Two North American presuppositional apologists demolish...

[Short1]

Wouldn't it be free will regardless of what God thinks? Even if it is His will?

His plan and His knowledge have ZERO influence on the fact that we get to choose what we want to do. In the here and now, we have free will. Therefore, we are responsible for our choices. We choose what God gets to know about. (Again, not really, but I think His knowledge has nothing to do with whether we get a choice, because right here right now, we have a choice, hence free will.)

[neo-x]

I think there is a fine line here, short. Look at it this way, as you said earlier, we get to choose what God knows, then it means God knew we were going to do it nonetheless. If this is the case then whatever we do, God knows it before hand and to God it would be an almost infinite number of choice probabilities, since you have to remember that we can change our mind any time.

Otherwise the whole thing becomes pointless to begin with.

[RickD]

Those of you who don't think God could know the future, think about this: if God doesn't know the future, that would mean He's " in" time, as we are. But, God transcends time, because He created time. Time is part of creation. I believe God sees the future in the same way He sees the past. IMO, saying God doesn't have the ability to know everything in His creation, undermines His omniscience.

[neo-x]

I didn't say he can not know the future, I said, he purposely don't, except in prophecies, otherwise his knowing would be true and since it would be true, it will cancel out free will from teh present time to the foreseeable future.

[RickD]

I didn't say he can not know the future, I said, he purposely don't, except in prophecies, otherwise his knowing would be true and since it would be true, it will cancel out free will from teh present time to the foreseeable future.

I see what you're saying, neo. But, I disagree. I don't understand how God knowing what we will choose to do, equates with us not being able to choose. Please explain how that connection is made.

[Byblos]

Those of you who don't think God could know the future, think about this: if God doesn't know the future, that would mean He's " in" time, as we are. But, God transcends time, because He created time. Time is part of creation. I believe God sees the future in the same way He sees the past. IMO, saying God doesn't have the ability to know everything in His creation, undermines His omniscience.

Exactly.

I didn't say he can not know the future, I said, he purposely don't, except in prophecies, otherwise his knowing would be true and since it would be true, it will cancel out free will from teh present time to the foreseeable future.

I see what you're saying, neo. But, I disagree. I don't understand how God knowing what we will choose to do, equates with us not being able to choose. Please explain how that connection is made.

Man's free will and God's absolute sovereignty over this will are not in contention. The fact that God foreknew what our choices will be doesn't change or negate in the least our choices.

But seriously, we are going way off topic here.

[RickD]

Man's free will and God's absolute sovereignty over this will are not in contention. The fact that God foreknew what our choices will be doesn't change or negate in the least our choices.

But seriously, we are going way off topic here.

That's how I see it as well, Byblos.


If you guys want to continue this topic, please create a different thread.

[neo-x]

neo-x wrote:
I didn't say he can not know the future, I said, he purposely don't, except in prophecies, otherwise his knowing would be true and since it would be true, it will cancel out free will from teh present time to the foreseeable future.

I see what you're saying, neo. But, I disagree. I don't understand how God knowing what we will choose to do, equates with us not being able to choose. Please explain how that connection is made.

It's quite simple rick, what God knows we will do in future, would have to be true at any given time. If I choose to do something else down the road then it cancels out what God knew to be true.

e.g
1. I want to go to dinner to cafe X on coming Saturday.
2. God knows I will go to cafe X before hand, even before I made the plan.
3. Since God knows I am gonna do that, it must be true.
3. At the last minute I have a change of plans, I go to Cafe Y.

Now one can say that God already knew I would go to Cafe Y, If that is true then really I cannot change my plan can I? The plan is already there, It would have to be Cafe Y.

What if on the route to cafe Y, I plan to stop at Cafe Z and then go back home. You see it is an endless chain.

Did God know from the start that I was going to cafe Z?

God's knowledge has to be true at any time or it is not true. I think nothing is that hard set in stone, except prophecies. If my will is the same as it is in God's thoughts then my plan of action is already set, I cannot deviate. I will end up at Cafe z, no matter what I do.

Take Jonah's example, he was sent to Nineveh, he chose to go to tarsus, God drove him back, this is a rare case.

Now imagine you are in a CD shop, no ones looking and you contemplate to steal some CD's, does God already know you are going to steal or he knows you walked away. suppose you walk way. Now you never committed the crime, only thought about it but at the end you either weren't brave enough to take the risk, or someone came or you had a change of heart, whatever.

Now imagine the same with lust, you're eyeing a beautiful young lady, you covet, you start lusting, but you never do anything else. Now, did God knew you would be lusting after that woman from the start or did at any point you had a choice, that you don't have to do it. If so, did God already knew you would turn away? its either God knew you would lust or you would turn away. And note, an any case it would have to be true. You can't have both at the same time because if you say God knew both way then it would only come down some steps to my position that God doesn't see past the choices that we make.

If God knew even before you were born that you would lust, then who made that decision, you? NO, it was already set that you would make that decision. But what if you are aware of that choice and you don't wanna do it. You would have to do it. This is a hair line problem here Rick. You can't say, God knew I would lust but then it was my choice to lust. How can it be your choice to lust when God ALREADY knew it would be this way? What God knows must be true Rick, at all times.

I'll give you the example of Eli,

"27 Now a man of God came to Eli and said to him, “This is what the LORD says: ‘Did I not clearly reveal myself to your ancestor’s family when they were in Egypt under Pharaoh? 28 I chose your ancestor out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to go up to my altar, to burn incense, and to wear an ephod in my presence. I also gave your ancestor’s family all the food offerings presented by the Israelites. 29 Why do you[e] scorn my sacrifice and offering that I prescribed for my dwelling? Why do you honor your sons more than me by fattening yourselves on the choice parts of every offering made by my people Israel?’
30 “Therefore the LORD, the God of Israel, declares: ‘I promised that members of your family would minister before me forever.’ But now the LORD declares: ‘Far be it from me! Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained. 31 The time is coming when I will cut short your strength and the strength of your priestly house, so that no one in it will reach old age, 32 and you will see distress in my dwelling. Although good will be done to Israel, no one in your family line will ever reach old age. 33 Every one of you that I do not cut off from serving at my altar I will spare only to destroy your sight and sap your strength, and all your descendants will die in the prime of life."

Look, God had promised to Eli's ancestors, but then it says in verse 30 "But now the LORD declares: ‘Far be it from me!" Apparently God had a change of plans here. When he made that promise centuries ago to a certain family but now it has to be changed because someone didn't walk with God as he should have had. If God already knew that down the road Eli was the weak link, then dare I say, Eli had no choice.

Lets take it up one more notch. Did God knew before hand that Lucifer would rebel. If he knew about it, he must have known it before Lucifer was even created. What choice does Lucifer have.

So I think there is a problem when we say, God already knew what I was going to do, but the choice was mine. No, if God already knew, then it is true and you would have to do it. Since God knew that from forever, before you were ever born.

In this way a sinner could be without excuse, and God is not justified.

Hope this clears my point up.

[neo-x]

If you guys want to continue this topic, please create a different thread.

ahh...I saw this after I posted....sorry

[jlay]

Thank you, so again I ask you, if God moved first then how is it that two people that were moved in the same manner, one ends up being saved and the other damned?

Byb,
1st, I think it is essential that I point out, that I think you are wiggling in a false dilema. (Not saying you are doing this intentionally.) That being, God moves first, so all either all or moved on and saved, or only some are moved and saved. In other words, it presumes irresitible grace. I would presume being RCC, that you are holding to the Augustinian view of preceeding grace and that it is irresistable. Although very mucy respect Augustine, I reject that view. It assumes those are the only two options. This equates the 'move' as salvation itself, and thus ruling out a real cooperative response. Scripture, IMI is consintent in that salvation is a gift. But it is a gift that is offered, not forced, coerced, or programmed. So, ultimately I find the question flawed, and loaded with a presumption that intends to force the one answering into a dilema.

The move and work of the Lord is no indication that two will be moved in the same manner. Two can hear the same message, and one can respond and one can reject. Otherwise, salvation is a preprogrammed response, and thus determined. I can move and offer two people the same business deal, but that move doesn't force either to respond the same.

My friend, if I could answer that, I will have answered a question theologians who are infinitely smarter than me haven't been able to answer.

But your assumptions don't comply with this statement. Based on your questioning, it seems obvious you have very determined ideas about this.

What is left is for you to define why some have prevenient grace and others don't.

I would recommend a study on the Weslyen concept of prevenient grace, because, again, your statement presumes the irresistability of grace, and thus you place on me a burden to defend a position I do not hold. "why some have.....and others don't." The Wesleyen conept :
"As humans are corrupted by the effects of sin, prevenient grace allows persons to engage their God-given free will to choose the salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ or to reject that salvific offer. Whereas Augustine held that prevenient grace cannot be resisted, Wesleyan Arminians believe that it enables, but does not ensure, personal acceptance of the gift of salvation."

Further, there is no strawman, because as I said, your comments led me to believe. If I am misunderstanding your position, then obviously I'd love to have it cleared up.

[Byblos]

Thank you, so again I ask you, if God moved first then how is it that two people that were moved in the same manner, one ends up being saved and the other damned?

