 |
| 
Iamur2
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2001
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 11/7/2001 3:21 PM (GMT -6) |   | Concerning Galatians 1: 15-16
Galatians 1:15–16
“...when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me...I did not confer with any human being...”
<<<>>
I agree. Here is my argument for a timeless knowledge that allows for free will.
Predestination: When many people hear that word, they shutter—immediately ideas of God’s injustice, fatalism, and general anger at the idea of God “choosing people to go to hell” pops into peoples’ minds. However, in examining this idea, let’s first look at the idea of God’s timelessness. If God is outside of time, that means that he is transcendent of and over everything, and therefore, time is in essence “done” in the eyes of God; He is the “I AM” therefore everything (the entire time scale) simply “is” to Him, like an eternal now. This has to be the case since he is outside of time, and sees all. This idea is essential to explaining some basic truths of the Scripture. For example, how were Old Testament saints saved? They were saved directly through the blood of Christ, since God saw the cross as already done and now since he transcends our time scale. Then, when Jesus was on the cross, He has to have been lifted outside of time for the past, present, and future sins to be placed on Him. This is where predestination comes in. If everything (entire human history) is essentially “done” and an “eternal now” in the eyes of God, in this sense it was predestined, by His complete and total knowledge, transcendence, and timelessness. However, we are still carrying out time.
God is also acting in the present: this is the awesomeness of Christianity; the eternal God coming down and dwelling with finite man in the form of Jesus Christ, and also the eternal, infinite God having a personal relationship with finite man. I am really not sure about the interpretation of this that God is actively working in every era of history simultaneously, which, as Boyd points out, would mean that God has a broken and restored relationship with Christ. Now, to the issue of free will: In essence, we are carrying out what God sees as “done” so in this sense, our free will affects our predestination, and vise versa. God’s knowledge (foreknowledge) and God’s timelessness, therefore, is synonymous with his predestination: it has to be, since by God’s timelessness He sees all as an eternal now and done. However, from our perspective, we are still carrying it out, and thereby effecting what is already done. When the Scripture says that we were predestined before the foundation of the world, it was because of God’s timelessness, and his eternal knowledge and presence.
In this sense, God’s setting apart from eternity was based on His eternal knowledge. However, I also believe that God acts out of necessity (not that He has to, but that He must do this for His desired end to happen) in drawing people to Himself, either to the point of free will decision, OR effectively…I believe that God must first draw man before He can accept Christ because of what Adam’s FREE WILL did to the rest of humanity. So God’s setting apart of Paul was either by his eternal knowledge of Paul’s decision once he was drawn (more arminian), or God’s eternal knowledge of the necessity of drawing Him effectively to salvation if he was to ever be saved(more Calvinist). I am not totally convinced either way, though I lean more towards the latter.
<<<>>>
The problem I see with this statement is that NO WHERE (to my knowledge) in the Scripture does God talk about His setting apart before birth being frustrated. Again, this is either done by His knowledge or knowledge and subsequent action (drawing Paul to Himself).
I think in this sense God ordains everything that comes to pass: He knows it but He also actively allowed it to happen and exercises complete control to limit or contain evil or do whatever He pleases. This seems clear in Scripture through I Corinthians 2:8 verse about God keeping wisdom from the people who crucified Christ, Satan’s temptation of Job, God’s stopping Balaam’s evil. It fits all three criterion of God’s sovereignty: First, God ordains it ((Eph 1:11, Acts 15:18, Eph 3:11, Heb 6:17, Phil 2:13 among others) because He exercises complete control in allowing and/or containing what we do out of our free will, He is not the author of sin (James 1:13,17, I John 1:5) because He allows us to do it, and it is not simply foreseeing because He is in active control of it.
<<<<<>>>>>
The passage does not say this. It specifically states “therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision.” He does not state that he could have been disobedient. He is simply stating that he WAS obedient because Jesus had revealed Himself to Paul.
Let me know what you think of all this. I know it is a lot of stuff, so if anyone wants to respond to small parts…
Eric
"Prejudice is a great time saver, it allows one to have an opinion without knowing the facts." | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Iamur2
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2001
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 11/7/2001 3:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Wherever the <<<>>> are for some reason it didn't copy and paste, but here they are:
<<<<>>>>
<<<>>>
<<<<<>>>>>
Eric
"Prejudice is a great time saver, it allows one to have an opinion without knowing the facts." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iamur2
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2001
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 11/7/2001 3:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Ok, this thing is being stupid on me--anybody know why if you put <<<>>> around something it doesn't show up on the post????!!!! I try it without that.
As with Jeremiah (Jer. 1:5), John the Baptist (Luke 1:13–17) and other God-ordained prophets, Paul was aware that God had decided on a unique vocation for him while he was yet forming in the womb. If we refrain from read into the text a preconceived idea of what “set apart” and “called” entail, but rather simply allow Scripture to define these terms, I believe we will see that this setting apart and calling does not rule out the free will of the agent
Many of the things God plans, ordains and even announces ahead of time do not come to pass, for God has sovereignly created a world in which his will usually isn’t the only variable deciding what comes to pass: people and angels have freedom as well.
But as Paul himself suggested to king Agrippa, he could have nevertheless been “disobedient to that heavenly vision” Acts 26:19).
Eric
"Prejudice is a great time saver, it allows one to have an opinion without knowing the facts." | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/7/2001 5:00 PM (GMT -6) | | I'd REALLY like to post something here. I'll clip from Iamur2's first post, and attach comment or question. Let me preface by saying that while I have posted perhaps more lines from patristic or contemp-Ortho writers than anyone...I represent no one but myself. (Go get your own sources if you want something more than a running inner-dialog here!) So here is what is on my mind:
Iamur2: However, in examining this idea, let’s first look at the idea of God’s timelessness. If God is outside of time, that means that he is transcendent of and over everything, and therefore, time is in essence “done” in the eyes of God; He is the “I AM” therefore everything (the entire time scale) simply “is” to Him, like an eternal now. This has to be the case since he is outside of time, and sees all.
PoW: Let me furnish a quote that might not be exactly the same. Maybe the differences are important. (I think so.)
quote:
God and the world are radically distinguished. God is "uncreated, without beginning, ever existing and before all things," whereas the world "was produced and came into being." At the same time, however, they are indissolubly connected. God is "the only maker and Creator of these things." The creation, since it came into existence "our of non-being" is not able to survive on its own. But on the other hand, it does not come out of the divine essence, and in consequence, it does not coexist beside the uncreated God as an unchangeable state. Thus the act of creation is not confined to the emergence of creation from nothingness, but is extended into a binding link which holds together and joins all existent things and the whole of creation with God. (Man and the Environment, by Anestis Keselopoulqos, SVSPress, and includes a quote from St. Symeon the New Theologian
The part that caught my eye was: God is "uncreated, without beginning, ever existing and before all things," whereas the world "was produced and came into being." That might be different from: "God’s timelessness. If God is outside of time" I'm just looking at this--a bit seriously. Eric's thought-order was "timeless...then..."transcendent of and over everything". But what if the order is the reverse. What if we should be saying "without beginning, ever existing and before all things", with St. Symeon the New Theologian, instead of "God’s timelessness".
Iamur2: For example, how were Old Testament saints saved? They were saved directly through the blood of Christ, since God saw the cross as already done and now since he transcends our time scale. Then, when Jesus was on the cross, He has to have been lifted outside of time for the past, present, and future sins to be placed on Him. This is where predestination comes in. If everything (entire human history) is essentially “done” and an “eternal now” in the eyes of God, in this sense it was predestined, by His complete and total knowledge, transcendence, and timelessness. However, we are still carrying out time.
PoW: This part is important. I think it is a significant thing: "saved directly through the blood of Christ". Speaking only for myself, and for the moment, I 'd like to separate two phrases of Erics: first, "when Jesus was on the cross, He has to have been lifted outside of time for the past, present, and future sins to be placed on Him."; and, second, "essentially “done” and an “eternal now” in the eyes of God...".
Second one first: I confess suspicion that sometimes we are handed a version of salvation where it is only the "in God's eyes" that is involved. Much, much more is involved in Salvation, of course. Even more than the cross--Christ was also "raised for our justification." "Atonement" in the Eastern Orthodox view is at-one-ment. In right relationship. Justification is also understood by them as being relational. (Like justifying margins of text...we are brought into life-giving relationship with God. Not just a legal "rightness") The first, "has to have been lifted outside of time for the past, present, and future sins to be placed on Him" might be more complicated than is needed, but it is creative! Pannenberg--who I don't know much about--is quoted by Modes here in a fairly concrete monodirectional working in a backwards direction of God's saving. BUT, since I'm pretty convinced by EO that communion IS a participation in the one-time (ONE ONLY!) sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and that even the "last supper" as the first communion WAS a participation in an even that had not happened yet....I am all for creative thinking if it gets us closer WITHOUT making us head in the wrong direction. A certain amount of "negative theology" seems surely called for. And an "icon" or "window" to help us see through to the Real is certainly our goal.
But I don't, personally, have to link the first and the second. I'd emphasize the reality of salvation, and the reality of the "eternity" of our salvation IN CHRIST.
Iamur2: as Boyd points out, would mean that God has a broken and restored relationship with Christ.
PoW: CAN SOMEONE CONVENIENTLY ILLUSTRATE THIS FOR ME HERE? I'VE ONLY READ *ONE* OF GREG'S BOOKS. (Sorry.)
Iamur2: God’s knowledge (foreknowledge) and God’s timelessness, therefore, is synonymous with his predestination: it has to be, since by God’s timelessness He sees all as an eternal now and done.
PoW: I am functioning with a little bit different view here too, of predestination, I mean. I am following the emphasis that election is IN CHRIST. God DID foreknow. (I don't know which camp that puts me in!) But the word "predestined" in that famous verse means to me that Christ was predestined and WE were predestined to be IN Him. The Horse is Christ and we are the cart. (A better analogy is certainly called for!) "His Son" is God Incarnate. Being conformed to God's divinity (A Nativity liturgical song in Orthodoxy says: "He assumes the poverty of my flesh that I may assume the riches of his divinity. He that is full empties Himself, for He empties Himself of His glory for the shortwhile that I may have a share in his fullness.") is the goal of salvation.
Iamur2: In this sense, God’s setting apart from eternity[u/] was based on His eternal knowledge
PoW: I won't argue against that. Mainly because I don't know. But the "setting apart" focuses on the incarnation and the Church. That is the important part. But that is not a theory in god's head, a to-do-list. SOMEHOW, it is accessible to us, in god's ongoing creation and providence, BASED ON God's being "uncreated, without beginning, ever existing and before all things".
The "nominals" follow the being of God.
PotOnWheel
(ISA 64:8 "Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.")
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 11/08/2001 06:16:09 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted Today 1:58 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
anybody know why if you put <<<>>> around something it doesn't show up on the post????!!!!
Use the "quote" button (the 9th "Format" button) to do quotes (I encountered this in my first few posts here, too). Push this button, and then type or paste your quote between the "quote" and the "/quote". Or just type the "quote" and "/quote" yourself. And speaking of which...
quote:
as Boyd points out, would mean that God has a broken and restored relationship with Christ.
I chime in with PotOnWheel, I would be interested in hearing what the reason for this statement may have been...
quote:
But as Paul himself suggested to king Agrippa, he could have nevertheless been “disobedient to that heavenly vision” Acts 26:19).
It doesn't seem certain that Paul includes that possibility! He may have had a tone of voice that indicated "I for sure was obedient."
quote:
I would say that the most deeply compelled action is also the freest action. By that I mean, no part of you is outside the action. It is a paradox. I expressed it in Surprised by Joy by saying that I chose, yet it really did not seem possible to do the opposite (C.S. Lewis, "God in the Dock")
God bless you,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald)
Edited by - Lee Merrill on 11/09/2001 7:02:55 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iamur2
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2001
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 11/11/2001 12:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Ok, I finally got the time to respond!
******QUOTE: Eric's thought-order was "timeless...then..."transcendent of and over everything". But what if the order is the reverse. What if we should be saying "without beginning, ever existing and before all things", with St. Symeon the New Theologian, instead of "God’s timelessness".****
Interesting. I kind of see where you are coming from though I don’t quite understand the significance? I mean, as Christian, I believe that God is “without beginning, ever existing and before all things.” I don’t know whether it was a matter of order or anything, rather different ways of explaining one attribute of God. Timelessness in my mind is just another way to say “Transcendence and without beginning” among other things.
****QUOTE: Second one first: I confess suspicion that sometimes we are handed a version of salvation where it is only the "in God's eyes" that is involved. Much, much more is involved in Salvation, of course. Even more than the cross--Christ was also "raised for our justification." "Atonement" in the Eastern Orthodox view is at-one-ment. In right relationship. Justification is also understood by them as being relational. (Like justifying margins of text...we are brought into life-giving relationship with God.*****
I agree with you here. It is definitely more than just the “Eyes of God.” The purpose in what I was writing here was a starting point. I was specifically examining God’s transcendence and omniscience, and how they relate to our predestination, which I think they go hand in hand. But I also believe there is more to it than that, it is God entering into a personal relationship with us. The purpose here, again, was to establish a starting point. I will touch more on this when I talk about a later quote.
****** I am functioning with a little bit different view here too, of predestination, I mean. I am following the emphasis that election is IN CHRIST. God DID foreknow. (I don't know which camp that puts me in!) But the word "predestined" in that famous verse means to me that Christ was predestined and WE were predestined to be IN Him. The Horse is Christ and we are the cart. (A better analogy is certainly called for!) "His Son" is God Incarnate. Being conformed to God's divinity (A Nativity liturgical song in Orthodoxy says: "He assumes the poverty of my flesh that I may assume the riches of his divinity. He that is full empties Himself, for He empties Himself of His glory for the shortwhile that I may have a share in his fullness.") is the goal of salvation.******
I see where you are coming from here and I agree with you. Again, it was a starting point. It is more than God’s knowledge. However, in God’s eternal knowledge, He knew Adam would fall (without causing it), and in this knowledge purposed Christ as the eternal sacrifice, and with this chose us “In Him.” This right here is the link between what I was saying and the Scriptural truth of our relationship with Christ.
QUOTE: **** But as Paul himself suggested to king Agrippa, he could have nevertheless been “disobedient to that heavenly vision” Acts 26:19).
It doesn't seem certain that Paul includes that possibility! He may have had a tone of voice that indicated "I for sure was obedient."*******
One note here: That quote about Paul being disobedient was from Boyd’s interpretation, not mine! This is how I responded to that quote! “The passage does not say this. It specifically states “therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision.” He does not state that he could have been disobedient. He is simply stating that he WAS obedient because Jesus had revealed Himself to Paul.”
Eric
"Prejudice is a great time saver, it allows one to have an opinion without knowing the facts." | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/11/2001 4:18 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:53 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 |
|
|