ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[patman]

Hmmm, I expected better of you in light of this post and this one.
I didn't think I had to post scriptures for a doctrine in agreement. God is Eternal (timeless), His knowledge is eternal (timeless).

Deut.32:40 (eternal)

Job 36:26 (eternal, incomprehensible)

Ps 33:11 (Eternal, EDF)

Ps. 90: 2 (Eternal)

Ps. 93: 2 (Eternal)

Ps. 102: 27 (Eternal, unchanging)
Prov.8:23

Isa.41:4 (EDF)

Isa. 55:8-9 (incomprehensible, exalted)

Isa. 57: 15 (eternal,exalted)

Mal. 3: 6 (unchanging)

Matt 24:35(eternal,unchanging)

Eph.1:4 (EDF)

1 Tim 1:17 (eternal,exalted)
1 Tim 6:15-16 (eternal, exalted, incomprehensible)

Heb. 13: 8 (unchanging)

2 Pet 3:8 (Without sequential constraints)

Does OV have to deny God's eternal nonbeginning now? Woe upon woes.

Lon, you have been the biggest let down on this topic. Even though you read what I say, you don't care. How many more times will I give you something to think about, knowing you won't?

Brainwashed a little?

Look through your verses. Please, read them. Please. Please? Would ya?

Which one says God knows the future? Which one says He only pretends to not know?

S.V. states, for Jonah, God did know Nineveh would still stand after 40 days, even though he said it wouldn't, and scripture reports he relented from the disaster, but none of that means what it says because it contradicts your theology. Therefore, according to S.V., God lies that good may come of it. But you don't like that word "lie," because it sounds bad. So you use other words or he made his prophets do it, so he didn't have to....

It is bad enough to believe that, but it is worst that we O.T. keep showing you again and again, and you still believe in S.V.?! And right when you show signs of agreeing, you stick you fingers in your ears and change topics, give up, and pretend it never happened.

Your theology is based on your feelings, Lon. Someone with your kind of background in scripture should know a lie when he sees one. You should be able to tell logical errors. Yet when you see ones, you don't care, you just go to the theology you are comfortable with, the one that makes you feel good.

You have made God 7.0. The new features are:

1. Pesky logical reasoning no longer is needed to define your theology.
2. Parent's religion plugin- now no mater what scripture says, your parent's religion can still be correct.
3. Predetermined freewill- even though everything is predetermined, you are just as free as ever.

:sigh:

Whatever... have fun finding your feel good religion

 

[patman]

The standard answer is that God is relational to His creation. He works with us to bring about His decrees and interacts with us to establish the future which He wills. God is living and we are not deists since God is 'hands on' or Pelagians since God does not err. Maybe you haven't heard my response to this idea of yours:

It is not lying to withold knowledge. God is under no requirement to reveal ALL that He knows when speaking to man as is exhibited in the statement 'Yet in 40 days, Nineveh will be destroyed!'(paraphrased).​

How about a verse which says man has free will, that free will is incompatible with foreknowledge, or a verse which states God does not know the future.:think:

This question is rediculous and always has been.

Maybe you could provide a verse which says zebras have stripes, that man has a pancreas, or maybe that God is unable to do all things which are possible.:think:

The only verses I can find which relate to my questions say that God knows all things knowable and is able to do all things which are possible.

If God is able to know free acts in some cases then knowing free acts is possible. Therefore, inductively God knows all free acts. Period. Open Theists must cease eating and having cake simultaneously. It's simply too messy!:wave:

Again in case you overlooked it:

It is not lying to withold knowledge. God is under no requirement to reveal ALL that He knows when speaking to man as is exhibited in the statement 'Yet in 40 days, Nineveh will be destroyed!'(paraphrased).​

And again, in case English is not your first language:

God does not reveal His entire mind and all of His intentions to mankind. It is not a lie to withold information. It is not a lie to reveal His intentions and mind in part.​

Rob

Rob,

Why are you talking about hidden knowledge? If Frank says A will happen without fail, A fails to happen, and Frank knew before hand that A would never happen, frank lied.

Only, replace Frank with God. Open Theism is the only theology that allows for the condition "God did not know A would not happen."

Your only contribution to me is that you spin the issue, and twist my comments. Why would I be convinced by such arguments? Don't you see the difference between concealed knowledge and misrepresentation of the known?

 

[patman]

Jeremiah 51:8-9 "Babylon will suddenly fall and be broken. Wail over her! Get balm for her pain; perhaps she can be healed. We would have healed Babylon, but she cannot be healed..."

"Perhaps" is used, yet with knowledge that this hope is vain. Also, as Lon pointed out, this word can have other meanings than "perhaps."

As far as exhaustive knowledge of the future, I would mention along with what Lon and RobE said, the following comments from me here.

And I await your reply to the following:

Acts 11:14 He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.

This verse shows that God knows decisions concerning salvation, which OVT holds are free, and unknowable until they occur.

Something else got missed here, too.



Blessings,
Lee

Lee, even in english "perhaps" has different meanings. So does bank, hand, sit, stand, eat, head, run, wave, and a zillion other words. But from the context of the sentence, we can tell how it is understood.

"Perhaps" means "X might happen if you do Y."

It is obvious from the sentence!

If you really want to keep your theology, that is your problem. Stop trying to justify it to me with such weak points.

 

[godrulz]

Eternity past? Before the players even existed? Why go so far back in time godrulz?

Your god cannot know exactly how the next five minutes of the game will turn out. He cannot even know for sure wether the quarterback will throw a pass and to whom or if he will go for a run in the next move. According to you humans have libertarian free will, ergo, God cannot know for sure what the human will do until he actually does it. He may make a good guess, he may predict the outcome and end up being right. But he cannot know it for sure.

Unless you want to redefine omniscience to mean something entirely different to what it means, that is a deficiency in omniscience, godrulz. In fact, what your god has cannot even be called omniscience. He may be very knowledgeable and wise, but not omniscient.


Evo

He knows everything that is logically knowable. Where Yoda and Cinderella are right now are not possible objects of knowledge, so it is not a deficiency in omniscience to not know these things. To know a nothing is a bald contradiction. Until the potential future becomes the fixed past through the present, it is a nothing.

God would know the playbook, coach's plans, QBs tendencies, etc., but it is still possible to have a broken play due to changing contingencies. I played football. Trust me, it is not all settled and foreknown exhaustively before I was born.

We agree that God is omniscient. We disagree on the type of creation God actualized (settled vs partially settled/partially unsettled).

 

[Evoken]

He knows everything that is logically knowable.

What is and is not logically knowable and why? Why should what is logically unknowable to us be logically unknowable to God? "Can man be compared with God, even though he were of perfect knowledge?" (Job 22:2)

Besides, from where do you pull this criteria? Certainly not from the Scriptures, for they state:

Psalm 146
"Great is our Lord, and great is his power: and of his wisdom there is no measure."

-But all that is knowable at present is measurable, so his wisdom is measurable, contrary to Scripture.

1 John 3:20
"For if our heart reprehend us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things."

-But contrary to Scripture, godrulz say no, that he doesn't knows the future.

Ecclesiasticus 42:21
"He hath beautified the glorious works of his wisdom: and he Is from eternity to eternity, and to him nothing may be added."

-But God learns new things everyday as the future becomes the present. So, contrary to Scripture things may be added to God as he increases in knowledge everyday. The corollary of this is that God is not infinite but finite, again contrary to Scripture (Psalm 144:3).

Romans 11:33
"O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways!"

- St. Paul would be surprised to know that God's wisdom and knowledge do not have as much depth as he imagined.

Where Yoda and Cinderella are right now are not possible objects of knowledge, so it is not a deficiency in omniscience to not know these things.

How can you speak about them if they are not possible objects of knowledge? They are in your mind and the imaginations of men. God knows ideas too not just material things.

Until the potential future becomes the fixed past through the present, it is a nothing.

So God cannot know anything certain about the future, well done. That turns every prophecy of God into a mere speculation, despite how informed it may be. Not only that, but since God can be mistaken, he is fallible and is not perfect (contrary to: Matthew 5:48).

God would know the playbook, coach's plans, QBs tendencies, etc., but it is still possible to have a broken play due to changing contingencies. I played football. Trust me, it is not all settled and foreknown exhaustively before I was born.

Trust you? In what? In projecting your own human limitations to God?

You are merely confirming the point I made. In fact, God's knowing the present exhaustively is of no use given creatures with libertarian free will. He can still get it wrong and is merely making guesses.

I can make a prediction while God makes another and despite my limited knowledge it can happen that I end up being right and God wrong. So, when Lord Jesus says:

Matthew 24:5-7, 11
"For many will come in my name saying, I am Christ: and they will seduce many. And you shall hear of wars and rumours of wars. See that ye be not troubled. For these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be pestilences, and famines, and earthquakes in places [...]And many false prophets shall rise, and shall seduce many."

St. Peter (for example) could have predicted the contrary, and it is possible that Lord Jesus ends up being wrong and St. Peter right. After all, according to you, Lord Jesus is at best giving an informed speculation here, since the future is unknowable. That the creatures are prone to do these things by nature doesn't really helps because they have libertarian free will and are not bound to act in any particular way.

We agree that God is omniscient.

No, we do not agree. Your view of God's knowledge is not what omniscience means. The openist god may be very knowledgeable and wise, but not omniscient.

omniscience:
1. Infinite knowledge
2. The state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge
3. Having total knowledge; knowing everything

Unless you want to redefine omniscience to mean something completely different to what it means, then you cannot hold to the term and apply it to your god.

We disagree on the type of creation God actualized (settled vs partially settled/partially unsettled).

The whole partially settled/partially open speech is just a way of you trying to have your cake and eat it too. It is just a way of jumping from settled to open view when it suits you. Won't do. Stick to your principles and embrace the logical conclusion of your views. God may have plans, but if his plans involve creatures with libertarian free will then there is no certainty to them, unless, of course, he "meticulously" controls things and acts like the very "tyrant" you stand against.


Evo

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

What is and is not logically knowable and why? Why should what is logically unknowable to us be logically unknowable to God? "Can man be compared with God, even though he were of perfect knowledge?" (Job 22:2)

Besides, from where do you {godrulz} pull this criteria? Certainly not from the Scriptures, for they state:....

SPOTD!

:first:

Well done, Evoken!

 

[Evoken]

SPOTD!

:first:

Well done, Evoken!

Woo! Thanks! That is a first


Evo

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The whole partially settled/partially open speech is just a way of you trying to have your cake and eat it too. It is just a way of jumping from settled to open view when it suits you. Won't do. Stick to your principles and embrace the logical conclusion of your views. God may have plans, but if his plans involve creatures with libertarian free will then there is no certainty to them, unless, of course, he "meticulously" controls things and acts like the very "tyrant" you stand against.

Exactly! This is yet another area where gr stands outside the openist mainstream, who hold that it is impossible for God to know with certainty any future event. gr always wants to reserve some 'wiggle room' for God, just in case, despite the glaring contradiction it imposes.

 

[Lon]

Lon, you have been the biggest let down on this topic. Even though you read what I say, you don't care. How many more times will I give you something to think about, knowing you won't?

Brainwashed a little?

Look through your verses. Please, read them. Please. Please? Would ya?

This is a far cry from the posts I used to receive from you. Perhaps you did not see the work I put into those scripture references? I mean I not only painstakingly provided links, I capsulated them for you. The decent thing to do would be to address them as I did. Let's get this one right. Scripture doesn't blatantly spell out EDF nor future acts of man impossible to discern, but I believe the scriptures point very strongly to EDF and even your own position with God not just smart, but "Very smart" is close to the stance. When He told Peter he'd deny 3 times, it happened just as He said. When Jonah told God "I knew this was just like you" didn't God know He was just like that? Was it only Jonah that had omniscience that day? Doesn't He predict 100% accurately? Doesn't He do exactly as He said with conditional promises? Does He instead make mistakes as Sanders says? Is He sometimes wrong?
Not rhetorical, please make very plain (as plain as can be) your stance here. Either you believe God is not only very smart, but never makes mistakes or you are on page with the heretic Sanders. Let me know please.

Which one says God knows the future? Which one says He only pretends to not know?

Didn't you read them? I worked long on that list just because you asked for them and no other reason. You aren't treating me very well here. How have I offended you? By telling you the truth as I know it? Do you think I'm just in love with arguing? I do want to hone my theology, but the biggest reason I am here is because I believe OV wrong and care about OVer's. I want you to embrace the traditional view because I believe it correct and right.

S.V. states, for Jonah, God did know Nineveh would still stand after 40 days, even though he said it wouldn't, and scripture reports he relented from the disaster, but none of that means what it says because it contradicts your theology. Therefore, according to S.V., God lies that good may come of it. But you don't like that word "lie," because it sounds bad. So you use other words or he made his prophets do it, so he didn't have to....

The difference isn't scripture, it is your interpretation. I accept the scripture on all points but I do not believe it means what you think it does. I have tried to make it clear why I believe why I believe.

It is bad enough to believe that, but it is worst that we O.T. keep showing you again and again, and you still believe in S.V.?! And right when you show signs of agreeing, you stick you fingers in your ears and change topics, give up, and pretend it never happened.

First of all, I asked many of these questions a long time ago in my youth. I came to rational explanations. They are different than OV's answers.

Next, I don't stop my ears but you have to be persuassive for me to change my hard-won theological stances.

Your theology is based on your feelings, Lon. Someone with your kind of background in scripture should know a lie when he sees one. You should be able to tell logical errors. Yet when you see ones, you don't care, you just go to the theology you are comfortable with, the one that makes you feel good.

If I actually thought you were right, I'd be first to jump on the bandwagon without hesitation. If any time in the future you could show OV is absolutely correct and traditional stances have been wrong, I will be first in line. Right now, I do not see God portrayed in OV accurately and I have real problems with God making mistakes, being incorrect, and doing the best He can. It has very little to do with my feelings and everything to do with my perception of truth. Truth is the impetous for rejecting OV, not my feelings. I believe, and honestly, OV is wrong.

You have made God 7.0. The new features are:

1. Pesky logical reasoning no longer is needed to define your theology.
2. Parent's religion plugin- now no mater what scripture says, your parent's religion can still be correct.
3. Predetermined freewill- even though everything is predetermined, you are just as free as ever.

:sigh:

Whatever... have fun finding your feel good religion

:sigh: too

 

[Lon]

Woo! Thanks! That is a first


Evo

...it won't be the last. The post was excellent.

 

[Evoken]

Exactly! This is yet another area where gr stands outside the openist mainstream, who hold that it is impossible for God to know with certainty any future event. gr always wants to reserve some 'wiggle room' for God, just in case, despite the glaring contradiction it imposes.

Well if as he says: "Until the potential future becomes the fixed past through the present, it is a nothing." Then to say that the future is partly settled amounts to saying that nothing is partly settled.


Evo

 

[patman]

Lon,

I remember a long time ago explaining Daniel 11 to you. You wouldn't make an opinion.

Not to long ago I showed you the problem of the 400 years of slavery for the S.V.. You said you would study and.... still up in the air?

Remember talking about how Isaiah spoke of God expecting something that didn't happen, and you shewed it away?

How about Jesus' claiming to return to the generation he lived? You ignored it with an "I dunno, but the idea is scary."

Every time I give you something, you don't even consider it. How can I persuade you when you think you have all the answers and just ignore or wish away what I am saying?

The best S.V. has is twisted accusations against O.V. and big ear muffs over their ears that prevents them from listening and learning about scripture. With you theology, you will never know why the 70 weeks didn't occur, you won't know why Jesus didn't return when he said he would just to name a few.

I asked for a specific verse "God knows the entire future and speaks to us as if he didn't, so it doesn't look like he knows." You answer with 20 verses that said nothing close to what I asked for. God is eternal, God knows everything, and God made it and doesn't change all is a "no duh," but where is the future mentioned?

40'Indeed, (A)I lift up My hand to heaven,
And say, as I live forever,

26"Behold, God is (A)exalted, and (B)we do not know Him;
The (C)number of His years is unsearchable.

11The (A)counsel of the LORD stands forever,
The (B)plans of His heart from generation to generation.

2Before (A)the mountains were born
Or You (B)gave birth to the earth and the world,
Even (C)from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.

2Your (A)throne is established from of old;
You (B)are from everlasting.

That is just a sample of the verses you quoted. Where does it say God knows the entire future?

I have to stop here... You are afraid of what might be the truth, so you will not listen anyway. You think you already have the answers and cannot be corrected, hence you ignore the things that contradict it. But I digress.

 

[patman]

What is and is not logically knowable and why? Why should what is logically unknowable to us be logically unknowable to God? "Can man be compared with God, even though he were of perfect knowledge?" (Job 22:2)

Besides, from where do you pull this criteria? Certainly not from the Scriptures, for they state:

Psalm 146
"Great is our Lord, and great is his power: and of his wisdom there is no measure."

-But all that is knowable at present is measurable, so his wisdom is measurable, contrary to Scripture.

1 John 3:20
"For if our heart reprehend us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things."

-But contrary to Scripture, godrulz say no, that he doesn't knows the future.

Ecclesiasticus 42:21
"He hath beautified the glorious works of his wisdom: and he Is from eternity to eternity, and to him nothing may be added."

-But God learns new things everyday as the future becomes the present. So, contrary to Scripture things may be added to God as he increases in knowledge everyday. The corollary of this is that God is not infinite but finite, again contrary to Scripture (Psalm 144:3).

Romans 11:33
"O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways!"

- St. Paul would be surprised to know that God's wisdom and knowledge do not have as much depth as he imagined.




How can you speak about them if they are not possible objects of knowledge? They are in your mind and the imaginations of men. God knows ideas too not just material things.




So God cannot know anything certain about the future, well done. That turns every prophecy of God into a mere speculation, despite how informed it may be. Not only that, but since God can be mistaken, he is fallible and is not perfect (contrary to: Matthew 5:48).




Trust you? In what? In projecting your own human limitations to God?

You are merely confirming the point I made. In fact, God's knowing the present exhaustively is of no use given creatures with libertarian free will. He can still get it wrong and is merely making guesses.

I can make a prediction while God makes another and despite my limited knowledge it can happen that I end up being right and God wrong. So, when Lord Jesus says:

Matthew 24:5-7, 11
"For many will come in my name saying, I am Christ: and they will seduce many. And you shall hear of wars and rumours of wars. See that ye be not troubled. For these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be pestilences, and famines, and earthquakes in places [...]And many false prophets shall rise, and shall seduce many."

St. Peter (for example) could have predicted the contrary, and it is possible that Lord Jesus ends up being wrong and St. Peter right. After all, according to you, Lord Jesus is at best giving an informed speculation here, since the future is unknowable. That the creatures are prone to do these things by nature doesn't really helps because they have libertarian free will and are not bound to act in any particular way.




No, we do not agree. Your view of God's knowledge is not what omniscience means. The openist god may be very knowledgeable and wise, but not omniscient.

omniscience:
1. Infinite knowledge
2. The state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge
3. Having total knowledge; knowing everything

Unless you want to redefine omniscience to mean something completely different to what it means, then you cannot hold to the term and apply it to your god.




The whole partially settled/partially open speech is just a way of you trying to have your cake and eat it too. It is just a way of jumping from settled to open view when it suits you. Won't do. Stick to your principles and embrace the logical conclusion of your views. God may have plans, but if his plans involve creatures with libertarian free will then there is no certainty to them, unless, of course, he "meticulously" controls things and acts like the very "tyrant" you stand against.


Evo

Hi Evo,

I do not recall discussing Open Theism very often with you. I am an open theist who upholds all the verses you posted, yet still thinks the future is open. You may believe those verses contradict the Open View, but they do not.

God does know everything. And by that I mean everything. But open theists do not believe God ordained the entire future... i.e. he didn't create the future, the future does not exist, it is not a thing. There is only the present, the memory of the past, and God's plans for the future.

Open Theists do not believe everything that ever happened was God's idea, open theists do not believe in utter predestination. Instead, some things are predestined, and some things are open.

Take this verse as an example:

James 1:13-15
13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

God cannot tempt evil, which gives that neither can he create it, nor predestine it. Instead, sin comes from our own lusts and desires. So let no man say God caused it. These areas show how God has not fixed all of the future, in-particularly, not the sinful parts of it.

Because God did not create the entire future, he has left parts open.:thumb:

 

[SOTK]

Well if as he says: "Until the potential future becomes the fixed past through the present, it is a nothing." Then to say that the future is partly settled amounts to saying that nothing is partly settled.


Evo

Exactly. That's been one of my biggest problems with OV (amongst many problems). When I first started reading about OV, I could not reconcile (and still can not) their claim of a partially settled future. It makes absolutely no sense. For people who claim to hold logic in such high esteem, I can't understand why they can't see this as illogical not to mention entirely convenient.

It's like "Well, we know those darn Calvinists and Settled Viewers won't let us get away with saying the future is entirely open (not to mention there is some mighty tricky scripture showing prophecy) so we better stick with the partially open and partially settled route".

 

[patman]

Exactly. That's been one of my biggest problems with OV (amongst many problems). When I first started reading about OV, I could not reconcile (and still can not) their claim of a partially settled future. It makes absolutely no sense. For people who claim to hold logic in such high esteem, I can't understand why they can't see this as illogical not to mention entirely convenient.

It's like "Well, we know those darn Calvinists and Settled Viewers won't let us get away with saying the future is entirely open (not to mention there is some mighty tricky scripture showing prophecy) so we better stick with the partially open and partially settled route".

Why is it so hard to grasp?

Maybe you are being to strick on the word "settled." Don't think of "settled" so strictly. It is like this:

God will save all those who call on his name. That is settled. What isn't settled is "who" called on his name. That is our choice, it is an open choice. Tomorrows Christians are not named as individuals until they are born into Christ.

 

[godrulz]

SPOTD!

:first:

Well done, Evoken!

I'm not impressed. The open view also affirms that God is infinite in wisdom and understanding. This is hardly a proof text for exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies.

She misses the point about Cinderella and Yoda, showing how little she is conversant with the issues and how lame the refutations were. Of course God knows about Yoda and people who think about him. My point was that God does not know where the being Yoda is living and moving in the universe, because he is only science fiction in mind and film, not a real being who moves around like Satan. To not know where George Washington is right now playing piano in NY is not a limitation on omniscience. It is a logical absurdity, because He is dead.

Proof texts about omniscience can have EDF read back into them, but the most they say is that God is intelligent or knows the past and present exhaustively. They do not explicitly say God knows the future and other passages present two motifs (which she also fails to grasp thinking we want cake and eat it too). Since Scripture does not give great detail on these issues, we need to look at all the biblical evidence, use godly philosophy/reason, logic (modal), etc.

Eternal now is a philosophical assumption as is timelessness. It is not the only possible view of 'eternal' (everlasting to everlasting, endless duration, is just as eternal, but more coherent and biblical).

Just because someone asserts things that resonate with your view does not mean they should be accepted uncritically or there are not point by point answers to the objections.

Again, it is not POTD material, but another e.g. of someone who misunderstands and misrepresents the issues to maintain tradition and a preconceived theology.

 

[godrulz]

Exactly! This is yet another area where gr stands outside the openist mainstream, who hold that it is impossible for God to know with certainty any future event. gr always wants to reserve some 'wiggle room' for God, just in case, despite the glaring contradiction it imposes.

The first and second coming of Christ were known with certainty because of God's ability and intention to bring them to pass unconditionally. As a deterministic with an omnicausal view of God, you should not have a problem with this. Open Theists affirm the predestination texts, but you ignore or make figurative the Open texts.

You do not understand the two motif principle, apparently, yet you have no problem living with apparent contradictions or antimony.

I am becoming more skeptical of how smart you really are.

She also quotes Ecclesiasticus for support. Do you consider the Apocrypha and Book of Mormon to be authoritative? Is that solid refutation of my position to go to extra/contrabiblical sources?

The context of God 'knowing all things' relates to our hearts and need not be extrapolated to mean EDF (eisegesis). He truly knows all things knowable (works for you, but we differ as to what is logically knowable...I still say knowing where Yoda is meditating in the universe now is an absurdity, as is when Kermit the Frog last went to the bathroom is). What she does is proof text out of context and read a preconceived view into the text that is not self-evident from a face value reading of it.

It is similar to saying nothing is impossible for God. Can God create married bachelors, square circles, pink oranges (pink and orange at the same time), etc.? Omnipotence is doing the doable, not things that are logically impossible and absurd.

 

[godrulz]

Well if as he says: "Until the potential future becomes the fixed past through the present, it is a nothing." Then to say that the future is partly settled amounts to saying that nothing is partly settled.


Evo

Huh? Just because God settles somethings like the first and second coming does not mean they actually exist yet. I can say I am going to eat supper at 6:00. This is settled in my mind and I have the ability to do it, but it does not become actual in reality until that time comes and I follow through with my intentions. This potential or probable future knowledge is now played out in the present and becomes the fixed past in memory only.

Is your eternal now view forcing you to say that creation, Fall, Flood, Psalms, incarnation, death, resurrection, Mohammed, 2007, 2090, etc. are all the same moment and actual reality in some parallel universe?

You assume the 'film' is finished and in the can. In fact, time is unidirectional and the future is a blank (with the Director scripting some of it already) until the film records actual sequence/duration/succession (time).

 

[SOTK]

Why is it so hard to grasp?

Maybe you are being to strick on the word "settled." Don't think of "settled" so strictly. It is like this:

God will save all those who call on his name. That is settled. What isn't settled is "who" called on his name. That is our choice, it is an open choice. Tomorrows Christians are not named as individuals until they are born into Christ.

If you are dead, you can't choose life. If I suddenly have a heart attack and die, I can not will my heart to suddenly start up again and resuscitate myself. I don't have that type of power in me. It's beyond me to do that, however, God has the power to do so. It is the same with salvation. I was once a "Child of Wrath" who served Satan. I was physically ,spiritually, and legally dead. I did not and could not know God. If I would and if I could, I would and could have saved myself a long time ago. It wasn't until God gave me "the Gift of Faith" that I could see and know Him. Then I was drawn inextricably towards and into Him. This would not have ever occured until God gave me the "Gift of Faith". I have not met ONE single Christian or heard ONE single Christian's testimony where they stated they woke up one day and decided to ask for God's forgiveness. No, each testimony I've heard talked about getting faith and belief prior to bended knee.

So, there is no "choice". One can not choose when one doesn't have the power or means to choose in the first place.

Tomorrow's Christians have already been determined although they don't know it yet.

 

[godrulz]

Why does not a loving, impartial God give everyone the causative gift of faith unconditionally?

Physical death is analagous to, but not identical with, spiritual death (cf. birth/new birth). The analogy is flawed. A better case is made from all the relevant verses about the relationship between God and man in reconciliation.