Who is “He”, Who is “Us”, and Who is “Him”, in Ephesians 1:4?
- Thread starter MerSee
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Omniscience, in the context of God, refers to His perfect and complete knowledge of all things that are knowable. This includes all actual truths about the past, present, and future, as well as all potentialities. It's crucial to differentiate between what is logically possible and what is logically impossible. God's knowledge encompasses all realities, but logical impossibilities (such as a square circle or minnow swallowing a whale) are not realities or truths to be known; they are contradictions and thus, outside the realm of knowledge itself.
Some added Notes:
2 Corinthians 3:18 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.
But we all, with open face: The phrase "with open face" translates from the Greek "ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ προσώπῳ" (anakekalymmenō prosōpō), which more literally means "with unveiled face." This imagery of unveiling refers back to the previous verses where Paul discusses Moses veiling his face to hide the fading glory of the God. In contrast, Christians can boldly approach God without a veil, signifying direct and open access to God's presence.
beholding as in a glass: The phrase "as in a glass" comes from the Greek "ἐν ἐσόπτρῳ" (en esoptrō), referring to looking as in a mirror. Ancient mirrors were often made of polished metal and required careful observation to see a clear reflection. This metaphor suggests contemplating or reflecting upon something with intent to understand or perceive clearly.
the glory of the Lord: "Glory" in Greek is "δόξαν" (doxan), denoting splendor, brightness, or majesty that belongs to God. "Lord" translates from "Κυρίου" (Kyriou), referring to the Lord Jesus Christ in the context of Christian scripture. Together, "the glory of the Lord" points to the divine majesty and presence of Christ that believers reflect on and are transformed by.
are changed: The Greek word for "changed" is "μεταμορφούμεθα" (metamorphoumetha), from which we derive the English word "metamorphosis." It means to transform or transfigure. This term indicates a profound and fundamental change, similar to the transfiguration of Christ, where His divine glory was visibly manifested.
into the same image: "Image" translates from "εἰκόνα" (eikona), implying likeness or representation. This concept suggests that believers are being transformed to resemble more closely the character and essence of Christ.
from glory to glory: This phrase "ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν" (apo doxēs eis doxan) suggests a progressive transformation from one degree of glory to a higher degree, indicating continual spiritual growth and increased likeness to Christ.
even as by the Spirit of the Lord: The final phrase underscores that this transformation is "καθάπερ ἀπὸ Κυρίου Πνεύματος" (kathaper apo Kyriou Pneumatos), which means it is accomplished by or through the Lord's Spirit. It highlights the role of the Holy Spirit in the believer's transformation.
2 Corinthians 3:18 describes a profound spiritual transformation that believers undergo as they contemplate the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ. This transformation, likened to viewing one's reflection in a mirror, involves a progressive change into Christ's likeness, empowered and actualized by the Holy Spirit. This verse encapsulates the Christian journey of sanctification, where believers grow in holiness and godliness through the work of the Spirit.
2 Corinthians 3:18 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.
But we all, with open face: The phrase "with open face" translates from the Greek "ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ προσώπῳ" (anakekalymmenō prosōpō), which more literally means "with unveiled face." This imagery of unveiling refers back to the previous verses where Paul discusses Moses veiling his face to hide the fading glory of the God. In contrast, Christians can boldly approach God without a veil, signifying direct and open access to God's presence.
beholding as in a glass: The phrase "as in a glass" comes from the Greek "ἐν ἐσόπτρῳ" (en esoptrō), referring to looking as in a mirror. Ancient mirrors were often made of polished metal and required careful observation to see a clear reflection. This metaphor suggests contemplating or reflecting upon something with intent to understand or perceive clearly.
the glory of the Lord: "Glory" in Greek is "δόξαν" (doxan), denoting splendor, brightness, or majesty that belongs to God. "Lord" translates from "Κυρίου" (Kyriou), referring to the Lord Jesus Christ in the context of Christian scripture. Together, "the glory of the Lord" points to the divine majesty and presence of Christ that believers reflect on and are transformed by.
are changed: The Greek word for "changed" is "μεταμορφούμεθα" (metamorphoumetha), from which we derive the English word "metamorphosis." It means to transform or transfigure. This term indicates a profound and fundamental change, similar to the transfiguration of Christ, where His divine glory was visibly manifested.
into the same image: "Image" translates from "εἰκόνα" (eikona), implying likeness or representation. This concept suggests that believers are being transformed to resemble more closely the character and essence of Christ.
from glory to glory: This phrase "ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν" (apo doxēs eis doxan) suggests a progressive transformation from one degree of glory to a higher degree, indicating continual spiritual growth and increased likeness to Christ.
even as by the Spirit of the Lord: The final phrase underscores that this transformation is "καθάπερ ἀπὸ Κυρίου Πνεύματος" (kathaper apo Kyriou Pneumatos), which means it is accomplished by or through the Lord's Spirit. It highlights the role of the Holy Spirit in the believer's transformation.
2 Corinthians 3:18 describes a profound spiritual transformation that believers undergo as they contemplate the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ. This transformation, likened to viewing one's reflection in a mirror, involves a progressive change into Christ's likeness, empowered and actualized by the Holy Spirit. This verse encapsulates the Christian journey of sanctification, where believers grow in holiness and godliness through the work of the Spirit.
ο δε κυριος το πνευμα εστιν ου δε το πνευμα κυριου εκει ελευθερια
ημεις δε παντες ανακεκαλυμμενω προσωπω την δοξαν κυριου κατοπτριζομενοι την αυτην εικονα μεταμορφουμεθα απο δοξης εις δοξαν καθαπερ απο
All
Contrasted with Moses as the sole representative of the people.
Open (ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ)
Rev., correctly, unveiled, as Moses when the veil was removed.
“Vainly they tried the deeps to sound
E'en of their own prophetic thought,
When of Christ crucified and crown'd
His Spirit in them taught:
But He their aching gaze repress'd
Which sought behind the veil to see,
For not without us fully bless'd
Or perfect might they be.
The rays of the Almighty's face
No sinner's eye might then receive
Only the meekest man found grace
To see His skirts and live.
But we as in a glass espy
The glory of His countenance,
Not in a whirlwind hurrying by
The too presumptuous glance,
But with mild radiance every hour
From our dear Savior's face benign
Bent on us with transforming power,
Till we, too, faintly shine.
Sprinkled with His atoning blood
Safely before our God we stand,
As on the rock the prophet stood,
Beneath His shadowing hand.”
Keble, “Christian Year,” Thirteenth Sunday after Trinity.
Beholding as in a glass (κατοπτριζόμενοι)
So American Rev. Rev., reflecting. Only here in the New Testament. The verb in the active voice means to show in a mirror; to cause to be reflected. In the middle voice, to took at or behold one's self in a mirror. Rev., reflecting seems to be preferred on internal grounds, as better suiting the comparison with the divine glory as mirrored in the unveiled face of Moses.
But this is unwarranted by usage. Stanley, who adopts this rendering, admits that there is no actual instance of the sense of reflecting. This sense, however, is not sacrificed by the translation beholding, but is conveyed by the succeeding clause, changed into the same image, etc. As Heinrici observes, beholding expresses the fact from which the process of change into God's image proceeds. When Moses beheld Jehovah's glory, his own face reflected that glory. The mirror is the Gospel, which is called the Gospel of the glory of Christ, 2Co_4:4.
Are changed (μεταμορφούμεθα)
Rev., transformed. See on Mat_17:2. The present tense expresses the change as in progress; are being changed, which is further defined by from glory to glory.
The same image (τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα)
See on Rev_13:14. Compare especially 1Jn_3:2; also Rom_8:29; Joh_17:24; Col_3:4; Rom_8:17; 1Co_15:48-53.
By the Spirit of the Lord (ἀπὸ Κυρίου πνεύματος)
Better, as Rev., from the Lord the Spirit. Compare 2Co_3:17. The preposition ἀπό from depicts the transformation as proceeding from rather than as caused by.
VWS
"with unveiled face" This is a perfect passive participle implying a permanent unveiling. Also note the inclusive "we all" referring to the believers in the confused and factious Corinthian church.
"beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord" The gospel has fully revealed both YHWH and Jesus of Nazareth (cf. 2 Cor. 4:6). As we respond in repentance and faith the revelation changes us into His image. This same metaphor is found in 2 Cor. 4:4. These Corinthian Christians had clearly seen God in Christ through the gospel.
The term "beholding" is a rare term. The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker lists the possible uses based on the voice (p. 424).
1. Active, produce a reflection
2. Passive, what is seen in a mirror
3. Middle, look at oneself in a mirror
"are being transformed" This is a present passive indicative. All of the verbals in this context are passive voice, implying God's activity on our behalf, transforming believers into Christ's likeness (cf. Rom. 12:2). This same verb is used of the Transfiguration (cf. Matt. 17:2; Mark 9:2). We get the English word metamorphosis from this Greek term.
"into the same image" Jesus is the image of God (cf. 2 Cor. 4:4; John 1:14-18; 14:9; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3). Humans were created in the image of God (cf. Gen. 1:26-27). Believers are in the image of Christ (cf. Rom. 8:29-30). Christlikeness is God's primary goal for all believers (cf. Gal. 4:19; Eph. 1:4).
"from glory to glory" There are stages in God's plan of restoration and renewal. Believers are in a process that leads to Christlikeness (cf. 1 John 3:2).
I appreciate your contribution @tylerbones1313
J.
ημεις δε παντες ανακεκαλυμμενω προσωπω την δοξαν κυριου κατοπτριζομενοι την αυτην εικονα μεταμορφουμεθα απο δοξης εις δοξαν καθαπερ απο
All
Contrasted with Moses as the sole representative of the people.
Open (ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ)
Rev., correctly, unveiled, as Moses when the veil was removed.
“Vainly they tried the deeps to sound
E'en of their own prophetic thought,
When of Christ crucified and crown'd
His Spirit in them taught:
But He their aching gaze repress'd
Which sought behind the veil to see,
For not without us fully bless'd
Or perfect might they be.
The rays of the Almighty's face
No sinner's eye might then receive
Only the meekest man found grace
To see His skirts and live.
But we as in a glass espy
The glory of His countenance,
Not in a whirlwind hurrying by
The too presumptuous glance,
But with mild radiance every hour
From our dear Savior's face benign
Bent on us with transforming power,
Till we, too, faintly shine.
Sprinkled with His atoning blood
Safely before our God we stand,
As on the rock the prophet stood,
Beneath His shadowing hand.”
Keble, “Christian Year,” Thirteenth Sunday after Trinity.
Beholding as in a glass (κατοπτριζόμενοι)
So American Rev. Rev., reflecting. Only here in the New Testament. The verb in the active voice means to show in a mirror; to cause to be reflected. In the middle voice, to took at or behold one's self in a mirror. Rev., reflecting seems to be preferred on internal grounds, as better suiting the comparison with the divine glory as mirrored in the unveiled face of Moses.
But this is unwarranted by usage. Stanley, who adopts this rendering, admits that there is no actual instance of the sense of reflecting. This sense, however, is not sacrificed by the translation beholding, but is conveyed by the succeeding clause, changed into the same image, etc. As Heinrici observes, beholding expresses the fact from which the process of change into God's image proceeds. When Moses beheld Jehovah's glory, his own face reflected that glory. The mirror is the Gospel, which is called the Gospel of the glory of Christ, 2Co_4:4.
Are changed (μεταμορφούμεθα)
Rev., transformed. See on Mat_17:2. The present tense expresses the change as in progress; are being changed, which is further defined by from glory to glory.
The same image (τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα)
See on Rev_13:14. Compare especially 1Jn_3:2; also Rom_8:29; Joh_17:24; Col_3:4; Rom_8:17; 1Co_15:48-53.
By the Spirit of the Lord (ἀπὸ Κυρίου πνεύματος)
Better, as Rev., from the Lord the Spirit. Compare 2Co_3:17. The preposition ἀπό from depicts the transformation as proceeding from rather than as caused by.
VWS
"with unveiled face" This is a perfect passive participle implying a permanent unveiling. Also note the inclusive "we all" referring to the believers in the confused and factious Corinthian church.
"beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord" The gospel has fully revealed both YHWH and Jesus of Nazareth (cf. 2 Cor. 4:6). As we respond in repentance and faith the revelation changes us into His image. This same metaphor is found in 2 Cor. 4:4. These Corinthian Christians had clearly seen God in Christ through the gospel.
The term "beholding" is a rare term. The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker lists the possible uses based on the voice (p. 424).
1. Active, produce a reflection
2. Passive, what is seen in a mirror
3. Middle, look at oneself in a mirror
"are being transformed" This is a present passive indicative. All of the verbals in this context are passive voice, implying God's activity on our behalf, transforming believers into Christ's likeness (cf. Rom. 12:2). This same verb is used of the Transfiguration (cf. Matt. 17:2; Mark 9:2). We get the English word metamorphosis from this Greek term.
"into the same image" Jesus is the image of God (cf. 2 Cor. 4:4; John 1:14-18; 14:9; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3). Humans were created in the image of God (cf. Gen. 1:26-27). Believers are in the image of Christ (cf. Rom. 8:29-30). Christlikeness is God's primary goal for all believers (cf. Gal. 4:19; Eph. 1:4).
"from glory to glory" There are stages in God's plan of restoration and renewal. Believers are in a process that leads to Christlikeness (cf. 1 John 3:2).
I appreciate your contribution @tylerbones1313
J.
PaulThomson said:
These texts do only refer to certain things that God knows. They do not assert a blanket divine knowledge of every imaginable thing. Maybe you have other verses that say he knows all the future.
Nonsense. God does not have to meet man-made criteria to be God. If God doesn't make knowledge of the future a pre-requisite for deity, men can't demand that of Hom for Him to be God.
There is a lot more to an end that God declares from the beginning than just the end. Many people can predict an end result of something and see it come to pass as predicted. That doesn't mean they knew every detail that would occur throughout the universe between the time they predicted the end to the time it was fulfilled. And God predicting an event in 2000 BC does not mean He knew it from 4000 BC. We need to acknowledge the limits that a particular text ascribes to God and not inflate what is said just to make the text fit an extra-biblical philosophical theory on the nature of God.
All we know of God's counsel is what He has revealed to us of it. We are not told that everything that happens is God's counsel.
This is about God watching David being formed in his mother's body and God recording all the details as they happened. It is not about God having all the days of David's life already foreknown before he became a zygote.
Intending a good future for people is a far cry from foreknowing every day of their future.
WE can agree that these verses do not negate our free will. The Bible does not portray God as existing outside of time, with a complete understanding of the past, present, and future. None of your suggested texts portray God that way. Yes, God has a plan and purpose for humanity, and although He will achieve the END He has purposed, the WAY it unfolds to reach that end depends on human choices and actions.
These texts do only refer to certain things that God knows. They do not assert a blanket divine knowledge of every imaginable thing. Maybe you have other verses that say he knows all the future.
Nonsense. God does not have to meet man-made criteria to be God. If God doesn't make knowledge of the future a pre-requisite for deity, men can't demand that of Hom for Him to be God.
There is a lot more to an end that God declares from the beginning than just the end. Many people can predict an end result of something and see it come to pass as predicted. That doesn't mean they knew every detail that would occur throughout the universe between the time they predicted the end to the time it was fulfilled. And God predicting an event in 2000 BC does not mean He knew it from 4000 BC. We need to acknowledge the limits that a particular text ascribes to God and not inflate what is said just to make the text fit an extra-biblical philosophical theory on the nature of God.
All we know of God's counsel is what He has revealed to us of it. We are not told that everything that happens is God's counsel.
This is about God watching David being formed in his mother's body and God recording all the details as they happened. It is not about God having all the days of David's life already foreknown before he became a zygote.
Intending a good future for people is a far cry from foreknowing every day of their future.
WE can agree that these verses do not negate our free will. The Bible does not portray God as existing outside of time, with a complete understanding of the past, present, and future. None of your suggested texts portray God that way. Yes, God has a plan and purpose for humanity, and although He will achieve the END He has purposed, the WAY it unfolds to reach that end depends on human choices and actions.
Christians know that how they treat Christians is how they are treating Jesus. These sheep do not know that when they helped persecuted Christians, they were serving Jesus. These seem to be unbelievers who disagree with the antichrist rounding up and exterminating Christians. They seem to be given entry into the millennial reign as members of the nations the saints rule over.
-
1
- Show all
At least we agree regarding God not knowing logical impossibilities. Some saints think God can anticipate possible future states, but consider that the future that eventuates is presently unrealised and therefore impossible to know as real and with certainty, and therefore is not something God knows unless He intends to make it happen by employing His omnipotence.
That the present becomes the past, and keeps being replaced by new presents is a fact that God knows. But the content of the unrealised future is not yet real, and is therefore not knowable, except for specific events that God determines to make happen by exercising His omnipotence to direct the course of events toward those predicted outcomes.
That the present becomes the past, and keeps being replaced by new presents is a fact that God knows. But the content of the unrealised future is not yet real, and is therefore not knowable, except for specific events that God determines to make happen by exercising His omnipotence to direct the course of events toward those predicted outcomes.
First, they are sheep.
Second, they are blessed of the Father.
Third, they are given an inheritance.
Fourth, the Son of man coming in glory with the angels sitting and gathering all nations.
That they didn't realize it was to Him just means they didn't let their right hand know what their left hand was doing. What you offer is merely conjecture and assumed because of your understanding of eschatology.
Second, they are blessed of the Father.
Third, they are given an inheritance.
Fourth, the Son of man coming in glory with the angels sitting and gathering all nations.
That they didn't realize it was to Him just means they didn't let their right hand know what their left hand was doing. What you offer is merely conjecture and assumed because of your understanding of eschatology.
You are in error if you hold to open theism @PaulThomson
open theism
A movement emerging from within evangelicalism that denies the historic Christian view of God’s omniscience, teaching instead that God does not know the future exhaustively, since he cannot know for certain the choices and actions of free creatures until the choices are made and the actions are done in time; the future, then, is not certain, but “open,” for both God and his creatures; also called free will theism, open theology, or openness of God theology.
Scripture that disproves open theism:
16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.
17 How precious to me are your thoughts, O God!
How vast is the sum of them!
18 If I would count them, they are more than the sand.
I awake, and I am still with you. (Psalm 139:16-18 ESV)
In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will…. (Ephesians 1:11 ESV)
Belgic Confession, Article 13:
We believe that this good God, after he created all things, did not abandon them to chance or fortune but leads and governs them according to his holy will, in such a way that nothing happens in this world without his orderly arrangement.
Yet God is not the author of, nor can he be charged with, the sin that occurs. For his power and goodness are so great and incomprehensible that he arranges and does his work very well and justly even when the devils and wicked men act unjustly.
We do not wish to inquire with undue curiosity into what he does that surpasses human understanding and is beyond our ability to comprehend. But in all humility and reverence we adore the just judgments of God, which are hidden from us, being content to be Christ’s disciples, so as to learn only what he shows us in his Word, without going beyond those limits.
This doctrine gives us unspeakable comfort since it teaches us that nothing can happen to us by chance but only by the arrangement of our gracious heavenly Father. He watches over us with fatherly care, keeping all creatures under his control, so that not one of the hairs on our heads (for they are all numbered) nor even a little bird can fall to the ground without the will of our Father.
In this thought we rest, knowing that he holds in check the devils and all our enemies, who cannot hurt us without his permission and will.
From Their God Is Too Small by Bruce Ware:
[T]he very greatness, goodness, and glory of God are undermined by the open view of God. While the open view tries to understand God as more “relational” and “really involved” in human affairs, the way it does so is by portraying God as less than he truly is. Of the open view we cannot help but say, “Their God is too small!”
Think about it. Here we have a God who has to wait, in so many, many cases, to see what we will do before he can decide his own course of action. While this is a very natural way to think of human choice and action, does this rightly apply to the God of the Bible? The true and living God of the Bible proclaims, “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose’” (Isa. 46:9b-10).
Surely such a majestic God stands high and exalted and far above the proposed God of the open view. The Bible’s abundant prophecies, most of which involve innumerable future free human choices and actions, should be enough by themselves to indicate that the true God does not have to wait to see what we do before he makes up his mind.
If God doesn’t know what we will do before we do it, how could Christ, for example, warn Peter that before the rooster crowed, Peter would deny him three times (John 13:38)? Was this a good guess on Jesus’ part? Hardly! Recall that just a few verses earlier in John 13 Jesus had told the disciples that he would begin telling them things before they take place so that when they occur, “you may believe that I am he” (John 13:19). God knows in advance what we will do, and he can, when he wishes, declare it to us as evidence of his very deity. The open view brings God down, pure and simple. It tries to give more significance to human choice and action at the expense of the very greatness and glory of God. The God of open theism is too small, simply because he is less than the majestic, fully knowing, altogether wise God of the Bible.
And many, many more Scriptures I can give you-God knows the END from the BEGINNING-
מגיד מראשׁית אחרית ומקדם אשׁר לא־נעשׂו אמר עצתי תקום וכל־חפצי אעשׂה׃
קרא ממזרח עיט מארץ מרחק אישׁ עצתו אף־דברתי אף־אביאנה יצרתי אף־אעשׂנה׃
Isa 46:10 Making known acharim (end-times things) from reshit (the beginning), and mikedem (from ancient times) the things that have not yet happened, saying, My etza (counsel, purpose, plan) shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure;
LXX
Isa 46:10 announcing formerly the last things before their taking place, and are completed. And I said, All my counsel will stand, and all as much as I have planned I will do;
1. This passage is apparently addressed to the transgressors of Judah, who have forsaken their God and are called upon to admit their transgression, (vs. 8; Isa_50:1; Isa_57:3-6).
2. Remembrance of His faithfullness, in times past, should awaken their confidence in His supreme ability to bring them safely through the impending crises - the Babylonian Captivity, (vs. 9).
3. From ancient times He has worked all things according to the counsel of His own perfect will - even foretelling precisely what He would do, (vs. 10; Deu_32:7-12).
a. What He purposes, He always performs, (Isa_14:24; Isa_25:1; Isa_40:8; Psa_33:11; Pro_19:21; Act_4:27-28).
b. He is able to fulfill all His good pleasure, (Eph_1:11-12; Eph_3:20-21; Rom_9:11; Heb_6:17-20).
c. So certain is God to carry out His plan that He "calleth those things that be not as though they were" - though the actual fulfillment may await the passing of centuries! (Rom_4:17).
J.
open theism
A movement emerging from within evangelicalism that denies the historic Christian view of God’s omniscience, teaching instead that God does not know the future exhaustively, since he cannot know for certain the choices and actions of free creatures until the choices are made and the actions are done in time; the future, then, is not certain, but “open,” for both God and his creatures; also called free will theism, open theology, or openness of God theology.
Scripture that disproves open theism:
16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.
17 How precious to me are your thoughts, O God!
How vast is the sum of them!
18 If I would count them, they are more than the sand.
I awake, and I am still with you. (Psalm 139:16-18 ESV)
In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will…. (Ephesians 1:11 ESV)
Belgic Confession, Article 13:
We believe that this good God, after he created all things, did not abandon them to chance or fortune but leads and governs them according to his holy will, in such a way that nothing happens in this world without his orderly arrangement.
Yet God is not the author of, nor can he be charged with, the sin that occurs. For his power and goodness are so great and incomprehensible that he arranges and does his work very well and justly even when the devils and wicked men act unjustly.
We do not wish to inquire with undue curiosity into what he does that surpasses human understanding and is beyond our ability to comprehend. But in all humility and reverence we adore the just judgments of God, which are hidden from us, being content to be Christ’s disciples, so as to learn only what he shows us in his Word, without going beyond those limits.
This doctrine gives us unspeakable comfort since it teaches us that nothing can happen to us by chance but only by the arrangement of our gracious heavenly Father. He watches over us with fatherly care, keeping all creatures under his control, so that not one of the hairs on our heads (for they are all numbered) nor even a little bird can fall to the ground without the will of our Father.
In this thought we rest, knowing that he holds in check the devils and all our enemies, who cannot hurt us without his permission and will.
From Their God Is Too Small by Bruce Ware:
[T]he very greatness, goodness, and glory of God are undermined by the open view of God. While the open view tries to understand God as more “relational” and “really involved” in human affairs, the way it does so is by portraying God as less than he truly is. Of the open view we cannot help but say, “Their God is too small!”
Think about it. Here we have a God who has to wait, in so many, many cases, to see what we will do before he can decide his own course of action. While this is a very natural way to think of human choice and action, does this rightly apply to the God of the Bible? The true and living God of the Bible proclaims, “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose’” (Isa. 46:9b-10).
Surely such a majestic God stands high and exalted and far above the proposed God of the open view. The Bible’s abundant prophecies, most of which involve innumerable future free human choices and actions, should be enough by themselves to indicate that the true God does not have to wait to see what we do before he makes up his mind.
If God doesn’t know what we will do before we do it, how could Christ, for example, warn Peter that before the rooster crowed, Peter would deny him three times (John 13:38)? Was this a good guess on Jesus’ part? Hardly! Recall that just a few verses earlier in John 13 Jesus had told the disciples that he would begin telling them things before they take place so that when they occur, “you may believe that I am he” (John 13:19). God knows in advance what we will do, and he can, when he wishes, declare it to us as evidence of his very deity. The open view brings God down, pure and simple. It tries to give more significance to human choice and action at the expense of the very greatness and glory of God. The God of open theism is too small, simply because he is less than the majestic, fully knowing, altogether wise God of the Bible.
And many, many more Scriptures I can give you-God knows the END from the BEGINNING-
מגיד מראשׁית אחרית ומקדם אשׁר לא־נעשׂו אמר עצתי תקום וכל־חפצי אעשׂה׃
קרא ממזרח עיט מארץ מרחק אישׁ עצתו אף־דברתי אף־אביאנה יצרתי אף־אעשׂנה׃
Isa 46:10 Making known acharim (end-times things) from reshit (the beginning), and mikedem (from ancient times) the things that have not yet happened, saying, My etza (counsel, purpose, plan) shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure;
LXX
Isa 46:10 announcing formerly the last things before their taking place, and are completed. And I said, All my counsel will stand, and all as much as I have planned I will do;
1. This passage is apparently addressed to the transgressors of Judah, who have forsaken their God and are called upon to admit their transgression, (vs. 8; Isa_50:1; Isa_57:3-6).
2. Remembrance of His faithfullness, in times past, should awaken their confidence in His supreme ability to bring them safely through the impending crises - the Babylonian Captivity, (vs. 9).
3. From ancient times He has worked all things according to the counsel of His own perfect will - even foretelling precisely what He would do, (vs. 10; Deu_32:7-12).
a. What He purposes, He always performs, (Isa_14:24; Isa_25:1; Isa_40:8; Psa_33:11; Pro_19:21; Act_4:27-28).
b. He is able to fulfill all His good pleasure, (Eph_1:11-12; Eph_3:20-21; Rom_9:11; Heb_6:17-20).
c. So certain is God to carry out His plan that He "calleth those things that be not as though they were" - though the actual fulfillment may await the passing of centuries! (Rom_4:17).
J.
The concept of God's omniscience, including His foreknowledge, is integral to the biblical understanding of God's nature. It is tied to His sovereignty, His eternal nature, and His ability to accomplish His divine purposes. To suggest that God's knowledge of the future is optional or could be absent from His nature is to misunderstand the biblical revelation of who God is. The God of the Bible is portrayed as all-knowing, and this includes knowledge of the future, which is foundational to His guidance, providence, and the fulfillment of His promises. Therefore, God's omniscience is not a "man-made" criterion but a biblical truth about His divine nature and character.
This understanding of God's omniscience means that not only does God know what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen (His foreknowledge), but He also knows what could happen under different conditions. This includes knowing all possible decisions that individuals could make and all the potential outcomes of those decisions.
God's Omniscience Includes All Possible Outcomes: The biblical view of God's omniscience isn't limited to knowing only what will happen but extends to knowing all things that could happen under any circumstances. This is implied in Scripture, even if not explicitly detailed in every passage. For example, 1 Samuel 23:11-12 shows God informing David about potential outcomes of specific actions. Such passages indicate that God's knowledge encompasses all possible futures, not just the actual future.
God's Eternal Nature and Knowledge: The idea that God's foreknowledge is limited to a specific timeframe (e.g., knowing something in 2000 BC but not in 4000 BC) conflicts with the biblical presentation of God's eternal nature. Psalms 90:2 states, "Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God." God exists outside of time, and His knowledge is not subject to temporal limitations. Isaiah 46:10 affirms God's declaration of the end from the beginning, indicating His eternal foreknowledge.
The Counsel of God Encompasses All Things: While it's true that we only know of God's counsel what He has revealed to us, the Scripture suggests that God's sovereign will and knowledge extend over all creation. Ephesians 1:11 states, "In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will." This verse indicates that everything occurs in accordance with God's will and purpose, suggesting a comprehensive scope of God's counsel.
God's Knowledge vs. Human Prediction: Comparing God's declarations about the future to human predictions misses the essence of divine foreknowledge. Human predictions are based on observation, inference, and probability, whereas God's knowledge of the future is inherent to His nature as omniscient. God doesn't "predict" in the human sense; He declares what will certainly happen because He knows all things absolutely.
The biblical portrayal of God as omniscient and eternal contradicts the idea that His knowledge is limited or constrained to specific timeframes. Scripture affirms that God knows all things—actual and possible—and that His sovereign will encompasses all of creation. While our understanding of divine foreknowledge and sovereignty is necessarily limited by our human perspective, the revealed character of God in Scripture invites us to trust in His perfect knowledge and purposeful guidance of all things.
Contrast our experience with the nature of God. The Bible describes God as eternal, which means He exists outside the bounds of time as we understand it. Unlike us, God is not waiting to see what will happen next—He exists in an eternal "now" where past, present, and future are all equally present to Him. This is hard to fully grasp because our minds are conditioned by time, but it's a fundamental aspect of God's nature.
God's omniscience—His all-knowing nature—includes knowing every moment of time simultaneously. Because God is outside of time, He sees the beginning, middle, and end of history all at once. This doesn't mean God is passively watching a predetermined script unfold; rather, He fully knows every possibility, every choice, and every outcome in His creation.
Acknowledge the mystery and the limit of human understanding. While we can grasp aspects of God's nature intellectually, the fullness of His eternal existence and omniscience is beyond our complete understanding. This mystery invites us into a deeper relationship with God, trusting in His perfect knowledge and care for us, even when we cannot see our own future.
This understanding of God's omniscience means that not only does God know what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen (His foreknowledge), but He also knows what could happen under different conditions. This includes knowing all possible decisions that individuals could make and all the potential outcomes of those decisions.
God's Omniscience Includes All Possible Outcomes: The biblical view of God's omniscience isn't limited to knowing only what will happen but extends to knowing all things that could happen under any circumstances. This is implied in Scripture, even if not explicitly detailed in every passage. For example, 1 Samuel 23:11-12 shows God informing David about potential outcomes of specific actions. Such passages indicate that God's knowledge encompasses all possible futures, not just the actual future.
God's Eternal Nature and Knowledge: The idea that God's foreknowledge is limited to a specific timeframe (e.g., knowing something in 2000 BC but not in 4000 BC) conflicts with the biblical presentation of God's eternal nature. Psalms 90:2 states, "Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God." God exists outside of time, and His knowledge is not subject to temporal limitations. Isaiah 46:10 affirms God's declaration of the end from the beginning, indicating His eternal foreknowledge.
The Counsel of God Encompasses All Things: While it's true that we only know of God's counsel what He has revealed to us, the Scripture suggests that God's sovereign will and knowledge extend over all creation. Ephesians 1:11 states, "In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will." This verse indicates that everything occurs in accordance with God's will and purpose, suggesting a comprehensive scope of God's counsel.
God's Knowledge vs. Human Prediction: Comparing God's declarations about the future to human predictions misses the essence of divine foreknowledge. Human predictions are based on observation, inference, and probability, whereas God's knowledge of the future is inherent to His nature as omniscient. God doesn't "predict" in the human sense; He declares what will certainly happen because He knows all things absolutely.
The biblical portrayal of God as omniscient and eternal contradicts the idea that His knowledge is limited or constrained to specific timeframes. Scripture affirms that God knows all things—actual and possible—and that His sovereign will encompasses all of creation. While our understanding of divine foreknowledge and sovereignty is necessarily limited by our human perspective, the revealed character of God in Scripture invites us to trust in His perfect knowledge and purposeful guidance of all things.
Contrast our experience with the nature of God. The Bible describes God as eternal, which means He exists outside the bounds of time as we understand it. Unlike us, God is not waiting to see what will happen next—He exists in an eternal "now" where past, present, and future are all equally present to Him. This is hard to fully grasp because our minds are conditioned by time, but it's a fundamental aspect of God's nature.
God's omniscience—His all-knowing nature—includes knowing every moment of time simultaneously. Because God is outside of time, He sees the beginning, middle, and end of history all at once. This doesn't mean God is passively watching a predetermined script unfold; rather, He fully knows every possibility, every choice, and every outcome in His creation.
Acknowledge the mystery and the limit of human understanding. While we can grasp aspects of God's nature intellectually, the fullness of His eternal existence and omniscience is beyond our complete understanding. This mystery invites us into a deeper relationship with God, trusting in His perfect knowledge and care for us, even when we cannot see our own future.
-
1
- Show all
Open theism simply relies on God to describe Himself in His word, rather than relying on Greek platonist philosophers to determine what God must be like and then superimposing their opinions onto scripture looking for occasional verses that they can interpret with a platonist sense. For instance, God is not described in scripture as impassible, immutable, or timeless. Those attributes are attributed to the uncaused cause of platonism.
You are way out of your depth and in need of studying solid doctrine re God's IMMUTABLE attributes @PaulThomson
immutability
Unchangeability. Used of God, it refers to “that perfection of God by which He does not change in His being, perfections, purposes, or promises.” (Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology)
From the Bible:
Of old you laid the foundation of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
They will perish, but you will remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away,
but you are the same, and your years have no end. (Psalm 102:25-27, ESV)
So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul…. (Hebrews 6:17-19, ESV)
From The Belgic Confession, Article 1:
Article I - There is Only One God
We all believe with the heart and confess with the mouth that there is one only simple and spiritual Being, which we call God; and that He is eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite, almighty, perfectly wise, just, good, and the overflowing fountain of all good.
From Knowing God by J. I. Packer, page 77:
Created things have a beginning and an ending, but not so their Creator. The answer to the child’s question “Who Made God?” is simply that God did not need to be made, for he was always there. He exists forever, and he is always the same. He does not grow older. His life does not wax or wane. He does not gain new powers nor lose those that he once had. He does not mature or develop. He does not get stronger, or weaker, or wiser, as time goes by. “He cannot change for the better,” wrote A. W. Pink, “for he is already perfect; and being perfect, he cannot change for the worse.”
The first and fundamental difference between the Creator and his creatures is that they are mutable and their nature admits of change, whereas God is immutable and can never cease to be what he is.
Learn more:
Arthur Pink: The Immutability of God
Rev. D. H. Kuiper: The Immutability of God
Robert Reymond: God’s Immutability (mp3)
From my Attributes of God posts: God’s Immutability
You are NOT going to find solid, fundamental and foundational doctrines from Arminians as you have show your error-question is, are you willing to learn or are you going to remain dogmatic?
http://rebecca-writes.com/
J.
immutability
Unchangeability. Used of God, it refers to “that perfection of God by which He does not change in His being, perfections, purposes, or promises.” (Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology)
From the Bible:
Of old you laid the foundation of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
They will perish, but you will remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away,
but you are the same, and your years have no end. (Psalm 102:25-27, ESV)
So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul…. (Hebrews 6:17-19, ESV)
From The Belgic Confession, Article 1:
Article I - There is Only One God
We all believe with the heart and confess with the mouth that there is one only simple and spiritual Being, which we call God; and that He is eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite, almighty, perfectly wise, just, good, and the overflowing fountain of all good.
From Knowing God by J. I. Packer, page 77:
Created things have a beginning and an ending, but not so their Creator. The answer to the child’s question “Who Made God?” is simply that God did not need to be made, for he was always there. He exists forever, and he is always the same. He does not grow older. His life does not wax or wane. He does not gain new powers nor lose those that he once had. He does not mature or develop. He does not get stronger, or weaker, or wiser, as time goes by. “He cannot change for the better,” wrote A. W. Pink, “for he is already perfect; and being perfect, he cannot change for the worse.”
The first and fundamental difference between the Creator and his creatures is that they are mutable and their nature admits of change, whereas God is immutable and can never cease to be what he is.
Learn more:
Arthur Pink: The Immutability of God
Rev. D. H. Kuiper: The Immutability of God
Robert Reymond: God’s Immutability (mp3)
From my Attributes of God posts: God’s Immutability
You are NOT going to find solid, fundamental and foundational doctrines from Arminians as you have show your error-question is, are you willing to learn or are you going to remain dogmatic?
http://rebecca-writes.com/
J.
https://iep.utm.edu/o-theism/#:~:text=1. History of Open Theism
Read it through and see if the Reformers agree with this.
1. History of Open Theism
Open Theism has been a significant topic in philosophy of religion and in evangelical Christian circles since the 1994 publication of The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God by Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger. Philosophers of religion such as A. N. Prior, J. R. Lucas, Peter Geach, Richard Swinburne, and Richard Purtill had advocated Open Theism in their writings prior to this date, though not under that name, and Rice had published a work initially entitled The Openness of God in 1980. (It was later republished as God’s Foreknowledge and Man’s Free Will.) But the 1994 book’s attempt to systematically explicate the relational view of God that its authors labeled the open view clearly marks the beginning of increased discussion and debate over Open Theism’s tenets.
Since the publication of The Openness of God, there has been significant debate about not only the philosophical and theological merits of Open Theism, but also its orthodoxy. In 2003, The Evangelical Theological Society considered whether to remove Clark Pinnock and John Sanders from its membership for implicitly disavowing the inerrancy of Scripture in their writings by suggesting that some Biblical passages traditionally understood to be prophecies have remained and may continue to remain unfulfilled. While Pinnock agreed to revise the most objectionable passage in his book Most Moved Mover, Sanders continued to maintain that God does not infallibly predict or prophesy what will contingently occur in the future, and he maintained that Biblical passages may initially appear to predicate divine foreknowledge and/or unconditional prophecies by God of what will contingently occur but these passages must be interpreted differently (more below). The charges against Pinnock and Sanders were not sustained, but this was just barely the case for Sanders.
Proponents of Open Theism allow that their view is at odds with the great majority of the Christian tradition in rejecting both meticulous providence and divine foreknowledge of what will contingently occur. However, they argue that the tradition, guided by neo-Platonic philosophy in its formation, had difficulty reconciling beliefs about the implications of God’s perfection with the Biblical witness to a God that cares deeply about His people and how they respond to Him. Many of the early Church Fathers affirmed elements of the Open Theists’ relational view of God, in tension with their beliefs in divine impossibility. Then Saint Augustine, whose Confessions tell us that his faith partially resulted from a careful study of neo-Platonism, forcefully argued for an emphasis on God’s perfection and otherness from His creation that precluded genuine responsiveness on God’s part to our actions. The (Western) Christian tradition subsequently became largely identified with an Augustinian understanding of providence. The early Church Fathers’ idea that God’s foreknowledge is conditioned by human actions did not receive significant consideration again until Jacob Arminius in the sixteenth century and John Wesley in the eighteenth. And it is only recently, in light of philosophical considerations of the nature of freedom, that the full reciprocal relationality of Open Theism has been affirmed, with its concordant denial that God knows what will contingently occur.
Read it through and see if the Reformers agree with this.
1. History of Open Theism
Open Theism has been a significant topic in philosophy of religion and in evangelical Christian circles since the 1994 publication of The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God by Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger. Philosophers of religion such as A. N. Prior, J. R. Lucas, Peter Geach, Richard Swinburne, and Richard Purtill had advocated Open Theism in their writings prior to this date, though not under that name, and Rice had published a work initially entitled The Openness of God in 1980. (It was later republished as God’s Foreknowledge and Man’s Free Will.) But the 1994 book’s attempt to systematically explicate the relational view of God that its authors labeled the open view clearly marks the beginning of increased discussion and debate over Open Theism’s tenets.
Since the publication of The Openness of God, there has been significant debate about not only the philosophical and theological merits of Open Theism, but also its orthodoxy. In 2003, The Evangelical Theological Society considered whether to remove Clark Pinnock and John Sanders from its membership for implicitly disavowing the inerrancy of Scripture in their writings by suggesting that some Biblical passages traditionally understood to be prophecies have remained and may continue to remain unfulfilled. While Pinnock agreed to revise the most objectionable passage in his book Most Moved Mover, Sanders continued to maintain that God does not infallibly predict or prophesy what will contingently occur in the future, and he maintained that Biblical passages may initially appear to predicate divine foreknowledge and/or unconditional prophecies by God of what will contingently occur but these passages must be interpreted differently (more below). The charges against Pinnock and Sanders were not sustained, but this was just barely the case for Sanders.
Proponents of Open Theism allow that their view is at odds with the great majority of the Christian tradition in rejecting both meticulous providence and divine foreknowledge of what will contingently occur. However, they argue that the tradition, guided by neo-Platonic philosophy in its formation, had difficulty reconciling beliefs about the implications of God’s perfection with the Biblical witness to a God that cares deeply about His people and how they respond to Him. Many of the early Church Fathers affirmed elements of the Open Theists’ relational view of God, in tension with their beliefs in divine impossibility. Then Saint Augustine, whose Confessions tell us that his faith partially resulted from a careful study of neo-Platonism, forcefully argued for an emphasis on God’s perfection and otherness from His creation that precluded genuine responsiveness on God’s part to our actions. The (Western) Christian tradition subsequently became largely identified with an Augustinian understanding of providence. The early Church Fathers’ idea that God’s foreknowledge is conditioned by human actions did not receive significant consideration again until Jacob Arminius in the sixteenth century and John Wesley in the eighteenth. And it is only recently, in light of philosophical considerations of the nature of freedom, that the full reciprocal relationality of Open Theism has been affirmed, with its concordant denial that God knows what will contingently occur.
You are taking on the five-pointer demeanour of claiming superior knowledge of the Bible and bullying and demeaning the intellect of those who see something different from you in scripture other than the traditions you have invested in.
Did God take on a human nature at a particular time in history according to the Bible? God was once not a descendant of Adam, now some of Him is. That is a change.
Was the Son always in flesh, bone, soul and spirit seated on the throne of heaven? That's a change.
Did Jesus grow in favour with God? That's a change.
Did God purpose to destroy all the Israelites for worshipping the golden calf and make a new nation from Moses? Did He repent at Moses request? That's a change in His purpose.
Your citation compares the transient existence of the cosmos toa garment God is wearing that God can take off and destroy. It then compares God to the person who has taken off that garment being the same before removing it as he was after doing so and does not die with the removal of the garment. You are making the parable say lot more than it actually is intended to say, when you are implying that the person wearing a garment never changes in His being, perfections, purposes, or promises. It is simply saying that God does not change into a different God when He destroys one creation and exchanges it for another. It is focussed on God's endless existence,. It is not proposing some platonic concept of God.
Did God take on a human nature at a particular time in history according to the Bible? God was once not a descendant of Adam, now some of Him is. That is a change.
Was the Son always in flesh, bone, soul and spirit seated on the throne of heaven? That's a change.
Did Jesus grow in favour with God? That's a change.
Did God purpose to destroy all the Israelites for worshipping the golden calf and make a new nation from Moses? Did He repent at Moses request? That's a change in His purpose.
Your citation compares the transient existence of the cosmos toa garment God is wearing that God can take off and destroy. It then compares God to the person who has taken off that garment being the same before removing it as he was after doing so and does not die with the removal of the garment. You are making the parable say lot more than it actually is intended to say, when you are implying that the person wearing a garment never changes in His being, perfections, purposes, or promises. It is simply saying that God does not change into a different God when He destroys one creation and exchanges it for another. It is focussed on God's endless existence,. It is not proposing some platonic concept of God.
That is a ridiculous conclusion to draw from the 1 Sam. 23:11-12 passage. David asked whether Saul would come down. God was able to see Saul preparing to send his troops to beseige Keilah, and so told David, "He will come down". God knew how the hearts of the Keilahites would respond to Saul's forces surrounding them and demanding they surrender David, and said "The will surrender you." There is no indication here of God observing or exhaustively knowing the future, but only of him observing the present and remembering the past , and by these predicting the most likely outcome if David remained in Keilah. So, David left Keilah, and what God said would happen did not happen. Saul had no reason to come down to beseige Keilah, and there was no David in Keilah to surrender to Saul if he did.
Any idea that God gave His answers by knowing the future as fact is simply reading that idea into the text from extra-biblical platonism-inspired presuppositions.
Any idea that God gave His answers by knowing the future as fact is simply reading that idea into the text from extra-biblical platonism-inspired presuppositions.