 |
| 
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/15/2004 12:03 PM (GMT -6) |   | TGB,
quote:
OK, it seems to me that if God literally forgets the past, and so does not know it, then he can’t be omniscient. It’s pretty simple. Let’s say that on March 3, 2003 I lied to my boss about having completed a project. God knew what I did when I did it, but he forgave me. Now if God literally forgets my sin when he forgives me, then he does not today know all truths, for there is today a truth expressed in the proposition “Tom lied to his boss on March 3, 2003.” This is a true proposition, for I did lie to my boss on March 3, 2003. But if God forgot this sin, he wouldn’t now know if this proposition is true or false. How would he? He forgot it, in which case there are truths he doesn’t know, in which case he’s not omniscient. You can’t affirm “God knows all truths” and at the same time affirm “God does not know some truths.”
I agree I'm diminishing even Greg Boyd's view of omniscience, but I don't know of a verse off the top of my head that demands that view.
quote:
A second reason for thinking God can’t choose to literally not know some truths is the practical implications. I asked on page one, let’s assume that I continually struggle with accepting forgiveness and letting go of the past, unable to get free from my own past sins. How is God to counsel me? What does God say to me when I want to discuss the past with him? How would he know if my memory is even accurate at all if his memory isn’t accurate? How could he forget and I NOT forget AND he have infallible knowledge of my present thoughts and memories, including knowing whether my memories are accurate or not?
I wouldn't say that God forgets our sins until this heaven and earth are passed away. At that point, there would be no pratical reason to remember them (that I can think of).
quote:
Thirdly, I don’t see what’s gained by believing God literally forgets and so doesn’t know my past sins? What problems are there in going with the figurative (covenantal language) route that are fixed by going with the literal (less than omniscient) route?
One reason why I disagree with Greg's view is that I can't imagine a pure Being like God, in Whom there is NO darkness at all, even contemplating as contingencies the disgusting evil things that occur in this world - and, therefore, I don't see why God would want to contemplate them after this heavens and earth are passed away.
It makes more sense to me that God designed with specific ends in mind and then varied His course when men/angels deviated from those ends. He needs no significant amount of time to vary His course because He is EXTREMELYwise.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/15/2004 8:44 PM (GMT -6) | | PoW: I'm betting, that it goes right back to the Jewishness of Christian worship ('Tom in Lebanon,' what do you think?) Even when Christ says "Do this in remembrance of me" they see more in those words than my Swedish Baptist Sunday School teachers were aware of.
Tom: Absolutely. We Westerners don’t relate through “covenants” as ancient Semites did. We have to work harder at putting ourselves into that mindset.
Jeff: I agree I'm diminishing even Greg Boyd's view of omniscience, but I don't know of a verse off the top of my head that demands that view.
Tom: What definition of omniscience are you working with then? The one I shared wasn’t Greg’s. It’s argued by Bill Craig (not an open theist). I don’t see how ‘omniscience’ can be a more/less type thing. You’re either omniscient or you’re not, and not knowing any p (if p) would qualify as being less than omniscient.
Jeff: I wouldn't say that God forgets our sins until this heaven and earth are passed away. At that point, there would be no pratical reason to remember them (that I can think of).
Tom: OK, so he knows them NOW but promises to literally forget them when we get to heaven. I didn’t get that before. And are you also arguing that it’s only the sins he FORGIVES that he promises to forget in heaven? What about the sins of Hitler? Will God forget those too in heaven?
Jeff: I can't imagine a pure Being like God, in Whom there is NO darkness at all, even contemplating as contingencies the disgusting evil things that occur in this world - and, therefore, I don't see why God would want to contemplate them after this heavens and earth are passed away.
Tom: NOW we’re getting to the REAL issue. It’s not strictly ‘biblical.’ That is, it’s not some passage that’s motivating this. It’s philosophy! Yeah! You can’t imagine a pure God like God contemplating sin. That’s what we need to be talking about.
Also, it seems to follow now that God’s “forgetting” our sins has nothing to do with his “forgiving” them. If God forgets sins committed because he’s too pure to contemplate them and because there’s no darkness in him at all, then he forgets unforgiven sins (like Hitler’s Holocaust) too. But saying that his “forgetting” has nothing to do with his “forgiving,” contradicts the whole point this thread has been arguing, namely, that those whose sins are FORGIVEN are the ones who enjoy the blessing of knowing their sins are FORGOTTEN.
You’re now saying something else too. Above you say God DOES now remember (know/contemplate) the disgusting things we do/did even if he forgives us of them but will forget them in the eschaton. Cool. But here you’re saying God is too pure to even contemplate them “as contingencies.” This takes us out of the eschaton and puts us back in this evil age. If God doesn’t contemplate/know the future contingent sins we might and might not commit (assuming there are any future contingent sins), then—again—there are truths God does not know and he’s not omniscient. And what happen to God being too pure to contemplate our sin?
This is what I’m hearing ya say: God is too pure to contemplate/know all the potential sinful things we might and might not do. He only knows/contemplates them ‘at all’ when we do them. He’s not too pure for THAT. He also forgives us now for our sins and promises to literally forget those sins when we’re with him in heaven.
Am I following you?
Jeff: It makes more sense to me that God designed with specific ends in mind and then varied His course when men/angels deviated from those ends. He needs no significant amount of time to vary His course because He is EXTREMELY wise.
Tom: There are future contingencies that impact God's plan for the worse 'depending on how the present moment is handled'. So how wise is God if he deals in the present without contemplating them? To not take them into consideration would leave him less than infinitely or perfectly wise. I have a difficult time understanding a ‘wisdom’ that excludes future contingencies where such contingencies really exist. Those contingencies exist but God can’t contemplate them because he’s too pure (out goes omniscience)? And his providential rule in the world in response to evil cannot take into consideration future contingent evil actions although propositions expressing those contingencies exist at the time God acts (out goes infinite intelligence)?
If God is “too pure to contemplate contingent evil acts” wouldn’t he be too pure to contemplate future evil acts once they’re determined to happen and once they actually happen? What kind of purity won’t tolerate contemplating POTENTIAL evil but would tolerate contemplating ACTUAL evil? If it’s “purity” we’re talking about, one would assume the opposite, namely, that God would tolerate knowing future contingent evil more easily than he would know future determinate evil; and he’d have the greatest difficulty contemplating actual evil, for actual evil is greater than indeterminate evil. But you turn this completely around, claiming a pure God is able to contemplate actual evil but not contingent evil. That seems strange.
Anyhow, we do have examples in the Bible of God contemplating future contingent evil, so that kind of settles it. Exodus 13:17: When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them on the road through the Philistine country, though that was shorter. For God said, "If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt."
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 5/15/2004 9:05 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Hi Jo-Anne,
I'm not exactly sure how much the registration costs, but it seems to me that it was $40 or $50. I do know that the conference is being held this year in Shipshewana, Indiana (in the heart of Amish country).
A limited number of discount-rate rooms will be available at the Farmstead Inn & Conference Center for those mentioning they are coming to attend the EEM conference. If memory serves, the (very nice) rooms last year were around $80 for a room with two queen-size beds.
The Farmstead Inn & Conference Center's website is:
http://www.tradingplaceamerica.com/content/farmsteadinn.htm
EEM's website is: http://eeminc.org
I will try and get in touch with some personal friends of mine in EEM who might know the precise dates for the conference. The conferences typically begin on Friday evening with an opening lecture and Q&A session, have three or four sessions on Saturday, and then end with a worship service on Sunday morning.
I have been privileged to be able to attend for the past two years, and have been supremely blessed by both conferences. I will try to get back with you with specific dates. The conference typically is in September or October.
Thanks John,
I would appreciate any info. you could give me on this, and I will check out the web site. I've already gotten an e-mail from Selah saying she might like to share accomodations with me if I can come.
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/16/2004 4:43 AM (GMT -6) | | John and TGB,
Thanks for your responses. You guys have brought up some good points which have made me have to really think. Below is an attempt to clarify and be more specific. I'm not dogmatic about this, and you may yet convince me.
quote:
John: God knew good from evil before sin ever was committed, or else how could it be forbidden?
That is a very good point. But consider one definition of "good":
Serving the desired purpose or end; suitable
God's ends are benevolent. Thus, for God to know "good" in terms of the above definition, He need only know what are the proper and fitting means to those ends. All other means would be maladapted and, hence, evil. So in a sense, I see God as knowing evil as the NOT good - in an abstract way. He knew it was NOT good that the man be alone, and made provision for it. Looking at it this way, I don't see that His knowledge of evil required Him to know or contemplate every conceivable perverse and malicious intent of the heart of men or angels.
quote:
Tom: What definition of omniscience are you working with then? The one I shared wasn’t Greg’s. It’s argued by Bill Craig (not an open theist). I don’t see how ‘omniscience’ can be a more/less type thing. You’re either omniscient or you’re not, and not knowing any p (if p) would qualify as being less than omniscient.
I guess I would say that God's knowledge is "perfect" in the sense that He knows all that is necessary to accomplish His ends plus any other knowable fact that He chooses to know. I would say that God cannot know the outcome of free-will choices; not because I rule out such foreknowledge a priori, but because I don't see that scripture requires such a view, and I know of no way to prove it philosophically.
quote:
Jeff: I wouldn't say that God forgets our sins until this heaven and earth are passed away. At that point, there would be no pratical reason to remember them (that I can think of).
Tom: OK, so he knows them NOW but promises to literally forget them when we get to heaven. I didn’t get that before. And are you also arguing that it’s only the sins he FORGIVES that he promises to forget in heaven? What about the sins of Hitler? Will God forget those too in heaven?
That's a good point - it seems to put the "forgetting of sins" verse back into the "eastern" interpretation. But I still can't help but wonder if God would ever "remember" sins after the consummation if there was no practical necessity for it.
quote:
Tom: NOW we’re getting to the REAL issue. It’s not strictly ‘biblical.’ That is, it’s not some passage that’s motivating this. It’s philosophy! Yeah! You can’t imagine a pure God like God contemplating sin. That’s what we need to be talking about.
But it IS biblical in the sense that I must interpret what it means to be pure light and NO darkness as the bible says. Because it Phillipians we are told to think on things that are pure, etc. This may not imply what I'm arguing for, but it might so far as I currently am aware.
quote:
Also, it seems to follow now that God’s “forgetting” our sins has nothing to do with his “forgiving” them. If God forgets sins committed because he’s too pure to contemplate them and because there’s no darkness in him at all, then he forgets unforgiven sins (like Hitler’s Holocaust) too. But saying that his “forgetting” has nothing to do with his “forgiving,” contradicts the whole point this thread has been arguing, namely, that those whose sins are FORGIVEN are the ones who enjoy the blessing of knowing their sins are FORGOTTEN.
I conceded above to that point, so now we're onto the "pure light" interpretation.
quote:
This is what I’m hearing ya say: God is too pure to contemplate/know all the potential sinful things we might and might not do. He only knows/contemplates them ‘at all’ when we do them. He’s not too pure for THAT. He also forgives us now for our sins and promises to literally forget those sins when we’re with him in heaven.
Am I following you?
Pretty much, and I appreciate you bringing to my attention the logical implications about Hitler, etc. But I would not say that He "only knows/contemplates them 'at all' when we do them." Once they've been done, He knows them for future occurrences of the same evil acts. But I don't think it was necessary for God to contemplate before the fall, and thus doubt that He did.
quote:
Tom: There are future contingencies that impact God's plan for the worse 'depending on how the present moment is handled'. So how wise is God if he deals in the present without contemplating them? To not take them into consideration would leave him less than infinitely or perfectly wise. I have a difficult time understanding a ‘wisdom’ that excludes future contingencies where such contingencies really exist. Those contingencies exist but God can’t contemplate them because he’s too pure (out goes omniscience)? And his providential rule in the world in response to evil cannot take into consideration future contingent evil actions although propositions expressing those contingencies exist at the time God acts (out goes infinite intelligence)?
As an analogy, think of the moral issue of negligence. The Mosaic law has such cases - like the one about the owner of an ox which was known to be dangerous but was, nevertheless, negligently loaned out, etc. The owner does not have to know EVERY conceivable way that the ox might do damage to know what HE should do or not do to prevent such damage. Thus, the owner could make WISE responsible choices without contemplating every conceivable wrong that would result from his negligence. Likewise, I am saying that God doesn't comtemplate those instances of disgusting evil that He doesn't NEED to contemplate to act in a way sufficient to bring about His plans, etc. Any contingencies that NEED to be contemplated would be contemplated.
quote:
If God is “too pure to contemplate contingent evil acts” wouldn’t he be too pure to contemplate future evil acts once they’re determined to happen and once they actually happen? What kind of purity won’t tolerate contemplating POTENTIAL evil but would tolerate contemplating ACTUAL evil?
First of all, actual evil is known, I would say, in a different way than contemplation. It is observed. It is inevitable to the aware observant mind. But consider another analogy. Say I want my wife to be protected from abduction while on the road travelling. I might buy her a pepper gun, one of those neat gadgets that recharge batteries without the help of a stranger, etc. These are wise decisions that can be made to prevent abduction. I don't need to contemplate every despicable, disgusting, horrid thing an abductor might do to my wife to know how to avoid abduction. If I did contemplate all such evil, would I not be morbid for doing so - precisely because such thoughts are disgusting and UNNECESSARY?
quote:
If it’s “purity” we’re talking about, one would assume the opposite, namely, that God would tolerate knowing future contingent evil more easily than he would know future determinate evil; and he’d have the greatest difficulty contemplating actual evil, for actual evil is greater than indeterminate evil. But you turn this completely around, claiming a pure God is able to contemplate actual evil but not contingent evil. That seems strange.
Knowing actual evil is necessary for God to judge properly. Contemplating evil that is unneccesary to accomplish His ends, may be different in the way I described above.
quote:
Anyhow, we do have examples in the Bible of God contemplating future contingent evil, so that kind of settles it. Exodus 13:17: When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them on the road through the Philistine country, though that was shorter. For God said, "If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt."
Note the necessity here, though, of considering contingencies to be able to ensure the desired ends. That verse also seems to make more sense in the OV, doesn't it?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/17/2004 6:37 AM (GMT -6) | | I step away from my computer for one weekend and Tom bombards me with more than I can handle. I still haven't responded to al of his posts from last week. Aaaaarghhhh!
Anyway, Jeff Scott expressed some of my feelinsg in his responses better than I was able to express them. However, over the weekend, I did think of something else that I will address in another post right after this on.
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
quote:
Originally posted by victoryword
Here it is John
Here is the HTML format:
http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue5/on_heffalumps_and_heresies.htm
Here's the ".PDF" version (in which you will need Acrobat Reader).
http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue5/Heffalumps_and_Heresies.pdf
Troy,
I must say that was an absolutely EXCELLENT article by Sanders! Thanks for the tip. I literally laughed out loud when he compared the straw men raised by those opposed to the Open View with Pooh & Piglet talking about imaginary Heffalumps!  I also love how well he answered the criticism typically leveled at the Open View. His usual candor shines through.
By the way, Evangelical Education Ministries is having BOTH Dr. Boyd AND Dr. Sanders as its main speakers at the upcoming fall conference. I urge you (and anyone interested) to attend. Dr. Boyd is the more animated speaker of the two, but Sanders certainly is an challenging and intellectually stimulating speaker to listen to as well.
I really enjoyed that paper by Sanders as well. I could not tell that he had such an excllent sense of humor by reading The God Who Risks. That paper definitely showed me differently.
Which brings me to another point. Per your suggestion, I read the chapter by Sanders on anthropomorphism late last night before going to bed - well, I made it through most of the chapter before falling asleep. No reflection on Sanders. It's just that we had a long church meeting. Even in that chapter I got a good chuckle from Sander's teasing of Chris Hall and the "barking up the tree" thing (you can tell they are friends who like to throw jabs at each other).
It does present an interesting perspective and I did learn something from it, but found his response to Hall concerning why Open Theists do not take the Scriptures describing God's body parts literally to be inadequeate. Remember this is my bias perspective - and I was kind of drowsy so perhaps I need to give it another read. I just thought he would have explained it better.
Nevertheless, I did gain a little better understanding on his perspective of anthropomorphisms and metaphors.
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/17/2004 7:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom
All of your posts have been well thought out and all of them are worthy of a response. I am not sure how much time I can tackle them all in one sitting. So I'll get to them when I can.
However, a response you gave to Jeff Scott intrigues me ....
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Tom: Good question. I’ll mention again a bit of my reasoning (from page one) for believing God can’t chose to literally forget the past. But first let’s try to express as short-n-sweetly as we can what we mean by omniscience, OK? I’m assuming you believe God is omniscient. Here’s an excellent definition: God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods. If you wanted to write that for anal folks who like to get really specific and logical, it would look like this: For any p, if p, then God knows that p and does not believe that not-p. Let’s stick with the simpler: God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods.
OK, it seems to me that if God literally forgets the past, and so does not know it, then he can’t be omniscient. It’s pretty simple. Let’s say that on March 3, 2003 I lied to my boss about having completed a project. God knew what I did when I did it, but he forgave me. Now if God literally forgets my sin when he forgives me, then he does not today know all truths, for there is today a truth expressed in the proposition “Tom lied to his boss on March 3, 2003.” This is a true proposition, for I did lie to my boss on March 3, 2003. But if God forgot this sin, he wouldn’t now know if this proposition is true or false. How would he? He forgot it, in which case there are truths he doesn’t know, in which case he’s not omniscient. You can’t affirm “God knows all truths” and at the same time affirm “God does not know some truths.”
A second reason for thinking God can’t choose to literally not know some truths is the practical implications. I asked on page one, let’s assume that I continually struggle with accepting forgiveness and letting go of the past, unable to get free from my own past sins. How is God to counsel me? What does God say to me when I want to discuss the past with him? How would he know if my memory is even accurate at all if his memory isn’t accurate? How could he forget and I NOT forget AND he have infallible knowledge of my present thoughts and memories, including knowing whether my memories are accurate or not?
Since this same argument has already been used in relation to "Divine forgetting" and "omniscience", I was thinking about a Scripture that is occasionally used by Open Theists, but probably not in the sense that I am about to show it to you.
Anyway, your basic argument is that if God literally forgets our sins (be it by His choice or by divine amnesia - let's rule out the second immediately) then you and many others feel that this takes from God's omniscience. If God "forgets" a part of the past then He no longer possesses all knowledge of the past and is therefore not omniscient.
Well let's look at the Scripture that I was thinking about over the weekend - the case of Sodom and Gomorrah:
And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. (Gen. 18:20, 21)
Now Tom, I have seen OVers use this passage as an OV prooftext. However, if you read this very clearly it seems that God is lacking knowledge of a present event and must actually go to the place where it is said to be happening in order to know for sure if what He has heard is true.
Further in the dialogue between Yahweh and Abraham, it seems that Yahweh doesn't know exactly how many righteous are in the city of Sodom. It seems even this must be found out. Look at the expressions that the Lord uses in His dialogues with Abraham:
And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes. (Gen. 18:26)
Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it. (Gen. 18:28)
If we interpret this whole thing the way OVers look at other passages dealing with a lack of exhaustive foreknowledge, then this might mean that God does not even possess all knowledge of all present events. Now what does that does more damage to the Open Theists definition of OMNISCIENCE (God has perfect knowledge of all past and present events) than saying that God actually chooses to forget.
Anyone want to tackle THAT ONE?
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Thirdly, I don’t see what’s gained by believing God literally forgets and so doesn’t know my past sins? What problems are there in going with the figurative (covenantal language) route that are fixed by going with the literal (less than omniscient) route? And how do you address (1) and (2) above? Gotta solve those if you want to maintain God is omniscient AND doesn’t know all truths.
Well one benefit is that it keeps Him from having to fight against Himself to restrain any anger that might come up when He is talking to us and all of a sudden that lie I told two months ago to save my own skin which was in total contradiction to my suppose witness as a Christian, or that time I might have taken a sneak peak at the latest issue of playboy (or Playgirl for you females - I believe that SIN should not be gender regulated  ), or the time I punished my child out of anger and hurt him/her both physically and emotionally.
Anyway, with you and I, we forgive but we struggle sometimes to push aside the memory of the wrong that was done to us. The "Accuser of the Brethren" is always around to help us conjure the memory back up when we are struggling to forget. However, a good support for YOUR case to reject a literal "forgetting" is the fact that the accuser still goes before God accusing us as well and probably brings up sins that God says was placed under the blood.
Finally, while we often hear the phrase "forgive and forget" used both within and outside of Christian circles, there really is no Scripture teaching us to "forget". That's not saying that we shouldn't choose to do so if at all possible (since we are to forgive as our Father does) but I AM saying that God says that He will remember our ins no more but does not call us to do the same. He simply tells us to "forgive."
Again, I am not dogmatic on the "divine forgetting" issue because you and others have made some good points on this, but you and others still have to consider these factors.
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Lastly, one could try to argue (not sure) that the very description of “choosing to forget” as it’s applied to God in this case, is self-contradictory. To “choose” to forget one must know what to forget. But forgetting entails NOT knowing. If I wanted to forget something I could choose to pursue the sort of day to day schedule and lifestyle that IN TIME would make my forgetting very probable. But that’s not what you’re saying God does. You’re saying the moment God forgives us (in fact, part of what it means to forgive) he deletes those files from his hard drive. Imagining this is like trying to imagine God making a rock so big he can’t lift it.
Tom
I see it differently. If God can "choose to forget" then that means that He is able to do all things. In other words, He can lift any rock that He makes. If it is impossible for God to literally forget, even if He wants to, it's possible that God has become a prisoner of His own omniscience.
Food for thought.
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/17/2004 8:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: I guess I would say that God's knowledge is "perfect" in the sense that He knows all that is necessary to accomplish His ends plus any other knowable fact that He chooses to know.
Tom: This seems problematic. It certainly doesn’t qualify as a definition of “omniscience” on any account, for there would remain truths God would not know. You’re better off just admitting that God isn’t omniscient, because what you’re describing isn’t anywhere close.
It also assumes that God wouldn’t know what he didn’t need to know. You just assume God’s knowledge is merely utilitarian. But who are we to say what is useful to God or whether or not God wouldn’t or couldn’t know what is not useful to him? I know that the sun now coming through the window is casting a shadow across my right thigh at roughly a 30 degree angle. That bit of information is not useful to me. There’s no “end” or “purpose” which knowing this serves. But nobody considers such knowledge a weakness. I guess I’m wondering you think God either couldn’t or wouldn’t know what was not useful to him.
Jeff: I would say that God cannot know the outcome of free-will choices; not because I rule out such foreknowledge a priori, but because I don't see that scripture requires such a view, and I know of no way to prove it philosophically.
Tom: There are good biblical and philosophical reasons for believing that future free choices cannot be foreknown as determinate outcomes. You can check the Christus Victor homepage
Jeff: I still can't help but wonder if God would ever "remember" sins after the consummation if there was no practical necessity for it.
Tom: I’m questioning not only who are we to say what is “practical” for God, but even if we COULD say what was and wasn’t practically useful to God’s purposes, what reason could we have for believing God couldn’t or wouldn’t know such things? You and I know things that are not practically useful to us and this is not considered a weakness or imperfection. Since when is knowing MORE THAN IS NEEDED an imperfection?
Jeff: As an analogy, think of the moral issue of negligence. The Mosaic law has such cases - like the one about the owner of an ox which was known to be dangerous but was, nevertheless, negligently loaned out, etc. The owner does not have to know EVERY conceivable way that the ox might do damage to know what HE should do or not do to prevent such damage. Thus, the owner could make WISE responsible choices without contemplating every conceivable wrong that would result from his negligence. Likewise, I am saying that God doesn't comtemplate those instances of disgusting evil that He doesn't NEED to contemplate to act in a way sufficient to bring about His plans, etc. Any contingencies that NEED to be contemplated would be contemplated.
Jeff: This is easy. Tell me, Jeff. Assuming God only knowwwhat is useful to him, how does God decide whether or not a future contingent event is useful? How does he determine the usefulness of knowing a particular future event relative to his purposes without knowing the event itself? Your whole argument claims that God knows the utility (or not) of future contingent events prior to knowing the events themselves. It’s this prior knowledge of an event’s usefulness that is the basis upon which God decides whether or not he will know the event or not. See how impossible this is? You can only determine the utility or value something has to your purposes by knowing and so evaluating that something by relating it to your purposes. But once you’ve observed that something in order to relate it to your purpose and so establish its utility it’s too late to NOT know it. You want to say that whether or not God knows a future contingent event is based on first knowing it usefulness to his purposes, but in actuality it’s the opposite; foreknowing an event is logically prior to relating it to God’s purposes.
The analogy you give actually establishes what I’m arguing. The usefulness of locking up an ox can only be determined by foreknowing AT LEAST ONE horrible thing it can do. Don’t get side-tracked in arguing the difference between foreknowing only SOME as opposed to ALL the possible ways an ox might do damage. The point is that the farmer can’t determine the usefulness of locking up his ox at all apart from knowing at least SOME event that establishes that usefulness, and once that event is known, it’s known.
Jeff: First of all, actual evil is known, I would say, in a different way than contemplation. It is observed. It is inevitable to the aware observant mind. But consider another analogy. Say I want my wife to be protected from abduction while on the road travelling. I might buy her a pepper gun, one of those neat gadgets that recharge batteries without the help of a stranger, etc. These are wise decisions that can be made to prevent abduction. I don't need to contemplate every despicable, disgusting, horrid thing an abductor might do to my wife to know how to avoid abduction.
Tom: But (and this is the point, again) you must know THAT WHICH DETERMNINES usefulness before and in order to determine that usefulness.
Jeff: If I did contemplate all such evil, would I not be morbid for doing so…?
Tom: Not at all. Knowledge itself isn’t morbid. It’s what you do with that becomes morbid—enjoying thinking about the evil of the events in question, role playing as an evil participant, “getting off” on the disgust of it. God doesn’t do that.
Jeff: Knowing actual evil is necessary for God to judge properly. Contemplating evil that is unneccesary to accomplish His ends, may be different in the way I described above.
Tom: Again, who are we to say a) what is useful to God, or b) that God cannot know more than he needs to know. Knowing more than you need to know is generally admired by us. What is it that’s making you think it’s a weakness in God’s case?
quote:
Tom: anyhow, we do have examples in the Bible of God contemplating future contingent evil, so that kind of settles it. Exodus 13:17: When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them on the road through the Philistine country, though that was shorter. For God said, "If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt."
Jeff: Note the necessity here, though, of considering contingencies to be able to ensure the desired ends. That verse also seems to make more sense in the OV, doesn't it?
This distinction won’t work, Jeff. Again, knowledge of possible events PRECEDES establishing their usefulness, for it is BY foreknowing them that God relates them to his purposes and so establishes their usefulness. But once he foreknows them, they’re known. There’s no escaping knowing them if their usefulness is to be determined.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/17/2004 8:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Troy: Now Tom, I have seen OVers use this passage [Genesis 18] as an OV prooftext. However, if you read this very clearly it seems that God is lacking knowledge of a present event and must actually go to the place where it is said to be happening in order to know for sure if what He has heard is true. Further in the dialogue between Yahweh and Abraham, it seems that Yahweh doesn't know exactly how many righteous are in the city of Sodom. It seems even this must be found out.
Tom: Find enlightenment oh lotus petal at this location  : http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/Custom/4/Documents/beltstudies.htm
Been there and done the Gen. 18 deal. We talk about it a lot over a year ago. The search machine should give you a couple good threads. The link I gave you is the “Open Letter” found on the Homepage. I condensed it for that letter, but the nuts and bolts are in one of the threads around here somewhere.
Troy: Well one benefit [of God’s literally forgetting our sin] is that it keeps Him from having to fight against Himself to restrain any anger that might come up when He is talking to us and all of a sudden that lie I told two months ago
Troy: You’re trying to fix a lack of understanding of the LOVE of God by tinkering with the knowledge of God. It’s called forgiveness bro. God can forgive your lie, forever know it happened, and never become angry with you about it in spite of knowing it happened. What kind picture of God are we functioning with when we argue that the only way God keeps from “fighting with himself” over getting angry again and again over our sin is by not knowing about it?
You need to be talking about the infinite love of God and not about his knowledge.
Troy: Finally, while we often hear the phrase "forgive and forget" used both within and outside of Christian circles, there really is no Scripture teaching us to "forget". That's not saying that we shouldn't choose to do so if at all possible (since we are to forgive as our Father does) but I AM saying that God says that He will remember our ins no more but does not call us to do the same. He simply tells us to "forgive."
Tom: This is interesting. God can’t forgive and guarantee that he won’t eternally struggle with himself over getting angry with us unless he wipes his memory of the matter. But he commands us to forgive whether or not we forget. He commands us to do what he can’t. All the more reason to believe God doesn’t fight with himself over getting angry about forgiven sins that he retains knowledge of.
Be gone bad view of God! Be gone!
Troy: I see it differently. If God can "choose to forget" then that means that He is able to do all things. In other words, He can lift any rock that He makes. If it is impossible for God to literally forget, even if He wants to, it's possible that God has become a prisoner of His own omniscience.
Tom: Somebody else do this! Troy, can God commit suicide? Can he will himself out of existence? If not, does this make him a prisoner of his own existence? Can God lie? The Bible says he cannot. If he can’t lie must he then be a prisoner of his own goodness? We don’t have to go this route. God can be incapable of being other than omniscient without being a prisoner to his own omniscience. We do NOT attribute any REAL weakness to a general if we say “He cannot lose in battle” or to Michael Jordan if we say, “He can’t miss his shots.” If we follow your reasoning here then we’d have to say that God is a prisoner of his own omnipotence since he can't do certain things like NOT literally forget things.
Happy theorizing!
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/17/2004 10:40 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Troy: Now Tom, I have seen OVers use this passage [Genesis 18] as an OV prooftext. However, if you read this very clearly it seems that God is lacking knowledge of a present event and must actually go to the place where it is said to be happening in order to know for sure if what He has heard is true. Further in the dialogue between Yahweh and Abraham, it seems that Yahweh doesn't know exactly how many righteous are in the city of Sodom. It seems even this must be found out.
Tom: Find enlightenment oh lotus petal at this location : http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/Custom/4/Documents/beltstudies.htm
Been there and done the Gen. 18 deal. We talk about it a lot over a year ago. The search machine should give you a couple good threads. The link I gave you is the “Open Letter” found on the Homepage. I condensed it for that letter, but the nuts and bolts are in one of the threads around here somewhere.
Thanks Tom. I read the "Open Letter" in the link. Wow, what a lot of REINTERPRETATION of Scripture one must do in order to make a passage fit their viewpoint. God job Tom at showing us that we can no longer believe that the Bible simply means what it says but that we must call upon the local expert in order to understand it.
Since the Calvinist is not allowed to simply take Gen 18 at face value, he must consult the high Caliber Calvinists to give him the valid reinterpretation. The same with the Arminian. And now the OVers must all do the same.
Gee, I am learning a lot. Let me know when the Open View Expositry Commentary is published so that I can always ensure that my Scripture interpretation is correct, will ya? 
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Troy: Well one benefit [of God’s literally forgetting our sin] is that it keeps Him from having to fight against Himself to restrain any anger that might come up when He is talking to us and all of a sudden that lie I told two months ago
Troy: You’re trying to fix a lack of understanding of the LOVE of God by tinkering with the knowledge of God. It’s called forgiveness bro. God can forgive your lie, forever know it happened, and never become angry with you about it in spite of knowing it happened. What kind picture of God are we functioning with when we argue that the only way God keeps from “fighting with himself” over getting angry again and again over our sin is by not knowing about it?
You need to be talking about the infinite love of God and not about his knowledge.
Uh, Tom, I thought that God's KNOWLEDGE was the specific attribute under discussion here?
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Troy: Finally, while we often hear the phrase "forgive and forget" used both within and outside of Christian circles, there really is no Scripture teaching us to "forget". That's not saying that we shouldn't choose to do so if at all possible (since we are to forgive as our Father does) but I AM saying that God says that He will remember our ins no more but does not call us to do the same. He simply tells us to "forgive."
Tom: This is interesting. God can’t forgive and guarantee that he won’t eternally struggle with himself over getting angry with us unless he wipes his memory of the matter. But he commands us to forgive whether or not we forget. He commands us to do what he can’t. All the more reason to believe God doesn’t fight with himself over getting angry about forgiven sins that he retains knowledge of.
I was simply stating the fact that Scripture has never told us to forget the wrong done to us. This is simply a counter to the argument that everyone keeps throwing about the fact that we are called to forgive, etc. etc. etc. My point was that God is the only being in the universe who said that I won't even remember your sin. Anyway, I just wanted to see your reaction to that. Nearly what I expected
Anyway, while the Bible does not contain any specific verses that tell us to forget about someone's sin against us, most Christians assume that we are to do this since we are forgiven in the same proportion that we forgive others and we are to love and forgive just the same as the Father does.
Furthermore, the Christian is told to CHOOSE to forget those things that are behind: Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, (Phil. 3:13)
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
[Be gone bad view of God! Be gone!
Um, yeah ..... I'm going to let that one go, though I am strongly tempted to respond. It's a good thing that I learned that God has given me power over temptation.
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
[[Troy: I see it differently. If God can "choose to forget" then that means that He is able to do all things. In other words, He can lift any rock that He makes. If it is impossible for God to literally forget, even if He wants to, it's possible that God has become a prisoner of His own omniscience.
Tom: Somebody else do this! Troy, can God commit suicide? Can he will himself out of existence? If not, does this make him a prisoner of his own existence? Can God lie? The Bible says he cannot. If he can’t lie must he then be a prisoner of his own goodness? We don’t have to go this route. God can be incapable of being other than omniscient without being a prisoner to his own omniscience. We do NOT attribute any REAL weakness to a general if we say “He cannot lose in battle” or to Michael Jordan if we say, “He can’t miss his shots.” If we follow your reasoning here then we’d have to say that God is a prisoner of his own omnipotence since he can't do certain things like NOT literally forget things.
Happy theorizing!
Tom
You are right, God specifically stated in His Word that he cannot lie. Now, let me ask you - should I read those passages ANTHROPOMORPHICALLY or LITERALLY?
John Earp can correct me on this but doesn't He believe that this means that God choses not to lie?
Anyway, you seem to want to accept as literal what fits YOUR view and figurative what does not fit. The same God who says "I cannot lie" and even that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Him to lie is the exact same God who said that He would remember a person's sin no more for His sake.
Talk about theorizing, you are doing a pretty good job here Tom
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/17/2004 11:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi VW and Tom,
My take on Gen. 18 is that it is indeed figurative speech, not to be taken literally, for if literal, it would in fact require us to deny God's omniscience of the present. While I think Tom's argument on this passage indeed has some merit, I have not found it ultimately convincing as of yet. I'm still studyin' on it, but just not sure yet. (Being very minimally knowledgeable about biblical languages, I have to trust the translators' expertise on questions such as this).
That said, what seems to be to be the reasonable approach to Scripture is when there is simply no reasonable way to reconcile a passage to the rest of Scripture, we must view it as figurative. Further, I do not see this particular passage as negatively impacting upon the Open View in the least. For us to simply say the writer of Gen. 18 was using Hebrew idiom here to express this situation seems the most reasonable to me, for this simply cannot under any stretch of the imagination be forced into either the Open View OR any of the traditional views, as we all categorically affirm that God "knows all things," which would by definition include all the present.
As to "God cannot lie," from my understanding (that of Moral Gov't Theology), that this expresses not a physical impossibility (for God certainly has the ability to say whatever He wishes), but that He simply lacks the moral ability to do so. This is not unlike when we say of someone whose character we are well acquainted with, "He could NEVER do that!"
As I do not find Scripture to teach that God acts automatically as if he were some kind of a "holy robot" (please forgive the nearly blasphemous expression), I affirm that God has the natural ability (free will potential) to lie, but not the moral ability to do so.
In other words, He can not because He WILL not (chooses not to). He always has chosen the highest good (benevolence), and will always continue to do so, for He has eminently proven himself FAITHFUL to his promises.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/17/2004 5:04 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
PoW: I'm betting, that it goes right back to the Jewishness of Christian worship ('Tom in Lebanon,' what do you think?) Even when Christ says "Do this in remembrance of me" they see more in those words than my Swedish Baptist Sunday School teachers were aware of.
Tom: Absolutely. We Westerners don’t relate through “covenants” as ancient Semites did. We have to work harder at putting ourselves into that mindset.
For Tom: www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/orthodox-faith/worship/remembrances.html | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/17/2004 6:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Troy: Thanks Tom. I read the "Open Letter" in the link. Wow, what a lot of REINTERPRETATION of Scripture one must do in order to make a passage fit their viewpoint. God job Tom at showing us that we can no longer believe that the Bible simply means what it says but that we must call upon the local expert in order to understand it.
Tom: Ha Ha. Hey, they’re all interpretations, not reinterpretations. Calling them “reinterpretations” just begs the question of how they are to be interpreted and assumes that your interpretation IS the right one. And they express what I think the Bible simply means when it speaks to us. It’s not an argument against my interpretation of Genesis, for example, to say I don’t believe we can believe what the Bible simply means. If I’m wrong on the Genesis passage it should be pretty simple for you to show me how my understanding of the grammar and context is wrong. I’m all ears.
When I read Gen. 18 that’s what I simply get.
quote:
Tom: You need to be talking about the infinite love of God and not about his knowledge.
Troy: Uh, Tom, I thought that God's KNOWLEDGE was the specific attribute under discussion here?
It was. But the reason you expressed for wanting to believe God literally forgets your sin is the belief that if God retained knowledge of a sin you had committed and for which he had forgiven you, God would constantly fight with himself over getting angry with you over that sin. But if it’s this is the view of God’s love that’s motivating you to conclude he must literally forget your sin, then why not work on your view of God’s love? Then you wouldn’t have to fear God coming down on you in anger every day.
quote:
Tom: This is interesting. God can’t forgive and guarantee that he won’t eternally struggle with himself over getting angry with us unless he wipes his memory of the matter. But he commands us to forgive whether or not we forget. He commands us to do what he can’t. All the more reason to believe God doesn’t fight with himself over getting angry about forgiven sins that he retains knowledge of.
Troy: I was simply stating the fact that Scripture has never told us to forget the wrong done to us. This is simply a counter to the argument that everyone keeps throwing about the fact that we are called to forgive, etc. etc. etc. My point was that God is the only being in the universe who said that I won't even remember your sin.
But your REASON for believing God doesn’t literally remember your sin is the fear that he’d unload his anger on you if he DID literally retain knowledge of it, in which case my question is still a good one: Why would God expect US to do what he can’t do, namely, forgive others, not literally forget, and still treat them with anger-free love. If he expects us to do this, and gives us the strength through his Spirit to do this, then why do you fear he won’t or can’t do this?
Troy: Furthermore, the Christian is told to CHOOSE to forget those things that are behind: Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, (Phil. 3:13)
Tom: If we are commanded to literally not remember those things which are behind, then Paul had himself failed to do this, for he both remembers WELL and mentions right here in this passage “those things which are gone before” (his Jewish heritage, his education, his legal law-keeping, etc.). Do you really think Paul means here to literally forget that he was ever a Pharisee, that he was born to Hebrew parents, etc.? It doesn’t at all seem to me to be “what the Bible simply says.” But it makes perfect sense if Paul means to tell us to not give place to the former things, to not value them in living for God, to no longer trust and rely on their merit, etc. That is the figurative use of "forgetting" here. The literal use makes no sense. Paul intended to literally forget that he was ever a Pharisee or that his parents were Jews of the tribe of Benjamin just so that he could press on to knowing Christ? That's what you get with the literal understanding of "forgetting what lies before" here.
quote:
Be gone bad view of God! Be gone!
Troy: Um, yeah ..... I'm going to let that one go, though I am strongly tempted to respond. It's a good thing that I learned that God has given me power over temptation.
But you haven’t really forgiven me unless you literally forget it. Sorry Troy, I didn’t mean get under your skin with the “bad view” comment. Just a bad attempt on my part to be funny.
Troy: You are right, God specifically stated in His Word that he cannot lie. Now, let me ask you - should I read those passages ANTHROPOMORPHICALLY or LITERALLY?
Tom: No problemo mi amigo. Remember the basic rule from a few pages ago? I agreed that the literal is the default setting for interpreting language. Go with that. If it doesn’t work (if it yields a contradictory meaning, or can’t be squared with what we knows is otherwise true), then consider the figurative. “God doesn’t lie” interpreted literally means “God never says or does anything with a view toward communicating what is not true.” I don’t have a problem with the literal here, so I don’t see the need for considering the figurative. Even if I considered the figurative, I wouldn’t know what it meant. What does it mean to lie figuratively speaking? I don’t know of a figurative use for “lie.”
But I do know what it means to “forget” or to “turn one’s face away” figuratively speaking. And I’m glad there are sensible figurative uses for these expressions, because I can’t conceive of them applying to God literally.
Troy: Anyway, you seem to want to accept as literal what fits YOUR view and figurative what does not fit. The same God who says "I cannot lie" and even that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Him to lie is the exact same God who said that He would remember a person's sin no more for His sake. Talk about theorizing, you are doing a pretty good job here Tom
Tom: All you’re saying is that I take some passages literally and some figuratively. But dude, everybody (as in e-v-e-r-y-b-o-d-y) does this. So unless I’m the only person in the world who does this, there’s no point here. I don’t have a problem with assuming the literal by default. I’ve agreed that this is what we instinctively do.
Everybody (not just me) is motivated IN PART to understand an expression literally or figuratively based on what FITS prior beliefs about God. What hopefully happens is that our interpretation both informs and is informed by our beliefs about God. They influence and feed off of each other. So, yes, I have a belief (based on the overall picture of God I get from the Bible and reason) that God is omniscient. He knows all truths and believes no falsehoods. I’m not going to cough that up unless I absolutely can’t avoid doing so under pressure of a passage of Scripture that can’t possibly be understood to mean anything else. But there’s no pressure to do so, since there is a perfectly good understanding of God’s “forgetting” that works beautifully, one that’s linguistically, contextually, theologically, and otherwise far more plausible than the problematic notion that “what the Bible simply says here” is that God ISN’T omniscient and DOESN’T know all truths.
John: We all categorically affirm that God "knows all things"
Tom: Troy doesn’t. Am I wrong Troy?
Lovin it! Sorry again about the "Be gone bad view!" comment. It's a bad view for me. But I respect your choice to believe it's a good view for you.
Peace,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/17/2004 6:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Thought I'd bring up a discussion we had here a few months back: Does the Bible Teach Omniscience At All?
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2943&SearchTerms=Does+The+Bible+Teach+Omniscience+At+All? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/17/2004 6:58 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Thought I'd bring up a discussion we had here a few months back: Does the Bible Teach Omniscience At All?
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2943&SearchTerms=Does+The+Bible+Teach+Omniscience+At+All?
Yeah, John! That was a good thread!
Peace,
Tom
Troy-
Read this thread John posted to link to. And check out
1Jo 3:20, “…God knows all things…."
You like the literal. Interpret "all things" literally for me. No REinterpretations or slight of hand stuff like I do all the time. Just straightforwardly literal. Then square this with your claim that it's also true that God doesn't know all things because he doesn't know what sins we committed and we forgiven of.
Your back has been pinned to the floor for more the a three-count. We're waiting for ya to say "Give!"
Come on, say it say it say it. 
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/17/2004 7:48 PM (GMT -6) | | I wanna look at 1Jo 3.20 more closely, but I wanna tentatively suggest that what John (the Apostle, not the poster!) means has to do with precisley what Troy has claimed. Troy claims that God must literally NOT know those sins he’s forgiven us in order to avoid constantly becoming angry with us. And that’s pretty condemning for us too. I mean, imagine if I was right about God NOT literally forgetting our sins and Troy was right about God constantly struggling with getting angry with us over sins he’d already forgiven. Now that would be a total stresser for us! Imagine the sense of condemnation you’d feel?
John appears to be discussing precisely this issue. Our hearts condemn us. Why? Because we haven’t lived in love as we should have? Or because we fail, we sin? And because we REMEMBER it. We know we’ve screwed up and our hearts condemn us: “You failure you. You’re such a disappointment to God. You’re such a looser.”
Troy has answered this. He claims that God forgets and so doesn’t know what sins he’s forgiven. So we can throw off our condemnation by asking God, “Do you remember that lie I told last week?” and knowing that God’s answer is, “No, I don’t. You told a lie last week? I don’t know. I forgave you of something, but I don’t know what it was I forgave.”
John has a different answer, and it’s the doctrine of the LOVE of God. We don’t have to be condemned by our pasts not because God doesn’t know them, but precisely because he knows them AND LOVES US STILL. God is greater than our hearts. John reasons that if God knows I lied last week and does not now condemn me for it in spite of knowing it, then I need not condemn myself. God’s opinion of me, knowing what I’ve done, is greater than my opinion of myself, knowing what I’ve done.
We have to wonder whether or not Troy’s belief that if God were to know what sins we’ve committed he would not be able to look at us without becoming angry, without condemning us, is based on a failure to embrace a fully biblical understanding and experience of God’s overwhelming infinite love. This is why I think Troy’s issue is the LOVE of God, not the KNOWLEDGE of God. John counts on God being so in LOVE with us that KNOWING “all things” about us couldn’t possibly tempt him to condemn us. There’s no anger.
What does Paul say? Perfect LOVE casts out all FEAR. And if God’s love is so great as to be free of anger and condemnation in spite of knowing our pasts, then WE also are free from our pasts! John says it's God's loving us in spite of knowing us that "sets our hearts at rest in his presence." But we can’t be free from our pasts if WE KNOW what we did but believe God would be angry with us if HE KNEW what we did. God may not condemn us, but we may condemn ourselves (as John says) and so willnot "rest in his presence."
Troy, God loves you THAT much! He knows all the crap of your past, has forgiven it, and still feels nothing but outrageous love and joy at the sight of you. He doesn't require ignorance of himself to love you. Be free in that bro!
The Greek “and” (“kai”) can mean “even” and if (gotta check into it) that works here, then v. 19-20 read like this: This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence [precisely Troy’s point] whenever our hearts condemn us, BECAUSE (“hoti”) God is greater than our hearts, EVEN (“kai”) knowing everything [about us].” The “all things” God knows must in context relate to that which forms the basis of why our hearts condemn us. John’s not gonna say “God doesn’t condemn you because of your pasts because he knows everything about the planet Saturn.” No, it’s because God doesn’t condemn us EVEN THOUGH he knows what we know about how crummy we’ve been.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/18/2004 6:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Good Morning Tom
As usual you are wrong but I will be patient and try to help you. Perhaps one day you will thank me for it 
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Troy: Thanks Tom. I read the "Open Letter" in the link. Wow, what a lot of REINTERPRETATION of Scripture one must do in order to make a passage fit their viewpoint. God job Tom at showing us that we can no longer believe that the Bible simply means what it says but that we must call upon the local expert in order to understand it.
Tom: Ha Ha. Hey, they’re all interpretations, not reinterpretations. Calling them “reinterpretations” just begs the question of how they are to be interpreted and assumes that your interpretation IS the right one. And they express what I think the Bible simply means when it speaks to us. It’s not an argument against my interpretation of Genesis, for example, to say I don’t believe we can believe what the Bible simply means. If I’m wrong on the Genesis passage it should be pretty simple for you to show me how my understanding of the grammar and context is wrong. I’m all ears.
When I read Gen. 18 that’s what I simply get.
Just the fact that you even think that what God says has to be INTERPRETED - PERIOD.
If I say "Bob went to the corner store on his skateboard to buy some juicy fruit gum" exactly how much interpretation does that involve? Should you call a committe together to discuss what I REALLY meant:
Tom: I don't take what Troy said literally here. I believe that this is figurative of Bob going to the store in the quickest way possible. After all, Bob is forty two years old. Why would a forty two year old man need a skateboard. If you really check the original language in which Troy wrote that statement you will find that the word for "skateboard" could apply to any type of transportational device.
Furthermore, why would Bob LITERALLY need "juicy fruit" gum? My theology of Bob does not seem to imply that he chews juicy fruit. Most other passages of Troy's writings demonstrates a Bob that chews dentine sugarless gum because Bob, a perfect being, would do all that he can to avoid cavities and promote dental hygiene.
This parody is exactly how you appear to me in your "interpretation of God's Word
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
quote:
Tom: You need to be talking about the infinite love of God and not about his knowledge.
Troy: Uh, Tom, I thought that God's KNOWLEDGE was the specific attribute under discussion here?
It was. But the reason you expressed for wanting to believe God literally forgets your sin is the belief that if God retained knowledge of a sin you had committed and for which he had forgiven you, God would constantly fight with himself over getting angry with you over that sin. But if it’s this is the view of God’s love that’s motivating you to conclude he must literally forget your sin, then why not work on your view of God’s love? Then you wouldn’t have to fear God coming down on you in anger every day.
quote:
Tom: This is interesting. God can’t forgive and guarantee that he won’t eternally struggle with himself over getting angry with us unless he wipes his memory of the matter. But he commands us to forgive whether or not we forget. He commands us to do what he can’t. All the more reason to believe God doesn’t fight with himself over getting angry about forgiven sins that he retains knowledge of.
Troy: I was simply stating the fact that Scripture has never told us to forget the wrong done to us. This is simply a counter to the argument that everyone keeps throwing about the fact that we are called to forgive, etc. etc. etc. My point was that God is the only being in the universe who said that I won't even remember your sin.
But your REASON for believing God doesn’t literally remember your sin is the fear that he’d unload his anger on you if he DID literally retain knowledge of it, in which case my question is still a good one: Why would God expect US to do what he can’t do, namely, forgive others, not literally forget, and still treat them with anger-free love. If he expects us to do this, and gives us the strength through his Spirit to do this, then why do you fear he won’t or can’t do this?
Now let's back up por uno momento ....
First, I have declared that I am not DOGMATIC about the "divine eraser" position. My biggest questions to you and John have been "why can't these be taken literally?" Basically, I want SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY rather than man-made rules and reasonings on why we cannot take God at His Word or that He means exactly what He says in these passages.
You asked for reasons why should we take them literally and you saw no reason why we should. Being that you will not accept an answer such as "The Bible says it so that's why?" I came to your level and offered a few "philosophical" reasons why it might be possible for God to use a "divine erasure" of His memory banks. My philosophical reasons for a literal rendering of the passages holds just as much weight as your being against a literal rendering.
However, the final authority is God and His Word. Did God have His Word put in print so that we can spend more time analyzing it for meaning or did He have it in print for even the simplest of minds to read it and simply take Him at it?
Do I need to have a TALMUD with my PENTETEUCH?
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
[brTroy: Furthermore, the Christian is told to CHOOSE to forget those things that are behind: Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, (Phil. 3:13)
Tom: If we are commanded to literally not remember those things which are behind, then Paul had himself failed to do this, for he both remembers WELL and mentions right here in this passage “those things which are gone before” (his Jewish heritage, his education, his legal law-keeping, etc.). Do you really think Paul means here to literally forget that he was ever a Pharisee, that he was born to Hebrew parents, etc.? It doesn’t at all seem to me to be “what the Bible simply says.” But it makes perfect sense if Paul means to tell us to not give place to the former things, to not value them in living for God, to no longer trust and rely on their merit, etc. That is the figurative use of "forgetting" here. The literal use makes no sense. Paul intended to literally forget that he was ever a Pharisee or that his parents were Jews of the tribe of Benjamin just so that he could press on to knowing Christ? That's what you get with the literal understanding of "forgetting what lies before" here.
GASP! You mean God doesn't give Christians divine erasers either? My "eraser theology" goes down the toilet from here. 
Alright, next question. Do you think we can literally overcome sin in this life before we die or get raptured (do you believe in a literal rapture)?
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
[brquote:
Be gone bad view of God! Be gone!
Troy: Um, yeah ..... I'm going to let that one go, though I am strongly tempted to respond. It's a good thing that I learned that God has given me power over temptation.
But you haven’t really forgiven me unless you literally forget it. Sorry Troy, I didn’t mean get under your skin with the “bad view” comment. Just a bad attempt on my part to be funny.
You didn't get under my skin. I wrote that response in jest (sometimes I forget to put smilies in the appropriate places. However, I thought you may have been poking fun at my Charismatic beliefs and I was going to give a response in kind but thought better of it.
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
[brTroy: You are right, God specifically stated in His Word that he cannot lie. Now, let me ask you - should I read those passages ANTHROPOMORPHICALLY or LITERALLY?
Tom: No problemo mi amigo. Remember the basic rule from a few pages ago? I agreed that the literal is the default setting for interpreting language. Go with that. If it doesn’t work (if it yields a contradictory meaning, or can’t be squared with what we knows is otherwise true), then consider the figurative. “God doesn’t lie” interpreted literally means “God never says or does anything with a view toward communicating what is not true.” I don’t have a problem with the literal here, so I don’t see the need for considering the figurative. Even if I considered the figurative, I wouldn’t know what it meant. What does it mean to lie figuratively speaking? I don’t know of a figurative use for “lie.”
But I do know what it means to “forget” or to “turn one’s face away” figuratively speaking. And I’m glad there are sensible figurative uses for these expressions, because I can’t conceive of them applying to God literally.
Yeah, but others, most probably MGTers, will disagree with you on the lietralism of that statement. They may tell you that the word "cannot" does not mean that God is lacking the ability to lie but that due to His hatred of sin, He chooses not to. He finds the thought of lying repulsive. However, saying that He cannot doesn't mean that He couldn't do so if He chose to.
I am not saying that I agree with the above assessment, and if I am misrepresenting the view, John and others can correct me. However, I am saying that just as you take the "God cannot lie" literally, others see it figuratively. Now, what gives YOU more weight for your view than those of us who might contemplate (though not necessarily fulling embracing) the idea that God literally forgets if He chooses to?
So many ways to view a passage. Everyone thinks they are RIGHT and the rest of us must go LEFT  (hold all rotten tomoatoes plase)
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
[brTroy: Anyway, you seem to want to accept as literal what fits YOUR view and figurative what does not fit. The same God who says "I cannot lie" and even that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Him to lie is the exact same God who said that He would remember a person's sin no more for His sake. Talk about theorizing, you are doing a pretty good job here Tom
Tom: All you’re saying is that I take some passages literally and some figuratively.
That is not all that I am saying. I am saying that you DOGMATICALLY do this, and then you dispute others on it when their LITERAL interpretation does not agree with your FIGURATIVE one and you present your figurative interpretation as the authoritative one.
But hey, it does make for interesting debate.
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
[brBut dude, everybody (as in e-v-e-r-y-b-o-d-y) does this. So unless I’m the only person in the world who does this, there’s no point here. I don’t have a problem with assuming the literal by default. I’ve agreed that this is what we instinctively do.
See above reply.
What authority do any of us have for doing any of that. For example, the Bible presents a picture of Jesus as a "lamb". We have Biblical authority for seeing this as figurative rather than literal. However, other passages are not as clear on that and when they do not fit in the person's theology, they appeal to the "anthropomorphic" argument.
We may "instinctively" do many things, but does that make it right? Perhaps we need the power of God to change our instincts.
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
[brEverybody (not just me) is motivated IN PART to understand an expression literally or figuratively based on what FITS prior beliefs about God. What hopefully happens is that our interpretation both informs and is informed by our beliefs about God. They influence and feed off of each other. So, yes, I have a belief (based on the overall picture of God I get from the Bible and reason) that God is omniscient. He knows all truths and believes no falsehoods. I’m not going to cough that up unless I absolutely can’t avoid doing so under pressure of a passage of Scripture that can’t possibly be understood to mean anything else. But there’s no pressure to do so, since there is a perfectly good understanding of God’s “forgetting” that works beautifully, one that’s linguistically, contextually, theologically, and otherwise far more plausible than the problematic notion that “what the Bible simply says here” is that God ISN’T omniscient and DOESN’T know all truths.
Forgetting means He knew what was done but decided to remove it from it's memory because it is an event that happened that is no longer relevent to Him - if we took that in a LITERAL sense. However, if we want to hold on to a particular view of God's omniscience only because it might seem to diminish His glory if we discard it then never again chastize a CALVINIST for holding to their whacked out view of God's SOVEREIGNTY because it "glorifies Him."
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
[brJohn: We all categorically affirm that God "knows all things"
Tom: Troy doesn’t. Am I wrong Troy?
Let me give you the standard OV answer. God knows all things. We must now define the "all things" that God knows."
Anyway, you are wrong! I do believe that God knows all things. However, I just enjoy giving counter arguments to your arguments against me to show you that I ain't nearly as dumb as I look 
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
[brLovin it! Sorry again about the "Be gone bad view!" comment. It's a bad view for me. But I respect your choice to believe it's a good view for you.
Peace,
Tom
Hey, when I was in Okinawa Japan there was a dealer in used goods who had a motto: "It's junk to you but it's bread and butter to us."
Or as the great philosopher, Bugs Bunny once said: "One man's meat is another man's poison."
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/18/2004 7:32 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Thought I'd bring up a discussion we had here a few months back: Does the Bible Teach Omniscience At All?
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2943&SearchTerms=Does+The+Bible+Teach+Omniscience+At+All?
Yeah, John! That was a good thread!
Peace,
Tom
Troy-
Read this thread John posted to link to. And check out
1Jo 3:20, “…God knows all things…."
You like the literal. Interpret "all things" literally for me. No REinterpretations or slight of hand stuff like I do all the time. Just straightforwardly literal. Then square this with your claim that it's also true that God doesn't know all things because he doesn't know what sins we committed and we forgiven of.
Your back has been pinned to the floor for more the a three-count. We're waiting for ya to say "Give!"
Come on, say it say it say it.
Tom
Oh c'mon now. Are you going to come against me with the very passage that opponents of the OV use against you?
I LOVE IT!!!!
Now what is the standard OV reply to that passage when used by their opponents? God knows all things that are KNOWABLE or something to that effect. Maybe I should leave it there for a while .....
Naaaaaaaaahhhhhh!
Of course the CONTEXT of 1 John 3:20 reveals the specific "things" that are being referred to in that passage, but I don't want to get into that because it would spoil all of the fun we are having, now wouldn't it?
Anyway, Peter made a similar statement to (about) Jesus:
He saith unto him the third time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. (John 21:17)
Now, I noticed that Jesus does not deny the validity of Peter's statement. However, Jesus admitted that He did not even know the time of His second coming:
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. (Mark 13:32)
So you tell me Tom, which one of those passages are LITERAL and which one is FIGURATIVE?
Now, while you chew on that, here is another thought for you. That word "knows" in 1 John 3:20 (Ginosko) is the same Greek word used in Gal. 4:9. According to the The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon found at CRosswalk.com, Ginosko has some interesting definitions:
to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel
to become known
to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of
to understand
to know
Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman
to become acquainted with, to know
Now, look at Gal. 4:9. Here are a couple of interesting translations (or transliterations or paraphrases or .... whatever):
But now, since you know God, or rather have become known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and bankrupt elemental forces? Do you want to be enslaved to them all over again? (Holman)
But now that you know God—or, I should say, now that God knows you—how is it that you want to turn back to those weak and pitiful ruling spirits? Why do you want to become their slaves all over again? (Good News)
Now, would you say that God knew nothing about them before or would you say that it was after their comittement to Him that God gained INTIMATE knowledge of them?
Finally by what authority would you use GINOSKO in the same way or differently in 1 John 3:20 and Gal. 4:9?
Look forward to your response.
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/18/2004 8:25 AM (GMT -6) | | This has becoming entertaining now!
Troy: Just the fact that you even think that what God says has to be INTERPRETED - PERIOD.
Tom: Makes perfect sense. Language must be interpreted. Meaning is on the other side of interpretation.
Troy: If I say "Bob went to the corner store on his skateboard to buy some juicy fruit gum" exactly how much interpretation does that involve?
Tom: It needs interpreting, but given the context and simplicity the interpretation is automatic. You seem to think “interpreting” is only what’s done to difficult hard to understand texts and not a necessary step to meaning. It’s the latter. Most of the time we do our interpreting instinctively, without conscious effort. Sometimes we have to consciously consider the options in meaning if the context and language require it. If they don’t require it that doesn’t mean interpretation hasn’t occurred.
Troy: First, I have declared that I am not DOGMATIC about the "divine eraser" position. My biggest questions to you and John have been "why can't these be taken literally?"
Tom: I’ve spelled out what the literal meaning would amount to. If you’re comfortable denying omniscience and dealing with a God whose present counsel to Christians excludes knowledge of what’s behind their struggles, then you won’t find my reasons for believing God doesn’t literally forget the past convincing. That’s fine.
Troy: Basically, I want SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY rather than man-made rules and reasonings on why we cannot take God at His Word or that He means exactly what He says in these passages.
Tom: I’m getting tired, bro. For the record (again), I haven’t suggested that we not take God at his word or that God doesn’t mean “exactly what he says.” We award you a Ph.D. for begging the question. You just assume there that “taking God at his word” means limiting God to the literal use of language, and that “exactly” in his meaning “exactly what he says” is equivalent to a literal use of language.
What I’m suggesting is that both literal and figurative uses of language, when employed by the authors of Scripture, each amount to “God’s word” and “exactly God’s word” and may be taken as such.
Troy: You asked for reasons why should we take them literally and you saw no reason why we should.
Tom: I saw reasons why we shouldn’t take them literally.
Troy: Being that you will not accept an answer such as "The Bible says it so that's why?"
Tom: I can do this, watch. Troy, my reason for understanding divine “forgetting” figuratively is because the Bible says so. There.
See, bro, just saying “The Bible says so” doesn’t tells us what the Bible means.
Troy: I came to your level and offered a few "philosophical" reasons why it might be possible for God to use a "divine erasure" of His memory banks. My philosophical reasons for a literal rendering of the passages holds just as much weight as your being against a literal rendering.
Tom: Your right to offer reasons for understanding divine “forgetting” literally holds just as much weight as mine. But the arguments themselves can’t each be equally valid, for then the passages in question would be BOTH literal and figurative, and that’s impossible. They’re either literal or figurative, but not both. So there are bound to be better philosophical and biblical arguments for one than the other.
Troy: However, the final authority is God and His Word. Did God have His Word put in print so that we can spend more time analyzing it for meaning or did He have it in print for even the simplest of minds to read it and simply take Him at it?
Tom: I never, in the simplest reading, beginning at the age of 13 when I first starting reading the Bible through, thought God “forgetting” our sins was a meant literally. Never. I couldn’t spell “philosophy” back and hadn’t been corrupted by open theism, Bible School, and the biblical languages. All I could do was “take him at his word” without so-called interpreting him first. I never even thought God’s forgetting meant he literally forgot the past and didn’t know it. I’d venture to guess the same is true of everybody. I’d further guess that YOUR literal take on this is the contrived, educated one.
Troy: Do I need to have a TALMUD with my PENTETEUCH?
Tom: No, you just need to abandon your irrational literalistic hermeneutic and use some common sense.
Troy: Alright, next question. Do you think we can literally overcome sin in this life before we die or get raptured (do you believe in a literal rapture)?
Tom: Don’t bait people Troy. Lay your arguments are there. What d’ya got?
Troy: However, I thought you may have been poking fun at my Charismatic beliefs and I was going to give a response in kind but thought better of it.
Tom: As a Pentecostal, I’m not likely to make fun of a Charismatic!
quote:
Troy: You are right, God specifically stated in His Word that he cannot lie. Now, let me ask you - should I read those passages ANTHROPOMORPHICALLY or LITERALLY?
Tom: No problemo mi amigo. Remember the basic rule from a few pages ago? I agreed that the literal is the default setting for interpreting language. Go with that. If it doesn’t work (if it yields a contradictory meaning, or can’t be squared with what we knows is otherwise true), then consider the figurative. “God doesn’t lie” interpreted literally means “God never says or does anything with a view toward communicating what is not true.” I don’t have a problem with the literal here, so I don’t see the need for considering the figurative. Even if I considered the figurative, I wouldn’t know what it meant. What does it mean to lie figuratively speaking? I don’t know of a figurative use for “lie.” But I do know what it means to “forget” or to “turn one’s face away” figuratively speaking. And I’m glad there are sensible figurative uses for these expressions, because I can’t conceive of them applying to God literally.
Troy: I am not saying that I agree with the above assessment, and if I am misrepresenting the view, John and others can correct me. However, I am saying that just as you take the "God cannot lie" literally, others see it figuratively.
Nobody takes “God cannot lie” figuratively. John takes it literally but attributes it to God differently than I. I argue this is a physical impossibility (rather, metaphysical). John argues it’s a moral impossibility. Both are literal impossibilities. Neither of us takes this figuratively.
Troy: So many ways to view a passage.
Tom: I thought you denied that the Bible even has to be interpreted. There’s just one take on the Bible, the literal, that’s taking God at his word, exactly for what he says. Now there is more than one possible way to view a passage?
quote:
Troy: Anyway, you seem to want to accept as literal what fits YOUR view and figurative what does not fit. The same God who says "I cannot lie" and even that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Him to lie is the exact same God who said that He would remember a person's sin no more for His sake. Talk about theorizing, you are doing a pretty good job here Tom.
Tom: All you’re saying is that I take some passages literally and some figuratively.
Troy: That is not all that I am saying. I am saying that you DOGMATICALLY do this, and then you dispute others on it when their LITERAL interpretation does not agree with your FIGURATIVE one and you present your figurative interpretation as the authoritative one.
Not even close. You must be interpreting me figuratively! I’d never present my personal interpretation as THE authoritative interpretation. It makes the best sense to me, but it obviously doesn’t to you. I am pretty sure about the following (but would never made a judgment about a person’s faith or relationship to God based on these):
a) everybody takes some passages literally and some figuratively,
b) the literal is our default mode and the figurative ought to be considered when the literal doesn’t work,
c) if you take divine forgetfulness literally you cannot also affirm divine omniscience,
d) God is omniscient.
Troy: What authority do any of us have for doing any of that. For example, the Bible presents a picture of Jesus as a "lamb". We have Biblical authority for seeing this as figurative rather than literal. However, other passages are not as clear…
Tom: I thought you said you don’t interpret the Bible. You just take God at his word and take understand the Bible for “exactly what it says.” Now there are passages that aren’t exactly clear? I’m devastated.
Troy: …on that and when they do not fit in the person's theology, they appeal to the "anthropomorphic" argument.
Tom: I specifically said the line of influence between the Bible’s informing our view of God and our beliefs about God informing our understanding of the Bible ought to constantly run in BOTH directions. SOME people of all theological stripes fail to read the Bible with a willingness to allow their beliefs about God to be challenged in a fresh way. But you can’t accuse people of doing this just because they happen to disagree with you and prefer a figurative over a literal take on language. How can you know that I’m just bending Scripture to my own theology? Because I disagree with you?
Troy: We may "instinctively" do many things, but does that make it right?
Tom: Didn’t suggest it did. I only suggested that you can’t judge as wrong my taking language figuratively simply because I take some language literally (which is what you were doing). My point was: Since everybody (including you) takes some language literally and some figuratively, you can’t on this basis alone (which is what you were doing) judge a person’s taking language one way or the other as being wrong.
Troy: Forgetting means He knew what was done but decided to remove it from it's [his] memory… - if we took that in a LITERAL sense.
Tom: What literally forgetting means hasn’t been in doubt.
Troy: However, if we want to hold on to a particular view of God's omniscience only because it might seem to diminish His glory…
Tom: This is not fair. It’s possible to hold to omniscience precisely because it comes to us FROM the Bible. I don’t force omniscience onto the Bible and squeeze figurative readings though it. 1Jo 3:20: “God knows all things.” It’s not about glory (though I think a God who knows all things is greater than a God who doesn’t know all things). It’s about interpreting the divine “forgetting” passages in a way that leaves God knowing all things.
Troy: …if we discard it then never again chastize a CALVINIST for holding to their whacked out view of God's SOVEREIGNTY because it "glorifies Him."
Tom: I’m worn out Troy. This is so convoluted. Somebody else jump in here please. John? Alan? Anybody?
Troy: Let me give you the standard OV answer [to what omniscience is]. God knows all things. We must now define the "all things" that God knows.
Tom: And you want to deny that historical events qualify as “things” in this case in the same sense that the outcome of future contingent events does not yet exist in any objective sense of the word to know? Ooo, let’s see you do that.
Troy: Anyway, you are wrong! I do believe that God knows all things. However, I just enjoy giving counter arguments to your arguments against me to show you that I ain't nearly as dumb as I look.
Tom: Eh…
Over and out,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/18/2004 8:51 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Just a quick followup--I categorically affirm that God cannot lie. My understanding as to WHY this is true (i.e., because he chooses not to) does not obviate the FACT that He cannot, it simply seeks to uphold God's true freedom and true holiness. All virtue and all vice are voluntary, whether in God or in men.
Sure John, sure. I believe you (Just kidding!!!)
I have spent more time on this forum in the past couple of days than usual and unfortunately, I am behind in some work. These forums become to addicting after a while. You know, you post, you hope for a response, you come back and check, you respond to your response, and the viscious cycle continues.
I'm going to try and catch up on some work now so I may be turning off my browser (c'mon mouse, click on that "exit" button).
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
| 84 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:32 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|