Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does God know all things that are, have been, and will be?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by godrulz View Post
    However, Jesus (God) made choices. Rom. 6:13-16; I Peter 1:13-16; Rom. 12:1-2, etc. does link holiness/rigtheousness with obedience.
    No they don't, and there lies your ignorance of the Bible and of God. Your god, resembles that of the Mormon god, not the Biblical God.

    You would have people believe that the ground that Moses approached was "holy" because it chose to be. This speaks to your false beliefs, and stupidity. I've already revealed what the word "holy" means. It's not my definition. It is the definition that is rooted in the meaning of the word since the word has been used. It just doesn't fit your strange and unbiblical theories about your god.

    To be "holy" is to be separate from comparison. There is none like God ~ He is Holy. You cannot compare Him to any other. Those in Christ have been made holy, and even though they are separate from the world, from darkness, from sin, from death, etc., they are not separate from Christ or from one another. They are holy. This is what holy means. This is what it has always meant, and your confusion about the term is why everything else you believe is a mess. Until you stop equating the word holy with morality, you will forever be stupid and always saying stupid things.

    Rom. 6:13-16 supports my position and makes you look even more foolish.

    Starting in verse 12

    "Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God."

    The relationship with sin has ceased for those in Christ. They are no longer under its control or power. They are no longer its slave. They no longer obey sin. The power of sin is the Law, and they are no longer under the Law. In chapter 5 Paul says sin reigns in death. Believers are now alive in Christ. If they do not consider themselves dead to sin, and alive to God, then they will put themselves back under the Law declaring themselves sinners who obey sin. They go back to presenting the members of their body to a system that proves them a sinner. Instead they are to present themselves to God as what they are... an instrument of righteousness? You cannot be in sin and in Christ? They are alive, not dead.

    Verse 14

    "For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace"

    Sin lost its power in their life, not because they are obeying the Law, but because they have died to it through Christ's sacrifice, and they are now alive in the Spirit, by grace.

    Rom 6:15

    “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!”

    Paul is now asking if they shall sin. After all, God is not counting their sins against them, because they are no longer under the Law that proves they are sinning. So shall they just go out and sin? False teachers, like you, read this verse and respond to it like this:

    “Paul is telling us that we should refrain from sinning. You know, do the best we can, because none of us can stop sinning altogether. But with God’s help, we can certainly give it our best effort”

    This mentality is completely foreign to Paul, to the text, and lacks basic logic, reason, and reality. It makes a mockery of the sacrifice of Jesus and His resurrected life. They are either free from sin, dead to sin, or they are not. There is no question that the behaviors may or may not have changed, but even unbelievers can change their behavior, and if that is the evidence that they are free from sin, then unbelievers could make the same claim. They have indwelling sin in their flesh Romans 7. The flesh is insatiable. In it, is coveting of every kind. The flesh practices evil. That is its job. It can do no other. You cannot control the flesh, and it is the height of arrogance to think you can or are. No matter how much you want to, you cannot do what you please.

    Again, Paul makes the same statement he did when asked if they would continue in sin. “May it never be!” Is Paul saying, “No, don’t intentionally go out and sin because you are under grace and not under the Law”. Absolutely not! Paul is saying that it will never be. God will not allow it. Why? How can Paul say that it will never be that they sin because they are under grace? The answer is in the next verse:

    Rom 6:16

    "Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?"

    If they are going to return to the system of the Law, then they will be proved a sinner, and a slave to sin, and the result is death. In other words, if sin is to be held to their account, then they have a big problem. If they want to consider themselves alive to sin, then sin is once again their master. If it is them that is sinning, than there is only one result for their obedience to sin, and that is death. Hebrews 10:26-29 really makes this point clear…

    “For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?”

    In this chapter of Hebrews it is revealed that Jesus is the once for all sacrifice for sin. There is no other sacrifice. It is finished. If they are going to negate His sacrifice and claim that they are continuing to sin, then there is not going to be another sacrifice for their sin. The only thing you would have to look forward to is a terrifying expectation of judgment. Those who were under the Law only needed a couple of witnesses to die without mercy. How much more those who reject the sacrifice of Jesus and call his sacrifice insufficient to take away sin once for all? It is an insult to God’s grace, because they regard His blood as being impure to cleanse them from all sin.

    They have been set free from sin. What an insult it is to return to sin and make themselves a slave all over again by attempting to obey the Law for righteousness. What are they going to obey? Sin, resulting in death? Or the Gospel resulting in righteousness? The truth is, if they are in Christ they can’t even become a slave of sin, because they are already dead to sin. However, like the Galatians they can be deceived into walking like they are still under the old slave owner.

    1 Peter 1:13-16

    Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; as obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance; but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, “Be holy, for I am holy.”


    Again, being holy means that we are not to be compared with the world. We have come out of the world and are one Spirit with Him. We are joined to Him. We are to conduct ourselves as those who are holy (separated from the world), not as thoese who are in the world.

    Romans 12:1-2

    I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.


    Again, because of your distortion and rejection that those in Christ have been made holy, righteous, blameless, complete and perfect in Christ, you attribute those things to your self-effort, making you self-righteous and outside the faith. Believers are holy, separated unto God, and we present our bodies for His purpose, not being conformed to the world, but having already been conformed to Christ

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
      We are made in God's image and likeness, your dog is not not made in your image and likeness. We are not to God like a dog is to us. Although, I'm afraid that some pet owner's would argue they have a deeper relationship with their pet than with their fellow man and sadly that might be the case. But if it is, then that person has diminished him or her self. And anyone who compares God to him or herself as a dog is compared to us, has also diminished themself.
      Agreed, don't take my analogy further than I intended. I only used the analogy to address how far removed God's understanding is from our own.

      Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
      Since we are made in the "image and likeness" of God, we should understand that we are very much like God and not as unlike him as you suggest. We are finite means we are like God in a limited way in what God is like in an unlimited way.
      He made us in His image, but this doesn't mean we are gods. We are called that once in scripture and then it is quoted by the apostle, but we are not on par with Him and even made a little lower than the angels. So I agree with you here. My analogy wasn't to compare us to dogs but the comparison between what we know and what God knows by example.

      Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
      Because all things were created "by God", all thing consist "because of" him, not "in him".
      "Whatever proceeds, then, must necessarily originate in Him as the source of all things. As I said, we think about things as separate from ourselves. Beside God, there is nothing. He is the whole of His being."
      You are a "panentheist" not a "Biblical theist", when you say something like that.

      --Dave
      Thanks for the way this last sentence is phrased, Dave. You were careful. I will challenge the assessment, yet appreciate very much how you phrased it.

      Consider:
      Act 17:28 For in Him we live and move and have our being, as also certain of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring.

      My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
      Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
      Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
      Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
      No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
      Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

      ? Yep

      Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

      ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

      Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Nick M View Post
        Just come out and say you don't believe the bible is inspired by God.
        Really? That we would go to a concordance to find out what the translation is conveying? I'll simply say it again, English can and at times does confuse. When it comes to what the translators intended, isn't it a good idea to read their comments to see what they meant? I don't think even the open view has a problem with going to concordances, do they?
        Anybody in the open camp want to answer along with Nick? Is it desirable to use concordances? Do any of you have them?
        My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
        Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
        Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
        Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
        No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
        Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

        ? Yep

        Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

        ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

        Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
          No, I'm not sure what you mean.

          --Dave
          Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
          I take it that you mean that everything was decreed, ordained and determined "before" God created the world and time". If this is so, then you are saying there was a time in God when he decreed, ordained and determined everything, that came "before" God actually created the world and time.

          --Dave
          In your scenario, you are acquiescing that "God created the world and time." Next, you are asking a question about whether time is created or not by asking if there was a time before God created.
          So the question itself acquiesces what you are trying to show incorrect, and in that, it doesn't work. The proposition already sets Him apart from time as we know it ("created time").
          My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
          Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
          Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
          Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
          No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
          Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

          ? Yep

          Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

          ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

          Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
            But, if it is true that God has "perfect knowledge" of all things, wouldn't that mean that God has only "actual knowldge" and that nothing would be "possibilities" for him as it is for us?

            --Dave
            Like the toy track, God lays the track of our existence. It is 'possible' in a sense, that it could be moved, but a laid track is a layed track by the desired action. You could ask me to move the track, no problem. God is still involved with us and answers our prayers. The track can be changed, we are bound to the track, God is not, but is with us (again, both relational to and apart from).

            After several of these discussions, is it that you, reject the logical possiblity, or aren't understanding how its asserted to make sense?
            My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
            Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
            Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
            Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
            No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
            Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

            ? Yep

            Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

            ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

            Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by godrulz View Post
              I would be interested in your opinion on this new book:

              http://www.amazon.com/Against-Calvin.../dp/031032467X (he fairly understands and represents Calvinism, unlike Calvinists towards Arminians/Open Theists).
              Nothing fairly represented as far as I can tell. I have not read the book and don't plan on it. I have read Olson's fuller treatment in his Arminianism book. One need only read Olson's blog comments and responses related to the book to see his "fairness" in full light. He trouts out the usual "God is a demon" canards quickly, all couched in veiled "fairness". And, of course, there is this. 'Nuf said. I'm just sayin'.

              Olson may tout an irenic approach, but he continues to fail to walk his own talk. Frankly, the man should also stop flirting with open theism and just come out and declare himself a proponent. At least then open theists would have an actual theologian to claim versus the trio of philosophers it currently lays claim to.

              You should buy the book and not just skim it via Amazon. Its superficiality will likely find an appeal.

              AMR
              Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



              Do you confess?
              Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
              AMR's Randomata Blog
              Learn Reformed Doctrine
              I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
              Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
              Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
              The best TOL Social Group: here.
              If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
              Why?


              Comment


              • Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
                There's a big difference between God seeing us eat an apple as we are doing it in the present or had eaten an apple in the past and God seeing us eating an apple in the future. If we are "finite" how can we have done anything other than in the past and be doing anything other than in the present? Does'nt finite mean" limited"? If so, then are we not limited to moment by moment activity only?

                --Dave
                Interesting; I just used an apple in an example on another thread discussing the topic of the OV before I read your post here.
                sigpic

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ghost View Post
                  Okay.

                  Would you say that He knows all things that are, have been, and will be?

                  If so, is it eternally a present reality for God?
                  ## Is this for Calvinists only - or is the question directed to all members of Churches which believe in God's Omniscience ?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ghost View Post
                    And I'm sure this has been asked before...

                    So, when God says He no longer remembers our sins, it really means that He doesn't forget them, but that He doesn't take them into account?
                    ## This is a Hebrew way of speaking. Detailed discussions of omniscience in Christian theology have not usually been expressed in Hebrew categories of thinking, but in those of Graeco-Latin philosophy. Both have their uses, but it's not always possible to "register" Hebrew thought in a Graeco-Latin "register". It's like re-arranging a book so it can become a film - they are not entirely the same. This certainly applies to how God's knowledge is understood.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Lon View Post

                      Agreed, don't take my analogy further than I intended. I only used the analogy to address how far removed God's understanding is from our own.

                      He made us in His image, but this doesn't mean we are gods. We are called that once in scripture and then it is quoted by the apostle, but we are not on par with Him and even made a little lower than the angels. So I agree with you here. My analogy wasn't to compare us to dogs but the comparison between what we know and what God knows by example.

                      Thanks for the way this last sentence is phrased, Dave. You were careful. I will challenge the assessment, yet appreciate very much how you phrased it.

                      Consider:
                      Act 17:28 For in Him we live and move and have our being, as also certain of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring.

                      I agree that we are not "gods", but the animal to human analogy goes too far. We have rationality, so does God, animals do not.

                      "Because of him we have..." We must establish the difference between Biblical theism and panentheism. I think you would agree to that.

                      --Dave
                      www.dynamicfreetheism.com
                      The only view of ultimate reality that provides
                      rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
                      The only view that proves the existence and explains
                      the nature of God.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
                        Interesting; I just used an apple in an example on another thread discussing the topic of the OV before I read your post here.
                        I was just responding to zippy2006 use of "eating the apple", but it would not suprise me if we in advertently answered it the same way.

                        --Dave
                        www.dynamicfreetheism.com
                        The only view of ultimate reality that provides
                        rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
                        The only view that proves the existence and explains
                        the nature of God.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Lon View Post

                          In your scenario, you are acquiescing that "God created the world and time." Next, you are asking a question about whether time is created or not by asking if there was a time before God created.

                          So the question itself acquiesces what you are trying to show incorrect, and in that, it doesn't work. The proposition already sets Him apart from time as we know it ("created time").
                          I think you misunderstand, or I did not make it clear enough, that I'm granting Nang's proposition, for the sake of my argument that it's a contradiction. What I believe is not represented by these comments. Sorry for the confusion.

                          --Dave
                          www.dynamicfreetheism.com
                          The only view of ultimate reality that provides
                          rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
                          The only view that proves the existence and explains
                          the nature of God.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Lon View Post
                            Like the toy track, God lays the track of our existence. It is 'possible' in a sense, that it could be moved, but a laid track is a layed track by the desired action. You could ask me to move the track, no problem. God is still involved with us and answers our prayers. The track can be changed, we are bound to the track, God is not, but is with us (again, both relational to and apart from).

                            After several of these discussions, is it that you, reject the logical possiblity, or aren't understanding how its asserted to make sense?
                            I'll take my post from the other thread we have been engaged in to answer the track illustration.
                            Time is not a track because time is not a thing in itself, not something you can handle, feel, or see. Time is an aspect of something that exists and is active--experiences change or movement. The creation of something that had never existed before proves there is movement, change, and time/sequence in God.

                            The "track" that God put us on is not called time, it is called planet Earth. We are bound by our "finite" existence on earth, not by time. We can only do one thing at a time. God does as many things as he "freely" chooses to do, he is not bound to one thing at a time nor everything all at once.

                            Since moments of time do not exist as something that God must pass through, an "infinite" regress of them does not exist that would prevent him from getting to here and now.

                            --Dave

                            God's involvement with us means, logically, that he is in the same time and space reality as we are. God's invisibility does not mean he is "timeless and spaceless", his presence is simply not physical and visible. God acts and interacts sequentially, even though he does more than one thing at a time, any number of things he does will be followed by a number of other things, but not everything all at once.

                            In your example, if God moves the track that means time in God. He laid the track one way "before" we prayed and he moves the track in another direction "afterwards".

                            --Dave
                            www.dynamicfreetheism.com
                            The only view of ultimate reality that provides
                            rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
                            The only view that proves the existence and explains
                            the nature of God.

                            Comment


                            • "And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day".

                              How can God's presence be both outside of space and time and inside of space and time, at the same time? How can God be everywhere/omnipresent and nowhere/spaceless--outside of space and time?

                              God can transcend the "temporal state" but he can't transcend the "eternal state", and he can't be both "eternal/timeless" and be "temporal/in time" without obvious contradiction.

                              Not only would the statement "where are you" be figurative, God's presence would be figurative as well if God is timeless and spaceless. And if God's very presence could not be taken literally then Adam and Eve's actual existence comes into doubt as well.

                              From ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

                              --Dave
                              www.dynamicfreetheism.com
                              The only view of ultimate reality that provides
                              rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
                              The only view that proves the existence and explains
                              the nature of God.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                                "Character" Huh?

                                God's holiness is how God's consummate perfection and total glory is represented--God's moral purity (Lev. 11:44; Ps. 145:17) and divine majesty (Isa. 6:3; Ps. 22:3; Rev. 4:8).

                                Hodge captured it well: Infinite moral perfection is the crown of the Godhead. Holiness is the total glory thus crowned.

                                Ghost is correct: God is wholly other, separate...which captures the word "holy" well. Why do you think God struck down Uzzah? Just wondering.

                                AMR
                                GOD is absolutely HOLY, unlike any other being. He is perfect in every sense. The dispute is the technical, philosophical issues. Since we are to be holy like God, it is not just an aspect of being, but choice (I Peter 1:13-16). I agree with what you say, but don't assume Thomistic being ideas is correct. We should distinguish metaphysical vs moral issues lest we have a category confusion.

                                Rex Lex vs Lex Rex (I believe Lex Rex).
                                Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

                                They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
                                I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

                                Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

                                "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

                                The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X