 |
| 
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 9/19/2005 12:20 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hi all,
Yesterday I came across some relatively recent comments on open theism by John Sanders www.opentheism.info/ in which he introduces what I think is a useful terminological suggestion.
He proposes that open theism may be thought of as affirming "dynamic omniscience" as opposed to "static omniscience". Dynamic omniscience holds that God is omniscient at all times even though the content of God's knowledge changes over time. Static omniscience holds that both the fact of God's omniscience and the content of his omniscience are temporally invariant (i.e., either atemporal or omnitemporal).
Now, you might be wondering, how can God remain omniscient while the content of his knowledge changes? It's quite simple actually:
(1) Omniscience = knowing all and only true propositions. (definition)
(2) Truth = the correspondence between what a proposition posits and reality. (definition)
(3) Reality is not temporally invariant; it changes over time. (dynamic reality postulate)
(4) Therefore, what is true is not temporally invariant; it changes over time. (from 2 and 3)
(5) Therefore, omniscience must be dynamic. (from 1 and 4)
From this argument we can see that dynamic omniscience is prima facie quite plausible. The two definitions (1 and 2) are standard and generally accepted by non-open theists. And the dynamic reality postulate (3, aka the A-theory of time) is not only widely accepted among theists generally, but is also far more in accord with our commonsense experience of the world than is its denial.
It is important to point out that dynamic omniscience (DO) does not by itself entail open theism. The reason is that DO is accepted by divine temporalists (like Craig) who nevertheless reject open theism. Craig holds that the content of God's knowledge does change over time because God, on his view, has tensed beliefs (e.g., God knows what time it is now.). Craig rejects open theism, however, because he holds that future reality is completely determinate. Thus, God's knowledge is dynamic only with respect to the tense of God's beliefs; the tenseless content of God's knowledge remains invariant.
So the difference between open theists and non-open divine temporalists like Craig lies not in the affirmation or denial of DO, but in the affirmation or denial of another thesis:
(6) Future indeterminacy = there is not now a complete way that things are going to be (i.e., no possible future history is now the actual future history).
Given future indeterminacy, DO entails open theism. To retain omniscience, the content of God's knowledge must change not just with respect to the tense of God's beliefs, but also with respect to their non-tensed content as well.
We can reflect the differences between open theists and non-open divine temporalists by distinguishing between a 'strong' and a 'weak' form of DO:
(7) Weakly dynamic omniscience (WDO) = The content of God's knowledge changes over time, but solely with respect to the tense of God's beliefs.
(8) Strongly dynamic omniscience (SDO) = The content of God's knowledge changes over time with respect to both the tense of those beliefs and their non-tensed content.
Given these definitions, DO is ambiguous between (7) and (8).
Additional thoughts anyone?
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/19/2005 12:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Alan-
I don't want to derail this discussion, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on the post below (which is in the Safe Haven discussion that Jeff started addressed to you). What's your feeling about the argument from 'value' at the end of this post?...
--------------------------
Jeff: I don't see this at all. For a ground to play a role in securing correspondence between my belief and reality…
Tom: You’re talking about an entirely different sort of “ground” and grounding relation. The “ground” that Alan is talking about is that which secures correspondence between TRUTH and REALITY, not between BELIEF and REALITY (the truth being independent of your believing or not). See? Proposition A is ‘grounded’ if there is in reality some state or states of affairs that ‘ground’ the claim which A makes; that is, if reality is as the A describes. So the grounding we’re talking about obtains between propositions and the world, not between my belief states and the world. This is why Alan says, “ ‘grounded’ does not mean or imply ‘being arrived at via a cognitive process’. Knowledge is grounded if the belief state is related to reality in such a way as to secure the truth of the belief.”
Alan: God's innate knowledge of his own nature satisfies that criterion since God cannot have mistaken beliefs about his own nature. Therefore, God's innate knowledge of his own nature is grounded even though it is not discursively obtained.
Jeff: Even assuming that God does not "observe" his own nature by an act of introspection (which seems hard enough to imagine), it is still beyond me how his self-knowledge acts as a ground for knowledge about future contingencies apart from that self-knowledge coming FIRST in time to serve the causal role of the ground for the latter.
Tom: Divine self-knowledge IS logically prior to divine knowledge of future contingencies, but it doesn’t follow that the former has to be temporally prior to the latter so that God’s knowledge of future contingencies (grounded in his own existence and nature) is arrived at by a discursive-temporal process, i.e., that God takes time to ponder Godself and then ‘figures out’ what necessary truths follow from his necessary existence.
BUT, Jeff, even if it did, there would be good reason to think that God would so conclude the truth-value of all necessary truths grounded in his own existence and person. I was just wondering whether or not “value” would help us. Here’s what I mean. Future contingencies (the possibilities of which you agree are expressed by necessary truths grounded in God’s existence and person) have “value.” That is, they’re possible evil or good contingencies. And they possess ‘value’ vis-a-vise God’s knowing them. Couldn’t we argue that an object only has ‘value’ if known by a knower and evaluated by that knower? Value is what the knower GIVES to the object. And the object gets its value from having been ‘evaluated’ (= known) by a knower. I’m just spouting off here. But I think you get my drift. To be unknown is to be valueless. But it’s very difficult to see how future contingencies are not at all times (or timelessly) more or less “valuable” states of affairs. But they get their value by virtue of standing in relation to God “as known” by God.
Just a thought.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/20/2005 11:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee: Well, let us hope this does not imply indecision up until the very moment of a decision! Only it seems it must, if a given decision is to be free. Then all God's decisions are indeterminate, until the moment they are actually made, and God knows none of his decisions in advance.
Tom: You have a unique gift, Lee, of complicating the very simple.  I'm sure God is smart enough to plan his steps and actions. If some action is not settled upon until such a time as God feels circumstances render it the wisest time to do so, then praise be. Nobody is trying to set up shop inside of God's head and observe the traffic so that we are able to judge just when God 'settles' upon this course of action as opposed to that course of action.
It's just not the case that if God's decisions are free that the future with respect to God's choices at any given point in time must be entirely indeterminate. A good many of God's future actions may be a settled issue, provided GOD is the one who settled them, while other future actions of God may be indeterminate, provided GOD is the one who chose not to yet settle on a particular course of action.
Nite nite,
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 9/20/2005 11:36:06 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 9/25/2005 8:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Tom,
TGB said...
You have a unique gift, Lee, of complicating the very simple.
This took many years of practice, actually.
TGB said...
It's just not the case that if God's decisions are free that the future with respect to God's choices at any given point in time must be entirely indeterminate.
That wasn't exactly my focus, though, I meant that if God's decisions are to be free, then they must all be unknown to him up until the moment that he makes them. I expect that would make the future indeterminate, too! But that was not my point.
If God is uncertain about his future decisions, this seems a very odd destination to arrive at, so maybe we should check our ticket, and see if we are on the right train...
Blessings,
Lee <- With his nite nite cap on 
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
themuzicman
Always ready for lunch and the weekend
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 48
| Posted 9/26/2005 7:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Lee Merrill said...That wasn't exactly my focus, though, I meant that if God's decisions are to be free, then they must all be unknown to him up until the moment that he makes them. I expect that would make the future indeterminate, too! But that was not my point. If God is uncertain about his future decisions, this seems a very odd destination to arrive at, so maybe we should check our ticket, and see if we are on the right train... Blessings, Lee <- With his nite nite cap on
I don't know that dynamic omniscience means that God is indecisive about what He will do in given situations. Given His omniscience, He also knows what may happen in the future, and from that knowledge, knows what He will do if a given circumstance should arise.
