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

[surrender]

John 6:64 "But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.

This doesn’t say that God knew what Judas would do before Judas determined in his heart to betray Jesus. It says God knew from the beginning that Judas would betray Jesus. From the beginning of the world? From the beginning of Judas’ conception? From the beginning of Judas’ birth? From the beginning of Judas’ childhood? From the beginning of Judas’ adulthood? Why guess? Why make assumptions? Why pick one that fits our doctrine? How about looking to see how the word is used in other verses? Maybe “from the beginning” just means from early on (cf. Phil. 4:15, same word).

Scripture contradicts you. Psalm 55:12-14 "For it is not an enemy who reproaches me; Then I could bear it. Nor is it one who hates me who has exalted himself against me; Then I could hide from him. But it was you, a man my equal, my companion and my acquaintance. We took sweet counsel together, and walked to the house of God in the throng."

Matthew 17:22, 23 "Now while they were staying in Galilee, Jesus said to them, "The Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men, and they will kill Him, and the third day He will be raised up." And they were exceedingly sorrowful."

Psalm 41:9"Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me."

Matthew 26:20 When evening had come, He sat down with the twelve. 21 Now as they were eating, He said,“Assuredly, I say to you, one of you will betray Me.”

22 And they were exceedingly sorrowful, and each of them began to say to Him, “Lord, is it I?”

23 He answered and said, “He who dipped his hand with Me in the dish will betray Me. 24 The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”

Scripture doesn’t contradict me. It’s just that you have a narrow understanding of prophecy. Psalm 55:12-14 was written by David about a friend who betrayed him, most likely Ahithophel. I agree, however, that there are similarities of this betrayal to Judas’ betrayal of Jesus. Doesn’t mean God foreknew "before the foundation of the world" that Judas would betray him. Furthermore, if this psalm is supposed to be messianic, it doesn’t say that Judas was the friend who would betray Jesus. I don’t have a problem with the idea that God foreknew that one of Jesus’ friends would betray him in some form or another. Pretty common and predictable.

Psalm 41:9, same idea. Friends ate bread together. This Psalm was written by David about the betrayal he experienced. If a NT author recognized that an event in the life of Jesus paralleled a past event in Scripture, it was said to “fulfill” that Scripture. Saying something was “fulfilled” can mean different things. Take Romans 15:19, for example. Paul says he fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ. So, saying something was “fulfilled” doesn’t necessarily mean they’re claiming the prophecy was a prediction.

Come on, 3 times? Pretty clear Christ already knew ahead of time and how many times it would happen. Im guessing by your response though that you do not believe free will, since you adding God made those things happen instead...

Putting in someone’s mind to possibly take a path that might cross Peter’s path and making a rooster crow is impinging on free will? Remember, God knows the heart intimately. All it would take is to put an idea in the mind of someone God knew was ready to condemn Peter or at least, a busy body itching to ask questions. Sounds simple for an infinitely wise God.

 

[Lighthouse]

Because He knows the end from the begining.

The Bible doesn't say that. And my choices aren't the end, anyway.

And you still haven't answer when I made the choice.

Already quoted it to you several times.

Matthew 26 shows that Jesus made His statement regarding it after Judas had already gone to the chief priests and made the deal to betray Jesus.

Jesus never spoke of Judas betraying Him before Judas had already gone to the chief priests. Jesus did speak of one of the 12 being a devil, and John explains that He was referring to Judas and as a hindsight points out that Judas betrayed Jesus. But Jesus' words were regarding things Judas had already done, in secret, such as stealing from the treasury.

Of course they arent because most of them believe as you do. As far as your stop it :Excuse me? You can disagree, but you don't have the power to tell me what to believe.

I'm not telling you what to believe, I'm telling you to stop throwing around that particular straw man. If you know that none of us are making that argument then why do you keep asking us this question?

Am i not welcome here to discuss this because my view differs? If so then label it open theists only. If otherwise, you have no business telling me to stop anything.

:bang:

:doh:

Stop asking us how God knowing what we will choose means He made the choice for us when none of us are claiming it means that. It's dishonest.

No you haven't, no one has here.

Maybe not in this thread, but you closed the other thread and never responded to my posts that addressed this issue.

Closing thread, no point in a pointless off topic discussion.

They and you keep reiterating that God doesn't know the end from the beginning when His word says He does and you all keep stating that you cannot choose something just because He already saw what you did from the beginning of creation.

Remember this, and show yourselves men;
Recall to mind, O you transgressors.
Remember the former things of old,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like Me,
Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done,
Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
And I will do all My pleasure,’
Calling a bird of prey from the east,
The man who executes My counsel, from a far country.
Indeed I have spoken it;
I will also bring it to pass.
I have purposed it;
I will also do it.
-Isaiah 46:8-11

He doesn't just know the end from the beginning; He declares it. Is it then your argument that He declares all things from the beginning? If so then you are arguing that we don't choose anything, and since you are repeatedly stating the opposite I must assume that you don't believe He declares all things. And since you aren't arguing that He declares all things what leg do you have to stand on in claiming that He knows all things from the beginning?

Not to mention the rest of this passage shows that God means that He brings things to pass if He has purposed to do so. And it also shows that He does not mean from the beginning of creation, or even before that. Nor does He mean that He declares the end of all things from their beginnings.

And now, regarding whether or not we can choose if God knows what we will do: if what we will do can be known [regardless of whether or not God knows it] then we cannot do anything else, and thus we have no choice; because choice means being able to do one of more than one thing. If it is knowable that I will go on a roller coaster at an amusement park first then I cannot go on a tilt-a-whirl before I go on a roller coaster, can I? So, tell me again, how did I choose?

He is seeing your past from His perspective and all things in between.

All things in between what?

He sees what you chose, but YOU chose it. You cannot choose otherwise, because it was seen as a past event and no one can change the past, only the future.

Exactly. I can't now choose to do other than what I did. And I also know what I chose. As do at least a few others, I'm sure. But at the time I could have chosen otherwise.

And why are you now claiming the future can be changed when your whole argument is that God knows what we will do, which means we can't change it?

None have cared to answer how both judas and peters actions were known and told by Christ beforehand, on whether Christ knew beforehand what they would do, or whether Christ forced them do it.

That's a lie.

I know I answered the Judas thing. Jesus didn't state that He would be betrayed until after Judas had already made the plans to betray Him; Judas had the 30 pieces of silver in his purse when Jesus made His statement. And I'm not the only one who answered that.

And regarding Peter I know someone else answered that because I read it. And I did too. Jesus knew Peter's heart was full of fear and weakness and that when Jesus was arrested Peter would be scared that he would also suffer the same fate so all God had to do was prompt people to ask Peter if he was with Jesus until three people did so. He knew Peter would deny it out of fear.

Answer please.

And yet you left the conversation, again...

At this point i am bowing out, thank you for the discussion.

:think:

 

[Angel4Truth]

The Bible doesn't say that. And my choices aren't the end, anyway.

And you still haven't answer when I made the choice.

You make choices everyday, God sees them and works accordingly.

Matthew 26 shows that Jesus made His statement regarding it after Judas had already gone to the chief priests and made the deal to betray Jesus.

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

Jesus never spoke of Judas betraying Him before Judas had already gone to the chief priests. Jesus did speak of one of the 12 being a devil, and John explains that He was referring to Judas and as a hindsight points out that Judas betrayed Jesus. But Jesus' words were regarding things Judas had already done, in secret, such as stealing from the treasury.

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.

I'm not telling you what to believe, I'm telling you to stop throwing around that particular straw man. If you know that none of us are making that argument then why do you keep asking us this question?

:bang:

:doh:

Stop asking us how God knowing what we will choose means He made the choice for us when none of us are claiming it means that. It's dishonest.

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.

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.

Maybe not in this thread, but you closed the other thread and never responded to my posts that addressed this issue.

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

Remember this, and show yourselves men;
Recall to mind, O you transgressors.
Remember the former things of old,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like Me,
Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done,
Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
And I will do all My pleasure,’
Calling a bird of prey from the east,
The man who executes My counsel, from a far country.
Indeed I have spoken it;
I will also bring it to pass.
I have purposed it;
I will also do it.
-Isaiah 46:8-11

He doesn't just know the end from the beginning; He declares it. Is it then your argument that He declares all things from the beginning? If so then you are arguing that we don't choose anything, and since you are repeatedly stating the opposite I must assume that you don't believe He declares all things. And since you aren't arguing that He declares all things what leg do you have to stand on in claiming that He knows all things from the beginning?

Not to mention the rest of this passage shows that God means that He brings things to pass if He has purposed to do so. And it also shows that He does not mean from the beginning of creation, or even before that. Nor does He mean that He declares the end of all things from their beginnings.

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.

That doesnt work and is another reason i reject open theism.

And now, regarding whether or not we can choose if God knows what we will do: if what we will do can be known [regardless of whether or not God knows it] then we cannot do anything else, and thus we have no choice; because choice means being able to do one of more than one thing. If it is knowable that I will go on a roller coaster at an amusement park first then I cannot go on a tilt-a-whirl before I go on a roller coaster, can I? So, tell me again, how did I choose?

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.

Exactly. I can't now choose to do other than what I did. And I also know what I chose. As do at least a few others, I'm sure. But at the time I could have chosen otherwise.

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 why are you now claiming the future can be changed when your whole argument is that God knows what we will do, which means we can't change it?

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.

That's a lie.

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.

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

I know I answered the Judas thing.

link?

Jesus didn't state that He would be betrayed until after Judas had already made the plans to betray Him; Judas had the 30 pieces of silver in his purse when Jesus made His statement. And I'm not the only one who answered that.

link to YOUR answer about it please.

And regarding Peter I know someone else answered that because I read it. And I did too. Jesus knew Peter's heart was full of fear and weakness and that when Jesus was arrested Peter would be scared that he would also suffer the same fate so all God had to do was prompt people to ask Peter if he was with Jesus until three people did so. He knew Peter would deny it out of fear.

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.

And yet you left the conversation, again...


:think:

Who would stay in it when its a point of contention instead of discussion?

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.

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.

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.

 

[Tambora]

no one can change a past event, and God sees your actions and choices as a past event and plans accordingly.

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.

 

[surrender]

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.

Really great points here. The settled view claims that God is more prepared than He could be when dealing with an open view. But if all of history is settled, so are God's actions and responses down to the smallest detail. There is nothing for God to prepare for. The way I see it, though, is that God can be just as prepared with the open view as any other since He is capable of seeing every single possible choice free agents could make in any given situation. God can prepare for them all. And He is no less prepared for one than He is another. There are only a finite number of possibilities.

 

[Son of Jack]

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.

 

[Lighthouse]

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.

:doh:

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.

:doh:

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.

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...:dizzy:

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.

 

[surrender]

deleted

 

[Pneuma]

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?

 

[surrender]

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.

 

[zippy2006]

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. :idunno:

 

[Son of Jack]

I'm just going to bow out. My point seems to be irrelevant and not moving the discussion along in a helpful way.:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

I'm just going to bow out. My point seems to be irrelevant and not moving the discussion along in a helpful way.:e4e:

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. :e4e: