Predestination

[CCWoody]

I wasn't trying to be pedantic about definition. I was pointing out that there is a distinction. You can deny middle knowledge, without denying God's foreknowledge, and without doing any harm to God's omniscience.

Yes, but the question I then have, is what knowledge did the Lord use in creating? Did he have any kind of knowledge about the "future" he was about to create if and so, of what nature was this knowledge?

 

[RapeOfAngels]

Umm...you completely lost me. Can you explain your point here?

Thanks,
God bless

I was saying that God may not have the kind of knowledge that "CCWoody" claimed, and that this wouldn't necessarily be a problem for God's omniscience. (i.e. a denial of omniscience.)

 

[BarbB]

I was saying that God may not have the kind of knowledge that "CCWoody" claimed, and that this wouldn't necessarily be a problem for God's omniscience. (i.e. a denial of omniscience.)

I find this scary - how would it not be a problem?

 

[woobadooba]

I disagree. His death would have been wholly in vain. His purpose was to save His people from their sins.

You didn't catch my clue.

Sin existed before man was created.

And His death would not have been in vain. His love for His created beings was brought into question. And to demonstrate that He is just, He went to the cross to die for sinners.

Hence, He died to show that He is just, and to justify sinners.

 

[CCWoody]

I don't find your posts borish or boring! I learn from them so I'm going to grant that Don invented a new word that I want to use! Continue!

Great, thanks. Don't think that I won't eventually probe your mind about Messianic Christianity. My only limited knowledge comes from reading the stuff out of Messiah's Congregation in NY and they, at one time a few years ago didn't mind the label Calvinistic. Don't know if that is still true, but it once was. You see, I think that, as a gentile convert to the Lord (actually pagan, but that is another story), I am robbed of a rich history and knowledge of the symbolism given in the OT ceremonies for Christ. And, I'm determined to eventually explore it. But, this, too, is for another thread.

 

[RapeOfAngels]

Yes, but the question I then have, is what knowledge did the Lord use in creating? Did he have any kind of knowledge about the "future" he was about to create if and so, of what nature was this knowledge?

The range of possibilities. That would be my belief.

 

[BarbB]

Anytime, Woody - the Messianic Forum is very receptive to questions! My path has been Presbyterian; saved; Episcopalian; Methodist; pentacostal; messianic. Life is good!

 

[Reformationist]

Hence, He died to show that He is just, and to justify sinners.

All sinners?

 

[CCWoody]

The range of possibilities. That would be my belief.

Ok, you need to explain how it is different from what I laid out that you termed middle knowledge and give a few more details.

 

[RapeOfAngels]

I find this scary - how would it not be a problem?

In my view, God doesn't know something, because it is something that doesn't exist. (The free choice has yet to be made.) I can't see that as a problem.

As I said, most Christians would admit that there are some things that God couldn't do, but they wouldn't see this as a denial of God's omnipotence. For example, we may deny that God could destroy himself, or create a second God as powerful as himself.

 

[CCWoody]

Anytime, Woody - the Messianic Forum is very receptive to questions! My path has been Presbyterian; saved; Episcopalian; Methodist; pentacostal; messianic. Life is good!

Well, I'm always hesitant. You know....

One Riot; one [Texas] Ranger.
One Calvinist; one Riot.

I was born Episcopalian, married Methodist, went AOG (pentecostal lite), and am now Presbyterian. Yeah, life is good.

 

[CCWoody]

In my view, God doesn't know something, because it is something that doesn't exist. (The free choice has yet to be made.) I can't see that as a problem.

As I said, most Christians would admit that there are some things that God couldn't do, but they wouldn't see this as a denial of God's omnipotence. For example, we may deny that God could destroy himself, or create a second God as powerful as himself.

You mean, Open Theistic?

 

[RapeOfAngels]

Ok, you need to explain how it is different from what I laid out that you termed middle knowledge and give a few more details.

God doesn't know, before creation, what free choice a creature will make in situation X. God knows the possible options. God knows all the "branches" of possible options.

 

[CCWoody]

God doesn't know, before creation, what free choice a creature will make in situation X. God knows the possible options. God knows all the "branches" of possible options.

Ok, so Open Theistic???

 

[BarbB]

Did anyone mention Ephesians yet?

EPH 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. [4] For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love [5] he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will--

 

[RapeOfAngels]

You mean, Open Theistic?

An "open theist" will deny that God knows the future, because they deny the future exists.

What I am talking about is a little different. I don't deny the future exists, (from God's perspective). What I deny, is that the "future" exists before creation, (which seems an obvious truth).

 

[woobadooba]

All sinners?

Well, it would have been best to phrase it the same way that the Bible does to avoid confusion: "...who justifies those who have faith in Jesus." Rom. 3:26

So only those who foster faith in Christ are justified.

This, of course, hurts your position of salvific predestination, since if what you are saying is true, they were justified without faith because God made them that way.

But the Bible is clear that they can't be justified without faith.

I do hope you can see the problem here.

 

[woobadooba]

An "open theist" will deny that God knows the future, because they deny the future exists.

What I am talking about is a little different. I don't deny the future exists, (from God's perspective). What I deny, is that the "future" exists before creation, (which seems an obvious truth).

Wrong. Open Theism does not deny that God can know the future, but only the particulars of the future.

So your position is one of Open Theism.

 

[RapeOfAngels]

What is middle knowledge to you?

http://www.iep.utm.edu/m/middlekn.htm

 

[RapeOfAngels]

Wrong. Open Theism does not deny that God can know the future, but only the particulars of the future.

So your position is one of Open Theism.

No. Because I am not denying that God has a complete knowledge of the future. I am denying that God can have a knowledge of the future before it actually exists.

This isn't "open theism".