BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)

[bling]

Originally Posted by Patman
I am trying very hard to show you how your message is mistaken. I don't think you are missing it, just ignoring it.

You call sin necessary for man to understand love. It is more than necessary to understand love, it is necessary to achieve it. And God, according to you, created man with this "handy cap" that requires him to be a sinner before he can love because he needs sin to achieve love.

You do not see a problem with this?

God did not create man with a “handy cap”, God created Man, so he could develop “Godly Love”, unfortunately “as you agree” to develop and express Godly type love, you have to have free will choices and real choices to express a lack of love. Also Godly type love comes from God as a free gift and for the exchange of a free gift, the receiver of the gift has to openly, intelligently, accept the gift as a free gift (the gift can not be forced on him). Since the gift comes with a humbling acceptance requirement it is not freely received without a desire for the gift. The Garden does not naturally create a desire for mercy (Godly type love), in fact I do not see any other way, then sin.

There is no problem since all have sinned and all will sin.

 

[bling]

Originally Posted by RobE
Why don't you asked me for clarification of my position and point out where you think I'm wrong. It would help me figure out what the truth is.

I am sorry, there have been a few points I need clarification on, but for the vast majority of your comments I agree. I was hoping you took my silence as agreement. I will try to go back and list some questions, but it may take a while. My “debate” with Patman over the roll of sin has also kept me from wanting to get involved in your discussion. I have wanted him to challenge my interpretations and assumptions, so I could learn from my teaching and were the weaknesses are. I have really gotten into the subject and learned some things, mostly by seeing the weaknesses in the alternatives and through search out support. I have a better understanding of loves, gift giving, the Garden, sin, Satan and humans. I was really trying to avoid getting caught up in a discussion of Foreknowledge. You did a great job on that.

The fact that things are not obvious to Patman actually helped me understand my position and explaining to others (especially young people) the Garden, love, and sin.

I will be back to you, but I do not want to drop the roll of sin until Patman gives me the answers to my comments and questions if He can.

 

[patman]

Bling

Bling

Bling, the beef I have with your message is not the necessity of freewill, but the necessity of sin.

If sin is necessary, freewill is impossible! Because man cannot choose against sin, he HAS to sin to understand love.

And You say God created us to require sin to experience love? That's where you should change your message.

 

[bling]

Patman, “having to sin” at some point in your mature adult life does not take away your free will. Your choice is when you decide to be selfless and loving v.s. when you decide to be selfish or to lust or to covet, but since the choice is always out there and a product of our inter working mind, you will at some point make the wrong choice. Adam and Eve, as our best representatives, where not that much better then you and I and eventually they sinned very similar to the way you and I sin, but that does not mean they did not have free will like you have free will. Adam and Eve for as long as they were in the Garden before sinning, had chosen not to sin (this could be many times). When they chose to sin (in spite of being tempted by Satan or out of love for Eve) they were responsible.

 

[RobE]

I am sorry, there have been a few points I need clarification on, but for the vast majority of your comments I agree. I was hoping you took my silence as agreement. I will try to go back and list some questions, but it may take a while. My “debate” with Patman over the roll of sin has also kept me from wanting to get involved in your discussion. I have wanted him to challenge my interpretations and assumptions, so I could learn from my teaching and were the weaknesses are. I have really gotten into the subject and learned some things, mostly by seeing the weaknesses in the alternatives and through search out support. I have a better understanding of loves, gift giving, the Garden, sin, Satan and humans. I was really trying to avoid getting caught up in a discussion of Foreknowledge. You did a great job on that.

The fact that things are not obvious to Patman actually helped me understand my position and explaining to others (especially young people) the Garden, love, and sin.

I will be back to you, but I do not want to drop the roll of sin until Patman gives me the answers to my comments and questions if He can.

No need to be sorry. I just want/need to sharpen some of my points. I've read your posts over the months and have come to realize that you are thoughtful.

Unlike God, I don't know everything and always need improvement. I've appreciated Patman, Lee, and you in our discussions.

God Bless,
Rob

 

[patman]

Bling

Bling

Patman, “having to sin” at some point in your mature adult life does not take away your free will. Your choice is when you decide to be selfless and loving v.s. when you decide to be selfish or to lust or to covet, but since the choice is always out there and a product of our inter working mind, you will at some point make the wrong choice. Adam and Eve, as our best representatives, where not that much better then you and I and eventually they sinned very similar to the way you and I sin, but that does not mean they did not have free will like you have free will. Adam and Eve for as long as they were in the Garden before sinning, had chosen not to sin (this could be many times). When they chose to sin (in spite of being tempted by Satan or out of love for Eve) they were responsible.

Bling, I am not disagreeing with the necessity of freewill. I know we are free, and I know Adam was free. And so do you. In principal, we are one in this message.

Again, it is your message that sin is necessary to produce godly love, and going on to say that love is our objective in life is what I contest. Stop calling sin necessary for achieving our objective. We could have achieved godly love without sin. The reality is that we didn't. And, as God is loving and graceful, he gave us a way to achieve it anyway, despite our sins.

 

[bling]

Originally Posted by Patman

Again, it is your message that sin is necessary to produce godly love, and going on to say that love is our objective in life is what I contest. Stop calling sin necessary for achieving our objective. We could have achieved godly love without sin. The reality is that we didn't. And, as God is loving and graceful, he gave us a way to achieve it anyway, despite our sins.

“The reality is that we didn't.” The reality is also that sin does things that facilitate our accepting God’s Godly love for us. I have been through these and you have not refuted them or shown what will replace them in a sinless world.
1. Our sin creates a need for forgiveness, which God describes as needing to extend the greatest form of “love” that can be extended with Jesus dying on the cross for us why we where His enemies.
2. Sin allows God to use and us to see clearly a: sacrificial, selfless, committed, decision type love, which can not be mistaken for any other type love.
3. Our sins bring us down from the lofty position of being obedient children to a lowly position of not being able to help ourselves and thus needing help. We can then accept a free undeserving gift without our pride getting in our way.
4. We then cease to be depended on our own obedience to God's commands for our eternal close relationship with God and become dependent on God’s love for our eternal close relationship with God.
5. The realization of the price paid for our sins and the extent of our dept, will generate a great Godly type love in us for God. “He that is forgiven much loves much.”
6. Sin goes on to taking us out of the Garden situation, where God provides everything directly; to us having limited results of our own efforts allowing us to be able to sacrifice that which we gained with other more needy people. The use of our Godly love the way God uses His love, will then grow the Love God gave us.
7. We can be expressions of God’s love to others the same way God express His love for us.


“A way to achieve it anyway, despite our sins.” We only know the way humans can achieve Godly type love with sinning. The example of trying to achieve it without sinning, The Garden, failed. We know it is very hard for people to accept God’s love with the burden of sin on people, so would you not at least say, it would be harder without sin? I am saying because of the things listed above, sin facilitates accepting and developing Godly love, and I do not see a way around it. Could you give me 7 replacements in a sinless world?

Now as far as Godly Love for God being our objective, we agree: “we are commanded to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and energy.” I have asked you before: if we are commanded, as our greatest command, to love God like that and there is no greater command, then how do we do anything else pleasing to God that does not include first loving Him this way? And if we love God like this will that not compel us to follow all His other commands (becoming our soul motivation)?

 

[patman]

Bling, rebuts to your points

Bling, rebuts to your points

1. Our sin creates a need for forgiveness, which God describes as needing to extend the greatest form of “love” that can be extended with Jesus dying on the cross for us why we where His enemies.

I am not sure how I am to disagree that sin creates a need for forgiveness. It does that. And we who are forgiven will love God more than someone who is not forgiven. And we who are forgiven much love much. I admit this is true. But you are guilty of exaggerating these truths. You go on to say that we NEED sin to understand this level of love. I say we simply need freedom to love to love. My answer to your point 1 is you exaggerate the verses.

2. Sin allows God to use and us to see clearly a: sacrificial, selfless, committed, decision type love, which can not be mistaken for any other type love.

But sin is not required to see this. Even if it were, it is not required of everyone. Adam could have never sinned. His offspring, cain and able, could have been different. Cain could have sinned and been cased out, and Able remain sinnless. Able could then have saw a need to have a sacrifical love to help Cain and remained sinnless forever. Sin is not required.

3. Our sins bring us down from the lofty position of being obedient children to a lowly position of not being able to help ourselves and thus needing help. We can then accept a free undeserving gift without our pride getting in our way.

Being sinless and being proud are not compatible. If man never sinned, he would still understand his place under God, he would be able to maintain humbleness, and he would most importantly be able to Love.

4. We then cease to be depended on our own obedience to God's commands for our eternal close relationship with God and become dependent on God’s love for our eternal close relationship with God.

No matter what, we are always dependent on God's love for an eternal relationship. The point 4 implies God only loves sinners. We are not dependent on obedience, as you pointed out at the end of you post, loving God produces obedience. Our relationship with God is dependent on love. This is why being disobedient is a sign of hatred towards God.

5. The realization of the price paid for our sins and the extent of our dept, will generate a great Godly type love in us for God. “He that is forgiven much loves much.”

Again, this is not a proof. It is simply pointing out that those forgiven love back in a way the unforgiven do not understand. But that does not mean those with no need of forgiveness cannot understand and achieve Godly love.

6. Sin goes on to taking us out of the Garden situation, where God provides everything directly; to us having limited results of our own efforts allowing us to be able to sacrifice that which we gained with other more needy people. The use of our Godly love the way God uses His love, will then grow the Love God gave us.

Bling, you have it backwards. Sin took us out of the blessings of God, not put us in the situation where we are better off! The ONLY reason the saved are going to be blessed by God in heaven is because we are FREE FROM SIN. Sin causes problems. Yes, love solves those problems, but love also stops sin before it stops. Had Adam loved God, he wouldn't have sinned.

7. We can be expressions of God’s love to others the same way God express His love for us.

We could do that before we sinned. Humans would always have ways to take care of others, even without sin.

You are wrong for saying the Garden failed. It wasn't a place to show us we can't love God unless we are forgiven first. It was a place to see if we would love God at all. If we did, we would still be there. If not, we would leave through sin. It doesn't mean the love we were capable of wasn't enough, you go on to assume that and you ADD that in.

Again, Bling, stop adding these ideas in. You message clearly isn't the final answer, and worst of all, it is YOURS, not Gods. You took his word and made it in to something that is based on your thoughts. And in doing so you made sin good for achieving our purpose. You are calling evil good. Please repent.

 

[bling]

Originally Posted by Patman

I am not sure how I am to disagree that sin creates a need for forgiveness. It does that. And we who are forgiven will love God more than someone who is not forgiven. And we who are forgiven much love much. I admit this is true. But you are guilty of exaggerating these truths. You go on to say that we NEED sin to understand this level of love. I say we simply need freedom to love to love. My answer to your point 1 is you exaggerate the verses.

How can I exaggerate God’s love for us in sending His Son to die for us so that we might have forgiveness of sins? Does that not go beyond our greatest imagination?

We are both saying we need sin to experience this degree of love. Explain to me how we can know this type of love to the same level as experiencing it?

The Bible does not say, “You need only the ability to accept Godly type love and you will take it on.” Our best representatives (Adam and Eve) had the ability to accept Godly type love and did not take that love on, that could have kept them from sinning. It only talks about sinners accepting God’s forgiveness (Godly love).

Originally Posted by Patman

But sin is not required to see this. Even if it were, it is not required of everyone. Adam could have never sinned. His offspring, cain and able, could have been different. Cain could have sinned and been cased out, and Able remain sinnless. Able could then have saw a need to have a sacrifical love to help Cain and remained sinnless forever. Sin is not required.

To some degree you are suggesting that sin might be needed to see for certain Godly type love, but Adam and Eve would not have to sin to see and / or express that love with Cain sinning. This gets a little complicated, but lets work with it a while. Adam and Eve do not sin for a while yet Cain takes the fruit and sins. It is very difficult to see Godly love in the sin, yet easy in the forgiveness, but Cain will immediately be forced out of the Garden away from Adam and Eve. There is nothing Adam or Eve can do as a sacrificial, selfless love for Cain: they can not sacrifice time (the have an infinite amount of that and they can not threw food to him as a sacrifice of their food they have an endless supply. For them to see Godly type forgiving love of God for Cain, he will have to return to the Garden which could not happen and still show a high price for sin. Able, Adam and Eve could all feel partly to blame for Cain’s failure and would all want to help Cain and miss being with Cain. They could also feel God is to harsh and is hurting them for no reason (Cain sinned, not them). The whole situation becomes very complex and not conducive to developing or even needing Godly love directly except for Cain. Everyone could experience Godly type love outside the Garden, Adam, Eve and Able could love, like God, Cain, serving him, Cain can feel the need for forgiveness and see the love in his family and so on.

Originally Posted by Patman

Being sinless and being proud are not compatible. If man never sinned, he would still understand his place under God, he would be able to maintain humbleness, and he would most importantly be able to Love.

Sinless and proud is not compatible for us, I agree. God is a proud parent, so having the right pride can be good. And God does not need humility.
A huge problem with accepting God’s forgiving love is a lack of humility!! God asks us to be humble and allows us to get into situations that will humble us. The Garden situation is not a humbling experience for Adam and Eve until they sin. What is humbling about being the first, being trained directly by God, naming all the animals, being rich beyond our dreams, being above all the animals, being privileged, having done nothing wrong, and lots of other stuff? Adam and Eve only feel inadequate after they eat the fruit.
You told me, “sin is knowingly disobeying God commands and the only command Adam and Eve had at the time was, ‘do not eat’.” So Adam and Eve could be as proud as they wanted to be, without sinning and that not being a sin will not discourage them from doing just that. Eve demonstrated a strong ego in desiring that which she should not have.

Originally Posted by Patman

No matter what, we are always dependent on God's love for an eternal relationship. The point 4 implies God only loves sinners. We are not dependent on obedience, as you pointed out at the end of you post, loving God produces obedience. Our relationship with God is dependent on love. This is why being disobedient is a sign of hatred towards God.

Everyone is dependent on God’s love for an eternal relationship with God, partly because we are all outside the Garden.
The information given to Adam and Eve was it was up to them to; obey the command(s) to stay eternally in the Garden with God. Scripture tells us only; their Garden stay was dependent on their keeping commandment(s). Outside the Garden there are no commandments given for them to work their way into an eternal heavenly relationship, but that was available. Adam and Eve would have to depend (accept) God’s merciful love to get to heaven. The rules are different inside the Garden and outside the Garden.

Originally Posted by Patman

Again, this is not a proof. It is simply pointing out that those forgiven love back in a way the unforgiven do not understand. But that does not mean those with no need of forgiveness cannot understand and achieve Godly love.

Adam and Eve were unforgiven in the Garden (they had not sinned), so they could not love back the same as those that have been forgiven. That “loving back”, can be a very strong love that God would desire. This is only one of many supporting ideas for the need for sin, but it is not “the proof text”.

Originally Posted by Patman

Bling, you have it backwards. Sin took us out of the blessings of God, not put us in the situation where we are better off! The ONLY reason the saved are going to be blessed by God in heaven is because we are FREE FROM SIN. Sin causes problems. Yes, love solves those problems, but love also stops sin before it stops. Had Adam loved God, he wouldn't have sinned.

God is away there wanting to bring us back from the separation sin caused. His blessings are not far from us. The blessing we need from God is His merciful, forgiving love (and secondly, the indwelling Spirit). We can not make it on our own as demonstrated with Adam and Eve. Sin can and should bring us to needing and wanting that merciful, forgiving love.

I think you are missing the point of 6. Outside the Garden we have opportunities that do not exist inside the Garden. Inside the Garden we can not express Godly type love to others by sacrificially, selflessly giving anything.
“Had Adam loved God, he wouldn't have sinned.” I agree with this, but for Adam and Eve to accept God’s merciful, sacrificial, selfless love as really being that type of love, they would have to real need that love, humbled themselves to receive that love, and understand what this love really is.

Originally Posted by Patman

We could do that before we sinned. Humans would always have ways to take care of others, even without sin.

Today, “YES” humans can always express selfless, merciful, sacrificial love to others, but in the Garden Adam had only Eve and Eve had only Adam. Anything Adam did for Eve (as a married couple they are one) will also come back to him. How can Adam’s love for Eve be expressed as totally selfless or sacrificial? Does Adam give her the shirt off his back, the food from his mouth, time from an endless supply?

Originally Posted by Patman

You are wrong for saying the Garden failed. It wasn't a place to show us we can't love God unless we are forgiven first. It was a place to see if we would love God at all. If we did, we would still be there. If not, we would leave through sin. It doesn't mean the love we were capable of wasn't enough, you go on to assume that and you ADD that in.

“the love we were capable of wasn't enough”, You have told me if Adam and Eve had this, Godly type love for God, they would not sin. They did sin, so they lacked the love God wanted them to have. I very much think they would have lots of other types of love for God, but those will not keep them from sinning.
“It was a place to see if we would love God at all.” I could tell God it would not work for developing Godly type love, even if I had no Biblical knowledge and just had learned good psychology. All we need to know is human nature, sin, Satan, time, temptation, the Garden and Godly type love.

Originally Posted by Patman

Again, Bling, stop adding these ideas in. You message clearly isn't the final answer, and worst of all, it is YOURS, not Gods. You took his word and made it in to something that is based on your thoughts. And in doing so you made sin good for achieving our purpose. You are calling evil good. Please repent.

“You took his word and made it in to something that is based on your thoughts.”
Thank you for that insight, but please take the scriptures I am interpreting wrong and show me the more likely alternative interpretations and the support for those interpretations. My conclusions are driven by my interpretations, so to change my conclusions I have to first change my interpretations.

 

[bobmyers]

The logical fallacy you suffer from is simply put foreknowledge=foreordination.

Rob Mauldin

I'm sorry, but how is this a logical fallacy?

If someone - anyone - possesses knowledge of the future such that said future may be described with complete accuracy, then that future must already be determined. If an act now ("free will") could in any way alter that future, then there is always at the very least a chance that any prediction or description of that future is in error. Logically, then, any claim of foreknowledge which includes an implication of completeness of that knowledge and/or its absolute accuracy is incompatible with any notion of an alterable future, and therefore with the concept of "free will."

If you can provide a logical argument which contradicts this, I would be most interested in seeing it.

Bob M.

 

[RobE]

That's a fair question

That's a fair question

I'm sorry, but how is this a logical fallacy?

If someone - anyone - possesses knowledge of the future such that said future may be described with complete accuracy, then that future must already be determined. If an act now ("free will") could in any way alter that future, then there is always at the very least a chance that any prediction or description of that future is in error. Logically, then, any claim of foreknowledge which includes an implication of completeness of that knowledge and/or its absolute accuracy is incompatible with any notion of an alterable future, and therefore with the concept of "free will."

If you can provide a logical argument which contradicts this, I would be most interested in seeing it.

Bob M.

Foreordination is a possible cause of foreknowledge.

In my opinion Foresight is the cause of foreknowledge.

Now, it could be argued that since God is the originator(first cause) of all outcomes that they are the same; but this would be at the expense of free will.

To adequately answer the question beyond this point would require us to know exactly how 'free' our will actually is.

Open Theism would say completely; whereas, I would say it's sufficient to make us responsible for our own salvation/damnation. I believe the scriptures sufficiently support foreknowledge as a fact and, therefore, must be a compatibalist in my belief.

Rob

 

[patman]

Foreordination is a possible cause of foreknowledge.

In my opinion Foresight is the cause of foreknowledge.

Now, it could be argued that since God is the originator(first cause) of all outcomes that they are the same; but this would be at the expense of free will.

To adequately answer the question beyond this point would require us to know exactly how 'free' our will actually is.

Open Theism would say completely; whereas, I would say it's sufficient to make us responsible for our own salvation/damnation. I believe the scriptures sufficiently support foreknowledge as a fact and, therefore, must be a compatibalist in my belief.

Rob

Rob, when you said, "Now, it could be argued that since God is the originator(first cause) of all outcomes that they are the same; but this would be at the expense of free will," I almost passed out. You are right, and this is another reason to reject the idea. We have freewill, so it is clear we can't have both freewill and the originator also having absolute foreknowledge. We can't have our cake and eat it too.

You are a smart guy, why don't you reject the idea that foreknowledge is not equal to foreordination when the creator is involved based on this one accurate logical reasoning? The answer "we are semi-free" doesn't suffice. Because the foreordination would effect every aspect of your life, leaving no room for freewill.

Furthermore, I ask you give the scriptural proof for absolute foreknowledge. Yet again I ask it. No offense, you are a sharp dude, but you aren't the bible. I'd rather have the evidence from scripture than what is from your logic.

 

[RobE]

Rob, when you said, "Now, it could be argued that since God is the originator(first cause) of all outcomes that they are the same; but this would be at the expense of free will," I almost passed out. You are right, and this is another reason to reject the idea. We have freewill, so it is clear we can't have both freewill and the originator also having absolute foreknowledge. We can't have our cake and eat it too.

However, you miss the point that God is the orginator(first cause) of all outcomes whether He knows the future or not. This is a stake in the heart of Open Theism. If God's the First Cause then all other wills are subservient and caused to and by His will.

You are willing to apply it to my position; but, for some reason, not your own.

Calvin who believed in saved by Faith alone reasonably concluded that everything was foreordained because of this reasoning. Saved by Faith alone must end in foreordination by accepting God as the First Cause at its beginning and accept God as the first cause in its logical conclusion. In other words, God gives the Grace to some and not to others. The 'elect', 'predestined', etc.... This makes God responsible for everything and though you are saved by faith alone----God gave the faith to you and not to another! Calvinism! The most logical of Sola Fide!

Traditional Christianity has always held that Grace combined with Faith is the cause of our salvation---to which I agree. An exchange of a gift(Grace) requires the recipient to accept(Faith) it or the event won't occur. In other words, sufficient Grace is given from God(originating at the cross) for all to attain salvation. This in no way eliminates God from 'foreknowing' who will and who won't avail themselves of this same Grace. This is where the scriptures say 'elect', 'predestined', etc........

You are a smart guy, why don't you reject the idea that foreknowledge is not equal to foreordination when the creator is involved based on this one accurate logical reasoning? The answer "we are semi-free" doesn't suffice. Because the foreordination would effect every aspect of your life, leaving no room for freewill.

You're right! 'semi-free' doesn't suffice. Foreordination would effect every aspect of our life and leave no room for free will. That's why I reject it absolutely. I find it repugnate.

Furthermore, I ask you give the scriptural proof for absolute foreknowledge. Yet again I ask it. No offense, you are a sharp dude, but you aren't the bible. I'd rather have the evidence from scripture than what is from your logic.

The scriptural proof that you require isn't there. I think you said not one instance,. but a scripture that plainly says "God knows the entire future". It doesn't exist. Just as "God knows how to tie a pair of shoelaces" doesn't exist.

It is shown that God knows the future by His actions and His prophets.

Rob

 

[RobE]

Rob:You must present a verse that simply says he knows NONE of the future.

I DO NOT present God as knowing none of the future. He does know some of it. He expresses his future knowledge many times. And I have explained HOW he does it many times in the past. So above I backed up my message with the word, showing how God's future knowledge is extensive but not complete.

How can God know some of the future and not, by the same ability, know all of the future?

Understand,
Rob

 

[bling]

ROB, some questions you and I ask, and answer:

The OV’ers make a point, in saying if the future is known then you can not make a decision. There is logic behind that idea. The question I keep asking and really do not get an answer for is who is making the decision if the future is just, being known. What I am asking is how does knowing the future stop our decision making? The O.V. answer is simple, “it can not work.”
I have tried to show a need for it to work, from my interpretation of scripture. I have gotten little satisfaction from other alternative interpretations of scripture and the few issues with my interpretations.

If you have read agnostics’ lists of operant contradictions in scripture and Biblical scholars answers, their explanations hinge on showing just one possible way the scriptures can be shown to be consistent to disproof the inconsistency proofing anything. The scholars may agree that the explanation is a little far fetched or need some alternative word interpretations and have no real support for the explanation other then to remain consistent with other scripture.

Just looking at the knowing the future philosophically:
1. If God knew what you will do before you did it, what would be the noticeable change from God not knowing what you will do before you did it? What would be the difference if God could know and avoided knowing, compared to, if he could and did know? How could I tell? If I found that God had foreknowledge at Judgment, would I then be able to say, “You can not hold me accountable for all my decisions, because I did not make them?” Who would I argue made my decisions for me?
2. How could God know your future decisions? This gets quite complicated: a. is foreordained; b. there is no future or past for God there is His present and we are living in different places in His present. (past and future are more like places then non existing nothings) and c. other explanations.

The O.V. seems to say the first explanation is to say, we don’t really make decisions but feel we have made decisions. I do not know if that is all we need to be able to feel we love God in this world. This does mean we might have to redefine lots of Biblical words, but all explanations have to redefine words like foreknowledge, prophecy, and revelation.

The O.V. likes to attack foreordaining everything. For God being outside of time, O.V. just says, we are using word games and ask for chapter and verse that show God is outside of time. I say, we all redefine Biblical words to meet our needs and there are very few verses on how God does anything we just see the results (like foreknowledge).

I believe God can know what ever He wants to know and needs to know, but really does not need to know a lot of stuff. God can forgive and forget our sins, as an example.

The main problem I have with the O.V. is: Jesus foretold things about Peter’s and Judas’ freewill future decisions. The idea that Jesus could not bare my sins on the cross (these are sins in general for O.V.?). I also think Cyrus has foretold and there are thinks foretold about Christ. With the O.V. understanding you would have to say, nothing is foretold/ foreknowledge it is all present knowledge that includes the future known most likely events, but details are not certain. This redefines the Biblical foreknowledge and prophecy. If that is the case it would be wrong to say, Matt. 3: 3for this is he who was spoken of by Isaiah the prophet, saying, `A voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, straight make ye His paths.' John the Baptist was not spoken of by, Isaiah only a possible individual like John the Baptist and John fulfilled the prophecy. BUT John was not the one Isaiah spoke about. Also how could an angel say before John was even born Luke 1: 17"It is he who will (X)go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of (Y)Elijah, (Z)TO TURN THE HEARTS OF THE FATHERS BACK TO THE CHILDREN, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous, so as to (AA)make ready a people prepared for the Lord." That is saying a lot of free will decisions of John are foreknown to be this individual. Zacharias's Prophecy at John’s birth is a lot of future free will decisions of John.
I use John the Baptist in stead of Christ because Christ can be foreordained to do for certain things in the future, because He is God, but that is not the cast with John the Baptist.

 

[RobE]

Bling,

I agree with your post. It isn't important for God to know all the future even though He does.

You say: What I am asking is how does knowing the future stop our decision making? The O.V. answer is simple, “it can not work.”

They always that it's a logical absurdity when I ask. The mention of miracles and God bringing matter from nothingness are easily believed because they believe it!!! However the miracle of seeing the future is impossible because they don't believe it. Does this make sense?

You ask: Who would I argue made my decisions for me?

Good question! According to Open Theism, God made them because He foresaw what you would do and created you anyway. What they fail to see is that God created you anyway, so not knowing the future, wouldn't excuse Him if the act of creation makes Him responsible for your actions. They absolutely refuse to believe that if He would allow you sin today for some reason; then, if He foreknew your sins He would allow you be created for that same reason. Make sense?

Judas, Peter, and a myriad other verses in scripture support foreknowledge. It must be something that can be turned on and off at will.

Rob

 

[bling]

Originally Posted by RobE

I agree with your post. It isn't important for God to know all the future even though He does

.

I am not trying to argue god knows all the future, just He could.

Originally Posted by RobE
You say: What I am asking is how does knowing the future stop our decision making? The O.V. answer is simple, “it can not work.”

If they want me to join them in their conclusion they have to give more explanation on the mechanism and method and not just “because”. They will not let us use that argument. Even when I give them a possible method they immediately dismiss it because; The scriptures don’t give it and I have to redefine words. What they do not dismiss is the fact that scriptures do not define words like foreknowledge and prophecy the way they want it and the scriptures do not say, God does not have foreknowledge.

Originally Posted by RobE
They always that it's a logical absurdity when I ask. The mention of miracles and God bringing matter from nothingness are easily believed because they believe it!!! However the miracle of seeing the future is impossible because they don't believe it. Does this make sense?

I agree that what is not logical to us does not mean it is impossible for God. To make a change from the O.V. to God having foreknowledge, I think you have to show man’s objective, the need for sin, define Godly love, and really show why God would allow for our sac the world to be as it is, or you would conclude God would only allow this to happen if He did not know it would happen. This is why I want to leave foreknowledge to after we understand at least the roll of sin with Patman. He has to much tide up in his philosophy of life that incorporates O.V. to begin to accept an other alternative.

Originally Posted by RobE
You ask: Who would I argue made my decisions for me?

Good question! According to Open Theism, God made them because He foresaw what you would do and created you anyway. What they fail to see is that God created you anyway, so not knowing the future, wouldn't excuse Him if the act of creation makes Him responsible for your actions. They absolutely refuse to believe that if He would allow you sin today for some reason; then, if He foreknew your sins He would allow you be created for that same reason. Make sense?

One of the fallacies to God being the decision maker is that it does not take anyone actually knowing the future just that it could be known. So Moral decisions and the ability to Godly love God go away with just the possibility of knowing and not the actual knowing. I want to know how that would work?

Originally Posted by RobE
Judas, Peter, and a myriad other verses in scripture support foreknowledge. It must be something that can be turned on and off at will.

My above statements shows it does not matter if God turns it on or off as far as O.V.ers are concerned.

 

[RobE]

. I am not trying to argue god knows all the future, just He could.

Me too.

I'm pressing causality right now. There's is a lack of depth where Grace and Faith are concerned.

God's been better to us than Open Theism believes,

Rob

 

[patman]

Hello Again

Hello Again

Me too.

. I am not trying to argue god knows all the future, just He could.

I'm pressing causality right now. There's is a lack of depth where Grace and Faith are concerned.

God's been better to us than Open Theism believes,

Rob

Rob and Bling,

I ask you both to look at the word and find a passage that reveals God's absolute foreknowledge. If you cannot, your belief in God's future knowledge is based on assumption and that will blind you from other truths in the word that contradict that assumption.

A certain pastor did not believe the book of Genesis was accurate. He read Gen 1:1 and would assume that billions of years would pass until Gen 1:2. God creates Heaven and Earth, a billion years pass, and then he starts to fill it. Should he assert such a thing? Is he assuming something he shouldn't?

I would say yes. We should never say something is true about God that the Bible does not back up.

Rob would say "Find a verse that says he is wrong!"

I hope he understands you can't assert something into the word. There is far more evidence pointing towards an open future, and no verse to back up absolute foreknowledge. That one fact should humble everyone who believes and has read enough of the Bible to know it is true.

A redundant verse I have used that has not been addressed:

Num 14:11-12 Then the LORD said to Moses: “How long will these people reject Me? And how long will they not believe Me, with all the signs which I have performed among them? 12 I will strike them with the pestilence and disinherit them, and I will make of you a nation greater and mightier than they.” 19-20 “Pardon the iniquity of this people, I pray, according to the greatness of Your mercy, just as You have forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.” 20 Then the LORD said: “I have pardoned, according to your word;

How is it possible that God would not lie, say one thing, then the other, at the same time knowing the future event that he would change his decision, as this verse illustrates?

The evidence points away from the very thing you assume, that cannot be found in the Bible. Time after time, story after story, God changes his mind, his decision to carry out an event, or He wonders what will happen IF this is done, and you both know the examples and stories that show this.

And time and time again I have requested biblical proof, a verse, not an assumption, not a theologic philosophy, that would show God's future knowledge was absolute. And there is none.

So it is your responsibility to admit to it and stop putting words and ideas into the bible that it does not promote.

This is how it works. Does the Bible say God has 100% future knowledge? No. . Does the Bible say he has 0/zip/no/none future knowledge? No. Does the Bible say God has some Future knowledge? Yes. With that factual information, what do we say of God's future knowledge?

We say he has the future knowledge he tells us he has, no more, no less. We should not go beyond nor below that revelation. To do so knowingly is, among other choice words, wrong.

Thus, if we come across a verse that shows us God was not able to predict a future event, even an event that is his own actions, we can conclude that the Future knowledge is not total in any respect because there is at least one example that he didn't know his own future actions.

 

[RobE]

Num 14:11-12 Then the LORD said to Moses: “How long will these people reject Me? And how long will they not believe Me, with all the signs which I have performed among them? 12 I will strike them with the pestilence and disinherit them, and I will make of you a nation greater and mightier than they.” 19-20 “Pardon the iniquity of this people, I pray, according to the greatness of Your mercy, just as You have forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.” 20 Then the LORD said: “I have pardoned, according to your word;

How is it possible that God would not lie, say one thing, then the other, at the same time knowing the future event that he would change his decision, as this verse illustrates?

He was saying that A would happen unless B happened. Omitting all of the truth is not a lie! To say "I will utterly destroy Tyre" doesn't omit the fact that there is a way out for Tyre----Repentance or subjection to Neb.

Rob