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

[jobeth]

Jaltus:
If, as you say, God cannot predestinate because predestinated is not a word, then why does the KJV use it? Twice?

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:

 

[Jaltus]

Because it is archaic. Try reading the NIV for goodness sake! Something from the last 300 years at least would be preferable.

 

[Yxboom]

geoff,

geoff,

I wasnt being hostile.

I humbly apologize.

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.

How do you so abruptly rule out interaction if there is no foreknowledge? I have no idea whether or not you will respond and if and when you do I only have a vague idea of what you will even say. You may address me or you may not. Do I rule out all conversing because I do not already know what you will say and when? I find that process of elimination rather stringent and unreasonable but nonetheless it is a matter only of opinion and not fact. For sake of argument, God does have EDF how is it inconceivable for Him to not have EDF and still function within creation. I recall omniscience isn't the only attribute that God has or even needs to function as creator.

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.

Where did X come from except from the alphabet? As earlier noted, if you respond (Y) or you do not respond (Y1) there is still the options of either to occur without the guarantee of which one so how is (X) being required in the equation.

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.

Kewl beans.

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.

What is "all KJV" ? I apologize to give you such a rude awakening and I pray that God has predestinated that you will get better from your flu

 

[Yxboom]

Try reading the NIV for goodness sake! Something from the last 300 years at least would be preferable.

Who wants dibs on the New World Translation or the Anointed Standard Translation written for the KKK.

 

[jobeth]

1013:

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.

Help me out here. How can I know whether God disallows SOME things that would interfere with and thereby ruin His plan or whether God disallows ALL things that would interfere with and ruin His plan?

God allows people to do evil things by virtue of the fact that he allows them freedom.

So are you saying that God is able to prevent sin, but refrains from disallowing it? If that is so, then why isn't God is to blame for all the sin that occurs, just like I said?

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.

If it is true that God is the one who made sin possible, then how come you aren't furious with Him?

And if it is true that "God allows" sin, then why does scripture say "God forbids" sin?
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid.
What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
What shall we say then? is the law (which forbids sin) sin? God forbid.

Rather than imagining that God is "allowing" us to sin, shouldn't we imagine that God will hold our sin against us, as though it were "not allowed"?
And isn't it true that God does not "allow" us to sin, but that God commands us to stop sinning?

And isn't it true, that until and unless we are free from sin, we are doomed?

Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
22 But now that you have been freed from sin and enslaved to God, the advantage you get is sanctification. The end is eternal life.
1 John 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not:/b] whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not;

Do you agree with the scripture that whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin and whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God? Is it true, as the scripture claims, that he that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God?

Assuming that God is able to do what we ask of Him, then given the choice, which do you think is better? To be free from sin or to be free from God's control?

 

[geoff]

yxboom:

How do you so abruptly rule out interaction if there is no foreknowledge?

Because, in your following example, If I do not respond, you can not reply. If you do not know what I will respond with, you can not PREPLAN a response. In the same way, God can not have a definite plan for the final state of creation, nor can He plan to get it there, if He does not know what is going to happen along the way.

For sake of argument, God does have EDF how is it inconceivable for Him to not have EDF and still function within creation. I recall omniscience isn't the only attribute that God has or even needs to function as creator.

True, omnisience is not the only attribute required. However, without Omnsience (in the traditional, not OV sense) many of His other attributes would fail to be Godlike, they would not be perfect, and mostly they would be akin to human attributes.... for example, without Omniscience, God would not be able to make perfect Moral decisions. Without perfect knowledge, He would simply be making the best possible decision He could with 'what He knows'. The list goes on.

Where did X come from except from the alphabet? As earlier noted, if you respond (Y) or you do not respond (Y1) there is still the options of either to occur without the guarantee of which one so how is (X) being required in the equation.

X is the one who does/chooses Y. This is perhaps deviating a bit, but because of the way God interacts, X always has the choice of Y or Y1, except that God knows He will take Y1. The foreknowledge didnt cause Y1. X's choice did, which was made under the 'influence', shall we say, of G's intervention.

What is "all KJV" ? I apologize to give you such a rude awakening and I pray that God has predestinated that you will get better from your flu

Its like saying 'I was using archaic language'. Speaking KJV is all qoth this and qoth that, begat this and predestinate that. Lol

I could come over all, like, valley girl, you know, and like, you know, talk this this, and stuff, you know?

 

[drdeutsch]

Jobeth,

You clearly misunderstand the "God forbid" verses. For starters, the verses aren't saying "God forbid sins." they are saying "God forbid that we should sin so that Grace may abound."

Secondly, the words "God forbid" simply don't appear in the Greek. A literal translation is more like "Let it not be!"

God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Geoff wrote: 'Because, in your following example, If I do not respond, you can not reply. If you do not know what I will respond with, you can not PREPLAN a response.'

As a matter of fact, it is a common debating techniques to preplan possible responses long before they happen. I do not see why you limit God as not having an ability that I assume all human beings have.

Although I do agree with you, that if you made no response at all, there could be no 'reply' by the strictest definitions.



******
Geoff wrote: "True, omnisience is not the only attribute required. However, without Omnsience (in the traditional, not OV sense) many of His other attributes would fail to be Godlike, they would not be perfect, and mostly they would be akin to human attributes.... for example, without Omniscience, God would not be able to make perfect Moral decisions. Without perfect knowledge, He would simply be making the best possible decision He could with 'what He knows'."


While I'm not 100% certain what "OV" means, I think I disagree with your statement.

Are you saying that unless God knows the future with every last detail, then God cannot be certain that He will make the right moral decision? I'm not sure I understand where such a conclusion comes from. It seems quite ridiculous.

I am able to make moral decisions every day and I not only don't know everything about the future, but I don't even know everything about what is going on in the world. Moral decisions are not dependant upon anything but the situation at hand, and are certainly not dependant upon the future. You'll have to convince me that people need to know the future in order to obey God's command for us that we make upright and moral decisions.


******
Geoff wrote: "X always has the choice of Y or Y1, except that God knows He will take Y1. The foreknowledge didnt cause Y1. X's choice did'


I believe that this happens. However, how is this idea proven to be truthful or proven falsified?

 

[drdeutsch]

ApologeticJedi,

Welcome to the Forum. I hope you bring some interesting ideas and are willing to learn. I'm wondering, however, what a Jedi would have to be apologetic for? If you want to talk Star Wars sometime, I'm your man.

But back to the topic at hand: "OV" means "Open View," otherwise known as "Open Theism."

Good arguments.

God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[Yxboom]

Geoff,

Geoff,

Because, in your following example, If I do not respond, you can not reply.

Ok than plan A is moot and plan B is in effect. I still don't feel that you have sufficiently addressed the basis of where we disagree which I can address later. I will respond in kind with the same courtesy as you have graciously shown to me in your response.
How do I need to foreknow the outcome to whether you respond or not to make a judgment call.
Say M (me) wants P (to achieve 115 posts on TOL) so I offer V (an invitation to get into a discussion about God's foreknowledge) with Y (you). For P to be achieved M can V with Y, but if Y rejects V, M to achieve P can also resort to S (someone else) to V that M may achieve P. So, without exhaustive foreknowledge of how M will arrive at P, M can still preplan V in hopes that Y would oblige but in the chance that Y rejects the offer than M can V to S and still arrive at P. M will not be limited to Y to achieve P if M is resourceful enough to obtain S. In turn M will not be in need of prior notice to Y's decision if M is prepared with S to achieve P hence M is not limited to only Y to obtain P for there is an abundance of S. With this in mind:

However, without Omnsience (in the traditional, not OV sense) many of His other attributes would fail to be Godlike, they would not be perfect, and mostly they would be akin to human attributes.... for example, without Omniscience, God would not be able to make perfect Moral decisions.

For the sake of this thread I am not going to contend that the Open View is the matter of fact proper view as not to stray from the issue at hand. But for sake of argument, given the previous statement and omniscience in the Open View that God may know all that is knowable with exception to future events, omniscience in the traditional view would by necessity be only speculative, assumed and not essentially required. Still the issue stands and as I said, only for sake of argument because I know you will offer a response in contrast to this. Anyway, to your conclusion that God would be unable to make perfect moral decisions should He lack EDF I find agreement with ApologeticJedi's statement that:

I am able to make moral decisions every day and I not only don't know everything about the future, but I don't even know everything about what is going on in the world. Moral decisions are not dependant upon anything but the situation at hand, and are certainly not dependant upon the future.

Is God not by nature Holy, Just and Upright? I would have to conclude that God is only Holy, Just and Upright because He double checks to make sure He is rather than by His nature require and sustain Him as such.

X is the one who does/chooses Y. This is perhaps deviating a bit, but because of the way God interacts, X always has the choice of Y or Y1, except that God knows He will take Y1. The foreknowledge didnt cause Y1. X's choice did, which was made under the 'influence', shall we say, of G's intervention.

Thanks for the clarification. But I can't help but feel the issue still remains from my previous post to you regarding:

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.

Call me a slow learner and bear with me but in your current arguments I still am unable to see how this previous statement is resolved.

Speaking KJV is all qoth this and qoth that, begat this and predestinate that. Lol

Good ole Webbie came through for me there because Jaltus was ready to beat me like an ugly step child over predestinate. BTW, what in the name of all things contained in sausages and spam musubi is to qoth that?

 

[Yxboom]

ApologeticJedi,

ApologeticJedi,

As DrD has stated OV is the Open View and as John Sanders would say, "The God who risks." Soon enough I imagine you will catch much of the TOL (TheologyOnline) lingo.

I appreciate your response and interest in Geoff and my discussion. I am eager to see what you bring to the table in regards to it. Anyway, if you have any questions about quoting someone or how to work with the format here I will gladly offer you some help.

*A word of caution: Geoff does bite!*

 

[geoff]

apologeticJedi:

wb. Still no need to apologise though

Although I do agree with you, that if you made no response at all, there could be no 'reply' by the strictest definitions.

Thats my point exactly.

Are you saying that unless God knows the future with every last detail, then God cannot be certain that He will make the right moral decision? I'm not sure I understand where such a conclusion comes from. It seems quite ridiculous.

God doesnt just make a moral decision, He makes a PERFECT moral decision. In fact, He IS morality, or at least the source of morality.

You'll have to convince me that people need to know the future in order to obey God's command for us that we make upright and moral decisions.

Omniscience isnt just knowing the future, its perfect knowledge, which includes perfect foreknowledge. In order to make the perfect moral choice, perfect knowledge is one of the requirements. have a look in Ericksons Christian Theology, he explains it well there.

I think the prerequisites for a perfect moral decision he sets out are. perfectknowledge (omniscience) - to know what to do, perfect power (omnipotence... not strictly 'perfect' - but 'all powerful') - to be able to bring it about, and perfect will - in order to act.

I believe that this happens. However, how is this idea proven to be truthful or proven falsified?

I believe it stands on its own. Someone could demonstrate how it is false.

yxboom:

Anyway, to your conclusion that God would be unable to make perfect moral decisions should He lack EDF I find agreement with ApologeticJedi's statement that:

see my response above then.

Call me a slow learner and bear with me but in your current arguments I still am unable to see how this previous statement is resolved.

perhaps if you tell me what you dont understand....

Good ole Webbie came through for me there because Jaltus was ready to beat me like an ugly step child over predestinate. BTW, what in the name of all things contained in sausages and spam musubi is to qoth that?

qoth = quote... 'to say'...

 

[Jaltus]

drd,

"Me genoito" is more like "may it never be," perhaps even stronger than that (absolute prohibition, use of "me" with subjunctive).

 

[1013]

Help me out here. How can I know whether God disallows SOME things that would interfere with and thereby ruin His plan or whether God disallows ALL things that would interfere with and ruin His plan?

God does not allow anything to happen that would ruin his plan. not everything that would go against his plan would ruin it and he wouldn't necessarily need to eliminate the possibility of these happening.

So are you saying that God is able to prevent sin, but refrains from disallowing it? If that is so, then why isn't God is to blame for all the sin that occurs, just like I said?

because he is not the one who does it nor did he cause it to be necessary. The one who did the evil is to blame. He didn't disallow the option not to sin, unless that person's heart had a degree of rebellion to where he needed to do some stupid things in order to see the light. Look at Pharoah. After he relented one of those times, Moses said "I know you still do not fear the Lord." Pharoah could've feared the Lord and repented but he didn't. So he was due for another hardening.

If it is true that God is the one who made sin possible, then how come you aren't furious with Him?

Perhaps that is a reasonable conclusion but I don't see it as necessary. Sin was not made possible for the sake of sin. Freedom was given to us so that we may freely love the Lord, so that we could have a more intensely intimate and real relationship with God than would be possible if we didn't have free will, and so that we could be in the image and likeness of a free, creative being, further making a relationship possible. Ad as self determinacy combined with immaturity necessary to temporally finite beings necessarily makes sin possible, it really isn't a design flaw that could've been otherwise.

I'd be furious with God if he made it necessary. Actually I'd just be peeved if salvation was gauranteed for everyone as that would soften the blow. but it is your view were it is necessary because of God and the consequent damnation. I refuse to believe that God is such that he deserves our justified anger because God is perfect, thus an imperfect world originally created by him must've had some indeterminacy (placed there for the reasons I just pointed out in the paragraph above) thus the imperfection is not necessarily due to him.

And if it is true that "God allows" sin, then why does scripture say "God forbids" sin?

two different things. God does not allow sin in the sense that he forbids it. He allows it in the sense that he does not make it impossible but since he forbids it, we mustn't go down those paths. It is possible for the reasons I stated above.

Rather than imagining that God is "allowing" us to sin, shouldn't we imagine that God will hold our sin against us, as though it were "not allowed"?

I do.

Do you agree with the scripture that whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin and whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God?

I always agree with scripture jobeth, even though I may not understand it. I don't know how to reconcile these scriptures with the scriptures that do indeed say that Christians sin. but I know from experience that Christians do sin and scripture confirms this.

gal 6
1Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. 2Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.

gal 5
13You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature[1] ; rather, serve one another in love. 14The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."[2] 15If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.


1 john 2
1My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for[1] the sins of the whole world.


1john 5:16
If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that.


revelations 2 to church in Ephesus

4Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love. 5Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.

1 corinthians 15:34
34Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God--I say this to your shame.

Assuming that God is able to do what we ask of Him, then given the choice, which do you think is better? To be free from sin or to be free from God's control?

certainly to be free from sin. and God does not controll us such that it is truly impossible for us to sin.

 

[jobeth]

DrD:

You clearly misunderstand the "God forbid" verses. For starters, the verses aren't saying "God forbid sins."

Really? Are you saying that God is not against sin, but rather He delights in sin and happily allows sin to occur?

1013:

God is perfect, thus an imperfect world originally created by him must've had some indeterminacy... thus the imperfection is not necessarily due to him.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if God were actually in charge of everything that happens, so that all events, no matter how them may seem at the time, were actually facilitating and in accordance with His Good Purpose?

God does not allow sin in the sense that he forbids it. He allows it in the sense that he does not make it impossible

Wouldn't it be great were God to conquer your stubborn will into submission with His overwhelming love, so that you would willingly accept the yoke of heaven and no longer even want to disobey Him?

certainly (it is better) to be free from sin. and God does not controll us such that it is truly impossible for us to sin.

Wouldn't you be glad if God were to take over control of you and make it impossible for you to sin?

 

[geoff]

Really? Are you saying that God is not against sin, but rather He delights in sin and happily allows sin to occur?

Funny thing to say from someone who believes there is no such thing as sin.

 

[1013]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if God were actually in charge of everything that happens, so that all events, no matter how them may seem at the time, were actually facilitating and in accordance with His Good Purpose?

I just think its absurd to make God dependent upon evil to achieve his goals. Evil exists of its own accord thus God uses it. but nothing he does would have to result in it where it wouldn't have been otherwise.

furthermore, I believe that the benefits of free will that I have emphasized are real and I don't think it would be wonderful not to have free will. I'm sure God could create a great world without free creatures, but not the one with the benefits that this one affords.

Wouldn't it be great were God to conquer your stubborn will into submission with His overwhelming love, so that you would willingly accept the yoke of heaven and no longer even want to disobey Him?

well jobeth, you say God controls everything so nothing's stopping him. And I don't see how it can be the case that any stubborn wills can exist if "God so sovereignly controls all events, both mental and physical, that we have no choice but to obey Him."

Wouldn't you be glad if God were to take over control of you and make it impossible for you to sin?

no. I'm not interested in being a robot. It would be great to not sin in cooperation with God. He does not take control were my cooperation is not needed though.

 

[jobeth]

1013:

I just think its absurd to make God dependent upon evil to achieve his goals.

God is not dependent on evil. But God uses means that sometimes may seem evil to us. Of course, we know that all things actually facilitate good. Rom 8:28.

Evil exists of its own accord thus God uses it.

I think God is the Sole Creator of all things. You don't?

but nothing he does would have to result in it where it wouldn't have been otherwise.

I agree that there is no "unnecessary evil".

 

[geoff]

jobeth..

NOT all things... but all things FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE...

Not for those who do not.

therefore, NOT all things.

 

[1013]

God is not dependent on evil. But God uses means that sometimes may seem evil to us.

no he doesn't

Of course, we know that all things actually facilitate good. Rom 8:28.

that God can use all things for good, all things in the believers life that is (as geof pointed out) does not mean he is the source.

I think God is the Sole Creator of all things. You don't?

he created all things determined and self determined. He created self determining creatures in his image, the image of the creator. And we abuse our creativity and as paul says, invent evil.

I agree that there is no "unnecessary evil".

I don't.