Q to Ponder. Does the future exist right now?

Why is that? You keep saying this, but I have yet to see any reasonable defense of it.

 

Hello Ben Elohim:

Read your post of 13:15 and I think I may see what you are saying. My intuition is that there is something useful here. I intend to think on what you have said and offer a response. Although the value of these discussions may seem lost on some, I think that the more clarity we can get on such topics, the better able will be able to "offer a defence for the hope that is in us". Its a shame that some presume arrogance on the part of those who are genuinely interested in the pursuit of the truth....

 

Assuming that the "some" is a reference to my comments, I am not presuming anything. Scripture declares it to be arrogance to sit in judgment on God's revelation of himself. I am genuinely interested in the pursuit of the truth. But that truth is found in God's word. To sit in judgment on it and pretend like he really didn't say it is arrogant. It is not "pursuit of the truth."

We have clearly established from Scripture that God knows the future. This discussion can legitimately center on what is the relationship of his knowledge of hte future to the events of the future. There is no legitimate discussion about whether or not he knows the future.

 

What? One can know everything without knowing something?

 

Hello Andre.

EPH 1:11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will...
Since He works out everything in conformity to His will then this must include the future. It includes everything. He makes the future as it is that is why He knows the future because the future is His to make in conformity with His plan.

As to the reality that the future will be as the Lord commanded take a gander at Revelation.

johnp.

 

Ben.

I'm sure Andre is able to decide for himself.

Calvinist glasses? Oh! You mean; The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment: 16 "For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
Those glasses is it?

Never said I had a case. What I said must have aided your cause not the others. I do not understand why you do not accept it. This is what you say isn't it? That the future is not tangible?

That is what I said but you have declared that 'errant interpretation'. See below.

Ok but that is a win for the Calvinists. Away the lads!

johnp.

 

Scripture says that God's know the future. YOu are saying that Scripture is wrong. That is sitting in judgment on Scripture.

Not at all. I am a student at heart. I have devoted my life to inquiring the true meaning of hte Scriptures. But part of that is accepting the truth of Scripture. YOU have not done that. You have said that Scripture, and therefore God, is wrong.

I don't know of any wonder that. The answer is patently clear. 1) The board is not mine to open or close. 2) Both Calvinism and arminianism have always been regarded as within the stream of orthodox Christianity. Open theism has never been regarded as such and with good reason--It is a denial of God.

Neither I nor God are threatened in the least. But I know that God rejects those who sit in judgment on him and his word, and who deny his very character in teh name of "searching." Searching must start with Scripture, not with your own mind. And that is the problem.

I never told anyone not to look. Your questions were answered six pages ago when the Scripture was cited that plainly declears that God knows the future. That should have been the end of the discussion.

Accept that God knows the future and philosophical debates about the future existing or the definition of the future are arrogant affronts to God that should be repented of. The Bible has plainly declared that God knows the future. That should be the end of the discussion.

 

I know what future means in our humans terms. Once again God is not bound by those human terms. He already is the beginning and the end, He already dwells in all of eternity.

Why must this debate continue to return to thinking of the "future" in human terms?

By the way, Calvinism does NOT some into play in my debate. I would not be considered a Calvinist, but I also do not limit an infinite God's omniscience to my finite understanding.

 

And I reply, once again, that the future does exist right now to an eternal, infinite, omniscient God even though temporal, finite, limited knowledge man cannot percieve it.

 

The problem is that we are on tow totally different pages here - I believe that all of eternity exists at this moment, because that is where God dwells. He is not in our human time box.

We are not going to reach a consensus because our basic premise differs. You insist that we define the future in our human terms, you insist that God cannot know a future that you insists does not exist because we can't prove it is there with human reasoning.

Our arguments will continue to run in circles because of that.

But please, do not accuse me of not answering your question. I am not dodging it - I have given you my views.

 

Hello Ben Elohim (and others):

In comparison to the "conventional" view, I think the way that you conceive of this problem is more logical and true to the spirit of using words (and the concepts they point to) properly. However, I wonder whether adopting your perspective really differs from the conventinal one in regard to "practical implications".

It seems more intuitively correct and true to the spirit such concepts as "existence" (for example) to assert that God does not look into a future (that really does not exist), but rather consults His "plans" and undertakes to actualize them. On such a view, the already dubious concept of the "future as a thing that exists" is explanatorily unncecessary. A plan that exists in the mind of an omnipotent God who then acts on it seems to me to be a cleaner way to conceive of things - no need to invoke confusing and fuzzy notions like a "pre-existent" future.

So presumably a verse like EPH 1:11 (Hello Johnp) "In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will..." is to be interpreted as making declarations about God's plans and powers to actualize them rather than about his foreknowledge.

Assuming that you more or less agree with my re-hash of your position, can you let us know if adoption of such a view has any implications other than a more conceptually satisfying and intuitive model of this whole problem domain?

 

Of course, the problem is my perspective, even though you have yet to tell me how Jesus is the beginning and the end when the end does not exist, or explain to me how God can dwell in an eternity that has nothing but the past and present.

 

Once again I prove the future exists because altough it is afternoon there it is bedtime here so I am in the future which already exists .

Our circle has gone nowhere,and I don't see it progressing. I hope you can acknowledge that I am not dodging the question you keep asking however.

Unless you are only looking for answers with which you agree.

Good night.