THE OMNISCIENCE OF GOD

Of course I don't agree, 8)

The determinist must assume that David was a fool to pray to God in the first instance since the death (or life) of his son was (in the determinist presupposition) entirely foreordained

You mean the same foolish David that wrote Psalm 139, verse 16 of which reads, "Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them."? David most assuredly understood that God also numbered Hezekiah's days.

From God's perspective, no change of mind took place that altered what was already ordained for Hezekiah. However, Hezekiah was changed by praying.

the determinist model's adverse effect on petitionary prayer

If I view prayer as changing/preparing me, how would believing that God is in control of everything, have an adverse effect? It should, rather, spur me. "God does not ask us to tell Him our needs that He may learn about them, but in order that we may be capable of receiving what He is preparing to give."- Augustine

The critical point not to miss, however, is that God is active in human affairs and is responding to those prayers.

Yes, I absolutely agree, because those prayers were foreordained. As David says in verse 4, also from Psalm 139, "For there is not a word on my tongue, But behold, O Lord, You know it altogether.

Garth Brooks said in his famous song "Some of God's greatest gifts are unanswered prayers,"

Garth is a successful entertainer, but not even close as a theologian

God always answers the prayers of His children because He hears them. The answer is not always what they want, but it is always what He wants, because He has ordained whatever shall come to pass. God does not hear the prayers of the unrepentant and so they are unanswered.

"What about Jonah and Ninevah? The argument suggests that God threatened Ninevah with destruction, the Ninevites talked God out of it by prayer, and so God did not carry out His threat. This misunderstands what really happened. For one thing, if the Lord had unconditionally promised to destroy Ninevah, it would certainly have been destroyed. The fact that God did not carry out the promise tells us that it was a conditional promise. Scripture gives us several such examples. It was as if God had said through Jonah, "I will destroy you unless you repent" (Luke 13:3). As the book unfolds, we see that the Ninevites did in fact repent, so they were spared. It was certainly not because Jonah prayed for them. Had they not repented, God would certainly have destroyed them like Sodom and Gomorrah. Notice that they prayed with a view to the sovereignty of God in 3:9. They threw themselves on God's mercy, which is the appropriate attitude of prayer. Thus, they showed that they submitted to his authority, His sovereignty. His revealed will. Look deeply and you will see that God gave them that repentance and faith in the first place. That was because He had ordained to do so. It was not in answer to Jonah's prayer, because Jonah did not want them to be spared." From Curt Daniel, Prayer and the Sovereignty of God

Even their prayer of repentance was a gift from God, He did not change His mind, but the Ninevites were changed.

You mean the same foolish David that wrote Psalm 139, verse 16 ...

Yup the same David. But David was only a 'fool' if the determinist model is assumed to be true. It is, of course, not. And the point of my last post (which you overlook) was simply that: David prayed sincerely and vigorously to God to reverse His striking of David's son. You have said that you " view prayer as changing/preparing [you]...in order that we may be capable of receiving what He is preparing to give." I would certainly agree that is all that a thorough-going determinist can properly ask for.

But David was no determinist. He prayed for more -- and he was no fool.

Does it occur to you that the determinist model (as you posit it)entirely cuts out petitionary prayer for others? The determinist must conclude that James got it wrong. When he said, "pray for one another" (James 5.16), he really meant "pray for yourself only." It makes no sense to "pray for one another" when one believes in the determinist model.

I suspect I might hear the 'ceremonial' response. "Oh yes, I guess James did say that, so we'll do it because we were commanded to do so, even though our determinist model makes clear that nothing can come of it. We go through the motions, but anything which happens would have happened anyway. It was all scripted before time." Pretty dead stuff.

A relationship with the Living Christ is definitely worth giving my life to. A wooden script, reciting prearranged words with nothing real, is not.

BTW, just in passing, nothing in Psalm 139:13 requires the exhaustive predestination of the determinist model.

_______________

From God's perspective, no change of mind took place that altered what was already ordained for Hezekiah.

It is statements like this that demonstrate that determinists must elevate their model above the simple words of Scripture. Let's review:

In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, "This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover."
Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD, "Remember, O LORD , how I have walked before you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion and have done what is good in your eyes." And Hezekiah wept bitterly.
Before Isaiah had left the middle court, the word of the LORD came to him: "Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of my people, 'This is what the LORD , the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the LORD . I will add fifteen years to your life. And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend this city for my sake and for the sake of my servant David.' " [2 Kings 20:1-6]

A simple story. (a) God, through Isaiah, tells Hezekiah to put his house in order for he will not recover from his then-current illness; he will die. (b) Hezekiah prays for God to remember how he (Hezekiah) had been faithful. (c) God turns Isaiah around and sends him back to tell Hezekiah that He will give Hezekiah another 15 years because He has heard Hezekiah's prayer.

The determinist has a problem here and can only hope to gloss over it quickly. He can't say as you attempt, "From God's perspective, no change of mind took place that altered what was already ordained for Hezekiah. However, Hezekiah was changed by praying."

How was Hezekiah changed? His life was lengthened. Did Hezekiah add the 15 years to his own life? No, God changed His mind and did it. Remember, if Hezekiah were a determinist, confronted with God's information that he would not recover and would die, he would have prayed to accomodate himself to his imminent death. He did not.

Instead, he prayed fervently, reminding God of how he had lived righteously (and the Bible in other places tells us that he had). In response, God changes His mind and give him another 15 years.

Let's just be honest; the only reason you can't admit the plain meaning of this simple Scriptural account is that it doesn't fit the determinist scheme. But you can't say, "no change of mind took place that altered what was already ordained for Hezekiah."

If those extra 15 years were "already ordained for Hezekiah," then God lied in the subpart (a) statement. Of course, He did not. He simply changed His Mind in response to Hezekiah's sincere and fervent prayer. The determinist model is simply wrong and the extra 15 years of Hezekiah's life prove it.

____________

Well, we have got to end this.

I have come to believe that there are some folks who somehow gain such reassurance from the impassivity of the set-piece, fully-scripted characteristics imported by Augustine and Calvin into Christianity from the pagan Greeks and overlaid upon Scripture that they simply cannot sacrifice the determinist model even where it plainly conflicts with Scripture.

With a caveat, that's OK. A number of denominations overlay Scripture with manmade doctrines or other needless baggage, but that does not necessarily prevent their adherents (be they Mormons or Roman Catholics or determinists) from trusting Christ and thereby gaining Heaven and avoiding Hell.

The caveat is that those 'diversions', whether they be the role of Mary, latter day 'prophets', dispensationalist schemes, or determinist models, can be made so prominent by their adherents as to prevent others (and sometimes even themselves) from seeing Christ and the importance of a personal relationship with Him. If they do that, it is most serious indeed.

I hope it is not so with you. Blessings.

I have a couple of questions for you. 1. If God does not heal this little boy, will you praise Him for that action? If not, why not? If so, why? 2. If God ever changes His mind about anything He has said, what assurance do you have that He won't change His mind about John 3:16?

Set-piece determinist arguments are traditional, but hardly persuasive.

As to #1, Evil in this world is not something which God does. In fact, it is something that He wars against. IF this little boy should die, it will be an unalloyed work of evil; the work of Satan and not of God. [God can bring other good from the evil, but it doesn't change the evilness of the act.) I will hate evil all the more and yearn the more to be with God where evil no longer has a place. But it would be blasphemous indeed to purport to 'praise' God for evil (although I realize that a believer in the exhaustive foreordination of the determinist model has little option but to ascribe evil to God).

As to #2, I grant that one of the 'problems' of understanding God to be larger, active and more powerful than the wooden totem of the determinist model is that I must admit that God does indeed retain the power to modify His prior statements and commands. That is, after all, what Scripture teaches us He has already done. (Although He has never changed His essential nature.) So, in answer to your question, does God have the "power" to 'repeal' John 3:16? Yes, He does. We have no reason to believe He would and many reasons to believe He would not, but 'whosoever will' is a matter of grace after all, not a matter of 'right.'

I am not one who believes that 'grace' is part of His nature. There is nothing in His nature, for example, to have prevented God from requiring meaningless ritual works from us as a condition of salvation (such as the Mohammedan and the RCC adherents praying ritualistic prayers with prayer beads) and grading us on our compliance (as the Mohammedans and the RCC would have it). He just didn't do it. So, to the extent that you enjoy theoretical 'games', yes, there could have been another scheme of salvation.

BTW, He clearly could have (i.e., had the power to) set up the world woodenly like an erector set project, as in the determinist model, and let it run. [Although I believe that Scripture does disclose that it is contrary to His nature to be arbitrary; thus, I believe it would have been against His nature to arbitrarily select some for salvation and some for damnation before the foundation of the world as the determinist model would have it.)

But the great joy of the Christian is not the hypothetical consideration of what the 'rules of the game' could have been, but what they are disclosed to be. 'Whosoever will' accept Christ may have eternal life. It is for that we praise God.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.