Help please, does God only know some of the future? (4)

SI Sponsors

Forever Written / Scripture Signs

TurboScribe - Transcribe your sermon with AI

Church Plant Media, Sermon Hosting and Website

Login

Main Menu

· Home
· About Us
· Audio Sermons
    by Speaker
    by Topic
    by Scripture
    by Podcast
· Text Sermons
    Christian Books
    Online Bibles
· Video Sermons
· Vintage Images
· Discussion Forum
· Contact Us
· Giving

Featured Sermon - The Path to Power and Usefulness by A.W. Tozer

Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Help please, does God only know some of the future?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next Page )

Poster

Thread

Re:

Ron, I agree that open theism doesn't fit with your atonement theory. Lots of sound doctrine doesn't fit with your atonement theory, like conditional security, universal atonement, etc.

This is just another scriptural reasons why I reject the Anselms theory of retributive satisfaction (which really only fits with Calvinism) and affirm the governmental theory of public satisfaction.

------------

I argue that open theology must be true or else God cannot be God.

Consider:

- If God foreknows all future certainties

- If God has always had this foreknowledge from eternity past

- If God's foreknowledge of future certainties is always accurate

- Then the conclusion is: from eternity past God has had no control over history, God could not change or control or guide or steer the course of time, everything must occur exactly the way God's accurate eternal foreknowledge saw that it would. God would never be able to plan or decide for the first time what would occur in history, since it was already predetermined for Him by His eternal accurate foreknowledge.

If His foreknowledge consists in nothing but future certainties, without any realm of possibilities, and this foreknowledge is as old as eternity and is of necessity accurate, then God has no power to change even the slightest detail from what He eternally and accurately foreknew it to be.

So neither God nor man has a freewill if open theology isn't true.

If the future is not open then God cannot determine it, steer it, control it, etc. God cannot be God if open theology isn't true.

But if God's foreknowledge consists in foreknowing all future possibilities and all future certainties, if the future is partly open (not yet determined) and partly settled (partly determined) THEN God is able to be God, THEN God is able to influence and control the course of history to be what He wants it to be.

2007/9/14 5:15

RobertW
Member

Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

Re:

Quote:

The open theists have found themselves trapped in a linear universe and they have concluded that God himself is trapped in the same time/space process, but God is not in time and space in the way that creatures are in time and space. Time and space are in Him, and the Spirit of God knows all that is in God. The future is in God now; He is the I AM, and consequently there is nothing that was or is or will be that is not known to him.

That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: [u]For in him we live, and move, and have our being[/u]; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. (Acts 17:27, 28)

It is important to point out that God created [i]time[/i]. It is 'time' that makes it possible to 'move' in a 3 dimensional universe. What causes car crashes? Two objects try to occupy the same space. Can two objects occupy the same space? The answer is NO [i]unless[/i] we add the element of 'time'. In logic no two irreconcilable statements can both be true and in physics one cannot be in two places at once. What makes it possible to be in two different places (or an infinite number of places)? The answer is 'time'. We can 'move' because the variable of time makes it possile. God created time.

It is interesting to point out that if you add a dimension of time to our experience all sorts of contradictory things become possible. Even statements that are logically contradictory become possible when we add another dimension or two of time. And this is the folly of trying to understand God within the framework of our mere 3 dimensions of space + time. God is not limited to these things by any means. There is no telling what things are possible to God. Full on predestination and Freewill could possibly exists side by side without contradiction where God dwells. We cannot understand it because we are limited in our ability to picture things beyond 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time. A line cannot comprehend a box and a box cannot comprehend a cube. A cube can comprehend a square and a line (so to speak). Likewise God exists apart from the physical order that governs the phenomena we experience. We already know that objects do not behave the same for Newton's models as they do on a quantum level. How much more wonderful is God?

And this is why I think we can take things that God says to be absolute truth without the pressure of always trying to make them square. With men these things are impossible- but with God all things are possible. We will be quite surprised some day, I think.

_________________
Robert Wurtz II

2007/9/14 8:55

Profile

RobertW
Member

Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

Re:

Quote:

Then the conclusion is: from eternity past God has had no control over history, God could not change or control or guide or steer the course of time, everything must occur exactly the way God's accurate eternal foreknowledge saw that it would. God would never be able to plan or decide for the first time what would occur in history, since it was already predetermined for Him by His eternal accurate foreknowledge.

The problem with this statement is that it invites men to do what Proverbs 3:5 tells us [u]not[/u] to do. Our finite minds can in no real way understand the things of God. We are probing here into things that are far too wonderful for us. I often remind myself that the angel that announced Samson's birth told Samson's parents (when they asked him his name) that it was beyond their comprehansion. Job's counselors sat around trying to figure out the contradiction of how a righteous man could be treated as a sinner. They tried to do the math without even knowing all the variables. What happened? They sinned.

_________________
Robert Wurtz II

2007/9/14 9:03

Profile

philologos
Member

Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

Re:

Quote:

Ron, I agree that open theism doesn't fit with your atonement theory. Lots of sound doctrine doesn't fit with your atonement theory, like conditional security, universal atonement, etc.

Jesse,
So you agree that only adherents of the Moral Government theory can really support Open Theism? This is an interesting admission. Do you go the whole way and admit that Open Theism is only admissable for those who adopt Finney's position on the atonement? In other words, is this a package deal? Are Moral Government and Open Theism a matched pair?

If Open Theology is really inconsistent with Penal Substitutional Atonement I wonder how many adherents of Open Theism realise what they have signed up for?

Quote:

- If God foreknows all future certainties

- If God has always had this foreknowledge from eternity past

- If God's foreknowledge of future certainties is always accurate

Then the conclusion is: from eternity past God has had no control over history, God could not change or control or guide or steer the course of time, everything must occur exactly the way God's accurate eternal foreknowledge saw that it would.

This is your conclusion not mine. Are you arguing for God to have control over history or not? You are confusing foreknowledge with predestination. I may foreknow that my house is going to be broken into, but that does not mean I have predestined it.

I know you wont like it but the old analogy of seeing a route in a linear fashion as distinct from Gods overview is still pertinent. A traveller knows his journey must go from A to B, then from B to C, then from C to D etc. As he travels in linear progress, time and distance are experienced one by one. From the position of a balloon high above the viewer does not need to get to B before he can see C, or to get to C before he can see D. The overview takes all in the one glance. So it is with God and history. God is not subject in his knowledge to linear progression of time; he is far above (beyond) it. He sees the end from the beginning. This does not mean he has fixed certain points and that he does not know what happens in between.

God foreknows all men from Eternity, and foresees what every man will do and be. All things are present to him at once. Gods foreknowledge and Gods declaration of the event before it occurs does not mean that God has over-ridden human choice.

The choice of Judas is a case in point. He was specifically chosen as one of the 12 and, if the words of Christ to the 70 were meant to include the 12, his name was written in heaven. (Luke 10:20) However God has already recorded prophetically what he knew would be the choices of Judas. Judas was not compelled to fulfil scripture. Scripture was recording events seen before by God and that scripture recording was sure to be fulfilled.

[color=0033FF]While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. (John 17:12 NKJV)[/color]

There is a very important truth about prophecy given earlier in Johns gospel on this same topic of Judas;

[color=0033FF] I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, He who eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me. Now I tell you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe that I am He. (John 13:18-19 NKJV)[/color]

We should note this carefully. He does not say that Judas was compelled to betray him, but that when that betrayal took place they would believe who Christ really was. In other words, his foreknowledge was a proof of his person. This is the theme of significant sections of Isaiah where Isaiah taunts the prophets of the idols that they are not able to say what will happen. It is the distinctive proof of Jehovahs uniqueness that he does know the end from the beginning and, at times, he declares it. These are not predictions in the sense of clever estimates; these are the declarations that come from foreknowledge.

Quote:

If the future is not open then God cannot determine it, steer it, control it, etc. God cannot be God if open theology isn't true.

You are showing the fatal flaw of Finneyism here. Generally Calvinistic books, and I am anti-calvinsim, begin with God. Finney, of course, begins with man and moral obligation. His starting point predetermines his whole theology; it is always earth-bound and man-bound.

What an extraordinary statement this is God cannot be God if open theology is not true. How old are you to make such a statement? Age does not increase accuracy in theology but it sometimes adds a little humility.

_________________
Ron Bailey

2007/9/14 9:37

Profile

HopePurifies
Member

Joined: 2007/4/12
Posts: 181
Georgia, USA

Re:

Philologos

Yeah, your view of atonement is kind of weird... I don't know where you guys get that view because it's not from the Bible.

Open theism strikes at the very heart of YOUR revelation, but it fits in very well with the revelation of the bible.

God loves us (personally) in the measure that He loves Christ and not necessarily the timeline. He has loved us (collectively) since the foundation of the world for sure, but thats not even what this verse is talking about.

Don't confuse confidence with pride.

