Predestination and Election

[stranger]

unred typo

I know that God can and does at certain times and under certain circumstances make predictions that are years beyond the time of their announcements by God‘s prophets.

You also consistently say that the future cannot be known because it doesn't exist and therefore there is nothing to know. If this is the reason why God cannot know the future - because there is no future and therefore nothing to know you contradict yourself. Which is it? Can God know the future or not?

Aside: Pike's article is an argument against free will.

quote from the website:
The Bible contains God's revelation of future free actions as a prophecy as well. Consider Isaiah 44:28-45:1 where God predicts the work of the Persian ruler, Cyrus. This prophecy (arguably 200 years prior to the event; even on a late date this prophecy is placed years prior to the events it describes) includes the fall of Assyria, the rise and fall of Babylon, the rise of Medo-Persia, the fall of Israel, the fall of Judah, the birth and naming of Cyrus, details of the life of this particular king, his selection as king, his willingness to consider helping the Israelites, his decision to assist in rebuilding Jerusalem, and various other contingencies. In Mark 14:27-30 (and other parallel Gospel passages), Jesus predicts specific details as to the events of Peter's denial. If humans possess indeterminate free will (as open theists suggest), the details of these events could not be predicted confidently even by a supremely wise being.

The fall of Assyria and the rise and fall of Babylon, etc. is well within God’s realm of present knowledge, his plans for the punishment of nations involved, and his sovereignty that has nothing to do with the total sovereign reign over the will of individuals. Our scope of free will doesn’t include the ruling of others, but only being master of our own wills in regard to our own eternal destiny. If God moves a king into power or instigates and facilitates the defeat of another king or country, that is not cause for the subjects or the king to make decisions that will condemn an individual to hell, other than by the individual‘s own choices.

Where is the trust that God can do no evil? Where is the trust that God is love? Where is the trust that God is just?

God can easily predict that he will make Cyrus king, even though there is yet to be a Cyrus born. He only has to pick a likely unborn child, cause his father to name him Cyrus, and protect and lead him into the position of king at the time he chooses. God is in total control of the fates of nations and he causes the rise and fall of kingdoms as part of his sovereign acts of judgment and reward. It is what he does. Details of his life are easily woven into his life as God can cause people to do things by suggestion as easily as a hypnotist can do. None of these things change the fact that God is the one who wants man to be responsible for his own eternal fate by the decisions that each person makes and the deeds, good or bad, that every man chooses to do. Just because God may make a prediction (i.e. you will mow your lawn on Saturday) doesn’t mean if you get the urge to mow your lawn on Saturday from God making an undeniable impression on your will, that you are forever his puppet and cannot make decisions on your own concerning whether you will choose to mow your ailing neighbor’s lawn or purposefully run over the neighbor’s kid’s baseball that rolled into your yard. None of the Biblical prophesies are very specific and if God couldn’t arrange to pull them off, he wouldn’t be much of a God.

Neither would He be much of a God if He, who is from everlasting to everlasting, cannot prophesy accurately what will occur 'arguably 200 years prior to the event'. Did you know that the whole of redemptive history has rested upon a promise to an ageing couple (Abraham and Sarah) well beyond child bearing age to have a son? You can't get more specific than that - or are you suggesting that God could always choose another Abraham or perhaps a younger wife like Hagar? It's the specifics that make predictive prophesy, prophesy. Again - you are too concerned with 'how'. That God knew the future and fulfilled the prophesy is the PRIOR GOD DID before you engage your vivid imagination about 'HOW' God could or could not know the future.

Nope, I said I didn’t know if the way I explain a simple reading of the Bible would be considered Open Theism. Since reading the site you gave, I would say that I’m not a very good adherent to all they call Open Theism. Mine is a mongrel version that I formulated from my own little head by reading my own little Bible with way too much time to think about it. I would invoke the name of the Holy Spirit as co-author of my theories but I wouldn’t want you to get the impression that I thought I was inspired by God.

There are differences amongst Open Theists - again I ask: What's the attraction? Something that started in the 1980's has yet to find its final expression nor has it had time to be tested by centuries of fire.

