No, my answer was that God can know and it doesn't make your choice any different. You are misconstruing this because of how you view foreordination, sovereignty, and predestination.
Here was your answer: "No. The problem in our respective views is where this gets mixed up or misunderstood.
It always needs to be addressed as I'm sure you appreciate. It is often really two ships passing, one using wind, the other oars and we discuss momentum differently (Please don't take that analogy too far, AMR is so right, we can get into metaphor discussion without hitting the main issue)."
That was the 'talking passed each other' part. And you continued: "Dropping the metaphor, it is at the point where time is relative to God (or not) that our perception differs and we aren't even talking about the same thing when you see a contradiction. Knowing something beforehand is just a time consideration, not a problem against the will. If I go to the future and find out that today you wore a red shirt, it doesn't affect your choice or my knowledge. Further, it is merely a question of 'when' not anything negating the choice. AMR said correctly, Foreknowledge doesn't equate foreordination except where God had decided to play a specific part. In our discussion, confusion rather than understanding between is often the frustration. With an OV mindset I always get the 'you aren't being logical' argument, but because it really is an apples to oranges comparison I don't take it personally that your assessment is incorrect. We often mischaracterize because our discussion comes from entirely different premises. I try not to get frustrated and keep this in mind. Our very premises are different which makes it nearly impossible sometimes to see the other's points. I fear we may never be able to really discuss our differences intelligibly, but in hope I keep plodding on."
That would be the 'God has EDF' part. You didn't show how my assessment that the kitchen table senario was a contradiction was wrong, and you didn't agree that it was a contradiction.
But like I said, you don't have to answer if you don't want to.
Go back and revisit with me what I said: If I get an almanac from the future, I'd know every major event that happens this year. I would know if it rains today. HOWEVER, I have nothing at all to do with any of it actually happening. EDF does not remove choice.
(He's making a clear strong stance of it above)
From Lee's quote: "...a remnant will be saved..?"
Your answer clearly is "He doesn't." Thats the answer Lee is looking for. God doesn't 'know." "He is very smart." I.E. He predicts rather well but He doesn't know.
Then how did you answer? You are confusing yourself. It was clear.
The problem isn't that I cannot answer a vague question. The problem is that I gave Lee options on what he was asking for, and he won't reply clearly. So I can say if A, then X, but if B, then Y. But I need a reply that tells me if he meant A or B.
So, when I answer God is smart, it could mean that God is so smart he knows the future exhaustively, or it could mean God is smart enough to tell the future without exhaustive forknowledge. So I asked for clarification and didn't receive it.
Yorzhik said:
As sure as any of God's prophecies. Isn't that obvious?
Lon said:
Yes. God isn't 'sure' in OV. He predicts with almost certainty because "He is very smart."
Your response doesn't follow mine. We have a record of God's prophecies. They didn't all come to pass.
Yorzhik said:
Of course, isn't that His goal?
Lon said:
Er...no. That is why He says only a remnant. The logic leads to rejection or a Calvinistic understanding.
Rejection of what? But isn't it obvious that God would prefer that greater than a remanent be saved than just a remanent? Doesn't the bible as a whole show you that God would rather people be saved than to have His prophecies come to pass?
Thanks, I wanted to make sure you recognize I've not misquoted you here.
It was a rhetorical question. The point is that EDF hasn't been misproven here and prophecy points to God's knowledge. The fundamental issue was
addressed by Clete several pages ago. Scroll down to "Let me try again." He explains the dilemma rather well.
"The point is that EDF hasn't been misproven here and prophecy points to God's knowledge.". Well, on just a philosophical level it has. And on a biblical level it has because of prophecy as one of the strong reasons. But like I said, you don't have to answer the philosophical questions.
The handcuffs is a misunderstanding/mischaraterization. If there were two set to betray Christ, prophecy would have reflected the idea. If none, same thing. It is more than prediction. By God's own
standard, His prophecy
must come about.
This can only mean God knows or He determines, even against what a man chooses and decides for himself. It is an either or scenario. In order for God's standard for prophecy to be upheld, it MUST come about.
I'm showing you how this isn't true. Maybe you are willing to dabble in philosophy just to find out.
Yorzhik said:
Because Pharoah was like a trained dog.
Lon said:
Yeah, but why the tenth plague? God couldn't know when Pharoah would have broken by OV definition. He couldn't have told Moses that Pharoah would have caved after 10. I am arguing God has the ability to 'know' men's future perfectly (and ultimately arguing for EDF). Lee's question is all about this premise. Here is another question: Why do it? Why say what you 'think' will happen if you could be wrong? God doesn't need to predict 'outloud.' In scripture, God throws around prophetic statements like they are just part of his nature and thoughts. He never seems to 'think better' of the guess (if OV were correct).
There is a natural rendering of EDF in scripture. I've grossly oversimplified but I believe you can see the point here.
First, God does "think better", as demonstrated in scripture over and over.
Second, if 10 didn't work, He would do 11. Why would that matter?
OV cannot rest on simply "God being very smart" when the test of prophecy is given in no uncertain terms. It must come about.
Like if God says "surely I will drive them out" in no uncertain terms like that? or "40 days and Nineveh will be destroyed" in no uncertain terms like that?
Yorzhik said:
I can do these things. I could pursuade someone to name their child a certain name, I could blind someone. Why do you make this huge leap from things we could all do to things that define God's exhaustive foreknowledge? It just doesn't follow.
Lon said:
I don't think you can. In
Luke 1:11-20, the angel Gabriel tells Zacharias he will have a son and to name him John. Zacharias doesn't believe him and is struck dumb until the
moment he names John against the others trying to name him. God completely intervenes in this naming.
"I don't think you can." What? What kind of silly talk is that? I do it all the time. Don't be stupid an say I claimed to do miracles. I said I could persuade people. And with the power to, let's say, stop someone from walking temporarily like they do in the mafia, I could persuade people even more! Even enough to persuade them to name their child a certain name.
What I want scripture to say is irrelevant. What it actually says is what is important here.
Think of it in these terms: All of Christiandom has believed that God has EDF based on scriptural teachings. It is audacious to think that "I" out of all believers suddenly have more knowledge and reasoning than the rest of Christiandom. If I have a counter view, I'd better be VERY sure and I'd better be able to prove beyond doubt my assertation. OV has yet to do this and I see it as impertinent.
Ah, no. When God says He would overthrow Nineveh you don't rewrite scripture like Lee does, do you? Just how do you interpret that scripture?
arty:
