"Freedom of the Will"

I think the answer to your musing is that the Open View is God cannot know the future because it is a "logical impossibility." A good book to introduce you to the Open Theist's theological view is "God of the Possible" by Gregory Boyd.

[ June 14, 2002, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: Nelson ]

 

"Essentially" means of or constituting the essence of something basic."

Is man's free will, essentially the same as God's (which seems to be the implication by your denial above), therefore, divine both in it's nature and operation?

 

Hey Aki, same to you.

Before I got into this discussion further I have to mention that a lot of my posts are written in a hurry, and can sometimes seem abrupt and rude.
I don't mean to be rude, and although I may disagree with most Arminians, I believe that the unity of the brethren is more important than debate on these issues.

___________________________________________

Yes, I know, and I'm sorry that some of the things I will say you probably have already heard before.
The reason I press hard for some convincing scripture references is because in all of my debates I haven't been given any.

As to John 3:36, "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

I agree, whoever believes in the Son has life, and whoever doesn't believe doesn't have life.

(As as side thought, but one I consider to be critical, remember that our perspective is a human perspective and isn't Gods. Contrast John 3:36. A verse delivered to us on our level of perspective, to Ephesians 1:3-6, a verse that tells us about God's perspective, and His eternal decrees.)
Ephesians 1:3-6 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved."


I can't disagree with the infallible word of God. (Neither can you)

Romans 9:10-13 " And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."

If this isn't enough, try the next few verses.
Primative Baptist posted some of these verses in a very timely manner, but I really really want you to read this and think about it.

Vs 14-24. "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion."
So then it is not of him who wills,
nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who has resisted His will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"

 

I mean, Freewill is a nice thought, but that pesky Bible just gets in the way and messes up our preconceived ideas of God.

 

Of course not. But the relationship between you and a 3 year old is not even remotely analogous to the relationship between God and the world.

The Incarnation did not cost God his sovereignty. God was still sovereign which is why he delivered his Son (the one who humbled himself and became obedient) over to the hands of wicked men. This very act of delivering his Son over is a key refutation of your contention.

Perhaps it illustrates that God is sovereign, that he does not respond to the whims of man but rather works in accordance with his eternal purpose.

No there is no difference. To restrain sovereignty is to give it up. You cannot retain it while giving some of it over. I think you and I have vastly different definitions of sovereignty if you think this statement can stand.

On the "essential difference or similarity" you are spending way too much time in the dictionary. Read the words in context and use them as I use them. What I am saying (for the umpteenth time) is that the freedom of God's will is the same as the freedom of our will. It is consistent with the nature. You do not deny the freedom of God because he cannot do certain things. In teh same way, you should not deny the freedom of man because he cannot do certain things.

 

Were those wicked men excercising their "free will"?

Note Acts 2:22-24 (NIV):

"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

 

Are you implying they did not exercise free will?

 

I disagree.

In the analogy, I did not lose my power over the child; I merely chose not to use it. Your statement that because man has free will God is “no longer sovereign” gives the impression that God’s nature as sovereign is “no longer” an essential aspect of His intrinsic being and nature.

It’s your wording that is problematic.

For my part, man has free will and God is Sovereign. The only difference is that the Reformed position asserts it is baffled by it; my position is that the proposition poses no puzzle in my mind.

I appreciate your concern, but I don't mind spending time in the dictionary. It helps maintain perspective, besides, without the dictionary I would not understand what someone is saying when they use words like "essential," "nature," "similar," etc.

Be that as it may, God’s nature and man's nature have similarities but fundamentally they are different. As such, man and God’s free will operate similarly in that it operates within the parameters of their respective natures yet, differently corresponding to the differences between their respective natures.

 

God handed them over, and wicked men put him to death. Because God knows there are wicked men in the world, this wasn't some kind of "guess" - however, because God knows there are wicked men in the world, this doesn't necessarily mean that He forced certain individuals to put Christ to death.

Foreknowledge seems to refer to the handing over of Christ - not to who actually were the "wicked men."

 

Interesting, Scott. Do you think God knew who the "wicked men" would be, or was He leaving it to chance that some "wicked men" would crucify His Son?

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken

 

The whole point there was that no, the Incarnation did not cost God His sovereignty, but, people who don't understand could argue that it does! This is the whole argument of the Muslims, for instance, and JW's and others who deny Christ's deity will use it to. And they have a strong logical case, but we know the scriptures confound our logic when it comes to matters involving the nature of God. Just because people think "that would be giving up His sovereignty" doesn't mean it really does.

PB said:

Once again, it's Israel as a whole that is hardened, while the individuals can repent of their own sin. This is evidenced by God's "longsuffering". (Rom.9:22)

 

to what extend did God maintained His sovereignty in this passage:

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

 

There is a difference between "free will" and moral responsibility. Besides that, we are not in the same situation as Adam and Eve; they did not come into existence with a corrupted, flesh nature. As far as I know, only Pelagians think we come into the world in a pure state; simple observation tells you that the Pelagians are wrong.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken

 

and moral responsibility requires free will.

yup! but the question here is whether we have a free will or not when it comes to salvation. God gave Adam free will. The same did He did to us, regardless of our different situation. As Adam had the ability to sin in his initial pure nature, we also have the ability to choose for God upon conviction.

so? is this an approach to prove someone wrong by providing somebody else's fault while implying others to have the same mistake simply because his belief is different?

 

Dunno - but foreknowledge in that verse DOES refer to handing over, not individual wicked men. Foreknowledge seems, then, in this case, to the fact that he knew wicked men would crucify His Son, but the verse doesn't specifically single out certain people who would do so. I suppose in this manner, we can combine the sovereignty of God with the free will of man to a degree (at least for those of us who believe in such things)

 

No, but this one does. (Acts 4:27,28)

For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy Servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur.

Herod and Pontius Pilate along with others were gathered to do whatever God had already determined they would do. If He had predetermined they would do it, then He couldn't help but have forseen it.

 

This is very similar to the other passage!

Acts 4:27–28

The early Church prayed to the Lord, “Both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.”

The crucifixion was predestined, but a close reading shows that Pontius Pilate nor Herod were predestined to do it. The plan was the only thing that was predestined! God's active roles relate only (in this verse) to Christ's anointing and the "plan," which is that he would be crucified.

 

And how do you predestine a plan without determining people to carry out that plan? Does this mean God might have predetermined that Jesus would be crucified, but if none of the proper people happened to cooperate, then God's predetermined plan would be caput?

And Pilate and Herod and all those others didn't gather together, they were gathered together. The were gathered together (they received the action) to do what God had determined beforehand would be done (a statement of the purpose for which they have been gathered).

[ June 14, 2002, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

Surely you understand that Adam did not have sinful nature when he was created, we do have an inherited sinful nature after The Fall. Surely you understand we are not in the same situation as Adam. Everything we do, say, and think is tainted by our sin nature. Adam did not have that problem before The Fall. Adam's situation(pre-Fall) and ours are not symmetrical.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken