Are you trying to make a logical argument according to your human wisdom, or are you trying to make sense of every verse of the Bible? (Romans 9:21, for instance.)
Who decided freely to blow up Babylon? Was it Darth Vader? Or was it George Lucas? Or did they both make a choice on two completely different planes of existence? You might say that we're much greater than a fictional character. I would say God is to an even greater extent greater than George Lucas.
# The Lucas Defense
I think perhaps *Star Wars* is a better illustration of your position than an argument for it. Which of course would be the fallacy of fiction*.
>Are you trying to make a logical argument according to your human wisdom, or are you trying to make sense of every verse of the Bible? (Romans 9:21, for instance.)
>-isaacsumner
Well Isaac, of course I'm not trying to lean on my own understanding. Rather I want to let the Bible speak. After all:
>2 Timothy 3:16-17 ***All Scripture*** is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
That would include Joshua 24:15. Don't you think so?
About that, from the context does it look like Joshua believes these people are making a choice, or that they are acting out a plot that was predetermined for them?
---
*
> **Appeal to Fiction:** The fallacy of fiction, also known as generalizing from fictional evidence, is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone makes claims about reality based on evidence drawn from works of fiction.
>-RationalWiki
I gave the illustration, to try to show how one might harmonize both realities. Surely you can see that.
The evidence is the scripture passage. I believe man is morally accountable, but that in another sense man, like in Romans 9, can be described as a pot prepared for destruction.
It's almost as if the freedom of the Creator is on an infinitely greater level than the freedom of the creation, however, real that freedom is.
I don't know you. I know open theism is bad juju. I do pray that you are as committed to Scripture as you say, and you'll land in a good place.
# The Empire Strikes Back
Concerning the Star Wars analogy:
>I gave the illustration, to try to show how one might harmonize both realities. Surely you can see that.
I do, and I would use that example as a means to steelman my understanding of your position. Unfortunately, there isn't a biblical example. That would be a greater evidence.
The closest example from the Bible like this is the murder of Uriah. David doesn't actually murder him but he does issue a secret decree.
>**2 Samuel 11:15** *In the letter he wrote, “Set Uriah in the forefront of the hardest fighting, and then draw back from him, that he may be struck down, and die.”*
And despite the fact that neither David, nor his agents struck the deathblow David is still guilty of Uriah's murder. Secondary causes did not eliminate David's guilt.
>"**2 Samuel 12:9** *Why have you despised the word of the LORD, to do what is evil in his sight?* ***You have struck down Uriah*** *the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him* ***with the sword of the Ammonites.***
>The evidence is the scripture passage. I believe man is morally accountable, but that in another sense man, like in Romans 9, can be described as a pot prepared for destruction.
I'm sure you do believe that, but my question was about a text in the Book of Joshua, and what he believed.
Did Joshua believe that these Hebrew Israelites had the freedom to choose when he said, "... choose this day whom you will serve..." or was he just acting out the part written for him in eternity?
>It's almost as if the freedom of the Creator is on an infinitely greater level than the freedom of the creation, however, real that freedom is.
"It's almost as if..." doesn't seem like the result of solid Hermeneutics, but rather a wobbly conjecture from leaning on one's own understanding regarding a rhetorical question asked 100s of years later in an entirely different context.
>I don't know you.
And I don't know you, and it's still nice to dialog with someone sincere.
>I know open theism is bad juju.
Who told you that? Why do you think so?
>I do pray that you are as committed to Scripture as you say, and you'll land in a good place.
Very nice. You are in my prayers as well.
Amen
The analogy you gave is terrible, because David is on the same plane of existence as Uriah and the men he used to kill them. The question is, was that whole sad situation part of God's glorious plan for the Messiah to be born through Bathsheba's line.
"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today" (Genesis 50:20).
"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit" (John 15:16).
You keep arguing with me that people have real choice, and I'm agreeing with you. My problem is that you are using your logic to limit God's power. I would be fine with that if there weren't hundreds of texts that emphasize God's decision over the events of history.
Open Theism is bad for the same reason that Hyper Calvinism is bad. God's sovereignty and human choice and responsibility are both taught in Scriptur. There are several systems which attempt to deal with both of those truths, some better than others. Unfortunately, both Open Theism and Hyper Calvinism deal with only one truth, using human logic to ignore the other.
You have not yet even heard my argument against you as far as I can tell. I'm not trying to argue that you are wrong to believe humans make real choices. I'm saying you're making a mistake by not holding on to both truths. It's much preferable, in a difficult situations to say, "I don't know how both these can be true, but I want to believe what's clearly in the Scripture." Open theism says, "There is no way that both of these can be true (according to my impressive human logic) therefore, I'm going to find a way to explain away texts about God's sovereignty."
# Return of the Jedi
>The analogy you gave is terrible, because David is on the same plane of existence as Uriah and the men he used to kill them.
The murder of Uriah is not an analogy. It's a real biblical example that happens to be analogous because it deals with primary and secondary causes. All of which makes it superior to the Lucas illustration you proffered.
When God uses the pagan nations to bring judgement on Israel it's not by a secret declaration. He says He is going to do a thing and then He does it. It's a theme throughout Isaiah.
>The question is, was that whole sad situation part of God's glorious plan for the Messiah to be born through Bathsheba's line.
So would you say that philosophically speaking Bathsheba was a "necessary being"? Are you one?
>"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today" (Genesis 50:20).
Amen
>"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit" (John 15:16).
Amen.
Dude, I believe the scriptures.
>You keep arguing with me that people have real choice,
Actually, my argument is that God has a real choice. I start with God.
>Psalms 115:3 Our God is in the heavens;
he does all that he pleases.
Many views of God do not allow for that. This is a verse about right now. Notice the verb in this verse is present tense. In a model where God knows the future exhaustively he can only do what he always knew that he would do. Perhaps he always knew it would please him but there is no choice presently.
In a model wherein God exists in an "eternal now" like Augustine proffered it's even worse. Augustine suggested that God didn't speak aloud at the Baptism of Jesus, but that he had an agent, like a bird, do it for him. (Note: Augustine's god cannot speak.)
So when the Scripture says God is patient, I believe it, because it pleases Him to do that right now.
>and I'm agreeing with you. My problem is that you are using your logic to limit God's power.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, I believe what God says about Himself in Scripture.
>I would be fine with that if there weren't hundreds of texts that emphasize God's decision over the events of history.
I'm glad you believe that. I do as well. It's open theism.
Some models picture a God that always knew what would happen. That model of God can make no decisions as they are always predetermined in the mind of God, and never were not. He is not free to make one decision much less hundreds.
... And that's where we can digress into things such as necessary beings. It elevates man to a position he doesn't deserve.
>Open Theism is bad for the same reason that Hyper Calvinism is bad.
I read the Institutes... was Calvin a hyper-Calvinist? In his model not only could one not help but sin, they didn't even have the choice of which sin to sin. He actually spends an entire chapter scolding people who say that God merely "allows sin".
>God's sovereignty and human choice and responsibility are both taught in Scriptur.
That's classic Reformed theology. If I understand James White, but even he gets stuck in the problem of evil discussion with God's liability. He doesn't even argue the point merely saying this model in which God controls sin, makes it meaningful through primary and secondary causes. He doesn't go much further, and I've listened for 100's of hours. I'd love to hear him flesh that out.
>There are several systems which attempt to deal with both of those truths, some better than others. Unfortunately, both Open Theism and Hyper Calvinism deal with only one truth, using human logic to ignore the other.
I don't understand what this means. Human logic doesn't lead to God. As a presuppositionalist I don't start with logic. I start with God. He is self-evident and it would be foolish to start anywhere else.
>You have not yet even heard my argument against you as far as I can tell.
It's just that I don't take them personally. I believe you're trying to argue consistently with your understanding of scripture. And that's a great place to start.
If your arguments against me we could just have a duel and be done with it.😜
>I'm not trying to argue that you are wrong to believe humans make real choices.
There's the crux. I don't care if men make real choices. If the Bible said they didn't, I would believe that. My concern is that the Bible says God does what he pleases right now. It certainly doesn't teach anything approaching fatalism.
>I'm saying you're making a mistake by not holding on to both truths. It's much preferable, in a difficult situations to say, "I don't know how both these can be true, but I want to believe what's clearly in the Scripture."
Agreed. There are many things I don't understand. It's the things that I do understand that you're having an issue with.
>Open theism says, "There is no way that both of these can be true (according to my impressive human logic) therefore, I'm going to find a way to explain away texts about God's sovereignty."
Who are you quoting above? I can't think of a single open theist that would say that. Of course open theists aren't monolithic, so there might be one. But that's generally not how we get there.
Anyway, great discussion. Thanks for your effort and patience. These are getting progressively longer so I might not be able to respond point for point to your next post. Instead, I'll just pick the important parts and focus on that. You might want to do that for this one.
Have a great day and God bless.
