elected4ever
New member
God has reveled His plan to man piece meal and that does not constitute a change in plan. Just a continual revealing of the plan.
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
The program consists of both Prophecy and Mystery.
With the exception of perhaps Gen 3:15, all of Prophecy is directly related
to Israel. While the church is strictly a subject of the Mysteries.
elected4ever
New member
This is not true.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Correction: the church, which is the Body of Christ, isn't a subject of prophecy
but of mystery alone.
elected4ever
New member
I do not think that is correct ether. I believe that the church was not the only mystery. Jesus Christ was also a mystery. I guess it is what one would conceive a mystery to be. What may be a mystery to you and me would no longer be a mystery when the mystery is uncovered. A Mystery is something that is hidden. There are a lot of mysteries in the Bible. The church is but one of many.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Actually, the church age was prophesied, but kept a mystery from all but a remnant of faithful believers.
And prophecy was not just regarding the nation of Israel, but concerns the Christ, Who taught:
". . All things must be fulfilled which are written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." Luke 24:44
This would be a very good subject to discuss. Perhaps you should start a new thread?
Nang
Actually, because God is the first cause (uncaused), once you combine this with foreknowledge or decree, it's causation. It means that there is no free will if you want to add decreeing all things before creation or if you want to add exhaustive foreknowledge.Ask Mr. Religion said:
This has been proposed before, but let's see if we can get an answer from from fresh perspectives: God can sit in front of you at the kitchen table, and with exhaustive foreknowledge can tell you what you are about to do. If you have the will and the ability to do other than what He tells you you are about to do, then a contradiction would exist. Do you see the contradiction?
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Yorshik,
Being new here, I am wondering if secondary cause and effect has been discussed, or factored in.
I explained it in detail in the post from which you quoted me. Perhaps you should learn how to read before participating in a text based internet discussion forum. :idea:
Lon
Well-known member
Sorry Dave, your caricatures are quaint and short-sighted.
What stage of the debate/discussion would this signify?
I doubt AMR will address silly icons.
Try again?
What stage of the debate/discussion would this signify?
I doubt AMR will address silly icons.
Try again?
Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
Suppose a person is unable to choose because of some mental incapacity. Is it ignoble for someone to choose for them, especially if the person choosing (1) is within their rights to so act for the incapacitated, and (2) has only the best interests of the incapacitated person at heart?
Posted by Dave
That person would, indeed, be considered noble by all those he helped, but not by the incapacitated he did not help, for they will be :execute: decapitated
Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
May be true enough, if I were actually implying something about all persons. But I am not. Please read carefully. I am asking about the one, or maybe some, or even many for that matter, but not all of the incapacitated. Nor have I stated or implied that the incapacitated persons in question deserve any such assistance. You've taken what I write too far in an attempt to be clever.
Don't strain to interpret what I am writing, simply take the plain meaning.
Posted by Dave
Don't strain my little quip, my meaning is simple and clear.
I want to deal with "total deparvity", this house of cards stands or falls with it's first premise, without the "T" there is no "TULIP". Biblical theology of salvation is built on the Biblical revelation that man is created "tripartite" not a "duality", then all the verses about what we call "free will" make sense, but I will admit, if man were a "duality", we would have a problem.
I Thessalonians 5:23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
We make decisions in our "soul" not in our "spirit". Our spirits are "dead" but our ability to understand the gospel is in our "mind" which is part of our soul. If our "mind", "emotions", and our "will" are part of our "spirit" then being spiritually dead would mean we would not be able to think, act, or feel anything.
Posted by Clete
Dave's response to this was brilliant and it was entirely on target and blew the whole argument right out of the water.
My response to this would be to point out the Calvinist's amazing ability to compartmentalize their theology to the point that such errors of logic can take place. It is remarkable to me how the Calvinist just forgets about exhaustive predestination/sovereignty when discussing total depravity and any number of other doctrines.
Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
I believe that all actions of persons, including their sinful actions, occur only with God’s permission... In some sense, this all must be in accordance with what God has desired and purposed.
:doh: If our actions are purposed by God, then, they do not occur with God's permission as our own actions. You can't have it both ways and claim your are a rational person, or perphaps, you would want us to believe that the Bible contradicts itself.
As Strong says, "Logically, though not chronologically, decree comes before foreknowledge...
How stupid is this! If God is timeless there is no "before" or "after", God would decree, know, and create in the same eternal moment, making our existence as eternal as God's is.
And since God knows their destiny before they are created, and then proceeds to create...
:dizzy: Again, a timeless God does not know "before" he creates, stop contradicting yourself.
God leaves a person to his own nature, knowing that the person will sin.
:jawdrop: No! No! You made it very clear that God foreordained sin.
"Since these events are foreknown, they are fixed and settled; and nothing can have fixed and settled them except the good pleasure of God, freely and unchangeably foreordaining whatever comes to pass...
God's decree does not take away man's liberty;
:rotfl: Stop! Please, your killing me!
patman
Active member
That's what I said.... Maybe she should go to one of these sites
http://secure.hop.com/
http://www.besmartkids.com/
:readthis:
:rotfl:
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart
They are the same thing to the unregenerated man, they are two different things to God and that's why the Word of God is at work in us to bring about this important distinction.
If our "mind", "emotions", and our "will" are part of our "spirit" then being spiritually dead would mean we would not be able to think, act, or feel anything.
Try reading the points made by the icons and comment on them! AMR can hardly have any comment on them anymore than you, or anyone else, because they are irrefutable and absolutely correct in their criticism--feel free to prove me wrong. But lets post them again without the iconics, I feel God has ordained that I should.
Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
I believe that all actions of persons, including their sinful actions, occur only with God’s permission... In some sense, this all must be in accordance with what God has desired and purposed.
If our actions are purposed by God, then, they do not occur with God's permission as our own actions. You can't have it both ways and claim your are a rational person, or perhaps, you would want us to believe that the Bible contradicts itself.
As Strong says, "Logically, though not chronologically, decree comes before foreknowledge...
If God is timeless there is no "before" or "after", God would decree, know, and create in the same eternal moment, making our existence as eternal as God's is.
And since God knows their destiny before they are created, and then proceeds to create...
A timeless God does not know "before" he creates; he decrees, creates, and knows in the same eternal moment, you are contradicting yourself, again.
God leaves a person to his own nature, knowing that the person will sin.
No! No! You made it very clear that God foreordained sin in this next statement.
"Since these events are foreknown, they are fixed and settled; and nothing can have fixed and settled them except the good pleasure of God, freely and unchangeably foreordaining whatever comes to pass...
God's decree does not take away man's liberty;
This is absurd, "God's decree [of what man will do] does not take away man's liberty [to do other wise]."
All attempts to create a synthesis of contradictory concepts, thesis > antithesis > synthesis, lead to, what I like to call, synthetic statements that have the illusion of making sense out of nonsense.
As Strong says, "Logically, though not chronologically, decree comes before foreknowledge
God is timeless so he does everything in the same eternal moment which has no chronology--no sequence of events. That would mean that God does not "fore" know anything, he just knows everything simultaneously. But the Bible clearly speaks of chronology--time--for God because he had to know everything "before" he created the world.
Now, how do you explain the obvious contradiction?
thesis > God decrees, knows, and creates not chronologically because eternity is timeless.
antithesis > God decrees before he foreknows because the creation is in time.
synthesis > Logically (because creation is in time), though not chronologically (because God is not in time) decree comes before foreknowledge.
But the problem is that "logic" states that anything in God that is before anything else means their is time in eternity.
The comment by Strong, if he were making an honest statement would be, "Logically and chronologically, decree comes before foreknowledge." But then, again, that is saying there is time in God and eternity.
--Dave
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Right. Dead sinners are unable to think, act, or feel anything spiritual or pertaining to the good things of God.
They are totally non-functional (dead) to the things of God.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Note: I have been in Boston at a conference this week, having limited free time that is constraining my participation in this thread. Back home to Arizona tonight.
God has a holy, good, and righteous plan.
God's plan will not be thwarted and will ultimately glorify God.
God knows everyone's destiny before they are created.
God created those that will be saved (His elect)
God created those that will be lost (the reprobate)
God could have refrained from creating those that will be lost, yet he did not.
Therefore the reprobate must fulfill God's plan.
See below for elaboration on the point of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility.
Sigh, such is the limitation of my finite language describing infinitudes. There is nothing implying some sequence of time passing in the above. You are trying to find as much to fit your assumption of God's temporality, and then proclaim, "Aha, gotcha!" Ignore my limitations with the English language; please remember that I do not believe God exists in time. He does not. He created time and can act in the time He created, but God remains outside of time in His existence and is not conditioned by it.
So look at the Strong quote above this way:
When God says, 'I know what I will do,' it is evident that God has determined already, and that His knowledge does not precede determination, but follows it and is based upon it.
Again, you are straining too much with the language and ignoring my doctrine. What you extracted of my response reads in full:
"Since God's foreknowledge is complete, God knows the destiny of every person, not merely before the person has made his choice in this life, but from eternity. And since God knows their destiny before they are created, and then proceeds to create, it is clear that both the saved and the lost fulfill God’s plan for them; for if He did not plan that any particular ones should be lost, God could at least refrain from creating the lost."
It was clear from my context that I am not implying anything temporal. It all occurs in the "eternal now" of God. You can argue I am a lousy grammarian, but keep the fact that I am a Calvinist in mind.
Consider the two propositions:
1. God is absolutely sovereign, even so that he determines the good and evil moral acts of man.
2. Man is responsible before God for all his moral acts.
The question is not whether there is a problem here. It may very well be that we cannot answer the question of how God is able to determine a person's deeds without destroying that person's responsibility. Nevertheless, we see that God is able to do so as plainly asserted by the two propositions above. Yet whether or not we can comprehend this operation of the sovereign God upon mankind is not the question.
The sole question is whether or not the two propositions above concerning God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility are contradictory. I deny that they are. Moreover, they cannot possibly be contradictory, for the simple reason that they assert something about two wholly different subjects. The propositions would be contradictory if the first proposition denied what is affirmed in the second. But it does not.
The first proposition asserts something about God -- God is absolutely sovereign and determines the acts of man.
The second proposition asserts something about man -- He is responsible for his moral acts.
Does the first proposition deny that man is responsible for his actions? If so, we have a contradiction. But it does not.
Those who think they have discovered a contradiction here simply take it for granted that to assert that God is sovereign over man’s acts is saying the same as that man is not responsible. However, it must be pointed out that this is neither expressed nor implied in the first proposition. In the two propositions responsibility is not both affirmed and denied at the same time to man. Therefore there is no contradiction.
Of course, the two propositions would also be contradictory if the second proposition denied what is being affirmed in the first. In that case, sovereignty even over the acts of man would be both affirmed and denied to God. But again it must be pointed out that this is neither expressed nor implied in the two propositions--unless it can first be shown conclusively that to say that man is responsible is the same as declaring that God is not sovereign over his moral acts. And this has never been demonstrated, nor is it self-evident.
If the two propositions were truly contradictory they could not both be the object of the Christian’s faith. We could only conclude that either the one or the other were not true. Now therefore, since the two propositions involve no contradiction, and since both are clearly revealed in the Scriptures, we must accept both, whether or not we can combine them into one concept.
God has a holy, good, and righteous plan.
God's plan will not be thwarted and will ultimately glorify God.
God knows everyone's destiny before they are created.
God created those that will be saved (His elect)
God created those that will be lost (the reprobate)
God could have refrained from creating those that will be lost, yet he did not.
Therefore the reprobate must fulfill God's plan.
See below for elaboration on the point of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility.
Sigh, such is the limitation of my finite language describing infinitudes. There is nothing implying some sequence of time passing in the above. You are trying to find as much to fit your assumption of God's temporality, and then proclaim, "Aha, gotcha!" Ignore my limitations with the English language; please remember that I do not believe God exists in time. He does not. He created time and can act in the time He created, but God remains outside of time in His existence and is not conditioned by it.
So look at the Strong quote above this way:
When God says, 'I know what I will do,' it is evident that God has determined already, and that His knowledge does not precede determination, but follows it and is based upon it.
Again, you are straining too much with the language and ignoring my doctrine. What you extracted of my response reads in full:
"Since God's foreknowledge is complete, God knows the destiny of every person, not merely before the person has made his choice in this life, but from eternity. And since God knows their destiny before they are created, and then proceeds to create, it is clear that both the saved and the lost fulfill God’s plan for them; for if He did not plan that any particular ones should be lost, God could at least refrain from creating the lost."
It was clear from my context that I am not implying anything temporal. It all occurs in the "eternal now" of God. You can argue I am a lousy grammarian, but keep the fact that I am a Calvinist in mind.
Consider the two propositions:
1. God is absolutely sovereign, even so that he determines the good and evil moral acts of man.
2. Man is responsible before God for all his moral acts.
The question is not whether there is a problem here. It may very well be that we cannot answer the question of how God is able to determine a person's deeds without destroying that person's responsibility. Nevertheless, we see that God is able to do so as plainly asserted by the two propositions above. Yet whether or not we can comprehend this operation of the sovereign God upon mankind is not the question.
The sole question is whether or not the two propositions above concerning God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility are contradictory. I deny that they are. Moreover, they cannot possibly be contradictory, for the simple reason that they assert something about two wholly different subjects. The propositions would be contradictory if the first proposition denied what is affirmed in the second. But it does not.
The first proposition asserts something about God -- God is absolutely sovereign and determines the acts of man.
The second proposition asserts something about man -- He is responsible for his moral acts.
Does the first proposition deny that man is responsible for his actions? If so, we have a contradiction. But it does not.
Those who think they have discovered a contradiction here simply take it for granted that to assert that God is sovereign over man’s acts is saying the same as that man is not responsible. However, it must be pointed out that this is neither expressed nor implied in the first proposition. In the two propositions responsibility is not both affirmed and denied at the same time to man. Therefore there is no contradiction.
Of course, the two propositions would also be contradictory if the second proposition denied what is being affirmed in the first. In that case, sovereignty even over the acts of man would be both affirmed and denied to God. But again it must be pointed out that this is neither expressed nor implied in the two propositions--unless it can first be shown conclusively that to say that man is responsible is the same as declaring that God is not sovereign over his moral acts. And this has never been demonstrated, nor is it self-evident.
If the two propositions were truly contradictory they could not both be the object of the Christian’s faith. We could only conclude that either the one or the other were not true. Now therefore, since the two propositions involve no contradiction, and since both are clearly revealed in the Scriptures, we must accept both, whether or not we can combine them into one concept.
Even that statement would be redundant, right?
"Logically and chronologically, decree comes before foreknowledge."
Indeed, logical sequence is the very definition of chronology.
AMR,
I'm sorry that I don't have time right now to respond to your entire post but for now let me just comment on the above paragraph.
Isn't your limitation not with the English language but with reason itself? The language seems clear enough, right? You believe that God is timeless. We all understand that concept entirely. You also believe that creation had a beginning and that God did not and thus God is older than creation. That too is an easy enough concept to grasp and to communicate with the English language. Indeed, there isn't a single precept in your entire theological construct that you cannot articulate with both the written and the spoken word. What you cannot do, however, it that which cannot be done; the reconciliation of contradictory concepts. You ask us to simply accept that you believe that God is timeless and ignore your limitation to explain it but to do so would be to hand you the debate on a silver platter. Your inability to explain your own theology is precisely why we believe that people should reject it; it's precisely why we believe it to be false. For you to object to our bringing up how your theology is contradictory is basically asking us to bow out of the debate. I really don't think that is going to happen.
I'll respond to the rest as soon as time allows.
Resting in Him,
Clete
themuzicman
Well-known member
I am noticing a disturbing lack of scriptural support in Mr. Religion's posts. One wonders what religion he is answering for.
Muz
Muz
I get the same objection made against my own posts. You have to cut the guy some slack. I have no doubt that he could make a Biblically based argument if the discussion goes in that direction.
- Status