ARCHIVE:God is NOT an OV'er (He said so)

[Jaltus]

drd,

I would like more proof on how "boule" and "thelema" are different in the Acts passage. You asserted it without any argumentation for it.

The passage in Luke still reads that they rejected God's purpose, which goes completely against your argument that "boule" is God's unrejectable will.

1013,

As I do not even know what the cat skining principle is, could you please explain how it works on geoff's argument?

 

[1013]

Jaltus, Geoff posted this

If God can know ANY event in the future as settled, He must know the surrounding events to that event completely, or He can NOT know the settled event as true. He then must also know the intimate details of those events, ad infinitum.

If God knows ANY event, then He knows ALL events. To know ANY event, also requires knowing the outcome of human free choice, of there is NO thing that God can know with any certainty.

I'll admit that I don't know why this constutitutes an arguement as geoff just makes these claims without backing them up (very typical). He has just nullified all human knowledge with this statement and he probably didn't intend to do this. But I have accepted jobeth's interpretation which sheds more light and makes it seem like an argument.

Geoff:
I agree. God can't know what will happen without knowing how.

the cat skinning principle serves as a counterexample to the simple claim that to know part you must know all down to the intimate details. It furthermore is a counterexample to the clearer interpretation of Geoff by jobeth that God must know how something will be done in order to know that it will be done. It is simply the fact that "there is more than one way to skin a cat."

and I posted this counter-example on page 31 of this thread

Now a man and his two children are stranded on a planet with these strange cat creatures. Being an interplanetary biologist, he knows that these cat like creatures have deadly poisonous skin. but it is the only thing edible on the planet and if he doesn't kill one of these cats, skin them and feed it to his children and himself, they will die.

So we know that the cat will be skinned. But there is more than one way to skin a cat. We don't have to know how the cat will be skinned and that doesn't change the fact that it will be skinned. The man could start at the head or the belly or the back, etc...

 

[Jaltus]

1013,

Thanks. As for geoff's argument, he is using a regressive argument, building from the future conclusion backwards toward what must be in place in order to have the exact future conclusion.

Example:

Future Event: Cyrus was going to let God's people out of captivity.

Assumptions: Cyrus had to be born.
He had to be ruling a nation.
That nation had to have Israel captive.
That nation must have already conquered Israel.
Cyrus' parents must name him Cyrus, and not something else.

If any of the assumptions were not met, the Future Event could not have happened. Notice also that those future assumptions were based on choices by Free Moral Agents.

That is geoffs argument. I think, therefore, that it stands up to your critique because of the amount of details that really do have to be in place, it is not just one detail that does not matter, rather a host of them lead up to this happening.

 

[1013]

Thanks. As for geoff's argument, he is using a regressive argument, building from the future conclusion backwards toward what must be in place in order to have the exact future conclusion.

He may have been describing a regressive argument but he really didn't say enough to warrant an argument. without the details you gave, there wasn't anything to it.

But what you have as far as I have studied the issue is the only problematic issue for the open view. But I don't think that it is as problematic as you make it seem.

There is no problem with God setting a nation over israel and having the ruler of that nation set israel free from former captives. Anyone who would not be fit to carry this out could be replaced.

But the guy has a name and that before he was born. I don't consider it a problem that God would have destined his name to be cyrus. It is that this cyrus did a morally good thing. God knew he would do it before he was born and so that is a problem with that.

I don't have a problem with God knowing or to an extent determining the actions which I would even call free actions of specific individuals as I have said, I believe, in the first page of this thread in my first post that hearts harden or mature and so God may know how they will act or even if he destines the specific way in which they act in accordance with the goodness or evil that is in there hearts, I see no significant violation of the will.

But cyrus wasn't even born for it to be the case that God knew that his heart was hardened or matured one way or the other. So this is an anomoly and I don't know how to explain it. But I'm fine with that. every view has its problems.

But I don't consider this a terrible problem because supposing God sufficiently took away Cyrus' free will to do this, it was not an evil action. Had God destined an individual to do something wicked apart from that individual having his heart already set in a certain way, I would have a very difficult time with this problem. but as it is, I consider this a small problem. It is significant but nevertheless, small.

I think, therefore, that it stands up to your critique because of the amount of details that really do have to be in place,

actually it doesn't stand up to my critique. my critique is a defense for indeterminism and does not depend upon the reason for indetermism. It is a problem for the open view because the open view has more specifics about why indeterminism exists. But it still sufficiently shows that you don't need to know the specific how to know the end. it is not a problem for the principle of the skinned cat.

 

[geoff]

Jaltus,

And thats exactly it.

What if Cryus had never been born? It takes a 'free human action' on behalf of 2 people for that to happen in the first place? What about Judas? The list goes on and on. Many of these events were prophecied along time before the person was born, sometimes centuries before.

1013,

You havent given any evidence, just 'I dont think its a problem'. We think its a problem. I think its a serious problem. I think that you thinking it isnt a problem is a problem, a serious problem. It makes discussion with you impossible. Its back your old stance of 'I reject everything you say because I disagree with you on principle'.

And you complain about me?

 

[1013]

2nd post, scroll up

2nd post, scroll up

I'd like to clarify that I overstated what the principle of the skinning of the cat serves. It is not a defence of indeterminism but just the notion that you don't need to know all to know the end. You can still be a determinist and subscribe to this. But it does serve the purpose of indeterminism.

You havent given any evidence, just 'I dont think its a problem'.

and I think you not reading what I wrote and foolishly commenting on it is a problem. and with that, the sparse conversation I have had with you for the time being is at an end and I continue my boycott of geoff.

 

[geoff]

I carefully read what you wrote and commented critically.

Boycott me to your hearts content, it doesnt help your cause any.

 

[drdeutsch]

Jaltus,

Your argument was that the "thelema" in Acts 13:22 becomes the "boule" in Acts 13:36, right?
It is my contention that it doesn't. Rather, God had a "thelema" and a "boule" for David.
God's "boule" for him, no doubt, was the establishment of the kingdom. David first established it in Hebron (2 Sam 5:3-5) then conquered Jerusalem and united all the tribes (2 Sam 5:5-7, 12).

God also had wishes and desires (thelema) for David (Acts 13:22 reads "who will do all the desires of me" literally). David did many great things: Wrote psalms, praised God, etc... But he was by no means a sinless man. He executed people (2 Sam 4:9-12), he had a sexual desire for Bathsheba, which lead him to adultery and murder, etc... in fact David prayed to God for forgiveness, and God, in His mercy, forgave him (2 Sam 12:13-14).

In short, Jaltus, David fulfilled God's counsel/purpose (Acts 13:36) by establishing the kingdom and united all the tribes (2 Sam 5:5-7, 12). David also did many of God's desires, like praising him, praying, evangelizing, etc.... but he was not a perfect man. My point is that the thelema in Acts 13:22 is completely different than the boule in Acts 13:36. One does not become the other. This becomes clear with the evidence I have shown, plus a short scan of all the instances of boule and thelema in the NT, which clearly show a semantic difference between the words.

As for Luke 7:30, you are right: I must qualify my argument, which I did: No one has rejected God's counsel as it pertains to our Salvation. Luke 7:30 says that the Pharisees "rejected God's counsel for themselves." I'm sorry if I was misleading, but I never meant to imply that God had only one single counsel. Obviously, God has predestined more than 1 event, and each of these were according to [one of] His counsel. Thus, in Luke 7:30, we see that God had a specific counsel for the Pharisees. What was it? I have no idea, do you?
At any rate, the Pharisees rejected it or "set it aside." Does this mean God didn't do it? I can't say.... maybe God did do it, and the pharisees were completely unaware of it. Sure, they could have thought that they rejected it, but do you honestly think that any human will would be able to overpower God, especially when He wants to do something?

I'm not aware that the Bible states what this counsel for the Pharisees was. If we knew, then we might know whether it actually happened or not. As such, I feel confident in my argument and belief. Besides that, there are 64 instances of thelema, to my knowledge, in the NT. There are 12 instances of boule. You have shown 2 passages in Acts and said that one becomes the other, despite the other occurences (63 and 11, respectively) that show a clear semantic difference.

God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[drdeutsch]

Cyrus' predestination

Cyrus' predestination

I don't see this Cyrus issue as a problem for the Open View at all.
Geoff, you asked "What if Cyrus had never been born?" That is a completely unbiblical question. Haven't you read Isaiah 41:2? "Who raised up one from the east? Who in righteousness called him to His feet? Who gave the nations before him, and made him rule over kings?"

It is obvious that God predestined Cyrus for a very specific purpose. It is also obvious that God predestined Cyrus' birth and rule over the Babylonians and played a part in "influencing" him to release the inhabitants of Israel.

Does this destroy the Open View? Not at all. God wanted Israel released. He predestined Cyrus' life for this purpose. This is only an example of God working through a human to accomplish His will.

God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[drdeutsch]

Also, as far as I know, the book of Isaiah was written at approximately 750 B.C. about 100 years before Cyrus was even born. Thus, when we read in Isaiah 45:1 "Thus says the Lord to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held -- to subdue nations before him and loose the armor of kings..."

God called Cyrus by name about 100 years before his birth. This woud lead me to believe that God predestined Cyrus' name. Cyrus is God's "anointed," obviously born and called for a specific purpose: to rule over the Babylonians and release God's people. God predestined the events of Cyrus' life and therefore foreknew it. That does not destroy the Open View.

God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[jobeth]

1013:
Okay. So you affirm there is a chance that a man could kill 10 people without God's prior knowledge or consent.
What about 3,000 people? (or the number killed on 9/11?)
What about 280,000,000 people? (or the pop. of the U.S.?)
What about 6,000,000,000? (or the pop. of the planet?)
Is there ANY chance that man could wipe out all life on planet earth without God's prior knowledge and consent?

 

[jobeth]

Dr. D:
I don't recall ever hearing your definition of free will. But, since I've heard so many different renderings of the term over the years, I question whether I know or could relate your particular rendering or not. Would you mind repeating it for me?

 

[jobeth]

1013:
Here's a quote from Richard Rice that I think illumines the problem Geoff and Jaltus face when appealing to eternalism to defend Omniscience and thereby claiming that Omniscience and Omnipotence are two unrelated doctrines.

"For one thing, it is hard to understand how God's experience of the world could change if his knowledge of the future is exhaustive. If God knows absolutely everything that will happen, then he not only knows what his creatures will do, he also knows what all his reactions to their actions and decisions will be. Consequently, there is nothing left for him to find out from the actual occurrence of events. But in that case, what sense does it make to say that he changes in response to changes in the world? To know everything that an experience involves, which absolute foreknowledge requires, is more than to anticipate the experience, it is already to have it.

In a similar way the concept of absolute foreknowledge renders meaningless any notion of divine freedom and therefore of divine decision. To know exactly what you are going to decide is to have made the decision already. There is nothing left to be decided. Consequently, it makes no sense to speak of divine decisions if we attribute absolute foreknowledge to God, for he must know everything that he is ever going to decide. It is equally impossible to imagine a time before which God had decided to do something - to create, for example.

<snip>

In view of the difficulties involved in appeals to eternalism and middle knowledge to account for divine foreknowledge, the apparently simple assertion that God just "knows" future free decisions because he is God and is therefore omniscient may seem attractive. But this position, too, has serious problems. In spite of assertions that absolute foreknowledge does not eliminate freedom, intuition tells us otherwise. If God's foreknowledge is infallible, then what he sees cannot fail to happen. This means that the course of future events is fixed, however we explain what actually causes it. And if the future is inevitable, then the apparent experience of free choice is an illusion."

"Foreknowledge, in the sense of prior knowledge, marks the future events as certain no less than does predestination."

"From this brief review it is evident that attempts to show the compatibility of genuine human freedom with absolute divine foreknowledge have serious problems. They cannot dislodge the conviction that we really decide nothing if the entire future is known to God in advance. Traditional Calvinists have a strong case when they argue that absolute foreknowledge excludes the freedom to do anything other than what God knows will occur."

End quote - excerpted from "The Grace of God and the Will of Man", Clark H. Pinnock, General Editor

In Rice's view, I think I would fit more closely to the position he calls Traditional Calvinist, while Geoff calls that view "extremist". But isn't it typical for someone who is riding the fence to call anyone who has a conviction either way, such as you and I do, an "extremist"?

At least in our case we recognize that Absolute Foreknowledge is not logically compatible with Free will, since as Rice correctly pointed out, "if the future is inevitable, then the apparent experience of free choice is an illusion."

We must logically deny one or the other. You have chosen to deny Absolute Foreknowledge, while I have chosen to deny Free will. Our views are logically coherent and so we can disagree and still logically defend our convictions.

You and I can both agree with Rice that:
"It is important to remember that occasional divine intervention is compatible with the affirmation of genuine creaturely freedom, while absolute foreknowledge is not." and that "future free decisions are not knowable in advance."

To affirm Absolute Foreknowledge while attempting to hold that humans have Free will, is to surrender the privilege of logical argument, in my opinion.

 

[geoff]

Does this destroy the Open View? Not at all. God wanted Israel released. He predestined Cyrus' life for this purpose. This is only an example of God working through a human to accomplish His will.

A non-elect human, who, unless I am mistaken, has freedom to choose, which does, in fact, defeat the open view.

 

[Jaltus]

Jobeth,

Rice is just wrong. He and Pinnock both claim that EDF = predestination, meaning that EDF is causative. Neither argue for it, they just state it. I'm sorry, but stating a belief does not make it a true belief. If he actually argued for it, then I would worry about it.

drd,

I'll get back to you.

 

[drdeutsch]

Geoff,

You are pretty lazy, aren't you? Too lazy to read the passages in the Bible about Cyrus, at any rate.
Does Cyrus have freewill? Of course he does. He's a human, and all humans are endowed with freewill to choose (at least according to my belief).
Were the choices made by Cyrus complete freewill choices?
I don't know. The Bible does not say. It does say, however, ""Who raised up one from the east? Who in righteousness called him to His feet? Who gave the nations before him, and made him rule over kings? (Is 41:2)

It also says "I have raised up one from the north, and he shall come; from the rising of the sun he shall call on My name;" (is 41:25)

Again, we read "Behold! My servant whom I uphold, My Elect One in whom My soul delights! [Geoff, didn't you just label Cyrus as "non-elect"???] I have put my spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles." (Is 42:1)

"Thus says the Lord to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held -- to subdue nations before him and loose the armor from kings... (Is 45:1)

"Calling a bird of prey from the east, the man who executes my counsel from a far country. Indeed, I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it." (is 46:11)

Geoff, it is obvious that God predestined all of these events that Cyrus would accomplish. It is also evident that God was holding Cyrus' hand and "putting His spirit upon him." Thus, these weren't freewill actions. It appears to me that they were either (1) freewill actions influenced by God, or (2) non-freewill actions done by God through Cyrus, according to His counsel.

Do you honestly think that God would predestine all of these things to happen and then leave it up to chance that Cyrus would do all of this of his own freewill, without the help of God? Cyrus didn't even believe in God!

Jaltus, I look forward to it. A note, though: I have my annual two-week camp for the National Guard coming up. I might be leaving on the 17th, but I'm not sure yet. At the latest, I'll be leaving on the 20th. Anyway, I hope we won't have to postpone very much, as I will have a lot of catching up to do.

God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[1013]

It appears to me that they were either (1) freewill actions influenced by God, or (2) non-freewill actions done by God through Cyrus, according to His counsel.

the problem with one is that if these actions were free, in the libertarian sense, there was truly a legitimate chance that it would not come to pass. If cyrus had been alive at the time, he may have lived the type of life where this would not be a problem because his character formed sufficiently to the point

The problem with 2 is that I believe that cyrus is given praise for his actions (I could be wrong about that though) and that seems indicative of some libertarian sense of freedom.

At any rate I suppose I prefer 2 to 1. I am utterly opposed to God removing free will so that one's heart should do wicked things that one might not otherwise have done for moral reasons. But the harm in removing one's will for good is arguably negligable.

I have put my spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles." (Is 42:1)

this is a very good point.

 

[1013]

Okay. So you affirm there is a chance that a man could kill 10 people without God's prior knowledge or consent.
What about 3,000 people? (or the number killed on 9/11?)
What about 280,000,000 people? (or the pop. of the U.S.?)

I don't know. I don't think such a huge number could be wiped out with out God knowing that it would happen. I'm certain there are explicit bible verses that say that such cannot be the case When would God know it? certainly a very significant amount of time beforehand but probably not at the creation. But I believe there is a point in the passed where such an event is not destined and it is absolutely false that it will certainly happen or certainly not happen.

What about 6,000,000,000? (or the pop. of the planet?)
Is there ANY chance that man could wipe out all life on planet earth without God's prior knowledge and consent?

I doubt that end times prophecies will allow any leeway for that. And if they don’t, God has sufficient power to prevent such a thing. That we are libertarian free does not mean we have the power to do anything. It is that we have the power to do more than one thing is a specific circumstance, and for noone, or nation would that include the ability to bring about the destruction of the world if God didn’t want it. You may say that we have such an ability, but God’s powers are greater than ours. So what if we launch those nukes. A strike of lightning or a meteor in the sky and it’s done for.

 

[drdeutsch]

1013,

I could have worded that better.
I didn't mean to imply that option 1 denotes complete libertarian freewill actions. I meant that God was honestly influencing Cyrus, working through him, holding his hand, putting His spirit upon him, much in the same way that God strengthened Pharaoh's heart. God wanted something done and worked through/with Cyrus to accomplish that. I saw choice #2 as a strengthened form of choice #1 with all freewill on Cyrus' part ruled out. This is obviously the preferable choice, as Cyrus was a pagan and didn't believe in God.

At any rate, it doesn't destroy the Open View. There is no need for God to know all of the choices of Cyrus' parents or grandparents or any of Cyrus' other freewill choices (I do not believe that God executed meticulous control of Cyrus throughout his entire life). God doesn't need to know much of pre-Cyrus history in order to execute His counsel, which He did.

I'm not aware of any verses that show God giving Cyrus praise. To strengthen option 2, however, read Ezra 1:1-2

"Now in the first year of Cyrus, King of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus King of Persia, so that he made a proclamation through all his kingdom, and also put it in writing, saying, 'Thus says Cyrus King of Persia...'"

God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[jobeth]

1013:
What do "huge numbers" have to do with it?

Why should the guy who kills 10 people be able to do so without God's prior knowledge and consent, but it is impossible that all life be wiped out without God's prior knowledge and consent? If any one "small" thing can escape God's foreknowledge, then why can't one "huge" thing escape God's foreknowledge?

If God is not able to prevent even the "small" thing of killing 10 people, then how can He prevent the "huge" thing of worldwide destruction?

And if God is able to dis-allow any leeway for the destruction of the planet, then why can't He dis-allow any leeway for the destruction of a mere 10 people?