@fractalfires "We only say that the future is open enough to allow us to be justly held accountable for our actions..." In fact, absolute predestination does not take away from man's accountability, or responsibility before God.
Usually when synergists attempt to use this type of argumentation it is because they don't have an appropriate definition of "responsibility".
The fact that God predestines an innumerable amount of undeserving sinners to eternal life with Christ, in no way takes anything from man's responsibility before God.
Responsibility:
1) implies "the giving of a response" (generally with regard to some broken law);
2) implies an higher authority to whom to give a response. Since God is the highest authority, every creature owes obedience to Him and His Law.
This is a proper definition, and is in a different category than predestination.
By this proper definition of responsibility, any biblical Christian can rightly state that God is not responsible for anything. God is not responsible even for His own creation. Why?
1) Because God does not need to give a response to any creature for what He does.
2) Because there is no higher authority to whom the Triune God must give a response.
Therefore, God is not responsible for His own creation: He simple spoke, and it WAS...and it was VERY GOOD ;)
@fractalfires And since your argument rests upon refuting a naturalistic/materialistic determinism, which Calvinist also refute, then it is illogical (a "straw man", really). ;)
@fractalfires "A God who foresees multiple foreseeable outcomes knows MORE than a god who absolutely foresees only one possible future." Here's where your logic fails: in the former instance, God "knows" absolutely nothing with certainty. In other words, there exists "potentiality" in God's knowledge. In the latter, God knows one future, absolutely (no potential for "learning anything"). And, He knows this ONE future, not because He foresees it, but because He DECREES it.
Your out of context in Jeremiah 19:5. Of course it didn't enter God's heart (which is the correct translation) because God is holy. He never commanded such things, these actions where of man's heart not God's. But God permitted it for His purposes.
I'm sure God has several reason for me reading this. I hope the things i wrote He uses to dissuade any who may be fooled by your unbiblical teachings of God.
My apologies. You do appear to have tried to respond to my comment on Jeremiah 19:5
However, you appear to differ from Calvin. He makes it plain God planned for everything that happens. You merely say He permits these evil things. His not planning this event as explicit in Jeremiah 19:5 makes it clear that Calvin speaks against scripture.
There is a world of difference between God using a nation that is already wicked as a tool to punish other nations AND God intending or making that nation to be wicked in the 1st place.
This is Paul's point in Romans 9:22-23 in that ONLY IN THE GREEK can you see by his use of 2 different verbs God is not into making people wicked so he can use them, but in their being wicked he THEN uses them for His purposes in the nations.
Open Theism seems to be an attempt to worship free will, a pagan idol. Since when is omniscient not all knowing? Since when is God Almighty, not all powerful? What about all the prophecy? What about Peter's predicted denial? Was that just a lucky guess? There is nothing new under the sun, "Therefore, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning (1 John 2:24).
Open theism appears to be a way to perform eisegesis on the Bible, to account for what you think people have, a free will. The Bible doesn't teach free will. It teaches that God is the potter and we are the clay. Isaiah 64:8 and restated by Paul in Romans 9.
What about Isaiah 10? Starting at v. 5? Justice is not evil.
how was God so certain that every person is properly portrayed in Romans 3:9-18 if he did not know? Why would Paul write that if he held to open theism?
There is a world of difference between God using peuple and nations who have become set in evil and God wanting them to be that in the 1st place (as Calvinsim claims).
For Romans 3 I recommend this vid
"Quick Answers to Calvinists Romans 3 - Jacques More"
God knows all that can be known as already in existence and also all that will be as a result of that including what He has decided to occur because He will make it so.
God cannot know what does not yet exist which is caused by what He created as to occur freely.
Hence he honestly says "now I know" in Genesis 22:12
Hence He makes a new plan following Saul's rebellion.
A plan He did not have before since He declares explicitly he had another plan.
See there is your problem. If God gave man choice, then God had to understand that man could choose contrary to God. To have even this knowledge, would allow God to know sin because it would be contrary to His character. Plus you have negated the very freedom of God himself to understand what choice even is. Why would He choose to do one thing over another? Was He not choosing in creation as to order and declaring things to be good?
@gracetruthguy I think that you may have missed the point of my argument. it perhaps may be more cleaar in the other responses that I gave further down the page. Do you submit that God is omniscient( by your own definition of knowing what may be known, though that is certainly not my definition nor the dictionary definition)?
God knows all that is knowable is my definition of omniscience from my reading of the bible.
So until a choice was made against God - not having been made before - and since when God was alone, not himself able to make such a choice, then evil and what it comprised of was unknown.
We know from Scripture the angels were there at creation and we know Satan fell before man so that a need for redemption was recognised and planned for before man was created.
@gracetruthguy Sir. With all due respect even given your definition of omniscience I don't think that you realize the implications of the concession of any type of omniscience. Do you concede that omniscience ,however limited , is perfect in its limited field of knowledge?
Pls explain what it is you do not understand by God knowing all that is knowable?
Or, Pls explain how it is you do not understand that it is possible that knowledge can be created where it did not exist before?
Since God is light and in him is no darkness at all in the sense of no evil, until evil was chosen and carried out it did not exist and was unknowable by the Being in whom and from whom no evil comes.
Pls answer the Q? at the end of the vid on 1 Sam.13
@gracetruthguy Sir the major problem with your argument is that all knowledge comes from God and is created by God out of necessity. Otherwise there is something out there that is greater than God which in turn we would have to say is God's god. Or does anyone or anything else have the capability of creation outside of God's knowledge? You may want to start at the beginning of the Bible and read forward from there. Please go back to the creation acount and read of the fall of man in Gen. ch.3.
@pastorgreene2230 As satan is tempting Eve in Genesis chapter 3 he tells her "you will be like God, knowing good and evil." This does not make God the author of sin or the agent of sin but shows His sovereignty even over sin. I would love to continue this discussion however I must leave my computer for now. Please contact me @ pastorgreene2230@yahoo.com or even call me live @ (337) 842- 0379. God bless you and I pray for your continued growth in the knowledge of our Lord.
@gracetruthguy NO sir, the inspired word of God. Also looking numerous times in Gen ch. 2 and in ch. 3 specifically when God says that man has become like us knowing both good and evil. It is important to point out that even though God had a knowledge of what sin is this is not the same kind of intimate knowledge as when the scripture talks about Adam KNOWING Eve. God knew that He had a holy hatred of sin from the beginning because it is anti-God.
What the specific passage gives us is that at this point in time there was knowledge of good and evil. It does not tells us how much knowledge of that there was.
Since there is no evil in God and anything anti-God in Him (using your words) then in my mind there was not knolwedge of that until is began to occur: in waht is consists of.
We know the angels were there at Creation. We know Satan fell 1st. Therefore knowledge had been gained of evil up to then.
@gracetruthguy But once again even based off of your own definition of omniscience. If God knew of sin then the effects of sin and what it is is still knowable because God must have been able to understand the contrary. Example, He knows in Gen. 2 that it is not GOOD for Adam to be alone. God understood that this is BAD, so He created Adam a helpmate. Once again though it is dangerous to try to think of God as having a knowledge that is comparable to ours, it takes away from His transcendency.
@gracetruthguy That is what I am trying to get you to see . Our God is in the heavens and has done whatsoever He pleases. 1 John 3:20 in an attempt to give assurance to the believers (put to rest their hearts) John says " If our hearts condemn us, God is greater than our hearts, and knows all things. God's knowing all things, being the first and the last, the beginning and the end, the one who does all things according to the pleasure of His own good will, these are all a testamony to His power
@gracetruthguy This question is rather simple to answer. The answer is absolutely, because God said He would have. However, we must struggle with the tougher question, how did God know the bloodline of Christ would come from the blood line of David? God's offering of the kingdom to saul is like having the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life in the garden. I don't doubt that had adam obeyed God he would have been able to partake of the tree of life freely.
We do not know in the bible of God knowing of the bloodline of David being the one from which Christ would come until AFTER Saul was rejected as king.
If - as you rightly say - God would have established Saul's kingdom over Israel forever, then there were no plans for anyone else to be king or have a dynasty until AFTER Saul rebelled.
The bible shows us God is free to make new plans, when it involves plans not declared beforehand.
@gracetruthguy Notice that God did not promise to make Saul's kingdom an everlasting kingdom. Samuel only pronounces after Saul had sinned that God would have established his kingdom. How come Saul's sin was so grievous that there was no second chance for him, when David's sins were far greater and more heinous, yet he still found mercy with God and was the one to receive the promise of the kingdom? This was God's plan from the beginning.
If you read me carefully you would note that I said "The bible shows us God is free to make new plans when it involves plans not declared beforehand": i.e. I already mentioned the declaration of the plan for Saul to have a kingdom dynasty that would last forever was not made before he was rejected as king.
But that there was a plan is evident by God saying that and you agreed that in saying "absolutely", so why are you contradicting now in saying God had another plan?
Since God created all things your theory has major problems because it shows a major fault with God. You see if God created all things and all things were created good then where did the evil come from?
Darkness is just absence of LIGHT,DARKNESS flees from God because He is LIGHT,I don't see anything about God being ignorant.Jesus was the lamb slain from the foundation of the WORLD,but to hear you tell it Jesus having to die was reactive instead of proactive.I sure am glad that my God is not and ignoramus.
Yes, God foresaw the need and thus prepared for the lamb that would take away the sin of the world.
That does not tell us the complete picture of God's revelation to us about His knowledge.
The principle holds that a contained full of one things does not contain another substance contrary to the 1st. Yet, I am not talking of the knowledge of its potential existence itself, but of its practical entirety.
I refer too to the whole bible context showing the limits.
grace: You can 'say' & eisegete your opinion all you want to say whatever you want. Unless you have clear, explicit text backing up what you say you are a sophist.
You're avoiding the question regarding how you have determined, by scripture, that just because something is not "IN HIM" God doesn't know what it is. You've no scripture to back up your opinion. Prove by scripture that what is "IN HIM" is all he knows.
Rom9:11 mentions no nations. but children before they were born.You lie again.
Jaques: Good, I'm glad you realize you have no scriptural support for your opinion that what is 'IN HIM' is all HE knows. Except your video says otherwise: you wrote in the video "HE had no knowledge-1:John1:5"(@5:16 time on video) Yet the verse makes only reference to darkness not being 'IN HIM" not about anything He allegedly doesn't know about. Here you're now twisting your own words, on top of the Bibles.
What does the 'calamity' that God creates in Isa45:7 accomplish? KJV = 'Evil'
Nope IN CONTEXT I said He knew not of darkness PRACTISE BEFORE CREATION as there was none in existence. Are you suggesting that before Creation God knew something that did not exist and had no part of Him whatsoever?
In Isaiah 45:7 if you take note different verbs are used to show that God does not directLy intitiate evil. I see that is the purpose of the contrasting verb use.
So, do you not believe that God made free agents?
Jaques:You've no text support for your speculation - NONE. 'CONTEXT' does not help you in anyway. You're deluding yourself-otherwise elaborate specifically how the 'CONTEXT' supports your opinion that "God had no knowledge of 'darkness'". Your video @5:16 clearly states; "He had no knowledge in 1 John 1:5'
PROVE IT FROM THE TEXT or repent from the very notion of it or be 'found' a liar.
Just because something is not 'IN HIM' nor yet in existence, doesn't mean He has no knowledge of it.
Jaques: I think you need to re-write your last response. The 3rd paragraph makes absolutely no sense grammatically nor substantively.
You also are not avoiding the question: "Where, SPECIFICALLY, does the context of 1John 1:5 reveal just because something is not 'IN HIM' or has not occurred, means that HE has no knowledge of it?"
I did not take you out of context. You do realize that liars do not enter the Kingdom of God?
Jaques; Once again you avoid the question & ask others that don't apply. You confirm the FACT that you are a sophist, by refusing to answer the question.
There is no point in answering your question unless you back up what you say: How does the context of 1 John 1 show that just because something is not 'IN HIM" or hasn't come into existence is something that HE has no knowledge of?
You have come no where near answering this question and therefore have been proven wrong.You are a liar.
Jaques:You clearly stated your justification for asserting the idea that God had no knowledge on your video @5:16 was because of the context stated the 'practise of darkness'.
Now you lie and say the 'context' is the whole Bible.That is not what 'context' means.The context of 1 John is not 2Chron 32 it is1 John.
I John 1:5, no where says God didn't know what the practise of darkness would be. NO WHERE. nor does it say that 'darkness' even has a 'practise'.
Jaques: The very words that were on the screen are;"He had no knowledge in 1 John 1:5" There is nothing in the context (1 John) that suggests He had no knowledge of darkness, much less it having a 'practise'. It only says it was not 'IN HIM'. This does not mean or suggest in anyway shape or form that He had 'no knowledge' of what darkness is, was, or would be, or how it would be manifested in the future.
You haven't a shred of evidence to back up anything you've said.
Jaques: You still have not answered the question nor proven your case.
"If you choose to hold that God planned evil ONLY THEN can you hold to HIS knowing then of evil and it's practise in its entirety."You have no proof this statement is true.
Why does God have to 'plan evil' in order for Him to know what it is or when it will occur?
Prove it or remain a liar.
Your statements are pure sophism & utterly illogical. The fact you cannot justify what you say is proof positive you're a liar.
Jaques: I don't recall asking you anything about Calvin nor God planning evil.You've avoided the question once again proving you are a liar:
You've not proven positive, from the context of 1John1:5, or from anywhere else in the Bible, that God had no knowledge of darkness, nor evil, nor of it's future occurrence, before creation. Still waiting for proof....
Your extra biblical philosophy is not proof. You remain a conspicuous liar. Liars do not enter the Kingdom of God
You asked what the plans of God have to do with His knowledge: I explained out of what I assume is your belief system: Calvinism. Whose believing extra-biblical stuff?
I base all my doctrine on the Scripture.
I believe nothing of Calvinism.
Where are your answers to the BIBLE text I've supplied?
Jaques:Yes, it's obvious from the text that the juxtaposition of 'light' to 'darkness' is idiomatic & not 'photons'. Why you assume something else in Isaiah 45:7 is another matter.(Don't answer, just stick to proving your point about 1John 1:5)
By asking the question, you've still avoided AGAIN to answer & remain a liar:
"Prove from the context of 1 John, that God had no knowledge of evil before creation or it's practice? (speaking of context see:1John3:20)
Jaques: That depends on what you mean by 'IN" now doesn't it?
This is the fallacious start, or 'out of square' cornerstone to your proposition.
What does 'IN HIM' mean? And why do you ASSUME that what is not 'IN HIM' is something that HE does not know about or cannot perceive being practiced in the future?
This is the point in which I 1st engaged you, which you fail to answer: Why do you assume what is not IN HIM is something He doesn't know about?
Jaques:You're baiting me with semantics to twist to your own liking.This is standard procedure among sophists.I will not play within boundaries drawn by sophism.
However, if you can clearly define for me what the inspired pen of the Apostle John meant by 'IN HIM" in 1 John 1:5, I will then be able to answer your question.
You've from the beginning of this video, built your argument on the presupposition that 'NOT IN HIM" means HE doesn't know about or cannot perceive in the future.
Sophism has within it an attempt to deceive unlike paralogism.
To teach however one must appreciate what is needful in the recipient.
You tell me what your understanding of "in Him" is as you answer the question.
Do you recognise that there is no evil, wickedness, and such like in God?
(now failure to cooperate means you do not want to learn or teach, but to cause mischief, so if another similar standard reply occurs I will delete it)
@gracetruthguy You do realize that you create an even greater theological and philosophical dilema when you try to distance God from the knowledge of evil. Evil is that which is contrary to God's character. God defines what is good, HE is not defined by good. Something is good because God declares it to be good because it is His very nature, essence, and being. God had an intimate knowledge of His creation, it came from Him.
@gracetruthguy Are you telling me that in His omniscience (even defined wrongful as knowing what can be known) that He could not understand the possibility of one of His creatures doing what is contrary. To know this much would give Him a knowledge of sin. But to get aside how can Jesus Christ be the Lamb slain BEFORE the foundation of the world unless there was foreknowledge of a necessary atonement?
This whole silly argument solely depends on the author's OPINION that 'darkness' is referring to 'evil'.Of course, let's not bother to define what is being expressed by the Text using the phrase 'in Him'.Darkness in Him? Why does the author assume something not 'in Him' means He doesn't know what it is.This is fallacious reasoning and is pure sophistry.This guy would have fit in well with the gnostics of the 1st century.
Besides, 'limited omniscience' is an oxymoron.This man is obviously ill.
God was before Creation, then since He created light - photons and the like - on the 1st day we can see 1 John 1:5's depiction is not about photons. Sophistry?
God created all, except for evil = darkness, then it follows until its observation in its apparition, God was not fully cognizant of it. Or else, its source is in Him too. It is impossible not to know something in its entirety - that has no part in your being - until it manifests itself. Or else evil always existed in Him
grace: I understand that the term 'light' has a far more expansive use then mere photons. The point is, you are presuming that just because something is not 'in Him' doesn't mean He doesn't know what it is.You have no 'light' on this. You're 'in darkness' by warping the meaning of words to suit your agenda.Before Esau was born, God hated Him. Was God not 'fully cognizant' of Esau before he was born? And what of God's hate? Was it 'in Him' before Esau was born?
To suggest God knows about evil when there is none in Him and before anything other than God was ever created IS to warp the meaning of Scripture, let alone God's character.
U say "warping the meaning of words to suit your agenda" and "Before Esau was born, God hated Him"
PLANK:
We know God hated Esau IN CONTRAST to loving Jacob, but WE ARE NOT TOLD this was before he was born and in context is about EDOM versus ISRAEL. We are told to HATE our wives in contrast to JESUS...
Grace: Rom9:11 clearly states 'before the children were born'. You're caught red handed lying. The text does not state; "hated in contrast to". That is your eisegesis and warping of the text. You need to come up with more textual evidence that it's a contrast. Your opinion is worthless.
Furthermore, you have failed to define what 'IN HIM'' means. You need to prove exegetically that just because something is not 'IN HIM' means HE doesn't know what it is. You're assuming w/ no textual proof.
R9:11 talks of the nations that come from Jacob and Esau since V.12 we read The older shall serve the younger Edom served Israel: Nowhere do we read of Esau serving Jacob
V.13 is about the nations as Paul quotes Malachi and the CONTRAST is revealed there of Gods attitude betrween the 2 nations. So in context there is NO mention of God hating Esau before he was born.
This vid is more about the how and the why God knows only the knowable.
Grace, quoting the Bible proves nothing. There's a quote in my book that the world is in peril because of the writings of fishermen and goat herders. See the "endmeme".
I maintain that it's dangerous for all life on the planet that billions of people believe in the Apocalypse. Self fulfilling prophesy, ya know.
The Muslims even believe in Judgment Day. Very dangerous.
S1, okay. There are many silly incidences in the Bible. Eve created from Adams rib, or Jonah living in the belly of the whale for three days. I could go on and on.
Lets try another approach. This has always bothered me. Why are there no specific predictions about the future other than the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Why not something like WWII will break out in 1939, or George Washington will be the first president of the U.S..
I see you kind of want God to prove to everybody and make the front page again with predicting WWII.
If you follow the bible you will see that most of (if not all) prophecies are connected to Israel or Christ or kings that rule over Israel or other nations that are enemies of Israel (book of Daniel is the perfect prophetic book that most historians cannot believe it's accuracy)
If Jerusalem's destruction was the only, isn't it enough?
God chose Saul to be king (2 Samuel 21:6) and WOULD HAVE established his kingdom over Israel forever (1 samuel 13:13), but he was rejected as king - God changed His mind.
Not because He does not change: His nature stayed the same, but that His knowledge of the extent of Saul's rebellion was not foreseen.
Have you not read?
. . . God withdrew from him, in order to test him, that He might know all that was in his heart.
Isaiah 46 : 9-10"Remember the former things, those of long ago;I am God, and there is no other;I am God, and there is none like me.I make known the end from the beginning,from ancient times, what is still to come.I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please. I think God addresses His omniscience and omnipotence, don't you?
Doctrines are better examined where the text is actually addressing the subject. On the other hand your text doesn't address this subject. Right???
I believe that God not only knows what will happen. He also is the one with all the power and He excercises that power in order things to happen His way.
but look what it says " I make known the end from the beginning, from anscient times, what is still to come.
THE ONLY way this could happen is that God KNOWS everyting. It is clear and simple as that.
I believe the inspiration of scripture is more accurate than that. Remember it is like a sword sharp: to divide soul and spirit.
Knowing the end from the beginning is that. It is not saying knowing all in between. Indeed it mentions DECLARING the end from the beginning. And what end is that?
The end proclaimed only.
And it is that God brings about because He can. If from the beginning things change then because He can He makes all things work together to the pre-announced.
But. I like to read what it says not add thereto assuming things not mentioned. Especially when other passages demonstrate those added thoughts are false.
Please tell me,
Would God have established king Saul's kingdom over Israel forever?
Grace, I'd be glad to discuss this stuff with you and I take an opposite view.
In the above reference doesn't it bother you that Christ only appeared to his friends after he resurrected. He could have made the front page in all the papers and proved for certain that he was divine.
Why didn't he clear thinks up as he was supposed to?
Hi aristopus. I don't see any contradiction with my view.
It doesn't bother me. He didn't make the front page because He didn't want to. If He wanted he would :)
I am sure He will be in EVERY page when He comes back :)
Why do you assume that He has to clear things up?
He cleared them to those whom He wanted - the apostles.
God has a plan and He acts according to it. Almost every time it doesn't seem natural to man. Of course it will be different. After all He is God and we are humans, right? :D
The tree of knowledge of good and evil - as a tree - has room to grow. At that point in time it contained what was known then.
Remember the bible tells us the angels were there already at the Creation, so that the fall of Lucifer and the other fallen ones may have already happened...
Prophecy is possible as a result of advance planning AND execution on God's part. All not planned is ensured not to interfere with His plans by the outer limits given.
No, God has decreed the end from the beginning and that in a specific context of what He has prophesied: i.e. it is not everything in view in that passage for THAT is eisegesis.
Tell me, who wants to know in this passage?
. . . God withdrew from him, in order to test him, that He might know all that was in his heart.
To exclude the clear passages that God learns in order to back up a doctrine begun in the 5th century and in opposition to the prior teaching of the church is eisegesis.
Either God infinite understanding, therefore knowing, comprehending all things and nothing can be outside of His knowing b/c it is infinite OR you simply deny Psalm 147:5 and outright proclaiming the Bible to not be absolute truth.
A passage that denies or appears to deny another passage does not mean one is wrong and the other right, it means our understanding of God needs to adjust to fit both in.
God has revealed Himself to know more than all other beings put together (since He created them all), but that nevertheless His giving some of these beings free will in a range of things means He does not know the outcome of these and this is what He learns in the bible.
The Hebrew word is MISPAR and is translated infinite X 1; It is number X 109 of which Youngs Concordance has: number, narration, reckoning so that from our standpoint it appears limitless, but there is NO emphasis of EXHAUSTIVE within the word itself.
Gods omniscience in the bible shows Him as knowing all that is knowable which only excludes a small amount of yet un-willed/undecided stuff.
Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite.
It is very dishonest and I would suggest deliberately seeking to undermine simple and clear teachings of scripture when you interpret verses without firmly taking hold of the verses such as Psalm 147:5.
To even listen to this and believe your teaching is to deny absolute truths already clearly taught in Scripture. You are teaching lies and I hope God opens your eyes to you being deceived
Psalms 139:7-8 Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? (8) If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there.
Genesis 3:9 Then the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, Where are you?
It is evident from the context and setting that it was for Adam's benefit that God said "Where are you?" It is no different than for Him to have said "Why are you hiding from Me?"
The Scripture is plain about God's omnipresence and yet He is not present where things are not yet created: e.g. in Isaiah 65:17 we read of new heavens and new earth which God will create. He is not yet present there until it is created.
You said: "It is evident from the context and setting that it was for Adam's benefit that God said "Where are you?" It is no different than for Him to have said "Why are you hiding from Me?"
Great. We are making progress. You just admitted that God spoke to Adam in human terms for Adam's benefit.
With your own logic, you have just refuted open theism. Do yourself a favor. Don't try to wrap your mind around God. He does what He pleases.
One immediate context does not prove all other contexts.
With that logic you are saying anything God says is dependent on 1 context of your choice. So that He is either angry or He is not, He loves you or He does not, etc. That logic is pure eisegesis.
He does what He pleases in righteousness and within the revelation He has given us of Himself; not according to the whim of the deity you wish to believe in.
The God I believe in does not act on "whims". He plans, and then accomplishes His plans.
You know the 144,000 Israelites who are saved in Revelation? How does God know that exactly 144,000 will be saved? Maybe none of them will choose to be saved. Maybe more than 300,000 will choose to be saved.
Because God plans for things within His knowledge of how things are and how they function He is able to guide and limit and inspire and thus cause 144,000 to be the exact number, and not just that but a set amount of each tribe too.
Do you really think that's what I meant to say to you? Do you always play games with people's words? Wait a minute. I forgot that you play games with the wording in the Bible too.
unravel - become undone; "the sweater unraveled"
Oh yeah, explain to me again why it is Jesus and not Joshua in Hebrews 4:8??? "Joshua" is the greek form of "Jesus".
You're theology in UNRAVELING. I know these words are hard for you to understand. But trust me. It is not a compliment.
The Bible says that Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24). If this is so, then how did God know which sins to place on Christ since we hadn't committed them yet when Jesus was crucified?
You dodged my question. If Christ bore our sins in his body, then how did God know which sins to place on Christ, since we hadn't committed them yet when Jesus was crucified?
Imagine you are a millionaire and there is a school of children to whom you have promised all to have sweets. Since the capacity of your bank account far outweighs the total possible purchase required, there is no need to count and know each and every child and sweet, etc.
Jesus' sacrifice is infinitely able to pay for all and contains no inference on the need of knowledge of any particular sin in its act on the part of God.
You are not dealing with the text. Instead you say, "Imagine you are a millionaire".
No, I will not IMAGINE that I am a millionaire. That is your problem. You are IMAGINING all sorts of ungodly things, instead of dealing with the text. The Bible does not contradict itself.
Knowing good and evil is not about knowing all about the mechanics of how evil occurs and who wills to do it or not, as in God having decided all who do it and how.
Innocence involves not realising something is abnormal morally: to obtain a sense that something is improper is not the same as knowing all about evil and how it is practised.
Moral innocence is something creatures experience. God says very clearly He "knows good and evil" or else that tree He created with the knowledge of good and evil was something He could not create.
Your problem is seeing sin or evil as a substance, which necessitates its creation, and hence, origin in God. Sin and evil are not substances, but corruptions, therefore God knows about corruptions to human or divine nature without partaking of them.
By the time of the tree of knowledge of good and evil Satan and his minions had already fallen and evil abounded.
Yes, evil and sin are corruptions, but since there is no corruption in God it was not understood and known by God in its practicalities until it occurred and observed.
Perhaps GOD didn't create evil, but HE did create free will in angels and man. GOD would have known that free will enables a choice to obey HIM or disobey HIM (do evil). To distinguish, GOD understanding that acting contrary to HIS will amounts to evil is not the same as GOD having darkness in HIM.
I agree, it is not that they could not turn from Him that God did not know, but what the evil they would turn to: what that consisted of and how it would be practised that is what was unknowable until Creation produced it.
And the will of man is tested from then on, why?
In order to see what it would produce. Why?
Because God does not know in specific circumstances what that will is: what it will be since it is free.
Or, the God of the bible is real and you have yet to understand this:
He learns a limited range of things which is because HE has created OTHER BEINGS to choose freely. For that to mean anything then He does not know the outcome of a free choice until performed: that is logic and it is truth.
"God led you . . . to . . . test you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not." Deut.8:2
Or, one puppy closer to an overall understanding of the revelation God has given of Himself since I do not deny the passages where God mentions He learns.
Paul said ALL SCRIPTUE IS PROFITABLE FOR DOCTRINE and you claim you believe in sola scriptura, yet you deny these passages:
2 Chronicles 32:31, Deuteronomy 8:2, Genesis 22:12 et al
If your god didn't know where Adam was and everything that had just happened but had to personally go on a fact finding mission by asking Adam questions, then he is dumber than most human parents. What you need to realize is that God condescends to man's level in the text of Holy Writ and says things as if speaking to a child.
Haven't you noticed that a man with a PHD sounds like an idiot when talking to a 3 year old?!
God is omnipresent means that if somewhere exists in the universe God will know about it.
Adam being asked by God "Where are you?" has nothing to do with God finding out, but relating to Adam to answer "Why are you hiding?"
The bible: God's revelation of Himself to us FOR DOCTRINE is clear that God learns in a limited range. I do not deny these Scriptures, but embrace them within the whole counsel of God.
The problem with your position is that it is not consistent. You literally interpret some text in the Bible to support your views while you reject other texts when taken literally teach that God is even more limited than you are comfortable with. You quote a verse and say see it implies God learns. Then, I quote a verse and say see God can't find Adam. And you say well get real. And I say to you get real. The Bible doesn't teach that God and man work together to accomplish God's will!
On the contrary, it was the Church's universal teaching that God and man co-operate before Augustine's deviation that began the Cavinist path.
"As a rule, the exertion of free-will, human efforts in a right direction, preceded the divine aid, and render men worthy of it. It is a doctrine of synergism. God and man co-operate . . . conditional predestination is the doctrine inculcated [persistently taught] by the Greek Fathers"
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE page165 G.P.FISHER DD
If God and man cooperate, then man can take some of the credit for himself being saved just as a patient can take some credit for being healed. After all the patient sought out medical care and followed the advice of the doctor. So much for being saved TOTALLY by grace!
Becos He does not get the glory when we choose to sin
A blind man who is healed by Jesus glorifies God in using His sight for good. He does not glorify God in using it for evil.
Our free will is not of ourselves
In a general context this is so. In specific contexts where God uses evil already in place and turns it to His glory, it is different: i.e. Pharaoh against Moses, but God would that none sinned
Well if that is your position then - vsince EVERYTHING COMES FROM GOD ULTIMATELY (even evil) - I cannot argue with you. For if God hadn't created there would be ANYTHING AT ALL (except the divine/God Himself). So that is a silly argument for how glory is achieved. Your argument proves too much!
You can take virtually any scripture in the Bible, and twist it to mean anything. That's the advantage of believing in fairy tales. Since they have very little, if any base in reality, you can claim it means whatever you want it to mean.
@fractalfires "We only say that the future is open enough to allow us to be justly held accountable for our actions..." In fact, absolute predestination does not take away from man's accountability, or responsibility before God.
Usually when synergists attempt to use this type of argumentation it is because they don't have an appropriate definition of "responsibility".
rkg62976 10 months ago
The fact that God predestines an innumerable amount of undeserving sinners to eternal life with Christ, in no way takes anything from man's responsibility before God.
Responsibility:
1) implies "the giving of a response" (generally with regard to some broken law);
2) implies an higher authority to whom to give a response. Since God is the highest authority, every creature owes obedience to Him and His Law.
This is a proper definition, and is in a different category than predestination.
rkg62976 10 months ago
By this proper definition of responsibility, any biblical Christian can rightly state that God is not responsible for anything. God is not responsible even for His own creation. Why?
1) Because God does not need to give a response to any creature for what He does.
2) Because there is no higher authority to whom the Triune God must give a response.
Therefore, God is not responsible for His own creation: He simple spoke, and it WAS...and it was VERY GOOD ;)
rkg62976 10 months ago
@fractalfires I was confused. I thought you would actually know what a "straw man argument" was.
If you want a serious dialogue, fine. Otherwise, don't bother responding.
rkg62976 10 months ago
@fractalfires And since your argument rests upon refuting a naturalistic/materialistic determinism, which Calvinist also refute, then it is illogical (a "straw man", really). ;)
rkg62976 10 months ago
@fractalfires "I disagree with you about my logic. It is just fine. God is not a puppeteer".
I agree, God is not a puppeteer. The problem in charging Calvinists with somehow saying that 'God is a puppeteer" is that, again, the logic is flawed.
1) Puppets are inanimate objects, controlled by inanimate strings; human beings are psychological beings, not puppets.
You are simply refuting materialistic, or "naturalistic" determinism; not divine determinism, to which Calvinists hold.
rkg62976 10 months ago
@fractalfires "A God who foresees multiple foreseeable outcomes knows MORE than a god who absolutely foresees only one possible future." Here's where your logic fails: in the former instance, God "knows" absolutely nothing with certainty. In other words, there exists "potentiality" in God's knowledge. In the latter, God knows one future, absolutely (no potential for "learning anything"). And, He knows this ONE future, not because He foresees it, but because He DECREES it.
Simple enough?
rkg62976 10 months ago
Please explain to me how you jump through hoops and rings of fire in order to understand Isaiah 10:5-19.
lieberR1 1 year ago
Hi lieberR1,
Context is everything. A text out of context is a pretext.
You appear to believe as Calvin:
God decided and planned for everything to happen.
In that belief you are incapable of seeing the places where God responds in relation to activity unplanned by Him.
So, let me ask you this.
If God planned for everything then how do you read this?
"which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind" Jeremiah 19:5
Something explicit that God says He did NOT plan.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy
Are you going to respond to Isaiah 10:5-19?
Your out of context in Jeremiah 19:5. Of course it didn't enter God's heart (which is the correct translation) because God is holy. He never commanded such things, these actions where of man's heart not God's. But God permitted it for His purposes.
I'm sure God has several reason for me reading this. I hope the things i wrote He uses to dissuade any who may be fooled by your unbiblical teachings of God.
lieberR1 1 year ago
Hi lieberR1,
My apologies. You do appear to have tried to respond to my comment on Jeremiah 19:5
However, you appear to differ from Calvin. He makes it plain God planned for everything that happens. You merely say He permits these evil things. His not planning this event as explicit in Jeremiah 19:5 makes it clear that Calvin speaks against scripture.
So are you following Calvin or not?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Hi lieberR1,
There is a world of difference between God using a nation that is already wicked as a tool to punish other nations AND God intending or making that nation to be wicked in the 1st place.
This is Paul's point in Romans 9:22-23 in that ONLY IN THE GREEK can you see by his use of 2 different verbs God is not into making people wicked so he can use them, but in their being wicked he THEN uses them for His purposes in the nations.
That is the context of this passage.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Isaiah 10:13-19
Open Theism seems to be an attempt to worship free will, a pagan idol. Since when is omniscient not all knowing? Since when is God Almighty, not all powerful? What about all the prophecy? What about Peter's predicted denial? Was that just a lucky guess? There is nothing new under the sun, "Therefore, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning (1 John 2:24).
Daniel 4:34-37 seems to be very fitting for you.
God is Light = God is of perfect justice.
lieberR1 1 year ago
Hi lieberR1,
Open theism is an explanation of what the Scripture reveals, just as the trinity is.
Check out this video:
"1 Samuel 13:13 - Proof Positive of Open Theism -- Jacques More"
Omniscience in the bible is about God knowing all that is knowable: nothing more.
Just as God is omnipresent, but is nowhere to be seen in places that do not exist..
In context you will note that it was Nebucadnezzar's pride in the cross hairs.
Interesting how 1 John 1:5 you also only read in part.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy
Open theism appears to be a way to perform eisegesis on the Bible, to account for what you think people have, a free will. The Bible doesn't teach free will. It teaches that God is the potter and we are the clay. Isaiah 64:8 and restated by Paul in Romans 9.
What about Isaiah 10? Starting at v. 5? Justice is not evil.
how was God so certain that every person is properly portrayed in Romans 3:9-18 if he did not know? Why would Paul write that if he held to open theism?
lieberR1 1 year ago
Hi lieberR1,
I recommend my video
"Romans 9:22-23 versus Calvinism - Jacques More"
There is a world of difference between God using peuple and nations who have become set in evil and God wanting them to be that in the 1st place (as Calvinsim claims).
For Romans 3 I recommend this vid
"Quick Answers to Calvinists Romans 3 - Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy
What do you even mean by 'all that is knowable.'
Jeremiah 10:23: "O LORD, I know the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps."
And justice is not darkness, when considering 1 John 1:5.
lieberR1 1 year ago
Hi lieberR1,
God knows all that can be known as already in existence and also all that will be as a result of that including what He has decided to occur because He will make it so.
God cannot know what does not yet exist which is caused by what He created as to occur freely.
Hence he honestly says "now I know" in Genesis 22:12
Hence He makes a new plan following Saul's rebellion.
A plan He did not have before since He declares explicitly he had another plan.
God has self control
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
See there is your problem. If God gave man choice, then God had to understand that man could choose contrary to God. To have even this knowledge, would allow God to know sin because it would be contrary to His character. Plus you have negated the very freedom of God himself to understand what choice even is. Why would He choose to do one thing over another? Was He not choosing in creation as to order and declaring things to be good?
pastorgreene2230 1 year ago
Hi pastorgreene2230,
To know one (another) can choose contrary to one's self is not the same as knowing what that choice is or involves.
So that learning is a part of God's experience as revealed in the bible.
See for example my video:
"1 Samuel 13:13 - Proof Positive of Open Theism -- Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy I think that you may have missed the point of my argument. it perhaps may be more cleaar in the other responses that I gave further down the page. Do you submit that God is omniscient( by your own definition of knowing what may be known, though that is certainly not my definition nor the dictionary definition)?
pastorgreene2230 1 year ago
Hi pastorgreene2230,
God knows all that is knowable is my definition of omniscience from my reading of the bible.
So until a choice was made against God - not having been made before - and since when God was alone, not himself able to make such a choice, then evil and what it comprised of was unknown.
We know from Scripture the angels were there at creation and we know Satan fell before man so that a need for redemption was recognised and planned for before man was created.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Sir. With all due respect even given your definition of omniscience I don't think that you realize the implications of the concession of any type of omniscience. Do you concede that omniscience ,however limited , is perfect in its limited field of knowledge?
pastorgreene2230 1 year ago
Hi pastorgreene2230,
Pls explain what it is you do not understand by God knowing all that is knowable?
Or, Pls explain how it is you do not understand that it is possible that knowledge can be created where it did not exist before?
Since God is light and in him is no darkness at all in the sense of no evil, until evil was chosen and carried out it did not exist and was unknowable by the Being in whom and from whom no evil comes.
Pls answer the Q? at the end of the vid on 1 Sam.13
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Sir the major problem with your argument is that all knowledge comes from God and is created by God out of necessity. Otherwise there is something out there that is greater than God which in turn we would have to say is God's god. Or does anyone or anything else have the capability of creation outside of God's knowledge? You may want to start at the beginning of the Bible and read forward from there. Please go back to the creation acount and read of the fall of man in Gen. ch.3.
pastorgreene2230 1 year ago
@pastorgreene2230 As satan is tempting Eve in Genesis chapter 3 he tells her "you will be like God, knowing good and evil." This does not make God the author of sin or the agent of sin but shows His sovereignty even over sin. I would love to continue this discussion however I must leave my computer for now. Please contact me @ pastorgreene2230@yahoo.com or even call me live @ (337) 842- 0379. God bless you and I pray for your continued growth in the knowledge of our Lord.
pastorgreene2230 1 year ago
Hi pastorgreene2230,
Are you recommending Satan's words as truth for doctrine?
Please answer the question I have given you a number of times now.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy NO sir, the inspired word of God. Also looking numerous times in Gen ch. 2 and in ch. 3 specifically when God says that man has become like us knowing both good and evil. It is important to point out that even though God had a knowledge of what sin is this is not the same kind of intimate knowledge as when the scripture talks about Adam KNOWING Eve. God knew that He had a holy hatred of sin from the beginning because it is anti-God.
pastorgreene2230 1 year ago
Hi pastorgreene2230,
What the specific passage gives us is that at this point in time there was knowledge of good and evil. It does not tells us how much knowledge of that there was.
Since there is no evil in God and anything anti-God in Him (using your words) then in my mind there was not knolwedge of that until is began to occur: in waht is consists of.
We know the angels were there at Creation. We know Satan fell 1st. Therefore knowledge had been gained of evil up to then.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy But once again even based off of your own definition of omniscience. If God knew of sin then the effects of sin and what it is is still knowable because God must have been able to understand the contrary. Example, He knows in Gen. 2 that it is not GOOD for Adam to be alone. God understood that this is BAD, so He created Adam a helpmate. Once again though it is dangerous to try to think of God as having a knowledge that is comparable to ours, it takes away from His transcendency.
pastorgreene2230 1 year ago
Hi pastorgreene2230,
I'm not interested in thinking of God of any way that is different than what is revealed in the Scripture (thank you very much).
The Scripture reveals that God learns and searches and tests in order to learn.
WIthin "my definition" it pertains only to the sin that had existed up till then.
N.B. being alone was not a sin, just not the best for Adam.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy That is what I am trying to get you to see . Our God is in the heavens and has done whatsoever He pleases. 1 John 3:20 in an attempt to give assurance to the believers (put to rest their hearts) John says " If our hearts condemn us, God is greater than our hearts, and knows all things. God's knowing all things, being the first and the last, the beginning and the end, the one who does all things according to the pleasure of His own good will, these are all a testamony to His power
pastorgreene2230 1 year ago
Hi pastorgreene2230,
I read that as knows all things within that context. Since God is seen to test in order to know elsewhere in Scripture:
"God withdrew from him, in order to test him, that He might know all that was in his heart" 2 Chronicles 32:31
See also Gen.22:12, Deut.5:2 et al
Do you deny that God tests in order to know things?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Hi pastorgreene2230,
Philosophy is not truth per se.
What is truth for doctrine for the Christian is what the bible reveals.
And the bible is clear that God learns:
"Now I know" Genesis 22:12
"that He might know" 2 Chronicles 32:31
Now please answer the question:
Would God have established Saul's kingdom over Israel frorever?
1 Samuel 13:13
A god that is other than the bible and knows all beyond the God of the bible is Plato's kind of god which Augustine introduced!
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy This question is rather simple to answer. The answer is absolutely, because God said He would have. However, we must struggle with the tougher question, how did God know the bloodline of Christ would come from the blood line of David? God's offering of the kingdom to saul is like having the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life in the garden. I don't doubt that had adam obeyed God he would have been able to partake of the tree of life freely.
pastorgreene2230 1 year ago
Hi pastorgreene2230,
We do not know in the bible of God knowing of the bloodline of David being the one from which Christ would come until AFTER Saul was rejected as king.
If - as you rightly say - God would have established Saul's kingdom over Israel forever, then there were no plans for anyone else to be king or have a dynasty until AFTER Saul rebelled.
The bible shows us God is free to make new plans, when it involves plans not declared beforehand.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Notice that God did not promise to make Saul's kingdom an everlasting kingdom. Samuel only pronounces after Saul had sinned that God would have established his kingdom. How come Saul's sin was so grievous that there was no second chance for him, when David's sins were far greater and more heinous, yet he still found mercy with God and was the one to receive the promise of the kingdom? This was God's plan from the beginning.
pastorgreene2230 1 year ago
Hi pastorgreene2230,
If you read me carefully you would note that I said "The bible shows us God is free to make new plans when it involves plans not declared beforehand": i.e. I already mentioned the declaration of the plan for Saul to have a kingdom dynasty that would last forever was not made before he was rejected as king.
But that there was a plan is evident by God saying that and you agreed that in saying "absolutely", so why are you contradicting now in saying God had another plan?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Since God created all things your theory has major problems because it shows a major fault with God. You see if God created all things and all things were created good then where did the evil come from?
pastorgreene2230 1 year ago
Hi pastorgreene2230,
The beginning of evil involved the free will of an individual to choose other than God.
e.g. as Ezekiel 28:15 tells us:
"You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you"
Here is the mention of a being created perfect then being found with evil.
God made him perfect, but in his choosing he turned from God = evil.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Darkness is just absence of LIGHT,DARKNESS flees from God because He is LIGHT,I don't see anything about God being ignorant.Jesus was the lamb slain from the foundation of the WORLD,but to hear you tell it Jesus having to die was reactive instead of proactive.I sure am glad that my God is not and ignoramus.
CBALLEN 2 years ago
Hi CBALLEN,
Yes, God foresaw the need and thus prepared for the lamb that would take away the sin of the world.
That does not tell us the complete picture of God's revelation to us about His knowledge.
The principle holds that a contained full of one things does not contain another substance contrary to the 1st. Yet, I am not talking of the knowledge of its potential existence itself, but of its practical entirety.
I refer too to the whole bible context showing the limits.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
grace: You can 'say' & eisegete your opinion all you want to say whatever you want. Unless you have clear, explicit text backing up what you say you are a sophist.
You're avoiding the question regarding how you have determined, by scripture, that just because something is not "IN HIM" God doesn't know what it is. You've no scripture to back up your opinion. Prove by scripture that what is "IN HIM" is all he knows.
Rom9:11 mentions no nations. but children before they were born.You lie again.
TroddinSod 2 years ago
Hi Hansom,
I do not claim by Scripture something not "IN HIM" means God doesnt know what it is, that is to say, not at all.
God knows about evil in the sense that He knows that other than Him - evil - would occur by free agents other than Him choosing otherwise.
But you seem to hold to the view that there are no free agents as ordained of God. The very idea of free- will is anathema to you: am I right?
Yet the very reality of free agents means God could not know all...
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Jaques: Good, I'm glad you realize you have no scriptural support for your opinion that what is 'IN HIM' is all HE knows. Except your video says otherwise: you wrote in the video "HE had no knowledge-1:John1:5"(@5:16 time on video) Yet the verse makes only reference to darkness not being 'IN HIM" not about anything He allegedly doesn't know about. Here you're now twisting your own words, on top of the Bibles.
What does the 'calamity' that God creates in Isa45:7 accomplish? KJV = 'Evil'
TroddinSod 2 years ago
Hi Hansom,
Nope IN CONTEXT I said He knew not of darkness PRACTISE BEFORE CREATION as there was none in existence. Are you suggesting that before Creation God knew something that did not exist and had no part of Him whatsoever?
In Isaiah 45:7 if you take note different verbs are used to show that God does not directLy intitiate evil. I see that is the purpose of the contrasting verb use.
So, do you not believe that God made free agents?
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Jaques:You've no text support for your speculation - NONE. 'CONTEXT' does not help you in anyway. You're deluding yourself-otherwise elaborate specifically how the 'CONTEXT' supports your opinion that "God had no knowledge of 'darkness'". Your video @5:16 clearly states; "He had no knowledge in 1 John 1:5'
PROVE IT FROM THE TEXT or repent from the very notion of it or be 'found' a liar.
Just because something is not 'IN HIM' nor yet in existence, doesn't mean He has no knowledge of it.
TroddinSod 2 years ago
Hi Hansom,
If U care to take a careful look at the time U mention on the video the quote I made in my last reply is the very context at that point in the video
U R quoting me out of context.
And a text out of context is a pretext.
Evil not in God nor yet in existence does mean in its entirety the knowledge of evil is by His nature hidden from His view.
IT DOES NOT dwell with God - Psalm5:4
It is explict His knowledge is incomplete in 2 Chron.32:31, how much more about all of evil!
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Jaques: I think you need to re-write your last response. The 3rd paragraph makes absolutely no sense grammatically nor substantively.
You also are not avoiding the question: "Where, SPECIFICALLY, does the context of 1John 1:5 reveal just because something is not 'IN HIM' or has not occurred, means that HE has no knowledge of it?"
I did not take you out of context. You do realize that liars do not enter the Kingdom of God?
TroddinSod 2 years ago
Hi TroddinSod,
I think you mean the 4th, but see below
It is clear in the vid the context involves the whole Scripture. e.g. 2 Chro.32:31
Do you believe as Calvin that God knows all because He has decreed all?
If so, please answer the question after this:
I am the LORD, that is My name; and My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to graven images.
Isa.42:8
Do you believe God decreed
other than Himself to receive
worship?
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Jaques; Once again you avoid the question & ask others that don't apply. You confirm the FACT that you are a sophist, by refusing to answer the question.
There is no point in answering your question unless you back up what you say: How does the context of 1 John 1 show that just because something is not 'IN HIM" or hasn't come into existence is something that HE has no knowledge of?
You have come no where near answering this question and therefore have been proven wrong.You are a liar.
TroddinSod 2 years ago
Hi Hansom,
I have not claimed that the context of the passage itself gives that, but the context of the whole bible. The video is clear on that too.
The point made is that how comes, or why is it God does not know anything at all about something?
The context as given shows us it is true:
there is a limit to God's knowledge
"God withdrew from him, in order to test him, that He might know all that was in his heart." 2 Chron.32:31
Who wants to know?
Why? Evil is the root: darkness
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Jaques:You clearly stated your justification for asserting the idea that God had no knowledge on your video @5:16 was because of the context stated the 'practise of darkness'.
Now you lie and say the 'context' is the whole Bible.That is not what 'context' means.The context of 1 John is not 2Chron 32 it is1 John.
I John 1:5, no where says God didn't know what the practise of darkness would be. NO WHERE. nor does it say that 'darkness' even has a 'practise'.
You are irrefutably a lying sophist.
TroddinSod 2 years ago
Hi Hansom,
If you read me carefully you will see the context I referred to was that of @5:16
The video does mention the bigger context of the bible by referring to the other video on God's knowledge.
What do you not understand about God having a limit to His knowledge as revealed in the bible?
Please answer my question.
Yours is answered.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Jaques: The very words that were on the screen are;"He had no knowledge in 1 John 1:5" There is nothing in the context (1 John) that suggests He had no knowledge of darkness, much less it having a 'practise'. It only says it was not 'IN HIM'. This does not mean or suggest in anyway shape or form that He had 'no knowledge' of what darkness is, was, or would be, or how it would be manifested in the future.
You haven't a shred of evidence to back up anything you've said.
'Proof positive' LOL
TroddinSod 2 years ago
Hi Hansom,
I have, but you haven't wanted to read it there.
Let's try it the other way.
Are you able to read in Scripture that there is a limit to God's knowledge?
As already mentioned here for e.g.
"God withdrew from him, in order to test him, that He might know all that was in his heart." 2 Chron.32:31
Are you denying this tells us God wants to know something?
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Jaques: You in no way have proven from the context of 1 John that 'HE had no knowledge in 1 John 1:5.' as your writing @5:15 states-None whatsoever.
You continue to lie. Especially when you use words like 'proof positive' you should easily be able to demonstrate 'proof''.
You haven't, you can't - and are now as you read, found out to be a liar. proof positive!
Once again:Just because something is not 'IN HIM" doesn't mean HE has no knowledge of it.
Your reasoning is pure sophistry.
TroddinSod 2 years ago
Hi Hansom,
darkness = evil
At and before Creation there was no evil in existence
If you choose to hold that God planned evil ONLY THEN can you hold to HIS knowing then of evil and it's practise in its entirety.
IT is proof positive to me that since God had no evil in Him, He could not know all about evil:
This is simple logic for someone who desires to believe only good comes from God directly as revealed in His Word (the geater context).
And all that out of 1 John 1:5 Yes
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Jaques: You still have not answered the question nor proven your case.
"If you choose to hold that God planned evil ONLY THEN can you hold to HIS knowing then of evil and it's practise in its entirety."You have no proof this statement is true.
Why does God have to 'plan evil' in order for Him to know what it is or when it will occur?
Prove it or remain a liar.
Your statements are pure sophism & utterly illogical. The fact you cannot justify what you say is proof positive you're a liar.
TroddinSod 2 years ago
Hi Hansom,
Well, that's what Calvin states in His institutes: God knows because He decrees it.
I don't believe God plans evil (in any direct sense). That is not sophism, it is the testimony of Scripture.
A liar is one who makes deliberate false statements. I have explained my statements in their context and in that there is nothing false.
How long will you run away from the texts that demonstrate God's knowledge, as He has revealed to us, has limits?
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Jaques: I don't recall asking you anything about Calvin nor God planning evil.You've avoided the question once again proving you are a liar:
You've not proven positive, from the context of 1John1:5, or from anywhere else in the Bible, that God had no knowledge of darkness, nor evil, nor of it's future occurrence, before creation. Still waiting for proof....
Your extra biblical philosophy is not proof. You remain a conspicuous liar. Liars do not enter the Kingdom of God
Where is your proof?
TroddinSod 2 years ago
Hi Hansom,
Do I mention other passages in the video?
Yes
What is extra-biblical about 2 Chronicles 32:31?
You asked what the plans of God have to do with His knowledge: I explained out of what I assume is your belief system: Calvinism. Whose believing extra-biblical stuff?
I base all my doctrine on the Scripture.
I believe nothing of Calvinism.
Where are your answers to the BIBLE text I've supplied?
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Jaques: Once again you've failed to answer the question & thus prove yourself to be a liar.
AGAIN:
Prove from the context of 1 John, that God had no knowledge of evil before creation or it's practice? (speaking of context see:1John3:20)
Decrying Calvinism (which is irrelevant) does not prove your point. Nor does comments regarding extra Biblical philosophy.
Please answer the question or remain a sophist liar.
I will answer any question you wish to present only after you answer the above.
TroddinSod 2 years ago
Hi Hansom,
Do you recognise that darkness is not about the lack of photons, but evil, wickedness, and such like?
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Jaques:Yes, it's obvious from the text that the juxtaposition of 'light' to 'darkness' is idiomatic & not 'photons'. Why you assume something else in Isaiah 45:7 is another matter.(Don't answer, just stick to proving your point about 1John 1:5)
By asking the question, you've still avoided AGAIN to answer & remain a liar:
"Prove from the context of 1 John, that God had no knowledge of evil before creation or it's practice? (speaking of context see:1John3:20)
Proof positive??? I'm still LOL!!!
TroddinSod 2 years ago
Hi Hansom,
Do you recognise that there is no evil, wickedness, and such like in God?
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Jaques: That depends on what you mean by 'IN" now doesn't it?
This is the fallacious start, or 'out of square' cornerstone to your proposition.
What does 'IN HIM' mean? And why do you ASSUME that what is not 'IN HIM' is something that HE does not know about or cannot perceive being practiced in the future?
This is the point in which I 1st engaged you, which you fail to answer: Why do you assume what is not IN HIM is something He doesn't know about?
You have never answered this question.
TroddinSod 2 years ago
Hi Hansom,
To answer a question requires understanding of the person being spoken to. I cannot explain further until you clarify your understanding.
Do you recognise that there is no evil, wickedness, and such like in God?
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Jaques:You're baiting me with semantics to twist to your own liking.This is standard procedure among sophists.I will not play within boundaries drawn by sophism.
However, if you can clearly define for me what the inspired pen of the Apostle John meant by 'IN HIM" in 1 John 1:5, I will then be able to answer your question.
You've from the beginning of this video, built your argument on the presupposition that 'NOT IN HIM" means HE doesn't know about or cannot perceive in the future.
PROVE IT
TroddinSod 2 years ago
Hi Hansom,
Sophism has within it an attempt to deceive unlike paralogism.
To teach however one must appreciate what is needful in the recipient.
You tell me what your understanding of "in Him" is as you answer the question.
Do you recognise that there is no evil, wickedness, and such like in God?
(now failure to cooperate means you do not want to learn or teach, but to cause mischief, so if another similar standard reply occurs I will delete it)
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
@gracetruthguy You do realize that you create an even greater theological and philosophical dilema when you try to distance God from the knowledge of evil. Evil is that which is contrary to God's character. God defines what is good, HE is not defined by good. Something is good because God declares it to be good because it is His very nature, essence, and being. God had an intimate knowledge of His creation, it came from Him.
pastorgreene2230 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Are you telling me that in His omniscience (even defined wrongful as knowing what can be known) that He could not understand the possibility of one of His creatures doing what is contrary. To know this much would give Him a knowledge of sin. But to get aside how can Jesus Christ be the Lamb slain BEFORE the foundation of the world unless there was foreknowledge of a necessary atonement?
pastorgreene2230 1 year ago
This whole silly argument solely depends on the author's OPINION that 'darkness' is referring to 'evil'.Of course, let's not bother to define what is being expressed by the Text using the phrase 'in Him'.Darkness in Him? Why does the author assume something not 'in Him' means He doesn't know what it is.This is fallacious reasoning and is pure sophistry.This guy would have fit in well with the gnostics of the 1st century.
Besides, 'limited omniscience' is an oxymoron.This man is obviously ill.
TroddinSod 2 years ago
Hi Hansom
God was before Creation, then since He created light - photons and the like - on the 1st day we can see 1 John 1:5's depiction is not about photons. Sophistry?
God created all, except for evil = darkness, then it follows until its observation in its apparition, God was not fully cognizant of it. Or else, its source is in Him too. It is impossible not to know something in its entirety - that has no part in your being - until it manifests itself. Or else evil always existed in Him
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
grace: I understand that the term 'light' has a far more expansive use then mere photons. The point is, you are presuming that just because something is not 'in Him' doesn't mean He doesn't know what it is.You have no 'light' on this. You're 'in darkness' by warping the meaning of words to suit your agenda.Before Esau was born, God hated Him. Was God not 'fully cognizant' of Esau before he was born? And what of God's hate? Was it 'in Him' before Esau was born?
Utter foolishness.
TroddinSod 2 years ago
Hi Hansom,
To suggest God knows about evil when there is none in Him and before anything other than God was ever created IS to warp the meaning of Scripture, let alone God's character.
U say "warping the meaning of words to suit your agenda" and "Before Esau was born, God hated Him"
PLANK:
We know God hated Esau IN CONTRAST to loving Jacob, but WE ARE NOT TOLD this was before he was born and in context is about EDOM versus ISRAEL. We are told to HATE our wives in contrast to JESUS...
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Grace: Rom9:11 clearly states 'before the children were born'. You're caught red handed lying. The text does not state; "hated in contrast to". That is your eisegesis and warping of the text. You need to come up with more textual evidence that it's a contrast. Your opinion is worthless.
Furthermore, you have failed to define what 'IN HIM'' means. You need to prove exegetically that just because something is not 'IN HIM' means HE doesn't know what it is. You're assuming w/ no textual proof.
TroddinSod 2 years ago
Hi Hansom,
R9:11 talks of the nations that come from Jacob and Esau since V.12 we read The older shall serve the younger Edom served Israel: Nowhere do we read of Esau serving Jacob
V.13 is about the nations as Paul quotes Malachi and the CONTRAST is revealed there of Gods attitude betrween the 2 nations. So in context there is NO mention of God hating Esau before he was born.
This vid is more about the how and the why God knows only the knowable.
2 Chron.32:31 shows it is not all
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Grace, quoting the Bible proves nothing. There's a quote in my book that the world is in peril because of the writings of fishermen and goat herders. See the "endmeme".
I maintain that it's dangerous for all life on the planet that billions of people believe in the Apocalypse. Self fulfilling prophesy, ya know.
The Muslims even believe in Judgment Day. Very dangerous.
aristopus 2 years ago
Hi aristopus,
I may have missed some comments and/or replies with S1 involved too (I think only replies to me get emailed on)...
If you care to look at my video:
"The Year of the Lord's Return - An understanding - Jacques More"
You will see there that my reading of the Apocalypse is centuries away.
I agree a little knowledge in the wrong hands is a dangerous thing, but isn't that true of the car being in the kids hands, etc?
Does it stop the car being a useful and true object?
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
S1, okay. There are many silly incidences in the Bible. Eve created from Adams rib, or Jonah living in the belly of the whale for three days. I could go on and on.
Lets try another approach. This has always bothered me. Why are there no specific predictions about the future other than the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Why not something like WWII will break out in 1939, or George Washington will be the first president of the U.S..
aristopus 2 years ago
I am sure you could go on and on.
Who said it was a whale?
I see you kind of want God to prove to everybody and make the front page again with predicting WWII.
If you follow the bible you will see that most of (if not all) prophecies are connected to Israel or Christ or kings that rule over Israel or other nations that are enemies of Israel (book of Daniel is the perfect prophetic book that most historians cannot believe it's accuracy)
If Jerusalem's destruction was the only, isn't it enough?
S1nApS3 2 years ago
Hi gracetruthguy, this is the video that is the last I am going to look of your series.
I think your problem is that you trust your logic too much. My friend any man can be wrong and you are definitely proof of that.
If we assume that God is learning that means that He changes, right????
If He changes, He is not the same?
And this seems to contradict the bible, isn't it?
S1nApS3 2 years ago
Hi S1nApS3,
God chose Saul to be king (2 Samuel 21:6) and WOULD HAVE established his kingdom over Israel forever (1 samuel 13:13), but he was rejected as king - God changed His mind.
Not because He does not change: His nature stayed the same, but that His knowledge of the extent of Saul's rebellion was not foreseen.
Have you not read?
. . . God withdrew from him, in order to test him, that He might know all that was in his heart.
2 Chronicles 32:31
Explicit Scripture!
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Isaiah 46 : 9-10"Remember the former things, those of long ago;I am God, and there is no other;I am God, and there is none like me.I make known the end from the beginning,from ancient times, what is still to come.I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please. I think God addresses His omniscience and omnipotence, don't you?
Doctrines are better examined where the text is actually addressing the subject. On the other hand your text doesn't address this subject. Right???
S1nApS3 2 years ago
Hi S1nApS3,
I'm glad U quote Isaiah 46:9-10
But, don't forget Verse 11:
"Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it."
God never said in advance - i.e. prophesy that Saul would be king forever. If He had God's word would have failed.
He did prophesy that out of the seed of David Messiah would come. And why did that come about? Because God made it happen.
So what He brings about He prophesies about in advance. the rest is flexible
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
I believe that God not only knows what will happen. He also is the one with all the power and He excercises that power in order things to happen His way.
but look what it says " I make known the end from the beginning, from anscient times, what is still to come.
THE ONLY way this could happen is that God KNOWS everyting. It is clear and simple as that.
S1nApS3 2 years ago
Hi S1nApS3,
I believe the inspiration of scripture is more accurate than that. Remember it is like a sword sharp: to divide soul and spirit.
Knowing the end from the beginning is that. It is not saying knowing all in between. Indeed it mentions DECLARING the end from the beginning. And what end is that?
The end proclaimed only.
And it is that God brings about because He can. If from the beginning things change then because He can He makes all things work together to the pre-announced.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Hi GTGUY,
It doesn't say knowing all in between beause there is no need of.
Well, your existence prove me wrong here :)
Can we at least agree that God declares the end because He knows the end.
I know that He is going to bring it to pass but still He must know what He wants it to be. Then He declares it. Then He makes it His way.
Agreed?
I need to make sure before I go on
S1nApS3 2 years ago
Hi S1nApS3,
Yes, I agree that the Scripture shows us the end God declares is what He purposes and it occurs because He makes it come about.
Do you recall my mentioning King saul?
Please answer this before anything else:
Would God have REALLY established his kingdom over Israel forever?
(1 Samuel 13:13)
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
As U saw I have no problem with verse 11 but don't forget verses 9 and 10 :)
S1nApS3 2 years ago
Hi Brian,
As you see, neither do I.
But. I like to read what it says not add thereto assuming things not mentioned. Especially when other passages demonstrate those added thoughts are false.
Please tell me,
Would God have established king Saul's kingdom over Israel forever?
1 Samuel 13:13
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
"The resurrection of Jesus."
Grace, I'd be glad to discuss this stuff with you and I take an opposite view.
In the above reference doesn't it bother you that Christ only appeared to his friends after he resurrected. He could have made the front page in all the papers and proved for certain that he was divine.
Why didn't he clear thinks up as he was supposed to?
aristopus 2 years ago
Hi aristopus. I don't see any contradiction with my view.
It doesn't bother me. He didn't make the front page because He didn't want to. If He wanted he would :)
I am sure He will be in EVERY page when He comes back :)
Why do you assume that He has to clear things up?
He cleared them to those whom He wanted - the apostles.
God has a plan and He acts according to it. Almost every time it doesn't seem natural to man. Of course it will be different. After all He is God and we are humans, right? :D
S1nApS3 2 years ago
The Bible doesnt prove anything, except how gullible people are.
aristopus 2 years ago
Hi aristopus,
As a historical document time and again it has proved that archeaological finds testify to its contents (and vice versa).
The resurrection of Jesus.
Multitude of prophecies fulfilled in history.
I recommend
"Evidence that demands a Verdict" for you by Josh McDowell
He has a YouTube channel too.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
If God don't know about darkness, who created the tree of knowledge of good and evil? If God is not all knowing, how can He give prophecy?
lildog73 2 years ago
Hi lildog73,
Good comments.
The tree of knowledge of good and evil - as a tree - has room to grow. At that point in time it contained what was known then.
Remember the bible tells us the angels were there already at the Creation, so that the fall of Lucifer and the other fallen ones may have already happened...
Prophecy is possible as a result of advance planning AND execution on God's part. All not planned is ensured not to interfere with His plans by the outer limits given.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Brother,I didn't know that you believed open theism too!How can you believe that when He's decreed the beginning from the end?
CBALLEN 2 years ago
Hi CBALLEN,
No, God has decreed the end from the beginning and that in a specific context of what He has prophesied: i.e. it is not everything in view in that passage for THAT is eisegesis.
Tell me, who wants to know in this passage?
. . . God withdrew from him, in order to test him, that He might know all that was in his heart.
2 Chronicles 32:31
Paul said all Scripture is profitable for doctrine (2 Tim.3:16) so that in the doctrine of omniscience God only knows the knowable.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Wow, all this, just from me asking how the weather was down there? So I take it, it is not too good.
Haukman66 2 years ago
Ed, so how is the weather down there in Florida? Just thought I would ask.
Haukman66 2 years ago
"Civil discussion"...
"Insults when people disagree wit you"...
Howdy Pot!
gtrjunky 2 years ago 2
Hah, promoting more of your heresies huh ele? LOL.
Haukman66 2 years ago
test
DefendingTheTruth 2 years ago
A perfect example of eisegesis all in the name of autonomous man.
gtrjunky 2 years ago
Hi Brian,
To exclude the clear passages that God learns in order to back up a doctrine begun in the 5th century and in opposition to the prior teaching of the church is eisegesis.
Did you know Calvinism began with Augustine?
See my video:
"Augustine began 'Calvinism' - Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Christ began Calvinism Jn 6
1689Baptist 2 years ago
Hi 1689Baptist,
For John 6 I recommend my video:
"not so Quick Answer to Calvinists John 15:16 (& John 6) - Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Either God infinite understanding, therefore knowing, comprehending all things and nothing can be outside of His knowing b/c it is infinite OR you simply deny Psalm 147:5 and outright proclaiming the Bible to not be absolute truth.
psk6565 2 years ago
Hi psk6565,
A passage that denies or appears to deny another passage does not mean one is wrong and the other right, it means our understanding of God needs to adjust to fit both in.
God has revealed Himself to know more than all other beings put together (since He created them all), but that nevertheless His giving some of these beings free will in a range of things means He does not know the outcome of these and this is what He learns in the bible.
"that He might know" " 2 Chron.32:31
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
You did not answer Ps.147:5....His undserstanding is INFINITE. Its funny, when you adjust you understanding of God ,God always comes out the loser.
1689Baptist 2 years ago
Hi 1689Baptist,
Of His understanding there is no narration
Ps.147:5 Youngs Literal
The Hebrew word is MISPAR and is translated infinite X 1; It is number X 109 of which Youngs Concordance has: number, narration, reckoning so that from our standpoint it appears limitless, but there is NO emphasis of EXHAUSTIVE within the word itself.
Gods omniscience in the bible shows Him as knowing all that is knowable which only excludes a small amount of yet un-willed/undecided stuff.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
I can look it up to strongs 369+4557 innumerable,infinite. no limit to His understanding,The Interlinear Bible,as I said with you God always loses
1689Baptist 2 years ago
Hi 1689Baptist,
God cannot lose in being described as He has revealed Himself in the bible.
To say otherwise is sheer nonsense.
To base your belief on such a principle is deception.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite.
It is very dishonest and I would suggest deliberately seeking to undermine simple and clear teachings of scripture when you interpret verses without firmly taking hold of the verses such as Psalm 147:5.
To even listen to this and believe your teaching is to deny absolute truths already clearly taught in Scripture. You are teaching lies and I hope God opens your eyes to you being deceived
psk6565 2 years ago
Hi psk6565,
Since God knows all that is knowable it follows that His infinite understanding is about the things within that knowledge.
I do not deny the passages that clearly show God learns and desires to know certain things that have yet to be: decisions of the free will
2 Chronicles 32:31; Genesis 22:12; Deuteronomy 8:2 et al
The deception involves denying these passages as unfit for doctrine since Paul made clear they were in 2 Timothy 3:16
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Test... Did you block me?
DefendingTheTruth 2 years ago
Hi DTT,
Nope, but YouTube has a history of being temperamental in its software when it comes to commenting.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
gracetruthguy,
Psalms 139:7-8 Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? (8) If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there.
Genesis 3:9 Then the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, Where are you?
Why did the Lord say to Adam, "Where are you?"???
DefendingTheTruth 2 years ago
Hi DefendingTheTruth,
It is evident from the context and setting that it was for Adam's benefit that God said "Where are you?" It is no different than for Him to have said "Why are you hiding from Me?"
The Scripture is plain about God's omnipresence and yet He is not present where things are not yet created: e.g. in Isaiah 65:17 we read of new heavens and new earth which God will create. He is not yet present there until it is created.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
gracetruthguy,
You said: "It is evident from the context and setting that it was for Adam's benefit that God said "Where are you?" It is no different than for Him to have said "Why are you hiding from Me?"
Great. We are making progress. You just admitted that God spoke to Adam in human terms for Adam's benefit.
With your own logic, you have just refuted open theism. Do yourself a favor. Don't try to wrap your mind around God. He does what He pleases.
DefendingTheTruth 2 years ago
Hi DTT,
One immediate context does not prove all other contexts.
With that logic you are saying anything God says is dependent on 1 context of your choice. So that He is either angry or He is not, He loves you or He does not, etc. That logic is pure eisegesis.
He does what He pleases in righteousness and within the revelation He has given us of Himself; not according to the whim of the deity you wish to believe in.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
gracetruthguy,
1 context of my choice??? LOL. One? Oh my!
The God I believe in does not act on "whims". He plans, and then accomplishes His plans.
You know the 144,000 Israelites who are saved in Revelation? How does God know that exactly 144,000 will be saved? Maybe none of them will choose to be saved. Maybe more than 300,000 will choose to be saved.
Please explain this to me.
DefendingTheTruth 2 years ago
Hi DTT,
Because God plans for things within His knowledge of how things are and how they function He is able to guide and limit and inspire and thus cause 144,000 to be the exact number, and not just that but a set amount of each tribe too.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
gracetruthguy,
Your theology is unraveling.
DefendingTheTruth 2 years ago
Hi DTT,
Concise Oxford Dictionary:
unravel:
cause to be no longer tangled...
Does that mean a compliment?
;0)
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
gracetruthguy,
Do you really think that's what I meant to say to you? Do you always play games with people's words? Wait a minute. I forgot that you play games with the wording in the Bible too.
unravel - become undone; "the sweater unraveled"
Oh yeah, explain to me again why it is Jesus and not Joshua in Hebrews 4:8??? "Joshua" is the greek form of "Jesus".
You're theology in UNRAVELING. I know these words are hard for you to understand. But trust me. It is not a compliment.
DefendingTheTruth 2 years ago
Hi DTT,
Do you not understand what this means:
";0)"
?
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
gracetruthguy,
The Bible says that Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24). If this is so, then how did God know which sins to place on Christ since we hadn't committed them yet when Jesus was crucified?
DefendingTheTruth 2 years ago
Nice!
gtrjunky 2 years ago
All sins is Rooted in Rebellion & Pride. Because Lucifer is the persuader of mankind. .
God knows that people are under the influence of Satan..for He is the Ruler of the Earth..
TiredofHype09 2 years ago
Hi DefendingTheTruth,
Simple, Jesus' blood is seen as an atonement for all sin that was or would be: as seen in God's eyes. it is fully inclusive.
Jesus is the perfect sacrifice and exhaustive sacrifice.
Have you not read:
"He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world" 1 Jonh 2:2
Or,
"through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life" Romans 5:18
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
gracetruthguy,
You dodged my question. If Christ bore our sins in his body, then how did God know which sins to place on Christ, since we hadn't committed them yet when Jesus was crucified?
DefendingTheTruth 2 years ago
Hi DTT,
I think you are misunderstanding my reply.
Imagine you are a millionaire and there is a school of children to whom you have promised all to have sweets. Since the capacity of your bank account far outweighs the total possible purchase required, there is no need to count and know each and every child and sweet, etc.
Jesus' sacrifice is infinitely able to pay for all and contains no inference on the need of knowledge of any particular sin in its act on the part of God.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
gracetruthguy,
You are not dealing with the text. Instead you say, "Imagine you are a millionaire".
No, I will not IMAGINE that I am a millionaire. That is your problem. You are IMAGINING all sorts of ungodly things, instead of dealing with the text. The Bible does not contradict itself.
DefendingTheTruth 2 years ago
Hi DTT,
How is Christ bearing our sins a prerequisite of knowing of all the sins committed?
I do not read the text to infer God knowing each and every sin, but that the bearing includes all sin in its effectualness.
so, I am not imagining my position: the millionaire illustration was for you if you were open to understand.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
You are confusing knowledge with being/essence. In Genesis God says regarding fallen man, "they have become LIKE ONE OF US, KNOWING GOOD AND EVIL."
Paleolutheran 2 years ago
Hi Christopher,
Knowing good and evil is not about knowing all about the mechanics of how evil occurs and who wills to do it or not, as in God having decided all who do it and how.
Innocence involves not realising something is abnormal morally: to obtain a sense that something is improper is not the same as knowing all about evil and how it is practised.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Moral innocence is something creatures experience. God says very clearly He "knows good and evil" or else that tree He created with the knowledge of good and evil was something He could not create.
Your problem is seeing sin or evil as a substance, which necessitates its creation, and hence, origin in God. Sin and evil are not substances, but corruptions, therefore God knows about corruptions to human or divine nature without partaking of them.
Paleolutheran 2 years ago
Hi Christopher,
By the time of the tree of knowledge of good and evil Satan and his minions had already fallen and evil abounded.
Yes, evil and sin are corruptions, but since there is no corruption in God it was not understood and known by God in its practicalities until it occurred and observed.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Hi -
Perhaps GOD didn't create evil, but HE did create free will in angels and man. GOD would have known that free will enables a choice to obey HIM or disobey HIM (do evil). To distinguish, GOD understanding that acting contrary to HIS will amounts to evil is not the same as GOD having darkness in HIM.
Ecclesiastes 3:11
Isaiah 46:9-11
Your thoughts...?
RPM11111 2 years ago
Hi RPM11111,
I agree, it is not that they could not turn from Him that God did not know, but what the evil they would turn to: what that consisted of and how it would be practised that is what was unknowable until Creation produced it.
And the will of man is tested from then on, why?
In order to see what it would produce. Why?
Because God does not know in specific circumstances what that will is: what it will be since it is free.
Ecc?
For Isa46 see my reply to YoungCalvinist08
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Your god is an idiot!
TCMAO0 2 years ago
Hi TCMAO0,
And what if He also happens to be the God of the bible?
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Then the god of the bible is not real!
TCMAO0 2 years ago
Hi TCMAO0,
Or, the God of the bible is real and you have yet to understand this:
He learns a limited range of things which is because HE has created OTHER BEINGS to choose freely. For that to mean anything then He does not know the outcome of a free choice until performed: that is logic and it is truth.
"God led you . . . to . . . test you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not." Deut.8:2
Whether they WOULD: something yet to happen.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
You are one lost puppy!
TCMAO0 2 years ago
Hi TCMAO0,
Or, one puppy closer to an overall understanding of the revelation God has given of Himself since I do not deny the passages where God mentions He learns.
Paul said ALL SCRIPTUE IS PROFITABLE FOR DOCTRINE and you claim you believe in sola scriptura, yet you deny these passages:
2 Chronicles 32:31, Deuteronomy 8:2, Genesis 22:12 et al
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
If your god didn't know where Adam was and everything that had just happened but had to personally go on a fact finding mission by asking Adam questions, then he is dumber than most human parents. What you need to realize is that God condescends to man's level in the text of Holy Writ and says things as if speaking to a child.
Haven't you noticed that a man with a PHD sounds like an idiot when talking to a 3 year old?!
TCMAO0 2 years ago
Hi TCMAO0,
God is omnipresent means that if somewhere exists in the universe God will know about it.
Adam being asked by God "Where are you?" has nothing to do with God finding out, but relating to Adam to answer "Why are you hiding?"
The bible: God's revelation of Himself to us FOR DOCTRINE is clear that God learns in a limited range. I do not deny these Scriptures, but embrace them within the whole counsel of God.
You appear to deny these passages:
Why?
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
The problem with your position is that it is not consistent. You literally interpret some text in the Bible to support your views while you reject other texts when taken literally teach that God is even more limited than you are comfortable with. You quote a verse and say see it implies God learns. Then, I quote a verse and say see God can't find Adam. And you say well get real. And I say to you get real. The Bible doesn't teach that God and man work together to accomplish God's will!
TCMAO0 2 years ago
Hi TCMAO0,
On the contrary, it was the Church's universal teaching that God and man co-operate before Augustine's deviation that began the Cavinist path.
"As a rule, the exertion of free-will, human efforts in a right direction, preceded the divine aid, and render men worthy of it. It is a doctrine of synergism. God and man co-operate . . . conditional predestination is the doctrine inculcated [persistently taught] by the Greek Fathers"
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE page165 G.P.FISHER DD
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
If God and man cooperate, then man can take some of the credit for himself being saved just as a patient can take some credit for being healed. After all the patient sought out medical care and followed the advice of the doctor. So much for being saved TOTALLY by grace!
TCMAO0 2 years ago
Hi TVMAO0,
Take a look at Ephesians 2:8-9 salvation is by grace, but through faith. God paid for it all out of His grace: that is totally to His glory.
See my video:
"Quick Answers to Calvinists Ephesians 2:8-9 - Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
No it isn't, because man's will is the decisive factor! I can boast because I exercised my FREE WILL!
TCMAO0 2 years ago
Hi TCMAO0,
And who gave the free will?
God.
Who gets the glory?
God
Why?
Becos He does not get the glory when we choose to sin
A blind man who is healed by Jesus glorifies God in using His sight for good. He does not glorify God in using it for evil.
Our free will is not of ourselves
In a general context this is so. In specific contexts where God uses evil already in place and turns it to His glory, it is different: i.e. Pharaoh against Moses, but God would that none sinned
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Well if that is your position then - vsince EVERYTHING COMES FROM GOD ULTIMATELY (even evil) - I cannot argue with you. For if God hadn't created there would be ANYTHING AT ALL (except the divine/God Himself). So that is a silly argument for how glory is achieved. Your argument proves too much!
TCMAO0 2 years ago
@gracetruthguy
You can take virtually any scripture in the Bible, and twist it to mean anything. That's the advantage of believing in fairy tales. Since they have very little, if any base in reality, you can claim it means whatever you want it to mean.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago