A Calvinist argument I don't understand...

[Guest]

Actually Paidion, I provided those 2 passages because I thought they did support your view.

[Guest]

Thank you. I reread your previous post more carefully.

Initially, I had thought you were saying that this view of omniscience may be logical philosophically, but lacks scriptural support, and that that you then quoted two passages which supposedly teach the contrary.

[Guest]

Actually Paidion, I provided those 2 passages because I thought they did support your view.

How did the passages you brought up support Paidions view? Do you agree with Pais view?

[Guest]

I currently do not agree with Open Theism, but if I were to agree then this would be my answer to the notion of God not knowing if His predictions will come true or not....

In working through questions of God's omniscience, we also have to remember God's omnipotence. If God doesn't know the future absolutely, He still would have the absolute sovereign power to cause an event that He says will take place to take place. The open theists are not replacing the God of the Bible with a Deistic God who sits back and just lets things end up however people want them to. The God of the Bible is SO sovereign that He can cause His plans and prophecies to be accomplished even without knowing exactly what the future will hold (or without ordaining every single event as many Calvinists believe).

That would be my answer..... if I was an open theist.

[Guest]

There is plenty of Scriptural support for the fact that the future choices of man are unknowable to God.

1. In Genesis we read that God, when He saw how evil man had become, was sorry He had created man. Why would He regret that He had created man, if He knew man was going to be evil. Wouldn't He rather have said, "Man has become very wicked. I knew this was going to happen!" If a person regrets his actions, does this not mean that that action had ramifications which he did not anticipate?

1 Peter 1:19-20 (KJV)19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Act 2:23 (MKJV) this One given to you by the before-determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken and by lawless hands, crucifying Him, you put Him to death;

To me, these verses seem to indicate that God did in fact know the future outcome of mankind's creation, and was not at all taken by surprise.

3. Then the LORD said to me in the days of Josiah the king, "Have you seen what faithless Israel did? She went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and she was a harlot there. "I thought, ‘After she has done all these things she will return to Me’; but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it.
Jeremiah 3:6,7 NASB

If the LORD knew that Israel would not return to Him, how could He have thought that they would? Or even if the word translated "thought" should be translated as "said" (as it usually is), the problem remains. If God knew that Israel would not return to Him, then surely He would not have said, "After she has done all these things she will return to Me." That would have been a lie. (Paidion)

I don't think that can be classified as a lie, when it is God who is speaking.
("He is not a man that He should lie"). There must be another explanation.

In Matthew 21, Jesus tells this parable:
Mat 21:33 Hear another parable. There was a certain housemaster who planted a vineyard and hedged it round about, and dug a winepress in it, and built a tower, and rented it to vinedressers, and went into a far country.
Mat 21:34 And when the season of the fruits drew near, he sent his servants to the vinedressers to receive its fruits.
Mat 21:35 And the vinedressers took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.
Mat 21:36 Again he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did the same to them.
Mat 21:37 But last of all he sent his son to them, saying, They will respect my son.
Mat 21:38 But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and get hold of his inheritance.
Mat 21:39 And taking him, they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

This is obviously an illustration of what was happening in reality among them - God sending Jesus into the world. Jesus had no compunction in "putting words into God's mouth" i.e. saying, They will respect my son, all the while knowing that they will not do so.

In this parable, as well as the scripture quoted regarding faithless Israel, I understand it as God using a kind of picturesque language, in a way that we would understand. Sort of like "come now, let us reason together."
Emphasising the reasonableness of His expectations, and the justice of any consequences. A way of saying that even though He knew that Israel would not return to Him, He had a right to expect that they should.

Regarding Ninevah, I question the statement that this was given as an unconditional prophecy. Regardless of how the wording of the text reads to us, the fact is that both Jonah and the Ninevites had some reason to fear and hope otherwise.

Jon 4:2 And he prayed to Jehovah and said, Please, O Jehovah, was this not my saying when I was still in my land? On account of this I fled before to Tarshish. For I knew that You are a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and One who repents over calamity.

Jon 3:6 For word came to the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne. And he laid his robe from him, and covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.
Jon 3:9 Who knows? He may repent, and God may have pity and turn away from the glow of His anger, so that we do not perish.

As a matter of fact, if it had been an unconditional prophecy, wouldn't that make God a liar, when He didn't follow through? Why would He require 100% accuracy of His prophets, on the pain of death, and not set an example?

[Guest]

Actually Paidion, I provided those 2 passages because I thought they did support your view.

How did the passages you brought up support Paidions view? Do you agree with Pais view?

I am not quite sure what his whole view is so am still thinking about it. Rae's answer comes close to my thoughts.

When I look at prophecy in scripture, I see how God will work the situation that is predicted. Daniel in particular stresses that the kingdoms of men rise and fall according to the will of the Lord. And that it is only His kingdom that continues for ever and ever. Where did King Neb. get the idea to make his statue of gold? Was it not from Daniel's prophecy? God certainly did not make him do it, but the making of the idol was also to reveal Neb's thoughts to him. Daniel's 2nd prophecy to him is to warn him of what will occur if he does not give the glory for his success to the Lord. Even telling him how to break off his sins and maintan peace with God - which he heeds for 12 months. But when he then slips and his pride makes him sin, the prophecy comes to pass. All of which is a testimony to the sovereignty of the Lord to perform His word so that men might know that the Lord rules in the kingdoms of men.

These prophecies seem to me to be given to influence men in such a way that the glory of the Lord can be made known to them. If there were no word - who would know the Lord's will? It is not about what men may do, but what the Lord will do. And it is also in Daniel that we see that thru angels and devils, men are influenced so that the work of the Lord is done.

[Guest]

Rachel and Mograce, I appreciate your thoughts about God in His omnipotence bringing about His ultimate purposes in spite of the free will of all of mankind, as well as Satan, and his messengers. (I don't think you said all of that, but it seem to me the general idea). I fully concur.

On the other hand, I think that some things God would like to see happen, are thwarted by the free will of man. For example, it is written that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all come to repentance. For all the milleniums of man's history, only a handful at any time have repented and submitted to God's Lordship. However, I do believe that God is constantly at work, and that ultimately, either here or in hell, all people will freely choose to come to repentance, and place themselves under His authority.

Jesus also taught His disciples to pray, "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." That prayer would be meaningless unless God's will is not being done on earth. And if God's will is not being done on earth, then it is being thwarted by the free choices of the free will agents who occupy the earth.

Suzana, I could argue that the passages you quoted do not mean what you think they mean. However, I won't. I think there has already been a pretty full discussion of the matter on this forum. The important thing is that we all glorify God with our whole being.

Though we cannot agree whether God (1) has caused every event that ever happened on earth and thus is in total control, or (2) whether God knows every event that will happen in the future and that therefore the future is settled and inevitable, or (3) whether the future is unknowable, but God can ultimately bring about his plan of the ages ...
the important thing is that we all give glory to God, give Christ first place in our lives, and love and praise the Father and the Son with all of our hearts, minds, and souls.

[Guest]

Paidion,

If, as you insist, open theism is correct, then you can not possibly know, nor can God, that all will eventually repent in hell. They may only become more hardened. Hasn't happened yet so it must be unknowable and only a wish.

[Guest]

'Chiming in...though maybe not exactly on topic....

The (Arminian) Remonstrants objected to Calvinist doctrine.
The Calvinists responded in kind (coming up with TULIP).
Centuries later, Open Theists took the argumentation further.

The entire debate ultimately stems from Augustine, who imported pagan philosophy into Christian theology. In this sense, Calvinism (as an "updated Augustinianism"), Arminianism, and Open theism are members of one family; each being a "branch" of philosophical Christian thought. In other words, I see a link and relationship between Open Theism and Calvinism; the former actually being a kind of "school of Calvinism."

I've always maintained that importing of philosophy can take us further away from the Jewish worldview of the biblical authors (of both Testaments). Neither the Jews, nor the biblical authors speculated on the stuff we Gentiles can do (since Augustine in this case).
------------------------------------

A few thoughts more toward the topic.
While it is existentially true that tomorrow isn't literally a reality to humans; I see no reason to think it cannot be for God. That is, unless we want to speculate on this in a Gentile (philosophical, non-Jewish-worldview manner).

Put another way, even if tomorrow's not "real" for me, I have no biblical reasons to think it's not for God. I could, perhaps, speculate on this using philosophical reasons. But since the Bible writers themselves didn't do this; I see no reason to do it for myself. Thanks.

[Guest]

Rick,

Well said! Amen.