This is a bit of a whitewash. I agree not all have, but we are talking about the majority of Christendom.
The majority of Christendom doesn't embrace sola fide, either.
It is all a bit too specific for a generalization for a sketchy plan. It just doesn't fit the text. These latter kings weren't even born yet. What is to keep them from getting the plague or something before this was all to take place?
Do you think God is unable to prevent a king that he wants to act in the future from getting the plague? Do you still wonder why I think you really don't believe that God is omnipotent?
Again, your answer to this and many more questions point to micromanagement to the hyper extreme.
Huh? God preventing the "free will" of a virus is a problem?
That is quite a statement and feels like a 'gloss-over' to me.
That's because there isn't any point in going into a blow by blow on this passage. You just assume EDF and eisegete it into this passage, without ever giving any real consideration as to whether God could act, without violating free will, to bring this about. You never bring God's omnipotence to bear on prophecy. You just make silly claims like "Well, what if one of those kings got the plague?"
Again, first, assuming that all of it must come about or it isn't really prophecy (anti-prophecy?). And second, that it doesn't render to me at all as general. It reads very specific to me. This needs a few paragraphs from you for me to even comprehend what you are saying so that it would make any logical sense. It seems incredibly convoluted theology to me, more so than you've said about me on our initial conversation in this thread.
There's nothing convoluted about it. It simply looks to other possible means of accomplishing prophecy, even multiple possible means. I realize that saying "EDF" makes understanding prophecy simple. But simple isn't always accurate.
If 'including you' then does that mean you believe or don't? I'm not trying too hard to pin you down, but specifics? Which verses? What are the inerrancy problems you are seeing?
Well, as some historians tell the story, Daniel's prophecy didn't quite happen as written. I haven't found a good online source for this, yet, but there's been more than a little ink spilled on it.
You lost me on the part I acknowledge, not sure where that happened, but again, I see a lot of specifics here. A king that isn't even born yet is going to be made angry, I got that part and acquiesce God can make anybody frustrated, but it seems in asserting things like this, you are actually using hyper-Calvinist language (that's perplexing).
In what way is God acting to fulfill His prophecies hyper-Calvinist. The hyper-Calvinist would say that God foreordained all things to happen before creation. I'm saying that God acts as history unfolds.
There's a difference between meticulous control and specific action.
I agree God can, but it seems more reasonable to me to assume He has DF than is micromanaging outcomes to this kind of detail.
So, you're saying that God can't act in specific circumstances to bring about His will and His prophecies.... why?
Your problem is that you're trying to argue from the specific to the general. That's not valid. I've said more than once that God acts to bring about His prophecies. I honestly have no clue as to why this prophecy is here, I haven't studied the larger context and background enough.
However, the hyper-Calvinist says that God acts to cause
all things that happen, evil, suffering, the decisions of men, the holocaust, salvation, election, etc. That is a
very long distance from saying that God acts in specific circumstances to bring about specific results, and does so without violating free will.
You talk as though, for OVT, God must sit on the sidelines and wring His hands and hope that everything works out without being actively involved in bringing things about.
Even if it is as general as you imagine, it still seems implausible to me that God would give prophecy at all to us.
Well, given your denial of God's omnipotence, I can see why you'd reach this faulty conclusion.
Prophecy isn't primarily intended to demonstrate God's knowledge. Prophecy exists to instruct those to whom the prophecy is directed.
The main focus of prophecy isn't what will happen in the future, but what people must do now in order to avoid what has been threatened. The people of Ninevah instinctively understood the conditional nature of judgment prophecy. They repented, and God relented.
To be honest, this prophecy by Daniel is fairly unique in that respect. There are prophecies by Jeremiah after the people are being sent into exile about how long they'll be there, but for the most part, prophecy is about what people should do now to avoid consequence or be prepared in the future.
When Saul went to seek the witch of Endor, it was specifically to get an answer to his future actions because God wouldn't talk with Him. This suggests 1) that God is sought for knowledge concerning future events (i.e. that Israel understood God to have Definite Foreknowledge)
LOL... Take off those Calvinist colored glasses.
Did you actually read the story of the witch of Endor?
Saul isn't looking for definite knowledge of the future. He's looking for
wisdom from God about
what to do against this army that was coming against him.
Goodness.. is there no Scripture you won't twist to try to extract EDF? Do you honestly think that God's wisdom is worthless?
2) that they actually sought Him for such and He seemed appropriately capable to answer this expectation. Not only that, but that He even gives this very test for discerning true prophets.
The test is only whether the prophet is speaking from God. Not whether God has EDF.
Muz
)
