Tom,

First, it’s not this that Boyd says. I’ll quote him again:

“This decree obviously set strict parameters around the freedom of the parents in naming these individuals (see also Luke 1:11-23). It also restricted the scope of freedom these individuals could exercise as it pertained to particular foreordained activities.”

Second, if God could influence free will without being accused by Satan, He would have done so in Adam and Eve’s case.

Besides, almost four centuries in advance God couldn’t even dream who was the person He was speaking about. How could He foresee the results of His “influence” on someone He didn’t even know?

The idea that God can now know FMAs will not rebel in future because the outcome of the GC convinces them He is trustworthy, begs the question - Was the GC necessary? Why didn't FMAs, before the GC, chose not to rebel?

It also begs the question - If angels, before rebelling, were already convinced of God's trustworthiness (to the point there was nothing God to do save them when they rebelled) why did they rebel? That is, if believing God is trustworthy is what it takes for God to know FMAs will not choose to rebel, why didn't it work for Him in the beginning? Why didn't it prevent the angels from rebelling?

DA 761, 762
Lucifer in heaven had sinned in the light of God's glory. To him as to no other created being was given a revelation of God's love. Understanding the character of God, knowing His goodness, Satan chose to follow his own selfish, independent will. This choice was final. There was no more that God could do to save him. {DA 761.5}

Maybe you did not see the presented idea that in adition to Gods trustworthiness, the worthlessness of the alternative is what the GC is exploring. Gods trustworthiness could be known before. The true character of the alternative can only be known after.

Thanks for your compliment, wb, and also for your contributions.

I don't agree with your statement here, although this is rather insignificant to the overall context of the discussion taking place here. But I decided I'd still mention it, because I had an insight about this idea I like, that I thought you might appreciate, if you haven't thought of this before.

If you consider the behavior of subatomic particles, these particles are described by laws of probability. The idea physicists have is that this is the way the particles actually work; it's not a matter of not having enough information or not knowing enough about physics. That is, if you asked God what a certain particle would do, He would reply the same way as the physicist, that it has an x% chance of doing this, a y% chance of doing that, and so forth.

Now consider chaos theory. In chaos theory, a very small happening can have huge repercussions. For example, a puff of wind comes up at just the right time, which gives more force to a building system, which eventually turns into a hurricane. The ol' butterfly flaps its wings idea.

There's lots of chaos ideas like this. For example, the way a fire burns or moves.

The old physics ideas were deterministic. The idea was if we just had enough information, we could determine exactly what will happen. But now it appears that things are not that way. There is a lot of uncertainty and spontaneity built into many physical systems, it appears.

I find the idea that God created a universe that could be spontaneous and not determined, even at the inanimate level, to be very appealing.

One more example. Consider animals. Do animals have free will? Of course not, in the sense of making moral decisions. However, an animal can choose to eat this leaf instead of that leaf. I'm not so sure that there are deterministic reasons for all these types of events.

The upshot of all of this is I think that God loves spontaneity, and I suspect that the unsettledness of the future may be much more pervasive than is commonly supposed.

I'm virtually positive that Boyd would agree with what I wrote. If he weren't so busy, I'd ask him. You'll notice in what you quoted from him, he is choosing his language carefully.



God influences free will all the time. Surely you agree with that. When the Holy Spirit moves upon our hearts and minds, this is exactly what is being done.

Also choosing someone's name is not a moral decision. I don't think Satan's accusation that God unduly influenced some parents to give their child a certain name would carry much weight with anyone.



I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Let's take the case of Cyrus, as this will work for other similar cases. God knew things would be right for the Persian empire to develop into the power it would become. It wouldn't take the intelligence of God to figure this out. God knew this empire would want to expand in certain directions. He knew it would have a leader. When things got close to happening, the possible leaders that God foresaw could become the leaders whittled down to where God knew it would be Cyrus. God influenced the parents to name their child Cyrus.

Similar scenarios can explain other similar events.

Do you agree with what he wrote?


Under your view He can’t know the result of this influence, since accepting or rejecting it is a matter of free will.


Of course you know that the prophecy includes much more than that. God is saying, almost 400 years beforehand, that a specific king from Judah would profane an idolatrous altar in Israel, burning human bones on it. Showing zeal for the Lord and indignation against idolatry certainly is a moral decision. Besides, extending one’s efforts beyond one’s territory is certainly something very unusual. No king has ever done that. Remarkable details for God simply to have guessed almost four centuries in advance.


First, how did God know that pagan parents would respond positively to His influence? Second, does God really need to “set strict parameters around the freedom of the parents in naming these individuals” just to fulfill a prophecy? God knows what will happen; He doesn’t need to restrict the freedom of anyone in any sense just to fulfill a prophecy.

It is sometimes said that the first thing to do for successfully argue a case that is contested is to understand the other argument. Making up strawmen and keeping to them stubbornly in the face of being told they are not true will not help with that. And if you do not wish to understand my/our point of view, maybe you could say so and we would all save time to be used in more fruitfull ways.
So, all of us arguing for Open Theism have said that guessing is not part of Gods prophecies. Yet you cling to claiming it. Why?
Also, who is it that would have extended his efforts beyonds his territory? God who made the prophecy and caused a child to be named Cyrus? Are you saying that there is a place somewhere around that is outside of Gods territory?
And since when would it be unusual for a king to extend his efforts outside his territory? Every king in the history of the world with a desire to increase his territory has done so.
This is true, if the future is of such a kind that it can be perfectly known, the God doesnt need to restrict anyones freedom. In fact, if this is the character of the future, God could not restrict anyones freedom even if He would want to (unless of course He already foreknows that He would do so, in which case He cannot not restrict the freedom).

I guess an observation of what we get if we join the book of Jonah with Ezekiels 18th chapter, and then especially from verse 21 and forward, would be interesting. But I also dont think it would be accepted by critics of OT.

Because for God to predict something which depends on free will almost 400 years in advance can only be an act of guessing. The alternative is that God forced people to fulfill the details of the prophecy.


Thomas,

Wise up! You are mixing things. Have you read what I said? You quoted me as saying:

"God is saying, almost 400 years beforehand, that a specific king from Judah would profane an idolatrous altar in Israel, burning human bones on it."

Nobody is speaking about Cyrus in this paragraph. I just mentioned Cyrus in the next paragraph because Tom introduced him into his argument. I'm speaking about 1 Kings 13, and there is no mention, besides this one, of the interference of a king of the south, Judah, in the idolatry of the kingdom of the north, Israel. That's why I said he extended his efforts against idolatry beyond his territory, something completely unusual.

Rosangela, surely you are not suggesting that Gods sovereignity is of such a kind that God could not name a human if and when He so chooses? I didnt know you to be limmiting God.
Hmm, it seems I did mix things here.
Anyhow, you now write that "there is no mention, besides this one, of the interference of a king of the south, Judah, in the idolatry of the kingdom of the north, Israel." Neither is this one an example of such interferance. The last king of Israel, Hosea, was hauled off to whereever the assyrians banished Israel in 723 BC, whereas Josia ruled Juda from 640 BC and 31 years after that. Whatever nation ruled over those altarhills in Josias time, it was not Israel.

Thomas,

You will notice that Tom’s point had been similar to that. He had said: “Also choosing someone's name is not a moral decision.”

To which I had replied:
“Of course you know that the prophecy includes much more than that. ... Showing zeal for the Lord and indignation against idolatry certainly is a moral decision.”

So, my point was that the prophecy involved actions against idolatry, which of course involve moral decisions - involve free will.

I would also ask, How could God know four centuries beforehand that someone would choose to profane that idolatrous altar and burn the bones of the idolatrous priests on it (instead of just breaking the altar in pieces, for instance)? How could God know, just before the child was born, that that child would choose to follow Him, and that he was the child who would profane the altar burning bones on it, so that the name Josiah could be given to him?


That’s precisely the point. This interference at other times would have been impossible. When the prophecy was made, centuries before, God would have to have a knowledge of the local context at the time of its fulfillment. God would have to know that a king of Judah would be able to do what at other times couldn’t have been done without precipitating a crisis – entering the territory of Israel and profaning one of its most venerated altars. God would have to know that a king of Judah would bother to do that – profaning an altar beyond the confines of his borders. God would have to know that, at a time near the end of the kingdom of Judah itself, when idolatry was rampant, there would arise a king whose zeal for God and indignation against idolatry would lead him to do exactly that.