Derf
Well-known member
I'll give it a shot. It's the second one-on-one I've been referred to today, and I don't read that fast.
Reformed Theology: Somewhere Between..
- Thread starter ARMcCarley
- Start date
I'll give it a shot. It's the second one-on-one I've been referred to today, and I don't read that fast.
Derf
Well-known member
Two responses:
- It wasn't as long as I was expecting.
- I was as disappointed in JCWR's arguments as you were, apparently.
I appreciated your final post on the definition of time. From that definition, of course there is no way to apply "time" to God, as it was only made for His creatures. In that sense, I agree with you.
I think where we part ways is that there is a concept of "time" that doesn't require creatures and could apply to God. You hinted at it in a few ways, like in pointing to verses talking about "before the foundation of the world", and in pointing out that God is not without order in His actions, though He is in His deliberations.
If there is a distinction between "before" and "from" the foundation of the world, then it is there that my position would hold strength. I think there is a distinction. You apparently question that idea, but at the same time, you made much use of it.
I think you are a closet Temporalist.
Lon
Well-known member
Proverbs 16:9Hey Lon,
I don't think I get your point with your comment and reference. Are you saying Calvinists do believe in a type of fatalism, but it's ok because Arminians do, too? Or are you saying Calvinists don't believe in a type of fatalism?
In some ways, I as a parent, am fatalistically in charge of my kids. I put my foot-down on what will and will not be.
We all come to what God knows and when He knows it a bit differently.
I will go to the extreme: open theists believe God does not know a thing about our future, however, they believe He is a master at interaction, thus able to bring about His will. Being that they believe He is all-powerful (some of them don't), God is most powerful to accomplish His purpose. Inherently, there are many problems with this kind of thinking about a God who doesn't know what is going to happen next (see the scriptures given in this post), but it illustrates a looser form of fatalism, as do all of our positions, to whatever degree. Thus, you are correct to a point that all who believe God directs their path, while they are planning, do believe in a sense of "God's control." Probably the biggest difference between systematic theologies, is who 'embraces' that truth and who avoids it. I used to avoid it, then I became a Calvinist. Isaiah 14:27 Romans 9:19 James 4:16; 13-16
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Well of course someone who thinks God is temporally bound will have to come up some notion of what time is as relates to a maximally perfect being, God. It usually takes on all manner of trying to dodge God's perfect ontological category by diluting this or that. It is a minority view, required by minority groups, such as open theists.
How do you see me hinting:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1927006#post1927006
:idunno:
I believe I noted that God does not deliberate like we do:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1927947#post1927947
How do you see me questioning the idea yet making use of it?
From all these summaries of what you assume I was up to, I am worried I either have miscommunicated or you are not following my arguments closely.
AMR
Derf
Well-known member
I think you're redefining fatalism/determinism. A parent reacting to their children's behavior doesn't pre-determine their behavior or their final outcome--it determine's their outcome based on their behavior, and in the process determines the household outcome according to the parent's will. Fatalism, at least as far as your link was concerned, is that the outcome is predetermined no matter what is done to prevent it (like Oedipus Rex). Despite you putting your foot down, your children still do things against your will. You may punish them or banish them (send them away to a boarding school, perhaps) for bad behavior, or you may reward them for good behavior, to make sure your will is done in your household, but in any case, your children still either do your will or don't. That is the nature of dealing with a being that has his own will!
God does the same, interestingly enough, at least from what we read in scripture. He tells us ahead of time what the punishment/reward will be for our behavior (like death for eating of the wrong tree in the Garden), and then He does it. I'm not sure we always understand what He is saying, just like my children don't always understand what I'm getting at when I explain the behavior I want from them, but more often they disobey (or "forget") with a hope they won't have to face the punishment--because sometimes I'm merciful with them and don't punish them right away. And sometimes God is merciful in not punishing as much or as quickly as he could rightfully do, and He is certainly merciful in sending Jesus to take our penalty.
This is a solid description of "sovereignty", as opposed to the idea that "sovereignty" means that the sovereign controls every aspect, to the minutest detail, of what goes on in his kingdom. A sovereign (at least a good one) will make sure his will is done by punishing bad behavior or banishing the one behaving badly.
This is what Jesus said the kingdom of heaven is like:
Spoiler
Is it likely that the king of the real kingdom of heaven is unlike the king in Jesus' parable?
Certainly we (most of us here, anyway) we agree that God could control every minute detail, and He could decide what all those details are going to be before He sets them all in motion (although AMR may disagree with my "before" characterization), but that's not how his actions are described in scripture, at least in most places.
Maybe that's because it would be pretty boring for us readers to read, "And before the foundation of the world, God decided Lon would eat a hearty breakfast of pancakes and sausage on Jan 6, 2016, prior to going to work and having indigestion. And then (several million pages later) Lon ate a hearty breakfast of pancakes and sausage, knowing it would give him indigestion, and knowing that he would much rather have granola, but he couldn't help himself--he was predestined for indigestion." But I guess if God decides before the foundation of the world that some of us would really like reading about Lon having indigestion in spite of himself (though he also decides some of us wouldn't), then it's ok.
Last edited:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the First Cause, all things come to pass, immutably and infallibly, yet, by the same providence, He orders all things to fall out according to the nature of second causes, necessarily, freely, or contingently.
God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.
The Reformed maintain that God, in executing His decrees in providence, brings about different classes of events in a way that is in full accordance with their own distinct, proper natures—bringing to pass necessary things necessarily, free things freely, and contingent things contingently. This, of course, implies that there are under God’s government free moral agents, who are dealt with in all respects as free moral agents, according to their proper nature, and the actual qualities and capacities they possess.
As free agents they act freely; and although, if the doctrine of the foreordination of all things be true, there is a necessity in some sense attaching to all their actions, this does not preclude their having also a liberty attaching to them, in accordance with their general character and standing, as being free, in contradiction from a view that all are but necessary agents.
Among these free agents—in whom the liberty of second causes is maintained and preserved—notwithstanding the control which God exercises over all their actions in order to execute His decrees, are of course men, rational and responsible beings. God has made them rational and responsible, and He has endowed them with at least such freedom or liberty as is necessary to responsibility. God ever deals with them in accordance with the qualities and capacities which He has bestowed upon them. God does not deal with them as He does with the material creation or with the irrational animals. Although ever infallibly executing His decrees, God leaves them in the full possession of the rationality, responsibility, and liberty which He has bestowed upon them.
AMR
God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.
The Reformed maintain that God, in executing His decrees in providence, brings about different classes of events in a way that is in full accordance with their own distinct, proper natures—bringing to pass necessary things necessarily, free things freely, and contingent things contingently. This, of course, implies that there are under God’s government free moral agents, who are dealt with in all respects as free moral agents, according to their proper nature, and the actual qualities and capacities they possess.
As free agents they act freely; and although, if the doctrine of the foreordination of all things be true, there is a necessity in some sense attaching to all their actions, this does not preclude their having also a liberty attaching to them, in accordance with their general character and standing, as being free, in contradiction from a view that all are but necessary agents.
Among these free agents—in whom the liberty of second causes is maintained and preserved—notwithstanding the control which God exercises over all their actions in order to execute His decrees, are of course men, rational and responsible beings. God has made them rational and responsible, and He has endowed them with at least such freedom or liberty as is necessary to responsibility. God ever deals with them in accordance with the qualities and capacities which He has bestowed upon them. God does not deal with them as He does with the material creation or with the irrational animals. Although ever infallibly executing His decrees, God leaves them in the full possession of the rationality, responsibility, and liberty which He has bestowed upon them.
AMR
this is interesting
will have to read it again
but
a romanist could buy into this
as I do
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Anti-Calvinists brand Calvinism as fatalistic. The charge is equivocal, for fatalism has more than one meaning. However, the ultimate question isn’t whether Calvinism is fatalistic, but whether the word of God is fatalistic.
There are different ways of defining a word. One way is to define a word in reference to a paradigm case. In Greek literature, two classical examples of fatalism involve Croesus and Oedipus. In these instances, a father is given an oracle of doom concerning his son. The father takes precautions to sidestep the oracle. However, his very precautions fulfill the oracle.
On this definition, fatalism involves the following elements: (1) the dire outcome is predetermined. (2) The effort to escape one’s fate is the very means by which the fateful outcome (the ends) is achieved. Put another way, a protagonist facilitates the dire outcome against his will.
Let's compare the above view of fatalism to another view, using the crucifixion as an example. According to Scripture, God predestined the crucifixion. And not merely the event itself, but the means.
Free moral agents like Satan, Caiaphas, and other members of the Sanhedrin end up precipitating the polar opposite of what they intended. The religious establishment viewed Our Lord as a threat to their authority. A threat to the religious loyalties of the rank-and-file. But by their morally free actions they created an unimaginable following for Jesus which continues even to this day.
Why did Satan possess Judas? We may properly presume Satan thought that engineering the execution of Jesus would defeat Jesus. He would die a failed messiah.
In fact, I can speculate a wee bit that Satan had been spoiling for an opportunity like this for millennia. This was to be his greatest coup, striking a crushing blow with one masterstroke. A decisive victory for the dark side. It fell right into his lap.
Well, Satan had his plan, but behind Satan’s plan was God’s plan, for after all, Satan is but God's devil (HT: Martin Luther). God planned Satan’s plan, and God planned it to backfire.
Before Jesus could rise from the dead, He had to die. Satan becomes the unwitting instrument to thwart Satan’s designs. The very means by which he defies God turn out to be the means by which Satan suffers an irreparable setback, all according to God's planned ends.
That’s a classic form of fatalism. You bring about the very thing you fear through your efforts to cheat fate.
Calvinism is no more or less fatalistic Scripture.
AMR
There are different ways of defining a word. One way is to define a word in reference to a paradigm case. In Greek literature, two classical examples of fatalism involve Croesus and Oedipus. In these instances, a father is given an oracle of doom concerning his son. The father takes precautions to sidestep the oracle. However, his very precautions fulfill the oracle.
On this definition, fatalism involves the following elements: (1) the dire outcome is predetermined. (2) The effort to escape one’s fate is the very means by which the fateful outcome (the ends) is achieved. Put another way, a protagonist facilitates the dire outcome against his will.
Let's compare the above view of fatalism to another view, using the crucifixion as an example. According to Scripture, God predestined the crucifixion. And not merely the event itself, but the means.
Free moral agents like Satan, Caiaphas, and other members of the Sanhedrin end up precipitating the polar opposite of what they intended. The religious establishment viewed Our Lord as a threat to their authority. A threat to the religious loyalties of the rank-and-file. But by their morally free actions they created an unimaginable following for Jesus which continues even to this day.
Why did Satan possess Judas? We may properly presume Satan thought that engineering the execution of Jesus would defeat Jesus. He would die a failed messiah.
In fact, I can speculate a wee bit that Satan had been spoiling for an opportunity like this for millennia. This was to be his greatest coup, striking a crushing blow with one masterstroke. A decisive victory for the dark side. It fell right into his lap.
Well, Satan had his plan, but behind Satan’s plan was God’s plan, for after all, Satan is but God's devil (HT: Martin Luther). God planned Satan’s plan, and God planned it to backfire.
Before Jesus could rise from the dead, He had to die. Satan becomes the unwitting instrument to thwart Satan’s designs. The very means by which he defies God turn out to be the means by which Satan suffers an irreparable setback, all according to God's planned ends.
That’s a classic form of fatalism. You bring about the very thing you fear through your efforts to cheat fate.
Calvinism is no more or less fatalistic Scripture.
AMR
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
Don't forget:
---God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
And:
---Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.
I think the Westminster Divines were going around in circles. Not that I blame them--the scripture is fairly brimming with seeming contradictions, especially in this area, and especially if we start with the idea that God knows and approves of (or ordains) everything that will happen ahead of time. But it does seem they were struggling with how to say God decreed all things but without blame for the bad stuff. So they just came out and said it without apology.
But is it scriptural? Ah, that's the big question, isn't it? Your quoting it doesn't make it so, no more than my quoting it makes it not so.
AMR said:
The big question is whether everything is God's decree from the foundation of the world, or are some things His decree and other things not. If God doesn't look down the corridors of time to decide what things to decree, then He must decree all from His own designs, which means He is the author of evil, despite what the confession says.
:wave:Ooh, ooh, let me try...Anti-Calvinists brand Calvinism as fatalistic. The charge is equivocal, for fatalism has more than one meaning. However, the ultimate question isn’t whether Calvinism is fatalistic, but whether the word of God is fatalistic.
There are different ways of defining a word. One way is to define a word in reference to a paradigm case. In Greek literature, two classical examples of fatalism involve Croesus and Oedipus. In these instances, a father is given an oracle of doom concerning his son. The father takes precautions to sidestep the oracle. However, his very precautions fulfill the oracle.
On this definition, fatalism involves the following elements: (1) the dire outcome is predetermined. (2) The effort to escape one’s fate is the very means by which the fateful outcome (the ends) is achieved. Put another way, a protagonist facilitates the dire outcome against his will.
Let's compare the above view of fatalism to another view, using the crucifixion as an example. According to Scripture, God predestined the crucifixion. And not merely the event itself, but the means.
Free moral agents like Satan, Caiaphas, and other members of the Sanhedrin end up precipitating the polar opposite of what they intended. The religious establishment viewed Our Lord as a threat to their authority. A threat to the religious loyalties of the rank-and-file. But by their morally free actions they created an unimaginable following for Jesus which continues even to this day.
Why did Satan possess Judas? We may properly presume Satan thought that engineering the execution of Jesus would defeat Jesus. He would die a failed messiah.
In fact, I can speculate a wee bit that Satan had been spoiling for an opportunity like this for millennia. This was to be his greatest coup, striking a crushing blow with one masterstroke. A decisive victory for the dark side. It fell right into his lap.
Well, Satan had his plan, but behind Satan’s plan was God’s plan, for after all, Satan is but God's devil (HT: Martin Luther). God planned Satan’s plan, and God planned it to backfire.
Before Jesus could rise from the dead, He had to die. Satan becomes the unwitting instrument to thwart Satan’s designs. The very means by which he defies God turn out to be the means by which Satan suffers an irreparable setback, all according to God's planned ends.
That’s a classic form of fatalism. You bring about the very thing you fear through your efforts to cheat fate.
Calvinism is no more or less fatalistic Scripture.
AMR
I guess if we're looking for some good (maybe even "classic" in open theism literature) examples of fatalism, then let's try Hezekiah. God, in his use of means to get Hezekiah to live longer, first told him through a prophet that he would die of the illness, which must have been just a little white lie that God used to soften Hezekiah's heart to make him prostrate himself before Him and ask to live longer. God, knowing that was what He wanted in the first place, readily granted the request, thus ensuring His decree that Hezekiah live another 15 years.
What do you think?
If God decrees everything, and if scripture is fatalistic, then it has to apply to all of scripture, not just a cherry-picked example of God's eternal purpose/decree in sending a savior for mankind.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
An argument for your position in place of an assertion of your position would help, no?
I have plenty. See here as a start.
Again, an argument in place of an assertion would help, no?
See here as a start.
God's own designs include the necessary, free, contingent aspects. Proximate and antecedent causes are at play here, so I hope no one, even the non-Calvinist, denies God is the First Cause of all that happens, so there is no escape for any of us on the point. I just happen to be convinced from Scripture that the Reformed view does the best justice to God's sovereignty.
You seem to struggle with the fact that the God who spoke the universe into existence, revealed in Scripture as wholly sovereign, while also revealed in Scripture to hold man responsible, is not able to do both. I suspect you want to know how exactly that all works. I do not know for it is not revealed. I know the Who (God), so the how and the why is not troubling to me as it is for the humanistic types that will dilute God's right to rule as He sees fit to satisfy their urges to explain Him in their own terms, or save Him from Himself.
Who but God can fully comprehend how an action that was known of God before it was done can be freely performed by man? However, our inability to understand how something should actually come to be is not sufficient ground for affirming that it cannot be.
Openists have cornered the market in rejecting God's accommodations to our finitude when it suits them. Are you an open theist? Baptist? What exactly?
Is it not conceivable that God’s purpose behind these words was in fact to elicit from him such earnest, heartfelt dependence on God in prayer? God granted to Hezekiah fifteen years of extended life – not two, not twenty, and certainly not, "we’ll both see how long you live," but fifteen years exactly. Does it not seem a bit odd that this favorite text of the openist, which purportedly demonstrates that God does not know the future and so changes His mind when Hezekiah prays, also shows that God knows precisely and exactly how much longer Hezekiah will live? On openness grounds, how could God know this given the fifteen year span of enormous contingencies? The number of future freewill choices, made by Hezekiah and innumerable others, that relate directly to Hezekiah’s life and well being, none of which God knows (in the openness view) is enormous. Of course, the openist will just wave it off saying, well, God is really, really, smart, and able to do some really, really, good predicting of what may happen and plan for it. Yet, seems to me p=1.0 is not probabilistic at all, rather it is the certainty that comes from ordaining.
Openists seem to think prayer is to inform God, but I recall it is not "Your will be formed," but "Your will be done". :AMR:
There is also the observation that God here was teaching Hezekiah his utter dependence upon Him, a purpose to bring Hezekiah to the awareness of his need for a child. I assume all know why, too, if anyone appreciates the historical context.
In a reductio ad absurdum tactic, let's grant the openist view that God changed His mind. Did God literally change His mind? The openist argues, as I implied above, God is really smart, knowing us better than we know ourselves. So, God knows Hezekiah would plea for his life if he had the ability to do so. Exactly then, how is God surprised by all of this, learning something new and changing His mind after accreting new knowledge (getting smarter by the nanosecond)? If Hezekiah's plea was no surprise to God, did God really change His mind?
I am trying to be patient here with you. I do not know if you are just being winsome to keep the discussion moving hoping I will take the bait, or you are demonstrating a decidedly superficial attitude towards my carefully worded posts, and reading into them more than I am saying. I outlined two different examples of what may be called "fatalism" (recall the equivocality of the word).
In Acts 2:23 we read, “Him [Christ], being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death” (emphasis mine).
This verse clearly teaches that the crucifixion of our Lord was planned, predicted, and determined before it happened and all the devils in hell or men on earth could not keep Jesus from the cross—it was determined by a sovereign God. Yet at the same time, wicked men—acting freely—were charged with this wicked act.
In Acts 4:24—30, God puts these two truths side by side without apology or explanation.
The example of the cross is exemplary of all that happens, for God's decree encompasses all that will happen. God foreknows because He has decreed, and that which is decreed cannot not happen, else God could not know. The decree includes all the necessary, free, contingent aspects, too, and in executing His decrees in providence, brings about different classes of events in a way that is in full accordance with their own distinct, proper natures.
AMR
Lon
Well-known member
Hello Derf,
In Him -Lon
So....am I a 'lucky' or 'purposeful' parent? :think:
And even tells them before they do it, they will do it...
These are examples of variables, but I am fairly sure that parameters limit those. That means, necessarily, there is a sense of 'fatalism' to our lives. What do I mean. I mean "I cannot flap my arms and fly." "Fatalism" is often in the eye-of-the-beholder. Let's say, for argument, that I embraced it, and puppetry: I'm very happy to be involved in God's Creative work. It doesn't matter if my will is stolen, or imagined, or non-existent, as it does that I play a part in His plan.
Scripture asserts it Colossians 1:17 John 15:5
I am nobody to qualify or assert what God must be. I'll have to leave that alone, to you.
Parables must always be carefully unpacked and we must carefully use any story as compared to pedantically clear teaching scriptures. Story is the road that truth travels in order to show us how truth plays out in life with example. Parable, equally, is the road of example to teaches principle.
Romans 9?
Except "I" have never been down that road before. How could I be bored with it?
Sure, just like there are genealogies that go on for pages. Boring as they are, they teach us that people are important to God, even if we know nothing about them. I don't even win awards on TOL after 10 years being here. I'm just happy, for two moments, you think me interesting enough to read what I am writing just now. It will likely be boring ever after this, but for a moment...
In Him -Lon
Ben Masada
New member
I am willing to try to help you but, I need a referential quote about Limited Atonement; for the one we deal with in the Tanach is of the complete kind.
Derf
Well-known member
I need an argument for an opinion? The standards are sure high around here!
Ok, I'll bite. My "assertion", as you called it, was:
Now, from your link (and thanks to Mr. Shaw): "That God must have decreed all future things, is a conclusion which necessarily flows from his foreknowledge, independence, and immutability. 'The foreknowledge of God will necessarily infer a decree, for God could not foreknow that things would be, unless he had decreed they should be; and that because things would not be future, unless he had decreed they should be.' [The quote is apparently from Jonathan Edwards]" What's missing is the bible verse that says "God foreknows all things." But think how boring this site would be if that verse were in the bible.Derf said:
I don't see anything to prevent God from doing both. But what quality does the word "wholly" add to the absoluteness of "sovereign"? Seems an attempt to redefine sovereign to mean more than it usually means in our vulgar tongue. (see my post to Lon, here: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4577683#post4577683)
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings. I'm a child of The King--I sure wouldn't want to be lazy about the job God gave me to do. But I don't have to find out the how, if that's not the what. When a king finds out that he's searching out a matter in the wrong place, shouldn't he move on?
Does it help to label me? Read my motto.
I never liked the probabilities arguments (nor your caricature, though nice try), but I can guarantee you that if God decides to preserve someone's life, He could do it. And if he decides to end someone's life, He could do it. So what's so hard about about preserving Hezekiah's life for exactly 15 more years? Seems you have a low view of God that He couldn't do such a thing without planning it for all eternity. But the more part was the focus of my "story". How can there be a more from all eternity past? If God had decided that He would ordain Hezekiah to those years from before the beginning of time, how could He truthfully say to Hez that he would die of the disease? God is not a man that he should lie, is He? ... Hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good? I think what you're saying is that God could NOT bring it to pass that Hezekiah die 15 years early.
Is it an all or nothing proposition? If God's will is that we communicate with Him, is it possible that He might want to wait until we actually ask Him for something rather than just doing that thing, yet without disturbing the decree that He would save humanity through His son? Couldn't asking actually be part of His will--and that we ask in faith, not under coercion? To say "your will be done" in all truthfulness and sincerity, as Jesus did, is part of fulfilling God's will. On the other hand, is there anything to the prayer "your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" if everything on earth and heaven is already according to God's will?
It's a good reminder, that Manasseh was only 12 when he began to reign. But still, if the future is all settled, did God need to lie to get Hezekiah to father a child to fill his throne? Surely He has other means, like having his beautiful, married neighbor take a bath in front of him, perhaps? But I have an even better reason for the episode--to teach Hezekiah to pray to God believing. The sickness/recovery story appears to be coincident with the siege of Jerusalem (I'm using vs 2Ki 20:6 for this assertion), and He really needed to learn how to pray and seek God's help when he was up against a wall (pun intended--2Ki 20:2), remembering that previously he had just caved and given a bunch of treasures away. But neither qualifies for a good enough excuse for God to lie, do they? I'd add that Hezekiah was doubtful of God's willingness to give him the extra 15 years and thus asked for the rather incredible sign.
Change Hezekiah's destiny, you mean? I'd say yes, based on my foregoing comments. Was He surprised into it, I seriously doubt it. Is that a change of God's mind, to hear a prayer and mercifully answer it? Absolutely not. Your caricatures are pretty effective, but they don't represent what's being proposed.
What?!? I thought I was being patient with you!
You had me until that last sentence. No argument before that. But you worded it more closely with scripture than you did before, too. Did God predestine the very people and their very actions from the beginning of time? I'm not so convinced of that, and I don't think the bible gives us that kind of detail. So it fits nicely into your classic fatalism picture--that no matter what man or Satan does, they will end up bringing about a particular thing: God's over-arching purpose to save the world. But not necessarily every thing.
God's decree is useless unless He has the power to bring it about. But if He has the power to bring it about, then it must be Him that brings it about when He decrees something (I don't think you'll disagree with me here)--no other power is greater and non can stay His hand. And if He brings it about, by His power, then it doesn't really matter if He foreknows something or not--the foreknowing is a logical result of his predetermining and of His matchless power. (Mr. Shaw downplayed the role of Gods power, but he did mention it.) If He can do it, and He decides to do it (whenever that might happen), there's no problem for Him to tell us ahead of time what He's going to do, if He so chooses. And anything He decides to do, that He foreknows--this is the basis for the Westminster Confession citations from earlier. The question is, does God foreknow everything, i.e., does He decree everything, i.e., does He do everything (including sin, which He would bring about by His power, if this is the case), or not? Does it make Him less powerful if He doesn't decree everything? No, in my opinion. But it makes Him more good (in my opinion).
By the way, thanks very much for this exchange--it is a good way for us to sharpen each other as iron, as long as we don't sharpen our wits too much on each other.
With Christ's love (I hope),
Derf
Last edited:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
For theological discussions the use of words with more precision move things forward. You may not like labels, but labels will be attached the more we speak, write, and do. That is the way of things for theological discourse and it is my experience that those that refuse to be labeled, even with careful generalizations or qualifications thereto, usually have something to hide or an agenda that needs to see the light of day.
I make my position known perspicuously. My sig, motto, etc., is drowning in the same just so folks know where I will be beginning and whether or not they even think I am worth any effort to discuss matters on their minds. I place no truck in those that want to cling to some uniqueness that no one can fathom as if what they stand for cannot be mapped into some general category of reasoned theological discourse.
You appear to deny God's exhaustive knowledge of all things, past, present and future. You hint at the temporal existence of God versus atemporality. Further you imply, ever so carefully, that perhaps God prayer bears some impact on His ontology, in that prayer brings mercy, where apparently mercy was not decreed from eternity. Perhaps we can quibble on that last bit, or you will agree with me and say that the decree encompassed the act of praying, from which mercy is then dispensed, all according to God's eternal plan.
All of which is to say that if you have leanings towards open theism, then please state as much rather than drop bread crumbs here and there. Or, if you have denominational connections in a local church (do you attend a church?), Baptist, Lutheran, etc., why not make it known? I want to be a good steward of my God-given time and use it effectively. Knowing who I am discussing matters with is a vital aspect of this. I would rather not troll about trying to cobble together where you are coming from as relates to theological topics, theology proper, soteriology, etc. Instead, what is the hesitation for just telling me so as to enable me to better respond?
Nevertheless, I will respond to your latest, but I am going to need more open disclosure from you if you want to carry this forward.
AMR
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The fallacy of an argument from ignorance? Nor is the word, trinity in the Bible, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. For that matter, the word omniscience (knowing all things perfectly, undividedly, distinctly and immutably) is not, strictly speaking, a biblical term. The word itself is not found in the Bible. It is a word that has come into wide usage because, like the word trinity, it correctly describes the biblical evidence.Now, from your link (and thanks to Mr. Shaw): "That God must have decreed all future things, is a conclusion which necessarily flows from his foreknowledge, independence, and immutability. 'The foreknowledge of God will necessarily infer a decree, for God could not foreknow that things would be, unless he had decreed they should be; and that because things would not be future, unless he had decreed they should be.' [The quote is apparently from Jonathan Edwards]" What's missing is the bible verse that says "God foreknows all things." But think how boring this site would be if that verse were in the bible.
Or are you just obliquely saying God foreknows some things, but not all things? If so, how does that work? Oddly, there are some openists on this site that would say God chooses not to know. But if God were to choose to be ignorant, then surely at some level of His being He knows enough, or once knew enough, to know what He must not know if He is to protect His moral status. At that point God's choosing not to know has the flavor of the duplicitous.
Does not Scripture say, "Lord, thou knowest all things?" (John 21:17) and "God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things" (1 John 3:20)? Did not the writer of Hebrews teach us that "All things are naked and open unto his eyes" (Hebrews 4:13)? Did not the Lord tell Jeremiah "Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee" (Jeremiah. 1:5)? Does not Isaiah confesses that "He declares the end from the beginning and from ancient times the things that are not yet done" (Isaiah 46:10)? The Scriptures testify to the knowledge of God in numerous places, e.g., in 1 Sam. 2:3; Job 12:13; Ps. 94:9; 147:4; Isa. 29:15; 40:27,28.
Of course, foreknowledge is not synonymous with omniscience. Foreknowledge is concerned, not with contingency, but with certainty, and thus implies a knowledge of what has been rendered certain. God’s foreknowledge (προγνωσις: Rom. 8:29; 11:2; 1 Pet. 1:2; cf. Acts 2:23) is not a passive form of precognition, not a state of consciousness, but a self-determination of God, prior to its realization in history, to assume a certain specific relation to the objects of his foreknowledge. In other words, God foreknows because He foreordains.
Necessity of a hypothetical inference...
If God foreknew Peter would sin, then Peter cannot refrain from sinning. (Incorrect)
The interpretation above wrongly interprets God's foreknowledge as impinging upon Peter's moral free agency. The proper understanding is:
The necessity of the consequent of the hypothetical...
Necessarily, if God foreknew Peter would sin, then Peter does not refrain from sinning. (Correct)
In other words, the actions of moral free agents do not take place because they are foreseen, the actions are foreseen because the actions are certain to take place.
Acts 2:23 would make foreknowledge dependent upon God’s determinate counsel by the grammatical construction which combines both together as one thought with foreknowledge referring to and enforcing the previous term.
More importantly, foreknowledge is related to the Old Testament term “to know,” implying an intimate knowledge of and relation to its object (Cf. Gen. 4:1; Amos 3:2). The passages in the New Testament (Rom. 8:29;11:2; 1 Pet. 1:2) all speak of persons who are foreknown, implying much more than mere prescience or omniscience—a relationship that is absolutely certain, personal and intimate.
I add the word to qualify what openists at this site who may be reading think the word sovereignty means. They would dilute sovereignty to mean anything but God's absolute authority, power, dominion, rule, and claim over all things.
That God in some sense foreordains whatever comes to pass is a necessary result of his sovereignty. Contrary to those who cavil about Calvinism, that God foreordains whatever comes to pass is not a plead for Calvinism. Rather it only declares that God is absolutely sovereign over His creation. God can foreordain things in different ways. But everything that happens must at least happen by His permission. If God permits something, then He must decide to allow it. If God decides to allow something, then in a sense He is foreordaining it. After all, who, among the faithful, would argue that God could not stop something in this world from happening? If there is any part of creation outside of God’s sovereignty, then God is simply not sovereign. If God is not sovereign, then God is not God.
See immediately above. Smuggled in insult notwithstanding, are you arguing God did not know?
That we ask for this or that is not informing He who knows before we ask, rather it is in the asking that our walk of faith grows. Prayer draws us nearer to God and conforms our will unto God's. Prayer honors God (Isaiah 57:15; Jonah 2:9), is a means of growth in grace (Psalms 116:1), seeking from Him our needs (James 4:2). Now that last one, our needs, is where some begin to confuse things.
Spoiler
Hence my usual "wholly sovereign" qualifier above. If something could come to pass apart from God's sovereign permission, then that which came to pass would frustrate His sovereignty. If God refused to permit something to happen and it happened anyway, then whatever caused it to happen would have more authority and power than God himself. If there is any part of creation outside of God’s sovereignty, then God is simply not sovereign.
How? Start with how it is possible for God to not ordain all that happen? What exactly is going on? Meaningless evil? You've heard plenty from me, but all I have yet heard from you explicating the process by which God governs and achieves His ends. Does God know all that will happen in the future? Yes? How does He know it? No? Why not?
I agree.
AMR
Derf
Well-known member
My concern here is that if I reveal something (a "label") that is somewhat representative of my positions, it does 2 things:
1. it squashes the "somewhat" representation in favor of a "wholly" representation, at least potentially.
2. It squashes the conversation, because you then get to pull from vast resources that target that label (and their previously aired points) more than my points. While those resources may be pertinent, they also may not be, and then I'm left to decide if they apply by actually reading them, which I won't have time to do.
And appealing to your behavior in emphasizing your belief system in your signature and profile just makes it seem like you may have prematurely revealed such, not that I need to.
But if it makes you feel any better, I'm a member in good standing of an OPC congregation.
I will work on the response to your later post, but it won't be near as fast a response.
Derf
Well-known member
Mine? or yours?
And even less is absence of evidence evidence of presence. But you've referred to things that are present, because the concept is found in the Bible. The idea that God's certain knowledge pertains to things that were, are, and are planned is a relatively new one for me, but it is a powerful idea. I haven't read much from the Open View, but I've read a fair amount of those that disagree with it (Ware and Erickson and the first to come to mind, along with debates by White)--and I find most of their arguments lacking. That's not to say that the Openists' arguments are always stellar--they aren't.
I thought it didn't matter to you how it works, as long as it's God that's doing it???
I find that idea rather goofy, personally.
Since you brought up those scriptures, let's look through them a little, in pseudo-random order, if you don't mind.
1Sa 2:3 - Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let [not] arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the LORD [is] a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed. This essentially says, "Stop talking like that, because can see that your actions speak louder than words." But it doesn't address God's foreknowledge.
Job 12:13 - With him [is] wisdom and strength, he hath counsel and understanding. Any reference to foreknowledge here is hidden in His wisdom and power to pull something off. And the verse is followed, in kind, with a bunch of stuff that God does, not related to foreknowledge as far as I can tell.
Psa 94:9 - He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see? What it doesn't say is, "He that planted the ear, did He not know what you would say from all eternity?" But rather that God actually processes the words that come out of our mouths and the things that we do. Whether before the foundation of the world or not is not addressed.
Psa 147:4 - He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by [their] names. Is that the number of stars now? Or the number when He created them? does that number change? We're lacking a fair bit of information on this one for any judgment. But it certainly shows God's capacity for knowledge, intimate knowledge, is rather large.
Isa 29:15 - Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us? Why "woe unto them"? Is it because God predetermined their works before the foundation of the earth? Or because God "sees" them and "knows" them.
Isa 40:27-28 - Why sayest thou, O Jacob, and speakest, O Israel, My way is hid from the LORD, and my judgment is passed over from my God? Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, [that] the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? [there is] no searching of his understanding.In other words, God actually does know Israel's way and judgment.
Jhn 21:17 - He saith unto him the third time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. Why did Jesus ask Peter 3 times? Was it because He didn't know, as Peter seems to think? No, it's because he wants Peter to act on his love in a particular way in the future. Why would Jesus need to tell him such, if He knew how He would act in the future???
1Jo 3:20 - For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. "All things that we will ever do?" No, not from this verse, at least.
Heb 4:13 - Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things [are] naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. This is another verse that says God actually processes what we do: "manifest in his sight" and "naked and opened unto" his eyes. But it has little to say of "future" events--"neither is there any creature..."
Jer 1:5 - Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. This is starting to get to the heart of the matter, in my estimation. But what does it say? It says that God knew exactly what He was going to do, ahead of time. I don't see why that is so preposterous to anyone. Surely God can do something if He sets His mind to it, don't you think?
Isa 46:10 - Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:This one is just like the last one: It seems to show that God can tell us before He does something that He's going to do it--and we can be sure that He will; that no one will be able to thwart Him in it. I hope you and I are in agreement on this!
I sectioned this off to handle later, but I don't have time or room in this post. If you want me to address it, let's do a little later. It's a big section I would guess.
Ah, but that's the opposite of the Westminster Confession: Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions. So you seem to be running in the same circles they must have been running in. (Opinion flag! no evidence required, remember.) I agree with the idea that a future event being certain is not the forcing function, but God decreeing something, like according to your Is 46:10 reference above, IS a valid forcing function, and the one the WCF seems to point to.
So you are saying there are some things (or people) that God "foreknows" (knows in a more intimate way) and some things He does not? Good, I think we're coming to an agreement here!
The following was in response to my comment about "wholly sovereign" (just to regain the context):
But do you possibly enhance the word's meaning by your definition? Both adding to scripture and removing from scripture are equally onerous, wouldn't you say? What does "sovereign" mean? On earth, it means a ruler whose will is to be obeyed--or else! Or else what? Or you will be punished or banished from the realm. What does God do to those who won't abide by His laws? He punishes them (death) or banishes them (hell)!
No argument that God must allow each thing that happens! But that's a little different from deciding--no "decreeing"--from before the foundation of the world that those things happen. Allowing logical consequences to His creations and dealing with creations after they <expectedly> sin is different from decreeing that someone sin and decreeing those <supposed> consequences.
I'm saying it doesn't require God to know. Whether He knows or not is unclear from scripture.
Meaningless evil? God forbid! God-sponsored evil? God forbid even more so!! Evil from the hearts of men? Absolutely? Allowed by God? Sure, for a time--sometimes in hopes of repentance (2 Pet 3:9), and perhaps sometimes for other reasons (Joseph).
How would God know everything ahead of time? I think I answered that one already: only if He has the power--greater than anyone else--to bring it to pass despite all opposition. Does He have that power? Yes. Does He use it to bring about sin? No, a thousand times, no. Does he need to look down the corridors of time to decide what to do based on what He sees? I would say "No". Your confession says "No" (though it circles back on itself and also says "Yes"). Are you saying "Yes" or "No"?
And I'm not sure what you mean by your "why not" question. "Why doesn't God know all that will happen in the future", perhaps? Because (I mention meekly), that's not how He made things to work? Because He really did want creatures that have a mind and will of their own? Because we really can't love God unless we do so freely--perhaps so freely that even he doesn't know who will love Him and who won't in the end? And He refuses to force them to do so, because He knows that's not real love?
God bless, and have a good weekend!
Derf
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
That is gratifying in one sense and disappointing in another to read. The OPC is a wonderful group and I am greatly encouraged you are a member therein.
On the other hand, from what you have posted to date, the claim of "good standing" could be put at risk if examined by your OPC session. I now see why you want to operate under the radar of the discipline of an OPC church session or presbytery that would be within its warrant to claim oversight on your publicly made statements. Brother, I am not claiming you are being deceptive to avoid oversight. In fact I understand the need to have some means of exploring and testing one's views in a less onerous manner where overly scrupulous "box checkers" are not lurking about, until and if at such time one has come to a more solid grounding in one's position.
Also, why the hesitancy of being more specific using the reason of resources that can be brought to bear for clarity? It would seem to me that given your current views you would be eager to dig deeper despite the time required (2 Cor. 10:5). I promise not to bury you in a storm of homework reading materials.
Have you ever discussed with your Pastor about your views expressed herein? You owe it to him and yourself to have a frank discussion. Who knows, he may help crisp things up more fully for you and I am confident he would welcome the discussion with someone who obviously has been thinking carefully about these important matters.
AMR
[Note to other readers unfamiliar with conservative Presbyterianism: Unlike many Protestant groups, NAPARC churches, like the OPC or PCA (my own) take church discipline seriously and a member ordinarily has no claim to immunity for behavior outside of the church that would conflict with the church's stated Confessional basis or Book of Church Order. Given that Presbyterianism is not congregational, subscription to a confession is required for good government since the government is in the hands of church-officers, not the membership of the congregation. The ministry and government of the church are authoritative and to be exercising a genuine influence in the discipleship of the members, and that the members should be teachable and submissive. This is obviously not going to appeal to an independent mindset such as found in congregationalism. Hence only church officers must affirm that confessional basis with very narrow or no scruples—that may or may not be taught per rules of the particular church group—while the members are bound to keep the peace of the church.]
Derf
Well-known member
That is gratifying in one sense and disappointing in another to read. The OPC is a wonderful group and I am greatly encouraged you are a member therein.
On the other hand, from what you have posted to date, the claim of "good standing" could be put at risk if examined by your OPC session. I now see why you want to operate under the radar of the discipline of an OPC church session or presbytery that would be within its warrant to claim oversight on your publicly made statements. Brother, I am not claiming you are being deceptive to avoid oversight. In fact I understand the need to have some means of exploring and testing one's views in a less onerous manner where overly scrupulous "box checkers" are not lurking about, until and if at such time one has come to a more solid grounding in one's position.
Also, why the hesitancy of being more specific using the reason of resources that can be brought to bear for clarity? It would seem to me that given your current views you would be eager to dig deeper despite the time required (2 Cor. 10:5). I promise not to bury you in a storm of homework reading materials.
Have you ever discussed with your Pastor about your views expressed herein? You owe it to him and yourself to have a frank discussion. Who knows, he may help crisp things up more fully for you and I am confident he would welcome the discussion with someone who obviously has been thinking carefully about these important matters.
AMR
[Note to other readers unfamiliar with conservative Presbyterianism: Unlike many Protestant groups, NAPARC churches, like the OPC or PCA (my own) take church discipline seriously and a member ordinarily has no claim to immunity for behavior outside of the church that would conflict with the church's stated Confessional basis or Book of Church Order. Given that Presbyterianism is not congregational, subscription to a confession is required for good government since the government is in the hands of church-officers, not the membership of the congregation. The ministry and government of the church are authoritative and to be exercising a genuine influence in the discipleship of the members, and that the members should be teachable and submissive. This is obviously not going to appeal to an independent mindset such as found in congregationalism. Hence only church officers must affirm that confessional basis with very narrow or no scruples—that may or may not be taught per rules of the particular church group—while the members are bound to keep the peace of the church.]
That's it? This is your answer? To call out the doctrine police? You, a "Reformed" brother?
I thought that was a little "c" on catholic in your signature, not a big "C". I thought the 5 solas were your guide to theological content. What exactly did the reformation buy us if we can't go to the bible for our authority in doctrine, but instead have the pope issue a papal bull against our opponent?
You have shamed our NAPARC churches by suggesting a debate can be won by threatening church membership status. Wycliffe, Calvin and Luther all did a face palm when they read your post.
I'm thoroughly disappointed! And I guess I need to watch my back when I pull out my bible and read the scriptures for myself.
Thank you, Mr. Religion!
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Derf,
I must have miscommunicated and therefore apologize if you take this from my post, which was intended to only note that what you have been advocating herein is perhaps not in accordance with the confessional basis of the OPC. It was a gentle call for you to "check in" with the community of saints with which you have covenanted your membership.
If you do not understand the importance of a church's confessional basis, the use of a confession as a normed norm I can understand why you seem put off in your response. However, if you do, then why the Romanist insults? Where I have advocated against sola scriptura? Nowhere. If the Confession (the normed norm) has itself been framed upon Scripture (the norming norm), one would be remiss to ignore it, which is but one reason why the OPC and other NAPARC churches use them.
If you want to advocate, based upon your study of Scripture, that the Confession is wrong, this is not the place for such a discussion between two men who are members of churches that affirm the Confession. Such a discussion properly takes place within your session as a start. That is your duty as a member. Or, if you seek clarification about the summaries contained in the Confession, which are held by both our denominations to be accurate summaries of Scripture, yet subordinate to Scripture, I am happy to provide what I am able or at least refer you to other useful content.
If it was my note below my post that was offensive to you, again I will claim I have miscommunicated and express my apology for the same. It was intended for the casual readers alone, who likely will not be familiar with how conservative Presbyterianism functions, to short-circuit the usual "man-made" doctrine canards the misinformed tee up, and to note how conservative groups take the members' walk of faith seriously. It was not directed to you or I, who should know these things by virtue of our church affiliations and most assuredly was not some veiled threat of our membership status. In fact that was the point of my "box checkers" comment in my post, in that there are those lurking about who take great glee in finding fault among others and causing strife where none is warranted.
Does this help? I hope and pray it be so.
AMR
I must have miscommunicated and therefore apologize if you take this from my post, which was intended to only note that what you have been advocating herein is perhaps not in accordance with the confessional basis of the OPC. It was a gentle call for you to "check in" with the community of saints with which you have covenanted your membership.
If you do not understand the importance of a church's confessional basis, the use of a confession as a normed norm I can understand why you seem put off in your response. However, if you do, then why the Romanist insults? Where I have advocated against sola scriptura? Nowhere. If the Confession (the normed norm) has itself been framed upon Scripture (the norming norm), one would be remiss to ignore it, which is but one reason why the OPC and other NAPARC churches use them.
If you want to advocate, based upon your study of Scripture, that the Confession is wrong, this is not the place for such a discussion between two men who are members of churches that affirm the Confession. Such a discussion properly takes place within your session as a start. That is your duty as a member. Or, if you seek clarification about the summaries contained in the Confession, which are held by both our denominations to be accurate summaries of Scripture, yet subordinate to Scripture, I am happy to provide what I am able or at least refer you to other useful content.
If it was my note below my post that was offensive to you, again I will claim I have miscommunicated and express my apology for the same. It was intended for the casual readers alone, who likely will not be familiar with how conservative Presbyterianism functions, to short-circuit the usual "man-made" doctrine canards the misinformed tee up, and to note how conservative groups take the members' walk of faith seriously. It was not directed to you or I, who should know these things by virtue of our church affiliations and most assuredly was not some veiled threat of our membership status. In fact that was the point of my "box checkers" comment in my post, in that there are those lurking about who take great glee in finding fault among others and causing strife where none is warranted.
Does this help? I hope and pray it be so.
AMR
Last edited: