User Tag List

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678
Results 106 to 113 of 113

Thread: Numbers 14:11- 20--the power of petition before God.

  1. #106
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    844
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 13 Times in 13 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by zippy2006 View Post
    But that's the thing: we aren't really trying to discern the essence of freedom. If we were I might agree with you (which is why I said "in this case").
    But, to talk about freedom in the specific case of moral agency, it seems necessary and right to understand it generally. It seems like you're teaching a person what an oak is without first telling them what a tree is.

    What we are trying to discern is how God's foreknowledge affects moral agency. If we take your route, we will have a positive definition of freedom--perhaps "freedom to do the good" or some variation--but we will not have addressed the original dilemma regarding foreknowledge and moral agency.
    But, if we don't define our terms properly, we'll not reach the right conclusion. Working from the particulars is troublesome, especially in this case.

    My post uses a definition of freedom that is intrinsically connected to moral agency. The dilemma for the Open Theist does not consist in the definition of freedom, but rather in the fact that the human being must be an authentic moral agent--someone who can freely choose either the good or the bad. Make sense?
    Sure it make sense. That said, the issue of human freedom is intrinsically linked to the issue of divine freedom, as Genesis 1:26-28 is true. Being made in His image has to have some bearing on the issue of freedom, does it not?

    Else I would say that when we say God is free we mean basically what I already said, namely that he can choose either A or B and is not constrained or determined. That is pretty much the colloquial definition of freedom. These two usages evidence different definitions:

    1. I am free; I can eat an apple or a banana for lunch.
    2. I am free; I consistently choose what is good and reject what is evil.

    1 provides ground for moral agency, 2 does not.
    Again, we should probably deal with the universal before entering in on a particular, as the former provides a framework for the latter.

  2. #107
    Does Whatever A Light-House Can Lighthouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Anderson, IN
    Posts
    20,725
    Thanks
    1,182
    Thanked 13,385 Times in 10,249 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147886
    Quote Originally Posted by Angel4Truth View Post
    You make choices everyday, God sees them and works accordingly.
    And?

    So? It was prophesied in the Old testament long before it happened.
    Scripture?

    I already quoted where it specifically says that Jesus knew it all from the beginning of His ministry also, so that explanation doesn't work.
    You did? Show me.

    Its wrong to me that you cannot possibly choose something just because its known when your hand wasn't forced. I also explained imo that its a past event where God is concerned, so no one could change the choice because its a past action.
    Can you choose otherwise? That is the question.

    You need to stop using words accusing of lies, telling people to stop something and pretending they are dishonest because they dont believe what you do. Ive said nothing dishonest at all.


    You keep asking us how God has chosen for us if He knew our choices before we made them when none of us have claimed He did; and you have admitted that we have not made the claim. So why do you keep asking? And how is that not disingenuous?

    I closed it because of poor debate tactics and personal attacks and i am sad to see you are doing it now too.
    How am I making personal attacks?

    One cannot declare what one doesn't know, unless you would like to state that we have no free will, because in that explanation, you are trying to both give us free will and have God causing what we do.
    He knows His plans, which is the only thing the passage states. It does not state that He knows anything else that will happen, apart from His plans.

    And you know it is my argument that we have freedom of will and that God does not make us do anything, so what's with the disingenuous questions?

    That doesnt work and is another reason i reject open theism.
    What doesn't work? The open view does not state that God makes us do anything. He is not a puppet master; we are not robots.

    You chose because He sees it as a past event. Did you choose to eat yesterday? Can you go back and change that choice now? No, does that mean you lack free will? no.


    Yesterday is fixed. I cannot now choose otherwise. I do not have the freedom of will to do anything other than what I have already done.

    The future is not fixed, therefore I can choose between all of the options available to me. However, if God knows for certain what I will do then I cannot do anything other than what He knows I will do. If the future is certainly knowable then it is fixed and thus we have no choice, no freedom of will.

    And He sees your choice as a past event, already done, which is why you cannot change it now anymore than you can change what you did yesterday now and it doesn't affect your free will at all and thats my point.
    And your point is faulty; built on sand.

    Our future isnt written for US, where did i say otherwise? He already knows what it is though, its we who do not, and if you don't get what ive said still, then i have no clue how to explain it anymore, which is why i keep saying i am done, because you are talking past me instead of addressing what i am saying.
    If He knows it then it is written; it is fixed. Even if we do not know it it is still written for us, because it is written for God and His perspective is the only one that matters and our perspective, if it is different than His, is an illusion.

    And I know exactly what your argument is because I used to make the same argument.

    And i am finished on this topic with you at the end of this post, because i am not debating this to be mocked and falsely accused, i thought this forum here was for friendly discussion and learning from one another.
    How have I mocked you? In what way have I falsely accused you?

    Can you show that my reasoning regarding your argument is in error?

    Oh, you said you're going to stop responding... again.

    If you have answered, i missed it or felt your answer did not address what i asked, i am no liar.
    You apparently missed it.

    link?

    link to YOUR answer about it please.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
    When did Jesus know Judas would betray Him? Before, or after Judas had decided to do so?
    My answer is in my question, because the answer is that He did not make any statement regarding it until after Judas had gone to the chief priests.

    You didnt answer it, someone else did AFTER i complained about it not being adressed, thanks. Their answer however doesn't adress why Peter did it 3 times and in that answer given (not by you) they mixed lack of free will , with free will which makes it a non answer.
    1. I answered after they did.
    2. Explain how there is a mixture of the two concepts in their answer.

