tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post3559422259334177861..comments2023-11-02T07:48:48.715-04:00Comments on Arminian Perspectives: Struggling With Regretskangaroodorthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04172265279507643348noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-73739805910700998702007-11-22T23:02:00.000-05:002007-11-22T23:02:00.000-05:00It's interesting to note that God also has regrets...It's interesting to note that God also has regrets. For example in Gen 6:6 God regrets creating man, and in 1 Samuel 15:10,35 he regrets that he made Saul king.<BR/><BR/>I am curious how the Calvinist would address the issue of God's regrets? Doesn't the Calvinist believe that everything that takes place is exactly how God intended it? How could God regret anything in the Calvinist system?<BR/><BR/>This idea of God regretting also presents an interesting issue for the traditional Arminian view of God. The Open Theists point to regret as evidence that God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge. However, I think it can be argued that God's regrets are not due to a limitation of foreknowledge, but instead are a result of his consistent character. For God, the ends do not justify the means. He does not turn stones into bread for his convenience. He does what is most consistent with his character, even if he knows it that it will not work out down the road. This is particularly evident in the case of King Saul.Kevin Jacksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13472900037134045450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-59705810460611753652007-11-20T11:34:00.000-05:002007-11-20T11:34:00.000-05:00So Pete,If foreknowledge "is used as a witness to ...So Pete,<BR/><BR/>If foreknowledge "is used as a witness to God's activity as planned and directed by Him," then let's look at Romans 8:29 again,<BR/><BR/>"For whom he did [plan and direct concerning], he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son..."<BR/><BR/>What exactly is the effective difference between planning/direction and predestination?<BR/><BR/><I>If you try to define it as an impersonal constraint, such as destiny or fate, or even as an autonomy which removes itself from the normal course of world events, you would directly contradict the way the New Testament uses this word.</I><BR/><BR/>I define foreknowledge as just that: fore-knowledge. I have no idea what tree you're trying to climb up in calling it an impersonal constraint or something removed from the course of world events, but rest assured, I'm not up there.J.C. Thibodauxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12884600822119690931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-66754694943896437342007-11-16T17:52:00.000-05:002007-11-16T17:52:00.000-05:00J.C.Foreknowledge is only used in a few places in ...J.C.<BR/><BR/>Foreknowledge is only used in a few places in the New Testament and in either the verb or noun form its chief purpose talks of God's action towards Christ or towards men, it is used as a witness to God's activity as planned and directed by Him. If you try to define it as an impersonal constraint, such as destiny or fate, or even as an autonomy which removes itself from the normal course of world events, you would directly contradict the way the New Testament uses this word. Many blessings.<BR/><BR/>PeteAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-53422057645632754952007-11-13T09:59:00.000-05:002007-11-13T09:59:00.000-05:00To Anonymous and any others:Please see my latest p...To Anonymous and any others:<BR/><BR/>Please see my latest post "Got Free Will?" for rules pertaining to further interaction on this thread.<BR/><BR/>Thank you,<BR/>Benkangaroodorthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04172265279507643348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-13160849054139472282007-11-13T09:19:00.000-05:002007-11-13T09:19:00.000-05:00Did God decree those evil acts or did He just see ...Did God decree those evil acts or did He just see them take place?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-10888037135077777252007-11-13T09:05:00.000-05:002007-11-13T09:05:00.000-05:00Anonymous,Read Acts 2:23 are you saying that it sp...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Read Acts 2:23 are you saying that it speaks of God foreknowing the act of crucifixion? What exactly does "HIM being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God" mean to you? You still claim it is the act that He foresaw?</I><BR/><BR/>It indicates that Christ was delivered by both God's power and His foreknowledge of the evil acts of men. Not sure how you think that's helping you out. Romans 8 and 11 I've already addressed in light of Matthew 7. Knowing someone is in many cases knowing about someone.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>1 Peter 1:2 I have to ask you what is foreknowledge referring to?</I><BR/><BR/>Knowledge of the future.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>More precisely who are "elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father"?</I><BR/><BR/>Those whom He foreknows will receive Christ.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>It seems clear that when Scripture refers to foreknowledge it is referring to people/person.</I><BR/><BR/>That's malarkey. "Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before (lit. 'foreknow'), beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness." (2 Peter 3:17) And of course God's foreknowledge as in reference to salvation pertains to people, this should come as no surprise since it's people that He's saving.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>What you are trying to make it say is that His foreknowledge is based on faith and repentance...</I><BR/><BR/>Partially, I believe His foreknowledge as a whole is knowing the future, and since faith and repentance are aspects of those who will believe, it is grammatically correct to say 'whom He foreknew' of the elect.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>After all it is not for me to open your eyes, but to the only one that can.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, so I can also believe that God predestinates those He has foreknown, and He foreknows because He already predestinated them, because He already foreknew them, because He already predestinated them....Well, until my reasoning becomes circula-- eh, I mean, 'well rounded' enough to accept John Calvin as my own personal expositor and receive such redundantly recursive reformed revelations, I'll just have to muddle my way through scripture with such feeble tools as parsimony and intellectual congruency.J.C. Thibodauxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12884600822119690931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-22496264820190839582007-11-13T07:31:00.000-05:002007-11-13T07:31:00.000-05:00I take it that the Arminian side would agree that ...I take it that the Arminian side would agree that God’s foreknowledge includes not only those events that actually did happen, but also all the potential events that could happen. Meaning God knows all the possible outcomes, He is not limited in knowing only what did happen. Agreed so far?<BR/><BR/>If that is true we are forced to say one of two things. <BR/><BR/>1. God intentionally did not choose the universe that we are all in since He could have chosen the universe that Adam obeyed and there was no fall<BR/><BR/>2. There was no universe where Adam did not fall for God to pick<BR/><BR/>Now if you are right and all of God’s decrees are based on His foreknowledge then you have gotten yourself into a pickle. What you are saying is one of two things; either God could not create a man that would freely obey Him or that God intentionally created a universe in which out of necessity sinful man exists. I will leave it to you to think of the implications.<BR/><BR/><BR/>BillAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-36046638973319798542007-11-12T18:58:00.000-05:002007-11-12T18:58:00.000-05:00Read Acts 2:23 are you saying that it speaks of Go...Read Acts 2:23 are you saying that it speaks of God foreknowing the act of crucifixion? What exactly does “HIM being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God…” mean to you? You still claim it is the act that He foresaw?<BR/><BR/>Romans 8:29, 30 Look at how the pronoun being used here it’s not what He foreknew, but WHOM He foreknew.<BR/><BR/>Again Romans 11:2 is it not referring to people?<BR/><BR/>1 Peter 1:2 I have to ask you what is foreknowledge referring to? More precisely who are “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father”?<BR/><BR/>It seems clear that when Scripture refers to foreknowledge it is referring to people/person. What you are trying to make it say is that His foreknowledge is based on faith and repentance and while I agree that God knows who will have faith and repent this is not the object of His foreknowledge. If you think that your view is supported by the context then I will leave you to it. After all it is not for me to open your eyes, but to the only one that can. May all honor and glory go to the one true God!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-61209693353602406452007-11-12T18:07:00.000-05:002007-11-12T18:07:00.000-05:00Anonymous,As for,If you study the usage of forekno...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>As for,<BR/><BR/><I>If you study the usage of foreknowledge you will see that it always is in reference to a person/people, it is not used in God knowing events or certain actions.</I><BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/><I>It seems obvious once we submit to Scripture that God’s foreknowledge is based solely on people and not on any action.</I><BR/><BR/>Baloney. 2 Peter 3:17 uses it in such a way, "Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know [these things] before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness."<BR/><BR/>Clearly has nothing to do with relational knowledge. Also, to know someone is to know about them as well, as in the case of Matthew 7:16:<BR/><BR/>"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?"<BR/><BR/>So knowing someone rather than some thing is not exclusive with cognitive knowledge.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Look at Acts 2:23, here we see that it is referring to Christ not the act.</I><BR/><BR/>Acts 2:23 has nothing to do with Christ being foreknown,<BR/><BR/>"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:"<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>When you look at Romans 8:29, 30 you see that it is referring to the person that he foreknew, not any act that he saw them do. Same in Romans 11:2 God knew the people not any action or event.</I><BR/><BR/>As cited from Matthew 7, for God to know them is also to know about them.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>If you take a careful look at 1 Peter 1:2 you will have to ask who it is referring too, I would say that we are told in the previous verse.</I><BR/><BR/>Even if proginosko could mean relational knowledge in Romans, you can't get around the fact that gnosis only refers to what is cognitive.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>In order for your view to hold you have to show that these passages are referring to God seeing certain acts or events, such as the act of repenting and believing.</I><BR/><BR/>No, my view is supported by the regular definition of the word which is supported by the context, which you have been unsuccessful in casting any doubt upon so far. As I indicated previously, the burden of proof for your far-fetched interpretation lies with you.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>This then falls right in line with Reformed thinking when it is stated that foreknowledge is not causative, it is in fact preceded by God’s sovereign decrees.</I><BR/><BR/>That would be foreknowledge according to election, not vice-versa as 1 Peter 1:2 indicates.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>In simpler terms, God’s foreknowledge is based upon His decree/purpose.</I><BR/><BR/>So since whom He foreknew He predestinated (Romans 8:29), then let's parse this out:<BR/><BR/>For whom he did foreknow [based on foreordination in your view], <BR/>he also did predestinate [foreordain] to be conformed to the image of his Son...<BR/><BR/>Since foreordination (predestination) precedes foreknowledge in your view, then whom God did predestinate He did also foreknow, and therefore predestinated, and therefore does foreknow, and therefore predestinated....<BR/><BR/><BR/>Thanks for the 'insight,' but I think I'll stick with what it says.J.C. Thibodauxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12884600822119690931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-22958678513652869532007-11-12T17:41:00.000-05:002007-11-12T17:41:00.000-05:00If you study the usage of foreknowledge you will s...If you study the usage of foreknowledge you will see that it always is in reference to a person/people, it is not used in God knowing events or certain actions. Look at Acts 2:23, here we see that it is referring to Christ not the act. When you look at Romans 8:29, 30 you see that it is referring to the person that he foreknew, not any act that he saw them do. Same in Romans 11:2 God knew the people not any action or event. If you take a careful look at 1 Peter 1:2 you will have to ask who it is referring too, I would say that we are told in the previous verse. <BR/><BR/>In order for your view to hold you have to show that these passages are referring to God seeing certain acts or events, such as the act of repenting and believing. It seems obvious once we submit to Scripture that God’s foreknowledge is based solely on people and not on any action.<BR/><BR/>This then falls right in line with Reformed thinking when it is stated that foreknowledge is not causative, it is in fact preceded by God’s sovereign decrees. In simpler terms, God’s foreknowledge is based upon His decree/purpose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-1769325952696015022007-11-12T16:59:00.000-05:002007-11-12T16:59:00.000-05:00Anonymous,While it is conceivable for 'proginosko'...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>While it is conceivable for 'proginosko' (v. foreknow) to mean several things (as ginisko [know] has several meanings dependent on the context), the noun 'gnosis' only indicates cognitive knowledge throughout the Greek NT as well as the Septuagint. The noun for relational knowledge btw is 'gnostos,' not 'gnosis.' This makes sense from the connotation of the words, as there is a marked difference in saying, "I know this person" vs "I have knowledge of this person."<BR/><BR/>There being no contextual evidence against it, it stands to reason that the noun prognosis (as used in 1 Peter 1:2) is indicative of God's knowledge of the future as opposed to the verbal form which could possibly take on other meanings. I've also heard some Calvinists try to stretch prognosis to mean fore-ordination, but this is based largely on a misunderstanding of Granville-Sharp's rule.J.C. Thibodauxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12884600822119690931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-68573560721060505002007-11-12T16:38:00.000-05:002007-11-12T16:38:00.000-05:00It would seem that the verb form of the word is us...It would seem that the verb form of the word is used five times in the NT, while the noun form is used twice. If you look at each of the verses in context than you would be forced to admit that to attribute the meaning to simply prescience is dubious at best. Look at Romans 11:2, doe sit mean simple prescience? Look at how Paul used it in Acts 26:5. How would you define it in 1 Peter 1:19,20? Did God simply know that Christ would be the Lamb? I would encourage you to look at the meaning of the word in context of Scripture. It is my belief that if one does that then you could not say that foreknowledge is as simple prescience.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-9651761069733230272007-11-12T16:09:00.000-05:002007-11-12T16:09:00.000-05:00Anonymous,The noun 'foreknowledge' (Gr. 'prognosis...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>The noun 'foreknowledge' (Gr. 'prognosis') denotes prescience by default, and should be taken as such unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, which it never does in scripture. If anyone proposes an alternate meaning, then the burden of proof rests on them to demonstrate why the normal meaning does not fit.J.C. Thibodauxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12884600822119690931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-85981958547384477832007-11-12T16:01:00.000-05:002007-11-12T16:01:00.000-05:00It strikes me that you guys are using two differen...It strikes me that you guys are using two different definitions for foreknowledge in this discussion. It would seem that the Arminian side likes to define God’s foreknowledge in a strictly prescient way, but can such a position stand when Scripture is brought to bear on it? Perhaps you can show from Scripture that when it talks of God’s foreknowledge that it does so in only the prescient meaning of the term.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-27589577528840493362007-11-12T15:47:00.000-05:002007-11-12T15:47:00.000-05:00Anonymous,Most of what you said is hard to follow,...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>Most of what you said is hard to follow, but I think the following question is both fair and challenging:<BR/><BR/><I>I am to believe that I have libertarian free will for 75 years, if I live that long, but not for eternity? Odd!</I><BR/><BR/>I do not think that our future incorruptible nature constitutes a violation of free will. The regenerate believer desires to be comformed to the image of Christ. He or she longs to be fully sanctified and detests sin. The believer daily struggles against sin and practices surrendering his or her will to the will of God.<BR/><BR/>When we reach eternity, and God makes us incorruptible, He will not be violating our free will, but fullfilling it perfectly.kangaroodorthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04172265279507643348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-69061403320064047712007-11-12T14:51:00.000-05:002007-11-12T14:51:00.000-05:00Oh boy, more anti-freewillers coming out of the wo...Oh boy, more anti-freewillers coming out of the woodwork.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous,<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Libertarian free will says that we make our choices without any regard given to our nature or our brain.</I><BR/><BR/>Entirely untrue, free will does not allow one to choose outside a range of possibility. A man cannot receive the gospel apart from the grace of God. I recommend you study up on what LFW is before you make such assertions.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Why do we not have it in Heaven or Hell? Why must it stop, if God respects it so much why do we not have it for eternity?</I><BR/><BR/>I don't think it will stop; free will does not let one choose outside available options. With that in mind, despite having free will, one who has been glorified no longer has a sinful nature to draw him away.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>When the Bible tells me that all my steps have been accounted for and that all my words are known before they come out of my mouth what does that mean to you?</I><BR/><BR/>It means that God knows the future.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Seeing as I did not choose to be born to my particular family and in this particular place on earth, who do you suppose did decide? Would being born at a certain time, in a certain place, being surrounded by certain people have anything to do with how I view things?</I><BR/><BR/>'God,' and 'yes.' What does that have to do with having a free will?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>For God to be truly omniscient in the libertarian free will sense then He must know all possible experiences. Yet libertarian free will requires one to deny an outcome.</I><BR/><BR/>Deny an outcome? What are you talking about?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>What that means is that your free will choice has to deny knowledge rather than increase knowledge.</I><BR/><BR/>That makes equally little sense.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>If God is truly omniscient then He must know all possible outcomes and for Him to know an outcome then it means that someone has chosen it.</I><BR/><BR/>No, it means that someone will choose it. God knows what that choice will be, He is not constrained by time to wait until the choice is made.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Under the libertarian free will system however some outcomes must be denied.</I><BR/><BR/>Can you explain that? I don't see where you're going with it.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>It seems clear that for God to be truly omniscient then all possible experiences must actually occur.</I><BR/><BR/>No, not really. Why would you say that?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>What you are wanting is for God to know something that is never experienced and I would say that that is a contradiction. </I><BR/><BR/>You are making very little sense in your argument, God knowing things that are never experienced does not come into our beliefs anywhere. I recommend you gather your thoughts and try to explain your views again.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>So I would have to agree that you could either have libertarian free will or an omniscient god, but you can not have both.</I><BR/><BR/>God creates man with free will, free will decisions are made within time, God transcends time, therefore God can know what free will decisions a created being will make. Not that difficult.J.C. Thibodauxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12884600822119690931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-25508909384273180542007-11-12T12:26:00.000-05:002007-11-12T12:26:00.000-05:00Libertarian free will says that we make our choice...Libertarian free will says that we make our choices without any regard given to our nature or our brain. Seems like a giant leap of faith, but let us allow that we have libertarian free will. Why do we not have it in Heaven or Hell? Why must it stop, if God respects it so much why do we not have it for eternity? I am to believe that I have libertarian free will for 75 years, if I live that long, but not for eternity? Odd! When the Bible tells me that all my steps have been accounted for and that all my words are known before they come out of my mouth what does that mean to you? Seeing as I did not choose to be born to my particular family and in this particular place on earth, who do you suppose did decide? Would being born at a certain time, in a certain place, being surrounded by certain people have anything to do with how I view things?<BR/><BR/>For God to be truly omniscient in the libertarian free will sense then He must know all possible experiences. Yet libertarian free will requires one to deny an outcome. What that means is that your free will choice has to deny knowledge rather than increase knowledge. If God is truly omniscient then He must know all possible outcomes and for Him to know an outcome then it means that someone has chosen it. Under the libertarian free will system however some outcomes must be denied. It seems clear that for God to be truly omniscient then all possible experiences must actually occur. What you are wanting is for God to know something that is never experienced and I would say that that is a contradiction. So I would have to agree that you could either have libertarian free will or an omniscient god, but you can not have both.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-59623147050440479542007-11-12T10:10:00.000-05:002007-11-12T10:10:00.000-05:00Hey Pizzaman,I am sorry to hear that you are a Sea...Hey Pizzaman,<BR/><BR/>I am sorry to hear that you are a Seahawks fan. That must be be very tough. I am also sorry to hear that you seem to believe that the Seahawks would have won Superbowl XL had it not been for some bad calls. What was the excuse this year when the Steelers pummeled them 21-0? ;)kangaroodorthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04172265279507643348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-11136644152153207632007-11-12T09:55:00.000-05:002007-11-12T09:55:00.000-05:00Lets look at a few of Dan's statements, and see if...Lets look at a few of Dan's statements, and see if they seem consistent:<BR/><BR/><I>If you believe that God already knew before the foundation of the world that you would pick pancakes then it logically follows that you were incapable of picking eggs.</I> <BR/><BR/>Dan here posits that foreknowledge has a causitive aspect. We cannot freely do what God foreknew we would do. If God foreknew it, then we cannot do it freely. Conclusion: foreknowledge is causal.<BR/><BR/><I>I believe that I have already stated that foreknowledge is non causative, if you did not read that or forgot what I wrote please scroll up and refresh your mind.</I><BR/><BR/>foreknowledge is not causitive.<BR/><BR/><I>Yet for some strange reason you want to cling to both libertarian free will and God’s full and exhaustive foreknowledge. I will leave it to the individual reader to see if that is a consistent view to hold even after showing that it is not logical.</I><BR/><BR/>Apparently because foreknowledge is in some way causal. If it is for another reason, Dan has not yet expalined it. He has only objected that God's foreknowledge would be dependent on man's free choices, which is <I>exactly</I> why it is <I>knowledge.</I><BR/><BR/>If God's foreknowledge [of man's free choices] were not dependent on man's free choices, then it would cease to be knowledge, and become a causitive force, the very thing that Dan seems to object to.<BR/><BR/><I>If God limits Himself on just His foreknowledge then God can not know our choices - He limited Himself. Now why would He just limit that part of Himself? Where exactly does it say in the Bible that He limits His foreknowledge?</I><BR/><BR/>None of this follows. God has the sovereign right to bestow His creatures with the power of contrary choice. That God creates people in such a way has nothing to do with limiting Himself. He is not "dependent" on them because He allows them the power of self-determination. The only way that we can say that God must limit Himself in order to grant free will, is to prove that it is contrary to His nature to do so. <BR/><BR/>Dan is welcomed to demonstrate this. He is also welcomed to demonstrate how a God who causes our actions is not also the cause of sin. He rejects that God authors sin, but has not explained how this is logically consistent with his position. He has only asserted that no Calvinist believes God authors sin, which is demonstrabley false [See my latest post, and read the following link:<BR/>http://www.imarc.cc/apolg/history7.html]. He has failed to explain how God can cause all things and not be the cause of sin.<BR/><BR/><I>You, in fact, conceded the point when you said that God is contingent on man. Now you may argue that it is a self caused limitation and you are free to do that, but holding to both is impossible.</I><BR/><BR/>No one said this. We only maintain that God's foreknowledge of man's free actions are dependent on those free actions. That is a far cry from saying "God is contingent on man".<BR/><BR/><I>Last point since I have not seen you address it. In the example of the pancakes and eggs do you not see that if God knew before you were created that you would have pancakes then it was determined?</I><BR/><BR/>And now we are back to saying that foreknowledge is causitive. The question is not whether our choices are determined; but, rather, <I>who determines those choices?</I> We have argued that the free agent determines his or her choices, and that God infallibly knows those choices as fact. That these choices are determined in such a way does nothing to limit human freedom. Human freedom is inherent in the position since it is the free agent who determines his or her choices. That is what self-determinism means. That God <I>foreknows</I> does not mean that God determined. This is precisely why Dan has failed to make his case.<BR/><BR/><I>To say that yes it can because God can do whatever He wants seems silly, yet that is all I hear you saying.</I><BR/><BR/>If this is the case then Calvinists are among the "silliest" people on the planet. It is usually Calvinists who pound the pulpit with "God is sovereign, He can do whatever He wants; He can reprobate whom He pleases; He can save whom He pleases; who are you to talk back to God?, etc. etc." The one thing Calvinists <I>will not</I> permit this "sovereign God" to do, is to endow His creatures with the power of self-determination. It is, therefore, the Calvinist who insists on limiting God, and not the Arminian.<BR/><BR/><I>If God is truly omniscient then your “choice” could not have been different and your belief that you had libertarian free will was just a delusion. </I><BR/><BR/>Here, again, Dan seems to attribute causitive force to knowledge.<BR/><BR/>Dan seems to think he has made his case but I think he has much to prove. He needs to demonstrate why a sovereign God cannot endow His creatures with libertarian free will. He needs to demonstrate why an omniscient God cannot know the future self-determined actions of His creatures. He needs to explain how he can hold that foreknowledge is not causal while insisting that if God foreknows our actions, then they cannot be free.<BR/><BR/>I would also like to hear how He gets God off the hook for sin, if He causes all things in a deterministic way. I would especially like to hear how he explains Satan's and Adam's rebellion without making God the author of sin. I would also like to hear him answer the question that has been repeatedly posed: How does he make sense of regrets within the context of a deterministic world view which renders impossible human power of contrary choice?<BR/><BR/>When Dan decides to tackle these questions, without appealing to mystery [as he has made it clear that he finds such appeals unacceptable], then we can continue our dialogue. If Dan will continue to dodge these issues while trying to falsify the contrary view, then his comments will de deleted until he deals with them.<BR/><BR/>God Bless,<BR/>Benkangaroodorthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04172265279507643348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-43666830849572333512007-11-12T09:10:00.000-05:002007-11-12T09:10:00.000-05:00Anonymous,If the Reformed Arminian view is true an...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/><I>If the Reformed Arminian view is true and man has libertarian free will only when he is under the conviction of the Holy Spirit while the Gospel is preached (I believe that is your stance, that man only has libertarian free will under that condition), then what of the man that was never exposed to the Gospel?</I><BR/><BR/>Man has libertarian free will either way, but it is in bondage to the sinful nature apart from the grace of God. As for the latter objection about judgment day, God isn't obligated to show mercy to anyone.J.C. Thibodauxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12884600822119690931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-27935954161618101362007-11-12T08:59:00.000-05:002007-11-12T08:59:00.000-05:00Dan,Do you believe that God has libertarian free w...Dan,<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Do you believe that God has libertarian free will as you define it?</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, albeit not with the same range of possibilities (e.g. He can choose to save or destroy, but can't choose to sin).<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>If I have misunderstood your view then I am sorry, when you say that God's foreknowledge is contingent on man than it limits God.</I><BR/><BR/>Don't worry about it, I'm not mad; but how exactly is that limiting? If God simply chooses to respond to choices rather than micromanage, I'm not sure how He would be limited.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>If God limits Himself on just His foreknowledge then God can not know our choices - He limited Himself.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't understand, from where do you get the idea that God can't foreknow our choices? I'm still not sure what you mean by "God limits Himself on just His foreknowledge," I don't recall saying anything like that.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Now why would He just limit that part of Himself? Where exactly does it say in the Bible that He limits His foreknowledge?</I><BR/><BR/>It doesn't, that's not what either Ben or I are saying. God has complete and exhaustive foreknowledge that is unlimited. That has nothing to do with whether He gave us libertarian free will or not.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Last point since I have not seen you address it. In the example of the pancakes and eggs do you not see that if God knew before you were created that you would have pancakes then it was determined?</I><BR/><BR/>And this is where you are not grasping the concept: The choice does not have to be determined for God to foreknow it. You're employing logic similar to what is seen in the syllogism:<BR/><BR/>What is foreknown is fixed. <BR/>What is fixed is certain. <BR/>What is certain is predestined. <BR/>What is foreknown is predestined.<BR/><BR/>The third point is incorrect, and hence the fourth as well. Something need not be predestined to be certain, for God can with all certainty foreknow a choice that He did not directly predestinate.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>While to you it appears that you had free choice in actuality it is not possible for you to have picked eggs.</I><BR/><BR/>No, it is possible, but God already knows which possibility I will pick.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>If God is truly omniscient then your 'choice' could not have been different and your belief that you had libertarian free will was just a delusion. You have not shown how libertarian free will can co-exist with God’s total omniscience.</I><BR/><BR/>Are you saying God can't create a being with free will and still be totally omniscient?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Yet you accuse me of having a logically bankrupt view when all I have done is taken the example provided and shown how it does not support your logic. WOW!</I><BR/><BR/>You've shown nothing except that you can't (or won't) grasp that an atemporal God can foreknow freely made choices.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>To say that yes it can because God can do whatever He wants seems silly, yet that is all I hear you saying.</I><BR/><BR/>Let me put it in perspective for you: For sake of argument, assume that God did give someone libertarian free will. By the logic you are employing, are you saying that a simple choice made within the framework of time by a created being <B>can't</B> be foreknown by an omniscient God who transcends time itself?J.C. Thibodauxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12884600822119690931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-6034308856279081792007-11-10T08:24:00.000-05:002007-11-10T08:24:00.000-05:00If the Reformed Arminian view is true and man has ...If the Reformed Arminian view is true and man has libertarian free will only when he is under the conviction of the Holy Spirit while the Gospel is preached (I believe that is your stance, that man only has libertarian free will under that condition), then what of the man that was never exposed to the Gospel? On judgment day that man, if he had any intelligence whatsoever, would say “Umm, excuse me but I had not been given this libertarian free will to make a free choice to come to you God, I was always under the influence of sin and Satan and my libertarian free will was never enabled since the Holy Spirit never worked in conjunction with the preaching of the Gospel to give me the opportunity that some of these people were given. How am I damned?”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-65473937960095942272007-11-10T01:32:00.000-05:002007-11-10T01:32:00.000-05:00Ben, as a Steelers fan, it should be obvious to yo...Ben, as a Steelers fan, it should be obvious to you that Calvinism is true. Anyone who watched Super bowl XL must see that it was God's sovereign influencing of the refs that enabled the Steelers to win the game. ;)<BR/><BR/>-Kevin (still bitter Seahawks fan)<BR/><BR/>PS I enjoy your blog.Kevin Jacksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13472900037134045450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-36985501551120992232007-11-09T23:45:00.000-05:002007-11-09T23:45:00.000-05:00Last point since I have not seen you address it. I...Last point since I have not seen you address it. In the example of the pancakes and eggs do you not see that if God knew before you were created that you would have pancakes then it was determined? While to you it appears that you had free choice in actuality it is not possible for you to have picked eggs. If God is truly omniscient then your “choice” could not have been different and your belief that you had libertarian free will was just a delusion. You have not shown how libertarian free will can co-exist with God’s total omniscience. To say that yes it can because God can do whatever He wants seems silly, yet that is all I hear you saying. Yet you accuse me of having a logically bankrupt view when all I have done is taken the example provided and shown how it does not support your logic. WOW!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-48748859397232613212007-11-09T23:26:00.000-05:002007-11-09T23:26:00.000-05:00Do you believe that God has libertarian free will ...Do you believe that God has libertarian free will as you define it? <BR/><BR/>If I have misunderstood your view then I am sorry, when you say that God's foreknowledge is contingent on man than it limits God. You believe that God limits Himself, if that is not your view than I missed what you were saying. If God limits Himself on just His foreknowledge then God can not know our choices - He limited Himself. Now why would He just limit that part of Himself? Where exactly does it say in the Bible that He limits His foreknowledge? <BR/><BR/>Perhaps at this point we will just agree to disagree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com