Do you believe in predestination ?

[ok doser]

And the rooster! Cock-a-doodle-doo!

Do roosters have free will?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Do roosters have free will?

Only if God knows they do...

 

[Arthur Brain]

I never said you were. That's simply what you're defending.



See post #366.



Yes it does. It's as simple as that. And I've shown the logical argument as to why it does. You have yet to present any fault with it other than bald assertion.

Of course it's not what I'm defending, it's a view that I disagree with and until you finally realize that foreknowledge doesn't equate to determinism or predestination then there's no point in continuing. There's an obvious difference between the hyper Calvinist belief that everything happens by decree where choice is invalid and God knowing what choices people will make while affording people will to make decisions.

A: God sets things up where He knows what everyone is going to do because it's all programmed from the outset.
B: God sets things up where people have a degree of personal autonomy and will and He knows what choices people will make and isn't constrained by limited human parameters and perspectives of time.

See the difference?

 

[Arthur Brain]

So you have a "nonlinear frame of reference and understanding"?

Explain to us how you got this "frame" and how it means that what God knows will happen is not determined.

Of course not, I have the same reference of time as any other person. Difference is, I'm not applying human limitations and understanding to an omnipotent deity and declaring that such can't know anything in advance because of those.

 

[Arthur Brain]

This shows that God was right about what Peter would do, not that Peter had no choice.

Didn't God state what Peter would do? It hardly reads as a "what may happen" scenario Stripe. Has it occurred to you that God may have known what Peter would do and that he still had a choice?

Imagine that eh?

 

[Arthur Brain]

It ain't my job to explain what you mean.



Because the outcome is determined.

It will be as God knows.

Understand now? I'm guessing no, but hope springs eternal an' all that.

It's only determined if God sets things up to be that way. Knowing that you're going to make choices in your life and what they'll be is not the same thing at all. If you don't get it then eh, carry on and cry determinism if ya want. It isn't but what the hey.

 

[Stripe]

A: God sets things up where He knows what everyone is going to do because it's all programmed from the outset.
B: God sets things up where people have a degree of personal autonomy and will and He knows what choices people will make and isn't constrained by limited human parameters and perspectives of time.

See the difference?

No.

You're just declaring that the same setup said twice using different words is two distinct ideas because of your assertion of God's relationship with time.

You don't provide any reasons or scripture. Just your opinion.

Meanwhile, the challenge remains. Foreknowledge precludes a will as shown by the ice cream thought experiment.

 

[Stripe]

It's only determined if God sets things up to be that way. Knowing that you're going to make choices in your life and what they'll be is not the same thing at all.

Because you say so?

If God knows, it is determined.
If it's not determined, He doesn't know.

 

[Arthur Brain]

No.

You're just declaring that the same setup said twice using different words is two distinct ideas because of your assertion of God's relationship with time.

You don't provide any reasons or scripture. Just your opinion.

Meanwhile, the challenge remains. Foreknowledge precludes a will as shown by the ice cream thought experiment.

Hardly, I'm describing two entirely different things. One, where God knows the future in entirety because everything is set up by Him and the other where God knows choices people make while affording choice/will. They aren't the same thing much like foreknowledge isn't determinism.

Your ice cream 'challenge' was only your opinion in itself and has been answered accordingly. The actual case with God knowing what Peter would do was far more interesting in context.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Because you say so?

If God knows, it is determined.
If it's not determined, He doesn't know.

Apparently God can't know the future because you say so Stripe and all of your limited understanding and parameters apparently have to apply to God.

 

[Stripe]

Didn't God state what Peter would do?

Yip.

It hardly reads as a "what may happen" scenario.

What does that mean? It reads as it reads. You are the one declaring it is evidence for exhaustive foreknowledge.

Has it occurred to you that God may have known what Peter would do and that he still had a choice?

That's exactly our explanation if from this example the extrapolation is not made that God knows every decision infallibly.

The distinction between our explanations is that we explain Jesus' knowledge through a reasonable assessment of His relationship with Peter while you think God knows every decision we would make, including the one between vanilla and chocolate.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Peter's told ahead of time he will deny Jesus three times before the rooster crows. And then that's exactly what he did. It's recorded four times in the New Testament.

Jesus foreknew what Peter would do, in some detail.

In some detail indeed:

Denial of Peter - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yip.



What does that mean? It reads as it reads. You are the one declaring it is evidence for exhaustive foreknowledge.


That's exactly our explanation if from this example the extrapolation is not made that God knows every decision infallibly.

The distinction between our explanations is that we explain Jesus' knowledge through a reasonable assessment of His relationship with Peter while you think God knows every decision we would make, including the one between vanilla and chocolate.

From Matthew:

Peter replied, "Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will." "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "This very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times." But Peter declared, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the other disciples said the same.

Jesus seems pretty blunt and clear on this matter Stripe.

 

[Stripe]

Hardly, I'm describing two entirely different things. One, where God knows the future in entirety because everything is set up by Him and the other where God knows choices people make while affording choice/will. They aren't the same thing much like foreknowledge isn't determinism.

They are the same thing.

Foreknowledge is the same as determinism when it comes to a creator.

Your ice cream 'challenge' was only your opinion.

It was a question. How is that an opinion?

We know why you hate the question.

The actual case with God knowing what Peter would do was far more interesting in context.

Only because you can use it to dodge the challenge.

Apparently God can't know the future because you say so.

You'll be able to quote me saying that God does not know the future, right?

all of your limited understanding and parameters apparently have to apply to God.

Like your enlightened understanding and parameter-free thinking have to apply to God?

 

[Stripe]

Jesus seems pretty blunt and clear on this matter Stripe.

Blunt and clear on what matter?

That your explanation of how He knew was the one everyone should hold to?

 

[Arthur Brain]

They are the same thing.

Foreknowledge is the same as determinism when it comes to a creator.



It was a question. How is that an opinion?

We know why you hate the question.



Only because you can use it to dodge the challenge.



You'll be able to quote me saying that God does not know the future, right?



Like your enlightened understanding and parameter-free thinking have to apply to God?

Of course they aren't at least in relation to choice/will which is what's being discussed in context. There's a difference between programming people to do certain things and allowing will while having foreknowledge of what people are going to do. Pretty basic stuff.

Your question has been addressed and was hardly worth the investment of any emotive reaction, let alone hate. The case of Peter is far more relevant but if you want to carry on with your silly 'royal we' and smart over your question not being up to much then up to you...

You'd be silly to say that God doesn't know the future considering it's outlined in the Bible often enough so no, I'm not going to quote you as you're not that silly to say that outright even if you're silly enough to continue with your more localised premise on this.

I don't limit God. Seems a bit silly really...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Blunt and clear on what matter?

That your explanation of how He knew was the one everyone should hold to?

Er, on Peter disowning Him three times.

Peter replied, "Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will." "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "This very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times." But Peter declared, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the other disciples said the same.

Jesus says He is telling Peter the truth. So, this isn't a case of Jesus telling Peter what he might do, right? He is telling Peter what he will do, correct?

It's rather specific isn't it? Are you trying to suggest that when Jesus tells Peter in no uncertain terms what he's going to do He wasn't telling him the truth?

 

[Stripe]

Of course they aren't at least in relation to choice/will which is what's being discussed in context. There's a difference between programming people to do certain things and allowing will while having foreknowledge of what people are going to do. Pretty basic stuff.

If it's basic, explain it. How can God know if it is not determined? Is His knowledge fallible? If someone saw a list of outcomes, would they be able to decide in opposition to them?

Explain your ideas instead of just asserting them and ignoring the challenge.

You'd be silly to say that God doesn't know the future considering it's outlined in the Bible often enough so no, I'm not going to quote you as you're not that silly to say that outright even if you're silly enough to continue with your more localised premise on this.

I don't think you have the first clue what I think about all this.

I don't limit God. Seems a bit silly really...

Can He be irrational in nature? Because Him knowing without having determined while being the ultimate power is the height of irrationality.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Er, on Peter disowning Him three times.

Peter replied, "Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will." "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "This very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times." But Peter declared, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the other disciples said the same.

Jesus says He is telling Peter the truth. So, this isn't a case of Jesus telling Peter what he might do, right? He is telling Peter what he will do, correct?

It's rather specific isn't it? Are you trying to suggest that when Jesus tells Peter in no uncertain terms what he's going to do He wasn't telling him the truth?

So then...

If Peter had not denied Jesus the second time, but instead acknowledged that he was part of Jesus' posse, do you think Christ would have been mad that what He said didn't come about? OR do you think He would have been glad that Peter didn't deny him a second time?

Does what Jesus said sound more like like Jesus was making a prophecy of what the future would be, or does it sound more like Jesus is telling Peter He knows him well enough that He knows Peter will deny him?

 

[Stripe]

Er, on Peter disowning Him three times.
...
It's rather specific isn't it? Are you trying to suggest that when Jesus tells Peter in no uncertain terms what he's going to do He wasn't telling him the truth?

Jesus was right about what Peter would do.

What you need to do is explain how this fact means that your assessment of how He knows is correct.

So far all we have is your assertion that it must be so and numerous attempts to avoid the challenge.