Omniscience means fatalism.

[Arthur Brain]

I am not the one putting constraints on an Almighty God.
That is being done by the people that think God had to preordain every event that would ever happen and by the people that think God has exhaustive knowledge of every future event.

I'm not arguing that God "had" to do anything or preordain stuff either so your argument isn't with me as it is.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Biblical free will consists in the ability to worship God in Spirit and in Truth

It is much more than that.

Adam was free to worship God

Every human that has ever existed and will ever exist is free to worship God.

and relinquished it for himself and all of his progeny.

No, Adam never lost the freedom to worship God and none of Adam's progeny has lost the freedom to worship God.

Any discussion of free will outside of the subject of redemption is vain philosophy.

The twin doctrines of Original Sin and Total Depravity are vain philosophy.

 

[ok doser]

There's a difference between knowing the future and controlling it ...

not in any practical sense

 

[Derf]

Free will does not consist in freedom to choose which sandwich to have for lunch. This is not biblical freedom and man has always had this kind of ability.

Then you're saying God did not know what I would have for breakfast or lunch today when he created the world?

 

[George Affleck]

Free will does not consist in freedom to choose which sandwich to have for lunch. This is not biblical freedom and man has always had this kind of ability.

Then you're saying God did not know what I would have for breakfast or lunch today when he created the world?

Omniscience and free will are separate. In this thread we are invited to consider that one aspect of His nature necessarily limits the other aspects to the extent of verifying fatalism. This is clearly a wrong conclusion which should make us step back and consider our understanding of omniscience. Our concept of "all-knowing" cannot be allowed to limit the other aspects of God's nature.

God has many qualities; all of which are infinite. I doubt that what you had for breakfast is of much concern, but if it is, He would have no problem instantly accessing the information. Or to expand on this, should He have considered it important for Him to have this information in front of Him from before creation, He would have. But this question is moot, in my opinion, because God does not operate in past, present and future. He is the eternal "I AM". Time is of no concern to Him, except when He accommodates Himself to us with whom time is of concern.

All we can say is that God knows everything infinitely. And we say it because He has told us so. We dare not infer other things from this by applying our woefully limited, linear time philosophies to an eternal truth.

What I did say is that, with regard to the subject of free will (not omniscience), sandwiches and salvation are in different categories. Man is free to choose sandwiches, but not salvation.

 

[George Affleck]

We may only grapple with this unfathomable concept by way of its (comprehensible) antithesis. We understand and fear our fragile, exisistential limitations thus we seek and find solace within its opposing apotheosis; one specifically projected as perfect, eternal and boundless. A concept replete with all the understanding and attributes we conspicuously fall well short of and can never fully comprehend.

Or...

We are made in the image of God and find no comfort until we return to Him.

 

[Clete]

It's quite easy. Knowing the future and what decisions people will make isn't the same as programming events and if you can't see the difference then I doubt any argument would convince you.

This is a debate forum, you moron. Arguments are the only things that will convince me.

And so far, I'm the only one who's offered an argument which clearly hasn't convinced you of anything - hypocrite!

Heaven forbid you make any attempt to refute an argument on a debate forum! That would just be way to much to ask, wouldn't it?!

Fool!

 

[Clete]

Free will does not consist in freedom to choose which sandwich to have for lunch. This is not biblical freedom and man has always had this kind of ability.

Biblical free will consists in the ability to worship God in Spirit and in Truth; something that unbelievers are totally incapable of. That ability is given by God, by grace, and the free gift of faith is the mark that God has freed that person's will from the bondage of original sin into the liberty in which Christ's blood makes us free.

Adam was free to worship God and relinquished it for himself and all of his progeny. Bond-servitude resulted until Jesus Christ who was born with free will; born of Adam's race physically through Mary and not of Adam's race judicially, having no earthly father. All who come to God have done so, and will do so, based on redemption by grace through faith having had free will restored by their standing in Christ.

Any discussion of free will outside of the subject of redemption is vain philosophy.

Who taught you this? Is this you own contrivance or are you attempting to suggest that this is normal Calvinist doctrine?

 

[Arthur Brain]

This is a debate forum, you moron. Arguments are the only things that will convince me.

And so far, I'm the only one who's offered an argument which clearly hasn't convinced you of anything - hypocrite!

Heaven forbid you make any attempt to refute an argument on a debate forum! That would just be way to much to ask, wouldn't it?!

Fool!

Maybe if you acted like an adult instead of an overgrown child it be worthwhile pursuing a debate but you act like this all too often. Oh, and pull the other one. There's certain topics that no matter how credible the argument you simply don't listen such as where it comes to evolution.

Grow up.

 

[Clete]

Maybe if you acted like an adult instead of an overgrown child it be worthwhile pursuing a debate but you act like this all too often. Oh, and pull the other one. There's certain topics that no matter how credible the argument you simply don't listen such as where it comes to evolution.

Grow up.

I responded to your post by posting a formal argument.

You respond to that argument by insulting me.

Now you're whining about being insulted.

You're a hypocrite.

Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I responded to your post by posting a formal argument.

You respond to that argument by insulting me.

Now you're whining about being insulted.

You're a hypocrite.

Welcome to my ignore list.

I didn't "insult" you and I'm not whining about being insulted in turn. You constantly post as if you have a bad headache or something and as to your ignore list, I actually thought I was already on it with a whole host of others...

 

[ok doser]

I responded to your post by posting a formal argument.

You respond to that argument by insulting me.

Now you're whining about being insulted.

You're a hypocrite....

...and a whiner :banana:

 

[Derf]

Omniscience and free will are separate. In this thread we are invited to consider that one aspect of His nature necessarily limits the other aspects to the extent of verifying fatalism. This is clearly a wrong conclusion which should make us step back and consider our understanding of omniscience. Our concept of "all-knowing" cannot be allowed to limit the other aspects of God's nature.

God has many qualities; all of which are infinite. I doubt that what you had for breakfast is of much concern, but if it is, He would have no problem instantly accessing the information. Or to expand on this, should He have considered it important for Him to have this information in front of Him from before creation, He would have. But this question is moot, in my opinion, because God does not operate in past, present and future. He is the eternal "I AM". Time is of no concern to Him, except when He accommodates Himself to us with whom time is of concern.

All we can say is that God knows everything infinitely. And we say it because He has told us so. We dare not infer other things from this by applying our woefully limited, linear time philosophies to an eternal truth.

What I did say is that, with regard to the subject of free will (not omniscience), sandwiches and salvation are in different categories. Man is free to choose sandwiches, but not salvation.

I think your answer to my question is that God knew, or had the ability to know (the information was available to Him), before He created the world what I was going to eat for breakfast and lunch today (and yesterday). I use this, example, not just because you mentioned it first, but because it is the absurd limits of a theory that either confirm or deny the theory.

So, from what you are saying, we know that God has the information available to Him before I ever make a choice of what food to eat today, and even before I exist, so God can't be getting the information from my mind (my "inclinations"). He must be getting the information from a source of truth that cannot be wrong, or He would be mistaken.

Thus, there are two options for how He would know this information.
1. The sequence of all events to the most intimate detail is already laid out by some power other than God, and God is subject to this sequence (He can't change it), or
2. God lays out the sequence (He doesn't need to change it because He determines it according to His infinite wisdom).

I submit that those two statements define fairly succinctly the divide between Arminianism and Calvinism. I also submit that no one, when approaching that choice as written, would choose #1, because it says there is something out there greater than God.

That leaves us with #2. But the problem with #2 is that if God determined what I will eat for breakfast and lunch today, before He even created the world, then I had nothing to do with the choice, since I wasn't there. Then, if I make a more sinister choice than fruit loops, and pick ham (assuming I am an Israelite under the Mosaic law), I didn't really do the choosing, but God did the choosing for me, which makes Him the author of sin, if my choice is sinful, and I don't have any way to avoid it.

All we can say is that God knows everything infinitely. And we say it because He has told us so.

You actually have word from God that He knows everything that is going to happen, everything that we are going to do, everything we are going to think, and He has always know it? It is a wonder that no one has ever shared such with me and whole bunch of others on this forum.

 

[Clete]

...and a whiner :banana:

He can whine all he wants now. I'll never read another word of anything he posts.

 

[blackbirdking]

That's a really poor analogy.
God created perfectly. God knew that man would choose to sin and thereby introduce corruption to humanity and the entire universe. God, in His omniscience also knew that this corruption would be the means by which He expressed grace, a part of His character that was not revealed in creation. Grace is something the angels struggle to understand. They are not offered grace.
God never reveals to humans the reasons why He ordained that corruption would enter into His creation. He is not obligated to reveal this.
We are left with two options as exhibited by Job and his wife. (See Job 2) We can:
1) Curse God and die.
2) Give thanks to God when he brings the good and the bad upon our lives.
For me, I thank God for His ordained storms as well as His ordained sunshine.

"two options"? Can we do that which God knows we won't do?

 

[MennoSota]

"two options"? Can we do that which God knows we won't do?

Can we do that which God does not ordain?
Balaam shows us that we cannot. Jonah shows us that we cannot. Judas shows us that we cannot.

 

[Rosenritter]

Can we do that which God does not ordain?
Balaam shows us that we cannot. Jonah shows us that we cannot. Judas shows us that we cannot.

You are taking special cases and arguing as if that defines the rule. Did God ordain strange fire to be brought forth by Aaron's sons? He slew them precisely because they did what he did not ordain.

 

[MennoSota]

Did God ordain strange fire to be brought forth by Aaron's sons? He slew them precisely because they did what he did not ordain.

Yes. God said yes to their sin and then promptly judged them for it.
God could have chose to kill them before they disobeyed. They were as sinful before as they were afterward, but God in His Providence acted exactly as He chose to do.

 

[Rosenritter]

Yes. God said yes to their sin and then promptly judged them for it.
God could have chose to kill them before they disobeyed. They were as sinful before as they were afterward, but God in His Providence acted exactly as He chose to do.

Ah, I see what has happened: you have confused the word "permit" with "ordain." If God "ordained" the sin than he created and accomplished it, whereas what you just said was that he permitted their sin which they first created in their own heart to occur.

If you changed it to "Can we do that which God does not permit?" then that is an entirely different question, a proper rhetorical statement.

 

[ok doser]

did God harden pharoah's heart?