Clare73
Blood-bought
- Jun 12, 2012
- 28,320
- 7,287
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
When you check the verses (Ac 2:23, 1Pe 1:2, Ac 4:28, Ac 15:18), you will see that foreknowledge as used in the NT refers to God's actions.Without checking any verses a guess of mine is that "known" refers to what God will do and "foreknown" what man will do.
Calvinism pertains to foreknowledge, predestination, election. Since Scripture uses such terms, it by default lends some support to his position. However, the law of non-contradiction is the exegete's best friend. It simply will not allow a loving God to double predestine from eternity.So Calvin wasn't all wrong. . .
Lawlessness is of the devil. Read it in Scripture for yourself.Likewise, let's not deny the sovereignty of God in the matters of men to which the Scriptures so amply testify (Da 4:35, Ac 2:23, Ac 4:28, Ac 13:48; Lk 22:22, Ro 8:29-30, Ro 9:14-29, Ro 11:25-34, Eph 1:4-12, 2 Th 2:13, 1Pe 1:2).
And I will remind you again that you have provided no Biblical source for your assertion of these "rights."
These verses do not warrant your conclusions.Likewise, let's not deny the sovereignty of God in the matters of men to which the Scriptures so amply testify (Da 4:35, Ac 2:23, Ac 4:28, Ac 13:48; Lk 22:22, Ro 8:29-30, Ro 9:14-29, Ro 11:25-34, Eph 1:4-12, 2 Th 2:13, 1Pe 1:2).
Not sure what you are asking here. Are you saying that it only makes sense that they should use past tense since they saw it (in whatever tense) before they wrote about it? I suppose that makes sense. Not sure that is all there is to it though.Would that not refer to a vision, before their writing?
Would that not refer to giving him the governship/rule of creation which he must then secure according to God's order, beginning with its purchase (redemption, ransom) from condemnation, and then moving on to restoration to what I suspect will be greater than it was in the beginning.
Yes, at least that! I'm not sure you meant that to contest what I was saying, but I don't see that it does at all.Is eternal life not God's life. . .not that I can define that, but may be what Peter is referring to when he states that we "participate in the divine nature." (2Pe 1:4).
Can we try being rational for a nanosecond? Let's suppose the New Earth is atemporal - coexisting in the past, present, and future. That would mean, wouldn't it, that past, present, and future ALL continually exist - and thus are all three atemporal, right? So, then, the New Earth would be temporally identical to the current earth. Atemporality is incoherent drivel.
Since you are the rational, coherent, one here among us, maybe you can fill in the logical steps you apparently assumed we could fill in for ourselves, between "atemporal" = "coexisting in the past, present, and future"; and maybe you can do the same for the notion that "past, present, and future ALL continually exist" = "all three are atemporal" I could just as easily as you think you have shown that atemporality is incoherent drivel, use your own argument to demonstrate mathematically that atemporality is a valid concept!
You have failed to show that 'atemporal' means "coexisting in the past, present, and future". You assumed it; you hardly even asserted it. Yet you use it in your attempt to show that 'atemporal' is incoherent drivel.I have no idea what you just said. Yes, I believe it is incoherent to posit a co-existence of past, present, and future. Example of the incoherence is the apparent violation of non-contradiction. After all, coexistence means simultaneity. Visualize:
....(1) That guy is 25 years old.
....(2) His future already exists. Simultaneously he is 100 years old, dead, and gone.
Huh? My earlier argument was a reaction to the proposal that:
....(1) The New Earth is atemporal.
....(2) The current earth is temporal.
Why would there be any difference? Again, if the New Earth is simultaneous with the current earth, both are therefore atemporal.
This way of yours to trust human words to accurately guide us through spiritual concepts may have something to do with why you think it is the only logically coherent theological system (though, according to you, as far as you know, you are the only one to come up with this obvious fact) in which God is growing and improving.
You want to trust non-human words? You're not making any sense here.
Here's my advice to everyone: if your proposed doctrine is something that humans cannot understand, then remain silent! What value is gibberish? OR, at minimum, at least preface it with the disclaimer that it is pure gibberish and, as such, of dubious epistemological value.
Accepting gibberish entraps us within a false sense of security because we gratuitously tell ourselves, "I already have the correct answers, there is no need to further reform my theology."
"it's the simplest answer that makes the most logical sense!" Or, at least, the one that makes the most sense to God is the simplest, to God.@Mark Quayle & @Brother-Mike
Brother Mike just pointed me to this thread from a PM theological yack session we've been having. And for what my "two cents" are worth for how eternity interjects His presence into time (in the past tense to boot)?
I tend to look at it this way:
Time is a sphere operating within the reality of "eternity". God is obviously omnipresent; so thus He is capable of inserting Self anywhere He so desires into the temporal time related cosmos. And maybe that's an overly simplistic way of looking at it; but it's the most reasonable conceptualization of omnipresence related to time that I can conger at current.
Another irony of the book of Revelation being written in "past tense" is that when Daniel was told to "seal up the prophecy" there's a perception here too that Daniel also witnessed this of Revelation.
Now obviously of the human "scientific" understanding of time; it only goes in one direction. (Which is true; A temporal time traveler would not be able to travel backwards from point D to point A because we lack the omnipotence to be able to reverse entropy. Thus time travel theory is categorically impossible for humanity.
Yet of the stretch of our brains to understand the reality that God is capable of being all places all the time, is a bit bigger than we can hold in one thought. Thus I can't say that I know for sure my "sphere within a sphere" explanation is true; but (at least to self) it's the simplest answer that makes the most logical sense!
Acts 4:28 is talking about God planning of the events that led to Christ's crucifixion - its quite the stretch (i.e. sketchy inductive reasoning) to stretch that into saying God plans all events whatsoever. All I need to prove that wrong is to find one counter-example from scripture - and that scripture is Jeremiah 32:35.Previously addressed. . .failed try at confuscation. . .did not say that God's foreknowledge is not referring to man's actions.
It's not about to what foreknowledge is referring, it's about what is foreknowlege's cause.
You base God's foreknowledge in man's actions.
Scripture bases God's foreknowledge in his own actions (decrees).
God knows beforehand because he has decreed that it shall occur, not because man has or will decide anything.
God's own fore-ordination (decree) is God's fore-knowledge, and it is not based in/on anything else, including what anyone does.
"Known to the Lord for ages (fore-knowledge) is his work." (Ac 15:18)
They did what your power and will had decided beforehand (fore-ordained) should happen." (Ac 4:28)
it seems only logical to me, and Biblical, though not exactly drawn from Scripture, specially since God's 'mode of existence' is not something our brains are currently built to handle.
Anyhow, we can't help but use human language and concepts to think, and even this notion of God's timelessness is a humanly posited notion, and probably in some ways misleading to us.
But I think it could be both: one from a temporal point of view of something yet to happen, and the other from God's point of view, having 'already happened' (as we would describe it --past tense)
I thought you had been told before this, that Jeremiah 32:35, in context, is pretty obviously saying that it never entered his mind to command that they should do it. Are you going to show exegesis to prove that wrong, or just plow on ahead and ignore this?Acts 4:28 is talking about God planning of the events that led to Christ's crucifixion - its quite the stretch (i.e. sketchy inductive reasoning) to stretch that into saying God plans all events whatsoever. All I need to prove that wrong is to find one counter-example from scripture - and that scripture is Jeremiah 32:35.
What difference does it make? The 2nd possibility is equally incoherent, namely that atemporal means a timeless existence, as this stands in contradiction to two inescapable definitions:You have failed to show that 'atemporal' means "coexisting in the past, present, and future". You assumed it; you hardly even asserted it. Yet you use it in your attempt to show that 'atemporal' is incoherent drivel.
Pure ad hominem. Why is this assessment any more true of me than of you and everyone else on this forum?I think you need to look past the chatter in your mind, perhaps to "real" vs "temporal" or some other such construction. You are letting words drive you around.
And my response, which I assumed was rather obvious, is that a human intent on speaking words incomprehensible to humans (gibberish) should probably remain silent. Ironically, this is precisely what Paul contended with at 1 Cor 14 where the Corinthians were speaking unknown tongues - pure gibberish - to their comrades.Where did I say anything about non-human words, or implying such a thing? My intent, which I assumed was rather obvious, is that our words are merely HUMAN, not divine, and certainly they are words we posit without understanding.
I have little use for such unclear citations. The citations themselves sound like empty babbling. Please oblige me with clear definitions. If you're not sure how to do that, please see my last couple of posts for examples of what a clear definition looks like.Here's a quote from CS Lewis' "Till We Have Faces - (A Fable Retold)" that I hope you can take without too much indigestion (Lewis is not saying there are gods (plural).)
“I saw well why the gods do not speak to us openly, nor let us answer... Why should they hear the babble that we think we mean? How can they meet us face to face till we have faces?”
Yes we have gone over this before and I strongly disagreed with you - I don't care if "you have been told before this" - I don't accept your interpretation (did I burst your bubble?) -try to add more than a "How dare you" or "show exegesis" idiocy. Although the text in Jeremiah 32:35 says that God never commanded the sin, the passage was extended in support to say God never even thought of it - therefore God never even thought of it. Saddly you do not accept Jeremiah 32:35 as it upsets your Calvinist theology as that paints God as evil (who John calls a God of love) - the Calvinist God has him assigning many from before birth to eternal torment for the purpose that the Calvin acclaims as being for God's glory! The text in 1 Timothy 2:4 from Paul is very clear. Your "show exegesis" is a non-specific - please try to be specific in your ask! Trumpeting exegesis does not mean you practice it - again be specific in your ask! A high school student without any religious training (and no preconception) could explain those simple verses (Jermiah 32:35 and 1 Timothy 2:4) to you - it is beneficial to look at scripture without preconception.I thought you had been told before this, that Jeremiah 32:35, in context, is pretty obviously saying that it never entered his mind to command that they should do it. Are you going to show exegesis to prove that wrong, or just plow on ahead and ignore this?
Are you serious?For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.
— Acts 4:27-28
It doesn't mention foreknowledge, just predestination.
NASV
‘After these things I will return,
And I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen,
And I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will restore it,
"Long ago" is the meaning of aiōn.So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,’
Says the Lord, who makes these things known from long ago (aiōn).
— Acts 15:16-18
Makes known from long ago? It doesn't sound like "foreknowledge" but to what was known long ago through the prophet. If I'm right this is from Amos 9:11-15 and there is no "long ago" in there.
If God made them known before they occurred, then God had foreknowledge of them (based on his decree of them to occur).Ok, I'm aware I can be wrong here, just sharing thoughts.
The Almighty and Sovereign God (Da 4:35) does not need foreknowledge in order to "know" what will be fulfilled.whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time (aiōn).
— Acts 3:21
I don't think foreknowledge refers to God's actions. God's foreknowledge is about God knowing before time about His plans, what will be fulfilled, which is a different thing.
You have bound the Almighty and Sovereign God (Da 4:35) by the will of man. . .that's "a dollar waitin' on a dime."How do we know that these plans of God aren't made in coexistence from God knowing ahead of time what man will do?
I don't see that as exclusive. Ok, you say (as I take it) we have no warrent for ascribing it to God's knowing of man's actions before hand. I then have to ask you. Do you have warrent to ascribe God's plans being made exclusive of God knowing and planning in accordance of man's actions ahead of time? I don't think you do.
Their occurrence shows us exactly what and how God predetermined it to occur.The Bible says God predetermines things, not how God does it. You seem to say you know the how, which isn't known to us.
@Clare73,
@Brother-Mike,
@Mark Quayle,
Scholars seem to find three types of love in the NT:
3 Kinds of Love (Session 8 – 1 Corinthians 13:1-13) - Explore the Bible
Whereas in English we have one word to express all kinds of love, in Greek there are four different words for love. Let’s take a quick look at those words. We’ll combine two of them with related meanings into one category, differentiating three distinct kinds of love. Then we’ll affirm three...explorethebible.lifeway.com
I don't defend "double predestination," but it seems to me to be a necessary and unavoidable consequence when there are only two options, heaven and hell, and some are predestined for heaven. Does that not necessarily mean that the others are necessarily predestined for hell?1. Eros refers to physical or sexual love.
2. Philos means warm affection or friendship.
3. Agapē is the sacrificial, unconditional love of God.
I was taught that Agape love is unselfish love. If so, how well does it gel with double predestination?
Not getting the "God's own self-gratification" part. . .unless showing forth the glory of his goodness in the redemption of men is "self-gratification'. . .but that came at an awfully high-price to him, the suffering and death of his one and only Son. . .no one can say he doesn't have skin in this game!Meaning, if God places His own self-gratification above the welfare of the damned, isn't He being selfish in that respect?
But it's not the only one. Biblical realities seem to involve pieces.And that takes me back to predestination, which is NT apostolic teaching (Ro 8:29-30; Eph 1:4), and which I willingly receive and believe.
Well what else would it be? It sure as heck won't gratify people foreordained to damnation.Not getting the "God's own self-gratification" part. . .unless showing forth the glory of his goodness in the redemption of men is "self-gratification'. . .
Two wrongs don't make a right. The Holy One is supposed to be above reproach in ALL His deeds. He is not supposed to do something evil now (like foreordain billions to hell) and then make up for it later via a good deed (such as the cross).....but that came at an awfully high-price to him, the suffering and death of his one and only Son. . .no one can say he doesn't have skin in this game!
Of course I can't convince you. Calvinists don't demonstrate rational thinking in these areas.You won't be convincing me that infinite wisdom hasn't chosen the best means to the best end, which includes Ro 8:29-30; Eph 1:4.
I don't know what to say right now, but I hope we serve the same God or we have problem.Are you serious?
Because God before the foundations of the world decreed/predestined Jesus death to occur exactly as it did, he necessarily knew after that decree exactly how Jesus was going to die (foreknowledge of Jesus' death) because he had decreed that he shall die that way.
God's foreknowledge is necessarily implied in Ac 4:27-28.
"Long ago" is the meaning of aiōn.
If God made them known before they occurred, then God had foreknowledge of them (based on his decree of them to occur).
There are no uses of it in Scripture where it does not.
It is man's notion that God's foreknowledge refers to man's actions.
We have the same situation with Paul and the word "spiritual," where Paul never uses the word to mean immaterial, non-physical,
and always uses the word to mean of the realm of the Holy Spirit.
To interpret "spiritual" in the writings of Paul to mean "immaterial" is a misinterpretation of the word as Paul uses it.
It is man's notion that Paul's use of "spiritual" means "immaterial."
Nevertheless, the Almighty and Sovereign God (Da 4:35) does not need foreknowledge in order to "know" what will be fulfilled.
What he has decreed shall be fulfilled without fail. . .you can take it to the bank.
You have bound the Almighty and Sovereign God (Da 4:35) by the will of man. . .that's "a dollar waitin' on a dime."
Yes, it is the meaning of the sovereignty of God, testified to throughout Scripture:
Da 4:35, Ac 2:23, Ac 4:28, Ac 13:48; Lk 22:22, Ro 8:29-30, Ro 9:14-29, Ro 11:25-34, Eph 1:4-12, 2 Th 2:13, 1Pe 1:2.
Your God is too small.
Their occurrence shows us exactly what and how God predetermined it to occur.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?