ARCHIVE:God is NOT an OV'er (He said so)
- Thread starter geoff
- Start date
Evangelion
New member
Curse you, Geoff - I agree again!! 
"open theists"?
I wish there was less theological shorthand.
then there would not be a need to go to another book than the bible.
What do you meen!?
I was more seeking to reply to those who were uncertain of the truth.
The part you quoted was only that a part.and it was meant to be read WITH what folowed.
pechance that some profit might be gained by those who already are persuaded of it and those who are not.
Last edited:
1013
Post Modern Fundamentalist
Evangelion, I'm not going to respond to geoff, but as you took the trouble to affirm him, I'll take the trouble to ask, how can you agree with him? what is limited omniscience? It doesn't sound like anything I believe in. I believe that God knows everything. What's so limited about that? At most, it is the limit of truth. Do you believe that God knows more than what is true? that notion is absurd.
Last edited:
1013
Post Modern Fundamentalist
2nd post
and since we're on the subject of affirmations of geoff, Jaltus and Evangelion, concerning these quotes
fellas, were you
A. humoring geoff,
or
B. did not read what he wrote?
For the life of me, I can't think what you guys were praising had anything to do with our conversation, because nobody here was arguing the significance of the specific time that the world was created and I would agree with geoff that the time that the world was created was not being modified. It was "the lamb that was slain," "the writting of the names," and the killing of the marytyrs all in relation to the creation of the world which is the current topic here.
and since we're on the subject of affirmations of geoff, Jaltus and Evangelion, concerning these quotes
fellas, were you
A. humoring geoff,
or
B. did not read what he wrote?
For the life of me, I can't think what you guys were praising had anything to do with our conversation, because nobody here was arguing the significance of the specific time that the world was created and I would agree with geoff that the time that the world was created was not being modified. It was "the lamb that was slain," "the writting of the names," and the killing of the marytyrs all in relation to the creation of the world which is the current topic here.
Last edited:
drdeutsch
New member
Rev 5:6
Rev 5:6
Jobeth,
Sorry that this is late, but I've been gone for a week.
The relevance of Rev 5:6 is that it says "in the midst of the elders stood a Lamb as though it had been slain, having seven horns..." and not "In the midst of the elders stood a lamb as though it had been slain from the foundation of the world, having seven horns..."
"From the foundation of the world" is not attached to "Lamb slain" in this verse, whereas in Rev 17:8, "from the foundation of the world" is clearly and indisputably attached to "whose names are not written in the Book of Life."
If "from the foundation of the world" is already attached to "Names not written in the book of life" in Scripture and not to "lamb slain," it leads me, and many scholars, to believe that "from the foundation of the world" should modify "names not written in the book of life" in Rev 13:8 as well.
I hope that answers your question.
God bless,
Dr. Deutsch
Rev 5:6
Jobeth,
Sorry that this is late, but I've been gone for a week.
The relevance of Rev 5:6 is that it says "in the midst of the elders stood a Lamb as though it had been slain, having seven horns..." and not "In the midst of the elders stood a lamb as though it had been slain from the foundation of the world, having seven horns..."
"From the foundation of the world" is not attached to "Lamb slain" in this verse, whereas in Rev 17:8, "from the foundation of the world" is clearly and indisputably attached to "whose names are not written in the Book of Life."
If "from the foundation of the world" is already attached to "Names not written in the book of life" in Scripture and not to "lamb slain," it leads me, and many scholars, to believe that "from the foundation of the world" should modify "names not written in the book of life" in Rev 13:8 as well.
I hope that answers your question.
God bless,
Dr. Deutsch
Evangelion
New member
1013 -
I don't agree with everything - I only agree with that which I have already affirmed.
Why don't you ask Geoff?
Nor I.
Me too.
I don't know. (Is this the part where you tell me?)
Oh, so this is the part where you tell me. I thought so.
"More than what is true"??? What on Earth is that supposed to mean?
I don't agree with everything - I only agree with that which I have already affirmed.
Why don't you ask Geoff?
Nor I.
Me too.
I don't know. (Is this the part where you tell me?)
Oh, so this is the part where you tell me. I thought so.
"More than what is true"??? What on Earth is that supposed to mean?
geoff
New member
THis is kinda funny, because the understanding of the luke passage I presented was very different, and counter to the point 1013 was trying to make, and yet, he agrees with it and it proves his point? bizarre.
Limited Omniscience, is, as Jaltus pointed out, Omniscience that precludes knowing the future exhaustively, as the traditional understanding has it. It is limited because it doesnt mean exhaustive.
Limited Omniscience, is, as Jaltus pointed out, Omniscience that precludes knowing the future exhaustively, as the traditional understanding has it. It is limited because it doesnt mean exhaustive.
1013
Post Modern Fundamentalist
I was under the impression that you were agreeing with Geoff that my view can be described as limited omniscience. If not, my mistake.
like I said, it is an absurdity, so if you were agreeing with Geoff that my view is best described as limited omniscients, and it kind appeared that you were, you must think that God knows more than what is true, because I believe that the limits of God's knowledge is whatever is true. If it isn't true, it can't be known. In reality, that covers everyone's view of omniscience, so this accusation of limited omnisience is nonsense.
geoff
New member
No, you have redefined what the word 'true' means to fit your understanding.
You understand 'true' in regards to foreknowledge to exclude the free acts of humanity. We understand it to mean only what is 'true' as opposed to what is false, which generally indicates that which is logically impossible.
I'll say it again, if God can not know in any way shape of form human free choice/acts, then neither can we. As it is demonstrable we can, so can God.
First you prove that human beings can in no way, shape or form know the future (and you can explain away the verse in acts with the woman who predicts the future, also matt 7 :21-23, where 'prophecy' is an oracle, a future telling of some description), then we might have a problem. So far no one has, and certainly no one I have ever read has, so i doubt you can.
You understand 'true' in regards to foreknowledge to exclude the free acts of humanity. We understand it to mean only what is 'true' as opposed to what is false, which generally indicates that which is logically impossible.
I'll say it again, if God can not know in any way shape of form human free choice/acts, then neither can we. As it is demonstrable we can, so can God.
First you prove that human beings can in no way, shape or form know the future (and you can explain away the verse in acts with the woman who predicts the future, also matt 7 :21-23, where 'prophecy' is an oracle, a future telling of some description), then we might have a problem. So far no one has, and certainly no one I have ever read has, so i doubt you can.
Last edited:
jobeth
Member
Dr. D.
Thank you for the explanation.
I understand what you said to mean that because "Lamb" is mentioned in Rev 5:6 without the tag "slain from the foundation of the world", that you interpret that to mean that it should not be attached to any other passages either.
But that is a logical fallacy.
You cannot assume that because a particular word or phrase is left off in one passage that it should not appear elsewhere.
Jesus is called the Lord Jesus Christ. But in other passages He is referred to as simply Lord, or Christ or Jesus or Jesus Christ. Are the passages that calls Him Lord in error?
Of course not.
In the same way, just because that particular phrase is left off in Rev. 5:6, does not mean that it should not or cannot be subsequently added.
For instance, Paul calls himself a servant, a minister, an apostle, a sinner, someone who persecuted the church, etc. etc.
Which one of these references to himself should Paul not have used without using them all every time?
Furthermore, you've neglected to respond to my post concerning the placement of the phrase "from the foundation of the world" as immediately following the phrase "the Lamb slain" and completely separate and apart from the phrase "names not written". How do you explain why John placed his words in the order Jesus wanted it said, rather than in the order that you wanted it said?
Here's an analogy:
Suppose you told you spouse:
"I would like to have lunch after the 11:00 game is over."
And they interpreted that to mean:
"We will have lunch at 11:00, after the game is over."
Isn't the phrase "11:00" associated with the game-time (by close proximity) and not associated with the lunch-time?
Thank you for the explanation.
I understand what you said to mean that because "Lamb" is mentioned in Rev 5:6 without the tag "slain from the foundation of the world", that you interpret that to mean that it should not be attached to any other passages either.
But that is a logical fallacy.
You cannot assume that because a particular word or phrase is left off in one passage that it should not appear elsewhere.
Jesus is called the Lord Jesus Christ. But in other passages He is referred to as simply Lord, or Christ or Jesus or Jesus Christ. Are the passages that calls Him Lord in error?
Of course not.
In the same way, just because that particular phrase is left off in Rev. 5:6, does not mean that it should not or cannot be subsequently added.
For instance, Paul calls himself a servant, a minister, an apostle, a sinner, someone who persecuted the church, etc. etc.
Which one of these references to himself should Paul not have used without using them all every time?
Furthermore, you've neglected to respond to my post concerning the placement of the phrase "from the foundation of the world" as immediately following the phrase "the Lamb slain" and completely separate and apart from the phrase "names not written". How do you explain why John placed his words in the order Jesus wanted it said, rather than in the order that you wanted it said?
Here's an analogy:
Suppose you told you spouse:
"I would like to have lunch after the 11:00 game is over."
And they interpreted that to mean:
"We will have lunch at 11:00, after the game is over."
Isn't the phrase "11:00" associated with the game-time (by close proximity) and not associated with the lunch-time?
jobeth
Member
Jaltus:
Yes, I agree that Uncreated Things are by definition Not Created. And I agree that God is eternal and not created.
Where I disagree is with the notion that there are any other Uncreated things besides God, who created all things.
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
What things are you talking about that are Uncreated?
By definition these things could not exist either in heaven or on earth. They cannot be either visible or invisible. They cannot rule or persuade, or motivate or govern, or represent any principle or higher order, or wield any power or authority. So, tell me, what exactly these things are that are none of the above?
Yes, I agree that Uncreated Things are by definition Not Created. And I agree that God is eternal and not created.
Where I disagree is with the notion that there are any other Uncreated things besides God, who created all things.
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
What things are you talking about that are Uncreated?
By definition these things could not exist either in heaven or on earth. They cannot be either visible or invisible. They cannot rule or persuade, or motivate or govern, or represent any principle or higher order, or wield any power or authority. So, tell me, what exactly these things are that are none of the above?
jobeth
Member
1013:
If God is not the Sole Creator of All things, and there actually exists some Uncreated things, then there are some things that exist (and are true) that God does not know.
For instance:
If God did not create a thing, then He cannot know where that thing came from. He cannot know whether that thing might always have existed like Himself or whether it somehow evolved independently of any Creator, or whether it is some reincarnation of some previous existence that God was not aware of.
Could it be that God did not create you, and that's why God does not know where you came from? (Luke 13:25-27)
Jaltus:
I deny that I am playing word games. I believe that my convictions come necessarily, directly from the premise given to us in scripture.
Here is my logic:
God claims to be the Creator of All Things (Col 1:16)
God cannot lie. (Tit 1:2)
Therefore, God cannot claim to be the Creator of All things if He really is not the Creator of All things because that would be a lie.
If God is not the Sole Creator of All things, and there actually exists some Uncreated things, then there are some things that exist (and are true) that God does not know.
For instance:
If God did not create a thing, then He cannot know where that thing came from. He cannot know whether that thing might always have existed like Himself or whether it somehow evolved independently of any Creator, or whether it is some reincarnation of some previous existence that God was not aware of.
Could it be that God did not create you, and that's why God does not know where you came from? (Luke 13:25-27)
Jaltus:
I deny that I am playing word games. I believe that my convictions come necessarily, directly from the premise given to us in scripture.
Here is my logic:
God claims to be the Creator of All Things (Col 1:16)
God cannot lie. (Tit 1:2)
Therefore, God cannot claim to be the Creator of All things if He really is not the Creator of All things because that would be a lie.
Last edited: