God unchanging and unchangeable

[Iconoclast]

No open theism here....

http://www.romans45.org/spurgeon/sermons/0001.htm

Point to one instance in history where God has changed! Ye cannot, sirs; for throughout all history there stands the fact that God has been immutable in his purposes. Methinks I hear some one say, "I can remember one passage in Scripture where God changed!" And so did I think once. The case I mean, is that of the death of Hezekiah. Isaiah came in and said, 'Hezekiah, you must die, your disease is incurable, set your house in order.' He turned his face to the wall and began to pray; and before Isaiah was in the outer court, he was told to go back and say, "Thou shalt live fifteen years more." You may think that proves that God changes; but really I cannot see in it the slightest proof in the world. How do you know that God did not know that? Oh! but God did know it; he knew that Hezekiah would live. Then he did not change, for if he knew that, how could he change? That is what I want to know. But do you know one little thing?—that Hezekiah's son Manasseh, was not born at that time, and that had Hezekiah died, there would have been no Manasseh, and no Josiah and no Christ, because Christ came from that very line. You will find that Manasseh was twelve years old when his father died; so that he must have been born three years after this. And do you not believe that God decreed the birth of Manasseh, and foreknew it? Certainly. Then he decreed that Isaiah should go and tell Hezekiah that his disease was incurable, and then say also in the same breath, "But I will cure it, and thou shalt live." He said that to stir up Hezekiah to prayer. He spoke, in the first place as a man. "According to all human probability your disease is incurable, and you must die." Then he waited till Hezekiah prayed; then came a little "but" at the end of the sentence. Isaiah had not finished the sentence. He said, "You must put your house in order for there is no human cure; but" (and then he walked out. Hezekiah prayed a little, and then he came in again, and said) "But I will heal thee." Where is there any contradiction there, except in the brain of those who fight against the Lord, and wish to make him a changeable being.

 

[Iconoclast]

"I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."—Malachi 3:6

t has been said by some one that "the proper study of mankind is man." I will not oppose the idea, but I believe it is equally true that the proper study of God's elect is God; the proper study of a Christian is the Godhead

 

[robustheologian]

Most people won't admit that to hold to libertarianism consistently is to embrace open theism. But you can't hold to a libertarian sense of free will and the orthodox Christian belief of God's omniscience...even the open theists are logical enough to realize that.

 

[Iconoclast]

Most people won't admit that to hold to libertarianism consistently is to embrace open theism. But you can't hold to a libertarian sense of free will and the orthodox Christian belief of God's omniscience...even the open theists are logical enough to realize that.

Failing to properly consider and meditate on God's perfections will always result in defective theology.....there is always a lack of trust in God Himself to question that he is absolute control of whatsoever comes to pass....
I enjoyed this sermon as it has surfaced in some churches as a contemporary issue..
here is a series of six sermons that get at it....
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sid=122152341516
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sid=125151646243
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sid=211515241810
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sid=2815161585
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sid=223151755175
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sid=31152217110

 

[Deacon]

...you can't hold to a libertarian sense of free will and the orthodox Christian belief of God's omniscience...

Pardon my question, teach me!
What exactly is "a libertarian sense of free will"?
Do you fee there are different classifications of free will?

Please expound on the statement that man's free will and God's omniscience are mutually exclusive ideas.

Rob

 

[Iconoclast]

Pardon my question, teach me!
What exactly is "a libertarian sense of free will"?
Do you fee there are different classifications of free will?

Please expound on the statement that man's free will and God's omniscience are mutually exclusive ideas.

Rob

Hello Rob
While we make choices [sometimes spoken of as free agency} I do not believe free will exists. It is a false philosophical construct.
I found this link that might be helpful.
Some believers use the terminology of free will....even some theologians, but then they go into great length to explain it away anyhow....
I just make the case against it from the get go.
here is that link however...

http://www.theopedia.com/libertarian-free-will

 

[Deacon]

Thanks for the interesting link!
I may be covering old ground but if free will does not exist why would sinners be condemned for their condition? Would not they be blameless?

Your thread interested me because I'm currently reading Michael Heiser's, The Unseen Realm, and he interacts with the topic of free will.
He mentions specifically 1 Samuel 23:1–13 [which is highly relevant to me because I'm currently walking two groups through the books of Samuel].

In this account, David appeals to the omniscient God to tell him about the future. In the first instance (23:1–5), David asks God whether he should go to the city of Keilah and whether he’ll successfully defeat the Philistines there. God answers in the affirmative in both cases. David goes to Keilah and indeed defeats the Philistines.
In the second section (23:6–13), David asks the Lord two questions: (1) will his nemesis Saul come to Keilah and threaten the city on account of David’s presence? And (2) will the people of Keilah turn him over to Saul to avoid Saul’s wrath? Again, God answers both questions affirmatively: “He will come down,” and “They will deliver you.”
Neither of these events that God foresaw ever actually happened. Once David hears God’s answers, he and his men leave the city. When Saul discovers this fact (v. 13), he abandons his trip to Keilah. Saul never made it to the city. The men of Keilah never turned David over to Saul.
Why is this significant? This passage clearly establishes that divine foreknowledge does not necessitate divine predestination. God foreknew what Saul would do and what the people of Keilah would do given a set of circumstances. In other words, God foreknew a possibility—but this foreknowledge did not mandate that the possibility was actually predestined to happen. The events never happened, so by definition they could not have been predestined. And yet the omniscient God did indeed foresee them. Predestination and foreknowledge are separable. {bolding added}

Help me work through this.

Rob

 

[agedman]

Thanks for the interesting link!
I may be covering old ground but if free will does not exist why would sinners be condemned for their condition? Would not they be blameless?

I think one of the greatest works on this topic can be found in the exploration done by Jonathan Edwards.

Here are two links (they both give the text but one is "interactive" and if you like to read a bit and come back it is better, imo).

Freedom of the Will

Freedom of the Will - interactive

A word of caution. This is not an easy read. He is most wordy in making certain that he is precise and thorough in every point.

But, once you work your way through the material, it will give you a solid basis from which to balance other works and other thinking.

Trust this helps, especially if you are not familiar with this side of the topic.

 

[Deacon]

I think one of the greatest works on this topic can be found in the exploration done by Jonathan Edwards.
[snip]
A word of caution. This is not an easy read. He is most wordy in making certain that he is precise and thorough in every point.

But, once you work your way through the material, it will give you a solid basis from which to balance other works and other thinking.

Trust this helps, especially if you are not familiar with this side of the topic.

I guess I can call myself ignorant on the topic.
It hasn't interested me for a very long time.

As a newly hatched, young teen Christian I performed an experiment to determine the will of God concerning a simple path home.
My conclusion was that whatever way I went, God was with me.
Since then I considered the topic of free will settled and unimportant.

I searched my personal digital library and have an unread copy of Freedom of the Will.
I so detest the way they wrote back then... It didn't bother me so much when I was younger;
my mind was more flexible.
I'll have to spend a few mornings reading it.

Rob

 

[robustheologian]

Pardon my question, teach me!
What exactly is "a libertarian sense of free will"?
Do you fee there are different classifications of free will?

Please expound on the statement that man's free will and God's omniscience are mutually exclusive ideas.

Rob

The libertarian definition of free will would be the ability to make choices undetermined and uncoerced. While the reformed definition of free will is to choose what one wants...even if it is determined or coerced.

It's impossible for man's free will and God's omniscience to be mutually exclusive. The second something is excluded from God's omniscience, God's omniscience is no longer omniscience.

 

[agedman]

I searched my personal digital library and have an unread copy of Freedom of the Will.
I so detest the way they wrote back then... It didn't bother me so much when I was younger;
my mind was more flexible.
I'll have to spend a few mornings reading it.

Rob

I agree that the writing back then was not what we probably would enjoy. And, especially in this work, it is very tedious because the author wanting to leave no inroad of misinformation.

I recommend that you don't rush through it, but read it in comprehendable chunks. If your mornings are like mine, the mind is at rest far longer than the body.

 

[robustheologian]

I think one of the greatest works on this topic can be found in the exploration done by Jonathan Edwards.

Here are two links (they both give the text but one is "interactive" and if you like to read a bit and come back it is better, imo).

Freedom of the Will

Freedom of the Will - interactive

A word of caution. This is not an easy read. He is most wordy in making certain that he is precise and thorough in every point.

But, once you work your way through the material, it will give you a solid basis from which to balance other works and other thinking.

Trust this helps, especially if you are not familiar with this side of the topic.

Definitely in my top 5 books every Christian should read.

 

[Iconoclast]

I guess I can call myself ignorant on the topic.
It hasn't interested me for a very long time.

As a newly hatched, young teen Christian I performed an experiment to determine the will of God concerning a simple path home.
My conclusion was that whatever way I went, God was with me.
Since then I considered the topic of free will settled and unimportant.

I searched my personal digital library and have an unread copy of Freedom of the Will.
I so detest the way they wrote back then... It didn't bother me so much when I was younger;
my mind was more flexible.
I'll have to spend a few mornings reading it.

Rob

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0052.htm

Rob....simply put....your will is bound by your nature.
God being PERFECT in Holiness, is not "free" to sin....it is impossible.
In heaven we will not be free to sin.

Even now...we are not free to sin, but to serve. Just in this body of flesh we are still able to sin...
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.

21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Brother Deacon(Rob), whether one is saved or lost, their will is never free as one would define that word. Free means no restrictions, no boundaries, nothing hindering it. Our will as a sinner was bound by our nature, as others on here have already stated. It was not that we could not search for Him, but rather we would not. There was no one restraining us from doing this but us. We had zero desire to seek for Him in our fallen state. However, when God sought us out and drew us unto Himself...insert regeneration here...we began seeking for Him. Why? He had changed our nature. With a new nature came a new will and new desires to serve, worship, and cherish Him.

 

[Benjamin]

While the reformed definition of free will is to choose what one wants...even if it is determined...

Rolleyes
Calvinist logic of free will:

Bill C: “God determined all things that ever happen, He is Sovereign."
Bob A: "Did God determine the things Jeffrey Dahmer did?"
Bill C: "No, Jeffrey Dahmer did what he did because of his nature."
Bob A: "Who determined Jeffrey Dahmer’s nature?"
Bill C: "God did, He determines all things, He is Sovereign."

 

[robustheologian]

Rolleyes
Calvinist logic of free will:

Bill C: “God determined all things that ever happen, He is Sovereign."
Bob A: "Did God determine the things Jeffrey Dahmer did?"
Bill C: "No, Jeffrey Dahmer did what he did because of his nature."
Bob A: "Who determined Jeffrey Dahmer’s nature?"
Bill C: "God did, He determines all things, He is Sovereign."

Someone obviously doesn't know about the Calvinist logic of free will...you should read Jonathan Edwards "Freedom of the Will". That would give you better insight into the Calvinist logic of free will. And it goes more like this:

Bill C: "God determined everything because He knows everything."
Bob A: "Did God determine the things Jeffrey Dahmer did?"
Bill C: "Did God determine the crucifixion of God's innocent Son?"
Bob A: *Bob reads Acts 2 and Acts 4* "Yes, He did!"
Bill C: "So if God determined the worst act in human history, could He have determined the things Jeffrey Dahmer did?"
Bob A:

 

[SovereignGrace]

Someone obviously doesn't know about the Calvinist logic of free will...you should read Jonathan Edwards "Freedom of the Will". That would give you better insight into the Calvinist logic of free will. And it goes more like this:

Bill C: "God determined everything because He knows everything."
Bob A: "Did God determine the things Jeffrey Dahmer did?"
Bill C: "Did God determine the crucifixion of God's innocent Son?"
Bob A: *Bob reads Acts 2 and Acts 4* "Yes, He did!"
Bill C: "So if God determined the worst act in human history, could He have determined the things Jeffrey Dahmer did?"
Bob A:

Awesome!! Simply awesome!!

 

[Deacon]

[concerning Edward's, Free will...]Definitely in my top 5 books every Christian should read.

Started the book last night; what an ugly book to read!
Definitely not reader friendly.
In his long introduction he finally says he has nothing more to say, and then goes on for another 200 words.
So far it seems to be a book against Arminianism rather than about free will.

Rob

 

[InTheLight]

Started the book last night; what an ugly book to read!
Definitely not reader friendly.
In his long introduction he finally says he has nothing more to say, and then goes on for another 200 words.
So far it seems to be a book against Arminianism rather than about free will.

Rob

Sounds like the time I tried to read Martin Luther's "Bondage of the Will". The man could have benefited from an editor!

 

[robustheologian]

Started the book last night; what an ugly book to read!
Definitely not reader friendly.
In his long introduction he finally says he has nothing more to say, and then goes on for another 200 words.
So far it seems to be a book against Arminianism rather than about free will.

Rob

It is a monster to read...I think that's why most schools recommend purchasing a study guide to go along with it. And it is against the libertarian definition of free will. The reason it seems like it's against Arminianism is because that incorrect concept of libertarian free will is at the center of Arminianism.