ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Being ignorant of a problem can cause you to design something so the problem you were ignorant of will crop up and create a failure situation. If one should know the problems that will come up, then they are negligent if they don't design for them.
So I take it you would chose "B"?
I see I was not clear. Let's go back to the beginning:
You said, "The architect who drew up the blueprints "invented" the home, "gave it birth" and "gave it substance," but only in terms of the planning (the "decree," if you will). He doesn't actually build the home."
To which I replied, "Okay, so the architect designs it so that the building will fall at the first big rainfall. Who is at fault?" Meaning – if it were true that God is just the designer (decreer, and not the cause), wouldn't it still be true that God is responsible for designing something that He (at least in the bible) says that He does not want?
To which you replied, " The intent of the example was to show the difference between a decree and a cause. If the architect wanted the building to fall and designed it that way, it's his choice. He decreed the collapse. The cause was the rainfall."
To which I replied, "True, but. We are arguing that the designer said that the building was not designed to fall, but that you are saying that the designer built the building to fall. Meaning – We are saying the house was not designed to fall according to God (that man was not decreed to sin), but you are saying that God did decree that man would sin.
If God says He does not want man to sin, but He decreed man to sin, just like your analogy, if a builder designs a house to fall, but says he does not want the house to fall… (then my next statement)
Yes, I thought we were both talking about the house designer as God… I was kind of viewing them interchangeably.
God says He hates sin, so if He decreed sin, then He is saying He doesn't hate it.
Reply to Yorzhik:
Hilston wrote: Fault? Culpability doesn't apply in the example.
I'm still curious about the dilemma you pose. "Either the Designer is lying, or Hilston is wrong about the building being designed to fall." Lying about what?
Hilston wrote: Fault? Culpability doesn't apply in the example.
When you stipulated that the designer designed the building to fall after the first rain, that indicated to me that he wanted the building to fall after the first rain. Why is this so difficult? Why don't you say what you mean? Now you're claiming that he was ignorant of some "problem." What problem? If he wants the building to fall after the first rain, there is no "problem." It was intended!
No! Neither conclusion follows from the premises that YOU STIPULATED!!!!!! Sheesh! (AGAIN) you wrote: "Okay, so the architect designs it so that the building will fall at the first big rainfall." The words "so that" indicate intention and purpose. I go to work so that I can pay my bills. I study my Bible so that I can know God better. These are statements of intentions and purpose. So, I took it that this is what the architect intended: That the building will fall at the first big rainfall. If that's NOT what you mean, then you should NOT say it that way.
Then you've gone beyond the intended scope of the allegory. It has nothing to do with anything inherently moral. It only addressed the distinctions between decree and cause. No "fault", no culpability. If you now want to talk about God's decrees about the fall of man, you already know my answer to that. God decreed everything without exception, exhaustively, meticulously, purposefully, including the fall of Adam. This is why it can be said that the Son was slain from before the foundation of the world (before creation), because God decreed and planned for man's fall (evil) and redemption (good).
This is where your additions to my analogy assume too much. I accepted your stipulations, which indicated according to normative semantic and syntax that the designer did indeed want the house to fall. In fact, he designed it so that -- with the intent and purpose that -- it would fall from the causal effects of the first rain. Your assumption is that the designer did not want that to happen, which is baffling considering what you wrote. Even moreso considering I was the one who initiated the analogy.
This is probably the third or fourth time this has happened to me with Open Theists. I think it's a function of the OV proclivity to literalize allegorical, metaphorical and figurative language wherever possible. So whenever I offer an allegorical illustration, it is immediately assumed to be talking about God. I guess I'm going to have to start prefacing all of my analogies with "This is not intended to be analogous to God. It is merely an illustration of ________."
I'm still curious about the dilemma you pose. "Either the Designer is lying, or Hilston is wrong about the building being designed to fall." Lying about what?
Only in the Open Theist's world. God hates unjust murder, yet He decreed it for His son. God hates unjust violence, especially against someone as truly innocent as His Son, "Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief. Isa 53:10. Do you agree with Isaiah? God decreed the unjust violence against His Son.
If God did something evil, He would no longer be holy.
It applies at least to that extent.
What about this is there to not understand?
Yes
I don't think presenting such a thing would be profitable. All it would do is distract from the main issue which I would like to remain focused on.
To that end, what exactly is it that you find lacking in Bob Enyart’s resolution of this issue?
It seems flawless and eloquent. It not only resolves my circular reasoning but satisfies your desire for God to declare Himself righteous via His triune nature! What more could you ask for?
Resting in Him,
Clete
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Hilston
1
As to
1
As to
- (Hilston said)
In the case of Hitler, the designer is culpable for commanding evil to be done. In the case of the architect, there is no evil that is done. He designed a building to fall after the first rain (per Yorzhik's stipulations), and the result was in perfect accordance with his design. There is no culpability because there was no moral infraction.
- This all stemmed from your analogy about the difference between "doing" and "planning/designing" an event, and that the "planner" is not culpable, only the "doer" is.
- I did not change or deviate by using a different analogy that happened to add morality to it, the relationship between the "planner" and the "doer" of the event is still an issue of culpability, moral or not.
- Your example was of the house being planned and built, and Yorzhik's culpability clarification makes a great analogy, so culpability is at issue, it's the idea of who is to blame or who is to be held responsible. It does not matter if it's over a moral, or an amoral, event, as long as the formula is according to answering the question (?) "Who is to be held responsible".
- Your claim that the designer has no culpability because their was no moral infraction is so inane. ANYTIME YOU ask a question of culpability over an amoral event, there is NEVER ANY MORAL CULPABILITY. That fact is not a function of "design verses doer", it's a result of the fact that an amoral example or event ...
,,, (dramatic pause) ,,, (drum role) ,,, (direct eye contact) ,,,
,,, is an amoral issue![/list=1] You need help Hilston.
2
Next- (Hilston said)
This is the sort of thing that makes these discussions so annoying. Has anyone claimed that sinful thoughts are somehow not sinful? Has anyone claimed those who engage in sinful thinking are somehow not culpable?
You said that God, as a planner/dictator (NOT DOER) of sinful and evil things, is not culpable for planning/dictating/decreeing that evil things happen! Why? Because God did not "do" them, He did not actually "commit" the sinful evil things, He just "decreed/willed/dictated" it to (necessarily) happen. That is exactly according to your "planner verses the doer" analogy, "the architect verses the builder".
You say that the architect is not culpable because he did not "do" anything in building the house, and God is not culpable because He did no "do" anything, He just "planned" that it all necessarily happens. You are the one who made this direct correlation, yet now you act like you have no idea what is going on.
3
Next- (1Way said)
De 19:15 "One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.
Mt 18:16 "But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’
Joh 5:30 "I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.
31 "If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true.
32 "There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true.
- (Hilston said)
You've missed the context. De 19:15 is a prescription for ascertaining guilt, as is Mt. 18:16. Neither apply to Jn 5:30ff.
- Joh 5:22 "For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son,
- Joh 5:38 "But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. ... 42 "But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you.
Jesus is making a claim of His own authority that only God can give. That "all judgment" is committed to Him by God. I can't believe that you actually said that (see last quotation, "Neither apply to Jn 5:30ff.") without considering the context of the passage. You should first seek the truth from God's word prior to making public statements over an issue that could have been clarified in literally so many umpteen seconds of scanning the immediate context.
4
Saying that it is contradictory to swear by Himself instead of a standard of righteousness is an unthinking comment. The standard of righteousness comes from God, not arbitrarily, but objectively from His own character and ways. God is righteous, so: His word is righteous, His commandments are righteous, His ways are righteous. So God Himself, who is the ultimate authority in the entire world, is the origination of the standard of righteousness. So it only makes sense for God to swear by Himself.
Again, changing the punishment does not mean the standard of righteousness has changed, but the response of punishment is changed, that is all.
5
Next- (1Way said)
... saying that concerning matters of moral conviction, even God's testimony is not true, it is not just or binding unless it is backed up by 2 or 3 witnesses.
- (Hilston said)
It is a major mistake to develop one's understanding of the nature of the Triune Godhead via an examination of Christ in His humanity, considering the fact that He emptied Himself of His divine attributes in order to become incarnate. It's like saying that God can't do anything without first praying about it because that's what Jesus did.
- Col 2:9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;
- Php 2:6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
What Jesus did by being so humble was not accurately a "diminishing" of Him being God, it was more accurately a "demonstration" of Him being God. It is a big mistake too overstate the truth of the matter so as to lessen the divinity of Jesus Christ, incarnate or not. Jesus never sinned, it is not wrong or ungodly for the incarnate Son of God to be in the form of a man, and it ultimately paved the way for the greatest love offering ever. God honestly changed, but emptying Himself of His attributes is incorrect. Emptying (limiting) Himself of His glory and powers and reputation and form, sure. - (Hilston said)
Last edited:
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Clete
Thank you, I'm glad your on my side. Not that you would, but don't forget who we are dealing with in Hilston. We're dealing with a very special person, a triple 5 pointer, who does affirm that God can change His mind and not do what He was going to do! He affirms all 5 points of Calvinistic TULIP for 3 different households, he calls himself a 15 pointer (as if that isn't strange enough), YET HE DOES affirm "classic immutability"(!), which is the single most rational fundamental basis for the 5 points of TULIP.
So I don't give good odds that he will readily concede to our view anytime soon. Any person who accepts TULIP while rejecting classic divine immutability, is really out there. Even most Calvinists do not accept limited atonement because of how biblically incongruent it is, yet it makes necessary sense IF YOU GRANT that God is classically immutable.
I don't believe I've ever even heard of a 5 pointer (or a triple 5 pointer for that matter) say that he disbelieves in classic immutability, that seems to be one seriously contrary combination.
Hmmm
I've been thinking about what is the best way to attack a view like that. And I just came up with the following.
If God can change His mind over what He will do, then the future necessarily involves uncertainty and contingency. So for God, His future knowledge is causative and not informative. God has to dictate in advance who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. If He did not cause such a fixed end result, then it would not be possible to know who will be saved from the foundations of the world, so God would have to wait for each individual man to make up his own mind. But that does not work with the TULIP doctrines.
Since God does not have Exhaustive Foreknowledge (EF), God plans or decrees or dictates who gets saved and thus who doesn't! In other words, God's foreknowledge is "causative" not "informative". Yet, at the same time, Hilston told me that man only acts and chooses according to his own free will, man alone causes his own choices! So I find Hilston to be in a contradictory mess. He wants God to decree/plan/dictate who gets saved WITHOUT EF, BUT he says that God does not cause man to do anything, man only acts according to his own free will!
So we have a multifaceted contradiction, there is no way for God to foreknow in advance who will become saved and so TULIP does not work as it is infused with the end result of everyone who will end up getting saved!
Thank you, I'm glad your on my side. Not that you would, but don't forget who we are dealing with in Hilston. We're dealing with a very special person, a triple 5 pointer, who does affirm that God can change His mind and not do what He was going to do! He affirms all 5 points of Calvinistic TULIP for 3 different households, he calls himself a 15 pointer (as if that isn't strange enough), YET HE DOES affirm "classic immutability"(!), which is the single most rational fundamental basis for the 5 points of TULIP.
So I don't give good odds that he will readily concede to our view anytime soon. Any person who accepts TULIP while rejecting classic divine immutability, is really out there. Even most Calvinists do not accept limited atonement because of how biblically incongruent it is, yet it makes necessary sense IF YOU GRANT that God is classically immutable.
I don't believe I've ever even heard of a 5 pointer (or a triple 5 pointer for that matter) say that he disbelieves in classic immutability, that seems to be one seriously contrary combination.
Hmmm
I've been thinking about what is the best way to attack a view like that. And I just came up with the following.
If God can change His mind over what He will do, then the future necessarily involves uncertainty and contingency. So for God, His future knowledge is causative and not informative. God has to dictate in advance who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. If He did not cause such a fixed end result, then it would not be possible to know who will be saved from the foundations of the world, so God would have to wait for each individual man to make up his own mind. But that does not work with the TULIP doctrines.
Since God does not have Exhaustive Foreknowledge (EF), God plans or decrees or dictates who gets saved and thus who doesn't! In other words, God's foreknowledge is "causative" not "informative". Yet, at the same time, Hilston told me that man only acts and chooses according to his own free will, man alone causes his own choices! So I find Hilston to be in a contradictory mess. He wants God to decree/plan/dictate who gets saved WITHOUT EF, BUT he says that God does not cause man to do anything, man only acts according to his own free will!
So we have a multifaceted contradiction, there is no way for God to foreknow in advance who will become saved and so TULIP does not work as it is infused with the end result of everyone who will end up getting saved!
- Limited Atonement says that God only died for the elect, that group of people who would end up getting saved! Yet God did not even know who would end up getting saved, so He could not have possibly died for only the elect, He did not know who would end up getting saved.
Unconditional election does not work either because God could not know who it would be to cause them to become saved from the foundations of the world.
Total inability or total depravity does not work either because then God has to intervene in a way that effects the will of man, yet he says that man ONLY acts in accordance to his own free will.
Clete,
Wonder if you can do me a favor. Read 1Way's post immediately above, and point out to him those things that are false about my view. He won't listen to me. Maybe you can make more progress. From the things you and I have discussed, it should be readily obvious what 1Way doesn't understand.
By the way, I enjoyed hearing your actual voice on Bob Enyart's broadcast. I was hoping you would ask the BIG question: Did God decree the evil that was done to His Son? Maybe next time?
Wonder if you can do me a favor. Read 1Way's post immediately above, and point out to him those things that are false about my view. He won't listen to me. Maybe you can make more progress. From the things you and I have discussed, it should be readily obvious what 1Way doesn't understand.
By the way, I enjoyed hearing your actual voice on Bob Enyart's broadcast. I was hoping you would ask the BIG question: Did God decree the evil that was done to His Son? Maybe next time?
Actually I understand very little about what you actually believe Jim. That's what is so frustrating about our discussions! What you say in your posts makes it seem like you believe one thing and then you claim to believe the very opposite!
What makes it worse is that we get very little in the way of explanation from you about what it is that you do believe. All we generally get is an uninformative question from you instead of a response that would clarify anything.
If someone says you believe something that you don't, instead of saying, "Actually, I believe such and such because of this and that...", you ask the question, "What makes you think I believe that?", or you simply deny believing it without any explanation or clarification whatsoever unless pressed for such in which case you get super frustrated and angry as if all of us are just to stupid to get it without your help.
This tactic, of asking me to explain it is new but effectively the same. It makes me think that all you are really doing is testing to see if I'm as in the dark as 1 Way is. I don't know whether or not that is, in fact, what you are doing but that's what it feels like when you do this sort of thing.
Why not just say, "You don't understand my position, let me clarify." and then actually try to communicate what you believe in language that we can all understand.
It's no fun trying to guess what you do or don't believe. It truly does feel like all your doing is playing games with us, to see how many circles you can run us in.
I think Bob said, referring to the crucifixion, "It was not evil."
And he also said that there was a whole world of people that would have been willing to kill God the minute he stepped foot on the planet. There was no need for Him to predestine specific people to do it in order for Him to accomplish His goals.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Clete,
You say you understand very little of what I believe. You say I claim one thing but believe another. You say I offer no explanation. You say I offer no clarification whatsoever. You say I communicate in language that isn't understood. What is with you people? On this page alone you have definite unequivocal statements about what I believe that is opposite of what 1Way has written. For example:
Further down, I wrote:
From these statements, do you know what I believe about the extent of God's foreordination of future events? Can you tell from these statement what I believe about God's decrees? If not, then you really need to go back to grammar school or take an ESL course at the local community college.
How about these statements from the previous page:
On the same page, I explained my view of the incarnation and God's absolute authority:
From other pages in this discussion, I explained my view of God's foreordination of the evil against Christ:
I wrote:
I wrote:
I wrote:
How about the original topic of this thread. Do you know what I believe about that? I wrote:
Way back on page 4 of this thread, I wrote:
About the nature of Christ's prayer in Gethsemane, I wrote:
About the extent of the atonement, way back on page 15, I wrote:
Someone asked me what the fruit of the Spirit meant to me. I wrote:
Sometimes I wonder, is it me? Am I deluded into thinking that I explain things, but really I don't? Could it be that I'm so scattered that the Open Theists are right about my lack of clarity? Then I spend a lot of time looking at my own posts, reading what I've written, and find out that I'm wasting my time. Of course I'm clear. Of course I explain. Of course I use language that is understood. The problem is not "how many fingers am I holding up," but who is cross-eyed here? From the ample witness supplied above, you have no warrant to call yourself "Truthsmacker." You can't "smack" truth until you're able to comrpehend the language with which you presume to "smack" it.
Cheers.
You say you understand very little of what I believe. You say I claim one thing but believe another. You say I offer no explanation. You say I offer no clarification whatsoever. You say I communicate in language that isn't understood. What is with you people? On this page alone you have definite unequivocal statements about what I believe that is opposite of what 1Way has written. For example:
Have I ever claimed anything other than this? Have I ever indicated that I believe otherwise? Is this not an explanation? Does this not offer clarification? Is this not language you understand?
Further down, I wrote:
Have I ever claimed anything other than this? Have I ever indicated that I believe otherwise? Is this not an explanation? Does this not offer clarification? Is this not language you understand?
From these statements, do you know what I believe about the extent of God's foreordination of future events? Can you tell from these statement what I believe about God's decrees? If not, then you really need to go back to grammar school or take an ESL course at the local community college.
How about these statements from the previous page:
Have I ever claimed anything other than this? Have I ever indicated that I believe otherwise? Is this not an explanation? Does this not offer clarification? Is this not language you understand?
On the same page, I explained my view of the incarnation and God's absolute authority:
Have I ever claimed anything other than this? Have I ever indicated that I believe otherwise? Is this not an explanation? Does this not offer clarification? Is this not language you understand?
From other pages in this discussion, I explained my view of God's foreordination of the evil against Christ:
Have I ever claimed anything other than this? Have I ever indicated that I believe otherwise? Is this not an explanation? Does this not offer clarification? Is this not language you understand?
I wrote:
Have I ever claimed anything other than this? Have I ever indicated that I believe otherwise? Is this not an explanation? Does this not offer clarification? Is this not language you understand?
I wrote:
I wrote:
Have I ever claimed anything other than this? Have I ever indicated that I believe otherwise? Is this not an explanation? Does this not offer clarification? Is this not language you understand?
How about the original topic of this thread. Do you know what I believe about that? I wrote:
Have I ever claimed anything other than this? Have I ever indicated that I believe otherwise? Is this not an explanation? Does this not offer clarification? Is this not language you understand?
Way back on page 4 of this thread, I wrote:
Have I ever claimed anything other than this? Have I ever indicated that I believe otherwise? Is this not an explanation? Does this not offer clarification? Is this not language you understand?
About the nature of Christ's prayer in Gethsemane, I wrote:
Have I ever claimed anything other than this? Have I ever indicated that I believe otherwise? Is this not an explanation? Does this not offer clarification? Is this not language you understand?
About the extent of the atonement, way back on page 15, I wrote:
Have I ever claimed anything other than this? Have I ever indicated that I believe otherwise? Is this not an explanation? Does this not offer clarification? Is this not language you understand?
Someone asked me what the fruit of the Spirit meant to me. I wrote:
Have I ever claimed anything other than this? Have I ever indicated that I believe otherwise? Is this not an explanation? Does this not offer clarification? Is this not language you understand?
Sometimes I wonder, is it me? Am I deluded into thinking that I explain things, but really I don't? Could it be that I'm so scattered that the Open Theists are right about my lack of clarity? Then I spend a lot of time looking at my own posts, reading what I've written, and find out that I'm wasting my time. Of course I'm clear. Of course I explain. Of course I use language that is understood. The problem is not "how many fingers am I holding up," but who is cross-eyed here? From the ample witness supplied above, you have no warrant to call yourself "Truthsmacker." You can't "smack" truth until you're able to comrpehend the language with which you presume to "smack" it.
Cheers.
Last edited:
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Hilston
1
That was not the point. You just spent all that time addressing a slim aspect that is relevant to what Clete said, but it was not meaningfully commensurate to what Clete said. You sliced up what he actually said and only responded to what you apparently wanted to respond to, thus violating the context that remains unanswered. Its not that you are always inconsistent, great contrariness can be found in a small percentage of expressions when the contrary examples are crucial enough.
You are not always contrary within your own beliefs. You are sometimes contrary to the ongoing discussion. Or instead of answering the question, you ask a question. Also there is diversion and misdirection. Technically you respond to a question, but in a way that is not according to the stated line of inquiry. Because of all this contrariness, we sometimes come away from you posts thinking -- do you even want to understand what we are saying -- because accuracy of point-counter-point is often NOT well reflected in your responses.
2
Here is an issue that I just presented to you in the other thread. I present it here also because of the contextual relevance is so great. If you are so clear on what you believe and with your answers, then please explain the following.
***********
Quote
***********
I believe you don't even use the word "decreed" in a consistent way, so with so much duplicity, productivity is not going to happen. You seem to waffle back and forth between "decree" as meaning,
troll: Troll giberish incantation, then a wave of the hand :wave: mandatory magical mystical twinkling intro music is played :beanboy: and ...)
((( !!! POOF !!! )))
tick, tock,,, tick, tock,,, tick, tock,,, ... 58 ... 59 ... 60 ONE MINUTE IS UP!
See, it worked, he decreed it so that you will do EXACTLY what you willed to do, what a cool obvious necessary meaningful realistic spiritual godly righteous trollish deal.
:doh:
If God's will is not causative, but man's will is causative, then to say that God decrees anything is a meaningless concept, it does or effects nothing, God's decree as such is nothing.
***********
End Quote
***********
Wait, you said that God has two wills, one is called decree and the other is prescriptive, but then you said
1
That was not the point. You just spent all that time addressing a slim aspect that is relevant to what Clete said, but it was not meaningfully commensurate to what Clete said. You sliced up what he actually said and only responded to what you apparently wanted to respond to, thus violating the context that remains unanswered. Its not that you are always inconsistent, great contrariness can be found in a small percentage of expressions when the contrary examples are crucial enough.
You are not always contrary within your own beliefs. You are sometimes contrary to the ongoing discussion. Or instead of answering the question, you ask a question. Also there is diversion and misdirection. Technically you respond to a question, but in a way that is not according to the stated line of inquiry. Because of all this contrariness, we sometimes come away from you posts thinking -- do you even want to understand what we are saying -- because accuracy of point-counter-point is often NOT well reflected in your responses.
2
Here is an issue that I just presented to you in the other thread. I present it here also because of the contextual relevance is so great. If you are so clear on what you believe and with your answers, then please explain the following.
***********
Quote
***********
I believe you don't even use the word "decreed" in a consistent way, so with so much duplicity, productivity is not going to happen. You seem to waffle back and forth between "decree" as meaning,
- what God wants/desires/wills something to happen. You portray this with many questions like, was it God's will/desire that murder happen? (same sort of question repeated times ad-nauseam) This is an intensely moral implication,
- and that it means that it will necessarily happen even though it is strictly according to "man's will" that it happens, not God's will, you agreed that it's by man's will that these choices happen, yet you say that it's God who decrees that they will it to happen, a totally contradictory idea.
To which (as per your post #206) you said
EXACTLY !?! ... What??? That is saying that God's decree DOES NOTHING, it's a non cause, and if it causes nothing then it has no effect either, it's a complete non issue. It's essentially the same as the OV and I suppose the Arminians who say that when God made creation, He decided that man and angles have "free will", i.e. that they act strictly according to their own will and according to nothing else. I have a little pretend pet troll (I think he is a Hilstonite, read on) that can decree EXACTLY like you say God does!!! Don't believe me? Watch this! Pet troll, decree whatever it will be that Jim Hilston does for the next minute, put it in his heart to do whatever is according to his will to be done!
troll: Troll giberish incantation, then a wave of the hand :wave: mandatory magical mystical twinkling intro music is played :beanboy: and ...)((( !!! POOF !!! )))
tick, tock,,, tick, tock,,, tick, tock,,, ... 58 ... 59 ... 60 ONE MINUTE IS UP!
See, it worked, he decreed it so that you will do EXACTLY what you willed to do, what a cool obvious necessary meaningful realistic spiritual godly righteous trollish deal.
:doh:
If God's will is not causative, but man's will is causative, then to say that God decrees anything is a meaningless concept, it does or effects nothing, God's decree as such is nothing.
***********
End Quote
***********
- So which is it? God's decree is something that God wants or desires to happen?
Or is it something that He plans for and it needs to happen regardless of His desires.
And can God relent from doing any of His decrees?
Wait, you said that God has two wills, one is called decree and the other is prescriptive, but then you said
So everything that happens, happens according to God's decree, thus, nothing happens otherwise. What good is a prescriptive will if it makes no difference in a world where everything without exception must happen according to God's decretive will?
Last edited:
Do you hear yourself? If God want/desires/wills action A to happen (decrees it), and if a man's will is to do action A, then there is no contradiction. Everything that happens is decreed by God, exhaustively, meticulously, with no exceptions. That is my view. You already knew that, yet you're so desperate to discredit and demonize me that you invent contradictions where there are none. Read your words immediately above again. Then go back and read the first post in the Prescriptive/Decretive thread. There is no contradiction.
To see the distinctions between decree and action, go back to the architect analogy. It's funny how you guys acknowledge the distinctions conveyed by analogies, but then you seem to forget those distinctions when we come to the scripture.
Your little exercise has accomplished more than I could in demonstrating that you are without a clue when it comes to the meaning and ramifications of the biblical concept of decree. Is the word even in your vocabulary? If so, what does it mean to you? If not, do you read the Bible much?
Man's causal will is what it is because God decreed it. Events in history are what they are and will be what they will be because God decreed them. "Predetermined, foreordained." Those are decree words. "Thou shalt not, thou shalt" -- those are prescription words.
What's funny is that this assumption of yours (that I'm desperate) is so opposite of the actual case. This is truly like shooting fish in a barrel for me. I call it theological whack-a-mole. The fact is, others who read this find it very beneficial to them, for which I am greatly thankful. For all of your smug assertions about how spiritually enlightened you are when you humbly seek the truth, basic logic and cogent reasoning seem to elude you (e.g., see above allegations and accusations about my being "contradictory"). In retrospect, and after several years of these kinds of debates, I find it remarkable that no one complains as much as Open Theists. And no one gets as confused about my views as Open Theists. What is it with you guys? It seems like there is a blindness that happens when you mix your theological arrogance with your knee-jerk assumptions. Your reasoning faculties start to malfunction. Your comprehension skills falter. Even your ability to understand basic dictionary definitions seems to vaporize. How many times have I explained culpability and responsibilty and you still. don't. get it.:freak:
Last edited:
Jim,
It was not my intention to say that you are intentionally being evasive or contradictory or anything like that. In fact, I'm quite sure that is not the case. I am convinced that you respond the way you do with the intention of furthering the discussion in the most honest way that you can think of. However, the fact that you believe that you are not being contradictory, or nonresponsive, doesn't mean that you aren't. There are contradictions in both of your last two posts which were both intended to prove that you are not contradictory! I'll get to those in a moment but first I was to make clear that it is not my intention to attack you or to make you look stupid or anything like that. I do not want to derail the discussion because of emotional considerations. But since this subject has come up, I would like to attempt to communicate to some degree why we are having such a difficult time understanding what obviously seems clear to you. The only way I know to do that is to point out what seems clear to me to be contradictory statements.
If this is not contradictory, nothing is.
If man's will is caused by God's decree it is not free and therefore the "causal" nature of it is an illusion.
On the other hand if you presuppositionally assume that man's will is free and therefore causal then your statement about the causal nature of God decree is meaningless.
You simply cannot have it both ways.
I'm, short on time so I'll have o leave it at that for now.