 

[stranger]

Free will,

Most Christians would probably agree that only God is the Creator. Most would agree that only God is the Redeemer. Most would agree that as both Creator and Redeemer God has not had to meet with men to decide what is the best way to save men. Most would probably even agree that God has free will. While the doctrines of election and predestination are considered as unreasonable, unfair, and arbitrary by some Christians I ask: Where is the trust in a God who predestines and elects some from a fallen and lost humanity to salvation? Where is the confidence that God is just and loving in all that He does.

In what God has revealed about our salvation there is an observable ORDER. This much neglected doctrine has been called the Order of Salvation. While there are slightly different constructs to this depending upon theological emphasis, I want to suggest that the order given in Romans chapter 8 should put the matter beyond dispute:

28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who 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.

Notice the observable order:

1. predestined
2. called
3. justified
4. glorified

NOW the point here is this: 1. predestined occurs before creation and 4. glorification occurs only in the age. Both of these 'ages' for want of a better description ARE CLEARLY outside the realm that unred calls 'present'. Both points 1 and 4 are clearly outside our sphere of this life.

If we examine points 2 and 3 - yes we can engage and relate to these aspects of the Gospel. A person hears the Gospel and is convicted that God calls him and responds. He learns that in faith he can believe that Christ died and rose on his behalf. In time he may even learn that God plans for him extended well before he was even born and extend well beyond the present life. If he contemplates free will - trust in what God has done and the love of God should be sufficient for him to leave predestination in God's court as God'd call. By all means he could then proceed to work out his salvation in fear and trembling.

 

[unred typo]

quote by stranger on Fri Sep 28, 2007 1:01 pm
unred typo wrote:
“I know that God can and does at certain times and under certain circumstances make predictions that are years beyond the time of their announcements by God‘s prophets.â€Â


You also consistently say that the future cannot be known because it doesn't exist and therefore there is nothing to know. If this is the reason why God cannot know the future - because there is no future and therefore nothing to know you contradict yourself. Which is it? Can God know the future or not?

Aside: Pike's article is an argument against free will.

God does not know the future by looking ahead into time and seeing what has/will occur. There is nothing to see beyond this moment in time. Nothing has happened in the future for God to see happen. What God can do, and does do, is make plans for the future that he then can bring to pass. It is not every detail of the future but he predicts certain things that he promises will happen. Most of these things are prophesies that are conditional on whether or not nations or kings or men repent. Some of these predictions are warnings that God is going to punish some person or group for past sins, so that when the judgment befalls them, they are examples to others not to mess with sin.

I have not contradicted myself at all. You just don’t understand what I’m saying for whatever reason. If today you plan a cruise for your anniversary for 10 years from now, does that mean the thing you planned today exists? Is there a cruise out there in time waiting to happen that you have seen in the distant future? No. The same is true of God’s plans for 100 years, 1000 years or 5,000 years from now. He makes plans and he brings them to pass when the time comes, he doesn‘t see into the future and know what will happen. He makes his plans happen. He is God. He can make things happen. He’s not stupid. He knows what he will do before he has to do it and if he can tell people to repent and if they do, he can change his plans accordingly. He is not trapped to do what he thought would be necessary 5,000 years ago. Things change moment by moment and God changes to meet the new challenges.

Aside: I know what Pike’s article was about. I didn’t think he was for free will. Why did you think I didn’t know that?

quote by stranger:

Unred typo wrote:
“The fall of Assyria and the rise and fall of Babylon, etc. is well within God’s realm of present knowledge, his plans for the punishment of nations involved, and his sovereignty that has nothing to do with the total sovereign reign over the will of individuals. Our scope of free will doesn’t include the ruling of others, but only being master of our own wills in regard to our own eternal destiny. If God moves a king into power or instigates and facilitates the defeat of another king or country, that is not cause for the subjects or the king to make decisions that will condemn an individual to hell, other than by the individual‘s own choices.â€Â


Where is the trust that God can do no evil? Where is the trust that God is love? Where is the trust that God is just?

Where is the commentary that makes you think any such trust is missing? I trust God knows what he is doing and does all things well. Why would you think I have said otherwise?

quote by stranger:

Unred typo wrote:“ God can easily predict that he will make Cyrus king, even though there is yet to be a Cyrus born. He only has to pick a likely unborn child, cause his father to name him Cyrus, and protect and lead him into the position of king at the time he chooses. God is in total control of the fates of nations and he causes the rise and fall of kingdoms as part of his sovereign acts of judgment and reward. It is what he does. Details of his life are easily woven into his life as God can cause people to do things by suggestion as easily as a hypnotist can do. None of these things change the fact that God is the one who wants man to be responsible for his own eternal fate by the decisions that each person makes and the deeds, good or bad, that every man chooses to do. Just because God may make a prediction (i.e. you will mow your lawn on Saturday) doesn’t mean if you get the urge to mow your lawn on Saturday from God making an undeniable impression on your will, that you are forever his puppet and cannot make decisions on your own concerning whether you will choose to mow your ailing neighbor’s lawn or purposefully run over the neighbor’s kid’s baseball that rolled into your yard. None of the Biblical prophesies are very specific and if God couldn’t arrange to pull them off, he wouldn’t be much of a God.â€Â


Neither would He be much of a God if He, who is from everlasting to everlasting, cannot prophesy accurately what will occur 'arguably 200 years prior to the event'. Did you know that the whole of redemptive history has rested upon a promise to an ageing couple (Abraham and Sarah) well beyond child bearing age to have a son? You can't get more specific than that - or are you suggesting that God could always choose another Abraham or perhaps a younger wife like Hagar? It's the specifics that make predictive prophesy, prophesy. Again - you are too concerned with 'how'. That God knew the future and fulfilled the prophesy is the PRIOR GOD DID before you engage your vivid imagination about 'HOW' God could or could not know the future.

Did I say God could not accurately predict what will occur 200 years before the event??? Of course he can. He is God and if he says you are going to tiptoe into the US embassy in China wearing a purple tutu and orange ballet slippers on July 4th of the year 3000, guess what you’ll be doing on July 4, 3000? He is in control, and he can make his word come to pass. That’s what the difference is between his predictions and man’s. His will never fail. That is not the same thing as knowing the future, or looking ahead in time. Making plans for the future is what God does, seeing into the future is fantasy.

quote by stranger:

Unred typo wrote: “Nope, I said I didn’t know if the way I explain a simple reading of the Bible would be considered Open Theism. Since reading the site you gave, I would say that I’m not a very good adherent to all they call Open Theism. Mine is a mongrel version that I formulated from my own little head by reading my own little Bible with way too much time to think about it. I would invoke the name of the Holy Spirit as co-author of my theories but I wouldn’t want you to get the impression that I thought I was inspired by God.â€Â


There are differences amongst Open Theists - again I ask: What's the attraction? Something that started in the 1980's has yet to find its final expression nor has it had time to be tested by centuries of fire.

I don’t care what label you want to put on my belief or why or when Open Theism came into being. I doubt if anyone knows that except God. I don’t care if my belief does or doesn’t match what the Open Theist’s statement of faith asserts. I’m not attracted to anything but what I believe is the truth. If someone else happens to believe the same way I do, that’s great but I am not going to go along with something that is wrong just to fit in. We will all be tested by fire one day and God is going to judge every person by their works just as he said, not by what they claim to believe.

 

[stranger]

unred typo wrote:

It is easy to see that Jeremiah’s DNA was read by God before he was conceived, and God liked what he saw for the job he had in mind for this weeping prophet. I’m sure God knows the formula for tender heartedness and that was probably the quality he was looking for when he made his choice for the man best suited to bring this horrific message to the nations. He sure wouldn’t have looked at my DNA and picked me for that job.

Ahhh...what was the question? I don’t see this as a problem.

Jeremiah 1: (NASB)
4 Now the word of the LORD came to me saying,
5 "Before I formed you in the womb I KNEW YOU,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

Come on unred, the word says ‘I knew you’, I highlighted it in red and put it in capital letters. Again, you are more concerned with ‘how’ in trying to explain the process via DNA than you are with what God plainly states about knowing Jeremiah before he existed. The text doesn't mention DNA or other traits that might be useful for a prophet - it is your framework that is at odds here. Perhaps Drew will comment on this.

Sorry if this has stirred you up and that you don't see that there is a problem - I shall hold my peace from now on. Farewell on this topic.

 

[unred typo]

quote by stranger on Fri Sep 28, 2007 7:07 pm

unred typo wrote:
“It is easy to see that Jeremiah’s DNA was read by God before he was conceived, and God liked what he saw for the job he had in mind for this weeping prophet. I’m sure God knows the formula for tender heartedness and that was probably the quality he was looking for when he made his choice for the man best suited to bring this horrific message to the nations. He sure wouldn’t have looked at my DNA and picked me for that job.
Ahhh...what was the question? I don’t see this as a problem.â€Â


Jeremiah 1: (NASB)
4 Now the word of the LORD came to me saying,
5 "Before I formed you in the womb I KNEW YOU,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

Come on unred, the word says ‘I knew you’, I highlighted it in red and put it in capital letters. Again, you are more concerned with ‘how’ in trying to explain the process via DNA than you are with what God plainly states about knowing Jeremiah before he existed.

Sorry if this has stirred you up and that you don't see that there is a problem - I shall hold my peace from now on. Farewell on this topic.

First, I find this topic interesting but I’m not stirred up. Second, if I changed all the ‘you’s to say ‘your DNA’ or the substance that you are made of, it would be just as accurate to what was said. You can’t be claiming that God personally knew Jeremiah as a real person before he made Jeremiah! Did Jeremiah exist as a spirit or have a previous life? Maybe Shirley MacLaine writes your theology?

Did Jeremiah also know God or did God just know of Jeremiah? What did they talk about before Jeremiah had a mouth or a brain or a spirit? Don’t you think it makes much more sense to say that God knew what he would look like and the sound of his voice and the color of his eyes and skin and hair and the type of personality he would have and the nature of his disposition and the size of his heart and the depth of his intellect, etc. from the DNA code that was open to God‘s view in the parents of Jeremiah? Surely God is as good as a dog or horse breeder in selecting various attributes of the person’s genetic makeup that would make them suitable for the prophet’s job, wouldn‘t you agree? You don’t have to, and I don’t expect you to. 'Farewell' is always easier said.

 

[MarkT]

For those who believe God has everything scripted before, look at Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac.
Genesis 22:12 "And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. "

Why does God wait till the very last moment, to see if Abraham will slit Isaac's throat?

Because as Abraham's muscles tense for the death slice - THEN God knew.

Otherwise, God is a liar if He knew beforehand what Abraham would do. Why does he say "for NOW I know"? But God is true, and it was at that precise moment, not thousands of years before, or even minutes before, that God knew that Abraham would not withhold his son from being sacrificed.

It's a different sense of knowing. There's God's knowing and our knowing. For example, we know what Jesus said 'will' happen and by faith we believe it will come to pass, however, when it comes to pass, then we will know by witnessing ie. seeing. Jesus, for example, said to the 12, 'Will you also go away'. This was said after he told them about eating his flesh and drinking his blood when many of his disciples drew back and no longer followed after him. Then he said, 'Did I not choose you'. The answer is yes. He did choose the twelve and one was a devil who would betray him. So there is the sense that Jesus didn't know because he said, 'Will you also go away' and the sense he did know because he told them he chose them after Peter said, 'Lord, to whom shall we go?' Again when Peter said he would never deny him, Jesus told him he would deny him three times.

According to Genesis 22:11, 'the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven' and 'he' said, 'for now I know that you fear God'. Does the Scripture say, fear 'God' or fear 'me', the one who called to Abraham?

Did Jesus say, fear 'him' or fear 'me'

So there is the sense of 'knowing' when something comes to pass but it's not that God didn't know. There is also the sense that God declared it from the beginning. Yep. God purposed it. God declared it. He made the tree good. He tested the branch to give it growth. He saw it was good. It's quite appropriate and instructive that God revealed his purpose to Abraham after he saw the fear of God in him. Remember, 'the beginning of wisdom is the fear of God.' This also illustrates the difference between the Son and the Father. At least it holds true. The Father declares it and he makes it come to pass. The knowledge of what will be is revealed by the Son. The Son knows the will of the Father and he carries out the will of the Father and he delights in everything as it comes to pass. So the Son knows by seeing it happen as the angel of the LORD knew by seeing Abraham was going to kill Isaac and he reveals God's purpose to us. The angel of the LORD said, 'Now I know' when he saw Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac. In the same way, the Counsellor brings words back into our remembrance when we see things come to pass so that we can say, 'Now I know' when it happens.

 

[Orion]

John MacArther [from the radio "Grace To You"] is messing me up on this topic. He is saying that Jesus's death on the cross wasn't for everyone but only for those who God has chosen. Something about God not choosing everyone but only "the elect", selected people that God chooses to draw unto him, and those not chosen are subject to destruction in Hell, apparently outside of themselves and what they choose or not choose. The implications are that of an unloving being.

I'm sure I must be misunderstanding John on this, but he seems to be saying that we don't choose to follow or not, but that God chooses who will draw unto him.

To me, unless God calls everyone, and gives everyone the SAME call (in their spirit) and the oportunity, then it really wouldn't be fair, or even just, to send them to Hell.

Am I misunderstanding him?

 

[unred typo]

quote by Orion on Mon Oct 01, 2007 6:46 am
John MacArther [from the radio "Grace To You"] is messing me up on this topic. He is saying that Jesus's death on the cross wasn't for everyone but only for those who God has chosen. Something about God not choosing everyone but only "the elect", selected people that God chooses to draw unto him, and those not chosen are subject to destruction in Hell, apparently outside of themselves and what they choose or not choose. The implications are that of an unloving being.

I'm sure I must be misunderstanding John on this, but he seems to be saying that we don't choose to follow or not, but that God chooses who will draw unto him.

To me, unless God calls everyone, and gives everyone the SAME call (in their spirit) and the oportunity, then it really wouldn't be fair, or even just, to send them to Hell.

Am I misunderstanding him?

I’m afraid you’re not misunderstanding him, Orion. You’ve seen the light now. I’m also afraid he is going to continue “messing you up†with his teaching on this and other topics, unless you can turn your radio off and then unscramble your brain from all the double talk you have been infected with. I know this from personal experience. It wasn’t easy for me because he and other teachers like him are so influential and persuasive. Subjected to the pounding of their mantras ( “not of works lest any man should boast†and “all our works are filthy rags†and other isolated key verses) that are so relentlessly repeated by the entire western Christian community, it is hard to even read certain passages in their true original context.

The sense of fairness and justice that makes you repulsed by this inequitable doctrine is not something from your old evil nature, but from a just and loving God who is being misrepresented by those who think they are doing him service.

 

[Vic C.]

Orion, you must have missed our argume, er, debates on Calvinism. Wait! LOL, this is a predestination thread. :

John is a Calvinist and teaches Calvinism.

(The simplistic version)

T -- total depravity. This doesn't mean people are as bad as they can be. It means that sin is in every part of one's being, including the mind and will, so that a man cannot save himself.
U -- unconditional election. God chooses to save people unconditionally; that is, they are not chosen on the basis of their own merit.
L -- limited atonement. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross was for the purpose of saving the elect.
I -- irresistible grace. When God has chosen to save someone, He will.
P -- perseverence of the saints. Those people God chooses cannot lose their salvation; they will continue to believe. If they fall away, it will be only for a time.

Details and explanation here:

http://www.thecaveonline.com/APEH/calvinTULIP.html

 

[Vic C.]

Unred, my suggestion would be for Orion to start with what I posted then compare it to the basic Arminian view, then study scripture and come to a proper conclusion. There's far too much swaying back and forth on this issue and I don't want to see this turn into another slug fest.

 

[Orion]

Thanks, unred and Vic. It doesn't seem like Calvinism is characteristic of the nature of God, does it?

The "irresistable grace" part seems a bit odd. "When God has CHOSEN to save someone, He will." Why would God NOT chose to save a person? And if a saved person has no choice [the perseverence of the saints part] but to remain in it, that doesn't seem like people have the ability to chose God, but it is the other way around.

If God is "all love", then he should love everyone the same. . . . should want everyone with him. . . . should, then, CHOOSE everyone. In such, . . . to say that "God chooses" should be a "silly statement" since it includes everyone that has ever lived, relegating such a statement to a "well, du'h" response.

 

[unred typo]

quote by vic C. on Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:07 pm
Unred, my suggestion would be for Orion to start with what I posted then compare it to the basic Arminian view, then study scripture and come to a proper conclusion. There's far too much swaying back and forth on this issue and I don't want to see this turn into another slug fest.

I have an idea. Why not just chuck what a couple of fallible men have come up with and read the Bible itself, and formulate our own views? When you build something, if you use an imperfect measure and go back and forth between one that is too short and one that is too long, you can compound your errors instead of getting a balance. Let’s measure everything by the original instead.

Slug fest? Moi? :-D

 

[Vic C.]

Yes, slugfest. The open theists will throw their hat into the ring, the hyper calvinists will do the same... and the Mods are left mopping up the mess. 8-) We just don't need that. Let orion listen, study and continue to ask question.

You are free to do as you choose though. :

 

[Orion]

Yea!! I get to continue asking questions!! :D :wink:

 

[unred typo]

quote by vic C. on Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:42 am
Yes, slugfest. The open theists will throw their hat into the ring, the hyper calvinists will do the same... and the Mods are left mopping up the mess. 8-) We just don't need that. Let orion listen, study and continue to ask question.

You are free to do as you choose though. :

I’m sorry, VicC, I know you mods have a tough job. And it probably doesn’t help that I have the audacity to believe I‘m right and state what I believe when I don‘t believe what hyper Calvinists believe. They have an advantage when they can make statements like:
“…God plainly states about knowing Jeremiah before he existed.â€Â

How does one argue with that if the person holding that view does not understand that it is a complete oxymoron? I could say, yes, I agree, because Jeremiah was planned to be made by God, or that Jeremiah was selected by the attributes known to God in his DNA, but this is still unacceptable to this person. I get back a cajoling: “Come on unred, the word says ‘I knew you’ †as if it should be apparent to me that such a thing is unnecessary to maintain the literal reading.

The apology is priceless though:
“Sorry if this has stirred you up and that you don't see that there is a problem - I shall hold my peace from now on. Farewell on this topic.â€Â

Ahhhh… call me names but don’t say I’m stirred up when I‘m being perfectly smug in my rightness. That just fries me. :-D But there’s no mess to mop… they poke and run. Well, they may never see that there is a problem, but it’s not mine, so why should I care? It‘s the fallout that such a paradigm causes on rational people who see the contradiction and want nothing to do with such a monster of a god, and end up drinking their pain away because in their humility, they‘re pretty sure they aren‘t one of the chosen ones. Ironically sad.

 

[bleitzel]

Dear unread,

After reading the entirety of this thread I believe you and Drew are certainly on the correct path.

I understand your position on the future very well and believe that you are much closer than Stranger was and I also understand as you pointed out that traditional theists would be inherently scared of the possible implications if you were right. I also understand as you do that those implications should not be so scary because, as you've pointed out, God has the power to deal with those circumstances.

But I would like to posit a third possibility, one that isn't ever talked about. You rightly correct people who try to put God into a box by calling him omnipotent, omniscient, etc. and then go on to define those terms in their own way. You quickly remind them that God is God and His attributes are seen in the Bible. If we try to ascribe characteristics to Him, we need to do it in light of the scriptures, not the other way around. When people say God is omnipotent, all powerful, they either go on to explain that He does all things, good and evil, or that He does all things that can be done in accordance with His nature. But what they really should say is that he can do anything he wants to do that is possible (not a contradiction in terms) and is within His nature (not evil, etc.) Not that he has to do everything. The God of the Bible is omnipotent, all powerful, He has the ability to do all things (that he wants to do, within His perfect nature.) To say that God HAS TO DO all things is to limit His very omnipotence, to deny Him the ability to choose what He wants to do or not do!

Likewise, omniscience should be understood as all-knowledgeable, not as all knowing. To say He is all-knowing is also a limitation on His omnipotence. To say He has to know all things, past present and future is to deny Him the ability to decide to know or not to know something. God in His infinite wisdom can choose what He wants to know or not know. When we say God is omnipresent, it is explained that He is in all places at all times, but that is not entirely true. God is not here on this Earth in His full glory, not like He is in Heaven. (Not as I am writing this at least.) He has chosen to withhold His full glory on the Earth at this moment, exactly as He chooses to withhold His power over us and over our every action, and, I believe, exactly as He has chosen to withhold his knowledge of every event in history so as to allow man free will, to choose to love and worship Him, or not. So by asserting that because of His omniscience God must know all things the very Calvinists who wish to ascribe to God the strongest of characteristics, to make God the ultimate power, have actually denied Him the very same thing!

So to your understanding of the future, I can not say that you are wrong. I believe you may be wrong, but you are at least correct in your understanding that if the future is set, and God knows all things about the future than humans are not free, and an omnibenevolent God should not punish them for their actions.

When omniscience is understood as it should be, as it comes from the Bible, and in accordance with how His omnipotence and omniprescence should also be understood, the question of the future becomes less troublesome. If the future exists for God as the past and/or present exist for us it is still completely possible for God not to have determined all things (by withholding His own foreknowledge when He so chooses) and therefore leave man's will free.

Oh, by the way, God has not predestined some for salvation and some for reprobation. (More on that later.)

 

[unred typo]

Welcome to the discussion. I’m glad to have another angle to view of this subject, even if it may not be one I agree with, and especially if it is one I hadn’t considered before. Not that I need a new one, since I’m pretty happy with the position I have right now :-D and have considered a number that fell through. :infinity: Am I correct in reading between the lines of your post that you feel the future is some place or tangible thing that can be known?

 

[bleitzel]

You know unred, I'm not entirely sure. It could not be known by man of course, but for God? I mean he IS mighty powerful! Anyways, I lean more towrds Him having the ability to know the future than not. But I don't think scripture is crystal clear on it. What I do know is that man often tries to define God with man-made terms, usually outside of the Bible, but then finds himself stumbling on the hindrances he has placed on Him! Funny.

We try to compliment Him by ascribing powerful terms to Him like "omnipotent" but then stumble over whether or not this means he does all things, or can do all things, or only does what pleases Him... The Bible is simple, God is good, God is great, God is mighty. We're the ones who keep getting it mixed up.

Either way, whether the future can be known by God or not, IF He can know it, he can also choose NOT to know some parts if He so chooses. And this doesn't limit God's omnipotence as I am sure some people are typing right now, rather it demonstrates His omnipotence by showing how much He actually can do, choosing whether or not He wishes to know something!

 

[unred typo]

Well, that was an honest answer. I don’t think anyone can claim to be positive about anything as nebulous as the future. Except in movies and books, no one has been there to bring news back to tell us that it’s really there. If the future does exist now, is it now then? Is it always now somewhere in another time? Is the past still out there somewhere in existence? That would mean that Jesus is still on the cross and has been from eternity and will be for eternity. Ewww… It does get to be quite the stumbling hindrance, as you say.

That’s why I dropped the idea that the future was a thing or place that could be known, even by God, especially by God. He would be eternally experiencing every painful memory and every sin and every horrible thing that was ever thought of for all time, past, present and future, without end. When, in the past before he created anything, that would not be much to experience, but with the creation of the world, and the advent of sin, pain and death, it would be quite unbearable for a being who knew all things from then until the end of time, so to speak. So I do agree that if the future did exist somewhere, which I find quite impossible, God would have to do as you say and choose to forget parts of it. At least that is a biblical thought, of God remembering our confessed sins no more.

 

[bleitzel]

Well, I would be less inclined to say that anything was unbearable for God, but be that as it may. I know that the concept of future not existing yet is an argument you have had with other debaters, but even so, do you appreciate how my stance about God's omniscience can help you in converting others out of their stance? It is hard to encourage one who believes that God knows all things, past, present, and future as an eternal now to drop that belief in favor of there not being a future at all to even know. It is a little harder sell to help them to believe that just because God can't know the future they should still rest assured that He can bring all things He has promised to pass than it would be to just redirect their thinking of God's omniscince. By showing that God can still know what He chooses to know about the future, man can still have free will, God can still bring about anything and all things that He so desires and yet all scriptures are in harmony.

Forgive me for ending this abruptly but it's a little late.