But Romans 11:17-20 says "But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place to share the rich root of the olive tree, do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember that it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you. You will say, 'Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.' That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand only through faith. " NRSV

 

Not in this sense.  It's a group-the Church.  "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, 27 so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind — yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish." (Eph 5:25-28) 

 

In the part I underlined, the "church" (an uncountable, singular noun) is "her".  You believe the Bride is the Church, right?

Why not?  God's omnisceint and omnipotent.. either way, His prophesies will come to pass.  Just because we can't calculate the variables perfectly doesn't mean God can't (ie, omniscience).  And even if the variables go in one direction, God can influence or directly intercede to make them come about (ie, omnipotence).  Are you thinking that there would be too many variables for God to calculate?  God immediately knows and calculates all the variables--so if He says something will happen, even if we see thousands of years elapsing, it will happen.

This doesn't necessarily follow.  Plus, are you saying that our spirits pre-existed, that is, before we were in the womb, or are you saying that God knew us when we were in the womb?

---

 If you're going to be skeptical, be fair and be skeptical of skepticism.

 

Hey Lee,

 

Ok, as to Peter's death foretold by Jesus. Remember, I said that there are those things God declares that one can't control. From my post above: These two scenarios clearly show that it is impossible for God to tell you exhaustively what you are going to do at any given time in the future, save "You're going to die, dude," or something like that where you have no control over the matter. So, that Christ declares that Peter will die such and such a death is not Jesus giving an exaustive (everything...EVERYTHING!) account of what will happen when Peter dies. Nor can we conclusively conclude that Christ was looking into the future, like looking at a film of Peter's future life (the grand theatre example in my post above). It simply means Christ foretold the kind of death Peter would under go. I think God is quite capable of undertaking the procedures to bring this about.

 

Next, as to Peter being told he would deny Christ, again, the issue is not that Christ gave exaustive information about Peter's future. All Jesus was doing, in the most plain and simple manner, was exposing Peter's heart for what it was. That God could force the issue—cause the cock to crow at a certain time after having pressed Peter into a do or don't do situation—was not that hard; Christ new very well that as committed as Peter wanted to be, he simply wasn't. And Christ proved that to Peter.  Hek, even you or I can plainly see in some people the things they will or will not do under pressure. It doesn't take exhaustive knowledge, and I think it's reading far more into the text to insinuate that, like watching it on video, Christ was foretelling Peter what he would do.

 

Further, the text does not say that Peter tried hard to not deny Christ. This doesn't mean that Peter did not wish to deny Christ, but you need to deal squarely with the passage: Do you really think that Peter went away thining, "Well, that's it. I have to deny Christ. Can't change a thing. It's already exhaustively known." That's hardly what's going on here. Simply, Peter's heart was exposed for what it was; not as committed to His Lord as He thought it was. It's really nothing more than that, Lee.

 

Finally, you have still yet to rebuttal my two examples (bringing up Peter is by far not enough to combat the examples I gave). I can't think of any rebuttle that can deal with the fact that we are able to freely choose in such a way that it can never be that there is that final moment when God can say, "Ah! There it is. The future's set. I know exaustively everything Lee will ever do from this point on."  That's simply an impossibility...unless you can rebuttal the two examples I gave.

 

Well, I'm off to home after work now!

 

Starkan 

---

My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?"  Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us?

Post Edited (Starkman) : 11/11/2005 6:27:06 PM (GMT-6)

Starkman initially said:

It simply means Christ foretold the kind of death Peter would under go. I think God is quite capable of undertaking the procedures to bring this about.

Lee responded:

But then why does this not extend to whatever God tells us will happen in our lives? Why is there some limit here? And this was not just arrangement of circumstances, this is Peter, who denied Jesus once, not denying him then. Does Peter have no choice here? No freedom? If not, isn't this definite knowledge of a future free choice? And after Peter said "You know all things," Jesus makes this prediction, clearly he is confirming his knowledge of all things, including the future.

And it is difficult to restrict "you know all things" to "you know all things that you choose to arrange" here. That would not, in fact, be a very remarkable statement, it would hardly need saying. Of course God knows all he knows he can bring about...

Starkman responds:

That Jesus knew Peter's heart--that Peter wasn't as strong as he thought, or wished, he was--doesn't require Jesus to have exhaustive foreknowledge. There's no necessity to conclude here that Jesus' knowledge of Peter about that one issue extends exhaustively to all of Peter's life (or our lives). I say again what I said above: you or I may know enough about someone to know that they will or will not do such and such in certain circumstances. This doesn't require exhaustive foreknowledge.

Peter did tell Jesus, "Lord, you know all things." But look at the context, Lee. Why did Peter say that? The context is wrapped around a question Jesus asked Peter: "Do you love Me?" Peter responds with an acknowledgement that says to Jesus, in essence, "There's no way of hiding my heart from you, Lord. You know all things." This does not, at all, that Peter is declaring Christ knows the future exhaustively. That's not at all the issue.

If we come to the table already believing that God knows the future exhaustively, and we see statements in scripture like "Lord, you know everything," we will conclude exhaustive foreknowledge. But that's not the context of Peter's statement.

 

 

Starkman initially said:

That God could force the issue—cause the cock to crow at a certain time after having pressed Peter into a do or don't do situation—was not that hard...

Lee responded:

But let us remember that the rooster crowed twice! And the first time, Peter must not remember, and yet he must remember the second time. This is not (again) merely character solidification and arrangement of circumstances. And also Peter's courage and cowardice had to balance, that also is not easy to predict. Not to mention the doorkeeper letting Peter in, after refusing to do so at first. Not to mention the soldier who saw him in the garden not arresting him, or throwing him out! Why did they let him stay? They knew good and well that Peter was "one of them," and willing to fight, too. There are many decisions involved here, and all in one night.

Starkman responds:

None of the things you bring up here neither proves Christ was exercising exhaustive foreknowedge (in declaring that Peter would deny Him) nor is without a simple explanation; namely, that God manuer...maneuver...how do you spell that word?...that God meneuvered circumstances (guess that spelling will have to do!), as God is quite capable of doing such while Jesus was taken to trial. It's really not that hard of thing to conceive God doing this in order to allow for Peter to see his heart as it really was. There's nothing proving exhaustive foreknowedge here. All the circumstances and issues you bring up are nothing for God to work with or work around or even cause. The issue isn't exhaustive foreknowledge; it's God showing someone whom He loves dearly that the heart his not yet what it thinks it is.

 

  

Starkman initially said:

Do you really think that Peter went away thinking, "Well, that's it. I have to deny Christ. Can't change a thing. It's already exhaustively known."

Lee responded:

Not at all! He thought just the opposite, he really did, he put all his effort into being faithful, to the point of drawing his sword in a hopeless battle, they had two swords, where, I wonder, was the other one? It apparently was only Peter, and being very brave and determined. And yet he failed, for all that, why did he weep, if he didn't expect to be faithful to the Lord?

I think Jesus was showing Peter that all his best efforts were useless, in being faithful to Christ.

Matthew 26:40 Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. "Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?" he asked Peter.

Starkman responds:

Lee, that's my point! Peter didn't see his own heart as Jesus saw it. It took some action to penetrate Peter's strong-will. I think that's the beauty of the whole thing. Here was a guy who really and truly did love Jesus, but he was way over his head; he knew too much to maintain his commitment when the pressure was on. That, of course, changes later, particularly as we see him in the book of Acts. But the point is that Peter thought one thing about his love for Jesus and Christ knew another. That has nothing to do with Christ having exhaustive foreknowedge.

 

 

Starkman initially said:

I can't think of any rebuttle that can deal with the fact that we are able to freely choose in such a way that it can never be that there is that final moment when God can say, "Ah! There it is. The future's set."

Lee responded:

Well, how about this verse?

Psalm 139:16 All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

There are many verses like this, from which I conclude that God does really know all the future.

Psalm 139:5 You hem me in-- behind and before; you have laid your hand upon me.

And "before" in verse 4 refers a moment to come in time, God is "before" in that sense...

Starkman responds:

No, no, no, my good brother! I did not ask you for something from scripture that you feel proves your point. I asked you for a rebuttal in regard to the two examples I gave you--God's Grand Theatre and God showing up in your house to show you your future--of how it's impossible that God can have exhaustive foreknowedge. You haven't addressed those yet.

As to Psalm 139, it doesn't say anything about God having exhaustive foreknowledge. The psalm isn't an "Ok, folks, here's a doctrinal position about God's knowledge I'd like to share with you all." The psalm is poetic and it's expressive of a heart that knows the Creator is in control. We take the psalmist's words and heart-felt meaning too far when we press Him to mean exhaustive foreknowledge in the statement "All the days ordained for me were written in your book..." Rather, he is saying "God, you are God and I am not. You are the Creator and you know everything. I do not." But to force "everything" here to mean exhaustive foreknowledge is to push it too far.

Again, give me a rebuttal to the two examples I gave you. Bring exhaustive foreknowledge into those examples, rebutting my belief that they prove the impossibility of exhaustive foreknowledge. Until you can do that, the reality and practicality of how we live--we do not at all live consistently as if our futures are exhaustively known is known--must ask us to re-examine the believe that God's knowledge of the future is exhaustive. (On a side note, I do not believe that Hebrew thinking believed in God having exhaustive foreknowledge, but I haven't researched real well.)

Well, I'm off to make something of this Saturday morning (and I STILL have to finish reading the "Meph to the Witness Stand" thread. Must do that today).

Take care, Lee,

Starkman