Does God Know From All Eternity Who Will Die Having Rejected Sound Doctrine?

[posthuman]

You evaded the question.

it was a question that had already been answered before it was asked.

 

[posthuman]

Where did I use the term or say that God is "finitely temporal"? Eternity (aeternitas in latin) as used by theologians, means that which is outside of any framework that includes time, that which does not experience the passage of time.

if God only exists within time, He is bounded by time, hence temporal, and He is less than time, hence for discrete time, finite, having cardinality < |N|

your argument for a God with lack of knowledge has been that He can only observe mankind in the present and make short term predictions about our actions and thoughts by interpreting our synapses as they occur.

not unlike someone with an MRI and a little neuroscience education:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/int...g/202012/our-brains-make-our-minds-we-know-it

 

[BeeBlessed]

This passage has always been used, inappropriately and out of context, to prove Calvinism. Let's take a look once again.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

What was chosen before the foundation of the world were the spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ. In Christ is the key. The entire chapter are the things found in him, in Christ, in the beloved. The word, "according" takes us back to verse 3 to the context. However, it does not say that he chose us to be in him, as Calvinist somehow think it states.

Scripture clearly teaches us that we, as a people who believe and trust in the LORD, were known by Him and chosen by Him even before the first flesh man was created. Furthermore, the scripture was Holy Spirit inspired and written for us long before the existence of the doctrine of Calvinism. I am certainly not a Calvinist. Spiritual blessings come with our spiritual rebirth, but Ephesians 1:4 cannot be twisted to say anything other than “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.” Why? He has a purpose for us, “that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,” and carry that message of love to the lost. Please don’t try to pigeonhole believers into doctrinal categories.

 

[notmyown]

If by claiming that John Calvin were a Roman Catholic, you are entitled to dismiss his statement as invalid, then yes. Normally, an argument is considered to be ‘ad hominem’ if it is about your adversary in the debate rather than about a third party.

thank you for helping me!

 

[notmyown]

please excuse a small bit of nerding

may i be allowed to do the same with grammar?

in Jn 3:16, the word so is an adverb of manner, not of degree.

i'm a word nerd. er, a werd nerd. or a word nord? bah!

 

[John146]

Scripture clearly teaches us that we, as a people who believe and trust in the LORD, were known by Him and chosen by Him even before the first flesh man was created. Furthermore, the scripture was Holy Spirit inspired and written for us long before the existence of the doctrine of Calvinism. I am certainly not a Calvinist. Spiritual blessings come with our spiritual rebirth, but Ephesians 1:4 cannot be twisted to say anything other than “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.” Why? He has a purpose for us, “that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,” and carry that message of love to the lost. Please don’t try to pigeonhole believers into doctrinal categories.

Scripture is clear, the spiritual blessings would come through Christ. If you want to get in on those blessings, you better get into Christ through the gospel.

You leave out the important word, "according." This takes the context back to what was previously said. Note, it does not say, he chose us to be in him before the foundation of the world. We were not chosen to be in Christ, but those who are in Christ would receive the blessings and be holy and without blame.

Please don't add to scripture to fit a certain man made theology.

 

[John146]

If by claiming that John Calvin were a Roman Catholic, you are entitled to dismiss his statement as invalid, then yes. Normally, an argument is considered to be ‘ad hominem’ if it is about your adversary in the debate rather than about a third party.

John Calvin was a Roman Catholic priest who believed in baby sprinkling and murdered people who disagreed with him. Follow him if you want.

 

[Dino246]

John Calvin was a Roman Catholic priest who believed in baby sprinkling and murdered people who disagreed with him. Follow him if you want.

Did I say anything about Calvin? No. Don’t be a twit.

 

[John146]

Did I say anything about Calvin? No. Don’t be a twit.

"If by claiming John Calvin was a Roman Catholic...." Yep, you did. But that's ok, God elected me to be a twit...whatever that is.

 

[notmyown]

"If by claiming John Calvin was a Roman Catholic...." Yep, you did. But that's ok, God elected me to be a twit...whatever that is.

Dino was just helping me understand what an ad hominem argument is. if you want to take someone to task over it, it should be me.

 

[John146]

Dino was just helping me understand what an ad hominem argument is. if you want to take someone to task over it, it should be me.

I understand, but so many on here follow Calvin's false teachings. It has crept into most seminaries and now infiltrates many churches.

 

[Cameron143]

may i be allowed to do the same with grammar?

in Jn 3:16, the word so is an adverb of manner, not of degree.

i'm a word nerd. er, a werd nerd. or a word nord? bah!

You are a nerd legend.

 

[notmyown]

I understand, but so many on here follow Calvin's false teachings. It has crept into most seminaries and now infiltrates many churches.

do you think so? i won't throw my so-called Calvinist brothers and sisters under the bus, you know, any more than i'd be willing to throw so-called Arminian brothers and sisters under the bus.

God is quite able to save, and to bring understanding.

i'm very fond of you, i hope you know.

 

[notmyown]

You are a nerd legend.

in my own mind, anyway lol

 

[John146]

do you think so? i won't throw my so-called Calvinist brothers and sisters under the bus, you know, any more than i'd be willing to throw so-called Arminian brothers and sisters under the bus.

God is quite able to save, and to bring understanding.

i'm very fond of you, i hope you know.

True, I hate labels. I am neither a Calvinist nor Arminian. Blessings to you.

 

[Dino246]

"If by claiming John Calvin was a Roman Catholic...." Yep, you did. But that's ok, God elected me to be a twit...whatever that is.

Wow… you are really digging. The post you quoted was a response to a question another contributor asked me, not any part of my post to you. So try again.

How about addressing my post to you instead of throwing irrelevant ad hominem attacks.

 

[PaulThomson]

if God only exists within time, He is bounded by time, hence temporal, and He is less than time, hence for discrete time, finite, having cardinality < |N|

your argument for a God with lack of knowledge has been that He can only observe mankind in the present and make short term predictions about our actions and thoughts by interpreting our synapses as they occur.

not unlike someone with an MRI and a little neuroscience education:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/int...g/202012/our-brains-make-our-minds-we-know-it

God exists with holiness, with goodness, with lovingkindness, and many other attributes. Is he bound by these and therefore less than these in any way? Temporality is an attribute of God that impinges on His creation, like any other of His attributes.

Another straw man from you? I have nowhere said anything that corresponds with your charge that "your argument for a God with lack of knowledge has been that He can only observe mankind in the present and make short term predictions about our actions and thoughts by interpreting our synapses as they occur."

God is omnipotent. That means He can predict anything He wants to at any time in history and make it happen at any time later in hstory by limiting creatures actions, without controlling their desires/will, to channel history toward the fulfilment of those predictions. He does not need exhaustive foreknowledge to do that. Why do you think he would need exhaustive foreknowledge to do that?

I was also making the point that God does not need exhaustive foreknowkedge to interpret my present brain activity as I prepare to speak and know by that activity what I am about to say before I say it.

And I am also making the point that infinite/unlimited/uncountable knowledge and understanding do not require knowledge of the future, since knowledge of the everlasting past and the present is already infinite, since it reaches back limitlessly into the past. But that infinite knowledge can also be added to as the present changes and life proceeds forward in time.

None of these concepts are difficult to grasp. Admitting them to be reasonable would remove your grounds for insisting that God must have exhaustive eternal unchanging foreknowledge. And that is probably why you are having trouble grasping them.

 

[PaulThomson]

it was a question that had already been answered before it was asked.

Could you please provide a link to what you believe was your already given answer?

 

[PaulThomson]

No. Eternity has a latin root which means without time. Infinite also has a latin root, but means without a finish/end. An eternal God would exist without experiencing time in His usual dimension of existence. He would be timeless.
An infinite God has no limits to the capacity of His attributes and uncountable content with those attributes, but He does exist within time, He is from everlasting to everlasting. Despite an infinity being boundless and uncountable, it can be added to. We can add to the infinite set of even numbers. We can add 2.4,6 and 8, and the new extended set will also be infinite and still able to receive new content. God's knowledge of the past and present is infinite/uncountable, but can be added to as he observes new presents happening, God's intellect is infinite. It has no limit to the amount of knowledge it can contain. But it is being added to daily as the world and free will decisions of creature become known. The idea that God must know all things that will ever be and cannot change by adding knowledge is a philosophical conclusion of the Greek thinkers our culture has followed. But the reasoning by which they get to that conclusion is flawed and unbiblical.
I believe in the infinity of God's attributes, that they cannot be measured or their content counted, just as the set of odd numbers cannot be measured or counted . But I believe the notion of God's eternity is foreign to the Hebrew, Greek and Chaldee received biblical text ut was imported into the Bible by Platonism-infected church theologians, and is readily but incorrectly accepted from them by many of today's platonised christians who also read it into the scriptures.

The bold type should have said "We can add to the infinite set of odd numbers. We can add 2.4,6 and 8, and the new extended set will also be infinite and still able to receive new content.

 

[posthuman]

God exists with holiness, with goodness, with lovingkindness, and many other attributes. Is he bound by these and therefore less than these in any way? Temporality is an attribute of God that impinges on His creation, like any other of His attributes.

non sequitor.

time is a physical property, not a spiritual property.