[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You still have not understood “epistemology”. [/quote]
Maybe, so. But, you have done nothing but done a mexican hat dance when it comes to explaining it (read: nothing but tell others they don’t understand). This is the old my argument is narrow and your argument is wide trick. Not going to work, defend yourself.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Revelation given to the Church is like knowing the fact that leaves are green. The philosophy is how we explain why/how/what kind/etc. the leaf is green. Revelation is the fact that leaves are green, that doesn’t change.[/quote]You are really REALLY missing it here Chris. Like I say. Epistemology is eluding you entirely with statements like this. YOU are the one who is confused which is not the same as stupid. Once again fellas. To agree with this: [quote]God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth. In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.[/quote] is to repudiate Aristotle, Aquinas AND by extension the Catholic (big C) church. Oh yes it is.
[/quote]
You bring Westminster. I bring Scripture.
“the Church of the living God [is] the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” Timothy 3:15.
You can believe that the living God is sovereign and the Church of the living God (the universal Church) is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, which the visible foundation being St. Peter and the invisible foundation being Jesus, is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. It’s actually required.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The Catholic (big C) church’s failure or refusal to recognize it’s own plainly Aristotelian philosophical foundation is not my fault.[/quote]
You’re fault is that you haven’t proven your assertion. So far you’ve said that you would, then said you were busy and you’d get to it later. You never did and then you come around act like you have…you still need to prove your assertion. The church’s revelation has no foundation based on Aristotle, but on Jesus (Jude 3).[/quote]Different discussion Chris and since I know you quite well by now I will not belittle you for not recognizing that. Philosophical foundations(epistemology) are not the same as the doctrine of the ekklesia/authority.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:You still have not understood “epistemology”. [/quote]Maybe, so. But, you have done nothing but a mexican hat dance when it comes to explaining it (read: nothing but tell others they don’t understand). >>>[/quote]Not even your homey Cortes is gonna go along with this Chris. If he does, I am ready. Kamui and Fletch will disagree as well.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Revelation given to the Church is like knowing the fact that leaves are green. The philosophy is how we explain why/how/what kind/etc. the leaf is green. Revelation is the fact that leaves are green, that doesn’t change.[/quote]You are really REALLY missing it here Chris. Like I say. Epistemology is eluding you entirely with statements like this. YOU are the one who is confused which is not the same as stupid. Once again fellas. To agree with this: [quote]God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth. In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.[/quote] is to repudiate Aristotle, Aquinas AND by extension the Catholic (big C) church. Oh yes it is.
[/quote]<<< You bring Westminster. I bring Scripture. >>>[/quote]So which part of this do you disagree with? Cannot get an answer from on this for weeks now dearest Christopher. Buddy, Pal, Chum, ol crony you. TELL ME PLEASE, what in this quotation you refuse to ascribe to the holy one of Israel. The ancient of days. The Lord our God who’s dominion is from everlasting and in whose sight the nations are counted as less than nothing. Cortes has already declared publicly that he finds no fault with the fine reverent exegetical work of the Westminster assembly here. He is an honorable man. Therefore I am confident he will not deny that. He simply has not grasped the full import of one’s intellectual alignment with the above statement from chapter three of the confession. That certainly has nothing whatever to do with intelligence either as my friend has shown himself more than able during the time I have known him.
I actually agree with a majority of the Westminster creed verbatim though not necessarily with the interpretations and conclusions certain proponents of creed have. One of the reasons this is so is because I find that the people who put this creed together seem to have been extremely careful as not to be presumptuous to deny something that the scriptures seem to affirm or vice versa. These men were also very well developed philosophically in that I can see a lot of Aquinas especially in chapter two in being that God is not composed of parts even though there is scriptural precedent for it, the writers certainly seemed influence by him (which seems strange to me about all the diatribe against Aquinas) and went far to avoid error and contradictions and logical fallacies.
The creed you posted philosophically speaking, is that God is a maximally great being that has all perfections maxed out without being logically incoherent and is quite similar to this definition by Richard Swinburne â??there exists necessarily a person without a body (i.e. a spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all thingsâ?¦ I understand by Godâ??s being eternal that he always has existed and always will existâ?¦ By Godâ??s being perfectly free I understand that no object or event or state(including past states of himself) in any way causally influences him to do the actions that he does-his own choice at the moment of action alone determines what he does. By Godâ??s being omnipotent I understand that he is able to do whatever it is logically possible (i.e. coherent to suppose) that he can do. By Godâ??s being omniscient I understand that he knows whatever it is logically possible that he knowâ?¦ By his being the creator of all things I understand that everything that exists at each moment of time (apart from himself) exists because, at that moment of time, he makes it exist, or permits it to exist.â??
For example God is both maximally omnipotent and good yet he being unable to sin does nothing against his omnipotence or goodness, or the example of God being unable to make a rock so large that he can’t lift or a square circle doesn’t count against his omnipotence since these things are logically incoherent and not things at all. Another perfection you seem to be mention which I agree with is that God’s perfection does not dependent on whether he creates or not and that he has it unto himself thus his decision to create is so that we may benefit as our chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. Now if he lacks a perfection letâ??s say omniscience in that he does not know the truth value of a proposition until it happens(a classic case is open theism), then it follows that ontologically and by definition such is god is not God at all. It seems to me since you frequently bring up this creed and say of those to whom you usually bring up this creed to of believing in a contingent god and thus no God at all.
It seems strange to me that you would post chapter two of the creed as if it would be in conflict with what study of second temple Judaism has brought about when I can think of something more suitable like chapter 32 and maybe others although I believe KingKai will agree with me that study of second temple Judaism/first century Christianity seems to lend support to what chapter 32 teaches.
I thoroughly agree with chapters 3,5 and 9 verbatim and am fine with your “I don’t know how God does it but I trust him” or your “itâ??s a mystery how God does it but he does it through mechanisms entirely know unto himself” and actually seem to be at your most cogent and reasonable when at such states. But I certainly have a problem with the proposition that God can only know things outside himself if he causally determines them which if true, by the Laws of Logic which have their foundation in God(John 1:1), it necessarily follows that God is the author of sin which I and the creed deny.
So I ask this of you and I think Cortes wants an answer to this as well. Demonstrate, preferably in simple argument form how God is contingent especially concerning his knowledge if he “endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil.” or otherwise libertarian free will without simply equivocating it or straw-manning us with a definition of free will we do not believe.
God endowing his creatures with libertarian free will also in no way counts against his omniscience. His knowledge is not dependent on seeing the choices his creatures he endowed with LFW did but rather he knows by virtue of being God. A consequence of God giving creatures LFW is that it creates counterfactuals of freedom. Given counterfactuals of freedom just like the â??stone to large exampleâ?? it is logically incoherent/impossible for God to causally determine someone to freely do something. Does this in any way interfere in Godâ??s ability to bring about any logical state of affairs, his divine providence or his providentially ordering history to his means, ends and purposes? I absolutely no reason to suppose this is the case.
I was brought up Seventh Day Adventist and apart from it being a false denomination/founder being a false prophetess. The way they interacted with Catholics was despicable (i.e. doing bad history/lying about history/misrepresentation of Catholicâ??s position one that outraged me was the absurd notion that the Catholic Church was responsible for the deaths of 20-50 million Christians also purported by some other protestant denominations). It seems to me that those who claim to follow Jesus should take the truth seriously and if we are to discuss with others on why we think their position is wrong should be substantial and not about minor issues like the ones KingKai brought up instead of what has been mostly discussed so far.
Also I think Cortes brings up a very important point about interpretation of scripture that one just does not simply let scripture speak for itself but rather one brings an interpretive lens in which one views it through (i.e. historical context, theology etcâ?¦) and unless there is discussion about this I have a feeling that it will end off in a epistemic stand off as has been happening for a while and no further progress will have been made. In fact I can think of a parallel argument Cortes can make of yours in that â??(e.g.) you are using your sinful finite autonomous human reason to deny what John 6:56 states simply that the bread and wine are actually his body and blood, on the basis of credulity my Lord Jesus said it, I believe it , end of discussion.â??. What progress can be made off such discussion if one doesnâ??t bring out the interpretive principle and why theirs is more valid epistemologically?
Secondly I think you confuse epistemology and ontology/metaphysics. Epistemology has to do due with how we know what we know which only affects ones discussion on the matter and has nothing to do with what is the case and a position I think you take is that we can know something because God has endowed our cognitive faculties that way for whom they are functioning as he designed them to and is the only coherent explanation for how us finite beings know anything at all etc… You are mainly arguing for the foundations of knowledge which are found in God himself and would still be true if God decided not to create anything else since he is perfect in and of himself which is ontology for which in how we know has no bearing on since we are contingent.
P.S. the SDA position that God can only know things until they happen or that he might of failed or that he was limited in his providential ordering of history is truly absurd to me. I can see how Van Till has shaped much of your thinking even though I disagree with him though I do find some things useful that he has said so has William Lane Craig been a pivotal influence on how I see Christianity.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Different discussion Chris and since I know you quite well by now I will not belittle you for not recognizing that. Philosophical foundations(epistemology) are not the same as the doctrine of the ekklesia/authority.[/quote]
Yet you haven’t explained either one. You just continue to make assertions and no proof. Facts and sources. Facts and sources.
They can disagree all they want, you have not explained to me what I lack in the area of epistemology you have just told me I’m wrong.
Stop with the ramblings; clear and concise.
You should re-read that I said you can believe that God is sovereign and that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth at the same time. You don’t have to ignore scripture.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
So I ask this of you and I think Cortes wants an answer to this as well. Demonstrate, preferably in simple argument form how God is contingent especially concerning his knowledge if he “endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil.” or otherwise libertarian free will without simply equivocating it or straw-manning us with a definition of free will we do not believe.
[/quote]
Absolutely fantastic post, Joab. I am floored. You have me nailed on every point.
And yes, Tirib, rather than asking whether we agree or disagree with the aforementioned, I would like to see and answer to the above, and, perhaps it’s an answer to the same, but exactly where Catholicism veers off the mark with this.
And about the email, I apologize, publicly, I just put it off and kept putting it off and it was one thing after another. Pure procrastination. Very sorry. No, I’m not angry with you in any way, and I appreciate your email and the PM very much.
On a side note regarding SDA’s. My first real girlfriend was a SDA. I used to attend “Sabbath” with her and once, afterward, attended her “Sabbath School” class. I was, admittedly, completely uninformed about my own faith, but this is beside the point, as you will see. During the class, composed completely of young adults from teens to early 20s, a question was asked as to who the magi were. I, in my ignorance and eager to contribute, raised my hand and offered, “kings?”. The class leader snorted, “Well, no…” and very poignant, widespread wave of snickering and under the breath comments surged through the group. The air of superiority was so thick you could push into with your hands. I was extremely embarassed. Later, I started thinking about the incident, and pairing with with the MANY others that had occurred in my time as a Catholic sheep among he wolves there. How truly, honestly unchristian, in any understanding of the term, was their treatment of me that day (and many other times). How condescending. How damned rude.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
On a side note regarding SDA’s. My first real girlfriend was a SDA. I used to attend “Sabbath” with her and once, afterward, attended her “Sabbath School” class. I was, admittedly, completely uninformed about my own faith, but this is beside the point, as you will see. During the class, composed completely of young adults from teens to early 20s, a question was asked as to who the magi were. I, in my ignorance and eager to contribute, raised my hand and offered, “kings?”. The class leader snorted, “Well, no…” and very poignant, widespread wave of snickering and under the breath comments surged through the group. The air of superiority was so thick you could push into with your hands. I was extremely embarassed. Later, I started thinking about the incident, and pairing with with the MANY others that had occurred in my time as a Catholic sheep among he wolves there. How truly, honestly unchristian, in any understanding of the term, was their treatment of me that day (and many other times). How condescending. How damned rude.
[/quote]
I think their doctrine that they are the remnant church has a lot to do with it but when I thought about it seems most ridiculous. What that doctrine basically entails is that for sometime after Jesus until some johnny come lately in the 1800s the church was mislead. They also think that only they have the spirit of prophecy and do not treat others well, especially if one has tattoos, is not a vegetarian, wears a wedding band or not dressed to the standards that EGW set in her plagiarized works.
Sigh I cannot stand the sabbath school lessons anymore, they are so myopic on interpreting everything through what EGW wrote, I once was successful for a few weeks on starting a Bible study in the young adults just trying to go through what the bible says itself but was squelched. Even being girlfriendless I still go to sermon for my mother though I bring a book to pass the time.
I was highly unimpressed with the culture. Ironically, a LARGE portion of the best friends I have in the world came from that group. Musicians, artists and bohemians I forged incredible bonds with throughout my college years. None of them has any connection that I am aware of with that church anymore (one friend married a mormon girl, and she is as far from her church as he is his). They are also all basically as far left as you can go without falling off the scale. I love them to death, though. Good people, every one.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:<<< So I ask this of you and I think Cortes wants an answer to this as well. Demonstrate, preferably in simple argument form how God is contingent especially concerning his knowledge if he “endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil.” or otherwise libertarian free will without simply equivocating it or straw-manning us with a definition of free will we do not believe. >>>[/quote] Do you by “libertarian free will” mean a will that is independent of God’s? I’m just asking. Please explain to me how 3, 5 and 9 can all be true in your view. You have mountains of material I could spend hours responding to here. I cannot proceed until I hear your explanation of how this: [quote] Ch. 3 1. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[/quote]This[quote]Ch 5-4. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first Fall, and all other sins of angels and men, and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God; who being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.[/quote]and this[quote]Ch 9-1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.[/quote]can all be true. How? You specifically named these chapters as ones you thoroughly agree with verbatim. You however say this:[quote]But I certainly have a problem with the proposition that God can only know things outside himself if he causally determines them which if true, by the Laws of Logic which have their foundation in God(John 1:1), it necessarily follows that God is the author of sin which I and the creed deny. [/quote]The above chapters of the confession, all of which I wholeheartedly agree with says: God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, this extends to all sin and that not by bare permission, man is free and God is not and cannot be the author of sin. If this is right, He knows whatsoever will come to pass, including sin and every volition of every will there will ever be, as a natural and unavoidable consequence of His having ordained them. How I ask you, can this possibly be? With some clarification from both of us maybe we’re not as far apart as it might seem.
One other thing for now. I have not made one single attempt to discredit or even diminish the study of second temple Judaism, or any other historical discipline as a valid tool for the progress of exegetical precision. The text can never mean something wholly divergent from what it meant to it’s original intended audience. I have steadfastly maintained that for over 2 decades and have said so in these forums. That is what I mean by “historico-exegetical method” when I mentioned it to Chris. .
I do however believe wholeheartedly in systematic theology. Which does not mean forcing any text into a preconceived system. It does mean that faith in the God of the scriptures produces the logical method I espouse which in turn further interprests the scriptures and is a self authenticating and logically verifying symphony of sanctified(there’s where your objection will come) circular consciousness from which emerges an admittedly subjective utter and eternal certainty available from no other source. AND which is then itself a bonus evidence for it’s validity.
I WILL, as a finite created being engage in circular reasoning and so will you. I WILL as a finite created being find true objectivity by faith alone which is by definition subjective and so will you. It’s only a matter of what in and under what motivation.
Please explain to me how you believe all these things can be true at once. As I say. I cannot properly answer until I am clearer on how you are approaching those and thereby what more exactly you are asking. We might agree already. I cannot get to you tonight Chris. I apologize. Cortes, I’m glad about the private communication. Thank you.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:<<< So I ask this of you and I think Cortes wants an answer to this as well. Demonstrate, preferably in simple argument form how God is contingent especially concerning his knowledge if he “endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil.” or otherwise libertarian free will without simply equivocating it or straw-manning us with a definition of free will we do not believe. >>>[/quote] Do you by “libertarian free will” mean a will that is independent of God’s? I’m just asking. Please explain to me how 3, 5 and 9 can all be true in your view. You have mountains of material I could spend hours responding to here. I cannot proceed until I hear your explanation of how this: [quote] Ch. 3 1. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[/quote]This[quote]Ch 5-4. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first Fall, and all other sins of angels and men, and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God; who being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.[/quote]and this[quote]Ch 9-1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.[/quote]can all be true. How? You specifically named these chapters as ones you thoroughly agree with verbatim. You however say this:[quote]But I certainly have a problem with the proposition that God can only know things outside himself if he causally determines them which if true, by the Laws of Logic which have their foundation in God(John 1:1), it necessarily follows that God is the author of sin which I and the creed deny. [/quote]The above chapters of the confession, all of which I wholeheartedly agree with says: God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, this extends to all sin and that not by bare permission, man is free and God is not and cannot be the author of sin. If this is right, He knows whatsoever will come to pass, including sin and every volition of every will there will ever be, as a natural and unavoidable consequence of His having ordained them. How I ask you, can this possibly be? With some clarification from both of us maybe we’re not as far apart as it might seem.
One other thing for now. I have not made one single attempt to discredit or even diminish the study of second temple Judaism, or any other historical discipline as a valid tool for the progress of exegetical precision. The text can never mean something wholly divergent from what it meant to it’s original intended audience. I have steadfastly maintained that for over 2 decades and have said so in these forums. That is what I mean by “historico-exegetical method” when I mentioned it to Chris. .
I do however believe wholeheartedly in systematic theology. Which does not mean forcing any text into a preconceived system. It does mean that faith in the God of the scriptures produces the logical method I espouse which in turn further interprests the scriptures and is a self authenticating and logically verifying symphony of sanctified(there’s where your objection will come) circular consciousness from which emerges an admittedly subjective utter and eternal certainty available from no other source. AND which is then itself a bonus evidence for it’s validity.
I WILL, as a finite created being engage in circular reasoning and so will you. I WILL as a finite created being find true objectivity by faith alone which is by definition subjective and so will you. It’s only a matter of what in and under what motivation.
Please explain to me how you believe all these things can be true at once. As I say. I cannot properly answer until I am clearer on how you are approaching those and thereby what more exactly you are asking. We might agree already. I cannot get to you tonight Chris. I apologize. Cortes, I’m glad about the private communication. Thank you.
[/quote]
First of all I don’t even know what you mean by a will independent of God. Secondly how these three chapters of the creed avoid contradicting one another is that in chapter 3 of the creed where it says “nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away” entails a solution to the problem. One “reformed” position holds that how this is all resolved is a mystery and we just don’t know which is a position I am fine with.
Another one which I vehemently disagree with seeks out to make the three chapters contradictory while trying to still affirm them by denying the “nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away” clause by limiting God’s knowledge and trying to work in compatalbalism when it really is just causal determinism. We both accept that God has knowledge that he couldn’t do without like 2+2=4 as well as his free knowledge i.e. one that he freely brings about.
But I remember on this board that you also proclaim that God has knowledge of all that could be which includes knowledge of the liberty and contingency of second causes of creatures God hath endued the will with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil; which includes the choices they could and would make.
Chapter 2. “nothing is to him contingent”
Chapter 3. “contingency of second causes [is not] taken away”
Chapter 3(paraphrase) God predestines precise, infallibly and unchangeably “some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death” “without any foresight” of absolutely anything they would ever be, do, think or believe.
Chapter 9. Man has a free will.
They did the best any God loving creature ever could, but their finitude had chained them to apparent contradiction that is only resolved in the mind of the infinite God.
I only have a quick second now. (like always)
Do men make autonomous decisions? That is, do they exercise volition in such a way that God is not the ultimate mysterious cause of said volition? Did Adam defy the decree of God?
Is evil God’s ultimate will for reasons sufficient to Himself whether we understand and agree or not? Does He dictate these definitions to us or there is a common standard which conformity to makes a thing good or evil even for God Himself? (we already went over that one actually)
EDITED
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Chapter 2. “nothing is to him contingent”
Chapter 3. “contingency of second causes [is not] taken away”
Chapter 3(paraphrase) God predestines precise, infallibly and unchangeably “some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death” “without any foresight” of absolutely anything they would ever be, do, think or believe.
Chapter 9. Man has a free will.
They did the best any God loving creature ever could, but their finitude had chained them to apparent contradiction that is only resolved in the mind of the infinite God.
I only have a quick second now. (like always)
Do men make autonomous decisions? That is, do they exercise volition in such a way that God is not the ultimate mysterious cause of said volition? Did Adam defy the decree of God?
Is evil God’s ultimate will for reasons sufficient to Himself whether we understand and agree or not? Does He dictate these definitions to us or there is a common standard which conformity to makes a thing good or evil even for God Himself? (we already went over that one actually)
EDITED
[/quote]
You can allow it to not be contradictory if you use the “or” clause in ch 2 if the word contingent is used in a univocal sense in chapter 2 as in chapter 3 but it seems that the word isn’t used in the univocal way; either way no need to force yourself and the Westminster assembly/Confession into a contradiction.
In ch 9 if God give men free will then he creates counterfactuals of creaturely freedom which he has knowledge of(at least according to chapter 2) which he can use to foreordain, providentially order, etc… whatsoever comes to pass for his ends and means.
I may disagree with your paraphrase of ch 3 if by predestine you mean to say causally determine. Stated plainly as the text says itself I do not disagree.
Adam was ordered by God not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, God created him knowing that he would and it came as no surprise to him while Adam still being culpable for his disobedience; in no way did Adam violate God’s eternal decree or I guess to say surprise God. Its as simple as that, I am sure you agree with the sentence I wrote above and am not sure if you are trying to pigeon hole me into some strange doctrine of free will which entails blasphemous things, just the free will as described in ch 9.
Ch 5 also has this gem “II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.”
God as a maximally great being is the pinnacle and ground for what morality is. Knowing something about morality is that it doesn’t change; Gods moral commands flow from his perfect unchanging nature so as no command is arbitrary.
“Is evil God’s ultimate will for reasons sufficient to Himself whether we understand and agree or not?”
Of course however I have a hunch that it may be this “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.” while at the same time “God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them.” this being true, in other words he didn’t create us out of a need he had but rather so that we benefit.
Dear little brother Joab(by little I only mean that I am old enough to be your father) has been reading the catechisms too. Because that is where we find right outta the gate. Question 1: “What is the chief of end of man? The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever”. AMEN and in that order I would add as the glorification of the majestic holy Lord of the universe IS the ultimate pleasure of the criminal redeemed in Christ.
Confession 3-5 [quote]V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.[/quote] OHHHH BLESS HIS HOLY NAME my dear brother. “All to the praise of His glorious grace” indeed.
You asked: Are you> [quote] trying to pigeon hole me into <<<>>> blasphemous things, >>>[/quote]You have my most solemn and emphatic NAY brother Joab. I would be unsuccessful even if this inquiry were to be answered in the affirmative because, as I have repeatedly stated, I have no doubt that you love the same Jesus I do and would never allow such a foul seduction to succeed. You simply MUST believe that I do not view you as a spiritual adversary. Unclench your butt cheeks and relax man =] I mean that with all possible sincere affection. We are discussing. I am not attacking you.
Now, that said, please square this: [quote]“creaturely freedom which he has knowledge of(at least according to chapter 2) which he can use to foreordain, providentially order, etc… whatsoever comes to pass for his ends and means”.[/quote] with the above quotation from section 5 of the third chapter of the confession where the assembly certainly appears to deny what you have here stated. It SEEMS that you are saying “God foresaw, therefore He__________” and they SEEM to be saying that “NOTHING He foresees as future motivates or influences Him”(paraphrase).
In chapter 5 they go so far as to specify that even sin does not exist or proceed by “bare permission”, but His providence “extendeth itself even to the first Fall, and ALL other sins of angels and men,”. This is of course not His decree which is under direct discussion here, but His providence which I understand, but “bare permission” or no, DOES point us back to His decree.
Yes, I’m going somewhere and yes you probably know where, but TRY to hear me out and I will do the same.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Now, that said, please square this: [quote]“creaturely freedom which he has knowledge of(at least according to chapter 2) which he can use to foreordain, providentially order, etc… whatsoever comes to pass for his ends and means”.[/quote] with the above quotation from section 5 of the third chapter of the confession where the assembly certainly appears to deny what you have here stated. It SEEMS that you are saying “God foresaw, therefore He__________” and they SEEM to be saying that “NOTHING He foresees as future motivates or influences Him”(paraphrase).
In chapter 5 they go so far as to specify that even sin does not exist or proceed by “bare permission”, but His providence “extendeth itself even to the first Fall, and ALL other sins of angels and men,”. This is of course not His decree which is under direct discussion here, but His providence which I understand, but “bare permission” or no, DOES point us back to His decree.
Yes, I’m going somewhere and yes you probably know where, but TRY to hear me out and I will do the same.
[/quote]
You are bringing up what is called the grounding objection where God’s knowledge of counterfactuals of freedom is contingent upon seeing what his creatures would do when this isn’t the case, he just knows by the virtue of being God just as he knows all true propositions for example if God creates A which is larger than B if he creates it, than if he creates C which is larger than A then he knows if he brings the above scenario to come to pass that C is larger than B; he isn’t dependent on A,B and C actual existence or see into the future to know the scenario is true if he brings it to pass.
I know I am quoting myself slightly edited.
“God endowing his creatures with [Ch9] also in no way counts against his omniscience. His knowledge is not dependent on seeing the choices his creatures he endowed with [Ch9] did but rather he knows by virtue of being God. A consequence of God giving creatures [Ch9] is that it creates counterfactuals of freedom. Given counterfactuals of freedom just like the “stone to large example” it is logically incoherent/impossible for God to causally determine someone to freely do something. Does this in any way interfere in God’s ability to bring about any logical state of affairs, limit his divine providence or his ability to providentially order history to his means, ends and purposes? I absolutely see no reason to suppose this is the case.”
It seems to me that this is dissolving into what knowledge it is possible for God to have. If God has this knowledge statements like this 5-2 “Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily,freely, or contingently” make absolute sense. If one says that it is impossible God have such knowledge at best we are left with the mystery view and at worst is saying that God is the author of sin.
However I think there needs to be justification if one is to deny that God posses that knowledge; not on virtue of seeing his creatures do it but that “In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature”.
Dissolving is such a negative term =]
[quote]“it is logically incoherent/impossible for God to causally determine someone to freely do something.”[/quote] It is logically incoherent/impossible for God to command light and matter to exist ex-nihilo, from nothing. It is logically incoherent/impossible for God to be eternally immutable and now have a body in His second person where once He didn’t. It is logically incoherent/impossible for the phrase “once He didn’t” to apply to a God who is not subject to time at all. To us that is.
Regardless of what the Westminster divines intended, they were still finite men and in portraying the things of God did in fact propose what appears to us to be contradictions. I’m fine with that.
In my view contradictions abound in our experience and it is futile to attempt to resolve what God has not revealed. Does God exercise His will in response to us or not? Secondarily or primarily is pure formality. An affirmative answer in either case introduces contingency into the only source of certainty there is or ever could be which is unthinkable to me.
Please don’t take me wrong, but I must confess that I do not understand your usage of “counterfactual” here. I wish somebody at T-Nation knew me in real life so they could vouch for how unbelievably tight my time has been for months and will be for the foreseeable future. I also have literally about six full conversations going right now counting email and PM’s. I am as tired of saying how I have so little time as you guys are of hearing it.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Dissolving is such a negative term =]
Except it is logically possible. You’re not making the distinction between the human mind’s weakness and inability to come to that conclusion logically and logic itself.
Thus the need for the bulwark and pillar of the truth.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Thus the need for the bulwark and pillar of the truth.[/quote]
Thus the need for an organized system of disbelief.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Dissolving is such a negative term =]
[quote]“it is logically incoherent/impossible for God to causally determine someone to freely do something.”[/quote] It is logically incoherent/impossible for God to command light and matter to exist ex-nihilo, from nothing. It is logically incoherent/impossible for God to be eternally immutable and now have a body in His second person where once He didn’t. It is logically incoherent/impossible for the phrase “once He didn’t” to apply to a God who is not subject to time at all. To us that is.
Regardless of what the Westminster divines intended, they were still finite men and in portraying the things of God did in fact propose what appears to us to be contradictions. I’m fine with that.
In my view contradictions abound in our experience and it is futile to attempt to resolve what God has not revealed. Does God exercise His will in response to us or not? Secondarily or primarily is pure formality. An affirmative answer in either case introduces contingency into the only source of certainty there is or ever could be which is unthinkable to me.
Please don’t take me wrong, but I must confess that I do not understand your usage of “counterfactual” here. I wish somebody at T-Nation knew me in real life so they could vouch for how unbelievably tight my time has been for months and will be for the foreseeable future. I also have literally about six full conversations going right now counting email and PM’s. I am as tired of saying how I have so little time as you guys are of hearing it.[/quote]
When I say logically impossible/incoherent I mean to say a very simple violation of the Law of non-contradiction which has its foundation in God himself.
When someone says “ha! your God can’t sin, can’t create a rock so large that he can’t lift it, or say your God couldn’t possibly exists because he can create a rock so large that he can’t lift yet that’s self contradictory etc…” doesn’t phase you because it entails a violation of the Law of non-contradiction that they supposedly hold to which is rooted in the nature of God.
God being the efficient cause of space matter and time is not logically impossible in the sense I just described since all three do not exist in and of themselves nor is a material cause sufficient to explain their existence since its circular, however to posit God, his will and fiat command as the efficient cause is entirely logical. Nor is it to say by necessity that it is illogical there are contingent facts about our non-contingent God(dependent entirely on his will) as in your example one person of the trinity having a body.
That’s not to say that these concepts are not entirely mind numbing, after listening to a lecture on God and time I had to lay on the couch for a few hours just to soak it in. Or to say that we run into apparent paradoxes some of which are not resolvable by the human intellect. However there is no true contradiction in God or what he has done “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.”
I am changing RS perfectly free definition for my purposes
By God’s being perfectly free I understand that no object or event or state of affairs(including past states of himself or future states) in any way causally influences him to do the actions that he does-his own choice at the moment of action alone determines what he does, however his actions and choices conform to his perfect nature.
I also believe this “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” and this “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” and especially this “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.”
So my answer is I don’t know; I would certainly like to see an argument in how it introduces contingency for it though.
I will list a possible counterfactual of freedom example from scripture Matt 11 “Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.”
Is it possible that God actually have this knowledge? There are many more examples in the scriptures not just with respect to freedom but events as well(notice that if God actually posses this knowledge it was entirely to his will as to why he did not actualize it).
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Dissolving is such a negative term =]
Except it is logically possible. You’re not making the distinction between the human mind’s weakness and inability to come to that conclusion logically and logic itself.
Thus the need for the bulwark and pillar of the truth.[/quote]You missed the part where I said. “to us that is”. The statement I bolded above is the first time I’ve seen yer lovable mug peek into the room I’ve been in this whole time. I agree.
The Westminster assembly WAS the church Chris. Not the whole church, but the faithful church nonetheless. Rome does not have the truth and can therefore in no wise be the “bulwark and pillar of it”. I mean that as no attack on YOU though I’ve learned you will most regrettably take it that way. I’m sorry.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Dissolving is such a negative term =]
Except it is logically possible. You’re not making the distinction between the human mind’s weakness and inability to come to that conclusion logically and logic itself.
Thus the need for the bulwark and pillar of the truth.[/quote]You missed the part where I said. “to us that is”. The statement I bolded above is the first time I’ve seen yer lovable mug peek into the room I’ve been in this whole time. I agree.
The Westminster assembly WAS the church Chris. Not the whole church, but the faithful church nonetheless. Rome does not have the truth and can therefore in no wise be the “bulwark and pillar of it”. I mean that as no attack on YOU though I’ve learned you will most regrettably take it that way. I’m sorry.
[/quote]
I think that was a type for brother chris. I think he might “it isn’t logically impossible.” That is if I understand his follow up statement correctly