Is this stupid or valid???

[*Zion*]

In a recent discussion with a fellow Christian, somehow the subject came up of Jesus being eternal.  To me it is exceedingly obvious that Jesus is able to travel through time i.e.: past, present and future, but my friend disagreed, saying that while Jesus does know the future, His actions are limited are limited to the present.

 

Hmmmmmm..........

 

 

I strongly disagree.  I mean, nothing is too difficult for God.  I think it's just dumb to try to impose any limitations upon God at all.  But my friend seems pretty convinced about his own point of view, which took me by some surprise.  

 

What do you think?  Stupid or valid?  Extreme doctrinal error or no biggie???

 

I'm still trying to figure out where he's even coming from with his opinion, completely confused by him, as he's a passionate believer, so... I just dunno what to do with this - I'm quite roused!!!

 

Thanks to all responses

[hmbld]

If God created all things, then He also created time, and i can see no way possible He is limited by His own creation?

[missmuffet]

It is stupid Zion.God is omniscient,omnipresent and omnipotent.I come across a ton of false doctrine these days.I think it is a part of living in the end times and Satan wanting to confuse many as to the true literal interpretation of the Bible.We have to pray to God and give Him our mind to keep it clear only to Him.

[Littlelambseativy]

Jesus, being God of very God is Alpha and Omega... He is in the past, the present and the future, now.

[Roman150]

In a recent discussion with a fellow Christian, somehow the subject came up of Jesus being eternal.  To me it is exceedingly obvious that Jesus is able to travel through time i.e.: past, present and future, but my friend disagreed, saying that while Jesus does know the future, His actions are limited are limited to the present.

 

Hmmmmmm..........

 

 

I strongly disagree.  I mean, nothing is too difficult for God.  I think it's just dumb to try to impose any limitations upon God at all.  But my friend seems pretty convinced about his own point of view, which took me by some surprise.  

 

What do you think?  Stupid or valid?  Extreme doctrinal error or no biggie???

 

I'm still trying to figure out where he's even coming from with his opinion, completely confused by him, as he's a passionate believer, so... I just dunno what to do with this - I'm quite roused!!!

 

Thanks to all responses

This sounds *somewhat* like the concept of "open theism", which, frankly, I don't know much about.  One of it's main proponents is Pastor Greg Boyd, who is a senior pastor at a prominent church in my area.   Boyd is a very brilliant and prolific author, and rather famous for being something of an iconoclast regarding dearly held Christian beliefs.  I would say that he falls into the category of the 'Christian Left'.  

 

Lest I get too far afield, *I think* open theism holds that because of free will, God has limited omniscience, and can even be taken off guard.  Here's Pastor Boyd in his own words:

 

If I had to define “Open Theism” in one sentence, I would say that it as the view that the future is partly comprised of possibilities and is therefore known by God as partly comprised of possibilities.  (By the way, I prefer to refer to this view as “the open view of the future,” since the most distinctive aspect of Open Theism is not its understanding of the nature of God, but its understanding of the nature of the future). 

To expound a bit on this definition, the open view of the future holds that God chose to create a cosmos that is populated with free agents – at least humans and angels (though some hold that there is a degree of freedom, however small, in all sentient beings).  To have free will means that one has the ability to transition several possible courses of action into one actual course of action. This is precisely why Open Theists hold that the future is partly comprised of possibilities.  While God can decide to pre-settle whatever aspects of the future he wishes, to the degree that he has given agents freedom, God has chosen to leave the future open, as a domain of possibilities, for agents to resolve with their free choices.  This view obviously conflicts with the understanding of the future that has been espoused by classical theologians,  for the traditional view is that God foreknows from all eternity the future exclusively as a domain of exhaustively definite facts.

[missmuffet]

 

In a recent discussion with a fellow Christian, somehow the subject came up of Jesus being eternal.  To me it is exceedingly obvious that Jesus is able to travel through time i.e.: past, present and future, but my friend disagreed, saying that while Jesus does know the future, His actions are limited are limited to the present.

 

Hmmmmmm..........

 

 

I strongly disagree.  I mean, nothing is too difficult for God.  I think it's just dumb to try to impose any limitations upon God at all.  But my friend seems pretty convinced about his own point of view, which took me by some surprise.  

 

What do you think?  Stupid or valid?  Extreme doctrinal error or no biggie???

 

I'm still trying to figure out where he's even coming from with his opinion, completely confused by him, as he's a passionate believer, so... I just dunno what to do with this - I'm quite roused!!!

 

Thanks to all responses

This sounds *somewhat* like the concept of "open theism", which, frankly, I don't know much about.  One of it's main proponents is Pastor Greg Boyd, who is a senior pastor at a prominent church in my area.   Boyd is a very brilliant and prolific author, and rather famous for being something of an iconoclast regarding dearly held Christian beliefs.  I would say that he falls into the category of the 'Christian Left'.  

 

Lest I get too far afield, *I think* open theism holds that because of free will, God has limited omniscience, and can even be taken off guard.  Here's Pastor Boyd in his own words:

 

If I had to define “Open Theism” in one sentence, I would say that it as the view that the future is partly comprised of possibilities and is therefore known by God as partly comprised of possibilities.  (By the way, I prefer to refer to this view as “the open view of the future,” since the most distinctive aspect of Open Theism is not its understanding of the nature of God, but its understanding of the nature of the future). 

To expound a bit on this definition, the open view of the future holds that God chose to create a cosmos that is populated with free agents – at least humans and angels (though some hold that there is a degree of freedom, however small, in all sentient beings).  To have free will means that one has the ability to transition several possible courses of action into one actual course of action. This is precisely why Open Theists hold that the future is partly comprised of possibilities.  While God can decide to pre-settle whatever aspects of the future he wishes, to the degree that he has given agents freedom, God has chosen to leave the future open, as a domain of possibilities, for agents to resolve with their free choices.  This view obviously conflicts with the understanding of the future that has been espoused by classical theologians,  for the traditional view is that God foreknows from all eternity the future exclusively as a domain of exhaustively definite facts.

 

He can not be too brilliant with the belief that he has.

[hmbld]

 

In a recent discussion with a fellow Christian, somehow the subject came up of Jesus being eternal.  To me it is exceedingly obvious that Jesus is able to travel through time i.e.: past, present and future, but my friend disagreed, saying that while Jesus does know the future, His actions are limited are limited to the present.

 

Hmmmmmm..........

 

 

I strongly disagree.  I mean, nothing is too difficult for God.  I think it's just dumb to try to impose any limitations upon God at all.  But my friend seems pretty convinced about his own point of view, which took me by some surprise.  

 

What do you think?  Stupid or valid?  Extreme doctrinal error or no biggie???

 

I'm still trying to figure out where he's even coming from with his opinion, completely confused by him, as he's a passionate believer, so... I just dunno what to do with this - I'm quite roused!!!

 

Thanks to all responses

This sounds *somewhat* like the concept of "open theism", which, frankly, I don't know much about.  One of it's main proponents is Pastor Greg Boyd, who is a senior pastor at a prominent church in my area.   Boyd is a very brilliant and prolific author, and rather famous for being something of an iconoclast regarding dearly held Christian beliefs.  I would say that he falls into the category of the 'Christian Left'.  

 

Lest I get too far afield, *I think* open theism holds that because of free will, God has limited omniscience, and can even be taken off guard.  Here's Pastor Boyd in his own words:

 

If I had to define “Open Theism” in one sentence, I would say that it as the view that the future is partly comprised of possibilities and is therefore known by God as partly comprised of possibilities.  (By the way, I prefer to refer to this view as “the open view of the future,” since the most distinctive aspect of Open Theism is not its understanding of the nature of God, but its understanding of the nature of the future). 

To expound a bit on this definition, the open view of the future holds that God chose to create a cosmos that is populated with free agents – at least humans and angels (though some hold that there is a degree of freedom, however small, in all sentient beings).  To have free will means that one has the ability to transition several possible courses of action into one actual course of action. This is precisely why Open Theists hold that the future is partly comprised of possibilities.  While God can decide to pre-settle whatever aspects of the future he wishes, to the degree that he has given agents freedom, God has chosen to leave the future open, as a domain of possibilities, for agents to resolve with their free choices.  This view obviously conflicts with the understanding of the future that has been espoused by classical theologians,  for the traditional view is that God foreknows from all eternity the future exclusively as a domain of exhaustively definite facts.

 

 

That sounds like he believes God is restrained by time.  To have free will does not limit God to only knowing the past and present, for He knows the future as He is already there.

[Hall7]

We know He can travel in the Spirit:

 

1 Peter 3

He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive,[d] he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

 

Anything is possible to God, past, present or future because He created everything including time. Time (as we know it) is derived from daylight and darkness. He created the sun and darkness.

[Roman150]

 

 

That sounds like he believes God is restrained by time.  To have free will does not limit God to only knowing the past and present, for He knows the future as He is already there.

 

Agreed.  

 

IMHO, his teachings and church have long struck me as 'off'.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Roman150

[Roman150]

 

 

 

 

That sounds like he believes God is restrained by time.  To have free will does not limit God to only knowing the past and present, for He knows the future as He is already there.

 

Agreed.

 

His teachings and church have long struck me as 'off'.