When it comes to the elect, God does not factor in any of their self-determinism – it’s just unconditional election unto salvation. So God has a single desire to manifest His glory to a chosen people and He counsels to fulfill this desire and begins work on this. This root desire or purpose is split up into several other desires such as convicting them, leading them to repentance and faith at the cross, sanctifying them through confession and forgiveness etc. each of which God unilaterally counsels to work out.

But when it comes to the non-elect, God factors in their self-determinism ie their flesh’s desires which are continually evil and against God. Now God has 2 options to counsel over – either He can enforce His own desires over man or He can permit man his desires as part of factoring in his self-determinism. God always does this counselling based on His preceding hierarchical main desires, never in contradiction with them. Having counselled one way over the other, God could have further sub-desires that are aligned with this current counsel made.

Logical Contradiction

And here’s the fallacy. Piper correctly states that God desires (will1) Judas to be loving and not commit the sin of betrayal. But God also factors in Judas’ own desire to betray Jesus. Then God counsels (will2) to permit Judas his own desire, based on God’s preceding higher priority counselled desire to manifest His glory to the utmost.

But when applied to predestined condemnation, Piper unintentionally conflates the distinct greek words for desire and counsel into the same word ‘will’ and applies it in reverse. So, according to the theory, God counsels (will2) the non-elect to be condemned, and then, God commands them to repent and live because He desires (will1) them to be saved.

Again note, God never has opposing desires in Himself – only a counsel that may decree the opposing desire of man’s self-determinism. Since predestined condemnation is a unilateral counsel within God Himself, this must preclude and precede any human self-determinism involved in accepting or rejecting the Gospel.

How can God desire something in Himself which is completely in contradiction with what He Himself has counselled unilaterally earlier?

The only solution lies in factoring in human self-determinism to the point of filling up their measure of iniquity, which then warrants God’s conditional love towards the non-elect to be turned into wrath and Him turning them over to their own folly, condemning them, sometimes through hardening of hearts, to their destruction.