godrulz Posted October 13, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 885 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/25/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/19/1960 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Had God known that, "the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" He would not have created man and thereby he would not have had to destroy man. No where in Scripture does it say I will create man who I know will become so wicked that evey imagination of the thoughts of his heart was evil continually, that man will upset me so much that I will become sorry I have created man and I will destroy man from of the face of the earth? Argument from a vacuum. The lack of something in the Bible does not prove a positive argument. HAZARD is assuming that God would not have created man in the first place, with the foreknowledge of the fall and of man's wickedness. There is no evidence that He would have held back creation for the sake of His foreknowledge of events. To HAZARD God cannot be God, because He is not all-knowing (Omniscient). If God is not omniscient than He cannot be omnipresent (present in all places at all times), because if He were omnipresent then He would know the future by virtue of being there to witness events. If God is not omniscient and omnipresent then He cannot be omnipotent (all-powerful), because God's authority over all things requires His knowledge and presence. HAZARD, your god is not the God of the Bible. You are wrongly assuming the future is a place or thing. This is science fiction, not reality. Time travel is impossible, even for God. The potential future becomes the fixed past through the present. Eternal now simultaneity is incoherent and unbiblical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovedya Posted October 13, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.43 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Had God known that, "the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" He would not have created man and thereby he would not have had to destroy man. No where in Scripture does it say I will create man who I know will become so wicked that evey imagination of the thoughts of his heart was evil continually, that man will upset me so much that I will become sorry I have created man and I will destroy man from of the face of the earth? Argument from a vacuum. The lack of something in the Bible does not prove a positive argument. HAZARD is assuming that God would not have created man in the first place, with the foreknowledge of the fall and of man's wickedness. There is no evidence that He would have held back creation for the sake of His foreknowledge of events. To HAZARD God cannot be God, because He is not all-knowing (Omniscient). If God is not omniscient than He cannot be omnipresent (present in all places at all times), because if He were omnipresent then He would know the future by virtue of being there to witness events. If God is not omniscient and omnipresent then He cannot be omnipotent (all-powerful), because God's authority over all things requires His knowledge and presence. HAZARD, your god is not the God of the Bible. You are wrongly assuming the future is a place or thing. This is science fiction, not reality. Time travel is impossible, even for God. The potential future becomes the fixed past through the present. Eternal now simultaneity is incoherent and unbiblical. I have no idea what you mean by "eternal now." I did not present such a concept. The future is absolutely fixed according to God's perspective. Time is linear - it extends from eternity past to eternity future. God exists outside the confines of linear time and is able to simultaneously view, interact, and influence linear time. Therefore "time travle" is not something that God is concerned with at all. Nothing is impossible for God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovedya Posted October 13, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.43 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Am I the only one who finds it a bit strange that we've had now at least three threads based upon this subject? Are we not making any progress here? Not really. I can't understand why. Is it really a prevalent idea in the church that God changed His mind in those cases? I see that HAZARD is responding as I type this....Is there also a prevalent notion in the church that God is imperfect, that He is, in fact, not onmiscient? In both views, God is fully omniscient. He knows all that is logically possible to know. Just because God cannot create a rock too heavy to lift (logical contradiction/absurdity) does not mean that He is not omnipotent (can do all that is doable). Just because God does not know what Alice in Wonderland is doing right now does not make Him less than omniscient. We differ as to possible objects of certain knowledge (contingencies and future free will choices have an element of uncertainty and are correctly known as such; God could have made a deterministic universe with a settled future, but He did not do so; exhaustive definite foreknowledge and future free will contingencies is a logical contradiction; either man does not have freedom and is a robot, or the content of God's omniscience is voluntarily limited). To not know a nothing is not a deficiency in God (the future does not exist yet and is at least partially open/unsettled). So, we differ as to the nature of creation (open or closed), not whether He is omniscient or not (He is!). If there is a case or time when God does not know something He logically is not omniscient. Omniscience is, by definition, "the knowledge of all things. Absolute knowledge" It is not defined as "the knowledge of all knowable things. If there is something that God does not know then He is limited by that thing. If God does not know that Alice will fall down the rabbit hole, then He is just as limited by linear time and space as Alice is; rather than being as the reader of the story that can skip ahead and see that Alice will fall down the rabbit hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovedya Posted October 13, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.43 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted October 13, 2008 In both views, God is fully omniscient. He knows all that is logically possible to know. Just because God cannot create a rock too heavy to lift (logical contradiction/absurdity) does not mean that He is not omnipotent (can do all that is doable). Just because God does not know what Alice in Wonderland is doing right now does not make Him less than omniscient. We differ as to possible objects of certain knowledge (contingencies and future free will choices have an element of uncertainty and are correctly known as such; God could have made a deterministic universe with a settled future, but He did not do so; exhaustive definite foreknowledge and future free will contingencies is a logical contradiction; either man does not have freedom and is a robot, or the content of God's omniscience is voluntarily limited). To not know a nothing is not a deficiency in God (the future does not exist yet and is at least partially open/unsettled). So, we differ as to the nature of creation (open or closed), not whether He is omniscient or not (He is!). so, based on the underlined part of your statement, God cannot know for sure that he wins out over Satan in the end, is that correct? If the future is not settled, there can be no assurance of salvation, as that is in the future and it cant be known, so it cant be assured. Right. That's a logical conclusion. If God is limited in knowledge by virtue of an infinite number of possible outcomes then He could not logically assure salvation to His elect (This fits nicely with the Arminian view, by the way). He could not logically assure that heaven will be prepared when the Bride is ready. He could not assure the fulfillment of the book of Revelation as His prophecy of things yet to come. In fact, If God doesn't know - can't know - all there is to know, He could not have infused His prophets of the Old Testament era with revelations of things to come. The prophesies themselves would have only been "things I think might happen based upon the direction that humans decide to follow." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floatingaxe Posted October 13, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 62 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 9,613 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 656 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/31/1952 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Right. That's a logical conclusion. If God is limited in knowledge by virtue of an infinite number of possible outcomes then He could not logically assure salvation to His elect (This fits nicely with the Arminian view, by the way). He could not logically assure that heaven will be prepared when the Bride is ready. He could not assure the fulfillment of the book of Revelation as His prophecy of things yet to come. In fact, If God doesn't know - can't know - all there is to know, He could not have infused His prophets of the Old Testament era with revelations of things to come. The prophesies themselves would have only been "things I think might happen based upon the direction that humans decide to follow." I guess God just got lucky with the 100 plus prophecies about Jesus There are/were over 800 prophecies about the Messiah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cymba22 Posted October 13, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/14/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/06/1967 Share Posted October 13, 2008 the foreknowledge of God knew that man would sin in the Garden or Eden..wonder why he later repented that he has made man...when he new before had he would become a sinner..just a thought if anyone has any things that might shed some light on this? Where does it say he repenteds that he made man?..scripture please...thanks. Genesis 6:6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. the earth...not man...big differance. You might be sorry that you bought the house your family lives in...do you hate your family that lives in it? no.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthbringer Posted October 13, 2008 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 171 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/17/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/13/1949 Share Posted October 13, 2008 the foreknowledge of God knew that man would sin in the Garden or Eden..wonder why he later repented that he has made man...when he new before had he would become a sinner..just a thought if anyone has any things that might shed some light on this? God didn't know before, Otherwise why would He repent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godrulz Posted October 13, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 885 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/25/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/19/1960 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Had God known that, "the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" He would not have created man and thereby he would not have had to destroy man. No where in Scripture does it say I will create man who I know will become so wicked that evey imagination of the thoughts of his heart was evil continually, that man will upset me so much that I will become sorry I have created man and I will destroy man from of the face of the earth? Argument from a vacuum. The lack of something in the Bible does not prove a positive argument. HAZARD is assuming that God would not have created man in the first place, with the foreknowledge of the fall and of man's wickedness. There is no evidence that He would have held back creation for the sake of His foreknowledge of events. To HAZARD God cannot be God, because He is not all-knowing (Omniscient). If God is not omniscient than He cannot be omnipresent (present in all places at all times), because if He were omnipresent then He would know the future by virtue of being there to witness events. If God is not omniscient and omnipresent then He cannot be omnipotent (all-powerful), because God's authority over all things requires His knowledge and presence. HAZARD, your god is not the God of the Bible. You are wrongly assuming the future is a place or thing. This is science fiction, not reality. Time travel is impossible, even for God. The potential future becomes the fixed past through the present. Eternal now simultaneity is incoherent and unbiblical. I have no idea what you mean by "eternal now." I did not present such a concept. The future is absolutely fixed according to God's perspective. Time is linear - it extends from eternity past to eternity future. God exists outside the confines of linear time and is able to simultaneously view, interact, and influence linear time. Therefore "time travle" is not something that God is concerned with at all. Nothing is impossible for God. Is it possible for God to create a rock too heavy to lift? Even secular philosophers recognize this impossibility, even for an omnipotent being (logical absurdity; stupid question). Your view is known as the 'eternal now' view. C.S. Lewis used your timeline analogy. It has Platonic (Greek) roots and is contrary to a Hebraic view. Time is unidirectional moving from the potential future to the fixed past through the present. The Bible does not present an exhaustively fixed future (fatalism). It shows God responding in real space-time as history unfolds. In fact, He has a history (His Story), so timelessness is incoherent. Time is not a line that God can be above. Unless creation is co-eternal with God, you should support a view that distinguishes past, present, and future (don't make Einstein's mistake of blurring these distinctions). Eternity is endless time extending from eternity past to eternity future (Ps. 90:2). The incarnation is not co-terminal with the Garden of Eden or the Second Coming, even for God. The future is not yet, so God cannot see it or be there. You are uncritically accepting a traditional view (eternal now....God exists in the past, present, and future all at once and sees it like someone above a line). The issues and alternate views are more complex than you probably realize. To get started (equally capable, godly people hold various views)...even strident Open Theist critique, Bruce Ware, has come to see that God is from everlasting to everlasting (endless time), not timeless (but he still clings to most Calvinistic, classical views): http://www.amazon.com/God-Time-Gregory-E-G...e/dp/0830815511 (look inside for contents...Wolterstorff's view is the most credible in my mind). http://revivaltheology.gharvest.com/9_openness/eternity.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godrulz Posted October 13, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 885 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/25/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/19/1960 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Right. That's a logical conclusion. If God is limited in knowledge by virtue of an infinite number of possible outcomes then He could not logically assure salvation to His elect (This fits nicely with the Arminian view, by the way). He could not logically assure that heaven will be prepared when the Bride is ready. He could not assure the fulfillment of the book of Revelation as His prophecy of things yet to come. In fact, If God doesn't know - can't know - all there is to know, He could not have infused His prophets of the Old Testament era with revelations of things to come. The prophesies themselves would have only been "things I think might happen based upon the direction that humans decide to follow." I guess God just got lucky with the 100 plus prophecies about Jesus Messianic prophecies are under God's control. God incarnates, lives, and dies independent of finite man to stop this. Isaiah 46 and 48 show how God fulfills prophecy: it is by His ABILITY, not supposed exhaustive crystal ball foreknowledge. He declares things and brings them to pass. I can declare that I am going to the bank tomorrow. I do not have to be prescient to make this come to pass. I just need a car and keys (ability, not foreknowledge). As well, these are specific things and cannot be extrapolated to include who will win every sports event, or which moves every chess player will ever make from eternity past, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godrulz Posted October 13, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 885 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/25/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/19/1960 Share Posted October 13, 2008 In both views, God is fully omniscient. He knows all that is logically possible to know. Just because God cannot create a rock too heavy to lift (logical contradiction/absurdity) does not mean that He is not omnipotent (can do all that is doable). Just because God does not know what Alice in Wonderland is doing right now does not make Him less than omniscient. We differ as to possible objects of certain knowledge (contingencies and future free will choices have an element of uncertainty and are correctly known as such; God could have made a deterministic universe with a settled future, but He did not do so; exhaustive definite foreknowledge and future free will contingencies is a logical contradiction; either man does not have freedom and is a robot, or the content of God's omniscience is voluntarily limited). To not know a nothing is not a deficiency in God (the future does not exist yet and is at least partially open/unsettled). So, we differ as to the nature of creation (open or closed), not whether He is omniscient or not (He is!). so, based on the underlined part of your statement, God cannot know for sure that he wins out over Satan in the end, is that correct? If the future is not settled, there can be no assurance of salvation, as that is in the future and it cant be known, so it cant be assured. God is omnipotent/omnicompetent, wise, intelligent, omniscient/omnipresent. Satan is created, finite, fallen. God can squish him like a bug, so the victory is not in doubt. A better question is why God allows him to exist and war right now? http://www.amazon.com/Satan-Problem-Evil-C...n/dp/0830815503 This is a coherent, biblical explanation (warfare vs blueprint model; one cannot answer this without dealing with God-given free will). God has the ability to settle this when He wants, so He can declare and know victory. I can ensure that I will be able to kill a bug and even 'prophecy' this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Do not underestimate God's ability, which is NOT dependent on prescience. It takes a greater God or chess player to respond to every contingency without controlling or knowing every detail in advance. Salvation was assured because God implemented a plan of redemption. What cannot be assured is the salvation of every individual without compromising truth, righteousness, holiness, love, freedom, relationship. Unless you are a universalist or TULIP Calvinist, you will recognize that millions perish, contrary to God's will (I will assume you are not a determinist). All who believe will be saved (Jn. 3:16). All who refuse to come to Him for life will perish (Jn. 3:36). His provision is perfect and efficacious, but not automatic for everyone, including Satan. An interesting analogy is the difference between D-Day and VE-Day in WW II. His victory was assured on the cross, but will not be fully achieved until Satan is in the lake of fire. In between, there is a warfare with resistance to God's kingdom. The outcome is not in doubt globally, but does remain unsettled for individuals (you must first be conceived, survive to adulthood, make choices, etc...these contingencies are not fatalistically settled...EDF should lead to despair, passivity, etc. with God being unable to respond or change anything; prayer and evangelism becomes indefensible, etc.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts