ARCHIVE:God is NOT an OV'er (He said so)
- Thread starter geoff
- Start date
jobeth
Member
Really? I can't imagine that a person would do such a thing. And scripture claims that never happens.
Eph 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it,
A person would have to be inconceivably wicked (or insane) to reject what only benefits them.
I agree. Were God to prevent the thing that He planned to use for Good, then we can assume that the Good God planned would not come to pass, because of the evil that He prevented.
For example, the crucifixion was either good or it wasn't. Was the crucifixion of our Lord good?
I believe that the murder of an innocent man is not intrinsically a good thing. Yet had Jesus not been murdered, then he would not have paid the penalty for our sins. And since paying the penalty for our sins is good for us, then how can we consider that His death is not good?
Heb 9:22 without shedding of blood is no remission.
Had God prevented the crucifixion that He planned to use for Good, then we can assume that the remission of sins God planned would not come to pass, because of the evil that He prevented.
And so, generally, we can assume that all evils that God does not prevent are allowed because of the Good God plans to come to pass as a result.
Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
This is why I preach that all things, even those things that are evil, actually facilitate Good. Which implies that Unnecessary Evil never actually occurs. Do you agree?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand Compatibilism to mean the view that finds God's Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge to be somehow logically compatible with Human Free Will.
Since I deny that they are logically compatible, I would fall in the camp of Incompatibilism, not Compatibilism. Isn't that right, Geoff?
Geoff:
I believe that God is not grieved by what people do, but rather by their Unbelief and their rejection in their heart of what God has told them about Himself.
He tells them the truth about Himself "I am the LORD" and they believe Him not. How sad!
But I don't think that God makes people and then makes some of them not believe. (God does not Reprobate anyone) Rather, God made everyone able to believe. Even Satan could believe the truth if he wanted to. But some, like Satan, will not believe, because they are inherently not willing to give God all the glory, but would rather merit at least some glory for themselves. God, Himself, made them with the ambition to seek to dethrone God and garnish from God what glory belongs exclusively to Him. Why? Because God was willing to reveal the severity of His wrath and to demonstrate the full extent of His power so that we could know Him as He truly is. And to correct any one-sided or lopsided notions we may have about Him. (It's another way of declaring "I am what I am. Not what you want me to be").
Apolo:
God grieves whenever what He says is doubted. But even though
God may grieve now, He knows it is only momentary grief. I believe even those who now reject the Lord's witness about Himself, will see Him as He truly is, eventually. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. And then His sorrow (and ours) over those who would not believe Him will be turned into joy. For there will no longer be any doubt that God is the LORD of ALL.
As I've said before God does not will everyone to be saved without exception, else everyone would be saved.
Rather, God wills to save all those (and only those) who repent and believe the truth about Him. All those who will not repent and believe the truth, God wills to Hell, without their consent and against their will.
But that is not to say that God takes pleasure in the death of the wicked. Rather, He takes pleasure in those who believe what He says.
So I wish Geoff would please stop misrepresenting my view as though I advocated that God delights in sending people to hell. The TULIP Calvinists he loves to hate may think that way. But I don't.
Y
Yxboom
Guest
Me thinks he was talking about Jobeth as well.
jobeth
Member
Compatiblilism
Compatiblilism
Jaltus:
I took my definition from the glossary of the book "Divine Foreknowledge" "Four Views" edited by James K. Beilby & Paul R. Eddy with contributions by Gregory A. Boyd, David Hunt, William Lane Craig, and Paul Helm. InterVarsity Press 2001.
p. 208
compatibilism. The idea that freedom is compatible with necessity, e.g., person P is still "free" with respect to choice C even though C is necessary. This term is most often used to express the idea that freedom is compatible with the kind of necessity entailed by causal determinism (see freedom, compatibilist). But this term can also be used to refer to the position of someone who holds that freedom is compatible with divine foreknowledge. Helm is a compatibilist with regard to determinism. Craig and Hunt are compatibilists with regard to foreknowledge. See also incompatibilism.
p. 209
incompatibilism. The idea that freedom is incompatible with necessity (e.g., person P cannot be "free" with respect to choice C if C is necessary). This term is most often used to express the idea that freedom is incompatible with the kind of necessity entailed by causal determinism (see freedom, incompatibilist). But this term can also be used to refer to the position of someone who holds that freedom is incompatible with divine foreknowledge. Craig, Hunt and Boyd are incompatibilists with regard to determinism. Helm and Boyd are incompatibilists with regard to foreknowledge. See also compatibilism.
Using their definition, I consider myself an incompatibilist with regard to both determinism and divine foreknowledge.
I highly recommend this book.
In "Divine Foreknowledge" "Four Views", The Open-theism view is argued by Gregory A. Boyd. The Simple-Foreknowledge View is argued by David Hunt. The Middle-Knowledge View is argued by William Lane Craig. And the Augustinian-Calvinist View is argued by Paul Helm. With each view getting a response from the other three contributors. The book includes a Glossary, a subject Index, and a Scripture Index.
Regretably, the editors did not include a response to critics as was done by Gregory E. Ganssle in his book "God & Time" "Four Views" same publisher, 2001. The contributors to "God & Time" "Four Views" were Paul Helm (Divine Timeless Eternity), Alan G. Padgett (Eternity as Relative Timelessness), William Lane Craig (Timelessness & Omnitemporality) and Nicholas Wolterstorff (Unqualified Divine Temporality). Ganssle's book does not include a Glossary.
Compatiblilism
Jaltus:
I took my definition from the glossary of the book "Divine Foreknowledge" "Four Views" edited by James K. Beilby & Paul R. Eddy with contributions by Gregory A. Boyd, David Hunt, William Lane Craig, and Paul Helm. InterVarsity Press 2001.
p. 208
compatibilism. The idea that freedom is compatible with necessity, e.g., person P is still "free" with respect to choice C even though C is necessary. This term is most often used to express the idea that freedom is compatible with the kind of necessity entailed by causal determinism (see freedom, compatibilist). But this term can also be used to refer to the position of someone who holds that freedom is compatible with divine foreknowledge. Helm is a compatibilist with regard to determinism. Craig and Hunt are compatibilists with regard to foreknowledge. See also incompatibilism.
p. 209
incompatibilism. The idea that freedom is incompatible with necessity (e.g., person P cannot be "free" with respect to choice C if C is necessary). This term is most often used to express the idea that freedom is incompatible with the kind of necessity entailed by causal determinism (see freedom, incompatibilist). But this term can also be used to refer to the position of someone who holds that freedom is incompatible with divine foreknowledge. Craig, Hunt and Boyd are incompatibilists with regard to determinism. Helm and Boyd are incompatibilists with regard to foreknowledge. See also compatibilism.
Using their definition, I consider myself an incompatibilist with regard to both determinism and divine foreknowledge.
I highly recommend this book.
In "Divine Foreknowledge" "Four Views", The Open-theism view is argued by Gregory A. Boyd. The Simple-Foreknowledge View is argued by David Hunt. The Middle-Knowledge View is argued by William Lane Craig. And the Augustinian-Calvinist View is argued by Paul Helm. With each view getting a response from the other three contributors. The book includes a Glossary, a subject Index, and a Scripture Index.
Regretably, the editors did not include a response to critics as was done by Gregory E. Ganssle in his book "God & Time" "Four Views" same publisher, 2001. The contributors to "God & Time" "Four Views" were Paul Helm (Divine Timeless Eternity), Alan G. Padgett (Eternity as Relative Timelessness), William Lane Craig (Timelessness & Omnitemporality) and Nicholas Wolterstorff (Unqualified Divine Temporality). Ganssle's book does not include a Glossary.
ApologeticJedi
New member
Actually Scriptures claim that it happens all the time. People worship idols made of wood. People who know goodness, chose darkness. The Bible certainly never denies that people choose evil even knowing goodness. You claim that the scriptures say it never happens, but you are wrong. You quote a passage talking about the selfishness of men, which doesn’t mean that men don’t reject the goodness of God. After all, Adam knew a better glory than you know, and he rejected it. Satan was a perfect being, and he rejected it. So while you may have a hard time fathoming it, the Bible, and everyday life make it evident.
I might point out that the passage you gave about a man not hurting his own body is a general statement about self-servingness. It is not a statement meant to be always true. Doctors who know better, are some of the most common smokers. There are even people who hurt themselves for thrill. Clearly these actions combined with the given verse doesn't indicate that I should care little about my own wife's health, if i don't regard my own (and a good number of people do not regard their own health).
That’s without a foundation. There is no evidence that God plan’s rape or even knows that there will be a rape. And if He prevented it, it could be in a reaction instead of a devised plan.
And no, it was not good that Jesus had to die on the cross for our sins. It is a horrible thing that our Lord had to endure that, not only because of the sin of the people, but also because of our own sins.
Now I do not deny that God can use evil actions to good, but to suggest that it is part of His “ultimate plan” is unfounded. If God does not plan the rape (which the Bible suggests that God does not), then god can react to the rape to make the best out of the situation .. but not all situations are turned to good. Some situations, just like this one with this little girl, see parents go on to depression, alcoholism, and suicide, from which there is no recovery and the situation only spirals downwards taking more and more people with it … even for Christian families.
I agree. Like when you doubt god’s word concerning good and evil. But your point seems to be that God “planned” for the doubt … so basically we have a God who acts illogically and like a emotionally unstable being, grieving over things He himself brought about.
Well, the Bible says that God wills that everyone go to heaven, and it never says that God ‘wills’ for people to go to hell. People often go to hell against God’s wishes. And you quoted a passage, but I noticed not all of it. The passage itself undermines your belief.
[Ezekial 33:11] “Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?”
As you can see, God does have a will here … it is that they don’t die, but repent. They die against God’s will.
Last edited:
ApologeticJedi
New member
Jobeth, I suggested that you are a compatibilist because of your earlier statement that humans “repent”, and therefore God chooses based on the “repentance” of man. That, and other statements that seem to allow human choosing within a stricter view of sovereignty that is either identical or extremely close to specific sovereignty. However I do agree with others that your viewpoint seems to sway back and forth never keeping a consistent approach.
As fore foreknowledge (typo - left as a pun)... compatibilism, as I’ve ever heard it, does not requires a specific view of foreknowledge, though I would agree that the two subjects would be engrained with one another and the type of foreknowledge that is held by the compatibilist would seem to have to come up at some point.
As fore foreknowledge (typo - left as a pun)... compatibilism, as I’ve ever heard it, does not requires a specific view of foreknowledge, though I would agree that the two subjects would be engrained with one another and the type of foreknowledge that is held by the compatibilist would seem to have to come up at some point.
Last edited:
drdeutsch
New member
Rebuttal
Rebuttal
Jaltus,
Sorry it took so long. I was away for 2 weeks, as you know, and I also had to catch up on all the posts (which I have not yet accomplished). Anyway, I hope you remember our discussions: Boule and Thelema and also Cyrus and the Open View. I will discuss the Greek first.
In light of Scripture that seems to have slipped my mind, I must conclude that God's counsel, Boule, is always done. See Is. 46:10 "My Counsel shall stand, and I will do all my Counsel (pleasure, NKJV)." However, Boule appears in the Septuagint to back this up. Therefore, although the Pharisees rejected the counsel of God for themselves, I do not believe they stopped it. God has spoken that He will do all His counsel. I do believe that He did His counsel, whether the Pharisees wanted to accept it or reject it. Thus, my argument that there is a distinction between God's unthwartable counsel and mans ability to thwart His will stands.
As far as Cyrus goes, I don't see any problems with it and the Open View. Again, I stand by the cat-skinning principle. Just because God prophecied almost 100 years before Cyrus' birth that a person named "Cyrus" would come forth and do His pleasure, I don't see any reason why Cyrus' parents had to name him Cyrus. There are several people in Scripture with more than one name, some of them even given names by God! (Simon, who is called Peter; Abram, Abraham; etc.) They could have named him Todd, and then God could have given Him the name "Cyrus" just to fit it in with what He has predestined. This works.
Saying that God predestined a Cyrus before he was born presupposes the idea that this individuals identity is determined at the time of prophecy. I don't adhere to this, and I believe that God, using the cat-skinning principle and His ability to work with all situations, had no one particular in mind at the time He said this. He could have picked out any person, given them the name "Cyrus" and viola!
As far as determining factors such as Cyrus' parents being killed or other preventing factors, that becomes moot. Until Cyrus is born (or maybe not even until he became King) the prophecy has no subject.
It is my belief that God designed a slot and then found someone to fill it.
God bless,
Dr. Deutsch
Rebuttal
Jaltus,
Sorry it took so long. I was away for 2 weeks, as you know, and I also had to catch up on all the posts (which I have not yet accomplished). Anyway, I hope you remember our discussions: Boule and Thelema and also Cyrus and the Open View. I will discuss the Greek first.
