ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[godrulz]

If you keep bringing this up, you will need to prove your post by typing in and laying side by side the exact copy plagerized. It has to be literally and virtually the same wording to be a plagerism. I seriously doubt anything other than a few coincidal remarks.

I actually did this on the thread. The issue is AMR, not you. Something is fishy and he is ignoring it, while attacking others for lesser issues. This is why I think he is arrogant at times. It is impossible that it is a coincidence or minor.

 

[Nang]

In John 6:45 it says, "It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me." Then He said in verse 47, "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in me has everlasting life."

In Christ,
Bob Hill

So . . . ?

That does not explain specifically who Christ referred to.

Does Christ refer to all men universally, everywhere, or to another and exclusive set of people?

Who exactly has "heard and learned from the Father?"

(These things need to be clearly spelled out for the unbelieving contrarians in our midst, you know.)

Nang

 

[lee_merrill]

As far as refutation, I'm more than willing to look at any post(s) which you believe have achieved this and use it as a starting point.

Indeed--how is it that God can know that a remnant will be saved, and only a remnant--and then afterwards, "all Israel"?

Where is a reply to this from you, Godrulz, or some other Open Theist, with a clear answer from Open Theism on this point?

How is it not lying to say "Truly, truly," knowing it might not be true? and saying "God doesn't lie" doesn't answer this question...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

How does God know that He will build His church and the gates of hell will not prevail?

Based on His perfect past and present knowledge and infinite intelligence, He has a project for His people (Israel and Church) and the ability and perseverance to do what it takes to have a remnant. The reality is predictable from the past that only some believe while many do not believe.

I also pointed out that saved can mean delivered and does not necessarily refer to individual salvation. If it specified that 1,490,101 only will be saved, then we would have to revisit TULIP. A general statement can be true without EDF due to God's patient interaction and intervention to bring things about in the conext of free will.

Your underestimate His greatness and creativity and assume He must be omnicausal in order to do this. This is simply not the evidence since He rules providentially and does not always get His way immediatly in every life (by His sovereign choice; love relationship/freedom vs determinism; warfare vs blueprint).

This is not the full answer, but a bone. You will not like any answer that does not agree with you. It takes more than a post or two to establish OT principles as more biblical than traditional views.

 

[Nang]

How does God know that He will build His church and the gates of hell will not prevail?

Based on His perfect past and present knowledge and infinite intelligence, He has a project for His people (Israel and Church) and the ability and perseverance to do what it takes to have a remnant. The reality is predictable from the past that only some believe while many do not believe.

I also pointed out that saved can mean delivered and does not necessarily refer to individual salvation. If it specified that 1,490,101 only will be saved, then we would have to revisit TULIP. A general statement can be true without EDF due to God's patient interaction and intervention to bring things about in the conext of free will.

Your underestimate His greatness and creativity and assume He must be omnicausal in order to do this. This is simply not the evidence since He rules providentially and does not always get His way immediatly in every life (by His sovereign choice; love relationship/freedom vs determinism; warfare vs blueprint).

This is not the full answer, but a bone. You will not like any answer that does not agree with you. It takes more than a post or two to establish OT principles as more biblical than traditional views.

I think you are trying to say something, but darned if I can figure out what it is . . .


:dizzy:

Nang

 

[godrulz]

I think you are trying to say something, but darn if I can figure out what it is . . .


:dizzy:

Nang

Sorry. I am sick and tired and have to work 14 hours on an ambulance.

I am trying to get people to think outside the box, not spoon feed them pat, simplistic answers to complex issues.

How R U doing?

Sorry for any disrespect in the past. We need to dialogue with virtues of love, respect, and understanding.

 

[Nang]

Sorry for any disrespect in the past. We need to dialogue with virtues of love, respect, and understanding.

O.K.

I am sick and tired and have to work 14 hours on an ambulance.

You should not post when you are tired. I have tried doing so and I get banned for it.

Nang

 

[patman]

But I'm talking about when God says the outcome is sure.


Conditions for speaking in the Lord's name, yes, but not conditions in every case on what the Lord says.


Well, no, you can talk about past acts and their conditions. The past being known doesn't mean there were no conditions, and the future being known need not imply that there are no conditions, either.

Deuteronomy 18:21-22 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken.

But the Open View says there are words that fail, wasn't someone here just recently saying that the proclamation, "Nineveh will be overthrown" failed? They were not saying that a condition was met that changed the outcome, but that the statement was wrong.

Lee, the message was "In 40 Days Nineveh will be destroyed." Yet scripture tells us this didn't happen. Why do you complain to me that I stand by this truth? What God said would happen was based on Nineveh's continuing sin. However, they repented so it didn't happen.

The O.V. begs you to see why. If the future were settled in all aspects, God would have known with certainty that they would repent and they wouldn't be destroyed in 40 days. Yet he said they would be destroyed in 40 days.

The S.V. equalizes past, present and future events as ever present to God because he is outside of time. This means the future and the past are both settled. Yet the S.V. says that from our perspective, only the past is settled. We cannot go back and change the past.

If yesterday I watched the news, nothing I can do today will change that. Forever and ever that is what happened, I watched the news. How can I change that? I can't, it is settled.

Now according to the SV, the future is just like that to God. The day before yesterday, it was known to him that I would watch the news. The future was settled. Just like the past is now settled to us. According to the SV, who agrees that God cannot lie, It would be impossible for him to say, "Patman will watch cartoons instead of the news."

Why, because the settled past to us was at one point the settled future, and it was going to happen, and God was going to foresee it according to the S.V.

How is it possible that conditions exist according to the S.V.? There are none. Nothing would change the outcome of my TV viewing experience because the future/past/present is forever and ever settled. How can God ever say anything else would happen besides what did happen?

The same can be asked of Nineveh... If the future is settled, God forever and ever saw Nineveh lasting much longer than 40 days past Jonah's visit. How can he ever say anything besides what happened, and not lie?

One last thing..

You keep asking about "truly truly" verses. What about "perhaps" verses?

Jeremiah 26:3
Perhaps everyone will listen and turn from his evil way, that I may relent concerning the calamity which I purpose to bring on them because of the evil of their doings.’

Maybe it is as O.V. says, that there are parts of the future that are known to God, and parts that are in question....

 

[patman]

Yes, I disagree completely, but I understand. When Jesus tells Peter "You will deny me three times, it is known according to my definition."

Lon, to this I will answer the same way I answered Lee...

What about "perhaps" verses?

Jeremiah 26:3
Perhaps everyone will listen and turn from his evil way, that I may relent concerning the calamity which I purpose to bring on them because of the evil of their doings.’

Maybe it is as O.V. says, that there are parts of the future that are known to God, and parts that are in question....

This verse also addresses the knowledge question... God knows what he knows by determination, calculation, witnessing and understanding. Yet as the O.V. says, there are times his future knowledge is uncertain, and he cannot know what "will" happen, so he has to suppose what "perhaps will happen."

Your equations are interesting, but as you know we use variables in math to help us figure out unknown answers. If we want to find the area of a circle, we use an equation full of unknown variables. We fill in the variables we do know to get the unknown answer.

∏ * r^2 = A

If we have a million circles and want to know their area, we can use this equation to find all of them. If a circle is not yet drawn yet, we cannot know it's area until we know it's radius. The area depends on the radius.

If we were to watch a circle start, we would need a certain amount of the circle to be drawn before we could tell what the radius would be. Until then, r and A are unknown. But pi is known. Forever and ever it is known. You want Pi? You can have pi! hehe

So time is like this, parts of the equation are known, and others are not until they exist. But the second enough information is available, don't doubt for a second that God can know the future area of a still undrawn circle in an instant.

 

[RobE]

Good. Now we're down to the heart of the matter. Let's proceed from this exquisite point and forget the earlier posts.

On synergism....

Synergism is admitted, and certainly cannot be denied. It is just a matter of what exactly is meant by it. As I said, I think both the monergistic and synergistic labels fail to capture the whole Catholic view. However, I think that your view that synergism exists within monergism is probably on the right track. By it I take it to mean that the grace of God supports and accompanies the entire supernatural act of man in such away that what is done by man is the product of God's grace (both the will to do good and the act itself per the above) and his resistance would be solely of his own doing.

This is exactly what I'm saying. Monergistically, God provides a method for a cooperative effort expressed willfully, mentally, and physically. I place these in order of precedence. Willfully precedes mentally which precedes physically. The action of 'good works' proves the goodness of the mind and will respectively. I point this out because it shows that, as St. Thomas states, the will takes precedence over the mind.

(e) But just as the intellect needed a new and special light in order to assent to the supernatural truths of faith, so also the will needs a special grace from God in order that it may tend to that supernatural good which is eternal life. The light of faith, then, illumines the understanding, though the truth still remains obscure, since it is beyond the intellect's grasp; but supernatural grace moves the will, which, having now a supernatural good put before it, moves the intellect to assent to what it does not understand. Hence it is that faith is described as "bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5).

(c) Again, it is evident that this "light of faith" is a supernatural gift and is not the necessary outcome of assent to the motives of credibility. No amount of study will win it, no intellectual conviction as to the credibility of revealed religion nor even of the claims of the Church to be our infallible guide in matters of faith, will produce this light in a man's mind. It is the free gift of God. Hence the Vatican Council (III, iii teaches that "faith is a supernatural virtue by which we with the inspiration and assistance of God's grace, believe those things to be true which He has revealed". The same decree goes on to say that "although the assent of faith is in no sense blind, yet no one can assent to the Gospel teaching in the way necessary for salvation without the illumination of the Holy Spirit, Who bestows on all a sweetness in believing and consenting to the truth". Thus, neither as regards the truth believed nor as regards the motives for believing, nor as regards the subjective principle by which we believe -- viz. the infused light -- can faith be considered blind.New Advent​

John 12:46 I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.​

Rather, our ability to cooperate as well as our cooperation itself comes from the grace of God and not out of our own power. And it is in this last point where I think Molinism is problematic.

The problem I see with this view is that you seem to define grace as a set circumstances and not as something supernatural which is caused by God that enlightens and excites the soul of man and that is actually infused into it. Neither of the two monergistic elements that you have here is God as the cause of grace. The role of God here seems to be that he just set up a stage where he determined the outcome and then sort of let it run on it's own. What I stated above about synergism and monergism has in mind God as the cause of supernatural grace and man's ability to cooperate with said grace after being enlightened by God. Thus, I believe that what I said in my previous post, that the power of grace is diluted and that the movement of creatures is autonomous in this view (and here I am referring to not just that God determined how the creature would move but that no movement can take place apart from God as it's first cause) still holds. I also think this view is less intimate as far as our relationship with God goes as it seems to gravitate (at least slightly) towards deism.

I should ask if acting outside of ones own nature is acting 'supernaturally'?

Where you see a problem within Molinism, I see a solution. We both agree that man is powerless without the grace of God. Monergistically(the first Cause), God has given man the ability to rationally act and provided the stimuli to provoke a response from this autonomous ability through revelation.

Luke 10:21 At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.
John 12:38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet: "Lord, who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"
1 Corinthians 2:10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.​

As far as the idea of deism is concerned. Molinism proclaims that God when actualizing a possible world did so with the intent of interacting with His creation. The world is left to its own would ultimately degenerate and not produce the 'good fruit' which God had intended.

I agree that God is free in distributing grace to whomever he wills. However, I notice that you do not distinguish between sufficient and efficacious grace here. Given that you seem to define grace as a set of circumstances (per the above) I would ask in what sense do you conceive the salutary act to be completely free and that the grace is not "coercive". If by this you mean that God provides sufficient grace and that man by his own power makes this grace efficacious with his consent without any further help from God, then this is indeed the Molinist position.

I would claim that Molinism does not state, "that man by his own power makes this grace effecacious with his consent without any further help from God". In contrast, Molinism states that only with God's help does sufficient grace become effecacious. Synergism, or the cooperative act if you prefer, still requires two participants. Monergistically God has provided all the elements including the ability to believe, the object of belief, the revelation of the object, etc..... Man must simply ultimately realize that he is unable to save himself and call upon and believe in the salvific vision. This 'light' of truth is provided to ALL men through natural means(the law) and through supernatural means(the law placed upon the hearts and mind of men). The law itself convicts the one supernatural ability which is not present in any other part of creation. Namely the knowledge of good and evil which man was not given, but indeed reached out and took for himself in rebellion. This happened according to the predesigned purpose for God to bring about good where man might become spiritual and surpass his natural state. Spirit begets spirit; whereas, flesh begets flesh.

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."​

Moral accountability. As far as the distribution of sufficient grace, my claim is that it is given to ALL men in the form of man's ability to rationally distinguish between good and evil and the law. Effecacious grace(or supernatural revelation), on the other hand, is given to those who don't reject the natural(or sufficient) grace. Notice my claim is that man is rewarded by greater gifts once he lays aside his own will in deference of God's will to do good in him. Between us this is possible through baptism's elimination of original sin as propounded in the law. All things flow from the First Cause monergistically, but not coercively. God allows rebellion for the greater purpose of mankind as a whole despite the evil which might befall its individual members..

The Thomistic view says that God provides sufficient grace to man and that if not resisted man receives by God's mercy through sufficient grace the efficacious grace from God which infallibly leads him freely (without doing injury to free will) to the performance of the salutary act. While I admit that there is an element of mystery of the relationship between grace and freedom which is difficult to explain and that forces us to hold certain truths in tension, I find the Thomistic view of grace to be more consistent with Scripture and the overall teachings of The Church than the Molinist conception. I'll try and explain why.

I find the mystery explained within Molinism. Molinists are able to accept all the truths which the Thomists adhere to and further define how these truths do not lessen God's monergistic grace or man's freedom provided by God monergisitically. If you view my statement above and your understanding of Thomism, you should see where they are compatible and even inclusive of each other.

The Council of Orange held in 529 A.D. to address the Pelagian heresy erected some canons that The Church still holds as dogmatic today. They made a strong emphasis on the necessity of grace for the performance of any supernatural good. Here are some of them:

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet.

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit,...

CANON 6. If anyone [...] does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought...

CANON 9. Concerning the succor of God. It is a mark of divine favor when we are of a right purpose and keep our feet from hypocrisy and unrighteousness; for as often as we do good, God is at work in us and with us, in order that we may do so.​

​

It's good that you mentioned the Pelagians since Augustine spent much of his time arguing against them. The point being that in an argument often the position is exagerrated to make a point. Augustine admitted this was true in his book of retractions. You should also note where the Canon says "we may do so", "to do things as we ought", and all other statements within the Canon which shows that synergistic action is necessary.

Note the emphasis on the absolute necessity of grace in order for fallen man to will and dol any supernatural good. From the above canons some key teachings of The Church follow (adapted from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott, pp. 226-227 and 229):

1) "There is a supernatural intervention of God in the soul which precedes the free act of the will."
2) "There is a supernatural influence of God in the soul which coincides in time with the free act of will."
3) "For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God is absolutely necessary."
​

So, not only does God provides grace before our act as to inspire us to will to do good (1) but he also provides another grace for the performance of the good that we will to do (2). And this is not just for one salutary act, such as having faith, but for every salutary act (3). So, God doesn't just provides us with grace and then awaits our response or gives us grace so that we may by our own powers make use of it. Rather, our response and cooperation with grace is itself effected by the grace of God which carries our will freely to the performance of the salutary act. This is why the Scripture affirms: "without me you can do nothing" (John 15:5) and "Not that we are sufficient to think any thing of ourselves, as of ourselves: but our sufficiency is from God." (2 Corinthians 3:5). We need the grace of God both to will and to accomplish (Philippians 2:13).

Agreed. The question becomes how is this supernatural intervention enacted. Is its impulse ever present or must it constantly be given. I would claim that God's gift once given is ever present.

Another teaching of The Church that must be taken into consideration is:

"Fallen man cannot redeem himself". Among other things what this means is that in the state of fallen nature man can do only that which is proportionate to his nature and a salutary act, being supernatural in nature, exceeds the capacity of mans fallen nature and for its performance man needs a special help from God, as St. Thomas maintains (ST IIa q.109 a.2).​

This help from God is not just something that helps us do more or less better as if it were only a help from him that we can use by ourselves to act (See: Canons II & III, Session VI of Trent), rather, as the canons of Orange above express, our very act is the product of this help from God.

I agree with this. However, it doesn't imply that man is not able to move towards God, seek God, or humble ourselves before God. It simply states the fact that we are unable to save ourselves independently. Synergism requires that we participate though.

Thus, from this it follows that efficacious grace is efficacious in itself and not due to our consent, as is the contention of Molinism. Because our consent itself is effected by the power of grace and it being of a supernatural nature exceeds the power of fallen nature and must have a supernatural cause.

Likewise, if grace were made efficacious by our consent, we would have some good which did not come from God that would distinguish ourselves and by which we could boast, contrary to the affirmations of Scripture: "For who distinguisheth thee? Or what hast thou that thou hast not received? And if thou hast received, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" (1 Corinthians 4:7) and "Every best gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights" (James 1:17).

Recognition and acceptance of grace doesn't save us. Christ does. His only condition is that we recognize and accept as the Father draws us to Him(synergism). John 6:44

Under this view, a man would be better than the other by his own power without receiving any further help from God, contrary to the principle of predilection laid down by St. Thomas: "For since God's love is the cause of goodness in things...no one thing would be better than another, if God did not will greater good for one than for another." (ST I q.20 a.3). Which as the above verses demonstrate (and others such as John 6:44, 1Corinthians 15:10, John 3:27) is a Scriptural principle.

I disagree. One man isn't better than another through this view. One man is simply more fortunate that his position within creation has afforded him a easier road than another. All have a fair chance in they are able to freely decide to cooperate with Him, but some have a better starting point than another in the race. Fear and trembling doesn't purport a vastly superior position.

Rob

 

[RobE]

In John 6:45 it says, "It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me." Then He said in verse 47, "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in me has everlasting life."

In Christ,
Bob Hill

Hi Bob,

Where have you been?

John 17:12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.​

What's your interpretation of this verse?

Muz claims John 6:44 answers it in the form of positive reprobation. He claims that Judas was not drawn by God purposefully. My position is that Gid simply foreknew what Judas would do. Is there an alternative to one of these positions?

1. God coerced Judas' acts
2. God foreknew Judas' acts

Obviously the second one eliminates the possiblity of incompatibalism. That's why Muz chose the first. Clete's response was that God didn't know anything about Judas whatsoever which is in contradiction to the scripture itself.

You've been discussing open theism for twenty years and I am very interested in your opinion.

Thanks,
Rob Mauldin

 

[RobE]

This verse also addresses the knowledge question... God knows what he knows by determination, calculation, witnessing and understanding. Yet as the O.V. says, there are times his future knowledge is uncertain, and he cannot know what "will" happen, so he has to suppose what "perhaps will happen."

Then the o.v. would have to provide a logical reason that God is able to know free acts in one instance and not able in another. Free acts are free acts. Either knowledge is compatible with them or it isn't. Step up to the plate.

 

[godrulz]

Then the o.v. would have to provide a logical reason that God is able to know free acts in one instance and not able in another. Free acts are free acts. Either knowledge is compatible with them or it isn't. Step up to the plate.

There is a difference between remote EDF and proximal probabilistic knowledge (your Judas e.g.). At the time of these statements (not in eternity past before existence), Judas had already gone down the path to destruction with no turning back.

God does not coerce in individual destiny issues, but he can further judicially harden an already hard heart (cf. Pharoah).

Any specific exception, like the naming of Cyrus (which did involve God's exceptional influence), cannot be extrapolated as proof of EDF. Likewise, just because God knows and brings some things to pass by His ability (Isaiah 46 and 48) does not mean He brings and knows all things to pass in every moral and mundane detail for countless ages (two motifs, right?).

 

[RobE]

There is a difference between remote EDF and proximal probabilistic knowledge (your Judas e.g.). At the time of these statements (not in eternity past before existence), Judas had already gone down the path to destruction with no turning back.

God does not coerce in individual destiny issues, but he can further judicially harden an already hard heart (cf. Pharoah).

Any specific exception, like the naming of Cyrus (which did involve God's exceptional influence), cannot be extrapolated as proof of EDF. Likewise, just because God knows and brings some things to pass by His ability (Isaiah 46 and 48) does not mean He brings and knows all things to pass in every moral and mundane detail for countless ages (two motifs, right?).

John 17:12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one (probably*)doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.​

*per Godrulz

Doesn't make sense. Christ didn't say that Judas was probably doomed to destruction. Knowing that Judas' was indeed 'doomed to destruction' required foreknowing that Judas would remain unrepentent, wouldn't it?

How, according to those who believe foreknowledge and free will are incompatible, could this be established unless God actively participated in Judas' reprobation. An act such as hardening Judas heart would be positive reprobation in this instance.

The act of hardening Pharoah's heart didn't necessarily establish Pharoah's reprobation. It just coerced Pharoah to excercise his free will in a specific manner which was not in relation to predestining Pharoah to hell. No, Judas is entirely a different matter. Does the God of open theism 'harden' one's heart and then judge him to be deserving of eternal punishment for the results of that 'hardening'?

 

[Nang]

As far as the distribution of sufficient grace, my claim is that it is given to ALL men in the form of man's ability to rationally distinguish between good and evil and the law.

This is not grace. This is the moral conscience built in to all men, that leaves all without excuse for suppressing the truths of God that can be seen as well as innately known.

Effecacious grace(or supernatural revelation), on the other hand, is given to those who don't reject the natural(or sufficient) grace.

Where in Scripture is this taught? All men reject the natural witness of God. Not all men are given efficacious belief to repent from that unbelief and exhibit saving faith. There is no Scripture that says some men believe God according to natural witness or natural law.

Besides, this would make the receiving of grace to be a reward. And once you make grace a reward of any kind for any reason, it is no longer grace, but a human action, response, and WORK.

Notice my claim is that man is rewarded by greater gifts once he lays aside his own will in deference of God's will to do good in him.

This is not describing grace at all. You are teaching a "works-righteousness." A conditional salvation, dependent upon man doing something to help himself. This is not monergistic grace, but an attempt to sell a synergistic means of salvation.

You effectively eliminate salvation by the grace of God, with such beliefs.

Nang

 

[Evoken]

Judas had already gone down the path to destruction with no turning back.

That cannot be if he had libertarian free will.


Evo

 

[patman]

Then the o.v. would have to provide a logical reason that God is able to know free acts in one instance and not able in another. Free acts are free acts. Either knowledge is compatible with them or it isn't. Step up to the plate.

I liked by pi-R-squared analogy. Some freewill agents draw their circles faster than others, or have a tendency to draw the same size circles every time.

In other words, God can know the person and circumstances enough to know what would happen, like he did with Peter. Other times there are things about people that are unknown that leave the future unknown, such as the passage I gave Lon and Lee where God said "perhaps."

Let's look at Job. Job had never been poor and was very righteous. Was Job's righteousness a result of his wealth or was it his character? God couldn't tell when Satan pointed it out, so he let Satan test him.

These unknowns are the reason God tests us, to see if we really love him.

Deuteronomy 13:1-3
1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.

Why does God test? To find out if we love him. My question to the SV is why test when he knows the future so perfectly? You guys have to pretend the words "to find out" didn't exist.

 

[Yorzhik]

Numbers 23:19-20Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? I have received a command to bless; he has blessed, and I cannot change it.

So this blessing is not optional, otherwise this question makes no sense here, to be asking such a question where the answer is "yes, God may indeed possibly change his mind." So then in such statements, God does not speak and then not act, nor promise and not fulfill.

So when God says He promises to change his mind under certain conditions, wouldn't you expect that God would not change His mind if those conditions are not met?

You aren't addressing the root of the problem you have with Jer. 18. Your eyes glaze over and you repeat your proof passage mantra. You still have to deal with God promising to break His promises under certain conditions.

No, these are not magic words that make a statement certain. The point is that saying "this is certain" (it doesn't have to be the words "truly truly") about a point known to be uncertain is lying.

I'm certain the Pats are going to be undefeated this season...

So how about now? Am I lying?

It isn't a lie to make an estimate or prediction, as long as you don't say it's sure, knowing it's not.

It's a sure thing. I don't think you've seen New England play!

... are humans not capable of determining to will their palms the opposite of whatever God says?

What has happened to the omnicompetent God?

The omnicompetent God is smart enough to realize the situation is logically absurd. Therefore He couldn't do it any more than He could make a rock so big He couldn't lift it.

So what happened to a God that knows the future exhaustively? Are humans not capable of determining to will their palms the opposite of whatever God says?

lee_merrill continues:

And you ignored my point about Peter.

It was a non sequitur. But I'll answer it anyway. The situation with Peter is similar, but there are a number of factors that make it impossible to tell what Peter's will was at the time of denial. What we will to do can change from moment to moment. Removing those factors, we can test the existence of will. You'd rather not remove the extenuating factors because then your pride would be hurt. As a brother in Christ, please pray that God would help you overcome your pride.

I don't see a logical contradiction in bringing a person's hands to rest palms down on a table.

You are looking in the wrong place. What God says can affect how you will put your palms. Therefore, what God says cannot accurately predict how you will put your palms... which, if that same God knows the future exhaustively, is a logical contradiction.

Would you be willing to admit that God (according to the SV) can do the logically contradictory?

No, God cannot make true be false, or false be true.

Wow... no beating around the bush there! So now you have a choice; Either man does not have will, or God does not know the future exhaustively. If you have to get rid of a logical contradiction, you have to get rid of one side of the contradiction or the other.

So events in the future are not inherently unknowable.

Correct. If God removed all other agents' wills except His own, all events in the future would be known by God exhaustively.

... all events that depend on the will of man are uncertain to greater or lesser degrees.

Then how can God know that only a remnant will be saved, and then all Israel?

Just because this is a prophecy that hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it is different than prophecies in the past.

God's estimate that only a remnant will be saved is the same as God's estimate that Israel would fall away that He predicted when Solomon dedicated the temple. It's the same as God predicted when He told Nineveh that they would be destroyed because of their unbelief. The same as God predicted when He told Israel He would completely drive out all the nations.

Your love does not depend on the will of man, on your will? If it does, then it is uncertain to some degree, as you have said--not to impugn your love for your wife, however.

No impugning taken. But, no, if my love depends on my will, as a man, then it is not uncertain. I have determined that I will love my wife, and so I will do it. Nothing that she does or anyone else does will change that.

lee_merrill continues:

And "all" must certainly mean some will repent, and this prediction then must be--according to OVT--to some degree uncertain, as indeed you say. But this prediction is certain, and involves people not even born yet, and their decisions.

Only as certain as past predictions. They are all stated the same way. Just because a prophecy's time has not come, does not mean it will be any different in certainty than prophecies in the past.

Romans 9:27-28 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality."

This is a prophecy.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Yorzhik POTD :first:

 

[Lon]

Yorzhik

Yorzhik

Good post and I agree with Knight, for it does hold up OV rather well and I give props for stating your position clearly.

Patman, I'll try to address your concerns here as well.

So when God says He promises to change his mind under certain conditions, wouldn't you expect that God would not change His mind if those conditions are not met?

You aren't addressing the root of the problem you have with Jer. 18. Your eyes glaze over and you repeat your proof passage mantra. You still have to deal with God promising to break His promises under certain conditions.

God doesn't break a promise to keep a promise. God rather, gives parameters for His promise to effect. He doesn't change His mind. The condition is the way we act according to His revelation. The only thing changing is man, not God's statements. They account for change because God is gracious.

We are specifically talking about conditional prophecy/promise here. With unconditional prophecies or statements there is no possible condition change and God always does as He says. If no condition is set, the thing will come about with no room for change. God does not make errors or mistakes.

I'm certain the Pats are going to be undefeated this season...

So how about now? Am I lying?
It's a sure thing. I don't think you've seen them play!

No, but you could be wrong. You also couldn't have been sure last year, now there are many games behind them. They could still lose. We don't have near the ability God has.

The omnicompetent God is smart enough to realize the situation is logically absurd. Therefore He couldn't do it any more than He could make a rock so big He couldn't lift it.

Or could He? (You make a good statement, but then try to answer the absurd question-which takes some of the air out of the tires)

So what happened to a God that knows the future exhaustively? Are humans not capable of determining to will their palms the opposite of whatever God says?

No. The answer is simple: It is because 'you' desire to have them the way God said. Notice with me please, most OV examples point specifically to disobeying God. This is troublesome for your LFW discussion. We need to talk about why LFW is not independence (sin) if it has any value at all.

The situation with Peter is similar, but there are a number of factors that make it impossible to tell what Peter's will was at the time of denial. What we will to do can change from moment to moment. Removing those factors, we can test the existence of will. You'd rather not remove the extenuating factors because then your pride would be hurt. As a brother in Christ, please pray that God would help you overcome your pride.

If it were impossible, Christ could not have predicted it. How is it that God can make such predictions and NEVER be wrong?

You are looking in the wrong place. What God says can affect how you will put your palms. Therefore, what God says cannot accurately predict how you will put your palms... which, if that same God knows the future exhaustively, is a logical contradiction.

Why? You are trying to say it must eliminate your will, but I say it validates what your greatest inclination and desire was. Again, we need to talk about LFW as it relates to sin. Our Christ-given will is to follow the will of the Father implicitly. We in effect, are trying to eliminate LFW from our lives as we follow Christ.

Wow... no beating around the bush there! So now you have a choice; Either man does not have will, or God does not know the future exhaustively. If you have to get rid of a logical contradiction, it has to be one or the other.

I've addressed this above. God knows your desire/inclination. It will be exactly as 'you' desire.

If God removed man's will all events in the future would be known by God exhaustively (assuming the devil and demons' and angels' wills are also removed).

No, God doesn't have to remove your inclinations to know what you will do. We are discussing the mechanism for God's knowledge. God knows what He has decreed. We draw our every breath from the One who sustains us and holds us together.

Just because this is a prophecy that hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it is different than prophecies in the past.

God's estimate that only a remnant will be saved is the same as God's estimate that Israel would fall away that He predicted when Solomon dedicated the temple. It's the same as God predicted when He told Nineveh that they would be destroyed because of their unbelief. The same as God predicted when He told Israel He would completely drive out all the nations.
Only as certain as past predictions. They are all stated the same way. Just because a prophecy's time has not come, does not mean it will be any different in certainty than prophecies in the past.


This is a prophecy.

Your definition of it differs from mine. Your conception has even unconditional prophecies as predictive well-guessed outcomes at times.

God would not hazard a guess even with Peter. You would have to show one place where God was ever wrong to prove your point that God predicts without EDF. God has never been wrong or mistaken. His track record is perfect, therefore even in OV, God has a virtual EDF by your own proofs. What we are arguing about is the mechanism for this knowledge.