 |
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/30/2003 11:25 AM (GMT -6) |   | RD: Are not "Might-counterfactuals" considered a form of modal logic, which as opposed to propositional logic, does not state a truth value?
Tom: Is that how you use "might" propositions?
Laika, when you say to your kids "We might get some ice cream on our way home tonight," do you think this statement of yours is neither true nor false? Of course you attribute truth-value to this.
RD? When you say to a client "We might not win this case," do you believe yourself to be telling that client something which is neither true nor false?
There are, again, three propositions we use about the future:
"x will happen"
"x would happen"
"x might happen"
WE use these in everyday speech and attribute truth-value to them, all of them.
Moreover, GOD (and Jesus) uses all three forms of propositions to describe the future in the Bible.
In several passages God describes the future in terms of what "may" happen. In Jer. 26 he tells Jeremiah that Israel "may perhaps listen and obey." God uses might-counterfactuals. Are we to attribute no truth-value to God's statement, RD?
RD: I just am trying to figure out how a might-counterfactual can have a truth value, when even a would-counterfactual does not seem to have a truth value.
Tom: But would-counterfactuals do have truth value. Jesus used them. For example, Jesus says to Corazin, "If the miracles that were performed in you were performed in Tyre, or in Sodom, those cities WOULD have repented." Are we to attribute no truth-value to this claim of Jesus? Is this neither true nor false?
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 5/30/2003 11:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: would-counterfactuals do have truth value.
JET: But would-counterfactuals of creaturely freedom are false, right?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/30/2003 11:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: would-counterfactuals do have truth value.
JET: But would-counterfactuals of creaturely freedom are false, right?
In as much as would-counterfactuals are true, they do not describe free actions. The one exception to this is if the circumstances at the time the counterfactual is spoken are such that the will of the person(s) being described make it true.
"x would take a drink tomorrow if he was offered one" could describe a creaturely free act if x is an alchoholic who has gotten drunk every day of his life for the past 10 years.
I find Jesus' statement about what Sodom "would" have done had they seen the mircales of Jesus interesting. It's a would-counterfactual and it describes, presumably, a free act on the part of the citizesn of Sodon (who, as you know, were very sinful). What grounds the truth of Jesus' statement that they "would have repented."
Doc?
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 5/30/2003 12:25 PM (GMT -6) | | TGB: I find Jesus' statement about what Sodom "would" have done had they seen the mircales of Jesus interesting. It's a would-counterfactual and it describes, presumably, a free act on the part of the citizesn of Sodon (who, as you know, were very sinful). What grounds the truth of Jesus' statement that they "would have repented."
JET: What does Jesus mean by "Sodom"? All of the indivuduals in Sodom? Most of the indivduals in Sodom? Some of the individuals in Sodom? God has exhaustive knowledge of the past condition and free actions of the people of Sodom and Tyre. God has perfect knowledge of the extent to which human group behavior was or was not predictable at that time given all the circumstances (human groups in general and these groups in particular). Jesus could be saying that given all of the variables, it is certain that at least some of the people would have repented. This would not require knowing any true "would counterfactuals" for any particular free individual.
(As Doc has pointed out, humans predict group behavior with remarkable accuracy without omniscience and certainly without knowledge of individualized counterfactuals.)
Also, I don't know anything about textual criticism, but are we justified in interpreting (and/or translating) Jesus' statement as a formal, logical "would counterfactual"? Jesus presumably spoke in Aramic (sp?) which was translated (via inspiration) into Greek, which was translated into English. Is it possible that Jesus simply meant "very probable" and this is interpreted and/or translated as "would"? Don't we often use "would" in this non-technical sense?
JET
Edited by - JET on 05/30/2003 5:34:44 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 5/30/2003 4:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
You say,quote:
One can easily falsify "x might do y" by showing it to be true that "x will do y" or that "x would do y."
I don't remember on which thread I submitted the situation with Israel being presented the opportunity to enter the promise land, but let me recap. When the 12 spies returned and presented their report, Israel "might" or "might not" enter at that time, depending on the "vote". Even though they affirmed "might not" (which is the same as "will not")through their disbelief at that time, they did not negate "will" at a later time. Therefore, their "will not" was only at that point in time and their "will" was at another point in time. Both situations are true as well as might/may/can.
Might has an implication of positive intent, whereas might not has an implication of negative intent. It can also be thought of as a leaning toward either the positive or the negative. If Laika had no positive intent (just as an illustration) of getting ice cream, he lied to his children. I see no ambivalence in the use of "might", else why have an expression of the negative "might not"? The use of "might not" is to present the opposite of "might".
If I say, "I might fly to America tomorrow" I have made a false statement (since I'm already in America), but "I might not fly to America tomorrow" is true because of that physical impossibility.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/30/2003 8:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Paul: If I say, "I might fly to America tomorrow" I have made a false statement (since I'm already in America), but "I might not fly to America tomorrow" is true because of that physical impossibility.
Tom: Actually, "I might not fly to America tomorrow" is false on account of that physical impossibility. Why? Because what IS true is "I WILL NOT fly to America tomorrow," and it cannot be true BOTH that you "will definitely not fly to America tomorrow" and that you "might not fly to America tomorrow" (because, remember, "I might not fly" implies "I might fly." Might's and might not's share the same truth value, even if you're right that they "lean" in different directions depending on the context).
Gotta run to go camping. Can't say more for now...oh, except to say that you're right on the Israel thing. I mean, if one attaches no temporal indicator at all to "Israel will enter the land" then this could be true AND "Israel will not enter the land on this try" could be true. When we use the logical "x will do y" stuff we mean (even if we don't say it, which we should) "x will do y in situation z" (sit. z being the specific circumstances, temporal and whatnot, that define x's doing y).
Tom 
Edited by - TGB on 05/31/2003 02:02:03 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 5/31/2003 6:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
I suppose it would be more clear to state what is correct than using short cuts that can add to confusion for the average person.
BTW, thanks for taking the time to show how my flying example was in error.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/2/2003 9:41 AM (GMT -6) | | This may be oversimplistic, but the truth value of a "might" or "might not" statement is impossible to empirically verify, whereas a "will" or "will not" statement is.
If you say, I might get ice cream with my kids tonight, and tomorrow I find out you did not, were you lying? I have no way to verify what youre intent was when you made the statement. It could be a lie if your intent was absolutely NOT to get ice cream, but you qualified it by saying "might" in order to not sound so harsh.
Whereas if you say, I will get ice cream tonight, and don't, you have then lied.
See the diff? Semantics, a lot of it is.
Sure GOd knows your intent, so God knows the "Truth functionality' of "might " or "might not" - but of what purpose is it to humans? | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/2/2003 12:35 PM (GMT -6) | | There is also the distinct possibility that one says, "I will get ice cream tonight," but then is involved in an auto accident while on the way to Baskin Robbins, and ends up spending the evening in the emergency room (or possibly even the morgue). In such a case, the person also did not lie, for they truly intended to go to the ice cream parlor. This is one example why it seems to me we must always keep motives/intentions in mind in considerations of right and wrong. (Such as lying or telling the truth). Intention is by definition implied in the word, "will."
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 06/02/2003 5:36:00 PM
Edited by - John Earp on 06/02/2003 5:38:04 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/2/2003 6:48 PM (GMT -6) | | RD: This may be oversimplistic, but the truth value of a "might" or "might not" statement is impossible to empirically verify, whereas a "will" or "will not" statement is.
Tom: Verify it when? When the statement is made (i.e., before the event occurs or not), or after the events occurs or not?
First, from the get-go I've never claimed WE are omniscient but that only GOD is. So though we may have trouble verifying the truth-value of propositions, God doesn't.
Secondly, if you can NOW affirm the truth-value of a "will" (say, "x will do y in z") then you have symultaneously affirmed that "x might/might no do y in z" is false.
RD: If you say, I might get ice cream with my kids tonight, and tomorrow I find out you did not, were you lying?
Tom: No. Thirdly, "Might" permits "might not" and both together posit the contingency of your eating ice-cream. If you say "I might not get ice-cream" but do get some, you haven't lied. Nor are you lying if you say "I might get ice-cream" but do not get any.
RD: I have no way to verify what you're intent was when you made the statement. It could be a lie if your intent was absolutely NOT to get ice cream, but you qualified it by saying "might" in order to not sound so harsh.
Tom: This only MAY be the case. It doesn't falsify all "might-counterfactuals." I may honestly intend to get ice-cream, believe that nothing will prevent me, but subsequently be unexpectedly prevented by bad traffic. Again, we're not the omniscient ones, God is. He knows the present truth-value of all future tense propositions.
RD: Whereas if you say, I will get ice cream tonight, and don't, you have then lied.
Tom: Lied? I don't think so. If I honestly intend to get ice-cream, and honestly believe the circumstances will not prevent me, then I can say "I will get ice-cream" but be unexpectedly prevented. In this case I did not lie. I was mistaken. But I didn't "lie." Here intention, even in the eyes of the law, means everything.
Now, what's even more interesting for you, Gina, is what to do when the omniscient God says "x will happen" and x doesn't get ice-cream. Is God lying? You ought to asnwer "yes." why don't you accuse God of lying in all the biblical instances of his saying something "will" happen when it doesn't happen?
RD: Sure GOd knows your intent, so God knows the "Truth functionality' of "might " or "might not" - but of what purpose is it to humans?
Tom: So are you conceding that there exist some true might's which God knows?
Tom
Edited by - TGB on 06/02/2003 11:53:55 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/2/2003 7:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Paul-
Nice passages. So James warns people who are "too certain of themselves" and, perhaps, of their control over things. A more humble approach to things. Yes.
I was also thinking of how we use "might" to express ignorance in which of the three future tense propositions ("will," "would," and "might") describing an event IS true. This is the epistemological category. For example: It can be true that "It is now determined which of either x or y will certainly happen tomorrow." Not both. Not neither. Just one. And which one is already certain. But I don't know which "will" happen. I know that there is a true "will happen" and a true "will not" happen here, but I don't know whether x will and y will not, or whether x will not and y will. So what do I do? I use MIGHT. I say "x might happen" (or "might not happen") or "y might happen (or "might not happen"). See? We use "might" this way to express OUR ignorance about certain events. But we speak this way because we DON'T know the truth. This must be distinguished from propositions we believe express the truth about the ontological status of future events in the present. I think this might be what is short-circuiting the square of opposites also.
Think ONTOLOGICAL, not EPISTEMOLOGICAL.
OK, OK, I know. I'm making ya all sick of this subject. I'll give it a rest.
Tom
Edited by - TGB on 06/03/2003 09:35:08 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 6/2/2003 7:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
In light of this,
James 4.13 Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:
14 Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. {It…: or, For it is}
15 For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.
wouldn't it seem there has been too much concentration on what we say? Humanly speaking, we have no idea if we "will" do anything in the future and all statements should be "might"/"might not", or "if the Lord will", instead. There is no assurance of the future for us to make that kind assertion.
Luke 12.18 And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods.
19 And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.
20 But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/3/2003 4:38 AM (GMT -6) | | OK, I spoke incorrectly. What I meant was, if I say "I WILL get Ice cream tonite" and I do not, that statement is a false statement. (not necessarily a lie, it could be, but also may not be). But us as humans can verify the veracity of that statement- in a time line though - the word "tonite" qualifies it. If I do not get it by tonite, then the statement is false.
God knows the veracity of a statement at any given time - so when the person says "I I WILL get ice cream tonite" - he can knows whether it will happen or not, so he knows the veracity of the statement.
On the other hand, if I say "I MIGHT get ice cream"- God alone (and the person making the statement) knows the intent. The truth or falsity of that statement when made depends on the intent. If I say that with absolutely NO intention of doing it, then it is a false statement. If I say it with the intention of doing it, but yet do not get to do it, it is a true statement b/c of what I meant at the time the statement was made. God would know that - but like I said, an outside observer human can't tell the veracity of the statement in most instances. In some instances, yes, I could tell the veracity of it, for example, if you said it while I knew you were laid up in the hospital paralyzed, I would know it was a false statement.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/3/2003 4:38 AM (GMT -6) | | I accidentally erased the post immediately preceding Paul's and posted something else over it. I thought I was "responding" but I was "correcting."
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/3/2003 4:43 AM (GMT -6) | | To continue - the truth or falsity of a "might" statement is not dependent on the outcome of what actually occurs. Whereas the truth or falsity of a "will" statement does indeed depend on what actaully occurs - a quick example:
Saying: "i will go to the movies tonight." Alas, you do go to the movies. The statement is true.
Saying: "i might go to the movies tonite." However, you have absolutely NO intention of going. Att he last second you are physically dragged into the theater against your will. So actually you are at the movies. However, the statement you made was false, b/c at the time you had no intention of going to the movies. The truth or falsity of that statement has nothing to do with what actually happens. God knows that, but we as humans in most instances cannot know that, so it is pretty fruitless discussing. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 6/3/2003 5:26 AM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt
quote:
To continue - the truth or falsity of a "might" statement is not dependent on the outcome of what actually occurs. Whereas the truth or falsity of a "will" statement does indeed depend on what actaully occurs
Yep. Whether it happens or not, a "might" was still true. But the opposite of "might" is not "might not" ("might" == "might not") but "will"/"will not". "might" is indefinite and "will"/"will not" are definite. If a proposition is definite, it is NOT indefinite. If a proposition is indefinite, it is NOT definite. I think this is what was confusing me. Among many other things.
Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/3/2003 8:06 AM (GMT -6) | | RD: To continue - the truth or falsity of a "might" statement is not dependent on the outcome of what actually occurs.
Tom: True. But then again neither does the truth-value of “will’s” and “would’s” depend on the outcome. If “wills” and “woulds” are ever true they’re true before the events unfold. The events haven’t even happened. So they can’t depend “on the events” for their truth-value. Their being true may depend upon present circumstances, or upon God’s will.
But, Gina, are you suggesting that because this is true that “mights” are not EVER true?
RD: Whereas the truth or falsity of a "will" statement does indeed depend on what actaully occurs…
Tom: This isn’t quite accurate either. No future tense proposition depends ON THE EVENT for its truth-value. Of course, if event x does NOT occur, then it’s obvious that “x will happen” was not true. But it’s not happening doesn’t MAKE “x will happen” false. "x will happen" was false before x didn’t happen.
RD: Saying: "i will go to the movies tonight." Alas, you do go to the movies. The statement is true.
Tom: Hey, you’re good at this!
RD: Saying: "i might go to the movies tonite." However, you have absolutely NO intention of going. At the last second you are physically dragged into the theater against your will. So actually you are at the movies. However, the statement you made was false, b/c at the time you had no intention of going to the movies. The truth or falsity of that statement has nothing to do with what actually happens.
Tom: OK, make sure you keep in mind the difference between epistemological and ontological categories. And also keep in mind that we often use “might” to express our ignorance about the truth of future events.
If you intend NOT to go to the movies but say “I may go to the movies,” you’ve lied, but that does not necessarily make the statement “I may go to the moves” false. It only means that you were not truthful about some aspect of PRESENT reality (namely, your intentions). Your statement may or may not be an accurate representation of the FUTURE.
If someone drags you to the movies against your will, then so be it. We’re talking of course about acts of free will.
RD: God knows that, but we as humans in most instances cannot know that, so it is pretty fruitless discussing.
Tom: It’s fruitless to think WE can have God’s knowledge about all future tense propositions. We sometimes are mistaken in believing an event to be contingent, or certain, or whatever. But GOD knows. But it’s NOT at all fruitless to discuss what sort of propositions may be believed by God to be TRUE, for our freedom hangs on it.
So, WE may not know whether “x will” or “x might” do y in z is the case before x does y, but we agree that these cannot BOTH be true (since one describes a non-contingent event and the other describes a contingent event). What I wanna know from you Gina, is whether or not you think “mights” can EVER be true. Does God know "mights"? There's nothing in itself incoherent about might's being true, and God expresses his believe in might's in the Bible. So, does God ever know "x might do y in z" as TRUE?
Tom
Edited by - TGB on 06/03/2003 1:32:29 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/3/2003 8:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey all-
I wanna correct something in the syllogism I earlier posted:
Let it be given that omniscience means: God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods.
P1 God is omniscient
P2 The principal of bivalence is universally true.
P3 God knows the truth-value of all propositions (from 1 and 2)
P4 Propositions about the future are of three sorts:
“X will do Y”
“X would do Y”
“X might do Y”
P5 No two of these types of propositions may share the same truth-value (from 2)
P6 There are some true propositions of the type “X might do Y” (might-counterfactuals) P7 God knows the future partly as what “might” or “might not” be (from 3, 4, 5, and 6)
P5 is not true. It follows that if “might” is true, then both “will” and “would” are false. So two may share the same truth-value provided these two are false. But no two may be simultaneously TRUE. So:
New P5: No two of these types of propositions may be simultaneously true.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/3/2003 10:09 AM (GMT -6) | | I guess what seems to make sense to me is the Aristotlean thought that the Principle of Bivalence does not hold when applied to propositions about future contingents.
If a proposition about the future is true, it is true immutably and inevitably true, since no instant can be found when it would be false. Here's where modal theory comes in: immutability and necessity are the same thing. If something is immutable, it cannot be different from what it is, and so it necessarily is the way it is.
So to me that means a future contingent - "might" statement - is neither true nor false in the sense that we use language - and that the principal of bivalencedoes not apply here.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 6/3/2003 5:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
Are the buildings in Beruit still sporting bullet pock marks like they did when I was there in 1964?
To a more serious question, how do I reveal this to a congregation or do I even need to reveal it? It's almost like we are saying God is open to our prayers and etc., but only because He has predetermined everything on the basis of knowing the truth value of every statement and the outcome of those statements long before they happen.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Christian
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 78
| Posted 6/3/2003 7:53 PM (GMT -6) | | TGB said, "Let it be given that omniscience means: God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods".
If this is omniscience, how does this differ from the traditional view of omniscience and how does it affect your outlook on life vs. the traditional Christian's outlook. In other words, is this different than the traditional view of omniscience? How would you define that view? If it does differ, according to open view, how is this view better? Excuse me to sidetrack some.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/4/2003 12:03 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Christian: TGB said, "Let it be given that omniscience means: God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods".
If this is omniscience, how does this differ from the traditional view of omniscience and how does it affect your outlook on life vs. the traditional Christian's outlook. In other words, is this different than the traditional view of omniscience? How would you define that view? If it does differ, according to open view, how is this view better? Excuse me to sidetrack some.
Hi Christian-
This IS the traditional definition of omniscience. Open theism doesn’t define “omniscience” differently than the traditional view. The definition I posted is a boiled down version of Bill Craig’s (no friend of open theism). I took the traditional definition and worked out the open view on that basis.
Paul: To a more serious question, how do I reveal this to a congregation or do I even need to reveal it? It's almost like we are saying God is open to our prayers and etc., but only because He has predetermined everything on the basis of knowing the truth value of every statement and the outcome of those statements long before they happen.
Tom: I think most people already believe that they’re free to do other than they do and so are morally responsible for their actions and that when they say “I might…” they also mean “I might not…,” so there’s no need to convince people of this. If they also believe God possesses exhaustively definite foreknowledge, then they don’t see (because they haven’t thought about it) or don’t believe that EDF is incompatible with libertarian free will. No need to make getting them to see this incompatibility a central passion of your life and ministry. Living responsibly is what matters, and they already do that. But in the course of relating to people and discussing faith, etc., if somebody comes to see the incompatibility of EDF and creaturely freedom, then you’ll want to help them in choosing either to reject EDF and maintain self-determining free will, or maintain EDF and reject self-determining free will.
But I’m confused, Paul. It doesn’t seem to me that we’re saying that God “predetermines everything” on the basis of knowing the truth-value of all future tense propositions. If “might’s” are ever true, then one could NOT predetermine the outcome. You can’t predetermine the outcome of “x might do y in z” on the basis of it’s being true that “x might do y in z.” Just the contrary: It’s being true that “x might do y in z” shows that everything has not been predetermined, including our prayers. Care to clarify?
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 6/4/2003 7:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
Remember the 12 spies? It was a x "might/might not" do y situation at z1 that changed to a "will not" at z2 and changed again to a "will" at z3 and z4. It seems that there was a predetermined course for Israel that progressed all the way from the "might/might not" to the "will", even though there was a 40 year interlude between "might/might not" and "will". Do we think there was ever a doubt that Israel would enter the promise land? God said they were going to the promise land, either the easy way or the hard way, but they were going. Exodus 23.20 Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Do you think wandering in the wilderness was a spur of the moment decision? After the "vote" that agreed with the 10 spies (z2) there was a change of heart (z3) where "will not" changed to "will" Numbers 14.40 And they rose up early in the morning, and gat them up into the top of the mountain, saying, Lo, we be here, and will go up unto the place which the LORD hath promised: for we have sinned. Even after singing "What a Difference a Day Makes" (do you mine allowing me a little humor?) the Amalekites "discomfited them, even unto Hormah". It certainly looks like z4, after 40 years in the wilderness, was the intended time in God's plan for Israel to enter, not z3.
So, does God predetermine events? Obviously He does and they take place according to His schedule.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Christian
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 78
| Posted 6/4/2003 7:07 PM (GMT -6) | | HOw does OV interpret these two verses (as well as the ones Paul shared)?
"A man's steps are directed by the LORD. How then can anyone
understand his own way?" Proverbs 20:24
"In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines
his steps." Proverbs 16:9
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/5/2003 9:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Paul: Remember the 12 spies?
Tom: The 12 Jewish spies of the Old Testament, or the spies who have been watching this site for 2 ½ years? 
Paul: It seems that there was a predetermined course for Israel that progressed all the way from the "might/might not" to the "will"…
Tom: Again, it seems to me that if, as you say, both the ‘course’ AND the ‘schedule’ are predetermined, then there IS no “might/might not” to speak of as far as God is concerned, period. All is “will” and “will not” from God’s point of view, in which case our “might’s” are just ignorance. True “might’s” (viz., might’s which are believed by God to be “might’s”) must be contingent, which is the same as saying they are NOT predetermined.
Paul: Do we think there was ever a doubt that Israel would enter the promise land?
Tom: THAT Israel, the people, would enter the land is not in doubt. I think God was committed to bring Abraham’s seed into the land. What is in doubt, or rather what is less than certain, are WHICH generation will enter, WHEN they will enter, and under WHAT circumstances (from the south, via Jordan, or some other way) they will enter.
Paul: Do you think wandering in the wilderness was a spur of the moment decision?
Tom: I think it was not eternally predetermined that they NOT enter then and die in the wilderness. "Spur of the moment"? Sounds rather "impetuous" to me and I don't think God is impetuous. I think God wanted to move them on in but that the faithless report of the ten influenced the people to forsake God and they blew their opportunity. I don’t think this was God’s plan or intention. The wilderness is plan B.
Paul: After the "vote" that agreed with the 10 spies (z2) there was a change of heart (z3) where "will not" changed to "will" Numbers 14.40 And they rose up early in the morning, and gat them up into the top of the mountain, saying, Lo, we be here, and will go up unto the place which the LORD hath promised: for we have sinned.
Tom: Their change of heart came too late. They realized they blew it and repented, but God didn’t change his mind about the consequences of their faithless response to the ten spies. So they’re renewed “will” reflects their own “intention,” and not the truth of the situation as God saw it.
Paul: So, does God predetermine events? Obviously He does and they take place according to His schedule.
Tom: Sure God predetermines events. But if he predetermines all events and the schedule of their occurence, then there are not "might's" for God. And if there are no "might's" for God, guess what? Right. There are no "might's" for you and me.
Sometimes God predetermines THAT an event (as an event) will occur without determining the schedule, the exact when and how it will occur. God can determine that Israel will “at some point” make it in to the land without determining that they NOT make it on their first opportunity and only make it in 40 years later. My feeling is that if the entrance of the second generation was just as conditional as that of the first. Had they screwed up royally on the banks of the Jordan they could have found themselves trekking around the desert for another forty years. Who knows? Heck, God was ready to destroy them ALL before the spies were ever sent in. Had THAT occurred (and open theism argues it was God’s intention to destroy them until Moses interceded) then there would be no spies, no forty years, no “predetermined” schedule to speak of.
God may also sometimes determine an event AND the specific time and manner in which it’s fulfilled. There’s room for both. Given the narrative of Numbers, I’m inclined to think God is predetermined and committed to getting Israel into the land and that he preferred they enter when they first had the opportunity. But exactly when, how, and which generation of Israelites will make it is entirely open.
Tom
Edited by - TGB on 06/05/2003 2:44:19 PM | | Back to Top | | |
| 400 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:34 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|