beads,
Oh paaleeeasse! Nowhere in this thread have I, nor any one else for that matter (other than you), been talking about being able to “know everything that God does.” To me your implications and accusations that I am claiming such a thing seem to be a dishonest subterfuge used in an effort to change the subject and thus not have to answer my questions concerning your beliefs. Now, it very well may be that I am just as wrong in saying that about you as you are when you say: “you need to check your pride at the door and realize who you are in the sight of a holy God. It seems very prideful and presumptuous for you to think that you can know everything that God does and that you can understand His reasoning behind everything He does.” Perhaps we both should forego the personal attacks and the efforts to put words into the other’s mouth and to ascribe improper motives to each other and we should deal only with the subject at hand and only with things that have actually been said. That is what I prefer to do. Is that agreeable to you too?
You say: “I don't try to pretend in any way that I can know that mind of God. He could explain everything in the world to me, but I'm sure I still wouldn't understand it, because I'm not God and I don't have the mind to be able to comprehend His depths.”
I say: When you make the above statement are you saying and meaning that because we limited humans cannot “comprehend his depths” that it is proper and correct for us to view the Bible (God’s mind and thoughts revealed in written form) as incomprehensible and thus our beliefs, based on the Bible, can also be incomprehensible and because of that incomprehensibility it is proper and correct for us to answer questions about our beliefs by saying: “because God said so”? If that is not what you mean, then please explain what point you are trying to make when you say, in effect, ‘God himself could explain it to me and I still wouldn’t understand.’ OR, let me say it the way I did before: “any ‘belief’ or “concept” that is based on a lack of ‘understanding’ or that is ‘beyond’ explanation is very suspicious, wouldn’t you agree?”
No doubt you are aware that some “Christians” still claim that the earth is flat. They even quote many scriptures in support of their claim but when backed into a “corner” about their beliefs they declare “God said it; so I believe it and that is that!” beads, in your view, is that proper and correct? Are they “accurately handling [rightly dividing] the word of truth” or “imparting the word of truth without deviation” (2 Timothy 2:15)? Shouldn’t we be suspicious of such beliefs and those that advocate them? Please explain how that is any different from what you started out saying is the case with the subject at hand.
You say: “God exists outside of time. His knowledge of what is going to happen is not based on Him being able to tell the future. It is based on the fact that everything that happens, happens for Him in the present. He knows "beforehand" what is going to happen, because it is happening in the present to Him.”
I say: Really! What scripture(s) reveals these astonishing “statements of fact” about God? beads I appreciate ‘knowing where you are coming from’ but to me your saying something is so does not make it so! Please pretend that I am from Missouri and “show me,” otherwise I must become even more suspicious of you and what you say.
When you say, “God exists outside of time.” Do you mean that there was no “time” and therefore that no “time” had passed before the creation of the physical universe? Do you mean that there was no “time” before God’s decision to create the physical universe and that no “time” passed between that decision and the actual act of physical creation? Do angels also “exist outside of time”? You say that there is no past or future with God only present correct? So does God count or mark time? If there is only now or the present (this very instant or moment in time) and no passing of time from the future into the past why would God count or mark time? If there is no past or future with God, why did he mislead or at least misrepresent himself to men by having so many descriptions recorded that include such ideas as past and future and all tenses and not just present tense? Isn’t it a fact the he chose those words and tenses and descriptions in order to convey ideas of him to our minds and now it seems you are saying that for all this time those words conveyed the wrong ideas, how can that be?
You say: “God doesn't really have foreknowledge in the sense that we understand the word (knowing something before it happens).”
I say: Again, simply stating that something is such and so without Scriptural support does not cut it with me. What scripture(s) is it that says, “God doesn't really have foreknowledge . . .”? The only scripture you use, Isaiah 46:9-10, certainly makes it sound like God knows things before they happen. In fact you even ask the question: “Is that not foreknowledge?” Why, yes it is! beads please excuse me for being confused by the fact that you are talking in contradictions or at least circles.
You say: “so He already knows what we will choose.” And you also say: “He knows the end of things from the beginning.”
I say: When did he come to have this knowledge that you say he “already knows?” Is it possible for God to be mistaken in what he “knows?”
Again I repeat what I said before: “For God’s ‘knowing’ to be without possibility of error then what he ‘knows’ must be absolutely correct and that necessarily removes free will, right?
You say: “I didn't say that you had. I said that you would.”
I say: I stand corrected.
You say: “The implication is that if I could prove to you election, foreknowledge, etc., then you would not love that God because, in your own words:"The same would be true of God if he extended the invitation of John 3:16 knowing all the while that you can not possibly take advantage of it because you had not been pre-selected or pre-elected or pre-chosen by him. That is not the God I love and worship."”
I say: Does your taking exception to what I said in the above quote mean that you do in fact believe that God extends "the invitation of John 3:16 knowing all the while that [an individual] can not possibly take advantage of it because [that individual] had/has not been pre-selected or pre-elected or pre-chosen by him?” That is the God some, perhaps even most, worship but “that is not the God I love and worship.”
Again repeating, you say: “You seem to be saying that God doesn't know who will accept Him, so that's why He offers it to everyone.”
Again repeating, I say: How else can the love and the invitation be “unconditional?”
I AM STILL WAITING FOR ANSWERS AND SCRIPTURAL EXPLANATIONS.
You say: “Why don't you show me "unconditional" in the Bible.”
I say: I will as it becomes necessary. It is the true nature of God’s love that is the foundation or basis for everything that God DOES DO. Therefore we will have to go into it in order to get a proper and correct understanding of this subject (I was trying to be brief in that post). As for “omniscience” and “omniscient” I will be happy if you will provide me with a Scripture based definition that does not conflict with the true nature of God’s love, fair enough?
You say: “You believe that the call to be saved is unconditional because you understand that the character of God demands that that call be unconditional.”
I say: Absolutely, don’t you?
You say: “From [what] I hear you saying, you believe that God does not know everything. I would certainly like to see the Scriptural evidence for that.”
I say: Ask and you shall receive. The answer will follow shortly in a separate reply. This reply is already too long and what you are requesting requires that explanation be provided along with the scriptures.
But first, as you also said in your post: “perhaps it might help to shed some light on where I'm coming from.” Something just dawned on me that might help clarify my position for you and that I need to know about your position to help clarify your statements. All my argumentation is premised on or is from the viewpoint of how all this applies to an individual rather than to a group or class. The reason I ask is that some of what you say is correct if it is applied to a group or class of persons rather than to an individual. You have provided almost no scripture references so I have not been able to discern for sure which you mean, so which is it? Do all your statements apply to an individual or not? Just as the flat-earth folks reach wrong conclusions because of failing to recognize the symbolic or metaphoric nature of statements made in some scriptures we can misunderstand this subject by failing to recognize when a group is being discussed rather than an individual.
.