Does Calvinism limit God?

[godrulz]

Succession, duration, sequence are aspects of the any personal being. They are not limitations of God, but an inherent part of His experience. Time is not a thing that is created. Time is not just subjective measurement, but reality as the present moves to the fixed past. The future is not yet (it is not a place or thing).

This concept is a valid view of time and eternity. Intervarsity Press has a good book contrasting 4 legitimate views held by credible theologians. Eternal Now and Endless Duration are 2 of these. This should not be confused with pantheism or panentheism (Charles Hartshorne) or Process theology where God is limited and confined to creation. The Creator is distinct from creation.

If you feel it is carnal, you have not adequately wrestled with the Scriptural and philosophical pros and cons of each view. If nothing else, I hope you are challenged to consider alternatives (tradition in church history is not always right...the Reformation exposed many wrong beliefs in the Church for e.g.)

 

[John Reformed]

Originally posted by godrulz

...the Reformation exposed many wrong beliefs in the Church for e.g.)

That's right...and we still are exposing them.

The concept of a god limited in knowledge is one of those wrong-headed beliefs. This god is more like a superman than the God of the Bible.

God is omniscient. He is not limited to any dimension; neither space or time. He trancends both. He is not a man, and He is not bound by that which He has created.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by John Reformed

That's right...and we still are exposing them.

The concept of a god limited in knowledge is one of those wrong-headed beliefs. This god is more like a superman than the God of the Bible.

God is omniscient. He is not limited to any dimension; neither space or time. He trancends both. He is not a man, and He is not bound by that which He has created.

God is not limited in knowledge. He knows everything logically knowable and He knows reality as it is. We both absolutely affirm that God is omniscient, but we understand the scope of this differently. The future is not there to know because it is not a thing. Time is not space or a place. It is simply duration, succession, sequence which is an aspect of any personal, living Being. A static entity would be impersonal and incapable of thinking, feeling, or acting. "Eternal Now" is an incoherent proposition. Time is not a literal line that can bind or limit God, yet it is valid and real for God. The incarnation did not happen simultaneously with creation. If you think it did on a cosmic, mysterious level despite the physical reality of it...you may want to rethink it. God correctly knows actualities and certainties as they are. Some future things are only contingencies or possibilities until they are actualized. God correctly knows them as possibilities until they are actualized in reality. This is not a deficiency in omniscience. It is a bald contradiction and absurdity to know a nothing. The future is not there to know because it has not happened yet. God also has a past, present, and future. This is His experience and does not diminish His omniscience or power.

I realize these concepts are stretching, but they are more than rational and consistent with the literal, biblical portrayal of God.

Again, this is an area godly theologians and Christian philosophers have wrestled with for years. I would not be quick to assume the only model you have been exposed to is correct. The 'eternal now' concept has dubious roots and limits God to not be able to create or incarnate (this involves sequence, duration, succession= time). God did not create the earth trillions of years ago. At some point in the triune God's duration, He created. Thousands of years later (meaningful to God and us) He came to earth. Thousands of years later He will return. This does not all happen simultaneously in reality. God distinguishes His thoughts and intents (knowable as thoughts) from the manifested reality (known as a certainty/actuality) at that point.

God is God, not a man. We affirm the omniscience of God but differ as to the possible objects of God's knowledge.

(e.g. future free will contingencies, by definition, are known as such...they are known as actualities/certainties when they happen. Your denial of free will fits with determinism and exhaustive foreknowledge, since God would see and know the future if He was going to cause it. One wrong concept leads to another wrong concept, though it might appear to be internally consistent. The Armininian view tries to uphold free will and says God knows the future somehow by sheer mental force. It is also deficient since future free will choices are inherently unknowable as a certainty until they are made. You cannot have exhaustive foreknowledge and free will without creating an absurdity or logical contradiction. This is not a deficiency in God's knowledge since He knows everything that is knowable. cf. omnipotence means God can do everything doable. Somethings are not logically possible to do like God being created and uncreated at the same time)

 

[John Reformed]

Foreknowledge of God & Open Theism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Theism is a sub-Christian theological construct which claims that God's highest goal is to enter into a reciprocal relationship with man. In this scheme, the Bible is interpreted without any anthropomorphisms - that is, all references to God's feelings, surprise and lack of knowledge are literal and the result of His choice to create a world where He can be affected by man's choices. God's exhaustive knowledge does not include future free will choices by mankind because they have not yet occurred.



One of the leading spokesman of open theism, Clark Pinnock, in describing how libertarian freedom trumps God's omniscience says, "Decisions not yet made do not exist anywhere to be known even by God. They are potential--yet to be realized but not yet actual. God can predict a great deal of what we will choose to do, but not all of it, because some of it remains hidden in the mystery of human freedom ... The God of the Bible displays an openness to the future (i.e.
ignorance of the future) that the traditional view of omniscience simply cannot accommodate." (Pinnock, "Augustine to Arminius, " 25-26)

Evangelicals cannot remain neutral in response to this unbiblical view. This is simply because to the degree that we think wrong thoughts about God is the same degree that we commit idolatry. Open theism is form of idolatry which embraces a god who is constrained by a part of his own creation, since He does not know future events. This anthropocentric system has failed to recognize that "time" itself is just as much of a part of God's good creation as "space and matter". In science 101 we learned that time, as we know it, requires the existence of space and matter. But God is omnipresent and eternal and He stands outside of time, thus seeing end from beginning. While we can speculate as to whether God may exist in His own temporality as part of His perfections, but He surely isn't limited to ours. The result of open theism is a breach of the first commandment, which is to have no other gods before Him (Ex 20:3). Such a smallish view of Almighty God is a human construct; a god who is limited by part of his creation, has less glory than something he made. Time, in this scheme, would therefore be the greatest essence in the universe, thus those who hold the open view make an idol out part of His creation.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/foreknowledge.html

 

[godrulz]

I believe this displays an ignorance of the nature of time. Time is not an idol nor should it be confused with space. This comes from the theory of relativity and is being questioned. Time is not a created thing and is not greater than God. The Reformed perspective will feel threatened. Anti-open view books (I do read them) often have weak arguments, misrepresent the open view, or confuse it with Process theology (which is aberrant). I would suggest a deeper wrestling with the issues is in order, but this would entail work exposing yourself to the Scriptural and philosophical evidence (modal logic, possible worlds, contingencies, etc.). This is not a simplistic issue so be careful of assuming a pat answer (assuming tradition is true) resolves complex issues. Open Theists do recognize some anthropomorphisms (legit figure of speech), but do not find a need to twist the simple, straightforward reading to fit a preconceived theology. You are left with another dilemma (still have not answered how you would rephrase the free will passages to teach that if you think they teach determinism) in that how would God communicate that He does change, repent, etc. (even if you do not believe that) other than what the passage says. There must be a way to communicate both truths in Greek, Hebrew, English. If He wanted to reveal that He does not change in any sense, He would not have misled us and said He does change His mind and repent (there is no reason to take these anthropomorphically).

 

[lee_merrill]

"It implies that God decrees one state of affairs while also willing and teaching that a different state of affairs should come to pass." (John Piper)

Lee: Doesn't this imply that God experiences frustration, though? And that he has to compromise?

Z Man: How so?

Well, if God wants A and decrees "not A", then I think that implies frustration. John Piper says in his "two wills" description that "We must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen", implying that God's desires sometimes conflict with his will, implying, I think, some measure of frustration.

And if God wills both A and B, and can only decree B and that excludes A, then I think it can be said that he had to compromise.

Godrulz: His 'frustration' would not be the same as our fleshly frustration, but His 'heart' is real since He is a personal being.

But I still think that an unfulfilled desire implies frustration, even if God may be said to handle it well...

Godrulz: The doctrine of impassibility (God has no emotions or feelings= classical theology) is not the God and Father that Jesus revealed.

Z Man: I'm not teaching that.

I agree! How anyone can look at the cross, or read that "Jesus wept," and say that God doesn't experience pain or emotion is, I think, not possible. And I think it is possible for God's response to change, without God himself changing, in his nature. Jesus rejoiced, at one point, and wept at another, but I don't think he changed his nature, even then:

HEB 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Godrulz: 2 Peter uses the word day= time expression. God's perspective on time is different since He has lived forever and can be in more than one place at one time.

I am= self-existent...you are wrongly assuming it means timeless.

I agree with the verses you posted, Z Man! And even if God is in time, God does know every possible detail about the future, so even that seems pretty equivalent to being there now.

2 Peter says what durations are like for God, not his perspective on them, how can both statements be true, if God experiences time like we do: "one day like 1000 years and 1000 years like a day".

"I am" does imply more than self-existence in John 8, the question "have you seen Abraham" was about being there at that time, not about the basis for Jesus' existence.

I think God is in "the Eternal Now":

LK 20:38 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.

"All" may mean even future men, here!

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by godrulz

The future is not there to know because it is not a thing.

Then you must not believe in prophecy, or any of God's promises.

Instead of God's Word being assured and a valid promise, meaning that it will come to pass as said, you must believe that God's promises are more like predictions. How can you trust in a God who's promises and will may be thwarted by "human freedom"?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Z Man

Then you must not believe in prophecy, or any of God's promises.

Instead of God's Word being assured and a valid promise, meaning that it will come to pass as said, you must believe that God's promises are more like predictions. How can you trust in a God who's promises and will may be thwarted by "human freedom"?

prophecy is not based on exhaustive foreknowledge. it is based on God's omnipotence and his will to bring certain things to pass.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

prophecy is not based on exhaustive foreknowledge. it is based on God's omnipotence and his will to bring certain things to pass.

How can God bring His "certain things" to pass if there is no future? How can He bring His will to pass without violating man's "free will"?

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Z Man

Then you must not believe in prophecy, or any of God's promises.

Instead of God's Word being assured and a valid promise, meaning that it will come to pass as said, you must believe that God's promises are more like predictions. How can you trust in a God who's promises and will may be thwarted by "human freedom"?

You underestimate the ability of God to bring things He purposes to pass despite the genuine freedom and contingencies of the universe. If He says He will judge nations and sinners He will. This is beyond man's ability to control or thwart. If He promises to set up an earthly Kingdom no one can stop that (He would just have to send fire from heaven and kill us). If He intends to incarnate, die, and rise from the dead, we cannot stop that. If He choses to give man freedom to choose for or against Him, that is His wise and loving perogative. There is no need to blame God for evil or the perishing of individuals in hell. It is possible to be Sovereign and chose to allow for the possibility of individuals to not fulfill their intended destiny. To disagree with this is to limit God at the expense of maintaining a preconceived theology (God cannot create free moral agents without risking the fate of the universe?! 'Your God is too small'- JB Phillips

I do believe in prophecy, but many prophecies are conditional or declarative, rather than predictive. I know Calvinistic scholars distinguish different types of prophecy. Time to reread the Bible without preconceived ideas.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Z Man

How can God bring His "certain things" to pass if there is no future? How can He bring His will to pass without violating man's "free will"?

Prophecy often relates to righteous judgment. It is a consequence of man's rebellion. Who says that man is the captain of his soul and destiny? The soul that sins is the one that will die. God can strike people dead (Acts). There freedom does not preclude judgment, wrath, or death. No one said man's freedom to drive a car or reject Christ means that God is now helpless or at risk of loosing control.

The future is not yet. It does not mean that the future does not actualize as the present moves to the fixed past. Eventually we will experience the future as the new present. The future is not a place to visit. This is why time travel is not possible. The past is also fixed and not a place so you cannot go 'there' and alter it (nor can God...that is not a limitation, but the nature of divine and human reality).

There are 2 motifs in Scripture: some of the future is certain since God will bring it to pass by His ability regardless of what man does or does not do e.g. First and Second Coming.

Some of the future is open and uncertain due to free will (implies genuine alternative choices that are unknowable until they are made).. e.g. you do not see prophecies from trillions of years ago as to individual heaven/hell destinies. Prophecy usually deals with bigger issues. It does not predict or determine salvation (unless it is God's present knowledge of a heart that is not inclined to change). If there is a prophecy about an individual, it is not from before their birth (Christ is an exception that God is in control of; Cyrus is a possible example of free will being suspended to ensure he was named such; Judas did not have to fulfill the general prophecy..he is not named in the OT as the chosen betrayer...someone else could have if Judas repented).

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by godrulz

Who says that man is the captain of his soul and destiny? The soul that sins is the one that will die. God can strike people dead (Acts). There freedom does not preclude judgment, wrath, or death. No one said man's freedom to drive a car or reject Christ means that God is now helpless or at risk of loosing control.

Your way of thinking is sooooo...... small. Let me give you a scenario in the hopes that your thoughts on God will broaden:

God has been keeping His eye on Jimmy for some time now. It seems that Jimmy has decided to take a trip to Europe in the upcoming summer as an exchange student. The family that he would be staying with are going through very difficult and trying times, and God knows that they need Him. But Jimmy also needs God, for he is not saved. Oneday, before Jimmy gets set to head off to Europe, one of his buddies invites him to church. Not at all excited about the invitation, Jimmy unwillingly trudges off to church next Sunday with his friend. Now, God is watching all of this and is excited that Jimmy's friend invited him to church. God really hopes that Jimmy repents, because if he gets saved, then maybe perhaps he can share the gospel with the family in Europe, who in turn would share it with there friends, etc. So, Jimmy goes to church and listens to the message with an open heart, while in the meantime, God and the angels are all gathered around with their fingers crossed. Suddenly, the service ends, and to no avail, little Jimmy does not repent. Frustrated and very unhappy, God takes a deep breathe and sits back into His throne, after being on edge for the duration of the church service. "Now what?" God asks Himself. "Jimmy was my 'inside' man for that family in Europe. I sure hope someone else comes along and believes in me, so that that family in Europe can come to know me, and then they can tell their friends, etc."


Your view of God is ridiculous and extremely limited by your logic/paradigm. You believe that God sees the world as you do, which is idiotic and unbiblical, not to mention sort of humorous...

 

[godrulz]

Your poor illustration seems to assume that God's knowledge of past and present facts is imperfect. He does not observe as man does. He knows the hidden thoughts, motives, tendencies, feelings, etc. perfectly. He does not depend on Jimmy to save Europe. He accomplishes His purposes through the Church and can raise up any one of hundreds of millions of believers around the world to accomplish His purposes (not to mention the direct agency of the Holy Spirit and the Word). Whether Jimmy repents or not brings joy or grief to God. It does not discombobulate His entire plan for the human race. Your God fails to save everyone despite supposedly being able to. My understanding of God is that in His wisdom, love, truth, holiness, justice, mercy, etc. He chose to create a world where love and liberty inherently resulted in the possibility of some being saved and others not. He has a genuine love relationship with people who repent as opposed to a Master-robot situation with subjects. Man is to blame for going to hell. God is not. This is not rocket science unless you are blinded by an extreme emphasis on the hidden will of God.

You mock a legitimate view of God because you do not understand it and misrepresent it (classic 'straw man' caricature). You also denigrate man in the image of God as being incapable of any free will.

Will someone please explain from Scripture (you expect that of every idea I have, even though some things are in the realm of science or philosophy) the mechanism God uses to cause child molesters to commit evil, to force you to turn right instead of left while driving, to eat an apple instead of an orange, etc.? This is the only way He can know the future as a certainty/actuality. Determinism and unconditional election, etc. precludes libertarian free will in mundane and moral choices. You are left with a fatalistic universe, an insecure God who cannot govern free moral agents so He robs them of dignity and personality to be a control-freak, a Holy God responsible for horrific evil, an atonement that can only save a few that God arbitrarily elects saving a father but roasting the kids in hell?!, etc. Whose view is ridiculous and not at all funny?

It is much more reasonable and biblical to accept that God and man and demons and angels are free moral agents with will, intellect, and emotions.

Read my lips lest you slander me...God does NOT see the world as I do. He sees and knows everything knowable perfectly. We cannot and do not. Yet, when He reveals the nature of His character, attributes, relations, ways, moral government, etc. we are to see things the way He does. What you really mean is that I do not see things the way YOU see things relating to God. One of us must be seeing things the way God does in a limited sense.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Godrulz and Z Man,

Godrulz: The future is not there to know because it is not a thing.

But it is!

HEB 11:13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance.

"The things promised" were there already, people could be said to see them.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by godrulz

Your poor illustration seems to assume that God's knowledge of past and present facts is imperfect. He does not observe as man does. He knows the hidden thoughts, motives, tendencies, feelings, etc. perfectly. He does not depend on Jimmy to save Europe. He accomplishes His purposes through the Church and can raise up any one of hundreds of millions of believers around the world to accomplish His purposes (not to mention the direct agency of the Holy Spirit and the Word).

How can He "raise up anyone" without violationg human freedom? How can He make anyone do His will, let's say for example, to save all of Europe, without taking away a person's will? It can't be done. God's will comes first.

Whether Jimmy repents or not brings joy or grief to God. It does not discombobulate His entire plan for the human race.

What if Paul never repented? Then what? Would God just sit around, hoping that someone else would repent, so He could use them to do what He wished of Paul to do? The same with Billy Graham, or Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Finney, etc. Was it by chance and by luck that these great men of faith repented, thus allowing God to do His great work in them, saving millions of other people? I think not. God does not run a big "casino"; nothing happens by chance. It was His will that each of these men repent, so that He could use them each in their area of the world and time to bring about the salvation of many others.

He didn't care that Paul's will was set against God and had hundreds of Christians murdered; God overrided Paul's will on the road to Demascus. He had a greater plan for Paul's life, whether Paul liked it or not. God's purpose isn't to "preserve" our freedom; it's to accomplish His will so His glory can be displayed. That's what is most important to Him.

Your God fails to save everyone despite supposedly being able to.

That's your problem; you believe God's ultimate purpose is to save mankind, and if He is able too, yet doesn't, then He is a failure. You somehow think that mankind and their relationship with God is His top priority - that we are the center of God's universe and the apple of His eye.

If that was the case, then God is guilty of idolatry. His number one love isn't us by a long shot. He is most interested in Himself, not us. Thus, His will is far more important that ours, and He'll do whatever it takes to make sure that His glory is manifested throughout the universe, whatever the cost.

Will someone please explain from Scripture (you expect that of every idea I have, even though some things are in the realm of science or philosophy) the mechanism God uses to cause child molesters to commit evil, to force you to turn right instead of left while driving, to eat an apple instead of an orange, etc.? This is the only way He can know the future as a certainty/actuality. Determinism and unconditional election, etc. precludes libertarian free will in mundane and moral choices. You are left with a fatalistic universe, an insecure God who cannot govern free moral agents so He robs them of dignity and personality to be a control-freak, a Holy God responsible for horrific evil, an atonement that can only save a few that God arbitrarily elects saving a father but roasting the kids in hell?!, etc. Whose view is ridiculous and not at all funny?

Considering that you think mankind is some kind of "super creation" and God's ultimate purpose, I'd say yours is unbiblical, thus ridiculous. You're so wrapped up in this "God loves mankind more than Himself" garbage that you are blinded by the real reasons things, like persecution, happen. If you don't believe God uses evil and "hard times", trials and afflictions, to teach people lessons, then you need to read Job. You must of also skipped the part in the Bible where God had His own Son killed. Not to mention, He had every baby in Bethlehem and Egypt killed, He destroyed nations altogether, etc. etc. to have His will accomplished.

You are really naive to think that God does not allow and cause calamity in order to bring about a greater cause, namely to show His glory. Remember, God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that He could bring about affliction upon the Egyptians. Why? To display His glory.

If you would humble yourself and give up the "high value" position you have imagined mankind to be in, you would see a greater God - one more glorified than the one you have made up in your imagination.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lee_merrill

Hi Godrulz and Z Man,



But it is!

HEB 11:13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance.

"The things promised" were there already, people could be said to see them.

Blessings,
Lee

Creative, but too wooden of an interpretation. They say things in their minds by faith. They did not actually see the reality or fulfillment. They looked forward to the coming of the Messiah, but that does not mean that He was literally born and crucified in some 4th dimension in reality. This was not actualized until a time in the future. At that point it was known in reality, not just by faith in the mind.

 

[godrulz]

ZMAN:

God can and does use evil, but that truth does not necessitate that He is the source or cause of evil. He is a redemptive, creative, responsive God. He can and will try to redeem things. There is nothing redeemable about Hitler killing millions of Jews and sending them to a Christless eternity. There is something redemptive knowing that many Jews were providentially spared and that Hitler will experience the justice and wrath of God.

You presume that Jimmy is crucial to saving Europe. If believer x refuses to respond to the call of God, He will convict and influence believer y. We are commanded to preach the Gospel. If we personally fail to do so, God is big enough to find other people who are willing without needing to violate their freedom. His eyes rove to and fro looking for those whose hearts are inclined to Him. Will the Son of Man find faith when He comes back? If we disobey, we miss opportunities and God uses plan B (I know you do not like the idea of God not causing everything).

Pharaoh's heart was already hard. God added a further judicial hardening. This does not mean God took a neutral Pharaoh and made him evil against his will.

Where do you get the idea we think "God loves mankind more than Himself?"

God is the most valuable being in the universe and rightly deserves supremacy. This is why we love and worship Him supremely (and NOT love men more or worship men). We are to love God supremely and others equal with ourselves. God loves and exalts Himself supremely, but that does not mean that He does not love man significantly and perfectly. God is love. Love seeks the highest good of God and man (they do not have to be mutually exclusive).

I do not believe it is God's ultimate purpose to save man. His ultimate purpose includes bringing the greatest good and glory to Himself. He chose to create us and ONE of His purposes is to redeem His fallen creation. If you knew the Father heart of God, rather than a stern cosmic Dictator, you would not have as great a problem with that. God can be glorified AND man can have temporal and eternal needs met. I understand which is supreme. Do you understand the love of God demonstrated in the life and death of Christ?

I understand Job. Note that it was Satan bringing evil, not God. God allowed it, but He did not cause it. Again, we see God as providential and responsive, not a controlling dictator.

 

[lee_merrill]

I understand Job. Note that it was Satan bringing evil, not God. God allowed it, but He did not cause it. Again, we see God as providential and responsive, not a controlling dictator.

I shall post my Job verses here, too!

JOB 2:7 So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord and afflicted Job with painful sores.
JOB 2:10 He replied, "... Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?" In all this, Job did not sin in what he said.

Job said what was right, and he said the trouble came from God.

JOB 2:3 "And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason."

This is God speaking, and saying he did it. And the Lord brought about the good that came from this, too, all of this was his plan:

JAS 5:11 As you know, we consider blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job's perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

God did allow trouble to come to Job. This is not the same thing as making Job or anyone sin or commit evil. The source of the trouble still was Satan. Would you also argue with the Catholics that it was God's will that your child got run over by a bus and that God caused the driver to kill your child? Do not take a specific exceptional situation like Job's testing and make it a general explanation for all accidents and atrocities in the world. The Gospels will not allow you to do this. Job is not a proof text for your wrong view. Creation includes the possibility of accidents due to the law of physics. Moral creation includes the possibility of a drunk driver killing someone. Do not attribute this to the hand of God. That is slanderous and blasphemous and contrary to Jesus's explanation. e.g. He cast out demons freeing people from sickness and bondage. LAST TIME: JESUS CAME TO OPPOSE EVIL, NOT AFFIRM IT AS THE WILL OF GOD.

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by godrulz

God is not limited in knowledge. He knows everything logically knowable and He knows reality as it is. We both absolutely affirm that God is omniscient, but we understand the scope of this differently. The future is not there to know because it is not a thing. Time is not space or a place. It is simply duration, succession, sequence which is an aspect of any personal, living Being. A static entity would be impersonal and incapable of thinking, feeling, or acting. "Eternal Now" is an incoherent proposition. Time is not a literal line that can bind or limit God, yet it is valid and real for God. The incarnation did not happen simultaneously with creation. If you think it did on a cosmic, mysterious level despite the physical reality of it...you may want to rethink it. God correctly knows actualities and certainties as they are. Some future things are only contingencies or possibilities until they are actualized. God correctly knows them as possibilities until they are actualized in reality. This is not a deficiency in omniscience. It is a bald contradiction and absurdity to know a nothing. The future is not there to know because it has not happened yet. God also has a past, present, and future. This is His experience and does not diminish His omniscience or power.

It seems to me that Open View Theism (OV) turns on whether time is a created thing or a function of God's nature.

OVers will flatly assert that "time" is not created and therefore God cannot know what will transpire in the future. (e.g. "God can only know what is knowable"). The closed side likewise asserts that time is created by God and that God, being in the eternal now, can transcend this temporal device.

:think:

I don't suppose either side is prepared to go beyond the simple, unsupported assertions about time. I would like to see some scriptures which speak to the nature of time.

Originally posted by godrulz
I would not be quick to assume the only model you have been exposed to is correct.

This is what most people do; I am no different. I've internalized my view and feel that the other side needs to present the better Biblical case, which remains to be seen. And you challenge my model in the following:

Originally posted by godrulz
You cannot have exhaustive foreknowledge and free will without creating an absurdity or logical contradiction.

I believe in God's exhaustive foreknowledge and free will. My understanding is that scripture teaches both. I suppose when you can convince me that these tenets, taken together, necessitate an absurdity, then I'll become an OVer.

Perhaps a study on the dynamics of "time" would help me. OV isn't helped, in my mind, by Revelation, i.e. apocalypse. Apocalypse means to uncover. Is God "uncovering" the future or making a guess about it? Why would God go to the trouble of "revealing" detailed information about the future, if He can't see the future. This makes God a super-guesser or fabricator. Why the detail? If He was guessing, surely He could have just as easily adumbrated with some broad strokes - no need to get unnecessarily specific.