Menu

Help please, does God only know some of the future?

T
theopenlife

Can anyone help me? I read a post in another forum, the writer said that God only knows certain things about the future and that God is still "learning". Do you know any scriptural proofs against what was written (below) or if this could be true? Does God only know some of all things? Does He know all of what will happen in the future? I personally believe God knows all things that will ever and have ever happened, but your thoughts and verses are greatly appreciated, whether for or against. Thank you.

This is what I read...


"I had no reason to believe in open theism. Neither did I want to become an open theist. But the more I understood their position, and the more I examined their scriptural arguements, the more I saw it as true and the more I saw how the classical foreknowledge view causes more problems then it solves.

The bible describes God as testing individuals in order for He Himself to know what was in their heart, "to know" "whether or not" they would obey Him: Genesis 22:12, 2Chron 32:31, Deut 8:2, Deut 13:1-3, Judges 2:22, and Exodus 16:4. Take these scriptures at face value, and "to know" denies foreknowledge, and "whether or not" implies contingency which denies the fixity of the future.

Remember Jesus believed prayer could change the future. "Father, all things are possible for you." And "if it is possible, remove this cup." God is really the soveriegn God of a partly open future! Jesus said if He wanted to pray for 12 legions of angels, He could have and would have recieved them! This shows Jesus believed in a partly open future, and believed in the power of prayer to change the course of history. He believed that God was the God of the possible, and that His own prayers could change things because the future was not exhaustively settled.

You guys may disagree with me on the open theism. That's cool. Finney and Moral Government teach an election according to foreknowledge, that God knew who would and wouldn't believe and so then predestined them as such.

The scripture support is "whom he foreknow, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His son". But what of those not predestined to that image? Where they not foreknown? We cannot add to "whom he foreknew" and say those he foreknew "would choose Him". It doesn't say that. It's dangerous to add to scriptures isn't it?

I believe this scripture simply means, without reading or adding to it, that God previously knew that He wanted a holy people and so pre-determined to have a holy people, thus creation started.

You guys might agree with Moral Government and Finney on this one. But I personally disagree with Finney and MG on this point. I agree more with McCabe, who was a Methodist theologian in the 1800s.

I would only suggest that anyone who want's to genuinely disprove open theism, read Gregory Boyds book with the sole purpose of disproving it."

R
roaringlamb

Brother open theism is not to be found in the Scriptures so you will not find it there. Mainly it is a man made, man glorifying invention to make man more like God, and God more like man. It is a way where man can be free, and God bound by man's decision. Many who argue for open-theism say it is unfair to man, and that history has no meaning if in fact God has set what will happen and is working all things toward that goal.

Consider the following Scriptures, I hope they help-
2Ch 20:6 And said, O LORD God of our fathers, art not thou God in heaven? and rulest not thou over all the kingdoms of the heathen? and in thine hand is there not power and might, so that none is able to withstand thee?

Psa 22:28 For the kingdom is the LORD'S: and he is the governor among the nations.

Deu 32:39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

1Sa 2:6-8 The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up. The LORD maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up. He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them.

Psa 33:11 The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.

Psa 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.

Psa 135:6 Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places.

Isa 14:24 The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand:

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

Pro 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.

Pro 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Amo 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Ultimately, God is either sovereign, and omniscient, or He is not. If He is not, then he is not the God of the Bible, and is rather an idol created to suit the desires of men's hearts.

T
theopenlife

Thank you, Mr.Lamb. Anyone else?

W
whyme

I'm sorry I don't have the scriptural reference but there is Psalm that says God knows the Psalmist words before they are uttered. Further, how does prophesy work if God is not already aware of and indeed arranged the events to occur. In John, God says what I have foretold, I have fulfilled.

I
InTheLight

You may find A.W. Tozer's sermon on [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=2306]The Omniscience of God[/url] very helpful in this matter, it is from his outstanding series of messages on the attributes of God. I suggest listening to the whole series, it is the basis for his book The Knowledge of the Holy.

In Christ,

Ron

R
rowdy2

Reply
Hello Michael
Truth is Jesus Christ. The fundamental characteristic of truth is consistency. The Word of God as interpreted by the Spirit of Truth lives in every Christian. The only way to fulfill any search for truth is to know Him. Any man’s interpretation of truth that does not know Christ Jesus is temporal and will soon pass away. To know truth is to know the great I Am, who has no beginning and no end.

R
rowdy2

Knowing God and understanding His hidden wisdom can only happen when we confess we don't know.
We as Christian know we don't know but we know Christ and are aqainted with The One that does know and He can reveal the Father to us.

N
Nile

Micheal,

I am open theist. I became an open theist by researching the issue and honestly looking at the issue. Here is a most excellent article on open theism by Winkie Pratney:

[url=http://www.biblical-theology.com/omniscience/chess.htm]Cosmic Chess[/url]

And here is a wealth of information/ideas/arguments on the subject:

[url=http://www.opentheismboard.org/]Open Theism Discussion Board[/url]

I highly recommend browsing through some of the threads. There are both open theists and closed theists on the site, so you can see both sides of the issue putting forth the best arguments they have.

For some Biblical support, consider...

Why does God ever use the word "if"?
Why was God sorry He had made man (before the flood)? If God knew He would be sorry, He wouldn't have made man.
Why does God create people whom He knows will suffer in Hell forever?
Why does God act all throughout the Bible as if He is in time like we are?

Now I'll look at some of the scriptures others mentioned.

2Ch 20:6 And said, O LORD God of our fathers, art not thou God in heaven? and rulest not thou over all the kingdoms of the heathen? and in thine hand is there not power and might, so that none is able to withstand thee?

This says nothing about God knowing the future decisions of men (which do not yet exist). Open Theism does not limit God's power or authority in any way.

Psa 22:28 For the kingdom is the LORD'S: and he is the governor among the nations.

Same thing as the last.

Deu 32:39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

Yes, Open Theism agrees with this. This says nothing against Open Theism.

1Sa 2:6-8 The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up. The LORD maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up. He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them.

Which of these things imply that God is outside of time?

Psa 33:11 The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.

This says nothing about God knowing the future decisions of men, which have yet to be created.

Psa 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.

Yes, yes...but how is this related to Open Theism?

Psa 135:6 Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places.

Same as the last.

Isa 14:24 The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand:

Of course. No Open Theist claims that God doesn't do what He purposes.

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

This isn't related.

Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

Yep, God has a plan. He knows exactly what His plan is. He has accounted for every possible decision men can make. His plan, as it is from the beginning, will stand, just as He planned it.

Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

Did you know that I was elected...by NC State to go to their school? That's right. And it didn't take divine impossible foreknowledge either.
I was also predestined from the foundation of the school to attend NC State. I am the exact type of them that are predestined to the school: High GPA, AP credits, High SAT.

Pro 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.

Of course. Open Theism says nothing about the future not being in God's hands! Simply because God doesn't know what decisions men will make doesn't take away His power, authority, or control in any way.

Pro 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

I think you are reading into this verse things that aren't there. Perhaps another translation: "The Lorde dotll all thinges for his owne sake; yea, and when he kepeth the ungodly for the daye of wrath."
or "The Lord has made everything [to accommodate itself and contribute] to its own end and His own purpose--even the wicked [are fitted for their role] for the day of calamity and evil."
Amo 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?"
A good verse that shows that God works all things for Himself - even the wicked for the day of evil.

Hopefully this will shed some light on Open Theism. Read the Cosmic Chess article. I'm going out of town this weekend, when I come back I'll post some scripture expressly supporting Open Theism.

Nile

S
sermonindex

The Bible [b]CLEARLY[/b] teaches the foreknowledge of God! God foreknows ALL future certainties as certain and God foreknows ALL future possibilities as possible.

Not everything is predetermined. Anything that is determined is certain, anything that is not yet determined but is open is possible. God foreknows everything that is now certain or determined and God foreknows everything that is now open or possible.

And God is Omniscient! God knows all that can be known. Anything that is an object of knowledge is known by Omniscience. And as soon as anything new becomes an object of knowledge, it is known to Omniscience. God always knows everything that there is to know.

Before I had ever read any book on Open Theology, I was convinced that the bible teaches that the future is at least partly open because of Jonah chapter 3. Then I examined multiple other passages that taught that the future was at least partly open like Jeremiah 18. I realized that I couldn't argue with the bible!

To say that the future is partly open is to say that there are contingencies (because of freewill) and that not everything done in history was a certainty. And the bible clearly teaches the contingency of human action, Jeremiah 18 is a perfect example of that. Not everything is certain or predetermined, but we ourselves are self-determining individuals with freewill with the power of contingent choice!

But a topic like this requires much studying. I recommend reading the scriptures on it and also reading what Open Theologians actually say about it themselves.

I recommend:

- God of the Possible by Gregory Boyd

Gregory Boyd is a modern Baptist Pastor, Professor, and Author. He has a PHD from Princeton I believe.

- The Foreknowledge of God by Gordon Olson

- The Omniscience of God by Gordon Olson

Gordon Olson used to give theological lectures as Last Days Ministries, Agape Force, and YWAM. He was considered the "Grand Father" of these ministries.

- Cosmic Chess by Winkie Pratney

Winkie Pratney has been speaking to youth for 30 years. He is a well known author on the topic of revival and theology.

- Divine Nescience of Future Contingencies a Necessity by L D McCabe

- The Foreknowledge of God, and Cognate Themes in Theologyand Philosophy," by L D McCabe

McCabe was a Methodist Theologian in the 18th Century, a professor of both philosophy and theology.

------------

Here is the appendix of one of Gordon Olson's books on this topic.

Appendix 1 shows that the future is [b][u]PARTLY OPEN [/b][/u]

Appendix 2 shows that the future is [b][u]PARTLY DETERMINED[/b][/u]

And of coarse, what is open is [b]foreknown as possible[/b] and what is determined is [b]foreknown as certain.[/b]

FROM GORDON OLSON:

APPENDIX 1. SCRIPTURE PASSAGES THAT DO NOT
SUPPORT ABSOLUTE FOREKNOWLEDGE

Passages of Scripture requiring a DENIAL of the supposed fact, that all the future acts of God and
man are now known to God, and have been so from eternal ages past:

Genesis Psalms
2:17 (1:5; 5:5) 14:2 (53:2)
6:5-7 (1:31) 78:21-22, 58-61
18:20-21, 22-33 106:23, 44-45
22:1, 12
Exodus
16:4
32:7-14, 30-35
33:5
Numbers
11:1
14:11-24, 27-35
16:20-35, 44-48
Deuteronomy
8:2
9:13-14, 18-19, 20, 25-29
(10:10)
13:1-3
Judges
2:18, 20-22 (3:4)
10:13-16
I Samuel
2:30 (3:12-14)
13:13-14
15:11, 23, 26, 35
(28:18; 8:4-9, 22; 12:13-19)
II Samuel
7:10-11
12:22 (14)
24:12-16 (1), 25
I Kings
9:3, 4-9
11:11-13
21:27-29 (21-22)
II Kings
20:1-7
23:26-27 (I Kings 9:3)
I Chronicles
17:9-10
21:7-14, 15 (1)(II Sam. 24:1)
II Chronicles
7:16
12:5-8, 32:31
Job
2:3
41
Isaiah 5:3-7
38:1-5 (II Kings 20:1-7)
Jeremiah
3:6-8
18:7-10
26:2-3, 4-6, 12-13, 18-19
Ezekiel
12: 1-3
20:8-9, 13-14, 15-17, 21-22
22:30
24:14
Hosea
8:5
Joel
2:12-14
Amos
5:14-15, 7:1-3, 4-6
Jonah
1:2
3:2, 4-10
4:2
Zechariah
8:14-15
Matthew
10:2-4 (Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-16;
(see previous discussion concerning Judas)
19:28
Mark
13:32 (Mt. 24:36; Acts 1:7; I Cor. 11:3)
Acts
15:7
Revelation
3:5
17:8 (13:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27)
22:18-19


APPENDIX 2. SCRIPTURE PASSAGES THAT
SUPPORT ABSOLUTE FOREKNOWLEDGE

The best passages of Scripture that can be found to SUPPORT the doctrine of the absolute
foreknowledge of God, realizing that the many prophecies are merely revelations of what God has
determined to bring to pass in His guidance of world affairs, are as follows:

Genesis 6:64, 70-71
15:13-15 12:32-34
16:12 13:18-19, 21, 26
17:20 17:12
25:23 19:24, 28, 36, 37
Numbers 21:18-19
23:19
Deuteronomy
31:16-21,
29 (21, 27)
I Samuel
15:29
I Kings
13:2 (II Kings 22:1; 23:15-16)
Psalms
22:16, 18
69:21
Isaiah
44:28-45:7
46:9-11
52:13-15
53:1-12
Jeremiah
1:5
25:11, 12
29:10-14
Zechariah
12:10
Malachi
3:6
Matthew
16:21
20:17-19
21:1-5
24:1-25:46
26:31, 34
27:9
Mark
9:31
14:13-16
Luke
24:25-27, 44-47
John
HOME PAGE 44
Acts
2:23
13:29
Romans
8:28-30
11:2
I Corinthians
2:7
Galatians
3:8
Ephesians
1:3-5, 11
3:11
II Thessalonians
2:3-4, 13-14
I Timothy
4:1-3
II Timothy
1:9-10
I Peter
1:1-2, 20
Revelation
1:1,7
2:10
4:1
6:11
7:4-8, 9, 14
9:20-21 (16:9, 11)
11:2-12, 13
12:6, 7-9
13:1-7, 8, 11-18
14:20
17:7, 8, 12
19:19-21
20:1-3, 7-10
22:6

This would make for a great bible study on the [b][u]NATURE[/b][/u] of the future.

----------------------------

And this is a bible study that I put together relating to this topic:

Scriptures attributing succession to the experience of God; actively creating that which previously was non-existent, experiencing the sequence of emotions, making new plans, changing old plans, not hearing then succeeding to hearing His people, etc:

Gen 1:1-31, Gen 6:6, Gen 22:12, Exo 32:14, Num 11:1-2, Num 14:12-20, Num 16:20-35, Num 16:41-48, Jud 2:18, Jud 10:13-16, 1Sam 8:18, 1Sam 15:35, 1Sam 23:10-13, 2Sam 24:12-16, 2Sam 24:17-25, 1Kings 21:21-29, 2Kings 13:3-5, 1Chron 21:15, 2Chron 7:12-14, Isaiah 46:9-10, Isaiah 38:4-5, Jer 7:5-7, Jer 26:19, Jer 38:17-18, Jer 38:21, Eze 20:5-22, Eze 33:13-15, Hos 11:8-9, Jonah 3:10, Amo 7:3-6, Job 35:13, Ps 7:11, Ps 40:5, Ps 66:18, Matt 25:41, Acts 15:7, Acts 21:10-12, 2Pet 3:8

P
philologos

Not everything is predetermined. Anything that is determined is certain, anything that is not yet determined but is open is possible. God foreknows everything that is now certain or determined and God foreknows everything that is now open or possible.

The gap in this apparently seamless theme is 'does God know everything that is going to happen?' Does the above mean that God knows the area of what is open or the events of what is said to be open.

And God is Omniscient! God knows all that can be known. Anything that is an object of knowledge is known by Omniscience. And as soon as anything new becomes an object of knowledge, it is known to Omniscience. God always knows everything that there is to know.

Omniscience does not mean 'knowing all that CAN be known'; that is a diluted definition of omniscience. Omni = all, without mitigation. Either God knows all or he doesn't . If he doesn't know ALL he is not omniscient. ALL does not mean "all that there is to know", it means all. There is no event in the past, present or future that is not known to God, otherwise he is not omniscient. By this definition God does not know 'the end from the beginning' but, at the most, can only have educated speculations. He is the God who knows most things; this is not omniscience.

In "The Openness of God" by Pinnock, Rice, Sanders, Hasker and Basinger, which is the work which brought much of Open Theology to the fore, we have this illuminating part of the preface;
The authors came to the view of God reflected in this book from various directions. Some were challenged by certain texts of scripture that did not fit with the accepted understanding of the divine nature. Others sought to make sense of petitioning a God who was said to know already what we were going to ask, what he was going to do about it and how we would respond. Still others were forced to reconsider classical theism in the light of recent philosophical criticisms. Despite these diverse paths, we have all arrived at the perspective we call the open view of God.This paragraph deserves a little unpacking.
1. It is a reaction to extreme Calvinism in which the whole history of the ages, including the personal history of every individual has been pre-scripted by God. It is a reaction to the idea of absolute determinism. I share this reaction.

2. It is a reaction to the mystery of prayer and our 'co-working' with God in the fulfillment of his purposes. This mystery cannot be explained by concluding that God needs our help. He has determined to accomplish certain things in fellowship with man, and such things will not be accomplished without fellowship with man. There is a simple passage of scripture which expresses the balance perfectly...

[color=0033FF] Therefore David blessed the LORD before all the assembly; and David said: “Blessed are You, LORD God of Israel, our Father, forever and ever. Yours, O LORD, is the greatness, The power and the glory, The victory and the majesty; For all that is in heaven and in earth is Yours; Yours is the kingdom, O LORD, And You are exalted as head over all. Both riches and honor come from You, And You reign over all. In Your hand is power and might; In Your hand it is to make great And to give strength to all. “Now therefore, our God, We thank You And praise Your glorious name. But who am I, and who are my people, That we should be able to offer so willingly as this? For all things come from You, And of Your own we have given You. For we are aliens and pilgrims before You, As were all our fathers; Our days on earth are as a shadow, And without hope.
“O LORD our God, all this abundance that we have prepared to build You a house for Your holy name is from Your hand, and is all Your own. [b]I know also, my God, that You test the heart and have pleasure in uprightness.[/b] As for me, in the uprightness of my heart I have willingly offered all these things; and now with joy I have seen Your people, who are present here to offer willingly to You. (1Chronicles 29:10-17 NKJV)[/color]

Here David acknowledges God as the source of all but sees that God has determined to include man as his willing partner. One of the areas of partnership is prayer. Not because God doesn't know or because he needs our help but because God has determined to accomplish certain things in certain ways, or not at all.

3. 'recent philosophical criticisms'? We are in the midst of the debate about 'post modernism' here. Some have wanted to engage the post modernists and sought language which will better accommodate the positions of the 'post modernist' that there is no pattern to life. There is no big answer, mega-narrative, because there is no question. The purposeless of history is now almost a standard position for modern historians. To suggest that God is 'working his purposes out' is deeply offensive to the post-modernist.

Some of these Christians have appartentlly decided that it will be better to build the bridge from the other side of the river. Life is now random and literally 'non-sense'. There are no fixed results, anything can happen. The devil might win.

The writers of the book are also associated with another modern evangelical variant known as the 'new perspective' in which the claim is made that the Reformation understanding of Romans and justification is in error. There is certainly a continuity of thought from those whose adopt Finneyism to open theism. It is no accident that many who adopt Finney's Moral Government view of Atonement also embrace Open Theism. It does not surprise me that Pratney Winkey has gone in this direction.

The best antidote to these current poisons is a good dose of A W Tozer!

edit: an address given in 2005 by Jonathan Stephen highlighted some of the areas of threat to contemporary evangelical understandings.

[url=http://www.e-n.org.uk/p-3026-The-current-crisis-in-evangelicalism.htm]The Current Crisis in Evangelicalism.[/url]

C
crsschk

2. It is a reaction to the mystery of prayer and our 'co-working' with God in the fulfillment of his purposes. This mystery cannot be explained by concluding that God needs our help. He has determined to accomplish certain things in fellowship with man, and such things will not be accomplished without fellowship with man. There is a simple passage of scripture which expresses the balance perfectly...

Like this better than the previous attempt at injecting this tremendous word back into our vernacular. Mine was more clunky and disjointed, but the word Mystery seems so far often out of place anymore that I felt compelled nonetheless, this topic a large part of reaction towards it.

The best antidote to these current poisons is a good dose of A W Tozer!

You triggered something I have been thinking about doing for some time now. Thanks Ron.

I
IRONMAN

bro Nile Greetings in Jesus' Name by Whose Blood we are Saved.AMEN.

i browsed through the article you cited...curiously it began with a word which doesn't describe anything God would have us do as His people..."imagine" in fact dear brother, each time the word "imagine" is used in scripture, the context is ALWAYS negative, that is in opposition to God or the man of God or the people of God so from jump, that's bad business right there. There is talk of imagining vain things, wicked things, mischief and so on; also that imaginings are things which God hates whether they are plots or ideas being tossed about and this whole open theism deal is vain, wicked and quite mischievous just like it's author Satan who is a liar and the father of all lies. to imagine implies loosing your mind and letting it run which is in contrast to the exhortation Paul gives us to hold each thought captive and make it conform to Christ...

do a search on the word "imagine" throughout the scriptures and see for yourself.

also look up imaginations in scripture and see what the word has to say about that word.

Romans 1 vs 21 says:


[b]21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. [/b]

so what shall we say bro Nile? is God not to be Glorified as God being All-Knowing and indeed All Knowledge? to fail to see this and cop out is to fail to be thankful for this Attribute of God which allows for Him to preserve us through this life and to work all things out for our good since we Love Him and are called according to His Purpose. This unthankfulness is of the devil and leads to vain imaginings such as these and the darkenening of one's heart and when one thinks himself wise he becomes a fool as bro Pratney has become on this matter and as have you also. what this doctrine has done is made the Omniscience of God into something like unto an animal's knowledge or like man's knowledge and understanding of things. This is to say you and others of this same school of thought have dimished the Omniscience of God and likened it to your own corruptible limited understanding, humanizing God and deifying yourselves and that is what Satan does.

however i praise God that He sais this to us in 2 Corinthians 10:

[b]3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: 4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) 5 Casting down imaginations, F25 and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; 6 And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled. [/b]

praise God for this! The enemy from the beginning wanted to exalt himself above the Throne of God (see in Isaiah and Ezekiel on the king of Babylon and Prince of Tyre respectively) and so it follows that his thoughts and imaginings and reasonings are designed to make God appear smaller and himself larger and this appeals to man who in his fallen state thinks more of himself than he ought and so needs to die. Bless God that the weapons of the Christian are designed to undo strongholds and vain imaginings like this one which seek to exalt themselves above God and also place satan and man on par with or above God in exalting these 2 or bringing down (trying to anyway) God. Those thoughts need to be held down and made to conform to Christ and not run wild and form a wicked system of belief such as this that God doesn't know the beginning from the end and the end from the beginning especially when He says He IS the Beginning and the End. The word of God is such that it can refute and tear down these vain imaginings so that no man is left with any excuse.

to some of the questions you asked:

Why does God ever use the word "if"?

God doesn't use the word "if" in the sense of being unsure of anything but in the sense of KNOWING all possible outcomes. So "if" we repented, "then" He would forgive us, "if we the people called by His Name would humble ourselves and repent, then He will hear from Heaven and HEal our land. we on the other hand use that word with a sense of uncertainty of what is to come in a way which is clearly human but yet we try and ascribe it to God and that won't do.

Why was God sorry He had made man (before the flood)? If God knew He would be sorry, He wouldn't have made man.

because He was hurt, His Heart was wounded by our wickedness. that God knew what would happen and yet was hurt is to be expected. Have you ever seen or heard of a fight in which someone pleaded 'please don't hit me" when the aggressor's hand was already raised and the victim knew it was coming? that doesn't change the pain of blow, it hurts just as much as if it were a complete surprise.

Why does God create people whom He knows will suffer in Hell forever?

why would He not? is His effort a waste? of course not! This is not about men and women but about the Glory of God Forever which is something beyond the scope of creation and humankind. We like to think much of ourselves but dear saints it's about Him and the Revelation of His Glory and Manifold Wisdom to the powers of the air and a part of that is their own punishment and that of the men who followed their ways, in this they acknowledge the Severity of God and His Justice.

Why does God act all throughout the Bible as if He is in time like we are?

because time is His Toy. He is not bound by it but works in and out of it because it is His to with whatever He wishes.He works in it because we are in time and yet He has things going on in the real of Eternity which are beyond what we know now.

Did you know that I was elected...by NC State to go to their school? That's right. And it didn't take divine impossible foreknowledge either.I was also predestined from the foundation of the school to attend NC State. I am the exact type of them that are predestined to the school: High GPA, AP credits, High SAT.

but nothing happens outside of or apart from God's Knowledge or Consent because it is all about HIM.

Grace and PEace are ours in Jesus.AMEN.

H
HopePurifies

To say that open theism is "straight out of the bowels of the devil" shows that you may not know the position very well.
First and foremost, open theists believe that God knows all things, too. We just believe that many aspects of the future do not exist yet because of the nature of a free-will universe (which God gloriously created).

God doesn't use the word "if" in the sense of being unsure of anything but in the sense of KNOWING all possible outcomes. So "if" we repented, "then" He would forgive us, "if we the people called by His Name would humble ourselves and repent, then He will hear from Heaven and HEal our land.

Amen. (Yes, I'm pulling a strawman out of your post) This is exactly what we are saying. Our choices do not catch God by surprise as in "Wow, I didn't know that man could do that!" However, until the future happens, the choice hasn't been made, and does not exist to be known.

Nile's NC state illustration was to show that the calvinist/determinist understanding of predestination and election might not be what was intended by the writers of scripture. See the interplay between Nile's freewill choices to do well in school to meet the requirements, and NC States sovereignty and knowledge which caused them to admit Nile.

Back to the original post- God "learning" does strike a weird note in me. In a sense He is learning, but in another sense He isn't. He isn't learning new ways to deal with things or new ways to behave, He is merely learning what actions men and other freewill creatures (angels?) make.

I
IRONMAN

bro Hopepurifies
Greetings in Jesus' Name by Whose Blood we are Saved.AMEN.

First and foremost, open theists believe that God knows all things, too. We just believe that many aspects of the future do not exist yet because of the nature of a free-will universe (which God gloriously created).

sure i believe in free will, however i believe for the most part our understanding of it is very bad. that you would say many aspects of the future don't exist because man hasn't made decisions strikes me as a rather humanistic/man-centred explanation of something beyond our understanding. i believe the idea that God is in total control is very unnerving to men because it lets us know we are at His Mercy and we don't like that...even the idea that God has predestined all things is disturbing...perhaps even more so for the same reason. Now before anyone gets to trippin or jumpin up and down, let this be clear, i believe man has free will, it is wrapt up in the confines of the Sovereign Will of God in accordance to His Plan to Glorify Himself Forever. i believe that Simultaneously, God has pre-ordained all things so it is not a matter of "predestination vs free will" but it is both. There is scripture to support both views so God isn't confused about it and thanks to Him, neither am i. The either/or mentality comes out of men not wanting to acknowledge the validity of the opposing view and admitting they were wrong or only part right.

Amen. (Yes, I'm pulling a strawman out of your post) This is exactly what we are saying. Our choices do not catch God by surprise as in "Wow, I didn't know that man could do that!" However, until the future happens, the choice hasn't been made, and does not exist to be known.

in YOUR mind until the future happens the choice hasn't been made so it doesn't exist for YOU to know.Don't you dare put your shortcomings on God. For God, His Forknowing of things isn't contingent on anything we would consider, God is not "like us" God is Other...He doesn't need to come up on the future like we do to know it, He wrote the whole deal. God created from nothing yet He knew what He would create and how it would all turn out beforehand. i really believe this whole open theism is of the devil because he himself has the limitations (as does man) which this wicked system is trying to tag on God...

Nile's NC state illustration was to show that the calvinist/determinist understanding of predestination and election might not be what was intended by the writers of scripture. See the interplay between Nile's freewill choices to do well in school to meet the requirements, and NC States sovereignty and knowledge which caused them to admit Nile.

see, the word is plain on this, God predestined. The word is also plain on this, that we have free will and the problem is most of us see the one side and gravitate to one more than the other when like in scripture, really it is both working for that Eternal Purpose, the Glory of God forever.

God made it so we would participate with Him on this (hence free will) but we must realize that this is about Him and so He has determined that ALL things would work out to the end that He be Glorified...Forever.

Back to the original post- God "learning" does strike a weird note in me. In a sense He is learning, but in another sense He isn't. He isn't learning new ways to deal with things or new ways to behave, He is merely learning what actions men and other freewill creatures (angels?) make.

how does He who is All Knowledge and Learning "learn" anything when He is the thing in and of Himself already? :-?

The ways of God are beyond what we can comprehend given the limitations of our minds and man doesn't like to be outdone...especially by God.mmm that sounds like another character in this whole saga...

certainly this is out of Satan's bowels...noboby but him would come up with something so vile, poisonous and pernicious and yet so subtle and seemingly logical...Satan the Lord rebuke you!

Grace and Peace are ours in Jesus.AMEN.

P
philologos

First and foremost, open theists believe that God knows all things, too. We just believe that many aspects of the future do not exist yet because of the nature of a free-will universe (which God gloriously created).

No they don't; they believe that God knows all things that are knowable. God being infinite has infinite capacity and infinite power. Just because they 'do not exist yet' in our perspective of space and time does not mean that they are not known to God.


Amen. (Yes, I'm pulling a strawman out of your post) This is exactly what we are saying. Our choices do not catch God by surprise as in "Wow, I didn't know that man could do that!" However, until the future happens, the choice hasn't been made, and does not exist to be known.

What do open-theists do with this verse...?
[color=0033FF]I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it came to pass I shewed it thee: lest thou shouldest say, Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image, hath commanded them. (Isaiah 48:5 KJVS)[/color]

What you have written here ...'until the future happens... (it) does not exist to be known...' is in direct opposition to the word of God through Isaiah.

Open-theists are following in the steps of ancient Israel...

[color=0033FF]Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel. (Psalms 78:41 KJVS)[/color]

..the god of the open-theists is just too small.

N
Nile

philogos, you simply do not understand the open theist position.

Omniscience does not mean 'knowing all that CAN be known'; that is a diluted definition of omniscience. Omni = all, without mitigation. Either God knows all or he doesn't . If he doesn't know ALL he is not omniscient. ALL does not mean "all that there is to know", it means all.

This is just so silly. You're defining "all" in the most absurd way.

Do you believe God knows things that God cannot know? Yes or No?

If you say no, you admit that God does not know "ALL" things.
If you say yes, you have created a logical impossibility that does not exist.

Does God know that pink elephants run the universe? Yes or No?

If you say no, you admit that God does not know "ALL" things.
If you say yes...lol.

I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it came to pass I shewed it thee: lest thou shouldest say, Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image, hath commanded them. (Isaiah 48:5 KJVS)

It means God has declared the end from the beginning. The exact choices of each individual are not necessary to know to know the end from the beginning. This isn't rocket science.

What you have written here ...'until the future happens... (it) does not exist to be known...' is in direct opposition to the word of God through Isaiah.

No.

..the god of the open-theists is just too small.

philogos, can God create a rock so big He cannot lift it?

If you say no, then then you're attack on open theism is a vain and hypocritical: "The god of philogos is so small and tiny! He can't even create a rock so big he can't lift it!"

If you say yes, then there are other things to discuss before dealing with open theism.

T
theopenlife

Do you believe God knows things that God cannot know? Yes or No?


Nile, could you please give an example of something God cannot know?

P
philologos

This is just so silly. You're defining "all" in the most absurd way.

Do you believe God knows things that God cannot know? Yes or No?

If you say no, you admit that God does not know "ALL" things.
If you say yes, you have created a logical impossibility that does not exist.

Does God know that pink elephants run the universe? Yes or No?

If you say no, you admit that God does not know "ALL" things.
If you say yes...lol.


This is just nonsense. There are no things that God cannot know, consequently your question is absurd. How could a God who knows everything not know anything?

Does God know that pink elephants run the universe? Yes or No?

this is not knowledge it is speculation. If you cannot distinguish between fact and speculation...?

It means God has declared the end from the beginning. The exact choices of each individual are not necessary to know to know the end from the beginning. This isn't rocket science.

It isn't any kind of science, it is philosophical mumbo-jumbo. This verse plainly says that God knows things 'before they come to pass'. You say that until the future happens it does not exist..to be known. Does God know the future before it happens or doesn't he?

philogos, can God create a rock so big He cannot lift it?

Don't you know that there is nothing an infinitely powerful God cannot do, other than what he has deciced not to do? You are asking 'can God create something which is greater than himself'. There can be nothing greater than God; everything is in him and by him and for him.

To accuse me of potential hypocrisy is foolish. A hypocrite is an actor, someone who pretends to be what he is not. In my confidence in an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient God... I am no hypocrite.

philogos, you simply do not understand the open theist position.

I understand sufficient of the position to know that it is inconsistent with biblical revelation.

I
IRONMAN

bro Nile

Greetings in Jesus' Name by Whose Blood we are Saved.AMEN.

you said:

philogos, you simply do not understand the open theist position.

bro Nile, it seems to me you don't understand the POsition of Scripture which is the Position of God which is the only Position of any consequence not only in this matter but in ALL matters.


Do you believe God knows things that God cannot know? Yes or No?

what in all creation does this mean? is there anything God in His Infinite Wisdom and Knowledge which can be unknown to Him? Maybe at your house you believe such but bro that is a lie from the devil because there are things unknown to him. so no i don't believe there is anything outside of what God Knows for He knows all in Totality. that question you asked bro is foolish and the stuff of the heathen who wish to discredit God.

If you say no, you admit that God does not know "ALL" things.

God Knows all things. End of story.


If you say yes, you have created a logical impossibility that does not exist.

do you know things you can't know?

Does God know that pink elephants run the universe? Yes or No?

Satan the Lord rebuke you!

It means God has declared the end from the beginning. The exact choices of each individual are not necessary to know to know the end from the beginning. This isn't rocket science.

uh no bro, the implication is that God declared the end from the beginning and so the sequence of events inbetween leads to the end so if He knows the end, He knows everything inbetween too.

philogos, can God create a rock so big He cannot lift it?

Satan the Lord rebuke you! What is there that God can't do if He wants to. Nothing is impossible.

If you say no, then then you're attack on open theism is a vain and hypocritical: "The god of philogos is so small and tiny! He can't even create a rock so big he can't lift it!"

Open Theism itself is a vain and wicked things from the bowels of him who is the very embodiment of vanity and hypocrisy, Satan the devil himself.

Grace and Peace are ours in Jesus.AMEN.

N
Nile

Michael,

Nile, could you please give an example of something God cannot know?

God does not know that I have a 12 year old son.
Because I don't.

God does not know about the elephant in my room.
Because it doesn't exist.

Likewise, God does know the decisions I will make in the future.
Because they don't exist yet.

Realize that this in no way limits God's power. God has infinite intelligence and skill. He knows the thoughts and hearts of men perfectly. He knows with a high degree of certainty what every man will do; He does not know 100% however, because our decisions are truly free and are uncreated before we make them.


philogos, God only knows things which are knowable. To say otherwise is to abandon the English language and contradict the first law of logic.

To say that future decisions cannot be known in NO WAY reduces God's omniscience. No one is arguing that God does not know all things - all things that can be known!

That was the point of my examples and questions.

...

A cannot be A and non-A at the same time in the same sense.

Something is either:
Knowable - able to be known.
-OR-
Unknowable - not able to be known.

God knows x.
Therefore x is knowable.

y is unknowable.
Therefore God is not able to know y.

[b]z is unknowable.
God still knows z.
Therefore z is unknowable and knowable.[/b]

A contradiction. This seems to be what you are saying, correct me if I'm wrong.

This is what I am saying:

[i]The future decisions of men are unknowable.
Therefore God is not able to know the future decisions of men.[/i]

This is merely an affirmation that God cannot know things which are unknowable.

...

This verse plainly says that God knows things 'before they come to pass'. You say that until the future happens it does not exist..to be known. Does God know the future before it happens or doesn't he?

Hopefully I can explain so that you understand the open theist position.

The future is mostly certain and partly uncertain.
God knows:
-Every possible thing that can happen, for He has all knowledge.
-The movements of every atom in the universe, for He has all knowledge.
-The date when any man will die, for He controls this.
-The end of the earth, for He controls this.
-The events of any man's day, for He controls this.
-The weather, for He controls it.
-Sickness and disease, for He controls them.
-Where I will place my foot before I place it, for He would know the moment I decided to move my foot and would know the exact movement of my foot.
-My words before I speak them, for His knowledge extends even to the heart and mind of men, thus being able to know my words before I speak them.
The list goes on and on.

The one thing that God does not know is how His creation will respond to their Creator. This was His purpose in creating man: to have a creation that would freely choose Him over themselves.

Don't you know that there is nothing an infinitely powerful God cannot do, other than what he has deciced not to do?

Why doesn't He do what He hasn't decided to do?
Do you see my point? Knowing it or not, you have just used the argument I have been using.
God can only do what He decides to do by logical necessity. This is analogous to my argument before.

If you're going to claim that God can know things which are unknowable then you might as well claim that God does things which He hasn't decided to do.

You are asking 'can God create something which is greater than himself'. There can be nothing greater than God; everything is in him and by him and for him.

Yes, I am asking that and the answer is obviously no. Once again, God can do anything, with the obvious implicit implication of anything being "anything that can be done".

To accuse me of potential hypocrisy is foolish. A hypocrite is an actor, someone who pretends to be what he is not. In my confidence in an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient God... I am no hypocrite.

This was the context:

philogos, can God create a rock so big He cannot lift it?

If you say no, then then you're attack on open theism is a vain and hypocritical: "The god of philogos is so small and tiny! He can't even create a rock so big he can't lift it!"


You would be a hypocrite in the fact that you use tell me I can't use a certain argument which you yourself use. I'm not sure what the proper name for the logical flaw is, but hypocrite sounded right. I don't mean to accuse you, but only to point out the self-contradictions. I apologize if it was taken wrong.

With hope,
Nile

I
IRONMAN

bro Nile Greetings in Jesus' Name by Whose Blood we are Saved.AMEN.

God does not know that I have a 12 year old son.Because I don't.

so how do you know? what kinda satanic nonsense is this?

now you said this:

Likewise, God does know the decisions I will make in the future.

yes indeed he does, that's what you get for talking smack about God!i figure you probably meant to say that He doesn't know the decisions you will make...

so what does this mean then to you, i am curious...

from Romans 8:

[b] 28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him,[a] who[b] have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.[/b]

even if foreknowledge here means (and i don't agree with this coz it makes God out to be reactive to man) God knew ahead of time who would choose Him and chose them, your view is in opposition to scripture and this is why i maintain that it is from the bowels of the devil. how would you explain this forknowledge if God doesn't know what decisions men will make because they don't exist yet? how do you reconcile your view with what scripture testifies here?

Grace and Peace are ours in Jesus.AMEN.

S
sermonindex

Nile is definitely right on this one. God knows all objects of knowledge. God knows with certainty the aspects of the future that are certain, and God knows as possible the aspects of the future that are possible. God knows all of reality as it is. What is open God knows as open and what is settled God knows as settled.

Omniscience is knowing all objects of knowledge. Our freewill choices are contingent so God knows them as contingent, and when we make a determination God knows it as certain. The nature of objects of knowledge are subject to change.

P
PreachParsly

God does not know that I have a 12 year old son.
Because I don't.

God does not know about the elephant in my room.
Because it doesn't exist.

Likewise, God does know the decisions I will make in the future.
Because they don't exist yet.


As far as I'm concerned none of that really has anything to do with knowledge. Knowledge deals with facts. How do you define knowledge? Your definition seems a little off to me.

Since you seem to be using philosophy, traditionally philosophy has thought that "knowledge" had to satisfy three requirements. It has to be justified, true, and believed. It doesn't line up. The things your saying that God doesn't know doesn't even belong in the area of knowledge unless your speaking of "possible worlds" or something. Then you would be speaking of the possibility of something being true, which God does know. I just thought I'd point out that I don't agree with your statement. :-D

God does know that you don't have a 12 year old son.

God does know about you not having an elephant in your room.

Likewise, God does know the decisions you will make in the future.

I realize that my conclusion makes a large jump since it goes from present events to future, but it's no different that what you just attempted.

--------------

Edit:

God only knows things which are knowable

Everything you said that I quoted above is able to be known. It's known that it's false! I don't think your logic is proving anything.

P
PreachParsly

As far as I'm concerned none of that really has anything to do with knowledge. Knowledge deals with facts. How do you define knowledge? Your definition seems a little off to me.

When I say that, I mean that if it doesn't deal with knowledge you can't say God doesn't know it; so those statements make no sense.

S
sermonindex

"God does know that you don't have a 12 year old son.

God does know about you not having an elephant in your room."

Likewise God knows what part of the future is open and God knows what part of the future is already determined.

What God has already determined is settled and what God let's us determine is not yet determined.

God knows what is possible and God knows what is settled.

God foreknows all the decisions that we could make. And God knows that our choices are contingent.

God knows we have the power of contingency and therefore the future is partly open:

[u]Jeremiah 18:710[/u] "At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them."

Jesus taught that the future was partly open and that certain events were contingent:

[u]Mt 26:53[/u] - "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?"

Did not the prophet, who illustrated bondage to Paul using a belt, show that he believed the future was partly open when he persuaded with Paul not to go to Jerusalem? [u]Acts 21:11-12[/u]

P
philologos

Omniscience is knowing all objects of knowledge. Our freewill choices are contingent so God knows them as contingent, and when we make a determination God knows it as certain. The nature of objects of knowledge are subject to change.

You are ignoring omnipotence and infinitude. There may be some things that God has chosen not to know. This explains some of the utterances of the Lord Jesus whilst on earth.

If there is any limit to God's power to know other than what he has chosen not to know he is not omnipotent neither is he infinite because he will need to add to what he knows as 'events become knowable'. If future events are 'beyond his power to know' his power is limited. If his power is limited he is neither omnipotent nor infinite.

P
philologos

Jeremiah 18:10 "At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them."

This is a vital passage of scripture in our understanding of prophecy. Prophecy is often conditional. Even when no conditions are listed they are often implied. Jonah told the Ninevites that their city would be destroyed in 40 days, but the principle of Jer 17 (though yet unuttered) was always at work.

[color=0033FF]Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; (Acts 2:23 NKJV)[/color]
This passage holds together divine purpose and human culpability. Personally, I don't believe Calvinism does justice to this balance. Open theism, in its collision with Calvinism, tears them apart. God knows all that will be done and sometimes declares what will be done but his so declaring does not free the doers from their responsibility. They are not following a script.

All past, present and future rebellions of angels and men are known to God. Otherwise the atonement was a blank cheque. The high priest was required to confess all the sins of the nation over the scape goat. God made all sins to rest upon the Lamb.

[color=0033FF]All of us like sheep have wandered, Each to his own way we have turned, And Jehovah hath caused to meet on him, The punishment of us all. (Isaiah 53:6 YNG)[/color]

All sins were gathered together and caused to meet on Christ. If there was one sin of which God was ignorant he has not fulfilled the role of the high priest. The pattern of Yom Kippur was very specific about this.

[color=0033FF]Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man. (Leviticus 16:21 NKJV)[/color]

The event of Calvary gathered together all sins, past, present and future and laid them upon the Lamb. If one sin were unknown to God, the atonement is fatally flawed.

I
IRONMAN

bro lazarus

Greetings in Jesus' Name by Whose Blood we are Saved.AMEN.

Nile is definitely right on this one. God knows all objects of knowledge. God knows with certainty the aspects of the future that are certain, and God knows as possible the aspects of the future that are possible. God knows all of reality as it is. What is open God knows as open and what is settled God knows as settled.

you can believe that if you want to bro, i don't buy it. either God knows the whole future or not and i'm convinced of the former. Even in what is open which requires a response from us (such as in the case with Jonah and Nineveh) God knew that if they didn't repent He would certainly wipe out that city in 40 days. He knew also if they did repent, He would spare them for a time which He did. There is no such thing as uncertainty as it pertains to anything as far as God is concerned, now if you had said all this about the devil (from whose bowels i believe this notion is from) i'd go with that, if you said so about man, i'd be with you, but about God, no bro, that belief is not of God, Holy Spirit doesn't sanction such and i know for sure my spirit doesn't bear witness to it in anywise.

Omniscience is knowing all objects of knowledge. Our freewill choices are contingent so God knows them as contingent, and when we make a determination God knows it as certain. The nature of objects of knowledge are subject to change.

an what of Omnipotence and Omnipresence, God being present in past present and future and having it all in hand?

Grace and Peace are ours in Jesus. AMEN.

H
HopePurifies

IRONMAN

I like you but...

I know that the Lord is not telling you to rebuke Satan the way you are doing because it is very clear that you are merely reacting to your inability to understand the logic behind what we are trying to show you. You're disgusted at Nile's theology and so you're trying to use an emotional attack and hide it under spirituality.

Which is quite a despicable thing to do.

You're not getting your rebuke from the spirit but from your limited understanding. You have spoken rashly and equated an understanding different than yours as equal to Peter telling Jesus not to be crucified.

Lord rebuke you, Satan.

I now refer you all to an interesting article:
https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic_pdf.php?topic_id=17954&forum=34.

Edit: But we all make mistakes, so I do forgive you, bro.

P
philologos

The cross of Christ is God's righteous vindication of his own holiness and is a demonstration of holy love. Did Christ die for yours/our sins. As I am writing this in the 21st century it is obvious that I had not sinned any of my own sins when Christ died on Golgotha.

So did he bear my sins or didn't he? Did he bear them in principle or in actuality? Did he carry the sin of the world or just the sin of the preceding generations which were known to God. Can you see what folly open theism leads us into?

If my sins were part of the unknowable future the sacrifice of Calvary was accomplished 'ignorant' of my personal sin. There are not many options open to such a view.

Did Christ pick up some unknown bill that he paid so that, in that sense, I cannot say with Paul 'who loved me and died for me' for I was unknowable to God at that time, as was my sin. Christ only 'died for me' in the most general sense.

This is particularly pertinent to me as my first consciousness of God's dealing in my life was on this specific issue. I had always believed that Christ died for sins, in a general sort of a way. What arrested me was the understanding that he died for my sins and took my place, and that he had loved me from before the foundation of the earth.

[color=0033FF]I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.
“Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. (John 17:23-24 NKJV)[/color]

If God loved me as he loved his Son, and he loved his Son before the foundation of the earth, then he loved me before the foundation of the earth. But according to 'open theology' my very existentence was an 'unknowable' at the time of Christ's death and the notion that he loved me before the foundation of the earth is just a pleasant fiction.

Open theism is not just an interesting sideline, it strikes at the very heart of revelation.

Every fact and actuality is known to God from the beginning to the end. It will not do to say bring in silly stories about the universe being supported by pink elephants. Such things are not actualities, neither in the past, the present of the future. God knows that it is not so and never will be so.

The open theists have found themselves trapped in a linear universe and they have concluded that God himself is trapped in the same time/space process, but God is not in time and space in the way that creatures are in time and space. Time and space are in Him, and the Spirit of God knows all that is in God. The future is in God now; He is the I AM, and consequently there is nothing that was or is or will be that is not known to him.

He knew my sin when he bore it on the cross. He bore today's sin and tomorrow's. Calvary will need no updates.

S
sermonindex

Ron, I agree that open theism doesn't fit with your atonement theory. Lots of sound doctrine doesn't fit with your atonement theory, like conditional security, universal atonement, etc.

This is just another scriptural reasons why I reject the Anselms theory of retributive satisfaction (which really only fits with Calvinism) and affirm the governmental theory of public satisfaction.

------------

I argue that open theology must be true or else God cannot be God.

Consider:

- If God foreknows all future certainties

- If God has always had this foreknowledge from eternity past

- If God's foreknowledge of future certainties is always accurate

- Then the conclusion is: from eternity past God has had no control over history, God could not change or control or guide or steer the course of time, everything must occur exactly the way God's accurate eternal foreknowledge saw that it would. God would never be able to plan or decide for the first time what would occur in history, since it was already predetermined for Him by His eternal accurate foreknowledge.

If His foreknowledge consists in nothing but future certainties, without any realm of possibilities, and this foreknowledge is as old as eternity and is of necessity accurate, then God has no power to change even the slightest detail from what He eternally and accurately foreknew it to be.

So neither God nor man has a freewill if open theology isn't true.

If the future is not open then God cannot determine it, steer it, control it, etc. God cannot be God if open theology isn't true.

But if God's foreknowledge consists in foreknowing all future possibilities and all future certainties, if the future is partly open (not yet determined) and partly settled (partly determined) THEN God is able to be God, THEN God is able to influence and control the course of history to be what He wants it to be.

R
RobertW

The open theists have found themselves trapped in a linear universe and they have concluded that God himself is trapped in the same time/space process, but God is not in time and space in the way that creatures are in time and space. Time and space are in Him, and the Spirit of God knows all that is in God. The future is in God now; He is the I AM, and consequently there is nothing that was or is or will be that is not known to him.

That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: [u]For in him we live, and move, and have our being[/u]; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. (Acts 17:27, 28)

It is important to point out that God created [i]time[/i]. It is 'time' that makes it possible to 'move' in a 3 dimensional universe. What causes car crashes? Two objects try to occupy the same space. Can two objects occupy the same space? The answer is NO [i]unless[/i] we add the element of 'time'. In logic no two irreconcilable statements can both be true and in physics one cannot be in two places at once. What makes it possible to be in two different places (or an infinite number of places)? The answer is 'time'. We can 'move' because the variable of time makes it possile. God created time.

It is interesting to point out that if you add a dimension of time to our experience all sorts of contradictory things become possible. Even statements that are logically contradictory become possible when we add another dimension or two of time. And this is the folly of trying to understand God within the framework of our mere 3 dimensions of space + time. God is not limited to these things by any means. There is no telling what things are possible to God. Full on predestination and Freewill could possibly exists side by side without contradiction where God dwells. We cannot understand it because we are limited in our ability to picture things beyond 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time. A line cannot comprehend a box and a box cannot comprehend a cube. A cube can comprehend a square and a line (so to speak). Likewise God exists apart from the physical order that governs the phenomena we experience. We already know that objects do not behave the same for Newton's models as they do on a quantum level. How much more wonderful is God?

And this is why I think we can take things that God says to be absolute truth without the pressure of always trying to make them square. With men these things are impossible- but with God all things are possible. We will be quite surprised some day, I think.

R
RobertW

Then the conclusion is: from eternity past God has had no control over history, God could not change or control or guide or steer the course of time, everything must occur exactly the way God's accurate eternal foreknowledge saw that it would. God would never be able to plan or decide for the first time what would occur in history, since it was already predetermined for Him by His eternal accurate foreknowledge.

The problem with this statement is that it invites men to do what Proverbs 3:5 tells us [u]not[/u] to do. Our finite minds can in no real way understand the things of God. We are probing here into things that are far too wonderful for us. I often remind myself that the angel that announced Samson's birth told Samson's parents (when they asked him his name) that it was beyond their comprehansion. Job's counselors sat around trying to figure out the contradiction of how a righteous man could be treated as a sinner. They tried to do the math without even knowing all the variables. What happened? They sinned.

P
philologos

Ron, I agree that open theism doesn't fit with your atonement theory. Lots of sound doctrine doesn't fit with your atonement theory, like conditional security, universal atonement, etc.

Jesse,
So you agree that only adherents of the Moral Government theory can really support Open Theism? This is an interesting admission. Do you go the whole way and admit that Open Theism is only admissable for those who adopt Finney's position on the atonement? In other words, is this a package deal? Are Moral Government and Open Theism a matched pair?

If Open Theology is really inconsistent with Penal Substitutional Atonement I wonder how many adherents of Open Theism realise what they have signed up for?


- If God foreknows all future certainties

- If God has always had this foreknowledge from eternity past

- If God's foreknowledge of future certainties is always accurate

Then the conclusion is: from eternity past God has had no control over history, God could not change or control or guide or steer the course of time, everything must occur exactly the way God's accurate eternal foreknowledge saw that it would.


This is your conclusion not mine. Are you arguing for God to have control over history or not? You are confusing foreknowledge with predestination. I may foreknow that my house is going to be broken into, but that does not mean I have predestined it.

I know you won’t like it but the old analogy of seeing a route in a linear fashion as distinct from God’s overview is still pertinent. A traveller knows his journey must go from A to B, then from B to C, then from C to D etc. As he travels in linear progress, time and distance are experienced one by one. From the position of a balloon high above the viewer does not need to get to B before he can see C, or to get to C before he can see D. The overview takes all in the one glance. So it is with God and history. God is not subject in his knowledge to linear progression of time; he is far above (beyond) it. He sees the end from the beginning. This does not mean he has fixed certain points and that he does not know what happens in between.

God foreknows all men from Eternity, and foresees what every man will do and be. All things are present to him at once. God’s foreknowledge and God’s declaration of the event before it occurs does not mean that God has over-ridden human choice.

The choice of Judas is a case in point. He was specifically chosen as one of the 12 and, if the words of Christ to the 70 were meant to include the 12, his name was written in heaven. (Luke 10:20) However God has already recorded prophetically what he knew would be the choices of Judas. Judas was not compelled to fulfil scripture. Scripture was recording events seen before by God and that scripture recording was sure to be fulfilled.

[color=0033FF]While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. (John 17:12 NKJV)[/color]

There is a very important truth about prophecy given earlier in John’s gospel on this same topic of Judas;

[color=0033FF] “I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me.’ Now I tell you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe that I am He. (John 13:18-19 NKJV)[/color]

We should note this carefully. He does not say that Judas was compelled to betray him, but that when that betrayal took place they would believe who Christ really was. In other words, his foreknowledge was a proof of his person. This is the theme of significant sections of Isaiah where Isaiah taunts the prophets of the idols that they are not able to say what will happen. It is the distinctive proof of Jehovah’s uniqueness that he does know the end from the beginning and, at times, he declares it. These are not predictions in the sense of clever estimates; these are the declarations that come from foreknowledge.


If the future is not open then God cannot determine it, steer it, control it, etc. God cannot be God if open theology isn't true.

You are showing the fatal flaw of Finneyism here. Generally Calvinistic books, and I am anti-calvinsim, begin with God. Finney, of course, begins with man and moral obligation. His starting point predetermines his whole theology; it is always earth-bound and man-bound.

What an extraordinary statement this is “God cannot be God if open theology is not true”. How old are you to make such a statement? Age does not increase accuracy in theology but it sometimes adds a little humility.

H
HopePurifies

Philologos

Yeah, your view of atonement is kind of weird... I don't know where you guys get that view because it's not from the Bible.

Open theism strikes at the very heart of YOUR revelation, but it fits in very well with the revelation of the bible.

God loves us (personally) in the measure that He loves Christ and not necessarily the timeline. He has loved us (collectively) since the foundation of the world for sure, but thats not even what this verse is talking about.

Don't confuse confidence with pride.

P
philologos

Yeah, your view of atonement is kind of weird... I don't know where you guys get that view because it's not from the Bible.

You mean the kind of view of atonement that I share with Luther, Calvin, George Fox, Thomas Watson, John Wesley and George Whitefield, Thomas Newberry, Hudson Taylor, Paget Wilkes, F B Meyer, Campbell Morgan, Wayne Grudem, John Piper, MacArthur, Smith Wigglesworth, W F P Burton, A W Tozer, Leonard Ravenhill?

Yes, I guess it would seem rather weird from a myopic Finneyist viewpoint.

P
philologos

As Open Theism seems to be married inseparably to a rejection of the traditional Penal Substitutionary view of the Atonement I thought it might be profitable to return to that topic.

[color=0033FF] But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:5-6 NKJV)[/color]

My questions are simple ones.

Whose transgressions was he wounded for?
Whose iniquity was 'gathered onto' him?

Following on from this the obvious supplementary questions are; Did he 'know' of my transgressions or was he wounded only for them 'in principle'?
Did he 'know' of my iniquity or did he only have them heaped upon him 'in principle'?
Did Christ really love me and die for me? as Paul testified or was it only 'in principle'?
Is he really my sinbearer or was it just a theatrical gesture?

And, for any who may have missed the connection, if God only knows what has happened and not what might happen how does this affect my sins which were committed long after Calvary? How does it affect tomorrow's sins? If God had no knowledge of them how can he have heaped them upon his Son?

P
philologos

There is an interesting paper on Open Theism [url=http://www.gfcto.com/2006/05/open_theism.php]here.[/url] I think his last paragraphs are a trifle premature but I think he exposes the roots of open theism well.

N
Nile

You mean the kind of view of atonement that I share with Luther, Calvin,
George Fox, Thomas Watson, John Wesley and George Whitefield, Thomas
Newberry, Hudson Taylor, Paget Wilkes, F B Meyer, Campbell Morgan, Wayne
Grudem, John Piper, MacArthur, Smith Wigglesworth, W F P Burton, A W
Tozer, Leonard Ravenhill?

Ravenhills #1 recommended book is "The Atonement by Albert Barnes" which conviced me that the common "Imputed Righteoussnes" or "Penal Substitutionary" view is wrong and Wesly believed in governmental atonement as well.

So if that's what you're talking about, then it looks like we all agree on this.

Otherwise, unless I am mistaken, your list is wrong.

P
philologos

Wesly believed in governmental atonement as well.

John Wesley's Notes on the New Testament
Rom 3:25...
a propitiation - to appease an offended God. But if, as some teach, God never was offended, there was no need of this propitiation.
to declare his righteousness - to demonstrate not only His clemency but His justice; even that vindictive justice whose essential character and principle office is, to punish sin.


Charles Wesley
'Tis finished! The Messiah dies,
[u]Cut off for sins, but not His own[/u]:
Accomplished is the sacrifice,
The great redeeming work is done.

'Tis finished! [u]all the debt is paid;
Justice divine is satisfied[/u]
;
The grand and full atonement made;
God for a guilty world hath died.

The veil is rent in Christ alone;
The living way to heaven is seen;
The middle wall is broken down,
And all mankind may enter in.

The types and figures are fulfilled;
[u]Exacted is the legal pain[/u];
The precious promises are sealed;
The spotless Lamb of God is slain.

The reign of sin and death is o'er,
And all may live from sin set free;
Satan hath lost his mortal power;
'Tis swallowed up in victory.

Saved from the legal curse I am,
My Savior hangs on yonder tree:
See there the meek, expiring Lamb!
'Tis finished! He expires for me.

Accepted in the Well-beloved,
And clothed in righteousness divine,
I see the bar to heaven removed;
And all Thy merits, Lord, are mine.

Death, hell, and sin are now subdued;
All grace is now to sinners given;
And lo, I plead the atoning blood,
And in Thy right I claim Thy heaven!

I can't imagine clearer statements of Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

N
Nile

philologos...I don't believe anything in that last post is opposed to Moral Government Theology or Governmental Atonement.

P
philologos

philologos...I don't believe anything in that last post is opposed to Moral Government Theology or Governmental Atonement.

Then you don't understand the implications of Moral Government Atonement. 'exacted is the legal pain' is in direct contradiction to Finney's view of the atonement.

[i]Finney's view; Atonement V. 3.
The atonement of Christ was intended as a satisfaction of public justice.[/i]

(as distinct from a satisfaction of divine justice as we find referenced in Charles Wesley's hymn)

Penal has to do with punishment. Finney did not believe that Christ was receiving the punishment for sin as our substitute. Finney did not believe that 'justice divine' was satisfied in the atonement.

I think you need to reread your Finney.

S
sermonindex

I just wanted to comment that Leonard Ravenhill was strongly opposed to the retributive satisfaction theory of the atonement. Probably because it inevitably leads to Once Saved Always Saved, Limited Atonement, Universalism, etc. Something that the governmental theory has absolutely no tendency to promote!

Nancy Ravenhill told me that Leonard used to preach to her against the hymn "Jesus paid it all". Leonard would say, "That's simply not true! That's a lie!"

Leonard's top pick out of 40 books was Albert Barnes on the Atonement.

There have been many great revivalists who have held to the governmental theory of the atonement. Jonathon Edwards and Charles Finney are the most well known. The view prospered greatly amongst Wesley-Armenians as well.

Those who held to the governmental theory were: Hugo Gratius, Jonathon Edwards, Charles Finney, Albert Barnes, Leonard Ravenhill, etc.

But yes Ron, just like the retributive satisfaction theory of the atonement goes hand in hand with Calvinism, Open Theism does go hand in hand with Moral Government theology. Though Finney was not an open theist himself.

I have studied extensively arminianism, calvinism, open theism and moral government theology. And I have studied the scriptures diligently to see what the bible actually teaches. That is why I'm convinced of open theism and moral government theology, it's simply what the bible teaches.

N
Nile

Then you don't understand the implications of Moral Government Atonement. 'exacted is the legal pain' is in direct contradiction to Finney's view of the atonement.

Not as I understand it.

The Bible clearly says Christ suffered for our sins.
While His suffering was not the exact suffering we would have suffered, He suffered the "exact the legal pain" needed, meaning the amount of pain required by divine Law to grant a pardon to all sinners, that amount of pain was suffered.

Finney's view; Atonement V. 3.
The atonement of Christ was intended as a satisfaction of public justice.

(as distinct from a satisfaction of divine justice as we find referenced in Charles Wesley's hymn)

Penal has to do with punishment. Finney did not believe that Christ was receiving the punishment for sin as our substitute. Finney did not believe that 'justice divine' was satisfied in the atonement.


I understand these things.

Upon re-reading the hymn, I'm still not convinced of anything. I might have worded some things differently, but I'm not convinced of the theology behind the words.

Tis finished! all the debt is paid;

This does appear to go against Moral Government.

Justice divine is satisfied;

I'm not convinced Wesly has the distinction of public vs divine justice in mind here. He might have though, I don't know.

...[does research]...

After doing a little more research, I am inclined to believe you are right about Wesly's theology. I apologize for the confusion. Methodists believe in governmental atonement, and I mistakenly assumed Wesly did as well.

philologos...I don't believe anything in that last post is opposed to Moral Government Theology or Governmental Atonement.

This was hastily said, please forgive me.
I was trying to give the hymn the benefit of the doubt and intepreting it accordingly.

Nile

S
sermonindex

Jesus suffered all the pain required by public justice. God said that He would forgive us our sins instead of punish them if there is a blood offering. God said that He would pardon our debt, instead of require the payment of our debt, if there was a blood sacrifice. Now the wrath of God can passover instead of being poured out because there was a blood atonement which substitutes for our punishment.

The blood atonement of Christ was vicarious, it was substituted with our punishment.

Jesus did not pay our debt but gave a blood offering which makes it possible for God to forgive us our debt.

And as John Fletcher said, when Christ said "It is finished" he was not talking of Once Saved Always Saved. Christ did the work of a Savior by dying on the cross but the work of the sinner, of repenting and believing, still remains undone until the sinner does it. Christ finished the work of a Savior but never the work of a sinner.

H
HopePurifies

There are two Wesleys.

After doing a little more research, I am inclined to believe you are right about Wesly's theology. I apologize for the confusion. Methodists believe in governmental atonement, and I mistakenly assumed Wesly did as well.

I
IRONMAN

bro Hopepurifies

Greetings in Jesus' Name by Whose Blood we are Saved.AMEN.

I know that the Lord is not telling you to rebuke Satan the way you are doing because it is very clear that you are merely reacting to your inability to understand the logic behind what we are trying to show you. You're disgusted at Nile's theology and so you're trying to use an emotional attack and hide it under spirituality.

you bet i'm disgusted by the theology because it's nonsense bro. how can it be that God doesn't know all or see all or be in complete control over all things? some of the statements made in support of this notion make no sense at all and strike me as things which the enemy would say in order to make us think less of God than we should and more of ourselves than we ought. how do you explain then the foreknowledge of God as it pertains to predestination is God doesn't know what we will decide because we haven't decided it yet? Then also you make God out to be one who reacts in contingency to what man does and really it is us who are always reacting to what God has decreed. Even our free will is within the confines of His Sovereignty in accordance to what He is Accomplishing, that is Glory for Himself forever and ever.AMEN.

it't not out of emotion that i'm reacting, i don't do that quite so much praise God but i feel unctioned of Holy Ghost to speak out against this. i'm not one to argue with anyone, i'd much rather be quite somewhere away from drama...

now bro it seems to me that you're couching warped philosophy about God (the devil's philosophy) by twisting scripture to suit the purpose. Scripture doesn't in any way support the idea that God doesn't know all forward and backwards. such twisting of the word is also a dispicable thing.

You're not getting your rebuke from the spirit but from your limited understanding. You have spoken rashly and equated an understanding different than yours as equal to Peter telling Jesus not to be crucified.

clearly i'm not the only one who disagrees with this view.

i read the article and if you read my post which was after that article was initially put up by bro Nile, you'll see how i felt about it. That it begins with the word "imagine" is bad business. look up the word 'imagine' in the word and see what the context is...never positive, associated with wickedness and i think it no accident that was the first word in that article...

bro you don't have to like me, i ask only that you Love me as Christ Loves us all.

Edit: But we all make mistakes, so I do forgive you, bro.

i appreciate your extension of forgiveness bro. if i am wrong about all this, then God will straighten it out and you have nothing to worry about, however if i have communicated the Heart of God on this matter either you have to go on your face and repent, or God will put you on your face.

May God show Himself to be True and Him alone that if we both are wrong we are exposed as liars and set aright before HIm.AMEN.

Grace and PEace are ours in Jesus.AMEN.

I
IRONMAN

bro Robert

Greetings in Jesus' Name by Whose Blood we are Saved.AMEN.

this post and the previous one you made were most insightful bro.

The problem with this statement is that it invites men to do what Proverbs 3:5 tells us not to do. Our finite minds can in no real way understand the things of God. We are probing here into things that are far too wonderful for us. I often remind myself that the angel that announced Samson's birth told Samson's parents (when they asked him his name) that it was beyond their comprehansion. Job's counselors sat around trying to figure out the contradiction of how a righteous man could be treated as a sinner. They tried to do the math without even knowing all the variables. What happened? They sinned.

i hope we all got that...

Grace and Peace are ours in Jesus.AMEN.

P
philologos

There have been many great revivalists who have held to the governmental theory of the atonement. Jonathon Edwards and Charles Finney are the most well known. The view prospered greatly amongst Wesley-Armenians as well.

You will at least acknowledge that Wesley's NT comments and hymns are incompatible with the Moral Government theory?

P
philologos

There are two Wesleys.

Indeed there were and the teaching of both was imcompatible with the Finney version of the atonement.

P
philologos

I think perhaps a full look at Finney's theories are due. I am away for the weekend now but we could take a look at Finney's thoughts either here or in a new thread on Finney and Moral Government?

P
philologos

Earlier in this thread I pointed out that something like Finney's theory of Moral Government Atonement was necessary if the notions of Open Theism were to be possible. I acknowledge that Finney's theories would, in theory, be consistent with Open Theism. I felt I ought to make it clear that Finney did not believe in what is now called Open Theism as the following excerpts will demonstrate:

In his 1857 lectures on theology he devoted some section to what he termed "Natural Attributes of God". He gave 6, other lectures increased this number...

1.Eternity
2.Omniscience
3.Omnipresence
4.Omnipotence
5.Spirituality
6. Immutability

Under Eternity he writes:
(4.) Eternity is to God as present time is to us.

a. By time, as it respects ourselves, we mean that portion of duration which commences with our birth and ends with our death.

b. By past time, we mean that portion of this period, through which we have passed and of which nothing remains to us but the remembrance.

c. By present time, we mean that point indicated by present consciousness; the point at which that mental state of which we are conscious is in exercise.

d. Our mental states or exercises are single, and successive, And by past, present, future, we refer to the order in which they or the occasions of them occur.

e. Time to us is the progression of existence and experience. Present time is that which is filled up by our present experience and consciousness. Successive exercises are successive experience. Successive experience is increasing knowledge. Succession, therefore, belongs to a finite being.

f. But God is not a finite being. He cannot be omniscient, and yet obtain knowledge from experience. Succession cannot therefore be predicated of him, either in relation to his existence or mental states. He always has the same mental state or consciousness. He can have no new thoughts, as there is no possible source from which to derive them. He can have no new affections or emotions, as He can have no new ideas or knowledge.

Therefore, his present consciousness is his eternal consciousness, and eternity is to him what present time is to us. God's existence is infinite, both in respect to duration and space. This is expressly declared in the Bible; and if it were not true he is infinitely less than infinite. As it respects God's existence then, space has no other idea than here. And eternity has no other idea than now. All here and there must respect such existences as are not omniscient. All past and future must respect such existences as are not eternally self-existent, and always equally and eternally old.

Omnipresence, to us, means both here, there, anywhere, and everywhere. But to God, it means only here. So eternity to us, means all past, present and future duration. But to God it means only now. Duration and space, as they respect his existence, mean infinitely different things from what they do when they respect our existence. God's existence and his acts, as they respect finite existence, have relation to time and place. But as they respect his own existence, everything is here and now. With respect to all finite existences, God can say I was, I am, I shall be, do, will do; but with respect to his own existence, all that he can, say is, I am, I do.

g. The Bible seems to favor this view of the subject, although it would guard against pressing our minds with such a metaphysical nicety. Thus God calls himself "I AM." Christ says, "Before Abraham was, I AM." To him a thousand years are as one day, and one day as a thousand years. A thousand years here is a definite for an indefinite period. As when God says the cattle on a thousand hills are his, he means the cattle on all hills are his. This I understand to be an expression of the same kind. Its connection plainly leads us to this inference, that by a thousand years we are to understand all time, of which it is said, that it is as one day, or as present time to God."

He then suggests and answers objections to this position:

"2. I will now notice some objections to this view.

Obj. I. We can form no conception of an existence, to which there is no succession.

Ans. 1. The difficulty of this conception lies in our finite and progressive existence. All our thoughts, exercises, and experience, and knowledge, are progressive. Consequently we can form no positive conception of the modus existendi of a being, to whom succession does not appertain. Nor is this difficulty attributable to any want of perfection in our creation. As we are finite and began to be, it was impossible that God should create us in a manner that would obviate this difficulty. We once had no existence. We must therefore begin to be. Everything, therefore, with respect to us must be successive. Nor is this a difficulty that need be injurious to us. For we conceive of God with sufficient accuracy for all practical purposes, when we conceive of his existence as coeval with all other existences and events.

2. We can form no other conception of infinity, than that it exists and is that which is unlimited; and of course, that a positive conception of it is inconceivable by finite minds. To say that we have a positive conception or idea of infinity is a contradiction, as it supposes there is a whole of infinity, which implies a bound or limit; which contradicts the true meaning of infinity.

3. Although we can form no positive idea or conception of infinity; yet we can see that to speak of it as incapable either of increase or diminution, is a contradiction. So, although we can have no positive idea of the eternal, self-existence of God; yet we can see, that to say he began to be, is absurd and contradicts his eternity. So, although we can have no positive idea of his existence and mental states, as not successive; yet we can see that succession in his existence and mental states, involves the absurdity, that he grows older--- that he was once young---that he began to be---that he never was and never will be an eternal being---that he never was and never can be an infinite being---that he never can, in the least degree, approach towards being eternal in his duration, or infinite in his knowledge or happiness.

Obj. II. God always speaks just as if his existence and acts were successive.

Ans. He must of course speak of them as they appear and really are to us, or we should receive no ideas from what he says.

Obj. III. God sees things as they are or as they are not. Now as events do really occur in succession, they must appear so to him.

Ans. To us they occur in succession, but not to him. To us they have relation to place, but not to him. To us they occur before, behind, in time past, present, or future; but to him they occur here, and they occur now.

Obj. IV. It confounds and overturns all our methods of reasoning, with respect to the reality of events.

Ans. Events really are, with respect to us, what they appear to be. Our reasonings concerning the reality and existence of things, may be just as it respects ourselves and as it respects God. And yet, as it regards time and place, everything may be here and now to him, while to us they are spread through immensity and eternity. In other words, God is infinite and we are finite. We must always conceive of things, and reason as finite beings. He will always conceive of things, and reason as an infinite being, apprehending realities as they are to us, and in the relation they sustain to us in regard to time and place, and also having that infinitely different view of them that respects his own infinite existence."

Of God's omniscience, he writes:II. God's omniscience.

By the omniscience of God is not meant, merely the capacity of knowing all things. A distinguished commentator has defined omniscience to be a capacity to know whatever is wise to be known. This definition was resorted to, to avoid the inference of personal election from the fore-knowledge of God. Omnipotence, says this commentator, (not to use his words, but his idea,) is not the absolute doing of all that is do-able; but ability to do whatever is wise to be done. Omnipotence, therefore, in its exercises, is directed by wisdom. So omniscience, he says, is under the direction of wisdom. And while God's omnipotence does not do what is unwise to be done, just so omniscience does not know what is unwise to be known. To this statement it is sufficient to reply, that the thing must be previously known, before wisdom could decide whether the knowledge of it would be wise or unwise. But omniscience is the absolute knowledge of all existences, even, and things, actual or possible.

PROOF.

1. His works afford the most convincing evidence of a degree of knowledge, to which certainly a finite being can fix no bounds.

2. His providential government of the universe, strengthens and confirms this proof.

3. Prophecy would seem to prove that God must really be omniscient. Multitudes of the prophecies respect the future exercises and conduct of free moral agents. And a being who can with certainty predict the events of all time and eternity, foreseeing the end from the beginning, in respect to the exercises, and character, and destiny of moral agents, must be omniscient.

4. The administration of moral government, depends upon the exact knowledge which he possesses of the state of mind of every moral being in the universe, and of the exact result in which every movement of his government and providence will terminate.

5. His works of grace, in searching the heart, and bringing about the conviction, conversion, and salvation of sinners, must prove him omniscient.

6. The Bible expressly ascribes omniscience to him:


John 21:17: "Thou knowest all things."


John 2:24, 25: "But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man."

John 16:30: "Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God."

Psalms 139:1-6: "O Lord, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my down-sitting and mine up-rising; thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou compasses my path, and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether. Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thy hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it."

1 Chronicles 28:9: "And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart, and with a willing mind; for the Lord searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off forever."

Romans 8:27: "And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God."

1 Corinthians 2:10: "But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God."

Revelation 2:23: "And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto everyone of you according to your works."Whatever my objection to much of Finney's theology, in his theology of God he was thoroughly orthodox. I don't often get the chance to quote him so I didn't want this opportunity to pass unrecognised! ;-)

P
PreachParsly

I had a thought the other day....

If open theism is true, then the classic theist has made a false god in their mind [b]greater[/b] than the God of the Bible. This would be true since the classic theist believes God knows everything- past, present and future. On the day of judgment will the classic theist be charged with making a god [b]greater[/b] than the God of heaven with his mind? Can a created mind come up with something greater than his creator? If open theism is true, then yes the created mind can produce a god greater than the God of heaven.

That just doesn't seem right to me...

This discussion is archived and closed to new replies. Start a new discussion to carry the subject on.
Archived
1 of 53 posts

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate