Free will and Omniscience

General discussions about Christianity including salvation, heaven and hell, Christian history and so on.
DannyM
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: A little corner of England
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Free will and Omniscience

#256

Post by DannyM » Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:19 am

CeT-To wrote:[If the B theory of time means nothing to you or whatever - then what's the point of continuing to explain this to you since its an integral part of the explanation as a whole. It would be unjust for God to annihilate us because then we dont get what we deserve. Annihilating someone is robbing them of them of justice that they deserve either good or bad, the gift of life and free will can never be taken away from us. Believe whatever you want of free will we still have enough free will to choose God or not.
1. I don't accept your "B theory of time". Is that okay? As you are describing it, I don't accept it.
2. "It would be unjust for God to annihilate us because then we dont get what we deserve. Annihilating someone is robbing them of them of justice that they deserve either good or bad, the gift of life and free will can never be taken away from us. Believe whatever you want of free will we still have enough free will to choose God or not."

What does this even mean? Tell me why we "deserve" all that? What are you on about?
God basically was not doing anything until he started doing something, he couldn't have been doing something for eternity because an actual infinite cannot exist, it leads to logical contradictions.
God in eternity could do anything He chooses. And why does it have to be infinite? Tell me what you know about God beyond the cosmological singularity, CeT-To. He could be doing something right now, residing outside of time. God is immutable and self-sufficient, unrestricted by our notions of time.
I have shown that if God is now not temporal and yet still able to act in the universe then it logical leads to B theory which is unacceptable for us Christians but i wont bother continuing to explain again since its like you want an answer from me and when i give it you dont even try to understand and just say its nothing.
Yes, you’ve shown some theory. I have nothing against this super-duper “B theory of time”, I just think it’s presumptuous nonsense. And I am not persuaded. Not from your explanations.

I did try to understand it, and have tried to get it before. Sorry I don’t agree with your convoluted philosophy, Bro, but that’s just me.
credo ut intelligam

dei gratia

CeT-To
Senior Member
Posts: 735
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 6:57 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Free will and Omniscience

#257

Post by CeT-To » Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:13 am

Danny.... please try to understand now there are 2 theories of Time .. A theory of time which is the one we all accept ( dynamic flow of time - past doesn't exist, present is now and future is potentiality) and then there is the B theory of time ( time is static- no past, present or future, all moments exist ) which is the one ive been describing... i dont accept the B theory of time.. i never said i did, i accept the A theory of time... please read what i say... sigh

Here, just watch these -

Part 1- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3N_RAvksP4

Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbirUdSn ... re=related
DannyM wrote:[
I did try to understand it, and have tried to get it before. Sorry I don’t agree with your convoluted philosophy, Bro, but that’s just me.
DannyM wrote: God in eternity could do anything He chooses. And why does it have to be infinite? Tell me what you know about God beyond the cosmological singularity, CeT-To. He could be doing something right now, residing outside of time. God is immutable and self-sufficient, unrestricted by our notions of time.
The fact is that you don't think you don't understand it but rather you think you do. And you are stubborn about it, i Never said God couldn't do anything in his timeless state but the fact is that He had to start somewhere and that's where time would have begun! But also even if he has been doing stuff as you say "outside" before the universe then that means you can say "God DID do" this which implies time already outside the universe( and not in the physical sense clearly). Lol okay lets say he is doing stuff now outside time... was he doing stuff before? :ewink:
DannyM wrote: 2. "It would be unjust for God to annihilate us because then we dont get what we deserve. Annihilating someone is robbing them of them of justice that they deserve either good or bad, the gift of life and free will can never be taken away from us. Believe whatever you want of free will we still have enough free will to choose God or not."

What does this even mean? Tell me why we "deserve" all that? What are you on about?
What do you mean "what does this even mean"? Back then we were talking about changes of God such as his self restrictions where he did not have before our creation. We deserve punishment or reward because God is a Just God.

Yeah, sure, right, convoluted - years and years of study has been done on the philosophy of time and just because you don't understand it you think its convoluted. Seriously bro...
But joy and happiness in you to all who seek you! Let them ceaselessly cry,"Great is Yahweh" who love your saving power. Psalm 40:16

I Praise you Yahweh, my Lord, my God!!!!!

DannyM
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: A little corner of England
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Free will and Omniscience

#258

Post by DannyM » Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:11 am

CeT-To, looking back through the thread, I‘ve misread you a couple of times now, so my apologies, Bro. I was associating you with a flaky philosophy and I am sorry, since you were not advocating anything like what I thought you were :oops:

I just want to show you a few statements that initially puzzled me:
I think once God created then universe he did enter into a temporal state and left the state of timelessness because of the act of creation.
The creation account tells us only about a change in the creative object (creation), not the creative subject (the Creator).

How does God being outside of time restrict Him from working in time?
Once God creates something he enters a temporal state.


Why? Why would God necessarily have to enter into a temporal state? A new relation does not necessarily entail a communication of attributes.

So outside of time = unable to operate in time. I’m yet to see why this should be taken as axiomatic.
It doesn't make sense at all to say that God is outside time and he looks into our past and future because if that was true then Jesus is still there at the cross somewhat 2000 years ago still existing in the past yet also existing in the future in heaven with God right now, yet that's a contradiction. The fact is that the past does not exist any more and the future is potentiality
I see this as irrelevant, Bro, since I find this notion equally as absurd as you do.
God knows but he isn't outside time and doesn't need to be, certainly he knew as well when he was in the timeless state the end from the beginning just as much as he does now.
Can we demonstrate that a finite form of subsistence can be joined to an infinite form of subsistence without scaling the infinite down to the finite?

God bless, Bro.
credo ut intelligam

dei gratia

CeT-To
Senior Member
Posts: 735
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 6:57 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Free will and Omniscience

#259

Post by CeT-To » Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:31 pm

DannyM wrote:CeT-To, looking back through the thread, I‘ve misread you a couple of times now, so my apologies, Bro. I was associating you with a flaky philosophy and I am sorry, since you were not advocating anything like what I thought you were :oops:

I just want to show you a few statements that initially puzzled me:
I think once God created then universe he did enter into a temporal state and left the state of timelessness because of the act of creation.
The creation account tells us only about a change in the creative object (creation), not the creative subject (the Creator).

How does God being outside of time restrict Him from working in time?
Once God creates something he enters a temporal state.


Why? Why would God necessarily have to enter into a temporal state? A new relation does not necessarily entail a communication of attributes.

So outside of time = unable to operate in time. I’m yet to see why this should be taken as axiomatic.
Yes that's right because hmmm well ive already explained why but maybe you could give an explanation as to how it is possible for God being outside of time to operate in time, maybe we can get somewhere this way.
DannyM wrote:
It doesn't make sense at all to say that God is outside time and he looks into our past and future because if that was true then Jesus is still there at the cross somewhat 2000 years ago still existing in the past yet also existing in the future in heaven with God right now, yet that's a contradiction. The fact is that the past does not exist any more and the future is potentiality
I see this as irrelevant, Bro, since I find this notion equally as absurd as you do.
This isn't irrelevant because what i have been saying is that if God is outside time and operates in time then it logically leads to the B theory of time which neither of us wants to affirm. But yeah like i said before try to figure out how it is possible for God to be timeless yet operate in time.
DannyM wrote:
God knows but he isn't outside time and doesn't need to be, certainly he knew as well when he was in the timeless state the end from the beginning just as much as he does now.
Can we demonstrate that a finite form of subsistence can be joined to an infinite form of subsistence without scaling the infinite down to the finite?

God bless, Bro.
I'm not so sure i understand this question. Hmm what is the finite form of subsistence ? are you talking about time?

One more thing is the view that i adhere to the eternalness of God in the sense that he had no beginning nor end.

God bless you too y>:D<
But joy and happiness in you to all who seek you! Let them ceaselessly cry,"Great is Yahweh" who love your saving power. Psalm 40:16

I Praise you Yahweh, my Lord, my God!!!!!

DannyM
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: A little corner of England
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Free will and Omniscience

#260

Post by DannyM » Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:20 am

DannyM wrote:How does God being outside of time restrict Him from working in time?

Why would God necessarily have to enter into a temporal state? A new relation does not necessarily entail a communication of attributes.

So outside of time = unable to operate in time. I’m yet to see why this should be taken as axiomatic.
CeT-To wrote:Yes that's right because hmmm well ive already explained why but maybe you could give an explanation as to how it is possible for God being outside of time to operate in time, maybe we can get somewhere this way.
No, because hmmm I’m asking you how God being outside of time as we know it necessarily means He is unable to operate in time. You are STILL yet to show me how this restricts God.
DannyM wrote:I see this as irrelevant, Bro, since I find this notion equally as absurd as you do.
CeT-To wrote:This isn't irrelevant because what i have been saying is that if God is outside time and operates in time then it logically leads to the B theory of time which neither of us wants to affirm. But yeah like i said before try to figure out how it is possible for God to be timeless yet operate in time.
No, you need to justify your claims before trying to move on. I’m asking you how it is that God being outside of time means He cannot operate in time. Apart from assertions, where is the argument that God cannot be eternal and operate in time? Can you demonstrate God being outside of time means the past and future are still occurring as we speak. I may be a simpleton, CeT-To, so you’ll have to lower yourself to an actual explanation.
CeT-T0 wrote:I'm not so sure i understand this question. Hmm what is the finite form of subsistence ? are you talking about time?
LOL. No, can it be demonstrated that a finite from of subsistence can be joined to an infinite form of subsistence without scaling the infinite down to the finite?

God bless
credo ut intelligam

dei gratia

CeT-To
Senior Member
Posts: 735
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 6:57 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Free will and Omniscience

#261

Post by CeT-To » Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:07 am

The reason im asking you is not because i dont have an argument but its because so i can show you it through your explanation of your view. Lol im not trying to chicken out or hide away or anything im just trying a different way for you to understand, sorta like the socratic method.
DannyM wrote:
No, because hmmm I’m asking you how God being outside of time as we know it necessarily means He is unable to operate in time. You are STILL yet to show me how this restricts God.
You're already presupposing in your question that you are right -" I’m asking you how God being outside of time as we know it necessarily means He is unable to operate in time." y:-?
DannyM wrote:I see this as irrelevant, Bro, since I find this notion equally as absurd as you do.
CeT-To wrote:This isn't irrelevant because what i have been saying is that if God is outside time and operates in time then it logically leads to the B theory of time which neither of us wants to affirm. But yeah like i said before try to figure out how it is possible for God to be timeless yet operate in time.
DannyM wrote:No, you need to justify your claims before trying to move on. I’m asking you how it is that God being outside of time means He cannot operate in time. Apart from assertions, where is the argument that God cannot be eternal and operate in time? Can you demonstrate God being outside of time means the past and future are still occurring as we speak. I may be a simpleton, CeT-To, so you’ll have to lower yourself to an actual explanation.
I dont regard you as a simpleton y#-o , anyway okay lets accept your view then that God is outside of time but can interact with time for a second. Imagine one day bam the Holy spirit reveals himself as a pillar of fire like in the time of Moses and one day God destroys the universe ( and time since you think its the only place you think time is), it will always make sense to say God DID reveal himself in a pillar of fire or DID reveal himself as a dove hence God cannot go back into timelessness, he is " stuck" ( i wouldnt say stuck cause its an emotionally loaded word ) in time because he now and forever will have tenses like God DID this or God is saving people NOW to which then it would be God DID save people but he isn't doing that NOW because its the new heaven and earth, and these are timely senses which cannot be expressed of a being if he is outside time - it would be incoherent. Understand now? I've used this example like 3 times or something :P.
CeT-T0 wrote:I'm not so sure i understand this question. Hmm what is the finite form of subsistence ? are you talking about time?
LOL. No, can it be demonstrated that a finite from of subsistence can be joined to an infinite form of subsistence without scaling the infinite down to the finite?

God bless[/quote]

LOL you just asked the same question in the same way so i still don't understand it, maybe you could explain it or spell it out ( define some words maybe) please.

God bless :)
But joy and happiness in you to all who seek you! Let them ceaselessly cry,"Great is Yahweh" who love your saving power. Psalm 40:16

I Praise you Yahweh, my Lord, my God!!!!!

DannyM
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: A little corner of England
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Free will and Omniscience

#262

Post by DannyM » Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:19 am

CeT-To wrote:anyway okay lets accept your view then that God is outside of time but can interact with time for a second. Imagine one day bam the Holy spirit reveals himself as a pillar of fire like in the time of Moses and one day God destroys the universe ( and time since you think its the only place you think time is), it will always make sense to say God DID reveal himself in a pillar of fire or DID reveal himself as a dove hence God cannot go back into timelessness, he is " stuck" ( i wouldnt say stuck cause its an emotionally loaded word ) in time because he now and forever will have tenses like God DID this or God is saving people NOW to which then it would be God DID save people but he isn't doing that NOW because its the new heaven and earth, and these are timely senses which cannot be expressed of a being if he is outside time - it would be incoherent. Understand now?
LOL. No, Bro, sorry but I don't. :lol: I know what you're saying, but I still don't see how God revealing Himself means He is 'stuck'. God revealing Himself doesn't entail Him 'losing' His timelessness. I’m not seeing God hopping back and forth between our time and His time. What sort of a god hops into our universe and can’t get back out? :lol:
credo ut intelligam

dei gratia

DannyM
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: A little corner of England
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Free will and Omniscience

#263

Post by DannyM » Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:28 am

CeT-To wrote:
can it be demonstrated that a finite from of subsistence can be joined to an infinite form of subsistence without scaling the infinite down to the finite?
LOL you just asked the same question in the same way so i still don't understand it, maybe you could explain it or spell it out ( define some words maybe) please.
Sorry, Bro. Can God maintain His infinite nature and character if He is, at creation, consequently annexed to the finite universe?
credo ut intelligam

dei gratia

CeT-To
Senior Member
Posts: 735
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 6:57 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Free will and Omniscience

#264

Post by CeT-To » Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:43 am

DannyM wrote:
CeT-To wrote:anyway okay lets accept your view then that God is outside of time but can interact with time for a second. Imagine one day bam the Holy spirit reveals himself as a pillar of fire like in the time of Moses and one day God destroys the universe ( and time since you think its the only place you think time is), it will always make sense to say God DID reveal himself in a pillar of fire or DID reveal himself as a dove hence God cannot go back into timelessness, he is " stuck" ( i wouldnt say stuck cause its an emotionally loaded word ) in time because he now and forever will have tenses like God DID this or God is saving people NOW to which then it would be God DID save people but he isn't doing that NOW because its the new heaven and earth, and these are timely senses which cannot be expressed of a being if he is outside time - it would be incoherent. Understand now?
LOL. No, Bro, sorry but I don't. :lol: I know what you're saying, but I still don't see how God revealing Himself means He is 'stuck'. God revealing Himself doesn't entail Him 'losing' His timelessness. I’m not seeing God hopping back and forth between our time and His time. What sort of a god hops into our universe and can’t get back out? :lol:
Dammiiiit xD :lol:

OKAY HAhaha :P Maybe it would have been wiser if my example was realistic. ok lets put up a line of events.

God timeless ........ chooses to create universe ( this is when time starts) and God is now in temporal mode for eva ..... everything else.

Why? read the explanation again hahahah. But to clear your misconceptions- It's not that God is not able to get out of the universe Remember the explanation i gave makes sense even when the universe is destroyed lol i even used it as an example. Lol i wouldn't say stuck either but whatever.. it was to make it easier to understand. It's not about God revealing Himself it's about God doing Anything in time that makes him not timeless anymore because now he would have timely tenses ( this is NOT to say he ISNT eternal - God has always existed). Likewise, it's not God that hops into one time and then another - it could be all the same time just not experienced in the same way since this is a physical universe and 'outside' is nothingness - the point IS that God now has timely tenses like now and before so it would be a contradiction to keep saying he is Timeless since a timeless being would have no timely tenses. Also, i'm not saying time has always existed outside the universe - i'm saying once it started when the universe was created ( though it is not dependant on the universe being created but rather anything created) it started everywhere, just not as a physical dimension like in the universe but rather 'outside' it simply would just allow you to say " this happened before and this is happening now" and again it would be an incoherent statement to say "the timeless God did this before and now is doing this" which is basically what you are saying, Danny.

Understand now ? :mrgreen:

God bless!! :D
But joy and happiness in you to all who seek you! Let them ceaselessly cry,"Great is Yahweh" who love your saving power. Psalm 40:16

I Praise you Yahweh, my Lord, my God!!!!!

DannyM
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: A little corner of England
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Free will and Omniscience

#265

Post by DannyM » Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:59 am

CeT-To wrote:God timeless ........ chooses to create universe ( this is when time starts) ...... God is now in temporal mode for eva.

Why? read the explanation again hahahah. But to clear your misconceptions- It's not that God is not able to get out of the universe Remember the explanation i gave makes sense even when the universe is destroyed lol i even used it as an example. Lol i wouldn't say stuck either but whatever.. it was to make it easier to understand. It's not about God revealing Himself it's about God doing Anything in time that makes him not timeless anymore because now he would have timely tenses ( this is NOT to say he ISNT eternal - God has always existed). Likewise, it's not God that hops into one time and then another - it could be all the same time just not experienced in the same way since this is a physical universe and 'outside' is nothingness - the point IS that God now has timely tenses like now and before so it would be a contradiction to keep saying he is Timeless since a timeless being would have no timely tenses. Also, i'm not saying time has always existed outside the universe - i'm saying once it started when the universe was created ( though it is not dependant on the universe being created but rather anything created) it started everywhere, just not as a physical dimension like in the universe but rather 'outside' it simply would just allow you to say " this happened before and this is happening now" and again it would be an incoherent statement to say "the timeless God did this before and now is doing this" which is basically what you are saying, Danny.

Understand now ? :mrgreen:
Bro, before I answer with the same bloody response, I'm going to take this away, put it into a wee word doc. and read it about fifty times, since I'm sure there must be something I am missing... because all I see is assumptions being made about God's timeless existence. But let me give it fifty reads and get my swede together :mrgreen:
credo ut intelligam

dei gratia

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21644
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 203 times
Been liked: 1110 times

Re: Free will and Omniscience

#266

Post by RickD » Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:01 am

Bro, before I answer with the same bloody response, I'm going to take this away, put it into a wee word doc. and read it about fifty times, since I'm sure there must be something I am missing... because all I see is assumptions made about God's timeless existence. But let me give it fifty reads and get my swede together :mrgreen:
:pound: :pound: Danny, I haven't laughed that hard all week. I love your sense of humour.
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

CeT-To
Senior Member
Posts: 735
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 6:57 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Free will and Omniscience

#267

Post by CeT-To » Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:08 am

DannyM wrote:
CeT-To wrote:God timeless ........ chooses to create universe ( this is when time starts) ...... God is now in temporal mode for eva.

Why? read the explanation again hahahah. But to clear your misconceptions- It's not that God is not able to get out of the universe Remember the explanation i gave makes sense even when the universe is destroyed lol i even used it as an example. Lol i wouldn't say stuck either but whatever.. it was to make it easier to understand. It's not about God revealing Himself it's about God doing Anything in time that makes him not timeless anymore because now he would have timely tenses ( this is NOT to say he ISNT eternal - God has always existed). Likewise, it's not God that hops into one time and then another - it could be all the same time just not experienced in the same way since this is a physical universe and 'outside' is nothingness - the point IS that God now has timely tenses like now and before so it would be a contradiction to keep saying he is Timeless since a timeless being would have no timely tenses. Also, i'm not saying time has always existed outside the universe - i'm saying once it started when the universe was created ( though it is not dependant on the universe being created but rather anything created) it started everywhere, just not as a physical dimension like in the universe but rather 'outside' it simply would just allow you to say " this happened before and this is happening now" and again it would be an incoherent statement to say "the timeless God did this before and now is doing this" which is basically what you are saying, Danny.

Understand now ? :mrgreen:
Bro, before I answer with the same bloody response, I'm going to take this away, put it into a wee word doc. and read it about fifty times, since I'm sure there must be something I am missing... because all I see is assumptions being made about God's timeless existence. But let me give it fifty reads and get my swede together :mrgreen:
Okay HAHAHAH :pound: Good Luck my friend!! :clap:

BTW, when i say timeless i mean -not affected by time- and when i say Eternal i mean that God's existence has no beginning or end. Maybe its the terminology that's not letting you get it.
RickD wrote: :pound: :pound: Danny, I haven't laughed that hard all week. I love your sense of humour.
I've been laughing this whole time too HAHahaha! :D I have to say though i do enjoy the challenge - i always get eager when i see Danny has made another post on this topic :lol:

Keep up the good work Danny ;) You're hilarious
But joy and happiness in you to all who seek you! Let them ceaselessly cry,"Great is Yahweh" who love your saving power. Psalm 40:16

I Praise you Yahweh, my Lord, my God!!!!!

User avatar
1over137
Technical Admin
Posts: 5249
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 6:05 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Slovakia
Has liked: 138 times
Been liked: 298 times

Re: Free will and Omniscience

#268

Post by 1over137 » Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:11 am

RickD wrote:Guys, I just wanted to share a view of "predestination", that Wesley held. You can contrast it with Calvin's idea of predestination, and decide which, if either, that you believe. One doesn't have to believe in all facets of Arminianism, if one believes in Wesley's view of predestination. The same way, one doesn't have to be a Calvinist, if one believes in something that Calvinism holds to.
http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/58/
I also has something to share with you - my debate with my old wise friend
(I could have posted this earlier, but anyway ...). Hopefully, you enjoy it.

me:
Hi John.
How are you doing? I'd like to ask you about the verse Acts 2:39 (NASB95): “For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” Why it is written the way it is written? Is it also this way in Hebrew and Greek? Since it sounds like not everybody is called. But this seems to be in conflict with John 3:16 (NASB95): "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." What is your opinion?

him:
So, friend, there are "ABC's" to Christian teaching....and then there is the "Bachelor's level stuff, Master's level and Doctorate level (so to speak). On the one hand, all Scripture is understandable at one level (so simple-minded folk like me can even get it). And there are plenty of "surface gems" that are easy to just pick up and take with you (e.g., John 3:16; Rom. 8:28, etc.). But as most miners know, the "best" gems are only found deep underground. If you want them, then you have to be prepared to go deep and sweat as you dig for them. But the rewards are more than fair compensation!

So, about Acts 2:39. Let's take it apart, bit by bit. It contains"surface gems", but even some of those deeper gems too. So, let's "dig" together!

"The promise". What does that refer to? Would the audience that heard that expression know what it meant just by hearing it? Do we? The audience itself and the context for the whole sermon by Peter is a key to understanding this verse and the entire passage. [Background info: They were Jews who had been dispersed all over the known world at that time had traveled to Jerusalem celebrate the Passover. It was a goal of Jews in those days to make a pilgrimage at least once in their life to observe the Passover in Jerusalem]. So, this group that Peter is speaking to are those who have made a pilgrimage for the Passover. They speak lots of different languages depending upon where they had traveled from, but in the final analysis they were Jews.

"For the promise is for you and for your children...." That little word "For", means that whatever came before that word had caused this "promise" to be spoken as some kind of cure, or as some kind of good word for a troubled person(s) soul. Peter used "the promise" to comfort those who were troubled and agitated in heart. What had Peter said to them that upset them? What did they say to Peter that he knew from what he heard them say that they now needed this kind of comfort? How is the promise "comfort"? And why does the promise extend to the children of these adult listeners? Why are their children of concern here? How did they get into this sermon? These are the questions that help to unlock the mysteries that only "miners" seek. But the answers are very rewarding!

Now, on to the part that you have underlined, "...as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

You ask "Why it is written the way it is written?" Good insight and question. Firstly, it is indeed "written the way it is written" intentionally. It is not a random or careless choice of words. Actually, Peter could not word it otherwise in view of the entire teaching of Scripture that teaches God sovereignly calls sinnners to be saved. That is one thing that is really neat about Greek: Greek is a precision language (like Slovak). It is very precise both in terms of language, but also in words related to theology! Many seem not to like this last point, but it's unmistakable "theology" which is being spoken by Peter. And Peter sees theology as "comforting" to his audience! The theological point Peter is expressing to these people is found throughout the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments.

The "point" is that God calls sinners to be saved. For example, you can see this immediately in the first epistle (letter) Peter wrote, Chapter one, verse one and in the first part of verse two: "To God's 'elect'.....who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father...." You can also see it further down in verse three: "...he has given us new birth...." These expressions are found all over the Bible indicating that God sovereignly chooses his people out from among the general masses of sinners. They are not better when called. There is no reason in the people themselves, but it's simply God's mercy to save some from among the many. Try reading the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Ephesians and miss this teaching. It's very difficult to do so. Most tend to ignore that and how it transitions into Chapter two, the first ten verses!

I know, it's not a popular teaching. But what is mostly popular is.....well, only that: popular. But the Bible is not written to win any popularity contests. It speaks the truth. And a major Truth is that people are "dead in sins" (e.g., Ephesians 2:1. But hey, if the Bible doesn't inform you this is so, you'd only have to read the news of the world to be taught it). People are born with sinful natures and live their lives "out of" that nature. Sin just comes naturally to people (ever try to teach someone to sin because they just aren't getting it! Ever find people who are so good they just don't know how to sin? Ever have to teach a baby to sin? It comes "naturally"! But believing in and loving God and good ways of living and thinking must be taught with intention). I know, most people dislike God's "choosing". I myself so disliked it I threw the book that was talking about it across the room ---and hated it! But as I read the Bible, and thought about my own heart and the hearts of those I knew best and lived with, I could not but agree that it was true; in fact, the truest explanation for me and the world I lived in. Then I saw that it was really merciful to be chosen. I mean, we make our choices. I can get stuck in the life I myself got myself into (and I can really like and prefer my life before God enters it). But then to have someone come into that life of choice and offer to remove my guilt and my sins and offer me new life....well, if that is what is the meaning of "being chosen"..... to be lovingly drawn and made aware that God's love is not only available for me, but to make me to see it as desireable ....then I want to be one of the chosen ones!

When the apostle Paul wrote to the believers in Thessalonika (Greece), he said "...we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction." (1Thess. 1:4-5). That means that when God chooses to save anybody, he comes not only to speak to the mind (hearing the gospel), but with the heart being transformed by the Spirit's powerful action on the heart (First Corinthians 2: 4). The Holy Spirit is necessary in this work because the "natural man" is "dead in sin" and therefore cannot receive the things of God, for they are foolishness to him (First Corinthians 1: 18). That means that Man is not only spiritually dead, but that deadness of heart and soul comes with a distate for the life that is truly life (and maybe even a bit afraid of God).

Now, about what you asked about: "...it sounds like not everybody is called. But this seems to be in conflict with John 3:16 (NASB95): 'For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." This statement is true. The emphasis you made on "whoever" is a conditional word in itself. It means it is true, but there is a condition: and that is the "whoever" must believe. And whoever does believe (therefore) will indeed be saved and have eternal life! But the question is, "who will believe"? Who are the "whosoever" ones? That answer must be given in the context of the Scriptures as a whole as, well as from the world as a whole. From the perspective of the Word of God, the "whosoever ones" are the called out ones. The word "Church" in greek (ekklessia) literally means "the called out ones". God calls everyone. The gospel is for everyone to hear. I will tell it to everyone. But clearly not all want to be saved. For some, it is offensive to be "lost". Jesus said "I have not come for the healthy, but for the sick. I did not come for the righteous, but for the unrighteous." (Luke 5:32). In order to be saved, we need to agree with Jesus's assessment of us; to agree that God's judgement is true: that we are sinners and we need a Savior. So, it's good to note that the gospel goes out to "whosoever"; but it is important to know that "naturally speaking" no one comes willingly, without God's chosing and drawing them first so that they might have life (Romans 3: 9 - 11); (John 6: 36 - 40). Therefore, as Jesus also said, many are called, but few are chosen." (Matthew 22:14).

Well, is Jesus drawing you because God has first chosen you to be saved? That is the question that everyone must face. The offer and promise stand: "Whoever believes in Him"-- shall not perish..... If you want to know if your one of his chosen, the way to be certain to come (Isaiah 55: 1; Psalm 66:5). All those he chooses he invites to come to him (Revelation 22:17) And you will come if he draws. And He will draw if he has chosen. The famous "logic" passage for this is Romans 8:29, 30. Linguistically speaking, this verse has a logical premise and a conclusion. The premise is "Those God foreknew he also predestined" the logic then is that a chain of events MUST then take place as a result. The conclusion states that these people, on the basis of having been foreknown are the same ones he called back in verse 29. Those (called) are the ones He then foreknew. That starts a chain of events that leads to glorification (being transformed into Christ's perfect character in heaven). Because this is a logic sentence the chain remains logical if you work "backwards" from conclusion to premise: All those glorified are those (now go back through the steps) who are called. It is an unbroken chain from beginning to end either way.

Well, I hope you have been helped and not overloaded.
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
-- 1 Thessalonians 5:21

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.
-- Philippians 1:6

#foreverinmyheart

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21644
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 203 times
Been liked: 1110 times

Re: Free will and Omniscience

#269

Post by RickD » Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:18 am

1over137 wrote:
RickD wrote:Guys, I just wanted to share a view of "predestination", that Wesley held. You can contrast it with Calvin's idea of predestination, and decide which, if either, that you believe. One doesn't have to believe in all facets of Arminianism, if one believes in Wesley's view of predestination. The same way, one doesn't have to be a Calvinist, if one believes in something that Calvinism holds to.
http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/58/
I also has something to share with you - my debate with my old wise friend
(I could have posted this earlier, but anyway ...). Hopefully, you enjoy it.

me:
Hi John.
How are you doing? I'd like to ask you about the verse Acts 2:39 (NASB95): “For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” Why it is written the way it is written? Is it also this way in Hebrew and Greek? Since it sounds like not everybody is called. But this seems to be in conflict with John 3:16 (NASB95): "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." What is your opinion?

him:
So, friend, there are "ABC's" to Christian teaching....and then there is the "Bachelor's level stuff, Master's level and Doctorate level (so to speak). On the one hand, all Scripture is understandable at one level (so simple-minded folk like me can even get it). And there are plenty of "surface gems" that are easy to just pick up and take with you (e.g., John 3:16; Rom. 8:28, etc.). But as most miners know, the "best" gems are only found deep underground. If you want them, then you have to be prepared to go deep and sweat as you dig for them. But the rewards are more than fair compensation!

So, about Acts 2:39. Let's take it apart, bit by bit. It contains"surface gems", but even some of those deeper gems too. So, let's "dig" together!

"The promise". What does that refer to? Would the audience that heard that expression know what it meant just by hearing it? Do we? The audience itself and the context for the whole sermon by Peter is a key to understanding this verse and the entire passage. [Background info: They were Jews who had been dispersed all over the known world at that time had traveled to Jerusalem celebrate the Passover. It was a goal of Jews in those days to make a pilgrimage at least once in their life to observe the Passover in Jerusalem]. So, this group that Peter is speaking to are those who have made a pilgrimage for the Passover. They speak lots of different languages depending upon where they had traveled from, but in the final analysis they were Jews.

"For the promise is for you and for your children...." That little word "For", means that whatever came before that word had caused this "promise" to be spoken as some kind of cure, or as some kind of good word for a troubled person(s) soul. Peter used "the promise" to comfort those who were troubled and agitated in heart. What had Peter said to them that upset them? What did they say to Peter that he knew from what he heard them say that they now needed this kind of comfort? How is the promise "comfort"? And why does the promise extend to the children of these adult listeners? Why are their children of concern here? How did they get into this sermon? These are the questions that help to unlock the mysteries that only "miners" seek. But the answers are very rewarding!

Now, on to the part that you have underlined, "...as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

You ask "Why it is written the way it is written?" Good insight and question. Firstly, it is indeed "written the way it is written" intentionally. It is not a random or careless choice of words. Actually, Peter could not word it otherwise in view of the entire teaching of Scripture that teaches God sovereignly calls sinnners to be saved. That is one thing that is really neat about Greek: Greek is a precision language (like Slovak). It is very precise both in terms of language, but also in words related to theology! Many seem not to like this last point, but it's unmistakable "theology" which is being spoken by Peter. And Peter sees theology as "comforting" to his audience! The theological point Peter is expressing to these people is found throughout the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments.

The "point" is that God calls sinners to be saved. For example, you can see this immediately in the first epistle (letter) Peter wrote, Chapter one, verse one and in the first part of verse two: "To God's 'elect'.....who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father...." You can also see it further down in verse three: "...he has given us new birth...." These expressions are found all over the Bible indicating that God sovereignly chooses his people out from among the general masses of sinners. They are not better when called. There is no reason in the people themselves, but it's simply God's mercy to save some from among the many. Try reading the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Ephesians and miss this teaching. It's very difficult to do so. Most tend to ignore that and how it transitions into Chapter two, the first ten verses!

I know, it's not a popular teaching. But what is mostly popular is.....well, only that: popular. But the Bible is not written to win any popularity contests. It speaks the truth. And a major Truth is that people are "dead in sins" (e.g., Ephesians 2:1. But hey, if the Bible doesn't inform you this is so, you'd only have to read the news of the world to be taught it). People are born with sinful natures and live their lives "out of" that nature. Sin just comes naturally to people (ever try to teach someone to sin because they just aren't getting it! Ever find people who are so good they just don't know how to sin? Ever have to teach a baby to sin? It comes "naturally"! But believing in and loving God and good ways of living and thinking must be taught with intention). I know, most people dislike God's "choosing". I myself so disliked it I threw the book that was talking about it across the room ---and hated it! But as I read the Bible, and thought about my own heart and the hearts of those I knew best and lived with, I could not but agree that it was true; in fact, the truest explanation for me and the world I lived in. Then I saw that it was really merciful to be chosen. I mean, we make our choices. I can get stuck in the life I myself got myself into (and I can really like and prefer my life before God enters it). But then to have someone come into that life of choice and offer to remove my guilt and my sins and offer me new life....well, if that is what is the meaning of "being chosen"..... to be lovingly drawn and made aware that God's love is not only available for me, but to make me to see it as desireable ....then I want to be one of the chosen ones!

When the apostle Paul wrote to the believers in Thessalonika (Greece), he said "...we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction." (1Thess. 1:4-5). That means that when God chooses to save anybody, he comes not only to speak to the mind (hearing the gospel), but with the heart being transformed by the Spirit's powerful action on the heart (First Corinthians 2: 4). The Holy Spirit is necessary in this work because the "natural man" is "dead in sin" and therefore cannot receive the things of God, for they are foolishness to him (First Corinthians 1: 18). That means that Man is not only spiritually dead, but that deadness of heart and soul comes with a distate for the life that is truly life (and maybe even a bit afraid of God).

Now, about what you asked about: "...it sounds like not everybody is called. But this seems to be in conflict with John 3:16 (NASB95): 'For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." This statement is true. The emphasis you made on "whoever" is a conditional word in itself. It means it is true, but there is a condition: and that is the "whoever" must believe. And whoever does believe (therefore) will indeed be saved and have eternal life! But the question is, "who will believe"? Who are the "whosoever" ones? That answer must be given in the context of the Scriptures as a whole as, well as from the world as a whole. From the perspective of the Word of God, the "whosoever ones" are the called out ones. The word "Church" in greek (ekklessia) literally means "the called out ones". God calls everyone. The gospel is for everyone to hear. I will tell it to everyone. But clearly not all want to be saved. For some, it is offensive to be "lost". Jesus said "I have not come for the healthy, but for the sick. I did not come for the righteous, but for the unrighteous." (Luke 5:32). In order to be saved, we need to agree with Jesus's assessment of us; to agree that God's judgement is true: that we are sinners and we need a Savior. So, it's good to note that the gospel goes out to "whosoever"; but it is important to know that "naturally speaking" no one comes willingly, without God's chosing and drawing them first so that they might have life (Romans 3: 9 - 11); (John 6: 36 - 40). Therefore, as Jesus also said, many are called, but few are chosen." (Matthew 22:14).

Well, is Jesus drawing you because God has first chosen you to be saved? That is the question that everyone must face. The offer and promise stand: "Whoever believes in Him"-- shall not perish..... If you want to know if your one of his chosen, the way to be certain to come (Isaiah 55: 1; Psalm 66:5). All those he chooses he invites to come to him (Revelation 22:17) And you will come if he draws. And He will draw if he has chosen. The famous "logic" passage for this is Romans 8:29, 30. Linguistically speaking, this verse has a logical premise and a conclusion. The premise is "Those God foreknew he also predestined" the logic then is that a chain of events MUST then take place as a result. The conclusion states that these people, on the basis of having been foreknown are the same ones he called back in verse 29. Those (called) are the ones He then foreknew. That starts a chain of events that leads to glorification (being transformed into Christ's perfect character in heaven). Because this is a logic sentence the chain remains logical if you work "backwards" from conclusion to premise: All those glorified are those (now go back through the steps) who are called. It is an unbroken chain from beginning to end either way.

Well, I hope you have been helped and not overloaded.
How dare you refute Calvinism, with scripture.! :pound:
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

DannyM
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: A little corner of England
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Free will and Omniscience

#270

Post by DannyM » Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:48 am

RickD wrote:How dare you refute Calvinism, with scripture.! :pound:
I suggest you take another read, Rick :lol:
credo ut intelligam

dei gratia

Post Reply