On Changing Minds

[oddbird1963]

Regardless of how I communicate, one has specifics, one doesn't. Your heart is not something True to follow, unless you are God Himself. You continually take your heart as the authority in your life, yet deny that it is perfect. And Clay is deluded? Your authority to claim such is your one independent experience devoid of any other evidence. And because you deny Christ, there are wannabes in your wake.

 

And anther thing....when one of you knotheads isn't acknowledged for the exact reason why YOU left Christianity, then we Christians are thrown into an inclusive group that we ALL don't understand your particular version for denial. From my other thread...alot of you wanted to stay, pleaded to stay, yet couldn't. Could you not find the right pill to fix the problem...after all, it's all natural physical. The doc should be able to help. He understands how exact configuations of billions upon billions of cells reacting together gives the answer anyone should desire.....

 

 

No matter what the "all" group of Christians is, End, you have consistently demonstrated a refusal to see many of our points of view in anything other than a caricatured, distorted fashion that is self-serving to you. It's not that you are missing finer points, it's that you are hearing us.

 

In this instance you have gotten a portion of it right: "From my other thread...alot of you wanted to stay, pleaded to stay, yet couldn't. " Well, great! We have some progress here. It is true. Many folks did want to stay in . Were reluctant to give up their religious lives. They wanted to have an experience of god and begged him to show himself. They wanted to stay, yet needed help.

 

Good job! I'll bet you've got some really empathetic things to say now in light of that.

"Could you not find the right pill to fix the problem...after all, it's all natural physical. The doc should be able to help. He understands how exact configuations of billions upon billions of cells reacting together gives the answer anyone should desire....."

 

OH NO!!!! Crash and burn. You launched into a completely unintelligible snarly diatribe against reductionist materialism? Oh! You were showing such promise.

 

Oh well. In a post on the subject of changing minds, rather than following the saying "Seek first to understand, then to be understood," It looks like you sought to do what my brother does "Seek first to understand just enough to be a snarly , hateful twit!"

[Guest end3]

The de-conversion WAS the pill that fixed the problem. The de-conversion was THE THING that solved the conflicts and gave peace.

 

How can quiting an undefinable proof-less, non-reality change anything?

[Guest end3]

Regardless of how I communicate, one has specifics, one doesn't. Your heart is not something True to follow, unless you are God Himself. You continually take your heart as the authority in your life, yet deny that it is perfect. And Clay is deluded? Your authority to claim such is your one independent experience devoid of any other evidence. And because you deny Christ, there are wannabes in your wake.

 

And anther thing....when one of you knotheads isn't acknowledged for the exact reason why YOU left Christianity, then we Christians are thrown into an inclusive group that we ALL don't understand your particular version for denial. From my other thread...alot of you wanted to stay, pleaded to stay, yet couldn't. Could you not find the right pill to fix the problem...after all, it's all natural physical. The doc should be able to help. He understands how exact configuations of billions upon billions of cells reacting together gives the answer anyone should desire.....

 

 

No matter what the "all" group of Christians is, End, you have consistently demonstrated a refusal to see many of our points of view in anything other than a caricatured, distorted fashion that is self-serving to you. It's not that you are missing finer points, it's that you are hearing us.

 

In this instance you have gotten a portion of it right: "From my other thread...alot of you wanted to stay, pleaded to stay, yet couldn't. " Well, great! We have some progress here. It is true. Many folks did want to stay in . Were reluctant to give up their religious lives. They wanted to have an experience of god and begged him to show himself. They wanted to stay, yet needed help.

 

Good job! I'll bet you've got some really empathetic things to say now in light of that.

"Could you not find the right pill to fix the problem...after all, it's all natural physical. The doc should be able to help. He understands how exact configuations of billions upon billions of cells reacting together gives the answer anyone should desire....."

 

OH NO!!!! Crash and burn. You launched into a completely unintelligible snarly diatribe against reductionist materialism? Oh! You were showing such promise.

 

Oh well. In a post on the subject of changing minds, rather than following the saying "Seek first to understand, then to be understood," It looks like you sought to do what my brother does "Seek first to understand just enough to be a snarly , hateful twit!"

 

No, y'all continue and continue in your understanding which has tenuous aspects as well, but then berate some poor guy for having the same heart for his beliefs that you do. Perhaps you are farther down the road. Where's your grace? And Keith especially.

[oddbird1963]

The de-conversion WAS the pill that fixed the problem. The de-conversion was THE THING that solved the conflicts and gave peace.

 

How can quiting an undefinable proof-less, non-reality change anything?

That's just grasping for straws. In this case , grasping for straws so you can build a straw man and attack it.

 

End. Take a few days off. You're really spiraling into a the intellectual equivalent of a bowl of jello. Rest. Go fishing. Try to put back together the fragmented pieces of your reason apparatus and maybe, just maybe listen to people for a change.

[centauri]

[No, we have free will. God choose the world in which we would freely choose.

This is a popular Christian myth.

If you're a Bible believer, you're in no position to make this outlandish claim.

Predestination is clearly taught in Rom 8, Rom 9 and Eph 1:4-5,11.

At least some people are predestined to their roles and decisions.

I think you misunderstand His Omniscience and our free will. You seem to prefer some verses and ignore the larger picture. Clearly the Bible teaches free will and God's ability to choose. God along with humanity has free will. We all have the ability to choose, and at the same time we all have our parts to play in history.

 

Rom 8:30

(30) But whom He predestinated, these He also called; and whom He called, those He also justified. And whom He justified, these He also glorified.

The larger picture is that you cannot claim free will and ignore scriptures that clearly undermine your premise.

I think you’re denying the obvious, perhaps because it conflicts so deeply with the myth that you want to believe and spread.

 

Predestine means to determine in advance.

The Bible clearly states that at least some people have choices made for them in advance by God according to his will, not their will.

 

Eph 1:4-5, 11

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

 

There’s also the problem of God manipulating people so that they make specific choices.

Deut 2:30

But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the LORD thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day.

 

Until you can establish that God never directly interferes with any human choices, the claim of humans having free will is bogus.

The Bible contains verses and passages that undermine such a claim.

There isn’t any way to tell if a person’s choice was predestined or not.

Once the door is opened for predestination to come in, free will is compromised.

 

Using the word “free” is also misleading because when it comes to salvation, the alleged choice isn’t really free at all but is an ultimatum.

Decisions made under threat do not represent free will but rather conditional choice.

 

Read my reponse here.

That response by Craig doesn’t address the verses in question.

It also posits the following:

“So although God sovereignly chooses which world to create, it is up to the persons in that world whether or not they will be saved.”

 

According to Eph 1, some people are predestined by God to be saved.

It has nothing to do with the person’s actions or choices nor is it up to them to be saved.

Their salvation and election were decided in advance by God according to his will, not their will.

 

centauri:

The Bible also indicates that God manipulates people to make certain choices.

 

These choices are freely made.

 

You haven’t backed that up, all you’ve done is repeat the same faulty claim.

The Bible says otherwise and if you’re going to insist on denying what it clearly states, then I have to assume you don’t recognize it as being valid in the first place, which renders your assertion about free will as meaningless.

[oddbird1963]

Regardless of how I communicate, one has specifics, one doesn't. Your heart is not something True to follow, unless you are God Himself. You continually take your heart as the authority in your life, yet deny that it is perfect. And Clay is deluded? Your authority to claim such is your one independent experience devoid of any other evidence. And because you deny Christ, there are wannabes in your wake.

 

And anther thing....when one of you knotheads isn't acknowledged for the exact reason why YOU left Christianity, then we Christians are thrown into an inclusive group that we ALL don't understand your particular version for denial. From my other thread...alot of you wanted to stay, pleaded to stay, yet couldn't. Could you not find the right pill to fix the problem...after all, it's all natural physical. The doc should be able to help. He understands how exact configuations of billions upon billions of cells reacting together gives the answer anyone should desire.....

 

 

No matter what the "all" group of Christians is, End, you have consistently demonstrated a refusal to see many of our points of view in anything other than a caricatured, distorted fashion that is self-serving to you. It's not that you are missing finer points, it's that you are hearing us.

 

In this instance you have gotten a portion of it right: "From my other thread...alot of you wanted to stay, pleaded to stay, yet couldn't. " Well, great! We have some progress here. It is true. Many folks did want to stay in . Were reluctant to give up their religious lives. They wanted to have an experience of god and begged him to show himself. They wanted to stay, yet needed help.

 

Good job! I'll bet you've got some really empathetic things to say now in light of that.

"Could you not find the right pill to fix the problem...after all, it's all natural physical. The doc should be able to help. He understands how exact configuations of billions upon billions of cells reacting together gives the answer anyone should desire....."

 

OH NO!!!! Crash and burn. You launched into a completely unintelligible snarly diatribe against reductionist materialism? Oh! You were showing such promise.

 

Oh well. In a post on the subject of changing minds, rather than following the saying "Seek first to understand, then to be understood," It looks like you sought to do what my brother does "Seek first to understand just enough to be a snarly , hateful twit!"

 

No, y'all continue and continue in your understanding which has tenuous aspects as well, but then berate some poor guy for having the same heart for his beliefs that you do. Perhaps you are farther down the road. Where's your grace? And Keith especially.

 

You didn't make that silly pill comment because you have grace or because we have tenuous aspects of or faith. I'm not berating you for your beliefs. I'm saying you don't understand ours. You refuse to acknowledge or understand anything but the most skewed version of our beliefs.

 

For instance, the time just a few days ago where you equated atheists with having no morals? I believe your response was something about eating babies??

 

No. You are not a poor little christian martyr here. For once I'd love to read something, in complete sentences, where you demonstrate that you know a little bit about what some of the atheists here believe.

[NotBlinded]

The de-conversion WAS the pill that fixed the problem. The de-conversion was THE THING that solved the conflicts and gave peace.

 

How can quiting an undefinable proof-less, non-reality change anything?

No. You have yet to understand anything end.

 

What WAS being quit was a definable, so-called-proven, claimed-to-be-reality.

 

Do you understand yet?

 

The graven images were tossed aside and for some of us this very action freed us from the chains of literalized symbols.

[OrdinaryClay]

[No, we have free will. God choose the world in which we would freely choose.

This is a popular Christian myth.

If you're a Bible believer, you're in no position to make this outlandish claim.

Predestination is clearly taught in Rom 8, Rom 9 and Eph 1:4-5,11.

At least some people are predestined to their roles and decisions.

I think you misunderstand His Omniscience and our free will. You seem to prefer some verses and ignore the larger picture. Clearly the Bible teaches free will and God's ability to choose. God along with humanity has free will. We all have the ability to choose, and at the same time we all have our parts to play in history.

 

Rom 8:30

(30) But whom He predestinated, these He also called; and whom He called, those He also justified. And whom He justified, these He also glorified.

The larger picture is that you cannot claim free will and ignore scriptures that clearly undermine your premise.

I think you’re denying the obvious, perhaps because it conflicts so deeply with the myth that you want to believe and spread.

 

Predestine means to determine in advance.

The Bible clearly states that at least some people have choices made for them in advance by God according to his will, not their will.

 

Eph 1:4-5, 11

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

 

There’s also the problem of God manipulating people so that they make specific choices.

Deut 2:30

But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the LORD thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day.

 

Until you can establish that God never directly interferes with any human choices, the claim of humans having free will is bogus.

The Bible contains verses and passages that undermine such a claim.

There isn’t any way to tell if a person’s choice was predestined or not.

Once the door is opened for predestination to come in, free will is compromised.

 

Using the word “free” is also misleading because when it comes to salvation, the alleged choice isn’t really free at all but is an ultimatum.

Decisions made under threat do not represent free will but rather conditional choice.

 

Read my reponse here.

That response by Craig doesn’t address the verses in question.

It also posits the following:

“So although God sovereignly chooses which world to create, it is up to the persons in that world whether or not they will be saved.”

 

According to Eph 1, some people are predestined by God to be saved.

It has nothing to do with the person’s actions or choices nor is it up to them to be saved.

Their salvation and election were decided in advance by God according to his will, not their will.

No, the doctrine of Middle Knowledge does deal with the seeming paradox of God's Omniscience/Omnipotence and our free will. This is specifically what it addresses. Take the time to understand Middle Knowledge You may not agree with the doctrine, but you will at least be able to move beyond the simple restatement of your position.

 

God can both know what you would freely choose, and exercise His omnipotence to bring about any world that is feasible. The world He chose to bring about is one in which people freely chose what you see as occurring in the Bible. There is no contradiction between free will and predestination in such a scenario. God said what He said because he knew Pharaoh would freely choose to harden his heart, for example.

 

From the article I linked to:

It is up to God whether I find myself in a world in which I am predestined; But it is up to me whether I am predestined in the world in which I find myself.

 

 

centauri:

The Bible also indicates that God manipulates people to make certain choices.

 

These choices are freely made.

 

You haven’t backed that up, all you’ve done is repeat the same faulty claim.

The Bible says otherwise and if you’re going to insist on denying what it clearly states, then I have to assume you don’t recognize it as being valid in the first place, which renders your assertion about free will as meaningless.

To be honest, your response was just a repetition of your claim. My response above was to point out that studying the concept of Middle Knowledge will provide a doctrine that removes the seeming paradox.

[Guest end3]

This is just another demonstration of a relationship that eludes you. Each of you want personal understanding of your situation, YOUR reasons, but then deny a personal God? And also rail on Christians for having personal interpretations of Christ? REALLY?

[NotBlinded]

This is just another demonstration of a relationship that eludes you. Each of you want personal understanding of your situation, YOUR reasons, but then deny a personal God? And also rail on Christians for having personal interpretations of Christ? REALLY?

What does wanting personal understanding have to do with a personal god? That does elude me because it makes no sense. Unless you are wanting to put forth the notion of the desires of people to want to be understood. We can no longer pretend that there is a personal god that will understand us when no one else will. Is this what you are talking about?

 

We rail on Christians for their interpretations because they are usually exclusive and hostile towards those of non-belief or other beliefs. If any Christian has these beliefs because they want to feel understood, be it illusory or not, that's fine. Just don't come in here with the arrogant attitude that there is a god that understands them and not others.

 

Personal God = God made into a person.

[par4dcourse]

The de-conversion WAS the pill that fixed the problem. The de-conversion was THE THING that solved the conflicts and gave peace.

 

How can quiting an undefinable proof-less, non-reality change anything?

 

 

Exactly! He was never there to start with,

[NotBlinded]

God can both know what you would freely choose, and exercise His omnipotence to bring about any world that is feasible. The world He chose to bring about is one in which people freely chose what you see as occurring in the Bible. There is no contradiction between free will and predestination in such a scenario. God said what He said because he knew Pharaoh would freely choose to harden his heart, for example.

It takes some twisted thinking to accept this but, if this is true, congratulations, you have just made God responsible for moral evil since he could have created a world where people weren't capable of choosing evil.

[Antlerman]

Regardless of how I communicate, one has specifics, one doesn't.

You have just described the essence and appeal of legalism. Congratulations on choosing the easier road, the wider path that leads to destruction.

 

People choose to have answers clearly defined because it is fearful to walk by Faith....

 

Your heart is not something True to follow, unless you are God Himself.

And yet another day, and still no understanding...

 

You continually take your heart as the authority in your life, yet deny that it is perfect. And Clay is deluded?

I said, and say, that Clay is deluded because he said he can understand God through reason! I stand by that. But the heart is something that has ears beyond your ears, eyes beyond eyes, words beyond words, and so on. The heart is changed not through rationality, but through the reason of Love. Not a good exegesis of Biblical interpretation or an analysis of language, or matter, or biology, or even the constructs of religion in sociological contexts. It does come from within, through connection to the Universe, the totality of all Being, coming to you, through you, and transforming you. You bet is within you.

 

Tell me you can't read that in your own Bible. And yet you say the Heart cannot be trusted. What I hear is that you haven't learned to hear it, and then trust it. My proof, I have asked you 12 times to answer what your heart tells you, and you have not been able to respond. And now this.

 

Your authority to claim such is your one independent experience devoid of any other evidence.

Every single day is another day of confirmation, and another day of growth and understanding - through the heart, and the mind. And moreover, it's not about "Authority". It's about a living center. "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free". That freedom is from many things, but namely for me, freedom from the constraints of religious dogma upon the Spirit.

 

And because you deny Christ, there are wannabes in your wake.

Spoken like a true Grand Inquisitor! "Do you deny the Christ? Confess! Kiss the Cross!" You define what it means to "Deny Christ", then pass judgment without the 'witness of the heart'. What is that verse about "Grieving the Spirit"? Why are those verses about "Judge not, lest you be judged" important injunctions? Why are you not listening?

 

I see Christ as a way to talk about "God". It expresses something transcendent, and I can accept that, as well as all other ways to describe the ineffable (which for Clay's edification means it is beyond knowledge - and therefore you cannot know God through reason and analysis). I can also speak of Brahman. But I'm no literalist. They are expressive terms that point to something transcendent. You consider this "denying Christ", because I don't have your understanding. You are like that Catholic Priest who consigns others to hell because of his "authority".

 

Sad. This makes me sad to see you throw away that Baby, for your Bathwater. Your true colors as an Inquisitor are coming to light. Who is it that is denying "Christ"?

 

 

I can't believe I would say this, but it might help you to go "pray" and find that light inside you...

[OrdinaryClay]

God can both know what you would freely choose, and exercise His omnipotence to bring about any world that is feasible. The world He chose to bring about is one in which people freely chose what you see as occurring in the Bible. There is no contradiction between free will and predestination in such a scenario. God said what He said because he knew Pharaoh would freely choose to harden his heart, for example.

It takes some twisted thinking to accept this but, if this is true, congratulations, you have just made God responsible for moral evil since he could have created a world where people weren't capable of choosing evil.

No, the evil is a result of our choices. Study the article I posted. It should help. God would prefer a world in which no one committed evil, but given free will such a world is apparently not possible - not because of His will, but rather our choice. He does make a choice to actualize a world. We can assume, given the revelation of His character, the choice He made optimized salvation and minimized evil.

 

Eze 33:11

(11) Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord Jehovah, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

[par4dcourse]

Eze 33:11

(11) Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord Jehovah, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel

You think we're Jewish?

[NotBlinded]

God can both know what you would freely choose, and exercise His omnipotence to bring about any world that is feasible. The world He chose to bring about is one in which people freely chose what you see as occurring in the Bible. There is no contradiction between free will and predestination in such a scenario. God said what He said because he knew Pharaoh would freely choose to harden his heart, for example.

It takes some twisted thinking to accept this but, if this is true, congratulations, you have just made God responsible for moral evil since he could have created a world where people weren't capable of choosing evil.

No, the evil is a result of our choices. Study the article I posted. It should help. God would prefer a world in which no one committed evil, but given free will such a world is apparently not possible - not because of His will, but rather our choice. He does make a choice to actualize a world. We can assume, given the revelation of His character, the choice He made optimized salvation and minimized evil.

 

Eze 33:11

(11) Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord Jehovah, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Yes. Freewill or not, God is responsible for moral evil.

 

Maybe you should read this: Freedom and the Free Will Defense (1990)

[OrdinaryClay]

I said, and say, that Clay is deluded because he said he can understand God through reason! I stand by that.

I can understand God through His revelation which I study. One can not study with out reason. Christ knew the scriptures. Paul knew the scriptures. God gave us minds. Do I understand and fathom all of God. Of course not. The delusion is ignoring all the evidence before us and claiming only empirical evidence is valid in obtaining knowledge(I'm not saying this is your position, I don't know what you position on evidence is to be honest)

 

Do I believe and rely on the testimony of the Holy Spirit. You bet.

[bdp]

 

 

Do I believe and rely on the testimony of the Holy Spirit. You bet.

 

...'Holy Spirit'...

 

[bdp]

 

 

No, y'all continue and continue in your understanding which has tenuous aspects as well, but then berate some poor guy for having the same heart for his beliefs that you do. Perhaps you are farther down the road. Where's your grace? And Keith especially.

 

YOU'RE the one who's supposed to be extending grace, I'm under no obligation to extend anything to anyone.

[OrdinaryClay]

God can both know what you would freely choose, and exercise His omnipotence to bring about any world that is feasible. The world He chose to bring about is one in which people freely chose what you see as occurring in the Bible. There is no contradiction between free will and predestination in such a scenario. God said what He said because he knew Pharaoh would freely choose to harden his heart, for example.

It takes some twisted thinking to accept this but, if this is true, congratulations, you have just made God responsible for moral evil since he could have created a world where people weren't capable of choosing evil.

No, the evil is a result of our choices. Study the article I posted. It should help. God would prefer a world in which no one committed evil, but given free will such a world is apparently not possible - not because of His will, but rather our choice. He does make a choice to actualize a world. We can assume, given the revelation of His character, the choice He made optimized salvation and minimized evil.

 

Eze 33:11

(11) Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord Jehovah, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Yes. Freewill or not, God is responsible for moral evil.

I don't see any reasoning in your objection. Do you just believe this to be true?

 

Maybe you should read this: Freedom and the Free Will Defense (1990)

Thanks. Wow, that is dense. I'm still looking for the coup des grace, but I have not found it yet. Did you read it? Perhaps you can point me to the location where Gail definitely counters my claims - a quote maybe?

[centauri]

[No, we have free will. God choose the world in which we would freely choose.

This is a popular Christian myth.

If you're a Bible believer, you're in no position to make this outlandish claim.

Predestination is clearly taught in Rom 8, Rom 9 and Eph 1:4-5,11.

At least some people are predestined to their roles and decisions.

I think you misunderstand His Omniscience and our free will. You seem to prefer some verses and ignore the larger picture. Clearly the Bible teaches free will and God's ability to choose. God along with humanity has free will. We all have the ability to choose, and at the same time we all have our parts to play in history.

 

Rom 8:30

(30) But whom He predestinated, these He also called; and whom He called, those He also justified. And whom He justified, these He also glorified.

The larger picture is that you cannot claim free will and ignore scriptures that clearly undermine your premise.

I think you’re denying the obvious, perhaps because it conflicts so deeply with the myth that you want to believe and spread.

 

Predestine means to determine in advance.

The Bible clearly states that at least some people have choices made for them in advance by God according to his will, not their will.

 

Eph 1:4-5, 11

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

 

There’s also the problem of God manipulating people so that they make specific choices.

Deut 2:30

But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the LORD thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day.

 

Until you can establish that God never directly interferes with any human choices, the claim of humans having free will is bogus.

The Bible contains verses and passages that undermine such a claim.

There isn’t any way to tell if a person’s choice was predestined or not.

Once the door is opened for predestination to come in, free will is compromised.

 

Using the word “free” is also misleading because when it comes to salvation, the alleged choice isn’t really free at all but is an ultimatum.

Decisions made under threat do not represent free will but rather conditional choice.

 

Read my reponse here.

That response by Craig doesn’t address the verses in question.

It also posits the following:

“So although God sovereignly chooses which world to create, it is up to the persons in that world whether or not they will be saved.”

 

According to Eph 1, some people are predestined by God to be saved.

It has nothing to do with the person’s actions or choices nor is it up to them to be saved.

Their salvation and election were decided in advance by God according to his will, not their will.

No, the doctrine of Middle Knowledge does deal with the seeming paradox of God's Omniscience/Omnipotence and our free will. This is specifically what it addresses. Take the time to understand Middle Knowledge You may not agree with the doctrine, but you will at least be able to move beyond the simple restatement of your position.

The doctrine does not address the specifics of the passages, it only serves to deflect the problem in an attempt to resolve a paradox.

You haven’t established that God never directly interferes with human choices.

As the article states:

 

“The doctrine of middle knowledge doesn’t take a position on these sorts of questions, but is a doctrine which can be employed creatively to fashion various options.”

 

Using this to fashion creative opinions doesn’t establish anything about free will existing or being valid.

[The-Captain]

Do I believe and rely on the testimony of the Holy Spirit. You bet.

 

By this I take it you ascribe divine inspiration to your reading of the Bible?

[OrdinaryClay]

No, the doctrine of Middle Knowledge does deal with the seeming paradox of God's Omniscience/Omnipotence and our free will. This is specifically what it addresses. Take the time to understand Middle Knowledge You may not agree with the doctrine, but you will at least be able to move beyond the simple restatement of your position.

The doctrine does not address the specifics of the passages, it only serves to deflect the problem in an attempt to resolve a paradox.

You haven’t established that God never directly interferes with human choices.

As the article states:

 

“The doctrine of middle knowledge doesn’t take a position on these sorts of questions, but is a doctrine which can be employed creatively to fashion various options.”

 

Using this to fashion creative opinions doesn’t establish anything about free will existing or being valid.

You have not established that He prevented anyones free choice (a.k.a as direct interferes) by restricting His world choice to only those worlds in which everyone chose some evil. That is the point. Middle Knowledge allows God to choose a world from a large set in which we make free choices. His choosing a world instantiation did not prevent us from making our choice. He has picked, from many possible, a world that someone made a bad choice in. Why? We don't know, but we can presume it is because the other choices were worse due to more free will bad choices from us.

 

Quote from the article in a larger context ...

As for (3), your question is misleading: on a Molinist view the problem isn’t that God hasn’t chosen him, but that he hasn’t chosen God. On Molina’s view God extends sufficient grace for salvation to every human being, but His grace is extrinsically, not intrinsically, efficacious because it requires a free response on the part of the person to become efficacious in saving that person. What God does choose is a world in which that person either freely responds to God’s salvation or freely rejects it. So what I think you’re really asking is this: are there people who are damned because they freely reject God’s grace but who would have been freely saved had a feasible world in which they were in some other circumstances been actual instead? And the answer to that question is, as I say, “We don’t know.” We can well imagine why God wouldn’t create a world in which those people find themselves in the other circumstances: maybe in such a world myriad other people would have been damned instead, so that that world has overriding disadvantages. On the other hand, maybe, as suggested above, all of the damned are trans-worldly damned, so that no one could say to God on the Judgement Day, “If only you had created me in some other circumstances, then I would have freely been saved!”

 

The doctrine of middle knowledge doesn’t take a position on these sorts of questions, but is a doctrine which can be employed creatively to fashion various options.

 

What is not being dealt with by the doctrine is exactly why God chose the actual world , which I've already stated is true multiple times in this thread. We don't know why God chose the world He did. The doctrine does allow us to say that God could have good reason to pick the world he did.

[centauri]

God can both know what you would freely choose, and exercise His omnipotence to bring about any world that is feasible. The world He chose to bring about is one in which people freely chose what you see as occurring in the Bible.

No, that's not what happens in the Bible.

People don't freely choose when they are predestined or manipulated to make a particular choice.

Your imagined world is a chimera where the word “predestine” has no meaning whatsoever.

The scriptures indicate that God directly tweaks and manipulates various people to make certain choices.

There is no free choice when you’re predestined by an outside force to make a certain choice.

 

There is no contradiction between free will and predestination in such a scenario. God said what He said because he knew Pharaoh would freely choose to harden his heart, for example.

If God knew that a person would freely choose what God wanted, then there would be no need to ensure their choice by using divine manipulation.

That’s what the scripture indicates, divine manipulation was used on an individual in order to make certain that a particular action takes place.

 

From the article I linked to:

It is up to God whether I find myself in a world in which I am predestined; But it is up to me whether I am predestined in the world in which I find myself.

It’s not up to you because it’s God’s sovereign choice not yours.

According to Eph 1, some people are predestined by God to be saved.

It has nothing to do with the person’s actions or choices, nor is it determined by them.

They don’t predestine themselves, nor does it matter if they think they’re predestined or not.

 

centauri:

The Bible also indicates that God manipulates people to make certain choices.

 

OrdinaryClay:

These choices are freely made.

 

centauri:

You haven’t backed that up, all you’ve done is repeat the same faulty claim.

The Bible says otherwise and if you’re going to insist on denying what it clearly states, then I have to assume you don’t recognize it as being valid in the first place, which renders your assertion about free will as meaningless.

 

OrdinaryClay:

To be honest, your response was just a repetition of your claim. My response above was to point out that studying the concept of Middle Knowledge will provide a doctrine that removes the seeming paradox.

To be honest, your response is just a repetition of the same theological gibberish you promoted earlier.

Any paradox can be removed by using gibberish that fails to address the verses.

Craig himself states that the doctrine is a tool to creatively fashion opinions in order to make the problem go away.

Neither you or Craig has established that God never directly interferes with any human choices.

The Bible says he does.

[NotBlinded]

Thanks. Wow, that is dense. I'm still looking for the coup des grace, but I have not found it yet. Did you read it? Perhaps you can point me to the location where Gail definitely counters my claims - a quote maybe?

I read what I could understand.

 

Here is some:

 

F-conditionals

 

The account given so far of Plantinga's Story of Creation fails to deal with some key issues concerning F-conditionals: their modal status; God's knowledge of them; and whence they derive their truth-values, assuming that they have them at all. Different ways of handling these issues produce different versions of the FWD.

 

A careful examination of the text of Plantinga's several presentations of his FWD would show that he is committed to the following three theses.

 

I. Every F-conditional has a contingent truth-value, that is, is contingency true or contingently false.

 

II. God knows the truth-value of all F-conditionals prior to his creative decision.

 

III. God does not determine the truth-values of F-conditionals.

 

Theses I and II together comprise the doctrine of God's "middle knowledge." Another way of formulating the doctrine of God's middle knowledge is that God foreknows for every diminished possible persons what free actions would be performed were that person to be instantiated.

 

We will hold off giving Plantinga's reasons for I until we consider FWD's based on its rejection. Thesis II logically follows from thesis I, on the assumption that God's omniscience requires that he knows and believes all and only true propositions. According to the Libertarian-type incompatibilist premise in his FWD, it would be inconsistent for God both to determine the truth-value of an F-conditional and actualize its antecedent, which would be analogous to God predetermining a free action by determining both the initial state of the universe and the operant causal laws.

 

If God does not determine the truth-values of the F-conditionals, who or what does? There is an answer to this that is implicit in the platonic ontology employed in Plantinga's FWD. Since possible persons, including diminished possible persons, are sets of abstract properties, they exist in every possible world, as do all abstracts. Abstract entities have both essential and accidental properties. The number two has the property of being even in every possible world but has the property of being Igor's favorite object in only some. Our old friend, diminished possible person DP, being a set of properties, has the property of containing the same properties in every possible world, such as the property of being free with respect to A. However, it also has some accidental properties, among which is the following: being-such-that-if-it-were-instantiated-its-instantiator-would-freely-do-A. In some worlds it has it and in others not. In virtue of this, the F-conditional, that if DP were instantiated, its instantiator would freely do A, is true in some worlds but not others. It is all right to call this funny property of DP a "dispositional property" provided we are clear that it is not a disposition of DP to freely perform A if instantiated (abstract entities, with the possible exception of God, cannot perform actions) but a disposition to have its instantiator freely do A.

 

But what, it will be asked, determines whether a diminished person has one of these funny dispositions? As they used to say in the Bronx, "Don't ask!" Here's where the regress of explanations hits the brick wall of brute, unexplainable contingency. There are no further elephants or tortoises upon whose back this contingency rests. Let us now consider some objections to Plantinga's FWD.

 

According to its Story of Creation the F-conditionals limit God's power in a way similar to that in which fate limits the power of the Greek gods. In both cases there is a force or power above and beyond the control of the individual that limits its powers to do what it wants. The idea that God must be lucky, that he must be dealt a favorable poker hand of F-conditional facts, if he is to be able to create a universe containing moral good sans moral evil, strikes some as blasphemous, as a radical distortion of the orthodox concept of God's omnipotence. While Plantinga's account of omnipotence is not every theist's cup of tea, certainly not that of the great medieval theists, it might be the cup of tea that will prove most digestible and healthy for theism in its effort to construct an adequate defense for God's permitting moral evil.

 

What you are saying is that before creation, god knew several possible worlds and he chose the one with the least possible evil and the most salvation. God didn't have to choose a world of freewill at all and no one would be capable of moral evil and all would be saved. You limit god's omni's by claiming that he had to create a world full of freewilled people.

 

I think it silly to begin with anyway because regardless of the conditional that was accepted by god, this world was chosen because he knew the outcome. Back to square one. You are basically saying that moral evil plays a part in freewill in order to get to the grand finale. Then how can you ever hope to have anything within this world changed when God has already chosen the "biblical" version?