ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[godrulz]

God said that Hezekiah was a dead duck (true at the time). Later he added 15 years to his life, a changing contingency (conditional vs unconditional after all). Both statements were true at the time, but one became false later with a new reality actualizing. This shows the future is open, not fixed, contrary to your view. I take the verse at face value, but you must make it figurative to retain a wrong view.

What is true at time x may become false at time y in a non-deterministic universe. God knows reality as it is. This does not impugn His character, just disproves your deterministic error.

 

[john w]

God said that Hezekiah was a dead duck (true at the time). Later he added 15 years to his life, a changing contingency (conditional vs unconditional after all). Both statements were true at the time, but one became false later with a new reality actualizing. This shows the future is open, not fixed, contrary to your view. I take the verse at face value, but you must make it figurative to retain a wrong view.

What is true at time x may become false at time y in a non-deterministic universe. God knows reality as it is. This does not impugn His character, just disproves your deterministic error.

Don't quit your day job. Leave the heavy lifting to credible, traditional, evangelical, orthodox, mainstream, orthopraxic, orthodox, church father, church approved, godly scholars, theologians on TOL The NT that must be exegeted/eisegesized/interpreted in light of the paradigms historically supported by the church. Research will show why your view is not a credible belief among NT scholars, or among many unknowns in conservative seminaries, and what godly pastors believe. Thankfully, your odd, faulty, wrong, lunatic, fringe views do not stand up under scrutiny. Take off your myopic lenses. Your cultic, fringe view is a flawed assumption, without proper critical thinking or discernment.. Quit pigeon-holing -a broader context will help you avoid your propensity to proof texting.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

We say and do things that are almost certain to happen without EDF.

Again, you try to bring God down to man's level!

You said:

I suppose I would have to concede that Peter might have done the right vs wrong thing making Christ's words inaccurate, but this is not how it panned out, so it is moot.

According to you the Lord Jesus would risk His whole ministry on the outcome of the prophecy in regard to Peter's three denials even though He could not be sure of the outcome. That is ridiculous!

The Lord Jesus would never make such a prophecy unless He knew for certain that it will come true and the only way that He could be one hundred percent certain was because of foreknowledge.

God has also made statements that were later no longer true since contingencies changed (Hezekiah).

You have proven over and over that you coudn't recognize figurative language if it hit you right between the eyes. Are we to take the following words of God spoken to Adam literally?:

"And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?" (Gen.3:19).

Next you will be arguing that God was unable to locate Adam!

There is less mystery and problems with the Open view overall than deterministic views...

You just close your eyes to verses which completely destroys your view on this and then you make your pronouncements. You say that there must be an answer to those verses but you do not have the answer. You have yet to answer the following that puts the last nail in the coffin of your brand of "open" theology:

You say that it is impossible for God to know free will contingencies that remain in the future because it is impossible that those things can be known. But can that idea stand up to the light of Scriptire? Let us first look at the following verse that says that Christians were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).

Next we see a verse that speaks of that same choosing which was before the foundation of the world and by what is said we can know that God chooses those who believe the truth:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

It is only "individuals" who believe the truth and it is "individuals" who are saved when they believe:

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Ro.1:16).

That is why we read the following:

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).

One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "according" at 1 Peter 1:2 is "in consequence of" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

So the saved are described as "elect" and their election or being chosen is "in consequence of" God's foreknowledge.

So before foundation of the world God chose individuals for salvation and that directly contradicts the brand of "open" theology promoted by you and Greg Boyd who say that it is impossible that God has a foreknowledge of free will contingencies.

Then, being unable to answer these problems to your view you say:

There is less mystery and problems with the Open view overall than deterministic views...

 

[Nang]

God said that Hezekiah was a dead duck (true at the time). Later he added 15 years to his life, a changing contingency (conditional vs unconditional after all). Both statements were true at the time, but one became false later with a new reality actualizing. This shows the future is open, not fixed, contrary to your view. I take the verse at face value, but you must make it figurative to retain a wrong view.

What is true at time x may become false at time y in a non-deterministic universe. God knows reality as it is. This does not impugn His character, just disproves your deterministic error.

I believe truth is always true and I refuse to believe God is ever false, mistaken, or unknowing.

If there are incidences in the bible that seem paradoxical or contradictory, it means that I, in my limited capacities, have yet to comprehend both the circumstances and/or the purposes of God and that it is I who must study further.

It is insulting to humanize God just because we are too lazy to delve deeper into the riches of God's revelation and remedy our own ignorance and confusions.

Nang

 

[Bright Raven]

God is totally omniscient, ignorant of nothing, knowing all that is knowable. The issue is that somethings are not there to know. The fact that God does not know where Alice in Wonderland is does not mean His omniscience is limited. The objects of possible knowledge are the limitation, not the knowledge of God.

If you think God can create square circles because that would limit the limitless, then I cannot help you (you have an incoherent, indefensible assumption leading to wrong conclusion).

Poppycock. God is totally omniscient, ignorant of nothing, knowing all that is knowable is double-talk. Next you will be saying that He learns and that He can make mistakes. Find help for yourself GR. I do not need your kind of help.

 

[Lon]

God said that Hezekiah was a dead duck (true at the time). Later he added 15 years to his life, a changing contingency (conditional vs unconditional after all). Both statements were true at the time, but one became false later with a new reality actualizing. This shows the future is open, not fixed, contrary to your view. I take the verse at face value, but you must make it figurative to retain a wrong view.

What is true at time x may become false at time y in a non-deterministic universe. God knows reality as it is. This does not impugn His character, just disproves your deterministic error.

So, Hezekiah is dying, he prays and God heals him. Good grief, you'd think the Open View is now cornering the market on prayer or something.

Foreknowledge includes our prayers. You can't just isolate pieces of truth to build untenuable doctrines. Foreknowledge does nothing to man's decisions but actualizes them.

If I were truly foreknowing, I'm still powerless to affect the color of shirt you are going to wear tomorrow. Me knowing has nothing to do with the choices you make. Nothing at all whether I know or not.

 

[Lon]

Your view is that God saw everything that happened beforehand and no one, not Jesus, not Peter, not God Himself, could change what God saw.

No no. Would, not could.
False conclusion.

• Boyd's view is that Peter's character determined his actions, and Peter had no choice but to act according to his character and deny Jesus, but this still doesn't expain how the prophecy of him denying Jesus three times would be fulfilled. (I haven't read Boyd, so he may have been able to explain it.)
• My view is that though Peter's character determined the likelyhood of his actions, God's creativity and power was responsible for the prophecy and the fulfillment, showing that God is able to work anything for His purposes, but it does not mean God'd only option is to work everything in existence in order to fulfill His prophecies.

Leaving God to guess-work. God need never communicate any prophetic utterance to us at all if this were remotely tenuable because we'd already know too. God is left guessing just like us. There would be no reason for Him to tell Peter much, just "Hey Peter, I know you say one thing, but we both know your heart is in the right place but your mind and actions don't follow-through." The fact that Jesus doesn't say this at all but 'ventures a guess' (pure rubbish) proves the OV is all wet and dumbed down theology concerning prophecy. The text, imho, demands that God is prescient. The way it conveys can be taken no other way other than dumbing down the text and turning off the brain. It is ridiculous to the rest of us.

 

[godrulz]

Open Theism does not humanize God. This shows that the Calvinists do not have a clue about the view and make straw men to knock down.

Some contradictions exist because of bad theology. To assume Calvinism is perfect when there is a more coherent view that resolves alleged problems is just ignorant arrogance and laziness (ironic).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Some contradictions exist because of bad theology.

I have pointed out the contradictions in your brand of "open" theology and you have no answer. All you can say is there must be an answer but you just do not know what that answer is.

To assume Calvinism is perfect when there is a more coherent view that resolves alleged problems is just ignorant arrogance and laziness (ironic).

I am not a calvinist but you are the perfect example of arrogance and laziness. You remain perfectly content in you ignorance of the following and you are too lazy to even attempt to provide an explanation:

You say that it is impossible for God to know free will contingencies that remain in the future because it is impossible that those things can be known. But can that idea stand up to the light of Scriptire? Let us first look at the following verse that says that Christians were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).

Next we see a verse that speaks of that same choosing which was before the foundation of the world and by what is said we can know that God chooses those who believe the truth:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

It is only "individuals" who believe the truth and it is "individuals" who are saved when they believe:

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Ro.1:16).

That is why we read the following:

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).

One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "according" at 1 Peter 1:2 is "in consequence of" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

So the saved are described as "elect" and their election or being chosen is "in consequence of" God's foreknowledge.

So before foundation of the world God chose individuals for salvation and that directly contradicts the brand of "open" theology promoted by you and Greg Boyd who say that it is impossible that God has a foreknowledge of free will contingencies.

But these verses mean nothing to you since they contradict your ideas and you are so arrogant that you can just ignore them and continue attempting to defend the indefensible.

 

[john w]

Open Theism does not humanize God. This shows that the Calvinists do not have a clue about the view and make straw men to knock down.

Some contradictions exist because of bad theology. To assume Calvinism is perfect when there is a more coherent view that resolves alleged problems is just ignorant arrogance and laziness (ironic).

"Some contradictions exist because of bad theology. To assume Calvinism is perfect when there is a more coherent view that resolves alleged problems is just ignorant arrogance and laziness (ironic)."

One of his standard auto pilot cliches, he spams, when he is getting picked apart, that says nothing.

Clown.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Boyd certainly does not say that there was absolutely no divine intervention, as witnessed by his words here:

I said that the difference is that Boyd seems to be trying to explain it without divine intervention, while my explanation relies on divine intervention.

Boyd said, "Perhaps some providential intervention was necessary..." It sounds like he is not convinced that God did anything more than predict the outcome based on Peter's character.

I said that there was divine intervention all throughout. I am convinced that God puts the pieces in place and makes sure His word is fulfilled, and did not rely solely on Peter's character.

Boyd's explanation as to 'how" the Lord Jesus could predict Peter's actions in the future is very similiar to yours, which is:

Since God could look at Peter's heart and determine Peter's actions in the future under the right circumstances then why couldn't He be able to do the same thing in regard to Abraham and the "test" concerning his son Isaac?

Because Abraham's character before he lifted the knife could not provide an answer on what he would choose to do in the circumstances of the sacrifice of Isaac.

 

[genuineoriginal]

No no. Would, not could.
False conclusion.

You can't eat your cake and have it too.
Either God sees the future in your theology, or He sees something else.
If God saw the future and can change it, then it isn't the future that He saw because the future God sees is settled in your theology.

Leaving God to guess-work. God need never communicate any prophetic utterance to us at all if this were remotely tenuable because we'd already know too. God is left guessing just like us. There would be no reason for Him to tell Peter much, just "Hey Peter, I know you say one thing, but we both know your heart is in the right place but your mind and actions don't follow-through." The fact that Jesus doesn't say this at all but 'ventures a guess' (pure rubbish) proves the OV is all wet and dumbed down theology concerning prophecy. The text, imho, demands that God is prescient. The way it conveys can be taken no other way other than dumbing down the text and turning off the brain. It is ridiculous to the rest of us.

You err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God.
Look carefully at your argument: "Without foreknowledge, God is helpless, just like us."
You have turned off your brain, and made a ridiculous argument.

Humans have looked at the prophecy of Peter's betrayal and came up with ways God could have done it that do not rely on forknolwedge.
Why do you think God is unable to do the same?

 

[Lon]

You can't eat your cake and have it too.
Either God sees the future in your theology, or He sees something else.
If God saw the future and can change it, then it isn't the future that He saw because the future God sees is settled in your theology.

What a convoluted mess, here. I have no idea what you are trying to assert, it doesn't make sense: "If God saw the future and can change it, then it's not the future".....what?

You err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God.
Look carefully at your argument: "Without foreknowledge, God is helpless, just like us."
You have turned off your brain, and made a ridiculous argument.

I'm not the one denying the evident power of God. All I said was if God doesn't have foreknowledge, scripture doesn't convey it that way. God can easily match the OV pattern, but it is a fact He does not.
My conclusion then, is "how convenient."

Humans have looked at the prophecy of Peter's betrayal and came up with ways God could have done it that do not rely on forknolwedge.

Of course, the OVer has a vested interest in such an explanation, regardless of where the actuals happen to point. As I said, It'd have been much more effective, assuming for a moment that God didn't have Foreknowledge, to have just said "Peter, you and I know you have a good heart, but your actions don't always follow through." Nuff said if He were according to the OV. God need never venture a prophecy and in my estimation, wouldn't if He was as in the dark as the OV makes Him.
Such a line of thinking has led Sanders to believe emphatically God can be wrong (mistaken). His words, not mine. Rob E. used to post on here and had this in his sig: "1-2-3....cue the rooster." Whether you realize it or not, it doesn't look too convincing.

Why do you think God is unable to do the same?

1) because it doesn't fit well with what we see in the text. It sure looks like God has prescience when it comes to prophetic utterances of the future. The only reason to deny what seems implicite, is because it would mess with man's freewill and speculations concerning his God.

2) because "A God Who Risks" can be "mistaken." -Sanders

"Oops! I meant 4 times, Peter."
"No, Lord, You got it right."
"Lucky guess, I'm pretty good most of the time with those. Whew!"

3) because the only reason to even consider God doesn't know is only a hang-up for those prone to the OV mentality already. It doesn't look interesting to the rest of us. It just doesn't grab our theological attention nor look like it fits the texts we are looking at. It is a slip-shod theology notion.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I said that there was divine intervention all throughout. I am convinced that God puts the pieces in place and makes sure His word is fulfilled, and did not rely solely on Peter's character.

Since Peter possessed "free will" then God could not be absolutely sure of what Peter might do. According to your ideas God was just guessing about what Peter might do.

Because Abraham's character before he lifted the knife could not provide an answer on what he would choose to do in the circumstances of the sacrifice of Isaac.

You are wrong. God KNEW that Abraham would pass the test BEFORE he lifted the knife and that completely destroys your argument. Here we can see that Abraham offered up Isaac on the altar BEFORE he lifted the knife:

"And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son" (Gen.22:9-10).

Abraham offered up isaac when he laid Isaac upon the altar and by that time God knew for certain that Abraham would pass the test because at that time Abraham was in "faith":

"By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead" (Heb.11:17-19).

Before Abraham lifted the knife he was in faith and at that time he realized and believed that God was able to raise up Isaac. And at that time God knew Abraham's "intention" in this matter:

"As for you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve Him with a whole heart and a willing mind; for the Lord searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts" (1 Chron.28:9).

Since Abraham was in faith when he offered up Isaac upon the altar we can know that his intention was to sacrifice Isaac and therefore God KNEW by then that his intention was to sacrifice Isaac. Therefore God knew BFORE Abraham lifted the knife that he would pass the test so these words cannot be taken literally:

"And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen22:12).

It was known that Abraham feared God before he lifted the knife because he was in faith before then. Therefore we can know that the figurative language empoyed at Genesis 22:12 is similiar to what we find here when God was speaking to Adam:

"And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?" (Gen.3:8-9).

 

[genuineoriginal]

You can't eat your cake and have it too.
Either God sees the future in your theology, or He sees something else.
If God saw the future and can change it, then it isn't the future that He saw because the future God sees is settled in your theology.

What a convoluted mess, here. I have no idea what you are trying to assert, it doesn't make sense: "If God saw the future and can change it, then it's not the future".....what?

If you don't understand what I said, you probably lack some components in the framework needed to follow the logic.

Take the concepts in baby steps, and let's see what happens.

God says a prophecy about what will happen in the future.
You say that God was able to say what will happen in the future because He sees the future.
Therefore, your precept is the future that God saw is as settled as the past.

The past is a series of events (etc.) that have already happened.
The past cannot be changed.
The future is a series of events (etc.) that have not yet happened.
Your argument is that God saw the future events as clearly as the past events.

God sees the series of events that have not yet happened.
If God makes a change in the series of events that have not yet happened, then there is a different series of events that will happen than the series that God saw.
The series of events that God originally saw becomes a "false future" since it does not happen.

The "false future" events will not happen, even though God saw them, because God changed what would happen to a different series of events, the "new future".

God sees the future.
God makes a prophecy based on the events He sees in the future.
God changes the future into a "new future".
The events in the "new future" are different than the events in the "false future".
The prophecy was based on the events in the "false future".
The events in the "false future" do not happen because there is now a "new future".

If the events of the prophecy from the "false future" that God saw are changed in the "new future", then the prophecy becomes a "false prophecy".

So, if God can both see and change the future, then He is not really seeing the future, but is seeing a "false future" that will be invalidated when He makes a change, and that will invalidate His prophecies, too.

Therefore, if God sees the real future, then He could not change it.

Your view is that God saw everything that happened beforehand and no one, not Jesus, not Peter, not God Himself, could change what God saw.

No no. Would, not could.
False conclusion.

You claim that God would not change the future, and that I am wrong in saying that God could not change the future in settled view.
If God could change the future, then the future is open, not settled, regardless of whether God would change the future.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Since Peter possessed "free will" then God could not be absolutely sure of what Peter might do. According to your ideas God was just guessing about what Peter might do.

You are wrong. God KNEW that Abraham would pass the test BEFORE he lifted the knife and that completely destroys your argument. Here we can see that Abraham offered up Isaac on the altar BEFORE he lifted the knife:

You don't understand the difference between the two events.
You don't understand the difference between the two events.
:deadhorse:

Since Peter possessed "free will" then God could not be absolutely sure of what Peter might do, but God could see into Peter's heart and know exactly what Peter's character was and make a reasonable prediction about what Peter would likely do. Add in God's abilities and creativeness, and God can is then able to make a statement about what Peter would do and then control the events around Peter so Peter would deny Jesus three times before the **** crowed.

Since Abraham possessed "free will" then God could not be absolutely sure of what Abraham might do, but God could see into Abraham's heart and know exactly what Abraham's character was and make a reasonable prediction about what Abraham would likely do. God put Abraham to the test because Abraham's character showed that there was a reasonable chance of Abraham choosing the life of his son over obedience to God. Abraham prepared Isaac for the offering, but was looking for a way to spare his son without disobeying God. After Isaac was bound, Abraham made the decision on whether to spare his son or to obey God.

 

[Lon]

If you don't understand what I said, you probably lack some components in the framework needed to follow the logic.

Take the concepts in baby steps, and let's see what happens.

God says a prophecy about what will happen in the future.
You say that God was able to say what will happen in the future because He sees the future.
Therefore, your precept is the future that God saw is as settled as the past.

The past is a series of events (etc.) that have already happened.
The past cannot be changed.
The future is a series of events (etc.) that have not yet happened.
Your argument is that God saw the future events as clearly as the past events.

God sees the series of events that have not yet happened.
If God makes a change in the series of events that have not yet happened, then there is a different series of events that will happen than the series that God saw.
The series of events that God originally saw becomes a "false future" since it does not happen.
The "false future" events will not happen, even though God saw them, because God changed what would happen to a different series of events, the "new future".

God sees the future.
God makes a prophecy based on the events He sees in the future.
God changes the future into a "new future".
The events in the "new future" are different than the events in the "false future".
The prophecy was based on the events in the "false future".
The events in the "false future" do not happen because there is now a "new future".

If the events of the prophecy from the "false future" that God saw are changed in the "new future", then the prophecy becomes a "false prophecy".

So, if God can both see and change the future, then He is not really seeing the future, but is seeing a "false future" that will be invalidated when He makes a change, and that will invalidate His prophecies, too.

Therefore, if God sees the real future, then He could not change it.

Yeah, I know you think this makes sense, but it doesn't to me. Here is my bottom-line paradigm: The future is not only what God sees, but what He decides it is going to be. I realize Arminians see it as a combination as you are explaining it but this is why I'm no longer in the Arminian camp.
I'll leave them to fend here, but my point is that God is the agent of future existence. Man can do nothing without Him (John 15:5 Colossians 1:16-20).

You claim that God would not change the future, and that I am wrong in saying that God could not change the future in settled view.
If God could change the future, then the future is open, not settled, regardless of whether God would change the future.

The difference between the two views is that the OV believes God has graciously given man the abiltiy to make his own future, emphasizing a loving God who gives freedom and autonomy to man for his own destiny.

I firmly believe all of our futures are completely/irrevocably in His hands to do as He wills. God can do whatever He wishes, without need of permission. God would not change those future happenings, because it suggest He might have been wrong or mistaken in His original plans (His original plans are the ones carried out, no back-up). Absolutely He has a future planned for us according to our prayers but because He already has made those determinations, it isn't a change (same plans, no deviation).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You don't understand the difference between the two events.
You don't understand the difference between the two events.

You understand what the Scriptures teach but you just do not believe!

Since Peter possessed "free will" then God could not be absolutely sure of what Peter might do, but God could see into Peter's heart and know exactly what Peter's character was and make a reasonable prediction about what Peter would likely do.

God does not just make a "resonable prediction" because He KNOWS!

Since Abraham possessed "free will" then God could not be absolutely sure of what Abraham might do, but God could see into Abraham's heart and know exactly what Abraham's character was and make a reasonable prediction about what Abraham would likely do.

Again, God does not just make "reasonable predictions" because He KNOWS! You said:

Because Abraham's character before he lifted the knife could not provide an answer on what he would choose to do in the circumstances of the sacrifice of Isaac.

Of course I did not expect you to even attempt to deal with the following which demonstrates that you are WRONG:

God KNEW that Abraham would pass the test BEFORE he lifted the knife and that completely destroys your argument. Here we can see that Abraham offered up Isaac on the altar BEFORE he lifted the knife:

"And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son" (Gen.22:9-10).

Abraham offered up Isaac when he laid him upon the altar and by that time God knew for certain that Abraham would pass the test because at that time Abraham was in "faith":

"By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead" (Heb.11:17-19).

Before Abraham lifted the knife he was in faith and at that time he realized and believed that God was able to raise up Isaac. And at that time God knew Abraham's "intention" in this matter:

"As for you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve Him with a whole heart and a willing mind; for the Lord searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts" (1 Chron.28:9).

Since Abraham was in faith when he offered up Isaac upon the altar we can know that his intention was to sacrifice Isaac and therefore God KNEW by then that his intention was to sacrifice Isaac. Therefore God knew BFORE Abraham lifted the knife that he would pass the test so these words cannot be taken literally:

"And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen22:12).

It was known that Abraham feared God before he lifted the knife because he was in faith before then. Therefore we can know that the figurative language empoyed at Genesis 22:12 is similiar to what we find here when God was speaking to Adam:

"And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?" (Gen.3:8-9).

Of course I never expected you to even attempt to deal with these facts. They prove that your ideas are wrong and your position is so weak that you no not even venture an answer.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I firmly believe all of our futures are completely/irrevocably in His hands to do as He wills.

Lon, if you are right then what does that say about God's righteousness? The Calvinists teach that our Maker had made us "wholly" inclined to all evil and opposite to all good:

"From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions" (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI/4).

And then when man does exactly what he was designed to do God punishes him severely:

"...the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds...unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil" (Ro.2:5-6,8-9).

Your theology makes God out to be a tyrant who would punish the lame for limping and the blind for losing their way.

 

[godrulz]

EDF offers no providential advantage since God could not change the foreknown future even if He wants to (would make His FK false).