Byb,
1st, I think it is essential that I point out, that I think you are wiggling in a false dilema. (Not saying you are doing this intentionally.) That being, God moves first, so all either all or moved on and saved, or only some are moved and saved. In other words, it presumes irresitible grace. I would presume being RCC, that you are holding to the Augustinian view of preceeding grace and that it is irresistable. Although very mucy respect Augustine, I reject that view. It assumes those are the only two options. This equates the 'move' as salvation itself, and thus ruling out a real cooperative response. Scripture, IMI is consintent in that salvation is a gift. But it is a gift that is offered, not forced, coerced, or programmed. So, ultimately I find the question flawed, and loaded with a presumption that intends to force the one answering into a dilema.

You couldn't be more wrong.

First, I do hold to the Augustinian view but this view most certainly does not presume irresistible grace, that would be Calvin's view, not Augustine's, which he went to great lengths to distance himself from (as well as that of Pelagian). Augustine's view is somewhere in the middle (making you right about there being another option, and wrong about claiming I am presenting false dilemma). To sum up Augustine's view, it is thus (from here):

- The eternal choice of the elect by God is very real, very gratuitous, and constitutes the grace of graces;
- But this decree does not destroy the Divine will to save all men, which, moreover, is not realized except by the human liberty that leaves to the elect full power to fall and to the non-elect full power to rise.

And to sum it up in plain English, it is neither by God's grace alone (Calvinism) nor by our choice alone (pelaginaism) that we are saved, it is in the two together as 2 sides of the same coin. I believe this is how predestination is presented in scripture. If one does not hold to this view then by definition they hold to either Calvinism or Pelagianism. So no, I am not presenting a false dilemma as there is a third option. But this does not mean a dilemma does not present itself either way. Even with the third option (Augustine's) there is still the dilemma of: if God wishes all to be saved, and it takes God's grace coupled with our free will to be saved, why are some not saved? That is central to the topic at hand and might answer Rick's questioning of Danny's comments about God hating and so forth, which precipitated this whole discussion.

The move and work of the Lord is no indication that two will be moved in the same manner. Two can hear the same message, and one can respond and one can reject. Otherwise, salvation is a preprogrammed response, and thus determined. I can move and offer two people the same business deal, but that move doesn't force either to respond the same.

You can say that salvation is pre-programmed all you want but the fact is you (anyone) either fall in Calvin's are Pelagian's lap or somewhere in between. If in Calvin's lap, it is pre-preprogrammed (unbibilical). If in Pelagian's lap it is man's work and not God's (unbibilical). If in between, it is biblical but presents us with a mystery of why some are saved and others are not. That is what it boils down to; you wanna call that a false dilemma be my guest, but unless you can offer a fourth option, it is what it is.

My friend, if I could answer that, I will have answered a question theologians who are infinitely smarter than me haven't been able to answer.

But your assumptions don't comply with this statement. Based on your questioning, it seems obvious you have very determined ideas about this.

I think I've answered this above.

What is left is for you to define why some have prevenient grace and others don't.

I would recommend a study on the Weslyen concept of prevenient grace, because, again, your statement presumes the irresistability of grace, and thus you place on me a burden to defend a position I do not hold. "why some have.....and others don't." The Wesleyen conept :
"As humans are corrupted by the effects of sin, prevenient grace allows persons to engage their God-given free will to choose the salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ or to reject that salvific offer. Whereas Augustine held that prevenient grace cannot be resisted, Wesleyan Arminians believe that it enables, but does not ensure, personal acceptance of the gift of salvation."

Further, there is no strawman, because as I said, your comments led me to believe. If I am misunderstanding your position, then obviously I'd love to have it cleared up.

Again, I think I've cleared this up above.

[jlay]

First, I do hold to the Augustinian view but this view most certainly does not presume irresistible grace, that would be Calvin's view, not Augustine's

Depends. More on this later.

if God moved first then how is it that two people that were moved in the same manner, one ends up being saved and the other damned?

Re-reading the question, I would have you better define 'moved in the same manner.' In initially reading it, I saw a very determined and limited scope.

You can say that salvation is pre-programmed all you want but the fact is you (anyone) either fall in Calvin's are Pelagian's lap or somewhere in between.

I am saying that in a Calvin view, it boils down to this, which I reject. Based on intitial reading of the question, it seemed as you were assuming irrestibable grace. I apologize for misunderstanding. I reject Calvanism, and agree that Pelangianism is heretical. You asked a question. I pointed out the flaw, as I saw it, in the question. It would seem to me now, that your question is actually asking something larger than the specific issue I was addressing. You stated.

What is left is for you to define why some have prevenient grace and others don't.

Again, Why would I define something I don't agree with? Obviously, in your wording, you are stating that Prevenient grace is afforded to some, and withheld from others. So our positions may differ in myself seeing PG as universal, you as particular. That would be a definitve difference in the Augustinian/ Calvin versus Wesleyen/Orthodox definitions. I don't say that to lump you in with Calvin anymore than Wesley with Orthodox. Just where they fall on that particular issue.

The Council of Trent said:

The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace.

Loosely interpreted, the concept of prevenient grace can fit with RCC, Arm, and Cal. And when referencing Augustine, we must understand that Augustine can be used to defend one position or the other because his views did become more determined in his later writings.

The Wesleyen concept of prevenient grace is that it is extended to ALL.

it is biblical but presents us with a mystery of why some are saved and others are not.

I guess that depends on how we are looking at that. It was my impression that we are speaking of those who hear the gospel.

[DannyM]

You tell me what you think about predestination after reading this.

Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins and was raised for our sins and our justification (Romans 3)
He alone is the lamb of God who takes away the sins or the world (John 1:29)
All have sinned, and are justified freely without their own works and merit, by His grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ, in His blood (Romans 3)

You tell me where it says that only the limited predestined are justified.

All over the Bible. And your passages do not detract from that.

Are you lost on my previous point? I am saying we CANNOT BE ETERNAL OR DEVINE. That implies Monism. That's a Spinoza idea.

We can fall away from God. Do you think we are saved once we accept Christ? No sir, our walk continues from there.

1. Do what, chief?

2. Yes we are saved and sealed at salvation. But if you want to talk about that you'll have to start another thread, sir.

[DannyM]

We must be equally sure we do not apply 'Anthropomorphism' to define God’s Love as well. Paul points out that God’s Love is deep and vast, that we can only know but a little thru Christ Jesus in Eph 3:19c.

In 1 Corinthians 13:6 we find a simple definition of such Love and verse 6 points out the fact that for God’s Love to be Love, it must also hate in order for Love to be love. This hate is described as isn’t happy with injustice, unrighteousness, iniquity but happy with the truth.

That is a far deeper saying than we realize – in the following verses you have Agape love in Greek tense cited as ‘not easily provoked’ this does not imply never provoked…but rather not easily provoked. When walking according to the Truth – Love takes no account of evil. To come to the truth means as Jesus said in John 3 – come to His light to be forgiven. Hence, God’s Love provides away for evil doers to be forgiven, and their slate wiped cleaned upon coming to the truth about themselves and Christ. This truth about self, is that as evil doers (sinners) they are enemies of God and God does hate his enemies while at the same time loves them enough to offer an escape from the wrath to come.

1 Corinthians 13:6

(KJV) Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

(GNB) love is not happy with evil, but is happy with the truth.

(GW) It isn't happy when injustice is done, but it is happy with the truth.

(ISV) Is never glad with sin, But always glad to side with truth, Whene'er the truth should win.

(LEB) it does not rejoice at unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth,

(LITV) does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices in the truth.

For Agape Love to be love it must also hate evil, sin, and provides the honest truthful just way for such doers to be forgiven and reconciled. This just way is voluntary for it to be truly just and loving. Sinners – enemies of God: Look at these verses: Nahum 1:2, Romans 5:10c, Psalms 68:21c, Psalms 11:5… and Romans 5:10 these verse indeed show that we Christians were once classed as God’s enemies – those he whom hates… but whose love changed us thru Truth of Christ…

This is a foreign concept for many people in these modern times: God’s Love Hates…

Years ago, it was understood and great revivals broke forth worldwide due to understanding it. God’s love is not happy with injustice, unrighteousness, iniquity but happy with the truth… God’s wrath is for his enemies. All humanity is classed as God’s enemies but thru God’s unfathomable love, God provides a means of truth to forgive his enemies who come to the truth and forever change them thru reconciliation of God’s work on the cross/resurrection. That is what love does – rejoices in the truth. So reader, if you do not know Christ Jesus, come to the truth about yourself and surrender to God who loves you enough to reach down and save you from yourself, the devil, and the world.

Those were the messages of old. The Apostle Peter, if alive today in the year 2011 would have been accused of teaching a hate fill insensitive message in Acts 2:14-35, 36, 37, 38c and Stephen in Acts 7:52 as well too.

The Seeker Sensitive approach today bases the concept of God’s love on the principles of the eastern religious systems, mainly Buddhist thought and ideas about God's love have become Anthropomorphically based. So be careful when God’s love no longer offends or calls to his enemies/those God’s hates to surrender and be reconciled back to be loved by God...who demonstrated his love upon the cross and offer grace - you can trust and surrender to a God who does that... He is worthy...

There is this troubling passage in Hosea 9:15 that the writer knew about God and spoke about this very subject… Love them no more – no more chances to warn, to call to return and no more messages to be reconciled and those that heard Hosea died in foreign lands due to being cut off from God’s love; however, God’s love still called to their future progeny to return…

God’s hate is just and is his love provoked… great is this mystery…
-
-
-

[DannyM]

What has happened to this thread!