_________________
Melanie

2007/9/14 11:57

Profile

philologos
Member

Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

Re:

Quote:

Yeah, your view of atonement is kind of weird... I don't know where you guys get that view because it's not from the Bible.

You mean the kind of view of atonement that I share with Luther, Calvin, George Fox, Thomas Watson, John Wesley and George Whitefield, Thomas Newberry, Hudson Taylor, Paget Wilkes, F B Meyer, Campbell Morgan, Wayne Grudem, John Piper, MacArthur, Smith Wigglesworth, W F P Burton, A W Tozer, Leonard Ravenhill?

Yes, I guess it would seem rather weird from a myopic Finneyist viewpoint.

_________________
Ron Bailey

2007/9/14 13:11

Profile

philologos
Member

Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

Re:

As Open Theism seems to be married inseparably to a rejection of the traditional Penal Substitutionary view of the Atonement I thought it might be profitable to return to that topic.

[color=0033FF] But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:5-6 NKJV)[/color]

My questions are simple ones.

Whose transgressions was he wounded for?
Whose iniquity was 'gathered onto' him?

Following on from this the obvious supplementary questions are; Did he 'know' of my transgressions or was he wounded only for them 'in principle'?
Did he 'know' of my iniquity or did he only have them heaped upon him 'in principle'?
Did Christ really love me and die for me? as Paul testified or was it only 'in principle'?
Is he really my sinbearer or was it just a theatrical gesture?

And, for any who may have missed the connection, if God only knows what has happened and not what might happen how does this affect my sins which were committed long after Calvary? How does it affect tomorrow's sins? If God had no knowledge of them how can he have heaped them upon his Son?

_________________
Ron Bailey

2007/9/14 13:27

Profile

philologos
Member

Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

Re:

There is an interesting paper on Open Theism [url=http://www.gfcto.com/2006/05/open_theism.php]here.[/url] I think his last paragraphs are a trifle premature but I think he exposes the roots of open theism well.

_________________
Ron Bailey

2007/9/14 14:32

Profile

Nile
Member

Joined: 2007/3/28
Posts: 403
Raleigh, NC

Re:

Quote:

You mean the kind of view of atonement that I share with Luther, Calvin,
George Fox, Thomas Watson, John Wesley and George Whitefield, Thomas
Newberry, Hudson Taylor, Paget Wilkes, F B Meyer, Campbell Morgan, Wayne
Grudem, John Piper, MacArthur, Smith Wigglesworth, W F P Burton, A W
Tozer, Leonard Ravenhill?

Ravenhills #1 recommended book is "The Atonement by Albert Barnes" which conviced me that the common "Imputed Righteoussnes" or "Penal Substitutionary" view is wrong and Wesly believed in governmental atonement as well.

So if that's what you're talking about, then it looks like we all agree on this.

Otherwise, unless I am mistaken, your list is wrong.

_________________
Matthew Miskiewicz

2007/9/14 14:36

Profile

philologos
Member

Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

Re:

Quote:

Wesly believed in governmental atonement as well.

John Wesley's Notes on the New Testament
Rom 3:25...
a propitiation - to appease an offended God. But if, as some teach, God never was offended, there was no need of this propitiation.
to declare his righteousness - to demonstrate not only His clemency but His justice; even that vindictive justice whose essential character and principle office is, to punish sin.

Charles Wesley
'Tis finished! The Messiah dies,
[u]Cut off for sins, but not His own[/u]:
Accomplished is the sacrifice,
The great redeeming work is done.

'Tis finished! [u]all the debt is paid;
Justice divine is satisfied[/u];
The grand and full atonement made;
God for a guilty world hath died.

The veil is rent in Christ alone;
The living way to heaven is seen;
The middle wall is broken down,
And all mankind may enter in.

The types and figures are fulfilled;
[u]Exacted is the legal pain[/u];
The precious promises are sealed;
The spotless Lamb of God is slain.

The reign of sin and death is o'er,
And all may live from sin set free;
Satan hath lost his mortal power;
'Tis swallowed up in victory.

Saved from the legal curse I am,
My Savior hangs on yonder tree:
See there the meek, expiring Lamb!
'Tis finished! He expires for me.

Accepted in the Well-beloved,
And clothed in righteousness divine,
I see the bar to heaven removed;
And all Thy merits, Lord, are mine.

Death, hell, and sin are now subdued;
All grace is now to sinners given;
And lo, I plead the atoning blood,
And in Thy right I claim Thy heaven!

I can't imagine clearer statements of Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

_________________
Ron Bailey

2007/9/14 15:12

Profile