Theology Club: Does Open Theism Question/dispute the Omniscience of God
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I agree with the two numbered statements as written, too. They are both Biblical, hence must be true. Our choices from that point of contact—the Bible teaches both—should not be to quitclaim the one in favor of the other. For that matter, both truths may not even be ever reconciled in our own minds on this side of the grave or the next. But I do think we have enough from Holy Writ to provide sufficient answers.
I suspect where our disagreement may reside is in exactly how much freedom man possesses versus God's freedom. We are not freer than God. So eventually, no matter how far we regress by asking "Why?" a few dozen times to find answers, we will eventually bump up against, God said it, that settles it. We do not say, God said it, I believe it, that settles it.
I think I have provided a defensible response to fatalism, given that God has personal purposes for each and every one of us. We are not simply subject to some random working of natural law. Enter the providence of God.
God's decree (basically His plan) is worked out in time via His providence (Prov. 15:3, Ps. 104:24, Ps. 145:17). Providence is not creation, but a maintaining of what has been created.
What God creates, He also sustains. The universe is not only dependent upon God for its origin, it depends upon God for its continuity of existence. The universe can neither exist nor operate by its own power. God upholds all things by His power. It is in Him that we live, and move, and have our being.
Accordingly, providence is God's actions which upholds, directs, disposes, and governs all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest to the least, to fall out according to the nature of secondary causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently (Gen. 8:22, Jer. 31:35, Exod. 21:13, Deut. 19:5, 1 Kings 22:28, 34, Isa. 10:6-7).
God's ordinary providence uses means, that is, the ordinary manner in which second causes produce natural effects (what some call natural laws). Nevertheless, God may dispense with this ordinary manner and produce the effect in an extraordinary way, which is called extraordinary providence. In other words, God is free to work without, above, and against means, at His pleasure. All the miracles recorded in Scripture are examples of God's extraordinary providence.
Worth a read:
https://www.amazon.com/Providence-Handled-Practically-Obadiah-Sedgwick/dp/1601780257
AMR
Last edited:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Libertarian Free Will
Libertarian Free Will
If choice is bereft of want or inclination, all choices are simply random choices or no choices at all...a frozen pose never able to actually will from one's inclinations. Libertarian free will implies we could acceptably choose to receive Christ without having a desire to receive Him, despite the clear teachings of the Scriptures to the contrary.
Mankind’s freedom stems from our natures, connected to our instincts and our emotions, and is determined by our intellectual considerations and character. Man’s freedom is a liberty of spontaneity, or a self-determined freedom—for we choose to do what we are most inclined to do at the moment we so choose. Freedom is not arbitrariness. In all rational acts underlies a ‘why’—a reason which decides the act. To be otherwise, to embrace the liberty of indifference, is to be the uncertain, incalculable, and unreliable imaginary man of libertarian free will proponents—which is where claims to the liberty of indifference must ultimately lead—a human will that is autonomous even unto itself.
The mind’s desire always precedes the mind’s choosing. This is precisely why libertarian free-will is impossible. It alleges a choice that is bereft of desire or want. People just choose because they can, rather than because they want. But if that were the case, either no choice would ever be made (no desire would win the contest) or the decision would be completely random, arbitrary and thus have no moral consequence. Yet, if libertarian free-will is true, determining motive is a fool's errand. Why? Because desire is not linked in any way to choice.
AMR
Libertarian Free Will
Because the liberty of indifference (libertarian free will) would amount to chaos. Of course, God could have created such a chaotic universe, but for what purpose escapes me knowing what He has revealed of Himself in Scripture.
If choice is bereft of want or inclination, all choices are simply random choices or no choices at all...a frozen pose never able to actually will from one's inclinations. Libertarian free will implies we could acceptably choose to receive Christ without having a desire to receive Him, despite the clear teachings of the Scriptures to the contrary.
Mankind’s freedom stems from our natures, connected to our instincts and our emotions, and is determined by our intellectual considerations and character. Man’s freedom is a liberty of spontaneity, or a self-determined freedom—for we choose to do what we are most inclined to do at the moment we so choose. Freedom is not arbitrariness. In all rational acts underlies a ‘why’—a reason which decides the act. To be otherwise, to embrace the liberty of indifference, is to be the uncertain, incalculable, and unreliable imaginary man of libertarian free will proponents—which is where claims to the liberty of indifference must ultimately lead—a human will that is autonomous even unto itself.
The mind’s desire always precedes the mind’s choosing. This is precisely why libertarian free-will is impossible. It alleges a choice that is bereft of desire or want. People just choose because they can, rather than because they want. But if that were the case, either no choice would ever be made (no desire would win the contest) or the decision would be completely random, arbitrary and thus have no moral consequence. Yet, if libertarian free-will is true, determining motive is a fool's errand. Why? Because desire is not linked in any way to choice.
AMR
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
Because this is tied with AMR, I'll include your post to him and see if it helps.
Theology is always hard when we have to climb into every one of another's presuppositions, so :up: and I agree with AMR, you are a sharp guy.
Several perspectives: 1) Everything everything everything comes from God. All we Christians and lovers of God know this. John 1:3 Colossians 1:17 It bothers Enyart and other Open Theists that God could not write a new song against such a truth though. Such presupposes a need of 'new' for God. If we take the verses listed and others literally, there is nothing 'new' but that which is already found within the being of God.
Another way of thinking about this: Draw a circle. Nothing represented outside the circle can exist according to the verses. Everything inside the circle already exists, including a timeline, because that too must necessarily be a part of God else it becomes outside the circle and thus would something that rules or at least makes God contend. Our understanding and definition of God is Isaiah 45:5, there is nothing beside Him, only through Him. John 1:3 Colossians 1:16,17 A circle is finite, but God is the infinite. Infinite already contains/doesn't contain all that is or ever will be, ELSE God is not infinite, if you follow.
For me, not a problem. I think I understand what you are saying and asking. If not, it'll take a few more words :e4e:
Because, He can only make a man in His own image else you inadvertently have the same thing Calvinists are accused of: Creating a man with evil. I'll explain how I think we have freewill and why I don't believe it is from God in a moment as it may help, but continuing: if you wrote a computer program, with a plethora of responses, you are the author of all of it. A double-pred or hyper Calvinist will agree with this, but so does Open Theism inadvertently. I think this is why I like Open Theists a lot, they make me think and make me realize what logically has to be (in my limited understanding). The difference is that an Open Theist would say God is NOT the author of the sin components or as Sanders (a leading Open Theist and spokesman) says, "God makes mistakes." For Sanders and a good many Open Theists, God simply didn't make a good program. He made a mistake (or purposefully did so, again some Open Theists and all Hyper Calvinists believe so). As I read Genesis 3:1, there is an obvious other answer to the sin and 'freed' will: the serpent. Genesis 3:4,5 to me explains freewill as I understand it. The serpent did not tell a full lie on this point. There was truth to what he said and this leads to my thoughts on freewill and its origin:
Autonomy, as far as I understand free will, is against our creation. It functionally would be making little gods. While scripture does call us 'gods' it is not in any sense of autonomy or great power. The Tower of Babel was torn down specifically because man was gaining a false sense of power. John 15:5 as far as Colossians 1:17, isn't just about believers walking in Him, it is about everything and everybody. "Without Him, nothing {can} exist
If we were autonomous and God knew nothing of our intentions and abilities, then certainly the potential, to its logical end, would lead to Mormonism where we become our own Gods and God, at that point, could not be the infinite, just subject to it, as you and I are. Potentiality is, however, constrained in the being of God. Open Theists disagree with Mormons on this point, and in so doing, functionally and logically embrace the same ideal as the Christian who believes in God's Omni's. I heard Godrulz one day say God is 'Omnicompetent" (his revision as an Open Theist, of the omnis). The problem is, ALL Omni's of anything, lead to all the others logically. For instance, Enyart said God is a master chess player and is well aware of EVERY move. He described Omniscience without using the world.
It is my opinion that Open Theists are actually cognitively dissonant to the Omni's they already embrace. They just have an initial knee-jerk reaction to where such points (which imho is good in the short run). I'm as much against a Hyper Calvinist saying God is the author of sin as I am of the Open Theist accusing it toward Calvinists. 1 Corinthians 13:11-13 1 John 3:2
In Him -Lon
Amen.
One need only look at what John was able to 'see' at the 'Final judgment' (Revelation) in order to see that God knows 'ALL things' and was able to allow John to see what takes place at that 'final Judgment.'
Lon
Well-known member
Allowing for perhaps another attempt in brief:
1) Because we are creation, not creator. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 If we were made autonomous, then 'redemption' makes no sense.
We are to be returned to an original state whereby we a) take up our cross, denying self (freewill). b) are made to be one with God and one another, and not autonomous Romans 12:5 John 17:21 John 15:5 Colossians 1:17 1 John 3:2
2) Because autonomy ('Free' will) came at the inception of sin Genesis 3:5,6,22, thus the eradication of freewill is the goal of a Christian Luke 9:23 It is ever difficult to die to self Matthew 19:22,26
3) Very different idea of which kind of will is truly free: Because we were forbidden from such a "free" expression of the will Genesis 2:26
"...free to eat from any tree but..." was fully known and preprogrammed, thus freedom was within the confines of the whole will of God alone. As such, our will was dictated by the will of God alone. John 8:36 In sin, redemption from it is entirely necessary. Our 'sense' of autonomy and freewill is greatly affected by the Fall and the sin condition in which we are redeemed and being reformed away from Romans 7:15-25
Rosenritter
New member
Maybe. At a point when I had never heard of "open theism" I realized that "God is outside of time" (and all that goes with that) wasn't actually a biblical statement nor was it a theory that was required by other scriptures. Without realizing it I was merely repeating what I had heard others say. Since then (maybe from these forums) I found the term, and as described it seems to be a more accurate description of what I already saw in scripture than some alternatives.
The objection I have to that line of reasoning is that it presumes the existence of paradox. Something that is unknowable cannot be known. Is God constrained because he cannot create a square consisting of three exclusive sides? By your measure above, he would be thus constrained and no longer God. Likewise by that same logic Jesus could not have been our God in the flesh, because there were things that he stated he did not know, including when he would return. So from this I want to focus on two points:
The definition of "all knowing" or "all powerful" cannot demand the inclusion of paradox: by definition, some things cannot be known and some things cannot be done.
Our definition of "God" should not be by a measure of knowledge or power. Our God is better defined by WHO he is, by the aspects of his character, not the use or range of his power. Our God happens to be all powerful, but that is not what truly defines him. To use an analogy, if a woman were to say that she loved a rich man, that man would hope that she loved him regardless of whether he possessed wealth.
Because God created man after his own image, that man has the freedom to think and to choose and to will.
That will has the potential to be exercised in rebellion, that men might establish themselves as gods, choosing what is right in their own eyes. And should men exercise that will and choose sin and death, those men shall be destroyed. Free will brings with it the possibility of sin, and sin is not possible without that will.
But that will also has the potential to be exercised in obedience, that men might knowingly and willingly choose the good that is offered to them by God. We may have inclination to choose our own way, but should men repent and choose obedience and life, those men may be forgiven and receive the gift of eternal life. Free will brings with it the possibility of love, and true love is not possible without that will.
God could have created automatons... but automatons do not truly love. He could have made the very stones rise up to sing praises if that is what he desires, but everything of our scriptures is a story of how man has fallen away and God's love and outreach to bring him to repentance. God desires children that understand love, that can truly love him and love one another. Genuine love is not forced, genuine love is not simply a programmed response. Genuine love is a choice.
Rosenritter
New member
Doesn't that boldfaced statements above (in the quote) presume that you have your own (free) will? If you struggle to ever be in His image, that implies that there is something to struggle against. But two thoughts from your springboard above:
1. if we are in perfect submission to God, if we are led by and obedient to his Spirit, he does know our next choice.
2. If one ultimately chooses their own sovereignty and declares themselves gods, are they not then also judged similarly as the gods that did not create the heavens and the earth?
Jeremiah 10:11 KJV
(11) Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.
Sovereignty does not mean that there cannot be rebels and usurpers and impostors. Rather, it requires that such shall not be tolerated, and shall be dealt with as rebels and usurpers and impostors. Maybe not this day, but certainly "when he comes into his Kingdom."
Lon
Well-known member
I've no idea why you don't think it is biblical. at least 10 verses regarding the matter popped into mind, all of them with God the Master of time, and not the other way around. I appreciate concepts that drive one's own theology, but indeed, for me, not if they aren't biblical. I'm convinced no bible doctrine told you God is not outside of time. Indeed He is: 2 Timothy 1:9 Titus 1:2 2 Peter 3:8 Isaiah 46:10 Psalm 90:2 Hebrews 11:3
Sorry to be this confrontational, but your statement dumbfounds me. It cannot be said, imho, from one knowing his/her Bible. The timelessness of God is biblical. You are arguing for a temporal ( irrevocably connected to "temporary") God, probably inadvertently, but that's where this goes. That concept is indeed unbiblical. I need to confront you enough to get unbiblical ideas out of your head at this point, in concern, care, and respect. -Lon
Not quite true. You are arguing that God could not enter the temporal. This is not what I mean by atemporal. What I mean is that God is relational to but completely unrestrained by, time. Example: I may put any part of my being in my fish tank. At no time am I 'all wet' and it'd be a mistake to assume so. Is it true my fish only knows the 'wet' me? Yes, likely, but they certain have only a thin and inaccurate grasp. "IF" I tell my fish in any uncertain terms that I'm not wet, they, being at my mercy (and given that they ever could comprehend such), they must accept my word for it, despite their own paradox. Their paradox is not mine, nor my making.
I disagree. Like in the fish analogy, it is a paradox only to the fish. They know nothing of living without water and cannot comprehend such a notion. If I used my SCUBA gear, they'd be completely stuck in a paradox but it is not at all one for me. Finite is as finite does and it cannot comprehend the infinite so by comparison, my tiny fishes' heads would explode. They have no ability to grasped such a forced huge concept. They have 3 second attention spans.
Disagree. John 1:18 His knowledge. His power.
Jeremiah 32:17? Colossians 1:17? Both Old and New saints seem to disagree with you. :think: If anything, we must be biblical and paying attention to the bible.
Agree, but we disagree that He is equally defined by all of His characteristics. How could God have a bad or 'not to be talked about' attribute? :idunno: Isaiah 9:6
Yowch! Until I came to Him, He was pretty much defining Himself to me and then, especially after. It isn't really up to me to define Him, He does so Himself. Genesis 35:11
This, however, is identifying something we do not value as believers. "Rich" isn't a favorable attribute, but it may well be in another's values. Rather, God is to be loved for all His attributes because there isn't a sinker in the lot of them. Job 13:15
I disagree. That is out for me, not even on the table. Look at Adam: there was no freedom like you are describing. He was set in a Garden with specific boundaries. There was, at the time, only one restriction, but it was a restriction and Adam was bound to it. What gave Adam his sudden sense of autonomy, independence, and 'free' will? What was he free 'from' at that point? What did he lose? Who/what was his new master? Could he 'unknow' sin at that point? What did Adam lose? Was he 'free-er' before or after? SOMETIMES, not necessarily here, I think what some think is 'love' is a stroke to their own pride and independence. Satan is an 'angel of light' and had fallen from 'height and glory.' If we only see God as loving, because He supposedly gave us this sense of independence and then somehow meets us as equals where true love cannot exist without mutuality, then as I see it, Satan never rebelled according to such logic, just 'realized his full potential.'
Rather, it is the incredible contrast of the Savior "making Himself nothing" (I'm in tears just saying that part) then "becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross" takes on a fully different meaning. God isn't attacking us, Luke 9:23 just our id, our pride, our 'free' will and independence. And not so that He would harm us, but for our good. Jeremiah 29:11
That is why I see it as a 'gift' from the serpent in the Garden Genesis 3:1, 4, 5 and not a gift from God. What you describe as 'necessary' I see as only necessary for a horribly freed will and poor concept of false independence John 15:5, Colossians 1:17
I completely disagree: Romans 7:18 You are trying to argue, literally by derivative, that Adam and Eve had NO capacity to love God sans the forbidden fruit. In effect, you are arguing this: Genesis 3:4,5
The very thing you are holding up as if virtuous, is spoken of thusly: James 4:14-16 John 15:5 1 Corinthians 4:7
This rings, to me, from Genesis 3:4,5 Do you see why this comes to my mind? Who told you Adam and Eve didn't love God prior to the Fall? Who told Eve she would not surely die? That she could live 'autonomously' from God? What do all the scriptures posted in this repost say? Do they agree or disagree with you?
Whatever 'programmed' condition I came in, whether 'automaton' or not, I don't believe, honestly, Adam and Eve loved better atf, but worse if at all. They didn't 'win,' they 'lost.' Genesis 3:14-24
Sorry I'm disagreeing with you on each and every single point here. I'm not sure how to find common ground with such stark contrasted belief. I'm convinced that the fantasy and affections of a supposed freewill gift, are wrong. I do believe we are graciously allowed autonomy until the full measure of the saints, but not as a 'gift from God.' That is, I don't see freewill autonomy as the gift, but rather what it cost to remedy it from us.
To me, 1 John 2:3 is not automaton but if it were/is, so be it. Luke 22:42
My concern: love is pointed at the wrong thing. His redemption is not a respect or deference to our autonomy/freewill, but despite it. We need Him. The 'meeting of minds' or 'mutuality' of love, imho, is a myth and is part and parcel of the Fall. God has no need. He is complete without us else all would have to be saved. He saves us rather, because 'we' need it and because it is His nature to do so. You'd say such a mechanical dispassionate clinical analysis isn't love, but it is, actually. Passion is driven by risk, recklessness, and without regard. Such isn't love and this is often what one that argues like this is suggesting. Love is rather doing the hard hard work. It is Philippians 2:5-8
Here is one verse about the desire of God: John 17:20,21 Love is self-negating, thus the opposite, in my thinking, of independent free-will. It is ONLY when I look like Christ, I'm convinced, that you'll EVER see good or love in me. To me then: Luke 9:23 It is the complete eradication of self and embrace of such a so-called automaton, that I'm ever seeking in the first place: 1 John 3:2,3
It is often expressed in force. It certainly was when my children were young. It is certainly true also of Hebrews 12:5-6As a teacher, I also disagree on this too. Repeat is very response oriented, that kids could about do it in their sleep. Love is definitely a factor in such a desire. Why do we think love has to be unplanned and spontaneous or it isn't love? I think I agreed with you at one time, but I'm convinced, having been married nearly 40 years, that knowing EXACTLY what makes my wife tick is the better love response. IOW, it is that 'programmed' non-spontaneous regularity that shows I love her even more. I think you are talking about 'going through the motions' but that doesn't involve the heart or the mind. I think what you are against isn't that God 'made us this way' because He surely did, AND it is what we were supposed to do, without choice otherwise. Sin didn't suddenly make us better lovers. It made us inconsistent lovers where NOW we only do so "when we want to." Please meditate on that with me for awhile. I'm convinced it is true and that most who think like this are 1) afraid of dying to self (I am/was) and 2) trying to find something noble in independence and autonomy. Meditate with me: John 15:5 1 Corinthians 4:7 For me, Colossians 1:17 logically ends such discussion. How could 'real' love exist if it ONLY comes from Him? Yet it does, does it not? Here is a profound question: Why? Why is that true? I believe the answer does away with the argument of 'reciprocal' love as the only or legitimate. It very much challenges that notion. Such isn't easy to entertain, but I think we have to entertain what the scriptures are telling us. In Him -Lon
Again, this doesn't ring true to me. Genuine love, as far as I understand it, is from God and is in the nature of God. If Adam and Eve were created 'very good' they love more before the Fall than after AND you and I are a long way (as were they) after the Fall.
Yes. I do not deny freewill. I rather deny it is 1) something to be desired and 2) is a gift of God but rather is the result and consequence of sin.
Rosenritter
New member
Perhaps we could look at those passages together, with the full text displayed?
2 Timothy 1:9 KJV
(9) Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
The word choice of "before time began" is a rather recent shift, but the older established translations (Geneva, KJV, Douay-Rheims, even Wycliffe's translation of the Latin) are consistent that it is concerning the time of our world. There's no need to construct an interpretation that God exists "outside of time" and this would require a rather science-fiction theory of Time itself. Look for consistency within scripture, such as in Revelation 13:8, where the Lamb is slain "from the foundation of the world."
Titus 1:2 KJV
(2) In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
Again, it starts to seem that the "outside of time" idea is come into recent favor due to changes in wording. Again, look to other established passages for the proper meaning. Even the NIV and NKJV agree that the "before foundation of the world" is the proper scope for the promise of eternal life (1 Peter 1:20).
2 Peter 3:8 KJV
(8) 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.
... this says nothing regarding God existing "outside of time."
Isaiah 46:10 KJV
(10) Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
Nothing is said here requiring God to "exist outside of time."
Psalms 90:2 KJV
(2) Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
Again, nothing is said here requiring "God exists outside of time" ... and the scope is even compared to the formation of the mountains, the earth, and the world.
Hebrews 11:3 KJV
(3) Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
...and I'm not sure why that verse was chosen as support.
Let's look at what you said for a moment, I just want to repeat this one bit for emphasis:
You're starting with your assumption as if it were a given and then requiring a counter proof. I'm looking for a Bible doctrine (or statement) that does tell me that God is outside of time. Rather than starting with such an assumption and demanding a specific refutation, I'm insisting on starting without such assumptions and requiring that my understanding be mandated by scripture. "Outside of time" is a human statement, and not a required answer for how God fulfills prophecy.
I do not say this to be contentious and I mean no hostility. I'm not even ruling out such an explanation as being fitting, but...
1) I have not seen this this explicitly stated
2) I have not seen this as a necessary inference from other statements
3) I do not see how the natural understanding as time being the measurement between events could in any way interfere with our ability to place our faith in Jesus Christ for salvation
Lon
Well-known member
:nono: "Chronos" as in "Chronology" thus "time." If a translator thought "time and world began at same time" fine, but it is clearly 'time' as a given.
:nono: The word next to it is aiōnios (perpetually) in conjunction with chromos.
Same two words, reversed this time: Before time even perpetuated, literally.
:nono: It is clear as day.
You shouldn't be asserting at this point. Clearly I say it does therefore "nuh uh" isn't dialogue. You can posture as you like, but such isn't a meeting of minds.
Er, yes it does. It says literally God is already on both sides as well as things that 'are not yet' :noway:
I don't really believe you are meditating for information and instruction from the Lord at this point
Please regard the scriptures and dig if as you must. This scripture, like the others you quickly dismissed are imho, shoddy and quick and not worth a redress without serious contemplation. They clearly depict God as Master AND beyond the constraints of time. How could you possibly miss these? Ask for help, but don't write them off. The wording is incredibly clear. As I said, these are just the first that came to mind. Many scriptures speak of God's timelessness. Many speak of Him in regard to time as well, but we must ever know our place: we the creation, He the Creator and Master of all. Better response, thank you. It means "no God = no time" Time itself can ONLY exist from the existence of God. Open Theists, as I said, inadvertently make time something that constrains and is co-equal with God. The scripture says clearly that nothing exists without or beyond God. It is so important to understand this. There is no scripture that says that time is a property or attribute of God, just the opposite.
:nono: YOU are the one who said timelessness of God was unbiblical, Rosenritter! THAT man is you! Rather I said I'm convinced, from scripture, you are wrong. The bible absolutely, certainly, as I hope I've shown and proved just above, does have God 'before time began' literally.
Such IS presuppositional. RATHER read the scriptures and assume they are correct until something convinces you, you understood them incorrectly. "Outside of time" or "Before time began" indeed is a repeated scripture given to us! "Before Abraham was, I Am" is inconsistent verb use that 1) discusses facts about time and 2) the nature of Christ. "Before Abraham was, I was" would have been understood clearly but immediately they took up stones to kill the Savior because "You a mere man, claim to be God!" It, however, expressed yet again, that God is beyond the time constraint of 'was.' He literally gives it in His self description such that "I am God and a timeless God at that" is clearly stated.
I believe I've handled that now. It clearly does, indeed say, before time even perpetuated, literally.
There are many scriptures that not only say such, but I believe prove it. When John was taken in spirit for Revelation, it was literally to the future where he 'saw' (past tense) the future. Literally a God unconstrained by time as a necessity. Grosnick already said this last page, but it bears repeating. He is correct.
I realize this and it is why I'm patient and longsuffering. Some things are harder to prove than others, but I do believe if scripture says such clearly, we can grab 'because I said so!' from God without a lot of ado, but it certainly is better to grasp 'why' more often than not. We don't tend to like 'faith' issues, but the righteous must live that way also because we cannot grasp everything. Sometimes 'because I said so' must be sufficient for a people who live by faith, but it certainly helps to have brothers and sisters working to figure out some of this with/for us. In Him -Lon
Rosenritter
New member
Lon, I know you were saying a lot but I'd like to avoid a lengthy inline response to an inline response. I will try to address your meaning, to resolve disagreement without being disagreeable using fewer words if possible.
1. I cannot remember arguing that God could not enter the temporal. I don't see how that follows from saying that God cannot create a square consisting of only three sides, that omnipotence and omniscience cannot be expected to include paradox.
2. The problem with your fish tank analogy is that it still presumes that the assumption is true, then uses a reasoning of "fish minds cannot comprehend it" to prevent us from insisting that the initial statement be expressly derived from scripture. If we are not allowed to challenge the original assumption, then any absurdity or false doctrine can be defended with the "fish minds" reasoning.
3. If you are disagreeing that our definition of God should not be by measure of knowledge and power, can you truly know God? We weren't talking about a simple distinction between "which of the gods" but rather Who God really is, as to the express image of his person. The whole scripture from Genesis to Revelation is about that image of his person, the Who of Who He is. That image wasn't power, it was love. This is the sum of the law and the prophets and the gospels and the epistles and the Revelation.
Why do we worship God? Who is he really? We are told "God is love" and that John 3:16 was from the "foundation of the world." We love God why? Because he is powerful or knowledgeable? No, we love God because _____________ (fill in the blank, hint = 1 John 4:19).
If you only worship God because you believe he is "all powerful" you've missed the meaning entirely. That's the reasoning of the Muslim, that's in the same understanding as those that taunted "If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross." Or God defined Himself (his character) as one that would die on that cross, for us in our stead. Power and knowledge does not define His character. Power may be a measure recognized by carnal man, but character is the measure of the spirit.
4. Adam absolutely did have freedom to obey or disobey in Eden. This should be self explanatory in that God gave a command, and that Adam disobeyed that command. The defined situation simply offered a concrete testing experience where the results could be clearly seen and understood even by Adam. If you're claiming Adam had no will of his own then it becomes impossible for him to disobey - then he's just doing as he was programmed by God, whether it was to take or abstain from any particular fruit or tree.
5. Your reasoning about gifts from the serpent makes no sense to me. Are you suggesting that the SERPENT created "free will" where God chose not to or was unable? That would only bring about the question of who allowed the serpent its own will. Back to the scripture please: God created man, gave him a command, and the man disobeyed. God wouldn't tell us that he sets before us life and death, blessing and cursing, "therefore choose life" unless we could choose life. The serpent didn't create free will, it only served as a catalyst (to accelerate) the choice between life and death.
6. No, I was not "trying to argue" that Adam and Eve had no capacity to love God sans the forbidden fruit. That's an absurd conjecture. And why are you arguing against (a straw man of) "Adam and Eve didn't love God prior to the Fall?
7. You're arguing against "free will is a gift" which was never claimed. The statement was that "in the image of God" would require the ability to choose, also known as free moral agency. Free will is an essence of our being, and attested to by the hundreds of passages throughout the scripture that presume free will. If you are a Calvinist first and foremost this may not be a negotiable point, but it cannot be denied that we are spoken to in scripture as if we do have free will, as if we can choose life and death, obedience or disobedience.
8. You state that "passion isn't love" yet the Passion of Christ is certainly the greatest expression of love known to God and man. Passion may not define love, but true love knows passion, and love without passion hardly seems like love at all. Ironically, the passage you chose to illustrate your point (Phi 2:5-8) is about the Passion of Christ.
9. An automaton does not (and cannot) sacrifice itself and willingly take up the cross and follow Jesus. It only does what it is programmed to do. God isn't calling us to negate self, he is calling us to put to death our old selves and become a new creature in Christ. That new creature isn't an automaton either. But in the aspect that you seek to destroy the destructive elements of your old self that is good and true and holy. If we may be permitted, I'd like to call this a point of agreement even if we differ on the prior semantics.
10. "Genuine love is not forced" means that you cannot force someone else to love you. God cannot force someone to love Him.
11. You asked "why do we think love has to be unplanned and spontaneous or it isn't love?" but one paragraph later you are arguing against "genuine love is a choice." As such I have to say that I really don't know what you are thinking, you seem to be contradicting yourself (or maybe disagreement became a reflex?)
12. If man sinned through the exercise of free will, then logically that free will cannot be the result and consequence of sin. Which came first, the will to choose sin, or the sin produced by the exercise of will? Unless you are claiming that man sinned because of the WILL OF GOD and without any choice of Adam or Eve in the matter, your logic just stepped on its own shoelace...
Just one quote so that this response is seen in context:
Can you be clear on that point please? Is your current understanding that God made (or decreed or forced) Adam to sin, and that Adam was only "gifted" free will AFTER first being given another "gift" of sin?
I'll be clear where I stand on this point. Adam was created with the ability to choose, and although he had not yet sinned or chosen sin, this is not the same as righteousness. Adam used this freedom of choice to choose sin, proving (to God, to Adam, to us) that man is his natural state is sinful. There is no "gift" from the serpent, and the punishment assigned to man was to return to the dust from whence he came, not that he should now have free will because he sinned.
How can free will be the consequence of sin? Death is the consequence of sin, not free will...
I do not mean to be antagonistic. That's not the point nor the desire. I know I didn't understand some of your meaning and it's possible that you may not have correctly phrased a few other points. Let's seek first to understand each other before rushing to disagree? I do agree that we need to sacrifice the selfish desires of our own will to Christ, and I do believe that you are both sincere and passionate. Peace, always.
1. I cannot remember arguing that God could not enter the temporal. I don't see how that follows from saying that God cannot create a square consisting of only three sides, that omnipotence and omniscience cannot be expected to include paradox.
2. The problem with your fish tank analogy is that it still presumes that the assumption is true, then uses a reasoning of "fish minds cannot comprehend it" to prevent us from insisting that the initial statement be expressly derived from scripture. If we are not allowed to challenge the original assumption, then any absurdity or false doctrine can be defended with the "fish minds" reasoning.
3. If you are disagreeing that our definition of God should not be by measure of knowledge and power, can you truly know God? We weren't talking about a simple distinction between "which of the gods" but rather Who God really is, as to the express image of his person. The whole scripture from Genesis to Revelation is about that image of his person, the Who of Who He is. That image wasn't power, it was love. This is the sum of the law and the prophets and the gospels and the epistles and the Revelation.
Why do we worship God? Who is he really? We are told "God is love" and that John 3:16 was from the "foundation of the world." We love God why? Because he is powerful or knowledgeable? No, we love God because _____________ (fill in the blank, hint = 1 John 4:19).
If you only worship God because you believe he is "all powerful" you've missed the meaning entirely. That's the reasoning of the Muslim, that's in the same understanding as those that taunted "If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross." Or God defined Himself (his character) as one that would die on that cross, for us in our stead. Power and knowledge does not define His character. Power may be a measure recognized by carnal man, but character is the measure of the spirit.
4. Adam absolutely did have freedom to obey or disobey in Eden. This should be self explanatory in that God gave a command, and that Adam disobeyed that command. The defined situation simply offered a concrete testing experience where the results could be clearly seen and understood even by Adam. If you're claiming Adam had no will of his own then it becomes impossible for him to disobey - then he's just doing as he was programmed by God, whether it was to take or abstain from any particular fruit or tree.
5. Your reasoning about gifts from the serpent makes no sense to me. Are you suggesting that the SERPENT created "free will" where God chose not to or was unable? That would only bring about the question of who allowed the serpent its own will. Back to the scripture please: God created man, gave him a command, and the man disobeyed. God wouldn't tell us that he sets before us life and death, blessing and cursing, "therefore choose life" unless we could choose life. The serpent didn't create free will, it only served as a catalyst (to accelerate) the choice between life and death.
6. No, I was not "trying to argue" that Adam and Eve had no capacity to love God sans the forbidden fruit. That's an absurd conjecture. And why are you arguing against (a straw man of) "Adam and Eve didn't love God prior to the Fall?
7. You're arguing against "free will is a gift" which was never claimed. The statement was that "in the image of God" would require the ability to choose, also known as free moral agency. Free will is an essence of our being, and attested to by the hundreds of passages throughout the scripture that presume free will. If you are a Calvinist first and foremost this may not be a negotiable point, but it cannot be denied that we are spoken to in scripture as if we do have free will, as if we can choose life and death, obedience or disobedience.
8. You state that "passion isn't love" yet the Passion of Christ is certainly the greatest expression of love known to God and man. Passion may not define love, but true love knows passion, and love without passion hardly seems like love at all. Ironically, the passage you chose to illustrate your point (Phi 2:5-8) is about the Passion of Christ.
9. An automaton does not (and cannot) sacrifice itself and willingly take up the cross and follow Jesus. It only does what it is programmed to do. God isn't calling us to negate self, he is calling us to put to death our old selves and become a new creature in Christ. That new creature isn't an automaton either. But in the aspect that you seek to destroy the destructive elements of your old self that is good and true and holy. If we may be permitted, I'd like to call this a point of agreement even if we differ on the prior semantics.
10. "Genuine love is not forced" means that you cannot force someone else to love you. God cannot force someone to love Him.
11. You asked "why do we think love has to be unplanned and spontaneous or it isn't love?" but one paragraph later you are arguing against "genuine love is a choice." As such I have to say that I really don't know what you are thinking, you seem to be contradicting yourself (or maybe disagreement became a reflex?)
12. If man sinned through the exercise of free will, then logically that free will cannot be the result and consequence of sin. Which came first, the will to choose sin, or the sin produced by the exercise of will? Unless you are claiming that man sinned because of the WILL OF GOD and without any choice of Adam or Eve in the matter, your logic just stepped on its own shoelace...
Just one quote so that this response is seen in context:
Can you be clear on that point please? Is your current understanding that God made (or decreed or forced) Adam to sin, and that Adam was only "gifted" free will AFTER first being given another "gift" of sin?
I'll be clear where I stand on this point. Adam was created with the ability to choose, and although he had not yet sinned or chosen sin, this is not the same as righteousness. Adam used this freedom of choice to choose sin, proving (to God, to Adam, to us) that man is his natural state is sinful. There is no "gift" from the serpent, and the punishment assigned to man was to return to the dust from whence he came, not that he should now have free will because he sinned.
How can free will be the consequence of sin? Death is the consequence of sin, not free will...
I do not mean to be antagonistic. That's not the point nor the desire. I know I didn't understand some of your meaning and it's possible that you may not have correctly phrased a few other points. Let's seek first to understand each other before rushing to disagree? I do agree that we need to sacrifice the selfish desires of our own will to Christ, and I do believe that you are both sincere and passionate. Peace, always.
God has some things planned out and is capable enough to have them happen.
What I reject is the notion that He has knowledge of everything and nothing can happen otherwise.
I don't.
I don't think it is necessary to read "exhaustive" into verses that describe God's foreknowledge. I suspect that the idea of exhaustive foreknowledge might not have been a consideration by the authors. They wrote that He knows all without realizing they might need to temper that upon the advent of the concept of exhaustive foreknowledge. However, it would be very difficult to provide any evidence for this suspicion, so I'm not going to try defending it.
Also, I don't always approach conversations about the Bible with the attitude that it must be true.
Don't excommunicate me; that's not as heretical as it sounds. :noid:
For instance, I do not take the approach that the descriptions of physical processes in Genesis 1 are accurate, I test them against the evidence in the setting of a discussion over science. Moreover, Jesus Himself advocates the idea of testing His words. And when it comes to non-essential beliefs — ie, all of them except for one — it's worthwhile to hold them loosely in a setting where we disagree. It's not worthwhile in a setting where people do not agree on the fundamental fact of Christianity.
Not if they are logically incoherent. Our mind might not be able to comprehend some aspect of reality, but if that were the case, the idea is not much use to us either way.
If they cannot be reconciled, I should be justified in believing as I do, as long as the fundamentals — or the reconcilable things — of who God is are respected. I do feel some subservience to Calvinist thought, as it seeks the highest station for God. However, I also see problems with it — problems you would probably specify as the realm of the hyper-Calvinist.
I do appreciate that you seek to carefully define terms to defend against charges of God being the author of evil. That is good. However, I can't get on board with how in-depth they are when there seems a much simpler and seemingly reasonable answer on the table.
Sure.
I think our status as less free than God arises from sin. Also, I think Calvinism overstates the difference in the freedom of regenerate versus unregenerate people.
I think the difference between us — as we agree that fatalism is not an option — is that you hold it as something we might never be able to comprehend. I would resist that. For something this fundamental to our existence, I would suggest that a rational accounting of God's sovereignty versus the will of men is more important than the strict definition you would hold for God's sovereignty. Is it fatal to our faith if we allow that God might not already have an account of everything?
The world is pretty chaotic.
To be fair, I was using "will" as I define it. I included "libertarian free" because I know you have different levels of will (which I think are redundant).
Derf
Well-known member
Hi Lon,
If there is a thing that isn't a thing, then God doesn't have to know it, yes?
If the future is a thing, a certainty and unchangeable, then God must know it. If, however, the future isn't a certainty and unchangeable, then God, in His omniscience, has nothing to know about the "future" as a thing, though He certainly would know His own plans.
This is what the Westminster Confession says, too, that God knows His own plans--what He decrees. Where I part from the WCF is that I don't think everything I do is part of His decrees. And if it isn't, and the future isn't unchangeable, then God doesn't cease to be God just because he doesn't know what I'm going to do, especially before I'm born.
There's the other problem with the future being fixed and unchangeable--God had to have planned to create the earth and mankind from all eternity, and thus he was constrained to create the earth and mankind from all eternity. And not only that, but constrained to create mankind in such a way that each man and each woman would act in time in just such a way as they act from all eternity. God is not now separate from mankind, but mankind is part of God--He can't shake us. Thus God is a slave to the future--He's bound to create as He created. If that's your complaint about open theism, that God is subject to time, then settled theism is no better. Rather unsettling, isn't it?
Is there any evidence to the contrary? How about when He says, "Let us make man in our own image." This is a decision point. Whether this event, as recorded, is when the decision was made, or if the decision was made at some point "before" time began, it was still a point where God made a decision. If you say, "that's not the nature of God, so I have to read the scriptures differently," you are then binding God to your understanding of God, rather than binding your understanding to what God reveals. Then God isn't subject time as much as He is to your definition of God.
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
You are arguing, I believe, potentiality. God is Infinite which is beyond your and my capacity but DOES, in fact include everything that ever will be.
All things potential must come from the being of God.
Again, it assumes God is constrained in His thoughts as you or I. What we certainly do have is the Apostle traveling to an actual future.
Even in Open Theism, God is a Master chess player where nothing at all can possibly happen without Him already at least being aware of the move you might make in life. As I've said, even in Open Theism, the conclusion is that God knows.
Wait, are you going to avoid theology truth because it is unsettling??? I have been in your shoes. The O.T. made me very uncomfortable at times, but I wrestled with the text and who God is. Job 13:15 When you make choices, you've already irrevocably set the past and this doesn't unsettle you. Why? The same reason the future shouldn't bother you: One day at a time. It doesn't matter, imho. Let me entertain it: "I'm a robot with no will or choice of my own." Okay, what am I afraid of if it is true? My imagination? My limited concepts? To me, Jesus Loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so, is sufficient. God can hold some answers for me for now.There's the other problem with the future being fixed and unchangeable--God had to have planned to create the earth and mankind from all eternity, and thus he was constrained to create the earth and mankind from all eternity. And not only that, but constrained to create mankind in such a way that each man and each woman would act in time in just such a way as they act from all eternity. God is not now separate from mankind, but mankind is part of God--He can't shake us. Thus God is a slave to the future--He's bound to create as He created. If that's your complaint about open theism, that God is subject to time, then settled theism is no better. Rather unsettling, isn't it?
All it is describing is a temporal action. I'm of exactly the same mind, for instance, regarding convertibles, that I've ever had. Difference: I change because I don't know everything, God does not.
Lon
Well-known member
'If' a paradox exists, you can try to resolve it or believe it. That choice is before us with John 1:1: "was with" AND 'was' God.
Yet I was not using it in such a way nor was that the point. The point was that God is not subject to time, by the scriptures. Rather, the fish analogy is that I know Open Theists do not grasp this. The fish analogy applies to one who may not be able to grasp such a concept of a timeless God. I'm CONVINCED misconception is anthropomorphism, a limitation. Bad? No, just a limitation and you must trust God for it. It would be the same as a child not understanding 3n + f = 23 To him, the letters don't make sense, but n = 7 and f = 2, are an option, likely. The point: God is not constrained to another's limited extent to grasp Him. More? I can grasp metaphysical concepts, so the comparison was important. I'm one of the fish where the light bulb went off: "Hold on fish fellas, I semi-grasp 'not wet' now and that is what the guy that feeds us said."
No. Even Job thought he had a handle on God and was corrected by God. Isaiah 40:13; 55:8,9
My point: God Himself, calls Himself "Almighty" therefore it is important. For your perspective: 1 John 4:8, but it isn't interchangeable as you are equating here: Love is not God, but the other way around. I very much appreciate what you are saying here, but for me, all of God's attributes are inextricably tied together. Separating them out causes, I believe, compartments and compartmental thinking.
Your treatise is fine, but 'because' He loves us, He also disciplines those He loves for instance. The rest of God's attributes are the 'context' of which you and I must apprehend/understand and experience His love for us. Some will be "depart from me, I never knew you..." My kids know me from my love. You know me more for other attributes. Love is the important focus, however 1 Corinthians 13:13
Not really disagreeing with you, just saying that God has told us in His scriptures Who He is, and these other attributes are necessary. Demi Lovato recently said "My God loves homosexuality." She gets the 'love' part right, as you do, but she gets the context of love wrong because she doesn't know the other characteristics of God. She inadvertenly is making a God-of-love in her own image because she doesn't know God is righteous and holy as well.
My point: The love of God requires the context of Him and His attributes to be rightly apprehended.
If you'll recall, I said all of His attributes, including Power and Love as well.
Disagree. Genesis 3:1 describes what was required for Adam to deviate. There was nothing in him, but outside of him, that caused the Fall.
It isn't a creation, it is a consequence. God unable? Where does this question come from? I'm saying God didn't not purposefully wire man to Fall. There was no "fork in the road, choose good OR evil." In fact, God instructed them. They were forbidden from going that direction.
Agree. It is presented clearly in Genesis 3, but we are not told. You can ask God about it later, but it answers other questions, even if it brings others to your mind. I'd suggest this information isn't the 'only' thing brought about by it however. You actually learn something by the observation of it given in scriptures (and there are more questions raised besides the one). I had this same question too. It is all clear from Genesis 3 so of course I came up with the same or similar questions at the time.
This IS back to the scripture. It is clear in Genesis 3. As far as 'choosing life' you are taking it out of context. Deuteronomy 29&30 is given to Israel to turn back to God after they come back from slavery and is part of the Covenant they had to make with God.
Because ultimately, you said without this ability to choose 'not to love' that love had no meaning. You may not realize it, but logically this is where your ideas lead. I don't know how you see this in your head, but it is where your thoughts lead. I would contest this: Prior to the Fall, Adam and Eve were 1) created TO love God with no choice or desire otherwise and it was indeed not just love, but perfect love, against any other contest or notion of freewill love. I wholly disagree with such a frivolous thought. Freewill is 'resistance' to God's will. It is the only thing we are talking about regarding 'free' that matters.
They are one and the same. "In the image of God" does not require any such thing. It is NOT the essence of our being. It is the essence of sin! I'm asserting but invite you to help me prove this out in ensuing posts. It is very important.
Passion is but one expression of love. Love is nothing more nor less than "being dedicated to another's highest good." It is more often than not, a decision, rather than emotionally wrought.
Sure it can. All it requires is programming to do so. The point is, sin caused a dilemma whereby Romans 7:15-25 is the context. Problem? We are slaves to only one nature.
Scripture? The 'forced' idea is awkward because it implies 'against your will.' Problem: If it is 'against your will' to love, are you REALLY a lover? :idunno: Next: If you actually ARE a lover, is force necessary? Wouldn't it be better to entertain at that point, that you were made-that-way? If so, what could or would freewill have to do with it? Imho, nadda, nothing. A freewill rather gives you an 'out' to love and nothing but that. This is very much why I believe 'freewill' was the result of the Fall.
I'm really glad we are getting to hammer this out.
No, just against your concept at this point. As I said, I'm glad we are able to discuss this in detail. It will flesh out love in both of our minds. My contention: Love does NOT have to have an outlet 'to do otherwise (freewill)' in order for it to be love. Think on this: God cannot BUT love. It is in His nature AND it is true love, as love as love will ever be known as love.
Again, for me: The Fall required the serpent. Prior to Genesis 3? --> No sin. No poor choosing.
No, I do not believe any of this came from God. The 'gift' if you want to call it that, was from the Serpent Genesis 3:4,5
It was rather the consequence.
I disagree, it required the serpent for Adam to Fall.
God said that His creation was 'good.' Adam had no knowledge of the contrast of Good and Evil, because all he knew or had known was 'good' only.
It 'sounds' like you have God the author of sin here :think:
Agree, it was no 'gift' but a curse.
Part and parcel of the same: An ability to 'do otherwise' is an ability to choose against God. This is/was never a part of God's intention for man else He is the Author of sin. While it does cause questions, the serpent is the author in Genesis 3.
Also in Him and thanking Him for the opportunity to know Him and make Him known between all of us. In Him -Lon
Last edited:
Rosenritter
New member
I think you're missing the point. All of your proof texts may be compatible with your stated understanding of "outside of time" but they do not require nor necessitate (let alone prove) the "outside of time" interpretation. They can also be more plainly and directly read as meaning that God has always been here and always will.
No I haven't Lon. "Timeless" (at least as used in the English language) is not the same as "existing outside of time."
I don't need to be able to understand the metaphysics of how God can have "always existed" and be without "beginning of days" but it doesn't require assuming that God exists "outside of time" and the corresponding picture of God in the Gnostic image of an untouchable God unstained by pain or passion. Unless our scripture are written deceptively, there are some things that God doesn't yet know (that cannot yet be known) and this would strongly contradict that particular interpretation of those passages of which we both familiar with.
...
Regardless, if something existed outside of time it would be (by definition) unable to take any action whatsoever. Time is the distance between actions. Our God is a God of action, he makes things happen. "In the beginning, God created..." Even creation of a special realm of time would be an action. Thus, the philosophical conjecture of "God exists outside of time" (as an explanation of prophecy) isn't something that I'm able to take seriously