God's prescriptive will and His decretive will

[godrulz]

So, we 'truthsmack' people around here who hold wrong views.

I feel I have been 'error-smacked' by Jim.

Just because God intervenes in some things does not mean He intervenes in everything. This would be like blaming a demon for everything that goes wrong in our lives.

Satan's rebellion was not decreed. It brought grief to the tranquil heart of God. There was no good reason for Lucifer and Adam to fall. The possibility of rebellion is not the same as the necessity, certainty, or intention/desire for that rebellion.

 

[Yorzhik]

Is there a "rule of thumb" definition of "will" itself? I'd like to know that just to see if it helps me understand.

 

[Hilston]

Hi Knight,

My reply to your post is below:

Actually I asked the question exactly the way I intended.

In that case, I don't know how to answer it without some clarification. Your original question was: "I wonder why God would intentionally decree things that go against His will?" If you're talking God's decretive will, He doesn't. If you're talking about His prescriptive will, you have my answer above. Is there another way I should be considering your question?

Jim, here is the deal....

You believe that EVERYTHING that happens (without exception), happens according to God's decretive will. If that is true how can ANYTHING happen that isn't part of EVERYTHING?

It can't.

... Where is there room for God's prescriptive will?

They're two different categories. One is a Plan, the other is a Law. The existence and content of the Law come under the Plan, as do the violations of that Law, planned for good purposes. But they are no more synonymous than the Three Laws of Robotics are to Isaac Asimov's novel, I, Robot. The Laws exist as a result of what the writer of the novel decreed, and all violations of the Laws as written by the author are in precise accordance with those decrees.

It seems to me that if EVERYTHING happens according to God's decretive will then God's prescriptive will could be nothing more than "show" (just part of God's decretive will).

Of course. Laws don't "do" anything. They "show" something. In the case of God's prescriptive will (the Laws), they are indeed "show," and they express, i.e. "show" forth, God's Laws for man. What more would you expect God's Laws to do? They can't make you righteous. Your statement, "God's prescriptive will could be nothing more than 'show,'" is tantamount to Moses saying, "These ten commandments are nothing more than 'show.'" As opposed to saying, "These ten commandments SHOW forth the expressed law of God for the nation of Israel."

According to you... God's prescriptive will is that we not hurt each other on the path but when we do hurt each other on the path it's because God willed that we hurt each other on the path (via God's decretive will).

Correct.

... Therefore God's prescriptive will (according to your own view) is utterly meaningless.

How so? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the Open Theist who views most things, particular all the widespread evil that happens, as meaningless and purposeless? On the Settled View, every meticulous detail of history, past, present and future has specific and infallible purposes in the plan (decrees) of God. I know my path in inexorably foreordained (God's decretive will). I also know that God's word expresses God's law and commands regarding how I should conduct myself and live my life. So I go through my day, knowing that everything I do was foreordained (God's decretive will), and knowing that my efforts to live for Christ are informed by God's laws and commands for me (God's prescriptive will). There is no loss of meaning. On the contrary, it makes everything that I do, everything that happens, more meaningful than the Open Theist can imagine. If there is a view that is fraught with meaningless occurrences, it is the Open View.

Consider the following: I could go through my day saying "Here is the part in God's script where I sit in this chair. Here is the part where I read my e-mail. This must be the part where I read the e-mail from Eric. And this must be the part where I reply to Eric. Here's the part where I'm interrupted by my son who is asking me a question. Here is the part where I listen to and consider his question. Here is the part of God's script where I decide to give my son a negative answer. Here is the part in the script where my son walks away disappointed because of my negative answer." Etc. Knowing in hindsight that everything that just happened was part of God's decree makes it no less meaningful. It is a specious and unfounded argument to assert that a decreed and settled future makes God's Law meaningless.

You paint a picture of God saying "don't do this". Yet God wills that we do just that! God's own decretive will overrides His perscriptive will in every and all cases.

There is no override. They are of different categories. God's law expresses the standard of righteousness for a particular dispensation, similarly as Asimov's Law of Robotics expressed the standard of robot behavior in his novel. The plan of God includes the existence of His laws, similarly as Asimov's novel included the existence of the Laws of Robotics. The decreed course of history, or, as in the case of Asimov's novel, the course of the narrative, determines to what happens, when, how and why. The Laws therein have no determining force; they express standards, but do not determine anything with regard to actual outcomes or results.

Why would Paul need to "convey to all God's saints the importance of paying taxes to the government under which one finds oneself." if their paying or not paying taxes has already been decreed in advance?

Because God has decreed that His people would hear His laws expressed in a documented format, and that the Holy Spirit would cause them to hear and obey according to God's decreed plan. God could have chosen to communicate His laws through angels, the way He did for the Gentile nations and for Israel, but He didn't. Instead, He chose to communicate His laws through the writings of Paul and his apostleship. He gave us the faith to hear and heed God's prescriptive will. It is that way because God decreed it to be that way.

I can see why you would misunderstand me here on this point. The path isn't our individual life's path but instead the path of history for everyone, that's why I gave examples of other people on the path.

Then the analogy cannot apply to my view. God's decretive will is not a vague and uncertain path. It is a detailed plan that works all things for the good of the elect.

...I spent a good deal of time coming up with my "path" analogy I was sort of hoping you would respond to it.

If I were to apply your "path" analogy to my view, then the course of history cannot be described as a wide road of various possible outcomes or multiple potential means toward some end. Rather, it is a narrow, invariable, hair-thin path, every step of which is exhaustively and meticulously determined by God according to His decrees.

I asked...
Maybe you could use my analogy (about the path of life) and tell me how you think your belief about God's will(s) fit into my analogy.

Now it's the path of life? Whose life? I thought you said it was the past of the history of mankind? Please be more specific (and consistent).

Two bonus questions (taken from above)

1. Why would Paul need to "convey to all God's saints the importance of paying taxes to the government under which one finds oneself." if their paying or not paying taxes has already been decreed in advance?Because God uses His prescriptions (in accordance with His decreed will) to bring about change in the individual (in accordance with His decreed will). It's the way God has determined that man would experience a relationship with God and experience change in his life and behavior. The Holy Spirit uses God's prescriptive will to affect the life of the believer, thus bringing about God's decretive will.

2. Does God's decretive will override God's perscriptive will in every and all cases?

They are of different categories. They are not in competition. God's decrees direct history. God's Laws express His standard of righteousness.

... If not can you give me an example of where God's decretive doesn't override God's perscriptive will?

(i.e., if God's perscriptive will is that we love one another, yet I assume you would argue that God's decretive will would have us NOT love one another therefore God's decretive will overrides God's perscriptive will).

That's like asking if Asimov's narrative always overrides the Three Laws of Robotics. It doesn't make sense.

Thanks for your questions.

Trusting in the Rock,
Jim

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I stated in my last post that you believe that EVERYTHING that happens (without exception), happens according to God's decretive will. If that is true how can ANYTHING happen that isn't part of EVERYTHING?

And you responded with...

It can't.

Thanks Jim.

And of course this is what I have been getting at all along.

According to you God's prescriptive will is merely a part of God decretive will along with everything else. Therefore God's prescriptive will cannot be anything more than for "show" or like an "act". For even when God is stating His prescriptive will to man, God's own actions are part of God's decretive will. And when man does or does not follow God's prescriptive will those events are also part of God's decretive will. Ultimately nothing other than God's decretive will exists in your view.

They're two different categories. One is a Plan, the other is a Law. The existence and content of the Law come under the Plan, as do the violations of that Law, planned for good purposes. But they are no more synonymous than the Three Laws of Robotics are to Isaac Asimov's novel, I, Robot. The Laws exist as a result of what the writer of the novel decreed, and all violations of the Laws as written by the author are in precise accordance with those decrees.

Sorry... none of that computes with me.

I just don't get it. It's all gobbl-de-guk to me. Please forgive my ignorance but I really do not understand what you just said.

Of course. Laws don't "do" anything. They "show" something. In the case of God's prescriptive will (the Laws), they are indeed "show," and they express, i.e. "show" forth, God's Laws for man. What more would you expect God's Laws to do? They can't make you righteous. Your statement, "God's prescriptive will could be nothing more than 'show,'" is tantamount to Moses saying, "These ten commandments are nothing more than 'show.'" As opposed to saying, "These ten commandments SHOW forth the expressed law of God for the nation of Israel."

Not in the open view they wouldn't.

In the Open View, God's prescriptive will is that we love one another and when we disobey it is OUR will that is disobeying God's prescriptive will.

In your view, God's prescriptive will is that we love one another. Yet when we disobey it is all according to God's decretive will.

Do you disagree with any part of that last statement?

Again, in your view how can anything truly exist outside of God's decretive will?

How so? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the Open Theist who views most things, particular all the widespread evil that happens, as meaningless and purposeless? .

Let me correct you.

The Open View credits man with sin and the bad things that happen.
Your view credits God with sin and the bad things that happen.

Therefore when bad things happen the OV'er can rightfully look to God as the righteous standard and know that what we have done is bad.

When bad things happen in your view, you look to God as the source or author of those bad things. How can bad things really be bad if your righteous God has orchestrated them for you? Which of course flies in the face of the entire message of the Bible.

You continue...

Consider the following: I could go through my day saying "Here is the part in God's script where I sit in this chair. Here is the part where I read my e-mail. This must be the part where I read the e-mail from Eric. And this must be the part where I reply to Eric. Here's the part where I'm interrupted by my son who is asking me a question. Here is the part where I listen to and consider his question. Here is the part of God's script where I decide to give my son a negative answer. Here is the part in the script where my son walks away disappointed because of my negative answer." Etc. Knowing in hindsight that everything that just happened was part of God's decree makes it no less meaningful. It is a specious and unfounded argument to assert that a decreed and settled future makes God's Law meaningless.

Now just where have I heard that before??? :think: Oh wait... I remember now...

It's time to play the music
It's time to light the lights
It's time to meet the Muppets on the Muppet Show tonight.

It's time to put on makeup
It's time to dress up right
It's time to raise the curtain on the Muppet Show tonight.

Why do we always come here
I guess we'll never know
It's like a kind of torture
To have to watch the show

And now let's get things started
Why don't you get things started
It's time to get things started
On the most sensational inspirational celebrational Muppetational
This is what we call the Muppet Show​

:tunes:
It's even more fun if you can remember the tune and hum along with it as you read. Hey, on the bright side at least your theology has a catchy tune.

Because God has decreed that His people would hear His laws expressed in a documented format, and that the Holy Spirit would cause them to hear and obey according to God's decreed plan. God could have chosen to communicate His laws through angels, the way He did for the Gentile nations and for Israel, but He didn't. Instead, He chose to communicate His laws through the writings of Paul and his apostleship. He gave us the faith to hear and heed God's prescriptive will. It is that way because God decreed it to be that way.

Why does God need to communicate anything to anyone if He is manipulating them to conform to His will in every and all cases? Did they not know what God had decreed they were to do? If the communication had not been made would God's decretive will be thwarted???? Of course none of that can be considered because nothing can happen because nothing happens that isn't to the exact specification of God's decretive will which makes the question all the more relevent.... Why does God need to communicate anything to anyone if He is manipulating them to conform to His will in every and all cases?

You continue...

Then the analogy cannot apply to my view. God's decretive will is not a vague and uncertain path. It is a detailed plan that works all things for the good of the elect.

OK, you can forget my analogy. I have no problem admitting that stuff like this is hard to communicate via text on a web forum. If we were talking in person we might be able to to hash it out but I am not a very good writer (as if you didn't know already) so I don't blame you for not understanding what I was getting at.

Lovey, dovey postscript stuff....
Jim, I really do like you. I hate in when I read my posts back to myself and they seem harsh or sometimes seem like I am mocking you or your views. I hope you realize that I appreciate you very much and I love your sense of humor and I am just poking some fun back at you in return. Yet at the same time we have these massive disconnects in theological views, I am doing my best to try and understand your view better, I hope you feel the same way! :up:

 

[godrulz]

The reason we do not 'get it' is that it is incoherent, an artificial construct to support a preconceived theology. Rather than take self-evident revelation about man's libertarian free will (is there any other kind?) and God's genuine freedom as the Sovereign, personal Ruler, one must use mental gymnastics and come up with a decretal/philosophical 'wills' system to retain hyper-sovereignty (meticulous vs providential control).

This still reminds me of Molinism's inadequate, complex, and confusing attempt to retain exhaustive, definite foreknowledge and some sense of free will. The weak link is 'middle knowledge'. The weak link in Jim's view is the two will concept that is not self-evident from a simple reading of Scripture (that alone does not make it wrong).

Since I have not bothered to understand his view to the point where I can intelligently explain/defend it, I understand if he considers me the peanut gallery who should be quiet. I think my gut is right on this (we can smell determinism/Calvinism issues that are not obvious from Scripture, but are more philosophical and speculative).

 

[Johnny]

I hate to interrupt this excellent conversation between you two, but I am very interested in the open position. For my own edification and further clarification, I want to respectfully ask Knight if he could respond to Hilston's examples of God's two wills in the Bible. It seems to me that Hilston provided a very good logical example of his position. In order to deny the two aspects of God's will, you'd either have to deny that it is God's will for all men to submit to His law or deny that it was by God's will that Joseph be sold. For it was by God's declarative will that Joseph's brothers broke is prescriptive will. I think this is a very powerful argument, but it went largely unaddressed in the mix of things. Thanks.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I hate to interrupt this excellent conversation between you two, but I am very interested in the open position. For my own edification and further clarification, I want to respectfully ask Knight if he could respond to Hilston's examples of God's two wills in the Bible. It seems to me that Hilston provided a very good logical example of his position. In order to deny the two aspects of God's will, you'd either have to deny that it is God's will for all men to submit to His law or deny that it was by God's will that Joseph be sold. For it was by God's declarative will that Joseph's brothers broke is prescriptive will. I think this is a very powerful argument, but it went largely unaddressed in the mix of things. Thanks.

Thanks Johnny, I realize it may be hard for a third party to really get the gist of where me an Jim are in this conversation. I do not deny that God has different types of wills in fact my opening post in this thread describes exactly how I view God's perscriptive and decretive wills (as Jim calls them).

I ask you to reconsider what Jim has stated. I ask you to read the verses yourself to see if they really say what Jim says that they say.

Jim states...

God decreed that Joseph's brothers would hate him without justification (Ge 37:4),

Does the Bible really state that God decreed Joseph's brothers to hate him? No! Of course not, this is something Jim has stretched out of the text to fit his view.

Genesis 37:4 But when his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, they hated him and could not speak peaceably to him.​

Jim continues...

even though His prescriptive will forbids hatred without cause. God decreed that they conspire to betray him and sell him to the Ishmeelites (Ge 37:27),

God, in no way decree's Jospeh's brother's to do any of this!

Genesis 37:27 “Come and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him, for he is our brother and our flesh.” And his brothers listened.​

Remember, just because Jim makes an assertion about what the text says it doesn't mean Jim is right. He could just be making all this stuff up!

It's always best to read it yourself and see what you think.

Jim continues...

which is tantamount to kidnapping, even though God forbids kidnapping. God decreed that Joseph would be sold by the Ishmeelites as a chattel slave to Egypt, even though God's prescriptive will forbids chattel slavery. God decreed that Joseph's brothers would deceive Jacob into thinking Joseph was killed and send him into deep mourning (Ge 37:31-35), even though God's prescriptive will forbids lying without justification.

Why does Jim think God decreed these events? Because Jim thinks God decrees ALL events! There is no biblical basis for such a notion. It's circular reasoning.

Genesis 37:31 So they took Joseph’s tunic, killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the tunic in the blood. 32 Then they sent the tunic of many colors, and they brought it to their father and said, “We have found this. Do you know whether it is your son’s tunic or not?” 33 And he recognized it and said, “It is my son’s tunic. A wild beast has devoured him. Without doubt Joseph is torn to pieces.” 34 Then Jacob tore his clothes, put sackcloth on his waist, and mourned for his son many days. 35 And all his sons and all his daughters arose to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted, and he said, “For I shall go down into the grave to my son in mourning.” Thus his father wept for him.​

What is absent in all this biblical text??? The part about God decretive will as the cause.

Jim continues

We know this was all meticulously decreed by God because, among myriad other reasons, He says so.

Uh... no, actually He doesn't say anything like that.

Jim continues

Moreover, the reason why He decreed the evil was to bring about good.

God does not do evil to bring about good (read Romans 3:8) instead, God takes a bad situation and makes something good come from it (read Jeremiah 18:4)

Jim continues...

The scripture reveals that the famine in the Land (Ge 45:6) was authored by God (Ps 105:16).

God often brings things to pass, especially in judgement. The future need not be settled for any of that to happen. If God wants a famine to hit the land for 5 years God can make a famine last for 5 years! He is after all, God.

In fact, that makes Jim's position all that much more less likely, after all... why would God send judgement if God authored the evil that He was sending judgement for? That simply makes no sense. :hammer:

Jim continues...

We know that it wasn't really Joseph's brothers who sent him to Egypt, but God Himself, having decreed the evil of Joseph's brothers, contrary to His own prescriptive will: Ge 45:8 So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God: and he hath made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house, and a ruler throughout all the land of Egypt.

God picked Joseph for a task, just as God has picked countless others for other tasks.

And God was able to get Jospeh to do His will even in spite of those that wished to thwart that will. In Jim's view, God orchestrated all the evil and all the good, and for what? If God is going to script the entire event why not skip all the bad stuff? None of that makes any sense. Jim has mutilated a really awesome Bible story about God working His will with us sinful disobedient humans, and turned it into a puppet show where God is simply amusing Himself as us puppets act out His Saturday morning cartoon. :nono:

Jim continues...

Thus, we see God's decretive will (unjust hatred and deceit, jealousy, selfishness, kidnapping, etc.) are contrary to His prescriptive will (prohibitions against unjust hatred and deceit, jealousy, selfishness, kidnapping, etc.). By understanding God's meticulous control and the fact that everything God decrees, good and evil (Job 2:10) are for God's own good purposes, Joseph could duly and confidently say: "But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive." (Gen 50:20).

Look at that! The answer is right in front of Jim's face and he still can't see it...

Genesis 50:20 “But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive.​

God took what evil men had done and made good come from it, that's the whole point of the story!

Jim would have you believe God decreed evil so that He could later look "good", like an abusive parent that buy's their child a toy after they finish beating them to a pulp. "Sorry about that black eye little suzy but hey I bet you love that new Barbie doll! Yea, aren't I good????" :vomit:

Ultimately, God works with those that love Him to bring about good in spite of evil. That my friend is the power of the all mighty God!! Praise the Lord!

Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.​

God is good not evil. God does not do evil so that He can later look "good".

Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!​

 

[Hilston]

Hi Knight,

I enjoyed your post. I enjoyed responding to it even more.

... I ask you to read the verses yourself to see if they really say what Jim says that they say.

But then Knight proceeds tell Johnny that they "really say" what Knight says that they say.

Remember, just because Jim makes an assertion about what the text says it doesn't mean Jim is right.

Why are you talking like this? Don't you think Johnny already knows this? Why are you being so condescending to him?

He could just be making all this stuff up!

Except that I offered support from scripture; that is Johnny's obvious and legtimate concern.

It's always best to read it yourself and see what you think.

Which translates: "It's always best to read it yourself through Open View lenses. Here, you can borrow mine."

Jim continues...Why does Jim think God decreed these events? Because Jim thinks God decrees ALL events! There is no biblical basis for such a notion. It's circular reasoning.

Are you sure you want to go that route, Eric? If so, then bring it. Prove the circularity.

God does not do evil to bring about good (read Romans 3:8) instead, God takes a bad situation and makes something good come from it (read Jeremiah 18:4) ...

No one is claiming that God does evil. He has planned evil for good purposes, for the good of His elect. That is why we can trust Him. The Open Theist has no grounds for trusting God.

Jim continues...God often brings things to pass, especially in judgement. The future need not be settled for any of that to happen. If God wants a famine to hit the land for 5 years God can make a famine last for 5 years! He is after all, God.

Why would God do that? Why bring a 5-year famine, knowing that people will starve to death, knowing that people will murder each other for food? God gives us the answer: "God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive" from a famine that He authored. It is God's prerogative to plan evil in order to bless us with relief from it. You want to call this twisted and sick, but of course, that is because Open Theism is religious humanism, judging God's actions with man as the measure of all things.

... why would God send judgement if God authored the evil that He was sending judgement for?

For good purposes, for the good of His elect, of course.

In Jim's view, God orchestrated all the evil and all the good, and for what?

For good purposes, for the good of His elect.

If God is going to script the entire event why not skip all the bad stuff?

Because He intends good and has good purposes for the bad stuff.

None of that makes any sense.

Obviously it makes sense to Johnny; he sees the power of the argument and he is asking you to answer it.

... Jim has mutilated a really awesome Bible story about God working His will with us sinful disobedient humans, and turned it into a puppet show where God is simply amusing Himself as us puppets act out His Saturday morning cartoon. :nono:

Notice the humanism. You judge God's own pleasure through humanist lenses. God is not allowed to do anything for His own good pleasure if it involves "us puppets." But the Bible teaches that everything He has decreed, even the evil, is for good, according to His decrees (which is what God's "good pleasure" refers to in scripture). That is why we can trust Him. I'm happy to be part of God's plan and to play the role that He has decreed for me.

Jim would have you believe God decreed evil so that He could later look "good", like an abusive parent that buy's their child a toy after they finish beating them to a pulp. "Sorry about that black eye little suzy but hey I bet you love that new Barbie doll! Yea, aren't I good????" :vomit:

That is a blatant distortion of what is taught in God's word. According to Paul, God gave him a thorn in the side (a "black eye," so to speak) so that He could later make him strong ~ and eventually give him a place on the Father's throne, governing the universe.

2Co 12:8 "For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. 9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong."​

Open Theists would be ripping on Paul for thinking that God would cause pain to Paul just so He could later "look good." Yet Paul affirms:

"For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. (2Co 4:17)"

"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us (Ro 8:18)."​

Job understood this as well:

Job 1:21 "And said, Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD. 22 In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly."

