09 Apr 06
Originally posted by bbarrFrom the second post of the thread:
If it is part of the content of the decree that S go to hell, then it follows from (1) and (2) that it is part of the eternal will of God that S go to hell; that God brought about S's going to hell (because he brings all things about), and that S's going to hell is a logically necessary event (given the immutability of God's will). Yet this isn't predestination. Whatever.
"In common usage, the will of God refers to what God desires of an individual or group in a particular situation, but that is not the will in view here. The will of God here means the decision He made in eternity past, from His attribute of sovereignty, which established that certain things would actually come into being while other things would not. This is His sovereign choice as to what will take place in time. We are so dependent on God that nothing can exist apart from God’s decision to make it exist!"
09 Apr 06
2 edits
From the fourth post of the thread:
"K. The omniscience of God is the key to understanding the decree. God has three kinds of knowledge:
1. Self-knowledge: God knows himself; His self-knowledge has always been total, perfect, complete. He is aware of His own essence and the unlimited capabilities of each member of the Trinity. Infinite and subjective in self-knowledge, the members of the Trinity know each other.
2. Omniscience: God knows simultaneously all things outside of Himself. God knows all things about believers and unbelievers, both the actual--- which He Himself foreordained, decreed, programmed into the computer--- and the possible--- which could have happened but did not happen. God knew in eternity past that you would not make that decision and He did not decree it, did not enter it into the computer.
3. Foreknowledge: This subcategory of God’s cognizance acknowledges only what is decreed, but foreknowledge does not make the decree certain. It is a printout of the actual facts, not mere possibilities, regarding the volition of the believer. The term “foreknown” is used in Scripture only of believers of Jesus Christ. God’s foreknowledge is related only to the actual."
09 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYes, so?
From the second post of the thread:
"In common usage, the will of God refers to what God desires of an individual or group in a particular situation, but that is not the will in view here. The will of God here means the decision He made in eternity past, from His attribute of sovereignty, which established that certain things would actually come into be ...[text shortened]... We are so dependent on God that nothing can exist apart from God’s decision to make it exist!"
09 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYes, so?
From the fourth post of the thread:
"[b]K. The omniscience of God is the key to understanding the decree. God has three kinds of knowledge:
1. Self-knowledge: God knows himself; His self-knowledge has always been total, perfect, complete. He is aware of His own essence and the unlimited capabilities of each member of the Trinity. Infinite ...[text shortened]... ripture only of believers of Jesus Christ. God’s foreknowledge is related only to the actual."[/b]
09 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI haven't used any of the terms found in your posts incorrectly.
We could do this all day, but as the terms and technical language are all defined therein, it makes more sense to go back and read them again, instead of raising issues that have already been addressed.
09 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLook, this isn't the way things get established. Your posts offer absolutely no argument and consist merely of inane, arbitrary claims. Your God talk is mere gibberish in roughly the same way that Elf talk and Unicorn talk also consist of gibberish. Worse, it is self-contradictory as bbarr has pointed out.
I had previously cited Thieme, which is completely beside the point. Because those opposed cannot answer the ideas therein, they fall back on the usual diversionary tactics.
Whether or not the source is known does not erase the concepts posted. Because the self-proclaimed "thinkers" cannot refute the ideas, they go after the poster.
Gibberish? Reveal it as such and then you can make such a claim.
Make an argument for Chrissakes! Start by explaining why I should accept the following statement of yours:
Being infinite, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are worthy of all glory.
In particular, how does the property of being infinite entail a value statement concerning worthiness?
09 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFree will cannot explain some things that are commonly considered evil or contrary to the greater good. Tornadoes that rip through trailer parks, tsunamis that devastate coastal areas, earthquakes that level whole cities -- there is no shortage of harrowing examples here (not to mention the plight of those Down's babies). You stated that everything that happens is caused or willfully permitted by God. I want to know why this type of apparently needless suffering is an integral (indeed, certain and necessary, according to you) part of God's plan. From what I can tell, your ramblings so far have conveniently failed to address this matter.
God is not the author of sin, human good, or evil. Free will is the source of these things.
09 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrBecause you are not able to make a distinction between the three aspects of God's ominscience does not diminsh the reality of the same. You said:
I haven't used any of the terms found in your posts incorrectly.
"Yet this isn't predestination. Whatever."
When the Bible speaks of predestintation (as distinct from foreknowledge), it is always (only) applied to the believer, an acknowldegement of God knowing in eternity past:
1. How a person would respond to the salvation message;
2. How God would respond to a positive response
As you and Telerion are well aware, in equations, value, order and placement are critical to accruacy. This outline emphatically asserts that prophecy does not determine reality. It also emphasizes the reality of the coexistence of man's free will with the sovereignty of God.
On paper, you can move the brackets and reduce the whole equation to (as LJ is fond of saying) gibberish. However, that is on paper. In reality, the Bible says:
"for He says,
"AT THE ACCEPTABLE TIME I LISTENED TO YOU,
AND ON THE DAY OF SALVATION I HELPED YOU."
Behold, now is "THE ACCEPTABLE TIME," behold, now is "THE DAY OF SALVATION"--"
The fact that you have a choice today proves that your free will and God's sovereignty are coexisting. The fact that Lucifer chose against God proves that angels have free will. What you do with your choice is between you and God, yet while to you the jury may still be out (you admitted yourself that you are open to development), God knows for certain your decision, now and in the future.
Illustrations are obviously limited, but some part of complex concepts are made more perspicuous by the use of them. Imagine taking a picture with a camera, when nothing is before the lens. Sometime later, however, when the film is developed, a scene of multiple activities is seen on the developed pictures. The camera did not 'make' the activities of the pictures a reality, the people involved in the activities acted on their own. In a very simplistic relation, the camera is like God's omniscience. His omniscience knows what is on the film before it is developed in time, but this doesn't mean His omniscience caused the activities therein.
Some of the activities therein are God's actions. Some activities therein are your actions. In His omniscience, God foreknew all activities/thoughts, etc.
09 Apr 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloIn particular, how does the property of being infinite entail a value statement concerning worthiness?
Look, this isn't the way things get established. Your posts offer absolutely no argument and consist merely of inane, arbitrary claims. Your God talk is mere gibberish in roughly the same way that Elf talk and Unicorn talk also consist of gibberish. Worse, it is self-contradictory as bbarr has pointed out.
Make an argument for Chrissakes! Start b ...[text shortened]... icular, how does the property of being infinite entail a value statement concerning worthiness?
While it doesn't seem as praiseworthy as His other attributes, i.e., righteousness carries such import and awe-inspiring glory with it, God's infinity is also awe-inspiring in and of itself.
How many things (let alone people) do you know that are infinite? As we are limited and bound, we will always only relate to things in comparison to those parameters defining us. God, being infinite, is without boundary. Hell, I look into the night sky or beyond the shelf of the ocean, and I'm pretty blown away. I can't even begin to imagine the truly infinite. Maybe it doesn't do much for you, but I know hundreds and thousands of people from all walks of life, believers and unbelievers alike, who would disagree with you.
09 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAs I said, cite the source and those who care can look it up. We do
You won't find this online, although you will find articles from his students, as bbarr was able to show.
have libraries if we really really want to read it.
Obviously, you are extracting exceptionally long passages identically from this
source, a practice which is not particularly ethical from any scholarly or legal
standpoint. That you continue to refuse to do so and reproduce material which
is not your own for public consumption is simply deplorable.
Nemesio
09 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI see that you have developed Ivanhoe-itus, where objections raised to your
We could do this all day, but as the terms and technical language are all defined therein, it makes more sense to go back and read them again, instead of raising issues that have already been addressed.
arguments (well, their not yours, but anyway...) are met with re-citations to
previous material (the very material from which the objections arose).
Nemesio
09 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNothing in my argument presupposes anything contrary to your construal of omniscience. In fact, nothing in my argument relies on the notion of omniscience. Go back and read my argument. Then, if you think that something in my argument presupposes a construal of omniscience contrary to that put forth in your posts, then please quote the precise place in my argument where this misconstrual occurs.
Because you are not able to make a distinction between the three aspects of God's ominscience does not diminsh the reality of the same. You said:
"Yet this isn't predestination. Whatever."
When the Bible speaks of predestintation (as distinct from foreknowledge), it is always (only) applied to the believer, an acknowldegement of God knowing in etern ...[text shortened]... tions. In His omniscience, God foreknew all activities/thoughts, etc.
09 Apr 06
Originally posted by bbarrYou objected to the defintion of predestination (Nemmy won't let me quote it again, so you'll have to read my post above or, better, your original post); I responded by clarifying--- again--- the distinctive aspects of ominscience.
Nothing in my argument presupposes anything contrary to your construal of omniscience. In fact, nothing in my argument relies on the notion of omniscience. Go back and read my argument. Then, if you think that something in my argument presupposes a construal of omniscience contrary to that put forth in your posts, then please quote the precise place in my argument where this misconstrual occurs.
You seem to be arguing from a position that foreknowledge is equivalent with predestination, and at odds with free will. Is this your position?
10 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo, again, my position has nothing at all to do with knowledge of any sort. According to your view, the following propositions are true:
You objected to the defintion of predestination (Nemmy won't let me quote it again, so you'll have to read my post above or, better, your original post); I responded by clarifying--- again--- the distinctive aspects of ominscience.
You seem to be arguing from a position that foreknowledge is equivalent with predestination, and at odds with free will. Is this your position?
1) The content of the divine decree is determined by God's will.
2) Via the divine decree, God rendered all events certain.
3) Via the diven decree, all things are brought into being and controlled.
4) God's will is both eternal and immutable.
(1) through (4) together entail that for any actual event E, E occured necessarily (that is, E was logically necessary). So, for any unbeliever that goes to Hell, that unbeliever's going to Hell was logically necessary. That is, it was logically impossible for that unbeliever not to go to Hell.
Yet, you claim that this does not entail predestination. This is why I say "whatever". Because you want to carve out a place in this system for volition and freedom, yet your system entails that every single event that has happened has done so necessarily; every event that happens couldn't possibly have not happened. This is one of the many contradictions in your system.
Another contradiction in your system arises from your handling of causality and God's will. Your system entails both that God causes everything to happen and that somethings he does not cause.