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

[jobeth]

Jaltus:
Yes, both Rice and Pinnock claim that EDF = Predestination. And I agree with them on that point. How can you logically deny that absolute foreknowledge excludes the freedom to do anything other than what God knows will occur?

Ultimately, you must either revise the traditional definition of Foreknowledge or revise the meaning and implications of Freewill.

The traditional definition of Omniscience includes God knowing exhaustively not only the present and the past, but also the future. It posits that God knows and is able to predict what will happen BEFORE it happens. God foretells what is going to happen with the force of a promise, and not merely as a vision or an ideal which He is helpless to either bring about, or change or hinder.

The concept of creaturely freedom must exclude the possibility that all human actions are predictable in this way. It posits instead that future free decisions are not knowable in advance. How can God promise a thing will definitely occur in the future, if people's decisions make a genuine contribution to the way things will turn out?

If God's knowledge of what we will do is certain, then how is it possible to do other than what God knows we will do?

And if Freewill means that we alone ultimately decide and genuinely determine our own destiny, then how can God know our destiny, until we, apart from God's agency and control, have made that decision?

It does no good to suggest that God foreknows what our contribution will be and how we will determine our own destiny, because if God genuinely knew ahead of time, then the "fix" was already in place BEFORE we decided, meaning our decision was merely subsequent to God's knowledge and in no way antecendent or "causal".

Genuine effects do not preceed their ultimate cause, but are always subsequent to them. To say that God foreknows what we will decide is to say that our decisions are not the real cause.


Rice continues:"Calvinism presents a magnificient portrait of divine majesty. Its basic metaphor for God is that of an absolute (benevolent) monarch. His most impressive characteristics are power, sovereignty, and control. For Calvinism, God sits enthroned above the rough and tumble of human events, serenely (and lovingly) presiding over the course of history. He decides, he decrees, and his (good) purposes are inevitable fulfilled. Nothing can resist his (Holy) will."

I like that description and agree with the implications. From Rice's point of view, my position regarding God's sovereignty is "typical" Calvinism, rather than "extremist".

Rice even admits that "People often find comfort in the thought that God (who is Good) is in absolute control of their lives."

I think that's beautiful.

The problem with this view, as Rice sees it, is that "On the logical level, God's omnicausality involves omniresponsibility. If everything happens just the way God plans it, then God is responsible for everything. This excludes creaturely freedom, and it seems to make God responsible for all the evil in the world."

To which I respond, "Yes. That is why God, himself, paid the penalty for all the sin and evil in the world, thereby reconcilling the world to Himself, not imputing their tresspasses unto them."

Do you agree with Rice on that point?

 

[geoff]

Yes, both Rice and Pinnock claim that EDF = Predestination. And I agree with them on that point.

It fails because predestination includes causation. You can argue that in order to predestine, God must foreknow, but you can not equate them. They are different entities.

You are pretty lazy, aren't you? Too lazy to read the passages in the Bible about Cyrus, at any rate.

Huh?

Personal insults are not necessary.

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).

You and OV argue that God can not KNOW future human free choices. You say it is impossible to know these things.

I say that God KNEW (he had to in order to foretell the event) human free actions. Cyrus is but one example.

You have in fact agreed with me, that he is human and has freedom to choose. You have agreed that God foretold the even, and in fact brought it to pass.

I dont have to even argue, because you have defeated yourself.

Were the choices made by Cyrus complete freewill choices?

Unless He wasnt human, Yes.

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.

Humans are either possesive of free will, or not. It cant be sometimes yes and sometimes no. What is the point of having freewill if it can be arbitrarily overridden? It is then no longer freewill, and certainly not libertarian.

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!

There you go. And there ends the OV.

 

[1013]

jobeth

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

several reasons. even in an indeterministic setting, large numbers can yeild to some determinism. This is the case in physics as many concieve it currently.

also the huger the number, the more dratistic consequence it can have. If those consequences come to pass, it may interfere with God's greater plans and God is not going to let that happen.

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?

I'm not going to say that God can't prevent the smaller incident in killing 10 people. God allows us greater freedom over smaller matters even if we abuse that. He is not going to allow any human such freedom over the whole flock of humanity.

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?

He can dissallow leeway for the killing of 10 people. Why he doesn't is called the problem of evil. But I believe that because God has taken the possible horrific consequences of freedom seriously, he is not going to prevent every evil action like this but he will if it interferes with the purpose of free will in the first place, and that is to have a genuine relationship with humanity. He has plans to bring this relationship to a completion in a specific way and if someone blows up the world, that would sabotage his plan. So the same reason God gave us free will provides the same reason for halting the consequence of a free action like pushing the button on a doomsday device or however you want to blow it all up.


drd

I saw choice #2 as a strengthened form of choice #1 with all freewill on Cyrus' part ruled out.

well, it is quite possible that he would have all free will ruled out with regards to what God prophecied but he could still have tremendous freedom with respect to how he would carry it out or in other aspects of his life [upon reading all of your post, I see you made an allocation for that].

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.

I don't see Pharoah as comparable to cyrus here. Pharoah was already alive and had made the kind of choices such that his heart was already evil. as evidence of this, the scriptures say that Pharoah hardened his heart many times before God did. Furhtermore, God hardened his heart with regard to actions that were consistent with Pharoahs attitude towards God because even after one of the instances pharoah relented, moses said, "I know that you still do not fear the Lord."

So Pharoah is not a blank slate and possesed much self determinism and what was said of him by God, that he was raised up for the purpose of glorifying God could have been fulfilled no matter how pharoah lived his life. I'm inclined to think though that had Pharoah made the kind of choices that would've been consistent with one who would serve the Lord, he would not have been made ruler of Egypt, but certainly even then God would've used him to glorify himself.

This is obviously the preferable choice, as Cyrus was a pagan and didn't believe in God.

I don't know about that. I may have a higher view of pagans than you.

At any rate, it doesn't destroy the Open View.

yes of course. Absolutely not. But it is still a significant problem for the open view. perhaps what you've argued has satisfactorily taken care of the problem (as I said, maybe it doesn't ascribe praise for cyrus) but I am still going to cautiously consider that it is still something a bit anomolous.

 

[drdeutsch]

Geoff,

Are you trying to make an argument? As usual, it is very weak and not very clear.

Humans are either possesive of free will, or not. It cant be sometimes yes and sometimes no

This is the most ludicrous statement I've ever heard. Where's your proof? Oh wait, I know your answer already: "I don't need proof. It's logical." Or maybe "read the bible."


Geoff, I do believe that humans are endowed with freewill. I also believe, according to Scripture, that God predestined many of the events of Cyrus' life. Does this mean that God predestined the first time Cyrus would kiss a girl? Scripture doesn't say. Does it mean that God predestined the first time that Cyrus would clip his toenails? The Scriptures don't say. Does it mean that God predestined whether Cyrus was right or left handed? Scripture doesn't say. To ASSume (to borrow from you, Geoff) so is wrong.
What do any of those things have to do with Cyrus liberating Israel? Answer: nothing (at least not as far as we can tell. God certainly didn't find it important enough to divinely inspire someone to write about them, did He?)

1013, good point about Pharaoh. You did, however, understand what I was trying to say. It's quite obvious from Scripture that God was influencing Cyrus in order to accomplish His counsel, although the cat-skinning principle could apply.

God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[geoff]

drd,

I have never said I dont need proof. I offered an explanation. So far you havent countered it. All you have done is insult me and claim I am wrong.

I guess I was right all along, OV is dead and you cant have an intelligent convo with an OV'er. I havent met one yet, how I pray for the day one comes along.

 

[drdeutsch]

Geoff,

Humans are either possesive of free will, or not. It cant be sometimes yes and sometimes no.

That is a claim, not an explanation. An explanation is backed up with proof or reason. This is a claim. Basic linguistics.

Read Ezra 1:1 again: "Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia (that would be 539 B.C., unless I'm mistaken), 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 throughout all his kingdom, and also put it in writing, saying..."

Scripture says that the Lord "stirred up the spirit of Cyrus" in his first year as King of Persia. Why did God do this? So that Cyrus would issue the proclamation and release the inhabitants of Judah (Ezra 1:2-4). Now... if the Lord "stirred up the spirit of Cyrus" in 539 B.C., then it logically presupposes that the Lord
wasn't "stirring up the spirit of Cyrus" before that. Thus... it really didn't matter to God what Cyrus did before all of this. Sure, God predestined his name to be Cyrus, predestined his birth, "gave the nations before him and made him rule over kings" (Is 41:2), but all of those actions had to do with fulfilling God's prophecy and counsel. The rest of the events of Cyrus' life, whatever they were, had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Thus Cyrus, being human, enjoyed freewill, until God knew that it was the right time and "stirred up" his spirit, causing him to issue the proclamation.

That, Geoff, is an explanation.

God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[geoff]

Well, its kind of an explanation, it, however, doesnt change the fact that God FOREKNEW (and planned) to rescue Israel, foretold it would be Cyrus, all this despite his human free choice.

It defeats OV.

If 'freewill' can be overridden arbitrarily by God, its no longer 'freewill'. In order for it to be free, it must always be free. It can not be 'free sometimes except when some higher power decides He needs to manipulate it'.

Free will is either free, or it is not free. It cant be 'freewill' sometimes and then something else some other time. Cant you see that? Its like saying, I have a potato, but some times its a carrot, depending on how I feel.

Nothing you have said changes this. The verses you posted dont change it, they just affirm that you are wrong.

Now, please demonstrate how free will can sometimes be free, and sometimes not, and still be free.

 

[Jaltus]

Thus... it really didn't matter to God what Cyrus did before all of this. Sure, God predestined his name to be Cyrus, predestined his birth, "gave the nations before him and made him rule over kings" (Is 41:2), but all of those actions had to do with fulfilling God's prophecy and counsel. The rest of the events of Cyrus' life, whatever they were, had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Thus Cyrus, being human, enjoyed freewill, until God knew that it was the right time and "stirred up" his spirit, causing him to issue the proclamation.

drd,

our argument is not that Cyrus did or did not have free will, but rather the events leading up to him.

Did the previous rulers have free will to invade or not invade Israel? Did Cyrus' parents have the free will to not name him Cyrus? did the previous rulers have the option of letting Israel go? The bovious answer to all these questions is yes. Not to mention, what if someone had killed Cyrus' parents, or overthrew his family from power or if some other country overthrew his before he was even born.

Obviously, God already knew the free actions these people would make, none of whom were Cyrus. The only way the OV would work is if God overrode each person's free will in order to bring about his own ends, which means a lot of people.

 

[geoff]

i forgot to add that bit <g>

heh

 

[1013]

our argument is not that Cyrus did or did not have free will, but rather the events leading up to him.

the problem with the open view here is indeed concerning the certainty that the one named cyrus would fulfill a the prophecy. everything else can easily be accounted for in the open view as I shall explain.

Did the previous rulers have free will to invade or not invade Israel?

why not? If they decided not to invade israel, God could've replaced them with someone who would.

Did Cyrus' parents have the free will to not name him Cyrus?

in what manner. The naming of cyrus as cyrus need not be free. and it could be easily gauranteed. for example, the priest in that culture may get an omen and tell the parents to name him cyrus and who are they to question the will of the god's? it's in the bag.

were they free to even choose eachother and to concieve at the right time in the right way? sure. the name was destined, the task was destined, and what does it matter what set of genes is behind it. it is not destined.

did the previous rulers have the option of letting Israel go?

what if for some strange reason they wanted to let israel go. If they will not do the will of God, they can be removed and some other ruler can hold on to israel untill the designated time.

 

[jobeth]

1013:

I'm not going to say that God can't prevent the smaller incident in killing 10 people.

It sounds to me like you are saying that ultimately, no one can actually act without God's prior knowledge and consent.

Do you agree or not?

 

[drdeutsch]

Jaltus,

Good to have to back to shed some light on things.
I'll get back to you.

Have you had time to think about my explation of Boule and thelema in Acts and Luke?

God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[1013]

from me: I'm not going to say that God can't prevent the smaller incident in killing 10 people.

It sounds to me like you are saying that ultimately, no one can actually act without God's prior knowledge and consent.

Do you agree or not?

If God decides to prevent one from killing 10 people without having a fact of the matter to go on, all he needs to do is eliminate the possibility, which he knows exists. He can do that by whatever means he deems best.

BTW regarding a previous post of yours, it was interesting quote from rice and with this

Our views are logically coherent and so we can disagree and still logically defend our convictions.

I do indeed think that you are one of the more logically consistent people here, not that I would say that your view of scripure works the best, but regarding your consistency for other purposes, I have mentioned that long ago as a matter of fact.


drd

You did, however, understand what I was trying to say. It's quite obvious from Scripture that God was influencing Cyrus in order to accomplish His counsel, although the cat-skinning principle could apply.

pretty much. you are right that they do indeed have that in common. it's just significant to point out though that we have excellent reason to believe that pharoah had a more significant amount of self determinism. I haven't really studied cyrus in depth and what you've written is helpful, but I personally will wait before declaring a decisive victory on this account. I feel much more comfortable regarding Pharoah.

 

[drdeutsch]

1013,

I haven't really studied cyrus in depth and what you've written is helpful, but I personally will wait before declaring a decisive victory on this account.

Agreed. I'm glad that Jaltus could shed some light on his (and Geoff's?) position. Geoff certainly wasn't doing a very good job. I need to study this a bit more before I discuss it further.

God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[geoff]

lol, its a bit like - if geaff says it, its wrong, regardless... but if jaltus says it...

 

[drdeutsch]

Geoff,

I said that you weren't making your point very clear - that it was hard to understand your argument - not that it was wrong. You even admitted that you forgot an important section of your argument, which Jaltus provided. I, too, often forget important parts in my posts, which is why practically every post of mine is edited (even this one!), even though I usually edit for spelling or grammatical errors. Perhaps if you slowed down a bit, thought about what you want to write, and then wrote it, your posts would come out clearer, more defined, and better argued.

God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[jobeth]

1013:
So you do agree that no one can ultimately act without God's prior knowledge and consent. Correct?

 

[Jaltus]

drd,

I'll get back to you tomorrow (I have class tonight).

1013,

Your argument is self-defeating, for in order for your defense to work, God must still have specific sovereignty, not general.

 

[1013]

So you do agree that no one can ultimately act without God's prior knowledge and consent. Correct?

in a sense, noone can act without God's prior knowledge. as for consent, yes, people rebell from God all the time. he allows this, but I wouldn't call it giving consent or permission.

so what do I mean when I agree that noone can act without God's prior knowledge?

remember, I said that I believe that God knows the future exhaustively. thus if the future is filled with alternative possibilities, God knows that.

So suppose that it is undetermined that this person is going to kill ten people. Well God knows that it is undetermined. he KNOWS that. He knows that there is the possibility that it could happen. he TRULY KNOWS this. He is not ignorant of that possibility. He does not know that it is certain that it will happen BECAUSE THAT IS NOT TRUE. he doesn't know that it is certain that he won't do it BECAUSE THAT IS NOT TRUE EITHER. what is true is that there is the possibility that it will happen and there is the possibility that it won't happen. That's the way it will be until God or the man determine this.

and if God wants it to be either way and does not want to leave it up to this man's crazyness, he can eliminate which ever possibility he does not want to occur. he could cause the man to trip on the sidewalk in front of a police officer and expose his gun. He could have a meteor fall out of the sky and hit the guy on the noggin.

Your argument is self-defeating, for in order for your defense to work, God must still have specific sovereignty, not general.

Jaltus, our view of soverignty is precisely the arminian view and that's General soverignty. It doesn't mean that God never moves to determin specific events but it means that God is not an exhaustive micro manager controlling every wiggle of every electron and everything else that can possibly go on, which is what is meant when we use the term specific soverignty. He has a General plan that doesn't require micromanagement but only occasional intervention and direction or redirection.

If you think something I've said still requirews specific soverignty, you'll have to be more detailed.

 

[Yxboom]

geoff.

geoff.

Would you please clarify for me this.

Answer me this, does creation have a Goal, is there a purpose to which God is moving History? Does God have a final intention for creation?

If it is true that God does in fact have a plan, and a goal for creation, then hasn't He destined that outcome?

If God has in fact a destiny for creation, how can you say He does not have a plan for all people? Surely that means He does?

If He has a plan for all people, he must also have plans for individuals, as they make up the 'all people' group, and in order for this not to be the case we should not find any verses indicating individual, or small groups of individuals having a specific destiny.

If there are individuals who are destined, and groups of individuals who are destined, and all people who have a destiny, there is really no good reason to assume that God does not do this, especially when it is clear He does do it.

I would say that everything is 'foreknown', rather than predestined.

Correct me on this if I misunderstand. God has a general plan for all creation. In His general plan for all creation, He has a specific individual plan for each individual in creation. Am I right so far? While having a general plan as well as a specific plan He thereby destined each individual to a specific end for the sake of His individual plan for that individual to best achieve the purpose of His general plan. Am I still following you? However, in His predestination God only has foreknowledge but no predeterminism. So, God has a plan for individuals to fulfill His general plan for all creation but He has no operation in this plan but that of just knowing what will happen. Based on this:

Easy. Foreknowledge is not causative. It is NOT a property that foreknowledge has. It is not determinative, because foreknowledge does NOT have the power to cause anything.

So, God who has a definite plan. Knows this is His plan and determined this to be His plan. BUT God does not bring it about. He only knows that it will somehow happen without any action on His part. If God did involve Himself in His determinate plan than would He not be doing that which you so adamantly fight against, that He only foreknows because He makes it so. Now, if God is not pro-active and relies solely on foreknowledge (because we know that for God to involve Himself would make Him predeterminate (if that is a word) since He already knows the future and is making it happen His way alone thus negating free will) than how does He have this definite plan. If God intervenes than either God has an incomplete foreknowledge or He is predeterminate (no free will) since the option of an open future and a dynamic relationship with mankind is out of the question. With only foreknowledge, God is no longer omnipotent but rather impotent being shackled by His "foreknowledge" unable to alter the course of history. With that said, I need clarity on whether God has predetermined all things by making all things happen hence arriving at His "plan for creation" or does He have foreknowledge only arriving at His "plan for creation" by luck of the draw?