-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Foreknowledge and God's Omnipresence
- Thread starter webdog
- Start date
Past..............................Present..............................Future.
When you sit outside the frame of time, you can see both ends, beginning and Future, (end) and everything that will occur between the two.
The only thing that God needs to "predestine" is how he is going to save a lost world, or the plan of salvation.
Giving man a free choice from the beginning, but sitting there looking at the beginning and the end, foreknowing what each individual will chose, without predestining either choice, is a concept few calvinist/Arminians seem to comprehend.
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".
And I see the same problem with "Foreknowledge" and "predestination",
God's foreknowledge of man's choices are as certain as if he had predestine those choices, but he didn't, this is why God can "Truthfully" say he loved the whole world and "Whosoever will" and Justifiably condemn those who, of their own free will, rejected Jesus.
One major problem I find with calvin is that it overlooks the law and the requirement of the law for "Justice", that is equal opportunity, without "prejudice" or "RESPECT OF PERSONS", and this requirement can't be met in a court of law when any two defendants, equally guilty of the same crime, receive two different verdicts, one pardon, one condemned.
A "judge" isn't allowed to issue verdicts based on his "personal predilection", but according to the law and the guilt/innocents of the defendants.
If man is not responsible for his choices, giving the law, warning man to turn from sin, Judgment day, is an excercise in futility.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world,
1Jo 4:8 for God is love.
God can't be anything less that what he is.
When you sit outside the frame of time, you can see both ends, beginning and Future, (end) and everything that will occur between the two.
The only thing that God needs to "predestine" is how he is going to save a lost world, or the plan of salvation.
Giving man a free choice from the beginning, but sitting there looking at the beginning and the end, foreknowing what each individual will chose, without predestining either choice, is a concept few calvinist/Arminians seem to comprehend.
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".
And I see the same problem with "Foreknowledge" and "predestination",
God's foreknowledge of man's choices are as certain as if he had predestine those choices, but he didn't, this is why God can "Truthfully" say he loved the whole world and "Whosoever will" and Justifiably condemn those who, of their own free will, rejected Jesus.
One major problem I find with calvin is that it overlooks the law and the requirement of the law for "Justice", that is equal opportunity, without "prejudice" or "RESPECT OF PERSONS", and this requirement can't be met in a court of law when any two defendants, equally guilty of the same crime, receive two different verdicts, one pardon, one condemned.
A "judge" isn't allowed to issue verdicts based on his "personal predilection", but according to the law and the guilt/innocents of the defendants.
If man is not responsible for his choices, giving the law, warning man to turn from sin, Judgment day, is an excercise in futility.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world,
1Jo 4:8 for God is love.
God can't be anything less that what he is.
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.
The debate that Brandon C. Jones and Humblesmith/Wedog are having is interesting, but it's basically philosophy. As Brandon said, we don't have any Scriptures to indicate how God relates to time. We know that He knows all things including the future - that we all agree on. But exactly how He relates to time is one of those areas where His ways are higher than our ways, IMO.
The "eternal now" theory that is posited by Humblesmith & Webdog was also put forth by Augustine and Acquinas, I believe. I'll admit, it's an enticing theory - one that I used to hold to when I was a non-Calvinist. The problem I have with it are: (a) I find no Scriptural support for it, and (b) philosophically, it necessarily implies that the future (and past) exist ontologically in the same manner as the present. It creates other dimensions that exist in the same manner as the present does. But the Bible doesn't speak of the future this way. Maybe that's anthropomorphism? I don't know. I prefer to see the future as not another dimension that actually exists, but as a blueprint or master plan that God knows in His mind, and He actively works in the present to ordain that master plan and see it come to fruition. Again, most of this is mere speculation on our part.
As to the OP, the "corridors of time" theory of election is exactly what classical Arminianism posits, as Whatever already mentioned. Classical Arminianism is not Open Theism. I just think there is a tendency at times for it to go in that direction. Clark Pinnock is a classic example. He started out a Calvinist, then became Arminian and is now an Open Theist. Those who make that progression usually see God's niceness as His all-important attribute, and so they abandon Scripture in defending that presupposition.
The "eternal now" theory that is posited by Humblesmith & Webdog was also put forth by Augustine and Acquinas, I believe. I'll admit, it's an enticing theory - one that I used to hold to when I was a non-Calvinist. The problem I have with it are: (a) I find no Scriptural support for it, and (b) philosophically, it necessarily implies that the future (and past) exist ontologically in the same manner as the present. It creates other dimensions that exist in the same manner as the present does. But the Bible doesn't speak of the future this way. Maybe that's anthropomorphism? I don't know. I prefer to see the future as not another dimension that actually exists, but as a blueprint or master plan that God knows in His mind, and He actively works in the present to ordain that master plan and see it come to fruition. Again, most of this is mere speculation on our part.
As to the OP, the "corridors of time" theory of election is exactly what classical Arminianism posits, as Whatever already mentioned. Classical Arminianism is not Open Theism. I just think there is a tendency at times for it to go in that direction. Clark Pinnock is a classic example. He started out a Calvinist, then became Arminian and is now an Open Theist. Those who make that progression usually see God's niceness as His all-important attribute, and so they abandon Scripture in defending that presupposition.
Humblesmith
Member
hmmm....I'll have to chew on that a bit. I'm not sure I buy in to all that....but I'll try to get the book you recommended.Originally posted by Brandon C. Jones:
Hub:
Time limits God as much as personhood or incorporealness does, which, in my opinion, doesn't limit Him at all. God has emotions and desires and can't scratch his ear, but we don't say that He is bound by personhood and those pesky emotions and desires that come with it or that He is bound by being a spirit and can't scratch His ear. No, instead we view these as fitting for God and okay. But for some reason we're prejudiced against a sempiternal God for all the wrong reasons and say that He shouldn't be "bound" by time. This prejudice is a carryover from greek philosophy and its influence on classical theism--Scripture has little if anything to do with it.
On the contrary, I believe atemporality limits Him greatly especially in light of triune relationships and the incarnation (which both seem to thrive more with a sempiternal God). Remember Christ speaking of the glory He shared with the Father before the world began? Atemporality requires staticness, not to mention every event existing all at once forever...The Son (or second person of the Trinity if you like) is eternally unincarnated, incarnated, resurrected, and returning forever in eternity. I see no upside to atemporality and a lot of needless headaches. Whereas, there's no downside to sempiternity as long as one doesn't believe that time limits God.
I have found it wise to avoid the word infinite when describing God because it's a rather useless term once we throw all of our qualifiers on it when discussing every divine attribute.
hub...thanks for your thoughtful reply (sometimes a rarity on this board). I hope things are going well at Southeastern
BJ
As for greek philosophy, calling in "leftover from the greeks" is often a whitewash. First, the greeks were often as varied as we are. Second, they had infinite principles, but none of them ever connected it with an infinite being (a god). Greek gods were finite and human-like. Like a superman that can get mad and make mistakes.
But thanks for the comment....I try to stay out of the constant back-and-forth. If we can't learn from each other, why bother?
BTW, it's Southern Evangelical, not Southeastern.
Humblesmith
Member
I guess I see this as an either/or. Either God is "in" time, and therefore limited by it, or He's not limited by time, and therefore above/beyond it. How can He be in time yet not bound by it?Originally posted by Brandon C. Jones:
Hub:
Whereas, there's no downside to sempiternity as long as one doesn't believe that time limits God.
I have found it wise to avoid the word infinite when describing God because it's a rather useless term once we throw all of our qualifiers on it when discussing every divine attribute.
BJ
Further, in our world, time and matter are connected....no matter, no time. We would hold that God created time, therefore He is above it. Admittedly, to us, it's absurd to speak of "time before time." However, I don't think the solution is the one given by William Lane Craig, who teaches that God was eternal, then He created time, and now God is in time. This would make God change in His being, which is untrue.
Fascinating issue.....interesting to talk about.
As for the term "infinite" it merely means "not finite." The theologians speak of something called "via negativa" which is defining some of God's attributes by saying what He's not......He's not finite, not limited in space, not limited in knowledge, etc.
Humblesmith
Member
I agree.......at least, I think I agree. God allowing us to learn would not imply any limit on God,........I think that's what you were saying.
But as someone pointed out, God can't do a lot of things....He can't lie, can't sin, can't violate His own nature, can't cease to be God, etc. So saying that God is without limits does not imply that He can do "anything"......God can't produce an absurdity, such as a square circle, or a stick with only one end on it.
Nor can He be "in time" yet "outside time" at the same instant and in the same sense.
Brandon C. Jones
New Member
well...i avoid most posts as well as back and forth and i'll bow out of this one.
However, let me correct you regarding using greek philosophy as a whitewash. It sometimes is and sometimes isn't scapegoated when discussing such things. But your description of greek thought represented mythology, not the philosophical beliefs of Plato, Aristotle or Plotinus.
Methinks you split hairs defining infinite: as not finite (which would be a negative theology approach), instead of the definition "without limits." Either way I still think it's a useless term in theology.
thanks for the correction on your school's name...i always call it geisler's school to clear up my desire to call it southeastern...my apologies.
regards,
BJ
However, let me correct you regarding using greek philosophy as a whitewash. It sometimes is and sometimes isn't scapegoated when discussing such things. But your description of greek thought represented mythology, not the philosophical beliefs of Plato, Aristotle or Plotinus.
Methinks you split hairs defining infinite: as not finite (which would be a negative theology approach), instead of the definition "without limits." Either way I still think it's a useless term in theology.
thanks for the correction on your school's name...i always call it geisler's school to clear up my desire to call it southeastern...my apologies.
regards,
BJ
Brandon C. Jones
New Member
okay, okay...I always do this and say I won't post anymore and then break it. One more quibble though.
How is it necessary that time and matter are related? Could we not have matter without time and vice versa? This claim seems to be something of a brute fact with little justification.
I reject the notion that God "creates" time in the same way that I reject that He "creates" any other factors related to His existence: personhood, being, omnipotence, etc., etc., etc. We don't say that God creates the concept of personhood, but that He has always operated within such a framework as a person Himself. I claim that God did not create temporal succession, but that He has always operated within such a framework.
okay that's it. back to work
How is it necessary that time and matter are related? Could we not have matter without time and vice versa? This claim seems to be something of a brute fact with little justification.
I reject the notion that God "creates" time in the same way that I reject that He "creates" any other factors related to His existence: personhood, being, omnipotence, etc., etc., etc. We don't say that God creates the concept of personhood, but that He has always operated within such a framework as a person Himself. I claim that God did not create temporal succession, but that He has always operated within such a framework.
okay that's it. back to work
I agree.......at least, I think I agree. God allowing us to learn would not imply any limit on God,........I think that's what you were saying.
But as someone pointed out, God can't do a lot of things....He can't lie, can't sin, can't violate His own nature, can't cease to be God, etc. So saying that God is without limits does not imply that He can do "anything"......God can't produce an absurdity, such as a square circle, or a stick with only one end on it.
Nor can He be "in time" yet "outside time" at the same instant and in the same sense. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, we do agree God can’t learn or do a lot of things (I just struggle whenever using those words)…but He can’t lie, sin, and one of the things I often focus on is that He can’t violate His Own Self derived True Nature…God is Love and Truth, and so for instance when He created the world and said it was “very good” it was the truth. Considering He created the world having the circumstances available for His creatures to freely fall to sin, He must have had the “foreknowledge” of this either by seeing/being in the future or knowing from the circumstances He set forth in creation what would happen within time. My question is what is in the Truth, this takes me directly into who is responsible because God said His creation was good and if He actually abode in the “future” of His creation that would seem to make Him a liar, and would obviously be against His truth nature, would it not?
I tend to believe God “allowed” the fall within the truth of how He created the world; if He created the fall within a “futuristic world” and not just by the circumstances He allowed then the responsibility of that fall would make Him a liar, able to sin, and to violate His self derived nature of Love and Truth; I don’t see how one could get around this without defamation of His character and that end result leaves a god that is not true. I think He allowed us to have the responsibility in our design but also being all-knowing and only loving paid the price for that fall in freely giving Grace.
He knew from the circumstances He created which in design included man having a free will what would happen as shown in His plan of redemption before the foundation. All this points to the responsibility being put on His creatures but with Him omnisciently knowing the result and in being consistent with His good and loving nature He provided a way through His Own sacrifice and “Grace”…consistent with His nature, and because of this Great loving nature and truth within His creation He allowed evil to exist at our responsibility “within time”.
I’m not so sure God cannot also be “outside of time” maybe even having more than one kind of knowledge as compared to the paradox of Trinity, a greater knowledge than we can fully understand. As said, scripture does not spell it out how God abides in/out of time, but it sure seems to be inclusive of past-present-future in truth which must be consistent within His true nature.
The way I look at it, yes, God would be above time as He created it but also in the truth of His nature can’t He be self limited to exist within time “at and for” His pleasure as a truth that He created this world in. If God created the old 2+2=4 to be true can He truthfully make 2+2=5? (laugh! This again) Consider God would also be above sinning or lying as a Self derived being, but is self limited not to as a truth of His Own Self derived nature; what would be the difference here as pertaining to time?
I think this interesting also, BTW, are you sure William Lane Craig actually teaches that God “changed” in His being, or would that just be your conclusion? Because I thought the either/or issue of in/out of time for him was about God’s knowledge not necessarily being limited in full but even more inclusively able to do both and I believe Craig supports eternal security within that frame.
I don't think it necessarily would. Since God existed prior to time and now exists in the past, present and future, His commentary of the creation to us (who are governed by time) is in the past tense, even though He knew what would become of His creation. Another way to look at this would be to say that God knows the "results" of the world (New Heaven and Earth).
The true Calvinist will say that before time, Webdog was elect, and on October 7, 1979, saving faith was given to him to use securing his unconditional "election".
The true Arminian will say that before time, God looked into the future and used His foreknowledge to see that on October 7, 1979 Webdog would become conditionally "elect".
I'm thinking (since I can't know) that God, being truly Omnipresent, existed both before time began and on October 7, 1979 and this moment...all at the same time. In simple, human terms (defined by time) God has predestined me to become His child because He has existed and continually and simultaneously exists every single day from eternity past to eternity future. He is Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnitemporal. He has told man to seek Him and have faith in His Son to go to Heaven. How this all works in the scheme of God's Omniscient Omnipresence, we can't know for certain. I'm guessing that since God exists at this very moment in every and all times, His foreknowledge and predestination are currently happening in synch and apart from human time, remaining 100% Sovereign while still giving man real choices to make, and the ability to seek His face.
The true Arminian will say that before time, God looked into the future and used His foreknowledge to see that on October 7, 1979 Webdog would become conditionally "elect".
I'm thinking (since I can't know) that God, being truly Omnipresent, existed both before time began and on October 7, 1979 and this moment...all at the same time. In simple, human terms (defined by time) God has predestined me to become His child because He has existed and continually and simultaneously exists every single day from eternity past to eternity future. He is Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnitemporal. He has told man to seek Him and have faith in His Son to go to Heaven. How this all works in the scheme of God's Omniscient Omnipresence, we can't know for certain. I'm guessing that since God exists at this very moment in every and all times, His foreknowledge and predestination are currently happening in synch and apart from human time, remaining 100% Sovereign while still giving man real choices to make, and the ability to seek His face.
Marcia
Active Member
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.
It's one thing for God to EXIST in both time and eternity, present, past, and future; but it's quite another for God to KNOW the end from the beginning.
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:
But the biggest question for Webdog, and the rest of us all, to deal with, is not so much the omniscience of God in KNOWING the course of time; but rather, it is the omnipotence of God DETERMINING the end from the beginning.
I believe omnipotence is the trumping attribute of God, and no other attribute may infringe on it. God does not place any self-imposed restrictions on His omnipotence in order to accommodate His other attributes (as if He would have to).
When he says to Moses "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and whom I will I harden", He is revealing the core of His Being - "I Am".
"I will do all my pleasure"
Acts 17 "...and hath determined the times before appointed,"
Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
Any "logical" sequence we follow, no matter where we arrive, must BEGIN with this knowledge, that God, if He be the God of the Bible, is omnipotent and has left NOTHING to chance. His will is not arbitrary, but may be secretive.
When we start with this truth on our journey through the logical consequences, we can never come to a conclusion that leaves God "viewing" time and events as the open theists would have Him doing. And like it or not, any theological system that attempts in any way whatsoever to limit God's power (as does Pelagianism, Arminianism, and all the "semi's" in between) takes us down the road to open theism, and genders questions, rather than answers, as to the nature of the relationship between God and eternity.
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:
But the biggest question for Webdog, and the rest of us all, to deal with, is not so much the omniscience of God in KNOWING the course of time; but rather, it is the omnipotence of God DETERMINING the end from the beginning.
I believe omnipotence is the trumping attribute of God, and no other attribute may infringe on it. God does not place any self-imposed restrictions on His omnipotence in order to accommodate His other attributes (as if He would have to).
When he says to Moses "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and whom I will I harden", He is revealing the core of His Being - "I Am".
"I will do all my pleasure"
Acts 17 "...and hath determined the times before appointed,"
Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
Any "logical" sequence we follow, no matter where we arrive, must BEGIN with this knowledge, that God, if He be the God of the Bible, is omnipotent and has left NOTHING to chance. His will is not arbitrary, but may be secretive.
When we start with this truth on our journey through the logical consequences, we can never come to a conclusion that leaves God "viewing" time and events as the open theists would have Him doing. And like it or not, any theological system that attempts in any way whatsoever to limit God's power (as does Pelagianism, Arminianism, and all the "semi's" in between) takes us down the road to open theism, and genders questions, rather than answers, as to the nature of the relationship between God and eternity.
I don't think it necessarily would. Since God existed prior to time and now exists in the past, present and future, His commentary of the creation to us (who are governed by time) is in the past tense, even though He knew what would become of His creation. Another way to look at this would be to say that God knows the "results" of the world (New Heaven and Earth). </font>[/QUOTE]Well said, though I think for God to be Omnipresent He wouldn’t exist prior to time but time would exist always with Him, He being unchanging, having an eternal tool of time to use as He wills, which also is His pleasure. He could abide within “this” time to be consistently true to His nature of truth, thereby when He said His creation was good within this time, that it was true that His creation was good, and within the circumstances of time and as He created us. Secondly we would still have the P.O.E. coming from an Omnibenevolent God of Truth, so what else could it be but good, unless one believes He created sin. I see the “Problem of Evil” theologically wedging its way into an Omnibenevolent God if He is stuck or bound as an only “out of time” or “futuristic” God, and also this going against His Omnipotent ability to create creatures with free will in the truth as He created them.
Anyway, I think we agree that God knows the results of the world coming to a (New Heaven and Earth) but I might add knowing all within the circumstances He created the world in, as an unchanging truth, that His creatures would have a free will as He created them, in the beginning.
We are told that by a word, “By the word of God the Heavens were of old,” and that one day is as a thousand years and visa-versa showing time has no lock on Him, it’s one way or the other as He pleases, I think, then this along with the next verse in Peter 3 saying God is not slack concerning His promises, that would include all His promises wouldn’t it, one here being God is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
God can accomplish free will, and is not locked out/in of time, yes, He does know the beginning from the end, and still is not slack in His promises, so as a God of Truth His will is that He wants us to seek and come to Him freely, at least in my proof texting from the God of the Bible this all goes together well with how He truthfully and logically created the world and His creatures in the beginning.
Here's the "end declared from the beginning".
When God created the world, it was perfect, then, for some reason, allowed Satan to deceive Eve who in turn deceived Adam, bring sin into the world, but the question that needs answering is why God allowed Satan to deceive Adam/Eve??
Why allow Adam/Eve a choice to begin with, knowing the results and man's wickedness would grieve God of making man???
Ge 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Knowing "what" happens in scripture isn't worth much, but knowing "WHY" it happen explains "everything".
The answer to the question I asked is one that calvinist reject, because it destroyed calvin's doctrine.
Just as Adam/Eve were given a choice, so are we, so God giving man the autonomy to make a choice evidently has a purpose, but what purpose??
Man was created in the "image of God", and God is love, God's grace is love, and just as God is "FREE" to give that love (Grace) to whom he choses, so can man, that's the nature of love.
Jos 24:15 choose you this day whom ye will serve;
Ro 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
God commands man to love him, but it's a commandment man can break or honor,
everything in scripture turns on this "ONE POINT", LOVE
Mr 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
"GRACE" is "LOVE", freely given, Freely received, Love can't exist except in a state of "Free will", as is stated about God's grace.
I can't predestine God to love me, God can't predestine me to love him, I can chose to love God, God can chose to love me,
Without a choice by both God and man, love can't exist or be exchanged between the two.
That's why Adam/eve, you, me and everyone else must make the choice to Love God or God won't love us. (grace)
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"???
Humblesmith
Member
Wow, several really good posts. Too much for me to digest in one sitting. Thanks for the good discussion.
However, I will address one thing: It's been said several times that scripture does not address God's relation to time. How about these:
1 Cor. 2:7: No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began .
2 Tim. 1:9: who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time ,
Titus 1:2: a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time ,
Plus, there are verses that say that God "framed the ages" (Heb. 1:2) and was "before all ages" (Jude 25).
So here are three verses that say, flatly and plainly, that God is before the beginning of all time (chronos, chronon: sequential time).
I'll have to study on the other comments. Cool stuff.
However, I will address one thing: It's been said several times that scripture does not address God's relation to time. How about these:
1 Cor. 2:7: No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began .
2 Tim. 1:9: who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time ,
Titus 1:2: a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time ,
Plus, there are verses that say that God "framed the ages" (Heb. 1:2) and was "before all ages" (Jude 25).
So here are three verses that say, flatly and plainly, that God is before the beginning of all time (chronos, chronon: sequential time).
I'll have to study on the other comments. Cool stuff.
Time is a function of sin, no sin, no time.
God told Adam, in the day you sin, you die.
A day with God is a thousand years, Adam lived 930 years but still died in the day he sinned.
No person has lived a thousand years since sin enter the world, all have sinned and all have died in the day they sinned.
However, those saved will live and reign with Jesus for a thousand years and not die, proving Jesus removed all our sins.
God told Adam, in the day you sin, you die.
A day with God is a thousand years, Adam lived 930 years but still died in the day he sinned.
No person has lived a thousand years since sin enter the world, all have sinned and all have died in the day they sinned.
However, those saved will live and reign with Jesus for a thousand years and not die, proving Jesus removed all our sins.