The Omniscience of God Must Be Defended [Archive]

Freak

January 28th 2003, 02:28 PM

Omniscience is an attribute of God that must be embraced by all orthodox Christians. It is an attribute that is spoken about throughout Holy Scripture.

God's Word tells us:

Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon me, and he told me to say: "This is what the LORD says: That is what you are saying, O house of Israel, but I know what is going through your mind.

Great is our Lord and mighty in power; His understanding has no limit."

Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account

Omniscience simply means "all knowledge"-Holy Scripture points to the truth that God knows all things for He has all knowledge contrary to the heretical open view theory.

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
"Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?"
"Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay him?"
For from him and through him and to him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.

geebob

January 28th 2003, 02:34 PM

Omniscience simply means "all knowledge"-Holy Scripture points to the truth that God knows all things for He has all knowledge contrary to the heretical open view theory.

How does the open view deny God's knowledge? Can't God know that it is true that one may choose amongst several options if that is indeed the case?

Freak

January 28th 2003, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by geebob
How does the open view deny God's knowledge? Can't God know that it is true that one may choose amongst several options if that is indeed the case?

My concern lies with those in the open view camp (and there is a vocal group) that denies God foreknowledge. As I mentioned, the Scriptures are quite clear on this subject-

"Great is our Lord and mighty in power; His understanding has no limit."

His understanding is not merely limited to the past or the present. He knows all. He is perfect so His attributes are perfect as well.

geebob

January 28th 2003, 02:58 PM

My concern lies with those in the open view camp (and there is a vocal group) that denies God foreknowledge. As I mentioned, the Scriptures are quite clear on this subject-

I understand. I am in the open view camp. But I don't deny God's foreknowledge and that is not necessary to the open view.

As I mentioned, the Scriptures are quite clear on this subject-

Indeed.

Jer. 3:7

I thought that after she had done all this she would return to me but she did not, and her unfaithful sister Judah saw it.

"Great is our Lord and mighty in power; His understanding has no limit."

His understanding is not merely limited to the past or the present. He knows all. He is perfect so His attributes are perfect as well.

right, like I said,

"Can't God know that it is true that one may choose amongst several options if that is indeed the case?"

let me expand on that. In some instance, it may be false that someone will certainly peform an action in a specific way. The truth of how specifically that action will be performed may be non-existent and not true at all and to insist that God must know something that isn't true is nonsense. It may become true after it has been determined by a free agent, but before then, the truth of the matter is represented by a proposition that involves multiply possible outcomes.

AS an open viewer, I believe that God's knowledge of the future is indeed perfect as it is at the least knowledge of everything that is logically possible to know and at the most the knowledge is of the sum total of the reality of the future. I don't believe that that knowledge only consists of metaphysical certainties.

Pilgrim

January 28th 2003, 05:32 PM

I agree with Freak. however for the sake of argument it must be pointed out that "understanding" is not the same as "knowledge"

Understanding is what you do with your knowledge.

geebob

January 28th 2003, 08:46 PM

I agree with Freak.

On what part? That ov'ers don't believe in God's omniscience?

That the scriptures clearly teaches a version of omniscience that excludes the open view?

That ov'ers don't believe in foreknowledge?

Freak

January 29th 2003, 01:07 AM

Originally posted by geebob
On what part? That ov'ers don't believe in God's omniscience?

That the scriptures clearly teaches a version of omniscience that excludes the open view?

That ov'ers don't believe in foreknowledge?

God is perfect in knowledge and understanding, right geebob?

geebob

January 29th 2003, 10:53 AM

Of course, but I would take issue with what we consider perfect.

At minimum we could say that God has perfect knowledge because he knows everything that is significant and/or everything that he needs to know.

At most, perfect knowledge implies that God knows everything period.

the second statement represents what most of your *classical theologians would hold to, but open theists can subscribe to either one.

Where the open theist cries foul is when the classical theist sneeks in an assumption where perfect knowledge of absolutely everything cannot change. But in a universe that can change, omniscience in fact demands that knowledge changes with the changes in the universe.

*ov'ers use the term "classical" to label a variety of views that is held by many theologians in the tradition, but not all of them, such as determinism and the impassibility of God.

Philemon

January 29th 2003, 11:47 AM

I dont think its fair to charatrize the classical theists as "sneaky" when they say God's knowledge cannot change.

Please tell me in your own words how you think it is possible for God's knowledge to change?

Listen to my presupposition:
A change in His knowledge will denote either an increase or decrease. Either God truely forgot something that He cannot recall to His mind or he truely gained knowledge that was not previously known to His mind. In both instances you are adding or subtracting something from God. This is logically inconsistant if God truely knows all there is to be known not to mention viloated the presupposition of impassability, which you may not hold to I would assume. We must qualify that everything that can be known would refer to anything in and out of a temporal reality. Which includes every action or outcome of every free-will creature seen from a temporal and eternal perspective. If God exists externally He is not bound by motion or sequence of events. If we are going to go into this iuncharted territory than metaphysical distinctions are going to have to be made.

So tell me again, how can God's knowledge change? :huh:

geebob

January 29th 2003, 01:06 PM

Please tell me in your own words how you think it is possible for God's knowledge to change?

consider what I've already written.

In some instance, it may be false that someone will certainly peform an action in a specific way. The truth of how specifically that action will be performed may be non-existent and not true at all and to insist that God must know something that isn't true is nonsense. It may become true after it has been determined by a free agent, but before then, the truth of the matter is represented by a proposition that involves multiply possible outcomes.

In other words, something became true that was not previously true, and something that was true is no longer true (after the choice has been determined, it is no longer true that it is possible that more than one outcome could happen). Knowledge of the world must follow if it is to remain as knowledge.

In both instances you are adding or subtracting something from God.

by making God's specific knowledge of what the world is like an essential part of God, you make God ontologically dependent upon his creation.

I could say you are adding or subtracting to God, but just not in any way that is significant to his nature or essence, and that is all that matters with regard to his attributes that are properly immutable.

We must qualify that everything that can be known would refer to anything in and out of a temporal reality. Which includes every action or outcome of every free-will creature seen from a temporal and eternal perspective.

this only applies if the world is an eternalistic entity as opposed to a presentist entity. If only the present has concrete existence, such notions of timelessness as you suggest are meaningless. I had more to say on this in Jaltus' timelessness thread. Timelessnsess negates omnipotence. For arguements to that effect, see my first post there.

GrayPilgrim

January 29th 2003, 01:10 PM

How does this differ from Molinism? [Not really up on either view]:huh:

Philemon

January 29th 2003, 03:19 PM

Dear Geebob,
I think I understand your point, however your presupposition is that God does not/cannot know which possible outcome will come to fruition until it is actually determined by the free-will agent. Is that a correct summation of what you stated previously?

If that is accurate, I would submit your presup for thinking God cannot know which possible outcome will be determined until the moment of determination is flawed with the following reasoning:

Lets examine your reasoning for a moment: God knows all things that are knowable and thus every variable that would determine every possible outcome. Since God created all things He surely would know what every possible variable that could act upon any event's outcome.

Now we delve into probability. Lets say for the sake of arguement that OVT's are correct and no future exists for God to know it. Thus ablsoving us of the foreknowlege issue. However, if God knows all possible outcomes and EVERY variable that could affect an outcome, is it not reasonable to assume He can then predict which outcome is most likely from the data He has?

Infact, if he KNOWS ALL variables, is it not reasonable to say that God can predict every event's outcome with 100% accuracy?
Unlike our weathermen, bookies, or any other profession that uses odds and probability to predict.

For every event there is only one outcome that is 100%. God knows all of the possible outcomes and their probability as well does he not? If so then He knows the 100% certain outcome. All because He is the "perfect" mathematician and statistician. He knows all variables, therefore can predict with 100% accuracy all outcomes. The future doesn't need to exist for Him. :)

geebob

January 29th 2003, 06:59 PM

How does this differ from Molinism? [Not really up on either view]

see what I said in Jaltus' thread. I may not have said it as well as I should've, but I think you can get the gist, and if not, ask for more explanation over there.

I think I understand your point, however your presupposition is that God does not/cannot know which possible outcome will come to fruition until it is actually determined by the free-will agent. Is that a correct summation of what you stated previously?

yes, but there's something you need to know about the term possible. We can have a logical possibility. That describes a circumstance that is coherent and not logically contradictory. That your computer should sprout wings and fly away is a logical possibility.

we can also describe possibilities that at a superficial level appear to be possible.

the meaning of possibility that I use is something that truly can occur and is %100 consistent with all facts of the present. If in libertarian free will we say that it is possible for you to choose to do A at Time T and possible for you to choose ~A, then both truly can happen.

Now if God knows which possibility one will choose, If he knows that you will choose A and has always known that you will choose A, then that it is not truly possible for you to choose ~A because that possibility is not consistent with at least one aspect of the past and present and that is God's knowledge that you won't choose ~A. The chance that you will choose ~A is 0.

For every event there is only one outcome that is 100%. God knows all of the possible outcomes and their probability as well does he not? If so then He knows the 100% certain outcome. All because He is the "perfect" mathematician and statistician. He knows all variables, therefore can predict with 100% accuracy all outcomes. The future doesn't need to exist for Him.

this is only true within a deterministic universe (or an eternalistic indeterministic universe). In an indeterministic universe, all the variables will often yeild no such certainty. You may weigh all the variables and the most certain thing you may come up with is something like "there is a 64 percent chance that this will happen and a 35 percent chance that that will happen and a 1 percent chance that this other thing will happen." Any certainty as to which option will come to pass would negate the finality of those percentages, but I believe that for a moment those percentages may indeed represent the final fact of the matter for a moment in time.

molinism might have another option that is the exception to the rule above, but it has never been clear to me as to why molinism should not in fact be considered a full blown determinism. As far as I'm concerned, it only suggests that God did not have full power to determin, but nevertheless everything is determined.

Freak

January 30th 2003, 11:34 AM

geebob:
see what I said in Jaltus' thread. I may not have said it as well as I should've, but I think you can get the gist, and if not, ask for more explanation over there.

yes, but there's something you need to know about the term possible. We can have a logical possibility. That describes a circumstance that is coherent and not logically contradictory. That your computer should sprout wings and fly away is a logical possibility.

we can also describe possibilities that at a superficial level appear to be possible.

the meaning of possibility that I use is something that truly can occur and is %100 consistent with all facts of the present. If in libertarian free will we say that it is possible for you to choose to do A at Time T and possible for you to choose ~A, then both truly can happen.

Now if God knows which possibility one will choose, If he knows that you will choose A and has always known that you will choose A, then that it is not truly possible for you to choose ~A because that possibility is not consistent with at least one aspect of the past and present and that is God's knowledge that you won't choose ~A. The chance that you will choose ~A is 0.

this is only true within a deterministic universe (or an eternalistic indeterministic universe). In an indeterministic universe, all the variables will often yeild no such certainty. You may weigh all the variables and the most certain thing you may come up with is something like "there is a 64 percent chance that this will happen and a 35 percent chance that that will happen and a 1 percent chance that this other thing will happen." Any certainty as to which option will come to pass would negate the finality of those percentages, but I believe that for a moment those percentages may indeed represent the final fact of the matter for a moment in time.

molinism might have another option that is the exception to the rule above, but it has never been clear to me as to why molinism should not in fact be considered a full blown determinism. As far as I'm concerned, it only suggests that God did not have full power to determin, but nevertheless everything is determined.

geebob, I would encourage you to humble yourself before God. You are but a mere creature (as we all are) and this will result in our limitations of understanding His attributes. God however is not silent on these issues. God's Word tells:

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
"Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?"
"Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay him?"
For from him and through him and to him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.

Note: "His paths beyound tracing out", "Who has known the mind of God", and "unsearchable his judgements."

Your understanding will fall short my friend. At that point we need to turn to His Word which declares: Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account God knows all and "Nothing in all creation is hidden..."

Ishmael

January 30th 2003, 11:37 AM

Doesn't anyone believe in meticulous exhaustive foreknowledge anymore?

Philemon

January 30th 2003, 11:46 AM

the meaning of possibility that I use is something that truly can occur and is %100 consistent with all facts of the present. If in libertarian free will we say that it is possible for you to choose to do A at Time T and possible for you to choose ~A, then both truly can happen.

This I would disagree with becuase of the possible events that will happen, only one will happen. They cannot all be "true" if they don't all occur. Only the event that occurs is the "true" event for it was realized and once occured is determined for eternity. Possibilities are just that. Possibililties and therefore unactualized therefore not true. True being defined as that which is real. Possibilites are not real as they do not exists in reality but rather in a construct of the mind.

Both can truely happen, from a human perspective, but both will not truely happen, only ONE will truely happen.

Now if God knows which possibility one will choose, If he knows that you will choose A and has always known that you will choose A, then that it is not truly possible for you to choose ~A because that possibility is not consistent with at least one aspect of the past and present and that is God's knowledge that you won't choose ~A. The chance that you will choose ~A is 0.
Au Contraire Geebob. Speaking metaphysically, it is not only possible for you and I to have a choice as God determines, but it is probable through "concurence". Examine the following logic:
God determines all acts.
Man determines his own acts.
Thus, God and man determine man’s acts.

Whilest God knows what you will do and thus determines what you will do neccessarily, you do not chose to do what you do OUT OF NECCESSITY. You chose freely which is to say you are self-determined becuase of your "free-will". It boils down to a matter of perspectives. Yours and Gods.

this is only true within a deterministic universe (or an eternalistic indeterministic universe). In an indeterministic universe, all the variables will often yeild no such certainty.

How did you deduce that "only in a deterministic universe, etc.." that my proposition would only be true? What is your evidence for that? I can accurately predict today with 100% accuracy all sorts of events. The only reason I can do this is becuase I know every varable that will affect the outcome. For instance, I can predict if I push my coffee mug to the edge of my desk past the edge the mug will fall to the ground the coffee will spill out all over the place. I know each variable I need to know to make that prediction 100%. In the same way, on a much more complex and un-imaginable scale, God knows each variable that determined how we will act in every event in our lives. For He has all knowledge that exists.

You may weigh all the variables and the most certain thing you may come up with is something like "there is a 64 percent chance that this will happen and a 35 percent chance that that will happen and a 1 percent chance that this other thing will happen." Any certainty as to which option will come to pass would negate the finality of those percentages, but I believe that for a moment those percentages may indeed represent the final fact of the matter for a moment in time.

If God can weigh all the variables to come up with the 64%, 35%, and 1% chance as you say, then it is reasonable to say he would also be capable to see the 100% chance event as well. You havent't presented a convincing reasoning for why he could get those other %'s and not the 100% percentage. Irregardless, out of all possibilites, each is logically assigned a % of probability. Only that one will have the 100% probability and you need to demonstrate why God, with access to all variables for prediction, could not predict that one. :read:

geebob

January 30th 2003, 07:52 PM

Freak

geebob, I would encourage you to humble yourself before God. You are but a mere creature (as we all are) and this will result in our limitations of understanding His attributes. God however is not silent on these issues.

Thank you and I would encourage you to do the same as you too are a limited creature. With my limits, I interpret the word of God as best as I can and I don't see the biblical necessity or sense in the classical view of frozen knowledge. Exhaustive knowledge is reasonable. Just not frozen knowledge.

Note: "His paths beyound tracing out", "Who has known the mind of God", and "unsearchable his judgements."

which is not a mandate against theology. Indeed God's path's are beyond tracing with his decicion to use the rebellion of the Jews to give Christ to the world (which is the context where Paul said this. But this is not an indication of total incomprehensibility. If that were the case, both of us would be wasting our time as nothing about God would be discussable.

At that point we need to turn to His Word which declares: Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account God knows all and "Nothing in all creation is hidden..."

I agree with this 1 million percent. Nothing is hidden from Him, not even truths of indeterminacy where the certain is negated.

Your understanding will fall short my friend.

If you have an understanding that is visably taller and yet as biblical, and satisfactory, I'll gladly accept it.

Philemon

They cannot all be "true" if they don't all occur.

On the contrary, prior to obtaining they may all be truly possible each having a chance of obtaining.

Possibilities are just that. Possibililties and therefore unactualized therefore not true.

On the contrary, it is perfectly coherent to say that the proposition “It is possible that Jethrow will choose chew gum” is a true proposition. It is a proposition that can be true at the same time as the proposition “Jethrow will choose not to chew gum.”

Both can truely happen, from a human perspective, but both will not truely happen, only ONE will truely happen.

I’m suggesting that at times, the human perspective is not always false but can be as accurate as God’s perspective.

God determines all acts.
Man determines his own acts.
Thus, God and man determine man’s acts.

That’s a coherent picture if you want to sacrifice true self determinism where we originate determination. But you’re a Calvinist so you wouldn’t have a problem with that.

Whilest God knows what you will do and thus determines what you will do neccessarily, you do not chose to do what you do OUT OF NECCESSITY. You chose freely which is to say you are self-determined becuase of your "free-will". It boils down to a matter of perspectives. Yours and Gods.

the perspective that this boils down to is that you are a Calvinist and you do not believe in libertarian free will Where I do. Thus really, you and I really have no argument on this subject.

What is your evidence for that? I can accurately predict today with 100% accuracy all sorts of events.

Well your’re making two errors here. One is the notion that just because you predicted something to happen that it was %100 certain. If something had a ten percent chance of happening and you put your money on that horse, just because your prediction came to pass doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a chance that something else might’ve happened.

Secondly, that we can make predictions that are indeed %100 certain, it does not follow that everything is like this. Indeterminism is not the total absence of determination. It is merely the negation that everything is determined.

If God can weigh all the variables to come up with the 64%, 35%, and 1% chance as you say, then it is reasonable to say he would also be capable to see the 100% chance event as well.

yes idead, if the nature of the event is such that it can be determined with %100 acuracy. If not, then not.

Only that one will have the 100% probability and you need to demonstrate why God, with access to all variables for prediction, could not predict that one.

If it’s the case that the variables will yield such determinacy, then they will do so and God can know it as it is. By definition, that just isn’t the case in an indeterministic universe and that’s the kind that I believe we live in.

Philemon

January 30th 2003, 08:04 PM

Dear Geebob,
First laet me state that you are incorrect in your asumption that I am a Calvinist. On the contrary I am not and the logic I used with you that God and man detemine man's acts would be rejected by most if not all true Calvinists.

Well your’re making two errors here. One is the notion that just because you predicted something to happen that it was %100 certain. If something had a ten percent chance of happening and you put your money on that horse, just because your prediction came to pass doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a chance that something else might’ve happened.

Geebob, I didn't make the error, you did. Read what I wrote. I didn't say that because I made a prediction that it will be 100% certain. I said I can make some predictions that will be 100% accurate. Quite a difference. Then you make a second error by eqivocating betting, which relys on only knowing "some" variables to predict an outcome that is not guarenteed 100%. Quite different than making a prediction where one knows all veriables that will affect a 100% outcome.

If it’s the case that the variables will yield such determinacy, then they will do so and God can know it as it is. By definition, that just isn’t the case in an indeterministic universe and that’s the kind that I believe we live in.

Using your logic, if I predict my wife will get mad if I slap her face, then by the very definition of what you lay above, I have determined her action for her thus negating her free-will. Come on Geebob, don't succumb so easily to eqivocation. So, please share with me why you think God cannot know the neccessary varibles to predict all events with 100% accuracy when humans can predict events with such high degrees of accuracy? I am waiting for a rebutal to this premise.

YFS,
Philemon

geebob

January 30th 2003, 10:04 PM

First laet me state that you are incorrect in your asumption that I am a Calvinist. On the contrary I am not and the logic I used with you that God and man detemine man's acts would be rejected by most if not all true Calvinists.

you are right, that sounds like something Geisler said.

I didn't say that because I made a prediction that it will be 100% certain. I said I can make some predictions that will be 100% accurate. Quite a difference.

then I don't see the relevence.

Then you make a second error by eqivocating betting, which relys on only knowing "some" variables to predict an outcome that is not guarenteed 100%. Quite different than making a prediction where one knows all veriables that will affect a 100% outcome.

the betting metaphore was appropriate. I don't see the problem with it.

also, you still haven't come to terms with my claim. In an indeterministic universe, there are outcomes for which all the variables in the world cannot yeild %100 accuracy until the final variable, the determination by the free or undetermined agent itself yeilds the deciding factor.

Using your logic, if I predict my wife will get mad if I slap her face, then by the very definition of what you lay above, I have determined her action for her thus negating her free-will.

In most cases I would say that her reaction was determined. I believe that we do make choices that could be described by compatibilism.

So, please share with me why you think God cannot know the neccessary varibles to predict all events with 100% accuracy when humans can predict events with such high degrees of accuracy? I am waiting for a rebutal to this premise.

when the variables are there for humans to make such a determination, then they are there for God to do so. They are not always available for humans to make such a determination and if they don't exist, then they are not there for God either.

Philemon

January 31st 2003, 11:04 AM

also, you still haven't come to terms with my claim. In an indeterministic universe, there are outcomes for which all the variables in the world cannot yeild %100 accuracy until the final variable, the determination by the free or undetermined agent itself yeilds the deciding factor.

Allow me to attempt to come to terms with yor claim. You presuppose that in an indeterministic universe, the final outcome of an event is dependant on the decision of a free or undertermined agent. However, that is the crux of the argument and hence lies your error! It is the variables God has access to which gives Him the ability to predict what the free agent's determination is! For those variables are what the free agent himself relies upon to make desicions. Every decision I make is based on internal and external variables or previous knowledge gained and how I use/interpret that knowledge. SO again, why can God NOT predict your actions ahead of time if he has access to all the same variables as you and knows you better than you know yourself?

when the variables are there for humans to make such a determination, then they are there for God to do so. They are not always available for humans to make such a determination and if they don't exist, then they are not there for God either.

Geebob, you may need to clarify yourself here. Your above statement seems to indicate that God's knowledge of variables is somehow dependant on man's. You also seem to evipocate God's ability to know variables with man's ability to know variables or knowledge. Certainly you would agree that God can know all factors, variables and knowledge that can affect the world were as man in his finiteness cannot know all of these things simultaneously?

YFS,
Philemon

geebob

January 31st 2003, 11:55 AM

For those variables are what the free agent himself relies upon to make desicions. Every decision I make is based on internal and external variables or previous knowledge gained and how I use/interpret that knowledge.

We are just not operating with the same notion of freedom, thus our arguement is non-existent.

In libertarian freedom, there are no antecident conditions (variables) that contribute to a gaurantee of our choices. Thus all the variables are consistent with more than one possible outcome.

If you don't hold this, then you can consistently hold to the view of foreknowledge as frozen.

Your above statement seems to indicate that God's knowledge of variables is somehow dependant on man's. You also seem to evipocate God's ability to know variables with man's ability to know variables or knowledge.

not at all. God's knowledge of the variables is not dependent on man's knowledge in any way shape or form. God's knowledge of the variables is dependent upon whether they exist or not.

Furthermore, in my view, of course God is going to be able to know certainties of the future that man cannot know because he knows of variables that establish such certainty that man cannot or does not know. But the fact remains, in the absence of those variables, or in the absense of variables that can establish certainties, no certainty exists.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding that persists about most forms of the open view and that misunderstanding persists in your thought. The issue is not what God can or does know. The issue is what the world is like.

Even if God did not exist, If I held to the libertarian view of freedom, I'd still hold that there was no truth to some future propositions regardless of what the sum total of truth of the world at present is.

Philemon

January 31st 2003, 12:07 PM

Interesting reply Geebob...

We are just not operating with the same notion of freedom, thus our arguement is non-existent.
In libertarian freedom, there are no antecident conditions (variables) that contribute to a gaurantee of our choices. Thus all the variables are consistent with more than one possible outcome. If you don't hold this, then you can consistently hold to the view of foreknowledge as frozen.

I am aware we don't opporate on the same notion of freedom. Perhaps you can explain what exactly you think our freedom is? Also, perhaps you can demonstrate with good arguement how you can hold to your freedom presupposition?

In regards to the view of foreknowledge being frozen, if you mean that if God knows the future and what will happen, then nothing can change from what He knows, then yes, frozen would be accurate. However, you have failed to show me why I can logically embrace your notion of a freewill. Or for that matter exactly what your freewill notion is. You simply say that true free will is undetermined, yet if I choose to do something I have determined an events outcome and thus violated the very logic you presuppose. On top of that, you claim their is NO certainty in anything. How do you know the security of your salvation is secure if that is a true statement? For if that statement is true, then even your very salvation is uncertain for God could change His mind about it regardless of what He has previously said.

Bringing it back to focus, lets discuss your notion of what true-free will is. I know you have describe it, but in "practical terms" tell me how it works. Lastly, forget the idea of a indeterminate/determinate universe and show me why God could not predict what Abraham would do when he placed Issac on the alter. This in view of God knowing the complete life history of Abraham and knowing Abraham's innermost parts. Are you suggesting that Abraham knew himself better than the Lord did?

I also welcome any others to chime in at anytime.

YFS,
Phi

geebob

January 31st 2003, 01:53 PM

Perhaps you can explain what exactly you think our freedom is?

This is the definition promoted by leading Christian Philosopher Alvin Plantinga:

If a person is free with respect to a given action, then he is free to perform the action and free to refrain from performing it; no antecedent conditions and/or causal laws determine that he will perform the action, or that he won't...It is within his power, at the time in question, to take or perform the action and within his power to refrain from it.
(Taken from Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings by Peterson et al. pg. 267)

Your insistence on determination via variables directly conflicts with the middle part of this definition concerning antecedent conditions/or causes.

Plantinga does believe that God's foreknowledge is exhaustively frozen, but he wouldn't use the strategy that you have attempted. I actually omitted his allocation from the statement above to that effect, as it was not part of the definition nor does he explain how this is so in that essay.

Also, perhaps you can demonstrate with good arguement how you can hold to your freedom presupposition?...However, you have failed to show me why I can logically embrace your notion of a freewill.

Not in this thread. It's too big of a chunk to bite off. The view of freedom that I hold is basic for many christians and is an established part of orthodoxy, so it won't be defended here.

I may start a thread on it in the next week or so since you asked.

You simply say that true free will is undetermined, yet if I choose to do something I have determined an events outcome and thus violated the very logic you presuppose.

When we speak of determinism or that something has been determined, we are actually speaking of a when and/or how much.

Determinism involves two aspects, temporal and scope. It suggests that everything that has or will happen has been determined at the beginning (or for the eternal infinite past). Nothing is determined in the present.

For free will, It is not the case that the choice is never determined but rather that there was a libertarian moment when the choice was not determined but open to possibilities, followed by the determination in time.

On top of that, you claim their is NO certainty in anything.

No. For some events there is no certainty until determination in time as taken place.

How do you know the security of your salvation is secure if that is a true statement?

If I beleived in OSAS, which I don't, and yet still held to the open view (as several do, such as RightIdea and Yxboom), I would say that in my acceptance of the Gospel, the libertarian moment was satisfied. Before then, there was no certainty about my destiny, but after then, certainty represents the fact of the matter.

For if that statement is true, then even your very salvation is uncertain for God could change His mind about it regardless of what He has previously said.

All we have to do is say that God is not libertarian free with regard to that issue. But that is not necessary or desirable. God made the libertarian free choice to love us when creating us, and futhermore to redeem us. That he should be able to change his mind on this is not necessited by libertarian free will. God will remain consistent with his previous free choices.

show me why God could not predict what Abraham would do when he placed Issac on the alter. This in view of God knowing the complete life history of Abraham and knowing Abraham's innermost parts. Are you suggesting that Abraham knew himself better than the Lord did?

If we take God's statement "Now I know" at face value, and still hold to omniscience, then there was unresolved potential within Abraham for which neither Abraham nor God could've geussed that he would take the knife to his son at the alter. He may have been having second thoughts all the way up to the alter that truly may have prevented him from doing what he did. And why shouldn't this be the case as Isaac was his son! As God exclaimed his knowledge of the faithfulness of Abraham, at that moment he had the knife at his sons heart, the unresolved potential had solidified into the commitment to sacrifice the boy.

Before that point, the potential could have gone either way. To illustrate this claim, lets say we clone the universe at the point where Abraham is about to climb up the mountain so now we have two universes with two abrahams who have the same hearts, and all the same veriables. In one universe, we get what we read in the bible. In the other, we may very well see abraham turn tail and run. Nothing in either universe dictated what he would do.

Philemon

January 31st 2003, 02:12 PM

Thanks for the reply Geebob. I guess I am a bit confused still about the notion of free-will you suggest.
If a person is free with respect to a given action, then he is free to perform the action and free to refrain from performing it; no antecedent conditions and/or causal laws determine that he will perform the action, or that he won't...It is within his power, at the time in question, to take or perform the action and within his power to refrain from it.

If there is no antecedant conditions and/or causal laws that determine what action is performed or what action is not performed, how does any action ever take place? What is he fre agents cause for ever acting?

Everything in the universe created by God is causal. He being the first cause of course. Please elaborate in practical terms how you or I can make a determination to do something (action) with no antecedant condition or causal law. Can you provide with an example of this? To be honest, I cannot recall any action in my entire life where the decision I made was not based on some previous (antecedant) condition.

Why do I chose the action of eating? Becuase I am hungry.
Why do I chose to do anything? Because there is always a becuase.

I do agree that Abraham was free to chose between sacrifice and not to sacrifice. But is just my argument that his choice was guided by antecedant conditions. Namely that He had faith in the Lord through obediance. The Lord's statement proved this antecedant condition "Now I know." Now I know what? That Abraham had faith (antecedant condition) to what (guide his decision/choice).

Please explain where I am missing your point.

YFS,
Phi

geebob

January 31st 2003, 07:18 PM

As I said, I will probably start a thread arguing for my version of free will some time in the near future (though I have something already slated for my next topic). Arguements for that version of free will would be the most appropriate response for your last reply.

I will only say this much.

If there is no antecedant conditions and/or causal laws that determine what action is performed or what action is not performed, how does any action ever take place? What is he fre agents cause for ever acting?

I can give a description of libertarian free will and I can give arguements, but as for the mechanisms by which it functions, all that I can say is that "I am fearfully and wonderfully made."

We are made in the image of God, and we libertarians argue that part of that image involves the ability to originate necessity for action where previously, there was none.

Actually to be more specific, there may be a necessity for action, like you say, we choose to eat because of hunger, but that necessity does not mandate precisely what I will choose to eat. So apsects of my choice may be determined, and yet there may be no determination to regards with whether I will eat heavy or light, healthy, or for taste.

Philemon

January 31st 2003, 07:32 PM

Dear Geebob,
Thanks for the reply.

Actually to be more specific, there may be a necessity for action, like you say, we choose to eat because of hunger, but that necessity does not mandate precisely what I will choose to eat. So aspects of my choice may be determined, and yet there may be no determination to regards with whether I will eat heavy or light, healthy, or for taste.

You are correct, the antecedent condition of hunger will not mandate precisely what you will choose to eat, only that you will eventually eat. But I would argue that other antecedent conditions will determine how you eat, either heavy, light, healthy or for taste. Those antecedent conditions will be determined by: your previous experience with eating, how hungry you are, your established beliefs about healthy eating, your established food taste preferences, how adventurous you are when it comes to trying new foods, etc etc.

Again, I don't see how you can deny that EVERY decision you make will be based on an "antecedent condition" as you put it. I look forward to when you adequately demonstrate that decisions do not rely upon such things and seemingly originate from nothingness (which seems to be your arguement) and thus validate the notion of libertarian free-will you propose.

YFS,
Phi

uber_loser

January 31st 2003, 11:54 PM

Fabulous debate you two! I actually agree with both of you. God has determined our every action yet this does not rob us of our free will. I can determine what my brother and sister will do in certian situation (because I know them) yet I have not robbed them of their free will. Then why can't God who as Philemon says Knows us better than we know ourselves determine our actions without robbing us of our free will? Incidently I used to believe as geebob did but I was converted to think differently. looking forward to your free will thread geebob!

geebob

February 1st 2003, 12:15 AM

Boromir

I can determine what my brother and sister will do in certian situation (because I know them) yet I have not robbed them of their free will.

Have you really determined with %100 certainty what it is that they will do? or is there going to be that 10 percent of the time where you were totally wrong? And if you have done so, is this not after a libertarian moment when you can make such a determination? And if that is not the case, then I see no reason that we must consider their choices as libertarian free. Of course they may still be held accountable, if it is a moral choice at hand, if the character was formed in a libertarian fashion.

BTW, just to keep the issues clear, when you said that you determine what your siblings will do, this is in an epistemic sense. In general, I will use the term in the causal sense.

looking forward to your free will thread geebob!

in the meantime, check out my thread against reprobation. The conclusion there will contribute to at least one arguement for free will.

uber_loser

February 1st 2003, 12:40 AM

geebob:
Boromir

Have you really determined with %100 certainty what it is that they will do? or is there going to be that 10 percent of the time where you were totally wrong?

I'm not 100% certain but I am not God if I knew my siblings better than they know themselves then yes I would be 100% certain.

and I do believe in freewill and I inteded that God determines (epistemic sense) our action he does not determine (causal sense) our action. And that is where his Omniscience lies. IMHO Freewill does not require a fluid future.

geebob

February 1st 2003, 12:48 AM

I'm not 100% certain but I am not God if I knew my siblings better than they know themselves then yes I would be 100% certain.

your begging the question here.

IMHO Freewill does not require a fluid future.

If you are dealing with the same view of free will as I, then there is the problem of how you can reconcile this with the definition I've given.

uber_loser

February 1st 2003, 01:14 AM

Ok it is late here and I may not be thinking clearly but where does my view of free will differ from your definition? Good night gentlemen and ladies God Bless!!!

geebob

February 1st 2003, 05:20 PM

I don't know what your view of free will is. All you indicate is that is of a choice uncaused by God. That might indicate agreement on at least part of it.

uber_loser

February 3rd 2003, 03:28 PM

I think we agree on free will. where we disagree is how God's Omniscience dose not interfere with our free will. The question is "How can our lives not be predestined if God already knows how we will live our lives?" You answer that question one way. I answer it another. to use an analogy (I love analogies you may get sick of them from me) If our lives were a book that God lets us write you say that although God knows all the possible endings of the book he does not know which one will be the real ending till we make it happen. The book is still being written. I say that although God lets us write the book and to us it is still being written God existing beyond time and space has the book in its completed form and knows the end. At this point I think trying to change each others minds would be well :argh: so I think we should agree to disagree and laugh when we both get to heaven and find out we were both wrong. :lol:

Chief of Staff Lizard

February 3rd 2003, 03:39 PM

Boromir:
I think we agree on free will. where we disagree is how God's Omniscience dose not interfere with our free will. The question is "How can our lives not be predestined if God already knows how we will live our lives?" You answer that question one way. I answer it another. to use an analogy (I love analogies you may get sick of them from me) If our lives were a book that God lets us write you say that although God knows all the possible endings of the book he does not know which one will be the real ending till we make it happen. The book is still being written. I say that although God lets us write the book and to us it is still being written God existing beyond time and space has the book in its completed form and knows the end. At this point I think trying to change each others minds would be well :argh: so I think we should agree to disagree and laugh when we both get to heaven and find out we were both wrong. :lol:

And you call yourself a Presbyterian. :no:

uber_loser

February 3rd 2003, 04:28 PM

geebob

February 3rd 2003, 06:49 PM

At this point I think trying to change each others minds would be well so I think we should agree to disagree and laugh when we both get to heaven and find out we were both wrong.

It's not my style to push any one into a debate who doesn't want one (at least under most circumstances).

I will be happy to laugh at you in heaven. :D

geebob

February 3rd 2003, 07:31 PM

2nd post, scroll up.

where we disagree is how God's Omniscience dose not interfere with our free will.

Sorry, I just have to get this one in. For the record, we do not disagree on this. I do not believe God's foreknowledge, as espoused by most christians, interferes with free will. The issue is a matter of consistency, not interference.

Knowledge, is of course, not causative (at least not in the sense that is reletive for this debate.

uber_loser

February 3rd 2003, 08:31 PM

:D your too much :lol:

Freak

February 24th 2003, 06:37 PM

Lest we forget:

Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon me, and he told me to say: "This is what the LORD says: That is what you are saying, O house of Israel, but I know what is going through your mind.

geebob

February 24th 2003, 07:03 PM

That's consistent with the open view. God knows what goes through our minds. He knows everthing. That does not mean that he knows everything that will go through our minds because there may be no such truth to be known.

yxboom

February 24th 2003, 07:13 PM

Freak don't tell me after all this time you still think the Open View denies God's exhaustive present knowledge of His creation :bonk:

geebob

February 24th 2003, 07:16 PM

2nd post, scroll up.

Freak, I want you to consider some practical issues. You're an evangelist. Now I assume that you are not a calvinist meaning that you believe that everyone who hears the gospel from you really truly may respond to it.

Now if that is true, that means there is a real possibility that the person will accept the gospel and there is a real possibility that they won't. In other words, you may truly meat this person later in heaven and you may truly miss seeing them as they will not be there. If this is true, then your hope for them is based on reality and truth.

If it is a foregone conclusion as to whetherr they will accept the gospel, meaning amongst other things that it is something that an omniscient God would know (and if it wasn't the case, then an omniscient God wouldn't know it), then your hope is based on ignorance.

Freak

February 24th 2003, 07:27 PM

02-24-2003 @ 11:03 PM
geebob:

That's consistent with the open view. God knows what goes through our minds. He knows everthing. That does not mean that he knows everything that will go through our minds because there may be no such truth to be known.

You said: That does not mean that he knows everything that will go through our minds because there may be no such truth to be known.

That is an assumption based on what, your hunch?

yxboom

February 24th 2003, 07:32 PM

Actually Freak your position is equally based if not further a stretch on assumption that for God to know our present thoughts He had to have exhaustively foreknown all our thoughts.

joelkaki

February 24th 2003, 07:36 PM

He knows everthing. That does not mean that he knows everything that will go through our minds

Do you not see the logical incosistency of this? "He knows everything." "That does not mean that he knows everything..." You contradict yourself with two sentences.
God knows everything past, present, and future.

Joel

yxboom

February 24th 2003, 07:40 PM

There is no contradiction. That is no different than saying

Bill Gates is the richest man. That doesn't mean he is the richest man that will ever live.

You are forcing an inconsistency where none exists.

Freak

February 24th 2003, 07:49 PM

geebob--

God's Word tells us:

"Great is our Lord and mighty in power; His understanding has no limit."

His understanding of future events is not limited as you propose. For Scripture tells us there is no limits to His understanding. Yet, you desire to limit some of His understanding.

yxboom

February 24th 2003, 07:51 PM

Freak can God understand a four-cornered triangle?

Freak

February 24th 2003, 07:57 PM

02-24-2003 @ 11:51 PM
yxboom:

Freak can God understand a four-cornered triangle?

"His thoughts are not our thoughts, our ways are not His ways."

"I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say: My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.
From the east I summon a bird of prey;
from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose.
What I have said, that will I bring about;
what I have planned, that will I do."

He knows all-from beginning to what is to come....

yxboom

February 24th 2003, 07:58 PM

Is that a Yes or No? :huh:

yxboom

February 24th 2003, 08:02 PM

BTW are you a Calvinist now? Because that passage Isaiah is talking about God declaring those things that He will bring to pass not that He just stumbled onto the knowledge of what is going to happen........from your quote:

I say: My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.
From the east I summon a bird of prey;
from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose.
What I have said, that will I bring about;
what I have planned, that will I do."

Freak

February 24th 2003, 08:04 PM

02-25-2003 @ 12:02 AM
yxboom:

BTW are you a Calvinist now? Because that passage Isaiah is talking about God declaring those things that He will bring to pass not that He just stumbled onto the knowledge of what is going to happen........from your quote:

I'm not a Calvinist. I am simply a follower of Jesus Christ who believes God knows all in light of the Scriptural evidence I have provided.

yxboom

February 24th 2003, 08:06 PM

So by that passage you posted are you proposing that God is declaring what He WILL DO or that He just knows it is going to happen via an exhaustive foreknowlege?

Freak

February 24th 2003, 08:08 PM

I believe, in light of the numerous passages I have listed, that God knows all, past, present, future.

yxboom

February 24th 2003, 08:29 PM

In light of that passage you have posted did God declare what HE WOULD bring about or that He just knew it was going to happen? I know you aren't dumb enough to not know where you have painted yourself into now.

Freak

February 24th 2003, 08:33 PM

02-25-2003 @ 12:29 AM
yxboom:

In light of that passage you have posted did God declare what HE WOULD bring about or that He just knew it was going to happen? I know you aren't dumb enough to not know where you have painted yourself into now.

As, I have stated earlier, God will carry out what He has purposed. He knows all-past, present, future, and even the realm outside of time and space.

yxboom

February 24th 2003, 08:46 PM

Than maybe you would care to explain how God knowing and then declaring what HE HIMSELF will do in your own words "will carry out what He has purposed" prove that He knows all future events. I can declare to you that I am going to eat dinner in a few minutes here so does that make me a prophet because in a few minutes I in fact eat dinner.

If God causes something to take place and declares that it will take place does that mean He knows all the future? The only plausible way for you to reconcile the points and passages you have brought up is that God knows ALL the future because He makes ALL the future or else there are some things God just doesn't know and you have become incoherent or atleast inconsistent.

Freak

February 24th 2003, 08:52 PM

01-28-2003 @ 06:28 PM
Freak:

Omniscience is an attribute of God that must be embraced by all orthodox Christians. It is an attribute that is spoken about throughout Holy Scripture.

God's Word tells us:

Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon me, and he told me to say: "This is what the LORD says: That is what you are saying, O house of Israel, but I know what is going through your mind.

Great is our Lord and mighty in power; His understanding has no limit."

Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account

Omniscience simply means "all knowledge"-Holy Scripture points to the truth that God knows all things for He has all knowledge contrary to the heretical open view theory.

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
"Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?"
"Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay him?"
For from him and through him and to him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.

The above is what I believe about God and His omniscience. He knows all. The mechanics of His nature I do not know. But, what I do know is clear-He knows the past, present, and future.

geebob

February 24th 2003, 11:44 PM

That is an assumption based on what, your hunch?

no, it is the necessity of the situation that the bible presents. The Bible presents a picture where we have libertarian free will.

Again, I ask you whether each man you present the gospel can respond positively. If you say that it is true and yet it is possible for him to be damned, then there is no truth as to which will occur untill it happens.

You see, If it has always been true that the person you will present the gospel to will choose to reject it, then it is not logically possible for him to accept it, because if he did, that would mean that it wasn't true that he would reject it. vice versa is also the case.

Freak, can God know at this very moment that you are dressed in a pink dress (as of the posting of this post)? Probably not because I suspect that your not the type of person who would do such a thing (maybe I'm wrong).

Well why can't he know that? BECAUSE IT IS FALSE! It has no bearing on reality.

So why do you insist that God must know something that isn't true? Why must God know that the persons you will witness to will certainly accept the the Gospel or that the person will certainly not accept the gospel? Why can't God know instead that the person may or may not accept the Gospel. If that is true that that is what an omniscient God knows is it not? Why insist God knows falsehoods unless you really believe that there are two classes of people who's classification was established long before they were born? If you don't believe that everyone already has a guaranteed eternal destiny from birth, then why must God think that they do?

Freak

February 25th 2003, 12:07 AM

geebob you said:

The Bible presents a picture where we have libertarian free will.

Do you choose (as an act of your free will) to like pizza (I assume you like pizza) or did you merely discover you liked pizza? Think about it.

You go on: So why do you insist that God must know something that isn't true?

Another assumption. Does God know that 2+2 does not equal 7?

Now, in regards to the salvation of people. God knows the decisions one makes (but we don't). Let's take a glance at Scripture:

Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon me, and he told me to say: "This is what the LORD says: That is what you are saying, O house of Israel, but I know what is going through your mind.

Geebob, when dealing with many issues of God's nature and such we are in the dark. Moses tells us the "Secret things belong to the Lord." Somethings remain a mystery to humanity.

Blake Reas

February 25th 2003, 12:18 AM

01-28-2003 @ 06:28 PM
Freak:

Omniscience is an attribute of God that must be embraced by all orthodox Christians. It is an attribute that is spoken about throughout Holy Scripture.

God's Word tells us:

Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon me, and he told me to say: "This is what the LORD says: That is what you are saying, O house of Israel, but I know what is going through your mind.

Great is our Lord and mighty in power; His understanding has no limit."

Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account

Omniscience simply means "all knowledge"-Holy Scripture points to the truth that God knows all things for He has all knowledge contrary to the heretical open view theory.

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
"Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?"
"Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay him?"
For from him and through him and to him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.

I'm a Calvinist, and I do not think that GeeBob and Boom are Heretics! I think that is taking it a little far, but you are entitled to your opinion. I think they hold all the essentials of the faith.

Boom and Geebob you guys believe in the Apostles Creed and the Nicean Creed right?

In,
Christ

yxboom

February 25th 2003, 01:25 AM

I will suffice it to say I along with DDW agreed upon these minimal beliefs to serve on this board which we both affirm.

You can find it at the TWeb SoF (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=8770#post8770) if there are somethings in particular you would like clarification on feel free to ask.

TheFiveSolas

February 25th 2003, 01:56 AM

yxboom and geebob,
Have either of you read Professor John Frame's book, "No Other God: A Response to Open Theism"? It is, in my humble opinion (is it the rule that I should have used IMHO instead? :smile: ), the best critique of the Open View, and also the most fair of any that I've read.

I just wish I had the extra time to address you both in this forum and also the one that is specifically addressed to the Open View of God.

yxboom

February 25th 2003, 02:09 AM

No but I have read many critiques of the Open View. I will be sure to check that one out seriously.

Blake Reas

February 25th 2003, 08:35 AM

02-25-2003 @ 05:25 AM
yxboom:

I will suffice it to say I along with DDW agreed upon these minimal beliefs to serve on this board which we both affirm.

You can find it at the TWeb SoF (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=8770#post8770) if there are somethings in particular you would like clarification on feel free to ask.

I know I had to agree to it too! I was just trying to make the point that you hold to the Historic Creeds of the Christian Faith. I guess I could have said that we all had to agree to the basics but I forgot! :argh: !

In Christ,
Blake

Freak

February 25th 2003, 10:19 AM

02-25-2003 @ 04:18 AM
Blake Reas:

I'm a Calvinist, and I do not think that GeeBob and Boom are Heretics! I think that is taking it a little far, but you are entitled to your opinion. I think they hold all the essentials of the faith.

Boom and Geebob you guys believe in the Apostles Creed and the Nicean Creed right?

In,
Christ

Blake, I believe, you were unfair in implying that I think geebob or Yx are heretics. I do not believe that at all. I know geebob and yx for some time and found that they both embrace essential Christian doctrine.

I do though have a problem with the OV and the implications thereof. No wonder the Evangelical Theological Society has denounced it (OV) as being less then orthodox.

geebob

February 25th 2003, 11:28 AM

Do you choose (as an act of your free will) to like pizza (I assume you like pizza) or did you merely discover you liked pizza? Think about it.

I have no preoblem with the notion that some of our choices are compatible with foreknowledge and some determinism. This just doesn't describe our whole situation.

I've started a thread on libertarian free will in this forum. It discusses the biblical evidence.

You go on: So why do you insist that God must know something that isn't true?

Another assumption. Does God know that 2+2 does not equal 7?

Does God know that it is certain that one will go to hell though it is possible that they will recieve salvation? well, that is the same thing as 2+2=7. If there is a 0% percent chance that one will accept the Gospel, then you cannot maintain that it is possible for them to be saved.

Why not just so God knows reality exhaustively as it is and say that reality consists of a future that is open to possibilities?

If it is possible that one could recieve salvation, then it is not true that they will go to hell. Only after they reject God's grace to the end is it so.

Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon me, and he told me to say: "This is what the LORD says: That is what you are saying, O house of Israel, but I know what is going through your mind.

what does present tense knowledge have to do with anyting? That is what that verse indicates.

Geebob, when dealing with many issues of God's nature and such we are in the dark. Moses tells us the "Secret things belong to the Lord." Somethings remain a mystery to humanity.

And yet you are claiming a position. But the fact is, this has nothing to do with God's knowledge. It has to do with reality. I say that reality consists of an open future. If that is true and God doesn't know that, then he is not omniscient.

Blake, I believe, you were unfair in implying that I think geebob or Yx are heretics. I do not believe that at all. I know geebob and yx for some time and found that they both embrace essential Christian doctrine.

I appreciate that very much.