God Bless
Resting in Him,
Clete
It was not my intention to say that you are intentionally being evasive or contradictory or anything like that. In fact, I'm quite sure that is not the case. I am convinced that you respond the way you do with the intention of furthering the discussion in the most honest way that you can think of. However, the fact that you believe that you are not being contradictory, or nonresponsive, doesn't mean that you aren't. There are contradictions in both of your last two posts which were both intended to prove that you are not contradictory! I'll get to those in a moment but first I was to make clear that it is not my intention to attack you or to make you look stupid or anything like that. I do not want to derail the discussion because of emotional considerations. But since this subject has come up, I would like to attempt to communicate to some degree why we are having such a difficult time understanding what obviously seems clear to you. The only way I know to do that is to point out what seems clear to me to be contradictory statements.
Without any intervention except His meticulous control and maintenance.
If this is not contradictory, nothing is.
This is an excellent example of your responding by not responding. Just explain where you think his logic is flawed instead of asking inane questions like this. If his reasoning is inconsistent with the biblical concept of decree, then explain how or don't say it. We cannot read your mind, nor a we inclined to try.
Either way you slice it Jim, one or the other of these "causes" is meaningless.
If man's will is caused by God's decree it is not free and therefore the "causal" nature of it is an illusion.
On the other hand if you presuppositionally assume that man's will is free and therefore causal then your statement about the causal nature of God decree is meaningless.
You simply cannot have it both ways.
I'm, short on time so I'll have o leave it at that for now.
God Bless
Resting in Him,
Clete
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Hilston
1
As to
2
The word DECREE
I accurately quoted and used your answer and descriptions. If I said anything misrepresentative, then simply point it out. Until then, a decree that causes nothing is a non-issue precisely because it causes nothing, it is of none effect.
You plainly said that God's decretive will causes nothing in man, rather,it's man's will who causes everything that man does. So how is it again that God's decretive will causes anything in man?
Here is what it sounds like you are saying.
God designed man so that he only acts according to man's will, so when man acts, it's always according to God's will which is simply that man's actions are according to man's will.
So it's circular reasoning that ends up establishing nothing, except that man has a will of his own and acts according to his own will and no one else's will. Which makes God's decrees meaningless because they cause nothing to happen in terms of what man does.
3
You also said that it is "impossible for man to do anything other than what actually happens",
and you also said that man has the ability to do other than what actually happens.
And so I see you violate the idea of what is "possible" and what is "impossible". If you are able to do something, by definition, it is possible to be done. If it is impossible to be done, then by definition, it can not be done. These truths are mutually exclusive, yet you just confound them together like they are two peas in a pod. Able to do something, and impossible to do something cannot both be truth over the same issue at the same time, yet that is exactly what you say is the case.
I am being reasonable to ask you to resolve these contractions. Please clarify what God's decree causes concerning man's actions, and how something is both "able to do something else" and it's also "impossible to do something else", at the same time and in the same relationship.
1
As to
- (1Way said)
God put it in their hearts, meaning what, anything causitive? No, because they caused their own actions by their own free will.
- (Hilston said)
Exactly.
- (1Way said)
EXACTLY !?! ... What??? That is saying that God's decree DOES NOTHING, it's a non cause, and if it causes nothing then it has no effect either, it's a complete non issue.
- (Hilston said)
To see the distinctions between decree and action, go back to the architect analogy. It's funny how you guys acknowledge the distinctions conveyed by analogies, but then you seem to forget those distinctions when we come to the scripture.
2
The word DECREE
I accurately quoted and used your answer and descriptions. If I said anything misrepresentative, then simply point it out. Until then, a decree that causes nothing is a non-issue precisely because it causes nothing, it is of none effect.
You plainly said that God's decretive will causes nothing in man, rather,it's man's will who causes everything that man does. So how is it again that God's decretive will causes anything in man?
Here is what it sounds like you are saying.
God designed man so that he only acts according to man's will, so when man acts, it's always according to God's will which is simply that man's actions are according to man's will.
So it's circular reasoning that ends up establishing nothing, except that man has a will of his own and acts according to his own will and no one else's will. Which makes God's decrees meaningless because they cause nothing to happen in terms of what man does.
3
You also said that it is "impossible for man to do anything other than what actually happens",
and you also said that man has the ability to do other than what actually happens.
And so I see you violate the idea of what is "possible" and what is "impossible". If you are able to do something, by definition, it is possible to be done. If it is impossible to be done, then by definition, it can not be done. These truths are mutually exclusive, yet you just confound them together like they are two peas in a pod. Able to do something, and impossible to do something cannot both be truth over the same issue at the same time, yet that is exactly what you say is the case.
I am being reasonable to ask you to resolve these contractions. Please clarify what God's decree causes concerning man's actions, and how something is both "able to do something else" and it's also "impossible to do something else", at the same time and in the same relationship.
Yes. I meant the building was designed to fall in the first rain. Sorry for the confusing addition.
Buildings are not supposed to fall in the first rain. Doesn't that seem odd to you? How can you say… "What problem? If he wants the building to fall after the first rain, there is no "problem." It was intended!"?
In the case of God, something went wrong. How do we know?
God says He hates sin -> That something He hates is going on -> Something is wrong.
-and-
So design and working product are acted on by different things. That is true, but I think we've gotten to the rub of the discussion, which is the causetive effects of a decree. Thus the illustration is only useful if we extend it to an example where something has happened, and now the design is part of the discussion of what happened.
In *every* case where something goes wrong with something that was designed, the design is considered. And that is what happened on earth. Something went wrong with some of the things on earth that were designed. So now we have to include the design in assigning fault.
If God says He hates sin, and God says He doesn't hate sin, can both statements be true?
Last edited:
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Hilston
You're presenting ideas that are contradictory. If asking you to plainly explain yourself is asking too much, then please just say so.
Being able to do something else, and being impossible to do something else is a contradiction. You can not have A and nonA both true at the same time and in the same relationship. The contradiction is not what different factors are said to create this disparity (man's ability verses God's decree), the contradiction is that A and nonA can not both be true.
Also "God's decree" is shown like this.
Man can "not possibly" do otherwise from what
"necessarily" must happen, thus if you were to
remain consistent you would have to say man
has "no ability" to do or choose to do otherwise
From post #197
of ability that is "impossible" to do. So your use of man's
"ability" to do otherwise, effectively means "no ability"
Also notice the nature of God's decretive will that you
later say is not causative concerning anything man does
of this strange non-causative "decretive will" of God
Earlier you extricated yourself from God doing evil by
saying that His "decretive will" does not "cause" sin and
evil to happen, man does, God just "decrees" it to happen
So you are apparently logically pinned into believing
that God's decretive will causes nothing to happen
(I'm glad for that much)
Also from the other thread
God's DECREE CAUSES NOTHING TO HAPPEN
From Hilston's post #202 (God's will prescriptive or decretive?)
for why it was "not possible" for man to choose
otherwise. Thus God's decretive will is the cause
of man's choices as being necessarily unalterable
I submit that...
You're presenting ideas that are contradictory. If asking you to plainly explain yourself is asking too much, then please just say so.
Being able to do something else, and being impossible to do something else is a contradiction. You can not have A and nonA both true at the same time and in the same relationship. The contradiction is not what different factors are said to create this disparity (man's ability verses God's decree), the contradiction is that A and nonA can not both be true.
Also "God's decree" is shown like this.
Man can "not possibly" do otherwise from what
"necessarily" must happen, thus if you were to
remain consistent you would have to say man
has "no ability" to do or choose to do otherwise
From post #197
- (Hilston said)
They could only have relented if it were possible to choose against one's own will. But that is impossible. No one can choose what he does not want to choose. They chose what they wanted to do, and God put it in their hearts to want that. Just like in Rev. 17
it's a good thing that they couldn't choose otherwise, because if Christ had not been tortured, mocked, beaten, spit upon, executed, entombed, and resurrected, we could not be saved.
of ability that is "impossible" to do. So your use of man's
"ability" to do otherwise, effectively means "no ability"
Also notice the nature of God's decretive will that you
later say is not causative concerning anything man does
- (Hilston said)
Regarding their ability to choose, yes, they could [in terms of ability] have chosen otherwise. Regarding God's decree and what He put in their hearts, no, they could not [in terms of choosing against their own will, what God put in their hearts to do].
of this strange non-causative "decretive will" of God
Earlier you extricated yourself from God doing evil by
saying that His "decretive will" does not "cause" sin and
evil to happen, man does, God just "decrees" it to happen
So you are apparently logically pinned into believing
that God's decretive will causes nothing to happen
(I'm glad for that much)Also from the other thread
- (1Way said)
God put it in their hearts, meaning what, anything causative? No, because they caused their own actions by their own free will.
- (Hilston said)
Exactly.
God's DECREE CAUSES NOTHING TO HAPPEN
From Hilston's post #202 (God's will prescriptive or decretive?)
- (Hilston said)
Yes, they had the ability to choose otherwise. Was it possible for them to choose otherwise? No, because God put it in their hearts to act freely of their own volition.
for why it was "not possible" for man to choose
otherwise. Thus God's decretive will is the cause
of man's choices as being necessarily unalterable
I submit that...
- Being able to do something necessarily means
that it "can possibly" be done.
If you can not possibly do something, then
you also do not have the "ability" to do it.
- If something causes nothing then it necessarily
does not and can not cause anything.
Something that causes nothing is a non-issue
in terms of what happens. Anything that
happens involves a cause. Nothing happens
without a cause and effect.
If nothing is caused, then nothing happens!
So if God's decree is to have any "effect",
then it must be causative, or it does nothing.