In light of Scripture that seems to have slipped my mind, I must conclude that God's counsel, Boule, is always done. See Is. 46:10 "My Counsel shall stand, and I will do all my Counsel (pleasure, NKJV)." However, Boule appears in the Septuagint to back this up. Therefore, although the Pharisees rejected the counsel of God for themselves, I do not believe they stopped it. God has spoken that He will do all His counsel. I do believe that He did His counsel, whether the Pharisees wanted to accept it or reject it. Thus, my argument that there is a distinction between God's unthwartable counsel and mans ability to thwart His will stands.
As far as Cyrus goes, I don't see any problems with it and the Open View. Again, I stand by the cat-skinning principle. Just because God prophecied almost 100 years before Cyrus' birth that a person named "Cyrus" would come forth and do His pleasure, I don't see any reason why Cyrus' parents had to name him Cyrus. There are several people in Scripture with more than one name, some of them even given names by God! (Simon, who is called Peter; Abram, Abraham; etc.) They could have named him Todd, and then God could have given Him the name "Cyrus" just to fit it in with what He has predestined. This works.
Saying that God predestined a Cyrus before he was born presupposes the idea that this individuals identity is determined at the time of prophecy. I don't adhere to this, and I believe that God, using the cat-skinning principle and His ability to work with all situations, had no one particular in mind at the time He said this. He could have picked out any person, given them the name "Cyrus" and viola!
As far as determining factors such as Cyrus' parents being killed or other preventing factors, that becomes moot. Until Cyrus is born (or maybe not even until he became King) the prophecy has no subject.
It is my belief that God designed a slot and then found someone to fill it.
God bless,
Dr. Deutsch
drdeutsch
New member
Jobeth,
Also, concerning those Scriptures you quoted that say that God "creates light and darkness" etc... you must keep reading.
You'll see that God is saying that He is in control of His people. Whatever befalls Israel, good or bad, stems ultimately from God: they are His chosen people.
God bless,
Dr. Deutsch
Also, concerning those Scriptures you quoted that say that God "creates light and darkness" etc... you must keep reading.
You'll see that God is saying that He is in control of His people. Whatever befalls Israel, good or bad, stems ultimately from God: they are His chosen people.
God bless,
Dr. Deutsch
Y
Yxboom
Guest
DrD
DrD
"A god who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die."
-Markus Barth
I remember that was Chance's sig. Any relation or just a good quote
DrD
"A god who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die."
-Markus Barth
I remember that was Chance's sig. Any relation or just a good quote
drdeutsch
New member
I don't know Chance.
I found the quote on Gregory Boyd's site (someone was using it as a signature there), so I picked it up.
Furthermore, about Jeremiah 7:31, 19:5, and 32:35: It is not saying that God never entertained the possibility that the Israelites might sacrifice their children. God specifically forbids them to do that in Leviticus 18:21 and Deuteronomy 18:10! Correct me if I'm wrong, but this fertility rite was one of the reasons that God drove the Canaanites out of the land. What God is saying through Jeremiah is not only that he never commanded Israel to do such a horrible thing, but that He never even considered issuing such a command.
These verses are relevant to the OV not because they show divine nescience, but that they actually show something much more interesting: that God thinks consecutively. That is, that God could at one point not have a certain intention, then have that intention. See Jer 7:32 "Therefore, behold..." and also 19:6 and 32:36, all of which start off "Therefore.." It is God's reaction to human freewill actions.
They are also important because they show divine emotion. One cannot deny God's disgust at these practices and how hurt He feels that Israel would adopt them from the other nations.
God bless,
Dr. Deutsch
I found the quote on Gregory Boyd's site (someone was using it as a signature there), so I picked it up.
Furthermore, about Jeremiah 7:31, 19:5, and 32:35: It is not saying that God never entertained the possibility that the Israelites might sacrifice their children. God specifically forbids them to do that in Leviticus 18:21 and Deuteronomy 18:10! Correct me if I'm wrong, but this fertility rite was one of the reasons that God drove the Canaanites out of the land. What God is saying through Jeremiah is not only that he never commanded Israel to do such a horrible thing, but that He never even considered issuing such a command.
These verses are relevant to the OV not because they show divine nescience, but that they actually show something much more interesting: that God thinks consecutively. That is, that God could at one point not have a certain intention, then have that intention. See Jer 7:32 "Therefore, behold..." and also 19:6 and 32:36, all of which start off "Therefore.." It is God's reaction to human freewill actions.
They are also important because they show divine emotion. One cannot deny God's disgust at these practices and how hurt He feels that Israel would adopt them from the other nations.
God bless,
Dr. Deutsch
Y
Yxboom
Guest
That was why I was wondering what Jaltus thought I meant when I post those Scriptures. That was why I agreed with Jaltus that this statement was made in regards to God speaking of commanding the Israelites to sacrifice their children and not not to. Oh well by-gones.
Jobeth,
drd,
As for boule, of the 68 uses in the LXX, only 3 refer to God's wisdom. However, this is the one that really struck me:
NAU Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';
Are you saying that this says that God's will cannot be overcome? If you are, it negates the OV for it is based on Him knowing the end from the beginning and saying that He will accomplish what He wills.
Again, you are assuming your point in order to argue around the counter example of the Pharisees. I have shown clearly that they negated God's boule for themselves, yet you still think God's boule never fails. Honestly, if I found another counter-example, wouldn't you just try to explain that away as well? Out of, what, 20 uses of the word, I found one that showed it being negated. Isn't that enough?
Because I think he is wrong. There are a few holes in his presentation, that God is in time, and some of the objections he tries to overcome he just does not overcome them. It is probably the best theory on how God relates to time out there, but I do not think it works.
drd,
A few problems: First off, God never renames someone who is not one of His people. Secondly, you are assuming your conclusion in order to prove your point, which is circular. The information about Cyrus is so precise that it is difficult to imagine God NOT having someone in mind.
As for boule, of the 68 uses in the LXX, only 3 refer to God's wisdom. However, this is the one that really struck me:
NAU Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';
Are you saying that this says that God's will cannot be overcome? If you are, it negates the OV for it is based on Him knowing the end from the beginning and saying that He will accomplish what He wills.
Again, you are assuming your point in order to argue around the counter example of the Pharisees. I have shown clearly that they negated God's boule for themselves, yet you still think God's boule never fails. Honestly, if I found another counter-example, wouldn't you just try to explain that away as well? Out of, what, 20 uses of the word, I found one that showed it being negated. Isn't that enough?
Y
Yxboom
Guest
Didn't you already
drdeutsch
New member
Jaltus,
For some reason, my reply wasn't posted. I will try again.
What I am saying is that God's will, Thelema, can be thwarted. This is evident from Scripture. God's Boule, however, cannot. Sure, the Pharisees rejected it, that is, they didn't accept it, but that doesn't mean that God didn't do it. If the Pharisees were able to stop God from fulfilling His counsel so easily, then God would have been disingenuous in Is 46 when He said "My counsel (LXX Boule) shall stand and I will do all my counsel (LXX Boule). Thus, I must believe that God's counsel is never thwarted. If somebody doesn't want to accept it, that is different than stopping it altogether. As for "declaring the end from the beginning," I was under the impression that that verse was eschatological. The "end [times]" refers to the tribulation, second coming of Christ, rapture, etc. God has predestined all of that, thus He knows it. That doesn't negate the Open View, that is the Open View.
Also, exactly what information about Cyrus is so specific? We don't get his height, weight, a physical description, or any of that. We get a name, a name that God could assign to everyone. As far as God renaming only those who are His people, I will have to check that out. Perhaps Cyrus is an exception -- I will get back to you.
God bless,
Dr. Deutsch
For some reason, my reply wasn't posted. I will try again.
What I am saying is that God's will, Thelema, can be thwarted. This is evident from Scripture. God's Boule, however, cannot. Sure, the Pharisees rejected it, that is, they didn't accept it, but that doesn't mean that God didn't do it. If the Pharisees were able to stop God from fulfilling His counsel so easily, then God would have been disingenuous in Is 46 when He said "My counsel (LXX Boule) shall stand and I will do all my counsel (LXX Boule). Thus, I must believe that God's counsel is never thwarted. If somebody doesn't want to accept it, that is different than stopping it altogether. As for "declaring the end from the beginning," I was under the impression that that verse was eschatological. The "end [times]" refers to the tribulation, second coming of Christ, rapture, etc. God has predestined all of that, thus He knows it. That doesn't negate the Open View, that is the Open View.
Also, exactly what information about Cyrus is so specific? We don't get his height, weight, a physical description, or any of that. We get a name, a name that God could assign to everyone. As far as God renaming only those who are His people, I will have to check that out. Perhaps Cyrus is an exception -- I will get back to you.
God bless,
Dr. Deutsch
Last edited:
