I asked that you put it into your own words.Agape4Robin said:
What terms are being confused and how?
Does God know the future?
- Thread starter intro2faith
- Start date
What terms are being confused and how?
Knight said:
Time does exist in a jar.....its a product of the jar and of its effects. I understand what you are trying to say but you cannot seperate the two. Time is not a description of reality it is reality. To use your analogy of time in a jar. You can have 'rich time' in a jar. Time which under neutral observation travels faster than time in another jar. Time is just as real as matter and energy, as real as a jar, as a rock, as air or as water that you might put in a jar....
Consider 2 identical sisters.
Both will die as soon as they are exactly 70 years of age.
One flies off in a rocket at near light speed when she comes back on her 69th birthday she finds that her twin sister has had her 70th birthday and has been buried for a good few years. She has experienced time dilation. Both born together and live for 70 years but both die at different times. Consider that an Angel wants to visit both of them when they are 65, the angel needs to be in two different places at the same time but whenether he is at with the sisters it is never the same 'relative' time for the other sister. Confusing stuff but if time dilation didnt work as we understood it we wouldnt have satellite communication which has to account for time dilation in order to work.
If you're going to use time as a description, it has to be relative to something as it different when in 'different jars'.
You seem to have a good handle on this thing. However, wouldn't time travel according to Einstein be limited to something more like this:eccl3_6 said:
"Twin sisters are having their 70th birthday. One goes in a rocket and travels near the speed of light (relative to the other sister). When she returns, it cannot be before her 70th birthday, but on her 71st birthday, however, her sister is having her 72nd birthday." If an angel wants to visit them both when they reach 70.5 years old, it will have to visit the earthbound one first, and then the rocket bound one when she reaches that point later?
Yorzhik said:
It wasnt time travel but time dilation. I was assuming that the sister in the rocket left before her 70th birthday..she can return whenever she likes. The sooner she does the less difference in 'time skip' she'd notice. If the angel wants to meet them both at exactly the same age he must divide himself into two as each sister now has a different time reference. If he does the 70.5 journey you suggest he would be able to see the two sisters at the same point in their own lives (70.5) but it would be ay different times to the angel. Hence time is relative and not linear when observed from various points which is why the argument put forward of sequential events doesnt carry.
The angel could watch the earthbound sister celebrate her 69th birthday, watch her die a year later, bury her and then celebrate the 'space rocket' sister's 68th birthday with her. Which event happens first is relative to who you are; the earth sister, the angel or the space rocket sister.
SOTK
New member
Clete and I
Clete and I
I want everybody to know that Clete and I have made up! :kiss:
Seriously though, I want everybody to know that I was out of line in what I posted to Clete. I am sorry if anybody else took offense to it as well. I think Clete and I found out that we have more in common than what we initially thought. I look forward to discussing this topic with him in the future. He's a great guy!
In Christ,
SOTK
Clete and I
I want everybody to know that Clete and I have made up! :kiss:
Seriously though, I want everybody to know that I was out of line in what I posted to Clete. I am sorry if anybody else took offense to it as well. I think Clete and I found out that we have more in common than what we initially thought. I look forward to discussing this topic with him in the future. He's a great guy!
In Christ,
SOTK
Mr. Coffee
New member
The Clete and ISOTK said:
Getting to knooow yooou... :chuckle:
SOTK said:
SOTK's right of course, we do have more in common than we don't. It is very easy to lose sight of that fact on a website like this where people tend to focus on only a very few issues. When it boils right down to it though, we are all blood bought Sons Of The King.
Resting in Him,
Clete
(I know, I know it actually stands for Servant Of The King, but I still like "Sons" better!
)
Last edited:
Look, I understand that this is what you believe and that's fine but what do expect me to do, take your word for it? Can you at least try to establish this idea Biblically please?nancy said:
I didn't say they were totally interchangeable. In fact, I even explained what the difference in the terms is. But even though they aren't perfect synonyms they are generally interchangeable. The one (predeterminism) defines a category that the other (predestination) is in. Thus they can indeed be used interchangeably in most circumstances. The only time you couldn't is when you are intentionally trying to make a specific distinction.
The problem is that the distinction you are making doesn't seem to have anything to do with the common use of either term. In other words, people don't usually mean what you are saying these words mean when they use them. When most people (especially Calvinists) use the term predestination, they are, without question, saying the exact same thing as what the rest of the whole world would call destiny or predeterminism. Calvin himself (umm, actually maybe it was Augustine) even said that he had not objection to the term destiny. He (both Calvin and Augustine) completely believed in destiny and called it predestination.
Now, if you think there is solid Biblical reason to believe otherwise that's terrific. But you've got to do more than simply throw the stuff out there if you expect anyone to accept it. You simply have to show us Biblically, why such a position is necessary.
This is a gross overstatement even if your definitions of these terms are correct. Chances are if your definitions are correct, you've been an Open Theist for years and don't even know it. Let's just take a step at a time and see where this line of thinking goes, shall we?
Resting in Him,
Clete
:up:SOTK said:
Clete, I already did. I told you specifically what the word meant in Greek.
If by open theist, you mean that we are totally in charge of our free will decisions, the I say abosultely yes. I don't see why you have to try to bring down God to a human level for humans to have free will.
If by open theist, you mean that we are totally in charge of our free will decisions, the I say abosultely yes. I don't see why you have to try to bring down God to a human level for humans to have free will.
nancy said:
How does Open Theism bring God down to human level? Do we know the past and present exhaustively, are we omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient, eternal, uncreated, infinite, perfect, etc.?
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=506
(affirmations of orthodoxy)
If you define God (whatever you understand Him to represent) as all knowing, all powerful, and all present regardless of your religion then surely you have to say that He is aware of the future and is entirely in control. In an argument of predestined or predetermined or whatever there is no argumenet to such a defined God, the answer is both or 'all of the above.'
Clete, even your "deterministic" view on predestination and the whole argument is flawed.
You say that God would not have to know the specific individuals of a group in order to determine what he wants to do with the group.
But the elect is a select group of individuals. In order for God to determine what he wants to do with that group, he would have to determine the individuals of that group's free will in order for the group to be determined the way God wants it to be.
Your argument is therefore flawed and takes away free will.
You say that God would not have to know the specific individuals of a group in order to determine what he wants to do with the group.
But the elect is a select group of individuals. In order for God to determine what he wants to do with that group, he would have to determine the individuals of that group's free will in order for the group to be determined the way God wants it to be.
Your argument is therefore flawed and takes away free will.
JCAtheist
New member
nancy said:
The Red Arrows and the Blue Angels are a select group of people too.. however, the roster changes from year to year as people come and go from the 'group'. No one needs to know the names of the pilots.. all they need to know is that they will all be performing their 'stunts', on this date, this date, and this date.
Your argument is flawed, period.
IN Love and Peace
JCAtheist
You guys, the elect is a SELECT GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS. Your analogies of using planes etc. Doesn't work.
This is what Scripture says, that Christ will send the Holy Spirit to work through us to fulfill his plans. By your argument, the Holy Spirit would have to control our free will choices to fulfill God's plans.
The only way your Blue angels argument would work is if the select group of blue angels indiviudals remain within that group untli they obtain glory.
This is what Scripture says, that Christ will send the Holy Spirit to work through us to fulfill his plans. By your argument, the Holy Spirit would have to control our free will choices to fulfill God's plans.
The only way your Blue angels argument would work is if the select group of blue angels indiviudals remain within that group untli they obtain glory.
Z Man
New member
SOTK said:
Awwww... I want a hug!Clete said:SOTK's right of course, we do have more in common than we don't. It is very easy to lose sight of that fact on a website like this where people tend to focus on only a very few issues. When it boils right down to it though, we are all blood bought Sons Of The King.
Resting in Him,
Clete
(I know, I know it actually stands for Servant Of The King, but I still like "Sons" better!
eccl3_6 said:
God's sovereignty is providential vs meticulous control. This flows from His love and is evidenced by creating other free moral agents who messed things up Genesis= 'very good' to 'grieved I made man and will wipe him out."
He correctly knows the future as possible/probable until it becomes actual/certain in reality, then He knows it as such.
Sure, Godrulz. It says in Scripture that the elect are predestined for glory.
A select group of individuals are predestined for glory means the select individuals must remain in that group to be predestined for glory.
Not to mention that this corporate election idea is cooked up to try to get around a confusion of terms in Scripture to start with.
Not to mention that this effort occured because of a flawed theism in the first place that couldn't hold up to what Scripture says.
A select group of individuals are predestined for glory means the select individuals must remain in that group to be predestined for glory.
Not to mention that this corporate election idea is cooked up to try to get around a confusion of terms in Scripture to start with.
Not to mention that this effort occured because of a flawed theism in the first place that couldn't hold up to what Scripture says.