 |
| 
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 11/20/2005 4:10 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hi everyone,
jefscott said...
But Alan is was not saying that. He was merely saying that we have no way of knowing how God can foreknow what is causally Indeterminate.
Well, yes, and we have no way of knowing that it is impossible for God to foreknow quantum events!
various folks said...
Lee: And I would insist that any Open View theodicy requires freedom in the areas for which people are held accountable, as in the most critical area of salvation.
Jeff: That's why I have no problem taking the verses that sound like an effectual call as meaning just that.
But what I would need to know here is why? The Open View states clearly that people are accountable because of their choices, and this also is why there is evil in the world.
jefscot said...
Sin brings death whether it is intentional or not.
Yes, and death is because sin brings guilt, regardless of whether there was intent.
Starkman said...
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 agree, my question is, though, is there a limit? If so, why?
Starkman said...
"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.
But my point is not about what Peter meant, but what Jesus meant, because for Jesus to follow this statement of Peter's with another prediction about his future, indicates that Jesus meant Peter to understand that his future actions, as well as his heart, were known.
various folks said...
Lee: 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: There's nothing proving exhaustive foreknowledge here. All the circumstances and issues you bring up are nothing for God to work with or work around or even cause.
But not predict! The whole point of the Open View interpretation here is that Jesus is predicting, not controlling.
Starkman said...
Peter didn't see his own heart as Jesus saw it. It took some action to penetrate Peter's strong-will.
I agree, that was the main point of was happening here, and yet there was more, should we say because we see one point, that this must be the only point? Again, Jesus brings his prediction to mind after his resurrection, and again saying "truly, truly," and this is to not only encourage Peter that he is not a hopeless flop, but also that Jesus is in control here, he knows everything, and he says that Peter will be faithful some day, under a test many times more severe.
Starkman said...
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.
Isn't this exactly a frame from the future of Peter's life, though? Now if God can do this for one frame, then why not two? Why not ten?
Why not the whole movie?
Starkman said...
But to force "everything" here to mean exhaustive foreknowledge is to push it too far.
"All my days" seems to refer to the Psalmist's whole life, though, the whole movie, and all in a book...
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 11/20/2005 6:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee: Well, yes, and we have no way of knowing that it is impossible for God to foreknow quantum events!
Jeff: Right. This is where I disagree with Alan etal. I say we can't KNOW that God can foreknow LFW choices, no more no less. If He does, I don't see scripture making an issue out of it. Indeed, biblically speaking, God seems to be more intent upon telling us He foreknows because He effectually PURPOSES and because He is orders of magnitude wiser than we are. Hence, I don't see why absolute foreknowledge is particularly important to theodicy or biblical theology, even if it IS true.
Lee: But what I would need to know here is why? The Open View states clearly that people are accountable because of their choices, and this also is why there is evil in the world.
Jeff: Why what? I agree with other OV'ers that LFW is the CAUSE of the Fall. But I'm not sure what you're asking.
Lee: The whole point of the Open View interpretation here is that Jesus is predicting, not controlling.
Jeff: I would say God DOES control in the sense of being effectually INFLUENTIAL. God sends strong delusion that people will believe a lie, etc. God raised up Pharoah because he was fitted to God's intention. But these effectual INFLUENCES do not necessarily require the disabling of LFW any more than influential humans need to disable LFW to influence others. But God is MUCH better at it than people. And God can and does TRULY control natural forces for His own ends.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 11/24/2005 10:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
jefscott said...
I say we can't KNOW that God can foreknow LFW choices, no more no less.
But then we run into difficulty with the predictions about Peter! These almost certainly must be LFW choices being predicted, and if the predictions could not fail, then these LFW choices were really known.
various folks said...
Jeff: That's why I have no problem taking the verses that sound like an effectual call as meaning just that.
Lee: But what I would need to know here is why? The Open View states clearly that people are accountable because of their choices, and this also is why there is evil in the world.
Jeff: Why what? I agree with other OV'ers that LFW is the CAUSE of the Fall. But I'm not sure what you're asking.
Why do you have no problem with an effective call? It seems that this makes people not always accountable for their choice, in the area of salvation, and one such crack undoes the whole principle of accountability being essentially due to human choice.
various folks said...
Jeff: I would say God DOES control in the sense of being effectually INFLUENTIAL.
Well, I can be effectively influential! But that is not complete control, nor does that demonstrate that I have a divine nature.
Isaiah 41:23 Tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you are gods. Do something, whether good or bad, so that we will be dismayed and filled with fear.
jefscott said...
But these effectual INFLUENCES do not necessarily require the disabling of LFW any more than influential humans need to disable LFW to influence others. But God is MUCH better at it than people. And God can and does TRULY control natural forces for His own ends.
But if a choice is really free, in the Open View sense, how is the outcome guaranteed? That is what I am wondering here...
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 11/24/2005 11:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Lee: But then we run into difficulty with the predictions about Peter! These almost certainly must be LFW choices being predicted, and if the predictions could not fail, then these LFW choices were really known.
Jeff: I don't see why they MUST have been LFW choices. The very fact that Peter didn't understand that Christ would have to die meant that God was allowing the disciples to go into a real trial. Christ had told them to PRAY that they be not lead into temptation. But they didn't; they fell asleep (if I remember correctly). Thus, Peter was in a situation BIGGER than his own level of self-discipline and faith could handle. In other words, a reaction of fear need not be an LFW choice.
Lee: Why do you have no problem with an effective call? It seems that this makes people not always accountable for their choice, in the area of salvation, and one such crack undoes the whole principle of accountability being essentially due to human choice.
Jeff: God can UNILATERALLY act in mercy to vessels unworthy of it, and at the same time, for OTHER reasons, NOT do so with respect to other similar vessels. Just like I can go out and give $50 dollars to the first person I meet without being obligated to give a dime to the next person I meet. This would not affect the nature of accountability at all.
Rom. 9 tells the 2 DIFFERENT divine purposes involved. But these do not equate to a UNILATERAL determination that people be evil and be damned. If God is the potter, He has certain perogatives. But as a JUST potter, He can NOT do just ANYTHING. Most Arminians find an effectual call incompatible with love, but I think the past debates on this forum have demonstrated that over-simplifications of divine love run into ALL kinds of problems--with natural evil and much else.
As I see it, the Arminians are RIGHT in claiming God DOES want relationships that involve LFW, because they are more meaningful. That's why most humans enjoy the fellowship of volitional beings more than the company of animals.
Lee: But if a choice is really free, in the Open View sense, how is the outcome guaranteed? That is what I am wondering here...
Jeff: I agree; a choice that is not LFW can not be guaranteed. But Paul says God doesn't allow us to be tempted above what we are able. This means that some temptations ARE above what we are able. But Peter, by virtue of the fact that he did NOT PRAY WATCHFULLY and did not BELIEVE that Christ would die, was NOT able to withstand the test.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 11/26/2005 11:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
various folks said...
Lee: But then we run into difficulty with the predictions about Peter! These almost certainly must be LFW choices being predicted, and if the predictions could not fail, then these LFW choices were really known.
Jeff: I don't see why they MUST have been LFW choices.
But then I wonder what the point of this incident was. Was it so God could show Peter that "I can make you do even what you don't want to do"? That seems to not be what is at issue here, what seems to be the main message here is that "All your abilities are not enough for being faithful in serving Me." Including Peter's will, his ability to choose.
Jeff said...
... they fell asleep ... Thus, Peter was in a situation BIGGER than his own level of self-discipline and faith could handle.
But wasn't he in a situation bigger than he could handle when he was trying to pray? He fell asleep then, trying to be faithful, and then denied Jesus, trying to be faithful, again and again the point is brought home to him, that all his abilities are useless in following Jesus. And he was the kind of fellow who didn't like this conclusion!
John 21:10-11 Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the fish you have just caught." Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore.
His would be a type A personality, and yet in all that God requires, even the best will always fail.
various folks said...
Lee: It seems that [an effectual call] makes people not always accountable for their choice, in the area of salvation, and one such crack undoes the whole principle of accountability being essentially due to human choice.
Jeff: God can UNILATERALLY act in mercy to vessels unworthy of it, and at the same time, for OTHER reasons, NOT do so with respect to other similar vessels. Just like I can go out and give $50 dollars to the first person I meet without being obligated to give a dime to the next person I meet. This would not affect the nature of accountability at all.
But I meant accountability for human choices, not accountability for God's choices.
Jeff said...
I think the past debates on this forum have demonstrated that over-simplifications of divine love run into ALL kinds of problems--with natural evil and much else.
Yes, I agree. Yet if there is a principle that accountability is due to humans choosing freely, then if some are saved without their choice being considered, then why are more not saved in this way? And would those who are not saved have some objections here?
You are going to have the best and worst of both worlds here, I think! All the objections and benefits that people consider in Calvinism, and also all the objections and benefits that people consider in the Open View. Some folks can ride two horses at once, though...
But is there effectual reprobation? Do some refuse, by God's decision, and not their own?
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald)Post Edited (Lee Merrill) : 11/26/2005 10:34:53 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/28/2005 6:44 PM (GMT -6) | | | Lee: But then I wonder what the point of this incident was. Was it so God could show Peter that "I can make you do even what you don't want to do"? That seems to not be what is at issue here, what seems to be the main message here is that "All your abilities are not enough for being faithful in serving Me." Including Peter's will, his ability to choose.
Jeff: Maybe Christ was giving Peter an indicator (i.e., the crows of the cock) of his failure so he would be mentally confronted with it in such a way that it would work in him a self-revelation of sorts. After all, Peter was claiming a courageous character he certainly didn't have. To be confronted with it could have been beneficial to his future growth.
Jeff said...
... they fell asleep ... Thus, Peter was in a situation BIGGER than his own level of self-discipline and faith could handle.
Lee: But wasn't he in a situation bigger than he could handle when he was trying to pray? He fell asleep then, trying to be faithful, and then denied Jesus, trying to be faithful, again and again the point is brought home to him, that all his abilities are useless in following Jesus. And he was the kind of fellow who didn't like this conclusion!
Jeff: You say Peter was "trying to be faithful," but he didn't believe Christ's prediction about his on-coming crucifixion. So I'm not sure to what extent we can say Peter had the kind of faith that would have bore him up through the particular trial under discussion.
Lee: John 21:10-11 Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the fish you have just caught." Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore.
His would be a type A personality, and yet in all that God requires, even the best will always fail.
Jeff: Not sure what your point is here.
various folks said...
Lee: It seems that [an effectual call] makes people not always accountable for their choice, in the area of salvation, and one such crack undoes the whole principle of accountability being essentially due to human choice.
Jeff: God can UNILATERALLY act in mercy to vessels unworthy of it, and at the same time, for OTHER reasons, NOT do so with respect to other similar vessels. Just like I can go out and give $50 dollars to the first person I meet without being obligated to give a dime to the next person I meet. This would not affect the nature of accountability at all.
Lee: But I meant accountability for human choices, not accountability for God's choices.
Jeff: Me too. How does God's showing mercy to some obligate Him to show mercy to others? How is accountability for SOME undone because of God's forgiveness of OTHERS?
Jeff said...
I think the past debates on this forum have demonstrated that over-simplifications of divine love run into ALL kinds of problems--with natural evil and much else.
Lee: Yes, I agree. Yet if there is a principle that accountability is due to humans choosing freely, then if some are saved without their choice being considered, then why are more not saved in this way?
Jeff: As I said before, Rom. 9 explains the reasons for both cases--mercy and no mercy. But this suggests nothing of the kind of effectual reprobation that Calvinism requires.
Lee: And would those who are not saved have some objections here?
Jeff: Yes they will. And Paul has answered them in Rom. 9.
Lee: You are going to have the best and worst of both worlds here, I think! All the objections and benefits that people consider in Calvinism, and also all the objections and benefits that people consider in the Open View. Some folks can ride two horses at once, though...
Jeff: What is the worst of both worlds? And, yes, I think there is scriptural evidence for an effectual call. As long as it requires no logical problems, I don't see why it should be considered the "worst" of any world.
Lee: But is there effectual reprobation? Do some refuse, by God's decision, and not their own?
Jeff: I, personally, don't think so. I think God hardens by providentially arranging circumstances where He knows hard-hearted people will harden further as opposed to repent--like Pharoah. God RAISED pharoah up that He might show His power in him. But why did God raise him up unless He already knew that pharoah would play the part of the rebel? It was the RAISING UP that was providential, not an inactivation of pharoah's will. Pharoah did exactly what God KNEW he would do, given the chance.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 12/6/2005 8:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
various folks said...
Lee: But I meant accountability for human choices, not accountability for God's choices.
Jeff: Me too. How does God's showing mercy to some obligate Him to show mercy to others? How is accountability for SOME undone because of God's forgiveness of OTHERS?
I agree! And that is the Calvinist answer, however it goes against the implication in the Open View that accountability is due solely to human responsibility.
various folks said...
Lee: And would those who are not saved have some objections here?
Jeff: Yes they will. And Paul has answered them in Rom. 9.
But the problem here is that this involves effectual reprobation:
Romans 9:21-22 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-- prepared for destruction?
