Does God know all things that are, have been, and will be?

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Ghost,

You are thinking of God's knowledge of "future" events as if God is standing at one place in time as we do. If a man tells me today exactly what I will do tomorrow, then my freedom would be limited. That's not what we mean when we say that God knows the future.

If a man tells me that I am eating an apple because he is currently watching me eat an apple, then my freedom is not limited. He knows I am eating an apple because I have freely chosen to eat it. That is precisely the vital distinction that must be seen in the Settled View: God knows our future free choices because He sees us freely choose them. It isn't that we act a certain way because God forces us to act that way by His foreknowledge, but rather that He knows because we act.

-zip :e4e:

There's a big difference between God seeing us eat an apple as we are doing it in the present or had eaten an apple in the past and God seeing us eating an apple in the future. If we are "finite" how can we have done anything other than in the past and be doing anything other than in the present? Does'nt finite mean" limited"? If so, then are we not limited to moment by moment activity only?

--Dave
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Man was made a volitional creature by God, for one purpose only . . . and that was that man should voluntarily subject and submit his God-given will (moral agency) to the sovereign will of God.

The refusal and failure to do so, is called "sin."

The ability to do so, is called "grace."

Nang

Am I correct that Nang is supra and AMR is infra? It seems most credible Calvinists are infra? (confusing subject at best; Calvinism is steeped in philosophical vs biblical nuances).
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Am I correct that Nang is supra and AMR is infra? It seems most credible Calvinists are infra? (confusing subject at best; Calvinism is steeped in philosophical vs biblical nuances).

You are correct, but we enjoy some very interesting and productive discussions!

Nang
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Moreover, ever wonder why there are no full-fledged commentaries on any book or all of Scripture by open theist theologians?

It is a working hypothesis of mine that once such an endeavor were undertaken, the honest author would run headlong into so many clear teachings of Scripture contrary to their presuppositions that, rather than attempt to mount some tortuous open view interpretations of what they are reading, they would be forced to abandon the effort entirely. Hence, all we see from this fringe group is but bits and pieces of Scripture lifted from the full counsel of God being used to weakly support the open theist's incoherent theories.

I mean, really, one would think that at least the open theist equivalent to the Geneva Study Bible would at least be underway at this juncture, no? ;)

Where's the beef? :idunno:

Better get busy, godrulz!

AMR

Open Theists deal with the biblical themes just fine. Since most of the Bible does not deal with these things, there is no reason to have a verse by verse commentary (that we would agree on) of the whole Bible from Open Theism perspective. We can highlight the relevant points in our writings without having to re-invent the wheel on the common ground.

Calvinism interprets passages (Rom. 9-11, etc.) through the deterministic lens. The paradigm is the problem, not the verses.

You probably underestimate the wealth of recent scholarship, including at a doctorate level, of Open Theism/Pentecostalism. Calvinism has had a head start for centuries, but that does not make it true.

I would be interested in your opinion on this new book:

http://www.amazon.com/Against-Calvinism-Roger-Olson/dp/031032467X (he fairly understands and represents Calvinism, unlike Calvinists towards Arminians/Open Theists).
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Then explain how God can know in advance who will believe:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thess.2:13-14).​

The believer is chosen by God by salvation and that choosing is based on His FOREKNOWLEDGE:

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).​

One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "according" at 1 Peter 1:2 is "in consequence of" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

So the saved are described as "elect" and their election is "in consequence of" God's foreknowledge.

That completly destroys the teaching of the Open View!


For the last time, Mr. pseudo-Calvinist, corporate vs individual election (including in Rom. 9-11). This is NOT a problem for non-Calvinists (Arminians/Open Theists). You are forcing the wrong paradigm on the proof texts.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
No, the word "Holy" has. A term you personally wish to redefine in a way that is completely foreign to the Bible.

We agree that God is holy. Character and personal qualities are not in the same category as absolutes of wonder like His unique eternality, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence.

This is evidenced in that we cannot be eternal, Deity, omni, but we can be holy, emotion, will, intellect, good, faithful, etc. (but not in perfection like God).

I Peter 1:13-16 We are like God in some ways (image of God), but unlike Him in other ways (hence, your blurring of the distinction between attributes and character is simplistic, not helpful).
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
No, not right. God's omniscience transcends time.




What do you mean? Eternal now is Platonic/Augustinian, not biblical/logical.

















If God knew "redemption" before he created the world then there is time in God, a sequence of activity. Right?

I take it that you mean that everything was decreed, ordained and determined "before" God created the world and time". If this is so, then you are saying there was a time in God when he decreed, ordained and determined everything, that came "before" God actually created the world and time.

--Dave
[/QUOTE]
 

Nick M

Born that men no longer die
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Every open view scripture I've seen has this weakeness behind it. It is taking a translation in a different direction than the language they are taken from conveys, and of a direction the translation didn't intend to point.

Just come out and say you don't believe the bible is inspired by God.
 

ghost

New member
Hall of Fame
We agree that God is holy. Character and personal qualities are not in the same category as absolutes of wonder like His unique eternality, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence.

This is evidenced in that we cannot be eternal, Deity, omni, but we can be holy, emotion, will, intellect, good, faithful, etc. (but not in perfection like God).

I Peter 1:13-16 We are like God in some ways (image of God), but unlike Him in other ways (hence, your blurring of the distinction between attributes and character is simplistic, not helpful).
William, you cannot keep redefining the term. You simply don't understand the meaning of the word. Until you do, no one can help you with your confusion and constant misapplications. You are well adapted to your religion, but have not yet come to know the Truth.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
William, you cannot keep redefining the term. You simply don't understand the meaning of the word. Until you do, no one can help you with your confusion and constant misapplications. You are well adapted to your religion, but have not yet come to know the Truth.

Being relates to the absolutes I mentioned. Character (including holiness) cannot be divorced from personal attributes.

I Peter 1:13-16 (you still confuse nature vs volition, being vs choice).


This is why there is an element of praiseworthy/blameworthy (culpable) in moral choices. God is not impersonal nor robotic, nor are we.
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Whether or not that is the case, such automatically has God both within and without the consideration. That is, you are aquiescing by the question that this is true. See what I mean?

No, I'm not sure what you mean.

--Dave
 

ghost

New member
Hall of Fame
Being relates to the absolutes I mentioned. Character (including holiness) cannot be divorced from personal attributes.
Holiness is not a character trait. You can no more say that God is Holy by choice than you can say God is Spirit by choice.

You have no idea what you are talking about, no matter how many times you paste your responses.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Holiness is not a character trait. You can no more say that God is Holy by choice than you can say God is Spirit by choice.

You have no idea what you are talking about, no matter how many times you paste your responses.

We do not have a choice in being spirit vs matter alone, nor does God have a choice about being spirit (metaphysics, ontology, being). We cannot choose to be eternal, uncreated spirit either (GOD). God cannot cease to be God. However, Jesus (God) made choices. Rom. 6:13-16; I Peter 1:13-16; Rom. 12:1-2, etc. does link holiness/rigtheousness with obedience. Obedience vs disobedience involves mind and will and is contrasted in OT/NT. These are moral/volitional/character aspects, not being aspect like spirit.

You are trying to be philosophical, but are in over your head beyond your expertise. Aquinas might agree with your philosophy, but that does not make it biblical/right (i.e. exchanged life is novel/new, not correct...change your view, not the Bible).
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
We agree that God is holy. Character and personal qualities are not in the same category as absolutes of wonder like His unique eternality, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence.

This is evidenced in that we cannot be eternal, Deity, omni, but we can be holy, emotion, will, intellect, good, faithful, etc. (but not in perfection like God).

I Peter 1:13-16 We are like God in some ways (image of God), but unlike Him in other ways (hence, your blurring of the distinction between attributes and character is simplistic, not helpful).
"Character" Huh?

God's holiness is how God's consummate perfection and total glory is represented--God's moral purity (Lev. 11:44; Ps. 145:17) and divine majesty (Isa. 6:3; Ps. 22:3; Rev. 4:8).

Hodge captured it well: Infinite moral perfection is the crown of the Godhead. Holiness is the total glory thus crowned.

Ghost is correct: God is wholly other, separate...which captures the word "holy" well. Why do you think God struck down Uzzah? Just wondering.

AMR
 
Last edited:

ghost

New member
Hall of Fame
However, Jesus (God) made choices. Rom. 6:13-16; I Peter 1:13-16; Rom. 12:1-2, etc. does link holiness/rigtheousness with obedience.
No they don't, and there lies your ignorance of the Bible and of God. Your god, resembles that of the Mormon god, not the Biblical God.

You would have people believe that the ground that Moses approached was "holy" because it chose to be. This speaks to your false beliefs, and stupidity. I've already revealed what the word "holy" means. It's not my definition. It is the definition that is rooted in the meaning of the word since the word has been used. It just doesn't fit your strange and unbiblical theories about your god.

To be "holy" is to be separate from comparison. There is none like God ~ He is Holy. You cannot compare Him to any other. Those in Christ have been made holy, and even though they are separate from the world, from darkness, from sin, from death, etc., they are not separate from Christ or from one another. They are holy. This is what holy means. This is what it has always meant, and your confusion about the term is why everything else you believe is a mess. Until you stop equating the word holy with morality, you will forever be stupid and always saying stupid things.

Rom. 6:13-16 supports my position and makes you look even more foolish.

Starting in verse 12

"Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God."

The relationship with sin has ceased for those in Christ. They are no longer under its control or power. They are no longer its slave. They no longer obey sin. The power of sin is the Law, and they are no longer under the Law. In chapter 5 Paul says sin reigns in death. Believers are now alive in Christ. If they do not consider themselves dead to sin, and alive to God, then they will put themselves back under the Law declaring themselves sinners who obey sin. They go back to presenting the members of their body to a system that proves them a sinner. Instead they are to present themselves to God as what they are... an instrument of righteousness? You cannot be in sin and in Christ? They are alive, not dead.

Verse 14

"For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace"

Sin lost its power in their life, not because they are obeying the Law, but because they have died to it through Christ's sacrifice, and they are now alive in the Spirit, by grace.

Rom 6:15

“What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!”

Paul is now asking if they shall sin. After all, God is not counting their sins against them, because they are no longer under the Law that proves they are sinning. So shall they just go out and sin? False teachers, like you, read this verse and respond to it like this:

“Paul is telling us that we should refrain from sinning. You know, do the best we can, because none of us can stop sinning altogether. But with God’s help, we can certainly give it our best effort”

This mentality is completely foreign to Paul, to the text, and lacks basic logic, reason, and reality. It makes a mockery of the sacrifice of Jesus and His resurrected life. They are either free from sin, dead to sin, or they are not. There is no question that the behaviors may or may not have changed, but even unbelievers can change their behavior, and if that is the evidence that they are free from sin, then unbelievers could make the same claim. They have indwelling sin in their flesh Romans 7. The flesh is insatiable. In it, is coveting of every kind. The flesh practices evil. That is its job. It can do no other. You cannot control the flesh, and it is the height of arrogance to think you can or are. No matter how much you want to, you cannot do what you please.

Again, Paul makes the same statement he did when asked if they would continue in sin. “May it never be!” Is Paul saying, “No, don’t intentionally go out and sin because you are under grace and not under the Law”. Absolutely not! Paul is saying that it will never be. God will not allow it. Why? How can Paul say that it will never be that they sin because they are under grace? The answer is in the next verse:

Rom 6:16

"Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?"

If they are going to return to the system of the Law, then they will be proved a sinner, and a slave to sin, and the result is death. In other words, if sin is to be held to their account, then they have a big problem. If they want to consider themselves alive to sin, then sin is once again their master. If it is them that is sinning, than there is only one result for their obedience to sin, and that is death. Hebrews 10:26-29 really makes this point clear…

“For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?”

In this chapter of Hebrews it is revealed that Jesus is the once for all sacrifice for sin. There is no other sacrifice. It is finished. If they are going to negate His sacrifice and claim that they are continuing to sin, then there is not going to be another sacrifice for their sin. The only thing you would have to look forward to is a terrifying expectation of judgment. Those who were under the Law only needed a couple of witnesses to die without mercy. How much more those who reject the sacrifice of Jesus and call his sacrifice insufficient to take away sin once for all? It is an insult to God’s grace, because they regard His blood as being impure to cleanse them from all sin.

They have been set free from sin. What an insult it is to return to sin and make themselves a slave all over again by attempting to obey the Law for righteousness. What are they going to obey? Sin, resulting in death? Or the Gospel resulting in righteousness? The truth is, if they are in Christ they can’t even become a slave of sin, because they are already dead to sin. However, like the Galatians they can be deceived into walking like they are still under the old slave owner.

1 Peter 1:13-16

Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; as obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance; but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, “Be holy, for I am holy.”


Again, being holy means that we are not to be compared with the world. We have come out of the world and are one Spirit with Him. We are joined to Him. We are to conduct ourselves as those who are holy (separated from the world), not as thoese who are in the world.

Romans 12:1-2

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.


Again, because of your distortion and rejection that those in Christ have been made holy, righteous, blameless, complete and perfect in Christ, you attribute those things to your self-effort, making you self-righteous and outside the faith. Believers are holy, separated unto God, and we present our bodies for His purpose, not being conformed to the world, but having already been conformed to Christ
 

Lon

Well-known member
We are made in God's image and likeness, your dog is not not made in your image and likeness. We are not to God like a dog is to us. Although, I'm afraid that some pet owner's would argue they have a deeper relationship with their pet than with their fellow man and sadly that might be the case. But if it is, then that person has diminished him or her self. And anyone who compares God to him or herself as a dog is compared to us, has also diminished themself.
Agreed, don't take my analogy further than I intended. I only used the analogy to address how far removed God's understanding is from our own.

Since we are made in the "image and likeness" of God, we should understand that we are very much like God and not as unlike him as you suggest. We are finite means we are like God in a limited way in what God is like in an unlimited way.
He made us in His image, but this doesn't mean we are gods. We are called that once in scripture and then it is quoted by the apostle, but we are not on par with Him and even made a little lower than the angels. So I agree with you here. My analogy wasn't to compare us to dogs but the comparison between what we know and what God knows by example.

Because all things were created "by God", all thing consist "because of" him, not "in him".
"Whatever proceeds, then, must necessarily originate in Him as the source of all things. As I said, we think about things as separate from ourselves. Beside God, there is nothing. He is the whole of His being."
You are a "panentheist" not a "Biblical theist", when you say something like that.

--Dave :dog:
Thanks for the way this last sentence is phrased, Dave. You were careful. I will challenge the assessment, yet appreciate very much how you phrased it.

Consider:
Act 17:28 For in Him we live and move and have our being, as also certain of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring.

 

Lon

Well-known member
Just come out and say you don't believe the bible is inspired by God.
Really? That we would go to a concordance to find out what the translation is conveying? I'll simply say it again, English can and at times does confuse. When it comes to what the translators intended, isn't it a good idea to read their comments to see what they meant? I don't think even the open view has a problem with going to concordances, do they?
Anybody in the open camp want to answer along with Nick? Is it desirable to use concordances? Do any of you have them?
 

Lon

Well-known member
No, I'm not sure what you mean.

--Dave

I take it that you mean that everything was decreed, ordained and determined "before" God created the world and time". If this is so, then you are saying there was a time in God when he decreed, ordained and determined everything, that came "before" God actually created the world and time.

--Dave
In your scenario, you are acquiescing that "God created the world and time." Next, you are asking a question about whether time is created or not by asking if there was a time before God created.
So the question itself acquiesces what you are trying to show incorrect, and in that, it doesn't work. The proposition already sets Him apart from time as we know it ("created time").
 

Lon

Well-known member
But, if it is true that God has "perfect knowledge" of all things, wouldn't that mean that God has only "actual knowldge" and that nothing would be "possibilities" for him as it is for us?

--Dave
Like the toy track, God lays the track of our existence. It is 'possible' in a sense, that it could be moved, but a laid track is a layed track by the desired action. You could ask me to move the track, no problem. God is still involved with us and answers our prayers. The track can be changed, we are bound to the track, God is not, but is with us (again, both relational to and apart from).

After several of these discussions, is it that you, reject the logical possiblity, or aren't understanding how its asserted to make sense?
 
Top