Open Theism--A Learning God

[joelkaki]

I know that I have brought this up in different threads regarding Open Theism, and I believe someone addressed my comments about this on one of those threads, but I figure it should really have its own thread here, since I can't remember which thread that was, not to mention there is tons more that needs to be said about it.

Open Theism says that, with regards to the "freewill" (in quotes because I do not believe that we have free will in the sense that OVers believe we do--LFW), God cannot know for certain what will happen. He knows every possibility, yes, but does not know for certain what will happen. I have a very serious objection to that. Consider for a moment:

1) If something is not known for certain before the fact, but is know for certain ex post facto, then something is learned, namely, the certainty of that event.
2) The mere knowledge of possibilities does not change this fact in any way, for if, for example, someone knows that I will decide either to eat a PBandJ sandwich or a ham sandwich, and then I choose the PBandJ, then they learned that I chose the PBandJ.

Since, in OV, God only knows possibilities with regard to his LF creatures, and not certainties, then He did not know for certain that I would choose the PBandJ, and thus He learned something. So in OV theology, we have a God that continually, day-in and day-out, is learning new facts. That strikes off some pretty loud warning bells in my mind. God learning something? That is putting God in man's image.
Now, I'm going to do a concordance study on this, but I seem to remember somewhere that God does not learn, but I will check that out. If that could be found, it SHOULD end the debate right there. But now on to something further.
Seeing that God learns something even time a LFW choice is made (in the OV view), consider this:

After the Fall, God knew at least a few more facts than he had previously known (not an all inclusive list, just the first few that come to mind):

1) He afterwards learned that Adam and Eve would and did disobey Him.
2) He afterwards learned that Adam and Eve would and did hide from Him.
3) He afterwards learned that Adam and Eve would and did make clothes out of fig leaves.

So, God now has learned three more things than he did at first.

Oh, and before the Fall, if you want to think about this, God also learned what names Adam would give to the animals, but I won't list those.

Now, moving on after the Fall, let's consider this:

4) Afterwards God learned that Cain would and did kill Abel. (I'll be skipping many facts).
5) Afterwards God learned that Abram would and did lie about Sarai being his wife.
6) Afterwards God learned that Lot would and did choose the region of Sodom and Gomorrah to live in.
7) Afterwards God learned that Jacob would and did deceive his father and cheat his brother...

...and the list goes on and on. I think you get the picture. At this present moment, God knows thousands more things than he did at creation. In other words, His knowledge has increased by thousands of facts, or rather millions and billions. ONE WOULD THINK THAT AN OMNISCIENT BEING WOULD NOT KNOW MILLIONS MORE THINGS THAN HE DID AT ONE TIME.

That is very saddening to me personally, that someone would believe that God knows millions more things now than he did at at one time.

The God of the Bible does not learn. He already knows. Any attempt to make him a being that learns as Open Theism does is putting God in the image of man. And I will never support such a recreation.

Joel

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 04:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81580#post81580)
joelkaki:

I know that I have brought this up in different threads regarding Open Theism, and I believe someone addressed my comments about this on one of those threads, but I figure it should really have its own thread here, since I can't remember which thread that was, not to mention there is tons more that needs to be said about it.

Open Theism says that, with regards to the "freewill" (in quotes because I do not believe that we have free will in the sense that OVers believe we do--LFW), God cannot know for certain what will happen. He knows every possibility, yes, but does not know for certain what will happen. I have a very serious objection to that. Consider for a moment:

1) If something is not known for certain before the fact, but is know for certain ex post facto, then something is learned, namely, the certainty of that event.
2) The mere knowledge of possibilities does not change this fact in any way, for if, for example, someone knows that I will decide either to eat a PBandJ sandwich or a ham sandwich, and then I choose the PBandJ, then they learned that I chose the PBandJ.

Since, in OV, God only knows possibilities with regard to his LF creatures, and not certainties, then He did not know for certain that I would choose the PBandJ, and thus He learned something. So in OV theology, we have a God that continually, day-in and day-out, is learning new facts. That strikes off some pretty loud warning bells in my mind. God learning something? That is putting God in man's image.
Now, I'm going to do a concordance study on this, but I seem to remember somewhere that God does not learn, but I will check that out. If that could be found, it SHOULD end the debate right there. But now on to something further.
Seeing that God learns something even time a LFW choice is made (in the OV view), consider this:

After the Fall, God knew at least a few more facts than he had previously known (not an all inclusive list, just the first few that come to mind):

1) He afterwards learned that Adam and Eve would and did disobey Him.
2) He afterwards learned that Adam and Eve would and did hide from Him.
3) He afterwards learned that Adam and Eve would and did make clothes out of fig leaves.

So, God now has learned three more things than he did at first.

Oh, and before the Fall, if you want to think about this, God also learned what names Adam would give to the animals, but I won't list those.

Now, moving on after the Fall, let's consider this:

4) Afterwards God learned that Cain would and did kill Abel. (I'll be skipping many facts).
5) Afterwards God learned that Abram would and did lie about Sarai being his wife.
6) Afterwards God learned that Lot would and did choose the region of Sodom and Gomorrah to live in.
7) Afterwards God learned that Jacob would and did deceive his father and cheat his brother...

...and the list goes on and on. I think you get the picture. At this present moment, God knows thousands more things than he did at creation. In other words, His knowledge has increased by thousands of facts, or rather millions and billions. ONE WOULD THINK THAT AN OMNISCIENT BEING WOULD NOT KNOW MILLIONS MORE THINGS THAN HE DID AT ONE TIME.

That is very saddening to me personally, that someone would believe that God knows millions more things now than he did at at one time.

The God of the Bible does not learn. He already knows. Any attempt to make him a being that learns as Open Theism does is putting God in the image of man. And I will never support such a recreation.

Joel

As Pereynol said when I discussed Theological Deconstructionism (which is what OV is)and then reconstruction. Protestantism is collapsing underneath its own weight by the constant nit picking and rationalism which started with the reformed scholastics. Open Theism and Process thought are rationalistic evangelicisms ugly step children. I think OV is going along with the times definitely influenced by reconstructionism, it is everywhere you look theology, archaeology, Biblical Studies, History, etc. Just my 2 cents.

Blake

[geebob]

1) If something is not known for certain before the fact, but is know for certain ex post facto, then something is learned, namely, the certainty of that event.

I wouldn't consider it after the fact but simultaneously with the fact.

But I will concede that God learns. Does he learn something new about human nature or how the world works, and so on? not at all. Does he learn something that he was ignorant of previously? I don't see how you can be ignorant of something that wasn't true.

So I don't see the problem with this. God's knowledge is infinite and how his learning is a mere recognition of how reality is. His learning is just a part of knowing his world exhaustively without flaw.


Protestantism is collapsing underneath its own weight by the constant nit picking and rationalism which started with the reformed scholastics.

here here. Semper reformanda to that. Even in challenging the tradition, Open viewers are faithful to their goal of remaining faithful to the tradition.

Has God nothing more to teach us? Is the theology that the church has spawned completely formed and without flaw? Are we finished searching the depths of the essential truths that form the core of our faith? Absolutely not! We should strive to stand on the shoulders of the church fathers before us and not be held back by their limitations failing to recognize where they strengthen us and where we must strengthen what has been given to us, and some times that means recognizing weaknesses in some of the things that they have said. Theology is not meant to be frozen. It is a continual dialogue between God, man, and the tradition.

[Gavin]

geebob,


But I will concede that God learns.

That is what I find troubling about OV.

[geebob]

That is what I find troubling about OV.

Is this an intuition or do you know why it should be troubling?

[Gavin]

geebob,


Is this an intuition or do you know why it should be troubling?

Well I have to be honest and say that part of it is intuition.

But I also believe that the idea of a learning God is contrary to the Scriptures, so it is not completely intuition.

Gavin

[geebob]

Well I have to be honest and say that part of it is intuition.

Which is quite alright, rational persons believe things on the basis of intuition, though it's not very good for discussion or for convincing and hopefully it should give way to visable and clear reasoning though not necessarily any time in the present.


But I also believe that the idea of a learning God is contrary to the Scriptures, so it is not completely intuition.

Well that of course is a controversial claim. Just about any sense of notion of God learning that you could find that is denied in scripture, I could insist is about the two senses that I denied and maybe then some that I didn't address, and I of course could unload several passages that shows God learning in the very limited sense in which I believe can be ascribed to God.

"Now I know that you fear the Lord."

[joelkaki]

I wouldn't consider it after the fact but simultaneously with the fact.

OK, well that's pretty much the same; not really a problem.



But I will concede that God learns.

That is very saddening to me personally. You have a God that now knows millions more things than he did 6000 years ago.



Does he learn something new about human nature or how the world works, and so on? not at all. Does he learn something that he was ignorant of previously? I don't see how you can be ignorant of something that wasn't true.

I'm sorry, but "omniscience" kind of excludes adding anything more to that knowledge.

Knowing everything + knowing something new is a contradictory statement. If you know every single thing, then you cannot know more than that at another time.



So I don't see the problem with this. God's knowledge is infinite and how his learning is a mere recognition of how reality is. His learning is just a part of knowing his world exhaustively without flaw.


So you would agree that His knowledge is infinite? That causes some problems for your view:

Infinity + 1 = Infinity.

You can't add anything to infinity and get a greater number technically. So you cannot say that God's knowledge is infinite, and that He adds something to that knowledge every single second of earth's existence. That is just not possible. Infinity means there isn't any more than that, so you cannot logically say that God can add anything to his infinite knowledge, thus God cannot learn anything.

Joel

[yxboom]

Today @ 02:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82349#post82349)
joelkaki:

That is very saddening to me personally. You have a God that now knows millions more facts knowable than there were 6000 years ago.
Reality will tell you there are a million more things than there were 6000 years ago.


I'm sorry, but "omniscience" kind of excludes adding anything more to that knowledge.

Knowing everything + knowing something new is a contradictory statement. If you know every single thing, then you cannot know more than that at another time.

You still don't seem to comprehend reality. If I eat a turkey sandwich in 20 minutes it isnt FACT until I do it. God knows EVERYTHING but my eating a sandwich in 20 minutes isn't included in everything because it isn't FACT yet. Omniscience is knowing all things that are FACTUAL, eating a sandwich in 20 mins isn't factual until it occurs.


So you would agree that His knowledge is infinite? That causes some problems for your view:

Infinity + 1 = Infinity.

You can't add anything to infinity and get a greater number technically. So you cannot say that God's knowledge is infinite, and that He adds something to that knowledge every single second of earth's existence. That is just not possible. Infinity means there isn't any more than that, so you cannot logically say that God can add anything to his infinite knowledge, thus God cannot learn anything.

Joel

Blap!

[geebob]

Blap!

Good word yx.

[doogieduff]

Hey Joel! Your calvinistic God can't learn! You're limiting God! :teeth:

[Blake Reas]

Joel,

Yx is right, in their view God is still omniscient. He knows everything there is to know. You probably like me assume God is outside of time which would make a the whole issue of foreknowledge even more weird. They do not assume this they assume that he is in time. If God is in time and he is not in control of every event then he cannot know the future because it does not exist yet. In our view God sees reality all at once. If we are going to debate them we need to do it fairly.

By His Grace For HIs Glory
Blake:teeth:

[Blake Reas]

Yesterday @ 08:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82204#post82204)
geebob:



I wouldn't consider it after the fact but simultaneously with the fact.

But I will concede that God learns. Does he learn something new about human nature or how the world works, and so on? not at all. Does he learn something that he was ignorant of previously? I don't see how you can be ignorant of something that wasn't true.

So I don't see the problem with this. God's knowledge is infinite and how his learning is a mere recognition of how reality is. His learning is just a part of knowing his world exhaustively without flaw.



here here. Semper reformanda to that. Even in challenging the tradition, Open viewers are faithful to their goal of remaining faithful to the tradition.

Has God nothing more to teach us? Is the theology that the church has spawned completely formed and without flaw? Are we finished searching the depths of the essential truths that form the core of our faith? Absolutely not! We should strive to stand on the shoulders of the church fathers before us and not be held back by their limitations failing to recognize where they strengthen us and where we must strengthen what has been given to us, and some times that means recognizing weaknesses in some of the things that they have said. Theology is not meant to be frozen. It is a continual dialogue between God, man, and the tradition.

I never said you where wrong (though I think you are) I just was pointing out the simple fact of where this idea came from. Along with the postmodern touchy feely enviroment it fits perfect with the culture which does not make a view wrong it just makes a position that would have been rejected 50 years ago very appealing today. So don't jump to any conclusions.

Blake
:cheers:

[yxboom]

Today @ 05:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82515#post82515)
Blake Reas:

Joel,

Yx is right, in their view God is still omniscient. He knows everything there is to know. You probably like me assume God is outside of time which would make a the whole issue of foreknowledge even more weird. They do not assume this they assume that he is in time. If God is in time and he is not in control of every event then he cannot know the future because it does not exist yet. In our view God sees reality all at once. If we are going to debate them we need to do it fairly.

