Re: How could I ever disappoint God?

neo-x · Post by **neo-x** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 12:39 am

I certainly think God knows all future 100%, because unlike us, he can calculate the minute changes over time. But I also think that at where along the line it is not fixed in terms of salvation, redemption or anything that might save a soul. That God knowing all, does not over rules the atonement which Christ gave us. As long as that holds we are true to the basic grounds of the Bible and John 3:16. Other than that, things may vary. For example, in the chronicles or kings (im going by memory here) God appointed Jehu to be king (the one who wiped away Ahab/ Jezebel Family) but when he disobeyed later God said that since you have not followed me whole heatedly therefore now your family shall rule on the throne for four generation only. See, the plan changed, even though God had wished and anticipated it.

The question is did God knew that Jehu will disobey later, if so, why appoint him in the first place. May be a chance at redemption but he didn't offer him any. For me it becomes hard to understand from here on. Any thoughts will be very helpful and appreciated. So just to be on the safe side I think as long as we don't tread on the border of Calvinism, all is fine that God knows the future.

DannyM · Post by **DannyM** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 3:17 am

Neo,

neo-x wrote:Danny, my implication was that if he knew than in his knowledge it is already going to happen. And not just our immediate actions but their consequences and in turn their consequences, so on and so forth. If he knows already what we are going to choose 50 yrs from now, means it has been predestined.

This doesn't mean it was predestined. We were predestined to belief, sure. But God's foreknowledge of our every move does not mean he foreordained our every move. Free will remains perfectly intact here.

neo-x wrote:Therefore for e.g if he knows that 10 years from now I am going to turn to another religion. Would he still love me now? May be yes, may be no, if yes, then it means he is trying to show me love so that 10 yrs from now, I do not perish into a spiritual death. But if the first thing is true, then he would also know already whether by his showing me love now, will he save me 10 yrs from now. If he knows both things before hand than free will is an illusion and God's action is based on "he will or will not do this" instead of "he did this" , you see my point, this does not give me any margin to turn because my every turn (with its consequence) is acknowledged.

I disagree. God foreknows whom he will save. You turning to another religion is a zero negation of that.

DannyM · Post by **DannyM** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 3:19 am

kmr wrote:Well, when Christ died on the cross, he suffered the pains of ALL sin, right? He took the burden of everyone's sin, past, present, and future, in what we perceived as one moment. Clearly he was disappointed at the sin, but the main reason was out of love, so the time and place of the disappointment doesn't matter. If it says somewhere in the Bible, "God was disappointed", it is related to that specific action not that specific time. That is the point of the crucifixion.

It seems to me that God would not be disappointed in us since he cannot expect anything of us other than that which he knows is coming. God may be sad; God may weep for us. But God would not be disappointed in us.

DannyM · Post by **DannyM** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 3:30 am

Silvertusk wrote:THose who believe God knows the future is prescribing to the B Theory of Time - Where all time, past present and future exist already and our location in this stream is an illusion - like many slices of cake. This is what many of the time travelling stories are based on. However this comes with many problems.

I'm not quite understanding this.

Silvertusk wrote:I personally beleive that the A theory of time is the correct view and that the only thing that exists is the present. Therefore God can not see the future as it does not exist yet. However I am certain he can predict the future with 100% certainty. Since he knows us so imtimately and therefore the outcome of all our choices I do believe he is still disappointed when we go down one path rather than the other. It is like he knows where the path leads and what will happen down it every step of the way - yet the choice to walk down it is still ours and therefore I am sure he is disappointed when we walk down it and not the one he has chosen for us.

[/quote][/quote]

I've seen Swinburne argue along similar lines elsewhere; It was a book I checked out of the library called Was Jesus God? It was a convoluted attempt to rationalise away omniscience. Perhaps Swinburne thought God's omniscience threatens our free will. But whatever the case he was unconvincing. If anyone has the book please feel free to restate Swinburne's position in a more precise way. If the prophets could prophesy future events then how can God be constrained to knowledge only of the present? God having foreknowledge of our every move does not mean God foreordained our every move.

DannyM · Post by **DannyM** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 3:37 am

neo-x wrote:The question is did God knew that Jehu will disobey later, if so, why appoint him in the first place. May be a chance at redemption but he didn't offer him any. For me it becomes hard to understand from here on. Any thoughts will be very helpful and appreciated. So just to be on the safe side I think as long as we don't tread on the border of Calvinism, all is fine that God knows the future.

Perhaps because God foreknew that He would appoint him. We are the ones who mess up, not God. God may know the ill choices we will make, but cannot be blamed or seen as incompetent when we mess it up. (I know you're not suggesting He is, Neo.) God knows what actions He will take in the future; He knows what decisions He will make in response to our mistakes. So it would be a logical absurdity for God to change his mind about changing his mind. It's like God walking from London Kings Cross to London Euston taking two steps forward and two identical steps backwards. Logical absurdities are not in God's locker.

DannyM · Post by **DannyM** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 4:21 am

B. W. wrote:
neo-x wrote:Hmm.. I do not think God knows what will happen per second, if he did then any thing that might happen is subject to pre-destination. It goes against free will.
Actually, Neo, this statement does not square with who God is according to his character and nature revealed with the pages of the bible.
For example, just a few.

Proverbs 15:3, Psalms 139:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15, 16c, Jeremiah 1:5, Isaiah 40:13, 14c, also all of Psalms 104

Anyways, I have been reading this thread and it is a very good one!
-
-
-

Bravo, my good man!

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 4:37 am

If God is all powerful, does He have the power to choose not to know something, or does He have the power not to act? Foreknowledge does not imply predestination unless you argue that omnipotence unexercised in all contexts is impossible.

Some forms of Calvinism do just that. It's more consistent with Green philosophy reasoned backwards than it is with the entire revelation of God in my opinion.

neo-x · Post by **neo-x** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 4:49 am

Thanks for the insights, Danny & Bart

Silvertusk · Post by **Silvertusk** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 5:10 am

DannyM wrote:
Silvertusk wrote:THose who believe God knows the future is prescribing to the B Theory of Time - Where all time, past present and future exist already and our location in this stream is an illusion - like many slices of cake. This is what many of the time travelling stories are based on. However this comes with many problems.
I'm not quite understanding this.

Silvertusk wrote:I personally beleive that the A theory of time is the correct view and that the only thing that exists is the present. Therefore God can not see the future as it does not exist yet. However I am certain he can predict the future with 100% certainty. Since he knows us so imtimately and therefore the outcome of all our choices I do believe he is still disappointed when we go down one path rather than the other. It is like he knows where the path leads and what will happen down it every step of the way - yet the choice to walk down it is still ours and therefore I am sure he is disappointed when we walk down it and not the one he has chosen for us.

[/quote]

I've seen Swinburne argue along similar lines elsewhere; It was a book I checked out of the library called Was Jesus God? It was a convoluted attempt to rationalise away omniscience. Perhaps Swinburne thought God's omniscience threatens our free will. But whatever the case he was unconvincing. If anyone has the book please feel free to restate Swinburne's position in a more precise way. If the prophets could prophesy future events then how can God be constrained to knowledge only of the present? God having foreknowledge of our every move does not mean God foreordained our every move.[/quote]

Basically the B Theory states that the movement through time is just a perceptive illusion, All time states exist and we are just restricted to our current perceptions of it. This means of course that me five minutes in the future exists as well as me now. However - me five minutes in the future will be a different entity than me now - because all exists. If this was truely the case then any crimes committed by me - who would you arrest? - Me? But it was not the me that did the crime - that was me 5 hours ago... It falls apart. William Lane Craig describes it better on his website - reasonablefaith.org.

So if the B theory of time is not correct then you have to conclude that the A theory of time is correct and therefore the past has expired - the future is about to happen but all that exists is the present. Therefore God cannot see into the future as he does not exist yet. However I am sure he can predict with possibly 100% accuracy what might happen.

Also to the other point - God may have created time - but before that he was Timeless. That is state we cannot conceive but that is what God was causely proir to the big bang. He made a decision to become temporal at the moment of creation.

Silvertusk.

DannyM · Post by **DannyM** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:13 am

Thanks, Silver.

Silvertusk wrote:Basically the B Theory states that the movement through time is just a perceptive illusion, All time states exist and we are just restricted to our current perceptions of it. This means of course that me five minutes in the future exists as well as me now. However - me five minutes in the future will be a different entity than me now - because all exists. If this was truely the case then any crimes committed by me - who would you arrest? - Me? But it was not the me that did the crime - that was me 5 hours ago... It falls apart. William Lane Craig describes it better on his website - reasonablefaith.org.

I don't see how this is a problem. God sees me five minutes from now but this does not mean that the Me five minutes from now is not the same Me the entity that exists now. I really can't see any illusion here. Perhaps I'm not properly digesting what you are saying. The above just seems like an unnecessary and unworkable philosophical idea. I love Mr. Craig, but I sure don't see his reasoning here.

Silvertusk wrote:So if the B theory of time is not correct then you have to conclude that the A theory of time is correct and therefore the past has expired - the future is about to happen but all that exists is the present. Therefore God cannot see into the future as he does not exist yet. However I am sure he can predict with possibly 100% accuracy what might happen.

I'd dispute the detail of 'B' to begin with.

Silvertusk wrote:Also to the other point - God may have created time - but before that he was Timeless. That is state we cannot conceive but that is what God was causely proir to the big bang. He made a decision to become temporal at the moment of creation.

That's a neat idea. But it is an idea that seems to me to come from a desire for it in order to validate the 'A' theory of God's knowledge of only the present. Please pick me up if I'm not following, Silver.

CeT-To · Post by **CeT-To** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 11:06 am

Quick question, did God become temporal upon creating other beings? I'm talking about angels here, before the universe was created.

Silvertusk · Post by **Silvertusk** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 12:26 pm

CeT-To wrote:Quick question, did God become temporal upon creating other beings? I'm talking about angels here, before the universe was created.

No - God Became temporal at the initial point of creation. Angels came later. Angels and the war with Satan happened straight after the verse - In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth. Gen 1:1

Silvertusk · Post by **Silvertusk** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 12:37 pm

DannyM wrote:I don't see how this is a problem. God sees me five minutes from now but this does not mean that the Me five minutes from now is not the same Me the entity that exists now. I really can't see any illusion here. Perhaps I'm not properly digesting what you are saying. The above just seems like an unnecessary and unworkable philosophical idea. I love Mr. Craig, but I sure don't see his reasoning here.

The idea is that is is a different entity - because you cannot be in more than one place at once - that would you make you almost like God. And which entity - or slice of cake - as Craig puts it is the one that is saved? Like I said - Craig does explain it much better - but I can't remember which podcast he described in on - There are so many - but there are also plenty of articles on his theories of time at www.reasonablefaith.org

kmr · Post by **kmr** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 3:58 pm

I personally believe that the Son, God's revelation to us, often exists in a temporal situation, but I still think that God is above time and space to the infinite degree, beyond our understanding...

DannyM · Post by **DannyM** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 9:46 am

Silvertusk wrote:
DannyM wrote:I don't see how this is a problem. God sees me five minutes from now but this does not mean that the Me five minutes from now is not the same Me the entity that exists now. I really can't see any illusion here. Perhaps I'm not properly digesting what you are saying. The above just seems like an unnecessary and unworkable philosophical idea. I love Mr. Craig, but I sure don't see his reasoning here.
The idea is that is is a different entity - because you cannot be in more than one place at once - that would you make you almost like God. And which entity - or slice of cake - as Craig puts it is the one that is saved? Like I said - Craig does explain it much better - but I can't remember which podcast he described in on - There are so many - but there are also plenty of articles on his theories of time at http://www.reasonablefaith.org

But I would hold that I'm not in more than one place at once given 'B'. And if I was, I'd say that the ''different entities' position is unnecessary. This is intriguing me, so the best I can do is check it out and see where I'm going wrong. Cheers Silver.