 |
| 
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/25/2004 4:04 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hi Jon,
quote:
Jon: If God foresaw Moses's intercession as an inevitability, then the threat is still empty and it still renders the passage a total charade.
Not at all! Not if God wanted Moses to pray. He wanted him to participate, in averting the judgment. Now if Moses had not prayed, they would indeed have been destroyed, so Moses' prayer was not meaningless, and the threat was not empty, either.
Even in our affairs, if we know pretty certainly that someone will repent if we threaten punishment, then … we threaten the punishment! So they will repent. But that doesn't make the threat almost empty.
quote:
I think that Moses' intercession (prayer) was a possibility to God, which is why he says let me alone.
I think that was spoken from Moses' perspective, not God's perspective, though. Are you saying God did not want Moses to pray? Then Moses disobeyed! Really disobeyed, I mean. And then God answered his disobedient prayer! I don't think that is the best view of this passage…
quote:
If I was a parent and I knew every last one of my child's actions, and
I knew my kid would apologize and not receive discipline, then my threat of discipline would be empty.
Why is that? It is a true statement, if there was actually no apology, then the threat would really happen. "If I ride on an rope to the moon, I could see the whole circle of the earth." That is not a meaningless, empty statement, it's true, though it's impossible.
quote:
And also, God never said He would wipe out Israel (he promised not to ever do that) it only says "that my anger may burn and I may destroy" all the while keeping Moses.
That's a good point, but I do think there is some overlap in 2 Kings 13:23 and Dt. 10:10, that "not willing to destroy them" refers to preserving the main body of the nation in both verses.
quote:
If this is just a threat from Moses's perspective and not from God's then God is duplicious and deceptive (not to mention schizophrenic).
Then Jesus was, too! "He already had in mind what he would do" (Jn. 6:6). And God had relented in similar circumstances before, so Moses knew this was quite possibly the way it would turn out, and thus quite possibly God's actual intent, to save them. Are you saying Moses couldn't have known God might want him to pray, if that was required for God to relent?
quote:
And remember I never said that God didn't foresee the possibility or probability of Moses praying. I never said God was like "well ok, I'll abandon that "
But then how did God really change his plan, after Moses prayed? If it was God's plan to really destroy them, and that changed when Moses prayed, then don't we have to say God didn't think he would pray?
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
joneames
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 21
| Posted 8/25/2004 10:33 PM (GMT -6) | | hey Lee,
first a question:
what or where in the passage (immediate context) do we find nessecity to view this all from Moses's perspective?
The implication of God's wanting Moses to pray is there but it is very subtle (and I think you may be making too much of it)
I do not think the blueprint model fits with this becaue it just makes
no sense. If God knew from eternity past that Moses would pray (meaning it was absolutely set in stone) then it's as if he's reading a script (and no real drama is going on , only mock drama) it's as if he's saying ok Moses, it's your cue, do what from eternity past I knew (and in some people's view planned) you would do. I'll admit my case is not as strong in this verse as it is in verses about Saul as King, or the fall, or contingent prohphecies, but to me its' still there. God didn't say unless you pray Moses, I'm gonna go destroy them, (though I agree it is implied elsewhere in the Bible that punishment will be relented from provided there is intercession) He said "leave me alone" I'm GOING to do this, (all the while I agree implying "unless you interecede" But try to think as Moses. I'm sure he wasn''t thinking well God has this bluprint and He already knows the outcome, I'll just intercede here and all will be fine. I'm pretty sure he went in somber manner and searched his heart, and prepared, and then genuinely pleaded with God to spare them, because in Moses's mind, there was a REAL possibility of God going through with what he had decided to do. I don't see Moses or God following the blueprint model in any way in these verses. How can God say "leave me alone that I may destroy them" all the while knowing/planning from eternity past that he would not. And I must believe you are coming from the determinist/calvinist standpoint, because there is cognitive dissonance (square circles) in the idea of
God forseeing what He Himself will do. I just don't see how you can claim that the future is not full of genuine possibilities without running into logical contadictions, and utter chaos. And even worse, if God planned there disobedience, planned his threat of punishment, then planned Moses intercession, then planned his relenting, how can any expressed emotion or sentiment of any kind really mean anything?
And doesn't that just make God the divine manipulator. Doesn't that rob the Bible of any sense of real drama, real narrative? Well any way, you made some good points, and have helped me see a few things I wasn't seeing, but I still remain unable to see how determinism can be found in this verse, and I remain unable to see how one cannot see the reality of real future possibilities in verses like these (though this is not the strongest one).
blessings
Jon | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 8/26/2004 4:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
If God knew from eternity past that Moses would pray (meaning it was absolutely set in stone) then it's as if he's reading a script (and no real drama is going on , only mock drama) it's as if he's saying ok Moses, it's your cue, do what from eternity past I knew (and in some people's view planned) you would do.
If I might inject my take on this matter. God didn’t know Moses would pray but then again he did know depending on the vantage point you’re looking at it from. Time goes forward…..Moses prays and God responds but then a revelation of it is sent back through time causing God to now know the end from the beginning. Now as time goes forth from the beginning God has knowledge that he didn’t at one time have. Well one would say God makes it all happens like he first saw it? No he basically allows it all to [from his vantage point] take place again but on this second loop he has all of the knowledge of what will take place.
quote:
I don't see Moses or God following the blueprint model in any way in these verses. How can God say "leave me alone that I may destroy them" all the while knowing/planning from eternity past that he would not.
Under my model God originally did intend to destroy them and wanted to. He didn’t’ know Moses would pray like he did but then again he did come to know it
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 8/26/2004 7:50 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Bobber
quote:
If God knew from eternity past that Moses would pray (meaning it was absolutely set in stone) then it's as if he's reading a script (and no real drama is going on , only mock drama) it's as if he's saying ok Moses, it's your cue, do what from eternity past I knew (and in some people's view planned) you would do.
If I might inject my take on this matter. God didn’t know Moses would pray but then again he did know depending on the vantage point you’re looking at it from. Time goes forward…..Moses prays and God responds but then a revelation of it is sent back through time causing God to now know the end from the beginning. Now as time goes forth from the beginning God has knowledge that he didn’t at one time have. Well one would say God makes it all happens like he first saw it? No he basically allows it all to [from his vantage point] take place again but on this second loop he has all of the knowledge of what will take place.
quote:
I don't see Moses or God following the blueprint model in any way in these verses. How can God say "leave me alone that I may destroy them" all the while knowing/planning from eternity past that he would not.
Under my model God originally did intend to destroy them and wanted to. He didn’t’ know Moses would pray like he did but then again he did come to know it
First, He'd need more than two loops, if God is going to respond to our free choices, because many of our choices are made in response to His responses. Second, which loop are we on? Who's to say He won't wipe us all off the slate and start over? Third, does God exist in the present, the past, or both? If in the past, He's not here now. If in both, according to your view He has two seats of consciousness, multiplied by three persons and that's six Gods in one. Hexity?
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/26/2004 5:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
Jon: what or where in the passage (immediate context) do we find necessity to view this all from Moses's perspective?
Because Moses seemed to change his perspective, by Dt. 10:10. I find my context there, which refers to the same incident, there he seems to be saying "it was not God's will to destroy" all along, though it seems he had doubts when the incident was in progress.
quote:
Jon: But try to think as Moses. I'm sure he wasn't thinking well God has this blueprint and He already knows the outcome, I'll just intercede here and all will be fine.
I agree that Moses wasn't sure what God's plan was! That doesn't mean that Moses thought God had no fixed plan, though.
quote:
I'm pretty sure he went in somber manner and searched his heart, and prepared, and then genuinely pleaded with God to spare them, because in Moses's mind, there was a REAL possibility of God going through with what he had decided to do.
Yes, I agree. And later (Dt. 10:10!), he knew more of what God was intending at this time…
quote:
How can God say "leave me alone that I may destroy them" all the while knowing/planning from eternity past that he would not.
Because the alternative is that we have to say that God really thought Moses wouldn't pray! Surely he knew Moses better than that! After Moses had already prayed time and time again, in similar situations…
quote:
God foreseeing what He Himself will do. I just don't see how you can claim that the future is not full of genuine possibilities without running into logical contradictions, and utter chaos.
I do believe that God's children can really choose. But I think you mean God doesn't know the future, too! That alternative is worse, though. Then we have God not thinking that the Israelites might rebel in the desert, and changing his plan. And God not thinking that Hezekiah might pray to be saved from death, and changing his plan. And God not thinking that the Ninevites might repent, etc. etc.
If God's plan was really to destroy the Israelites in the desert, why didn't he just do it? Why did he mention praying to Moses, and spoil his plan? How can we trust God, if he can plan X, and then act in such a way as to foil his very own plan himself?
quote:
… if God planned there disobedience, planned his threat of punishment, then planned Moses intercession, then planned his relenting, how can any expressed emotion or sentiment of any kind really mean anything?
No, I believe that believers (Moses, for instance) can really choose. Thus not every decision is made by God. Now he knows believers' free decisions, just as he knows his own decisions, and incorporates them in his plan. But that doesn't make the decisions not be free.
quote:
Sahid: If God wanted Moses to pray, there is no way that Moses could help but pray, because God always gets what He wants. Moses didn't choose to pray. God chose to have Moses pray.
I think God can make a plan that includes believers' free choices, though. We don't have to say God's plan made Moses decide to pray, if it was not God's will to destroy them, some way or another, his plan would be accomplished, regardless of Moses' choice:
Esther 4:14 "For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place…"
You guys made me work for my dinner! And put on my thinky cap... 
Not trying to speak in all caps, though... 
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 8/26/2004 9:04 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
No, I believe that believers (Moses, for instance) can really choose. Thus not every decision is made by God. Now he knows believers' free decisions, just as he knows his own decisions, and incorporates them in his plan. But that doesn't make the decisions not be free.
I would say for a decision to be free there needs to be at least two possible choices. Under your position Moses, whether he knew it or not, only had one choice. Therefore, his decision was not free.
If God knows without a doubt what I will choose, there is no chance for me to choose otherwise. The decision is not free. It simply appears free. For God to have certain foreknowledge (in the modern sense) of an event means that the event will happen. No ifs, ands, or buts. Perfect knowledge amounts to causation in the case of God, who has made anything through use of this perfect knowledge, or else the knowledge isn't perfect. These aren't probabilities. If they are probabilities, it's not certain foreknowledge. That would be certain knowledge of the present. quote:
I think God can make a plan that includes believers' free choices, though. We don't have to say God's plan made Moses decide to pray, if it was not God's will to destroy them, some way or another, his plan would be accomplished, regardless of Moses' choice:
So how is Moses prayer effective to those to whom he is praying. God was going to do what He was going to do regardless. Moses could have played horseshoes instead, and it would have had the same effect. I don't think God could have taken this choice into consideration, because He had already taken all decisions into consideration before creation. And now we're back to only having one possible path of choices to choose from.
Had Moses chosen option 2, God would have adjusted things before creation accordingly, thereby making option 2 the only choice. Now somehow God is the one under the illusion, saying we are free, when in fact He has made things in such a way that only one option is possible.
I realize that I'm not really responding anymore, just sorta thinking on the keyboard. Sorry.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/27/2004 5:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Sahid,
quote:
Lee: I believe that believers (Moses, for instance) can really choose. Thus not every decision is made by God. Now he knows believers' free decisions, just as he knows his own decisions, and incorporates them in his plan. But that doesn't make the decisions not be free.
Sahid: I would say for a decision to be free there needs to be at least two possible choices. Under your position Moses, whether he knew it or not, only had one choice. Therefore, his decision was not free.
How do we know that, though? On what basis can we conclude that knowing a decision in advance makes it not free?
quote:
Sahid: If God knows without a doubt what I will choose, there is no chance for me to choose otherwise. The decision is not free. It simply appears free.
Can God not know how he would choose, in a given situation, according to the Open View? If he does know how he would choose, in a certain situation, does that also make his decision not be free?
Fix the situation, describe it completely, can God know what he would choose, in that situation?
quote:
Lee: I think God can make a plan that includes believers' free choices, though. We don't have to say God's plan made Moses decide to pray, if it was not God's will to destroy them, some way or another, his plan would be accomplished, regardless of Moses' choice...
Sahid: Had Moses chosen option 2, God would have adjusted things before creation accordingly, thereby making option 2 the only choice.
