ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[SaulToPaul 2]

Does God force people into unbelief or does He want all to repent? He cannot do both. Does God give individuals a choice about what they believe or does God know what they will and will not believe before they ever exist? He cannot do both!

Resting in Him,
Clete

God knowing that someone will not believe is not forcing them into unbelief. An ounce of common sense should tell us that!

I have a ton of scripture to get into, as I just reread Acts 9-28, but I perceive
that you are sold out to "OV logic " regardless of what scripture might suggest
to the contrary.

 

[Clete]

God knowing that someone will not believe is not forcing them into unbelief. An ounce of common sense should tell us that!

Huh?

I've not made that argument here, although the argument could, and has been made on this thread and elsewhere.

You, on the basis of Romans 11 (verse 7 and others) believe that God made it so that certain people could not believe, do you not?

I have a ton of scripture to get into, as I just reread Acts 9-28, but I perceive
that you are sold out to "OV logic " regardless of what scripture might suggest
to the contrary.

Scripture suggests nothing to the contrary unless you bring the contrary to the Scripture. I'm telling you STP, it isn't a Scriptural problem, its a paradigm problem and if you refuse to engage the debate on that level, you'll never see why your position is indefensible. Every Scripture you quote will be a proof text for MY position! And while I'm sitting there accepting that whatever verse you quote means precisely what it says, you'll be spending all your time explaining how sound reason is merely "human logic", not realizing how doing so erodes the ground from under your own feet. Basically, until you engage this debate on the paradigm level you will forever be forced to choose between your doctrine and sound reason. I, on the other hand, have no such dilemma! I can have my doctrine, which is entirely Biblical, while maintaining a totally rational worldview. On what basis do you propose to persuade me that I should have to choose one over the other when I already have both?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

The "acceptable year of the Lord" had ended, but yet instead of bringing in the 70th week, God raised up Saul of Tarsus with a different message.

When did this happen? I mean, in what chapter of the Bible do we read about this?

Isn't it Acts 9? :think:

 

[elected4ever]

Huh?

I've not made that argument here, although the argument could, and has been made on this thread and elsewhere.

You, on the basis of Romans 11 (verse 7 and others) believe that God made it so that certain people could not believe, do you not?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete, this is an excellent study of the foreknowledge of God. Foregive me for reading someone else's mail but I think this is important.

Those who were foreknown are the ones who had believed. They already belong to God not because God had sovereignly saved them against their will but by virtue of the fact that they had previously chosen to believe and God chooses those that choose Him. It is not that God knows every individual who will choose Him but all individuals are known by Him. The lost and the saved are known to God but it is not God who makes the choice between the two.

Have you ever had an unction to speak to this individual and not that one? Thet is because God knows who seeks Him and who does not.

Many times we speak to groups of individuals and they all hear the same word. . Some believe and some don't but the promises of God are to all men but only those who believe the witness become the elect (chosen)of God. Those who are the foreknown of God and set for salvation or destruction is nothing more than God knowing who has or has not believed.

 

[Clete]

Clete, this is an excellent study of the foreknowledge of God. Foregive me for reading someone else's mail but I think this is important.

Those who were foreknown are the ones who had believed. They already belong to God not because God had sovereignly saved them against their will but by virtue of the fact that they had previously chosen to believe and God chooses those that choose Him. It is not that God knows every individual who will choose Him but all individuals are known by Him. The lost and the saved are known to God but it is not God who makes the choice between the two.

Have you ever had an unction to speak to this individual and not that one? Thet is because God knows who seeks Him and who does not.

Many times we speak to groups of individuals and they all hear the same word. . Some believe and some don't but the promises of God are to all men but only those who believe the witness become the elect (chosen)of God. Those who are the foreknown of God and set for salvation or destruction is nothing more than God knowing who has or has not believed.

Congratulations! You are now an Open Theist!

Either that or one or more of the following words mean nothing at all when you speak them....

foreknowledge
know
seek
choose
believe
promise
elect
witness
salvation
destruction

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Yorzhik]

I have a ton of scripture to get into, as I just reread Acts 9-28, but I perceive that you are sold out to "OV logic " regardless of what scripture might suggest

There is no such thing as "OV logic". There is only "logic" or "illogic". This misapplication you've presented here is evidence why you won't answer a request about your statement:

Originally Posted by Yorzhik
To make it clear to us, and to prove your point; just add the concept of "might not happen" to any of these:
3. Therefore, necessarily x will happen.
3. Therefore, x will happen.
3. Therefore, necessarily x must happen.
3. Therefore, x must happen.

Then take whichever/all that you added "might not happen" to and add it to the end of the syllogism. It should make sense and we'll all see what you see.

You posted a response to this as follows:

Originally Posted by SaulToPaul

Are you ready to see the geometric syllogism that proves that a right angle is 120 degrees?

Which prompted a response about what you were implying:

Originally Posted by Yorzhik

Sure. I think it would be interesting to see that.

But is that your answer to the question I asked? That syllogisms are meaningless?

Syllogisms are nothing more than a presentation of a "logic". It has nothing to do with your made-up term "OV logic"

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

There is no such thing as "OV logic". There is only "logic" or "illogic". This misapplication you've presented here is evidence why you won't answer a request about your statement:

I apologize for the "OV logic" comment. How can this syllogism which defies common sense be logical?

To say that if God knew 2,000 years ago that I'm going to choose to eat pizza today means that I had no choice in the matter makes zero common sense.

 

[lee_merrill]

To say that if God knew 2,000 years ago that I'm going to choose to eat pizza today means that I had no choice in the matter makes zero common sense.

:up:

 

[Clete]

I apologize for the "OV logic" comment. How can this syllogism which defies common sense be logical?

To say that if God knew 2,000 years ago that I'm going to choose to eat pizza today means that I had no choice in the matter makes zero common sense.

It makes all the sense in the world.

Of course, you could just as easily insist that it does not.

I know you've seen the arguments that prove the incompatibility of foreknowledge and free will and so I won't bother presenting them again. I would just ask you to acknowledge, if only in your own mind as you read this post, that these arguments do exist and that they are not as mindless as your "zero common sense" remark would seem to suggest and then to consider the following question...

Which takes precedence over the other; the subjective or the objective; your belief about what common sense is or sound reason?

Your common sense argument has been used many times throughout history to "prove" that the Earth is flat and that the Sun and the whole of the heavens revolve around that flat Earth; that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones; that black men and Jews are inferior to everyone else, and that women who can swim must be witches. Common sense isn't nearly so sensible as you might expect; it shifts with the very wind of popular opinion.

There is a book you should read. Its called "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds by Charles Mackay". Its a fascinating book about the history of when whole populations of people went a little nuts. There are many lessons to be learned from such histories, not the least of which is that what we consider "common sense" isn't the firm foundation one might want to think it is.

We do not build our doctrine on such a flimsy foundation as "common sense" but rather on the firm foundation that cannot be moved; the Word of God and sound reason (John 1:1,14).

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[elected4ever]

To say that if God knew 2,000 years ago that I'm going to choose to eat pizza today means that I had no choice in the matter makes zero common sense.

I do not think that God knowing or not knowing has anything to do with anything. Perhaps the question should be that if God did know would you eat the pizza tomorrow and being the free agents that we are would you still choose to eat the pizza or attempt to defy God and have a hamburger instead? It is what we know or don't know that is the means by which we choose is in our best interest. God knowing does not change that simple fact.

 

[Yorzhik]

To say that if God knew 2,000 years ago that I'm going to choose to eat pizza today means that I had no choice in the matter makes zero common sense.

Quite. Let's say God gives exhaustive knowledge of future events to some created being. The knowledge of that being wouldn't and couldn't have caused any of the events in its knowledge. I've said this all along (and Clete would agree). So do you know enough about the OV position to understand why we are OV despite saying this?

Now, if you hadn't been the one to bring up the syllogism, I wouldn't keep pressing this. But you brought it up. If you are going to bring something up, at least stand by what you say. Here is your original post:

What do you guys make of this?:


Fatalism argues:

1. Necessarily, any event that God foreknows will happen.
2. God foreknows x.
3. Therefore, necessarily x will happen.
However, this argument is not logically correct. It is incorrect to include that (3) is necessary as only one of its premises is necessary. Instead the argument must be:

1. Necessarily, any event that God foreknows will happen.
2. God foreknows x.
3. Therefore, x will happen.
But this is no longer fatalism as it no longer concludes that an event must happen - it only concludes that that it will happen.

To which came the obvious response:"You do realize that "must" and "will" have the same meaning in this context?"

Now, STP, do you realize that if "must" and "will" have the same meaning in this context, then your syllogism is the same as Clete's? And, deeper still, instead of explaining and making things more clear on how "must" and "will" could be different in this context... you simply decided to state how they were different divorced from that context! Here's your quote:

"I will" is not the same as "I must".

I will - implies choice
I must - no choice

Common sense tells me that if I know you are going to eat spaghetti tomorrow night, I didn't make you eat it. I didn't influence you to eat it. A mysterious force didn't force you to eat it. You chose to eat it.

A questionable syllogism with questionable logic doesn't prove to me that I should throw common sense out the window.

I could probably throw together a little geometric proof that seems logical
that shows that a right angle is 120 degrees instead of 90. Would you buy it and arrange your entire understanding of the Bible around it?

So the obvious next request is that you stay in context:

Simply looking at the context, these are all identical:
3. Therefore, necessarily x will happen.
3. Therefore, x will happen.
3. Therefore, necessarily x must happen.
3. Therefore, x must happen.

Just look at the possibility of adding the concept of "might not happen" to any of these statements

You dodge once on post 7214

and again on post 7403

And your 3rd dodge was this post.

Now I hate using the word "dodge", but I just cannot think of a more tactful word to describe your response. Perhaps you could explain why you didn't answer and I'll recant the use of the word "dodge".

Let me restate the request: "Just look at the possibility of adding the concept of "might not happen" to any of these statements" Simple enough? Do you need to list the statements again?

 

[Clete]

I do not think that God knowing or not knowing has anything to do with anything. Perhaps the question should be that if God did know would you eat the pizza tomorrow and being the free agents that we are would you still choose to eat the pizza or attempt to defy God and have a hamburger instead? It is what we know or don't know that is the means by which we choose is in our best interest. God knowing does not change that simple fact.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

If what you say it correct then refute the arguments that prove otherwise.

Are you capable of doing that?

 

[RobE]

To which came the obvious response:"You do realize that "must" and "will" have the same meaning in this context?"

STP is correct. "Must" and "will" have different meanings in English. Hence, two different words.

Any contingent by definition is not necessary; therefore, 'must' would be inappropriate to use. How do we determine that future events are contingent? Well, that's easy, since open theism provides the argument for us. The future has not yet occured! Once it occurs and become the past, then it would be appropriate to say that it was necessary(necessity of the past.)

If open theism wishes to logically connect the future and past, then could we say that everything in the past wasn't necessary as well?

Stanford's proof is flawed. God's past necessary knowledge does transfer necessary knowledge in the future, but not necessary action as you admit....

The knowledge of that being wouldn't and couldn't have caused any of the events in its knowledge. I've said this all along (and Clete would agree). So do you know enough about the OV position to understand why we are OV despite saying this?

Yes. We understand why you say this. God's necessary knowledge means that something necessarily causes the action in the future. I agree. The component which seems to elude the o.v. mindset is this: If that cause is your own will, then your will remains free. The only way that your position is satisified is if something other than your will is the cause of the action.

When your will is free, what causes your actions? What force eliminates your ability to do otherwise if this is true? Are you able to argue that your own free decision makes itself unfree(since the ability to do otherwise was eliminated by your will itself)? This is one question I've repeated over and over in an attempt to break through the o.v. desire to substantiate itself.

Feelings, desire, hopes, and wishes all make men go to extraordinary measures to justify their positions. Common sense, as STP points out, is often overlooked.

 

[RobE]

Saying it doesn't make it so.

If what you say it correct then refute the arguments that prove otherwise.

Are you capable of doing that?

They have been repeatedly refuted. Your desire for the truth to be otherwise simply won't allow you to understand the arguments.

Clete. You have the ability to overcome your own prejudice. I encourage you to do so. Open your mind for a moment and have a real, honest look.

Rob Mauldin

 

[elected4ever]

Clete said in response to this Originally

Posted by elected4ever View Post
I do not think that God knowing or not knowing has anything to do with anything. Perhaps the question should be that if God did know would you eat the pizza tomorrow and being the free agents that we are would you still choose to eat the pizza or attempt to defy God and have a hamburger instead? It is what we know or don't know that is the means by which we choose is in our best interest. God knowing does not change that simple fact.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

If what you say it correct then refute the arguments that prove otherwise.

Are you capable of doing that?

There is no need to refute anything. The fact is you do not know if God knows or not. Would it make a difference if God did know? Do you know if you would have chosen otherwise if God did know? How are you going to change the choice if you have already made it? You knew nothing of the plan of God when you made the choice. Are you going to tell God that you do not like His plan and are now going to opt out because you may think it is unfair? Are you now going to instruct God? It is God's plan and not yours. I am thankful that he included me in it, aren't you?:sigh:

 

[Yorzhik]

STP is correct. "Must" and "will" have different meanings in English. Hence, two different words.

Great, then you are volunteering to answer this request:

Add "will not happen" or "possibly will not happen" to #3 and explain how it still makes sense.
1. Necessarily, any event that God foreknows will happen.
2. God foreknows x.
3. Therefore, x will happen.

The knowledge of that being wouldn't and couldn't have caused any of the events in its knowledge. I've said this all along (and Clete would agree). So do you know enough about the OV position to understand why we are OV despite saying this?

Yes. We understand why you say this. God's necessary knowledge means that something necessarily causes the action in the future. I agree. The component which seems to elude the o.v. mindset is this: If that cause is your own will, then your will remains free. The only way that your position is satisified is if something other than your will is the cause of the action.

When your will is free, what causes your actions? What force eliminates your ability to do otherwise if this is true? Are you able to argue that your own free decision makes itself unfree(since the ability to do otherwise was eliminated by your will itself)? This is one question I've repeated over and over in an attempt to break through the o.v. desire to substantiate itself.

Feelings, desire, hopes, and wishes all make men go to extraordinary measures to justify their positions. Common sense, as STP points out, is often overlooked.

Rob, you just went off on your own tangent. I asked how the OV position can have this as one of it's positions: "The knowledge of that being wouldn't and couldn't have caused any of the events in its knowledge" and you went off and started talking about something else when you said: "God's necessary knowledge means that something necessarily causes the action in the future"

So if you ever get on topic I'll try and respond.

 

[Clete]

There is no need to refute anything. The fact is you do not know if God knows or not.

Of course I do! I've proven it with multiple arguments from both Scripture and sound reason, none of which you have made any attempt whatsoever to refute.

Would it make a difference if God did know?

Of course it would make a difference! It would make all the difference in the world!

Do we serve a God that is just or do only appear to be doing so?

If the latter then Christianity itself is false and this entire discussion is a moot point. If the former then your theology is blasphemous.

That's the difference it makes.

Do you know if you would have chosen otherwise if God did know?

If God did not know then whether I chose to act or to act otherwise is irrelevant to the point. The point is that the choice, regardless of what it actually was, was chosen freely and that I can therefore justly be held responsible for it.

How are you going to change the choice if you have already made it?

I can't! That's the whole point! If God knows then the choice has been made and I cannot do otherwise and am therefore not free.

You knew nothing of the plan of God when you made the choice.

So what? My knowledge isn't what is at question here, its God's. A person does not have to know that he is free in order to be free. All that is necessary is the ability to choose between X and ~X. People who are convinced that they have no free will exercise their free will every day in spite of their ignorant position to the contrary.

Are you going to tell God that you do not like His plan and are now going to opt out because you may think it is unfair?

YES! You're damn right! If God is unjust I want nothing to do with Him!

Of course God is not unjust and so you're in a lot of trouble for holding to a believe that leads inexorably to the conclusion that He is an arbitrary bully who punishes people for things that they did not choose to do.

Are you now going to instruct God? It is God's plan and not yours. I am thankful that he included me in it, aren't you?:sigh:

If you god is real, I want nothing whatsoever to do with him. I would quite literally rather spend eternity in Hell. Not that I would have any choice in the matter. If your version of God is real, every word I speak is not my own anyway because I've not chosen even the thoughts in my own head, never mind my actions and the words I speak. If your god is real this whole argument of yours is moot because if you're right then what will be will be and that's that and there's nothing any of us can do about it anyway. That's the very definition of injustice and it make me want to vomit! Your god disgusts me!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[elected4ever]

Of course I do! I've proven it with multiple arguments from both Scripture and sound reason, none of which you have made any attempt whatsoever to refute.

There is no need to refute them sense they mean nothing and do nothing but feed your own ego.

Of course it would make a difference! It would make all the difference in the world!

Tell me Clete, What difference would it make in your life? Would you live it any different than what you do?

Do we serve a God that is just or do only appear to be doing so?

You need to ask Yourself the question, Is God unconditionally just regardless of my or your understanding of him? What is just or what is fair is what god says is just and fair regardless of your or my opinion.

If the latter then Christianity itself is false and this entire discussion is a moot point. If the former then your theology is blasphemous.

Religion is man made and therefore false. If you are expecting religion, including Christianity to save you then you believe falsely. You only believe in the trappings and not the God that is the only God that by His nature is God.

That's the difference it makes.

Sense when does your reasoning make God any less than the the God that He is.

If God did not know then whether I chose to act or to act otherwise is irrelevant to the point. The point is that the choice, regardless of what it actually was, was chosen freely and that I can therefore justly be held responsible for it.

The foreknowledge of God does not prevent you or anyone else from making a choice freely so don't give me this bologna about God making choices for you. There have been numbers of times that I have sought to put the choice on God because I feared that i would make the wrong one. God never took those choices from me. I had to make them whether good ones or bad ones

I can't! That's the whole point! If God knows then the choice has been made and I cannot do otherwise and am therefore not free.

See previous answer

So what? My knowledge isn't what is at question here, its God's. A person does not have to know that he is free in order to be free. All that is necessary is the ability to choose between X and ~X. People who are convinced that they have no free will exercise their free will every day in spite of their ignorant position to the contrary.

So God's foreknowledge has nothing to do with daily living. Agreed

YES! You're damn right! If God is unjust I want nothing to do with Him!

Sense when did God ask you what is just or not. If God doesn't meet your expectations then you would through Him out with the bath water. You are one arrogant dude man.

Of course God is not unjust and so you're in a lot of trouble for holding to a believe that leads inexorably to the conclusion that He is an arbitrary bully who punishes people for things that they did not choose to do.

I do no such thing. and you know it. I do is believe unconditionally which you seem to be unable to do.

If your god is real, I want nothing whatsoever to do with him. I would quite literally rather spend eternity in Hell. Not that I would have any choice in the matter. If your version of God is real, every word I speak is not my own anyway because I've not chosen even the thoughts in my own head, never mind my actions and the words I speak. If your god is real this whole argument of yours is moot because if you're right then what will be will be and that's that and there's nothing any of us can do about it anyway. That's the very definition of injustice and it make me want to vomit! Your god disgusts me!

Resting in Him,
Clete

To bad, you have already made the choice. I sure glade that God doesn't treat you like you treat Him. I can trust God and I am not so sure about you.

 

[Clete]

There is no need to refute them sense they mean nothing and do nothing but feed your own ego.

"Since", e4e not sense, you blithering idiot.

Tell me Clete, What difference would it make in your life? Would you live it any different than what you do?

Think it through you moron!

If God has exhaustive foreknowledge I have no choice in what I do or don't do and all of this and everything else we do is meaningless. So my feeding my ego, as you so glibly put it would be a foregone conclusion and I'd do it because I could not do otherwise.

You need to ask Yourself the question, Is God unconditionally just regardless of my or your understanding of him?

I need ask no such idiotic, unbiblical, blasphemous question. God has given us His own standard of justice in the Bible. He either measures up to it or He does not.

What is just or what is fair is what god says is just and fair regardless of your or my opinion.

You are a fool! God has said what is just! You're just too stupid to read the Bible for yourself and discover that what you believe about God does not and could not fit that definition.

Religion is man made and therefore false.

You are so stupid. You rival even RobE!

Cars are man made and therefore false.

Buildings are man made and therefore false.

Books are man made and therefore false.

Computers are man made and therefore false.

Sentences are man made and therefore false.


Please don't ever use the word "therefore" in my presence again. You defile the whole concept of sound reason when you do.

If you are expecting religion, including Christianity to save you then you believe falsely. You only believe in the trappings and not the God that is the only God that by His nature is God.

Fool!

Sense when does your reasoning make God any less than the the God that He is.

"SINCE when" you dolt! And don't play it off as a typo, either! This is the second time in one post you've demonstrated your public education and you do it a third time here in a little while! :doh:

It isn't my reasoning e4e, that's just the point. I neither wrote the Bible, nor did I invent sound reason. You use the same Bible that I do to formulate your doctrine the difference being that I use sound reason in my formulation, you use anything but. You use whatever floats from the pulpit, your emotions, your experiences, your convoluted and nearly nonexistent thinking skills and whatever feels right. I use the objective, irrefragable, undeniable, laws of sound reason which emanate from and find their ultimate culmination in the very person of God the Son Himself! (John 1)

The foreknowledge of God does not prevent you or anyone else from making a choice freely...

Saying it doesn't make it so, e4e. I've PROVEN over and over again that it does exactly that. Either refute the arguments or admit, tacitly or otherwise, that you cannot.

...so don't give me this bologna about God making choices for you.

I've never made any such argument concerning foreknowledge. It is the Calvinist who believes God ordains and controls every event in the universe.

There have been numbers of times that I have sought to put the choice on God because I feared that i would make the wrong one.

That's because you are both stupid and have no understanding whatsoever about who God is nor what the Bible is about.

God never took those choices from me. I had to make them whether good ones or bad ones

Not if God knew them in advance you didn't. Whether God made them for you or not, if He knew what you would do before you made the decision to do it then you didn't make the decision to do it freely because you could not have decided otherwise.

Go ahead e4e, ignore the argument again! We all expect you to anyway.

So God's foreknowledge has nothing to do with daily living. Agreed

No one has ever suggested otherwise. If God not only foreknows everything but even predestined it all, that also would have no effect on daily living. What it would have an effect on is whether our daily living has any real meaning and on whether or not the God we "serve" is righteous, just and loving.

The difference it makes has to do with whether the one who rejects God should feel remorse. If he cannot have done otherwise then whats the point of feeling badly about what he did? Of course if one has no ability to do otherwise then feeling badly or not isn't a choice one makes either. In such a world sin would be meaningless, remorse for sin would be meaningless, repentance would be meaningless and thus punishment for sin would be unjust by God's own definition. If such is the case, God is a liar, the Bible is false as is the rest of the entire Christian worldview.

Sense when did God ask you what is just or not.

Find a chalk board and write the word "since" fifty times!

God didn't ask me, He wrote it of His own accord in the Bible.

If God doesn't meet your expectations then you would through Him out with the bath water.

If God does not meet His own expectations I would run, not walk, away as quickly as possible.

You are one arrogant dude man.

My arrogance can't touch your stupidity.

I do no such thing. and you know it. I do is believe unconditionally which you seem to be unable to do.

Yes, e4e you do. You, of course, deny that God is unjust and reject that conclusion out of hand but that doesn't change the fact that your doctrine leads INEXORABLY (that word means "unavoidably") to the conclusion that God is unjust. I've only proven it a hundred times or more and you've never made even the slightest attempt to refute the arguments (either the Biblical ones nor the rational ones).

Your denial of the conclusions of your own doctrine is akin to a Catholic denying that his doctrine leads to legalism. Its ridiculous. You simply have your head in the sand.

To bad, you have already made the choice.

Not if God has exhaustive foreknowledge I didn't.

I sure glade that God doesn't treat you like you treat Him.

But if He did, that would be fine with you too, right? After all, for God, justice is just whatever God happens to do.

I can trust God and I am not so sure about you.

If your doctrine is correct then trust is meaningless too, e4e! If you doctrine is correct you only "trust" God because you could not have done otherwise. Whether or not you would trust God was set in stone before you ever existed and the proof of that is the fact (according to your blasphemous doctrine) that God knew that you would do so eons before you ever existed. And if God knows in advance that you are going to do something, you cannot do otherwise.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[bybee]

Archive: Open Theism, etc

Archive: Open Theism, etc

What God knows and what God does are separate. God's knowing is beyond our comprehension but, what God does is evident to those with eyes to see and ears to hear. We have free will. There is no point to life without it. It is through God's mercy that forgiveness is obtainable. That is forgiveness comes to the contrite heart. The possibility of forgiveness is what links our doing to God's knowing. I believe that as I seek to know God's will for me I understand more about who I am in the here and now as well as in the bigger scheme of life - possibly eternal.