BibleForums Christian Message Board
Bible Talk => Eschatology => Topic started by: JoshuaStone7 on November 17, 2021, 10:08:02 PM
-
(https://e-jw.org/index.php?media/1290.180/full)
“The daily sacrifice will be stopped. Then, after 1,290 days from that time, a blasphemous object that brings destruction will be set up. (Daniel 12:11,” EXB, NCV)
“There will be 1,290 days from the time that the daily sacrifices are stopped, until someone sets up the “Horrible Thing” that causes destruction.” (Daniel 12:11, NEV)
“There will be one thousand two hundred ninety days from the time the daily sacrifice is stopped to the setting up of the desolating monstrosity.” (Daniel 12:11, CEB)
Joshua
-
Lots of people seem to want to apply the 1290 days of Dan 12 to the Antichrist. I don't believe it does. I believe it represents the reign of Antiochus 4. We have two major figures in the book of Daniel, among others--Antiochus 4 and the Antichrist. We read of the Antichrist as the "Little Horn" in Dan 7. And we read about Antiochus 4 in both Dan 8 and Dan 11. Dan 12 ends the book of Daniel by discussing both of these major characters. The Antichrist reigns for 3.5 years. And Antiochus 4 reigns for 1290 days with respect to his persecution of the Jewish People. Just my opinion.
-
(http://e-jw.org/index.php?media/fghk.182/full)
Ending the time periods in Daniel 12 brings us to the 1335th day. The 1335th day ends forty-five days after the 1290th day.
"O the blessedness of him who is waiting earnestly, and doth come to the days, a thousand, three hundred, thirty and five." Dan 12:12
Joshua
(I can't figure out why my image is coming in so large. I've tried several image-sharing sites and links.) Please advise
-
(http://e-jw.org/index.php?media/fghk.182/full)
Ending the time periods in Daniel 12 brings us to the 1335th day. The 1335th day ends forty-five days after the 1290th day.
"O the blessedness of him who is waiting earnestly, and doth come to the days, a thousand, three hundred, thirty and five." Dan 12:12
Joshua
(I can't figure out why my image is coming in so large. I've tried several image-sharing sites and links.) Please advise
Fixed that for you. An image width can be defined with a 'width=$width' parameter when adding an image. For 600px you'd open the image tag with:
[img width=600]
By the way, I hope John's wife didn't quit her job.
-
By the way, I hope John's wife didn't quit her job.
Greetings friend, thank you...
John's wife?
(https://e-jw.org/index.php?media/1260.183/full)
The 1260 days begin the time frame in Daniel 12.
"And I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the stream; he raised his right hand and his left hand toward heaven and swore by him who lives forever that it would be for a time, times, and half a time, and that when the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end all these things would be finished. " Dan 12:7
"And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days." Rev 12:6
"But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle so that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to the place where she is to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time." Rev 12:14
Joshua
-
Greetings friend, thank you...
John's wife?
I found him on a 2017 thread on e-jw where you discuss much the same ideas as you're beginning to present here. Early in the thread, a poster mentioned that their wife was excited, knowing that she could quit her job between September 2018 and May 2021 on the basis, or perhaps misunderstanding, of things you had previously written.
Personally, I'm not too interested in end times prophecy. My eschatology is much more immediate. Maybe that'll change when I'm older.
But this does leave me wondering about John and his wife. I see Robert is still going on about things too, despite his apparent lack of understanding of prophecy. Something else, those people who can understand prophecy. I just don't think I understand the draw.
Anyway, I became interested after seeing your image source, given I just temporarily banned a different JW poster for being quite imbecilic in his approach. You've started off much more reasonably, and by all accounts, are more reasonable. It's interesting though, that two JWs show up around the same time, and the second after the first is banned. From the doctrine of the trinity to prophecy. From obstinate to educated (no less than thirty years of research into scholastic theology!). Imagine that? What a funny little coincidence. You don't just read the NWT though, so maybe you aren't quite JW?
Well, hopefully, the discussion here is as amicable as the discussions there. Interesting way to start a thread.
-
I found him on a 2017 thread on e-jw where you discuss much the same ideas as you're beginning to present here. Early in the thread, a poster mentioned that their wife was excited, knowing that she could quit her job between September 2018 and May 2021 on the basis, or perhaps misunderstanding, of things you had previously written.
Greetings...
John is a member of my forum, and I haven't seen him in a while, unfortunately.
Yes, misunderstandings are always an issue through the written word, as I'm sure you are well aware. I've learned a lot about communication and discussing scripture from running a forum for a decade. At one time, I was much more insistent others believe as I do. And along the way, God helped me to find my way through that imperfection by the gift of a fellow Christian. Not that our imperfections are ever completely gone; however, I like to think I am more mature nowadays. ;)
With that said, I have never said what I presented is fact, or that what I present will occur, but only that I wish to share what has been given me, where I am now in the text.
But this does leave me wondering about John and his wife. I see Robert is still going on about things too, despite his apparent lack of understanding of prophecy.
Were you familiar with John before just reading the post on my forum?
As to Robert: I really don't know what to say...lol Let's just say it sounds like you and I have traveled similar paths and know some of the same players.
Anyway, I became interested after seeing your image source, given I just temporarily banned a different JW poster for being quite imbecilic in his approach. You've started off much more reasonably, and by all accounts, are more reasonable. It's interesting though, that two JWs show up around the same time, and the second after the first is banned.
That is interesting...
I was baptized as one of JW's in 2000 but have come a long way over the years. In my opinion, no one has perfect knowledge of scripture on earth, and that includes any denomination we could name. I believe JW's have just as many doctrinal errors as any other denomination.
I've come to understand that there is only one salvational subject, and that is faith through Christ Jesus. Eschatology, Trinitarian vs Unitarian, history, what have you, are all open to empirical discussion and not a matter of salvation. In my opinion, of course.
Things were getting quiet over on my forum, so recently, I started branching out. I joined ChristianChat as well and started posting there a few days ago.
As to another JW member you banned recently, it would appear as a coincidence, other than perhaps our Father offering another brother in myself as an example of one who spent many years within the Watchtower.
From the doctrine of the trinity to prophecy. From obstinate to educated (no less than thirty years of research into scholastic theology!). Imagine that? What a funny little coincidence. You don't just read the NWT though, so maybe you aren't quite JW?
Well, hopefully, the discussion here is as amicable as the discussions there. Interesting way to start a thread.
I no longer want to convince anyone of anything in scripture. I have a good friend named Timothy, who I will dive in-depth with to assist in sharing details, but overall I want to share what I've been given, and that's why I'm here. I don't ask anyone to believe me; I just want to share scripture... :)
But of course, if there are any questions about what I share, I hope anyone speaks up. I can simply just explain how I have come to understand the text as I have.
All love...
Joshua
-
Personally, I'm not too interested in end times prophecy. My eschatology is much more immediate. Maybe that'll change when I'm older.
But this does leave me wondering about John and his wife. I see Robert is still going on about things too, despite his apparent lack of understanding of prophecy. Something else, those people who can understand prophecy. I just don't think I understand the draw.
I'm just going to comment on the prophecy part. I agree--prophecy has a "draw" that is not native to biblical sentiment. My own interest in prophecy is to void this "sensationalism" associated with prophecy, which even the Bible warns about.
We're not to be overly concerned with "times and seasons," which God alone controls. Our focus is to be on the now--not that we aren't supposed to recognize our surroundings by being informed about prophecy, but that our ministry is "today," and not in some future guess-game.
That being said, I think there is a natural enthusiasm over prophecy that is legitimate, which involves our excitement that God controls the future and is going to bring about lasting peace and everlasting bliss. How can you not get excited as you see the day approaching?
I'm sure you feel the same enthusiasm, but are right about the absurdity of formulating all of these contradictory timing schemes, prophecy calendars, false predictions, etc. But some of this is necessary just to get familiar with all of the prophecies, and in order to line them up in a true biblical order.
And the biblical order is much more simpler than people make it out to be. They are often dissatisfied with anything less than their complicated schemes, which of course they preside over as our prime navigator through God's word. ;)
Thanks for stating your thought on this.
-
We're not to be overly concerned with "times and seasons," which God alone controls. Our focus is to be on the now--not that we aren't supposed to recognize our surroundings by being informed about prophecy, but that our ministry is "today," and not in some future guess-game.
Greetings Randy, thank you for your post...
I've always thought it interesting that Jesus corrected His disciples when they asked about when the kingdom would be restored to Israel; however, He condemned the people for not recognizing the times in which they lived.
"Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority." Acts 1:6,7
"Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky. How is it that you don’t know how to interpret this present time?" Luk 12:56
All love...
Joshua
-
We're not to be overly concerned with "times and seasons," which God alone controls. Our focus is to be on the now--not that we aren't supposed to recognize our surroundings by being informed about prophecy, but that our ministry is "today," and not in some future guess-game.
Greetings Randy, thank you for your post...
I've always thought it interesting that Jesus corrected His disciples when they asked about when the kingdom would be restored to Israel; however, He condemned the people for not recognizing the times in which they lived.
"Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority." Acts 1:6,7
"Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky. How is it that you don’t know how to interpret this present time?" Luk 12:56
All love...
Joshua
Yes, exactly that! We do know our surroundings from God's pov because we've been sort of given the eyes of Jesus, to know by revelation what God is doing around us and how we need to respond to it.
Correcting the time of Christ's Return was explained by Jesus to be of the same nature as being prepared today against judgment. God's judgment is always threatening, and we don't have to wait until Christ comes to be ready for that.
-
Yes, exactly that! We do know our surroundings from God's pov because we've been sort of given the eyes of Jesus, to know by revelation what God is doing around us and how we need to respond to it.
Correcting the time of Christ's Return was explained by Jesus to be of the same nature as being prepared today against judgment. God's judgment is always threatening, and we don't have to wait until Christ comes to be ready for that.
Greetings friend...
Tell me: Why do you connect studying eschatology with being prepared now? Curious; can one be prepared now and still yet come to an accurate understanding of His second coming? I would assume you believe that is the case; however, your wording makes it seem like the two are incompatible.
Also, do you mind offering your insights on Amos 3:7? Thanks, brother!
"For the Lord GOD does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets." Amos 3:7
Regardless if you believe the two witnesses are individuals or a group, usually Christians believe they will have foreknowledge of future events upon the world, hence their preaching work. So could Jesus' words about His restoring the kingdom be simply directed to His disciples and not us? He was speaking to them after all, and He wasn't going to restore the kingdom at that time. Instead, it was their responsibility to understand the time in which they lived, those things fulfilled in the Messiah, right? So by deduction, it would be our responsibility to understand prophecy fulfilled in our day, right?
At least this is the way I currently understand our Lord's words... :)
All love.
Joshua
-
Yes, exactly that!
As a follow-up:
After posting the above, I re-read your reply. Unless I'm mistaken, you believe Jesus' words in Luke to be a general statement about their preparedness as to faith in the time in which they may live. Correct me if I am wrong...
"Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky. How is it that you don’t know how to interpret this present time?" Luk 12:56
Have you considered Jesus was instead speaking about the people understanding the future? This is the way I understand our Lord's words because of the parable He used.
"He said to the crowd: “When you see a cloud rising in the west, immediately you say, ‘It’s going to rain,’ and it does. And when the south wind blows, you say, ‘It’s going to be hot,’ and it is. Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky. How is it that you don’t know how to interpret this present time?" Luke 12:54-56
So He's speaking about the people being able to understand events to come, right? Isn't He saying they should recegnise prophecy being fulfilled in Him?
All love...
Joshua
-
How can you not get excited as you see the day approaching?
When I think about the age to come, the new earth, glorified bodies, being once more in full, proper relationship with God and with others, and whatever else I missed, I think... That's mind-blowing. It's terrific. It's so foreign as to be terrifying. I've met Jesus, and the thought of it all is still uncomfortable.
I also think, am I running the race? 1 Corinthians 9.
I also think, am I fighting the fight? 2 Timothy 4.
I also think, am I working out my salvation with fear and trembling? Philippians 2.
I also think, am I living a life worthy of Christ? Do I love God with my all, and my neighbours as myself? Do I act out of faith? Do I trust that God loves me? Do I have all the right beliefs?
I think that God has it all worked out so I'm more concerned with making it to the end. We're all concerned with that, don't get me wrong. But I don't think I'd be wrong in suggesting that it's something I'm hyper-aware of because of the particular cross I have to bear, as it were (trust me when I say that plenty of Christians would disqualify from the race if it were up to them). I think, in a way, I see eschatology truly as the study of last things. For me, it's something I engage with only after I were in a more comfortable place in the other areas of my life.
I don't think I'll ever be in that circumstance with the struggles I contend with. So, I suppose my eschatological concern is more focused on the historicity of my acts today and their unknown consequences into the future. It's not truly eschatology in the sense of final things, which is, of course, important.
I've always thought it interesting that Jesus corrected His disciples when they asked about when the kingdom would be restored to Israel; however, He condemned the people for not recognizing the times in which they lived.
"Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority." Acts 1:6,7
"Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky. How is it that you don’t know how to interpret this present time?" Luk 12:56
All love...
Joshua
I think the accusation of hypocrisy is important. It's not that these people didn't know how to interpret the present time, or that they knew but were blind because they got it wrong, but that they denied what clearly they ought to have accepted. They were hypocrites because they accepted the appearance of the earth and the sky, but didn't accept the appearance of Jesus: He heals the sick, raises the dead, forgives sins, makes divine claims.
Don't get me wrong when I say I'm not too bothered with end times stuff. It's in Scripture so obviously it's important, but it's not where my focus lies for the time being.
God's judgment is always threatening, and we don't have to wait until Christ comes to be ready for that.
Well, we don't need eschatology at all to be ready for that -- just be ready. Eschatology is important, of course, and we shouldn't do away with it.
-
God's judgment is always threatening, and we don't have to wait until Christ comes to be ready for that.
Well, we don't need eschatology at all to be ready for that -- just be ready. Eschatology is important, of course, and we shouldn't do away with it.
I define eschatology as inclusive of our hope. Without hope we don't drive towards any particular goal. In that sense I do think eschatology is important. It fills in details about our goal so that we pursue it in the proper way.
The kind of eschatology I see as important actually began in the distant past. The way Daniel painted the eschatological future he began with the 4th Beast of Dan 7, which I believe was the ancient Roman Empire.
And so, in that sense eschatology began with the ancient Roman Empire and has determined that history would become something both Christianized and apostate over time. This is what keeps us looking at life realistically, without being over idealistic with respect to our religion. And if we stay realistic, we won't give up too easily, nor will we fall into fear too quickly.
-
(https://e-jw.org/index.php?media/1290.180/full)
“The daily sacrifice will be stopped. Then, after 1,290 days from that time, a blasphemous object that brings destruction will be set up. (Daniel 12:11,” EXB, NCV)
“There will be 1,290 days from the time that the daily sacrifices are stopped, until someone sets up the “Horrible Thing” that causes destruction.” (Daniel 12:11, NEV)
“There will be one thousand two hundred ninety days from the time the daily sacrifice is stopped to the setting up of the desolating monstrosity.” (Daniel 12:11, CEB)
Joshua
I believe 1290 days was our Lords ministry when he walked on earth,
for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.Mt.23:13
We go in through Jesus,
Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep... I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. Jn.10:7,9
He's the daily sacrifice, which the accepted religious authority stopped for themselves and others who followed their edicts.
So He's speaking about the people being able to understand events to come, right? Isn't He saying they should recegnise prophecy being fulfilled in Him?
Yes, it is fulfilled in him and so the events to come is about how Jesus then as well as now in Spirit changes the perception of every believer.
-
So He's speaking about the people being able to understand events to come, right? Isn't He saying they should recegnise prophecy being fulfilled in Him?
Prophecy being fulfilled in Jesus is how I'd understand it, or at least, I think what makes them hypocritical is the parallel between their acts of recognition:
- Recognising the signs of the sky and earth
- Recognising the signs Jesus performed
In the first case, they recognised the signs and acted in accordance with what they saw, but in the second case, they recognised the signs then denied and resisted what they saw. Consequently, they would continue to resist any other signs pertaining to Jesus as His earthly ministry progressed. So, this thing that begins as a denial of Jesus works itself out in broader ways.
Does it make sense to call them hypocrites because they studied the prophecies but came to the wrong conclusions? I don't think so, at least in just that aspect alone. What pushes them over the line is that they were in denial, they were stubborn, they didn't like what they saw. Cloud in the west? Rain. Jesus raises the dead back to life?
Hypocrites.
-
So He's speaking about the people being able to understand events to come, right? Isn't He saying they should recegnise prophecy being fulfilled in Him?
Prophecy being fulfilled in Jesus is how I'd understand it, or at least, I think what makes them hypocritical is the parallel between their acts of recognition:
- Recognising the signs of the sky and earth
- Recognising the signs Jesus performed
In the first case, they recognised the signs and acted in accordance with what they saw, but in the second case, they recognised the signs then denied and resisted what they saw. Consequently, they would continue to resist any other signs pertaining to Jesus as His earthly ministry progressed. So, this thing that begins as a denial of Jesus works itself out in broader ways.
Does it make sense to call them hypocrites because they studied the prophecies but came to the wrong conclusions? I don't think so, at least in just that aspect alone. What pushes them over the line is that they were in denial, they were stubborn, they didn't like what they saw. Cloud in the west? Rain. Jesus raises the dead back to life?
Hypocrites.
This is true. God's word tells us,
the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Rev.19:19
Before I came to know the Lord, a guy came up to me on the street and asked if I believed in Jesus. I said yes. Then he said, "Go over to that giy waiting for the bus and tell him Jesus died for him." Then he walked away, but my reaction to his request was aversion, because I didn't really believe in Jesus the way I should have. In fact, I was ashamed of him. I cared more about looking foolish for Jesus than I did about Jesus.
Our Lord did many miracles, but even some people who believed in him wouldn't confess him openly for fear of being excommunicated from the synagogue by the religious authority.
Fear is a tool the devil uses in people to keep them fron God, from entering his Kingdom through our Savior. After opposing Jesus during his earthly ministry (3 1/2 years?), they crucified him. I believe that is the abomination that causes desolation, the rejection of God is what makes people desolate.
-
Before I came to know the Lord, a guy came up to me on the street and asked if I believed in Jesus. I said yes. Then he said, "Go over to that giy waiting for the bus and tell him Jesus died for him." Then he walked away, but my reaction to his request was aversion, because I didn't really believe in Jesus the way I should have. In fact, I was ashamed of him. I cared more about looking foolish for Jesus than I did about Jesus.
Sure, I can see that:
- Uh, but I'll look dumb?
- Uh, but what's the point?
- Uh, I don't know that person?
And so on. A funny thing about people, though, is that they don't tend to care what another has to say if they don't think that another person cares about them, personally. So when you go up to a guy waiting for a bus and say 'Jesus died for you', well, then what? Were you under some unknown angelic instructions and this would have led to something? Or was this just some random guy asking you to do something randomly and meaninglessly?
Well, or maybe it was the prompt you needed and not about the other guy at all. I guess that's what you're conveying.
You believe the abomination of desolation is the crucifixion, or fear?
-
Sure, I can see that:
- Uh, but I'll look dumb?
- Uh, but what's the point?
- Uh, I don't know that person?
And so on. A funny thing about people, though, is that they don't tend to care what another has to say if they don't think that another person cares about them, personally. So when you go up to a guy waiting for a bus and say 'Jesus died for you', well, then what? Were you under some unknown angelic instructions and this would have led to something? Or was this just some random guy asking you to do something randomly and meaninglessly?
Well, or maybe it was the prompt you needed and not about the other guy at all. I guess that's what you're conveying.
I agree. The Lord knew I wasn't going to tell the guy about the gospel, so it was a prompt for me. Maybe theguy who walked up to me was an angel in disguise.
You believe the abomination of desolation is the crucifixion, or fear?
I believe it's the crucifixion to anyone who thinks trying to get fid of God is a good thing. That's really what those who didn't like what Jesus was saying were trying to do. Shut him up, get rid of him. Read Pro.6:16-19. Those 7 sins were all committed against Jesus and are an abomination to him. An abomination that causes desolation.
[/quote]
-
I believe it's the crucifixion to anyone who thinks trying to get fid of God is a good thing. That's really what those who didn't like what Jesus was saying were trying to do. Shut him up, get rid of him. Read Pro.6:16-19. Those 7 sins were all committed against Jesus and are an abomination to him. An abomination that causes desolation.
That seems too general to me. Wouldn't Jesus have been more particular given the reference?
It's not just that the abomination of desolation generally wants to get rid of God, but does something specific, like demand to be exalted in the place of God (Antiochus IV). Rome besieged Jerusalem in 70 CE, perhaps that is a good candidate? There were plenty of Christians who fled once they saw the Roman armies, probably with Jesus' words in mind.
Or to say it another way: the abomination of desolation wants to get rid of God, but not everyone who wants to get rid of God is the abomination of desolation.
-
It's not just that the abomination of desolation generally wants to get rid of God, but does something specific, like demand to be exalted in the place of God (Antiochus IV). Rome besieged Jerusalem in 70 CE, perhaps that is a good candidate? There were plenty of Christians who fled once they saw the Roman armies, probably with Jesus' words in mind.
Or to say it another way: the abomination of desolation wants to get rid of God, but not everyone who wants to get rid of God is the abomination of desolation.
Check this out:
"For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’" Mth 23:39
Many believe Jesus here is saying the religious leaders before Him would at some point suddenly come to faith and declare Jesus as Lord. Is this so?
"I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him." Jhn 5:43
Jesus is saying they will be declaring their false messiah when saying, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord."
When Jesus switches His words from the leaders He was condemning to Jerusalem itself, he says their house would be left desolate, a wilderness.
"See, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” Mth 23:38
Now, look at our Lord's words in Chapter 24,
"So, if they say to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it." Mth 24:26
That word translated in Mth 24:26 for wilderness is erémos and is that same word used in Mth 23:39 as desolate. Jesus appears to me to be saying that Jerusalem would declare their false messiah after their house is made desolate.
This was our Lord's answer to His disciple's question beginning this chapter. They had just heard Jesus speaking in the courtyard and were curious about when the events He was just speaking of would occur.
"As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many." Mth 24:3,4
So then, two days after Ps 118:26 was fulfilled, Jesus proceeds here to explain what He meant by His audience, saying, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." He's not saying they all of a sudden will come to some mass repentance when they see Him in the clouds (at which point is too late), but rather they will not see Him again until they announce and accept their own false messiah.
IMO, of course...
-------
The reason I bring this up is the abomination being discussed in this thread.
"For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." Mth 24:24
"Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth." Rev 13:14
"The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, " 2Th 2:9
So the lawless one who performs signs to deceive comes in accordance with how the satan works. And how does he work?
"And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light." 2Cor 11:14
That's how the satan works, he presents himself as an angel of light.
-------
So Babylon, BTG, the mother of harlots; What was their attitude at the tower? They wished to come together to make a name for themselves, absent of God and absent of His commands. That is the spirit of antichrist. Mankind coming together in place of Christ, claiming they will bring peace to the world without a single mention of God.
In order to keep this post short, I will paraphrase my current understanding. I believe the apostasy will be a governmental agency such as the UN that will require Christians to become part of a conglomerate earthly organization to continue preaching.
This conglomerate organization will be declaring they will bring peace to the world and become the 8th king, a world power. This will be excepted by the spiritual Jerusalem when they declare the UN(?) is working on behalf of YHWH. At which point they take apostasy upon themselves that will eventually lead to the removal of the daily sacrifice. (Heb 13:15,16)
The abomination comes in accordance with how the satan works, as an angel of light declaring peace and security to all man without any mention of God.
In short, this is my current understanding...
Joshua
-
That seems too general to me. Wouldn't Jesus have been more particular given the reference?
It's not just that the abomination of desolation generally wants to get rid of God, but does something specific, like demand to be exalted in the place of God (Antiochus IV). Rome besieged Jerusalem in 70 CE, perhaps that is a good candidate? There were plenty of Christians who fled once they saw the Roman armies, probably with Jesus' words in mind.
Or to say it another way: the abomination of desolation wants to get rid of God, but not everyone who wants to get rid of God is the abomination of desolation.
I believe Jesus was being particular when he said,
For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. Mk.3:19
Why is tribulation greater at that time than any other? Is it greater because more people will suffer at that time than any other, or the methods of suffering will be more harsh? I don't think that's what he meant. I believe it's because Jesus is the epitomy of the suffering of God on earth. Jesus said,
But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, Mk.13:24
Is Jesus talking about the sun and moon up in the sky, or is he using those luminaries as symbols? Peter said,
this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.....The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come Act.2:16,20, Joel 2:31
He cited that prophecy as a current reality. Peter says,
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Act.2:23
The great light God gave to earth is turned into darkness. And the moon, which has no light of itself, but reflects the light of the sun is turned into blood. His followers being persecuted.
I heard a guy say once that people who refuse to worship the one true God are gods to themselves. 1Jn.2:22 says,
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 1Jn.4:3
And with respect to "The Antichrist", he ends up in the lake of fire, as do all the other little antichrists. So what's the difference?
-
I believe Jesus was being particular when he said,
For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. Mk.3:19
Why is tribulation greater at that time than any other? Is it greater because more people will suffer at that time than any other, or the methods of suffering will be more harsh? I don't think that's what he meant...
I've said this before, and I'll say it again: the Great Tribulation is greater than any *punishment* that the *Jewish People* had ever experienced for failing to remain true to their covenant with God. Luke makes this clearest of all among the 3 Gospel versions of the Olivet Discourse.
Luke 21.22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
Futurists today are irrationally trying to make this about the Reign of Antichrist, and ignore anything that involves less than endtime material. They love the sensationalism involved with trying to predict contemporary events and interpret what they mean in the light of prophecy.
Well, the NT Jewish Diaspora has been taking place in history, and is also continuing to this day, even though the Jewish People are back in the Promised Land. These are now contemporary events, even though this "Jewish Punishment" has been happening throughout NT history.
It is the *worst* tribulation the Jewish People have ever experienced because it is the *longest* punishment the Jewish People have ever been delivered over to. And yet these Christians still want to make this all about 666, the Beast, and a matter of predicting events surrounding the Antichrist, which Dispensationalists think they will escape from beforehand.
I can't tell you how many times and how many forums I have posted this on in the last couple of years. And yet there is no response to it of any merit, because it's the truth! These Christians just don't like to be told different from what they want to believe. But I'm sorry--it's God's truth that matters, and not what we *want* to believe!
-
Futurists today are irrationally trying to make this about the Reign of Antichrist, and ignore anything that involves less than endtime material. .
I can't tell you how many times and how many forums I have posted this on in the last couple of years. And yet there is no response to it of any merit, because it's the truth! These Christians just don't like to be told different from what they want to believe. But I'm sorry--it's God's truth that matters, and not what we *want* to believe!
Greetings friend...
If you wouldn't mind I'd like to offer the "merit" you're searching for. I posted it yesterday in fact.
Proof 70 CE did not have anything to do with prophecy: https://bibleforums.us/index.php?topic=184.msg2671;topicseen#new
Other than our Lord's words about one stone upon another, of course...
And as always, this is only my opinion. :)
All love.
Joshua
PS: Some of my closest Christian friends are Preterists; I'm well versed.
-
And with respect to "The Antichrist", he ends up in the lake of fire, as do all the other little antichrists. So what's the difference?
I'm not sure what the question pertains to, but in this immediate context, the difference would be between the Antichrist and those who have a spirit of anti-Christ. Their ultimate destination is the same, sure, but if we accept that there will be a distinct figure satisfying the role of the AntiChrist, who we'll call Damien, then the lives these people live and the impact these people will have in the world will be in the same vein as Damien's, who will be degrees of worse.
Or maybe there is no Damien and Gregory Peck is just an excellent actor.
-
Futurists today are irrationally trying to make this about the Reign of Antichrist, and ignore anything that involves less than endtime material. .
I can't tell you how many times and how many forums I have posted this on in the last couple of years. And yet there is no response to it of any merit, because it's the truth! These Christians just don't like to be told different from what they want to believe. But I'm sorry--it's God's truth that matters, and not what we *want* to believe!
Greetings friend...
If you wouldn't mind I'd like to offer the "merit" you're searching for. I posted it yesterday in fact.
Proof 70 CE did not have anything to do with prophecy: https://bibleforums.us/index.php?topic=184.msg2671;topicseen#new
Other than our Lord's words about one stone upon another, of course...
And as always, this is only my opinion. :)
All love.
Joshua
PS: Some of my closest Christian friends are Preterists; I'm well versed.
I welcome your opinions. However, I don't want to get the discussion dispersed across threads. I've already posted my reasons, and I haven't heard any rebuttal from you. Instead, you want me to read your view and figure out how that rebuts my view?
Let me just take a guess--you think that because Christ fulfilled the Law and the temple at his death that no NT prophecy can involve the physical temple, including its destruction in 70 AD? If that's what you think, it wouldn't make sense to me, because Jesus specifically said this would happen as a *punishment* to the Jewish People for not properly obeying God. If they had properly followed the Law they would've accepted Christ's death for their sins, and there would've been no further need to make sacrifices on the altar in Jerusalem.
Jesus said the temple had become hypocritical and was about to be torn down. Knowing that many Jews were ignorant of what they were doing he was not willing to destroy the temple and Jerusalem immediately. He gave time for the Gospel to be preached as a continuing warning to them. But he knew they wouldn't listen, and so prophesied that it would all be torn down.
Since this is what the Olivet Discourse records, no amount of logic can render this otherwise, in my opinion. It says what it says. None of this takes away from the fact Jesus was the true heavenly temple, and the fulfillment of the Law.
-
However, I don't want to get the discussion dispersed across threads.
That's why I directed you away from my Thread here on chronology to the Thread on Preterism vs. futurist.
Response: The Temple Sanctuary (https://bibleforums.us/index.php?topic=184.msg2683;topicseen#new/)
-
(https://e-jw.org/index.php?media/2300-2.185/full)
The 2300 days of Daniel 8 end on the 1335th day of Daniel 12, the first day of the cleansed kingdom.
“And he said to me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings. Then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.” Dan 8:14
“Happy is the one who waits for and reaches 1,335 days.” Dan 12:12
-------
The 2300 days begin while the Daily Sacrifice is still in place; however, there is transgression/apostasy within the courtyard of God’s people. To enter the courtyard, one had to pass through the curtain of red, blue, and purple, representing the blood, loyalty, and royalty of our Lord Christ Jesus. The white curtains surrounding the courtyard represented the cleansing of one’s robe’s from sin through the offering upon the Altar of Burnt Sacrifice within.
In the time of the end, the apostasy comes first while the daily sacrifice is still in place.
“For how long is the vision concerning the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled underfoot?” Dan 8:13
“Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first,” 2Th 2:3
The mark of the beast in Rev 13 represents apostasy from God. The mark of a man represents Solomon and his apostasy from God later in life by collecting more to himself than God commanded.
“The weight of the gold that Solomon received yearly was 666 talents,” 2Chro 9:” 3
This 666 number also represents apostasy in Daniel 3, with its image measuring 60x6x6. The three faithful friends of Daniel refused to worship the image and then passed through the fire unharmed.
“King Nebuchadnezzar made an image of gold, sixty cubits high and six cubits wide, and set it up on the plain of Dura in the province of Babylon.” Dan 3:1
The two-horned beast of Rev 13 was depicted as apostasy in the wilderness after the Exodus from Egypt. The Israelites erected a two-horned calf when rebelling at the mount of Saini.
-------
The buying and selling of Rev 13 are spiritual and do not represent physical buying and selling, and we know this because our Lord Christ Jesus told us as much in that same book.
“I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see.” Rev 3:18
May we pass through and be refined by the fire rather than take upon ourselves the mark of the beast in apostasy.
-------
So then, after Jesus fulfilled the lamb sacrifice within the courtyard once for all, what were the “continual sacrifices” that would be removed at a later date? They were the sacrifices of praise.
“Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that openly profess his name. And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.” Heb 13:15,16
Today's daily sacrifice represents the open professing of God’s name through our sacrifice of praise.
-------
After the 2300 days begin when the transgression/apostasy is seen alongside the daily sacrifice, the courtyard is trampled on for 42 months/1260 days.
“They will trample on the holy city for 42 months. And I will appoint my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth.” Rev 11:2,3
Beginning these 1260 days, the professing of God’s name is removed because of apostasy. Throughout the minor prophets, God warned His people about their ways, and this will be the time of discipline. The Holy Place (elect) is not attacked yet, but only the courtyard where everyone presents their sacrifice of praise before God.
-------
The two witnesses no longer preach in sackcloth (a sign of mourning of the removal of the daily sacrifice) at the end of the 1260 days. The courtyard at that time is rebuilt. The holy place/elect is attacked thirty days later at the 1290th day.
After the two witnesses are resurrected before all mankind, the wild beast will believe if they come against the remaining elect, God will leave this planet and them alone.
“Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the Lord and against his anointed, saying, “Let's break their chains and throw off their shackles.” Psm 2:1-3
Then YHWH will laugh at them.
“The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them. He rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying, “I have installed my king on Zion, my holy mountain.” Psm 2:4-6
Then Jesus appears in the clouds to gather the elect.
Joshua
-
I'm not sure what the question pertains to, but in this immediate context, the difference would be between the Antichrist and those who have a spirit of anti-Christ. Their ultimate destination is the same, sure, but if we accept that there will be a distinct figure satisfying the role of the AntiChrist, who we'll call Damien, then the lives these people live and the impact these people will have in the world will be in the same vein as Damien's, who will be degrees of worse.
What's worse, one man being persecuted, or one million men being persecuted?
Or maybe there is no Damien and Gregory Peck is just an excellent actor.
Yeah, he was great in To Kill A Mockingbird.
-
However, I don't want to get the discussion dispersed across threads.
That's why I directed you away from my Thread here on chronology to the Thread on Preterism vs. futurist.
Response: The Temple Sanctuary (https://bibleforums.us/index.php?topic=184.msg2683;topicseen#new/)
I ended up answering you anyway. Didn't you read that?
Chronology #25
-
However, I don't want to get the discussion dispersed across threads.
That's why I directed you away from my Thread here on chronology to the Thread on Preterism vs. futurist.
Response: The Temple Sanctuary (https://bibleforums.us/index.php?topic=184.msg2683;topicseen#new/)
I ended up answering you anyway. Didn't you read that?
Chronology #25
Dude, you're getting lost. You'll want to delete this post #29 here, and post #5 in The Temple Sanctuary.
I never sent you there to post your question again. I sent you there to read my reply to you in post #4 that you have completely missed.
Read post #4 in The Temple Sanctuary. Delete Post #5 there, and delete post #29 here, and I'll take care of mine.... (facepalm)
Joshua
-
What's worse, one man being persecuted, or one million men being persecuted?
The latter, but that's irrelevant to the distinction between the AntiChrist and those with a spirit of anti-Christ (1 John 4:3).
-
The latter, but that's irrelevant to the distinction between the AntiChrist and those with a spirit of anti-Christ (1 John 4:3).
It's not irrelevant to the one being persecuted. 1Jn 4:3 says antichrist is a spirit in the world. Then John says,
Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. 1Jn.4:4
Of course he's talking about people being directed by an evil spirit, but that's all "The Antichrist" is. Consider Antichrist as one body, motivated by Satan, the way we are one body in the Lord. Jesus said,
And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Act.9:4
Paul was persecuting believers.
the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony...Rev.12;10-11
It's the devil who is defeated by faith in Jesus. Principalities, powers, spiritual wickedness in high places.
-
However, I don't want to get the discussion dispersed across threads.
That's why I directed you away from my Thread here on chronology to the Thread on Preterism vs. futurist.
Response: The Temple Sanctuary (https://bibleforums.us/index.php?topic=184.msg2683;topicseen#new/)
I ended up answering you anyway. Didn't you read that?
Chronology #25
Dude, you're getting lost. You'll want to delete this post #29 here, and post #5 in The Temple Sanctuary.
I never sent you there to post your question again. I sent you there to read my reply to you in post #4 that you have completely missed.
Read post #4 in The Temple Sanctuary. Delete Post #5 there, and delete post #29 here, and I'll take care of mine.... (facepalm)
Joshua
This is why I told you that I prefer not being sent to another thread, because it gets confusing. Again, I suggest you bring up the pertinent issues in the thread that you're on, and in another thread deal with all of the pertinent issues there. It may require some repetition, but it saves on the confusion.
I'm going to leave things as they are because I feel like I've understood your points, and have answered them. If you think I haven't explain where I haven't answered them.
And you want me to delete the very points I made in response to your reference? Why? Why isn't repeating the same questions clarification instead of obfuscation? It sounds like you just don't want to be asked? Or, perhaps you're saying that you don't *agree* with my responses, making it sound like I didn't read or didn't understand your points. I do!
-
I'm going to leave things as they are because I feel like I've understood your points, and have answered them. If you think I haven't explain where I haven't answered them.
And you want me to delete the very points I made in response to your reference? Why? Why isn't repeating the same questions clarification instead of obfuscation? It sounds like you just don't want to be asked? Or, perhaps you're saying that you don't *agree* with my responses, making it sound like I didn't read or didn't understand your points. I do!
OMG (facepalm) You still haven't read my response. I answered all of your questions in Post #4 and then you kept posting without reading it.
I know you haven't read it and haven't answered it because in it I say no Jews died in Jerusalem in 70 CE.
I answered you, and you never read it. You're having a conversation with yourself...lol
-
It's not irrelevant to the one being persecuted. 1Jn 4:3 says antichrist is a spirit in the world. Then John says,
Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. 1Jn.4:4
Of course he's talking about people being directed by an evil spirit, but that's all "The Antichrist" is. Consider Antichrist as one body, motivated by Satan, the way we are one body in the Lord. Jesus said,
And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Act.9:4
Paul was persecuting believers.
the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony...Rev.12;10-11
It's the devil who is defeated by faith in Jesus. Principalities, powers, spiritual wickedness in high places.
What is the one being persecuted going to say?
- Oh how unfair, I'm the only one being persecuted, it's so wrong!
- Oh how terrible, look at all the people being persecuted, it's so wrong!
- Oh gee golly I'm being martyred; Justin will welcome me with open arms!
I truly don't see the relevance of the question to anything I've written in this thread.
But anyway, you go on to say:
"Consider Antichrist as one body, motivated by Satan, the way we are one body in the Lord."
But then you quote:
"It's the devil who is defeated by faith in Jesus."
I don't know that I understand what you're trying to convey. You say that AntiChrist is one body motivated by Satan, but it's Satan who is overthrown, along with all the little antiChrists... so there's a difference between them, or there's not?
What's your actual view, anyway? Do you think there's going to be an Anti-Christ and mark of the beast and all that?
-
The Remembrance Days
"These are the LORD’s appointed festivals, the sacred assemblies you are to proclaim at their appointed times." Lev 23:4
Christ Jesus fulfilled the spring holidays of Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits, and Pentecost. Still yet to be fulfilled are the fall festivals of Trumpets, Day of Atonement, Tabernacles. These remembrance days will, in like manner, be fulfilled through our Lord Christ Jesus at His second coming and will be fulfilled through the lunar-solar calendar.
“‘These are the Lord’s appointed festivals, the sacred assemblies you are to proclaim at their appointed times.” Lev 23:4
The woman in Rev 12 is clothed in the sun with the moon at her feet. This woman who gives birth to the light of the world, Jesus, is that same woman in Gen 3:15 and the means by which YHWH was to separate the light from the darkness. Through the lunar-solar calendar, Christ Jesus would fulfill the Spring remembrance days in their appointed times.
“For the revelation awaits an appointed time; it speaks of the end and will not prove false. Though it linger, wait for it; it will certainly come and will not delay” Hab 2:3
“A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.” Rev 12:1
The Hebrews used a lunisolar calendar. The months were based on the lunar cycle, while the years were based on that of the solar procession. Consequently, a month or a day was added periodically to equalize the lunar calendar with the solar. In so doing, the holy days yet to be fulfilled do not always fall on the same day every year, in conjunction with the Gregorian calendar. In other words, the days between the holiday contract and stretch depend on the times studied.
In fact, we find that over 2,300 days, the holy days yet to be fulfilled vary by the number of days in between them, depending on the decades studied. Ultimately, after calculations spanning more than a century before our time and a century still future, there are only a handful of times in each century when these holy days line up with Daniel’s chronology.
Let me give you an example: September 10, 2018, marked the first day of Rosh Hashana (Trumpets). Starting from that date and ending 2,300 days later, on December 26, 2024, you come to the holy day of Hanukkah, a remembrance our Lord observed, marking the cleansing of the Holy Place during the Maccabean revolt of 167–160 BCE. Seventy-five days before this, on October 12, 2024, we find the holy day of Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), which is the day in the end when our Father’s spiritual temple is reestablished on earth in completion of the 1,260 days.
(https://e-jw.org/index.php?media/450.186/full)
Now, 2018 did not usher in the beginning of the time of the end and the arrival of God’s kingdom; however, using this current structure, one finds that 2029–2035 and 2032–2038 also coincide with the holy days yet to be fulfilled and the chronology set out in the book of Daniel.
Now I'm not setting dates, nor am I claiming the end will come at any specific time here. What I am showing is that this is obviously the work of our Lord and the means by which He will bring about His final kingdom.
All love...
Joshua
-
I'm going to leave things as they are because I feel like I've understood your points, and have answered them. If you think I haven't explain where I haven't answered them.
And you want me to delete the very points I made in response to your reference? Why? Why isn't repeating the same questions clarification instead of obfuscation? It sounds like you just don't want to be asked? Or, perhaps you're saying that you don't *agree* with my responses, making it sound like I didn't read or didn't understand your points. I do!
OMG (facepalm) You still haven't read my response. I answered all of your questions in Post #4 and then you kept posting without reading it.
I know you haven't read it and haven't answered it because in it I say no Jews died in Jerusalem in 70 CE.
I answered you, and you never read it. You're having a conversation with yourself...lol
Calm down--it's all good. I've had to be gone all day. I'll get to your questions now. I apologize if we're missing on all cylinders--I'll take responsibility. ;)
-
What is the one being persecuted going to say?
- Oh how unfair, I'm the only one being persecuted, it's so wrong!
- Oh how terrible, look at all the people being persecuted, it's so wrong!
- Oh gee golly I'm being martyred; Justin will welcome me with open arms!
Every believer who suffers injustice should understand,
ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings 1Pet.4:3
if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps 1Pet.2:20-21
I truly don't see the relevance of the question to anything I've written in this thread.
But anyway, you go on to say:
"Consider Antichrist as one body, motivated by Satan, the way we are one body in the Lord."
But then you quote:
"It's the devil who is defeated by faith in Jesus."
I don't know that I understand what you're trying to convey. You say that AntiChrist is one body motivated by Satan, but it's Satan who is overthrown, along with all the little antiChrists... so there's a difference between them, or there's not?
Except for the opportunity to repent, apparently not. The Bible says the lake of fire was prepared for the devil and his angels, but the only ones described being cast into that fire are the devil and the unrepentant.
What's your actual view, anyway? Do you think there's going to be an Anti-Christ and mark of the beast and all that?
Of course, but our Lord's words are personal to every believer. There have been many antichrists throughout history persecuting believers (Mt.5:12, Heb.11:37). The persecution they endured is no less horrific than it will be at any other time. So, the "end times" become the times of our own very short lives.
[/quote]
-
You know, eschatology is perhaps interesting, but seriously, after about 10 posts, I hear this:
-
You know, eschatology is perhaps interesting, but seriously, after about 10 posts, I hear this:
Yes, funny, but on a more serious note, eschatology was said by Jesus to *not* be about calculating the times and seasons. That's more fun than we're allowed.
Portraying the Antichrist in movies is corny, and Pretrib Rapture movies, with the sudden disappearance of the Church, is silly. If we want to enjoy guessing what will happen, try to interpret Nostradamus or something? Maybe take up a study of numerology?
True biblical eschatology is indeed difficult to interpret, like interpreting tongues. Reading Revelation, or any apocalyptic work for that matter, requires a lot of study in the Prophets. There's no short cuts. In the end, Jesus said reading...and doing...the Revelation is a blessing.
So as much as I enjoy your humor about this, I'd just like to provide a little balance. I hope that's okay? I don't in the least mean to discourage your videos! I like them! And there's a lot of truth in it.
-
Oh, I'm find with that.
I'm mostly preterist except when I'm partial pretribulational midweek postmillenialist.
-
serious note, eschatology was said by Jesus to *not* be about calculating the times and seasons. That's more fun than we're allowed.
Curious: Didn't Jesus tell His disciples not to concern themselves with when He would return the kingdom to Israel? Didn't Jesus condemn the people of His day for not understanding the times and seasons in which they lived?
Can you share how you apply our Lord's words to His disciples to us?
Joshua
-
Didn't Jesus condemn the people of His day for not understanding the times and seasons in which they lived?
Can you share how you apply our Lord's words to His disciples to us?
Joshua
Do you mean Luke 12 or another Scripture? In Luke 12 Jesus' words seem directed at people who refused to accept the evidence of who He was, vs., them failing to understand entirely.
-
I guess I have to ask for a definition of "times" and "season".
The "last days" have been upon us since the 1st century.
The "season" Jesus referenced was, if I remember correctly, the issue of "the coming of the Kingdom," which He announced as being the presence of the King. I personally don't think it had anything to do with the 2nd coming.
-
Oh, I'm find with that.
I'm mostly preterist except when I'm partial pretribulational midweek postmillenialist.
You've sent me back to kindergarten with that. I'll be doing lots of research in order to catch up! ;)
-
7 Days
Let me begin by saying that I know and understand that there may be questions to what I present here. I encourage all to reply with those differences of understandings one may have. This is how we grow and learn from each other.
With that said, let me present to you what our Lord has given me.
The first chapter of Genesis is a narrative framework for the entire collection of inspired works, the entirety of the Bible itself. The creation days are a framework to understand not only the terminology used throughout the prophetic works it is also designed to tell us exactly when God's kingdom is to come.
As I move forward in this thread, I will be presenting you with evidence that the creation days are not Intended to relate to literal days of the formation of this physical universe and earth, but rather I will be showing you how the creation days represent each thousand-year period in the last six thousand years. The creation days are prophecies spanning six-thousand years and define the terms used throughout scripture, in order to understand events to come.
As I present supporting texts, please understand I only pick one or two, while there are literally hundreds in some cases that verify what I present here. And no doubt, as you read along, many will come to your mind that I don't even mention. Please include them in response, and join in the discussion.
Let me start by pointing out why I use the dates I have for each thousand-year period. In the progression of chronology presented in Genesis, God rested on the seventh day, and that was after the creation of Eve, not Adam. Therefore we want to know the year Eve was created in order to understand the narrative timeline within the creation account.
I believe that there is ample circumstantial evidence to indicate all throughout scripture that Adam was in fact forty years old when Eve was brought to him. In order to save space within this thread, I won't include that subject here; however, I wish to highlight that point so that you may understand why I use the dates I do as I move forward.
Using a creation date for Adam as 4004 BCE, we add forty years until Eve and come to 3964 BCE. I will be using this date as our starting point as we move into this important subject.
Not only does each creation day discuss the main events within each thousand-year period, but they also line up with the dates for each individual within.
Each creation day spanning 1000 years is in accord with God's Word.
Adam was told he would "die in that day," just as he died at the age of 930 years.
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Gen 2:17
The day of the Lord is to be a thousand years.
"The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord." Acts 2:20
"They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years." Rev 20:4
As a day to our Lord in prophecy is a thousand years.
"With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." 2Pt 3:8
"A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." Psm 90:4
All love...
Joshua
-
In The Beginning
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Gen 1:1a
I want to start by saying that the "beginning" in Gen 1:1 of the "heavens and earth" is not the physical ones, but rather correspond with the founding of the world when not only our Lord was chosen, but also those of the elect. The beginning of the "heavens and the earth" were after the fall of mankind and was foreseen in the first prophecy of Genesis 3:15.
"He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you." 1Pt 1:20 (ESV)
"Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him." Eph 1:4 (ESV)
This first line of the Bible served well as a quick overview of events that would shortly transpire; however, it has also served just as well to highlight that our Lord had indeed created all things in this universe (likely) billions of years ago.
However, our Lord was "chosen before the founding of this world," marking and identifying the beginning spoken of in conjunction with the Word. So then, when were He and the elect chosen? They were chosen after sin entered the world and before the births of Cain and Able; the founding of the world was God's plan to separate light from darkness in Gen 3:15.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Jhn 1:1
"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring a and hers; he will crush b your head, and you will strike his heel." Gen 3:15
-------
Now as we move into the second part of Genesis 1:1 we see the earth was formless and dark.
"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Gen 1:1b
Formless - tohu = chaos (1), confusion (1), desolation (1), emptiness (1), empty space (1), formless (2), futile (2), futile things (1), meaningless (2), meaningless arguments (1), nothing (2), waste (3), waste place (2).
What we see here is the state of mankind after their fall. This ideology of darkness and emptiness is carried on throughout all the biblical text for sin and separation from our God and Father.
"I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void; and to the heavens, and they had no light. I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking, and all the hills moved to and fro. I looked, and behold, there was no man, and all the birds of the air had fled. I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a desert, and all its cities were laid in ruins before the LORD, before his fierce anger." For thus says the LORD, “The whole land shall be a desolation; yet I will not make a full end. “For this the earth shall mourn, and the heavens above be dark; for I have spoken; I have purposed; I have not relented, nor will I turn back.” Jer 4:23-28
Indeed mankind had entered into the void at their casting out from Eden and the shining glory of God, out into the darkness.
"Then they will look to the earth, and behold, distress and darkness, the gloom of anguish; and they will be driven away into darkness." Ish 8:22
"But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Mth 8:12
Joshua
-
Let me begin by saying that I know and understand that there may be questions to what I present here. I encourage all to reply with those differences of understandings one may have. This is how we grow and learn from each other.
With that said, let me present to you what our Lord has given me.
See, this makes discussion difficult. It places you in the position of teacher, and us, in the position of your would-be students.
The difficulty is this: it's not possible to "grow and learn from each other" if what you're presenting is "what our Lord has given me". We would only be able to learn and grow from you. Unless you were open to the possibility that you've misunderstood what you say God has shown you? I don't get that sense though. Am I wrong?
You're also copy-pasting from your other forum, so this isn't so much a discussion as it is the repetition of a thread you posted back in October of this year. Over here you've mentioned a couple of times now, the idea of a "one true interpretation". In your other thread you talk about, " I learned many years ago that this forum isn't about agreeing or persuading anyone; it's about sharing differing views" -- with a view to the one true interpretation, right?
It makes me wonder: why bother with the exchange? In that same vein, why should I let you copy-paste a thread from another forum?
-
Alas, in all discussions, one must first understand the basic foundational presuppositions in order to understand the context of the communication.
As I fundamentally disagree with an allegorical or non-historical interpretative model for the reading of Scripture, I'll have to respectfully bow out of this "discussion."
-
See, this makes discussion difficult. It places you in the position of teacher, and us, in the position of your would-be students.
The difficulty is this: it's not possible to "grow and learn from each other" if what you're presenting is "what our Lord has given me". We would only be able to learn and grow from you. Unless you were open to the possibility that you've misunderstood what you say God has shown you? I don't get that sense though. Am I wrong?
Curious: I hear Christians all the time saying God spoke to them. I hear Christians saying, "God spoke to me last night, and I want to share that message." These people believe they have direct communication to God and that is excepted, but if I say, "What God has given me," you are stumbled over that?
God has given you the message of the kingdom, has He not? God has given you this day, has He not? We do nothing unless it is through and by His will, do we not?
"Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.” Jms 4:15
You're also copy-pasting from your other forum, so this isn't so much a discussion as it is the repetition of a thread you posted back in October of this year. Over here you've mentioned a couple of times now, the idea of a "one true interpretation". In your other thread you talk about, " I learned many years ago that this forum isn't about agreeing or persuading anyone; it's about sharing differing views" -- with a view to the one true interpretation, right?
It makes me wonder: why bother with the exchange? In that same vein, why should I let you copy-paste a thread from another forum?
I certainly did say there is only one true interpretation. There is only one true meaning to every single sentence in scripture, is there not? Was this a personal interpretation on my part?
As well, I never said I had the only true knowledge of scripture. I did say no one on earth had reached that peak of knowledge, didn't I?
I paste to simply save time. However, I completely read through the post again and tweak many things within for the audience before me. So....
Why post? To share God's Word. To be about the business our Lord left us.
Joshua
-
See, this makes discussion difficult. It places you in the position of teacher, and us, in the position of your would-be students.
The difficulty is this: it's not possible to "grow and learn from each other" if what you're presenting is "what our Lord has given me". We would only be able to learn and grow from you. Unless you were open to the possibility that you've misunderstood what you say God has shown you? I don't get that sense though. Am I wrong?
Curious: I hear Christians all the time saying God spoke to them. I hear Christians saying, "God spoke to me last night, and I want to share that message." These people believe they have direct communication to God and that is excepted, but if I say, "What God has given me," you are stumbled over that?
God has given you the message of the kingdom, has He not? God has given you this day, has He not? We do nothing unless it is through and by His will, do we not?
"Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.” Jms 4:15
You're also copy-pasting from your other forum, so this isn't so much a discussion as it is the repetition of a thread you posted back in October of this year. Over here you've mentioned a couple of times now, the idea of a "one true interpretation". In your other thread you talk about, " I learned many years ago that this forum isn't about agreeing or persuading anyone; it's about sharing differing views" -- with a view to the one true interpretation, right?
It makes me wonder: why bother with the exchange? In that same vein, why should I let you copy-paste a thread from another forum?
I certainly did say there is only one true interpretation. There is only one true meaning to every single sentence in scripture, is there not? Was this a personal interpretation on my part?
As well, I never said I had the only true knowledge of scripture. I did say no one on earth had reached that peak of knowledge, didn't I?
I paste to simply save time. However, I completely read through the post again and tweak many things within for the audience before me. So....
Why post? To share God's Word. To be about the business our Lord left us.
Joshua
Some good questions there, and I can't resist butting in and offering a response. Many Christians do abuse the idea, "God told me." I'm sure I have too.
And that's because God most often speaks through our circumstances, rather than speak to us directly. It seems to me that He doesn't want to treat us like slaves, but instead puts situations before us to test to see if we choose to live in dependence upon Him and His ways.
Sometimes the direction ahead of us has clear choices, and I might say, "God is showing me this." But sometimes I have to leave open the possibility that God isn't being all that clear about things.
The important thing to note is that God does speak through our circumstances and through our conscience. In whatever place we find ourselves there is a moral path before us, and we must choose what best conforms to who we see God to be.
Christians, by virtue of their choice for Christ, have receive his Spirit and have a sense of what is moral in every situation. Even non-Christians have this sense of right and wrong, although they don't directly experience what dependence upon God is like. And so their views of right and wrong are somewhat distorted.
-
Curious: I hear Christians all the time saying God spoke to them. I hear Christians saying, "God spoke to me last night, and I want to share that message." These people believe they have direct communication to God and that is excepted, but if I say, "What God has given me," you are stumbled over that?
As it happens, I believe God spoke to me the other day. He told me to start working on the thing I've been avoiding doing, and not to be satisfied with my job. And I'm not satisfied with it, but that was the point: I'm not satisfied because I'm meant to be working on something else. Something I haven't worked on because of the usual suspects: fear, nervousness, risk.
I believe I met Jesus as well, when I was younger. He hugged me, which was significant to me at the time. He showed me a, or maybe the, heavenly city, from a distance. I wasn't allowed in, but I caught a glimpse. An awesome sight that was, and I couldn't hope to explain it to anyone. The words to do it don't exist.
So no, I don't tend to 'stumble' over another person's claim, in itself, that God has shown them something, or given them something. Incidentally, both accounts above are examples of personal truths: they're true for me and entirely unverifiable by anyone else. They aren't objective facts that other people ought to order their lives by.
The stumbling block, although I'd reject that imagery, is this:
let me present to you what our Lord has given me
You're confident that this is something the Lord has revealed to you, and that's fine. I personally like to couch my claims but that's a me thing, and you're you. But what this does mean is that the following is awkward:
I encourage all to reply with those differences of understandings one may have. This is how we grow and learn from each other.
Well, what do you mean by "grow and learn from each other" if what you believe you're conveying is from the Lord? Are you open to the possibility that you've misunderstood what you've been given? Even if that were the case, this is such an out-there reading of Genesis that it's hard to see how engagement with the view could lead to merely a revision of it, rather than its wholesale dismissal. Are you flexible on that? Are you open to the possibility that this wasn't revealed to you? This is no small thing you're presenting: it's an understanding of Scripture that you say has been divinely revealed to you. Revealed to you by God, the author of the text, who knows its meaning.
By presenting this view the way you've presented it, we're put in the position of arguing with God, essentially. This is what I'm suspicious of. It would have been different had you said something like:
With that said, let me present to you what I believe our Lord has given me.
That little bit of couching makes discussion possible, provided you're genuinely open to the possibility that you've misunderstood. Because, why would God reveal to someone how the text ought to be understood if in fact that understanding wasn't correct? Such are the problems of phrasing.
God has given you the message of the kingdom, has He not? God has given you this day, has He not? We do nothing unless it is through and by His will, do we not?
"Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.” Jms 4:15
God has also given me my giftings.
You know, when I was much younger I prayed daily for wisdom. I wasn't remotely aware of James 1:5 at the time. Day in, and day out. There were only two things I wanted, and one of those things was - heh, is still - annoying to God I'm sure, while the other was wisdom. I've always been introspective and had a knowledge of myself that concerned me. What better thing to pray for than wisdom?
I believe God answered those prayers. I've no doubt about that. There's wisdom in knowing when, and how, to approach an argument, or a discussion, or a view towards how we ought to interpret Scripture. Wisdom, in understanding not just the argument, but where it's coming from. And this has gotten me into trouble with people, and it's caused other people to become very annoyed with me.
But that's their problem.
I don't take Scripture lightly. If someone wants to propose that we interpret it some way because the Lord revealed something to them, then that is an utterly serious suggestion. There's wisdom, then, in wanting to know where that suggestion comes from. Is it up for debate, or is it presented purely with the intention to teach? It's difficult to discuss a view of Scripture that's presented as being from God and not up for debate. I'd say it's impossible unless the presentation is made for the purpose of examination and discussion.
So that's why I asked if you were open to discussion or if you're presenting these views as a teacher, teaching his students. Is it up for discussion?
I certainly did say there is only one true interpretation. There is only one true meaning to every single sentence in scripture, is there not? Was this a personal interpretation on my part?
As well, I never said I had the only true knowledge of scripture. I did say no one on earth had reached that peak of knowledge, didn't I?
But you are saying, "let me present to you what our Lord has given me." You don't believe there are multiple truths. You believe there is one true meaning. You believe the intent of the author is what matters. So where does that leave us, as we interact with what you have to say? Are we students, are we colabourers? Or are we dissenting with God vis-a-vis the view of Genesis you've presented?
Why post? To share God's Word. To be about the business our Lord left us.
Just as it is a Christian's business to examine such views, perhaps in Berean fashion. What matters is this: are you open to discussion, and to the genuine possibility that what you've heard wasn't given to you from the Lord? If you are then we can discuss. If you aren't then I see no reason for you to continue pasting replies because then what you're doing does not satisfy the fact that this is a forum for discussion. We like dialetic.
-
You're confident that this is something the Lord has revealed to you, and that's fine. I personally like to couch my claims but that's a me thing, and you're you.
I've ended nearly every post with, "In my opinion," or, "In my humble opinion."
Is questioning every single sentence I write as to my intentions really necessary? I mean, can we not simply have a discussion about scripture without delving into my psyche every time?
Well, what do you mean by "grow and learn from each other" if what you believe you're conveying is from the Lord? Are you open to the possibility that you've misunderstood what you've been given?
I'm wrong all the time. When I find out I'm wrong about something, then I fix it. Sometimes Christians are able to correct me, and I fix my misunderstandings. I am the first person to admit when I'm wrong. I've already told you I relish in those moments. Didn't I say that already?
I am wrong today, I will be wrong tomorrow, and I will be wrong until Christ returns.
Is that sufficient to carry on a conversation about scripture rather than my psyche?
That little bit of couching makes discussion possible, provided you're genuinely open to the possibility that you've misunderstood. Because, why would God reveal to someone how the text ought to be understood if in fact that understanding wasn't correct? Such are the problems of phrasing.
By all means, correct me, please... That's why I own a forum. I present something, and you present something, and that's how we learn from each other. I've learned more about what I understand from disagreement than from those who agree. I don't say, "Let's learn from each other," to only mean you must learn from me. Look, I'm not interested in a psychologist; I'm here to discuss scripture.
I mean, I'm spending all this time on why I post rather than scripture because someone doesn't like how I say something. Are you the intentions cop here?
I'm sorry, I'm not going to change who I am or how I speak to suit someone else.
I don't point out what I don't like about what you say. And to be honest, this isn't being sensitive; it's a fellow Christian pointing out that you are awfully nitpicky on what others say, how they say it, and why they say it. I indulged it the first few times, but now I'm saying that's enough.
Look, except that my intentions are genuine or not, I don't care. I post scripture so that others will respond. I expect others will respond with counterarguments. I've run a forum for a decade; you don't think I don't know that?
If I meant for you to learn from me, that's what I would have said. You don't need to pick me apart to try and determine my motives. Just accept my word; if not, then call me a liar.
Can we move on?
But you are saying, "let me present to you what our Lord has given me." You don't believe there are multiple truths. You believe there is one true meaning. You believe the intent of the author is what matters. So where does that leave us, as we interact with what you have to say? Are we students, are we colabourers? Or are we dissenting with God vis-a-vis the view of Genesis you've presented?
Look, I am wrong all the time. I have been corrected many times. That's why I post, to learn from each other. I believe there is one truth we're all getting to. You say God spoke to you, I think that's ridiculous, but I haven't said that till now. So I say God gives me my knowledge, so what, He gives me my food too, and I thank Him for that as well...
Look, if you'd like to have a discussion on scripture, that'd be great, but I'm not interested in a psychologist.
In my humble opinion and all Christian love...
Joshua
PS: I think it's fair to say, that I'm getting what you describe from many on here on the subject of the Trinity. I must believe like you or I'm condemned, right? Several individuals have now claimed that I MUST believe like them or I am condemned and ungodly, and they don't consider me a brother.... Hmmm, who really are the ones being self-righteous here?
Let's not play the psychological game please Athanasius, there is no winner down that road. Let us show Christian love.
-
You're confident that this is something the Lord has revealed to you, and that's fine. I personally like to couch my claims but that's a me thing, and you're you.
I've ended nearly every post with, "In my opinion," or, "In my humble opinion."
Is questioning every single sentence I write as to my intentions really necessary? I mean, can we not simply have a discussion about scripture without delving into my psyche every time?
Well, what do you mean by "grow and learn from each other" if what you believe you're conveying is from the Lord? Are you open to the possibility that you've misunderstood what you've been given?
I'm wrong all the time. When I find out I'm wrong about something, then I fix it. Sometimes Christians are able to correct me, and I fix my misunderstandings. I am the first person to admit when I'm wrong. I've already told you I relish in those moments. Didn't I say that already?
I am wrong today, I will be wrong tomorrow, and I will be wrong until Christ returns.
Is that sufficient to carry on a conversation about scripture rather than my psyche?
That little bit of couching makes discussion possible, provided you're genuinely open to the possibility that you've misunderstood. Because, why would God reveal to someone how the text ought to be understood if in fact that understanding wasn't correct? Such are the problems of phrasing.
By all means, correct me, please... That's why I own a forum. I present something, and you present something, and that's how we learn from each other. I've learned more about what I understand from disagreement than from those who agree. I don't say, "Let's learn from each other," to only mean you must learn from me. Look, I'm not interested in a psychologist; I'm here to discuss scripture.
I mean, I'm spending all this time on why I post rather than scripture because someone doesn't like how I say something. Are you the intentions cop here?
I'm sorry, I'm not going to change who I am or how I speak to suit someone else.
I don't point out what I don't like about what you say. And to be honest, this isn't being sensitive; it's a fellow Christian pointing out that you are awfully nitpicky on what others say, how they say it, and why they say it.
Look, except that my intentions are genuine or not, I don't care. I post scripture so that others will respond. I expect others will respond with counterarguments. I've run a forum for a decade; you don't think I don't know that?
If I meant for you to learn from me, that's what I would have said. You don't need to pick me apart to try and determine my motives. Just accept my word; if not, then call me a liar.
Can we move on?
But you are saying, "let me present to you what our Lord has given me." You don't believe there are multiple truths. You believe there is one true meaning. You believe the intent of the author is what matters. So where does that leave us, as we interact with what you have to say? Are we students, are we colabourers? Or are we dissenting with God vis-a-vis the view of Genesis you've presented?
Look, I am wrong all the time. I have been corrected many times. That's why I post, to learn from each other. I believe there is one truth we're all getting to. You say God spoke to you, I think that's ridiculous, but I haven't said that till now. So I say God gives me my knowledge, so what, He gives me my food too, and I thank Him for that as well...
Look, if you'd like to have a discussion on scripture, that'd be great, but I'm not interested in a psychologist.
In my humble opinion and all Christian love...
Joshua
PS: I think it's fair to say, that I'm getting what you describe from many on here on the subject of the Trinity. I must believe like you or I'm condemned, right? Several individuals have now claimed that I MUST believe like them or I am condemned and ungodly, and they don't consider me a brother.... Hmmm, who really are the ones being self-righteous here?
Let's not play the psychological game please Athanasius, there is no winner down that road. Let us show Christian love.
What a person says is Christian love is not necessarily Christian love.
1) Athanasius has been extremely kind to you, has accommodated some of your difficult beliefs, has empathized with you, and has honestly approached things he had questions about. And you insult him like he's playing a psychologist.
I know you mean well, but I don't believe this falls into the category of "Christian love." It is "your idea" of Christian love, but it isn't really Christian love, in my opinion. It's just a form of you honestly expressing yourself. And I disagree with it--honestly!
2) You've indirectly indicated you think I attack Athanasius and you on the subject of the Trinity when at the same time you claim you don't want a psychologist--you just want the subjects to be dealt with primarily, because you're open to correction.
Yet when I do just this, giving my opinion on the Trinity and on salvation, you refer to it as some sort of persecution, and infer that it is judgmental. That also is *your idea* of Christian love, but in my opinion, it is not. It's just your honest assessment. And of course, I honestly disagree with it.
The problem is, you have divergent beliefs that remove you from the "full Christian deal." You may think you have salvation, and not really have it--I don't know. I don't know you personally.
You have some love from God, you have a nice personality, you're very cordial, and you say a lot of nice things. But there's always a bomb hanging off the tail of every discussion, just waiting for a new bombshell belief to be revealed!
So yea, let's discuss honestly, but let's allow for Trinitarians to put forward their honest views, without being accused of being overly sectarian and judgmental. That's accusatory, and not my honest idea of "Christian love."
The nature of Religion is to be sectarian and to discern what is true about that religion, and what is not. That doesn't mean I have a judgmental spirit--I don't. Please keep your good character. But when you ask for an honest assessment of subject, such as on the Trinity and on the qualifications for Salvation, don't stab me in the back by inferring I'm persecuting non-Trinitarians. I'm not--this is just the convictions that belong to classic Christianity.
-
The problem is, you have divergent beliefs that remove you from the "full Christian deal." You may think you have salvation, and not really have it--I don't know. I don't know you personally.
And you just continue to double down on your judgement seat.
Is it you're place to continually determine whether I have salvation or not? If I didn't you should have shown love and guided me, that's your job in the Lord, isn't it? But you condemned me in The Temple Sanctuary thread and said I was ungodly.
Look, as I said before, I don't need a judge. My relationship with Christ Jesus is just fine, thank you.
Joshua
-
Actually I think I’m the one that called you ungodly and questioned your relationship with the true Jesus.
-
Actually I think I’m the one that called you ungodly and questioned your relationship with the true Jesus.
Cogradulations...
I hope your seat of judgement isn't held against you either.
Joshua
-
I’m good with that risk
-
I've ended nearly every post with, "In my opinion," or, "In my humble opinion."
You didn't say it here, though. Should we assume you meant to? What if we do, only to discover that you actually distinguish between those other views, which are your opinion, while this view you believe you received from God, which is not your opinion?
Is questioning every single sentence I write as to my intentions really necessary?
Yes, I'm exceptionally rigorous. With everyone, including myself.
I mean, can we not simply have a discussion about scripture without delving into my psyche every time?
We most certainly are not delving into your psyche.
I'm wrong all the time. When I find out I'm wrong about something, then I fix it. Sometimes Christians are able to correct me, and I fix my misunderstandings. I am the first person to admit when I'm wrong. I've already told you I relish in those moments. Didn't I say that already?
Yes, but that doesn't mean you take the same attitude towards what you believe is a view of Scripture shown to you by God.
I am wrong today, I will be wrong tomorrow, and I will be wrong until Christ returns.
Is that sufficient to carry on a conversation about scripture rather than my psyche?
If you're saying that the view in question isn't necessarily divinely revealed, then sure. Again, we aren't conversing about your psyche. We could if you wanted to, but I don't think you'd survive that.
I don't say, "Let's learn from each other," to only mean you must learn from me. Look, I'm not interested in a psychologist; I'm here to discuss scripture.
I don't know your motivations, which is why I'm asking. There are plenty of people who would do exactly this on a forum.
Again, I haven't been psychologising.
I mean, I'm spending all this time on why I post rather than scripture because someone doesn't like how I say something. Are you the intentions cop here?
The intentions cop? Don't be silly. No no. I'm a guy who wants to ensure this forum remains a place of discussion. You know, especially when someone shows up from another forum, puts an Amazon link in their signature, and copy/pastes posts from elsewhere.
On the point I'd rather be overzealous.
I'm sorry, I'm not going to change who I am or how I speak to suit someone else.
No one's asked you to, darling.
I don't point out what I don't like about what you say. And to be honest, this isn't being sensitive; it's a fellow Christian pointing out that you are awfully nitpicky on what others say, how they say it, and why they say it. I indulged it the first few times, but now I'm saying that's enough.
Good for you? You've been free to point any of that out this entire time. It's not a new set of complaints, mind you, so I guess we'll have to continue to live with my... character flaws, as you put it.
you don't think I don't know that?
That's the thing, I don't know. You didn't consider how your words in the other thread could have been received, so why would I assume that you've fully considered how others would take the posts in question you've presented?
Can we move on?
We could have moved on a while ago.
Look, I am wrong all the time. I have been corrected many times. That's why I post, to learn from each other. I believe there is one truth we're all getting to. You say God spoke to you, I think that's ridiculous, but I haven't said that till now. So I say God gives me my knowledge, so what, He gives me my food too, and I thank Him for that as well...
You're quite free to think what I said was ridiculous, that's why it's a personal truth. It's not a prescriptive truth for others to follow, like God-given knowledge about how we ought to interpret Scripture would be.
Are you saying you've worked yourself up over your own poor phrasing? Assuming you mean that God gives you knowledge in the same way that He gives you food. Well, assuming that God doesn't directly deliver food to you...
Look, if you'd like to have a discussion on scripture, that'd be great, but I'm not interested in a psychologist.
I don't know, maybe you should be? I'm no psychologist, but a good one can be quite helpful.
PS: I think it's fair to say, that I'm getting what you describe from many on here on the subject of the Trinity. I must believe like you or I'm condemned, right? Several individuals have now claimed that I MUST believe like them or I am condemned and ungodly, and they don't consider me a brother.... Hmmm, who really are the ones being self-righteous here?
You're on a forum for orthodox Christians (who may or may not be "true believers") and you're commenting on 2,000-year-old hot button topics: the divinity of Jesus and the doctrine of the trinity. To add to that, you're posting unusual views on Genesis. You've also returned the compliment.
Let's not play the psychological game please Athanasius, there is no winner down that road. Let us show Christian love.
Heh.
-
The first chapter of Genesis is a narrative framework for the entire collection of inspired works, the entirety of the Bible itself. The creation days are a framework to understand not only the terminology used throughout the prophetic works it is also designed to tell us exactly when God's kingdom is to come.
I read one Rabbis belief that Gen.1 contains all of God's works from throughout history, from the beginning of creation to the end. That belief has merit.
In the progression of chronology presented in Genesis, God rested on the seventh day, and that was after the creation of Eve, not Adam.
This is a good example of how Gen.1 contains all of Gods works. Eve is symbolic of the church (Eph.5:32).
When the last member of Christ's body is formed, that will be the end of it.
-
I read one Rabbis belief that Gen.1 contains all of God's works from throughout history, from the beginning of creation to the end. That belief has merit.
There's a difference between the view that Genesis 1 contains all of God's works, and the view that the days of Genesis 1 are prophecies corresponding to 1,000 year periods over the last ~6,000 years (the misunderstanding of 2 Peter notwithstanding).
Neither view has merit in my estimation, but if you find either compelling would you mind sharing more?
In the progression of chronology presented in Genesis, God rested on the seventh day, and that was after the creation of Eve, not Adam.
This is a good example of how Gen.1 contains all of Gods works. Eve is symbolic of the church (Eph.5:32).
What you've quoted, and what Joshua goes on to assert, is not an example of anything other than a bald assertion.
The 'mystery' of Ephesians 5:32 comes through Paul's use of marriage imagery to describe the relationship between Christ and the church. What Paul isn't doing is using Eve symbolically. Christ/husband and Church/wife is the metaphor.
When the last member of Christ's body is formed, that will be the end of it.
And when the human instrumentality project is complete, the Lilin will finally take their place among the gods.
Sorry, I thought were saying just saying cool things.
-
The first chapter of Genesis is a narrative framework for the entire collection of inspired works, the entirety of the Bible itself. The creation days are a framework to understand not only the terminology used throughout the prophetic works it is also designed to tell us exactly when God's kingdom is to come.
I read one Rabbis belief that Gen.1 contains all of God's works from throughout history, from the beginning of creation to the end. That belief has merit.
In the progression of chronology presented in Genesis, God rested on the seventh day, and that was after the creation of Eve, not Adam.
This is a good example of how Gen.1 contains all of Gods works. Eve is symbolic of the church (Eph.5:32).
When the last member of Christ's body is formed, that will be the end of it.
The Rabbis sometimes were Kabbalists, and tried to read a significant divine message under every leaf. I've been guilty of this at time, but it really amounts to worshiping the Bible as a document chalk full of divine secrets meant for an elite who searches out the mysteries of God.
There's truth in everything, but I like what Walter Martin used to say--God doesn't speak with a lisp--when He wants to say something He comes out and says it! ;)
I do believe that God had a general end in mind from the beginning, and His word cannot be thwarted. So all that God intended He will get.
But there's this funny thing called human "free will," that tends to delay things. Perhaps that's why it took two Adams to complete the task, two generations to get Israel through the wilderness, and two sons of Abraham to establish Israel on faith?
Maybe you can find elements in the Creation Story that signify a basic blueprint of God's intensions? But then again, it's said quite plainly what God was after, a multitude of humans expressing God's image throughout the world!
Well, it's taken about 6000 years to get there, with all of the wars and pandemics setting mankind back. Perhaps this does equate to a roughly 6 year plan in Creation?
I don't know. There is the Millennial Day theory, and that seems to have worked out quite nicely, particularly since it's been around since the Early Church?
But we can, I think, go overboard with symbolism, and begin to predict things that makes us God, in place of the Creator. And He doesn't want us to try to anticipate "times and seasons" that He alone controls.
Our job more is to focus on being godly in our own time, affecting people around us for their own good. It's interesting, but we should probably exercise some restraint in our novel interpretations?
-
Sin and the fall were not a surprise to God nor did they require a change in God’s plan
-
Foreknown, all things were.
-
Sin and the fall were not a surprise to God nor did they require a change in God’s plan
Well for starters, there was a change called the Cross? And of course, God had to learn patience with us. And there were setbacks, delays, and opposition from the Devil and his cronies. How can this not be construed as "change?"
Some people just blithely state that "God knows everything." Well, I would amend that to say, "God isn't surprised by anything." He always has a backup plan.
If you do happen to believe, as many do, that God actually planned for Man to fall, I can respect that. But I can't believe that, since God, to be consistent, wouldn't want anybody to fail. But my view is that He was prepared for any eventuality, including the fall.
-
Foreknown, all things were.
Yes, but we have to breakdown what that means. If God created a perfect world, He also created the alternate world of the Fall. What it means is that His Word is prepared to deal with any eventuality.
Unlike many, I don't have a problem with an open-ended universe. I think God is big enough to enter into the equation our free will. Does this mean that God doesn't know what I'm going to choose to do today? Yes, it means that. But it also means that I can do nothing outside of the parameters He's already created for my choices. He's surprised by nothing.
-
I cannot accept an open theism in which God ever learns something new
There are much richer paradigms that deal with foreknowledge and sovereignty that extol God’s omniscience instead of limiting it
No. The cross was not a change
Jesus was the lamb slain from before the foundation of the world
-
I cannot accept an open theism in which God ever learns something new
There are much richer paradigms that deal with foreknowledge and sovereignty that extol God’s omniscience instead of limiting it
No. The cross was not a change
Jesus was the lamb slain from before the foundation of the world
Either way, you're limiting God. You're either saying He cannot abide by freedom of human will and free human choices, or you are saying that I'm limiting God by saying He cannot know what our choices will be.
I get around that by saying God knows the extent of our choices, and cannot always know what specific choice we will make. What will it be--God is incapable of letting us make our own choices?
Jesus is indeed slain from the foundation of the world, but not from *before* the foundation of the world. He existed before the foundation of the world as the Word of God. I believe God predestined Him to be revealed as king over the human race.
But he was not planned, from before the foundation of the world, to be slain. God didn't want man to sin. If so, then it was possible that man not sin. Just my view, brother.
-
Every one of us is affected by inherited sin nature, though we may not hang it out there for all to see. Our brains have been affected, our bodies have been affected, and our spirits have been affected. Every one of us gravitates towards sin, and must overcome it. We're all flawed, though in different ways and to different degrees. But we have a very bright future. :)
-
would you mind sharing more?
Not at all, but would you please comment on post 38 first? Thanks.
-
"O lord, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off." Ps 139:1,2
-
The Rabbis sometimes were Kabbalists, and tried to read a significant divine message under every leaf. I've been guilty of this at time, but it really amounts to worshiping the Bible as a document chalk full of divine secrets meant for an elite who searches out the mysteries of God.
I don't remember the Rabbis name, but there is a significant Devine message on every page of the Bible, because there's something on every page that Jesus our Lord taught about or describes him.
There's truth in everything, but I like what Walter Martin used to say--God doesn't speak with a lisp--when He wants to say something He comes out and says it! ;)
I don't know who Walter Martin is, but I agree with him. Is it strange to you how God doesn't speak with a lisp, but mankind murdered the Messiah? Why on earth would anyone want to kill the Son of God.....without advanced notice about it?
I do believe that God had a general end in mind from the beginning, and His word cannot be thwarted. So all that God intended He will get.
I believe God had a specific end in mind from the beginning.
But there's this funny thing called human "free will," that tends to delay things.
Human free will isn't delaying anything. The end hasn't come yet because of Christ's will only. If it wasn't for the grace of God, no flesh would be saved.
Perhaps that's why it took two Adams to complete the task,
It took two Adams so that mankind would know that Jesus is God,
The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 1 Cor.15:47
two generations to get Israel through the wilderness,
The two generations being the saved and the unsaved.
and two sons of Abraham to establish Israel on faith?
If you mean Ishmael vs. Isaac and Esau vs. Jacob, I agree.
Maybe you can find elements in the Creation Story that signify a basic blueprint of God's intensions? But then again, it's said quite plainly what God was after, a multitude of humans expressing God's image throughout the world!
Yes, we can see a basic blueprint of God's intentions, but it's because we grow in him that it's said quite plainly. There were and still are many people walking about who didn't hear about how great our Savior is.
Well, it's taken about 6000 years to get there, with all of the wars and pandemics setting mankind back. Perhaps this does equate to a roughly 6 year plan in Creation?
I'm not concerned with the age of the earth in this discussion, but one day is like another to God, except for his Sabbath day of rest.
I don't know. There is the Millennial Day theory, and that seems to have worked out quite nicely, particularly since it's been around since the Early Church?
I believe Jesus showed how he reigns over all and speaking in the name of the King carries with it the serious responsibility of speaking with the King's authority. I must say many times I've failed there. I'm not much of a cartoon guy anymore.
But we can, I think, go overboard with symbolism, and begin to predict things that makes us God, in place of the Creator. And He doesn't want us to try to anticipate "times and seasons that He alone controls.
The only thing we're to predict is that Jesus will return.
Our job more is to focus on being godly in our own time, affecting people around us for their own good.
I agree.
It's interesting, but we should probably exercise some restraint in our novel interpretations?
We absolutely should, as "boldly giing before God's throne" happens on our faces.
-
Not at all, but would you please comment on post 38 first? Thanks.
I haven't replied to post #38 as I don't have anything further to say on those points.
-
I haven't replied to post #38 as I don't have anything further to say on those points.
Ok. I'll get back to you on your post Lord willing.
-
I don't know who Walter Martin is, but I agree with him.
He's dead now, but if you ever want to study the American cults in the light Christianity, he's the guy to read. The "Kingdom of the Cults" is a classic. I attended a few of his classes at Melodyland Christian Center in Anaheim, CA. And I also listened to quite a number of his weekly radio broadcasts, which was a live program taking questions from the Bible. It was called the "Bible Answerman." Hank Hanegraaff took over from him when he died. Hank has also authored a few books.
Human free will isn't delaying anything.
I don't know how you can say this? In the beginning, from the "foundation of the world," God's plan was for man to exercise free will, to choose from any tree of the garden to eat from. They also had freedom to eat from the Tree of Life, which would give them the equivalent of Eternal Life.
Choosing to eat from the forbidden Tree of Knowledge prevented Man from obtaining Eternal Life until Christ came and died on the Cross. That is a considerable delay. Not only that, but even after we receive Eternal Life from Christ, we have to wait to dispose of our mortal bodies and exchange them for immortal bodies.
Thanks for your response and points. I'm always listening to fill in the gaps in my thinking.
-
There's a difference between the view that Genesis 1 contains all of God's works, and the view that the days of Genesis 1 are prophecies corresponding to 1,000 year periods over the last ~6,000 years (the misunderstanding of 2 Peter notwithstanding).
Neither view has merit in my estimation, but if you find either compelling would you mind sharing more?
Sure. Just to get this out of the way, I'm not talking about how old the earth is. I don't want to discuss that, but prophecy is declaring what will be and Gen.1 shows what will be from all the works of God in Gen.1 before he rested.
The creation of light and its separation from darkness, the creation and division between heaven and earth, the creation of seed bearing plants, animals and humans, all producing after their kind and so on are past, present and future truths until the end. Add to this the expanse of scripture showing dual meanings for the created things mentioned above and it's easy to see how prophetic Gen.1 is.
What you've quoted, and what Joshua goes on to assert, is not an example of anything other than a bald assertion.
The 'mystery' of Ephesians 5:32 comes through Paul's use of marriage imagery to describe the relationship between Christ and the church. What Paul isn't doing is using Eve symbolically. Christ/husband and Church/wife is the metaphor.
A metaphor is a symbol, so Eph.5:32 is symbolic. In fact, since both men and women can become one with Christ, it's Pauls intention to show that Jesus is God,
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 1Cor.11:3
And when the human instrumentality project is complete, the Lilin will finally take their place among the gods.
Sorry, I thought were saying just saying cool things.
I don't know what you mean by this, but I do know why the woman should pray with her head (that is, her husband) covered, but the man shouldnot cover his head (that is Christ).
-
He's dead now, but if you ever want to study the American cults in the light Christianity, he's the guy to read. The "Kingdom of the Cults" is a classic. I attended a few of his classes at Melodyland Christian Center in Anaheim, CA. And I also listened to quite a number of his weekly radio broadcasts, which was a live program taking questions from the Bible. It was called the "Bible Answerman." Hank Hanegraaff took over from him when he died. Hank has also authored a few books.
i've heard the name Hank Hanegraaff, but don't know anything about him. Thank you for the incite.
I don't know how you can say this? In the beginning, from the "foundation of the world," God's plan was for man to exercise free will, to choose from any tree of the garden to eat from. They also had freedom to eat from the Tree of Life, which would give them the equivalent of Eternal Life.
Choosing to eat from the forbidden Tree of Knowledge prevented Man from obtaining Eternal Life until Christ came and died on the Cross. That is a considerable delay. Not only that, but even after we receive Eternal Life from Christ, we have to wait to dispose of our mortal bodies and exchange them for immortal bodies.
But since immortality is being born of God, we're already immortal and I just told you
why human free will isn't delaying anything. It's because God is merciful ,
For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.....
Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the LORD of hosts
Mal.3:6-7
Thanks for your response and points. I'm always listening to fill in the gaps in my thinking.
I keep checking for gaps, but can't find any. Thanks for the talk.
-
But since immortality is being born of God, we're already immortal
I was referring to the resurrection to immortality. We have to wait for that. And mankind had to wait thousands of years for Christ to come to give us the guarantee of immortality.
But yes, we obtain eternal life when we receive Christ. Agreed! :)
-
Sure. Just to get this out of the way, I'm not talking about how old the earth is. I don't want to discuss that, but prophecy is declaring what will be and Gen.1 shows what will be from all the works of God in Gen.1 before he rested.
Is that prophecy, though? Genesis 1 shows God's original intent for creation, and while this is an intent we'll get back to in the new creation, the new creation will be different, and Genesis 1 doesn't make any claims on what life in the new creation is like other than the shared ideal of creation being exactly as God intends it to be.
The creation of light and its separation from darkness, the creation and division between heaven and earth, the creation of seed bearing plants, animals and humans, all producing after their kind and so on are past, present and future truths until the end. Add to this the expanse of scripture showing dual meanings for the created things mentioned above and it's easy to see how prophetic Gen.1 is.
I'm not sure how this functions as prophecy given the description of divisions corresponds to our present creation.
A metaphor is a symbol, so Eph.5:32 is symbolic. In fact, since both men and women can become one with Christ, it's Pauls intention to show that Jesus is God,
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 1Cor.11:3
A metaphor isn't a symbol.
Your claim is that Eve was used by Paul as a symbol of the church, so let's stick to that claim. Where do you see Paul using Eve as a symbol of the church, in Ephesians 5?
I don't know what you mean by this, but I do know why the woman should pray with her head (that is, her husband) covered, but the man shouldnot cover his head (that is Christ).
The 'Human instrumentality project' is a major theme in Neon Genesis Evangelion. Mostly, I had nothing of much interest to say to the tautology - I'm assuming - that 'When Christ's work is done Christ will return' or something to that effect. It seemed as related to the idea of Eve as a symbol of the church as your statement did.
I was also wondering how you might reply to it, and apparently, head coverings bringing honour or dishonour on one's 'spiritual authority' was the direction of choice? How is this related to the idea of Eve as a symbol of the Church in Paul?
-
[I was referring to the resurrection to immortality. We have to wait for that. And mankind had to wait thousands of years for Christ to come to give us the guarantee of immortality.
But yes, we obtain eternal life when we receive Christ. Agreed! :)
I get what you are referring to. The thing is, we now walk by the Spirit of Christ. We should see things as he saw them. For instance,
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: Eph.1:3
The heavenly places aren't locations, but states believers are in.
Set your mind on things above.....Col.3:2
Our minds should be in the heavenly state. As an example of how our view of things change in knowing Jesus, believers should come to the knowledge that,
the Most High rules in the kingdom of men.....Dan.4:17
But this declaration seems in conflict with,
.....thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned. Rev.1-:17
It's as if there was a time when God wasn't reigning, but at some point began to reign, which is contrary with the fact that God has always reigned.
The solution is that the saints in the heavenlies, the heavenly minded believers, have come to know through Christ that God has always reigned. It isn't that God changed. It's that our perception of God had changed.
-
Yes, but we have to breakdown what that means. If God created a perfect world, He also created the alternate world of the Fall. What it means is that His Word is prepared to deal with any eventuality.
Unlike many, I don't have a problem with an open-ended universe. I think God is big enough to enter into the equation our free will. Does this mean that God doesn't know what I'm going to choose to do today? Yes, it means that. But it also means that I can do nothing outside of the parameters He's already created for my choices. He's surprised by nothing.
Middle knowledge / Molinism seems likely, to me. Well, necessary, to avoid that particular issue of God's foreknowledge conflicting with our freedom to act.
-
Either way, you're limiting God. You're either saying He cannot abide by freedom of human will and free human choices, or you are saying that I'm limiting God by saying He cannot know what our choices will be.
I think we need to determine where the limit originates from. For example, God can't create a square circle, but that limitation is potentially different from God not knowing the outcome of a choice, i.e., two of His attributes, omniscience and foreknowledge, aren't. That is unless we categorise choices as we do square circles.
But I don't think we can make that kind of appeal, because choices instantiate history. Do we have any reason to think it's a logical impossibility for God to know all or foreknow all things?
I get around that by saying God knows the extent of our choices, and cannot always know what specific choice we will make. What will it be--God is incapable of letting us make our own choices?
We could offer middle knowledge, suggesting similarly to Molinas that God knows not just the course of events that actually happen, but every state of affairs that could happen, and every possible world consequently. That is, what is to me is a hypothetical is to God, knowledge.
That's how an Anselmnian argument would work, right? If I can think of a possible world, God must surely know it.
So God has a plan and God knows everything that will and could happen. God implements that plan in creation, and like the divine chess player that He is, that plan executes even in light of the myriad complications wrought by choice.
Jesus is indeed slain from the foundation of the world, but not from *before* the foundation of the world. He existed before the foundation of the world as the Word of God. I believe God predestined Him to be revealed as king over the human race.
That's not usually the discussion people have regarding Revelation 13:8, but before I say anything else, how far are you taking this? Would you say that God had no knowledge of what was going to happen to creation prior to creating? Or that God only came up with His plan after Adam sinned, or something else?
But he was not planned, from before the foundation of the world, to be slain. God didn't want man to sin. If so, then it was possible that man not sin. Just my view, brother.
The incarnation could be planned, then the plan instantiated, contingent on Adam and Eve's sin. It could also be that the incarnation was the plan all along, and contingent on Adam's sin, we either have our fallen world and that instance of the incarnational plan, or a world where the fall never occurred and whatever the incarnational plan was in that case.
I think we err in thinking unidimensionally about God's omniscience and foreknowledge.
-
Either way, you're limiting God. You're either saying He cannot abide by freedom of human will and free human choices, or you are saying that I'm limiting God by saying He cannot know what our choices will be.
I think we need to determine where the limit originates from. For example, God can't create a square circle, but that limitation is potentially different from God not knowing the outcome of a choice, i.e., two of His attributes, omniscience and foreknowledge, aren't. That is unless we categorise choices as we do square circles.
But I don't think we can make that kind of appeal, because choices instantiate history. Do we have any reason to think it's a logical impossibility for God to know all or foreknow all things?
I understand what you're saying, but I don't know how you can classify omniscience and foreknowledge with "creating a square circle." The whole question revolves around what defines God or not. If by definition God *must* know all of our decisions in advance, then of course we cannot question whether He is able to do so.
But I don't accept that definition of God, since my definition of God does not require that He know in advance what choices we will make. It is sufficient for Him, as God, to determine perhaps 2 or 3 choices that we may make on our own, with an automatic response from God lying in wait for whatever choice we may make.
This means that God cannot be taken by surprise by our choices, but has an answer for anything we may do. And therefore, nothing moves beyond the circle of His divine control over the human will. This is my definition of God.
The reason I *must* conclude this is because God has self-imposed this definition upon Himself as God. He is the one who determined that Man may choose freely to eat of any tree of the garden, and may refuse to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. God could not know what decision man would make until man actually made his choice. Either way, God would not stop being God.
Some of what you suggest is similar to what I'm saying, yes.
Jesus is indeed slain from the foundation of the world, but not from *before* the foundation of the world. He existed before the foundation of the world as the Word of God. I believe God predestined Him to be revealed as king over the human race.
That's not usually the discussion people have regarding Revelation 13:8, but before I say anything else, how far are you taking this? Would you say that God had no knowledge of what was going to happen to creation prior to creating? Or that God only came up with His plan after Adam sinned, or something else?
I believe the universe was darkened by Satan's fall before God created man. Man was therefore told to avoid the temptation to do the same as Satan did, which is to rebel against God's word.
So God knew that man could either obey His word, and fulfill the plan to fill the world with people for God's Son, or they would fall and bring upon themselves Plan B, the plan of redemption.
At any rate, Christ was preplanned to come to be the first among many brethren, a divine man presiding as king over all men world-wide. His potential, from the beginning, therefore included two plans, Plan A to fill the world with unfallen people who choose to have eternal life with God, or Plan B, to embrace the slain lamb for redemption and to go on to complete the original plan to fill the world with people living in eternal fellowship with God.
Christ was either slain from the foundation of the world in the sense that Adam and Eve fell in the early part of human history, or it means that Christ was potentially going to be slain should man decide to fall. The "foundation of the world" may thus refer either to the actual creation of the earth or to the time when man fell. I'm not sure.
The foreknowledge of Christ's being slain would make more sense once man had already chosen to fall. Inasmuch as he was commanded not to fall, and had the choice to not fall, indicates that the Lamb was not predestined to be slain.
But you show you have a pretty good grasp of what I'm trying to say. I've clarified a bit, so if I didn't cover your concerns perhaps you could be more specific.
However, we may be getting into subjects that transcend our ability to understand. On the other hand, I believe we should take literally what God says. And He said Man had a choice from the beginning *not* to fall. That means God did not foreknow the Fall, except in the sense that He had a backup plan so that His word, at any rate, would not fail to accomplish His ultimate intention.
-
I understand what you're saying, but I don't know how you can classify omniscience and foreknowledge with "creating a square circle." The whole question revolves around what defines God or not. If by definition God *must* know all of our decisions in advance, then of course we cannot question whether He is able to do so.
My point is that we need to be careful how we talk about the ways in which God is limited, and thus the question: are omniscience and foreknowledge limited in the same way that the concept of a 'square circle' is limited (logically impossible) or are they limited in some other way. Does omniscience include knowing the outcomes of those choices, or does it not? Does this matter if God has knowledge of the future vis-a-vis some supra-temporal position?
As it is, I think the New Testament is clear in its teaching that God foreknows (foreordains, predestines, etc.), and this would include historical knowledge, thus knowledge of human choices, and so God knows the outcomes of human choices (but His knowledge doesn't determine and make necessary these choices; if we had chosen differently then God's knowledge would have been different, for instance.)
But I don't accept that definition of God, since my definition of God does not require that He know in advance what choices we will make. It is sufficient for Him, as God, to determine perhaps 2 or 3 choices that we may make on our own, with an automatic response from God lying in wait for whatever choice we may make.
That seems strange to me. What does this conception of God's foreknowledge avoid that the historical conception falls victim to?
The reason I *must* conclude this is because God has self-imposed this definition upon Himself as God. He is the one who determined that Man may choose freely to eat of any tree of the garden, and may refuse to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. God could not know what decision man would make until man actually made his choice. Either way, God would not stop being God.
Why couldn't God know that?
I believe the universe was darkened by Satan's fall before God created man. Man was therefore told to avoid the temptation to do the same as Satan did, which is to rebel against God's word.
So God knew that man could either obey His word, and fulfill the plan to fill the world with people for God's Son, or they would fall and bring upon themselves Plan B, the plan of redemption.
At any rate, Christ was preplanned to come to be the first among many brethren, a divine man presiding as king over all men world-wide. His potential, from the beginning, therefore included two plans, Plan A to fill the world with unfallen people who choose to have eternal life with God, or Plan B, to embrace the slain lamb for redemption and to go on to complete the original plan to fill the world with people living in eternal fellowship with God.
Christ was either slain from the foundation of the world in the sense that Adam and Eve fell in the early part of human history, or it means that Christ was potentially going to be slain should man decide to fall. The "foundation of the world" may thus refer either to the actual creation of the earth or to the time when man fell. I'm not sure.
The foreknowledge of Christ's being slain would make more sense once man had already chosen to fall. Inasmuch as he was commanded not to fall, and had the choice to not fall, indicates that the Lamb was not predestined to be slain.
But you show you have a pretty good grasp of what I'm trying to say. I've clarified a bit, so if I didn't cover your concerns perhaps you could be more specific.
However, we may be getting into subjects that transcend our ability to understand. On the other hand, I believe we should take literally what God says. And He said Man had a choice from the beginning *not* to fall. That means God did not foreknow the Fall, except in the sense that He had a backup plan so that His word, at any rate, would not fail to accomplish His ultimate intention.
Okay, so are you saying that along your conception of omniscience and foreknowledge, God plans for potential choices, but doesn't know all choices, or which choice will be made, and in this way, God's knowledge doesn't act as a kind of fate that necessitates people to act in a certain way, or else God's knowledge is wrong?
-
Is that prophecy, though? Genesis 1 shows God's original intent for creation, and while this is an intent we'll get back to in the new creation, the new creation will be different, and Genesis 1 doesn't make any claims on what life in the new creation is like other than the shared ideal of creation being exactly as God intends it to be.
We're getting back to the new creation now,
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 2Cor.5:17
The reason for this is that everything God made produces after its own kind. It may not be apparent from Gen.1 that we must be reborn of God's seed, but other scripture declares it and nothing in Gen.1 refutes it.
I'm not sure how this functions as prophecy given the description of divisions corresponds to our present creation.
When it was written, our present creation was future. "Let us make man in our image" occurs by the Spirit of Christ,
to be conformed to the image of his Son.....Ye must be born again.
Rom.8:29, Jn.3:7
A metaphor isn't a symbol.
Your claim is that Eve was used by Paul as a symbol of the church, so let's stick to that claim. Where do you see Paul using Eve as a symbol of the church, in Ephesians 5?
Yes and other places. Compare Gen.3:20 with Gal.4:26
The 'Human instrumentality project' is a major theme in Neon Genesis Evangelion. Mostly, I had nothing of much interest to say to the tautology - I'm assuming - that 'When Christ's work is done Christ will return' or something to that effect. It seemed as related to the idea of Eve as a symbol of the church as your statement did.
I was also wondering how you might reply to it, and apparently, head coverings bringing honour or dishonour on one's 'spiritual authority' was the direction of choice? How is this related to the idea of Eve as a symbol of the Church in Paul?
When Christ returns, what was will become apparent to unbelievers. In 1Cor.11, I was simply showing that the church is composed of women and men. Paul is often maligned as a sexist.
-
We're getting back to the new creation now,
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 2Cor.5:17
The reason for this is that everything God made produces after its own kind. It may not be apparent from Gen.1 that we must be reborn of God's seed, but other scripture declares it and nothing in Gen.1 refutes it.
This alone doesn't constitute prophecy, though.
to be conformed to the image of his Son.....Ye must be born again.
Rom.8:29, Jn.3:7
Okay...
Yes and other places. Compare Gen.3:20 with Gal.4:26
Genesis 3:20
Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.
Galatians 4:26
But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.
Okay, how does this evoke Genesis 3:20? The context of v26 is a broader discussion on covenant, Jerusalem, Hagar and Sarah, so why are we inserting Eve?
When Christ returns, what was will become apparent to unbelievers. In 1Cor.11, I was simply showing that the church is composed of women and men. Paul is often maligned as a sexist.
Yeah but, has anyone suggested here that Paul was a sexist?
-
I understand what you're saying, but I don't know how you can classify omniscience and foreknowledge with "creating a square circle." The whole question revolves around what defines God or not. If by definition God *must* know all of our decisions in advance, then of course we cannot question whether He is able to do so.
My point is that we need to be careful how we talk about the ways in which God is limited, and thus the question: are omniscience and foreknowledge limited in the same way that the concept of a 'square circle' is limited (logically impossible) or are they limited in some other way. Does omniscience include knowing the outcomes of those choices, or does it not? Does this matter if God has knowledge of the future vis-a-vis some supra-temporal position?
As it is, I think the New Testament is clear in its teaching that God foreknows (foreordains, predestines, etc.), and this would include historical knowledge, thus knowledge of human choices, and so God knows the outcomes of human choices (but His knowledge doesn't determine and make necessary these choices; if we had chosen differently then God's knowledge would have been different, for instance.)
But I don't accept that definition of God, since my definition of God does not require that He know in advance what choices we will make. It is sufficient for Him, as God, to determine perhaps 2 or 3 choices that we may make on our own, with an automatic response from God lying in wait for whatever choice we may make.
That seems strange to me. What does this conception of God's foreknowledge avoid that the historical conception falls victim to?
The reason I *must* conclude this is because God has self-imposed this definition upon Himself as God. He is the one who determined that Man may choose freely to eat of any tree of the garden, and may refuse to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. God could not know what decision man would make until man actually made his choice. Either way, God would not stop being God.
Why couldn't God know that?
I believe the universe was darkened by Satan's fall before God created man. Man was therefore told to avoid the temptation to do the same as Satan did, which is to rebel against God's word.
So God knew that man could either obey His word, and fulfill the plan to fill the world with people for God's Son, or they would fall and bring upon themselves Plan B, the plan of redemption.
At any rate, Christ was preplanned to come to be the first among many brethren, a divine man presiding as king over all men world-wide. His potential, from the beginning, therefore included two plans, Plan A to fill the world with unfallen people who choose to have eternal life with God, or Plan B, to embrace the slain lamb for redemption and to go on to complete the original plan to fill the world with people living in eternal fellowship with God.
Christ was either slain from the foundation of the world in the sense that Adam and Eve fell in the early part of human history, or it means that Christ was potentially going to be slain should man decide to fall. The "foundation of the world" may thus refer either to the actual creation of the earth or to the time when man fell. I'm not sure.
The foreknowledge of Christ's being slain would make more sense once man had already chosen to fall. Inasmuch as he was commanded not to fall, and had the choice to not fall, indicates that the Lamb was not predestined to be slain.
But you show you have a pretty good grasp of what I'm trying to say. I've clarified a bit, so if I didn't cover your concerns perhaps you could be more specific.
However, we may be getting into subjects that transcend our ability to understand. On the other hand, I believe we should take literally what God says. And He said Man had a choice from the beginning *not* to fall. That means God did not foreknow the Fall, except in the sense that He had a backup plan so that His word, at any rate, would not fail to accomplish His ultimate intention.
Okay, so are you saying that along your conception of omniscience and foreknowledge, God plans for potential choices, but doesn't know all choices, or which choice will be made, and in this way, God's knowledge doesn't act as a kind of fate that necessitates people to act in a certain way, or else God's knowledge is wrong?
Yes, I think you got it pretty much. Right, and my initial response to that was that we limit God either way. Either we say He *cannot* know the outcome of our choices before we make them, or we say He cannot grant true free choices to men. To say God *cannot* give men true free choices is also limiting to God, which seems to be your concern.
We are not here talking about questions like, "Can God make a rock so big that He can't lift it?" That would be a logical impossibility. But it is not logically impossible for God to make two possible choices for you to make in the garden of Eden, and have an answer upon either eventuality. That avoids "taking God by surprise," and does not challenge His omniscience. Furthermore, it avoids the logical absurdity of saying Man had a choice when he really didn't. The real logical absurdity would be if God knew the outcome in advance, and said that Man still had a choice!
In this I would not argue that God does not know *any* of Man's choices in advance--He certainly does! But some choices He obviously did not know because He gave us a choice. And if so, the burden rested with us to make the choice--not for Him to predetermine it by His foreknowledge. If something is foreknown, we cannot but choose in that direction, and there can be no free choice in this. At least that is how I would argue it.
There are, as I said, some choices God gives us that He knows how we will respond. And He does this to prove things like we prefer Eternal Life, and will make the logical choice one would make if our hearts are right. But there are neutral choices where it would not be known in advance what the logical inclination would be. The choice to fall from God is one of those neutral choices, in my view. I suppose this is an impossible question to resolve. But I find it important to argue in favor of free human will. Otherwise, we're robots fooling ourselves.
-
I don't understand the logic behind "God obviously did not know because He gave us choices."
Maybe it's just me, but I'm having trouble understanding how giving man a free will means that God obviously doesn't know something... Or if that were true, how that would be true for some things but not for others.
Or how that keeps God from, in some aspects, being consistent with a Deistic clockmaker... wind it up and let it go..
Don't mean to be rude or obtuse, but I don't think that free will is determinative of omniscience.
-
Yes, I think you got it pretty much. Right, and my initial response to that was that we limit God either way. Either we say He *cannot* know the outcome of our choices before we make them, or we say He cannot grant true free choices to men. To say God *cannot* give men true free choices is also limiting to God, which seems to be your concern.
I'm not sure I understand how my, or RK's view limits God, could you clarify where you see the limit? My view, to be clear, is that God possesses middle knowledge, so He knows the outcome of every possible choice, and also, that humanity is genuinely free to make choices.
We are not here talking about questions like, "Can God make a rock so big that He can't lift it?" That would be a logical impossibility. But it is not logically impossible for God to make two possible choices for you to make in the garden of Eden, and have an answer upon either eventuality. That avoids "taking God by surprise," and does not challenge His omniscience. Furthermore, it avoids the logical absurdity of saying Man had a choice when he really didn't. The real logical absurdity would be if God knew the outcome in advance, and said that Man still had a choice!
In this I would not argue that God does not know *any* of Man's choices in advance--He certainly does! But some choices He obviously did not know because He gave us a choice. And if so, the burden rested with us to make the choice--not for Him to predetermine it by His foreknowledge. If something is foreknown, we cannot but choose in that direction, and there can be no free choice in this. At least that is how I would argue it.
So, I think there are a few issues with this:
1) God can create a scenario in which there are only two possible outcomes, but there's at least one further option, and that's inaction. So I guess God is aware of that and has three contingencies available to him. But maybe Eve, while talking to the snake, gets bored and decides to go wash her underarms instead. Well, I that's four contingencies now.
Or maybe there's another problem lurking here, and that is: how has God set up the circumstance such that Eve arrives at the choice God desires her to make? Is God now arranging contingencies for the hundreds, or thousands, of possible permutations of her possible acts? Does he also arrange these for Adam, and the snake?
2) This seems, then, to challenge God's omniscience and his foreknowledge. How can be that God knows some choices, by which the individual is foreordained, but not other choices, which God allows freedom for by determining possible outcomes? Does this not produce the very issue trying to be avoided, namely, that there are choices that aren't at all choices because they were foreknown?
3) But if God still doesn't know the outcome of the choice, then even if He prepares for every possible eventuality, He would indeed be "taken by surprise" by virtue of the fact that He genuinely doesn't know how the choice will go.
What I'd suggest is that God's foreknowledge doesn't make any choice necessary, since His foreknowledge is dependent on our actions. If we act differently, then God knows differently. God knows the choice we make dependent on our choosing.
There are, as I said, some choices God gives us that He knows how we will respond. And He does this to prove things like we prefer Eternal Life, and will make the logical choice one would make if our hearts are right. But there are neutral choices where it would not be known in advance what the logical inclination would be. The choice to fall from God is one of those neutral choices, in my view. I suppose this is an impossible question to resolve. But I find it important to argue in favor of free human will. Otherwise, we're robots fooling ourselves.
I think the fundamental error is to consider foreknowledge to be determinative.
-
Whoa, whoa, whoa!
Wait a minute....
Are you suggesting for even a picosecond that perfect Eve's perfect armpits were odiferous and needed a wash?
:o
-
I don't understand the logic behind "God obviously did not know because He gave us choices."
Maybe it's just me, but I'm having trouble understanding how giving man a free will means that God obviously doesn't know something... Or if that were true, how that would be true for some things but not for others.
Or how that keeps God from, in some aspects, being consistent with a Deistic clockmaker... wind it up and let it go..
Don't mean to be rude or obtuse, but I don't think that free will is determinative of omniscience.
I don't have a problem with your view as an "opinion." Obviously, your view of Deity is a simplistic, "God knows everything." In reality, we don't know what He knows. That's just how we define Him, as originator of everything, and therefore unsurprised by anything He does.
-
My view of God is far from simplistic as the intersection of foreknowledge and free will is perhaps as complex as the concept of the hypostatic union or the Trinity.
-
I'm not sure I understand how my, or RK's view limits God, could you clarify where you see the limit? My view, to be clear, is that God possesses middle knowledge, so He knows the outcome of every possible choice, and also, that humanity is genuinely free to make choices.
You group your position together with RK's position? From this post, it doesn't sound like they are in the same category?
The way you're describing your view as "middle knowledge" would agree with my position. I understood that you were describing that earlier--I just didn't know that you were taking that position!
My statement that you'd be limiting God by saying He knows every human choice before they happen is based on the idea that there can only be one choice anybody can make, namely the one foreknown by God.
This "limits" God by saying that He can't impose more than a single choice on anybody, ie cannot impose the possibility of two different choices man may make, both of which God "foreknows" and the specific choice being not completely foreknown in the sense of requiring only one choice.
So, I think there are a few issues with this:
1) God can create a scenario in which there are only two possible outcomes, but there's at least one further option, and that's inaction. So I guess God is aware of that and has three contingencies available to him. But maybe Eve, while talking to the snake, gets bored and decides to go wash her underarms instead. Well, I that's four contingencies now.
I was using two choices as an example, not to determine that there can *only* be two choices! ;) Obviously, there's lots of space for elements of timing, degree of action, inaction, or hybrid decisions, etc.
Or maybe there's another problem lurking here, and that is: how has God set up the circumstance such that Eve arrives at the choice God desires her to make? Is God now arranging contingencies for the hundreds, or thousands, of possible permutations of her possible acts? Does he also arrange these for Adam, and the snake?
Yes, God is like the environment of water. He is all-encompassing, like the ocean. Whatever falls into the ocean has a predictable result. Since God is consistent in His nature, and always tells the truth, whatever falls within His orbit is predictable as a reaction stemming from the nature of His Divinity.
All choices produce a predictable divine result. If we disobey His word, there will be certain consequences. If we obey His word there will be predictable divine consequences. Whether we delay or speed up the process, the result will be predictable--it will be God reacting according to His nature.
2) This seems, then, to challenge God's omniscience and his foreknowledge. How can be that God knows some choices, by which the individual is foreordained, but not other choices, which God allows freedom for by determining possible outcomes? Does this not produce the very issue trying to be avoided, namely, that there are choices that aren't at all choices because they were foreknown?
Not really. The choices that God has determined, such as in Predestination, are designed to show that people who have chosen to live in concert with God will *always* choose to live in accord with the divine nature. We will *always* choose to please God in our choices, and be pure in whatever we choose, because in choosing for immortality in fellowship with God we have obtained an eternal nature like God has, and will predictably always choose to do things with the right spirit.
This doesn't mean that God even foreknows what choices we will make when acting in concert with His Spirit. But it does mean He is able to foreknow that we will choose to live by His Spirit.
Even before we've obtained our immortal nature, we are making choices both predictable and unpredictable. I won't go into the problem of Predestination right now, if you don't mind? ;)
Let me just say that as born again believers we now make predictable choices when we cooperate with our new nature. The choices we make are foreknown by God, because we are acting in concert with His Spirit. They are foreknown to be good choices, but they are not always foreknown what particular decision we will make.
Sometimes God knows *exactly* what we will choose because sometimes He determines that those who are cooperating with Him *must* accomplish certain self-made goals that belong to God. He may, for example, determine that Jerusalem is to be built, and therefore that Moses, who has already chosen to obey God, will supervise the blueprints.
God may predetermine a Gentile king like Cyrus, who has already chosen a certain disposition, to have the temple rebuilt for Him. God foreknew this, ie the particular choice Cyrus would make, simply because this event was of critical importance to God, and knew how Cyrus would want to choose. He cannot choose out of any nature than what he has been given.
Many choices are less important, and not determined as such. But it is always a human choice, whether determined or not. By the nature of our character God is able to determine a definitive result.
But we may choose to backslide or act out of accord with God's Spirit. This is not foreknown by God, and is part of God's imposed neutrality with respect to human choices. God has a consequence to whatever action a person takes in this regard. Nothing will take place outside of God predetermined nature and will, as a result of what we choose.
3) But if God still doesn't know the outcome of the choice, then even if He prepares for every possible eventuality, He would indeed be "taken by surprise" by virtue of the fact that He genuinely doesn't know how the choice will go.
I would refer you back to your own position, that God foreknows any choice we may make in the sense of being *prepared* for it and not actually knowing in advance what particular choice we may make.
What I'd suggest is that God's foreknowledge doesn't make any choice necessary, since His foreknowledge is dependent on our actions. If we act differently, then God knows differently. God knows the choice we make dependent on our choosing.
I think the fundamental error is to consider foreknowledge to be determinative.
By definition, "foreknowledge" is determinative. ;) I believe God has predetermined that His foreknowledge of a free agent's actions must be contingent on how they choose to respond to the choices He gives them.
-
By definition, "foreknowledge" is simply knowing in advance without any necessity for causation or determinativeness. Determinativeness is related to causation; knowing is not.
I think Athanasius and I are in sync on this issue; your idea of "God is prepared for any exigency but doesn't know which ones He'll have to address" is not middle knowledge but a variant of open theism.
-
From the vantage point of timelessness - seeing the end from the beginning - foreknowledge is simply that: knowing all things at all times. In this light, omniscient God knows how each person will respond to each circumstance and what consequences will ensue.This in no way implies that men's actions are predetermined, and He does not tempt men to sin.
EDIT: Well, not to embellish on what others have laid down here.
-
Whoa, whoa, whoa!
Wait a minute....
Are you suggesting for even a picosecond that perfect Eve's perfect armpits were odiferous and needed a wash?
:o
Smell like flowers she may, the stench over time it lingers...
-
You group your position together with RK's position? From this post, it doesn't sound like they are in the same category?
Yes, RK and I think similarly on the subject, having talked about this between ourselves fairly extensively.
The way you're describing your view as "middle knowledge" would agree with my position. I understood that you were describing that earlier--I just didn't know that you were taking that position!
Oh, I think you've misunderstood. I think that God knows the outcome of every choice, meaning that He knows what choice will be made, the outcome of that choice, as well as the outcomes of every choice not made. He has full knowledge of the world as it actually is, and the many worlds of potential that never are.
Said another way, I don't think that God is merely aware of all possibilities and then acts thusly depending on which potential is actualised. He knows all those possibilities, as well as what actually happens.
I think was being serious with my Anselm comment earlier, as well. If I, an... unomniscient? or merely... scient? being can imagine a hypothetical based on how I might act, then surely God, who is omniscient, can know with certainty what I can only imagine hypothetically. The principle here is that my ability to know is a limited version of one of God's attributes, so if we take my ability to know and grow it to its logical end, then we arrive in a situation where I know what I had only previous suspected.
My statement that you'd be limiting God by saying He knows every human choice before they happen is based on the idea that there can only be one choice anybody can make, namely the one foreknown by God.
Right, I think this is an incorrect understanding of foreknowledge. For God to foreknow how I will act, I need to first act.
Imagine that you woke up tomorrow with foreknowledge of everything your wife(?) was going to say that day (all approx. 20,000 words). Before she says a single word you know exactly what's going to be said, and how others are going to respond. But you didn't determine what your wife would say simply by knowing. You knew because she first spoke, and if she had said something different, then you would have known differently.
William Lane Craig gets at this distinction in the video below:
This "limits" God by saying that He can't impose more than a single choice on anybody, ie cannot impose the possibility of two different choices man may make, both of which God "foreknows" and the specific choice being not completely foreknown in the sense of requiring only one choice.
So, following on the above, I don't think there's any such limit involved, because God isn't imposing any choices. This issue isn't resolved, either, by positing that God creates multiple choices. Those choices are still foreordained, which isn't quite the foreknowledge we're talking about.
I was using two choices as an example, not to determine that there can *only* be two choices! ;) Obviously, there's lots of space for elements of timing, degree of action, inaction, or hybrid decisions, etc.
Quite. My point is that this scenario turns God into a programmer, effectively.
Yes, God is like the environment of water. He is all-encompassing, like the ocean. Whatever falls into the ocean has a predictable result. Since God is consistent in His nature, and always tells the truth, whatever falls within His orbit is predictable as a reaction stemming from the nature of His Divinity.
You seem to be saying that God is a master of prediction, but that is all: He predicted, but He cannot know the outcome of a choice unless that choice is preordained?
Not really. The choices that God has determined, such as in Predestination, are designed to show that people who have chosen to live in concert with God will *always* choose to live in accord with the divine nature. We will *always* choose to please God in our choices, and be pure in whatever we choose, because in choosing for immortality in fellowship with God we have obtained an eternal nature like God has, and will predictably always choose to do things with the right spirit.
This doesn't mean that God even foreknows what choices we will make when acting in concert with His Spirit. But it does mean He is able to foreknow that we will choose to live by His Spirit.
Even before we've obtained our immortal nature, we are making choices both predictable and unpredictable. I won't go into the problem of Predestination right now, if you don't mind? ;)
Let me just say that as born again believers we now make predictable choices when we cooperate with our new nature. The choices we make are foreknown by God, because we are acting in concert with His Spirit. They are foreknown to be good choices, but they are not always foreknown what particular decision we will make.
Sometimes God knows *exactly* what we will choose because sometimes He determines that those who are cooperating with Him *must* accomplish certain self-made goals that belong to God. He may, for example, determine that Jerusalem is to be built, and therefore that Moses, who has already chosen to obey God, will supervise the blueprints.
God may predetermine a Gentile king like Cyrus, who has already chosen a certain disposition, to have the temple rebuilt for Him. God foreknew this, ie the particular choice Cyrus would make, simply because this event was of critical importance to God, and knew how Cyrus would want to choose. He cannot choose out of any nature than what he has been given.
Many choices are less important, and not determined as such. But it is always a human choice, whether determined or not. By the nature of our character God is able to determine a definitive result.
You seem to be saying, then, that God doesn't possess foreknowledge at all. Is that right?
But we may choose to backslide or act out of accord with God's Spirit. This is not foreknown by God, and is part of God's imposed neutrality with respect to human choices. God has a consequence to whatever action a person takes in this regard. Nothing will take place outside of God predetermined nature and will, as a result of what we choose.
Why is it out of the question for God to determine such a series of events? And, why are you suggesting that God has an 'imposed neutrality' with respect to human choices, despite providing examples above of God foreordaining human choices?
I would refer you back to your own position, that God foreknows any choice we may make in the sense of being *prepared* for it and not actually knowing in advance what particular choice we may make.
But I'm saying that God knows and you're saying that God predicts, or maybe, anticipates. My position is that God has knowledge, while your position is that there are things God has no knowledge of, like human choices. The best God can to is make supremely educated guesses. Those guesses can be accurate to the nth to the trillionth power degree, but it's still not knowledge.
By definition, "foreknowledge" is determinative. ;) I believe God has predetermined that His foreknowledge of a free agent's actions must be contingent on how they choose to respond to the choices He gives them.
The definition of foreknowledge is to know something before it happens (I will add: from our human temporal perspective). There's nothing determinative about that necessarily. But, then you go on to say this:
"His foreknowledge of a free agent's actions must be contingent on how they choose to respond to the choices He gives them."
Which is correct, so I'm not sure why you then add on the unnecessary qualification that God doesn't know how free agents will act, and thus, doesn't possess foreknowledge.
-
Obviously, your view of Deity is a simplistic, "God knows everything."
This sort of comment isn't called for. It's a meritless sentence that could be used to write anyone off. And, something similar could be said of the preceding sentence in relation to the scare quoted 'opinion'.
If a view, like the one RK and myself are advocating for, is coming across as 'simplistic' then I would suggest rethinking whether that's the case, or if it's actually the case that the argument hasn't quite been grasped. Omniscience is anything but simplistic, and anyway, no one is saying that 'God knows everything' and leaving it at that.
-
Obviously, your view of Deity is a simplistic, "God knows everything."
This sort of comment isn't called for. It's a meritless sentence that could be used to write anyone off. And, something similar could be said of the preceding sentence in relation to the scare quoted 'opinion'.
If a view, like the one RK and myself are advocating for, is coming across as 'simplistic' then I would suggest rethinking whether that's the case, or if it's actually the case that the argument hasn't quite been grasped. Omniscience is anything but simplistic, and anyway, no one is saying that 'God knows everything' and leaving it at that.
You're judging by appearances brother. That's my honest assessment, whether you like the words I used or not. The point is, is God all-knowing in the sense that "God can do anything," which I see as "simplistic." Or, is there more to knowing what God knows than meets the eye?
I've argued this for many years, and there's no other way that I know how to say it. People most often use the argument, "God knows everything, including the choices we will make." They don't want to think any deeper than, "God knows everything--after all, He's God."
This isn't the same thing as saying you or RK are simpletons. For lack of better words, it is an "overly-simple" argument.
This is in fact a legitimate approach to the subject, to state that "God knows everything." It is, I think, an over-simplification. But it does render things more simple than I wish to state them.
In many cases we would all argue that "the simplest solution is the most likely solution." But that isn't calling one "simple-minded," is it?
Again, I'm saying that it isn't enough to just say God by definition knows everything. I'm saying I don't wish to argue that kind of approach, which I think is "simplistic," whether you are making that argument or not. I'm saying I need more of an argument than that.
-
No one is falling back on that “simple” argument as the argument of middle knowledge is very sophisticated and quite complex
Saying it is “simple” is simply not accurate
-
You're judging by appearances brother. That's my honest assessment, whether you like the words I used or not. The point is, is God all-knowing in the sense that "God can do anything," which I see as "simplistic." Or, is there more to knowing what God knows than meets the eye?
I don't doubt that it's your honest assessment (and assessments can be wrong), but what I'm judging is the content of the written message.
It's not obvious that RK's view of God is simplistic, and it's not obvious that the proposition "God knows everything" is simplistic, either. As honest as your sentiment may be, this assessment does not give adequate respect to the complexity of the view RK holds, namely, Molinism, which is the view that God possesses middle knowledge, that is, counter-factual knowledge. This is a view that is anything but simplistic, and it's a view that betrays anything but a simplistic conception of God.
More than that, you've gone a step further. It's not just that RK's view of God vis-a-vis his view of omniscience that is simplistic; according to what you've written, his view of God Himself is simplistic, lacking in sophistication, thought, consideration, and so on.
That is, what you've written is a statement that applies not just to a doctrinal position RK holds but extends to RK's view of God as well. His view is no more simplistic than yours, and I would dare to say that it's probably more sophisticated from what I've read in this thread so far.
I've argued this for many years, and there's no other way that I know how to say it. People most often use the argument, "God knows everything, including the choices we will make." They don't want to think any deeper than, "God knows everything--after all, He's God."
No one here is doing that, though. RK's references to Molinas and Open Theism are good clues that there's a deeper level of thinking going on.
This isn't the same thing as saying you or RK are simpletons. For lack of better words, it is an "overly-simple" argument.
You're not saying we're simpletons, no, but consider this: what sort of person would hold a simplistic view of God? We don't mean what Aquinas meant, of course, so I think it's worth thinking about the implications of the statement. Would someone who is sophisticated in her theology hold a simplistic view of God? Or, is it more likely that someone who is simple in his theology holds a simplistic view of God?
We might not get all the way to 'simpleton', but we're heading in that direction.
This is in fact a legitimate approach to the subject, to state that "God knows everything." It is, I think, an over-simplification. But it does render things more simple than I wish to state them.
But neither myself nor RK are merely saying "God knows everything" and leaving the argument at that. The only oversimplification that's happening here is the reduction of our view to "God knows everything", which, again, ignores what's actually being said.
In many cases we would all argue that "the simplest solution is the most likely solution." But that isn't calling one "simple-minded," is it?
Are you then saying that "God knows everything", being the simpler solution, is the most likely? I think probably, this is a misuse of Occam's razor.
Again, I'm saying that it isn't enough to just say God by definition knows everything. I'm saying I don't wish to argue that kind of approach, which I think is "simplistic," whether you are making that argument or not. I'm saying I need more of an argument than that.
And again, no one is saying only that.
-
I've studied the subject and found that I feel as if my understanding is grasping at the wind.
Middle knowledge does a tremendous job of filling in the blanks between God's foreknowledge and man's free will. Still, the more I dig into it the more questions I find that arise from it. That doesn't frustrate me though. These questions arise from scriptural truths. If I see these truths as contradictory it's the folly of my understanding. Not God's Word.
C.H. Spurgeon went on to say this about the subject...
That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other. These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.
-
This alone doesn't constitute prophecy, though.
Yes it does, because Christ is how, "Let ys make man in our image", would occur.
As Paul says,
But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. 2Cor.3:18
Okay...
Okay what? Do you agree we are made in the image of God and his Son by his Spirit, or not?
Genesis 3:20
Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.
Galatians 4:26
But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.
Okay, how does this evoke Genesis 3:20? The context of v26 is a broader discussion on covenant, Jerusalem, Hagar and Sarah, so why are we inserting Eve?
The church is one body in Christ, so Sarah is no different than Eve. The "free woman" is the woman who knows the Lord. Look at what Paul says about the saved woman,
she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. 1Tim.2:15
Paul isn't teaching that women who have babies will be saved. He's referring to this,
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Gen.3:16
Because converts (children) are born (again) by the gospel, which necessitates suffering. The church is persecuted for preaching the gospel, submitting to the husband (Christ) who rules over us. And,
Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; 1Pet.4:1
Yeah but, has anyone suggested here that Paul was a sexist?
Not that I know of, but Paul has been maligned that way.
-
I'm sorry, but I'm just not tracking.
"Let us make man in our own image" is not prophetic, its declaratory of what God did in creation, creating man and woman.
Eve is not prophetic or symbolic of the church, and neither is Sarah.
I'm struggling to find the significance. Certainly possibly due to my own ignorance or blindedness.
-
I don't doubt that it's your honest assessment (and assessments can be wrong), but what I'm judging is the content of the written message.
None of this has a thing with calling you or RK "simpletons." That would be ludicrous since I've just recently suggested that both of you are very smart and well-informed.
It is *to me* a simplistic approach to say that "God knows everything," and I'm not suggesting that is your exclusive argument, nor am I saying definitively that that is your argument at all. I'm just saying that if I don't hear anything more, then that is all I feel I'm dealing with. You suggest RK has stated a more complex opinion about this. I hadn't gotten that yet, but you have to give it time. Why not let him answer for himself? This isn't a personal attack--it is a request for more information.
It's not obvious that RK's view of God is simplistic, and it's not obvious that the proposition "God knows everything" is simplistic, either. As honest as your sentiment may be, this assessment does not give adequate respect to the complexity of the view RK holds, namely, Molinism, which is the view that God possesses middle knowledge, that is, counter-factual knowledge. This is a view that is anything but simplistic, and it's a view that betrays anything but a simplistic conception of God.
It was not yet clear to me what your view or RK's view was. You provided, as I recall, a more in depth response than RK did.
All I said is that the argument that speaks to my concerns must be *for me* at a higher level than "God knows everything." Since I wasn't clear what your position or RK's position was, I'm not even saying what your position is. I'm just saying what won't work with me. It was an opportunity for RK to clarify--not defend his pride.
I've heard what you said about Middle Knowledge, or whatever you want to call it. And I already acknowledged that, and suggested it sounded similar to my own position. How is this offensive to anybody?
More than that, you've gone a step further. It's not just that RK's view of God vis-a-vis his view of omniscience that is simplistic; according to what you've written, his view of God Himself is simplistic, lacking in sophistication, thought, consideration, and so on.
No, that's not true. On the contrary I have a lot of respect for RK. I do wish to be free to state things without being judged, though.
That is, what you've written is a statement that applies not just to a doctrinal position RK holds but extends to RK's view of God as well. His view is no more simplistic than yours, and I would dare to say that it's probably more sophisticated from what I've read in this thread so far.
I'm not competing with anybody. My concern remains the truth, and I wish to be able to express that without being judged falsely. Your thoughts about my intentions are just that--your thoughts. And they aren't true in the least.
-
By definition, "foreknowledge" is simply knowing in advance without any necessity for causation or determinativeness. Determinativeness is related to causation; knowing is not.
I think Athanasius and I are in sync on this issue; your idea of "God is prepared for any exigency but doesn't know which ones He'll have to address" is not middle knowledge but a variant of open theism.
Alright RK. I just saw this. I was sidetracked by Athanasius suggesting I was calling you a simpleton--I wasn't. I honestly thought that your argument was the "simple" (not a perjorative) approach that "God knows everything." I did not hear anything more, but I do see more here.
I understand that foreknowledge does not equal "determinativeness." But in the case of God, His foreknowledge may indeed suggest that. Since He determines everything, what He knows in advance He has already determined.
I continue to believe that God is prepared for any exigencies. That is what He has fore-ordained, that He *not* determine choices for us, except in cases where He *wants* to determine a certain outcome. I could give you biblical examples where God has absolutely determined certain people will make certain choices. And I can also give you biblical examples where God has absolutely not determined the outcome, but has left the choice completely up to people.
Your suggestion that I believe in "Open Theism" seems to suggest that my view limits God in a way that renders Him less than God. That is the "simplistic" approach I wish to avoid. But if you think I'm calling you a simpleton for even suggesting this, then you're missing the point.
I do not believe God's choice ahead of all human choices, determining in advance everybody's choices, is part and parcel with the definition of "God." That is, for me, the "simplistic" approach. He is to be defined as before all, and thus incapable of not knowing the outcome of every free agent He created.
I don't accept that because truly free agents, if created as such by God, *must be* without foreknowledge--otherwise, the choices are pre-determined and not free. You may not agree, but that's my view.
My own view, as expressed here, may also sound "overly-simplistic" to you. But I was hoping that over time we could work out exactly what we do believe, as opposed to just claiming "God knows everything" or "free choice implies God doesn't know everything."
-
How does God predetermine someone's "free choice" to do something? For example, if God pre-planned Paul to go to Jerusalem, how does that include Paul's "free choice?"
Well, there are places in the Bible where it only *seems* that God has determined someone to make a certain choice, and in the end they don't make that choice. And there are places in the Bible where God's word is at stake if someone doesn't make the right choice. That kind of choice I think is determined by God, and cannot result in anything other than what God has determined.
If, for example, Jesus predicts, positively, that little Lazarus will climb a certain tree, then that *must* happen. Either Jesus was really just suggesting what he *wants* to happen, or he is declaring it *will* happen. If the latter, then Lazarus is going to choose to climb that tree, regardless of his own personal motive or wish.
But often God predicts things that really do allow for free will, and it is not really a matter of divine integrity. God just anticipates the nature of certain people and already knows their predilections.
It's going to happen because God will allow nothing to disturb that predilection and anticipated choice. Lazarus will indeed choose to climb the tree because God will allow nothing to come between Lazarus and his natural inclination to want to climb that tree and hear Jesus speak.
It's this way also, I think, with Predestination. At some point in a person's life, they determine by their nature whether they wish to follow God only on occasion or as a rule for their life. They either choose to periodically obey God, or they choose God as their primary and consistent rule for their life.
When they choose God as the rule for their life, they are, in effect, choosing to switch natures, from an independent attitude to one of exclusive reliance upon God's counsel for every decision. We are choosing to be "born again," to abandon our self-determination to live in partnership with God and in preference for His will.
He is Lord, and we are remade to fit that mold and preference. And in choosing for a *nature* we are choosing to be saved and predictably so, since we choose to adopt a nature that is predictable and fits with Salvation.
Even if God can predict that our choice to be born again is going to result in Salvation, it does not mean anything more than we have chosen to adopt that new nature. God can predict that we will follow Him for the rest of eternity, and thus save us. But it does not mean we don't have free choices.
The choices we make will always be informed by God's counsel and by the character of His Spirit. That is what allows God to predict our Salvation and to predict the choice that brings us to the place of a Salvation.
But we can be informed by God's Spirit and yet be given freedom to choose for a variety of good things. We can freely choose to eat of any fruit tree in the garden of Eden.
That is what I believe we have, a choice for a particular predictable nature and also free choices that are informed by the nature. It is both a predictable Salvation (Eternal Security?) and freedom.
This explains Eternal Security for me. But there is more with respect to Predestination. I just haven't yet addressed that. How does God predict that we will choose for a new nature? Maybe I'll share my thoughts on that later?
-
There is a way, I think, that God can conceivably determine everybody's decision in advance. He has Himself created our individual DNA, along with our free spirits, such that we naturally incline towards certain things. You may desire the color red to be more abundant in art, or I may desire to see lots of green in remodeling projects. The point is, God has planted within each individual their own particular interests and inclinations, and thus, will always know what choice we would wish to make.
So the *only thing* that would prevent an individual from making the predicted choice would be if an external influence disturbed our natural impulses. And since God controls everything, He can allow it or prevent from happening. As such, God can anticipate things based on what He chooses to allow to happen.
What about Predestination? A set of people were planned by God to reflect His image in creation, throughout the earth. It was to take place progressively, in time. But in the passage of time, God allowed an external influence to disrupt Man's natural inclination towards the good. It was God's intention to give Man a choice, as opposed to a determined outcome.
When Man made the wrong choice, the fact that it was unduly influenced by Satan, as a rebel, gave Man a 2nd opportunity to get it right. Once knowing that the external influence of Satan can be disposed of, or overcome, making the right choice would undo the wrong choice.
However, this development introduced a whole new set of conditions, making the outcome predictable in a different way. God still had in mind the original set of people to comprise his future Kingdom on earth. But the introduction of sin caused Man to operate under the same natural conditions and yet now with a mixed result. More people would be added than God originally envisioned, and necessarily resulted from Man's aberrant choice--not God's choice.
And so, people born out of the inspiration of human independence produce children who are inclined to live in a spirit of independence from God, instead of incline towards the good nature Man was originally created with. The choice for or against Salvation is predictable in the sense that God knows what children He originally chose and what children resulted from human independence from God.
-
Yes it does, because Christ is how, "Let ys make man in our image", would occur.
As Paul says,
But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. 2Cor.3:18
The creation narrative explains how Genesis 1:26 occurs. What you're referring to with 2 Corinthians 3 is something else, and Genesis 1:26 isn't a prophetic utterance pointing to the (ongoing) event Paul mentions in 2 Corinthians 3.
It's obvious that parallels should be drawn, but those parallels aren't prophesy, and 2 Corinthians 3 recalls Exodus 34, not Genesis 1.
Okay what? Do you agree we are made in the image of God and his Son by his Spirit, or not?
Okay... (I'm waiting for more to understand what you're trying to say).
It's clear now that you're attempting to insert a prophetic connection between Genesis 1 and 2 Corinthians 3, but for the reason I noted above this connection doesn't seem prophetic, or appropriate.
The church is one body in Christ, so Sarah is no different than Eve. The "free woman" is the woman who knows the Lord.
Oh okay, so it's not Paul that's using Eve as a symbol of the church, it's journeyman.
Look at what Paul says about the saved woman,
she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. 1Tim.2:15
Paul isn't teaching that women who have babies will be saved. He's referring to this,
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Gen.3:16
That's one possible interpretation yes, but in the context of this exchange it's not an example of Paul using Eve as a symbol of the church.
Not that I know of, but Paul has been maligned that way.
It's a terrible shame that they cut out Maximus' tongue.
-
None of this has a thing with calling you or RK "simpletons." That would be ludicrous since I've just recently suggested that both of you are very smart and well-informed.
I agree that you didn't call me or RK 'simpletons'. I'm contending that you expressed yourself poorly enough to warrant me pointing it out, and were honestly mistaken in your assessment of RK's position. Plenty of people express themselves poorly at times or misunderstand an argument, myself included.
It is *to me* a simplistic approach to say that "God knows everything," and I'm not suggesting that is your exclusive argument, nor am I saying definitively that that is your argument at all. I'm just saying that if I don't hear anything more, then that is all I feel I'm dealing with. You suggest RK has stated a more complex opinion about this. I hadn't gotten that yet, but you have to give it time. Why not let him answer for himself? This isn't a personal attack--it is a request for more information.
RK has and will continue to answer for himself. I called out your post exactly for the reason I stated:
"It's a meritless sentence that could be used to write anyone off. And, something similar could be said of the preceding sentence in relation to the scare quoted 'opinion'."
And no, what was said does not come across as a request for more information:
"Obviously, your view of Deity is a simplistic, "God knows everything.""
We can only go by what's written, and can only assume that what's written conveys accurately the meaning of the writer. Clearly, you didn't convey your meaning as well as you would have hoped.
It was an opportunity for RK to clarify--not defend his pride.
My point is all of us should avoid writing what comes across as a summary dismissal, in this case, that which calls into question other people's "view of Deity". This is not how one asks for clarification.
How is this offensive to anybody?
No one is offended that I'm aware of. Are you offended that I've pointed out how what you've written would be taken by others who don't have access to your intentions? You shouldn't be. This is an opportunity to consider the importance of being mindful of how others will interpret the things we write. And, how difficult communication is over a pure text medium.
No, that's not true. On the contrary I have a lot of respect for RK. I do wish to be free to state things without being judged, though.
I know you have respect for RK, which is why I'm contending that you didn't think through how others would take what you wrote. You're free to "state things" and no one is judging you personally, but this is a forum, and the things that you write will absolutely be engaged with. What else would we engage with? Be mindful of others.
I'm not competing with anybody. My concern remains the truth, and I wish to be able to express that without being judged falsely. Your thoughts about my intentions are just that--your thoughts. And they aren't true in the least.
I'm not judging you falsely or giving you my thoughts on what I think your intentions are. If I wanted to act the part of the psychologist you would know. What I am doing, however, is responding to what you wrote, and if what you wrote doesn't convey what you meant then it's time to acknowledge to yourself that you expressed yourself poorly, move on, and try to avoid the same in the future.
That's all that's required. Not an extended discourse beginning with, "You're judging by appearances brother.", but an "Oh yeah, well, what I meant to say was...". If I misunderstood, clarify. You didn't, and "that's my honest assessment too bad for you if you don't like my words" doesn't count. I mean, if you want to dig in you're free to do that, but I can assure you that I'm a whole lot of friendly not fun after a while.
Too many people confuse criticism of words with judgment of their person. No one is judging you. Just, be mindful of how the things you write might come across to people who as far as you're aware only exist on the internet as disembodied, abstracted personalities. We didn't need to write any of this, but at least it contributes to my weekly Grammarly word count stat.
-
By definition, "foreknowledge" is simply knowing in advance without any necessity for causation or determinativeness. Determinativeness is related to causation; knowing is not.
I think Athanasius and I are in sync on this issue; your idea of "God is prepared for any exigency but doesn't know which ones He'll have to address" is not middle knowledge but a variant of open theism.
Alright RK. I just saw this. I was sidetracked by Athanasius suggesting I was calling you a simpleton--I wasn't. I honestly thought that your argument was the "simple" (not a perjorative) approach that "God knows everything." I did not hear anything more, but I do see more here.
I understand that foreknowledge does not equal "determinativeness." But in the case of God, His foreknowledge may indeed suggest that. Since He determines everything, what He knows in advance He has already determined.
I continue to believe that God is prepared for any exigencies. That is what He has fore-ordained, that He *not* determine choices for us, except in cases where He *wants* to determine a certain outcome. I could give you biblical examples where God has absolutely determined certain people will make certain choices. And I can also give you biblical examples where God has absolutely not determined the outcome, but has left the choice completely up to people.
Your suggestion that I believe in "Open Theism" seems to suggest that my view limits God in a way that renders Him less than God. That is the "simplistic" approach I wish to avoid. But if you think I'm calling you a simpleton for even suggesting this, then you're missing the point.
I do not believe God's choice ahead of all human choices, determining in advance everybody's choices, is part and parcel with the definition of "God." That is, for me, the "simplistic" approach. He is to be defined as before all, and thus incapable of not knowing the outcome of every free agent He created.
I don't accept that because truly free agents, if created as such by God, *must be* without foreknowledge--otherwise, the choices are pre-determined and not free. You may not agree, but that's my view.
My own view, as expressed here, may also sound "overly-simplistic" to you. But I was hoping that over time we could work out exactly what we do believe, as opposed to just claiming "God knows everything" or "free choice implies God doesn't know everything."
I must confess
Maybe it is my exhaustion at this point in the day, but I really don't understand a word of your post, nor do I have any inkling of what you believe about the omniscience of God, the sovereignty of God, or the foreknowledge of God. All I see is word soup, and again, that's likely on me, but I just don't track.
I'm headed home for the day, so I'll just bow out.
Carry on.
-
If, for example, Jesus predicts, positively, that little Lazarus will climb a certain tree, then that *must* happen. Either Jesus was really just suggesting what he *wants* to happen, or he is declaring it *will* happen. If the latter, then Lazarus is going to choose to climb that tree, regardless of his own personal motive or wish.
Friend, you are inventing scripture. Best policy is to quote applicable verses verbatim.
But often God predicts things that really do allow for free will, and it is not really a matter of divine integrity. God just anticipates the nature of certain people and already knows their predilections.
It's going to happen because God will allow nothing to disturb that predilection and anticipated choice. Lazarus will indeed choose to climb the tree because God will allow nothing to come between Lazarus and his natural inclination to want to climb that tree and hear Jesus speak.
Sorry. Nope! Not scriptural. Fanciful speculation at best.
-
This is meant to be speculative. No, I'm not "inventing Scripture." Farthest thing from my mind.
-
By definition, "foreknowledge" is simply knowing in advance without any necessity for causation or determinativeness. Determinativeness is related to causation; knowing is not.
I think Athanasius and I are in sync on this issue; your idea of "God is prepared for any exigency but doesn't know which ones He'll have to address" is not middle knowledge but a variant of open theism.
Alright RK. I just saw this. I was sidetracked by Athanasius suggesting I was calling you a simpleton--I wasn't. I honestly thought that your argument was the "simple" (not a perjorative) approach that "God knows everything." I did not hear anything more, but I do see more here.
I understand that foreknowledge does not equal "determinativeness." But in the case of God, His foreknowledge may indeed suggest that. Since He determines everything, what He knows in advance He has already determined.
I continue to believe that God is prepared for any exigencies. That is what He has fore-ordained, that He *not* determine choices for us, except in cases where He *wants* to determine a certain outcome. I could give you biblical examples where God has absolutely determined certain people will make certain choices. And I can also give you biblical examples where God has absolutely not determined the outcome, but has left the choice completely up to people.
Your suggestion that I believe in "Open Theism" seems to suggest that my view limits God in a way that renders Him less than God. That is the "simplistic" approach I wish to avoid. But if you think I'm calling you a simpleton for even suggesting this, then you're missing the point.
I do not believe God's choice ahead of all human choices, determining in advance everybody's choices, is part and parcel with the definition of "God." That is, for me, the "simplistic" approach. He is to be defined as before all, and thus incapable of not knowing the outcome of every free agent He created.
I don't accept that because truly free agents, if created as such by God, *must be* without foreknowledge--otherwise, the choices are pre-determined and not free. You may not agree, but that's my view.
My own view, as expressed here, may also sound "overly-simplistic" to you. But I was hoping that over time we could work out exactly what we do believe, as opposed to just claiming "God knows everything" or "free choice implies God doesn't know everything."
I must confess
Maybe it is my exhaustion at this point in the day, but I really don't understand a word of your post, nor do I have any inkling of what you believe about the omniscience of God, the sovereignty of God, or the foreknowledge of God. All I see is word soup, and again, that's likely on me, but I just don't track.
I'm headed home for the day, so I'll just bow out.
Carry on.
I appreciate the good will. Doesn't matter that you don't understand. It could be you're tired. But it's more likely my problem communicating, as well as the subject matter. This isn't everybody's interest, but it's been mine since about the mid to late 70s.
-
None of this has a thing with calling you or RK "simpletons." That would be ludicrous since I've just recently suggested that both of you are very smart and well-informed.
I agree that you didn't call me or RK 'simpletons'. I'm contending that you expressed yourself poorly enough to warrant me pointing it out, and were honestly mistaken in your assessment of RK's position. Plenty of people express themselves poorly at times or misunderstand an argument, myself included.
It is *to me* a simplistic approach to say that "God knows everything," and I'm not suggesting that is your exclusive argument, nor am I saying definitively that that is your argument at all. I'm just saying that if I don't hear anything more, then that is all I feel I'm dealing with. You suggest RK has stated a more complex opinion about this. I hadn't gotten that yet, but you have to give it time. Why not let him answer for himself? This isn't a personal attack--it is a request for more information.
RK has and will continue to answer for himself. I called out your post exactly for the reason I stated:
"It's a meritless sentence that could be used to write anyone off. And, something similar could be said of the preceding sentence in relation to the scare quoted 'opinion'."
And no, what was said does not come across as a request for more information:
"Obviously, your view of Deity is a simplistic, "God knows everything.""
We can only go by what's written, and can only assume that what's written conveys accurately the meaning of the writer. Clearly, you didn't convey your meaning as well as you would have hoped.
It was an opportunity for RK to clarify--not defend his pride.
My point is all of us should avoid writing what comes across as a summary dismissal, in this case, that which calls into question other people's "view of Deity". This is not how one asks for clarification.
How is this offensive to anybody?
No one is offended that I'm aware of. Are you offended that I've pointed out how what you've written would be taken by others who don't have access to your intentions? You shouldn't be. This is an opportunity to consider the importance of being mindful of how others will interpret the things we write. And, how difficult communication is over a pure text medium.
No, that's not true. On the contrary I have a lot of respect for RK. I do wish to be free to state things without being judged, though.
I know you have respect for RK, which is why I'm contending that you didn't think through how others would take what you wrote. You're free to "state things" and no one is judging you personally, but this is a forum, and the things that you write will absolutely be engaged with. What else would we engage with? Be mindful of others.
I'm not competing with anybody. My concern remains the truth, and I wish to be able to express that without being judged falsely. Your thoughts about my intentions are just that--your thoughts. And they aren't true in the least.
I'm not judging you falsely or giving you my thoughts on what I think your intentions are. If I wanted to act the part of the psychologist you would know. What I am doing, however, is responding to what you wrote, and if what you wrote doesn't convey what you meant then it's time to acknowledge to yourself that you expressed yourself poorly, move on, and try to avoid the same in the future.
That's all that's required. Not an extended discourse beginning with, "You're judging by appearances brother.", but an "Oh yeah, well, what I meant to say was...". If I misunderstood, clarify. You didn't, and "that's my honest assessment too bad for you if you don't like my words" doesn't count. I mean, if you want to dig in you're free to do that, but I can assure you that I'm a whole lot of friendly not fun after a while.
Too many people confuse criticism of words with judgment of their person. No one is judging you. Just, be mindful of how the things you write might come across to people who as far as you're aware only exist on the internet as disembodied, abstracted personalities. We didn't need to write any of this, but at least it contributes to my weekly Grammarly word count stat.
Since we disagree on your assessment of what I was saying, or even intended to say, it's best to let it lie. I don't agree with you in the least as to what I was doing. I can only say things the best I can *at the moment,* not know in advance how upset what I say will make someone.
The fact is, I meant what I said, based on what I knew at the time. You claim I wasn't properly assessing what RK was saying. Again, my statement was based on what I knew at the time. I can't apologize for answering something honestly, even if it doesn't come across as well as it could. If you're looking for perfection, you're looking for the wrong person.
I'm not interested in wasting any more space on this. I think *you* need to assess yourself as to how you're coming across to me. It's way worse than what you're claiming I did!
-
...I was sidetracked by Athanasius suggesting I was calling you a simpleton--I wasn't.
No, I suggested that you didn't think through the implications of what you wrote. As you can see below, I clearly affirmed that you weren't calling RK or myself 'simpletons'.
You're not saying we're simpletons, no, but consider this: what sort of person would hold a simplistic view of God? We don't mean what Aquinas meant, of course, so I think it's worth thinking about the implications of the statement. Would someone who is sophisticated in her theology hold a simplistic view of God? Or, is it more likely that someone who is simple in his theology holds a simplistic view of God?
We might not get all the way to 'simpleton', but we're heading in that direction.
Here's what's confusing about your latest thoughts:
Foreknowledge is by definition determinative
By definition, "foreknowledge" is determinative. ;)
Foreknowledge is not necessarily determinative:
I understand that foreknowledge does not equal "determinativeness."
In the case of God foreknowledge may actually be determinative
But in the case of God, His foreknowledge may indeed suggest that.
Trading on a confusion between foreknowledge and foreordination/predestination begs the question:
Since He determines everything, what He knows in advance He has already determined.
God doesn't determine choices for us, except when He does:
...that He *not* determine choices for us, except in cases where He *wants* to determine a certain outcome.
Failure to understand how the view presented is a form of Open Theism:
Your suggestion that I believe in "Open Theism"...
Continues to confuse foreknowledge with foreordination/predestination, while committing the fallacy of theological fatalism:
...truly free agents, if created as such by God, *must be* without foreknowledge--otherwise, the choices are pre-determined and not free. You may not agree, but that's my view.
As I attempted to illustrate above, this line of thought commits a logical error:
P1. Necessarily, if God foreknows that I will do x then I will do x
P2. God foreknows that I will do x
C. Therefore, necessarily, I will do X
It does not follow from either premise that I will necessarily do X, only that I will do X. Again, if I had acted differently then God's knowledge would have been different. What you're arguing isn't that foreknowledge is determinative, but that God actively foreordains and predetermines, which is not foreknowledge. You remove the very freedom you wish to maintain.
Attempting to turn the tables with respect to your own poor phrasing:
My own view, as expressed here, may also sound "overly-simplistic" to you.
-
Since we disagree on your assessment of what I was saying, or even intended to say, it's best to let it lie. I don't agree with you in the least as to what I was doing. I can only say things the best I can *at the moment,* not know in advance how upset what I say will make someone.
The fact is, I meant what I said, based on what I knew at the time. You claim I wasn't properly assessing what RK was saying. Again, my statement was based on what I knew at the time. I can't apologize for answering something honestly, even if it doesn't come across as well as it could. If you're looking for perfection, you're looking for the wrong person.
I think *you* need to assess yourself as to how you're coming across to me. It's way worse than what you're claiming I did!
Honesty isn't absolution. None of us is infallible. Poor communication, poor phrasing, are daily realities.
You're free to be you, and to express yourself as you wish -- just be mindful of how that might come across, and that you might receive pushback. There are better ways to say what you were trying to say.
In other words, no more personal assessments unless they're really, very, warranted and you can justify why you made them if asked. (Hint: they'll probably never be really, very, warranted.)
Moving on, then...
-
I believe that one of our issues in this thread (and in others) is in our presuppositions, and to a degree, in either our lack of clarity in what those presuppositions are or in our ability (or failure) to adequately communicate those as we write. We "know" very little about one another in terms of human interaction and life experience. I "know" Athanasius better than I "know" Randy, but I still do not "know" Athanasius from having a life interpersonal relationship and seeing him in settings with other humans other than by writing, so my knowledge is limited. That being said, we all come to Scripture and philosophy and logic with certain presuppositions, most of which are inferred and never overtly communicated.
For instance, consider the whole presupposition of "determinism," "determinitive," and its variant "predestined" or "predestinated" or "ordained." If we throw those words or even the concept of those words around loosely, without clarity, then confusion likely arises when we try to use those ideas in conjunction with the ideas of "free will" or "free moral agency" or "foreknowledge," including "middle knowledge" or "counter-factuals." The more presuppositions we incorporate into discussion, the greater likelihood of confusion as the variables grow exponentially.
So let's deal first with "predestined" or "determined" and its variants in relation to God and God's actions.
By predestined or determined, etc., many people speak of God as being causal -- that is, that God, by predestinating something, is therefore the agency of cause or the origin of the action or event or outcome.
Others view predestination as being very limited (based on foreknowledge).
A Deist, for example, would view predestination as "God set the rules and then takes a hands off posture and let's the chips fall where they may."
Let's use an easy example.
This morning, at 5:02 a.m., I stopped on my drive into work and got a cup of coffee. The gas station was out of half and half, so I ended up with a bizarre combination of a "peppermint mocha creamer" and some milk in my coffee. (And, I must say, "yuck." Surely a loving God would not predestine this... but I digress... :o)
Clearly, based on my understanding of both foreknowledge and omniscience, God knew from before the beginning of time that this event would occur at precisely this time in precisely this way in precisely this location precisely with me. So,...
Query: Is God the cause of me putting a peppermint mocha creamer and some milk in my coffee this morning?
Is this what we mean by "Predestined" or "Ordained?"
If so, in what way and by what mechanism?
If so, did I have anything to do with it?
If not, by what mechanism did the event occur?
or
If so, did all of the other people that used up all the half and half before I got there have anything to do with it?
Said another way, in your mind, does predestination remove free moral agency from the equation?
Is God "Q", simply dictating events and happenings?
Is God a programmer or agent in "The Matrix" or "Tron"?
Is God Dr. Who?
I think before we delve too deeply (or any more deeply) into foreknowledge, we have to determine exactly what it is that we think God is predestinating or preordaining.
-
That's one possible interpretation yes, but in the context of this exchange it's not an example of Paul using Eve as a symbol of the church.
We don't have to agree on this. Thanks for the discussion.
-
We don't have to agree on this. Thanks for the discussion.
It's a forum discussion so it's likely that we don't agree. But, the question isn't whether we agree, but whether your view reads into the text what isn't there -- and it does.
-
There is a way, I think, that God can conceivably determine everybody's decision in advance. He has Himself created our individual DNA, along with our free spirits, such that we naturally incline towards certain things. You may desire the color red to be more abundant in art, or I may desire to see lots of green in remodeling projects. The point is, God has planted within each individual their own particular interests and inclinations, and thus, will always know what choice we would wish to make.
So the *only thing* that would prevent an individual from making the predicted choice would be if an external influence disturbed our natural impulses. And since God controls everything, He can allow it or prevent from happening. As such, God can anticipate things based on what He chooses to allow to happen.
Your language is confusing.
"God can conceivably determine everybody's decision in advance. He has Himself created our individual DNA, along with our free spirits, such that we naturally incline towards certain things."
Is the choice determined or are we free spirits?
"God has planted within each individual their own particular interests and inclinations, and thus, will always know what choice we would wish to make."
If this is the case, then God isn't in fact, determining anybody's decisions (typo?) in advance.
"So the *only thing* that would prevent an individual from making the predicted choice would be if an external influence disturbed our natural impulses"
This then means that God predicted wrongly, which, as RK has pointed out, is a feature of Open Theism: God predicts, and gets it wrong, rather than God knows.
"And since God controls everything, He can allow it or prevent from happening. As such, God can anticipate things based on what He chooses to allow to happen."
But is God controlling or isn't He controlling? Is He determining, or giving people free spirits? Is He knowing, or is He anticipating?
What you seem to be considering is how foreknowledge, which you're incorrectly viewing as determinative, or foreordination, can coexist alongside human freedom, which you view, correctly, as necessary for authentic choices. The problem is that a God who predicts vis-a-vis his intimate knowledge as creator isn't a God who possesses foreknowledge. And, a God who doesn't determine simply isn't a God who determines. A God who determines choices isn't one that allows free choice, and so on, and so on.
So, this opening salvo addressed at the question "how can God conceivably determine everybody's decision in advance?" is a miss, in my estimation. The issue is how the question is formulated: God can't determine everyone's decisions in advance and for those decisions to be authentically free.
Hence, Open Theism or Molinism or living with the apparent contradiction, etc.
What about Predestination? A set of people were planned by God to reflect His image in creation, throughout the earth. It was to take place progressively, in time. But in the passage of time, God allowed an external influence to disrupt Man's natural inclination towards the good. It was God's intention to give Man a choice, as opposed to a determined outcome.
When Man made the wrong choice, the fact that it was unduly influenced by Satan, as a rebel, gave Man a 2nd opportunity to get it right. Once knowing that the external influence of Satan can be disposed of, or overcome, making the right choice would undo the wrong choice.
However, this development introduced a whole new set of conditions, making the outcome predictable in a different way. God still had in mind the original set of people to comprise his future Kingdom on earth. But the introduction of sin caused Man to operate under the same natural conditions and yet now with a mixed result. More people would be added than God originally envisioned, and necessarily resulted from Man's aberrant choice--not God's choice.
Do I understand correctly that you're suggesting God had a plan, didn't foresee what might happen after He had decided on His plan, and then revised His plan after encountering human choice? God was caught by surprise, in other words?
And so, people born out of the inspiration of human independence produce children who are inclined to live in a spirit of independence from God, instead of incline towards the good nature Man was originally created with. The choice for or against Salvation is predictable in the sense that God knows what children He originally chose and what children resulted from human independence from God.
What does this mean theologically, though? It seems to suggest that there are the elect and then the elect-but-not-originally. Is that attested to anywhere in Scripture?
-
How does God predetermine someone's "free choice" to do something? For example, if God pre-planned Paul to go to Jerusalem, how does that include Paul's "free choice?"
He doesn't. What you're asking to reconcile is a logical impossibility.
And there are places in the Bible where God's word is at stake if someone doesn't make the right choice. That kind of choice I think is determined by God, and cannot result in anything other than what God has determined.
Like? As in, an actual Scriptural example.
If, for example, Jesus predicts, positively, that little Lazarus will climb a certain tree, then that *must* happen. Either Jesus was really just suggesting what he *wants* to happen, or he is declaring it *will* happen. If the latter, then Lazarus is going to choose to climb that tree, regardless of his own personal motive or wish.
'Prediction' is a tricky word. In this example, is Jesus predicting because Jesus foreknows, or is Jesus predicting because Jesus predetermined? Or is Jesus predicting in the truest sense of the word? These meanings are hidden in the word 'prediction' and this example doesn't make clear which is in view.
But often God predicts things that really do allow for free will, and it is not really a matter of divine integrity. God just anticipates the nature of certain people and already knows their predilections.
Scriptural example?
It's going to happen because God will allow nothing to disturb that predilection and anticipated choice. Lazarus will indeed choose to climb the tree because God will allow nothing to come between Lazarus and his natural inclination to want to climb that tree and hear Jesus speak.
This suggests, then, that God is a God who manipulates and hopes that the object of manipulation acts as intended. How far does this manipulation go?
It's this way also, I think, with Predestination. At some point in a person's life, they determine by their nature whether they wish to follow God only on occasion or as a rule for their life. They either choose to periodically obey God, or they choose God as their primary and consistent rule for their life.
When they choose God as the rule for their life, they are, in effect, choosing to switch natures, from an independent attitude to one of exclusive reliance upon God's counsel for every decision. We are choosing to be "born again," to abandon our self-determination to live in partnership with God and in preference for His will.
As a Christian, does God provide you with counsel for every decision in your life? But, I do wonder if self-determination is being confused for the (ongoing) decision to follow God, to not choose sin, etc.
This idea of 'switching natures' is ontologically problematic, unless you mean it technically and not that our natures are actually switched.
The question is raised, though, why God doesn't just make sure His original elect are saved and everyone else is positively damned.
He is Lord, and we are remade to fit that mold and preference. And in choosing for a *nature* we are choosing to be saved and predictably so, since we choose to adopt a nature that is predictable and fits with Salvation.
Even if God can predict that our choice to be born again is going to result in Salvation, it does not mean anything more than we have chosen to adopt that new nature. God can predict that we will follow Him for the rest of eternity, and thus save us. But it does not mean we don't have free choices.
This is confusing. You're now suggesting that God doesn't determine choices, but merely predicts based on His intimate knowledge of creation.
The choices we make will always be informed by God's counsel and by the character of His Spirit. That is what allows God to predict our Salvation and to predict the choice that brings us to the place of a Salvation.
Can God predict wrongly, or does God predict perfectly every time?
But we can be informed by God's Spirit and yet be given freedom to choose for a variety of good things. We can freely choose to eat of any fruit tree in the garden of Eden.
That is what I believe we have, a choice for a particular predictable nature and also free choices that are informed by the nature. It is both a predictable Salvation (Eternal Security?) and freedom.
This seems like foreknowledge with infinitely extra steps.
This explains Eternal Security for me. But there is more with respect to Predestination. I just haven't yet addressed that. How does God predict that we will choose for a new nature? Maybe I'll share my thoughts on that later?
So, eternal security is God predicting who He foreknew would choose salvation vis-a-vis His determination to allow that choice to happen, which is a free choice that He hasn't interfered with except through circumstance? I get what you're trying to say, it's just all sorts of confused.
-
This morning, at 5:02 a.m., I stopped on my drive into work and got a cup of coffee. The gas station was out of half and half, so I ended up with a bizarre combination of a "peppermint mocha creamer" and some milk in my coffee. (And, I must say, "yuck." Surely a loving God would not predestine this... but I digress... :o)
Clearly, based on my understanding of both foreknowledge and omniscience, God knew from before the beginning of time that this event would occur at precisely this time in precisely this way in precisely this location precisely with me. So,...
Query: Is God the cause of me putting a peppermint mocha creamer and some milk in my coffee this morning?
Is this what we mean by "Predestined" or "Ordained?"
If so, in what way and by what mechanism?
If so, did I have anything to do with it?
If not, by what mechanism did the event occur?
or
If so, did all of the other people that used up all the half and half before I got there have anything to do with it?
Said another way, in your mind, does predestination remove free moral agency from the equation?
Is God "Q", simply dictating events and happenings?
Is God a programmer or agent in "The Matrix" or "Tron"?
Is God Dr. Who?
I think before we delve too deeply (or any more deeply) into foreknowledge, we have to determine exactly what it is that we think God is predestinating or preordaining.
Interesting. Each moment that we live and experience the outcome of God's creation and our responses there are only so many possibilities, and God knows them all. He put in place the grand circumstance of the existence of the earth and the universe. He put in motion our physical existence, our mind, our capabilities, and our DNA preferences.
So using your example, people gifted with theoretical ideas applied those ideas to science, producing all of the technology we have today, from roads, to cars, to gas stations. They were all built by applying somebody's scientific productions to engineers, builders, and service workers. This could all be laid out in lines in a computer program.
But there is also the either X or Y on every occasion, which is determined by free moral agents. God knows every possible sequence as each moment passes, and provides the boundaries to prevent catastrophe. His plan is overarching, and must fit in to His wider predetermined programs.
I've liked all of the TV/movie programs you listed for this very reason, that I'm intrigued with trying to understand the ways of God. It is not fixed, like determinism. It is predestined in the sense that God has determined a certain outcome. The problem is in deciding how much is determined that limits free agencies from interfering with the good. God has allowed evil and rebellion. But there is a limit to it.
I must add that I had a similar question in my mind back in the early 70s when I took several classes in behaviorism. Skinner seemed to think everybody could be programmed for a certain result, by using positive and negative reinforcers. I was intrigued with the idea, but knew it was a lie. Free will really exists. We are not purely "programmable."
-
It is not fixed, like determinism. It is predestined in the sense that God has determined a certain outcome.
If God has determined a certain outcome then yes, what you're talking about is determinism. Your DNA example is a flavour of determinism as well (and isn't how 'preference' works).
God knows every possible sequence as each moment passes, and provides the boundaries to prevent catastrophe. His plan is overarching, and must fit in to His wider predetermined programs.
See, determinism. But is it maybe that His 'wider predetermined programs' fit into 'His [overarching] plan' rather than the other way around?
But more problematically for your view: God can't know every possible sequence unless God also knows the outcome of choices.
This also raises questions like, how can God meaningfully provide answer to prayer if He's only a great predictor and manipulator, rather than foreknower? And, what's God's relationship to and position relative to time? Or, why is it still being suggested that foreknowledge is determinative when it's been argued in more than one occasion that it is in fact not.
-
If God has determined a certain outcome then yes, what you're talking about is determinism. Your DNA example is a flavour of determinism as well (and isn't how 'preference' works).
My argument is for a limited determinism, and certainly not an absolute all-inclusive determinism. Free Choice precludes absolute determinism, in my view.
See, determinism. But is it maybe that His 'wider predetermined programs' fit into 'His [overarching] plan' rather than the other way around?
But more problematically for your view: God can't know every possible sequence unless God also knows the outcome of choices.
I suppose that's the whole argument. Can God indeed know every possible sequence and not know how people will choose in every situation? I do believe God knows all *possible* outcomes, but gives opportunity for human choice.
This also raises questions like, how can God meaningfully provide answer to prayer if He's only a great predictor and manipulator, rather than foreknower? And, what's God's relationship to and position relative to time? Or, why is it still being suggested that foreknowledge is determinative when it's been argued in more than one occasion that it is in fact not.
I believe God purposely gave Himself, in advance, room to allow for human choice so that He can answer prayer, and base His responses on how humans choose to behave. Yes, God is, in my view, a great predictor and manipulator in areas where He meaningfully gives people free choices. But He manages the extent of every choice, and what options truly exist. So nothing takes place outside of the realm of God's afforded opportunities.
-
My argument is for a limited determinism, and certainly not an absolute all-inclusive determinism. Free Choice precludes absolute determinism, in my view.
I'm not sure that it (your argument) actually is, but I haven't made up my mind.
If, in your view, God doesn't know the outcome of choices because this is required (it's not) to ensure free choice, then how reliably can God determine this-or-that outcome? Is it possible, in your view, for God to determine that He wants some thing to happen, but then it doesn't happen as He planned, so He has to determine some more stuff to happen, and so on, until the thing happens? (So God ends up determining and violating free choice on a larger scale than you'd perhaps want?)
I suppose that's the whole argument. Can God indeed know every possible sequence and not know how people will choose in every situation? I do believe God knows all *possible* outcomes, but gives opportunity for human choice.
Why do you think foreknowledge is determinative, or, why are you arguing as if it's determinative? What do you find unconvincing about the earlier examples of foreknowledge not being determinative, or the modal logical problem of reading necessariness into a conclusion that doesn't follow from its premises?
I believe God purposely gave Himself, in advance, room to allow for human choice so that He can answer prayer, and base His responses on how humans choose to behave. Yes, God is, in my view, a great predictor and manipulator in areas where He meaningfully gives people free choices. But He manages the extent of every choice, and what options truly exist. So nothing takes place outside of the realm of God's afforded opportunities.
Is it possible, then, for God to answer a prayer with, "do this and your cancer will go into remission", only for a person to do that thing and die, because God didn't foresee something, and got it wrong?
It also sounds like you're saying God determined the course of creation, including giving people more than one choice so that they could freely choose between two predetermined options?
-
I'm not sure that it (your argument) actually is, but I haven't made up my mind.
If, in your view, God doesn't know the outcome of choices because this is required (it's not) to ensure free choice, then how reliably can God determine this-or-that outcome? Is it possible, in your view, for God to determine that He wants some thing to happen, but then it doesn't happen as He planned, so He has to determine some more stuff to happen, and so on, until the thing happens? (So God ends up determining and violating free choice on a larger scale than you'd perhaps want?)
I'm not really probing very deep--just using common sense. If there is to be something called "free will," and the Bible presupposes it, then everything *cannot* be determined in a fatalistic way. As to God's ability to manage everything, including free will, as a Deity, I don't have a problem with that. If He is able to anticipate any outcome caused by free agents, then He is in effect still determining things as an omnipotent Being. He is, for lack of a better way to put it, determining free choice. ;) I do realize how contradictory that sounds on the surface!
Why do you think foreknowledge is determinative, or, why are you arguing as if it's determinative? What do you find unconvincing about the earlier examples of foreknowledge not being determinative, or the modal logical problem of reading necessariness into a conclusion that doesn't follow from its premises?
God's foreknowledge of something is the same as saying it will happen. It is, by definition, predetermination. But the question is: what is being predetermined? Is it several possible choices, which sounds contradictory, or only one possible choice? I think it is the former. God is big enough to anticipate contingent realities, or alternate realities.
Is it possible, then, for God to answer a prayer with, "do this and your cancer will go into remission", only for a person to do that thing and die, because God didn't foresee something, and got it wrong?
I don't believe we can fully understand a Deity who can anticipate alternate sequences. His foreknowledge is sometimes only one possible outcome, and at other times, it is anticipation of more than one outcome, contingent on human choice.
He is, in effect, foreseeing either our eating of the Tree of Life or our eating of the Tree of Knowledge. But God has also foreseen the eventual outcome of His indestructible word, such that failure to eat of the Tree of Life will, through redemption, achieve Eternal Life regardless. He has anticipated the end of His plan as a successful outcome, still allowing for free will.
It also sounds like you're saying God determined the course of creation, including giving people more than one choice so that they could freely choose between two predetermined options?
Yes, what God predetermined was more than a single option, and yet He has predetermined that His word would eventually result in a successfully carried out plan. I fully realize this is only arguing on the surface, because I cannot conceive of something only God can do. It is the only logical way I can deal with the biblical portrait of a God who has given Man authentic freedom to choose. It's just that the reality of God determines everything continues to happen within bounds.
-
I'm not really probing very deep--just using common sense.
Maybe it's worth probing beyond, uh, 'common sense'?
If there is to be something called "free will," and the Bible presupposes it, then everything *cannot* be determined in a fatalistic way. As to God's ability to manage everything, including free will, as a Deity, I don't have a problem with that. If He is able to anticipate any outcome caused by free agents, then He is in effect still determining things as an omnipotent Being. He is, for lack of a better way to put it, determining free choice. ;) I do realize how contradictory that sounds on the surface!
Why should anything be determined in a fatalistic way?
I'll say more on God's ability in my reply below, but no, I don't think "determining free choice" is contradictory if we mean that God planned - that is, determined - that humanity is to have freedom of will. What is contradictory is the suggestion that a choice is both determined and free at the same time. It cannot be both, and no appeal to limited human intellect will overcome the logical impossibility.
God's foreknowledge of something is the same as saying it will happen. It is, by definition, predetermination.
You keep saying this, but counterarguments and examples have been provided and you haven't addressed those. So, why do you maintain this view in light of those counterarguments? You've also already acknowledged that foreknowledge is not predeterminative, so it's not clear why you're continuing to operate as if it were?
As another example: Bill Murray possessed foreknowledge in Groundhog day, but he didn't determine anything during his "I'm a god" monologue.
Or another example: The Star Trek character Q presumably possess foreknowledge vis-a-vis his ability to travel through time at a whim. But, this isn't determinative either.
So, why would God's foreknowledge be determinative?
But the question is: what is being predetermined? Is it several possible choices, which sounds contradictory, or only one possible choice? I think it is the former. God is big enough to anticipate contingent realities, or alternate realities.
What you're suggesting is that God determines X number of possibilities, which humans are then free to choose between. I don't know why God has to be 'big enough' to have knowledge of counterfactuals or possible worlds, but insofar as what you've written above there's nothing necessarily contradictory.
The question then becomes: is this what we see taught in Scripture? If so, where? If not, then ought we revise the view?
I don't believe we can fully understand a Deity who can anticipate alternate sequences. His foreknowledge is sometimes only one possible outcome, and at other times, it is anticipation of more than one outcome, contingent on human choice.
He is, in effect, foreseeing either our eating of the Tree of Life or our eating of the Tree of Knowledge. But God has also foreseen the eventual outcome of His indestructible word, such that failure to eat of the Tree of Life will, through redemption, achieve Eternal Life regardless. He has anticipated the end of His plan as a successful outcome, still allowing for free will.
Now that's a splendid political answer.
Okay, so you don't want to talk about cancer. How about this: if God is a predictor rather than a foreknower, then how can we reliably differentiate between prophets and false prophets? How can we know the difference between a prophet God misinformed, a prophet not from God?
Yes, what God predetermined was more than a single option, and yet He has predetermined that His word would eventually result in a successfully carried out plan. I fully realize this is only arguing on the surface, because I cannot conceive of something only God can do. It is the only logical way I can deal with the biblical portrait of a God who has given Man authentic freedom to choose. It's just that the reality of God determines everything continues to happen within bounds.
You could, I don't know, engage more with this misunderstanding you hold about foreknowledge?
-
Maybe it's worth probing beyond, uh, 'common sense'?
There are limits as to how far I can probe without appearing to be too far over my head. I'm trying to stay grounded.
Why should anything be determined in a fatalistic way?
I used "fatalistic" in the philosophical sense of being completely determined. I'm not talking about "death," or anything like that! ;) Maybe it was a poor choice of words?
I'll say more on God's ability in my reply below, but no, I don't think "determining free choice" is contradictory if we mean that God planned - that is, determined - that humanity is to have freedom of will. What is contradictory is the suggestion that a choice is both determined and free at the same time. It cannot be both, and no appeal to limited human intellect will overcome the logical impossibility.
I don't know. I also thought that 1+1+1 could not equal 1! ;) But we're talking about Deity here. Freedom allows more than one option. And a God who knows everything from beginning to end must resolve the problem of free choice. I believe He does so by knowing all of the possible outcomes, and not by determining only one possible outcome. This runs the risk of making God look vulnerable to His own creation, but I don't think it does. I don't pretend to comprehend it, though it does sound logical to me.
You've also already acknowledged that foreknowledge is not predeterminative, so it's not clear why you're continuing to operate as if it were?
As I said, I believe in a limited predetermination. God determines all of the possible outcomes, and some of the free choices by "manipulation" or by "persuasiveness." But He cannot, logically, determine free choices themselves, or they are not free at all.
If God foreknows more than one choice, He is determining the solution with respect to each option in the light of His ultimate plan. He wants to go from A to Z, and anything from B to Y may be opted for by free agents. However, God foreknows Z, and He furthermore knows the consequence of any of the options--they will be controlled by the ultimate goal of Z.
Those who wreck God's plan for Man will not stop God from getting a world full of people made in God's image. God knows that the introduction of sin will release the antidote of judgment + redemption. The result will be different than originally wanted, because many will be lost from paradise. But God will still get many into paradise, as well. And the ultimate goal of Z will have been reached.
As another example: Bill Murray possessed foreknowledge in Groundhog day, but he didn't determine anything during his "I'm a god" monologue.
A great comedy, but I forget the part. Sorry.
Or another example: The Star Trek character Q presumably possess foreknowledge vis-a-vis his ability to travel through time at a whim. But, this isn't determinative either.
Movies about time travel and foreknowledge are the most convoluted, inconsistent set of events ever devised by the imaginations of men. Yet I watch them anyway.
So, why would God's foreknowledge be determinative?
As I said, I believe God's foreknowledge is only partly determinative. Free Will renders absolute determination impossible, or God didn't give Man free will at all!
God foreknows the possibilities, as well as the ultimate goal. His word is supreme and cannot be compromised once fixed. The end, therefore, is absolutely determined. How we get there is not, except that the routes to get there are carefully controlled.
What you're suggesting is that God determines X number of possibilities, which humans are then free to choose between. I don't know why God has to be 'big enough' to have knowledge of counterfactuals or possible worlds, but insofar as what you've written above there's nothing necessarily contradictory.
The question then becomes: is this what we see taught in Scripture? If so, where? If not, then ought we revise the view?
I see the Scriptures giving men free will, with the option between the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge. And I see God's word absolutely determining the goal, which is a world full of people who represent God's image and likeness.
Furthermore, the Scriptures provide God's antidote to human failure, which is Christian redemption. And so, there are alternative routes to get to the goal of filling the world with good people. Obviously, Judgment and Redemption are the cures to misdirections, which God has provided men with the option to do.
Okay, so you don't want to talk about cancer. How about this: if God is a predictor rather than a foreknower, then how can we reliably differentiate between prophets and false prophets? How can we know the difference between a prophet God misinformed, a prophet not from God?
As I said, God only *partly* determines. Those who prophesy what must happen are true Prophets. They are speaking for God. What they are speaking is God's word, which must take place. God's word determines what must take place, and what choices we have. It isn't just a choice between right and wrong, but there are many options for good choices, as well as many options for bad choices.
You could, I don't know, engage more with this misunderstanding you hold about foreknowledge?
So it's only you who give me free choices, and not God? ;)
-
One of the major problems in my theory involves the question: Can Man's free will prevent God's overarching goals from being reached? Is it really "free will" if Man is unable to choose against making that plan happen?
I do believe God's plan requires Man's free choices. But no, I don't think Man can choose in any way that prevents God's Plan from being carried out.
How can that be? God can produce circumstances that positively predict that Man will make the right choice. It will be like asking you if you want a better or a worse computer for Xmas. You can choose for a worse computer, but you wouldn't.
In theory, you could make the choice to confound God's plan out of a mean spirit. After all, Satan chose to fall to thwart God's plan out of a mean spirit. So can Man, by his own choice,, thwart God's plan simply out of some malicious motive?
I don't think so, because one of the things God determined from the beginning was to have men created in His image. Even if some choose to wander from that plan, God's original call remains until someone makes the right choice. I suppose in theory the process could go on indefinitely. But I think God knows the odds of that happening?
Predestination, for me, is God's ability to establish certainty in the midst of human freedom. Some who choose to wander choose to return. How is it that some choose to return and others don't?
I think the temptation itself is tempered by God's word, such that it is predictable exactly how deeply Adam and Eve were tempted, and how deeply those who are born in sin are tempted to remain in sin and how likely it is for some to return to their original calling. I just don't know.
It may be that God simply selected X number of people to be His elect, and makes it inherently desirable for them to choose Salvation, even if they also make a number of bad choices. Those who are not among those number of people may naturally select for their fallen nature, since they were produced outside of God's original selection. Again, I don't know.
-
There are limits as to how far I can probe without appearing to be too far over my head. I'm trying to stay grounded.
That's true of all of us, but it does raise the question of why you then think an assessment like 'that view is simplistic' is appropriate unless you think you have limits but that view is well within those limits? But if that's the case then your limits are quite a ways away, and far enough that appealing to 'common sense' isn't necessary. In other words, where is the epistemic responsibility?
I used "fatalistic" in the philosophical sense of being completely determined. I'm not talking about "death," or anything like that! ;) Maybe it was a poor choice of words?
Your use of 'fatalistic' was fine, and I knew what you meant. You argue for partial determinism elsewhere, so that's why I asked: why should anything be determined in a fatalistic way?
I don't know. I also thought that 1+1+1 could not equal 1! ;) But we're talking about Deity here.
1+1+1 does not equal 1, not even for the Godhead. This equation as stated plays on a confusion between nature and hypostasis (or, hypostases). 1 hypostasis + 1 hypostasis + 1 hypostasis = 3 hypostases. In Trinitarian doctrine specifically, God is three persons (hypostases) of one essence or substance (the divine substance). One nature instantiated in three persons.
Freedom allows more than one option. And a God who knows everything from beginning to end must resolve the problem of free choice. I believe He does so by knowing all of the possible outcomes, and not by determining only one possible outcome. This runs the risk of making God look vulnerable to His own creation, but I don't think it does. I don't pretend to comprehend it, though it does sound logical to me.
But you are saying, right, that while God knows all possible outcomes, He doesn't know which choices will actually be made?
As I said, I believe in a limited predetermination. God determines all of the possible outcomes, and some of the free choices by "manipulation" or by "persuasiveness." But He cannot, logically, determine free choices themselves, or they are not free at all.
Wait: does God know all possible outcomes because He's predetermined what those possible outcomes must be, or does He know all possible outcomes that could arise from free creatures acting freely within the context of their circumstances?
Are compelled choices free, though?
If God foreknows more than one choice, He is determining the solution with respect to each option in the light of His ultimate plan. He wants to go from A to Z, and anything from B to Y may be opted for by free agents. However, God foreknows Z, and He furthermore knows the consequence of any of the options--they will be controlled by the ultimate goal of Z.
Those who wreck God's plan for Man will not stop God from getting a world full of people made in God's image. God knows that the introduction of sin will release the antidote of judgment + redemption. The result will be different than originally wanted, because many will be lost from paradise. But God will still get many into paradise, as well. And the ultimate goal of Z will have been reached.
Again, I'm asking why you think foreknowledge is determinative and you're not stating why you think that. You're just writing more replies with this assumption, but why are you assuming it?
A great comedy, but I forget the part. Sorry.
Movies about time travel and foreknowledge are the most convoluted, inconsistent set of events ever devised by the imaginations of men. Yet I watch them anyway.
Which is why I ask you: why is foreknowledge in these instances not determinative, but God's foreknowledge is?
As I said, I believe God's foreknowledge is only partly determinative. Free Will renders absolute determination impossible, or God didn't give Man free will at all!
...why is it determinative at all?
God foreknows the possibilities, as well as the ultimate goal. His word is supreme and cannot be compromised once fixed. The end, therefore, is absolutely determined. How we get there is not, except that the routes to get there are carefully controlled.
But again, how far does God go in His manipulation if He manipulates to ensure X result but ends up with Y, then has to manipulate further to ensure X1, and so forth? You're assuming foreknowledge while denying it.
I see the Scriptures giving men free will, with the option between the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge. And I see God's word absolutely determining the goal, which is a world full of people who represent God's image and likeness.
Furthermore, the Scriptures provide God's antidote to human failure, which is Christian redemption. And so, there are alternative routes to get to the goal of filling the world with good people. Obviously, Judgment and Redemption are the cures to misdirections, which God has provided men with the option to do.
And this is your example of God determining X number of possibilities? Do you mean by this example that God explicitly set up an either/or, or that God provided a command and let things play out?
As I said, God only *partly* determines. Those who prophesy what must happen are true Prophets. They are speaking for God. What they are speaking is God's word, which must take place. God's word determines what must take place, and what choices we have. It isn't just a choice between right and wrong, but there are many options for good choices, as well as many options for bad choices.
So God doesn't know what choices will be made, and thus He doesn't know the future, except when He does know the future because He's determined some particular outcome (which, as a consequence, determines all sorts of other outcomes)? I'm not sure you appreciate what it means to 'partly' determine some particular outcome, or the complexity of that determination as it pertains to human acts in the world.
It sounds like you're saying God doesn't know what free choices will be made. Except when it's convenient for Him to know the outcome of those choices which now aren't free because He's determined them. Except He hasn't determined the choice itself just the context, so someone's free to choose between X number of choices. God has knowledge of every possibility but doesn't know which possibility will be actualised. Except when He determines which one will be actualised, which He does through context... For some reason, God never guesses wrong, although the argument doesn't justify this conclusion. So maybe God does determine specific choices, but only when it's convenient to the plot.
So like, Open Theism and compatibilism... :thinking: Again, why do you think foreknowledge is determinative and that this is a better theology?
So it's only you who give me free choices, and not God? ;)
Maybe God determined that you'd forever misunderstand foreknowledge. How would you know?
-
One of the major problems in my theory involves the question: Can Man's free will prevent God's overarching goals from being reached? Is it really "free will" if Man is unable to choose against making that plan happen?
I do believe God's plan requires Man's free choices. But no, I don't think Man can choose in any way that prevents God's Plan from being carried out.
How can that be? God can produce circumstances that positively predict that Man will make the right choice. It will be like asking you if you want a better or a worse computer for Xmas. You can choose for a worse computer, but you wouldn't.
In theory, you could make the choice to confound God's plan out of a mean spirit. After all, Satan chose to fall to thwart God's plan out of a mean spirit. So can Man, by his own choice,, thwart God's plan simply out of some malicious motive?
I don't think so, because one of the things God determined from the beginning was to have men created in His image. Even if some choose to wander from that plan, God's original call remains until someone makes the right choice. I suppose in theory the process could go on indefinitely. But I think God knows the odds of that happening?
Predestination, for me, is God's ability to establish certainty in the midst of human freedom. Some who choose to wander choose to return. How is it that some choose to return and others don't?
I think the temptation itself is tempered by God's word, such that it is predictable exactly how deeply Adam and Eve were tempted, and how deeply those who are born in sin are tempted to remain in sin and how likely it is for some to return to their original calling. I just don't know.
It may be that God simply selected X number of people to be His elect, and makes it inherently desirable for them to choose Salvation, even if they also make a number of bad choices. Those who are not among those number of people may naturally select for their fallen nature, since they were produced outside of God's original selection. Again, I don't know.
The question you've stated is formulated in such a way so as to avoid the problem it seeks to address. It's not an honest formulation.
The view expressed, including the formulation above, seems like a bit of convenient handwaving: can a person make a choice that prevents God's plan? Nahhhhhh, and here are some assertions why: He just gives people false choices, and manipulates circumstances, and determines some but not all choices, etc., etc. Well that was easy!
But that's not the argument anyone reasonably makes. The reasonable argument is: can a person make choices that interfere with God's plans if God does not possess foreknowledge in the classical sense? Well, your view would have to acknowledge that they can, which you in fact acknowledge. God's plan may be executed in the end, but it's possible He stumbled most of the way to get there. So, the major problem is that the view has a major problem, which you must acknowledge, for the sake of consistency, is a feature of the view and not a bug.
Except we simply don't see that kind of God in Scripture.
-
The question you've stated is formulated in such a way so as to avoid the problem it seeks to address. It's not an honest formulation.
Making moral judgments is a conversation-ender. No, I was not being dishonest. No, I wasn't avoiding anything. I've admitted from the start I'm speculating, don't know it all, and am limited in communicating what I think about it.
But that's not the argument anyone reasonably makes. The reasonable argument is: can a person make choices that interfere with God's plans if God does not possess foreknowledge in the classical sense? Well, your view would have to acknowledge that they can, which you in fact acknowledge. God's plan may be executed in the end, but it's possible He stumbled most of the way to get there. So, the major problem is that the view has a major problem, which you must acknowledge, for the sake of consistency, is a feature of the view and not a bug.
No, I think I framed the problem quite well myself, without your "help." If people have genuinely free will, they may maliciously oppose all "inducements" to fulfill God's irresistible plan. But that would have to be crafted by the Maker, who designed the rules for predicting our behavior. If He couldn't predict our behavior, free or not, then He could not absolutely prophecy what will happen.
So that begs the question: do people in reality will to maliciously oppose something that is in *their* best interest, let alone whether they wish to maliciously disrupt *God's* best interest? The answer is: nobody ever, ever, ever decides against their own best interest unless they are insane, under duress, or pulled away by some temptation. Or, they have shifted in order of creation to a different kind of human being, who like Satan, concocts his own temptations and devises his own rules apart from God's will.
If God in fact removes duress, temptations, and illness from the mind of one He has created to choose for his own good, he will in fact choose for his own good. And I believe God has made that the undeniable, unchangeable reality. God's will *must* take place because even in the event of free will God has set up the circumstances to successfully predict some human choices. This rule applies to people God has predestined to make good choices, to either obey God initially or to return to obedience to God. I call them "children of God."
There is a difference between the choice Adam had and the choice people have after the Fall. Before the Fall, Adam could choose to defy God's word due to the seduction and influence of Satan. It is not what God created him to do as His child, but he was made vulnerable to Satan's influences. Otherwise, Satan would never have been given the option of opposing God's word with real consequences.
After the Fall, Adam could then return to doing what is in his own best interest, after seeing Satan's deception exposed. He would, without exception, return to God's own best interests and his own best interests. This is predictably what *all* children of God do in the long term. They *always* return to the word of God, from which they sprang.
But Satan's children are a different matter. Even after Satan has been exposed, there will be those who choose against God in the same way Satan did, because they are products of Satan's kind of creation. Satan was given the choice to disobey God's word even without temptation and duress. And his children, once produced out of Adam's rebellion, have the same capacity to choose against God's word, and predictably do so, because they are drawn to independent judgment. They were not produced by God's word to be children of God.
-
Making moral judgments is a conversation-ender. No, I was not being dishonest. No, I wasn't avoiding anything. I've admitted from the start I'm speculating, don't know it all, and am limited in communicating what I think about it.
The issue isn't that you're speculating - that much is clear - but that you've posed a problem with your view that no one would seriously raise. There's a world of difference between these two questions:
- "Can Man's free will prevent God's overarching goals from being reached?"
- "Can Man's free will interfere with God's overarching goals and force God to revise His plan?"
One looks like a problem but isn't, while the other looks like a problem and is. In neither of our threads has anyone suggested that choices can prevent God's plan, but rather, that if God doesn't know what choices will be made, then He will at times need to revise His plan in light of unpredicted outcomes.
You say you've been thinking about these kinds of questions since the '70s, so why go for the question-that-isn't instead of the question-that-is? It's not you that is dishonest, it's the formulation of the question that's dishonest (clearly, given the question is the subject). It's dishonest because it takes the easy way out; it's not an objection anyone would seriously make. It's insulating. It's not framed with reference to what's being discussed. It's the sort of formulation people make all the time. It's an easy point on which to pontificate.
No, I think I framed the problem quite well myself, without your "help." If people have genuinely free will, they may maliciously oppose all "inducements" to fulfill God's irresistible plan. But that would have to be crafted by the Maker, who designed the rules for predicting our behavior. If He couldn't predict our behavior, free or not, then He could not absolutely prophecy what will happen.
You haven't, and the way you're phrasing your argument is question beginning. "God's irresistible plan" is assumed, which clearly precludes the prevention of God's plan. No further argument is necessary.
So that begs the question: do people in reality will to maliciously oppose something that is in *their* best interest, let alone whether they wish to maliciously disrupt *God's* best interest? The answer is: nobody ever, ever, ever decides against their own best interest unless they are insane, under duress, or pulled away by some temptation. Or, they have shifted in order of creation to a different kind of human being, who like Satan, concocts his own temptations and devises his own rules apart from God's will.
This assumes that people are always aware of what's in their best interest, which they are not.
If God in fact removes duress, temptations, and illness from the mind of one He has created to choose for his own good, he will in fact choose for his own good. And I believe God has made that the undeniable, unchangeable reality. God's will *must* take place because even in the event of free will God has set up the circumstances to successfully predict some human choices. This rule applies to people God has predestined to make good choices, to either obey God initially or to return to obedience to God. I call them "children of God."
Why hasn't God predestined everyone to make "good choices" (or I don't know, have faith)? Can we even say that a will is truly free if indeed it's subconsciously programmed to act in a certain direction? Why should we think that?
There is a difference between the choice Adam had and the choice people have after the Fall. Before the Fall, Adam could choose to defy God's word due to the seduction and influence of Satan. It is not what God created him to do as His child, but he was made vulnerable to Satan's influences. Otherwise, Satan would never have been given the option of opposing God's word with real consequences.
After the Fall, Adam could then return to doing what is in his own best interest, after seeing Satan's deception exposed. He would, without exception, return to God's own best interests and his own best interests. This is predictably what *all* children of God do in the long term. They *always* return to the word of God, from which they sprang.
But Satan's children are a different matter. Even after Satan has been exposed, there will be those who choose against God in the same way Satan did, because they are products of Satan's kind of creation. Satan was given the choice to disobey God's word even without temptation and duress. And his children, once produced out of Adam's rebellion, have the same capacity to choose against God's word, and predictably do so, because they are drawn to independent judgment. They were not produced by God's word to be children of God.
So no one is actually free, then, as they are bound by their base programming.
-
I don't know. I also thought that 1+1+1 could not equal 1! ;) But we're talking about Deity here.
As you didn't reply to my follow-up to this I'll take the opportunity to point out that "1+1+1=1" is typically offered as a mockery of the doctrine of the Trinity, rather than part of the doctrine of the Trinity. Mathematically expressed the doctrine might look something more like "1p + 1p + 1p = 1p^3", or perhaps "1x1x1=1", but probably it's best to avoid simplified mathematical models of beings who far outstrip our dimensional understanding.
-
“The daily sacrifice will be stopped. Then, after 1,290 days from that time, a blasphemous object that brings destruction will be set up. (Daniel 12:11,” EXB, NCV)
“There will be 1,290 days from the time that the daily sacrifices are stopped, until someone sets up the “Horrible Thing” that causes destruction.” (Daniel 12:11, NEV)
“There will be one thousand two hundred ninety days from the time the daily sacrifice is stopped to the setting up of the desolating monstrosity.” (Daniel 12:11, CEB)
Joshua
(https://e-jw.org/index.php?media/1290.180/full)
why cant both the aod and the sacrifice stopped start the 1290 days. meaning the 1290 is the reign of the beasts in rev 13 with the second beat taking power 30 days after the first beast
-
“The daily sacrifice will be stopped. Then, after 1,290 days from that time, a blasphemous object that brings destruction will be set up. (Daniel 12:11,” EXB, NCV)
“There will be 1,290 days from the time that the daily sacrifices are stopped, until someone sets up the “Horrible Thing” that causes destruction.” (Daniel 12:11, NEV)
“There will be one thousand two hundred ninety days from the time the daily sacrifice is stopped to the setting up of the desolating monstrosity.” (Daniel 12:11, CEB)
Joshua
(https://e-jw.org/index.php?media/1290.180/full)
why cant both the aod and the sacrifice stopped start the 1290 days. meaning the 1290 is the reign of the beasts in rev 13 with the second beat taking power 30 days after the first beast
Just a head's up that this user requested for their account to be deleted, so they won't be replying. If you'd like to discuss this with them further, then you can search for the content of their message and reply on their own forum, where they discussed this a few years ago.
-
(https://e-jw.org/index.php?media/1290.180/full)
“The daily sacrifice will be stopped. Then, after 1,290 days from that time, a blasphemous object that brings destruction will be set up. (Daniel 12:11,” EXB, NCV)
“There will be 1,290 days from the time that the daily sacrifices are stopped, until someone sets up the “Horrible Thing” that causes destruction.” (Daniel 12:11, NEV)
“There will be one thousand two hundred ninety days from the time the daily sacrifice is stopped to the setting up of the desolating monstrosity.” (Daniel 12:11, CEB)
Joshua
Daniel 9:.26-27 - Complete Jewish Bible -
WHAT PREVAILS IS THE WORD OF GOD. The Word is GOD.
26 Then, AFTER (yeah AFTER) after the sixty-two weeks, MASHIACH will be cut off and have nothing. The people of A PRINCE (YEAH A PRINCE) yet to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary, but his end will come with a flood, and desolations are decreed until the war is over .(This has nothing to do with the destruction of Israel in the year 70AD, as follows:
27 He (he WHOM? the PRINCE; who is he?) he will make a strong COVENANT with LEADERS for ONE week [of years].
(Do you see? This SATANIC PRINCE will rule the last week, the week 70th, by entire. And he will make a strong COVENANT with LEADERS for ONE week [of years].
What kind of strong COVENANT the satanic PRINCE will make with leaders? Who are these leaders?
In this POINT, that is, AFTER the END of the week 62, the prophecy is still in the beginning of the week 70th, and A PRINCE is working in his strong COVENANT with leaders;
Therefore, in this point the FIRST half of the week 70th is in the beginning, and it is already running, and the STRONG COVENANT of the satanic PRINCE and the leaders takes place or is applied for ONE WEEK, but there is a period of time AND EVENTS called or known as FIRST half of the last week that is ruled by the EVIL PRINCE.
... he - the EVIL PRINCE - shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
Scripture does not say JESUS was crucified IN 29 A.D., many people are saying that, not Scripture. What Scripture says is that AFTER, yeah, AFTER the week 62 plus 7 the Messiah is "cut off".
JESUS was not crucified neither in the week 69, but AFTER, neither in the midst of the week 70th, what is a devilish lie, this week 70th is/will be RULED by the EVIL PRINCE by entire.
I'm sure that the event above will fulfil LITERALLY in this last decade of the Devil's world - 2020 to 2030. The last week, the week 70th of Daniel 9:v.27, it is within of this current last decade.
Be careful and get ready
-
I don't know. I also thought that 1+1+1 could not equal 1! ;) But we're talking about Deity here.
As you didn't reply to my follow-up to this I'll take the opportunity to point out that "1+1+1=1" is typically offered as a mockery of the doctrine of the Trinity, rather than part of the doctrine of the Trinity. Mathematically expressed the doctrine might look something more like "1p + 1p + 1p = 1p^3", or perhaps "1x1x1=1", but probably it's best to avoid simplified mathematical models of beings who far outstrip our dimensional understanding.
Sorry, brother--I didn't avoid answering. I must've missed it. I argued this w/ Christian Research Institute back in the mid-70s, after I had gotten out of a modalistic Christian cult. I felt that God as a single Divine Being must be represented as a Person with a capital "P." And the 3 Persons of the Trinity must also have their Persons spelled with a capital "P." This would look like Person = Person + Person + Person. CRI answered back and argued 1 + 1 + 1 does not equal 1.
So yes, language does not resolve the problem of a dimensional matter that exceeded finity. 1P + 1P + 1P = 1(3P)
So I really could care less if some mock the Trinity with what appears to them to be an irrational, meaningless formula. It is experiential to me, and entirely logical.
I experience the same Deity in God's Spirit in all geographical locations where I sense Him. And I recognize the same Spirit in Jesus' words in the Bible.
And my communication with the omnipresent, omnipotent Deity is also experienced as the same Deity. All 3 Persons, in their respective positions, can be experienced as the same Divine Person. And yet each Person's position is distinct, and each Person can communicate with another in a meaningful conversation.
-
But if that's the case then your limits are quite a ways away, and far enough that appealing to 'common sense' isn't necessary. In other words, where is the epistemic responsibility?
Simple, as in overly-reduced, like improperly reducing an algebraic equation. I'm not referring to "simple-to-understand," but to overly-simplified, perhaps to make something easier to understand, which may not be possible.
Your use of 'fatalistic' was fine, and I knew what you meant. You argue for partial determinism elsewhere, so that's why I asked: why should anything be determined in a fatalistic way?
I was explaining determinism in the philosophical sense, as in absolute determinism.
It was necessary for me to define the term as I was using it.
1+1+1 does not equal 1, not even for the Godhead.
Actually, I think it does. The substance of the Deity is infinite, and as such, absorbs any material or spatial representation of Him, as produced by His word. All 3 representations remain the one God.
But you are saying, right, that while God knows all possible outcomes, He doesn't know which choices will actually be made?
Again, certain things are *absolutely* determined, as in "fatal determination." They *must* take place. For example, God absolutely determined to produce an entire world filled with people who reflect His own image.
But free choices take place within this goal, and cannot prevent the goal from being reached. And so, even with free choices, God knows the end game.
And any choice anybody makes is within the arena of predictability, since God provides for each choice. Even more so, the consequence for each choice is also known in advance.
So God is not surprised by any choice Man may make. And he remains a free creature, without God determining the choice for him.
I suppose you could say God can be "surprised" by these free choices. But is He really surprised if He has provided for each possible choice in advance? I don't think so.
His foreknowledge allows for free choice. And that's a bit incomprehensible for us, although you may describe it as irrational or incompatible. I think it makes sense if there is something God created called "free will" at all!
Wait: does God know all possible outcomes because He's predetermined what those possible outcomes must be, or does He know all possible outcomes that could arise from free creatures acting freely within the context of their circumstances?
Are compelled choices free, though?
Yes, free choices are free. And yes, God knows every possible outcome, and as such foreknows all of the possible choices, allowing free agents to choose which option they choose for. Yes, hard to understand. I just believe in God's omniscience, as well as His creation of free moral agents.
Again, I'm asking why you think foreknowledge is determinative and you're not stating why you think that. You're just writing more replies with this assumption, but why are you assuming it?
I think I've already stated it: God's foreknowledge consists of all He had in mind to create and to do with respect to creation. He is not looking through a crystal ball, but rather, looking at what He wants to do. And if He wants to do it, then what He knows He wants to do is what will be--nothing can prevent Him from doing whatever He wants to do.
I do not think foreknowledge is absolutely determinative--otherwise there would be nothing called free moral agents. It is partially determinative, because God wills to allow free moral agents to make free choices within the orbit of God's all-encompassing plan.
Time itself is too theoretical for me, though I know it exists and experience it. What God experiences must be something completely different, since creation is relative to time, and God is uncreated and before time.
That being said, I think foreknowledge allows for time development and free human choices. It's just that God is already there when Man makes a free choice--He is not really surprised in time, as we are. His foreknowledge is equal to being there seeing something happen, including free choices.
But again, how far does God go in His manipulation if He manipulates to ensure X result but ends up with Y, then has to manipulate further to ensure X1, and so forth? You're assuming foreknowledge while denying it.
Yes, God had a backup plan in the event Man chose to bypass the Tree of Life and choose, instead, the Tree of Knowledge. This led to X1. And God foresaw it, and being incapable of failing in what He had already determined, He already was there in redemptive mode at the time the 1st sin was committed.
God will manipulate redemption to produce the world full of godly people--I don't question that. But even then, free will operates within these parameters, and not outside of them. If Man could destroy God's program, then God would be a liar.
And this is your example of God determining X number of possibilities? Do you mean by this example that God explicitly set up an either/or, or that God provided a command and let things play out?...
It sounds like you're saying God doesn't know what free choices will be made. Except when it's convenient for Him to know the outcome of those choices which now aren't free because He's determined them.
God *partly* determines some of these choices, while *absolutely* determining others. So when God "partly determines" free choices they can only take place within certain determined parameters.
So like, Open Theism and compatibilism... :thinking: Again, why do you think foreknowledge is determinative and that this is a better theology?
God is not surprised by free choices, and as such does not express your sense of my "Open Theism." God is already there, anticipating any choice, and determining an outcome that pursues the original goal. If God is not "surprised," He has not determined the choices of men for them. He has simply limited what choices they have, determining what must always conform to His over-arching plan.
Maybe God determined that you'd forever misunderstand foreknowledge. How would you know?
You obviously wouldn't! ;) Fortunately, He made us in His image so we could understand His truth and relate to Him.
-
Sorry, brother--I didn't avoid answering. I must've missed it. I argued this w/ Christian Research Institute back in the mid-70s, after I had gotten out of a modalistic Christian cult. I felt that God as a single Divine Being must be represented as a Person with a capital "P." And the 3 Persons of the Trinity must also have their Persons spelled with a capital "P." This would look like Person = Person + Person + Person. CRI answered back and argued 1 + 1 + 1 does not equal 1.
So yes, language does not resolve the problem of a dimensional matter that exceeded finity. 1P + 1P + 1P = 1(3P)
The doctrine of the trinity distinguishes between substance and person, though. The Godhead isn't: Person = Person + Person + Person, it's: the divine substance is instantiated as Person (Gtf), Person (GtS), Person (GtHS). This isn't about whether or not the Trinity appears irrational or whatever, but about accurately stating the doctrine.
Using "1 + 1 + 1 = 1" as quickhand for the doctrine is to misunderstand the doctrine.
-
Sorry, brother--I didn't avoid answering. I must've missed it. I argued this w/ Christian Research Institute back in the mid-70s, after I had gotten out of a modalistic Christian cult. I felt that God as a single Divine Being must be represented as a Person with a capital "P." And the 3 Persons of the Trinity must also have their Persons spelled with a capital "P." This would look like Person = Person + Person + Person. CRI answered back and argued 1 + 1 + 1 does not equal 1.
So yes, language does not resolve the problem of a dimensional matter that exceeded finity. 1P + 1P + 1P = 1(3P)
The doctrine of the trinity distinguishes between substance and person, though. The Godhead isn't: Person = Person + Person + Person, it's: the divine substance is instantiated as Person (Gtf), Person (GtS), Person (GtHS). This isn't about whether or not the Trinity appears irrational or whatever, but about accurately stating the doctrine.
Using "1 + 1 + 1 = 1" as quickhand for the doctrine is to misunderstand the doctrine.
If I couldn't resolve it with CRI, I probably won't be able to resolve it with you either. I understand what you're saying, and agree with how you're formulating the Trinity--it is orthodox. But I don't agree that it cannot be stated as I say either.
As you yourself said, it is a transcendent idea that can only be expressed in a way that finite concepts are unable to properly appreciate. God's Substance and Person are united in the concept of the Father, and yet are distinguished when you enter into the equation finite, created realities such as the human Son and the finite universe where the Spirit appears in finite locations. And so, you can speak of a Trinity of Persons while speaking of a single infinite Person at the same time. Sorry, I don't think we can go much farther.
-
Simple, as in overly-reduced, like improperly reducing an algebraic equation. I'm not referring to "simple-to-understand," but to overly-simplified, perhaps to make something easier to understand, which may not be possible.
Yes, I got that. I'm wondering how deep is too deep, and if you're trying to stay grounded, while describing Molinism as 'simplistic', then is that possibly a sign that you're in too deep, and as such, aren't warranted in describing Molinism as 'simplistic'? Or, is it a sign that you're in too deep if you're not clear on what's being argued, or engaging with something other than what's being argued (that is, misunderstand what's being argued)?
For example:
That is the "simplistic" formula that I alluded to before, which got you all stirred up. It is not un-intelligent, but rather, devising a formula, or something like an equation, to resolve a complex problem without actually explaining it in material terms.
I could easily say God foreknows everything as an explanation for anything that may happen. But that doesn't explain why several different things could happen, and the cause and effect that went into determining those outcomes.
What I'm asking for is an acknowledgement that the views under discussion aren't simplistic.
I was explaining determinism in the philosophical sense, as in absolute determinism.
It was necessary for me to define the term as I was using it.
No one has asked you to define this term. My question is: should anything be determined in a fatalistic way? I'm not looking for an answer like, "It doesn't need to be". I'm wondering why you've framed your earlier reply in these terms at all:
I'm not really probing very deep--just using common sense. If there is to be something called "free will," and the Bible presupposes it, then everything *cannot* be determined in a fatalistic way. As to God's ability to manage everything, including free will, as a Deity, I don't have a problem with that. If He is able to anticipate any outcome caused by free agents, then He is in effect still determining things as an omnipotent Being. He is, for lack of a better way to put it, determining free choice. ;) I do realize how contradictory that sounds on the surface!
Actually, I think it does. The substance of the Deity is infinite, and as such, absorbs any material or spatial representation of Him, as produced by His word. All 3 representations remain the one God.
What does this mean?
- An infinite substance 'absorbs any material or spatial representation of itself'.
- the Word has produced those 'material or spatial representations' of the Deity (which are absorbed... into what?).
- Regardless, all three representations remain the one God.
What do you mean by 'representation'?
Again, certain things are *absolutely* determined, as in "fatal determination." They *must* take place. For example, God absolutely determined to produce an entire world filled with people who reflect His own image.
That's God's own self-determination. No one would refer to God's own acting as 'fatalism'.
But free choices take place within this goal, and cannot prevent the goal from being reached. And so, even with free choices, God knows the end game.
And any choice anybody makes is within the arena of predictability, since God provides for each choice. Even more so, the consequence for each choice is also known in advance.
So God is not surprised by any choice Man may make. And he remains a free creature, without God determining the choice for him.
I suppose you could say God can be "surprised" by these free choices. But is He really surprised if He has provided for each possible choice in advance? I don't think so.
His foreknowledge allows for free choice. And that's a bit incomprehensible for us, although you may describe it as irrational or incompatible. I think it makes sense if there is something God created called "free will" at all!
So all of that said, we have to conclude that in your view, God is vulnerable through His lack of knowledge of anything He's not fatalistically determined (to use your words). Even if He provides only X options to choices that are only free by illusion, He still doesn't know which choice will be made.
What exactly is 'partial' about your view?
Yes, free choices are free. And yes, God knows every possible outcome, and as such foreknows all of the possible choices, allowing free agents to choose which option they choose for. Yes, hard to understand. I just believe in God's omniscience, as well as His creation of free moral agents.
Compelled choices aren't free, no (because they're compelled).
What you're arguing isn't hard to understand. It's not well thought through. For instance, you think foreknowledge is determinative, but here you're suggesting that God "foreknows all possible choices", but He only foreknows these choices because He set them up, and for some reason in this case His foreknowledge isn't determinative, but that would be because He doesn't possess foreknowledge as properly understood.
I think I've already stated it: God's foreknowledge consists of all He had in mind to create and to do with respect to creation. He is not looking through a crystal ball, but rather, looking at what He wants to do. And if He wants to do it, then what He knows He wants to do is what will be--nothing can prevent Him from doing whatever He wants to do.
I do not think foreknowledge is absolutely determinative--otherwise there would be nothing called free moral agents. It is partially determinative, because God wills to allow free moral agents to make free choices within the orbit of God's all-encompassing plan.
Time itself is too theoretical for me, though I know it exists and experience it. What God experiences must be something completely different, since creation is relative to time, and God is uncreated and before time.
That being said, I think foreknowledge allows for time development and free human choices. It's just that God is already there when Man makes a free choice--He is not really surprised in time, as we are. His foreknowledge is equal to being there seeing something happen, including free choices.
This is all sorts of confused. It's more probable that you think foreknowledge is determinative (in any degree) because you're fixated on a misconception of foreknowledge.
Yes, God had a backup plan in the event Man chose to bypass the Tree of Life and choose, instead, the Tree of Knowledge. This led to X1. And God foresaw it, and being incapable of failing in what He had already determined, He already was there in redemptive mode at the time the 1st sin was committed.
God will manipulate redemption to produce the world full of godly people--I don't question that. But even then, free will operates within these parameters, and not outside of them. If Man could destroy God's program, then God would be a liar.
God determined it, you mean, vis-a-vis His manipulation of the circumstance and determination of the choices therein. One wonders why God would need to manipulate and not just create free people who He determined would choose for him.
God *partly* determines some of these choices, while *absolutely* determining others. So when God "partly determines" free choices they can only take place within certain determined parameters.
Don't forget: only when it's convenient to the plot.
You obviously wouldn't! ;)
I think it's pretty clear.
-
If I couldn't resolve it with CRI, I probably won't be able to resolve it with you either. I understand what you're saying, and agree with how you're formulating the Trinity--it is orthodox. But I don't agree that it cannot be stated as I say either.
As you yourself said, it is a transcendent idea that can only be expressed in a way that finite concepts are unable to properly appreciate. God's Substance and Person are united in the concept of the Father, and yet are distinguished when you enter into the equation finite, created realities such as the human Son and the finite universe where the Spirit appears in finite locations. And so, you can speak of a Trinity of Persons while speaking of a single infinite Person at the same time. Sorry, I don't think we can go much farther.
You won't be able to resolve this with the CRI, me, or anyone who understands the concepts used in expressing the doctrine of the Trinity because you're not describing the Trinity. Just because God is transcendent doesn't mean we can describe Him any which way.
-
If I couldn't resolve it with CRI, I probably won't be able to resolve it with you either. I understand what you're saying, and agree with how you're formulating the Trinity--it is orthodox. But I don't agree that it cannot be stated as I say either.
As you yourself said, it is a transcendent idea that can only be expressed in a way that finite concepts are unable to properly appreciate. God's Substance and Person are united in the concept of the Father, and yet are distinguished when you enter into the equation finite, created realities such as the human Son and the finite universe where the Spirit appears in finite locations. And so, you can speak of a Trinity of Persons while speaking of a single infinite Person at the same time. Sorry, I don't think we can go much farther.
You won't be able to resolve this with the CRI, me, or anyone who understands the concepts used in expressing the doctrine of the Trinity because you're not describing the Trinity. Just because God is transcendent doesn't mean we can describe Him any which way.
When I disagree with someone, I try to avoid making the disagreement "personal." Let me just say I agree that we have to remain orthodox in our formulation of the Trinity.
But I do not agree that the *only* way to express orthodoxy is through the use of language used by the Councils of the Church. That is indeed the only way to express orthodoxy using the language of the councils. But orthodoxy existed before the councils, and exists independent of the language used by the councils.
In other words, the Trinity can, in my opinion, be expressed better than how the councils expressed it. And I feel it has to be expressed better due to continuing issues that the language of the councils does not adequately deal with.
-
When I disagree with someone, I try to avoid making the disagreement "personal."
That's good to know. I'll let you know when I get personal. Promise.
Let me just say I agree that we have to remain orthodox in our formulation of the Trinity.
It doesn't read that way. It reads like you want to have multiple orthodoxies so that you can say your description of the Trinity is "orthodox" despite its apparent heterodox nature.
But I do not agree that the *only* way to express orthodoxy is through the use of language used by the Councils of the Church. That is indeed the only way to express orthodoxy using the language of the councils. But orthodoxy existed before the councils, and exists independent of the language used by the councils.
Are you suggesting that when a council was convened, it came up with totally new theology irrespective of what was being discussed at the time? That it didn't take into consideration the orthodoxy of the day? If you are, what's one of the councils that you have in mind? If you aren't (and I doubt you are), then it's absurd to suggest that there's tension between "orthodoxy before the councils" and the convening of a council to discuss what that orthodoxy actually is. Councils were conveyed exactly because of that existing orthodoxy... that maybe wasn't so orthodox on each of its sides.
In other words, the Trinity can, in my opinion, be expressed better than how the councils expressed it. And I feel it has to be expressed better due to continuing issues that the language of the councils does not adequately deal with.
That's fair enough if you can demonstrate it (let's be clear that I'm not limiting the doctrine of the trinity purely to the formulation of the early church and ignoring any subsequent development), but if you think "1 + 1 + 1 = 1" is a better expression of the doctrine of the Trinity than what the councils, or perhaps the Cappadocian fathers, etc., came up with, then you're kidding yourself.
You might think you hold to an orthodox understanding of the Trinity, and you clearly affirm the need for an orthodox formulation, but that's not what you're arguing for in practice. This isn't about you personally. It's about the argument you're offering and how it expresses the Trinity. The Trinity is not "Person = Person + Person + Person" and this isn't even in the ballpark of orthodoxy as expressed -- but I'll be nicer to you than you were to Joshua, hint hint wink wink hint wink hint.
-
Are you suggesting that when a council was convened, it came up with totally new theology irrespective of what was being discussed at the time?
No. The Councils dealt with the concerns of their time, which happened to be a good enough set of formulas to last throughout Christian history. And I do respect that.
But like all men, they weren't perfect. And at least in my mind, the Trinitarian formulation ended up a 3-headed monster. I had to figure it out for myself.
If you don't like how I frame it, you don't have to accept it. But you can't prove it's heterodox. You can only prove it's not precisely the language used for the orthodox formula of the time.
I don't see anything there that prohibits more Persons in the Deity than only three? Do you?
For example, Do you see anywhere where God is said to be limited to only 3 Persons? Would a Theophany in the OT, for example, be excluded, by council formulation, from representing a Person in the Deity?
That's fair enough if you can demonstrate it (let's be clear that I'm not limiting the doctrine of the trinity purely to the formulation of the early church and ignoring any subsequent development), but if you think "1 + 1 + 1 = 1" is a better expression of the doctrine of the Trinity than what the councils, or perhaps the Cappadocian fathers, etc., came up with, then you're kidding yourself.
No, I'm not kidding myself. That formulation was the beginning of my considering how far the Substance of the Deity can be stretched to include more Persons? When I began to consider that the relationship between infinity and finitude were the key to understanding the distinction of Persons, then I realized that finite representations of Deity can also be of infinite quantity.
It was not important to know how many Persons God wished to be--only that in theory that's what He can do. That way, God's Substance is seen as a transcendent reality that can be expressed in any number of finite forms, assuming the expression of each Person is designed to present the Person of God in that form.
You might think you hold to an orthodox understanding of the Trinity, and you clearly affirm the need for an orthodox formulation, but that's not what you're arguing for in practice. This isn't about you personally. It's about the argument you're offering and how it expresses the Trinity. The Trinity is not "Person = Person + Person + Person" and this isn't even in the ballpark of orthodoxy as expressed -- but I'll be nicer to you than you were to Joshua, hint hint wink wink hint wink hint.
I wasn't being unkind to Joshua--just informing him of what he needed to know, that he was espousing heretical beliefs on a Christian forum. None of that was "personal." That was your presumption, and that presumption was wrong.
Again, I disagree. The formula 1 Person = 1P + 1P + 1P, if 1P = 3P is correct. It just isn't part of the councils' orthodox formulations. But in my opinion, it was always assumed to be true, even before arguing that there were 3 Persons in 1 God.
-
No. The Councils dealt with the concerns of their time, which happened to be a good enough set of formulas to last throughout Christian history. And I do respect that.
But like all men, they weren't perfect. And at least in my mind, the Trinitarian formulation ended up a 3-headed monster. I had to figure it out for myself.
If you don't like how I frame it, you don't have to accept it. But you can't prove it's heterodox. You can only prove it's not precisely the language used for the orthodox formula of the time.
If a view is heterodox, it's because it doesn't align with what's been agreed to be orthodox. I don't need to prove that your view is heterodox because it is by definition, if it doesn't align with orthodox teaching. Your view doesn't align with orthodox teaching, and so, it is heterodox at best.
For comparison: if someone's Christology is heterodox, then they hold a view of Christ that is not the agreed upon, orthodox teaching. For example, the view that Jesus is God via coronation is heterodox at best, and we rely on historical teaching, councils, etc., to refute the view. Which you did. And, it's the same when we come to the doctrine of the Trinity. If you have an understanding of the Godhead that isn't orthodox then so be it. As I said elsewhere, I don't think the doctrine of the Trinity is necessarily salvific. Don't pretend that it's a view that's orthodox, though.
I don't see anything there that prohibits more Persons in the Deity than only three? Do you?
Yes, revelation. Doctrinal positions must only be formed with respect to what God has said, revealed of Himself, and so on.
For example, Do you see anywhere where God is said to be limited to only 3 Persons? Would a Theophany in the OT, for example, be excluded, by council formulation, from representing a Person in the Deity?
Theophanies are regarded as manifestations of some person of the Godhead, such as the Word, prior to incarnation. If God reveals Himself as three persons, then God is three persons. If we later find out the Godhead isn't Trinitarian, then so be it. But that's not the revelation we've been given. What we've been given reveals God as Trinitarian, so God is Trinitarian.
Besides, your language of 'expression' doesn't suggest multiple people of the Godhead, any more than I'm a different person when I put on a hat, or glasses with a nose and moustache.
No, I'm not kidding myself. That formulation was the beginning of my considering how far the Substance of the Deity can be stretched to include more Persons? When I began to consider that the relationship between infinity and finitude were the key to understanding the distinction of Persons, then I realized that finite representations of Deity can also be of infinite quantity.
It was not important to know how many Persons God wished to be--only that in theory that's what He can do. That way, God's Substance is seen as a transcendent reality that can be expressed in any number of finite forms, assuming the expression of each Person is designed to present the Person of God in that form.
What you're doing is doctrine divorced from Scripture (revelation). It's not like substance is constrained such that it can only be instantiated in three Persons at max. Can God be more than three persons? Sure, in theory, God isn't native to our reality so why not? But what we have in the doctrine of the Trinity is what God has revealed of Himself, so theorising isn't appropriate. If God tells us that He's three Persons, then He's three Persons.
I wasn't being unkind to Joshua--just informing him of what he needed to know, that he was espousing heretical beliefs on a Christian forum. None of that was "personal." That was your presumption, and that presumption was wrong.
I didn't say that you made it personal, I said that you weren't kind. Joshua's Christology was heretical, just as your formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity (which in your view isn't a Trinity) is. But does it do anyone any good to point this out? If Joshua had replied with, "yeah but the councils were only men" would you have accepted that? (You wouldn't have.) But we're not bishops and this isn't the 4th century so I don't see the merit in pointing out heresy the majority of the time; I think it's better to discuss it.
But be honest with yourself about the views you hold with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity. You're allowing for your own view the flexibility that you deny others.
-
(https://e-jw.org/index.php?media/1290.180/full)
“The daily sacrifice will be stopped. Then, after 1,290 days from that time, a blasphemous object that brings destruction will be set up. (Daniel 12:11,” EXB, NCV)
“There will be 1,290 days from the time that the daily sacrifices are stopped, until someone sets up the “Horrible Thing” that causes destruction.” (Daniel 12:11, NEV)
“There will be one thousand two hundred ninety days from the time the daily sacrifice is stopped to the setting up of the desolating monstrosity.” (Daniel 12:11, CEB)
Joshua
What you have posted refers to the second half of the week 70th Daniel 9:v.27. In the exact point you posted, begins the second half of the week that will be ruled by the EVIL PRINCE and he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
In the other hand, in my personal understanding or according my view, the week 70th Daniel 9:v.27 will fulfill LITERALLY in this current decade 2020 - 2030.
May our Lord GOD bless us and keep us, and give us His protection
Amen
-
Lots of people seem to want to apply the 1290 days of Dan 12 to the Antichrist. I don't believe it does. I believe it represents the reign of Antiochus 4. We have two major figures in the book of Daniel, among others--Antiochus 4 and the Antichrist. We read of the Antichrist as the "Little Horn" in Dan 7. And we read about Antiochus 4 in both Dan 8 and Dan 11. Dan 12 ends the book of Daniel by discussing both of these major characters. The Antichrist reigns for 3.5 years. And Antiochus 4 reigns for 1290 days with respect to his persecution of the Jewish People. Just my opinion.
1 John 2:v.18-21 reveal:
18 Little children, it is the LAST time: and as ye have heard that antichrist SHALL COME, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the Truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the Truth.
John the Apostle of our Lord is revealing that the Antichrist SHALL COME. The true Church of the LORD was being persecuted, Paul Apostle, author of the Epistle to the Romans, after his conversion to Christianity was arrested in Cesareia, he made his own defense at his Judgment. The Jews asked to the governor called Festus to send Paul to Jerusalem, but Paul told NO ONE could turn him over to the Jews (Paul knew that the Jews wanted to kill him), then, when he finished his defense, he appealed to Caesar at his Judgment. "Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? unto Caesar shalt thou go-Acts 25:v.12. Paul's journey to Italy-Rome was full of obstacles and difficulties for his survival, great risk of losing his life, but GOD was with him and kept him, and he arrived in Rome safe and sound after several months of great sufferings.
The Apostle Paul, whose name was originally Saul, was a Jew from a very orthodox line of Pharisaism. He was a student of Gamaliel, but unlike his mentor, he was known for his persecution of Christians. Paul also had Roman citizenship, he was born in Tarsus, the capital of Cilicia, this was and made a great difference in his ministry. Cilicia is an early Roman province on what is today the southern coast of Turkey.
There were many many Jews in Rome, and the fame of a new "religion or sect" planted by JESUS in Israel was spreading everywhere. Three days after he arrived in Rome, Paul called the Jewish leaders in Rome, as a result, many Jews in Rome came to visit him, and Paul explained that he was arrested because of his faith in Israel's hope. They decided to hear more (Acts 28:17-22), and a large number of Jews gathered at Paul's house, and he tried to convince them about Jesus (28:23) and the Kingdom of God, there was a division among the Jews, some believing and others rejecting the Word (28:24-29).
Then the Church of our Lord JESUS developed itself in Rome, and Satan in parallel worked too. Thus Paul was concerned about the apostasy in the Church of Rome, he took very care for the spiritual development of the brothers in Rome. Paul gave his last instructions and admonitions to the brothers of the Church in Rome, warning them of an apostate movement mainly by Jews among the brothers, even in the Church of the Lord there established by him and other apostles.Rom.16:17-20:
-17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and AVOID THEM.
18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by GOOD WORDS and FAIR SPEECHES DECEIVE the hearts of the simple.
19 For YOUR OBEDIENCE is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.
20 And the GOD of peace SHALL BRUISE SATAN UNDER YOUR FEET SHORTLY.THIS WILL FULFILL LIETERALLY FROM NOW ON-HALLELUJAH!
John Apostle also wrote about the apostasy mainly about the primitive and true Church of the LORD in Rome, as follow:
1 John 2:v.19 - They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out,that they might be made manifest that THEY WERE NOT ALL OF US.
It is very interesting this revelation of the Apostle John concerning the primitive and genuine Church of the LORD in Rome, which apostatized even in the time of the Apostles, mainly the Jewish believers, and it linked politically to the Roman Empire, and the Church was called Catholic Church, and become a CORRUPTED CHURCH in the hands of Satan.
-
Lots of people seem to want to apply the 1290 days of Dan 12 to the Antichrist. I don't believe it does. I believe it represents the reign of Antiochus 4. We have two major figures in the book of Daniel, among others--Antiochus 4 and the Antichrist. We read of the Antichrist as the "Little Horn" in Dan 7. And we read about Antiochus 4 in both Dan 8 and Dan 11. Dan 12 ends the book of Daniel by discussing both of these major characters. The Antichrist reigns for 3.5 years. And Antiochus 4 reigns for 1290 days with respect to his persecution of the Jewish People. Just my opinion.
1 John 2:v.18-21 reveal:
18 Little children, it is the LAST time: and as ye have heard that antichrist SHALL COME, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the Truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the Truth.
John the Apostle of our Lord is revealing that the Antichrist SHALL COME. The true Church of the LORD was being persecuted, Paul Apostle, author of the Epistle to the Romans, after his conversion to Christianity was arrested in Cesareia, he made his own defense at his Judgment. The Jews asked to the governor called Festus to send Paul to Jerusalem, but Paul told NO ONE could turn him over to the Jews (Paul knew that the Jews wanted to kill him), then, when he finished his defense, he appealed to Caesar at his Judgment. "Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? unto Caesar shalt thou go-Acts 25:v.12. Paul's journey to Italy-Rome was full of obstacles and difficulties for his survival, great risk of losing his life, but GOD was with him and kept him, and he arrived in Rome safe and sound after several months of great sufferings.
The Apostle Paul, whose name was originally Saul, was a Jew from a very orthodox line of Pharisaism. He was a student of Gamaliel, but unlike his mentor, he was known for his persecution of Christians. Paul also had Roman citizenship, he was born in Tarsus, the capital of Cilicia, this was and made a great difference in his ministry. Cilicia is an early Roman province on what is today the southern coast of Turkey.
There were many many Jews in Rome, and the fame of a new "religion or sect" planted by JESUS in Israel was spreading everywhere. Three days after he arrived in Rome, Paul called the Jewish leaders in Rome, as a result, many Jews in Rome came to visit him, and Paul explained that he was arrested because of his faith in Israel's hope. They decided to hear more (Acts 28:17-22), and a large number of Jews gathered at Paul's house, and he tried to convince them about Jesus (28:23) and the Kingdom of God, there was a division among the Jews, some believing and others rejecting the Word (28:24-29).
Then the Church of our Lord JESUS developed itself in Rome, and Satan in parallel worked too. Thus Paul was concerned about the apostasy in the Church of Rome, he took very care for the spiritual development of the brothers in Rome. Paul gave his last instructions and admonitions to the brothers of the Church in Rome, warning them of an apostate movement mainly by Jews among the brothers, even in the Church of the Lord there established by him and other apostles.Rom.16:17-20:
-17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and AVOID THEM.
18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by GOOD WORDS and FAIR SPEECHES DECEIVE the hearts of the simple.
19 For YOUR OBEDIENCE is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.
20 And the GOD of peace SHALL BRUISE SATAN UNDER YOUR FEET SHORTLY.THIS WILL FULFILL LIETERALLY FROM NOW ON-HALLELUJAH!
John Apostle also wrote about the apostasy mainly about the primitive and true Church of the LORD in Rome, as follow:
1 John 2:v.19 - They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out,that they might be made manifest that THEY WERE NOT ALL OF US.
It is very interesting this revelation of the Apostle John concerning the primitive and genuine Church of the LORD in Rome, which apostatized even in the time of the Apostles, mainly the Jewish believers, and it linked politically to the Roman Empire, and the Church was called Catholic Church, and become a CORRUPTED CHURCH in the hands of Satan.
I have no idea why you shared all that historical information, unless it was to propagate an anti-Catholic message? At any rate, I, being Protestant, have no doubt that the historic Catholic Church had problems from the beginning.
However, throughout history many good and honorable Christians have come through the Catholic Church, despite its corruptions. And in modern times, even though Catholicism has ventured far from its more balanced roots, still many genuine Christians remain within that communion, even if they've been negatively affected.
I have no interest in damning historic Catholicism, since most of us trace our roots from there. However, in these last times I would agree that Antichristianity has taken root in the heart of Europe, which is Rome's heritage. And it is likely, I think, that Catholicism is already at the breaking point, spiritually.
The current pope is saying some pretty compromised things because I think he has been overly impacted by modernism and by progressivism, or humanism. We should go back to primitive Christianity, in which Christ determines our orthodoxy and our assemblies--not traditional ecclesiology.
-
It is very interesting this revelation of the Apostle John concerning the primitive and genuine Church of the LORD in Rome, which apostatized even in the time of the Apostles, mainly the Jewish believers, and it linked politically to the Roman Empire, and the Church was called Catholic Church, and become a CORRUPTED CHURCH in the hands of Satan.
Two things:
- Be more responsible in your claims regarding the early Church about which Paul wrote.
- I won't tolerate any further Catholic/RCC bashing.
-
well the next thing that happens before the ac shows up is all his enimies and the city is destroyed just as it will be when god returns.
so that being the case and 90 percent of belivers live in the us then who is to die next.....
matt 24, 6,7 ww3 will happen next killing off the 90 plus percent the remainder belivers elsewhere to fight in the battle against satan himself so if you live in the us you will die a nuclear death and or by manufactored plagues. it is only after this will the man of sin be revealed and his mark given. note same when god/christ is revealed and his mark given. the city destroyed though not babylon will be represented to the world as nyc.
there is a high potential ww3 will happen 2024/25 when the next president trump? is in office.
-
well the next thing that happens before the ac shows up is all his enimies and the city is destroyed just as it will be when god returns.
so that being the case and 90 percent of belivers live in the us then who is to die next.....
matt 24, 6,7 ww3 will happen next killing off the 90 plus percent the remainder belivers elsewhere to fight in the battle against satan himself so if you live in the us you will die a nuclear death and or by manufactored plagues. it is only after this will the man of sin be revealed and his mark given. note same when god/christ is revealed and his mark given. the city destroyed though not babylon will be represented to the world as nyc.
there is a high potential ww3 will happen 2024/25 when the next president trump? is in office.
I sure hope you're wrong! There is a Scripture where it is said that God causes weapons to be formed for their use. What has God formed nuclear weapons for? I'm hoping He waits until things get worse before using them!
I dare say that when I say that God "uses man's weapons," I'm attacked for assigning corrupt human machinations to God Himself. But if we really believe that God is guiding all things, and not just "holding the universe together," then surely Man can only strike with nukes when God allows it?
-
But if we really believe that God is guiding all things, and not just "holding the universe together," then surely Man can only strike with nukes when God allows it?
Amos 3:6 When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? and more generally, Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
-
But if we really believe that God is guiding all things, and not just "holding the universe together," then surely Man can only strike with nukes when God allows it?
Amos 3:6 When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? and more generally, Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Whoa, you're more true to the Scriptures than many Christian friends of mine! Thanks.
-
Whoa, you're more true to the Scriptures than many Christian friends of mine! Thanks.
Thanks for the compliment!
I'm not going to sit around and worry about getting nuked. God is in control and everything will happen according to His plan.
-
But if we really believe that God is guiding all things, and not just "holding the universe together," then surely Man can only strike with nukes when God allows it?
Amos 3:6 When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? and more generally, Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Isaiah 14:v.24 - The Lord of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand:
Jeremiah 30:v. 23-24
23 Behold, the whirlwind of the Lord goeth forth with fury, a continuing whirlwind: it shall fall with pain upon the head of the wicked.
24 The fierce anger of the Lord shall not return, until he hath done it, and until he have performed the intents of his heart: in the latter days ye shall consider it.
Revelation 11:v.15 and 18
15 - The kingdoms of this world (Devil's world) are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
18 - The nations were (WILL BE) angry, and thy wrath (GOD's WRATH) is come ... and should destroy them which destroy the earth. (THIS PROPHECY WILL FULFIL LITERALLY FROM NOW ON)
2 Peter 3:v.11-12
11 Seeing then that ALL THESE THINGS shall be DISSOLVED (as an great implosian), what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of this day of God (the LORD's DAY), wherein the heavens (heavens HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH SKY) being on FIRE shall be DISSOLVED (AS A GREAT IMPLOSION), and the elements shall melt with fervent heat.
1 Corinthians 14:v.8 - If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
Get ready
Hebrews 10:v.37-39
37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.
38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.
-
Get ready
For what?
-
Get ready
For what?
To enter or not in the Kingdom of GOD.
-
To enter or not in the Kingdom of GOD.
How does one get ready for that?
-
To enter or not in the Kingdom of GOD.
How does one get ready for that?
Matthew 25:v.1 to 4
-
Matthew 25:v.1 to 4
Keep oil in my lamp?
-
Matthew 25:v.1 to 4
Keep oil in my lamp?
If not...
-
If not...
If not...I suppose that the Lord shall provide.
-
If not...
If not...I suppose that the Lord shall provide.
Amen.