ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[ApologeticJedi]

I've agreed that it is possible that God changed the future. However, in agreeing to this I acknowledge that God knew Hezekiah's future in order to change it which you must do also.

I agree.

What was said was that Hezekiah needed to put his house in order, indicating God believed he was going to die soon. God could have calculated the exact hour which the disease would overtak Hezekiah perhaps. However, again this is simple foreknowledge, not exhaustive foreknowledge. It does not imply that God knows everything, it only explicitly mentions God knowing one thing.

What God does not seem to know is that Hezekiah would pray his prayer. That God would have already known that Hezekiah would pray doesn't flow within the story or the concept of "adding years" to Hezekiah's lifespan.

Then you must prove that God isn't able to foreknow all events if He is indeed able to foreknow any events brought about by free agents. If it is known once why not always?

Because God foreknows what he plans to do. He does not foreknow that which he doesn't plan. Therefore, since God plans the salvation of men, He is able to foreknow that. Since He doesn't plan which men will be saved and which won't, He does not foreknow it.

I have re-read and saw that I was comparing your position with that of Pelagian. 'If man can fall, he can get back up without a saviour' was in relation to this. Your position is that man was able remain perfect on his own and not require a 'saviour'; just as Pelagianism states that man might reach perfection on his own and therefore does not require a 'saviour'.

Those are vastly different positions. I am speaking of pre-Fall man being in Innocence - a position held by almost every church denomination that ever existed. Pelagius was speaking of men saving themselves.

Has there ever been a man which could remain perfect on his own and therefore never require a saviour? And, do you believe in 'original sin'?

After Adam fell, all men needed a savior. None would be able to save himself. Adam's original sin caused the consequence of the fleshly nature to be delivered to us all. Now I disagree (as Pelagius did) that infants need to be baptized to remove the guilt of original sin.

Three things. First of all, the apostles certainly faced tribulation during their lifetimes which isn't the final tribulation we are awaiting(for example the Roman destruction of Jerusalem). Secondly, Jesus saying that He doesn't know the hour and day tells us that He was truly ignorant of the exact time. Thirdly, for the Catholics and others, what makes you think the apostles aren't still living or won't be living when the tribulation comes?

I realize that smaller tribulations happened, but I do not accept that answer. You and I both realize it is a dodge and I am surprised you went that route. Jesus is very specific and there is no ambiguity in what he is speaking. “the end of the world” and “Christ coming with his power” follow quotes of these sorts.

I also need to note that Jesus says that God the Father foreknows the hour and time exactly; which is, Jesus Himself saying that God foreknows the exact time of a future event occuring.

I agree that God knew the exact moment the second coming was going to be … what I am stressing is that what God knew, didn’t come to pass in the manner that He knew it. While the Father may not have revealed to the Son the exact hour, He did reveal that it would happen “in this generation” and that “some of you standing here today will not die”. Those things that God claimed would happen, did not happen. How can you explain God’s foreknowledge being wrong in these cases?

This is just one of many prophecies in the Bible that do not come to fruition.

 

[RobE]

Would you be so kind as to prove that “meticulous control is not Biblical.” Otherwise it is contrary to your cause.

Only if my cause is the same as Calvin's cause.

It is God who interacts with mankind, not grace. By appropriately responding to God’s grace one begins and maintains a relationship with God on God’s terms.

I would add that God gave you the ability to respond to that Grace and your ability is attributable to Him as well.

I’m with others in that I see exhaustive foreknowledge as meticulous control. (How can one know something that is subject to change?) I’m not sure what you mean when you say: “I would say that meticulous control is not Biblical and shouldn't be confused with knowledge and is a distinction that is universally rejected by those of the O.V.”

Knowledge and the action are different things. I might know that birds fly, but I certainly don't make birds fly with my knowledge. The fly using their own ability which is separate and distinct from my ability to know that they fly. How does my knowledge meticulously control their ability?

Four individuals, two thieves and Judas and Peter. And God interacts on a personal level with each of them as individuals. Their reaction or response does not define God’s grace. It only determines how they relate or fail to relate to God’s grace.

Or it relates to their own ability to relate or fail to relate to God's grace which was bestowed upon them by God.

Judas is a unique case. Peter’s story has much to teach us. The case of the two thieves are the broadest examples of opposite responses to Christ juxtaposed in scripture. But to begin universalizing and making detailed arguments based on each case is just not right.

The argument isn't mine and it goes something like this: God gave Peter and the 'bad' thief sufficient Grace to attain salvation. Isn't it true that in the case of Peter that grace was indeed sufficient and in the case of the 'bad' thief it was truly insufficient? Now, keeping in mind that God wills all men to be saved then why didn't God give the 'bad' thief enough Grace to attain salvation? The same might be said about Judas and the 'good' thief. When you compare Peter's relationship toward Judas .vs the 'good' thief and the 'bad' thief it is obvious the grace God gave to Judas and the 'bad' thief wasn't truly sufficient in their respective cases and therefore unjust. You might say that one chose this way and one chose another, but the fact remains that God gave all four men the ability to choose righteousness, wanted all four to choose righteousness, provided sufficient Grace for all four to choose righteousness; and two of them did not. How can it be said that God wanted all four to be saved if God, being all-powerful, was not able to bring about His own desires and provide sufficiently for all to be saved?

Do you see why I say that Grace is a relevant topic to our discussion here. Only simple foresight provides a way for justice to remain. Calvinist's must say that God foreordains the reprobate. The O.V. must say that God tried His best and failed. Followers of simple foresight say that God provided 'sufficiently' for all to obtain salvation, but God foresaw that some would not. How would God know what 'sufficient' would be without foresight?

God’s grace is always sufficient. What is needed is response. If as you say, cooperation changes the grace of God from “sufficient to effecacious” who makes the choice to cooperate? Who is changing the future?

When you stand before God will you answer for yourself and your own actions or will God answer for you and your actions?

God will know the OVERALL OUTCOME of his eternal plan IN DETAIL when it happens.

Until then, I’ll add my welcome to the OV position.

I would say that His knowledge will become the reality in the end.

Until then, I'll welcome all believers,
Rob

 

[RobE]

I agree.

What was said was that Hezekiah needed to put his house in order, indicating God believed he was going to die soon. God could have calculated the exact hour which the disease would overtak Hezekiah perhaps. However, again this is simple foreknowledge, not exhaustive foreknowledge. It does not imply that God knows everything, it only explicitly mentions God knowing one thing.

Yet the Bible doesn't mention everything that God knows. I'll accept the position as I stated earlier that God may have given Hezekiah the added 15 years without prior intention. But for the sake of the argument I must insist that it was still possible even though in my own estimation improbable that God foreknew of Hezekiah's prayer.

What God does not seem to know is that Hezekiah would pray his prayer. That God would have already known that Hezekiah would pray doesn't flow within the story or the concept of "adding years" to Hezekiah's lifespan.

It does if the point of the story is that prayer is effective.

Because God foreknows what he plans to do. He does not foreknow that which he doesn't plan. Therefore, since God plans the salvation of men, He is able to foreknow that. Since He doesn't plan which men will be saved and which won't, He does not foreknow it.

Well, accepting this statement as truth, "God wills all men to be saved"---Did He not plan to save them all?

Also, I know some future free will actions of individuals without planning those actions.

Those are vastly different positions. I am speaking of pre-Fall man being in Innocence - a position held by almost every church denomination that ever existed. Pelagius was speaking of men saving themselves.

Isn't it true that someone who isn't in need of a savior is someone capable of saving themselves? Or should we use the term 'redeemer'. Almost every church denomination that exist believes that Adam was bound to fall and that Jesus Christ wasn't a back up plan as has been put foreward here. I would have to ask what would have happened if Adam had eaten from the tree of life first and then from the tree of knowledge from an o.v. position. My position would simply be that God foresaw Him partaking of the tree of knowledge and then foreknew man would seek the tree of life.

After Adam fell, all men needed a savior. None would be able to save himself. Adam's original sin caused the consequence of the fleshly nature to be delivered to us all. Now I disagree (as Pelagius did) that infants need to be baptized to remove the guilt of original sin.

Do you agree with Calvin that the change in nature disabled man from making LFW choices?

I realize that smaller tribulations happened, but I do not accept that answer. You and I both realize it is a dodge and I am surprised you went that route. Jesus is very specific and there is no ambiguity in what he is speaking. “the end of the world” and “Christ coming with his power” follow quotes of these sorts.

You're right. I have heard this attempt before and I thought options might be your undoing.
When you responded, " Wow, your argument broke down even faster than I expected", I assumed you weren't taking my real answer seriously and decided that if this was the case you weren't really thinking about things. I'll try again.

I agree that God knew the exact moment the second coming was going to be … what I am stressing is that what God knew, didn’t come to pass in the manner that He knew it.

Here's the problem. God the Father knew. God the Son did not know. God the triune being retained the foreknowledge, but one of its members didn't have that knowledge as you posited.

While the Father may not have revealed to the Son the exact hour, He did reveal that it would happen “in this generation” and that “some of you standing here today will not die”.

You would have to show me in the scriptures where Jesus said "the father told me,",etc. for this to stand. If you do then I will submit that God changed the future.......

Those things that God claimed would happen, did not happen. How can you explain God’s foreknowledge being wrong in these cases?

.....just as I have previously. Here's a quote we might both agree with....

The Open View teaches that God can change the future. He interacts with the flow of history and changes the outcome of the future as it unfolds by His decisions and actions. Notice that this explanation does not mention human free will. True Openness is based upon God Himself and not upon creaturely free will. Openness exists independent of man’s free will because Openness describes God as He always has been and will be, including throughout eternity past. The Open View cannot be based upon any human factor if in fact it also correctly describes God prior to creation. For Openness holds that the three Persons of the Trinity always had freedom to interact within the Godhead without the constraint of their future being eternally settled. God is at liberty to think something original, to say something different, and to do something new. So at its core, the Openness teaches that God is free. Thus the future is open to God. The LORD can change the future in ways that Settled View proponents deny, but God is able to do this.

If only this were the whole argument then we would be done.

This is just one of many prophecies in the Bible that do not come to fruition.

Yet it is a false prophecy which doesn't come to fruition without Divine intervention. God is able to change outcomes, man is not. That same change presupposes foresight as its basis.

Yours,
Rob

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Knowledge and the action are different things. I might know that birds fly, but I certainly don't make birds fly with my knowledge.

Apples and Oranges.

We are talking about certain knowledge and choice, not uncertain knowledge and action.

You know that birds can fly. But you are not saying you know that the bird must fly at exactly 4:15am tomorrow and that they can't do otherwise. IF you had, then you we could ask some simple questions to find out if choice was invovled:

OV: Is it certain that the bird will take off at 4:15am?
SV: It will happen with certainty?
OV: Can the bird change such a fate?
SV: No.
OV: Why not? Is there anything keeping them from doing otherwise.
SV: Only that what I know always comes true, but that doesn't affect them I maintain.
OV: So then they will do so only because you know they will do so, nothing else compells them?
SV: No, no ... if something else compelled them then it would not be a choice.
OV: So if nothing compells them to take off at 4:15am, then they might not take off at 4:15am?
SV: No they will because they are predictable.
OV: Predictable to the point of certainty?
SV: Yes.
OV: If they are predictable to the point of certainty then how are they not compelled?
SV: I don't understand.
OV: Let's try it in reverse, if they are not compelled, how can you predict that they will take off at 4:15am?
SV: Oh, because I know them realy well.
OV: So then you know something about their nature or some cause-and-effect issue that will compell them to take off at 4:15am.
SV: Stop with the "compelling" I don't want to go there!
OV: If you know something about the birds that would lead to a certainty of their future action, then how can you claim that is not being compelled?
SV: Because I want to have my cake and eat it too.
OV: Ah ha.

 

[RobE]

I thought I was going to bed. I'll be quick.

I thought I was going to bed. I'll be quick.

Apples and Oranges.

We are talking about certain knowledge and choice, not uncertain knowledge and action.

You know that birds can fly. But you are not saying you know that the bird must fly at exactly 4:15am tomorrow and that they can't do otherwise. IF you had, then you we could ask some simple questions to find out if choice was invovled:

OV: Is it certain that the bird will take off at 4:15am?
SV: It will happen with certainty?
Rob's View RV: Yes.

OV: Can the bird change such a fate?
SV: No.
RV: Able, yes. Will he, no.

OV: Why not? Is there anything keeping them from doing otherwise.
SV: Only that what I know always comes true, but that doesn't affect them I maintain.
RV: Of course.

OV: So then they will do so only because you know they will do so, nothing else compells them?
SV: No, no ... if something else compelled them then it would not be a choice.
RV: Certainly things compel them.

OV: So if nothing compells them to take off at 4:15am, then they might not take off at 4:15am?
SV: No they will because they are predictable.
RV: That's right.

OV: Predictable to the point of certainty?
SV: Yes.
RV: Yes.

OV: If they are predictable to the point of certainty then how are they not compelled?
SV: I don't understand.
RV: They are compelled.

OV: Let's try it in reverse, if they are not compelled, how can you predict that they will take off at 4:15am?
SV: Oh, because I know them realy well.
RV: I couldn't.

OV: So then you know something about their nature or some cause-and-effect issue that will compell them to take off at 4:15am.
SV: Stop with the "compelling" I don't want to go there!
RV: Yes.

OV: If you know something about the birds that would lead to a certainty of their future action, then how can you claim that is not being compelled?
SV: Because I want to have my cake and eat it too.
RV: I'm not.

OV: Ah ha.​

If my knowledge isn't compelling them what does it matter to this argument?

Rob

p.s. when you respond don't forget self-compelled.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Yet the Bible doesn't mention everything that God knows. I'll accept the position as I stated earlier that God may have given Hezekiah the added 15 years without prior intention. But for the sake of the argument I must insist that it was still possible even though in my own estimation improbable that God foreknew of Hezekiah's prayer.

The Bible doesn’t mention everything God knows, nor does it mention that God has exhaustive foreknowledge, but it does mention things He did not expect.

Well, accepting this statement as truth, "God wills all men to be saved"---Did He not plan to save them all?

No … God planned to make salvation available to them all. He did not plan which would be saved.

Also, I know some future free will actions of individuals without planning those actions.

You can make predictions without certainty. Do you believe then that God is only making predictions without certainty?

Isn't it true that someone who isn't in need of a savior is someone capable of saving themselves?

If they don’t need a savior, there is nothing to save them from. If there were something they could be saved from, then they would have needed a savior.

Do you agree with Calvin that the change in nature disabled man from making LFW choices?

No, I do not agree. I think there is no basis for claiming that the fall did this.

You would have to show me in the scriptures where Jesus said "the father told me,",etc. for this to stand. If you do then I will submit that God changed the future.......QUOTE]

When Jesus didn’t know the exact hour or day He said so, he didn’t make something up (lie). When Jesus said that it would happen in this generation, are you saying that Jesus just didn’t know what he was talking about and should be ignored? How much of Jesus’s statements should we ignore then?

See it is in the same speech that Jesus says “No one knows the day or hour but the Father … but this generation will not pass away.” So Jesus obviously knew that much.

Yet it is a false prophecy which doesn't come to fruition without Divine intervention. God is able to change outcomes, man is not. That same change presupposes foresight as its basis.

If man can affect God through prayer, as you indicated was the point of the Hezekiah story, then man does have the ability to change outcomes.

That argument is foreign to the scriptures. You'll find no where in scriptures that this idea is taught, and thus the burden of proof is yours in this case (since I cannot be asked to prove a negative).

 

[ApologeticJedi]

RV: Certainly things compel them.

Correct. You believe that they are compelled in such a way that there is a certainty. Thus they are undeniably compelled - thus no free will.

If my knowledge isn't compelling them what does it matter to this argument?

Because you are arguing for free will and knowledge. No the knowledge does force the lack of free will ... but it's very existance rules out the possibility of free will existing.

Remember when you gave me your definition of free will and I asked you "What if I hypnotized you" and you said that would not be free will because the person was being coerced? Do you remember?

So how can you argue that free will exists in a scenario that you admit is compelled to the point that no other possible outcome could happen? (That’s even more coercion than hypnotism alone could do!)

 

[RobE]

Correct. You believe that they are compelled in such a way that there is a certainty. Thus they are undeniably compelled - thus no free will.

I agree with you that free will makes choices for reasons and those reasons compel an outcome. Not that your will isn't free because the knowledge, of those same reasons, exists.

I should say that the existence of other possibilities are known as a certainty as well; even though the outcome is certainly known.

Because you are arguing for free will and knowledge. No the knowledge does force the lack of free will ... but it's very existance rules out the possibility of free will existing.

Of course! Once an action is terminated then you can't go back in time and change the outcome! And that's is precisely the time that it becomes a reality. We all agree on this. You shouldn't argue that the past is unchangeable because we agree on this. The disagreement comes in the form of claiming that other abilities(precisely free will) don't exist in reality prior to the known outcome. The only way this is possible is if the knowledge itself causes the outcome which you deny. Knowledge of an outcome may exist prior to the actuality of the same outcome and often does, as we both agree to. So what actually determines your choices? It's not the knowledge and you are only capable of choosing from your own desires which were developed in you by your environment, etc.... Maybe it's how God designed you personally if you believe that. Many here do not. Decisions are not made in a void. The are made on some basis unless you are delusional and act randomly.

Remember when you gave me your definition of free will and I asked you "What if I hypnotized you" and you said that would not be free will because the person was being coerced? Do you remember?

I remember a discussion about a gun.

So how can you argue that free will exists in a scenario that you admit is compelled to the point that no other possible outcome could happen? (That’s even more coercion than hypnotism alone could do!)

Because the choices your free will makes are based on influences and other factors which actually determine what choices you make. An understanding of these factors and influences doesn't create them. It just knows them and therefore knows your free choices.

Your conscience isn't developed independently from all factors so choices aren't made in a vacuum.

Why is this so hard to understand for you?
Rob

 

[ApologeticJedi]

I agree with you that free will makes choices for reasons and those reasons compel an outcome. Not that your will isn't free because the knowledge, of those same reasons, exists.

You ar returning backwards to that argument. I am not saying it is necessarily your knowledge that confines their choices, but something must have confined their choices to in order to know without exception what they will do. You are saying you believe some set of circumstances or environment exists that compels them to do what they will do, and they cannot reasonably do otherwise.

Thus the very knowledge may not be the catalyst in coercion, but the only way that such knowledge can exhaustively exist (without a chance of being wrong) is if we eliminate free will.

I should say that the existence of other possibilities are known as a certainty as well; even though the outcome is certainly known.

If the outcome is known with certainty then there are no other possibilities. A "possibility" implies that a given something could also have happened. Yet, to have certainty that it will not happen means that it is not really a possibility.

Maybe it's how God designed you personally if you believe that. Many here do not. Decisions are not made in a void. The are made on some basis unless you are delusional and act randomly.

Decisions are often random and unpredictable. They are not made in a void, but neither do they need to be delusional to be random. Many things behave randomly in nature - ala quantum mechanics.

I remember a discussion about a gun.

Right, I think it was somewhere in that discussion. I suppose it is not important to rehash it. I can proceed forward without that example.

Because the choices your free will makes are based on influences and other factors which actually determine what choices you make. An understanding of these factors and influences doesn't create them. It just knows them and therefore knows your free choices.

If those influences and factors rule over you in such a way that you cannot do other than what you do, then it is difficult to imagine that as not being coerced by them - and losing "free will". If someone has a free will, they may choose to have a chocolate ice cream or not. What you indicate, is that their choice is really an illusion and circumstances that are predictable will ultimately dictate what she will have. Thus there is no true free will in your model - only an illusionary free will where perhaps someone feels like they could have chosen otherwise, but in reality it could not have happened any other way.

Because the choices your free will makes are based on influences and other factors which actually determine what choices you make.

Your position says that factors are weighed from the differing sides of the equation and that the strongest pulling factor will outweigh the others making it the "choice". This makes a lot of assumptions.

1. It assumes that co-equal factors will never happen (that two or more choices will never have the same weight of factors on both sides ending in a tie).
2. It assumes that one cannot go against the factors and decide on a whim to do something even against their better wishes.
3. It assumes that a lesser factor weight will never be chosen over a greater factor weight (like - I'd have preferred Mexican, but Italian is fine too).

So the end result is that if a man kills another man, really he could not have done otherwise. The factors in his life compelled him. This smacks of the Oprah guest mantra ("It's not my fault. I blame my parents!")

 

[RobE]

The Bible doesn’t mention everything God knows, nor does it mention that God has exhaustive foreknowledge, but it does mention things He did not expect.

It also mentions that He couldn't find Adam and didn't know what Adam was doing even though He has the ability to be omnipresent.

No … God planned to make salvation available to them all. He did not plan which would be saved.

Which would support the idea of sufficient Grace. Here's our discussion though....

AJ : Because God foreknows what he plans to do. He does not foreknow that which he doesn't plan. Therefore, since God plans the salvation of men, He is able to foreknow that. Since He doesn't plan which men will be saved and which won't, He does not foreknow it.

Rob : Well, accepting this statement as truth, "God wills all men to be saved"---Did He not plan to save them all?

AJ : No … God planned to make salvation available to them all. He did not plan which would be saved.​

:thumb: A great answer! In fact THE answer whether He foresaw who would or not(in your case).

Rob : Also, I know some future free will actions of individuals without planning those actions.

You can make predictions without certainty. Do you believe then that God is only making predictions without certainty?

No. God is infinitely more capable than I am. The outcome doesn't become a certainty until it happens, but the knowledge of the outcome is able to be certain before it happens.

Our discussion on Adam......

AJ : If they don’t need a savior, there is nothing to save them from. If there were something they could be saved from, then they would have needed a savior.

You must have missed my question here.....Has there ever been a man which could remain perfect on his own and therefore never require a saviour?

In your view I believe your answer would be Yes, at least Adam was able.

AJ: After Adam fell, all men needed a savior. None would be able to save himself. Adam's original sin caused the consequence of the fleshly nature to be delivered to us all. Now I disagree (as Pelagius did) that infants need to be baptized to remove the guilt of original sin.[/quote]

Is original sin real in your view? If so, what does it do?

I also asked : Do you agree with Calvin that the change in nature disabled man from making LFW choices?

AJ : No, I do not agree. I think there is no basis for claiming that the fall did this.​

Then why couldn't man choose to be perfect and save himself just as Pelagian asserted? (Unless man is incapable of perfection which would make Christ the plan and not the contingency plan, of course)

It seems the need for Christ as saviour remains in my view because Adam would fall. And the answer to the fall......

Romans 8:9-11 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

..... is the Plan!

You would have to show me in the scriptures where Jesus said "the father told me,",etc. for this to stand. If you do then I will submit that God changed the future.......

When Jesus didn’t know the exact hour or day He said so, he didn’t make something up (lie). When Jesus said that it would happen in this generation, are you saying that Jesus just didn’t know what he was talking about and should be ignored? How much of Jesus’s statements should we ignore then?

A fair evaluation. I'm just saying that in this instance Jesus was ignorant of the exact time and was speaking from this position......

1 Thessalonians 5
1Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.

Matt: 24:34I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

The Day and Hour Unknown

36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.
42"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
45"Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 48But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, 'My master is staying away a long time,' 49and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. 50The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. 51He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.​

See it is in the same speech that Jesus says “No one knows the day or hour but the Father … but this generation will not pass away.” So Jesus obviously knew that much.

No. Jesus is saying that only the Father knows the time so stay prepared because the master will return unexpectedly.

If man can affect God through prayer, as you indicated was the point of the Hezekiah story, then man does have the ability to change outcomes.

No. God would be the one changing the outcome, not man. If God always did as man requested then man would have the power to change outcomes.

That argument is foreign to the scriptures. You'll find no where in scriptures that this idea is taught, and thus the burden of proof is yours in this case (since I cannot be asked to prove a negative).

I'm not exactly sure what you are referencing here, but I'll answer that your own thesis on failed prophecy answers the question. If your speaking of the hour and day statement then I'd say that your thesis on the changed God of the incarnation answers it.

Rob

 

[RobE]

Great Post

Great Post

You ar returning backwards to that argument. I am not saying it is necessarily your knowledge that confines their choices, but something must have confined their choices to in order to know without exception what they will do. You are saying you believe some set of circumstances or environment exists that compels them to do what they will do, and they cannot reasonably do otherwise.

Thus the very knowledge may not be the catalyst in coercion, but the only way that such knowledge can exhaustively exist (without a chance of being wrong) is if we eliminate free will.

Not eliminate free will, only eliminate choices just as free will itself does.

If the outcome is known with certainty then there are no other possibilities. A "possibility" implies that a given something could also have happened. Yet, to have certainty that it will not happen means that it is not really a possibility.

If the outcome is known then there are no other possible outcomes even if other actions were possible prior to the outcome. Possibility of action doesn't equate to possiblity of outcomes.

Decisions are often random and unpredictable. They are not made in a void, but neither do they need to be delusional to be random. Many things behave randomly in nature - ala quantum mechanics.

I have no doubt that God understands and is able to predict quantum theory/mechanics outcomes since He originated physics itself and must have this knowledge to make the universe work in an orderly manner.

If those influences and factors rule over you in such a way that you cannot do other than what you do, then it is difficult to imagine that as not being coerced by them - and losing "free will". If someone has a free will, they may choose to have a chocolate ice cream or not. What you indicate, is that their choice is really an illusion and circumstances that are predictable will ultimately dictate what she will have. Thus there is no true free will in your model - only an illusionary free will where perhaps someone feels like they could have chosen otherwise, but in reality it could not have happened any other way.

Which is what philosophers have been arguing over since the beginning when discussing what free will is. This must be discussed whether foreknowledge is at issue or not. Free will isn't that cut and dried when the influences are taken into account. It's been argued that free will is at its freeist when a man sits and contemplates what actions he would take to certain stimuli since that same man will act according to his own established nature once those stimuli are present. This begs the question of what is the basis of his own thinking which is a product of other stimuli, etc, etc, etc..... Back to the first cause, Jesus Christ! Now, looking at it this way makes the logic of Calvin appealing since Calvin declares that free will is an illusion.

However, it makes God responsible for sin if free will is an illusion. The fact is that all things are attributable to God since He is the first cause, but God is not and never will be responsible for evil. This means free will MUST exist! How are we to be held accountable for influenced free will decisions?

First of all, we obtained the knowledge of good and evil in the garden which makes us accountable for freely choosing evil; unlike the animals which retain free will without accountability.

Secondly, God intervenes on our behalf and doesn't allow evil influences to coerce us beyond our ability to resist.

Thirdly, just as God provided us with sufficient Grace to overcome eternal salvation; that same sufficient grace, which you pointed out that God provides so eloquantly above must be combined with our own impulse to do the 'good' in our knowledge to become effective in our day to day decisions.

Fourthly, it must be noticed that Grace itself influences us and is therefore the ultimate enabler of our choosing to do 'rightly'.

Not an easy subject, huh?

So, I've been trying to figure out exactly where our free will exists when God is constantly after us to do right, wants us to do right, gave us the ability to do right, etc....

It occurred to me what's the one thing that God is not responsible for enabling us to do. To do wrong! I have to ask why did He put the Tree of Knowledge in the garden and then in fact establish the law which made the eating of it a sin? Because Jesus Christ was the plan. The vine and branches which made the fall void and took away the sting of death. Free will existed before the knowledge and has always existed with or without 'good' and 'evil'.

Well, I've digressed.....onward!

Your position says that factors are weighed from the differing sides of the equation and that the strongest pulling factor will outweigh the others making it the "choice". This makes a lot of assumptions.

1. It assumes that co-equal factors will never happen (that two or more choices will never have the same weight of factors on both sides ending in a tie).
2. It assumes that one cannot go against the factors and decide on a whim to do something even against their better wishes.
3. It assumes that a lesser factor weight will never be chosen over a greater factor weight (like - I'd have preferred Mexican, but Italian is fine too).

1. is correct unless the choices carry no significance and both have a weight of zero(an illusion itself). Green socks/red socks .vs killing someone/not killing someone.
2. is untrue because it ignores human behavior as a factor. We always act on our own natures as the overriding factor in any situation. It takes an effort to go against our nature and would never be on a 'whim'. Going on a 'whim' would produce an unknown event, but if you look closely at your own 'whims'; you'll see that you decided to go on a 'whim' and had to plan its enactment.
3. is correct since the largest weight will always win by becoming the basis for our free choice. You will to have Mexican, but are willing to set aside your own will and have Italian; if you are coerced by Mexican food being unavailable, your wife, kids, etc....

So the end result is that if a man kills another man, really he could not have done otherwise. The factors in his life compelled him. This smacks of the Oprah guest mantra ("It's not my fault. I blame my parents!")

Or the end judgement the devil made me do it! :chuckle:. Do you accept what the guy says on Oprah? I don't.

The responsibility lies with the one who perfoms(directly causes) the act, not with the influences(indirect causes) of that same act. The sin comes during the act not when deciding to act.

The Christ redeems :thumb: ,
Rob

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Not eliminate free will, only eliminate choices just as free will itself does.

In the free will model, after the choice is made, then only all other choices are eliminated. That’s because one cannot go into the past and change things. However if the choices were eliminated in the present or future, then there was never any free will to begin with. That's the difference.

If the outcome is known then there are no other possible outcomes even if other actions were possible prior to the outcome. Possibility of action doesn't equate to possiblity of outcomes.

There is no difference. Unless you are arguing that God knows only the outcome, but none of the actions getting to that outcome. But I don’t think that was what you were saying … no one would call that , exhaustive foreknowledge.

If you have foreknowledge of a particular action and you have 100% certainty that it will come to pass, that means that all other possible actions have a 0% change of coming to pass. That means that there exists something that constrains all other possible actions for a person.

It occurred to me what's the one thing that God is not responsible for enabling us to do. To do wrong! I have to ask why did He put the Tree of Knowledge in the garden and then in fact establish the law which made the eating of it a sin? Because Jesus Christ was the plan. The vine and branches which made the fall void and took away the sting of death. Free will existed before the knowledge and has always existed with or without 'good' and 'evil'.

Of course free will existed prior to eating of the Tree. That’s what OVers say.

However, God does not tempt us to do evil. God didn't placed the tree in the middle of the garden so that we could do evil, but to give us a choice. Then He exposed his plan when he said “Do not eat of the tree” – that was God’s plan. The idea that God’s real plan worked against his revealed plan leaves God a bit psychotic.

After man sinned, then the plan became Christ (which was always planned potentially, but was not the default plan until man sinned).

1. is correct unless the choices carry no significance and both have a weight of zero(an illusion itself). Green socks/red socks .vs killing someone/not killing someone.

So you think that two available choices can never have the exact same weight? I think that’s a bit of a stretch to believe that such is not possible. Can you prove that it is impossible for two choices to have the exact same weight of factors?

Or the end judgement the devil made me do it! . Do you accept what the guy says on Oprah? I don't.

I don’t … but I don’t believe the way you do. I don’t believe that they had no choice but to do as they did. You believe that certain factors compel them to have done what they did with certainty. Considering your beliefs, they would have a good argument – after all, they could not have done differently. They were a victim of the factors coming against their life.

It also mentions that He couldn't find Adam and didn't know what Adam was doing even though He has the ability to be omnipresent.

The Bible never says that God is in all places all the time (the typical usage of omnipresence in Christianity) either.

A great answer! In fact THE answer whether He foresaw who would or not(in your case).

Now you are just buttering me up for something?

No. God is infinitely more capable than I am.

Yes. But you can’t just say I can make predictions that are fairly accurate (though have no certainty) therefore God can make really accurate predictions that have 100% certainty. I have no doubt that God’s predictions can be more accurate than yours, and would even say that they He could get it as certain as is possible – but you’ve still failed to proven absolutely certain predictions are even possible save in the case where God plans it.

Then why couldn't man choose to be perfect and save himself just as Pelagian asserted?

The sinful nature is too powerful an influence in a man’s life. It will eventually win out, not just once, but a hundred times over. The difference in this and Calvin’s view is that Calvin believed therefore that man could never make LFW choices. That is over-stating the case. Men, even evil men, sometimes choose good. They may not do it as frequently as they choose evil, but they often will choose the good – sometimes they even choose the good that is Jesus Christ to be their savior.

 

[RobE]

In the free will model, after the choice is made, then only all other choices are eliminated. That’s because one cannot go into the past and change things. However if the choices were eliminated in the present or future, then there was never any free will to begin with. That's the difference.

This is true only if your ability to choose was taken away by your own definition of free will and it wasn't. Your own free will remains even if there is only one choice remaining, as long as, it is the choice you want to make.

If the outcome is known then there are no other possible outcomes even if other actions were possible prior to the outcome. Possibility of action doesn't equate to possiblity of outcomes.

There is no difference. Unless you are arguing that God knows only the outcome, but none of the actions getting to that outcome. But I don’t think that was what you were saying … no one would call that , exhaustive foreknowledge.

There is a difference when you realize that those same actions are outcomes of other actions.

If you have foreknowledge of a particular action and you have 100% certainty that it will come to pass, that means that all other possible actions have a 0% change of coming to pass. That means that there exists something that constrains all other possible actions for a person.

Correct. However, it only has an effect on freedom if it is constrained externally.

Of course free will existed prior to eating of the Tree. That’s what OVers say.

However, God does not tempt us to do evil. God didn't placed the tree in the middle of the garden so that we could do evil, but to give us a choice. Then He exposed his plan when he said “Do not eat of the tree” – that was God’s plan. The idea that God’s real plan worked against his revealed plan leaves God a bit psychotic.

Not when you consider that the law increases sin in all cases. That being the case then your position would argue that God was unjust to create the law. God made the law 'do not eat of the tree' fully knowing that fact. This doesn't mean the law was a stumbling block. The law just tests us and only He is perfect. Hence, His plan and His glory through Jesus Christ who took away the punishment of the law.

After man sinned, then the plan became Christ (which was always planned potentially, but was not the default plan until man sinned).

It was unlikely and in fact infinitely improbable that man would not fall at some point in eternity. Knowing this wouldn't you, as the creator, just get it out of the way and create it with the express purpose of redemption in mind? I'm not saying that man fell before man fell. I'm saying that Jesus Christ through whom all things were created, who loved the creation, and who desired universal redemption through His own person; has taken ultimate responsibility for what outcomes His desire produced, all the while, allowing His creation to reject His purpose/plan and take insufficient responsibility for themselves?

God isn't naive.

So you think that two available choices can never have the exact same weight? I think that’s a bit of a stretch to believe that such is not possible. Can you prove that it is impossible for two choices to have the exact same weight of factors?

If so, then neither choice would ever be made. Green socks, red socks. I don't really care about sock color. My wife is a different story though. I can't wear green socks with a purple suit because.....or, I can't wear green socks because my company says......or, I can't wear red socks because society says.....or, red socks were on top because my wife put them on top, my green socks are diryt.....or, etc.,etc.,etc......

There's always something. Are you able to give me an example of an unweighted choice?

...'the Devil made me do it!'

I don’t … but I don’t believe the way you do. I don’t believe that they had no choice but to do as they did. You believe that certain factors compel them to have done what they did with certainty. Considering your beliefs, they would have a good argument – after all, they could not have done differently. They were a victim of the factors coming against their life.

Rob : Possibility of action doesn't equate to possiblity of outcomes.

The Bible never says that God is in all places all the time (the typical usage of omnipresence in Christianity) either.

Ok. Yet, I would think that God would be aware of what Adam, the only man, was up to.

Now you are just buttering me up for something?

Not really. We're in agreement.

Yes. But you can’t just say I can make predictions that are fairly accurate (though have no certainty) therefore God can make really accurate predictions that have 100% certainty. I have no doubt that God’s predictions can be more accurate than yours, and would even say that they He could get it as certain as is possible – but you’ve still failed to proven absolutely certain predictions are even possible save in the case where God plans it.

I have no need to do so. You haven't proven that man has ever changed the future only that God has. Your argument predicates that God knows what He is changing. Saying 'that God could get it as certain as is possible' is the same as saying God knows it as a certainty. 100% certain is the largest possibility.

The sinful nature is too powerful an influence in a man’s life. It will eventually win out, not just once, but a hundred times over. The difference in this and Calvin’s view is that Calvin believed therefore that man could never make LFW choices. That is over-stating the case. Men, even evil men, sometimes choose good. They may not do it as frequently as they choose evil, but they often will choose the good – sometimes they even choose the good that is Jesus Christ to be their savior.

Absolutely, but this doesn't preclude God from being able to 'get it as certain as is possible' . As far as the Pelagian---->Calvin correlation. It's just that Pelagius and Calvin cut the knot of the free will .vs divine foreknowledge in opposing ways. Calvin said free will is an illusion because man is unable to attain justification for himself. Whereas, Pelagius' assertion would logically be concluded that foreknowledge is non-existent since man's own will is capable of aquiring justification for himself apart from God. Calvin asserted that free will was limited, just as a theology which is completely dependent upon free will must in the end say that foreknowledge is limited.

My position would say that through the use of foreknowledge God would know what level of grace would be sufficient for each individual. What level of Grace would be sufficient you is different than the amount of Grace that I would require since we have individual personalities. That same Grace would have to not overwhelm us in order for us to remain 'free'. That precise balance is where justice is reached. Too little and we didn't have a 'fair' chance and too much we didn't 'freely' choose. Foreknowledge of the effects of Grace are neccessary to retain justice in my way of thinking. Foreknowledge of our eventual reprobation is countered by God gave us enough and foreknowledge of our eventual glorification is countered by God didn't force us. This exact balance leaves us with responsibility. It requires an understanding of all influences and counterbalances whithin creation to obtain. Foreknowledge is the key.

Rob

 

[Philetus]

Where in the scripture does it say that God's grace is ever insufficient?

Is that merely inferred by the statement: "My grace is sufficient for you" at this time or in this case and not sufficient for others?

Does this concept come from the doctrine of predestination: that God has predestined some to damnation so withholds 'sufficient' grace from them?

Inquiring minds want to know.
Philetus
​

 

[Philetus]

How can GRACE ever be coercive?

Something is both freely offered and given or it isn't grace. The gift can be thought cheap, despised or even rejected. But, the response doesn’t discredit the giver or the gift.

Grace is free, Dietrich! Never cheap!
Philetus​

 

[RobE]

Where in the scripture does it say that God's grace is ever insufficient?

Inquiring minds want to know.
Philetus
​

A question: How can it be said that A. God wants all men to be saved, B. God gives all men sufficient Grace to be saved, and C. Some men aren't saved.

Get back to me after you understand what Grace is.

Seriously,
Rob

 

[godrulz]

A question: How can it be said that A. God wants all men to be saved, B. God gives all men sufficient Grace to be saved, and C. Some men aren't saved.

Get back to me after you understand what Grace is.

Seriously,
Rob

God does want all men to be saved and is not desiring that any perish.

Grace is not irresistible, despite what TULIP (Calvinism) says. That would be a contradiction in terms. The saving and keeping power and grace of the Spirit can be resisted since relationships are not coerced nor caused.

Not all men respond to the convincing and convicting of the Spirit. Some resist God's grace and purposes for them, to their own continued condemnation (love darkness; hate light; suppress truth...Rom. 1).

Some men are not saved due to their ongoing rebellion, not a lack of grace or adequate redemptive provision.

Since you are not a Calvinist, what is the issue or what are your thoughts?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

A question: How can it be said that A. God wants all men to be saved, B. God gives all men sufficient Grace to be saved, and C. Some men aren't saved.

Get back to me after you understand what Grace is.

Seriously,
Rob

Giving men grace to be saved doesn't mean it's accepted. Choice. That's what you overlook.

 

[RobE]

Godrulz,

The argument isn't mine and it goes something like this: God gave Peter and the 'bad' thief sufficient Grace to attain salvation. Isn't it true that in the case of Peter that grace was indeed sufficient and in the case of the 'bad' thief it was truly insufficient? Now, keeping in mind that God wills all men to be saved then why didn't God give the 'bad' thief enough Grace to attain salvation? The same might be said about Judas and the 'good' thief. When you compare Peter's relationship toward Judas .vs the 'good' thief and the 'bad' thief it is obvious the grace God gave to Judas and the 'bad' thief wasn't truly sufficient in their respective cases and therefore unjust. You might say that one chose this way and one chose another, but the fact remains that God gave all four men the ability to choose righteousness, wanted all four to choose righteousness, provided sufficient Grace for all four to choose righteousness; and two of them did not. How can it be said that God wanted all four to be saved if God, being all-powerful, was not able to bring about His own desires and provide sufficiently for all to be saved?

Do you see why I say that Grace is a relevant topic to our discussion here. Only simple foresight provides a way for justice to remain. Calvinist's must say that God foreordains the reprobate. The O.V. must say that God tried His best and failed. Followers of simple foresight say that God provided 'sufficiently' for all to obtain salvation, but God foresaw that some would not. How would God know what 'sufficient' would be without foresight?

The sinful nature is too powerful an influence in a man’s life. It will eventually win out, not just once, but a hundred times over. The difference in this and Calvin’s view is that Calvin believed therefore that man could never make LFW choices. That is over-stating the case. Men, even evil men, sometimes choose good. They may not do it as frequently as they choose evil, but they often will choose the good – sometimes they even choose the good that is Jesus Christ to be their savior.

Absolutely, but this doesn't preclude God from being able to 'get it as certain as is possible' . As far as the Pelagian---->Calvin correlation. It's just that Pelagius and Calvin cut the knot of the free will .vs divine foreknowledge in opposing ways. Calvin said free will is an illusion because man is unable to attain justification for himself. Whereas, Pelagius' assertion would logically be concluded that foreknowledge is non-existent since man's own will is capable of aquiring justification for himself apart from God. Calvin asserted that free will was limited, just as a theology which is completely dependent upon free will must in the end say that foreknowledge is limited.

My position would say that through the use of foreknowledge God would know what level of grace would be sufficient for each individual. What level of Grace would be sufficient you is different than the amount of Grace that I would require since we have individual personalities. That same Grace would have to not overwhelm us in order for us to remain 'free'. That precise balance is where justice is reached. Too little and we didn't have a 'fair' chance and too much we didn't 'freely' choose. Foreknowledge of the effects of Grace are neccessary to retain justice in my way of thinking. Foreknowledge of our eventual reprobation is countered by God gave us enough and foreknowledge of our eventual glorification is countered by God didn't force us. This exact balance leaves us with responsibility. It requires an understanding of all influences and counterbalances whithin creation to obtain. Foreknowledge is the key.

Where in the scripture does it say that God's grace is ever insufficient?

A question: How can it be said that A. God wants all men to be saved, B. God gives all men sufficient Grace to be saved, and C. Some men aren't saved?

Get back to me after you understand what Grace is.

God does want all men to be saved and is not desiring that any perish.

Grace is not irresistible, despite what TULIP (Calvinism) says. That would be a contradiction in terms. The saving and keeping power and grace of the Spirit can be resisted since relationships are not coerced nor caused.

Not all men respond to the convincing and convicting of the Spirit. Some resist God's grace and purposes for them, to their own continued condemnation (love darkness; hate light; suppress truth...Rom. 1).

Some men are not saved due to their ongoing rebellion, not a lack of grace or adequate redemptive provision.

Since you are not a Calvinist, what is the issue or what are your thoughts?

Since this was addressed over several posts it took a little work. All these posts are on the last couple of pages.

To sum up the debate on the sufficiency of Grace the question becomes 'How does a gift which is sufficient to save all mankind, in reality, not accomplish its purpose?'. The answer from my perspective is that a gift given must be received. Calvin says that the Grace wasn't sufficient by design and Pelagius says there is no need for grace.

Philetus, who obviously doesn't even understand the debate, nor does He care to understand the debate, just chimes in 'Oh yeah, I know you are so what am I? To answer Philetus' profound question of 'where in the scriptures does it say His grace is insufficient', it doesn't. It says 'it's sufficient' which is my exact position. 'Why it's sufficient when some will not be saved' is the question though. And a complex question it is; since we would need to ask/answer many difficult question leading up to an answer which removes responsiblity from our Lord. Calvin, who was a notable theologian, never arrived at a satisfactory solution so He cut the knot of the problem and said 'God desires some to be reprobate.' I am unable to accept this position.

Feel free to inquire more if this doesn't answer your question,
Rob

 

[RobE]

Here's some of those hard question I spoke to Godrulz about.

Here's some of those hard question I spoke to Godrulz about.

Giving men grace to be saved doesn't mean it's accepted. Choice. That's what you overlook.

Why didn't God give sufficient ability to some men to accept the truth?
Was the gift not presented in a way in which they would accept it?

Obviously if the known choice is eternal life in paradise or eternal life in punishment; then, the choice is easy since it becomes naturally coerced. The presentation isn't the key.

So you are saying that God gave some men the ability to accept the truth, but witheld giving others that same ability?

The Devil's Advocate, :devil:

CalRob