hi paidon.. sorry for ganging up on you.. but along with derek's question (a good one) i was wondering about what you felt regarding my question regarding prayer (addressed to steve) a couple of posts above.
by the, way, i am following your reasoning and i am tending to agree.
thx, TK
"The Open View of God" or "Open Theis
Pertaining to God "regretting" something
Could it not be that God, although He knows beforehand what will happen, still feels regrett when the thing actually comes to pass?
A human father who has a child knows beforehand that the child will sin and rebel against his will at some point in it's life. Yet he is able to enjoy the child until this point and although he knew that it would happen all along he (the father) still feels bad when it finally does.
Of course this analogy has a human and not God in mind, so the exact time and detail of this rebellion is not known to the earthly father, but it still seems applicable to me.
Could it not be that God, although He knows beforehand what will happen, still feels regrett when the thing actually comes to pass?
A human father who has a child knows beforehand that the child will sin and rebel against his will at some point in it's life. Yet he is able to enjoy the child until this point and although he knew that it would happen all along he (the father) still feels bad when it finally does.
Of course this analogy has a human and not God in mind, so the exact time and detail of this rebellion is not known to the earthly father, but it still seems applicable to me.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Derek
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7
Yes, Derek. I did address the rooster question previously. Two accounts of it in two different gospels do not appear consistent. So Jesus may not have specified "3 times" when He predicted it. But perhaps the rooster did crow 3 times, so that when it was recounted years later, it was thought that Jesus had actually said 3 times in His prophecy.
Derek, that was also an interesting thought concerning God's regret. It made sense to me. But some people, mostly Calvinists perhaps, believe that God not only knew in advance the things He later regretted, but that they were also part of His overall plan. So to bring that feature into your human analogy, if the father actually planned for his child to rebel, then it hardly seems that he would feel bad about it when it happened.
TK, I appreciate your consideration and respect. But don't worry about "ganging up" on me. I have found almost everyone on this forum respectful, humble, and truly searching for the truth. So I just want to share in that search. If my present understanding is in error, I want to be corrected.
As for your question concerning God's protection, it may be that God could still protect in the following manner. Say there's a sleepy driver, or one who isn't concentrating on the road but on some problem or difficulty he is going through. God could act directly on his mind so as to rouse him and thus prevent a collision.
It seems that God seldom intervenes in a physical way in people's lives. If someone had made up his mind to kill or to rape, it often happens whether the victim is a Christian or not. There are a lot of Christians as well as non-Christians out there who are angry at God --- "Why did God take my little girl?" ---- a euphamism for "Why did God kill my little girl?"
The sickening part of this is that there is always someone there to suggest that God had a deeper plan in "taking home" the child, or even that God had something to teach the parents by killing their child.
In creating man in His image, with a free will like His own, God took a great risk. But doubtless He considered it worth while to have created people, free-will agents, who would freely choose to submit to Him and co-operate with Him in His works.
Derek, that was also an interesting thought concerning God's regret. It made sense to me. But some people, mostly Calvinists perhaps, believe that God not only knew in advance the things He later regretted, but that they were also part of His overall plan. So to bring that feature into your human analogy, if the father actually planned for his child to rebel, then it hardly seems that he would feel bad about it when it happened.
TK, I appreciate your consideration and respect. But don't worry about "ganging up" on me. I have found almost everyone on this forum respectful, humble, and truly searching for the truth. So I just want to share in that search. If my present understanding is in error, I want to be corrected.
As for your question concerning God's protection, it may be that God could still protect in the following manner. Say there's a sleepy driver, or one who isn't concentrating on the road but on some problem or difficulty he is going through. God could act directly on his mind so as to rouse him and thus prevent a collision.
It seems that God seldom intervenes in a physical way in people's lives. If someone had made up his mind to kill or to rape, it often happens whether the victim is a Christian or not. There are a lot of Christians as well as non-Christians out there who are angry at God --- "Why did God take my little girl?" ---- a euphamism for "Why did God kill my little girl?"
The sickening part of this is that there is always someone there to suggest that God had a deeper plan in "taking home" the child, or even that God had something to teach the parents by killing their child.
In creating man in His image, with a free will like His own, God took a great risk. But doubtless He considered it worth while to have created people, free-will agents, who would freely choose to submit to Him and co-operate with Him in His works.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Paidion, et al,
Did not our Lord know many years in advance what free will agents would do in the case of Peter's martyrdom? (John 21:18-19) There are some things beyond our "figuring out".
Did not our Lord know many years in advance what free will agents would do in the case of Peter's martyrdom? (John 21:18-19) There are some things beyond our "figuring out".
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
Paidion,
Would it not make more sense to look at Matthew and Mark as "filling in" a detail that Luke and John left out? That seems to be the natural thing to do when dealing with differences between the Gospels. I would say that's one reason why there's four of them. To do this "filling in" of details between each account.
I am not a Calvinist, so the objection that the Father planned for, or put the desire in the heart of the child to rebel is not relevant to my understanding of the analogy. I am speaking of only the knowledge that the child will one day rebel; That even with this knowledge the father will still feel badly when the event occurs although he knew it would the whole time.
I did address the rooster question previously. Two accounts of it in two different gospels do not appear consistent. So Jesus may not have specified "3 times" when He predicted it. But perhaps the rooster did crow 3 times, so that when it was recounted years later, it was thought that Jesus had actually said 3 times in His prophecy.
Would it not make more sense to look at Matthew and Mark as "filling in" a detail that Luke and John left out? That seems to be the natural thing to do when dealing with differences between the Gospels. I would say that's one reason why there's four of them. To do this "filling in" of details between each account.
Derek, that was also an interesting thought concerning God's regret. It made sense to me. But some people, mostly Calvinists perhaps, believe that God not only knew in advance the things He later regretted, but that they were also part of His overall plan. So to bring that feature into your human analogy, if the father actually planned for his child to rebel, then it hardly seems that he would feel bad about it when it happened.
I am not a Calvinist, so the objection that the Father planned for, or put the desire in the heart of the child to rebel is not relevant to my understanding of the analogy. I am speaking of only the knowledge that the child will one day rebel; That even with this knowledge the father will still feel badly when the event occurs although he knew it would the whole time.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Derek
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7
Yes, Homer, there are things beyond our "figuring out". That fact was never in question ---- at least by me.Paidion, et al,
Did not our Lord know many years in advance what free will agents would do in the case of Peter's martyrdom? (John 21:18-19) There are some things beyond our "figuring out".
However, none of the things beyond our comprehension are logical contradictions. It is not a mysterious truth, for example, that Peter both did and did not die upside down on a cross. This is the kind of logical contradiction which I showed to be the case if statements about free-will agents choice are known before they make it.
In my opinion, Jesus succeeded in predicting accurately Peter's martyrdom because He "knew what was in man". He knew Peter's impulsiveness. He knew the hearts of those who later put Peter to death.
But did He KNOW in advance what Peter would choose? Did He know in advance what Peter's killers would choose. I have shown that this is logically impossible. If I was wrong, then it must be possible to find a flaw in my argument.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Hi Paidon...
i cant fault your logic.. but here is where i may begin to frustrate you.. what if logic simply cant explain how God works? in other words, because God is who He is, (He's God, after all), isnt it possible that God knows what free-will agents will do w/o at the same time robbing them of their free will?
you have made a very convincing logical argument why this cannot be the case. but since it APPEARS to be the case, i.e. that God knows the future, isn't it possible that the truth may simply defy the best logic that we can muster?
you asked us to prove where your logic is wrong-- i cant do that because your logic is sound. but if the true answer is something else(assuming your view is not correct) we cannot prove something that we cannot comprehend. for example, if the big-bang theory is true (i am not saying that it is, but simply using it for the sake of argument), I cannot logically explain how all the matter in the universe was compressed into a point (singularity) without dimensions just prior to the explosion. how can i comprehend that? i dont think even einstein could do so. but if that is what occurred, then i must accept it. i realize that this is not the best example because of what i am sure will be differing views regarding the origin of the universe. but i couldnt think of a better illustration and hopefully you catch my meaning.
TK
i cant fault your logic.. but here is where i may begin to frustrate you.. what if logic simply cant explain how God works? in other words, because God is who He is, (He's God, after all), isnt it possible that God knows what free-will agents will do w/o at the same time robbing them of their free will?
you have made a very convincing logical argument why this cannot be the case. but since it APPEARS to be the case, i.e. that God knows the future, isn't it possible that the truth may simply defy the best logic that we can muster?
you asked us to prove where your logic is wrong-- i cant do that because your logic is sound. but if the true answer is something else(assuming your view is not correct) we cannot prove something that we cannot comprehend. for example, if the big-bang theory is true (i am not saying that it is, but simply using it for the sake of argument), I cannot logically explain how all the matter in the universe was compressed into a point (singularity) without dimensions just prior to the explosion. how can i comprehend that? i dont think even einstein could do so. but if that is what occurred, then i must accept it. i realize that this is not the best example because of what i am sure will be differing views regarding the origin of the universe. but i couldnt think of a better illustration and hopefully you catch my meaning.
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)
-
_STEVE7150
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm
Did not our Lord know many years in advance what free will agents would do in the case of Peter's martyrdom? (John 21:18-19) There are some things beyond our "figuring out".
Why should this or any prophecy being fulfilled be beyond us being able to figure out? God told us how prophecies are fulfilled "I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass, I have planned , and I will do it" Isa 46.11
"My purposes shall stand ,and I will fulfill my intention" Isa 46.10
God intervenes into our world and clearly says "I WILL DO IT" with reference to things he will bring to pass and if he shares that information with us we understand them to be prophecies.
Remember with regards to the flood it's not just that God regretted his actions but he changed course and took decisive action to restart mankind and with Israel he removed their protective hedge when they were disobedient.
God expressed disappointment with Israel meaning they did'nt meet his expectations.
"I thought how i would set you among my children , and i thought you would call me , My Father and would not turn from following me" Jer 3.19-20
If the future is set in stone how can God twice say he "thought" something would happen and it did'nt.
And God did'nt just make rhetorical statements for our benefit because he took follow up action, i.e. flood,hedge removal and divorce from Israel.
Why should this or any prophecy being fulfilled be beyond us being able to figure out? God told us how prophecies are fulfilled "I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass, I have planned , and I will do it" Isa 46.11
"My purposes shall stand ,and I will fulfill my intention" Isa 46.10
God intervenes into our world and clearly says "I WILL DO IT" with reference to things he will bring to pass and if he shares that information with us we understand them to be prophecies.
Remember with regards to the flood it's not just that God regretted his actions but he changed course and took decisive action to restart mankind and with Israel he removed their protective hedge when they were disobedient.
God expressed disappointment with Israel meaning they did'nt meet his expectations.
"I thought how i would set you among my children , and i thought you would call me , My Father and would not turn from following me" Jer 3.19-20
If the future is set in stone how can God twice say he "thought" something would happen and it did'nt.
And God did'nt just make rhetorical statements for our benefit because he took follow up action, i.e. flood,hedge removal and divorce from Israel.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Oh, I am sure it can't. But the issue here is not attempting to explain how God works by means of logic. The issue is whether we can believe a thing and also it's negation ---- that the Big Bang happened and it didn't happen, that God can create a stone so large that He can't lift it, that your book is totally blue in natural lighting and also totally green, that a statement about your future actions is either true or false, although the assumption would negate your free will.i cant fault your logic.. but here is where i may begin to frustrate you.. what if logic simply cant explain how God works?
No, it is not logically possible. Even though God is omnipotent and omnicient, He can not perform the logically impossible, and that fact in no way limits His omnipotence or His omnicience. I can positively say that God cannot create a stone so large that He can't lift it. For if He could create such a stone, He would not be omnipotent. There would be something He could not do ---- namely lift the stone.in other words, because God is who He is, (He's God, after all), isnt it possible that God knows what free-will agents will do w/o at the same time robbing them of their free will?
It's true that what is impossible for man to do, God can do. But to say that He can perform the illogical is nonsensical. To say that He can know what cannot be logically known is also nonsensical.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Paidion, I'm leaning toward open theism (shh, don't tell Gene Cook), but I still have some problems to come to terms with. Here's one: Why can't God preform the logically impossible? Didn't Jesus say the all things are possible to God? Could that include the logically impossible too?Paidion wrote:No, it is not logically possible. Even though God is omnipotent and omnicient, He can not perform the logically impossible, and that fact in no way limits His omnipotence or His omnicience. I can positively say that God cannot create a stone so large that He can't lift it. For if He could create such a stone, He would not be omnipotent. There would be something He could not do ---- namely lift the stone.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: