Hi Clete,
Thanks for your response…
Lee: Well, if it's a prediction and it's the truth, then it's sure! But I don't think the other meanings fit here and elsewhere…
Clete: This whole paragraph is utter stupidity and non responsive to the argument. No response is warranted.
Well, sir, how so? If an unconditional prediction is the truth, then it will certainly happen! How is that stupidity?
If the other meanings do indeed fit, then your job, should you choose to accept it(!), is to tell me what "You will not surely die" meant, how the serpent was erasing the underline here, if that's all "You will surely die" was. That will advance the discussion.
Lee: Then Jesus had every intention of Peter denying him? I don't think this will do, Clete. These "surely" predictions are not speaking of an intent, but simply of an event.
Clete: This ignores the point of the argument and responds to a point which was not made. Again, no response is warranted.
Well, here was your point: "Now, did you lie when you promised to take him to the park after dinner? NO! You had every intention of taking him…"
So my response is "Jesus' prediction was not about an intent, but about an event." When we try to make this refer to Jesus' intent, we get into difficulty, it seems. That was my point, now it is your turn to show me how Jesus' prediction indeed expressed an intent on his part. But no throwing dust in the air!
Lee: How else can the law be fulfilled, if men do not obey it? And can't a person lose rewards?
2 John 1:8 Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for…
Clete: What if every last single person still alive rebelled against God and refused to obey His law? What would happen? Would the law disappear? Would the law not be fulfilled?
The law would not disappear, but I do not see how it would be fulfilled, if everyone disobeyed it. Do please tell me how it would be fulfilled! I still don't see it.
Clete: Why, if God explicitly said that He would repent, as He did in Jer. 18, do you object when He does so?
Lee: Because sometime he doesn't! And he won't … Just because I sometimes change my mind, does that mean I can never make it up?
Clete: I've never said that God doesn't make up His mind, He does! But that wasn't what I asked was it?
I thought it was being stated that Jer. 18 means all God's statements of intent are conditional. Glad if you don't hold that! I agree, God can indeed make unconditional statements of intent, that will certainly not change, which still fits with Jer. 18.
Matthew 13:17 For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.
Lee: Well, what else can [Matthew 13:17] mean, if it doesn't mean "this is really a true statement"? This means "I mean what I say (at the moment)"? Only it can't mean that here, or else Jesus might be mistaken about the past, while saying "Truly"…
And again, the translators are all mistaken, when they use words and phrases such as "Truly," "Assuredly," "I tell you the truth," instead of "This is important," or some similar words.
Clete: Simply restates you previously stated and refuted position and is unresponsive to any point I've ever made … attempts to put words into my mouth which were never said.
Well, are the translators not wrong to use such phrases, then? They do indicate more than an underline. If you just skip my point and don't respond to it, I shall just bring it up again until you do! And as far as the first point, let's try "It is important that many prophets longed to see what you see." That doesn't fit either, I think. Your job here is to show me which of the meanings you have suggested do apply here! Please and thank you, that will save me from having to suggest them myself.
It doesn't make Jesus a liar! Who ever suggested that?
Clete mentioned that! "No! If this were so, then Jesus would be a liar!" (post 1877)
And Jesus is God, Lee! Of course He would be disappointed in Peter having denied Him!
If he predicted it?! Disappointment is when your expectations are not met.
In a sting operation where a person is forced or tricked into committing the crime against their own freely choice, it is called entrapment and it is fundamentally unjust!
Then sting operations are done with people who are unlikely to fall for it?
Lee: It does give some primary responsibility to God, if he sees an evil deed being done, and he could stop it, and he doesn't. I think you are the one avoiding the point, here!
Clete: If so, then why am I the one responding substantively to your arguments and you're the one who simply restates his position over and over again without ever addressing the arguments made against it?
But what is your response here, or previously, Clete, may I ask? At least you could give me a quick summary (or refer to post #such-and-such).
Clete: What view? I will not defend an undefined position that you think I must have.
The view that all (most? some? I'm not actually sure of the extent here) of God's ultimate purposes will certainly be accomplished, how would you demonstrate that, by using Scripture?
Lee: Lee: No, the point is that if God sets out to save someone, and doesn't save them, then that's a defeat, whether or not it was possible for him to fail.
Clete: In that case the Bible depicts many such defeats.
That was all I was asking, if you would hold to that.
On and on and on we could go, multiplying examples of where God wanted one thing and got the precise opposite so if you want to call God a loser, you go right ahead, but don't you dare accuse me of saying any such thing.
To be defeated is to lose, though, is it not?
Lee: Lee: I agree! Then does God know how he would act, in any completely described situation?
Clete: What situation could be "completely described"?
Just by mapping out all possible free-will decisions, we then have a tree representing all possible situations, completely described. That is the invincible chess master analogy, actually, it seems to me. So then does God not know how he would respond, if you take that pawn?
Lee: I do know you believe that! But here is an implication that I think counters this view, that a promise could be both clearly conditional and clearly unconditional.
Clete: Have you ever heard of the law of non-contradiction?
But how is my view contradictory? Parents do this all the time! "If you clean up your room, you can go to the circus." Knowing full well they will immediately clean up their room! Thus the promise was in a sense, both conditional and unconditional. I think your view entails a contradiction, which is why I'm so insistent in pointing this out.
Lee: Swearing implies allegiance though, does it not? Certainly more than just a physical motion.
Clete: NO! The Bible does not say that everyone will swear allegiance to the Lord…
But it does, doesn't it?
Isaiah 45:23 By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: 'To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.' (ESV and NLT; NAS and NAU have "allegiance" in italics, also indicating they think that is the meaning).
What about David himself? What if he had not repented of his evil deeds and turned his back on the Lord before he every bore a single child? What then? Do you think that God would have panicked or something? NO! He would have responded accordingly just as he did with King Saul… God is not a slave to His own words regardless of the evil actions of men. This the whole point of Jer. 18.
But then God didn't carry out a promise that he swore by himself he would fulfill (Ps. 89:35)! We just agreed that he would do that, though.
Jeremiah 44:26 But hear the word of the Lord, all Jews living in Egypt: 'I swear by my great name,' says the Lord, 'that no one from Judah living anywhere in Egypt will ever again invoke my name or swear, "As surely as the Sovereign Lord lives."
What if they repented? And then swore "The Lord lives" again?
Genesis 22:16-17 "I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore."
This will also possibly not happen?
Lee: How is Jer. 18 telling us whether God can predict people's responses, though? That is my question here.
Clete: What's the point in warning someone not to do something that you know for a fact that they are going to do?
Because Jer. 18 is not addressing a specific situation, Clete. "If you go on this business, trip, I shall visit aunt Margaret, if you do not go on it, I will work in the yard." This does not tell us if I can predict if you will go on this trip, though. My telling you this might even be part of ensuring that you decide one particular way!
Clete: Your rebellion [in heaven] is impossible because God cannot be unfaithful to Himself.
Lee: Yes, that's what I believe, and why can't that be true on earth, as well?
Clete: Umm, what?
Why can't God's faithfulness prevent people from falling away here on earth?
Clete: It means what it says but is a general statement and must be taken as such.
Lee: Then we have "The Lord perhaps foils the plans of the nations; he at times is able to thwart the purposes of the peoples. But the plans of the Lord stand somewhat firm forever, various purposes of his heart through all (generally speaking) generations."
Clete: I said that it means what it says. If you do this even one more time, our conversation will be over. You will respond to the points that I actually make not to your made up fantasy arguments.
This was your point, though, was it not? "This is a general statement," thus it doesn't mean "The Lord always foils the plans of the nations," thus it must be less than certain ("perhaps"), he may not be able to thwart every cross-purpose people have (isn't this the Open View?), his plans are then indeed not firm forever, not all the purposes of his heart will be carried out, certainly not through all generations. Where have I misrepresented your statement here?
Clete: The text doesn't say that God brought the animals to Adam to see if there was a suitable helper and so your point is moot. It sure enough does say though that He brought them to see what Adam would call them.
I agree that God was not looking to see if there was a suitable helper among the animals. How can this not apply to God seeing what Adam would call them, though? I realize this is not your interpretation! How is it that this is not a possible explanation, though? That is what was being addressed here, the point was being made (as I seem to recall) that no real explanation was ever given here, people would just say "Well God wasn't wondering!" and leave it at that.
Lee: I believe God was speaking from Adam's perspective, as in "What will you wear to the party?" knowing full well it will be the new Christmas outfit.
Clete: Unresponsive. What does it mean, Lee? What does it mean?
As if God asked "What will you call this one, Adam?" Knowing it would be designated a platypus, and thus speaking from his perspective, as in the next verse.
Lee: And this is not even about the present, it's about the past! "If they have done…" Doesn't God know all about the past?
Clete: God does not have to know something that He doesn't want to know.
Lee: Then how can God judge all sinful actions?
Clete: God is able to cause us to have perfect recall of every action we have ever engaged in … The point is that anything He doesn't know, He can find out and find out rather easily.
So then God doesn't know all about the past! This is no longer Open View, though, I think.
Lee: … they may well be able to choose in their motives, to some degree.
Clete: Well, there's some progress at least! You have moved, ever so slightly from your previously stated position that unbelievers cannot choose their actions. This proves to me that you see the logic that demands that if one does not choose his actions, he is not responsible for those actions and any reward or punishment of such actions would be unjust. There is a chink in your armor Lee!
I don't mind! My armor is for defense from other beings than people, and other problems than posts…
Blessings,
Lee
