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

[jobeth]

Geoff:
I do believe that God uses all things to facilitate His good purpose. But that's because I think God controls everything.

Of course, I realize that those who don't think God is in control don't believe that all things facilitate His purpose. But just because they think differently than I do doesn't make them right and me wrong.

1013:
God used wicked men to convict and crucify our Lord, which facilitated His good purpose of having Jesus pay the penalty for all sin with His blood. So how can you say that God does not use "evil" to accomplish His purpose?
Either what they did was "evil" or it wasn't.
Which do you think it was?

I agree that "evil" is a human invention. Like goblins and vampires and Santa Claus. In other words, imaginary. God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
It is only in the imagination of man that evil actually occurs. In reality, all things facilitate good.

I disagree with you that any unnecessary evil actually occurs. I think that everything that happens is both necessary and profitable to God's purpose and is therefore ultimately good.

How can you possibly know that what you think of as "unnecessary evil" won't ultimately result in good?

 

[drdeutsch]

Jobeth,

Are you serious?

God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[geoff]

drd , yes she is....

*sigh*

 

[1013]

God used wicked men to convict and crucify our Lord

yes. God uses evil that would've been there regardless of his activity. He does not put the evil there. to use evil that is there is not evil and it doesn't appear evil on the part of the one using it. If we put a tracing bug on a drug dealer to trace his drug source, we are using the activity of an evil man for good. there is no appearence of evil on our part.

I disagree with you that any unnecessary evil actually occurs.

you just agreed with me that God is not dependent upon evil. If that is true, then all evil is unnecessary.

How can you possibly know that what you think of as "unnecessary evil" won't ultimately result in good?

just because it can end in good doesn't mean it was necessary.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Geoff said: '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. '

My first thought would be that all correct moral decisions are "perfect" moral decisions. If you act in an appropriately moral fashion, there is no blame or mark associated to you.

If your distinction between correct moral decisions and so-called, 'perfect' moral decisions is that God never fails to choose correctly, and never makes an immoral decision (thus your argument is scoped by consistency), then I'd agree with you. My original rebut stands, however, that men have been making right moral decisions throughout history (not continuously as God, but occasionally) without the foreknowledge of the future, or because of sheer happenstance. Evaluation of a moral choice does not require future knowledge.

If your distinction is that perfect moral decisions are somehow different in trueness than a mere correct moral decisions, and God resides only in the 'perfect' and man cannot, then I would disagree. I do not believe that there is a difference between 'perfect' and 'right' (or righteous) in this context. I would say that this is a false distinction.

Also, I would propose the possibility in light such a peculiarity did exist, that God would not reside in the perfect moral decision camp. My initial proof for this would be the doctrine of salvation, and the fact that not all of mankind will go to hell, though all probably should.

Geoff said: '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. '

Defining the word 'omniscience' so that you can make an argument leaves your argument begging it's own question. You must first prove that God requires the knowledge of the future.

'Omniscience' (which isn't exactly a biblical term) simply could refer to God's ability to know whatever he chooses to know. For either of us to make a determination of what God really knows, requires that one of us is either 1) divine, or has been given, 2) divine disclosure. I propose the latter, as the Bible. Of course, the Bible does not mention "perfect knowledge", "perfect moral decisions", or even "omniscience", nor does it make the distinctions that you require to keep your argument viable.

I suggest that Erickson is using the word "perfect" in order to sustain vagueness, so that he can dictate his own "requirements" for deity. I would argue that there is at least one hole in his theory as concerning "perfect knowledge" for being a requirement to "perfect moral decisions". If we examined the others at length, we could, in all probability, find holes with those proclamations as well.

 

[Yxboom]

Apologetic,

Apologetic,

My first thought would be that all correct moral decisions are "perfect" moral decisions. If you act in an appropriately moral fashion, there is no blame or mark associated to you.

Good call!

 

[jobeth]

1013:

If we put a tracing bug on a drug dealer to trace his drug source, we are using the activity of an evil man for good. there is no appearence of evil on our part.

I agree. In that case, we are "dependent" so to speak, on the drug dealer continuing to do evil, so that we can catch them "in the act". And as long as he is bound to deal drugs, we can be sure we will eventually catch him doing it.
But God is able to Prevent Evil. So we know that God is not at all dependent upon evil being inevitable. For God, evil is not "bound" to occur, but occurs only within the boundaries God allows.

If any "evil" actually occurs, it is only because God neglected to Prevent it, and that for a good reason. Since we realiize that the "evil" God is using to fulfill His purpose, could easily have been prevented from occurring by Him, had He so desired, then the analogy fails when we are talking about God.

We can't affirm that "evil" is bound to occur or is inevitable or "would've been there regardless of his activity", as you say, if we know that God can prevent it.

you just agreed with me that God is not dependent upon evil. If that is true, then all evil is unnecessary.

Yes, evil is unnecessary, except as God uses it to accomplish His purpose. God uses evil, but only in a independent sense.
For instance, if I want to have steak, I must kill or cow (or have one killed). But killing the cow is unnecessary for a meal, unless I want to make a meal out of a steak.

In the same way, if God wants to create a World to Come, He must create inhabitants who will not oppose His Rule. Creating people who will not oppose His Rule is unnecessary for God to dwell in the World to Come, unless He wants the World to Come also inhabited by people who do not oppose His Rule.

God is not dependent upon the reliability of evil. Evil is not perfectly reliable, for one thing. Because God, at any time He so chooses, can prevent any evil we can invent. For another thing, God can have His way with or without anyone else's help, by whatever means He wants to use.

To pretend that evil exists apart from God's knowledge and consent is a litte bit childish, don't you think? Either that, or we are lying when we say that God is more powerful than evil.

just because it can end in good doesn't mean it was necessary.

Well, I don't mean it is existentially necessary. Only that it is practical-ly necessary.
By that I mean that God doesn't create evil, just so that evil will have existence.
Rather, I mean that God causes things that seem evil to us, for practical purposes; to instruct in what is right, to correct what is wrong, as a demonstration of right doctrine, reproof of wrong doctrine, righteous judgement, fair retribution, forcing a change of direction, encouraging affirmative action, etc. etc. And I think that ALL "evil" comes under the heading of "useful" and "practical" or "expedient", in this sense and that NO "evil" comes under the heading of "completely unnecessary" in the sense that no good could ever possibly come from it.

Dr. D.
Shall I re-address my comments above to you or does that answer your question as well?

 

[Yxboom]

Geoff,

Geoff,

drd , yes she is....

*sigh*

HA HA!!!

 

[Yxboom]

Geoff,

Geoff,

Seeing that ApologeticJedi is not very sorry for anything and that he is more than capable I will digress to allow you to concentrate on his responses to you. I have only one final question (my lack of foreknowledge tells me it may not really be my last because its too fun to debate with you) to present seeings that we moved from our trigonometric arguments of foreknowledge.
Granting God reserves complete and perfect EDF of past, present and future collectively. Is it reasonable to conclude that God would allow Himself to be surprised at the outcomes that He Himself determined should occur and within His Godhead even considers a matter. Consider for instance:

Isaiah 5:1-4 Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill: And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes. And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?

Jeremiah 19:5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:

Exodus 13:17 And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt:

Luke 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

Two personal favorites of mine:

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.

Luke 20:9-15 Then began he to speak to the people this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen, and went into a far country for a long time. And at the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard: but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty. And again he sent another servant: and they beat him also, and entreated him shamefully, and sent him away empty. And again he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out. Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him. But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them?

Seems rather redundant and ridiculous that God would even make such statements as these that He blatantly did not get His way. Notwithstanding God foreknowing the outcome from the beginning I find no purpose in making a statement as this:

Deuteronomy 13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

Now as I said before I will not overwhelm you as you already have ApologeticJedi to deal with but I am interested in how you reconcile such EDF anomalies, I mean verses.

 

[geoff]

AJ:

My first thought would be that all correct moral decisions are "perfect" moral decisions. If you act in an appropriately moral fashion, there is no blame or mark associated to you.

I dont think a 'correct' moral decision is perfect. A correct moral decision is only as correct as the information by which you made it, surely.

If your distinction between correct moral decisions and so-called, 'perfect' moral decisions is that God never fails to choose correctly, and never makes an immoral decision (thus your argument is scoped by consistency), then I'd agree with you.

Agree? Cool. Why Can God always choose correctly? Because He has correct knowledge, He is omniscient and His knowledge is perfect and complete. This includes knowledge of the future.

If His knowledge of the future is incomplete and/or imperfect (say, because He can not know human free actions for example), then He has no ability to make a perfect moral decision, because the complete/perfect knowledge required for it does not exist.

Defining the word 'omniscience' so that you can make an argument leaves your argument begging it's own question. You must first prove that God requires the knowledge of the future.

Omniscience is usually defined as containing foreknowledge, how many people do you know of who define it in any other way? My definition of omniscience is fairly orthodox, why on earth would I need to reargue its necessity?
My argument STEMS from my understanding (the orthodox understanding) of what Omniscience is. If you think there is something wrong with the definition, then argue against it, dont just tell me its 'begging the question' - when it fact it isnt.

'Omniscience' (which isn't exactly a biblical term) simply could refer to God's ability to know whatever he chooses to know.

It could, but I do not know of anyone who defines it so. I know of people (read OV) who make it refer to 'God's ability to know what they want him to know' - however thats beside the point.

For either of us to make a determination of what God really knows, requires that one of us is either 1) divine, or has been given, 2) divine disclosure. I propose the latter, as the Bible. Of course, the Bible does not mention "perfect knowledge", "perfect moral decisions", or even "omniscience", nor does it make the distinctions that you require to keep your argument viable.

Scripture and logic provide ample evidence to keep my argument viable. You have just 'claimed' it doesnt... with no proof, which is hardly apologetic, so apologise

So... you believe God is imperfect? incapable of 'perfect moral decisions'? Not possessing 'perfect knowledge' (omniscience)? It behooves you to explain why, my friend, not just 'make it so'.

I suggest that Erickson is using the word "perfect" in order to sustain vagueness, so that he can dictate his own "requirements" for deity. I would argue that there is at least one hole in his theory as concerning "perfect knowledge" for being a requirement to "perfect moral decisions". If we examined the others at length, we could, in all probability, find holes with those proclamations as well.

Make as many suggestions as you like, try reading Him first, before you spout off all over the place about the flaws in his argument.

 

[geoff]

yxboom

This is my second time writing this, so excuse my abruptness (my other version was much nicer... and longer <g>).

Granting God reserves complete and perfect EDF of past, present and future collectively. Is it reasonable to conclude that God would allow Himself to be surprised at the outcomes that He Himself determined should occur and within His Godhead even considers a matter.

Why would God be surprised at anything we do? Doesnt He at LEAST know the heart of man? Didnt He say that He knows our deepest thoughts etc? Our prayer needs before we ask? Shirley that would be a contradiction in terms?

Isaiah 5:1-4 Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill: And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes. And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?

If you look at the context of this, you will find a little further on that God in fact knew that Israel would not bring forth good grapes. Any parent would expect their child to be good, even knowing that most likely they will be naughty. God isnt surprised. God is sad. This verse doesnt support the OV, except taken alone and out of context.

Jeremiah 19:5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:

God says: I did not command them to sacrifice their children to Baal, I didnt say it, let alone even think it.

No surprise or support for the OV here either.

Exodus 13:17 And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt:

I cant even understand this KJV english, it gives me a headache. Why dont you explain HOW this means 'God was surprised'.

Luke 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

Whats this got to do with God being surprised? Or EDF for that matter.

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.

This is a commentary on Israel and her temple cult. The same comment that applies to the Isaiah passage applies here. This only supports OV once it is take out of context. (same with the next verse)

Seems rather redundant and ridiculous that God would even make such statements as these that He blatantly did not get His way.

Only if you missed the point that the verses were trying to make in the first place. Which it seems, you did.

Notwithstanding God foreknowing the outcome from the beginning I find no purpose in making a statement as this:

Deuteronomy 13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

I dont see how EDF causes any problems with this verse. Perhaps you care to explain?

Now as I said before I will not overwhelm you as you already have ApologeticJedi to deal with but I am interested in how you reconcile such EDF anomalies, I mean verses.

I dont find any of them to be anomalies.

 

[Yxboom]

Geoff,

Geoff,

I cant even understand this KJV english, it gives me a headache. Why dont you explain HOW this means 'God was surprised'.

Now if you weren't so cute!!!

 

[geoff]

hehe

Well I prefer my english in a form thats recognisable... might as well be a foreign language... u have to learn what all the words mean

 

[1013]

I agree. In that case, we are "dependent" so to speak, on the drug dealer continuing to do evil,...could easily have been prevented from occurring by Him, had He so desired, then the analogy fails when we are talking about God.

that God did not prevent the evil is moot as I have given the reasons for why he won't. the point of the analogy was to show that God is not evil to use evil that is there without his predestining just as police tracing a drug dealer on his way to get more drugs. even if they could prevent it, they'd not be evil to do so in this case. In this it does not fail.

and the fact that not all of mankind will go to hell, though all probably should.

why should they go to hell for something that they had no real power to prevent and no power to even desire its prevention. reprobation is just plain evil.

Yes, evil is unnecessary, except as God uses it to accomplish His purpose. God uses evil, but only in a independent sense.
For instance, if I want to have steak, I must kill or cow (or have one killed). But killing the cow is unnecessary for a meal, unless I want to make a meal out of a steak.

In the same way, if God wants to create a World to Come, He must create inhabitants who will not oppose His Rule. Creating people who will not oppose His Rule is unnecessary for God to dwell in the World to Come, unless He wants the World to Come also inhabited by people who do not oppose His Rule.

God is not dependent upon the reliability of evil. Evil is not perfectly reliable, for one thing. Because God, at any time He so chooses, can prevent any evil we can invent. For another thing, God can have His way with or without anyone else's help, by whatever means He wants to use.

I don't understand what your point is here.

To pretend that evil exists apart from God's knowledge and consent is a litte bit childish, don't you think?

I affirm omniscience. I don't believe anything can exist or be true without God knowing it. it is hardly childish to say that evil happens without his consent, by which I mean his specific approval for any specific evil.

Either that, or we are lying when we say that God is more powerful than evil.

I don't see why.

Well, I don't mean it is existentially necessary. Only that it is practical-ly necessary.

I totally disagree. evil in the absence of evil is practically unnecessary.

By that I mean that God doesn't create evil

If "God so sovereignly controls all events, both mental and physical," then the creation is totally under his control including everything that leads up to the creation and I see no plausible way of denying that He created it.

Rather, I mean that God causes things that seem evil to us, for practical purposes; to instruct in what is right, to correct what is wrong

but you have God causing "wrong." So he's doing this to correct himself? maybe he should correct this wretched reprobation deal.

and reprobation has no practical purpose. there is no justification for it. it seems evil because it is evil.

 

[Yxboom]

Geoff,

Geoff,

This is my second time writing this, so excuse my abruptness (my other version was much nicer... and longer <g> ).

I wasn't aware. My foreknowledge eludes me.

Why would God be surprised at anything we do? Doesnt He at LEAST know the heart of man? Didnt He say that He knows our deepest thoughts etc? Our prayer needs before we ask? Shirley that would be a contradiction in terms?

Do you have any children? Having insight into a persons thoughts and intents no way makes their actions conclusive at best predictable. You deny the work of the Holy Spirit and God's pro-active dealings within creation. God is not being static in this case otherwise your argument would be valid. But because God is working within creation to bring about His good pleasure when He, as Isaiah put it "looks for good grapes" he is honestly intending to find some. As humans are not static as well God is earnestly working with man to change his destiny. So although human actions may at times be predictable, because God is pro-active in changing this universal fact and when this fails to yield the intended result God is not only grieved at this but equally surprised.

If you look at the context of this, you will find a little further on that God in fact knew that Israel would not bring forth good grapes. Any parent would expect their child to be good, even knowing that most likely they will be naughty. God isnt surprised. God is sad. This verse doesnt support the OV, except taken alone and out of context.

Isaiah 5:7 For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.

As stated above. I am unaware at what point in context makes clear that God expected this? There would be no purpose of God looking if He knew what to already expect.
On another point, you fail to realize that OV does not deny the omniscience of God or His resourcefulness. It is the future that is unknowable not men's hearts or desires. Many times I often desired things that at the very point of acting upon it I don't. So, even though I could have bet on it I myself was wrong. This passage shows this:

Proverbs 28:21 To have respect of persons is not good: for for a piece of bread that man will transgress.

At the drop of a dime a man can change his choices. So even though God may predict an outcome based on circumstance and foresight. The story of Jonah bears this out that men's actions are not as predictable as you claim.

God says: I did not command them to sacrifice their children to Baal, I didnt say it, let alone even think it.

No surprise or support for the OV here either.

I think you said it best:

What you are on about.

If God didn't command it nor even thought about it.....ummmm. what happened to foreknowledge? Wouldn't you think that if God foreknew it then it must have entered into His mind? And if He foreknew this before even creating the world than He would have already known about it when it actually took place. Using my foresight I will say, the argument of knowledge or God being causative I can't see it apply. Either way He would have known.

I cant even understand this KJV english, it gives me a headache. Why dont you explain HOW this means 'God was surprised'.

Has already been address in previous post Forgive me it's the remnants of the baptist church still in me. The issue of the exodus out of Egypt is that God considered one route than reconsidered it due to Israel's unbelief. How does God reconsider something He already know to happen?

Whats this got to do with God being surprised? Or EDF for that matter.

The outcome went contrary to that which Jesus (being God) expected. Again, compare with Isaiah 5.

This is a commentary on Israel and her temple cult. The same comment that applies to the Isaiah passage applies here. This only supports OV once it is take out of context. (same with the next verse)

The background of this passage is not in debate. It is the statement made

And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.

Do you argue that Jesus is the "certain man" or that the Holy Spirit is the "vine dresser"? If no than how would the Holy Spirit (who is God) tell Jesus (who is God) "if..well....if not." They are using indeterminate language on top of the fact that the "certain man" expected to see fruits and found none. How does He expect to find something He knew would not be there, for that matter who looks for something that you know isn't already there? The conclusion would be that God is either paranoid :noid: or a schizo .

Only if you missed the point that the verses were trying to make in the first place. Which it seems, you did.

Opinion.

I dont see how EDF causes any problems with this verse. Perhaps you care to explain?

On what grounds is Israel being "proved" or "tested". I will use the God's Word translation as not to give you anymore aneurysms and not get me back a response.

Deuteronomy 13:3 The LORD your God is testing you to find out if you really love him with all your heart and with all your soul.

God is testing to find out if they really love Him. Wouldn't God already know this, whether or not they do? So, the test is arbitrary and devoid of value.

I dont find any of them to be anomalies.

Well, hopefully now you do, but we all know better.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Geoff said: I dont think a 'correct' moral decision is perfect. A correct moral decision is only as correct as the information by which you made it, surely.

Right, you’ve already stated that you think there is a difference, the question is whether there is any reason to take you seriously, or are you just blowing smoke.

Take for instance, a situation were I am tempted to steal my neighbor’s car. The future has no relevance in my decision whether or not to steal the car. Even if I don’t steal the car, and the neighbor latter runs over some child while driving drunk, my decision was ‘perfect’. Had I made the other choice and stole the car, the child may very well have lived, but I would be guilty of sin (not perfect). This would be an excellent example of why I stated earlier that all correct moral decisions are perfect.

Further, my understanding of morality is that it doesn’t change, even with added circumstance or knowledge. Before, you claimed that God was the source of morality; I would gladly agree with this and link the immutability of morality to God’s righteousness, which does not change.

Geoff said:Why Can God always choose correctly? Because He has correct knowledge, He is omniscient and His knowledge is perfect and complete. This includes knowledge of the future.

If this is what you mean by perfect (and I have serious doubts that you actually know what you mean), then I would say that men make correct moral decisions all the time, and they do not need foreknowledge to do so. Therefore it stands to reason that God could make perfect moral decisions without foreknowledge either, since the only difference between the two is consistency.

Geoff said:If His knowledge of the future is incomplete and/or imperfect (say, because He can not know human free actions for example), then He has no ability to make a perfect moral decision, because the complete/perfect knowledge required for it does not exist.

I think I’ve already covered why this is wrong, but I’d like to point out the inconsistency of your argument. In one sentence you say you agree with me, and that “perfect” means consistently making the right choice, and in the next you use the singular “a perfect moral decision” as if you misled earlier when stating the reason for your distinction.

Unless you wish to continue to be intellectually dishonest I think you should try holding your own feet to the fire by deciding on what you want your arguement to be, rather than swaying with whichever way the breeze is currently blowing.

Geoff said:Omniscience is usually defined as containing foreknowledge, how many people do you know of who define it in any other way?

I know that most dictionarys would only describe it as universal knowledge, and I am doubtful that any dictionary would define the word that it must include foreknowledge. So let us say, that most of the known world. I do recognise your position is orthodox and classical in as far as Christianity is concerned, however that is irrelevant - so was, for a time, the belief that the pheonix was a true story orthodox to Christianity. Christians have believed a lot of illogical junk. We need to decide if this orthodox belief holds any more credibility than the pheonix.

However whatever the definition of the word “omniscience”, it is a moot point that you are making. Your argument begs the question, since the debate, as I understood it was whether or not God has foreknowledge, and God does not have a compulsory link to the word “omniscience”.

I said:Of course, the Bible does not mention "perfect knowledge", "perfect moral decisions", or even "omniscience", nor does it make the distinctions that you require to keep your argument viable.

Geoff said:Scripture and logic provide ample evidence to keep my argument viable. You have just 'claimed' it doesnt... with no proof, which is hardly apologetic, so apologise’

Actually there is proof there … the lack of words and phrases along with the lack of distiction. That I claimed it, doesn’t negate that it is a fact. Since yours is the affirmative argument, the burden of proof lies with you. Provide some scriptural evidence that makes a distinction between correct and perfect moral choices.

You are the one claiming distinctions that do not seem to exist without any proof. Then, as if you are totally clueless of any rules of logic, make the absurd claim that people must prove your wild assertion wrong BEFORE you've offered any proof for it.

Geoff said:So... you believe God is imperfect? incapable of 'perfect moral decisions'? Not possessing 'perfect knowledge' (omniscience)? It behooves you to explain why, my friend, not just 'make it so'

I did not say that God was imperfect, that is a straw-man argument. You’ve yet to establish that there is such a thing as perfect moral decisions outside the scope of correct moral decisions. You should be honest enough and at least say "Well, I don't have any evidence for it, but I believe that it is so." Or you could try providing evidence.


Basically you’ve used the word “perfect” as a buzz word without any meaning. Like a politicians using the word “change” or “patriotic” without meaning or context but to put up a sort of ad miseracondium argument. There is no reason to take your arguement seriously, meerely because you've thrown the word "perfect" into the mix.

 

[Yxboom]

Geoff,
You done did it now and stepped into the you know what! Peace.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Geoff said:Why would God be surprised at anything we do? Doesnt He at LEAST know the heart of man?

Bruce Ware vainly tries to put forth this argument in his book. I think it is interesting that such is repeated. Ware maintains that “knowledge of the heart” somehow implies that God knows our future actions.

Ware tried to use this argument to neglect the plain meaning of the text where God tells Abraham “Now I know” that you fear me. Ware suggests because God knew the heart, God should have already known what Abraham was going to do, so the text must not mean what it so obviously appears to.

Everywhere I go I hear Christians recounting stories told in either “Foxe’s Book of Martyrs” or the newer “Jesus Freaks”, their reactions are almost always the same. On one occasion, a group of young Christians were telling the story of a couple who were told to deny Christ or tanks would run over their children. The couple did not deny Christ and they recorded that they could hear the bones of their children snap as the tanks rolled over them.

Whenever talking about whether or not these Christians would do the same thing in a similar situation, they always claim, “I just hope we never have to face such a choice.” I concur. Looking into a man’s heart will not reveal his future actions, it only gives us insight at the moment.

When I was younger I was afraid to go on the high dive at swimming class. One day, before going I had decided in my heart that I would not chicken out this time. Although much, much latter I would find the courage, my heart changed as I went to the swimming pool and saw again the diving board with clarity.

The truth is, this argument only seems to hold water (no pun intended) if men’s hearts were immutable and did not change. I know of no Christian theology throughout time (save for Ware’s book and the statement on here) that suggests that men’s hearts are immutable in that fashion. That would require God-like resolve, which men do not have.

God, no matter what was in Abraham’s heart up to this point, could not predict what Abraham would do until the knife went in the air. With smaller issues there would be a doubt, but with the willingness to sacrifice one’s son there would be no hint or clue until Abraham actually was faced with the task. I believe Ware’s argument makes light of Abraham’s predicament.

 

[Yxboom]

Shoulda listen to Vader. Don't mess with the Force.

 

[geoff]

yxboom:

Having insight into a persons thoughts and intents no way makes their actions conclusive at best predictable.

God doesnt claim to have insight, He says HE KNOWS. Gen 6:5-6 'every inclination of the whole person'.

You deny the work of the Holy Spirit and God's pro-active dealings within creation

I Do? I rather think I affirm it.

But because God is working within creation to bring about His good pleasure when He, as Isaiah put it "looks for good grapes" he is honestly intending to find some.

Actually, He is EXPECTING good grapes.. NOT intending to find some... I EXPECT you to understand my logic, however, I know you will not.

There would be no purpose of God looking if He knew what to already expect.

God already said He knows what to expect. All He is doing is confirming what he knows to be true. He is confirming to us that He knowsall, and that He has given every chance possible for the expected response to be forthcoming.

If God didn't command it nor even thought about it.....ummmm. what happened to foreknowledge? Wouldn't you think that if God foreknew it then it must have entered into His mind? And if He foreknew this before even creating the world than He would have already known about it when it actually took place. Using my foresight I will say, the argument of knowledge or God being causative I can't see it apply. Either way He would have known.

Huh? Are you ok?
This verse has NOTHING to do with foreknowledge. It OBVIOUSLY has nothing to do with it... what are you on about?

The outcome went contrary to that which Jesus (being God) expected

Again Huh?
Jesus was fully human, suffered from human limitations. Proper Christology affirms that there was things that Jesus didnt know, that He volunatarily gave this up (phil 2:6-9). The incarnation can in no way be used to affirm limited knowledge on behalf of God, because it is accepted as one of the limitations of the incarnation, being human.

The background of this passage is not in debate. It is the statement made

without its background (c0ntext) the passage is senseless.

Do you argue that Jesus is the "certain man" or that the Holy Spirit is the "vine dresser"? If no than how would the Holy Spirit (who is God) tell Jesus (who is God) "if..well....if not." They are using indeterminate language on top of the fact that the "certain man" expected to see fruits and found none. How does He expect to find something He knew would not be there, for that matter who looks for something that you know isn't already there? The conclusion would be that God is either paranoid or a schizo .

This is just getting ridiculous. I cant make head nor tails of how this has any bearing on the discussion....

God is testing to find out if they really love Him. Wouldn't God already know this, whether or not they do? So, the test is arbitrary and devoid of value.

the test is proof to the witnesses... the heavenly councel, the cloud of witnesses, to all of creation... its got nothing to do with what God knows, or doesnt know, in actual fact.