A challenge to OVers

[Gavin]

How can a God who is traveling along in time with us, responding to unforeseen future happenings be able to promise that anything that is going to happen for certain? How can God give predictive prophecies of the future, and gaurentee that they will come about? How can God be trusted with regard to his future promises if he does not really know whether they will come about?

Norman Geisler cites some specific examples:
"If all predictive prophecy involving free choices is conditional, then the Bible could not have predicted where Jesus would be born. Micah, however, did predict that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2), as He was. Indeed, the Bible also predicted when He would die (Dan. 9:25-27), how He would die (Isa. 53), and how He would rise from the dead (Ps. 16:10 cf. Acts 2:30–31). Either these predictions are infallible or else they were just guesses on God’s part. If they are infallible, then neotheism is wrong, since according to their view God cannot make infallible predictions. On the other hand, if it is not infallible, then God was just guessing.

The same is true of most, if not all, prophecies about the Messiah. Such prophetic fulfillments involved free choices somewhere along the line, which — according to neotheism — God did not know. For example, if God does not know future free acts with certainty, then He does not know that the beast and the false prophet will be in the lake of fire. The Bible, however, says they will be there (Rev. 19:20; 20:10). Hence, either this prophecy is potentially false, or neotheism is not correct. In other words, if neotheism is true, then this prediction may be false."

Here are some more specific verses, along the same lines as the general point that Geisler makes, that OVers have trouble with:

1) John 13:18-19
"I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill the scripture: 'He who shares my bread has lifted up his heel against me.
I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He."

Jesus could not "tell" people the future merely based upon inarticulate and fallible guesses. Jesus bases his very deity in verse 19 ("I am He") on his ability to foretell the future!


2) Isaiah 46:10
"I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please."

God says that he makes known what is still to come from the the ancient times. Naturally, to make something known you have to know it yourself. Ergo, God knows what is still to come, i.e. the future.

3) Psalm 139:4
"Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether."

The text does not read, "you are able to guess my words extremely accurately before I even say them." It says the God knows them "altogether", completely, totally. BEFORE they are spoken.

4) John 18:4
"then Jesus, knowing (eidos) all that would happen to him, came forward and said to them, 'Whom do you seek?'"

This text does not tell us that Jesus accurately predicted what was going to happen to him. It tells that he KNEW it.

I submit, therefore, that the conclusion reached by Bruce Ware is absolutely correct: "By its denying of God's foreknowledge of future free creaturely choices and actions, open theism is vulnerable to the charge of commending as God one whom the true God declares is false and worthless."

Thoughts?

[geebob]

First of all, I would recomend that you look at my skinned cat thread. What it undeniably demonstrates is that you cannot logically insist that the presence of the indeterminate negates all certainty and determinacy. Now that is a very simple example, but consider how finite we are. Certainly God can know with certainty with regard to vastly more complex situations inspite of some uncertain aspects.

The other way that God can know the future is due to statistical necessity. Quantum mechanics (as many physicists understand it) demonstrates an indeterminate system that yeilds to determinism at the macrolevel as small as an amino acid (so my physics prof tells me). The nations, although they are made up of many free persons may yeild to determinism in some matters. It's like a socialogist successfully predicting how many people in the state of Ohio will die of smoke related reasons for the next year. They don't need to know the free actions of multitudes of people even though those free actions will play a role.

Now I would like to mention to mention that it is not necessary to hold that free acts are always indeterminate provided they arise from a character that developed in an indeterminate way.

I'll explain this with Judas.

Supposing that at the moment Jesus made this statement, it was determined that Judas would betray Jesus. It is reasonable that Judas already made his choice and that his heart was now hardened so that turning back was not an option. After all, he had already cut a deal with the pharisees. The libertarian moment, where it was true of Judas that he could betray Jesus or not betray Jesus had been satisfied, and before that point, God could not have known that it would be by Judas' hand.

There is also the possibility that Jesus knew that Judas would betray him from the moment Jesus choose him. In that case, the libertarian moment would have been satisfied some time in Judas' life before his vocation as a disciple. Judas would have rejected the grace of God to a degree where he could not turn back. But before that point, there was no such truth about Judas. If God wanted a betrayer to initiate the passion, he would have choosen someone else and we could still read the same words to the same effect, "I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He."

God says that he makes known what is still to come from the the ancient times. Naturally, to make something known you have to know it yourself. Ergo, God knows what is still to come, i.e. the future.

exactly. But why does God know it? These passages in Isaiah are about God's power. Read the verses before 46:10. They deal with God's actions thus his actions are connected to his power. The verses afterwords go on to describe God's plans. He says From the east I summon a bird of prey.

What of the free will of his bird of pray Cyrus? The easy answer is that he didn't have libertarian free will in this instance (the prophecy was made before he was born). But the man is not being condemned for these actions (and he may recieve little to no merit for them) thus an one of the most essential aspects of lfw is not violated here.

3) Psalm 139:4
"Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether."

The text does not read, "you are able to guess my words extremely accurately before I even say them." It says the God knows them "altogether", completely, totally. BEFORE they are spoken.

Is this a philosophical absolute? I see no reason to take it that way. In general, often God knows what we will say before we will say it. But even if it was an absolute, God still knows our characters very well and can often see what we are going to say. Furthermore, before you say it, you must think it and God knows our thoughts immediately.

4) John 18:4
"then Jesus, knowing (eidos) all that would happen to him, came forward and said to them, 'Whom do you seek?'"

why shouldn't we see this as all that was significant. If Jesus didn't know absolutely every single time he would stub his toe, is this statement any less true? Hardly. I can't imagine that John had any such intention or even meant to imply such a thing. A most reasonable way to take this is that Jesus knew that he would be scorned, questioned, mocked, beaten, and killed. That he knew every single detail is hardly necessary.

[Gavin]

still here, geebob, but some UNFORESEEN future events have kept me busy and unable to reply, hehehe.;)

[Gavin]

why shouldn't we see this as all that was significant. If Jesus didn't know absolutely every single time he would stub his toe, is this statement any less true? Hardly. I can't imagine that John had any such intention or even meant to imply such a thing. A most reasonable way to take this is that Jesus knew that he would be scorned, questioned, mocked, beaten, and killed. That he knew every single detail is hardly necessary.
Whether or not Jesus knew the big things (be scorned and mocked) or the little things (how many times he stubbed his toe) is totally moot. You admit that Jesus knew (not guessed) that he would be mocked, beaten, killed, etc, - these things were in the future. Some explanation is required as to how Jesus knew these things, an explanation that the OVer, as I see it, cannot provide.

While it would be pedantic to say that Jesus knew or even cared how many times he would stub his toe in his lifetime at any given point, I remain convinced that John 18:4 teaches that Jesus knew in detail what was going to happen to him during his crucifiction. I am unclear how Jesus would have come to this knowledge under the open view model.

The problem with the open view is that all God's future assurances must be taken as wise guesses rather than binding promises.

Anyway, thanks for responding, and sorry it took me so long to get back to you.

[yxboom]

Gavin:

The problem with the open view is that all God's future assurances must be taken as wise guesses rather than binding promises.
You reply assumes that OVThiesm states that God is unable to bring things about. God can make determinations of future events because He is infinitely powerful, wise and able. God's predictive abilities is not a counter to the Open View position but support of it.

[Gavin]

You reply assumes that OVThiesm states that God is unable to bring things about. God can make determinations of future events because He is infinitely powerful, wise and able. God's predictive abilities is not a counter to the Open View position but support of it.
But isn't it conceivable (even probable) that some unforeseen future event might come about to cause God to change his mind or pursue a different course of events than those promised?

[Homie]

But isn't it conceivable (even probable) that some unforeseen future event might come about to cause God to change his mind or pursue a different course of events than those promised?
No, because God does not brake promises. I always thought of God as knowing everything, the future as well, but these verses seem to tell a different tale:

Gen 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

[yxboom]

Gavin:
But isn't it conceivable (even probable) that some unforeseen future event might come about to cause God to change his mind or pursue a different course of events than those promised? Scripture not only concieves this but concludes these very things happen. God makes a promise/ determination/ prophecy and changes His mind due to the response from men.
1 Samuel 13:13-14 And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the LORD thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the LORD have established thy kingdom upon Israel forever. (14) But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the LORD hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the LORD commanded thee.

1 Samuel 2:27-30 And there came a man of God unto Eli, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Did I plainly appear unto the house of thy father, when they were in Egypt in Pharaoh's house? (28) And did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to offer upon mine altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? and did I give unto the house of thy father all the offerings made by fire of the children of Israel? (29) Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation; and honorest thy sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people? (30) Wherefore the LORD God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me forever: but now the LORD saith, Be it far from me; for them that honor me I will honor, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed.
In these 2 examples God made a promise and changed His promise because of men's abhorrance to His promise.
God stated that He is free to change His mind and promises if men alter their course be it from good to evil or evil to good. God is not obligated either way.
Jeremiah 18:5-10 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, (6) O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. (7) At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; (8) If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. (9) And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; (10) If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

[Iceman]

yxboom:
Scripture not only concieves this but concludes these very things happen. God makes a promise/ determination/ prophecy and changes His mind due to the response from men.


I'm not sure I agree with you here, Boom. I think that God lays down laws and consequences, and then he presents choices. If you make choice A, result A will happen... Furthermore, God seldom makes promises without conditions. Most of the time when God "changes his mind," a human has broken the condition.

For example, in I Samuel 13:13-14, God never unconditionally promised Saul the throne of Israel. It was under condition. Saul broke the faith and God acted. However, God never changed his mind.

The same is true from 1 Samuel 2:27-30. God said that he appointed Aaron and had expectations for the position: offer sacrifices, burn incense, wear ephod, etc. The sons of Eli broke that condition and God acted, plain and simple. He never changed his mind. The behavior of the people involved changed, and God treated them differently as he said he would.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that in any of the instances cited God ever changed his mind. Perhaps to us it appeared that way, but God was acting in accordance to his predetermined pattern that he had already told everyone. He layed down the law, people broke the conditions, and he reacted.

[yxboom]

Thank you Iceman for enforcing my point. There is contingency in prophecy. As for changing His mind each of those passages explicitly state He had changed His mind else God had lied in His previous promise to bring something about. I have absolutely no qualms with you regarding God altering His course because those to whom He promised something acted contrary.

I will quote excerpts from those passages if you care to reply regarding God changing His mind:

"for now would the LORD have established thy kingdom upon Israel forever. But now thy kingdom shall not continue:"

"Wherefore the LORD God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me forever: but now the LORD saith, Be it far from me"

"If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. "

"If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them."

[Iceman]

by the way, Gavin, thanks for starting this. Finally, something I can contribute to and enjoy discussing!

[Iceman]

Boom, I understand what you're saying, but before you can prove that God altered his course (or proved that my position would assume he lied), you have to find the passage that says God would not do something different if men screwed up.

Hmm... maybe that's not phrased quite right. Let me see if I can clear it up.

Let's focus on the 1 Samuel 13 passage for a second.

"for now would the LORD have established thy kingdom upon Israel forever. But now thy kingdom shall not continue:"

What you are saying is that God was going to establish Saul's line, but because of Saul's disobedence he changed his mind. I do not believe this is the point of the passage. Israelites knew that God was not to be mocked, disobeyed, or triffled with. Consider something what Moses said to the Israelites: Deuteronomy 7:9
Know therefore that the Lord your God is God. He is a faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations to those who love him and keep his commands. This is not an unconditional statement. God keeps his covenant with those who love and obey him. In astounding fashion Saul failed to obey and love, so therefore God cut off his line from the Israel throne.

God's statement to Saul in 1 Samuel 13, then, is kind of like what I say to my English students: "If you had done all you work and turned in your paper on time, you would get an A." If they don't do the work, I haven't changed my mind. I'm simply reacting to the behavior that they demonstrated.

In the same way, I still don't think God changed his mind. He simply acted based on Saul's disobedience.

[Homie]

I was going to post something similar but Iceman beat me to it. God does not brake his promises, it is we who brake his commandments and conditions.

[Gavin]

Scripture not only concieves this but concludes these very things happen. God makes a promise/ determination/ prophecy and changes His mind due to the response from men.

Does this not call into question all of God's promises to his children? What about those promises which God gaurentees?

Or do you make a differentiation between different kinds of promises?

[Jaltus]

I'll jump on this thread when I have a little more time, though I cannot FORESEE when that will be.

[Iceman]

Jaltus:
I'll jump on this thread when I have a little more time, though I cannot FORESEE when that will be.

that's okay Jaltus.Aren'y you glad that God is not afflicted with the same limitations. :teeth:

[Jaltus]

Hey, OVers, please bring up the Ezekiel passage that went unfulfilled. Maybe someone can answer it.

[yxboom]

Iceman:
Let's focus on the 1 Samuel 13 passage for a second.

What you are saying is that God was going to establish Saul's line, but because of Saul's disobedence he changed his mind. I do not believe this is the point of the passage. Israelites knew that God was not to be mocked, disobeyed, or triffled with. Consider something what Moses said to the Israelites: This is not an unconditional statement. God keeps his covenant with those who love and obey him. In astounding fashion Saul failed to obey and love, so therefore God cut off his line from the Israel throne.

God's statement to Saul in 1 Samuel 13, then, is kind of like what I say to my English students: "If you had done all you work and turned in your paper on time, you would get an A." If they don't do the work, I haven't changed my mind. I'm simply reacting to the behavior that they demonstrated.

In the same way, I still don't think God changed his mind. He simply acted based on Saul's disobedience. I think the issue rests on whether God anticipated a certain outcome or not when those statements were made. I don't believe God changed His nature but His reaction. From the looks of your reply you affirm contingency in God's dealing with mankind so saying "repent" means one thing and I say it means another is my opinion versus yours as we can read into Scripture what we will.

If I can show that God expects one thing with an opposite outcome than I would say that my claim becomes the more coherent and valid of God changing His mind. So the issue I see that remains is when God made those prophetic statements or promises was it that He anticipated that they would come to pass or did God make those statements full well knowing it would not come to pass?

Gavin:

Does this not call into question all of God's promises to his children? What about those promises which God gaurentees?

Or do you make a differentiation between different kinds of promises? God guaranteed to
Joshua 3:10 And Joshua said, Hereby ye shall know that the living God is among you, and that he will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Hivites, and the Perizzites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Jebusites.
But instead:
Judges 2:21 I also will not henceforth drive out any from before them of the nations which Joshua left when he died:

Judges 3:4-5 And they were to prove Israel by them, to know whether they would hearken unto the commandments of the LORD, which he commanded their fathers by the hand of Moses. (5) And the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, Hittites, and Amorites, and Perizzites, and Hivites, and Jebusites:
God guaranteed these people would not remain but Solomon married many women of these people who were NOT driven out. I believe that most if not all prophecies are contingent. As for promises there are contingent promises and there are determined promises. If a promise is contingent for instance God promised Israel to dwell in Solomon's temple forever and they sin against God, God is NOT breaking His promise to no longer dwell there. It was a contingent promise. Now on the other hand consider God's promise to Abram to multiply his seed and to inhabit the land of Canaan. God made the promise to bring this to pass and did. But in so doing He had threatened to wipe out Israel save Moses, caused them to dwell in the wilderness and caused that generation to pass away. God did ultimately bring about His promise but many details showed that even unconditional promises have many contingent aspects. God can bring things about that He determines to bring about but chooses to bring human choices into the equation so they become contingent in many ways.

[yxboom]

Jaltus:
Hey, OVers, please bring up the Ezekiel passage that went unfulfilled. Maybe someone can answer it. How about I just stall them for a lil while.

[geebob]

Hey, OVers, please bring up the Ezekiel passage that went unfulfilled. Maybe someone can answer it.

I may start a new thread on it. This one already has enough going on in it.

[geebob]

You admit that Jesus knew (not guessed) that he would be mocked, beaten, killed, etc, - these things were in the future. Some explanation is required as to how Jesus knew these things, an explanation that the OVer, as I see it, cannot provide.

I approve of 99.5 percent of yx's handling of this. Well done. <golf clap>

I'd like to fill in the metaphysical picture a wee bit.

The open view does not hold that all of the future is open but only some of it is open. First of all, it is utterly and demonstrably false that an open future requires a lack of any certainty what so ever. I have already made this arguement in the skinned cat thread. I've already mentioned that we should expect that for God, the same can apply for situations that are vastly more complex. Now yx has already mentioned that if God determines it, then it is certain and contingent on nothing but God's determination. There is one problem with this and that is when events surrounding evil are prophecied. The open view is not so useful when it comes to issues surrounding the problem of evil if God determines that evil will happen. The answer is that when God prophecies something that is evil, such as the mockery and beating of Jesus, he does so by using the evil that is within the world that he knows is encamped there and will not disappear in the near present.

Jesus knows that the structures and powers and authorities in charge are such that there is a gaurantee that reagrdless if some take the libertarian real chance of opting for obedience, there will be tons of wicked men ready to take his place. The chance that all of these men will turn and repent is statistically nil. So God sent his Son to face wickedness head on and for that reason, he gaurantees that these wicked men will play their parts right into his plan.

But isn't it conceivable (even probable) that some unforeseen future event might come about to cause God to change his mind or pursue a different course of events than those promised?

There are many open theists who affirm that God sees all possibilities. In otherwords, nothing is unforseen. What isn't forseen is which possibility will occur, but God in his power eliminates any possibility that will not work with what he has unconditionally guaranteed will occur. What that means is that if a state of events appears to be going down a route that go against God's unconditional promises or prophecies, he will intervene miraculously if he has to to keep things going according to plan. And how scriptural is that?! We see that God is frequently interacting miraculously throghout scripture.

[Iceman]

geebob, interesting comments. I'll reply later (unless another CVer beats me to it) when I have more than 10 minutes to kill

by the way... you keep on making reference to this skinned cat thread. Could you please provide a link for those of us who don't know where it is? Thanks.

[yxboom]

You will find the Principal of the skinned cat here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=3099#post3099)

[Iceman]

thanks for the link, Boom. okay... the whole skinned cat thing is interesting and it makes sense to me, but....

I find that the detail of prophecies in the Bible would negate the skinned cat logic. For example, there were hundreds of prophecies about Christ occuring all over throughout the Older Testament. His birth, his parents, his life, his death, his resurection, etc. God predicted a virgin birth, for example, and it doesn't matter how it happened because... well... while there's many ways to skin a cat, there are few ways to get a virgin birth. (Perhaps you're refering to who the virgin would be.)

Anyway... that's a tangent, and perhaps I'll jump into that thread later. Onto the matter at hand.


geebob, I'm sorry but I really don't understand how your argument holds water. If God determines good, then he figures out a way to make it happen, but if God determines something evil, then he has to sit back and just wait for the right bad dude to come along and fulfill the call?

Somehow this seems to me to be a step backwards for your position. What about Satan? There are many specific prophecies about him, especially concerning the end of the world, and they will happen in certain sequences in limited amounts of time... etc.. etc.... I don't see how God could just sit back and wait for Satan to do the "correct" thing so that prophecy is fulfilled. (Or does God have control and knowledge over Satan that he doesn't have with humans?)

Let me know if I'm understanding you correctly.


There's one more thing. There are many open theists who affirm that God sees all possibilities. In otherwords, nothing is unforseen. What isn't forseen is which possibility will occur, but God in his power eliminates any possibility that will not work with what he has unconditionally guaranteed will occur. What that means is that if a state of events appears to be going down a route that go against God's unconditional promises or prophecies, he will intervene miraculously if he has to to keep things going according to plan. And how scriptural is that?! We see that God is frequently interacting miraculously throghout scripture. Do you hold to this or are you just quoting what "other" people believe? Personally, I don't think that this is much different than predestination. If you make a maze for a rat and systematically block off every wrong turn when the rat gets there so that it will reach the end, that's really not that much different than preordaining the rat's path and completion of the maze.

[geebob]

geebob, I'm sorry but I really don't understand how your argument holds water. If God determines good, then he figures out a way to make it happen, but if God determines something evil, then he has to sit back and just wait for the right bad dude to come along and fulfill the call?

He doesn't have to sit back and wait. The world is a very depraved place and wicked men who consistently reject the grace of God and are willing to do satan's work (or play the part of the pawn in God's plans) are a dime a dozen.

There are many specific prophecies about him, especially concerning the end of the world, and they will happen in certain sequences in limited amounts of time... etc.. etc....

I'd challenge that those prophecies are as specific as you may think. Surely many of these prophecies could have been fulfilled in numerous ways. There is also a very important question as to how the New Testament Authors treated the concept of fulfillment. It is not necessarily the case that they always viewed prophecy fulfillment as the fullfillment for what the scripture was intentionally written but rather the life of Jesus struck a harmonic cord with a scripture that was not about Jesus but the harmony is the way in which it was fulfilled.

Do you hold to this or are you just quoting what "other" people believe?

This is what I tend to believe.

Personally, I don't think that this is much different than predestination. If you make a maze for a rat and systematically block off every wrong turn...

the reason that this isn't predestination and is still openness is because not every path is blocked off. Many possibilities still abound many of which are truly possible such that knowledge about which one will certainly be taken is non-existent as it doesn't represent the truth of the matter. There is knowledge about which possibilities certainly won't be taken, but not which ones will. The elemination of trillions of possibilities may still leave billions available.

[Blake Reas]

Hey guys I have something I would like all the OVers to address. I am a firm believer in understanding what the writers of scripture thought, I may be wrong about this but I think that we are misguided by looking for passages that say that God predetermined the future or did not. I think that it can be established that people in the first century and earlier ASSUMED this of God that he was all knowing, and controlled events that came to pass. Again I may be wrong but here is a quote from a Bruce Malina and Jerome Neyrey:

Moreover because human beings have NO control over their gender geography or generation, group-oriented persons tend to preceieve existing roles and statuses with in clans and families as well as of individual members with in them, as Ordained by God. It is important for U.S. readers to realize that the person responsible for the insertion of individuals into their specific family, ethnicity, village, region, craft, or party is the Divinity in Portraits of Paul: An Archaeology of Ancient Personality.

Also, if this is right which I think it is, since it can be shown that the Essenes where determinist and that the Pharisees believed that God's Sovereinty and Human responsibility where a mystery. This points to the fact that OV is nothing but an attempt to deal with the problem of evil. Another problem I have is the fact that NO one that I know of in the history of the Church or the Essenes or Pharisees etc. held such a view of God's foreknowledge. Again, I could be wrong and If I am I would like someone to correct me. I am saying these things because I want to be faithful to scripture and the time and place in which it was written.
The source where I read the information about the Essenes and the Pharisees was the book Divine Sovereinty and Human Responsibility by D.A. Carson (great book).

In his grace,
Blake

P.S. this post is in the utmost Christian Love.

[yxboom]

A new guy gets quite adament about Ezekiel's prophecy.....interesting enough.

here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=21526#post21526)

[geebob]

page number please.


tend to preceieve existing roles and statuses with in clans and families as well as of individual members with in them

When was this ordained. Those who hold to corporate election hold that God elects individuals to tasks. So we could broaden this to say that he ordains roles for them. Nevertheless, there is no reason to believe that this was accomplished before these people were born. There are some exceptions to the rule, such as Esau and Jacob, but keep in mind that this is ordination to roles and not salvation. Perhaps the prophet Balaam was ordained by God to be a prophet of God before he was born. Does that mean Balaam was also ordained unto damnation that he probably recieved? certainly not!

Also I question whether we can really paint all ancient thinkers as so deterministic. Although The Qumran scrolls often have a deterministic slant, notions of free will abound there.

[Interpreted, this concerns] the Teacher of Righteousness Who [expounded the law] his [Council] and to all who freely pledged themselves to join the elect of [God to keep the law] in the Council of the Community; who shall be saved on the Day [of Judgement]. (1QpMic 7-8)

(from The New Choosen People by William Klein, pg 47)


Of the wicked, we read

They have neither inquired nor sought after Him conerning His laws that they might know the hidden things in which they have singully erred. (1QS 5, 11-12)

He shall not be counted among the upright for he has not persisted in the conversion of his life. (1QS 3,1)

For as long as he despises the precepts of God, he shall recieve no instruction in the Community of His counsel. For it is through the spirit of true counsel consering the ways of man that all his sins shall be expiated that he may contemplate the light of life. (1QS 3,5-6)

[Though art a merciful God] and rich in [favours], pardoning those who repent of their sin and visiting the iniquity of the wicked. (1QH 14,24)
(Klein 48)

EP Sanders (If Neyrey is part of the New Perspective, Sanders is his daddy) concludes from passages such as these that

All these passages suppose that membership in the covenant is subject to a man's own will, intention and success fulfilling the commandments....His sinnning, on the other hand, is what puts him into the "lot" of the cursed: it is by his own deeds rather than by the predestination of God.

(Klein 48).

Sanders suggests that they believed in both free will and predestination. Does that mean that they were calvinists assuming compatibilistic free will? not necessarily. Sanders suggests that they were not interested in systematizing their beliefs for the purpose of coherence.

Moreover because human beings have NO control over their gender geography or generation, group-oriented persons tend to preceieve existing roles and statuses with in clans and families as well as of individual members with in them,

as for this quote, I offer this counter example.

proverbs 16:9
In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.

So we grant that God determines that God is the one who inserts us into the group. As a matter of fact, that may be a statement that I want to affirm. It does not follow that we had no choice in the matter. our plans belong to us. If we plan to live in obedience and faith to God, he will guide our steps down the right path and that includes guiding our steps into the family of God.

And this is very intuitive to the free will paradigm. We decide whether we will choose God or not, but do we decide to lead a bleak life of desperation? hardly. When that happens, it may very well be that God has ordained such a path in response to our hearts so that we may see the wretchedness of our rebellion.

[Blake Reas]

Here they are Pg. 175 in Malina and Neyrey. They are not part of the New Perspective they are called the Context group.
In Christ,
Blake

P.S.I will post pages out of Carson's book later I will have to go back and read the chapters.

In Christ,
Blake

[Blake Reas]

I will try and respond at a latter time to the full thrust of what you are saying but for now I do have this to say.

It seems to me that OVers are more concerned about reconciling God with Human freedom. I would venture to argue that Calvinist actually affirm that there is some mystery to God and we just don't know how it works out. Carson in the book deals with passages from Qumran that talk about "freedom" I will try and supply some of his work. I have a few big test this week and I need to start studying, ever since I have started posting on here I haven't been doing my work as well as I should.
I will post more tonight (late).

In Christ,
Blake

[geebob]

Here they are Pg. 175 in Malina and Neyrey. They are not part of the New Perspective they are called the Context group.

I could have sworn that I saw NT Wright listed as a Context fella and he is New perspective. I've wondered about the connections since they do arive at some of the same conclusions.

It seems to me that OVers are more concerned about reconciling God with Human freedom.

What's there to reconcile. If Free creatures are what an omnipotent soverign God wants, free creatures are what an onipotent soverign God gets.

[Blake Reas]

02-21-2003 @ 09:22 PM
geebob:



I could have sworn that I saw NT Wright listed as a Context fella and he is New perspective. I've wondered about the connections since they do arive at some of the same conclusions.

I could be wrong! As far as I know the Context group only deals with Sociological Criticism.



What's there to reconcile. If Free creatures are what an omnipotent soverign God wants, free creatures are what an onipotent soverign God gets.

That is my point, do you guys believe that there is any mysterey to God at all? It seems you try to systamatize him down to being almost human.

[geebob]

That is my point, do you guys believe that there is any mysterey to God at all?

Mystery is often used in scripture and in some of theology, (especially in mysticism) to inspire awe and worship of an incredible God. The "mysteries" (argueably more properly understood as incoherecies) of classical theism and calvinism do not do this for me. As a matter of fact, they strike horror and dread within me (see my thread in this forum on Thomas Talbott).

The key to appreciating the mysteriousness of God is not to view him in the most incomprehensible way. That's just arbitrary.

How can you not view God as mysterious? How does he exist? What's he made of? How did he make the world?

How did he make man?!? How did he make us free? We ov'ers emphasize the importance of indeterministic free will in establishing responsibility and originality in action. But it's not enough. Certainly a libertarian free entity is a mysterious one. And who does that give glory too? It's Creator!

I marvel at God's creation and of course we must value the Creator above all, but when we demean the creation as I often see calvinists doing (emphasizing our nothingness and depravity, it may be biblical, but it's not biblically balanced), we are only taking away the marvel that is to be had of a creator who does marvelous things. So often, Scripture marvels at God through consideration of creation.

Mystery and awe abounds in God and we are not dependent on the difficult and arguably incoherent teachings of calvinists to be inspired by the majesty and mystery of God.

Incoherence does not inspire me with awe. It inspires nothing.

[yxboom]

What I find is that Closed Viewers try to make God transcendant beyond comprehension so He can be praise-worthy as if He wouldn't be otherwise. In many ways God is transcendant but God chose to reveal Himself in Scriptures. Any transendance that is silent from Scriptures is taking away what He tried so hard to be....relational. God became a man and took on his form and we call that man Jesus. Do we scorn and mock Jesus because He wasn't some transcendant being who governs the way we philosophize He should. God chose to reveal Himself this way. We loathe His revelation if we do not take what God has revealed to us and build on that instead of taking our own foundation and interpreting Scripture with it. When God spoke in terms of a betrayed husband, what right does any have to insist that He did not mean what He says. Is God being too human for feeling betrayed?
Even in metaphorical language you can't just arbiturarily replace what God revealed with a more correct interpretation of who He is. God made a great effort in relating to humanity in Scripture and walking on earth as Messiah just to have Him torn out of His own revelation because He was too relatable and not transcendant enough deserving of awe and praise.

[joelkaki]

Honestly, I must say that I find Open Theism a gross misrepresentation of the Word of God, not to mention reducing God to a puny god.
You can try to explain away as much as you want, but if God does not know with absolute certainty what will happen in the future, and cannot control all that happens, he is neither omniscient nor omnipostent.


"There are yet words to speak on God's behalf." (From the book of Job). That is my mission, with such puny views of God going around. (Forgive my rather harsh statements, but I see open theism as a direct attack on the sovereignty and majesty of God.)


Joel

[Iceman]

boom, I think that was just about the best post I've ever read from you. :thumb: What you said is perfectly true and awesome about God.

I would say that the overly-mysterious light is a danger of the CV position, not a fallacy... but that's another topic.


Let me rant for a while... I've been out of the conversation for a while, so I'm gonna comment on some things already covered. And I'm gonna stay mostly out of geebob and Blake Reas' conversation.

originally posted by geebob
The world is a very depraved place and wicked men who consistently reject the grace of God and are willing to do satan's work (or play the part of the pawn in God's plans) are a dime a dozen. I need some clarification on your beliefs about this. First, do you believe that God loves these dime-a-dozen pawns? Second, what if no evil men step up to do the dirty work? For example, you didn't address my comments about Satan. What if Satan specifically did not do the evil God predicted in Revelation because he wants to prove God wrong? Can God do anything about that? (Forgive my ignorance. I'm just trying to get a better fix on your beliefs.)


in our little tangent about the rat in the maze...originally posted by geebobthe reason that this isn't predestination and is still openness is because not every path is blocked off.
So not every path is blocked off... but certain paths are indeed blocked off. Therefore the rat does not have perfect free will. He's still limited and controlled in some manner, and that sounds to me like limited predestination at least. (Interesting enough, even if the rat had all options of paths, he still can't choose to not go through the maze or go over the walls, so his choices are still limited in a sense. Similarily, we cannot choose to not be born, nor can we choose where we live or how and when we will die... at least not unless we go to incredible extremes. Just random thoughts.)

Originally posted by Blake ReasI would venture to argue that Calvinist actually affirm that there is some mystery to God and we just don't know how it works out.
bravo! :thumb:

I think we can't forget that God's ways are higher than our ways, and we are still pathetic creatures when compared to a holy, amazing God. While God "dumbs down" everything for us to an extent, I still think that Scripture gives the overall allusion that we are only seeing the very tip of the iceburg. Even our efforts t understand the simplist truths like the trinity or the cross, which at first seem so simple, as we study them they only deepen in mystery and wonder. The harder we look, things in Scripture become more complicated and intricate, not less. We should be thankful and amazed that we can have a personal relationship with God, but never forget he's infinately beyond understanding!


finally originally posted bygeebob. If Free creatures are what an omnipotent soverign God wants, free creatures are what an onipotent soverign God gets This is where we might have some serious disagreements. I do not in the slightest believe that Scripture teaches God wants free will creatures first and foremost. I believe that God desires glory for himself, a relationship with us, and a bunch of other things, but I do not believe that Scripture teaches anywhere that God desires us to have free will.

Hmm.... that's worded badly. You might be tempted to jump down my throat for that comment. Let me soften it. I merely want to assert that I believe Scripture teaches that our free will is not the most important thing to God. If God wants his glory, and if he wants things his way, and if he had to "sacrifice" our free will to get it, he would. (And I think he did.)

If you need clarification on that, let me know.



Okay... thanks for being patient and reading all that. Sorry to split the conversation up so much. I'll try to pay better attention to the thread in the future.

[Iceman]

Joel, nicely put, and let me speak on boom and geebob's behalf and say that they are in no way trying to decrease God's glory. The more I've talked with them and seen how they see things, I can understand how they believe that OV actually increases the mystery, power, and sovereignty of God.

While OV is logical and amazingly well-developed, my main dispute remains, however, centered around the fact that I simply do not believe OV is Biblical.

[joelkaki]

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that those holding to it are purposely trying to diminish God's glory; such was not my meaning. I too cannot see any Biblical justification for it.

Joel

[Iceman]

Cool Joel....

For thought down the road.... way down the road... when we're done discussing this topic I have another topic for discussion... that of significance. I think that it directly relates to the OV position and it might be worth hashing out.

I'll probably start another thread, but personally I can't focus on more than one or two threads at a time, so I'll wait until this one has lost its potency.

Awaiting a reply from the OVers.

[geebob]

joel
You can try to explain away as much as you want, but if God does not know with absolute certainty what will happen in the future, and cannot control all that happens, he is neither omniscient nor omnipostent.

If God cannot create an indeterminate world, then he is not omnipotent, (which of course is not the same thing as saying that he had to create an indeterminate world) and if he cannot create a world with an uncertain future, then he cannot create an indeterminate world.

And if he excersizes that power to create an indeterminate world and yet knows only certainties, then he does not know his creation as it is and he does not know it exhaustively since he does not know it as it is, thus he would not be omniscient.

An open future is necessarily possible for an omnipotent omniscient God.


Iceman
I need some clarification on your beliefs about this. First, do you believe that God loves these dime-a-dozen pawns?

Absolutely. By placing these people in a position where their actions may yeild harm to themselves and highlight the glory of God, God may be renewing the libertarian moment for them. God may harden a heart because he does not want us to be luke warm because that will not cut it. When they are subjected to an extreme, the failure and tragedy of the moment and/or the glory of God that is highlighted in spite of their rebellion will give them cause to rethink their lives. Pharaoh is my paradigm example for this.

Now I suppose that some people may be hopeless, and God may use them to highlight his glory, but that does not mean that he doesn't still love them but that would entail that he has tremendous grief over their hopeless state.

What if Satan specifically did not do the evil God predicted in Revelation because he wants to prove God wrong?

As an open theist, I would say that God does not create any reprobate creatures. No one is gauranteed damnation from the beginning of creation. This was true of Lucifer. But we could say that he has had his libertarian moment (thus his moral responsibility is established). He could have lived in eternity serving God. But now that is past. It is reasonable to say that Satan's hatred now is so consumming that his actions yeild to determinism or compatibilistic freedom. God knows that Satan will do everything that he can to spite God and make war with His kingdom.

Another possibility is that Satan's plans are already made. God knows what in Satan's plans are contingent and what is not contingent. What is certain for us and what is prophecied is that part which for what ever reasons that are beyond us but are available to God, Satan cannot compromise.

There is also an issue of the breadth of possibilities for those prophecies to be fulfilled. That eschatology is so controversial in fact attests to this.

Therefore the rat does not have perfect free will.

What's perfect free will?

for the libertarian, all that is necessary is that it is a real accessible possibility that you may choose one thing and it is a real accessable possibility that you may refrain from that choice and both of these possibilities are accessable at the time you make or consider making the choice. If your desires and reasoning were such that there was a ten percent chance that you would refrain, you are still one hundred percent free by the libertarian's reckoning.

and that sounds to me like limited predestination at least.

Whatever that means, but I'd have little difficulty accepting such a term. Some things are determined. I presented a view where it is determined that some possibilities are not open. keep in mind, indeterminism is not the denial that anything is determined. It is merely the negation of determinism and that only requires that some things are not determined.

This is where we might have some serious disagreements. I do not in the slightest believe that Scripture teaches God wants free will creatures first and foremost.

that's irrelevent to my point. Blake said that it looks like we are trying to reconsile free will with God. I took this to mean that we are trying to reconcile it with the concept of God and the very concept of omnipotence and soverignty do not have to be reconciled at all.

I was not arguing from scripture, however, I may post a thread on it tonight as I have been working on such a thread.

I merely want to assert that I believe Scripture teaches that our free will is not the most important thing to God.

I don't know that I would even touch such a notion to think that free will was the most important thing to God.

I am not so opposed to the notion that God's primary goal is his glory as I was, though I still believe the most important thing in creation to him is our relationship with him, but even if his glory is his number one goal, it is very reasonable that he should persue that by creating free creatures who could love him with a more gratifying love because it was an undetermined love.

I would also maintain that some of the things that calvinists say of God are not glorious in any real sense but only in the most depraved despotic sense (at the expence of the damned). I hope you don't percieve this as polemic rhetoric. It is mere honesty on my part.

Okay... thanks for being patient and reading all that. Sorry to split the conversation up so much. I'll try to pay better attention to the thread in the future.

I don't mind, I'm a slob myself. As long as what you say is coherent enough to be understandable.

It's always a pleasure dialogueing with you.

[Iceman]

I would like to discuss more about the libertarian moment you mentioned repeatedly. I think I understand what you mean by it, but I would like to nit-pick at it for a while.

But later... I'm headed out the door momentarily, and it might be tomorrow afternoon before I can respond. (Anyone else feel free to continue discussing whatever while I'm unavailable.) Thanks for your responses, geebob.

[Blake Reas]

A Friend and I where discussing Open Theism the other day and he made a pretty funny remark. He said since we can thwart God's will the OV position makes God out to be a Cosmic Homer Simpson! Although funny I think it does have a good point. If we can thwart God's will how does he ever get anything done. Does he stand up there and say," DOH they did not do what I expected them to on to plan B?" Personally that is kind of scary. How did Jesus Know Peter would deny him exactly 3 times before he said it? I do not find it comforting if I think that things are not under God's control. Maybe I do not under stand the Position but, it seems to "Open?" The questions run on and on for me, sorry if it is annoying to anyone.

In Christ,
Blake

I would like to leave everyone with a picture:

[geebob]

If we can thwart God's will how does he ever get anything done. Does he stand up there and say," DOH they did not do what I expected them to on to plan B?"

God does in fact express disappointment. That we can portray it in a comic fashion does not indicate that God does not have dignity when his creatures fail him. He wasn't bumbling. His creatures were.

God goes to plan B. We have no idea how often what we read in scripture is in fact plan B or C. Since A didn't work out, it's not the case that it should be recorded. But there are times when it was. God wanted Moses to be his spokesman. Moses complianed about his lack of eloquence so God let Aaron speak for Moses.

How did Jesus Know Peter would deny him exactly 3 times before he said it?

Read the responses yxboom, RightIdea and I made to xmansmommy in the liberal arts section. Bob Hill gives his thoughts on page four. I link you to my post which I believe is the first one to address Peter. The issue on Peter starts on the second to last paragraph.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=11260#post11260

Maybe I do not under stand the Position but, it seems to "Open?"

The open view does not hold that all of the future is open all of the time. As time progresses, the future yeilds to determinacy.

[joelkaki]

If God cannot create an indeterminate world, then he is not omnipotent, (which of course is not the same thing as saying that he had to create an indeterminate world) and if he cannot create a world with an uncertain future, then he cannot create an indeterminate world.

This is the old "Can God create a mountain that he cannot move" philosophical question. The answer of course, is no. God cannot create a mountain that he cannot move. Why? Does that not mean he is not omnipotent? Absolutely not. If God could do so, then he would be violating his essential character and being. God cannot do something outside of his character. It is the same with your scenario. For God to create an indeterminate world that he is not completely in control of, would be to violate his essential character and being. That argument does not work, for it forgets God's essential characteristics and being.


And if he excersizes that power to create an indeterminate world and yet knows only certainties, then he does not know his creation as it is and he does not know it exhaustively since he does not know it as it is, thus he would not be omniscient.

You lost me a little bit here. God is omnipotent. He controls all things. He is absolutely sovereign. If there is even one little maverick molecule that is not under his control, then he is not sovereign, and if He is not sovereign, then He is not God. You can use all of these rationalizations and explanations as much as you want, but the bottom line is that Scripture does not support such a view. As Blake Reas said, if OV is correct, then Jesus could not have known with certainty that Peter would deny him three times. God is the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last, and known to him are all things from the beginning to the end. [/B]



An open future is necessarily possible for an omnipotent omniscient God.


Give me one Bible text that supports such an idea.

Joel

[yxboom]

Blake a few of the Open Viewers have answered the situation with Peter, here is the link to my post regarding that objection, but if you want to read others they are also offered on the same thread here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=13248#post13248)

As for the Homer objection, I really don't care much for the comparison and reflects ignorance on the party using that as such, but maybe a more clearer insight into such passages than the Open View allows could be offered.
Exodus 13:17
Then it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, "Lest perhaps the people change their minds when they see war, and return to Egypt."

Jeremiah 26: 2
"Thus says the Lord: 'Stand in the court of the Lord's house, and speak to all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the Lord's house, all the words that I command you to speak to them. Do not diminish a word. 3 Perhaps everyone will listen and turn from his evil way, that I may relent concerning the calamity which I purpose to bring on them because of the evil of their doings.'
In these two passages God states an undetermined outcome........"Perhaps!" There was no definitive outcome already set.
Does God say "Doh!" in Isaiah 5 when He "expected good grapes" but instead finds "wild grapes"?
Isaiah 5:1-7
1 Now let me sing to my Well-beloved A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard: My Well-beloved has a vineyard On a very fruitful hill. 2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, And also made a winepress in it; So He expected it to bring forth good grapes, But it brought forth wild grapes. 3 "And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard. 4 What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes? 5 And now, please let Me tell you what I will do to My vineyard: I will take away its hedge, and it shall be burned; And break down its wall, and it shall be trampled down. 6 I will lay it waste; It shall not be pruned or dug, But there shall come up briers and thorns. I will also command the clouds That they rain no rain on it." 7 For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, And the men of Judah are His pleasant plant. He looked for justice, but behold, oppression; For righteousness, but behold, a cry for help.
Your illustration may jokingly infer that God is the great Homer in the sky whereas the Closed View in light of such passages leaves God the paranoid schizo in the sky who already knows all the future yet looks for things He knows are not there to be found. Worst yet is the God who makes it so and still looks for something He knows does not exist.
Final objection of man thwarting God's will. I present the case of the Pharasees who rejected God's will. They thwarted that which God's counsel determined that they should follow.
Luke 7:30
But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.
There is a discussion in progress regarding Luke 7:30 if you are interested here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=16169#post16169).

God's will is thwarted and which is why there is honesty and coherency when Jesus cries out.
Luke 13:34
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!

[yxboom]

02-23-2003 @ 12:41 PM
joelkaki:

An open future is necessarily possible for an omnipotent omniscient God.


Give me one Bible text that supports such an idea.

Joel

Jonah 4:1 But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he became angry. 2 So he prayed to the Lord, and said, "Ah, Lord, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who relents from doing harm.
Jonah's prayer lists amongst God's greatest attributes that God is abundant in lovingkindness and "relents". To relent there must needs require passibility for passibility there must be a succession of events and influence. So there is your required "ONE" Biblical text that supports the idea.

[geebob]

This is the old "Can God create a mountain that he cannot move" philosophical question.

I don't see the parrallel except when you say..

For God to create an indeterminate world that he is not completely in control of, would be to violate his essential character and being.

I see no reason to believe that God's character is such that he has to controll everything.

If there is even one little maverick molecule that is not under his control, then he is not sovereign, and if He is not sovereign, then He is not God.

all of the language we use to describe God comes from our basic everyday usage. A soverign is someone who is in charge of a nation or a monarch. But there is no soverign who excersizes meticulous control, thus to say that if God does not control everything is to say that he is not soverign. You cannot win by a definition that is not agreed upon by everyone.

As Blake Reas said, if OV is correct, then Jesus could not have known with certainty that Peter would deny him three times.

then you didn't go to the link provided.

God is the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last, and known to him are all things from the beginning to the end.

That's not what scripture says. The end is known from the beginning, or in other words, at the beginning, God knew his goals and that he had the power to bring those goals about. Nothing is mentioned about things in between.

Give me one Bible text that supports such an idea.

I see yx beat me to it. Well he fails because the question was for only one text. He gave several (okay, they weren't all in answer to your question).

Well there is no text to support that directly, but there are texts that support that the future is in fact open, and of course if someting is true, then it is also possible.

well here's one.

Deuteronomy 13:3

[joelkaki]

I'll come back to your posts. However, I don't think I will really matter. You can rationalize all you want, but the fact remains that if God does not know for certain what will take place in the future, then He is not omniscient. I'm sure you've got all kinds of 'logical' ways of 'proving' that that doesn't mean He is not omniscient, but that doesn't defeat the truth. God knows all things that have happened, are happening, and will happen. He works ALL THINGS according to the counsel of his own will (Eph 1:11). He does not mold his plans around what his creatures do against his will--He actually works all things according to his will.


Joel

[yxboom]

It seems that you have thus proven my earlier sentiments that you base your Scriptural reading on philisophical bias and presuppositions foreign to the texts. You assume that somewhere the Bible teaches that God MUST know all future events before they happen in order to be God. Nowhere does God say this is so. You have a question begging in that where does "working all things together" require a pre-knowledge to all events up to that point? I can build an extension to my house and work towards that end without knowing if today or tomorrow I am going to go out and buy the nails for the project.

You have still yet to address the passages I presented here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=22812#post22812) regarding God changing plans. Not to mention geebob's passage he used in regards to God appointing Aaron as Moses' spokesman. What business is God have rebuking Moses when Aaron was plan A all along? Or God taking the children of Israel through the Red Sea when the text states God would have done it another way but chose to the Red Sea. And if God doesn't work around people than care to explain God's repentance?

[geebob]

You can rationalize all you want, but the fact remains that if God does not know for certain what will take place in the future, then He is not omniscient.

You can rationalize it all you want, but the fact remains that if God has an indeterminate world and yet his knowledge only contains certainties as opposed to the multiple possibilities in an indeterminate world, he is not omniscient.

[Gavin]

I'll come back to your posts. However, I don't think I will really matter. You can rationalize all you want, but the fact remains that if God does not know for certain what will take place in the future, then He is not omniscient. I'm sure you've got all kinds of 'logical' ways of 'proving' that that doesn't mean He is not omniscient, but that doesn't defeat the truth. God knows all things that have happened, are happening, and will happen. He works ALL THINGS according to the counsel of his own will (Eph 1:11). He does not mold his plans around what his creatures do against his will--He actually works all things according to his will.


:thumb:

[joelkaki]

geebob, who said he had an indeterminate world?

yx,
I said I was coming back to those. I just haven't had the time to sit
down and go through them piece by piece yet.

Joel

[Captain Ochre]

02-24-2003 @ 10:58 PM
Gavin:

:thumb:

The thumb's-up was for the idea that omniscience must include accurate knowledge of the future (and I assume that exhaustive knowledge is meant).
I happen to agree that omniscience includes all future facts, however, I disagree that omniscience must include future knowledge. If future knowledge were contradictory, then the notion of an omniscient being knowing the future is as nonsensical as an omnipotent being making a rock so big that it cannot be lifted.
Now, it certainly doesn't advance the argument to simply insist on various pet definitions, imo. Seems to me that the limited omniscience position must make a case against the logic of accurate future knowledge in order to gain a hearing for a redefinition of omniscience. The full omniscience position has the inside track by virtue of Biblical indications of accurate future knowledge. These should not be lightly dismissed.

[Iceman]

Wow... so much going on. Seems I'm behind in the conversation.

Boom, I would disagree on the definition of the word "relent" that you use. Originally posted by yxboom
To relent there must needs require passibility for passibility there must be a succession of events and influence. I must confess I really have no idea what you are saying here. Your linguistic prowess is far beyond my own. Nevertheless, I believe the word "relent" is used in the Jonah passage to emphasize that God does not take pleasure in harm. When Jonah says God is one who "relents from doing harm" he simply means that God often holds back wrath because of his mercy. (Perhaps you mean that to hold back wrath, God needs to have already determined to not hold back wrath, and he changed his mind. He repented from evil. Num. 23:19 negates that possibility.)

Onto the next post.
Originally posted by geebob
Deuteronomy 13:3Fancinating verse. Seriously. This one made me think for a while. However, I believe "test" in this case is a type of trial, not a assessment tool. Let me clarify.

When I test my English students, I do it for two purposes. First, I need to know what they can do. However, I also want them to know what they can do. I believe this is the use of "test" in this verse. When God sends a false prophet to the Israelites, he's not watching eagerly, wondering if they will believe or not. He already knows all. Rather, he is using the opportunity as a trial to discipline and refine his people.

Okay... what's next. Originally posted by yxboom
What business is God have rebuking Moses when Aaron was plan A all along? Just a thought, but I always thought that God rebuked Moses because he was concerned about his character and faith. When Moses complained, God could have moved onto Plan A (as you call it) without correcting him, but he rebuked Moses in challenge his faith, not because his plan was messed up.

Originally posted by geebob
You can rationalize it all you want, but the fact remains that if God has an indeterminate world and yet his knowledge only contains certainties as opposed to the multiple possibilities in an indeterminate world, he is not omniscient.I would mostly agree with you here. :thumb: While I don't agree with an indeterminate word (I can barely even spell that!) the Bible teaches that God not only knows the past, present, and future in perfect fullness, but he also knows every single possibility that could result from different choices and circumstances. (If you're a sci-fi fan, think of this as God fulling knowing every single alternate dimention from the show Sliders.) Now, not only does God know every possible alternative, but he knows the good that will come from each of those possibilities, and the glory that it will give him. He has therefore ordained the best "alternative" in order to maximize his glory and good.



That's it for now. Just some thoughts. We'll get to this libertarian moment later, I guess.

[joelkaki]

I concur with Iceman, but will still give my own responses to other questions of geebob and yxboo,


Joel

[yxboom]

02-24-2003 @ 04:42 PM
Iceman:
Boom, I would disagree on the definition of the word &quot;relent&quot; that you use. I must confess I really have no idea what you are saying here. Your linguistic prowess is far beyond my own. Nevertheless, I believe the word &quot;relent&quot; is used in the Jonah passage to emphasize that God does not take pleasure in harm. When Jonah says God is one who &quot;relents from doing harm&quot; he simply means that God often holds back wrath because of his mercy. (Perhaps you mean that to hold back wrath, God needs to have already determined to not hold back wrath, and he changed his mind. He repented from evil. Num. 23:19 negates that possibility.) Be as it may you think that relent in the Jonah passage is to withhold wrath. Regardless the question at hand which I responded to with Jonah 4 was that God is affected by mankind. To your Numbers 23:19 negating that God changes His mind I offer:
Exodus 32:12
Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, 'He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth'? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and relent from this harm to Your people.....14 So the Lord relented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.

Jeremiah 18:8
if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster [evil in the KJV] that I thought to bring upon it.
Your position that God is doing what He would have done even though the text states He is doing otherwise what He intended to do all along is suspect.
02-24-2003 @ 04:42 PM
Iceman:
When I test my English students, I do it for two purposes. First, I need to know what they can do. However, I also want them to know what they can do. I believe this is the use of &quot;test&quot; in this verse. When God sends a false prophet to the Israelites, he's not watching eagerly, wondering if they will believe or not. He already knows all. Rather, he is using the opportunity as a trial to discipline and refine his people.
Than you would clarify what I had posted on the previous page regarding God saying "Perhaps..." here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=22812#post22812). Otherwise geebob's reading of the text in Deut. 13:3 is more coherent and honest.
02-24-2003 @ 04:42 PM
Iceman:Okay... what's next. Just a thought, but I always thought that God rebuked Moses because he was concerned about his character and faith. When Moses complained, God could have moved onto Plan A (as you call it) without correcting him, but he rebuked Moses in challenge his faith, not because his plan was messed up.
I would say the text clearly disagrees with you and I bold face the reason why...
Exodus4:10-17
10 Then Moses said to the Lord, "O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither before nor since You have spoken to Your servant; but I am slow of speech and slow of tongue." 11 So the Lord said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the Lord? 12 Now therefore, go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall say." 13 But he said, "O my Lord, please send by the hand of whomever else You may send." 14 So the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses, and He said: "Is not Aaron the Levite your brother? I know that he can speak well. And look, he is also coming out to meet you. When he sees you, he will be glad in his heart. 15 Now you shall speak to him and put the words in his mouth. And I will be with your mouth and with his mouth, and I will teach you what you shall do. 16 So he shall be your spokesman to the people. And he himself shall be as a mouth for you, and you shall be to him as God. 17 And you shall take this rod in your hand, with which you shall do the signs."
Not only does God declare to Moses after his objection that he is not eloquent in speech, God says He, that is YHWH would be Moses' mouthpiece. So this was first alternate plan......BUT Moses objected and then God was vehemently wroth with Moses as is indicated by the text by Moses' objection. This was no character object lesson for God was royally ticked at Moses objecting to Plan B. So Aaron was then offered to be the mouthpiece for Moses. To which Moses agreed. If this was a character lesson than you have a question begging........what did Moses possibly learn out of this because God allowed him to reject his commission over and over.

My question of certain passages still remain on the previous page if you care to address them.

[Iceman]

Originally posted by yxboom
Regardless the question at hand which I responded to with Jonah 4 was that God is affected by mankind. Let me just say that this statement kind of scares me: that mankind can actually affect God. With little to no stretching, you can then say that mankind can change God. :eek: I won't go off on this because I think it would be changing the topic and avoiding the present discussions. Maybe we'll come back to that.


Originally posted by yxboom
If this was a character lesson than you have a question begging........what did Moses possibly learn out of this because God allowed him to reject his commission over and over I wouldn't say Moses rejected his commission as much as he showed a lack of faith, an unhealthy fear of man, and a hint of disobedience. These flaws changed into strengths of his character, but they still caused him problems occassionally down the road. It was his disobedience that eventually kept him from seeing the promised land.


I'm getting to your other passages soon... hopefully. Please be patient with me. This is the most I've debated in months! So much going on!
:juggle:

[geebob]

geebob, who said he had an indeterminate world?

take a look at my thread on free will (in this forum). It argues libertarian free will which is necessarily indeterminate.


also consider.


Scriptures that show God changing his plans for one thing. (ex 32, 2Ki 20:1-6) A planned change of plans is an absurdity of course unless it's for a possible but not certain contingency).

Any scripture where God says "perhaps" or "maybe."(Ex 13:17, Jerimiah 26:3)

Many scriptures where tests are being discussed as God uses them "to find out.." as he says in his own words. (Gen 22:12, Ex 16:4)

Any scripture that indicates God's universal salvific will along with the real possibility of damnation for people (possibility, not to be confused with gaurantee). The presence of more than one possibility is of course the definition of an indeterminate future (emphasis to highlight corrected mistake).(1st tim. 2:1-4)

Any scripture where someone has 2 or more very likely possibilities before him to choose. (1 cor. 10:13)

that's all I have time for.

[joelkaki]

OK, again, I'm sorry, but I don't have a whole lot of time to just sit down and write a response, but I will be getting back on all of it.

Joel

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
Will someone explain to me what "Open View" is, please?

[joelkaki]

OK, yx, I'm going to tackle your passage now.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonah 4:1 But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he became angry. 2 So he prayed to the Lord, and said, "Ah, Lord, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who relents from doing harm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Jonah's prayer lists amongst God's greatest attributes that God is abundant in lovingkindness and "relents". To relent there must needs require passibility for passibility there must be a succession of events and influence. So there is your required "ONE" Biblical text that supports the idea.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "passibility," so I may not adequately deal with that part. I really don't see how this passage supports OV at all. God relents from doing harm if people repent.
I think you would agree that there is an implicit condition in Jonah's declaration of judgement, that if the Ninevites repent, they would be spared, right? God would spare them if they repented. I think that's OK with both of our views. The problem is though (correct me if I misrepresent your view), that you believe that if God knew certainly that Nineveh would repent, the prophecy of destruction would be insincere. I do not believe that is the case. If Nineveh had not repented, God would not have spared them. The threat was real. The condition was also real. The fact that God knew in advance that they would repent in no way makes the threat insincere. The condition was also sincere, because they repented, and he "relented" from doing harm. I honestly do not see how this is supposed to oppose what I believe. Had God not given this threat, they would not have repented. But since He, for his own glory, wanted them to repent, and knew that they would, He accomplished His will by sending Jonah, and caused their repentance by it.

Joel

[Iceman]

nice Joel :thumb: couldn't have said it better myself

[Jaltus]

I am surprised by OVers insistence on the use of Jonah. Most of the leading advocates (such as Sanders, IIRC) agree that it does not back either view, though it does seem to go against Simple Foreknowledge advocates.

[joelkaki]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the old "Can God create a mountain that he cannot move" philosophical question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see the parrallel except when you say..

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For God to create an indeterminate world that he is not completely in control of, would be to violate his essential character and being.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see no reason to believe that God's character is such that he has to controll everything.

He works all things according to the counsel of His will. He is sovereign. That is His being, his character.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is even one little maverick molecule that is not under his control, then he is not sovereign, and if He is not sovereign, then He is not God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

all of the language we use to describe God comes from our basic everyday usage. A soverign is someone who is in charge of a nation or a monarch. But there is no soverign who excersizes meticulous control, thus to say that if God does not control everything is to say that he is not soverign. You cannot win by a definition that is not agreed upon by everyone.

But you see, no human sovereign is completely sovereign. It is not an essential part of his character. Many have tried to be so, but they all fail. God is completely sovereign. The image of God thinking something is going to happen, but since He is not in control, something works against his plan, and he has to try to find some other plan to work to beat those evil guys who seem to best him at every turn is sick.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Blake Reas said, if OV is correct, then Jesus could not have known with certainty that Peter would deny him three times.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
then you didn't go to the link provided.

I have now, but I don't know that you can prove all that; but I won't dwell on that particular point.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God is the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last, and known to him are all things from the beginning to the end.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's not what scripture says. The end is known from the beginning, or in other words, at the beginning, God knew his goals and that he had the power to bring those goals about. Nothing is mentioned about things in between.

Actually that was a combination of Scriptures, together with what I believe to be true. Notice I put no Scripture reference by it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Give me one Bible text that supports such an idea.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- see yx beat me to it. Well he fails because the question was for only one text. He gave several (okay, they weren't all in answer to your question).

I'm only going to deal with ones specifically addressed to me, for I don't have the time to turn every which way answering every argument.


Well there is no text to support that directly, but there are texts that support that the future is in fact open, and of course if someting is true, then it is also possible.

well here's one.

Deuteronomy 13:3

Ok. Deuteronomy 13:3--"you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul."

Iceman dealt with this well, but I'll add a few comments. You would agree that God can read the hearts of men in the present, right. Then He should have already known whether they loved Him or not, future aside.

Joel

[Jaltus]

Sovereignty is NOT an essential aspect of God's character. If it is, then God is not in fact self-contained and creation is necessary and no longer contingent.

Let me explain before you blow a fuse.



1) God pre-existed. There was only the triune God and there was nothing which was created.

2) Then the earth was created and all with it.

God CANNOT be sovereign in 1) since there is nothing to be sovereign OVER. Thus, if sovereignty is an essential part of God's character, God was unfulfilled in 1). It was not until 2) that God is able to be sovereign. Thus, if sovereignty is an essential part of His character, creation is necessary.

However, if sovereignty is NOT essential, then creation is contingent.

In other words, you made the same mistake that Piper makes in chapter 1 of Desiring God, you magnify sovereignty and thus destroy aseity.

[joelkaki]

take a look at my thread on free will (in this forum). It argues libertarian free will which is necessarily indeterminate.

I'm not going to get in on that at the moment; I'm swamped as it is.



also consider.


Scriptures that show God changing his plans for one thing. (ex 32, 2Ki 20:1-6) A planned change of plans is an absurdity of course unless it's for a possible but not certain contingency).

No, it is not an absurdity. God's plans in the world affect people. So he could have wanted his people to learn a particular thing, be convicted by a particular thing, understand a particular thing, knowing what their response would be, he planned another thing to happen to further refine them as His people, or to further judge those who are not his people.


Any scripture where God says "perhaps" or "maybe."(Ex 13:17, Jerimiah 26:3)

To quote John Piper, "The word 'perhaps' may be spoken here by God not to express that he is unsure what they will do, but to express that from a human vantage point the people may or may not listen to him. But if they do, he will have mercy and not bring calamity."


Many scriptures where tests are being discussed as God uses them "to find out.." as he says in his own words. (Gen 22:12, Ex 16:4)

If your view is correct, then God is learning something, and therefore changing--"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever."


Any scripture that indicates God's universal salvific will along with the real possibility of damnation for people (possibility, not to be confused with gaurantee). The presence of more than one possibility is of course the definition of an indeterminate future (emphasis to highlight corrected mistake).(1st tim. 2:1-4)

Well we'll just have to disagree here, because I don't believe it was God's plan to save every man. "All men" does not necessarily mean "all men without exception." It can very well mean, "all men without distinction."


Any scripture where someone has 2 or more very likely possibilities before him to choose. (1 cor. 10:13)

that's all I have time for.

That proves nothing. He can have two possibilites, but that doesn't mean one cannot be determined by God.

Joel

[joelkaki]

Jaltus, to better sort this out, why don't you give us a definition for sovereignty that we can agree on, or else all will be confusion.


Joel

[joelkaki]

OK, for you OVers, now it is my turn to offer Scriptural evidences against your position.

Isaiah 42:9--"Behold, the former things have come to pass,
And new things I declare;
Before they spring forth I tell you of them."

God told them what would happen before they happened. That is completely opposed to the view presented by Open Theism.

Isaiah 44:7--"And who can proclaim as I do? Then let him declare it and set it in order for Me, Since I appointed the ancient people. And the things that are coming and shall come, let them show these to me."

God appointed the things that "shall come." That again openly contradicts Open Theism.

Isaiah 46:9-10
"Remember the former things of old,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times the things not yet done,
Saying, 'My counsel will stand,
And I will do all my pleasure.' "

Again, an open contradiction to Open Theism.
God declares from ancient time the things that have not yet been done.

Joel

[Jaltus]

Joel,

It does not matter what your defintion of severignty is, it is still NOT an essential part of God's character. Piper himself realized this as a mistake (though he never changed his book). I was told of this by Dr. John Roy, one of his ex-associate pastors who is now a prof at TEDS.

[joelkaki]

OK, I need to think about that one. However, you would agree that omnipotence is part of his essential character, correct?

Joel

[Jaltus]

Yup.

Now, is that "all power" or "all power that is logically possible?"

I vote the latter, since I think God restrains from doing counterlogical things or things which go against His character, e.g. God cannot sin, but it is not a mark against omnipotence.

[geebob]

Joe,

The open view has two essential claims. one is that God is personal, and the other is that God desires to have a free loving relationship with man. This may look like what christianity teaches consistently but the open viewers say that much of (though definitely not all of) traditional theology is in conflict with this as it describes God as immutable (God does not change in any way shape or form), Impassible (God does not have emotions, or if he does, he is always happy) Timeless (God does not exist in time or he does not experience a temporal sequence of events from before to after), Simple (he has no parts), and specifically soverign (He controls absolutely everything and everything goes according to his micromanaging plan down to the last wiggle of every electron and every detail).

And the most controversial aspect of the open view is that it suggests that God does not know all of our future actions. Many open theists will argue that this is still compatible with omniscience because either God knows everything that is logically possible to know, or we say (I take this position) that reality is such that the future really truly contains several possible futures that are consistent with the entire past and present. God's knowledge is of course a part of history, thus his omniscience must be compatible with various possible futures, which means that God must know that each one is possible as opposed to which one is certain which contradicts what we said of the reality of the other possibilities, namely that they are possible.



Joel
But you see, no human sovereign is completely sovereign. It is not an essential part of his character.

That does not matter. The usage of soverignty is what it is, thus trying to win this by definition fails.

God is completely soverign in the sense that the term is used generally. To insist that it must be different for God from man is begging the question. You have to explain that your use of Soverignty is a special one and once you do, it is no longer necessary for one to reject that God is soverign because they reject your view. Certainly, God's soverignty is greater, but you can't arrive at that merely by describing him as soverign but through examining how he opporates in scripture and scripture does not always fit nicely into that mold. Aslo, that it is greater does not imply that it is meticulous. Jesus said he wanted jerusalem to to repent but they were not willing. What does one do when they reject the two wills view as nonsense? Specific soverignty goes in favor of General Soverignty (the view that all free will theists hold to.

I don't know why Piper concluded that meticulous soverignty is not apart of God's nature, but one good reason to conclude such is that God becomes ontologically dependent upon creation. He has to have a creation and he has to contol all of it or he is not God. He couldn't choose otherwise. That to me seems a very weak and dependent picture of God. He is not self containted but is in fact a needy God. I believe that God could have created an indeterminate world and a determinate one.

The image of God thinking something is going to happen, but since He is not in control, something works against his plan, and he has to try to find some other plan to work to beat those evil guys who seem to best him at every turn is sick.

Not if in his soverign omnipotence decided to work with libertarian free creatures.

To quote John Piper, "The word 'perhaps' may be spoken here by God not to express that he is unsure what they will do, but to express that from a human vantage point the people may or may not listen to him. But if they do, he will have mercy and not bring calamity."

That is not the case in Deuteronomy 13:3 at all. Read it over. The most soverignty that can be given to this case is that of molinism because there is something about the people of God that is not determined by God.

No, it is not an absurdity. God's plans in the world affect people. So he could have wanted his people to learn a particular thing, be convicted by a particular thing, understand a particular thing, knowing what their response would be, he planned another thing to happen to further refine them as His people, or to further judge those who are not his people.

Well, then it's all apart of the original plan and there is no real change. A planned change of plans is an absurdity.

Well we'll just have to disagree here, because I don't believe it was God's plan to save every man. "All men" does not necessarily mean "all men without exception." It can very well mean, "all men without distinction."

I don't believe that it is God's plan to save every man. I believe it is his desire that every man come to him and If he did not make it possible for every single man to do so, he is not consistent with that desire.

Your take on this scripture is inadequate as Paul asks tim to pray for kings so that they would live in peace. Certainly this is a prayer for all monarchs who rule over christians, and certainly this does not happen, thus we see that Paul has tim pray for the salvation of those who are not guaranteed salvation. He does not ask timothy to merely pray for some specific set (a set which is non-existent) of individuals who are already elect though not yet christian.

If your view is correct, then God is learning something, and therefore changing--"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever."

God is changing...in a non-essential way. And Jesus is essentially the same yesterday, today, and forever.

That proves nothing. He can have two possibilites, but that doesn't mean one cannot be determined by God.

The passage said God is faithful to provide a way out. If God determined that the way out wouldn't be taken, it isn't really a way out, and God was not faithful.


God told them what would happen before they happened. That is completely opposed to the view presented by Open Theism.

No, that is completely affirmed by the open view. The open view says only part of the future is open. It becomes closed because either the creator determines something or his creatures determine it. This verse refers to the latter.

It seems to me that the same applies with the rest of your verses.

[Gavin]

OK, for you OVers, now it is my turn to offer Scriptural evidences against your position.

Isaiah 42:9--"Behold, the former things have come to pass,
And new things I declare;
Before they spring forth I tell you of them."

God told them what would happen before they happened. That is completely opposed to the view presented by Open Theism.

Isaiah 44:7--"And who can proclaim as I do? Then let him declare it and set it in order for Me, Since I appointed the ancient people. And the things that are coming and shall come, let them show these to me."

God appointed the things that "shall come." That again openly contradicts Open Theism.

Isaiah 46:9-10
"Remember the former things of old,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times the things not yet done,
Saying, 'My counsel will stand,
And I will do all my pleasure.' "

Again, an open contradiction to Open Theism.
God declares from ancient time the things that have not yet been done.

Good stuff, Joel. :thumb:

I have never heard a good answer to the tension between God not knowing the future, the many predictive prophecies in the Bible, such as those you cited in Isaiah, or the ones I cited in the first post in this thread. See Bruce Ware's book _God's Lesser Glory_ for more.

[geebob]

God knows the future. some of it is closed and some of it is open. What he knows as closed he may prophecy as certain. He can also make contingent prophecies.

That is essentially indeterminism and indeterminism is perfectly coherent.

I'm waiting for a tension to be demonstrated.

[Gavin]

God knows the future. some of it is closed and some of it is open. What he knows as closed he may prophecy as certain.
I thought the OV taught that God did not know the future, contra the first four words or your post. Can you qualify this, particularly what you mean by "open" and "closed"? Thanks Geebob.:smile:

[geebob]

We say God knows the future and we say that he doesn't. We say that he knows everything and we say that he doesn't.

I apologize for this. But it's easy to explain.

When we say he doesn't know the future, we mean that he doesn't know it in the capacity that others say he knows it. There is a hidden assumption that says that to know the future means that he knows it as certain.

When we say he doesn't know everything, again, we are denying what everyone else means when saying that God knows everything including the future as certain.

But I insist that God knows the future and he in fact knows it exhaustively. And he knows everything.

You see, there is a way that the future is. there is an exhaustive complete and total way that it is. But part of that which is included in everything about the future is uncertainties. not epistemic uncertainties. REal ones. We insist that the future REALLY consists of REAL possibilities. For God to be omniscient in such a world means that he knows that these multiple possibilities are real. Of course the future still consists of some certainties and of course God knows those as certainties.

the open parts of the future are of course those parts that are not settled. The closed parts are the details that are settled and determined.

[Jaltus]

God cannot know the future actions of free agents, that is what Open Theism affirms. THus, God can know His own DETERMINED actions in advance, such as fulfillment of certain prophecies. Hence, the future is partially closed (God's determined events) and partially open (events based on the decisions of free agents).

[yxboom]

Gavin when God determines to do something uncontingent of men's actions it is "closed" or it is a "settled future" in that God knows what He will do and in that matter of fact God foreknows this..exhaustively. For instance that Jesus would be sent to earth as a man born of a virgin.
However on those things that are contingent and those things of the future that God has not "settled" but instead left "open" such as whether Israel would dwell in the wilderness 40 years or obey His command and go straight into the Promised Land. Those things of the future are "unsettled" and open to the contingent actions of mankind. Therefore the open view stresses that there are both a "settled" future and God knows exhaustively those things and an "unsettled" future where God does not exhaustively know those things but left it as the title implies "open".

[Iceman]

God knows what He will do and in that matter of fact God foreknows this..exhaustively. For instance that Jesus would be sent to earth as a man born of a virgin.

some thoughts boom,

so I guess it's a good thing that Mary agreed to let God use her body for the virgin birth ... and it's a good think Joseph listened to the warning of his dream about Herod's attack on the babies of Bethlehem. If either of those mistakes would have been made, the cross may never have happened.

Sorry to be nit-picky, but it just seems to me that, according to what you just said, if people obey God and follow his instruction then the future is closed, but if they disobey and mess up, then the future is open.

I'm not being a wise-guy, but could you provide me with a Biblical reference where God planned on doing something and there was no possibility that man could screw it up?

[joelkaki]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God told them what would happen before they happened. That is completely opposed to the view presented by Open Theism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No, that is completely affirmed by the open view. The open view says only part of the future is open. It becomes closed because either the creator determines something or his creatures determine it. This verse refers to the latter.

It seems to me that the same applies with the rest of your verses.

His creatures determine something? Please explain further. If I'm reading you right, you are at this point totally illogical and totally mangling Scripture, but I may not be understanding what you are saying, so I need for clarification.

Joel

[joelkaki]

I see a possible logical problem here. You say that the future is closed in some areas in open in others. The reason you want to keep the future open is that you believe God is love, wants a free relationship with men so that he can interact with them as free creatures, and restricts his knowledge so as to not violate their will, correct? Then how can any of the future be closed? How does God know that none of his actions will violate the will of his creatures? What if they did???


Joel

[joelkaki]

10 Then said David, O LORD God of Israel, thy servant hath certainly heard that Saul seeketh to come to Kei'lah, to destroy the city for my sake.

11 Will the men of Kei'lah deliver me up into his hand? will Saul come down, as thy servant hath heard? O LORD God of Israel, I beseech thee, tell thy servant. And the LORD said, He will come down.

12 Then said David, Will the men of Kei'lah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? And the LORD said, They will deliver thee up.

Here David asks the Lord about a certain event IN THE FUTURE. Does the Lord respond with possibilities? Even probabilities? Absolutely not. He says "HE WILL COME DOWN!" There is no uncertainty in this statement. The Lord knew what exactly would happen in the future. You can't even say this was part of the closed future, for this isn't something God decided to do certainly in the future. This is something creatures are going to do, and the Lord knew what they would do certainly.

Joel

[geebob]

His creatures determine something? Please explain further.

For an entity to determine something, that means because of the way it is or because of actions that come from that entity, something in the future happens. It means that the entity causes something in the future. That something is determined by the entity.

The reason you want to keep the future open is that you believe God is love, wants a free relationship with men so that he can interact with them as free creatures, and restricts his knowledge so as to not violate their will, correct?

There are some open theists who say that God restricts his knowledge. I do not. I say the knowledge just isn't there. The knowledge that some claim that there must be in fact has no bearing on reality. If it is not based on reality, then it is not really knowledge to begin with.

other than that, yes. See my thread on libertarian free will in this forum. It's not a long read.

Then how can any of the future be closed? How does God know that none of his actions will violate the will of his creatures? What if they did???

see my thread on skinning a cat in this forum. It gives an example. surely an infinite God can have knowledge when the situations are more vastly complex than my example. So this example clearly shows that it is not illogical at all for some of the future to be closed and some of it to be open.

I will bump it up soon after posting this.

[joelkaki]

[yxboom]
Gavin when God determines to do something uncontingent of men's actions it is "closed" or it is a "settled future" in that God knows what He will do and in that matter of fact God foreknows this..exhaustively.

How many of God's acts then are not contingent on human's actions?

Think about this:

If God determines to do only things that are uncontingent on men's actions (closed), then God did not determine for Jesus to die on the cross, because that was contingent first of all on the Jews shouting "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!" and secondly on Pilate giving the OK. So basically, our whole salvation rested on a number of hotheaded, sinful men, who might or might not have decided to have Jesus crucified. God sure did take a risk sending his son down here, because He might not have been able to save anybody. But my basic point is, God could not have determined the cross, could not have determined they way of our salvation, because that was contingent on the actions of men.

Joel

[Gavin]

I agree with the points that Ice and Joel have brought up against the distinction between the "open" and "closed" future - if God decides that he is going to do something, then (you say) that is "closed" future. But many of the things that God decides to do are interwoven with free creaturely actions (like the virgin birth that Ice pointed out, and the crucifiction that Joel brought up). IOW, "closed" future is not so closed after all.

[geebob]

But many of the things that God decides to do are interwoven with free creaturely actions (like the virgin birth that Ice pointed out, and the crucifiction that Joel brought up). IOW, "closed" future is not so closed after all.

The crucifixion only needed people to play the roles. That any individual should be so wicked to participate is not guaranteed (with regard to Judas, you can see my answer to xmansmommy in the open theism thread in the liberal arts section, and also in the libertarian free will thread in this forum). That there would be people, although no specific persons who would fit the bill is a statitistical necessity. I have no problem with God guiding the decisions of wicked people to act in specific ways. I do have a problem with God guiding people to be wicked.

As the proverbs say, the plans of man belong to his heart but God guides his steps. It is only reasonable that God should guide their steps in accordance with how their hearts respond to him.

With regard to the virgin birth, God only needed to find someone who's heart was willing to follow him and certainly david had many decendents such that if Marry rejected God's will for her, another would have been found.

[Bill the Cat]

Wow! This thread has gone all over the place!! IMHO, God is not constrained to time. I believe He can insert hHimself into any part of history He wishes. He created time and based on that, I don't think he is subject to it.

:wink:

[geebob]

Unless time is a certain way, this has no bearing on the subject. Some of us believe that only the present exists. In light of that, what would it mean for God to insert himself or to be outside of time? I don't see how it would help any view with regard to the issue.

[Bill the Cat]

I got my view from Dr. Mike Luper, A scholar of Paulean theology and my best friend's dad (convenient huh?). The way it's been explained to me, Time is like a book. God is the reader of the book. God can "jump into the book" anywhere He wants to do something. He knows the whole book already. Kind of wierd to think about. The past has to have existed for us to have experienced it, and the future has to exist for God to know about it.

Geebob said:
With regard to the virgin birth, God only needed to find someone who's heart was willing to follow him and certainly david had many decendents such that if Marry rejected God's will for her, another would have been found.

But wouldn't this blow the Mormon prophecy of Mary being her name away??? :rofl: :yipee:

Sorry, I heard Mormon bashing was today :rofl:

[geebob]

I'm familier with the book analogy. I don't like it. :eww:

There would be issues with the mormon prophecy. But I suspect that they are not so bad. Even though I'm not a mormon, I do have to deal with the prophecy with the naming of cyrus and the actions predicted of him.

[joelkaki]

The crucifixion only needed people to play the roles. That any individual should be so wicked to participate is not guaranteed (with regard to Judas, you can see my answer to xmansmommy in the open theism thread in the liberal arts section, and also in the libertarian free will thread in this forum). That there would be people, although no specific persons who would fit the bill is a statitistical necessity. I have no problem with God guiding the decisions of wicked people to act in specific ways. I do have a problem with God guiding people to be wicked.

But what about free will? That would be violating free will.


As the proverbs say, the plans of man belong to his heart but God guides his steps. It is only reasonable that God should guide their steps in accordance with how their hearts respond to him.

Not really. God does whatsoever he wishes.

Joel

[Bill the Cat]

I'm not really familiar with that prophecy. Perhaps you could email it to me so I can investigate it. I have studied them for the past 2 years.

I am not really a HUGE fan of the book analogy either, but it seems the most plausible to me.

[geebob]

But what about free will? That would be violating free will.

See my comments on this in the libertarian free will thread.

The actions themselves may not be free, but the caracter that performs them would be as it did not have to be in that position.

Not really. God does whatsoever he wishes.

If whatsoever he wishes is to guide our steps in response to what our hearts plan, then that is what a soverign God will do.

[geebob]

I am not really a HUGE fan of the book analogy either, but it seems the most plausible to me.

I'm not a fan because I don't agree with the picture that it represents. I believe that my relationship with God is absolutely decided by my history and relationship with him now. If there is anything that establishes an eternal destiny beyond these two things, then I don't believe that my relationship with him now is genuine. Maybe I'll fall away, thus that I haven't fallen away now makes no difference to my ultimate relationship to him.

Perhaps you could email it to me so I can investigate it. I have studied them for the past 2 years.

I don't have it offhand myself. you could simply go to a bible search site and search for cyrus. It should be in one of the major prophets.

my favorite is
http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible/

[yxboom]

02-27-2003 @ 09:05 AM
joelkaki:
But what about free will? That would be violating free will.Violating freewill would be to remove any chance for them to do A or -A. When God wanted Zechariah to name his son John and Zechariah hesitated God "persuaded" him and he did. Zechariah still had the choice to do A or -A. God only needed someone whose heart was tender, He didn't need to make a person's heart tender to bring about His plan.


02-27-2003 @ 09:05 AM
joelkaki:
Not really. God does whatsoever he wishes.

Joel Exactly and to recieve love in a reciprical manner He created creatures with a freewill which He will not remove.

[Gavin]

Blake, did you ever copy that stuff from Carson? I would be interested.

1) I am still waiting for my question to be answered satisfactorily: Does this [the idea that God can change his promises based on human actions] not call into question all of God's promises to his children? What about those promises which God gaurentees?

Or do you make a differentiation between different kinds of promises?

If God changes his promises, how can we trust ANY of them?

2) geebob,
The crucifixion only needed people to play the roles. That any individual should be so wicked to participate is not guaranteed (with regard to Judas, you can see my answer to xmansmommy in the open theism thread in the liberal arts section, and also in the libertarian free will thread in this forum). That there would be people, although no specific persons who would fit the bill is a statitistical necessity. I have no problem with God guiding the decisions of wicked people to act in specific ways. I do have a problem with God guiding people to be wicked.

The crucifiction needed men to commit a sinful act - namely, crucifying Christ. Since the death of Christ was predicted in the Old Testament (e.g., Isaiah 53), there are only three logical possibilities :

1) God foreknew that these men would crucify Christ, and prophecied Isaiah 53 based on this knowledge.

2) God did not know that these men would do it, but knew that he could bring it to pass somehow (after all, there are more than one ways to skin a cat), and so he actually ordained that these men would crucify Christ, when the time came.

3) God took a risk in hoping that these men would crucify Christ. He prophecy in Isaiah was just a guess that they would do it. If God had been wrong, we would never have been redeemed! Scary thought! The redemption of the entire human race was basically contingent upon the free will of a few Jews who, by chance living in Israel around 30 AD, just happened to exercise their free will in a way (coincidentally) compatible with God's benevolent purposes for mankind.

Neither (1) nor (2) can be true in the OV model, since it denies foreknowledge and God causing men to commit evil. Conclusion: (3) God took an incredible risk in our salvation and his prophecy was just a guess!

The reality, of course, is found in Acts 2:23 (inter alia passages): "This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross."


The OV bites the dust again.

[yxboom]

First off your question was answered you just don't like it so it is in your opinion.......unsatisfactory. You did not request further clarification on it so we are left thinking you were satisfied with the answer.

Second, you assume 1, 2 and 3 contradict the Open View which results from much speaking and little listening.

[Gavin]

Boom,

As for promises there are contingent promises and there are determined promises. If a promise is contingent for instance God promised Israel to dwell in Solomon's temple forever and they sin against God, God is NOT breaking His promise to no longer dwell there. It was a contingent promise. Now on the other hand consider God's promise to Abram to multiply his seed and to inhabit the land of Canaan. God made the promise to bring this to pass and did. But in so doing He had threatened to wipe out Israel save Moses, caused them to dwell in the wilderness and caused that generation to pass away. God did ultimately bring about His promise but many details showed that even unconditional promises have many contingent aspects. God can bring things about that He determines to bring about but chooses to bring human choices into the equation so they become contingent in many ways.

Whoops, I see your answer now to my question. Sorry for overlooking it.:oops:

In reference to what you have written above, I also believe that there are such things as contingent promises ("if you do x, I promise y", etc). However, I also believe that there are such things as unconditional promises (and it appears from what you have written that you do as well).

The point of departure in our views lies in that I do not see how the OV can allow for unconditional promises. You seem to get at this when you mention the "contingent aspects" of unconditional promises. This also seems to be at the heart of Geebob's "skinned cat" analogy.

I do not see how, even with contingent aspects, a unconditional promise can exist in the OV model. How can God promise anything unconditionally if he does not know all future potential conditions and factors?

The other problem I have is that many times, God's unconditional promises are interwoven with the free actions of humans. How can God guarentee to bring something about when in doing so he would over-ride the free-will of humans?

For example, how can our redemption in Christ be promised by God in the Old Testament when it was dependent on the free wicked actions of men?

Second, you assume 1, 2 and 3 contradict the Open View which results from much speaking and little listening.
I only think that 1 and 2 contradict the OV teaching. 3 I see as compatible with it. If you can show me how 1 or 2, which contain either foreknowledge of God causing men to commit evil, are compatible with the OV, I will listen.:smile:

[geebob]

Gavin, I am perfectly comfortable with your second option. I thought I already mentioned this. God does not need to know that any individual will be wicked enough to perform these things. He only needs to know that mankind is so wicked that it is not significantly likely (or likely at all) that the evil, as entrenched as it is will not be present within mankind. There was no gaurantee for God that these men would do it. There is a guarantee that someone would do it because it is a statistical necessity that there would be wicked men present.

We have a similar situation in quantum mechanics. fire a stream of electrons at a little circle in the wall, smaller than the beam, and there is no guarantee that any specific electron will hit the mark, but there is a statistical guarantee that some electrons will hit the mark. (and if there is something wrong with that picture in terms of accuracy in describing the current view of physics, I hope you can overlook that to see that my innacurate picture illustrates what I'm talking about)

Also, you say that we'd have a problem with God causing men to do evil. To that I say yes and no. I don't believe that God causes men to be evil, but I have no problem whatsoever that God should determine how that evil should manifest itself. The open view emphasizes that God is resourceful using circumstances that are available to him. He uses the wickedness of man that is there, he does not need to cause it.

My paradigm example is pharoah. The hardening of Pharoah has a specific purpose and effect, But pharoah's attitude towards God in and of its self was not caused by God because the hardening frequently wore off and in one such instance where it wore off, Moses observes this about pharoah in exodus 9.

29 Moses replied, "When I have gone out of the city, I will spread out my hands in prayer to the LORD . The thunder will stop and there will be no more hail, so you may know that the earth is the LORD's. 30 But I know that you and your officials still do not fear the LORD God."

[geebob]

second post, scroll up


"This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross."

I don't see why we should view specific individuals as part of the content of that purpose and foreknowledge.

[Gavin]

geebob,
Gavin, I am perfectly comfortable with your second option. I thought I already mentioned this. God does not need to know that any individual will be wicked enough to perform these things. He only needs to know that mankind is so wicked that it is not significantly likely (or likely at all) that the evil, as entrenched as it is will not be present within mankind. There was no gaurantee for God that these men would do it. There is a guarantee that someone would do it because it is a statistical necessity that there would be wicked men present.
It was not a statistical necessity that Christ be crucified. Remember, Daniel 9 prophecies the exact timing of Christ's death. Also Psalm 22, Zecheriah 9 prophecied the way that Christ would die (crucifiction). Paul ties this means of death to the Old Testament law in Galatians 3:13. By no stretch of the imagination was it an statistical necessity that Christ would die in this way, in this timing, simply because of God's "resourcefulness" in responding to human wickedness.

I don't see why we should view specific individuals as part of the content of that purpose and foreknowledge.
Irrelevant! That God knew beforehand his Son's death, (regardless of which individuals were included in this knowledge) militates against the idea that God does not know the future.

Acts 2:23 = foreknowledge

[yxboom]

03-02-2003 @ 07:59 PM
Gavin:
Acts 2:23 = foreknowledge Amen! :thumb:
Act 2:31
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

[Gavin]

boom,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
03-02-2003 @ 07:59 PM
Gavin:
Acts 2:23 = foreknowledge
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amen!

Umm, I must be missing something, sorry. How again does the view that God does not know the future account for foreknowledge? I was thinking you called them accurate guesses (not foreknowledge) but I might be wrong on this. So sorry to belabor the point.

I feel like I start needing to be like Sozo or Jerry Shugart and emphasize the word "foreknowledge" over and over again like they do the word "eternal" in favor of OSAS. :hrm:

[geebob]

It was not a statistical necessity that Christ be crucified.

I didn't say it was. It was a statistical necessity that there would be people wicked enough to do it. God is resourceful to use such people so that they would indeed do it. God can determine that it will be done at a certain time, in a certain way. He simply doesn't need to determine which individuals would do so. If he couldn't determine the place time and method without knowing which individuals would do so, we can certainly say that humans are more powerful than God in regard to this.

That God knew beforehand his Son's death, (regardless of which individuals were included in this knowledge) militates against the idea that God does not know the future.

God knows the future. He knows some of it as certain and some of it as open. Haven't we been over this?


I was thinking you called them accurate guesses (not foreknowledge) but I might be wrong on this. So sorry to belabor the point.

okay, I suspect you really need to doublecheck some of our past responses to you on this. As a matter of fact, there were three responses in a row aimed at a post of yours. My first post on page 6 is the first one to address the issue.

http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=577&perpage=15&pagenumber=6

[Gavin]

geebob,
I didn't say it was. It was a statistical necessity that there would be people wicked enough to do it. God is resourceful to use such people so that they would indeed do it. God can determine that it will be done at a certain time, in a certain way. He simply doesn't need to determine which individuals would do so. If he couldn't determine the place time and method without knowing which individuals would do so, we can certainly say that humans are more powerful than God in regard to this.
In a theological system that claims to enhance God's free relationship with his creatures, I am having a difficult time understanding how God can "determine" (this was your word for it) the place, time, and method of the crucifixion without being coercive and undermining the free decisions of creatures.

Suppose some of the men wanted to stone Christ instead of crucfy him. What would God have done? If he "forced" these men to put their stones down and pick up a cross, so that his prophecies would be fulfilled, would this not undermine their freedom? Would this God not be coercive?

The bottom line is that predictive prophecies which are interwoven with the free acts of men cannot be guarenteed if God neither (1) knows the future actions of his free creatures nor (2) causes men to do things.

Maybe you accept (2), but I would think you would take it as hurting men's free-will.
God knows the future. He knows some of it as certain and some of it as open. Haven't we been over this?

My point was that the kind of foreknowlege in view in Acts 2 is not the kind that the open view allows for. IOW, Acts 2 views the crucifixion as God's "closed" foreknowledge, whereas for the OV, since it is bound up with the free creatures of men, it must be his "open" foreknowledge.
okay, I suspect you really need to doublecheck some of our past responses to you on this. As a matter of fact, there were three responses in a row aimed at a post of yours. My first post on page 6 is the first one to address the issue.

http://theologyweb.com/forum/showth...15&pagenumber=6
Okay, I re-read the responses. My confusion is still the same, though, because of what I said above - when I speak of foreknowledge here, I am speaking of the foreknowledge of free creaturely actions in crucifying Christ. THAT KIND of foreknowledge is what the OV cannot allow, but what Acts 2 demands.

[geebob]

In a theological system that claims to enhance God's free relationship with his creatures, I am having a difficult time understanding how God can "determine" (this was your word for it) the place, time, and method of the crucifixion without being coercive and undermining the free decisions of creatures.

you see, I am not a strict libertarian. I feel that I often make decisions and looking back on those decisions, I don't think that at the time, I could've choosen otherwise. Such things may have been determined by nature, nurture, etc. But I do believe in libertarian free will. I believe some of our decisions are free in the strict sense in that capacity. I think that libertarian free will is necessary to moral responsibility, but not in the sense that the immediate action is libertarian free. If a man is morally responsible for his actions, even if those actions are somewhat determined, they must be determined in part by a caracter that was formed in a libertarian fashion. So he did not have to choose the immoral thing that he did in light of the fact that he could've made different choices in the past. Many and I would insist that most of those choices had a libertarian quality.

For example, a fella may experiment with a drug, but that first time may not be enough to establish a habit. If he keeps going back to the drug, he will get hooked. This is a very simple example, but I believe that this illustrates what goes on in vastly more complex issues.

Now we add God's plans into the equation. Since the person's heart is hardened against God for the time, I see no wrong in God determining how specifically that vice will work out in that persons actions. "A man's plans belong to his heart, but God determines his steps"

Maybe you accept (2), but I would think you would take it as hurting men's free-will.

I hope you can see that I do indeed accept this. I just don't find it absolute. I believe God causes men to act in certain ways in accordance with their character. But he does not mold their character such that he decides that they will be evil. They do this on their own and they truly could avoid it if they would but submit to God's grace. That is where I place libertarian free will.


Now this isn't the only approach an open theist can take, but I find it has support in the biblical concepts of hardening and maturing. Again, I point to pharaoh. God's hardening was not the cause of Pharoah's rejection of God (Ex 0:29-30). It caused that attitude in Pharoah to manifest in a very specific way. And in doing this, God was renewing the libertarian moment for Pharoah. In tragedy after tragedy, the hope was that Pharoah would snap out of his foolish defiance of God.

[yxboom]

03-03-2003 @ 02:15 PM
Gavin:
Okay, I re-read the responses. My confusion is still the same, though, because of what I said above - when I speak of foreknowledge here, I am speaking of the foreknowledge of free creaturely actions in crucifying Christ. THAT KIND of foreknowledge is what the OV cannot allow, but what Acts 2 demands. Gavin I apologize in that my free time got occupied in the kinks of the server move. Apparently these boards don't grow legs and move themselves.

Anyway your questions have been answered thoroughly in my opinion we are misconnecting on another level if you still are mis-understanding. Personally I am thinking addressing the questions for what they are are not working so if by chance you have another avenue we could travel. Otherwise I can endulge you an answer but it will be nothing more than a recap or rehash of what has already been stated. I apologize if my replies are insufficient. As for Acts 2 and foreknowledge. In the previous replies I had stated in what way the Open View views foreknowledge and in so doing there is no conflict. Neither geebob or I who are the present OVT representatives on this thread said anything about "good guesses". In fact I said......
02-25-2003 @ 06:10 PM
yxboom:

Gavin when God determines to do something uncontingent of men's actions it is &quot;closed&quot; or it is a &quot;settled future&quot; in that God knows what He will do and in that matter of fact God foreknows this..exhaustively.
As for your insisting that foreknowledge can not allow for what I have described, I see how is it not so? Peter stated that by God's foreknowledge "they" crucified Christ. God knew that they would do this cause men are so inclined or in another angle God moved those whose hearts were set against Jesus to do so (which is geebob's explanation regarding Pharaoh). God knew this would happen ergo "foreknowledge". As for an objection of all the contingent possibilities of the free will of humans I suggest geebob's skinned cat thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=287) and as to hopefully build an understanding of OVT in this discussion I recommend geebob's "Why libertarian free will" thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1201). Does that help?

[Gavin]

geebob (for when you get from vacation)

For example, a fella may experiment with a drug, but that first time may not be enough to establish a habit. If he keeps going back to the drug, he will get hooked. This is a very simple example, but I believe that this illustrates what goes on in vastly more complex issues.

Now we add God's plans into the equation. Since the person's heart is hardened against God for the time, I see no wrong in God determining how specifically that vice will work out in that persons actions. "A man's plans belong to his heart, but God determines his steps"

okay, but two points:

1) There is no certainty, as I see it, that the exact right amount of men, at the exact time, at the exact place, will all have freely hardened their hearts to the right extent, such that God will be able to guide them to crucify Christ in 30 AD. I am not even certain if I am willing to say that this state of affairs is probable, let alone a "statistical necessity". That Jesus would die in that year, on a cross, in that location, seems not so certain to me.

And I am committed to the principle that God's prophecies are certainties - we can trust fully that he will do what he says(and I know you believe this as well concerning"closed" prophecies).

2) Maybe we just flat out see it differently, but I cannot accept that God can "guide" the actions of free creatures and yet not violate your standards of human freedom. IOW, I cannot see how "partial libertarianism" (do you object to me calling it that?) is consistent with the principle that men have autonomous free will (which I think you would agree with).

My reason for thinking this is as follows: every sin that a human being commits is evil. If an individual hardens his heart for thirty 30 years, and then, after all that hardening, contributes to the crucifiction of God's Son, he will be, on the day of judgement, accountable to God for that sin of crucifying Christ (as well as the sins commited in the hardening period for the previous 30 years, as well as other sins committed after the crucifiction). So how can God "guide" this last sin (crucifying Christ) and yet still hold said individual accountable for it, according to your standards of human freedom? (Of course, as a Calvinist, I believe that God guides ALL actions according to his sovereign will, so it is not a problem for my view. Then again, it would not help me anyway, since I would have no need of God skinning a cat a different way.) IOW, I don't God "guiding" sinful men to commit sinful actions is any different, really, from God "causing" [i]unsinful men to commit sinful actions.

Put (perhaps too) bluntly: a sin is a sin.

Thank you for your replies, geebob. My understanding of your position is increasing, and for that I thank you. My disagreement with it is growing, but nevertheless I am coming to understand your view and the motivations behind it with greater respect. I respect your view (in the sense that I respect all views) and I can understand why people believe it.

But I do regard it as dangerous because I think it reduces and erodes our confidence in God's redemptive plan unfolding through time. I do not like the idea of our God as dependant on men (and that is what I think OV amounts to); and I cannot reconcile this view with what I see in Scripture.

[joelkaki]

OK, OVer's. God could predestine the crucifixion because it was statistical necessity that there be evil enough men to accomplish the purpose, according to your view. So basically, then, there was no possibility of the crucifixion not taking place. It was fixed, certain. Now, obviously you say no individuals were predestined to do this--it just had to happen by the hands of some sinful men. OK, but you really aren't dealing with the issue by saying that. (First of all, I don't see how you can say that it was a statistical necessity that there be evil enough men; if it was not, the crucifixion was not guaranteed, and we are in a sad state). But whether or not individuals were concerned, the fact remains according to your view that the crucifixion had to happen. Someone HAD to crucify Jesus and commit that evil act. Thus really those men were not libertarian free creatures. Granted, a great many of them could have been according to your view, but not all of them could have been, for then the crucifixion was not a guaranteed event. If every single one of them could have either decided to crucify Jesus or not crucify Jesus, then God's plan since Genesis 3:15 ( of the seed of the woman to crush the serpent's head) was not guaranteed to take place. It rested on the decisions of a few Jewish men in the 1st Century. No one was guaranteed salvation; it rested on a few Jewish men in the 1st Century. Pretty sad view of God in my opinion. God couldn't guarantee the cross, couldn't guarantee that we would have a substitute; he was controlled by the decisions of a few Jewish men in the 1st Century.

Joel

[Gavin]

As for your insisting that foreknowledge can not allow for what I have described, I see how is it not so? Peter stated that by God's foreknowledge "they" crucified Christ. God knew that they would do this cause men are so inclined or in another angle God moved those whose hearts were set against Jesus to do so (which is geebob's explanation regarding Pharaoh). God knew this would happen ergo "foreknowledge".
I guess this particular point about Acts 2 and I Peter comes down to semantics concerning "foreknowledge". We all agree that God "foreknew" the crucifiction in some sense. But you see "foreknew" as "he knew beforehand that he would bring it about", whereas I see it as "he actually knew it in advance".

I am not sure that there is any reason to resort to your definition. My dictionary has "foreknow" as "to know beforehand", and as synanomous with "to foresee".

[Gavin]

how does OVer's interpret Jesus' foreknowledge of Judas' betrayal?

Matthew 26:21
And while they were eating, he said, "I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me."

Mark 14:18
While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, "I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me–one who is eating with me."

Or what about Peter's denials?

Luke 22:34
Jesus answered, "I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me."

These were free creaturely actions that seem to have been known in advance by Jesus.

[Jaltus]

There are at least two quite different takes on this one by prominent OVers. For that matter, there are at least 3 major understandings by anyone no matter the background.

Anyway, see Sanders and Boyd for the two major responses.

[themuzicman]

03-06-2003 @ 12:26 PM
joelkaki:

OK, OVer's. God could predestine the crucifixion because it was statistical necessity that there be evil enough men to accomplish the purpose, according to your view.


Only if sin entered the world via Adam and Eve, which it did. Thus, sin and the curse guarenteed that there would be evil men about. Tigers don't change their stripes.


So basically, then, there was no possibility of the crucifixion not taking place. It was fixed, certain. Now, obviously you say no individuals were predestined to do this--it just had to happen by the hands of some sinful men. OK, but you really aren't dealing with the issue by saying that. (First of all, I don't see how you can say that it was a statistical necessity that there be evil enough men; if it was not, the crucifixion was not guaranteed, and we are in a sad state).


Sin took care of that.

But whether or not individuals were concerned, the fact remains according to your view that the crucifixion had to happen. Someone HAD to crucify Jesus and commit that evil act. Thus really those men were not libertarian free creatures.


Sure they were. You aren't let out of your libertarian free will because you react to external stimuli. As mom used to say, "If everyone else was jumping off a bridge, would you jump, too?"


Granted, a great many of them could have been according to your view, but not all of them could have been, for then the crucifixion was not a guaranteed event.


Which is why God brought about the external circumstances to make it happen.



If every single one of them could have either decided to crucify Jesus or not crucify Jesus, then God's plan since Genesis 3:15 ( of the seed of the woman to crush the serpent's head) was not guaranteed to take place.


You have eliminated God's omnipotence from the equasion.


It rested on the decisions of a few Jewish men in the 1st Century. No one was guaranteed salvation; it rested on a few Jewish men in the 1st Century. Pretty sad view of God in my opinion. God couldn't guarantee the cross, couldn't guarantee that we would have a substitute; he was controlled by the decisions of a few Jewish men in the 1st Century.


If it didn't happen, you'd have a point. But it did. As it turns out, God isn't as sad as you make Him, since He was able to call His shots, and then do it. What you fail to see is God's power working in the 1st Century to bring about His will.

You see, you want existential certainty instead of faith. We aren't saved by existential certainty. We're saved by faith in GOD, and His power and ability to make what He promises come about.

Michael

[themuzicman]

03-06-2003 @ 03:47 PM
Gavin:

how does OVer's interpret Jesus' foreknowledge of Judas' betrayal?

Matthew 26:21
And while they were eating, he said, &quot;I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me.&quot;

Mark 14:18
While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, &quot;I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me–one who is eating with me.&quot;


1) Judas had already approached the Pharisees about doing the deed, and Jesus, being God, knew it.

2) Jesus told Judas to go and do what he had to do at the right time.


Or what about Peter's denials?

Luke 22:34
Jesus answered, &quot;I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.&quot;

These were free creaturely actions that seem to have been known in advance by Jesus.

Jesus, being God, knew Peter's heart. Once you know where someone's heart is, their actions are pretty easy to predict, especially for the creator.

Michael

[Jaltus]

Knowing Peter's heart does not mean He would know the circumstances causing THREE denials.

[Gavin]

Knowing Peter's heart does not mean He would know the circumstances causing THREE denials.
Precisely.

[themuzicman]

03-06-2003 @ 04:52 PM
Jaltus:

Knowing Peter's heart does not mean He would know the circumstances causing THREE denials.

No, but God could have brought about the circumstances by which three would be the number, couldn't He? That's child's play to God.

Michael

[Gavin]

No, but God could have brought about the circumstances by which three would be the number, couldn't He? That's child's play to God.
Even with the set circumstances, Peter had a free choice to deny or not to deny. If God set up circumstances such that it was a statistical necessity that Peter deny Christ three times (assuming such a state of affairs would even be possible), then God was evil and coercive (according to OV standards). If it was not a statistical necessity, then Jesus could not have known in advance for certain, (unless God knows the future decisions of free creatures, as Calvinists and traditional Arminians believe).

[themuzicman]

03-06-2003 @ 06:04 PM
Gavin:


Even with the set circumstances, Peter had a free choice to deny or not to deny. If God set up circumstances such that it was a statistical necessity that Peter deny Christ three times (assuming such a state of affairs would even be possible), then God was evil and coercive (according to OV standards). If it was not a statistical necessity, then Jesus could not have known in advance for certain, (unless God knows the future decisions of free creatures, as Calvinists and traditional Arminians believe).

But it wasn't a statistical necessity. It was a result of what was in Peter's heart, and what God knew Peter needed in order to grow.

Remember that free will doesn't imply the ability to do things apart from the flesh, the emotions, past experiences, the conscience, etc. Our will is heavily influenced by these things, such that, while we are making the decisions, they are not always made with forethought or rational thinking.

As such, God, knowing Peter's heart and mind, knew what his reaction would be to the situation He was about to present.

Thus, it is not statistical necessity, but omnicience combined with omnipotence that brought about what God intended.

What you fail to get, here, is that God is active, working to bring about His prophecies. Thus your "statistical necessity" becomes God's actions.

Michael

[themuzicman]

03-06-2003 @ 04:52 PM
Jaltus:

Knowing Peter's heart does not mean He would know the circumstances causing THREE denials.

Unless, of course, God CAUSED the circumstances.

Michael

[Jaltus]

If God caused the circumstances, no longer is it within the bounds of OV.

[Xmansmommy]

Originally posted by Gavin
Suppose some of the men wanted to stone Christ instead of crucfy him. What would God have done? If he "forced" these men to put their stones down and pick up a cross, so that his prophecies would be fulfilled, would this not undermine their freedom? Would this God not be coercive?

Joh:8:59: Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Why did Jesus hide Gavin?

[Xmansmommy]

I am enjoying this thread immensely. Thank you all for participating, for asking great questions and for giving great responses. Exciting stuff!

Just a thought......
Which is more powerful, wise, respectful, loving, etc. etc. etc..... A God who causes His creation to fulfill every minute detail of the future, that He already has predetermined...OR.....
A God who doesn't know all the details of the future yet brings about His will simply by trusting in men to bring about His purposes by simply knowing their hearts and influencing them to do what they already desire to do?
I know what that answer is for me. I'm just simply studying the bible to confirm it or deny it.

1Tm:1:17: Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

[Gavin]

musicman,
But it wasn't a statistical necessity. It was a result of what was in Peter's heart, and what God knew Peter needed in order to grow.

Remember that free will doesn't imply the ability to do things apart from the flesh, the emotions, past experiences, the conscience, etc. Our will is heavily influenced by these things, such that, while we are making the decisions, they are not always made with forethought or rational thinking.

As such, God, knowing Peter's heart and mind, knew what his reaction would be to the situation He was about to present.

Thus, it is not statistical necessity, but omnicience combined with omnipotence that brought about what God intended.

What you fail to get, here, is that God is active, working to bring about His prophecies. Thus your "statistical necessity" becomes God's actions.

You misunderstood my post. I suggest you read it again and then comment. You seem to have the (totally mistaken) impression that I was arguing that it was a statistical necessity that Peter deny Christ.


xmansmommy,
Joh:8:59: Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Why did Jesus hide Gavin?
It was not his time yet.
Just a thought......
Which is more powerful, wise, respectful, loving, etc. etc. etc..... A God who causes His creation to fulfill every minute detail of the future, that He already has predetermined...OR.....
A God who doesn't know all the details of the future yet brings about His will simply by trusting in men to bring about His purposes by simply knowing their hearts and influencing them to do what they already desire to do?

I say the formor. I don't like the idea of "God trusting in men".

Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

[Xmansmommy]

Originally posted by Gavin
It was not his time yet.
Which means?

[themuzicman]

03-06-2003 @ 07:28 PM
Jaltus:

If God caused the circumstances, no longer is it within the bounds of OV.

It's not? You mean because men have free will, God has to prophesy and then cross His fingers and hope?

God can't act in the proper moment to bring about His prophecy?

I'm not talking about God taking control of a man's will, but creating the circumstances around someone that causes them to react in a certain way.

To some extent, even people can do that.

Michael

[yxboom]

Jonah and a really big fish comes to mind :hrm:

[themuzicman]

03-07-2003 @ 01:17 AM
Gavin:

musicman,

You misunderstood my post. I suggest you read it again and then comment. You seem to have the (totally mistaken) impression that I was arguing that it was a statistical necessity that Peter deny Christ.


You're right. Let me restate.

For God to prophesy that something will happen does not require statistical necessity, because God continues to be active in bringing His prophecies about.

Michael

[Jaltus]

I'm not talking about God taking control of a man's will, but creating the circumstances around someone that causes them to react in a certain way.
Again, then it would not longer be a libertarian free choice. If God CAUSES their response, the response WAS NOT FREE.

[Gavin]

For God to prophesy that something will happen does not require statistical necessity, because God continues to be active in bringing His prophecies about.
Either God caused it (and overode their free will according to OV standards of free will) or he knew it beforehand. All this talk about circumstances is moot. If God caused Peter's denial through circumstances, then he still caused (albeit indirectly).

IOW, what Jaltus just said.
:brow:

[Gavin]

Which means?
It was not yet God's will for Jesus to die on a cross.

John 7:30
At this they tried to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his time had not yet come.

John 8:20
He spoke these words while teaching in the temple area near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his time had not yet come.

[Xmansmommy]

03-07-2003 @ 06:14 PM
Gavin:


It was not yet God's will for Jesus to die on a cross.

John 7:30
At this they tried to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his time had not yet come.

John 8:20
He spoke these words while teaching in the temple area near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his time had not yet come.
That's my point Gavin, if Jesus had not hid when they were going to stone Him, what might have happened? Do you think it's at least possible that they might have tried? Jesus didn't simply stand there and God intervene miraculously. Jesus fled and hid because He knew they wanted to stone Him. If there was no need for Him to think they may have done so, I highly doubt He would have hid. Just my 2 cents.

[themuzicman]

03-07-2003 @ 03:07 PM
Jaltus:

Again, then it would not longer be a libertarian free choice. If God CAUSES their response, the response WAS NOT FREE.

Sure it is. No one forced or "predestined" the choice. Everyone has the opportunity to stop and think about any decision. People just don't, most times. That is their choice, as well.

Libertarian free will doesn't mean that the person doesn't have internal influences that respond to external stimuli that cause us to take certain decisions wihout engaging the rest of the brain first.

It just means that we can really choose for ourselves.

Michael

[joelkaki]

If it didn't happen, you'd have a point. But it did. As it turns out, God isn't as sad as you make Him, since He was able to call His shots, and then do it. What you fail to see is God's power working in the 1st Century to bring about His will.

You see, you want existential certainty instead of faith. We aren't saved by existential certainty. We're saved by faith in GOD, and His power and ability to make what He promises come about.

Michael

No, I do not fail to see God's Power working in the first century. Anything that happens is a result of God's power. I do not think anything happens apart from God's control and power. The God I believe in is not dependent on humans for his future actions, he is not bound by them, he is not waiting, hoping they'll choose according to his plan. He knows what He is going to do, He knows what they're going to do, and whatsoever he determines to do, He does.

Joel

[themuzicman]

03-07-2003 @ 06:12 PM
Gavin:


Either God caused it (and overode their free will according to OV standards of free will) or he knew it beforehand. All this talk about circumstances is moot. If God caused Peter's denial through circumstances, then he still caused (albeit indirectly).


:brow:

However, it was not foreknown or predestined. Peter's free will remained in tact, because he was the one who made the choice. The fact that external circumstances pushed him a given way doesn't change that.

Michael

[themuzicman]

03-08-2003 @ 11:02 AM
joelkaki:

No, I do not fail to see God's Power working in the first century. Anything that happens is a result of God's power. I do not think anything happens apart from God's control and power. The God I believe in is not dependent on humans for his future actions, he is not bound by them, he is not waiting, hoping they'll choose according to his plan. He knows what He is going to do, He knows what they're going to do, and whatsoever he determines to do, He does.

Joel

But does everything that happens fall withing God's WILL?

What you've said to this point isn't in conflict with the Open View, as it is. Certainly because God knows our hearts, He knows what we will do at the same time that we choose, and has a pretty good idea of what we will do based upon who we are and what we tend to do.

The Open View just doesn't take the next step in saying that what we are going to do is existentially known before we choose it. The only way that is possible is for our actions to be caused and chosen by someone other than ourselves.

Michael

[Captain Ochre]

03-08-2003 @ 06:02 PM
themuzicman:



But does everything that happens fall withing God's WILL?


God's sovereign will, yes. God didn't have to create a universe. Every bit of the universe is both permitted by God and within God's sphere of authority. Having something within your sphere of authority is different from controlling every last detail, of course.
Is God the ultimate micro-manager, or does He delegate?


What you've said to this point isn't in conflict with the Open View, as it is. Certainly because God knows our hearts, He knows what we will do at the same time that we choose, and has a pretty good idea of what we will do based upon who we are and what we tend to do.


You implicitly lock God into time as we know it . . .


The Open View just doesn't take the next step in saying that what we are going to do is existentially known before we choose it. The only way that is possible is for our actions to be caused and chosen by someone other than ourselves.


IOW, the future can only be accurately known if causal determinism is true? If that's what you're saying, then the reasoned argument in favor is missing, afaics.
The OV as you appear to describe it depends on the incompatibility of free will and omniscience.
I expect the Powell/Jaltus debate to shed some light on that.

[themuzicman]

03-08-2003 @ 01:13 PM
Captain Ochre:



God's sovereign will, yes. God didn't have to create a universe. Every bit of the universe is both permitted by God and within God's sphere of authority. Having something within your sphere of authority is different from controlling every last detail, of course.
Is God the ultimate micro-manager, or does He delegate?


1) If everything that happens is God's will, then the bible is in conflict with you when it says that God desires that ALL men come to a saving knowledge of Him. Unless His will is in conflict with His desires. (Oh, wait.. wouldn't that be sin?)

2) The Open View doesn't imply delegation, nor does it require micromanagement. IT requires a all-wise, all-powerful God who knows when and how to act to bring about His prophecies.


You implicitly lock God into time as we know it . . .


ACtually, I don't. Outside of this creation, God is not so bound. However, He created our universe with the dimension of time, and each moment is a new development in that universe, that did not exist in the moment before.


IOW, the future can only be accurately known if causal determinism is true? If that's what you're saying, then the reasoned argument in favor is missing, afaics.
The OV as you appear to describe it depends on the incompatibility of free will and omniscience.
I expect the Powell/Jaltus debate to shed some light on that.

Free will and omnicience are not in conflict. The question, here, is whether the future exists, is fixed, and is knowable. If it does not exist, then omnicience wouldn't include that which does not exist.

Michael

[Gavin]

That's my point Gavin, if Jesus had not hid when they were going to stone Him, what might have happened? Do you think it's at least possible that they might have tried? Jesus didn't simply stand there and God intervene miraculously. Jesus fled and hid because He knew they wanted to stone Him. If there was no need for Him to think they may have done so, I highly doubt He would have hid. Just my 2 cents.
I agree. Relevance?

[Gavin]

However, it was not foreknown or predestined. Peter's free will remained in tact, because he was the one who made the choice. The fact that external circumstances pushed him a given way doesn't change that.
I sense you dodging the issue.

Let me lay it out clearly.

There are two possibilities here for OVer.

A) God caused Peter to deny Christ (whether through circumstance or directly). He arranged circumstances such that there was no possible way that Peter could fail to deny Christ.

B) Jesus was not speaking with certainty when he predicted Peter's three betrayals. He was merely making an educated guess based on Peter's heart.

Which one do you accept?

[TheFiveSolas]

Gavin,
There is another option that I think is much better (though you are correct that for OVer's the two options you gave are the ONLY ones OPEN, yes that pun was intended).

God foreordained that Peter would freely choose, out of his own desires, to deny Christ and do so without being forced or coerced.

The only things that necessary follow are:

1) It was inevitable that Peter would deny Jesus.

2) When Peter denied Jesus, it was because he desired to do so and did so without being forced or coerced.

This preserves the free will of Peter (i.e., he denied Christ because he WANTED to, also, God didn't force/cause him to act contrary to his desires, etc.) AND both God's foreknowledge and foreordaination of all things.

Therefore, God foreordains even the free choices of men. I know of no known law of logic that this view violates.

[themuzicman]

03-09-2003 @ 12:52 AM
Gavin:

Let me lay it out clearly.

There are two possibilities here for OVer.

A) God caused Peter to deny Christ (whether through circumstance or directly). He arranged circumstances such that there was no possible way that Peter could fail to deny Christ.


This is close. God, knowing Peter's heart and mind, understood how he (peter) would react to a given set of circumstances. In a very real sense, it WAS what Peter wanted to do at that moment, because of what was going on in his head (fear?). Thus, all that needed to happen is for three people to recognize Peter and ask him for Peter to act in the way that he had set himself up.

And a rooster had to crow at the right moment.

For the way you describe the situation to be, Peter would have to be a blank slate making a decision purely based upon reason and an accurate assessment of the situation. The fact is that Peter had an upbrining, life experience, and three years of being with Jesus including watching Jesus be arrested shortly before. If you know someone's heart, and know what's going to happen, it's pretty easy to know what they're going to do.

If you want a comparison, it is similar to me asking my kids a question that I already know the answer to, and knowing that they will lie about it, because they have been in a pattern of lying that hasn't been driven from them. Is it an existential knowledge of the future? No. It's a knowledge of the person and how they will react to a given situation. My assurance isn't 100 percent because I don't know everything that has happened to them since the last time they lied to me. On the other hand, God knew everything that had happened to Peter, and knew his heart.

Thus, if God had to do anything, he simply had to draw enough attention to Peter for people to regocnize him.

Thus, the item that made Peter's denial inevitable was Peter himself, not God.

Michael

[Gavin]

Fivesolas,


Gavin,
There is another option that I think is much better (though you are correct that for OVer's the two options you gave are the ONLY ones OPEN, yes that pun was intended).

God foreordained that Peter would freely choose, out of his own desires, to deny Christ and do so without being forced or coerced.

The only things that necessary follow are:

1) It was inevitable that Peter would deny Jesus.

2) When Peter denied Jesus, it was because he desired to do so and did so without being forced or coerced.

This preserves the free will of Peter (i.e., he denied Christ because he WANTED to, also, God didn't force/cause him to act contrary to his desires, etc.) AND both God's foreknowledge and foreordaination of all things.

Therefore, God foreordains even the free choices of men. I know of no known law of logic that this view violates.
that is correct and that is the same as my view.

My point was that for the OVer, there are only two options.

[Gavin]

Michael,

OK we are definitely having trouble reading my posts. Please read thru it (it was very short) and make sure you understand it. Basically you just said the same thing that you have been saying, irrespective of my point.

I sense you dodging the issue.

Let me lay it out clearly.

There are two possibilities here for OVer.

A) God caused Peter to deny Christ (whether through circumstance or directly). He arranged circumstances such that there was no possible way that Peter could fail to deny Christ.

B) Jesus was not speaking with certainty when he predicted Peter's three betrayals. He was merely making an educated guess based on Peter's heart.

Which one do you accept?

I am asking you which one of these possibilites you accept, and if neither, how a third option can be possible. You still have yet to show that God setting up circumstances in a way that Peter had to deny Christ is not coercive and evil by OV standards.

[Captain Ochre]

03-08-2003 @ 07:11 PM
themuzicman:



1) If everything that happens is God's will, then the bible is in conflict with you when it says that God desires that ALL men come to a saving knowledge of Him. Unless His will is in conflict with His desires. (Oh, wait.. wouldn't that be sin?)


You're conflating the sovereign will, which I described as inclusive of the free decisions of created beings, with God's moral will (the "ought's"). God's sovereign will encompasses the actual. If we conflate the two, then God wanted Adam to sin. I don't recommend conflating the two.


2) The Open View doesn't imply delegation, nor does it require micromanagement. IT requires a all-wise, all-powerful God who knows when and how to act to bring about His prophecies.


I'm not arguing for or against the open view directly, afaics. I'm just trying to clear up a point that I think is ambiguous (the concept of God's will), so that it doesn't lead the discussion around in circles. I see no need to reply to your second point, since it doesn't contradict or correct anything that I wrote.

(I said that God was being bound to time, by implication)

ACtually, I don't. Outside of this creation, God is not so bound. However, He created our universe with the dimension of time, and each moment is a new development in that universe, that did not exist in the moment before.
Does the past "exist" or does it dissolve with the onset of the present?
If the past exists, then on what grounds do you rule out the existence of the future?


Free will and omnicience are not in conflict. The question, here, is whether the future exists, is fixed, and is knowable. If it does not exist, then omnicience wouldn't include that which does not exist.


Good. Then I refer you to the questions regarding the past, above.

[themuzicman]

03-09-2003 @ 01:11 PM
Captain Ochre:



You're conflating the sovereign will, which I described as inclusive of the free decisions of created beings, with God's moral will (the &quot;ought's&quot;). God's sovereign will encompasses the actual. If we conflate the two, then God wanted Adam to sin. I don't recommend conflating the two.


But how can you not? Whether it is God's will or God's desire, they are still contained in the one God. You can't separate them. If His sovereignty extends to predestination and foreknowledge, why would He intentionally initiate something that He *existentially* knew in advance would not meet His desires?



Does the past &quot;exist&quot; or does it dissolve with the onset of the present?
If the past exists, then on what grounds do you rule out the existence of the future?


The past within our universe no longer exists, beyond the memory and recording of it.

Michael

[themuzicman]

03-09-2003 @ 12:52 AM
Gavin:


I sense you dodging the issue.

Let me lay it out clearly.

There are two possibilities here for OVer.

A) God caused Peter to deny Christ (whether through circumstance or directly). He arranged circumstances such that there was no possible way that Peter could fail to deny Christ.

B) Jesus was not speaking with certainty when he predicted Peter's three betrayals. He was merely making an educated guess based on Peter's heart.

Which one do you accept?

I'll be clearer, this time:

There is a third possibility. Peter's denial was inevitable because of WHO PETER WAS at that moment. Peter himself overrode any possibility of not denying Christ because of his present state of mind/emotions/heart/etc. And Peter's state of mind was brought about by all the circumstances that had occurred in his life up to that moment.

Are people constantly in this state? No. But there are times when they are, and this was one of Peter's.

Michael

[Jaltus]

You're conflating the sovereign will, which I described as inclusive of the free decisions of created beings, with God's moral will (the "ought's"). God's sovereign will encompasses the actual. If we conflate the two, then God wanted Adam to sin. I don't recommend conflating the two. Nonbiblical distinction, I would argue. I think God can cause things to happen, but I do not think that makes a difference between His wills. After all, Jesus was not allowed to have two different wills for that would make Him two people. How, then, can God the essence have either ONLY two wills or more than one will?

Maybe too esoteric a question.

How about we stick with the lack of a biblical statement about two wills in God.

[Xmansmommy]

03-09-2003 @ 12:45 AM
Gavin:


I agree. Relevance?

Gavin,
Earlier in the discussion (page 10 near the bottom since the post numbers are missing) you said,

Suppose some of the men wanted to stone Christ instead of crucfy him. What would God have done? If he "forced" these men to put their stones down and pick up a cross, so that his prophecies would be fulfilled, would this not undermine their freedom? Would this God not be coercive?"

My point is that some of the men did indeed want to stone Him. They would have, had Jesus not hid Himself from them. In other words, Jesus hid so that they couldn't stone Him before He was able to fulfill His purpose, ie. the cross. Those men had freewill to choose to stone Him. He had a freewill to stay and get stoned to death, or to hide so that God's plan wasn't thwarted by evil men. I believe they could have and would have stoned Him given the opportunity. Otherwise Jesus wouldn't have hid. They had the stones in their hands to do so. There are many instances in which it wasn't "His time." I don't believe God forces mankind to do His will or not. I certainly believe He influences. A huge difference though between interfering and influencing. Just my thoughts.

[Xmansmommy]

03-07-2003 @ 01:17 AM
Gavin:
xmansmommy,

It was not his time yet.

I say the formor. I don't like the idea of &quot;God trusting in men&quot;.

Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

If I tell my children that if they behave I'll take them to the candy store. And if they don't behave I won't take them to the candy store. They misbehave. Am I then a liar because I don't take them to the candy store, which beforehand I told them I would not do, if they didn't behave? Of course not. They were warned. They knew the consequences of their disobedience.

Just as God would not be a liar if He did not do something He said He would do based on the actions of men....
Jer:18:8: If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.18:9: And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;18:10: If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

Because God doesn't do something He said He would do, in NO way makes Him a liar. For as we see here in Jeremiah 18, God having warned mankind, does indeed do or not do things, based on what mankind does or does not.

[Xmansmommy]

I stated...
Just a thought......
Which is more powerful, wise, respectful, loving, etc. etc. etc..... A God who causes His creation to fulfill every minute detail of the future, that He already has predetermined...OR.....
A God who doesn't know all the details of the future yet brings about His will simply by trusting in men to bring about His purposes by simply knowing their hearts and influencing them to do what they already desire to do?
I know what that answer is for me. I'm just simply studying the bible to confirm it or deny it.

To which you replied...
I say the formor. I don't like the idea of "God trusting in men".

Perhaps I am not articulating my thoughts properly, so please forgive me. Let me try again...
I believe God trusts His own judgement in knowing the hearts of men to bring about His purposes by using their own righteous or wicked desires to bring about His purposes. Not that God trusts in men, but that He trusts in His own knowledge of their hearts. Hope that clarifies my thoughts better. I often times find it hard to put my thoughts in words. Again my apologies.

[Gavin]

Dear Michael,
I'll be clearer, this time:

There is a third possibility. Peter's denial was inevitable because of WHO PETER WAS at that moment. Peter himself overrode any possibility of not denying Christ because of his present state of mind/emotions/heart/etc. And Peter's state of mind was brought about by all the circumstances that had occurred in his life up to that moment.

Are people constantly in this state? No. But there are times when they are, and this was one of Peter's.

Michael
Three things:

1) Are you then changing your original assertion that it was God causing circumstances that would cause Peter's denial?

2) How do Jesus know that Peter would not change his mind, repent, and not deny Christ after all? Isn't repentance always possible under the OV, which claims to enhance man's moral freedom under God?

3) How would the state of Peter's heart lead Christ to know that he would deny him 3 times, rather than say, 2 or 4?

Thanks Michael.

[Gavin]

xmansmommy,
Gavin,
Earlier in the discussion (page 10 near the bottom since the post numbers are missing) you said,

Suppose some of the men wanted to stone Christ instead of crucfy him. What would God have done? If he "forced" these men to put their stones down and pick up a cross, so that his prophecies would be fulfilled, would this not undermine their freedom? Would this God not be coercive?"

My point is that some of the men did indeed want to stone Him. They would have, had Jesus not hid Himself from them. In other words, Jesus hid so that they couldn't stone Him before He was able to fulfill His purpose, ie. the cross. Those men had freewill to choose to stone Him. He had a freewill to stay and get stoned to death, or to hide so that God's plan wasn't thwarted by evil men. I believe they could have and would have stoned Him given the opportunity. Otherwise Jesus wouldn't have hid. They had the stones in their hands to do so. There are many instances in which it wasn't "His time." I don't believe God forces mankind to do His will or not. I certainly believe He influences. A huge difference though between interfering and influencing. Just my thoughts.
I agree that the men would have stoned him, so Jesus hid. I agree that this action was not coercive or "interfering". But what if the men had never picked up a cross? Would Jesus keep on hiding indefinitely?

At some point, there is always the possibility that God would have to "interfere" so that his prophecies would turn out just right.

[Gavin]

Linda,
Perhaps I am not articulating my thoughts properly, so please forgive me. Let me try again...
I believe God trusts His own judgement in knowing the hearts of men to bring about His purposes by using their own righteous or wicked desires to bring about His purposes. Not that God trusts in men, but that He trusts in His own knowledge of their hearts. Hope that clarifies my thoughts better. I often times find it hard to put my thoughts in words. Again my apologies.
No apology necessary.:smile:

My disagreement is that I am unsure how, under your view, God can trust his own knowledge of mens' hearts with respect to future prophecies, since you don't believe God knows those hearts and their future state at all.

Blessings.

[Gavin]

Linda,
If I tell my children that if they behave I'll take them to the candy store. And if they don't behave I won't take them to the candy store. They misbehave. Am I then a liar because I don't take them to the candy store, which beforehand I told them I would not do, if they didn't behave? Of course not. They were warned. They knew the consequences of their disobedience.

Just as God would not be a liar if He did not do something He said He would do based on the actions of men....
Jer:18:8: If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.18:9: And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;18:10: If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

Because God doesn't do something He said He would do, in NO way makes Him a liar. For as we see here in Jeremiah 18, God having warned mankind, does indeed do or not do things, based on what mankind does or does not.
This gets into the thing about conditional vs. unconditional prophecies. Again, I agree that God makes some conditional promises, e.g. II Chronicles 7:14.

But are all God's promises conditional? What about, say, Romans 8:38-39?

Anyway, my point in the quoted portion which you were responding to was simply that I don't like the idea of God trusting in men.

[Gavin]

Dear Jaltus,
How about we stick with the lack of a biblical statement about two wills in God.
This is a bit off topic, but I think the two wills in God idea is proved biblically by deduction - one verse says he wants all men to be saved, another says that he wants some perish, etc.

[Gavin]

Boom (et. al.) did you ever see this post from page 9?

I guess this particular point about Acts 2 and I Peter comes down to semantics concerning "foreknowledge". We all agree that God "foreknew" the crucifiction in some sense. But you see "foreknew" as "he knew beforehand that he would bring it about", whereas I see it as "he actually knew it in advance".

I am not sure that there is any reason to resort to your definition. My dictionary has "foreknow" as "to know beforehand", and as synanomous with "to foresee".

[Jaltus]

Gavin,

For the sake of this thread, I'll agree to disagree. Perhaps we can debate the two wills at some other point in time. For that matter, go to the thread about Luke 7:30 and we can carry on quite well in there.

[Gavin]

Jaltus,

sounds good.:thumb:

[Captain Ochre]

As of last time, I had recommended against conflating God's sovereign and moral wills.
03-10-2003 @ 05:20 PM
themuzicman:

But how can you not?


I don't perceive that I have a tough time not doing so. Why should I have a tough time with it?


Whether it is God's will or God's desire, they are still contained in the one God. You can't separate them. If His sovereignty extends to predestination and foreknowledge, why would He intentionally initiate something that He *existentially* knew in advance would not meet His desires?


It's easy to separate them, actually. One will (the sovereign will) is what God permits (some call it God's permissive will), including sin. The other is what God directs in the sense of what ought to be, which is sinlessness (the state we are called toward).


The past within our universe no longer exists, beyond the memory and recording of it.


Granted that the neither the future nor the past (as you appear to admit) exists, why should God have sure knowledge of one yet not the other? The trick is to answer without special pleading.

[Captain Ochre]

03-10-2003 @ 05:45 PM
Jaltus:

Nonbiblical distinction, I would argue.


It's about as nonbiblical as the trinity, afaics.


I think God can cause things to happen, but I do not think that makes a difference between His wills. After all, Jesus was not allowed to have two different wills for that would make Him two people. How, then, can God the essence have either ONLY two wills or more than one will?


They are not God's will in the same sense and at the same time. That's how. It's actually very easy. Most parents would will that their kids make all good decisions, and most parents will that their kids learn to act independently (after a fashion). There are times when the two wills conflict but that doesn't make it contradictory in the logically impossible sense.


How about we stick with the lack of a biblical statement about two wills in God.

Is it God's will for you to take an axe and murder the city council in the town you live in?
If you did so, would the Bible not affirm that it was the will of God for you to have done so (pretending it was mentioned)?
The very fact that God tells people to act a certain way is one sort of will. God wants you to act that certain way: That's why He gives the commands in the first place.
Simultaneously (yet in a different sense) it is God's will that you are able to either sin or not. Whichever you choose is God's sovereign will: He allows you to do what you will.

A deterministic framework would erase the need to posit more than one will of God--but it also makes for a difficulty in explaining away all the verses which imply real free-will options, and the additional matter of the responsibility for sin.

[Xmansmommy]

03-10-2003 @ 04:55 PM
Gavin:

Linda,

No apology necessary.:smile:

My disagreement is that I am unsure how, under your view, God can trust his own knowledge of mens' hearts with respect to future prophecies, since you don't believe God knows those hearts and their future state at all.

Blessings.

TY Gavin :smile:
To be quite frank with you, technically I am not an OVer. I will say that I am studying my bible to understand better the foreknowlege of God. Although I seem to think like an OVer, I am not fully persuaded. So I continue to study. :xmm:
And I don't know any OVer who thinks God doesn't know the hearts of men. But one point I would have to address regarding God knowing the hearts of men... How does He know the hearts of men? Scripture seems to indicate to me that He searches men's hearts. Would a God who knows every detail of men's hearts need to search them? :huh:

Psalms:139:23: Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: 139:24: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

[Gavin]

Dear Captain Ochre, Jaltus, et. al., I request that this thread be kept on the topic of the OV. I have opened another thread two discuss the idea of two wills in God. Thanks a lot!

[Gavin]

Dear Linda,

thank you for your response. :smile:

I would say that God can search things for reasons other than finding out information he does not know, just like God can ask rhetorical and other types of questions for reasons other than, strictly speaking, finding out an answer.

For example, when God asks in the garden, "where are you?", I do not believe he had really lost track of Adam and Eve's whereabouts.

Similarly, in Psalm 139 David is asking God to test his heart and purge any evil in him - not necessarily to find out information that God previously does not know.

Good luck in your research. I recommend Bruce Ware's book _God's Lesser Glory_ because I think it is a cogent yet amiable refutation of the OV, which I take to be a dangerous and destabalizing theological system.

God bless.:read:

[Xmansmommy]

Gavin,
I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for being able to have a conversation without pre-judging and berating someone else that you don't agree with. You have been very kind and courteous to myself and others and I appreciate it. Thanks also for your encouragement. :smile:

[Gavin]

:thumb:

[themuzicman]

03-10-2003 @ 04:44 PM
Gavin:

Three things:

1) Are you then changing your original assertion that it was God causing circumstances that would cause Peter's denial?


No. Peter's heart and mind were primed, all God had to do was arrange for someone to recognize him. Thus the circumstances.


2) How do Jesus know that Peter would not change his mind, repent, and not deny Christ after all? Isn't repentance always possible under the OV, which claims to enhance man's moral freedom under God?


Freedom of will, yes. But that doesn't imply a freedom from the conflict that results from a fallen nature. People frequently get into behavioral patterns they cannot break. Jesus' prediction about Peter occurred only a few hours before the denials took place. Certainly God knows enough about human beings and Peter specifically to accurately make a prediction at the appropriate time. (No, this doesn't mean future behavior can be predicted at anytime.)


3) How would the state of Peter's heart lead Christ to know that he would deny him 3 times, rather than say, 2 or 4?



Read the text. A rooster crowed IMMEDIATELY after the third denial. How hard would it be for God to make a rooster crow at a given moment in time?

Michael

[themuzicman]

03-11-2003 @ 12:46 AM
Captain Ochre:

It's easy to separate them, actually. One will (the sovereign will) is what God permits (some call it God's permissive will), including sin. The other is what God directs in the sense of what ought to be, which is sinlessness (the state we are called toward).


How, in an environ where God existentially foreknew everything that would happen when time started, could God claim that something that happened wasn't his sovereign will?


Granted that the neither the future nor the past (as you appear to admit) exists, why should God have sure knowledge of one yet not the other? The trick is to answer without special pleading.

Gee, maybe He was there when the past happened? Maybe God, in His omnicience remembers perfectly?

Michael

[Captain Ochre]

03-12-2003 @ 03:15 AM
themuzicman:



How, in an environ where God existentially foreknew everything that would happen when time started, could God claim that something that happened wasn't his sovereign will?


God's sovereign will encompasses everything that God allows. Omniscience doesn't enter the picture (at least not directly).


Gee, maybe He was there when the past happened? Maybe God, in His omnicience remembers perfectly?


Well, congratulations on not having engaged in special pleading, but shame on you for not providing any rationale as to why omniscience wouldn't permit knowledge of the future. Remember that "yet not the other" clause?

[Gavin]

Dear Captain Ochre, Jaltus, et. al., I request that this thread be kept on the topic of the OV. I have opened another thread two discuss the idea of two wills in God. Thanks a lot!

[Gavin]

Waiting for replies from Boom and Geebob in this thread - I think they are both busy

[themuzicman]

03-11-2003 @ 10:36 PM
Captain Ochre:
God's sovereign will encompasses everything that God allows. Omniscience doesn't enter the picture (at least not directly).


The point here is that if God had existential knowledge of what He would cause when He created, how could something happen that wasn't what He wanted?


Well, congratulations on not having engaged in special pleading, but shame on you for not providing any rationale as to why omniscience wouldn't permit knowledge of the future. Remember that &quot;yet not the other&quot; clause?

Oh, that... To me they appear to be completely separate issues. God has knowledge of the past becuase He was there, and remembers. Since the future hasn't happened yet, (in my theoretical model, anyway), there would be no way for Him to existentially know it, because He hasn't been there.

Michael

[Gavin]

bump

[Xmansmommy]

This sure has been a great thread Gavin. I am enjoying it as much if not more, than you are. A friend told me today that, "If someone believes the future is open based on contingency, then they are an OV'er." I know there are probably differing degrees of OVT and differing viewpoints, but I am learning about it too. And this thread as well as all the threads on this subject are extremely interesting to me. Thanks for starting it Gavin. :thumb: Come on guys keep it going! :yipee:

[geebob]

Gavin,


1) There is no certainty, as I see it, that the exact right amount of men, at the exact time, at the exact place, will all have freely hardened their hearts to the right extent, such that God will be able to guide them to crucify Christ in 30 AD.

Then I can't see that you are dealing with my view. Statistical necessity in light of a universe with indeterministic aspects is simply a reasonable view and is in fact the view of physics held by many scientists when it comes to quantum mechanics. (even if the system is not supported by future science, that in no way entails that the picture was incoherent).

I'd also like to mention that there is a real question in my mind as to the method of death. Did Jesus have to die by crucifixion. I believe he had to die, but did it have to be crucifixion. I'll say that perhaps it was, but there is the question of when it was guaranteed. But if you want to insist that it was determined as early as the statement that whoever was hung on a tree was cursed, I can work with that. God who did not determine that man would be wicked can still determine how he will be wicked with out being responsible for the action. If He determines that man will be wicked as in calvinism, I am convinced that it is God who is responsible.

but I cannot accept that God can "guide" the actions of free creatures and yet not violate your standards of human freedom.

What standards are those. What I wrote above pretty much gets at what I would consider a "violation" or a manipulation of God that would somehow ruin our will or would be wrong in some way. I have two primary concerns that drives my acceptance of free will (Though I recognize other important concerns). 1) I cannot believe that God is responsible that any man should rebel against him in a general way or do something that is evil. He can determine that a man can rebel in a specific way, but if there is never a time when that man could have truly submitted to God, then I consider God's manipulations to be violations 2) no man can be reprobate. Everyone has a chance.

So if God should determine some of our choices, as long as those two principles are intact, I am fine with it. Some of our choices will not be libertarian free, but that to me is of little consequence.


IOW, I cannot see how "partial libertarianism" (do you object to me calling it that?) is consistent with the principle that men have autonomous free will (which I think you would agree with).

you'll have to develope this. as for the term, I have no interest in it. One who makes libertarian free choices is libertarian free. I don't consider it "partial" because I don't see why the concept should require that every single thought an action we do should be open to possibilities, and I'd be surprised if any libertarian philosopher held such a notion that at every instant, at every turn, all of our actions and thoughts are libertarian free.

Joel, I'll get to your question on the slaying of the lamb in a bit.

[Gavin]

Geebob,
Then I can't see that you are dealing with my view. Statistical necessity in light of a universe with indeterministic aspects is simply a reasonable view and is in fact the view of physics held by many scientists when it comes to quantum mechanics. (even if the system is not supported by future science, that in no way entails that the picture was incoherent).
Are you interacting with what I wrote? Whether or not many scientists accept the idea of statistical necessity a generally workable view of physics is moot. My point was that in this context, I do not find it a "necessity" for all the specific circumstances of Jesus' death, prophesied in the OT, to occur. We may need to drop this because we just see it differently.

I cannot believe that God is responsible that any man should rebel against him in a general way or do something that is evil. He can determine that a man can rebel in a specific way
Oh come on. The fall in the garden was a "specific rebellion".

Did you interact with this that I wrote in my last?



Every sin that a human being commits is evil. If an individual hardens his heart for thirty 30 years, and then, after all that hardening, contributes to the crucifiction of God's Son, he will be, on the day of judgement, accountable to God for that sin of crucifying Christ (as well as the sins commited in the hardening period for the previous 30 years, as well as other sins committed after the crucifiction). So how can God "guide" this last sin (crucifying Christ) and yet still hold said individual accountable for it, according to your standards of human freedom? (Of course, as a Calvinist, I believe that [in a sense] God guides ALL actions according to his sovereign will, so it is not a problem for my view. Then again, it would not help me anyway, since I would have no need of God skinning a cat a different way.) IOW, I don't God "guiding" sinful men to commit sinful actions is any different, really, from God "causing" unsinful men to commit sinful actions.

Put (perhaps too) bluntly: a sin is a sin.

Appended Post:

For Boom:

on page 8 I wrote: I guess this particular point about Acts 2 and I Peter comes down to semantics concerning "foreknowledge". We all agree that God "foreknew" the crucifiction in some sense. But you see "foreknew" as "he knew beforehand that he would bring it about", whereas I see it as "he actually knew it in advance".

I am not sure that there is any reason to resort to your definition. My dictionary has "foreknow" as "to know beforehand", and as synanomous with "to foresee".
Do you have any thoughts on this? Or do you want to drop this topic?

[Arminian]

If I were an OVer, Id quote the verse that says that at the right time Christ died for sinners and say that God knew when to send his Son so that what He said would be done.

[geebob]

My point was that in this context, I do not find it a "necessity" for all the specific circumstances of Jesus' death, prophesied in the OT, to occur.

If you were pushing psycological determinism, you'd simply say that they were working according to their strongest inclinations which they'd have no control over. If I'd want to challenge that mechinism, I'd would do just that, challenge the mechinism.

You haven't attempted to challenge my mechinism for the guarantee and this mechinism is a part of my view. You haven't suggested what in the context does not allow for my mechinism.

We know the mechinism is rational in it's suggestion of determination albeit very significant indeterminism at a more fundamental level or so it appears to many highly trained rational people who hold to quantum mechanics.

So in a picture such as mine where we see evidence of indeterminism in the form of libertarian free will (evidence provided in my topic on the subject and in Jaltus' thread on God's universal salvific will), and possible determination of what large groups of people will do (after all, no individuals are mentioned in the prophecies other than the messiah, and it is irrelevent to that detail that specific individuals are mentioned in the fulfillment) then why can I not suggest this mechinism which is so parallel.

Oh come on. The fall in the garden was a "specific rebellion".

the fall was not foreknown. There is no reason that Adam and Eve as God's perfect creation should necessarily sin. God's talent as a creator is just too good for that.

So how can God "guide" this last sin (crucifying Christ) and yet still hold said individual accountable for it, according to your standards of human freedom?

because the individual placed himself in the situation where he'd commit such sins. He should have choosen differently.

Then again, he may not be held responsible because the extreme act of the crucifixion may send his heart on the rebound and renew the libertarian moment.

[Gavin]

geebob,

because the individual placed himself in the situation where he'd commit such sins. He should have choosen differently.
Again, in a theological system that claims to enhance God's free relations with creatures, you still allow for a quite a lot of divine manipulation!

Want to move on to Peter's denials? Musicman and I discussed it briefly while you were gone.

[yxboom]

Time permitting I would be glad to address any of the concerns or objections you have brought up. Probably not for another week or so but in response to your last post I would like to recommend you read this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=9056#post9056) where Judas and Peter are addressed by I think 3 or 4 OVT.

[geebob]

Again, in a theological system that claims to enhance God's free relations with creatures, you still allow for a quite a lot of divine manipulation!

I've given you the answer that is most compatible with the typical evangelical approach to some of these prophecies, but there is a range of possibilities here some of which require less influence from God determining specifically how we will choose.

I'd refer you to Robyn Bank's treatment of how the NT authors view prophetic fulfillment. It is highly arguable that there view of prophetic fulfillment was far more broad and less rigid then ours citing things as prophecies that may very well not have been intended by the original OT author as such.

So when did God know that the Son would be crucified on a cross. If we are commited to the notion that the death of the Son is necessary for our salvation, which I am, does that mean that the crucifixion was necessary? I am commited to the death, not the method, though the method fit well with descriptions in the Bible such as the curse of those hung from a tree and certain details concerning the sacrificing of sheep. So if God knew when the son would be crucified, when did he know this? I don't know why we have to insist that it was very early on prior to the developement of this as a death penalty in the roman government.

So there are biblical interpretations that allow for less determination by God then the picture I present.

But I am not bothered much at all by degree of determination I put forth as it does not necessarily threaten lfw especially the important distinctives that libertarian free will affords my view. No particular individual that played a part in the crucifixion had to do so for that event to be played out in essentially the same manner that it did because statistical necessity wholy fits within a consistent view of libertarian freedom as well as the hardening and maturing of hearts.

in a theological system that claims to enhance God's free relations with creatures

and still it does this more so than others (except for process). No other view can consistently claim that every one of the individuals partipating in the crucifixion of christ truly could have ended up in different less horrific circumstances had they responded favorably to God's grace that was available to them, even if that moment was long ago.

Want to move on to Peter's denials?

the link boom provides has a very thorough discussion.

[Gavin]

Geebob,
So if God knew when the son would be crucified, when did he know this? I don't know why we have to insist that it was very early on prior to the developement of this as a death penalty in the roman government.
Well, what about Daniel 9?
and still it does this more so than others (except for process). No other view can consistently claim that every one of the individuals partipating in the crucifixion of christ truly could have ended up in different less horrific circumstances had they responded favorably to God's grace that was available to them, even if that moment was long ago.
Would it be fair to say this, that even under the openess of God theory, Libertarian Free Will is not completely allowed for (because God must manipulate actions of those who have already hardened their hearts)? Would it be fair to say, geebob, in your opinion, that the nature of biblical prophecy demands some kind of restriction of libertarian free will?
the link boom provides has a very thorough discussion.
I checked it out. I disagree most strongly with Boom's and Bob Hill's explanation of the Judas/Peter condundrum. I found Right idea's, which is similar to Musikman's, somewhat more plausible.

My two main remaining problems with the OV as discussed in the last few pages of this thread:

1) I am not convinced that the right amount of men, at the right time, in the right place, to have freely hardened to the right extent such that God could guide them to crucify Christ is a statistical necessity. I know you have commented on this but I remain unconvinced.

2) I see the idea of guiding evil actions as synonomous with causing them, see me earlier discussions.

Sorry if this seems like I am not paying attention to your view, I assure you I am trying.

I am just stating where I see things differently for the purposes of further interaction and clarification with you and others.

God bless,
Gavin

[Arminian]

Want to move on to Peter's denials?

Peter's denials are the weakest argument against OV that I can think of. I've known people that would lie to save their skins, and I would expect them to deny the truth each time they were asked. Jesus would only have to know Peter as well as I know these people of which I speak. I'm sure Jesus knew Peter much better, however (not to mention that Jesus knew the future!).

[Gavin]

Jake, how would you attack the OV?

[geebob]

I checked it out. I disagree most strongly with Boom's and Bob Hill's explanation of the Judas/Peter condundrum. I found Right idea's, which is similar to Musikman's, somewhat more plausible.

I'm glad you found someone's view plausable, but what am I? chopped liver?

Actually, I can't be, that's arminian's role.

1) I am not convinced that the right amount of men, at the right time, in the right place, to have freely hardened to the right extent such that God could guide them to crucify Christ is a statistical necessity.

I assume you say this because of the libertarian free will.

If you have read my thread on that (and I think you said you did) pay close attention to Plantinga's definition. We are free with regard to an action if we may act or refrain from that action. Now for that to be a problem with my view that not all of our choices are libertarian free you'd have to add to that definition that we are free with regard to an action if we may act or refrain from that action and we have this same capacity with all other actions. I don't see any merit in that addition and in it's absence, I don't see why I'd have to say that libertarianism is partial if it doesn't describe all of our actions.

secondly, you still have hardening in there as an object of freedom. I don't see why it has to be. God tells us not to let our hearts be hardened, but I don't see why an implication for free hardening must be absolute. God hardened pharoah's heart.

Hardening is not necessarily a choice to begin with. It happens in responses to choice.

2) I see the idea of guiding evil actions as synonomous with causing them, see me earlier discussions.

I would not disagree, but this isn't a simple picture. I'll admit that I believe that God causes how we will sin, but he doesn't cause that we will sin. You see, his causation of the way in which our sin will happen is contingent and dependent upon whether we will rebel from him.

I know you have commented on this but I remain unconvinced...Sorry if this seems like I am not paying attention to your view, I assure you I am trying.

It could be that you intuit something wrong with my view (apart from the fact that you are a calvinist), and that is rational, but of course no one else could reasonably draw conclusions on that basis unless you dig deep for the inconsistency that you may sense. But apart from that, for all I know, it is just your bias for your view and against mine.

As it stands though, all the elements that are apart of my picture stand on decent epistemic grounds. that we have libertarian freedom at all is argued in the thread I made on that which has both philosophical and biblical arguements. Hardening is a biblical concept, and statistical necessity for consideration of large numbers of people albeit indeterminism is mathematically sound, a part of a coherent view in science and is the basis for some social sciences. I don't see what should prevent me from putting them all together.

[yxboom]

03-24-2003 @ 10:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43775#post43775)
Gavin:
For Boom:

on page 8 I wrote:
Do you have any thoughts on this? Or do you want to drop this topic?
I apologize for the great length of time it has taken to respond to this but I am not trying to convince you that my definition must by necissity be used to understand God's ability to foreknow events. Interject whatever definition you wish however the Biblical portrait of God's dynaminism (or -cism?) with human beings would grant my definition more coherency and plausibility... however that of course is IMO.

[geebob]

I'll admit that I believe that God causes how we will sin, but he doesn't cause that we will sin.

I'd like to add that I would not say that God causing how we will sin is an absolute. I suspect that it is a rarity.