ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[Hilston]

My turn:

1Way's line (or circle?) of reasoning: God doesn't use or plan evil for good purposes.

1Way maintains this even though the Bible says that the Christ was delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, whom the Jews had taken by lawless hands, tortured and executed (Ac 2:23).

But 1Way's view asserts that it doesn't really say that. It was not really God's determined purpose and foreknowledge. It was just a lucky guess.

The Bible says that Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, gathered together against Christ to do what God's hand and purpose predetermined to be done (Ac 4:27,28).

1Way's view is that's not really what it means. It really means that God figured that people would be tripping over one another to murder Jesus, so, based on that knowledge, He decided He would give His best prediction as how it would precisely go down. It would not really matter if He ended up being wrong, but He decided to give it a shot anyway. God is the best guesser!

The Bible says the Jews executed the Christ in ignorance. But the things they did to him are what God has thus fulfilled which He foretold by the mouth of all His prophets, that the Christ would suffer. (Ac 3:17ff).

1Way's view denies this and maintains that God Himself did NOT fulfill that which he foretold by the mouth of all His prophets, because God cannot use or plan for evil to bring about good. After all, God's prophets are sometimes wrong. My statements about the above cited passages are taken right from the verses themselves, yet 1Way denies what the verses are saying, offering his own butchering of the text in his tortured efforts to explain away what is undeniable.

This reminds me of a woman I met some 20 years ago. I was learning about election and predestination. We had coffee and a pastry at the local Denny's and I decided to read her a short passage out of Romans 9. All I did was read. No comments. No embellishment. I just read it straight out of the Bible. Know what she said to me?: "I think you're interpreting that wrong."

Jim
"Dead men do bleed after all!"

 

[1Way]

I do not deny any of those passages you said I do, I just deny that the exact way it happened was specifically locked into place in that it could not have happened any other way. That is according to Exhaustive Foreknowledge (whether it is informative or causative it does not matter, if you know it all, you know it all and it all must happen according to that one unalterable destiny).

Plus, God's foreknowledge is causative and not informative, further showing that what happened was not set in stone because it was primarily what He did that was predetermined, i.e. respond well against their evil plans, but even then, this foreknowledge was somewhat general in nature, it could have happened in many different ways yet fulfilled scripture just the same. Suppose that they tried to seize him to stone Him one extra time, would that have been enough to thwart God's plans just because of that, I don't think so. God is the capable God of the bible who has exactly the same amount of foreknowledge that the bible gives Him, and that does not turn God into being a lame but lucky guesser.

As to your lady friend of 20 years ago. "Election and predestination" is classically posed around the issue of "individual salvation". So the question remains, was that the context of your discussion Jim? (If so, then you are funny to have not seen it all this time, because Roman's 9 is not about individual election for salvation.)

Say, in case I forgot to inform you, I'm starting work tomorrow!

 

[Big Finn]

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that a geneticist tampered with my DNA at my conception. He genetically predetermined that I would only choose beans, and never peas. Faced with the choice of beans or peas, my genetic makeup affects my will and I choose beans every single time without fail. It is exactly what I want because my genetic makeup predetermined it. Do I still have a choice between peas or beans? Of course. Do I have the power to override my predetermined volition? Not at all. This is compatibilism, Big Finn.

To which I say.... So? Compatibilism is contradictory nonsense is what it is. I rejected compatiblism a long time ago as being double talk and obfuscation. I don't buy into their "explanations" at all.

One of compatibiliisms arguments, made very simple, is that one has free will because if the laws of nature had been different one could have chosen differently than one did. That's pure bull in my book. If black were white it wouldn't be black too. That has nothing to do with the realiity of being able to choose differently than one did at the time one made the choice and with all circumstances being the same. Compatibillism is simply an attempt to make to mutually exclusive ideas, determinism and free will, compatible. It simply can't be done and make sense. The two ideas are mutually exclusive and no amount of double-talk can make them co-exist harmonious, non-contradictions.

All of compatibilism's arguments are just like yours, because that's all your argument is, and I reject compatibilism as not making sense. If you want to actually believe that something can be causative and non-causative at the same time, be my guest. As far as I'm concerned such a thing cannot exist except in some philosphers vain imagination. It certainly doesn't exist in the real world, and religion and spirituality very much deal with the real world, at least in my estimation.

I cannot cause something and not cause it at the same time. The very word "not" by defintion exludes the possibility. It's like saying a man is a woman, or day is night, or no is yes. These things simply don't exist in reality. A man is not a woman. Causation is not non-causation. Negative isn't positive.

As to hypnosis, I don't really care what the site you quoted says. It's obvious that people under hypnosis do not always have the ability to freely choose their own actions. We've all seen demonstrations of people doing things that they are mortified about later while they are under the control of a hypnotist. These actions are brought about because their power of choice has been co-opted by the will of the hypnotist. Those actions are the will of the hypnotist, not the will of the person performing the action.

So, you still haven't even begun to show how God's will can predetermine(cause) a person's choices and not be causative. Neither have you shown how a person cannot choose other than they chose and still have the ability to make another choice. You are stuck in a very deep hole.

 

[Hilston]

Big Finn,

How sad. Just when I was becoming encouraged that I had misjudged you, you follow up your recent excellent posts with this latest hack job. You went from following the discussion and clarifying important terms to mind-blurring swill and incoherent babbling.

For all that I offered in our dialogue -- I even dug out my hypnotism history and typed some pertinent excerpts for your consideration -- this is the best you can come up with? Of course, you don't want to consider the fact that I've read quite a bit on hypnotism and personally know a hypnotherapist because that would expose your silly hypnotism analogy as the sham that it is. You remind me of a little kid who plugs his ears and bellows: "I don't care what you say. You're wrong and I'm not. Nya nya nya nya nya."

Compatibilism exists in the real world, Big Finn. You have to refuse to acknowledge it because you know what the implications are. Every decision you make is constrained by forces and influences too numerous to enumerate. You're not free, even when you think you are. It's not an illusion, but rather a failure on your part to adequately appreciate the nature of your will and the effect of the various influences upon it. You're not alone, Big Finn. The vast majority of people who have not had any kind of advanced philosophical study are easily duped by the specious claims of libertarian free-willists. Those who have pondered the nature of the will, or studied it in college or wherever, recognize the naivete in your claims.

 

[Big Finn]

Hilston,

Who is denying that there are influences upon us through genetics and other sources? I'm certainly not. However, influence is not control, and anyone can break those bonds if they so choose.

Your example of a geneticist is classic. You present it as someone tinkering with your power of choice, and that is exactly what it is. If someone implanted something inside you that made it impossible to choose peas over beans, or what ever, then that is not your choice, it is the choice of the person who made the decision to place that in your genes. However, you simply deny that and claim that the illusion of having a choice because peas and beans both were set in front of you makes it a choice. It isn't a choice if you can't choose the peas over the beans. There is a roadblock in your way. That means there is no choice for you.

I'll show you exactly how your analogy, that you think is so good, breaks down. It just so happens to actually involve peas too. I loved peas as a little kid. However, I was really hungry one time and it was going to be a long time before dinner would be ready so my mom told me to just go eat some peas out of the garden. Well, I went and ate peas, but I didn't stop at some. I ended up getting, for all intents and purposes, pea poisoning. I got very sick for a couple of days from eating all those peas.

Now, for a long time afterwards just the smell of peas made me sick to my stomach. I literally threw up at the smell of them sometimes. I couldn't eat them. I couldn't have chosen to eat a pea to save my life. However, now, years later, I eat peas occasionally. Do I like them now? Nope. Not at all. But I do choose to eat them because I know they are good for me. So, my power of choice made using a rational mind overcomes even a very powerful aversion, and I mean a very powerful internal aversion. Peas are once again an option because I choose to make them an option. If I was still incapable of choosing peas then there would be no choice. Period.

Influence is not control, and influence can be broken. I also have inherited the love for strong drink. I'm an alcoholic/addict just like many of my ancestors. However, I no longer drink, or am even tempted to drink anymore, so the power of choice can overcome very mighty genetic influences over things that affect behavior.

I therefore have a very solid basis for rejecting compatibilism. I know that genetic, or other influences, are simply that, influences. They don't stop a person from choosing against the influence. Are some harder to choose against than others? Sure, but if the line is ever crossed so that one cannot make the choice to go against the grain then choice simply doesn't exist. It then becomes a road with no forks in it.

Peas were once not an option, now they are. Once I had no choice, now I do. It's very simple. To have a choice you must be able to choose other than you did.

Now, if there were things in my genes that would stop me from taking certain actions, then there is no choice available to me in those instances. I would simply be going on instinct such as an animal does. It's like the migration of certain birds. Can they go elsewhere? Nope. Not at all. Their route is pre-planned and they simply do what has been bred into them. They are doing what God designed them to do. Are there millions of other places they could go? Of course there are. Does the bird have a choice? Nope. That's compatibilism for you. Not having a choice is having a choice.

You can condemn me for rejecting compatibilism all you want. I'm only one of many who reject it as being false. If I weren't then there wouldn't be so many philosophers arguing against it being true. Your high horse stinks of arrogance.

Sin isn't instinctual. It is a choice, because if it isn't then there can be no moral responsibility associated with it. Are there inherited and environmental factors associated with it that influence us to sin? Yes, of course there are. However, if we have no choice in the matter as to whether we want to sin, then sin is no longer a moral decision. It stops being moral and becomes instinctual.

One of Calvinism's basic tenets does away with the moral responsibility for sin, because it claims that man cannot choose God and good without being regenerated first. This puts sin on the level of instinct and takes morality out of the equation.

Now, back to hypnotism.

I simply fail to see how you have made your point. Everyone has seen people do things that they woudn't choose to do in their lifetime while under the influnce of a hypnotist. And, when they come out from under the influnce of the hypnotist they are mortified that they did it. They simply refuse to believe they even did it unless they are shown the proof for what they did is so contrary to their nature that they know they wouldn't do such a thing. Nothing you have said, or that any site claims answers this. A person's will is clearly co-opted by a hypnotist. They can make a person dislike foods they normally love. They can make a person who loves the taste of his cigarette smoke hate the taste of his smokes after being hypnotized.

You haven't dealt with any of this. You use choices as analogies that involve no morality at all and then choose to deny my analogy simple because of the claims of hypnotists that they can't overcome the conscience of a person. You're denying your own analogies at the same time if you deny mine on this basis. So, just who's being unreasonable?

 

[Hilston]

Big Finn,

Thank you for your example. It proves (to me anyway) what I suspected. The subject of influences upon volition is obviously new to you. I will try to explain where your reasoning is flawed.

• 
  
  influence
  
  \In"flu*ence\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Influenced; p. pr. & vb. n. Influencing.] To control or move by power, physical or moral; to affect by gentle action; to exert an influence upon; to modify, bias, or sway; to move; to persuade; to induce.
  
  Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

When someone who believes in exhaustive foreknowledge and predeterminism says that God controls everything, he is not saying that God forces things to happen or that He constantly making corrections to get things to go His way. The counsel of the Godhead determined in advance all that would happen. The Father desired it, the Son decreed it, and the Holy Spirit brings about all that was desired and decreed. That doesn't mean the Holy Spirit is going around making things happen and overriding men's wills so that the divine plan is brought to fruition.

You say influence is not control. But you're wrong. It is control. You say "... anyone can break those bonds if they so chose." You're missing the point. Things that influence us have varying degrees of effect upon us. If someone chooses to "break the bonds" of one influence, it is only because another influence was stronger. In either case, and any and all cases, influences control.

Your example of pea-poisoning proves this abundantly. The influences that motivated your liking for peas were overcome by the influences that motivated your dislike of peas.

Big Finn writes:
Your example of a geneticist is classic. You present it as someone tinkering with your power of choice, and that is exactly what it is.

Wrong, Big Finn. The power to choose is unhampered. The power of overcome one's will is the issue.

Big Finn writes:
If someone implanted something inside you that made it impossible to choose peas over beans, or what ever, then that is not your choice, it is the choice of the person who made the decision to place that in your genes.

Did I ever say genetics could make it "impossible" to choose peas over beans? No. The only thing that is impossible is choosing contrary to one's will. Stronger influences can change one's will, but in no case can one choose against one's will.

Big Finn writes:
However, you simply deny that and claim that the illusion of having a choice because peas and beans both were set in front of you makes it a choice. It isn't a choice if you can't choose the peas over the beans. There is a roadblock in your way. That means there is no choice for you.

Your logic is flawed. See below.

Big Finn writes:
I couldn't have chosen to eat a pea to save my life.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Did you have the freedom and power to choose peas at that point in your life? Of course. But did you have the freedom and power to go against your dislike of them? Of course not. This is compatibilism.

You admit that you now eat peas on occasion because you know they're good for you. Again, the influences that motivated and controlled your dislike of getting sick were overcome by the influences that motivate and controll your desire to be healthy. Adults can be capable than children of being influenced in their rational faculties ("this is good for me") over their sensual faculties ("this is yucky").

Big Finn writes:Peas are once again an option because I choose to make them an option. If I was still incapable of choosing peas then there would be no choice. Period.

So let me get this straight. Are you saying, when someone put peas and beans before you as a post-pea-poisoned child, you had no choice in the matter? Big Finn, you had a choice. You chose "not peas." Do you see that?

Big Finn writes:
Influence is not control, and influence can be broken.

So can control, Big Finn. When another control is stronger, weaker controls can be broken. Fear is a control, for example. I used to drive more recklessly when I was younger. The fear of being hurt in an accident was a weak control because I was single and irresponsible. Now I drive more carefully, because the fear of leaving my children fatherless is a stronger control.

Big Finn writes:
I also have inherited the love for strong drink. I'm an alcoholic/addict just like many of my ancestors. However, I no longer drink, or am even tempted to drink anymore, so the power of choice can overcome very mighty genetic influences over things that affect behavior.

That is because the influence that motivates your volitional desire for sobriety overcame your desire for alcohol. I have family and dear friends who are alcoholics and they can testify to this as well. In either case, it is a strong influence being overcome by a stronger one.

Big Finn writes:
I therefore have a very solid basis for rejecting compatibilism.

I'm not convinced you understand it, especially given what you've written in your last post.

Big Finn writes:
I know that genetic, or other influences, are simply that, influences. They don't stop a person from choosing against the influence.

Do you see how you've begged the question here? Let's re-write your sentence without the pronoun:

• "I know that genetic, or other influences, are simply that, influences. [Influences] don't stop a person from choosing against the influence."

So, yes they do, Big Finn. That's what influences do. They often (I daresay, always) work against other influences. Every time I decide what to eat for breakfast, myriad influences come into play, and eventually (maybe in a matter of seconds), the stronger influences win.

Big Finn writes:
Are some harder to choose against than others? Sure, but if the line is ever crossed so that one cannot make the choice to go against the grain then choice simply doesn't exist. It then becomes a road with no forks in it.

Peas were once not an option, now they are. Once I had no choice, now I do. It's very simple. To have a choice you must be able to choose other than you did.

So let me make sure I understand what you're saying. Back when you hated peas and the very smell made you sick, if someone asked you if you wanted peas or beans, you did not have a choice. The waitress would be looking at you, pen in hand, waiting to write down, to document for the kitchen, your choice between peas and cole slaw. When you say, "Cole slaw, please," you really didn't make a choice. Is that what you're saying?

Big Finn writes:
Now, if there were things in my genes that would stop me from taking certain actions, then there is no choice available to me in those instances.

Yes, there is, Big Finn. You choose according to your genetics. If another influence comes along that is stronger, then you choose according to THAT influence. You're free, Big Finn, not in a libertarian way. You're compatibilistically free, which means you choose according to influences that control your volition.

Big Finn writes:
I would simply be going on instinct such as an animal does. It's like the migration of certain birds. Can they go elsewhere? Nope. Not at all.

Storms affect bird migration, Big Finn. That's an influence that affects their actions. Compatibilism works in the animal kingdom as well.

Big Finn writes:
Their route is pre-planned and they simply do what has been bred into them. They are doing what God designed them to do.

So are you, Big Finn. The differences are not all that staggering. The biggest difference is that men have self-awareness about their decisions. Animals do not.

Big Finn writes:
Are there millions of other places they could go? Of course there are. Does the bird have a choice? Nope. That's compatibilism for you. Not having a choice is having a choice.

They have a choice, Big Finn, just not a self-aware choice. They can choose to stop and eat. They can choose to avoid a storm. They can choose to stop flying if they can't see the star patterns.

Big Finn writes:
You can condemn me for rejecting compatibilism all you want. I'm only one of many who reject it as being false. If I weren't then there wouldn't be so many philosophers arguing against it being true. Your high horse stinks of arrogance.

It's not a high horse, Big Finn. It's a fairly medium-sized one. It the legless horse that the vast majority of people are sitting on. You're probably a product of our failed public education, our lazy culture, and bad theology, just like me. I'm not surprised by your resistance, so don't take it personally.

Big Finn writes:
Sin isn't instinctual. It is a choice, because if it isn't then there can be no moral responsibility associated with it. Are there inherited and environmental factors associated with it that influence us to sin? Yes, of course there are. However, if we have no choice in the matter as to whether we want to sin, then sin is no longer a moral decision. It stops being moral and becomes instinctual.

Suddenly, you're having a conversation with yourself. No one in this discussion has ever said that sin is not a choice.

Big Finn writes:
One of Calvinism's basic tenets does away with the moral responsibility for sin, because it claims that man cannot choose God and good without being regenerated first. This puts sin on the level of instinct and takes morality out of the equation.

Have you ever punished a dog for peeing on the carpet?

Big Finn writes:
Now, back to hypnotism.

I simply fail to see how you have made your point. Everyone has seen people do things that they woudn't choose to do in their lifetime while under the influnce of a hypnotist.

Sure, just as "everyone" knows that water goes down the drain the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere. Neither are true, yet everyone "knows" it's true.

Big Finn writes:
And, when they come out from under the influnce of the hypnotist they are mortified that they did it. They simply refuse to believe they even did it unless they are shown the proof for what they did is so contrary to their nature that they know they wouldn't do such a thing.

There's where you're wrong, Big Finn. It's not that it is contrary to their nature. It is contrary to how they would have acted in a given situation if they were not in a hypersuggestive state. All the hypnotist does is lower the inhibitions of the individual through suggestion.

Big Finn writes:
Nothing you have said, or that any site claims answers this. A person's will is clearly co-opted by a hypnotist. They can make a person dislike foods they normally love. They can make a person who loves the taste of his cigarette smoke hate the taste of his smokes after being hypnotized.

Again, these are effects that can be produced in a fully aware and un-hypnotized state, but it might take longer. The hyper-suggestive state speeds up the process of persuasion.

Big Finn writes:
You haven't dealt with any of this.

:freak:

Big Finn writes:
You use choices as analogies that involve no morality at all and then choose to deny my analogy simple because of the claims of hypnotists that they can't overcome the conscience of a person. You're denying your own analogies at the same time if you deny mine on this basis. So, just who's being unreasonable?

I'm trying to simplify things, for the obvious reason, which you've demonstrated again by your post. I have no qualms about bringing morality into the discussion, but if you were confused by the simplicity of the beans/peas example, then bringing in the moral component is only going confuse you more.

I should note that it's really not as difficult as you've made it and continue to make it. It's a function of your theology. Those who try to deny God's exhaustive foreknowledge and predetermination seem to inevitably end up with this confusion.

 

[Big Finn]

So let me make sure I understand what you're saying. Back when you hated peas and the very smell made you sick, if someone asked you if you wanted peas or beans, you did not have a choice. The waitress would be looking at you, pen in hand, waiting to write down, to document for the kitchen, your choice between peas and cole slaw. When you say, "Cole slaw, please," you really didn't make a choice. Is that what you're saying?

That's right. I didn't have a choice. I simply coudn't eat peas. I couldn't force myself to eat peas. Therefore having peas and cole slaw in front of me was no choice at all. All there was for me to eat was cole slaw. The peas may just as well have never existed. They offered no alternative to cole slaw at all. It was cole slaw or nothing.

Only when I was able to overcome, through time, the sickness that came upon at the sight and smell of peas did I have a choice in whether or not I would eat them. Not being able to choose one of two options eliminates the power of choice in that instance.

You simply don't get it. Not being able to break the control of an influence is simply not having a choice in whatever course of action is in front of you.

As to influences, it is again a matter of choice which influence you choose to respond to. It's not that one influence constantly overpowers other influences. If this were true we would simply be robots or mechanical beings that would go which ever the way the wind blew. Our power of choice, combined with self-control and self-discipline, is what makes us free moral agents.

I have to laugh that you maintain comapatiblism as the only viable choice to explain the world. Many thinking people reject it for many different reasons.

I see now why you believe what you believe. Why you believe that God just can't be working through the influence of His Holy Spirit upon all men to bring them to the truth, for His is the most powerful influence there is. So, according to your philosophy of life God simply can't work with everyone or they would have to give in to the stronger of the influences. It's simply not Biblical and it doesn't reflect reality.

Your philosophy brings, I believe, great dishonor to God. It makes Him unloving, unkind, arbitrary, and the author and originator of sin and the devil. It's funny how the Bible calls sin the "mystery of iniquity" but you CV guys think you have it all figured out. According to you God is the one who decreed it all. He imagined it. He created the will in man to do it, etc....

Sorry, but that just isn't Biblical. God is not the Father of lies, and He would have to be if your compatibilism were true, for before the first lie was ever told and before sin had marred God's perfect creation, God would have had to think up the whole scenario for it to happen. What blasphemy against God. It makes Him the originator of all sinful thoughts and motives and it says there is no mystery to iniquity. It's then a foregone conclusion for sin to exist for God had already decreed its existence.

I also have to laugh that after all your arguments you have basically said that influence is causative. Since you now admit that infuence is causative you have another major problem on your hands. God is the cause of sin if influence cannot be overcome except by another more powerful influence. So, any person created innocent and perfect, without an internal desire to sin, must then have a more powerful influence overcome the influence for good and must acquise to overpowering influnce to do evil. That overpowering influence then can only come from the Creator for it existed no where in creation before Luciifer sinned. And that makes your God the author of sin. It also makes Him far less than righteous, for you are in effect saying God created men and angels to sin and be sinful, and that he then punishes them for the way He created them to be.

You have such a deep mass of contradictions that it isn't funny. If you are going to continue to cling to compatibilism like a drowning man to a life rope then you are in serious theological trouble. You must admit God is the author and creator of sin and that He punishes man for that which He and He alone can be responsible for He would have to be causal. Compatibilism will allow no other explanation according to it all actions and choices are only the result of a response to a more powerful influence.

I'm really sorry to see that you have accepted evolution on such an elemental level.

 

[Hilston]

Hilston asked: So let me make sure I understand what you're saying. Back when you hated peas and the very smell made you sick, if someone asked you if you wanted peas or beans, you did not have a choice. The waitress would be looking at you, pen in hand, waiting to write down, to document for the kitchen, your choice between peas and cole slaw. When you say, "Cole slaw, please," you really didn't make a choice. Is that what you're saying?

Big Finn replies:
That's right.

That's all I needed to hear. Nice knowing you, Big Finn.

 

[Big Finn]

That's all I needed to hear. Nice knowing you, Big Finn.

LOL. And this coming from the guy that argues that causation isn't causation, influence is control, and that God decreed all evil.

3 : something that may be chosen: as a : an alternative course of action

That which cannot be an alternative course of action is not a possible choice.

So long Hilston. Have a good life. I do hope some day you stop blaspheming God by making Him the author of all sin and sinners.

 

[Hilston]

Yorzhik writes:
What is more important to God? Our desire to sin, -or- the act of a sin we do?

All sin, regardless of degree or egregiousness, is an affront to God. God cannot tolerate sin of any kind. So it is all important to God. What is the point of your question?

Yorzhik ased: If there are causative effects to a decree from God … what exactly is caused by God's decrees?

Hilston replied: The causative effects of God's decrees is the entirety of history and everything in creation. This is what foreordained, predestinated and predetermined mean and refer to. But the decree is not the cause. Just as the causative effect of the architect's plans (decrees) was the construction of the building, but the decrees did not cause the construction of the building.

Yorzhik writes:
Well that's fine… until someone sins.

Why does the question of sin change anything? The decrees predetermine the freely chosen sinful actions committed by sinful men, just as we see in the case of the sinful men who committed acts of evil against Christ precisely in accordance with God's decrees.

Hilston previously wrote: You miss the point. It's not a question of whether or not someone is duly punished, but whether or not an authority legislates over them. There is no higher authority than God. God is absolute and no law legislates over Him. He is subordinated to nothing, no one, and no law, and therefore, not culpable.

Yorzhik writes:
That wasn't my point. The point is that OJ was guilty, regardless what anyone said, even if there was no higher authority than OJ, he would still be guilty.

You've just described a black-white-cube-ball. If there were no higher authority than OJ, OJ would be God. Do you see the impossibility you describe? Without a higher power or authority, there is no guilt, Yorzhik. There is no transcendent goodness apart from God.

Yorzhik writes:
Still, the best understanding of this situation is that the different parts of the Godhead testified to the justice of the other parts.

Testified to whom? And by what standard? Are you just making this stuff up as you go along? The Son says, "Hey Father, the Spirit is just." The Father replies, "How do you know that?" The Son replies, "Because He does just things." The Father replies, "How do you know what His actions are just?" On your conception of God's justice, how are these questions answered?

Yorzhik writes:
And the bible says in Gen 18:25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

These statements by Abraham acknowledge a standard of righteousness that God has prescribed for man, not for Himself. The Judge of all the earth does right by man, which is to say that He preserves the righteous and He slays the wicked.

Hilston previously wrote: I tried that once. I thought, "Well if it was God's will to design everything in such a way that these problems and evil would exist, and if I happen to sin, how could He blame me for sinning (Why doth He yet find fault)? After all, He is God, and who hath resisted his will?" I don't think that anymore ... because of the response I got from God. He basically put me in my place and said, "O man, who are you to reply against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, 'Why have you made me this way?'?"

Yorzhik writes:
Was it an audible voice? A message to you from the Bible? Was the knowledge input directly into your memory? Again, I'm not trying to be provocative, but you said, "He basically put me in my place and said…".

I read it in the Bible, Yorzhik. Do you approve of God's rebuke of me?

Hilston asked: But isn't this the case with God? Didn't we (the people) later find out that the "king" (God) could have stopped the evil done by the large army (the Passion) to the "warrior" (Jesus). But the king (God) wanted to make a great example of the mighty warrior (Jesus), so he decided to let the enemy come and to do this evil (the Passion) against his champion (Jesus). Is this the logical conclusion of Open Theism: God is evil?

Yorzhik writes:
No, God could not have stopped the evil done by the large army before it was done and remain just.

Why not? I can think of several options in which God could have used His Master Chess playing skills to avert the evil done to His Son, and still have His Son die and shed His blood. Can't you? Why didn't He stop it? Perhaps He wanted it to happen? Even decreed it?

Yorzhik writes:
No. I was surprised about 1Way's take on it because it is often used as an analogy for the OV. So I thought he would have been through it before since he is frequently deep in a number of discussions about the OV.

Maybe there's a reason he doesn't use the analogy. It doesn't make any sense.

Hilston wrote: I asked a chess enthusiast. She says the phrase doesn't make sense. Maybe you should find one of the "better ones on the web" and enlighten us.

Yorzhik writes:
Yes, Chess, if played the "perfect game" can be determined. We are currently unaware if one side will definitively win, lose or draw, but we are, however, certain that it can be determined, ...

Who is "we", Yorzhik? If this is such a consensus about "solving the game of chess," please refer me to something authoritative so I can understand what you're talking about.

Yorzhik writes:
... given enough computing time and power to decide so.

So let me get this straight. God is the Master Chess Player who has "solved" the game of chess. He has enough computing time and power to determine that He will eventually win, but He couldn't figure out that Abraham feared Him and didn't know the outcome of His testings of Israel?

Yorzhik writes:
So, God would be playing white and has solved the game. Humanity is playing black, and has not solved the game. God made the first move. NOW, it doesn't matter what move humanity responds with, the ultimate end is known because God's next move will always go down a known string of moves that will end at a known state.

Yet He is surprised by "moves" that never even entered His mind?

Yorzhik writes:
But the game, before the end comes, can still be played in more ways than there are atoms in the universe. Even a surprising move can be made. That cannot change the final result.

Is that clear enough?

No. It doesn't make any sense. Please give me the title of a chess reference or a website that will explain this theory of chess you espouse.

 

[Yorzhik]

Yorzhik writes:
What is more important to God? Our desire to sin, -or- the act of a sin we do?

All sin, regardless of degree or egregiousness, is an affront to God. God cannot tolerate sin of any kind. So it is all important to God.

I already said both were important. Please note the word "more" and try again.

Why does the question of sin change anything?

Because when sin happens, someone is going to get blamed/punished.

The decrees predetermine the freely chosen sinful actions committed by sinful men,…

Now, if we humans try to pull off a trick like this, where we would predetermine sinful acts to be carried out by someone else, then the humans that did the predetermining would be culpable. Correct?

…just as we see in the case of the sinful men who committed acts of evil against Christ precisely in accordance with God's decrees.

That would not be right. The sacrifice of Jesus was predetermined, but the specific people doing the things that God prophesied were not determined. Just as it was predetermined that the mighty warrior would have to be sacrificed/sacrifice himself, that did not cause, condone, or predetermine that the evil army would do the evil that they did to the mighty warrior.

You've just described a black-white-cube-ball. If there were no higher authority than OJ, OJ would be God. Do you see the impossibility you describe? Without a higher power or authority, there is no guilt, Yorzhik.

Sure, this would be true if OJ was a mono-une god. But since that isn't the case with the real God, no, I don't see the impossibility you claim. If a transcendent God had nothing to testify to justice, then God might not detect if God was doing evil. But there is a mechanism to testify to the justice of the God of the bible. Or don't you think that Jesus is capable of understanding that His Father is good to Him? How about the Spirit; does the Spirit know if the Father is good?

There is no transcendent goodness apart from God.

Okay, glad we got to this point. See my answer to your next quote.

Testified to whom? And by what standard? Are you just making this stuff up as you go along? The Son says, "Hey Father, the Spirit is just." The Father replies, "How do you know that?" The Son replies, "Because He does just things." The Father replies, "How do you know what His actions are just?" On your conception of God's justice, how are these questions answered?

God does not need an authority above Him to have a concept of justice, it is intrinsic with His nature. And if there is a concept of justice, then it is defined. So Jesus would answer the question according to that definition of justice. The Father can test whether what the son is saying is true, and likewise each part can test the truth of each other part.

Jesus said, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." He is plainly alluding to a principle that shows how the Triune Godhead can testify to each part's justice.

These statements by Abraham acknowledge a standard of righteousness that God has prescribed for man, not for Himself. The Judge of all the earth does right by man, which is to say that He preserves the righteous and He slays the wicked.

No Hilston, there is righteousness and there is wickedness. There are not different standards of righteousness. There are no different prescriptions for righteousness. God's absolute concept of righteousness is a part of God's nature, and therefore God knows what righteousness is. So if God were to wipe out the righteous with the wicked, God would know that it was wrong for Himself.

Hilston previously wrote: I tried that once. I thought, "Well if it was God's will to design everything in such a way that these problems and evil would exist, and if I happen to sin, how could He blame me for sinning (Why doth He yet find fault)? After all, He is God, and who hath resisted his will?" I don't think that anymore ... because of the response I got from God. He basically put me in my place and said, "O man, who are you to reply against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, 'Why have you made me this way?'?"

Yorzhik writes:
Was it an audible voice? A message to you from the Bible? Was the knowledge input directly into your memory? Again, I'm not trying to be provocative, but you said, "He basically put me in my place and said…".

I read it in the Bible, Yorzhik.

I read it in the Bible, too. And God told me the opposite what He told you.

Yorzhik writes: No, God could not have stopped the evil done by the large army before it was done and remain just.

Why not? I can think of several options in which God could have used His Master Chess playing skills to avert the evil done to His Son, and still have His Son die and shed His blood. Can't you? Why didn't He stop it? Perhaps He wanted it to happen? Even decreed it?

And could God have likewise fulfilled all the prophesies with the scenario that you propose? Can you tell us this alternative scenario?

Maybe there's a reason he doesn't use the analogy. It doesn't make any sense.

Let's ask him. 1Way… does the analogy make sense?

Also, if we can go back to a previous comment… did the chess enthusiast that you asked about solving chess actually say it "didn't make sense"? Or that she had never heard of "solving the game of chess" before?

Who is "we", Yorzhik?

Humanity.

So let me get this straight. God is the Master Chess Player who has "solved" the game of chess. He has enough computing time and power to determine that He will eventually win, but He couldn't figure out that Abraham feared Him and didn't know the outcome of His testings of Israel?

Right. The creation of the rules of life were conceived and laid out before the world was made. And knowing the rules one can determine all possible outcomes. But the route to the final outcome was not a part of the rules. That part God left up to the free-will agents He created. BTW, you might want to find out what "solving the game" of chess is before you comment on it like you are doing here.

Yet He is surprised by "moves" that never even entered His mind?

Yes. This can be done by knowing the opponents "best" move, and seeing that the "best" move is obvious… and then watching the opponent make the obvious "worst" move. That would be a surprise. It would also be proper to say that it would never enter ones mind to have made the obvious worst move when the obvious best move is apparent.

Before you suggest, as you are doing here, that someone who has solved the game of chess could not be surprised by a move an opponent makes, you might want to know, as you have so far admitted that you don't know, what "solving the game" of chess means.

No. It doesn't make any sense. Please give me the title of a chess reference or a website that will explain this theory of chess you espouse.

First, it is not theory. Chess (and many other games) can definitely be solved, in fact some already have been solved. But after googling it, there is not a clear single source (at least not one that you would understand). It could be understood by reading the various hits that do come up by any person trying to understand the concept (and had at least average intelligence) -and- who also had a rudimentary knowledge of chess. But you shouldn't have to go to all that trouble.

So, I'll explain the concept in these posts. We could switch to an easier game, because solving a game is not unique to chess, as mentioned before. But let's not switch games unless it becomes obvious that you cannot grasp the concept using chess.

So let's begin. Here is a complete game of chess:
1. e2-e4, e7-e5.
2. Ng1-f3, Nb8-c6.
3. Bf1-c4, Ng8-f6.
4. Nf3-g5, d7-d5.
5. e4xd5, Nf6xd5.
6. Ng5xf7, Ke8xf7.
7. Qd1-f3, Kf7-e6.
8. Nb1-c3, Nc6-d4.
9. Bc4xd5, Ke6-d6.
10. Qf3-f7, Kd6-c5.
11. Nc3-a4, Kc5-b5.
12. Na4-c3, Kb5-a5.
13. b2-b4, Ka5xb4.
14. Ra1-b1, Kb4-c5.
15. Bc1-a3 mate.

You could call this a "line" of moves. It started at the standard chess setup, and continued until the black king was captured. If these moves are always played in this order, we will always get this result in exactly the same way. Can you see that this is a particular line of moves?

 

[Hilston]

Yorzhik wrote: What is more important to God? Our desire to sin, -or- the act of a sin we do?

Hilston replied: All sin, regardless of degree or egregiousness, is an affront to God. God cannot tolerate sin of any kind. So it is all important to God.

Yorzhik writes: I already said both were important. Please note the word "more" and try again.

If you ask a simplistic question, I can only proffer a simplistic answer. All sin separates men from God. Jesus Christ was mocked, tortured, whipped, beaten and executed for sins of the heart and sins of action. Jesus didn't die "more" for heart sins than action sins or vice versa. If you want more detail, re-think your question and try again.

Hilston asked: Why does the question of sin change anything?

Yorzhik writes: Because when sin happens, someone is going to get blamed/punished.

Why does the question of blame/punishment change anything?

Hilston wrote: The decrees predetermine the freely chosen sinful actions committed by sinful men,...

Yorzhik writes: Now, if we humans try to pull off a trick like this, where we would predetermine sinful acts to be carried out by someone else, then the humans that did the predetermining would be culpable. Correct?

If the "someone else" committed the sinful act willfully, then both parties would be culpable to a higher authority. This doesn't apply to God for two reasons: (1) There is no higher authority than God, and (2) having exhaustive foreknowledge, God could have and has decreed evil to accomplish good purposes, working all things together for those who love Him and are the called according to His purpose.

Hilston wrote: ...just as we see in the case of the sinful men who committed acts of evil against Christ precisely in accordance with God's decrees.

Yorzhik writes: That would not be right. The sacrifice of Jesus was predetermined, but the specific people doing the things that God prophesied were not determined.

That's not what the Bible says. Jesus explicitly stated that Pilate's power was given him by God. Scripture explicitly states that Judas' actions were prophesied in detail.

Yorzhik previously wrote: Just as it was predetermined that the mighty warrior would have to be sacrificed/sacrifice himself, that did not cause, condone, or predetermine that the evil army would do the evil that they did to the mighty warrior.

Hilston wrote: You've just described a black-white-cube-ball. If there were no higher authority than OJ, OJ would be God. Do you see the impossibility you describe? Without a higher power or authority, there is no guilt, Yorzhik.

Yorzhik writes: Sure, this would be true if OJ was a mono-une god. But since that isn't the case with the real God, no, I don't see the impossibility you claim. If a transcendent God had nothing to testify to justice, then God might not detect if God was doing evil. But there is a mechanism to testify to the justice of the God of the bible. Or don't you think that Jesus is capable of understanding that His Father is good to Him? How about the Spirit; does the Spirit know if the Father is good?

The Godhead is One. Have you forgotten that? The three Persons of the Trinity are perfectly united in essence and purpose. What you describe is tantamount to polytheism, not to mention the inherent problem you pose by imposing a higher standard of goodness than God Himself by which the "Gods" evaluate each other. If you're going to claim that God Himself is the standard, then you beg the very question.

Son: "Hey, Father, I think the Spirit is good."
Father: "Really? What makes You say that?"
Son: "Well, He does good things."
Father: "Such as?"
Son: "He often __(insert good thing here)__, and that's good, right?"
Father: "Good? By what standard of goodness?"
Son: "By the Godly standard of goodness that is Us, the Godhead."
Father: "So, You're saying the Spirit, Who is God, is good because He conforms to the Godly standard of goodness that We All established. How do We All know that our Godly standard of goodness is good?"

Hilston wrote: There is no transcendent goodness apart from God.

Yorzhik writes: Okay, glad we got to this point. See my answer to your next quote.

Hilston wrote: Testified to whom? And by what standard? Are you just making this stuff up as you go along? The Son says, "Hey Father, the Spirit is just." The Father replies, "How do you know that?" The Son replies, "Because He does just things." The Father replies, "How do you know what His actions are just?" On your conception of God's justice, how are these questions answered?

Yorzhik writes: God does not need an authority above Him to have a concept of justice, it is intrinsic with His nature. And if there is a concept of justice, then it is defined. So Jesus would answer the question according to that definition of justice. The Father can test whether what the son is saying is true, and likewise each part can test the truth of each other part.

It's question begging, Yorzhik. If God's concept of justice is used to ascertain whether of not a Person of the Godhead is just, then it's a tautology. See the dialogue above. It's a tight question-begging fallacy.

Yorzhik writes: Jesus said, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." He is plainly alluding to a principle that shows how the Triune Godhead can testify to each part's justice.

Not true, Yorzhik. Jesus was declaring the inherent and supreme authority of the Godhead, not authority that is testified and justified before men. The point is that there is no higher testimony than the Godhead, in toto. You cannot separate the Persons of the Godhead in this way and make any sense whatsoever. Jesus certainly was not trying to justify the Persons of the Godhead.

Hilston wrote: These statements by Abraham acknowledge a standard of righteousness that God has prescribed for man, not for Himself. The Judge of all the earth does right by man, which is to say that He preserves the righteous and He slays the wicked.

Yorzhik writes: No Hilston, there is righteousness and there is wickedness. There are not different standards of righteousness. There are no different prescriptions for righteousness.

Is it righteous to abstain from strangled meat or not?

Yorzhik writes: God's absolute concept of righteousness is a part of God's nature, and therefore God knows what righteousness is.

God: "I know what righteousness is because My absolute concept of righteousness is a part of My nature." Oooooh kaaaaay.

Hilston wrote: I don't think that anymore ... because of the response I got from God. He basically put me in my place and said, "O man, who are you to reply against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, 'Why have you made me this way?'?"

Yorzhik writes: I read it in the Bible, too. And God told me the opposite what He told you.

Really? So where is the verse that says, "O man, you have duly replied against God. The thing formed has a right to say to Him that formed it, 'Why have you made me this way?'"

Yorzhik wrote: No, God could not have stopped the evil done by the large army before it was done and remain just.

Hilston replied: Why not? I can think of several options in which God could have used His Master Chess playing skills to avert the evil done to His Son, and still have His Son die and shed His blood. Can't you? Why didn't He stop it? Perhaps He wanted it to happen? Even decreed it?

Yorzhik writes: And could God have likewise fulfilled all the prophesies with the scenario that you propose? Can you tell us this alternative scenario?

On your view, prophesies are not that important (i.e. their fulfillment). They can be thwarted. So that opens up myriad possibilities, right? Let's see: Bloody nose (blood is shed) and a heart attack (Son dies). No evil is committed against Him. Or this: He gets a splinter (blood is shed) and falls off a cliff (Son dies). No evil is committed against Him. Or this: In the Garden, while He is praying, blood is shed during the prayer. At the end of the prayer, He just gives up the ghost, i.e. wills Himself to die and the disciples find Him there. On your view, why are these not acceptable alternatives?

Yorzhik writes: Also, if we can go back to a previous comment... did the chess enthusiast that you asked about solving chess actually say it "didn't make sense"? Or that she had never heard of "solving the game of chess" before?

Both.

Hilston asked: Who is "we", Yorzhik?

Yorzhik writes: Humanity.

So then "we" should have all kinds of references available to "us" that explains this concept of yours. Please supply titles or links.

Hilston wrote: So let me get this straight. God is the Master Chess Player who has "solved" the game of chess. He has enough computing time and power to determine that He will eventually win, but He couldn't figure out that Abraham feared Him and didn't know the outcome of His testings of Israel?

Yorzhik writes: Right. The creation of the rules of life were conceived and laid out before the world was made. And knowing the rules one can determine all possible outcomes. But the route to the final outcome was not a part of the rules. That part God left up to the free-will agents He created. BTW, you might want to find out what "solving the game" of chess is before you comment on it like you are doing here.

I'm giving it my best shot, Yorzhik. Feel free to correct any misunderstandings I betray in my characterization of this. Didn't you just answer "Right"?

Hilston wrote: Yet He is surprised by "moves" that never even entered His mind?

Yorzhik writes: Yes. This can be done by knowing the opponents "best" move, and seeing that the "best" move is obvious... and then watching the opponent make the obvious "worst" move. That would be a surprise. It would also be proper to say that it would never enter ones mind to have made the obvious worst move when the obvious best move is apparent.

Oooooh! So the move itself did indeed enter into His mind (like sacrificing one's children to Molech), but the fact of His opponent actually choosing the worst move never entered His mind. So it's a figure of speech after all?!

Yorzhik writes: Before you suggest, as you are doing here, that someone who has solved the game of chess could not be surprised by a move an opponent makes, you might want to know, as you have so far admitted that you don't know, what "solving the game" of chess means.

Hilston wrote: No. It doesn't make any sense. Please give me the title of a chess reference or a website that will explain this theory of chess you espouse.

Yorzhik writes: First, it is not theory. Chess (and many other games) can definitely be solved, in fact some already have been solved.

The terms don't seem to fit together. It's like saying, "I've completed the value." Or "I've driven the television." Or "I've solved the game of 'Go Fish.'" What does that mean? If I have more total matches then my opponent, I will win. Game solved?

Yorzhik writes: But after googling it, there is not a clear single source (at least not one that you would understand).

Try me. I'm Asian. I done good on my SAT. You know, Mensa material.

Yorzhik writes: It could be understood by reading the various hits that do come up by any person trying to understand the concept (and had at least average intelligence) -and- who also had a rudimentary knowledge of chess. But you shouldn't have to go to all that trouble.

I'm willing to go to all that trouble. I'd rather not take your word for it.

Yorzhik writes: So, I'll explain the concept in these posts. We could switch to an easier game, because solving a game is not unique to chess, as mentioned before. But let's not switch games unless it becomes obvious that you cannot grasp the concept using chess.

So let's begin. Here is a complete game of chess: 1. e2-e4, e7-e5. 2. Ng1-f3, Nb8-c6. 3. Bf1-c4, Ng8-f6. 4. Nf3-g5, d7-d5. 5. e4xd5, Nf6xd5. 6. Ng5xf7, Ke8xf7. 7. Qd1-f3, Kf7-e6. 8. Nb1-c3, Nc6-d4. 9. Bc4xd5, Ke6-d6. 10. Qf3-f7, Kd6-c5. 11. Nc3-a4, Kc5-b5. 12. Na4-c3, Kb5-a5. 13. b2-b4, Ka5xb4. 14. Ra1-b1, Kb4-c5. 15. Bc1-a3 mate.

You could call this a "line" of moves. It started at the standard chess setup, and continued until the black king was captured. If these moves are always played in this order, we will always get this result in exactly the same way. Can you see that this is a particular line of moves?

Sure. I've studied the moves between Deep Blue and Kasparov. I had to make a graphic of their moves the last time they played. I also read, with fascination, about Kasparov's frustration and resignation after only 19 moves in the final game of their 1997 match. But hindsight is 20-20, Yorzhik. We're talking about a future that doesn't exist (according to Open Theists) and God does not know it. Not only that, but there are parts of the past (i.e. past "chess moves") that God doesn't know either. So He doesn't even have the benefit of 20-20 hindsight in some cases. That's why (according to Open Theists) He would send angels and the Theophany to investigate whether or not "they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know." (Gen 18:20-21).

 

[1Way]

Repost due to a determined willingness to believe falsification.

==============
==============
Hilston

I do not deny any of those passages you said I do, I just deny that the exact way it happened was specifically locked into place in that it could not have happened any other way. That is according to Exhaustive Foreknowledge (whether it is informative or causative it does not matter, if you know it all, you know it all and it all must happen according to that one unalterable destiny).

Plus, God's foreknowledge is causative and not informative, further showing that what happened was not set in stone because it was primarily what He did that was predetermined, i.e. respond well against their evil plans, but even then, this foreknowledge was somewhat general in nature, it could have happened in many different ways yet fulfilled scripture just the same. Suppose that they tried to seize him to stone Him one extra time, would that have been enough to thwart God's plans just because of that, I don't think so. God is the capable God of the bible who has exactly the same amount of foreknowledge that the bible gives Him, and that does not turn God into being a lame but lucky guesser.

As to your lady friend of 20 years ago. "Election and predestination" is classically posed around the issue of "individual salvation". So the question remains, was that the context of your discussion Jim? (If so, then you are funny to have not seen it all this time, because Roman's 9 is not about individual election for salvation.)

==============
==============

I think I've explained myself well enough, and I think Hilston has shown himself to be (__fill in the blank__) and a context (__fill in the blank__) (__fill in the blank__).

If you want to be ignorant, be ignorant. The choice is yours.

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by 1Way

Repost due to a determined willingness to believe falsification.

Don't you mean "predetermined"?

Originally posted by 1Way
Hilston

I do not deny any of those passages you said I do, I just deny that the exact way it happened was specifically locked into place in that it could not have happened any other way.

Ask yourself these questions: Was Christ delivered, tortured and executed by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God? (Act 2:23) Yes or no?

Did Herod and Pilate and the Gentiles and the Jews gather together to commit evil against Christ as God's hand and purpose predetermined to be done? (Ac 4:27,28) Yes or no?

Were the things done to Christ fulfilled by God and foretold by the mouth of His prophets? (Ac 3:17ff) Yes or no?

Christ was delivered by Whose determined purpose and foreknowledge? According Whose hand and purpose predetermined to be done? All the things done to Christ was fulfilled by Whom, 1Way? Who determined, purposed, foreknew and fulfilled these things?

Originally posted by 1Way
Plus, God's foreknowledge is causative and not informative, further showing that what happened was not set in stone because it was primarily what He did that was predetermined, i.e. respond well against their evil plans, ...

Exactly how did God "respond well against their evil plans"? What was God's good response to their evil?

Originally posted by 1Way ... but even then, this foreknowledge was somewhat general in nature, it could have happened in many different ways yet fulfilled scripture just the same.

General? How general is this?:

Lu 22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

What exactly was written? Something general? Something in the ball park? How about this:

Isa 53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. 8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. 9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

There's nothing "general" in that passage. The details are astounding. On the Open View, God is quite a lucky guesser.

Originally posted by 1Way
Suppose that they tried to seize him to stone Him one extra time, would that have been enough to thwart God's plans just because of that, I don't think so.

If Judas had repented and decided not to betray Christ, which of the other disciples would have stepped up and betrayed Him? Jesus was on a strict timetable to accomplish everything that was written of Him.

Originally posted by 1Way
God is the capable God of the bible who has exactly the same amount of foreknowledge that the bible gives Him, and that does not turn God into being a lame but lucky guesser.

The Bible gives Him exhaustive foreknowledge in emphatic terms and by ineluctable inference. Having decreed all things, he foreknows all things.

Originally posted by 1Way
As to your lady friend of 20 years ago. "Election and predestination" is classically posed around the issue of "individual salvation". So the question remains, was that the context of your discussion Jim? (If so, then you are funny to have not seen it all this time, because Roman's 9 is not about individual election for salvation.)

Here was the context of my discussion, and I remember this vividly: "Hey, have you read Romans 9 recently?" She shook her head. "Check this out: ..." And then I began to read. After I was done reading the chapter, before I could say another word, she said, "I think you're interpreting that wrong."

There you have it. The entire context of the discussion.

As to your claim that Romans 9 is not about "individual election for salvation," consider the following, noting the references to lots of individuals:

• "brethren" = reference to more than one individual brother.
• "kinsmen" = reference to more than one individual kinsman.
• "Israelites" = reference to more than one individual Israelite.
• "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" = “theyâ€? is a plural pronoun, referring to more than one individual comprising Israel.
• "they are the seed of Abraham ... they all children" = Plural pronoun again, and “childrenâ€? referring to more than one individual child.
• "they which are the children of the flesh" = Plural pronoun, refers to more than one individual.
• "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" =â€?whomâ€? is a singular pronoun.
• "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth" = “himâ€? is a singular pronoun.
• "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." = “whomâ€? is a singular pronoun.
• "Thou wilt say then unto me," = “thouâ€? is a singular pronoun referring to an individual
• "Nay but, O man, "= “manâ€? is a singular individual
• Etc.

Looks like lots of individuals to me.

Originally posted by 1Way
I think I've explained myself well enough, and I think Hilston has shown himself to be [Jim inserts](__tenaciously committed to scripture and logic__) and a context (__honoring__) (__soul brutha__).

Originally posted by 1Way
If you want to be ignorant, be ignorant. The choice is yours.

You must be in denial.

 

[Yorzhik]

If you ask a simplistic question, I can only proffer a simplistic answer. All sin separates men from God. Jesus Christ was mocked, tortured, whipped, beaten and executed for sins of the heart and sins of action. Jesus didn't die "more" for heart sins than action sins or vice versa. If you want more detail, re-think your question and try again.

What would you prefer? That your child does what you want, but makes it clear they do so in protest –or- the child fails to do what you want but they tried hard to accomplish what you want, and they show a desire to do what you want?

Yorzhik writes: Because when sin happens, someone is going to get blamed/punished.

Why does the question of blame/punishment change anything?

Because we have to assess who is responsible for the blame, because it is wrong to punish someone if they are not to blame. And punishment is required for the person that is to blame.

If the "someone else" committed the sinful act willfully, then both parties would be culpable to a higher authority. This doesn't apply to God for two reasons: (1) There is no higher authority than God, and (2) having exhaustive foreknowledge, God could have and has decreed evil to accomplish good purposes, working all things together for those who love Him and are the called according to His purpose.

I guess this is where we disagree. God can still be culpable if He has an understanding of right and wrong. It doesn't matter if there is someone bigger than God, or not. All that is required is a standard to measure against. In the case of God, it is a peer-to-peer comparison.

That's not what the Bible says. Jesus explicitly stated that Pilate's power was given him by God. Scripture explicitly states that Judas' actions were prophesied in detail.

Judas was mentioned by name? or the actions of unnamed men that we identify after the fact as Judas and others involved in the Passion? Is Pilate any different from any other gov't official?

Yorzhik writes: Sure, this would be true if OJ was a mono-une god. But since that isn't the case with the real God, no, I don't see the impossibility you claim. If a transcendent God had nothing to testify to justice, then God might not detect if God was doing evil. But there is a mechanism to testify to the justice of the God of the bible. Or don't you think that Jesus is capable of understanding that His Father is good to Him? How about the Spirit; does the Spirit know if the Father is good?

The Godhead is One. Have you forgotten that? The three Persons of the Trinity are perfectly united in essence and purpose. What you describe is tantamount to polytheism, not to mention the inherent problem you pose by imposing a higher standard of goodness than God Himself by which the "Gods" evaluate each other.

Son: "Hey, Father, I think the Spirit is good."
Father: "Really? What makes You say that?"
Son: "Well, He does good things."
Father: "Such as?"
Son: "He often __(insert good thing here)__, and that's good, right?"
Father: "Good? By what standard of goodness?"
Son: "By the Godly standard of goodness that is Us, the Godhead."
Father: "So, You're saying the Spirit, Who is God, is good because He conforms to the Godly standard of goodness that We All established. How do We All know that our Godly standard of goodness is good?"

Son: "Hey, Father, I think the Spirit is good."
Father: "Really? What makes You say that?"
Son: "Well, He does good things."
Father: "Such as?"
Son: "He often __(insert good thing here)__, and that's good, right?"
Father: "Good? By what standard of goodness?"
Son: "By the Godly standard of goodness that is within Me, part of the Godhead."
Father: "So, You're saying the Spirit, Who is God, is good because He conforms to the Godly standard of goodness that We All established and is defined, and that we can each evaluate against the actions of each part of the Godhead."

If you're going to claim that God Himself is the standard, then you beg the very question.

So, you have a complete understanding of the trinity?

It's question begging, Yorzhik. If God's concept of justice is used to ascertain whether of not a Person of the Godhead is just, then it's a tautology. See the dialogue above. It's a tight question-begging fallacy.

Not at all. The Godly standard is in each part of the Godhead. You cannot separate the conversation and not separate understanding as well.

Not true, Yorzhik. Jesus was declaring the inherent and supreme authority of the Godhead, not authority that is testified and justified before men. The point is that there is no higher testimony than the Godhead, in toto. You cannot separate the Persons of the Godhead in this way and make any sense whatsoever. Jesus certainly was not trying to justify the Persons of the Godhead.

If you cannot establish the bolded sentence, then you cannot establish your statement. Can you give me a complete rundown on exactly how we do separate the Godhead?

Yorzhik writes: No Hilston, there is righteousness and there is wickedness. There are not different standards of righteousness. There are no different prescriptions for righteousness.

Is it righteous to abstain from strangled meat or not?

The prescription for righteousness is to follow God's rules, whatever they happen to be at the time. Rules change, righteousness doesn't.

Hilston writes:
The Judge of all the earth does right by man, which is to say that He preserves the righteous and He slays the wicked.

How does God know that preserving the righteous men and slaying the wicked men is right?

Yorzhik writes: I read it in the Bible, too. And God told me the opposite what He told you.

Hilston writes:
Really? So where is the verse that says, "O man, you have duly replied against God. The thing formed has a right to say to Him that formed it, 'Why have you made me this way?'"

Not the opposite of that, the opposite of this:

Hilston wrote:
"Well if it was God's will to design everything in such a way that these problems and evil would exist, and if I happen to sin, how could He blame me for sinning (Why doth He yet find fault)? After all, He is God, and who hath resisted his will?" I don't think that anymore ... because of the response I got from God.

The God of the bible says the opposite of: " … it was God's will to design everything in such a way that these problems and evil would exist …" So there is no problem with questioning God… you don't have to.

Yorzhik writes: And could God have likewise fulfilled all the prophesies with the scenario that you propose? Can you tell us this alternative scenario?

On your view, prophesies are not that important (i.e. their fulfillment). They can be thwarted.

The only time a prophesy of something bad happening is thwarted is if the action of that bad thing is no longer required. For instance, when God was going to wipe out Nineveh, He changed His mind because Nineveh repented. Likewise, if the sacrifice was no longer required for sin, God would gladly dispense with His Passion prophesies. So, no, since the sacrifice was required, the prophesies could not be dispensed with.

So that opens up myriad possibilities, right? Let's see: Bloody nose (blood is shed) and a heart attack (Son dies). No evil is committed against Him. Or this: He gets a splinter (blood is shed) and falls off a cliff (Son dies). No evil is committed against Him. Or this: In the Garden, while He is praying, blood is shed during the prayer. At the end of the prayer, He just gives up the ghost, i.e. wills Himself to die and the disciples find Him there. On your view, why are these not acceptable alternatives?

Yes, I guess if you ignore what God says… there are more than a myriad of ridiculous possibilities.

Didn't you just answer "Right"?

Yes, I answered "right".

Oooooh! So the move itself did indeed enter into His mind (like sacrificing one's children to Molech), but the fact of His opponent actually choosing the worst move never entered His mind. So it's a figure of speech after all?!

Yes. In more common English, the figure is stated "I can't believe you did that." And here is the plain text to replace it: Jer 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], I really really did not expect we would have gone down this path of ever having gotten this bad, been this depraved, or ignored so completely the obvious goodness of not killing your own children:

And Hilston's replacement text is… ? Or is that passage not a figure according to Hilston?

What does that mean? If I have more total matches then my opponent, I will win. Game solved?

No.

Try me. I'm Asian. I done good on my SAT. You know, Mensa material.

-and-

I'm willing to go to all that trouble. I'd rather not take your word for it.

-and-

… I've studied the moves between Deep Blue and Kasparov. I had to make a graphic of their moves the last time they played. I also read, with fascination, about Kasparov's frustration and resignation after only 19 moves in the final game of their 1997 match. But hindsight is 20-20, Yorzhik. We're talking about a future that doesn't exist (according to Open Theists) and God does not know it. Not only that, but there are parts of the past (i.e. past "chess moves") that God doesn't know either. So He doesn't even have the benefit of 20-20 hindsight in some cases. That's why (according to Open Theists) He would send angels and the Theophany to investigate whether or not "they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know." (Gen 18:20-21).

Oy! You been sandbagging! As someone with a Chinese last name, and whose children are half-asian, I realize you know more about this than I do!

None of the links have a single definition to 'solve the game of chess', but together, and because some actually aren't too far off to begin with, this should be enough.
Anyway, here is one link: http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess/perfect.htm
The pertinent words from this link: Yes, Chess, if played the "perfect game" can be determined. @ http://www.orgs.muohio.edu/chess/ChessHistory.html
Another link: http://www.cs.unimaas.nl/icga/journal/contents/node25.html
Not much to the point, but interesting and touches on the topic: http://www.cs.rochester.edu/users/faculty/dana/csc240_Fall97/***6/Alex_Pita.html
Here is people talking about it: http://www.avlerchess.com/chess-com...the_entire_tree_will_be_completed_104339.html

There are other links that can add to the pool of knowledge of what the definition is of "solving chess" if you search for "solve the game of chess".

But this doesn't help the people that don't want to go to all the trouble of following all those links to compile the information. Since this is not really a concept too hard to understand, we can talk through it. Honestly, I can't take your word for it that you would try to understand the information in the links.

]Yorzhik writes: So let's begin. Here is a complete game of chess: 1. e2-e4, e7-e5. 2. Ng1-f3, Nb8-c6. 3. Bf1-c4, Ng8-f6. 4. Nf3-g5, d7-d5. 5. e4xd5, Nf6xd5. 6. Ng5xf7, Ke8xf7. 7. Qd1-f3, Kf7-e6. 8. Nb1-c3, Nc6-d4. 9. Bc4xd5, Ke6-d6. 10. Qf3-f7, Kd6-c5. 11. Nc3-a4, Kc5-b5. 12. Na4-c3, Kb5-a5. 13. b2-b4, Ka5xb4. 14. Ra1-b1, Kb4-c5. 15. Bc1-a3 mate… …Can you see that this is a particular line of moves?

Hilston responds:
Sure.

Okay. Great. So then, could you also see that we could list a "line" for every game of chess that that has ever been played? And that those lines are fixed for each of those games?

 

[Yorzhik]

I'm sorry if thread should stop now, but in my opinion I don't think it's done. Hilston did not address all of post 1124, and my final post 1215.

So this is just a bump. Let the thread die if everyone else so chooses, it would not be a sin.

 

[Hilston]

Thanks for the headsup, Yorzhik. It slipped through the cracks, I think. I will happily address it.

 

[1Way]

Hilston

From your post 1214.

1

• QUOTE
  
  Originally posted by Hilston
  
  As to your claim that Romans 9 is not about "individual election for salvation," consider the following, noting the references to lots of individuals:
  
• "brethren" = reference to more than one individual brother.
• "kinsmen" = reference to more than one individual kinsman.
• "Israelites" = reference to more than one individual Israelite.
• "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" = “theyâ€? is a plural pronoun, referring to more than one individual comprising Israel.
• "they are the seed of Abraham ... they all children" = Plural pronoun again, and “childrenâ€? referring to more than one individual child.
• "they which are the children of the flesh" = Plural pronoun, refers to more than one individual.
• "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" =â€?whomâ€? is a singular pronoun.
• "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth" = “himâ€? is a singular pronoun.
• "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." = “whomâ€? is a singular pronoun.
• "Thou wilt say then unto me," = “thouâ€? is a singular pronoun referring to an individual
• "Nay but, O man, "= “manâ€? is a singular individual
• Etc.
  
  Looks like lots of individuals to me.
  
  
  You must be in denial.
  
  END QUOTE

This is excellent, Hilston, thank you for being so blatantly honest and exposing of your patently dumb and false ideas. You confound as synonyms that which is singular with that which is plural. News flash, they are not the same! Nor does an individual reference of a group somehow nullify the plurality of the teaching. And concerning numbers, the number does not have anything to do with the qualifying specificity. A qualification of any number, singular or plural can be general where the individuals are not determined, or specific where the members are determined.

But consider the source, you (NO! "YOU", as in "Hilston", not all individual "you's" out there!!!) can't tell the difference between a literary tool ("o man", a theoretical singular representative of the group) and the actual teaching at hand which is about all men, and between the fact of the matter that I asserted that the entire passage is not about INDIVIDUAL SALVATION (i.e. predetermined who specifically will get saved), yet instead of you respecting the very clear context of my claim, you argued as though I said something on the order of: this passage grammatically contains no references that can be construed as being singular in form. AND, IN ORDER FOR YOU TO ARGUE THAT WAY, YOU ALSO VIOLATED THE BIBLE'S USE OF SINGULAR AND PLURAL just to try to make your non-biblical point.

Talk about a typically Hilston response. :zakath: :dunce: :kookoo: :Servent: :loser: :bang: :doh: :down: :devil:

Context, they keep saying that I violate the context!?!?! Why do people constantly say that I violate the context? It's not true, the "only" thing I even mentioned was the grammer of a few words! -- Hilston, the willfully blind

• 1 Corinthians 14:38 But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.

LOOK AT THAT, "him" is a singular pronoun, so the context of this teaching must be about one specific individual person and not open generally to anyone who ends up fitting the general description!!! ,,, because, as everyone should know, the grammar of an individual word always trumps the meaningful context, always! -- A Hilstonite
(or, if that is not plain enough for you 'O man')
-- any individual "man" who is willfully blind


2

As to

There's nothing "general" in that passage. The details are astounding. On the Open View, God is quite a lucky guesser.

Basically everything in that passage was about as general as you can get without being totally vague, the whole thing was open to be fulfilled in a million different ways. He was smitten, wounded, rejected... REJECTED and oppressed, really, imagine that(!!!), wow, talk about a closed event that dictates that God must have EF. Do you believe in newpaper horoscopes? :kookoo:

Sure, God was on a crucial and clear timetable, but knowing that Judas would betray Him does not (by any stretch of the imagination) mean God has EF. You do not even hear our answers to your supposed questions.

We could answer your questions a thousand times, some have been answered doubtlessly dozens of times, but if you have a stiff-necked determination to be willfully ignorant, then,

so be it.


3

And make no mistake about it, you are a violent man, meaningfully and contextually you either ignore (and thus violate) the context, or you subversively pervert it to suit your own manmade agenda. And what is worse is that you do not stop doing that with man's words, no, you have the heinous gull to do that with GOD'S WORD.

It must eat at you to know that we are right and you are wrong. If God honestly does not know the entire future, then your theological underpinnings snap and your system of belief is wrought with false teaching. So
instead
of abiding by the truth of the matter according to scripture, i.e. God repents and does not always do what He "said" and "thought" He was going to do,
you
twist and violate scripture to protect that which is more near and dear to you. You are a pervert in order to protect what you think is right in your own eyes.

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by 1Way

Hilston

From your post 1214.

1

• QUOTE
  
  

  Originally posted by Hilston
  
  As to your claim that Romans 9 is not about "individual election for salvation," consider the following, noting the references to lots of individuals:
  
  [*]"brethren" = reference to more than one individual brother.
  [*]"kinsmen" = reference to more than one individual kinsman.
  [*]"Israelites" = reference to more than one individual Israelite.
  [*]"they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" = “they� is a plural pronoun, referring to more than one individual comprising Israel.
  [*]"they are the seed of Abraham ... they all children" = Plural pronoun again, and “children� referring to more than one individual child.
  [*]"they which are the children of the flesh" = Plural pronoun, refers to more than one individual.
  [*]"For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" =�whom� is a singular pronoun.
  [*]"So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth" = “him� is a singular pronoun.
  [*]"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." = “whom� is a singular pronoun.
  [*]"Thou wilt say then unto me," = “thou� is a singular pronoun referring to an individual
  [*]"Nay but, O man, "= “man� is a singular individual
  [*]Etc.
  
  Looks like lots of individuals to me.
  
  You must be in denial.

This is excellent, Hilston, thank you for being so blatantly honest and exposing of your patently dumb and false ideas. You confound as synonyms that which is singular with that which is plural. News flash, they are not the same!

1Way, try to keep up. The argument from the Open Deists is that Romans 9 is corporate and not individual election. For that to be true, you must show us a singular noun or pronoun in reference to a collective. Such as "team." That's a singular noun that refers to a collective, or corporate entity. Each of my examples listed refers to an individual (singular) or individuals (plural). Lots of individuals. No collective. No corporate entity. Do you get that? Check the list for a singular reference to a corporate entity. It's not there, 1Way. If it had said, "It is not all Israel which is of Israel," you would have a case. But alas, it doesn't say that.

Originally posted by 1Way
Nor does an individual reference of a group somehow nullify the plurality of the teaching.

Um, what?

Originally posted by 1Way
And concerning numbers, the number does not have anything to do with the qualifying specificity. A qualification of any number, singular or plural can be general where the individuals are not determined, or specific where the members are determined.

Say what?

Originally posted by 1Way
But consider the source, you (NO! "YOU", as in "Hilston", not all individual "you's" out there!!!) can't tell the difference between a literary tool ("o man", a theoretical singular representative of the group) and the actual teaching at hand which is about all men, and between the fact of the matter that I asserted that the entire passage is not about INDIVIDUAL SALVATION (i.e. predetermined who specifically will get saved), yet instead of you respecting the very clear context of my claim, you argued as though I said something on the order of: this passage grammatically contains no references that can be construed as being singular in form. AND, IN ORDER FOR YOU TO ARGUE THAT WAY, YOU ALSO VIOLATED THE BIBLE'S USE OF SINGULAR AND PLURAL just to try to make your non-biblical point.

How convenient! When the text opposes your view, just chalk it up to being a "literary tool". Can I use that? Open Theism is blown up by its own petard by such futile attempts to force the passage to say other than what the words mean and the context demands.

Originally posted by 1Way
Talk about a typically Hilston response. :zakath: :dunce: :kookoo: :Servent: :loser: :bang: :doh: :down: :devil:

:freak:

Originally posted by 1Way
Context, they keep saying that I violate the context!?!?! Why do people constantly say that I violate the context? It's not true, the "only" thing I even mentioned was the grammer of a few words! -- Hilston, the willfully blind

• 1 Corinthians 14:38 But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.

LOOK AT THAT, "him" is a singular pronoun, so the context of this teaching must be about one specific individual person and not open generally to anyone who ends up fitting the general description!!! ,,, because, as everyone should know, the grammar of an individual word always trumps the meaningful context, always! -- A Hilstonite
(or, if that is not plain enough for you 'O man')
-- any individual "man" who is willfully blind

Can anyone help 1Way out of his quagmire? Can anyone explain to 1Way where his thinking is flawed on this whole matter? Would anyone care to assist 1Way in understanding the difference in the nature of Paul's statement in 1Co 14 and the context of Ro 9?

Originally posted by 1Way
2

As to Basically everything in that passage was about as general as you can get without being totally vague, the whole thing was open to be fulfilled in a million different ways. He was smitten, wounded, rejected... REJECTED and oppressed, really, imagine that(!!!), wow, talk about a closed event that dictates that God must have EF. Do you believe in newpaper horoscopes? :kookoo:

Sure, God was on a crucial and clear timetable, but knowing that Judas would betray Him does not (by any stretch of the imagination) mean God has EF. You do not even hear our answers to your supposed questions.

I hear your answers. They're nonsensical. Could Judas have repented? If so, your God could have been up the proverbial creek and His whole timetable would have been blown to smithereens.

Originally posted by 1Way
We could answer your questions a thousand times, some have been answered doubtlessly dozens of times, but if you have a stiff-necked determination to be willfully ignorant, then,

so be it.

Ditto to you, 1Way. You would rather believe in a God who wrings His hands and crosses His fingers in the hope that His plans come to fruition, but He doesn't really want them to come to fruition. He wanted Jesus' death to happen on a "crucial and clear timetable," but He did NOT want Judas to sin and betray Christ. What a mess! Do you even hear yourself? Have you tried saying these things out loud? Someone standing nearby might just smack you in the head or have you committed to a home for the deranged.

Originally posted by 1Way
3

And make no mistake about it, you are a violent man, meaningfully and contextually you either ignore (and thus violate) the context, or you subversively pervert it to suit your own manmade agenda.

No 1Way. That's what you and your cronies do. You have to. You've cemented your OV glasses to your face and read everything through the polarized filter of a neurotic, unintelligent, non-observant, wishful-thinking-God theology.

Originally posted by 1Way
And what is worse is that you do not stop doing that with man's words, no, you have the heinous gull to do that with GOD'S WORD.

I have no gull. The only animals we keep are fish. Gulls eat fish. You've demonstrated time and again the great lengths to which you and your comrades will go to disparage God's character, do violence to grammar, and disregard logic to the point of sheer lunacy. God didn't know for sure what was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah so He sent a delegation? God didn't know Abraham would obey Him? God didn't know Nineveh would repent? And you trust this God ... why?

Originally posted by 1Way
It must eat at you to know that we are right and you are wrong.

Yeah. If only I could believe in a God who says He hates evil and wants to defend the innocent, but He won't lift a finger to save a single innocent life at the hands of evil men because He can't think of a way to do it without messing things up. And you trust this God ... why?

Originally posted by 1Way
If God honestly does not know the entire future, then your theological underpinnings snap and your system of belief is wrought with false teaching.

That's not the half of it. If God doesn't exhaustively know the future, then there is no God and we don't exist. There is a transcendental argument for the exhaustive foreknowledge of God, but you and your compatriots have deliberately grown a cataract that prevents you from comprehending it. It is an utter impossibility for God to not know the future exhaustively. God would not be God if He didn't have EF, and we would not exist. Period.

Originally posted by 1Way
So instead of abiding by the truth of the matter according to scripture, i.e. God repents and does not always do what He "said" and "thought" He was going to do, you twist and violate scripture to protect that which is more near and dear to you. You are a pervert in order to protect what you think is right in your own eyes.

Back at you, 1Way. You've been given every chance to see the rich and meaningful anthropopathisms used by the prophets to convey God's demeanor toward His people. You've read my exegeses of these passages and will not budge a micron to admit of any value in those treatments. Why? Because you know that a small crack in your dike will cause a gushing torent of truth to overwhelm and obliterate all your efforts to humanize God and to make Him into some kind of super-human, with frailties and shortcomings intact. It's a convenient strategy, especially for those who deny total depravity. Denigrate God, elevate man. Eventually, you'll meet somewhere in the middle, a God who isn't really God, and man who is self-deluded into thinking he is greater than he truly is.

 

[Hilston]

Hi Yorzhik,

This is that long overdue reply to your post #1124.

Hilston wrote: They could only have relented if it were possible to choose against one's own will.

Yorzhik writes: No, the question is, could they choose against God's will. It was God's will that Jesus suffer and die.

Did I hear you right? Are you saying God wanted Jesus to suffer and die?

Yorzhik writes:
But not all the Jewish leadership agreed to kill Jesus - they went against God's will; and God was happy with that. But what if there were more of the leadership that didn't agree to kill Jesus (to the point where Jesus wouldn't be murdered), then what was God supposed to do? At least a couple things - you mention one in your next quote. Or, there may have been another way to achieve the sacrifice of Jesus and still uphold all of the prophesies. Somehow I don't think a bloody nose + heart attack would have done it, to say the least. But there is no requirement that every person do what they did during the Passion. All that was required was that Jesus be murdered and the prophesies fulfilled. There, I've stuck my neck out again. Is it okay that I answered directly?

Are you then saying that God wanted Jesus to be murdered?

Yorzhik writes:
Now I know you've read that I don't believe all of God's prophesies are fulfilled. Yet, there are some prophesies that will happen because God makes them happen. If that requires putting hooks in the jaws of evil men to do their evil in a way that will accomplish God's purpose and will ultimately work against them, then God will do it.

You seem to disagree with 1Way here. He claims that God never uses evil to accomplish good.

Hilston wrote: But that is impossible. No one can choose what he does not want to choose. They chose what they wanted to do, and God put it in their hearts to want that. Just like in Rev. 17

12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. 13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

...

16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. 17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

Yorzhik writes:
Oh, yes, to have a machine that could make people *want* certain things instead of forcing them to do certain things would be MUCH MORE effective. That is true control. Even we humans can frequently get other humans to do what we want - but we have no control over free-will directly. That isn't nearly the kind of control that would be truly powerful. It is the power to make someone want to do what we want that is truly powerful. So if God can merely turn on the "want" switch, He can get someone to do whatever He wants. He can even make everyone want to love Him.

Or, perhaps God doesn't have a switch, and He has to get people to want something the way we all do - without violating free will.

On my view, God doesn't violate free will. It is impossible to violate free will, by definition.

Yorzhik writes:
For example; that's what all we parents want, really. I mean, we can make our kids act a certain way, but what we want is for them to want to act a certain way. We can get them to want what we want, but it takes time and energy doing things that cannot involve a "want" switch because we have no access to such a switch (if it exists at all).

God said repeatedly "circumcise your hearts" to the Israelites. He didn't want them to just follow the rules, He wanted them to want to follow the rules because they loved God.

I agree completely. But since man is totally depraved, and the carnal mind is unable to submit to God's law (Ro 8:7), then it follows that those who "circumcise their hearts" cannot want to do so in and of themselves. The "want" switch must be flipped, and that is regeneration. When the Spirit of God regenerates a person, their "want" switch is flipped, and they begin to desire truth and to know Christ.

Hilston wrote: Also, it's a good thing that they couldn't choose otherwise, because if Christ had not been tortured, mocked, beaten, spit upon, executed, entombed, and resurrected, we could not be saved. "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins." 1Co 15:17.

[snip]

Yorzhik writes:
Here is what Tim McMahon says about Hilston's proof text, Rev. 17:17. I would have let my post stand as it is (it was mostly written before I received this from Tim), but after reading this I just thought it should be something for everyone. It's more thorough than anything I could write. The question I asked Tim was more a general question about the Calvinist/CV (I know you are not a Calvinist Hilson) position and Rev. 17:17, so if this doesn't address Hilston's non-Calvinist view, I would like to know where it is.

Tim McMahon quote: I'm not sure that Revelation 17:17 directly affects the question of openness. To those who would cite it as an example of God overruling or manipulating people's wills, I would respond that the exceptional nature of the divine activity in this verse shows that free will is the prevailing reality: the exception that proves (tests) the rule, so to speak. If God makes everything happen, why point out that He's making one particular thing happen?

This is an argument from silence and proves nothing. If it is the rule and not the exception that God manipulates people's wills, pointing it out in select cases doesn't negate the rule. But all we need is one example to obliterate the OV claim that predeterminism and free will are not incompatible. Does Tim McMahon believe the kings in Rev 17:17 did not have free will in this exceptional case?

Yorzhik quote McMahon:
There's actually a great deal of Scripture which addresses the issue of God manipulating the actions of someone - generally, if not always, a ruler - to bring about His ends. The most prominent example... is Pharaoh. The long and the short of it, when you read the entire relevant section of Exodus, is this. Pharaoh is an evil man who chooses to do evil in opposing God and opposing His people Israel When God sends Moses to instruct Pharaoh to let Israel go, Pharaoh "hardens his heart" in opposition to God. God seizes upon Pharaoh's obstinacy to make an example of him and to demonstrate His glory. When the plagues God sends against him prove too much for him to bear, Pharaoh relents and says he will let Israel go. But he doesn't mean it; he's not repenting, not changing his heart. He's just cracking under the pressure. God isn't about to let Pharaoh off so easily. He isn't about to bring Israel out of Egypt with a whimper; He insists on doing it in style. So God actually hardens Pharaoh's heart to ensure that Pharaoh will follow through on his evil plan to oppose Israel with all his might. God isn't the source of Pharaoh's evil; Pharaoh is responsible for his own choices. It isn't as if Pharaoh wanted to do good and God hardened him to do evil; God merely took Pharaoh's own evil heart's desire and manipulated him to bring about an outcome that maximized His glory in the sight of Israel and of the nations they would encounter in the land.

Did God put it in Pharaoh's heart to not let the Israelites go?

Yorzhik quote McMahon:
When calvinists present their take on Pharaoh - that God hardened his heart to make him do evil - I always ask them: if Pharaoh was totally depraved and incapable of doing good, how is it that God had to harden his heart to compel him to do evil? Wouldn't Pharaoh do evil all by himself?

Thomas McMahon, like just about every Arminian and Open Theist I've encountered, has either never read, or cannot remember, or deliberately mischaracterizes what total depravity means.

Yorzhik quote McMahon:
One can harden only what is soft in the first place. The calvinist take on Pharaoh implicitly contradicts their foundational doctrine of total depravity. If God had to make Pharaoh do evil, then Pharaoh must have had the choice to do good (and been inclined to do so).

Yup. McMahon is clueless about TD.

Yorzhik quote McMahon:
What kind of God claims to be all-good and yet forces people who are inclined, despite all the enticements and pressures of evil, to do good, instead to do evil, and on top of that condemns them for doing what He forced them to do against their will?

Straw man fallacy. No one I know or have read espouses such a view.

Yorzhik quote McMahon:
The kings in Revelation - whoever they turn out to be - are in the same boat. They're evil; they're in this for their own aggrandizement. God doesn't make them evil, or manipulate them away from the good they would have done if only He'd left them alone. They have already committed themselves to evil and planned their evil course. It's just that, like Pharaoh, the specific course of evil these guys would pursue if left to themselves is inconvenient vis-ß-vis God's purpose in the tribulation of wrapping up evil and crushing it through the revelation of Jesus Christ. My take on Antichrist and the tribulation and all that is this. The world is evil, but it's not a well-organized evil. Typical of evil, you've got a million strands, a million conflicting self-interests going every which way. What God wants to do at the return of Christ is to deal evil a death blow. (It actually works out as two blows, one at Christ's return and the other at the conclusion of the millennium when Satan is released and the whole thing repeats itself, but that's another story.) But a non-directed, disorganized, every-which-way evil doesn't lend itself to a spectacular, glorious triumph of right. So God uses Satan and Satan's plan to unite all the various and sundry evildoers into one united force of evil, one ultimate Foe, so He can crush it once and for all. (Okay, twice and for all.) That's where these kings fit in. The ultimate Foe must subsume all rivals into a united rebellion against God, and God does a lot of manipulation to get this accomplished in a short timeframe Again, God isn't making anyone evil, or forcing anyone to be evil, or enticing, manipulating or forcing anyone away from goodness and righteousness. They're all disposed to evil in themselves. God is merely manipulating the details to serve His purpose. This is the essential truth behind Proverbs 21:1, "The king's heart is an irrigation ditch in the hand of HaShem; He turns it wherever He will."

This is all beside the point, and fraught with straw-man fallacies. Regardless of God's motive, the fact is that Rev. 17 claims God puts it in the hearts of the kings to do something, then it says they are all of one mind to do that very thing, an evil thing. McMahon's rhetoric does not adequately address the OV dilemma of God decreeing evil, manipulating the will of men, and the concurrent freedom of the will of man. Does McMahon also disagree with 1Way about God using evil for good?

Yorzhik quote McMahon:
Probably the best passage of Scripture to illustrate the principle of God's manipulation of evil is Isaiah's oracle about the king of Assyria (Isaiah 10:5-19): Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger, the staff of my fury! Against a godless nation I send him, and against the people of my wrath I command him, to take spoil and seize plunder, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets. But he does not so intend, and his mind does not so think; but it is in his mind to destroy, and to cut off nations not a few; for he says: "Are not my commanders all kings? Is not Calno like Carchemish? Is not Hamath like Arpad? Is not Samaria like Damascus? As my hand has reached to the kingdoms of the idols whose graven images were greater than those of Jerusalem and Samaria, shall I not do to Jerusalem and her idols as I have done to Samaria and her images?"

When the Lord has finished all his work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem he will punish the arrogant boasting of the king of Assyria and his haughty pride. For he says: "By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom, for I have understanding; I have removed the boundaries of peoples, and have plundered their treasures; like a bull I have brought down those who sat on thrones. My hand has found like a nest the wealth of the peoples; and as men gather eggs that have been forsaken so I have gathered all the earth; and there was none that moved a wing, or opened the mouth, or chirped."

Shall the axe vaunt itself over him who hews with it, or the saw magnify itself against him who wields it? As if a rod should wield him who lifts it, or as if a staff should lift him who is not wood! Therefore the Lord, HaShem of hosts, will send wasting sickness among his stout warriors, and under his glory a burning will be kindled, like the burning of fire. The light of Israel will become a fire, and his Holy One a flame; and it will burn and devour his thorns and briers in one day. The glory of his forest and of his fruitful land HaShem will destroy, both soul and body, and it will be as when a sick man wastes away. The remnant of the trees of his forest will be so few that a child can write them down.

Notice the symmetry: the Assyrian has his interests, God has His. It isn't like the Assyrian king is a some kind of peace-and-love dude singing Kum Ba Ya to all the other countries, but God, wanting a warrior, tempts or coerces him into becoming an evil oppressor.

Straw man again. This is getting tiresome.

Yorzhik quote McMahon:
The Assyrian has made up his own mind to conquer and ravage many nations. God simply reaches down and manipulates within and around him in order to use him to chasten His disobedient people Israel. Afterward, God punishes the Assyrian for his haughtiness and for exceeding God's intentions with his destructiveness (cf. Zechariah 1:15). Antichrist is the Assyrian on steroids, ratcheted up to worldwide scope.

I agree completely with this. But I don't think 1Way would agree, and I'm surprised that Yorzhik defends this language. God uses evil for good? I thought that was a big no-no amongst you Open Theists.

Yorzhik quote McMahon:
We see the same phenomenon in the Gog/Magog oracle in Ezekiel 38-39. God tells them, "I will put hooks in your jaws and bring you forth" when they start to beat a retreat from their attack on Israel. Again, God is not the source of their evil. Once they have given themselves over to evil, God is free to manipulate the specifics of their evil enterprise on behalf of His own good purpose.

God uses evil for good??? Is McMahon an Open Theist? This flip-flopping is baffling.