The Epistomological Impact of an Omnitemporal Eternity on Theological Paradigms. Posted on 08/07/2002 9:26:57 AM PDT by P-Marlowe
The Epistomological Impact of an Omnitemporal Eternity on Theological Paradigms.
© 2000, J.W. Carter. All rights reserved
"From everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God." (Psalm 90:2)
Abstract. There have been long-held views concerning the eternity of God that have played a major part in understanding who God is, creating paradigms that lay the groundwork for Christian (and non-Christian) doctrines. The following is an argument that God, who exhibits the attribute of eternity, exists outside of created time and space as we experience it, and yet interacts with it (an attribute herein described as, omnitemporality). God created time when he created the universal Euclidean space that is measured by it. God’s omniscience and omnipresence enables Him to observe and interact with all of His creation for all time from the point of its origin to the prophesied end of the age. In such an existence man’s free will is not abrogated by God’s knowledge, leaving man responsible for his decisions. Yet, God knows the results of our decisions, not through absolute prediction but rather because He can already observe those results. This apologetic begins with an observation of eternity as demonstrated in His creation (Romans 1:19-20). We will then look at the theological, Christological, soteriological and escatological impact of such a thesis.
"How completely satisfying to turn from our limitations to a God who has none. Eternal years lie in his heart. For him time does not pass, it remains; and those who are in Christ share with him all the riches of limitless time and endless years." A. W. Tozer (1897–1963)
The date was July 16, 1969. America was engaged in an international race for dominance in space exploration. Physicists and theologians alike were stimulated by the potential discoveries and opportunities that the experiences of the age would provide to their respective theological, sociological, and ideological assumptions. Following the tides of debate that preceded their historic mission, Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Mike Collins departed for the moon.
The mid twentieth century saw an awakening among physicists who were uncovering some of the basic physical properties of the materials that make up the universe. The most prominent among these physicists was Albert Einstein. The most provocative of his many theories, and the one for which he will always be best known is his Theory of Relativity. Many of the components of this set of theoretical physical paradigms has since been successfully disproved, such as the existence of photons. (My condolences to all of you Star Trek fans.) However, one important component of his theory has been successfully defended and demonstrated, and can have a profound societal, philosophical, and theological impact when considered in the context of the creation of the universe by an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal God. Einstein’s principle herein presented is profound in its implication, yet simple to explain: the rate at which one experiences the passing of time is a function of the rate of acceleration at which one is travelling. The relative differences in the rate of the passing of time by those who experience acceleration at different rates can be derived from the now famous equation:
E = MC2
This expression describes a functional relationship between a change in physical mass as it relates to expended energy and time. If this component of Einstein’s theory can be proven, some long-held philosophical and theological positions would be seriously challenged. To those who have held to a long-believed paradigm that separates time as we experience it from eternity, their thesis would be vindicated.
Four days after the Apollo 11 astronauts departed terra firma they arrived at and landed on the moon where Neil Armstrong would make history as the first man ever to set foot on it. He did so, stating from script, "This is one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind." He was unaware of one of some of those leaps in understanding that were about to be made. While traveling, the scientists had difficulty synchronizing the earth-based computers with those on the space ship. Upon the arrival of the astronauts back on earth, it was verified that the computer clocks and the chronometers that they carried were running a few milliseconds "slow." Actually, their computer and watches were not running slow. Their timing devices were quite accurate, and were responding to one of the defensible principles of the theory of relativity: the astronauts, their space ship, and everything on it experienced a longer period of passing time than those of us who remained on the earth. They aged a few milliseconds more than we because they had experienced periods of acceleration that were at different rates than we had during the same period of time.
This report was little more than a sidebar in news coverage, but caught my attention as an inquisitive teenager who was trying to resolve conflicts between my understanding of the truths of God’s word, and the physical laws presented in my chosen interest fields of physics and astronomy. This empirical proof of the relative experience of the passing of time had already been demonstrated in many other experiments, but it was this event that put the proof in prime-time media coverage, and through what can only be described as a theophany, answered for me in the passing of a single moment what had been a large set of heavily-debated theological questions. There is undeniable evidence of a clear and simple relationship between changes in physical mass, physical energy and the passing of time. For the physicist this concept is now a non-issue, long-proven and well-understood. It has led to explanations of many of the astronomical phenomena we discovered in the last several years as we have witnessed, for example, the warping of time by the extreme gravitation of immense stars that referred to as black holes. For the theologian, this concept is equally profound and can shake the very foundations of many time-held presuppositions: time as we know it, understand it, and experience it is a created physical property.
The Omnitemporality of God
"For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night" (Ps. 90:4.) "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" (1 Peter 3:8.)
What are the implications of this thesis for the Christian theologian? If time is a physical property, then God created time when he created the rest of the physical universe. God is not limited by the physical properties of this creation and is as a logical consequence, neither subject to or limited by created time as we experience and know it. Having created it, He can "stand" outside of it, and interact within it whenever and wherever He chooses. "He is before time (pretemporal), He is above time (supertemporal), and He is after time (postemporal).1 Let us also add that God works in and through created time. Because of this latter argument God is not "timeless" as some argue, and He is not dead as some "theothanatologists" would argue.2 "It is difficult to attain any conception of the mode of existence which is thus ascribed to Him. It is so different from our own. Yet, a brief consideration of what is involved in the nature of God must convince us that the idea which we express by these statements is just and true." In order to identify this quality of eternity as "just and true,"3 let us continue to develop and refer to this resulting, eternal, attribute of God as His omnitemporality. God is omnitemporal. Just as our omniscient God sees and knows all things that take place in the universe He has created, He also sees and knows all things that transpire in that creation from its revealed beginning to its prophesied end. It is as if all of the events of all time simply lay in the palm of his hand. "God has no beginning, end, or succession of moments in his own being, and he sees all time equally vividly, yet God sees events in time and acts in time."4 This argument impacts our very understanding of who God is, and how he relates to us in many areas of the Christian life.
"God is an invisible, personal, and living Spirit, distinguished from all other spirits by several kinds of attributes: metaphysically God is self-existent, eternal, and unchanging."5 What does it mean for God to exhibit the attribute of eternity, and what impact does his transcendence of physical time have on our understanding of God’s knowledge?
First, it should be noted that a distinction between a linear created physical time and a separate property of eternity is not a new or radical concept. Charles Hodge ascribed to an omnitemporal God when he stated, "With Him there is no distinction between the present, past, and future; but all things are equally and always present to Him."6 Paul Enns states, "The eternity of God is usually understood as related to time. By definition it means that God is not limited or bound by time; with God there is no succession of events; He is above all temporal limitations.7 Charles Ryrie: "He recognizes successiveness of events, but all past, present, and future events are equally vivid to Him."8 These theologians base their theses, not by scientific observation of the properties of the universe as I did in my early years, but by a far more reliable resource: God’s word as revealed in scriptures.
When one looks at the positions of respected theologians, we find that this theme of the eternity of God as separate and "outside the rhelm" of created time is quite common. Even Saint Augustine understood this concept when he stated,
"Thou precedest all things past, by the sublimity of an ever-present eternity; and surpassest all future because they are future, and when they come, they shall be past; but Thou art the Same, and Thy years fail not. Thy years neither come nor go; whereas ours both come and go, that they all may come. Thy years stand together, because they do stand; nor are departing thrust out by coming years, for they pass not away; but ours shall all be, when they shall no more be." 9
God is above the limitations of created time just as he is above the limitations of created matter and space. However, this does not mean that God is separate from it. "With the beginning of time, God did not retire from the scene and become simply an on-looker, God watching history unfold like a spectator at a theater. God is in the play as the main character."10 This omnipresent God also has the ability to interact in our time to affect His purposes for us. "The unconditioned eternity of God brings into harmony with itself the limitations and conditions of the temporal. For time is purely relative, which eternity is not."11 Certainly, when we try to compare time to this omnitemporal eternity we look through a glass darkly. We have no substantially defined paradigm or model with which to describe the properties of eternity. Though several people have been given a glimpse of that eternal state, (e.g. Daniel, Ezekial, John,) even they were limited by the vocabulary of their day and had no succinct way to describe what it was that they were seeing. Consequently, no effort to create a definition of the properties of eternity will be attempted here.
The properties of created time and the omnitemporal eternity of God are disparate and distinct entities. However, there is a form of connection made between them; a bridge that God has been able to cross in order to interact with His creation. "No distinctions of before and after are admissible in the eternity conception, hence, we have no right to speak of time as a portion of eternity. Thus, while we maintain the essential difference between eternity and time, we at the same time affirm what may perhaps be called the affinity between them."12 As that affinity includes the ability of God to step into our time and interact over periods of our time, there appears to be a similar construct in eternity itself, though one that must be radically different from anything we can imagine. The entities that can pass over this "bridge" include the persons of the Trinity and God’s messengers: those angels (or demons) that also interact with God’s creation. One consistent characteristic of those that pass across this bridge is that all of these entities are supernatural, and lack temporal substance that we can clearly identify with our physical senses, leaving us a difficult task in identifying them. On many occasions God has made his angels visible by presenting them in physical form.
Christology
If we can remove the limitation of created time from God’s attributes, we can understand how God can enter into any point in time He chooses. Furthermore, there are several Old Testament references to the Lord appearing bodily to the patriarchs, (Gideon, Jacob), and many theologians interpret these encounters as taking place between those patriarchs and Christ. If we see all of eternity as a line from infinity past to infinity future, with God walking this line along with us, such a doctrine seems preposterous. However, the scriptures describe Christ as eternal, and the agent of creation (John 1:1ff), not a product of it. As an eternal person of the Godhead, it is certainly reasonable for the Messiah to have entered into our time in His resurrected body at a point that is actually prior to the incarnation.
Still, God’s purpose included a relationship with mankind that included his stepping into our time. "The Incarnation means that God took upon himself, in Christ, a human nature, which included time, space and matter. This presupposes that the divine nature is different from human nature. Part of that difference has traditionally been seen as God’s not being limited by time, space and matter. Only if a bird doesn’t swim in the ocean but flies in the air can it enter the ocean from above; only because God is not temporal, can he become temporal." 13
As a human, how could Jesus predict his death? For some who place God on a time-line with us, this is a perplexing question. One theologian who ascribes to this limitation of God, Benjamin Warfield was so concerned with this argument that he places the subject of predestination and the foresight of Jesus first in his text on biblical doctrines, and in his conclusion renders the resolution of the question as hopeless.14 However, if we believe that Jesus is the eternal Christ, he shares God’s omnitemporal knowledge. Just as He is able to step into history, Jesus is cognizant of the future that, as the Christ, He also has already seen. This, of course leaves us with the paradox of Jesus testimony of ignorance concerning the day and hour of his returning (Matt. 24:35.) Somehow, only God the Father knows the moment of the end of the age.
Predestination and Free-Will
Another set of doctrines that is dramatically effected by interpretation of time, space, and eternity is that of predestination. Although the term, "predestination" is usually tied to the issue of salvation, it can refer to the broader issue of God’s plan for all of history.15 If we limit God to our time experience, God’s knowledge of the future can only be seen as omniscient prediction or total sovereign control. This issue divided the church early in the reformation when John Calvin taught a theology that all events that take place in creation are providentially planned. God’s forordination of the events of history is so absolute that those whom He has planned for election cannot resist the gospel. Shortly after Calvin’s death, Jacobus Arminius countered Calvin’s deterministic position with the teaching that every person is free to accept or reject God’s grace. This position created so much conflict in the early church that it is thought to have contributed to his declined health. 16
When taken to the extreme, Calvin’s position has been used to argue against the responsibility of Christians to share the gospel. Their belief is that if God has preordained a soul’s salvation, there is no need for a missionary effort. This also implies that if a person is ordained to be lost, no amount of evangelism can make a difference. It is interesting that people could place their doctrine under such a veil when the documented New Testament experience is almost entirely missionary-based. Such a position is inspired by a misunderstanding of God’s eternity, and is damaging to the propagation of the gospel by discouraging evangelism, the very essence and commission of God’s purpose for the temporal Christian experience.
When taken to a greater extreme, a fatalistic viewpoint arises that absolves mankind of all responsibility for their actions. "If all that transpires in this world is God’s will, and I kill you, then Praise God, it was His will that you die. I am only God’s obedient hand." This argument has been used to justify tyranny, terrorism, and violence.
Soteriology
"That is why I am suffering as I am. Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day" (2 Timothy 1:12.)
Arminius’ alternate position was not without its theological side effects. He taught that, since we have a free will to accept God’s grace, we also have the opportunity to reject that grace once it has been received. He overlooked the assurance of salvation that is taught by Jesus (e.g. John, chapter 10), the apostle Paul, and many modern theologians such as C.S. Lewis, E.Y. Mullins and Hershel Hobbs. The soteriological positions of these latter theologians are largely based upon Calvinism, though they differ in the area of deterministic predestination because of their understanding of an omnitemporal God. C.S. Lewis wrote, "My free act contributes to the cosmic shape. That contribution is made in eternity or ‘before all worlds’; but my consciousness of contributing reaches me at a particular point in the time series."17 The decisions we make are "made in eternity" by virtue of God’s habitation there. It is simply that "Man is free to choose … but is responsible for his choices. God knows these choices beforehand but does not predetermine them."18 Under this system of belief, we are (1) responsible for our choices, and (2) demonstrate our faithfulness to the gospel by our testimony and witness as we, like Christ, spread the good news to seek and to save the lost. The receipt of salvation by God’s grace is a free choice. Because of God’s eternity we are not puppets who respond to the puppeteer’s strings of irresistible grace, but rather free agents who can accept or reject the gospel.
God’s Immutability
When we see God’s eternity as wholly outside of created time, the doctrine of his immutability, or unchanging nature, also takes on a more distinct meaning. It is not possible for God to change during the period from the beginning of creation to the end of the age, because unlike our linear experience of day-to-day change, God resides outside of that linear limitation. God’s residence outside of the space-time continuum means that He will be the same God today as He is tomorrow, because He did not experience that change in the way we did (1 Peter 3:8.) "What we are dealing with here is the dependability of God. He will be the same tomorrow as He is today. He will act as He has promised. He will fulfill His commitments. The believer can rely upon that."19 Consequently, since God does not change, His plan does not change. God has dealt with mankind in the same manner through the temporal ages, and will continue to do so to the end. What has been changing has been the way that man has interpreted that plan. God has revealed himself through temporal time in a gradual and effectual manner. He introduced himself to Moses as "I AM," a name that has gone a long way in helping us understand his eternity. He did not say, "I was the beginning and will be the end." He said, "I AM" in a manner that transcends both the beginning and the end. Three times in the book of Revelation, God describes himself again using "I AM," and this time with a consistent description: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End" (Rev. 1:8, 21:6, 22:12.)
Eschatology
"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life" (2 Corinthians 5:1-4.)
"What will happen to me when I die?" This question has plagued mankind since creation, and answers have served to form the basis for religions in every culture. The scripture teaches that upon death, the faithful will receive a resurrection body, one which is suited to eternity (Acts 2:31; 1 Cor. 15:42). The presence of a body implies motion, and motion implies time. We can take this speculative venture a step further if we sacrifice a little scholarship. C.S. Lewis illustrated his position on this omnitemporal, independent time structure in his series of children’s stories entitled "The Chronicles of Narnia." In this series four children were given a supernatural opportunity to travel between this present and common world and the wonders of another world named "Narnia." A portal was discovered that allowed the children to literally step between the different worlds. Each visit to the wonderland of Narnia would find them arriving there in a different time context, and the time of their return to earth was not related to the time spent on Narnia. As one reads the text, several entities in the Land of Narnia seem to be allegories of heaven. Lewis hints at this earth/heaven allegory throughout the text until the end of the series when the children die in a tragic accident and are taken quickly, and quite permanently, to Narnia. Lewis saw the passing of time in both environs, with the two being independent of one another.
The scripture also teaches that all of the dead will rise at the final judgment (Rev. 20.) However, Jesus told the thief on the cross, "today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43.) There are variant descriptions of the amount of "time" spent between death and resurrection. Models have been devised that include a waiting place, a purgatory or sheol. The necessity of such models is created by a misunderstanding of eternity. Because of the omnitemporality of eternity, though we may all die at different points along this linear, physical time line, we will all experience the resurrection immediately upon our death and "Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 4:17.)
Conclusion.
"He who has no vision of eternity will never get a true hold of time." (Thomas Carlyle 1795 - 1881).
If we remove the restrictions of temporal time from our view of God, a profound series of theological models are affected. For many, some of the nagging questions concerning predestination, free-will, eschatology and other subjects can be presented with rational and sensible answers that are consistent with what God’s word describes and with what God also reveals through Creation. God is truth, and the truth of his word, and the truth concerning the creation of the cosmos are not two separate truths, but one profound expression of God’s grace. Whether the time-line of this creation has already transpired for billions of years as scientists contend, or for only a few thousand as some theologians content, God created that time-line for His purpose and pleasure. He resides in eternity, outside the limitations of created time and space, yet has ordained a bridge between them across which He and his angels can pass so that his purposes in that creation can be revealed. "Perhaps the greatest illusion of all is time, and our foolish notion that what really counts is what happens to us today or tomorrow. Soon time itself will be set aside. We will step into eternity, and then at last we will grasp what is truly real." 20
"To the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen" (Jude 1:24-25.)
Bibliography
1
Roark, Dallas M. (1983). The Christian Faith. Waco, TX: Word Books. p. 29.2
Montgomery, John W. (1996). The Suicide of Christian Theology. Newburgh, IN: Trinity Press. p. 76.3
Boyce, James P. (1887). Abstract of Systematic Theology. Hanford, CA: den Dulk Christian Foundation. p. 69.4
Grudem, E. (1994) Systematic Theology. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press., p. 1685
Lewis, Gordon R. (1984) God, Attributes of, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Walter A. Elwell, ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, p. 451.6
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology, 3 Vols. London: Clark, 1960. Vol. 1:385)7
Enns, Paul P. (1989) Relative Attributes, The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody Press. Ch. 19.8
Ryrie, Charles Caldwell (1995) The Ryrie Study Bible. Chicago: Moody Press.9
Augustine of Hippo (0401) The Confessions of Saint Augustine. Chapter 13.10
Guthrie, Shirley C. Jr. (1968). Christian Doctrine. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press. p. 122.11
Lindsay, James, (1998) Eternity, International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Cedar Rapids, IA (CD-ROM): Parsons Technology, Inc.12
Ibid.13
Kreeft, Peter and Tacelli, Ronald K.(1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Ch. 4.14
Warfield, Benjamin B. (1929). Biblical Doctrines. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. p. 97.15
Erickson, Millard J. (1985). Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. p. 346.16
McWilliams, Warren (Summer 1991) Predestination: Time and Space. Biblical Illustrator. 17(4). p. 64.17
Lewis, C.S. (1960). Miracles: A Preliminary Study. New York, NY: McMillan and Company. p. 180.18
Hobbs, Herschel H. (1988). The Baptist Faith and Message. Nashville, TN: Convention Press. p. 36.19
Ibid, Erickson. p. 279.20
Richards, Lawrence O. (1994) The Victor Bible Background Commentary, Wheaton IL: Victor Books. Exposition on Luke 16.
John W. (Jack) Carter (BSET, MS, Oklahoma State University) is a Doctoral Student in Biblical Studies at the Trinity Theological Seminary in Newburgh, IN.
This is the crux of what you say, imo.
God sees God acting in time with me. We have three stages presented to us. (1) On the outside of time stage1 is God. (2) On the other foreknown stage2 we have God and me. (3) On the realtime stage3 we have God and me.
Stage1 God foresees Stage2 God and me and then the foreseen becomes a Stage3 real God and me. (This makes my head hurt...lol.)
On a human level, let's say that on Friday night I envision myself making a bank deposit on Saturday morning(Stage1). I see myself walking into the bank, going up to the teller, handing over the transaction papers, leaving the bank (stage3). On Saturday morning I make it real by actually doing as above (stage3).
When we place the dilemma of Exodus in this schema, we really receive no relief from this simple foreknowledge perspective. Since God's foreknowledge is perfect in this view, God would still know that God is making an offer to Moses that God has no intention of following through on.
We should look at the Hezekiah passage where God tells Hezekiah that he will die. Why didn't he say, "you need to plead with me or else you will die?"
"If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day."
Let me know which Option you choose to believe.
Yup. And, as Calvinists have always maintained, Human Choices are indeed free and are real.
But of course, you do not decide for God whether or not He will warn you of the dangers of the Gambit. He decides for Himself whether or not He will warn you of the dangers of the Gambit. (Indeed, before He even created You, and the chess-board, He omnitemporally foreknew the ultimate outcomes of the differing Potential time-streams which would result from differing Elective choices on His part. (To perform Miracles in Sodom, or to not perform Miracles in Sodom... etc.)
Thanks for proving the Absolute-Predestinarian position.
Or should I say... Check-Mate.
Yea, Calvinists try to make words mean anything they want them to mean, so what else is new?
But of course, you do not decide for God whether or not He will warn you of the dangers of the Gambit. He decides for Himself whether or not He will warn you of the dangers of the Gambit. (Indeed, before He even created You, and the chess-board, He omnitemporally foreknew the ultimate outcomes of the differing Potential time-streams which would result from differing Elective choices on His part. (To perform Miracles in Sodom, or to not perform Miracles in Sodom... etc.)
One, in Calvinism there cannot be any other 'scenaros' since everything is done by God's Directive will, thus, it is one Eternal Decree that would not have any alternatives.
Alternatives only come into play when God is responding to mankinds decisions.
Adam might not have sinned and history would have been different.
That is a real option.
In Calvinism that 'alternative' could not exist since God did not want it, thus, Adam was always decreed to Fall, and the 'alternative' would not be a real one.
Regarding, Sodom and Tyrie, yes, they would have responded to the miracles, and not have to been regenerated first.
How can a spiritually dead man (in Calvinism) respond to anything unless first regenerated.
It is only then that the miracles can be beleved in.
In that, case the miracles are irrelevant since God could have regenerated Sodom if He has wanted to and with or without miracles.
Thus, it was always His decree to condemn Sodom (according to Calvinism) and no other alternative would have been possible since they were never unconditionally elected
Sodom and Gomorah did have enough evidence to believe which they rejected (Rom.1), as the Jews were rejecting even more.
Thanks for proving the Absolute-Predestinarian position. Or should I say... Check-Mate.
Now, that is funny!
You are nothing more then a determinist who believes that circumstances dictate action.
You are no different then B.F. Skinner.
That is the key, 'intention'. God has every intention of carrying out what He said.
He, however responds to how man handles that warning!
Thus, even God's warning to Moses is real, and Moses handling it is real, God knows the outcome, but since Moses is free, the outcome could have been different.
That Moses chose to act in a way that moved God to 'repent' does not negate what God intended to do when He warned Moses.
God intended to destroy Ninevah and would have unless they had not repented.
That God knew what they would do, does not lessen or negate God's intention when He warns them, because in real time He is giving them a choice and will Himself act on that choice.
Nothing God says in time is 'untrue', God knows the outcome of the choice that man makes and what He will do also, but the choice has to be made first in time, hence the dynamic nature of the system.
God is seeing how His interaction with mankind 'plays out' and that is what is 'foreknown', but not a foregone conclusion until God sees it happen in time as real.
But that's also part of the problem, ftD. If God intended to do as He said AT ANY POINT, then God intended to go against his already SPOKEN promise that the Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah, not Moses' tribe of Levi.
Why would God say that?
The desire to pray to God for longer life came from Hezekiah and God responded to that plea.
Did God always know that would happen? Ofcourse, but the decision to do so was Hezekiah's and God responded to it.
David gets told in 1Sam.23 that if he stayed in Keliah the men of the city would deliver him up.
There was no 'if' in the message.
David overthrew the 'Eternal Decree' by leaving the city and the 'predication' did not come true.
Had David disregarded the predication and stayed in the city, it would have happened and history would have been different.
Davids response to God's prophecy was as real as was the propecy itself.
Let me know which Option you choose to believe.
I choose to believe that Jesus was merely using a typical judgement oracle.
Tell me, do you believe that when Jesus spoke that, He was omniscient; with both divine aftknowledge and foreknowledge?
(BTW, is anyone else really glad f.christian doesn't post on these threads? My brain is hurting enough as it it!)
"I used to work at the plant where they made fire hydrants but you couldn't park anywhere near the place" - Steven Wright
I told this girl I wouldn't mind seeing the inside of her apartment. She drew me a sketch.
-Rodney Dangerfield
Is this your short-hand for, "Jesus was Lying"? Please be explicit.
Tell me, do you believe that when Jesus spoke that, He was omniscient; with both divine aftknowledge and foreknowledge?
Frankly, I don't even have to concern myself with the economy of Jesus' incommunicable attributes (omniscience, omnipotence, etc.) during the Incarnation to know that the Father would guard His mouth from speaking error.
"If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day."
Option #2 -- what Jesus said was a Falsehood.
Let me know which Option you choose to believe.
You're wrong on this; you've always been wrong on this; no matter how many timnes you repeat this incorrect Straw Man, you'll still be wrong on this.
Calvinism acknowledges that PRIOR TO Creation, God has an INFINITE number of Creative Potentialities available to the Power of His Omnipotence and perfectly foreknown to His Omniscience. Calvinists have ALWAYS believed this to be True.
Only AFTER God ordains specifically to Create, does that particular Potentiality become Reality -- that, and none other (for example, the Potentiality in which God would perform miracles in Sodom and thereby bring them to Repentance was omnitemporally foreknown to God, but it was NOT the scenario which He actually determined to Create).
And, since God's Elective Decisions in Creation pre-determine what Man's Choices will be, God absolutely Predestines all things (as your "Chess" example just proved, quite neatly).
Alternatives only come into play when God is responding to mankinds decisions.
A blatant LIE against Christ from the idolatrous heretic FtD. Jesus Christ specifically said that God had the alternative of performing Miracles in Sodom, and that God's choice whether or not to perform Miracles was NOT determined by Sodom's choice to repent or not, but in fact God's choice (to Perform miracles, or to Not Perform miracles) had the effect of pre-determining what Sodom's choice would be (to Repent, or to Not Repent). For you to say that God did not have this Alternative available to the Power of His Omnipotence is to call Christ a Liar and to call God a Fraud. Again you pile blasphemy upon blasphemy in defense of your Papish Arminianism.
Adam might not have sinned and history would have been different. That is a real option. In Calvinism that 'alternative' could not exist since God did not want it, thus, Adam was always decreed to Fall, and the 'alternative' would not be a real one.
Your "Straw Man" against Calvinism is baseless. You have not demonstrated Calvinist predestination to be false; but (by your Chess example), you have demonstrated Absolute pre-determination to be true.
And we thank you for doing so. :-)
Regarding, Sodom and Tyrie, yes, they would have responded to the miracles, and not have to been regenerated first.
Balderdash. God can certainly use Miracles as an Agency of Regenerating Grace, of course. Who are you to tell Him that He can't? Oh, nevermind, you're the Blasphemer-against-Christ who claims "God has no alternative" except to respond to Man.
How can a spiritually dead man (in Calvinism) respond to anything unless first regenerated.
God can certainly use Miracles as an Agency of Regenerating Grace, of course. Who are you to tell Him that He can't? Oh, nevermind, you're the Blasphemer-against-Christ who claims "God has no alternative" except to respond to Man.
It is only then that the miracles can be beleved in. In that, case the miracles are irrelevant since God could have regenerated Sodom if He has wanted to and with or without miracles.
Balderdash. God can certainly use Miracles as an Agency of Regenerating Grace, of course. Who are you to tell Him that He can't? Oh, nevermind, you're the Blasphemer-against-Christ who claims "God has no alternative" except to respond to Man.
Thus, it was always His decree to condemn Sodom (according to Calvinism) and no other alternative would have been possible since they were never unconditionally elected
On the contrary. Before Creation, God was under no obligation to create Sodom at all, nor was He under any obligation to permit the Fall and thereby allow Sodom to fall under the Condemnation of Adam, nor was He under any obligation to withhold the miracles which He foreknew would brinmg about Repentance.
All of these Options were freely available to God's Elective Omnipotence. Who are you to tell God that He did not have these alternatives? Oh, nevermind, you're the Blasphemer-against-Christ who claims "God has no alternative" except to respond to Man.
Well, as always, you're wrong. Prior to Creation, God had an infinite number of Creative potentialities available to the Power of His omnipotence, and the ultimate outcomes of each and every one were foreknown to His omnitemporal foreknowledge (to not create Sodom at all; to perform Miracles and thereby pre-determine Sodom's repentance; to NOT perform miracles and thereby pre-determine Sodom's NON-Repentance, etc)... and God Elected to create the Potentiality which He chose to create, thereby pre-determining that the foreknown Ends of THAT Creation would actually come to pass, and none other (if He chooses to create the scenario in which He elects to NOT perform miracles in Sodom with the Foreknowledge that they will therefore NOT repent, then His Election has made it absolutely certain that they will not repent -- for His omnitemporal foreknowledge of the results of His Elections is perfect, and cannot be mistaken).
Sodom and Gomorah did have enough evidence to believe which they rejected (Rom.1), as the Jews were rejecting even more.
Of course. My point is, God could have chosen to create the Scenario in which He foreknew that they would Repent in response to His performance of miracles, and God could have chosen to create the Scenario in which He foreknew that they would NOT Repent in response to His NON-performance of miracles.
Ergo, His Decision DETERMINED what their Decisions would actually be.
As you own "chess" example so beautifully proves.
You are nothing more then a determinist who believes that circumstances dictate action. You are no different then B.F. Skinner.
On the contrary. Unlike B.F. Skinner, I believe that God is in total control of all aspects of Human Destiny.
You do not.
That's a bit over the top OP. It might be better to just say that YOU think or believe or know that HE is WRONG because.....
Calling people liars and heretics and idolators is not conducive to a civil discussion.
___________
The best car safety device is a rear-view mirror with a cop in it. -- Dudley Moore
Respectfully, my anger was in response to this drivel:
How blasphemous!! Do you believe that God ONLY has "alternatives" when He is responding to Man? Is the Creator so rigidly confined by the Authority of the Creature? At any rate, it directly contravenes Jesus' express words in Matthew 11:20-27, which quite clearly state that God enjoyed the Sovereign option of performing miracles in Sodom which would bring them to Repentance -- not as a response to Sodom's repentance (for Sodom did not repent in the absence of these miracles) but rather as a precursor to any repentance on Sodom's part.
I cut FtD a lot of slack on a regular basis, but when he attempts to cram God into his imaginary, self-devised, idolatrous little Humanist box ("Alternatives only come into play when God is responding to mankinds decisions"), I do admit to getting a tad incensed at such Spiritual Pride.
You are really jumping off the deep end here. Jesus says nothing of the sort. It is you who are impregnating this verse with so much of your own meaning, certainly not Jesus.
I insist that you are starting from a false premise. Jesus is simply stating a logical causality in the form of a traditional Jewish judgement oracle. It is not about Jesus speaking "Truth" or a "Falsehood". He is simply using his (human) reason to provide an illustration for a point He is making.
If you cannot establish that Jesus was omniscient in this verse, with divine aftknowledge and foreknowledge (and you cannot) then your whole argument falls flat (and it does). And, because you cannot move on from this false start, everything you say after this is meaningless.
I have a microwave fireplace. I can have a quiet evening in eight minutes -Steven Wright
1. What is the nature of God's sovereignty? Is there such a thing as human free will? Does God decide everything directly, or does he permit man to make certain decisions?
— Calvin — Whenever God is pleased to make way for his providence, he even in external matters so turns and bends the wills of men, that whatever the freedom of their choice may be, it is still subject to the disposal of God. That your mind depends more on the agency of God than the freedom of your own choice, daily experience teaches. (Book 2, Chap 4, Sec 7)
The arrangement of all things is in the hand of God, since to him belongs the disposal of life and death, he arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction. (Book 3, Chap 23, Sec 6)
— Arminius — I place in subjection to Divine Providence both the free-will and even the actions of a rational creature, so that nothing can be done without the will of God, not even any of those things which are done in opposition to it; … God both wills and performs good acts, but … he only freely permits those which are evil. (Vol 1, p 251, italics in original)
God in the administration of his Providence conducts all things in such a manner that when he is pleased to employ his creatures in the execution of his decrees, he does not take away from them their nature, natural properties or the use of them, but allows them to perform and complete their own proper motions. (Vol 1, p 297)
… something is done contingently … in such a manner as makes it possible not to be done. (ibid, italics in original)
[Concerning the opposite view] It makes God to be the author of sin, and man to be exempt from blame. (Vol 1, p 298)
Both Calvin and Arminius believed in the sovereignty of God, but they defined sovereignty differently. Calvin believed in a direct sovereignty. When God wills, he causes whatever he has determined to happen. This means that man is not free. Man may make what seem to him to be “voluntary” choices, nevertheless those choices are predetermined by God.
Arminius believed in an indirect or permissive sovereignty. When God wills, he sometimes causes what he has determined to happen, but other times permits others to determine what happens. This means that man is free in certain areas including salvation. Thus, Arminius held that God, as part of his sovereignty, allows man to make his own free choices — choices which in each case could have been the opposite
Regarding Calvins 'logic'
There are three things that should be kept in mind regarding Calvin's Institutes. First, Calvin was only 27 years old when he wrote it. Second, only three years before writing the Institutes he converted from Catholicism to Protestantism, so it may be reasonable to assume that he was a relatively new believer. Third, it appears that Calvin adopted a peculiar approach to truth, judging from his earlier book, which appeared in 1532. This book was a critical edition and commentary on the Roman philosopher Seneca's work De clementia (“Concerning Clemency”). In this book Calvin demonstrated his scholarly abilities, but also showed that he favored the opinions of the rhetoricians over those of the dialecticians. The dialecticians believed that a statement's truth is best tested by how well it fits into a coherent logical system. The rhetoricians believed that a statement's truth is best tested by its clarity and elegance as well as its persuasive power. (Robert M. Kingdon, “John Calvin,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed, 1982, Vol 3, p 671)
Calvin's tendency to underplay the importance of logic can also be seen in his Institutes. Here are just three examples from the Institutes where Calvin emphatically states ideas that are logically weak — a sure indication of the rhetorician's approach to truth. First, any discussion of free will is logically related to the subject of divine predestination. However, when Calvin discusses Adam's free will, he claims that it is unreasonable to introduce the subject of divine predestination.
It were here unreasonable to introduce the question concerning the secret predestination of God, because we are not considering what might or might not happen, but what the nature of man truly was. (Book 1, Chap 15, Sec 8). Second, the idea that human punishment is ultimately based on man's actions is logically contradictory to the idea that it is ultimately based on God's decision. Yet, Calvin states both of these ideas in the same sentence. Though their perdition depends on the predestination of God, the cause and matter of it is in themselves. (Book 3, Chap 23, Sec 8). Third, Calvin states that man makes voluntary choices which are not free. This is an obvious logical contradiction which can be avoided only by adopting a very narrow and inappropriate definition of volition. … a thing may be done voluntarily, though not subject to free choice. (Book 2, Chap 5, Sec 1) The Institutes are Calvin's most systematic statement of his theology. Calvin's style is polemic, even caustic; he refers to his opponents as “filthy swine” who speak “profane blasphemies” (Book 3, Chap 23, Sec 12).
Calvin's teachings, while in line with the three basic themes of the Reformation mentioned above, included certain ideas about divine election (choosing) of believers which were controversial right from the start.
Amen brother! Its coming!
Nope. As I said before (a point which you have singularly failed to answer) I don't even have to concern myself with the economy of Jesus' incommunicable attributes (omniscience, omnipotence, etc.) during the Incarnation to know that the Father would guard His mouth from speaking error. Do you honestly believe that Jesus ever uttered a statement which was, in its factual particulars, FALSE?? Even if we discount Omniscience in the context of the Mysteries of the Incarnation, do you believe that the Father would permit Jesus to utter a Statement which was, in its factual particulars, FALSE??
"If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day."
You are beginning to grasp at straws as you realize that in order to deny Absolute Predestination, you have to call Jesus a Liar. Now, you very much want to deny Absolute Predestination, but you do not want to directly expose yourself by actually Calling Him a liar. So, it becomes necessary to imagine scenarios in which you can claim that what Jesus said was FACTUALLY FALSE, but without directly and specifically calling Him a Liar.
It won't work, of course. You'll be hoisted upon your own petard every time.
It is as I have said --- Do you honestly believe that the Father would permit Jesus to utter a Statement which was, in its factual particulars, FALSE??
"If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day."
Choose this day whom you will serve -- Christianity, or Human Synergism. For these two religions are mortal enemies, and always have been. The former is the pure worship of God, the latter is quite demonstrably Satanic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.