I hope to address your post later - I believe it deals with a different subject than the matter of whether God's will is always accomplished. But let's say I am wrong - let's say that your argument in this most recent post of yours does indeed provide a solid scriptural case that God always gets His way.
What will you have accomplished? You will have made a solid argument drawing on some Biblical texts. Fair enough, but surely - and this is where I hammer my head into the keyboard - surely you must realize that unless you are not a believer in inerrancy, you have to also accommodate texts that at least appear to challenge the view you have defended in your otherwise solid Biblical argument (I am assuming in your favour here).
I do not wish to be rude but, let's return to the Matt 23:37 text. I suggest it is clear that you seem comfortable with simply rejecting the plain meaning of that text. Lest ye holler in protest, let me be brutally clear: you are rejecting that text unless, repeat unless, you can make some kind of remotely plausible argument that, despite what it appears to say, it is actually not showing that God's desire to rescue Israel had not been repeatedly thwarted. And I do not believe you have provided such a case.
To be fair to you, the behavior I am "accusing" you of is common coin around here. Romans 2:6-7 is a good example of this. It declares that God will give eternal life according to how we have lived. Many people respond by basically saying "but in Romans 3, Paul proves that no one can do good". I think that is not a correct reading of Romans 3 but that's not the point.
The point, and I cannot emphasize this enough, is that they seem to think that they do not have to come up with an explanation for why Paul would write (in 2:6-7) that eternal life is granted based on good works when he believes this is impossible.
Do you agree with the following general principle: If we claim to believe in inerrancy, we have to come up a plausible explanation for every verse we are challenged on, and that explanation has to consist in providing some plausible explanation as to how that particular verse can be made to work with the view we are defending.
Unless you agree to this, we really cannot proceed in a discussion since I am not willing to interact with those who do not sign up to this. No hard feelings, of course.