    I expect I know what your answer is; you think they're saying God made those three people ask Peter, don't you?


    Well, here's a question for you: has God ever prompted you with something? An idea, or maybe a question? Or maybe simply to pray for someone, or about something? Did that negate your freedom of will? Of course not! So what's your objection?


    Who would stay in it when its a point of contention instead of discussion?
    To seek the truth, to dig it out; to search out the matter.

    You don't agree, fine - you need to leave it at that since you do not seem to understand my points, no one can change a past event, and God sees your actions and choices as a past event and plans accordingly. That retains our will.
    I understand your points just fine; I used to make the same argument. I believed exactly as you do when I joined TOL. Well, I had started questioning a few things on the topic, but I was still Arminian and I was raised as such from the age of three. I joined TOL at 23, so 20 years of believing as you do on this subject. One day I just happened to realize that it makes no logical sense and that the Bible never states it to be the case.

    We are not free to do other than what we have done in the past. If God knows what we will do in the future, with certainty, then we are not free to do other than what He knows we will. If we are not free to do otherwise how is our will free?

    One cannot change the past, its not a matter of being unable to make a choice if God says you will do x, its a matter of Him having already seen what you chose to do.
    No, it is a matter of being able to do otherwise. That's the whole point. If we cannot do otherwise, which we cannot if it is knowable beforehand, then we are not free.

    If God has seen it then it exists, and if it exists before we do it then we have already done it, and therefore we are not free to do otherwise. And if we are not free to do otherwise then we are not free.

    And this also presents us with the issue that if it exists to be seen then it exists at all times, i.e. all of time is simultaneous and on repeat; it keeps happening, over and over and over and over and over...

    I do not agree with your intepretation, I do not ignore clear verses that show He has foreknowledge like it says specifically. I am done now. Goodnight.
    Of course He has an amount of foreknowledge, especially regarding what He will do. But there are no clear verses stating He has exhaustive foreknowledge, and certainly not definitive foreknowledge for all things.

    It is not that you are not ignoring clear verses, it is that you are reading into verses that are not as clear as you think they are, at least not in the direction you believe.


  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lighthouse For Your Post:

    LoneStar (April 23rd, 2016),Tambora (April 23rd, 2016)

  4. #108
    Over 500 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    505
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1490
    deleted

  5. #109
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    238
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by Tambora View Post
    God cannot "plan accordingly".
    That's the problem with a settled history of all time.
    Not only does it limit what man can do, it also limits what God can do.

    In other words, God cannot see that you will make a bad choice and then plan accordingly, because, as you say, all of history is a past event in the settled view.
    If it is all a past event, then God cannot "plan" anything.

    Or, to put it another way ......

    God does not sit down and watch a movie of all the choices man makes, and then try to make plans to remedy the bad choices.
    Why?
    Because the movie He just watched is settled, and there cannot be any plan to change it or altar it in any way.

    Long story short ...... any plans that God makes would have to be before He watched the movie to see what man would do, because His plans must already be in the movie (since the movie is the entire history). Once the movie starts, there is no changing it.
    And to do that, He would have to plan ahead, for any and all situations that might possibly arise, before He sees the movie.

    So, no, God cannot see the movie and then "plan accordingly". At least, not according to the settled view.

    Good post sis.

    Also if God looks backwards why did He not know for sure Abe would be willing sacrifice Isaac?

    As a matter of fact why does He test us at all if He already know whether we will pass or fail?

  6. #110
    Over 500 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    505
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1490
    Quote Originally Posted by Pneuma View Post
    Good post sis.

    Also if God looks backwards why did He not know for sure Abe would be willing sacrifice Isaac?

    As a matter of fact why does He test us at all if He already know whether we will pass or fail?
    Yes, it is a good post. If Angel4Truth would read it, things would begin to make sense for her...I think.

  7. #111
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    970
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 24 Times in 24 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Son of Jack View Post
    But, to talk about freedom in the specific case of moral agency, it seems necessary and right to understand it generally. It seems like you're teaching a person what an oak is without first telling them what a tree is.



    But, if we don't define our terms properly, we'll not reach the right conclusion. Working from the particulars is troublesome, especially in this case.



    Sure it make sense. That said, the issue of human freedom is intrinsically linked to the issue of divine freedom, as Genesis 1:26-28 is true. Being made in His image has to have some bearing on the issue of freedom, does it not?



    Again, we should probably deal with the universal before entering in on a particular, as the former provides a framework for the latter.
    I'll just cut to the chase. Again, my definition of freedom is, "Being able to choose; if you are able to choose A or B then you are free."

    That is what I think freedom is. Feel free to critique it, feel free to give an alternative definition.

    And in tandem, my post here has to do with moral agency. The ability to choose is necessary for moral agency. I think that ability to choose is called freedom. If you think freedom is something else, we can call the ability to choose "$$$." Substitute every instance of "freedom" for "$$$" in that post if you like, it makes no difference to me what we call it; it will still be required for moral agency and it is still the central concept.

  8. #112
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    844
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 13 Times in 13 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    I'm just going to bow out. My point seems to be irrelevant and not moving the discussion along in a helpful way.

  9. #113
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    970
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 24 Times in 24 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Son of Jack View Post
    I'm just going to bow out. My point seems to be irrelevant and not moving the discussion along in a helpful way.
    I think it is a common mistake, especially among those battling against freedom as an end in itself. See ST I-VI, Q 83, A 2.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us