What's the problem?
- Thread starter SOTK
- Start date
How short Knight's memory is. Either that, or he doesn't care. After all we've been through together, he still can't remember some of the most important discussions we've had. Either that, or he doesn't care. Remember the difference between "will as decree" and "will as command" (decretive vs. prescriptive wills)? Knight has proven, time and again, that he's not qualified to talk about, let alone critique Calvinism or any flavor of it. Whether he doesn't remember or just doesn't care, he's not qualified. I suspect he doesn't care, because he's not that dim. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.
God's will, prescriptive or decretive?
By the way, here is what Knight said about my post at the time: On the surface ... I can't say as I would disagree with any of that.
Sure, he may now say, "The operative term was 'On the surface ...'" But even granting his eventual disagreement, he continues to misrepresent the view, saying (today), Yet Calvinism teaches just the opposite.
:kookoo:
What is obvious is that Knight has a short memory or else he just. doesn't. care.
SOTK, if you allow Knight to instruct you, you will end up looking just as foolish as he and all of his sychophants do everytime they bluster on about Calvinism. Have a look at the following link, SOTK. Although it isn't strict Calvinism, the basic premise is similar to the Calvinistic view (Calvinists do get some things right).
God's will, prescriptive or decretive?
By the way, here is what Knight said about my post at the time: On the surface ... I can't say as I would disagree with any of that.
Sure, he may now say, "The operative term was 'On the surface ...'" But even granting his eventual disagreement, he continues to misrepresent the view, saying (today), Yet Calvinism teaches just the opposite.
:kookoo:
SOTK
New member
Hilston,
Thanks for the information, and I will definitely check out the link. It sounds like that might help me out with some of the problems I've run into with God's will being decretive. By the way, did you get the PM I sent you in reply to your last PM to me? I have some questions in there for you.
Hilston, it's not my wish to be looked upon as foolish. That's why I am asking questions and trying to understand Calvinism. Also, I think it's important for me to understand the opposite of Calvinism as well which seems to be the Open View theology. I don't think I am necessarily subscribing to either views exclusively at this point, although as I have said previously, there are aspects of the Calvinistic theology that appeal to me. Check out my PM to you. There are two main issues with the TULIP scheme that are hard for me, and I think you may be able to help with that.
Thanks!
In Christ,
SOTK
SOTK
New member
I see what you are getting at, but I am not sure yet if it's as easy as that.
Adam and Eve were both obviously disobedient to God. God, in his infinite knowledge, would have already know this was going to occur. Isn't it probable that He would have known? Also, I like Hilston's argument on Prescriptive will vs. Decretive will. It sounds to me like Adam's decision to go "against the will of God" could very well have been a case of disobedience of God's prescriptive will. In other words, Adam resisted and thwarted God's will when Adam chose to eat the apple. :think:
I think Hilston's approach in understanding these two different types of God's will is very interesting and seem to have merit. It helps to clear up some confusion of mine that I have had with God's commandment to Abraham to sacrifice his son.
What do you think about all of this, Knight, particularly the idea of prescriptive and decretive will and the differences between the two?
In Christ,
SOTK
Last edited:
SOTK
New member
Re: Re: What's the problem?
Re: Re: What's the problem?
Turbo,
You made an interesting argument and one in which I have actually thought about before myself. The leader of my Adult Bible Fellowship class, pointed out, when talking about Total Depravity, that people against this theology often interpret Total Depravity to mean that people don't often show signs of goodness. For example, I gave to the poor before I was a Christian....to charities. I did sometimes perform selfless acts of kindness for family and for complete strangers, however, this didn't mean I was leading a righteous existence either. Amongst some of these acts of kindness, I denied Christ as my savior, and practiced wickedness a lone and in secret as well as, sometimes, in public. It wasn't until I became a Christian that the complete sinful nature of myself was completely revealed. I remember when I was a practicing alcoholic how upset I would get when someone would either imply or tell me how "bad" I was behaving. I would say, but look how I've given to the poor or did you know that I helped out so and so with his life. I used those acts of kindness as a way to justify my overall bad behavior and to trick people into thinking that I wasn't really a drunkard. Yes, I did do some good as a drunkard, but I did much more bad than I ever did for good. So, what's that say about me? It says purely and simply that I was far from being righteous. It says that at the core of my being, I was a fallen and sinful man.
I like this particular scripture:
The implication is that we have all sinned. Period. We all fall short of the glory of God. Yes, we can do good at times, but we all have fallen short of the glory of God. I think this speaks of the condition of Total Depravity. It's not until we accept Jesus Christ as our savior that we can begin to act in way that glorifies God.
In Christ,
SOTK
Re: Re: What's the problem?
Turbo,
You made an interesting argument and one in which I have actually thought about before myself. The leader of my Adult Bible Fellowship class, pointed out, when talking about Total Depravity, that people against this theology often interpret Total Depravity to mean that people don't often show signs of goodness. For example, I gave to the poor before I was a Christian....to charities. I did sometimes perform selfless acts of kindness for family and for complete strangers, however, this didn't mean I was leading a righteous existence either. Amongst some of these acts of kindness, I denied Christ as my savior, and practiced wickedness a lone and in secret as well as, sometimes, in public. It wasn't until I became a Christian that the complete sinful nature of myself was completely revealed. I remember when I was a practicing alcoholic how upset I would get when someone would either imply or tell me how "bad" I was behaving. I would say, but look how I've given to the poor or did you know that I helped out so and so with his life. I used those acts of kindness as a way to justify my overall bad behavior and to trick people into thinking that I wasn't really a drunkard. Yes, I did do some good as a drunkard, but I did much more bad than I ever did for good. So, what's that say about me? It says purely and simply that I was far from being righteous. It says that at the core of my being, I was a fallen and sinful man.
I like this particular scripture:
The implication is that we have all sinned. Period. We all fall short of the glory of God. Yes, we can do good at times, but we all have fallen short of the glory of God. I think this speaks of the condition of Total Depravity. It's not until we accept Jesus Christ as our savior that we can begin to act in way that glorifies God.
In Christ,
SOTK
God was genuinely grieved and regretted making man when Adam fell. God only knows that which is logically possible to know. It is a contradiction or absurdity to know future free will contingencies (may or may not happen). God knew the Fall of Lucifer and Adam as possibilities from the time of creation when things were 'very good'. It became an actuality/certainty only after the choice was made. So, God correctly knew things as possible until they became certain/actual in reality. God would know that free will entails the possibility of rebellion. He had a contingency plan or redemption from the foundation of the world. This plan was not implemented until after the fact (Gen. 3). It was not decreed that Adam would sin (Mormons think it was God's perfect plan).
God does govern us by His moral law/will. I agree that it can be thwarted.
God also decrees somethings to come to pass. He ensures they will happen by His ability, not foreknowledge. After the Fall, He purposed to redeem man. The incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ were 'decreed' in a sense. They would now happen regardless of what man did or did not do. The Second Coming, future judgments, hell, etc. are also in this sovereign category.
Many other aspects are open and dependent on man's choices.
I would not make a huge doctrine on types of decrees, especially if it leads to the false ideas of God decreeing some people to be saved (elect) and others to be damned (non-elect) apart from any choices on their part. These ideas of so-called varieties of decrees becomes deductive, extra/contrabiblical.
Hilston and others like him have been trying to polish that turd for years.
They can "spin" it all they want and it never gets them anywhere because ultimately God either decrees EVERYTHING or He does not. Folks like Hilston want their cake and to eat it as well but the instant they make the claim (which they do) that God decrees EVERYTHING their argument about two different wills falls apart.
Let's assume God has two wills (which I agree with to some extent).... now lets further assume that God decrees EVERYTHING as Hilston and others like Him claim. The problem is that if God decrees EVERYTHING He must by necessity have decreed all the things in both wills! For if the other will of God is not decreed then God doesn't decree EVERYTHING does He? They can't have it both ways.
Their view leaves us with no other possibility than EVERYTHING is in accordance with God's decree and therefore rendering God's "other will" meaningless and only a "will" in name and name alone.
Hilston tries to sell the idea that God decrees EVERYTHING but doesn't cause everything. :kookoo: Yet when you ask him to explain the difference between cause and decree he is left stuttering.
Hilston is a great guy! I love him, he is funny, clever and obviously has a heart for God but he has been sold a lemon. And instead of trading it in for somthing better he would rather keep his lemon..... and worse yet.... Hilston has become a lemon salesman! :shocked:
What exactly was it that you agreed with "on the surface", Knight?
Was it the Father's will for Jesus to be murdered?
What you perceive as stuttering is actually a short-circuit in your own synapses. Is there a difference between planning and doing? That is the same difference between decree and cause.
That sounds like Dan Rather telling Bernard Goldberg "Bernie, we were friends yesterday; we're friends today, and we'll be friends tomorrow."I have a collection of quotes from Knight in which he has "praised" me for being "unchristian", "unfriendly", "self-absorbed", "a jerk". And now I add to that list a "lemon salesman" (in Biblical parlance, that's false teacher) that he loves and thinks is a great guy.
:kookoo:
Uh... yea.... if you say so. :chuckle:
And your point?