I just listened to episode 85 of the podcast and it was great. I’m super aggravated because I didn’t clarify my question that you answered: I asked about God ‘unknowing the outcome of a situation.’ And then you went on to explain about foreknowledge and predestination. I should’ve clarified because I wasn’t asking about foreknowledge and predestination. I understand that they don’t equal each other.
I got into a debate with a Calvinist (of which I am not) and I didn’t know where to ‘academically’ go at the end of the conversation. After I made the point that foreknowledge does not equal predestination, and then gave examples, his logic train (and therefore the context for my question on the Q&A) was:
‘Well if He knows all things real and possible, what’s the point of Him creating us? God must be BORED because He knows every decision we’re going to make, so does He choose not to know or ‘unknow’ a given outcome. If not, it would make God sort of ‘frozen’ outside of space-time.’
Yes, my eyes rolled… And then it proceeded into the usual Calvinist circular reasoning.
My answer was that God knew the risks, and deemed the risk of losing people to sin better than ‘living frozen’ and having a bunch of robots.’
But then my Calvinist friend couldn’t depart from his final conclusion: ‘Well, God knew the risks, He knew He would lose people to sin. So therefore, He created people to go to hell….’
How do I craft an answer to go from point A to point B in this. Please help!
MSH
on February 5, 2016 at 7:10 pm
Not sure how God can be bored if he leaves decisions up to us and doesn’t predestinate them. Everything being known and everything being decided are two different things. The latter (a common Calvinistic option) seems much more boring, if one wants to put it in those terms.
Your Calvinist needs to examine his Calvinism — how is his conclusion any different from double predestination (which MUST be the case if everything is ordained)? God didn’t create people intending they go to hell. One can only say that if one is a Calvinist (since God ordained everything, and his ordaining can’t be contrary to his intentions, God then intended some to go to hell). My view is that God didn’t intend this, but knew that it would happen. Knowing doesn’t mean intending, since foreknowledge doesn’t require predestination.
Note how your Calvinist friend can’t even ask a question without framing the question in light of his prior commitment to total predestination. He can’t even articulate a question that doesn’t have an event “intended” by God — which he then proceeds to loop back to a predestination cause.
That is typical.
Michael
on February 5, 2016 at 8:17 pm
Thank you thank you thank you!!! This truly is seeing the forest through the trees 🙂
Aaron
on February 5, 2016 at 9:17 am
Hello Dr Heiser, question for you:
I had always assumed(on my own, no one brought me to this idea) that the early priests, like Jethro or Melchizedek, would have been responsible for clean or unclean animals.
Is that assuming too much or a potentially correct idea that doesn’t have much backing through scripture?
MSH
on February 5, 2016 at 6:46 pm
They were responsible for checking, but animals were brought to them by non-priests / regular folks, so the first line of defense against impurity and defilement was with the laity.
Aaron
on February 5, 2016 at 9:28 am
For topic ideas:
I’m really trying to gain topical support for extra biblical and deuterocanonical books.
I have several papers showing Jesus quoting the apocrypha and the book of Enoch, so it’s there a chance we can do a full episode on these?
I even have one paper showing the theme of 1 and 2 Pete and the book of Jude and their terminology following the theme and verbiage of 1 Enoch.
So I’m just wondering if we can get more exposure to these?
I’m sure Enoch would be a full episode by itself.
Thanks!
MSH
on February 5, 2016 at 6:47 pm
Yes. I should put the reception of 1 Enoch in the early church on the list. Did you see the post a couple weeks back listing where NT books cite or allude to pseudepigrapha?
Aaron
on February 5, 2016 at 7:04 pm
Somehow I missed that one, however I just found it, thanks!
Your giant clan article was awesome, it brought much clarity to someone in my research group that had always questioned God’s brutality in the OT, so for that I must really thank you!
I had been trying to explain it to him, but it wasn’t till he read your article that it became clear.
MSH
on February 5, 2016 at 7:13 pm
good
Eva
on February 7, 2016 at 2:18 pm
Hello Mike,
Thank you for taking us thru Leviticus, I loved the journey!
As for the next series, I wanted to ask you if you would consider a topic of “astral theology”, signs in heaven – Revelation 12, how it is different from astrology (or horoscope readings) and give us some biblical and first century background or recommend some good scholarly articles.
Also, I wanted to ask if you plan to disclose the solution to The Portent puzzle; if you did already I must have missed it. I’m still puzzled!
Thank you for everything you do!
MSH
on February 8, 2016 at 4:50 pm
I’ll think about the Rev 12. I already have a short YouTube presentation on it. It’s a possibility.
The Portent riddle solution will only be revealed in the third novel.
Hi Mike!
I just listened to episode 85 of the podcast and it was great. I’m super aggravated because I didn’t clarify my question that you answered: I asked about God ‘unknowing the outcome of a situation.’ And then you went on to explain about foreknowledge and predestination. I should’ve clarified because I wasn’t asking about foreknowledge and predestination. I understand that they don’t equal each other.
I got into a debate with a Calvinist (of which I am not) and I didn’t know where to ‘academically’ go at the end of the conversation. After I made the point that foreknowledge does not equal predestination, and then gave examples, his logic train (and therefore the context for my question on the Q&A) was:
‘Well if He knows all things real and possible, what’s the point of Him creating us? God must be BORED because He knows every decision we’re going to make, so does He choose not to know or ‘unknow’ a given outcome. If not, it would make God sort of ‘frozen’ outside of space-time.’
Yes, my eyes rolled… And then it proceeded into the usual Calvinist circular reasoning.
My answer was that God knew the risks, and deemed the risk of losing people to sin better than ‘living frozen’ and having a bunch of robots.’
But then my Calvinist friend couldn’t depart from his final conclusion: ‘Well, God knew the risks, He knew He would lose people to sin. So therefore, He created people to go to hell….’
How do I craft an answer to go from point A to point B in this. Please help!
Not sure how God can be bored if he leaves decisions up to us and doesn’t predestinate them. Everything being known and everything being decided are two different things. The latter (a common Calvinistic option) seems much more boring, if one wants to put it in those terms.
Your Calvinist needs to examine his Calvinism — how is his conclusion any different from double predestination (which MUST be the case if everything is ordained)? God didn’t create people intending they go to hell. One can only say that if one is a Calvinist (since God ordained everything, and his ordaining can’t be contrary to his intentions, God then intended some to go to hell). My view is that God didn’t intend this, but knew that it would happen. Knowing doesn’t mean intending, since foreknowledge doesn’t require predestination.
Note how your Calvinist friend can’t even ask a question without framing the question in light of his prior commitment to total predestination. He can’t even articulate a question that doesn’t have an event “intended” by God — which he then proceeds to loop back to a predestination cause.
That is typical.
Thank you thank you thank you!!! This truly is seeing the forest through the trees 🙂
Hello Dr Heiser, question for you:
I had always assumed(on my own, no one brought me to this idea) that the early priests, like Jethro or Melchizedek, would have been responsible for clean or unclean animals.
Is that assuming too much or a potentially correct idea that doesn’t have much backing through scripture?
They were responsible for checking, but animals were brought to them by non-priests / regular folks, so the first line of defense against impurity and defilement was with the laity.
For topic ideas:
I’m really trying to gain topical support for extra biblical and deuterocanonical books.
I have several papers showing Jesus quoting the apocrypha and the book of Enoch, so it’s there a chance we can do a full episode on these?
I even have one paper showing the theme of 1 and 2 Pete and the book of Jude and their terminology following the theme and verbiage of 1 Enoch.
So I’m just wondering if we can get more exposure to these?
I’m sure Enoch would be a full episode by itself.
Thanks!
Yes. I should put the reception of 1 Enoch in the early church on the list. Did you see the post a couple weeks back listing where NT books cite or allude to pseudepigrapha?
Somehow I missed that one, however I just found it, thanks!
Your giant clan article was awesome, it brought much clarity to someone in my research group that had always questioned God’s brutality in the OT, so for that I must really thank you!
I had been trying to explain it to him, but it wasn’t till he read your article that it became clear.
good
Hello Mike,
Thank you for taking us thru Leviticus, I loved the journey!
As for the next series, I wanted to ask you if you would consider a topic of “astral theology”, signs in heaven – Revelation 12, how it is different from astrology (or horoscope readings) and give us some biblical and first century background or recommend some good scholarly articles.
Also, I wanted to ask if you plan to disclose the solution to The Portent puzzle; if you did already I must have missed it. I’m still puzzled!
Thank you for everything you do!
I’ll think about the Rev 12. I already have a short YouTube presentation on it. It’s a possibility.
The Portent riddle solution will only be revealed in the third novel.