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

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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).

Nothing fairly represented as far as I can tell. I have not read the book and don't plan on it. I have read Olson's fuller treatment in his Arminianism book. One need only read Olson's blog comments and responses related to the book to see his "fairness" in full light. He trouts out the usual "God is a demon" canards quickly, all couched in veiled "fairness". And, of course, there is this. 'Nuf said. I'm just sayin'.

Olson may tout an irenic approach, but he continues to fail to walk his own talk. Frankly, the man should also stop flirting with open theism and just come out and declare himself a proponent. At least then open theists would have an actual theologian to claim versus the trio of philosophers it currently lays claim to.

You should buy the book and not just skim it via Amazon. Its superficiality will likely find an appeal. :AMR:

AMR

 

[Lighthouse]

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

Interesting; I just used an apple in an example on another thread discussing the topic of the OV before I read your post here.

 

[Esquilax]

Okay.

Would you say that He knows all things that are, have been, and will be?

If so, is it eternally a present reality for God?

## Is this for Calvinists only - or is the question directed to all members of Churches which believe in God's Omniscience ?

 

[Esquilax]

And I'm sure this has been asked before...

So, when God says He no longer remembers our sins, it really means that He doesn't forget them, but that He doesn't take them into account?

## This is a Hebrew way of speaking. Detailed discussions of omniscience in Christian theology have not usually been expressed in Hebrew categories of thinking, but in those of Graeco-Latin philosophy. Both have their uses, but it's not always possible to "register" Hebrew thought in a Graeco-Latin "register". It's like re-arranging a book so it can become a film - they are not entirely the same. This certainly applies to how God's knowledge is understood.

 

[DFT_Dave]

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.

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.

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.

I agree that we are not "gods", but the animal to human analogy goes too far. We have rationality, so does God, animals do not.

"Because of him we have..." We must establish the difference between Biblical theism and panentheism. I think you would agree to that.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Interesting; I just used an apple in an example on another thread discussing the topic of the OV before I read your post here.

I was just responding to zippy2006 use of "eating the apple", but it would not suprise me if we in advertently answered it the same way.

--Dave

 

[DFT_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").

I think you misunderstand, or I did not make it clear enough, that I'm granting Nang's proposition, for the sake of my argument that it's a contradiction. What I believe is not represented by these comments. Sorry for the confusion.

--Dave

 

[DFT_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?

I'll take my post from the other thread we have been engaged in to answer the track illustration.

Time is not a track because time is not a thing in itself, not something you can handle, feel, or see. Time is an aspect of something that exists and is active--experiences change or movement. The creation of something that had never existed before proves there is movement, change, and time/sequence in God.

The "track" that God put us on is not called time, it is called planet Earth. We are bound by our "finite" existence on earth, not by time. We can only do one thing at a time. God does as many things as he "freely" chooses to do, he is not bound to one thing at a time nor everything all at once.

Since moments of time do not exist as something that God must pass through, an "infinite" regress of them does not exist that would prevent him from getting to here and now.

--Dave​

God's involvement with us means, logically, that he is in the same time and space reality as we are. God's invisibility does not mean he is "timeless and spaceless", his presence is simply not physical and visible. God acts and interacts sequentially, even though he does more than one thing at a time, any number of things he does will be followed by a number of other things, but not everything all at once.

In your example, if God moves the track that means time in God. He laid the track one way "before" we prayed and he moves the track in another direction "afterwards".

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

"And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day".

How can God's presence be both outside of space and time and inside of space and time, at the same time? How can God be everywhere/omnipresent and nowhere/spaceless--outside of space and time?

God can transcend the "temporal state" but he can't transcend the "eternal state", and he can't be both "eternal/timeless" and be "temporal/in time" without obvious contradiction.

Not only would the statement "where are you" be figurative, God's presence would be figurative as well if God is timeless and spaceless. And if God's very presence could not be taken literally then Adam and Eve's actual existence comes into doubt as well.

From ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

--Dave

 

[godrulz]

"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

GOD is absolutely HOLY, unlike any other being. He is perfect in every sense. The dispute is the technical, philosophical issues. Since we are to be holy like God, it is not just an aspect of being, but choice (I Peter 1:13-16). I agree with what you say, but don't assume Thomistic being ideas is correct. We should distinguish metaphysical vs moral issues lest we have a category confusion.

Rex Lex vs Lex Rex (I believe Lex Rex).

 

[godrulz]

## This is a Hebrew way of speaking. Detailed discussions of omniscience in Christian theology have not usually been expressed in Hebrew categories of thinking, but in those of Graeco-Latin philosophy. Both have their uses, but it's not always possible to "register" Hebrew thought in a Graeco-Latin "register". It's like re-arranging a book so it can become a film - they are not entirely the same. This certainly applies to how God's knowledge is understood.

Hebraic/biblical=endless time/duration

Greekish/Platonic/philosophical=timelessness/eternal now

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Hebraic/biblical=endless time/duration

Greekish/Platonic/philosophical=timelessness/eternal now

Biblical:

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet.3:8).​

According to this there is a speeding up of time at the same time that there is a slowing down of time. Surely this thought can only be interpreted as meaning that God is timeless or outside of time.

