ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[Rolf Ernst]

CLETE- I am responding to your posts, being very careful to do so by responding to each verse yu challenged me with, saying any of them would destroy my view of God's sovereignty; and right now, the verse under discussion is not focused primarily on will, but on "counsel." The Pharisees rejected the counsel of God against themselves. Again, how do you reconcile that statement with the other verses which state, in effect generally, that His counsel "standeth forever"; His counsel "shall stand" and He works ALL things
"after the counsel of His own will"?

You state that God "wants for these people to submit to John's baptismk and they are resisting that will." Where do you see that in the text? The text says that they rejected the counsel of god against themselves. What "counsel of God" do you think luke is talking about? What is the SOURCE of that "counsel of God" spoken of? Do you believe that the counsel of God spoken of in Lk. 7 is the same counsel of God spoken of in Ephesians chapter one where it is said that He works all things after the counsel of His own will? Or is it the counsel of God spoken on by Paul as he was bidding farewell to the Ephesians, "I have declared unto you the whole counsel of God"? Are they different? Or does the Bible always mean the very same thing when it speaks of "the counsel of God?"

Be patient with me. If my questions to you concerning one verse seem burdensome, remember that you gave me several verses to consider.

 

[Delmar]

Deja vu

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Clete and Poly,

Poly: Had Nineveh not repented and God carried through with His prophecy, I could just hear the Calvinists saying "There's no way Nineveh could have repented. God prophecied that they would be destroyed and there's no way He could go back on that."

Peter could have repented just as Nineveh did. There's no difference. God didn't respond to Nineveh's repentance with "Oh great, now look what you did? You messed everything up!" Neither would He have responded in this manner to Peter had he not denied Jesus.

But Jesus said "surely, surely," thus making that a certain prediction (more to follow on this!), and with Nineveh, Jonah even had an idea (which was correct!) that God was intending to bring them to repentance. Thus in Nineveh's case, a condition was implied, with Peter, it was, I think, excluded.

Lee: God created the world, allowing evil, even terrible sin, because he had a greater good in mind …

Clete: God cannot be held responsible for our rebellion unless He caused (i.e. predestined) it to happen.

Lee: I was actually responding to the objection to … the effects on people who are being sinned against, not to the question of whether the sinner is responsible.

Clete: Evil is evil, at least in part, because of its effect on the people who were sinned against. I don't understand your point.

People object to God ordaining a given tragedy, so I am saying that in each view, God at least made a conscious decision to allow it, he could have prevented it, thus in both views, he has responsibility.

Lee: I'm asking how the Open View would defend this by using Scripture, since the Scriptures I think you might turn to would have to be interpreted rather unusually: "No overall plan can be thwarted"…

Clete: God is invincible because He is sovereign. All power and authority has been delegated by Him and He retains the absolute right, and ability to recall that authority at any time. His ultimate defeat is not possible.

God allows people the luxury of a free will ...

But what I want to hear, which verses would you pick, to show that God's ultimate purpose cannot be thwarted, and why would such verses not apply to every plan God makes? That is what I am asking for here...

Clete: I do not see any possibility that a Calvinist type God who punishes sin that He Himself ordained to happen could be considered just.

Lee: He can be, if people get involved in their motives…

Clete: Calvinism teaches that your motives were predestined too.

I haven't seen any Calvinist claim this point of ordaining all motives specifically, though. There even seems to be reluctance to say ordained in every instance, for every deed, in the Calvinists I have read, so I think this is not so firmly held as to make it required for every Calvinist.

Clete: If God knows the outcome then it is not a test.

Lee: But I am pretty sure Kobe Bryant will do well on the basketball court. And it's still a test, he's not bound by my knowledge, nor would he be, if I knew for sure Kobe would do well in a given game.

Clete: That isn't the sort of knowledge that Calvinism claims that God has.

I think it is, though, knowing for sure is what Calvinists insist on.

Clete: If God or anyone else for that matter knows absolutely what he will do then he is not able to do otherwise.

Then does some knowledge (Kobe will probably do well) remove some freedom, too? Why doesn't this scale down? And doesn't God know how he would act, in any completely described situation? If so, does this make all of God's actions not be free?

Lee: I don't think we can separate the [promises in Gen. 15:18 and Gen.22:16-18] into two distinct parts, in both cases, we have a common promise, yet it is both conditional and unconditional, implying, I think, that God knew the outcome of Abraham's test.

Clete: There are two different sets of descendants talked about. One was the nation of Israel, the other the Body of Christ…

Genesis 15:18 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates…"

Genesis 22:17-18 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies…

But which one does not actually apply to the nation of Israel? Surely "your descendants" in Gen. 22 refers to descent through Isaac, who had just been brought to the altar. Though it also does refer to spiritual children, how can this not at all refer to Isaac's children?

Clete: A covenant cannot be both conditional and unconditional, that would be incoherent.

Unless God knew the outcome! That the condition would be fulfilled.

Lee: Jesus said "Surely, surely" in reference to Peter's denial, and then again in reference to the way in which Peter's death would glorify God.

Clete: Peter was not destined to deny Jesus, He could have repented and if He had then there would be yet another prophecy in the Bible that did not come to pass.

I missed part of your response, I will now change my question in regard to this, and ask, "Are there no prophecies we can know will certainly happen?" It seems there aren't, there seems to be no way to tell when God has made an unconditional promise, if he says "surely, surely," and can be wrong. And I think being wrong here would have destroyed Jesus' credibility, for when you say something is certain, knowing it is not, then you have misled them, I think.

Jeremiah 23:6 In his days Judah will most probably be saved and Israel will, I expect, some day, live in safety. This is the name by which he will, very possibly, be called: The Lord Our Righteousness.

Lee: No, this won't do, Clete…

Clete: Couch it in whatever terms you like but Jeremiah chapter 18 makes it super clear and God is specifically referring to the nation of Israel in this chapter. Here, I'll just quote the whole thing so you can see it for yourself…

But can't God still make predictions about Israel, as well as describing his ways in Jer. 18? If God says "If you do this, I will do that," does that mean every promise "to do that" is now unsure?

Psalm 32:10 … the Lord's unfailing love surrounds the man who trusts in him.

Now does this mean that every promise of God loving someone is now conditional?

1 Chronicles 17:13 I will never take my love away from him…

Lee: Why are you not also insisting on taking the face value meaning of "no plan of yours can be thwarted" in Job? So we have to make a synthesis, and discuss which meanings are best, given all the teaching of Scripture.

Clete: The way you know that the particular passage you mentioned from Job is a figure of speech is that there is story after story in the Bible where it is clear that God wanted one thing and got another.

Then I can reply that there is passage after passage where it is clear that God's will is always accomplished! We are then talking past each other. And I don't think those passages are so clear where God seems to be frustrated, and I do think the verses that speak of the principle of God succeeding without fail are quite clear, so I think we should take the second set to interpret the first, if we have good explanations for the first set.

Clete: You cannot seriously believe that every single individual Israelite will be saved.

Lee: Oh, I seriously do believe that. Some day it will indeed be true, every Jewish person will believe in Jesus.

Clete: No offense but, you are delusional.

Or else God is responsible for salvation! That's the other alternative.

Clete: It's not that I'm trying to say that God is no better at this than Nostradamus or anything remotely like that.


Lee: I do think the Open View is saying that what God is doing is similar to what other predictors, pagan, futurists, etc. are doing…

Clete: God is totally doing something different! Nostradamus and others like him are con artists, liars.

Then nobody can make predictions but God?!

Clete: God … demonstrates His superior power, authority, intelligence and skill by declaring the end from the beginning without having to force people to do what they don't choose to do of their own free will and without peeking into the future to see what happens.

Yes, but then we also hear interpretations saying God predicted and it didn't turn out! So it seems we may be trying to have it both ways here, I must ask, "Can God declare the end from the beginning, or can't he?"

Philippians 4:19 And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 4:18 The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom.

Lee: Aren't these promises conditional, like all the rest?

Clete: These promises are conditioned upon the righteousness of Jesus Christ, for we are in Him, and so they are quite certain indeed.

I think being rescued from every evil attack involves my decisions, as well as others, though! Do we now have to conclude I shall always choose the way I should, so I can be rescued? And then is the warfare worldview false?

Lee: If God says "X will happen," knowing that indeed it might not, that's not telling the truth, that's (I'm sorry to say) a lie.

Clete: That simply is not the case.

Lee: I should have been more clear, I meant "X will happen, for sure."

Clete: that's why I used the quotation that I did.
Matt. 16:28 Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.

Then Jesus misled people! Saying "for sure," knowing he might be wrong.

Revelation 21:8 … and all liars-- their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.

Then Jesus falls under this condemnation.

1 Corinthians 15:25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

Lee: He is reigning now! And people saw him coming into his reign, coming in his kingdom.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor…

Clete: Jesus was plainly speaking of a kingdom for the NATION OF ISRAEL with Him as its King.

Not at all!

John 18:36 Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world."

Clete: That's what the entire Old Testament prophesied, that's what Jesus was talking about here and that's what the apostles taught after the giving of the Holy Spirit and so they weren't confused.

It didn't happen Lee, it didn't happen at all, period. Not physically, not spiritually, not figuratively. It just flat out didn't happen, and for good reason. How can God give a nation a kingdom when they hate the One who is to be their King? He can't! (See above quotation of Jer. 18.)

Then Jesus sinned, and lied, and will be in the lake of fire.

Lee: Well, wasn't it possible that no one would choose him?

Clete: It sure was!

Lee: Then I don't understand how it can be held that God is absolutely sovereign, if he could have been defeated completely like this…

Clete: Because it would not have been a complete defeat, that's how! Even if every last single soul that God ever created went to burn forever in Hell, that doesn't change the fact that God is God.

Then what would a complete defeat be, I must ask here? Certainly God's character remains the same, but that's not what is at issue in victory or defeat, what is at issue is whether God accomplishes his purpose.

Clete: We are either free or we are not. If we are not free, then God, who punishes the wicked, is unjust.

Unless he also bears the sin, and pain, and punishment, and redeems wicked people…

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Clete--In post 1856 above, I listed two groups of verses, each group giving proof of certain truths seen in its group.

In an attempt to get our minds on the same page concerning Lk. 7:30, the first verse you challenged me with, I ask you to explain to forum members why--exactly why--these two
groups of verses do not in anyway contradict one another.

The issue is not in the individual words used. If we are to arrive at the larger truth in these two groups of verses, we will have to deal not with individual words, but with the fact of the SEEMING contradiction between the two groups.

First, do the two groups contradict one another, or do they only seem to do so.

Second, If they do NOT contradict one another, why not? What is the difference between them? What theological explanation would you make of these two groups, and what grand truth do each of them reveal?

You give yoour explanation and then I will follow with my own. That way we can at least make clear what page each of us is on. If you do not post an explanation in a day or two, I will go ahead and post mine anyway. READY, SET, GOOOO!

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Clete--In post 1856 above, I listed two groups of verses, each group giving proof of certain truths seen in its group.

In an attempt to get our minds on the same page concerning Lk. 7:30, the first verse you challenged me with, I ask you to explain to forum members why--exactly why--these two
groups of verses do not in anyway contradict one another.

The issue is not in the individual words used. If we are to arrive at the larger truth in these two groups of verses, we will have to deal not with individual words, but with the fact of the SEEMING contradiction between the two groups.

First, do the two groups contradict one another, or do they only seem to do so.

Second, If they do NOT contradict one another, why not? What is the difference between them? What theological explanation would you make of these two groups, and what grand truth do each of them reveal?

You give yoour explanation and then I will follow with my own. That way we can at least make clear what page each of us is on. If you do not post an explanation in a day or two, I will go ahead and post mine anyway. READY, SET, GOOOO!

Okay, either Rolf here is missing something or I am, one or the other. Can someone please explain to me how I haven't already done this twice now, or else explain to Rolf that I have please?

And Rolf, you need to respond to this before our discussion can continue at all anyway.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Clete--You asked: without the existence of the other two persons of the trinity, could there be knowledge in Him of whether or not He had been consistently evil or consistently good--

First--I think that may be the largest hypothetical anyone has ever posed--a hypothetical concerning the nature and being of God. Wow!

second--My view of the trinity doesn't let me think that way. Jesus, in His obedience, was the express image of the Father. As He said, "He that has seen me has seen the Father." and, "I and my Father are one." And the scripture says of Christ that in Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily

Through our fellowship with the Holy Spirit, we know the spirit of Christ, for He shows us Christ just as Christ revealed to us the Father. there is therefore no discernable dividing line between the Holy Spirit and Christ. In the Holy Spirit there exists all the fulness of the Godhead.

Thirdly--therefore, since in the Son dwelt all fulness of the Godhead and through the Holy Spirit Christ is made known to us, what is there in the three that is not ALSO in each one? Since they are the express image of one another, what could there be in their triunity that is not also in each one individually?

We see three, each of them having in themselves the fulness of the Godhead. None of the three is anything short in their being of what is in the others. Therefore whether we consider them individually (as we saw Christ on earth with the fulness of the Godhead bodily dwelling in Him) or in their triunity, we see only one essence. Considering them as the triune God, their being the express image of one another gives us a view of a triune God which is without any seam at all; there nowhere being any difference between them, there is no evidence of any seam.

So we have the triune God--three in one. Consequently I cannot conceive of the Son and the Spirit adding to the Father anything which He did not already have in Himself--such as a knowledge of whether or not He was consistently good or bad. The primary point to make is that God knows good and evil ACCORDING TO WHO HE IS. He Himself is the measure of everything perfect in holiness and anything contrary to Him is evil. Perfection in holiness belongs equally to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. AGAIN, as in every other regard, they are each infinitey perfect in all their attributes; each possessing fulness of perfections, neither of them lacking anything, each of them being in themselves the fulness of the Godhead so that whether they are considered individually OR in their Triunity we percieve ONLY ONE ESSENCE. Considering them individually, we percieve the fulness of the Godhead. Considering them in their Triunity, we perceive AGAIN the fulness of the Godhead--SEAMLESS IN THEIR TRIUNITY.

 

[godrulz]

I was also confused about Clete/Enyart's point here. I think there is a flaw in their assumptions. God knows right from wrong (whether He is triune or not..and He is).

 

[Clete]

Euthyphro's Dilemma in a nutshell (as it applies to Christiananity)....

What is good and why is it good?

If we say that what is good is good because and only because God said so then we cannot rationally say that there is a standard of good. Good and evil become arbitrary and we could in no sense whatsoever say that God is good because their is no standard by which to compare God and come to that conclusion.

If on the other hand we say that there is a standard outside of God then God is no longer God because He is subject to some outside standard.

Neither option is a viable one for the Christian. We need some way of saying definitivly and objectively that God is, in fact, good. How is that accomplished? Well as Bob Enyart explained, in two steps.

One, the current description of God's character is the independant standard. (A description of something is not the thing itself.) And we say "current" because consistency is a determining factor of righteousness. If any inconsistency in God existed, He could not be good.

I'll let Bob say the rest (step two) and hopefully the point will become clear...

• Originially posted by Bob Enyart
  Let me illustrate the implications of this using the Christian conception of the Trinitarian God, Father, Son and Spirit, three persons in one God. If God is a Trinitarian God, then He has an eternal track record of interaction between the persons of the Godhead. And if during that eternal fellowship, if any moral inconsistency appeared, then God would be objectively evil. But an atheist may ask, “What if there was no inconsistency because this God is consistently evil?” A God with other persons to interact with has other frames of reference, that is, other perspectives from which to declare Himself. Thus if the Son willingly submits to the Father, because He implicitly trusts the Father from whom He has never experienced harm, and the Spirit brings glory to the Son, because He has never felt threatened by the Son, and the Father loves the Son and the Spirit, never having His wellbeing jeopardized by either, then “by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.” Thus even though it is the only standard He has ever known, God the Father can determine that His own standard is righteous because He has never violated it, and because the independent persons of the Son and the Spirit testify that the Father has never violated their own self-interests [Luke 16:12].

Let me know if that doesn't clear it up.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

What if all three members of the Godhead were evil? They could all affirm that evil is good or good is evil?

I think the Trinity issue illustrates his point as confirmation. I do not think it is necessary to prove the point or to prove that God is triune. A holy, omniscient being could still know right from wrong based on His perfect knowledge and character even if He is not triune (He could be solitary like Judeo-Islam, though He is not..and argue for right vs wrong based on His nature/character vs arbitrary will...again, lex rex vs rex lex principles/arguments resolve the issue without the Trinity specifically).

Not a biggie...

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by godrulz

What if all three members of the Godhead were evil? They could all affirm that evil is good or good is evil?

Yeah except they would have had to be evil toward one another for an eternity. Plus since the creation the effect of multiple witnesses is magnified dramatically. Now there's not simply two witnesses that can testify to the Father's goodness but millions.
It seems like you're trying not to get this, godrulz.

I think the Trinity issue illustrates his point as confirmation.

No. It's proof. A thing is ESTABLISHED on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

I do not think it is necessary to prove the point or to prove that God is triune.

Well, then over 2000 years of philosophical debate has been a waste of time then hasn't it.

A holy, omniscient being could still know right from wrong based on His perfect knowledge and character even if He is not triune (He could be solitary like Judeo-Islam, though He is not..and argue for right vs wrong based on His nature/character vs arbitrary will...again, lex rex vs rex lex principles/arguments resolve the issue without the Trinity specifically).

Omniscient doesn't mean to know the unknowable godrulz, I thought you already believed that.

Not a biggie...

Yeah, you're probably right. I figure its only about as big as the logical coherence of the Christian faith, however big that is.

Forgive my sarcasm godrulz, I just can't understand why you're not see the point here and just how big a deal it really is. Perhaps you'd see it if you read some of the following thread where Hilston and I went into this in some detail. In fact, I do a much better job a explaining the problem in the first section of the openning post of the thread. Here's a link...

Is God Really Good?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

What about all His similar other attributes? Is your principle equally applicable to His other attributes (we must distinguish metaphysical vs moral vs personal attributes in God)?

I still think the philosophical discussion of lex rex vs rex lex is more pertinent than the Trinity to the topic of God's goodness.

Remember, I affirm your understanding of omniscience and the Trinity and the nature of good vs evil.

You are right that I do not see this issue as major. I doubt it is a common philosophical or biblical argument (not that it matters, but it should be on the radar of issues wrestled with...is this Enyart's idea or is it also affirmed in academic journals?).

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by godrulz

What about all His similar other attributes? Is your principle equally applicable to His other attributes (we must distinguish metaphysical vs moral vs personal attributes in God)?

I'm not sure what you're asking.
My initial thought is that it would pertain to any attribute that requires relationships to have meaning.

I still think the philosophical discussion of lex rex vs rex lex is more pertinent than the Trinity to the topic of God's goodness.

English please.

Remember, I affirm your understanding of omniscience and the Trinity and the nature of good vs evil.

You are right that I do not see this issue as major. I doubt it is a common philosophical or biblical argument (not that it matters, but it should be on the radar of issues wrestled with...is this Enyart's idea or is it also affirmed in academic journals?).

I don't know and I cannot comprehend why you think that this matters in the slightest degree. So what if it is Bob idea? Are people not allowed to have an original thought in your worldview or what? I'm not trying to be ugly here, I'm really asking. I don't get this line of thought on your part at all. Truth is not about how many people have thought of it before or how common an argument it is. It is either a valid argument or it is not. These other issues are irrelevant.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

It has been said by his critics that Enyart is a good radio personality, pastor, and evangelist. He is not necessarily considered a scholastic teacher. I agree that ideas stand or fall on their own merits. Minority views can be correct. Without fully understanding his point, I wonder if his argument is weak or indefensible when properly critiqued. This is not a personal sleight on him, just a thought that he may be missing the boat on this one. I am not equipped to comment without reading his whole context. Even then, I am not sure I get what he is getting at

 

[Clete]

Lee,

I want to first apologize for having taken so long to respond to your post. I've been very burned out on this for the last week or so and just simply haven't had the gumption to tackle this long post. I'm going to try to boil this down a bit so as to bring it to a point that doesn't seem so daunting. If I don't respond to some specific point that you think I should, please point it out and I'll revisit it.
Now, on to my response...

Originally posted by lee_merrill
But Jesus said "surely, surely," thus making that a certain prediction (more to follow on this!), and with Nineveh, Jonah even had an idea (which was correct!) that God was intending to bring them to repentance. Thus in Nineveh's case, a condition was implied, with Peter, it was, I think, excluded.

The text does not support this in either case, the fact that Jonah was familiar with God's mercy not withstanding. According to the text there was no hint of a condition, although I agree that there was one, as there is with virtually all prophecy, but Nineveh would not have known this nor was it communicated to them.
And the phrase "surely, surely" does not make it a certain prediction any more than any other Biblical prophecy. The fact that God said it would be enough, there doesn't have to be any particular formula that God has to use in order to make a "certain prediction". Jesus' prediction was indeed as certain as it could possibly be given the fact that Peter had a free will and that he was able to repent if he wanted to. Jesus' certain prediction didn't remove Peter's free will and so was subject to the same sort of condition presented in Jer. 18. In fact all prophecy that has to do with people must be subject to such stipulations or else God would not be good, He would not be just. Indeed, if Jer. 18 was not in the Bible, Christianity would be completely incoherent and demonstrably false. There would be no way to reconcile the actions of God with any sort of morality or sense of right and wrong.

People object to God ordaining a given tragedy, so I am saying that in each view, God at least made a conscious decision to allow it, he could have prevented it, thus in both views, he has responsibility.

Are parents responsible for their children's sins because they could have prevented those sins by having refused to bare children in the first place?

But what I want to hear, which verses would you pick, to show that God's ultimate purpose cannot be thwarted, and why would such verses not apply to every plan God makes? That is what I am asking for here...

I'm sorry Lee, but this sounds like a meaningless question to me.
What "ultimate plan" are you referring to? And how can the creation ever be greater than the creator?
You have to keep in mind that God is not simply the most powerful being in existence but that He is also holy, just and good. He does not reward evil or punish good. If He has decided to create a being with the genuine ability to do good and evil then He has to live with the consequences of that action in that He will have to not only reward the good but will be required to punish the evil. If it turns out that the whole lot is evil then He will justly punish the whole lot, and in so doing will remain the Absolute All in All, Alpha and Omega that He has always been. That doesn't sound like a defeat to me! Does it to you?

I haven't seen any Calvinist claim this point of ordaining all motives specifically, though. There even seems to be reluctance to say ordained in every instance, for every deed, in the Calvinists I have read, so I think this is not so firmly held as to make it required for every Calvinist.

Just off the top of my head, C.S. Lewis said that "If God has predestined anything, then surely He has predestined everything."

That's only one example but I assure you that it is a belief that is extremely common. In fact, most Christians who don't even consider themselves Calvinists believe this. It pervades nearly the entire church.

I think it is, though, knowing for sure is what Calvinists insist on.

Exactly, Calvinist do not believe that God is basing a prediction upon past knowledge as we would be in the case of Kobe having a good game. Calvinists believe that such knowledge is 1st hand knowledge of future events, that those events were planned, predestined and caused by God Himself and that if they were not, they would not happen.

Then does some knowledge (Kobe will probably do well) remove some freedom, too? Why doesn't this scale down?

No.
Because of the definition of the word "probably".

And doesn't God know how he would act, in any completely described situation? If so, does this make all of God's actions not be free?

"Completely described situation"? What does that mean?
Regardless of what it means, I don't believe that God would necessarily know what He would do. The actions of God are not determined by some causal line of events. God can choose what to do when it is time to choose and there doesn't necessarily have to only be one option open to Him, any of which would be equally good, just and wise.

Genesis 15:18 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates…"

Genesis 22:17-18 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies…

But which one does not actually apply to the nation of Israel? Surely "your descendants" in Gen. 22 refers to descent through Isaac, who had just been brought to the altar. Though it also does refer to spiritual children, how can this not at all refer to Isaac's children?

Grace applies to both Jew and Gentile, does it not? No one has said that it doesn't apply to the Jew.

Rom 2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Col 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond [nor] free: but Christ [is] all, and in all.

Unless God knew the outcome! That the condition would be fulfilled.

Then it wouldn't be a covenant! I don't know what you would call it exactly but it surely wouldn't make sense to call it a covenant or contract or agreement between two parties. It would be weird! That's one thing you could call it.

I missed part of your response, I will now change my question in regard to this, and ask, "Are there no prophecies we can know will certainly happen?" It seems there aren't, there seems to be no way to tell when God has made an unconditional promise, if he says "surely, surely," and can be wrong. And I think being wrong here would have destroyed Jesus' credibility, for when you say something is certain, knowing it is not, then you have misled them, I think.

You are reading into the phrase I think more than what is there. "Surely, surely" was a common Hebrew idiomatic expression used for emphasis. It did not have the meaning that the simple English words might seem to convey. I'm all for taking the Bible at its face value but one does have to make sure they stay on the same page that the author is on. The Bible means what it says but only what it actually says not whatever we want to read into it. If there is a idiom used, one has to take that into consideration.

And to answer your question all prophecy that has to do with what God Himself will do, apart from whatever action men may take, I would consider to be certain to happen. I think the most obvious example of this is the prophesied glorification of the Body of Christ which is wholly unpredicated upon any action that men might take.
Also, it seems, any statement made by God where He has sworn by Himself would be something that could not be undone or left unfulfilled.
But any promise made by God toward man can be considered subject to the conditional principles laid down most clearly in Jer. 18. I'm really not sure where the resistance to such an idea would come from. It's not as if Jer. 18 is unclear and everyone accepts Jeremiah as a legitimate portion of the Word of God, so where's the big deal? God said that His declarations are conditional and explained why, who are we to argue?

But can't God still make predictions about Israel, as well as describing his ways in Jer. 18? If God says "If you do this, I will do that," does that mean every promise "to do that" is now unsure?

Psalm 32:10 … the Lord's unfailing love surrounds the man who trusts in him.

Now does this mean that every promise of God loving someone is now conditional?

1 Chronicles 17:13 I will never take my love away from him…

This is a bit of a tricky question to answer because love is a complex thing to talk about when discussing conditions.
There is a sense in which it is very accurate to say that God love us with unconditional love, that He loves all mankind all the time regardless of what we do. However, it is also very accurate to say that God hates certain people.

Psalm 5:6 You shall destroy those who speak falsehood; The LORD abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.

But concerning love in the context of favor or blessing, such is always conditional, always. For us, it is conditional upon Him in whom we are hidden and identified.

Then I can reply that there is passage after passage where it is clear that God's will is always accomplished!

They are always accomplished, generally speaking. Such statements are general statements (i.e. figures of speech) and must be taken as such or else the Bible simple makes no sense.

We are then talking past each other. And I don't think those passages are so clear where God seems to be frustrated, and I do think the verses that speak of the principle of God succeeding without fail are quite clear, so I think we should take the second set to interpret the first, if we have good explanations for the first set.

What could the countless passages mean that show God to be frustrated then? What could they possibly mean?
One set of passages or the other have to be figures of speech of one sort or another, right? If not, then the Bible contradicts itself. My view retains the clear meaning of the text and doesn't the strain to explain what a particular figure means. In fact, it's usually quite simple really as demonstrated above.
But how does your view explain all the countless passage that show God wanting one thing and getting another as figures of speech? It has been my consistent experience that it doesn't. It doesn't even try in most cases and when it does the explanation is completely arbitrary and tends to pull out of the text the exact opposite of what it seems to attempting to communicate.
Just to give two simple examples, when the Bible says, "Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. (Genesis 2:19), or "I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know." (Genesis 18:21), the typical Calvinist explanation is "of course God already knew..." and that's it! That's the whole explanation! They just gleefully declare that the text means the precise opposite of what it says without any explanation as to how they come to that conclusion at all. And if they don't do that, they usually don't explain it at all. When you ask them what such figures of speech mean, you get silence.
Perhaps you will be different.

Or else God is responsible for salvation! That's the other alternative.

Impossible. You simply must keep in mind that this thing we call life is real. We aren't playing some sort of trivial game that doesn't have any real consequence. God is just and He will deal with people justly and that includes sending those who reject His grace to Hell, Israelite or no.

Then nobody can make predictions but God?!

Nobody can make the sort of predictions God can make, if that's what you mean. You don't really believe that Nostradamus actually had the ability to predict the future do you? I mean really?

Yes, but then we also hear interpretations saying God predicted and it didn't turn out! So it seems we may be trying to have it both ways here, I must ask, "Can God declare the end from the beginning, or can't he?"

He has demonstrated His ability to do just that and has CLEARLY explained how an exception MIGHT occur in Jer. 18. How else could Jer. 18 have any meaning at all? Is Jer. 18 some sort of super lengthy figure of speech? If so, what in the world could it possibly mean?

I think being rescued from every evil attack involves my decisions, as well as others, though! Do we now have to conclude I shall always choose the way I should, so I can be rescued? And then is the warfare worldview false?

I don't care what you choose or don't choose. Once you boarded the Body of Christ, your destination (destiny) was sealed...

Ephesians 1:11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,

2 Corinthians 1:21 Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, 22 who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.

Then Jesus misled people! Saying "for sure," knowing he might be wrong.

Revelation 21:8 … and all liars-- their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.

Then Jesus falls under this condemnation.

He didn't say "for sure", at least not in the sense that you are taking it. That isn't what "Surely, surely" or "Verily, verily" means or meant. It was simply an idiom used for emphasis. The term "verily" is the equivalent of "amen" and when used at the beginning of a statement it was conveying that what was being spoken was a truth, that he who was speaking was telling the truth. And when the word was doubled it was done for emphasis, nothing more. It's some code word that means "the following is an absolutely certain prophetic utterance that will come to pass on the reputation of the living God Himself in defiance of His own declaration to the contrary elsewhere in Scripture". It just simply doesn't mean that!

Then Jesus sinned, and lied, and will be in the lake of fire.

If Jer. 18 wasn't in the Bible, you'd have a point here, but it is and so you don't.

Then what would a complete defeat be, I must ask here? Certainly God's character remains the same, but that's not what is at issue in victory or defeat, what is at issue is whether God accomplishes his purpose.

God cannot do that which cannot be done Lee. God can no more make people love Him than He can make the square root of 2 a whole number. Nor could He create a being capable of loving Him without taking the risk of being rejected. That's the nature of love, that's the nature of reality. Otherwise, love is meaningless.

Unless he also bears the sin, and pain, and punishment, and redeems wicked people…

Universalism is irrational and therefore fundamentally unbiblical. If universalism is what you are driving at here, let me just tell you that I'm simply unwilling to discuss it. It would be too far off topic for one thing and a waste of your time and mine for another because frankly, if you'll forgive the expression, God Himself could not convince me that universalism is true.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. There's no time to proof read. I've done a quick spell check but haven't reread this, so I appologize for anything that isn't as clear as it should be. Let me know if I need to reword something and feel free to correct my grammar when quoting me. Thanks!

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by godrulz

It has been said by his critics that Enyart is a good radio personality, pastor, and evangelist. He is not necessarily considered a scholastic teacher. I agree that ideas stand or fall on their own merits. Minority views can be correct. Without fully understanding his point, I wonder if his argument is weak or indefensible when properly critiqued. This is not a personal sleight on him, just a thought that he may be missing the boat on this one. I am not equipped to comment without reading his whole context. Even then, I am not sure I get what he is getting at

I regularly get his Bible studies on cd sent to my house and he never ceases to amaze me at the depth of his knowledge on seemingly every subject. I don't know whether he's a terrific scholar in the formal sense of the word or not, but if not, he sure does his homework, that's for sure. It has been said that the art of teaching is presenting information that you've known for 15 minutes as though you've known it for 15 years. Perhaps Bob is just a really good teacher. Regardless, as you said, ideas stand or fall on their own merits.
As for the point he's making with this argument, perhaps you'll just have to wait for another season to see it more clearly. I'm at a loss as to how to explain it in any other way.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Clete,

Thanks for your reply, I appreciate your comments, and the discussion…

And the phrase "surely, surely" does not make it a certain prediction any more than any other Biblical prophecy.

But why not, though? Saying "This is sure" means … it's sure! Let's not take the approach of discounting when God says something is certain:

Genesis 3:4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.

Clete: "Surely, surely" was a common Hebrew idiomatic expression used for emphasis. It did not have the meaning that the simple English words might seem to convey.

This does indeed mean "This is very important," but does it not also mean "This statement is true"?

"Since Jesus' words are preceded by the solemn 'I tell you the truth,' they are not to be taken lightly. To suggest that Jesus was mistaken in the statement he made in this verse but that the mistake was in a matter of such small consequence that it makes no difference is to fail to take seriously the solemnity of the introductory words." (Expositor's Bible Commentary, on Mark 13:30).

Matthew 5:18 Truly, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

This seems to be more than just an underline on this sentence! Similarly, here:

Matthew 10:42 And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward.

The term "verily" is the equivalent of "amen" and when used at the beginning of a statement it was conveying that what was being spoken was a truth, that he who was speaking was telling the truth.

Yes, but now must we say this means "This is a true emphasis?" This is important? Is that all that it means? I think the meaning is clearly more than just that:

Matthew 13:17 For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

Is that not really true?

Matthew 18:3 And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

Is it possible to enter heaven without this transformation? Why do we read "Truly," "Assuredly," "I tell you the truth," in the various translations, if what is meant is really only "This is important"? I think the translators are not all mistaken, in this…

In fact all prophecy that has to do with people must be subject to such stipulations or else God would not be good, He would not be just. Indeed, if Jer. 18 was not in the Bible, Christianity would be completely incoherent…

But how is it required that God's ways conflict with his knowledge? If Jesus knows for sure that Peter will deny him, how does that counter how God will respond to rebellion or repentance, as shown in Jer. 18? I think these are two separate issues.

Lee: God at least made a conscious decision to allow it, he could have prevented it, thus in both views, he has responsibility.

Clete: Are parents responsible for their children's sins because they could have prevented those sins by having refused to bear children in the first place?

But God is not just starting people out! He sees each deed that is done, he oversees it, and could stop any of them. So there is some primary responsibility here, in both views, God decides not to prevent it, for some greater good that he sees.

Lee: which verses would you pick, to show that God's ultimate purpose cannot be thwarted, and why would such verses not apply to every plan God makes?

Clete: What "ultimate plan" are you referring to?

Whatever the Open View says God will ultimately accomplish. How would this be supported in Scripture, while showing that there is room (in those Scriptures!) for some of God's plans to fail.

Clete: If it turns out that the whole lot is evil then He will justly punish the whole lot, and in so doing will remain the Absolute All in All, Alpha and Omega that He has always been. That doesn't sound like a defeat to me! Does it to you?

Yes, if God set out to save them, it's a defeat…

Lee: And doesn't God know how he would act, in any completely described situation? If so, does this make all of God's actions not be free?

Clete: I don't believe that God would necessarily know what He would do. The actions of God are not determined by some causal line of events.

I agree with your second point here, yet how can God not know all there is to know about himself? Knowing how he would act, if this happened, or that happened, I would say is part of God's omniscience. What purpose would there be for delaying, except to extricate the Open Theists from this predicament?

Lee: Though [Gen 22:17-18] also does refer to spiritual children, how can this not at all refer to Isaac's children?

Clete: Grace applies to both Jew and Gentile, does it not? No one has said that it doesn't apply to the Jew.

I agree! Then does this not apply to Isaac and his physical descendants? Then I think we have to invoke foreknowledge, to explain the difference being conditional here, and unconditional in Gen. 15:18.

Clete: Also, it seems, any statement made by God where He has sworn by Himself would be something that could not be undone or left unfulfilled.

Then may we ask about this statement?

Isaiah 45:23 By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear.

What if some will not bow? Or here:

Psalm 89:35-36 Once for all, I have sworn by my holiness-- and I will not lie to David-- that his line will continue forever and his throne endure before me like the sun.

What if the descendants of David all run into the sea?

Clete: But any promise made by God toward man can be considered subject to the conditional principles laid down most clearly in Jer. 18. … God said that His declarations are conditional and explained why, who are we to argue?

Because God does seem to make unconditional promises, that depend on human decisions:


Isaiah 45:13 I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness: I will make all his ways straight. He will rebuild my city and set my exiles free, but not for a price or reward, says the Lord Almighty.

God could indeed tell us all his promises are conditional, but Jer. 18 doesn't say that, it tells us how God responds, not whether he can predict (or know) our responses accurately.

For example: "If you sit on the seesaw, the other side will go up, if you get off, the other side will go down." Now that doesn't tell us whether I can predict if you will sit on the seesaw!

Psalm 32:10 … the Lord's unfailing love surrounds the man who trusts in him.

Lee: Now does this mean that every promise of God loving someone is now conditional?

1 Chronicles 17:13 I will never take my love away from him…

Clete: … concerning love in the context of favor or blessing, such is always conditional, always.

Well, then everyone could rebel! Even in heaven, and no one will ever be secure.

Lee: I don't think those passages are so clear where God seems to be frustrated, and I do think the verses that speak of the principle of God succeeding without fail are quite clear, so I think we should take the second set to interpret the first…

Clete: What could the countless passages mean that show God to be frustrated then? What could they possibly mean?

"Nacham" could mean grief, or a change in response, though not a change of plan, "nacham" has those meanings, that meaning is possible…

Psalm 33:10-11 The Lord foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the peoples. But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.

This is a contrast between man's purposes, and God's purposes, and it seems to clearly say that God's purposes always prevail, how else could this be interpreted, without simply denying the words here?

Clete: … the Bible says, "Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. (Genesis 2:19)…

Let's read on, though!

Genesis 2:20 But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

Now should we conclude that God didn't know that no animal would be suitable, without going through all of them, one by one here? Surely not. And then similarly in verse 19, we must, I think, say this is speaking from Adam's perspective, as in saying "Where should this fork go on the table?" when we know where it belongs.

Clete: "I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know." (Genesis 18:21), the typical Calvinist explanation is "of course God already knew..."

But doesn't the Open View hold that God has exhaustive knowledge of the present? And this is not even about the present, it's about the past! "If they have done…" Doesn't God know all about the past? Thus I would take this as instead referring to experiential knowledge, such as when I say "I know the water is cold." I jump in. Now I know the water is cold!

Lee: Or else God is responsible for salvation! That's the other alternative.

Clete: You simply must keep in mind that this thing we call life is real. We aren't playing some sort of trivial game that doesn't have any real consequence.

I agree, I believe that God's children can really choose, though unbelievers can't, and yet God is just in punishing sin, because even unbelievers participate in their sin, in their motives, and God bears sin, as well.

Clete: You don't really believe that Nostradamus actually had the ability to predict the future do you? I mean really?

I just mean he (and the futurists, etc.) are able to predict in the same way God does, thus there is no essential distinction in God's predictions. But he makes a distinction!

Isaiah 41:26 Who told of this from the beginning, so we could know, or beforehand, so we could say, 'He was right'? No one told of this, no one foretold it.

Isaiah 41:23 Tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you are gods.

I think this means a sure prediction, otherwise the challenge is an empty one, for then everyone can make their best estimate, and there is no distinction.

Lee: but then we also hear interpretations saying God predicted and it didn't turn out! So it seems we may be trying to have it both ways here, I must ask, "Can God declare the end from the beginning, or can't he?"

Clete: He has demonstrated His ability to do just that and has CLEARLY explained how an exception MIGHT occur in Jer. 18. How else could Jer. 18 have any meaning at all?

But Jer. 18 is explaining God's ways, not his ability to predict. If exceptions might occur, then the answer is "No, God cannot declare the end from the beginning," in most of what concerns us, where the outcome depends to a degree on human decisions.

Lee: I think being rescued from every evil attack involves my decisions, as well as others, though! Do we now have to conclude I shall always choose the way I should, so I can be rescued?

Clete: I don't care what you choose or don't choose. Once you boarded the Body of Christ, your destination (destiny) was sealed…

Yes, but this doesn't guarantee I will be rescued from every evil attack. The warfare worldview says I might not be, yet Paul says he will be…

Clete: God can no more make people love Him than He can make the square root of 2 a whole number. Nor could He create a being capable of loving Him without taking the risk of being rejected. That's the nature of love, that's the nature of reality. Otherwise, love is meaningless.

Well, Scripture indicates our love has a cause, though:

Psalm 116:1 I love, because…
1 John 4:19 We love because he first loved us.

Not because we chose to! We must love with God's love, not with our own:

1 John 4:7 … for love comes from God.

I do think we tend to view the end of the process, when people can love freely, and not the beginning, when infants need to be loved, in order to have love to give.

Clete: Universalism is irrational and therefore fundamentally unbiblical. If universalism is what you are driving at here, let me just tell you that I'm simply unwilling to discuss it.

I won't insist on reviewing this, then. I do wonder how it is inherently impossible for God to save everyone, though.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by lee_merrill
But why not, though? Saying "This is sure" means … it's sure! Let's not take the approach of discounting when God says something is certain:

Genesis 3:4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.

That's just the point, which I made in the last post. The phrase does not mean (necessarily), "This is sure". It means, "I mean what I'm saying." or "I'm telling you the truth." or "Listen up, because what I'm saying is important." or some combination possibly depending on the context. The point is that it is a figure of speech and obviously so. I know of no one but you who even disputes this at all. It is definitely an idiomatic expression that was common in Jesus' day.

This does indeed mean "This is very important," but does it not also mean "This statement is true"?

"Since Jesus' words are preceded by the solemn 'I tell you the truth,' they are not to be taken lightly. To suggest that Jesus was mistaken in the statement he made in this verse but that the mistake was in a matter of such small consequence that it makes no difference is to fail to take seriously the solemnity of the introductory words." (Expositor's Bible Commentary, on Mark 13:30).

Yes of course they were true and no Jesus did not make a mistake! I'm not sure what else to say on this that I haven't already. Let's just give yet another example of what sort of thing I'm talking about.
Let's say one of your children love's to go to the neighborhood park and when he asks if you will take him to the park you say, "I promise, I will take you to the park after dinner."
Now, let's say that your child gets into an argument with his mother during dinner and throws mashed potatoes across the table and smacks her right in the face with a nice big glob of gravy laden mashed potatoes.
After being spanked severely, he calms down enough to talk and comes to you and asks, "When are we going to the park, dad?" And then you say, "Because of your rebellious, disrespectful behavior, I will not take you to the park as I had promised. Go to your room."

Now, did you lie when you promised to take him to the park after dinner? NO! You had every intention of taking him and it would have been a good time and you were looking forward to it, but because the circumstances changed, you repented of that which you thought to do and you did not do it.

THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME THING THAT GOD SAID HE WILL DO IN JER. 18!

• Jer. 18:9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

So, Jesus didn't lie, and He was not mistaken, He simply repented of the good with which He said He would benefit Israel, namely giving them a kingdom and becoming their King.

Matthew 5:18 Truly, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

This seems to be more than just an underline on this sentence! Similarly, here:

Matthew 10:42 And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward.

It really does seem now like you are trying not to understand this concept.
Both of these things DO NOT depend on the action or inaction of men. There is nothing that could cause God to need to repent concerning either of these promises because they are both completely reliant upon Him and Him alone. They aren't a promise of blessing, or for punishment; there are no matters of justice involved or anything like that. It is simply God exercising His sovereign will concerning the Word of God and some specific action which He intends to reward. In short both of these things are general statements (principles) and are thus completely true. There is no specific promise made to any specific individual or group from which to repent.
This is not this difficult to understand nor is there anything really to object to. I am simply applying what God Himself said to make sense of the Word of God. Why, if God explicitly said that He would repent, as He did in Jer. 18, do you object when He does so? It makes no sense!

Yes, but now must we say this means "This is a true emphasis?" This is important? Is that all that it means? I think the meaning is clearly more than just that:

Matthew 13:17 For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

Is that not really true?

Matthew 18:3 And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

Is it possible to enter heaven without this transformation? Why do we read "Truly," "Assuredly," "I tell you the truth," in the various translations, if what is meant is really only "This is important"? I think the translators are not all mistaken, in this…

I won't respond on this point any further. See above response. This is just ridiculous. Now you're suggesting that I've turned this phrase into something completely the opposite of what it does mean. I have not done that, nor have I even suggested it, in fact, quite the contrary. If you don't get it, then just forget it.

But how is it required that God's ways conflict with his knowledge? If Jesus knows for sure that Peter will deny him, how does that counter how God will respond to rebellion or repentance, as shown in Jer. 18? I think these are two separate issues.

No! If this were so, then Jesus would be a liar! Why is this so difficult to understand?
If Jesus knew absolutely that Peter would deny Him then Peter would have no moral culpability for the action and Jesus' disappointment in Peter would have been misplaced and unjust.
Jesus knew Peter better than Peter knew himself and made a prediction about Peter based on a vastly superior amount of information, superior wisdom and understanding. He (Jesus) would also have been able to manipulate the circumstances (behind the scenes) in order to help bring Peter's actions about as predicted and so was it at all likely that Jesus' prediction would not come to pass? No, not at all. But was it POSSIBLE? Yes, certainly or else the whole episode is meaningless and God is unjust.

But God is not just starting people out! He sees each deed that is done, he oversees it, and could stop any of them. So there is some primary responsibility here, in both views, God decides not to prevent it, for some greater good that he sees.

Yeah, like not wanting to end the whole human race, for example. This is another silly point you are insisting on pressing. The whole point is that if the human race continues to exist, then we will rebel against God. This does not make God responsible for our evil actions! Those actions will be justly dealt with in due time and dealt with by God Himself. If He is responsible for evil than for Him to punish it is unjust. Now do you want to admit that God is unjust or do you want to drop this ridiculous point?


Clete: What "ultimate plan" are you referring to?

Whatever the Open View says God will ultimately accomplish. How would this be supported in Scripture, while showing that there is room (in those Scriptures!) for some of God's plans to fail.

According to the Open View there are no "ultimate plans" (whatever that means) that God has that He will not accomplish. None. Not even one.

Yes, if God set out to save them, it's a defeat…

Well then God is a loser then, according to your logic because there are millions of people whom God shed His blood for who are, at this very moment, in Hell and will remain there forever!

There are angels whom God created who will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire. God must be a loser, according to your logic.

God wanted Israel to repent, they did not. God must a loser, according to your logic.

God wanted the Pharisees to be baptized by John, they refused. God must a loser, according to your logic.

On and on and on I could go with example after example of God wanting one thing and getting quite another. For the Open View, it's no big deal, God is still God and things happen in the Bible just as one would expect according to the Open View. On your view however, all these things must not have really happened or else God is a great big fat loser.
Why do you ignore Jer. 18? Don't you realize that if you simply take that one chapter at its face value that you can pretty much take the entire Bible at its face value as well! Why insist that Jer. 18 can't mean what it says in order to prop up a position that makes it so much dramatically more difficult to read and understand the Bible? I don't get it.

I agree with your second point here, yet how can God not know all there is to know about himself? Knowing how he would act, if this happened, or that happened, I would say is part of God's omniscience. What purpose would there be for delaying, except to extricate the Open Theists from this predicament?

What predicament?
God knows what He wants to know of that which is knowable. This includes information about Himself and what circumstances in which He will find Himself in the future. God is a person, He is just, holy, and righteous and will act accordingly. That is all we need know.

I agree! Then does this not apply to Isaac and his physical descendants? Then I think we have to invoke foreknowledge, to explain the difference being conditional here, and unconditional in Gen. 15:18.

Foreknowledge is rationally impossible thus you think wrongly. Frankly, I'm not sure I even follow your point. All I do know is that God cannot know for certain what free will agents will do because their actions are fundamentally unknowable. They are quite predictable but predicting is not the same as knowing, no matter how terrific an accuracy rate you attain.

Then may we ask about this statement?

Isaiah 45:23 By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear.

What if some will not bow?

That is not possible. Whether by love or by fear, one way or another every knee shall bow and acknowledge God as the sovereign power of the universe. God is able to defeat every foe. Even if some specific person is particularly stubborn (Satan for example), one way or the other God can and will bring him to an end of himself and leave no alternative but for him to acknowledge defeat.

Or here:

Psalm 89:35-36 Once for all, I have sworn by my holiness-- and I will not lie to David-- that his line will continue forever and his throne endure before me like the sun.

What if the descendants of David all run into the sea?

Umm, Jesus is descended from David, He will sit on David's thrown for all eternity.
Do you see it here? This is as clear an example as I can think of. This unconditional prophecy of God which He swore by Himself to be true is undeniably reliant upon and only upon God Himself to bring to pass. There simply isn't another person in the picture that could give God any cause to change His mind on this issue or cause it to not come to pass by some other means.

Because God does seem to make unconditional promises, that depend on human decisions:


Isaiah 45:13 I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness: I will make all his ways straight. He will rebuild my city and set my exiles free, but not for a price or reward, says the Lord Almighty.

How does this not fit precisely into what is explicitly said in Jer. 18?

9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation[b/] and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

Just because God doesn't explicitly state the condition when he make a prophecy or a promise doesn't mean that the principle doesn't apply. God is just and is not a slave to His promises in spite of the rebellion of the intended recipients of those promises. So says Jeremiah, not me!

God could indeed tell us all his promises are conditional, but Jer. 18 doesn't say that, it tells us how God responds, not whether he can predict (or know) our responses accurately.

For example: "If you sit on the seesaw, the other side will go up, if you get off, the other side will go down." Now that doesn't tell us whether I can predict if you will sit on the seesaw!

If God knows that we will rebel and thereby not receive that which was promised, then why did He make the promise in the first place?
No, you cannot have it both ways. Either God makes sense or He doesn't. IF God has perfect foreknowledge of the future, by whatever means, then most of the Bible makes no sense whatsoever, Jer. 18 in particular.

Well, then everyone could rebel! Even in heaven, and no one will ever be secure.

People (angels) have already rebelled in heaven! What's your point?
If you mean us (Christians) then no, you forget who you are. You are identified in Christ. Your righteousness is not your own but Christ's. That will not change just because you are in heaven. The fact that you rebelled against God at some point will forever be true and the only reason you will ever have a relationship with God is because of who you are in Christ. Your rebellion is impossible because God cannot be unfaithful to Himself.

"Nacham" could mean grief, or a change in response, though not a change of plan, "nacham" has those meanings, that meaning is possible…

Psalm 33:10-11 The Lord foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the peoples. But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.

This is a contrast between man's purposes, and God's purposes, and it seems to clearly say that God's purposes always prevail, how else could this be interpreted, without simply denying the words here?

It means what it says but is a general statement and must be taken as such. It wouldn't even make sense to attempt to apply this statement to every conceivable situation. The result would be a Bible that is completely confusing and incoherent and a God who is unjust.

Let's read on, though!

Genesis 2:20 But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

Now should we conclude that God didn't know that no animal would be suitable, without going through all of them, one by one here? Surely not. And then similarly in verse 19, we must, I think, say this is speaking from Adam's perspective, as in saying "Where should this fork go on the table?" when we know where it belongs.

What?

I didn't quote this passage having the companion thing in mind at all! The passage clearly says that God brought the animals to Adam to see what He would call them. God allowed Adam to name the animals because he (Adam) was in a position of authority over the animals and it was therefore Adams place to give them their names. Now, if God already knew what He would call them then why didn't it say that? It could have just as easily have said, "While God knew already what the animals would be called, He brought them before Adam so that Adam could go through the exercise of naming them himself." But is doesn't say that, it says that He "brought them to Adam to see what he would call them."
Now, if this is a figure of speech, what does it mean? What could it possibly mean besides what it clearly says without rendering the whole passage meaningless? What?

But doesn't the Open View hold that God has exhaustive knowledge of the present? And this is not even about the present, it's about the past! "If they have done…" Doesn't God know all about the past? Thus I would take this as instead referring to experiential knowledge, such as when I say "I know the water is cold." I jump in. Now I know the water is cold!

There are those in the Open View camp who hold to the position that God knows all that is knowable, which includes a complete and perfect knowledge of all things present and past. I however do not believe that this can be reconciled with what the Bible seems to clearly say.

There is more than one occasion where God seems to be ignorant of certain current events. The clearest example of which is Genesis 18:21

• "I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know."

It seems clear that God knows what is knowable, that He wants to know. In other words, God does not have to know something that He doesn't want to know. No one can force God to be a first person witness to all the vile actions that take place in gay bars for example. He is also able to give us privacy if He chooses to do so. There is nothing in the Bible that would indicate otherwise.

I agree, I believe that God's children can really choose, though unbelievers can't, and yet God is just in punishing sin, because even unbelievers participate in their sin, in their motives, and God bears sin, as well.

This is a blatant contradiction! If they can't choose how can they participate! If an unbeliever cannot choose to sin, then how can God justly punish that sin?
He can't! That's the entire point. Calvinists and Arminians alike have sacrificed a God of love and justice for a God of "absolute sovereignty", it's disgusting if you ask me.

I just mean he (and the futurists, etc.) are able to predict in the same way God does, thus there is no essential distinction in God's predictions. But he makes a distinction!

Isaiah 41:26 Who told of this from the beginning, so we could know, or beforehand, so we could say, 'He was right'? No one told of this, no one foretold it.

Isaiah 41:23 Tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you are gods.

I think this means a sure prediction, otherwise the challenge is an empty one, for then everyone can make their best estimate, and there is no distinction.

It's different for a lot of very important reasons not the least of which is that the futurists like Nostradamus WERE LIARS! They weren't predicting anything! They made it all up and simply called it a predictions and duped thousands and thousands of idiots that they were wise and powerful soothsayers. God, on the other hand, knows men's hearts, He knows everything that can be known about whatever He wants to know about and is both intelligent and wise beyond reckoning and is therefore able to make extraordinary predictions that simply no one but God Himself could possibly make. Simply put, there couldn't possibly be any bigger a distinction between the two.

But Jer. 18 is explaining God's ways, not his ability to predict. If exceptions might occur, then the answer is "No, God cannot declare the end from the beginning," in most of what concerns us, where the outcome depends to a degree on human decisions.

This is, in effect, precisely what Jer. 18 is saying! Isn't that precisely what is says...

• "7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it."

And yes God can declare the end from the beginning GENERALLY SPEAKING! God does not contradict Himself. Either Isaiah 46:10 is a general truth or God is a liar because as I have repeatedly pointed out, God sometimes wants one thing and gets another. He declares that something will come to pass and it does not. So which is it? Does Isaiah 46 mean what it says as a general statement or is God a liar? I see no other logical alternative.

Well, Scripture indicates our love has a cause, though:

Psalm 116:1 I love, because…
1 John 4:19 We love because he first loved us.

Not because we chose to! We must love with God's love, not with our own:

1 John 4:7 … for love comes from God.

I do think we tend to view the end of the process, when people can love freely, and not the beginning, when infants need to be loved, in order to have love to give.

Do you not understand at all what a figure of speech is? Actually this isn't really even a figure of speech in the sense that it means something other than what it says. Let me explain...

The word 'because' does not have to refer to a causality.

1. The light came on because I flipped the light switch.
That's one use of the word because.

2. Sam and Judy are married today because I set them up on a date three years ago.
Now this second use it quite different. It does not refer to something that is a causal necessity. Just because someone is set up on a date doesn't mean that they will be married three years later. But if they had never been set up, they certainly would not have been married. The getting set up on the date is what made the marriage possible but it is not what CAUSED it to happen.

Likewise, God's love toward us is what makes it possible for us to even live, never mind love someone else. If God didn't love mankind, we wouldn't be here so it would be quite impossible for us to love anyone especially God. So God's love toward us is what makes our love possible, it does not CAUSE our love to happen like electricity causes a light bulb to shine. If that were the way it worked, our love would have exactly as much moral meaning as the light from a light bulb - none!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi again, Clete!

Lee: Saying "This is sure" means … it's sure! Let's not take the approach of discounting when God says something is certain:

Genesis 3:4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.

Clete: The phrase does not mean (necessarily), "This is sure". It means, "I mean what I'm saying." or "I'm telling you the truth." or "Listen up, because what I'm saying is important."

Well, if it's a prediction and it's the truth, then it's sure! But I don't think the other meanings fit here and elsewhere, doesn't God always mean what he says? And with the last phrase we have the serpent saying "You will not importantly die," ("It's not important if you die?" That's not very tempting), or something.

Lee: This does indeed mean "This is very important," but does it not also mean "This statement is true"?

Clete: Now, did you lie when you promised to take him to the park after dinner? NO! You had every intention of taking him…

Then Jesus had every intention of Peter denying him? I don't think this will do, Clete. These "surely" predictions are not speaking of an intent, but simply of an event.

Matthew 5:18 Truly, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Lee: This seems to be more than just an underline on this sentence!

Clete: Both of these things DO NOT depend on the action or inaction of men.

Sure they do! How else can the law be fulfilled, if men do not obey it? And can't a person lose rewards?

2 John 1:8 Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully.

Clete: If God explicitly said that He would repent, as He did in Jer. 18, do you object when He does so?

Because sometime he doesn't! And he won't, and he tells us so…

Psalm 110:4 The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."

And I would include the statements where God takes an oath, as you mentioned, and where God says "This is sure," as these kinds of statements. Just because I sometimes change my mind, does that mean I can never make it up?

Matthew 13:17 For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

Lee: Is that not really true?

Clete: Now you're suggesting that I've turned this phrase into something completely the opposite of what it does mean.

Well, what else can it mean, if it doesn't mean "this is really a true statement"? This means "I mean what I say (at the moment)"? Only it can't mean that here, or else Jesus might be mistaken about the past, while saying "Truly"…

And again, the translators are all mistaken, when they use words and phrases such as "Truly," "Assuredly," "I tell you the truth," instead of "This is important," or some similar words.

Lee: But how is it required that God's ways conflict with his knowledge? If Jesus knows for sure that Peter will deny him, how does that counter how God will respond to rebellion or repentance, as shown in Jer. 18?

Clete: If Jesus knew absolutely that Peter would deny Him then Peter would have no moral culpability for the action and Jesus' disappointment in Peter would have been misplaced and unjust.

How does that make Jesus a liar, though? And where do we read that Jesus was disappointed? Especially if he predicted it. Moral culpability can still be present, if there is certain knowledge, as well, I think, just as knowing pretty well that a person will bite on an sting operation doesn't get them off in court.

Clete: The whole point is that if the human race continues to exist, then we will rebel against God. This does not make God responsible for our evil actions!

It does give some primary responsibility to God, if he sees an evil deed being done, and he could stop it, and he doesn't. I think you are the one avoiding the point, here!

Clete: According to the Open View there are no "ultimate plans" (whatever that means) that God has that He will not accomplish. None. Not even one.

Yes, I just wanted to put the Open Theists on the griddle a bit here! And insist that they defend this view from Scripture. What Scriptures would you use, to support this, I would ask?

Lee: Yes, if God set out to save them, it's a defeat…

Clete: Well then God is a loser then, according to your logic because there are millions of people whom God shed His blood for who are, at this very moment, in Hell and will remain there forever!

You must know by now that I believe we are given reason to hope that all will be saved. So now must we say that God is indeed a loser, in the Open View?

Clete: For the Open View, it's no big deal, God is still God and things happen in the Bible just as one would expect according to the Open View.

No, the point is that if God sets out to save someone, and doesn't save them, then that's a defeat, whether or not it was possible for him to fail.

Lee: How can God not know all there is to know about himself? Knowing how he would act, if this happened, or that happened, I would say is part of God's omniscience.

Clete: God knows what He wants to know of that which is knowable. This includes information about Himself and what circumstances in which He will find Himself in the future. God is a person, He is just, holy, and righteous and will act accordingly.

I agree! Then does God know how he would act, in any completely described situation?

Lee: Then does this not apply to Isaac and his physical descendants? Then I think we have to invoke foreknowledge, to explain the difference being conditional here, and unconditional in Gen. 15:18.

Clete: God cannot know for certain what free will agents will do because their actions are fundamentally unknowable.

I do know you believe that! But here is an implication that I think counters this view, that a promise could be both clearly conditional and clearly unconditional.

Isaiah 45:23 By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear.

Lee: What if some will not bow?

Clete: God is able to defeat every foe. Even if some specific person is particularly stubborn (Satan for example), one way or the other God can and will bring him to an end of himself and leave no alternative but for him to acknowledge defeat.

Swearing implies allegiance though, does it not? Certainly more than just a physical motion.

Lee: What if the descendants of David all run into the sea?

Clete: Jesus is descended from David, He will sit on David's thrown for all eternity.

But Jesus was born many generations after David. So how about all the necessary human choices by David's descendants, up until that time?

Lee: God does seem to make unconditional promises, that depend on human decisions:

Isaiah 45:13 I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness: I will make all his ways straight. He will rebuild my city and set my exiles free, but not for a price or reward, says the Lord Almighty.

Clete: Just because God doesn't explicitly state the condition when he make a prophecy or a promise doesn't mean that the principle doesn't apply.

I think the context indicates otherwise, though:

Isaiah 45:12 My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.

And raising up Cyrus seems clearly to be compared with that, and thus Cyrus' proclamation is as sure as creation was.

Lee: Jer. 18 … tells us how God responds, not whether he can predict (or know) our responses accurately.

Clete: If God knows that we will rebel and thereby not receive that which was promised, then why did He make the promise in the first place?

Because he can know when people will not rebel!

IF God has perfect foreknowledge of the future, by whatever means, then most of the Bible makes no sense whatsoever, Jer. 18 in particular.

How is Jer. 18 telling us whether God can predict people's responses, though? That is my question here.

Lee: Well, then everyone could rebel! Even in heaven, and no one will ever be secure.

Clete: Your rebellion is impossible because God cannot be unfaithful to Himself.

Yes, that's what I believe, and why can't that be true on earth, as well?

Psalm 33:10-11 The Lord foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the peoples. But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.

Lee: This is a contrast between man's purposes, and God's purposes, and it seems to clearly say that God's purposes always prevail, how else could this be interpreted…?

Clete: It means what it says but is a general statement and must be taken as such.

Then we have "The Lord perhaps foils the plans of the nations; he at times is able to thwart the purposes of the peoples. But the plans of the Lord stand somewhat firm forever, various purposes of his heart through all (generally speaking) generations."

Clete, this can't mean that. The context again indicates otherwise:

Psalm 33:9 For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.

Again, God carrying out his purposes with people is as sure as his act of creation.

Lee: Let's read on, though!

Genesis 2:20 But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

Now should we conclude that God didn't know that no animal would be suitable

Clete: The passage clearly says that God brought the animals to Adam to see what He would call them.

I know that! And the context indicates that this was not a statement about God wondering what would turn out, since we see here two questions being asked, and no one holds that the answer to the second question wasn't known by God.

Clete: Now, if this is a figure of speech, what does it mean?

Well, again, I believe God was speaking from Adam's perspective, as in "What will you wear to the party?" knowing full well it will be the new Christmas outfit.

Lee: And this is not even about the present, it's about the past! "If they have done…" Doesn't God know all about the past?

Clete: God does not have to know something that He doesn't want to know. No one can force God to be a first person witness to all the vile actions that take place in gay bars…

Then how can God judge all sinful actions? And reward all good ones, such as Lot being distressed in his soul over the sins of Sodom, each day.

Lee: … yet God is just in punishing sin, because even unbelievers participate in their sin, in their motives, and God bears sin, as well.

Clete: If they can't choose how can they participate! If an unbeliever cannot choose to sin, then how can God justly punish that sin?

Because they may well be able to choose in their motives, to some degree. Just as if I see a crime, and rejoice in it, I have sinned, though I did not actually act myself, in the crime.

Lee: I just mean he (and the futurists, etc.) are able to predict in the same way God does, thus there is no essential distinction in God's predictions.

Isaiah 41:23 Tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you are gods.

I think this means a sure prediction, otherwise the challenge is an empty one, for then everyone can make their best estimate…

Clete: It's different for a lot of very important reasons not the least of which is that the futurists like Nostradamus WERE LIARS!

Well, let's skip Mr. Nostra, then. How about the futurists like the insurance adjusters? How is there an essential difference here? And is there no occult prediction?

Acts 16:16 She earned a great deal of money for her owners by fortune-telling.

How is Isaiah 41:23 a real challenge, if God is just better than most at predictions? And even fails sometimes, when Jonah ran, and God apparently thought his plan would be carried out if he didn't, or when Moses prayed, and God apparently thought he wouldn't (Ex. 32:10).

Lee: But Jer. 18 is explaining God's ways, not his ability to predict. If exceptions might occur, then the answer is "No, God cannot declare the end from the beginning," in most of what concerns us…

Clete: This is, in effect, precisely what Jer. 18 is saying! Isn't that precisely what is says...

"7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent…"

Then God can't declare the end from the beginning, in most of what concerns us. Yet he says he can. Let's again look at the context, in Isaiah 46:10, where we have "the end from the beginning":

Isaiah 46:11 From the east I summon a bird of prey; from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose. What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do.

This involves human decisions! And we cannot qualify this to mean "that will I possibly bring about, that I may probably do." God is speaking of his actions, and only of his actions, as if man's actions, when he decides on a purpose, do not even count.

Clete: He declares that something will come to pass and it does not. So which is it?

It's that the verses, such as the ones discussed above, have other valid interpretations, than saying God declared some event, and failed.

Lee: Well, Scripture indicates our love has a cause, though:

Psalm 116:1 I love, because…
1 John 4:19 We love because he first loved us.

Not because we chose to!

Clete: God's love toward us is what makes our love possible, it does not CAUSE our love to happen like electricity causes a light bulb to shine.

Well, I do believe love can indeed be freely given, and it will be, but that's at the end of the process, not at the start. Now does God's love always cause love in response?

1 Corinthians 13:8 Love never fails.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Clete]

Lee,

Your response is almost completely intellectually dishonest. You are clearly not even trying to understand and intentionally make your arguments against positions which you can't help but know by now that I do not hold! What is the point in continuing if you aren't even going to try?

I may yet respond to the hand full of things you said which were responsive and substantive but I haven't decided whether its worth the effort.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Response to clete's last line in post 1877: "Oh, it has moral meaning alright. It is just that the moral meaning resides NOT IN MAN, but in
God." When you think about it, that, in a nutshell, defines the difference between the Reformed faith and other doctrinal views. The Reformed faith strives to preserve g;ory to God alone, while other doctrinal views take offense at the idea. They wish to share that glory which belongs to God alone, but He has said, "my glory I will not share with another." SOLI DEO GLORIA!!