ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[themuzicman]

Again, I do not know how God’s foreknowledge works or how future works. Once you step out of our three dimensional world you leave science behind. Do you believe God is trapped inside our three dimensional world?

What does this have to do with a three dimensional world? It's a logical proof. Do you believe God is logical?

The human as a free will agent makes moral decisions he can be held accountable for making. God did not cause humans to make these free will decisions or they would not be held accountable, but God knows at least some of them prior to the human knowing them as an example: John the Baptist before his conception, Peter hours before his denials, Judas before his betrayal, or the Jewish spiritual leadership before condemning Christ.

Well, this is also an epistemological argument. Unless you're just going to appeal to mystery, there isn't much wiggle room.

All of these things can be dealt with without Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge.

I would not think it was impossible for God to know all human free will decisions before the creation of this world, but I do not know how He would know them, but I do not understand how any miracle is done. You are trying to put God into a logical system to reasoning out how things can or can not be done, is that logical in itself?

That's the mind that God gave us. I

f you're going to say that you don't know, then say you don't know. But don't make a counter claim based upon "I don't know." You cannot make a claim for or against EDF from "I don't know."

If you want cause then “God caused humans to be made that make decisions they can be held accountable for making without making the decisions for them.”

Which, as I've demonstrated, is logically incompatible with exhaustive definite foreknowledge.

I actually agree with your statement. I disagree with your assertion about God's knowledge of the future.

From your little analogy: What makes things unchangeable in the future is the human’s free will decision that will not change, because it is known by God and not God making the decision. Since the human is making the decision he is held accountable. I see God defining free will decisions as those decisions the agent can be held accountable for making.

Apparently you can't see that because all our future decisions will be unchangeable, they cannot be free decisions.

Muz

 

[Clete]

You are putting words into my mouth. I never used the word "weight", and I was not even familiar with this use of the word "dividing", I was speaking of authority. And the simple fact of the matter is that you can fish in my mind for the next one hundred years for a justification of Mormon or Catholic claims to authority and you will not find them. I utterly deny and repudiate such claims to authority. The Bible is the only authority put into the hands of men for the determination of the truth!!!!!!

Oh! So that's great! What you're telling me then is that we've been discussing to completely different topics.

Thanks so much for wasting my time.

There is no way that you will ever convince me that you did not know what was actually being discussed.

I would hardly be here offering up my interpretations of the Bible if I did not think they were correct, and I could not think my interpretations were correct if I did not think it was possible to correctly interpret the scriptures.

Then what in the world have we been discussing this whole time! What are you too stupid to be able to follow a simple conversation?

On what basis do you make a determination that your interpretation is MORE CORRECT (heaven forbid that I use a term like "authoritative" - it might confuse you into thinking I'm talking about something complete off the topic of one's ability to interpret the Scripture even though that's the only topic we've been discussing this whole time.) than anyone elses?

How do you know that your interpretation is more correct than David Koresh's or Jim Jones'

Are you just hoping that you're more correct? Do you just feel like you're more correct? Do you use the force to figure it out, or what?

As Christians we have a personal relationship with the living God. With God clearly all things are possible. If God speaks through us, then where is the authority? Is the authority in God or in us? If God speaks to us then we know the truth. But if a person speaks and we do not hear the voice of God then how do we know if God has spoken? How shall we know that God did not speak through David Koresh and Jim Jones and that what they taught was wrong? We judge the spirits by comparing what they say to the written word for therein lies the authority to make such judgements. The word of God is our safety net and our sheild against the powers of darkness.

What good would comparing what they say to the written word do? (This is a leading question, I know. But if you would just answer it, I think we might actually make some progress here.

You make no sense. With every post I make I judge for myself what the Bible says. Why should I not urge that others do the same?

The only reason it made no sense to you is because you somehow got the notion in your head that I had changed the subject from validity of Biblical interpretation to ultimate authority or something.

I will share my interpretation of scripture in hopes that it will clear up some of the confusion that people like me may have about things, but I will never use this to turn their attention from God and the Bible to myself. What I say may be true, God may speak through me, but I have no authority. Look not to me but to God and the scriptures.

Oh God! Why oh why did I ever use the word authority? Please just forget that I ever used that word.

Don't take me seriously. Take the Bible seriously. Listen to God not me. Take responsibility for your own choices and your own life. Search for God without me. I am nothing. My Lord Jesus is everything.

Jim Jones' followers took the Bible seriously, or at least they said they did. What's the difference between them and you? Why were they wrong? They could quote the Bible in defense of everything they ever did almost right up to the very end. Where did they go wrong and how to you avoid making the same error?

I would rather have no credibility at all than point to myself rather than Jesus. I would rather be thought a fool and not lead one person anywhere than be thought wise and lead just one person astray. Yes, you forced me to make a choice between myself and my Lord and I choose my Lord. You are absolutely correct, I put no trust in myself so why should you.

Sorry, your "clever" ploy has failed. "Get behind me, Satan!"

You completely missed the point and are acting like a lunatic.

"Get behind me, Satan!" Indeed. Get over yourself, will ya?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lighthouse]

It cannot be both. A door cannot be both open and entirely closed. A woman is either pregnant or she is not. Likewise, the future is either exhaustively settled or it is not. There is not a third rational alternative. You can talk all day long about how man perceives it vs. how God perceives it, or whatever; but at the end of the day, regardless of how it is perceived, the future either is settled or it is not.


Resting in Him,
Clete

Not to mention, it doesn't matter how we perceive it, only how God does. If He perceives it any differently than we do, then His perception is the correct one, and ours is false.

 

[mitchellmckain]

Oh! So that's great! What you're telling me then is that we've been discussing to completely different topics.

Thanks so much for wasting my time.

You seem to under the foolish delusion that people communicate whenever they talk. People talk past each other all the time. Most of the time that is exactly why they get upset. The point where they realize that they have been talking about competely different things is when communication finally begins. If you consider reaching that point to be a waste of time, then you have no interest in communication. For my part, this is whole point of these discussion forums.

It is also possible that you are interested in communication but that like me you do not handle fustration very well.

There is no way that you will ever convince me that you did not know what was actually being discussed.

Well if you are going to insist that you know what I know better than I know it myself and refuse to listen me on this matter, then communication is clearly an impossibility.

But let me make a few things perfectly clear. The topic of this thread is Open Theism and if you wish to discuss something else the burden is on you to explain what that is. I know perfectly well what I was talking about, but your reponse here tells me that I have not understood your questions as you intended. All I can do is try to second guess what you might be talking about when I consider your questions in the future.

Then what in the world have we been discussing this whole time! What are you too stupid to be able to follow a simple conversation?

Who is stupider the person who keeps trying to explain himself better and keeps trying to figure out what the other person is talking about, or the person who just decides to call the other person stupid?

On what basis do you make a determination that your interpretation is MORE CORRECT (heaven forbid that I use a term like "authoritative" - it might confuse you into thinking I'm talking about something complete off the topic of one's ability to interpret the Scripture even though that's the only topic we've been discussing this whole time.) than anyone elses?
...
Are you just hoping that you're more correct? Do you just feel like you're more correct? Do you use the force to figure it out, or what?

I am frankly rather wary of answering this question that is so much like the others. The hostility of your responses puts me on my guard and make me wonder what is the point of these question?

Therefore, if you are talking about personal methods of making decisions, then I must insist that you explain your methods first.

But while I must make judgements on many issues for myself in order to make decisions in my life, I do not put my faith in these decisions. I put my faith in God. In other words, I do the best that I can, with faith that God will guide me in a manner that is in accordance with His will. And this does NOT mean that I assume that my decisions are more correct that those of others. My faith is only that God has my sanctification in His hands according to His plan, whether it is to teach me through my errors or otherwise. I, therefore, leave it up to God to judge which interpretations are "MORE CORRECT".

The only reason it made no sense to you is because you somehow got the notion in your head that I had changed the subject from validity of Biblical interpretation to ultimate authority or something.

You never said you were talking about the validity of Biblical interpretation. You asked, "Are you saying that theology is just a subjective matter of opinion?" To that I answered yes. Apparently to you that means that Biblical interpretation has no validity. You seem to think that only that which is objective is valid, but I do not share that opinion. It is clear that we do not think the same way. Perhaps a habit of calling people who think differently than you do stupid has limited your realization of the basic fact that people do think in vastly different ways even when they come to the same conclusion.

You completely missed the point and are acting like a lunatic.

"Get behind me, Satan!" Indeed. Get over yourself, will ya?

I find it sad that you consider overcoming temptation and quoting our Lord Jeus to be lunacy. I do keep trying to get over myself. I thought that is what I was doing. But for some of us arrogant ignorant slobs the road to becoming conformed to our Lord and Savior is a long one.

 

[bling]

Muz asked:
What does this have to do with a three dimensional world? It's a logical proof. Do you believe God is logical?

You are trying to make God fit logical principles.
What caused God to be loving?
What caused God to be all powerful?
What caused God to know how to make the universe?
What caused God?
The same can be said of what caused God to know the future free will decisions of some humans?
If God truly does know all the future like He knows all the past (I am not sure of this) then He would not operate with logic, but with knowledge.

Muz said:

Well, this is also an epistemological argument. Unless you're just going to appeal to mystery, there isn't much wiggle room.
All of these things can be dealt with without Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge.

Do you know how God does any miracle?
I have heard Bob’s explanation to Judas and Peter, and I have heard others address John the Baptist, but all are very weak poor arguments and make some unlikely assumptions. I also have not liked those supporting the idea of foreknowledge in these situations posting on this board.

Muz said:

That's the mind that God gave us. I

f you're going to say that you don't know, then say you don't know. But don't make a counter claim based upon "I don't know." You cannot make a claim for or against EDF from "I don't know."

I know it is not illogical to think God would have foreknowledge of human free will moral decisions and not be the cause of those decisions. You can not apply the cause and effect principle to God for there need not be cause for God to know or be something. Effect is preceded by cause, but that assumes that God can not move information through time.
1 Peter 2: 24He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.
This passage suggests that our burden of sins travel back to Christ on the cross. Just as the priest symbolically lad his hands on the sake goat to take the sins of the Jewish communities into the wilderness (abyss), Christ in the Spiritual realm while on the cross bore our sins to Hades. Christ did not bare unforgiven sins, so we must seek God’s forgiveness for our sins so Christ can take them away. Just as all the forgiven sins of the past moved forward to be bore on the cross all the forgiven sins of today move back to the cross.

Muz said:

Which, as I've demonstrated, is logically incompatible with exhaustive definite foreknowledge.

I actually agree with your statement. I disagree with your assertion about God's knowledge of the future.

Philosophically it is not possible for something to definitely be known ahead of time without the cause occurring ahead of that time. But that puts into question “time” and how that works. It assumes God is limited by our time.
I have enough science to understand; information in our three dimensional world can not exceed the speed of light, yet I believe God is getting information as it happens from many sources very far apart. Since that is scientifically impossible, I really don’t have a issue with God also getting information ahead of time.

Muz said:

Apparently you can't see that because all our future decisions will be unchangeable, they cannot be free decisions.

As far as I am concerned all of my future free will moral decisions are mine to make and I should be held accountable for making them. The fact that God might know those choices does not make Him responsible for them or me any less responsible.

 

[Lighthouse]

You are trying to make God fit logical principles.

God defines logical principles.

What caused God to be loving?

God is the first cause.

What caused God to be all powerful?

Omnipotent? Well, first, see above. Then tell me, is God powerful enough to choose not to know something? Is He powerful enough to change His mind?

What caused God to know how to make the universe?

God is the first cause.

What caused God?

See above.

The same can be said of what caused God to know the future free will decisions of some humans?
If God truly does know all the future like He knows all the past (I am not sure of this) then He would not operate with logic, but with knowledge.

Precisely. And He wouldn't tell us to do things we were not going to do, or vice versa.

Do you know how God does any miracle?
I have heard Bob’s explanation to Judas and Peter, and I have heard others address John the Baptist, but all are very weak poor arguments and make some unlikely assumptions. I also have not liked those supporting the idea of foreknowledge in these situations posting on this board.

What do miracles have to do with this?

I know it is not illogical to think God would have foreknowledge of human free will moral decisions and not be the cause of those decisions. You can not apply the cause and effect principle to God for there need not be cause for God to know or be something. Effect is preceded by cause, but that assumes that God can not move information through time.

It is illogical to think that God could know these decisions before they were made.

1 Peter 2: 24He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.
This passage suggests that our burden of sins travel back to Christ on the cross. Just as the priest symbolically lad his hands on the sake goat to take the sins of the Jewish communities into the wilderness (abyss), Christ in the Spiritual realm while on the cross bore our sins to Hades. Christ did not bare unforgiven sins, so we must seek God’s forgiveness for our sins so Christ can take them away. Just as all the forgiven sins of the past moved forward to be bore on the cross all the forgiven sins of today move back to the cross.

Our sins don't have to travel back. They are not physical, or metaphysical to where they can travel anywhere. Especially not along a non-existant trail. We accept the forgiveness, and it is done. That is what Christ's death did for us.

Philosophically it is not possible for something to definitely be known ahead of time without the cause occurring ahead of that time. But that puts into question “time” and how that works. It assumes God is limited by our time.
I have enough science to understand; information in our three dimensional world can not exceed the speed of light, yet I believe God is getting information as it happens from many sources very far apart. Since that is scientifically impossible, I really don’t have a issue with God also getting information ahead of time.

God is limited by Himself. And time is an attribute of God. Also, if God is omnipresent, then He can get all the information He needs, when He needs it. It does not have to exceed the speed of light. However, thought exceeds the speed of light.

As far as I am concerned all of my future free will moral decisions are mine to make and I should be held accountable for making them. The fact that God might know those choices does not make Him responsible for them or me any less responsible.

But, if God knows them, then they've already been made, and you are not free to do otherwise, therefore they are not free will decisions.

 

[bling]

It cannot be both. A door cannot be both open and entirely closed. A woman is either pregnant or she is not. Likewise, the future is either exhaustively settled or it is not. There is not a third rational alternative. You can talk all day long about how man perceives it vs. how God perceives it, or whatever; but at the end of the day, regardless of how it is perceived, the future either is settled or it is not.


Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete, you’re not going to get logical thinkers to say, “Just because God somehow knows your future free will moral decisions, you can not be held accountable for making those decisions.” If those decisions are your decisions then you can be held accountable for making them. We are talking about God’s knowledge and what God could possible do. Just because we can not explain how does not mean it would be impossible, like any other miracle.

 

[themuzicman]

You are trying to make God fit logical principles.
What caused God to be loving?
What caused God to be all powerful?
What caused God to know how to make the universe?
What caused God?

Those things are God's nature. They are necessary.

The same can be said of what caused God to know the future free will decisions of some humans?

Well, you just took another step away from free will, since free will requires the agent to be able to choose decision Y or ~Y, but you just make all our decisions necessary, so they cannot be free.

If God truly does know all the future like He knows all the past (I am not sure of this) then He would not operate with logic, but with knowledge.

However, there is a logical incompatibility between this knowledge and free will. I'm not saying that God couldn't create a world where He foreknows everything that would happen. I'm saying that this knowledge would make free will logically impossible.

Do you know how God does any miracle?

Faith. But I don't use miracles to make truth claims about the nature of creation and God's knowledge.

I have heard Bob’s explanation to Judas and Peter, and I have heard others address John the Baptist, but all are very weak poor arguments and make some unlikely assumptions. I also have not liked those supporting the idea of foreknowledge in these situations posting on this board.

Well, you still have your logical contradiction, which is worse than weak and poor.

I know it is not illogical to think God would have foreknowledge of human free will moral decisions and not be the cause of those decisions. You can not apply the cause and effect principle to God for there need not be cause for God to know or be something. Effect is preceded by cause, but that assumes that God can not move information through time.

Well, for this created universe, effect comes after cause, and the cause is a creating being, namely us, so the effect comes after, not before, regardless of whether God can do things with the effect preceding the cause.

1 Peter 2: 24He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.
This passage suggests that our burden of sins travel back to Christ on the cross. Just as the priest symbolically lad his hands on the sake goat to take the sins of the Jewish communities into the wilderness (abyss), Christ in the Spiritual realm while on the cross bore our sins to Hades. Christ did not bare unforgiven sins, so we must seek God’s forgiveness for our sins so Christ can take them away. Just as all the forgiven sins of the past moved forward to be bore on the cross all the forgiven sins of today move back to the cross.

That passage suggests no such thing. If Christ died for the sins of the whole world, would He have died for our sins? Of course he would. (See 1 John 2:2)

I believe that's called special pleading. (I know it's eisegesis.)

Philosophically it is not possible for something to definitely be known ahead of time without the cause occurring ahead of that time. But that puts into question “time” and how that works. It assumes God is limited by our time.

Why? Is it possible that God experiences His own time, and observes the passage of our time without being bound by it?

I have enough science to understand; information in our three dimensional world can not exceed the speed of light, yet I believe God is getting information as it happens from many sources very far apart. Since that is scientifically impossible, I really don’t have a issue with God also getting information ahead of time.

Except for that pesky logical proof which says that your view is incompatible with free will.

As far as I am concerned all of my future free will moral decisions are mine to make and I should be held accountable for making them. The fact that God might know those choices does not make Him responsible for them or me any less responsible.

That's the typical compatiblist position. Unfortunately, it's a logical contradiction.

Muz

 

[bling]

There were about a dozen things you said in your post I could have chosen to respond too but I think this was the most interesting and least discussed on this thread so I chose it (i.e. freely).

This definition renders either the word "free" or the word "accountable" meaningless because the line of thought here is circular.

You said, in so many words, that men are held accountable for their decisions because those decisions were freely made and then said that free decisions are defined by the ability to be held accountable for the decision.

Well that's as circular as can be. Does the sky define blue or does blue define the sky? It cannot be both.

Resting in Him,
Clete

You are right, but I think you understand what I am trying to say. I am defining “an agent’s decision” as a choice the agent makes and can be held accountable for making.
The fact that God might know the agent’s choice does not relieve the agent of the responsibility for making the choice since God or anyone else did not make the agents choice for him.

 

[bling]

MitchellMcKain, great posts:
I have read your posts with great interest. I see a lot of the problem being our understanding of Man’s objective and God’s objective. So could you give me your take?

Also you talk of the “utterly depraved" man. What part does Satan play in that?

 

[Clete]

You are right, but I think you understand what I am trying to say. I am defining “an agent’s decision” as a choice the agent makes and can be held accountable for making.
The fact that God might know the agent’s choice does not relieve the agent of the responsibility for making the choice since God or anyone else did not make the agents choice for him.

Muz's post 5186 seems to prove otherwise, does it not?

 

[elected4ever]

Let T abbreviate the proposition that you will answer the phone tomorrow at 9, and let us suppose that T is true.

Using the example of the proposition T, the argument that infallible foreknowledge of T entails that you do not answer the telephone freely can be formulated as follows:

Basic Argument for Theological Fatalism

(1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
(2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
(3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
(4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of "infallibility"]
(5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of "necessary"]
(8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/​

In essence, for foreknowledge to be certain about a future decision, that decision must have already been caused. If God foreknows all future decisions before He created, and no other free will agent existed before creation, then there is only one eligible candidate for who caused those decisions.

Muz

Muz's post 5186 seems to prove otherwise, does it not?

No, because the free agency of man is also a part of God's plan. So God's knowing cannot negate the free agency of man.

 

[themuzicman]

Knowing doesn't directly negate free agency. It's the requirement of previous cause that is necessary for certain knowledge that negates free agency.

 

[elected4ever]

Knowing doesn't directly negate free agency. It's the requirement of previous cause that is necessary for certain knowledge that negates free agency.

That is why a person who is saved is no longer a free agent. That is why no one who remains in the flesh is saved. That is why we become a new creation. At present we are spiritual creations looking for the day when we shall change this vile body for a new one. As lone as we recognize the authority of the flesh (the old dead man) in our lives we will have conflict with the will of God and the will of the flesh.

 

[themuzicman]

So, you're a hard determinist, then?

 

[elected4ever]

So, you're a hard determinist, then?

What is a hard determinist? I have never heard that word before.

 

[themuzicman]

A determinist who says that there is no free will.

 

[elected4ever]

A determinist who says that there is no free will.

OH yes there is free will but that free will is not without bounderes.

 

[mitchellmckain]

I see a lot of the problem being our understanding of Man’s objective and God’s objective. So could you give me your take?

Objective in the sense of purpose or objective as opposed to subjective??? Well I suppose I should assume the first since I am not sure this distinction has any meaning when we are talking about God.

As for purpose, what does the perfect infinite being do except seek to give of His infinite abundance to another? God created life as the perfect object for relationship, something with infinite potentiality to which He could give without limit of His own infinite actuality. The purpose of living things is somewhat a thing of their own determination. That is part of what free will means. But in the eyes of God our purpose is life - more and more life, realizing our greater and ultimately (eternally) infinite potentialites. Our greatest potentiality is therefore one of fully participating in the parent-child relationship we can have with God, growing in the Lord eternally.

Since taking our life (choice) from us contradicts God's purpose in creating us, we remain free to choose a lesser purpose than eternal life.

Also you talk of the “utterly depraved" man. What part does Satan play in that?

I guess I don't really believe in Satan. And I don't mean that do not think he exists. I do. I just don't give him any credit for anything. I ignore him. What power he has is largely because we give it to him, either by believing his lies or by making him our scapegoat. The real responsibility for evil lies with human beings. I give him no attention except to consider his role in the fall of Adam and Eve.

Unlike the majority of Christians I do not believe that the angels have authentic free will, and I do not believe in any war in heaven where angels rebelled against God before Adam and Eve's disobedience. Genesis chapter 3 is the story of the origin of evil. Evil is the creation of human beings not God and not the angels. God created the possibility for evil when He created life, for that possibility is inherent in the nature of life.

It, however, possible that Lucifer had been turning towards a darker interpretation of his purpose as a result of the darker choices of living things before Adam and Eve. But Adam and Eve's obedience would have made this irrelevant. The real responsibility was theirs. They in effect created the devil when they assigned to him all the blame and responsibility for their disobedience.

 

[bling]

Muz said:
Those things are God's nature. They are necessary.

Necessary for who or what?

Muz said:
Well, you just took another step away from free will, since free will requires the agent to be able to choose decision Y or ~Y, but you just make all our decisions necessary, so they cannot be free.

The free will decision of an agent determined Y or ~Y and God knew which choice was made before hand. It is a simple concept, if God is not constrained to our time frame.

Muz said:
However, there is a logical incompatibility between this knowledge and free will. I'm not saying that God couldn't create a world where He foreknows everything that would happen. I'm saying that this knowledge would make free will logically impossible.
There is only logical incompatibilities if God can not receive future information in the present.

Try to step out of our three dimensional time constrained universe for a second and see if this would sound logical: “If God somehow knows your future free will moral decisions, you can still be held accountable for making those decisions.”

Muz said:
Faith. But I don't use miracles to make truth claims about the nature of creation and God's knowledge.

I would say, the portion of God outside the scientific world (our Three dimensional world) is all miraculous.

Muz said:
Well, you still have your logical contradiction, which is worse than weak and poor.

It is not illogical to say, “God can know our free will moral decisions without being the cause.”

Muz said:
Well, for this created universe, effect comes after cause, and the cause is a creating being, namely us, so the effect comes after, not before, regardless of whether God can do things with the effect preceding the cause.

We are the cause and God knows the effect.

Muz said:
That passage suggests no such thing. If Christ died for the sins of the whole world, would He have died for our sins? Of course he would. (See 1 John 2:2)

I believe that's called special pleading. (I know it's eisegesis.)

Christ died so all men might be saved, but not all are saved, so do you think everyone’s sins have been forgiven or were bore by Christ?
I’m thinking Jesus has done and is doing all He can to accept every individual’s burden of sin, but they have to be given up to be taken away. Anyone and everyone has to accept the unwarranted free gift of forgiveness or their sins remain with them.

Muz asked;
Why? Is it possible that God experiences His own time, and observes the passage of our time without being bound by it?

Yes, but this philosophical principle is based on the inability of future information moving back to the present without impacting the future. As long as God is in control of that future information a paradox can be avoided.

Muz said:
Except for that pesky logical proof which says that your view is incompatible with free will.

I am not having a problem with it, but I do not have a problem with relativity and worm wholes either.

Muz said:
That's the typical compatiblist position. Unfortunately, it's a logical contradiction.

There are assumptions made in the logical statement:
“ If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]”
The assumption is: “An outside entity limits the choice of the agent.”
If the agent herself is the only cause of the agent’s inability to do otherwise then the agent is still acting freely. In the case of God knowing the agent’s decision, the agent is setting the limits on the future action.