Open View in light of First John 3:20

[Freak]

The very nature of Biblical prophecy, if nothing else, seems sufficient to render open theism implausible and lacking.

Even the Holy Scriptures speak clearly against the view that somehow God is unaware of some future events.

First John 1 (with emphasis on verse 20) clearly demonstrates God knows everything:

Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence *20*whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.

What part of "knows everything" that OVer's don't understand? God knows everything. Case close.

[yxboom]

Does God know that Freak as fact is a transvestite drag queen who dances in live shows in Las Vegas?
Doesn't God know everything?

What don't you understand...there are some things not knowable. God knows ALL things that are. So yes! God knows everything.

[yxboom]

BTW I think the passages of Scripture you are presenting are excellent well deserving of Freak :thumb:

[Freak]

Most of Christendom considers the Open View as another fadish theological issue that is being investigated by people interested in the newest hippest theology.

Biblical theology, however, stands in opposition to these fadish theologies.

First John 3:20 is quite clear:

"For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything."

The writers of Scripture were carried along by the Holy Spirit to write God-inspired Scripture that tells us God knows everything. Everything means everything. There is no exclusion.

[yxboom]

Freak I have $5 in my pocket. You ask if you can borrow some money and I tell you here all I have is $5. Am I lying by saying all I have is $5? If all I have to offer is $5 it is the whole of all I have to give. I have given you everything I have when asked, if I gave you less than $5 than feel free to say I have withheld but I gave you all I had and all is all. If all I have to give is $5 and you request $10. It is logically and realistically impossible for me to give you $10 when all I have is $5.

[Nathan]

Good point, Freak.
I don't think I've ever had someone really explain to me the psychology of the Open View, so I think I may start a thread on that.
(Or YXBOOM could explain it right now) :idea:

From my limited exposure to the OV I was kind of turned off to it by how small God seemed to be according to that theology.
I never could get the guy to really explain why he understood time as being such a constant, that it binds God hand and foot.
Well, I'm off. Moving to California tomorrow. I'll get back with this thread in a couple of days.
God is GREAT, :cheers:
Nathan

[Freak]

Look, my friend Yx, The Bible tells us God knows everything (re-read First John 3:20 for starters) meaning He is omniscience. He is not lacking any knowledge. He knew about the illustration before you posted it. He knows all the lies, untruths, falsehoods, etc out there. He knows all.

[Nathan]

If even the omnipotent God cannot act to change the past, it does not seem any more conceivable that the omniscient God can know with certainty the unformed future.
— J. Polkinghorne, Science and Creation

Who said God cannot act to change the past???
Who gave Polkinghorne the authority and knowledge to make such a statement?

From our view, humble perception may be a more appropriate way to describe it, we only see what is.
We only see the way things are in the end.
As limited as our understanding is, God could have changed our pasts repeatedly, and we would be completely unaware of it!

[Freak]

02-25-2003 @ 06:27 PM
Nathan:



Who said God cannot act to change the past???
Who gave Polkinghorne the authority and knowledge to make such a statement?

From our view, humble perception may be a more appropriate way to describe it, we only see what is.
We only see the way things are in the end.
As limited as our understanding is, God could have changed our pasts repeatedly, and we would be completely unaware of it!

Exactly.:thumb:

[Nathan]

But.... I digress.
The Bible tells me God is unchanging. If He does not know all that means he is learning. Learning must and does change the learner.
God is the same all ways. God is above and throughout time.
He knows the paths laid before my feet, and if you don't find that comforting, we're on very different pages.

[yxboom]

02-25-2003 @ 10:27 AM
Nathan:
From our view, humble perception may be a more appropriate way to describe it, we only see what is.
We only see the way things are in the end.
As limited as our understanding is, God could have changed our pasts repeatedly, and we would be completely unaware of it! Are you serious?! I would hate to think Freak would waste an encouraging uplifted thumb over satire. You are serious right?

[Nathan]

That's just what I wanted to ask you.

[TheFiveSolas]

Nathan wrote:

As limited as our understanding is, God could have changed our pasts repeatedly, and we would be completely unaware of it!


I just have to comment on this.
1) Such a statement is based solely on conjecture, therefore it doesn't hold any rational force.
2) The only foundation for knowing how God acts is for Him to have revealed it to us in Scripture.
3) If God has acted in the way that Nathan implied this would reduce our experiences to absurdity (since it would lead to a contradiction). In other words, it would be the case that we acted a certain way AND it would also be the case that we did NOT act a certain way (because God, somehow, changed our actions, of course if God can do such a thing I would have to wonder why He didn't do so the FIRST time around).

[Nathan]

Why would you think it's satire?
Is the idea of God's way of experiencing our universe being dissimilar to ours a problem to you?

[Nathan]

Good point 5 solas,
However, I don't think your criticisms apply merely to my statements.


If even the omnipotent God cannot act to change the past, it does not seem any more conceivable that the omniscient God can know with certainty the unformed future.
— J. Polkinghorne, Science and Creation

1) Such a statement is based solely on conjecture, therefore it doesn't hold any rational force.
2) The only foundation for knowing how God acts is for Him to have revealed it to us in Scripture.
3) If God is limited in the way that Polkinghorne implied this would reduce God to the level of a powerful man, a "Bruce Almighty" God. God would not be big enough fill God's shoes.

[TheFiveSolas]

Nathan,
Thanks, I hadn't read anything other than your assertion prior to writing what I did.

[yxboom]

02-25-2003 @ 11:39 AM
Nathan:

That's just what I wanted to ask you. All I can say is "Get out of the Matrix!"

Your argument is absolutely asinine in that if you are saying seriously what you said then God is not God because He can't make a squared circle. You are saying God is not God because He can't make 2+2=7. You are saying that God is not God because He can not make someone who rejects His salvation at the same time accept His salvation. God is not God cause He can't do and not do and the same time. God is only a "Bruce Almighty" if He can not make a 7-sided triangle.

5Solas didn't need to read anything prior to your statement to see just how absolutely inane it is and the logical contradictions you are espousing.

[Nathan]

Your argument is absolutely asinine in that if you are saying seriously what you said then God is not God because He can't make a squared circle.

That's not what this is about at all.
I believe God can do all of His holy will. God isn't restrained by physical laws, time, etc... He is transcendent.
He is only restrained or contained by Himself... His holy Being.
This has nothing to do with whether or not God can make a square circle. God has provided us the enviroment in which we can think and live with continuety. That is His will, not to make 7 sided triangles (to boggle us).

God doesn't dwell in our universe the way we dwell in our universe. He is transcendent, he must be.

We were "spawned" by His very thought, what an awesome God.

Nothing goes over God's head. As I said, earlier. The only God must fit into God's shoes.

[Jaltus]

You are missing Yx's point, though.

He is saying that God cannot know the future because the future is not knowable. Why? Because it does not exist as a real thing to be known.

Just like God cannot know that Hitler was a member of Jews for Jesus, He cannot know the future for it is not knowable.

Of course I totally disagree with him on that point, but that is the point he is trying to make.

[geebob]

Who said God cannot act to change the past???
Who gave Polkinghorne the authority and knowledge to make such a statement?

Here comes the radical open viewers again!

Look rov'ers, it's enough that we open viewers can say that God can change the future. That he can also change the past goes to far. :bonk:

What part of "knows everything" that OVer's don't understand? God knows everything. Case close.

Amen. I have always believed this. Case closed.

If the future contains truly accesable possibilities, THEN GOD WHO KNOWS EVERTYTHING KNOW THAT!

[Nathan]

Jaltus,
I got YX's point. The future is unknowable...to us.
Why is the future unknowable to God. To make that assumption is to say that God is experiences reality in the same way as we do, we frail little ignorant creations that God loves.

Why would you do that?

[geebob]

To make that assumption is to say that God is experiences reality in the same way as we do, we frail little ignorant creations that God loves.

To a degree, God does experience reality the way that we do and the extent to which there is the agreement is the extent to which we truthfully experience reality. I believe that our intuition of the future as open is not just appearance but is in fact reality. And if God doesn't know what reality is like, then he isn't omniscient. Thus to say that God knows reality in the indeterministic view is to say that he knows that the future is open.

It has nothing to do with God. It has everything to do with what reality is like.

I believe that the reality is that every single man at some point in his life can truly choose to accept the gospel but at the same time, he truly may reject it. Thus that is what an omniscient God knows.

If God believed instead that such a person at that point in his life would certainly except the Gospel and be saved, and if that person did in fact do so, GOD WOULD STILL WOULD HAVE BEEN WRONG AND HE WOULD NOT BE OMNISCIENT IN THAT CASE. Thus for God to be omniscient in such a circumstance, he must know any certainty as false and he must know the range of possibilities (which is clearly an object of knowledge).

[Freak]

02-26-2003 @ 06:50 AM
Nathan:

Jaltus,
I got YX's point. The future is unknowable...to us.
Why is the future unknowable to God. To make that assumption is to say that God is experiences reality in the same way as we do, we frail little ignorant creations that God loves.

Why would you do that?

Nathan, you must understand, the OVer's are jumping on this new faddish theology for it is hip in our day to be a OVer. But, we know the Scriptures speak in opposition to this strange doctrine.

In fact, recently the Evangelical Theology Society has denounced this theological lie as being incompatible with orthodox Christian theology.

Nathan, did you notice, they (the OVers) have no response to Scriptural evidence that points to God knowing everything, including the future.

[geebob]

In fact, recently the Evangelical Theology Society has denounced this theological lie as being incompatible with orthodox Christian theology.

Imagine that! The unrecognized popes of evangelicalism denounce the open view from the stance of calvinism. Surely you knew that the vast majority that has shown distain for the open view is almost composed entirely of Calvinists.

Nathan, did you notice, they (the OVers) have no response to Scriptural evidence that points to God knowing everything, including the future.

We responded. We agree with them. one million percent. Maybe you don't agree with them. We even agree with the face value interpretation that you seem to value so much.

In light of that, can you affirm Jerimiah 3:7?


I thought, 'After she has done all these things she will return to Me'; but she did not return, and her (2) treacherous sister Judah saw it.

[Freak]

02-26-2003 @ 02:56 PM
geebob:



Imagine that! The unrecognized popes of evangelicalism denounce the open view from the stance of calvinism. Surely you knew that the vast majority that has shown distain for the open view is almost composed entirely of Calvinists.



We responded. We agree with them. one million percent. Maybe you don't agree with them. We even agree with the face value interpretation that you seem to value so much.

In light of that, can you affirm Jerimiah 3:7?


I thought, 'After she has done all these things she will return to Me'; but she did not return, and her (2) treacherous sister Judah saw it.

Imagine that! Bible Scholars who hold to the inerrancy of Scripture did not see any Scriptural warrant to the Open View thereby dismissing it as orthodox.

I'm glad to hear you agree that the open view is not supported in Scripture (since you claim: "We even agree with the face value interpretation that you seem to value so much.") Good!

What about Jeremiah 3? Jeremiah is considered Holy Scripture and your point? If you are thinking somehow this one verse somehow supports the OV then you are sadly mistaken.

[geebob]

Imagine that! Bible Scholars who hold to the inerrancy of Scripture did not see any Scriptural warrant to the Open View thereby dismissing it as orthodox.

It was not the consensus! And most open viewers do hold to innerrancy.

I'm glad to hear you agree that the open view is not supported in Scripture (since you claim: "We even agree with the face value interpretation that you seem to value so much.") Good!

why would you conclude that? the open view affirms that God knows everything which is what I assume that you took as the face value interpretation.

Many open viewers also affirm that God knows everything about the future. I certainly do.

What about Jeremiah 3? Jeremiah is considered Holy Scripture and your point? If you are thinking somehow this one verse somehow supports the OV then you are sadly mistaken.

explain it.

I thought, 'After she has done all these things she will return to Me'; but she did not return, and her (2) treacherous sister Judah saw it.

[Freak]

02-26-2003 @ 03:34 PM
geebob:



It was not the consensus! And most open viewers do hold to innerrancy.



why would you conclude that? the open view affirms that God knows everything which is what I assume that you took as the face value interpretation.

Many open viewers also affirm that God knows everything about the future. I certainly do.



explain it.

I thought, 'After she has done all these things she will return to Me'; but she did not return, and her (2) treacherous sister Judah saw it.

geebob, you said that you agree that God knows everything. Then simply dismiss the OV. Why play the game?

Jeremiah 3 gives us another example of God's patience with humanity and your point? God is patient with you geebob. He's wanting you to discard the OV. Will you do that?

I can see you lack the understanding of what the use of the language can accomplish. Anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms are merely descriptions of God's actions and feelings in human terms (this we see in this passage). So, in light of Mal. 3:6 & James 1:17, we see that God did not change but rather the language employed in this verse expressed God's patience; not that He changed. The writers of Scripture make that clear: "I the Lord do not change" and James tells us that with God, "there is no variation or shadow due to change."

In Numbers 23:19 we see that God is not a man, his actions must be unalterable. Since God is unchangeable He doesn't "change" His mind or plans (or even actions). Pretty clear to me. So, looks like the burden of proof lies with you to prove God is like a man, when in light of Numbers 23 He isn't. He cannot change (in any way).

[yxboom]

02-26-2003 @ 07:34 AM
geebob:

explain it.

I thought, 'After she has done all these things she will return to Me'; but she did not return, and her (2) treacherous sister Judah saw it. To break it down Freak-stylee....

We Open Viewers exalt the beauty of God's word and it's relevance. We take God's Word as His Word. He read Scripture with reverence and we take God's Word at it's face value.....do you Freak?

Now Freak, if you do take God's Word at it's most fluid and coherent reading and give God the benefit that we can take His Word as His Word, could you please offer an explanation of Jeremiah 3:1-2 "I thought, 'After she has done all these things she will return to Me'; but she did not return, and her (2) treacherous sister Judah saw it. "

Freak disclaimer: I know very likely you will offer a non-sequitar moot point and insist some inane tangent is the proof of your argument. But please spare us the vain jangling and answer the question as it was intended to be answered.

[Freak]

02-26-2003 @ 05:31 PM
Freak:



geebob, you said that you agree that God knows everything. Then simply dismiss the OV. Why play the game?

Jeremiah 3 gives us another example of God's patience with humanity and your point? God is patient with you geebob. He's wanting you to discard the OV. Will you do that?

I can see you lack the understanding of what the use of the language can accomplish. Anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms are merely descriptions of God's actions and feelings in human terms (this we see in this passage). So, in light of Mal. 3:6 & James 1:17, we see that God did not change but rather the language employed in this verse expressed God's patience; not that He changed. The writers of Scripture make that clear: "I the Lord do not change" and James tells us that with God, "there is no variation or shadow due to change."

In Numbers 23:19 we see that God is not a man, his actions must be unalterable. Since God is unchangeable He doesn't "change" His mind or plans (or even actions). Pretty clear to me. So, looks like the burden of proof lies with you to prove God is like a man, when in light of Numbers 23 He isn't. He cannot change (in any way).

Yx, when reading the Scriptures, use common sense and way the language is employed (For example: Jesus is declared as a door. Common sense tells us Jesus is not a literal door but rather the way to salvation). God is not like man (who changes). God does not change. It would be against His very nature since He is perfect (along with the fact that Scripture points to the reality He does not change).

[yxboom]

Freak you merely brush that passage off as an anthropomorphism, what in that passage or in the context of that passage does God say this is an anthropomorphism or anthropopathism? Was it the "I" or the "thought"? Was that the give-away?

1 Samuel 2:27 Then a man of God came to Eli and said to him, "Thus says the Lord: 'Did I not clearly reveal Myself to the house of your father when they were in Egypt in Pharaoh's house? 28 Did I not choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be My priest, to offer upon My altar, to burn incense, and to wear an ephod before Me? And did I not give to the house of your father all the offerings of the children of Israel made by fire? 29 Why do you kick at My sacrifice and My offering which I have commanded in My dwelling place, and honor your sons more than Me, to make yourselves fat with the best of all the offerings of Israel My people?' 30 Therefore the Lord God of Israel says: 'I said indeed that your house and the house of your father would walk before Me forever.' But now the Lord says: 'Far be it from Me; for those who honor Me I will honor, and those who despise Me shall be lightly esteemed. What is the key indicator for anthropomorphism or anthropopathism in this text Freak? Should I look for the "I" or the "thought" again? Or the "but" that has got to be the key indicator....you agree it is absolutely incoherent there would ever be a "but" with an exhaustively foreknowing being.

[Freak]

YX, the use of common sense helps in these matters. God was not up in heaven wondering what He should do. He is perfect. He changes not (Mal. 3:6 & James 1:17). He knows all:

Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence *20*whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.

He knows everything. So, He wasn't wondering if He should change His mind (remember: He changes not). YX, remember, God knows all future events (for example God knew the nations that would dominate Israel (see Daniel 2:36-43, 7:4-8).

[geebob]

geebob, you said that you agree that God knows everything. Then simply dismiss the OV. Why play the game?

no one's playing a game. God knows everything.

Not everyone is capable of understanding what it means to know everything and yet not know how our future free actions will turn out. Thus the open view isn't for everyone, (and of course this has nothing to do with the truth of it).

Then again I'm not capable of understanding how it can be true that everyone has a chance to be saved and yet God knows that there will be a 0 percent chance that some individuals will be saved.

Furthermore, Freak, I have seen you in action, and the fruitfulness of discussion is often exhausted very early in your discussions dispite the fact that they continue indefinitely. It is crystal clear to me that the fruitfulnes of this discussion as far the exchange between you and me is concerned has been exhausted. I've had too many of these types of discussions in the past. I in general try to avoid them as they clearly do not glorify God, certainly not with all of our minds.

And finally, there are some people who I do not want representing the open view. Those who insist wrestling those they disagree with into a position without engaging in critical discussion and evaluation. So you are welcome to keep your view.

With these things in mind, I say good day to you, may God bless you, and at that, the both of us are done with each other on this issue.

[yxboom]

WHy isn't Mal 3:6 and James 1:17 anthropomorphism or anthropopathisms? Is there anywhere in those texts that say these are literal Jer. 3:7 and 1 Samuel 2 are not?

[Freak]

In that Jeremiah passage we read where God "thought" Israel would return to Him, when in fact she didn't (3:6-7, 19-20). If He knew all along that Israel wouldn't return, isn't this a lie? God doesn't lie does He, YX?

We need to use common sense. Often times the writers of Scriptures employ human language to express God's intentions, etc. We need to be aware of this reality.

BTW, open theism, has a serious problem with prophecy. Did Jesus really only make a prediction about Peter denying him based upon Peter's character? But the prophecy was so specific: three denials before the rooster crowed twice (Mark 14:30-72). When Ezekiel prophesied about the destruction of the city of Tyre, was that just a really good guess? It was too accurate a prophecy for that.

[Freak]

geebob--good day to you too. Better luck next time.

[yxboom]

In the mighty words of geebob:

I am fine if you disagree with me. I am not trying to convince you to believe the same way I do. I am satisfied with just laughing at you when we get to heaven.

[themuzicman]

02-26-2003 @ 01:50 AM
Nathan:

Jaltus,
I got YX's point. The future is unknowable...to us.
Why is the future unknowable to God. To make that assumption is to say that God is experiences reality in the same way as we do, we frail little ignorant creations that God loves.

Why would you do that?

It's better than insisting that it was God's purpose to send people to hell.

The problem with the closed view is that if everything was predestined and known, then all decisions and actions are externally caused by other previous decisions and actions, which originated with a single cause: God.

Which mean God is the cause of evil, sin, sickness, etc.

Last I checked, that wasn't exactly the nature of the God I find in the bible.

Thus, the alternative is a world where God creates men who are truly free to decide and act, without predestination or foreknowledge of what the decisions and actions will be.

You ask how God can prophecy?

There are two ways. The closed view is that God already knew, and thus it is trivial for God to prophecy.

The other is that God is powerful enough to bring about what He says will happen.

The reason this is hard for the closed view is that it requires faith in God rather than existential certainty.

The open view does not tarnish or diminish God's omnipotence, omnicience, or his omnipresence. If anything, it brings their necessity into greater focus.

Is that so hard to see?

Michael

[ACFaith.Com]

Michael, why does God know some of the future but not all of it? Rather, how can he know some of it without knowing all of it?

Shouldn't all the future be unknown or is God's knowledge of the future based on probability? Does that mean something God predicted about the future could be wrong?

Vinnie

[themuzicman]

03-07-2003 @ 12:10 AM
ACFaith.Com:

Michael, why does God know some of the future but not all of it? Rather, how can he know some of it without knowing all of it?

Shouldn't all the future be unknown or is God's knowledge of the future based on probability? Does that mean something God predicted about the future could be wrong?

Vinnie

1) It means that God knows the hearts and minds of men, and what they intend to do, and He knows how men tend to act in certain situations, which gives Him a huge advantage in bringing about His prophecies.

2) The odds of man stopping a prophecy of God is about the same as a carpenter ant beating Kobe Bryant in a pickup basketball game (make it, take it, of course). If you want to abstract and compute possibilities, you may, but it ain't gonna happen, because of the relative power of the parties involved.

Michael

[Jaltus]

The problem with the closed view is that if everything was predestined and known, then all decisions and actions are externally caused by other previous decisions and actions, which originated with a single cause: God.
You use foreknown and predestined equivalently, but that is a false assumption. THe future can be known without it being predetermined. What you are saying is the knowledge causes actions, whereas the action is what caused the knowledge in the first place. In other words, a vicious circle.

[TheFiveSolas]

themuzicman wrote (as a response as to why he holds the view that God doesn't know the future):

It's better than insisting that it was God's purpose to send people to hell.

"Better"? By what standard?
I would imagine that you are simply asserting that it is preferable (i.e., you don't like the traditional view).

I could point out that I don't like/prefer the concept of hell, however, this has no bearing on whether or not it is true. I could also simply assert that it would be "better" if we didn't "insist that God sends anyone to hell."

Also, even according to the "open" view we have God purposing to send those that refuse to trust Christ to an eternal hell. He merely doesn't purpose it from eternity. In other words, your view doesn't escape the "problem" of God purposely putting people into hell.

You continue:

The problem with the closed view is that if everything was predestined and known, then all decisions and actions are externally caused by other previous decisions and actions, which originated with a single cause: God.


(Side note: I find the choice of terms "open" vs. "closed" to be a way of emotionally prejudicing the audience right from the outset).

The traditional view teaches that God foreordains even the free choices of men. For example, according to the traditional view, it was foreordained that I would respond to your post AND that when I did so it would be because I desired to do so freely without being coerced or forced by God. Since my action was foreordained by God it is true that I would choose to do NO other action, however, it was ALSO determined that my choice would flow from MY OWN desires and NOT through force or coercion by God.

You seem to hold to the "open" view in this instance simply because you feel that it insulates you from the charge that God is culpable for man's sinful/evil actions. What you fail to realize is that even in your view God "upholds all things through his powerful word" (Hebrews 1:3). In other words, men and women only exist (and continue to exist) because God continually "upholds" them. Or to put it another way all of us are continually dependent upon God for our continued existence. So, what is my point? Simply this, when a person goes to do an evil action, they can ONLY do so IF God continues to"uphold" them and their existence/life/energy, etc. Therefore, according to your logic, God is ULTIMATELY the "cause" of their actions.

Note: God stopped the hand of Abraham when he went to sacrifice Isaac. He also ended the life of Ananias and Saphira when they sinned. Therefore, He could STOP evil, IF He decided to. This means, that contrary to your belief that the "open" view insulates God from any sort of "causal" connection to man's evil actions, God is still the one that enables man to do whatever he does (sinful acts included).

You continue:

Which mean God is the cause of evil, sin, sickness, etc.


If your view affirms that God upholds "all things" including our life (lifeforce), etc. then it follows by necessary logical deduction that God in at least some way "causes" (more correctly, enables) us to sin.

If any and all causal connections are what implicates God in culpability for man's sin then, even according to your view, God is the "cause" of evil/sin.

However, this understanding of moral culpability is flawed. A person is morally culpable AS LONG AS when they act they do so according to their desires, without being forced or coerced. As long as they act according to their desires without force or coercion they are acting freely. So, even if God upholds their life when they are in the midst of acting sinfully/evilly they are the ONLY ones morally accountable since God didn't force or coerce them. Rather, they DESIRED to sin and chose to ACT on that desire.

(more to come...)

[themuzicman]

03-07-2003 @ 03:15 PM
Jaltus:

You use foreknown and predestined equivalently, but that is a false assumption. THe future can be known without it being predetermined. What you are saying is the knowledge causes actions, whereas the action is what caused the knowledge in the first place. In other words, a vicious circle.

What I'm saying is that one can't have foreknowledge without predestination. If every action isn't already determined, how can it be known?

Michael

[themuzicman]

03-07-2003 @ 03:54 PM
TheFiveSolas:

"Better"? By what standard?
I would imagine that you are simply asserting that it is preferable (i.e., you don't like the traditional view).

I could point out that I don't like/prefer the concept of hell, however, this has no bearing on whether or not it is true. I could also simply assert that it would be "better" if we didn't "insist that God sends anyone to hell."


It's not a matter of liking or not liking the concept. It's a matter of God predestining large numbers of people to hell without any opportunity at salvation.


Also, even according to the "open" view we have God purposing to send those that refuse to trust Christ to an eternal hell. He merely doesn't purpose it from eternity. In other words, your view doesn't escape the "problem" of God purposely putting people into hell.


Again, the existance of hell isn'tthe problem. It is what God has chosen for those who do not accept salvation.


(Side note: I find the choice of terms "open" vs. "closed" to be a way of emotionally prejudicing the audience right from the outset).


"Open" and "Closed" most accurately describe each position. IMHO "Traditional" is far more prejudicial.


The traditional view teaches that God foreordains even the free choices of men. For example, according to the traditional view, it was foreordained that I would respond to your post AND that when I did so it would be because I desired to do so freely without being coerced or forced by God. Since my action was foreordained by God it is true that I would choose to do NO other action, however, it was ALSO determined that my choice would flow from MY OWN desires and NOT through force or coercion by God.


However both foreknowledge and predestination require that some external force cause you to choose as you do. Furthermore, those causes had to be caused by something previous, and so forth until we arrive at the real cause, which is God.


You seem to hold to the "open" view in this instance simply because you feel that it insulates you from the charge that God is culpable for man's sinful/evil actions. What you fail to realize is that even in your view God "upholds all things through his powerful word" (Hebrews 1:3). In other words, men and women only exist (and continue to exist) because God continually "upholds" them. Or to put it another way all of us are continually dependent upon God for our continued existence. So, what is my point? Simply this, when a person goes to do an evil action, they can ONLY do so IF God continues to"uphold" them and their existence/life/energy, etc. Therefore, according to your logic, God is ULTIMATELY the "cause" of their actions.


Uh.. no... What my view says is that God gives us life, and we really are free to choose what we do with it. It is similar to a gun dealer who sells me a gun. He is not culpable for what I do with it, after I leave the store. Neither is God culpable for what we choose to do with the life that is given us.


Note: God stopped the hand of Abraham when he went to sacrifice Isaac. He also ended the life of Ananias and Saphira when they sinned. Therefore, He could STOP evil, IF He decided to. This means, that contrary to your belief that the "open" view insulates God from any sort of "causal" connection to man's evil actions, God is still the one that enables man to do whatever he does (sinful acts included).


God only enables in that He doesn't choose to just destory that which He created. Because God chose to give us a real free will, He also choses to allow us to use it.


If your view affirms that God upholds "all things" including our life (lifeforce), etc. then it follows by necessary logical deduction that God in at least some way "causes" (more correctly, enables) us to sin.


An enabler implies that the person either encourages or excuses the action in question. God does neither.


If any and all causal connections are what implicates God in culpability for man's sin then, even according to your view, God is the "cause" of evil/sin.


That's not what I said. What I said is that foreknowledge and predestination place culpability directly and solely with God, since we could do nothing else but sin, and those predestined to hell have no opportunity to go elsewhere.


However, this understanding of moral culpability is flawed. A person is morally culpable AS LONG AS when they act they do so according to their desires, without being forced or coerced. As long as they act according to their desires without force or coercion they are acting freely. So, even if God upholds their life when they are in the midst of acting sinfully/evilly they are the ONLY ones morally accountable since God didn't force or coerce them. Rather, they DESIRED to sin and chose to ACT on that desire.


And how could one choose, if the choice is already known and, thus, caused by something other than the person who chooses it.

Michael

[TheFiveSolas]

Michael,
I have to admit that I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't deal with my actual position, but instead attacked a straw man version of it (in fact I specifically denied the position you "rebutted" in your response).

For instance, you wrote:

And how could one choose, if the choice is already known and, thus, caused by something other than the person who chooses it.


Yet what was the position that I put forth?
I had written:

...according to the traditional view, it was foreordained that I would respond to your post AND that when I did so it would be because I desired to do so freely without being coerced or forced by God.


Where in anything that I wrote did I even imply that my decision was "caused by something other than" my own personal desires? In fact I specifically asserted that they came from MY desires WITHOUT ANY coercion or force on the part of God.

Some other puzzling things you wrote were:

An enabler implies that the person either encourages or excuses the action in question. God does neither.


I used the word "enables" in reference to God's upholding of our very existence. I was NOT using it in the psychological sense of a dysfunctional person (as I'm sure you are well aware). My point was simple. Since God upholds our existence even in the MIDST of our sinning, He can be said to be an ultimate "cause" of our sinning since without His power keeping us in existence we would not be able to do anything (including sin). For instance, when a murderer is just about to kill, God knows it AND has the ability to stop it. If He chooses not to, as He has done on MANY occasions, then it can be said that He "caused" it since He continued the murderer's existence while he/she was in the act of killing.

I'm belaboring this point in an attempt to show you that you are equivocating on the term "cause". (This is why I've put the word in scare quotes in certain instances).

Another statement you make is:

It's a matter of God predestining large numbers of people to hell without any opportunity at salvation.


It might be interesting to hear your view as to the destiny of those that are sinful and yet never have the gospel preached to them.

Also, this statement of yours overlooks the reason why people reject Christ. The reason is that they are sinful and don't DESIRE to choose Him, no matter how much time or information you give them (this is why God's grace, removing their sinful "heart of stone" is a necessary prerequisite for coming to faith). Can it really be said that the people who reject Christ had the "opportunity" to be saved? In one sense yes (i.e., a person hearing the Word, or reading a Bible, etc.), and in another no. Salvation, as the Bible speaks of it, is ONLY for those that are WILLING to believe. Those that REFUSE to believe have NO opportunity to be saved. To put it another way, there is NO opportunity for salvation OUTSIDE of faith in Christ. Or, God's plan of salvation specifically RULES OUT saving anyone that refuses to repent of their sin and turn to Christ.

I belabored the above point in an attempt to show how you are, in this instance, equivocating on the term "opportunity". Calvinists affirm that God's offer (opportunity) of salvation is to ALL who are willing to believe. The question boils down to WHY one person believes whereas another does not? Contrary to your assertion, we do NOT believe that God forces them or causes them to remain in their unbelief. Rather, as I've pointed out several times, we maintain that the reason is due to the fact that they do not DESIRE to place faith in Christ. Even though we hold that God foreordains that some will FREELY choose to remain in their unbelief, we deny that this occurs because God has FORCED them to act CONTRARY to what they desire.

You continued:

What I said is that foreknowledge and predestination place culpability directly and solely with God, since we could do nothing else but sin, and those predestined to hell have no opportunity to go elsewhere.


I pointed out the flawed logic in this when I explained that what makes someone morally culpable was whether or not their choice flowed from their own desires without being forced or coerced. Since the traditional view doesn't violate this requirement for culpability it is simply wrong to continue to assert that God is "directly and solely" responsible. The only one morally responsible is the agent that acts according to his own desires. Since God is neither the agent that is acting sinfully NOR forcing the agent to choose AGAINST their desires, He cannot be said to have caused the person to sin.

[ACFaith.Com]

1) It means that God knows the hearts and minds of men, and what they intend to do, and He knows how men tend to act in certain situations, which gives Him a huge advantage in bringing about His prophecies.

He was pretty specific regarding Peter's denials (before the cock crows tree times). Are you saying God influenced things so this would happen? Wouldn't that be equivalent to saying God tempted Peter?

Vinnie

[geoff]

03-08-2003 @ 08:15 AM
Jaltus:

You use foreknown and predestined equivalently, but that is a false assumption. THe future can be known without it being predetermined. What you are saying is the knowledge causes actions, whereas the action is what caused the knowledge in the first place. In other words, a vicious circle.


YAY!!!!!!!

God's foreknowledge of human actions doesnt cause them. God's foreknowledge of His own actions might, although thats an oxymoron (i think, or at least a paradox).

While it is true to say that what God knows will come about, it is incorrect to say that what God knows is His will. For example, in Scripture God often warns that things will happen, like, having Saul for a King is a bad idea, he will stuff up and fall away. It is also as clear from Scripture that this isnt His will.

[doogieduff]

[/QUOTE]

FREAK,



In that Jeremiah passage we read where God "thought" Israel would return to Him, when in fact she didn't (3:6-7, 19-20). If He knew all along that Israel wouldn't return, isn't this a lie? God doesn't lie does He, YX?

With your view, that God knows the future, you're making him out to be a liar, not the OV'er. You see, if God knows the future in the way you believe Him too, then He knew with 100% certainty that Israel wouldn't return. So by saying He thought they would is a complete lie. The open view holds to that God did indeed think they would return, but in fact they did not because of their free will. I believe your view makes Him out to be a liar, not mine.

We need to use common sense. Often times the writers of Scriptures employ human language to express God's intentions, etc. We need to be aware of this reality.

I don't understand what you're saying here, and please give me some biblical examples to back your point.

BTW, open theism, has a serious problem with prophecy. Did Jesus really only make a prediction about Peter denying him based upon Peter's character? But the prophecy was so specific: three denials before the rooster crowed twice (Mark 14:30-72). When Ezekiel prophesied about the destruction of the city of Tyre, was that just a really good guess? It was too accurate a prophecy for that.

I believe in the open view and have no problem with prophecy at all. You see, people only see prophecy as a way for God to show us He knows the future. That's everybody's first conclusion they jump to, and they never expand their view as to what may be other biblical reasons for prophecy. I'll show you here, how God did not have to know the future to know about Peter's triple denial, and second I'll show you how the Tyre prophecy did not come true.

Luke 22:31-32 And the Lord said, 'Simon, Simon! Indeed Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.'

You see, we see a similar account of this in Job. Satan asked to tempt Job also, and the Lord permitted it because He knew the strength of Job's heart. What does God know about Peter's heart here? Well, He prayed for him, which shows he probably needed it, but more importantly, He said "when you have returned to Me" showing He could see in His heart that Peter would indeed deny Him. Now you'll ask "How did He know that it would be exactly 3 times, and how did He know that a rooster would crow right after? You see, the fact isn't that Peter would do it 3 times, it was the fact that Peter would do it 33 times. Peter wouldn't have stopped denying Christ, his resolve was not strong enough. God put a number on how many times Peter would do it, Satan went out and tempted him as seen in our Luke passage, and after 3 times was up, GOD POKED A CHICKEN!

They Tyre prophecy didn't come true either. Wouldn't you agree that if God knows the future, every minute detail must come true about every single prophecy? I mean, all God is doing is peeking intot hte future and taking notes right? Let's read on...

Ezekiel 26:1 "And it came to pass in the eleventh year, on the first day of the month, that the word of the Lord came to me, saying,"

We've established that the Lord is speaking...

Ezekiel 26: 12 "They will plunder your riches and pillage your merchandise"

This verse is talking about Nebuchadnezzar and his army...

Ezekiel 29:17 And it came to pass in the twenty-seventh year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, that the word of the Lord came to me , saying, "Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon caused his army to labor strenuously against Tyre;...yet neither he nor his army recieved wages from Tyre, for the labor which they expended on it."

What? This can't be. They recieved nothing? Let's read on...

Ezekiel 29:19 Therefore thus says the Lord God: "Surely I will give the land of Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; he shall take away her wealth, carry off her spoil, and remove her pillage; and that will be the wages for his army"

Do you see what God is doing? He is giving up Egypt to Nebuchandnezzar since Nebuchadnezzar recieved nothing from Tyre! Now here's the kicker...this never happened either! Please explain to me how God can make such statements and remain truthful if He foreknows everything that will happen from the begginning of time. Thanks!

[doogieduff]

I'm starting to see on this website that people are debating the Open View without understanding it first...that's not cool at all.

[Xmansmommy]

Well Doogie, that does tend to be how people do things, unfortunetly. Oftentimes I hear people inacurately define another's view on issues such as OV. I truly wish people would seek a better understanding of what the view is before prejudging it to be "unbiblical." That goes for any theological viewpoint, not just the OV. Great explaining btw! Some of us are seriously following these threads in hopes of better understanding. Thanks to all participating. I for one, am learning. :xmm:

[themuzicman]

Peter's denial has been dealt with in another thread.

Peter's state of being (mind, heart, emotions, etc) dictated his response to the events that would follow.

Thus, Jesus could prophecy confidently and accuraetly without exhaustive foreknowledge or violating Peter's free will.

Michael

[geoff]

Today @ 04:25 AM
doogieduff:

I'm starting to see on this website that people are debating the Open View without understanding it first...that's not cool at all.

I understand it.. I also understand that it isnt cool at all.

:)

[doogieduff]

Today @ 09:24 PM
geoff:



I understand it.. I also understand that it isnt cool at all.

:)

Hey, nobody said the TRUTH would always be to your liking! ; )

[Freak]

Yesterday @ 04:21 PM
doogieduff:



FREAK,





With your view, that God knows the future, you're making him out to be a liar, not the OV'er. You see, if God knows the future in the way you believe Him too, then He knew with 100% certainty that Israel wouldn't return. So by saying He thought they would is a complete lie. The open view holds to that God did indeed think they would return, but in fact they did not because of their free will. I believe your view makes Him out to be a liar, not mine.



I don't understand what you're saying here, and please give me some biblical examples to back your point.



I believe in the open view and have no problem with prophecy at all. You see, people only see prophecy as a way for God to show us He knows the future. That's everybody's first conclusion they jump to, and they never expand their view as to what may be other biblical reasons for prophecy. I'll show you here, how God did not have to know the future to know about Peter's triple denial, and second I'll show you how the Tyre prophecy did not come true.

Luke 22:31-32 And the Lord said, 'Simon, Simon! Indeed Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.'

You see, we see a similar account of this in Job. Satan asked to tempt Job also, and the Lord permitted it because He knew the strength of Job's heart. What does God know about Peter's heart here? Well, He prayed for him, which shows he probably needed it, but more importantly, He said "when you have returned to Me" showing He could see in His heart that Peter would indeed deny Him. Now you'll ask "How did He know that it would be exactly 3 times, and how did He know that a rooster would crow right after? You see, the fact isn't that Peter would do it 3 times, it was the fact that Peter would do it 33 times. Peter wouldn't have stopped denying Christ, his resolve was not strong enough. God put a number on how many times Peter would do it, Satan went out and tempted him as seen in our Luke passage, and after 3 times was up, GOD POKED A CHICKEN!

They Tyre prophecy didn't come true either. Wouldn't you agree that if God knows the future, every minute detail must come true about every single prophecy? I mean, all God is doing is peeking intot hte future and taking notes right? Let's read on...

Ezekiel 26:1 "And it came to pass in the eleventh year, on the first day of the month, that the word of the Lord came to me, saying,"

We've established that the Lord is speaking...

Ezekiel 26: 12 "They will plunder your riches and pillage your merchandise"

This verse is talking about Nebuchadnezzar and his army...

Ezekiel 29:17 And it came to pass in the twenty-seventh year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, that the word of the Lord came to me , saying, "Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon caused his army to labor strenuously against Tyre;...yet neither he nor his army recieved wages from Tyre, for the labor which they expended on it."

What? This can't be. They recieved nothing? Let's read on...

Ezekiel 29:19 Therefore thus says the Lord God: "Surely I will give the land of Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; he shall take away her wealth, carry off her spoil, and remove her pillage; and that will be the wages for his army"

Do you see what God is doing? He is giving up Egypt to Nebuchandnezzar since Nebuchadnezzar recieved nothing from Tyre! Now here's the kicker...this never happened either! Please explain to me how God can make such statements and remain truthful if He foreknows everything that will happen from the begginning of time. Thanks! [/QUOTE]

Doogieduff--

Please consider...

If God were to "change his mind" about anything, this would mean by default that he failed to have complete knowledge (omniscience). Correct? You may ask Freak- why is this? Well, if a "change" became necessary for God, this would be a shortcoming or lack of complete knowledge. Doogie, your idea that somehow God can change in unBiblical and dangerous. Prayerfully reconsider.

My friend, any change in a perfect God-including a "changed mind"-would mean God changed to something less than perfect since perfection implies completeness, lacking no thing. Change for a perfect Being must be a change for the worst since a perfect God could not change for the better. A "changing perfect God" is, therefore, a contradiction and fails to describe an all-powerful, all-knowing, everywhere-present God. Think about it!

Please keep in mind that a perfect Being can't lack anything that is characteristic of his nature or he fails to be perfect. Now, how does this relate to whether or not God can change his mind? Well, if God could change his mind, this would mean that his "conclusion" or "knowledge" prior to the change was incorrect. He would, therefore, not be the perfect Being that he must be by nature. Any change in God would be a violation of his attributes.

This is fairly simple a changing God implies a incompleteness. A change for a perfect being (God) must be a change for the worst since a perfect God could not change for the better-for He is perfect.

[Freak]

Furthermore...

Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord; I change not."

Deut 32:4 "The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is He."

Psa 110:4 "The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek."

Psa 89:34 "My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips."

Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent."

Ezekiel 24:19 'I the LORD have spoken. The time has come for me to act. I will not hold back; I will not have pity, nor will I relent. You will be judged according to your conduct and your actions, declares the Sovereign LORD .' "

Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent."

James 1:17 " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."

Doogie, what part of:
'I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent." --are you having trouble with?

[geoff]

Doogie,

Its not the truth, thats why its uncool.. its also not terribly biblically accurate either...

However, until the Christian world gets a decent liberal ( as in unbiased and varied ) biblical education, we're stuck with it.

The open view redefines God, YHWH, The Creator, as god, the poor fellow who isnt much better off than the beings he created, re-acting as best he can to a situation largely outside his control...

However, i doubt most Open View theologians realise that this is what they are doing... at least, I have yet to meet one...

[doogieduff]

Doogieduff--

Please consider...

If God were to "change his mind" about anything, this would mean by default that he failed to have complete knowledge (omniscience). Correct? You may ask Freak- why is this? Well, if a "change" became necessary for God, this would be a shortcoming or lack of complete knowledge. Doogie, your idea that somehow God can change in unBiblical and dangerous. Prayerfully reconsider.

My friend, any change in a perfect God-including a "changed mind"-would mean God changed to something less than perfect since perfection implies completeness, lacking no thing. Change for a perfect Being must be a change for the worst since a perfect God could not change for the better. A "changing perfect God" is, therefore, a contradiction and fails to describe an all-powerful, all-knowing, everywhere-present God. Think about it!

Please keep in mind that a perfect Being can't lack anything that is characteristic of his nature or he fails to be perfect. Now, how does this relate to whether or not God can change his mind? Well, if God could change his mind, this would mean that his "conclusion" or "knowledge" prior to the change was incorrect. He would, therefore, not be the perfect Being that he must be by nature. Any change in God would be a violation of his attributes.

This is fairly simple a changing God implies a incompleteness. A change for a perfect being (God) must be a change for the worst since a perfect God could not change for the better-for He is perfect.

I really don't see your philosophical arguement here. I will make note that this issue of Open Theism is biblical and not philosphical. Also, before I move on, I don't want you to think you can get by from answering my posts by giving me some philosophical arguement. That just won't do. God can change His mind (to use your words) due to man's response and this takes nothing away from Him. In God's mind (as best as I can tell) it goes somehting like this. "I will tell them to do this. If they do, I'll do this, if they don't, I'll do this." Now you tell me how this makes God imperfect. By the way, your whole arguement is irrelevent because we OV'ers never claim God's character changes. We don't even think God Himself changes! Instead of God changing His mind, let's look at like this instead:

God decides to go with plan B because of man's action.

[doogieduff]

Yesterday @ 10:43 PM
Freak:

Furthermore...

Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord; I change not."

Deut 32:4 "The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is He."

Psa 110:4 "The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek."

Psa 89:34 "My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips."

Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent."

Ezekiel 24:19 'I the LORD have spoken. The time has come for me to act. I will not hold back; I will not have pity, nor will I relent. You will be judged according to your conduct and your actions, declares the Sovereign LORD .' "

Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent."

James 1:17 " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."

Doogie, what part of:
'I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent." --are you having trouble with?

I don't have any trouble with "I won't repent" You see, this is another classic case of someone not biblically sound, and someone who does not know the open view at all, yet wants to call it heresy. Read your Bible again, and you will realize that whenever God says "He won't repent" it means He won't in that situation. Your verses aren't talking about God as a whole. Check out your Hebrew word "nacham" It means repent and God has done this in the Biblie many times. So to say He doesn't repent is foolish.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 12:03 AM
geoff:

Doogie,

Its not the truth, thats why its uncool.. its also not terribly biblically accurate either...

However, until the Christian world gets a decent liberal ( as in unbiased and varied ) biblical education, we're stuck with it.

The open view redefines God, YHWH, The Creator, as god, the poor fellow who isnt much better off than the beings he created, re-acting as best he can to a situation largely outside his control...

However, i doubt most Open View theologians realise that this is what they are doing... at least, I have yet to meet one...

I'm sorry you want to deny God His omnipotence. God is all powerful and nothing is out of His control. This is a strong belief we OV'ers hold to.

The Open View is very biblically accurate. Show me where it's not. 9 out of 10 people who i ask why they they believe God knows the future, have absolutely no biblical evidence for it. They tell me, "Well, He's God, and He knows everything, so that must include the future!" You see, the classic view of divine foreknowledge is not based on the Bible at all. It's a preconcieved notion based on an all-knowing God. Instead of making things up in our head, let's see what God has to tell us PERSONALLY in the Bible.

[geoff]

doogie,

I dont deny God's omnipotence... In fact, I would say the opposite. Why? Because "generally" the OV claims that God is with in time. That is, he is BOUND by the rules of time, and can not know parts or all of the future. How can an omnipotent being be BOUND by something external to itself? How can an omnipotent God be subject to time, when in fact, His very nature is beyond any measurement known to humanity (including time)? How can God be Omnipresent when He is trapped in one time (now)?

These are serious problems I am afraid.

And what does the Bible say? It says that God knows all things, that He created all things, that prior to creation, NOTHING exists except God. It says He is beyond human measurement (which includes time), it says He is beyond our understanding (because we can not know what it is like to have no beginning nor end). It says He is unlike the man made Gods, the Baals and marduks, because he is able to know all things, to declare the past, and the future and explain what, where, why, and how (isa 40-48)

Give me your best shot, and lets see what comes of it.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 01:23 AM
geoff:

doogie,

I dont deny God's omnipotence... In fact, I would say the opposite. Why? Because "generally" the OV claims that God is with in time. That is, he is BOUND by the rules of time, and can not know parts or all of the future. How can an omnipotent being be BOUND by something external to itself? How can an omnipotent God be subject to time, when in fact, His very nature is beyond any measurement known to humanity (including time)? How can God be Omnipresent when He is trapped in one time (now)?

These are serious problems I am afraid.

And what does the Bible say? It says that God knows all things, that He created all things, that prior to creation, NOTHING exists except God. It says He is beyond human measurement (which includes time), it says He is beyond our understanding (because we can not know what it is like to have no beginning nor end). It says He is unlike the man made Gods, the Baals and marduks, because he is able to know all things, to declare the past, and the future and explain what, where, why, and how (isa 40-48)

Give me your best shot, and lets see what comes of it.

I think you have misdefined what OV believes. You see, why would an omniscient God have to travel in the past? He remembers it perfectly. Can God change the past? I don't think so. A God outside of time is not biblical. It's once again a philisophical idea from man. We side God working with us in time. I can't understand, conceieve, etc. God. I know there are many things I may never know about God, and I admit that. But we have things which God has told us from Himself in that Book, the Bible, and we need to discover and understand what He's teaching us. I can't comprehend a God who remembers all things from eternity past and has perfect knowledge of the present. I can't do it. I can't comprehend a God who sees my actions right now, and every other persons actions at the same time, yet still works with each of us individually! It's head spinning. We aren't limiting God or bringing Him down to human level, and I'm sick of hearing that. If you want to refute the OV, let's learn it first.

I think a God that has to look in the future is a lesser God. Psalm 147:5 tells us that God's understanding is immeasurable. Where do you give God credit for this vast understanding? You believe prophecies come true because God peered into the future and took notes. Who holds the knowledge in that view? The future, not God. I give God credit for this immeasurable understanding when He understands us better than ourselves and knows hearts and minds, and in turn, can "know" things about the future better than myself. The debate isn't whether God knows the future. We both believe that. It's HOW He knows the future that's up for debate. You think He knows everything from before the beginning of time. That's not biblical. I believe God knows the future because of His imeasurable understanding. Does He care what you'll eat for breakfast tomorrow? No. Does He know? He's got a pretty good idea. Can an all-powerful God be in control in the end? There's no doubt in my mind. I have no fear. You see, a referee declares the end from the beginning in a football game, yet has no idea what will happen in between. God was in control in the beginning as He created all, and HE will be in control in the end as He is the most powerful being in the world. Who can thwart God with whatever HE wants to do? No one. Not even Satan, but he tried.

[Freak]

Doogie, you said: I don't have any trouble with "I won't repent" You see, this is another classic case of someone not biblically sound, and someone who does not know the open view at all, yet wants to call it heresy. Read your Bible again,

That's right the foremost Bible scholars who voted against the open view are Biblically unsound. Right.

Read what the foremost evangelical Bible scholars have decided: http://www.sbts.edu/news/archives/fall2001/NR49.php

The reason you ask? Because of the fact God is perfect. My friend, any change in a perfect God-including a "changed mind"-would mean God changed to something less than perfect since perfection implies completeness, lacking no thing. Change for a perfect Being must be a change for the worst since a perfect God could not change for the better. A "changing perfect God" is, therefore, a contradiction and fails to describe an all-powerful, all-knowing, everywhere-present God. Think about it!

This is not philoshopy per se but theology---the understanding of God's nature.

[Freak]

Doogie, what part of:
'I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent." --are you having trouble with?

I'm still waiting......

[doogieduff]

Today @ 09:30 AM
Freak:

Doogie, you said: I don't have any trouble with "I won't repent" You see, this is another classic case of someone not biblically sound, and someone who does not know the open view at all, yet wants to call it heresy. Read your Bible again,

That's right the foremost Bible scholars who voted against the open view are Biblically unsound. Right.

Read what the foremost evangelical Bible scholars have decided: http://www.sbts.edu/news/archives/fall2001/NR49.php

The reason you ask? Because of the fact God is perfect. My friend, any change in a perfect God-including a "changed mind"-would mean God changed to something less than perfect since perfection implies completeness, lacking no thing. Change for a perfect Being must be a change for the worst since a perfect God could not change for the better. A "changing perfect God" is, therefore, a contradiction and fails to describe an all-powerful, all-knowing, everywhere-present God. Think about it!

This is not philoshopy per se but theology---the understanding of God's nature.

You stil haven't responded to my theological posts, and I won't let you just hide behind your computer screen. You said Peter's denial and the prophecy Tyre supported your view and i showed you how they did not.

Yes, your arguement is strictly philosophical. You have yet to see what God wants us to know about Himslef by reading what came directly form His mouth! Your view of "perfect" is a manmade thing, your view that "perfect cannot change" is a manmade thing. Let's have a Theology discussion, not a philosophical arguement. GOD HAS TOLD US ABOUT HIMSELF, YET YOU WOULD RATHER TRY AND FIGURE HIM OUT WITH PHILOSOPHY. Cmon. BTW, I explained to you that the OV doesn't believe God changes. So why do you bring it up again? I hate these online forums, because everybody just conveniently skips over things, and never reads things thoroughly. God doesn't change. He tries Plan A, and sees how man responds. If man responds one way, He sticks with PLan A, if man responds the other way, He goes to plan B. It's rather simple, yet you think "philosophy has figured out God." And "philosophy has figured out that God cannot change." We're not here to make up what we believe about God by philosophy, we're here to read His word and see what He tells us Himself about His attributes.

On a side note. (since OV'ers always get accused of doing this) I will turn the same to you. I believe that God is all-powerful, or omnipotent. An all-powerful God can change if He wants to. Your lessening my God and limiting Him, saying He cannot change.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 09:33 AM
Freak:

Doogie, what part of:
'I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent." --are you having trouble with?

I'm still waiting......

I already explained, but you apparently don't care what i have to say. If you have kids, and they have done something wrong, and they are going to be punished, they plead for forgiveness. They want you to change your mind on their punishment so they can get off. In certain situations, you will say" No way, I will not go back (repent) on what I said your punishment will be. Not this time kiddo!" Does this mean you never repent? Of course not! If you study your Bible, you will see that God is talking about the certain situation. In each situation, God has clearly stated that He won't repent IN THAT SITUATION. And guess what? He never repented in a situation where He said I will not repent. You're going to have some serious problems witht the Hebrew word "nacham" as it means repent, and the Bible clearly shows God doing just that.

Genesis 6:7 So the Lord said, "I will destroy man whom I have created...for I repent (nacham) that i have made them."

Check your Hebrew dude, God repented.