God created time,space and sience...

[godrulz]

God is from everlasting to everlasting (Ps. 90:2). He has no beginning and no ending. He is the "I am". This means that He exists and that He has always existed and will always exist. This does not preclude Him from existing in an endless time or duration. Timelessness is philosophical, not biblical.

Rev. 1:8 does not prove timelessness. In fact, it uses past, present, and future tenses about God. He has no beginning and no end, but this does not mean that He has no duration/sequence/succession in His experiences. The incarnation happened after the creation. The triune God fellowshipped from all eternity BEFORE He created. The Second Coming has not already happened in the divine nor human experience. "Eternal now" says that all things are simultaneous for God, whereas Scripture portrays God as having a history (Genesis and Revelation do not exist in some 4th dimension at the same time). History necessitates time, not timelessness.

Time is not a thing nor space so it is not created. This is a wrong assumption (created time) and leads to a wrong conclusion.

Malachi shows that God is not fickle nor capricious. His essential character does not change. Other passages show that God changes His mind. This is only possible if there is sequence in God's experience. There is no reason to take these passages figuratively. God changes in some ways (experiences, relations), but not in other ways (essential nature and character).

The incarnation happened in space-time history. God has not always been incarnated in Christ. This is a change and involved past, present, and future (time) in God's experience.

[yomotalking]

God never changes, GG.

Remember the hymn?

"All may change but Jesus never

Glory to His Name

Glory to His Name

Glory To His Name...

All may change but Jesus neveeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrr.................Glory to His Naaaaaaame.

[godrulz]

The unique MEASURE of time was created in the beginning (sun, moon, stars). This does not mean that duration came into existence from timelessness. Timelessness would imply that creation was co-eternal with God. God existed BEFORE creation (sequence). Creation had a beginning at some point in God's endless time.

<......................present....................> (endless time= eternity)

NOT past/present/future in one 'eternal now' simultaneity...this would negate creation, incarnation, divine thoughts/feelings/actions.

Since most of you will not read the book I linked in my first post (God and Time: 4 views IVP), here is an introductory article to open your minds to an alternate view that I trust is more biblical than the Platonic/Augustinian 'eternal now' view.

http://www.twtministries.com/articles/9_op...s/eternity.html

[godrulz]

"A Treatise on Time and Space" J. R. Lucas

"Time is more fundamental than space....Some theologians say that God is outside time, but it cannot be true of any personal God that he is timeless, for a personal God is conscious, and time is a concomitant (accompany) of consciousness. Time is not only the concomitant of consciousness, but the process of actualization and the dimension of change...it is connected with modality, and the passage from the open future to the unalterable past...without time no agent could act, for to act is to bring about something that we want to come to pass, and time is the passage from possibility to actuality, from aspiration to achievement...the future is open, the present actual, the past unalterable (godrulz= therefore, time travel is absurd, even for God...time is not a place one can go to)...

Modal logic has relevance to this topic (contingencies, etc.).

One implication of this view is that the exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is a logical contradiction or absurdity. Either freedom is illusory, or God knows the future as possible, not actual (except what He predestines...he does not predestine everything).

I have wrestled with and researched this for 25 years. There is a growing body of academic literature that challenges us to critically think through things that we take for granted (only view shared in Sunday School). We want to be coherent and biblical. Do not blindly accept the simplistic idea that time was created and that God is timeless.

[book_wirm]

Other passages show that God changes His mind.

What greater danger could there be than a God that "changes" His mind. It questions the perfection of God's knowledge and wisdom, His sovereignty, and the very word which is the basis of our faith.

I understand that a few verses speak of God "repenting" of what he was going to do...or that he spared some He had promised to destroy... etc, etc.

Better to understand these things as the best way man can understand God rather than understand God to change.

The mass of scripture speaks or alludes to a God who changes in no way, ever.

In Christ,

Eric

[godrulz]

I Samuel 15:10, 35, 29 shows that God changes His mind in some situations (grieved), but does not change it at other times (will not vs cannot cf. Num. 23:19; Gen. 6:16...take it literally vs dismissing one verse in the same context as not saying what it clearly says).

2 Kings 20 is an historical narrative. God did not lie when He said Hezekiah was a dead duck. In response to prayer, God changed His mind and intentions and added 15 years to His life. God is free to sovereignly respond to changing contingencies. The future is not fixed like the past. There are many examples where God was responsive rather than fatalistically fixing things (error of Calvinism/determinism). He is dynamic, not static. When God changes His mind, it is not contrary to His wisdom, faithfulness, and righteousness. He created a world that has genuine freedom and with creatures with significance. He desired reciprocal relationships, not automatons. Prayer does change things! It is not just for our benefit. We also see given and take divine-human interaction with Moses and God in Exodus. The conditional nature of prophecies also supports the idea that much of the future is open: if...then...if not....then...

[book_wirm]

The conditional nature of prophecies also supports the idea that much of the future is open: if...then...if not....then...

Yet the vast amount of unconditional prophecies is evidence that the future is known by God...otherwise He takes a large gamble saying things will happen without being able to know they will. The idea that God can simply make happen what He says will happen but does not necessarily know/see that it will is ludicrous. If He cannot know/see that it will happen then He is a liar for saying it will...to assert that God simply forces to happen what He says will happen is equally contadicting. If He will make happen what He says will happen, then the future is still known by Him.

Lastly, the idea that God changes His mind introduces the idea that God "learns". For Him to change His mind He must. If He learns then He is not all knowing. If He changes His mind without learning then He "intended" to do something which He knew He would not...and has lied.

It is easier to accept what He says of Himself...that He declares the end from the beginning...and that He is not a man that He should repent.

In Christ,

Eric

[yomotalking]

It is easier to accept what He says of Himself...that He declares the end from the beginning...and that He is not a man that He should repent.

Then why does the scripture say that he does?

In Genesis 6 we are told that God was sorry he made man. So, by your reasoning, God was ALWAYS sorry he made man, but we know that isn't the case because in Genesis 1 on the sixth day God said it was good. But in chapter 6, God was sorry he made us.

WSB, I don't know where you got that Verse from.

It is actually meant this way: He is not a man that he should lie.

[book_wirm]

It is easier to accept what He says of Himself...that He declares the end from the beginning...and that He is not a man that He should repent.

WSB, I don't know where you got that Verse from.

It is actually meant this way: He is not a man that he should lie.

Actually, the verses contain both statements... (lie and repent)

Num 23:19

God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent...

I Sam 15:29

...the Strenght of Isreal will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man that he should repent.

The question brought up is how do we understand passages which speak of God "repenting". All I have said is that to accept that God repents as we do (changing ones mind/admitting a mistake) implies:

~God did not know what would happen.

*which carries implications, both for God's omniscience and for His honesty

~God learned something knew.

*again, questioning His omniscience

The question, then, is, can God declare the end from the beginning or not. Is the future known to Him or not? If it is then changing ones mind/admitting a mistake is a ludicrous proposition for the intended meaning of repentence when attributed to God. If He does not know the future then we have opened the mass of scripture to doubt (unconditional prophecy, election/foreknowledge- regardless of how you understand it, the book of Revelation in its entirety, etc, etc...)

Interesting topic, none the less.

In Christ,

Eric

[godrulz]

Is. 46:9-11 and Is. 48:3 are not proof texts for exhaustive foreknowledge of all future free will contingencies. The way that God knows SOME vs all of the future is that He will bring it to pass by His ability. Calvinism goes to far and wrongly extrapolates that because God controls some of the future, that He must control all of the future (determinism). These contexts are about specific situations and do not extend to who will win the Superbowl 10 years from now. It is His ability, not His foreknowledge that allows God to declare unconditional prophecies. Jonah and Hezekiah are examples that show the future is contingent and not fixed like the past. Arminian simple foreknowledge is an assumption, but not defensible. The future is not there to know, so it is not a deficiency in omniscience (knows all that is knowable). Likewise, because God cannot create a rock too heavy to lift (logical absuridity/contradiction) does not mean that He is not omnipotent (does all that is doable).

God is all-knowing, but knows the future as possible vs actual (reality as it is).

Open Theism (Pinnock, Boyd, Sanders, etc.) correctly shows that some of the future is settled, while other aspects are unsettled. The first and second coming can be prophesied and brought to pass with certainty apart from man's choices. What you will eat in 10 days is not foreknowable if it is a free choice (i.e. from eternity past before you existed). These two motifs are in Scripture and both proof texts should be taken literally. You are forced to take the openness passages as figurative without warrant.

The verses that say that God does not change His mind do not contradict the verses that reveal that He does change His mind. God does not change His mind in some specific cases, but He does change it in other cases. If a parent says that the child will get ice cream if he cleans his room, and will take his allowance if he does not clean his room, it is not a negative change of mind to not give ice cream (intention) IF the child does not meet the conditions. God does not change His mind in a fickle, capricious manner like humans do. If he changes his mind, it is to be true to His Word and character. If contingencies change, God can and should change His intentions. It is a wrong assumption to think free choices are fatalistically fixed. In Deuteronomy, God promised blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. Until the free choices were made, it was not a foregone conclusion which way things would go. Either way, God will not change His promises, but He can change which option happens depending on man's choices. In one passage, it says that God expected good grapes from Israel. He had hoped and intended to be able to bless them. Instead, out of character, Israel produced bad grapes. God was disappointed and had to give them the negative consequences. This is not a fickle change, but a faithfulness to His Word (just as if they obeyed and he blessed instead of punished).

Without contingencies, neither God nor man is truly free. God would be locked into a fatalistic future with no ability to respond. Exhaustive foreknowledge would come at a high price (loss of freedom for God and man) and is not necessary for God to providentially rule His creation (sovereignty does not mean meticulous control).