One on One: Knight and Lonster open up the settled view.

[Nathon Detroit]

I appreciate a championing tenure and tone for what it is, but is this all TOL is or ever will be?

Where is your regard for logic? For truth? For not living in the "maybes" and the "what ifs", does any of that matter to you?

Does it matter to you that your theology is one huge contradiction?

That type of stuff matters to me. And when someone asks me what does 2+2 equal, I tell them 4! And when they respond .... "Yeah but maybe it could equal 5 if we just look at it a bit differently." I tend to mock them. I can't help it. I was born that way.

 

[Lon]

Where is your regard for logic? For truth? For not living in the "maybes" and the "what ifs", does any of that matter to you?

Does it matter to you that your theology is one huge contradiction?

That type of stuff matters to me. And when someone asks me what does 2+2 equal, I tell them 4! And when they respond .... "Yeah but maybe it could equal 5 if we just look at it a bit differently." I tend to mock them. I can't help it. I was born that way.

I appreciate that, I really, honestly do and you bet, guilty as charged. I'll ask a question or two and see if you see the same thing I see.

Do you see often, as I do, that SV and OV has a strong tendency to talk past one another without really ever getting to brass tacks?

It is really hard to get to the bottom of something you totally disagree with or even appreciate it. In SV, God has exaustive foreknowledge. Because I've never been comfortable with all the SV problems, I'm probably not SV. But on the other hand, as I'm not Armenian either, and as I've seen OV, I can't get on the same page with them in scripture interpretation. You bet, I'm in a conundrum,and there are some shaky logic grounds because most of my answers to your questions are actually neither yes or no, or rather they are qualified which is why the double-talk. I have a hard time with either the OV extreme or the SV extreme. I tend to see God somewhere in the middle of all this. I look at the Pharisees and the Saducees and neither was praised, their doctrine caused them to miss the whole thing. I'm glad that our basics are the same for if they were not, we'd be in real trouble. I do have a dizzying position because I see truths in each perspective.
We have actually been discussing the nature of God, but we didn't get to doctrines of salvation so I thought perhaps we could try to get discussion going on examining Calvinism.

I'd line up closely on Calvinism but for the problems I've always seen in thier TULIP.

Total depravity: I believe in Total depravity to an extent, that we are completely in need of intervention for salvation, but I tend to see us as broken rather than worthless. I suppose total is that until we are 'fixed' we cannot function for His glory so I'm pretty much on the same page. This doctrine is shared with the Armenian doctrine.

Unconditional Election: God's sovereign will alone determines salvation. I've read some arguments against this position but the problem with this doesn't really fall here, but with the sister truth of Limited Atonement.

Limited Atonement: It is the Calvinist way of saying that only those who believe will be saved which we all would agree with for the most part. It is when the U (unconditional election) and L (limited atonement) are placed together that problems in understanding begin, and I have the same questions and problems.

Irresistible Grace: This is a doctrine about God quickening man to spiritual truth that he is otherwise incapable of doing. "Not one seeks God" is the truth where this is seen because we have all gone our own way. It very much reflects man's need in Judges where "Every man did what was right in his own eyes." I'm pretty much on board on this doctrine, but have some questions and different understandings from scripture as to how this all works out. Some Calvinists are able to handle those questions for my understanding and some are not so I think even Calvinists divide somewhat on understanding of this doctrine.

Perseverence of the Saints: This one leads often to OSAS doctrine, but most Calvinists do not hold to this idea and reject it. There is a logic progression that tends to confuse this issue but there are extreme Calvinists that believe in OSAS even on this forum. The Calvinist position doesn't like the term because it can give somebody who makes a 'profession of faith' a false hope so they stress rather that in a believer's life, God produces righteous fruit and works of righteousness is the result. Because a true conversion is a recreation of a new creature, the believer is going to produce righteousness as a result of this conversion. There would be a genuine concern if a claimed believer never produces fruit of righteousness because it is wholly the work of God unto a new thing. Just as good soil (lots of parable connections) that is planted and cared for by a masterful gardener cannot help but produce fruit, so the believer under the hand of God is going to grow (Eph. 2:10). I am on the same page with this doctrine.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

...and as I've seen OV, I can't get on the same page with them in scripture interpretation.

Can you give me an example?

Maybe lets just start with one example, I am really busy so I need to stick with smaller bite sized posts. :up:

 

[Lon]

I have a hard time with some prophecy interpretation.

If a prophecy is unfulfilled, I tend to see it as conditional. That is, that the prophecy isn't really a prophecy at all, it is a promise of contingency. Prophecy, as I understand the definition, has to be fulfilled or there are some problems concerning the 'false' prophet. So I think the first part of this is a differentiation from promises and prophecies. I've seen a few OVers use them interchangeably. Is this really the case or is it rather a mistake on their part or a misconception on mine?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I have a hard time with some prophecy interpretation.

If a prophecy is unfulfilled, I tend to see it as conditional. That is, that the prophecy isn't really a prophecy at all, it is a promise of contingency. Prophecy, as I understand the definition, has to be fulfilled or there are some problems concerning the 'false' prophet. So I think the first part of this is a differentiation from promises and prophecies. I've seen a few OVers use them interchangeably. Is this really the case or is it rather a mistake on their part or a misconception on mine?

Hmmm... well I would love to start with an example if you have one. Is there one you would like to discuss?

I agree prophecies are conditional. In fact that's the very function of a prophecy, a prophecy is a mechanism, a lever, to affect a future possibility.

I.e., God needed Peter to be strong after the crucifixion. Peter was going to be a major player in the spreading of the gospel but Peter was weak and God knew that. God didn't want Peter to be weak He needed Peter to be strong.

So God used a prophecy for Peter that was a "win win" for God.

God told Peter that Peter would deny Him three times before the rooster crowed.

Matthew 26:34 Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.”​

Peter said that wouldn't be the case....

Matthew 26:35 Peter said to Him, “Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You!” And so said all the disciples.​

God, knowing everything knowable knew Peter was weak and Peter would most likely fail as predicted. But either way God would get His desired outcome and here is how....

IF... one of the times Peter was asked about Christ Peter had realized... "ok, this is it, this what the Lord spoke of, He is Lord of all I repent! I do not deny Him!!!" BINGO! The Lord has strengthened Peters resolve and affected his will to more closely conform to God's will.

IF... Peter fulfills the prophecy as stated Peter then knows that the Lord knew Peters own heart better than Peter Himself then... BINGO! The Lord has strengthened Peters resolve and affected his will to more closely conform to God's will.

God wins either way but both options were real possibilities/contengencies. And most importantly we see that God is attempting to influence our/Peters will, God hasn't already seen the outcome in advance, for if He had, there wouldn't have been any reason for Him to interact with Peter via telling Him of the prophecy.

Prophecy is a mechanism, a lever used by God to affect our will.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I HAVE A DREAM! errrrr..... I HAVE A GOAL!

Today while thinking about this thread it hit me that there could be some constructive accomplishment that could come from it. So I decided to focus my energy one ONE goal and ONE goal only.

My goal is to attempt to get Lonster (my very cordial friend) to understand and acknowledge the difference between simple foreknowledge and exhaustive foreknowledge. It has become painfully clear that Lonster does not understand why this distinction is so vital and important to the topic at hand.

CASE IN POINT: on another thread Lonster wrote....

"But how can I freely choose if what I say is already known?"

Because you perceive free-choice. It makes no difference whatsoever if I know what you are going to say or what you are going to wear. You get to choose. Why are you so bothered that someone could know you so intimately as to finish your sentence or help you pick out the rest of your attire from the closet? I love it when my wife 'seemingly' reads my mind. It shows that she is interested and that she cares. I'm not crying about my free-will being obliterated. I don't believe knowledge obliterates my choices at all. Who cares if I could have worn the black sweater instead of the red one? It isn't even a question I need to get worked up over and answer. I'm wearing a red sweater and I chose to wear a red sweater. Knowing the future is 1) not an ability I or anyone else has except as it is given by God. We know that Satan is going to be thown into the lake of fire. No choice, determinism. We don't know the details and they have not been given. 2) Not deterministic always. Does God know them? I believe He does. Did God know what I was going to type here? Yes He did. Does this mean that I couldn't go back and correct a mistake? Nope. I have choice. Right now I can go back over this whole post and obliterate the whole thing. God knew I would not. Did He make me do it just because He knew? Nope, not any more than what I'm wearing. Could I have chosen any other way? Yes Can I even now delete this?

Notice the example Lonster uses of his wife knowing the color of the sweater Lonster will pick out, before he actually makes his choice. Lonster explains that that even though his wife has that knowledge about him that doesn't negate Lonsters will/freedom to pick a sweater of his choice. To which I respond....

Lonster.... your wife doesn't have EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge!

Let me say that again.....

Lonster.... your wife doesn't have EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge!

One more time.....

Lonster.... your wife doesn't have EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge!

Lonster, your wife has simple foreknowledge, not EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge. If she had EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge she would have known (while still in her mothers womb) that 40 years later she would be married to you and you would pick out a certain sweater on a certain day. She would have known that 40 years from her own birth how you walked into the closet, how you moved your hand towards the stack of sweaters and how you got a smear of antiperspirant on your sweater as you pulled it on over your shoulder. She would have known all this and everything else in exact detail even though she was yet to be born.

Yet here is the real deal....
Due to the fact that your wife knows you very well she has a degree of foreknowledge about you. Yet that foreknowledge isn't exhaustive and therefore you are correct to assert her foreknowledge didn't affect your will. You are right, it didn't.

Onward towards my goal.....

Lonster could you please describe how you would define foreknowledge and EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge?

What do those terms mean? What are the implications of sticking the word "EXHAUSTIVE" in front of the word "foreknowledge"? In other words.... if someone asked you.....

- What does foreknowledge mean?
- What does EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge mean?​

How would you respond?

 

[Lon]

Hmmm... well I would love to start with an example if you have one. Is there one you would like to discuss?

I agree prophecies are conditional. In fact that's the very function of a prophecy, a prophecy is a mechanism, a lever, to affect a future possibility.

I.e., God needed Peter to be strong after the crucifixion. Peter was going to be a major player in the spreading of the gospel but Peter was weak and God knew that. God didn't want Peter to be weak He needed Peter to be strong.

So God used a prophecy for Peter that was a "win win" for God.

God told Peter that Peter would deny Him three times before the rooster crowed.

Matthew 26:34 Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.”​

Peter said that wouldn't be the case....

Matthew 26:35 Peter said to Him, “Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You!” And so said all the disciples.​

God, knowing everything knowable knew Peter was weak and Peter would most likely fail as predicted. But either way God would get His desired outcome and here is how....

IF... one of the times Peter was asked about Christ Peter had realized... "ok, this is it, this what the Lord spoke of, He is Lord of all I repent! I do not deny Him!!!" BINGO! The Lord has strengthened Peters resolve and affected his will to more closely conform to God's will.

IF... Peter fulfills the prophecy as stated Peter then knows that the Lord knew Peters own heart better than Peter Himself then... BINGO! The Lord has strengthened Peters resolve and affected his will to more closely conform to God's will.

God wins either way but both options were real possibilities/contengencies. And most importantly we see that God is attempting to influence our/Peters will, God hasn't already seen the outcome in advance, for if He had, there wouldn't have been any reason for Him to interact with Peter via telling Him of the prophecy.

Prophecy is a mechanism, a lever used by God to affect our will.

This is a good one, because I don't see it as conditional at all. There is nothing that Peter has to do concerning the prophecy fulfillment to change it. It is a real prophecy, and not just a promise. I see prophecies that are conditional, and others that are unconditional, and I see promises that are condtional and others that are unconditional. Sometimes there is an overlap of a promise which might be seen as prophetic in a sense, but I tend to not see them as such and keep them separated in my mind.

This particular prophecy (not a promise) with Peter, I see as unconditional, so it is a good point of discussion. I don't see any contingency here in this passage but I do see it as part of foreknowledge (exhaustive or just simple for future fulfillment) and I understand it to be a future truth that will take place regardless.

Another after this discussion, would be the prophecy of Jonah. I tend to rather see this also not as a prophecy, but as a promise that is conditional. If it were a prophecy, I think that God would not be able by His nature to change the outcome. Because it is condtional, it doesn't fall within the parameter of an uncondtional prophecy. So I categorize it as 'conditional promise' rather than conditional prophecy.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

This is a good one, because I don't see it as conditional at all. There is nothing that Peter has to do concerning the prophecy fulfillment to change it. It is a real prophecy, and not just a promise. I see prophecies that are conditional, and others that are unconditional, and I see promises that are mostly condtional and are sometimes unconditional. Sometimes there is an overlap of a promise which might be seen as prophetic in a sense, but I tend to not see them as such.

This particular prophecy with Peter, I see as unconditional, so it is a good point of discussion. I don't see any contingency here in this passage but I do see it as part of foreknowledge (exhaustive or just simple for future fulfillment).

Were the following two prophecies conditional or unconditional?

And how would you determine?

“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” - Jonah 3:4

“By this you shall know that the living God is among you, and that He will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizzites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Jebusites:" - Joshua 3:10

Based simply on face value how are the above two prophecies any different from the following prophecy?

“Assuredly, I say to you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” - Matthew 26:34

 

[Nathon Detroit]

One more thing.....

This particular prophecy (not a promise) with Peter, I see as unconditional, so it is a good point of discussion. I don't see any contingency here in this passage but I do see it as part of foreknowledge (exhaustive or just simple for future fulfillment) and I understand it to be a future truth that will take place regardless.

If that is true (the prophecy was unconditional) what did the prophecy accomplish? What was the purpose of the prophecy

 

[Lon]

Were the following two prophecies conditional or unconditional?

And how would you determine?

“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” - Jonah 3:4

Promise, prophetic in a sense of language, but more of a conditonal promise than a prophecy. The language is somewhat prophetic, (Jonah is a prophet and He is given God's message) but I try to keep this in my mind as more 'conditional promise' for understanding. In other words, it isn't the same thing as an unconditional prophecy that will be met. It is different for instance, from the passage about Nebuchadnessar's conquest: That in my understanding was a prophecy without being a conditional promise. I'm still doing my homework, there are all kinds of questions I'm trying to answer there to be able to classify.

He will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizzites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Jebusites[/B]:" - Joshua 3:10

Based simply on face value how are the above two prophecies any different from the following prophecy?

Joshua 3:10 is a difficult one on just this text alone and it doesn't matter where we are on doctrine interpretation, we all have the same need to point to context. Personally, from context, I believe that this is a promise rather than prophecy and that even though it is not explicitly conditional here, the Israelites understood it to be conditional. It is the same passage where Joshua challenges the Israelites to take the land where He says: "Choose this day who you will serve, as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord," and it is a direct connection to their faithfulness of taking the land. So I see this as conditional promise, not unconditional prophecy though it 'appears' as unconditional prophecy out of context.

“Assuredly, I say to you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.”[/B] - Matthew 26:34

Unconditional prophecy. There was no condition placed upon this revelation. God determined it would happen no other way and was spoken in my belief, in foreknowledge.

 

[Lon]

One more thing.....If that is true (the prophecy was unconditional) what did the prophecy accomplish? What was the purpose of the prophecy

Peter had declared that he'd stand no matter what, but there was a prophecy that precluded Peter's assessment. "I have not lost one of those" I believe it was a direct intervention. If Peter had not denied, He'd have likely been killed alongside Jesus. The prophecy of God was that not one would be lost, and so this was God's determinism to fulfill. The problem is that if this is the case, it would negate Peter's choice in the matter, but I believe this knowlege and the prophecy was based on what was known. I see God's foreknowlege as an important factor working here.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Unconditional prophecy. There was no condition placed upon this revelation. God determined it would happen no other way and was spoken in my belief, in foreknowledge.

There were no conditions made with any of the three prophecies I have presented.

For you to claim there was, is nothing but blind speculation. Actually, it's worse than blind speculation because we have clear evidence that the prophecy to Nineveh was not stated as conditional (just as the prophecy to Peter wasn't).

The prophecy, in it's entirety....

“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” - Jonah 3:4

Did God add "But if you repent I will not destroy you!"? Well, lets read what the people of Nineveh said....

"Who can tell if God will turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish? " (v 9)

Therefore while there is no doubt that the prophecy from God's perspective was conditional (Jer 18) it certainly wasn't presented that way to the Ninevites nor was Peters prophecy presented to him in a conditional way either.

Yet, even more importantly.... conditional prophecy in general flies in the face of a settled view theology. After all a conditional means.... imposing, containing, subject to, or depending on a condition or conditions; not absolute; made or allowed on certain terms: conditional acceptance.

Anything that is conditional cannot be by definition settled, since the event that is conditional is not absolute and depending on a yet to be determined event. Therefore, for you to argue that ANY prophecy is conditional only affirms a open view of history/future, not a settled view of history/future.

 

[Lon]

There were no conditions made with any of the three prophecies I have presented.

For you to claim there was, is nothing but blind speculation. Actually, it's worse than blind speculation because we have clear evidence that the prophecy to Nineveh was not stated as conditional (just as the prophecy to Peter wasn't).

The prophecy, in it's entirety....

“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” - Jonah 3:4

Did God add "But if you repent I will not destroy you!"? Well, lets read what the people of Nineveh said....

"Who can tell if God will turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish? " (v 9)

Therefore while there is no doubt that the prophecy from God's perspective was conditional (Jer 18) it certainly wasn't presented that way to the Ninevites nor was Peters prophecy presented to him in a conditional way either.

Yet, even more importantly.... conditional prophecy in general flies in the face of a settled view theology. After all a conditional means.... imposing, containing, subject to, or depending on a condition or conditions; not absolute; made or allowed on certain terms: conditional acceptance.

Anything that is conditional cannot be by definition settled, since the event that is conditional is not absolute and depending on a yet to be determined event. Therefore, for you to argue that ANY prophecy is conditional only affirms a open view of history/future, not a settled view of history/future.

Not at all, but I can see where this perception would come from. A conditional prophecy is conditional for man, not God. And again, the enigma of the SV position is the problem perception for OV into the other's SV position. A conditional prophecy or promise depends on real choice from man, but again if God knows the choice, it does not negate the decision of man to interact with that choice. In SV, and OV as well, the conditional proposition interjects a new choice into the equation, gives man a response to God who is interjecting the choice, and will cause man to build relationship with God if he obeys, and create a teachable moment if man does not (which is also relational).

I think many SVers are on the same page with me (or I with them), that God is both relational and transcendent so that a contigency is seen as relational, even if there is a transcendent element seen.

And of course we both know Jonah believes that this is a conditional statement because in chapter four he accuses God about it. "I KNEW it!! This is JUST like You!! Just Kill me now!!" Even after this, it is almost amusing. He goes and sits on a shelf still hoping against hope that God isn't "Just" like Himself.

Wow! "Four" keeps popping up like the number 23.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

A conditional prophecy is conditional for man, not God.

When you say that, what you are really saying is the prophecy has the illusion of being conditional from mans perspective correct?

The odd thing is.... there is nothing in any of those prophecies that would give that illusion. :idunno: If anything, it's just the opposite!

Although, that's OK, am I glad you have at least made your position more clear. You are acknowledging that from God's perspective there are no conditional situations. That is the cold hard truth for the SV.

And of course we both know Jonah believes that this is a conditional statement because in chapter four he accuses God about it. "I KNEW it!! This is JUST like You!! Just Kill me now!!" Even after this, it is almost amusing. He goes and sits on a shelf still hoping against hope that God isn't "Just" like Himself.

Yet, you have just conceded (above) that the prophecy only had the illusion of being conditional, in realty it was settled in advance correct? "A conditional prophecy is conditional for man, not God." - Lonster

The problem is... when you hold your position you give Jonah justification for being mad at God.

If the prophecy wasn't conditional from God's perspective.... God instructed Jonah to be a false prophet. Like it or not, that is the consequence of your theology.

 

[Lon]

When you say that, what you are really saying is the prophecy has the illusion of being conditional from mans perspective correct?

The odd thing is.... there is nothing in any of those prophecies that would give that illusion. :idunno: If anything, it's just the opposite!

Although, that's OK, am I glad you have at least made your position more clear. You are acknowledging that from God's perspective there are no conditional situations. That is the cold hard truth for the SV.

Yet, you have just conceded (above) that the prophecy only had the illusion of being conditional, in realty it was settled in advance correct? "A conditional prophecy is conditional for man, not God." - Lonster

The problem is... when you hold your position you give Jonah justification for being mad at God.

If the prophecy wasn't conditional from God's perspective.... God instructed Jonah to be a false prophet. Like it or not, that is the consequence of your theology.

Okay, that was poorly said and I admit the ambiguity I created. What I was driving at is that conditional prophecy is a proposition to man for fulfillment. In other words, the ball is passed to man's court, so that man's responsiblity is the condition. If it didn't clear anything up, I'll try to address your questions.

Hmmm, your post was #114. That last digit keeps popping up all over the place.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Okay, that was poorly said and I admit the ambiguity I created. What I was driving at is that conditional prophecy is a proposition to man for fulfillment. In other words, the ball is passed to man's court, so that man's responsiblity is the condition. If it didn't clear anything up, I'll try to address your questions.

I think I agree with that!

However, if that is true the prophecy MUST be conditional from BOTH man and God's perspective. (it can't be conditional for one and unconditional for the other since that wouldn't make any sense)

THE PROPHECY:
“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”

From man's perspective... repent and maybe God will relent (Jonah 3:9)
From God's perspective.... “if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. (Jeremiah 18:8)

 

[Lon]

I think I agree with that!

However, if that is true the prophecy MUST be conditional from BOTH man and God's perspective. (it can't be conditional for one and unconditional for the other since that wouldn't make any sense)

THE PROPHECY:
“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”

From man's perspective... repent and maybe God will relent (Jonah 3:9)
From God's perspective.... “if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. (Jeremiah 18:8)

I agree with that too. I think it is just a difference in perception and some foreknowlege coloring that has us on a different plane. With this prophecy from Jonah, I totally see it similarly, but my foreknowledge coloring suggests that God did in fact know how Ninevah would respond. I also see Jonah as having this inkling very clearly. I looked up this on a map one day and I was amazed. Jonah literally ran the opposite direction! You probably knew that, but that had profound meaning to me when I first saw it.

Anyway, When he ran the other way, it might have been out of fear. The Ninevites were not very nice to messengers (they brought a whole different meaning to "Don't shoot the messenger"). But I think chapter 4 really expounds the reason: Jonah knew they would repent to a very predictable degree.

At any rate, you are right, a conditional prophecy is also a factor for God's response, but it really does place the ball in man's court. and it is my belief that God knows the response before hand. Either way man responds is a relational and teachable moment. I know you don't agree with this as far as foreknowledge goes, but I'm just trying to give the understanding as I see it.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

and it is my belief that God knows the response before hand.

OK... here we are at the very essence of this debate.

The answer to the following question could make all the difference in the world.

Did God know EXHAUSTIVELY beforehand that Nineveh would repent? OR, did God know (as in He thought) that Nineveh would repent?

Let me ask it again for clarifications sake....

THE QUESTION: (it's a bit long and in two parts)
At the time Jonah told Nineveh the prophecy (or anytime before that) was it an actual possibility that the Ninevites might not repent? OR... did God already exhaustively know (because He had literally seen the future) that the Ninevites would repent and there was no actual possibility that things could have turned out differently?

Maybe there is a more simple way to ask this...

At the time Jonah gave the prophecy to Nineveh was there a REAL possibility that Things could have turned out differently? YES or NO?

 

[Lon]

OK... here we are at the very essence of this debate.

The answer to the following question could make all the difference in the world.

Did God know EXHAUSTIVELY beforehand that Nineveh would repent? OR, did God know (as in He thought) that Nineveh would repent?

Let me ask it again for clarifications sake....

THE QUESTION: (it's a bit long and in two parts)
At the time Jonah told Nineveh the prophecy (or anytime before that) was it an actual possibility that the Ninevites might not repent? OR... did God already exhaustively know (because He had literally seen the future) that the Ninevites would repent and there was no actual possibility that things could have turned out differently?

Maybe there is a more simple way to ask this...

At the time Jonah gave the prophecy to Nineveh was there a REAL possibility that Things could have turned out differently? YES or NO?

From my perspective, Yes God knew how the Ninevites would repent. And the second part of the question: could the situation of have turned out differently, (get ready for the problematic) Yes/no. There is a difficulty for OV in understanding the SV position because you haven't had to live with and hold to this position of dichotomy. I'll try to help you climb into my mindset and it is a bit convoluted so bear with me.

Can it go any other way? Is it predetermined? Perspective is the point where the answer comes from. Both yes and no. If you asked me if a quarter had Washington's head on it, I might say "No, it has an eagle." I am correct and wrong at the same time. It does have an eagle, but it also has Washington's profile, I just couldn't see that part of the coin because you didn't turn it to me and show me, or I didn't look. As an SVer, I'm learning that I need to continue to show both sides or it cannot make sense to OV. I think this also goes with OV as seen from SV as well. I'm glad we are learning to do this by discussion. I think it was the premise of Cellist thread on our differences in supposition.

The other side of the coin: You understand my position that God knows future as if it has happened, but you would need to eliminate one objection (not in your doctrine, but in order to follow the line of reasoning). That objection is that God then determines the outcome with His foreknowledge. This is not the case, because we believe like you that God has given power to man for decision. Is there a determinism in this knowledge? Yes. But it resides with man, not with God, because He gave man determinism. So, if God knows, He still doesn't make the choice.
Because SV is a two-sided coin, it is easy to extrapolate an idea without seeing the second part of our view on foreknowledge.

God knew that Ninevah would repent (SV perspective), but Ninevah didn't know it would repent. So how does God get Ninevah to repent? He sends a prophet. Could Ninevah have not repented? I don't think so, but it isn't primarily because of God's determinism as it was the Ninevites determinism. And this again is where it gets a bit convoluted. God knew the Ninevites would repent, based on foreknowlege of 'their' decision. So could they have not repented? No. But does this negate their freewill? Yes/no. They negate their own freewill. How? Because once a decision is made, our past is determined and their is no going back. "How does this work with future contingency?"

Let me ask rhetorically, in the past did I have freewill? "Yes." Okay, Can I go back and change my past decision? "No." How then can you say I had freewill in the past if I cannot go back and change it? It gets confusing, but I see foreknowledge confusion almost exactly the same.

 

[Lon]

btw, did you notice your posts are generally and on average longer than mine? :-D