ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1
- Thread starter ChristisKing
- Start date
- Status
Virtually all Calvinist and other Augustinian theologian claim to believe in free will and then contradict themselves on a regular basis and when called on it the pull out the tried and true antinomy trump card and call it a day.RobE said:
You can say you believe in free will all day long but the fact that you have been debating against me for the last several weeks on the issue is pretty much proof that you do not really believe it in reality, or at least that you hold additional beliefs which are logically in conflict with it. And if you believe in the same sort of free will that Augustine did, then that is a foregone conclusion.
The problem comes with the way one defines the terms of the discussion. I have already offered a very technical and quite complete definition of free will that you have accepted as accurate both in this post and elsewhere. Here it is again just for the sake of those who might have just joined the conversation...
"Necessarily, for any human agent S, action A and time t, if S performs A freely at t, then the history of the world prior to t, the laws of nature, and the actions of any other agent (including God) prior to and at t are jointly compatible with S's refraining from performing A freely."
I have up to this point been content to simply restate this definition in a more usable way by saying the to have a free will one must be able to do or do otherwise, and while I'm still convinced that this is a workable definition, I think it might be wiser at this point to stick with the more technical definition because we seem to be talking past one another to a certain degree, and my hope is that with this post, I will clear up some of the muddy water.
Now, with that being the accepted and agreed upon definition of free will, what remains is the definition of two other terms, prediction and foreknowledge. I make a very strong and clear distinction between what it means to predict something and what it means to know something in advance and it seems to me that you do not. So I will offer definitions to both terms and then I would like it if you would respond to them and directly indicate whether you agree with them or not and we can proceed from there.
For the purposes of this discussion I would say that to predict something simply means that one states in advance what one expects to happen, based on currently available information. Knowledge, on the other hand, does not speak of expectation but of certainty, and by extension, foreknowledge speaks of being certain of an event in advance. And just to be clear, when I say certain, I mean absolutely certain, not extremely confident or really, really sure but absolutely, 100%, totally certain. Knowledge is absolute accurate whereas a prediction may or may not be. So even if someone, whether God or someone else, predicted with 100% accuracy, as long as the possibility existed that he might possibly be proved wrong, then it does not qualify as foreknowledge but merely as a prediction (except perhaps as a figure of speech, which we are intentionally avoiding for the purposes of this discussion).
It's very important that we get this issue cleared up so I would really appreciate a detailed and direct response to at this much of this post. Thanks.
Accuracy is irrelevant. The relevant issue is whether it is a prediction or if it is advanced knowledge (certainty). You see the point I'm making here is that God has made the universe in such a way as to make such certainty impossible. And I don't just mean that they are impossible for us because of their complexity and our limited cognitive abilities but that they are truly logical impossibilities. Your hypothetical psychologist makes his predictions based on available information and the point I am making is that even if he had every conceivable piece of pertinent information he would still not be able to predict human behavior with total certainty. There is always of fudge factor that is outside of anyone's ability to know. This fudge factor exists because God has created us, and is Himself, free to do contrary to that which the circumstances would otherwise indicate.
To say that God does not change is logically absurd. What benefit would there be for God to find the most sublime state of mind and perfect pose and freeze there like a stone statue?
He designed the whole system by which my conception took place but otherwise no, there is no indication Biblically and no reason otherwise to believe that God caused a particular sperm to meet with a particular egg in order to make me with the specific genes that are in my DNA. God is capable of doing such things but there would be no reason for Him to need to do so, at least none that I can think of.
Why do you ask?
Resting in Him,
Clete
ApologeticJedi
New member
godrulz said:
And look whom he separates himself from….
Peter (v.17)
The apostles (v.18)
James (v.19)
The churches of Judea (v.22)
Chapter 2 continues on that “But of these who seemed to be somewhat… (Paul then encourages the Gentiles that they are not that important) … in conference added nothing to me, but contrariwise, when they saw that the uncircumcision gospel was committed to me, even as the circumcision gospel was commited to Peter…”
Clearly Paul is speaking of the messages of Peter, James and John leading the Gentiles astray.
godrulz said:
Paul doesn’t mention the Judiazers, he mentions James and Peter. BTW – to what “historical background” do you mean? Do you have any evidence that the Judiazers were any different than the followers of Peter and James?
godrulz said:
Right!! And notice how Paul, and you tie that in to the subject at hand. Even Peter is not to be listened to if his message is to keep the law. Peter taught men to keep the law. Your so-called “judiazers” here were Peter’s converts who said that the Gentiles needed to be circumcised, even as Peter taught them to be circumcised. Paul points out that just because the message came from Peter and James, does not mean that they should pay any attention to it. That’s why Paul distance his message from them in passages like Gal 1:11; Gal 1:16-20 “I do not lie”; Gal 2:4 notice that because of false brethren Paul has to confront Peter, James, and John!!; Gal 2:6 Paul is inspired to discount Peter and James’ standing concerning his gospel; Gal 2:7 Paul differences the circumcision gospel from the uncircumcision gospel for his readers; Gal 2:9 Paul again says “who seemed to be pillars” undermining the position of Peter, James, and Jonh.
So that when we come to Galatians 2:11, Paul’s point is that even those the message the Gentiles was being subverted away from the gospel by, was Peter’s, even Peter needed to be rebuked on an issue of the gospel when it came to the uncircumcision.
Paul’s point is clear. Mainly that Peter’s message is to the circumcision. Don’t think that his words should have any sway on your (the Galatians) situation. You are Gentiles! My message did not come from them (Gal 1:1; Gal :1:11-12; Gal 1:7-20 “I do not lie”).
Why is Paul stressing Peter so much, if the message that the “Judiazers” (which I believe were converts of Peter) were giving was not Peter’s very own?
Find a good commentary on Galatians for historical background. Like Paul's other letters, he deals with various issues in the target churches. Corinthians has many issues. Galatians deals with Judaizers (Gal. 1= false gospel) AND issues surrounding Peter and his confusion about the ONE gospel of Jesus Christ. Peter and others had baggage in their understanding. They were not preaching another pure or false gospel for Jews. Jews and Gentiles alike had to come to Christ for salvation, but not by way of different gospels. Christ, resurrection, grace, faith, etc. were New Covenant issues after Pentecost, not just when Paul was converted.
Are you saying Peter was to be eternally cursed for preaching another different gospel? Gal. 2 changes course and reminds those who followed a false gospel that even the apostles accepted Paul's message because it was also their gospel in essence. There issue was a hesitancy to see that the scope of the one gospel was now being extended to Gentiles (hard for Jewish Christians to initially grasp...hence the divine visions to wake Peter up). Paul said Peter was WRONG. He did not say that they both had different, legitimate gospels for different dispensations. Peter was not acting in line with the truth of THE GOSPEL (two gospels is foreign to the Church Age...there is one true gospel and many false gospels, not two true gospels after Christ). Even Jewish believers knew they were not saved by works. Why do you keep insisting that their gospel was works based (2:14-16).
Gal. 3 picks up again with the false gospel problem. He was not rebuking Peter's gospel since it was essentially Paul's gospel at this time. Gal. 4 continues the warning about adding anything to the simplicity of faith in Christ. It is a wrong assumption that Peter was in this group of divisive, false gospel preachers. 4:17 talks about those who try to put Paul down and create alienation. Peter did not do this as evidenced by Paul's earlier statement that they accepted Him.
Hermeneutics includes knowing the original audience of the book and its historical/cultural background. This is the danger of exegeting the book through Mid-Acts filters. One must follow the flow of the argument and know when Paul is talking about false teachers or when he is talking about his fellow ambassadors in Christ who misunderstood aspects of the true gospel and the shift to Gentile inclusion in the message.
Galatians deals with false legalism and faith + works. Romans affirms that faith was the only criteria, even in OT times. If Peter was preaching a legitimate gospel to the circumcision, Paul would not be calling it a false gospel worthy of eternal damnation?! Confusing the contexts leads to erroneous conclusions.
Historically, the Judaizers were not followers of Peter (this would make them legitimate in that supposed dispensation) any more than the lie of Doceticism (I Jn.) or incipient gnosticism (Col.) refuted by John and Paul were legitimate followers of John or Paul. Just because Jim Jones (Guyana) has evangelical roots does not make him legit. Heresy is half truth.
Are you saying Peter was to be eternally cursed for preaching another different gospel? Gal. 2 changes course and reminds those who followed a false gospel that even the apostles accepted Paul's message because it was also their gospel in essence. There issue was a hesitancy to see that the scope of the one gospel was now being extended to Gentiles (hard for Jewish Christians to initially grasp...hence the divine visions to wake Peter up). Paul said Peter was WRONG. He did not say that they both had different, legitimate gospels for different dispensations. Peter was not acting in line with the truth of THE GOSPEL (two gospels is foreign to the Church Age...there is one true gospel and many false gospels, not two true gospels after Christ). Even Jewish believers knew they were not saved by works. Why do you keep insisting that their gospel was works based (2:14-16).
Gal. 3 picks up again with the false gospel problem. He was not rebuking Peter's gospel since it was essentially Paul's gospel at this time. Gal. 4 continues the warning about adding anything to the simplicity of faith in Christ. It is a wrong assumption that Peter was in this group of divisive, false gospel preachers. 4:17 talks about those who try to put Paul down and create alienation. Peter did not do this as evidenced by Paul's earlier statement that they accepted Him.
Hermeneutics includes knowing the original audience of the book and its historical/cultural background. This is the danger of exegeting the book through Mid-Acts filters. One must follow the flow of the argument and know when Paul is talking about false teachers or when he is talking about his fellow ambassadors in Christ who misunderstood aspects of the true gospel and the shift to Gentile inclusion in the message.
Galatians deals with false legalism and faith + works. Romans affirms that faith was the only criteria, even in OT times. If Peter was preaching a legitimate gospel to the circumcision, Paul would not be calling it a false gospel worthy of eternal damnation?! Confusing the contexts leads to erroneous conclusions.
Historically, the Judaizers were not followers of Peter (this would make them legitimate in that supposed dispensation) any more than the lie of Doceticism (I Jn.) or incipient gnosticism (Col.) refuted by John and Paul were legitimate followers of John or Paul. Just because Jim Jones (Guyana) has evangelical roots does not make him legit. Heresy is half truth.
RobE
New member
Clete said:
My position on prediction vs. knowledge
Webster's said:
Webster's said:
Your definition would better fit forecast. To inaccurately foretell an outcome wouldn't be a prediction it would be a non-prediction. So to predict something means that it will come to pass. Accuracy is completely relevant.
Clete said:
Did I say the scientist couldn't change some variable in the equation himself? Introduce a 'new' stimuli into the formula?
I never said that God isn't free to change the future(but isn't required to). Bob Enyart agrees with me on this, as you should as well. The point is that God is 'intelligent' enough to figure you out; yet, this intelligence doesn't hurt your free will in the least. Your point that God can be 'proved wrong' or in my terms 'be mistaken' is another point we might disagree on. Open Theism requires this to maintain its idea of what free will is.
I should note as well that knowledge is a requisite of prediction since there can't be a prediction without it(no matter how it's aquired).
Also, Open Theism would require the knowledge obtained from the scientists observations to somehow change himself instead of just being a matter of historical significance.
Clete said:
So, you don't believe that identical twins are any different from the moment of conception? That all the differences we see in them occur because of 'environment' even though your concept of free will would have to minimize the effect of that same environment upon them(in order for them to be actually free)?
My belief is that God participates in the conception process, but allows the sperm and egg to do its thing. Simply put, you're responsible for your childs body and God 'en-souls' them(my belief).
I'd be more than happy to clarify,
Rob
patman
Active member
godrulz said:
I think it is safe to say that the message of the 12 was in it's elementary stages before Christ risen. Jesus was always on them about what was right or not. But once he assended, the 12 continued the message Christ taught them while he was alive. He wouldn't teach them one thing for 3 years then change it suddenly at the end would he?
Just think about it, why not teach them what they will teach for 3 years instead of teaching them what he taught, and then make them change it all a few days before he left? Their message was constant with Christ's.
Only Paul said let us be dead to the law. The rest said follow it for it is now fulfilled.
Even Christ said he wasn't going to take away the law.
Please consider that it all fits together pretty well when you put our dispensation at Paul's conversion. The O.V. allows for the changes, Paul is the change at the right time, up until then there was the expectation of the kingdom. Paul's change represented the putting off of that kingdom until later.
RobE,
Why does this have to be so difficult? Are you trying to be difficult and intentionally making it impossible to make any progress? Are you trying to see how many times you can get me to circle this same barn for some sick sort of amusement or what?
If God knows what I will do in the future, can I by an act of my own will, do other than what He knows I will do?
If yes, then how can it be said that God knows what I will do?
If no, then how can it be said that I can do or do otherwise as our accepted definition of free will demands?
Further, how many times would you like for me repeat myself in regards to the fact that one's environment does in fact influence one's decisions. The only degree to which my position would need to minimize that influence is only so far as is required to make it so that the environment does not DETERMINE our decision. Tell me now how many times I need to repeat it so that in my next post I can just copy and paste it all over the place and it will save a lot of time.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Why does this have to be so difficult? Are you trying to be difficult and intentionally making it impossible to make any progress? Are you trying to see how many times you can get me to circle this same barn for some sick sort of amusement or what?
If this is supposed to be a link, it doesn't work.RobE said:
As is this sentence to our discussion. Did I not make it plainly clear that I was trying to convey a working definition of the terms we've been using for the purposes and therefore in the context of this discussion? If I had wanted to introduce new terms I could have done that but since we are already talking past one another as it is I figured it would be better to keep the terms as they are and simply communicate the meaning intended by their use. Now, I'm am very quickly loosing patience with this. Either agree that FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CONVERSATION my given definitions are acceptable or else explain how they are not. I do not want to have a debate over the definition of these terms; I can quote the dictionary as easily as the next guy. What I want to do is to establish a common vernacular so that we can make some real progress and move past this impasse. The actual terms themselves are not as important as the meaning we are conveying when we say them. As long as we end up on the same page with one another then I don't care what term we end up using.
No! It's not Open Theism that requires it, it free will that requires it! How can this be so difficult to understand? I'm going to ask you a question and if you answer with anything other that "yes" or "no" I will take it as proof that you are simply being intentionally asinine and I'll let you waste someone else's time.
If God knows what I will do in the future, can I by an act of my own will, do other than what He knows I will do?
If yes, then how can it be said that God knows what I will do?
If no, then how can it be said that I can do or do otherwise as our accepted definition of free will demands?
Then you cannot logically hold to free will. My argument is as sound as can be and you haven't even so much as acknowledge that I've made the argument much less attempted to refute it. You will do so now, or else I will rightly declare victory and find someone who will engage me in a debate and not waste my time.
What?
WHAT? I do not believe that everything I am is contained within my DNA. My identical twin is not me nor has he ever been. He had, at one time, an identical physical body and so he would always be somewhat similar because our soul/spirits are fused in some way with our physical bodies, but that does not mean that there was a time when we were the same person. I therefore do believe that twins are somewhat different from the moment they are conceived.
Further, how many times would you like for me repeat myself in regards to the fact that one's environment does in fact influence one's decisions. The only degree to which my position would need to minimize that influence is only so far as is required to make it so that the environment does not DETERMINE our decision. Tell me now how many times I need to repeat it so that in my next post I can just copy and paste it all over the place and it will save a lot of time.
Nice. Your belief is altogether unbiblical. It amounts to little more than superstition.
If you would simply respond with direct answers to direct questions and make more of an effort to respond to the things I actually say in the context in which I say them, there would be no need to clarify. Also, it seems, although I might be wrong on this, that you are arguing with and against some nebulous thing known as Open Theism rather than responding to what I have actually said. If this is so, I beg you to stop doing that. While I do accept the label of Open Theist in order to easily communicate where I stand generally it does not mean that I accept everything that any Open Theist has written or believes. There is some important points of what is commonly accepted among most open theists that I am firmly convinces is logically incompatible with freedom of the will or that is otherwise simply wrong. So in short, debate me, not the universal collective of Open Theists everywhere.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Bob Hill
TOL Subscriber
Godrulz, just when it seems that we are in agreement, poof.
I’m referring to Peter’s baptism on the day of Pentecost.
Act 2:36-39 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” 37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”
The real problem that I have with water baptism is not when Baptists want to do it after a person is saved, but when someone believes and teaches that it is necessary for salvation. We have a church a couple blocks down the street from our church where they preach you must be water baptized to be saved.
They use Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38. Mk 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
I don’t know how you get around Acts 2:38.
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Although I disagree, when other’s say you should be baptized because the Lord was, and probably you do, too, it doesn’t bother me as much. They use passages such as Mat 3:13-15. Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. 14 And John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?” 15 But Jesus answered and said to him, “Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed Him.
The biggest problem is we can see that water baptism was even necessary for salvation in the Circumcision Epistles as presented in 1 Pe 3:20,21, “who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine long-suffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” What would you tell them you believe?
No one seems to be able to answer all the problem passages that negate their statements. But, you know the answer? My web page, biblicalanswers.com, is all about rightly dividing God’s word. So I believe the answer starts in 2 Ti 2:15 “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
In Christ,
Bob Hill
I’m referring to Peter’s baptism on the day of Pentecost.
Act 2:36-39 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” 37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”
The real problem that I have with water baptism is not when Baptists want to do it after a person is saved, but when someone believes and teaches that it is necessary for salvation. We have a church a couple blocks down the street from our church where they preach you must be water baptized to be saved.
They use Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38. Mk 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
I don’t know how you get around Acts 2:38.
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Although I disagree, when other’s say you should be baptized because the Lord was, and probably you do, too, it doesn’t bother me as much. They use passages such as Mat 3:13-15. Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. 14 And John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?” 15 But Jesus answered and said to him, “Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed Him.
The biggest problem is we can see that water baptism was even necessary for salvation in the Circumcision Epistles as presented in 1 Pe 3:20,21, “who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine long-suffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” What would you tell them you believe?
No one seems to be able to answer all the problem passages that negate their statements. But, you know the answer? My web page, biblicalanswers.com, is all about rightly dividing God’s word. So I believe the answer starts in 2 Ti 2:15 “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
In Christ,
Bob Hill
United Pentecostal Church base their baptismal regeneration ideas on Acts 2:38 as a proof text. They also overemphasize tongues and tie it in with salvation. They are in error (oneness= deny the triune Godhead but affirm the Deity of Christ).
Check the grammar of Acts 2:38. It does not say that baptism remits sins (contrary to other verses). The belief (condition) was evidenced by external baptism. The early church did not question baptism and belief like you do. It was the normative practice, but this does not mean baptism was salvific. Elsewhere in Acts, Peter emphasizes faith for salvation (without mentioning baptism cf. Jn. 3 does not mention baptism...why not proof text this instead of Mk. 16? Jesus taught faith, not ritual. Just because baptism is mentioned in one verse and not another does not mean it is a proof text...the heart of the issue is faith, not ritual...all relevant verses must be considered).
Mk. 16 end is not in the best and oldest MSS. Even so, it does not present a problem since belief is the key as demonstrated by the outward action of baptism. If someone was not baptized (for whatever reason), they were still saved based on faith. It says that unbelief will result in condemnation. The reason baptism is not mentioned is that unbelievers are not baptized. It is not a salvific issue. It was assumed that believers would be baptized as a public demonstration of their private faith. John 3 does not make it a criteria for salvation.
Check the grammar of Acts 2:38. It does not say that baptism remits sins (contrary to other verses). The belief (condition) was evidenced by external baptism. The early church did not question baptism and belief like you do. It was the normative practice, but this does not mean baptism was salvific. Elsewhere in Acts, Peter emphasizes faith for salvation (without mentioning baptism cf. Jn. 3 does not mention baptism...why not proof text this instead of Mk. 16? Jesus taught faith, not ritual. Just because baptism is mentioned in one verse and not another does not mean it is a proof text...the heart of the issue is faith, not ritual...all relevant verses must be considered).
Mk. 16 end is not in the best and oldest MSS. Even so, it does not present a problem since belief is the key as demonstrated by the outward action of baptism. If someone was not baptized (for whatever reason), they were still saved based on faith. It says that unbelief will result in condemnation. The reason baptism is not mentioned is that unbelievers are not baptized. It is not a salvific issue. It was assumed that believers would be baptized as a public demonstration of their private faith. John 3 does not make it a criteria for salvation.
Last edited:
RobE
New member
Clete,
I tried to give you exactly what you ask for. Here it is again.
Prediction: foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason
No.(to your first question)
Answer to question 3: God knows what you will do in the future as a matter of historical fact even though you are capable of 'doing or doing otherwise' in the future. It's the limitation of your capability which curbs your freedom; not what He knows or doesn't know.
In short His knowledge doesn't interfere with your capability.
Your argument isn't sound because you confuse pre-arrange with foresee. I have made the attempt just not in a way that is perceivable by you. I hope the above clears that up. Maybe if we start a question and answer numbering system it will help.
CQ1: If God knows what I will do in the future, can I by an act of my own will, do other than what He knows I will do?
RA1: No.
CQ2: If no, then how can it be said that I can do or do otherwise as our accepted definition of free will demands?
RA2: God knows what you will do in the future as a matter of historical fact even though you are capable of 'doing or doing otherwise' in the future. It's the limitation of your capability which curbs your freedom; not what He knows or doesn't know.
In short His knowledge doesn't interfere with your capability.
______________________
Do you believe God 'breathed' life into Adam?
Thank You,
Rob
I tried to give you exactly what you ask for. Here it is again.
Prediction: foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason
Clete said:
No.(to your first question)
Answer to question 3: God knows what you will do in the future as a matter of historical fact even though you are capable of 'doing or doing otherwise' in the future. It's the limitation of your capability which curbs your freedom; not what He knows or doesn't know.
In short His knowledge doesn't interfere with your capability.
Clete said:
Your argument isn't sound because you confuse pre-arrange with foresee. I have made the attempt just not in a way that is perceivable by you. I hope the above clears that up. Maybe if we start a question and answer numbering system it will help.
CQ1: If God knows what I will do in the future, can I by an act of my own will, do other than what He knows I will do?
RA1: No.
CQ2: If no, then how can it be said that I can do or do otherwise as our accepted definition of free will demands?
RA2: God knows what you will do in the future as a matter of historical fact even though you are capable of 'doing or doing otherwise' in the future. It's the limitation of your capability which curbs your freedom; not what He knows or doesn't know.
In short His knowledge doesn't interfere with your capability.
______________________
Clete said:
Do you believe God 'breathed' life into Adam?
Thank You,
Rob
Bob Hill said:
This is the key and is the reason why modes, formulas, or controversies about baptism are not the issue (this started in Acts 2, not Acts 9 by Paul).
The I Peter passage also must be exegeted carefully. Just as the ARK/JESUS (NOT the water) saved them, so it is faith in Christ, not water baptism that saved Peter's listeners. This is why I object to a wooden literalism with English translations while ignoring the grammatical intricacies of the original languages (context, historical background, grammar, etc. keeps us from proof texting).
Last edited:
Never mind. We'll just continue on as is. Your answers have provided enough to make progress possible again.RobE said:
I do not understand how you cannot see that you've just conceded the debate!
I didn't ask or say anything about God prearranging anything, that isn't part of my argument at all. A free will by definition requires the ability to do otherwise if God knows in advance what I will do I cannot do otherwise by your own admission and I therefore do not have free will, by definition. All other details are irrelevant. The single necessary condition for a free will to exist is the ability to do or do otherwise, if it is removed by whatever means then freedom is lost.
And the idea that God knows it "as a matter of historical fact" makes no sense since history implies the past, not the future and no one denies that God knows the past. The past is utterly settled and I have absolutely no ability to change it at all. And if God knows the future in the same way He knows the past, then my future action is just as settled as the past is and I am therefore not free.
It seems so elementary and plainly evident that what I am saying is undeniably true. I do not understand what possible motive one would have in denying it? What benefit is there in insisting beyond all reason that God must know every detail of the future? Where's the benefit, theologically or otherwise?
Yes I do but there is exactly zero reason to believe that it is necessary for him to do that for every human being. Adam was made a living soul with the ability to produce offspring after his own kind (i.e. other living souls). In fact, now that I think about it, there is every reason to believe that God does not do that, because we inherit our sin nature from Adam which is passed down through one's father. This sin nature is a spiritual condition not just a physical one; If God breathed life into each new baby then Adam's sinful nature would not be present and the undoing of the curse would not be necessary.
Resting in Him,
Clete
RobE
New member
Clete,
First of all, I'd like to express my gratitude in you not pointing out the antinomy your question and my answer produced. Since, you're willing to continue, I'd like to answer the question again without being limited to 'Yes' or 'No'. This should clear some things up.
Correct answer to your first question(not limited to yes or no):
You can act of your own will, but He already knows what you will do as a matter of fact. In short: You're capable 'of doing or doing otherwise', but it doesn't prevent Him from knowing what you will do in advance of you doing it because He's very smart.
I haven't conceded the debate just answered the question within the parameters you allowed. Your first question required a 'Yes' because you were talking about your capabilities when you said 'can I by an act of my own will' ;and, it required a 'No' because you were talking about God's capabilities(in relation to yours) when you said 'do other than what He knows I will do?'.
Since I was limited to a one word answer I chose 'No' just as God knew I would.
Here you clarify the antinomy in my previous answer which occurred because of my limited response.
The benefit is when people say things like....
Why does God allow evil anywhere when He could stop it?
....I can say that His reasons are plausible and God knows exactly what He's doing because His plans are perfect; AND, believe it!!!
___________________________________________
Doesn't the sin pass through the flesh from father to child? If the sin nature is spiritual then wouldn't babies which died before accountability end up in Hell? Hmmmm.....
Thanks for continuing and how about a scripture that you believe supports God not knowing something that a human would do(since we both agree He can do whatever He wants),
Rob
First of all, I'd like to express my gratitude in you not pointing out the antinomy your question and my answer produced. Since, you're willing to continue, I'd like to answer the question again without being limited to 'Yes' or 'No'. This should clear some things up.
Correct answer to your first question(not limited to yes or no):
You can act of your own will, but He already knows what you will do as a matter of fact. In short: You're capable 'of doing or doing otherwise', but it doesn't prevent Him from knowing what you will do in advance of you doing it because He's very smart.
Clete said:
I haven't conceded the debate just answered the question within the parameters you allowed. Your first question required a 'Yes' because you were talking about your capabilities when you said 'can I by an act of my own will' ;and, it required a 'No' because you were talking about God's capabilities(in relation to yours) when you said 'do other than what He knows I will do?'.
Since I was limited to a one word answer I chose 'No' just as God knew I would.
Clete said:
Here you clarify the antinomy in my previous answer which occurred because of my limited response.
Clete said:
Clete said:
The benefit is when people say things like....
Why does God allow evil anywhere when He could stop it?
....I can say that His reasons are plausible and God knows exactly what He's doing because His plans are perfect; AND, believe it!!!
___________________________________________
Clete said:
Doesn't the sin pass through the flesh from father to child? If the sin nature is spiritual then wouldn't babies which died before accountability end up in Hell? Hmmmm.....
Thanks for continuing and how about a scripture that you believe supports God not knowing something that a human would do(since we both agree He can do whatever He wants),
Rob
RobE
New member
Clete said:
A logical paradox.
The antinomy exists between the fact that I believe in free choice; yet, had to answer the first question 'can I by an act of my own will' negatively. Both can't be true. That's why I pointed out that the complete answer would suffice where simply answering 'No.' would create a paradox in my reasoning. I realized this as I was typing the answer, but answered with the only option which was available at the time.
Thanks,
Rob
So are you saying that you hold to an antinomy in this area or not? If not, you need to explain again because paradox doesn't begin to explain what I'm seeing your position to be. From where I sit, you dove right off into the never never land of direct logical contradiction.
- Status