• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

God's Omniscient

Binyawmene

Junior
Joined
Jun 4, 2023
Messages
452
Reaction score
351
Points
63
Location
Ohio
Faith
Reformed Christian. Trinitarian/Hypostatic Unionist.
Country
USA
There are two heretical views of Molinism and Open Theism. They use the same Scriptural examples but with a different interpretation.

a). Molinism teaches a possible future: There are some instances in Scripture where God gives information about events that might happen but that do not actually come to pass based on human free will.

Let’s look at one of their Scriptural examples:

Matthew 11:21-23 Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.

Their interpretation suggests that God knowing the future contains possible outcomes based on the actions of human free will. That God knows the future about these towns in both actual (since the people chose to remain unrepented) and possible (if only the person has repented). Then those towns would have remained in existence, even in the time era of Jesus Christ, but their future didn’t come to pass.

b). Open Theism teaches an uncertain future: There are some instances in Scripture where God doesn’t know the future, the future is open and not ordained, and the future becomes uncertain based on human free-will.

Let’s look at one of their Scriptural examples:

Jeremiah 3:19-20 I myself said, ‘How gladly would I treat you like my children and give you a pleasant land, the most beautiful inheritance of any nation.’ I thought you would call me ‘Father’ and not turn away from following me. But like a woman unfaithful to her husband, so you, Israel, have been unfaithful to me, declares the Lord.​

Their interpretation suggests that God doesn’t know the future and there are uncertain outcomes based on the actions of human free will. That God himself thought about one thing (if they remain faithful) but another thing happened (since they were unfaithful), God was under the impression (or I thought) that Kingdom of Israel would be his children, and he will be their Father. But he had to discover this since the future is uncertain. Israel were unfaithful and never came back after their captivity.

What would be your arguments against these two heretical views?
 
What would be your arguments against these two heretical views?
Welll....

To start with, it is important to have a correct definition or understanding of divine omniscience because that doctrine is logically limited. God can and does know all that is logically knowable. Omniscience does not mean God's knowledge can be contradictory. Divine omniscience does not mean God knows how to make a spherical cube, or a square circle. Those two conditions are, by definition, logical contradictions.

The Molinist and the Open theist believe the future is to one degree or another unknowable. They, therefore, believe it is consistent and not contrary to divine omniscience to say God does not know the future because divine omniscience does not require Him to know anything unknowable.


The problem is the future is known! There is a beginning to creation, and there is an end to creation. That end has been decided and established. Therefore, every causal act or condition that exists between the beginning and the end conspires to conclude at the fixed endpoint, which has already been determined and is known. The Molinism and Open Theism are predominantly concerned with salvation and how, how much, and whether God knows or has decided who is/will be saved (or not). To the degree that the aforementioned end of all things is predicated upon people getting saved - which is the whole point of the entire Bible if, in fact, the scriptures are all Christological from beginning to end. Once the inherent Christological nature of scripture is conceded, so too is the necessity of divine omniscience in every regard that has to do with the singular fixed endpoint of God's creation.

If time is construed as football shaped, rather than a single line, both of which have a single point of origin and a single point of conclusion. The Molinist and Open theist might assert the premise of stuff happening in the bulbous portion of the football-shaped timeline that isn't necessarily required to the achieve the endpoint. Perhaps that is correct but that is entirely a matter of conjecture, and that conjecture runs into difficulties with many verses in scripture, like God knowing our words before we speak them (Ps. 139:4), or nothing in creation being hidden from God (Heb. 4:13). These verses have to be read and interpreted differently, or atypically, to be compatible with Molinism or Open Theism.

Isaiah 46:8-11
Remember this, and be assured; Recall it to mind, you transgressors. "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure'; Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it.

That passage was written about specific conditions existing in the days of Isaiah but if taken as a principle that is generalizable and applicable to other circumstances then it does not leave any room for God not knowing anything and everything pertaining to the end and the beginning and God's purposes thereof.
 
Welll....

To start with, it is important to have a correct definition or understanding of divine omniscience because that doctrine is logically limited. God can and does know all that is logically knowable. Omniscience does not mean God's knowledge can be contradictory. Divine omniscience does not mean God knows how to make a spherical cube, or a square circle. Those two conditions are, by definition, logical contradictions.

Thanks for your reply. Would you consider this to be a good definition?

God's knowledge, often referred to as divine omniscience, is the attribute by which God fully knows Himself and all things in one simple and eternal act. This knowledge is perfect, complete, and without limitation, encompassing all events past, present, and future. It is an essential aspect of God's nature, reflecting His infinite wisdom and understanding.​

The Molinist and the Open theist believe the future is to one degree or another unknowable. They, therefore, believe it is consistent and not contrary to divine omniscience to say God does not know the future because divine omniscience does not require Him to know anything unknowable.

I have recently come across a Unitarian who believes that God is not omniscient, and he holds to Open Theism.

The problem is the future is known!

This is very unique way of stating the Biblical position. I am thinking more like: "The Bible teaches a predetermined future."

There is a beginning to creation, and there is an end to creation. That end has been decided and established. Therefore, every causal act or condition that exists between the beginning and the end conspires to conclude at the fixed endpoint, which has already been determined and is known. The Molinism and Open Theism are predominantly concerned with salvation and how, how much, and whether God knows or has decided who is/will be saved (or not). To the degree that the aforementioned end of all things is predicated upon people getting saved - which is the whole point of the entire Bible if, in fact, the scriptures are all Christological from beginning to end. Once the inherent Christological nature of scripture is conceded, so too is the necessity of divine omniscience in every regard that has to do with the singular fixed endpoint of God's creation.

Amen.

Foreknowledge

Beginning <--------------------------------------------------------> End
End <--------------------------------------------------------> Beginning​

God foreseeing and foreknowing the end from the beginning in one simple and eternal act. And all fixed through his providence, decreed, and predetermine.

Acts 2:23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.​

How can Molinism and Open Theism give an account to Jesus Christ based on their heretical teachings?

If time is construed as football shaped, rather than a single line, both of which have a single point of origin and a single point of conclusion. The Molinist and Open theist might assert the premise of stuff happening in the bulbous portion of the football-shaped timeline that isn't necessarily required to the achieve the endpoint. Perhaps that is correct but that is entirely a matter of conjecture, and that conjecture runs into difficulties with many verses in scripture, like God knowing our words before we speak them (Ps. 139:4), or nothing in creation being hidden from God (Heb. 4:13). These verses have to be read and interpreted differently, or atypically, to be compatible with Molinism or Open Theism.

Isaiah 46:8-11
Remember this, and be assured; Recall it to mind, you transgressors. "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure'; Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it.

That passage was written about specific conditions existing in the days of Isaiah but if taken as a principle that is generalizable and applicable to other circumstances then it does not leave any room for God not knowing anything and everything pertaining to the end and the beginning and God's purposes thereof.

But God foreseeing and foreknowing is in the eternal sense. I also think that a single line is not an accurate description.

 
I'm going to have take Post #3 in sections because there's a lot there.
Thanks for your reply. Would you consider this to be a good definition?

God's knowledge, often referred to as divine omniscience, is the attribute by which God fully knows Himself and all things in one simple and eternal act. This knowledge is perfect, complete, and without limitation, encompassing all events past, present, and future. It is an essential aspect of God's nature, reflecting His infinite wisdom and understanding.​
That's a good beginning but, as I mentioned in my op-reply, the doctrine of divine omniscience specifies what is logically knowable* and does not make any assertions beyond that. Therefore, God does know all things, but I would amend that definition to say "all things knowable......" The second "tweak" is one I'm not quite yet sure how to word because the idea of an "eternal act" is sort of an oxymoron. Eternity is timeless and an "act" implies an event of some with some causal significance. Still, it would not to justice to God or His omniscience to say He "poof!" knows everything knowable and appeal to magic. Aside from those two matters the definition is good. God's knowledge is perfect, complete, without limit (the matter of logical impossibility withstanding), and encompasses all events past present and future. Keep in mind, "past," present" and "future" are temporal terms. The do not apply to eternity. They are constituent elements of creation that were made by God. The ontological nature of God's knowledge is also astute because humans "have" knowledge. We learn and possess what we learn. Sometimes we "forget" what we know.* None of that happens with God.












1* The doctrine of divine omniscience's limitations are limits of the doctrine, not limits of God. It's akin to the doctrine of scriptural infallibility. That doctrine specifically pertains to scripture in its original revealed form. It does not apply to manuscript copies of the original revelation or other language translations of those manuscripts. Folks muck that up and misrepresent the doctrine quite often. Same thing happens with the doctrine of divine omniscience.
2
* We do not ever actually forget anything. When we say "forget" what we're really talking about is recall, a failure in our ability to access what is recorded somewhere in memory. The brain records everything and once something is recorded it is never lost. What we lose is the ability to recall or access that information. God never has that problem ;)
.
 
Amen.

Foreknowledge

Beginning <--------------------------------------------------------> End
End <--------------------------------------------------------> Beginning​

God foreseeing and foreknowing the end from the beginning in one simple and eternal act. And all fixed through his providence, decreed, and predetermine.

Acts 2:23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.​
Scripture's use of "foreknowledge" is for the benefit of revelation's reader, not an ontological statement about God. Before and after are temporal terms. So too is foreknowledge. God certainly had knowledge before creation but there's no difference in what he knows before creation, during creation, or after creation. To even remotely imply God doesn't know something knowable at one point in time (creation) but latter knows it (learning) is to necessarily contradict the very premise of omniscience. If there is any one thing God does no know at 7:14 p.m. this evening then there is reason to believe He did not know something else the minute before that and something else was unknown the minute before that and so on and so one all the way back to Genesis 1:31. If that's true then all of a sudden we've got a god who does not know a big lot of stuff and that god is not a God.

If the word "foreknowledge" is understood as an eternal knowledge ontological to God's very being and existence, all Hid knowledge prior to creation then that's a correct understanding. And that's were things go awry for Molinism and Open Theism. Everything God created was made out of the all-encompassing ontological eternal knowledge that God is. It's not quite accurate to say God "has" knowledge, especially not in any way that might suggest he has not knowledge. Eternity seems to hang up the Molinist much more than the Open Theist, though.

Acts 2:23 is good but, like the Isaiah passage I used, it was written specifically to a given audience and in a context limited by the text. As a principle, however, what Peter said is generalizable to all other events. God's deliberate plan and foreknowledge of Calvary is just one constituent element of God's deliberate plan and foreknowledge of everything included in the aforementioned "football-shaped" creation that has a God-made beginning and a God-made end. All of creation has a purpose and that purpose was assigned by God, or rather the creation is a manifestation of God's purpose formed out of space and time. Care always has to be taken to not ignore the specified contexts and explain if and how they are generalizable.









Btw, Clark Pinnock is an accessible Open Theist, just in case you haven't read any Open theist first-hand. I don't agree with him, but I read and enjoy his writings. Open Theists can have many orthodox viewpoints outside their soteriology. I happen to share Pinnock's views on annihilationism, along with non-Open theists Packer, Stott, and others. There is as much theological diversity within Open Theism as there is everywhere else in Christianity. They've got Baptists, Anabaptists, Anglicans, Pentecostals, and the mix among their ilk ;).
.
 
How can Molinism and Open Theism give an account to Jesus Christ based on their heretical teachings?
You'll have to ask one of them. I don't find Molinism or Open Theism persuasive. I can appreciate their attempt to wrestle with the problems of causality and knowledge, but I don't find it as complicated as they make it out to be. Some of it is a problem of their own creation.
But God foreseeing and foreknowing is in the eternal sense. I also think that a single line is not an accurate description.
Yes, and eternity has neither beginning nor end; no before or after. The eternal is ever-present. Eternity IS. The brains of the smartest people who've ever lived almost broke when they learned two subatomic particles could occupy the same space at the same time. God made that. That's how smart he is ;).
Is that website yours? You'll forgive me but I'm always simultaneously interested in diverse sources of information and cautious about anything extra-biblical. I'm also reluctant to comment on a anything external to the forum, especially without a specified point of comment or inquiry. I appreciate the link, though. It looks good on causal perusal, and I'll read it more thoroughly when I have time but unless there's something specific, I'll not comment further. I also do not like it when a poster refers to some blog he wrote as a source of authority for his posts in a discussion board. That's too incestuous and self-aggrandizing for me, not to mention a gross appeal to authority fallacy. If that's your creation, then it may be very well done but I won't comment on that here unless you have something specific in mind relative to this op.
 
There are two heretical views of Molinism and Open Theism. They use the same Scriptural examples but with a different interpretation.

a). Molinism teaches a possible future: There are some instances in Scripture where God gives information about events that might happen but that do not actually come to pass based on human free will.

Let’s look at one of their Scriptural examples:

Matthew 11:21-23 Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.

Their interpretation suggests that God knowing the future contains possible outcomes based on the actions of human free will. That God knows the future about these towns in both actual (since the people chose to remain unrepented) and possible (if only the person has repented). Then those towns would have remained in existence, even in the time era of Jesus Christ, but their future didn’t come to pass.

b). Open Theism teaches an uncertain future: There are some instances in Scripture where God doesn’t know the future, the future is open and not ordained, and the future becomes uncertain based on human free-will.

Let’s look at one of their Scriptural examples:

Jeremiah 3:19-20 I myself said, ‘How gladly would I treat you like my children and give you a pleasant land, the most beautiful inheritance of any nation.’ I thought you would call me ‘Father’ and not turn away from following me. But like a woman unfaithful to her husband, so you, Israel, have been unfaithful to me, declares the Lord.​

Their interpretation suggests that God doesn’t know the future and there are uncertain outcomes based on the actions of human free will. That God himself thought about one thing (if they remain faithful) but another thing happened (since they were unfaithful), God was under the impression (or I thought) that Kingdom of Israel would be his children, and he will be their Father. But he had to discover this since the future is uncertain. Israel were unfaithful and never came back after their captivity.

What would be your arguments against these two heretical views?
Like the notion of uncaused ("libertarian") free will, what happens (according to both of these) depends on mere chance or randomness; it is self-contradictory to say that chance can cause anything. Nothing can happen randomly. Both are human words, 'shortcuts for, "I don't know."' It is bad enough that we can pretend they govern what we do and God doesn't. But worse is the notion that God must wait for them to do their thing leaving him to only react to what they do.
 
I'm going to have take Post #3 in sections because there's a lot there.

That's a good beginning but, as I mentioned in my op-reply, the doctrine of divine omniscience specifies what is logically knowable* and does not make any assertions beyond that. Therefore, God does know all things, but I would amend that definition to say "all things knowable......" The second "tweak" is one I'm not quite yet sure how to word because the idea of an "eternal act" is sort of an oxymoron. Eternity is timeless and an "act" implies an event of some with some causal significance. Still, it would not to justice to God or His omniscience to say He "poof!" knows everything knowable and appeal to magic. Aside from those two matters the definition is good. God's knowledge is perfect, complete, without limit (the matter of logical impossibility withstanding), and encompasses all events past present and future. Keep in mind, "past," present" and "future" are temporal terms. The do not apply to eternity. They are constituent elements of creation that were made by God. The ontological nature of God's knowledge is also astute because humans "have" knowledge. We learn and possess what we learn. Sometimes we "forget" what we know.* None of that happens with God.

This is a good critique about "eternal act" and about the "past, present" and future" as being temporal terms. But how can that thought harmonize with Isaiah 46:10 "I make known the end from the beginning?"

To even remotely imply God doesn't know something knowable at one point in time (creation) but latter knows it (learning) is to necessarily contradict the very premise of omniscience.

I totally agree. God is omniscient and active with his creation. He doesn't make mistakes, lacks knowledge, and even learning new information. The Bible is very clear about God 'knowing human hearts' because he is omniscient (1 Kings 8:39. 1 John 3:20). Or how about in Psalms 139 why the LORD search, perceive, and discern, but yet, the LORD knows it completely before it happens. But Open Theism makes issues over the word "search" (Jeremiah 17:10, Revelation 2:18 and 23) to somehow be interpreted as God acquires the information, he doesn’t know and has to find out. Then make parallel comparison that God doesn't know the future, the future is open, and uncertain.

Is that website yours?

It's not my website and not directed at you. I thought it would be beneficial to the discussion or anyone who might be interested in this topic.
 
Like the notion of uncaused ("libertarian") free will, what happens (according to both of these) depends on mere chance or randomness; it is self-contradictory to say that chance can cause anything. Nothing can happen randomly. Both are human words, 'shortcuts for, "I don't know."' It is bad enough that we can pretend they govern what we do and God doesn't. But worse is the notion that God must wait for them to do their thing leaving him to only react to what they do.

I understand that both Molinism and Open Theism want to harmonize God with human free will. I don't believe there are random possibilities of future events to demonstrate free will. Then humans pick the best one based on their free will and choice. Like rolling a 6-sided dice, if it landed on 3, then it was ordained to be 3. "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord. (Proverbs 16:33). God is superintending every one-time concurrence event and not the human free will. Another thing, that there seem to be a self-centric view, and attack on God being self-sufficient. And his omniscience is inherency of who he is and derived independently of his own nature. God doesn’t have any needs or lackings. But their doctrines make God to be dependent on an outside source like the human free will. God is not going to break or bend his determine will and his good pleasures for the sake of human free will.
 
It is true that what God foreknows is absolutely certain. But the certainty is not necessarily because He foreknows it. It is usually because He foreknows everything about it and foreknows what, how and why it came about even if He has not caused it to come about. The fact that God knows what will be does not mean that God has caused it to be. It only means that God knows what caused it to be.
 
. God is not going to break or bend his determine will and his good pleasures for the sake of human free will.
Why do you not allow God, in His determined will and in His good pleasures, to create humans with free will?
 
Why do you not allow God, in His determined will and in His good pleasures, to create humans with free will?

I have no problem with free will. I have a problem with "free will" means "freedom" from God's providence and control. Obviously, God has control over nature, and we are not free and independent from God holding the universe together (Hebrews 1:3, Colossians 1:17). We would not exist if that were the case. God also has control over nations (Acts 17:26) and over humans (Psalm 139:16, Job 14:5). So, in Molinism you have God breaking his control to create this possible future for human free will and in Open Theism the future is uncertain because of free will. That's the crux and decisive important point of the issue. Trying to assert free will results into "possible future" and "uncertain future" and that is outside of the Biblical position.
 
I have no problem with free will. I have a problem with "free will" means "freedom" from God's providence and control. Obviously, God has control over nature, and we are not free and independent from God holding the universe together (Hebrews 1:3, Colossians 1:17). We would not exist if that were the case. God also has control over nations (Acts 17:26) and over humans (Psalm 139:16, Job 14:5). So, in Molinism you have God breaking his control to create this possible future for human free will and in Open Theism the future is uncertain because of free will. That's the crux and decisive important point of the issue. Trying to assert free will results into "possible future" and "uncertain future" and that is outside of the Biblical position.
I am not all that familiar with Molinism, but Open Theism doesn't fail because of free will, but rather because it discounts God's ability to know the future if He has not caused it.

God's providence is not one of absolute control and causation. God's providence is displayed in two basic forms, His purposive will and His permissive will. By far, the universe operates under His permissive will more than by His purposive will. Against the falsehood of Open Theism, God's omniscience is complete, past, present and future. His omniscience with respect to the future is called His foreknowledge. It is complete and independent of His providence of permissive will.
 
Open Theism doesn't fail because of free will, but rather because it discounts God's ability to know the future if He has not caused it.

I agree. It's basically a denial of God's omniscient.

It failed because of both, bending to human free will and God lacks knowledge about the future.

His omniscience with respect to the future is called His foreknowledge. It is complete and independent of His providence of permissive will.

They are distinctive doctrines, but they work together. So, you don't believe when God foresaw and foreknew, he decreed everything?
 
This is a good critique about "eternal act" and about the "past, present" and future" as being temporal terms. But how can that thought harmonize with Isaiah 46:10 "I make known the end from the beginning?"
To whom is God making known the end from the beginning? Himself? That would be unnecessarily redundant. That which God makes known about the end from the beginning is known knowledge eternally possessed, known knowledge possessed eternally long "before," "during" and long "after" the end was made known from the beginning.
I totally agree.
Ps. 133:1 ;)
It's not my website and not directed at you. I thought it would be beneficial to the discussion or anyone who might be interested in this topic.
It looks good at first and second read. I bookmarked it for later perusal. Thx
 
I am not all that familiar with Molinism, but Open Theism doesn't fail because of free will, but rather because it discounts God's ability to know the future if He has not caused it.
(y)
God's providence is not one of absolute control and causation. God's providence is displayed in two basic forms, His purposive will and His permissive will. By far, the universe operates under His permissive will more than by His purposive will.
Relevance? Omniscience is neither providence nor volition.
Against the falsehood of Open Theism, God's omniscience is complete, past, present and future. His omniscience with respect to the future is called His foreknowledge. It is complete and independent of His providence of permissive will.
Yep, so why inject the other two into the post?
 
It is true that what God foreknows is absolutely certain. But the certainty is not necessarily because He foreknows it. It is usually because He foreknows everything about it and foreknows what, how and why it came about even if He has not caused it to come about. The fact that God knows what will be does not mean that God has caused it to be. It only means that God knows what caused it to be.

Why do you not allow God, in His determined will and in His good pleasures, to create humans with free will?
In both of these posts of yours, I see the continued tendency to assert the self-contradictory notion that God does things contrary to his own nature. These both demonstrate the notion that God is not, after all, omniscient, but that his knowledge is subject to mere chance, or other forces beyond his control. That is not God, but only a very powerful being --a god.

I think you would agree with the term, "First Cause", and "Uncaused Causer", to be accurate descriptors, lending partial, at least, definition to the term, "God". So do I, and most believers. Then how is his causing something further uncaused any sort of logical notion?

Nobody is saying that God directly or 'immediately' causes moral evil, and there is no need to argue against such a strawman. But he did cause that it be, and needs nobody to excuse him from that by the use of phrases like, "he allows it to be".
 
It is true that what God foreknows is absolutely certain. But the certainty is not necessarily because He foreknows it. It is usually because He foreknows everything about it and foreknows what, how and why it came about even if He has not caused it to come about. The fact that God knows what will be does not mean that God has caused it to be. It only means that God knows what caused it to be.

Right. Scriptures are very clear on this point.

Romans 8:29 For those God foreknew he also predestined...​

Not so much what caused it to be but who caused it to be. God knows it and causes it.
 
Right. Scriptures are very clear on this point.

Romans 8:29 For those God foreknew he also predestined...​

Not so much what caused it to be but who caused it to be. God knows it and causes it.
Everyone seem to place God in our 3D + time box.

It is my belief that God being all powerful, knowing and everywhere...includes any point in time.
All of time has already happened for God while at the same instance is happening for God. Of course when you operate outside of time "same instance" isn't the best definition.

Perhaps God is playing wack-a-mole....and knows the order of how the moles will pop up prior to even entering into the arcade.
 
Back
Top