 |
| 
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 1/21/2003 7:16 AM (GMT -6) |   | SIM: Ron, my use of Acts 2:23 is to point to the fact that this verse, in one sentence, embraces BOTH God's eternal knowing ("This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge;") AND Man's responsibility ("and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross".)
Ron: What authorizes the statement "God's eternal knowing", Jesus was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world? Couldn't God respond to the fall of man in love and predict a messiah at that point and because he is sovereign, be able to send the messiah in the fullness of time? Why must it be an eternal knowing?
Sim:Acts 2:23 This verse clearly communicates that the first century believer's embraced both of these seeming "contradictions."
Ron:This doesn't prove that at all. Because it is in Acts does not prove the first century readers or listeners had a view of God like the classical view of today. It proves that what God says he will do he is certainly able to cause it to happen, but it doesn't prove any eternal knowing beforehand. The term " God's eternal knowing" comes from the theological writings and perspectives of the classical view of which much is based on philosophical reasonings, as your reply indicated and not wholly from biblical revelation.
Ron Sirkel | | Back to Top | | |
 |
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 1/21/2003 8:12 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
SIM: Ron, my use of Acts 2:23 is to point to the fact that this verse, in one sentence, embraces BOTH God's eternal knowing ("This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge;") AND Man's responsibility ("and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross".)
Ron: What authorizes the statement "God's eternal knowing", Jesus was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world? Couldn't God respond to the fall of man in love and predict a messiah at that point and because he is sovereign, be able to send the messiah in the fullness of time? Why must it be an eternal knowing?
SIM: OK. One thing at a time: RE: God's knowing: Logically, for God to state a "future event" (future only from our standpoint), He must control events in order for that "future event" to be able to take place. (I believe that OT even believes that God SOMETIMES controls events.) Agree? In order for Jesus to have been born amongst a people like the Jews, God's hand HAD to be on the first "Hebrew", which was Abraham, then Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, and the ancestors of Jesus, all the way to the parents of Jesus. Agree? Logically, we cannot get around the FACT that God controlled the Jewish people's very lives, which you see all the way through the Books of Moses. You must agree that any small detail could have changed the course of history throughout the centuries between Abraham and Jesus. Without God's omniscient control, logically, God COULD NOT HAVE ORDAINED JESUS TO HAVE BEEN THE LAMB SLAIN FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD. The timing and location of Jesus' birth was, I believe, also chosen, as Judea, at the time of Jesus' birth was literally, the CROSSROADS OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD. And the Roman occupation and control of Judea figured into the prophecies and events of Jesus' life.
Can we agree with the above statements?
(You Bible Scholars could help me with this and add much meat to the above comments concerning prophecy.)
(to be continued)
SIM
"Looking for God--or Heaven--by exploring space is like reading or seeing all Shakespeare's plays in the hope that you will find Shakespeare as one of the characters..."
C. S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 1/21/2003 4:17 PM (GMT -6) | | SIM: OK. One thing at a time: RE: God's knowing: Logically, for God to state a "future event" (future only from our standpoint), He must control events in order for that "future event" to be able to take place. (I believe that OT even believes that God SOMETIMES controls events.) Agree?
Ron:An alternative is possible. Instead of this exhaustive control from a timeless place, a miracle at just the right time could give the effect he wanted without exhaustivley controlling everyone and everything. The story says he manifests in time for his purposes and for his people. I think if you just read the gospel narrative and let the Holy Spirit teach instead of overlaying everything with a philosophical definition of omniscience and omnipotence we could begin to agree.
Sim:In order for Jesus to have been born amongst a people like the Jews, God's hand HAD to be on the first "Hebrew", which was Abraham, then Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, and the ancestors of Jesus, all the way to the parents of Jesus. Agree? Logically, we cannot get around the FACT that God controlled the Jewish people's very lives, which you see all the way through the Books of Moses. You must agree that any small detail could have changed the course of history throughout the centuries between Abraham and Jesus.
Ron: God was in covenant with Abraham and the Jewish people through which they interacted and promised. God is faithful even if man isn't. That is a relationship they had. The gentiles didn't have that relationship. Are you saying God was controlling every aspect of every gentiles life during the same period of time? Are you trying to defend a discipline of logical thought or faith in the word of God?
Sim:Without God's omniscient control, logically, God COULD NOT HAVE ORDAINED JESUS TO HAVE BEEN THE LAMB SLAIN FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.
Ron: If you mean exhaustive control, no I don't agree. None of this exhaustive foreknowledge theory makes sense, logically, when you read the bible. A sovereign God can say what he will do and has the power to do it without having to exhaustively control everything.
Isn't this fun?
Ron Sirkel | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/22/2003 4:09 AM (GMT -6) | | I agree- this IS fun. But I have to stand up for SIM here ( I know we are in the minority...)There are logical points to the OV but I think that most evidence points against it, not only Biblical, but logical and scientific.
Anything can be argued from the Bible. We have to concede that there are verses which seem to support the OV , and also verses which support the traditional view. In light of the entire message of the Bible, I think the traditional view holds the most weight, as do the vast majority of theologians in all monotheist religions since the beginning.
To me, and to many people, the idea of a God in control, controlling all things, is not bad, but rather, comforting. It means that everything happens for a reason. there is no room for regret. There is assurance that things are going exactly as divinely planned. In fact, the GOd of the OV is unreliable to me. It scares me, I think atheism is more appealing than a God who really has no plan, b/c the plan has to be altered repeatedly depending on the choices of people. I don't see how we can say that "God makes no mistakes" regarding disabled children who are born, for example, if God did not foresee and think it in his divine wisdom that he would allow that person to be born. Maybe He does make mistakes, in that case, he is not worthy of worship. How can we say, "God loves you and Has a wonderful plan for your life?" Maybe he doesn't have a plan for you. Maybe he doesn't know yet whether he does or not. Where does that leave you? And yes, maybe the plan is that you ARE going to suffer and die earlier than you deserved. The only comfort I could offer a family who has lost a child would be to say that God knew what he was doing. WE are not omnisicient and so we do not know and do not understand. But we can trust that God makes no mistakes.
Logically- I believe that knowledge of the future IS knowledge, and that God, the being which no greater can be conceived, encompasses complete and perfect knowledge. In "God, Freedom and Evil," Plantinga addressed those who thought that human freedom was incompatible with omniscience. Although I am not sure I believe in human freedom, his argument made sense. If one was to ask God today, what will be the day that the first black man is president of the U.S., he surely could state that. Does that mean that there is no choice in the matter? The argument was no, b/c God saw what WOULD happen, but did not force it to happen. So if an alternative would happen, God would have stated that.
Scientifically - I won't pretend to know much about the theory of relativity, but if it is true, theoretically future time travel is possible if we could travel faster than the speed of light. God can do that, obviously.
I've had a determinist argue to me, think about what you did yesterday. For a mundane example, say you went to McDonald's and had a Big Mac. Later,you regretted that and wished you would have had a salad. If you could go back in time to that exact moment, would you have chosen the salad instead? No- you would have had the exact same thing. Every factor that made you decide on the Big Mac would have still been there, and there is no reason that you would have reacted any differently to those factors than what you actually did. Of course, you might say, why would God be in control of something so silly? I was just using a simple example to show that God is the driving impetus behind everything in the universe, and that the factors that direct us to choose one way or another are ultimately controlled by Him.
Anyway, I just wanted to state that SIM is right on in my opinion!!
"I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of
doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not
even mine."
Bertrand Russell | | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 1/22/2003 7:10 AM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt
Thank you for the passionate post. I can see you have dealt with this often in your life. I applaud your zeal and sincere expressions. But I would like to reply to your main position and maybe one other.
ReasonableDoubt: (First)I don't see how we can say that "God makes no mistakes" regarding disabled children who are born, for example, if God did not foresee and think it in his divine wisdom that he would allow that person to be born.
(Second) I was just using a simple example to show that God is the driving impetus behind everything in the universe, and that the factors that direct us to choose one way or another are ultimately controlled by Him.
Ron: (First) I believe God created Adam and Eve everyone else are not a creation but progeny. Adam and Eve were created good (which was in God's plan to make man after his own image ect) but they disobeyed God and sin entered into the world and death by sin (not God's eternal purpose). Malfuncions in the genetic code are a result of disobedience, not God's fault or cause. Jeremiah was formed in his mothers womb for a prophetic mission for God. Exclusive sovereign act of God who is in covenant with Israel and does not apply to all people. So your eloquent story of crippled kids does not hold water with me. The cause was original and continued disobedience that allows sin to reign which the gospel of the power of God has dealt with. (Redemption plan to bring the creation back into his eternal purpose, this is real sovereignty and love and omnipotence on display)
(Second) You don't live like you believe, why do you preach it? If you are sick don't you go to the doctor? Why would you fight God's will with such actions? If your belief was true and practiced then I am writing and inspired by God as much as you, why contest my God ordained words? Why fight the good fight of faith? Who are you fighting against, if God is controlling exhaustively. Your gospel sir is, "go with the flow" in view of what you have said. How can you minister the blood bought power and life Jesus has purchased for us? You don't, you just say God knows best, what a surrender to the popular Christian culture. Again I must say your language is full of cultural compromise which is acceptable amongst your own but not bible based. And yes you can by using text out of context make it appear the bible teaches your own speciality. But we should not compromise the words of Jesus for any socially acceptable Christianity. He said if you love me keep my words. Measure your statements by the words and acts of Jesus. Your dialogue is persuasive, but not life changing. I do respect your freedom to speak your opinion and thank you for having the courage to state it on this discussion board. The peace of God be with you.
Ron Sirkel | | Back to Top | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 1/22/2003 7:35 AM (GMT -6) | | RE: Reasonable Doubt's Post: It is interesting that a confirmed "atheistic" scientist agrees with the Classic view of God's nature being timeless, uncaused, simple, independent, necessary and transcendent and causes spacetime's beginning to exist.
Quentin Smith says: "My agreement with theism runs deeper: I agree that there is a cause of spacetime’s beginning to exist. Further, I agree with many theists that a simple being caused space- time, where “simple” means here “has no parts.” (Note that “simplicity” is used in many different senses and that I later use it in a different sense, a sense where “simplicity” expresses a property of hypotheses, not of concrete particulars.) I also agree with some theists, such as Brian Leftow, that the cause of spacetime exists timelessly. And I agree with theists that the cause of spacetime is essentially uncaused and exists a se (i.e., is not dependent upon any concrete object). And I agree with Plantinga and most other contemporary analytic theists that the cause of spacetime has a metaphysically necessary existence. I also share the view of these theists that this metaphysically necessary being contingently causes spacetime to exist (such that this necessary being exists in some merely possible worlds where it does not cause spacetime). I further agree with theists that the act of causation is a case of singularist causation that relates a necessary being to a contingent being, spacetime. Moreover, I agree with theists that the cause of spacetime is transcendent, at least in the sense explicated in this passage from Plantinga: “Perhaps we can also give an explanation of what it is for a being to be transcendent: such a being transcends the created universe; and a being transcends the created universe if it is not identical with any being in that universe (if it is not created) and if it depends on nothing at all for its existence.” Note that a being is transcendent, by this definition, only if it transcends the created universe, such that a being can possess the property of being transcendent only in the possible worlds where there is a created universe. Thus, the property of being transcendent is possessed contingently by the necessary being that causes spacetime, but it can be possessed by a being that does not cause spacetime, such as an abstract object, assuming abstract objects do not depend on God for their existence.
SIM
"Looking for God--or Heaven--by exploring space is like reading or seeing all Shakespeare's plays in the hope that you will find Shakespeare as one of the characters..."
C. S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/22/2003 8:37 AM (GMT -6) | | "Again I must say your language is full of cultural compromise which is acceptable amongst your own but not bible based."
What the heck? what are you talking about? So the traditional view of God now is a cultural compromise. I really can't follow what you are saying. It's really funny that the traditional view people on this post are almost treated like atheists. I know it is an OV site, but the discussion board is for all, and i think you're losing sight of the fact that in much of evangelical theology, the OV is considered WAY out of the mainstream, and almost heretical. I wouldn't go that far, b/c I am not dogmatic, but when I am trying to show, albeit in a very limited way, that it is logical to believe in the traditional view, please don't say that that is "cultural compromise."
I'd say, why don't you ask some Reformed theologians why they go to the doctor. They could answer much better than I. My first thought is that I go to the doctor because God uses the doctors to help us. Perhaps it is GOd's will for me to be sick, and also God's will for me to go to the doctor and get medication. I don't see where the conflict is.
"I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of
doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not
even mine."
Bertrand Russell | | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 1/22/2003 11:09 AM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt
What the heck? what are you talking about? So the traditional view of God now is a cultural compromise. I really can't follow what you are saying. It's really funny that the traditional view people on this post are almost treated like atheists. I know it is an OV site, but the discussion board is for all, and i think you're losing sight of the fact that in much of evangelical theology, the OV is considered WAY out of the mainstream, and almost heretical.
Ron: Hey, I'm sorry, I didn't know you were an agnostic. No wonder you couldn't understand my post. But to answer your question, what are you talking about? In my view, even though your great post was persuasive, it was persuasive to the mainstream culture but upon comparison to the biblical record mainstream has digressed from the new testament view of God's miracles, healing, saving power, in an interpersonal relationship with Jesus Christ. So instead of saying to the sick and oppressed, lets believe God's word and resist the devil and expect healing they settle with worldly sentimentalism and don't contend for the faith. Now if ones mindset is secular then spiritual things are foolish to them. One must be spiritual to understand spiritual things. I am not trying to condemn you just stating biblical truths. The grace and mercy of God be with you.
Ron Sirkel | | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 1/22/2003 12:03 PM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt
I apologize,I should have said in my previous post "Your gospel Ms ReasonableDoubt is...instead of sir. Also, I don't really know if you are agnostic or not, so I shouldn't have said that. So what are you or are you searching?
Ron Sirkel | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/22/2003 4:27 PM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt: It's really funny that the traditional view people on this post are almost treated like atheists. I know it is an OV site, but the discussion board is for all...
Tom: I certainly hope you haven't been made to feel like an atheist. You're quite right; the site IS for everyone! I for one want to say how glad I am that a few non-OVers have showed up. Don't tell anyone, but if it's just us OVers talking things tend to get a little boring after a while! So I'm glad you're here.
I am happy to see that the original question put to this thread by Piper ("Are open theists more susceptible to idolatry?") has been unanimously answered in the negative. I think determinism can be held to 'logically' and I have good fellowship, great fellowship in fact, with determinists, but it bothers me when determinists claim that non-determinists necessarily have a harder time living lives that honor God than they do. Sometimes open theists do this in the opposite direction too, I know. It's not right either way. The whole purpose of discussing and challenging one another's views is to encourage a deeper love for God and others in one another.
SIM, I still haven't seen a cogent reply from you on my comments (in other threads) about the uselessness of timeless knowledge, the sort of simple-foreknowledge you argue for. You put an awful lot of confidence in the explanatory usefulness of believing God is timeless and that he knows all of history timelessly. But you have yet to give an example of such. Again, such knowledge would be providentially useless. Whatever the reciprocal relationship might be between God's actions and our own, the theory of timeless knowledge does nothing whatsoever to explain it. Let's have a clear example of God making providential use of some timelessly known event shall we? If not, then let's consider whether or not there is anything a God with timelessness knowledge can do that an omniscient temporal God cannot also do. This won't make you an open theists. There are other possibilities you might consider if the open view isn't an option. But at least you will have abandoned a view of God's knowledge of and interaction with the world that offers no help in explaining anything.
I have found that those who hold to the timeless simple-(fore)knowledge do so becasue of the perceived providential advantage they believe it gives God and the perceived basis for trust that believing God possesses this sort of knowledge gives them. I never suggest that people let go of what they honestly believe is the basis of their trust in God. But if you think it through, over time you might come to see the advantage of redefining that basis of trust.
Just some thoughts,
Tom
Love never ends
Edited by - TGB on 01/22/2003 9:30:41 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 1/22/2003 6:00 PM (GMT -6) | | I too wish to weigh in a thank SIM and Reasonabledoubt for staying in dialogue on this sight. And I'm also thankful for Trosie, rsirkel, Trosie and TGB for giving astuate openness responses.
Right now, I only have time for one comment. To concede that the future is partly open is NOT to deny that "God has a plan for your life." Its simply to deny that the "plan" HAS to come to pass. It's fulfillment partly depends on our response. When we blow plan A, he offers us plan B. and so on....
Got to go...
in his love
Greg
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/23/2003 1:09 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
GregBoyd
Posted - 01/22/2003 : 11:00:06 PM
-------------------------------------
I too wish to weigh in a thank SIM and Reasonabledoubt for staying in dialogue on this sight. And I'm also thankful for Trosie, rsirkel, Trosie and TGB for giving astuate openness responses.
Right now, I only have time for one comment. To concede that the future is partly open is NOT to deny that "God has a plan for your life." Its simply to deny that the "plan" HAS to come to pass. It's fulfillment partly depends on our response. When we blow plan A, he offers us plan B. and so on....
Got to go...
in his love
Greg
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6
Good, Doc.
And perhaps SIM would then build on what you said by suggesting that God, in his "Eternity" has a "Purpose" (for lack of another word here) for His Creation of Time and Space, in which Plan-A and Plan-B, etc. are all subsets. And plan-A and Plan-B, etc. must be understood within that Purpose in order to be properly understood; even in the first place.
Shades of Godel.
Al
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 01/23/2003 06:12:19 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/23/2003 4:10 AM (GMT -6) | | No, I am not an atheist or agnostic. I am a Christian. I attended Wheaton College for undergrad, my dad is a minister, and I read "Christianity Today." Is that good enough? Just kidding...
I am sympathetic, though, to many views. I have done a lot of researching and believe that many atheistic arguments have not been answered to my satisfaction. But that really doesn't have anything to do with the topic of OV. I was commenting that I thought that non-OV'ers on this board were getting attacked as though they were atheists.
My view is, I do not know the answers. I like to argue about them. If I espouse one side, I am competely open to others. I don't question that OV'ers are Christians. I believe that. But I don't think I can subscribe to the OV, for all the reasons i've stated.
About Doc saying that God does have a plan, but it may be Plan A or Plan B, etc. I see and understand the point, but I don't buy it.
"lets believe God's word and resist the devil and expect healing they settle with worldly sentimentalism and don't contend for the faith" - this statement, if you are referring to Reformed adherents, is really pretty ignorant. John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, Dwight Moody, and many others all contended for the faith even though they believed NOT ONLY in the traditional omniscient God, but ALSO in God's control and election, etc.
The original point of this post, about idolatry, I agree- OV'ers are no more idolatrous than anyone else. I also think that OV'ers can also settle for worldly sentimentalism and not contend for the faith. That broad statement could describe people who adhere to any number of beliefs about the nature of God.
"I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of
doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not
even mine."
Bertrand Russell | | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 1/23/2003 4:42 AM (GMT -6) | | This might sound petty but I just appreciated that the Doc wrote quote:
And I'm also thankful for Trosie, rsirkel, Trosie and TGB for giving astuate openness responses
Thank you, Doc.
Ron Sirkel wrote quote:
Trosie, Do you see that in saying the word "future", we are really misapplying it to God because being "Beyond Time", He is not looking toward the future, BUT AT THE FUTURE from His Eternal Present.
What I was saying is that God is looking AT THE FUTURE with ALL the possible outcomes that may be. He CHOOSES to be "in time" so to speak with us in that we are FREE to make choices. The bible is filled with God regretting things and saying if/then. This sounds like God has chosen to be "in time" while knowing ALL the possible outcomes.
What I still don't understand (perhaps I'm missing something or am slow) but I don't understand how people can want to believe that God knows from all eternity who will accept him and who will not. I don't understand God creating a person KNOWING FOR CERTAIN that this person will make choices and in the end wind up in hell. This doesn't compute for me. BUT, if God knows that there is a possibility of the person not winding up in hell than it would be worth the risk and this to me is love (kind of like having children)
Does this make sense?
trosie
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/23/2003 5:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Trosie, I'd say read some R.C. Sproul. He addresses this stuff very well from the reformed perspective.
"I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of
doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not
even mine."
Bertrand Russell | | Back to Top | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 1/23/2003 6:09 AM (GMT -6) | | (Ah! I long for DSL! This computer is SO SLOW! The price for living in the foothills.)
TGB: SIM, I still haven't seen a cogent reply from you on my comments (in other threads) about the uselessness of timeless knowledge, the sort of simple-foreknowledge you argue for. You put an awful lot of confidence in the explanatory usefulness of believing God is timeless and that he knows all of history timelessly. But you have yet to give an example of such.
SIM: First: I do not claim to have the total truth in my perspective. In fact, I believe that in the future, I will look back and realize how incomplete my understanding is right now (at least I certainly hope so!)
PLEASE TRY TO UNDERSTAND. My approach to God's nature is first and foremost to know the TRUTH, and not try to figure it out from any pre-assumptions of what God CAN and CANNOT DO within the TRUTH OF HIS NATURE. I am not making light of your desire to figure HOW God can work from a "foreknowledge". I want to understand this too, but only from an initial understanding of WHAT HE IS LIKE.
SECOND: I apologize if I haven't expressed myself clearly enough, but I certainly do think that God can "USE HIS BEYOND TIME EXISTENCE" to influence what happens. In fact, I believe it is what gives Him the knowledge IN ORDER TO DO THIS. I think the OV belief is more accurate than the extreme classical view in its (OV's) stance on God's "hands-off" approach to Man's free will because I do agree that God gives us an awful freedom to mess up His creation.
Norm Geisler puts the logic of denying God's foreknowledge this way:
The alleged impossibility of knowing free acts in advance
1) Whatever is infallibly known in advance must be determined.
2) A freely chosen event cannot be determined by another.
3) therefore, what is infallibly foreknown cannot be freely chosen.
He says that this reasoning is unsound because the second premise is FALSE. There is no contradiction between God knowing for sure (has determined) what will freely occur in the future (is freely chosen). Just because someone could have chosen another way does not mean that God did not know for sure which way he would choose. (Remember, God is not in our timeline looking forward, in my view.)
Now, Tom, I can hear you saying to yourself, "But this doesn't answer my question, "How does God USE this advantage?""
My thoughts,
1) "He first uses it to limit and influence our free will." I realize this is what the OV belief DOES NOT BELIEVE.
2) "He also uses His knowledge to orchestrate past, present and future events to take into consideration what He allows to be freely chosen."
My belief is that when I abide in Him (which is unfortunately not nearly as often as I want), He can use my thoughts, desires, words, and actions to carry out His highest purposes. I know you believe this too from your past posts.
AN EXAMPLE:
(To be continued. I have to meet a trumpet player for a practice session right now!I'll get back to this SOON! I have a personal example I want to use.)
"Looking for God--or Heaven--by exploring space is like reading or seeing all Shakespeare's plays in the hope that you will find Shakespeare as one of the characters..."
C. S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 1/23/2003 8:06 AM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt:
Ron: Thanks for sharing a little of your life and defending your views. I think Reformed theologians and revivalist have a wonder view of atonement, respect for scripture, ect. But some of the doctrines and traditions don't translate into an overcoming life for the believer. So usually that is where I focus, and not necessarily on logic. Like quantum mechanics is not logical,not deterministic, but there it is, I will adjust my thinking to the evidence. So the evidence I will present is the word. Just to let you know my mode of operation. Now to respond to some of your post.
ReasonableDoubt: "lets believe God's word and resist the devil and expect healing they settle with worldly sentimentalism and don't contend for the faith" - this statement, if you are referring to Reformed adherents, is really pretty ignorant. John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, Dwight Moody, and many others all contended for the faith even though they believed NOT ONLY in the traditional omniscient God, but ALSO in God's control and election, etc.
Ron: Yes it would be an ignorant statement if I referred to the list of men of God you mentioned. What I was referring to was your language which you used when speaking of your response to tragedy in peoples lives.
ReasonableDoubt
(I don't see how we can say that "God makes no mistakes" regarding disabled children who are born, for example, if God did not foresee and think it in his divine wisdom that he would allow that person to be born. Maybe He does make mistakes, in that case, he is not worthy of worship. How can we say, "God loves you and Has a wonderful plan for your life?" Maybe he doesn't have a plan for you. Maybe he doesn't know yet whether he does or not. Where does that leave you? And yes, maybe the plan is that you ARE going to suffer and die earlier than you deserved. The only comfort I could offer a family who has lost a child would be to say that God knew what he was doing. WE are not omnisicient and so we do not know and do not understand. But we can trust that God makes no mistakes.)
Ron
That language is a product of your belief system, what you so far believe about God's will for human beings. Why didn't your Christian orientation teach you to be better equipped to minister to needy people? I think it is traditional sentimentalism and lacks the biblical revelation of God's will. Jesus in the gospels said explicitly that the words he said and the works he did were of the Father and not of himself. Jesus reveals to us the will of the invisible God. You've read the gospels, how did Jesus respond to the needy? He instructed his disciples to go in like manner. Your language does not measure up to the tenor of truth in the gospels. Your language reveals the paralyzing effect of your doctrine on faith, believing prayer, and a living God who will heal us today if we will just believe in his faithfullness revealed in his words.
Now to the original intent of the thread.
The Reformed view of God's prescience is essencially based upon a highly developed philosophical definition of omniscience that is applied to the biblical revelation in such a way as to nullify the text in context interpretation of the bible. It makes for a powerless church because of the uncertainity it produces in the minds of believers as to the will of God in their present circumstances. It basically leaves the believer with "what will be will be". Now use logic on the effect of that philosophy of life in a humans life in the middle of this tremendous conflict we find ourselves in. The classical view may be in the majority and have the most tradition but the open view is a restored revelation of the invisible God and in analogy, like quantum mechanics has emerged to give the world a clearer view of the invisible part of the universe and has put determinism on the defense. As to the inference it is idolatry, you can tell a tree by its fruit. If it is not of God it will come to nothing, if it is of God, who can stop it?
Ron Sirkel | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/23/2003 8:12 AM (GMT -6) | | You have your opinion, and I have mine...I don't know that I am not following the Gospel by telling christians who have just lost a child that it is in God's will. How would you comfort them? By saying thatn somehow, this disease took your child, God didn't stop it, b/c he could not stop it, b/c he did not know for sure that it would happen, it was not in his will, and, these things just happen. How is that any better?
"I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of
doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not
even mine."
Bertrand Russell | | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 1/23/2003 9:24 AM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt
I would tell them the enemy got through and took the life of the little one but God rescued its soul. Look, you do what you know to do in the situation in the spirit of Christ. Its the heart that counts but lets don't get bogged down in old tracks.
Matthew 18:14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.
Ron
Ron Sirkel | | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 1/23/2003 9:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Trosie I think Sim wrote that quote.
Ron Sirkel wrote
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trosie, Do you see that in saying the word "future", we are really misapplying it to God because being "Beyond Time", He is not looking toward the future, BUT AT THE FUTURE from His Eternal Present.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Sirkel | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/23/2003 9:39 AM (GMT -6) | | "Why didn't your Christian orientation teach you to be better equipped to minister to needy people? "
This is such a value judgment against me personally based on the fact that our philosophies disagree. I wish we could stick to the issues of logical and scriptural reasons why one view may be more desirable rather than stating that one's own personal view is the best way to minister to needy people. And, implicit in this sarcastic comment is that my Christian orientation is questionable. That's fine if you think that, I don't have to defend my orientation. That's all I"m going to say on the subject. I need to back off this board for awhile b/c it is actually tearing me down rather than edifying me.
"I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of
doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not
even mine."
Bertrand Russell | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/23/2003 10:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Gina-
I want to tell you that I appreciate your presence here. You possess infinite worth to God and are loved unconditionally. I want to share that with ya. This whole deal we're trying to figure out (determined, not determined, theodicy, abused babies, innocent suffering) is NOT easy, for any of us. It's not resolved in any one direction by a post or two or three. Hang in there girl! Take a break if you need one. But COME BACK! 
I've never thought the open view was problem-free. All the possible views out there have difficulties. We look into a glass dimly, even if we look into it as open theists! Go break some dishes and then you'll feel better.
I think how much comfort a suffering parent might find in different "explanations" offered them would depend upon what they believe already and the a whole lot upon the love with which we offer ourselves. This is PART of the complexity of the issue. Piper and Sproul actually DO find comfort in believing God predetermined 9/11. I don't. That's OK by me. I find comfort knowing God works against such evil but that when it happens he is loving and resourceful enough to bring healing and good out of it. I'm not really thrown into doubting God by the fact that I also believe the God-ordained rules of engagement for the world mean God doesn't always get what he wants. There are other agents at work, other wills, besides God's. I might not be able to unravel the mystery and plot all the different influences out on a chart and disect it all, but what I can be sure of (on the open view) is that the mystery of evil is not a mystery about the WILL of God for us, but about the interaction of divine, human, and angelic wills, that is, the complexity of creation.
Blessings,
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 1/23/2003 10:47 AM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt
I'm not trying to be politically correct in my statements. Just what I have in my heart. I can't relegate the word of God into an abstract mental compartment for my own comfort. Yes it is a value judgement, why else would I comment life and resources to a belief in a person and his cause? You know, change in our lives is like entering unfamiliar territory, it might be disagreeable at first. Don't leave, get the peace again through Jesus our Lord.
Ron Sirkel | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/23/2003 10:58 AM (GMT -6) | | RSirkel,
"I would recommend that you read the Scriptures and start praying. Obviously you need to get right with God. Since you don't the see the issues exactly as I do, there must be something off in your relationship with Christ."
Now, I am kidding. But the reply above is very similar to what you are writing when you tell me to find peace in Christ. How do you know that I already don't have peace in Christ? It is very presumptive, condescending and asinine for you to say something like that.
Why is it that so many "christians" resort to judging others' spiritual lives when others don't agree with their philosophies? This is especially ironic coming from an OV'er, whom the vast majority of Christian theologians would say is completely unorthodox. Even though I don't see eye to eye with Geistler, it is pretty interesting to see his arguments about how if the OV is not heretical, he doesn't know what is.
So I guess by your standard, when in a debate with Geistler, you'd tell him he'd better find peace in Christ again.
"I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of
doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not
even mine."
Bertrand Russell | | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 1/23/2003 11:52 AM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt
That's fine if you think that, I don't have to defend my orientation. That's all I"m going to say on the subject. I need to back off this board for awhile b/c it is actually tearing me down rather than edifying me.
Ron
That is what I meant by getting back your peace. You seemed to be agitated and frustrated. I didn't mean to challenge your relationship with Jesus.
Ron Sirkel | | Back to Top | | |
| 108 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:31 PM (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 |
|
|