ARCHIVE:God is NOT an OV'er (He said so)

[geoff]

Jer 15: And when they say to you, "Where shall we go?" you shall say to them: Thus says the Lord: Those destined for pestilence, to pestilence, and those destined for the sword, to the sword; those destined for famine, to famine, and those destined for captivity, to captivity.

self explanatory I think

[themuzicman]

Well, it does explain that circumstances overcome our own plans and desires.

There is no indication that God's knows existentially what each person will go through. He's just saying that no man is an island, and no one can resist the force of time and circumstance.

Nice try, but...

Michael

[geoff]

music:
Well, it does explain that circumstances overcome our own plans and desires.
No, it says we are DESTINED.

There is no indication that God's knows existentially what each person will go through. He's just saying that no man is an island, and no one can resist the force of time and circumstance.
No, it says DESTINED FOR....

Nice try, but...
Yours wasnt a nice try... try again... you get an "f" for that attempt.

[Jaltus]

Geoff,

Jeremiah 15: ???

You left the verse out.

[geoff]

oooops hehe
Its verse 2

[themuzicman]

Geoff:

Look at the verse carefully. All the items listed, Pestilence, War, Famine and Captivity, are things one man cannot control.

If pestilence or famine comes upon a group, there isn't any free will issue as to whether everyone will be affected or not. Everyone will. The happenings of nature are inextricably a part of what we are destined for. This would be like me declaring that the people of Miami are destined for a hurricane. Am I God? No. How can I make such a declaration? Hurricanes happen in Miami.

Similar argument with war and captivity. Neither a war coming to Isreal, nor the captivity of the Isreali people was something an individual could control. These things happen outside the will of the men thrown into war and taken into captivity. And, again, I can declare that people will die in wars fought, and that doesn't make me God. It means I have a basic understanding of world politics.


You're trying to make this verse sound as though what is said is some kind of massive prophecy, when the truth is that it's simply a truth of life.

Furthermore, I know that God frequently made prophecies about Isreal going into captivity, but even this does not imply foreknowledge. What it tells us is that God is active in the world today, bringing about His will, and even calls his own shots.

You make it sound as though God is just sitting in heaven, watching the world go around, and just mentioning to us what's going to happen. When you figure out that God is active and working in today's world, bringing about His will, existential foreknowledge becomes superfluous and unbiblical.


FYI, your analysis, should it come in MY class, would result in a gentle rebuke for trying to make scripture fit your theology, rather than the other way around. If it had to grade it, you'd get a 'F' for a lack of effort.

Michael

[geoff]

music,

You're grasping.

You havent read Jer 15 have you?

[Jaltus]

Or Jeremiah 18-20, but that is a different story...

[geoff]

same story innit?

unless we have a deutero-jeremiah hehehe

(jokes jokes, just jokes)

[1013]

Jaltus, the begining of jermiah 18 is significant for the open view paradigm since God anounces that he may change his plans contingently upon the response of a people that he has blessed or threatened.

graqnted Jerimaiah says, "but they will say "it is no use, we will follow our own plans..."

So does this negate the opennes contention that free choices are unknowable? At most, It may negates that free choices are always unknowable. People harden there hearts and it is reasonable that the people of israel were too far gone and there hearts were hardened to the point that what thier response would be was a clear fact of the matter. people develope habits and mindsets and thier free actions would no longer be indeterminate but instead hae been detertmined by thier past behavior. Since they could no longer change thier ways any more a lepeord his spots, only tragedy could break them out of this, thus God announced thier punishment. "I will scatter them before the enemy."

thus, this is not that problematic for the open view.

By the way, Jermiah 3:7 is the most expicite case where the open view naturally arises.

[geoff]

Saying it isnt problematic isnt the same as it actually NOT being problematic.

I believe Jer 18, and Deut 18 completely annihilate the OV. They pull the rug completely from under the feet of you lot.

And yet you appeal to it as support.. I find that hilarious.

[themuzicman]

Originally posted by geoff
music,

You're grasping.

You havent read Jer 15 have you?

Ooooh... Stunning rebuttal :rolleyes:

Yes, I've read it. God is simply telling the Children of Isreal what is going to happen to them. There is no implication of existential foreknowledge there at all.

Your grade is still 'F'.

Michael

[themuzicman]

Gee, Jeremiah 18:11 seems to indicate an Open View. If God already knew what was going to happen, why would he need to begin the process of fashioning a plan against them? Wouldn't he already know the plan before this time?

Even the story about the potter, when the item he was working on spoiled, and he remade it into something else. If there is a metaphore there, it indicates that God changed the plans he had for Isreal, because they had spoiled. VERY open view.

Michael

[geoff]

Actually the passage says that if someone listens to His prophets, God will not do that which He says He will do if they dont listen to His prophets.

It has nothing to do with -changing his mind- which is the point. God is reassuring His people that He is not a fickle, capricious God, like the Baals of the other nations.

Fact is, if God doesnt know the outcome of His dealings with Israel, He is less than the Baals, He might as well be a piece of wood, or stone crafted by human hands (any pick the imagery here). If He doesnt know what will come of His dealings with creation, how the heck is He going to bring about the future plans He has? By Guess work?

"well maybe if I say this thing to Israel, they will repent and turn back to me, but maybe they wont... well I will give it a go and see if it works... I really need them to decide one way or the other but, you know, they are such wilful people its really hard to know what they will do..."
--- 'the OV God' (crafted by human hand)

"I will say this thing to Israel, when they reject it and carry on in their evil way I will be justified in my punishing them"
"I will say this thing to This person, and they will accept it and turn from evil and I will restrain from punishing them"
--- 'the God of Scripture'

The difference is massive.

Back to the original verse.

God uses the word DESTINED. Also "those" and "they" and "them" to indicate specific peoples and groups of peoples made up of individuals.

Destined indicates caused. Verse 3-4 is enlightening:
3 And I will appoint over them four kinds of destroyers, says the Lord: the sword to kill, the dogs to drag away, and the birds of the air and the wild animals of the earth to devour and destroy. 4 I will make them a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth because of what King Manasseh son of Hezekiah of Judah did in Jerusalem.
The New Revised Standard Version, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers) 1989.

God will do, appoint, make.
God will cause these things.
God has destined these things

How do you get around that?

[Jaltus]

Jeremiah 18:11 should be understood appropriately.

The correct view of the passage shows that the participle (yotzer) is generally understood as refering to the past, not the future or present. Note II Samuel 17:28, Jeremiah 33:2, Jeremiah 51:18, and Amos 7:1, all of which use the same word all of which are past. The translation is bad, and thus so are your conclusions.

[geoff]

Actually that doesnt make my understanding bad at all.

It does make Musicmans bad though

[1013]

The translation is bad,

what's the right one?

[themuzicman]

Originally posted by geoff
Actually the passage says that if someone listens to His prophets, God will not do that which He says He will do if they dont listen to His prophets.

It has nothing to do with -changing his mind- which is the point. God is reassuring His people that He is not a fickle, capricious God, like the Baals of the other nations.

Fact is, if God doesnt know the outcome of His dealings with Israel, He is less than the Baals, He might as well be a piece of wood, or stone crafted by human hands (any pick the imagery here). If He doesnt know what will come of His dealings with creation, how the heck is He going to bring about the future plans He has? By Guess work?


How about by being a powerful God who understands His creation and what He needs to do to accomplish His will? Or have you neglected the omnipotent power of God? Do you honestly think that God couldn't accomplish His will without fixing the game beforehand? Such a lack of faith!


"well maybe if I say this thing to Israel, they will repent and turn back to me, but maybe they wont... well I will give it a go and see if it works... I really need them to decide one way or the other but, you know, they are such wilful people its really hard to know what they will do..."
--- 'the OV God' (crafted by human hand)


That's not what any OVer has said. God is acting as one who knows His own creation, and understands what he needs to do in order to bring them back to Himself. You talk as though you think OVers believe that we aren't influenced by what happens to us. Which, of course, couldn't be further from the truth.

This is, of course, an attempt to take God's influence in the world out of the picture, to make it seem as though the OV would be impossible.

The OVer views God, not as a hapless deity who wrings his hands and issues prophecy and holds his breath. The OVer views God as a loving, powerful, and active God who influences this world to bring about His will, in spite of us. It is a God that is far more powerful that what you determinists believe in.


"I will say this thing to Israel, when they reject it and carry on in their evil way I will be justified in my punishing them"
"I will say this thing to This person, and they will accept it and turn from evil and I will restrain from punishing them"
--- 'the God of Scripture'


This could be the rest of foreknowledge, or it could be the result of an omnicient God who knows the minds and hearts of the people He is influencing, and what the result of His actions will be. This is in no way a proof of foreknowledge. (Again, grade 'F' for being presumptive upon scripture.)


Back to the original verse.

God uses the word DESTINED. Also "those" and "they" and "them" to indicate specific peoples and groups of peoples made up of individuals.


Gee, you think God can see pestilence, famine, war, and capitivity coming in the near future without foreknowledge? Do you think He could cause such things, should He wish to? Gee, I think He could. Or isn't God powerful enough to do that, in your view?

If these things are coming, there isn't anything any one man or even a group can do about it. It happens. It's a part of your destiny. Such is life.


Destined indicates caused. Verse 3-4 is enlightening:
3 And I will appoint over them four kinds of destroyers, says the Lord: the sword to kill, the dogs to drag away, and the birds of the air and the wild animals of the earth to devour and destroy. 4 I will make them a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth because of what King Manasseh son of Hezekiah of Judah did in Jerusalem.
The New Revised Standard Version, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers) 1989.

God will do, appoint, make.
God will cause these things.
God has destined these things

How do you get around that?

Simple. Foreknowledge isn't necessary for God to do these things. God is powerful enough to allow or bring about any one of these things without having to foreknow what will happen. God can MAKE destiny happen without foreknowledge.

Michael

[themuzicman]

Originally posted by Jaltus
Jeremiah 18:11 should be understood appropriately.

The correct view of the passage shows that the participle (yotzer) is generally understood as refering to the past, not the future or present. Note II Samuel 17:28, Jeremiah 33:2, Jeremiah 51:18, and Amos 7:1, all of which use the same word all of which are past. The translation is bad, and thus so are your conclusions.

Either past or present, why would God have to fashion plans at all? If everything was pre-determined, God would have no fashioning to do.

Michael

[geoff]

muzic:
Do you honestly think that God couldn't accomplish His will without fixing the game beforehand? Such a lack of faith!
There you go again, ASSuming that I am saying something I am not saying. STOP reading your agenda into my posts.

Foreknowing is not 'fixing' anything.. it is KNOWING... knowing can never have the property of 'fixing'. Its a false and erroneous assumption on your behalf.

That's not what any OVer has said. God is acting as one who knows His own creation, and understands what he needs to do in order to bring them back to Himself. You talk as though you think OVers believe that we aren't influenced by what happens to us. Which, of course, couldn't be further from the truth.

What on earth are you on about?

This is in no way a proof of foreknowledge.
Who said it was proof of anything?
It really makes me laugh when you lot have your imaginary conversations with imaginary people.... its actually kind of rude.. Imagine how your wife would feel if she asked you what you thought of her new blue dress, and you started pointing out all the things wrong with her green hair (she doesnt have green hair at all).

Foreknowledge isn't necessary for God to do these things
Wrong.

Without foreknowledge, God has no more ability to bring about the future, and bring his destiny for the world to pass than you do. Without foreknowledge, God is no better, in fact, worse of than me, because I DO have foreknowledge about some things. You have invented a god for yourself who is less than a man. Hope you're happy with him.

[Jaltus]

Muz,

I do not think that God determines things, except what He tells us He determines. Thus, no problem.

[1013]

Jaltus, if what I responded to in chapter 18 is similar to what is 19, which I'm too lazy to check, there is no problem for the open view.

The translation is bad

again, what is the right one?

[Jaltus]

It would be,

I prepared a disaster for you...

[1013]

Whether he was preparing it or he had prepared prior, the open view finds support because God could change his plan as verse 8 says. That is the typical observation of the open view.

but Music man's observation that it is present tense would be a powerful peice of evidence, to add to the contigency already recognized.

So is the participle past tense? that would be unusual and granted you say there are instances, my hebrew syntax book does not give any explicit indication that it is past and usually places it as present by way of ongoing action, immanent action, or simultaneous action, among other uses which do not clearly seem conducive to a past tense. When I'm not feeling lazy, perhaps I'll look at your counterexamples.

perhaps, your examples involve simultinaity with something in the past. that is not the case here.

[geoff]

what language is he speaking?

[themuzicman]

Originally posted by geoff
muzic:

Wrong.

Without foreknowledge, God has no more ability to bring about the future, and bring his destiny for the world to pass than you do. Without foreknowledge, God is no better, in fact, worse of than me, because I DO have foreknowledge about some things. You have invented a god for yourself who is less than a man. Hope you're happy with him.

Are you claiming to be psychic? Because that's the only way you can have true foreknowledge.

I think you've confused foreknowledge with an educated guess. The weatherman claims to predict the future, but it's only an educated guess.

Even within ourselves, we can make a decision to do something at a certain time ,but we cannot be certain that we will do it. Frequently, I haven't a clue as to what's going to happen to me 5 minutes from now. Some foreknowledge.


I realize that without foreknowledge, you lose your security blanket regarding God, and the possibility that not everything that happens is God's will is scarey for you. What you need to do is place your faith in God, rather than in foreknowledge, and allow God to be God in bringing about His will without it.

God doesn't need foreknowledge as a security blanket. Why do you?

Michael

[themuzicman]

Originally posted by Jaltus
Muz,

I do not think that God determines things, except what He tells us He determines. Thus, no problem.

Welcome to the Open View.

Michael

[1013]

blieb

[Jaltus]

Muz,

How about Arminianism? We do not believe God determines everything, just that He already knows it. You know, the whole EDF thing.

[themuzicman]

Originally posted by Jaltus
Muz,

How about Arminianism? We do not believe God determines everything, just that He already knows it. You know, the whole EDF thing.

Yeah, I remember. I still haven't had anyone explain how God could have created and set this universe in motion, and in the same moment existentially known exactly what was going to happen in every moment throughout history, and still claim not to be the one who determined what happened.

If the future is certain, then it was pre-determined. I don't see how you can separate the two.

Michael

[Jaltus]

foreknown does not mean determined. Knowledge is not causal. Isn't that pretty obvious?

If I am teaching someone to add, and I see two cars in one pile, then see three in another pile, and ask the person how many they have, I did not cause the answer to be 5, but I knew it ahead of time.

As for knowing how God could know, do you really think an finite mind or explanation will come close to the reality that is God? I think that may be my biggest problem with OV, that it is trying so hard to force God into our limitations.

[geoff]

Music:

I am not psychic, but there are some things that I have certain knowledge of. You keep denying its possible, but you never prove it.

I still haven't had anyone explain how God could have created and set this universe in motion, and in the same moment existentially known exactly what was going to happen in every moment throughout history, and still claim not to be the one who determined what happened
Easy. Foreknowledge is not causative. It is NOT a property that foreknowledge has. It is not determinative, because foreknowledge does NOT have the power to cause anything.
Simple, and fairly widely accepted these days (except by a few extremists)

[themuzicman]

Originally posted by Jaltus
foreknown does not mean determined. Knowledge is not causal. Isn't that pretty obvious?

If I am teaching someone to add, and I see two cars in one pile, then see three in another pile, and ask the person how many they have, I did not cause the answer to be 5, but I knew it ahead of time.

Because you didn't create the system by which the answer is five. The difference between you and God is that you're an observer, whereas He is the cause.

You are certain because you were taught. God would be certain because He made it that way.


As for knowing how God could know, do you really think an finite mind or explanation will come close to the reality that is God? I think that may be my biggest problem with OV, that it is trying so hard to force God into our limitations.

Actually, the OVer marvels in God's omnipotence and omnicience (and omni presence) in being able to bring about His will without fixing the end before hand. Apparantly, determinists want to limit God's power by having to fix the end before things started.

Michael

[themuzicman]

Originally posted by geoff
Music:



Easy. Foreknowledge is not causative. It is NOT a property that foreknowledge has. It is not determinative, because foreknowledge does NOT have the power to cause anything.
Simple, and fairly widely accepted these days (except by a few extremists)

No, God is the cause of everything. Without free will, God has to be the cause of everything.

Thus, when you combine God who is the cause, and foreknowledge which mandates certainty in everything, you have determinism.

Michael

[geoff]

No, God is the cause of everything. Without free will, God has to be the cause of everything.

assertion, not proven. In fact, not provable.

Thus, when you combine God who is the cause, and foreknowledge which mandates certainty in everything, you have determinism.

Ahh, no you dont.

You still have not proven, nor shown, nor can to you to any degree, that foreknowledge has the inherent property of causation.

Foreknowledge HAS NO POWER to cause. God can cause. God who has foreknowledge can cause, I can cause, I, who has forenkowledge can cause. But foreknowledge CAN NOT CAUSE. Therefore foreknowledge is NOT determinative.

Its inanimate, powerless. It cant do anything. It is knowledge, it just 'is'. One can USE foreknowledge to determine, but merely 'possessing' it does not determine.

God CAN use foreknowledge to determine (that is, cause) certain events to happen. That is not, and never will be the same as saying 'because God knows, He has determined (caused)', because 'cause' is not a property of knowing.

I have said it before, and many many scholars/philosophers have also, that you have to either prove there is are different types of foreknowledge (causal and non causal) or the idea that foreknowing is causal is wrong.

Dont just tell me that because God foreknows, and is first cause, foreknowing is causal, because that is not acceptable. We know God causes, and we know God has foreknowledge. We also know that because God foreknows some things, He causes other things. That is NOT the same as 'His foreknowing is causing'.

Right?
Clear yet?

[Jaltus]

Foreknowledge is just knowledge. In and of itself it can do nothing. OVers are trying to give foreknowedge itself power. A concept cannot have inherent power. Only reality can.

[1013]

OVers are trying to give foreknowedge itself power.

are we still on this? maybe that could be drawn from what muzicman said (sorry muz if that's not what you intend) but no professional openness theologian does this. Not even Boyd says this. At most, foreknowledge indicates, read not the power behind, but just indicates determinism and at the least negates freedom. It is not the power behind the future.

[geoff]

1013,

so you keep saying, and everytime we show you when and where you are wrong..

[Surly-DwarF]

1013 ...professional openness theologian...

Ok, ok, I won't pick on you for that :D

But I will for this:

At most, foreknowledge indicates, read not the power behind, but just indicates determinism and at the least negates freedom.

What? Forekowledge indicates determinism? I thought you believed it necessarily means it. Even I agree that if something is foreknown, it is absolutely certain to happen. Maybe I missed the gist of what you were getting at, but...as to foreknowledge negating freedom...nope, it doesn't.

Mike

[themuzicman]

Originally posted by Jaltus
Foreknowledge is just knowledge. In and of itself it can do nothing. OVers are trying to give foreknowedge itself power. A concept cannot have inherent power. Only reality can.

Both of you guys (Jaltus and Geoff) are missing key components, here.

You are correct, foreknowledge in and of itself is not causation.

However, foreknowledge requires certainty. If the future is not certain, then it cannot be known.

Furthermore, certainty can only be occur previous to the beginning of that which is certain. If there is an alterng cause that enters after something has begun, it cannot be certain.

I think we all agree that God caused the creation of the universe, and set time in motion. I believe you also assert that God has foreknown everything since creation. Thus certainty dictates that the only cause of everything that has happened is God.


So, just to recap: Foreknowledge requires certainty. Certainty eliminates subsequent altering causes. God is the initial cause. And, since everythnig is certain since the initial cause, because all is foreknown, God would have to be the cause of all things.

Which is why foreknowledge, as you present it, is unbiblical.

Michael

[geoff]

However, foreknowledge requires certainty.

hahahahahaha

[Surly-DwarF]

Geoff,

"Hahaha", as in you agree or disagree that foreknowledge requires certainty? I'll assume you agree it does, as will I -- it's just the conclusions muzic makes from that premise I take issue with. To wit:

themuzicman So, just to recap: Foreknowledge requires certainty.

Good so far.

Certainty eliminates subsequent altering causes.

That's a bit obtuse. Correct me if I'm misreading you, but I interpret your sentence to mean something like, "If God has certain foreknowledge then anything His creatures do they couldn't have done otherwise, and therefore are not the cause of whatever they did."

Is that right? If so, it doesn't hold water. If you don't believe it, then perhaps you can explain just how God's foreknowledge of an event and the certainty of its occurrence prevents you from having a true choice or deciding on a course of action when you have several to choose from (albeit it is certain which one you will choose) IF you have the ability to choose what seems best to you AND you have no idea what God's certain foreknowledge of the outcome is.

God is the initial cause. And, since everythnig is [b]certain since the initial cause, because all is foreknown, God would have to be the cause of [b]all things.

Yes, God is the initial cause, but the rest unfortunately (or fortunately in my view) doesn't follow. If He hadn't brought the Universe into being then no subsequent events (foreknown or otherwise) could be caused by His creatures. And by creation and foreordination He set in motion a chain reaction that "caused" the rest of history to play out in an unalterable manner, that doesn't mean that His creatures have no freedom to choose as they will. And it doesn't mean that God must force them to do things they wouldn't otherwise do in order to guarantee His foreknowledge. There are many things that are certain to happen that God does not do or perform but which are done by His creatures, and they are the immediate cause of those things. It's already been established that foreknowledge is NOT causative.

Which is why foreknowledge, as you present it, is unbiblical.

No, quite the opposite. God tells us there is nothing He does not know.

Mike

[1013]

What? Forekowledge indicates determinism? I thought you believed it necessarily means it.

uh... yeah? :rolleyes:

from webster

indicate

1 a : to point out or point to b : to be a sign, symptom, or index of <the high fever indicates a serious condition> c : to demonstrate or suggest the necessity or advisability of

but...as to foreknowledge negating freedom...nope, it doesn't.

obviously I meant lfw and I definitely meant self determinism.

[Surly-DwarF]

You know, you obviously have nothing to contribute to this forum, so why are you here? You're either by far the most dishonest person or the most confused person I've met here and I prefer to think it's confusion and/or some type of emotional dysfunction. I've tried to be patient, but you just don't have the ability to discuss these issues in a clear, productive manner.

[geoff]

Surly,

I meant hahah as in, foreknowledge does not 'require' certainty.

Certainty may be a result of foreknowledge, but it certainly isnt a prerequisite.

[Surly-DwarF]

Geoff,

Hmm, maybe I need to be more precise in the way I word things. One thing I meant to convey is that certainty is a result of foreknowledge, as you mentioned. You're right, it's not a prerequisite. But it is a necessary consequence of foreknowledge, wouldn't you say?

[geoff]

Surly,

Consequence, yes, because God knows the future, and He knows it with certainty (there isnt anything He doesnt know about it).

w00t!

[1013]

I see you are frustrated surly. perhaps you should pursue another hobby because this one you can't handle with the maturity of an adult.

[Surly-DwarF]

Uh, yeah Geoff. That's basically what I meant ;) Do you think that I came across clearly enough in my post to muzik?

[geoff]

Surly,

Yep, but he doesnt have both eyes open..

1013,

He isnt the only one who has commented on this...I can think of several...

[Surly-DwarF]

1013,

There are a lot of things I can't handle with the maturity of an adult ;) But that's neither here nor there. Yeah, I guess I am a little frustrated, but not because of any inadequacy on my part, as you think. I really meant what I said, and it wasn't meant as an insult, though I can understand why your first reaction would be to take offense. I'm truly sorry if I hurt your feelings. I just...I don't know. I find it impossible to dialogue with you, so I guess I'll try not to comment any more on the things you say, unless absolutely necessary. I'm not putting you on ignore, and I didn't mean I wish you were gone for good. Not that I think you would leave just cuz I asked you to, but I don't even want you to. *Sigh*

Mike

[1013]

as I said in the other thread, thanks for the apology.

as for this

Yeah, I guess I am a little frustrated, but not because of any inadequacy on my part, as you think.

It might help you to understand what I believe as I understand what I believe. Only a dialogue can hope to bring that about.


I find it impossible to dialogue with you,

the last post of mine before you posted your frustration, I honestly don't see what was so hard about what I said.

I said indicate and you attacked that but the dictionary is on my side.

I mention freedom but I expect that when I make claims about it and foreknowledge being incompatible, one would should know from dialogueing with me that I implicitly mean freedom as defined by lfw.

but if perhaps by impossible to dialogue, you mean impossible to convince, that just isn't going to happen anytime soon. That's just not the way people work.

The fact is, any view is coherent provided certain prices are paid. but as my metaphysics prof has said, it all comes down to haggling over the price. (Albeit, I have said and maintain that calvinism is incoherent, because I don't think most calvinists pay the price on the tag)

[geoff]

*blink*

[geralduk]

Every person born of ADAM is DOOMED and without hope in this world.

Its a good thing God is mercyfull!

In that while we were yet sinners (DOOMED TO BE DAMNED) Christ died for us.

Is there any who read these posts not worthy of death and eternal seperation from God?

NOPE!

Jesus said "sin must come but woe by whom it comes"

The generation who lived in Ninevah in Jonah's time were doomed and were PROPHECIED to as to thier destruction.
But they got WISE! and repented and THAT generation was saved,But was then the Word of God oof none effect?
NO.
For it shall NOT return unto Him void but WILL accomplish that wereunto He sent it.
For in the fullness of time the judgment that was so ordered came about.

If God was NOT mercyfull we would ALL be consumed!
and even those who know not yet God HE IS MERCYFULL TO.
For He sends the rain on the just and the unjust.

God is God!

and who can stay His hand?

Both in mercy or judgment.

"Therfore we should more earnestly give heed......."

[Yxboom]

Is this going the route of pro or anti-calvanism? Or is it still to OV or not to OV? Because I am having difficulties reconciling what the most recent posts are aiming towards. To think I was so enjoying the obviousness of the OV arguments and obliviousness of the counter. :p Dont mind me the innocent bystander.

Psalms 106:40-45 Therefore was the wrath of the LORD kindled against his people, insomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance. And he gave them into the hand of the heathen; and they that hated them ruled over them. Their enemies also oppressed them, and they were brought into subjection under their hand. Many times did he deliver them; but they provoked him with their counsel, and were brought low for their iniquity. Nevertheless he regarded their affliction, when he heard their cry: And he remembered for them his covenant, and repented according to the multitude of his mercies. :D

[geoff]

The thread is anti OV, because OV is incoherent, both logically, and with Scripture.

The verses this discussion begins with are proof of it, or at least, offered in evidence.

So far, no decent argument has been offered against it unless you count - "I reserve the right to discount your evidence because I dont think you know what you're talking about'

If you consider that an 'obvious' answer... you need some medical help :D

[Yxboom]

Let me reiterate.

Psalms 106:45 And he remembered for them his covenant, and repented according to the multitude of his mercies.


If you consider that an 'obvious' answer... you need some medical help

Mark 2:17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
:D

[geoff]

Yxboom,

Cool, you can quote a verse... however without knowing why you think this some how defeats the orthodox position, I am at a loss to know what you are on about. As far as I can see, this verse actually affirms the Non OV ie, traditional or orthodox view.

So, are u in need of a Physician?

[Edgar Caiña]

Jer 15: And when they say to you, "Where shall we go?" you shall say to them: Thus says the Lord: Those destined for pestilence, to pestilence, and those destined for the sword, to the sword; those destined for famine, to famine, and those destined for captivity, to captivity.



self explanatory I think


There’s nothing in the verse that requires us to believe that God predestined everything and every person to a particular fate. The verse is saying that because these people rejected God, He will judge them and thus designating others to death, others to the sword, etc., which God has the right to do so. But to read this verse as saying that God predestined these people and everyone (even before they were born) in this world for that matter, to death, sword, etc. is unwarranted. Therefore, the OV still stands with this verse. In fact, down in verse 6 the LORD says that He's now weary of relenting :

You have rejected me, says the LORD,
You are going backward; so I have
stretched out my hand against you and
destroyed you - I am weary of relenting.
(Jeremiah 15:6, NRSV)

The LORD, in His disappointment with these people, designated them to judgment.

Blessings,
Edgar

[1013]

excellent observation ed.

[geoff]

Let me see, Jer 15:6 nacham, same as Gen 6:5-6..

it is the niphal stem:

1) to be sorry, console oneself, repent, regret, comfort, be comforted
1a) (Niphal)
1a1) to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion
1a2) to be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent
1a3) to comfort oneself, be comforted
1a4) to comfort oneself, ease oneself
Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.

God is weary with grieving over the sinfulness of humanity... NOT with changing His mind, because He hasnt done it.

A quick word study reveals the niphal stem of nacham to have the meaning 'sorry, grieving etc, for evil commited' (strongs alone is inadequate for this purpose, as it only tells us how the KJV translators understood it... although in this case they are correct).

Edgar,

How you do explain away the word 'destined' - it clearly says God 'destined' - if God destines people for one thing or another, then God destines people for one thing or another... please explain how this can be explained any other way.

[Edgar Caiña]

Hi! geoff,

First of all, I would like to say that I’ve no expertise or even a training in the original languages of the Scriptures, so I depend on the translations I have in my shelf. :o

Here’s my observation: The phrase “destined for” was also used by the NIV translators in Isaiah 9:5 but it is quite noticeable that the NASB translators only supplied the word “destined” to make the passage more understandable, but perhaps they didn’t see it in the original because they didn’t use it in Isaiah 9:5 as it is used in the NIV. Other translations such as the KJV and the RSV did not use the word.

Now, the way I understand this (God’s destining these people to something) is that this didn’t took place in past eternity. I understand that this action on the part of God only began when they continuously rejected God (the reason why He was so weary of grieving over their sinfulness). I would like to emphasize that the reason why God destined these people to death, sword, etc. was because of their rejection of Him and not because of some arbitrariness on the part of God. Now, if they were destined to death, sword, etc. from eternity past, it would be unintelligent of God to say He’s weary of grieving (unless He also destined Himself to grieve or when He said that He was saying something which He knows not really true at all) since He knew all along the way that these people will reject Him.

As I have stated in my previous post, I don’t see in this verse the idea that God destined ALL PEOPLE in the world to something or to some place (like heaven or hell) before they were even born.

Now, (and maybe this is what you're waiting for to hear :p ) I admit (and I think that no OV’er will deny) that there are some that God predestined to something, Christ is one example (Acts 2:23) and the Church is another (Eph. 1:4,5). But this doesn’t entail that God predestined ALL PEOPLE to something. The idea that “if God predestined some, He must have predestined all” is unwarranted in Scriptures. There are many biblical examples or cases that could be “applied” to ALL PEOPLE as well, but we don’t do that because we know it's an error to do it that way. So when we see in Scripture God predestining some people (let me ride with you for a while) to something, it would be, I THINK, erroneous to conclude that He also predestined ALL PEOPLE to something as well. ;)

His blessings be upon you,

Edgar

[geoff]

Edgar,

You say that you admit that God might destine some, but not all...

Answer me this, does creation have a Goal, is there a purpose to which God is moving History? Does God have a final intention for creation?

If it is true that God does in fact have a plan, and a goal for creation, then hasnt He destined that outcome?

If God has in fact a destiny for creation, how can you say He does not have a plan for all people? Surely that means He does?

If He has a plan for all people, he must also have plans for individuals, as they make up the 'all people' group, and in order for this not to be the case we should not find any verses indicating individual, or small groups of individuals having a specific destiny.

If there are individuals who are destined, and groups of individuals who are destined, and all people who have a destiny, there is really no good reason to assume that God does not do this, especially when it is clear He does do it.

[1013]

I think what you meant to say edgar is that God does not have a specific plan for every specific individual.

[geoff]

Why dont we wait for edgar, instead of obfusicating

[Edgar Caiña]

Answer me this, does creation have a Goal, is there a purpose to which God is moving History? Does God have a final intention for creation?

God’s over-all goal for creation and history that I see in scriptures is nothing but the ultimate defeat of evil and the destruction of heaven and earth (2 Peter 3:7). But if you’re telling me that for God to arrive at such goal He needs to predestine or predetermine EVRYTHING in the created universe, then I don’t believe that. And if you’re telling me that EVERYTHING that happens in the world today is God’s plan, then I would categorically reject that. Because we all know that for the most part the world is dominated by evil. I can’t imagine how could some Christians believe that a rape and murder of a 4-year old girl to be God’s plan! That happened last year here in the Philippines. A 4-yr old was raped and then crushed her head to death with a brick by a drug addict. Was that God’s plan for that little girl? There's a news today here in Manila (i'll give the link once it becomes available in the internet) involving a little girl who was taken by a hostager. The negotiation apparently didn't materialize and she was stabbed to death several times. Was that God's plan for her? Did God destined her to that horrible death? If that is what you call God's specific plan for specific individuals, then I don't buy it.


…hasn’t He destined that outcome?

Do you believe that he destined the horrible demise of that little girl? Do you believe that He destined the gruesome death of those Christians who were burned to death while sleeping in a Hotel in Metro Manila after attending a Christian Seminar? Do you believe that He destined Saul to rebel against Him? Do you believe that He destined the injustices in the world? If He did destine the injustices in this world, why do we cry for justice and why did He promise justice at the end? (Luke 18:7-8)


…how can you say that He doesn’t have a plan for all people?

Well, God has plans and has an ultimate plan. But God having a plan doesn’t necessarily mean He meticulously predetermined or predestined EVERYTHING before creation. Though we have roles to play in His providential plan, it doesn’t require us to believe that He predestined or predetermined us to something in order for God to arrive at His goal. There are instances in scriptures what God wants, God doesn’t get. His purpose for us is that we do not disobey, but many times we do. Men thwart his purpose most of the times (Luke 7:30; Acts 13:46). When God someday announces, “Check mate!” It doesn’t necessarily mean that He predestined every move of His “opponent’s” pieces. If we believe that God is all-powerful and infinitely wise, it should be no problem to us believing that He can have a plan and yet never predestined EVERYTHING and EVERYONE to SOMETHING from eternity past.

[geoff]

Edgar:

But if you’re telling me that for God to arrive at such goal He needs to predestine or predetermine EVRYTHING in the created universe, then I don’t believe that

I didnt say EVERYTHING 'needs' to be predestined at all. YOu have made that conclusion yourself. Obviously that is where the evidence leads you so far. I would say that everything is 'foreknown', rather than predestined.

And if you’re telling me that EVERYTHING that happens in the world today is God’s plan, then I would categorically reject that. Because we all know that for the most part the world is dominated by evil.

What I said was, that God has a definite plan, and He is bringing about this plan. It would seem that part of this plan involves bringing individuals into the group know as 'The Israel Of God' - whom are His Children.
EVerything that happens is foreknown, but that is not to say it is predestined. Again, I did not say it was.

Did God destined her to that horrible death? If that is what you call God's specific plan for specific individuals, then I don't buy it.
God foreknew her death, but I have not said He predestined it... that is your conclusion.

Do you believe that he destined the horrible demise of that little girl? Do you believe that He destined the gruesome death of those Christians who were burned to death while sleeping in a Hotel in Metro Manila after attending a Christian Seminar? Do you believe that He destined Saul to rebel against Him? Do you believe that He destined the injustices in the world? If He did destine the injustices in this world, why do we cry for justice and why did He promise justice at the end? (Luke 18:7-8)

This so far is what is called a straw man, you are arguing against a view that I have not presented.

Well, God has plans and has an ultimate plan. But God having a plan doesn’t necessarily mean He meticulously predetermined or predestined EVERYTHING before creation.

Yes God has a plan, and a goal, not only for creation, but obviously, according to Scripture, for humanity, groups of humanity, and individuals. However, I have NOT said that every little thing is predestined.

BTW, 'eternity-past' is a concept that is senseless in respect for God. Thats another discussion though.

[Edgar Caiña]

God foreknew her death, but I have not said He predestined it... that is your conclusionHi geoff,

I just thought we're discussing the word "destine" (to mean predestine) from Jeremiah 15:2. Im sorry. Just like I've said to geralduk in the other post, being a Filipino who's not so very good in English, sometimes i really don't get what you're saying English people. Im sorry, I never thought you mean "foreknowledge." :o

So my post should have been addressed to a predestination guy and not to you. Im very sorry for missing the point.


I would say that everything is 'foreknown', rather than predestined.

EVerything that happens is foreknown, but that is not to say it is predestined.

I want make it clear now. Did you say everything and everything that happens is foreknown by God? When you say EVRYTHING do you mean ALL THINGS as in everything WITHOUT exception? Does this include even the future free choice of an individual?

[Yxboom]

Luke 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

[1013]

Filipino who's not so very good in English, sometimes i really don't get what you're saying English people.

You're english is fine. confusion when discussing things with geoff happens quite naturally regardless of one's abilities in english ;)

[Yxboom]

Isaiah 5:1-7 Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill: And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes. And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down: And I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it. For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.

[geoff]

Edgar,

The problem was not that we were discussing different things, we are in fact discussing 'destine' - however, you have created a false understanding of how I view 'destine' and are arguing against it.

When I mention foreknowledge, I do so to clear up your misunderstanding. Yes, God has perfect knowledge, and knowledge of all things. That is completely different to 'destining' all things.

I want make it clear now. Did you say everything and everything that happens is foreknown by God? When you say EVRYTHING do you mean ALL THINGS as in everything WITHOUT exception? Does this include even the future free choice of an individual?

Yes.

[Edgar Caiña]

Hi geoff,
however, you have created a false understanding of how I view 'destine' and are arguing against it.

Not so. I did not create a false understanding of it. The usual understanding of the word "destine" is different from the usual understanding of the word "foreknowledge". Perhaps, and maybe, that's the reason why calssical Arminianism believes in the Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge of God while rejecting individual and cosmic predestination.

I looked up the dictionary this morning and I don't see any similarity between the two words. Here's what the dictionary says:

destine 1: to decree beforehand: PREDETERMINE 2a: to designate, assign, or dedicate in advance 2b: to direct, devise, or set apart for a specific purpose or place.

foreknow : to have previous knowledge of : known beforehand esp. by paranormal means or by revelation.

Meriam Webster'sCollegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition

Now, before we go further, will you please provide me a reference (biblical or non-biblical) where the two words mean exactly the same thing? Otherwise, I'll take it to mean that you're the one confusing things here.

One last thing, you said that I...
created a false understanding of how I (i.e., you) view 'destine'
If that's the case here, then I can also have my own view of what a dog is when in fact Im referring to a cat. In that case 1013 was right with his last post. In that case also, Im out of here. God bless you real good.

[geoff]

Edgar,

I am not discussing 'foreknow' with you, but destine. I brought up 'foreknow' in order to clarify the misunderstanding that I believe God has predestined (caused etc) every little thing from the beginning to the end. I never claimed this to be the case, but it seems to be what you are arguing against.

You brought up Jeremiah, which I showed does not mean what you assumed it means. I then pointed out that there is a destiny for creation, for humanity, and for individuals within humanity, both as groups of the elect and non elect, as well simple individuals. This was in respect to you saying that God does not have a destiny for individuals.

If you want to discuss foreknow, I will gladly talk to you about it, but at this stage, I have only mentioned it for clarification.

[Edgar Caiña]

geoff,

That's exactly what i thought; that we're discussing "destine." In fact I just responded to what you said hasnt He destined that outcome? If there are individuals who are destined, and groups of individuals who are destined, and all people who have a destiny, there is really no good reason to assume that God does not do this Even in your previous posts I knew you were discussing "destine" [quote]3-18-2002

No, it says we are DESTINED.
No, it says DESTINED FOR....


03-20-2002
Back to the original verse.

God uses the word DESTINED. Also "those" and "they" and "them" to indicate specific peoples and groups of peoples made up of individuals.

Destined indicates caused. Verse 3-4 is enlightening: ...

05-29-2002
Edgar,

How you do explain away the word 'destined' - it clearly says God 'destined' - if God destines people for one thing or another, then God destines people for one thing or another... please explain how this can be explained any other way.

So I knew all along very well that we're discussing destine, which according to you, God destined people to something based on the above quotes. Then I asked you Do you believe that he destined the horrible demise of that little girl? Do you believe that He destined the gruesome death of those Christians who were burned to death while sleeping in a Hotel in Metro Manila after attending a Christian Seminar? Do you believe that He destined Saul to rebel against Him? Do you believe that He destined the injustices in the world? If He did destine the injustices in this world, why do we cry for justice and why did He promise justice at the end? (Luke 18:7-8) But you charged me of using a "straw man", me arguing against a view that you did not present. But you said it How you do explain away the word 'destined' - it clearly says God 'destined' - if God destines people for one thing or another, then God destines people for one thing or another I would like to ask now, were people destined to something or not?

Edgar

[geoff]

Edgar,

I said NO.

I said I believe God FOREKNEW these things, but not that He had necessarily 'destined' them.

[Edgar Caiña]

And what do you mean by these God will do, appoint, make.
God will cause these things.
God has destined these things

How do you get around that?

How you do explain away the word 'destined' - it clearly says God 'destined' - if God destines people for one thing or another, then God destines people for one thing or another

[geoff]

I mean, "it clearly says God 'destined' - if God destines people for one thing or another, then God destines people for one thing or another"

[Edgar Caiña]

No further question, your honor!

[geoff]

I have no idea what you mean by that

[geralduk]

Originally posted by geoff
I mean, "it clearly says God 'destined' - if God destines people for one thing or another, then God destines people for one thing or another"

The DESTINATION of those who WILL NOT believe is preordained.
The DESTINATION of those who WILL is also preordained.

The ETERNAL WILL AND PURPOSE and therefore preordained PLAN of God for MAN has also NEVER changed even from the beginning.

When a person gets saved he then ENTERS INTO that preordained plan and WILL of God.
For He has repented and is once again beleiving Gods Word.

While a person is yet unsaved he is heading in the same direction as the one whos word he is believing.

The seed of the serpent produces its own fruit.

The Seed of the Word also produces its own fruit.

and each seed brings forth after its own kind.

[Edgar Caiña]

The DESTINATION of those who WILL NOT believe is preordained.
The DESTINATION of those who WILL is also preordained.

It's quite appealing to me since what was preordained was not MAN but the DESTINATION. But the question is, how could God preordain a DESTINATION if He did not also FOREKNOW/PREDESTINE those who will go there?

[geoff]

Edgar,

The point is, how do you explain away the Scriptures, which say exactly that?

[Surly-DwarF]

Yeah, how? I believe everything and everyone is predestined.

[geoff]

well, thats got to be better than believing only somethings are, depending on which way the wind is blowing today, like OV...

(even though I dont agree with 'everything' only 'everyone')

[1013]

But the question is, how could God preordain a DESTINATION if He did not also FOREKNOW/PREDESTINE those who will go there?

I don't see the problem. God can just say "here's hell for those who reject me and here's heaven for those who don't." Now in describing that, have I given an exhaustive list of all the damned for hell and an exhaustive list for the church? Not at all. everything to predestine two destinations is written right here in this paragraph. "here's hell for those who reject me and here's heaven for those who don't."

Actually, those who are predestined to go to those places are clearly indicated right here in my post. "here's hell for those who reject me and here's heaven for those who don't."

Here are two vague groups yet clear as to what about them has been predestined and yet there is still no exhaustive list of individuals any where to be found here. As to who is specifically in these groups, it really doesn't matter as far as a plan goes.

[Surly-DwarF]

Geoff,

Hmm, ok. I probably shouldn't have said "every thing" cuz that's somewhat ambiguous. I meant all events, or everything that comes to pass a la the Westminster Confession.

[geoff]

Surly

Good good :D

1013,

God doesn just say 'heres hell and here's heaven' - He also says I know your thoughts, your name, I formed you, I chose you, I know your heart, I know which people believe and which dont, etc etc

You can not say "here's hell for those who reject me and here's heaven for those who don't." as if its an answer. Its way too simplistic, and really only tells a minute fraction of the story.

[1013]

MIke knows this so now I'm explaining this for your benefit Edgar. I do not discuss things with geoff. If anything he says makes sense and you're curious as to how I'd answer it, You'd have to ask me yourself.

[geoff]

and I, for one, consider myself the luckiest man on this forum :D

[geralduk]

Originally posted by geoff
well, thats got to be better than believing only somethings are, depending on which way the wind is blowing today, like OV...

(even though I dont agree with 'everything' only 'everyone')

Its not the way the wind blows that determins the goal but the set of the sail!
The SAME wind can be blowing for all the yachts but the DIRECTION that they go is determined by the way the sails are set.
The scroiptures puts it like this:
As a tree leans thats the way it falls.

[geoff]

That maybe true, but which ever direction you go in, there is always only one fast, direct route to the finish line...

[geralduk]

Originally posted by geoff
Edgar,

You say that you admit that God might destine some, but not all...

Answer me this, does creation have a Goal, is there a purpose to which God is moving History? Does God have a final intention for creation?

If it is true that God does in fact have a plan, and a goal for creation, then hasnt He destined that outcome?

If God has in fact a destiny for creation, how can you say He does not have a plan for all people? Surely that means He does?

If He has a plan for all people, he must also have plans for individuals, as they make up the 'all people' group, and in order for this not to be the case we should not find any verses indicating individual, or small groups of individuals having a specific destiny.

If there are individuals who are destined, and groups of individuals who are destined, and all people who have a destiny, there is really no good reason to assume that God does not do this, especially when it is clear He does do it.

The ETERNAL WILL AND PLAN for creation and for man in particular is found in Genesis.

That has NEVER changed.

Man was and is designed and therfore capable of living by Gods knowledge and wisdom.
To forsake the life of the flesh,overcome the devil,
and become "partakers of the divine nature"
To learn the pattern of God and "Go and do likewise"according as I have shown thee.

When a person gets saved he ENTERS into that ETERNAL plan of God.
God planted a garden and laid down the laws of the seed.
Each producing after its own kind.
and as each seed can do no other.
They are predestined to so do!
The seed is in the FRUIT.
Now what you sow you WILL reap.
Therefore if you sow after the flesh you will reap death.
But after the Spirit,LIFE.
Thererfore the arguments about who will be saved or not is NOT the point!
The point is how much is being SOWED!
For if we SOW sparingly we will REAP sparingly!
Now to those who say this or that will go up or down.
Who are we?
But of the same clay as those who are as yet not saved!
Are we in ourselves by NATURE any DIFFERENT?
no! AND TWICE no!
So what then is the difference?
Some one SOWED the GOOD seed in our lives and were FAITHFULL enough to pray for that which had gone forth not to return without FRUIT!
The souls of men are in our hands andf the church.
and we will have to give an account for those we have neglected.
God sowed genereously.
For unless the seed fall into the ground and die it abideth alone.
But if it fall and die it bringeth forth MUCH fruit.
So where in do we glory?
Seeing it is in Him and by His grace that wer are saved.
Are we then who are saved soemhow more worthy than another?
NO!
So why is there disputes about who will be saved!
The message is to ALL!!
and whosoever from among the all will believe shall be saved.
How then can WE say who?
For are we not to" cast our bread upon the waters...."
We are to sow the WHOLE of the feild.
so that EACH person wil have the OPERTUNITY to be saved and if they believe they WILL be!
But by arguing about who will be puts division in the mind and uncertainty in the heart and no faith for those to whom you talk/preach to.
Not only are we to HEAR with faith but also to PREACH infaith also!
If in our thinking we are uncertain of who will be how then can you have faith.
And if you say we do not need to know who.
You have by such talk ALREADY denied SOME!
So you LIMIT God as to what HE can do to those with whom you talk/preach to.
and if you limit God you must therfore have no FAITH in God to do that which He has said HE WILL DO!
For My Word shall not return unto me void,but shall ACOMPLISH that wherein I have sent it"
This applies to the Lord who is the Word made flesh.
As it aplies to the preaching!

Now does that mean I believe everyone will be saved?
NO.
But it does mean that when I preach or speak to one or many I can do so with the realisation and the liberty that comes from if God can save me the chiefest of sinners,He can save ANYBODY!

[geralduk]

Originally posted by geoff
That maybe true, but which ever direction you go in, there is always only one fast, direct route to the finish line...

For the salvation of the soul yes.
But each person has to sail his own boat as it were through life and seek to do the will of God in it.
But if the sails are SET aright.No matter HOW the wind blows,for good or ill you will always be sailing in the right direction.

The journey is not always plain sailing.

[geoff]

ANd just because you have sails, and have them set, you are not always heading in the right direction....

[geralduk]

Originally posted by geoff
ANd just because you have sails, and have them set, you are not always heading in the right direction....

You miss the point.
Most people do not even get out of the harbour.
But once they do there is every "wind of doctrin "to blow them about.wether christian or otherwise!
The way we set our sail is ......
FIRST seek the kingdom of God and HIS rightousness.THEN all the things we need in the fullfillment of THAT purpose WILL BE ADDED UNTO US.
If God is out aim and the doing of HIS will.
WE may well find out that we will be able to walk upon the waters,which is alot easier than those struggling to row or sail.
The use of the idea of the SAME wind blowing but the DIRECTION the boat goes is not determined BY the wind but the set of the sail.
Wether you are going right or wrong!
Now if you do not know you are going in the right direction then ................
Wheres your compass?
That unchanging point by which all compasses work.
The north star.FIXED sure and certain.
The wind may blow.
But they are not affected by the wind.so we set our course by them.
and the ONLY unchanging thing in this world is the nature and character and disposition and person Of God Himself.
Who is the same yesterday today and forever.
and He who set our course and is the pilot of our ship and we will by His grace and infinite mercy enable us to finish the course set out before us.till we reach the harbour of that promised land.
Wether sunny or stormy.
But in truth the storm clouds are already on the horizon.
and we need to battenndown the hatches.
be sure of our ship.
and have the the flag nailed to the masthead.

[geoff]

ah well..

I really do dispise speaking metaphorically anyway :D

[Jaltus]

It's despise, just so you know.

<waves at geoff, then goes back to lurking>

[geoff]

Hey dude, ltns..

Yeah I know its despise.. but my fingers dont do what my mind tells em most of the time

lol

Where have u been?

[Jaltus]

Busy starting my Ph D. How goes it?

[geoff]

Not bad..

Not bad at all...

preaching every sunday... defeating the evil OV at every turn... you know, the usual mwahahahahahahaha

Whats your thesis on?

[Edgar Caiña]

Hi Surly,

You said, I meant all events, or everything that comes to pass a la the Westminster Confession.

One of the problems I have with that view is that it posts a question on the GENUINENESS of God’s interaction with man. If it is true that He predestined everything (and I took it to mean all things, as in everything without exceptions) that comes to pass, then how could He be genuinely serious with the following accounts?

Genesis 6:5,6 - The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. How could He genuinely say that He was grieved by man’s sin if He Himself predestined them to turn out like this?

Exodus 32:9,10 - "I have seen these people," the Lord said to Moses, "and they are a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation."How could He genuinely get angry with these people if He was the one who predestined them to be such stiff-necked people?

1 Samuel 15:10,11, 26,28 - 10 Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel: 11 "I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions." Samuel was troubled, and he cried out to the Lord all that night.
26 But Samuel said to him, "I will not go back with you. You have rejected the word of the Lord , and the Lord has rejected you as king over Israel!"
28 Samuel said to him, "The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to one of your neighbors-to one better than you. Did He predestine king Saul’s dethronement only to predestine again king David to the throne? How could He be genuinely serious grieving over Saul’s failure if Himself predestined Saul’s failure?

Matthew 23:37 - 37"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. How could He genuinely feel sorrow over Jerusalem’s UNWILLINGNESS to let God gather her children together if He’s in the first place who predestined Jerusalem’s unwillingness?

Luke 7:30 - But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John. Did He predestine His own purpose to be rejected by these men?

Would you help me reconcile these things please in the light of the view that everything that comes to pass is predestined by God?

Grace and peace be yours,
Edgar

[geoff]

Edgar,

How on earth does predestining anything PREVENT geniune feelings?

ALL the examples you have given are to do with FOREKNOWLEDGE and not predestining. So, you will also have to explain how foreknowing prevents genuine emotion.

Example, if you have a child who you know is going to do something that might hurt them, and you know that you are going to have to let them hurt themselves for various reasons, are you some how precluded from feeling genuine emotion because you foreknew it?

No.

So please demonstrate to us how this differs for God. And why it should be different for God. Then please demonstrate why we should believe that foreknowledge should have these radical properties, which seemingly have only come into existence with the advent of the OV.

[geralduk]

Originally posted by geoff
ah well..

I really do dispise speaking metaphorically anyway :D

The use of the earthly principles to shed light on heavenly ones is a sound one.and used by the Lord.
So we can also use them if they harmonise with scripture.
We should be happy for any means to helpus understand things .
But ist ok if you dont like using such examples you dont have to.
But youl forgive me I hope if I continue to do so:))

[geoff]

what ever... it doesnt much help a logical argument though... however its nice to help illustrate a point in a sermon...

sermons arent much good here though

[Edgar Caiña]

There you go again geoff. I'm asking Surly with his view of predestination, so please, dont confuse the issue with your FOREKNOWLEDGE stuff!

But I'll bite. OK. Example, if you have a child who you know is going to do something that might hurt them, and you know that you are going to have to let them hurt themselves for various reasons, are you some how precluded from feeling genuine emotion because you foreknew it? You see, you're missing the point. If the issue Surly and I are in is foreknowledge, there could have been "no" problem as you supposed. But Surly and I are in PREDESTINATION issue. If YOU predestined your child to hurt by a certain thing or event before he/she is even born then how could you say you'll have genuine feeling of grief when he/she is hurt? You're the one who set the whole thing up in the first place. In fact, you dont only know that he/she is going to do something that might hurt him/her, you also predestined him/her to do that, how then can you say you're genuinely grieved if in the first place you set the whole thing up?

[geoff]

You made a comment in a public forum...

Surly's view of predestination may or may not be wrong. The point is, what you are actually talking about is foreknowledge, and foreknowledge is not predestination.

[1013]

Edgar has an excellent grasp of what he's talking about. It's predestination.

[Edgar Caiña]

Thanks, 1013... well Im starting to KNOW geoff... He always makes me think... he always makes me think what kind of guy he is...

you're right, 1013... you're INDEED right, man (remember my first encounter with geoff?)! Salamat at Mabuhay!!

geoff, may i know from what planet are you from?? Your avatar seems to reveal something huh... you're strange man... very strange... at least to me...:p :cool: :D

[1013]

For the sake of arguement Edgar, I'm going to say that its reasonable that one should plan something and still feel grief or anxiouty about it. Suppose a devout Jewish mother is married to a goy who isn't relgious and they are not in a country where all the children are routinely circumsised for health reasons (like in the US). The mother may insist on a bris, but in the act as the rabbi is performing the ritual, she's going to feel a little intense while the baby screams as many women, specifically mothers, do at brises.

However, I still don't see that one can plan to "regret" (a specific type of grief) an action that they planned unless they feel that what they planned was a mistake and they change there mind about the judgement that went into the plan.

BTW, as moderator, I'd ask that you not goad on geoff... even if he deserves it :D

[geoff]

goad on me as much as you like,,,

You lot seem to live in your own little world were the logic and principles that govern the rest of creation have magically disappeared, and you have created your own....

Thats the problem with the OV, it makes humans God, and makes God human.

[Surly-DwarF]

Hi Edgar,

Let me commend you on your grasp of English. It's quite good for a non-native speaker. I don't have time to get in-depth with your questions right now, but I would suggest that Geoff is not wrong to bring foreknowledge into the discussion because you can't talk about predestination without foreknowledge, and vice-versa. I think :D

Mike

[geoff]

so many people round here are so quick to think they have all the answers.... many of them are also slow to think they have all the answers... they are still wrong.

[Edgar Caiña]

Hi Surly,

Thanks for the commendation. Actually, that's what I believe, that you cannot separate the two. But my experience with geoff made me more cautious in using these terms, because to him, you can have one without the other.

Hey geoff,

Cmon man, we're just having fun. Nothing personal folk. We're all friends here though our beliefs and views aren't. Peniel use to have fun with my name. He calls me Edgar Cayce, Edgar the Canaanite and that's fine, because I know he's just having fun with my name, but normally Filipinos don't like that (maybe Peniel knows that that's why he does that to my name). You better call a Filipino by his name if you dont want any trouble. So geoff, peace, man, peace! Im very sorry for crossing the boundary, my apology, please.... :cry:

[drdeutsch]

Geoff,
I've read the entire thread.
so many people round here are so quick to think they have all the answers.... many of them are also slow to think they have all the answers... they are still wrong.

I can only assume this doesn't include you, right?
If I may, I'd like to get back to Jeremiah 15:2 .
The word "destine" is not included in the Hebrew. You obviously know this.
The Interlinear NIV translates it thus:
And if they ask you, "Where shall we go?" tell them, "This is what the Lord says: 'Those for the death, to death; those for the sword, to the sword; those for starvation, to starvation; those for captivity, to captivity.' 'I will send four kinds of destroyers against them,' declares the Lord, 'the sword to kill and the dogs to drag away and the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth to devour and destroy. I will make them abhorrent to all the kingdoms of the earth because of what Manasseh son of Hezekiah king of Judah did in Jerusalem.'

The Septuagint translation by Lancelot Brenton renders it this way:
And it shall be, if they say to thee, whither shall we go forth? then thou shalt say to them, thus saith the Lord; as many as are for death, to death; and as many as are for famine, to famine; and as many as are for the sword, to the sword; and as many as are for captivity, to captivity. And I will punish them with four kinds of death, saith the Lord, the sword to slay, and the dogs to tear, and the wild beasts of the earth, and the birds of the sky to devour and destroy. And I will deliver them up for distress to all the kingdoms of the earth, because of Manasses son of Ezekias king of Juda, for all that he did in Jerusalem.

The fact is, Geoff, that no Hebrew word for "destine" or "predestine" appear in the OT. At least not according to my exhaustive Strong's concordance. So, now that we can all agree that "destine" does not appear in the verse, maybe we can talk about it.

I just have one question for you, Geoff. You claim that no one uses Scripture to back up your claim, but you have only quoted Jeremiah 15:2 and said it completely destroys the Open View. First of all, that's not a very strong argument. Secondly, let's suppose God did "predestine" certain people to die by the sword, famine, or pestilence. Where in Scripture does it say this happened? I'm not asking to doubt you, but I truly don't know where, when, or if it happened.

Another question, when God said "I will appoint over them four forms of destruction..." why did He then say 3 chapters later that "if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent [nacham] of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it"? As far as I know, God did not punish them between chapters 15 and 18. Rather, He had some conversations with Jeremiah and then gave them another chance to repent so that He could repent (ch. 18).

Can you explain to me how, according to your view, God destined these people to die and then didn't do it but offered them another chance to repent?

Dr. Deutsch

[geoff]

drd,

regardless of whether the word actually exists, the passage certainly indicates a certain destination for certain people. Many modern translations add the word because it fits contextually, and conveys the correct meaning of the passage. If it didnt, it wouldnt be there.

The fact is, Geoff, that no Hebrew word for "destine" or "predestine" appear in the OT. At least not according to my exhaustive Strong's concordance. So, now that we can all agree that "destine" does not appear in the verse, maybe we can talk about it.

Strongs at best will give you an idea what the word means, and it can only ever really tell you how the KJV translators saw the meaning of the word.

You claim that no one uses Scripture to back up your claim
Any verse that indicates God predestining anyone defeats the open view, because the open view claims, by default, that God does not generally predestine people (even though some might concede that he predestines the odd person/thing from time to time).



I think you'll find it was others claiming that *I* never use scripture to back up my claims. However, I have been posting here for 4 years and made something more than 5000 posts through various incarnations of this forum. I have heard all the OV arguments, and seen them all defeated, so I really dont care any more.

you have only quoted Jeremiah 15:2 and said it completely destroys the Open View.

Its one of many. The 66 books of the Bible destroy the open View, because it isnt found in it.

First of all, that's not a very strong argument

Any scripture that indicates a destiny for individuals, groups of individuals, and for humanity defeats the open view. Simple.

Secondly, let's suppose God did "predestine" certain people to die by the sword, famine, or pestilence. Where in Scripture does it say this happened? I'm not asking to doubt you, but I truly don't know where, when, or if it happened.

Think about it. God says that he has send some to death, some to starvation, some to captivity... and He has... and He did.


Another question, when God said "I will appoint over them four forms of destruction..." why did He then say 3 chapters later that "if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent [nacham] of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it"? As far as I know, God did not punish them between chapters 15 and 18. Rather, He had some conversations with Jeremiah and then gave them another chance to repent (ch. 18).

He didnt. All are doomed to destruction because of Sin, thats why they need to hear the word of God and repent in the first place. You have made a false association of verses here. They are from different contexts and its a fallacy to combine them as if they are talking about the same thing.

Can you explain to me how, according to your view, God destined these people to die (which isn't supported by Scripture) and then didn't do it but offered them another chance to repent?

See above.
BTW, you havent PROVED God didnt destine people for destruction, just pointed out the word doesnt exist in the passage. You will have to find an alternate meaning for the passage other than what you seem to agree it means... in order to do this. The passage context certainly indicates appointing or destining regardless of whether the word is there or not.

[drdeutsch]

Geoff,

It wasn't my purpose to prove that God didn't predestine those people for death. I just wanted to hear your explanation.

Also, Jeremiah, at least Chapters 15-18, is one long conversation between God and Jeremiah. Nothing happens but talk. God tells Jeremiah in chapter 15 that He will bring famine, pestilence, and death. Then they talk some more... and in Chapter 18 God says that if Israel will turn from their evil ways, He will repent. It's that simple. Nowhere in the middle did death, famine, or pestilence come.

As for Strong's giving me a meaning, I agree. However, you can search all of the OT. You won't find a Hebrew word for "predestine." At least I didn't. Only the NT has the word for "predestine," proorizo, and it occurs in only 6 places.

(1) Acts 4:28
(2) Romans 8:29, 30
(3) 1 Corinthians 2:7
(4) Ephesians 1:5
(5) Ephesians 1:11

Reading these passages, Geoff, it becomes quite clear that it is a corporate predestination. Namely, that of the Body of Christ - all of those who have chosen or will choose to believe in God and accept Christ as their saviour.

You cannot simply say that the people of Israel did die by death, sword, and famine, because there is no historical or scriptural proof that I know of to back it up. God said He would do it, and He didn't, as far as I know. Maybe He didn't do it yet. Is there any Scriptural proof that tells us this punishment by four kinds of death is still coming? Is the verse speaking of the tribulation? If it is, then it presents no problem to the Open View. Unless I'm wrong, Open View Theists believe that the End Times - Rapture, tribulation, second coming of Christ - has been predestined and therefore foreknown by God.

Dr. Deutsch

[drdeutsch]

Geoff,

Strongs at best will give you an idea what the word means, and it can only ever really tell you how the KJV translators saw the meaning of the word.

So, you claim to know how pre-Christ Jews used the word? Where did you get this information? I'd appreciate it if you'd "share the wealth," so to speak.

I have been posting here for 4 years and made something more than 5000 posts through various incarnations of this forum.

That may very well be, but in this thread, you have only presented Jeremiah 15:2 and no other verses to support it. One verse, taken entirely out of context, never helped further any theology, whether Calvinistic or Open View.

I have heard all the OV arguments, and seen them all defeated,

well, I've read several message boards, read all of the Calvinistic arguments (I've read Calvin as well), and seen all of the Calvinistic arguments defeated, with Scripture.

so I really dont care any more.

I can't believe you said this. Does not the bible teach us to spread the glorious Word of God? Your theology, however it is viewed by others, is still your theology. If you believe in it, that is what is important. I may not agree, but (and I may be stretching it here) I see it as a sort of "Christian duty" to help spread the word and bring others to Christ. You should be ashamed of yourself for not caring anymore. Especially as a Pastor.

Geoff, the problem I see with many Calvinists (and I'm not singling you out here, just stating an observation) is that they are afraid, as Christ might say, to "get a new wineskin, and fill it with new wine (a la Matt 9:17)." I was raised Catholic. I never really liked going to mass, and I didn't pay much attention. About a year ago, I met a Calvinist. She showed me some scripture and I was a Calvinist. I really got into theology. But, I thought I had better read some opposition to the view. Since then, I've been reading message boards, forums, articles, from Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike. I finally became an Open Theist because their arguments were more Scriptural, more solid, in my opinion.
The point is, Geoff, is that I am hungry for knowledge, and I always open the bible ready for "new wine." If you would use more scripture to support it, to guide me and teach me, I would sincerely look into it and contrast your arguments with Scripture. However, you are not doing that. You (and, I admit, other posters on this thread, including myself) are merely making claims and not backing them up with Scripture. Again, one verse, taken out of context, is not proof.

You should be ashamed that you don't "care anymore." What would the members of your church think about that?

Dr. Deutsch

[1013]

Hello Dr. Deutch.

It's good to have yet another ov'er on the board.

That may very well be, but in this thread, you have only presented Jeremiah 15:2 and no other verses to support it.

I'd like to point out that it is worth while to discuss one scripture in a thread. You say that it can be taken out of context, but then it is perfectly relevent to the topic to show that it has been taken out of the context, and what you have done to that effect I would say is pretty worthwhile. You could also bring up other scriptures that indicate the opposite of what is claimed specifically about the scripture that was brought up, but it is still beneficial then even if the person who starts the topic wants to say "well let's say for the sake of argument that those scriputures may be wrong or scripture may be inconsistent because for the moment, I don't care to deal with them. If you can't provide a decent alternative understanding to the issue, then as far as this thread is concerned, you have a problem."

also Geoff isn't a calvinist. He isn't arminian either. At most we could say that he is anti-ov. :eek:

[geoff]

DRD
So, you claim to know how pre-Christ Jews used the word? Where did you get this information? I'd appreciate it if you'd "share the wealth," so to speak.

All I did was state a fact regarding Strongs. In typical OV style you have read into it meaning that isnt there.

That may very well be, but in this thread, you have only presented Jeremiah 15:2 and no other verses to support it. One verse, taken entirely out of context, never helped further any theology, whether Calvinistic or Open View.

Demonstrate how I have taken it out of context.

well, I've read several message boards, read all of the Calvinistic arguments (I've read Calvin as well), and seen all of the Calvinistic arguments defeated, with Scripture.

I'm not a Calvinist.

Rule #1. It is irrational and false to lump people into general groups. OV'ers tend to call everyone who isnt an OV'er, or demonstrates any sort of leaning to traditionalism a Calvinist. Every argument that begins with this presupposition, as this one has (and in fact virtually all OV arguments do), is false.

Rule #2. Dont call me a Calvinist unless you can prove I am one.

I can't believe you said this.

Of course you can. Pelagianism, and a changable God has NEVER been accepted as true. Its a same old untruth regurgitated in a slightly different format.

Does not the bible teach us to spread the glorious Word of God?

I never said it didnt. The OV isnt the word of God, its the philsophical musings of a bunch of humanistic theologians.

You should be ashamed of yourself for not caring anymore. Especially as a Pastor.

I dont care about the Open View. That does not mean I dont care about people. As Jesus said, I am here for the ones who need help, not the ones who claim to already have the answers. I'm here because I love to see what outlandish idea the OV mind will come up with next. Its helpful for sermons, and it helps me to keep the truth clear in my own mind and hone my own argument..

You (and, I admit, other posters on this thread, including myself) are merely making claims and not backing them up with Scripture. Again, one verse, taken out of context, is not proof.

Quoting one verse is not taking a verse out of context, especially if it is used to make a point in context, which it was.

Also, Jeremiah, at least Chapters 15-18, is one long conversation between God and Jeremiah. Nothing happens but talk. God tells Jeremiah in chapter 15 that He will bring famine, pestilence, and death. Then they talk some more... and in Chapter 18 God says that if Israel will turn from their evil ways, He will repent. It's that simple. Nowhere in the middle did death, famine, or pestilence come.

There was no indication that it was supposed to come in between those 2 chapters.

Reading these passages, Geoff, it becomes quite clear that it is a corporate predestination. Namely, that of the Body of Christ - all of those who have chosen or will choose to believe in God and accept Christ as their saviour.

This 'group', corporately destined is made up of who? People, individuals, known by name, by the hairs on their head, and called by name (see the example of the calling of the disciples) by God. So we are told in Scripture. Claiming it is a 'body' of people does not negate anything.

Unless I'm wrong, Open View Theists believe that the End Times - Rapture, tribulation, second coming of Christ - has been predestined and therefore foreknown by God.

Contrary to what Surly said (sorry surly) - you can NOT equate predestination and foreknowledge. To do so gives foreknowledge the property of causation, and it can not, and does not have that property, as is easily demonstrated.

[drdeutsch]

Well,
I thought I'd give it a shot.

I am, in the end, inclined to agree with 1013 and everyone else here who refuses to "discuss" things with Geoff.

I feel sorry for the members of his church that question something he brought up in a sermon.

I can see there are plenty of other threads here.
God bless you all,
Dr. Deutsch

[Surly-DwarF]

First thing,

Edgar and drdeutsch. Geoff isn’t a bad guy. He is strongly anti-OV and doesn’t hesitate to say what he really thinks, and I think you guys may be feeling a bit oversensitive due to that fact. Not that he needs or wants me to defend him. Of course, we’re all human and don’t always act with the greatest charity towards others, especially those we have strong areas of disagreement with. But moving on…

Geoff Contrary to what Surly said (sorry surly) - you can NOT equate predestination and foreknowledge. To do so gives foreknowledge the property of causation, and it can not, and does not have that property, as is easily demonstrated.

Geoff,

If I equated them, it was not my intent. Looking back at what I said, I don’t think I did. I just meant that it’s really difficult to discuss one without the other. Of course, I agree that foreknowledge doesn’t = causation. Let me try to explain what I meant. If we consider God and what He knows prior to Creation, and grant that He has foreknowledge of everything that will come to pass, whether those things will be caused by Him directly or freely performed by creatures, then if He proceeds and effectuates that potential creation, by virtue of His certain foreknowledge, everything that comes to pass has been predestined. When there was just God and He knew everything that would happen after He set the Creation in motion, at the “point” (if we can call it that) that He decided to actually bring the world into being, it was predestined. So, in other words, they're NOT the same thing, but you can't have predestination without foreknowledge.

Mike

[1013]

II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions;[4] yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.

I don't think your view flys with this second article on God's eternal decree in the westminster confession, which is alright if you don't adhere to it. But it is a calvinist standard

[1013]

2nd post, scroll up

I am, in the end, inclined to agree with 1013 and everyone else here who refuses to "discuss" things with Geoff.

my decision not to talk with Geoff is based on a specific history. Some of the things between me and Geoff that have precipited my decision not to discuss things with him have not necessarily gone on in this thread. If you feel geoff has shown good reason for avoidance in this thread, that's fine, but don't let what little I've said influence you.

I thought I'd give it a shot.

It's always worth a shot.

[geoff]

DRD..

If you dont want to talk to me, thats fine.. However, ask yourself this... what have I really done to upset you?

The ONLY thing I have really done is not believe that there is any truth in the OV. And that seems to have upset you. I have also been a little sarcastic, but thats just me, if you cant handle it, then dont talk to me.

Mike (Surly)

yeah, you're fairly right there. I really didnt think that you equated them, I was just making a point in order to prevent DrD and Edgar from having the opportunity to argue straw men. Thanks for your clarification, its a beautiful statement of compatibilism :)

Oh yeah, as Mike said, I am ANTI-OV. That does not mean I am anti you. However, because you are OV you will always percieve my comments as being against you personally. Sorry but thats your problem. I am not going stop showing how wrong OV is for that reason. If you cant learn to differentiate between them yourselves, then you really should keep out of theological debate.

[drdeutsch]

Geoff,

what have I really done to upset you?
I never said you did.

that seems to have upset you.
Lemme see, Geoff.
Rule #1: It is false and irrational to lump people into general groups. (e.g. upset, happy, etc.)
Rule #2: Don't call me upset unless you can prove that I am.

because you are OV you will always percieve my comments as being against you personally.
I never took your comments personally. Please don't "read into it meaning that isn't there."

I'm not anti-you, either, Geoff. I just came here to learn. Yes, I am OV. I've done some research and it fits a lot better than other views. I was raised Catholic. I was also Calvinist for awhile. Then I was introduced to OV and it fits the best, in my opinion. I do find it hard to argue with you because you, in my opinion, dance around the subject and play games and accuse people of falsely accusing you. It may be so, but it makes it difficult to have a civilized discussion.

Anyway, there are many threads here and lots of information to consider and digest.
Take it easy,
Dr. Deutsch

[geoff]

lol...

thats hilarious really...

well go and have fun elsewhere

[Edgar Caiña]

I've read the email debate between John Sanders (OV) and Chris Hall (non-OV) and they provided an example of how a Christian dialogue should be handled between non-OV'er and OV'er. That debate was excellently handled by them.

I guess the problem here was the way things were handled. I admit that I for one made a mistake. I think that we can't have a fruitful discussion when we let our temperament comes out in the discussions which sometimes could easily be felt by others even by using a single word.

I also believe that no single person here could ever claim that he has all the answers to everything, and because of that let's allow the principle of "free market of ideas" here. :cool:

[Edgar Caiña]

Hi Surly,

You saidwhether those things will be caused by Him directly or freely performed by creatures,I just want to ask if free act is included in the decree of God, because if it is, how could it be said a free performance? Could you please enlightened me on this?

Blessings,
Edgar

[Edgar Caiña]

Hey guys, here's something to cool down the atmosphere here a bit:

The day came when an OVer stands before the LORD in judgment.

LORD: I pronounce you guilty and you'll be punished for believing that I change My mind! :mad:

OVer: But LORD, I just believed what is in the Book. I just believed those many passages of scripture that says you change your mind. :(

LORD: Oh, you believed them! But I didn't mean it that way! ;)

OVer: (aghast) You didn't mean it that way?!! You mean it's nottrue?!! And what did you mean by those? :mad:

LORD: I meant the OPPOSITE! ;)

OVer: You mean, You don't change Your mind? You mean, what you were saying was the opposite? :noid:

LORD: Yeah, exactly, the opposite! :p

OVer: Oh, LORD, I love you even more and I praise you indeed! :kiss:

LORD: But why praise Me? :confused: I'm going to send you to hell for believing such!! (obviously, an exaggeration)

OVer: Because NOW, I KNOW what you mean is the OPPOSITE!! :D

[geralduk]

AS A MAN SOWS,THAT WILL HE REAP.

The seed will produce after its own kind.

Those who sow to the flesh will reap its corruption and death.

Those who sow to the Spirit will reap peace and life.

Now there is a subtle condemantion of God when some sugest that its wrong for God to predestine some to destruction.

As If man has without God has ANY OTHER end but death!

For the wages of sin is death!

Therefore the 'arguemnt' is NOT about wether this or that one is destined for life or judgement.

But a self justifacation and a denial of the rightous judgemnt of God!

There is NO hope in this world OTHER than the Hope that God has given which is the sure and certain hope that si in Christ.
For the promises of God are year and amen in CHIST Jesus.

Therefore.

If any do not CHOOSE freely that hope offered and freely done so by God then the END which is the result of sin is a PREDETERMINED end.

But "WHOSOEVER" BELIEVES will also enter into that PREDETERMINED end which is to ALL that are WILLING to come to a knowledge of the truth and freely give of themsleves to God which is thier RIGHTFULL service.
To THEM is liFE AND LIFE MORE ABUNDANTLY.

No man can condemn God for setting out the way of rightousness.
Nor for giving men the way of life and the way of death before Him.
But if you want to know what GOD 'S WILL is.He says CHOOSE LIFE!
So to choose other than life you any or all have to go CONTRARY to the WILL of God!

[geoff]

Edgar,

I have never said that believing the open view condemns a man to hell.

However, I very much doubt that the god the open view has created is really the God who created the universe, so I guess thought would have a huge bearing on it... if you think that means a person (like a JW, Mormon, Muslim etc) isnt saved, thats up to you...

Personally I think OV is a cult.

Can someone translate for me, I think Gerry's speaking in tongues again :(

[Edgar Caiña]

Hi geoff,

Im very sure you didn't say that. That's only a joke, man! That's why I said in parenthesis "obviously, an exaggeration." Of course, I don't believe anyone believing OV will go to hell, because our salvation is by the grace of God through our genuine faith in Him.

Well, if you find OV as a cult it's up to you also, but so far, I've never encountered one from OV camp as conceited as other people in their beliefs. So far, I feel very at home with any OV I met. Hope you'll find that experience also.

Be assured that though we differ so greatly here (OV), I'm still reading your other posts and learning from them as well...

Have a nice day, geoff and God bless.

[1013]

It gave me a chuckle Edgar

from gerald
But "WHOSOEVER" BELIEVES will also enter into that PREDETERMINED end which is to ALL that are WILLING to come to a knowledge of the truth and freely give of themsleves to God which is thier RIGHTFULL service.
To THEM is liFE AND LIFE MORE ABUNDANTLY.

Amen.

[geoff]

edgar,

so, what your saying is I am conceited, because I am not an open viewer?

Or in fact, that non O