VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 13:58:44 05/23/99 Sun
Author: daniel
Subject: Re: time & foreknowledge (unaswered)
In reply to: Kevin 's message, "Re: time & foreknowledge (unaswered)" on 08:32:33 05/22/99 Sat

> > It is this simple.
> >
> > <--Eternity Past---Creation-X---NOW---Eternity
> > Future-->
> > God has no beginning.
> > Our bginnning is marked X.
> >
> > Both God and man are bound by X.
> >
>
> Define X. It appears post creation pre now, though I
> assume that is not the intent.
>
The binding is related to the NOW. We both cannot escape NOW.

The more I read our dialog in this issue, I begin to believe we are saying nearly the same thing but from a different perspective.

I'll explain later in this post what I mean.


> > The number 1 evidence that you can spaek too to prove
> > that God is outside of time and that he knows the
> > future is "the Theory of Relativity"?
> >
> > Certainly the bible would shed light on such a
> > critical aspect of God's character.
> >
>
> (Gen 1:1 KJV) In the beginning God created the heaven
> and the earth.
>
> General relativity tells us that "In the beginning"
> includes time. What does the Bible say;
>
> (Heb 11:3 KJV) Through faith we understand that the
> worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things
> which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
>
> You and I can not put time in a bottle, but we can
> observe it's passage. It can be measured. Therefor
> according to this verse our time must be included in
> the list of created things that were made from what is
> not observable.
>


You have already covered these issues and I responded, reiterating your point doesn't help

>
> > I have addressed the translation of the words "time",
> > and "earth" with little or no response from you. I
>
> "Earth" is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
> Don't cloud the issue.
>

I am not trying to cloud the issue, I am trying to get a wholistic approach to these issues. Knowing that you most likely place the term outside of what I would consider a consistent hermeneutic.

The TIME issue is important. Let me ask again:

Does the term "Before Time" have any meaning?

Did God have fellowship prior to creation? Did He commune before creation?

Why are these questions avoided so often?


> "Time" The biblical God is not governed by time
> because He is the Lord of time. God is in time in the
> sense that He is sovereignly present in all the events
> of time, confronting His people with His warnings and
> His promises. However, this is not the same as saying
> that God is caught up in time or governed by it.
> Humankind cannot bind Him to special sacred times;
> rather, He encounters humankind in each moment of
> their temporal existence, offering each new day as an
> opportunity for judgment in the event of their willful
> stubbornness or for redemption in the event of their
> repentance.
>

We are close here except that I do not accept that God knows or peeks into the future.

Here is a real hard question to deal with, from the point of view of the law. If I am aware that a crime is going to take place, and I do nothing to prevent that crime, then I could be held liable for the crime committed.

This question was raised recently because of the "Columbine Tragedy" that I am only a few miles from. When you watch all these parents thanking God for protecting their children, and children thanking God for protecting them and then you see parents crying in agony wondering why their children were not spared, the question arose "Why God did'nt you protect her?

Another question was asked, "Did God know before hand who would live and who would die? My response to my children was an unequivocal "NO", the Gunman didn't even know who they were going to kill. They may have known to some degree, but that was based on planning and based on the moment "NOW". If you followed the story at all you would have found out that Cassie Bernal stood for her faith in Jesus Christ, which resulted in her death.


>
> > have addressed the issues of failed prophecy, the
> fact
> > that God is not immutable, and I have brought up the
> > notion that Greek mnysticism has poisoned
> Christianity.
> >
> > You have not addressed any of the points I have made.
>
> In reverse order;
>
> "Poisoned Christianity" like YEC has done? Your
> opinion, irrelevant to this discussion.
>

It is not irrelevant. If I ask you what effect Augustine has had on contemporary Christianity, or if I ask that of Calvin, or Luther each would yield different results. You may know the answers to some degree, but I would suggest that read the following:
<a rel=nofollow target=_blank href="http://www.theologyonline.com/pre_free.html">http://www.theologyonline.com/pre_free.html</a>

Please read this (above). After my own study on this issue I came up with a few dozen quotes myself of Augustine and Irenaeus that truly reveal this issue about the adulterated view of the character of God via Greek Mysticism forged by the likes of Plato and Aristotle.

> "God is not immutable" I agree with the following, I
> think you will as well. From my Bible dictionary;
>
> In secular thought, God's immutability connotes innate
> divine perfection and completeness. Since God is
> complete in and of Himself, relation to anything other
> than Himself is an addition to His completeness, an
> addition which is a philosophical impossibility. Since
> relationship requires change or response on the part
> of the beings in relationship, God, perfectly complete
> and completely perfect, cannot relate to that which is
> outside Himself. This kind of God, who is possessed by
> an immutability which prohibits relationship to His
> creation, is not the God portrayed by the Bible.
>

Kewl, can I use that myself?

> Biblical Teaching God, as the Scriptures portray Him,
> responds to the needs of His creation and, therefore,
> changes in the sense that He relates to what is not
> God.
>

So does this "relationship", actually disconnect from himself? My point is that it seems that to your way of thinking that God is very modalistic. In and out of time.

> The greatest religious significance of the unchanging
> God is His eternal stance of salvation toward His
> creation. He is eternally faithful to His people. He
> therefore repents of judgment when persons answer His
> call to obedience, as did the Ninevites in Jonah 3.
> The unchanging God of salvation is the eternal, free
> God who reveals Himself in the eternal Son (John
> 1:1,18). As such, he is the immutable God who comes to
> seek and save the lost (Mark 10:45), the God who is
> the same "yesterday, and today, and for ever (Heb.
> 13:8).
>
> "Failed prophecy" handled below.
>
> > > The Work of God disagrees. I am not going to
> debate
> > > YEC with you.
> > >
> >
> > The above statement is the true OEC hermeneutic.
> >
>
> Now you understand. The Work and the Word must agree
> or we have a wrong understanding of one or both.
>

I understand your position, but I was actually referring to the second part of your statement.


> > Please provide scitpural support as to the failed
> > prophecies of Daniel, Jonah, and Jesus.
> >
> > 70week Prophecy
> > Ninevah not destroyed
> > This Generation not passing
> > Some standing not tasting death
>
> IMHO the last two are not failed prophecies - just
> wrong expectations of what the fulfillment entailed.
> Ninevah was destroyed, agreed it was not in 40 days -
> however that was due to the people's response to
> Jonah's message. 70 week I would have to check on
> this, but I suppose that is not the point. What you
> are really saying is my view of time makes my model
> invalid. So what did I propose;
>
> God who is outside of our time (no beginning and no
> end), created the heaven and the earth, "In the
> beginning". This beginning includes our time line. God
> then subjected himself to operate within our time line
> with regard to man. His choice. Jesus was chosen
> before time to be the ransom for our sins. Various
> other decisions were made before our time was created
> as well. But, all the prophecies given directly to man
> were given in time, as such they are subject to it. So
> failed prophecies occur as God appears to change His
> mind, in time, yet God is unchanging outside of our
> time.
>

He was chosen before we were created, because God knowing ALL that can be known would know the potential outcome of "freewill" and therefore the necessity of a savior. I do not believe he knew before hand that his creation would sin and fall. I have an airbag in my car, but that does not mean it will be used.

The decisions that you are speaking about is what I believe the triune Godhead enjoyed fellowshipping and communing together over. TIME before our time.

What is the difference between God knowing the future and God planning the future? What would be the expected types of reactions and actions of the created and the creator based on each? Think aboout it.

> I see no conflict here.
>
> By the way God repenting in Genesis 6 is generally
> agreed not to imply God was sorry he made man. Why
> would Jesus have been ordained before the world began
> to be our ransom if God did not know man would need a
> redeemer. Instead repent in this verse means God was
> filled with sorrow over the making of man. Our sin
> hurts God - and He is sorrowful from our wickedness.
> But He never repents of offering redemption. Thank
> You Jesus!
>

"But He never repents of offering redemption"...I am not sure why you are mixing these two concepts together.

He will eventually judge.

The term repent, whether you want to apply sorrow or as many offer the term relent, meaning nearly that because of man's actions God HAD to change, the issue is still valid. God changed from one direction to another based on the actions of man.

My point is that to bring it to real terms, I do not know how my children will behave, but they know my character well enough that they can predict my actions to some degree of accuracy, however, sometimes their actions are so mind boggling that I chnage my course. I did not know how I would react, I did not know how they would react, but within the confines of my character, I respond from my position of authority and of love.

It is NOT necessary for God to know the future and it doesn't make him less of God in any way.

> >
> > Explain why Jesus and Peter used the Flood story as
> > one that aligns with a "global" judgment and
> > destruction.
>
> I am more inclined to accept a universal flood
> position rather than a local one. That does not mean
> Mt. Everest was covered with 20 feet of water. Some
> of the others would have to tackle this from a local
> standpoint.
>

OK.

> >
> > Please explain why the 1st Use rule and Frequency
> > Rule, Redaction Criticism, , Historical Criticism and
> > Literary Criticism cannot be applied to the use of
> > "Earth" in the first eight chapters of the bible as
> it
> > relates to the desired purpose of the flood.
>
> We are not talking about the flood yet. These are
> manmade tools to interpret the Scripture. When they
> disagree with the Work of God I choose to believe God.
>

So when I say that radioactive dating are manmade tools to interpret age. When they disagree with the scriptures, I choose to believe God....where does that leave us?

> >
> > Explain why Prayer is effective or ineffective.
>
> Didn't respond because it is a distraction from
> Genesis 1:1-5.
>

You may be distracted. I can understand why. It is a very difficult question if you believe that everything is known before hand by God.

> >
> > Explain the passage:
> >
> > Rom 11:20-21
> > 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken
> > off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but
> > fear.
> > 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He
> > may not spare you either.
> > (NKJ)
>
> Many Jews rejected Jesus. By doing so they proved they
> were not really Abraham's children - they were Jews in
> name only. In the same manner, you might be a
> Christian in name only. Instead of trusting Jesus
> alone, you might be trusting in the traditions of men.
>

So is a branch saved or not saved? If saved then you are denying eternal security? To understand this verse you must realize it has nothing to do with individuals. It is a "corporate" expression.

Remember that even though God cut off Israel, the disciples (Peter, James and John) still kept on ministering to the Jews ONLY. Gal 2:. So if God were to cut off the Gentiles, we too would continue in our ministry but the fields would not be so ripe.

>
> >
> > I could on for an hour. The point is that you cannot
>
> I am sure you could, and probably will.
>
> > answer these questions. If you can please do so.
>
> I did.

You avoided the unfulfilled prophecies of Jesus of Nazareth. Again I know why. No one wants to look the truth in the face if they cannot recognize the image of God. Before I understood the meaning of Jeremiah 18:, these unfullfilled prophecies were quite an issue. Don't let anyone fool you here. Jesus meant exactly what he said! But because God is a living God, he changed his plan. Gal 2:, Eph 3:, Col 1:

>
> Explain the end time revelations from your model's
> perspective, in particular the first hand descriptions
> of the time yet to come, including the judgment, and
> the new Jerusalem.
>

This I can do. I can also prove that the tribulation will occur after the church is raptured. I have a 50 page write up on this issue. Do you really want it?

I have several questions above, please try to answer them.

As for the rest of this group they have become disconnected for any number of reasons, but as I said before and I will say again, it is not possible to come up with a consistent OEC hermeneutic.

Daniel

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.