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

[PaulThomson]

Our finite minds cannot comprehend the Infinite without the Holy Spirit. A simple question that cannot be answered scientifically is infinity into the past. It doesn't make sense, and it defies logic and rational thought. Let's say the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe and evolution in general. Well, what caused that? And, whatever caused the Big Bang, what caused that, and on and on it goes into infinity past. God is eternal--that's the simple yet profound answer the Bible provides.

You are correct, I believe. Any explanation for the state of things before the beginning of the present creation is theoretical and will have flaws when viewed from a position after the beginning. We should avoid dogmatism on theoreticals and honestly represent andbe willing to acknowledge the problems with our particular theories IF SO-AND-SO's PRESUPPOSITIONS WERE CORRECT. But we do not have to agree with any particular philosopher's or theologian's presuppositions.

 

[PaulThomson]

the Bible is not about mankind, but about Christ. and the Bible is not simple.

Christ has no beginning - He is God.

so Genesis 1:1 by saying "beginning" is not speaking of the beginning of Christ - and it is not speaking of the beginning of man, either, who was not created until the 6th Yom.

by saying "beginning" He indicates something that was created and did not pre-exist. and He does not say 'the beginning of the heavens and the earth' but in the beginning, they were created.
so the beginning is before the heavens and the earth.
What then is created before the heavens and the earth?

Genesis says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This was not done before God created light. The 6 yomiym of creation that follows are clearly what the beginning referred to in 1:1 is, or at least those days up to the formation of the earth.

 

[posthuman]

what does scripture say, how does scripture describe this?
scripture describes Him knowing His sheep and searching them out, and knowing who are not His sheep. scripture describes His sheep knowing His voice, hearing it and responding - and those who are not His sheep being unable to hear, specifically because they are not His sheep. scripture describes Him finding His lost sheep, laying them. on His shoulder and carrying them home, rejoicing.
scripture does not describe wandering ownerless goats taking it upon themselves to turn themselves into sheep and choose their own Shepherd.

That is simply a false accusation against and a false representation of open theism.You need to listen better. In open theism God can predict things 4000 years ahead, making them happen by applying His omnipotence, omnipresence and exhaustive infinite/uncountable knowledge of the beginningless past and the present. So it is absolutely false to claim, as you do here that:
1. open theism puts God in the same category as me
2. That an omnipotent God has to try to bring about His [prophesied] purpose
3. That God is completely ignorant of the future (when future means "events that will eventally become real". He knows those events that he promises unconditionally will happen.

I would argue that the open theist's understanding of God fits the scripture, observable reality and logic much better than the set of dogmatic assertions about God, held together by appeals to mystery, and formulated by men centuries after the NT was written by applying Plato's metaphysics to the Hebrew scriptures. Let's have a reasoned discussion which honestly repesents the claims of the other sides and does not resort to logically valid rhetorical devices.

open theism categorically says that only what God causes to happen, He is aware of, in the future.
you have stated more than once God is unaware of everyday, unprophesied events until they happen and He observes them.

own it bro.
open theism's central tenet is that it is impossible for God to know what a free will being will think, say or do.

 

[posthuman]

Genesis says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This was not done before God created light. The 6 yomiym of creation that follows are clearly what the beginning referred to in 1:1 is, or at least those days up to the formation of the earth.

The Bible is about Christ, not man.

 

[posthuman]

That sounds very spirtual and Christocentric, but its theme includes a lot more than Christ. Jesus did not say "You search the scriptures ... but they speak only of me."
Also, I was referring to the theme of the book of Genesis, the book of beginnings.

The WHOLE Bible, every page, is about Christ. it is not given to us to learn about mankind, but about Him.

It isn't just commanded "search the scriptures because they testify of Me" but written that the Spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Christ. nothing recorded in the law or the prophets is recorded for us to gain information about mankind - but for us to be taught of Christ.

i am not saying this in order to sound spiritual, but because it's the truth, and when you say the theme of any book of the Bible is 'mankind' it is a lie.

No one who does not understand that all scripture is testimony of Christ understands the scripture, IMO.

 

[posthuman]

its theme includes a lot more than Christ

Show me any example of scripture you wish that you claim is all about mankind and has nothing to do with Christ.

 

[PaulThomson]

That is simply a false accusation against and a false representation of open theism.You need to listen better. In open theism God can predict things 4000 years ahead, making them happen by applying His omnipotence, omnipresence and exhaustive infinite/uncountable knowledge of the beginningless past and the present. So it is absolutely false to claim, as you do here that:
1. open theism puts God in the same category as me
2. That an omnipotent God has to try to bring about His [prophesied] purpose
3. That God is completely ignorant of the future (when future means "events that will eventally become real". He knows those events that he promises unconditionally will happen.

I would argue that the open theist's understanding of God fits the scripture, observable reality and logic much better than the set of dogmatic assertions about God, held together by appeals to mystery, and formulated by men centuries after the NT was written by applying Plato's metaphysics to the Hebrew scriptures. Let's have a reasoned discussion which honestly repesents the claims of the other sides and does not resort to logically valid rhetorical devices.

That last sentence should be "Let's have a reasoned discussion which honestly repesents the claims of the other sides and does not resort to logically invalid rhetorical devices.

 

[posthuman]

In Post 159 you admitted to knowing that "open theism flatly states that God has no knowledge of what you will do next unless you happen to be fulfilling a specific prophecy He is bringing about."

So you know I said God can fulfil prophecies of distant events , as I will show below: by engaging His omnipotence to limit human actions tothose that will bring His prediction to pass.

And you equally know that has nothing to do with open theism's central dogma: that God is ignorant of the free will choices of humans.

i do not have the leisure time you apoear to have, to write 25 paragraphs a day in this thread. i have to concentrate on the points i perceive to be at the heart of the discussion, instead of wasting words on diversion.

 

[PaulThomson]

Show me any example of scripture you wish that you claim is all about mankind and has nothing to do with Christ.

I never said made such a claim: that there is such a verse.
Show me a verse about man that is only about the theme of Christ and is not also about the theme of man..

 

[posthuman]

@PaulThomson

i regret that, i do. in the not so distant past i could waste many words in threads like this. sorry.

i will list for you tomorrow all the verses in John you asked for, that you weirdly are ignorant of. and try to get to whatever else seems worthwhile of responding to.

but being selective of what i address is not dishonest; it's economic. i would appreciate if you refrain from further slander of my character and stick to theology.

 

[Magenta]

I do not agree that there is an eternal i.e. timeless God.

You say a lot of words that end up contradicting each other, but I edited to just this statement above of yours
because I am wondering if you could clarify what you mean by saying you do not agree that God is eternal.

 

[posthuman]

I never said made such a claim: that there is such a verse.
Show me a verse about man that is only about the theme of Christ and is not also about the theme of man..

yes you did.
you said the theme is mankind. more than once.

or do you retract now that previous assertion?

or you admit your assertion the theme of the book is mankind, has no basis in scripture?

 

[posthuman]

Show me a verse about man that is only about the theme of Christ and is not also about the theme of man..

this is ridiculous.

The Bible is about Christ, not about man.

You're asking for a number that's both prime and composite - nonsense.

 

[PaulThomson]

And you equally know that has nothing to do with open theism's central dogma: that God is ignorant of the free will choices of humans.

i do not have the leisure time you apoear to have, to write 25 paragraphs a day in this thread. i have to concentrate on the points i perceive to be at the heart of the discussion, instead of wasting words on diversion.

It is not open theism's central dogma: that God is ignorant of the free will choices of humans. That may be a belief of some open theists, but not of all. I am an open theist and do not believe God is ignorant of the free will choices of humans. But maybe you meant something else and worded your statement inaccurately. God knows all past and present free will choices of all beings.

I see scripture from an perspective open theistic theology. So, what I am saying I believe ,is one version of open theism.
God knows the unconditional prophesied actions of humans. God does not make future events happen by taking away free will choices, i.e. the ability to choose what to want/will/ greek thelein. He can direct human actions by limiting the range of practicable actions a human thinks he has, not by commandeering the will/desires themselves and putting a foreign desire in the human's heart to make them want to do what He wills. People can be corralled into doing God's predicted action reluctantly, resentfully, unwillingly. e.g. We can give reluctantly but God loves a cheerful giver., 2 Cor. 9:7; and Herod crucified Jesus reluctantly, against his will/desire, because of his fear of a riot. Mt. 27:15-26, Mr 15:9-15, Luke 23:1--5,14-25, John 18:28-40, 19:1-16.

 

[PaulThomson]

yes you did.
you said the theme is mankind. more than once.

or do you retract now that previous assertion?

or you admit your assertion the theme of the book is mankind, has no basis in scripture?

No. I said the theme of Genesis is man and God's dealings with man.

 

[PaulThomson]

The WHOLE Bible, every page, is about Christ. it is not given to us to learn about mankind, but about Him.

It isn't just commanded "search the scriptures because they testify of Me" but written that the Spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Christ. nothing recorded in the law or the prophets is recorded for us to gain information about mankind - but for us to be taught of Christ.

i am not saying this in order to sound spiritual, but because it's the truth, and when you say the theme of any book of the Bible is 'mankind' it is a lie.

No one who does not understand that all scripture is testimony of Christ understands the scripture, IMO.

James says that the word is a mirror that shows us our true nature. When I look in a mirror I see a regenerate man. Paul's letters contain screeds of instructions for how to be truly human in Christ. But you seem to be saying no verses are about the theme of man and God's dealings with man, but that they are all only about Christ.

 

[PaulThomson]

open theism categorically says that only what God causes to happen, He is aware of, in the future.
you have stated more than once God is unaware of everyday, unprophesied events until they happen and He observes them.

own it bro.
open theism's central tenet is that it is impossible for God to know what a free will being will think, say or do.

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.

 

[PaulThomson]

You say a lot of words that end up contradicting each other, but I edited to just this statement above of yours
because I am wondering if you could clarify what you mean by saying you do not agree that God is eternal.

Claiming someone is contradicting themself is without force unless you show the contradiction. You could be imagining something that is not really there.

I have gone into this in other posts. Eternal has historically meant what its latin components mean., i.e. outside of time or without temporality, so cannot experience anything sequentially with a sense of "this was before that and that will be after this". There is nothing in the original God-breathed Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek scriptures that describes God as eternal. Where the word eternal appears in English translations the original languages use words that have temporal not a time-less sense. I believe God is "from everlasting to everlasting", "without beginning and without end", and is he "who was and is and is to come" as the Hebrew scriptures say. I do not think God is the uncaused cause as postulated by Greek philosophers. "The Greeks through their wisdom did not arrive at wisdom".

 

[PaulThomson]

Our finite minds cannot comprehend the Infinite without the Holy Spirit. A simple question that cannot be answered scientifically is infinity into the past. It doesn't make sense, and it defies logic and rational thought. Let's say the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe and evolution in general. Well, what caused that? And, whatever caused the Big Bang, what caused that, and on and on it goes into infinity past. God is eternal--that's the simple yet profound answer the Bible provides.

You say, "Let's say the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe and evolution in general. Well, what caused that? And, whatever caused the Big Bang, what caused that, and on and on it goes into infinity past. "

I would answer, God, who is from everlasting to everlasting caused that.

You say, "God is eternal--that's the simple yet profound answer the Bible provides".

I would answer that "how God can be personal, living, loving, relational and good without his nature being temporal?" is at least as mysterious and problematic a question as " How can God be temporal and be without a beginning?" And postulating eternality to God does not really explain "From everlasting to everlasting I am God."
You are still stuck with having to explain time existing in the past and having no beginning. The allegedly "eternal" God has been timelessly existing imminently within beginningless everlasting time. He must either have created beginningless time with a beginningless everlasting past which was outside himself, or this beginningless time was as much His nature as holiness and omnipotence.

"What is the exact meaning of temporal?
a. : of or relating to time as distinguished from space. b. : of or relating to the sequence of time or to a particular time : chronological. temporally adverb."

 

[notmyown]

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.

if that were true, how could i expect God to keep this promise?

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. (Rom 8:28)