More on "All Things"

[Big Finn]

Clete is correct to recognize the differences between certainties, necessities, possibilities, and probabilities.

I'd agree with with this. My point, such as it is, is that what is unknowable for me, and for the rest of humanity because of our finiteness, may very well not be un-knowable for an infinite being. And, since all human philosophy is based upon human knowledge our definitions may not be complete.

Now, I do agree that the Bible comes down on both sides of this issue. First, a text that seems to strike a death blow to determinism as taught by Calvinism:

Ecc 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

... to the prophecy of Cyrus' words long before he was born. So, is this the result of being very confident in the ability to influence people and events, or is it the result of knowing how to see things that humans would think it impossible to see?

I really don't know. I just take it by faith that God is able to do it one way or the other. It's far beyond my ken. Maybe some day in heaven God will teach me how He did this, but until then it will remain a mystery to me. It's an interesting sidelight, but not, to me, of major importance in the conflict between good and evil, and Christ and Satan.

 

[lee_merrill]

"If an act be free, it must be contingent. If contingent, it may or may not happen, or it may be one of many possibles. And if it may be one of many possibles, it must be uncertain; and if uncertain, it must be unknowable."

Does knowing a past decision make it not have been a free action, though?

Lee: This difficulty is not so difficult (so to speak) if God is not in time...

GIT: if we genuinely have free will, then God cannot know what we are going to do before we do it. it does not matter if he is in time or outside of it.

Well, it does seem to me that part of the difficulty is caused by saying God knows today what he (or someone else) will choose tomorrow. "Before Abraham was, I am," Jesus said, implying that God's experience of time is more "present tense"than "past, present and future,"and "a thousand years are like a day," and vice versa, too, again implying that God's experience of time is quite different than ours.

But does knowing an event make it not free? If so, then why not insist that only 50/50 chances are really free, as someone posted? Therefore virtually nothing is free, because no chance is exactly 50%.

Clete: The point is that people’s free will actions are unknowable. They are predictable, perhaps very accurately, but predicting is not the same knowing.

Then how does God make predictions where he says "surely" and "certainly"? How is he laying special claim to divinity when he makes these predictions, if he is only estimating, like everyone else?

Big Finn: ... what is unknowable for me, and for the rest of humanity because of our finiteness, may very well not be un-knowable for an infinite being. And, since all human philosophy is based upon human knowledge our definitions may not be complete.

That's a good point, just because we don't see how it could happen, doesn't mean it's impossible. Which also applies to free choices versus God's foreknowledge!

Ecc 9:11 ... but time and chance happeneth to them all.

I don't know that you want to build a case from a verse in Ecclesiastes, though! This is Solomon's Disillusionment From Man's Perspective.

... to the prophecy of Cyrus' words long before he was born. So, is this the result of being very confident in the ability to influence people and events, or is it the result of knowing how to see things that humans would think it impossible to see?

God claims divinity when he makes such predictions, though!

Isaiah 43:9 All the nations gather together and the peoples assemble. Which of them foretold this and proclaimed to us the former things?

Isaiah 41:23 tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you are gods.

Now if God is only estimating, and could be wrong, how is this special proof of his divinity? God may know a lot more than we do, but God is saying his knowledge of the future is more fundamentally different, if he is only estimating, we might admire him like we do with Einstein, but we wouldn't worship him...

And if God can possibly be wrong, then we may decide to turn elsewhere, not unreasonably, if his strength and wisdom can fail us:

2 Kings 1:2 "Go, inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron, whether I shall recover from this sickness."

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by lee_merrill
Does knowing a past decision make it not have been a free action, though?

How would know something after the fact effect whether or not it was free? The past is gone! It's done and over with. It is, indeed, permanently set it stone, thus its ability to be known. If the past were mutable then it would be as unknowable as the future.

Well, it does seem to me that part of the difficulty is caused by saying God knows today what he (or someone else) will choose tomorrow. "Before Abraham was, I am," Jesus said, implying that God's experience of time is more "present tense" than "past, present and future, "and "a thousand years are like a day," and vice versa, too, again implying that God's experience of time is quite different than ours.

Your reading into the text again and for no other reason except to prop up a faulty theology. The Christian faith does not require the belief that time itself is even something that has an independent existence. Time is nothing more that a frame of reference that a thinking mind can use to keep track of when something started, how long it lasted and when it was finished. Time is sequence and duration, nothing more than that. It is not something that be entered into or exited from or even traveled through.
This is why we have no precedent for anyone praying for God to go back in time and change the way things turned out. In fact, we have just the reverse. We have God dealing with situations that He wishes hadn't happened just is if going back in time to change them was not an option.

But does knowing an event make it not free? If so, then why not insist that only 50/50 chances are really free, as someone posted? Therefore virtually nothing is free, because no chance is exactly 50%.

Freedom is the ability to do something in opposition to the odds. Just because people do things in patterns that make them predictable doesn't mean that have to do so every time. In fact, they will not do so every time, which is what makes people unpredictable to one degree or another. If things were always exactly 50-50 you could predict the behavior even more easily than you can now.

Then how does God make predictions where he says "surely" and "certainly"? How is he laying special claim to divinity when he makes these predictions, if he is only estimating, like everyone else?

Well because He not everyone else! He is much starter and wiser than everyone else. He also has access to every conceivable piece of pertinent information that could have bearing on this event being prophesied about. Plus, He is very skilled at interacting with us in such a way as to steer things in the direction in which He wishes them to go.
Even with all this, however, it is not guaranteed that just because God said it is going to happen a certain way, that it is in fact going to do happen that way as I have mentioned before. Prophecy simply cannot be considered to be prewritten history. It just doesn't work that way.

That's a good point, just because we don't see how it could happen, doesn't mean it's impossible. Which also applies to free choices versus God's foreknowledge!

If God can know it, it is not unknowable. The whole point of saying something is unknowable is to say that it cannot be known, period.

God claims divinity when he makes such predictions, though!

That's because He makes predictions that do in fact come true that no one but Him could have made. It's not like we are saying God has a bad track record when it comes to prophecy, indeed, quite the reverse. God does so well at it that it would be wrong, in the normal course of speaking, to say that if God said it, that settles it. We are just pointing out that to insist upon perfection with regards to predicting what people will do is a much higher standard that the Bible demands or demonstrates.

Now if God is only estimating, and could be wrong, how is this special proof of his divinity? God may know a lot more than we do, but God is saying his knowledge of the future is more fundamentally different, if he is only estimating, we might admire him like we do with Einstein, but we wouldn't worship him...

The problem with this statement is that God is so far above Einstein that its impossible to express in words! God makes prediction that ONLY GOD could make. That's how how it's proof. No one but God can read our thought, no one but God can know everything, no one but God can be everywhere at once. No one is, therefore, even remotely capable of make the sort of predictions that only God Himself can make.

And if God can possibly be wrong, then we may decide to turn elsewhere, not unreasonably, if his strength and wisdom can fail us:

:shocked: Holy cow! Good grief man, watch what you say! There are unfulfilled prophecies in the Bible you know. Don't base your faith on a sign Lee, that's not reasonable at all!
There are many reasons why this would not be reasonable, not the least of which is that one of God's prophecies not come to pass speaks more about us than it does Him (Jer. 18). But even if that weren't the case, you will be made to give an account of every idle word you speak. Until you've put that last nail in the coffin on this issue and laid it completely to rest, I recommend being careful about saying such things.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lee_merrill

Does knowing a past decision make it not have been a free action, though?

Blessings,
Lee

Nope. The past is fixed, the present is now and real, the future is not yet. The past and present are knowable, but the nature of the future in relation to free choices must be unknowable (it is a logical contradiction or absurdity for man or an omniscient being to know free will acts trillions of years before they are made).
The past is not the present or future, so all ideas are not parallel between them. Time is unidirectional moving from the present into the fixed past. It is the actualization of the POTENTIAL future into the FIXED past. The future is not there in reality (for God or man). Time travel is an impossibility (except in sci-fi). Time is not a thing or space. Confusing these concepts leads to incoherent conclusions.

 

[godrulz]

Clete: Great minds think alike. We typed similar responses about the past at the same time.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by godrulz

Clete: Great minds think alike. We typed similar responses about the past at the same time.

:thumb:

I actually got the "sequence and duration" phrase from you. I think that is one of the best descriptions of what time is that I have ever heard.

 

[godrulz]

Time=sequence, succession, duration.

I think Wolterstorff, Olson, and others used these words. Time is an aspect of a personal being since will (act), intellect (think), emotions (feel), creation, incarnation, etc. require duration.

J.R. Lucas "A Treatise on Time and Space"

"Some theologians say that God is outside time, but it cannot be true of any personal God that He is timeless, for a personal God is conscious, and time is a concomitant (accompany) of consciousness. Time is not only the concomitant of consciousness, but the process of actualization and the dimension of change."

The alternative is that God is impersonal, static, absolutely immutable (vs character, attributes, but not relationships, experiences). God is dynamic, responsive, creative, and alive.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by lee_merrill
Well, it does seem to me that part of the difficulty is caused by saying God knows today what he (or someone else) will choose tomorrow. "Before Abraham was, I am," Jesus said, implying that God's experience of time is more "present tense"than "past, present and future,"and "a thousand years are like a day," and vice versa, too, again implying that God's experience of time is quite different than ours.

but Jesus said "before abraham was, i am" while on earth! so you have a big problem if that phrase means "outside of time" because you'd have to explain how Jesus could've said it while in his ministry. he would've been both in time and out of time, at the same time!

also, if you are going to try and say that because God views things in a "eternal present" then he doesn't "foreknow" anything and thus no problem with free will, you would be quite mistaken. because if all things are a present to God, then they have already taken place too! so not only have our decisions been known and made before we do them, they've already been done! free will is thus really out the window and you are essentially down to calvinism where God brings all things to pass.

But does knowing an event make it not free? If so, then why not insist that only 50/50 chances are really free, as someone posted? Therefore virtually nothing is free, because no chance is exactly 50%.

why would a 50/50 chance not be free? besides, there is always a third choice which is to do nothing at all. and sometimes there is a 4th one which is to do both.

 

[godrulz]

"I am" is a tensed phrase (present) and implies self-sufficent one, etc. It does not mean timeless being. Jesus is the "I am" of Exodus and the NT.

cf. Rev. 1:8 the Alpha and Omega= who is (present), who was (past), and who is to come (future). God exists in an endless duration of unidirectional time. Eternity is endless duration with no beginning or end. Eternity does not have to mean timeless (false assumption). He is not a timeless 'eternal now' with no sequence, duration, succession. Rev. 1:8 indicates tense and time expressions about the Almighty (3 verses in Rev. also show that there is time in heaven: 6:10; 8:1; 22:1,2).

 

[Chileice]

Please excuse me for being a Johnny-come-lately to the discussion, but I have found your discussion and reasoning fascinating. I have always viewed God as beyond time, not trapped by it. In fact I have always viewed heaven as the freedom from the time aspect. However, in the discussion I have read things that have challenged my thinking and that have even led me to propose some other possibilities, if nothing else than for argument and to get my mind clear on the subject.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Also, from a very basic and technical point of view, the future is either open or it is not. Either every single event that will ever occur is set in stone as an unalterable fact of future history in which case it would be closed, or else it is open to contingency, to maybe this or perhaps that. If there is even one single event that might or might not happen then the future is open. It is truly an all or nothing senerio. Even a partially openned door is not closed.

First I began thinking about this statement by Clete. The more I thought about it the more I wasn't 100% sure it was true even though on the surface, it seems to be a logical necessity. But what about a conditional closed system? Could it exist? I have always been a strong supporter of free will and that God does not have it all figured out ahead of time.

But reading II Cor. 5 made me think something a bit different. I hate to quote such a large passage but I'm afraid no one will read it otherwise:

Originally posted by Paul
1Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. 2Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, 3because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

This seems to denote foreknowledge. How can God guarantee anything if He cannot know it will happen?

Originally posted by Paul

6Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7We live by faith, not by sight.

This seems to denote free will and unknowing... especially on our part. We live by faith... not a pre-determined immutable life-plan.

Originally posted by Paul

8We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it. 10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

This certainly says we are responsible for our decisions. How could we make them and be responsible if we did not have freedom of choice. As Clint and others have said God would be unjust, or at least unjust to our earthly form of logic.

Originally posted by Paul

The Ministry of Reconciliation

11Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience. 12We are not trying to commend ourselves to you again, but are giving you an opportunity to take pride in us, so that you can answer those who take pride in what is seen rather than in what is in the heart. 13If we are out of our mind, it is for the sake of God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. 14For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.

If men can be persuaded to come to Christ they must have the free will to chose. Paul really WAS an idiot if he went to all that trouble just to call people who were predetermined not to accept the Lord.

Originally posted by Paul

16So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

But here is something that caused me to think of a new track. I want to put these verses together with the card game analogy. Maybe there are many tracks which in the end sum up to two: winners and losers. God sees the hands and knows that he holds four aces and a joker and that no one can beat Him. They can draw all the cards they want, but the only way to "win" is to fold... even if you have a straight flush. By folding God gives you part of the jackpot... you become a coinheritor of the universe. Now ALL things become new. Now you have a new path with a new destiny. In the new destiny some things ARE certain. Some are guaranteed by the presence of the Spirit. In some ways, after coming to Christ I would WANT my freedoms limited, like my fredom to get unsaved again. I don't want the freedom to "unfold" my hand.

Originally posted by Paul
18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Now we have a new purpose and direction. How it is lived out is still up to us... we can gain rewards or go to heaven by the skin of our teeth. But do we have PERFECT freedom or are we limited to a controlled freedom because of our union to Christ? I'm not saying I know. I am truly asking what you think. I'm trying to figure this all out (as if it were truly knowable from this earthly perch).

 

[Chileice]

Originally posted by godrulz

"I am" is a tensed phrase (present) and implies self-sufficent one, etc. It does not mean timeless being. Jesus is the "I am" of Exodus and the NT.

cf. Rev. 1:8 the Alpha and Omega= who is (present), who was (past), and who is to come (future). God exists in an endless duration of unidirectional time. Eternity is endless duration with no beginning or end. Eternity does not have to mean timeless (false assumption). He is not a timeless 'eternal now' with no sequence, duration, succession. Rev. 1:8 indicates tense and time expressions about the Almighty (3 verses in Rev. also show that there is time in heaven: 6:10; 8:1; 22:1,2).

You may be right, but it is interesting to note that in Hebrew, tense is only denoted by context. That is why you will see so much variation in translation... especially in poetic sections of the Psalms. Here is but one example from Psalm 94:

NKJV-
16 Who will rise up for me against the wicked?
Who will take a stand for me against evildoers?
17 Unless the LORD had given me help,
I would soon have dwelt in the silence of death.
18 When I said, "My foot is slipping,"
your love, O LORD , supported me.
19 When anxiety was great within me,
your consolation brought joy to my soul.

NASB-
16 Who will stand up for me against evildoers?
Who will take his stand for me against those who do wickedness?
17 If the LORD had not been my help,
My soul would soon have dwelt in the abode of silence.
18 If I should say, "My foot has slipped,"
Your lovingkindness, O LORD, will hold me up.
19 When my anxious thoughts multiply within me,
Your consolations delight my soul.

Both start in past tense. NKJV stays there, NASB switches to present. Both can be correct because in Hebrew you have to decide from context and either could fit.

Greeks thought linearly, but Hebrews did not. I think it IS possible that God sits outside of time. I'm a bit challenged by the theologian who said that would make him impersonal. But I don't think He has to be. I think time may just be a purely human method of marking changing perceptions.

 

[godrulz]

Time has subjective measures like seconds, moons, suns, harvests, etc. These are 'created' or invented, but 'time' has always existed. Regardless how or if we measure it, there is duration/sequence/succession in reality (endless duration with no beginning or end vs timelessness=eternity).

The reason God can guarantee our ultimate resurrection and glorification, is that this is something within His ability to do. Foreknowledge is not necessary when one is omnicompetent (He does foreknow many things, like judgments, that He is in full control of...the exact people who will be in heaven or hell is not foreknown from all eternity unless Calvinism's odious predestination/election/TULIP doctrine is true). Other verses show the conditionality of salvation and the need for us to continue in the faith. Freedom of choice is why we are accountable, responsible, praiseworthy, or blameworthy. Morals involve choice. If we abide in Christ, then the promises hold true. God will raise us up in the end. If we reject Him, the consequences are also true. The sovereign God will Judge some to eternal life and others to eternal death depending on their ultimate choices.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Lee: Does knowing a past decision make it not have been a free action, though?

Clete: How would know something after the fact effect whether or not it was free?

Godrulz: The past is fixed, the present is now and real...

But the claim seemed to be that merely knowing about how a free choice would be made, made it not be a free choice. But we know about past free choices! So more work needs to be done here, that's all I'm saying.

Lee: "Before Abraham was, I am," Jesus said, implying that God's experience of time is more "present tense" than "past, present and future, "and "a thousand years are like a day," and vice versa, too, again implying that God's experience of time is quite different than ours.

Clete: Time is nothing more that a frame of reference that a thinking mind can use to keep track of when something started, how long it lasted and when it was finished. Time is sequence and duration, nothing more than that.

Time is not so easy to understand! Check with your local physics professor. It's almost like another spatial dimension, in some senses, so I hear.

GIT: Jesus said "before abraham was, i am" while on earth!

Yes, the point of reference is Abraham's day, not the time when Jesus was making his statement.

GIT: if all things are a present to God, then they have already taken place too!

Well, they can't be both present and past at the same time, I think you are sneaking the idea of time in by the back door here.

GIT: free will is thus really out the window and you are essentially down to calvinism where God brings all things to pass.

Calvinism has the same problem, though! God knows his own free choices that he will make, within time, in the future. So I plead a mystery here, you may ask of the Lord how he knows and yet makes his decisions freely, but I can't explain this myself. I can't even explain how I decide something, not really.

Godrulz: "I am" is a tensed phrase (present) and implies self-sufficent one, etc. It does not mean timeless being.

Why not? "Abraham was" is a tensed phrase, thus we should have the tenses agree, "I was [too]." The question Jesus was answering was about pre-existence, not self-sufficiency, if Jesus was making a statement about self-sufficiency, he addressed a different question than the one they asked.

Clete: If things were always exactly 50-50 you could predict the behavior even more easily than you can now.

GIT: ... there is always a third choice which is to do nothing at all. and sometimes there is a 4th one which is to do both.

One of the quotes I was addressing said that only a 50-50 chance was a really free choice, i.e. if a choice is very predictable, doesn't that mean it is less free? There's some causation going on here, it seems. Thus it does seem that only a 50-50 chance is a really free choice, and those are the most unpredictable events, not the most predictable ones. And then there are virtually no free choices, not really free ones. And more choices means they all have to be equal probability to be free, thus there is still the same problem, I think.

Lee: Then how does God make predictions where he says "surely" and "certainly"? How is he laying special claim to divinity when he makes these predictions, if he is only estimating, like everyone else?

Clete: He is much smarter and wiser than everyone else. He also has access to every conceivable piece of pertinent information that could have bearing on this event being prophesied about. Plus, He is very skilled at interacting with us in such a way as to steer things in the direction in which He wishes them to go.

Yes, but how does that prove divinity? If that is what God is arguing for us to believe, then professors are more divine than students, and research scientists more divine than professors, especially if God can be wrong, just like us. What you are saying is not essentially different than what we do, only God has more information, and is smarter, but is not essentially different than us. But God claims to be essentially different, and his claim is based on accurate prophecy.

Clete: God is so far above Einstein that its impossible to express in words! God makes prediction that ONLY GOD could make. That's how it's proof. No one but God can read our thought, no one but God can know everything, no one but God can be everywhere at once. No one is, therefore, even remotely capable of make the sort of predictions that only God Himself can make.

This is better, yes if God can demonstrate omnipresence or mind-reading through prophecy, then that is different. But I don't know of any prophecies that require the conclusion of omnipresence! And fortune-tellers say they can read minds. Maybe the devil can. So I don't think that is the point of the prophecies, I think God is telling us he has special access to knowledge of the future, and that is his claim to divinity (Isa. 46:10; 41:22,26).

Chileice: If men can be persuaded to come to Christ they must have the free will to choose. Paul really WAS an idiot if he went to all that trouble just to call people who were predetermined not to accept the Lord.

Jeremiah did that!

Jeremiah 7:27 When you tell them all this, they will not listen to you; when you call to them, they will not answer.

Moses did that!

Exodus 4:21 But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.

Jesus did that, even:

John 8:43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.

Yet he was speaking to them, though they were unable to hear. I believe that we may hope that everyone will eventually repent, and that this is up to God, thus this is not all in vain, or senseless. But that's a different topic!

Clete: If God can know it, it is not unknowable. The whole point of saying something is unknowable is to say that it cannot be known, period.

Yes, but I think Big Finn was saying that just because we don't understand how something could be possible, doesn't make it utterly impossible! Like with quantum physics, your coffee cup can slide through your saucer, so I'm told...

Until you've put that last nail in the coffin on this issue and laid it completely to rest, I recommend being careful about saying such things.

But you said previously that God may hide information from himself, so if my child got lost on the streets of Sodom, I had better check with whoever might be best-informed about the actual situation there now. That might be Baal-zebub, and not God, if what you say is true. Strong words! But if God's strength and wisdom and foresight can fail, then we may reasonably turn elsewhere, especially if we see a way that someone else might do better, as in the above example.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

"I am"= self-existent one. Jesus also pre-existed His incarnation. He is uncreated.

The past is not the future (ideas about free will in the past are not identical to the future).

Theoretical physics relating to space and time is complicated, speculative, and bizarre. Ideas and theories conflict and are rethought continuously. Stephen Hawking is making a major shift in his thinking on black holes costing him an old bet. Physics (often looks for ways to negate God the Creator) is not on par with divine revelation.

The simple Hebraic view of time and history for God and man is valid. All personal beings experience an endless duration of time, with God being the only one with no beginning. The past, present, and future are real to God and man and are corrrectly perceived as such.

Pinnock: "The distinction between what is possible and what is actual is valid for God as well as us. The past is actual, the present is becoming, and the future is possible."

 

[godrulz]

Two models:

i) sovereign and transcedent (Greek philosophy; classical theism)

ii) sovereign/transcendent and immanent (biblical)

Clark Pinnock:

"Aspects of the future, being unsettled, are not yet wholly known even to God. It does not mean that God is ignorant of something He ought to know, but that many things in the future are only possible and not yet actual. Therefore, He knows them correctly as possible and not actual."

(He knows all that is knowable)

2 motifs in Scripture:

i) some of the future is open (nature of His creation)= genuine freedom

ii) some of the future is settled= sovereign (= love vs control; providential responsiveness vs meticulous control; ability vs foreknowledge)

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

I said,

The point of this thread was to find out if "all things" that God knows and "all things" that Christ knows can be limited in any way. I referenced 1 John 3:20 and John 21.

Lee, if Christ knows "all things" and God knows "all things," why doesn't Christ know when He will return? Wouldn't that "future" event be part of "all things" from the calvinist / arminian view point?

Clete asked,

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Jeremy,

I'm curious how you would answer your own question, from an OVer's point of view.

Clete,

The point of my question was to show that knowledge of "all things" is limited to all that is knowable. The key word here is limited. Just as the Father knows all that is knowable (which does not include unknowable future events), the Son's knowledge is limited to all that is knowable to Him as a man. Christ "emptied Himeslf" of some atributes of Deity and was limited in knowledge.

Philippians 2
2:5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
2:6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
2:7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
2:8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

However, we must rightly identify what "all things" encompasses since Peter stated that Christ did indeed know all things. Christ Himself states that He is limited in knowledge.

Mark 13:32
"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

It doesn't matter what verbal gymnastics are used to explain why Christ did not know the day or the hour, the point still stands... Peter said Christ "knows all things," and by our Lord's own admission, His knowledge is limited in at least one area.

So, what types of things are limited in the Father's knowledge of all things? Conditional Prophecy for one (Jer 18, Eze 18) and man's free will choices for another. As you well know Clete, there are certain portions of the future that God does know. How does He know them? Well, it's not the way the calvinists says He knows them...

God does not sit outside of time in an Eternal Now looking at the Book of Revelation unfolding. Rather, when His time comes, He will take control and bring those portions of the future He determines to pass. God will violate certain people's free will. For instance, in the Battle of Armageddon, God puts hooks in the jaws of Gof and Magog and drags them up to Jerusalem. If that doesn't violate free will, I don't know what does.

God Bless, --Jeremy

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Lee,

You said,

I have addressed Jer. 18 before! With Jeremy and others. In a thread about driving out these very Canaanites here. And I agree that God left Canaanites in the land to test Israel. But he drove them out, too! Afterwards, like he said. They aren't there now, folks...

Let's test your logic Lee... Joshua 3:10 posted on page 2 of this thread states,

Joshua 3
10 - And Joshua said, By this you shall know the living God is among you, and that He will WITHOUT FAIL drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizittes and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Jebusites.[/i]

Your response to the Biblical proof that Israel disobeyed and God chose to test Israel is,

I agree that God left Canaanites in the land to test Israel. But he drove them out, too! Afterwards, like he said. They aren't there now, folks...

But wait... Didn't God also say,

Judges 2
1 Then the Angel of the LORD came up from Gigal to Bochim, and said, "I led you up from Egypt and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, "I will never break My covenant with you.
2 And you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall tear down their altars." But you have not obeyed my voice. Why have you done this?
3 Therefore I also said, "I will not drive them out before you; but they shall be thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare to you."

Notice verse 3 Lee... God also said "I will not drive them out." If God makes this statement, and you said He did drive them out, then by your line of reasoning, God lied. God said He would not drive them out, and you said He did... Once again, context determines everything Lee. Why did God not drive them out? The passage tells us! They disobeyed, so God changed His mind about driving them out. It really is quite simple Lee... You continue,

God cannot contradict himself, or sin, or lie. Or change his mind, yes, I hold to that, the ability to be mistaken is not having power!

How can an all powerful God not have the power to do something? It doesn't compute... The god of the calvinist is a weak god. The God of the Bible is powerful enough to have the ability to "contradict himself, or sin, or lie," but does not choose to do those things. God governs Himself by His own moral law. Why doesn't God lie? It's not because He's unable... God is so righteous and governs Himself by His own moral standard, that He remains the "unlying God."

Titus 1
2 in hope of eternal life which God, the unlying, promised before age times,

Sorry Lee, your weak god is forced to script out his entire plan, choosing who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Your god does things for no other reason than it's his pleasure. The God of the Bible is powerful enough to give man free will and still remain in control... You included "changing His mind" with things God cannot do. How would a change of mind violate God's moral law? It doesn't, so He does... Next, I asked about Numbers 23:19 and you responded,

Yes, the reason is given here, and it's not because in this particular instance, God has made a firm decision. It's because he is not like us! So this does imply a universal truth about God.

Just because you say so does not make it true. Feel free to back up your position with Scripture. Again, the context is very clear. I have already covered it in my last post to you. Suffice to say, God will not repent (nacham) about His decision to bless Israel. You never told me how you deal with the over 20 times where God does repent (nacham). Next,I asked,

Lee, why does God "repent" (nacham) twice in [1 Sam. 15], and not "repent" (nacham) once? I thought God was unable to "repent" (nacham), but He does it here twice in 24 verses...

You responded,

We have to take both, don't we! So we may take "nacham" as "grieved" when it speaks of God's decision to make Saul king, and "repent" when it speaks of him changing his mind.

You miss the point again... Is 1 Samuel 15:29 another universal truth about God? If so, since God does not "repent" (nacham) ever, verses 11 and 35 say He does whatever you say He does not ever do in verse 29. To make it simple, verse 29 says He does not "nacham". Verses 11 and 35 say He does "nacham". I don't care what English words you put in, the point still stands. Again, God "nachams" over 20 times in the Bible. You say He never "nachams". I'll go with God on this one... You continue,

As far as Christ's knowledge while he was on earth, I would chime in with what Godrulz said, and say that Jesus did not have direct access to all knowledge then, but he did have indirect access to all knowledge, by asking the Father. After the resurrection, he may have assumed his direct knowledge of everything, with the possible exception of the date of his return, which again, the Father would tell him if he asked!

See above... If Peter says Christ knows "all things," and you admit that "all things" is limited, then I've made my point... "All things" is limited in scope, no matter what context it's used in...

In Christ, --Jeremy

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Lee,

Yes, the point of reference is Abraham's day, not the time when Jesus was making his statement.

ok, let's think this through. Jesus said "before abraham was" indicating a past thing. it was something long ago. so, way back when, in the past "i am". if am is a present tense here, he's saying that way back then, he presenty exists. so, he would be saying "before the time of abraham, i presently exist".

now i have a hard time believing Jesus was saying that he was both present in his time and the time of abraham at the same time. the people would've thought he was off his rocker! plus, the following verse presents a big problem if Jesus was talking about time and existence.

"59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

now WHY would they pick up stones to stone him if he was talking about existing at the same time in 2 different times? clearly he was claiming the title "i am who i am" that YHVH gave to Moses at Mt. Sinai and that is why they intended to stone him--for blasphemy.

there is no reason why we need to interpret "before abraham was, i am" as meaning a present existence in both abraham's time and Jesus's time or that God exists in some sort of "eternal now". either of those is reading far too much into the text than is needed.

Well, they can't be both present and past at the same time, I think you are sneaking the idea of time in by the back door here.

well, it'd be in a sense "done" for us because what is yet to come for us, would be really present for God. and if it's present to God, then you also believce it won't change. and since it couldn't change, then nothing we could do, could change it. thus, our future (God's present in your view) would be totally fixed and frozen. and if it's fixed, it's closed and we obviously could not have free will.

Calvinism has the same problem, though! God knows his own free choices that he will make, within time, in the future. So I plead a mystery here, you may ask of the Lord how he knows and yet makes his decisions freely, but I can't explain this myself. I can't even explain how I decide something, not really.

the answer is that God doesn't know his own decisions before he makes them unless he wants to

One of the quotes I was addressing said that only a 50-50 chance was a really free choice, i.e. if a choice is very predictable, doesn't that mean it is less free? There's some causation going on here, it seems. Thus it does seem that only a 50-50 chance is a really free choice, and those are the most unpredictable events, not the most predictable ones. And then there are virtually no free choices, not really free ones. And more choices means they all have to be equal probability to be free, thus there is still the same problem, I think.

i'm sorry but i haven't thought about that enough to say one way or the other.

God bless

GIT

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Godrulz: "I am"= self-existent one. Jesus also pre-existed His incarnation. He is uncreated.

But again, the people were asking if Jesus had seen Abraham. They weren't asking if he had been created...

The past is not the future (ideas about free will in the past are not identical to the future).

That's fine, but why doesn't knowing a past choice make it not free, if mere knowledge of a choice is said to do this?

Lee: Yes, the point of reference is Abraham's day...

GIT: so, he would be saying "before the time of abraham, i presently exist". now i have a hard time believing Jesus was saying that he was both present in his time and the time of abraham at the same time.

No, I believe Jesus was "in time" here on earth, thus he wasn't "omnipresent in time," just as he wasn't omnipresent in space, during his incarnation.

GIT: clearly he was claiming the title "i am who i am"

I agree! And this title implies more than just eternal existence, because of the change in tenses in Jesus' statement. So Jesus answered more than the question they asked, though his answer included their question, too.

GIT: our future (God's present in your view) would be totally fixed and frozen. and if it's fixed, it's closed and we obviously could not have free will.

Lee: Calvinism has the same problem ... God knows his own free choices that he will make...

GIT: God doesn't know his own decisions before he makes them unless he wants to.

But for God to make a decision at all, he cannot know it before he makes it, according to the "foreknowledge makes it not free" view. Thus God cannot know his decisions before he makes them, even if he wants to, according to this view.

Jeremy: God also said "I will not drive them out." If God makes this statement, and you said He did drive them out, then by your line of reasoning, God lied.

Not at all! Let's read further:

Judges 2:23 The Lord had allowed those nations to remain; he did not drive them out at once by giving them into the hands of Joshua.

Here is a further explanation, the promise was delayed, but not canceled.

Joshua 23:5 The Lord your God himself will drive them out of your way. He will push them out before you, and you will take possession of their land, as the Lord your God promised you.

Lee: ... the ability to be mistaken is not having power!

Jeremy: How can an all powerful God not have the power to do something?

Hebrews 6:18 ... it is impossible for God to lie ...

The word here is "adunatos," which means the power is not there, God could not lie, even if he wanted to. And God cannot contradict himself, either:

2 Corinthians 1:19-20 For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by me and Silas and Timothy, was not "Yes" and "No," but in him it has always been "Yes." For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God.

But no, being able to believe I am Napoleon is not having power, God does not have or need such possibilities in order to be all-powerful...

Jeremy: Next, I asked about Numbers 23:19 ...

Lee: the reason is given here, and it's not because in this particular instance, God has made a firm decision. It's because he is not like us!

Jeremy: Feel free to back up your position with Scripture. Again, the context is very clear.

I did pick my reason from this verse, though. Thus I think I have used the context, and given the reason that this verse gives, as to why God cannot change his mind. You must erase (even contradict!) this reason, and say God is like us. And you also need a verse that says God changes his mind like we do...

Jeremy: Is 1 Samuel 15:29 another universal truth about God? If so, since God does not "repent" (nacham) ever, verses 11 and 35 say He does whatever you say He does not ever do in verse 29.

You have the same difficulty, though! And you must add a qualifier in verse 29 and say "does not change his mind [this time]." This word has a range of meanings, and it is not inappropriate to choose different meanings in different instances. I think we have an indication as to how to translate "nacham" in verse 11, too:

1 Samuel 15:11 Samuel was troubled, and he cried out to the Lord all that night.

I think this shows that Samuel was of the same mind as God was here, that Samuel was grieved too, not that Samuel changed his mind as well.

Jeremy: If Peter says Christ knows "all things," and you admit that "all things" is limited, then I've made my point...

This is post-resurrection, though, and I think the disciples' comment at the Last Supper referred to Jesus' knowledge during his incarnation, and I believe that Jesus had indirect access to all knowledge, even then:

John 11:22 But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[God_Is_Truth]

No, I believe Jesus was "in time" here on earth, thus he wasn't "omnipresent in time," just as he wasn't omnipresent in space, during his incarnation.

then you agree that the title "i am" doesn't refer to an eternal now?

I agree! And this title implies more than just eternal existence, because of the change in tenses in Jesus' statement. So Jesus answered more than the question they asked, though his answer included their question, too.

ok, we agree that he used it to claim he was God. but do we agree that it does not refer to an eternal present as well?

But for God to make a decision at all, he cannot know it before he makes it, according to the "foreknowledge makes it not free" view. Thus God cannot know his decisions before he makes them, even if he wants to, according to this view.

the problem is exhaustive foreknowledge, not foreknowledge in general. if God knows exhaustively what he is going to do, then he is stuck by his own knowledge and not free. if he knows it as simply what he's planning to do, then there's no problem.