How God can know and not know future choices at the same time. [Archive]

themuzicman

September 23rd 2003, 10:38 AM

15 My frame was not hidden from You,

When I was made in secret,

And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;

16 Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;

And in Your book were all written

The days that were ordained for me,

When as yet there was not one of them. (NASB)

David is correct in that the translation you have definately takes the closed view slant.

One item the open view addresses is whether God's will is always done. Exhaustive Definate Foreknowledge requires that everything that happens is God's "sovereign" will, and they have to take the position that God has two wills.

The Open View says that because God doesn't know the future, and men have free will, that His will in non-prophetic matters is not always done, as was the case in the garden.

Thus, our days may be ordained, but it remains to be seen whether we fulfill those days.

Michael

bar Jonah

September 23rd 2003, 10:49 AM

I'm a little baffled by your choice of scripture to make your point. I haven't the slightest problem with this passage, and in fact, I love how this passage supports Open Theism, or Open Creationism.

Today @ 07:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218201#post218201)
Theolog:
You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion,
as I was woven together in the dark of the womb.

Describes God seeing this at that time, not before. As these events took place.

16 You saw me before I was born.
Not before I was conceived.

Every day of my life was recorded in your book.
Very arguably God's plan.

Every moment was laid out
Clearly God's plan.

before a single day had passed. Psalm 139:15-16
Yet again, a description of a temporal God, experiencing time, describing a before and after state.

God does know the future. That part of the future that is unconditionally determined. But God made Creation in such a way that much of the future is open, not written in stone. Much of the future (even prophecy) is conditional, and as such, doesn't exist to be known. Open Theism isn't a limitation on the Creator. It's a limitation on Creation. Thus the recently-coined new name for this view, Open Creationism.

Theolog

September 23rd 2003, 04:47 PM

Today @ 07:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218218#post218218)
David O:

If you use a Bible translation that wasn't made by folks with a careless attitude and an agenda, the question is moot;

Psalm 139
15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

You are right that it is a translation, but to say someone is careless is one thing, proving it is something else. Can you prove that they have a careless attitude and an adgenda??

Is'nt the KJV based on corrupted newer text?

Theolog

September 23rd 2003, 05:14 PM

Today @ 07:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218229#post218229)
themuzicman:

15 My frame was not hidden from You,

When I was made in secret,

And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;

16 Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;

And in Your book were all written

The days that were ordained for me,

When as yet there was not one of them. (NASB)

David is correct in that the translation you have definately takes the closed view slant.

One item the open view addresses is whether God's will is always done. Exhaustive Definate Foreknowledge requires that everything that happens is God's "sovereign" will, and they have to take the position that God has two wills.

The Open View says that because God doesn't know the future, and men have free will, that His will in non-prophetic matters is not always done, as was the case in the garden.

Thus, our days may be ordained, but it remains to be seen whether we fulfill those days.

Michael

No, David is wrong as usual. He, like you is merely using name-calling and ad hominim attacks and has failed like you, to address my question: If God knew every moment of my life before I was born and my life was the result of millions of choices then God must know future choices.

Name calling and ad hominim attacks are the most begruding (and satisfying) admission of defeat.

David O

September 23rd 2003, 05:15 PM

Was there a gender-neutral KJV?

The received text was preferable to them. I understand why and agree with them.

Blake Reas

September 23rd 2003, 05:26 PM

Today @ 03:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218218#post218218)
David O:

If you use a Bible translation that wasn't made by folks with a careless attitude and an agenda, the question is moot;

Psalm 139
15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

:haha:(*Sarcasm)What an argument.(end of Sarcasm)

Blake

Xmansmommy

September 23rd 2003, 05:36 PM

Theolog:

No, David is wrong as usual. He, like you is merely using name-calling and ad hominim attacks and has failed like you, to address my proposition: If God knew every moment of my life before I was born and my life was the result of millions of choices then God must know future choices.

Name calling and ad hominim attacks are the most begruding (and satisfying) admission of defeat.

Theolog,
If a debate is more what you are looking for, perhaps this thread should be moved to the appropriate forum. This one is specifically for question and answers, not debate. Let me know if that is the avenue you prefer to go so I or another moderator may move the thread. Thanks.

Theolog

September 23rd 2003, 06:07 PM

Today @ 07:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218241#post218241)
RightIdea:

I'm a little baffled by your choice of scripture to make your point. I haven't the slightest problem with this passage, and in fact, I love how this passage supports Open Theism, or Open Creationism.

Describes God seeing this at that time, not before. As these events took place.

Not before I was conceived.

Very arguably God's plan.

Clearly God's plan.

Yet again, a description of a temporal God, experiencing time, describing a before and after state.

God does know the future. That part of the future that is unconditionally determined. But God made Creation in such a way that much of the future is open, not written in stone. Much of the future (even prophecy) is conditional, and as such, doesn't exist to be known. Open Theism isn't a limitation on the Creator. It's a limitation on Creation. Thus the recently-coined new name for this view, Open Creationism.

You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion,
as I was woven together in the dark of the womb.

16 You saw me before I was born.

Every day of my life was recorded in your book.
Every moment was laid out
before a single day had passed.

Right-I You need to explain how “every moment” of David’s life was laid out before a single day had passed. How does God know every moment without knowing every choice??? Everyone else’s moments are laid out according to their previous choices and I see no reason that David is any different. God seems to be very specific here.
Notice that is doesn’t say every possible choice of any possible moments David might get if he makes the right choices.

Btw what part of the future is unconditionally determined? another honest question.

Theolog

September 23rd 2003, 06:10 PM

Today @ 02:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218757#post218757)
Xmansmommy:

Theolog,
If a debate is more what you are looking for, perhaps this thread should be moved to the appropriate forum. This one is specifically for question and answers, not debate. Let me know if that is the avenue you prefer to go so I or another moderator may move the thread. Thanks.

Mommy
Just looking for honest answers to honest questions. You got any??

Xmansmommy

September 23rd 2003, 06:27 PM

Theolog,
Some here have given you their honest answers. Yet you challenge them. Seems to me that you are looking more for a discussion. If I'm wrong, I apologize. I would respond if I felt I had something of value to add to the discussion. Thanks for the invite. :smile:

yxboom

September 23rd 2003, 06:35 PM

This thread will only remain in this section as long as it remains in discourse between Theolog and OVTists.

Theolog

September 23rd 2003, 07:55 PM

Today @ 03:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218801#post218801)
Xmansmommy:

Theolog,
Some here have given you their honest answers. Yet you challenge them. Seems to me that you are looking more for a discussion. If I'm wrong, I apologize. I would respond if I felt I had something of value to add to the discussion. Thanks for the invite. :smile:

Sorry but i have seen no honest answers, only attacks. which answer would you consider honest and not challanging me to a debate.

I do not wish to debate, maybe if challenged. In which section is a discussion allowed??

How come those that did not give an answer to my question but instead attacked me are not chastized??

Xmansmommy

September 23rd 2003, 08:10 PM

Theolog, if you look on the main page and check out the different forums you will see that this section is for question and answers only. Discussion is allowed in just about every other forum except Intro to theology and the actual debates. Since you are the thread starter you can ask that the thread be moved to a forum that better fits your intent. Hope that answers your question. As for any attacks, I have not seen anything personally that I would consider an attack from those who have answered your original question. If you feel otherwise, perhaps you should ask another moderator or one of the admins to check out the thread and give their thoughts. Thank you. :xmm:

Theolog

September 23rd 2003, 08:16 PM

Today @ 05:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218890#post218890)
Xmansmommy:

Theolog, if you look on the main page and check out the different forums you will see that this section is for question and answers only. Discussion is allowed in just about every other forum except Intro to theology and the actual debates. Since you are the thread starter you can ask that the thread be moved to a forum that better fits your intent. Hope that answers your question. As for any attacks, I have not seen anything personally that I would consider an attack from those who have answered your original question. If you feel otherwise, perhaps you should ask another moderator or one of the admins to check out the thread and give their thoughts. Thank you. :xmm:

Ok please move the thread to theology 201 and if you can restore the other deleted posts. Thank you for your time. I will be more careful in the future.

Xmansmommy

September 23rd 2003, 08:19 PM

Theolog, you are most welcome. I don't know if I can restore those posts as I am not the one who edited them. But I will move the thread for you. :smile:

Xmansmommy

September 23rd 2003, 08:26 PM

This thread has been moved to the appropriate forum and is now open for discussion to all. Thank you.

yxboom

September 23rd 2003, 08:27 PM

Wow kewl empty post.

Xmansmommy

September 23rd 2003, 08:28 PM

/ot I previewed my post first! :whack: :shifty:

bar Jonah

September 23rd 2003, 09:14 PM

Today @ 04:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218779#post218779)
Theolog:
You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion,
as I was woven together in the dark of the womb.

16 You saw me before I was born.

Every day of my life was recorded in your book.
Every moment was laid out
before a single day had passed.

Right-I You need to explain how “every moment?Eof David’s life was laid out before a single day had passed. How does God know every moment without knowing every choice??? Everyone else’s moments are laid out according to their previous choices and I see no reason that David is any different. God seems to be very specific here.
Notice that is doesn’t say every possible choice of any possible moments David might get if he makes the right choices.
I'm a mere human being, and I could say that every moment of tomorrow is laid out. Tomorrow hasn't even begun. Your presupposition threatens to reduce God to being equal to a man in this respect, if you only claim God does what I myself can do.

Btw what part of the future is unconditionally determined? another honest question.
Are you serious? You really don't believe that God responds to our actions and decisions?

Does Jeremiah 18 mean nothing to you? In this passage, God says in His own words, in the first person, that He WAS planning X but now because men have changed their mind, He no longer intends to do X. And although God WAS intending to do Y, because men changed their minds He now no longer intends to do Y.

It literally says God did intend to do something, but later He no longer intends to do it. Before and after. Conditional. The prophecy through Jonah about Ninevah didn't come to pass. Why? Because it was conditional. God told David that Saul was going to go to Keilah, and that the men of Keilah would hand David over to Saul. Did that happen? No, absolutely not. Conditional.

The crucifixion was certainly not conditional. This was not an optional part of God's plan. But many aspects of His plan are very conditional on the actions and decisions of men. That is exactly what the bulk of Jeremiah 18 is all about.

Otherwise, God's own words are meaningless.

themuzicman

September 23rd 2003, 09:21 PM

Today @ 05:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218750#post218750)
Theolog:
No, David is wrong as usual. He, like you is merely using name-calling and ad hominim attacks and has failed like you, to address my question: If God knew every moment of my life before I was born and my life was the result of millions of choices then God must know future choices.

Name calling and ad hominim attacks are the most begruding (and satisfying) admission of defeat.

What name calling did I engage in?

Your reponse makes it obvious that you weren't really interested in an answer.

Michael

Theolog

September 24th 2003, 12:49 AM

Today @ 06:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218927#post218927)
themuzicman:

What name calling did I engage in?

Your reponse makes it obvious that you weren't really interested in an answer.

Michael

And I knew that you could not answer the question when you agreed with davids childish attack on the transulators of nlv.

Theolog

September 24th 2003, 12:59 AM

Today @ 06:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218924#post218924)
RightIdea:

I'm a mere human being, and I could say that every moment of tomorrow is laid out. Tomorrow hasn't even begun. Your presupposition threatens to reduce God to being equal to a man in this respect, if you only claim God does what I myself can do.

Are you serious? You really don't believe that God responds to our actions and decisions?

Does Jeremiah 18 mean nothing to you? In this passage, God says in His own words, in the first person, that He WAS planning X but now because men have changed their mind, He no longer intends to do X. And although God WAS intending to do Y, because men changed their minds He now no longer intends to do Y.

It literally says God did intend to do something, but later He no longer intends to do it. Before and after. Conditional. The prophecy through Jonah about Ninevah didn't come to pass. Why? Because it was conditional. God told David that Saul was going to go to Keilah, and that the men of Keilah would hand David over to Saul. Did that happen? No, absolutely not. Conditional.

The crucifixion was certainly not conditional. This was not an optional part of God's plan. But many aspects of His plan are very conditional on the actions and decisions of men. That is exactly what the bulk of Jeremiah 18 is all about.

Otherwise, God's own words are meaningless.

Ok I understand your arguements I'm not as dumb as I look. I think you are wrong.

Anyway I didn't ask for a breifing on the open view heresy all I ask was:
You need to explain how “every moment of David’s life was laid out before a single day had passed. How does God know every moment without knowing every choice??? Everyone else’s moments are laid out according to their previous choices and I see no reason that David is any different. God seems to be very specific here.
Notice that is doesn’t say every possible choice of any possible moments David might get if he makes the right choices.

A simple answer will do.

bar Jonah

September 24th 2003, 01:51 AM

Theolog:
Ok I understand your arguements I'm not as dumb as I look. I think you are wrong.

Anyway I didn't ask for a breifing on the open view heresy all I ask was:
You need to explain how “every moment of David’s life was laid out before a single day had passed. How does God know every moment without knowing every choice??? Everyone else’s moments are laid out according to their previous choices and I see no reason that David is any different. God seems to be very specific here.
Notice that is doesn’t say every possible choice of any possible moments David might get if he makes the right choices.

A simple answer will do.
You asked me specifically what I was referring to in regards to conditional prophecy. And then you bark at me when I do. :huh:

I started off with a very simple, two-sentence answer at the very beginning of my post. I then corroborated it by directly responding to your other question about conditional prophecy.

You see, IF we interpret the passage as you suggest, then this isn't a matter of God having EDF of David's future choices. On the contrary, the passage specifically says God lays out those events. Not that God observes David laying out those events. So if you want to interpret the passage from a non-Open view, it must necessarily be viewed as completely deterministic. God is deciding what will happen.

But if we interpret the passage through the lens of Open Creationism... we recognize that God planned David's life, but that plan may or may not have come about just as God intended. Of course, if this view is correct, then surely we'd see examples elsewhere in scripture where God intended or expected X, but then Y happened instead.

And sure enough, we do, as I very briefly pointed out. That's the point. God certainly did plan David's life, just as I can lay out every second of tomorrow before tomorrow ever begins. What's so special about that if I can do it, and you can do it? Of course, God does it using all His infinite wisdom and present knowledge and the ability to look into the hearts of men, making Him the best predictor in the universe. But that doesn't mean His expectations are always fulfilled, or that His prophecies always come true. As I pointed out... they don't. And that alone refutes the non-Open perspective on this passage.

themuzicman

September 24th 2003, 08:21 AM

Today @ 12:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=219002#post219002)
Theolog:
And I knew that you could not answer the question when you agreed with davids childish attack on the transulators of nlv.

Childish attack? David simply compared that interpretation to the ones that are more literal in their translation and found a slant in how the verse is translated. It happens to every version.

Or are you "nlv only?"

The point he (and I) made is that your translation is NOT inspired. If you're going to get technical with the language such as you did, you'd better at least consult multiple translations (including one that is more literal, like the KJV or NASB), to make sure you understand it properly. All he did was to point out that you hadn't done your homework in understanding the slant of your translation.

Once you understand the linguistic root of the verse, you find that it isn't a proof text for determinism after all.

Now, explain again what name calling or ad hom I engaged in.

Michael

Theolog

September 24th 2003, 12:00 PM

Today @ 05:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=219134#post219134)
themuzicman:

Childish attack? David simply compared that interpretation to the ones that are more literal in their translation and found a slant in how the verse is translated. It happens to every version.

Or are you "nlv only?"

The point he (and I) made is that your translation is NOT inspired. If you're going to get technical with the language such as you did, you'd better at least consult multiple translations (including one that is more literal, like the KJV or NASB), to make sure you understand it properly. All he did was to point out that you hadn't done your homework in understanding the slant of your translation.

Once you understand the linguistic root of the verse, you find that it isn't a proof text for determinism after all.

Now, explain again what name calling or ad hom I engaged in.

Michael

My original statement

Yesterday @ 06:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218201#post218201)
Theolog:

You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion,
as I was woven together in the dark of the womb.
16 You saw me before I was born.
Every day of my life was recorded in your book.
Every moment was laid out
before a single day had passed. Psalm 139:15-16

If God knew every moment of my life before I was born and my life was the result of millions of choices then God must know future choices.

Can Open Theism explain how God can know and not know future choices at the same time.

David quips

Yesterday @ 07:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218218#post218218)
David O:

If you use a Bible translation that wasn't made by folks with a careless attitude and an agenda, the question is moot;

Psalm 139
15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

First of all let me tell you that whenever I study the Bible I look in my parallel Bible (35 versions) so I am well aware of what the different versions say. I did not ask what the different versions say.

Second of all The New Living Bible is an excellent translation but like all translations has some weak points. That is why I use a parallel Bible I personally do not want to debate Bible versions.

Third of all David dodges the question by trying to turn the question into a translation issue which it is not. Then he accuses the translators of the very thing that he is doing ie. Having “a careless attitude and an agenda” which I consider a baseless “Name calling and ad hominim attack” not only that it was slander and sinful. By you agreeing with David publicly you become guilty of the same crime.

Forth I ask David to prove his accusation and he retorts with this half-baked meaningless statement.

Yesterday @ 02:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218751#post218751)
David O:

Was there a gender-neutral KJV?

The received text was preferable to them. I understand why and agree with them.

Fifth. Some who haven’t really done their homework are suffering from the mindless assumption that the KJV or NASB versions are inspired. Well they very well may be inspired but not by God. Probably it is one of the easiest studies going to prove that ungodly text that was once a scribal footnote later ended up in the received text. If you want to believe that this is inspired so be it. I do not.

Sixth if open viewers can take text where God meets man at his level (it is impossible for man to meet God at His level) and build doctrines to prove that God is limited to mans level then it surely is OK to take inspired David’s doxology as truth to prove Gods omniscience. (that is omniscience in the traditional definition not the new definition that the othiest’s are pushing)

themuzicman

September 24th 2003, 12:06 PM

Well, the nlv isn't exactly the best translation from which to build your theology. "Ordained" is a better word, there.

Michael

bar Jonah

September 24th 2003, 12:30 PM

Theolog:
Sixth if open viewers can take text where God meets man at his level (it is impossible for man to meet God at His level) and build doctrines to prove that God is limited to mans level then it surely is OK to take inspired David’s doxology as truth to prove Gods omniscience. (that is omniscience in the traditional definition not the new definition that the othiest’s are pushing)
Theolog, now you are either showing willful ignorance or you are intentionally being intellectually dishonest. We already went over this, and you know it.

New definition for omniscience? God knows everything. That's the OV definition of omniscience. If that's new, then goodness, what definition do you hold to? :huh:

We have been around this merry-go-round over and over and over at TW. Whether the Open View is right or wrong, stop claiming that it limits God. It does not limit God. It limits Creation.

God knows everything.

What's so difficult to understand about that aspect of Open theology? How many times must we repeat that the Open View holds to God's sovereignty and all of the omni's? How many times must repeat that it is not a limitation on God for one to say that He "can't" know something that doesn't exist to be known?

God can't know that there is a blue parrot on your right shoulder right now. Because there isn't one. But... God can't know something? Of course, God can't know something that isn't true. If we believed He could, THAT would be a limitation on God because that would define God as irrational, and that would make Him less than perfect.

Open Creationism means that God very well could have made a universe in which He has EDF, in which He knows absolutely every detail of the future. But in such a universe, everything is predetermined. The Bible doesn't say things are predetermined. It says they are foreordained, or predestined, or foreknown... but not predetermined. There's a difference.

Most of the future is open. Undetermined. Unwritten. And that part of the future is unknowable because it hasn't been determined. It may be accurately predicted by One who is infinite in wisdom and intelligent. But not foreknown exhaustively with perfect precision. This is not a limitation of God. It's a limitation of Creation, because God created the universe with free will in it, thereby making the future open.

Theolog

September 25th 2003, 12:17 AM

Today @ 09:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=219485#post219485)
RightIdea:

Theolog, now you are either showing willful ignorance or you are intentionally being intellectually dishonest. We already went over this, and you know it.

New definition for omniscience? God knows everything. That's the OV definition of omniscience. If that's new, then goodness, what definition do you hold to? :huh:

The last time I posted about the definition of omniscience on this forum I listed, the, I believe, 1610 Websters definition (which has been used for the last 400 years, I could not find an older one) it clearly said that it meant that God knows everything past, present and future.

And I know that you are saying that it now means everything knowable with the exception of future choices and things that are the result of future choices and who knows what else. I know your postion is that God cannot know future choices because they are not real yet so they are not knowable yet. You strip God of the ability to precognize events and put God on the level of what you consider a very smart man. in essence you are saying that Gods knowledge is incomplete.

Surely you will admit that your position has a much lower view of the nature of God than all other systems of theology.

The normal understanding of "everything" has always meant every cotton picking thing past present and future and certianly choices and the results of choices.

If the definition of omniscience has always been understood to mean "except the results of choices" then it would have always been understood that way and everyone would already be open viewers and we would not be having this discussion.

The upshot of all this is that YES the open view has a new definition of "omniscience" and therefore the other omni's and imute's and by denying they are doing this is either decieving or being decieved.

What gives yo the right to change definitions?

David O

September 25th 2003, 09:11 AM

What gave Daniel Webster the right to decide Theology with his dictionary?

Theolog

September 25th 2003, 10:11 AM

Today @ 06:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=220547#post220547)
David O:

What gave Daniel Webster the right to decide Theology with his dictionary?

Hello David
Glad to see you're still with us.

Does the open view now demand that we do not use dictionaries?

Dictionaries post the definitions in accordance with the current understanding and use of the word.

Hope this helps.

I do appreciate the open view understanding simply because it challenges the traditional theology and then requires people to actually open their bible for a while and it shows how easily people can get sucked into any wacky idea that comes down the pike. I am all for being a rebel but when it comes down to theology a word of caution is in order. Especially when it comes to the nature of God.

For the open viewers to make a claim that they are not changing definitions of words is a false claim and I have proved it simply by looking in a dictionary.

Then I get accused of willful ignorance, go figure.

David O

September 25th 2003, 10:27 AM

Thanks for the "glad to see you're still with us."

The Bible defines reality. It is God's word. When the writer of a dictionary contradicts the Bible or adds to the Bible, he is stepping out of bounds. I will believe the Bible regardless of whether Daniel Webster trusts it or historians trust it or scientists trust it.

I hope this helps.

Doesn't that sound pompous? Please don't do it to me, and I won't do it to you.

themuzicman

September 25th 2003, 10:47 AM

Today @ 12:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=220257#post220257)
Theolog:
The last time I posted about the definition of omniscience on this forum I listed, the, I believe, 1610 Websters definition (which has been used for the last 400 years, I could not find an older one) it clearly said that it meant that God knows everything past, present and future.

And I know that you are saying that it now means everything knowable with the exception of future choices and things that are the result of future choices and who knows what else. I know your postion is that God cannot know future choices because they are not real yet so they are not knowable yet. You strip God of the ability to precognize events and put God on the level of what you consider a very smart man. in essence you are saying that Gods knowledge is incomplete.

Surely you will admit that your position has a much lower view of the nature of God than all other systems of theology.

The normal understanding of "everything" has always meant every cotton picking thing past present and future and certianly choices and the results of choices.

If the definition of omniscience has always been understood to mean "except the results of choices" then it would have always been understood that way and everyone would already be open viewers and we would not be having this discussion.

The upshot of all this is that YES the open view has a new definition of "omniscience" and therefore the other omni's and imute's and by denying they are doing this is either decieving or being decieved.

What gives yo the right to change definitions?

No definition changing here. Just because you can put words or a concept to something doesn't mean God has to know it.

God doesn't know an object that is larger than He is, because it doesn't exist. Does that mean He isn't omnicient? No. It just means that God cannot know what does not exist.

In the same way, if the future does not exist, then it is not knowable. That doesn't change God's omnicience, but simply changes what we percieve to be knowable.

It also does not alter omnipotence or omnipresence, so it does not reduce God to being a very smart man.

As for the "clear understanding", that only applies to those who WANT to have the closed view. The "clear understanding" to the open view person is that God has a plan for every person, but it is up to us to walk in His will.

Michael

bar Jonah

September 25th 2003, 01:03 PM

David, your points about dictionaries are spot on. :rithumb:

Theolog, you seem to want to make a dictionary equal to the Bible as divinely inspired scripture. :lol:

What happens when a dictionary has a religious term's definition that you disagree with? Webster's itself defines God as being any of a number of deities, not just the one true Lord of Christianity. Also defines God as being an idol.

You going to pick and choose? A dictionary like Webster's is a secular work. As such, you cannot reasonably use it as a source of absolute truth within Christianity.

Theolog

September 25th 2003, 11:46 PM

This is great you two now define words for the world and accuse anyone that would use something like a dictionary of worshiping books.

What are you the Heckle and Jeckle of the open view world?

First you deny changing the definition of omniscience and then you defend changing it.

If this is the best open theism has I would ask you two to cease from your games and go somewhere else and send your heavy weights in. If you are the brain power behind this salvation by works theology I will go somewhere else.

Theolog

September 25th 2003, 11:54 PM

Today @ 07:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=220644#post220644)
themuzicman:

No definition changing here. Just because you can put words or a concept to something doesn't mean God has to know it.

God doesn't know an object that is larger than He is, because it doesn't exist. Does that mean He isn't omnicient? No. It just means that God cannot know what does not exist.

In the same way, if the future does not exist, then it is not knowable. That doesn't change God's omnicience, but simply changes what we percieve to be knowable.

It also does not alter omnipotence or omnipresence, so it does not reduce God to being a very smart man.

As for the "clear understanding", that only applies to those who WANT to have the closed view. The "clear understanding" to the open view person is that God has a plan for every person, but it is up to us to walk in His will.

Michael

Michael
re read and see that i have proved that you have changed the definition without a doubt. It is ok to change the definition if you want but don't expect the rest of us to jump in and accept your folly.

That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever read.

God cannot know he is a giant pork chop because giant pork chops do not exist.
That does not mean he is not omniscience it just means he is not a giant pork chop bla bla bla.

God has a plan for every person but he doesn't know it untill it happens but it does not matter because the present will soon be the past and the future is not real anyway.

Man does not alter Gods omnipotence or omnipresence, he just alters the definitions.

Xmansmommy

September 26th 2003, 12:59 AM

:lol: That was ridiculous Theolog, but funny :wink:

bar Jonah

September 26th 2003, 03:07 AM

Exactly.

You accuse us of admitting we changed the definition of omniscience. Where on earth did we do that? How many stinkin' times do we have to say it?

GOD KNOWS EVERYTHING THERE IS.

What's not clear about that?

And "salvation by works???" Where on God's green earth do you get that from? :huh:

Frankly, the bottom line is... your version of God cannot bring about His will without what is generally referred to as Exhaustive Divine Foreknowledge, or EDF.

And the Open God can.

And you say we make God lesser? Weaker? That we bring Him down to the level of man? It is the non-Open God that is weaker, lesser.

Theolog

September 26th 2003, 10:31 AM

Today @ 12:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=221637#post221637)
RightIdea:

Exactly.

You accuse us of admitting we changed the definition of omniscience. Where on earth did we do that? How many stinkin' times do we have to say it?

GOD KNOWS EVERYTHING THERE IS.

What's not clear about that?

And "salvation by works???" Where on God's green earth do you get that from? :huh:

Frankly, the bottom line is... your version of God cannot bring about His will without what is generally referred to as Exhaustive Divine Foreknowledge, or EDF.

And the Open God can.

And you say we make God lesser? Weaker? That we bring Him down to the level of man? It is the non-Open God that is weaker, lesser.

Perhaps you had better get a new little devilish thinking cap.

By giving a different understanding of word [u]everything[\u] in your definition of omniscience you have changed the meaning of omniscience. This does not take a rocket scientist to understand. So why don’t you be honest and admit that you have changed the meaning and understanding that has always been accepted for these omni words.

Your whole case and point is that open theist’s have a different meaning and understanding of the words omniscience, omnipresence and immutable.

By denying that you have not changed the meaning and understanding of these words you look like the cat with yellow feathers hanging out of his mouth saying what “what canary?”.

God knowing the complete past, present and future has always been the understanding of the nature of God. Period, end of story.

I believe that the reason open theist’s deny this change in the basic definitions these words is that they are trying to make it seem nothing has really changed. In other words the whole argument is a smoke screen and deception.

As far as the salvation by works jab:

If mans actions can bring about his salvation then salvation is salvation by mans works.
When Gods actions bring about mans salvation then salvation is salvation by grace alone.

I view open theism and the roots of open theism as just another twist by Rome battle the reformations salvation by grace alone.

Open theism is just another lame attempt to establish mans free will. True free will cannot exist because true freedom cannot exist.

themuzicman

September 26th 2003, 10:34 AM

Yesterday @ 11:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=221552#post221552)
Theolog:
Michael
re read and see that i have proved that you have changed the definition without a doubt. It is ok to change the definition if you want but don't expect the rest of us to jump in and accept your folly.

That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever read.

God cannot know he is a giant pork chop because giant pork chops do not exist.
That does not mean he is not omniscience it just means he is not a giant pork chop bla bla bla.

God has a plan for every person but he doesn't know it untill it happens but it does not matter because the present will soon be the past and the future is not real anyway.

Man does not alter Gods omnipotence or omnipresence, he just alters the definitions.

I think you need to read my signature.

Michael

Xmansmommy

September 26th 2003, 10:35 AM

Theolog, I have to admit that statements like RightIdea's can be confusing. But again, where do we get the definition of omniscient if not from the very book that the idea stems from? That would happen to be the bible...not Websters. :teeth:

themuzicman

September 26th 2003, 10:40 AM

Why are true freedom and total depravity incompatible.

True freedom doesn't imply complete knowledge.

Michael

David O

September 26th 2003, 10:45 AM

Daniel Webster even made his own translation of the Bible.

Xmansmommy

September 26th 2003, 10:48 AM

I wasn't aware of that David. Very interesting. :hrm:

Theolog

September 26th 2003, 12:00 PM

Today @ 07:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=221874#post221874)
Xmansmommy:

Theolog, I have to admit that statements like RightIdea's can be confusing. But again, where do we get the definition of omniscient if not from the very book that the idea stems from? That would happen to be the bible...not Websters. :teeth:

I agree that we should get our understanding of the nature of God from the bible and not dictionaries. When we do we come up with words to define these understandings. Words like omniscience, omnipresence, immutable, trinity, free will, volition ECT, all which are words that are not used in the Bible but we use them to facilitate our understandings

With these we have basic concepts in mind for their understanding thus producing definitions.

These definitions are written down in books called dictionaries.

As far as making a claim of getting your understandings from the scripture, of course you do, don’t we all?

With open theist’s understanding of scripture you see some of these concepts different than orthodox Christianity and have produced a different understanding and therefore definitions of these words in question. Why are you denying this???

“God knows everything Your understanding/definition of the word “everything” does not mean same “everything” as any other Christian group that I know of.

I suppose now you will say “We did not change the definition the word “everything” as it is used in “God knows everything, it has always been used that way!!!

Theolog

September 26th 2003, 12:04 PM

Today @ 07:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=221894#post221894)
David O:

Daniel Webster even made his own translation of the Bible.

That proves that he was smarter than most of us.

Xmansmommy

September 26th 2003, 12:04 PM

Theolog, if you go back and read my posts, you won't find that I've denied anything. Matter of fact, I even mentioned that when and OVT says "God knows EVERYTHING" I too am confused by that statement. Because as an OVT, I find that to be somewhat misleading....NOT because I think it is intentional on their part. But because of the difference in understanding of what that implies. I hope that helps. :teeth:

themuzicman

September 26th 2003, 12:05 PM

It has always been used that way by Closed theists, which is probably the only folks you've ever heard of.

Open theists simply have a different understanding of what everything includes.

David O

September 26th 2003, 12:07 PM

Today @ 05:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=222171#post222171)
Theolog:

That proves that he was smarter than most of us.

I guess by the same logic, the gender-neutral folks are smarter than we are, too. Webster's Bible is moslty KJV with a few changes.

bar Jonah

September 26th 2003, 12:15 PM

Theolog:
That proves that he was smarter than most of us.
Gosh.... Darby even made his own translation of the Bible. A dispensational translation.

That proves that he was smarter than most of us. :huh:

But it occurs to me that we're off the original topic of the thread. So...

How God can know and not know future choices at the same time.

He doesn't. And I don't know anyone who believes He does. So, come to think of it, I'm not sure what your point is. If no one believes God knows and doesn't know future choices at the same time... why are we even wasting time in this thread? :ri:

mickiel

September 26th 2003, 03:11 PM

Everything is from him. He is alpha, or the beginning of all things there is to know. Whatever there is to know, that knowledge originated FROM God. To think that God does not know all things, is to believe that he does not know himself. God is the first and the last, or he is the past and the future. Both COME FROM INSIDE of him. God IS LIFE, so all life is a portion of him, and he knows himself. The future is a portion of him, so he knows the future, which only means he knows himself. At times i am puzzled, because God is constant, consistant life, which , really if you meditate on it, can have no future. Future is a forward measurement of time, past a reverse measurement of it. God is before the past and after the future, nothing is beyound him. He engulfs all things. When you engulf all things, knowing everything is relitively simple.

themuzicman

September 26th 2003, 03:14 PM

Universal pantheism, now?

David O

September 26th 2003, 03:28 PM

Mickiel is my friend. He doesn't claim to be a Christian yet. I like him. I don't usually agree with him, but I like him.

bar Jonah

September 26th 2003, 04:49 PM

Well, it is good to know that someone isn't a Christian when they are discussing a theist topic... :riwink:

By the way, Mickiel... I used to believe as you do, myself. Back when I was a witch.

Theolog

September 26th 2003, 10:27 PM

Today @ 12:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=222509#post222509)
themuzicman:

Universal pantheism, now?

More Name calling and ad hominim attacks?

:poke: :thumb:

mickiel

September 27th 2003, 11:15 AM

Yesterday @ 09:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=222664#post222664)
RightIdea:

Well, it is good to know that someone isn't a Christian when they are discussing a theist topic... :riwink:

By the way, Mickiel... I used to believe as you do, myself. Back when I was a witch.

Generally people fear what they do not understand. Or they are repulsed by it. This is the reaction Christ received from humans in general, he came to his own creation, and they did not think well of him, many believed he was a witch. Why? Because his thinking did not match theirs. The truth was hiddened from them and their hearts were hardened. the words of their mouth could only be the same hard disrespect.

bar Jonah

September 27th 2003, 11:18 AM

Theolog:
More Name calling and ad hominim attacks?

:poke: :thumb:
Uhm, no, an entirely rational question based on statements that sound pantheistic.

mickiel:
Generally people fear what they do not understand. Or they are repulsed by it. This is the reaction Christ received from humans in general, he came to his own creation, and they did not think well of him, many believed he was a witch. Why? Because his thinking did not match theirs. The truth was hiddened from them and their hearts were hardened. the words of their mouth could only be the same hard disrespect.
Many believed Him a witch? What on earth do you base that on? Of all the things people thought of Him, they didn't believe He was a witch.

mickiel

September 27th 2003, 03:57 PM

Today @ 04:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=223324#post223324)
RightIdea:

Uhm, no, an entirely rational question based on statements that sound pantheistic.

Your words sound arrogant. The smerkiness of some christians never ceases to amaze me. The bible teaches that children of God behave in a manner that absorbs name calling and forgives it. Yet i see different in many christians i meet, they seem to dish it out as well as us sinners. But i understand that, christians are not immune to sin, they just try to act as if they are. What we here and see are different sounds, different knowledge, different spirits lead our minds, i realize this very well. I am very pantheistic in certain areas, in others i am not. I am in areas that identify God as the creator of the universe, i am not in areas that worship any god they invent in their minds.

Many believed Him a witch? What on earth do you base that on? Of all the things people thought of Him, they didn't believe He was a witch.

People belived many things concerning Christ. Some believed he was a heritic, which is not far from witchcraft. Some believed him a demon, still not far from witchcraft in those days. Some believed him a leader of the rebellion. Others thought him to be Moses, others thought he was crazy. Look the scriptures up for yourself, a little search and you will find what intrest you.

themuzicman

September 27th 2003, 06:51 PM

Yesterday @ 10:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=223029#post223029)
Theolog:
More Name calling and ad hominim attacks?

:poke: :thumb:

You see offense in every corner, don't you.

Perhaps you missed the punctuation mark.

Michael

bar Jonah

September 28th 2003, 02:43 AM

mickiel:
People belived many things concerning Christ. Some believed he was a heritic, which is not far from witchcraft. Some believed him a demon, still not far from witchcraft in those days. Some believed him a leader of the rebellion. Others thought him to be Moses, others thought he was crazy. Look the scriptures up for yourself, a little search and you will find what intrest you.
I asked you what you based your claim on.

"Well, it says."

Where? You give us absolutely nothing but air. Second chance? Where do you get this idea that Jesus was considered a witch?

Theolog

September 28th 2003, 11:24 AM

I have made my case and proved that the open view does indeed change the definitions and understandings of the words onmipresence, onmiscience and immutability all the while denying that they did not.

This lame attempt to change and get away from the topic will probably be denyed also.

themuzicman

September 28th 2003, 12:14 PM

Definitions, no. Understanding from your perspective, yes. But that's to be expected when you have a disagreement.

Michael

bar Jonah

September 28th 2003, 02:17 PM

Theolog:
I have made my case and proved that the open view does indeed change the definitions and understandings of the words onmipresence, onmiscience and immutability all the while denying that they did not.

This lame attempt to change and get away from the topic will probably be denyed also.
You've done no such thing. :lol:

This conclusion is based solely on the presupposition that you are right and we are wrong, therefore our definition is new and yours is original.

But our presupposition is that we are right, therefore we obviously argue that our definition is biblical and yours is not, therefore yours is the younger definition and ours is the original.

None of which gets us anywhere in the discussion, obviously. Therefore, you have to answer the points we've made in order to prove your case. We've responded to you, and your only response to us is, "Well, I'm right, therefore my definition is the original one. And now, see, I've proved it!" Circular logic. You're right because you're right. :ahem:

Theolog

September 28th 2003, 09:22 PM

No
Today @ 11:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=224473#post224473)
RightIdea:

You've done no such thing. :lol:

This conclusion is based solely on the presupposition that you are right and we are wrong, therefore our definition is new and yours is original.

But our presupposition is that we are right, therefore we obviously argue that our definition is biblical and yours is not, therefore yours is the younger definition and ours is the original.

None of which gets us anywhere in the discussion, obviously. Therefore, you have to answer the points we've made in order to prove your case. We've responded to you, and your only response to us is, "Well, I'm right, therefore my definition is the original one. And now, see, I've proved it!" Circular logic. You're right because you're right. :ahem:

No one ever said anything about being Biblical because everyone thinks there view is Biblical. I am almost ready to post a thread on how biblical your view is.:bonk:

My point is and was; the open view has a different meaning for omniscience omnipresence and immutable than the meaning that has been used for the past four hundered years by the english speaking world.

I never said that it was not Biblical or even unreasonable, I myself often use words different than the established norms but I and usually honest and admit that I am intending a different meaning.

bar Jonah

September 29th 2003, 03:16 AM

Theolog:
My point is and was; the open view has a different meaning for omniscience omnipresence and immutable than the meaning that has been used for the past four hundered years by the english speaking world.
I seem to recall that Martin Luther brought a "new" definition of grace than that which had been used for the previous thousand years by the corrupted human institution known as the Roman Catholic Church. And he was derided for this "new" definition that was, in fact, entirely biblical and harkened back to a truer and more biblical definition of grace.

Or, more simply, you are now guilty of the logical fallacy known as the Fallacy of Tradition. "We've had this definition for the last 400 years, therefore it must be true."

Theolog

September 29th 2003, 10:15 AM

Today @ 12:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=224942#post224942)
RightIdea:

I seem to recall that Martin Luther brought a "new" definition of grace than that which had been used for the previous thousand years by the corrupted human institution known as the Roman Catholic Church. And he was derided for this "new" definition that was, in fact, entirely biblical and harkened back to a truer and more biblical definition of grace.

Or, more simply, you are now guilty of the logical fallacy known as the Fallacy of Tradition. "We've had this definition for the last 400 years, therefore it must be true."

I have never said that the traditional definition was true or even Biblical for that matter, my point is (which now you evidently agree with) is only that the open view people are saying that they did not change the definition when it is clear that they did.

I guess now you agree with me but will not admit it. Now that is a fallacy you can sink you teeth in.

The open view says :"God knows everything"

The Open view says :"God cannot know future choices"

Thus we have: God can know and not know future choices at the same time.

And all in the name of logic. :argh:

EdJones

September 29th 2003, 10:18 AM

Where in the Scriptures does it say that God cannot know our future choices?

themuzicman

September 29th 2003, 10:27 AM

Today @ 10:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225226#post225226)
EdJones:

Where in the Scriptures does it say that God cannot know our future choices?

Well, there's the statement God makes to Joshua about taking all the land and removing all the inhabitants, and then the followup in Judges where it is reported that they never did take all the land or remove all the inhabitants.

Either God didn't know the future, or He lied to them. Which was it?

Michael

themuzicman

September 29th 2003, 10:29 AM

Today @ 10:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225217#post225217)
Theolog:
I have never said that the traditional definition was true or even Biblical for that matter, my point is (which now you evidently agree with) is only that the open view people are saying that they did not change the definition when it is clear that they did.

I guess now you agree with me but will not admit it. Now that is a fallacy you can sink you teeth in.

The open view says :"God knows everything"

The Open view says :"God cannot know future choices"

Thus we have: God can know and not know future choices at the same time.

And all in the name of logic. :argh:

Those two are perfectly compatible, when you understand the Open View.

"Everything" would be all that is knowable. If the future does not exist and there is free will, then it cannot be known.

Thus, God knows everything that is knowable, but the second part is redundant, so, God knows everything.

Michael

David O

September 29th 2003, 10:34 AM

If you stop banging your head against that wall, you'll probably be able to think straight.

David O

September 29th 2003, 10:35 AM

Today @ 03:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225226#post225226)
EdJones:

Where in the Scriptures does it say that God cannot know our future choices?

Genesis 22
12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

EdJones

September 29th 2003, 10:36 AM

Today @ 03:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225243#post225243)
themuzicman:

Well, there's the statement God makes to Joshua about taking all the land and removing all the inhabitants, and then the followup in Judges where it is reported that they never did take all the land or remove all the inhabitants.

Either God didn't know the future, or He lied to them. Which was it?

Michael

Could you give me the chapters and verses?

yxboom

September 29th 2003, 10:43 AM

mickiel

September 29th 2003, 10:45 AM

Yesterday @ 07:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=224266#post224266)
RightIdea:

I asked you what you based your claim on.

"Well, it says."

Where? You give us absolutely nothing but air. Second chance? Where do you get this idea that Jesus was considered a witch?

But i will give you a hint; in Acts 2:22-24, you actually see a pattern of the punishment of witchcraft. Those who perform wonders and did things others couldnot do or understand were either crucified, or burned on the cross or tree. They were considered witches, and usually it was christians or spiritual leaders who either burned them or crucified them. It was the spiritual leaders of the time who were really responsible for Christ being murdered. To accuse one of heresey, is the same as calling them a witch. Witchcraft is being a companion to demonic forces, heresey is the same. All these and more are what christians consider grouped together with the anti-christ. Jesus came to his own, or the christians, and they didnot receive him. They considered him a heritic, accused him of heresey, which is withcraft.

themuzicman

September 29th 2003, 10:49 AM

Today @ 10:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225263#post225263)
EdJones:

Could you give me the chapters and verses?

Deut 9:3-63 "Know therefore today that it is the LORD your God who is crossing over before you as a consuming fire. He will destroy them and He will subdue them before you, so that you may drive them out and destroy them quickly, just as the LORD has spoken to you. 4 "Do not say in your heart when the LORD your God has driven them out before you, `Because of my righteousness the LORD has brought me in to possess this land,' but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is dispossessing them before you.

Joshua 13:6
6 "All the inhabitants of the hill country from Lebanon as far as Misrephoth-maim, all the Sidonians, I will drive them out from before the sons of Israel; only allot it to Israel for an inheritance as I have commanded you.

Joshua 15:63
Now as for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the sons of Judah could not drive them out; so the Jebusites live with the sons of Judah at Jerusalem until this day.

Judges 1:19
Now the LORD was with Judah, and they took possession of the hill country; but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had iron chariots.

Judges 1:31-33
Asher did not drive out the inhabitants of Acco, or the inhabitants of Sidon, or of Ahlab, or of Achzib, or of Helbah, or of Aphik, or of Rehob. 32 So the Asherites lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land; for they did not drive them out. 33 Naphtali did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh, or the inhabitants of Beth-anath, but lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land; and the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and Beth-anath became forced labor for them.

And finally in Judges 2:1
"Therefore I also said, `I will not drive them out before you; but they will become as thorns in your sides and their gods will be a snare to you.' "

and Judges 2:21

I also will no longer drive out before them any of the nations which Joshua left when he died,

So, which is it? A lack of EDF, or outright lying?

Michael

yxboom

September 29th 2003, 10:55 AM

themuzicman:
So, which is it? A lack of EDF, or outright lying?

Michael

1Sam 2:27 And there came a man of God to Eli and said to him, "Thus the LORD has said, 'Did I indeed reveal myself to the house of your father when they were in Egypt subject to the house of Pharaoh?
28 Did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to go up to my altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? I gave to the house of your father all my offerings by fire from the people of Israel.
29 Why then do you scorn my sacrifices and my offerings that I commanded, and honor your sons above me by fattening yourselves on the choicest parts of every offering of my people Israel?'
30 Therefore the LORD the God of Israel declares: 'I promised that your house and the house of your father should go in and out before me forever,' but now the LORD declares: 'Far be it from me, for those who honor me I will honor, and those who despise me shall be lightly esteemed.

Since the Bible says God can not lie

Hebrews 6:18 so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us.

Which means God is not ominpotent cause there is something impossible for God to do (unless you change definitions of course), we have to conclude God lacks EDF.

EdJones

September 29th 2003, 10:56 AM

Today @ 03:35 PM
David O:

Genesis 22
12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

Doesn't that have to do with God testing his faith?

yxboom

September 29th 2003, 10:58 AM

EdJones:

Doesn't that have to do with God testing his faith?

Makes little difference when God says "for now I know..." now don't it.

themuzicman

September 29th 2003, 11:01 AM

Today @ 10:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225314#post225314)
yxboom:

Hebrews 6:18 so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us.

Which means God is not ominpotent cause there is something impossible for God to do (unless you change definitions of course), we have to conclude God lacks EDF.

Who said it was impossible for God? The failing was the Israelites, not God's.

The real question you have to answer, from the EDF perspective, is how does God say He's going to do something, and then later, after many failures of His people, say that He's not going to do it, without having lied, because He already knew He wouldn't?

The Open View solves this issue, because there is no EDF, and a change in circumstances caused God to change His mind.

Michael

yxboom

September 29th 2003, 11:04 AM

themuzicman:

Who said it was impossible for God? The failing was the Israelites, not God's.

The real question you have to answer, from the EDF perspective, is how does God say He's going to do something, and then later, after many failures of His people, say that He's not going to do it, without having lied, because He already knew He wouldn't?

The Open View solves this issue, because there is no EDF, and a change in circumstances caused God to change His mind.

Michael

Re-read my post. I wrote the Bible said it was impossible for God to LIE. Nothing to do with the failing of Israel. Shoot I even quoted Heb.

themuzicman

September 29th 2003, 11:06 AM

Today @ 11:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225343#post225343)
yxboom:
Re-read my post. I wrote the Bible said it was impossible for God to LIE. Nothing to do with the failing of Israel.

Yup. My bad. :metro:

Michael

bar Jonah

September 29th 2003, 02:43 PM

EdJones:
Where in the Scriptures does it say that God cannot know our future choices?
It doesn't. Who said it did? :huh:

We said God doesn't know all future choices. We never said that He literally cannot. Of course He can. This is the point I've tried to make over and over about Open Creationism. God could very well have created a universe in which He knows ALL that will happen in the future. But... if He does this, it is incompatible with free will, and therefore we will have no choices to make.

But, on the contrary, God created a Creation in which we do have free will, in which we can make choices, and therefore, EDF (Exhaustive Divine Foreknowledge) is incompatible with this. Most of the future is open, unwritten, undetermined.

Theolog:
I have never said that the traditional definition was true or even Biblical for that matter, my point is (which now you evidently agree with) is only that the open view people are saying that they did not change the definition when it is clear that they did.

I guess now you agree with me but will not admit it. Now that is a fallacy you can sink you teeth in.

The open view says :"God knows everything"

The Open view says :"God cannot know future choices"

Thus we have: God can know and not know future choices at the same time.

And all in the name of logic. :argh:
:argh:

Or, by the same token:

The classical view says, "God knows everything."

The classical view says, "God cannot know that there is a blue parrot on my shoulder, if there is no such parrot."

Therefore, the Classical View says God can know and not know a fact at the same time. :shrug:

You're still stuck in your presupposition. I didn't ask you to change your presupposition. But if you are going to talk about the hypotetheticals of other views, you have to step out of that presupposition for a moment to recognize that we have no conflict in this matter. If we believe there is no future for Him to know, then how can you possibly think we are saying that God can know and not know future choices?