Trintarian Warfare theodicy

[N/A Gone]

I tried to post this on the "question" thread, but I guess it is more of a debate thing...but I am very serious about this..
--------------
As a protestant I was considered an expert in the field of trinitarian warfare theodicy (*also called neo-mohlinism, or Open Theism) this is a common issue of debate within the evangelical community. As a catholic(long story) I have spent much time and energy debating this view as a valid expression of theodicy within doctrine. The problem is that I have only been able to find intellectuals with a thomist background and they historically don't like mohlism.

The dependence on platonic time is a hinderence here. I wish someone would decree that there are other ways to see this argument. Molinism, and neo molinism both consider God's middle knowledge, and accept that God knows all the possible outcomes perfectly, but there is an uncertainty at what we actually choose. God is always prepared, but the decision we make is not declared, so I am not saying God doesn't know, just that it isn't there to be known. I have check with priests, theologians and a bishop and the view of open theism acceptable within the church is mixed with them.

Augustine never thought of time in the sense that Thomas did, that is the hinderence in this argument. Also, you cant say it is free will, but that the will is known in choice, or determined, for that is not a free will, rather it is an inclined will. We must hold free will "as the second best give only to salvation" that God gives us. It is possible to reconcile this with predestination and other doctrines.

open theism is not a threat towards immutability.

a platonic influence that smokes late patristic thought. In Plato's system change, or the exposure to something changing has to cause either a better or a worse in the character BUT, Plato only thought that for creations that were incomplete. His concept of a complete creation would not be changed by exposure to things changing. So, even Plato would disagree here.

platonic time is that the concept that time is an experience that demands all function to be changed. Modern cosmology is debated on whether time is a function of science, or just a man made measure. For us, as temporal in the flesh we can record how we are changed, but it isn't a dimension that allows movement.

I do not believe omniscience is even redefined at all, i think it is the same, the essence of time is the only difference factor.

Immutability is seen within that time change or view. I still don't feel it is changed much. I am truthful in this.

I have an undergrad at a protestant school(double major pastoral leadership and bib/Theo studies and a minor in general studies patristic philosophy) but my masters program is catholic. I am not done with it yet, but I have formal catholic training in dogmatics as well as philosophy. I don't often argue with philosophy because my protestant roots run deep and it isn't common there. But I do have formal knowledge and concepts in philosophy. Trinitarian Warfare theodicy(the formal term for open theism) was my field as a protestant, so I have spent years on these subjects and as I became to catholicism this was the first issue I put through a fiddler. I am a catholic by faith, but my world view is open theism. My lens is open theism. I hope I have made sense.

I believe God knows everything, the argument is not that God doesn't know for that is heresy. Rather that the future is not a dimension that is determined. Time is simply a way of recording change in finite beings. That being said i affirm that God knows every possible action and influence perfectly, but for an action to be certain would to mean that we are determined,as a finite being we cant determine something in the future. So does that mean God does it for us? or that our actions are not determined? For a free will is influenced, but not controlled by outside factors. hope that helps for God, or anyone to "know" for certain what your choice will be means it is determined(or settled) which you can not freely settle at this moment, so that means you are there no freely choosing and the influences decide for you, or that God decides for you. This is where Calvinism gets much of its headwind from. the free will is the will the freely chooses, and to freely choose is to decide yourself, thus it is not set until the moment you decide. God knows all the possible choices and prepares for them perfectly, but not the actual choice you will make Ironically my work in the patristic proof for openness was something that brought me back to the church. Dr. Greg Boyd whom I personally mentored under is one of the better known evangelical apologetic theologians. He was one of the first theologians(catholic or protestant) to directly provide an official attack against the Jesus Seminar. He has written many books on these issues.

I don't feel the church has missed this. My understanding of official church doctrine is that predestination and free will both exist and there is nothing official forcing one view or the other. Also, from my talks with priests, catholic theologians and a bishop open theism works within catholicism. Many can argue that the works around Molinism, as well as Augustine in De lib arb(before retractions) point to a view as this. A clear exegesis of JOB points to an openness as well. The problem is as a thomist this view is hard to work along with the pseudo Calvin theory of time. IF the time theory is correct than I am in the wrong. But understand this debate is not about God, but rather the essence of what time is.

Also, as JPII wrote, the RC church has brought in gifts from the protestant churches. The RC church is complete in what we need for salvation, but to claim the theology and understanding is better than anything the protestants or Greek Orthodox do is prideful and ignorant. I G.O. have far better pneumatology, the evangelicals have a better understanding of personal intimacy, and who is going to knock what CS lewis has done for the church? What about eccesiology? even Avery Dullies will quote Dr. Braaten as an authority. Realize that the church has separations and those who call on God contribute to our understanding of Him. Remember as painful as the reformation was, it did trigger the counter reformation. The church does need to come to a more clear understanding of issues from time to time. Vat 2 proves that. and as I have said, this issue is more about time and stepping away from a platonic view of perfection

btw..Open theism is not processed theology

Weird, in any other arena this does not come up, but when I speak to educated catholics the default is to compare the two. Thats not bad, just interesting. This summer when I spent much time in dialogue with my priest and bishop about T.W.T.(the proper term, trinitarian warfare theodicy, or better yet neo-molinism) we first sorted this out. The short answer is that there are many parallel ideas between process and open theism (primarily the relation of time to creation; i.e. pansequentialism), but the sources of authority are completely different. Open theism arises out of biblical convictions and process is a philosophical metaphysic based on insights of Whitehead and Hartshorne. Open theists are usually Evangelical, process theists are not. Most of the controversy around open theism occurs within
evangelicalism where the concern is that it is a slippery slope infiltration from liberal theology.
Bottom line: Openness doesn't deny God's "self sufficient aseity" whereas Process theism does. The difference is the Trinity. Openness affirms that God is eternally "self-sufficient" in his internal
rationality whereas Process thought thinks the necessary rationality is between God AND THE WORLD.


This is more of a rejection of the Greek idea of actuality being the perfection of potentiality, which is heavily drawn on in the church. But I have a few problems with this.

* this is Plato, not the bible. In the Bible God interacts with us and
reacts to us, showing that God is in sequence with us.
* The center of our faith and the definitive revelation of God is Jesus
Christ. Taking our greatest clue for what God is like from the person of
Jesus Christ, how on earth would anyone come to the conclusion that God
is non-sequential. In Christ, the Word "was made" flesh." What does
this mean if it doesn't mean a) the was a "before" the Word was made
flesh and b) an "after" the Word was made flesh.
* what is imperfect about experiencing sequence? Plato thought a being
can only change for the better or for the worse, hence a perfect being
can't change at all, in any respect, and thus can't have a 'change in
time." But its bad reasoning. A perfect being can change not to
become better or worse, but just because ITS PERFECT TO CHANGE -- say,
in response to changing circumstances.
* God certainly doesn't measure time as we do -- for time is nothing
other than the measurement of change. But this is not to say God is not
IN SEQUENCE with us.
* the idea that all events in history are simultaneous from God's
perspectiveperspecdtive creates many problems. E.g. how can God eternally
experience a world that didn't timelessly exist? How are we free if
there never was a "before" to our free decisions? How can God BECOME
incarnate if he's eternally been incarnate? How does God respond to
anything if there's no before and after with him? Etc...
* Holding God timeless views reality doesn't give God any advantage
providentially. He's just eternally condemned to viewing how bad it all
turned out. The only God who can make a difference in how things turn
out is one who can ALTER a future that might otherwise have been.
* Quantum Theory, Neuroscience, Chaos Theory, Complexity Theory and
non-equilibrium thermodynamics are all moving in the direction of
affirming that sequence is REAL. TIME is becoming an necessary aspect of
their equations.
The core idea to me is that existence is fundamentally sequential. Even the expansion and collapse of the Universe points to this. Every thing that exists experiences befores, durings, and afters. How that is measured is what we call "time". But that sequence occurs is the basic idea. Even for God, as God is relational within the Trinity. Otherwise, God would not be an active, dynamic, Creator God, but simply a divine first idea that somehow actualized existence without actually doing anything. Every
verb in our language presupposes sequence. the non-sequential God is the ultimate God. So God in himself is non-sequential. If the reply is that God's sequential experience is just as fundamental as his non-sequential nature, then the statement "God is both sequential and non-sequential" constitutes a contradiction -- God is "A" and "not A". What does "sequential" mean if its not the denial of
"non-sequential" and vice versa.

All of this assumes that "perfect knowledge of reality" is equivalent to "knowledge of what shall be" which assumes that reality is exhaustively settled from all eternity, otherwise God couldn't know it as such. Why assume this? Might it be that possibilities are REAL? And if possibilities are real, an omniscient God would know it as such? Why assume reality is eternally and exhaustively settled?

Its an odd view that comes from Plato, not the Bible.
open theism says some things are settled, but most are open. It doesn't limit God. even the things that are open the perfectly understands as possibilities. Also, Christ, as the creeds say, has always been. And the role of Mary, as one of the possibilities, was always known. I'm not arguing that God doesn't know the future. I just say he knows it as possibilities, not as absolutes.

yes, I affirm God knows everything that will and can happen. But he knows them as possibilities based on all possible outcomes available, and in this perfect middle knowledge(the term molinists use) God still knows absolutely all that will be. He can be prepared and work with anything because of this perfect knowledge. Yet, it is still open to the choices of our free will. There are times in the scripture, old test mostly where God asks a question or tests someone. We believe God knows all the possible outcomes perfectly, but which one is chosen is Dependant on our free will.

I'm sorry for the sheer length of this, but I wanted to put the concept, as well as the popular catholic objections on the table. Thank you for any time you put into this. Btw. I know “ott” determines Open theism to be a heresy, but in its understanding of open theism I believe it was influenced by anti-open theists(*like using jack chick as a source of whats wrong with Marian devotion)

[Myles Domini]

I categorically oppose Open Theism. Man's knowledge of time as a measure of movement between a and b is apprehended by memory and foresight. God however is timeless and exists in a never passing instant, the whole span of History is known to Him in that instant. God does not view time as we do, God has no time to view, He does not anticipate He knows.

The future for God is not undecided and cannot be undecided. The only way molinism would work would be if God were not timeless because then His knowledge would dependent on a time that has not yet occured. However, God is timeless Augustine taught this and Boethius, Aquinas and every Catholic doctor in good standing thereafter has taught this.

God already knows the outcome of everything. Before He created me He knew the final destination of my soul. I dont know it because I am spacio-temporal being who must experience memory and foresight but God knew exactly what I would choose before I chose it because of His vantage point. God doesn't force me to choose anything but He does know what I will choose before I do so. He cannot not know because He is timeless.

Does this make my life determined? No it doesn't. Can I do anything other than what God knows I will do. No I cannot. But the key thing is that God doesn't force me to do those things. He knows what I will do because He is timeless and being timeless He cannot fail to know anything. Yet He knows what I will choose because I am the one doing the choosing. In His never passing instant He has knowledge of all my choices because the whole of time appears before His eyes like a big tapestry of which He is equally able to apprehend all parts at once--bad analogy. God knows it because I choose it, I dont choose it because God makes me choose it. Its because a timeless being has a fundamentally different knowledge of things than a being in time. God does not have foreknowledge because God does not have time. He sees all and knows all because He is timeless. He knows exactly how my life will turn out but only because He sees all of time in His instant and thus sees all the choices contained therein at once.

To me thats not determinsm. It would only be determined if God was forcing me to choose what I choose and He doesnt. He knows what I will choose, He cannot fail to know because He has no time, but He doesnt will me to choose, for example, sin. Even though God knows my whole life it doesnt compromise my freedom of choice because my perception of time is completely contrasting to God's. God knows things because I choose them and being in a never passing instant He cannot help but see those choices. He doesnt choose my life for me.

[N/A Gone]

tooo....tired....will...reply...tommorow...thanks for the time, check the bar for refreshments and general fellowship..goodnight

[N/A Gone]

oh, i have a 3 hour study hall tommorow...I shall return.(*im not usually random like this, just so tired)

[N/A Gone]

too much hmwk...I will try to reply this weekend

[rkwright]

well I'm really interested in following this debate, though I kinda wanted to throw in some quick clarifying questions.

Rev -> Don't take this the wrong way, but I found your orginal post a little hard to follow. It seemed to jump around from idea to idea a lot. But lemme see if I get what you're saying.

There is some other sort of 'time' element that God is in, or God is sequintial being. God doesn't change because he is the perfect being, but being in sequence with us, He is always perfect in what sequence He is currently in. The future is not known by God because simply the future is not there to be known.

Does that sum it ok? A basic understanding of what your saying?
Again this is just for my own clarification purposes so I can follow through the arguments here.

Edited December 2, 2005 by rkwright

[N/A Gone]

Yea, the thing is we are in what we call "purgatory week" which is the 2 weeks before finals where we need to cram all our knowledge and tests. So Im using Phatmass as a distraction from a 8 page greek take home test.

So, briefly rkright, My original post is hard to follow cause I started thinking of common catholic objections and answering them at the same time. it was late, so I should re-edit it.

A major premise, of u read my post is that the platonic system of time is not accurate, yet this is what most theology uses. Using a biblical relational view of God, as well as an understanding of modern cosmology shows that time isnt really a thing, but rather a way for us to measure change that finte objects undergo. But it isnt a dimension. In this thinking we must remember that Platonic thought said that a creature in perfection cant change or have different stimulus, because he couldnt maintain perfection and would either improve or decline. So this whole concept of "out of time" came out. But this is unbiblical and unlogical.

so basically open theism takes this one step farther. In that the future has not happened yet. And we are finite creatures we can not determine our destinys for we do not know all the different factors. But God knows all the factors so he knows all the possibilities, yet because we have free will the future is still known to God in possibilities. Perfect knowledge of those possibilites, but still not determined unless God wants to step in an settle something.

Im gonna have to play more with this later, and get back to Myles post this weekend sometime.

[rkwright]

hah yea, we're about into our dead week before finals also... and I have a large management test tomorrow (probably not as hard as greek though).

I found this link on wikipedia
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Theism"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Theism[/url]
and it basically confirms what you posted a second ago

[N/A Gone]

you want a source than grab "is God to blame" by Dr. Greg Boyd..there are 2 problems with open theism information.

1.) the common "facts" on it are mostly based on the slander Bruce Ware of John piper have said on it. Which is like having Jack Chick as an expert in marian doctrine.

2.) also, like most protestant related doctrines it will vary based on the theologian or school of thought. This is kind of like how all catholics believe in salvation, but a thomist will have a slightly different response than a Jesuit on the function of it. Myself, I come from the Boyd school of thought.

wikipedia often scares me, so dont base much into it..if you want a quick 411 get the book "is God to blame" by greg boyd

[N/A Gone]

[quote]I categorically oppose Open Theism. Man's knowledge of time as a measure of movement between a and b is apprehended by memory and foresight. God however is timeless and exists in a never passing instant, the whole span of History is known to Him in that instant.[/quote]

*** I know why Plato held this. But why would someone who believes in the bible?

[quote]God does not view time as we do, God has no time to view, He does not anticipate He knows. [/quote]

*** Well then.

[quote]The future for God is not undecided and cannot be undecided.[/quote]

***"cannot be"??? really?/ What if God WANTED to create a world where everything fact wasn't eternally decided. Is he saying he COULDN'T? Poor God could not experience a new thing if he wanted to!

[quote]The only way molinism would work would be if God were not timeless because then His knowledge would dependent on a time that has not yet occured.[/quote]

*** Not sure what this has to do with open theism, but its a non-interesting assertion. Tell it to William Lane Craig, the main defender of Molinism today -- and a staunch temporal theist.

[quote]Before He created me He knew the final destination of my soul[/quote]

*** Assertions repeating assertions. Is there an argument anywhere in here?

[quote] I dont know it because I am spacio-temporal being who must experience memory and foresight but God knew exactly what I would choose before I chose it because of His vantage point. God doesn't force me to choose anything but He does know what I will choose before I do so. He cannot not know because He is timeless.[/quote]

*** Which is why he speaks of the future in terms of "ifs" and "mights" and "perhaps" in Scripture all the time?

[quote]Does this make my life determined? No it doesn't. Can I do anything other than what God knows I will do. No I cannot. But the key thing is that God doesn't force me to do those things. He knows what I will do because He is timeless and being timeless He cannot fail to know anything. [/quote]

Of course, noone is saying God can fail to know anything. We're saying God IS ABLE to create a world where outcomes are POSSIBLE -- maybe this way, maybe that way. Your friend denies God's omnipotence because he says God CANNOT create a possibility if his life depended on it. Poor God.

[quote]Yet He knows what I will choose because I am the one doing the choosing. In His never passing instant He has knowledge of all my choices because the whole of time appears before His eyes like a big tapestry of which He is equally able to apprehend all parts at once--bad analogy. God knows it because I choose it, I dont choose it because God makes me choose it. Its because a timeless being has a fundamentally different knowledge of things than a being in time. God does not have foreknowledge because God does not have time. He sees all and knows all because He is timeless. He knows exactly how my life will turn out but only because He sees all of time in His instant and thus sees all the choices contained therein at once. [/quote]

*** These are DECREES from an omniscient person who apparently needs no argumentation. There's no any argument here, either from scripture or philosophy.

Seems to me the God of the Bible is not frozen in eternal facts. Doesn't he talk about remembering and anticiapting the future alot? (hint: HE DOES) About regretting how decisions he's made turn out (e.g. Gen.6:6; I Sam. 15:12), about changing his mind after he's declared his intention to do something (Jere. 18:1-10), about the future being "if" and "maybe" and "perhaps" (e.g. Ex. 3:18-4:9; Ezek. 12:2-3; Ex. 13:17). Maybe the biblical authors should read Augustine and Boethius and Aquinas and other theologians in good standing.

[quote]To me thats not determinsm. It would only be determined if God was forcing me to choose what I choose and He doesnt. He knows what I will choose, He cannot fail to know because He has no time, but He doesnt will me to choose, for example, sin. Even though God knows my whole life it doesnt compromise my freedom of choice because my perception of time is completely contrasting to God's. God knows things because I choose them and being in a never passing instant He cannot help but see those choices. He doesnt choose my life for me  [/quote]

So you must have eternally chosen the facts of you life -- since the facts are eternal?

btw, i doubt Augustine would have sided theologically with this time model. But, it was more that all philosophy and science at that time held onto a plato model. Where as science now shows different. See, this isnt a theological issue, rather an issue over the nature of time.

im gonna try to do my greek now..

[jmjtina]

First of all, after googling Dr. Boyd's thoughts (which paraphrased yours) this was his thoughts in a nutshell. (yes a nutshell)

[quote]Dr. Boyd:
“We create the reality of our decisions by making them. And until we make them, they don't exist…There simply isn't anything to know until we make it there to know. So God can't foreknow the good or bad decisions of the people He creates until He creates these people and they in turn create their decisions.” We must reject this unscriptural teaching. [/quote]

If decisions cannot be determined until they are made, hence mere [i]ideas[/i], how is it that God can know us before we were formed in the womb? How is it that He saw our sins, died for our sins, before we even exsisted on the Cross? He knew what our choice would be till the end of time. The decisions we would make, good and bad. If not, He wouldn't have been crucified for all, but only for those of his time.

God simply knows who will and will not freely respond to His eternal plan of salvation. And according to that knowledge, He works all things together for good in a way that is beyond our comprehension.

[Myles Domini]

[quote]For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly percieved in the things that have been made.--Romans 1:19-20[/quote]

From Sacred Scripture we have the mandate to look at the world and see therein the evidence of God's existence, a mandate confirmed by the First Vatican Council. Through light of human reason we can determine that God exists and from that we can also determine certain things about Him e.g. God is perfect act and all that includes. If time is:

[quote]a way for us to measure change that finte objects undergo[/quote]

Then how can time effect God whose very essence is energetic? God is perfect act, as such He is timeless because there is no motion in Him. God's view of our existence is reflective of His stance as prime mover behind it. For Open Theism to be correct God would have to be a being in motion, which is why you are correct in drawing out from my words the conclusion that God couldn't make a world in which He could not experience a new thing. By God's nature that is impossible.

Equally it is impossible for God to do evil and various other things because He is He who [i]is[/i]. God knows the future you and I have not yet created (humanly speaking) because He is. We are in time experiencing motion and measuring it but for God there is no motion as natural theology illustrates. From God's perspective thus of what we are experiencing is present in God's experience, He doesn't foreknow it because He is not moving, He just knows it because of what and where He is. There is no part of the future unknowable to God, what we do He knows, and we couldnt do anything without Him knowing it because He is timeless.

Having recourse to Scripture and the way God speaks through the Sacred Authors doesn't change God's motionless act. Even John Calvin taught the hermenutical key of 'accomodation' and it would be quite simple to apply that rule here to various passages in Sacred Scripture which appear to posit change in God. The New Testament might be contained in the Old Testament but the Old Testament is revealed in the New Testament. There were many things that Jesus illustrated had been accomodated to the understanding of the people Israel under the Old Dispensation. It is not beyond reason that God being in motion can be added to this list e.g.

[quote]Jesus said to him, "Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the pickle crows, you will deny my three times--Matthew 26:34[/quote]

[quote]He said, "I tell you, Peter, the pickle will not crow this day, until you three times deny that you know me--Luke 22:34[/quote]

[quote]Jesus answered, "Will you lay down your life for me? Truly, truly I say to you, the pickle will not crow, till you have denied me three times--John 13:38[/quote]

Prior to Peter acting it is clear that Our Lord knows exactly what he will do and though Peter protests that he will do otherwise thus implying that the Divine Word speaks untruth, Christ's knowledge of the future is duly vindicated. Peter might not have known how he would act but God did and the same goes for us all. Though we might not have even lived it yet, our futures are all known to God in His never passing instant.

INXC
Myles

PS) Good luck with your Greek
PPS) The problem I see with Dr Boyd's quote as tina presents it is that he acts as if God has foreknowledge. God does not foreknow anything, foreknowledge is a concept that only a being in motion could have. God does not move. He is perfect act. What He knows, He has known and always will know.

[N/A Gone]

friend,

google is the bathroom stale wall of the world. Ive known boyd personally, so let me explain

[quote]If decisions cannot be determined until they are made, hence mere [i]ideas[/i],[/quote]

they are not determined, but all the possibilities are known,. and God knows them perfectly. So it isnt that we are creating things unknown to God just that we are determing what choice we choose.

[quote]how is it that God can know us before we were formed in the womb?[/quote]
how couldnt he? Im not arguing that God doesnt know us. Just that the future doesnt exist yet in a determined factor. It is like saying God cant see the monkey on my lap. We are not arguing about what God can and cannot do, we are arguing over the monkey. So, i dont get ur problem

[quote]How is it that He saw our sins, died for our sins, before we even exsisted on the Cross?[/quote]

he knew humanity would sin, we have original sin, we are trapt in this system. WHen Christ died on the cross he fixed that system. Not the direct payment for each sin, but rather the system itself. Thats why perfect knowledge of an event that hasnt happened yet isnt needed

[quote]He knew what our choice would be till the end of time.The decisions we would make, good and bad. If not, He wouldn't have been crucified for all, but only for those of his time. [/quote]

I disagree and say that if he knew a design perfectly before we determined it, being that we cant determine the future because we dont know all the factors than God is responsable for that future action because He would be the only one to determine it. Thats a standard calvinist flag that to my knowledge was rejected at the council of orange as well as the Jansenism heresy. Augustine(pre retractions) would have thrown a fit at the concept of us not having a free will. And in your concept there is no free will. The cross was to fix the broken system, for all, not the individual offense. As St. Paul says, Christ died once, he doesnt continue to die everytime we sin.

[quote]God simply knows who will and will not freely respond to His eternal plan of salvation. [/quote]

I disagree strong again, this sounds like calvinism. I would need to ask,. if it is determined and we cant determine it, than God is determining it cause he is the only one who can, thus he is responsable for us being seperated from him? Or perhaps he only wanted a few to be saved? Sir, this doesnt work in any form of metaphysic. God desires all to be saved, yet all are seperated and our will, our charicter being drawn back and accepting a relationship with God is what will bring us back to him. This happens because in love you must freely choose, and in that love their is a risk that one might not choose. This is what has happened here. God loves us and allows us the choice to choose him or not, and because we determine that choice it is not settled exhaustivly until we determine it. Thus God will not know it until it is for certain, he will know all the possibilities but the actual desicion is our free will choice to make

[quote]And according to that knowledge, He works all things together for good in a way that is beyond our comprehension.[/quote]

He has knowledge of all the possibilites and can work with whatever happenes. But, if you are saying God knew exactly every choice that would ever be made would you still think he would have wanted the fall? Or the holocaust? Bad things happen from the direct results of our indepentant free willed choices, God knows the possibility and the risk, but it is our choice, which is why it is us who will be judged by them

[rkwright]

hmm something occured to me

1-If God does not know the decisions made by people until they are actually made, then God would not have known that Adam was to sin because there was nothing to know. And if God did not know man would fall until man did fall then there is no reason why God the Son would always exist. But this is unscriptural (John 1) and heretical (Jesus being begotten not made due to someone sinning). Therefore God must have known that Adam would sin as evidenced by the Word always existing.

2- On the other hand, if God knew all possibilities, but did not know the actual course of events or the actual decesions that are made. Knowing all the possibilities Christ has a possibility of a role (since there is a possibility of Adam sinning), BUT there is also a possibility of Christ having no role (since Adam never sinning is also a possibility, or all of mankind at that). But that doesn't seem to make much sense that God would be 3 in 1 only to 'possibily' have a purpose. Why would God have a role that was never fufilled.

3- How do the prophets work? Are they shown one of the 'possibilities' that God sees? But why prophets if there is a good chance it won't come true. Is Revelation nothing more than a possible outcome of our actions? That would actually unprove most of the Bible, all of revelation has a 'possibility' of not being true. And for the old testament, it would mean that when it was written it was not 'truth' it was a mere possibility. Through the actions of men we made it truth, through our choices we fufilled the prophets; but that would mean that at that point the old testament wasn't true until we made it true, and that all of revelation is not true until we choose to make it true.

Just some thoughts...I could be way off though

[Myles Domini]

One quick point rkwright. God the Son exists from eternity because God is irreducibly Trinitarian. The Son's existence does not depend on creation. Hence my object to the terms 'creator, redeemer, sanctifier'. God is eternally Trinity.

Phatmass wont let me quote Jesus' prophesy about Peter's denials. Gotta love it!