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

[jobeth]

1013:

in a sense, noone can act without God's prior knowledge.

I agree.

he allows this, but I wouldn't call it giving consent or permission.

What's the difference?

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.

But the man can't actually do it, unless God allows him to, right?

he can eliminate which ever possibility he does not want to occur.

I agree. Doesn't God actually disallow every possibility that would ruin His overall plan?

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,

If God is not controlling every wiggle of every electron then who's doing it?

Yxboom:

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.

I agree. How can man determine his own destiny and then God foreknow their choice? That is putting the effect before the cause. And that is a logical impossibility.

If man's destiny is truly un-determined until his choice causes the actualization of his destiny, then that would necessarily result in a genuine contribution to God's aggregate knowledge of reality.

But scripture claims that God pre-determined our destiny.

Predestinated = Pre-determined the destiny of

Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,...
11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

If God pre-determined our destiny, and if God knows that nothing can change or prevent what He has ordained, then He certainly foreknows what our destiny is.

 

[Yxboom]

jobeth,

jobeth,

I am hoping that Geoff will clarify for me his position because it seems to me that not only is he straddling a fence but he is obfuscating the very fence he is straddling. I am sure I am not the only one who can attest to this and is equally confused.

 

[geoff]

obfuscating is for ppl who cloud the issues...




fence straddling is for people with sore groins..




I will respond soon.... sorry to keep you waiting... I am sure you are eagarly awaiting my dynamic and and infuriatingly accurate reply

 

[Yxboom]

I just can't sit still and am waiting with the utmost anticipation for your excellent response which I know will more than amply repay the eager await.

 

[geoff]

hehe

 

[Jaltus]

drd,

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).

But is this in the Acts passage, or are you pulling in what you think? I do not see such a distinction in the actual passage.

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).

David's sin has nothing to do with "thelema" or "boule," you just seem to be muddying the waters.

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.

I am not arguing that there is no semantic difference, what I am arguing is that there is semantic overlap such that saying "this is God's will" is somehow different than saying "this is God's plan" in that one is always effecacious and one is not. There is obviously a semantic overlap in these verses. The two are used nearly synonomously. Your argument comes from you reading in the OT passages in order to make some sort of distinction that the text in question DOES NOT MAKE. Please show FROM THE PASSAGE IN ACTS why there is a difference. You simply cannot, for there is no difference in this passage between the two terms.

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?

No, but then you are assuming your understanding of the word in order to make this point, in other words begging the question.

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.

You cannot have it both ways. either "boule" is never overcome, or else it can be. I have shown how scripture clearly teaches that God's "boule" can be overcome. In terms of the larger argument, the argument must be made from the "boule" side, since there are fewer examples.

All occurences of "boule":
Luke 7:30 we have discussed.
Luke 23:51 does not help (it is about Joseph of Aramathia).
Acts 2:23 shows God's "boule" was done.
Acts 4:28 refers to human "boule."
Acts 5:38 the speech of Gamaliel to the Sanhedren.
Acts 13:36 Under discussion.
Acts 20:27 "boule" is actually translated "will of God" here by some translations (NIV), but it does not help the discussion.
Acts 27:12 is human "boule" that goes wrong.
Acts 27:42 is another human plan that does not work out.
Ephesians 1:11 has the "boule" coming from the "thelema."
Hebrews 6:17 says that in order to make His "boule" clear to men, God swore an oath so that they knew it would come true.

Thus, only Luke 7:30, Acts 2:23, Acts 13:36, Acts 20:27, Ephesians 1:11, and Hebrews 6:17 mention God and boule.

Of these, only Luke 7:30, Acts 2:23, and Ephesians 1:11 refer to God's specific "boule" for people. In other words, 1/3 of the occurences which could go against God's "boule," do go against it. Your understanding that God's "boule" is always done is therefore flawed.

I will not even point out the times God's "thelema" is not done.

 

[geoff]

yxboom:

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.

Huh?
are we talking about predestination OR foreknowledge?

Foreknowledge is not causuative, predestination is. Therefore predestination and foreknowledge are not synonymous.

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.

No. You are still confusing predestination and foreknowledge.
God foreknows all, and therefore is able to plan, and intervene in order to bring about His plan.

God is not LIMITED to foreknowledge, but predestination is NOT foreknowledge... it can/could/is be a result of it however.

 

[1013]

What's the difference?

it's not that he has God's approval. that's the connotation that comes with consent or permission. God allows people to do evil things by virtue of the fact that he allows them freedom. He want's us to do the responsible thing. we do not have his permision to abuse this evil but he gives us the freedom to do what he does not wnat us to do because he wants us to freely obey him.

But the man can't actually do it, unless God allows him to, right?

God did not allow him to do this specifically. He is able to do this by virtue of the soverignty that God has decided to practice.

I agree. Doesn't God actually disallow every possibility that would ruin His overall plan?

yes. alot of things can happen that would go against his plan but would not necessarily interfere with his plan. He may allow these possibilities to exist.

If God is not controlling every wiggle of every electron then who's doing it?

If God grants them a degree of self determinacy, no-one is. He created them such that they don't need someone to control them because He is an excellent creator. At most he limits the perameters of what they may do or the likelyhood of what each molecule could individually do.

I know that this view of physics may not bear the test of time, but it nevertheless excellently illustrates certain issues in indeterminism.

 

[Yxboom]

geoff,

geoff,

You are still confusing predestination and foreknowledge.

I do not believe that I am confusing predestination or foreknowledge. I am confused whether you are advocating predestination or foreknowledge. Given previous statements I was impressed that you were advocating predestination and following Edgar I was given the 180 when you insist you are arguing only foreknowledge. Hence I based my reply on God's foreknowledge ultimately resulting in predestination otherwise it is an incomplete foreknowledge. Besides that I appreciate the response and I will respond to what I found interesting about your reply.

God foreknows all, and therefore is able to plan, and intervene in order to bring about His plan.

Granted in a spectator position God may have foreknowledge of the end from the beginning. No arguments there, but I see that you don't advocate an impassible inactive God so it appears that you will acknowledge my stance that God is pro-active involved in a dynamic relationship with mankind. If I am incorrect in this observation than the rest of this response is moot.
But granting that you are I will make my point. Given that God is involved in the daily affairs with mankind than the outcome of future events are daily changing. When you say that God has foreknowledge and based on that foreknowledge God can plan accordingly to bring about His plan. I wish to consider that line of reasoning if you would with this argument. God prior to creation foresees down thru the portals of time to see men's actions and how they go about "fulfilling" His plan. He finds they are lacking and God not being ignorant and impotent takes it upon Himself to react in a way that will best bring about His intended outcome. So, God takes for example Egypt and Israel as a modes of intervention. God knowing that without divine intervention Egypt will never let Israel go. God decides to intervene. So God, does. Now the outcome and future has changed, would you agree? Given God's initial foreknowledge of the events, it is now void and inapplicable because God intervened in the affairs of Israel changing the outcome that was originally foreknown. He is become causative and not impassive. God now working in a second tier foreknowledge sees their response of His intervention now sees how they will reject Him and murmur about water. God foreknows the outcome of this as well. Again God intervenes and gives the Israelites water; whereas, they would have all returned to Egypt and that isn't what God wanted. Now this is twice that God has altered the course of history and has went from a spectator's foreknowledge to an active force changing the future. Take this to the extreme possibility (that it is) when God answers a prayer, moves in a man's heart, and fills a person with the Holy Spirit. Daily the future is changing not alone by man's decisions but by God's decision to take part of the future and involve Himself in it. Whereby we find statements such as:

Luke 13:6-9 He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.

God sincerely saying, "If and if not." So, although foreknowledge isn't causative, God's choosing to dynamically involve Himself with man is; thereby, voiding out impassive foreknowledge with His passive relationship with man.

