Why the Blindness?

No, I believe God KNEW exactly what man would do of and by himself. - The fall
AND that God KNEW how man would respond with regard to various means God would send into mans life.

He knows all things. Scripture DOES NOT tell us the when God knew or the How God knew WHAT He knew but it tells us that He knew. Anything more than that and you are strictly in the relm of philosophical teachings.

We know He foreknew... and that is all we know about what He KNEW.

 

El Geuro, I am determinist in that I believe God is the first cause of everything. He is all powerful and in control of all. He however, does not sin or temp anyone to sin. Joseph is an example where what men meant for evil, God meant for good. I believe that all that happens, do so because of God's perfect knowledge. In other words, what God knows will happen. I do not believe in free will at all. I do not believe in "free choice". I believe it is all determined by God. We always choose in a manner that will be consistent with God's decreed will.

 

I agree. So why did you ask me if what He knew would happen before the fall or after?

 

First, have I ever?

Second, I got that definition from the Spurgeon website. Actaully that is the most extreme point he gives before going into some of the Hyper classifications. Although you would definately not classify on the Infra Model.

Here is the site http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm

 

Because the Hyper states that God determines who will be saved BEFORE God determines man will sin.

In other words God creates sin so that those He chose can now fulfill their purpose in His plan and vise-versa. Ergo God is the first cause of sin or the progenitor of sin.

 

Of course you know that God can not sin or be the direct cause of anyone sinning.... or even tempting them. I do not deny scripture.

I was not saying that you were implying I was lost. My brother Wayne was approaching that.

Again, Allan, I beleive God to be the first cause. How can we put our minds around that? I don't know. If you think there is a progression of thought with God, then that would represent change. He is immutable. He has nothing to learn. Don't you agree?

 

Allan, I will not hijack this thread, which has already happened I think. We have discussed this before. I don't remember the thread, and maybe it was closed. But if we want to discuss this further, maybe we should start a new thread?

 

Without question, however knowing all things about everything concerning anything is a tiring thing to me. :laugh:

However we actually limit God to our finite mind set when we assume what "everything" entails when it concerns Gods knowledge and to what extent it it would thereby extend. Would you not agree? We can make all the assumptions in world but they should not be the foundation of our doctrine if they are foundational in the mind of man and not scripture. We know He foreknew intimately certain people and predestined them to be like Christ Jesus and that is all we know about what He Knew.

 

No reason to really, unless you just want to argue :smilewinkgrin:

I understand a little better where you are coming from now. I still don't agree with all the mechanics you accert to it but I do believe those same truths.

 

Well, so as to not hijack the thread.... I believe God is *ALL* knowing. That means He knows all and has nothing to learn, or He would not be all knowing and would not be God. Now, since we know that He is all knowing....... He has blinded those who are blind, and this was done in His perfect knowledge, which has no progression of time. Thats easy huh? :applause:

 

Yep, especially when scripture says He did it cause He knew they would be in unbelief so He judged them. God is *ALL* knowing and is why He blinded them so they WOULDN'T come to that knowledged wherewith He blinded them to. :laugh: :laugh:

 

I agree with you brother. You are the best calvinist of all the non calvinist I know.:laugh:

 

If you'll think about it, you really don't want to make this argument.

Sounds like Open Theism for sure. Sounds like something I used to tell my kids: "I know everything, but I don't know that."

Is this sort of like God chooses not to know something until he chooses to know it? Or, maybe, God can't know some things until he decides he can? In trying to preserve God's omnipotence you have made him only partly omnipotent. You've also eliminated his omniscience. Or, at the least, made him partly omniscient. Except there is no such thing.

 

You made this statement from my comments on Post #85. Sorry I didn't see it before.

In other words...God knew from the foundation of creation every person who will ever be His, just as surely as their Christ (the Lamb) stood slain from the foundation as well. The book of life of the Lamb is the evidence that all things proceeded according to His perfect knowledge and will. This book (among other things)is what gives His people reason to exalt, praise, and give glory to God; Because it declares God accomplished His purpose and plan to the satisfaction of His good pleasure.

And all those not written in the Lambs book will worship the beast (as their god).

 

Because scripture says He knows all who are His.
Rev 13:8 shows this.
John 6:40 shows this.
John 10:3-4 shows this - He even calls them by name (could it be He recorded those names)

But much to the chagrin of my Calvinist brothers (who will now hang there heads unbelief) I hold that the scriptures teach He knew all who would come to Him BY Faith via means of the gospel call. God sees them In Christ long before they ever literally come to Him by faith because He knows they will accept and not reject the calling. But God what God knows will be (in the end) is already known as a shall be (from the foundation of the world) so God declares it as though it IS (timely or in that time).

 

I am reposting this since it sort of got lost in the schuffel when we veared off topic.

 

The scriptures provide us few if any specific clues as to the mind of God in hardening and blinding. In general, all we are told that when God acts, decrees, etc., it is because if pleased him to do so (as in Matthew 11:25-26, where Jesus thanks the Father for hiding some truths from some, revealing it to others, because it seems good to God to do so).

We also glean that his ultimate end is to bring glory to himself and to his Son.

To assert that God does something because it pleases him is a far cry from making God out to be like someone who does things on a whim.

So we are reduced to debating how to interpret Isaiah 6 and John 12:37-41, and arguing over whether blindness results in sin or vice versa.

I've given what I think is pretty much my best shot, so I'll jump in only occasionally from now on. I made that pledge on another thread, and within a half-a-day I yielded to the irresistible urge and fell off the wagon.

In the meantime, maybe I can stir up a debate between you and skypair over his Open Theism.

As always, Allen, you are a class act and an able defender of your position.

 

Amen, and Amen

 

I do wish you would not go away Tom. You teach many of us. You and Allan are very articulate, and we could all learn from you. God bless you on your decision to not respond. I know it is tireing. That is why I told MB to look it up. Plus, i'm just not as good a communicator as you and Allan.

 

While I appreciate the kind words I don't think you realize just how hard it is to keep up with you and reforemed.:thumbs:

My reposting wasn't so much for you to REsubstantiate your views, but to maybe get the thread back on the topic of blindness. (I was being ornery :laugh: )

Yeah...about skypair... that is a whole new thread in itself - huh, skypair.

Well I do appreciate your willingness to discuss the scriptures and set forth your views in a very Christlike and mature way. Thank you for that honor - and you to Reformed. You are both assets to Gods purpose and plan but I think you are most definately a pleasure to him. :godisgood: All the time. (and this time ALL means All - LOL )