Greetings again Michael, I only briefly read over the other posts that were posted since your last one to me. I hope not to repeat anything already addressed by someone else, so I apologize if there is some overlap.
Quote
The Greek for "foreknowledge" is "prognosis", and unless I'm mistaken it has never been translated as "ordained purposes". Only in 1 Peter 1:20 has "proginosko" been translated as "foreordained" in the King James Version.
(Fred) In my original point, I was stating that "foreknowledge" can be a synonym for "ordained purposes." The 1 Peter 1:20 verse is a prime example. If God's foreknowledge is mere prescience, as your system seems to advocate, then that means that God had to look ahead in time to see what Christ would do and then ordain his plan of salvation accordingly. However, such a scenerio would introduce a division between the members of the Godhead that the Bible clearly states cannot exist. The Father was unaware of what the son would do UNTIL he gathered the appropriate information and then determined what would happen.
Quote
In Acts 2:23 I believe that there is a distinction between "determinate purpose" (Gk. horizo boule) and "foreknowledge" (Gk. prognosis), although they are closely related to each other.
(Fred) There is a slight distinction, but the grammar of the text implies a unique connection that cannot be ignored. Daniel Wallace writes about this verse under his section on the article with multiple substantives:
Quote
If foreknowledge defines predetermination, this opens the door that (according to one definition of prognosis) God's decree is dependent on his omniscience. But if the terms are distinguishable, the relationship may be reversed, vis., omniscience is dependent on the eternal decree (...) The relationship between the two terms here may be one of distinctness or the subsumption of one under the other. In the context of Acts 2 and in light of Luke's christological argument "from prophecy to pattern," the most likely option is that prognosis is grounded in the horizen boule (thus foreknowledge is a part of the predetermined plan), for one of the foci of the chapter is on the divine plan in relation to the Messiah's death and resurrection. Thus God's decrees are not based on him simply foreknowing what human beings will do; rather, humanity's actions are based on God's foreknowledge and predetermined plan. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics p. 288
Quote
My definition of foreknowledge is simply a dictionary-definition: Knowledge of something before it occurs.
(fred) It is dangerous to pick out simple dictionary definitions for words in a totally different language, especially non-biblical definitions. My question could be more specifically, "How does the Bible define foreknowledge, and does it comport with your understanding of prescience? I would say no, because as I have already established, a God that knows all things exhaustively (because he created everything to begin with) cannot gather information on which to base his decrees. Such a notion is contradictory to his nature.
Quote
Yes, Acts 4:28 speaks of God's predetermined purposes (Gk. "proorizo boule"). But it doesn't mention anything about an unconditional determinative decree which is not based on foreknowledge.
(Fred) Does the fulfillment of prophecy fall into the category of an unconditional determinative decree? Why or why not?
Quote
But I believe that God foreordains certain events on the basis of his foreknowledge of future volitions (even sinful ones).
And in reply to what I wrote:
It is as if we have God sitting in heaven sighing to himself and saying, "Well, this is not the way I would have preserved my people, but I can't override the freewills of Joseph's brothers, let me see how I can make lemonaide out this big mess of lemons." It implies that God was surprised by what happened and had to move to plan "B.""
Not at all, but again, I deal with this false assertion - Boettner also argued this way - in my paper (see p. 25, esp. the quote from Clines).
(Fred) I haven't read through your paper just yet; I am eager to do so. However, I am rather stunned to how a theological myopia has clouded your vision to the problems inherent with your position. You affirm God has exhaustive knowledge of all future events and I would heartily pat you on the back for thinking correct about this. But you seem to suggest in some of your reponses to other folks in this discussion thread that God does not have exhaustive knowledge. If God has to gain any information about the future to establish his decrees then there are only two possible conclusions about God: Either A). God is ignorant of something until he sees what will happen and then determines a course of action based upon that information, or B) God willingly chooses to be ignorant of something so as to see what his creatures will decide and then move in alternate plans to move history and reality down the path to his ultimate goal. Regardless how much a person may wish to call this a false assertion (and I will see how Clines attempts to wiggle out from this problem with out altering the scriptural revelation of God's nature), there is some serious incompatibility with affirming this notion of God's decrees and affirming a God with exhaustive forknowledge. In all honesty, I do not believe you have given a satisfactory answer to this foundational problem inherent to your system. I couldn't get Picirilli to answer this either and have yet to find any Arminian theologian try to answer this dilemma while at the same time staying with in the bounds of the exegesis of the scriptural record.
Now, one last point that deals with your comments about Jeremiah 7:31, Bruce Ware has responded to this in his book "God's Lesser Glory:"
Quote
An intriguing line of defense for the openness position comes from a handful of texts (e.g., Jer. 7:31; 19:5; 32:35) in which God says that it has never entered his mind that Israel would act as they have. Here, it appears, God is totally ignorant of some particular kind of behavior until it occurs. When Israel performs this behavior, then, presumably, knowledge of the behavior "enters" God's mind. [...] The specific "ungodly behavior" that Jeremiah points to is the horrible act of Israel burning their sons and daughters on the altars of the high places. Since this is the sin the prophet has in mind, it is especially important to note that God warned Israel against committing this specific evil act hundreds of years earlier. Deuteronomy 18:10 warns, "There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or daughter pass through the fire..."[/i] And in light of the reference to Molech in Jeremiah 32:35, it is especially noteworthy that Leviticus 18:21 says, "You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech..." Can we rightly take these statements in Jeremiah as indicating that God had not thought about or known in advance about this kind of horrible behavior? Clearly not, since he several times warned them against committing this specific sin. Or can we even take these statements to mean that he had never conceived of Israel performing such actions? This also cannot be, since the warnings were given to Israel. Clearly neither of this interpretations is possible in light of the texts we have seen from Deuteronomy and Leviticus. God not only had known of this kind of behavior far in advanced, he had furthermore warned Israel herself not to enter into such behavior. [...] Apparently we are to understand by these phrases the extreme disapproval God has for his people in this vile activity: God expresses his disapproval by saying that it is a kind of behavior so vile, so wicked, so detestable that he does not want even to consider such a thing as happening. pp. 77-78
You asked the specific question of this passage: Did God foreordain (not foreknow) that they should sacrifice their children to idols? Was it part of his divine decree, not based on his foreknowledge? Was it God's will that they should do such a thing? Well, knowing what we do about God's nature, that he has full omniscience and has exhaustive foreknowledge and that his foreknowledge cannot exist without his ordaining purposes, then yes, in God's purposes, it was his decreetive will for these things to happen. There is no way to escape this fact if we are going to stay true to scripture and allow it to inform our overall, final understanding of God, his nature and decrees. Now the question can be asked, why did he do this? All I can answer is that is for God to know at the moment and for us to accept. This was Paul's answer to his objector in Romans 9. There is no need to circumvent the clear teaching of the Bible just because what it states cuts against our sinful human sensibilities.
Fred
"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
No, it would appear that you haven't comprehended the views, unless of course you disagree with Louis Berkhof who wrote:
"Was the first sin of man, consituting his fall, predestined, or was this merely the object of divine foreknowledge? In their original form Supralapsarianism held the former and Infralapssarianism, the latter" (Systematic Theology, p. 118).
Therefore, your following statement is not true:
Quote
Further, the fact according to the Infra scheme, that God actually decreed the Fall and and then elected and predestinated a remnant to be saved, does not negate the fact that it was God's eternal counsel and not some fictitious prescience of events which didn't exist that determined who would be saved.
You wrote:
Quote
What you are proposing reminds me of something out of the fictional "StarTrek" series.
And equally, Arminians would believe that what you are proposing is a show of the grand Puppeteer, who pulls all of our strings and manipulates our decisions... but neither absurd illustrations strengthen either arguments.
Quote
However, what I will say is that even if for the sake of argument, I accepted your premise, i.e., that based upon the foreseen actions of men God determined all things, it would still mitigate against your view for a couple of reasons. (1) If God determines what shall be, then NOTHING can change that and thus "free-will" cannot exist. For God's decree fixes ALL things, including secondary causes and thus any decisions made by men are also fixed and not "free".
Open Theists use the same arguments as Calvinists: foreknowledge is incompatible with libertarian freedom, although the former denies foreknowledge whilst the latter denies libertarian freedom. However, God's foreknowledge does not cause human decisions or actions. To quote an illustration I used in my paper:
God can foreknow that I will choose to put ham on my bread instead of jam. However, God's foreknowledge does not cause me to choose ham instead of jam; it only renders my free choice as being certain, not necessary. Given the fact of contingency (two possible choices), I could have chosen strawberry jam.
Quote
OR, (2) If the will of men are nonetheless "free", i.e., they are capable of acting contrary to a person's nature, then it is impossible that the end could be absolutely sure. Just these two items alone put you in an inescapable conundrum which none have been able to escape. Other insurmountable problems could be mentioned, e.g., biblical prophecy would be an impossibility, as it could never be guaranteed that it would be perfectly fulfilled in manner or time, etc.
First of all, I question your definition of being "free", viz. "capable of acting contrary to a person's nature". The main premise of libertarian freedom is that man can only be free if he "could have chosen otherwise". This does NOT mean that our choices are made without the presence of influences. Rather, it means that our choices are made without being causally determined by those influences so that in the end we could have chosen otherwise.
Secondly, is it "impossible that the end could be absolutely sure"? I don't think so. For example, God has determined to bring about the New Heavens and the New Earth, and no libertarian freedom will change that!
Quote
When the Confessions state that God "allows" certain acts of men, it has no reference to some fictitious "foreknowlege" of foreseen events, but rather it is speaking of the manner/means by which God providentially brings these acts to pass; e.g., using secondary causes, which the WCF, for example, makes clear.
So does God really foreordain people to sin by choosing the means (e.g. circumstances, desires, motives, etc.) to convince individuals, without constraint, to act contrary to God's law (such as murder)?
However, if humans willingly sin because of their corrupt nature, then there is no reason why it should be said that God foreordains or determines us to sin. Our sinful desires and thoughts are thus controlled and determined by our nature, not by God.
Open Theists use the same arguments as Calvinists: foreknowledge is incompatible with libertarian freedom, although the former denies foreknowledge whilst the latter denies libertarian freedom. However, God's foreknowledge does not cause human decisions or actions. To quote an illustration I used in my paper:
God can foreknow that I will choose to put ham on my bread instead of jam. However, God's foreknowledge does not cause me to choose ham instead of jam; it only renders my free choice as being certain, not necessary. Given the fact of contingency (two possible choices), I could have chosen strawberry jam.
Yes, I deny libertarian freedom of the will. I uphold the scriptural understanding. No, you chose ham just as your nature preferred. Poor analogy. The Bible makes it very clear that the unregenerate man chooses sin and is incapable of choosing good. Therefore, even though one "possibility" may seem plausible, when it comes to the unregenerate soul, there is no other end. You keep upholding mans free will despite scriptures truth.
Quote
And equally, Arminians would believe that what you are proposing is a show of the grand Puppeteer, who pulls all of our strings and manipulates our decisions... but neither absurd illustrations strengthen either arguments.
No. Puppets have no freedom. Men do. We are free to choose, but that according to our sinful natures. This strawman has been raised and smashed repeatedly.
Quote
Secondly, is it "impossible that the end could be absolutely sure"? I don't think so. For example, God has determined to bring about the New Heavens and the New Earth, and no libertarian freedom will change that!
Why not? You stated here that man has the freedom of will to choose contrary to that plan.......
Quote
First of all, I question your definition of being "free", viz. "capable of acting contrary to a person's nature". The main premise of libertarian freedom is that man can only be free if he "could have chosen otherwise". This does NOT mean that our choices are made without the presence of influences. Rather, it means that our choices are made without being causally determined by those influences so that in the end we could have chosen otherwise.
One major dilemma is that scripture defines man as sinfully inclined, not libertarian. Your starting place needs scriptural adjustment.
Quote
So does God really foreordain people to sin by choosing the means (e.g. circumstances, desires, motives, etc.) to convince individuals, without constraint, to act contrary to God's law (such as murder)?
However, if humans willingly sin because of their corrupt nature, then there is no reason why it should be said that God foreordains or determines us to sin. Our sinful desires and thoughts are thus controlled and determined by our nature, not by God.
This is why you keep avoiding sound scriptural rendering. Let me show you a passage that shows both in action.......
Quote
Act 2:22-24 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. (KJV)
Could you exegete this please? It says 1) that God predetermined these mens exact actions, and 2) these men did so willingly. Both are true, as Pilgrim stated. Please stop putting forth libertarian free will. It is unscriptural and heretical.
Here is another passage to look into.......
Quote
Exo 4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go. (KJV)
Exo 9:16 And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth. (KJV)
Some people were talking about what biblical foreknowledge is. I like what A. W. Pink says about foreknowledge. He says Gods foreknowledge pertains only to people, not events.
Arminians also believe in foreknowledge of persons. We would simply disagree with the Calvinian definition of the word in which they equate "foreknowledge" with "predestination". Of course this interpretation wouldn't make sense in Romans 8:29 where Paul says:
"For those God foreknew [predestined?] he also predestined..."
Knowing this, Calvinists interpret "foreknew" as "foreloved". But even then, the verse doesn't specify whether the foreknowing (or foreloving) was conditional or unconditional. Yes, God loved us first by sending his Son into the world, but those who respond in love and faith are known by God (1 Cor. 8:3). Those who do not respond in love are not known by God (Matt. 7:23).
If God only foreknew but did not foreordain, then who is in charge? And why would this verse, among many others, be in our Bibles?:
Acts 13:48- "When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed."
As to Romans 8:29, why is that inconsistent with the Calvinist understanding of predestination? If it said "For those God foreknew, He later predestined" you'd have an argument. But it doesn't say that.
You might want to listen to James White's lesson on Romans 8:28-29 found under the heading "Common Attacks Against Reformed Theology."
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
(1)It depends on what aspect of God's will you are referring to. I.e. was it God's purposive will that children be sacrificed to false gods (Jer. 7:31)? No. But did he permit it? Yes. Why? Free will <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Also, was it God's purposive will that the non-elect be damned (2 Pet. 3:9)? No. But he permits it. Why? Free will.
I've dealt with the various aspects of God's will in my paper on Determinism and Freedom. You can find it on my website: www.determinismandfreedom.blogspot.com
(2) Man's believing is caused primarily by the grace of God (Eph. 2:8).
I simply don't see the logic in your post. Perhaps you could explain how your heresy of free-will jives with scripture teaching the opposite? Allow me to offer my understanding of mans will.......
Total Depravity: (Total Inability): Total Depravity is probably the most misunderstood tenet of Christianity. The effect of the fall upon man is that sin has extended to every part of his personality -- his thinking, his emotions, and his will. Not necessarily that he is intensely sinful, but that sin has extended to his entire being. The unregenerate (unsaved) man is dead in his sins (Romans 5:12). Without the power of the Holy Spirit, the natural man is blind and deaf to the message of the gospel (Mark 4:1). This is why Total Depravity has also been called "Total Inability." The man without a knowledge of God will never come to this knowledge without God's making him alive through Christ. (Ephesians 2:1-5).
God bless,
william
Last edited by averagefellar; Thu Dec 09, 200411:46 AM.
Instead of jumping from one topic to the next, please stick to the subject and answer my questions regarding God's will in Jeremiah 7:31 and 2 Peter 3:9.
Perhaps then I'll explain my "heresy" of free-will, and you can explain your "heresy" of God's will to unconditionally damn billions to hell? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />
Perhaps then I'll explain my "heresy" of free-will, and you can explain your "heresy" of God's will to unconditionally damn billions to hell?
As stated earlier, and for the last time, this is a misrepresentation of calvinism. Please stop putting this forth. Man is condemned by his own sin. Until you can rightfully discuss this topic there is no further need to continue.
(fred) Hey Again Michael, It has been a while hearing from you.
My primary objection to your position is twofold. First, my disagreement, as I have mentioned in previous posts, is not to the notion of "free will" per se, but the Arminian's insistence of defining "free will" from Thomist/Aristolean definitions. I believe men make choice freely, but freedom is not defined as pure libertarianism with out any outside forces working on the heart of man. The people of Israel sacrificed their children "freely" but that freedom was confined to their nature, which is fallen and in rebellion against God.
My second disagreement is the idea that some how, the wickedness displayed by men (all men, not just Jer. 7:31) is somehow outside of God's decreed purposes, as if God had no control over it, or that it suprised him. I would add a third disagreement and that is the idea of God previewing a cosmic DVD of all the events that will play out over the course of human history, and then God reacting to those various events by decreeing what will happened conditioned upon what he sees his creation do. I am not sure you appreciate the profound influence the idea of prescience has against the biblical record of God's person and nature as God. Biblical foreknowledge is not God gathering information. In all of the biblical texts that speak of God forknowing, He is foreknowing objects; his people. Hence the reason why it is understood that God's foreknowledge speaks to his intimacy with a chosen people from eternity past.
Moreover, in closing, I am still want to see some serious exegesis of the relevant biblical texts that demonstrates your conclusions. For example, in another thread on the atonement, you mention 1 John 2:2 as some proof text against actual atonement, but you do not demonstrate how the actual atonement view is disproven by the text. "World" in John's writings can mean many things, but primarily he has the idea of the world of humanity other than the nation of Israel (John 11:51, 52; Revelation 5:9,10). Douty, whose book is rather whiney against biblical calvinism, doesn't really deal with this with any substance, and neither did Picirilli when I read his treatment of 1 John 2:2. The Arminian argument against Calvinism has always been driven by emotionalism, rather than the text. Usually, the emotionalism says, "It is unfair for God to do such and such" and then supposed "proof" texts are appealed to as if they end all discussion of the matter. That is not how we do meaningful Bible study.
Fred
"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
It is true that we act according to our nature, but not all of our choices have been determined beforehand. There may be outside forces influencing us to make a certain choice, but we can still choose otherwise. (Temptation is a good example.) The people of Israel really could have chosen not to have sacrificed their children. Yes, they acted according to their sinful nature, but not everyone sacrifices their children because they have a sinful nature.
As to your second disagreement: No, nothing surprises God - not even the rebellious actions of men which are contrary to His will. God is in full control of the situation as he pronounces judgement on the people (Jer. 7:34). However, this does not mean that God caused the sinful actions by an unconditional, efficacious decree.
Thirdly, I would have thought that the DVD illustration best fits the deterministic view of Calvinism: God creates the DVD (all future events, actions, choices of men, etc.) and then plays it at the beginning of the world so that everything which will happens has been set in eternity past. The Bible, however, portrays God as acting with (and reacting to) his creatures. Please read "God's purposive will" in Section 3 of my paper on determinism and freedom.
Yes, God foreknows and foreloves his people, but he also foreknows future events (Is. 44:7) and human actions (Ps. 139:1-4).
