That applies well to you who are <mostly> submissive to His will. But how does that apply to those that aren't. Is it the case that God's will is that people fight against His will? Isn't that exactly what free-will proponents are getting at--that God has for a time decided not to enforce His preferred (preceptive) will, in order that He will make something good come out of letting humans have their way. I think that the purpose is that the two wills (God's and man's) will be joined, and the only way that is a win for man or God is if man submits to God, which is a willful act. Man has a choice whether to do so or not. Eventually, God will sovereignly act against those that refuse to submit, so that he can be joined with those who are left.
Yes, but take it to its logical conclusion: He will reconcile all things to Himself and we will be "just like Him" 1 John 3:2.
A 'free' will isn't part of good theology discussion in light of such and such affections of our goals. Agreed?
It's just a tautology to say that God has a permissive will that matches everything that happens--of course that's true, but it is of little value, imo. I'm not so sure about a decretal will, established from before the foundation of the world, that matches everything that happens.
Somewhat. The 'tautology' is about the difference as well as what we, His people want ourselves. We say, at least, that we want what He wants and that we desire to be like Him. Doesn't that make 'free' will discussion a tautology as well? Imho, a prescriptive will is incredibly less of a tautological consideration in such light and my Christian (Christ-seeking) affections, interests, and calling. "
Nothing now remains, only what you do for Me..." (for any Keith Green fans). I'm trying to ascertain in my theology, which is the greater tautological problem. It seems to me, at present, that 'freewill' is the greater of these two. :think:
My use of "simplistic" wasn't the best, nor the most pure of the meanings. Sorry for the confusion. But the dictionary I saw offered "simple" as a definition for "simplistic".
Are you insignificant if God loves you? If God's son died for you? While I agree that compared to God/Jesus we are and always will be insignificant. But His actions (including the one where the Son become an insignificant man) show the significance He has elevated us to in His eyes, and even before that, from the first thought of "Let us make man in our image."
It is still the goal of us, to be subsumed in Him 1 John 3:2 Not only that, I'm absolutely 100% convinced that John 15:5 means 'nothing.' It means that as much as we are loved and valued, it is that which is AND MUST BE God's that is loved in us. It is a 'subsumed' consideration. I'm worth nothing BUT for Christ. 1 Corinthians 3:11-16ff
"Counts"? What does that mean? If hell was created for the devil anad his angels, surely the devil's will "counts" even if it is completely antithetical to God's.
back to 1 Corinthians 3:11-16 'counts' means 'what doesn't burn up as worthless.'
The fact that wood hay and stubble exist to be burned tells us that there is something besides God's will being done, just as the Lord's prayer tells us: "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven."
Yes, but only that which is NOT burned remains and exists after that.
I think I wrote my comment poorly, and you rightly corrected it in your reply. "Decretal will" and "permissive will" are synonymous, at least in referring to what actually happens. I was attempting to point out that decretal and preceptive are in conflict. But I don't think there is great disagreement that God allows some things here and now that won't ever be allowed again. And it is for some purpose that He allows things now that won't be later. That's probably where the "permissive" idea came from, and though used synonymously, the two ideas--decreed vs permitted--only translate to glory for God if he didn't plan everything that happens before the earth began. Surely He is to be glorified for planning the answer/solution to sin, but hardly for planning the sin itself.
To me, after long thought, the ONLY thing that matters, even to you, here, about/concerning me, is what is God's. The rest? Forgettable. Only what reflection I have of Christ, and you to me, is of any worth and value. At least, that is what I'm reading from 1 Corinthians 3:11-16 and understanding.
I could be wrong, but it didn't seem like "omnipotence" was the main target. And in another of his missives (sorry I couldn't find it again for a reference) he specifically said impassibility was impossible for someone who has taken on a human nature for the rest of eternity.
This is a difficult concept, but for One who IS infinite, the idea of 'change' is already within 'infinite' though infinite has no bounds. For the most part, I chalk, all of these confusions to better and worse tentative grasps of finite people with minds that 'can' only reach finite ends to understanding and grasping the infinite. As such, impassible is about 'nature' rather than becoming flesh. Such is a finite concept already. "Change" debate, in my mind, is always more or less about the difference between coming at it with either a finite or infinite perspective. That is, the tension seems always to me, to be the difference between how God relates to man, verses Him being transcendent over man. Of course He is transcendent or we'd not have a God, just a glorified man, but this is part of that conversation because it is specifically about God 'becoming' a man. For me? My mind is too finite for such things but I at least try to show how large the finite conversation is.
Who is talking about willy-nilly love? I'm saying your definition of love is rather unimpressive, and my house fits the bill. Surely love is more than that. But that was Bob's point, if I understood it correctly--that love as an attribute of God is more accurate than impassibility, and more biblical. And more what God has actually said about Himself, which is part of what started this conversation (didactic vs narrative scripture).
To me, it necessarily has to be larger than your and my house put together. It has to be infinite and eternal, thus we only have this tiny grasp (as big as our tiny brains have capacity to grasp). But as far as I do understand love, love that is consistent (immutable) is the better 'because' it isn't ruined by interaction. What I mean is, if I have a pre-planned course of perfect action as a parent, it is wholly to be preferred than my just winging it. I'm saying that the "steadfast love of the Lord never ceases." We can count on it because it is, in fact, God. He is the definition of Love. You and I 'discover' love thus find it 'greater' in expression, but God is already vast in it. Paul prayed we'd grasp the 'height, depth, and width' of God's love then explains 'which is
without (there is no height, depth, or width constraint) measure" in Ephesians. Thus, for me, a love that isn't full and already accessible is 'less-than' by potential. There are those who argue unless I 'choose' love, it isn't real love. I disagree with that. Real love was defined way before I ever got to be a parent and RATHER I discover it and then express it. The better I am at expressing those already-set-in-place prerequisites, the better I actually love. I also argue that Adam and Eve loved before the Fall and DIDN'T adequately afterwards. The presence of 'free' will actually destroyed the purity and proper expression of love.
Is not "Would you like to rephrase?" asking for clarification?
But what does "unrestricted by time" mean? Is it the same as "impassible"? "Unrestricted" seems like it would allow for God to be eternal without being "impassible". But "relational" and "impassible" are not very compatible with each other.
To me? The finite trying (necessarily without much success by virtue of what it is trying to grasp .(Ecclesiastes 3:11)
I don't see how "belief" is the product of all He did, unless all people are believing now.
I think this is not seeing my meaning. I'm saying without Christ 'having done something and been something' then there is no 'object' for there to be belief. Now certainly those who do not believe have their own fodder, but I'm saying that Christ did everything to 'cause' our belief. He is the object of it. There is no belief without Christ. He gave it to us. That is why I say belief is the 'product' of all He did.
Except that God wasn't talking about current events/information. He was talking about the future. If God cannot be trusted to speak truth when He talks about the future, what can he be trusted with? Our whole hope for salvation is that we will be resurrected in the future, as we have been told by God. Despair comes from a lack of that hope, because God said "surely you will die". The whole salvation message is that God has changed our future from death to life. He spoke that we would die. He speaks that we will now live. And something major changed in between those two pronouncements.
No, that's not true. Rather it is 'what you took away from this conversation' that makes something true or false. Conversation is not over until God is done talking. This is a hard concept, but If I say 'Red really isn't a color' you could call me a liar. The problem is communication hasn't happened to prove otherwise, but 'red' is the reflection of light where other light is absorbed. In a way, you'd be right to correct me, but at the same time, it'd be wrong to call me a liar. The more important part of our communication is whether we understand one another in such a conversation AND what we have to do to figure out something further. In Hezekiah's case, imho, it is wrong to see 'lie' as the only option when we are trying to understand something of a greater perspective. God did not communicate a mistruth. It is, as far as my mind grasps, no different than saying 'the pot is going to boil over.' I knew, even without knowing the future, that the pot wasn't going to boil over. Moreover? You'd have no mind whatsoever to call me a liar over the fact NOR to say I miscommunicated. You get what I was saying EVEN THOUGH you too knew the pot wasn't going to boil over. Someone very pedantic might accuse me of lying. They will be 'right' in their own mind and neither you nor I can convince them otherwise. I was NOT lying in my conveyance. At least you and I know that I wasn't being a liar
I'm having difficulty understanding your point. The thing that bothers my with your comparison is that you are calling a statement of inequality an "equation". It is the very opposite of an equation, because the two sides are not equal. But it is an accurate statement, due to the "≠". You are saying mathematics is precise, while language isn't as much. But mathematics is transmitted through the language of mathematics, and if we call an inequality an equation, we are creating confusion.
The point being that you might read "you are going to die" as prophetic, whereas I read it as 'this follows this.' In other words, it wasn't 'you are going to die, and I'm going to make sure you've no way out of this' or "I'm making this happen and will not change my mind" but "You aren't going to recover from this illness at this point, you are going to die from it." Just like if I said, "the pot is going to boil over" I'm not, in fact, a liar if the pot doesn't boil over because that was NOT my intended message. I read it as a forecast.
This is my complaint with Calvinism--they look at the words of the bible and say, "those words don't mean what they say, they mean the opposite. This is detrimental to our understanding of truth. If we say, "a lie is when you purposefully tell someone something false", and "a lie is morally wrong", and then we say, "God purposefully told Hezekiah something that was false", and "it was not a lie nor was it morally wrong." We either must admit we aren't speaking in the same language, or we must admit we are introducing confusion.
Just like above, it is rather wrestling and saying "Am I CERTAIN I am reading this with the correct understanding the first time?"
That cannot be a bad thing, nor can it be but a service to nonCalvinists alike. 2 Timothy 2:15 I'm not saying we need to entertain every corrupt theology out there, but I do think Calvinist/Arminian and other, are within God-pleasing conversations. At least this is my estimation.
If we say that everything God told Hezekiah was true, then there is no choice but to admit that Hezekiah's future changed in between the two statements. I don't know that I can put that in equation form, but I can try.
Hez + a' days = death, (where a' days << 15 years)
Hez + 15 years = death
Then, if you are correct, there is no option BUT that I lied to my wife when I said "the pot is going to boil over."
(I'm sorry, but I have to disagree this is the only option, because I 'could' even accuse the Open Theist of the same manufactured lie). To me, it is just poor inductive bible study method. I just think those who come up with this need to contemplate the scriptures longer and come up with the 'right' answer because it doesn't matter if one is Calvinist or Open Theist, or etc. It is simply wrong, from ANY angle, to see this as a lie, imho.
You can see that in a mathematical world, where math is constant and precise, a' days would have to equal 15 years, which is a contradiction with "a' days << 15 years". In math, that means something is wrong with the premises, just as it does in logic. We're not talking about a mathematical world, but a world where things happen and people and God interact--where there are many variables. I'm suggesting, of course, that the language is just as precise as it needs to be, and the language is the means by which God and we communicate ideas. God communicated an idea to Hezekiah that is clear--Hezekiah, at least, was very aware of its meaning. His death was only a few heartbeats away, until he prayed and God heard his prayers and varied Hezekiah's future.
But this is my accusation: I often think these 'simple' scripture applications are wrong. They/these don't seem to apprehend algebraic expressions and seem to miss them in their theology contemplations. God DID tell Hezekiah He was going to die. Hezekiah DIDN'T die. It doesn't matter how you got there, you aren't better off than a Calvinist for getting there. To me, the best solution is that this was not a black and white. It wouldn't matter if the Open Theist were correct, that God "didn't" know, it still amounts, with that equation, to nothing but God lying. Ignorance is not an excuse nor a good debating position. "...then God lied..." is but (for me) a wrong-headed accusation that is putting theology and bible study together incorrectly. NOBODY believes 'the pot is going to boil over' is a lie BUT the simple child. They need 1) to grow and 2) better instruction. That's the correct answer. Until they get to that point of ability, they will suffer their own ignorance. For you and I, the challenge is to put correct thoughts together and discard what doesn't fit. "God lied" doesn't fit and we both know it. We just have to do our best to explain why. To the best of my knowledge, "the pot is going to boil over" is the best answer to the dilemma.
But again, you have not given an equation. You given a partial proposition this time. There's not even enough information to solve for a. You ASSUME that the giver of the partial statement has a value in mind for the right side, but that is totally an assumption. The information just isn't there to make a full statement. And because it isn't a full statement/proposition, there is no truth value. That is NOT the case for God's pronouncements on Hezekiah. They were testable propositions.
I may not have described it as adequately as I hope I have now been....
But I've likely missed your point, so may I ask what you would equate the variable "a" to in your statements? Is that the time Hezekiah will live, known only to God? Some factor that needs to be included in determining how long Hezekiah will live? Whatever the case, God gave Hezekiah the end result, and then allowed it to change (changed it Himself).
"Hezekiah (whatever value), you have "x" illness and will die (the equal). The problem is ONLY true given these scenarios. As soon as any one of them changes, the equation does as well. All God gave, imho, is the equation of death. There is therefore no lie (neither necessary in either the Open Theist or Calvinist position). The 'equation' He gave is true. What changed? The outcome? :nono: RATHER the outcome of a 'different' equation: "Hezekiah prays (new equation), sickness(removed component) is no longer part of this new equation, therefore there is no lie, even though Hezekiah is indeed part of both.
QUOTE]God's way is to say something that isn't true as if it is true? Really? I hadn't noticed that about God's way ever before.
Again, scenario one with equation was TOTALLY true. Just because ANOTHER equation with a different solution is given, does not negate or cause the previous to be untrue. It was/is STILL true that with that disease, Hezekiah WOULD have died and wouldn't have recovered.
And Hezekiah helps to explain some of the meaning of John 15:5. Hezekiah would not exist without God, that is true. But Hezekiah couldn't displease God at God's pleasure. If all Hezekiah did was at God's pleasure, ala Is 46:10, then displeasure is part of God's pleasure. Which means, I'm sure you see, that God is the author of sin in your reading of John 15:5.
It applies to ALL theologies, not just the Calvinist perspective. Hopefully, as you've had these conversations, you've come to realize no theology perspective ever avoids these accusations. They rather tend to be questions 'put-off' rather than adequately or sufficiently answered by the other theology camp. Case in point:
Except that it isn't my ideas that we are talking about. We are talking about a conversation between two people in the distant past. We think we have a correctly translated version of their conversation. In the conversation, there is no mincing of words, but God is very direct in His pronouncements, which are easy to understand. And they are contradictory.
In EITHER camp. NO theology perspective escapes. Simply saying "God didn't know" rather says "God lied out of ignorance" instead of exhaustive foreknowledge. To me? No help. You might as well avoid Open Theism if all it does for you is makes God 'inept' as well as a liar. See what I mean? It is RATHER important to wrestle with the text together as iron sharpens iron, imho. It helps BOTH Calvinists and Open Theists to discuss the exact same problem/accusation that is NOT avoided by the other, despite the attempt.
I appreciate your use of mathematics, especially the addition of a variable that affects the outcome. This is all I've been saying with the Hezekiah story--there was a variable that applied to the length of his life. And if there really is a variability of the length of anyone's life, then at least in this one thing, God had NOT ordained the outcome from the foundation of the earth.
Yeah, but that doesn't give me any hope or confidence. I've been wrong enough and messed stuff up enough in the past to have absolutely no comfort from the Open Theist proposition. There is no "I'm glad God didn't make me do that!" I'd rather God stepped in and did it right as only He can. Rather, Romans 8:58 is a promise that even if I'm allowed to mess it up, God will make it right. That puts me right back into comfort and trust that God has a plan. A pre-plan and that I'm all caught up in it. The other? It seems an attempt to make man all-important in God's plans and I'm okay with it to the point of agreement that God loves us. At the same time, I don't want to get too caught up in myself. God is who counts. Our faith is self-abnegating.
So, I'm agreeing with you here, but are you in agreement with yourself?
Lon, you have been more than patient through this exchange. I hope we can continue
Thank you too. I've prayed a bit and rewrote a few of these. I've appreciated your love for Christ and deference to me too. In Him -Lon
but if we don't have more exchange between now and Thursday, have a happy and thankful Thanksgiving.
Derf
Hope yours was terrific!
</mostly>
