themuzicman
Well-known member
Again, does God keep the covenant if Abram doesn't go?
Conditional says 'no'. Unconditional says 'yes'.
Muz
Conditional says 'no'. Unconditional says 'yes'.
Muz
Gen 12:1-3 KJV is unconditional and is valid regardless of Abram's obedience.
The Covenant is between God and Himself (the seed of Abraham-Jesus Christ).
There is no middle ground. Open or shut. Known or not known. See our postings in part one of this thread 2005-2006.
The given isn't a given until it's a past.
You don't know the difference between the past, the present and the future. You want to make ‘the will’ absolute. You must to preserve your view. But ‘the will’ is not absolute as long as there is more than one will at work in any situation. The will of one can be in conflict with another. And even if two agree circumstances may change due to contingencies beyond their control. They may have to do otherwise.
God has absolute knowledge of His own intentions! And contingencies may mess with the particulars but not the ultimate outcome. All the nations will be blessed through Abraham, not Joe Shmoe.
Joe Shmoe might not have been a Shemite. He might have been a Hamite.
How would that work?
This is the one of the points. Knowing is knowing and not something else. 'Will' is not 'might', 'maybe' is in the middle, etc., etc., etc.
This is expressly the point of one of the objections I posted against the Stanford argument. The future given isn't necessary until it occurs at which time doing otherwise would become necessarily impossible. To say that it's necessary beforehand would be logically invalid. #5 - #7. This occurs as the Stanford proof transfers necessity to a future event, which is incorrect.
Though, eventually, they will do something and not it's opposite.
This is impossible from the open position. God doesn't know His own intentions. For example, He intends to destroy Nineveh then doesn't. Same for Tyre, Hezekiah, the Jews, Egypt, etc., etc., etc.....
Outcomes are 'best guesses' at best for this thinking. Absolute knowledge would be an ill-defined outcome to these events if open theism is correct. If you wish to maintain that God has absolute knowledge of His own intentions' then you would also have to maintain that God's intented outcomes occurred. Otherwise that knowledge was lacking and probably would be better defined as 'belief' or 'speculation'.
A great example of God's intentions coming about is in Hezekiah's prayer of thanksgiving. God's intentions were far from God's statement of "you will not recover" as open theism translates it. Would you agree Hezekiah had a better understanding of the situation than Boyd, Sanders, or Pinnock combined?
God knows His own intentions as possibilities, you idiot, not as actual until HE CARIES THEM OUT and sometimes God changes His mind and does otherwise.
Let's use your own gibberish for a response:Why do hyper-calvinists proof text out of context? Because their theology is deductive, not biblical (eisegesis vs exegesis).
If God had called him instead of Abe it wouldn't have mattered. He would have become a Jew, as did Abe. :chuckle:
God knows His own intentions as possibilities, you idiot, not as actual until HE CARIES THEM OUT and sometimes God changes His mind and does otherwise.
Doing otherwise ain't impossible until after it is done. :chew:
When God makes HIS OWN INTENTIONS known there is something lacking ... what you call exhaustive foreknowledge. It ain't there! You will never reconcile the two.
Clete said:Hence the word INTENTIONS.
Philetus said:God has absolute knowledge of His own intentions! And contingencies may mess with the particulars but not the ultimate outcome. All the nations will be blessed through Abraham, not Joe Shmoe.
Hence the word INTENTIONS.
:doh::duh:
If RobE isn't an embarrassment to all you Settled View believers out there, he aught to be!
He's an embarrassment to me as a Christian! :shocked:
Again, does God keep the covenant if Abram doesn't go?
Conditional says 'no'. Unconditional says 'yes'.
Muz
God is in control of much more than most think...
Abraham had faith because God gave it to him...
Jhn 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
Act 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard [us]: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.
Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought [us], saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide [there]. And she constrained us.
1Cr 12:9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
Now watch this...
Ex 21 12 “Whoever strikes a person so that he dies must be put to death.
13 But if he didn’t intend any harm, and yet God caused it to happen by his hand, I will appoint a place for you where he may flee."
Even our decisions are governed by God. If someone dies accidentally, it is because "God caused it to happen."
Mat 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
Mat 10:30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. :cloud9:
God is in control of much more than most think...
Abraham had faith because God gave it to him...
Let's use your own gibberish for a response:
"This is a lame comment and shows your lack of understanding ofOpen Theismhermeneutics and the issues. It is essentially a straw man caricature or ad hominem attack. It is a smokescreen excuse rather than a thinking refutation."
[Post 3 of 3 in honor of Fellowship Week.]
Prophecy is not always unconditional and predictive. It can be conditional or declarative. God is not locked into a fatalistically fixed future, nor does He fix all details of the future (spare me the compatibilism loophole lecture).
Is this directed at any one person, or just for the general edification of all
TOLers?