Well, again, I don't think God seeing option 2 being chosen causes it...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 8/28/2004 4:49 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Since the first loop goes from creation to eternity, I'm thinking we'll NEVER reach the end of the first loop in order to start on the second loop.
what a loopy idea
But I'll bet it made a great Star Trek episode. [Armchair]
Well no, a first loop through time doesn't have to go all the way to eternity. Why people keep going this direction I guess I'll never figure out. All God has to do is send back information and revelation up to certain points that he has decided to. And further more the existence of physical time may not last forever. Time as we know it in the physical universe was created by God. For example time above the speed of light is a total and different thing from how we know it. Even time just below the speed of light is a different thing depending on what speed one might be going. So you don't have to have physical time going on forever for God to know the future of say the next few hundred years or thousand years.  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/28/2004 5:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
Lee: On what basis can we conclude that knowing a decision in advance makes it not free?
Jee: If a decision is foreknown to be definitely certain, then it simply cannot be different than how God knows it will definitely be, or else it would in fact be indeterminate (and the Open View would follow logically).
Sahid: If a choice is accurately known with certainty, then the action is certain. In such a case a different choice is certainly not going to happen.
I agree that a foreknown decision cannot turn out to be different. Why does that mean it cannot be free, though? We even know that one of the alternatives will certainly be chosen. Why does knowing which one, in advance, cause the decision?
quote:
Lee: Can God not know how he would choose, in a given situation, according to the Open View? If he does know how he would choose, in a certain situation, does that also make his decision not be free?
Jee: Of course God possesses perfect knowledge of what He intends to do. Who has ever suggested otherwise? The Open View has to do with the nature of human freedom. I think we all assume that all Christians affirm God's freedom to do as He pleases.
But that's the dilemma! If God knows what he would choose in a given situation, then how can he make a free decision, if that situation becomes actual?
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/28/2004 6:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Lee,
quote:
I agree that a foreknown decision cannot turn out to be different. Why does that mean it cannot be free, though? We even know that one of the alternatives will certainly be chosen. Why does knowing which one, in advance, cause the decision?
You are right that it could be free. But not by any means that the human mind can understand. That's the problem. We can ONLY absolutely foreknow what is NOT free.
So the issue is whether a normative hermeneutic allows or compels us to postulate unknowns and mysteries when such a postulation is unnecessary to explain the text. It's all about who is being the most rational (i.e., analagous, intuitive, parsimonious, etc.) with the use of language in scripture. Parsimony would suggest that we should NOT postulate unnecessarily. That's ADDING to scripture, which we are forbidden to do.
quote:
But that's the dilemma! If God knows what he would choose in a given situation, then how can he make a free decision, if that situation becomes actual?
If I absolutely foreknow how I will choose, it is not a true act of volition. I that case, I am simply aware of my own nature and how that will play out in a given set of circumstances. But to say that God absolutely foreknows everything He will ever think or do seems to suggest that God NEVER purposed anything in time, which is counter to the most intuitive reading of the verses, in my opinion.
Doesn't the idea of purposing imply an original thought? And how could it be original if it was absolutely foreknown?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 8/28/2004 9:43 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I agree that a foreknown decision cannot turn out to be different. Why does that mean it cannot be free, though?
You're going to have to explain to me what you think 'free' means. I think that in this situation 'free' means 'able to choice between two or more options'. Under that definition forknowledge rules out freedom and only allows for apparent (but not actual) freedom. It sounds like you're saying apparent freedom is actual freedom. I'm saying there's a difference. It is possible for one to be bound but convinced of one's own freedom. Just because you think you're free doesn't make you free. If I know with certainty that Pedro Martinez is unhittable, no batter is free to get a hit off him. They may think they are free, they may try to get a hit, but they are unable, that choice is not open to them. Now, if my foreknowledge is that Pedro is 99% unhittable, then a batter is free. Same with God. If He knows with certainty what I will do, I am not free to do otherwise. quote:
We even know that one of the alternatives will certainly be chosen. Why does knowing which one, in advance, cause the decision?
If a future event is known with certainty, that event is certain to happen. What does freedom mean if it doesn't allow for the possibility to do something else? I'm not saying that the foreknowledge causes the decision. Rather, that foreknowledge is possible implies that the decision is already "decided"/certain/without possible alternatives/determined/unfree.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 8/28/2004 10:42 PM (GMT -6) | | If God wanted to create a world where He knew the future, He could. Without a doubt, He's that strong. If He wanted to put humans in this world just like us, He could. No problem. Many of these humans would think they are free to choose between alternatives. They wouldn't be. But still, no problem. Everything still makes sense.
Here's the catch:
A holy God couldn't hold them morally responsible for their actions.
I firmly agree that God has the power to judge people based on what they had no choice in doing. However, that would be an unholy thing to do. Let's say I create a robot, endow it with consciousness, feelings, and the ability to know pain and pleasure. Then I program it to kill someone. (Remember, under Calvinism God made us knowing full well exactly how we would hurt others. There is no chance for us not to hurt others the way God knows we will.) Now, since the robot has done the evil I knew it would do when I made it, I deem the robot sinful. To atone for his sin, I take the punishment myself. The robot first feels guilty, then redeemed and thankful. But it's all a lie. The robot was never guilty, because it was never free, i.e. able not to kill. The entire relationship between the robot and me is based on a lie so enormous that is consumes the robot's entire being.
Now, if God made us so that we would certainly sin (He knew with certainty that we would sin and still made us), how can He ascribe moral value to our actions and still remain just or holy or good or loving? One of my friends in high school got hit by a troubled man who was driving his car without having taken his medication. No one blamed the car. No one blamed the gas in the car. No one, except the driver's mom, blamed the medical condition. Most people blamed the driver. A few blamed God. Under Calvinism it is right to blame God. God was the only one who could do anything about it. The man's choice not to take his drugs was determined before time. The choice was certain. Only God could have changed that fact. Those with a Calvinistic understanding of God and freedom were correct when they "decided" that God was to blame under this paradigm
But we know God is not to blame. God is good. Jesus didn't die for the sins of the car. Jesus didn't die for the sins of the Father. Jesus died for the driver. The driver is the one who is morally accountable for his actions, not the car and not God. The car didn't have a choice. God gave the man his own choice. The man had a real choice. It was genuinely possible for him to make a different decision somewhere back in his life that would have saved my friend. It was not certain that the man would choose to kill him. That was not God's plan.
God demonstrated how much He valued my friend when He died for him. He valued my friend's life more than His own. Now that is a truly amazing love! God threw away His own life to save my friend's. I'm blown away! It was not God's plan to kill him. It was God's plan to save him. God is a shepherd who loves His sheep. When sheep are dying you can bet it's not the Good Shepherd's doing.
God is responsible for leaving his sheep vulnerable. He takes that responsibility by promising to set things right one day. He will judge righteously. For now, I'm not even going to guess how He administers justice to those who died before being given a chance to respond to Jesus. I do however think certain teachings of Jesus (notably towards the end of Matthew) cast doubt on both the extremes of universalism and what I'll call "the tough luck, you weren't given a chance, so go to hell" idea. I rest in the knowledge that God is the kind of person who loves us enough to die for us. He won't do just what is right but also what is loving.
I'll close with a disclaimer. This post utilizes both figurative language and hyperbole. Some statements may not technically be accurate, but are intended to make a point. Some people out there (myself included) love to jump all over these technicalities. However, just this once I'd ask that you not call the inquisitor, but instead be understanding of the point that is being made.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 8/28/2004 11:59 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
Hi everyone,
quote:
Lee: On what basis can we conclude that knowing a decision in advance makes it not free?
Jee: If a decision is foreknown to be definitely certain, then it simply cannot be different than how God knows it will definitely be, or else it would in fact be indeterminate (and the Open View would follow logically).
Sahid: If a choice is accurately known with certainty, then the action is certain. In such a case a different choice is certainly not going to happen.
I agree that a foreknown decision cannot turn out to be different. Why does that mean it cannot be free, though?
In such a scenario, a choice can only be free in the compatibilistic sense.
quote:
We even know that one of the alternatives will certainly be chosen. Why does knowing which one, in advance, cause the decision?
Because in the traditional view of foreknowledge, God supposedly chose to create EVERYTHING knowing precisely how everything would turn out. As the ultimate cause, with no true free will by anyone but Himself, he is indeed the only one who really ever acted in history. Everyone else's actions are merely links in the adamantine chain of cause and effect that originates in God's creative act.
quote:
Lee: Can God not know how he would choose, in a given situation, according to the Open View? If he does know how he would choose, in a certain situation, does that also make his decision not be free?
Jee: Of course God possesses perfect knowledge of what He intends to do. Who has ever suggested otherwise? The Open View has to do with the nature of human freedom. I think we all assume that all Christians affirm God's freedom to do as He pleases.
But that's the dilemma! If God knows what he would choose in a given situation, then how can he make a free decision, if that situation becomes actual?
Blessings,
Lee
I think you are changing the definition of the issue, Lee. I didn't say God necessarily knows what he would choose in a given situation, what I said was, "God knows what he intends to do." Big difference. You or I can say to ourselves, "If such and such happens, I will do thus and so," just as God can. Indeed, he reveals this plainly in the multitudinous "if-then" statements in Scripture. Ex: "If my people...then I will..." But this doesn't imply a lack of free choice on the part of God, rather, it clearly shows his capability of choosing.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/29/2004 12:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Sahid,
quote:
... since the robot has done the evil I knew it would do when I made it, I deem the robot sinful. To atone for his sin, I take the punishment myself. The robot first feels guilty, then redeemed and thankful. But it's all a lie. The robot was never guilty, because it was never free, i.e. able not to kill. The entire relationship between the robot and me is based on a lie so enormous that is consumes the robot's entire being.
Well, I believe God sets people free, who are captive to sin, and that there is blame in sin because people's bad motive, not because of the action, per se.
I'm sorry to hear about your friend in high school dying in an accident, I know it is in times like this that theology becomes very important and practical...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/29/2004 12:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
Lee: I agree that a foreknown decision cannot turn out to be different. Why does that mean it cannot be free, though?
Sahid: I think that in this situation 'free' means 'able to choice between two or more options'. Under that definition foreknowledge rules out freedom and only allows for apparent (but not actual) freedom.
I agree with your definition, I do wonder how we know that foreknowledge rules out freedom, though.
quote:
Jee: ... in the traditional view of foreknowledge, God supposedly chose to create EVERYTHING knowing precisely how everything would turn out. As the ultimate cause, with no true free will by anyone but Himself, he is indeed the only one who really ever acted in history.
I think there's room for more, though! For God to know future free decisions, thus there is not a chain from start to finish...
quote:
Lee: Why does knowing which one, in advance, cause the decision?
Sahid: I'm not saying that the foreknowledge causes the decision. Rather, that foreknowledge is possible implies that the decision is already "decided"/certain/without possible alternatives/determined/unfree.
I agree that a foreknown decision is certain! And I do think your view implies that foreknowing a decision causes it, for if we only change the fact that the decision is known, and make it not known, then it's free again!
And in that vein, when God gives a prophecy, and now we know some of the future, does that make us a cause of this event, too?
quote:
Jee: ... he reveals this plainly in the multitudinous "if-then" statements in Scripture. Ex: "If my people...then I will..." But this doesn't imply a lack of free choice on the part of God, rather, it clearly shows his capability of choosing.
We all agree that God is capable of choosing! But when God says "if this, then I will do that," he is not merely stating that he can choose! He is saying how he will choose...
quote:
Jeff: ... to say that God absolutely foreknows everything He will ever think or do seems to suggest that God NEVER purposed anything in time, which is counter to the most intuitive reading of the verses, in my opinion.
The only alternative seems to be that God doesn't know what he would do in a given situation, and that seems more unintuitive to me. I think the best way to address this dilemma is to believe that God is not in time, that he doesn't make decisions at particular moments.
But doesn't the Open View hold that God examines all possibilities? I think then there must be a conclusion that he knows what he would do, in every instance, too. And thus if we hold that God chooses freely, the Open View must hold that he must know his own free choices, before he makes them...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/29/2004 1:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff: ... to say that God absolutely foreknows everything He will ever think or do seems to suggest that God NEVER purposed anything in time, which is counter to the most intuitive reading of the verses, in my opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only alternative seems to be that God doesn't know what he would do in a given situation, and that seems more unintuitive to me. I think the best way to address this dilemma is to believe that God is not in time, that he doesn't make decisions at particular moments.
God knows what He will do in a multitude of cases just like I do - because we know our own nature and personal preferences. Those actions are not necessarily free acts, though. As I've argued before, a truly free act is one that is done when there are conflicting desires - like me struggling to subordinate my preference to the Father's. When one naturally acts from their own strongest desire, it is not volition in the sense relevant to this discussion, for it is not libertarian free will. Libertarian free will implies that the past could have been different, theoretically.
But if God has always had all events in His mind, He never actually purposed anything. "Purpose" is a verb which implies time. "Foreknow" is also a verb, which implies time.
quote:
But doesn't the Open View hold that God examines all possibilities?
I don't agree with Doc etal. that God knows all possibilities. There are many possiblities that I don't think God considers. I don't have any reason to believe that God considered that Satan would turn against Him. I can't think of one reason why He would need to. He's sufficiently wise to react wisely and righteously WHEN such events occur.
Does God need to think of all the unrighteousness that occurs before it happens? Is it going to make or break His plan? Then why contemplate it as a mere possibility beforehand, unless it directly affects prophecy?
quote:
I think then there must be a conclusion that he knows what he would do, in every instance, too.
If I plan to go to college, there are a number of subordinate choices that will be made to assure my larger goal of graduating from college. If you tell me a possible event that might affect that goal, I might know what I would do in that situation, given my goal. But I would just as certainly make that same decision in time without foreknowing that event. Why can't this latter option be the case with God. For it is the pre-determined goal that fixes the response to future conditions, not necessarily the foreknowledge of those conditions.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/31/2004 4:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
Jeff: When one naturally acts from their own strongest desire, it is not volition in the sense relevant to this discussion, for it is not libertarian free will.
Why must desires conflict, though, for there to be a free choice? Are you saying that God must experience frustration of some of his desires forever, in order to be free? And believers too, in heaven?
quote:
Jeff: But if God has always had all events in His mind, He never actually purposed anything. "Purpose" is a verb which implies time.
How can God consider an event completely, and refrain from a purpose now, but have one later, when the situation becomes real?
quote:
Lee: But doesn't the Open View hold that God examines all possibilities?
Jeff: I don't agree with Doc etal. that God knows all possibilities. There are many possibilities that I don't think God considers. I don't have any reason to believe that God considered that Satan would turn against Him.
Then we can't count on God's predictions! Doesn't that undo security in heaven? If God has not considered the possibility of saints, and other archangels sinning?
quote:
Jeff: I would just as certainly make that same decision in time without foreknowing that event. Why can't this latter option be the case with God. For it is the pre-determined goal that fixes the response to future conditions, not necessarily the foreknowledge of those conditions.
Yes, but wouldn't it be wiser to plan?
Proverbs 22:3 A prudent man sees danger and takes refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it.
quote:
Sahid:
1. Foreknowledge eliminates all but one option.
2. Freedom requires more than one option.
3. Therefore, foreknowledge eliminates a requisite condition for freedom.
I disagree with the first statement, though. How do we know this? We need to insist on some argument for this statement, and not take it as an assumption. Especially since I think the Open View has to say God has considered all the pertinent options (from as far back as we can point?), and thus he never freely chooses! Not now, at least, not ever, from now on...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 9/2/2004 2:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Sahid,
quote:
You explain to me how certain foreknowledge of an event can still allow for something other than that event happening.
No, it can't, it's fixed like the past. But just because the past is fixed, doesn't mean the decision wasn't free. And similarly about the future.
quote:
How could certain foreknowledge do anything but eliminate all but one option? "I know with certainty that X will happen. But it's still possible that Z might happen instead." Either the first or the second or both sentences are wrong. They contradict each other.
But not "I know with certainty that X did happen. But it was still possible for Z to have happened instead." The past being fixed doesn't have this effect of removing freedom, nor, I would say, does the future being fixed either, they may be viewed similarly, in this respect, I think.
quote:
From what I've read, it sounds like you advocate apparent freedom. This is the only way I can think of for foreknowledge to still leave more than one possibility open. But apparent freedom has a different problem: moral accountability.
That's something I haven't worked out completely yet! I would say that accountability is due to consent, not to the deed per se. Thus unbelievers are accountable for their consent to the deeds they were destined to do, and believers have real freedom, but they can use it to sin, and also be accountable for that.
But how about the Open View and God foreknowing his choices? Doesn't that amount to God's choices being fixed, and yet those choices being free, if God freely chooses?
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
| 104 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:45 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 |
|
|