Predestination?

[EricH]

Isaiah 5:4,5 --- "What move could have been done to My vineyard that I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, did it bring forth wild grapes? And now, please let Me tell you what I will do to My vineward: I will take away it's hedge, and it shall be burned: and break down it's wall, and it shall be trampled down."

In Isaiah Chapter 5 the Lord describes Israel as His vineyard and Himself as its loving owner. He explains that, as the owner of the vineyard, He "expected" it to yield grapes, but it yielded wild grapes. Then He asks, "What more was there to do for my vineyard that I have not done in it? When I expected it to yield grapes, why did it yield wild grapes?" Because it unexpectedly failed to yeld grapes, the Lord sadly concludes, "I will remove its hedge, and it shall be devoured."

If everything is eternally certain to God as the Calvinist view of foreknowledge holds, how could the Lord twice say that he "expected" one thing to occur, only to have something different occur? ("what more was there to do?") for something He knew from all eternity would never happen? If we take the passage at face value, does it not imply that the future of Israel, the "vineyard" was not certain until they settled it by choosing to yield "wild grapes"?

Albert Finch

http://afministry.ning.com (New Studies Every Day)

The word "expected" does not necessarily imply that God throught they would and they did not. It does imply that God created a situation where they should have acted in a certain way. I can have high expectations of someone filling a given position, but know that an individual will not live up to those expectations. The hebrew word qavah, does not imply anything about the foreknowledge of the person. It speaks more of attitude. It can be translated as look, wait.

In a sense you have set up a straw-man to attack. One of the key aspects of the doctrine of God's exhaustive soveriegnty and his exaustive omniscience is that while God is completely in control and know's all things, he responds to changes in circumstances. Just because He changes does not imply He did not know those changes would take place.

[EricH]

"Perfect-being theology," is an approach seeking to build theology out of the initial description of God as perfect. From that secure starting point , it is believed that many othe features of God's character and activity can be logically deduced with certainty.

Calvinists (whether knowingly or otherwise) move across the steppingstones from "God is perfect" to:

God must be in perfect control to,

Perfect control requires determining every detail of reality.

In similar fashioning, we might step from "God's will is perfect" to:

God's will can never change to,

God will never adjust His actions in light of human behaviors.

Each step feels right, since each lies but a short logical step from the next. In other words, a perfect-being approach to creating Christian theology can easily generate a view of sovereignty that eliminates at the outset any possibility of human free agents.

Albert Finch

http://afministry.ning.com (New Studies Every Day)

Actually the opposite is true. Open Theism (which is what you are articulating) cannot point to a didactic passage that states God's limited knowledge or soveriegnty. Orthodox Theologians (of which both Calvinists and Arminians would be included) agree on God's absolute soveriegnty and knowledge based on didactic passages that clearly state it. Where they esiagree is how those things resolve themselves in a real world. Some in the Arminian camp have wrestled with what they perceive as logical contradictions that have arisen due to how they have defined human freedom. For them freedom must be non-contingient (even thought such freedom cannot be demonstrated anyplace in creation. As a result of this logical quandry, they have been forced to modify God's attributes to preserve their definition of freedom (which is no place stated in scripture). To support this they point to narrative passages (as you have done) attempting to show that anthropomorphic statements about God support their position (even through they directly contradict didactic passages).

Scripture, on the other hand presents us with 2 truths:

1. God is absolutely Soveriegn and knows all things

2. Human beings possess the ability to make decisions which are not coerced, have real consequences, and for which God holds them morally accountable.

Any definition of human freedom that we hold must fully embrace both of these concepts that are clearly taught in didactic sections of scripture.

Open Thesim is really a result of logical wrestling rather than good biblical method. Open Theism is Arminianism gone to seed (just has hypercalvinism is Calvinism gone to seed).

[EricH]

If we take the passage at face value, does it not imply that the future of Israel, the "vineyard" was not certain until they settled it by choosing to yield "wild grapes"?

Albert Finch

http://afministry.ning.com (New Studies Every Day)

This is a place Open Theists typically run. However, they violate their own principle in the way they hande the didactic passages. for example, 1 John 3:20 says God "knows all things". What isnot included in "all"? At face-value this would not support your position.

[EricH]

Scripture may suggest the future is partially open and God sometimes expresses uncerainty about it. For example, he asks Moses, "How long will this people despise me? And how long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the signs that I have done among them?" (Numbers 14:11).

When my fist grade teacher asked me how much 2+2 is, does this imply she did not know herself?

[Albert Finch]

It may be reasoned that any change in a perfect God would make God imperfect, therefore, divine incarnation and earthly visitation would be impossible.

Since perfection should also entail perfect self-sufficiency, therefore, God does not love, since love implies a lack of perfect self-satisfaction.

God's inner perfection, furthermore, can experience neither joy nor sorrow, since these involve change and imperfection. - Plato

The classical theological tradition became misguided when, under the Hellenistic philosophy, it defined God's perfection in static, timeless terms. All change was considered an imperfection and thus not applicable to God.

Given this definition of divine perfection, there was no way to conceive of God as entertaining real possibilities.

In the classical (Calvinist) view God never genuinely faces a "mabe, a perhaps," or a "possibly this way or a possibly that way." For God, reality is eternally definite, settled, fixed, and certain.

Since God knows reality perfectly, it followed for classical theology that reality must be eternally and exhaustively settled.

This view is misguided on biblical, theological, and practical grounds. Biblically, God is repeatedly depicted as facing a partially open future. Theologically, several unsolvable problems inherent in the classical view can be avoided when one accepts that God is the God of the possible and not simply a God of eternally static certainties.

Practically, a God of eternally static certainties is incapable of interacting with humans in a revelant way. The God of the possible, by contrast, is a God who can work with us to truly change what might have been into what should be.

Albert Finch

http://afministry.ning.com (New Studies Every Day)

[Guest]

Check It Out!

For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Psalms 119:89

His Word Will Stand!

Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Isaiah 46:10

>>>>>()<<<<<

Scripture may suggest the future is partially open and God sometimes expresses uncertainty about it. For example, he asks Moses, "How long will this people despise me? And how long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the signs that I have done among them?" (Numbers 14:11).

Of Course God Knows The Answer

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. Romans 11:25-29

There Is No Question In My Mind That This At The Very Least Pertains To The Elect, The Remnant Of His Beloved Israel

And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. Matthew 24:22

>>>>>()<<<<<

And As For The Individual's Salvation

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: Matthew 7:24

I Also Have NO Doubt It Is

And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me. Matthew 11:6

Whosoever Will

But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. John 14:4

Believe

And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? John 11:26

Will Be Saved

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. John 6:47

Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING

Love, Your Brother Joe

[Albert Finch]

Isaiah 46:9,10 -- "I am God, and there is no other, I am God, and there is no one like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done."

Does the verse imply that everything about the future is settled in God's mind? When the verse is read in context -- Immediately after telling us that He declares "from ancient times things not yet done," the Lord adds, "My purpose shall stand, and I will fulfill my intention (Isaiah 46:10b). The Lord is not appealing to information about the future He happens to possess; instead, he is appealing to His own intentions about the future. He foreknows that certain things are going to take place because He knows His own purpose and intention to bring these events about. As sovereign Lord of history He has decided to settle this much about the future.

The point is even more emphatic in the next verse: "I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have planned, and I will do it: (Isaiah 46:11). The Lord;s announcement that He declares "the end from the beginning" must be understood in the light of this specification. He tells us that He is talking about His own will and His own plans. He declares that the future is settled to the extent that He is going to determine it, but nothing in the text requires that we believe that everything that will ever come to pass will do so according to His will and thus is settled ahead of time.

Indeed if everything came to pass according to His will, one wonders why God has to try to overcome the obstinacy of the Israelites with these assertions about particular future intentions. Wouldn't the Israelites' obstinacy itself be controlled by God?

Albert Finch

http://afministry.ning.com (New Studies Every Day)

[Fez]

Isaiah 46:9,10 -- "I am God, and there is no other, I am God, and there is no one like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done."

Does the verse imply that everything about the future is settled in God's mind? When the verse is read in context -- Immediately after telling us that He declares "from ancient times things not yet done," the Lord adds, "My purpose shall stand, and I will fulfill my intention (Isaiah 46:10b). The Lord is not appealing to information about the future He happens to possess; instead, he is appealing to His own intentions about the future. He foreknows that certain things are going to take place because He knows His own purpose and intention to bring these events about. As sovereign Lord of history He has decided to settle this much about the future.

The point is even more emphatic in the next verse: "I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have planned, and I will do it: (Isaiah 46:11). The Lord;s announcement that He declares "the end from the beginning" must be understood in the light of this specification. He tells us that He is talking about His own will and His own plans. He declares that the future is settled to the extent that He is going to determine it, but nothing in the text requires that we believe that everything that will ever come to pass will do so according to His will and thus is settled ahead of time.

Indeed if everything came to pass according to His will, one wonders why God has to try to overcome the obstinacy of the Israelites with these assertions about particular future intentions. Wouldn't the Israelites' obstinacy itself be controlled by God?

Albert Finch

http://afministry.ning.com (New Studies Every Day)

All receive Justice, not all Election.

[HitmanR2]

Of Course God Knows The Answer

Yes, I believe He does.

[EricH]

It may be reasoned that any change in a perfect God would make God imperfect, therefore, divine incarnation and earthly visitation would be impossible.

Since perfection should also entail perfect self-sufficiency, therefore, God does not love, since love implies a lack of perfect self-satisfaction.

God's inner perfection, furthermore, can experience neither joy nor sorrow, since these involve change and imperfection. - Plato

The classical theological tradition became misguided when, under the Hellenistic philosophy, it defined God's perfection in static, timeless terms. All change was considered an imperfection and thus not applicable to God.

Given this definition of divine perfection, there was no way to conceive of God as entertaining real possibilities.

In the classical (Calvinist) view God never genuinely faces a "mabe, a perhaps," or a "possibly this way or a possibly that way." For God, reality is eternally definite, settled, fixed, and certain.

Since God knows reality perfectly, it followed for classical theology that reality must be eternally and exhaustively settled.

This view is misguided on biblical, theological, and practical grounds. Biblically, God is repeatedly depicted as facing a partially open future. Theologically, several unsolvable problems inherent in the classical view can be avoided when one accepts that God is the God of the possible and not simply a God of eternally static certainties.

Practically, a God of eternally static certainties is incapable of interacting with humans in a revelant way. The God of the possible, by contrast, is a God who can work with us to truly change what might have been into what should be.

Albert Finch

http://afministry.ning.com (New Studies Every Day)

You really have not added anything new here other than to represent the logical problem in which you find your self and your wrestlings to correct it. You haven't addressed any of the shortcomings in your position I stated above.