The Ways of God. Ridiculed or accepted?

I think there is a difference between beliefs of election and saying that God isn't omniscient. I do think though the Winman is slightly confused by the issue and maybe is open to understanding. ----trying to be understanding.

 

sorry your OP is off already....Here is the OP again and maybe we can get back to that.

 

This is what comes of having no doctrines ..... Just Bible

 

Actually, a circle is a good analogy of my theory. I COULD BE WRONG ON THIS!!

In Revelation, Jesus said he was the Alpha, the beginning, and the Omega, the end. That alone defies our comprehension. He is both the beginning of time, and the end of time at the same time.

Now imagine a clock with Jesus at 12 o'clock position. This represents both the beginning and the end. As you move clockwise, you are advancing in time. This is man's perspective. In this perspective, you can only know things as they happen.

But starting at 12 o'clock, go counter-clockwise. Now you are looking back in time from the end. In this perspective you can know everything that will happen, because you know everything that actually did happen.

And we have this perspective as well. Looking back in time we know exactly what did happen. I know Columbus found the New World in 1492. I know the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941.

However, our perspective of the past is only from the present. We can only tell what has happened in the past from TODAY. But Jesus is the Omega, the END. He exists at the end of time NOW, and can look back and tell us everything that will happen, because from his perspective it already has happened.

Look what God said in Isaiah.

Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Here God says he can the declare the end of time from the beginning. He can tell us things not yet done.

How can he do this? He can do this because he is both the Alpha, the beginning, and the Omega, the end at the same moment.

It all depends upon the perspective he chooses at any given time. Sometimes he speaks in the forward looking perspective. In this perspective he does not know what happens until it occurs, just as we do not.

At other times he speaks to us in the perspective of the Omega looking back in time at those things that have already taken place in his perspective. In this perspective he can tell you everything that will ever happen without error.

Both meet at 12 o'clock. It is both the beginning and the end. The perspective is whether he looks clockwise in a forward looking perspective, or looks counter-clockwise in a back-in-time perspective.

I know this is a wild theory. But I was intrigued how Jesus said he was both Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. Many say God is outside time, but this seems to me to suggest he is time itself.

Just a theory, I could easily be in error. I am not trying to push this on anybody. Just stuff that goes through my head.

 

Win- I find that as a very interesting theory—not one I completely agree with, but one that is at least worth consideration. But here’s what I personally deduce from Scripture--Do verses such as Gen 22:12 that portray God as saying “and now I know” really describe Him as learning something new? Or are they God reaffirming certain truths He already knew? In Gen 22:12—what God (the angel of the Lord) supposedly learns is that Abraham “fears God.” Does God not already know this or has He forgotten Abraham’s track record of faith & obedience up to this event. Scripture is clear that God knows all (1 Jn 3:10), even going so far as in Isa 46:10—that He knows & declares “the end from the beginning & from ancient times things not yet done.” And Pss 139:16 indicates that he knew all our days before we lived them. How could God not know that Abraham feared Him considering He knows all & has witnessed past events that clearly demonstrate Abraham’s track record of obedience & faith. In Gen 18:20-21 God says He will know of Sodom’s sin only if He goes down & sees for himself—did God really have to do this to know or would his omnipresent ability & knowledge about the past/current events give him the needed information. I have no problem with those who endorse the idea that God knows all possibilities & allows us the freedom to act in and of ourselves (via free will) to make or own choices, but to say that God can learn comes awful close to open theism, & it is this very platform (verses such as Gen 22:12) that open theist attempt to use to demonstrate their false teaching with faulty exegesis. Now I want to be very clear—I’m not associating your personal theory with open theism—I just think we have to be careful when we ay that God has the ability to learn—b/c it does question his genuine omniscience—but I do find your theory noteworthy & will look more into it-God bless!.

 

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Tell me, are the words "beginning" and "end" terms of time? And Jesus says he IS the beginning and he IS the end. He is time itself.

Are the terms "which is" (the present) and "which was" (the past), and "which is to come" (the future) terms of time?

You need to learn to think for yourself. I do.

 

Precisely what I was going to say. God is bound by time.

 

Thanks so much Gabriel on how you approach your responses to others. You insight and spirit in such manner is appreciated, particularly your manner.

 

Thank for the kind words. Although I always don’t agree with others—if I ever want them to respect my ideas—I have to respect their ideas—so how I say something to them is just as important as what I’m saying to them. Honestly my theology aligns up more with the abrasive & rebuking voices in this thread, but I personally never forget that it was being open-minded to other theories that brought me to the reformed camp-- when I was at one time diametrically opposed to its teachings. :jesus:

 

Winman, it appears you have thought through your position, and have appealed to scripture for support.

Since we recognize that there are some scriptures which seem to contradict, one good rule of hermeneutics is to interpret ambiguous passages in the light of clear, unambiguous scriptures. Some passages are open to more than one interpretation, and I think God's questions to Adam in the garden, and the angel's words to Abraham in Genesis can fall into that category.

On the other hand, other scriptures dealing with the same matters are clear and not subject to any other interpretation. One I can think of, for instance is Acts 2:23, where Peter preached:

No matter how one sees that passage, whether emphasizing the determinate counsel or the foreknowledge of God, it is clear that God knows, and has known from eternity, the actions of men in crucifying the Lord Jesus.

I understand that your view is more nuanced than I am treating it, but it seems to me that this verse doesn't require any nuancing.

To adopt your view, one must also do away with God's attribute of immutability. For God not to know something, then at some point in time knows it, would be a change in Him.

There is a sense in which God is outside of time; and, that he sees all things--even future events--as in his mind already accomplished.

I believe God is omniscient, omnipotent and immutable. And i believe your view undermines all three.

That said, I'm going to re-read your post to make sure I haven't misread you. And if you think I have, I'm open to hear it.

 

God bless you brother, though we see things slightly differently "theologically" speaking, your attitude of tolerance, difference and intellectual honesty speaks highly of you.

 

It is just a theory. I could easily be wrong. If you see real problems with it where it violates scripture let me know. But show me scripture and let me hear in YOUR words why it is wrong. One big problem I have with Cals/DoGs here is that they MINDLESSLY PARROT the writings of Reformed writers. I'm sorry, but most of these guys could not think themselves out of a wet paper bag, yet they believe themselves brilliant.

Say what you will, but I can think for myself.

I don't know if anybody realizes this, but I am actually agreeing with both sides here. I believe in free will, at the same time I agree with Cals that God brings his purposes to pass and is in control.

Again, that may seem a contradiction, but some scripture appears to contradict itself.

I do not believe there is any contradiction, I believe the problem our failure to properly understand scripture.

But I'll tell you this, we will never figure it out by mindlessly parroting teachers who obviously failed to reconcile these scriptures in the past.

 

The problem Winman is that you lack the humility to even stop to CONSIDER if your views meet the standards of orthodoxy.

You lack the theological education to even know the importance of orthodoxy.

And you lack the needed reverence and fear for this subject so much that you are LITERALLY posting that God almighty is not omniscient.

Whether or not you are a full blown open theist is besides the point here. You are clearly promoting on baptistboard the WORST aspect of open theism.

Now you need to get out from under this ignorant, backwater fundy mess and put yourself under some folks who have sense enough to help you get on the right path.

It is perfectly ok to be uneducated. It is perfectly ok to study the Scriptures without a seminary degree; but when you go to digging this deep and coming up with this mess- it's time for you to humble yourself and get some training.
You are diving into water that is too deep for the scuba equipment you possess.

You are trying to scale the Mariana Trench in your swim trunks.

You are not intellectually equipped for this kind of depth and you are becoming dangerous because you lack the humility to admit it.

 

Just when I think you could not possibly be more condescending toward others you outdo yourself.

 

I put you in that same category, Robert.

Everything I said to Winman is applicable to you too, imo- perhaps not quite to the same degree, but applicable still.

However, if you will not renounce this ridiculous mess that Winman is spewing which undermines the omniscience of God, I'd say it applies to you to the EXACT same degree.

 

Well, if being "highly educated" means being like you, I will pass.

You remind me a a remark I heard a preacher say many years ago about Christians who value their doctrine and orthodoxy above God's love and concern for sinners. You may be as straight as a gun barrel, but your just as empty!

 

I thought I had appealed to scripture for my view. And although I am a DoG, I tried not to argue for that soteriology, but to argue for God's omniscience and immutability. Which, seems to me, any non-Cal could argue for, as well.

And I had no Reformed writers in mind when I made my case. And I would certainly never suggest that you can't think for yourself. You have proven that you can.

 

I am not saying God does not know all things, I believe he does. What I am suggesting is that he might have two perspectives, in one view he sees things as they happen, in the other view he can see all things that will ever take place.

Look, if a person is honest they must admit that God makes statements that suggests he does not know some things until they happen such as Gen 22:12.

You cannot simply ignore scripture you do not like because it disturbs your personal doctrine.

Perhaps we will never understand this, perhaps this is an area of knowledge that we are not allowed to know, but I am not going to disregard scripture because it upsets someone else's "canned" doctrine.