Theology Club: Does Open Theism Question/dispute the Omniscience of God

[Stripe]

:AMR: so choosing between which master you will be 'in bondage to' is 'free?'

Sure.

But that does sound like a false dichotomy.

If a man is a slave to sin, he/she has no choice.

That's a non sequitur.

Romans 7:14

Says nothing explicitly denying choice:

For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good.
Romans 7:14-‬16 NKJV​

If any man be in Christ, he/she is a new creation.

Also says nothing to deny choice in a prior state.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Derf]

I think it needs a more careful read. Choosing between vanilla and chocolate, for me, isn't 'free.' My desire is preprogrammed for vanilla. I'm not at all dissatisfied nor thinking I'm a constrained robot because my desire and that choice are both in sync. A robot, conversely, has no conscious thought so isn't 'fretting' being a robot. Your very conscious objection is, I believe, the difference between humans and this false assumption that I'd be a robot, puppet, or automaton. It doesn't, however, clarify 'free' in regards to the will. If Christ acts in us to will, think and do, then my will is clearly in the hands of another. I'd call that 'free' since whom Christ sets free is, but it isn't what most mean by freewill. Most mean 'an option to do otherwise' according to the definition of Libertarian Freewill. AMR argues such is not the proper definition. :e4e:

Why do you call it "preprogrammed"? "Pre" before what? Life? Adulthood? Death? "Programmed" I can see, but "pre" requires a before and after sequence to make sense.

And you have no evidence that the programming wasn't merely your life's circumstances, or even that you once liked it for some other reason, and developed a greater taste for it as you reinforced it with repetition.

The same might be said for most things we do repeatedly or habitually, but can survive without. Alcoholism: preprogrammed? Homosexuality: preprogrammed?

I would have to say that sin is definitely something we can live without (and only without), and it is reinforced by repetition. If you are preprogrammed to sin, then who did the preprogramming? If God did it, including for Adam, then God is the author of sin. If God didn't do it, but knew it would happen, then God may have been powerless to stop it, at least within the context of the world he created.

I propose the latter--that God knew it would happen within the context of the world he created, and He managed to direct it in a way that He would have the ability to correct at some point. I think that explains the simplicity of the first test (tree of knowledge), the overwhelming ramifications of the failure of that test (whole human race doomed), and the magnificence and self-sacrifice of the solution (His Son crucified).

The subject of this thread is "the world He created". How does it work? I don't prefer the idea that God "knew" the future in some way and decided to somehow change it--I've stated before that such is impossible, since the future He "knew" was not the future that actually occurred, and therefore He didn't really "know" it. But I can see how God would understand the potential results of creating a free agent. I say "potential results", but I think the result of sin is a foregone conclusion in a population of free agents. And it might be a foregone conclusion with any single free agent, given enough time (not sure about this part).

So, getting back to chocolate vs vanilla. Did God preprogram you for vanilla? Why? If not God,then who? And why? If you can't be sure of the reason (and none of us could be, probably), can you at least think of one reason why someone would want to preprogram you for vanilla?


On the other hand, if Christ needs us to be vanilla-choosers for some reason--like maybe chocolate is from the devil (Devil's Food Cake, anyone?), and leads to death--then I can see how it would be something he would want us to choose, since He loves us. If we then choose vanilla at His request/command, we are submitting our will, our power of choice, to Him, trusting that He knows what are the right and good things for us to choose.

 

[Derf]

Don't know how you took biology away from my previous post.

The will is but the mind choosing.
Inclinations born from our desires and affections drive choices.

You say the will is our mind choosing, but before you have said we only choose those things that we want most. And if this isn't to be a great circle with no escape, the knowledge of those things we want most must come from how we perceive them to be better for us. We perceive with our senses, which are transmitted by electrical and chemical impulses in our bodies (and perhaps other means).

Maybe you can explain why biology ISN'T what you were talking about.

The will is that by which the mind chooses. It chooses by its perception the greatest. The will isn’t the cause of action. It is the effect. The will isn’t just a faculty. It is the mind choosing. Every act of the will presupposes a cause. This cause is the “motive.” The strongest motive determines the action of the will.

Ok. and how does this help? Doesn't the person determine what motive is strongest for him? Aren't you just giving "will" different names?

"Why did you murder that man?"
"Because I wanted to more than I wanted him to live."
"Why didn't you want him to live?"
"Because I wanted him to die."
"Why did you want him to die?"
"Because I wanted to murder him."
...

To even speak of free will is a category confusion. Liberty is the power to do as one pleases. It doesn’t belong under the category of “Will,” but agency. Agents are free, wills are not. There is a chain of causes in each act of the will. The key question: is this first act of the Will free or not? If it is free (in the sense of uncaused), then we have an uncaused Cause (God). If it isn’t free, then the Will is not free.

Can God make a being that can freely cause? I think you're saying He cannot. I say He can. And scripture backs me up from the earliest appearance of man--Gen 2:19. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. The existence of the man and his abilities were caused by God. The names of the animals were caused by the man. The naming was dependent, but the names he called them were independent. Is that possible? Can God create a creative being? Or does man only "create" what God plants in his mind? (Be careful...if you say man only creates what God plants in his mind, then God is the author of sin.)

Even if someone like the anti-Calvinst wants to salvage some aspect of free will, he must come to grips that even that (relatively) free will is still determined by something, so it can’t be truly free. We cannot claim indifference as the necessary condition of free will. If the mind or will is indifferent between two options, then it cannot choose between two options, for it has no reason to choose either. Further, it entails a contradiction; namely, that the mind is both in a state of inclination and a state of equilibrium.

Some will even argue that the will can come to action without a cause. Well, if we agree God is the necessary first cause of all things, it must be concluded that that which exists without a cause is eternal and eternality can only be ascribed to God.

AMR

As to a free agent vs a free will, I think you are playing with words. The idea that our wills are free from OUTSIDE coercion is the concept we are getting at. Of course our wills are not free from us. Nor is our existence independent of God. If a will is free of all sentience, it's not a "will"; it's an "unwill", purposeless. And if a person is coerced in all choices (including naming of animals), it is a charade. "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what God would call them...???

But then is man eternal, just because he can come up with names for animals? Hardly.

 

[Lon]

Sure.

But that does sound like a false dichotomy.

I'm not sure we are on the same page. Let me ask: were we born in bondage to sin and death? Did that include our will?

That's a non sequitur.

Why? What are you 'free' to choose in such a state? Does it even matter if you have a choice between trivial matters like vanilla or chocolate if your 'freewill' cannot do a thing about sin and death?

Says nothing explicitly denying choice:

For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good.
Romans 7:14-‬16 NKJV​

Also says nothing to deny choice in a prior state.

It may need a bit more explanation, but what is the difference between 'sold as a slave' and 'freewill' that one can exist? I was just watching a documentary about an abducted girl. Her will was so downtrodden that she couldn't even ask for help when in public. Would you say she had freewill? More importantly, when it comes to the will and theology, the more pertinent question is: Is 'a choice to do otherwise' a good thing? Are you at all doubtful, like me, that freewill was what God intended when it came to sin?

I agree with AMR, you are a sharp guy.

 

[Lon]

Why do you call it "preprogrammed"? "Pre" before what? Life? Adulthood? Death? "Programmed" I can see, but "pre" requires a before and after sequence to make sense.

And you have no evidence that the programming wasn't merely your life's circumstances, or even that you once liked it for some other reason, and developed a greater taste for it as you reinforced it with repetition.

:nono: I've always preferred vanilla. It must be in my DNA, hence 'pre' programmed. You are somewhat correct that programmed and 'pre' are often redundant, but sometimes it helps to know there was probably some "Master Chess Player" moves before I got here. It simply anticipates that God is well-above and beyond my 'at-this-moment.'

The same might be said for most things we do repeatedly or habitually, but can survive without. Alcoholism: preprogrammed? Homosexuality: preprogrammed?

EXCEPT that vanilla is a good thing. There is no problem with God having programmed us to 'like' and desire 'good-for-you' food. Choice? Imho, doesn't matter. It really doesn't. There is no significant point to preferring broccoli to kale OTHER than perhaps one being better for you. "Choice" doesn't stop me from enjoying broccoli. I just like it. "Puppet!" doesn't even come to mind nor do I care a whit that someone says anything derogatory about it. That IS THEIR problem.

I would have to say that sin is definitely something we can live without (and only without), and it is reinforced by repetition. If you are preprogrammed to sin, then who did the preprogramming? If God did it, including for Adam, then God is the author of sin. If God didn't do it, but knew it would happen, then God may have been powerless to stop it, at least within the context of the world he created.

I propose the latter--that God knew it would happen within the context of the world he created, and He managed to direct it in a way that He would have the ability to correct at some point. I think that explains the simplicity of the first test (tree of knowledge), the overwhelming ramifications of the failure of that test (whole human race doomed), and the magnificence and self-sacrifice of the solution (His Son crucified).

Are you like me, in this: that it is how best I see it rather than a "God had to do it this way!" mode?

The subject of this thread is "the world He created". How does it work? I don't prefer the idea that God "knew" the future in some way and decided to somehow change it--I've stated before that such is impossible, since the future He "knew" was not the future that actually occurred, and therefore He didn't really "know" it. But I can see how God would understand the potential results of creating a free agent. I say "potential results", but I think the result of sin is a foregone conclusion in a population of free agents. And it might be a foregone conclusion with any single free agent, given enough time (not sure about this part).

Lots of presuppositions here and I question some of them. I do know that 'sovereignty' means 'in-control.' If He is in control, we are not. You cannot have two front-seat drivers. Psalm 115:3 2 Chronicles 20:6

So, getting back to chocolate vs vanilla. Did God preprogram you for vanilla? Why? If not God,then who? And why? If you can't be sure of the reason (and none of us could be, probably), can you at least think of one reason why someone would want to preprogram you for vanilla?

For His own good pleasure. I 'enjoy' it. Does that shed dark on those who love chocolate? :nono: I don't like beets. I have no problem with those who love them (I hope they eat them all up).

On the other hand, if Christ needs us to be vanilla-choosers for some reason--like maybe chocolate is from the devil (Devil's Food Cake, anyone?), and leads to death--then I can see how it would be something he would want us to choose, since He loves us. If we then choose vanilla at His request/command, we are submitting our will, our power of choice, to Him, trusting that He knows what are the right and good things for us to choose.

Vanilla and Chocolate were here WAY before you or I ever got here. He was intimately aware of the properties and well aware of desire for them. Why? His good pleasure. Being 'pre-programmed' is no bad thing. It never was. I'm GLAD God made steaks, fruit, vegetables, and colors before I EVER arrived on the planet. Each then, certainly is 'pre'programmed by God. Hurt us at all? :nono: Makes me feel loved AND thought about before I ever got here. Jeremiah 1:5 John 14:3 "pre" is good.
Some Open Theists may grasp AND appreciate these truths of God, but I'm very sad for those who do not find these truths in God and worse, not appreciate them as His.

 

[Lon]

I cannot see "will in bondage" in any of the previous text, so no, that wasn't the meaning at all.

Besides, that would render Christ's admonition useless. What would be the point of telling the Pharisees that they could not serve both God and mammon unless they had a choice over which they would (will) serve?

Whether men can choose to not break the law or not, you may still tell them what 'breaking the law' looks like.
But "Pharisees???" This is from the Sermon on the Mount.

Serve does NOT mean "without will" or "with an enslaved will" (implying no will?) That's not the meaning.

I'll give you some room for confusion. The word 'serve' here is 'enslaved.' Serve (servitude) isn't as clear as 'enslaved.' The word used here is 'enslaved.' -Lon

 

[Lon]

No. A computer program uses a complex algorithm that is merely difficult to predict, but even if you allowed for a theoretical "true" random that would not be a free will... any more than a pair of dice or a feather in the wind.

1) Why wouldn't it be? Doesn't the program 'freely' choose? (I think it does).
2) Why 'must' we have a will? Think about the 'must' part. Did God HAVE to create us with a "will to disobey" Him?

Further: to me, that IS what 'free' will means. Why would God need to make us with a desire/will to disobey Him?

 

[Stripe]

I'm not sure we are on the same page.

Possibly.

Were we born in bondage to sin and death?

Yes.

Did that include our will?

The will is just the ability to choose. People always have that, no matter how restricted the possible choices are.

Why? What are you 'free' to choose in such a state?

Anything possible.

Does it even matter if you have a choice between trivial matters like vanilla or chocolate if your 'freewill' cannot do a thing about sin and death?

It is not the will that does anything about sin and death. That is solely taken care of by Jesus' work on the cross and His resurrection.

It may need a bit more explanation, but what is the difference between 'sold as a slave' and 'freewill' that one can exist? I was just watching a documentary about an abducted girl. Her will was so downtrodden that she couldn't even ask for help when in public. Would you say she had freewill? More importantly, when it comes to the will and theology, the more pertinent question is: Is 'a choice to do otherwise' a good thing? Are you at all doubtful, like me, that freewill was what God intended when it came to sin?

I don't entirely understand your questions. The girl has a will. God gave us a will. He knew we would possibly use it for evil.

 

[Derf]

...
It is not the will that does anything about sin and death. That is solely taken care of by Jesus' work on the cross and His resurrection.
...

I think this is key. If Jesus Christ's death broke down the barrier that separates us from life, but we still have to believe it, the will is responsible for rejecting, but not responsible for the access.

And if nothing we could ever do would provide that access to life, then all we do would be seen as filthy rags to accomplish the access, no matter the quality or quantity of our works.

 

[Rosenritter]

:nono: I've always preferred vanilla. It must be in my DNA, hence 'pre' programmed. You are somewhat correct that programmed and 'pre' are often redundant, but sometimes it helps to know there was probably some "Master Chess Player" moves before I got here. It simply anticipates that God is well-above and beyond my 'at-this-moment.'

Do you like to drink cider vinegar? At first I hated it... but I trained myself first to tolerate it and now I even appreciate it. I could choose other examples (such as the fermented cabbage dish called kimchi.) We have the capability to change our actions and even our preferences against our initial inclinations. We may speculate as to whether our decisions may be already decided by our programming, but we have the ability (will) that allows us to change our programming.

 

[Rosenritter]

Whether men can choose to not break the law or not, you may still tell them what 'breaking the law' looks like.
But "Pharisees???" This is from the Sermon on the Mount.

Luke 16:13-14 KJV
(13) No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
(14) And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.

You didn't address the question. What would be the point of telling the Pharisees (or the people on the mount) that they would be "breaking the law" if they had no other option but to "break the law?" That's still no better than "you cannot serve both God and mammon." The admonition was that they needed to choose between God and mammon.

 

[Rosenritter]

1) Why wouldn't it be? Doesn't the program 'freely' choose? (I think it does).
2) Why 'must' we have a will? Think about the 'must' part. Did God HAVE to create us with a "will to disobey" Him?

Further: to me, that IS what 'free' will means. Why would God need to make us with a desire/will to disobey Him?

1. Have you ever tried to program a computer to play a game where it needs to simulate human choices? I have. No, a program does not freely choose. But a good programmer does a job of making it seem that the program is freely choosing, even to the point of faking reaction time and human-like errors.

2. A program (has no will) cannot disobey because by definition a program can only follow its instructions. If you tried to program a thing to disobey the very act of obeying your instructions would be proof of obedience. You've run aground on the rocks of paradox.

 

[Derf]

:nono: I've always preferred vanilla. It must be in my DNA, hence 'pre' programmed.

To quote a wise man: "Lots of presuppositions here and I question some of them."
Why do you assume it's in the DNA? Are you saying your DNA will make choices for you? I guess that's true of some things, like designing you so that you don't have to think about breathing. But why does a preference have to be programmed at all? It's a presupposition, and an unsubstantiated one.

You are somewhat correct that programmed and 'pre' are often redundant, but sometimes it helps to know there was probably some "Master Chess Player" moves before I got here. It simply anticipates that God is well-above and beyond my 'at-this-moment.'

I don't deny this. In fact, it is another thing that makes the open theistic model so intuitive. But a "Master Chess Player" is usually playing against an opponent, responding to the opponents moves--not orchestrating both sides.

EXCEPT that vanilla is a good thing. There is no problem with God having programmed us to 'like' and desire 'good-for-you' food. Choice? Imho, doesn't matter. It really doesn't. There is no significant point to preferring broccoli to kale OTHER than perhaps one being better for you. "Choice" doesn't stop me from enjoying broccoli. I just like it. "Puppet!" doesn't even come to mind nor do I care a whit that someone says anything derogatory about it. That IS THEIR problem.

But I tend to like chocolate over broccoli. And sweet over something that's better for me. I don't think "puppet" applies, so I can see why it doesn't come to your mind, either. The only way for "puppet" to really mean something is if we AREN'T puppets, and can detect when we are being coerced, at least to some degree. A puppet doesn't know he's a puppet.

Are you like me, in this: that it is how best I see it rather than a "God had to do it this way!" mode?

Lots of presuppositions here and I question some of them. I do know that 'sovereignty' means 'in-control.' If He is in control, we are not. You cannot have two front-seat drivers. Psalm 115:3 2 Chronicles 20:6

But God let's us take control. He let's us drive, just like you at some point have to let your teenager drive--he needs the experience, while under your supervision, so that he can function safely while NOT under your supervision. We don't always drive well at first, but through some sanctification, we get better. And yes, this does fit in with His sovereignty. He relinquishes some control, in order (I think) to get it back with gain in our submission/worship/love to Him. But if not, then He still takes back control when He wants.

I don't know what plans God has for us in eternity--if He will have jobs for us to do, where He gives some instruction, but allows us to accomplish the job in various ways that all fit within some larger bounds. But this is the point of the parable of the talents, of the vinedressers, and possibly the unjust steward. Such activity had already been assigned to the leaders of Israel, and they weren't doing that well in Jesus' time (or before). Similar concepts are expressed in Jesus' letters to the churches. Does it make any sense that such activities would all go away in eternity, after God has achieved His purpose in training a people to do, joyfully, what He wants done?

 

[Lon]

The girl has a will. God gave us a will. He knew we would possibly use it for evil.

That's better than most Open Theists would say; They would say that is a future not happened thus 'unknowable.' :up:

I'm not sure we've come to a point where a 'freewill' and 'will' is understood in the same light. For the most part, this whole part of the discussion is whether I see the will and freewill as being the same or different and I appreciate you walking through this with me. I'm still not sure I grasp what you were saying so I'd appreciate anything you can add. To me, the will is a desire BUT not always 'free' to exercise that desire, thus, for me, there is always a need for distinction on just this consideration alone. Thank you, Lon

 

[Lon]

Do you like to drink cider vinegar? At first I hated it... but I trained myself first to tolerate it and now I even appreciate it.

I tried that with beets. Moreover? Some people have allergies to specific food. Again, all in place WAY before your will or desire came into play.

I could choose other examples (such as the fermented cabbage dish called kimchi.) We have the capability to change our actions and even our preferences against our initial inclinations. We may speculate as to whether our decisions may be already decided by our programming, but we have the ability (will) that allows us to change our programming.

As I've provided above, no, you really don't. You have the ability to alter 'some' things. On top of that, do you REALLY love drinking vinegar???

Would you choose it over chocolate???

 

[Lon]

Luke 16:13-14 KJV
(13) No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
(14) And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.

You didn't address the question. What would be the point of telling the Pharisees (or the people on the mount) that they would be "breaking the law" if they had no other option but to "break the law?" That's still no better than "you cannot serve both God and mammon." The admonition was that they needed to choose between God and mammon.

You are 'assuming' you are not liable if you didn't consciously choose to break the law. :nono: Romans 5:12

Telling you may not change the behavior. Rather telling you in such a circumstance will reveal consequences, act as a warning to others, etc. etc.

"There is no one righteous, no not one." Romans 3:10 Information is a good thing: There is not one thing you can do to save yourself from sin and consequences. Rather, by trust in information that Christ took care of this problem, one is delivered from it. Romans 10:9,10,11

 

[Lon]

1. Have you ever tried to program a computer to play a game where it needs to simulate human choices? I have. No, a program does not freely choose. But a good programmer does a job of making it seem that the program is freely choosing, even to the point of faking reaction time and human-like errors.

Which, imho, proves my point 1) that your mind doesn't need to be free in order for you to enjoy God's creation. For some strange reason, 'we' want to be in control. Okay, I've heard enough of the 'automaton' and 'puppet' remarks to know there is a STRONG aversion to following HISwill rather than one's own, but in the end, that one leads to death. It is ONLY when we 'deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow HIM that we have life. Why this strong attachment to your will, desires, wants and whims? Is there something bad about being subsumed in Christ???

2. A program (has no will) cannot disobey because by definition a program can only follow its instructions. If you tried to program a thing to disobey the very act of obeying your instructions would be proof of obedience. You've run aground on the rocks of paradox.

I've programmed. I've had programs do what I did NOT intend for them to do. We don't have A-I but it is, imho, close enough for discussion and example. God made us to go one way. As you say, UNLESS you messed up, that program cannot fail. Because of this, you are almost insisting that God made programs to be able to fail. That isn't how I see the Garden. Very specifically Genesis 3:1 without Genesis 3:1? No Fall. To me, this is a biblical indicator that our will was NOT free to sin. As I've always maintained and reiterate here: "Free' is not the best descriptor of the will. It is too broad and too sloppy and causes all kinds of need for clarification and discussion (like we are doing here in thread AND have done repeatedly many many times on TOL over the years). To me, the 'need' for freewill is so entrenched that I'm not sure you guys always know what you are wanting or arguing for. "Free" in my mind isn't worth the effort for the problems and lack of clarity it causes.

In some ways, Stripe makes that will and free can be redundant, but only insomuch as one agrees what 'free' means.

Free 'to sin?' imho :nono:

Free to do anything in the Garden 'but' eat of the tree? Sure.

"Free" will continue to cause problems as it seems to me, to be as broad and inefficient as to each individual who thinks what they think is the definition of free.

 

[Lon]

To quote a wise man: "Lots of presuppositions here and I question some of them."
Why do you assume it's in the DNA? Are you saying your DNA will make choices for you? I guess that's true of some things, like designing you so that you don't have to think about breathing. But why does a preference have to be programmed at all? It's a presupposition, and an unsubstantiated one.

Chocolate or vanilla? :think: Know what this means? Your presumption, and mine substantiated by research in DNA, right?

I don't deny this. In fact, it is another thing that makes the open theistic model so intuitive. But a "Master Chess Player" is usually playing against an opponent, responding to the opponents moves--not orchestrating both sides.

Right, and in your conception, God is stuck in the dark on quite a bit :think: Jeremiah 1:5

But I tend to like chocolate over broccoli. And sweet over something that's better for me. I don't think "puppet" applies, so I can see why it doesn't come to your mind, either. The only way for "puppet" to really mean something is if we AREN'T puppets, and can detect when we are being coerced, at least to some degree. A puppet doesn't know he's a puppet.

"Puppet" is a fear word. "I don't want to be a puppet like a Calvinist!" Or "I'm afraid I'm a nobody if God gets to always have His say." There really is no reason for the slanted term and expression other than someone worried about it. In psychology, a similar debate goes on between B.F. Skinner/Pavlov and John Stuart Mill etc. regarding whether man is condition or is 'free' from influence, genetics, society, and other sources.

Most psychologists believe men are products of their environment and I believe scripture teaches the same: Romans 5:12 etc.

But God let's us take control. He let's us drive, just like you at some point have to let your teenager drive--he needs the experience, while under your supervision, so that he can function safely while NOT under your supervision.

Imho? A platitude asserted. It needs scriptural and rational foundation. It needs a biblical reason for its statement.

We don't always drive well at first, but through some sanctification, we get better. And yes, this does fit in with His sovereignty. He relinquishes some control, in order (I think) to get it back with gain in our submission/worship/love to Him. But if not, then He still takes back control when He wants.

I can't help but think Open Theists mean something different and preferential by this. I cringe every time I hear it. We've stolen enough and wrecked the car enough: Genesis 6:5-8 Why is this always held up as if it is something 1) desirable or 2) glorious? :idunno:

I don't know what plans God has for us in eternity--if He will have jobs for us to do, where He gives some instruction, but allows us to accomplish the job in various ways that all fit within some larger bounds. But this is the point of the parable of the talents, of the vinedressers, and possibly the unjust steward. Such activity had already been assigned to the leaders of Israel, and they weren't doing that well in Jesus' time (or before). Similar concepts are expressed in Jesus' letters to the churches. Does it make any sense that such activities would all go away in eternity, after God has achieved His purpose in training a people to do, joyfully, what He wants done?

1 John 3:2 I'm not sure exactly how heavenly projection comes into this

 

[Stripe]

That's better than most Open Theists would say; They would say that is a future not happened thus 'unknowable.' :up:

The best expression of what we believe is a denial of exhaustive foreknowledge. Some things are set in stone.

I'm not sure we've come to a point where a 'freewill' and 'will' is understood in the same light. For the most part, this whole part of the discussion is whether I see the will and freewill as being the same or different and I appreciate you walking through this with me. I'm still not sure I grasp what you were saying so I'd appreciate anything you can add. To me, the will is a desire BUT not always 'free' to exercise that desire, thus, for me, there is always a need for distinction on just this consideration alone. Thank you, Lon

I am yet to digest the post you shared describing how you distinguish between the terms.

Might get to it if work gives me a decent break.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Rosenritter]

You are 'assuming' you are not liable if you didn't consciously choose to break the law. :nono: Romans 5:12

Telling you may not change the behavior. Rather telling you in such a circumstance will reveal consequences, act as a warning to others, etc. etc.

"There is no one righteous, no not one." Romans 3:10 Information is a good thing: There is not one thing you can do to save yourself from sin and consequences. Rather, by trust in information that Christ took care of this problem, one is delivered from it. Romans 10:9,10,11

That isn't a plausible justification Lon. Let's pretend that there is a law requiring you to present a driver's license to a police officer upon request. If you were unaware of the law you are still held responsible for that failure to comply. The problem with your scenario is that the police officer seizes all your documents and then demands that you personally present them on demand.... and of course you cannot, because they were already stolen from you. There is no ability to comply and your "justice" holds you guilty for someone that was removed from your control.

In this case it is not a mere matter of "insanity" when the officer seizes your documents and then demands that you produce them. It's a matter of cruelty and emphasizing that their power allows them to flaunt the law. Would you argue that the crooked cop and the corrupt judge are justified because "they are the law" and "they are sovereign?" They certainly have the power and can do whatever they want... It is written "ye are gods" but this is the behavior that a Righteous God who is described as Just and Merciful and Love despises.

And besides, how would issuing a nonsensical warning to people to "change their behavior" (who cannot change because God will not allow it) have any sort of useful effect on others? In your scenario God has the same curse upon all people where he won't allow anyone to heed warnings that he hasn't specifically allowed. He might as well deliver the warnings to the people he has allowed to be able to change.

There is not one thing you can do to save yourself from sin and consequences. Rather, by trust in information that Christ took care of this problem, one is delivered from it. Romans 10:9,10,11

"He may be a corrupt judge and a crooked cop, but you are taken care of because he only does that to others?"