 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Ways in which God can know the future. | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Hunter
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 5/10/2005 10:57 PM (GMT -6) |   | Subject of debate: Ways in which God comes to know with certainty which future events will occur. (In other words, is God omniscient).
---Granted doctrine for this thread---
The Bible does not contradict itself because it is infailable. (1 Thessalonians 2:13, 2 Timothy 3:16) It seems you both (Laika and young_think_tank) accept this because you are both quoting out of it (plus it is not the point of the aurgument so if you want to debate this start a new thread).
---
---Argument: Jer 32:35 against foreknowledge---
In opposition to God's omnscience (all-knowing) Laika stated Jeremiah 32:35 as a verse "hostile to the exhaustive fore-knowlege thesis" and that one verse "is enough to bring it down". I agree with this, because the Bible does not contradict itself because it is infailable.
Now, on to the verse. Jeremiah 32:35 "And they built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben-hinnom to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I had not commanded them nor had it entered My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin," (and similarly, Jeremiah 7:31) Certainly God who knew the past sins of Israel would have thought about them doing such sin. So, it doesn't make sense to interpret this as God admitting that He had never thought of something.
Looking at several translations I see that the NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, RSV, 1901 ASV, all translate this as "and it did not come into My mind," What is interesting is that the LXX (The LXX, or Septuagint, is the Greek Translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. It was translated by Jews around 200 B.C.) uses the Greek word "kardia", "heart" instead of the Greek word for mind. Since we can conclude that God can contemplate all potential forms of rebellion, we can then also conclude that God is addressing the issue of human moral behavior instead of expressing ignorance since that is what God is talking about. In other words, their sin did not enter the intention of God's heart in His plans for Judah.
Just for note, the NASB has a marginal note of "heart".
---
---Argument: Rock too big to lift---
This is actually about God's omnipotence (all-powerful). The attribute that "God is all-powerful" arises from biblical claims regarding God as "Almighty" (Genesis 17:1, Psalm 91:1). "God is almighty" does not mean that God can do anything; rather, it means that God has dominion over God's creation. God's omnipotence, therefore, is linked to God's providence and sovereignty. The Bible itself states that there are things God cannot do, such as sin. Therefore, Christian thinkers have typically argued that God cannot do anything that is contrary to God's own nature. I believe that this is a drastic oversimplification when compared to the dominion of God, however and doesn't do it justice.
---
---Does this work?---
I'm still thinking about this idea but I'll give it a shot: Since God created everything, he created time. (Also) Since he created everything, he trancends everything. Since he created and trancends everything, he trancends time. Since time has no relation to His being then he must be able to view all of time. Since he can view all of time then then he can see the future. Since he can see the future (and is all-powerfull (Since he created and trancends everything)) he can adjust the future. Therefore there is one past and one future, and God knows everything that was and will be.
It seems that the omniscianct part is the easy part. Now, just how much is "adjusted?" I'll look at that later...
---
What other arguments are there? This is fun...
---Credit---
www.carm.org
www.biblegateway.com
ISBN 0-664-22524-1
---
Ps. This should cover basically everything up until the Isaiah/Chronicals post (but I'm working on that). Tell me if I missed anything, or if you don't see a link.Post Edited (Hunter) : 5/10/2005 11:20:41 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/10/2005 11:09 PM (GMT -6) | |
Hunter said...
---Does this work?---
I'm still thinking about this idea but I'll give it a shot: Since God created everything, he created time. (Also) Since he created everything, he trancends everything. Since he created and trancends everything, he trancends time. Since time has no relation to His being then he must be able to view all of time. Since he can view all of time then then he can see the future. Since he can see the future (and is all-powerfull (Since he created and trancends everything)) he can adjust the future. Therefore there is one past and one future, and God knows everything that was and will be.
It seems that the omniscianct part is the easy part. Now, just how much is "adjusted?" I'll look at that later...
---
What other arguments are there? This is fun...
I'm just talking out into the empty sky here...
Never has such a useless doctrine gotten more attention than has the notion that God's being timeless provides him an advantage in ruling the world and accomplishing his will. I'm simply dumfounded at the ease with which people embrace such an idea. Amazing.
Tom Post Edited (TGB) : 5/10/2005 11:13:04 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
¡Que Payaso!
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 108
| Posted 5/11/2005 12:30 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Hunter,
This thread is still short enough to go back and read it all, starting at the beginning. That should clear up any questions you have about where this is going. The issue is something like, does scripture teach that God knows ALL things that will happen in the future, or does scripture teach that God knows SOME things that will happen in the future.
El Payaso 
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." - Bilbo Baggins Post Edited (¡Que Payaso!) : 5/11/2005 12:35:18 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/11/2005 1:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Hunter-
By “staring out at the sky” I was just being, eh…ah heck, I don’t know. Seems everywhere I turn lately I’m meeting these same “God is timeless” argument for how God manages to know the future and get his will done. I was just looking up to heaven complaining!
Timeless knowledge, as is traditionally believed by Arminianists, is useless in this sense (from a past thread):
Thirdly, the simple-foreknowledge (timeless) model affords no providential value whatsoever. If God timelessly knows all of history in the sense argued by advocates of simple-foreknowledge, then he knows his own as well as our choices, and he knows them in one single, timeless sweep. He does not acquire this knowledge in stages; he timelessly possesses it as an attribute. In this case, simple-foreknowledge provides God no providential advantage in governing the universe for the simple reason that God cannot intervene into the story line of history on the basis of such knowledge or access such knowledge in an attempt to determine what his own actions are to be. This includes attempting to prevent undesired events or to bring about what he does desire, warning and guiding people, and prophesying future events. What is foreknown, according to this view, is what actually happens and by definition is already the result of whatever has or has not been done to influence it. Such knowledge cannot then also be the basis of such interaction for the simple reason that this knowledge comes to God too late (logically speaking) for God to use in influencing outcomes. For example, let us say God timelessly knows that Susan will be in a fatal car accident on her 21st birthday. Granted, this knowledge does not cause her death or determine her choice to go driving with her friends. We’re only talking here about whether or not timelessly definite foreknowledge provides God a basis upon which he is able to act providentially. Can God use his knowledge of Susan’s death to warn Susan not to go driving? Can God act in a miraculous way to prevent this accident? In fact, can God do anything on the basis of his knowledge that Susan will die to prevent her from dying? The answer to these questions is, of course, that God cannot intervene on the basis of simple-foreknowledge in order to prevent this event from happening. Since God’s foreknowledge is infallible, what he foreknows will happen will indeed happen. Not even God can act in order to change what he infallibly knows will come to pass. Simple-foreknowledge, if it existed, would be useless to God in preventing foreknown evil and other undesired events. The same thing applies to God’s acting to bring about some event he wishes should happen. Why? Because by the time God foreknows what will happen, it’s logically too late to make use of this knowledge in order to bring about this event. The foreknown event is already the result of whatever divine influence contributed to bringing it about. It cannot also be the basis of that influence. On the simple-foreknowledge view, everything that God knows he knows timelessly. He doesn’t gain his knowledge of the future in stages. Therefore, if God were to timelessly possess exhaustively definite knowledge of past, present, and future, such knowledge could not provide him a basis upon which to determine how to act in ways not also timelessly foreknown by him. Thus, there is nothing a God who possesses simple-foreknowledge can do that a God who does not possess such foreknowledge cannot also do.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/11/2005 6:37 AM (GMT -6) | |
Hunter said...
---Argument: Jer 32:35 against foreknowledge---
In opposition to God's omnscience (all-knowing) Laika stated Jeremiah 32:35 as a verse "hostile to the exhaustive fore-knowlege thesis" and that one verse "is enough to bring it down". I agree with this, because the Bible does not contradict itself because it is infailable.
You don't understand it either.
You're assuming the bible states God has exhaustive fore-knowlege and that any verse against that would have the bible contradicting itself. You're wrong in your assumption.
1. No where in scripture is it stated that God has "exhaustive fore-knowlege".
If it did, you would present it. But no one ever does.
2. There is no exhaustive list of future events that God has laid out as knowing in advance.
Therefore, verses that show God doesn't know some of the future does not make scripture contradictory but do disprove the "exhaustive fore-knowlege" nonsense.
 Post Edited (Laika) : 5/11/2005 7:22:16 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/11/2005 6:44 AM (GMT -6) | |
Hunter said...
See? You just had to look at the context and it comes clear. (Isaiah 7:7,9 "It will not take place, it will not happen, [but] If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all." ) Also, Isaiah prophesied what would happen if Ahaz did not have faith in verses 18 to 25 before it happened so it still gives him "prophesieing" (sp?) credit (but you took that part out of your post...)
See the ifs in your statement?
Rezin and Pekan's success in overthrowing Judah was contingent on Ahaz's actions. That shows the future was open-ended and contingent on how Ahaz chose to act.
That's an open future right there.
That passage proves an open future, not exhaustive fore-knowlege. Rezin and Pekan did take Judah, if Isaiah's prophecy to Ahaz was knowlege of the future, they would NOT have taken Judah.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/11/2005 6:59 AM (GMT -6) | |
Hunter said...
Okay. I think I see what you're saying. I don't know if that is quite what I'm thinking though... I'm thinking more time as a dimension and God is outside of it (and there is no "fore" in foreknowledge in this model).
Time is the ordering of events and it involves duration.
If God is described as eternal and everlasting, that implies that He exists through an endless sequence of discrete duration.
Else, "eternal" and "everlasting" are meaningless.
A static IT that has no duration is not the personality described in scripture.
A static IT would co-exist with creation simultaneously and not exist prior to creation, hence could not be the cause of creation.
A static IT would not know tensed facts. To a static IT, the Gauls are sacking Rome and it's 1066 A.D.
To a static IT, the Magna Charter is being signed and it's 390 B.C.
Both of these propositions are false yet the static IT holds them as true.
What time is it in Bangalore, India, right now? The static IT would not know.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/11/2005 7:07 AM (GMT -6) | |
Hunter said...
Now, on to the verse. Jeremiah 32:35
Since we can conclude that God can contemplate all potential forms of rebellion, we can then also conclude that God is addressing the issue of human moral behavior instead of expressing ignorance since that is what God is talking about. In other words, their sin did not enter the intention of God's heart in His plans for Judah.
Wrong, bad exegesis and logic.
God can contemplate all potential forms of rebellion and yet not know the actual one.
The verse says what it means, that's why all those translators for all those translations rendered it "it did not enter My mind".
We're not saying that God didn't know the potential for Israel to follow in the sins of the Canaanites, scripture is saying He never contemplated that they actually would.
Knowing the potential is not the same as knowing the actual.
Post Edited (Laika) : 5/11/2005 7:31:31 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/11/2005 7:35 AM (GMT -6) | |
TGB said...
Useless. Utterly useless knowledge.
Useless and contradictory AND incorrect.
Contradictory:
 God, is TGB single?
 yes
God, is TGB married?
yes
Incorrect:
God, did the Gauls sack Rome in 1066 AD?
yes
God, did the English sign the magna-carta in 390 B.C.?
yes
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Hunter
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 5/11/2005 9:34 AM (GMT -6) | | ---No exaustive foreknowledge---
Laika said...
1. No where in scripture is it stated that God has "exhaustive fore-knowlege".
2. There is no exhaustive list of future events that God has laid out as knowing in advance.
Okay. I'll look for it. If I don't find it I'll let you know. (This won't change what I believe, but for the sake of the argument...)
---
---Open-ended prophecies---
Laika said...
Rezin and Pekan's success in overthrowing Judah was contingent on Ahaz's actions. That shows the future was open-ended and contingent on how Ahaz chose to act.
That passage proves an open future, not exhaustive fore-knowlege. Rezin and Pekan did take Judah, if Isaiah's prophecy to Ahaz was knowlege of the future, they would NOT have taken Judah.
Hmm. Did you see verses 18 through 25? Isaiah sees that they do not put their faith in God, and like 7 through 9 say, he prophecies just how they will be destroyed.
Laika said...
Nineveh's future was open-ended, contingent on their actions.
If prophecy is fore-knowlege, then here's another example of God not knowing it.
Why does open-ended mean a lack of foreknowing? (Admitted, this section doesn't appear to be for foreknowing, but why is it against it? He gave them the option to repent, which they required and said what He would do if they did not. (More ifs I know...))
Laika said...
See the ifs in your statement?
Yes I see the ifs, but that is what giving an option requires. As humans he gives us an option, knowing the outcome. If he knew Ninevah would repent and said "You will repent" then they probably wouldn't and then he would know that they wouldn't if he said that. On the other hand he will not say "You will not repent" when He knows they will...
---
---Jer 32:35---
Laika said...
We're not saying that God didn't know the potential for Israel to follow in the sins of the Canaanites, scripture is saying He never contemplated that they actually would.
I don't have an answer for this yet either.
--- | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/11/2005 9:45 AM (GMT -6) | |
Hunter said...
Okay. I'll look for it. If I don't find it I'll let you know. (This won't change what I believe, but for the sake of the argument...)
---
If there's no evidence for exhaustive fore-knowlege, there's no reason to believe it.
Hunter said...
Why does open-ended mean a lack of foreknowing? (Admitted, this section doesn't appear to be for foreknowing, but why is it against it? He gave them the option to repent, which they required and said what He would do if they did not. (More ifs I know...))
It doesn't disprove limited fore-knowing but does disprove exhaustive fore-knowing. Else, "forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown" is a lie.
Hunter said...
Hmm. Did you see verses 18 through 25? Isaiah sees that they do not put their faith in God, and like 7 through 9 say, he prophecies just how they will be destroyed.
But God also said Judah would NOT be overthrown. Again, to disprove a "for all", only one example contrary has to be shown.
Hunter said...
Yes I see the ifs, but that is what giving an option requires. As humans he gives us an option, knowing the outcome. If he knew Ninevah would repent and said "You will repent" then they probably wouldn't and then he would know that they wouldn't if he said that. On the other hand he will not say "You will not repent" when He knows they will...
Does God speak honestly to us?
Why even tell Nineveh, "yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown" if He knows they will repent anyways? They needed the message and the message, coming from God, has to be honest and true. There's no reason to assume God is being dishonest and untruthful other than protection of an a-priori assumption that has no biblical support.
Post Edited (Laika) : 5/11/2005 9:50:51 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hunter
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 5/11/2005 1:40 PM (GMT -6) | | ---Evidence for exaustive foreknowledge---
Laika said...
If there's no evidence for exhaustive fore-knowlege, there's no reason to believe it.
Hunter said...
The Bible does not contradict itself because it is infailable.
(If you do not hold the Bible as the infailable Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16 again) then I am am not going to debate this since it is not the point that you should be asking.)
Psalm 139:1-5, 17-18 O Lord, you have searched me and you know me. You know when I sit and when I rise; you percieve my thoughts from afar. You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways. Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O Lord. You hem me in--behind and before; you have laid your hand upon me. Such knoledge is too wonderful for me, too lofty for me to attain.
17 How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them! Were I to count them, they would outnumber the grains of sand.
This is one that indecates exaustive fore-knowledge. I will look for more. (It is enough for my belief, but perhaps not for your unbelief)
---
---Open-ended prophecy---
Laika said...
Else, "forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown" is a lie.
If someone says "I will pay you $20 if you mow my lawn" and I take it ask "I will pay you $20" and ignore the rest, then say he's lying, it wouldn't go over very well. It is the same with Isaiah 7:7,9 "It will not take place, it will not happen, ("I will pay you $20..." ) [but] If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all. ("...if you mow my lawn" )"
Same applies to Jonah.
--- | | Back to Top | | |
|
PhilTheThrill
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 95
| Posted 5/11/2005 2:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Hunter -
God didn't say "If you don't repent in 40 days, I'm-a gitcha!"
He said "In 40 days, you're toast."
Nineveh decided on their own to try repentence, and lo and behold, God changed his mind.
How can a being with exhaustive foreknowledge change his mind? How can an atemporal being change his mind at all?
Also, I don't see how your Psalms versus implies exhaustive foreknowledge of all events... It seems to indicate that God knows us personally and intimately to the point where he can predict what we will do in various situations. However, we must not forget that Psalms is poetry and that it takes more than a poetry verse to prove a concrete theological point.
Let us also not gloss over the idea that if God already knows everything that will ever happen, his "tests" sure seem phony. In fact, God is almost entirely phony throughout the Bible if he has exhaustive foreknowledge of all events. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/12/2005 7:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika: It doesn't disprove limited fore-knowing but does disprove exhaustive fore-knowing.
Tom: Just a point to clarify (for Hunter's sake), I hope. We've talked about this, so I know you agree. On the open view, God's foreknowledge isn't limited. It IS exhausitve. It's just not exhaustively "definite." Exhausitive is an adjective that describes the SCOPE of God's knowledge. God knows ALL things, ALL truths, ALL reality. So the choice is between EDF (exhaustively definite foreknowledge, in which case God knows the future as "definitely this will occur" and "definitely that won't occur" or EF (just exhaustive foreknowledge, in which case God knows the future as "possibly this may occur" and "possibly that may not occur" in addition to knowing it as "definitely this will occur," etc. "Limited foreknowledge" is a bad way to describe the open view, but it takes a lot of effort to avoid because objectors use "limited foreknowledge" and we pick up it with them, or at least don't correct their misunderstanding of our view.
Make sense Hunter?
In our view there are three sorts of future-tense proposition we (and God) make:
A) X will occur
B) X will not occur
C) X might and might not occur
So it's not "limiting" God foreknowledge to say he knows some C-type propositions. What "limits" God's foreknowledge is a position like YOURS Hunter, one which admits that there are future, contingent, free events on the one hand but which denies God foreknows them AS future, contingent, free events on the other hand. So posit real indeterminacy but you make no room in God's knowledge. You limit his foreknowledge to "will" and "will not" propositions even though you don't limit reality to the exclusion of indeterminate events. But neither "will" nor "will not" expresses what is indeterminate about the future. So you have to make "propositional room" in your semantics for indeterminacy (if you believe in indeterminacy), which is what (C) above does. Until then, YOU'RE the one limiting God.
TomPost Edited (TGB) : 5/12/2005 7:42:51 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hunter
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 5/12/2005 12:14 PM (GMT -6) | | ---To PhilTheThrill---
PhilTheThrill said...
He said "In 40 days, you're toast."
"For the wages of sin is death" He hasen't changed from the old to the new. But now we have a new convenent that we are guaranteed forgiveness if we repent. Back then the best you could do was hope.
PhilTheThrill said...
How can a being with exhaustive foreknowledge change his mind? How can an atemporal being change his mind at all?
So, by your reasoning we cannot be saved because God has already decreed that that "The wages of sin is death" and since he doesn't change His mind then we must die. If you say "Ah ha! What about predestination?" then what is the point of Jesus? Do you think he has a point? (I believe that he is the main resting place for Christianity, and if you say otherwise then I will not try to change your mind.)
---
---Some more verse that I found---
Isaiah 41:22, 23 "Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place; as for the former events, declare what they were, that we may consider them and know their outcome. Or announce to us what is coming; declare the things that are going to come afterward, that we may know that you are gods; indeed, do good or evil, that we may anxiously look about us and fear together."
Isaiah 46:10 "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, 'My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure';"
1 Peter 1:2 "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied."
1 Peter 1:20 "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,"
---
Thanks Tom. I should say that I stand with exaustive definite foreknowledge. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/12/2005 12:27 PM (GMT -6) | |
Hunter said...
Isaiah 46:10 "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, 'My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure';"
Declaring is God saying what He's going to do in the future. It isn't God saying He passively knows what others do in the future.
"Things which have not been done" refers to things that haven't happened yet.
"My purpose will be established" and "I will accomplish" are God using future tense to say He will do in the future what He declares He will do.
Of course God knows what He will do in the future, so do I. Nothing in this passage indicates "exhaustive knowlege" of a future that already exists.
Post Edited (Laika) : 5/12/2005 12:32:22 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/12/2005 12:48 PM (GMT -6) | |
Hunter said...
Isaiah 41:22, 23 "Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place; as for the former events, declare what they were, that we may consider them and know their outcome. Or announce to us what is coming; declare the things that are going to come afterward, that we may know that you are gods; indeed, do good or evil, that we may anxiously look about us and fear together."
There's a parallel verse to this that is more succinct:
Isaiah 44:7
7'Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it;
Yes, let him recount it to Me in order,
From the time that I established the ancient nation.
And let them declare to them the things that are coming
And the events that are going to take place."
These chapters of Isaiah are God declaring what He has done for Israel, what He is doing for Israel and what He will do for Israel.
He challenges those of the other nations who think they are gods to declare what He has done for Israel and what He will do for Israel.
Obviously if they can't they aren't gods. But God does know what He has done for Israel and what He will do for Israel.
As for election,
Ephesians 1:4just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him In love
"in Him" modifies "chose". God elected Jesus before the foundation of the world. All those "in Him" are part of the elect.
To see how you get "in Him", see Romans 10:9,10, John 3:16, etc.
Of course God knew before the foundation of the world was God was going to do.
Post Edited (Laika) : 5/12/2005 12:54:57 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hunter
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 5/12/2005 2:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Congrats on your (to be) 2000th post!
---
Laika said...
Of course God knew before the foundation of the world what God was going to do.
Laika said...
Declaring is God saying what He's going to do in the future.
Laika said...
God using future tense to say He will do in the future what He declares He will do.
Laika said...
...and what He will do for Israel.
It seems like your arguments all fall on God knowing what He is going to do. How can He say what He will do, and what it will cause if He does not know what others will do that could potentially mess it up (if he did not have EDF)? By Isaiah 41:23 he would then cease to be God (or a god...) because he would no longer "declare the things that are going to come afterward".
---
What about 1 Peter? Both verses show that before the creation of the world, God knew there would need to be a savior, and He knew its manifestation of it. | | Back to Top | | |
| 58 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:56 PM (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 |
|
|