One on One: Knight and Lonster open up the settled view.

[Nathon Detroit]

Part of my position comes from observation like the visions of future events. God reveals these visions so completely that I have to believe that He is able to know them completely.

God says He "brings events to pass". God is powerful because He is able, not because He has fixed the ending.

Reformed theology on God's transcendent qualities stand or fall as they stand or are torn down and in effect, God is reduced to a less potent position. From our conversation, I believe OV builds this back up, but it is a difficult proposition to apprehend.

I couldn't disagree more.

Who shows more wisdom?
- The friend who intelligently figures out the ending of the mystery movie based on his knowledge of the events transpiring in the movie?

Or...

- The friend who knows the ending of the movie because he has already watched it 7 times?

Who shows more ability?
- The friend who wins 6 chess games, against 6 different opponents, all being played simultaneously?

Or...

- The friend who pre-programs 6 different winning chess games on his computer preprogramming all his moves and his opponents moves?

True, power and true brilliance is the ability to get desired results without fixing the results in advance. True power and true brilliance is the ability to get desired results all while working within the fabric of reality and trillions of freewill agents.

 

[Lon]

Oh and one more thing....

The short answer to the question goes something like this....

QUESTION:
How can we move God with our prayers, if all of history has been settled in advance?


ANSWER:
We can't.

If God sees the future as if it were past, we did. Do I understand this? Not completely, but the argument goes something like "all time is history to God" As I remember it. Because I am limited to past and present, I could not answer in a meaningful way what you ask. Does it mean we are running a script? Not to us, and that is the only important point. To us, our future is open and our choices are real. Are they the same with God? I don't think so. In being able to meet all of our needs, be sovereign and accomplish what He has purposed, I believe His plan is very much in mind.

He is God. He can do whatever He desires with or without our imput. When He said before they were born that He loved Jacob and that Esau would serve, that was determinism. When God said He raised Pharoah so that He could use him to further His plans with Israel, that was determinism. When we were elected from the foundation of the earth, even if it is a hypothetical group of people, that is determinism.
When God numbered out David's days, He at the very least, predetermined exactly how many days David would have. That is determinism.
(Romans 9)

I perceive freewill. I enjoy making most choices, but I am happier that the major choices in my life are in His hands. My salvation is His choice. My growth, while I can be malleable and choose to comply, is in His hands (Eph. 2:10). What if I have absolutely no freewill or choice whatsoever? My perception and appreciation isn't affected at all.
We are made to follow God's will and His plan and it was exercising freewill in the first place that got us into this mess. We are supposed to be following His will. I'd be more than content if He could wave His hand and I'd have no choice but to follow. There is something about our will that plays into this but one day we are going to be like Him and I believe it will severely alter our will forever. This to me isn't bad at all, because bad or poor are the choices that will be eliminated. Our choices only matter in a relational way. Am I doing the loving thing for my family? My friends? My church. The rest: What movie will I watch, what am I going to have for dinner? What am I going to do for recreation? These are a bit trivial. It is only in light of choosing God in any of my choices that there is meaning. If our goal is to be in His will and not our own, we are in effect desirous of less freewill that has greater meaning when it is His will.

Can God be loving if we are simply mechanisms that follow a pre-determined venue?
Can I be loving? We have choice. How exactly it all works out, I'm not so bothered.
Do our prayers move God's hand? Yes. There is something about our response that God relies on. Somehow foreknowledge continues to be a problematic idea that God couldn't be relational but I do not believe that this has to be the logical conclusion because God's foreknowledge has never lessened His perfect love, care, or interaction with me.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

If God sees the future as if it were past, we did. Do I understand this? Not completely, but the argument goes something like "all time is history to God" As I remember it. Because I am limited to past and present, I could not answer in a meaningful way what you ask. Does it mean we are running a script? Not to us, and that is the only important point. To us, our future is open and our choices are real. Are they the same with God? I don't think so. In being able to meet all of our needs, be sovereign and accomplish what He has purposed, I believe His plan is very much in mind.

The robot never knows he is a robot.

That doesn't offer me any consolation. Does it you?

God is a loving God, God wants to have a relationship with His creation. God didn't create us as robots, not because He didn't have the ability yet because He didn't want to! God created us with a will of our own on purpose, by His design and for His pleasure.

He is God. He can do whatever He desires with or without our imput. When He said before they were born that He loved Jacob and that Esau would serve, that was determinism. When God said He raised Pharoah so that He could use him to further His plans with Israel, that was determinism. When we were elected from the foundation of the earth, even if it is a hypothetical group of people, that is determinism.
When God numbered out David's days, He at the very least, predetermined exactly how many days David would have. That is determinism.
(Romans 9)

I have already addressed David and I could address Jacob and Esau (hint: God is discussing nations not individuals). But lets discuss Pharaoh because that topic seems to come up a bit. Did God really predestine Pharaoh's hard heart OR, is there something else going on here?

If God was going to remove Pharaoh's will, He could have simply forced Pharaoh to let His people go! After all.... that is what God wanted right?

Instead, what we find is that Pharaoh fought against God's will and the more God demonstrated His power the more prideful Pharaoh became and therefore the harder Pharaoh's heart became. When God said “And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt." God is simply stating a fact. God knows Pharaoh, and God knows how Pharaoh will react to God's power, therefore God accurately predicts that He will help Pharaoh harden His heart.

Therefore it is Pharaoh that is responsible for his hard heart.

For more clarification see.....

Exodus 8:15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not heed them, as the LORD had said.

Exodus 8:19 Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God.” But Pharaoh’s heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, just as the LORD had said.

Exodus 8:32 But Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also; neither would he let the people go.

Exodus 9:7 Then Pharaoh sent, and indeed, not even one of the livestock of the Israelites was dead. But the heart of Pharaoh became hard, and he did not let the people go.

Exodus 9:34 And when Pharaoh saw that the rain, the hail, and the thunder had ceased, he sinned yet more; and he hardened his heart, he and his servants.

Exodus 9:35 So the heart of Pharaoh was hard; neither would he let the children of Israel go, as the LORD had spoken by Moses.

Exodus 14:5 Now it was told the king of Egypt that the people had fled, and the heart of Pharaoh and his servants was turned against the people; and they said, “Why have we done this, that we have let Israel go from serving us?”​

God's will was that His people be let go. Right?

Pharaoh, would not let God's people go. Right?

Therefore God clearly was not in control of Pharaoh's will.

God hardening Pharaoh's heart is nothing more than a way of saying.... Pharaoh is prideful and will become more prideful when God shows His wonders to Pharaoh.

I perceive freewill. I enjoy making most choices, but I am happier that the major choices in my life are in His hands. My salvation is His choice. My growth, while I can be malleable and choose to comply, is in His hands (Eph. 2:10). What if I have absolutely no freewill or choice whatsoever? My perception and appreciation isn't affected at all.
We are made to follow God's will and His plan and it was exercising freewill in the first place that got us into this mess. We are supposed to be following His will. I'd be more than content if He could wave His hand and I'd have no choice but to follow. There is something about our will that plays into this but one day we are going to be like Him and I believe it will severely alter our will forever. This to me isn't bad at all, because bad or poor are the choices that will be eliminated. Our choices only matter in a relational way. Am I doing the loving thing for my family? My friends? My church. The rest: What movie will I watch, what am I going to have for dinner? What am I going to do for recreation? These are a bit trivial. It is only in light of choosing God in any of my choices that there is meaning. If our goal is to be in His will and not our own, we are in effect desirous of less freewill that has greater meaning when it is His will.

OK, so you have no problem acting out God's plan, that's fine I will not question your emotions. However with the good comes the bad. Keep in mind... if you are merely acting out God's will, so is everyone else. The child molesting murderer is an agent of God's will. Adam merely acted out God's will when he sinned in the garden. According to the settled view it was God's will that caused all of the earth (except Noah and his family) became exceedingly wicked just so He could destroy them. God's will planned in every detail how a child pornographer would film a young girl being raped. :vomit:

God asked that we defend His name against such accusations....

James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.

Dear Lord... I do my best to let no one say that.​

Can God be loving if we are simply mechanisms that follow a pre-determined venue?
Can I be loving? We have choice. How exactly it all works out, I'm not so bothered.

Of course you are not sure.... but do you have a choice?

Do our prayers move God's hand? Yes.

Your prayers were set in advance as was the appearance of God's "movement", remember? You cannot have your cake and eat it to. The future is either exhaustively settled or it is not.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Lonster, do yourself a favor and check out the debate between Bob Enyart and Gene Cook Jr. It's extremely good.

 

[Lon]

The robot never knows he is a robot.

That doesn't offer me any consolation. Does it you?

Well, Yeah, I'm not a sissy-boy ya know.

God is a loving God, God wants to have a relationship with His creation. God didn't create us as robots, not because He didn't have the ability yet because He didn't want to! God created us with a will of our own on purpose, by His design and for His pleasure.

Agreed. The sissy-boy was a joke.

I have already addressed David and I could address Jacob and Esau (hint these God is discussing nations not individuals). But lets discuss Pharaoh because that topic seems to come up a bit. Did God really predestine Pharaoh's hard heart OR, is there something else going on here??

But I'm not just for the record.... The nation is one way to see it, but I have to see it either way as a determism. A John Wayne, Gotta recue the girl, bust up the bar determinism.

If God was going to remove Pharaoh's will, He could have simply forced Pharaoh to let His people go! After all.... that is what God wanted right?

Good point, but totally lacking a good western plot. Did I mention John Wayne? Granted Mel brings a little emotion to his roles but what if God is just a bit more on the macho side? There has got to be a God for the macho guy. He should be smart. Real smart. (1 John 3:20;Job 38:4) He should be strong.(Genesis 17:1;Job 40:2) He should be a bit of the silent type (Ecc 5:2). He should have the kind of knowlege that puts Him in 'the know' so he isn't bushwacked (Psalm 139.2-3;Psalm 147:5).

Instead, what we find is that Pharaoh fought against God's will and the more God demonstrated His power the more prideful Pharaoh became and therefore the harder Pharaoh's heart became. When God said “And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt." God is simply stating a fact. God knows Pharaoh, and God knows how Pharaoh will react to God's power, therefore God accurately predicts that He will help Pharaoh harden His heart.

Therefore it is Pharaoh that is responsible for his hard heart.

I agree with this, if we disagree on God's foreknowledge, it isn't problematic for this understanding. I too have come to a similar conclusion, but I do believe God used this in a determining way for His glory (sovereign, powerful, and determined).

God hardening Pharaoh's heart is nothing more than a way of saying.... Pharaoh is prideful and will become more prideful when God shows His wonders to Pharaoh.

OK, so you have no problem acting out God's plan, that's fine I will not question your emotions. However with the good comes the bad. Keep in mind... if you are merely acting out God's will, so is everyone else. The child molesting murderer is an agent of God's will. Adam merely acted out God's will when he sinned in the garden. According to the settled view it was God's will that caused all of the earth (except Noah and his family) became exceedingly wicked just so He could destroy them. God's will planned in every detail how a child pornographer would film a young girl being raped. :vomit:

God asked that we defend His name against such accusations....

James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.

Dear Lord... I do my best to let no one say that.​

Of course you are not sure.... but do you have a choice?

Your prayers were set in advance as was the appearance of God's "movement", remember? You cannot have your cake and eat it to. The future is either settled or it is not.

There are answers of course to these as we have had to answer prior to OV asking the same questions.

In your view, other qualities of God are appreciated, honored and glorified, and for that I am inspired. I sometimes wonder if God meets us at our need. The macho guy isn't going to get all bent out of shape when God doesn't seem as relational as long as He gets the job done. I'm not saying that OV isn't able to meet that need, but I am thinking there is an appeal to God's relational side there. Almighty is God's name(omnipotence). He is all-knowing, even if we have a different understanding of what that means. He is ever present and transcendent to whatever degree we understand and, I believe you'd agree, beyond even our imaginings.
God is unchanging in His perfection. Whatever complication arises from His relational change with us, we still acknowledge that His perfection is untainted. I have logic problems when I think of a passionate relational God, but somehow God is able to be relationally responsive (and even passionate) without losing perfection. I'm still working on being 'angry and sin not' so I still have a hard time seeing a 'perfect' passion. I believe it intellectually, but am a long way off from perceiving an emotional God with any clarity. I simply know that He is never lacking in goodness, perfection, and righteousness. Any time I have ever seen God's passions, I've always had trouble. When He passes judgement it is always devastating. Ananias and Saphira is a difficult story. Judgement on the nations down to the last child is a difficult story. I try to remember in those times that God is never caught without perfection. He is always love, just, right, and good no matter what circumstance. Again I say, I do not understand God from passionate expression. I understand intellectually, as I said, but my own feelings are not perfect and I have to continually go back to the Word and remind myself while reading a troubling passage, that God is good, God is right, God is perfect and His ways are perfect.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

God is perfect and His ways are perfect.

Indeed. :up:

But man isn't perfect, yet God loves man none the less. A perfectly merciful God changes (i.e., shows mercy) in response to a less than perfect human, that's the awesome part! It's amazing to think that the God of the universe, the God who designed the atom and created all that exists, feels emotions and responds to individuals like you and me.

This is a fun discussion, where should we go from here?

 

[Lon]

Interesting debate. HUGE mp3's

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Interesting debate. HUGE mp3's

No doubt!

So did you get a chance to listen to the entire thing?

 

[Lon]

No doubt!

So did you get a chance to listen to the entire thing?

Yep good points on both sides.

Two things only troubled me from Cook and I'll first list then address:

1) "If God does not have foreknowledge as the OV says, then we couldn't know for certain if something would come to pass."

-My guess is either some OVer's believe this and so both Lamerson and Cook do not understand your position on God's power. I believe you guys address this well and I was very glad it did not escape Bob's notice.

2) "The OV serve a different God."

-This troubeled me in the sense that God is the same God. Granted OV believes God can change and Cook does not. This might be the reason he said this. I also believe that Bob left the interpretation for this view too open in discussion. In other words, you also believe that at least part of His relational goodness does not change. I think it is important to list all areas that God does not change to avoid this kind of assessment.

A little analogy:
My parents treated me very differently when I went to high school. They repealed just about every rule including curfews and chores. They did not however do this for any of my siblings. Why? Because my own paramenters were much higher than even my parents parameters. I was in the house most of the time and in bed by 10PM. I always had my homework finished and had a 3.8 GPA in my senior year and a 3.2 average altogether.

Were my parents different parents because they treated us differently and different characteristics were viewed? Nope. Same parents.

As best as I can tell, OV and SV is the same God with different attributes stressed. Do we believe in the same characteristics? I believe we do, we just tend to stress the qualities that are most important to us respectively. This does create a different set of parameters for scripture interpretation etc, but I still think we are talking about the same God. I could be wrong in this assessment.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Yep good points on both sides.

Two things only troubled me from Cook and I'll first list then address:

1) "If God does not have foreknowledge as the OV says, then we couldn't know for certain if something would come to pass."

-My guess is either some OVer's believe this and so both Lamerson and Cook do not understand your position on God's power. I believe you guys address this well and I was very glad it did not escape Bob's notice.

Great point!

Gene said.... "If God doesn't have exhaustive foreknowledge I cannot trust Him."

This left me wondering.... who does Pastor Cook trust? Does he trust his wife? :think:

2) "The OV serve a different God."

-This troubeled me in the sense that God is the same God. Granted OV believes God can change and Cook does not. This might be the reason he said this. I also believe that Bob left the interpretation for this view too open in discussion. In other words, you also believe that at least part of His relational goodness does not change. I think it is important to list all areas that God does not change to avoid this kind of assessment.

A little analogy:
My parents treated me very differently when I went to high school. They repealed just about every rule including curfews and chores. They did not however do this for any of my siblings. Why? Because my own paramenters were much higher than even my parents parameters. I was in the house most of the time and in bed by 10PM. I always had my homework finished and had a 3.8 GPA in my senior year and a 3.2 average altogether.

Were my parents different parents because they treated us differently and different characteristics were viewed? Nope. Same parents.

As best as I can tell, OV and SV is the same God with different attributes stressed. Do we believe in the same characteristics? I believe we do, we just tend to stress the qualities that are most important to us respectively. This does create a different set of parameters for scripture interpretation etc, but I still think we are talking about the same God. I could be wrong in this assessment.

Normally I would agree with you on this point however I do have a hard time believing that the God I worship (who hates wickedness) is the same god pastor Cook worships who orchestrates little boys being sodomized for His glory.

Lonster, do you believe that God orchestrates and glorifies Himself by having a young boy sodomized on video tape for a pedophiles sexual pleasure?


Does that really sound like the God of the Bible to you?

 

[Lon]

Great point!

Gene said.... "If God doesn't have exhaustive foreknowledge I cannot trust Him."

This left me wondering.... who does Pastor Cook trust? Does he trust his wife? :think:

Normally I would agree with you on this point however I do have a hard time believing that the God I worship (who hates wickedness) is the same god pastor Cook worships who orchestrates little boys being sodomized for His glory.

Lonster, do you believe that God orchestrates and glorifies Himself by having a young boy sodomized on video tape for a pedophiles sexual pleasure?


Does that really sound like the God of the Bible to you?

C.S. Lewis addresses this also: "if the universe is so bad, or even half so bad, how on earth did human beings ever come to attribute it to the activity of a wise and good Creator? The spectacle of the universe as revealed by experience can never have been ground for religion: it must always have been something in spite of which religion, acquired from a different source, was held".

He further adds: "a fixed nature of matter implies a possibility, though not a necessity, of evil and suffering, for "not all states of matter will be equally agreeable to the wishes of a given soul"; that souls, if they are free, may take advantage of the fixed laws of nature to hurt one another; that a "corrective" intervention by God in the laws of nature, which would remove the possibility — or the effect — of such abuse, while clearly imaginable, would eventually lead to a wholly meaningless universe, in which nothing important depended on man's choices. "Try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free-wills involve, and you will find that you have excluded life itself". Thus, the universe as we know it might as well be a product of a wise and omnipotent Creator; it remains to be shown "how, perceiving a suffering world, and being assured, on quite different grounds, that God is good, we are to conceive that goodness and that suffering without a contradiction".

 

[Lon]

I have to see freewill as a reality for sin, or it could not have happened. If all was predetermined, foreordained and foreknown, I'd have to depart on that premise (which again moves me to a mediating viewpoint). I'm even now, still working on determinism and foreknowledge. It may not be a clear view for your understanding as yet, but the way I see foreknowledge, is that God sees all our future (at least to the last point in Revelation) as if it has already happened, or as if it is already history. Perhaps it is just the predictive, determined, pre-planned,and almighty view of the OV that I am explaining and advocating. I could be pretty satisfied with much of OV if the future wasn't our contingent departure. If OV sees God as even 'almost' foreknowing based on His Wisdom and other attributes, I believe we'd be closer to a similar page.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

but the way I see foreknowledge, is that God sees all our future (at least to the last point in Revelation) as if it has already happened, or as if it is already history.

Why couldn't God simply say this is what I am gonna do, and then do it?

Is exhaustive foreknowledge truly the only mechanism to declare future events?

Perhaps it is just the predictive, determined, pre-planned,and almighty view of the OV that I am explaining and advocating. I could be pretty satisfied with much of OV if the future wasn't our contingent departure. If OV sees God as even 'almost' foreknowing based on His Wisdom and other attributes, I believe we'd be closer to a similar page.

Maybe God doesn't want to know in meticulous detail what we are going to do? :idunno:

Maybe God values our freedom so much that He willingly restrains His control over us. In return we get to have a relationship (in every sense of the word) with the God of the universe.

 

[Lon]

Why couldn't God simply say this is what I am gonna do, and then do it?

Is exhaustive foreknowledge truly the only mechanism to declare future events?

Maybe God doesn't want to know in meticulous detail what we are going to do? :idunno:

Maybe God values our freedom so much that He willingly restrains His control over us. In return we get to have a relationship (in every sense of the word) with the God of the universe.

There are ways we can look at this from our side that make us really happy or a bit upset respectively. I am totally convinced God can fend for Himself so I really don't have anything but a well gelled theology anwhere that God says "I am God and you are not to know this." Or "You just worry about Lon."

Rather than my saying "God has exhaustive foreknowledge" I'd rather say, "I believe, to the best of my ability to discern, God has very extensive foreknowledge."

I would also say "God has a special relationship with me regardless of what He knows or doesn't. He meets everyone of us at our needs, emotionally, physically, intellectually. If we perceive Him differently, let's examine what is true, what might be true, and what is not true. Let's agree on either side and give room to one another in the middle."

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Rather than my saying "God has exhaustive foreknowledge" I'd rather say, "I believe, to the best of my ability to discern, God has very extensive foreknowledge."

OK, but I have some homework for you.

Let's assume that we have a friend and that friend asserts... "all cars (without exception) are made in Germany".

How many examples of cars made in other places than Germany do we need to provide him to prove that statement wrong?

I would also say "God has a special relationship with me regardless of what He knows or doesn't. He meets everyone of us at our needs, emotionally, physically, intellectually. If we perceive Him differently, let's examine what is true, what might be true, and what is not true. Let's agree on either side and give room to one another in the middle."

I agree! :up:

Praise God for the special relationship that we have in Him.

 

[Lon]

Let's assume that we have a friend and that friend asserts... "all cars (without exception) are made in Germany".

How many examples of cars made in other places than Germany do we need to provide him to prove that statement wrong?

Well, this analogy kind of busts down a bit in theology.

Here is another way to look at it. At Multnomah, there were a few OVer's and Gary Friesen's book of course, which definitely leads to at least a partial OpenView.
I'd think that it cannot be all that clear or the whole staff would have moved over to at least a partial OV. They are very committed to scripture and indeed on top of their game in this area. I'm alright for a Multnomah guy. I have a wholistic theology formed fairly solid, but being a global thinker, I tend to approach theology from that perspective. There are answers to the dilemmas even if some of the specifics allude me for the time being.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Well, this analogy kind of busts down a bit in theology.

My analogy has nothing to do with theology, it's not an analogy for my theological position but instead an analogy to help understand the difference between things that are settled and things that are exhaustively settled.

So... how about you go ahead and answer, and then we can discuss it.

Here it is again....

Let's assume that we have a friend and that friend asserts... "all cars (without exception) are made in Germany".

How many examples of cars made in other places than Germany do we need to provide him to prove that statement wrong?

 

[Lon]

My analogy has nothing to do with theology, it's not an analogy for my theological position but instead an analogy to help understand the difference between things that are settled and things that are exhaustively settled.

So... how about you go ahead and answer, and then we can discuss it.

Here it is again....

Let's assume that we have a friend and that friend asserts... "all cars (without exception) are made in Germany".

How many examples of cars made in other places than Germany do we need to provide him to prove that statement wrong?

One. Proving this for OV/SV automatically makes OV?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

One.

Exactly.

This is the point Pastor Cook had such a hard time understanding when debating Bob Enyart, and also later in his discussion with Will (the last caller in part 2 of the open line show).

Proving this for OV/SV automatically makes OV?

Well.... one example of an event that wasn't settled in advance would certainly disprove an exhaustively settled history/present/future.

 

[Lon]

Exactly.

This is the point Pastor Cook had such a hard time understanding when debating Bob Enyart, and also later in his discussion with Will (the last caller in part 2 of the open line show).

Well.... one example of an event that wasn't settled in advance would certainly disprove an exhaustively settled history/present/future.

You are talking about the immutability, 'that God doesn't change in nature?' Which point specifically are you addressing?

'God does not change in His essential nature.' Are you talking about 'God being able to have a new thought?' Luke2:52 Jesus increased in favor 'change/ no change.'

Or Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8/ Isaiah 43. 'God forgets our sins?'