Theology Club: Numbers 14:11- 20--the power of petition before God.

[Angel4Truth]

I completely disagree that you cannot make your own choice just because God knows what your choice is, the action was taken by you, he just already saw it, he didnt force you to take the action you chose.

So HOW is God choosing for you, by knowing your choice.

 

[Angel4Truth]

We know God knew Judas would betray Him, did Christ force Judas to do it?

This means either God just knew what He was planning and planned around it, or God made Judas sin.

Which one?

 

[Sherman]

Mankind is incapable of comprehending God in my opinion.

Excellent point! :thumb: My point is that prayer can cause God to respond in a favorable way.

 

[Lighthouse]

I completely disagree that you cannot make your own choice just because God knows what your choice is, the action was taken by you, he just already saw it, he didnt force you to take the action you chose.

So HOW is God choosing for you, by knowing your choice.

Nobody is saying that He chooses for you. The issue is whether or not you can choose otherwise if it is knowable at all before you are faced with the occasion in which the "choice" takes place.

So, if it is knowable [can be known], if God knows, or even if He does not, can you choose otherwise?

We know God knew Judas would betray Him, did Christ force Judas to do it?

When did He know? Before Judas had chosen to do so?

This means either God just knew what He was planning and planned around it, or God made Judas sin.

Which one?

It depends on when He knew it. Your illustration above only gives the idea that it was known to God only after Judas had made the decision, and as I agree with that I posit that God planned around that; or more to the fact planned along with it [used it to His advantage; to bring about His goal].

 

[Angel4Truth]

Nobody is saying that He chooses for you. The issue is whether or not you can choose otherwise if it is knowable at all before you are faced with the occasion in which the "choice" takes place.

No, why would you when you already made a choice? You are still who is making the choice that God knows about.

So, if it is knowable [can be known], if God knows, or even if He does not, can you choose otherwise?

Its not a question of can you, no matter what you choose - He is just aware of it.

When did He know? Before Judas had chosen to do so?

Yes and He even said so more than once.

It depends on when He knew it. Your illustration above only gives the idea that it was known to God only after Judas had made the decision, and as I agree with that I posit that God planned around that; or more to the fact planned along with it [used it to His advantage; to bring about His goal].

Yes, even though God knew what Judas would do, Judas chose to do it, and God used it for His glory.

So , Did God make Judas do it by knowing about it? (no)

Another example, Christ knew Peter would deny Him 3 times, before it happened.

Did God make Peter do it?

 

[surrender]

The only place to offer burnt offerings to God is in the temple in Jerusalem.



Yes and He even said so more than once.

Scripture doesn’t say that God knew what Judas would do before he determined in his heart to betray Jesus. If it does, please give the Scripture.

So , Did God make Judas do it by knowing about it? (no)

Judas had determined in his heart to betray Jesus. At that point, God knew Judas would betray Jesus.

Another example, Christ knew Peter would deny Him 3 times, before it happened.

God could see into Peter’s heart and knew he was ready to deny Jesus given certain circumstances. All God had to do was put three people in Peter’s path that night who would confront him and then make a rooster crow.

 

[zippy2006]

I completely disagree that you cannot make your own choice just because God knows what your choice is, the action was taken by you, he just already saw it, he didnt force you to take the action you chose.

So HOW is God choosing for you, by knowing your choice.

I explained the Open Theist view here. It is not in any sense irrational; you have yet to address the argument.

 

[Lighthouse]

No, why would you when you already made a choice? You are still who is making the choice that God knows about.

When did I make the choice?

Its not a question of can you, no matter what you choose - He is just aware of it.

How is He aware of it before it exists?

Yes and He even said so more than once.

Scripture?

So , Did God make Judas do it by knowing about it? (no)

There isn't a single person in this thread making that argument except you. Stop it.

Another example, Christ knew Peter would deny Him 3 times, before it happened.

Did God make Peter do it?

I've already answered this issue, and you know that.

 

[Son of Jack]

If your choice is to be free then it cannot be determined. So if you have choice A and choice B and are free, then you are able to choose either one, right? If you choose B then you can legitimately say, "I could have chosen A had I wanted to," and vice-versa.

But if there is certain knowledge that you will choose A, then apparently you are not able to choose B. So if God says to you today that tomorrow you will certainly have a hamburger for lunch, are you free to have a piece of pizza for lunch? Are you justified in saying, "Tomorrow I am free to choose whatever I want for lunch"?

If you are in fact free, then you can in fact choose the pizza, and thereby show God to be incorrect. If you cannot choose the pizza, then you are not free to choose either a hamburger or a piece of pizza. That's a dilemma.

:think:

Perhaps the problem is that we are understanding freedom improperly. It seems to me that everyone is thinking of freedom in terms of choice, but isn't action merely an expression of being? Think about it. Isn't God the freest being? Yet, how many of us would argue that God can sin? None, I would wager, though someone could try to convince me otherwise, I suppose. Given that, how many of us would argue that God isn't free. So, maybe freedom isn't rooted in action but in being.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I explained the Open Theist view here. It is not in any sense irrational; you have yet to address the argument.

Argument there is not rational because God saw what you chose only, that argument would only be valid if God made you choose, then of course you could not choose otherwise since you cannot redo an action that has already occurred either.

God saw what you did as a past event since He knows the end from the beginning, since the past cannot be changed in your time, you still made your own choice - He is just aware of it.

 

[Angel4Truth]

When did I make the choice?


How is He aware of it before it exists?

Because He knows the end from the begining.

Scripture?

Already quoted it to you several times.

There isn't a single person in this thread making that argument except you. Stop it.

Of course they arent because most of them believe as you do. As far as your stop it :Excuse me? You can disagree, but you don't have the power to tell me what to believe.

Am i not welcome here to discuss this because my view differs? If so then label it open theists only. If otherwise, you have no business telling me to stop anything.

I've already answered this issue, and you know that.

No you haven't, no one has here. They and you keep reiterating that God doesn't know the end from the beginning when His word says He does and you all keep stating that you cannot choose something just because He already saw what you did from the beginning of creation.

He is seeing your past from His perspective and all things in between.

He sees what you chose, but YOU chose it. You cannot choose otherwise, because it was seen as a past event and no one can change the past, only the future.

None have cared to answer how both judas and peters actions were known and told by Christ beforehand, on whether Christ knew beforehand what they would do, or whether Christ forced them do it.

Answer please.

 

[zippy2006]

:think:

Perhaps the problem is that we are understanding freedom improperly. It seems to me that everyone is thinking of freedom in terms of choice, but isn't action merely an expression of being? Think about it. Isn't God the freest being? Yet, how many of us would argue that God can sin? None, I would wager, though someone could try to convince me otherwise, I suppose. Given that, how many of us would argue that God isn't free. So, maybe freedom isn't rooted in action but in being.

I think we've been here before, wish I could find the thread. :think:

But I think you are basically wrong in this case. Here is my definition of freedom, "Being able to choose; if you are able to choose A or B then you are free." Note that my definition is relevant to the question at hand: moral agency. What alternative definition of freedom do you propose?

Isn't God the freest being? Yet, how many of us would argue that God can sin?

How many of us would argue that God is a moral agent? It's apples and oranges imo. But it isn't clear how your solution resolves the initial problem. At best you've redefined freedom. But the definition you left behind is the one that is relevant to the question at hand, precisely because it is the ground for moral agency and therefore salvific decisions.

Argument there is not rational because God saw what you chose only, that argument would only be valid if God made you choose, then of course you could not choose otherwise since you cannot redo an action that has already occurred either.

God saw what you did as a past event since He knows the end from the beginning, since the past cannot be changed in your time, you still made your own choice - He is just aware of it.

The relevant question is whether knowledge of the future implies a lack of freedom on the part of the agents foreknown. I addressed that question. Saying that I have to demonstrate that God coerced rather than viewed is not a counterargument, since my point showed that God's knowledge of the future--whether through coercion or some other mechanism--implies a lack of freedom itself.

IOW: address the actual argument, point out where it errs.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I think we've been here before, wish I could find the thread. :think:

But I think you are basically wrong in this case. Here is my definition of freedom, "Being able to choose; if you are able to choose A or B then you are free." Note that my definition is relevant to the question at hand: moral agency. What alternative definition of freedom do you propose?



How many of us would argue that God is a moral agent? It's apples and oranges imo. But it isn't clear how your solution resolves the initial problem. At best you've redefined freedom. But the definition you left behind is the one that is relevant to the question at hand, precisely because it is the ground for moral agency and therefore salvific decisions.



The relevant question is whether knowledge of the future implies a lack of freedom on the part of the agents foreknown. I addressed that question. Saying that I have to demonstrate that God coerced rather than viewed is not a counterargument, since my point showed that God's knowledge of the future--whether through coercion or some other mechanism--implies a lack of freedom itself.

IOW: address the actual argument, point out where it errs.

I have shown where it errs specific examples of Christ telling what Judas would do before it happened and what Peter would do before it happened.

Now you tell me, did Christ know beforehand and they made the choice to do those things, or did Christ make them do those things, it can only be one or the other.

 

[zippy2006]

I have shown where it errs specific examples of Christ telling what Judas would do before it happened and what Peter would do before it happened.

Making additional positive arguments against a position is very different from showing why an argument is wrong. You asked for an argument, I gave you one. You haven't addressed it, you've just given other arguments of your own.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Making additional positive arguments against a position is very different from showing why an argument is wrong. You asked for an argument, I gave you one. You haven't addressed it, you've just given other arguments of your own.

You asked me to show where open theism errs, i have, showing clearly 2 specific examples where its clear to anyone who can read that Christ foretold specifics, that Judas would betray Him and that Peter would deny Him 3 times, before those events took place.

1) Christ knew what they do based on foreknowledge
2) Christ made them do those specific things.

Those are the differences between free will or lack of.

So which one?

I say #1 and so does scripture which says He knows the end from the beginning and that Christ was slain from the foundation of the world (God knew man would sin, because He knows all things)

 

[Angel4Truth]

Scripture doesn’t say that God knew what Judas would do before he determined in his heart to betray Jesus. If it does, please give the Scripture.

John 6:64 "But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.

Judas had determined in his heart to betray Jesus. At that point, God knew Judas would betray Jesus.

Scripture contradicts you. Psalm 55:12-14 "For it is not an enemy who reproaches me; Then I could bear it. Nor is it one who hates me who has exalted himself against me; Then I could hide from him. But it was you, a man my equal, my companion and my acquaintance. We took sweet counsel together, and walked to the house of God in the throng."

Matthew 17:22, 23 "Now while they were staying in Galilee, Jesus said to them, "The Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men, and they will kill Him, and the third day He will be raised up." And they were exceedingly sorrowful."

Psalm 41:9"Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me."

Matthew 26:20 When evening had come, He sat down with the twelve. 21 Now as they were eating, He said, “Assuredly, I say to you, one of you will betray Me.”

22 And they were exceedingly sorrowful, and each of them began to say to Him, “Lord, is it I?”

23 He answered and said, “He who dipped his hand with Me in the dish will betray Me. 24 The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”

God could see into Peter’s heart and knew he was ready to deny Jesus given certain circumstances. All God had to do was put three people in Peter’s path that night who would confront him and then make a rooster crow.

Come on, 3 times? Pretty clear Christ already knew ahead of time and how many times it would happen. Im guessing by your response though that you do not believe free will, since you adding God made those things happen instead.

Either we have free will and He can see what we choose and work those things to good, or He makes us act instead which means no free will.

Its one or the other.

 

[Angel4Truth]

At this point i am bowing out, thank you for the discussion.

 

[Son of Jack]

I think we've been here before, wish I could find the thread. :think:

Yeah, I think we have.

But I think you are basically wrong in this case.

I love honesty.

Here is my definition of freedom, "Being able to choose; if you are able to choose A or B then you are free." Note that my definition is relevant to the question at hand: moral agency. What alternative definition of freedom do you propose?

Well, let's think about freedom generally before we narrow it down to moral agency. Scripture says, "God is love." Is God not free because He cannot act outside of His essential nature? That is, He cannot not love. Or, to put it another way. Scripture also says, "God is Spirit." Is God not free because He cannot exist apart from His essential nature. That is, He cannot not be Spirit.

How many of us would argue that God is a moral agent? It's apples and oranges imo. But it isn't clear how your solution resolves the initial problem. At best you've redefined freedom. But the definition you left behind is the one that is relevant to the question at hand, precisely because it is the ground for moral agency and therefore salvific decisions.

Well, if we address the issue of freedom generally, we may be able to address it more clearly and cogently on the specific level of moral agency.

 

[zippy2006]

You asked me to show where open theism errs

Rather, where the argument I gave errs.

 

[zippy2006]

I love honesty.

:chuckle:

Well, let's think about freedom generally before we narrow it down to moral agency. Scripture says, "God is love." Is God not free because He cannot act outside of His essential nature? That is, He cannot not love. Or, to put it another way. Scripture also says, "God is Spirit." Is God not free because He cannot exist apart from His essential nature. That is, He cannot not be Spirit.



Well, if we address the issue of freedom generally, we may be able to address it more clearly and cogently on the specific level of moral agency.

But that's the thing: we aren't really trying to discern the essence of freedom. If we were I might agree with you (which is why I said "in this case").

What we are trying to discern is how God's foreknowledge affects moral agency. If we take your route, we will have a positive definition of freedom--perhaps "freedom to do the good" or some variation--but we will not have addressed the original dilemma regarding foreknowledge and moral agency.

My post uses a definition of freedom that is intrinsically connected to moral agency. The dilemma for the Open Theist does not consist in the definition of freedom, but rather in the fact that the human being must be an authentic moral agent--someone who can freely choose either the good or the bad. Make sense?

Else I would say that when we say God is free we mean basically what I already said, namely that he can choose either A or B and is not constrained or determined. That is pretty much the colloquial definition of freedom. These two usages evidence different definitions:

1. I am free; I can eat an apple or a banana for lunch.
2. I am free; I consistently choose what is good and reject what is evil.

1 provides ground for moral agency, 2 does not.