BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)

[Poly]

HEY! :chuckle:

I guess great Oklahoma minds think alike!

So I'm guessing Emo should be picking it pretty soon.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

How can God be patient without time? Wait, never mind that question, . . .

Wow! Great post thank you.:up:

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Montana: Lee, by embracing C.S. Lewis and misquoting Revelation 13:8 you and millions of Calvinists like you try nailing Christ back onto the cross.

Certainly Jesus is not on the cross now, but your objection (as in also saying "eternally suffering for your and my sins") seems to be implying God is really in time, and this would be like saying "if your view is true, then assuming your view is false, then why ..."

And here is a verse that shows the timelessness of Jesus' sacrifice, in the future:

Revelation 5:6 Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne...

Book of Life of the Lamb Slain is the name of a book in heaven...

Well, I don't find this in any translations, though as Patman pointed out, there are versions that show an alternative that doesn't support my point here in this verse:

Revelation 13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. (NAU)

Patman: If you substitute "A" with an actual person and "B" with an event they predicted, the conclusion is not they knew the future.

Certainly, but there is more in Scripture than mere successful examples of predictions! For one thing, Jesus says "truly, truly" about Peter's denial, so how can this be possibly wrong? This is Jesus' way of saying this is quite firm, and quite solemn. Then, while Peter is being reminded of his denial, Jesus confirms Peter's statement "you know all things" with another prediction about Peter's future! Again saying, "truly, truly." Jesus puts his stamp on Peter's statement, which must include definite knowledge of the future, future knowledge so extensive that it can be in the phrase "all things."

Then we have Isaiah 41 and 44, where God shows that his predictions compared to other predictions makes the other's ability to predict "worthless." This is not just saying God can predict better (sometimes! says ye Open View, let us remember Jonah seeming to know better than God did, that the Ninevites would repent).

If you can agree with that, you must logically agree that having power does not give you the ability to do anything that is conceivable.

I agree, I believe omnipotence means having all the power there is, which means again the Open View is incorrect, for if people have real authority apart from God, then Jesus does not yet have all authority, but he said (Mt. 28:18) that he did.

JHodgeIII: I asked this friend if God was able to create a being whose future actions He could not foretell.

No, I don't believe he is, any more than he is unable to know all about himself. Therein lies another dilemma for the Open View, by the way.

Patman: How can God be patient without time?

God could be patient in his character, as exhibited in time, as we see a sequence, this explains God's character, so then he could be expressing in time what he is, without being following through time sequentially like we are.

This is similar to the question "God is love, love hopes all things, so God is always hoping, and always will be?" Well, no, this must be understood differently, in reference to God, just as "love believes all things" does not mean God is having faith in God.

Patman: But what about time before there was space? We just established that Time was there... how else could God speak?

Surely you don't believe there was a real voice we could have heard, with sound waves traveling through air, though! Before air was created. So this must be a description of God initiating, not a physical description of words being spoken, and thus time is not required here.

Settlers believe time is like a script.

Actually, time is like another dimension, and God is omnipresent!

To say "The God who cannot be tempted by evil is really behind it all, ‘cause he 'created time' so he could know the future".

No, I believe he just knows it. And I do believe your alternative is worse! For if God is not in control of evil, how is that better, if real harm (the warfare worldview) can come to those who love him, and are called according to his purpose?

Isn't it better to "superconquer (present tense), through him who loved us"?

Any theology that places God in the situation of being the author of sin is one...

This is getting into a different topic, I was answering Bob Enyart's (seeming to be) open challenge, and let's not make the reply be "answer all the questions I have about Calvinism"!

But I will say that God is indeed not the author of sin, yet he is the primary cause of even sinful events, but the motive is critical, and the foreseen outcome, God's motive is good, and the outcome (and the result of the process itself, even) will be for the best:

Gen. 50:20 "And as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive."

"The text says, 'You meant evil against me.' Evil is a feminine singular noun. Then it says, 'God meant it for good.' The word 'it' is a feminine singular suffix that can only agree with the antecedent feminine singular noun, 'evil.' And the verb 'meant' is the same past tense in both cases. You meant evil against me in the past, as you were doing it. And God meant that very evil, not as evil, but as good in the past as you were doing it. And to make this perfectly clear, Psalm 105:17 says about Joseph's coming to Egypt, '[God] sent a man before them, Joseph, who was sold as a slave.' God sent him. God did not find him there owing to evil choices, and then try to make something good come of it. Therefore this text stands as a kind of paradigm for how to understand the evil will of man within the sovereign will of God." (John Piper)

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Vaquero45]

How can God be patient without time? Wait, never mind....

Welcome patman, and... "Thank you sir, may I have another?"


LOL, I believe we have another TruthSmacker on our hands, folks! Outstanding post Patman!

Jeff

 

[bling]

I can follow this analysis......but here it appears that you're pulling a semantical slight-of-hand. The words expect and hope, when used properly, never imply something factual. That would be knowing. Furthermore, if your interpretation here is what Paul really was trying to communicate, why wouldn't he just say "Love always knows?"

We are taking 1 Cor. 13:7 and trying to understand what Paul guided by the Spirit is trying to communicate to the Corinthians. Is Paul trying to define (agape) Love for their use or is he trying to define agape love for all occasions and even out side our universe (heaven and earth)? How much poetic license do we allow Paul in this poetic passage?

Using your same logic: if this is defining agape love “every were”, then God in heaven can not agape love, because God does not believe stuff ( love being, believing all things), He knows stuff. What does the God in Heaven believe, that He does not know?

Can hope sometimes mean desired expectation which sometimes means to known (a surety) desire? Heb 6: 19This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil,

Are there things we hope for yet can know will happen more then anything else we can know, like God fulfilling his promises?

If our hope can sometimes include our knowing then can God’s hope include His knowing?

What hope is being talked about here since all is not all?

 

[jhodgeiii]

No, I don't believe he is, any more than he is unable to know all about himself. Therein lies another dilemma for the Open View, by the way.

Sorry Lee. Your answer is confusing. Can you elaborate on this please? It certainly appears that you're admitting that God cannot do all things (e.g., He's not able to create a being whose actions he cannot foretell). You just shot down God's omnipotence with your own words.

 

[patman]

Thanks to all who took the time to read my post. I have recently moved into a new house, and am yet to have internet. But that is soon to come. Highspeed BTW. hehehe. But for the time being, I am borrowing internet from our public library. That gives me 48 mins to write this! AND NO SPELL CHECKER :help:

I am pleased to see the thought that lee_merrill put into his post. I hope that I can communicate my thoughts on his post effectivly.

Hi everyone,


Certainly Jesus is not on the cross now, but your objection (as in also saying "eternally suffering for your and my sins") seems to be implying God is really in time, and this would be like saying "if your view is true, then assuming your view is false, then why ..."

And here is a verse that shows the timelessness of Jesus' sacrifice, in the future:

Revelation 5:6 Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne...

I do not understand how this verse shows timelessness. I do not disagree that the sacrafice is timeless IN THAT it covers the sins of people for all time. That is a far cry from a being existing outside of time. I hope you can agree with that, and see how these are two different things.

Even still, this verse is symbolic in nature. How else can you symbolize Christ? A slane lamb! It doesn't mean he walks around heaven in a lambs body all the time.

Well, I don't find this in any translations, though as Patman pointed out, there are versions that show an alternative that doesn't support my point here in this verse:

Revelation 13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. (NAU)


Certainly, but there is more in Scripture than mere successful examples of predictions! For one thing, Jesus says "truly, truly" about Peter's denial, so how can this be possibly wrong? This is Jesus' way of saying this is quite firm, and quite solemn. Then, while Peter is being reminded of his denial, Jesus confirms Peter's statement "you know all things" with another prediction about Peter's future! Again saying, "truly, truly." Jesus puts his stamp on Peter's statement, which must include definite knowledge of the future, future knowledge so extensive that it can be in the phrase "all things."

{/QUOTE]

There is a lot of stock put in this idea. The logic seems to imply that there is no other possible way for Jesus to know, and be positive, that the said events would occure with out future knowledge. It is simply a faulty conclusion.

Isaiah 5:3,4
3 “ And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah,
Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard.
4 What more could have been done to My vineyard
That I have not done in it?
Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes,
Did it bring forth wild grapes?

Please notice that God actually expected one thing to happen, but something else happened instead. In fact, ever since Abraham, hundreds of years before, God said that this people would be His people, and yet, recorded time and time again in the OT, they were anything but.

Then we have Isaiah 41 and 44, where God shows that his predictions compared to other predictions makes the other's ability to predict "worthless." This is not just saying God can predict better (sometimes! says ye Open View, let us remember Jonah seeming to know better than God did, that the Ninevites would repent).

Jonah is another great example of the Open View. God clearly stated that they had 40 days. Yet, because of their repenting, God retracted his statement and they lived many years beyond the original 40 days. If God knew the outcome, he would have not lied. He would have said to Jonah "I will not destroy the city in 40 days despite what they will hear."

God did not lie. He said if they don't repent, in 40 Days they are gone. He didn't say when they repent... at the moment they repent. God didn't know what they would do with certianty.

I agree, I believe omnipotence means having all the power there is, which means again the Open View is incorrect, for if people have real authority apart from God, then Jesus does not yet have all authority, but he said (Mt. 28:18) that he did.

Your faith blinds you from reasoning. Jesus is God. Yet, as God, he admints to his inability to forsee the last day. This is an big hole in power as God, don't you think? But does it make him any less God? No.

God could be patient in his character, as exhibited in time, as we see a sequence, this explains God's character, so then he could be expressing in time what he is, without being following through time sequentially like we are.

This is similar to the question "God is love, love hopes all things, so God is always hoping, and always will be?" Well, no, this must be understood differently, in reference to God, just as "love believes all things" does not mean God is having faith in God.

This is the mystical answer I was speaking of. And unrelated material to back it up. Having patience REQUIRES time.

Surely you don't believe there was a real voice we could have heard, with sound waves traveling through air, though! Before air was created. So this must be a description of God initiating, not a physical description of words being spoken, and thus time is not required here.


Actually, time is like another dimension, and God is omnipresent!

That's a little bold, I think. If you wish to disagree with the biblical account of creation, I do not understand why I would debate you on biblical matters. But I do not believe you would intentinally undermine the Bible's accounts.

What is worst, you are attacking arguements and not the substinance of them. So what if God didn't actually project vocals? The Bible says he was doing other things, in sequential order. For example, he was hovering. According to other verses, he was planning salvation before earth was created too. These point out that God was doing one thing after another. This is time! And it doesn't require being created, its just a concept we use to show events!

No, I believe he just knows it. And I do believe your alternative is worse! For if God is not in control of evil, how is that better, if real harm (the warfare worldview) can come to those who love him, and are called according to his purpose?

Yikes. 8 Mins.

I will admit that if God desired control everything, he could. But his control would not include evil actions. Which proves he does not control it all! God can use evil to his advantage, but without causing it.

You believe time is a "thing" i.e. another dimension. Which is a theory, not scripture. You must stake a lot on that? The theory that states time is a dimension requires space existing at the same time. Yet, as was established, it existed before creation. The theory just doesn't hold up to scripture. And once again, if time is a creation, that means God made every aspect of it... and it WOULD be a script, for a lack of a better way of saying it.

I hope to get more time on this computer. Right now I am out.

Thanks for the interest everyone! Please forgive the mispellings.

 

[RobE]

How can God be patient without time? Wait, never mind that question, because the only answer I'll get is some mystical reasoning that you have to be Plato to 1.) make up and 2.) believe. I am sorry for the harshness, but we do not have to twist all reasoning around to understand God..

Why do you speak of time as if it were a creation or some object that God can't be patient without? It's probably because of the limitations of our language, but I know what you're trying to convey by it. Lee was trying to convey something along the same lines, but all you could hear was the literal interpretaion of his thought. Now let's try it your way: How can God be patient without a sequence of events? Lee was just saying that our Lord isn't subjected to the constraints of time(a sequence of events) like you are.

Something else: People speak of time as if it were a creation. Time is not some object. It is just a sequence of events. So before creation, before there was matter or atoms, or any kind of mass or space, the event of God saying "let there be light," happened sequentially. Time! God does not require creation to perform an action. And like it or not, that's all time is, actions after actions. And God is full of actions; he is a god that never rests.

Except on the seventh day of creation, of course.

OH. Wait, I think I understand. Settlers believe time is like a script. Every event is laid out and it can be read by someone powerful enough. That's what time is! So, they must therefore think that God created a script, and we call it time. That's how he is outside of "time", he's sitting there reading this funny little script called "Your Life!"

Not exactly. Armenians believe that God can foresee what happens in creation. Calvinists believe that God foreordains(orders) everything. The open view would seem to infer that God makes things up on the fly unless they believe that he has some sort of plan going on; in which case, it seems they're just Armenians who don't believe he's omniscient. I can't get a handle on what they think exactly. That's why I've been following the debate and trying to get some conversation going on the subject.

So that must mean that God created "time" i.e. a script, and that's how he knows the future. So he authored the script / created the events / ordained the actions that lead to the rape of an innocent child. That's how he does it! :madmad: That's how he knows the future :dead: .

This isn't the belief of any Christian I've ever met. I've run into a couple of hard line Calvinists before who intoned this, but none have come right out and said it. For you to conclude that he ordained the actions leading "to the rape of an innocent child" whether you're a settled view proponent or an open view proponent seems rediculous. I've heard these arguments --- (1)If God knows everything then he's responsible for allowing it to happen and (2)If God planned everything then he's the author of sin, depravity, etc.... --- throughout the Open View/Closed View threads on TOL.

These arguments don't stand up to scrutiny with the following argument:

If God lives, day by day, without knowing the future then he's responsible for the events that happen around him. He's responsible that they're killing children at 20th & Vine(abortion), he's responsible for the hungry, the poor, this sick, etc..., ;whether he did it to them or not. We all agree that he could stop it if he wanted to. He thus becomes the God who walks among us and in his loving kindness allows murders, rapes, child abuse, abortion, homosexuality, etc.... to occur. Doesn't he know they're aborting human life? Hasn't he turned the TV on yet? This is the open view. God is the good Samaritan who walked on by. Is this less terrible than the closed view argument that God has a reason for his actions. That the Lord might have a plan and some insight into our future. Why do these things happen? Isn't this the same arguments that Atheists use to denounce Him?

What a bad, terrible thing to say about a loving God. To say "The God who cannot be tempted by evil is really behind it all, ‘cause he 'created time' so he could know the future". You value your perception of God over his reputation of being a just and loving god if you believe this. And I must rebuke that. IF your faith is shaken by the idea that God does not know the future, fear not. The alternitive is worst.

Any theology that places God in the situation of being the author of sin is one, anyone should know in their heart of hearts, needs rethinking! I love the God who loves us all, not one who doomed us.

Neither theology places God in the situation of being the author of sin. I, too, love the God who loves us all, not one who dooms us. I've just needed to realize that in His holiness he not only stands as our Savior --- He also stands as our Judge.

PLEASE, I beg you, quit insulting people who feel that Jesus foresees the future by saying we(even for one moment) consider that our Lord, Jesus Christ, would author such atrocities.

We only believe that he created beings with a free will to choose good or evil for themselves, and not that he authored evil. After all, isn't evil direct rebellion against God? I wonder if Lucifer thought God didn't know what he was doing(OV) when he decided to rebel? I don't know. Maybe God wasn't suprised(CV) because he set him up. If he saw the sequence of actions you would take after(before) he created you, would he be responsible for those actions or would those be yours alone. Before the judgement seat would you be able to say that God(or the devil) made me do it or would you have to answer for yourself. Maybe we have a friend who can answer the hard questions for us. This is our hope.

The Lord surpasses my understanding.

Thanks for your insight,

RobE

 

[Montana]

PLEASE, I beg you, quit insulting people who feel that Jesus foresees the future by saying we(even for one moment) consider that our Lord, Jesus Christ, would author such atrocities.

RobE, but that is exactly what Settled Viewers believe. You defined it yourself:

1) “Calvinists believe that God foreordains(orders) everything.”
2) “Armenians believe that God can foresee what happens in creation.”

So you are of the Arminian persuasion, believing that God does not preordain evil, he just foresees it from before creation. What seems obvious to me, and I wish it did to you too, is that if God knew precisely how evil mankind would become – down to the most minuscule detail of every wicked act – and then went ahead and created that scenario anyway, without any possibility of it being altered, He really is responsible in the truest sense for what he has set in motion.

Open Viewers believe that “God is Love.” At some point in time, God desired to make creatures who could also love – 1) love Him, 2) love each other, 3) and love themselves.

Love is volitional. That means that love is freely given. As Bob Enyart explains, it is a wife’s ability to hate (i.e.; not love) her husband that makes her love for him meaningful. Some cowardous men try to remove the ability for their wives’ to leave, and in so doing destroy any hope of being loved by them. God is no coward. He made us able to love, for real.

Before creation there was God. He was living, personal, relational, good and loving. God learned about evil from watching his loveable creatures choose to do evil (unloving) things. It is not possible that God knew evil before it existed, because in knowing it he would have created it, and in creating it he would have ceased being wholly good and loving.

 

[RobE]

RobE, but that is exactly what Settled Viewers believe. You defined it yourself:

1) “Calvinists believe that God foreordains(orders) everything.”
2) “Armenians believe that God can foresee what happens in creation.”

So you are of the Arminian persuasion, believing that God does not preordain evil, he just foresees it from before creation. What seems obvious to me, and I wish it did to you too, is that if God knew precisely how evil mankind would become – down to the most minuscule detail of every wicked act – and then went ahead and created that scenario anyway, without any possibility of it being altered, He really is responsible in the truest sense for what he has set in motion.

Open Viewers believe that “God is Love.” At some point in time, God desired to make creatures who could also love – 1) love Him, 2) love each other, 3) and love themselves.

Love is volitional. That means that love is freely given. As Bob Enyart explains, it is a wife’s ability to hate (i.e.; not love) her husband that makes her love for him meaningful. Some cowardous men try to remove the ability for their wives’ to leave, and in so doing destroy any hope of being loved by them. God is no coward. He made us able to love, for real.

Before creation there was God. He was living, personal, relational, good and loving. God learned about evil from watching his loveable creatures choose to do evil (unloving) things. It is not possible that God knew evil before it existed, because in knowing it he would have created it, and in creating it he would have ceased being wholly good and loving.

So the creation taught the creator. Who in your opinion is greater? I disagree with your definition of evil. However, I digress.....

Again, I point out that the open view doesn't stand up to the same test you put on the closed view......

Remember(per above) God is Love.

If God lives, day by day, without knowing the future then he's responsible for the events that happen around him. He's responsible that they're killing children at 20th & Vine(abortion), he's responsible for the hungry, the poor, this sick, etc..., ;whether he did it to them or not. We all agree that he could stop it if he wanted to. He thus becomes the God who walks among us and in his loving kindness allows murders, rapes, child abuse, abortion, homosexuality, etc.... to occur. Doesn't he know they're aborting human life? Hasn't he turned the TV on yet? This is the open view. God is the good Samaritan who walked on by. Is this less terrible than the closed view argument that God has a reason for his actions. That the Lord might have a plan and some insight into our future. Why do these things happen? Isn't this the same arguments that Atheists use to denounce Him?

This is my question?

RobE

 

[jhodgeiii]

My apologies to Lee...and better response

My apologies to Lee...and better response

Sorry Lee. I read the part of your post, which referenced mine, out of context. It makes perfect sense to me now. That being said, you said:

the Open View is incorrect, for if people have real authority apart from God, then Jesus does not yet have all authority, but he said (Mt. 28:18) that he did.

Lee, the Open View has no problem with this verse. Open Viewers understand that God has the ability to delegate authority, though He maintains being the supreme authority (see John 19:10 for a clear example of this).

However, I would like to quote the entire Mt. 28:18 that you reference, Lee.

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

My question to you: did the omnipotent Jesus always have "all authority" or was He given "all authority" at a given time in history?

 

[RobE]

Sorry for the intrusion.

Sorry for the intrusion.

Sorry Lee. I read the part of your post, which referenced mine, out of context. It makes perfect sense to me now. That being said, you said:Lee, the Open View has no problem with this verse. Open Viewers understand that God has the ability to delegate authority, though He maintains being the supreme authority (see John 19:10 for a clear example of this).

However, I would like to quote the entire Mt. 28:18 that you reference, Lee.My question to you: did the omnipotent Jesus always have "all authority" or was He given "all authority" at a given time in history?

John 1
The Eternal Word
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend[a] it.
John’s Witness: The True Light

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own,[c] and His own[d] did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
The Word Becomes Flesh

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

I believe the first four verses answers your question fully. Hope I'm not intruding.

Thanks,

RobE

 

[godrulz]

RobE, but that is exactly what Settled Viewers believe. You defined it yourself:


Before creation there was God. He was living, personal, relational, good and loving. God learned about evil from watching his loveable creatures choose to do evil (unloving) things. It is not possible that God knew evil before it existed, because in knowing it he would have created it, and in creating it he would have ceased being wholly good and loving.

God did not know the actuality/certainty/experience of evil from eternity past. When evil was introduced, then and only then, was He grieved instead of experiencing a 'very good' creation. He knew of the inherent possibility of evil before creation and already formulated a contingency plan of redemption before the creation of the world. This plan was not implemented and actualized until after the Fall. Knowing evil as a possibility does not make Him the cause of it. In His wisdom, God felt it was worth the risk to create genuine free moral agents even though there was a possibility of rebellion (not a foregone conclusion).

 

[Delmar]

So the creation taught the creator. Who in your opinion is greater? I disagree with your definition of evil. However, I digress.....

Again, I point out that the open view doesn't stand up to the same test you put on the closed view......

Remember(per above) God is Love.

If God lives, day by day, without knowing the future then he's responsible for the events that happen around him. He's responsible that they're killing children at 20th & Vine(abortion), he's responsible for the hungry, the poor, this sick, etc..., ;whether he did it to them or not. We all agree that he could stop it if he wanted to. He thus becomes the God who walks among us and in his loving kindness allows murders, rapes, child abuse, abortion, homosexuality, etc.... to occur. Doesn't he know they're aborting human life? Hasn't he turned the TV on yet? This is the open view. God is the good Samaritan who walked on by. Is this less terrible than the closed view argument that God has a reason for his actions. That the Lord might have a plan and some insight into our future. Why do these things happen? Isn't this the same arguments that Atheists use to denounce Him?

This is my question?

RobE

RobE
I don't get what you are saying here. How does not knowing future events make him more responsible? It seems to me that using your logic God would be much more culpable for the evil in the world if he knew ahead of time that it was going to happen.

 

[RobE]

RobE
I don't get what you are saying here. How does not knowing future events make him more responsible? It seems to me that using your logic God would be much more culpable for the evil in the world if he knew ahead of time that it was going to happen.

It doesn't. It makes him equally responsible:

(1) He knows the future so therefore he created sin and is responsible for his creation.(OV argument against foreknowledge which doesn't hold up.). CV would say that he has a plan that we don't understand. That sin is part of the equation that's all.

(2) He doesn't know the future so when he encounters sin and takes no action he's uncaring, unmerciful, and sins himself through inaction. (CV argument against God not having foreknowledge(lovingness, mercy, etc....) which doesn't hold up?) . OV would say ? ---- this is what I'm trying to find out.

I think the answer lies in this question: Who's responsible for sin? Is it (a) the creator who creates a being with the potential to sin whether he's omniscient or not or (b) the creation who sins?

Let's put this to rest. GOD is not responsible for your sin whether he knew you would commit it or not! This argument isn't logical whether your belief is OV or CV. Please don't accuse each other of this. It makes no sense. What does make sense is he knows something we do not.

He surpasses my understanding,

RobE

 

[jhodgeiii]

John 1
The Eternal Word
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

I believe the first four verses answers your question fully. Hope I'm not intruding.

Rob, did Jesus ever "empty himself" of this authority? Yes or no?

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Patman: this verse is symbolic in nature. How else can you symbolize Christ? A slain lamb!

But Jesus didn't appear "as if slain" when he appeared to the disciples after the resurrection, there are many pictures of Christ, none of which involve him appearing as slain, and even when he appears as a lamb, appearing as slain does not seem to be necessarily required. Yet he will indeed appear in that way, which does seem to show that Christ's dying as a lamb had a timeless aspect.

Lee: Jesus says "truly, truly" about Peter's denial, so how can this be possibly wrong? This is Jesus' way of saying this is quite firm, and quite solemn. Then, while Peter is being reminded of his denial, Jesus confirms Peter's statement "you know all things" with another prediction about Peter's future! Again saying, "truly, truly."

Patman: The logic seems to imply that there is no other possible way for Jesus to know, and be positive, that the said events would occure with out future knowledge. It is simply a faulty conclusion.

Yes, but why is my conclusion incorrect here? We cannot just quote some other verse, and not deal with this one.

But I need to also address the verse you mentioned, while waiting for your response about Peter...

Please notice that God actually expected one thing to happen, but something else happened instead [Isaiah 5:3,4].

Isaiah 5:4 What more was there to do for my vineyard, that I have not done in it? When I looked for it to yield grapes, why did it yield wild grapes?

God is not asking for advice on gardening!

ISA 5:5 Now I will tell you what I am going to do to my vineyard...

God doesn't wait for their opinion! He tells us what more he could do, in fact. Thus I think we should conclude from this that good fruit in peoples' lives does not come from pleasant circumstances:

HEB 12:11 No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.

This vineyard will be restored, too, and it will even bear good fruit:

ISA 27:6 In days to come Jacob will take root, Israel will bud and blossom and fill all the world with fruit.

So then God's expectation of good fruit from this vineyard will not be disappointed.

Patman: ... ever since Abraham, hundreds of years before, God said that this people would be His people, and yet, recorded time and time again in the OT, they were anything but.

But this statement also will be fulfilled:

Hebrews 8:10 This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

Patman: Jonah is another great example of the Open View. God clearly stated that they had 40 days. Yet, because of their repenting, God retracted his statement and they lived many years beyond the original 40 days. If God knew the outcome, he would have not lied.

Well, then I have some questions...

Why didn't God destroy the Ninevites right away, if that was his plan?
Why did God send Jonah, and spoil his plan?
How can we trust God, if he can take action, and spoil his own plan himself?
How can we say that God didn't lie to the Ninevites, if he threatened unconditional destruction, yet he knew it might not happen?
Why did Jonah seem to have a better grasp of the situation than God did? He thought the Ninevites would probably repent, and thus he ran.
Why did the Ninevites seem to know better than God did? They thought they could repent, and God, apparently, did not.
Why didn't God keep the Ninevites from repenting after Jonah preached to them, like he did with the sons of Eli (1 Sam. 2:25) and with Amaziah (2 Chr. 25:16)?
Now we have to question God's unconditional promises, for the situation may change, and God may have to change his plan.
Also, God may act in a way that spoils his plan, not only may the situation change, and cause a change of plan, but God may do something that wrecks his own plan.

And we also need not always follow God's counsel, for another choice may turn out better, even from his perspective. Only Scripture says differently...

Jesus is God. Yet, as God, he admints to his inability to forsee the last day. This is an big hole in power as God, don't you think?

Not if the Father knows what Jesus (at this time) didn't know. Yet again, with Peter after the resurrection, Jesus confirms that he "knows all things" (Jn. 21:17), which must include the date of his return. I do believe Jesus did not have all factual knowledge while on earth, before his death and resurrection.

This is the mystical answer I was speaking of. And unrelated material to back it up. Having patience REQUIRES time.

So does hope! Is God hoping about all that we hope for, though? Well, no, he is not. Will he always be hoping for some best outcome, implying a possible result that is less than the best? Well, no, again.

And if the NIV translation of 1 Tim. 1:16 is correct, God has "unlimited patience for those who believe," again implying timelessness, for unlimited patience is not needed for time-limited sin. And we can't say this patience is just theoretically available for as long as needed, no, God "shows" it, which again implies a timeless aspect, for unlimited patience would take an infinite amount of time to show someone.

Lee: Surely you don't believe there was a real voice we could have heard, with sound waves traveling through air, though! Before air was created.

Patman: That's a little bold, I think. If you wish to disagree with the biblical account of creation, I do not understand why I would debate you on biblical matters.

Then you do believe that there was an actual voice, and sound waves in real air before creation? That is what seems rather strained to me. Surely the intent is to convey God initiating, and creating out of nothing.

Patman: The Bible says he was doing other things, in sequential order. For example, he was hovering.

But over the earth, which implies space, which allows for time then.

According to other verses, he was planning salvation before earth was created too.

Actually, I think the "point mode" of the verbs is used, which refers to a single moment, not to a process, a participle such as "planning" is never used of God's counsel before creation, rather "He chose us" (Eph. 1:4), "He planned" (Heb. 11:40). These distinctions are important! And can indicate something...

Lee: No, I believe he just knows it. And I do believe your alternative is worse! For if God is not in control of evil, how is that better, if real harm (the warfare worldview) can come to those who love him, and are called according to his purpose?

Patman: I will admit that if God desired control everything, he could. But his control would not include evil actions. Which proves he does not control it all! God can use evil to his advantage, but without causing it.

Well, this does not answer my objection, this is instead stating your conclusion. Why is it better if real harm can come? And how can we explain verses that tell us we need not fear, for no harm will come to those who trust in him? Ps. 91, for example, and here is another:

Psalm 56:11 ... in God I trust; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?

Lee: ... if people have real authority apart from God, then Jesus does not yet have all authority, but he said (Mt. 28:18) that he did.

JHodgeIII: Open Viewers understand that God has the ability to delegate authority, though He maintains being the supreme authority (see John 19:10 for a clear example of this).

But this means Jesus has all authority only if those he delegates authority to all do his will! But the Open View teaches that they don't.

JHodgeIII: ... did the omnipotent Jesus always have "all authority" or was He given "all authority" at a given time in history?

That's a good question! I believe when Jesus was on earth, he was dependent on the Father's power, in some ways, just as he was dependent on the Father's knowledge. After the resurrection, he resumed these divine attributes, he was given them, they were restored to him by the Father.

Godrulz: God did not know the actuality/certainty/experience of evil from eternity past. When evil was introduced, then and only then, was He grieved instead of experiencing a 'very good' creation. He knew of the inherent possibility of evil before creation and already formulated a contingency plan of redemption before the creation of the world.

Then sin is purely and only regrettable? If so, then how could God show his mercy? This was, it would seem, a purpose God had:

Romans 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[jhodgeiii]

1 Corinthians 15:24 says

Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.

Lee and Rob...who's authority is being ended? Is Jesus ending his own authority? How can authority of man or any other being be ended when according to you they have none???

 

[jhodgeiii]

I believe when Jesus was on earth, he was dependent on the Father's power, in some ways, just as he was dependent on the Father's knowledge. After the resurrection, he resumed these divine attributes, he was given them, they were restored to him by the Father.

Ditto. This proves that God the Son changed His attributes. There goes Immutability.

 

[Montana]

"So the creation taught the creator. Who in your opinion is greater?"
RobE

RobE, a creation cannot be greater than its creator. CS Lewis explains in one of his books that evil is actually parasitic. In other words, evil cannot exist for its own sake. It would destroy itself and cease to exist. Evil needs a host, goodness, to feed on. Therefore, goodness existed before evil. (Read C’s book for the full explanation.)

God preexisted his creation. He is good and he made a good creation. Tragically, mankind chose to rebel and became parasitic, taking God’s good thing (sex, food, exercise, rest, etc.) and perverting them. It is extremely important whether evil preexisted human rebellion in the mind of God. If God thought all things perverse before there was ever a rebellion, he cannot be all good. God could not be the ultimate source of goodness that sustains all things. He would be just another parasite on some cosmic food chain.

According to the Bible, righteousness is an absolute quantity (all or nothing), while evil exists on a sliding scale. Thus, some sinners may commit 10 small sins in their lifetime while other commit 10,000 big sins, yet “all have sinned fall short of the glory of God. (Rom. 3:23)” Settled Views take that truth and turn it on its head. They talk about “total depravity,” making sin the fixed quantity. Then they put righteousness on some sort of continuum arguing that righteousness is something other than total depravity. This allows them to attribute all thing evil to God. Their reasoning is that God is not totally depraved like we are. Then they say that because we are totally depraved we haven’t got the resources to determine what righteousness is. Therefore we have to accept without question that God creates and sanctions evil for glory sake.