Does God Know From All Eternity Who Will Die Having Rejected Sound Doctrine?

[posthuman]

I, personally, had never heard of "open theism." I still don't understand what it all entails. I am just a bible believer. If the bible says it, then I take it as truth. I try hard not to let man's opinions dictate the word of God.

succinctly, it is an attempt at "solving" double predestination by admitting the omniscience of God but carefully redefining "all-knowing" saying God knows all that can be known, but not all things can be known.

recognizing some of the failures of the Pelagian arguments for human-agency-dominated salvation, specifically that if God knows His sheep, then predestination looks like it outweighs free will, the open theist makes an end-run around the foreknowledge and of God by claiming God cannot possibly know what free will will choose - trying to head off any claim of predetermination so that human free-will can retain primacy.

 

[posthuman]

That's right, if you do this, then you get this. But if you choose that, then that happens to you. Now choose...God knows all possible outcomes.

He also made me, knows my ways and all my hearts desires.

Do y'all think He is pretty good at guessing?

 

[posthuman]

I

I developed an understanding of God and the gospel through studying the Word and comparing my understanding with that of others and choosing the meaning of texts that I believed was mosr coherent. I ddi not know I was supposedly some kind of Open Theist or supposedly some variety of kenoticist, until a few zealous internet inquisitors condemned me as a heretic for believing in open theism and kenosis. But I'm juat following the received Hebrew and Greek texts and listening to what they seem to be saying. Others listen to "greater theological minds" and "longstanding traditions" to find out what the Word is supposed to teach.

i believe Jesus Christ is never not God.
that God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

it has nothing to do with my having read Plato (i barely have) or Calvin (i never have), probably more to do with my having studied math for 30 years, and simply believing the scripture with the highest view of God that i can.

 

[posthuman]

succinctly, it is an attempt at "solving" double predestination by admitting the omniscience of God but carefully redefining "all-knowing" saying God knows all that can be known, but not all things can be known.

recognizing some of the failures of the Pelagian arguments for human-agency-dominated salvation, specifically that if God knows His sheep, then predestination looks like it outweighs free will, the open theist makes an end-run around the foreknowledge and of God by claiming God cannot possibly know what free will will choose - trying to head off any claim of predetermination so that human free-will can retain primacy.

i happen to have randomly sat through a 20 or 30 hour seminary lecture series on it some years ago. before that i'd never heard of it, either.

 

[John146]

He also made me, knows my ways and all my hearts desires.

Do y'all think He is pretty good at guessing?

He certainly knows what I am inclined to do based upon my heart. He tested Abraham to see if Abraham feared God. When Abraham began to sacrifice his son, God stopped him because now he knew that he feared God seeing that Abraham was going to sacrifice his only son.

 

[John146]

i believe Jesus Christ is never not God.
that God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

it has nothing to do with my having read Plato (i barely have) or Calvin (i never have), probably more to do with my having studied math for 30 years, and simply believing the scripture with the highest view of God that i can.

Same brother, all except the math part.

 

[Magenta]

The context is vv. 28-33.
28. And we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, to them who are called according to His purpose .
29. FOR whom He did foreknow He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born of many siblings.
So far, Paul is saying that God's purpose was a family of humans conformed to the image of the Son, and what God foresaw was this family that loves Him and that He called to be His family of Jesus-like children. It does say He foreknew the family. It does not say He foreknew the specific individuals in the family.

30. Moreover, whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom he called, them He also justified; and whom He also justified, them He also glorified.

Should we view this text through a modern individualistic worldview, or a first century communalistic mindset? Leaving Egypt, a community of freed slaves was predestined since the promise to Abraham to dwell in Canaan. A community was issued a call to serve only YHWH together. A community was justified before the nations as claiming to be God's people through themselves and God both keeping to the covenant making them so. A community was glorified (made of repute) among the nations. So too with the new covenant. A community was predestined to Christlikeness until we all together attain the maturity of the fullness of stature of Christ; a community has been called out of the world to be that family. A community has been justified as being God's family by their expression together of the Father's nature as His children. And a community has been glorified and continues to be changed from glory to glory as we behold the face of Christ.

31. What shall we say then?I fGod is for this community, who can be against us? (Not, if God be for ME, who can be against ME?)

32. He that spared not His own son, but delivered Him up for is all, how shall he not with Him freely give us all things (not ME all things)?

Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect ones? It is God that justifies.

I do not see Paul here saying that specific individuals were predestined from before the world began to become children of God. But that since God's promise to Eve a redeemed community has been predestined to come into being.

Were you called?

Romans 8:29-30 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to
the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; And those He
predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified.

 

[posthuman]

Incorrect. He can know immediately before you act what you will do, becasue He sees your neurons firing and your hormones being released and understands what those mean. Hence he knows what we will say immediately before we say it. But the further away in time the action of a freewill being is from the present, the less certain that decision and action are because there is a much more complex net of free will decisions of multiple freewill beings leading up to that future event.
However, if God predicts a future event, that He wants to happen, He is able to ensure it happens by employing His omnipotence to do so.

so God's omniscience is limited by time: time rules God, imprisoning Him in chains with only a millisecond or two of freedom?

in Plato's cave, God cannot free Himself from the wall of time, the bounds of time.

sounds like we should be worshipping time instead of God.
i mean, who is greater?

all hail lord time, mightier than God!
yes?
no?

 

[posthuman]

He can know immediately before you act what you will do, becasue He sees your neurons firing and your hormones being released and understands what those mean. Hence he knows what we will say immediately before we say it. But the further away in time the action of a freewill being is from the present, the less certain that decision and action are because there is a much more complex net of free will decisions of multiple freewill beings leading up to that future event.

You describe God as no different than any human with an MRI machine and a little bit of education in psychology and neurology.

If this is the case how fancy does my technology and my psychoanalysis need to get before i know more than God knows?

will God get better at guessing as i get better, or is He stuck in a rut? do i have a shot? because you're describing nothing more than what's reachable for mankind. as though, we can be like the most high?

 

[Cameron143]

You describe God as no different than any human with an MRI machine and a little bit of education in psychology and neurology.

If this is the case how fancy does my technology and my psychoanalysis need to get before i know more than God knows?

will God get better at guessing as i get better, or is He stuck in a rut?

Perhaps God isn't keeping up with the latest breakthroughs in medical knowledge and technology because there is no pain or death in heaven.

 

[posthuman]

it's at the extremes of ideas that they are tested. when they are extrapolated to absurdity that they can be measured, verified or shown to be inadequate.

of course i don't seriously suggest worshipping time; we are just talking and post is engaging in analysis

 

[Mem]

I think that God puts forth an offer to someone that He knows will reject it at least expresses a sentiment that He regards that one as 'worth the effort.'

 

[PaulThomson]

I am not sure I am following what you are saying here.

Psalms 147:5.....his understanding is infinite.
his understanding/tabuwn is infinite/micpar.

mishpat means judgement. So it reads like your saying Psalms 147:5 says, his understanding is judgement? So I am not sure I am following.

There is not a word for word correspodence between languages. A word in Hebrew has a semantic range, a spectrum of meanings, and English language translators choose a word from English that matches the meaning from the Hebrew spectrum that they believe best conveys the Hebrew thought into English. Sometimes more than one Hebrew meaning makes sense, but the translator chooses one, possible the wrong one.. The result is a sentence that makes sense in English but may miss the meaning intended by the Hebrew. writer.

I too have this same line of thought when considering this debate. I've asked them "Are you really arguing Gods ignorance?", because to me that seems to be the argument. Why would you even want to follow a God who just "didn't know"?

Isaiah tells us in 46:8-13

8 “Remember this and stand firm,
recall it to mind, you transgressors,
9 remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
10 declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,’
11 calling a bird of prey from the east,
the man of my counsel from a far country.
I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;
I have purposed, and I will do it.

12 “Listen to me, you stubborn of heart,
you who are far from righteousness:
13 I bring near my righteousness; it is not far off,
and my salvation will not delay;
I will put salvation in Zion,
for Israel my glory.”

He is saying He "declares" the END from the beginning. Not He waits to see it. He tells us in plain language over and over again that it's all going down EXACTLY the way He "declared" it would, and for me to buy for one second that God has "blind spots" or "doesn't know" anything is incompatible with the God who gave me new life. I honestly can only think of one reason anyone would even want this to be the case. They have to keep their "choice/freewill" right above God's sovereignty. I am not accusing anyone of being/thinking/believing this, I just mean that from the perspective of me giving it thought myself. I honestly doubt anyone thinks of it like this who makes this case to be clear. I always try to add that I can follow the logic behind this line of reason, but I just no longer agree with it. The idea that we EVER have a "free will" isn't true in my mind anymore. Our will is ALWAYS enslaved to our natures. We are a slave to sin, or a slave to Him.
I of course believe we have a will and that we make choices, I am not trying to pretend that isn't made VERY clear in His word that we are to choose righteously, and now strive to obey God in every way. We are told that as well, but you have to ignore a ton of scripture that very specifically and plainly tells us we are "called", "Chosen", "Predestin", "elected", "drawn to Him", "gifted repentance", and a bunch more along those lines, and it tells us these things in very precise and plain language. How does God's sovereign will work with every persons will to bring about His plan? I don't know, but I do know trying to pretend I have some kind of power over even God with my choice is a delusion, and arguing God's ignorance honestly makes NO sense to me at all either.

:You said, "He is saying He "declares" the END from the beginning. Not He waits to see it." Do you recognise that God does not say
I am God, and there is none like me,
10 observing the beginning to the end all at once,
and from ancient times everything not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,
by pre-determining everything between the beginning of the world and the purposed end.

But God says,
I am God, and there is none like me,
10 declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,’

God declaring "an end/a goal/a purpose" at some time in history, where the purpose was conceived at some earlier time in history from the goal being achieved, does not prove that God has eternal exhaustive foreknowledge. It merely says that God sometimes conceives of and is determined to bring about a goal and he will not fail to achieve those goals. Drawing any broader meaning from this text one needs to add ideas from outside the text and outside of the Bible itself..

 

[PaulThomson]

It's a figure of speech. God is using human language to express the depth and scope of His forgiveness. What does it mean to be eternal?

Agreed. He does not literally have no memory of something that truly happened in the past, but he no longer deals with it as if I am still blqmeworthy for it, since our Lord bore it as His own sin during His crucifixion. But there is something God is truly doing and experiencing which equates in some definable way to forgetting our sins.

However, to preserve the platonist theory of the causeless causes impassibility by claiming that "God is grieved" and "God regretted" are metaphors for something that is not a feeling, without being able to explain what God was actually doing and experiencing when grieving and regretting, does not adequately explain God's use of the words. Is He merely saying, "If I did that to you, you would be grieved. However, I don't have any feelings, but I will speak as though I do, so you will understand that I cannot have have any contact with sin." . And "If that was the way you were treated, you would regret it having helped Israel, However, I don't have any feelings of regret at people's betrayal of Me, but I will talk as though I do, so you will feel bad about betraying Me and that might dissuade you from doing sin?"

Is God saying," If you forgave someone, you would have no recollection of the offense, so I will talk as though I forgive and forget, even though I don't change from being offended with you to being reconciled to you." Or does he actually experience offense and reconciliation with the putting away of an recriminations toward those who turn to Him?

 

[PaulThomson]

It's a figure of speech. God is using human language to express the depth and scope of His forgiveness. What does it mean to be eternal?

Agreed. He does not literally have no memory of something that truly happened in the past, but he no longer deals with it as if I am still blqmeworthy for it, since our Lord bore it as His own sin during His crucifixion. But there is something God is truly doing and experiencing which equates in some definable way to forgetting our sins.

However, to preserve the platonist theory of the causeless causes impassibility by claiming that "God is grieved" and "God regretted" are metaphors for something that is not a feeling, without being able to explain what God was actually doing and experiencing when grieving and regretting, does not adequately explain God's use of the words. Is He merely saying, "If I did that to you, you would be grieved. However, I don't have any feelings, but I will speak as though I do, so you will understand that I cannot have have any contact with sin." . And "If that was the way you were treated, you would regret it having helped Israel, However, I don't have any feelings of regret at people's betrayal of Me, but I will talk as though I do, so you will feel bad about betraying Me and that might dissuade you from doing sin?"

Is God saying," If you forgave someone, you would have no recollection of the offense, so I will talk as though I forgive and forget, even though I don't change from being offended with you to being reconciled to you." Or does he actually experience offense and reconciliation with the putting away of an recriminations toward those who turn to Him?

 

[PaulThomson]

You describe God as no different than any human with an MRI machine and a little bit of education in psychology and neurology.

If this is the case how fancy does my technology and my psychoanalysis need to get before i know more than God knows?

will God get better at guessing as i get better, or is He stuck in a rut? do i have a shot? because you're describing nothing more than what's reachable for mankind. as though, we can be like the most high?

Could you and Cameron143 please stop with your strawman whack-a-mole routine, mischaracterising what people post in an attempt merely to parody the argument being made and poison the well. That is not good faith debate.

The straw man was the lie that Open theists must deny that scripture that says God knows what we will say before we speak. I pointed out that "before" in that text does not have to mean "from everlasting" ( "eternity past" being an oxymoron). It only needs to mean immediately before, and if so would be conveying God's present infinite knowledge of the present state of all things, not His present infinite knowledge of everything that you will say into endless time. Rather than explain why this could not be the meaning of the text, you again merely misrepresented open theism and parodied the answer rather than rebutting it. Open theists do not "speak as though God is no better than any human with an MRI machine and a little bit of education in psychology and neurology." Nor did I.

God can anticipate the words about to be spoken by every creature in the universe at one time. No human with an MRI machine and a little bit of education in psychology and neurology" can come close to that. How about dealing with the arguments posted, rather than this wasting your life playing games to avoid understanding hard to swallow facts.

Does God need to know from everlasting all past, present and future events in order for Him to know what you will say before you say it. Clearly not, because you just admitted that even a human can do that without having such exhaustive foreknowledge.

Does the omnipotent God need to know from everlasting all past, present and future events in order for Him to make a decree today and cause it to happen in one years time. Clearly not. Using His omnipotence He can cause that goal to eventuate.

So, the text clearly does not prove exhaustive foreknowledge, and is perfectly compatible with open theism. Admit that and maybe try some other verses. But your methodology of resiling from all admissions that might weaken your case, misrepresenting the unrebutted claim to pretend the text was not answered adequately and then erecting a straw man parody to knock down or jumping to a new verse is not serving you well if you are truly interested in learning truth.

 

[PaulThomson]

I think that God puts forth an offer to someone that He knows will reject it at least expresses a sentiment that He regards that one as 'worth the effort.'

I don't know if anything is an "effort" to the omnipotent God.

 

[Mem]

I don't know if anything is an "effort" to the omnipotent God.

I'm limited to the inadequacy of my vocabulary to communicate my thoughts that was intended more an antecedent to God's 'sentiment.'

 

[PaulThomson]

it's at the extremes of ideas that they are tested. when they are extrapolated to absurdity that they can be measured, verified or shown to be inadequate.

of course i don't seriously suggest worshipping time; we are just talking and post is engaging in analysis

God is everlasting. Time is an attribute of God. We do not worship God's attributes, we worship Him for His attributes. We worship Him because He is from everlasting to everlasting.

Its at the extreme edges that we are all tested. If someone can extrapolate our positions to absurdity that can be measured, verified and shown inadequate.

Let's apply this to your position.
Which of these statements do you reject?

1.God's holiness is an indispensible attribute according to scripture.
2.God's holiness means there has never been any moral evil in Him.
3.There has never been a time when God was not free of all moral evil.
4.God never changes.
5.God never learns anything.
6.Everything that is and happens has always been known by God. He never started to know anything.
7.All moral evil in the world was always in God's eternal mind, as was the performing of it, before creation began.

How do you reconcile 7 with 1-6 ?

 

[Cameron143]

Agreed. He does not literally have no memory of something that truly happened in the past, but he no longer deals with it as if I am still blqmeworthy for it, since our Lord bore it as His own sin during His crucifixion. But there is something God is truly doing and experiencing which equates in some definable way to forgetting our sins.

However, to preserve the platonist theory of the causeless causes impassibility by claiming that "God is grieved" and "God regretted" are metaphors for something that is not a feeling, without being able to explain what God was actually doing and experiencing when grieving and regretting, does not adequately explain God's use of the words. Is He merely saying, "If I did that to you, you would be grieved. However, I don't have any feelings, but I will speak as though I do, so you will understand that I cannot have have any contact with sin." . And "If that was the way you were treated, you would regret it having helped Israel, However, I don't have any feelings of regret at people's betrayal of Me, but I will talk as though I do, so you will feel bad about betraying Me and that might dissuade you from doing sin?"

Is God saying," If you forgave someone, you would have no recollection of the offense, so I will talk as though I forgive and forget, even though I don't change from being offended with you to being reconciled to you." Or does he actually experience offense and reconciliation with the putting away of an recriminations toward those who turn to Him?

If you are asking does God display emotion? He gets angry. He is jealous. To name but a couple. But He has, in His word, made use of language to aid our understanding of Him.