Job 2:10 "But [Job] said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips."​

If Open Theists had been Job's friends, they would have advised him to curse God and die. If Open Theists had been Joseph's brothers, they would have chided him for thinking that God would plan evil for good purposes, just so God could "look good" later.

The Settled Theist can truly trust God because he knows that any evil that he experiences has been planned by God for the good of His elect. The Open Theist cannot, as the Settled Theist can, "glory in tribulations also" (Ro 5:3), and "take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong (2Co 12:10)." The Open Theist cannot agree with Paul, because evil is random and meaningless. The Open Theist cannot appreciate the words of David who acknowledges "It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn thy statutes. (Ps 119:71)"

Why does the Open Theist trust such a hapless and pathetic God? The Settled Theist can view even the worst of circumstances and evil as paling in comparison to the glory that will be revealed in us.

Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

This is the standard humanistic equivocation and desperation of the Open View. No one is calling evil good or good evil. Evil is still evil, even when God uses it for good purposes. It appears that Johnny understands this. For some reason, Open View apologists cannot, will not, see it.

All according to God's decrees, of course,
Jim

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Hi Knight,

I enjoyed your post. I enjoyed responding to it even more.

There is joy in the air! :cloud9:

Why are you talking like this? Don't you think Johnny already knows this? Why are you being so condescending to him?

It's just a post on the internet Jim, spare us the dramatics will ya?

Except that I offered support from scripture; that is Johnny's obvious and legtimate concern.

No you didn't offer support, you cited verses that you claimed supported your position which were not true, I demonstrated that for all to see. No need to thank me, it's my job.

Jim, anyone can say..."God decreed that Joseph's brothers would hate him without justification (Ge 37:4),"

That doesn't mean the text says what you assert that it says because it doesn't.

Are you sure you want to go that route, Eric? If so, then bring it. Prove the circularity.

I just did... see above. You believe God decreed all events (without exception) so when the Bible says Joseph's brothers hated him you claim the Bible says Joseph's brothers we decreed to hate him. :dizzy:

The Bible says no such thing. Your circular reasoning has now been exposed.

No one is claiming that God does evil. He has planned evil for good purposes, for the good of His elect.

I smell the burn of your pedals beginning to move in reverse. Jim, I am sorry but do you really expect us to all buy the notion that planning, orchestrating, decreeing every evil event that has ever occurred is somehow less that not "doing" evil?????

That dog don't hunt. Heck that dog don't even sleep, and dogs LOVE to sleep. :dog:

When you really think about it, planning, orchestrating, decreeing every evil event that has ever occurred is far MORE EVIL than the mere puppet that acted out the event. Who is more evil Mohamed Atta or Osama bin Laden?

Why would God do that? Why bring a 5-year famine, knowing that people will starve to death, knowing that people will murder each other for food?

The same reason God would bring a plague! In judgement of course - gee you would think a sharp theologian such as yourself would know that. :doh:

God gives us the answer: "God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive" from a famine that He authored. It is God's prerogative to plan evil in order to bless us with relief from it. You want to call this twisted and sick, but of course, that is because Open Theism is religious humanism, judging God's actions with man as the measure of all things.

The Bible never says anything like that. Joseph's brothers meant it for evil, God took their evil actions and brought about good.

You may be able to fool the Sentient Synth's of the world but you ain't foolin' anyone else.

For good purposes, for the good of His elect, of course.

For good purposes, for the good of His elect.

Because He intends good and has good purposes for the bad stuff.

But where is the pay off Jim? If God does evil so that good may come of it that notion insinuates the reason that evil was done (or planned) was to get a reaction (that good may come of it) which makes no sense if God also decreed the good that came from the evil. If God is going to the trouble of orchestrating every event without exception just skip all the bad and ordain good!

Obviously it makes sense to Johnny; he sees the power of the argument and he is asking you to answer it.

True, and Johnny also believes in time machines and evolution so take it for what it is worth. (sorry Johnny but it's true)

But the Bible teaches that everything He has decreed, even the evil, is for good, according to His decrees (which is what God's "good pleasure" refers to in scripture). That is why we can trust Him. I'm happy to be part of God's plan and to play the role that He has decreed for me.

The Bible never says any such thing, that's just plain silly.

That is a blatant distortion of what is taught in God's word. According to Paul, God gave him a thorn in the side (a "black eye," so to speak) so that He could later make him strong ~ and eventually give him a place on the Father's throne, governing the universe.

2Co 12:8 "For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. 9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong."​

Open Theists would be ripping on Paul for thinking that God would cause pain to Paul just so He could later "look good." Yet Paul affirms:

"For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. (2Co 4:17)""For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us (Ro 8:18)."​

:rotfl: Jim the Bible never says God GAVE Paul the infirmities! Even your own proof text shows that. Instead God gives us the power to OVERCOME infirmities! Again God takes a bad situation and can make good come from it which is one of the major story lines of the entire Bible.

Job understood this as well:

Job 1:21 "And said, Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD. 22 In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly."

Job 2:10 "But [Job] said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips."​

If Open Theists had been Job's friends, they would have advised him to curse God and die. If Open Theists had been Joseph's brothers, they would have chided him for thinking that God would plan evil for good purposes, just so God could "look good" later.

How about you tell us all exactly what God did to Job.

Leave out all the parts about what Satan did to Job, just tell us about the specific things God did to Job.

The Settled Theist can truly trust God because he knows that any evil that he experiences has been planned by God for the good of His elect. The Open Theist cannot, as the Settled Theist can, "glory in tribulations also" (Ro 5:3), and "take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong (2Co 12:10)." The Open Theist cannot agree with Paul, because evil is random and meaningless. The Open Theist cannot appreciate the words of David who acknowledges "It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn thy statutes. (Ps 119:71)"

Wow, Jim I am surprised at your lack of thinking this issue through. :shocked:

Taking pleasure in infirmities (for Christ's sake) , overcoming infirmities, overcoming bad events, persecutions etc. etc. etc., is a million miles away from God orchestrating those events.

Our difference in nutshell....
I say.. God can work with us to make good come from evil. (that's love)
You say... God plans evil for us so He can look "good" later. (that's sick)

 

[elected4ever]

There is no such thing as God's prescriptive will. There is God"s decretive will. God has decrede and all who do not comply with that decree are called sinners. There is no time that God overlooks His decrees and permits disobedeance to it. Judgement defered is not judgement abandoned.

God does not change his decree because His decree is His law. The word of the King is the law and it does not matter if it is not complied with or changed by some lower authority or not inforced by a lower authority. In the end the king will inforce His decree.

God's decree is that man be made in His express image or to put it another way; to make man as He is. As lone as man remains as he is, he will never be the express image of God. Being made in the image of God is process and God has decreed the process. Comply or be judged by the King.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Comply or be judged by the King.

I couldn't agree more. :up:

 

[Johnny]

Does the Bible really state that God decreed Joseph's brothers to hate him? No! Of course not, this is something Jim has stretched out of the text to fit his view.

Thanks for the response Knight, I appreciate it. I did look up the texts Jim quoted when I read his argument, and you are right that the passages cited do not explicitely state that it was God's decree for these things to happen. Jim appears to be drawing these conclusions from Chapter 45.

Joseph tells his brothers not grieve for what they have done, because it was God who sent him to Egypt so that he could "preserve life". I think there are two interpretations of this passage. You responded to this passage with,

"God does not do evil to bring about good (read Romans 3:8) instead, God takes a bad situation and makes something good come from it (read Jeremiah 18:4)"

You seem to be implying that God took the bad situation (Joseph being sold into slavery) and made good come of it. However, it seems to me that the text indicates that it was ordained ("God sent me") for Joseph to go to be sold into slavery. By extension, the train of events that led to Joseph being sold into slavery--his brothers hatred towards him, their deceit and kidnapping--were ordained. Was it God or Joseph's brothers who sent Joseph to Egypt? If it was God, by what means did He accomplish His plan?

That's my last post in this thread, I don't want to interrupt your discussion anymore than I have. Thanks both of you!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Thanks for the response Knight, I appreciate it. I did look up the texts Jim quoted when I read his argument, and you are right that the passages cited do not explicitely state that it was God's decree for these things to happen. Jim appears to be drawing these conclusions from Chapter 45.

Joseph tells his brothers not grieve for what they have done, because it was God who sent him to Egypt so that he could "preserve life". I think there are two interpretations of this passage. You responded to this passage with, You seem to be implying that God took the bad situation (Joseph being sold into slavery) and made good come of it. However, it seems to me that the text indicates that it was ordained ("God sent me") for Joseph to go to be sold into slavery. By extension, the train of events that led to Joseph being sold into slavery--his brothers hatred towards him, their deceit and kidnapping--were ordained. Was it God or Joseph's brothers who sent Joseph to Egypt? If it was God, by what means did He accomplish His plan?

That's my last post in this thread, I don't want to interrupt your discussion anymore than I have. Thanks both of you!

Thanks Johnny, keep in mind that God did pick Joseph for a task and God had Joseph bring about events that God wanted to happen (we need to be able to seperate "some" things from "everything"). Therefore God did indeed "send" Joseph (God made sure Joseph got to where He wanted him to be). Joseph's brothers panned to kill Joseph but they didn't, God was pushing, pulling, prodding their hearts and minds getting them to do the things He needed done to bring about His will. Open Viewers do not claim that God is uninvolved in our lives like Jim would have you believe. Just the opposite is true.

None of this is any different than Jonah being picked for a task by God except in Jonah's case he wasn't as willing, he was reluctant! So God pushed, pulled and prodded Jonah even to the point of having him swallowed by a giant fish to get Jonah to do what God needed him to do, notice God working with us to bring events to pass.

If God decreed every event meticulously (as Jim asserts) God could have just skipped the whole giant fish thing.

Notice how in the Bible we read all these story's about God interacting with us and for why? In every and all cases it's an effort to alter our will. God interacts with us to affect our will! To get our will more in line with His will, cool stuff!

For more on that topic click here.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

If God decreed every event meticulously (as Jim asserts) God could have just skipped the whole giant fish thing.

Maybe God has more in mind than just control?

Notice how in the Bible we read all these story's about God interacting with us and for why? In every and all cases it's an effort to alter our will.

And successfully, I might add!

God interacts with us to affect our will! To get our will more in line with His will, cool stuff!

Quite so!

But I have a question that I raised previously in another thread...

Lee: If there are two wills in God, then doesn’t this mean (as Piper it seems does come down to saying here) that God’s desires conflict at times with his decrees?

Jim Hilston: What God desires decretively according to His immutable plan and what God commands are often, usually, in opposition, and all according to His good purposes.

So it seems you do agree with Piper here?

Lee: So then this must imply that God experiences some measure of frustration, as in unfulfilled desires, and he also must be said to have to compromise, in the sense of having to choose between several somewhat undesirable alternatives.

Jim: Not at all. God's decretive desires are always inexorably fulfilled. God's prescriptions are usually not fulfilled, and all according to God's decrees (desires) for His own good purposes.

How would a desire that is expressed by a commandment not be a real desire though? I mean, a decretive desire seems to be standing in for "a real desire" here, and does God not really desire that people not steal or murder, even when they do so?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Hi Lee!

Maybe God has more in mind than just control?

If God controls EVERYTHING then nothing "more" could be in store since EVERYTHING is included in EVERYTHING.

And successfully, I might add!

Are you kidding????

The Bible is filled end to end with man doing what is sinful and in opposition to God's will.

And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. - Genesis 6:6

And...

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing! - Luke 13:34

And...

“But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life. - John 5:40

And...

What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes? - Isaiah 5:4

And...

Because I have called and you refused, I have stretched out my hand and no one regarded, 25 Because you disdained all my counsel, And would have none of my rebuke, - Proverbs 1:24

And...

“You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. - Acts 7:51

And...

But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him. - Luke 7:30​

I could go on... and on... and on....

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Knight,

If God controls EVERYTHING then nothing "more" could be in store since EVERYTHING is included in EVERYTHING.

Sure, but I meant objectives in addition to being in complete control.

Are you kidding????

What, me kid?

The Bible is filled end to end with man doing what is sinful and in opposition to God's will.

Well, note...

Romans 5:20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase.

Now I think we may conclude that any given sin at least could be in the will of God, in this way.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

There is no such thing as God's prescriptive will. There is God"s decretive will. God has decrede and all who do not comply with that decree are called sinners. There is no time that God overlooks His decrees and permits disobedeance to it. Judgement defered is not judgement abandoned.

God does not change his decree because His decree is His law. The word of the King is the law and it does not matter if it is not complied with or changed by some lower authority or not inforced by a lower authority. In the end the king will inforce His decree.

God's decree is that man be made in His express image or to put it another way; to make man as He is. As lone as man remains as he is, he will never be the express image of God. Being made in the image of God is process and God has decreed the process. Comply or be judged by the King.

God decrees that all who believe will become part of His corporate elect. He decrees that all who continue to rebel will be judged and lost. He does not decree who will and will not believe.

Hilston's error is to think that God's decrees are exhaustive and meticulous in every moral and mundane detail. This is not necessary for God to be God nor is it His self-revelation.