I think I understand that. I have been helping some dear friends move today. I always want someone to read through my thoughts and help me hone them as well give more detailed feedback. You are straddling two worlds of theology and would like to see if they can come together. I think it a noble desire. I will try, but I'm exhausted this eveninghyjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjju (my cat typed that, he's all thumbs, picture of him on my user-page, you'd think that he'd have pity on me, sore and all, I believe God foreknew this).
I often try to trim, so those reading along can get the Reader's Digest version without all the heavy reading. Sometimes just jumping to a definitive point alleviates the need of readers to traverse the same things we already have. Not only do you and I have to reread everything, anyone reading along does too. I try and exercise mercy. AMR is trying to corner you on a Yes/No. He isn't being deceptive, but rather wanting to know if you embrace the classical definition, or the OV definition. His concern is to see if you are an Open Theist, or rather a time-honored orthodox theist. He is trying to be of service to you because he is seeing you have a bit of inconsistency and simply asking questions will help him expedite the need for long posts. That said, I too often avoid 'yes/no' questions because they don't exactly fit me. I know they fit the guy/gal asking the question. A good part of the time, I share your same aversion and go for longer posts as well. Often we get accused of being elusive as much as the other is suspected of a devious question. More often than not, my reply is "I can answer yes or no, but the answer will not actually give you the information you are looking for 'about me.'"
Yeah, I think we either employ faith in the other person, or we reiterate our request. Pleading and begging isn't beneath me.
Rather, I think you are working on reconciliation of two ideas: God who knows, and the Son who didn't or yet doesn't.
My answer to this, was that all things move, and have their being from Christ alone Acts 17:28 Colossians 1:17 Not any one thing John 15:5
I didn't go further in my thoughts concerning the Son's omniscience: I think, in the flesh, the Son didn't exercise full knowledge, and I believe the Father did only know the day and hour. However, in His glorified state, I believe He knows all now.
There has been a lot of discussion between Open Theism and the rest of Christianity. You can find articles from ten years ago in major Christian publications.
I don't believe ordaining the same as creating or desiring. In fact, it cannot mean that as I understand the nature of God. I often go to the parable of the wheat and tares: Someone sowed seed in the Owner's field. He was aware of it, but didn't stop it and didn't want it. Ordained, means He knew but He had a plan. It does mean foreknowledge. In a nutshell, I don't believe exhaustive foreknowledge logically has to equate any troubling conclusion. Some Calvinists do equate it. I disagree with them.
I'm not sure I can unpack this. It sounds like you are saying you are trying to come to a position that honors all your understandings, including Reformed and Open Theology. Some will tell you it cannot be done, but there is a long history of exactly that (see
Molinism).
I am not a molinist. Calvinists aren't molinists. Open Theists aren't molinists, but Knight, in my one-on-one discussion with him (I was not knowledgeable back then), evidenced a version of molinism in his examples.
Actually, that is exactly what they believe. One of the 3 men who brought about Open Theism to the main, Sanders, wrote: "God can make mistakes," in The God Who Risks. Enyart had stated that he rather believed God risks, but is a "Master Chessplayer," so a 'mistake' is rather a 'jeapordy' but being a master at His work, He can compensate. Godrulz, one of the Open Theists on TOL, says similarly that "God is omnicompetent."
:think: This is Molinism rather than Open Theology.
Or vice-versa. I assume God ordains to happen what is necessary to reform Jonah and Jonah's heart (depends on if you read the story where Nineveh is the focus, or Jonah, or both). The important thing to notice is that we all assume a bit from our respective theologies. For me, see Jonah 4:1-3 (see Jonah 4:11 btw, God cares about animals, even my goofy cat, his mother and father were brother and sister I'm afraid. He has like eight toes on his front feet and is not quite right in the head).
This is Open Theism, rather than molinism. You are conflating a lot of incongruent theologies. I admire the attempt, but they are incongruent.
The "cannot" is rather 'will not' due to His limiting His own foreknowledge purposefully by allowing freewill. There are centuries of trying to understand philosophically how foreknowledge and freewill can co-exist. Molinism is this: I get an almanac from the future. In it, I know many things that will happen. The reason everyone had freewill is because I have absolutely no power to have influenced their decisions, BUT molinism is a bit like the idea that I could change some things if I wanted to change an outcome.
That would be Open Theism, but they believe rather an omniscience that 'knows all that is knowable' rather than what isn't knowable. Because the future "isn't knowable" they say, "then God is omniscient because it isn't a scope ascribed to omniscience as an actuality." IOW, they believe the traditionally understood concept of 'omniscience' is illogically over-reaching.
If you mean it like the Open Theist, then you'd be Open Theist. If you mean it like the molinist, it isn't a tenant of Open Theism. A hybrid? Would take a lot of reinventing the wheel and I'm not sure what the new theology would be called.
Not understanding this. It isn't clear to me, not above or following:
I think M
emra fine (linked if someone is interested) when talking to Jews or proselytes or Messianic Jews, or Judaizers. I'm not sure it always conveys well in discussion though. Most people know "Logos" rather than the apologist ideas from Jews for Jesus et al.
Realize, however, that simply limiting the Lord Jesus Christ's knowledge, doesn't negate that the Father has it, thus logically, you are back to square one. I think that's why it hasn't been postulated before. It just "passes the buck" as it were. Not a poor attempt, I just don't believe it works. In Him -Lon
- Can we have true freedom of choice, even if God already KNOWS all, already? - Many in OV assume God CANNOT know the future, because it doesn't exist, but couldn't it exist to God, His infinite Being SEEING all that is past, present and future simultaneously? The question here is just how omniscient is God, and is his knowledge limited by space or time? Or is this just the case with our perceptions, hence we ASSUMING that God's knowledge is limited as ours is :think:
