Bob Hill Predestination and Free Will Q&A 3

7/24/2019 Bob Hill Predestination and Free Will Q&A 3

1/89

Directions: Click "Question:" to view the complete questions. Click "Answer:" to view

the answer. Click the "Question:" or "Answer:" again to collapse them back down.

Question: Does God know who will be saved?

ello! #ve known about $our website %or quite some time now& but never reall$ looked

deep into it. 'ut now am even more interested in predestination. (ne o% m$ %riends %rom

church believes in this& and he is alwa$s talking to me about it. recentl$ learned the term

%atalistic& which& in m$ mind& describes per%ectl$ the Calvinist universe! e gave me an

e)cerpt %rom a book he was reading about it& and it attempted to sa$ how God preordains

ever$thing& but $et the universe is not %atalistic. *ounds like a contradiction to me. And it

also sa$s that men will%ull$ do not accept Christ. 'ut i% he doesn#t choose them& how can

the$ accept? +esus sa$s no one will have an e)cuse& but that sounds like a good one to

me! ,hese were -ust a %ew things that keep on running through m$ minds. can#t wait to

start reading $our articles on predestination& and hope%ull$ learn the truth. have learned

m$ whole li%e that God has ever$ single thing planned out. -ust realied that this is wh$

have so much trouble pra$ing. #ve been raised with the attitude that it does no good&

because God has alread$ planned ever$thing. ope%ull$ will realie part o% is true

nature& and this will change.

,he onl$ thing have trouble accepting is that God does not know who will be saved.

God not knowing something -ust doesn#t "click" in m$ mind. #ll have to read deeper into

that article to understand it better /because might have misunderstood0.

,hank $ou ver$ much! can#t wait to read what $ou have to sa$.

God 'less&

+ordan

Answer: /click here to see the answer0

Dear +ordan&1hen was a Calvinist& had a lous$ pra$er li%e. ,hat2s wh$ was looking %or answers to

the question& 3ow can God answer pra$er?4 5our idea is a little di%%erent than mine. %

$ou believe that God %oreknew ever$thing that would happen in the universe be%ore e

created an$thing& then& when did e begin to %oreknow an$thing?

,hen& i% e %oreknew ever$thing that will ever happen at some point in time past& when

was that point? Did e alwa$s know it? % e %oreknew ever$thing that will ever happen

all the time& all is responses to all o% our pra$ers were also %oreknown b$ im. *ince all

o% our thoughts& actions& responses& etc.& were %oreknown& along with is responses& then&

ever$thing is& so to speak& in concrete. ,hen& no matter what we do& it was alread$ known

and was locked in& with no possibilit$ o% an$ %luctuation.*ince God predestines what e %oreknows& or is it& knows& in 6om 7:879; we& then& see

that we were predestined at the same time we were %oreknown: 3And we know that all

things work together %or good to those who love God& to those who are the called

according to is purpose. 8< =or whom e %oreknew& e also predestined to be

con%ormed to the image o% is *on& that e might be the %irstborn among man$ brethren.


2/89

; >oreover whom e predestined& these e also called whom e called& these e also

-usti%ied and whom e -usti%ied& these e also glori%ied.4

,here%ore& according to this thinking& ever$thing in the %uture is and was determined

be%ore God created the universe. 1hen $ou wrote& 3 recentl$ learned the term %atalistic&

which& in m$ mind& describes per%ectl$ the Calvinist universe! e gave me an e)cerpt

%rom a book he was reading about it& and it attempted to sa$ how God preordains

ever$thing& but $et the universe is not %atalistic. *ounds like a contradiction to me.4&

agree. t is %atalistic. @othing could be an$ di%%erent %rom what God knewknows.

owever& this can2t be shown %rom the 'ible when we understand what the word repent&

as it is used b$ God about ; times. 6epent reall$ signi%ies that God is able to change is

mind. ,he absolute %oreknowledge view would contradict God2s abilit$ to respond to

an$thing& now& because our pra$ers and actions and is responses were alread$ locked in&

in eternit$ past.

,he %irst thing remember about this idea was God was outside o% time and e)haustivel$

knew the %uture.

@ow& realie that God knows ever$thing that is possible to know& because B +ohn :8;

sa$s& 3=or i% our heart condemns us& God is greater than our heart& and knows all things.4

'ut& that doesn2t mean e knows all o% the %uture.

God knows what is knowable. % man has an$ %ree agenc$ 9 can make an$ choices not

totall$ predestined b$ God& then& those %uture %ree acts would be unknowable. ,he 'ible

doesn2t sa$ an$where& 3God knows the %uture& or God doesn2t know the %uture.4 'ut the

'ible does make statements which show that God does not know some o% the %uture

events o% the somewhat %ree agent& man.

=urther& God shows that man has %ree will& because e doesn2t know %or sure what man

will do in all cases. Gen 88:B8&B9B is one e)ample o% this. 3And e said& EDo not la$$our hand on the lad& or do an$thing to him %or now know that $ou %ear God& since $ou

have not withheld $our son& $our onl$ son& %rom >e.2 B ,hen the Angel o% the F(6D

called to Abraham a second time out o% heaven& B and said: E'$ >$sel% have sworn&

sa$s the F(6D& because $ou have done this thing& and have not withheld $our son& $our

onl$ son B blessing will bless $ou24& etc.

God also uses perhaps to show man has a certain amount o% %ree will to make choices that

are somewhat unpredictable. ere are some e)amples.

H) B:B ,hen it came to pass& when Iharaoh had let the people go& that God did not lead

them b$ wa$ o% the land o% the Ihilistines& although that was near %or God said& 3Fest

perhaps the people change their minds when the$ see war& and return to Hg$pt.4+er 8:B9 n the beginning o% the reign o% +ehoiakim the son o% +osiah& king o% +udah& this

word came %rom the F(6D& sa$ing& 8 3,hus sa$s the F(6D: E*tand in the court o% the

Ford2s house& and speak to all the cities o% +udah& which come to worship in the Ford2s

house& all the words that command $ou to speak to them. Do not diminish a word.

Ierhaps ever$one will listen and turn %rom his evil wa$& that ma$ repent concerning the

calamit$ which purpose to bring on them because o% the evil o% their doings.24


3/89

+er :B9 @ow it came to pass in the %ourth $ear o% +ehoiakim the son o% +osiah& king o%

+udah& that this word came to +eremiah %rom the F(6D& sa$ing: 8 3,ake a scroll o% a

book and write on it all the words that have spoken to $ou against srael& against +udah&

and against all the nations& %rom the da$ spoke to $ou& %rom the da$s o% +osiah even to

this da$. 3t ma$ be that the house o% +udah will hear all the adversities which purpose

to bring upon them& that ever$one ma$ turn %rom his evil wa$& that ma$ %orgive their

iniquit$ and their sin.4

He B8:B9 @ow the word o% the F(6D came to me& sa$ing: 8 3*on o% man& $ou dwell in

the midst o% a rebellious house& which has e$es to see but does not see& and ears to hear

but does not hear %or the$ are a rebellious house. ,here%ore& son o% man& prepare $our

belongings %or captivit$& and go into captivit$ b$ da$ in their sight. 5ou shall go %rom

$our place into captivit$ to another place in their sight. t ma$ be that the$ will consider&

though the$ are a rebellious house.4

% God knows the %uture e)haustivel$& wh$ would e sa$ perhaps& or& some things will

happen& and the$ do not?

ere2s what our all knowing God said to the prophet +eremiah: +er :97 ,he F(6D said

also to me in the da$s o% +osiah the king: JGod is speaking.K 3ave $ou seen what

backsliding srael has done? *he has gone up on ever$ high mountain and under ever$

green tree& and there pla$ed the harlot. And said JGod is speaking.K& a%ter she had done

all these things& E*he will return to >e2 'ut she did not return. And her treacherous sister

+udah saw it. 7 3,hen saw that %or all the causes %or which backsliding srael had

committed adulter$& had put her awa$ and given her a certi%icate o% divorce $et her

treacherous sister +udah did not %ear& but went and pla$ed the harlot also.

Another e)ample is in saiah. God e)pected srael to respond di%%erentl$ to is love. 'ut

srael didn2t. ,his is shown in sa :B9L 3@ow let me sing to m$ 1ell9beloved a song o%m$ 'eloved regarding is vine$ard: >$ 1ell9beloved has a vine$ard on a ver$ %ruit%ul

hill. 8 e dug it up and cleared out its stones& and planted it with the choicest vine. e

built a tower in its midst& and also made a winepress in it *o e e)pected it to bring %orth

good grapes& but it brought %orth wild grapes. JGod is speaking.K EAnd now& (

inhabitants o% +erusalem and men o% +udah& -udge& please& between >e and >$ vine$ard.

L 1hat more could have been done to >$ vine$ard that have not done in it? 1h$ then&

when e)pected it to bring %orth good grapes& did it bring %orth wild grapes?24

God could have made it sure b$ determining it would happen and then e could have

made it happen as e states in s L:e& B;declaring the end %rom the beginning& and %rom ancient times things that are not $et done&

sa$ing& E>$ counsel shall stand& and will do all >$ pleasure&2 BB calling a bird o% pre$

%rom the east& the man who e)ecutes >$ counsel& %rom a %ar countr$. ndeed have

spoken it will also bring it to pass. have purposed it will also do it.4 God predicts

these things and then makes them happen. 'ut& in most cases& God does not make it

happen. nstead e implores is people to return to im.


4/89

(ne more reason the 'ible shows that God changes is mind because o% man2s actions is

the use o% the ebrew word na gham. n the ni%il bin$on o% ebrew& this word means to

repent& be com%orted& etc. t is used o% God as well as man. 1hen it is used o% man& sin is

usuall$ involved. 1hen it is used o% God it shows e changes %rom a proposed or

declared action to a di%%erent action.

ere is an e)ample where na gham is used b$ +ob. 1hen +ob was talking to God& he said

in +ob L8:9& 3 have heard o% 5ou b$ the hearing o% the ear& but now m$ e$e sees 5ou.

,here%ore abhor m$sel%& and repent Jna ghamK in dust and ashes.4 ,his same word is

used o% God repeatedl$.

Gen :9 is one o% the best e)amples& in m$ mind. 3,hen the F(6D saw that the

wickedness o% man was great in the earth& and that ever$ intent o% the thoughts o% his

heart was onl$ evil continuall$. And the F(6D repented that e had made man on the

earth& and e was grieved in is heart. *o the F(6D said& 3 will destro$ man whom

have created %rom the %ace o% the earth& both man and beast& creeping thing and birds o%

the air& %or repent that have made them.4

+ud 8:B7 And when the F(6D raised up -udges %or them& the F(6D was with the -udge

and delivered them out o% the hand o% their enemies all the da$s o% the -udge %or the

F(6D was moved to pit$ J$i na gha$m2 is na ghamK b$ their groaning because o% those

who oppressed them and harassed them.

A ver$ instructive case is B *a B:BB&8e& and has not per%ormed >$ commandments.2 And it grieved

*amuel& and he cried out to the F(6D all night.4 ,hen& when *amuel told *aul that God

had taken the kingdom %rom *aul and turned to leave& *aul grabbed his garment and it

tore. ,hen *amuel turned on *aul and told him that this would not cause God to changeis mind& as though e was a man.: 8< 3And also the *trength o% srael will not lie nor

repent. =or e is not a man& that e should repent. And *amuel went no more to see

*aul until the da$ o% his death. @evertheless *amuel mourned %or *aul& and the F(6D

repented& ni gham& that e had made *aul king over srael.4

God2s principles %or repenting were laid out in +er B7:B9B; 3,he word which came to

+eremiah %rom the F(6D& sa$ing: 8 EArise and go down to the potter2s house& and there

will cause $ou to hear >$ words.2 ,hen went down to the potter2s house& and there he

was& making something at the wheel. L And the vessel that he made o% cla$ was marred in

the hand o% the potter so he made it again into another vessel& as it seemed good to the

potter to make. ,hen the word o% the F(6D came to me& sa$ing: E( house o% srael&can not do with $ou as this potter?2 sa$s the F(6D. EFook& as the cla$ is in the potter2s

hand& so are $ou in >$ hand& ( house o% srael! ,he instant speak concerning a nation

and concerning a kingdom& to pluck up& to pull down& and to destro$ it& 7 i% that nation

against whom have spoken turns %rom its evil& will repent o% the disaster that thought

to bring upon it. < And the instant speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom&


5/89

to build and to plant it& B; i% it does evil in >$ sight so that it does not obe$ >$ voice&

then will repent concerning the good with which said would bene%it it.24

=inall$& the Ford repented so man$ times in the (, that e said in +er B:& 35ou have

%orsaken >e&4 sa$s the F(6D& 35ou have gone backward. ,here%ore will stretch out

>$ hand against $ou and destro$ $ou am wear$ o% repenting!4

hope this helps.

n Christ&

'ob

Question: Can God predestine some to be saved?

,hank $ou so much %or taking the time to answer m$ questions. have one additional

question though.

1e both agree that God does not predestine all people. 'ut can he predestine some? Fike

Iaul& %or e)ample. n a wa$& he was "made" Christian. Mnder normal circumstances& Iaul

would not have been Christian. n that case& did God predestine that Iaul would be

saved?

n Christ&

+ordan


Dear +ordan&

God certainl$ can put pressure on people. e put it on +onah and as $ou pointed out& e

put it on Iaul& but e did not predestine Iaul to be saved. God used 'alaam against his

will& but 'alaam wasn#t even saved according to the @ew ,estament. Mnless the 'ible

sa$s that God predestines an$one to be saved& surel$ would not sa$ that e predestines

an$one %or salvation. #m willing to pursue this sub-ect& but we must use biblical material

to make a positive statement. % we don#t have biblical material& then we can make anegative statement.

n Christ&

'ob ill

Question: 1here do $ou get the notion o% =ree 1ill?

'ob&

stumbled across $our webpage and %ound some interesting stu%%. 'ut what troubled me&

is upon reading much o% $our responses to issues that $ou are against& $ou pre%ace the

answers $ou give with a philosophical presupposition. "*ince we all have %ree will&" or

"'ecause God made man to have %ree will&".

,his is reall$ a problem %or $ou. Claiming to be biblical and then %oisting ancient& man9centered philosoph$ on the bible is trul$ wrong. Hven us non9schooled bible students can

see eisegesis when it pops up. 1here in the bible did $ou get the notion that man has an

unchained& %ree will? *ince when has he not been a slave o% sin /i% unconverted0 or not a

slave o% righteousness /i% converted0? "=ree will" is a m$th think. @o where in the

scriptures does it teach this& but -ust the opposite. would not take the time to write this i%

didn#t care enough to speak& $ou are sadl$ mistaken in this matter. 1hen $ou go running


6/89

to %ind the passages that $ou think make $our point& then ask -ust how the$ will %it /given

$our assumptions0 with the plethora o% clear passages to the contrar$. Ilease use $our

best arguments& %or am used to correcting all the standard e)cuses b$ now and %rankl$

hope that $our %oundation is not as sand$ and sinking as it appears to be.

Iaul artung


Dear Iaul&

sincerel$ appreciate $our concern %or me. agree that it ma$ look as though it is

eisegesis& but onl$ make those statements a%ter thoroughl$ presenting e)egetical reasons

%or arriving at that conclusion. Ilease see the %ollowing document %or the Bst chapter o%

m$ book.

n Christ&

'ob ill

Calvinism Mnmasked

Chapter B

#m a Calvinist

A%ter graduated %rom high school in B


7/89

>ediator between God and men& the >an Christ +esus& who gave imsel% a ransom %or

all& to be testi%ied in due time.

e e)plained that not all were saved in this li%e& but all would eventuall$ be reconciled to

God. e showed me that there were man$ ages in the 'ible. ,his reconciliation would

happen at the end o% the ages. ,his added to m$ problem. @ow was wrestling with two

doctrines 9 the doctrine o% universal reconciliation& all will be reconciled to God& and

limited atonement& Christ died onl$ %or the elect. At that time it seemed that these were

m$ onl$ choices. believed God#s word is true and there is consistenc$ in the biblical

statements. Hither God %oreknew and predestined onl$ the elect to be saved& or e

e)haustivel$ %oreknew the %uture and willed all to be saved. 1hich one was right? Did

God will onl$ the elect to be saved? (r did e will all to be saved ultimatel$? thought it

had to be one or the other.

A 'reach in >$ Calvinist Armor

*hortl$ a%ter we moved to Cali%ornia in B


8/89

%oreknown& then God#s predestination had to be individual -ust as is %oreknowledge was.

was right back where started. could not reconcile this apparent biblical antinom$ or

parado).

At this time o% m$ li%e& this deterministic theolog$ had a detrimental in%luence on m$

attitudes about pra$er. % God knew ever$thing& and believed e did and i% God

predestinated ever$thing based on is %oreknowledge& and believed e did that too

then& ever$thing that pra$ed was %oreknown and predestined. % didn#t pra$& that also

was predestined then& it became eas$ to %eel& wh$ should pra$? Mn%ortunatel$& ended

up having an ab$smal pra$er li%e. ,he onl$ reason pra$ed& determined in m$ mind&

was because God commanded it in is word. realied that Christ and Iaul were ealous

in pra$er& however& there was no est in m$ pra$ers. ,here%ore& recognied that

something was seriousl$ wrong with m$ Christian li%e. knew this was wrong but didn#t

know what to do about it.

During this troublesome period& m$ wi%e and visited her parents in llinois. er %ather

had a treasure trove o% theological books. was browsing through his books when %ound

one b$ 1illiam H. 'iederwol% titled& ow Can God Answer Ira$er? began reading it

immediatel$. '((N ,6HH chapter O. had the title& "1h$ Ira$ i% Hver$thing s

Iredetermined b$ God?" ,hat was e)actl$ m$ dilemma. eagerl$ turned to that page. e

had three answers based on three di%%erent e)planations:

,he %irst e)planation declares that ever$thing which comes to pass is %irst predetermined

in the mind o% God. t declares that God#s predestination precedes is %oreknowledge as

the ground o% certaint$ %or human action. God onl$ %oreknows that which e has

predetermined to take place.

,he second e)planation& while admitting that God absolutel$ predetermines some things&

contends that such things as respect the government o% his %ree moral agents are onl$conditionall$ predetermined. God purposes to do under certain conditions& which depend

upon the %ree agenc$ o% man& what e would not do under other conditions. ,his

e)planation %urther declares that God#s %oreknowledge precedes is predestination. God

onl$ predetermines that which e %oreknows will take place and the %oreknowledge o%

human action has no in%luence upon its taking place it does not necessitate the action.

,he third e)planation denies that God#s %oreknowledge is necessaril$ all9comprehending.

,he third e)planation was a brand new idea to me. e then evaluated three suppositions.

e started with& "*uppose we accept". will skip the %irst two e)planations and will start

with his third supposition:

. *uppose we accept the third e)planation: the e)planation which a%%irms that God#s%oreknowledge and %oreordination are not necessaril$ all9comprehending.

5ou shrink %rom an attitude o% thought like that toward the *upreme 'eing. t appears&

does it not& to re%lect discredit upon is per%ection? 5et& let us not be too hast$ in our

-udgment. >an$ earnest and noted scholars de%end the position and strenuousl$ maintain

that not onl$ does it not dishonor God& but that it is the onl$ scheme o% thought which

does not divest im o% the essential attributes o% is divinit$.


9/89

,he position is quite clearl$ set %orth in 1.1. Ninsle$#s "*cience and Ira$er&" . . . ,his

e)planation& i% it ma$ be maintained consistentl$ with the per%ection o% God#s character&

relieves us& o% course& o% the di%%icult$ in question.

t is contended b$ the advocates o% this e)planation& that when God created us in is own

image and made us equall$ with imsel% o% sovereign will /and we know we are %ree to

choose as we will0 b$ is ver$ so doing e surrendered at least partiall$ is control over

us and o% necessit$ limited thereb$ is %oreknowledge concerning us. Ilainl$ it is the old

time9worn controvers$ between two great schools o% theolog$ between God#s

sovereignt$ on one side /involving as it does is absolute %oreknowledge and

predestination0 and man#s %ree will on the other& and between the horns o% such a dilemma

the onl$ thing to do is to con%ess a wise ignorance and hang on to both.

A controversion o% God#s per%ect %oreknowledge does not set well with most o% us&

regardless o% our denominational bias. ,he %ear& however& o% an$ belittling conception o%

God its advocates would overcome b$ showing what the theor$ o% such %oreknowledge

reall$ involves& leaving us to decide which is the greater in-ustice& i% an$& to the all9per%ect

character o% God.

,he %ollowing %rom the work above quoted on "*cience and Ira$er" will help us to an

appreciation& i% so be such is possible& o% the position assumed b$ the advocates o% the

limited knowledge theor$. ,he author sa$s: "@o petitioner can plead with an$ genuine

unction unless he believes that he can actuall$ e%%ect some change in the purposes

e)isting in the divine mind at the time his pra$er is o%%ered. . . . % God %oreknows

ever$thing that will ever come to pass& all is own mental states must necessaril$ be

included in that %oreknowledge. A moment#s re%lection will convince us that otherwise

there is not a single present intention or plan but what is e)posed to the possibilit$ o%

modi%ication. % a single thought or emotion is ever going to spring up in God#s mindunanticipated& God imsel% must be as ignorant as we as to what part o% is vast plan it

will pertain. And so& i% we would logicall$ de%end a belie% in the all9comprehensiveness

o% God#s %oreknowledge& we must a%%irm that not a single new idea can arise in is mind9

not a single new emotion be %elt9and that i% e is thus limited now e must have been

equall$ so at ever$ moment in all the eternal past& and must be through all the $ears to

come %or i% there ever has been& or ever will be& a moment when a new thought can thus

come& then during all the time preceding that moment the %oreknowledge was incomplete.

1here does this lead? n what sort o% an intellectual or emotional condition does this

irre%ragable logic compel us to assert God to be continuall$? Mnquestionabl$ that o%

per%ect stagnation. @o thought processes can be carried on under such conditions9nosuccession o% ideas& no change o% mental state but God must have been and must still be

imprisoned in a hopelessl$ dead calm. . . . 1hen& then& did e %orm is plans %or

creation? Mnder this supposition there never could have been a time when e began to

think about them. . . . % God has had no thought succession& e can have had no %eeling

is emotional state having ever necessaril$ been that o% unbroken placidit$9o% absolute

apath$& is heart throbless as a stone. e could e)perience no change o% %eeling& %or that


10/89

would involve thought9succession. =rom all the sources o% -o$ or sorrow o% which we can

conceive e would be utterl$ debarred 9 %rom pleasurable or pain%ul memories& %rom

hopes and %orebodings& %rom social s$mpathies& %rom emotions that accompan$ changes&

contrasts& surprises& %rom the glow o% activit$& even %rom the delights and grie%s o%

contemplation %or the$ all involve thought9movement. ,here%ore& under this supposition

God can have no emotional activit$& %or e would have no thought9activit$ %or its

background. ,houghts must& o% course& come and go& or the heart lies dead." "*uch&" he

sa$s& "are the absurdities in which we become hopelessl$ entangled the moment we

attempt to de%end the doctrine o% God#s per%ect %oreknowledge."

,his was astounding to me. % this were true& it would change ever$thing. 'ut he had

presented no *cripture to back up the argument. t was -ust philosophical reasoning. had

alread$ been shown and then studied God#s word on this sub-ect. ,he 'ible said that God

worked all things a%ter the counsel o% is will. 'ut thought about his statements. must

%ind a cop$ o% that book& *cience and Ira$er& and see i% there was an$ *cripture to back

up this argument.

relentlessl$ searched until %inall$ %ound the book in a used book store. avidl$ read it&

but it also was ver$ philosophical. owever& he wrote: ",he doctrine o% God#s per%ect

%oreknowledge is not onl$ unphilosophical& but also unscriptural." ,hat encouraged me to

read %urther. got to the part that 'iederwol% had quoted. ,hen realied 'iederwol% had

skipped the most important part& %or me& the re%erence to *cripture. t was there! Ninsle$

even admonished the reader:

6ead i% $ou will the ninth chapter o% Deuteronom$. >oses here rehearses the several

rebellions o% srael& and his three separate pleadings be%ore the Ford& o% %ort$ da$s and

%ort$ nights each& without either eating bread or drinking water. Hach time he %ell down

be%ore a ver$ angr$ God who had %ull$ purposed& and had de%initel$ announced hispurpose to destro$ the rebels& and each time& i% >oses can be credited& he actuall$

changed that purpose right then and there and rescued his people. ,he God here depicted

had none o% that %oreknowledge which theologians with such strange unanimit$ ascribe to

him. 'ut& sa$ $ou& JAnd man$ have made these statements o%ten.K that and similar

accounts scattered throughout the 'ible are simpl$ instances o% anthropomorphism& o%

rhetorical accommodation& o% describing in the language o% human e)periences and

human limitations what reall$ transcends the human that it was not the intent to have

these narrations interpreted as literal histor$& but as poetic appro)imations o% dim

shadowings o% reall$ ine%%able truths. t seems to me that it would be a strange wa$ to

bring the truth within our comprehension& to state what is directl$ opposed to the truth&and to reiterate the downright %alsehood again and again& in a most misleading wa$& and

in a matter o% such vital moment that all possibilit$ o% religious li%e depends on it& and

through which alone an$ lasting com%ort comes to the hungr$ human soul.

1hat happened ne)t changed m$ li%e. read Deuteronom$ < with a searching heart. ere

is what shattered the %oundations o% m$ Calvinistic s$stem o% theolog$:


11/89

Deu a$be ne)t time.

,he brand o% "calvinism" $ou spoke o% reminds me o% an assent to a %ormula or scheme

rather than convictions based on thorough stud$ and uni%$ing o% the whole o% scripture.

*ort o% the problem man$ in the re%ormed communit$ su%%ers %rom toda$& assuming the

truth is plainl$ evident without the hard work o% devoted stud$& and teaching others b$

skipping over the "hard" aspects which the carnal mind alwa$s trips on. t seems to me&


12/89

that a universal human propensit$ appears whenever %olks take the path o% least

resistance. =inding that com%ortable place to set up camp is a most high value %or those

who don#t wrestle intellectuall$& %ight it at times m$sel%. owever the sorts o% things one

is willing to bur$ %or the sake o% sleeping well at night are tragedies o% the most egregious

kinds.

take it then that $ou hold to the "open" view o% God. % $ou have believed this wa$ %or

so long& then $ou probabl$ don#t %eel what %eel when the sovereignt$ o% God is reduced

to man#s level. ,hat distinction gets ad-usted b$ ever$ generation& this one is nothing new

historicall$.

(ne o% the obvious /to m$sel%0 %laws in the logic is evident in the quote o% "*cience and

Ira$er" which sa$s& "@o petitioner can plead with an$ genuine unction unless he believes

he can actuall$ e%%ect some change in the purposes e)isting in the divine mind at the time

his pra$er is o%%ered...% God %oreknows ever$thing that will come to pass& all is own

mental states must be included in that %oreknowledge..." % God were a man& this would

seem true. % e were not in%initel$ comple) in is desires we could make a like

statement. 'ut those "i%#s" are not the case& biblicall$ speaking. can have "genuine

unction" without believing that >5 IH,,(@* >M*, change the mind o% God in order

to have m$ pra$ers answered& especiall$ i% God has ordained m$ ver$ pra$ers in is will

in the %irst place. *uch an imperative %ails to make the distinction between

Creatorcreation intellectuall$. Fikewise& God#s mental states are not %ull compehended b$

an$ but imsel%& and is not sub-ect to our %inite limitations. ,o sa$ that the Ford#s "mental

states" >M*, 'H N@(1@ at the time e conceived is decretive will is to beg a

prerogative we cannot possess.

,o %urther add a wrinkle to the situation& consider the levels o% willing in God in

Famentations :B9. e CAM*H* grie%& but e does not 1FF@GF5 A==FC, /lit."%rom is heart" in ebrew0 nor grieve men. *o e D(H* what e D(H*@#, 1A@,& in

other words e 1FF* what e D(H*@#, 1FF. ow do $ou make this mesh with

what $ou know o% im clearl$? Can God be comple) enough to have two wills? 1hat e

would like to do& and what e actuall$ decrees? don#t like to discipline m$ son& but do

%or a much greater purpose. And i% a mere man can have two wills in tension& what is God

incapable o% having?

,he reason Ninsle$ believes his logic to be "irre%ragable" is that he assumed like

limitations on the God o% the bible as that o% himsel%. *ad. Fike a %reight train such logic

pores through to a man9like& man9centered end. And using $our e)ample o% >oses& then

ultimatel$ >oses is the savior o% srael %or di%%using the hostilities o% God. Iraise >oses!Do $ou think Deut. < has never been considered b$ those who hold to the sovereignt$

promoted in scripture? s it possible God was developing >oses# character in is

dealings with srael? s e insincere %or %orgiving srael9or $ou and ? Can#t God hate sin&

and still have a %orebearance towards those e is demonstrating is glor$ through?

=unn$ how man$ limitations are put on God "necessaril$" through carnal logic& but this

kind o% logic would indict God %or %orgiving an$one at all!


13/89

realie $ou probabl$ view an$ e)ertion on God#s part upon man would render im a

robot or some other h$perbole& but again& where is $our assumption "%ree will" taught in

the bible? have a will& but it is so utterl$ in%luenced cannot even distinguish all the

%actors. ,o sa$ that man is sel% determining ultimatel$& as a re%lection o% the Creator#s own

sel% image& is to %all headlong into the same desire as Hve wanting to be like God. And

nowhere can such statements be %ound in scripture. ,o sa$ that man >M*, be sel%

determining in order to have accountabilit$ in -udgment be%ore the throne o% God /as all

sophists sa$0& is to go wa$ be$ond the revealed word erroneousl$.

await $our response. ,hank $ou.

Iaul artung


Dear Iaul&

,hank $ou %or $our %ine email. t was intelligent& it was consistent& it was to the point and

most o% all it was written in a manner becoming to a Christian. receive man$ emails that

do not even sound like the$ were written b$ a Christian.

1hen $ou wrote: " take it then that $ou hold to the "open" view o% God. % $ou have

believed this wa$ %or so long& then $ou probabl$ don#t %eel what %eel when the

sovereignt$ o% God is reduced to man#s level."

agree that %ree9will can be thought o% in that manner i% the critic does not reall$ read m$

view o% God. n no wa$ does m$ "(pen Oiew" reduce God to man#s level. God is so

awesomel$ power%ul that e runs the whole universe and knows ever$thing so e can& in

the present& overcome an$ diabolical threat to is eternal purpose. e would inter%ere

with the %reedom o% that being though& and would be ver$ happ$ e did.

n B ,i 8:L it sa$s God "desires Jqelei wills /Greek %ont is Fogos Graeca.0K all men to be

saved and to come to the knowledge o% the truth." God wills it& but agree with $ou thatman is "in %act in slaver$ /-ust the opposite o% #%reedom#0 to our natures". Fe%t to

ourselves& no one would trust Christ as his *avior. 'ut that#s $our point as well as mine.

1e are not le%t to ourselves. n 8 Ie :< it sa$s& ",he Ford is not slack concerning is

promise& as some count slackness& but is longsu%%ering toward us& not counseling an$ to

perish but all to have room %or repentance."

,he Greek %or come Jhave roomK is cwrew. ,he basic meaning o% this word is "have

room& accommodate." All the de%initions in 'GD are nuances o% this basic meaning.

>atthew Bat B:B >at Bk 8:8 +ohn 8:

+ohn 7: +ohn 8B:8 8 Co :8 8 Ie :


14/89

and open B. t is de%ined B0 to leave space /which ma$ be %illed or occupied b$ another0&

to make room& give place& $ield Ba0 to retire Bb0 metaphoricall$& to betake one#s sel%& turn

one#s sel% 80 to go %orward& advance& proceed& succeed 0 to have space or room %or

receiving or holding something.

,he word "willing" which have translated counseling& here& is boulomeno"&. no one can

prevent is counsel& boulhv& %rom happening. e is going to bring is counsel& boulhv& to

pass. ,he participle& boulomeno"& counseling& which correlates to the word counsel&

boulhv& is %ound in this passage. want to give m$ translation o% 8 Ie :< again. ",he

Ford is not slow concerning is promise& as some count slowness but is long9su%%ering

toward us& not counseling& boulomeno"& an$ to perish but JcounselingK all to have room

%or repentance." @o one has resisted is counsel. e has determined that ever$one will

have room %or repentance& and the$ do. 'ut the$ can resist is counsel %or them. Fuke

:; shows us that.

n addition to that& we see this truth stated in a di%%erent wa$ in +ohn B:< ",hat was the

true Fight which enlightens ever$ man coming into the world." 1e ma$ not have been

able to believe on our own& but God enlightened ever$one coming into the world and

counseled that ever$one would have room %or %aith in their being.

(% course& e went %urther. e made sure that ever$one in the world heard the word. Col

B:& "because o% the hope which is laid up %or $ou in heaven& o% which $ou heard be%ore

in the word o% the truth o% the gospel& which has come to $ou& as it has also in all the

world& and is bringing %orth %ruit& as it is also among $ou since the da$ $ou heard and

knew the grace o% God in truth." ,hat concept was reiterated in Col B:8& "i% indeed $ou

continue in the %aith& grounded and stead%ast& and are not moved awa$ %rom the hope o%

the gospel which $ou heard& which was preached to ever$ creature under heaven& o%

which & Iaul& became a minister."@e)t& this 1ord o% God generates %aith in those who hear "as it has also in all the world&

and is bringing %orth %ruit" %rom it: 6om B;:B&B7 "*o then %aith comes b$ hearing& and

hearing b$ the word o% God. B7 'ut sa$& have the$ not heard? 5es indeed: #,heir sound

has gone out to all the earth& and their words to the ends o% the world.#"

=inall$& +ohn B8:8 has the Ford +esus Christ sa$& "And & i% am li%ted up %rom the earth&

will draw all to >$sel%." e has done that& but not all have responded.

(ne o% the greatest corollaries to %ree will& as de%ined above& would be man#s abilit$ to

hinder God#s will. >an can do that because God created man with the abilit$ to make

choices contrar$ to is will as shown b$ the general response to B ,i 8:L. God "desires

JwillsK all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge o% the truth." 5et all men are notsaved. Hven Christians re-ect the will o% God. Hver$one o% us have. B ,h L:9 =or this is

the will o% God& $our sancti%ication: that $ou should abstain %rom se)ual immoralit$ L

that each o% $ou should know how to possess his own vessel in sancti%ication and honor&

not in passion o% lust& like the Gentiles who do not know God that no one should take

advantage o% and de%raud his brother in this matter& because the Ford is the avenger o% all


15/89

such& as we also %orewarned $ou and testi%ied. =or God did not call us to uncleanness&

but in holiness.

n the verse mentioned in Fuke& be%ore it shows that the Iharisees re-ected God#s

counsel. Fk :; "'ut the Iharisees and law$ers re-ected the will Jcounsel& as aboveK o%

God %or themselves& not having been baptied b$ him." And untold millions have re-ected

is counsel %or them since that time. ,hough man does re-ect God#s counsel %or himsel%

and does resist is will& no one can resist is counsel as it pertains to is purpose. 6om


16/89

purpose all things %or good. 8< =or whom e %oreknew& e also predestined to be

con%ormed to the image o% is *on& that e might be the %irstborn among man$ brethren.

; >oreover whom e predestined& these e also called whom e called& these e also

-usti%ied and whom e -usti%ied& these e also glori%ied.

believe this is not predestination o% individuals. t is predestination o% the corporate

bod$ o% Christ which God %itted %or glor$. As we believe and become part o% is bod$&

we then are part o% the bod$ that will become glori%ied. God not onl$ worked with srael

but works with us too. e did not %oreknow individuals. e %oreknew and elected Christ&

srael& and the bod$ o% Christ.

1hen we trust in Christ& the ol$ *pirit seals us and identi%ies us with Christ. A%ter we

are identi%ied with Christ b$ our salvation& we become part o% is predestined purpose. n

other words& once we are saved we are predestined& as members o% is bod$& to be

con%ormed to Christ2s image. @otice& it does not sa$ we are predestined to be saved. t

sa$s we are 3predestined to be con%ormed to the image o% is *on4. ,his verse is

e)cellent to show our securit$. (ur securit$ is absolute because we are predestined. (ur

salvation is not predestined.

Hph B is similar to this passage: Hph B:9BL 'lessed be the God and =ather o% our Ford

+esus Christ& who has blessed us with ever$ spiritual blessing in the heavenl$ places in

Christ& L -ust as e chose us in im be%ore the %oundation o% the world& to be hol$ and

without blame be%ore im in love& having predestined us to adoption as sons b$ +esus

Christ to imsel%& according to the good pleasure o% is will& to the praise o% the glor$

o% is grace& b$ which e made us accepted in the 'eloved. n im we have

redemption through is blood& the %orgiveness o% sins& according to the riches o% is

grace 7 which e made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence& < having made

known to us the m$ster$ o% is will& according to is good pleasure which e purposedin imsel%& B; that in the dispensation o% the %ullness o% the times e might gather

together in one all things in Christ& both which are in heaven and which are on earth 99 in

im. BB n im also we have obtained an inheritance& being predestined according to the

purpose o% im who works the all things Jthe bod$ o% ChristK according to the counsel o%

is will& B8 that we who %irst trusted in Christ should be to the praise o% is glor$. B n

im $ou also trusted& a%ter $ou heard the word o% truth& the gospel o% $our salvation in

whom also& having believed& $ou were sealed with the ol$ *pirit o% promise& BL who is

the guarantee o% our inheritance until the redemption o% the purchased possession& to the

praise o% is glor$.

,he phrase 3works with4 is translated %rom /sunergei0. ,his word is %ound times in the@,. ,he @N+O translators alwa$s translated it 3works with4 e)cept in the most important

passage& 6om 7:87.

>ark B:8; And the$ went out and preached ever$where& the Ford working with /tou

kuriou sunergountos0 them and con%irming the word through the accompan$ing signs.

Amen.

B Co B:B submit to such& and to ever$one who works /sunergounti0 and labors with us.


17/89

8 Co :889:B =or e made im who knew no sin to be sin %or us& that we might become

the righteousness o% God in im. B 1e then& as workers together /sunergountes0 with

im also plead with $ou not to receive the grace o% God in vain.

+ames 8:88 Do $ou see that %aith was working together with /suna$rgei0 his works& and

b$ works %aith was made per%ect?

1hen we look at the alleged problem in 6om 7:8oses pra$ed in H) 8:$ counsel& %rom a

%ar countr$. ndeed have spoken it will also bring it to pass. have purposed it will

also do it.4 1hen e said m$ counsel 3shall stand4& immediatel$ e said& 3and will do

all >$ pleasure4. ,hen e tells us how e will do it 3calling a bird o% pre$ %rom the

east& the man who e)ecutes >$ counsel& %rom a %ar countr$.4 ,his occurred about B;

$ears later.

n Hph B:BB& e made a statement similar to 6om 7:879;. 3n im also we have

obtained an inheritance& being predestined according to the purpose o% im who works

JtheK all things /ta panta0 according to the counsel o% is will4 n this sentence& addedthis de%inite article JtheK in %ront o% all things because the Greek had /ta panta0 all things

with a de%inite article. 1hen all things has a de%inite article it most likel$ is not re%erring

to a universal all things but the all things limited b$ the conte)t. ,he speci%ic all things

e is re%erring to is the bod$ o% Christ o% verses B; and 8& 3that in the dispensation o%

the %ullness o% the times e might gather together in one JtheK all things /ta panta0 in

Christ& both which are in heaven and which are on earth in im /B:B;0 3which is is

bod$& the %ullness o% im who %ills all /ta panta0 in all4 /B:80.

,his concerns our eternal securit$& since in Hph B:L&& 3e chose us in im be%ore the

%oundation o% the world& JtoK be hol$ and blameless be%ore im in love& having

predestined us to adoption as sons b$ +esus Christ to im& according to the good pleasureo% is will4. e chose the bod$ o% Christ to be hol$ and blameless be%ore im making it

sure b$ is predestination.

@ow& it doesn2t sa$ e chose us as individuals to be saved. t sa$s e chose us in im.

'ecause we are in Christ& we are chosen. Christ is the elect one. 1e become members o%

the bod$ o% Christ b$ believing. (nce we believe we are part o% a corporate bod$& the


18/89

predestined corporation composed o% all those who have trusted in Christ %rom Iaul to the

last one be%ore the rapture.

,here%ore& m$ conclusion is: 1e are not %oreknown as individuals& chosen as individuals&

or predestined as individuals. t is the bod$ o% Christ that is %oreknown and predestined.

n Christ&

'ob ill

Question: 6omans 7:8


19/89

the reason started researching "Calvinism" the points is because a lad$ came into our

chatroom and said God predestines ppl to hell..that made me mad..we had a long email

debate..and she was ver$ persuasive..in some o% what she was sa$ing..but she kept %lip

%lopping in her de%inenition o% predestination..that#s and active word not a passive..her

%irst de%inition was correct "pre9determine" but a%ter m$ rebuttal she changed her

de%inition to a passive& "that God in a passive wa$ predestines ppl to hell in that he -ust

doesn#t bother to reach out to them" lol..predestination can#t be passive

an$wa$s continue to stud$ this topic as it will not go out o% m$ mind

Hek B798. ave an$ pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Ford God:

and not that he should return %rom his wa$s& and live?

B798 8. =or have no pleasure in the death o% him that dieth& saith the Ford God:

where%ore turn $ourselves& and live $e

saiah L 8B. ,ell $e& and bring them near $ea& let them take counsel together: who hath

declared this %rom ancient time? who hath told it %rom that time? have not the Ford? and

there is no God else beside me a -ust God and a *aviour there is none beside me.

88. Fook unto me& and be $e saved& all the ends o% the earth: %or am God& and there is

none else.

Dann$6enee


Dear Dann$&

% this were predestination the wa$ the Calvinists believe& all o% these actions would take

place outside o% time at the same /time0 since can#t think o% a better word. ,he$ seem to

be done b$ God simultaneousl$ in time as %ar as #m concerned.

n Christ&

'ob illQuestion: 'e%ore the world began?

n 8 ,imoth$ B:


20/89

n the %ollowing material& w2s are omegas. aiwn& the noun& and aiwnios& the ad-ective&

have a variet$ o% meanings. aion is a long period o% time and aionios describes an

inde%inite period o% time.

(nl$ a%ter we stud$ the *criptures can we evaluate the biblical material containing the

words aiwn& and aiwnios and make a decision. =or instance& in the verses below it sa$s

that the m$ster$ was kept secret in cronois aioniois& age times& but now has been

mani%est. ere& cronois aioniois is not eternal.

6om B:8 @ow to im who is able to establish $ou according to m$ gospel and the

preaching o% +esus Christ& according to the revelation o% the m$ster$ kept secret since the

world began /Fiterall$ in age times cronois aioniois0 8 but now has been made mani%est&

and b$ the prophetic *criptures has been made known to all nations& according to the

commandment o% the everlasting God& %or obedience to the %aith99

,his ne)t one is similar to 8 ,i B:


21/89

Adam had not %allen& we would be hol$ and blameless because we had not sinned. 'ut

believe God knew that this was not realistic. ,here%ore& we see that Christ was %oreknown

be%ore the %oundation o% the world: B Ieter B:8; e indeed was %oreknown

/proegnwsmevnou means %oreknown0 be%ore the %oundation o% the world& but was

mani%est in these last times %or $ou

1e %ind in the B;th verse that this gracious gi%t was made possible b$ the *avior& +esus

Christ when e died %or us. 8 ,i B:B; but has now been revealed b$ the appearing o% our

*avior& +esus Christ& who has abolished death and brought li%e and immortalit$ to light

through the gospel.

n Christ&

'ob ill

Question: 1ill there be %ree will in heaven?

>r. ill&

1ill we be %ree will beings in eaven? Angels obviousl$ have %ree will %or Fuci%er chose

to disobe$. % we have %ree will in eaven& will we be %ree to do evil and to hate as on

Harth?

,hank $ou&

+ason


Dear +ason&

,hat2s an e)tremel$ good question. ,he 'ible does not speak to that issue& but will tell

$ou what think. ,o begin& most Christians reall$ don2t want to sin here on the earth.

know don2t& but we have this thing called %lesh while we are on the earth.

6om 7:89 =or the law o% the *pirit o% li%e in Christ +esus has made me %ree %rom the law

o% sin and death. =or what the law could not do in that it was weak through the %lesh&God did b$ sending is own *on in the likeness o% sin%ul %lesh& on account o% sin: e

condemned sin in the %lesh& L that the righteous requirement o% the law might be %ul%illed

in us who do not walk according to the %lesh but according to the *pirit. =or those who

live according to the %lesh set their minds on the things o% the %lesh& but those who live

according to the *pirit& the things o% the *pirit. =or the mind o% the %lesh is death& but

the mind o% the *pirit is li%e and peace. 'ecause the mind o% the %lesh is enmit$ against

God %or it is not sub-ect to the law o% God& nor indeed can be.

1hen we are raptured or resurrected& we will get spiritual bodies and we won2t have that

thing called %lesh an$more. ,hen& we won2t have those constant temptations aroused in

the %lesh.B Co B:L89L *o also is the resurrection o% the dead. ,he bod$ is sown in corruption& it

is raised in incorruption. L t is sown in dishonor& it is raised in glor$. t is sown in

weakness& it is raised in power. LL t is sown a natural bod$& it is raised a spiritual bod$.

,here is a natural bod$& and there is a spiritual bod$. L And so it is written& 3,he %irst

man Adam became a living being.4 ,he last Adam became a li%e9giving spirit. L

owever& the spiritual is not %irst& but the natural& and a%terward the spiritual. L ,he %irst


22/89

man was o% the earth& made o% dust the second >an is the Ford %rom heaven. L7 As was

the man o% dust& so also are those who are made o% dust and as is the heavenl$ >an& so

also are those who are heavenl$. L< And as we have borne the image o% the man o% dust&

we shall also bear the image o% the heavenl$ >an. ; @ow this sa$& brethren& that %lesh

and blood cannot inherit the kingdom o% God nor does corruption inherit incorruption. B

'ehold& tell $ou a m$ster$: 1e shall not all sleep& but we shall all be changed 99 8 in a

moment& in the twinkling o% an e$e& at the last trumpet. =or the trumpet will sound& and

the dead will be raised incorruptible& and we shall be changed. =or this corruptible

must put on incorruption& and this mortal must put on immortalit$. L *o when this

corruptible has put on incorruption& and this mortal has put on immortalit$& then shall be

brought to pass the sa$ing that is written: 3Death is swallowed up in victor$.4

A%ter a person gets saved& he tends to grow in the Ford i% he meditates on God2s word and

%ocuses on loving God. ,hose tendencies lead to a godl$ li%e even here on the earth. n

heaven there will be no temptation. Also& we will be in the presence o% the Ford God.

,here%ore& believe we will reall$ have %ree will in heaven. =or the %irst time in m$ li%e

will be %ree to choose to alwa$s do what God wants me to do without the %lesh2s corrupt

promptings. 1e will not want to sin& and think we won2t. ,hat will be -ust like the

angels who did not sin like Fuci%er and his angels.

n Christ&

'ob ill

Question: Iredestination versus =reewill

Dear 'ob

'ackground

recentl$ send an email cop$ o% $our web9page that Discussed Iredestination and =ree9

will to a godl$ pastor o% a 6e%ormed 'aptist Church here in sunn$ *outh A%rica. invited him to review $our page and to comment back to me about it.

e replied b$ stating "(h& this gu$ is an (pen ,heist"& and gave me a cop$ o% "@o (ther

God" b$ +ohn >. =rame.

Question: 1hat tactics would $ou recommend /i% an$0 %or me to pursue the ne)t round o%

our discussions?

God 'less 5ou %or $our service to the truth o% +esus Christ

Feslie Crickma$


Dear Feslie&

God2s 1ord has an overwhelming amount o% evidence about God being open rather thanlocked in without being able to change an$thing in the %uture. ,his is a ver$ important

sub-ect %or believers& especiall$ i% the$ are doing what Christ wants them to do& leading

others to a saving knowledge o% the Ford +esus Christ. ,here%ore& would read =rame2s

book and make notes in the margins.

-ust %inished reading books in a row b$ Calvinists against the (pen Oiew o% God.

made notes in all o% them. am in the process o% writing a book on the sub-ect right now.


23/89

,he %irst L chapters are on our web site. have revised them some& and have recentl$

written the th chapter. am attempting to respond to ever$ positive and ever$

questionable passage that could be construed to be showing a closed God. will be happ$

to send $ou the answer to an$ questions $ou ma$ have. have been working on this

material %or over L; $ears.

A%ter $ou are sure o% what $ou believe& then& would send $our statements and questions

one b$ one to $our pastor %riend %or his response. t will be a great learning process %or

$ou& and hope%ull$& him.

n Christ&

'ob ill

Question: 1as onl$ srael chosen %or salvation be%ore the dispensation o% grace?

1as onl$ srael chosen %or salvation /be%ore the dispensation o% grace0? know that B

,im. 8:L sa$s that God wants all men to be saved& that means %rom the start to the %inish

o% creation& right? ask this because was told that the word "world" in +ohn :B& means

onl$ believers& or onl$ srael. *o was the plan %or onl$ srael to obtain salvation? % not&

what was srael chosen %or wh$ were the$ called God#s chosen people?

Ilease e)plain $our thoughts on this

,hank $ou!

Dusti


Dear Dusti&

n 6omans B:B798 we %ind that God gave up the world. e did this to start over again

with is plan o% redemption. "=or the wrath o% God is revealed %rom heaven against all

ungodliness and unrighteousness o% men& who suppress the truth in unrighteousness& Beadville& Ia& B7


32/89

through which alone an$ lasting com%ort comes to the hungr$ human soul." /ibid.& pp.

7B&78.0

1hat happened ne)t changed m$ li%e. read Deuteronom$ < with a searching heart. ere

is what shattered the %oundations o% m$ Calvinistic s$stem o% theolog$:

Deu


33/89

"% the mpassible sometimes speaks o% su%%ering %rom passion& and the eternal %ullness o%

being in want... ,hen it can onl$ mean& i% it means an$thing intelligible b$ us& that the

immutable heart chooses to need us." ,hat#s not the whole thing& -ust the gist o% what he

is sa$ing. 1hat con%uses me is that C.*. Fewis believes we have %ree will& but here he

speaks o% God as being immutable. And i% God created in imsel% a place where e

could need us /as Fewis claims0 then doesn#t that in itsel% mean e *@#, immutable?? %

God gave us %ree will& and loved us& and created in imsel% the abilit$ to @HHD us& then

e must %eel emotions about and %or us& which means e does change. And i% e ever

changed once then e isn#t impassible. 6ight?? ,he quote is %rom the book ",he Iroblem

with Iain" and it is in chapter "Divine Goodness"

,hanks %or $our time and thoughts!

Dusti


Dear Dusti&

=irst& $ou are not bothering me.

believe C. *. Fewis is somewhat right in his evaluation o% the biblical data on God#s

impassibilit$ and immutabilit$. ,hat#s because& when we think o% immutabilit$ and

impassibilit$& we don#t %ind it in the 'ible. nstead& we have to look to the creeds that

various Calvinistic religious groups have& like the 1estminster Con%ession.

'ecause o% these unbiblical creeds& theologians have written things like this about God#s

love: "Fove& o% course& is not bound up with sensitive passion and emotion in God& as it is

in us. . . . Iassions& since the$ necessaril$ entail a sensitive and there%ore bodil$ nature&

are per se imper%ect and limited& and consequentl$ the$ cannot be predicated e)cept

metaphoricall$ o% God. . . . we must den$ these accompan$ing passions when we

attribute love and -o$ to God." J'enignus& @ature& Nnowledge& and God& pp. B&8.K ask& on what basis should we do this? 1hat does God#s 1ord sa$? 5et the$ arbitraril$ sa$

God does not mean what e said& or had written in his 1ord.

have to hand it to Dr. +ames 'oice when he wrote the %ollowing in his book& ,he

*overeign God& pp. B7L&B7: ,he immutabilit$ o% God as presented in *cripture&

however& is not the same thing as the immutabilit$ o% "god" talked about b$ the Greek

philosophers. n Greek thought immutabilit$ meant not onl$ unchangeabilit$ but also the

inabilit$ to be a%%ected b$ an$thing in an$ wa$. ,he Greek word . . . . means a total

inabilit$ to %eel an$ emotion whatever. . . . ,hat makes good philosoph$ o% course. t is

logical. 'ut it is not what God reveals about himsel% in the *criptures& and so we must

re-ect it& however logical it ma$ seem." #m glad that he departed %rom his Calvinisticheritage because& he said& "it is not what God reveals about himsel% in the *criptures".

owever& on the previous page he wrote: ". . . being per%ect& he never di%%ers %rom

himsel%. =or a moral being to change& it would be necessar$ to change in one o% two

directions. Hither the change is %rom something worse to something better& or else it is

%rom something better to something worse. t should be evident that God can move in

neither o% these directions. God cannot change %or the better& %or that would mean that he


34/89

had been imper%ect be%orehand. . . % we are talking about knowledge& it would mean that

he had not known ever$thing and was there%ore ignorant."

owever& here 'oice was -ust repeating the Greek philosoph$ o% *ocrates as written b$

Ilato in the 6epublic. Ilato e)plained immutabilit$ this wa$ in& "A dialogue between

*ocrates and Adeimantus.": "s it not true that to be altered and moved b$ something else

happens least to things that are in the best condition . . . that those which are well made

and in good condition are least liable to be changed b$ time and other in%luences. . . . t is

universall$ true then& that that which is in the best state b$ nature or art or both admits

least alteration b$ something else.... 'ut God& surel$ and ever$thing that belongs to God

is in ever$ wa$ in the best possible state.... does he change himsel% %or the better ... or %or

the worse and to something uglier than himsel%? ...%or the worse i% he is changed . . . the

gods themselves are incapable o% change. . . . ,hen God is altogether simple and true in

deed and word& and neither changes himsel% nor deceives others. /Ilato& 6epublic & Foeb

Classical Fibrar$& 'ook & pp. B$ people are bent on backsliding %rom >e. ,hough the$ call to the >ost

igh& none at all e)alt im. 7 ow can give $ou up& Hphraim? ow can hand $ou

over& srael? ow can make $ou like Admah? ow can set $ou like Seboiim? >$

heart churns within >e >$ s$mpath$ is stirred. < will not e)ecute the %ierceness o% >$

anger will not again destro$ Hphraim. =or am God& and not man& ,he ol$ (ne in

$our midst And will not come with terror.

e had compassion even though srael was unrepentant. A%ter the B; spies gave their

report and +oshua and Caleb gave theirs& the people wanted to kill +oshua and Caleb. ,hisis shown in @um BL:B;&BB&8;98: the congregation said to stone them with stones. @ow

the glor$ o% the Ford appeared in the tabernacle o% meeting be%ore all the children o%

srael. BB ,hen the Ford said to >oses: "ow long will these people re-ect >e? And how

long will the$ not believe >e& with all the signs which have per%ormed among them?"

,hen >oses pra$ed %or this stubborn unrepentant people. e appealed to God#s merc$&

compassion& and longsu%%ering& asking im to pardon them. 'ecause o% this intercessor&


35/89

what did God do? t tells us in verses 8;98. 8; ,hen the Ford said: " have pardoned&

according to $our word 8B but trul$& as live& all the earth shall be %illed with the glor$

o% the Ford 9 88 because all these men who have seen >$ glor$ and the signs which did

in Hg$pt and in the wilderness& and have put >e to the test now these ten times& and have

not heeded >$ voice& 8 the$ certainl$ shall not see the land o% which swore to their

%athers& nor shall an$ o% those who re-ected >e see it."

srael#s miser$ and repentance alwa$s a%%ected God. 1e %ind that in +udges B;:B;9B: And

the children o% srael cried out to the Ford& sa$ing& "1e have sinned against 5ou& because

we have both %orsaken our God and served the 'aals!" BB *o the Ford said to the children

o% srael& "Did not deliver $ou %rom the Hg$ptians and %rom the Amorites and %rom the

people o% Ammon and %rom the Ihilistines? B8 Also the *idonians and Amalekites and

>aonites oppressed $ou and $ou cried out to >e& and delivered $ou %rom their hand.

B 5et $ou have %orsaken >e and served other gods. ,here%ore will deliver $ou no

more. BL Go and cr$ out to the gods which $ou have chosen let them deliver $ou in $our

time o% distress." B And the children o% srael said to the Ford& "1e have sinned! Do to

us whatever seems best to 5ou onl$ deliver us this da$& we pra$." B *o the$ put awa$

the %oreign gods %rom among them and served the Ford. And is soul could no longer

endure the miser$ o% srael.

n @ah B:8& we %ind God could become %urious. @ah B:8: "God is -ealous& and the F(6D

avenges ,he F(6D avenges and is %urious. ,he F(6D will take vengeance on is

adversaries& and e reserves wrath %or is enemies."

e was provoked to wrath in Deu ost igh in the wilderness. B7 And the$ tested God in

their heart b$ asking %or the %ood o% their %anc$. B< 5es& the$ spoke against God: ,he$

said& "Can God prepare a table in the wilderness? 8; 'ehold& e struck the rock& so that

the waters gushed out& and the streams over%lowed. Can e give bread also? Can e

provide meat %or is people?" 8B ,here%ore the Ford heard this and was %urious *o a %ire

was kindled against +acob& and anger also came up against srael& 88 'ecause the$ did notbelieve in God& and did not trust in is salvation. @evertheless the$ %lattered im with

their mouth& and the$ lied to im with their tongue =or their heart was not stead%ast

with im& nor were the$ %aith%ul in is covenant. 7 'ut e& being %ull o% compassion&

%orgave their iniquit$& and did not destro$ them. 5es& man$ a time e turned is anger

awa$& and did not stir up all is wrath < =or e remembered that the$ were but %lesh& a

breath that passes awa$ and does not come again. L; ow o%ten the$ provoked im in


36/89

the wilderness& and grieved im in the desert! LB 5es& again and again the$ tempted God&

and limited the ol$ (ne o% srael.

t sa$s e was grieved with srael %or L; $ears in Isa e.

e loves volitionall$ /agapa$0.

Hph 8:L9 'ut God& who is rich in merc$& because o% is great love with which e loved

us& even when we were dead in trespasses& made us alive together with Christ.

e has pit$ in sa :e& tried >e&

and saw >$ works %ort$ $ears. B; ,here%ore was angr$ with that generation& and said&

",he$ alwa$s go astra$ in their heart& and the$ have not known >$ wa$s. BB *o swore

in >$ wrath& #,he$ shall not enter >$ rest.#"

God even said& "1hat shall do?" e was beside imsel% in os :L: ( Hphraim& what

shall do to $ou? ( +udah& what shall do to $ou? =or $our %aith%ulness is like a morning

cloud& and like the earl$ dew it goes awa$.

e $earns %or is people.

+er B:8; s Hphraim >$ dear son? s he a pleasant child? =or though spoke against

him& earnestl$ remember him still ,here%ore >$ heart $earns %or him will surel$have merc$ on him& sa$s the F(6D.

+am L: (r do $ou think that the *cripture sa$s in vain& ",he *pirit who dwells in us

$earns -ealousl$"?

=rom these *criptures& we can see a great variet$ o% emotions our passionate God has

displa$ed in spite o% what the Calvinistic theologians sa$ about is immutabilit$ and


37/89

impassibilit$ in their creeds. 6emember& impassible means not sub-ect to passion or

%eelings. 'ut being passionate wasn#t enough %or our wonder%ul God.

e gave the greatest gi%t o% all. e gave is *on to redeem us b$ pa$ing %or our sins. is

*on& +esus Christ& helps us to know the =ather. As we learn about im& we can love im

more %or who e is. ,hen& as we %ocus on im& who e is& and how wonder%ul e is& we

can be %illed with God#s %ullness. ,hen we can love and worship im.

,hat#s what Iaul is doing in Hph :BL9B$ point is& which think $ou#re not considering in all o% $our

articles& is that God e)ists outside o% the time that constrains us. *ure we have %ree will&

completel$ agree with $ou on that. owever& God knows what %ree9will decisions we will

make. s an$thing a surprise to God? Does an$thing take him aback and make him sa$&"1ow& didn#t see that coming."???

+ust because God knows all o% our %uture decisions does not remove an$thing %rom our

%ree will state. =orknowledge and %ree9will are two separate issues.

=or e)ample& let#s sa$ that $ou#re throwing a surprise birthda$ part$ %or $our %riend. Does

$our knowledge o% the part$ somehow dictate how the person will react? ,hat#s absurd.

+ust because $ou know about the part$ has absolutel$ no bearing on how $our %riend will

react. t#s the same with God. +ust because he knows the %uture& doesn#t mean he controls

it. 'ut& to sa$ that God doesn#t know ever$thing detracts %rom his Godhood.

*incerel$&

6ich >organAnswer: /click here to see the answer0

Dear 6ich&

,hanks %or $our response. understand that $ou believe that God is outside o% time.

believed that when got saved back in B


38/89

seen b$ God. And because it is alread$ seen b$ God& it can#t be an$ di%%erent than how e

sees it. ,here%ore& it is ordained to be -ust the wa$ God saw it. ,hat made sense to m$

brain9washed mind& but when was con%ronted b$ 1illiam 'iederwol%#s book& ow Can

God Answer Ira$er& realied was wrong. % God knows something& our God could not

be wrong. % God knew the whole %uture& it could not change %rom what e knew in one

-ot. ,hat would mean all time is %roen. ,here are no choices9onl$ what God sees. ,he

'ible contradicts that in thousands o% places& but not once does it sa$ that God declares

the %uture where e does not determine it& cause it to happen& or do it.

God doesn#t know the %uture unless e acts on things or people to make it happen. God

could& and does predict the %uture& because e makes what e predicts happen.

sa L:e& B; declaring the end %rom the beginning& and %rom

ancient times things that are not $et done& sa$ing& #>$ counsel shall stand& and will do

all >$ pleasure BB calling a bird o% pre$ %rom the east& the man who e)ecutes >$

counsel& %rom a %ar countr$. ndeed have spoken it will also bring it to pass. have

purposed it will also do it.

t#s not that ",ime is a creation o% God& there%ore it does not control im." that matters.

God has alwa$s e)isted and alwa$s will. ,ime is onerous to us because we have to sleep&

work& punch a clock9all kinds o% things that time %rustrates. #m almost $ biggest hang9up was

that thought at one time that God was outside o% time.

% an$ o% these things could be proved %rom *cripture& would be happ$ to change.

believed them %rom Greek philosoph$ at one time& but the 'ible doesn#t corroborate what

once believed.

,here are man$ *cripture passages that sa$ that God changes is mind& answers pra$eror repents. >an$ Christians don#t s$mpathie with Calvinism at all but believe that a

solution to the problem o% God#s repentance in over twent$ passages in the 'ible is %ound

in what Iaul ,illich borrowed %rom Greek philosoph$: ",he eternal now& that God is not

in time." have been stud$ing this topic %or L; $ears and have not %ound one place that

sa$s God is outside o% time or even alludes to that idea. nstead& the 'ible shows God

working with us in time.

#m a biblicist. *how me %rom God#s word that God is outside o% time. 1hen a Christian

philosopher maintained that God was outside o% time& the onl$ thing he could tell me was

his re%erence to "Iaul ,illich#s phrase& ",he eternal now& that God is not in time."

Again& have heard this %rom man$ sources& but there is no *cripture which states this.1hat the$ sometimes re%er to are the %ollowing passages: 8 ,i B:< who has saved us and

called us with a hol$ calling& not according to our works& but according to is own

purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ +esus be%ore time began. ,it B:8 in

hope o% eternal li%e which God& who cannot lie& promised be%ore time began. 1alvoord T

Suck wrote at B Co 8:& ",he message which Iaul proclaimed was God#s secret wisdom&

known onl$ b$ God#s revelation />att. BB:80. At the heart o% this wisdom is the plan o%


39/89

salvation intended %or our glor$& determined be%ore time began /Hph. B:L0." ,he 'ible

Nnowledge Commentar$. 1heaton& ll: *cripture Iress& Bost scholars in the ancient world

o% Augustine understood Ilato#s concept o% God. e had in%luenced almost all the schools

o% philosoph$ o% that time. Ilato e)plained God#s immutabilit$ in& "A dialogue between

*ocrates and Adeimantus." e wrote: "s it not true that to be altered and moved b$

something else happens least to things that are in the best condition . . . that those which

are well made and in good condition are least liable to be changed b$ time and other

in%luences. . . . t is universall$ true then& that that which is in the best state b$ nature or

art or both admits least alteration b$ something else. . . . 'ut God& surel$ and ever$thing

that belongs to God is in ever$ wa$ in the best possible state. . . . ,hen does he /God0

change himsel% %or the better and to something %airer& or %or the worse and to something

uglier than himsel%? t must necessaril$ . . . be %or the worse i% he is changed . . . the gods

themselves are incapable o% change. . . . ,hen God is altogether simple and true in deed

and word& and neither changes himsel%. Ilato O& 6epublic & Foeb Classical Fibrar$& 'ook

& Chapters VV9VV& pp. B


40/89

"seeing all this one sees eternit$ in seeing a li%e that abides in the same& and alwa$s has

the all present to it& not now this& and then again that& but all things at once& and not now

some things& and then again others& but a partless completion . . . @ecessaril$ there will

be no #was# about it& %or what is there that was %or it and has passed awa$? @or an$ #will

be %or what will be %or it? *o there remains %or it onl$ to be in its being -ust what it is.

,hat& then& which was not& and will not be& but is onl$& which has being which is static b$

not changing to the #will be nor ever having changed& this is eternit$." /Ilotinus &

Hnnead& Foeb Classical Fibrar$& 'ook & Chapter & p. ;& trans. b$ A.. Armstrong0

Augustine

"so that o% those things which emerge in time& the %uture indeed& are not $et& and the

present are now& and the past no longer are but all o% these are b$ im comprehended in

is stable and eternal presence . . . but beholds all things with absolute

unchangeableness" /Cit$ o% God& 'ook V& Chapter 8B& p. L0

Augustine believed that God e)ists in an eternal present in which the %uture and the past

are comprehended as e)isting now. Ilotinus said the eternal does not have a "was" /past0

or a "will be"/%uture0 but onl$ an "is"/present0. *ince God e)ists in an eternal state the

past& present and %uture are viewed as e)isting in that present state at the same time as the

present.

,he concept that in the Hternal @ow there is no change

Ilotinus

"which is static b$ not changing to the #will be nor ever having changed&" /Hnnead&

p.;0

Augustine

"but beholds all things with absolute unchangeableness" /Cit$ o% God& p. L0

,he concept o% immutabilit$ again pla$s a crucial role in the development o% the doctrineo% intemporalit$. =or God to be immutable the %uture could add no knowledge to what he

alread$ knows. ,his unchangeableness would be present in the eternal now.

,he concept o% having no transition o% thought

Ilotinus

,he li%e& then& which belongs to that which e)ists and is in being& all together and %ull&

completel$ without e)tension or interval& is that which we are looking %or& eternit$.

/Hnnead& p.;0

Augustine

"=or he does not pass %rom this to that b$ transition o% thought& but beholds all things

with absolute unchangeableness" /Cit$ o% God& p. L0*ince no new knowledge can be possible %or God there is no transition o% thought. Again&

Ilotinus believed that there is no e)tension or interval o% thought in eternit$.

Augustine#s sources %or his doctrine o% the immutabilit$ o% God are %rom his

philosophical and pagan religious background. 1e %ind traces o% the popular pagan

religions in Augustine#s theolog$. Augustine received his doctrine o% the immutabilit$ o%

God directl$ %rom pagan religious philosoph$. ,his doctrine in%luenced Augustine in the


41/89

development o% other important doctrines o% the attributes o% God including

predestination& %oreknowledge& impassibilit$ and intemporalit$.

Although Augustine& was raised b$ a Christian mother& he wandered %rom the Christian

%aith. e developed a love %or philosoph$& and still superstitiousl$ clung to some aspects

o% the %aith o% his mother. (ne sect& the >anichees combined the rationalism o% the

philosophers with the appropriate "God9names" like the Ford +esus Christ and the ol$

Ghost& and thus persuaded him to become a %ollower o% their sect. ,his lasted %or nine

$ears.

,he >anicheans stressed rational inquir$ over authorit$. Augustine agreed with this

method o% ascertaining truth. Augustine also believed that in substance& the ol$

*criptures were unworth$ to be compared with the wisdom o% the >anicheans. ,he

>anicheans disliked the (ld ,estament because it portra$ed an angr$ emotional God

who was considered b$ the @eoplatonists to be mutable or sub-ect to change. '$ now&

this Ilatonic conception o% God was common in almost all o% the Greek philosophies o%

Augustine#s age.

Hugene ,e*elle states: "Ieople acquainted with philosophical notions o% God were

uncom%ortable with the anthropomorphisms o% the (ld ,estament /not onl$ with its

descriptions o% God but its suggestions that God has human emotions& or changes his

mind0." /Augustine the ,heologian. @ew 5ork: erder and erder& Bilan. ,he 'ishop o% >ilan

was Ambrose. e o%%ered a solution to Augustine#s dilemma: a reconciliation between

philosoph$ and Catholicism. (nl$ a%ter Ambrose allegoried those (ld ,estament

*criptures that revealed a mutable God was Augustine able to accept the Catholic %aith.

Ambrose allegoried or spiritualied the o%%ending (ld ,estament *cripture untilAugustine could accept the Christian God: "=or those absurdities which in those

*criptures were wont to o%%end me& a%ter had heard divers o% them e)pounded properl$&

re%erred now to the depth o% the m$ster$: $ea and the authorit$ o% that 'ook appeared so

much the more venerable& and so much more worth$ o% our religious credit..."

/Con%essions & Foeb Classical Fibrar$& 'ook O& Chapter O& p. 87& trans. b$ 1illiam

1atts0

,hen Augustine turned to *criptures a%ter the absurdities were "e)pounded properl$. . . .

*eeing there%ore mankind would prove too weak to %ind out the truth b$ the wa$ o%

evident reason& and %or this cause was there need o% the authorit$ o% ol$ 1rit /bid0.

Although Augustine later had a high regard %or *cripture& he allowed reason to %irstdictate his ideas about God#s attributes. ,hen& the details were to be %illed b$ *criptures.

,he most damaging presupposition& which has harmed Christianit$ the most& was the

immutabilit$ o% God. ,his doctrine o% immutabilit$ in%luenced his doctrines o%

impassabilit$& predestination& %oreknowledge& and intemporalit$ o% God. *ubsequentl$

these doctrines were absorbed b$ Calvin. ,his in%luence o% Augustine over Calvin is

attested b$ Calvinists %or e)ample& 'en-amin 1ar%ield wrote& ",he s$stem o% doctrine


42/89

taught b$ Calvin is -ust the Augustinianism common to the whole bod$ o% the 6e%ormers9

%or the 6e%ormation was& as %rom the spiritual point o% view a great revival o%

Augustinianism." /Calvin and Augustine& I T 6 Iub Co.& Ihil.& Ia.& B


43/89

passages are literall$ understood . . . And should an$ one suppose that an$thing in God#s

substance or nature can su%%er change or conversion& he will be held guilt$ o% wild

pro%anit$." /(ats& (n the >orals o% the Catholic Church& 'asic 1ritings o% *aint

Augustine& @ 5: 6andom ouse Iub& Banicheans that a mutable God was totall$ unacceptable. n this con%lict

between the Ilatonic doctrine o% immutabilit$ and the literal interpretation o% *criptures

what had to change? Augustine#s answer was that the literal interpretation o% *cripture

had to change. =or Augustine the plain narratives o% *cripture had to be reinterpreted b$

spiritual or allegorical methods. ,he >anicheans knew the (ld ,estament revealed a God

who was mutable or could repent& and the$ re-ected it. *ince the Ilatonists believed that

God was immutable this idea o% God repenting was a source o% ridicule %or the Catholic

Church. Augustine was so embarrassed b$ these arguments that he chose to reinterpret

*cripture rather than depart %rom Ilatonic philosoph$.

(ne philosoph$ pro%essor talked to on m$ radio program some time ago& made a

statement which was pleased to hear %rom a pro%essor o% philosoph$. e said& ",he God

o% the 'ible is not the God o% the philosophers." =or me& it is Ilato#s& Aristotle#s and

Augustine#s& rationalistic approach to God that re-ect.

1e can onl$ begin to understand God#s character and attributes b$ reading the 'ible.

6e%erring to Augustine and his allies& the$ got God#s character and attributes %rom reason

and then went to the *criptures and made the *criptures agree with their philosophical

concepts.

Fet me present what Augustine wrote even in the account o% his conversion. e displa$ed

his Ilatonic rationalistic thinking. Augustine %ound the unchangeable God solel$ b$ his

reason. " had b$ this time %ound the unchangeable and the true eternit$ o% truth& residingabove this changeable mind o% mine. And thus b$ degrees passing %rom bodies to the

soul& which makes use o% the senses o% the bod$ to perceive b$: and %rom thence to its

inner %aculties . . . and so %orward& as %ar as the irrational creatures are able to go: and

thence again passed on to the reasoning %aculties& unto whatever is received %rom the

senses o% the bod$ is re%erred to be -udged. /Con%essions & 'ook O& Chapter VO& pp.

7970

Did Augustine understand God as immutable %rom a stud$ o% the *criptures. @o!

Augustine was reasoning about God and saw an immutable God in his mind. owever&

his reasoning was in%luenced. Augustine received the concept o% the unchangeable or

immutable God %rom the @eoplatonists. ,his concept passed right into his Christiantheolog$ without change. t is true that Augustine utilied *cripture in his de%ense o% the

immutabilit$ o% God& but *cripture was onl$ used to buttress his rationalistic thought o%

God.

t was a secondar$ proo%: ",hose things which our %aith holds and which reason in

whatever wa$ has traced out& are %orti%ied b$ the testimonies o% the divine *criptures& so

that those who b$ reason o% %eebler intellect are not able to comprehend these things& ma$


44/89

believe the divine authorit$& and so ma$ deserve to know . . . Accordingl$ that God is

unchangeable..." /Concerning the @ature o% the Good& 'asic 1ritings o% *t. Augustine& @

5: 6andom ouse& p. LL;.0

@otice that Augustine disclosed that reason traced out the doctrine o% immutabilit$. 6ich&

stop and think& didn#t reason also trace out $our presentation? 5ou gave an e)ample o% a

birthda$ part$. ,here are some %laws in $our reasoning which #m sure $ou will agree.

do not have a %lawless knowledge o% m$ %riends part$. could die be%ore the part$ even

took place. t could end up a traged$. 1hen God %oreknows s

Documents

Bob Hill Predestination and Free Will Q&A 3