By His Grace For HIs Glory
Blake:teeth:


Well said Blake! :bunny:

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 01:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82537#post82537)
yxboom:




Well said Blake! :bunny:

What do you think of my Avatar?
:brow:

Blake

[yxboom]

No kitty! This my pot pie!!!

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 01:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82552#post82552)
yxboom:

No kitty! This my pot pie!!!


Kyle shut up!

[Woman]

Blake,

I LOVE your avatar. And I also agree that God is outside of "time."

Time, after all, is a concept we have to keep everything from happening at once. :smile:

Maybe though, everything is, or has happened "at once." There is so little we are capable of understanding.

[Gavin]

wow the tick and southpark all in on one forum . . . this is too much to hope for.

[Gavin]

For potential problems with God being in time: click on me (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2930)

[doogieduff]

I see two things being constantly said in this thread that I just can't seem to find in the Bible.

1. "The God of the Bible can't learn."
- Where is this in the Bible? Keep this passage in mind:
Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature... :wink:

2. "The God of the Bible is outside of time."
- Where is this in the Bible?

[geebob]

So don't jump to any conclusions.

okay. it was still a good opportunity for me to toot my horn.


Time, after all, is a concept we have to keep everything from happening at once.

for potential problems for the view of God as outside of time, click Gavin's link and keep reading. :brow:

your notion of time though presupposes a B theory of time which says past present and future all exist. some of us do not find such a notion plausible favoring the view that the present is ontologically special (meaning the most real or exclusively real-becuase past and future do not exist or because their existence does not have the status of the present).

[Salus]

Yesterday @ 06:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82400#post82400)
yxboom:
You still don't seem to comprehend reality. If I eat a turkey sandwich in 20 minutes it isnt FACT until I do it. God knows EVERYTHING but my eating a sandwich in 20 minutes isn't included in everything because it isn't FACT yet. Omniscience is knowing all things that are FACTUAL, eating a sandwich in 20 mins isn't factual until it occurs.

First of all, yxboom, I challenge you to show me and show us where you are getting your definition of omniscience. Where does it say that omniscience ONLY means knowing things that are FACTUAL? Every dictionary and every source I have looked up misses that part. Are all these dictionaries wrong?


Main Entry: om·ni·scient
Pronunciation: -sh&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin omniscient-, omnisciens, back-formation from Medieval Latin omniscientia
Date: 1604
1: having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight
2: possessed of universal or complete knowledge
- om·ni·scient·ly adverb
Source: Merriam-Webster OnLine (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=omniscient)

omniscient [?m'n?s??nt]
adjective
1: having infinite knowledge or understanding
2: having very great or seemingly unlimited knowledge
[ETYMOLOGY: 17th Century: from Medieval Latin omnisciens, from Latin omni- + scire to know]
om'niscience noun
om'nisciently adverb(ial)
Source: The Collins English Dictionary © 2000 HarperCollins Publishers

An infallible knowledge transcending the subject-object structure of finite human existence, in which God knows all things, past, present, and future.
Source: PBS.org (http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theogloss/omnis-body.html)

omniscience (noun) -
1. the state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge
Source: AnsMe.com Dictionary (http://define.ansme.com/words/o/omniscience.html)


As you can see, no where does it say that omniscience means ONLY factual knowledge. In fact, I see only references to infinite knowledge. You ate a turkey sandwich in 20 minutes and it wasn't factual to YOU until it occurred BUT God knew you were going to eat that turkey sandwich AND he knew you were going to eat it in 20 minutes.

[Salus]

Here is a little graphical exercise. Close your eyes and imagine the following:


There is a bubble.

The bubble is clear.

The bubble is floating through space and time.

You are trapped in that bubble.

No part of the bubble is off-limits and you can move around "freely" in that bubble.

You have "free will" within BUT only within that bubble each and every place that bubble floats to in space and time.

The bubble floats to location A and you have "free will" in that bubble at that location at that instant in time.

The bubble moves to location Q and you have "free will" in that bubble at that location at that instant in time.

God KNOWS the pattern and path that the bubble will float in both space and time.

God watches the bubble.

God KNOWS what your "free will" will be inside that bubble at each location at each instant in time.

God watches your "free will" (remember the bubble is clear).

God KNOWS when and how you will die.

The bubble bursts.

[Gavin]

Here is a little graphical exercise. Close your eyes and imagine the following:


There is a bubble.

The bubble is clear.

The bubble is floating through space and time.

You are trapped in that bubble.

No part of the bubble is off-limits and you can move around "freely" in that bubble.

You have "free will" within BUT only within that bubble each and every place that bubble floats to in space and time.

The bubble floats to location A and you have "free will" in that bubble at that location at that instant in time.

The bubble moves to location Q and you have "free will" in that bubble at that location at that instant in time.

God KNOWS the pattern and path that the bubble will float in both space and time.

God watches the bubble.

God KNOWS what your "free will" will be inside that bubble at each location at each instant in time.

God watches your "free will" (remember the bubble is clear).

God KNOWS when and how you will die.

The bubble bursts.

:huh:

[Salus]

Today @ 04:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83411#post83411)
Salus:
God KNOWS the pattern and path that the bubble will float in both space and time.

The bubble is clear.

God watches your "free will" (remember the bubble is clear).

Now if open theism is true, the path and pattern of the bubble is undetermined and is mathematically random, nothing more. In other words, it is a crap shoot.

Additionally, in my example, in open theism, the bubble is not clear instead it is opaque (no light or vision can pass through) and God cannot see what his own creation is doing in that bubble.

So add this together and what do we have...a bubble closed to God's knowledge just randomly bouncing here and there and over there and close by here, just randomly bouncing around in space and time.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 02:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83397#post83397)
Salus:



First of all, yxboom, I challenge you to show me and show us where you are getting your definition of omniscience. Where does it say that omniscience ONLY means knowing things that are FACTUAL? Every dictionary and every source I have looked up misses that part. Are all these dictionaries wrong?


Main Entry: om·ni·scient
Pronunciation: -sh&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin omniscient-, omnisciens, back-formation from Medieval Latin omniscientia
Date: 1604
1: having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight
2: possessed of universal or complete knowledge
- om·ni·scient·ly adverb
Source: Merriam-Webster OnLine (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=omniscient)

omniscient [?m'n?s??nt]
adjective
1: having infinite knowledge or understanding
2: having very great or seemingly unlimited knowledge
[ETYMOLOGY: 17th Century: from Medieval Latin omnisciens, from Latin omni- + scire to know]
om'niscience noun
om'nisciently adverb(ial)
Source: The Collins English Dictionary © 2000 HarperCollins Publishers

An infallible knowledge transcending the subject-object structure of finite human existence, in which God knows all things, past, present, and future.
Source: PBS.org (http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theogloss/omnis-body.html)

omniscience (noun) -
1. the state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge
Source: AnsMe.com Dictionary (http://define.ansme.com/words/o/omniscience.html)


As you can see, no where does it say that omniscience means ONLY factual knowledge. In fact, I see only references to infinite knowledge. You ate a turkey sandwich in 20 minutes and it wasn't factual to YOU until it occurred BUT God knew you were going to eat that turkey sandwich AND he knew you were going to eat it in 20 minutes.


Dude, you are wasting your time. Omniscience isn't even a biblical term, so looking at an english definition will be worthless to you and anyone else reading. Now, is God omniscient? Sure, but we need to define our terms as to what the bible states, and I stand next to YXBOOM. Care to answer my questions above?

[doogieduff]

Today @ 02:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83426#post83426)
Salus:



Now if open theism is true, the path and pattern of the bubble is undetermined and is mathematically random, nothing more. In other words, it is a crap shoot.

Additionally, in my example, in open theism, the bubble is not clear instead it is opaque (no light or vision can pass through) and God cannot see what his own creation is doing in that bubble.

So add this together and what do we have...a bubble closed to God's knowledge just randomly bouncing here and there and over there and close by here, just randomly bouncing around in space and time.


This is funny! It was a joke right? This is not open theism at all. Are you saying God can't see us? Ha! Maybe your view, but not the open view. God knows me better than myself, and even knows things I'll do before I decide to do them, so He knows the future, yeah, but not because He sits outside of time and sees time at a glance. That's foolish, and not biblical I might add.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 02:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83411#post83411)
Salus:

Here is a little graphical exercise. Close your eyes and imagine the following:


There is a bubble.

The bubble is clear.

The bubble is floating through space and time.

You are trapped in that bubble.

No part of the bubble is off-limits and you can move around "freely" in that bubble.

You have "free will" within BUT only within that bubble each and every place that bubble floats to in space and time.

The bubble floats to location A and you have "free will" in that bubble at that location at that instant in time.

The bubble moves to location Q and you have "free will" in that bubble at that location at that instant in time.

God KNOWS the pattern and path that the bubble will float in both space and time.

God watches the bubble.

God KNOWS what your "free will" will be inside that bubble at each location at each instant in time.

God watches your "free will" (remember the bubble is clear).

God KNOWS when and how you will die.

The bubble bursts.

:huh:
I can't close my eyes AND read this at the same time. On yeah, there's no bubbles anyways, sorry to burst YOUR bubble!

[Salus]

Today @ 05:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83453#post83453)
doogieduff:

This is funny! It was a joke right? This is not open theism at all. Are you saying God can't see us? Ha! Maybe your view, but not the open view. God knows me better than myself, and even knows things I'll do before I decide to do them, so He knows the future, yeah, but not because He sits outside of time and sees time at a glance. That's foolish, and not biblical I might add.

"...God cannot see what his own creation is doing in that bubble" was a figure of speech meant to show how foolish open theism really is. Your response which I have quoted contradicts your position on open theism. God knows all before it happens, you even admit that. He sees all and knows all from that which was before the world and that which has yet to happen. The path is already determined and what we think is free will has also been already determined by Him alone.

[Salus]

Today @ 05:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83454#post83454)
doogieduff:



:huh:
I can't close my eyes AND read this at the same time. On yeah, there's no bubbles anyways, sorry to burst YOUR bubble!

Don't be so childish next time. :rant:

[Warcraft3]

Okay I guess I am more of an open view theist than a closed view theist. Here is my take.....

1. God does indeed exist outside of time since he is not limited by the dimensions of the known universe.

2. God is only limited by whatever limitations He places on Himself. An example of God limiting himself is seen in the person of Christ.

3. God loves mankind so much he gave us free will. Not just in principle, but in practice as well. I will give an example of what I mean by "not just in principle, but in practice..."

****Example: I sometimes use this one when discussing the problem of evil... I tell you that I do not want you to stand up. Every time you try to stand up I physically force you to sit down. Do you have free will to stand up? In principle yes you do, but in practice no matter what you do I have already determined the outcome of you not standing up. Thus while in principle you could stand up, in practice you can not.****

4. By giving man free will God chose to limit Himself in what knowledge He has. So God could know everything, but because of His love for us He limits himself so that we have free will.

5. God also gives us the gift of prayer. In fact, this is such a great gift that God allows Himself to change His mind as a result of prayer. This is a privilage no other creature has. Only man has the oppurtunity of interacting with God in this way.

I can think of no greater gift God could give to us than to be willing to limit Himself for us. So instead of these things reflecting negatively on Gods attributes, I believe they show us how much He loves us.

So thats my two cents....


Russ

:bunny:

[Blake Reas]

1. "The God of the Bible can't learn."
- Where is this in the Bible? Keep this passage in mind:
Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature...

Tell me you are not using this as a proof text! I hope you where joking, even a Calvinist would say he learned. He was both man and God so he had all the characteristics of a man and also of God. Do you deny this? You where being sarcastic I hope!

Bad Bad Bad proof texting!

Blake

[geebob]

1: having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight
2: possessed of universal or complete knowledge

So what? Open theists believe that God has infinite awareness and universal and complete knowledge.

furthermore, the term "fact" as used by yx and myself is in the normal sense of the term, where to deny that something is a fact is to deny that it is true. The notion that God "knows" something that isn't a fact is contradictory because to know something means not only that it is believed, but also that it is true. If it isn't true, then it doesn't describe reality. (barring soft facts from the discussion).

As for your bubble analogy, it really fails as criticism of the open view because there is an assumption about reality in your analogy that flat out denied in the open view.

"...God cannot see what his own creation is doing in that bubble"

In the open view, what God can see everything that creation is doing and what you claim that creation is doing is denied by the open view. The future does not exist as settled to be known. Your analogy assumes that it does exist to be known.


Now if open theism is true, the path and pattern of the bubble is undetermined

anyone who holds to libertarian free will, classical arminian or open theist holds that the path of the free is undetermined.


and is mathematically random, nothing more.

mathematically, our choices can still adhere to statistical models.

random is a poor choice of words though. It fails to depict that there is consciousness and reasoning going on. Arbitrary is okay as a description when strong reasoning is not present, but fails the description when there is strong reasoning. And of course strong reasoning does not necessarily rule out indeterminism.

[Theolog]

If God knows the future then it should be able to be demonstrated from the scriptures. Which I believe it is.

Another factor that is being ignored is the apparent fact that the Bible teaches that there is a supernatural world of some sort that exists parallel with this cosmos. If you do not factor this supernatural world into Gods nature the things just won’t add up.

Changing the definitions of words to make a theology float makes communication impossible.

Cognizing events with out time is also impossible.

[doogieduff]

Yesterday @ 06:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82947#post82947)
doogieduff:

I see two things being constantly said in this thread that I just can't seem to find in the Bible.

1. "The God of the Bible can't learn."
- Where is this in the Bible? Keep this passage in mind:
Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature... :wink:

2. "The God of the Bible is outside of time."
- Where is this in the Bible?

Would someone please answer my questions?!

[doogieduff]

Yesterday @ 04:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83479#post83479)
Salus:



"...God cannot see what his own creation is doing in that bubble" was a figure of speech meant to show how foolish open theism really is. Your response which I have quoted contradicts your position on open theism. God knows all before it happens, you even admit that. He sees all and knows all from that which was before the world and that which has yet to happen. The path is already determined and what we think is free will has also been already determined by Him alone.

Do you know the Open View at all? It is very biblical, and that's what so hard for most people. Open theism strongly holds to the fact that God KNOWS the future! It's just HOW that we will disagree on. God doesn't know the future exhaustively from before the foundation of the world. If that's the case, you will struggle tremendously with the "repent" verses and the many things God said would come to pass and didn't.

[doogieduff]

Yesterday @ 05:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83547#post83547)
Blake Reas:



Tell me you are not using this as a proof text! I hope you where joking, even a Calvinist would say he learned. He was both man and God so he had all the characteristics of a man and also of God. Do you deny this? You where being sarcastic I hope!

Bad Bad Bad proof texting!

Blake

Blake, you should know me well enough to know I was being sarcastic about the verse. Although, you say He had all the characteristics of God, and I fully disagree. Show me in the Bible when He was a man, that He was omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent. You won't find any of the three.

[doogieduff]

Yesterday @ 07:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83605#post83605)
Theolog:

If God knows the future then it should be able to be demonstrated from the scriptures. Which I believe it is.

Another factor that is being ignored is the apparent fact that the Bible teaches that there is a supernatural world of some sort that exists parallel with this cosmos. If you do not factor this supernatural world into Gods nature the things just won’t add up.

Changing the definitions of words to make a theology float makes communication impossible.

Cognizing events with out time is also impossible.

If God knows the future exhaustively from before the foundation of the world, then the Scripture wouldn't have unfulfilled prophecies, God wouldn't repent or ever change His mind, and things God said that would come to pass, always would, but wait, we don't see this! THE OPEN VIEW HOLDS TO THE FACT THAT GOD KNOWS THE FUTURE. This is something everybody needs to read and understand before trying to refute the open view. The bible does not show a God who exhaustively knows the future from before the foundation of the world. God knows the future because of His immeasurable understanding in Psalm 147:5, not because He sits outside of time.

[geebob]

If God knows the future then it should be able to be demonstrated from the scriptures. Which I believe it is.

Yes God knows the future....exhaustively. In as much as the future is uncertain, because many possibilities lie ahead, God knows it as such.


Another factor that is being ignored is the apparent fact that the Bible teaches that there is a supernatural world of some sort that exists parallel with this cosmos.

I'm not ignoring it. I insist that the spiritual world is no more deterministic or accurately described by a B theory of time than the materialistic world.


Changing the definitions of words to make a theology float makes communication impossible.

Omniscience= knowing everything there is to know. I see no reason to change this.

There is also a reasonable step to take that has been taken with omnipotence. Just as omnipotence has been defined only as the ability to do everything that is logically possible, omniscience can be defined likewise, but with the definition of omniscience above, coupled with my view of reality, there is no reason to go into why this step would be significant.

[yxboom]

Yesterday @ 01:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83397#post83397)
Salus:

First of all, yxboom, I challenge you to show me and show us where you are getting your definition of omniscience. Where does it say that omniscience ONLY means knowing things that are FACTUAL? Every dictionary and every source I have looked up misses that part. Are all these dictionaries wrong?

I conceed with geebob that I should have been more clear in terminology that what I state as God knowing as FACT is better stated God knowing as TRUE. I get the same definition I got when understanding being infinitely powerful (omnipotent) doesn't mean God can do the logically impossible. God being omnipotent does not require that God has the power create a squared circle or create another God or has the power to cease to exist. If God can NOT do these things and still remain to be omnipotent in every sense of the word so can God know infinitely all things without knowing the logically impossible. God knows all things knowable just as God can do all things doable. Where in those dictionaries say that infinite includes that which is outside it's bounds? If you count from 1 ~ infinity will you ever reach number A or number &?


As you can see, no where does it say that omniscience means ONLY factual knowledge. In fact, I see only references to infinite knowledge. You ate a turkey sandwich in 20 minutes and it wasn't factual to YOU until it occurred BUT God knew you were going to eat that turkey sandwich AND he knew you were going to eat it in 20 minutes.

God knows ONLY those things that are a (matter of) fact or rather ONLY those things true. God may know due to my inclination and my circumstance in 20 min. I will eat a turkey sandwich but not until I eat the turkey sandwich will this fact be true.


Yesterday @ 03:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83479#post83479)
Salus:



"...God cannot see what his own creation is doing in that bubble" was a figure of speech meant to show how foolish open theism really is. Your response which I have quoted contradicts your position on open theism. God knows all before it happens, you even admit that. He sees all and knows all from that which was before the world and that which has yet to happen. The path is already determined and what we think is free will has also been already determined by Him alone.

I AM an open theist in every way shape and form and I can attest that Doogieduff's reply doesn't fall outside of OVT. Is it God being infinitely wise to know Doogie's actions better than himself that is what you find contradictory to his view and Open Theism? If that is the case than you need to re-evaluate what you "know" or at least think you know of OVT.

[Theolog]

Today @ 07:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84088#post84088)
doogieduff:
If God knows the future exhaustively from before the foundation of the world, then the Scripture wouldn't have unfulfilled prophecies, God wouldn't repent or ever change His mind, and things God said that would come to pass, always would, but wait, we don't see this! THE OPEN VIEW HOLDS TO THE FACT THAT GOD KNOWS THE FUTURE.

Could you please demonstrate unfulfilled prophecies from scripture??


Today @ 07:08 AM
doogieduff:
This is something everybody needs to read and understand before trying to refute the open view.

I am not trying to refute OV but rather trying to understand it. I would like to see your proof for such a Theology.


The bible does not show a God who exhaustively knows the future from before the foundation of the world.
God knows the future because of His immeasurable understanding in Psalm 147:5, not because He sits outside of time.

It should be plain to see from my post that I do not believe that God lives outside of time but rather lives in what I call “infinite time” while we live in “finite time”.

[Theolog]

Today @ 07:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84106#post84106)geebob:Yes God knows the future....exhaustively. In as much as the future is uncertain, because many possibilities lie ahead, God knows it as such.

Oh I see you change the normal and accepted meaning of exhaustive also. Exhaustively but limited seems a little like talking out of both sides of the mouth to me. I would like more details on this limited/exhaustive conundrum you have created.


I'm not ignoring it. I insist that the spiritual world is no more deterministic or accurately described by a B theory of time than the materialistic world.

The spiritual world is not physical but metaphysical and to my experience it operates on dynamics that are quite different that this world. It is my belief that God is a spiritual being living in a spiritual world about which there is much that we do not know. To determine Gods nature and base our conclusions solely on this physical world seems a bit limited to me.


Omniscience= knowing everything there is to know. I see no reason to change this. Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
om·nis·cient
adj. Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity;
1. One having total knowledge.
Words are always defined by their use. In the Church “Omniscience” has always meant that God knows the future, really I mean really knows the future exhaustively, not limited.


There is also a reasonable step to take that has been taken with omnipotence. Just as omnipotence has been defined only as the ability to do everything that is logically possible, omniscience can be defined likewise, but with the definition of omniscience above, coupled with my view of reality, there is no reason to go into why this step would be significant.

Well I am glad that you at least admit you are changing definitions even though you say you are not. I admire your consistency

[geebob]

Oh I see you change the normal and accepted meaning of exhaustive also.

Not in the slightest. There is absolutely nothing that God doesn't know.

let's say tomorrow for breakfast, It is truly possible for me to have oatmeal and truly possible for me not to have oatmeal. If you ask, "okay so which is it going to be?" I'd say, I told you as much as is true. If you insist that one's gotta be the answer, I'm going to insist "no, they are both possible, that is the sum total truth about tomorrow." If God is omniscient, then he will know that. If he "know's" specifically which one I will choose before it is determined, then I will insist that what he knows is not reality. What he knows in that case is not truth, thus it really isn't knowledge because that both of them are truly possible negates and is inconsistent with the notion that one of those options is certain. He can't know that both of these are truly possible and which one will really happen any more than he can know contradictions because that would be a contradiction.

The spiritual world is not physical but metaphysical ...

okay.. that really doesn't change anything I've said.


Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

It's an excellent definition. I see no reason to disagree.


Well I am glad that you at least admit you are changing definitions even though you say you are not. I admire your consistency

I'm not. The only reason I'd go into omniscience as defined as "the ability to know only what is logically possible to know" is if I was going to use something called soft facts. I generally don't use soft facts so that definition does not have a lot of use for me.

[yxboom]

Today @ 01:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84426#post84426)
Theolog:



Could you please demonstrate unfulfilled prophecies from scripture??


You could try starting with 2 Kings 20. A book called Jonah and afterwards Ezekiel would be really good places to start.



It should be plain to see from my post that I do not believe that God lives outside of time but rather lives in what I call “infinite time” while we live in “finite time”.

Blap!


Today @ 03:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84502#post84502)
geebob:

Not in the slightest. There is absolutely nothing that God doesn't know.

let's say tomorrow for breakfast, It is truly possible for me to have oatmeal and truly possible for me not to have oatmeal. If you ask, "okay so which is it going to be?" I'd say, I told you as much as is true. If you insist that one's gotta be the answer, I'm going to insist "no, they are both possible, that is the sum total truth about tomorrow." If God is omniscient, then he will know that. If he "know's" specifically which one I will choose before it is determined, then I will insist that what he knows is not reality. What he knows in that case is not truth, thus it really isn't knowledge because that both of them are truly possible negates and is inconsistent with the notion that one of those options is certain. He can't know that both of these are truly possible and which one will really happen any more than he can know contradictions because that would be a contradiction.

Fantastic! :bunny:

[doogieduff]

Today @ 02:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84426#post84426)
Theolog:



Could you please demonstrate unfulfilled prophecies from scripture??





I'd love to, where do I begin, there's so many!?...

The prophecy against Tyre in Ezekiel 26 was far from a fulfilled prophecy, but that is an ongoing debate, so I will skip that and move to the rarely read promise to Nebuchadnezzar from the Lord after he failed to conquer Tyre.

Ezekiel 29:17-21
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,
18 "Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon caused his army to labor strenuously against Tyre; every head was made bald, and every shoulder rubbed raw; yet neither he nor his army received wages from Tyre, for the labor which they expended on it.
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.
20 I have given him the land of Egypt for his labor, because they worked for Me,' says the Lord God.
21 'In that day I will cause the horn of the house of Israel to spring forth, and I will open your mouth to speak in their midst. Then they shall know that I am the Lord.' "

The Lord God said Himself here that He would give the king Egypt for his labor against Tyre and because he recieved nothing from Tyre. Well, this never happened. If God knows the future as you believe, why would He be wrog as to what He Himself was going to do?

The story of Hezekiah is one of my favorites...

Isaiah 38:1-5
1 In those days Hezekiah was sick and near death. And Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, went to him and said to him, "Thus says the Lord: 'Set your house in order, for you shall die and not live.' "
2 Then Hezekiah turned his face toward the wall, and prayed to the Lord,
3 and said, "Remember now, O Lord, I pray, how I have walked before You in truth and with a loyal heart, and have done what is good in Your sight." And Hezekiah wept bitterly.
4 And the word of the Lord came to Isaiah, saying,
5 "Go and tell Hezekiah, 'Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: "I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely I will add to your days fifteen years.

The Lord spoke to Hezekiah through Isaiah, and explicitly stated that his illness was deadly and "you shall die and not live." Well, God repented of what He said, healed Hezekiah, and even added 15 years to his life. What a wonderful God working with us in time! You may not have a problem with this verse, as some do not see where I am going, but the question I ask is this...If God foreknew He would heal Hezekiah and add 15 years to his life, how can He remain honest when stating "you shall die and not live."?

Here's one more for you, sometimes known as the Immanuel prophecy...

Isaiah 7:10-14
10 Moreover the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying,
11 "Ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God; ask it either in the depth or in the height above."
12 But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, nor will I test the Lord!"
13 Then he said, "Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also?
14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

As you can see in vs. 11, God asked Ahaz to ask from the Lord a sign for himself. In verse 14, "the Lord Himself will give you (Ahaz) a sign." Well, the sign of the Son indeed came to pass, but it just so happens, that Ahaz died before the sign, which was supposed to be given to him, came to pass.

I will stop here, I have more if you want them. Here's some more verse to think about, although they're not prophecies per se.

Genesis 22:12
12 And He said, "Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."

Key into the part of the verse wher God says "Now I know."

Jeremiah 18:6b
6b "I am weary of repenting!"

God not only repents, but He's tired of it!

Isaiah 5:4
4 What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?

How can God expect something to happen, and it doesn't? Doesn't He know the future?

[doogieduff]

How's that yxboom?

[Blake Reas]

Yesterday @ 03:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84083#post84083)
doogieduff:



Blake, you should know me well enough to know I was being sarcastic about the verse. Although, you say He had all the characteristics of God, and I fully disagree. Show me in the Bible when He was a man, that He was omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent. You won't find any of the three.

Do you deny that Christ in His incarnation was fully divine and fully human? If you do I would not be afraid to call you a straight heretic.

Blake

[yxboom]

Today @ 04:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84517#post84517)
doogieduff:

How's that yxboom?

:huh: how's what?

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 07:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84554#post84554)
Blake Reas:



Do you deny that Christ in His incarnation was fully divine and fully human? If you do I would not be afraid to call you a straight heretic.

Blake

I think he was saying that Christ took on human limitations while on earth. Thus He could be both man and God and yet not have expressed certain traits which He had both before and after the incarnation.


Russ

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 12:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84568#post84568)
steadele:



I think he was saying that Christ took on human limitations while on earth. Thus He could be both man and God and yet not have expressed certain traits which He had both before and after the incarnation.


Russ

Yeah, I would not dispute that. It seemed to be saying that he did not have any of these attributes. That is what is wrong.

Blake

[Theolog]

Yesterday @ 03:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84502#post84502)geebob:
Not in the slightest. There is absolutely nothing that God doesn't know.

I feel that you are not being entirely honest here. You say, “There is absolutely nothing that God doesn't know”, out of one side of your mouth and then out of the other side say “God can’t know the choices we make because they have not happened yet”.


let's say tomorrow for breakfast, It is truly possible for me to have oatmeal and truly possible for me not to have oatmeal. If you ask, "okay so which is it going to be?" I'd say, I told you as much as is true. If you insist that one's gotta be the answer, I'm going to insist "no, they are both possible, that is the sum total truth about tomorrow." If God is omniscient, then he will know that. If he "know's" specifically which one I will choose before it is determined, then I will insist that what he knows is not reality. What he knows in that case is not truth, thus it really isn't knowledge because that both of them are truly possible negates and is inconsistent with the notion that one of those options is certain. He can't know that both of these are truly possible and which one will really happen any more than he can know contradictions because that would be a contradiction.
No! Here is where you error. If God is omnipresent and omniscient He would know the end result of any option before it happened.


okay.. that really doesn't change anything I've said.
I also do not see how you can say this, as the supernatural world is truly mystical and PP&F may truly exist as one in a sense we are incapable of understanding.


It's an excellent definition. I see no reason to disagree.

I am wondering why you deleted the actual definition from my Quote.
I suppose you agree with Webster’s definition of omnipresent also??
Webster’s Main Entry: om·ni·pres·ent
Pronunciation: -z&nt
Function: adjective
Date: 1609
: present in all places at all times
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc
Omniscience
n : the state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge
Surely you don’t want me to change the definition of omnipresent also?? I feel you should at the very least acknowledge that you are in the business of changing long held definitions to establish your theology.


I'm not. The only reason I'd go into omniscience as defined as "the ability to know only what is logically possible to know" is if I was going to use something called soft facts. I generally don't use soft facts so that definition does not have a lot of use for me.

You most certainly are changing the traditional definitions of all three of these omni’s. If you were not there would be no need for you to present your case.

By changing the way we understand these words you are changing the way we understand God. It’s too bad because you have turned God into someone that is sitting on the side line chewing his fingernails waiting to see if he wasted his time by coming to earth and dying for us.

You have downsized Him from the Master of all things to a mere participant.

[doogieduff]

Theolog, are you going to answer my unfulfilled prophecies? I mean, you did ask...

[Theolog]

Today @ 05:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=85781#post85781)
doogieduff:

Theolog, are you going to answer my unfulfilled prophecies? I mean, you did ask...
Sorry doggieduff I have been pretty busy. Tommorrow maybe.

[geebob]

I feel that you are not being entirely honest here. You say, “There is absolutely nothing that God doesn't know”, out of one side of your mouth and then out of the other side say “God can’t know the choices we make because they have not happened yet”.

God often can't know the choices we will certainly make because that certainty does not represent reality. the certainty does not exist. It is nothing. God cannot know nothing. But he does know something in the place of what will be certain (but is not yet). He knows multiple possibilities. He knows the entire range of possibilities and he knows the probability that each possibility will come to pass.


No! Here is where you error. If God is omnipresent and omniscient He would know the end result of any option before it happened.

omnipresence does not help you unless a B theory of time is true where the future is such that it can be inhabited. I don't believe that the future exists or that it's existence is such that it is a place to be inhabited. Only the present can be occupied.

Omniscience doesn't help you with this conclusion of yours (That there is a certain end result) unless you reject that the future holds many possibilities all of which can come to pass. I'm sure you do reject this, but I don't.


I also do not see how you can say this, as the supernatural world is truly mystical and PP&F may truly exist as one in a sense we are incapable of understanding.

so what if it's mystical? that doesn't imply that it is deterministic or that a B theory of time holds becuase of the spiritual realm. Do you mean mysterious? If I cannot deny a B theory and determinism on that account then neither can you affirm it.


I am wondering why you deleted the actual definition from my Quote.

last thing your post says "Last edited by Theolog on 05-01-2003 at 06:00 PM"

and really, that 's a childish thing to accuse someone of.


suppose you agree with Webster’s definition of omnipresent also??
Webster’s Main Entry: om·ni·pres·ent
Pronunciation: -z&nt
Function: adjective
Date: 1609
: present in all places at all times
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc
Omniscience

That definition is fine. I understand how you interpret it and I don't interpret it the same. I don't see a B theory of time here. That God is present in all places at all times means that he was omnipresent in the past, is omnipresent now, and will be in the future. It does not mean that he currently IS present in the past and future as if the past and future exist.


I feel you should at the very least acknowledge that you are in the business of changing long held definitions to establish your theology.

A B theory of time is not a long held standard of theology. That God is timeless is, but that's not even what you presented. You presented a God who is in time in a B theory of time. I don't know of any theologian who has held that as all the great theologians who've held that God is timeless believed that he was precisely that, timeless.


If you were not there would be no need for you to present your case.

the things counter to my claims do not necessarily flow from those classical definitions. THAT IS MY CASE.

You have failed to grasp that it is not the two omni's discussed that are at stake. It is the view of reality that is. I believe that reality, creation itself is different than you suggest and the implications of that with the two omni's flow from that as I have described. As for omnipotence, you haven't even brought that up in responses to me. But my guess is that you as many calvinists are confusing that issue with soverignty.

[joelkaki]

“ Yesterday @ 03:03 PM post located here
doogieduff:



Blake, you should know me well enough to know I was being sarcastic about the verse. Although, you say He had all the characteristics of God, and I fully disagree. Show me in the Bible when He was a man, that He was omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent. You won't find any of the three. ”



Do you deny that Christ in His incarnation was fully divine and fully human? If you do I would not be afraid to call you a straight heretic.

Blake

Hey, doogieduff, you ever going to answer this?

Joel

[joelkaki]

Okay I guess I am more of an open view theist than a closed view theist. Here is my take.....

1. God does indeed exist outside of time since he is not limited by the dimensions of the known universe.

2. God is only limited by whatever limitations He places on Himself. An example of God limiting himself is seen in the person of Christ.

3. God loves mankind so much he gave us free will. Not just in principle, but in practice as well. I will give an example of what I mean by "not just in principle, but in practice..."

****Example: I sometimes use this one when discussing the problem of evil... I tell you that I do not want you to stand up. Every time you try to stand up I physically force you to sit down. Do you have free will to stand up? In principle yes you do, but in practice no matter what you do I have already determined the outcome of you not standing up. Thus while in principle you could stand up, in practice you can not.****

4. By giving man free will God chose to limit Himself in what knowledge He has. So God could know everything, but because of His love for us He limits himself so that we have free will.

5. God also gives us the gift of prayer. In fact, this is such a great gift that God allows Himself to change His mind as a result of prayer. This is a privilage no other creature has. Only man has the oppurtunity of interacting with God in this way.

I can think of no greater gift God could give to us than to be willing to limit Himself for us. So instead of these things reflecting negatively on Gods attributes, I believe they show us how much He loves us.

So thats my two cents....


Russ





Please show from Scripture that God restricts his knowledge. I find that in Scripture, the emphasis is more on God and His attributes, than on us and any part about us, such as the supposed "free will."


Joel

[joelkaki]

04-29-2003 @ 05:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82400#post82400)
yxboom:


Reality will tell you there are a million more things than there were 6000 years ago.

OK, your point?



You still don't seem to comprehend reality. If I eat a turkey sandwich in 20 minutes it isnt FACT until I do it. God knows EVERYTHING but my eating a sandwich in 20 minutes isn't included in everything because it isn't FACT yet. Omniscience is knowing all things that are FACTUAL, eating a sandwich in 20 mins isn't factual until it occurs.

Hmmm, you say that Omniscience is knowing all things that are factual. So does God not then know possibilities? They are not factual.
I know that Open Theism says that He knows all possibilities, in fact, that is your form of omniscience, but you now say that omniscience means knowing facts, not possibilities. So which is it?



Blap!

How about answering my post instead of just saying "Blap!" whatever that is supposed to mean.



04-29-2003 @ 06:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82441#post82441)
doogieduff:

Hey Joel! Your calvinistic God can't learn! You're limiting God! :teeth:

Reality would indicate that someone who knows everything does not need to learn. Not to mention, in one discussion you and I had, I distinctly remember you saying, "Don't accuse me of saying God learns. He knew Abraham would either obey him or not. He didn't learn." (Not exact quote, but pretty close). Changing your case a little?



04-29-2003 @ 07:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82515#post82515)
Blake Reas:

Joel,

Yx is right, in their view God is still omniscient. He knows everything there is to know.

I'm afraid I disagree. The "everything there is to know" is just a philosophical piece of jargon thrown in, which results in God being put into MAN's image.



You probably like me assume God is outside of time which would make a the whole issue of foreknowledge even more weird. They do not assume this they assume that he is in time. If God is in time and he is not in control of every event then he cannot know the future because it does not exist yet. In our view God sees reality all at once. If we are going to debate them we need to do it fairly.

By His Grace For HIs Glory
Blake:teeth:

I appreciate your concern, but I disagree still.

Joel

[geebob]

Hmmm, you say that Omniscience is knowing all things that are factual. So does God not then know possibilities? They are not factual.

There are facts about possibilities because there are possible worlds. That doesn't mean that they are actual. This is what possible worlds ontology is about.

Possible worlds semantics was invented so that we understand how it is that we speak meaningfully of possibilities.

If you want to insist that there are no facts about possibilities than you couldn't say anything about possibilities. you couldn't speak of impossibilities. You couldn't say that contradictions are impossible.


Reality would indicate that someone who knows everything does not need to learn.

your view of reality would indicate that. Not ours.


I'm afraid I disagree. The "everything there is to know" is just a philosophical piece of jargon thrown in, which results in God being put into MAN's image.

good grief! it's the definition of omniscience. If you merely insist that omniscience is simply knowing everything, your still agreeing with us because everthing is a thing to know. Now if you want to say that omniscience goes beyond things that are there to know, I don't know what you could possibly be talking about. That would not be a meaningful statement.

[nomad]

1. God does indeed exist outside of time since he is not limited by the dimensions of the known universe.

....

3. God loves mankind so much he gave us free will. Not just in principle, but in practice as well. I will give an example of what I mean by "not just in principle, but in practice..."

4. By giving man free will God chose to limit Himself in what knowledge He has. So God could know everything, but because of His love for us He limits himself so that we have free will.


i just wanted to point out that P1 and P3/4 are in conflict. if God also responds to the unknown in the time axis, then He is part of it, not outside it. at least, this seems true.

[yxboom]

Yesterday @ 12:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87362#post87362)
joelkaki:



OK, your point?
You insist God knew all these facts as true before they existed. I say as time has progressed God knows things He hadn't before as these events become true.


Hmmm, you say that Omniscience is knowing all things that are factual. So does God not then know possibilities? They are not factual.
I know that Open Theism says that He knows all possibilities, in fact, that is your form of omniscience, but you now say that omniscience means knowing facts, not possibilities. So which is it?
I would sound only repetetive as geebob already handled this more than sufficiently.


How about answering my post instead of just saying "Blap!" whatever that is supposed to mean.
Blap!


Reality would indicate that someone who knows everything does not need to learn. Not to mention, in one discussion you and I had, I distinctly remember you saying, "Don't accuse me of saying God learns. He knew Abraham would either obey him or not. He didn't learn." (Not exact quote, but pretty close). Changing your case a little?
He don't speak for me so Blap!


I'm afraid I disagree. The "everything there is to know" is just a philosophical piece of jargon thrown in, which results in God being put into MAN's image.
:lol: If I applied this to God's omnipotence you would insist God can do EVERYTHING. Yes God can cease to exist. Of course God can lie, God can create another God and God can make you in a red dress dance on the Vegas strip else He would be put in "MAN's image". :whack:

[Theolog]

Yesterday @ 12:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87362#post87362)
joelkaki:

How about answering my post instead of just saying "Blap!" whatever that is supposed to mean.

Joel
In many people the mind stays still and the tongue flaps.
But with “blapers” the tongue stays still and the mind flaps.
:cheers:

[geebob]

How about answering my post instead of just saying "Blap!" whatever that is supposed to mean.

I will have to agree on this. That was wholy inadequate way of dealing with the issue and I'm sorry yx is not approaching this with the seriousness that he should.

So instead I offer the following:

Blop!

[doogieduff]

05-02-2003 @ 08:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=85839#post85839)
Theolog:


Sorry doggieduff I have been pretty busy. Tommorrow maybe.

Theolog, just wondering if you're going to get to those unfulfilled prophecies....

[Theolog]

05-01-2003 @ 04:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84515#post84515)
doogieduff:
I'd love to, where do I begin, there's so many!?...
Ezekiel 29:17-21
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,
18 "Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon caused his army to labor strenuously against Tyre; every head was made bald, and every shoulder rubbed raw; yet neither he nor his army received wages from Tyre, for the labor which they expended on it.

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.
20 I have given him the land of Egypt for his labor, because they worked for Me,' says the Lord God.
21 'In that day I will cause the horn of the house of Israel to spring forth, and I will open your mouth to speak in their midst. Then they shall know that I am the Lord.' "

Just where does it say that this prophecy was never fulfilled?


2. Pharaoh —a common name of all the kings of Egypt, meaning “the sun”; or, as others say, a “crocodile,” which was worshipped in parts of Egypt (compare Ez 29:3 ).

Hophra or Apries was on the throne at this time. His reign began prosperously. He took Gaza ( Je 47:1 ) and Zidon and made himself master of Phoenicia and Palestine, recovering much that was lost to Egypt by the victory of Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish

( 2Ki 24:7 ; Je 46:2 ), in the fourth year of Jehoiakim [ WILKINSON , Ancient Egypt, 1.169]. So proudly secure because of his successes for twenty-five years did he feel, that he said not even a god could deprive him of his kingdom [ HERODOTUS , 2.169]. Hence the appropriateness of the description of him in Ez 29:3 .

No mere human sagacity could have enabled Ezekiel to foresee Egypt’s downfall in the height of its prosperity.

There are four divisions of these prophecies; the first in the tenth year of Ezekiel’s captivity; the last in the twelfth. Between the first and second comes one of much later date, not having been given till the twenty-seventh year ( Ez 29:17 ; 30:19 ), but placed there as appropriate to the subject matter. Pharaoh-hophra, or Apries, was dethroned and strangled, and Amasis substituted as king, by Nebuchadnezzar (compare Je 44:30 ).

The Egyptian priests, from national vanity, made no mention to HERODOTUS of the Egyptian loss of territory in Syria through Nebuchadnezzar, of which JOSEPHUS tells us, but attributed the change in the succession from Apries to Amasis solely to the Egyptian soldiery.

The civil war between the two rivals no doubt lasted several years, affording an opportunity to Nebuchadnezzar of interfering and of elevating the usurper Amasis, on condition of his becoming tributary to Babylon [ WILKINSON ]. Compare Je 43:10–12 , and see on Je 43:13 , for another view of the grounds of interference of Nebuchadnezzar

Beth-shemesh—that is, “the house of the sun,” in Hebrew; called by the Greeks “Heliopolis”; by the Egyptians, “On” (Ge 41:45); east of the Nile, and a few miles north of Memphis. Ephraim Syrus says, the statue rose to the height of sixty cubits; the base was ten cubits. Above there was a miter of a thousand pounds weight. Hieroglyphics are traced around the only obelisk remaining in the present day, sixty or seventy feet high. On the fifth year after the overthrow of Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar, leaving the siege of Tyre, undertook his expedition to Egypt [JOSEPHUS, Antiquities, 10.9.7]. The Egyptians, according to the Arabs, have a tradition that their land was devastated by Nebuchadnezzar in consequence of their king having received the Jews under his protection, and that it lay desolate forty years. But see on Ez 29:2; Ez 29:13.


The Lord God said Himself here that He would give the king Egypt for his labor against Tyre and because he recieved nothing from Tyre. Well, this never happened. If God knows the future as you believe, why would He be wrog as to what He Himself was going to do?

It happened like God said it would.

[Warcraft3]

05-04-2003 @ 03:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87353#post87353)
joelkaki:
Please show from Scripture that God restricts his knowledge. I find that in Scripture, the emphasis is more on God and His attributes, than on us and any part about us, such as the supposed "free will."


Joel

Sorry I didnt answer sooner but I just noticed this post.....

I can not give you a direct quote from scripture saying that God limits His knowledge.
So where am I getting this from? Well I have read several scriptures which seem to imply that God either did not know something before it happened or changed His mind as a result of prayer. And since I believe that only God can place limations on Himself, I conclude that these limitations are self - imposed.

I find the emphasis in scripture to be more about Gods relationship with us (and how we should act to keep it growing) than Gods personal attributes or mans attributes.

With that said, the reason I brought up the whole "free will" issue is because I do not view God limiting himself as a negative reflection on God. Indeed I view in a similar light as that of the incarnation.

Christ limited himself for us and showed us great love by doing so; likewise I believe God limits His knowledge to both
1. give us free will and
2.to allow our prayers to affect Him to the point of touching His heart in such a way that He can change His mind

I hope this makes my postion clearer.


Russ

[yxboom]

That was excellent Russ :thumb:

[nomad]

so, is it the OV position that God 'travels along time' with us? in the same way people do?

[yxboom]

Today @ 11:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90222#post90222)
nomad:

so, is it the OV position that God 'travels along time' with us? in the same way people do?

That wouldn't be entirely accurate but God does experience time He is not static. God doesn't experience time as we experience it in that we are limited in our time. For example God doesn't have the same anxieties over deadlines as we do. He doesn't want to climb the Himalayas before he is too arthritic and can't. God is above circumstance and (tongue-in-cheek) has all the time in the world.

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 02:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90216#post90216)
yxboom:

That was excellent Russ :thumb:

Thanks yxboom.:smile:


Russ

[mickiel]

[That would be like saying that because God created water, it would be possible for him to drown. God created time for mankinds benefit, time is physical, i would argue that God is NOT affected by anything physical, nor can anything he created impose conditions on him. It is not possible for time to evenly slightly impose on God. I would futher argue that nothing spiritual can impose God, or that is to say cause a change in him. I would QUESS that Christ may be the only exception to this, and i even doubt that. God just loves Christ so much, he may well effect change for him.

I would agree with the poster who claims that God is not learning, how could a being that is before the beginning and after the ending, learn something? It is possible for God to showe intrest in what his creations DO THEMSELVES. This is revealed in the garden of Eden. God created animals, which he could have given names himself. But God wanted to see what Adam would call them. Some may argue this is learning, i would dissagree with that premise. I would label this as intrest, God is interested in mankind, certainly not learning from them.

[Theolog]

Yesterday @ 11:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90180#post90180)
steadele:

Sorry I didnt answer sooner but I just noticed this post.....

I can not give you a direct quote from scripture saying that God limits His knowledge.
I hope this makes my postion clearer.
Russ

Of course you cannot, because it is not true.

While God comes to our level to communicate with us we would be mistaken to assume that his immutable nature is somehow changed.

All you can safely assume is that it appears to change.

I suggest that all epiphanies are somehow limited by the very fact that humans could not live through the full revelation of Gods Glory. These partial revelations of God are just that “partial revelations” and have no bearing whatsoever on the full nature of our immutable God.

Following your line of reasoning God would be forced to relieve Himself after dining with Abraham. Then we would have a basis for “Holy (you know what)”.

If open theist were honest with our language they would just out front say that God is not immutable, omniscient, or omnipresent instead to their futile attempts to change long held definitions of these words.

[geebob]

That would be like saying that because God created water, it would be possible for him to drown.

read yx's comment above. The parrallel you draw just isn't there. Just because God is in time does not mean that he is ravaged by time.


God created time for mankinds benefit,

There are some philosophers (William Lane Craig) who argue that God places himself in time merely by creating time.


time is physical

whether that is true or not does not mean that God is timeless or that time is something that one can be outside of (though abstract concepts are considered outside of time, God is not a abstraction).

And though physics currently does not indicate that time is physical, it is perfectly possible that only the present is real, and a God who does not know the present as such and the past and future as unreal does not know reality as it truly is if that is the way that reality is.

Kenny argues that physics does not decide some of these issues for us starting with this post:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=65607#post65607

scroll down further and he clarifies further with regard to a question I ask him.


how could a being that is before the beginning and after the ending,

How could there be any such being if time does not have the sort of nature where one could be before it or after it.



You see, what you present above is more about time than it is about God. Anyone who rejects the picture of time you present can also reject the things you say about God.

[Act9_12Out]

Russ,

You said,


I can not give you a direct quote from scripture saying that God limits His knowledge.
So where am I getting this from? Well I have read several scriptures which seem to imply that God either did not know something before it happened or changed His mind as a result of prayer. And since I believe that only God can place limations on Himself, I conclude that these limitations are self - imposed.

...to which Theolog replied,


Of course you cannot, because it is not true.

Here are a hanful of passages that support what Russ said,

God repents because of wickedness - Genesis 6:4-7; 1 Samuel 15:11,24-29,3
God repents of disaster or good - Jer 18:1-12
God repents because of His compassion - Deu 32:36; Jud 2:18; 2 Sam 24:15-16; 1 Ch 21:14-15; Psa 106:43-45; Joel 2:12-14
God repents of stated harm because of prayer - Ex 32:9-14; Amos 7:1-6
God doesn't repent in certain situations (context shows why) - Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; Psa 110:1-4
God wants to repent - Jer 26:3,13,19; Jer 42:7,9-10
God will not or did not repent - Jer 4:27-28; Jer 20:16; Eze 24:13-14
God was even weary of repenting - Jer 15:6 - You have forsaken Me," says the LORD, "You have gone backward. Therefore I will stretch out My hand against you and destroy you; I am weary of repenting!"

Here are a couple that address God's emotions...

God is displeased and wonders - Isa 59:15-16; Psa 78:40-41
God hopes or wishes - Deu 5:28-29; Psa 81:8-13; Isa 48:17-18; Mat 23:37
God laments over other peoples - Isa 15:5; Isa 16:6-13

[doogieduff]

Yesterday @ 11:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90141#post90141)
Theolog:



Just where does it say that this prophecy was never fulfilled?


2. Pharaoh —a common name of all the kings of Egypt, meaning “the sun”; or, as others say, a “crocodile,” which was worshipped in parts of Egypt (compare Ez 29:3 ).

Hophra or Apries was on the throne at this time. His reign began prosperously. He took Gaza ( Je 47:1 ) and Zidon and made himself master of Phoenicia and Palestine, recovering much that was lost to Egypt by the victory of Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish

( 2Ki 24:7 ; Je 46:2 ), in the fourth year of Jehoiakim [ WILKINSON , Ancient Egypt, 1.169]. So proudly secure because of his successes for twenty-five years did he feel, that he said not even a god could deprive him of his kingdom [ HERODOTUS , 2.169]. Hence the appropriateness of the description of him in Ez 29:3 .

No mere human sagacity could have enabled Ezekiel to foresee Egypt’s downfall in the height of its prosperity.

There are four divisions of these prophecies; the first in the tenth year of Ezekiel’s captivity; the last in the twelfth. Between the first and second comes one of much later date, not having been given till the twenty-seventh year ( Ez 29:17 ; 30:19 ), but placed there as appropriate to the subject matter. Pharaoh-hophra, or Apries, was dethroned and strangled, and Amasis substituted as king, by Nebuchadnezzar (compare Je 44:30 ).

The Egyptian priests, from national vanity, made no mention to HERODOTUS of the Egyptian loss of territory in Syria through Nebuchadnezzar, of which JOSEPHUS tells us, but attributed the change in the succession from Apries to Amasis solely to the Egyptian soldiery.

The civil war between the two rivals no doubt lasted several years, affording an opportunity to Nebuchadnezzar of interfering and of elevating the usurper Amasis, on condition of his becoming tributary to Babylon [ WILKINSON ]. Compare Je 43:10–12 , and see on Je 43:13 , for another view of the grounds of interference of Nebuchadnezzar

Beth-shemesh—that is, “the house of the sun,” in Hebrew; called by the Greeks “Heliopolis”; by the Egyptians, “On” (Ge 41:45); east of the Nile, and a few miles north of Memphis. Ephraim Syrus says, the statue rose to the height of sixty cubits; the base was ten cubits. Above there was a miter of a thousand pounds weight. Hieroglyphics are traced around the only obelisk remaining in the present day, sixty or seventy feet high. On the fifth year after the overthrow of Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar, leaving the siege of Tyre, undertook his expedition to Egypt [JOSEPHUS, Antiquities, 10.9.7]. The Egyptians, according to the Arabs, have a tradition that their land was devastated by Nebuchadnezzar in consequence of their king having received the Jews under his protection, and that it lay desolate forty years. But see on Ez 29:2; Ez 29:13.


It happened like God said it would.


Theolog,

This never says anything to the effect of Nebuchadnezzar conquering Egypt. It looks as if you cut and pasted something out of a commentary. No biblical references refer to Nebuchadnezzar conquering Egypt. Your two Ezekiel verses at the end are BEFORE God even said He would give Nebuchadnezzar Egypt and they aren't even talking about Nebuchadnezzar. So you have failed to explain this away, and i hope you plan on answering all my unfulfilled prophecies, because if there's only one in the Bible, then the Open View is true...

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 10:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90983#post90983)
Theolog:

Of course you cannot, because it is not true.
Did you read my entire post? Or did you only read the parts that you quoted in your response? You are implying that there is no scriptural support whatsoever for my position, even though I make the following comment:

Well I have read several scriptures which seem to imply that God either did not know something before it happened or changed His mind as a result of prayer.
So I am using scripture as support for my position, just as many, many various positions have scriptural support without being explicately stated in scripture.


While God comes to our level to communicate with us we would be mistaken to assume that his immutable nature is somehow changed.
I do not assume that when God "comes to our level" it causes a fundamental change in God. God limiting His fore knowledge in no way takes away from His Godly "nature". Did the limitations which Christ took during the incarnation make him less than God? Was He not fully God yet fully man? He was both, yet He allowed Himself to take on human limitations and weaknesses for our benefit. Likewise, I am claiming the "limitations" which God takes on are for our benefit and is something He chooses to do.


All you can safely assume is that it appears to change.
So you are saying that the unchangeable "appears" to change? I dont think his immutable nature changes or even appears to change, since I believe that part of His nature is the ability to change His mind. Just because God changes His mind that does not make Him less "God-like". It means He has free will, a mind, and emotions. God is a dynamic being, not a static one.


I suggest that all epiphanies are somehow limited by the very fact that humans could not live through the full revelation of Gods Glory. These partial revelations of God are just that “partial revelations” and have no bearing whatsoever on the full nature of our immutable God.
If they have "no bearing whatsoever" then there is nothing we can learn from them. I believe that every "epiphany" reveals something about God to us, and helps us understand Him more. They do indeed have a "bearing".


Following your line of reasoning God would be forced to relieve Himself after dining with Abraham. Then we would have a basis for “Holy (you know what)”.
Im not sure how you magically went from God having self imposed "limitations" to the almighty taking a dump. I do not believe that following my line of reasoning would lead anyone to think about dung in any form.


If open theist were honest with our language they would just out front say that God is not immutable, omniscient, or omnipresent instead to their futile attempts to change long held definitions of these words.
I am not attempting to change any definitions.



Russ

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 01:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91153#post91153)
Act9_12Out:

Russ,

You said,



...to which Theolog replied,



Here are a hanful of passages that support what Russ said,

God repents because of wickedness - Genesis 6:4-7; 1 Samuel 15:11,24-29,3
God repents of disaster or good - Jer 18:1-12
God repents because of His compassion - Deu 32:36; Jud 2:18; 2 Sam 24:15-16; 1 Ch 21:14-15; Psa 106:43-45; Joel 2:12-14
God repents of stated harm because of prayer - Ex 32:9-14; Amos 7:1-6
God doesn't repent in certain situations (context shows why) - Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; Psa 110:1-4
God wants to repent - Jer 26:3,13,19; Jer 42:7,9-10
God will not or did not repent - Jer 4:27-28; Jer 20:16; Eze 24:13-14
God was even weary of repenting - Jer 15:6 - You have forsaken Me," says the LORD, "You have gone backward. Therefore I will stretch out My hand against you and destroy you; I am weary of repenting!"

Here are a couple that address God's emotions...

God is displeased and wonders - Isa 59:15-16; Psa 78:40-41
God hopes or wishes - Deu 5:28-29; Psa 81:8-13; Isa 48:17-18; Mat 23:37
God laments over other peoples - Isa 15:5; Isa 16:6-13

Hey thanks Act_12Out. :cheers:


LOL awesome avatar!!


Russ

[doogieduff]

Today @ 08:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90983#post90983)
Theolog:



Of course you cannot, because it is not true.

While God comes to our level to communicate with us we would be mistaken to assume that his immutable nature is somehow changed.

All you can safely assume is that it appears to change.

I suggest that all epiphanies are somehow limited by the very fact that humans could not live through the full revelation of Gods Glory. These partial revelations of God are just that “partial revelations” and have no bearing whatsoever on the full nature of our immutable God.

Following your line of reasoning God would be forced to relieve Himself after dining with Abraham. Then we would have a basis for “Holy (you know what)”.

If open theist were honest with our language they would just out front say that God is not immutable, omniscient, or omnipresent instead to their futile attempts to change long held definitions of these words.

Maybe a limited God IS in scripture...

Psalm 78:41
41 Yes, again and again they tempted God, And limited the Holy One of Israel.

[joelkaki]

Sorry I didnt answer sooner but I just noticed this post.....

I can not give you a direct quote from scripture saying that God limits His knowledge.
So where am I getting this from? Well I have read several scriptures which seem to imply that God either did not know something before it happened or changed His mind as a result of prayer. And since I believe that only God can place limations on Himself, I conclude that these limitations are self - imposed.

There are other ways to reconcile such statements. The problem with that reasoning is that you make God change part of his essence. How can He know less than can be known? There is no variation or shadow of turning with God, so how could you say he knows less than He could know? God is omniscient, that is a core part of his being, and that cannot be removed. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.



I find the emphasis in scripture to be more about Gods relationship with us (and how we should act to keep it growing) than Gods personal attributes or mans attributes.

But the point is that man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever--all about Him.



With that said, the reason I brought up the whole "free will" issue is because I do not view God limiting himself as a negative reflection on God. Indeed I view in a similar light as that of the incarnation.

Christ limited himself for us and showed us great love by doing so; likewise I believe God limits His knowledge to both
1. give us free will and
2.to allow our prayers to affect Him to the point of touching His heart in such a way that He can change His mind

I hope this makes my postion clearer.


Russ

It does make your position clearer, but I do not believe that God could be less than what He could be.:smile:

Joel

[chance]

05-20-2003 @ 11:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102549#post102549)
joelkaki:



There are other ways to reconcile such statements. The problem with that reasoning is that you make God change part of his essence. How can He know less than can be known? There is no variation or shadow of turning with God, so how could you say he knows less than He could know? God is omniscient, that is a core part of his being, and that cannot be removed. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

I have read through this entire thread and haven't gotten the impression that you would understand the position of the open view of creation any time soon. I will, however, try and help you out by giving a brief clarification and correction of some things you have said about our view.

The open view of creation strongly affirms that God knows everything that can be known at any point in time. The reason we believe that God "learns" new things is because we believe that God had the freedom to and, in fact (according to Scripture), did create such a world where the future would be constantly changing from a world of possiblities to a world of actualities. As history moves along the possibilities that exist disappear when the choices people make occur or come into existence.

Our view of God's knowledge of the future is based on our belief that God created a world because He decided to create such a world (was not forced to) where people could choose one thing over another or refain from choosing one thing or choose that one thing. That people have REAL options to choose from and create the future together with God is the way God set things up to be so loving relaitonships could occur. God never knows "less than can be known" at any specific time.

So, the open view of creation does not in any way change part of God's essence. Rather, we would argue, the open view of creation is in full agreement with God's essence. God always has and will always continue to exist in loving relation between the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. Giving and receiving in a relationship of love is what it means to be God and what it means for us to be made in God's image. The God of Classical theism does not fit the Trinitarian view of God well (i.e. Augustine's god as "simplex" or simple substance).

We would also argue that the view of God promoted by the open view of creation is much greater than the view of God that Classical theism promotes. The open view of creation presents a God that is able to respond and interact with His creation (both good and bad) and act in history to bring about his goals for creation. The classical view presents a God whose goals for creation can be ruined by "one maverick molecule" as one popular Calvinist has written.

Chew on that and get back with us.

[joelkaki]

“ 05-20-2003 @ 11:34 PM post located here
joelkaki:



There are other ways to reconcile such statements. The problem with that reasoning is that you make God change part of his essence. How can He know less than can be known? There is no variation or shadow of turning with God, so how could you say he knows less than He could know? God is omniscient, that is a core part of his being, and that cannot be removed. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. ”



I have read through this entire thread and haven't gotten the impression that you would understand the position of the open view of creation any time soon. I will, however, try and help you out by giving a brief clarification and correction of some things you have said about our view.

The open view of creation strongly affirms that God knows everything that can be known at any point in time. The reason we believe that God "learns" new things is because we believe that God had the freedom to and, in fact (according to Scripture), did create such a world where the future would be constantly changing from a world of possiblities to a world of actualities. As history moves along the possibilities that exist disappear when the choices people make occur or come into existence.

Our view of God's knowledge of the future is based on our belief that God created a world because He decided to create such a world (was not forced to) where people could choose one thing over another or refain from choosing one thing or choose that one thing. That people have REAL options to choose from and create the future together with God is the way God set things up to be so loving relaitonships could occur. God never knows "less than can be known" at any specific time.

So, the open view of creation does not in any way change part of God's essence. Rather, we would argue, the open view of creation is in full agreement with God's essence. God always has and will always continue to exist in loving relation between the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. Giving and receiving in a relationship of love is what it means to be God and what it means for us to be made in God's image. The God of Classical theism does not fit the Trinitarian view of God well (i.e. Augustine's god as "simplex" or simple substance).

We would also argue that the view of God promoted by the open view of creation is much greater than the view of God that Classical theism promotes. The open view of creation presents a God that is able to respond and interact with His creation (both good and bad) and act in history to bring about his goals for creation. The classical view presents a God whose goals for creation can be ruined by "one maverick molecule" as one popular Calvinist has written.

Chew on that and get back with us.


I am aware of all that with regards to the standard OVT position. However, in my last post, I was responding to Russ, who takes a somewhat different position than the other OVers here, if I am not mistaken.

Joel

[chance]

Today @ 02:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112568#post112568)
joelkaki:



I am aware of all that with regards to the standard OVT position. However, in my last post, I was responding to Russ, who takes a somewhat different position than the other OVers here, if I am not mistaken.

Joel

Russ is an open theist. The one thing he differs on is the idea that God is outside of time. We commonly say that God is in time, but the truth is that God is neither "in" or "out" of time because time is not an entity anyone can be inside or outside of. If God exists then He experiences duration or time. Living, loving, responding, giving and receiving all fall within God's experiences both before and after creation.

Once Russ and others realize that they are REIFYING time they should not ahve such a problem affirming that God goes through life with us in the present.

[yxboom]

05-08-2003 @ 12:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91234#post91234)
doogieduff:



Maybe a limited God IS in scripture...

Psalm 78:41
41 Yes, again and again they tempted God, And limited the Holy One of Israel.

:eek: ouch ouch ouch!!!

[yxboom]

05-20-2003 @ 03:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102549#post102549)
joelkaki:



There are other ways to reconcile such statements. The problem with that reasoning is that you make God change part of his essence. How can He know less than can be known? There is no variation or shadow of turning with God, so how could you say he knows less than He could know? God is omniscient, that is a core part of his being, and that cannot be removed. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Joel

It would seem one could give up immutability for sake of mankind, even omnipresence if he really tried. But try removing omniscience in the classical sense. Sure you would appeal to Jesus' humanity as the reason for his lack of onmiscience, but then you would consistently have to say God the Father revealed to him everything ie. Judas betrayal, Peter's denials. Where did Jesus' diety go?

And of course there is the ever popular verse that Jesus declares no man knows the time of his return not even the Son but the Father only...does the Holy Spirit have a humanity too that you would appeal to explain why the Holy Ghost doesn't have this tidbit of EDF :hrm:

[chance]

Is there a Calvinist or a Calvinist-friendly guy or gal that will explain to us all HOW Israel limited God in that passage in Psalms? Its not taht I'm too lazy to check out the psalm in a Bible or online. I just wanna know what you guys think.

Also, is there a determinist or Calvinist-type that would like to explain to us which God is greater and why? The Calvinist view of God that says ONE MAVERICK MOLECULE can destroy God's plans or the open view that says God can bring about his plan for creation through and in spite of free agents. How is the view that ONE maverick molecule can demolish God's plans for the world show God to be more glorious or greater or however you wanna put it?

[Warcraft3]

Joelkaki:



There are other ways to reconcile such statements.
True. There are.


The problem with that reasoning is that you make God change part of his essence.
Well, since the "limitation" is self-imposed I do not see how Gods essence as God is changed.


How can He know less than can be known? There is no variation or shadow of turning with God, so how could you say he knows less than He could know?
Well, He know "less than can be known" because of a willful action that He takes. Even with respect to His own limitations, God is still in control.


God is omniscient, that is a core part of his being, and that cannot be removed. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Yes He is the same God or "person, if you prefer" and does not change as humans do. His character does not change, His overall purpose does not change, His holiness does not change, His love does not change, etc. But I believe within that unchangingness there exists the possibility for God to change specific details without changing the overall plan or purpose. I believe that since He is God, He can limit Himself and still remain God.


But the point is that man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever--all about Him.
True, but remember that this is accomplished through our relationship with God. So a focus on one is really a focus on the other.


It does make your position clearer, but I do not believe that God could be less than what He could be.:smile:

Joel

Believe me, I am not trying to take anything away from God here. He has the power to limit Himself and the power not to limit Himself. It is His choice. And I believe that because of His love for us He chooses (as He did during the incarnation) to limit His knowledge. I find this to be one of the greatest expressions of love possible. That He would do such a thing for me is beyond my comprehension, and fills my eyes with tears and my mind with awe.


Russ

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 09:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112568#post112568)
joelkaki:



I am aware of all that with regards to the standard OVT position. However, in my last post, I was responding to Russ, who takes a somewhat different position than the other OVers here, if I am not mistaken.

Joel

Hmmm I am not sure myself what the standard OVT view actuallt is. So you may very well be correct that mine is a bit different.


Russ

[yxboom]

Today @ 08:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112706#post112706)
steadele:



Hmmm I am not sure myself what the standard OVT view actuallt is. So you may very well be correct that mine is a bit different.


Russ

I think Chance already addressed where for the most part you differ with the mainline Open Theist in his post.


Today @ 07:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112650#post112650)
chance:

Russ is an open theist. The one thing he differs on is the idea that God is outside of time. We commonly say that God is in time, but the truth is that God is neither "in" or "out" of time because time is not an entity anyone can be inside or outside of. If God exists then He experiences duration or time. Living, loving, responding, giving and receiving all fall within God's experiences both before and after creation.

Once Russ and others realize that they are REIFYING time they should not ahve such a problem affirming that God goes through life with us in the present.

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 10:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112650#post112650)
chance:

Russ is an open theist.
Indeed.

The one thing he differs on is the idea that God is outside of time. We commonly say that God is in time, but the truth is that God is neither "in" or "out" of time because time is not an entity anyone can be inside or outside of.
Well, not an entity but a dimension. I believe God does indeed exist in an infinately dimensional reality (which our universe is a subset of) and so does exist outside of time. In a way, this means He also exists inside of time, but only as a subset of His more infinite existance. He has the ability to move both in and out of our dimensions at will. This is how the incarnation occured. Christ simply limited himself to our dimensions and, for a time, existed within the fabric of our space-time while no longer having a presence in the other dimensions. He could then only operate within our reality and was subject (to a degree) to the laws of the physical universe.


If God exists then He experiences duration or time. Living, loving, responding, giving and receiving all fall within God's experiences both before and after creation.
I agree that God does experience duration of "time" in some sense, but I believe it is fundamentally different than our experience. Since God is infinately dimensional He exists in many "time" dimensions all at once. So my view is that God exists outside of time, but yet in a way He also experiences it.



Once Russ and others realize that they are REIFYING time they should not ahve such a problem affirming that God goes through life with us in the present.
I view time as a dimension, so maybe I am reifying the concept of dimensions, but I do not think I am.

Okay, I am sure now everyone sees my position to be about as clear as mud. Sorry if I just completely confused everyone concerning my position.


Russ

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 12:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112711#post112711)
yxboom:



I think Chance already addressed where for the most part you differ with the mainline Open Theist in his post.



Oh yeah I just saw that myself.



Russ

[yxboom]

Will the real Open Theists please stand up

[mickiel]

Yesterday @ 05:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112721#post112721)
yxboom:

Will the real Open Theists please stand up

God does not experience time, he created it. God has assigned Jesus to experience time and humanity. I would agree that God interacts with angels, the 24 elders, and Jesus, but he does not step into time and back out of it. The three dimensions of time are in Gods mind, he is NOT in them. God IS, therefore all that IS, God cannot be excluded from it, evil included. Just because God created something, does not mean he needs to experience it, to interact with it. God created all things physical, he does not have to be physical to observe it, or influence it. Nor does he have to change himself in order to phase into the reality of any reality he created.

[Theolog]

Will the real otheist please stand up?

[chance]

From mickiel's last post it is obvious he doesn't comprehend to well what he is saying.

[mickiel]

Today @ 08:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114281#post114281)
chance:

From mickiel's last post it is obvious he doesn't comprehend to well what he is saying.


My understanding is not my own, it is given. Because you do not undrerstand me, i know we are not given the same comprehension. Just to let you know, there are times i do not comprehend what i say, i have to study it for a while. Then it comes to me later. Those who are tauht by the Spirit, understand this.

[yxboom]

God does not experience time, he created it. God has assigned Jesus to experience time and humanity. I would agree that God interacts with angels, the 24 elders, and Jesus, but he does not step into time and back out of it. The three dimensions of time are in Gods mind, he is NOT in them. God IS, therefore all that IS, God cannot be excluded from it, evil included. Just because God created something, does not mean he needs to experience it, to interact with it. God created all things physical, he does not have to be physical to observe it, or influence it. Nor does he have to change himself in order to phase into the reality of any reality he created.
Where do you arrive at this conclusion? God tell you this in a dream?

[Daywalker]

Where do you arrive at this conclusion? God tell you this in a dream? :no: :egad: :lmbo:

[cbro]

Reality will tell you there are a million more things than there were 6000 years ago.At least to us there are.

You still don't seem to comprehend reality. If I eat a turkey sandwich in 20 minutes it isnt FACT until I do it. God knows EVERYTHING but my eating a sandwich in 20 minutes isn't included in everything because it isn't FACT yet. Omniscience is knowing all things that are FACTUAL, eating a sandwich in 20 mins isn't factual until it occurs. So the dispute is whether or not God thinks it has occured?


You can't add anything to infinity and get a greater number technically. So you cannot say that God's knowledge is infinite, and that He adds something to that knowledge every single second of earth's existence. That is just not possible. Infinity means there isn't any more than that, so you cannot logically say that God can add anything to his infinite knowledge, thus God cannot learn anything.

Joel

Blap!
Really?

[cbro]

I'm sorry, but "omniscience" kind of excludes adding anything more to that knowledge.

Knowing everything + knowing something new is a contradictory statement. If you know every single thing, then you cannot know more than that at another time. JK, even though I don't agree with OVT, I understand that this is not the point of it, but that omniscience is limited to what exists. Which means that OVT says that the future does not yet exist. So even God can't know it for sure, before hand. I can only guess at "why" they insist on this idea.
So you would agree that His knowledge is infinite? That causes some problems for your view:

Infinity + 1 = Infinity.

You can't add anything to infinity and get a greater number technically. So you cannot say that God's knowledge is infinite, and that He adds something to that knowledge every single second of earth's existence. That is just not possible. Infinity means there isn't any more than that, so you cannot logically say that God can add anything to his infinite knowledge, thus God cannot learn anything.
QUOTE=joelkaki
JoelJK, you have a good idea here. Which is why you have not had a reply to refute it. It is so good that I am putting in my Blog.

[Starkman]

Silly me. I just discovered the "Similar Threads" links at the bottom of the "Refute My Open Theism Scenarios" thread!

I'd like to comment about God knowing everything. First, the classical definition of omniscience doesn't have a thing to say about God having to know absolutely everything, the entire future included. It only says this: God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods. That means that whatever is knowable, God knows it. That means that IF the future were exhaustively settled, God would know it. It means that IF God determined everything, God would know this. And it also means that IF part of the future is open, God would also know that, and He would know it thoroughly. But what the definition does not say is that God must know absoutely everything or He's not omniscient. So part of the future can be open (that is, not yet decided, hence not yet settled), and God would know this perfectly and exhaustively. And just because part of the future is open does not mean that God can't know what is, is not and might or might not be possible. No one is going to catch God by surprise. Not going to happen.

We forget that there are many things God can never know, and these must be included within the concept of God's omniscience. In other words, there is qualification that must precede statements such as, "God knows everything." God cannot know illogical things, like what a square circle is or what a married bachelor is. "Oh, those are illogical things, Starkman. They don't count as things God cannot know," you may say. Well, why not? They are things (nouns), are they not? But we can look at other things as well. God cannot know what it is like to be evil like Satan. God cannot know what it is like to not exist. He cannot know what it is like to have an eternal God like Himself in the neighborhood. God can never know what it is like to have relationship with anyone or anything that He has first not created. God cannot know what it is like to not be omniscient. God cannot know what it is like to be a male or female (though He exhibits masculine and feminine characteristics, but that's not at all to mean that God is male or female). There's a lot of things God can not, and will never, know. (And mind you, there are just as many things that God cannot do (Omnipotence) as there are those things He cannot know, but that's another story.

Second, as to God limiting His knowledge in for the Open View to be true, I personally think this is going to far. There's no need to go to this extreme in order to demonstrate that part of the future is open (see my "Refute My Open Theism Scenarios thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=76602). Now in the incarnation, yes, we have all the reason in the world to believe that Jesus limited (emptied) His knowledge. BUT... He had the Father and Holy Sprit available to give Him His revelation and guidance. But to put the full Triune God into a position of limiting His knowledge is to leave open too many gaps and to depart too much from reality. How can God choose to not know something without first knowing about the very thing that He is not supposed to know? And even if He were to limit His knowledge in order to not know specific things, how would keep from missing other things? In other words, for God to limit His knowledge in order to keep from knowing certain things, this would mean that God would first have to see all the things that are coming at Him before He chooses what to not know any of them. Otherwise He will miss something else, maybe something very important! This makes the issue of God limiting His knowledge too far out there for me. But that's my opinion.

Finally, this issue about A and B theories of time. I have to go back to what rings true to reality as we live it every day. If we are made in the image of God (some argue only Christians are, but that's neither here nor there), then what HAS to exist before anything else exists for this to be true is that there must be the ability for one to know that one is a certain image. The same applies for God being omniscience; what must exist first and foremost for God to be omniscient is that He must know He is. And...here's the point...if God knows anything, He cannot possibly know anything without there being some sort of time/duration going on. In other words, God cannot possibly be God if He cannot know He is, and that demands that there be sequence, and sequence means there must be duration, and duration means there is something called "time" going on. Not time as we measure it by the solar system, but time as in sequence. There has never been the existence of God without God knowing, thus in constant relationship with Himself, particularly through the Trinity, thus without sequence and duration: time. But the minute we try to make time some sort of matter, physical stuff or what have you, especially as we relate to time, we're in trouble.

All this argument about God being in or out of time before or after creation is to miss the bigger picture...I feel (my opinion again). The mere fact that we talk about the existence of God entails that this God has always been, has always known and is always in conscience relationship, in one manner or another. If that's so, the HAS to be some sort of sequencing going on, and that means some sort of concept of time. At least that's how I see it.

Well, it's "time" to get back to my studies.

Thanks much,

Starkman

[cbro]

God does not experience time, he created it. God has assigned Jesus to experience time and humanity. I would agree that God interacts with angels, the 24 elders, and Jesus, but he does not step into time and back out of it. The three dimensions of time are in Gods mind, he is NOT in them. God IS, therefore all that IS, God cannot be excluded from it, evil included. Just because God created something, does not mean he needs to experience it, to interact with it. God created all things physical, he does not have to be physical to observe it, or influence it. Nor does he have to change himself in order to phase into the reality of any reality he created. Does anyone disagree? I think it is so good that I have bloged it.

[Mickey]

Does anyone disagree? I think it is so good that I have bloged it.
Hi cbro,

If what you quoted is true then when the Scriptures speak of the Lord choosing men to salvation before the world began the language is obviously "figurative"?

If He lives in the present "now" then there is no such thing as "foreknowledge" with Him is there?

Right?

In Christ,
Mickey

[cbro]

Hi cbro,

If what you quoted is true then when the Scriptures speak of the Lord choosing men to salvation before the world began the language is obviously "figurative"?Actually, I was quoting mickiel. Also, I believe that there is nothing "figurative" about the Lord's choosing, because I don't believe in OVT.
If He lives in the present "now" then there is no such thing as "foreknowledge" with Him is there?
Right?
In Christ,
MickeyI agree that it is "present" knowledge with Him and foreknowledge only from our POV.

[Mickey]

Actually, I was quoting mickiel.
Yes,but from what you said I can only conclude that you agree with what he wrote.

Also, I believe that there is nothing "figurative" about the Lord's choosing, because I don't believe in OVT.
I did not say that He does not "choose".Instead,I was speaking of the words which say that He chose us "before the foundation of the world".

In other words,since God lives in the ever present "now" there is no reason to believe that we are chosen in him before the world began.That language is only "figurative".

I agree that it is "present" knowledge with Him and foreknowledge only from our POV.
Yes,and can not the same thing be said in regard to when we are chosen?

In Christ,
Mickey

[cbro]

QUOTE=Mickey Yes,but from what you said I can only conclude that you agree with what he wrote.

Quote=cbro You are correct that I agree with him.

QUOTE=Mickey I did not say that He does not "choose".Instead,I was speaking of the words which say that He chose us "before the foundation of the world".
In other words,since God lives in the ever present "now" there is no reason to believe that we are chosen in him before the world began.

quote=cbro No reason except for that being what it says.

QUOTE=Mickey That language is only "figurative".

quote=cbro but it is that, only to OVT

QUOTE=Mickey Yes,and can not the same thing be said in regard to when we are chosen?

In Christ,
Mickey

QUOTE=cbro No dout about it.

[Mickey]

cbro,
I said:

In other words,since God lives in the ever present "now" there is no reason to believe that we are chosen in him before the world began.

To which you said:

No reason except for that being what it says.
Yes,but let us see if the words are "figurative" or not in the following verse:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2Thess.2:13).

We are not saved until we believe the truth of the gospel.Therefore we were not chosen until we believed.

So the words "from the beginning" must be "figurative".In other words,since God lives in the ever present "now" we were not saved until the moment (the "now") when we believed.Therefore the Lord did not chose us to salvation until we believed,not before.

In Christ,
Mickey

[cbro]

cbro,
I said:

In other words,since God lives in the ever present "now" there is no reason to believe that we are chosen in him before the world began.

To which you said:

Yes,but let us see if the words are "figurative" or not in the following verse:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2Thess.2:13).

We are not saved until we believe the truth of the gospel.Therefore we were not chosen until we believed.

So the words "from the beginning" must be "figurative".In other words,since God lives in the ever present "now" we were not saved until the moment (the "now") when we believed.Therefore the Lord did not chose us to salvation until we believed,not before.

In Christ,
Mickey

Do you agree that it must be that way or OVT is wrong?

[Mickey]

Do you agree that it must be that way or OVT is wrong?
cbro,

If God lives in the present "now" then there is no past or future with Him.Therefore with Him there is really no such thing as "foreknowledge" since the meaning of that word itself is defined by "time".

And you agree,saying:

I agree that it is "present" knowledge with Him and foreknowledge only from our POV.
Yes,from out point of view it "appears" that He has foreknowledge but in reality His knowledge is in the ever present "now".Therefore the language in regard to "foreknowledge" is figurative.

And since you understand that you should be able to realize that the same is true of any Scriptures which speak of His "fore-choosing".Any verse which speaks of His choosing us from the beginning or before the world began is only using "figurative" language.

From our point of view it "appears" to be true,but in reality we are not chosen until we believe the gospel:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2Thess.2:13).

Can you see that?

In Christ,
Mickey

[Nang]

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2Thess.2:13).

Can you see that?

In Christ,
Mickey

This is very sorry. You cannot see what the Scripture you present, clearly teaches. Look very closely and read in order:

1. God from the beginning
2. Has chosen to save the brethren
3. Through sanctifying them by His Holy Spirit
4. Which results in belief of the truth

Nang

[cbro]

This is very sorry. You cannot see what the Scripture you present, clearly teaches. Look very closely and read in order:

1. God from the beginning
2. Has chosen to save the brethren
3. Through sanctifying them by His Holy Spirit
4. Which results in belief of the truth

Nang"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2Thess.2:13).

Nang, we can't expect others to do what we are not doing. As shown by the
ref above, which he used, which may be different from yours. In that it says that we get our God's salvation, which is defined by the rest of the Bible, "through" (both) santification and belief.

[cbro]

Do you agree that it must be that way or OVT is wrong?Mickey, I ask that because TRULY admitting that OVT could be wrong is the ONLY way to know "IF" OVT is wrong. Otherwise we all will do what Nang said you were doing and what I say about the needy people in my sig.

[Nang]

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2Thess.2:13).

Nang, we can't expect others to do what we are not doing. As shown by the
ref above, which he used, which may be different from yours. In that it says that we get our God's salvation, which is defined by the rest of the Bible, "through" (both) santification and belief.

cbro,

I was emphasizing the order that is revealed in this particular verse, and even though salvation comes "through" sanctification and belief, please note that sanctification in the Holy Spirit comes first.

That was my point.

If the Holy Spirit has not sanctified, there will be no belief.

Arminians have it backwards.

They claim men must act and do something . . .i.e. believe, in order to be sanctified.

That is a works-righteousness gospel which is terribly wrong.

Nang

[cbro]

Silly me. I just discovered the "Similar Threads" links at the bottom of the "Refute My Open Theism Scenarios" thread!

I'd like to comment about God knowing everything. First, the classical definition of omniscience doesn't have a thing to say about God having to know absolutely everything, the entire future included. It only says this: God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods. That means that whatever is knowable, God knows it. That means that IF the future were exhaustively settled, God would know it. It means that IF God determined everything, God would know this. And it also means that IF part of the future is open, God would also know that, and He would know it thoroughly. But what the definition does not say is that God must know absoutely everything or He's not omniscient. So part of the future can be open (that is, not yet decided, hence not yet settled), and God would know this perfectly and exhaustively. And just because part of the future is open does not mean that God can't know what is, is not and might or might not be possible. No one is going to catch God by surprise. Not going to happen.

We forget that there are many things God can never know, and these must be included within the concept of God's omniscience. In other words, there is qualification that must precede statements such as, "God knows everything." God cannot know illogical things, like what a square circle is or what a married bachelor is. "Oh, those are illogical things, Starkman. They don't count as things God cannot know," you may say. Well, why not? They are things (nouns), are they not? But we can look at other things as well. God cannot know what it is like to be evil like Satan. God cannot know what it is like to not exist. He cannot know what it is like to have an eternal God like Himself in the neighborhood. God can never know what it is like to have relationship with anyone or anything that He has first not created. God cannot know what it is like to not be omniscient. God cannot know what it is like to be a male or female (though He exhibits masculine and feminine characteristics, but that's not at all to mean that God is male or female). There's a lot of things God can not, and will never, know. (And mind you, there are just as many things that God cannot do (Omnipotence) as there are those things He cannot know, but that's another story.

Second, as to God limiting His knowledge in for the Open View to be true, I personally think this is going to far. There's no need to go to this extreme in order to demonstrate that part of the future is open (see my "Refute My Open Theism Scenarios thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=76602). Now in the incarnation, yes, we have all the reason in the world to believe that Jesus limited (emptied) His knowledge. BUT... He had the Father and Holy Sprit available to give Him His revelation and guidance. But to put the full Triune God into a position of limiting His knowledge is to leave open too many gaps and to depart too much from reality. How can God choose to not know something without first knowing about the very thing that He is not supposed to know? And even if He were to limit His knowledge in order to not know specific things, how would keep from missing other things? In other words, for God to limit His knowledge in order to keep from knowing certain things, this would mean that God would first have to see all the things that are coming at Him before He chooses what to not know any of them. Otherwise He will miss something else, maybe something very important! This makes the issue of God limiting His knowledge too far out there for me. But that's my opinion.

Finally, this issue about A and B theories of time. I have to go back to what rings true to reality as we live it every day. If we are made in the image of God (some argue only Christians are, but that's neither here nor there), then what HAS to exist before anything else exists for this to be true is that there must be the ability for one to know that one is a certain image. The same applies for God being omniscience; what must exist first and foremost for God to be omniscient is that He must know He is. And...here's the point...if God knows anything, He cannot possibly know anything without there being some sort of time/duration going on. In other words, God cannot possibly be God if He cannot know He is, and that demands that there be sequence, and sequence means there must be duration, and duration means there is something called "time" going on. Not time as we measure it by the solar system, but time as in sequence. There has never been the existence of God without God knowing, thus in constant relationship with Himself, particularly through the Trinity, thus without sequence and duration: time. But the minute we try to make time some sort of matter, physical stuff or what have you, especially as we relate to time, we're in trouble.

All this argument about God being in or out of time before or after creation is to miss the bigger picture...I feel (my opinion again). The mere fact that we talk about the existence of God entails that this God has always been, has always known and is always in conscience relationship, in one manner or another. If that's so, the HAS to be some sort of sequencing going on, and that means some sort of concept of time. At least that's how I see it.

Well, it's "time" to get back to my studies.

Thanks much,

StarkmanI will get to this when I have time to study it.

[Mickey]

This is very sorry. You cannot see what the Scripture you present, clearly teaches. Look very closely and read in order...
Nang,

Did you read what I previously said?

I said that the verses in regard to when a person is chosen is in "figurative" sense.If you want to discuss these things with me then please what I said previously on this subject.

The discussion started in regard to the following:

God does not experience time, he created it. God has assigned Jesus to experience time and humanity. I would agree that God interacts with angels, the 24 elders, and Jesus, but he does not step into time and back out of it. The three dimensions of time are in Gods mind, he is NOT in them. God IS, therefore all that IS, God cannot be excluded from it, evil included. Just because God created something, does not mean he needs to experience it, to interact with it. God created all things physical, he does not have to be physical to observe it, or influence it. Nor does he have to change himself in order to phase into the reality of any reality he created.
I believe that this is correct.Therefore the Lord lives in the always present "now".

For Him there is no past or no future.Therefore when the Scriptures speak of the "foreknowledge of God" the expresssion is figurative.

To God it is not foreknowledge but to man it "appears" to be foreknowledge.

And the same is true in regard to His choosing us.It appears as if He saved us from the beginning,but that does not happen until we believe the gospel:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2Thess.2:13).

The part in "bold" is when we are actually saved.The underlined part is "figurative" language.Both can't be taken literally or else we must believe that we had "belief in the truth" from the beginning.

So please read what has been said before.

In Christ,
Mickey

[cbro]

Nang,

Did you read what I previously said?

I said that the verses in regard to when a person is chosen is in "figurative" sense.If you want to discuss these things with me then please what I said previously on this subject.

The discussion started in regard to the following:

I believe that this is correct.Therefore the Lord lives in the always present "now".

For Him there is no past or no future.Therefore when the Scriptures speak of the "foreknowledge of God" the expresssion is figurative.

To God it is not foreknowledge but to man it "appears" to be foreknowledge.

And the same is true in regard to His choosing us.It appears as if He saved us from the beginning,but that does not happen until we believe the gospel:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2Thess.2:13).

The part in "bold" is when we are actually saved.The underlined part is "figurative" language.Both can't be taken literally or else we must believe that we had "belief in the truth" from the beginning.

So please read what has been said before.

In Christ,
MickeyMickey, you are making a different form of the SAME MISTAKE that I told nang that he was making. It does not say what you say it does. It is ONLY figurative from GOD'S POV. Since we are not God, why must we speak and understand as if we were?

[Mickey]

Mickey, you are making a different form of the SAME MISTAKE that I told nang that he was making. It does not say what you say it does. It is ONLY figurative from GOD'S POV. Since we are not God, why must we speak and understand as if we were?
cbro,

It is God's point of view,and that point of view represents the reality.

It only "appears" to man that God chooses before the foundation of the world,but in reality He does not choose until the time when the sinner believes the gospel.

For example,the Scriptures speak of the "rising of the sun".That is how it "appears" to man.But in reality the sun does not rise but instead the earth rotates and at a point in time the sun appears on the horizon.So the phrase "the rising of the sun" does not represent reality,but instead that is only how it "appears" to man.

In Christ,
Mickey

[cbro]

QUOTE=Mickey
It is God's point of view,and that point of view represents the reality.

It only "appears" to man that God chooses before the foundation of the world,but in reality He does not choose until the time when the sinner believes the gospel.

QUOTE=cbro
Unless the Bible is literarily & literally true in the ref mentioned.

QUOTE=Mickey
For example,the Scriptures speak of the "rising of the sun".That is how it "appears" to man.But in reality the sun does not rise but instead the earth rotates and at a point in time the sun appears on the horizon.So the phrase "the rising of the sun" does not represent reality,but instead that is only how it "appears" to man.

In Christ,
Mickey

QUOTE=cbro
The FACT of the matter is that the amount of Sun we see is rising an not just appearing that way.

[Mickey]

The FACT of the matter is that the amount of Sun we see is rising an not just appearing that way.
cbro,

The following is from "The Astronomy Answer Book":

The Sun (http://www.astro.uu.nl/~strous/AA/en/antwoorden/zon.html#sun) and stars (http://www.astro.uu.nl/~strous/AA/en/antwoorden/sterren.html#stars) appear to rotate around the Earth (http://www.astro.uu.nl/~strous/AA/en/antwoorden/planeten.html#Earth) about once a day, but that is because the Earth (http://www.astro.uu.nl/~strous/cgi-bin/glossary.cgi?l=en&o=Earth) rotates around its axis about once a day. Something similar happens when you sit in a rotating merry-go-round: then, too, it seems like the rest of the world rotates relative to the merry-go-round, instead of the other way around.
http://www.astro.uu.nl/~strous/AA/en/antwoorden/zonpositie.html

In Christ,
Mickey

[cbro]

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2Thess.2:13).

I was emphasizing the order that is revealed in this particular verse, and even though salvation comes "through" sanctification and belief, please note that sanctification in the Holy Spirit comes first.

That was my point.

If the Holy Spirit has not sanctified, there will be no belief.A point of mine was that I don't see how you get it out of this version of the ref., because it says 'sanctification "AND" belief, not "FOR" belief". The point of mentioning this was that my MAIN point, to you and not Mickey, was to be more careful in our reading, because we should not expect others to do what we show we are not doing.

Arminians have it backwards.

They claim men must act and do something . . .i.e. believe, in order to be sanctified.
That is a works-righteousness gospel which is terribly wrong.

NangI agree. PS. did you see Mickey's reply to you?