It's difficult to argue for an effectual call and still hold that there is no effectual reprobation.
jefscott said...
Jeff: It was the RAISING UP that was providential, not an inactivation of pharoah's will. Pharoah did exactly what God KNEW he would do, given the chance.
That would be definite foreknowledge then! Before Pharaoh assumed the throne, or even earlier. And could Pharaoh have resisted God's purpose here? It seems he could not:
Romans 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"
And the answer here does not seem to be "Pharaoh could have!" For clay does not resist the potter...
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 12/7/2005 6:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee: But I meant accountability for human choices, not accountability for God's choices.
Jeff: Me too. How does God's showing mercy to some obligate Him to show mercy to others? How is accountability for SOME undone because of God's forgiveness of OTHERS?
Lee: I agree! And that is the Calvinist answer, however it goes against the implication in the Open View that accountability is due solely to human responsibility.
Jeff: The Calvinist answer is that there is NO LFW, is it not? What I argued above does not negate LFW.
Lee: And would those who are not saved have some objections here?
Jeff: Yes they will. And Paul has answered them in Rom. 9.
Lee: But the problem here is that this involves effectual reprobation:
Romans 9:21-22 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-- prepared for destruction?
It's difficult to argue for an effectual call and still hold that there is no effectual reprobation.
Jeff: I don't see that it involves effectual reprobation at all. People harden their hearts. This hardening renders them incapable of certain activity that would have otherwise been possible. By analogy, if I don't exercise, there are some things I can't do had I exercised. So if God arranges a binary choice for one who is capable of only ONE of the options, He is not violating their LFW. But He IS assuring a particular result.
Jeff: It was the RAISING UP that was providential, not an inactivation of pharoah's will. Pharoah did exactly what God KNEW he would do, given the chance.
Lee: That would be definite foreknowledge then! Before Pharaoh assumed the throne, or even earlier. And could Pharaoh have resisted God's purpose here? It seems he could not:
Romans 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"
And the answer here does not seem to be "Pharaoh could have!" For clay does not resist the potter...
Jeff: Right! God does ASSURE that some things come out according to His plan. In THAT SENSE, He has DEFINITE foreknowledge. It does NOT follow, however, that LFW must be trumped to accomplish this. It's like God foreknowing my dog will die today because He is going to kill him today. What LFW was trumped, thereby? Same thing with easily-manipulated humans. They are PUTTY in God's providential hands.
Remember, a lack of self-discipline is, by definition, a lack of LFW to that extent. Moreover, I am not arguing that EVERYTHING a person does is an act of LFW. Most of what people do is pretty much automatic. Because much of what we do really IS routine. There is a difference between intellectually CONSENTING to what we do and CHOOSING it by an act of LFW. There are a host of things I do automatically everday that I don't regret. But no LFW choice was occurring in those cases, necessarily. For there was no conflict of two or more impulses involved in those cases.
Consider, also, animals. They have no LFW, but they act in an ordered manner most of the time simply by association and instinctive impulse.
Consequently, I would say that Pharoah DID have to rebel given the kind of heart he had. But NOT given that God COMPELLED him. I would even go so far as to allow the POSSIBILITY that had Moses not first performed miracles Pharoah's own magicians could "imitate," Pharoah might have acted differently. I think God truly orchestrated the order of events in a way that ASSURED the result He intended, given what He knew of Pharoah's heart.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 12/7/2005 8:47:17 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 12/10/2005 12:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
various folks said...
Jeff: How does God's showing mercy to some obligate Him to show mercy to others? How is accountability for SOME undone because of God's forgiveness of OTHERS?
Lee: I agree! And that is the Calvinist answer, however it goes against the implication in the Open View that accountability is due solely to human responsibility.
Jeff: The Calvinist answer is that there is NO LFW, is it not? What I argued above does not negate LFW.
But the point is that if LFW is negated in the area of salvation, that undoes a basic principle of Open Theism. Not that I'm trying to get you to be a good Open Theist! But your fence cannot, I think, be properly sat upon.
various folks said...
Lee: ... this involves effectual reprobation ...
Jeff: ... if God arranges a binary choice for one who is capable of only ONE of the options, He is not violating their LFW. But He IS assuring a particular result.
But then who made them? God did, so then their capability of only one option was the choice of God.
various folks said...
Romans 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"
Lee: And the answer here does not seem to be "Pharaoh could have!" For clay does not resist the potter...
Jeff: Right! God does ASSURE that some things come out according to His plan.
In the area of salvation! In this passage, Paul is primarily interested in who belongs to God's family, and why:
Romans 9:22-24 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-- prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory--even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
jefscott said...
]In THAT SENSE, He has DEFINITE foreknowledge. It does NOT follow, however, that LFW must be trumped to accomplish this. ... Same thing with easily-manipulated humans. They are PUTTY in God's providential hands.
In the area of salvation?
This I agree with, by the way...
Isaiah 64:8 Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.
And this is more than just foreknowledge.
jefscott said...
Consequently, I would say that Pharoah DID have to rebel given the kind of heart he had.
Psalm 33:15 ... he who forms the hearts of all, who considers everything they do...
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 12/10/2005 2:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee: But the point is that if LFW is negated in the area of salvation, that undoes a basic principle of Open Theism. Not that I'm trying to get you to be a good Open Theist! But your fence cannot, I think, be properly sat upon.
Jeff: Open theism, as I understand it, merely says that there is no way we can know that God foreknows events that are causally indeterminate. No more, no less. Any other ideas about theodicy, etc are not implied in the basic idea of open theism.
Jeff: ... if God arranges a binary choice for one who is capable of only ONE of the options, He is not violating their LFW. But He IS assuring a particular result.
Lee: But then who made them? God did, so then their capability of only one option was the choice of God.
Jeff: That doesn't follow. Pharoah's capacity of only one choice could be due to his prior hardening of his own heart by his own prior choices. God can use his own diminished capacity for His own purposes.
various folks said...
Romans 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"
Lee: And the answer here does not seem to be "Pharaoh could have!" For clay does not resist the potter...
Jeff: Right! God does ASSURE that some things come out according to His plan.
Lee: In the area of salvation! In this passage, Paul is primarily interested in who belongs to God's family, and why:
Romans 9:22-24 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-- prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory--even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
Jeff: Point being?
jefscott said...
In THAT SENSE, He has DEFINITE foreknowledge. It does NOT follow, however, that LFW must be trumped to accomplish this. ... Same thing with easily-manipulated humans. They are PUTTY in God's providential hands.
Lee: In the area of salvation?
Jeff: If God calls effectually, wouldn't that mean He knows the "called" will be effectually called beforehand? Not sure what you're asking, here.
Lee: This I agree with, by the way...
Isaiah 64:8 Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.
And this is more than just foreknowledge.
Jeff: Actually, I don't see anything about foreknowledge at all in that verse.
jefscott said...
Consequently, I would say that Pharoah DID have to rebel given the kind of heart he had.
Lee: Psalm 33:15 ... he who forms the hearts of all, who considers everything they do...
Jeff: How does this contradict the OV?
Blessings,
Lee
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 12/15/2005 10:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
Back on the merrill-lee-go-round!
various folks said...
Lee: But then who made them? God did, so then their capability of only one option was the choice of God.
Jeff: That doesn't follow. Pharoah's capacity of only one choice could be due to his prior hardening of his own heart by his own prior choices. God can use his own diminished capacity for His own purposes.
But then "I raised you up for this purpose" (Ex. 9:16) is misleading, I would say. "I found you for this purpose" would seem more appropriate.
various folks said...
Jeff: Right! God does ASSURE that some things come out according to His plan.
Lee: In the area of salvation! In this passage, Paul is primarily interested in who belongs to God's family, and why:
Romans 9:22-24 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-- prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory--even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
Jeff: Point being?
Well then, there is effectual election in every case, by this description in Romans 9, and effectual reprobation.
jefscott said...
Jeff: Actually, I don't see anything about foreknowledge at all in that verse.
Yes, I was referring to the conclusion that God is not simply seeing who will repent, he is choosing, and certainly this would come from other verses, such as Romans 9!
various folks said...
Jeff: Consequently, I would say that Pharoah DID have to rebel given the kind of heart he had.
Lee: Psalm 33:15 ... he who forms the hearts of all, who considers everything they do...
Jeff: How does this contradict the OV?
Well, if God made his heart, then Pharaoh's actions were really caused by God, and God knew the future. This would also be effectual reprobation...
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 | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/15/2005 1:18 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/15/2005 6:37 PM (GMT -6) | | | Lee: But then "I raised you up for this purpose" (Ex. 9:16) is misleading, I would say. "I found you for this purpose" would seem more appropriate.
Jeff: You're assuming God is too impotent to providentially arrange for Pharoah to COME TO POWER. Or for Joseph to dream an ill-accepted dream the night before slave traders come by. ETC.
Lee: Well then, there is effectual election in every case, by this description in Romans 9, and effectual reprobation.
Jeff: Only if you assume that Pharoah would have been a nice guy on his own had God not been a bully and hardened his heart. I assume that Pharoah had a hard and impenitent heart (think Rom. 2, here), and the kindness and forebearance of God led him to repentance to no avail. But that God KNEW pharoah's heart and, thus, KNEW it would be to no avail. But that was fine, because God WANTED to show his power by THAT means, ANYWAY.
By your view, people are quite good until God supernaturally hardens their heart. I don't see that the text necessarily implies this.
Lee: Well, if God made his heart, then Pharaoh's actions were really caused by God, and God knew the future. This would also be effectual reprobation...
Jeff: This doesn't follow. If I make a ceramic pot, does that mean if you smash it that it was my fault? Your denying the LFW AGENCY of other beings. These AGENCIES affect what God makes. So God's MAKING them is not the TOTAL explanation of what they become.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 12/17/2005 11:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
various folks said...
Lee: But then "I raised you up for this purpose" (Ex. 9:16) is misleading, I would say. "I found you for this purpose" would seem more appropriate.
Jeff: You're assuming God is too impotent to providentially arrange for Pharoah to COME TO POWER. Or for Joseph to dream an ill-accepted dream the night before slave traders come by. ETC.
Not at all! I'm only saying "I raised you up" implies direct action, being a primary cause, rather than God finding a situation, and then making use of it.
jefscott said...
By your view, people are quite good until God supernaturally hardens their heart. I don't see that the text necessarily implies this.
I actually believe people are helpless in sin, everyone, without exception, and thus God's reprobation is not taking a good person and making them bad, but rather, not changing them, not bringing salvation, by his decision alone, and not because of any aspect seen in that person.
various folks said...
Lee: Well, if God made his heart, then Pharaoh's actions were really caused by God, and God knew the future. This would also be effectual reprobation...
Jeff: This doesn't follow. If I make a ceramic pot, does that mean if you smash it that it was my fault? Your denying the LFW AGENCY of other beings. These AGENCIES affect what God makes. So God's MAKING them is not the TOTAL explanation of what they become.
But forming the heart does explain what they become! It explains what they are, and what they do, especially unbelievers...
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 12/18/2005 9:26 PM (GMT -6) | | | Lee: Not at all! I'm only saying "I raised you up" implies direct action, being a primary cause, rather than God finding a situation, and then making use of it.
Jeff: Are you saying that it was a primary cause in the sense that it was fore-ordained and wrought into the very workings of the universe from the beginning? Cause if you're not saying that, God necessarily acted in a GIVEN SITUATION.
Lee: I actually believe people are helpless in sin, everyone, without exception, and thus God's reprobation is not taking a good person and making them bad, but rather, not changing them, not bringing salvation, by his decision alone, and not because of any aspect seen in that person.
Jeff: I believe that humans, as mere carnal/soulish beings, cannot FULFILL the spiritual law. But that doesn't mean we are helpless in EVERY sense of that word. So there can still be LFW effects WITHIN that broad realm of incompetence. And these effects are all that is necessary to account for Paul's argument in Rom. 9.
Lee: But forming the heart does explain what they become! It explains what they are, and what they do, especially unbelievers...
Jeff: Here's the verse you quoted:
Psalm 33:15 ... he who forms the hearts of all, who considers everything they do...
If that verse means God is UNILATERALLY FORMING the TOTALITY of one's heart at every instance, then yeah, you're right. But is that necessarily implied by those words?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 12/20/2005 1:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
jefscot said...
Cause if you're not saying that, God necessarily acted in a GIVEN SITUATION.
Yes, I agree that God acted in a given situation. Me not being a deist!
jefscot said...
Psalm 33:15 ... he who forms the hearts of all, who considers everything they do...
If that verse means God is UNILATERALLY FORMING the TOTALITY of one's heart at every instance, then yeah, you're right. But is that necessarily implied by those words?
I was kind of coming from the Open View perspective of prediction of seeing character solidification, so this was a way of saying "According to the Open View, then Pharoah's actions were caused by God, if God formed his heart."
Presumably "raised you up for this purpose" would involve influencing Pharaoh! As in influencing his heart, "forming the hearts of all," to the degree needed for God's purpose to be fulfilled.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald)Post Edited (Lee Merrill) : 12/21/2005 9:36:58 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/21/2005 5:34 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
| 70 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:25 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 |
|
|