Does God Know From All Eternity Who Will Die Having Rejected Sound Doctrine?
- Thread starter ByTheGraceOfGod
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
when my cat ((read: my cat)) gets himself stuck in a tree idc whether he wants to stay in the tree or not, i climb up and get him out of it.
he doesn't 'cease to be my cat' when he runs outside and gets himself stuck, and he doesn't 'become my cat' only once he's safely on the ground, and it doesn't have anything to do with whether he wants what's not good for him or not; it's about me taking care of him.
but that's just me and my cat. probably meaningless.
he doesn't 'cease to be my cat' when he runs outside and gets himself stuck, and he doesn't 'become my cat' only once he's safely on the ground, and it doesn't have anything to do with whether he wants what's not good for him or not; it's about me taking care of him.
but that's just me and my cat. probably meaningless.
-
1
- Show all
nonsense.
Jesus is The LORD God, and the LORD God is the Shepherd of Israel, and the people of Israel are His sheep whether they are wise sheep or stupid sheep - see Ezekiel 34:30-31 -- & i don't know if you're familiar with sheep but they are notoriously stupid. kinda like they have dire need of a Good Shepherd, ya know?
Christ came to seek and to save the lost — see Luke 19:20 — when your car keys are lost they are still your car keys. He saved Saul of Tarsus because he is one of the LORD God's sheep.
but not all Israel is Israel - see John 8:44-47, John 10:26, Matthew 12:34, and 2 Kings 5:27
Jesus is The LORD God, and the LORD God is the Shepherd of Israel, and the people of Israel are His sheep whether they are wise sheep or stupid sheep - see Ezekiel 34:30-31 -- & i don't know if you're familiar with sheep but they are notoriously stupid. kinda like they have dire need of a Good Shepherd, ya know?
Christ came to seek and to save the lost — see Luke 19:20 — when your car keys are lost they are still your car keys. He saved Saul of Tarsus because he is one of the LORD God's sheep.
but not all Israel is Israel - see John 8:44-47, John 10:26, Matthew 12:34, and 2 Kings 5:27
That is equivalent to
"unless God specifically intervenes to cause a particular thing to come about, He is by and large utterly ignorant of the future, because it is impossible even for God to know the future"
you love to call God ignorant indirectly; you just don't like calling God ignorant directly.
IMO you shouldn't be afraid to embrace what you believe. you clearly believe that God is necessarily ignorant.
still wanna argue the point?
answer this simple question:
is God ignorant today of what i will have for breakfast on January 7 2026?
"unless God specifically intervenes to cause a particular thing to come about, He is by and large utterly ignorant of the future, because it is impossible even for God to know the future"
you love to call God ignorant indirectly; you just don't like calling God ignorant directly.
IMO you shouldn't be afraid to embrace what you believe. you clearly believe that God is necessarily ignorant.
still wanna argue the point?
answer this simple question:
is God ignorant today of what i will have for breakfast on January 7 2026?
Denying that God knows every possible outcome at any given moment limits His omniscience...
Life is like a chess board, with only so many possible moves at the beginning of any life, and each
move in turn eliminates a number of choices. At any given moment, God is aware of the moves that are
open to us, and as we make another choice, again, He is aware of the moves that remain available to us.
He knows every possible end to the game at every single move, from the beginning to the end.
Life is like a chess board, with only so many possible moves at the beginning of any life, and each
move in turn eliminates a number of choices. At any given moment, God is aware of the moves that are
open to us, and as we make another choice, again, He is aware of the moves that remain available to us.
He knows every possible end to the game at every single move, from the beginning to the end.
That is a bit of a hyperbolic apples to oranges comparison. I am merely showing that God in fact created time as that was the question. From creation till now it as not been much different. Time has been measured by the dividing of light from darkness. With us calling this division of time, days. Element's we see present both at the onset and on day four when God further explains time and what the division means along with the creation of celestial luminaries.
It is almost as God could see the future and had knowledge of what arguments mankind would have so in his understanding of said events. He is his wisdom made sure to detail what time was and how it was measured. Showing himself as creator and master of it. Which along with anything he creates as a master potter he reserves for himself the right to dictate it's limitations and how it will serve him for his glory and honor. As he reserves solely the right for himself to look at any of his creation and say it is foolish for it to ever utter the words that it has no need of him.
So I am sure you disagree so have the last the last word concerning your objection. However, I am curious if I have been reading your comment's correct am I reading you correct that you state that God's understanding is infinite but his knowledge finite?
It is almost as God could see the future and had knowledge of what arguments mankind would have so in his understanding of said events. He is his wisdom made sure to detail what time was and how it was measured. Showing himself as creator and master of it. Which along with anything he creates as a master potter he reserves for himself the right to dictate it's limitations and how it will serve him for his glory and honor. As he reserves solely the right for himself to look at any of his creation and say it is foolish for it to ever utter the words that it has no need of him.
So I am sure you disagree so have the last the last word concerning your objection. However, I am curious if I have been reading your comment's correct am I reading you correct that you state that God's understanding is infinite but his knowledge finite?
If God does everything necessary for me to be saved but I reject His work that would save me, He dod not fail to save me. For God to fail to save me, he would have to try to irresistibly save me and fail. But He does not try to irresistibly draw us to salvation.
I don't think we can conclude either way from the Bible, since we are told that the Son partook of flesh and was tempted in every way that we are. The fact that Jesus did not sin does not prove He could not, nor that He could.
What we can say is that if the Son had not been able to remain sinless after taking on humanity as the second Adam, then God's design of the first Adam would have been proven to have been flawed, and God could not thereafter condemn any human for sinning without also condemning the Son as well.
But Jesus was able to not sin, and thus proved that God's design of the first Adam did not make sin inevitable, and sheets the responsibility for my sins back to myself, and not to an inescapable design flaw. of God's making.
I don't think we can conclude either way from the Bible, since we are told that the Son partook of flesh and was tempted in every way that we are. The fact that Jesus did not sin does not prove He could not, nor that He could.
What we can say is that if the Son had not been able to remain sinless after taking on humanity as the second Adam, then God's design of the first Adam would have been proven to have been flawed, and God could not thereafter condemn any human for sinning without also condemning the Son as well.
But Jesus was able to not sin, and thus proved that God's design of the first Adam did not make sin inevitable, and sheets the responsibility for my sins back to myself, and not to an inescapable design flaw. of God's making.
1. You are putting God in the same category as men on the basis that: He can only know the future he has himself decided will definitely happen and he is 100% successful in achieving those settled goals according to His omnipotent power; and I can only know the future I have myself decided I will try to make happen, which I am <100% successful in achieviand I said: ng according to my limited power
I see those two statements as non sequitur. That puts every creature and God in one category.
2. You said: Open theism claims 2. That an omnipotent God has to try to bring about His [prophesied] purpose.
I said that is incorrect. Open theism says that God has all power and it is no effort at all for Him to make his unconditionally prophesied purposes happen.
You responded: misrepresentation: i was talking about me, an human, saying "try" -- in any case God tries and does not ever fail -- but that doesn't mean "putting forth effort" doesn't count as "trying"
My answer is: Trying is either putting in effort to achieve something, whether it is achieved or not. One can achieve certain things without trying at all.
Or trying is acting without effort, but perhaps with ingenuity, to produce a result but failing to achieve it.
But trying is not acting to achieve a goal without effort and achieving it. In such a case we say, "I wasn't even trying ."
By none of these definitions does God try to bring about His prophesied purposes.
3. You claimed that Open Theism claims: That God is completely ignorant of the future (when future means "events that will eventually become real".
I replied that He knows those events that he promises unconditionally will happen.
You now say: i said, and open theism openly says, and you yourself have said multiple times in this thread, that God is "writ large" ignorant of the future. of course He knows what He is going to do. but you, an open theist, claim He has no idea what you or i will do, except in the very special case that you or i are fulfilling prophecy -- you have argued strongly that God is ignorant of 99% of the future for 20 pages. so why are you arguing with yourself now?
I have never said "God is "writ large" ignorant of the future."
Open theism says that the future is not settled until free will decisions are made in subsequent presents. Future choices are unresolved possibilities. Since reality is that the future is a network of unresolved possibilities, and God knows all reality, God arguably knows the future as a network of unresolved possibilities, i.e. He knows all the possible choices and all the possibilities that are contingent on those choices.
If this is the open theist view, then it is clearly untrue of open theism to say that they "claim God has no idea what you or i will do, except in the very special case that you or i are fulfilling prophecy."
It is also untrue that Open theists "have argued strongly that God is ignorant of 99% of the future."
If the future only exists in relation to the present as mainly a network of possibilities, and God knows all those possibilities, then according to Open Theism, He knows what can be known of the future very thoroughly.
I see those two statements as non sequitur. That puts every creature and God in one category.
2. You said: Open theism claims 2. That an omnipotent God has to try to bring about His [prophesied] purpose.
I said that is incorrect. Open theism says that God has all power and it is no effort at all for Him to make his unconditionally prophesied purposes happen.
You responded: misrepresentation: i was talking about me, an human, saying "try" -- in any case God tries and does not ever fail -- but that doesn't mean "putting forth effort" doesn't count as "trying"
My answer is: Trying is either putting in effort to achieve something, whether it is achieved or not. One can achieve certain things without trying at all.
Or trying is acting without effort, but perhaps with ingenuity, to produce a result but failing to achieve it.
But trying is not acting to achieve a goal without effort and achieving it. In such a case we say, "I wasn't even trying ."
By none of these definitions does God try to bring about His prophesied purposes.
3. You claimed that Open Theism claims: That God is completely ignorant of the future (when future means "events that will eventually become real".
I replied that He knows those events that he promises unconditionally will happen.
You now say: i said, and open theism openly says, and you yourself have said multiple times in this thread, that God is "writ large" ignorant of the future. of course He knows what He is going to do. but you, an open theist, claim He has no idea what you or i will do, except in the very special case that you or i are fulfilling prophecy -- you have argued strongly that God is ignorant of 99% of the future for 20 pages. so why are you arguing with yourself now?
I have never said "God is "writ large" ignorant of the future."
Open theism says that the future is not settled until free will decisions are made in subsequent presents. Future choices are unresolved possibilities. Since reality is that the future is a network of unresolved possibilities, and God knows all reality, God arguably knows the future as a network of unresolved possibilities, i.e. He knows all the possible choices and all the possibilities that are contingent on those choices.
If this is the open theist view, then it is clearly untrue of open theism to say that they "claim God has no idea what you or i will do, except in the very special case that you or i are fulfilling prophecy."
It is also untrue that Open theists "have argued strongly that God is ignorant of 99% of the future."
If the future only exists in relation to the present as mainly a network of possibilities, and God knows all those possibilities, then according to Open Theism, He knows what can be known of the future very thoroughly.
BenjaminM said:
Around 911 we are guided :
Romans 9:11 and about 10 verses before and after: God created vessels of wrath, destined for destruction - those that will go to hell, and God created vessels of mercy, whom He decided will go to heaven, so that we may know God's righteous and merciful nature. Where God decides who will receive of His mercy.
Vessels of wrath are those who refuse to trust God. Vessels of wrath are the ones to whom He shows mercy through the cross and on whom has compassion when they turn from their unbelief to trusting and following God as He reveals Himself to them. The vessels of wrath are fitted [by themselves] for destruction; and the vessels of mercy are prepared bu God through discipleship for glory.
We are being re-made for honour or dishonour according to how we are responding to God when He speaks to us. BUt I do agree that it is God who decides the basis upon which He will extend mercy.
Around 911 we are guided :
Romans 9:11 and about 10 verses before and after: God created vessels of wrath, destined for destruction - those that will go to hell, and God created vessels of mercy, whom He decided will go to heaven, so that we may know God's righteous and merciful nature. Where God decides who will receive of His mercy.
Vessels of wrath are those who refuse to trust God. Vessels of wrath are the ones to whom He shows mercy through the cross and on whom has compassion when they turn from their unbelief to trusting and following God as He reveals Himself to them. The vessels of wrath are fitted [by themselves] for destruction; and the vessels of mercy are prepared bu God through discipleship for glory.
We are being re-made for honour or dishonour according to how we are responding to God when He speaks to us. BUt I do agree that it is God who decides the basis upon which He will extend mercy.
That God does know potential futures does not conflict with the open theist tenet that the future does not exist as facts that can be known.
Which is what I said -
"No. The central tenet of open theism is that the future is open, i.e. not settled, and therefore does not exist as a facts that can be known. Other tenets are logically and scripurally derived from this central tenet.
Which is what I said -
"No. The central tenet of open theism is that the future is open, i.e. not settled, and therefore does not exist as a facts that can be known. Other tenets are logically and scripurally derived from this central tenet.
This paragraph was mangled at the end. I noticed after editing time expired. I have corrected it
You are putting God in the same category as men on the basis that: He can only know the future he has himself decided will definitely happen and he is 100% successful in achieving those settled goals according to His omnipotent power; and I can only know the future I have myself decided I will try to make happen, which I am <100% successful in achieving according to my limited power .
I see those two statements as non sequitur. That puts every creature and God in one category.
You are putting God in the same category as men on the basis that: He can only know the future he has himself decided will definitely happen and he is 100% successful in achieving those settled goals according to His omnipotent power; and I can only know the future I have myself decided I will try to make happen, which I am <100% successful in achieving according to my limited power .
I see those two statements as non sequitur. That puts every creature and God in one category.
Was Saul of Tarsus a lost sheep of the House of Israel before his conversion?
Was Saul of Tarsus knowing and listening and responding to Jesus' voice before His conversion when He was persecuting Christ?
Was Saul of Tarsus able to hear and believe Jesus before while He was rejecting Jesus?
Was Saul of Tarsus therefore one of Jesus' sheep before putting His faith in our Lord?
Was Saul of Tarsus knowing and listening and responding to Jesus' voice before His conversion when He was persecuting Christ?
Was Saul of Tarsus able to hear and believe Jesus before while He was rejecting Jesus?
Was Saul of Tarsus therefore one of Jesus' sheep before putting His faith in our Lord?