Home User CP FAQ Members List Calendar New Posts Active Search Quick Links Log Out
TheologyOnline Forums Politics, Religion, And The Rest Religion Exclusively Christian Theology ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2 Reply to Thread
Search Forums
Show Threads Show Posts
Other Search Options
Find New Posts
Find Today's Posts
Advanced Search
Quick Links
Today's Posts
Mark Forums Read
Open Buddy List
User Control Panel
Edit Profile
Edit Options
Miscellaneous
Subscribed Threads
My Profile
Who's Online
Go to Page...
Preview
Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
Sure I can. God decided that He would destroy Ninevah, but that decision was contingent upon whether they repented. They did, so God changed His mind.
Biblicist: God knows the END from the Beginning. Hence when Scripture says that He "changes His mind," this language is anthropomorphic. Basing your theology on such language would reduce God to not even knowing the present! For He said: Genesis 3:9 "Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, 'Where are you?'"
Biblicist: Further, basing one's theology on such language would reduce God to being not only ignorant of the present, and past, and future, but would also make Him be finite in all other ways as well. Taking anthropomorphic language such as: Genesis 18:21 "I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know." Those who do not understand such language as anthropomorphic must, if they are consistent, also take the above as proving that God is not omnipresent, for He says that "he will GO DOWN to see."
Well, this is the first problem you have. If you have foreknowledge of what shirt I will wear, and I choose what shirt to wear after you have certain foreknowledge of it, then I cannot freely choose that shirt. That proof has been presented many times.
Biblicist: This is not any proof. The ONLY one who is omniscient is God. Such "proofs" are not relevant at all. Foreknowledge that we are speaking of is the foreknowledge of God, and God alone. Hence God does have perfect foreknowledge of all things, (yea much more; He know all things possible but not actual; and all that would occur under all possible circumstances.) It has been asserted that omniscience is contradictory to LFW, but this false.
No, that would be YOUR choice, not mine. You, in essence, are choosing for me.
If you have DEFINITE foreknowledge of my shirt choice, then when the moment when I choose arrives, I cannot choose not to do it. If I choose no to do it, then you do not have definite foreknowledge. Furthermore, if you have definite foreknowledge of what shirt I will choose, then YOU cannot prevent me from doing so.
Biblicist: The problem is that in your example the one having the "foreknowledge" is human. But God is not human. Man can have "definite foreknowledge" of absolutely nothing. You ASSUME that the choosing of the shirt actually happens, where as it is quite possible that the person's life is terminated prior to the event.
Molinism tries to resolve this by saying that God knows what every possible agent would do in any given situation, and then actualizes a possible world with a given set of decisions, but that has its own problems.
Biblicist: True, Molinism is false.
Now, this, in and of itself doesn't make you morally culpable. However, it does make the person who caused me to choose a particular shirt culpable.
Biblicist: Just because God knows for CERTAIN what you will do in the future does not mean that HE causes you to do it. Man is self-determined; hence he is responsible. He chooses from among any number of things. What has not been proven is that LFW is not compatible with GOD's omniscience.
This is the old "foreknowledge doesn't cause" argument.
Biblicist: Only in the case of God's foreknowledge.
That much is true, but it does require someone making a free will decision before the outcome of that free will decision can be certainly known.
Biblicist: This is true for man; but not for God. God knows what we will choose. Further HE knows what one would choose under differing circumstances. This is proved beyond any doubt by Christ when He said: Matt. 11:20 Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent:
21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
22 "But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you.
23 "And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
24 "But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you."
Now, so much of what you assume is proved false by Christ here that it is hard to know where to begin. God knows what they would have done under different circumstances. God holds them responsible to the choices they make even though He know in advance what they will be. At the most basic level you ASSUME that God cannot know free will choices, which is the beginning of your error.
Now whether my decisions are determined directly by God "actualizing" what I will choose, or whether my decisions are determined by the circumstances in the given moment, the "free will" moment which determined my decision preceded the knowledge of it.
Biblicist: Neither is true. Your decisions are determined by YOU. God gives you the power to act; keeps you in being so that you may act; God know for certain what you will choose; but He does not cause you to choose.
Yes, I know there are all kinds of temporal models to try to explain how GOd knows before I choose, and find most of them to be very deterministic.
Biblicist: Determinism is false. God knows what all will freely choose; and He knows before creation.
Muz
Thread: ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2 Reply to Thread
Logged in as biblicist Title:
Message:
FontsArialArial BlackArial NarrowBook AntiquaCentury GothicComic Sans MSCourier NewFixedsysFranklin Gothic MediumGaramondGeorgiaImpactLucida ConsoleLucida Sans UnicodeMicrosoft Sans SerifPalatino LinotypeSystemTahomaTimes New RomanTrebuchet MSVerdana
Sizes1234567
Sure I can. God decided that He would destroy Ninevah, but that decision was contingent upon whether they repented. They did, so God changed His mind.
Biblicist: God knows the END from the Beginning. Hence when Scripture says that He "changes His mind," this language is anthropomorphic. Basing your theology on such language would reduce God to not even knowing the present! For He said: Genesis 3:9 "Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, 'Where are you?'"
Biblicist: Further, basing one's theology on such language would reduce God to being not only ignorant of the present, and past, and future, but would also make Him be finite in all other ways as well. Taking anthropomorphic language such as: Genesis 18:21 "I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know." Those who do not understand such language as anthropomorphic must, if they are consistent, also take the above as proving that God is not omnipresent, for He says that "he will GO DOWN to see."
Well, this is the first problem you have. If you have foreknowledge of what shirt I will wear, and I choose what shirt to wear after you have certain foreknowledge of it, then I cannot freely choose that shirt. That proof has been presented many times.
Biblicist: This is not any proof. The ONLY one who is omniscient is God. Such "proofs" are not relevant at all. Foreknowledge that we are speaking of is the foreknowledge of God, and God alone. Hence God does have perfect foreknowledge of all things, (yea much more; He know all things possible but not actual; and all that would occur under all possible circumstances.) It has been asserted that omniscience is contradictory to LFW, but this false.
No, that would be YOUR choice, not mine. You, in essence, are choosing for me.
If you have DEFINITE foreknowledge of my shirt choice, then when the moment when I choose arrives, I cannot choose not to do it. If I choose not to do it, then you do not have definite foreknowledge. Furthermore, if you have definite foreknowledge of what shirt I will choose, then YOU cannot prevent me from doing so.
Biblicist: The problem is that in your example the one having the "foreknowledge" is human. But God is not human. Man can have "definite foreknowledge" of absolutely nothing. You ASSUME that the choosing of the shirt actually happens, where as it is quite possible that the person's life is terminated prior to the event.
Molinism tries to resolve this by saying that God knows what every possible agent would do in any given situation, and then actualizes a possible world with a given set of decisions, but that has its own problems.
Biblicist: True, Molinism is false.
Now, this, in and of itself doesn't make you morally culpable. However, it does make the person who caused me to choose a particular shirt culpable.
Biblicist: Just because God knows for CERTAIN what you will do in the future does not mean that HE causes you to do it. Man is self-determined; hence he is responsible. He chooses from among any number of things. What has not been proven is that LFW is not compatible with GOD's omniscience.
This is the old "foreknowledge doesn't cause" argument.
Biblicist: Only in the case of God's foreknowledge.
That much is true, but it does require someone making a free will decision before the outcome of that free will decision can be certainly known.
Biblicist: This is true for man; but not for God. God knows what we will choose. Further HE knows what one would choose under differing circumstances. This is proved beyond any doubt by Christ when He said: Matt. 11:20 Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent:
21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
22 "But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you.
23 "And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
24 "But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you."
Now, so much of what you assume is proved false by Christ here that it is hard to know where to begin. God knows what they would have done under different circumstances. God holds them responsible to the choices they make even though He know in advance what they will be. At the most basic level you ASSUME that God cannot know free will choices, which is the beginning of your error.
Now whether my decisions are determined directly by God "actualizing" what I will choose, or whether my decisions are determined by the circumstances in the given moment, the "free will" moment which determined my decision preceded the knowledge of it.
Biblicist: Neither is true. Your decisions are determined by YOU. God gives you the power to act; keeps you in being so that you may act; God know for certain what you will choose; but He does not cause you to choose.
Yes, I know there are all kinds of temporal models to try to explain how GOd knows before I choose, and find most of them to be very deterministic.
Biblicist: Determinism is false. God knows what all will freely choose; and He knows before creation.
Muz
Smilies [More]
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
No icon
Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options
Automatically parse links in text
Disable smilies in text Thread SubscriptionNotification Type:
Do not subscribe No email notification Instant email notification Daily email notification Weekly email notification
Rate Thread
If you like, you can add a score for this thread.
Choose a rating 5 : Excellent 4 : Good 3 : Average 2 : Bad 1 : Terrible
Topic Review (Newest First)
Today 11:39 AM
Ask Mr. Religion
Quote:
Originally Posted by godrulz
The future cannot be open and settled at the same time. The future cannot be future for us, but present for God. A future choice cannot be made in the present. God cannot see something as past that is yet future (it may or may not obtain or happen). The potential future is not like the fixed past. Proposing timeless models of God does not resolve the issue since the event is what it is regardless of perspective (it either has happened and is knowable, or it has not happened and is not knowable as actual if it is merely possible).
Quote:
Originally Posted by godrulz
Flawed analogy that has little value to EDF and free will.
And your unsubstantiated assertions clear everything right up?
Next!
Today 11:27 AM
lee_merrill
Oh, and I wonder still how God knows a remnant will be saved...
Today 10:23 AM
godrulz
Flawed analogy that has little value to EDF and free will.
Today 04:24 AM
Lon
Quote:
Originally Posted by godrulz
The future cannot be open and settled at the same time. The future cannot be future for us, but present for God. A future choice cannot be made in the present. God cannot see something as past that is yet future (it may or may not obtain or happen). The potential future is not like the fixed past. Proposing timeless models of God does not resolve the issue since the event is what it is regardless of perspective (it either has happened and is knowable, or it has not happened and is not knowable as actual if it is merely possible).
You are ascerting here and arguing, but offering no proofs to such statements.
Let me take my analogy a step further (I'll eventually develop it to EDF, so you really need to start hacking it to pieces now, each step of the way or it will logically be accepted as true).
Back to the shirt:
You wore a yellow shirt last week with "I'm with stupid" and an arrow pointing at me. This time I didn't take a picture. There is no way for me to prove you chose the shirt. Assuming again, I'm correct and you're wrong: I can hypothetically prove it by going back to that day and snapping a picture. This proves you chose the shirt. I show you the picture. Again, in no way does this make me the chooser of your shirt, just the 'prover' that you did.
It isn't running a script to do so. Your script is written when you write it. Having knowledge of what you did does not make me the author of your script.
Today 12:56 AM
godrulz
The future cannot be open and settled at the same time. The future cannot be future for us, but present for God. A future choice cannot be made in the present. God cannot see something as past that is yet future (it may or may not obtain or happen). The potential future is not like the fixed past. Proposing timeless models of God does not resolve the issue since the event is what it is regardless of perspective (it either has happened and is knowable, or it has not happened and is not knowable as actual if it is merely possible).
Yesterday 04:35 PM
lee_merrill
Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
God decided that He would destroy Ninevah, but that decision was contingent upon whether they repented. They did, so God changed His mind.
Then we must say everyone is an Open Theist, for everyone believes in such contingencies. What we disagree on is whether God knows which contingency will happen, we do not disagree on "no repentance, then destruction, or repentance, then mercy" for the Ninevites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobE
Given D4, my Indian King would be offended - G6!
Ah, you have no idea how good I am at chess...
Blessings,
Lee <- That could be because I am rather bad at it
Yesterday 03:16 PM
Lon
Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
Sure I can. God decided that He would destroy Ninevah, but that decision was contingent upon whether they repented. They did, so God changed His mind.
Well, this is the first problem you have. If you have foreknowledge of what shirt I will wear, and I choose what shirt to wear after you have certain foreknowledge of it, then I cannot freely choose that shirt. That proof has been presented many times.
No, that would be YOUR choice, not mine. You, in essence, are choosing for me.
If you have DEFINITE foreknowledge of my shirt choice, then when the moment when I choose arrives, I cannot choose not to do it. If I choose no to do it, then you do not have definite foreknowledge. Furthermore, if you have definite foreknowledge of what shirt I will choose, then YOU cannot prevent me from doing so.
Molinism tries to resolve this by saying that God knows what every possible agent would do in any given situation, and then actualizes a possible world with a given set of decisions, but that has its own problems.
Now, this, in and of itself doesn't make you morally culpable. However, it does make the person who caused me to choose a particular shirt culpable. This is the old "foreknowledge doesn't cause" argument. That much is true, but it does require someone making a free will decision before the outcome of that free will decision can be certainly known. Now whether my decisions are determined directly by God "actualizing" what I will choose, or whether my decisions are determined by the circumstances in the given moment, the "free will" moment which determined my decision preceded the knowledge of it.
Yes, I know there are all kinds of temporal models to try to explain how GOd knows before I choose, and find most of them to be very deterministic.
Muz
I'm still not quite grasping your logic here (forgive please).
I am not seeing why you didn't have a choice. It wasn't that you couldn't have worn the other shirt, it is just that I knew which one you did choose before you chose it.
I'm not sure if it was you, but let me float this scenario again and you can help me through your reasoning process.
You wore a yellow shirt that said "I'm with stupid." I took offense as you stood next to me and the arrow was pointed at me. You said, "No way. I don't even remember owning a shirt like that."
Well, I'd snapped a picture and promised I didn't doctor it. There you were standing next to me with the pointing arrow.
Any number of things could explain the shirt: wore your brother's by mistake, dressed in the dark.
What matters is I was right and you were incorrect. It doesn't mean I had anything at all to do with your decision, even though you were wrong and I am correct. It doesn't give me any kind of power over you that I'm right.
In effect, my knowledge didn't effect your choice at all.
How is this different than EDF where God knows (not the same but similarly)? Of course, I believe He ordains (allows) it to take place, but I'm not seeing how you are seeing this as deterministic with no choice on your part.
Yesterday 01:27 PM
RobE
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee_merrill
Even if I start with D4?!
Hey, you were a candidate chess master? Neat, I did a little chess competition, and I was what they call a fish (but not because I swim good--for the non-chess people).
Blessings,
Lee <- Always did wish he could play good chess
Well, we are all woodpushers in comparison to Our Lord. He's not interested in games when it comes to the life and death of those who are foreordained to be His.
I will tell you, fish , that the game is more challenging when we play on opposite sides of the board. Given D4, my Indian King would be offended - G6!
The open theists will have to stick with un-proverbial Yahtzee!
Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap,
but its every decision is from the LORD.
Yesterday 01:20 PM
RobE
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorzhik
Ok. If God were telling you what your will is, then this would be valid. But the test is to see if God can tell you how your palms will be, not what your will is.
However if God allows you to act freely, then your will directs the placement of your palms. Your action is the outward sign of your will. Are you saying you 'willed' to put them 'down' and found them to be 'up'?
Quote:
If you will to have your palms the opposite of whatever God says, even if God knows that, then even God could not say, correctly, how your palms will be. It's so simple even a grammar school student could understand.
Apparently it's not that simple. God could not tell you how your palms would be in this scenario because it would result in the opposite happening. However, God might know and tell others of the result; and, your actions would verify His knowledge.
Let's say God knows that your will is to do the opposite of what He says to do.
God decreed before creation that you would put your palms 'up'.
How might God effectively carry out His decree?
I see two possibilities:
1. God foreknows you will put your palms up so God allows you to do so(through providing you hands, a will, and the environment in which to commit the action. Also He does not intervene to stop you.).
2. God foreknows you will put your palms down so He must intervene to accomplish His decree. He intervenes by saying you should put your palms 'down' which results in you putting your palms 'up'.
Is God culpable for either action? Did God make you place your palms 'up' or 'down' in either instance or did you act freely?
Did God 'trick' you into putting them 'up' or was it your will to do the opposite of what He said to do?
"Nineveh, Nineveh, Where for art thou, Nineveh?"
Yesterday 12:02 PM
themuzicman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lon
Lee's argument, but with your definition, you couldn't say God changed His mind, for He had in mind all along.
Sure I can. God decided that He would destroy Ninevah, but that decision was contingent upon whether they repented. They did, so God changed His mind.
Quote:
I have argued in that EDF doesn't really effect relationship or justice that much.
But here I go again:
Knowing you wear a certain color shirt with inappropriate print, before you do and allowing you to do so, even if it was forbidden doesn't have me morally culpable about your choice.
Well, this is the first problem you have. If you have foreknowledge of what shirt I will wear, and I choose what shirt to wear after you have certain foreknowledge of it, then I cannot freely choose that shirt. That proof has been presented many times.
Quote:
Yes, I could have stopped you, but that is exactly why you do have free choice. I didn't stop you. I'll choose to work with it to bring you to repentance and learn something.
No, that would be YOUR choice, not mine. You, in essence, are choosing for me.
Quote:
Please show how you didn't have a choice or how I'm morally culpable just for knowing ahead of time about your unwise choice.
If you have DEFINITE foreknowledge of my shirt choice, then when the moment when I choose arrives, I cannot choose not to do it. If I choose no to do it, then you do not have definite foreknowledge. Furthermore, if you have definite foreknowledge of what shirt I will choose, then YOU cannot prevent me from doing so.
Molinism tries to resolve this by saying that God knows what every possible agent would do in any given situation, and then actualizes a possible world with a given set of decisions, but that has its own problems.
Now, this, in and of itself doesn't make you morally culpable. However, it does make the person who caused me to choose a particular shirt culpable. This is the old "foreknowledge doesn't cause" argument. That much is true, but it does require someone making a free will decision before the outcome of that free will decision can be certainly known. Now whether my decisions are determined directly by God "actualizing" what I will choose, or whether my decisions are determined by the circumstances in the given moment, the "free will" moment which determined my decision preceded the knowledge of it.
Yes, I know there are all kinds of temporal models to try to explain how GOd knows before I choose, and find most of them to be very deterministic.
Muz
Yesterday 10:36 AM
Yorzhik
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobE
This is true. However the term 'decreed' doesn't affect my objection at all.
So when you ask:
Yorzhik(A): God could communicate how one would have their palms 5 seconds into the future. ......;.....
Yorzhik(B).....can a person will to have their palms other than what God says?
Analysis of the question:
The term 'would(A)' above speaks to a man's will.
The term 'will(B)' above speaks to a man's will.
You ask if what God says can be unequal to what you would(B) do if we accept the fact that what God says equates to what you would(A) do. The contradiction appears.
Again, whether the term 'decree' exists within the thinking or not.....
A. God says = your will
B. God says <> your will
Rob
p.s. One way to issue a decree is through speaking it.
Ok. If God were telling you what your will is, then this would be valid. But the test is to see if God can tell you how your palms will be, not what your will is. If you will to have your palms the opposite of whatever God says, even if God knows that, then even God could not say, correctly, how your palms will be. It's so simple even a grammar school student could understand.
Yesterday 10:12 AM
Lon
Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
IF that's the best argument you got, you'd better sit down:
The threat of destruction was the inducement and catalyst to the change of heart in Ninevah. God knew it was possible that they would repent, and the prophecy is inherently conditional.
(Gee, that wasn't even hard.)
Lee's argument, but with your definition, you couldn't say God changed His mind, for He had in mind all along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
I'm not Arminian, either.
Simple foreknowledge is just EDF trying to get out of cause. Even from the Arminian perspective, all that will happen is already set in stone. They just try not to attribute cause to anyone. The chess master example does not include simple foreknowledge.
I think I agree here (at least not seeing any disagreement with this point at the moment).
Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
Thanks
It's not Arminian foreknowledge, either.
The Arminian is only one step from the Calvinist in foreknowldege. The Arminian just appeals to mystery in how God knows.
I think it is, though you are probably correct here that not all would hold to that position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
And I disagree. I think scripture inherently reveals a God who desires true loving relationships, and a God who engages in true justice over our moral decisions, both of which are incompatible with EDF.
No, EDF isn't necessary from Scripture, but free will is. And EDF isn't compatible with free will.
Muz
I have argued in that EDF doesn't really effect relationship or justice that much.
But here I go again:
Knowing you wear a certain color shirt with inappropriate print, before you do and allowing you to do so, even if it was forbidden doesn't have me morally culpable about your choice.
Yes, I could have stopped you, but that is exactly why you do have free choice. I didn't stop you. I'll choose to work with it to bring you to repentance and learn something.
Please show how you didn't have a choice or how I'm morally culpable just for knowing ahead of time about your unwise choice.
Yesterday 08:02 AM
lee_merrill
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobE
Do you play chess? The game isn't contingent at all. If I was to play a grandmaster the end would be determined before I made my first move --- E4!
Even if I start with D4?!
Hey, you were a candidate chess master? Neat, I did a little chess competition, and I was what they call a fish (but not because I swim good--for the non-chess people).
Blessings,
Lee <- Always did wish he could play good chess
Yesterday 07:01 AM
themuzicman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lon
You really miss the argument sometimes. Lee, btw brought up another excellent point I hope he harps to death. If God changed His mind, why send a prophet in the first place? Couldn't He just have said after the fact: "You sinnned, now you are here."? I'm ashamed I didn't see it as clearly. OV is back to scrambling.
IF that's the best argument you got, you'd better sit down:
The threat of destruction was the inducement and catalyst to the change of heart in Ninevah. God knew it was possible that they would repent, and the prophecy is inherently conditional.
(Gee, that wasn't even hard.)
Quote:
Me. I said that I argue for the general first. It is a way of trying to get you to acquiesce a point. I'm no longer Arminian, but I do argue purposefully from that perspective. If you think I'm not seeing the difference, this isn't the case.
I'm not Arminian, either.
Quote:
I already told you I was arguing simple foreknowledge. I am leaving EDF out of the discussion because it clouds the waters and OV has strong aversion to the points I'd like to make. So sometimes I attack it from the Arminian angle because I can reason from there and get you to look at OV from their perspective a little easier with some of this discussion.
Simple foreknowledge is just EDF trying to get out of cause. Even from the Arminian perspective, all that will happen is already set in stone. They just try not to attribute cause to anyone. The chess master example does not include simple foreknowledge.
Quote:
I'm morally culpable for choosing vanilla over chocolate? I reduce our trivial decisions to about this level, yes. I see a difference between ice cream and Loving God and man decisions. While I agree they are ultimately part of the servant and free discussion, it isn't any easy discussion with one not ready to compare and contrast, so I emphasize the contrast but agree with your point here.
Thanks
Quote:
I already said it wasn't.
It's not Arminian foreknowledge, either.
Quote:
For the Calvinist. The Arminian sees God as more guiding, helping and tutoring. Sure, He is then playing Himself, but that isn't the Arminian emphasis.
The Arminian is only one step from the Calvinist in foreknowldege. The Arminian just appeals to mystery in how God knows.
Quote:
I believe this has us agreeing on the impotence of man to twart God.
But your argument here doesn't deny EDF. It just says it isn't a necessity.
As to that point, I see it in scripture, necessary or not (I believe every part of His character is necessary however, and I believe scripture to reveal that God has EDF.
And I disagree. I think scripture inherently reveals a God who desires true loving relationships, and a God who engages in true justice over our moral decisions, both of which are incompatible with EDF.
No, EDF isn't necessary from Scripture, but free will is. And EDF isn't compatible with free will.
Muz
Yesterday 05:49 AM
RobE
Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
I think you'd agree that dogs don't have the moral culpability that we do in Scripture, and yet you reduce our decisions to being dog-like.
A dog on his chain is still free to drink from his bowl!
The chain was placed on the dog through free moral agency and the original sin. Christ strives to release us from our chain.
You state the same when you use the defense of John 6:44.
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.
