Open Theism in Medieval Judaism

[Derf]

No. It means the first one was the threat, and it was true (that if there was no repentance, it would have happened), but because of repentance, he relented.

Prophecy (it seems to me —I haven't done a study on the question) has always been more often correction, warning or instruction, than forecasting.

I agree wholeheartedly with both of these statements. But the only way this works is if God is able to actually change His mind on what's going to happen (whatever the reason).

That doesn't mean God can change His mind on His over-riding purposes, but destroying Nineveh was not an over-riding purpose. It was a means to the end that righteousness will be upheld and wickedness will be defeated. And it wasn't needed (at least not yet) because they repented (righteousness was upheld, at least temporarily).

Are you able to agree with these statements?

These are the questions I asked for agreement on. Please answer them separate from each other in your mind, if you can.

1. When a true prophet (like Isaiah) says "Thus says the Lord", the words are God's.
2. God will not act outside His character.
3. Lying is not in God's character.
4. Saying something is going to happen that one knows is not going to happen is lying.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I agree wholeheartedly with both of these statements. But the only way this works is if God is able to actually change His mind on what's going to happen (whatever the reason).

That doesn't mean God can change His mind on His over-riding purposes, but destroying Nineveh was not an over-riding purpose. It was a means to the end that righteousness will be upheld and wickedness will be defeated. And it wasn't needed (at least not yet) because they repented (righteousness was upheld, at least temporarily).

Are you able to agree with these statements?

Obviously to me this depends on what one means by God 'changed his mind'. To say that God was going to do something (nevermind the contingencies) and changed his mind, is not the same as saying that God even intended to do something, contingent on continued rebellion, but changed his mind because of their repentance.

Don't take a phrase out of context. When God "changed his mind" concerning destroying Israel, remember that he had put Moses in that very position to stand between God and Israel, to intercede on their behalf. Likewise with Ninevah and Jonah. Likewise with Hezekiah and Isaiah (though that wasn't about repentance, but simple prayer).

So, I see no reason to suppose the future is not known and certain, nor indeed, caused by God.

 

[Derf]

Obviously to me this depends on what one means by God 'changed his mind'. To say that God was going to do something (nevermind the contingencies) and changed his mind, is not the same as saying that God even intended to do something, contingent on continued rebellion, but changed his mind because of their repentance.

I think the contingencies are important, mainly because they require free agents to act before a particular contingency action on God's part can be selected.

But why do you think God can "change His mind" on something without changing His intention? Do you think God doesn't think about what He intends to do? Or that God doesn't intend to do what He thinks about doing? Here's a helpful definition:
INTEND: to have in mind as something to be done or brought about; plan:
"Mind" and "intention" are inextricably linked. You can't change one without the other.

Don't take a phrase out of context. When God "changed his mind" concerning destroying Israel, remember that he had put Moses in that very position to stand between God and Israel, to intercede on their behalf. Likewise with Ninevah and Jonah. Likewise with Hezekiah and Isaiah (though that wasn't about repentance, but simple prayer).

I appreciate the parenthetical about Hezekiah. I don't see any association with repentance there, either.

But for the rest of your paragraph, I'm not getting your message. What have I taken out of context? Even if Moses, Jonah (poorly at best), and Isaiah (unmentioned at best) are interceding on behalf of the subject of the "intention", it only strengthens the argument that intercession is actually possible. So if God had decided to destroy Nineveh from the foundation of the world (or whenever God is even able to decide a future that is fixed), the intercession must have come at that point--before the foundation of the world--before Jonah and Nineveh have any part to play. How does the intercession come before either the subject or intercessor exist?

So, I see no reason to suppose the future is not known and certain, nor indeed, caused by God.

Are there sins in the future that are caused by God? If so, then God is in conflict with His own character. If not, why not?

 

[Derf]

Choice Three I think would work albeit...WOW it staggers the mind to envision it. Choice Three would mean there's a process involved that is for God to KNOW the future but it'd still work and one could rightly say he always DID KNOW IT and yet it also allows for God to say to Abraham, NOW I KNOW or now I've come into the realization of something. That is basically what he said to Abraham in Gen 22:12 and no one can deny it. And yet God....KNOWS the future.....and I believe he does and it rightly could be said always did.

I think if the information exists for God to know it before the agent that caused the information exists, that means the information drives the agent, rather than the agent driving the information. (I.e., the agent has no free will and is merely along for the ride.)

But think about how God interacts with the information. You've essentially said that God is acting on the information that came from a source outside of Himself, but has existed at least as long as God has existed, for Him to always have known it. Part of that information about the future includes God's actions. Now we have to posit that the information is not driven by God, but God is driven to act by the information. This means God has no free will--He is merely acting the part the information says He has to act. This could be likened to the Fates in Greek mythology.

Whatever this source of information is, it is more powerful than God, and God has to obey it.

So I think we can safely reject your Choice Three.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think the contingencies are important, mainly because they require free agents to act before a particular contingency action on God's part can be selected.

Not to disagree, exactly, but it is a 'logical' "before", not necessarily a 'time' "before". For example, 1 John 1:9, in a more literal sense of the tenses, says awkwardly, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to have already forgiven us our sins...". In this example, the forgiveness is grammatically contingent on the confession, yet will already have happened (completed action in the past) (presumably at the cross). Also, we pray concerning things we already know to have happened but don't know the outcome —eg, "God please let her be ok!"

But why do you think God can "change His mind" on something without changing His intention? Do you think God doesn't think about what He intends to do? Or that God doesn't intend to do what He thinks about doing? Here's a helpful definition:
INTEND: to have in mind as something to be done or brought about; plan:
"Mind" and "intention" are inextricably linked. You can't change one without the other.

But, I don't think he "changes his mind" without 'changing his intention'. Maybe I said something very much like that. The Reformed notion of 'the two wills of God' by the more careful theologians runs along the lines of '1. his hidden will, and 2. his revealed will'. I usually say, 'his plan and his command' as it seems more easily understood. God's hidden will is not very easily understood, as there is so much we will never in this life know. Questions like yours are usually answered along these lines, then: He had a revealed will, concerning Ninevah, Hezekiah, etc. And had not his 'forever plan' come to pass (btw it ALWAYS comes to pass) which he had caused from the very beginning to come to pass, he would have followed through with his threat/promise/whatever. 'His intentions', I say, are in each case two-fold. It really isn't complicated. We do this with our children (and in other areas of life) all the time.

But God is not like us. If I thought the way God does, without his authority, position, power and righteousness etc, I would be considered schizoid or insane. God's perfect control allows him (forgive me for not having a better way to describe this) excessive (to our view) emotions. We lose our temper, but have nowhere near his wrath. Yet, when his wrath carries him along, he already has, sometimes even pedantic, seemingly weak, structures in place (eg. Moses prayer) to keep him from doing what he would otherwise do.

(Many times on this site I have tried to describe how God works this way. We want to see a 'self-contained' unit, in God, because if it was us, we would have to be. But God is not like us —and his 'self-contained'-ness is not at all like ours. God is not tame, (but as CS Lewis says in one of his Narnia books about the Great Lion, "No, he is not safe, but he is good.").

The theologians and philosophers correctly want to say that God is not separable from his attributes. Some even say that he IS his attributes. Certainly they all agree that nobody else is God's attributes, but it is more than that. (Search: "Divine Simplicity")

As an eg., in Christ's sacrifice on the cross, and in his life before the cross, we see God (as I like to put it) skating so close to the edge of utter disaster, that his power and control is plainly absolute. He does things in the weakest of ways; he so often does things we can't understand, to accomplish what he had planned from the beginning, and even to bring about what we have asked for.)

I appreciate the parenthetical about Hezekiah. I don't see any association with repentance there, either.

But for the rest of your paragraph, I'm not getting your message. What have I taken out of context? Even if Moses, Jonah (poorly at best), and Isaiah (unmentioned at best) are interceding on behalf of the subject of the "intention", it only strengthens the argument that intercession is actually possible. So if God had decided to destroy Nineveh from the foundation of the world (or whenever God is even able to decide a future that is fixed), the intercession must have come at that point--before the foundation of the world--before Jonah and Nineveh have any part to play. How does the intercession come before either the subject or intercessor exist?

What is wrong with intercession being possible? Is there some implication in that, that Calvinism has predestination wrong? God uses all sorts of means, and lines of causation, to accomplish what he determined from the beginning to come to pass.

I honestly don't understand your paragraph ending with the question here: "How does the intercession come before either the subject or intercessor exist?" It doesn't. It comes when it comes, just as God predetermined. God is not bound by time the way we are. What we must think of as "before the Foundation of the World" to him may only mean something as simple as "caused", or even, "spoken into being". For all we know, his final creation, the Bride of Christ, the Dwelling Place of God, is a done deal as soon as he spoke it into being, though it take humanity through millenia to become this completed construction. We do not yet (in this temporal economy) inhabit God's economy of operation. We can't see what he sees.

Are there sins in the future that are caused by God? If so, then God is in conflict with His own character. If not, why not?

"All things were made by him", and certainly it is logical, that if he is First Cause, all things subsequent to first cause were caused by him. The subject of sin is a huge one, and the books and articles I have studied on it bring up as many questions as they answer for me. I can quote the creeds etc, but I can't satisfy you in this conversation. God is not what he made, but he did ordain that sin exist, so that we would see the huge difference between ourselves and him, and know even during this life that we are nothing apart from him. I say that God did not make sin, and as such I like to think that sin is not a thing in and of itself. I like to say it is only a 'privation' of good, though it certainly seems to exhibit an evil personality at times. Either way, with God it is possible to cause that sin be, without himself being the author of it. Certainly, Lucifer, nor any other being, is endowed with the power of uncaused causation. That is self-contradictory. Yet Satan is the author of sin.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think if the information exists for God to know it before the agent that caused the information exists, that means the information drives the agent, rather than the agent driving the information. (I.e., the agent has no free will and is merely along for the ride.)

I like this, in that it suggests things that to me may leave any of us looking like idiots for not recognizing God's amazing wisdom and cleverness.

That is to say, he has done things in such a way that whatever our structures of knowledge and understanding, we remain without excuse for our shortcomings, except for the excuse that we are but dust. Even if one denies the 'universal' causation by First Cause, and believes in [the self-contradictory notion of] causation by mere chance, even the implications of that still leave us without excuse for failing to give God the credit for who he is.

 

[Derf]

Not to disagree, exactly, but it is a 'logical' "before", not necessarily a 'time' "before". For example, 1 John 1:9, in a more literal sense of the tenses, says awkwardly, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to have already forgiven us our sins...". In this example, the forgiveness is grammatically contingent on the confession, yet will already have happened (completed action in the past) (presumably at the cross). Also, we pray concerning things we already know to have happened but don't know the outcome —eg, "God please let her be ok!"

I think this part of our disagreement is the primary disconnect we're having, and it rears its head in most sections of your post, if not all.

First, about "logical before". This is perhaps the best option I've heard anyone use, and it might work, but I think it still leaves us at a disconnect. In my mind it means that what we think of as "time" does not apply to God, but some kind of sequential-ness still applies to God. Please let me know if that's what it means to you, or something different.

On 1 John 1:9. I think the parable of the unforgiving servant might apply here.

[Mat 18:23-35 KJV] 23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants. 24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents. 25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. 26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. 27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt. 28 But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took [him] by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest. 29 And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. 30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. 31 So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. 32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: 33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? 34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. 35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

My question to you is, "Did the king actually forgive the man's debts, or not?" If your answer is yes, then did God renege? If your answer is no, did the king not really forgive the man? Or, can you explain this parable to me in terms of your "logical before" verbiage?

Regarding "God, please let her be ok!". Just because we pray in a certain way, which reflects our theology (as you've discerned), doesn't mean that our theology is correct. Nor does incorrect theology necessarily prevent God from understanding what we need before we even pray for it.

But, I don't think he "changes his mind" without 'changing his intention'. Maybe I said something very much like that.

Ok. We can add this to our "agreement" list.

The Reformed notion of 'the two wills of God' by the more careful theologians runs along the lines of '1. his hidden will, and 2. his revealed will'. I usually say, 'his plan and his command' as it seems more easily understood.

I think we both recognize His command as something His character agrees with. But I have a hard time recognizing His plan, when it contains sin, as something He or His character agrees with, unless as a byproduct of His plan.

For instance. Let's say God's plan (among other things) in creation was to eliminate sin. Perhaps sin would have to exist in some form for God to be able to eliminate it. If God forced someone to sin in a particular way, that would be something I would have a hard time with. But if God created a person that had the potential to sin or not sin, that person's sin is a byproduct of the freewill God created in him (the person could be Satan or Adam in my example).

Without the freewill aspect of the created person, the sin is God's. I think you agree with that, right? But if God knows the particular sin before the person exists, there are only two ways I can think for Him to know it--1. He caused it Himself. 2. He can "see" into the future in some way.

#1 means the sin is God's, obviously. He causes ("authors") it. And I believe you reject that idea.
#2 means the future is fixed without God's or the person's inputs, and before the person exists, which points to a power higher than God's. I think you reject that also.

God's hidden will is not very easily understood, as there is so much we will never in this life know. Questions like yours are usually answered along these lines, then: He had a revealed will, concerning Ninevah, Hezekiah, etc. And had not his 'forever plan' come to pass (btw it ALWAYS comes to pass) which he had caused from the very beginning to come to pass, he would have followed through with his threat/promise/whatever. 'His intentions', I say, are in each case two-fold. It really isn't complicated. We do this with our children (and in other areas of life) all the time.

We know some things about God's hidden will. It doesn't violate His character. His will for Nineveh was first repentance, and second (if repentance didn't happen) destruction. These are mutually exclusive wills in this case. Mutual exclusivity also comes into play if God says "Do not murder", but then ordains someone to murder before the someone has any say in the matter.

I honestly don't understand your paragraph ending with the question here: "How does the intercession come before either the subject or intercessor exist?" It doesn't. It comes when it comes, just as God predetermined. God is not bound by time the way we are.

If God predetermines intercession before the person exists, it's not intercession. Intercession is a relational act, and predetermining it means that everything is decided before everybody shows up to the negotiating table.

"All things were made by him", and certainly it is logical, that if he is First Cause, all things subsequent to first cause were caused by him. The subject of sin is a huge one, and the books and articles I have studied on it bring up as many questions as they answer for me. I can quote the creeds etc, but I can't satisfy you in this conversation. God is not what he made, but he did ordain that sin exist, so that we would see the huge difference between ourselves and him, and know even during this life that we are nothing apart from him. I say that God did not make sin, and as such I like to think that sin is not a thing in and of itself. I like to say it is only a 'privation' of good, though it certainly seems to exhibit an evil personality at times. Either way, with God it is possible to cause that sin be, without himself being the author of it. Certainly, Lucifer, nor any other being, is endowed with the power of uncaused causation. That is self-contradictory. Yet Satan is the author of sin.

Adam also had the power of uncaused causation, by the way. Not just Satan. Adam is also the author of sins, as are each of us, because we all sin.

However, if God decides (ordains) what Adam will do (including sin), then it isn't Adam that is the author of that sin--it's God. Adam doesn't have a choice in the matter.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I probably shouldn't be doing this right now, because I had almost finished a fine (if I say so myself, haha) answer to you, when the power went off and I lost it all. I had hoped the site had a draft ready but no dice. The lightning storm is still going on, though, so, well, what happens happens.

I think this part of our disagreement is the primary disconnect we're having, and it rears its head in most sections of your post, if not all.

First, about "logical before". This is perhaps the best option I've heard anyone use, and it might work, but I think it still leaves us at a disconnect. In my mind it means that what we think of as "time" does not apply to God, but some kind of sequential-ness still applies to God. Please let me know if that's what it means to you, or something different.

Yes, logical sequence, cause > effect.

On 1 John 1:9. I think the parable of the unforgiving servant might apply here.

My question to you is, "Did the king actually forgive the man's debts, or not?" If your answer is yes, then did God renege? If your answer is no, did the king not really forgive the man? Or, can you explain this parable to me in terms of your "logical before" verbiage?

I don't follow you here. What does the story of the unforgiving servant have to do with 1 John 1:9 and 'sequential "before"'?

Regarding "God, please let her be ok!". Just because we pray in a certain way, which reflects our theology (as you've discerned), doesn't mean that our theology is correct. Nor does incorrect theology necessarily prevent God from understanding what we need before we even pray for it.

Agreed, and of course, but is that part of this, or just a comment aside, concerning what I said about 'sequential "before"'? I.e. I don't know why you said this, because if it is about the subject at hand, then that last sentence sounds like you agree with all I've been saying. God knows what we need before we pray for it.

I think we both recognize His command as something His character agrees with. But I have a hard time recognizing His plan, when it contains sin, as something He or His character agrees with, unless as a byproduct of His plan.

For instance. Let's say God's plan (among other things) in creation was to eliminate sin. Perhaps sin would have to exist in some form for God to be able to eliminate it. If God forced someone to sin in a particular way, that would be something I would have a hard time with. But if God created a person that had the potential to sin or not sin, that person's sin is a byproduct of the freewill God created in him (the person could be Satan or Adam in my example).

Without the freewill aspect of the created person, the sin is God's. I think you agree with that, right? But if God knows the particular sin before the person exists, there are only two ways I can think for Him to know it--1. He caused it Himself. 2. He can "see" into the future in some way.

Your descriptions tend to be a little imprecise, so it is hard to be sure what I'm answering. I don't want to assume.

For example, you mention the notion of his plan "containing" sin. Do you mean, 'including' sin? Or maybe, that his plan 'includes' that sin be? Sin is not like any other thing. It is not inaccurate, I think, to say that sin is not even a thing.

Then you suggest the idea of sin being a "byproduct" of his plan. I don't know what you mean there. I say God caused that sin be, and that, indirectly, through means.

1. Yes, God caused that sin be —what do you mean by, "[by] himself"? Do you mean, "without the use of means, such as the agency of creatures"?

2. You hint at this in your post, one of very few people I have seen do so, including Calvinists: For God to foresee is to forecause. The future is not unknown to him. It is illogical to say it is unknown to him, unless he is not first cause, in which case the whole business is bogus and no point discussing.

#1 means the sin is God's, obviously. He causes ("authors") it. And I believe you reject that idea.
#2 means the future is fixed without God's or the person's inputs, and before the person exists, which points to a power higher than God's. I think you reject that also.

#1 means only that he causes that it be; it does not mean he authors it. There is a huge difference, by route of means, between cause ('distant cause', if that eases the idea for you) and author.
#2 I follow your statement clearly there. And yes, I reject the notion that anything is fixed without God's causing it; there is no higher power. But God is not just supreme (i.e. the most powerful) —he is ALL powerful.

We know some things about God's hidden will. It doesn't violate His character. His will for Nineveh was first repentance, and second (if repentance didn't happen) destruction. These are mutually exclusive wills in this case. Mutual exclusivity also comes into play if God says "Do not murder", but then ordains someone to murder before the someone has any say in the matter.

What does "ordains someone to murder" mean? 'Causes directly', 'causes indirectly', 'ordains that someone murder', or what? The differences are important. God is not the author of sin.

Agreed that God's hidden will does not violate his character, but here is something basic that should be pointed out at this juncture: God is not like us. We are very little like him. Not to go on about how silly the comparison is, but if he were to create us and then destroy us outright (yes, I agree that notion is absurd, but hear me out), he has every right to do so. We are talking the difference between Creator and Creature. The difference is more stark than the idea of someone building a stack of blocks and then knocking it over. Compared to him, we are not sentient —not even animate. And the only thing alive about us also is his to do with as he will. He owes us nothing.

So when he wipes out millions by fire, flood, famine, war or plague he is not sinning to do so. His command is for us, not for him. The bile may rise up in your throat to hear this, but God's character is more wild than our poor descriptions. He has every right to do as he will, and it does not contradict his character to do these things.

Having said that, alone, is not a fair description of what I believe, nor what Calvinism teaches, however. God is merciful, forgiving, relenting to pour out his wrath upon a humanity that fully deserves it. His grace, forbearance, patience and love are beyond description.

If God predetermines intercession before the person exists, it's not intercession. Intercession is a relational act, and predetermining it means that everything is decided before everybody shows up to the negotiating table.

That doesn't logically follow. It's not only that 'before' need not be time dependent, but that the intercession IS MOST ASSUREDLY CAUSED by God, as is the outcome and his decision in answer to it. God does not operate according to our economy, but his. What is wrong with 'everything being decided [by God], before everybody shows up to the negotiating table'?

This all fits within the twin notions of the Aseity of God, and the Simplicity of God.

Adam also had the power of uncaused causation, by the way. Not just Satan. Adam is also the author of sins, as are each of us, because we all sin.

Wrong. It is not just illogical, but I believe unBiblical. There can be only one uncaused causer. We do have wills, and the ability to choose. That does not imply 'free'. Our choices are real, with even eternal consequences. That does not imply that they are not caused.

However, I do like the idea I think you have noticed, but described wrong, that we are the ones who choose to sin —we cannot blame Adam, nor even Satan, for what we ourselves choose to do.

However, if God decides (ordains) what Adam will do (including sin), then it isn't Adam that is the author of that sin--it's God. Adam doesn't have a choice in the matter.

Wrong again, or, still wrong. Absolute spontaneity of choice is simply impossible for creatures, as we (and our wills) are all effects of causes. If you want to get into the logic of it, we can do that, but the argument can go long. Also, Biblically, I would remind you of "Apart from me you can do nothing." Adam has a choice, even if the choice is predetermined.

 

[Derf]

I had almost finished a fine (if I say so myself, haha) answer.

Lol! Been there, done that (and much better than the final product, no doubt).

I don't follow you here. What does the story of the unforgiving servant have to do with 1 John 1:9 and 'sequential "before"'?

you didn’t answer my questions, so I’ll have to come back to this another time.

Agreed, and of course, but is that part of this, or just a comment aside, concerning what I said about 'sequential "before"'?

It was concerning the sequential before. God doesn’t have to decide everything before the foundation of the earth to answer prayers.

Then you suggest the idea of sin being a "byproduct" of his plan. I don't know what you mean there. I say God caused that sin be, and that, indirectly, through means.

1. Yes, God caused that sin be —what do you mean by, "[by] himself"? Do you mean, "without the use of means, such as the agency of creatures"?

If there are no other creatures yet, then God can’t use them as means without knowing exactly how they will behave when they arrive. UNLESS He makes them behave in the way He expects (including sin).

2. You hint at this in your post, one of very few people I have seen do so, including Calvinists: For God to foresee is to forecause. The future is not unknown to him. It is illogical to say it is unknown to him, unless he is not first cause, in which case the whole business is bogus and no point discussing.

God is able to predict the path of a baseball thrown by someone else, right? But other than other causers, He knows because He causes.

#1 means only that he causes that it be; it does not mean he authors it. There is a huge difference, by route of means, between cause ('distant cause', if that eases the idea for you) and author.

He can’t distance Himself from the responsibility if He causes them to sin. Sin, therefore, has to be from uncaused causation to be blamed on anyone else.

#2 I follow your statement clearly there. And yes, I reject the notion that anything is fixed without God's causing it; there is no higher power. But God is not just supreme (i.e. the most powerful) —he is ALL powerful.

Good! But I’m not sure why that last sentence is necessary.

What does "ordains someone to murder" mean? 'Causes directly', 'causes indirectly', 'ordains that someone murder', or what? The differences are important. God is not the author of sin.

Causing murder indirectly where He knows exactly what the direct causer will do before the direct causer exists means the murderer is only doing what he is bound (“ordained”) to do. There is no choice in the matter. Therefore no responsibility.

What is wrong with 'everything being decided [by God], before everybody shows up to the negotiating table'?

“Everything”? Then God is the only player, so all responsibility is His. Including sin.

Wrong. It is not just illogical, but I believe unBiblical. There can be only one uncaused causer. We do have wills, and the ability to choose. That does not imply 'free'. Our choices are real, with even eternal consequences. That does not imply that they are not caused.

If Satan can be an uncaused causer, why not Adam? But I was a little more precise than that. Adam can cause things himself that God did not cause. That’s free will (“uncaused causation”, but not “uncaused causer”).

Wrong again, or, still wrong. Absolute spontaneity of choice is simply impossible for creatures, as we (and our wills) are all effects of causes. If you want to get into the logic of it, we can do that, but the argument can go long. Also, Biblically, I would remind you of "Apart from me you can do nothing." Adam has a choice, even if the choice is predetermined.

Apart from God, nobody exists. But Jesus was not saying they couldn’t sin without His help, was He?

 

[Bobber]

No, to give time for Peter to show his weakness to himself.

So why would you think this is necessary ? Why? There's no scriptural indication that Jesus wanted Peter to even go to the courtyard. That was his doing.

If Christ through the Spirit merely saw Peter doing this, could He have stopped him from doing it?

I don't even know why we even need to ask the question. He saw Peter do what he did period.

 

[Mark Quayle]

you didn’t answer my questions, so I’ll have to come back to this another time.

Ok.

Derf said: ↑
On 1 John 1:9. I think the parable of the unforgiving servant might apply here.

My question to you is, "Did the king actually forgive the man's debts, or not?" If your answer is yes, then did God renege? If your answer is no, did the king not really forgive the man? Or, can you explain this parable to me in terms of your "logical before" verbiage?
As a joke on this site yesterday says, no analogy is perfect.

As I might answer "yes and no", to the question, "Did Christ die 'for' the sins of absolutely everyone?", ('Yes' in the sense that if they were to receive the gift of grace through faith, his death would have been effective for them. 'No' in the sense that his death is not effective for all, but for the Elect only.)

This story Jesus told in the context of Peter's question, "How many times must I forgive my brother?" Since he mentions "...the Kingdom of Heaven is like...", there are eternal implications. As in many places, here we see the character of those that 'make it to Heaven' and those who don't. Thus one might assume this is what earns a person Heaven, but it is not so, as we know from other scriptures.

Like with the Reformed principle of perseverance, what is a sure thing by God's decree is accomplished in the mundane, weak and questionable ways, even dangerously so, by our estimation. Our minds, addicted to the flashy and powerful, don't like the ordinary and natural things to be God's way. But that is what he does. If we do not obey (habitually, but by God's judgement, not ours), we will not 'make it to Heaven'. So it is with forgiving one another.​

Did the king ('master', in some translations) actually forgive the servant's debt? —You tell me! In my view, if your application is God's PAYMENT of sin on our behalf, I would have to say no, if it was reneged. IF the servant had been as the truly redeemed, grateful, he would have done likewise to his fellow servants. But if your application is only Christ's provision for any that will come to him, then no, his debt was not forgiven, but only 'would have been, if...'

Did God renege? No. As some of the Reformed like to say, Christ's death was sufficient for all, efficient for only the Elect. Did the master in the story renege? Yes. (It may be useful to note that in that social structure, the master having absolute right over the servant's very life, implies not a legal forgiveness, but mere generosity. I doubt they drew up papers with signatures.) Again, no analogy is perfect.

Can you explain this parable in terms of your 'logical before' verbiage? So my question to you —I don't see what your use of this story has to do with the 'sequential causation' we have been discussing. How am I to answer what I don't understand you to be asking?

 

[Derf]

Edit: I didn't realize it was a different person. Thanks for your comment @Bobber.

I don't even know why we even need to ask the question. He saw Peter do what he did period.

That's part of conversation, isn't it? to ask questions and give answers to each other? Do you always have to know why a question is asked before you answer it?

You might be thinking it's a trick question. I assure you it's at least a serious one, but the answer might be tricky. Want to take a shot? Here it is again.

If Christ through the Spirit merely saw Peter doing this, could He have stopped him from doing it?

 

[Mark Quayle]

It was concerning the sequential before. God doesn’t have to decide everything before the foundation of the earth to answer prayers.

God doesn't "have to"? What do you mean by "have to"? —"logical necessity as we do our thinking"? "Logically necessary behavior as according to his nature"? "Moral obligation?"

Try to think of it like this: As first cause, God is not subject to any external principle. Time cannot actively cause, nor even influence, God to do anything. It is only us thinking he must answer prayer as we pray it, not before. It is only according to our supposing, that he must think in terms of a temporal 'before'. When God says, 'from the foundation of the world', or 'before they were born', he is 'talking down' to us, to our temporal minds, to make that very claim, that he does decide, sequentially before we do. Whether that falls temporally before or not is irrelevant.

If there are no other creatures yet, then God can’t use them as means without knowing exactly how they will behave when they arrive. UNLESS He makes them behave in the way He expects (including sin).

What is it then —chance alone that determines what his means will do? But yes, he causes precisely every detail that happens, whether directly, or through secondary (etc) causes. Again, it is logically self-contradictory to say that chance determines anything.

God is able to predict the path of a baseball thrown by someone else, right? But other than other causers, He knows because He causes.

Even THROUGH other causers, he knows because he causes.

He can’t distance Himself from the responsibility if He causes them to sin. Sin, therefore, has to be from uncaused causation to be blamed on anyone else.

Haha! this is almost a pun! 'Uncaused causation'? —is not God uncaused causation??

But I expect you mean that if anyone is to be blamed for their sin, their decision to sin is entirely their own, and therefore, uncaused. But that is not logical. After all, without any consideration of first cause, everything is the result of preceding causation; thus all our decisions too, are caused. Adding the fact of first cause onto the head of causation makes no difference, and if God is not first cause, we have nothing to talk about here. Further, if one's decision are not caused, then they depend on mere chance, (which is a self-contradictory notion) or perhaps, one thinks that some are inherently better people than others, quite apart from the work or gift of God, (which is contrary to scripture). Besides that, to say, 'their decision to sin' (is entirely their own) is not the same as to say, 'the decision that they sin' (is entirely their own); the first is true. The second is not.

To claim God, if he causes all things, including causing that sin be, is responsible for (meaning guilty of) sin, is absurd. In the first place, it is not he that is doing the deed, but causing that others do it. This necessarily includes THEIR act in doing the deed. Remember that sin is AGAINST GOD, not the deed in and of itself. For eg. God has decreed that adultery is sin. Therefore, if one commits adultery, they are doing it against God. Sin is what WE do, not what God does, not according the nature of the act, but according to who does it and against whom.

Mark Quayle said: ↑
#2 I follow your statement clearly there. And yes, I reject the notion that anything is fixed without God's causing it; there is no higher power. But God is not just supreme (i.e. the most powerful) —he is ALL powerful.

Good! But I’m not sure why that last sentence is necessary.

Because in our discussion of God's responsibility concerning sin, if God is only more powerful than us, and causes that sin be, not only is he not first cause and a fellow creature and not actually God, but merely a link in the chain, and thus pretty much irrelevant, unless he directly causes a mere fellow creature to sin. (It would be better to be tied to a millstone and thrown overboard.) But he is ALL powerful, he 'inhabits' a different economy altogether, and is not in contradiction to himself. What he decides, MUST happen. Those who sin, do so at Their Own choice and will, because HE decided it, his decision causing that it be.

Causing murder indirectly where He knows exactly what the direct causer will do before the direct causer exists means the murderer is only doing what he is bound (“ordained”) to do. There is no choice in the matter. Therefore no responsibility.

'Ordained to do' does not imply that the doer has no choice. It only means that it is already determined what will happen. The choice of the doer is how it will happen.

“Everything”? Then God is the only player, so all responsibility is His. Including sin.

That doesn't follow. If God causes everything, how is he the only player? But in a sense you are right: if the game is First Cause, he is the only player. But sin is not the work of first cause, though he cause that it be at work within his creatures. Sin does not inhabit God's economy.

If Satan can be an uncaused causer, why not Adam? But I was a little more precise than that. Adam can cause things himself that God did not cause. That’s free will (“uncaused causation”, but not “uncaused causer”).

Satan cannot be an uncaused causer either, nor can Adam. How can Adam cause things himself that God did not cause, thus had nothing to do with? Your definition of freewill can only apply to God, the only uncaused cause. "'Uncaused causation' but not 'uncaused causer'" is self-contradictory. Causation is by a causer. If by freewill we choose uncaused, we are uncaused in causing by that choice.

Apart from God, nobody exists. But Jesus was not saying they couldn’t sin without His help, was He?

You have a point, it was a poor use of that text. (I was in a hurry, lol). In an absolute sense I am right, but contextually it would be hard to say it applies to the lost. I was thinking in terms of 'my situation', I guess.

Anyway, my point in the paragraph stands, and we can argue it if you wish, though it will (typically) run long. Here again, is my claim: Adam (and all of us) have actual choice even when every choice is predetermined.

 

[Derf]

Ok.

Derf said: ↑
On 1 John 1:9. I think the parable of the unforgiving servant might apply here.

My question to you is, "Did the king actually forgive the man's debts, or not?" If your answer is yes, then did God renege? If your answer is no, did the king not really forgive the man? Or, can you explain this parable to me in terms of your "logical before" verbiage?
As a joke on this site yesterday says, no analogy is perfect.

As I might answer "yes and no", to the question, "Did Christ die 'for' the sins of absolutely everyone?", ('Yes' in the sense that if they were to receive the gift of grace through faith, his death would have been effective for them. 'No' in the sense that his death is not effective for all, but for the Elect only.)

This story Jesus told in the context of Peter's question, "How many times must I forgive my brother?" Since he mentions "...the Kingdom of Heaven is like...", there are eternal implications. As in many places, here we see the character of those that 'make it to Heaven' and those who don't. Thus one might assume this is what earns a person Heaven, but it is not so, as we know from other scriptures.

Like with the Reformed principle of perseverance, what is a sure thing by God's decree is accomplished in the mundane, weak and questionable ways, even dangerously so, by our estimation. Our minds, addicted to the flashy and powerful, don't like the ordinary and natural things to be God's way. But that is what he does. If we do not obey (habitually, but by God's judgement, not ours), we will not 'make it to Heaven'. So it is with forgiving one another.​

Did the king ('master', in some translations) actually forgive the servant's debt? —You tell me! In my view, if your application is God's PAYMENT of sin on our behalf, I would have to say no, if it was reneged. IF the servant had been as the truly redeemed, grateful, he would have done likewise to his fellow servants. But if your application is only Christ's provision for any that will come to him, then no, his debt was not forgiven, but only 'would have been, if...'

Did God renege? No. As some of the Reformed like to say, Christ's death was sufficient for all, efficient for only the Elect. Did the master in the story renege? Yes. (It may be useful to note that in that social structure, the master having absolute right over the servant's very life, implies not a legal forgiveness, but mere generosity. I doubt they drew up papers with signatures.) Again, no analogy is perfect.

Can you explain this parable in terms of your 'logical before' verbiage? So my question to you —I don't see what your use of this story has to do with the 'sequential causation' we have been discussing. How am I to answer what I don't understand you to be asking?

I'll give you credit for trying to answer. The parable bothers me a bit, too. Since the parable is described as "the kingdom of heaven is like..." and the parable talks about a "king", I have a hard time imagining that the king is anything but a reference to Jesus Christ or the Father (I'm not sure which, nor do I think it matters). If the God of Creation doesn't really forgive the servant (because he knows the servant isn't going to follow through in forgiving his fellow servant), but tells him He does, then the kingdom of heaven is ruled by a capricious, immoral king that does not fit with the character of the God--he lies AND IS NO BETTER THAN THE SERVANT--just more powerful.

Sequential causation can be seen in that the king first forgave the first servant, allowing him to accost the other servant, making the king then need to unforgive him (if I can say it that way). Now if the first servant is being caused to NOT forgive the other servant, and the king is being caused to undo the thing He did before, the causer is now the caused--He has caused himself, through the agency of the sinner, to reverse His own course--or to show himself to be contradictory to His own purpose. You might notice that it isn't any better a situation than the previous one, except He might be better, morally, than the servant, but less powerful.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'll give you credit for trying to answer. The parable bothers me a bit, too. Since the parable is described as "the kingdom of heaven is like..." and the parable talks about a "king", I have a hard time imagining that the king is anything but a reference to Jesus Christ or the Father (I'm not sure which, nor do I think it matters). If the God of Creation doesn't really forgive the servant (because he knows the servant isn't going to follow through in forgiving his fellow servant), but tells him He does, then the kingdom of heaven is ruled by a capricious, immoral king that does not fit with the character of the God--he lies AND IS NO BETTER THAN THE SERVANT--just more powerful.

The parable doesn't bother me; not sure why you said, "too".

As was constantly taught in Hermeneutics class, (and which I disagreed with in some cases), when the Bible says, 'like', and 'as', and such, it is not saying 'is'. When Jesus said the Kingdom of Heaven is 'like', one must go to the end, and read the conclusion to understand the parallel. I think you're reading more into this than was intended, but I could be wrong.

I'm sure the King (or master) IS a reference to God. But I wouldn't go a whole lot farther than that with this. The point of the parable is what Jesus says at the end. I think THAT is the only thing doctrine can be securely built on in this story. The same thing happens in the story of the rich man and the beggar, Lazarus. People keep drawing conclusions about the geography and logistics of Heaven and Hell from it when that wasn't the point of the story at all. The whole tenor of that story sounds to me like it was drawn off folkloric thinking concerning the layout and authorities of the afterlife realm. I doubt very much anybody listening took it for more than that. "See, Jake? I TOLD you Abraham was the go-to guy!" (Off topic, but, ironically, some of the same people I see doing that with the story of the rich man and Lazarus are the ones who demand the Reformed cannot use Romans 9 to show the Authority of God's choice and use of men etc, because those are not the point Paul is trying to make in that chapter.)

Sequential causation can be seen in that the king first forgave the first servant, allowing him to accost the other servant, making the king then need to unforgive him (if I can say it that way). Now if the first servant is being caused to NOT forgive the other servant, and the king is being caused to undo the thing He did before, the causer is now the caused--He has caused himself, through the agency of the sinner, to reverse His own course--or to show himself to be contradictory to His own purpose. You might notice that it isn't any better a situation than the previous one, except He might be better, morally, than the servant, but less powerful.

Again, not that I see any need to go this far with a parable, but, I don't see how the first servant's ruthlessness after being forgiven CAUSES the king to NEED to unforgive him. If you mean merely that the king is influenced by the ruthlessness of this servant, ok.

Maybe what you are getting at here, in the end is the question of: Do our prayers, (and other things), influence God to do different from what he planned? (I should get smart here, and say, "Yes, just as he planned!") But it's not that complicated. God reacts to what he set in place to be reacted to. Our prayers are indeed effective, but notice that the Spirit intercedes for us harder than we pray. God is active in the whole matter.
His decree and his involvement are one and the same. HE causes us to pray.

This is my problem with Deism, because it seems to assume that God started the ball rolling, but at most is barely interested in the outcome. To me that is plainly illogical.

 

[Derf]

The parable doesn't bother me; not sure why you said, "too".

You seemed to have a hard time answering my question, which I think captured the conundrum well enough for you to have a hard time answering. Maybe I'm wrong, but your next comment tells me I'm right, when you say "don't go too far with the parable."

I'm sure the King (or master) IS a reference to God. But I wouldn't go a whole lot farther than that with this. The point of the parable is what Jesus says at the end. I think THAT is the only thing doctrine can be securely built on in this story.

I agree that what Jesus says at the end tells you what doctrine we should glean from the parable:
[Mat 18:35 KJV] 35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

"likewise...do also unto you"? Doesn't that tell us to go look into the parable to see what Jesus meant?

The same thing happens in the story of the rich man and the beggar, Lazarus. People keep drawing conclusions about the geography and logistics of Heaven and Hell from it when that wasn't the point of the story at all. The whole tenor of that story sounds to me like it was drawn off folkloric thinking concerning the layout and authorities of the afterlife realm. I doubt very much anybody listening took it for more than that. "See, Jake? I TOLD you Abraham was the go-to guy!" (Off topic, but, ironically, some of the same people I see doing that with the story of the rich man and Lazarus are the ones who demand the Reformed cannot use Romans 9 to show the Authority of God's choice and use of men etc, because those are not the point Paul is trying to make in that chapter.)

We should have that conversation in depth sometime. The Lazarus parable is involved with another of my hobby horses.

Again, not that I see any need to go this far with a parable, but, I don't see how the first servant's ruthlessness after being forgiven CAUSES the king to NEED to unforgive him. If you mean merely that the king is influenced by the ruthlessness of this servant, ok.

Maybe what you are getting at here, in the end is the question of: Do our prayers, (and other things), influence God to do different from what he planned? (I should get smart here, and say, "Yes, just as he planned!") But it's not that complicated. God reacts to what he set in place to be reacted to. Our prayers are indeed effective, but notice that the Spirit intercedes for us harder than we pray. God is active in the whole matter.
His decree and his involvement are one and the same. HE causes us to pray.

But the parable wasn't about prayer, except in the forgiveness (pleading for mercy). If God is merely reacting to what He set in place, then He set up a scenario, much like Hezekiah's, where He had to react exactly the opposite to the same person, and these things were about future events (in Hez's case, about his death, in the servant's case, extrapolated to the synopsis by Jesus, about eternal life).

This is my problem with Deism, because it seems to assume that God started the ball rolling, but at most is barely interested in the outcome. To me that is plainly illogical.

I'm pretty sure you're a closet open theist. Deism springs from the Calvinistic mindset that God knows everything that is going to happen because He causes it to happen.


Now, we are far enough past our previous exchanges that I don't know which ones I haven't responded to. But the conversation is stimulating, and I don't want to miss any of it. I'll go look, but if you know of something I've skipped over that is germane, please let me know.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You seemed to have a hard time answering my question, which I think captured the conundrum well enough for you to have a hard time answering. Maybe I'm wrong, but your next comment tells me I'm right, when you say "don't go too far with the parable."

Nice. If I was some on this site, I would attack you at this point for thinking you can know what is going on in my mind, haha.

My difficulty is in assuming there is validity to your question, two ways: 1. you assume more allegorically to the parable than warranted, visible in the fact you pursue the details as far as you do. 2. your questions aren't precise enough for me to answer in a way I feel can not be taken falsely. Therefore I find it necessary to define terms.

This defining terms you apparently take for hemming and hawing, as though my problem was the parable.

I agree that what Jesus says at the end tells you what doctrine we should glean from the parable:
[Mat 18:35 KJV] 35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

"likewise...do also unto you"? Doesn't that tell us to go look into the parable to see what Jesus meant?

But we have already read the parable to reach the conclusion. It is pretty clear what Jesus meant, I thought. To restate it, simplistically, perhaps, "If one does not forgive his brother, God will condemn him."

But the parable wasn't about prayer, except in the forgiveness (pleading for mercy). If God is merely reacting to what He set in place, then He set up a scenario, much like Hezekiah's, where He had to react exactly the opposite to the same person, and these things were about future events (in Hez's case, about his death, in the servant's case, extrapolated to the synopsis by Jesus, about eternal life).

Maybe I'm mixing up other conversations with this one. I thought we had included the use of prayer in this discussion.

But when is God ever "merely reacting"? When did God ever "had to" react? What does that even mean? In what way does God 'have to do' anything?

What is the problem with Jesus doing the opposite of what he threatened, upon the condition for mercy being met?

I'm pretty sure you're a closet open theist. Deism springs from the Calvinistic mindset that God knows everything that is going to happen because He causes it to happen.

...And, the insults keep flowing! Haha, no I won't take it personally —at least, not yet. No I'm not at all an open theist. God causes all things. Deism denies God's immanence, and that is plainly bunk, both Biblically and logically. Open Theism claims God 'kind of' flies by the seat of his pants, not knowing what will happen next, except by wisdom and knowledge of human nature. Open Theism is plainly heretical, and illogically claims that some principles or facts are beyond God's control —i.e. that God is not quite First Cause, nor Omnipotent.

Now, we are far enough past our previous exchanges that I don't know which ones I haven't responded to. But the conversation is stimulating, and I don't want to miss any of it. I'll go look, but if you know of something I've skipped over that is germane, please let me know.

Will do, but I can't think of any at the moment.

 

[Derf]

But we have already read the parable to reach the conclusion. It is pretty clear what Jesus meant, I thought. To restate it, simplistically, perhaps, "If one does not forgive his brother, God will condemn him."

You've missed an important part. The simplistic restatement is, "After God forgives you, if you do not forgive your brother, God will condemn you." The condemnation and forgiveness are from God to you. Therefore one of those things must not have been ordained from the foundation of the world, else God is ordaining two opposite, final results.

Maybe I'm mixing up other conversations with this one. I thought we had included the use of prayer in this discussion.

Yes, but that wasn't the subject of the parable.

But when is God ever "merely reacting"? When did God ever "had to" react? What does that even mean? In what way does God 'have to do' anything?

God tells us in several cases that He reacts to things. Jer 18:7-8, for instance. Once He has promised to react in a certain way, He denies His own character when He doesn't react that way. Are you saying God never reacts?

What is the problem with Jesus doing the opposite of what he threatened, upon the condition for mercy being met?

You mean "upon the condition of mercy being met before the foundation of the world?" If so, by whom was it met? If God is meeting the condition for mercy for the act that He also ordained before the foundation of the world, why meet it in such a costly way? Why not just ordain the things He really wants to ordain ("command") instead of ordaining things He says He doesn't want to ordain ("plan")?

Open Theism is plainly heretical, and illogically claims that some principles or facts are beyond God's control —i.e. that God is not quite First Cause, nor Omnipotent.

Deism denies God's immanence, and that is plainly bunk, both Biblically and logically. Open Theism claims God 'kind of' flies by the seat of his pants, not knowing what will happen next, except by wisdom and knowledge of human nature. Open Theism is plainly heretical, and illogically claims that some principles or facts are beyond God's control —i.e. that God is not quite First Cause, nor Omnipotent.

I agree with deism denying God's immanence, but Calvinism is Deism with God playing His own puppet. The immanence is a sham when He's already decided how everything is going to happen, including His own reactions to His own ordinations.

Open Theism at least allows God to interact with His creation in a way that neither party is locked into a course of action prior to their choosing. God has free-will in Open Theism. Man has free-will in Open Theism. Neither does in Calvinism (or in closed-theist Armenianism).

And Open Theism fits the text better, by far. I'm not sure why that rates the heresy label, especially since your reasoning is based on a "logical" understanding of God, rather than biblical. Why would you say OT doesn't hold God to be "First Cause, nor Omnipotent"?

 

[Mark Quayle]

You've missed an important part. The simplistic restatement is, "After God forgives you, if you do not forgive your brother, God will condemn you." The condemnation and forgiveness are from God to you. Therefore one of those things must not have been ordained from the foundation of the world, else God is ordaining two opposite, final results.

What Christ said was, “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”
To me, it is adding to what he said, to say, "after God forgives you". (Though it may be implied by the context (the story) it is not what Christ said.)

In other scriptures we see reason to consider Christ to have died for absolutely everyone ONLY in that his death was sufficient for their forgiveness, but not to have actually forgiven them. I don't think you would like the way the idea ("inefficiency") sits on the mind, that Christ should pay for sins that end up being also payed for by the sinner. That is not justice.

Not sure where your confusion with the Calvinist view of this is. I see nothing to be confused about. Everything ["whatsoever shall come to pass"] is ordained to do so. If the forgiveness did not come to pass it was ordained to not come to pass. If indeed it was given but revoked, it was ordained to be given but revoked. If it was given on condition, then it was ordained to be given on condition. Nevertheless, Jesus did not say that God forgave and revoked the forgiveness, but only the master/king in the story. If the master/king in the story is the direct equal to God the Father, then the forgiveness was perceived to be so, but not actual, only conditional. It 'would have been actual, had the erstwhile 'forgiven' also been forgiving toward his debtors, but he was not.'

Remember 1 John 1:9, from the Greek tense, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to have already forgiven us our sins...". The forgiveness is conditioned on the confession, but had already been completed in the past.

Yes, but that wasn't the subject of the parable.

The parable wasn't the subject of the discussion, either.

God tells us in several cases that He reacts to things. Jer 18:7-8, for instance. Once He has promised to react in a certain way, He denies His own character when He doesn't react that way. Are you saying God never reacts?

Not at all. My question is, why say God 'has to' react? What does that even mean?

But yes, of course he reacts! Quite obviously and violently at times!

You mean "upon the condition of mercy being met before the foundation of the world?" If so, by whom was it met? If God is meeting the condition for mercy for the act that He also ordained before the foundation of the world, why meet it in such a costly way? Why not just ordain the things He really wants to ordain ("command") instead of ordaining things He says He doesn't want to ordain ("plan")?

No. I did not say the condition resulting in mercy (i.e. repentance etc) was met before the foundation of the world. I'm saying the mercy, which was ordained from the foundation of the world, was in temporal reaction to the temporal repentance which was also ordained from the foundation of the world.

I'm not sure I understand your second question and followup comment: "If God is meeting the condition for mercy for the act that He also ordained before the foundation of the world, why meet it in such a costly way? Why not just ordain the things He really wants to ordain ("command") instead of ordaining things He says He doesn't want to ordain ("plan")?" Why not? Not sure what you mean by 'costly', but, it sounds to me a bit like the question atheists ask: "If God is all-powerful, why didn't he create a people for himself —just speak them into existence complete, without having to go through these many thousands of years of trouble?" I tell them that from God's point of view, maybe he did exactly that, and these thousands of years is what it took to do that. Maybe the command is necessary for us to become what he planned.

Oh, I see you are referring to the cross. I thought you had typed wrong concerning God meeting the condition for mercy. My bad. Nevertheless, I think my answer works there too. The cross is what it took for us to know the grace which is completely the nature of the one with whom we will be one. He was wounded for our sakes, to his own glory.

I agree with deism denying God's immanence, but Calvinism is Deism with God playing His own puppet. The immanence is a sham when He's already decided how everything is going to happen, including His own reactions to His own ordinations.

Quite to the contrary, Immanence is not a sham. Remember I have said all along God doesn't see time how we do. To me it seems reasonable to assume that to God, to speak a thing into existence is to cause it to continue to be while it is (temporal). To put it better, maybe, 'to foreknow is to forecause'. But if that doesn't sing to your mind, to decree that a creation exist is to be within the physical cause of every [supposedly natural] tiniest detail of its existence and function. I.e. Immanence. Calvinism holds with Paul, that God is not just creator, but sustainer. I do not think of God interjecting himself here and there into time sequence, but being the actual cause of time sequence during this temporal life.

If you like to think of time as a ball rolling, God did not just start the ball rolling, but he is the continuing cause of the ball's very existence, not to mention of how and where it continues to roll.

Open Theism at least allows God to interact with His creation in a way that neither party is locked into a course of action prior to their choosing. God has free-will in Open Theism. Man has free-will in Open Theism. Neither does in Calvinism (or in closed-theist Armenianism).

You make it sound like Calvinism teaches a God who MUST do or be this or that. (Maybe this is what you were thinking when you said that God 'has to' react, in the discussion of the Ungrateful Servant.) I have heard the contention that to Calvinists, God is 'locked into' behaving according to his character. This is completely backwards. He does not do because of his character: His character is what he does. God is the ONLY ONE with absolute free will, in Calvinism. NOBODY else does, Biblically, nor indeed, logically.

And Open Theism fits the text better, by far. I'm not sure why that rates the heresy label, especially since your reasoning is based on a "logical" understanding of God, rather than biblical. Why would you say OT doesn't hold God to be "First Cause, nor Omnipotent"?

Sorry, but I can't let that slide, that "Open Theism fits the text better by far" —it doesn't fit the text at all. It denies God's Omnipotence. Thus heresy. After all these discussions, why do you say Calvinism is only logical, not Biblical? Is God not Omnipotent, Sovereign, Predestining, The Primary Cause of all things, altogether involved in his creation, full of love and compassion, according to both Scripture and Calvinism? The only way I can see why you would think otherwise is through what you think are logical implications of Calvinism by way of certain presuppositions, presuppositions such as (1) that the command implies the ability to obey, and (2) that if God causes all, all is puppetry, and (3) that if choice is genuine, man's will is unfettered and his choice uncaused —(4) particularly if Calvinism insists God changes the will of the elect without permission.

 

[Derf]

I'm saying the mercy, which was ordained from the foundation of the world, was in temporal reaction to the temporal repentance which was also ordained from the foundation of the world.

I think what you are saying is that God deals with us in a temporal manner, and nothing about His dealings with us seem to indicate anything about Him being outside of time. So it is mainly just someone's interpretation that tells us that God doesn't really interact with time like we do, right?

The cross is what it took for us to know the grace which is completely the nature of the one with whom we will be one. He was wounded for our sakes, to his own glory.

The cross is what it takes for us to live when we should be dead.

God is the ONLY ONE with absolute free will, in Calvinism. NOBODY else does, Biblically, nor indeed, logically.

So you would agree with me that others, like you and me, have "free will", just not "absolute free will"? Can you explain the difference to me? And tell me why you think we don't have "absolute free will".

I'll offer an illustration. Let's say you are very good at making robots. You can make them do whatever you want them to do. Can you make them love you? How?

I'm sure that you can tell them to co something and they will do it every time. I'm also sure that you can program them to say "I love you, Mark" every time they see you. You can also make them where they mess up every now and then, but then they stop messing up when you tell them to and "repent".

Do those robots love you?

Sorry, but I can't let that slide, that "Open Theism fits the text better by far" —it doesn't fit the text at all. It denies God's Omnipotence. Thus heresy. After all these discussions, why do you say Calvinism is only logical, not Biblical? Is God not Omnipotent, Sovereign, Predestining, The Primary Cause of all things, altogether involved in his creation, full of love and compassion, according to both Scripture and Calvinism? The only way I can see why you would think otherwise is through what you think are logical implications of Calvinism by way of certain presuppositions, presuppositions such as (1) that the command implies the ability to obey, and (2) that if God causes all, all is puppetry, and (3) that if choice is genuine, man's will is unfettered and his choice uncaused —(4) particularly if Calvinism insists God changes the will of the elect without permission.

"God's Omnipotence" isn't text of the bible. There are certainly verses that describe God's omnipotence, but just throwing out that phrase is hardly a just critique against my statement. Where does Open Theism deny biblical statements about God's omnipotence?

I didn't say Calvinism is only logical. I said your reasoning depended on "logic" (with the quote marks intentional and important) according to your statement that I was responding to. But it's true that Calvinism is not biblical in some facets. I've listed a couple, like Hezekiah's two prophecies. Calvinism says that it was decided before the foundation of the world when Hezekiah would die. Thus, one of those prophecies was false, and one was true. To avoid a conflict, Calvinists (and closed theist Armenians), that know God has always known when Hezekiah would die, have to deny the meaning of the text to fit their system. I think that fits the definition of "not biblical".

Ok, I've given my example of where Calvinists deny the bible. Your turn.

In other scriptures we see reason to consider Christ to have died for absolutely everyone ONLY in that his death was sufficient for their forgiveness, but not to have actually forgiven them.

How would we know if Jesus' sacrifice was applied to someone? "Forgiveness" is good, but hard to measure. Jesus said it made no difference whether He said "your sins are forgiven" or "take up your pallet and walk". Thus you can measure "forgiveness" by the man's ability to stand up healed.

If the wages of sin is death, then you can measure forgiveness by the reversal of death. To whom does Jesus say the reversal of death will be applied? John 5:28-29 tells us "All that are in the graves shall come forth." When do they come forth? When they hear His voice. I don't know exactly what He will say, but I expect it will be something like "Rise and come out of the graves", similar to "Take up your pallet and walk."