Jump to content


Photo

Predestination & Free Will


  • Please log in to reply
264 replies to this topic

#161 the totton linnet

the totton linnet

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts
  • Location:Winchester
  • Interests:Friends, fellowship, stuff
  • Age: 19
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Winchester, Hampshire

Posted 17 January 2010 - 06:22 AM

Suzanne,

You hit the nail right on the head with the correct interpretation of that perplexing Hebrew verse.

Also, keep in mind the three aspects of salvation. Spirit, Soul and Body.

No -- You cannot lose salvation of the spirit. The Holy Spirit indwells believers once and forever. You are guaranteed to at least enter into eternity with Christ in the Millennium and afterward in the New Heaven. That is justification.

Yes -- You can lose salvation of your soul -- your mind, will and emotions -- because of unrepentant sin and the lack of good works as a saved person. This "loss of salvation" is manifested in loss of rewards at the Judgment Seat of Christ. With insufficient rewards you will only enter into the Millennium and New Heaven, but if you have sufficient rewards you will enter into, but also reign with Christ in the Millennium and New Heaven. Otherwise, you lose this part of your salvation. This is sanctification.

Yes -- Body: You can sin so much as a believer that God will take your life. You will still physically rise to join him with a new body, however, at the end. This is glorification.

The "lose your salvation" verses quoted in the post above should be examined in light of these differences. Sadly, they are often not, and that's where the confusion arises.

Dave

View Post

*
It is even so, english is a very poor language really, words tnd to be set in either/or cases when n the original there are shades of meaning.

#162 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 17 January 2010 - 01:15 PM

*
And yet you are quite happy to claim that God gave you a free will which doesn't have ANY scripture at all. Can you find one to say you came to Jesus of your own free will, I can show you plenty which say unless God did the pulling

View Post


I've already shown it, you just refuse to see it for what it is.

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.

#163 the totton linnet

the totton linnet

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts
  • Location:Winchester
  • Interests:Friends, fellowship, stuff
  • Age: 19
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Winchester, Hampshire

Posted 17 January 2010 - 03:21 PM

I've already shown it, you just refuse to see it for what it is.

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.

View Post


The church was split asunder between these camps almost from the start of the reformation Isaac, the work of the great awakening in the 18th century was split between Wesley and Whitefield, it makes an interesting study to follow the histories of all the various denominations that sprang up, which side of this argument they took and where those denoms have ended up those that are still around. But yes we got the chance to state our views :) and hopefully we haven't fallen out. :)

#164 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 18 January 2010 - 02:05 AM

People to often take their faith to serously and personal. Realizing that freewill exists, makes one humble that everyone has a choice and the gospel should not be forced down the throats of people who are not interested.

#165 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 03 February 2010 - 12:33 AM

I would like to summarize Suzie’s comments, she does of course have the free will to challenge them, or perhaps she won't if she was fore-ordained to not do so! :lol: The following is harsh, but if anyone believes any of the following is wrong, please let me know and offer the relevant post in this thread as evidence.

1) Suzie believes that God ordained all murders, including Jeffrey Dahmer eating people, and ordained all violent rapes throughout history. She thinks God planned for Susan Smith to drown her kids. She thinks God planned for people to abort millions of babies. All the while she says how God is “wonderful”.
2) Suzie believes free will doctrine started 150 years ago, with no evidence to back up her claim. I have offered solid evidence in this thread that Calvinistic beliefs originated in Greece centuries before the birth of Christ, and this secular belief was largely resurrected by Augustine, and later fueled by Calvin (this is the same guy who partook in a Christian being burned at the stake for holding a contrary view).
3) Suzie spent the majority of time ignoring verses offered her, seldom directly responding to the verses offered. In the minority of cases where she has responded, it was mostly philosophical musings, such as “we’re just mangling words”.
4) She continually erected the strawman argument that free will is the same things as saying man can earn their salvation and choose God.

If I am wrong about any of the above, please find your replies to my posts in this thread and show me where I am wrong.

I know I am coming across in a very blunt manner, but this has gone on long enough. How long will you continue to deny the big elephant in the room? I’m not saying you have to cowtow to some Armenian belief or reject Calvinism outright, or be a pre-triber or dispensationalist or hold to an open view. But I will continue to oppose you rigorously since you have shown a propensity to claim how “wonderful” God is, while at the same time saying he has programmed people to rape an pillage, and all sorts of despicable things, with only a handful of out-of-context verses to support such a view.

Fred

#166 the totton linnet

the totton linnet

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts
  • Location:Winchester
  • Interests:Friends, fellowship, stuff
  • Age: 19
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Winchester, Hampshire

Posted 03 February 2010 - 06:43 AM

I would like to summarize Suzie’s comments, she does of course have the free will to challenge them, or perhaps she won't if she was fore-ordained to not do so! :D The following is harsh, but if anyone believes any of the following is wrong, please let me know and offer the relevant post in this thread as evidence.

1) Suzie believes that God ordained all murders, including Jeffrey Dahmer eating people, and ordained all violent rapes throughout history. She thinks God planned for Susan Smith to drown her kids. She thinks God planned for people to abort millions of babies. All the while she says how God is “wonderful”.
2) Suzie believes free will doctrine started 150 years ago, with no evidence to back up her claim. I have offered solid evidence in this thread that Calvinistic beliefs originated in Greece centuries before the birth of Christ, and this secular belief was largely resurrected by Augustine, and later fueled by Calvin (this is the same guy who partook in a Christian being burned at the stake for holding a contrary view).
3) Suzie spent the majority of time ignoring verses offered her, seldom directly responding to the verses offered. In the minority of cases where she has responded, it was mostly philosophical musings, such as “we’re just mangling words”.
4) She continually erected the strawman argument that free will is the same things as saying man can earn their salvation and choose God.

If I am wrong about any of the above, please find your replies to my posts in this thread and show me where I am wrong.

I know I am coming across in a very blunt manner, but this has gone on long enough. How long will you continue to deny the big elephant in the room? I’m not saying you have to cowtow to some Armenian belief or reject Calvinism outright, or be a pre-triber or dispensationalist or hold to an open view. But I will continue to oppose you rigorously since you have shown a propensity to claim how “wonderful” God is, while at the same time saying he has programmed people to rape an pillage, and all sorts of despicable things, with only a handful of out-of-context verses to support such a view.

Fred

View Post

*
All those I have never breathed a word of, they are ALL straw men except the last one, of course free will is a works based, part man part God salvation. neither can you say "to God be all the glory" because some at least must go to you.

Paul the great predestination preacher said "there dwelleth no good thing in me" I say the same, but there must have been some spark of virtue in Fred, he was able to discern his own sinfulness and God's virtue and Fred was wise enough to choose of his "own free will." I could never make such a boast as that before the Lord.

We both could quote scriptures to support our views, there is no point. I have nothing to prove. :lol:

#167 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 03 February 2010 - 05:33 PM

I would like to summarize Suzie’s comments, she does of course have the free will to challenge them, or perhaps she won't if she was fore-ordained to not do so! :) The following is harsh, but if anyone believes any of the following is wrong, please let me know and offer the relevant post in this thread as evidence.

1) Suzie believes that God ordained all murders, including Jeffrey Dahmer eating people, and ordained all violent rapes throughout history. She thinks God planned for Susan Smith to drown her kids. She thinks God planned for people to abort millions of babies. All the while she says how God is “wonderful”.
2) Suzie believes free will doctrine started 150 years ago, with no evidence to back up her claim. I have offered solid evidence in this thread that Calvinistic beliefs originated in Greece centuries before the birth of Christ, and this secular belief was largely resurrected by Augustine, and later fueled by Calvin (this is the same guy who partook in a Christian being burned at the stake for holding a contrary view).
3) Suzie spent the majority of time ignoring verses offered her, seldom directly responding to the verses offered. In the minority of cases where she has responded, it was mostly philosophical musings, such as “we’re just mangling words”.
4) She continually erected the strawman argument that free will is the same things as saying man can earn their salvation and choose God.

If I am wrong about any of the above, please find your replies to my posts in this thread and show me where I am wrong.

I know I am coming across in a very blunt manner, but this has gone on long enough. How long will you continue to deny the big elephant in the room? I’m not saying you have to cowtow to some Armenian belief or reject Calvinism outright, or be a pre-triber or dispensationalist or hold to an open view. But I will continue to oppose you rigorously since you have shown a propensity to claim how “wonderful” God is, while at the same time saying he has programmed people to rape an pillage, and all sorts of despicable things, with only a handful of out-of-context verses to support such a view.

Fred

View Post


Fred,

I have said this in another similar thread...

We have 'freewill'...but it is an illusion.

We are slaves to cause and effect.

Our decision making ability is a product of our environment, upbringing and inward physical makeup.

The only thing that can divert the 'natural' course of our lives...is the 'supernatural'.

Earlier, when I said that 'freewill is an illusion', I really mean that it is an illusion from the vantage point of eternity...someone on the outside looking in.
We see freewill as 'real', simply because we are living in the moment.

Everything that has happened, from the creation of the universe until now, if a supernatural reset button was pressed, would happen exactly the same again unless God intervened differently from how he did originally.

In your number 1 comment, you said that God 'ordained'...but isn't there a difference between 'ordain' and 'allow'?

Look at the book of Job...Satan could not do anything to Job...unless God 'allowed' it.

Was it God who 'ordained' that Job's children and wealth and health be taken from him?...or was it allowed?

Peace

#168 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 03 February 2010 - 09:18 PM

Hello Suzie,

If I am wrong, I asked you to provide the posts to prove I am wrong. It truly would never be my intent to put words in your mouth. I am merely exposing the skitzofrantic nature of your theology, which is evidenced by the fact that, despite pleas from me from the beginning for you to answer simple, direct questions, that I put in bold, and even said you could skip the rest of my post, you still chose not to answer them. In the rare circumstances where you have answered, the answers were vague. How many times in this thread have I asked you, in one form or another, if God for-ordained rapes and murder? I can remember at least 3 times. Here is your one vague answer in this thread -

“I have stated my belief that He manages everything from a position of fore-knowledge.”

This sure sounds like a YES to me (that God ordains all things, include rape & murder). Anyone else here think Suzie was answering No? If the answer is no, why not just say so? (all the while trying to explain why your theology demands otherwise). Because if you say no and try to defend it, you can’t without the underpinning theology being exposed as contradictory and skitzofrantic.

From another thread, we got this degrading comment -

“He has also made vessels of wrath whom He wishes to destroy, it's nobody's business folks I'm telling you, it's God's business.”

It is our business, why else put it in the Bible for us to read? But it is also our business to understand the context. So I will ask you again, for the uptenth time, another version of the same question:

Q1: Did God for-ordain Susan Smith to drown her kids? If no, explain in light of your comment that God “manages everything from a position of fore-knowledge.”

Regarding Isaiah 45:9, I completely agree that this is relevant, but no less relevant than Jeremiah 18:5-10. The problem is that this page in Jeremiah is missing from your Bible because it completely refutes your position, hence you’ve long ago ripped it out in your mind. Let’s go back to Isaiah 45:9. How does this support your claim that God intentionally created certain people to do wickedness? Notice the very first sentence of the passage you quoted: Isa 45:9 "Woe to him who strives with his Maker!” I AGREE. Do you? It seems you have some doctored Bible that instead says “Woe to him who strives to do something other than the evil I want him to do!”

Regarding free-will starting 150 years ago, I searched for this and found the following post you made:

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=47343

Your emphasis was on decision making, which you have time-and-time again made synonymous with free will (the strawman I mentioned). If you are prepared to retract your claim that free-will and decision making are the same thing, I’ll retract item #2.

I’m hoping some day you’ll see the problem with having to continually sidestep questions and then contradict yourself in trying to defend a theology that at its core is skitzofrantic and impossible to defend with scripture, short of misinterpretation of a handful of verses that ultimately have been shown to be yanked far out of context.

Finally, you wrote:

Paul the great predestination preacher said "there dwelleth no good thing in me" I say the same, but there must have been some spark of virtue in Fred, he was able to discern his own sinfulness and God's virtue and Fred was wise enough to choose of his "own free will." I could never make such a boast as that before the Lord.


You have been pleaded with many times to discontinue this strawman. I do not think you are intentionally doing this, you are just being dense. However, you are wasting our time by forcing members to continually have to address this strawman. Since you are otherwise an outstanding member of this forum, I am going to ask the mod team to delete any post they see from you, in its entirety, if it includes this strawman argument that trust me, many of us are growing tired of answering.

Fred

#169 chipwag64

chipwag64

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pennsylvania

Posted 19 February 2010 - 07:29 PM

Fred,

After reading your post #87 and your 5 points that you believe summarize "Calvinism"...I would have problems with people who believe those things also.
I can think of several reasons to evangelize and still believe in unconditional election.
Same with prayer
As far as your remark that God cannot change the future, we need to remember that God created time itself, so He is not living in time as we are.
Anyway, I read your post #117 and your idea of predestination, that only groups are predestined, not individuals.
I ask you this Fred,
Did God predestine a certain specific number of people in this group, according to foreseeing their faith, yet chose to ignore their identity?
Did God predestine an unlimited number in this group, choosing not to see who, or how many would finally believe?
If so, what of "foreknowledge"?
I'm thoroughly confused by this definition of predestination and look forward to your views.
Please define what these terms mean to you, and how they work together (Predestination and Foreknowledge)

#170 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 19 February 2010 - 09:21 PM

I can think of several reasons to evangelize and still believe in unconditional election.
Same with prayer

View Post


But are they good reasons. :rolleyes:

As far as your remark that God cannot change the future, we need to remember that God created time itself, so He is not living in time as we are.


This really is a huge crux in all of this. Where in the Bible does it say God created time? This is a very common Christian belief; my problem is that fellow Christians can only infer this from the Bible, they can never point to a verse that shows this. Of the verses they do appeal to, the verse can easily be accommodated by the view that God is not outside of time! On the other hand, I can provide straightforward, concrete verses that time isn’t something that is either created, or that God is “outside” of. In order to accept that God is outside of time, there are literally hundreds, of verses have to be explained away as “anthropomorphisms”. They can’t be easily accommodated, without rejecting the plain meaning. What I find interesting is that of the believers who accept YEC, they do so because they believe the scriptures literally and clearly show this, and they are right. But IMO there are many more literal verses that refute “God outside of time”, but it is so engrained in Christianity that most have trouble seeing it. I had trouble seeing it for 45 years.

Let me quickly define what I mean by “time” – the American Heritage Dictionary hits it right on the head:

Time - A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.

Now, consider this verse:

Jer 19:5 They have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind

How do you explain this verse? Do you admit that any explanation you try, short of taking it literally, is that you are NOT taking it literally? Again I appeal to my YEC brothers. You have done great in accepting a young earth despite overwhelming opposition from both the church and the world. Why stop there? There are many more literal verses that oppose the view “God outside of time” than there are literal verses that oppose an old earth, yet with less you have done well to reject an old earth. I ask the reader to consider this carefully. If you are to be consistent (that you take the Bible literally) don’t stop at YEC. :lol:

BTW, one thing that is well-established is that the ancient pagan Greeks did believe their gods were outside of time, yet there is not a shred of evidence the Jews ever held this concept (in fact there is evidence of the opposite). When it comes to matters of the Deity, have pagan scientists ever once been right? Can you think of a single example? 1 Cor 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.

Did God predestine a certain specific number of people in this group, according to foreseeing their faith, yet chose to ignore their identity?


I believe God predestined one group, the church.

If so, what of "foreknowledge"?
I'm thoroughly confused by this definition of predestination and look forward to your views.


Foreknowledge means to know about something before it happens. The Bible teaches that God has foreknowledge. But this does not mean God is outside of time, it’s a non-sequitur. Since God is all-powerful, he knows what he is going to do tomorrow. There is nothing anyone can do to stop God from doing wants He wants to do. If I were God, I would have foreknowledge that the Denver Broncos were going to win the Super Bowl next year. I would know, because I would make it happen.

Isa 46:11 Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it.

Fred

#171 chipwag64

chipwag64

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pennsylvania

Posted 20 February 2010 - 06:16 AM

Fred,

My comment about God being "outside" of time, was not to say that He does not dwell in time, but, rather, that He does not dwell in "past", "present" and "future" modes of time like we do, (Isaiah 57:15).

Now, as far as this predestinated "church", which I assume you mean the "called out ones", is there a definite number of individuals in this church? If so, who, or what determines the specific number?
I want to understand your view of how predestination and foreknowledge and election all work together.

#172 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 20 February 2010 - 07:34 AM

Fred,

My comment about God being "outside" of time, was not to say that He does not dwell in time, but, rather, that He does not dwell in "past", "present" and "future" modes of time like we do, (Isaiah 57:15).

View Post


We both agree God is eternal, both without a beginning and without end. Most Christians agree we too (all humans, saved and unsaved) are also eternal, but with a beginning. Let me refer to the analogy fellow Christians often appeal to. They say time is like a river, and God sits outside of that river and can see everything as they really are in the past, present, and future, all at once. This is speculation, with only inferred support from the Bible that I say is flimsy at best. What often happens is the Christian will appeal to quantum physics and other extra-Biblical secular ideas to support their notion. Scripture simply does not support the idea that the future already literally exists to God before it happens. The future no more exists than Santa Claus exists.

Why you didn’t try to explain Jeremiah 19:5. :)

I'm left wondering why, so often in this thread, the verses I cite go nary a whisper of response. Please know I am not trying to pick a fight, but its a fair question for me to ask. Why won't anyone deal with the verses I cite?

I would challenge you and anyone else to feel free to provide a verse that supports that the future already exists, and we’ll keep score as to who rejects the literal meaning, and who doesn’t, who can easily accomodate the other, and who cannot. When you site some prophecy, just realize that this is easily accommodated by my position that the future doesn’t exist, since all prophecies can be made to happen by God, just as Isaiah 46:11 and other verses plainly state. The plan can exist in exquisite detail in God’s mind, so in that sense He surely does know the future, and He will carve it out as He wants. But he can also change the future under certain circumstances, as He sees fit. For this I've also given plenty of examples in this thread, and will gladly provide more.

So far, in my exchange with you, the score is 1 – 0. :D

Here is the 2nd verse I will offer, I’ll start early in the Bible:

Gen 2:19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.

If the future already exists, why would the Holy Spirit-inspire Moses to write it this way?

The score is now 2 - 0. :P

Now, as far as this predestinated "church", which I assume you mean the "called out ones", is there a definite number of individuals in this church? If so, who, or what determines the specific number?
I want to understand your view of how predestination and foreknowledge and election all work together.


No, there is not a definite number, since the future didn't exist yet. But don't you think it is reasonable that God would have expected that there would be a body of believers who would accept the death of his Son on a cross?

BTW, as a somewhat related aside, do you think God allows anything at all to occur by chance? Chuck Missler, who I respect quite a bit and have learned much from over the years, likes to quip that "chance" is not a kosher word. On this I couldn't disagree with him more, since there are plenty of verses in the Bible that refute the idea that God doesn't allow certain things to happen by chance or man's free will.

Fred

#173 chipwag64

chipwag64

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pennsylvania

Posted 20 February 2010 - 08:59 AM

Fred,

All I'm asking for is your view of Predestination, Foreknowledge and Election and how they work together.
What Jeremiah 19:5 has to do with it, or whether the future already exists or not is side-stepping, lets get on with it.
Jeremiah 19:5:
God did not command nor decree that these people should worship idols and burn their children in the fire??? What else can I say?,I believe it speaks for itself.
If I understand your view of foreknowledge, then God foreknew that at least one person would believe on His Son, because He made sure it would happen, but yet doesn't violate anyones "free will" by forcing them to believe? Is this so?

#174 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 20 February 2010 - 06:20 PM

What Jeremiah 19:5 has to do with it, or whether the future already exists or not is side-stepping, lets get on with it.
Jeremiah 19:5:
God did not command nor decree that these people should worship idols and burn their children in the fire??? What else can I say?,I believe it speaks for itself.

View Post


I am not side-stepping at all, Jeremiah 19:5, and whether or not the future exists before it happens, has everything to do with this topic. Ironically, I believe you side-stepped the most important part of Jer 19:5 that illustrates this. Emphasis added: Jer 19:5 they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind

Let’s assume for a moment you accept that the future doesn’t exist until it happens (since you claim this doesn’t matter). If God unconditionally predestined every saved person in His mind ions ago, then why would God at the very same time be “longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9) This would make no sense at all, this would be completely skitso. God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33).

If I understand your view of foreknowledge, then God foreknew that at least one person would believe on His Son, because He made sure it would happen, but yet doesn't violate anyones "free will" by forcing them to believe? Is this so?


This is certainly a fair question. I again submit that the most reasonable and literal exegesis of the Bible in its entirety reveals that God foreknew the church. He predestined a path to salvation, and those who accept the free gift become part of this predestined gift, and consequently His church. For me to extend beyond this, and try to guess what was in God’s mind regarding ravish details of this predestined gift at the cross and the subsequent church, would be mostly speculation.

My argument would be flimsy if I relied on Eph 1:4 alone, but the rest of the Bible explains what Eph 1:4 and the handful of other predestination verses mean. If you take the unconditional election view, you open yourself up to having to perform all kinds of calisthenics with a great number of passages throughout the Bible.

Fred

#175 chipwag64

chipwag64

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pennsylvania

Posted 20 February 2010 - 07:29 PM

Fred,

If I tell you that the phrase "Nor did it come into my mind" means that it was never in Gods mind to command or decree that they should do these things, you will say, "no, it means that God never foresaw that they would do this kind of thing"...correct? then how does either of us prove our position?
I appreciate your explaining your view of foreknowledge, THAT is what I'm interested in, thank you.
I ask you this Fred, by what means does God make sure that His Son did not die for naught, without knowledge that even one person would respond favorably to this free offer of grace, is that all that you have is just an assumption that someone, somewhere would be willing and able to respond?
Now, I would like you to, if you are willing, explain your phrase from post # 170 where you state that the future does not yet exist, but yet God can change the future under certain circumstances, as He sees fit.
What is God changing? according to your view, the future does not exist, so how do you change something that does not yet exist?
Also, can you explain what Isaiah 41:4 tells us about God?

Chip

#176 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 20 February 2010 - 10:39 PM

Hello Chip,

If I tell you that the phrase "Nor did it come into my mind" means that it was never in Gods mind to command or decree that they should do these things, you will say, "no, it means that God never foresaw that they would do this kind of thing"...correct?


No, I actually would completely agree with your interpretation.

I ask you this Fred, by what means does God make sure that His Son did not die for naught, without knowledge that even one person would respond favorably to this free offer of grace, is that all that you have is just an assumption that someone, somewhere would be willing and able to respond?


Good question. Again I would have to speculate what was in God’s mind, but I prefer to rely on what I know in scripture. I will say that Christ died for all, not just the NT believers but the OT believers as well.

Now, I would like you to, if you are willing, explain your phrase from post # 170 where you state that the future does not yet exist, but yet God can change the future under certain circumstances, as He sees fit. What is God changing? according to your view, the future does not exist, so how do you change something that does not yet exist?


God can change the future any way he chooses, He can also choose to allow free will to dictate how certain things go. One thing is for certain, God will remain true to all his attributes, such as Love, Justice, Holiness, etc. For a classic example, see the book of Jonah. :lol:

I believe Isaiah 41:4 shows God has been in control from the beginning, and the context is His help toward Israel. I believe the reference to generations is how God indeed called them out from the very beginning, we almost have a complete genealogy all the way through Christ.

Fred

#177 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 21 February 2010 - 09:13 AM

This really is a huge crux in all of this. Where in the Bible does it say God created time? This is a very common Christian belief; my problem is that fellow Christians can only infer this from the Bible, they can never point to a verse that shows this. Of the verses they do appeal to, the verse can easily be accommodated by the view that God is not outside of time! On the other hand, I can provide straightforward, concrete verses that time isn’t something that is either created, or that God is “outside” of. In order to accept that God is outside of time, there are literally hundreds, of verses have to be explained away as “anthropomorphisms”.


I think it´s a question of logic. If God has no beggining and He is inside the time, it means that there is an infinite period of time before today.If there is an infinite period of time before today so today could not exist.

#178 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 21 February 2010 - 11:37 PM

I think it´s a question of logic. If God has no beggining and He is inside the time, it means that there is an infinite period of time before today.If there is an infinite period of time before today so today could not exist.

View Post


I believe this is easily refuted by considering the other direction. If we humans are inside of time and have no ending, it means there is an infinite period of time after today. If there is an infinite period of time after today, then today could not exist. :lol:

Our finite minds can't really comprehend infinity. I again would appeal to scripture. There are literally hundreds of verses where God is acting in a non-spatial time continuum. There are no direct verses that suggest God is outside of "time", as time is defined by the Heritage dictionary.

Fred

#179 chipwag64

chipwag64

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pennsylvania

Posted 22 February 2010 - 06:10 PM

Fred,

Where to start?…
First of all “foreknowledge” refers to both people and plans. The use in Romans 8:29 is absolutely about people because it says “whom”. Same in Romans 11:2, its about people. Same in 1 Peter 1:2, the foreknowledge was of the elect (both the people and the plan), same in Acts 2:23, although it seems here to be referencing mostly the plan.
Now, if the scripture in both Romans 8 and 11 included the words “would believe” after the word “foreknew” then, yes, I would agree that foreknowledge would refer to the fact that God foreknew that some people would believe in the gospel. But, those words are not present, hence, let the verses say what they say, that God foreknew some people.
Secondly, if the word foreknew in Romans 8:29 refers to a people then so does predestination, and calling and justification and glorification.
Thirdly, I see this ALL the time, predestination does NOT in any way whatsoever mean that EVERY action and/or thought of a predestined individual was predestined, this is NOT in the Bible!! Predestination is towards adoption (Ephesians 1:5), an inheritance (Ephesians 1:11) and conformance to the image of His Son (Romans 8:29) NOTHING else in between.
Fourthly, in post #7 you said “God knew that some men would choose His free gift, but He granted them free will to do so” but in other posts it seems like you’re saying that God has no knowledge whatsoever of anyone’s future actions or choices because the future does not exist yet. Is this accurate?
Here is the problem I have with your theology as I understand it, apart from what I wrote above:
If God has no ability to know anyone’s future choices or actions, but yet He CAN and DOES change? ( I think you mean create ) the future by decree of which no man can thwart His purposes. As God is creating the future moment by moment, He allows mans previously unknown “free-will” choices to join in this creation of the future as it pleases Him.
So, what do we make of Jesus’ predictions that Judas would betray Him (Matthew 26:23), that Peter would deny Him (Luke 22:34), according to you, it can’t be knowledge of the future, it also can’t be that these people had no choice because God determined that it would happen, or else God would be making people to sin.
How could these things NOT come to pass? Jesus would then be a liar; they HAD to come to pass, so where is the free will? The same thing with the man with the water pitcher (Luke 22:10-13) and the people who will say "Lord,Lord" (Matthew 7:22,23) etc.
I just happened to notice post # 70 and I want you to see how you contradicted yourself THREE times!! This is your exact answer to someone who asked the same question:

"You assume Peter was predestined to deny Christ, but there is another possibility. Couldn’t God, with his infinite wisdom, look into Peter’s heart & mind and know with certainty Peter would deny him? The Calvinist often claims such a statement denies God’s sovereignty, but doesn’t it also deny his sovereignty to say He can’t look into a person’s thoughts and know how they are going to react to certain situations? I think every person in the world have certain thoughts that betray them to God such that God knows with 100% certainty how they will react to certain situations."

Fred, You used the word “know(s)” three times!! Ooops! :D

#180 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 23 February 2010 - 03:59 AM

I believe this is easily refuted by considering the other direction. If we humans are inside of time and have no ending, it means there is an infinite period of time after today. If there is an infinite period of time after today, then today could not exist. :mellow:


I think you are so smart to think it´s an answer. Are you kidding or do you think your example really refutes what I said ?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users