 

[Yxboom]

geoff,

geoff,

one more thing. Could you please explain...

God is not LIMITED to foreknowledge, but predestination is NOT foreknowledge... it can/could/is be a result of it however.

Not that you were unclear in this statement. What I would like clarification on is based on this statement, are you advocating predestination based on foreknowledge or foreknowledge without predestination or what. I would like to continue a dialogue with you but I can only shadow box for so long. In third grade easy english please I am unlearned in philisophical jargon. Thanks.

 

[geoff]

I do not believe that I am confusing predestination or foreknowledge. I am confused whether you are advocating predestination or foreknowledge. Given previous statements I was impressed that you were advocating predestination and following Edgar I was given the 180 when you insist you are arguing only foreknowledge. Hence I based my reply on God's foreknowledge ultimately resulting in predestination otherwise it is an incomplete foreknowledge.

What I am saying to YOU is that foreknowledge does not possess the property of predestination. Predestination itself MAY REQUIRE foreknowledge, but not vice versa. God foreknowing does not equal God predestining.

Again, foreknowing can NOT be causuative. We can very simply demonstrate that it isnt. For example, G knowing that X will do Y at T has in no way predestinated Y at T. It is merely foreknown.

If G wants Y1 to occur at T, knowing that X will do Y, G can intervene and cause Y1, thus predestinating.

God sincerely saying, "If and if not." So, although foreknowledge isn't causative, God's choosing to dynamically involve Himself with man is; thereby, voiding out impassive foreknowledge with His passive relationship with man.

No, It DOESNT void impassive foreknowledge, because foreknowledge is merely knowledge. Knowledge in its self does not have any power. It can not cause, make, create, or will.

God's foreknowledge is a prerequisite for His dynamic involvement in creation. Without it, He could never be perfect in His dealings with Humanity. If He does not know Y then He will never be able to bring about Y1. The same applies to all events leading up to Y.

What I would like clarification on is based on this statement, are you advocating predestination based on foreknowledge or foreknowledge without predestination or what. I would like to continue a dialogue with you but I can only shadow box for so long.

I am advocation a difference between the 2. Without foreknowledge, God can not predestinate, but predestination is not a property of foreknowledge. That is, foreknowledge is knowledge, it has the properties of knowledge, and it in itself has no power to cause anything. A catalyst is required, so to speak. For example, God's love, holiness, mercy etc, and His will, and His power etc etc. With out for example, WILL, God can not act on what He foreknows will happen. Ok?

 

[Yxboom]

geoff,

geoff,

What I am saying to YOU is that foreknowledge does not possess the property of predestination.

Why so hostile. Please bear in mind that I have not come to the spiritual enlightenment that you have arrived at. If you recall your earlier comments to me:

If you consider that an 'obvious' answer... you need some medical help

Many as myself are still learning and trying to understand how to get rid of the flashing 12:00am on their VCR's so cruise. Anyway,

Again, foreknowing can NOT be causative. We can very simply demonstrate that it isn't. For example, G knowing that X will do Y at T has in no way predestinated Y at T. It is merely foreknown.

No, It DOESNT void impassive foreknowledge, because foreknowledge is merely knowledge. Knowledge in its self does not have any power. It can not cause, make, create, or will.

I don't believe anywhere I stated that foreknowledge is causative. Rather I think on this one point we agree. I believe we parted company on whether God intervening in the affairs of man voids foreknowledge. Again foreknowledge is not the cause, as I stated in a spectator role God could maintain foreknowledge. It is the actions of God intervening that is causative not the knowledge.

If G wants Y1 to occur at T, knowing that X will do Y, G can intervene and cause Y1, thus predestinating.

Understood.

God's foreknowledge is a prerequisite for His dynamic involvement in creation. Without it, He could never be perfect in His dealings with Humanity. If He does not know Y then He will never be able to bring about Y1. The same applies to all events leading up to Y.

Heres the issue as I see it. As soon as G brings about Y1 than Y no longer exists. Hence the purpose of my disagreement that foreknowledge is now void and incomplete. The Y is now Y1 and anything that followed Y is now in oblivion because the route that is now open and in effect is Y1, and the future is no longer based on Y. Ergo if the future is now post Y1 and no longer Y which G originally foreknew then foreknowledge of G based on Y is obsolete. Again let me clarify as to not get you to much more upset with me, foreknowledge being causative is not the issue. The issue is whether or not it can harmoniously exist with dynamic interaction.

With out for example, WILL, God can not act on what He foreknows will happen. Ok?

<12:00am> * <12:00am> * <12:00am>

So, is God active or not? If God foreknows exhaustively the future than is the future set? Does God predestinate or not? I think you missed the rest of my response:

In third grade easy english please I am unlearned in philosophical jargon. Thanks.

and of course...

 

[Jaltus]

Predestine is the verb. God cannot "predestinate" because it is not a word. Predestination is the noun, though.

Sorry, it was annoying me.

 

[Yxboom]

My spell checker was annoyed as well, I knew I heard it on TBN somewhere so it gots to be a word.

 

[Yxboom]

Jaltus,

Jaltus,

Bwauh AH HA!

Predestinate is a word!
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

2 entries found for predestinate.
To select an entry, click on it.

Main Entry: 1pre·des·ti·nate
Pronunciation: prE-'des-t&-n&t, -"nAt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin praedestinatus, past participle of praedestinare
Date: 14th century
: destined, fated, or determined beforehand

It behooves me that TBN by golly was right! And I quote a post from a wiseman who said it best to sum it up!

Or the archaic humanity.

 

[Yxboom]

BTW, "predestinate" is an adjective as well as a transitive verb. Which old Webbie would not let me copy and paste.

 

[drdeutsch]

Jaltus,

Excellent argument, as always.
I'll get back to you, although probably not for a few weeks (because of my two-week camp). So, I hope you can wait.

God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[geoff]

Hush you two, I was getting all KJV.... also I have the flu and have slept for 12 hours straight, so my brain is a bit fuzzy.

yxboom:

Why so hostile

I wasnt being hostile.

Many as myself are still learning and trying to understand how to get rid of the flashing 12:00am on their VCR's so cruise

Yep, we have a name for people like that when they call up at work... '12 o'clock flashers' - 'this is gravy... this is an Ox... gravy .... Ox... Ox - - - Gravy'.

Ergo if the future is now post Y1 and no longer Y which G originally foreknew then foreknowledge of G based on Y is obsolete. Again let me clarify as to not get you to much more upset with me, foreknowledge being causative is not the issue. The issue is whether or not it can harmoniously exist with dynamic interaction.

Y would occur, if G did not intervene. Therefore without foreknowledge of Y, Y1 would not be possible. Y does not become 'obsolete' because for X, Y is what will occur without the intervention of G at T.

What this means to me is, that without foreknowlege, dynamic interaction is not possible. G can not intervene at T, and cause Y1, because G does not know Y will occur, and thus need to intervene.

So, is God active or not? If God foreknows exhaustively the future than is the future set? Does God predestinate or not? I think you missed the rest of my response:

1/ God is active.
2/ God foreknows the future (including His interventions, and the reasons for them).
3/ The future is set in that it is KNOWN, not in that it is CAUSED.
4/ God does predestine, but only those things He needs to predestine according to what He knows.
5/ No I didnt miss it. I am making it as clear as I can.

 

[Yxboom]

Romans 8:29-30 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Gee-willikers, heaven to betsy predestinate its even in the Bibles.

 

[Yxboom]

Yep, we have a name for people like that when they call up at work... '12 o'clock flashers' - 'this is gravy... this is an Ox... gravy .... Ox... Ox - - - Gravy'.

Now I'm sure I'm never gonna figure it out! Thanks a lot geoff.