: But in their human wisdom they were misrepresenting the truth of God.  They and we need to recognise our limits. 

BJK: Our "logic" as men is no logic unless it's derived from the Word of God.  That was the problem with Job's comforters, and that is the problem with those who say our logic is not like God's.  The thing is, we were created in God's image, and we can USE the logic that HE uses.  If we don't use His logic, then we're not using logic but subjective feelings.  If God's logic was different from our logic, we could not understand the Bible because the Bible would appear illogical to us.  Tell me does God expect us to embrace stuff that makes no sense in His word?  Yes of course at times when reading the Bible, things do not make sense, but over time, we should come to an understanding because God's word interprets itself and in no way contradicts itself.  To state that the Bible is full of contradictions that we have to "swallow by faith" is in my opinion opening a door to heresy.

IAN: The case in point: Mat 23:37.  You say this cannot mean that Christ had a will that was frustrated.  If He had wanted to save these Jews, they would have been saved.  But your interpretation of the text only moves the dilemna from His will to save to His will to evangelise.  One or the other was frustrated.

BJK: Christ was frustrated only in the sense that He was restricted physically.  

Ian: Why not let the text speak for itself - Christ wept over the city!

BJK: Huh?  Where in the entire chapter of Mat. 23 is Jesus expressing His desire to save all men?  Where is He weeping over Jerusalem?  In Jn. 11, we see Jesus weeping, but He's expressing His love and emotions for His people.  My friend, you are reading WAY too much into this text.

Ian: He was grieved over their unbelief.  Yes, He could have changed all their hearts and brought them to His feet in repentance and faith.  But He chose not to.  Yet He was still grieved at their unbelief.  He allowed His will to be frustrated.  Put it another way, He willed that His will would be frustrated.  One will establishing the frustration of another will.  Illogical?  Only to merely human minds.

BJK: That is one of the most amazing things I've ever read.  Here we have in your theology a God who wants to save all men, but doesn't.  Here we have a God who has two contrary wills.  What you have done is robbed God's sovereignty and created a situation where God is impotent to do what He desires.  What's even more amazing is you admit this is a contradiction, that it makes no sense in the minds of men, that it is illogical, but we have to accept this contradiction by faith because "God's logic" is "higher" than ours.  Since when was Christianity an irrational religion?  Where in the Bible does it say we should ignore our intellect?  If God's logic and man's logic are different in that God's logic is "higher", then we can't understand anything about God!  If God's logic is different than man's logic, then when God identified Himself to Moses as "I AM THAT I AM", maybe Moses should have understand Him to mean that He wasn't God.  When God said, "You shall not murder", maybe we
 should understand it to be "You shall kill as many people as possible."  

IAM: The Arminians believe that Christ's will revealed here cannot allow for a will that would sovereignly elect who would be saved.  More foolish human reasoning.

BJK: Agree, that is foolish.  But so is the reasoning that God wants to save everyone but cannot.  That sounds just like an Arminian to me.

IAN: Let God reveal the full truth - He does both will the repentance of all men and will that only the elect shall be given repentance.  I'm not going to call that illogical, just accept that this is the majestic wisdom of God.

BJK: That is HIGHLY illogical.  It makes no sense whatsoever.  Second, the Scriptures never even give that indication.  It is completely unbiblical, and I'm afraid is a carry over from Arminian thinking.  Forgive me if I've come off a little too strong in this post.  I'm not attempting to accuse you of Arminianism or blasphemy.  It's just that some of your words sound like it when you talk about two contrary wills of God and God desiring something that He has not decreed.  I've attached Calvin's and John Gill's interpretations of Mat 23:37 so we can see that your interpretation of Mat 23:37 is Arminian and not traditional Calvinism.

Calvin wrote in his commentary, volume 17 on Mat. 23:37, Luk 13:34

"By these words, Christ shows more clearly what good reason he had for indignation, that Jerusalem, which God had chosen to be his sacred ... abode, not only had shown itself to be unworthy of so great an honour, but ... had long been accustomed to suck the blood of the prophets.  Christ therefore utters a pathetic exclamation at a sight so monstrous ... Christ does not reproach them with merely one or another murder, but says that this custom was ... deeply rooted.... This is expressive of indignation rather than compassion."

Gill wrote: "That the gathering here spoken of does not design a gathering of the Jews to Christ internally, by the Spirit and grace of God; but a gathering of them to him internally [externally], by and under the ministry of the word, to hear him preach...[I]n order to set aside and overthrow the doctrines of election, reprobation, and particular redemption, it should be proved that Christ, as God, would have gathered, not Jerusalem and the inhabitants thereof only, but all mankind, even such as are not eventually saved, and that in a spiritual saving way and manner to himself, of which there is not the least intimation in this text."

Brandan