OVT And False Predictions [Archive]

Starkman

September 8th 2004, 06:59 PM

Do open theists believe that God can inspire false predictions? That seems like a logical conclusion.

Now, let's restate the question/issue to see if this is true:

Open Theists believe that some of the future is open; the future is not exhaustively determined. Because Open Theists believe this, it is logical to conclude that God inspires false predictions.

Why would that be true? God's character is the same regardless of whether one holds to the Open View or not.

If God says something's going to happen, He has the right to change His mind about it; as noted with Jonah and Hezekiah, God didn't follow through with what He said He was going to do. We don't have to look upon that as if God is somehow less smarter or less reliable because He shows mercy and changes His plans. That would only be expected within the Open View.

Finally, yes, God will sometimes over-ride free will to get the job done. First, He has the right to do so; second, we are not as free as we think we are. We have freedom to choose to love or not love God, to choose to serve or not serve Him, but we don't have a whole hek of a lot of freedom beyond this. Jonah, again, is a classic example: his mind isn't converted into a robotic response to do as God told him, but he was going to Nineveh, whether he liked it or not. Period. In other cases, God may tell someone what to name their child (John the Baptist). Other times God may put it into the heart (can't think of the reference at the moment). So, we are not as free as we think we are.

Starkman

geebob

September 8th 2004, 08:18 PM

Do open theists believe that God can inspire false predictions? That seems like a logical conclusion.

It is simply the biblical truth that God has often said something will happen and it didn't. everyone recognizes this and everyone calls these conditional prophecies. The only difference is that we ov'ers don't believe God was bluffing or merely trying to get a reaction. He does make predictions that he really will put through unless the person repents and that person or nation really might repent or fail to repent, and depending on their behavior, God will respond accordingly.

the open view here coheres with the basic piety of those try to react with God in such a situation. The ninevites decided to pray in hopes that God would "change" his mind. Moses attempted to change God's mind in exodus 32, and the narrator agrees that God really changed his mind. But if God got exactly what he wanted all along, then it wasn't really a change in his mind and plans.

lee_merrill

September 8th 2004, 08:53 PM

Hi everyone,

... if you note in the case of Nineveh, God declared that He would destroy the city in 40 days. No conditions, no options for Nineveh, just destruction. But their repentance changed the situation, so God changed His mind.
I get to ask my Jonah questions!

Why didn't God destroy the Ninevites right away, if that was his plan?

Why did God send Jonah, and spoil his plan?

How can we trust God, if he can take action, and spoil his own plan himself?

Why didn't God lie to the Ninevites, if he threatened unconditional destruction, yet he knew it might not happen?

Why did Jonah seem to have a better grasp of the situation than God did? He thought the Ninevites would probably repent, and thus he ran.

Why did the Ninevites seem to know better than God did? They thought they could repent, and God, apparently, did not.

Why didn't God keep the Ninevites from repenting after Jonah preached to them, like he did with the sons of Eli (1 Sam. 2:25) and with Amaziah (2 Chr. 25:16)?

Blessings,
Lee

Berean Todd

September 9th 2004, 12:40 AM

Hi everyone,

I get to ask my Jonah questions!

Why didn't God destroy the Ninevites right away, if that was his plan?

Why did God send Jonah, and spoil his plan?

How can we trust God, if he can take action, and spoil his own plan himself?

Why didn't God lie to the Ninevites, if he threatened unconditional destruction, yet he knew it might not happen?

Why did Jonah seem to have a better grasp of the situation than God did? He thought the Ninevites would probably repent, and thus he ran.

Why did the Ninevites seem to know better than God did? They thought they could repent, and God, apparently, did not.

Why didn't God keep the Ninevites from repenting after Jonah preached to them, like he did with the sons of Eli (1 Sam. 2:25) and with Amaziah (2 Chr. 25:16)?

Blessings,
Lee
Awesome post Lee! :lol: I have a strong dislike of Open Theism, and while I have tired of fighting it from my dealings on some other boards, I love seing them get "the guns" like that ... nice post!

GoBahnsen

September 9th 2004, 12:58 AM

Awesome post Lee! :lol: I have a strong dislike of Open Theism, and while I have tired of fighting it from my dealings on some other boards, I love seeing them get "the guns" like that ... nice post!:thumb: :cheers:

I'm sorry folks, but God is always one step ahead of us, don't you think? Yeah I agree Todd, ...nice post lee.

geebob

September 9th 2004, 10:03 AM

Why didn't God destroy the Ninevites right away, if that was his plan?

because it was not his plan to destroy the ninevites right away. It was his plan to destroy the ninevites barring their repentence.

Why did God send Jonah, and spoil his plan?

He didn't send Jonah to spoil his plan. The plan was contingent and barring their repentence, he was REALLY going to do it.

How can we trust God, if he can take action, and spoil his own plan himself?

changing ones mind with regard to a contingent prophecy is not the same as spoiling the prophecy.

Why didn't God lie to the Ninevites, if he threatened unconditional destruction, yet he knew it might not happen?

To state a conditional intention unconditionally is well within the range of normal basic discourse and thus is not decietful. It is similar to hyperbole in some ways.

I'm not sure if you phrased the above correctly but I answered assuming I knew what you meant.

Why did Jonah seem to have a better grasp of the situation than God did? He thought the Ninevites would probably repent, and thus he ran.

I wouldn't draw that conclusion that he thought they would probably repent. His hatred for them may have been so thorough that a slight possibility that they would repent would be to much mercy for those monsters. And Jonah is doesn't have the mind of God. He's like you and me and if either of us were in that situation, neither of us would be any position to truly gage just how likely it would be for them to repent.

And who knows how many similar situations their were to the story in Jonah were there was a similar likely hood for repentence or continued rebellion and they rebelled and perhaps God went through with prophecied destruction. Scripture never claims to be an exhaustive history. But in fact, scripture is filled with warnings of destruction and destruction came. And who's to say those weren't conditional prophecies. Just because they came to pass doesn't mean it wasn't conditional because a conditional prophecy, because it is given in truth does have at least some significant chance for coming to pass and thus it's reasonable to conclude that some of them have.

Why did the Ninevites seem to know better than God did? They thought they could repent, and God, apparently, did not.

uh... no, a conditional prophecy is given with some hope for repentence.

Why didn't God keep the Ninevites from repenting after Jonah preached to them, like he did with the sons of Eli (1 Sam. 2:25) and with Amaziah (2 Chr. 25:16)?

some people reach a last straw for God's patience and he's tired of giving them a chance, hence he does not allow them a libertarian moment.

Starkman

September 9th 2004, 11:29 AM

Hey Lee,

I'll number your posts and then respond.

1. Why didn't God destroy the Ninevites right away, if that was his plan?

Because it wasn't his plan! If it was, God would have destroyed them.

2. Why did God send Jonah, and spoil his plan?

Now, really! "Hey, Jonah. This is God. Will you do me a favor? Go preach to the Ninevites and ruin my plans. Here's how it will work: I'll declare 'Off with their heads', and you go and tell them this. They might repent (which I'm not supposed to know is possible) and, well, it'll be loads of fun for future readers. They'll think you're the king of the hill, Jonah; for you spoiled my plans!"

3. How can we trust God, if he can take action, and spoil his own plan himself?

"Hey, God here. How ya'll doing? Say, you can't trust me much these days, because, well...I might take action and spoil my own plans. See, I might say that so-and-so is doomed and later see his heart repent. I then might cut the dude some slack and not doom him. (Oh, and speaking of 'Doom'...wait till you see the video games up here!). Anyway, I do wish I would have finished that 'Being The god You Were Meant To Be' course, but, alas, I've forgotten where I put the syllabus...the inept God I Am...I Am...hey, I just made a funny! I Am! (You know, Exodus 3, Moses...I Am that I Am? Hello! Keep up with me here.)"

4. Why didn't God lie to the Ninevites, if he threatened unconditional destruction, yet he knew it might not happen?

Well, that's the way to handle things, isn't it: lie to people! God did not threaten "unconditional destruction." You are reading it that way, because you are conditioned to think that God could never decide on a different course that what He first declared. You forget that God is omniscient; He knows that Nineveh could repent, so He is quite aware that if they do, He, Himself, will go with the flow. This is nothing new and it's not a big deal. He told Hezekiah to pack up his things; he's to go on a long journey: death! Well, Hez talked with God about this--wasn't too happy about this, you see--and God said, "Ok, dude, you get a few more years." God didn't "unconditionally" determine that Hez was going to die, anymore than you might make the same kind of deterimned statement about something and later decide to go another direction because things changed. The difference, however, between you and God is that He already knows all those possibilities. It's really no big deal, Lee.

5. Why did Jonah seem to have a better grasp of the situation than God did? He thought the Ninevites would probably repent, and thus he ran.

"Hi, God here, again. Say, I'd like to let you all in on a secret: Jonah had a much better grasp of the Nineveh situation than I did. I would have never thought the Ninevites would repent; Jonah knew it all the time. What a guy, that Jonah."

6. Why did the Ninevites seem to know better than God did? They thought they could repent, and God, apparently, did not.

"Um...yeah, it's me again, God. Ahem...forgot to tell you...wasn't just Jonah who was on the ball, the Ninevites were way ahead of me also. (I've got to find that syllabus. Oh, and the mind-reading course...that was a great course. I forgot where I put it, though. My teacher knew I'd forget; he has exhaustive foreknowedge...lucky guy.)"

7. Why didn't God keep the Ninevites from repenting after Jonah preached to them, like he did with the sons of Eli (1 Sam. 2:25) and with Amaziah (2 Chr. 25:16)?

Way to go again! That's the way to handle 'em: keep them from repenting! What a God we have, eh!

First, the "will of the Lord" was to put Eli's sons to death. They were worthless; a statement of complete reprobation. They would not listen to anyone, much less God Himself. Such was not the case, obviously, with Nineveh; they repented. Second, the narrative about Amaziah is very clear: Amaziah's heart turned away from God (he set up idol worship), and when approached by the "Man of God," Amaziah told him to take a hike. He did not repent as did Nineveh. God knew the dude's heart was cold as ice.

Please, laugh a little with me at my responses, if you would, Lee. But also, think through what you've posted. The Open View simply cannot be criticized for a poor view of God's planning department! God knows all truth values, and believes no falsehoods. He knows the possibilities, and no one's going to catch Him off Guard. As if God would say, "Oh, my! I...I didn't see that coming. Great! Now what?"

Thanks,

Starkman

GoBahnsen

September 9th 2004, 03:19 PM

reasonabledoubt

September 9th 2004, 03:35 PM

themuzicman

September 9th 2004, 03:57 PM

OVT does teach that God knows all the possibilities of the future, however.

Starkman

September 9th 2004, 04:15 PM

I don't get it. Doesnt' OT teach that the future cannot be known, b/c future actions have not yet taken place, and that therefore there is nothing to know until it actually takes place?

But then you turn around and say that God can know the future in the instances in which he is doing the acting- or the overriding, of free will. So it is indeed then possible for God to know the truth or falsehood of a future act, right?
The Open View teaches that apart from that future God has ordained--thus deterimined--there is an open part of the future.

And to you, GoBahnsen...neener neener neeeeeeeener! (Ok, where's that smiley that sticks out its tongue???)

For the conversation,

Starkman

GoBahnsen

September 9th 2004, 04:23 PM

[QUOTE]I don't get it. Doesnt' OT teach that the future cannot be known, b/c future actions have not yet taken place, and that therefore there is nothing to know until it actually takes place?That's about it. You would have been hard pressed to find a Christian anywhere, 10 or 20 years ago, who believed that. Even today, most Christians still give you a "deer in the headlights' look if you ask them about it.

But then you turn around and say that God can know the future in the instances in which he is doing the acting- or the overriding, of free will. So it is indeed then possible for God to know the truth or falsehood of a future act, right?Where is that verse that says God knows our thoughts before we think them? Psalms? But that's knowing something that hasn't yet happened. And then the OVT's turn God into a really excellent guesser. Oh please.

GoBahnsen

September 9th 2004, 04:24 PM

The Open View teaches that apart from that future God has ordained--thus deterimined--there is an open part of the future.

And to you, GoBahnsen...neener neener neeeeeeeener! (Ok, where's that smiley that sticks out its tongue???)

For the conversation,

Starkman:tongue: :tongue: :tongue:
Actually, that is one of the better refutations of one of my anti OVT posts. You might want to teach that to the other OVT's here Stark.

Starkman

September 9th 2004, 05:09 PM

Yo GoBahnsen,

I'm sure you've read my posts before where I use the two illustrations below to make the Open View point. I came up with these as a means of conveying the simplicity of an open future in view of our own reality. In other words, if we didn't have Scripture, we have our reality that clearly tells us part of the future is open. Maybe not much of it is open, but part of it is.

Now to make these two illustrations effective, you must understand that when you claim an adherence to, say, Arminianism or Calvinism, here's what you are saying about God's foreknowledge: everything...I mean everything you will ever do, say, think, feel...everything scratch, sneeze, cough...everything is not only already known by God, but your entire existence into eternity is already known. Just let that sink in a bit. The odds are that you haven't done so. It's very sobering to someone who claims God's foreknowledge is exhaustive.

Heres' the first illustration.

1. God appears to you in your house, tells you to take a seat, and wants to talk to you about your future. He tells you that He knows what you'll do (exhaustively) in the next sixty seconds: you'll blink 40 times, move you head this and then that way, scratch your left arm and drop over dead. (No, scratch the dropping over and dying part. The conversation's pretty moot if that happens!)

Well, after God tells you these things, He sits back to watch your reaction. You, however, being the rebel that you are (ha!) do something entirely different than what God said: you sit and stare at your feet, not moving a muscle. At this point (and get this, because it's the crux of this illustration), God cannot say to you, "Oh, well, I knew you'd do that, too," because then you could say, "Well, then, why didn't you tell me that?"

Here's the second illustration:

2. We're all sitting in God's Great Theater--lots of leg room, thank heavens--and we're all about to watch our future, right before our very eyes. God, knowing the future exhaustively (absolutely everything) was kind enough to take us out to the movies! Just think, we're going to see exactly...exactly all that we will ever do for the next, oh, say, twenty years or so. Great! Movie's over. There it is, folks. Your future exactly as you'll live it. All is accounted for. right down to the last piece of rubber on your shoes.

After we're done, do you think everyone's going get up and go live it out exactly as they saw it? Of course not. As a matter of fact (this is the crux of this illustration), we CAN'T go out and live it as we saw it! That's right: we cannot go live out what we saw in the theater, because it's impossible. You couldn't live it exactly as you saw it no matter how hard you tried. Why? Because unless God has determined it all to happen, just the ability you have to do everything differently (apart from that part God literally determines) will make it impossible for you, and everyone else, to live it exactly as you saw it. The very nature of the freedom you have forces the checkmate: you are, in fact, free to change many things. You can't help it. Life is dynamic; it is not static. It's created that way.

You see, there is simply no time in the past, present or future where God can finally say, "There! It's all settled. It's known exhaustively." That just can't happen in the most simplist understanding of practicality. The world--namely we humans--are simply not created this way. Could God have created the world otherwise? Of course, but what in the hek for? Who in the world can have meaningful relationship under a pre-programmed, pre-deterimned context. No one! (Well, maybe one day robots will prove us wrong...like that one movie Robin Williams did...Millenial Man, or something like that.) Your own life, GoBransen, is vivid proof that part of the future is open. There's simply no way around it. You live every day of your life as if it is true, because it is.

I'll conclude by saying this. We must be careful to properly understand just what the Open View is. It is what Scripture reveals about how God made us, and it is what life reveals to us by how we live it. It's not a mark against God to say that He doesn't know the future exhaustively. What would be a mark against Him is if He didn't know all (future) truth values, believing no falsehoods. If God didn't know this, then He would not be omniscient.

Well, I'll leave you with the above to consider.

Neener, neener, neeeeeener! (Still can't find that darned smiley that sticks its tongue out...Oh, wait....that's on...an Open Theist's Web site. Ha!)

For freedom to change our future,

Starkman

Xmansmommy

September 9th 2004, 05:17 PM

:tongue: :tongue: :tongue:
Actually, that is one of the better refutations of one of my anti OVT posts. You might want to teach that to the other OVT's here Stark.

GB, do you honestly think that after all the conversations you've had with myself, geebob, muz and other OVT's that you think we think God knows nothing at all about the future? :huh: Or that every detail of the future is open and God cannot do anything but watch it play out while twiddling His thumbs in heaven? I know you know better than to believe that about us OVTs. Perhaps I just misunderstood your comments and if so, I apologize.

Starkman

September 9th 2004, 05:45 PM

Let me also say a few other things here...

Though the Open View wasn't discussed some twenty or thirty years ago as it is today, it has been lived out for all of man's time on earth as if it is true.

Many do not believe that God literally determines everything. They believe that God simply knows everything that will happen: Simple foreknowledge. He doesn't determine everything, but He knows all that will happen. Well, first, very few (and I mean very few) Christians ever think through this matter; God knowing everything you will ever do, say, think or feel. Second, if God knows all that will happen--He just knows it--there is still determination. Everything is settled. See, it doesn't have to be God who determines it if this kind of exhaustive foreknowledge is the issue; it is the very nature of the knowledge itself that determines the future. From eternity past, God would have already known everything about you, me and everyone else. Therefore, what He knows is settled; it cannot be changed (if it could, the knowledge is not exhaustive!). As it stands under EF (I'm tired of writing out "exhaustive foreknowledge," which I've just written out again), God knows all--this includes any adjustments, answers to prayer, changes, etc: everything. It's not only already known, but everything must, by this knowledge, be settled. We can't say that God already knows something if it can be changed at some later point in time. All the changes, therefore, must already be known to God. Hence, the future would be completely settled. You may not see it until you live it out, but God would already it know it as settled.

Now, the questions are twofold: first, how does God knowing everything make the slightest bit of difference for Him when engaging our world? What can He do but what He's already known--all is settled for Him as much as it is for everyone else. If it isn't, the future is partly open. Second, what good is it to pray for something to change? All you are doing is what God already knew you'd do, and He has already delt with it in eternity past because of His knowledge of it; He has already known what He is going to do. It is settled. Simply because you don't know what is going to happen doesn't make it any less settled (we must understand this). You are merely thinking that you are making some sort of difference by praying, but in reality, you are only living out what God already knew in eternity past. You can make no difference. You can only know that you are apparently supposed to pray at this time and trust that since it's already known and settled, well, just go along with it. You see, all you have, then, is a life ahead of you that is both exhaustively known by God and unchangeable. I stress it again: all the changes were already known by God. He can do nothing different than He has already known He would do, and you can do nothing different than He has already known you would do, even though, you, unlike Him, do not know this information until it is lived out.

First, I believe I have blown this EF concept out of the water with the two illustrations I gave in the previous post. Second, EF is not at all what Scripture teaches. Jesus told us to pray always and not loose hope. Why? Because it's already settled and known, but do it anyway? No, because you really can make a difference; the future is partly open. James told us that the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much. How can that be? Was James saying, "Listen, everything is already known by God, so, he already knows what's to come of your prayer. Just pray, though, and see if you're one of those righteous guys"? I mean, either we can change things or we cannot not. But to insinuate that God already knows exhaustively if we can, and then acts toward us as if it is still possible to "avail much" is disingenuous. It isn't reality either. It isn't the way things really are. Period.

Well, I gotta run to the Post Office. Be back shortly!

Starkman

lee_merrill

September 9th 2004, 08:30 PM

Hi everyone,

Starkman: … we CAN'T go out and live it as we saw it! That's right: we cannot go live out what we saw in the theater, because it's impossible. You couldn't live it exactly as you saw it no matter how hard you tried. Why? Because unless God has determined it all to happen, just the ability you have to do everything differently (apart from that part God literally determines) will make it impossible for you, and everyone else, to live it exactly as you saw it.But Jesus said to Peter, "You will deny me three times, tonight." And Peter tried to be faithful! But he instead did just what Jesus said he would.

… it is the very nature of the knowledge itself that determines the future. From eternity past, God would have already known everything about you, me and everyone else. Therefore, what He knows is settled; it cannot be changed …Well, does God not know his own free choices? Does he not know how he would choose, in any completely described, hypothetical situation?

You are merely thinking that you are making some sort of difference by praying, but in reality, you are only living out what God already knew in eternity past. You can make no difference.I think we can! I believe people who are submitted to God can choose within God's will, and God yet knows how those free choices will be made, and incorporates them into his plan.

Blessings,
Lee

Starkman

September 10th 2004, 01:55 PM

Hey Lee,

But Jesus said to Peter, "You will deny me three times, tonight." And Peter tried to be faithful! But he instead did just what Jesus said he would.

You only have a few choices here, Lee.

1. Jesus literally made Peter deny Him.
2. Jesus, by exhaustive (simple) foreknowledge, knew Peter would deny Him.
3. Jesus wasn't speaking at all about what He knew of Peter in the exhaustive foreknowledge sense.

Looking at the first option, I think we can both agree (unless I'm wrong about your view of this) that Jesus did not make Peter deny Him.

The second option puts us right smack dab into the issue I just addressed in my (first and) last post: simple (exhaustive) foreknowledge is both settled, unchangeable and an impossibility. But before we discuss this, here's my take on the event of Jesus's confrontation with Peter.

Jesus is talking about the betrayal coming. Peter pipes up and says, "No way, dude. I would never do that. Not me. No sir--everyone take note: I'd die with Jesus before denying Him." Jesus, probably quite touched by Peter's bravado, tells him "No, as much as you might think you'd die for me, you will deny Me. I know your heart, Peter. You're speak-first-and-then-think. You mean well, and you really do know who I am, but you simply don't have it in you (yet) to hold up under the pressure. You will deny me when the time comes." The time does come. Peter denies the Lord and not just once. As a matter of fact, he is quite quick in his denials. The boy just caves in. Probably stunned himself that he could have ever said such things.

The simple reading of the passage is that Jesus was telling Peter that he would not be able to hold up under the pressure. Peter thought he was quite the guy, but he wasn't. That's the context:
Jesus: I'm going to be betrayed and be killed.
Peter: I'm with you all the way to the death.
Jesus: No you aren't; you will deny me.
Peter: What? No way, dude
Jesus: Way!

It is inconsequential that Jesus tells Peter how many times he will deny Him, or when (before the cock crows...). Those are technicalities that God, already knowing how the trials were to take place (He was in complete control of it all), could easily orchestrate into the composition of Jesus' trials.

Getting back to #2: exhaustive (simple) foreknowledge.

If it were the case that God knew (by exhaustive foreknowledge) Peter would deny Jesus, the event is fixed. It has been known since eternity past, and it cannot be changed. The actions of Peter are, thus, both settled and determined in the matter. He can do nothing to alter any event to come. Not one thought, word, deed, action, emotion...nothing. Everything about what he will do forever is known. And Jesus was just letting Peter in on some of the history to come which God has already known.

The text, however, says nothing about Jesus knowing Peter's future (exhaustively or otherwise), and it says nothing about Peter trying to be faithful to not deny Jesus. As I illustrated two posts above, this is not only unrealistic, it is impossible. As soon as Jesus spoke the words about denial to Jesus, Peter at once could have changed history. He was not forced, like a robot, against his will, to go out and "walk" out the steps of denial, as if he could be thinking, "This is crazy; I don't want to deny him, but I can't change it. Jesus said I'm going to deny Him, so I'm stuck in this future. Can't do a thing about it."

It's not that he couldn't have refrained from denying Jesus--again, he was perfectly capable in every mechanical sense; it was that Jesus knew all to well the heart of this man, better than the man knew his own heart. In other words, Jesus was letting Peter in on a secret: his love for Jesus wasn't (yet) as strong as Peter thought it was. Very simple, very plain, and completely in context with the text. Jesus is making a declaration about Peter's heart that would not fail to be true, because His knowledge of Peter's heart was perfect and complete. Jesus wouldn't have said what He said to Peter if He didn't know Peter's heart as well as He did.

Further, as I noted, the text does not lead us to believe that Jesus was telling Peter the future, as if God could have showed it to Peter in His Great Theater, and then said to Peter, "Well, go on out and live it; you have no other choice." All Jesus told Peter was that he would deny Him. He also told Peter that it would happen before the cock crowed. It is we who read into this exhaustive foreknowledge. The text has not said anything to this effect. As I noted, it is no big deal for God to know the order and events of the trials Jesus would under go; He was in complete control of it all, seeing to it that they would take place the way they would have to in order to accomplish the mission of Jesus' crucifiction. In other words, God put the screws to Peter's faith and showed him his real heart, the way God sees it, at the time God chose to do so. We are actually witnessing a demonstration of the love of God; taking the time out to deal specifically with one of his dearest disciples, to show him his heart.

Step back just a bit from the text and see what's really going on here. A man is struggling with all that he knows about Jesus--it was Peter alone who had earlier received revelation about who Jesus was--to become the best disciple he could be. Peter, the man so quick to pick up the sword to defend, but so quick to lay it down and run when the heart of the matter was at hand: his own heart. Mr. Bold in action until his heart is exposed. (Thankfully, later in life he showed just how bold his faith toward and love for Jesus had grown!) It was a rare moment we were given in the Gospels to see God's care over his child Peter. It wasn't about the God's foreknowledge or anything like that. It was about relationship. That's what it's all about.

Starkman

geebob

September 10th 2004, 03:02 PM

Lee and starkman

But Jesus said to Peter, "You will deny me three times, tonight." And Peter tried to be faithful! But he instead did just what Jesus said he would.

I think starkman's answer is good but there is still something lacking. Of course if Jesus could know Peter's heart, then he could predict what peter would do. (I disagree that this is not a fortelling of the future). So why can't God always do this? He knows all of our hearts perfectly. Thus he can always tell what we're going to do next. Right? Peter was "mechanically" able to avoid denying Jesus, but his heart was in a certain place. But that's the compatibilists answer. Comapatibilists don't have to rely on determinism via physicality and could suggest that determinism holds sway even spiritually.

So I think, if we are to suggest that Peter was morally responsible for his actions, he was free. But if he was free, then it wasn't predictable.

So I believe that Peter was acting in accordance with his character (perhaps deterministically so) thus it was predictable, BUT that character was not formed deterministically. Peter was not responding appropriately to Jesus at a prior time. He denied Jesus' intention to die and was called the devil. But he didn't allow that to sink in and change his attitude. He still expected Jesus to bring his kingdom to be with no death and ressurection. Could he have had faith then? yes, and thus at around that time, no such prediction as to what peter would do was possible. But after that, Peter's heart was still in the wrong place and there's nothing to stop us from suggesting that Peter's libertarian moment had come and gone, thus it was not fully possible for him not to deny Christ. But is was it possible for him to avoid denying him in the bigger picture? Yes. He could have repented when he was called the devil. Perhaps he could have repented when Jesus made this prediction, and thus even then it was a conditional prophecy. the soul has it's libertarian moments and moments of autopilate, and the libertarian moments have their consequences over a long time.

And we could say that Jesus with his prediction was renewing the libertarian moment for Peter.

Starkman

September 10th 2004, 04:51 PM

Of course if Jesus could know Peter's heart, then he could predict what peter would do. (I disagree that this is not a fortelling of the future) [Emphasis Starkman's]. So why can't God always do this? He knows all of our hearts perfectly. Thus he can always tell what we're going to do next. Right?

You know, geebob, I almost took the time to write that part in bold in my post; that the predictive element is a foretell of Peter's future; there is, therefore, an element of foreknowlege going on from that angle. Just didn't follow through with writing it! I would have been more careful, too, then, to have noted this in other places in my post.

That God knows our hearts, does not mean He will always know what we are going to do; our heart may be right down the middle, or close thereof--I think you note this further down in your post. There may be cause, therefore, for an Abraham/Isaac event: a moment of truth that pushes the person toward one way or the other. I think this approach makes what God said to Abraham of relevance: But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here am I.” He said, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me” Genesis 22, ESV.

I think this "testing" is also the crux of God's statement to Abraham about Sodom and Gomorrah Then the Lord said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know” Genesis 18. ESV. S&G are at that place where God will confirm what He knows (there being no need to confirm anything if it is known rock-solidly); He will ensure that what He knows about their sin is irreversable, that there is no chance of repentance.

Peter was "mechanically" able to avoid denying Jesus, but his heart was in a certain place. But that's the compatibilists answer. Comapatibilists don't have to rely on determinism via physicality and could suggest that determinism holds sway even spiritually.

So I think, if we are to suggest that Peter was morally responsible for his actions, he was free. But if he was free, then it wasn't predictable.

Predictability doesn't equate to unresponsible compatibilism. (Also by "mechanically able," I am including both Peter's mental and physical faculties.) It was neither Jesus' nor Peter's will that Peter deny Jesus. That Jesus knew Peter's heart was, perhaps, solidified enough to ensure a denial doesn't abdicate Peter of responsibility. Solidification isn't compatibilism; solidification is of a person's doing. God may enhance it when it's known (Pharoah). Jesus was not determining, but was simply bringing to light what He knew about Peter's heart, Peter is still responsible. The same would be were Jesus not to have spoken a word. I think Jesus could have said to Peter, "You say you won't deny Me? Than prove it. When the time comes, and the pressure's on, prove it by hanging in there with Me." Perhaps there was still the opportunity to choose against denial, right up to the moment of truth.

So I believe that Peter was acting in accordance with his character (perhaps deterministically so) thus it was predictable, BUT that character was not formed deterministically.

I agree. Further, if his character was determined, it was by his own doing, not God's doing, as I believe you note below.

Peter was not responding appropriately to Jesus at a prior time. He denied Jesus' intention to die and was called the devil. But he didn't allow that to sink in and change his attitude. He still expected Jesus to bring his kingdom to be with no death and ressurection. Could he have had faith then? yes, and thus at around that time, no such prediction as to what peter would do was possible. But after that, Peter's heart was still in the wrong place and there's nothing to stop us from suggesting that Peter's libertarian moment had come and gone, thus it was not fully possible for him not to deny Christ. But is was it possible for him to avoid denying him in the bigger picture? Yes. He could have repented when he was called the devil. Perhaps he could have repented when Jesus made this prediction, and thus even then it was a conditional prophecy. the soul has it's libertarian moments and moments of autopilate, and the libertarian moments have their consequences over a long time.

I would have thought the point about Jesus calling Peter the devil moot had you not noted that "Perhaps he could have repented when Jesus made this prediction, and thus even then it was a conditional prophecy.." But as this stands, I am in total agreement here, geebob.

And we could say that Jesus with his prediction was renewing the libertarian moment for Peter.

Nicely said! I think we only have contention about the issue of compatibility. (Post more about this if you have additional thoughts on compatibilism. I'd like to know them to sharpen my own understanding). Otherwise, I could have been more careful to have noted that the "prophecy" Jesus gave to Peter about His denial was conditional (just as I should have noted that this was a foreknowledge event!). Personally, however, I do not think there was any thought on Jesus' part that Peter would change the course of the prophecy. Well, I suppose Jesus could have been thinking that it sure would be great if Peter didn't deny Him, but the chances were about nil.

For compatibilism...in heaven, that is, when it's cool to have!

Starkman

geebob

September 10th 2004, 07:40 PM

That God knows our hearts, does not mean He will always know what we are going to do; our heart may be right down the middle, or close thereof--I think you note this further down in your post.

right, and I would insist that when God knows our actions due to knowing our hearts, it's not a free action. It may be based upon character formed by free actions, but the predicted action (unless the prediction is a conditional prophecy...which I think is a plausibility here) is not free or it is no longer pending on the libertarian moment but will happen due to a free action.

I think this "testing" is also the crux of God's statement to Abraham about Sodom and Gomorrah Then the Lord said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know” Genesis 18. ESV. S&G are at that place where God will confirm what He knows (there being no need to confirm anything if it is known rock-solidly); He will ensure that what He knows about their sin is irreversable, that there is no chance of repentance.

I agree that that is one of the better strategies for dealing with that verse.

It was neither Jesus' nor Peter's will that Peter deny Jesus. That Jesus knew Peter's heart was, perhaps, solidified enough to ensure a denial doesn't abdicate Peter of responsibility.

right, but I don't think that means peter was free at the moment of denial. He is responsible because he is working out the bad libertarian choices he made prior to the denial incident. I don't see that a morally responsible choice has to be libertarian free provided that libertarian free choices where behind the character that lent itself to the moral choice in question.

Solidification isn't compatibilism;

I'm ambigouos to that, but I side with what you say here. I don't think peter's choice was compatibilistically free. I don't think it was free at all. But he is responsible because the choice arose from a character formed by libertarian free decisions. So in my conception of the issue, libertarianism isn't necesary at the imeadiate moment of the moral choice, but it is still a necessary part of the choice.

I would make an exception to that though. But only for more mitigated types of responsibility. libertarianism is necessary if the moral responsible person who deserves scorn and spite and damnation to eternal torment. But if the person made a choice that merely needs discipline that would could contribute to his growth, I think it's reasonable to make an exception here that such a situation could apply where no significant libertarian developement is involved. I suspect that this is so but I am by no means dogmatic about it.

Jesus was not determining, but was simply bringing to light what He knew about Peter's heart, Peter is still responsible.

I agree. Jesus didn't determine it. If God determined anything at all, it was that the denial would be 3 times. But if this prediction was not a conditional prophecy, or after the opportunity had passed for the condition to go otherwise, then it was definitely determined. Determined by who? Peter. When? perhaps when he failed to repent after being called satan, or perhaps failing to repent right their at the supper to the effect of "Let it not be, tell me how I can avoid this". But instead he reasserted his prideful certitude, and thus by not listening to Jesus, he was the determiner to put himself in a situation of cowardice. Did he intentionally determine that he would deny Christ? No, but his free will determination, his self determination did not put him on a good path for character developement.

Perhaps there was still the opportunity to choose against denial, right up to the moment of truth.

I doubt it but I don't know at the moment that it is unreasonable.

Nicely said! I think we only have contention about the issue of compatibility.

I was responding as I read so I skipped alot and I'm leaving in what turns out to be redundancies.

But no, I'm not dogmatic against describing some choices that we might think are free as compatibilistically free, but I still don't use the term compatibilism at all. Not even in heaven I don't think we will be compatibilistically free. surely there will be many choices even in heaven which we will be libertarian free with regard to, but such choices will not be moral ones nor will they be choices of whether or not to love God and our fellow man.

I would call them self determined choices though. Why? because we have already made those choices this side of death or the eschaton.

lee_merrill

September 10th 2004, 09:42 PM

Hi everyone,

Starkman: [Jesus said,] "You mean well, and you really do know who I am, but you simply don't have it in you (yet) to hold up under the pressure. You will deny me when the time comes."But the point I was addressing is this: "Once we know the future, we can't live it out the way we saw it!" But that did actually happen to Peter. So now we're discussing a different point. Could Jesus have predicted Peter's denial by simply knowing Peter very well? The problem is that Peter's denial involved a combination of courage (he followed into the courtyard inside) and cowardice (his denial). Thus this is not a simple prediction of Peter being unable to hold up! This is a prediction that his courage and cowardice would have a particular balance. Now that's not easy to predict. Not to mention all the other people involved! Peter's denial depended on people confronting him, not capturing him (why didn't they arrest Peter? They tried to in the garden, and they did know he was probably a follower). It depended on Peter staying there after the first and second denials, and not running away immediately. It depended on the doorkeeper letting him in! Many factors were necessary, and it all had to happen on one night, how could Jesus know all this? He was not estimating, I don't think that is at all possible.

If it were the case that God knew (by exhaustive foreknowledge) Peter would deny Jesus, the event is fixed. It has been known since eternity past, and it cannot be changed.But doesn't God know some of his future, free choices? If God can know some of his own free choices, then why not peoples' free choices, too, without removing their freedom?

Geebob: Perhaps he could have repented when Jesus made this prediction, and thus even then it was a conditional prophecy.But Jesus said "truly, truly" (John 13:38), which was his way of saying "this is quite certain!" And as someone mentioned in another forum, how could Peter or anyone else have trusted Jesus, if this was only an estimate, yet he said "truly, truly," and it turned out to be wrong?

Blessings,
Lee

lee_merrill

September 11th 2004, 10:52 AM

Hi again everyone,

A belated reply, here...

Lee: Why didn't God destroy the Ninevites right away, if that was his plan?

Geebob: because it was not his plan to destroy the ninevites right away. It was his plan to destroy the ninevites barring their repentence.

Starkman: Because it wasn't his plan! If it was, God would have destroyed them.I agree! Then God didn't change his overall plan, and instead, he changed his response...

Blessings,
Lee

geebob

September 15th 2004, 01:50 PM

I agree! Then God didn't change his overall plan, and instead, he changed his response...

God didn't respond yet. and a response was part of the plan.

also, my statement wasn't that destroying the ninevites wasn't God's plan. I said that his plan wasn't to destroy them right away. But he certainly did plan to destroy them. And he certainly did change that plan. Or the ninevites where wrong to repent on the basis that they did. "9Who knows? God may turn and relent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we may not perish."

Why was it that sending Jonah didn't amount to "spoiling" the plan? well, first of all, relenting from a plan is not necessarily reflected by your language in "spoiling" as spoiling carries negative connotations. It isn't always a bad thing for a plan not to be carried out. The key here is the intention of the plan. God made a plan that he really was going to carry out. And why did he gear up for this? in hopes that he could get ninevah to repent. So not going through this plan would not be a spoil if it was in line with his intentions. But of course if those intentions hadn't been satisfied, then the plan would have went through for other intentions. What intentions where those? retribution on a wicked nation. And thus that would not have been a "spoil" though surely it was the outcome God wanted less.

lee_merrill

September 15th 2004, 09:40 PM

Hi everyone,

Lee: Then God didn't change his overall plan, and instead, he changed his response...

Geebob: … his plan wasn't to destroy them right away. But he certainly did plan to destroy them. And he certainly did change that plan.Well, then my questions are pertinent again. Why did he spoil his plan by sending Jonah? I think you are trying to have it both ways! Either his plan was to destroy them, or it was not, (a delay doesn't matter here, I think), or it was a contingent plan, "If X then Y, if not X, then Z".

Geebob: God made a plan that he really was going to carry out. And why did he gear up for this? in hopes that he could get ninevah to repent.But then God's overall plan was contingent! Businesses do this, and call it "contingency planning." Planning! Thus even with this view, God's overall plan did not change, rather his response changed.

And how is it that we can say God did not lie to the Ninevites, if he said there would be destruction, unconditionally, yet he knew this might not happen?

Blessings,
Lee

geebob

September 16th 2004, 03:54 PM

But Jesus said "truly, truly" (John 13:38), which was his way of saying "this is quite certain!"

If it was quite certain, then that's fine by me and I've explained why that would not be a problem.

But what sort of certitude does "truly truly" mean? Well evidently, Peter did not interpret that as absolute certainty. Of course he was wrong about himself, and the certitude suggested was about an unstated conditional (as many prophecies are unstated conditionals). If Peter would not repent, he would certainly deny Christ.

Well, then my questions are pertinent again. Why did he spoil his plan by sending Jonah? I think you are trying to have it both ways!['quote]

Lee, I'm sorry but I don't see how you can construe Jonah as spoiling God's plan. I've already went into depth as to why this was not "spoiling" God's plan. there was no negative connotation in a change in God's plans here and that's what the term "spoiling" requires. Lee you really need to pay more attention to detail in these discussions. I find I have to go over what I've arleady stated frequently with you. I don't want to be mean or rude here but it gets tiresome.

[quote]Either his plan was to destroy them, or it was not, (a delay doesn't matter here, I think), or it was a contingent plan, "If X then Y, if not X, then Z".

Of course it was a contingent plan. It was contingent upon something indeterminate, hence God really was getting ready to destroy them because they really might not have repented.

It was a contingent plan and that's why the open view is the best view here.

But then God's overall plan was contingent! Businesses do this, and call it "contingency planning." Planning! Thus even with this view, God's overall plan did not change, rather his response changed.

I already said something about responses with respect to plans. perhaps you missed that post. nevertheless, please respond appropriately.

And yes buisnesses make contingency plans for the tragedies may or may not occur. And that's because as far as they know, the future is open. Of course if God makes contingency plans, it's because the future really is open.

Great comparison. It makes my case.

And how is it that we can say God did not lie to the Ninevites, if he said there would be destruction, unconditionally, yet he knew this might not happen?

Lee, that's your problem. Not mine. I believe God changes his mind. You can't say that. you say that God changes his response. same thing. a response is part of the plan.

But I do want to clear up an error here. Did God say that he would destroy them unconditionally? no, he merely stated it without the conditions. What is the implication? He really was going to do it, and that's the way the ninevites understood it. but I've already quoted them and yet it seems that what they have to say is of no value.

Starkman

September 16th 2004, 05:42 PM

Hey Lee,

Listen, one of the best ways to understand the Open View (and Nineveh for this discussion) is to put yourself into the position of God. You're about to destroy the Ninevites because of their sin. You send your prophet Jonah. Now, all along you are aware that they may repent, and then what? Well, obviously, you don't say to yourself, "Well, sorry Ninevites, I can't change what I was going to do just because you repented. See, I'm God, and if I say I'm going to do something, I have to do it. No choice...BOOM...Nineveh's gone!

The point is that you yourself know about changing plans, especially when it's to the good or it's to show mercy. (I just learned about the WYSIWYG format for composing posts. All this time I've been doing it the hard way!) You are your greatest understanding of the Open View, because you live it everyday. Heavens, if you were thoroughly out to do something but circumstances changed, obviously you would handle it accordingly; you would change directions. Now, you might say, "Yes, but that's because I don't know the future. I have to change my direction according to the circumstances. God doesn't; He knows all of the future." The question I'm going to ask you is why do you think that when Scripture shows over and over that God changes directions just like we do. Why burden God with "No, no, He has to know everything...EVERYTHING." As I've written in the past, do you burden God with no qualifyer for His omnipotence (e.g. God must be able to exists and not exist at the same time; He must be able to make square circles and married bachelors)? I don't think you do that, but when it comes to God's Omniscience, you want to insist that He must know everything...no qualifiers. That's neither consistent nor appropriate.

The plain simplicity of it all is this: God was out to destroy Nineveh. They repented and God said, "Cool. I won't toast you." It's that simple. It's not complicated, it's only a matter of stepping back enough from one's theology to examine the every-day practicality of God's relationship with us in Scripture and in reality. That's all it is. God is no less God because part of the future is open. He's no less able because circumstances will call for Him to act or change differently than what He was originally going to do. And it certainly does not mean that God's up there going, "Well, how do you like that. Nineveh repented. Sheesh. What kind of deal is that. I was going to toast them, and then they repented. Great. Now what am I supposed to do. I didn't see this coming. You couldn't have told me in a million years this was going to happen. I quit. I just quit!"

You get my point, I'm sure, Lee. Just keep working through it, buddy!

Hey geebob,

...I would insist that when God knows our actions due to knowing our hearts, it's not a free action. It may be based upon character formed by free actions, but the predicted action (unless the prediction is a conditional prophecy...which I think is a plausibility here) is not free or it is no longer pending on the libertarian moment but will happen due to a free action.I was thinking about this and here's what occured to me. What you said wouldn't seem to be necessary, because of two reasons: one (the weaker argument), what God knows of the heart is itself subject to change, as Peter's heart eventually did; 2 (the stronger argument), God only knows the heart as it is at that moment. In other words, God doesn't know the heart from eternity past, so nothing is settled until it comes to pass. Freedom, therefore, both freedom and responsibility remain intact. If Peter's heart was such that Christ could plainly see that Peter wouldn't hold up under the pressure, this information is only known both as it was and is happening.

I'm not sure that it can be proven that Peter's earlier actions solidified his heart. All we know is that this is the way he seems to be; Mr. Courageous in some respects and cowardly in others. I think he might have been this way all along. It didn't take prior actions to cause Peter's downfall. He simply was this way.

At any rate, I haven't thought this through, but it's something for us to chew on.

Thanks much,

Starkman

lee_merrill

September 16th 2004, 09:44 PM

Geebob: Of course if God makes contingency plans, it's because the future really is open.Well, I did try and phrase that in such a was as to say "This is not my view, but even on your view, the overall plan did not change." Glad to agree about this much, at least!

Lee: And how is it that we can say God did not lie to the Ninevites, if he said there would be destruction, unconditionally, yet he knew this might not happen?

Geebob: Did God say that he would destroy them unconditionally? no, he merely stated it without the conditions.I agree again! Yes, that is what I believe, thus God did not lie, the threat was conditional, his plan was not to destroy them regardless.

Starkman: I just learned about the WYSIWYG format for composing posts. All this time I've been doing it the hard way.Nice italics! Sweep the text, push the little "I" button, poco presto! Can you make a pizza that way, too? WYSIWYE! I'll check the manual, it might be in there…

Starkman: … you would change directions. Now, you might say, "Yes, but that's because I don't know the future. I have to change my direction according to the circumstances. God doesn't; He knows all of the future."Yes, I would indeed say that, those words are in me mouth. Sausage and mushroom toppings, please.

Starkman: when it comes to God's Omniscience, you want to insist that He must know everything...no qualifiers.No, I wouldn't say that, though. God can't know that 1+1=3, or that I can jump over the moon. The question is whether the future is knowable. Now we have prophecies and promises! That part is knowable. Why not all of it? Well, it might have choices that God won't override. But he predicts people coming to faith! Then what is left, that God cannot know?

The plain simplicity of it all is this: God was out to destroy Nineveh.Yes, but conditionally! That's critical. As you mention further on, God did not forget that this might happen, or think that it really wouldn't.

… something for us to chew on.Home delivery! Breadsticks, too? Yummy...

Blessings,
Lee

GoBahnsen

September 17th 2004, 03:38 AM

[QUOTE] Yo GoBahnsen,

I'm sure you've read my posts before where I use the two illustrations below to make the Open View point. I came up with these as a means of conveying the simplicity of an open future in view of our own reality. In other words, if we didn't have Scripture, we have our reality that clearly tells us part of the future is open. Maybe not much of it is open, but part of it is.

Now to make these two illustrations effective, you must understand that when you claim an adherence to, say, Arminianism or Calvinism, here's what you are saying about God's foreknowledge: everything...I mean everything you will ever do, say, think, feel...everything scratch, sneeze, cough...everything is not only already known by God, but your entire existence into eternity is already known. Just let that sink in a bit. The odds are that you haven't done so. It's very sobering to someone who claims God's foreknowledge is exhaustive.

Heres' the first illustration.

1. God appears to you in your house, tells you to take a seat, and wants to talk to you about your future. He tells you that He knows what you'll do (exhaustively) in the next sixty seconds: you'll blink 40 times, move you head this and then that way, scratch your left arm and drop over dead. (No, scratch the dropping over and dying part. The conversation's pretty moot if that happens!)

Well, after God tells you these things, He sits back to watch your reaction. You, however, being the rebel that you are (ha!) do something entirely different than what God said: you sit and stare at your feet, not moving a muscle. At this point (and get this, because it's the crux of this illustration), God cannot say to you, "Oh, well, I knew you'd do that, too," because then you could say, "Well, then, why didn't you tell me that?"
Why would God sit back to watch? That implies that He must want to get more comfortable. Are you saying that God needs to kick back or that He gets uncomfortable? Who is this "big man" you describe?

Oh I'm just messin with ya Stark. One problem with your analogy is that God doesn't deal with us in this way. But if He did, and He has, we know what would happen. Peter went out and denied Him thrice.

But how about this as well: "You, however, being the rebel that you are (ha!) do something entirely different than what God said: you sit and stare at your feet, not moving a muscle. At this point (and get this, because it's the crux of this illustration) suddenly and mysteriously you blink 40 times, move your head this and then that way, scratch your left arm. Amazing. How does God do it!"

GoBahnsen

September 17th 2004, 03:42 AM

GB, do you honestly think that after all the conversations you've had with myself, geebob, muz and other OVT's that you think we think God knows nothing at all about the future? :huh: Or that every detail of the future is open and God cannot do anything but watch it play out while twiddling His thumbs in heaven? I know you know better than to believe that about us OVTs. Perhaps I just misunderstood your comments and if so, I apologize.Only the Mormon god twiddles his thumbs. He has a body of flesh and bones ya know.

Oh mommy, I don't want to fight with ya . You're just a peach trapped in an OVT body.:flowers:

BTW, Muz doesn't converse with me. Occasionally he lets out a grunt my way.

geebob

September 17th 2004, 09:53 AM

starkman, I'll get back to you.

lee,

Well, I did try and phrase that in such a was as to say "This is not my view, but even on your view, the overall plan did not change." Glad to agree about this much, at least!

and that's all I need. any change at all proves the open view. It doesn't have to be total.

I agree again! Yes, that is what I believe, thus God did not lie, the threat was conditional, his plan was not to destroy them regardless.

and given that the condition was indeterminate, we have the open view.

[quote]

GoBahnsen

September 17th 2004, 02:03 PM

[QUOTE]GB, do you honestly think that after all the conversations you've had with myself, geebob, muz and other OVT's that you think we think God knows nothing at all about the future? :huh: No, I realize that in OVT, God knows what's knowable to the God of OVT. I just think that God really knows everything that will happen. Not just the possibilities. He knew Peter would deny Him thrice. Not twice. So much so does God know the future, that He can tell us what's going to happen and we still can't stop it.

Or that every detail of the future is open and God cannot do anything but watch it play out while twiddling His thumbs in heaven? I know you know better than to believe that about us OVTs. Perhaps I just misunderstood your comments and if so, I apologize.
I still haven't put my finger on the OVT problem. Actually I've been ignoring it, hoping it will go away. As a Calvinist, I'm drawn to strength. OVT and Arminianism strike me as a step in the direction of weakness.

Like in politics. Conservative Republicans (I know still corrupt) will take strong action. They will go to war in foreign lands to try and kill a cancer there, before it spreads to here. Liberals talk about keeping our troops at home, etc. etc. Liberal university professors live the good life here in free blood bought America, bad mouthing their own country.

What has this to do with OVT. I don't know, but it seems like there are always those wanting to have something nicer and friendly. When in reality, sometimes things are just tough. Like it or not.

Like Adam's sin condemns us all. Like it or not. OVT's still hold to that I hope. But that view isn't very "nice", so along come the Pelagians to figure out a nicer view. I know I'm just venting and not proving anything.

I wish I was smarter, like geebob, but then I don't like where his smarts are taking him. I'm just a dumb Calvinist. Pay me no mind.

themuzicman

September 17th 2004, 04:03 PM

GoBahnsen

September 17th 2004, 05:10 PM

If anything, GoB, OVT takes the lowest view of man, or at least the most differentiated view of God's rightesouness and man's sin, because they are most clearly and starkly contrasted from the perspective of the OVT.

If anything, Calvinism has to take a somewhat neutral position on man's sin, because to them, it is God's will.

MichaelThanks Michael, I was starting to believe you were done with me, hense my jest about you grunting in my direction.

Yes to us Calvinists, it is all God's will, but as you know, we don't lump God's will into one big mess. Even as I have said before, I can express a desire to have that which I have already planned to not have. But if I were God and people were not rightly dividing my Word, they might say GB's will is ______, but since GB isn't getting it, there must be other wills that are preventing GB from getting his expressed will.

No, because God has different kinds of willing, even as we do. So yes, God wills that sin is here now, nevertheless He can still hate it. As humans we can hardly do the same. Normally if we have the power, we're going to get rid of that which we hate. And God will get rid of sin, but not before He has accomplished all His good pleasure in the earth.

I don't think we have to go to OVT to keep a stark contrast between God's righteousness and man's sin. We might, if God were merely a big man, a mere player in His universe, rather than the Sovereign Potter that He is.

lee_merrill

September 17th 2004, 11:15 PM

Hi everyone,

Lee: This is not my view, but even on your view, the overall plan did not change.

Geebob: … that's all I need. any change at all proves the open view. It doesn't have to be total.Well, if a lead balloon turns into a helium one, the response of the laws of nature will change. But the laws themselves didn't change! I don't think just because there is change, implies that it must be an inherent change.

Lee: Yes, that is what I believe, thus God did not lie, the threat was conditional, his plan was not to destroy them regardless.

Geebob: … and given that the condition was indeterminate, we have the open view.Yes, but we can't just make a gift of that! It has to be proven. God does know the future, and he even knows future choices people make, even in the area of salvation! So what part of the future is inherently unknowable?

Blessings,
Lee

geebob

September 19th 2004, 12:19 PM

starkman

I was thinking about this and here's what occured to me. What you said wouldn't seem to be necessary, because of two reasons: one (the weaker argument), what God knows of the heart is itself subject to change, as Peter's heart eventually did; 2 (the stronger argument), God only knows the heart as it is at that moment.

your first point is something I account for. The second carries little weight with me. I have a significant disagreement with the way some open viewers articulate the future, which stems from a subtle metaphysical disagreement. I disagree with the notion that God only knows the present. It compromises where none is needed. They say that God doesn't know the future and that his prophecies are sure to pass are not instances of knowledge but predictions. and what if that prediction is 100 percent sure to pass? Wouldn't you want to say that God knows that? I just think the distinction between prediction and knowledge is very weak and wholly unnecessary for the purposes of the open view including it's adherence to a robust form of presentism.

God knows the future and when the future is open and uncertain, he KNOWs this and he is not ignorant of it in the slightest, and he knows the nature of this openness through and through. He knows just how many paths are open and the various likelyhood for each possible option, when it is the case that there is more than one possible future option for the event in question. He knows the future because there is a truth about the future to know which of course is not based on some metaphysically solid concrete future but upon the present in which part of this entity (which may almost purely conceptual) called the future arises as determined and settled and part of that future arises as unsettled.

You point out that peter's character changed. Well there was a change in peter that was consistent with the nature of his heart at the moment of prediction to which it had developed. It's reasonable that such a change was determined (determined in part, and most responsibly, by Peter when he was making libertarian free decisions...the wrong ones).

I'm not sure that it can be proven that Peter's earlier actions solidified his heart.

I don't begrudge anyone for not holding my answer, but I simply think it's best. The question for me boils down to whether Jesus' prediction was conditional (and if it was, I would expect that it could have gone otherwise if Peter repented right then and their at the dinner table) or not. I think both of those options are possible. But I think that it is very much the case that if Peter's heart was not solidified prior to the prediction, it was imeadiately after in light of his failure to repent.

I think he might have been this way all along. It didn't take prior actions to cause Peter's downfall. He simply was this way.

I think that's possible but I would insist that he came to libertarian crossroads several times where he could have shifted to another direction.

lee

Well, if a lead balloon turns into a helium one, the response of the laws of nature will change. But the laws themselves didn't change! I don't think just because there is change, implies that it must be an inherent change.

Lee, I'm sorry. I just find this so frustrating. If you're not going to read what I actually say, I don't know what the point is. There is no richness to a conversation where nothing one says ever registers with the other person.

Please understand what I'm asking of you. Am I frustrated because I haven't convinced you? because you don't agree with me that the open view is true? No. Heck No! but you keep repeating the same bad arguements that have already been answered. If the open view is fallacious, then find some real problems. I've already told you at least twice if not more that the open view does not suggest that God's nature changes. why should I say it any more than that? You should just accept that the open view is the way that the open viewers hold it. Then we can have a real conversation.

I'm finding you particularly problematic with regard to absorbing and responding appropriately to what's actually said. There can be no progress without it and discussion becomes pointless.

Yes, but we can't just make a gift of that! It has to be proven. God does know the future, and he even knows future choices people make, even in the area of salvation! So what part of the future is inherently unknowable?

A change in plans that was already known as definite, already planned for with certainty is not a real change in plans. If God wasn't really aiming to destroy ninevah, then there was nothing he turned or relented from as the ninevites believed there was. and Ironically, that false belief is what enabled their repentence.

by the way, if you read what I wrote to starkman, note that I don't hold that any of the future is unknowable. the future is open and God knows that. he is not ignorant of the fact that there is no definite truth to events that have no definition with regard to what will certainly happen.

Xmansmommy

September 19th 2004, 03:00 PM

GB, now I'm sad. :frown:

lee_merrill

September 19th 2004, 05:34 PM

Hi everyone,

Geebob: he is not ignorant of the fact that there is no definite truth to events that have no definition with regard to what will certainly happen.Well, unknowable events are certainly unknowable. But if there are no inherently unknowable decisions, then what can make a decision unknowable? I think we should inquire further here.

Lee: This is not my view, but even on your view, the overall plan did not change.

Geebob: … that's all I need. any change at all proves the open view. It doesn't have to be total.

Geebob: the open view does not suggest that God's nature changes.I did try and be careful not to say nature. But my view is that the change with the Ninevites was not an inherent one. If I'm wrong, then there is inherent change, that's why I said that. But maybe this is still a misunderstanding. Are you saying my view (I do acknowledge a change in response) proves the Open View? That's rather an unexpected conclusion, I thought the disagreement here was over the nature of the change, not the fact that there was some change.

But let's say any change at all is what is at issue! Still, a change in response does not prove that the future is open, any more than a balloon now going up instead of down, due to a change in its nature, does.

Geebob: A change in plans that was already known as definite, already planned for with certainty is not a real change in plans. If God wasn't really aiming to destroy ninevah, then there was nothing he turned or relented from as the ninevites believed there was. and Ironically, that false belief is what enabled their repentence.And that false belief was why Jonah ran! He thought it would turn out with them repenting, thus why is this an inconsistency in the account, if we take my view?

Jonah 4:2 He prayed to the Lord, "O Lord, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish."

He was a better prophet than most people think, here! And this indicates that the future was not open here, because Jonah expected the way events actually turned out, and God confirms that his insight was correct, when he addresses Jonah's complaint:

Jonah 4:11 "Should I not be concerned about that great city?"

That was God's plan, to save them, and it worked! Now was the threat real? Well, just as real as a lead balloon goes down until it is changed into a helium one. "If you continue as a lead balloon [an implied condition], there will be a crash [the stated threat]." I do think that is consistent…

Blessings,
Lee

geebob

September 19th 2004, 07:30 PM

Well, unknowable events are certainly unknowable. But if there are no inherently unknowable decisions, then what can make a decision unknowable? I think we should inquire further here.

Lee, if you don't know what I, an open theist would say to that question, I don't even know what you are doing here.

But I've already spelled this out in my last post as to what it is that requires an open future (and not technically speaking an unknowable one because if the future is open, there's no reason to suggest that God must know it as some other way other than unknowable).

I did try and be careful not to say nature. But my view is that the change with the Ninevites was not an inherent one.

Lee, if when you said inherent, and you did not mean nature, I can't say that we speak the same english.

I won't debate the meaning of the word inherent. If you did not mean nature by it this was poorly worded.

try this. when critisizing what I believe, first understand what I believe in the way that I understand it. God's plan changed. That's what I said. That's what I meant. How that constitutes an "inherent" change in God is beyond me. And what plan was that? to destroy ninevah. Please don't ask me why God sent Jonah to spoil the plan. That would ignore what I've already explained. If you are still wondering about that, see what I've already said about intentions.

Are you saying my view (I do acknowledge a change in response) proves the Open View? That's rather an unexpected conclusion, I thought the disagreement here was over the nature of the change, not the fact that there was some change.

As I already mentioned, the open view was not formed in response to Lee Merill. It was written in response to the classical view which says there is absolutely no change in God at all. Any change in God from our perspective is just that...change in our perspective of God.

Secondly, as I've already written, and desire for you to write as if you read it and have to respond to it, a change in response IS a change of plan. God had a planned response. Destruction. As the ninevites would say and explicitely hoped for, God relented from that plan.

Still, a change in response does not prove that the future is open,

when the change in response is a change from a previously planned response, it does, because as I've said, and hope you do not ignore this time (good gravy! you even quoted it in your last post!!) a change of plans that is certain to happen by the person planning is not a true change in plans at all. and if it wasn't a true change in plan, then the ninevites were quite wrong to assume God would change his plan if they repented.

And that false belief was why Jonah ran! He thought it would turn out with them repenting, thus why is this an inconsistency in the account, if we take my view?

it is in no way shape of form suggested that Jonah knew that with certainty. The very possibility of something one really doesn't like is enough to discust her. Jonah wanted the destruction to be certain and written in stone. and his visit would jepardize that.

this isn't abstract high end psycological speculation. this is something that just about everyone has experienced or has seen in someone else they know. certain risks repel us. prohibitionists are discusted at casual drinking because of the possibility that the drinker may become drunk and do something stupid, or become a drunkard. Racists are discusted at the possibility that integration might lead to interatial dating, marriage, and procreation. pro-abstinence advocates believe teenage sex, even "safe" sex may lead to pregnancy and disease. possibilities that people don't like can enrage them. And of course they are all the more mad when it becomes actual. They may say something that metaphysically and epistemically speaking simply isn't true to the effect "Ooo! I knew this would happen!" Did they know with certainty. that just isn't necessarily the case.

GoBahnsen

September 20th 2004, 05:10 PM

GB, now I'm sad. :frown:I just found this. So what's makin ya sad? Yesterday, you said you couldn't talk about it. Just remember how much you have to be thankful for. If we're in Christ we have much to be happy about, but I know we all still get sad. Jesus got sad. Those who sow in tears shall reap in joy. The joy of the Lord is our strength.

lee_merrill

September 21st 2004, 09:26 PM

Hi everyone,

Lee: … if there are no inherently unknowable decisions, then what can make a decision unknowable?

Geebob: Lee, if you don't know what I, an open theist would say to that question, I don't even know what you are doing here.I really don't know! And I'm not sure what I'm doing here, that's true, too. But what makes a decision unknowable? Can we not say? If we can't say, then that is reason to doubt the position, that some of the future is unknowable.

Lee: Still, a change in response does not prove that the future is open.

Geebob: when the change in response is a change from a previously planned response, it does.It proves the future is open if you assume the future is open! But a change in response is also possible if you know what the result will be. Both views are consistent here, I think, and a mere change in response, like with gravity and the balloons, does not imply that the balloon had an open future.

Geebob: … if it wasn't a true change in plan, then the ninevites were quite wrong to assume God would change his plan if they repented.They could have thought it was God's plan to save them, too! By their repentance. Why is it necessary to assume God thought he would destroy them? And why did God send Jonah, if he really intended to destroy them? Doesn't this also mean that any of God's intents can be reversed? Doesn't this undo all the prophecies? And all the promises?

Lee: And that … was why Jonah ran! He thought it would turn out with them repenting, thus why is this an inconsistency in the account, if we take my view?

Geebob: it is in no way shape of form suggested that Jonah knew that with certainty. ...Well, I did say "he thought," not "he knew." But he was correct! God does not say, "No, Jonah, I did mean to destroy them, and changed my mind." He says the opposite:

Jonah 4:11 "Should I not be concerned about that great city?"

It was his intent to save them, all along.

Blessings,
Lee

geebob

September 24th 2004, 01:12 PM

I really don't know! And I'm not sure what I'm doing here, that's true, too. But what makes a decision unknowable? Can we not say? If we can't say, then that is reason to doubt the position, that some of the future is unknowable.

Libertarian freedom.

And what is it about libertarian freedom that makes the future "unknowable"?

A free action according to the libertarian, me, who's view you are critisizing thus must allow him to define freedom when you critisize his consistency with his claims about freedom, is an action that one may refrain from and that he may take. Both are really possible. Both are possible in absolutely every way shape and form. And of course to insist that one option is knowable is to violate that standard because it is not possible to do other than what is known will be done, since knowledge is truth and if you do other than what is true that you would do, it wasn't really true that you would do it to begin with.

My surprise is that you don't know this although I know you've been discussing these things with open theists for a long time now. But I suppose it is possible for none of them to have explained it in threads you participated in. Greg Boyd does give more reasons at his website (in the non forum area) and you could peruse that. But I would've expected one who starts so many threads against the open view to have done his own study on the issue.

It proves the future is open if you assume the future is open!

there's no presumption here. It's our normal way of thinking about plan making. Someone who tells us their plan though they have 100 percent certainty that they will change what they have given us is lieing about their original plan.

Why is it necessary to assume God thought he would destroy them?\

because they said they expected him to destroy them implicitely by hoping that God would relent. Relent from what? showing them mercy? no. thus that is not what they believed God was currently planning to do.

And why did God send Jonah, if he really intended to destroy them?

why doesn't lee read what I've already wrote about this (this very question!) if he intends to carry on a conversation about it? Lee, you're very civil about this, but this borders on insult! I know you don't intend it, but I'm asking you to raise the bar here for the sake of real fruitful discussion.

Well, I did say "he thought," not "he knew." But he was correct!

He was correct in colloquial sense... only in hindsight. But in a real metaphysical sense, his statement was not strictly truth functional. It was not true at the time he said it because ninevah really could have refused to head his word.

It was his intent to save them, all along.

all the while with the real intent to destroy it. He really was going to destroy ninevah. You cannot say that. you cannot say that he REALLY was going to destroy ninevah because in your picture, it was always absolutely 100 percent true that he wouldn't destroy ninevah. but he was really going to destroy ninevah though with the hope that they would repent.

lee_merrill

September 25th 2004, 02:37 PM

Hi Geebob,

Lee: … what makes a decision unknowable? Can we not say? If we can't say, then that is reason to doubt the position, that some of the future is unknowable.

Geebob: Libertarian freedom. … Both [choices] are possible in absolutely every way shape and form. And of course to insist that one option is knowable is to violate that standard because it is not possible to do other than what is known will be done, since knowledge is truth and if you do other than what is true that you would do, it wasn't really true that you would do it to begin with.Yes, we are busy discussing this in the "Foreknowledge prevents freedom?" thread, so I won't repeat myself here. But my response in this thread is that God apparently knows "all Israel will be saved"! Now this refers to (I think the OV says) free-will, libertarian decisions. Lots of them! And yet God knows them, thus I conclude that, even in the OV, free-will decisions are not inherently unknowable.

So I would ask again, what decisions are inherently unknowable? I think that points out a flaw in the statement that some of the future is unknown, because it is unknowable.

Geebob: Someone who tells us their plan though they have 100 percent certainty that they will change what they have given us is lieing about their original plan.Not if we understand that this was part of their overall plan! Contingency planning, we do it all the time, and expect others to do this as well. I don't think God does this! But I do think the OV must make this a plank in their platform.

Lee: Why is it necessary to assume God thought he would destroy them.

Geebob: … because they said they expected him to destroy them implicitely by hoping that God would relent. Relent from what? showing them mercy? no. thus that is not what they believed God was currently planning to do.Yes, but the Ninevites were mistaken. God's plan all along was to show them mercy. That's why Jonah ran! Jonah wanted them destroyed, if he thought it was God's intent to really destroy them, he would have run (not walked) to the very first boat to Nineveh.

Geebob: … if it wasn't a true change in plan, then the ninevites were quite wrong to assume God would change his plan if they repented

Lee: And why did God send Jonah, if he really intended to destroy them?

Geebob: why doesn't lee read what I've already wrote about this (this very question!)Maybe I misunderstood what you are saying here. Whenever anyone says or implies that God had an overall plan to destroy the Ninevites, then I ask my Jonah questions. If you meant that God's overall plan was "Repentance means mercy, rebellion means judgment," then I almost agree. But "God would change his plan if they repented" implies to me that God was not including repentance in his current plan. Thus the questions!

Lee: It was [God's] intent to save them, all along.

Geebob: all the while with the real intent to destroy it. He really was going to destroy ninevah. You cannot say that. you cannot say that he REALLY was going to destroy ninevah because in your picture, it was always absolutely 100 percent true that he wouldn't destroy ninevah. but he was really going to destroy ninevah though with the hope that they would repent.Then God's plan failed! Like he hoped it would. I don't think that will do, though…

Psalm 33:10-11 The Lord foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the peoples. But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.

Not the plans he hopes for! All of them, 100%…

Blessings,
Lee

geebob

September 29th 2004, 02:05 PM

Yes, we are busy discussing this in the "Foreknowledge prevents freedom?" thread, so I won't repeat myself here. But my response in this thread is that God apparently knows "all Israel will be saved"! Now this refers to (I think the OV says) free-will, libertarian decisions. Lots of them! And yet God knows them, thus I conclude that, even in the OV, free-will decisions are not inherently unknowable.

we don't interpret that verse the way you do. It doesn't refer to every person who was a jew.

It's quite possible that all of israel refers to all of spiritual israel. and you become a part of spiritual israel by belief.

Arminian has discussed this in depth. I won't debate it further because I can't stand these discussions that have no focus. But that is one interpretation that is completely compatible with libertarian free will because there need be no fact of the matter of who will become spiritual israel.

another possibility might suggest that if this was physical israel, there still is no fact of who specifically will submit to God as those in physical israel who persist in rejecting him will be cut down.

and finally, even if we were to make the most generous interpretation to a similar view to what you hold, libertarianism is not incompatible with universalism as we could say though it is definite that all will be saved, (even israel) there is no fact of the matter of when they will be saved. they may hold out for a thousand years in hell, but one day, they will be broken and penitant. but each time they are confronted with the choice,

So I would ask again, what decisions are inherently unknowable? I think that points out a flaw in the statement that some of the future is unknown, because it is unknowable.[p/quote]

lee, you aren't going to find a flaw that I recognize. Your prooftext doesn't stand alone because we can interpret these texts differently. And texts are not infinitely flexible, but they have a heck of a lot more flexability that you give them credit for.

it's not enough to quote scripture. even satan can quote scripture (I'm not saying that your understanding is satanic, my point is, there are many reasonable ways to take scriptures).

[quote]I think that points out a flaw in the statement that some of the future is unknown

it's test time lee. what would I say to that? you've already been told. I don't believe the future is unknowable. what is it that I believe about the future. I've already told you. you can answer this if you pay attention. you might have a basic idea of what I believe when to say that I think the future is "unknowable", but it is too simplistic. Why have I just now and previously used quotes? I have explained it. Have you been reading?

Not if we understand that this was part of their overall plan! Contingency planning, we do it all the time,

we most certainly do not do contingency planning when we think the alternative we plan for is 100 percent certain not to come to pass. we most certainly do not. There is always some uncertainty involved in a contingency plan.

I don't think God does this!

then you have no explanation for the prophecy's in Jonah. you've been wanting to say destruction if rebellion and mercy if repentence. But now you think there is no contingency planning?!

Yes, but the Ninevites were mistaken.

so the piety (with regard to repentence) God desires from us is based on a mistake?

That's why Jonah ran! Jonah wanted them destroyed, if he thought it was God's intent to really destroy them, he would have run (not walked) to the very first boat to Nineveh.

why would you say this? why would you say this to me? don't you care to interact with what I write? What did I say about people reacting to possibilities? Lee, I already discussed this.

Maybe I misunderstood what you are saying here. Whenever anyone says or implies that God had an overall plan to destroy the Ninevites, then I ask my Jonah questions. If you meant that God's overall plan was "Repentance means mercy, rebellion means judgment," then I almost agree. But "God would change his plan if they repented" implies to me that God was not including repentance in his current plan. Thus the questions!

but you don't think God's plan was destruction if they rebel. there is is no possibility of their rebellion. in your view, repentence is certain. repentence cannot fail to happen, and if it did, God's foreknowledge and soverign plan would be wrong. but that's not coherent.

If you meant that God's overall plan was "Repentance means mercy, rebellion means judgment," then I almost agree.

what was God gearing up to do? was he really going to destroy them? were angels of destruction really poised for action? I can say that that was God's overall plan, but you cannot say that God was really going to destroy them. it was certain that the ninevites would repent thus it was certain that God would not destroy them hence it was not a real possibility in your view. I can say that God was planning to destroy them and that God would not destroy them if they repented. I can't see you saying this consistently. a contingency that you

Then God's plan failed! Like he hoped it would. I don't think that will do, though…

Psalm 33:10-11 The Lord foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the peoples. But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.

the psalm rings true even here. It wasn't intended as a philosophical absolute with absolutely no exceptions to be applied simply with no nuance. in the end, God gets his way. God was pleased that his plan to destroy ninevah was changed because it was changed on God's terms. either way, whether they would rebel or repent, God would end it on his terms. but all the alternate terms really were possible. I can say that, but you cannot. You cannot say that all the alternates really could have been in a most robust and meaningful sense.

Not the plans he hopes for! All of them, 100%…

and yet scripture overwhelmingly testifies to the grief of God of those who resist them. they will not win in the end. If they persist, they will be judged on God's terms. But he would rather show mercy. What God hopes for does not always come to pass.

Jermiah 7:31
They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire-something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind.

matt 23:37
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.

the plans of God cannot be thwarted...in the end. God didn't want israel to reject him, but he will have his bride even if he has to change the terms.

lee_merrill

September 29th 2004, 10:49 PM

Hi Geebob,

Lee: God apparently knows "all Israel will be saved"! Now this refers to (I think the OV says) free-will, libertarian decisions. Lots of them! And yet God knows them…

Geebob: It's quite possible that all of israel refers to all of spiritual israel. and you become a part of spiritual israel by belief.But then we have "All Israel will be all Israel," or "all believers will believe." Which makes it meaningless. Paul has been clearly talking about Jewish people in this passage, too:

Romans 11:28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs…

That's clearly the nation of Jewish people!

Geebob: … if this was physical israel, there still is no fact of who specifically will submit to God as those in physical israel who persist in rejecting him will be cut down.Yes, but I don't think "all Israel will be saved" will be accomplished by simply removing all the unbelievers.

Romans 11:26-27 "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins."

Not "when I take away the unbelievers!" And "the deliverer will come," not the judge. And will turn godlessness away, but not the godless.

[QUTOE]Geebob: … and finally, even if we were to make the most generous interpretation to a similar view to what you hold, libertarianism is not incompatible with universalism as we could say though it is definite that all will be saved, (even israel) there is no fact of the matter of when they will be saved.[/QUOTE]Yes, I agree that people having a choice does not mean that some will certainly hold out forever.

Geebob: Libertarian freedom. … Both [choices] are possible in absolutely every way shape and form. And of course to insist that one option is knowable is to violate that standard because it is not possible to do other than what is known will be done

Lee: So I would ask again, what decisions are inherently unknowable? I think that points out a flaw in the statement that some of the future is unknown, because it is unknowable.

Geebob: lee, you aren't going to find a flaw that I recognize.You do seem to be saying here that a free choice is inherently unknowable, though. OV authors have stated pretty clearly that God knows everything that can be known, which does not include all the future, simply because free-will choices are inherently unknowable. Thus I quote instances where God knows free-will choices! That's not mishandling Scripture, I think…

Lee: Contingency planning, we do it all the time…

Geebob: … we most certainly do not do contingency planning when we think the alternative we plan for is 100 percent certain not to come to pass. we most certainly do not.Yes, I was arguing from your point of view, saying you should have this in your view. Though I don't believe this:

Lee: I don't think God does this!

Geebob: …then you have no explanation for the prophecy's in Jonah. you've been wanting to say destruction if rebellion and mercy if repentence. But now you think there is no contingency planning?!No, again, I was saying this should be in your view.

Lee: Yes, but the Ninevites were mistaken.

Geebob: so the piety (with regard to repentence) God desires from us is based on a mistake?God can use our mistakes to bring us to him! Yes, I believe that. Certainly God's ways are based on truth. But we don't always have a clear idea of God's purposes, when we respond to him, yet God is willing to save us anyway.

Geebob: … because they said they expected him to destroy them implicitely by hoping that God would relent. Relent from what? showing them mercy? no.

Lee: Jonah wanted them destroyed, if he thought it was God's intent to really destroy them, he would have run (not walked) to the very first boat to Nineveh.

Geebob: why would you say this? … What did I say about people reacting to possibilities?I was responding to your saying (apparently) that God really intended, with an overall purpose, to destroy them. Then I get to ask my Jonah questions! One of them being, "Why did Jonah run?" Was he mistaken about God's purpose? God confirms his overall purpose of mercy in the last verse of the book, though! "Should I not have compassion?"

Lee: "God would change his plan if they repented" implies to me that God was not including repentance in his current plan. Thus the questions!

Geebob: .. but you don't think God's plan was destruction if they rebel. there is is no possibility of their rebellion. in your view, repentence is certain.Yes, I agree, God knew they would repent, thus the possibility of destruction was from their perspective, not his.

Geebob: were angels of destruction really poised for action? I can say that that was God's overall plan, but you cannot say that God was really going to destroy them.Well, then my questions apply! Why didn't God just destroy them right away? How can we trust God, if he can act to spoil his overall plan?

And on my view, the threat was yet a true statement: "No repentance means destruction," just as "If the sun goes out, we will all freeze."

Psalm 33:10-11 The Lord foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the peoples. But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.

Geebob: the psalm rings true even here. It wasn't intended as a philosophical absolute with absolutely no exceptions to be applied simply with no nuance. in the end, God gets his way. God was pleased that his plan to destroy ninevah was changed …But then that plan did not stand firm forever, which is the opposite of what the Psalm is saying. We can't say "some of the plans of the Lord stand," and be in concert with this verse, and others like it:

PS 119:89 Forever, O Lord, your word is settled in heaven.

ISA 14:27 For the Lord Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him? His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back?

JOB 42:2 "I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted."

No plan! That covers them all…

Geebob: But he would rather show mercy. What God hopes for does not always come to pass.

Jermiah 7:31

They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire-something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind.

matt 23:37But even the worst sinful actions are not out of God's plan:

Ezekiel 20:25-26 I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by; I defiled them through their gifts-- the sacrifice of every firstborn--that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord.

"So that they might know that I am the Lord," event this had a purpose, even this was in his plan, just as in the cross, the worst sinful deed that has ever been done.

Blessings,
Lee