God may know all the possible options as yet available to you for lunch on Oct. 20 2027, but according to open theism He will not know for certain until you eat or do not eat lunch on Oct. 20 2027, which of those options will actually eventuate. One could argue that God knows a lot more, by volume, with various degrees of certainty about what you will then eat for lunch than a Calvinist would credit Him with knowing in the absolutely predetermined universe the standard Calvinist believes in..
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.
Which "clear passages" are you referring to? This is not a rhetorical question. I sincerely want to know what you consider to be some of the "clear texts" that drive your hermeneutic.
Arguably, the clearer passages are those that predominate by number and speak of God changing His mind, testing to know, looking to know, and gaining knowledge. Would a better hermeneutic be to understand what one reads as the minority of unclear texts according to what one reads as the clearer majority texts ; or would it be to understand what one reads as the majority of unclear texts according to what one reads as the minority of clear texts?
Arguably, the clearer passages are those that predominate by number and speak of God changing His mind, testing to know, looking to know, and gaining knowledge. Would a better hermeneutic be to understand what one reads as the minority of unclear texts according to what one reads as the clearer majority texts ; or would it be to understand what one reads as the majority of unclear texts according to what one reads as the minority of clear texts?
Jesus said He will come like a thief on the night. Is that not they way to speak of Christ?
When Jesus as the stronger than strong enters the strong's house and bind the strong and plunders his goods, is that not the way to speak of Christ?
We are ALL like sheep who have gone astray. So, the children of the devil are sheep that the devil has under his power, and the children of God are sheep that th Son has under His power. How did Jesus acquire those sheep. Did satan just hand them over willingly, or did Jesus take them off the devil against the devil's will. If the second, sheep rustler is not an inappropriate or inaccurate descriptor.
When Jesus as the stronger than strong enters the strong's house and bind the strong and plunders his goods, is that not the way to speak of Christ?
We are ALL like sheep who have gone astray. So, the children of the devil are sheep that the devil has under his power, and the children of God are sheep that th Son has under His power. How did Jesus acquire those sheep. Did satan just hand them over willingly, or did Jesus take them off the devil against the devil's will. If the second, sheep rustler is not an inappropriate or inaccurate descriptor.
No, I am not. I am saying God knows a lot about what could happen during your lunch time on Oct. 20 2025. That future is presently uncertain, unsettled and open, therefore God knows it as it really is, as uncertain, unsettled and open. But he knows the multiple options/possibilities for that time with their present probabilities . That is not being ignorant IMHO.
Examples of circular reasoning are -
Circular argument fallacy examples
I said -
"But it did not happen, so how could it be a fact that they were unfalsifiably going to do it?
When David asked, "Will they hand me over to Saul [and his numerically overwhelming military force]?" was he asking for a prediction of the actual future or of the possible most likely future IF he chose to stay in Keilah? Doesn't his question imply David did not understand the future to be fixed? Because if he had, he would have resigned himself to the facts that Saul was coming down and the city of Keilah were about to hand him over to Saul. and would have stayed in Keilah.
God was not going to sovereignly intervene and deliver David from Saul by a miracle if David did not take the simple action of leaving Keilah. So, based on His knowledge of Saul's heart and the hearts of the residents of Keilah, the overwhelming odds were that Saul would come down and Keilah would hand David over, if he was still in the city. The Hebrew tense translated "will come down" and "will hand you over" is imperfect aspect, identifying an incompleted action, and action in process at the time being referred to. If the actions were future facts, the author could use the perfect (completed) aspect forms to refer to the future events. "The text could have said, "Saul has come down (will certainly) tomorrow and Keilah has handed you over (will certainly hand you over) after that..
How is that circular?
Circular argument fallacy examples
- Marcelo is good at communicating because he's great at talking to people.
- Dogs are called “man's best friend” because they're the friendliest animals.
- You need to do your homework because homework is required for this class.
I said -
"But it did not happen, so how could it be a fact that they were unfalsifiably going to do it?
When David asked, "Will they hand me over to Saul [and his numerically overwhelming military force]?" was he asking for a prediction of the actual future or of the possible most likely future IF he chose to stay in Keilah? Doesn't his question imply David did not understand the future to be fixed? Because if he had, he would have resigned himself to the facts that Saul was coming down and the city of Keilah were about to hand him over to Saul. and would have stayed in Keilah.
God was not going to sovereignly intervene and deliver David from Saul by a miracle if David did not take the simple action of leaving Keilah. So, based on His knowledge of Saul's heart and the hearts of the residents of Keilah, the overwhelming odds were that Saul would come down and Keilah would hand David over, if he was still in the city. The Hebrew tense translated "will come down" and "will hand you over" is imperfect aspect, identifying an incompleted action, and action in process at the time being referred to. If the actions were future facts, the author could use the perfect (completed) aspect forms to refer to the future events. "The text could have said, "Saul has come down (will certainly) tomorrow and Keilah has handed you over (will certainly hand you over) after that..
How is that circular?
You are saying God doesn't know what i will have for lunch.
by definition you are saying God is ignorant of what i will have for lunch.
just because you believe it is impossible for God to be anything other than ignorant does not mean you are not claiming He is ignorant.
by definition you are saying God is ignorant of what i will have for lunch.
just because you believe it is impossible for God to be anything other than ignorant does not mean you are not claiming He is ignorant.
ignorant
adjective
lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing.
"lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated."
"he was told constantly that he was ignorant and stupid".
I only read one person use that word.
Now God said
"I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know.” Hmm I've said it before Adam and Eve "where are you". How can GOD ask that? "who told you" Again He didn't know? "did you eat of the tree I told you not to?" Again God has to ask? Sin...
"he was told constantly that he was ignorant and stupid".
I only read one person use that word.
Now God said
"I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know.” Hmm I've said it before Adam and Eve "where are you". How can GOD ask that? "who told you" Again He didn't know? "did you eat of the tree I told you not to?" Again God has to ask? Sin...
-
1
- Show all
the understanding of these things differs according to whether you have an high or a low view of God. it is either amazing, and deeply mysterious, or it is ordinary and meaningless - depending on if one believes God to be godlike or to be mundane.
i am not surprised that the scripture contains mysteries and amazing sayings difficult to comprehend: it is written by an omniscient, omnipotent God who created both time and language.
i am not surprised that the scripture contains mysteries and amazing sayings difficult to comprehend: it is written by an omniscient, omnipotent God who created both time and language.
when Jesus asked Peter "do you love Me?"
is He asking for Peter's sake or for His own?
i notice that He repeats the question until Peter replies "LORD You know all things"
i will take the highest view of God i can.
others take the lowest view they think they can justify.
i would rather err on the side of glory than blasphemy.
idk just seems wise.
is He asking for Peter's sake or for His own?
i notice that He repeats the question until Peter replies "LORD You know all things"
i will take the highest view of God i can.
others take the lowest view they think they can justify.
i would rather err on the side of glory than blasphemy.
idk just seems wise.
-
1
- Show all
the exact definition of "ignorance" is lacking knowledge.
this is exactly your view of God.
your constant reply has been that it is impossible for God to be anything but ignorant.
that doesn't mean you don't believe Him to be ignorant.
it's just you trying to make open theism's low view of God appear more palatable.
this is exactly your view of God.
your constant reply has been that it is impossible for God to be anything but ignorant.
that doesn't mean you don't believe Him to be ignorant.
it's just you trying to make open theism's low view of God appear more palatable.
-
1
- Show all
Jesus used a simile. I used a metaphor. They are both figures of speech. Was Jesus making a demeaning remark about Himself.?
Your only defense of your position seems to be to claim that you have the higher view of God. But your definition of "higher view" presupposes that a God being certain of everything and achieving His goals by decreeing everything and making everything happen by intelligently applying His omnipotence makes that God greater than a God who is uncertain of many things because He has given many of His creatures genuine freedom to will as they choose and yet still achieves His goals by intelligent application of His omnipotence . I would presuppose that the second God is greater and wiser.
Your only defense of your position seems to be to claim that you have the higher view of God. But your definition of "higher view" presupposes that a God being certain of everything and achieving His goals by decreeing everything and making everything happen by intelligently applying His omnipotence makes that God greater than a God who is uncertain of many things because He has given many of His creatures genuine freedom to will as they choose and yet still achieves His goals by intelligent application of His omnipotence . I would presuppose that the second God is greater and wiser.
Jesus used a simile. I used a metaphor. They are both figures of speech. Was Jesus making a demeaning remark about Himself.?
Your only defense of your position seems to be to claim that you have the higher view of God. But your definition of "higher view" presupposes that a God being certain of everything and achieving His goals by decreeing everything and making everything happen by intelligently applying His omnipotence makes that God greater than a God who is uncertain of many things because He has given many of His creatures genuine freedom to will as they choose and yet still achieves His goals by intelligent application of His omnipotence . I would presuppose that the second God is greater and wiser and has more scriptural support..
Your only defense of your position seems to be to claim that you have the higher view of God. But your definition of "higher view" presupposes that a God being certain of everything and achieving His goals by decreeing everything and making everything happen by intelligently applying His omnipotence makes that God greater than a God who is uncertain of many things because He has given many of His creatures genuine freedom to will as they choose and yet still achieves His goals by intelligent application of His omnipotence . I would presuppose that the second God is greater and wiser and has more scriptural support..
God is truth and knows reality as it really is. The future is generally uncertain. Therefore God knows it as it really is, as generally uncertain.
Although God can decide to make some things certain to occur; and can make those things certainly occur by exercising His omnipotence to corral men's options towards the few things He has decided to promise will occur. These fulfilments of prophesies and promises demonstrate God's ability to keep His promises and persuades us to trust Him when He does declare things. They lead us to be persuaded that God is, and is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
I came up with this from reading the Bible for what it actually says, rather than to find in it the theology my peers insisted I should find in it. I choose to be a free thinker, not a blind follower.
For instance, something God showed me this morning : "I know the plans I have for you, plans for good and not for evil; to give you hope and a future." If this is God's plan for us, why do so many end up in evil, hopelessness and aimlessness? Because we use our free will to choose options that lead us away from God's plans, instead of making choices that are most likely to lead us to God's good plan for us.
Jesus always chose the options God indicated by the Holy Spirit would lead Him most directly to the fulfilment of God's plan for Him and the promised reward. We don't listen as well as the Lord did and end up taking a less direct path, and many of us never get back on track before our death.
Although God can decide to make some things certain to occur; and can make those things certainly occur by exercising His omnipotence to corral men's options towards the few things He has decided to promise will occur. These fulfilments of prophesies and promises demonstrate God's ability to keep His promises and persuades us to trust Him when He does declare things. They lead us to be persuaded that God is, and is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
I came up with this from reading the Bible for what it actually says, rather than to find in it the theology my peers insisted I should find in it. I choose to be a free thinker, not a blind follower.
For instance, something God showed me this morning : "I know the plans I have for you, plans for good and not for evil; to give you hope and a future." If this is God's plan for us, why do so many end up in evil, hopelessness and aimlessness? Because we use our free will to choose options that lead us away from God's plans, instead of making choices that are most likely to lead us to God's good plan for us.
Jesus always chose the options God indicated by the Holy Spirit would lead Him most directly to the fulfilment of God's plan for Him and the promised reward. We don't listen as well as the Lord did and end up taking a less direct path, and many of us never get back on track before our death.
