Foreknowledge and God's Omnipresence

Humblesmith,

All those verses state that God existed before time began, i.e. before Creation. No argument there. But he doesn't exist in the past now , because the past no longer exists in the same manner that the present exists. And the same can be said of the future. That's the philosophical problem I have with eternal now theories.

Great texts, but I see no substance on the matter at hand. Do any of the verses in context discuss the issue of God's relationship to time? Do these verses explain what God's relationship to time is after it "began?" Do these verses imply that God created time itself or refer to creation of the world? I see nothing to be scared of here since none of these verses claim or even imply atemporality. Like I said Scripture doesn't really cover the issue.

Verses may plainly say that God existed before the beginning of "time." However, I don't think that diachronic word studies and proof texts will be enough to convince me that "time" is used in these verses to refer to creation. Yes, yes we all belive God existed before anything else did since He created all things--with these verses I am in agreement.

I'm skeptical that any of these verses are speaking of a metaphysical truth, especially given the context and use of literary devices in Scripture. (Yes that even includes the 1000 day stuff, which was mentioned before; doesn't a day have temporal succession anyways?). Enough's enough...a smarter man whom I mentioned in my first post covers the Scriptures involved in this issue in his book and I'll leave the rest of the arguments to him for those interested.

off to bed
BJ

editing time lapsed...paragraph two is missing two words: "more than" before creation in the second sentence.

Originally posted by Me4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marcia:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Me4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marcia:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Posted by Me4Him
One of the characteristic of a carnal interpretation I've noticed is the restriction of "either, or", Jesus can be either the Father, or the son, but he can't be "both".

Click to expand...

This is not a "restriction!" Jesus is not both Father and Son! To say so is modalism. </font>[/QUOTE]Mt 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Thanks for proving my point, and you are in the majority. </font>[/QUOTE]This passage is saying Jesus is God, but he is not God the Father.

Please clarify your position on this. </font>[/QUOTE]Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,

Do you understand the "Trinity"??? </font>[/QUOTE]John 1:1,14 do not say that Christ is God the Father. They declare the deity of Christ, that Christ is indeed God; but not that He is the Father.
Yes I understand the trinity. Do you?
DHK

Responses:

The Hebrews 1:2 passage says "made (created) the ages." The other three verses posted above show that God acted before time. Not that he merely existed, but that he acted before time began. These aren't figurative, they're plain language. So I don't see how they can be dismissed away as just mentioning God's existence, or being figurative.

Andy T had an excellent comment.....about the past and the future not existing. But I think there is an answer......
The answer lies in formal metaphysics (the study of existence). When we study existence, we ask "what is real?" and "what has reality?" And we find that you are correct, that "he doesn't exist in the past now." But, more correctly, since God upholds all things by his power, and in him all things consist (col. 1:17), then the past exists in Him. The past and the future do indeed exist.... in Him. He has perfect knowledge of His own nature, and He brings all things to pass by His power, therefore the past and the future are as real to Him as the present.

Another possibility is that we're just looking at existence from within existence, and your argument begs the question. To wit:
1. Only what is present exists.
2. The past and the future are not present.
3. Therefore the past and the future do not exist.

This doesn't work, because (1) assumes the conclusion (begs the question). Also, who is to say that (2) is wrong for God? Why couldn't the past and the future be real to God?


Anyway, I'll promise to read Feinberg when I get a chance, if you'll promise to read Geisler's Systematic Theology Vol. 2, which deals with all these same questions. OK?

Fun stuff.

Originally posted by Benjamin:
yes, He does know the beginning from the end

Click to expand...

It doesn't say he knows the beginning from the end. He says he declares the end from the beginning. The passage is not about what He knows. It's about what He does. He says it, and it's so.

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:

Click to expand...

Originally posted by DHK:
John 1:1,14 do not say that Christ is God the Father. They declare the deity of Christ, that Christ is indeed God; but not that He is the Father.
Yes I understand the trinity. Do you?
DHK

Click to expand...

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."

John 14:8 Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." 9 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.

John 8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

I included verse 59 because they understood fully the implication of Jesus saying "I AM". It is an expression reserved for God.

Hub...I've skimmed most of Geisler's stuff and found little if anything new regarding this subject. I'll just point out how odd, almost contradictory your statement here is:

"The other three verses posted above show that God acted before time. Not that he merely existed, but that he acted before time began. These aren't figurative, they're plain language. So I don't see how they can be dismissed away as just mentioning God's existence, or being figurative. "

Acting BEFORE time began? How is that in any way plain language when you try to make it say what you're claiming here? Does God simply act in eternity and the consequences of His decisions play out in the realm of time which He created but has always remained separate and independent of (translation He never exists or acts "before" time began because He acts in eternity)? Or has He always operated within a temporal framework?

