General Question about various beliefs held by various people

[dizerner]

You're kind of nutty

Nothing like punting to base insults.

One day you will see the sincerity of my heart.

Until then, I wish you the best.

[njd83]

You keep twisting my points, that's frustrating. The point is, God knowing everything is just AS simple as God somehow not knowing everything. You already admitted limiting God's knowledge somehow makes you feel better about God creating knowing suffering will happen. This means it's a stronger compass for your interpretation than just metaphorical speech. God's forgetting being metaphorical somehow escapes your own "pet theory" accusation, and you fail to see your own inconsistency that's been illustrated several times. You expressed no concern about being equal to both views or careful about examining motives and presuppositions. You are clearly not believing something based on interpretive reasons. It would benefit you to see that.

God knowing everything is simple on the surface. That's like saying eating food gives you the nutrition you need to live. Then when you look into the details. Boy, very complicated. My feeling better though is more of an after effect, which I tried to clarify, but now is named as a false pretense. I do subscribe to the idea that using our minds is something God wants us to do in seeking "understanding" about God. I WAS equal so to speak... until I realized that my previous views were so unnecessarily problematic and that the open view clears up things much better. I started believing Open View not for feeling better but because it made more coherent sense of the texts, again you are falsely accusing me.

That being said, I WOULD NOT believe open theism if it DID NOT make more coherent sense of the texts. Which does not square with your accusation.

[njd83]

I have not insulted you this whole time. And I was just being honest. And I would consider this more of joke than an insult. But whatever. I usually use "nutty" for joking, and other words for blunt insults. Which I don't use too much.

[njd83]

Also if the Open View is legitimately a crutch for me, as in its literally not the way the reality of God is, I don't care at all. And to be frank, I think the Traditional View is abhorrent, and I am so glad to have coherent way out from it.

Honestly, because it helps me. Again, though, I have analyzed the texts, so its not purely wishful thinking.

But like I said earlier, the difference in the reality one experiences as a believer from the Open View compared to the Traditional View, practically speaking, is minimal in one's day to day lives.

So on that note, it doesn't even matter.

The Traditional View person will go about life as if the future is open to their free will choices, but reminding themselves that God knows everything. And probably take comfort in that here and there. And glorify God because He knows everything.

The Open View person will view the future as open to their free will choices to whatever degree, but they will believe the openness of the reality they experience is actually similar to what God experiences and deals with. And thus we have the opportunity to co-create the future with God, to whatever degree. Thus prayer can actually have effects on the future which has not yet happened, and which is not yet settled.

So my point is practically speaking there's no [huge] difference, and by that I also mean there's no [huge and problematic] heresy, yet has a huge positive impact on my faith.

[Homer]

Something interesting to consider about God and time, from the internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Some philosophers have argued that this fact about God’s life requires that he be timeless. No being that experiences its life sequentially can have the fullest life possible. Temporal beings experience their lives one moment at a time. The past is gone and the future is not yet. The past part of a person’s life is gone forever. He can remember it, but he cannot experience it directly. The future part of his life is not yet here. He can anticipate it and worry about it, but he cannot yet experience it. He only experiences a brief slice of his life at any one time. The life of a temporal thing, then, is spread out and diffuse.

It is the transient nature of our experience that gives rise to much of the wistfulness and regret we may feel about our lives. This feeling of regret lends credibility to the idea that a sequential life is a life that is less than maximally full. Older people sometimes wish for earlier days, while younger people long to mature. We grieve for the people we love who are now gone. We grieve also for the events and times that no longer persist.

When we think about the life of God, it is strange to think of God longing for the past or for the future. The idea that God might long for some earlier time or regret the passing of some age seems like an attribution of weakness or inadequacy to God. God in his self-sufficiency cannot in any way be inadequate. If it is the experience of the passage of time that grounds these longings, there is good reason not to attribute any experience of time to God. Therefore, it is better to think of God as timeless. He experiences all of his life at once in the timeless present. Nothing of his life is past and nothing of it is future. Boethius’ famous definition of eternity captures this idea: “Eternity, then, is the whole, simultaneous and perfect possession of boundless life” (Boethius, 1973). Boethius contrasts this timeless mode of being with a temporal mode: “Whatever lives in time proceeds in the present and from the past into the future, and there is nothing established in time which can embrace the whole space of its life equally, but tomorrow surely it does not yet grasp, while yesterday it has already lost” (Boethius, 1973).

[njd83]

Some philosophers have argued that this fact about God’s life requires that he be timeless.

First I want to say that all we really know about God we can only get from reliable sources like the Bible as well as from the Holy Spirit which Dizerner is very right about. There seems to be much non-consensus on many minor theological topics from varied Holy Spirit filled people. And there's a lot of questions NOT answered in the reliable sources which leaves openness to possible answers.

I have looked outside the bible for some of these answers, including: Shepherd of Hermas, Didache, Revelation of Peter, Enoch, Book of Jubilees, Book of Jashar, Wisdom of Solomon, ECF, Church History, etc. But I would not consider these super unreliable, or gnostic. Just Deuterocanon or Church Tradition.

Now the main verse about God being "timeless" is the one Dizerner brought up "God inhabits eternity". Which in the Hebrew seems likely to actually mean "God dwells continually" instead.

I do not know for SURE whether God has complete and exhaustive foreknowledge of the future or not. But the texts where he is speaking in various prophets seems to indicate he is dealing with a dynamic world dynamically, which could go either way. That's just how it reads. No indication of foreknowledge. Foreknowledge would be very foreign to apply to many of these texts, as shown in the Boyd book.

King Saul: God chose Saul, later regretted choosing him.

How can God genuinely regret making Saul king if he knew it was going to happen? Regret is when you make a decision that you think is highly probable to go well, or hope it goes well, but then doesn't. You can't regret a decision that you knew would go bad ahead of time, by definition. If I invested in a stock today that I knew was going to plummet tomorrow, and then I said I regretted investing and losing the money, would that make sense? I would be seen as irrational and crazy. But God is the most rational and logical Being in the universe.

Jonah:

"When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their evil way, then God relented of the disaster which He had declared He would bring on them. So He did not do it."
...
"But it greatly displeased Jonah and he became angry. He prayed to the LORD and said, “Please LORD, was not this what I said while I was still in my own country? Therefore in order to forestall this I fled to Tarshish, for I knew that You are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, and one who relents concerning calamity."

Jonah himself seemed to believe that God could change his mind about the destruction he declared against Nineveh for their wickedness. But he knew how much evil they had done, and wanted the judgement not the mercy. God taught him a lesson, but he literally had a free will and could have just drowned himself in the ocean if he wanted to be so adamant. He knew if he prophesied to Nineveh that they may actually repent and prevent the judgement coming against them. Which they did. And to which he said:

for I knew that You are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, and one who relents concerning calamity.

Now did Jonah believe in the Traditional View or the Open View? Honestly ask yourself this question.

Both God and Jonah knew the "possibility" of Nineveh's repentance.

There are so many other texts discussed in Boyd's book about this as well. And even better verses to show this point.

So philosophy is obviously an inquiry into topics without concrete answers. But much of our western mind has been affected both by Hellenistic and Augustinian ideas. I used to regurgitate "God is timeless" just like the rest. And for a long time I really really tried to think and ponder what that would be or look like, a timeless state, or existence of God, or before the creation. It was an interesting thought exploration. Never really knew what it really meant, or the logical implications. Timeless was what I was taught, and it seemed like a correct attribute of God.

But it could very well just be another constructed idea or manufactured idea that does not necessarily describe the situation we are in, and the reality of God. What I mean is, no one can describe exactly what was "before" time, or what timelessness actually is before the physical universe existed. What if I called it by another name say "unknown existence state" and then said to you, "Humans just can't understand how God exists in this "unknown existence state". Its yet another construct which does not clear up anything, again using ideas that are either ill defined or not defined. We don't know what time is, we don't know what timelessness would be either, or if there is a such a thing, and if God exists in it, and if that necessarily implies he can see the future like a video tape.

But we do know, however, how God has spoken in the prophets "in many portions, and in many ways".

“But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” (2 Peter 1:20–21, NASB95)

The holy spirit spoke through the prophets, so why is the holy spirit indicating uncertainty if its the Spirit of Truth? The Holy Spirit is not actually uncertain, according to the Traditional View because He knows everything, but is indicating in some texts that the holy spirit IS uncertain, or that possibilities are really out there for a choice to go either way, to a lesser or greater possibility.

“The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9, NASB95)

How does this verse make sense in the Traditional View? Does it not imply that its possible for some to perish and not come to repentance, and that THAT is the reason God is so patient, wishing them NOT to perish?

God is patient with and waiting for the "possibility" of the repentance of people, correct? If he is certain about everyone's repentance or not, why would be patient and wish none to perish? There's a disconnect here.

So many verses stop making coherent sense in the Traditional View, and I think we just forget about this "impenetrable paradox" because we can't make sense of it.

The whole thrust of 2 Peter 3:9 is lost in the Traditional View.

God is patient to find out what he already knows what will happen, and wishing none to perish but he already knows who will?

The future part of his life is not yet here.

I think this sentence is a bit loaded as well, implying the future "exists" somewhat, but hasn't arrived yet. But what if the future literally does not exist at all yet? There is no "future" part of his life, just a conglomeration of possibilities yet to happen or choose.

he cannot yet experience it.

This again, he can't experience it yet because its in the future, and when the future comes, it wont be the future anymore it will be the present. He can only experience the present, he can't experience the future, the future does not exist.

What's even more funny about this "timeless" topic, is that the word translated "eternity" in our bibles, either OT or NT, is the Hebrew Olam or Greek Aion which actually has the root of "age or large period of time or 1000 years, etc" which is a period of time, not timeless!

I am not saying God is or is not "timeless", all I am saying is we are adding a constructed idea of "timeless" to God and the Bible and then saying "see, God knows the future". But we don't even know what that actually means, nor if that would imply God knows the future completely and exhaustively in his mind. Because many texts certainly don't imply that.

Honestly, Open View excites me because I don't have to use "eisegeses" anymore, or as much. I heard "exegesis and eisegesis" so many times over the years since becoming a believer, and thought "what a wonderful distinction that is". And yet, they are actually still using "eisegesis".

So, yeah.

[njd83]

Also another thought.

I was just listening to the public domain librivox audio recording of the YLT of 1 Peter 1

“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the choice sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to a foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied!” (1 Peter 1:1–2, YLT)

Foreknowledge in this verse does not necessarily mean "before time" or "before the world began", but could be a foreknowledge closer to the time of these people's actual hearing the gospel, and becoming believers.

From my experience with God/HS, and others', he helps a person on what to say to another person, in the moment, because he knows everyone so well. He can also help avoid certain people or topics, of course for good reasons and intentions.

Could he not see who was "ready" to believe the gospel, and thus "foreknow" them to actually believe it? That seems totally reasonable of an assumption. Foreknowledge before time is not necessarily implied here.

“but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and unspotted—Christ’s— foreknown, indeed, before the foundation of the world, and manifested in the last times because of you,” (1 Peter 1:19–20, YLT)

Foreknowledge of Christ before the foundation of the world also seems very reasonable since God knows what God will do, although God could change his mind or do something another way, e.g. 40 years in wilderness--maybe influenced by intercession, etc. Jesus did ask the Father "if it is possible to remove the cup". Why would he ask if there are no such thing as possibilities in the settled mind of God's complete and exhaustive foreknowledge? Jesus seemed to indicate that at least the possibility of God being able to do something another way is there, although in the case of the crucifixion, probably not.

I personally like to believe that Jesus did NOT have to die--had some other possible paths been different, say: Judas, or John The Baptist, or Adam and Eve, or Fallen Angels Gen 6:1 after Lucifer described in Enoch, or Israel, or Pharisees pride, etc etc etc. I don't know exactly what differences there would need to have been, or what would be possibly different, but I like to think it was actually possible for things to go differently than ending up in Jesus Crucified. I am not hard and fast on this point though.

Again, reading some of the texts is very strained when trying to impose complete and exhaustive foreknowledge.

Also consider the explicit contextual difference between the two uses of the word foreknowledge in 1 Peter. One uses "foreknowledge of God", the other "foreknown before the foundation of the world" which explicitly and seemingly for emphasis adds "before the foundation of the world". That clarifying add-on makes you think they might be different descriptions.

“according as He did choose us in him before the foundation of the world, for our being holy and unblemished before Him, in love, having foreordained us to the adoption of sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,” (Ephesians 1:4–5, YLT)

For this text I can just post a Boyd book Ch 1 quote, since I am not as smart and lazy:

The Predestined Church

In the same way that God predestined and foreknew the death of Jesus without predestining or foreknowing which individuals would condemn him, so God predestined and foreknew the church without predestining or foreknowing which specific individuals would belong to it. A careful examination of the relevant texts supports this interpretation.

For example, when Paul says that God “chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world,” he immediately specifies that this predestination was for us “to be holy and blameless before him in love” (Eph. 1:4). Note, Paul does not say that we were individually predestined to be “in Christ” (or not). Scripture elsewhere tells us that if it were up to God alone, he would save everyone (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9). But it is not up to God alone; God gave humans free will. What Paul says in this verse is that whoever chooses to be “in Christ” is predestined to be “holy and blameless before him in love.” Now that we have chosen to be “in Christ,” we can say with Paul that “we [believers] were predestined to be holy and blameless” before God. Indeed, as a group we were given this grace “in Christ Jesus before the ages began” (2 Tim. 1:9).

Consider this analogy: Suppose you attend a seminar in which a certain video is shown. You might ask the instructor, “When was it decided (predestined) that we’d watch this video?” To which the instructor might respond, “It was decided six months ago that you’d watch this video.” Note that it was not decided six months ago that you individually would watch this video. What was decided was that anyone who took this seminar would watch this video. Now that you have chosen to be part of this seminar, what was predestined for the seminar applies to you. You can now say, “It was decided six months ago that we would watch this video.”

This is what Paul meant when he said that we were predestined in Christ “to be holy and blameless before him in love.” Now that you are a believer who is “in Christ,” what was predestined for all who are “in Christ” is predestined for you.

Is this the only way to interpret Ephesians? No. But interpreting it in this way enables a person to have a more coherent, consistent and less eisegetically OVERALL theology. As well as paint God with the best brush, without compromising the texts. If we interpret this verse to support the Traditional View then we have to impose Complete and Exhaustive Foreknowledge of many texts that imply the opposite.

And, otherwise, you would have to read Peter's exhortation rather strangely:

“For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins. Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.” (2 Peter 1:9–11, NASB95)

I was foreknown to be saved in Christ, and predestined to be holy and blameless, but somehow its possible for me to not get that? strained.

[Homer]

In the same way that God predestined and foreknew the death of Jesus without predestining or foreknowing which individuals would condemn him,

If God did not know which individuals would condemn and crucify Jesus, how could He know that any would? That sounds like God is just a very good guesser.

[njd83]

I guess one could think of it as a logical conclusion to a set course of history set in motion, by say for example, the Devil's rebellion, Adam and Eve Fall...

... but Free Will would indicate it did not have to go this way...

…and also God knowing what He would and would not allow--- "the Devil is on a leash" so to speak--knowing His self sacrifice as his example to save those who don't want the rebellion.

Knowing "where this leads" does not mean "knowing every detail on the way".

A murderer setting in motion his plot to kill someone does not mean he will necessarily stop by a McDonald's or a Taco Bell on the way. Or he could change his mind and go for one last Wendy's....

…sorry to be morbid but the Devil is very morbid and we are talking about the course of history set in motion by the Devil's rebellion.

Remember God can see the pattern of rebellion in Israel setting up over time... the hardness of their hearts before and while he is in Judea.

Jesus stopped being straightforward about the gospel in Matthew 12-13 when the Pharisees blasphemed the HS, and starting using parables. He hoped clear teaching would be accepted, but he started using parables to still snatch those who truly want God, from the Devil, and leave blind the minds of the unbelieving. Remember the blasphemy of the HS is the only sin that cannot be forgiven. So it would be a pretty serious issue for Jesus when they did that, and for him to say its unforgivable.

Also things like Jesus being stuck in the side, God could literally use any roman solider to do that, would not have to be a particular Joe Shmoe. I do ascribe Sovereign powers to God, just that he does not use them ALL the time because he literally chose to create Free Will which is a choice AGAINST all control, etc.

[njd83]

Sorry for walls of text.

You quoted a section of Boyd's book that had a contextual section right before it. Here is the section right before the quote:

In the same way that God predestined and foreknew the death of Jesus without predestining or foreknowing which individuals would condemn him,

Ch 1 Boyd

Ordaining National Boundaries

This is also how we should understand Paul’s teaching that God “made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live” (Acts 17:26). This is part of the structural outline of God’s plan for world history. These providential parameters certainly condition the scope of human freedom, but they do not eliminate it—just as our genes and environment condition our individual freedom without eliminating it.

Paul himself says that God establishes these national parameters with the hope “that they [the nations] would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him” (Acts 17:27). There is ordained structure balanced by freedom. God determines whatever he sees fit and leaves as much of the future open to possibilities as he sees fit. The God of the possible creates the “Choose Your Own Adventure” structure of world history and of our lives within which the possibilities of human free choice are actualized.


The Openness of Biblical Prophecy

One other aspect of the parameters that God establishes around nations, cities, and individuals needs to be mentioned. Scripture demonstrates that these parameters are often flexible. As we will explore more fully in the next chapter, the Lord tells us that even after he has prophesied for or against a nation, he will “change [his] mind” if the nation changes (Jer. 18:1–12). We find many examples of this “changing” occurring at national and individual levels. Thus, even when the Lord announces that some aspect of the future is settled, it may still be alterable. The “settledness” may be conditioned on unsettled factors, such as decisions we make.

What this shows us is that not only is part of the future open, but also some aspects of the future that God has announced as settled are to some extent open. God’s mind can yet be changed, a biblical truth that is difficult to square with the classical view of divine foreknowledge.


Predestined Event with Non-Predestined Players

Since God determines whatever he wants to about world history, we should not find it surprising that the central defining event in world history—the crucifixion—included a number of predestined aspects. It seems that the incarnation and crucifixion were part of God’s plan from “before the foundation of the world” (1 Peter 1:20; cf. Rev. 13:8). Hence, Scripture makes it clear that Jesus was not crucified by accident. Rather, he was delivered up and crucified “according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23; see also 4:28).

While Scripture portrays the crucifixion as a predestined event, it never suggests that the individuals who participated in this event were predestined to do so or foreknown as doing so. It was certain that Jesus would be crucified, but it was not certain from eternity that Pilot, Herod, or Caiaphas would play the roles they played in the crucifixion. They participated in Christ’s death of their own free wills.

Freedom and Determinism in Science and Life

Some scholars have argued that it is not possible for God to predestine an event without predestining or at least foreknowing the people who would carry out the event. There is no justification for limiting God in this fashion, however. Indeed, many branches of contemporary science are founded on the idea that things can be somewhat predictable while incorporating unpredictable elements.

For example, contemporary physics has taught us that we can accurately predict the general behavior of a group of quantum particles, but not the exact behavior of any individual particle. Chaos theory also has taught us that all predictable aspects of reality incorporate unpredictable aspects. This balance between predictable and unpredictable aspects of reality is illustrated in many areas of our everyday lives. For example, though insurance and advertising agencies make money by utilizing statistics to predict general group behavior, they are still incapable of predicting individual behavior. They have learned how to capitalize on what social scientists and anthropologists have been telling us for some time—namely, that group behavior is far more predictable than individual behavior. We can, for example, accurately predict that between 7 and 8 percent of fourteen-year-olds will take up smoking this year. But we cannot tell which individuals will comprise this 7 to 8 percent.

In this light, it should not be difficult to understand how God could predestine the crucifixion without predestining or foreknowing who, specifically, would carry it out. To put the matter crudely, God would simply have to possess a perfect version of what insurance and advertising agencies possess. He would have to know that a certain percentage of people (and perhaps fallen angels, see Luke 22:3; John 13:27; 1 Cor. 2:8) in authoritative positions would act in certain ways under certain circumstances.

Thanks for playing the Devil's advocate, so to speak.

Also, if Free Will is a huge deal for a person, a believer specifically, then they would be willing to look at all these texts in the context of the Open View to reassess and ponder whether it makes sense. Free Will is a huge deal to me.