The problem is your incoherent view. Open Theists can explain it in a more biblically, philosophically satisfying way.

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!

 

[Lon]

I'll take my post from the other thread we have been engaged in to answer the track illustration.

Time is not a track because time is not a thing in itself, not something you can handle, feel, or see. Time is an aspect of something that exists and is active--experiences change or movement. The creation of something that had never existed before proves there is movement, change, and time/sequence in God.

The "track" that God put us on is not called time, it is called planet Earth. We are bound by our "finite" existence on earth, not by time. We can only do one thing at a time. God does as many things as he "freely" chooses to do, he is not bound to one thing at a time nor everything all at once.

Since moments of time do not exist as something that God must pass through, an "infinite" regress of them does not exist that would prevent him from getting to here and now.

--Dave​

​

Noun: person, place, thing, idea. Yup, time is a thing, an idea.
Is it a physical property? Insomuch as it measures, physical things, but no it is a logical concept of duration.

God's involvement with us means, logically, that he is in the same time and space reality as we are. God's invisibility does not mean he is "timeless and spaceless", his presence is simply not physical and visible. God acts and interacts sequentially, even though he does more than one thing at a time, any number of things he does will be followed by a number of other things, but not everything all at once.

In your example, if God moves the track that means time in God. He laid the track one way "before" we prayed and he moves the track in another direction "afterwards".

--Dave

God isn't in the same reality, He interacts with it, but isn't one of us.


1. <--------------------------------------------->
2 <-------------|-------------|---------------->

The first represents God's eternal being (no beginning/no end).
The second represents our finite beginning (a beginning with no end but
measurable increments.
Note that only the second can be measured by any possible means, the first cannot. Because God has no beginning, there is no point in time you can start measuring His existence. All segments of His eternity are artificial (created) by logic and necessity. This, imo, proves that time is a product of creation specifically because it is impossibly to quantify or qualify His existence other than His specific interactions with the segments involved. They are artificial (created). Time is a segmented concept only possibly by our existence. What God does can be measured (our existence). It is impossibly to apply the same to His existence. Having no beginning, there is no place or point which can be measured because His existence goes both forward and backward from any point you'd wish to measure duration. If you acquiesce His eternal nonbeginning, this very statement means He is without time.

When/if we are involved in this discussion further, I'll simply refer back to this post. It is a sound proof that cannot be thwarted or escaped.

 

[Lon]

Hebraic/biblical=endless time/duration

Greekish/Platonic/philosophical=timelessness/eternal now

No, I proved to you long ago the Hebrews believed in a timeless God by quoting their ancient writers. It appears to me you have a pet theology you will not let go of because you too easily forget what we've proved prior (conveniently?).

 

[ghost]

It appears to me you (godrulz) have a pet theology you will not let go of because you too easily forget what we've proved prior (conveniently?).

Welcome to my world! :e4e:

 

[Nick M]

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

Way to blow up the nonbiblical arguments about God being "timeless" or 'transcending time". :up:

 

[godrulz]

Biblical:

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet.3:8).​

According to this there is a speeding up of time at the same time that there is a slowing down of time. Surely this thought can only be interpreted as meaning that God is timeless or outside of time.

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!

2 Peter is a metaphor expressing relative issues, not a pseudo-scientific one about speculative theories. In no way does the verse support timelessness (it is about perception, not a 1:1000 equivalent), but it is consistent with endless duration.

Corporate vs individual election resolves your proof texting. Your exegesis, including attempt to use Greek you don't understand, does not support your preconceived idea.

Why do I find it so difficult to dialogue with you? You are dogmatic when you should not be. Repeating the same verses or misunderstandings over and over is not persuasive nor confirmatory.

 

[godrulz]

No, I proved to you long ago the Hebrews believed in a timeless God by quoting their ancient writers. It appears to me you have a pet theology you will not let go of because you too easily forget what we've proved prior (conveniently?).

The biblical, Hebraic OT view is not timelessness. If some ancient writers had a more Platonic understanding, it does not mean they are right. I could also give you quotes from ancient writers to support endless time, not timelessness (Winkie Pratney's book on the character/attributes of God explores the biblical/logical view of eternity in the OT/NT). I would dispute your supposed 'proof' in light of credible, contrary evidence and the inability for you or anyone to resolve the debate in a post or two. JWs also can quote this and that to disprove the trinity, but their evidence/approach is refutable.

I was also pleased to find the correct understanding of eternity in a traditional, conservative evangelical book: The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia 'eternity' article by C.R. Schoonhoven.

Even strident Open Theism critic Bruce Ware agrees with Open Theism on this point (reject classic eternal now), but does not follow it through to its implications on omniscience/FK.

There are many credible Christian thinkers who reject Augustinian-Platonic views for a more biblical, coherent one (so don't be dogmatic without wrestling at a greater level from both sides).

 

[Delmar]

Biblical:

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet.3:8).​

According to this there is a speeding up of time at the same time that there is a slowing down of time. Surely this thought can only be interpreted as meaning that God is timeless or outside of time...

Please read my signature.

 

[ghost]

Time has existed since God first moved, just as communication has existed since God first spoke. Perhaps Jerry can tell us when that was.