Predestination and Election

[Guest]

Does it matter if it is selection? No.

I think it does matter. And I will appeal to the general principle that no matter how esoteric an item of theology might appear to be, how disconnected from the living of one's life it seems to be - bad theology leads to bad life choices.

In the matter of election: I can think of a number of negative and very real consequences of believing in a "selection" version of election where God essentially pre-determines that a person will end up saved or lost. I am talking about a "selection" form of election where God does not merely "look ahead" and elect a person unto salvation if that person freely accepts Christ, but rather a form where God causally, and in a fully sufficient sense, makes it to be the case that the person will be saved (or lost) such that the person has no degree of freedom whatever to contribute to the matter of her salvation. There are definitely people who hold to this view and believe it to be Scriptural.

If someone can show that this view is in fact Scriptural, I will withdraw what I am about to say. If this form of election is indeed not Scriptural, then believing that one has been "elected" in this sense can have real problematic implications for living one's life. In this regard, note that Paul (in the book of Romans) criticizes national Israel for their belief that membership in God's family was theirs by virtue of being born an ethnic Jew. The form of election that I am talking about seems similar - a belief that one is born in a state of salvation.

If you believe that your membership in the kingdom was sealed long ago, I can easily imagine that you will not "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" - that you will think yourself immune from falling away and being lost. Also, a confidence that you are sealed into heaven will almost certainly lead you to rush to judgement that someone who does not share your theology must be one of those "elected unto damnation" and therefore a person whose opinions really do not matter. I understand that Calvinists will respond that a drift into viewing the world as a priveleged "us" and a lost "them" does not have to happen if one is appropriately humble in respect to accepting one's election.

There is possibly some merit to this view. But I suggest we look at the evidence. And I will, with some trembling, suggest that those in this forum have promoted such a view of election have indeed exhibited the kind of dismissive behaviour of others that I claim might accompany the belief that the world is split into 2 camps - those fore-ordained to glory and those fore-ordained to loss.

Not to mention the loss of motivation for evangelism. If you believe that eternal fates were fully settled at the foundation of the world, how can you make sense of the need to evangelize? - after all, the result will be what it is destined to be, regardless of what you do.

So it does indeed matter what you believe about whether election involves "selection".

Drew - I believe there needs to be a balance of orthodoxy and orthopraxis. However, you seem to base your theological beliefs on how they work themselves out in "carnal" man.

God's elect are based on the fact that God operates outside of time and sees the past, present, future at one time. God is not restricted to our time limitations.

Election is based on those whom God foreknew would accept Him. Evangelize is required, because we are "saved" through the hearing of the Gospel. Those who are "elect" still have a responsibilty to respond to the hearing of the Gospel. The Grace is effecicious for those who are elect, thought it is sufficient for all.

However, I really do not believe my words will convice you Drew or unred. Seek out God - He will have you understand.

 

[Drew]

Drew - I believe there needs to be a balance of orthodoxy and orthopraxis. However, you seem to base your theological beliefs on how they work themselves out in "carnal" man.

I do not know how you draw this conclusion. All I am saying is that for believers, having the correct theology does matter - practice is informed by the content of one's theology.

I thought that I was clear in my post that the version of election that I was addressing was a specific form of election, and obviously not the form that you believe in.

All I was doing was addressing that take on election.

 

[unred typo]

Drew wrote:

I think that there is indeed selection by God - He indeed "elects" in this "selection" sense. But I submit that many New Testament texts are incorrectly seen as being about election of individuals to salvation or loss are really about election of nations- God "selects" a nation (such as Israel) and indeed sovereignly acts in history to use that nation for some purpose. I think this is clearly true in the case of Romans 9 - the potter account. I will not present arguments in this post.

I agree there are many instances like this election to other things than salvation and to nations and not individuals. It’s a big mistake to see the word ‘chosen’ or ‘elect’ and immediately assume it is for eternal life.

Drew wrote:
And while I believe that God generally does not elect individuals in the specific sense of "choosing Fred to be saved and Fred cannot resist" and "choosing Joe to be lost and Joe cannot escape this fate", I am open to arguments that, in some very limited cases, God has indeed elected some individuals to "salvation". I think of the text of Ephesians 1. But I am still thinking about that.

I have read and reread the text in Ephesians 1. Because of the slant given it, it is hard to read it with a clean, uncluttered mind regarding predestination definitions written by those who believe that certain individuals have been chosen by name to a certain fate. I usually find myself resorting to some analogy or another in an attempt to lift it from the rut of the old way it was mired in. Would you like me to make one for you? We love those.

quote by Drew on Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:51 pm
aLoneVoice wrote: “Drew - I believe there needs to be a balance of orthodoxy and orthopraxis. However, you seem to base your theological beliefs on how they work themselves out in "carnal" man.â€Â

I do not know how you draw this conclusion. All I am saying is that for believers, having the correct theology does matter - practice is informed by the content of one's theology.

I thought that I was clear in my post that the version of election that I was addressing was a specific form of election, and obviously not the form that you believe in.

All I was doing was addressing that take on election.

Drew, I think you will find that many hold a view closer to what you spoke against but when challenged, it becomes the lesser evil version. I have noticed that typos and lack of clarity unfortunately go uncorrected which adds to the confusion of what is meant. For instance, this quote to orion:

quote by aLoneVoice on Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:30 am:

Incorrect. The Doctrine of Election, simply stated, says that God knows who and who will not be saved. because of this foreknowledge, God "elected" choose those who will and will not be saved.

So basically what you have here is that because of God’s foreknowledge of those who will and will not be saved, God knows who will and will not be saved. Ahhh…simply stated.

 

[Orion]

Ultimately Orion, ours is not the place to question how God acts. Rather, our place is to respond to the Truth and conviction of the Holy Spirit.

Does it matter if it is selection? No. When confronted with the Truth of God and the conviction of the Holy Spirit - what is your response?

Thanking God for conviction and providing the ability to you to believe, or rejecting God because you do not like how He is running things?

When confronted with a Truth, my response would be to agree with it, of course. I choose to go with truth over falsity.

Anyway, I was just curious if it were possible to want to live for God, but were not chosen.

 

[stranger]

by unred typo on Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:22 am

quote by aLoneVoice on Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:58 am
unred - are you an advocate of "open theism"?

I don’t know. I just read the Bible and believe it. Is that ‘open theism’?

unred - its not reading the bible and believing it that is at issue - but how you interpret what you read. While Drew leans towards 'open theism' your posts lead me to believe that you are an advocate of open theism. There are no doubt a few different strands developing in open theism , but first impressions tell me it is a regressive type of philosophy.

Free will seems to be at the center of many debates, to counter fire with fire, here is an interesting argument I found the other day:

The Question of Human Free Will and God’s Omniscience
Jan 22nd, 2007 by tsjojo . . .

Nelson Pike, in his 1965 article, “Divine Omniscience and Voluntary Action†argues that if we believe in God’s omniscience, then we have to conclude that the idea of free will is problematic. Here’s one way to state Pike’s argument that can be found on http://www.JohnDePoe.com

1.God’s being omniscient necessarily implies that if Jones mows his lawn on Saturday afternoon, then God believed at an earlier time that Jones would mow his lawn on Saturday afternoon.
2.Necessarily, all of God’s beliefs are true.
3.No one has the power to make a contradiction true.
4.No one has the power to erase someone’s past beliefs, that is, to bring it about that something believed in the past by someone was not believed in the past by that person.
5.No one has the power to erase someone’s existence in the past, that is, to bring it about that someone who existed in the past did not exist in the past.
6.So if God believed that Jones would mow his lawn on Saturday afternoon, Jones can refrain from mowing his lawn only if one of the following alternatives is true:
(i) Jones has the power to make God’s beliefs false;
(ii) Jones has the power to erase God’s past belief; or
(iii) Jones has the power to erase God’s past existence.
7.But alternative (i) is impossible. (from 2 and 3)
8.And alternative (ii) is impossible. (from 4)
9.And alternative (iii) is impossible. (from 5)
10.Therefore, if God believes that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday afternoon, Jones does not have the power to refrain from mowing his lawn on Saturday afternoon, that is to say, Jones is not free.

As the reader can see, Pike has a fatalistic view of human freedom. He states at the end of his article, “….if one affirms the existence of God, one is committed to the view that no human action is voluntary.â€Â

http://oohlah.wordpress.com/2007/01/22/ ... niscience/

 

[unred typo]

quote by stranger on Thu Sep 27, 2007 3:09 am

Its not reading the bible and believing it that is at issue - but how you interpret what you read. While Drew leans towards 'open theism' your posts lead me to believe that you are an advocate of open theism. There are no doubt a few different strands developing in open theism , but first impressions tell me it is a regressive type of philosophy.

Free will seems to be at the center of many debates, to counter fire with fire, here is an interesting argument I found the other day:

The Question of Human Free Will and God’s Omniscience
Jan 22nd, 2007 by tsjojo . . .

Nelson Pike, in his 1965 article, “Divine Omniscience and Voluntary Action†argues that if we believe in God’s omniscience, then we have to conclude that the idea of free will is problematic. Here’s one way to state Pike’s argument that can be found on http://www.JohnDePoe.com

1.God’s being omniscient necessarily implies that if Jones mows his lawn on Saturday afternoon, then God believed at an earlier time that Jones would mow his lawn on Saturday afternoon.
2.Necessarily, all of God’s beliefs are true.
3.No one has the power to make a contradiction true.
4.No one has the power to erase someone’s past beliefs, that is, to bring it about that something believed in the past by someone was not believed in the past by that person.
5.No one has the power to erase someone’s existence in the past, that is, to bring it about that someone who existed in the past did not exist in the past.
6.So if God believed that Jones would mow his lawn on Saturday afternoon, Jones can refrain from mowing his lawn only if one of the following alternatives is true:
(i) Jones has the power to make God’s beliefs false;
(ii) Jones has the power to erase God’s past belief; or
(iii) Jones has the power to erase God’s past existence.
7.But alternative (i) is impossible. (from 2 and 3)
8.And alternative (ii) is impossible. (from 4)
9.And alternative (iii) is impossible. (from 5)
10.Therefore, if God believes that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday afternoon, Jones does not have the power to refrain from mowing his lawn on Saturday afternoon, that is to say, Jones is not free.

As the reader can see, Pike has a fatalistic view of human freedom. He states at the end of his article, “….if one affirms the existence of God, one is committed to the view that no human action is voluntary.â€Â

I was very happy to read your article this morning. Finally someone from the other side of this issue realizes the reason that not one voluntary action can be voluntary in that type of system. That and some other issues caused me to realize that God’s omniscience is not what I have been taught. Yes, God knows everything that can possibly be known, every thought, every act, every intention to act, every desire, every whim, every possible conclusion, every thing that has ever been thought or done but God does not know what hasn’t actually happened because there is nothing to know. There is plenty to know in the present that effects how the future will or might play out and God knows all of it.

God doesn’t know at an earlier time that Jones mowed his lawn on Saturday because that is not a true fact to be known. God knows all the facts of the entire situation, every situation, in fact. God knows that Jones plans to mow his lawn on Saturday, God knows the mower has water vapor in the fuel lines that will cause the mower to sputter and quit, and that Jones’ mother in law is planning a surprise visit on Saturday morning, and that Jones’ wife has promised to loan the mower to Jones’ neighbor on Saturday to make sure he isn’t mowing when her mother arrives, he also knows Jones has made arrangements to go golfing after he mows the lawn and that Jones purposefully ‘forgot’ to tell his wife so she wouldn‘t have time to protest and make him cancel. God knows all their thoughts and intents but until Jones’ pulls the mower out, God does not know that Jones mowED the lawn.

Friday night while all the people are dreaming of their little plans, God is bringing in a cold front that wipes out the sunny forecast for the weekend. When the rainy Saturday arrives, God watches Jones contentedly sitting having coffee with his family, reminiscing about his wife’s childhood, all the while God also knows there is a tumor growing in her mother’s lung that will shortly take her life.

Why should God know Jones mowed the lawn? It wasn’t a fact to be known. God doesn’t know things that are not true, God knows what is true. What happens, and I mean actually happens, is a fact that cannot be changed. Facts are truth. God knows all truth. God knows every truth that exists. The future doesn’t exist.

Why don’t we want to believe the future doesn’t exist? That’s why they call it the future, and not the present or the past; it hasn’t happened. God doesn't know it because there is nothing there to know.

 

[Orion]

Why don’t we want to believe the future doesn’t exist? That’s why they call it the future, and not the present or the past; it hasn’t happened. God doesn't know it because there is nothing there to know.

Are you saying that God "doesn't know the future" then, because it hasn't happened yet? That God, then, IS actually bound by time? I actually woundn't have a problem with that, but I'm wanting some clarification.

 

[unred typo]

quote by Orion on Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:49 am

Are you saying that God "doesn't know the future" then, because it hasn't happened yet? That God, then, IS actually bound by time? I actually woundn't have a problem with that, but I'm wanting some clarification.

Exactly. Except I wouldn’t say that God is bound by time, because he doesn’t age or diminish in his properties and attributes, if anything he is ever-expanding. He doesn’t vary from his original qualities of goodness, truth and love. I think one reason we want to believe the future already exists is our lack of faith in God’s ability to handle the unknown prospects of such a concept.

The only reason God doesn't know the future is there is NOTHING to know. There are no facts, no events that have occurred that he missed, no thoughts that he didn't know, nothing that could be known in actuality. So it is not a deficiency in God at all that he doesn‘t know something that doesn‘t exist.

 

[Drew]

The only reason God doesn't know the future is there is NOTHING to know. There are no facts, no events that have occurred that he missed, no thoughts that he didn't know, nothing that could be known in actuality. So it is not a deficiency in God at all that he doesn‘t know something that doesn‘t exist.

One of these days, unred will post something that I do not agree with. But, to quote from Aragorn in Lord of the Rings: "not this day".

Actually, I am making a prediction about the future - something that does not exist... :D

I hold the same view as unred on this matter. We simply make a mistake of attributing too much reality to "the future" when it is really only a "heuristic device" that we use to deal with something that we have some trouble otherwise articulating.

I think it is more conceptually correct to talk about God planning and following through on those plans. Let's say I plan to mow the lawn tomorrow afternoon, and I have the power to ensure that nothing will interfere with this plan. Does there therefore in any sense "exist" a future with all the details laid out including what colour shirt I will wear as I mow the lawn? I think the best answer to this is "no".

Why add unnecessary complexity to our analysis of reality? We can get by perfectly well without postulating the existence of an entity that we call "the future".

 

[unred typo]

The only reason God doesn't know the future is there is NOTHING to know. There are no facts, no events that have occurred that he missed, no thoughts that he didn't know, nothing that could be known in actuality. So it is not a deficiency in God at all that he doesn‘t know something that doesn‘t exist.

One of these days, unred will post something that I do not agree with. But, to quote from Aragorn in Lord of the Rings: "not this day".

Actually, I am making a prediction about the future - something that does not exist... :D

I hold the same view as unred on this matter. We simply make a mistake of attributing too much reality to "the future" when it is really only a "heuristic device" that we use to deal with something that we have some trouble otherwise articulating.

I think it is more conceptually correct to talk about God planning and following through on those plans. Let's say I plan to mow the lawn tomorrow afternoon, and I have the power to ensure that nothing will interfere with this plan. Does there therefore in any sense "exist" a future with all the details laid out including what colour shirt I will wear as I mow the lawn? I think the best answer to this is "no".

Why add unnecessary complexity to our analysis of reality? We can get by perfectly well without postulating the existence of an entity that we call "the future".

Heiiiiii… that’s it. I’m going to log out right now while I have Drew agreeing with me before I say something too stupid and ruin his fine reputation on the board, (as if agreeing with me hasn’t already accomplished that :wink: ) and I’ll just bask in the knowledge that someone somewhere concurs with something I believe. Thanks, Drew, you made my day. :-D

 

[Orion]

unred and Drew, thanks for giving me a new aspect that on this. I would agree with what you are saying here.

 

[Guest]

And gee.. unred - you said you had no idea what open theism is. Huh....

 

[unred typo]

quote by stranger on Thu Sep 27, 2007 3:09 am
Unred, its not reading the bible and believing it that is at issue - but how you interpret what you read. While Drew leans towards 'open theism' your posts lead me to believe that you are an advocate of open theism. There are no doubt a few different strands developing in open theism , but first impressions tell me it is a regressive type of philosophy.

First impressions are often wrong. I read the section on Open Theism from your site and you’ll be happy to learn that is not what I believe, since according to Nelson Pike or the site’s owner, “A looming problem for open theists is that the Bible seems to include references to God's possessing determinate knowledge of future, free actions.†and that is not a looming problem for me. I know that God can and does at certain times and under certain circumstances make predictions that are years beyond the time of their announcements by God‘s prophets. I don’t lose any sleep wondering how does he do that and man still has free will because I know they are isolated instances and do not force anyone to make choices contrary to their free will decisions. They are not made to do something for which they should be punished (or even rewarded, ) except when they were already doomed to that fate anyways.

For some people, strange people, it’s all or nothing with these rules they formulate for God. There are times that God does impose his will upon man. Let me explain away the instances sited in the article.

quote from the website:
The Bible contains God's revelation of future free actions as a prophecy as well. Consider Isaiah 44:28-45:1 where God predicts the work of the Persian ruler, Cyrus. This prophecy (arguably 200 years prior to the event; even on a late date this prophecy is placed years prior to the events it describes) includes the fall of Assyria, the rise and fall of Babylon, the rise of Medo-Persia, the fall of Israel, the fall of Judah, the birth and naming of Cyrus, details of the life of this particular king, his selection as king, his willingness to consider helping the Israelites, his decision to assist in rebuilding Jerusalem, and various other contingencies. In Mark 14:27-30 (and other parallel Gospel passages), Jesus predicts specific details as to the events of Peter's denial. If humans possess indeterminate free will (as open theists suggest), the details of these events could not be predicted confidently even by a supremely wise being.

The fall of Assyria and the rise and fall of Babylon, etc. is well within God’s realm of present knowledge, his plans for the punishment of nations involved, and his sovereignty that has nothing to do with the total sovereign reign over the will of individuals. Our scope of free will doesn’t include the ruling of others, but only being master of our own wills in regard to our own eternal destiny. If God moves a king into power or instigates and facilitates the defeat of another king or country, that is not cause for the subjects or the king to make decisions that will condemn an individual to hell, other than by the individual‘s own choices.

God can easily predict that he will make Cyrus king, even though there is yet to be a Cyrus born. He only has to pick a likely unborn child, cause his father to name him Cyrus, and protect and lead him into the position of king at the time he chooses. God is in total control of the fates of nations and he causes the rise and fall of kingdoms as part of his sovereign acts of judgment and reward. It is what he does. Details of his life are easily woven into his life as God can cause people to do things by suggestion as easily as a hypnotist can do. None of these things change the fact that God is the one who wants man to be responsible for his own eternal fate by the decisions that each person makes and the deeds, good or bad, that every man chooses to do. Just because God may make a prediction (i.e. you will mow your lawn on Saturday) doesn’t mean if you get the urge to mow your lawn on Saturday from God making an undeniable impression on your will, that you are forever his puppet and cannot make decisions on your own concerning whether you will choose to mow your ailing neighbor’s lawn or purposefully run over the neighbor’s kid’s baseball that rolled into your yard. None of the Biblical prophesies are very specific and if God couldn’t arrange to pull them off, he wouldn’t be much of a God.

quote by aLoneVoice on Thu Sep 27, 2007 1:13 pm
And gee.. unred - you said you had no idea what open theism is. Huh.…

Nope, I said I didn’t know if the way I explain a simple reading of the Bible would be considered Open Theism. Since reading the site you gave, I would say that I’m not a very good adherent to all they call Open Theism. Mine is a mongrel version that I formulated from my own little head by reading my own little Bible with way too much time to think about it. I would invoke the name of the Holy Spirit as co-author of my theories but I wouldn’t want you to get the impression that I thought I was inspired by God. :-D

 

[Guest]

Here is a problem.

God said that before I was conceived He knew me.

So, He knew me prior (future tense) to the event of conception.

I thought you said He could not know the future, because it did not happen yet?

 

[wingnut]

Hi all

God says "ask and it shall be given", implying, "don't ask and it won't be given".
The fact that we can ask things in prayer, tells us we have the ability to influence God's will.
The fact that God does answer prayer tells me that the future is not cast in concrete - but open to negotiation.

And how does God prophesy or predict things thousands of years in advance?
Like a builder can look at an open plot of land and visualize the exact building he will one day build there, so God can visualize what he wants one day, and bring it to pass. Why? Because He has the power.

That's not to say that the specifics and details cannot be changed. God is building a house. He has the plans for that house in mind. But the plans do not specify which exact bricks to use. He will chose the bricks as He goes along. If a brick is cracked or deformed, or the wrong color, He will reach right over it and choose another. We, the "living-stones" or "bricks" have a part to play in making sure we measure up to the Builder's standards.

And the builder does not care what the workmen have for lunch (so long as they do not arrive back drunk). God allows man total free will wherever it does not directly conflict with His plans. And God wants man to interact with him (give input, pray etc.) and God in turn provides feedback (rewards us).

In summary, God has a certain structure predestinated, but the details of how it will be built, who will build, which bricks, which contractors, etc. that is all open ended. Hence God can allow man free will within the scope of His pre-determined plan.

 

[Guest]

Hi all

God says "ask and it shall be given", implying, "don't ask and it won't be given".
The fact that we can ask things in prayer, tells us we have the ability to influence God's will.
The fact that God does answer prayer tells me that the future is not cast in concrete - but open to negotiation.

And how does God prophesy or predict things thousands of years in advance?
Like a builder can look at an open plot of land and visualize the exact building he will one day build there, so God can visualize what he wants one day, and bring it to pass. Why? Because He has the power.

That's not to say that the specifics and details cannot be changed. God is building a house. He has the plans for that house in mind. But the plans do not specify which exact bricks to use. He will chose the bricks as He goes along. If a brick is cracked or deformed, or the wrong color, He will reach right over it and choose another. We, the "living-stones" or "bricks" have a part to play in making sure we measure up to the Builder's standards.

And the builder does not care what the workmen have for lunch (so long as they do not arrive back drunk). God allows man total free will wherever it does not directly conflict with His plans. And God wants man to interact with him (give input, pray etc.) and God in turn provides feedback (rewards us).

In summary, God has a certain structure predestinated, but the details of how it will be built, who will build, which bricks, which contractors, etc. that is all open ended. Hence God can allow man free will within the scope of His pre-determined plan.

This is placing unto God, the confines of man. We are limited in our understanding of the future. The best that we can do is 'create plans' - However, God is not bound by those restrictions.

God cannot and does not "change" His mind. I would aruge that God has pre-planned "changes". God is not bound by our choices.

 

[stranger]

Open theism and Jeremiah 1

Jeremiah 1: (NASB)
4 Now the word of the LORD came to me saying,
5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

Some advocates of Open Theism insist that God cannot know the future because the future doesn't exist and therefore cannot be known.

If this is accepted as true then it follows that God could not know Jeremaih before He formed him in his mother's womb. To make a concession to accommodate God knowing something but not knowing other things about the future presupposes that the Open Theist has a greater knowledge than God to be able to say what God knows and what God does not know.

Another well worn out argument is to suggest that God has a plan for there to be Jeremiah in the future and therefore does not need to know the future. This is thought to be brought about by God so manipulating circumstances in the present to make this plan come to fruition.

The problem with these feasible 'open' solutions is that they deny what the text in Jeremiah clearly expresses, namely that God knew Jeremiah before he formed him in his mother's womb and consecretated him as a prophet before he was born.

The text does not say that God had a plan to know a Jeremaih of the future in the present. The text does not say that God so manipulated the present circumstances that there would inevitably be a Jeremaih of the future in the present.

By asking 'HOW did God know Jeremiah before he was born?' the Open Theist fails to FIRST recognise that God DID know him and it is only this prior recognition, required and acquired by faith, that will lead the Open Theist out of his faulty hermeneutical entanglements.

 

[unred typo]

quote by aLoneVoice on Thu Sep 27, 2007 3:58 pm
Here is a problem.

God said that before I was conceived He knew me.

So, He knew me prior (future tense) to the event of conception.

I thought you said He could not know the future, because it did not happen yet?

You must be referring to Psalm 139? If not, please tell me what verse you mean so I can update my thoughts here. Reading here I really can’t see what you might think of as a problem to my theory. Can you explain what exactly is being said that involves anything other than God’s hand work according to his plans for David’s body and soul? Honestly, I don’t see a problem.


Psalm 139:13
For you have possessed my reins: you have covered me in my mother's womb.
14I will praise you; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are your works; and that my soul knows right well.
15My substance was not hid from you, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16Your eyes did see my substance, yet being imperfect; and in your book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
17How precious also are your thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!

I also see in another post you refer to Jeremiah’s election to be a prophet.
Jeremiah 1: (NASB)
4 Now the word of the LORD came to me saying,
5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

As we can see from David’s psalm, he was “curiously wrought in the lower parts of the earth†before he was placed into the substance being formed in his mother’s womb. Since David was a poet, I guess we have to make our own judgment as to how much of this is poetic language and how much is literal. In the most literal rendering, I see God having formed the physical members (hands, feet, legs, fleshly parts of the body ) to cover the spiritual aspects of David’s person. In today’s world, we know that there is a code, DNA, that is used to instruct the cells and the scientific aspect of this process was obviously beyond the scope of David’s knowledge. Nevertheless, we, being better informed, can see the series of these natural occurrences in the language he uses.

It is easy to see that Jeremiah’s DNA was read by God before he was conceived, and God liked what he saw for the job he had in mind for this weeping prophet. I’m sure God knows the formula for tenderheartedness and that was probably the quality he was looking for when he made his choice for the man best suited to bring this horrific message to the nations. He sure wouldn’t have looked at my DNA and picked me for that job.

Ahhh...what was the question? I don’t see this as a problem.

 

[unred typo]

Back again... I got a little behind here ...

quote by aLoneVoice on Fri Sep 28, 2007 5:37 am

wingnut wrote: “Hi all

God says "ask and it shall be given", implying, "don't ask and it won't be given".
The fact that we can ask things in prayer, tells us we have the ability to influence God's will.
The fact that God does answer prayer tells me that the future is not cast in concrete - but open to negotiation.

And how does God prophesy or predict things thousands of years in advance?
Like a builder can look at an open plot of land and visualize the exact building he will one day build there, so God can visualize what he wants one day, and bring it to pass. Why? Because He has the power.

That's not to say that the specifics and details cannot be changed. God is building a house. He has the plans for that house in mind. But the plans do not specify which exact bricks to use. He will chose the bricks as He goes along. If a brick is cracked or deformed, or the wrong color, He will reach right over it and choose another. We, the "living-stones" or "bricks" have a part to play in making sure we measure up to the Builder's standards.

And the builder does not care what the workmen have for lunch (so long as they do not arrive back drunk). God allows man total free will wherever it does not directly conflict with His plans. And God wants man to interact with him (give input, pray etc.) and God in turn provides feedback (rewards us).

In summary, God has a certain structure predestinated, but the details of how it will be built, who will build, which bricks, which contractors, etc. that is all open ended. Hence God can allow man free will within the scope of His pre-determined plan.


This is placing unto God, the confines of man. We are limited in our understanding of the future. The best that we can do is 'create plans' - However, God is not bound by those restrictions.

God cannot and does not "change" His mind. I would aruge that God has pre-planned "changes". God is not bound by our choices.

First, I have to commend wingnut again on his clarity in analogical concepts. It’s a gift I obviously don’t possess. (O Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood… :wink: ) As I think of it, he learned from the master, since God also uses the building illustration somewhere in the Bible as well, which he alludes to with his reference to ‘living stones.’

aLoneVoice, you worry so much about God’s reputation, as if he needs to possess qualities that are not even logical or possible. We are not only limited in our understanding of the future, we are at God’s mercy when it comes to making our puny plans. We don’t possess the power needed to carry out any of our will if it is not allowed by God. He is not bound by our choices, as you say, but he allows us room to learn and grow, just as we do our children. What we have is free will to formulate our plans and God decides if we get to do them or not.

God, on the other hand, makes plans and no one, no , not one person, place or thing can thwart them. He can change his mind and does so on a regular basis. If we knew how many times we were standing on the slippery edge of our grave, while God waited for our repentance from some sin, we would probably die of fright. Just like the Bible reports, our lives are full of “if you repent, you shall live†even if we are too dull of hearing to listen.

You can argue that “God has pre-planned "changes" but a preplanned change that is changed in the past is nothing more than a preconceived plan made to look like an actual choice. This kind of deceit is not becoming of a holy God, btw. God is not a pretender or a hypocrite or a deceiver. He doesn’t have to know the unknown to deal with whatever life throws his way. This is an idea born out of a lack of faith and sci-fi nonsense. Fun to watch but it’s time to give it up when you start believing it’s real and incorporating it into your theology. You’re in some really esteemed company though, so you don’t have to feel foolish. It’s what we were taught by those who should know better.

 

[wingnut]

Back again... I got a little behind here ...

God, on the other hand, makes plans and no one, no , not one person, place or thing can thwart them. He can change his mind and does so on a regular basis. If we knew how many times we were standing on the slippery edge of our grave, while God waited for our repentance from some sin, we would probably die of fright. Just like the Bible reports, our lives are full of “if you repent, you shall live†even if we are too dull of hearing to listen.

You can argue that “God has pre-planned "changes" but a preplanned change that is changed in the past is nothing more than a preconceived plan made to look like an actual choice. This kind of deceit is not becoming of a holy God, btw. God is not a pretender or a hypocrite or a deceiver.

I have to commend Unred typo for the above.
It does not detract from the Great God that be responds to our input. God does not feel so insecure that He has to have every detail planned and executed. That is IMHO more the mindset of Satan who wants to domineer. Satan would prefer that man has no freedom of choice - which is what we see when demons possess people.

The whole story of the Old Testament is how God responds to the choices of man. "You want a king, OK, I will give you one - but its a bad choice and you will suffer." And every time they cry out to God, he listens, and drags them out of their mess, and cleans them off. This shows how God responds - i.e. is interacting with His Creation. And probably doing it with utter joy. It's so much more fun than having the whole story of man planned millions of years in advance, and all God has to do is watch a rerun of what is already predetermined.

And what Unred typo says about giving man chance to repent is true. Take Nineveh. God said that in 40 days it would be destroyed. If God had the future pre-set then God was lying, because in 40 days Nineveh was not destroyed. To say that God knew Nineveh would repent, would be to call God a liar for duping Jonah into having to preach a lying witness. But if we see God as ever willing to change His mind on repentance - then the story of Nineveh is utterly exhilarating. It shows how prophecy is often given conditionally - and that some of the bad thing prophesied to come are avoidable. God does not feel shamed that He was "wrong". He loved it that Nineveh proved him "wrong" - and He could spare them. Jonah, on the other hand, wanted the future of Nineveh to be cast in stone.

For those who believe God has everything scripted before, look at Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac.
Genesis 22:12 "And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. "

Why does God wait till the very last moment, to see if Abraham will slit Isaac's throat?

Because as Abraham's muscles tense for the death slice - THEN God knew.

Otherwise, God is a liar if He knew beforehand what Abraham would do. Why does he say "for NOW I know"? But God is true, and it was at that precise moment, not thousands of years before, or even minutes before, that God knew that Abraham would not withhold his son from being sacrificed.