|
|
Post by rakovsky on Dec 28, 2019 12:40:16 GMT -8
We got into the topic of the power of Fate/Destiny vs. Free Will here: (http://theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/4674/josephus-antiquities-books-jewish-revolts) It's an interesting topic that I value Dan's thoughts and comments about, since he emphasizes a Jewish or Hebraic perspective. Key concepts include: - God's Foreknowledge
- God's Providence or allotment of future events, eg. "Appointed Times" (the festivals), the Messiah/Anointed One, the Eschaton/Apocalypse
- Destiny/Fate / The set of future occurrences
- Predestination
- The "elect" whom God foreknew, and whether God's selection of the elect implies that others are not chosen for salvation, and therefore are unsaveable.
- Lots or destiny in the Tanakh
- Calvin's rigid Determinism that denies free will
- The pharisees' understanding in Josephus that Fate/Destiny and Free Will interact with each other.
- The EOs' understanding that God foreknows events, but that this does not deny human will
- Destiny having its own force, comparable to a wall's force against objects that come against the wall and try to move the wall
- The interaction whereby a person wants one thing, but events exist ahead of time, and so the person is following the events so that they occur anyway, or conversely, a person's ability to change the future events with enough willpower
- The story of Nineveh, Jonah's prophecy of doom, and whether it disproves Calvin's rigid Determinism.
In Book XVIII of the Antiquities, Josephus described the pharisees' beliefs on the topic:
Fate/Destiny/the Set of Future Events is not really exactly the same as Providence/God's Provisions for the Future, but they are related concepts. God's "Providence" or providing for future events certainly influences or determines what will happen.
According to the Oxford Dictionary on Providence, the term means:
You (Dan) replied: Strong's Hebrew includes: Ecclesiastes 2:14-15 has: This would match the concept of Destiny/Fate, which is an event or set of events that will occur. Eccl. 3:19 has a similar concept: Eccl. 9:2-3: Another word is: In Numbers 16:29, Moses says of Korah: Most translations say "fate" instead of visitation above, but "visitation" seems to me the more literal meaning. When it says "the visitation of all men", it sounds like the verse is talking about fate. Yom means literally "day", but in Job 18:20, the term is used synonymously with the events that take place in a "day" or time period: The NASB translates "day" here as "fate". Isaiah 13:22 uses time as a similar term, and the NASB translated it as "fateful time": 1486 Goral is a lot (for casting), portion, destinyusages include: The concept of throwing lots to determine a decision for a course of action seems associated with the concept of fate. It reminds me of the practice by prophets of looking at divine omens to determine the future. The prophet perceived the future and then could warn his listeners how to act best in accordance with it, like whether to fight a battle or not (like Jeremiah warning against fighting Babylon).  Hebrew Lots In Joshua 19:1 , lots were cast to decide which land would belong to which tribe, and "the second lot fell to Simeon". A metaphorical use of the idea of lots is when one says what their "lot" in life is. It seems to me related the concept of fate. ie the person's "lot in life" is their "fate in life", and "they received their lot" metaphorically could mean that they received their fate. Metaphorical use for "lot" comes up in Psalm 16:5: David doesn't mean that he literally cast a "lot" and God keeps that literal "lot", but rather that the Lord is something (his "portion") that he is set to "inherit", and God maintains or preserves his metaphorical "lot", ie. his future portion, which here is says is the Lord. David is probably writing with the promises of blessing that he has been given in mind. Nathan gave David prophecies of extreme blessings. Proverbs 16:33 comments: "The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD." בַּ֭חֵיק יוּטַ֣ל אֶת־הַגֹּורָ֑ל וּ֝מֵיְהוָ֗ה כָּל־מִשְׁפָּטֹֽו׃ This could help understand the interaction of God and fate. The verse is saying that people cast lots into laps, but God decides how the lot will turn out. Expanding on this Proverb, one could say that people try to do different things, but God ultimately decides the result, ie. the set of events that do in fact occur, or the "fate"/"Destiny" that occurs. In Daniel 12, Daniel is told: "But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot (lə-ḡō-rā-lə-ḵā) at the end of the days." Translations often refer to this "lot" as the "inheritance" of Daniel, that is, at the end of days, Daniel will receive his fate, his reward or punishment. Jeremiah 13 has:Translations often say "fate" instead of "lot", with the latter being the literal meaning. God is not saying that the people were literally given "lots", but rather He is using "lot" to refer to the "portion" that He will give them in the future. Isaiah 17:14 has a similar metaphorical use of "lots" and one's "portion": So my takeaway is that the concept of "fate" or "destiny" exists in the TaNaKh, but it is expressed in different ways like Lots (Goral), Miqreh (what befalls someone), Pequddah (visitation), and Yom (Day). In your reply, you said that there are actions and "consequences". It looks like the "consequences" that occur are a "fate" or "set of future events" that occur. So the consequences that result from ones actions or inactions are fate. But fate is not best seen as limited to the consequences of one's own actions or inactions. For instance, an infant could experience "consequences" of others' actions for which it had no choice or input. So the "consequences that occur" or "fate" might not be due to their own actions and choices. Maybe you could say that all events are the result of someone's actions, like the results of God's decisions when He made the world, as well as the decisions of humans, like Adam's and Eve's decisions in the Garden of Eden that created the "Fall" for the Cosmos. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Dec 29, 2019 14:55:18 GMT -8
First off, let's remind ourselves who we are talking about here; whose writings spur these conversations. Josephus: congenital liar, Hellenizer, traitor, toady for Rome and just really bad person. What he is NOT is an objective historian! Nor was he a Pharisee. He claimed he was in his later works, however until about 90 CE his works barely said anything about the Pharisees, or for that matter anything Pharisee like. His claim later in life to be a Pharisee was likely more an attempt to ingratiate himself to what was then the largest sect of Judaism in Israel and thus regain some of his dignity and standing which his own perfidy had cost him.
He was always very proud of his Sacerdotal lineage, so it is far more likely he was a Sadducee. They too ate from the hand of Rome to enrich themselves at the expense of their own people. So it fits. Pharisees get the blame, but it was the Sadducees who were mostly responsible for turning Yeshua over to the Romans for execution. There in the small courtyard, in the earliest hours of morning when the "people" cried "Crucify Him!" I can believe Josephus parents might have been there, their voices shouting in chorus with the rest.
Because of a dearth of information from the most important time and place in human history, and because scholastics, like nature abhor a vacuum, Jo the human excrement was given an undeserved status- historian. He was not! Any and every thing he says is questionable, and not to be believed unless there is corroboration. That is the only understanding I will take in discussing this vile, disgusting person.
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Dec 29, 2019 17:01:47 GMT -8
We got into the topic of the power of Fate/Destiny vs. Free Will here: (http://theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/4674/josephus-antiquities-books-jewish-revolts) It's an interesting topic that I value Dan's thoughts and comments about, since he emphasizes a Jewish or Hebraic perspective. Key concepts include: - God's Foreknowledge
- God's Providence or allotment of future events, eg. "Appointed Times" (the festivals), the Messiah/Anointed One, the Eschaton/Apocalypse
- Destiny/Fate / The set of future occurrences
- Predestination
- The "elect" whom God foreknew, and whether God's selection of the elect implies that others are not chosen for salvation, and therefore are unsaveable.
- Lots or destiny in the Tanakh
- Calvin's rigid Determinism that denies free will
- The pharisees' understanding in Josephus that Fate/Destiny and Free Will interact with each other.
- The EOs' understanding that God foreknows events, but that this does not deny human will
- Destiny having its own force, comparable to a wall's force against objects that come against the wall and try to move the wall
- The interaction whereby a person wants one thing, but events exist ahead of time, and so the person is following the events so that they occur anyway, or conversely, a person's ability to change the future events with enough willpower
- The story of Nineveh, Jonah's prophecy of doom, and whether it disproves Calvin's rigid Determinism.
In Book XVIII of the Antiquities, Josephus described the pharisees' beliefs on the topic:
Fate/Destiny/the Set of Future Events is not really exactly the same as Providence/God's Provisions for the Future, but they are related concepts. God's "Providence" or providing for future events certainly influences or determines what will happen. Only if we are quickened to His guidance and accept it. Even then, things often don't happen as we wanted or expected. But if we see it through then things work out for our best.
According to the Oxford Dictionary on Providence, the term means:
You (Dan) replied:Strong's Hebrew includes:
Ecclesiastes 2:14-15 has:
This would match the concept of Destiny/Fate, which is an event or set of events that will occur. You are looking at this as a pagan. What they call fate, fortune, or destiny is just either accident or, if you believe what you say God's divine intervention to shape all things to your benefit. And you may not even see what that is in this lifetime. But I believe when God shows us what we were saved from in His not giving us the easy road to walk we will again fall at His feet and praise Him. Also in Judaism there is a national or corporate as well as a personal reckoning. The rain falls on the just and the unjust. Therefore there is no sense in asking why you must be part of this national reckoning if you were part of the remnant saying to follow God. On the bright side, you do get to say "I told you so!"
It's not fate or destiny that places you there going through the same trials as the guilty. They will need someone who held fast to the truth to speak with them now they know it's about time to get themselves (and the nation) right with their God. You were (or should have been) their conscience, now be their guide.
Eccl. 3:19 has a similar concept:
Eccl. 9:2-3:
Another word is:
In Numbers 16:29, Moses says of Korah:Most translations say "fate" instead of visitation above, but "visitation" seems to me the more literal meaning.
When it says "the visitation of all men", it sounds like the verse is talking about fate. It is talking about God VISITING death on them for their disobedience and rebellious attitudes! Providence steps in, but God doesn't punish the just. Even if you were part of the remnant who held fast to Him, you were part of the nation that leftHim. Nations, like battles are lost one individual fight at a time. If you at any time did not stand up for the truth (and we've all been there) then you share in the national disgrace.
Yom means literally "day", but in Job 18:20, the term is used synonymously with the events that take place in a "day" or time period:
The NASB translates "day" here as "fate". I like the NASB, but it can be wrong. His day is the day in which a person or God accomplishes something great. Or it might be the day a person was born or died (his death being the greater event in Jewish thought). But even if we look at it as is death, it was not his fate; it was the day he met his fate- the fate he himself created by his own free will. The difference is not even that subtle, but it is important.
Isaiah 13:22 uses time as a similar term, and the NASB translated it as "fateful time":
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Dec 29, 2019 20:50:46 GMT -8
Good discussion by you that I want to think about more. For instance, you write:
So in what you are saying, the person's fate is not predetermined, but rather the person himself/herself is the author (albeit sometimes unwittingly, depending on the person) based on that person's actions. So it is not set ahead of time that a person will become president or a "jailbird", but rather the person creates this fate based on the person's actions.
I can see this as one way to look at it.
By comparison, some believers have the idea that God knows what you are going to do before you that those actions. God knows already what the persons fate will be (eg. Presidency vs prison), even before the person performs those actions and directly authors the specific fate. The person may author the fate, but the fate is known ahead of time.
Further, it's debatable how much the person himself is really responsible for the fate. For instance, an infant might not be really the author of its fate within the 2 weeks of its birth, but rather that fate is due to others' actions (like child abandonment). Or a person could be imprisoned on false charges due to factors of which he did not have much real control (eg. as in a case of mistaken identity).
I want to think more about what you wrote.
You made a good point when you said, "((As Marcus, in his note on the parallel passage, Ant. xiii. 172 remarks, fate (eimarmeni) is the Greek equivalent of what we should call Providence.))) Eimarmeni is more destiny whereas providence is divine leading or care. So these terms are actually nothing alike." Providence is God's guiding care, whereas fate is the set of events that will occur, so the two concepts are related (eg. in God caring for one's future), but are different.
I suppose that Marcus' note is simplistic, meaning that in a general way Josephus could talk about the role of "Fate" (the future events) like Christians talk about "Providence", in that they say that these things "determine" or "influence" how things actually play out.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Dec 29, 2019 21:22:08 GMT -8
Good discussion y you that I want to think about more. For instance, you write:So in what you are saying, the person's fate is not predetermined, but rather the person himself/herself is the author (albeit sometimes unwittingly, depending on the person) based on that person's actions. Yes. God in His sovereignty may predetermine some things that will happen to us, but never just as an arbitrary, unilateral curse. Take Phoaroah. God hardened his heart, right? But did God just say "Poof, you have a hard heart and now I can destroy Egyptian power, then you?" No, Pharoah's heart was already hard. God just said "Here's a little extra." Not by saying "Poof!" But because He knew what effect seeing Moses again would have, and how he would react to the plagues. Pharoah still had free will through the entire ordeal. But God knew what his reaction would be. That is neither fate nor destiny, just a God who knows us better than we knw ourselves. So it is not set ahead of time that a person will become president or a "jailbird", but rather the person creates this fate based on the person's actions. Well, God's will may make you either of those. Your choice, the one that decides your ultimate fate is how you react to the circumstance He places you in. David, who always consulted God before any important decision was finally crowned King of Israel many years after he was anointed. And after all those military campaigns depending on HaSHem he now goes immediately to his military captains for advice on retaking the Ark of the Covenant! Duh ... ! The irony is that Ark was representative of God's presence in Israel. They got the Ark, but while bringing it back the cart was almost upset and it cost a man his life because he touched it to try and stabilize it. The result, David was angry with God, then learned to "fear" (respect, honor) his God all over again. He went to God again, and was given a plan for victory over the Philistines and then for transporting the Ark the rest of the way home. The result, exceeding joy and celebration! So David was at a crossroads, one he'd be at many more times as king. His fate could have gone either way in any of those times. But despite some of the egregious crimes he later committed, there was always redemption because when confronted he did not argue. He fell on his face and genuinely repented. Yes, he was the author of some difficult punishments and consequences. But he was also the author of his eternal fate. So both as an exile and as leader of a nation he authored his destiny, but the role of "President" (King) proved to be the more dangerous to his eternal fate.I can see this as one way to look at it. By comparison, some believers have the idea that God knows what you are going to do before you that those actions. God knows already what the persons fate will be (eg. Presidency vs prison), even before the person performs those actions and directly authors the specific fate. The person may author the fate, but the fate is known ahead of time. I see you on the outside of the rail on a high bridge. You look distressed. I may know you are about to jump. But whether or not you do is entirely up to me, right?Further, it's debatable how much the person himself is really responsible for the fate. For instance, an infant might not be really the author of its fate within the 2 weeks of its birth, but rather that fate is due to others' actions (like child abandonment). Yes, others can decide our fate physically. And that child has less a chance to grow up and accept God than those of us raised in Godly homes. But there are many who do overcome circumstances. There is a Youtube video of a child burned with saline to induce abortion, but who miraculously survived to adulthood. She has severe medical problems, but she travels the world witnessing for the Christ against abortion. And there are many stories like that out there. Or a person could be imprisoned on false charges due to factors of which he did not have much real control (eg. as in a case of mistaken identity). Or like Joseph, who through his choices in prison and God's grace rose to second in command in the most powerful nation in the world at the time! And he was not at fault either.I want to think more about what you wrote. Well, you make me think, so turnabout is fair play!  |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Dec 30, 2019 2:09:24 GMT -8
1486 Goral is a lot (for casting), portion, destiny
usages include:
The concept of throwing lots to determine a decision for a course of action seems associated with the concept of fate. It reminds me of the practice by prophets of looking at divine omens to determine the future. The prophet perceived the future and then could warn his listeners how to act best in accordance with it, like whether to fight a battle or not (like Jeremiah warning against fighting Babylon). Consulting the Urim and Thurim or prophets of God was not to determine fate. It was to determine provenance, whether the Most High approved of the plan. Or to whom the unbiased Judge wanted property to be given, or a settlement granted. Aain, to a pagan this is fate in action. To a believer it is Gods grace in action.
Hebrew Lots
In Joshua 19:1
, lots were cast to decide which land would belong to which tribe, and "the second lot fell to Simeon". And they all accepted this as God's will. Not as their fate.
A metaphorical use of the idea of lots is when one says what their "lot" in life is. It seems to me related the concept of fate. ie the person's "lot in life" is their "fate in life", and "they received their lot" metaphorically could mean that they received their fate. And what has popular usage to do with the things of God? Many popular sayings come to us from paganism. Are we to say they all are preeminent in our spiritual life?
Metaphorical use for "lot" comes up in Psalm 16:5:
David doesn't mean that he literally cast a "lot" and God keeps that literal "lot", but rather that the Lord is something (his "portion") that he is set to "inherit", and God maintains or preserves his metaphorical "lot", ie. his future portion, which here is says is the Lord. David is probably writing with the promises of blessing that he has been given in mind. Nathan gave David prophecies of extreme blessings. Absolutely! But David trusted his God. He believed all the promises from way back, and all those given to him specifically. To him, it's a done deal, because when the God of Israel promises, He delivers! That again is not fate, but grace!
Proverbs 16:33 comments: "The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD."
בַּ֭חֵיק יוּטַ֣ל אֶת־הַגֹּורָ֑ל וּ֝מֵיְהוָ֗ה כָּל־מִשְׁפָּטֹֽו׃
This could help understand the interaction of God and fate. The verse is saying that people cast lots into laps, but God decides how the lot will turn out. Or that things may not turn out like that at all. If you just rolled the bones, God is under no obligation. But if you took a problem to His priests, and they decided the only way was for the High Priest to roll 'em, then it is God telling you His will. That's not fate, it's knowledge!
Expanding on this Proverb, one could say that people try to do different things, but God ultimately decides the result, ie. the set of events that do in fact occur, or the "fate"/"Destiny" that occurs. God does decide the fate and the destiny of men and nations. But His decisions are just, and if He decrees they be punished or killed, it is for offenses against Him. It's not just chance or arbitrarily disliking how you look. It is either in just retribution, or since you as a believer gave over your life to Him, and He may require it at any time. But to those who stay the course and submit to His will, their reward is great.
We need to make the distinction between a fate we cannot control and giving our fate to HaShem. One is pagan theology, and takes responsibility off the individual. The other makes the individual believer responsible to Almighty God, turning over our lives to Him. But we always have the choice. Will we bend our knee and accept the mark of the beast, or die for Him? You, he individual choose your own fate. Nothing to do with chance.
In Daniel 12, Daniel is told: "But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot (lə-ḡō-rā-lə-ḵā) at the end of the days."
Translations often refer to this "lot" as the "inheritance" of Daniel, that is, at the end of days, Daniel will receive his fate, his reward or punishment. Reward or punishment is not fate, it is just desserts granted by, again the impartial Judge.
Jeremiah 13 has:Translations often say "fate" instead of "lot", with the latter being the literal meaning. God is not saying that the people were literally given "lots", but rather He is using "lot" to refer to the "portion" that He will give them in the future. Exactly!
Isaiah 17:14 has a similar metaphorical use of "lots" and one's "portion":So my takeaway is that the concept of "fate" or "destiny" exists in the TaNaKh, but it is expressed in different ways like Lots (Goral), Miqreh (what befalls someone), Pequddah (visitation), and Yom (Day). I hope this changes.
In your reply, you said that there are actions and "consequences". It looks like the "consequences" that occur are a "fate" or "set of future events" that occur. No, fate has a specific meaning, as does consequences. You cannot just inerchange the meanings. So the consequences that result from ones actions or inactions are fate. Fate is chance, and if you disobey God and die in your sins, there is no chance. You absolutely will receive the consequences. But fate is not best seen as limited to the consequences of one's own actions or inactions. For instance, an infant could experience "consequences" of others' actions for which it had no choice or input. So the "consequences that occur" or "fate" might not be due to their own actions and choices. Those are the consequences of sin visited on the innocent. Again fate supposes a chance. An infant ripped apart while alive for the convenience of its mother is not fate, it is murder and conspiracy to commit murder. SPeaking of its fate removes the responsibility for the crime and, frankly makes the believer in fate rather than the word of God complicit in that crime.
Maybe you could say that all events are the result of someone's actions, like the results of God's decisions when He made the world, as well as the decisions of humans, like Adam's and Eve's decisions in the Garden of Eden that created the "Fall" for the Cosmos. Listen to what you just said. You have removed responsibility from us and placed the blame for all sin on God. "Well, if You hadn't made us, none of this would have happened." True. Neither would we have had the chance for eternity with Him. But God is sovereign in the universe, and He decided to make us for His own reasons. It's a done deal, and He has every right; so might as well get over it! |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Dec 30, 2019 11:55:24 GMT -8
Eccl. 3:19 has a similar concept:
For that which befalleth (miqreh) the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
He's making a comparison, not saying we're no better (or no better of) than beasts.
I think that in this case, the passage falls within the middle section of Ecclesiastes where the author is running some kind of inverted, sarcastic, or Socratic monologue, which he later describes as "goads", within a larger narrative "bookended" at the beginning and end of the book by sincere comments. So I agree with you that the author of Ecclesiastes does not actually believe that we're no better off than beasts, or more literally, "that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity". The writer is saying "that a man hath no preeminence" as a kind of "goad" for the reader. The author wants the reader to engage with this idea and to consider reasons and proofs for why this statement is incorrect. You asked: I didn't enter the discussion with much set opinion. My belief is that Calvinism/traditional Presbyterianism/Reformed Protestantism (to the extent that it accepts Calvin's ideas on Predestination) is too rigidly Deterministic: In my view, if a person could not change their fate from what they were "Predestined" for in the afterlife, then God's punishing or rewarding the person would not make much sense. Are you aware of Calvinist teachings on "Predestination"? My sense is that fate, the future set of events is like wet clay in a room. The clay is malleable, but it is also in a set form. It is comparable to a room, because we are talking about the time-space continuum. An event that has happened or has not happened yet is not non-existent. It exists in the past or future. The event's existence however does not mean that the event in the past or future cannot change. So in fact, the event in the past or future could change, and the wills of God, who exists throughout time, and man, to whom God has given free will, can change this past or future. This is my sense anyway. Alot of people would not agree, because it doesn't make much sense to them that the past could change. We already know what happened in the past, but we don't know what happens in the future, so it would seem to alot of people that only the unknown future could change. We don't perceive the past as changing, so therefore, alot of people would conclude that it does not change. But my sense is that their perception is illusionary, and that the past does in fact change. It's hard to make what I just said into a "doctrine." You can find bits in Judaism and Eastern Orthodoxy that go along with what I just said, or that contradict it. For instance, in Judaism, in Passover or another TaNaKh festival, the celebrants today are in some way to be considered actually present at the ancient event to which it corresponds. In Orthodoxy, communicants are likewise considered to be spiritually (and not just metaphorically) present at the Last Supper. But on the other hand, Orthodoxy tends to be skeptical about concepts like Apocastasis (Restoration of the cosmos to its original state) and the salvation of the Devil, so it is hard to create a doctrine that all time will change to make something harmonious where the devil repents and is saved. But maybe that will happen too, AFAIK. I got off on a tangent, but I am sharing my sense of things with you. I don't think that it is physically correct to say that the past and future don't exist, nor on the other hand, is it correct spiritually to think that the future cannot change. If the future exists already or is set already, then it means that the set of future events (fate or destiny by definition) also exist. So my sense is that fate exists, but can change too. Peace. Baruch Ha'Shem |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Dec 30, 2019 16:30:38 GMT -8
I can see this as one way to look at it. By comparison, some believers have the idea that God knows what you are going to do before you that those actions. God knows already what the persons fate will be (eg. Presidency vs prison), even before the person performs those actions and directly authors the specific fate. The person may author the fate, but the fate is known ahead of time. I see you on the outside of the rail on a high bridge. You look distressed. I may know you are about to jump. But whether or not you do is entirely up to me, right?This is a good point, and it's the kind of argument that I saw EOs make against Calvinist Determinism. One Calvinist argument is that God foreknows what a person will do, and that therefore the person does not really have "free will", but rather that God has absolutely predetermined their fate. An EO counterargument is that God simply knowing that a person will make a given decision does not itself cause the person to make that decision. Your example serves to help make the point. You asked, I was using it as an illustration of the concept of a "lot" as for when it can refer to fate. Sometimes popular usages are related to holy concepts, like the term "holiday", from holy day. And sure, other times the sayings can come from paganism, like "By Jove!", which refers to the chief Roman deity, Jove, or Jupiter. Certainly, they aren't all spiritually preeminent for us. You asked about Psalm 16: Verse 7 says that God counsels the person to me, the value of counsel regarding the idea of David's lot is that it is not rigidly stuck, otherwise God would not really be giving counsel in the true sense, but only instructions. There is no point in God giving advice to someone who would have no free will but only acted automatically like a robot. I was not clear enough when I said in quotes: I was thinking that Fate is a set of future events that occur, and the consequences of one's actions are also future events that occur. So I meant that consequences can be a form of date. I didn't mean that "consequences" are the same term as "fate" in meaning. Fate is the event that occurs, whereas consequences are the results of other actions, so these are different concepts. Still, they are similar. It seems that something's fate would in effect imagined usually be the result of something else, but on the other hand, I suppose that you could also imagine an uncaused future event, ie. a fate that was not the consequence of anything. You wrote: Well, that wasn't what I was saying, because I said that God's actions and Adam and Eve's actions caused the Fall, and I was not apportioning some of that blame onto God. But actually you are repeating a correct criticism of Calvinism. In Calvinism, man lacks free will and God knew that man would sin before He made man, so the criticism goes that God in effect became the author of sin, as only God was the free agent, and man was not a free agent. So what you just said is a Proof of free will and criticism of Calvinism. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Dec 31, 2019 0:28:08 GMT -8
I'm not a great fan of Calvin. Everyone (including many who should know better) says he believed in predestination. That's ok, but really what he believed in was predetermination. God, in His sovereignty predetermines who will be saved. He believed Yeshua died ONLY for those people, and they really have no choice but to choose God because the Holy Spirit regenerates them (before they accept and repent) and works on them until they make the right choice. He also preached eternal security of the believer meant once saved always saved, no matter what. I once argued with someone on staff at Wycliff who said once you were saved you could not sin, since you were already forgiven. That is Calvinism taken to extremes, which actually happened. His teachings were, within his lifetime distorted and often placed on steroids.
My belief, God does not interfere with free will. He may have foreknowledge, and He may manipulate events. But we always have a choice how to react to those events, and like the jumper knowing what is about to happen doesn't make me, you, or God responsible when it does. And we always, always have a choice whether to accept His salvation freely offered to ALL men. Yeshua died for all men as well, to give us that opportunity. And eternal security means no one may pluck me from His hands, but it does not mean I cannot walk away any time I want.
Calvin was a lawyer, as well as a theologian. That makes him 2 times the legalist most preachers, priests, and other pulpit-pundits are. He tried to make logical sense out of the mysteries of salvation, placing all responsibility on God; so he was well received across Europe and here in the US for the next several centuries (I believe he lived in the 1600's). Things were changing fast, and people needed stability. His theology gave them that. It was wrong, but stable.
Getting past the pagan "fate" thing and Josephus, I agree more with you and EO than with Calvin. Both men were products of their time ... but then again, so was the Yugo.
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Dec 31, 2019 9:52:44 GMT -8
What you are saying is the kind of sensible arguments that EOs and others have made against Calvinism. Calvin was writing in the mid 16th century, like the 1520s. It was between the start of Lutheranism and the start of Anglicanism. As I understand it, Luther and maybe Augustine focused on the act of salvation as a unilateral act, and Calvinism picked up this idea, which is called Monergism. The idea was that God's grace is bestowed on the believer, and the believer is no a cooperator in the salvation process. Monergism could have played a role in why Calvin developed his rigid Determinism.
In contrast, Judaism, Orthodoxy, and possibly Anglicanism/Methodists or even Augustine see the salvation process as one of cooperation between God and Man.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Jan 3, 2020 14:16:00 GMT -8
I Sam 2: 34And this shall be a sign unto thee, that shall come upon thy two sons, on Hophni and Phinehas; in one day they shall die both of them. 35And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever.
Jeremiah 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
These two verses appear to say people did some things that were not knowledgeable to God.
any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Jan 4, 2020 2:19:11 GMT -8
I Sam 2: 34And this shall be a sign unto thee, that shall come upon thy two sons, on Hophni and Phinehas; in one day they shall die both of them. 35And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever. Jeremiah 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin. These two verses appear to say people did some things that were not knowledgeable to God. any thoughts? 
In 1 Sam 2, Eli's sons, Hophni and Phinehas had been abusing heir position to take the best from the people and to eat what was supposed to be for God. He knew they were doing it, but for whatever His reasons He doesn't usually step in too quickly. Possibly to give us time to repent, but God is famous for His long suffering. However if we do not take the chance then there does come a reckoning. This is what I see happening here. Eli, who refused to discipline his children is being told that time is coming. God did know. Just because He did not act immediately doesn't mean He is blind to what we do or to what is in our hearts.
In Jer 32 again, God knew about the abominations in the Temple and in the high places. I'm sure He heard the screams of the children as they were burned alive by their parents. Just as He knows today every time a live infant is torn apart in its mothers womb by a doctor in an abortion clinic. But He will not remain silent forever.
Read these verses in context and it becomes clear God knew. He knew and He eventually did punish. But always also there is the message of redemption.
Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Jan 9, 2020 8:47:10 GMT -8
I Sam 2: 34And this shall be a sign unto thee, that shall come upon thy two sons, on Hophni and Phinehas; in one day they shall die both of them. 35And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever. Jeremiah 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin. These two verses appear to say people did some things that were not knowledgeable to God. any thoughts? I have a hard time seeing how the story of Phinehas means that some things aren't knowable to God, but you might be thinking that since they were appointed priests and then sinned, God must not have foreseen that they were going to sin. From my perspective though, it's conceivable that God could appoint some people to a priesthood while foreseeing that they might choose to sin. Their choice to sin was theirs, not God's choice. This is like the debate about why God would create Man if He knew that Man would sin, or why Yeshua would pick Judas, knowing that Judas would betray him, or why God would appoint Saul to be Israel's first king when his reign ended in disaster, or create other individuals in history who he would know would do very bad things in violation of what God appointed them to. The fact that they did these things or strayed from their appointed paths does not prove whether or not that God knew ahead of time that they would do these bad things. |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Jan 9, 2020 14:46:19 GMT -8
I Sam 2: 34And this shall be a sign unto thee, that shall come upon thy two sons, on Hophni and Phinehas; in one day they shall die both of them. 35And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever. Jeremiah 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin. These two verses appear to say people did some things that were not knowledgeable to God. any thoughts? "And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin." - Jeremiah 32:35 The Hebrew goes על לבי לעשות התועבה הזאת למען החטי את יהודה׃ neither came it into my mind that they do this abomination to cause Judah to sin The key term is la-‘ă-śō-wṯ, which usually elsewhere means something like "to do". A) One possible take on this is that Jeremiah 32 means that God didn't command them to do this, and likewise it didn't come into his mind for them to do this. That is, the verse makes a parallel or analogy or synonymous set of declarations about God not commanding the one, nor that it come into his mind that they do it. The two declarations are using comparable meanings. When God says that it didn't come into His mind, He means that he was not planning for them to do this, not that he couldn't, in His omniscience, foresee this potential eventuality. B) Another interpretation is that this is a simplification. It's not that God lacks omniscience in the mind of Jeremiah the prophet, but that the declaration is using exaggerated language, like someone exclaiming "That can't happen!", even though the declarant knows that it could in fact occur. C) Another interpretation could have to do with God's omniscience vs. human choice, and is what you seem to be suggesting in your post, Jimmie. That is, there are events that will occur in the future, and God has a plan for humans, and he plans for them to take certain actions, and God foresees the future events that they will do, but despite all this, since God has given humans free will, the humans can make choices that God has not planned for them to make, nor are they the actions that he foresees in their future. For instance, let's say that God plans for a car driver to drive his car straight at 5 intersections, and God watches the future course of events where this occurs in Space-Time Continuum #1. He "foresees" the car driver driving straight. However, due to the car driver's free will, the car driver makes a turn off that God had not planned, and which is different than what God had been watching in Continuum #1. This car turn-off creates Continuum #2, which is different than what God had been watching. So Continuum #1 was in God's mind, and Continuum #2 was not. Nonetheless, maybe you can take a step back and ask how God, who is above all things, not see both Continuum 1 and Continuum 2. How could God not foresee the driver's free-will choices that contradicted what the driver was on the path to doing? And the answer could be that Yes, in fact God could foresee those free will choices, and could foresee both two Continuums, and therefore when in Jeremiah God says that their actions didn't come into His mind, he either just means that He is talking about their actions that they were originally going to do (like in Continuum #1), or He is just making a simplification like a person saying "I couldn't imagine that you would do such a thing!", even if the person could in fact have imagined it. So God is watching Continuums 1 and 2, and either (A) doesn't know 100% which one we will pick, or else (B) He knows it, but He is just talking about how Continuum #2 wasn't in His mind for what we were going to do, since Continuum 1 is the "right" path that He is focused on, or else (C) He is just making a simplification when He says that #2 didn't come into His mind. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Jan 9, 2020 22:06:52 GMT -8
I Sam 2: 34And this shall be a sign unto thee, that shall come upon thy two sons, on Hophni and Phinehas; in one day they shall die both of them. 35And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever. Jeremiah 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin. These two verses appear to say people did some things that were not knowledgeable to God. any thoughts? "And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin." - Jeremiah 32:35 The Hebrew goes על לבי לעשות התועבה הזאת למען החטי את יהודה׃ neither came it into my mind that they do this abomination to cause Judah to sin The key term is la-‘ă-śō-wṯ, which usually elsewhere means something like "to do". A) One possible take on this is that Jeremiah 32 means that God didn't command them to do this, and likewise it didn't come into his mind for them to do this. That is, the verse makes a parallel or analogy or synonymous set of declarations about God not commanding the one, nor that it come into his mind that they do it. The two declarations are using comparable meanings. When God says that it didn't come into His mind, He means that he was not planning for them to do this, not that he couldn't, in His omniscience, foresee this potential eventuality. B) Another interpretation is that this is a simplification. It's not that God lacks omniscience in the mind of Jeremiah the prophet, but that the declaration is using exaggerated language, like someone exclaiming "That can't happen!", even though the declarant knows that it could in fact occur. C) Another interpretation could have to do with God's omniscience vs. human choice, and is what you seem to be suggesting in your post, Jimmie. That is, there are events that will occur in the future, and God has a plan for humans, and he plans for them to take certain actions, and God foresees the future events that they will do, but despite all this, since God has given humans free will, the humans can make choices that God has not planned for them to make, nor are they the actions that he foresees in their future. For instance, let's say that God plans for a car driver to drive his car straight at 5 intersections, and God watches the future course of events where this occurs in Space-Time Continuum #1. He "foresees" the car driver driving straight. However, due to the car driver's free will, the car driver makes a turn off that God had not planned, and which is different than what God had been watching in Continuum #1. This car turn-off creates Continuum #2, which is different than what God had been watching. So Continuum #1 was in God's mind, and Continuum #2 was not. Nonetheless, maybe you can take a step back and ask how God, who is above all things, not see both Continuum 1 and Continuum 2. How could God not foresee the driver's free-will choices that contradicted what the driver was on the path to doing? And the answer could be that Yes, in fact God could foresee those free will choices, and could foresee both two Continuums, and therefore when in Jeremiah God says that their actions didn't come into His mind, he either just means that He is talking about their actions that they were originally going to do (like in Continuum #1), or He is just making a simplification like a person saying "I couldn't imagine that you would do such a thing!", even if the person could in fact have imagined it. So God is watching Continuums 1 and 2, and either (A) doesn't know 100% which one we will pick, or else (B) He knows it, but He is just talking about how Continuum #2 wasn't in His mind for what we were going to do, since Continuum 1 is the "right" path that He is focused on, or else (C) He is just making a simplification when He says that #2 didn't come into His mind.
"That's not what I told them to do; I didn't want this!" |
|
- there are 70 faces to 
and everlasting contempt. And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.
