Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Were these accidents?

vic C. said:
No comparisons intended. My post was a direct response to Javiers. My point was that Universalists take God's sovereignty, man's total deptavity and the belief that since man is not responsible, man cannot be accountable and can't be the subject of an eternal hell.

I know this isn't what Calvinsts believe, hence there is no comparison. I also believe Calvinists are brothers and sisters in Christ; hey, I also believe many RC and Orthodox believers are too.

I too believe in God's sovereignty. But for me, just because God can do it, doesn't mean He does. I also believe that the balance between God's sovereignty and man's freedom of choice can NEVER swing in man's favor. His will be done...
always! :angel: I must add that man's choices do come with a responsiblity.

Hope this clears things up. ;-) BTW, I think the duck is stalking me! :o LOL

This is scary, but again I agree 100% with this...

copyof7175ks7.gif
 
Javier and Vic,

Thanks for clearing that up, you guys. I was doing many different things...reading out of context, but then adding in the context of other threads...and (clears her throat) being touchy....
It's quite alright. It's not the first time any of us posted based on our emotions. We are very zealous about our beliefs and sometimes our indignation shows through. 8-)

Peace and Gos bless,
Vic
 
Free said:
Just making sure I was right in my assumptions about where you were getting this idea from. You do realize that it is quite a jump to use that passage to say that God doesn't know everything the future holds.

Is it not quite possible that "Hez" would have died had he not prayed, that God would have let it come to that, but that the whole purpose in telling him that he would die was precisely so that Hez would turn to God? After all, how many times in Scripture does God give advanced warning of impending death?

There is no inconsistency in God knowing that Hez would turn to him for healing and what God said to him.
To take the position that you are advocating is to deny the plain reading of the text and to introduce a way of looking at the Scriptures that can be described as "add unstated and significant qualifying statements that change the meaning". Now, I would add that sometimes this is a justifiable position. But actual justification needs to be forthcoming. What is yours for this unstated qualifier? I think you will find no Scripture that clearly expresses the position that God knows the future exhaustively.

What you are suggesting is of course possible. But to go where you are going, you have to admit that God did not speak the truth to Hez when he said "you are going to die". That statement is a falsehood unless, of course, we do as you suggest and add an unstated qualifier to the effect "unless you turn to me and pray".

I think the wisest course is to take all the texts at their face value, except when there is irrefutable evidence to do otherwise.

This is why I take Romans 6:23 "literally" - the wages of sin is death, not eternal life in torment.

This is why I believe that the dead sleep - this is the plain teaching of the Scriptures.

God tells Hez "You will die". If anyone is making a jump, it is the person who adds the unstated "unless you pray" qualifier. However, I want to be clear: I am not advocating a rule to the effect "I take as I reads 'em - no exceptions". However, there is a lot to be said for letting the text "speak to us" even if it goes against deeply ingrained beliefs - such as God fully knowing the future.
 
As a follow-on to my previous post: Consider the following text from Jeremiah 26:

Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him to death? Did he not fear the LORD and entreat the favor of the LORD, and the LORD changed His mind about the misfortune which He had pronounced against them?

If God had intention A at time t1 in respect to entity X, He must , at t1, have held in his mind a particular view of the future, F1, that included the effects of His carrying out intention A.

Since, at t2, God changed His mind in respect to what He wants to do to X, at t2 God has a new and different intention B in respect to entity X. So, at t2, He must hold in His mind a view of the future F2 that includes the effects of His carrying out intention B.

What does it mean to say that God knows the future exhaustively from the beginning of time? It means that God consistently over time holds a single view of the future.

Can F2 = F1 as would be required in order to assert that God exhaustively knows the future?

Of course not, F2 differs from F1 at least in respect to what will happen to X.

Therefore God cannot know the future exhaustively.

Now of course, one can always add unstated qualifiers to change the "He changed His mind" statement to effectively mean "He only seemed to change His mind".

I would be interested in possible justifications for such a move.
 
Drew said:
To take the position that you are advocating is to deny the plain reading of the text and to introduce a way of looking at the Scriptures that can be described as "add unstated and significant qualifying statements that change the meaning".
For the moment, I will agree that it is not the plain reading of the text. However, the way I look at this passage is the same as I look at all of Scripture - in the context of the entirety of Scripture.

The main problem with the understanding you are advocating is that it completely undermines the entirety of Scripture, particularly everything prophetic. Everyting that God has stated regarding future events becomes a crap-shoot since he can't really know whether or not they will happen.

Since there are many prophecies that did indeed come to pass, we can be certain that those regarding the future will also come to pass. However, God could only at best be 50/50 on past prophecies if he didn't know the future.

Either God knows the future or he doesn't, it can't be both.

Drew said:
This is why I believe that the dead sleep - this is the plain teaching of the Scriptures.
Other than the times that Scripture makes it clear this isn't so (Saul talking to Samuel; Jesus during his transfiguration).

This is why any given verse or passage must be read within the context of the entirety of the Bible.
 
Free said:
For the moment, I will agree that it is not the plain reading of the text. However, the way I look at this passage is the same as I look at all of Scripture - in the context of the entirety of Scripture.

The main problem with the understanding you are advocating is that it completely undermines the entirety of Scripture, particularly everything prophetic. Everyting that God has stated regarding future events becomes a crap-shoot since he can't really know whether or not they will happen.

Since there are many prophecies that did indeed come to pass, we can be certain that those regarding the future will also come to pass. However, God could only at best be 50/50 on past prophecies if he didn't know the future.

Either God knows the future or he doesn't, it can't be both.
You present a false choice.

God can guarantee the fufillment of all prophecies without knowing the future. This is easily proven as per the following analogy.

Suppose I am to play tennis against Roger Federer. He makes the prophecy "I shall defeat Drew in 4 sets and shall score the final point with an ace". This is a relatively specific prophecy. Can Roger guarantee this even if he does not know certain things about the way I will play the match?

Yes he can.

Roger is so superior to me at tennis that he can ensure the prophecy is fulfilled without knowing whether I will try to use a backhand or a forehand in response to his serve on the first point of game 3 in the second set. Or on the very final serve which he must win with an ace to fulfill the prophecy. The key issue here is a subtle technicality - the "Drew-Federer" system has the following interesting property in respect to a specific "prophecy" P: If Federer is superior enough to Drew, he can guarantee the fulfillment of P without perfect foreknowledge of what I will do. I can try to explain this further in another post if you do not agree that it is self-evidently true.

There are certain events that do not have a determining effect on a certain prophecied outcome. It can be prophecied that I will lose to Federer with all the details of P met (refer above) without knowledge of what I eat for breakfast - there is nothing I can eat that has any chance of risking failure to fulfill the prophecy. On the other hand, if I (Drew) were playing tennis against my friend Fred (who is only slightly better than me), it is indeed possible that what I eat for breakfast might make it impossible for Fred (or anyone) to prophecy anything about the result of the match.
 
Free said:
Other than the times that Scripture makes it clear this isn't so (Saul talking to Samuel; Jesus during his transfiguration).

This is why any given verse or passage must be read within the context of the entirety of the Bible.
These exceptions do not undermine the numerous clear teaching of the Scripture - the dead sleep. The fact that there may be exceptions does not undermine the general principle.
 
Suppose I am to play tennis against Roger Federer. He makes the prophecy "I shall defeat Drew in 4 sets and shall score the final point with an ace". This is a relatively specific prophecy. Can Roger guarantee this even if he does not know certain things about the way I will play the match?
Roger is VERY good. I think he can take you in three! ALL serves are aces too. LOL ;-)
 
vic C. said:
Roger is VERY good. I think he can take you in three! ALL serves are aces too. LOL ;-)
Agree. I actually chose the number 4 very intentionally. Roger can "let me win a few" if this serves some purpose of his. The point being that he is so much better than me that he has all sorts of options on how he wants to win. He can even manage the match so that He can make the following very specific prophecy: I will defeat Drew in 4 sets, 41 games and it will take 156 minutes.

And he can do this in the absence of all sorts of knowledge of what I will do:

He need not have knowledge of whether I pick my nose during breaks.

He need not have knowledge of whether I wear a white or a yellow shirt.

etc.

However, for the 156 minute, 4 set, 41 game "prophecy", he does need to know that I will not break my ankle in set 1. If I did break my ankle, the prophecy will not be met.
 
Drew said:
Agree. I actually chose the number 4 very intentionally. Roger can "let me win a few" if this serves some purpose of his. The point being that he is so much better than me that he has all sorts of options on how he wants to win. He can even manage the match so that He can make the following very specific prophecy: I will defeat Drew in 4 sets, 41 games and it will take 156 minutes.

And he can do this in the absence of all sorts of knowledge of what I will do:

He need not have knowledge of whether I pick my nose during breaks.

He need not have knowledge of whether I wear a white or a yellow shirt.

etc.

However, for the 156 minute, 4 set, 41 game "prophecy", he does need to know that I will not break my ankle in set 1. If I did break my ankle, the prophecy will not be met.
I think that an analogy can be drawn with the scenario between God being all knowing and the Open Theism teaching that God does not know all. The analogy that aligns very well with your position is that of you making a definite statement that you know how to and will beat Roger Federer in tennis because he is fallible even though some have made the claim that he is infallible against less than infallible tennis players like yourself. When the day of the match comes, Roger does exactly what some have claimed; he beat you in an infallible stroke of tennis without breaking a sweat. The moral is that those who knew Roger's abilities well, knew the inadequacy of your claims, and that sadly you would come to know the fallacy of your claims, but not before it was too late.
 
Solo said:
I think that an analogy can be drawn with the scenario between God being all knowing and the Open Theism teaching that God does not know all. The analogy that aligns very well with your position is that of you making a definite statement that you know how to and will beat Roger Federer in tennis because he is fallible even though some have made the claim that he is infallible against less than infallible tennis players like yourself. When the day of the match comes, Roger does exactly what some have claimed; he beat you in an infallible stroke of tennis without breaking a sweat. The moral is that those who knew Roger's abilities well, knew the inadequacy of your claims, and that sadly you would come to know the fallacy of your claims, but not before it was too late.
I am, of course, arguing about the case where Roger Federer makes a prophecy about the match. I am making no prophecy. I am making no claim about Federer's fallbility.

Of course Federer will beat me. I do not understand your analogy.

Please explain why Federer has to know the colour of my shirt to guarantee a "prophecy" of his that he will beat me in 4 sets, 41 games, 156 minutes.
 
Drew said:
Solo said:
I think that an analogy can be drawn with the scenario between God being all knowing and the Open Theism teaching that God does not know all. The analogy that aligns very well with your position is that of you making a definite statement that you know how to and will beat Roger Federer in tennis because he is fallible even though some have made the claim that he is infallible against less than infallible tennis players like yourself. When the day of the match comes, Roger does exactly what some have claimed; he beat you in an infallible stroke of tennis without breaking a sweat. The moral is that those who knew Roger's abilities well, knew the inadequacy of your claims, and that sadly you would come to know the fallacy of your claims, but not before it was too late.
I am, of course, arguing about the case where Roger Federer makes a prophecy about the match. I am making no prophecy. I am making no claim about Federer's fallbility.

Of course Federer will beat me. I do not understand your analogy.

Please explain why Federer has to know the colour of my shirt to guarantee a "prophecy" of his that he will beat me in 4 sets, 41 games, 156 minutes.
The Open Theist claim is that God does not know everything that will occur nor can he, and the fact is that God knows all. The analogy that I used shows you in the position of the Open Theist against Roger the God of Tennis. It is not that difficult to understand, friend.

Federer does not need to know the colour of your shirt to beat you, and God does not need to know the colour of your shirt to know you, He just knows.
 
Solo said:
The Open Theist claim is that God does not know everything that will occur nor can he, and the fact is that God knows all. The analogy that I used shows you in the position of the Open Theist against Roger the God of Tennis. It is not that difficult to understand, friend.

Federer does not need to know the colour of your shirt to beat you, and God does not need to know the colour of your shirt to know you, He just knows.
This is not relevant. I have provided an argument, by analogy, explaining how it is that God need not know the future exhaustively in order to guarantee the fulfillment of certain prophecies.

This was in direct response to a statement made by Free.

Can anyone refute my argument?
 
Drew
do you believe that God knows how many hairs you have on your head?
Do you believe God knows the very second you will die?
 
Open Theism?

Ps 50:21
"These things you have done and I kept silence; You thought that I was just like you; I will reprove you and state {the case} in order before your eyes.

Is open theism an attempt to create god in man's image?
 
Drew said:
As a follow-on to my previous post: Consider the following text from Jeremiah 26:

Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him to death? Did he not fear the LORD and entreat the favor of the LORD, and the LORD changed His mind about the misfortune which He had pronounced against them?

If God had intention A at time t1 in respect to entity X, He must , at t1, have held in his mind a particular view of the future, F1, that included the effects of His carrying out intention A.

Drew,

This all presumes that God operates chronologically within time ONLY. While He acts upon time, He is not subject to time. He is timeless. What this means is that there is no past, present, or future outside of creation, in the Being that Is. Think about God's Name.

"I am".

Present tense. He IS. There is no past, no future, just the eternal Now of the Present Existence.

He sees all time as one moment, one NOW. As a result, He views our chronological procession of time as one event. He sees the creation of the universe and the end of time as one moment.

As such, there is no "moment t1" for God. God doesn't have to "wait" for moment t1. There is only present tense for God, thus, our past, present and future is God's "present now". In other words, if I may, the end is happening with the beginning!

"I am the Alpha and the Omega"

Things in this world can ONLY happen the way God intends BECAUSE He sees all NOW. Thus, God does not "change His mind". God is eternal. There is no change for God as all decisions occur within that one moment of NOW. Time is a unit of measure for change. Since God is timeless and changeless, He is beyond all such chronological concepts of planning and thinking and waiting and executing. These are anthropomorphic ideas of trying to understand how God works, but it is inadequate. Plannning, executing, and watching the fruits of His work all happen "simultaneously" at once.

Regards
 
francisdesales said:
Drew,

This all presumes that God operates chronologically within time ONLY. While He acts upon time, He is not subject to time. He is timeless. What this means is that there is no past, present, or future outside of creation, in the Being that Is. Think about God's Name.

"I am".

Present tense. He IS. There is no past, no future, just the eternal Now of the Present Existence.

He sees all time as one moment, one NOW. As a result, He views our chronological procession of time as one event. He sees the creation of the universe and the end of time as one moment.

As such, there is no "moment t1" for God. God doesn't have to "wait" for moment t1. There is only present tense for God, thus, our past, present and future is God's "present now". In other words, if I may, the end is happening with the beginning!

"I am the Alpha and the Omega"

Things in this world can ONLY happen the way God intends BECAUSE He sees all NOW. Thus, God does not "change His mind". God is eternal. There is no change for God as all decisions occur within that one moment of NOW. Time is a unit of measure for change. Since God is timeless and changeless, He is beyond all such chronological concepts of planning and thinking and waiting and executing. These are anthropomorphic ideas of trying to understand how God works, but it is inadequate. Plannning, executing, and watching the fruits of His work all happen "simultaneously" at once.

Regards

Francisdesales,
I like what you wrote, yet, how does it fit with this notion of foreknowledge presented often at this forum, that God knows those who will say yes to Jesus and then predestines them, in respect to your explaination "Things in this world can ONLY happen the way God intends BECAUSE He sees all NOW"? I believe that God determines those who are His for no other reason then His good pleasure. Your quote sounds a lot like a Roman Catholic priest who tried to reform the church of his day... Martin Luther. He said "all things happen out of necessity, but not out of compulsion".
Grace, Bubba
 
Bubba said:
Francisdesales,
I like what you wrote, yet, how does it fit with this notion of foreknowledge presented often at this forum, that God knows those who will say yes to Jesus and then predestines them, in respect to your explaination "Things in this world can ONLY happen the way God intends BECAUSE He sees all NOW"? I believe that God determines those who are His for no other reason then His good pleasure. Your quote sounds a lot like a Roman Catholic priest who tried to reform the church of his day... Martin Luther. He said "all things happen out of necessity, but not out of compulsion".
Grace, Bubba

Bubba,

First of all, I would like to state a caveat - this is all speculation on my part - I am certainly not "in the know" on how God sees things!! With that said, however, we can use some rational thought to try to come to grips on the difficult question of predestination.

Unbeknowest to many, the Catholic Church does believe in predestination, although there are several "acceptable" theories on God's "foreknowledge" and man's "merit" and how they coincide. Grace and free will is a question that will never be fully understood in this life, I think. Thus, I, as a Catholic, can be quite flexible on how I approach this - as long as I don't travel into the heresies of double predestination or Semi-Pelagianism.

Now, technically speaking, God does not have "foreknowledge", because there is no "future" for God. Certainly, God knows what will happen to us in the future because He is currently viewing our past, present and future NOW! But because these all run together in "God's time", there is no foreknowledge or planning for contingencies. God doesn't have to "wonder" if man will foul up the plans of God because they are happening and have already happened, so to speak.

As to Martin Luther, he did say some interesting things, although I do think he went too far on the question of man's inherently evil self. In other words, that man is a beast that either the devil or God "rides". I don't subscribe to that theory, nor did the Church - ever. There has ALWAYS been an element of cooperation in the relationship between man and God, even in the OT. Commands are given with the expectation of their being followed, which naturally presumes that man is able, with God's grace, to obey them. But this is another subject altogether.

As to God and predestination, God sees who will actively seek Him out and at the same "time", sees how His grace brings that man closer to Him and eventually into union with Him. There are a number of theories on how man and God cooperate. We do know from Scriptures that man cannot merit by his own actions the gift of heaven. We know that his work cannot earn salvation. Thus, no matter how you eventually determine the level of man's cooperation with God's grace (and we know that man can grieve the Holy Spirit), it is ALL from God. St. Augustine said that anything we give to God is merely a return of the gift He has given to us. Thus, our cooperation in of itself is a fruit of His graces, just as the soil of our actions were put into place by the Supreme Gardener.

God will reward those who utilize the gift of grace He has freely given to mankind. How and at what level man plays a role in this is subject to speculation, I think.

Regards
 
St. Augustine said that anything we give to God is merely a return of the gift He has given to us. Thus, our cooperation in of itself is a fruit of His graces, just as the soil of our actions were put into place by the Supreme Gardener.
That's good Joe. It explains to me where this originated:

"Your talents are a gift from God; what you do with them is your gift back to God." (anon)
 
stranger said:
Open Theism?

Ps 50:21
"These things you have done and I kept silence; You thought that I was just like you; I will reprove you and state {the case} in order before your eyes.

Is open theism an attempt to create god in man's image?
In all fairness, this is really not an argument about open theism.

What matters in my mind is what the Scriptures teach. It is, of course, equally possible that we (man) have conferred onto God our notions of what God's attributes must be.

In fact, I think that it is because we cannot imagine how God could fulfill His purposes without knowing the future exhaustively, that we confer a very human-centric idea about the nature of His omniscience.
 
Back
Top