I have to say Bill that I really like that preposition. I hesitate to own it particularly because there are mysterious parts to it, and when there are mysteries that I must rely on in faith I'd rather rely on mysteries closer related to scripture rather than rationalism. Yet, I really enjoyed the conjecture and sounds like an adequate theory of how God's omniscience is exercised by Him.
Now, I wonder how the following situation would be viewed under this schema:
I lose a certain amount of money. I consider it hopelessly lost. Months later I am required to pay a bill for which I don't have the funds. Unexpectedly I find the money I lost and it's exactly how much I needed to pay the bill. I attribute this amazing occurrence to God because it seems like too much to be a coincidence.
Now, if God doesn't know my future actions as future then how can He know that I need to lose the exact amount of money that I'm going to need if I have yet to make the ignorant decisions that are going to lead me to need that amount of money.
I know God doesn't need me to lose money to provide for me. He is Jehovah Jira, but this is actually borrowed from real testimonies.
The a pretty reply. Thank you for making it so personal to me. I love hearing of God's love towards me and His desire to show me that I can trust Him, and I know I can, though often I don't act like it. But I know I can. He is faithful.
I do have to concur with you that for me to argue my point I would have to agree with premise A: God knows my free future actions as future. -- This could certainly be a problem because as you explain, if He sees them as future then they are unchangeable because they are set in the future. The other option is that He wouldn't be seeing the future, but rather one of the many possibilities of future, and I think you have expressed enough to show some of the problems with this way of thinking.
If God is outside of time there is no future to Him. What we see as future is laid bare to Him.
* I have another question that came to my mind that day at the dinner. We were discussing that there is some good in many of the different religious beliefs in the world (i.e. Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, etc.) Now some have more good/truth than others. At what point (genuinely holding to which doctrines) do you cross the place where you are now considered part of the body of Christ? And this leads to my actual question, do you as a brother in Christ and part of the Catholic church expect to see protestant brothers and sisters at the right hand of God in heaven though they were never part of the Catholic church even though they had a chance to 'reconcile?' And of course, your opinion is important, and I'd like to know how the Catholic church also sees this.
I know I'm putting you out there and maybe this is too personal. I'd love to talk on the phone about it if you prefer. That's okay too. I've just had this in my mind since that night.
I just thought of something else. I know that the Bible says that Jesus is the lamb crucified before the foundations of the Earth. Does this mean before creation? And if so then wouldn't God have to know that Adam was going to sin? And if Adam wasn't created than God knew Adam's future action as future (or not present) because there was no temporal existence yet.
Maybe this is circular. It's confusing thinking in these terms.
It's good to see you posting Berny. What you wrote sounds great. I don't have a problem with that. It still deals with the topic we've been writing on regardless of which word it modifies. Now, I did try to look up information on that interpretation of Rev. 13:8, but everything I found seems to hold to the view that it modifies "slain." As a separate topic I'd love to see some of the information that back up what Vern Poythress holds to. How did the early church fathers interpret that passage?
Soli Deo Gloria is an online discussion venue covering subjects relating to Christian life and faith. Please join our discussion. Comments are encouraged.
10 comments:
I have to say Bill that I really like that preposition. I hesitate to own it particularly because there are mysterious parts to it, and when there are mysteries that I must rely on in faith I'd rather rely on mysteries closer related to scripture rather than rationalism. Yet, I really enjoyed the conjecture and sounds like an adequate theory of how God's omniscience is exercised by Him.
Now, I wonder how the following situation would be viewed under this schema:
I lose a certain amount of money. I consider it hopelessly lost. Months later I am required to pay a bill for which I don't have the funds. Unexpectedly I find the money I lost and it's exactly how much I needed to pay the bill. I attribute this amazing occurrence to God because it seems like too much to be a coincidence.
Now, if God doesn't know my future actions as future then how can He know that I need to lose the exact amount of money that I'm going to need if I have yet to make the ignorant decisions that are going to lead me to need that amount of money.
I know God doesn't need me to lose money to provide for me. He is Jehovah Jira, but this is actually borrowed from real testimonies.
The a pretty reply. Thank you for making it so personal to me. I love hearing of God's love towards me and His desire to show me that I can trust Him, and I know I can, though often I don't act like it. But I know I can. He is faithful.
I do have to concur with you that for me to argue my point I would have to agree with premise A: God knows my free future actions as future. -- This could certainly be a problem because as you explain, if He sees them as future then they are unchangeable because they are set in the future. The other option is that He wouldn't be seeing the future, but rather one of the many possibilities of future, and I think you have expressed enough to show some of the problems with this way of thinking.
If God is outside of time there is no future to Him. What we see as future is laid bare to Him.
* I have another question that came to my mind that day at the dinner. We were discussing that there is some good in many of the different religious beliefs in the world (i.e. Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, etc.) Now some have more good/truth than others. At what point (genuinely holding to which doctrines) do you cross the place where you are now considered part of the body of Christ? And this leads to my actual question, do you as a brother in Christ and part of the Catholic church expect to see protestant brothers and sisters at the right hand of God in heaven though they were never part of the Catholic church even though they had a chance to 'reconcile?' And of course, your opinion is important, and I'd like to know how the Catholic church also sees this.
I know I'm putting you out there and maybe this is too personal. I'd love to talk on the phone about it if you prefer. That's okay too. I've just had this in my mind since that night.
I just thought of something else. I know that the Bible says that Jesus is the lamb crucified before the foundations of the Earth. Does this mean before creation? And if so then wouldn't God have to know that Adam was going to sin? And if Adam wasn't created than God knew Adam's future action as future (or not present) because there was no temporal existence yet.
Maybe this is circular. It's confusing thinking in these terms.
It's good to see you posting Berny. What you wrote sounds great. I don't have a problem with that. It still deals with the topic we've been writing on regardless of which word it modifies. Now, I did try to look up information on that interpretation of Rev. 13:8, but everything I found seems to hold to the view that it modifies "slain." As a separate topic I'd love to see some of the information that back up what Vern Poythress holds to. How did the early church fathers interpret that passage?
Post a Comment