Featured n Arminian Foreknowledge, If God sees it, isn;t it already been determined?

The trouble comes when we presume God exists on a linear timeline by applying linear cause/effect constraints to his workings.

Foresight is different from foreknowledge. IMO, God's knowledge is based on something much fuller, greater, more complete than the concept of looking through the corridors of time to see what will happen and then making decisions based on that foresight.

I believe God's knowledge rests more upon his being omnipresent, than on his being able to read the future. He knows all because he is the "I AM" and thus is at all places at all times. To suggest that God knows all because he foresees it and then determines it to be as he foresees is a very linear, finite way of looking at God in my opinion. His ways are higher than our ways and I don't believe He foreknows all that is going to happen because he has determined all things to happen, but instead because he exists and experiences all things, as the great I AM.

 

Easy.

Arminians believe that GOD has Free Will.

God is not locked in a box unable to choose as He wishes.

And "yet" God knew every word Christ would say. Christ had free will - He was the God-man - and yet God knew every Word He would say - every choice he would make.

The picture-perfect "proof" that it is much harder to "BE God" than many Calvinists had at first imagined.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I'm assuming you also believe man has free will, please forgive me if I'm wrong!
So unless God has a set plan that doesn't deviate then he is constantly changing His plan based on mans decisions, correct?

 

Yes, God is so powerfully sovereign that in the implementation of His plan to offer His loving gift of salvation for His creatures that He providentially controls the world in which we live where He influences us to use our our miraculously divinely design human natures which include sense, intellect, reason and the free will He gave us in an appeal that in love for His truths we might freely choose to receive His gift of life with Him eternally.

:godisgood:

 

So in Gen when God is about to destroy Gamorrah you believed that he actually relented to Abraham and changed His mind?

 

You also wouldn't submit to the idea that God has absolute foreknowledge, because he couldn't know what desicion man will make unless there is already a plan they must follow correct?

 

I just thought this might look cool three times in a row:

Do I believe God interacts with His creatures in truth? Yes.

I suggest you put some thought into your finite definition of divine foreknowledge to which you refer to as “absolute” and consider if you could be putting limitations on it. Skandelon has done a good job above of addressing that foreknowledge does not necessarily have to equal determination.

After considering the possibility that you could be putting limitations to divine foreknowledge then I suggest you seriously consider the unavoidable logic conclusions through the systematic doctrines of determinism which violate the other attributes of God’s Nature such as only Good can came from Him.

The first part of question is question begging on your view of God’s “absolute foreknowledge”. Besides that, I believe God has “Providential Sovereign Control” over these matters rather than” Deterministic Sovereign Control” and the best I can explain HOW God maintains the truths of His interactions and well as the true judgment He righteously levies on response-able human volitional creatures along His type of divine foreknowledge is that he has a sort of “middle knowledge”, but that is another subject. The point I would ask you to focus on is the importance of maintaining ALL of God's divine attributes and the consequences which strictly holding to determinism brings to one's theology...

 

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Easy.

Arminians believe that GOD has Free Will.

God is not locked in a box unable to choose as He wishes.

And "yet" God knew every word Christ would say. Christ had free will - He was the God-man - and yet God knew every Word He would say - every choice he would make.

The picture-perfect "proof" that it is much harder to "BE God" than many Calvinists had at first imagined.

I do believe in free will.

I believe Christ had free will without causing God to re-think the future each moment.

And thus ends the Calvinist argument because Calvinism has no way for that to happen - not even with Christ Himself. The exercise demonstrates that the flaw in Calvinism is knowing how to be God in that situation.

Once that is discovered - it does not matter who else God knows about without having to re-think the future.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Actions have consequences - as it turns out.

God knows what mediation is - and He knew what Abraham would do.

But Abraham didn't.

God knew what Christ was going to do - even as Christ prayed "if it be possible let this cup pass from Me".

Did Christ have free will?? Or did the Father force him to go to the cross against His will? I say - He had free will.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Calvinism doesn't make God the author of evil. He simply doesn't stop evil. If you believe that God has foreknowledge then I presume you would believe the same?

 

If God knew what he was going to do then he didn't have a choice. The picture your painting of God seems to be this nervous fidgeting man constantly hoping everything goes according to plan
Edit: sorry he obviously had a choice but the outcome was predetermined

 

One last thought, if Abraham really did change God's mind then His first choice/plan A was imperfect and had to be changed. Following this line of thinking that would make God fallible

 

Jesus will of being fully the Son of man wanted the cup to be taken away from. Think God that Jesus is also fully God the Son of God that He said not my will the will of His man hood but your will be done.

Our will is not free it has to be fought against it has to be beat into submission to follow God.

I want to do good but evil is right there with me at war with my members who can save me from this body of death praise be to Jesus.

Jesus has a free agency just as the Father has a life to Himself so He has granted the Son to be a life to Himself.

God has a plan and in Christ we are apart of it apart from Christ we are not. In Christ He does relent from the wages of our sin that Christ paid for.

 

Saying so doesn’t make it true. Do what know the fallacy of “question begging” is?

Calvinism unavoidably equals determinism. Think about it.

Here is the simple “truths” of Determinism:

1) Necessarily God has fore determined everything that will happen
2) God has determined X
3) Therefore it is necessary that X will happen

X = man’s choices
X = evil

So is a man held responsible for his choices which were not freely made? Here is why I previously asked you to consider the ALL the attributes of God and not only a boxed in view that divine foreknowledge must equal determinism. You avoided addressing that problem.

I would ask you reason for your argument more carefully and not avoid this part of my argument to repeat a question begging argument. Now to your next premise based on the (question begging) premise which has been demonstrated to be false.:

Hold on! Simply!? This assumes the first part of your argument is true. Man either has free will or he does doesn’t have free will for which he is responsible. Maybe we need to back up a step rather start going in circles and put a definition to free will concerning the responsible agent for the action of evil:

“Free will is defined as “volition” and this sustains the meaning that man has the ability to consciously choose; one cannot do both, have this ability and not have this ability in any logical sense. If man's response is determined by causal means to have an irresistible effect on the man then man's volition logically becomes void.” ~ Some dude that sticks to logically true conclusions after properly defining terms of the premises.

Now for the conclusion of you argument:

Yes, I know you presume that I should believe the same according to how you believe foreknowledge = determinism. In case you missed it, you just gave another example of the fallacy of “question begging”. This is a very low form of reason for your argument to be true. I do not believe the same as you and your premises have not been demonstrated to be true, in fact they have been shown to be logically false. So it does not follow that your conclusion is true.

 

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Actions have consequences - as it turns out.

God knows what mediation is - and He knew what Abraham would do.

But Abraham didn't.

God knew what Christ was going to do - even as Christ prayed "if it be possible let this cup pass from Me".

Did Christ have free will?? Or did the Father force him to go to the cross against His will? I say - He had free will.

I am painting a picture of Calvinists trying to "BE God" trying know "How God can know everything and still have FREE WILL".

Every Calvinist I have ever met - has admitted that GOD has Free Will.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Then your issue is with the author of the text, not us.

Here is some advise from Spurgeon on interpreting scripture that I believe is applicable:

"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, —"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."" —"Salvation By Knowing the Truth"​

 

I will say it again - Calvinism fails in its efforts to "play god". It pretends to know how God knows what He knows - and how he is able to predetermine the future (by robot-programming supposedly).

Yet the fact is their own model would deny God Himself free will - for He knows what HE will do - and He knew all that Christ would do.

If their simplistic model were all that God had to work with - God Himself would not have free will.

Which is your first clue that Calvinism's model is horribly wrong. Maybe they should give up trying to sit in God's chair and admit that while God knows the future - HE still has free will - which provides the "mechanism" for everyone else to have free will as well.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Yep, if you follow determinism to its logical conclusions (without appealing to mystery), then its pure fatalism because not only is God eternal but so is everything else. Everything is eternally determined to be what it is and nothing is ever actually chosen.

The reason they reject contra-causal free will is due to the mystery, yet their system also has to eventually appeal to that same mystery OR accept the eternal fatalism of their system where God is not even free to make choices.

 

I really don't see the problem! Anthropormorphic language or language of appearance is attributed commonly to God. God never "repents" or changes his mind but it does have that appearance when He does not follow through due to changes in us. God is immutable and sinlessly perfect so there is no change of mind except by appearance FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE.

Furthermore, a SOVEREIGN DECREE is not mere fatalism but it is MORAL determinism as God is "working all things" according to His Purpose rather than working His purposes around all things as your view logically must embrace. Fatalism denies moral and rational control but is the view that things are determined by their own nature in a cause and effect domino reaction that cannot be changed.