Acting before time began...that just doesn't make sense when you want that phrase to carry water metaphysically. Thus, I think it is quite proper to take it figuratively especially since none of the verses are trying to address this metaphysical topic.

regards,
BJ

My Friend:

You rightfully point out the difficulty (absurdity?) of speaking of time before time. You also rightfully point out the difficulty of us, being locked into time and space, of speaking of a being who is not locked into time and space. So you are correct from our perspective.

But this is only a difficulty if we attempt to shoehorn an infinte being into a finite world. I trust you would not hold God as being limited by space, or limited by motion. We would say that before there was a universe, there was no space, for God needs no physical space to create space. Yes?

Ditto with motion. God does not need to move to create motion.

If we deny these, then we have a God who needs space to create space, and needs physical motion to create motion. Both of these are absurdities, just as much as time before time.

So if we're to say that God needed no space, and needed no motion to create, why do we say that he needed time?

Saying God is "in time" but not "in space" is inconsistent at best. All the same absurd language (that you correctly pointed out) apply to space and motion, yes?

Dismiss Geisler if you will, but he reviews Augustine and Aquinas and others who both dealt with this exact issue. All three hold the same view.

(BTW, have you heard the humorous quote from Augustine on this? "What was God doing before He created? Preparing hell for people who ask such questions!)

Bless

I think it's one thing to say that God is outside of time. I have no problem with that statement. It's whole 'nother thing to say that He experiences everything as an "eternal now". How do we know that? How do we know how God experiences time? Again, it may be fun for us to debate these things, but ultimately it is too mysterious for us to understand.

hub...i have heard augustine's quote and it is quite humorous. You're right Geisler tows the church history line and agrees. However, I still think the influence of greek philosophy (cf. neo-platonism's influence on both Augustine and Aquinas) spoke more to their views of God and time than Scripture ever did. I believe that if Church History had different philosophical roots, then we would view divine atemporality as the counterintuitive oddball and sempiternity as the more fitting position. But who can change the past?

As to your parallel with space and motion the problems for me are these. First, no one argues that for a spiritual person to exist He needs to first "create" physical space and physical motion as parameters to live in since those both assume physical beings. However, wherever God exists (the spiritual realm if you will) He did not "create" He has just always operated within that realm.

Second, I am arguing that for a spiritual person to exist, He needs to operate within a temporal framework because that is necessary for personhood. This leads back to my point about God not "creating" His own attributes...He didn't create personhood or omnipotence, etc., etc. Can I defend this premise? Well we'll see but it seems your argument has a corollary premise: for God to be infinite, then He must be atemporal. Neither premise seems to be inviolable to me.

There is truth that, phenomenologically, we have no clue what God's relationship is to anything since we are not Him and we are qualitatively inferior creatures (quite an understatement). However, this is a quasi-agnostic argument from silence. Thus, neither side can boldly say whether God is atemporal or sempiternal. I lean towards the latter and can defend it. I choose not to try rhetorical catch phrases like "God has to be timeless to be infinite, God is not bound by time, or God has no limits" (not direct quotes btw)...to support my position. My position is simply that persons (whether divine or human) operate within a temporal framework and Scripture does not contradict this notion.

I simply believe that it is consistent with Scripture and it is logically coherent...doctrine needs little else in order to be defended. And remember I don't view this as anymore binding on God than His being a Spiritual being and a person would be.

this has been fun,
BJ

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
John 1:1,14 do not say that Christ is God the Father. They declare the deity of Christ, that Christ is indeed God; but not that He is the Father.
Yes I understand the trinity. Do you?
DHK

Click to expand...

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."

John 14:8 Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." 9 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.

John 8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

I included verse 59 because they understood fully the implication of Jesus saying "I AM". It is an expression reserved for God. </font>[/QUOTE]All of the above were declarations of Christ's deity. Christ was declaring Himself to be God. In the trinity there are three persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. These three are separate persons and yet constitute one God. There is only one Godhead, and yet three persons. Three persons constitute one God. When Christ came to earth he distinctly said: "I come to do the will of my Father." There was a distinction there. The verses you quoted were statements Christ made concerning His assertion of His deity.

For one to believe or say that Christ is the Father, and also to say that Christ is the Son at the same time is a heresy. He is distinct from the Father, and has been throughout all eternity. To say so would destroy the doctrine of the trinity. It is a heresy. Christ is not the Father. He is the Son, the second person of the trinity. He is the Word incarnate.
DHK

Originally posted by DHK:
All of the above were declarations of Christ's deity.

Click to expand...

Two of the quotes are declarations that Jesus is equal with the Father. The third is a declaration of the deity of Christ (I AM).

I agree that the trinity is three persons. I am in no way suggesting that there are only two (Jesus the Father and God, and then the Holy Spirit). What would that be, a duity?

But the oneness of the three is also true, which is why Jesus can truthfully say that if you've seen Him, you've seen the Father. To deny that is to deny the plain meaning of these texts. "I and the Father are one" doesn't just declare the deity of Christ, it identifies the unity of Christ with the Father.

By the way, all this reminds me of the joke, "What did the zen buddhist say to the hot dog vendor?"

"Make me one with everything."

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
All of the above were declarations of Christ's deity.

Click to expand...

Two of the quotes are declarations that Jesus is equal with the Father. The third is a declaration of the deity of Christ (I AM). </font>[/QUOTE]Take a look at one of those quotes and see how the Jews understood it:

John 10:30-38 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Jesus said: "I and my Father are one." Was He declaring that He was the same person as God? No. The Jews took up stones to stone him. Why? It was for blasphemy, because, assuming He was a man He was declaring Himself to be God (not necessarily the Father). Christ goes on to explain "Believe that the Father is in me and I in him," a direct reference to the Godhead. Yes, Christ was God, He was one person of the trinity. He came to do the work of His Father who he could not entirely disacciate himself with because He was divine. The trinity still existed even though Christ was on earth. It did not dissolve just because Christ became incarnate. We have a tremendous statement of Christ in John 3:13

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
--Not only is He declaring His deity, He is delcaring His omnipresence. The trinity could not be broken.
--Through his miracles He had demonstrated his omnipotence.
--Through his conversations with different individuals (his prophecies) he had demonstrated his omniscience. He had demonstrated His deity in every way. Yet at the same time Christ is not the Father. He is always distinct from the Father. To say that He is the Father is a heresy. It is a denial of the trinity. There are three distinct persons in one God. If Christ is the Father and the Son at the same time, then the trinity does not exist.

But the oneness of the three is also true, which is why Jesus can truthfully say that if you've seen Him, you've seen the Father. To deny that is to deny the plain meaning of these texts. "I and the Father are one" doesn't just declare the deity of Christ, it identifies the unity of Christ with the Father.

Click to expand...

When Jesus said to Philip "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father," it was again an assertion of His deity. It was no different than an Old Testament saint meeting an "angel of the Lord," or a Christophany. They thought they had seen the very face of God as well.

Jesus was the Word. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father.
This was the only way that God the Father could reveal himself to mankind--through God the Son.
No man hath seen God (the Father) and lived.
DHK

I HOPE you two are agreeing on two aspects of a very important issue: God has unity of nature (being), but distinction of person. The statement from the council of Chalcedon is well put, I think.


Question: How many zen buddhists does it take to change a lightbulb?

Answer: A fish.

(philosophy jokes are not very funny.....)

Originally posted by Humblesmith:
I HOPE you two are agreeing on two aspects of a very important issue: God has unity of nature (being), but distinction of person. The statement from the council of Chalcedon is well put, I think.

Click to expand...

I think it is exactly that - two aspects of a single issue. I don't see the point in pursuing it anymore. It's just splitting hairs.

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Humblesmith:
I HOPE you two are agreeing on two aspects of a very important issue: God has unity of nature (being), but distinction of person. The statement from the council of Chalcedon is well put, I think.

Click to expand...

I think it is exactly that - two aspects of a single issue. I don't see the point in pursuing it anymore. It's just splitting hairs. </font>[/QUOTE]It is not splitting hairs.
Jesus cannot be both the Father and the Son at the same time. They are two entirely different persons of the trinity. To say that they are the same is to lead to a heresy called modalism, and a denial of the trinity. It is an important issue.
It is important to have a good understanding of the trinity, especially when you encounter cults such as the Oneness Pentecostals which don't believe in the trinity.
DHK

Originally posted by DHK:
It is not splitting hairs.
Jesus cannot be both the Father and the Son at the same time. They are two entirely different persons of the trinity. To say that they are the same is to lead to a heresy called modalism, and a denial of the trinity. It is an important issue.
It is important to have a good understanding of the trinity, especially when you encounter cults such as the Oneness Pentecostals which don't believe in the trinity.
DHK

Click to expand...

Whatever. I already said that it does not violate the trinity. Have your fun screaming heresy.

I have encountered the Oneness Pentecostals and they are a trip! I agree it is an important issue, they were swaying Christians left and right with their doctrines. I think DHK is just making a valid point from witnessing the reality.