Muz
"God is dead" - Nietzsche
"Nietzscheis dead" - God | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/26/2005 7:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Lee: ...if God's decisions are to be free, then they must all be unknown to him up until the moment that he makes them.
Tom: They don't have to be unknown 'as possible choices' up until the moment he makes them. God can know, as Muz says, that 'should' circumstance Y arise (and God knows that it might arise and might not), God 'will' certainly to S. So the choice, Y, is foreknown. It's just not foreknown whether or not God makes S.
Lee: If God is uncertain about his future decisions, this seems a very odd destination to arrive at, so maybe we should check our ticket, and see if we are on the right train.
Tom: It's not at all odd to me that an omniscient God would foreknow future possibilities. If we DENY this but then affirm LFW, THEN I think we should check our ticket.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 10/1/2005 4:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey all,
I've been having some MASSIVE epiphanies this week! Yeah, kinda feels like  this. It's sooo related to this Dynamic Omniscience thing, but I'll start small because I have to do a couple of other things (baby steps to dragging myself away from the computer--Alan, hon, I swear I'm getting to cleaning the bathroom!) If these ideas hold any water, then I'd just about say that Romans 8:29-32 are the coolest verses of the week!!
"Foreknow" is written as "proegnoo" which in the infinitive is "pro-ginosko" (NT: 4267). There are two main forms of "know": oida & ginosko. Here's what I have from Vine's in comparing the two:
The differences between ginosko and oida demand consideration: (a) ginosko, frequently suggests inception or progress in "knowledge," while oida suggests fullness of "knowledge," e. g., John 8:55, "ye have not known Him" (ginosko), i. e., begun to "know," "but I know Him" (oida), i. e., "know Him perfectly"; 13:7, "What I do thou knowest not now," i. e. Peter did not yet perceive (oida) its significance, "but thou shalt understand," i. e., "get to know (ginosko), hereafter"; 14:7, "If ye had known Me" (ginosko), i. e., "had definitely come to know Me," "ye would have known My Father also" (oida), i. e., "would have had perception of": "from henceforth ye know Him" (ginosko), i. e., having unconsciously been coming to the Father, as the One who was in Him, they would now consciously be in the constant and progressive experience of "knowing" Him; in Mark 4:13, "Know ye not (oida) this parable? and how shall ye know (ginosko) all the parables?" (RV), i. e., "Do ye not understand this parable? How shall ye come to perceive all..." the intimation being that the first parable is a leading and testing one; (b) while ginosko frequently implies an active relation between the one who "knows" and the person or thing "known" (see No. 1, above), oida expresses the fact that the object has simply come within the scope of the "knower's" perception; thus in Matt 7:23 "I never knew you" (ginosko) suggests "I have never been in approving connection with you," whereas in 25:12, "I know you not" (oida) suggests "you stand in no relation to Me."
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright (c)1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)
So, yeah, there's probably no "pro-oida" (haven't come across that in the Bible yet), but this certainly tells us of the nature of the word. God knew (oida) there would be a church (a bride), but His knowledge of who will be in it is dynamic, still moving, as ginosko suggests. Hope this is somewhat clear. Excitement often interferes with clarity for me.
More to come hopefully 
If you're going to be skeptical, be fair and be skeptical of skepticism. | | Back to Top | | |
|
ThatDarnCat
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 10/3/2005 8:59 PM (GMT -6) | |
Violin for God said...
"Foreknow" is written as "proegnoo" which in the infinitive is "pro-ginosko" (NT: 4267). There are two main forms of "know": oida & ginosko. Here's what I have from Vine's in comparing the two: Forster and Marsden do a good word study of proginosko and other words in "God's Strategery for Human History".
I'd type it up for you but I'm too lazy.
Post Edited (ThatDarnCat) : 10/3/2005 9:03:16 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 10/3/2005 9:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
Tom said...
I don't think you understand either just what LFW is, or just what 'indeterminate' means. There's a lot you can read up on...
Well, maybe we'll leave it at that...
Violin for God said...
... this certainly tells us of the nature of the word. God knew (oida) there would be a church (a bride), but His knowledge of who will be in it is dynamic, still moving, as ginosko suggests.
But doesn't "proginoskw" imply that at the very least, all the process is done prior to the point of time being referenced? So if the point of time is before a person is born, then we cannot have this be dynamic omniscience:
Romans 9:27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved."
So not only God now knows, but we know that now and in the future, only the remnant of Israel will be saved, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, and this has covered many generations since Paul's time. Since Isaiah's time...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 10/10/2005 6:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Lee,
That's a good question. Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner (if you're still reading this). There are a couple of possible answers that I have for this, especially after some of the research I've been doing (you know how I keep trying to go back to the original Greek as best as I can, but the question is, do I know just enough to be dangerous, or do I know enough to be sound?).
I went back into looking for the subject of the sentence, which is "those". So the question is, to whom does "those" (who were foreknown) refer? It doesn't seem to refer to any group or individual in Romans 8:28, because Paul refers to "those who love God". It's still vague... so we should go back another sentence (to Rom 8:26-27). There Paul is addressing the Roman believers, but I think the key is "the Saints" which it seems are the believers, whether it refers to those who were martyred or those in the current church.
One possible reading of "proginosko" from what I read about attaching prefixes to verbs is that the prefixes appear to add emphasis, but it can still mean (in the aorist tense) "aquainted with already" or "had a relationship with already".
Here's one important thing I just realized: perhaps Paul isn't talking about all believers, but just some of the believers. Paul also uses "predestined, called, justified, and glorified" in the aorist (past) tense. At the time this was written, were all of the believers yet glorified? In verses 16-25, Paul is clearly not yet in a "glorified state". They were still awaiting that. So in verses 29-30, it seems that Paul is refering to some of the believers but perhaps not all that would become believers.
But what you wrote makes sense as well. I think it's true that God already knew that only a remnant would be saved, but as to who individually would be part of the remnant was still open.
Sound ok?
If you're going to be skeptical, be fair and be skeptical of skepticism. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 10/10/2005 6:16 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Oh, one other interesting thing I found in the commentaries I've been reading:
Rom 8:29
"In Rom 11:2 and Ps 1:6 God's 'knowledge' of His people cannot be restricted to a mere foresight of future events, or acquaintance with what is passing here below. Does 'whom He did foreknow,' then, mean 'whom He fore-ordained?' That can hardly be, since both words are here used, and the thing meant by the one is spoken of as the cause of what is intended by the other. It is difficult, indeed, for our limited minds to distinguish them as states of the Divine Mind toward men, especially since in Acts 2:23, 'the counsel' is put before 'the foreknowledge of God,' while in 1 Peter 1:2, 'election' is said to be 'according to the foreknowledge of God.' But probably God's 'foreknowledge' of His own people means His special, gracious complacency in them, while His 'predestinating' or 'fore-ordaining' them signifies His fixed purpose, flowing from this, to 'save them and call them with an holy calling' (2 Tim 1:9)." (from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary)
(Emphasis mine)
See http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/JamiesonFaussetBrown/jfb.cgi?book=ro&chapter=008 section 29 for the context of this.
If you're going to be skeptical, be fair and be skeptical of skepticism.Post Edited (Violin for God) : 10/10/2005 6:19:31 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/12/2005 1:30 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 10/12/2005 2:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey John,
Yeah I saw it a few days ago when you posted it on the Armenian board. Really good points... especially about those (to whom Peter was writing) who knew Peter beforehand (proginosko-ing).
I'm realizing the Romans verses can have a couple of different takes. I'm just wondering if what I'm writing has a gazillion holes in it that I'm just not seeing. (It's hard to evaluate and see the holes in the stuff I write. I know they gotta be there... somewhere.)
Here's the new thought of the evening: if Paul is talking about saints (just a possibility), it must have been previous saints since all these verbs are in past tense. Who actually WAS (before the writing of this letter) (1) known by God, and (2) predestined/preordained to be conformed to the likeness of Christ, and (3) called, and (4) justified, and (5) glorified?
Here's a question for everyone: After Jesus descended to Sheol, rose from the dead, and was glorified, do you think that Abraham, Moses, Elijah, David, Isaiah, etc. were glorified?
If you're going to be skeptical, be fair and be skeptical of skepticism. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/12/2005 4:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi VFG,
Nice to see some feedback on Chuck's article! Thanks.
As to Romans 8:28-30, I can see how it would refer to the saints of the Old Testament, so long as we give a definition of "glorified" that does not include a glorified BODY.
That said, it seems to me that the flow of thought in the passage requires that we view Paul as referring to present saints, in hopes that they may be encouraged and strengthened in their faith. With that in mind, the possibility that Paul is speaking in general terms of the corporate election of all saints in the present seems reasonable. Could it be that in using the past tense Paul was using something not unlike the rather common "now but not yet" theme of the New Testament? Like when Peter says "by His wounds you WERE healed," and how Christ says "the Kingdom of Heaven is near," when the full consummation of that Kingdom clearly awaits the Second Coming.
Not sure, just thinking.
Blessings,
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://www.revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 10/12/2005 9:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
Violin for God said...
but it can still mean (in the aorist tense) "acquainted with already" or "had a relationship with already".
But don't we have an order here? Those he foreknew, he called, those he called, he justified (must "justified" not be the moment of conversion?). So then they (I agree that this means believers) could not have had a relationship with God before being justified, so "foreknew" I don't think can represent already being related to God.
Violin for God said...
So in verses 29-30, it seems that Paul is referring to some of the believers but perhaps not all that would become believers.
Then we are incorrect to apply this to ourselves? But surely this is meant to be descriptive of all believers, though I agree that "glorified" is still future for present believers, and even, in a sense, for all believers (Rom. 8:21-25).
Violin for God said...
I think it's true that God already knew that only a remnant would be saved, but as to who individually would be part of the remnant was still open.
Perhaps, but does even this not make it difficult to maintain dynamic omniscience? If God really knew that only a remnant would be saved, then he must have had real insight into who would repent, and not simply be finding out who would repent, year by year.
JFB commentary said...
Does 'whom He did foreknow,' then, mean 'whom He fore-ordained?' That can hardly be, since both words are here used, and the thing meant by the one is spoken of as the cause of what is intended by the other.
I would say that I would expect what is meant here is that they hold that the same people are intended, but the words ( "foreknow", "foreordain" ) are not synonymous.
JFB commentary said...
But probably God's 'foreknowledge' of His own people means His special, gracious complacency in them, while His 'predestinating' or 'fore-ordaining' them signifies His fixed purpose, flowing from this, to 'save them and call them with an holy calling'
Yes, knowing them ahead of time, ahead of their creation, and then choosing them, and then calling them...
John said...
... it seems to me that the flow of thought in the passage requires that we view Paul as referring to present saints, in hopes that they may be encouraged and strengthened in their faith.
Yes, I would agree.
John said...
With that in mind, the possibility that Paul is speaking in general terms of the corporate election of all saints in the present seems reasonable.
But "those he foreknew" would seem rather to imply more than specifying conditions for a group. God knew them, ahead of time, and ahead of their conversion, so his election was specific, and he chose individuals:
Romans 9:23-24 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory--even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 10/13/2005 9:37 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Hey John, what you wrote got me thinking a bit more about this. (Again, I may be off base...) But this seems to possibly just be a model to help the readers know a bit of what to expect. And I am thinking more and more that this is based on previous saints, those who loved God and somehow were glorified (not fully glorified, but a minor taste of what is to come when the corporate body is united in Christ in the second coming). So yeah, if this is like the "now but not yet" theme, I think this goes along with it.
So here's thing I've been pondering today and still don't really have an answer. What is it mean "to glorify" (pre-second coming)? To give honor and praise? To raise to a holy state? Are we (in a minor sense) glorified when we enter heaven after death? We understand the full consumation doesn't happen until the second coming, but we also don't believe in soul-sleep. To be glorified pre-Second Coming seems to be possibly a fore-shadowing of being glorified post-Second Coming. I even ask the same questions about justification but that can be examined another day.
If you're going to be skeptical, be fair and be skeptical of skepticism. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 10/13/2005 10:01 PM (GMT -6) | |
Lee Merrill said...
But don't we have an order here? Those he foreknew, he called, those he called, he justified (must "justified" not be the moment of conversion?). So then they (I agree that this means believers) could not have had a relationship with God before being justified, so "foreknew" I don't think can represent already being related to God.
Yeah, there's an order there, but I'm starting to think that it may be a combination of two things: a model based on previous believers and a double application (such as how some of the OT prophesies work). The double application would have a minor application and a major application. Yes, I think justification happens at the moment of conversion to a certain extent, as well as daily in our daily repentance, but the full culmination of justification won't happen until the Second Coming when all sin will be wiped away. I"m not sure what to say about the second sentence here. I'll have to get back on that if I can.
Lee said...
Then we are incorrect to apply this to ourselves? But surely this is meant to be descriptive of all believers, though I agree that "glorified" is still future for present believers, and even, in a sense, for all believers (Rom. 8:21-25).
Yeah, I think we can apply it to ourselves, but not as a finished work. It's the thing we can look forward to.
Lee said...
Perhaps, but does even this not make it difficult to maintain dynamic omniscience? If God really knew that only a remnant would be saved, then he must have had real insight into who would repent, and not simply be finding out who would repent, year by year.
I wouldn't agree with this. He could know that a remnant would be saved simply by knowing the general nature of the human race. Even if direct intervention were required to get some people on the right track, a remnant would be saved.
Lee said...
I would say that I would expect what is meant here is that they hold that the same people are intended, but the words ( "foreknow", "foreordain" ) are not synonymous.
I agree.
Lee said...
Yes, knowing them ahead of time, ahead of their creation, and then choosing them, and then calling them...
Not necessarily knowing them ahead of their creation. Just before the point of their being justified.
If you're going to be skeptical, be fair and be skeptical of skepticism. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 10/15/2005 3:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Violin for God,
Violin for God said...
He could know that a remnant would be saved simply by knowing the general nature of the human race.
But then how can God also predict "All Israel will be saved" (Rom. 11:26)?
Isaiah 60:21-22 Then will all your people be righteous and they will possess the land forever. They are the shoot I have planted, the work of my hands, for the display of my splendor. The least of you will become a thousand, the smallest a mighty nation. I am the LORD; in its time I will do this swiftly.
Or here, why one-third? How could God know this number (though it may well be approximate, it is different than one-tenth, or two thirds)?
Zechariah 13:8-9 In the whole land," declares the LORD, "two-thirds will be struck down and perish; yet one-third will be left in it. This third I will bring into the fire; I will refine them like silver and test them like gold. They will call on my name and I will answer them; I will say, 'They are my people,' and they will say, 'The LORD is our God.'"
Violin for God said...
Even if direct intervention were required to get some people on the right track, a remnant would be saved.
Isn't this just what the Open View insists God will not do, though, to intervene to assure someone will without fail choose to repent?
various folks said...
Lee: Yes, knowing them ahead of time, ahead of their creation, and then choosing them, and then calling them...
Violin for God: Not necessarily knowing them ahead of their creation. Just before the point of their being justified.
But this would indicate a choice farther back:
Ephesians 1:4-5 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ...
And we had agreed that there is an order in Romans 8:29-30, so this must place knowing before calling, and before the moment of decision.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
| 70 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:40 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 |
|
|