Proof of Calvinism

God limiting his use, not the actual attribute. God still had the power over Jacob, but limited the use of it. It's like when a Dad allows his son to beat him in a arm wrestling match. The Dad doesn't remove his power, just doesn't use it. The "now I know" wasn't that God didn't have the knowledge that the action would take place(God is eternal and is omniscient) but that God now knew Abraham would obey because Abraham had now physically demonstrated. Before, Abraham hadn't demonstrated this act. We have to be careful not to read too much into something.

 

Hi JbH28, please stop posting attacks on my qualifications and character, i.e. saying I am crying when I rebuke logical fallacies, simply address my views.

Jbh28 has provided nothing to indicate when God says now I know, He really meant "I knew already". To make a unreferenced claim that he did is the sum and substance of Calvinism's defense, post nonsense, then refer back to it as if it was valid. LOL

Next Jbh28 posts incoherent nonsense, say I say God knows something He does not know. What he probably was trying to say was the opposite, but whio knows. Total Omniscience cannot be defended biblically, so personal attacks, and twaddle are posted. Go figure.

Next we get the usual shuck and jive, saying this or that is consistent with "doctrine" left underfined.

Not to put too fine a point on it is the doctrine that God remembers our sins no more forever is widely accepted with the idea that what has been forgiven has also been put out of God's mind. That view is widely accepted. All I added was "in for a penny, in for a pound."

And Winnman agrees so Jbh28, there was not a shed of merit in your post, but keep trying by address specifics of scripture, such as God making plans.

 

Did you see that Jbh28 repeated the claim God said now I know, but really already knew!!!
God's word is constantly rewritten by adding what is not in the text by Calvinism. The logical assumption of now I know is before God did not know. But then I am simple. I just read it and accept it as truth.

 

Suggeting that God does not know all is heresy.

 

Both sides of this particular debate seem to be suggesting the other is wrong when in reality both are right.

It seems some confuse the immanent and transcendent characteristics of God. How is God the Son in one place while God the Spirit is everywhere at once and yet still only be one? God the Son didn't know of the time for the second coming AT THE SAME TIME that God the Father did. HOW?

God is able to be both in time while responding and interacting with mankind AND transcendently above time as an infinite eternal being. This is most certainly beyond our full comprehension, but to insist as SOME do that because scripture says 'now I know' that God in his transcendence isn't all knowing is an error, just as it would be in error to suggest that because another verse claims God is all knowing that He can't choose to limit himself and respond, react and interact with his creation within the created time and space. One revealed aspect or characteristic of God doesn't have to cancel out another revealed aspect or characteristic simply because we don't fully understand how it all works. How can the same God 'come to know' and always be all knowing? The same way he can be three in one.

So, both of your are right, now kiss and make up...

 

Please list the qualifications I've attacked.

1.
2.
3.

Please list the places I've attacked your character.

1.
2.
3.

Saying you are cry/whining is not an attack on your character. Even if it was, you are doing it.

If you cannot, please admit that you have said something untrue about me.

thanks!

Another untruth. I have but you refuse to look at that.

Actually, I said, " It's you that takes it to far and limits God knowledge and makes me know something God doesn't know. "
So you changed what i said. Your view teaches that God doesn't know something that I do know. Skandelon pointed this out to you already.

{EDIT: to be fair, I should have "too" and "God's" and "making"}

 

Sorry, but both are not right. Our limited understanding is true, but to say God doesn't know something is completely false. Winman has a point about God limited himself. I responded to clarify that God limits the use, not the actual attribute. What Winman said is not that God isn't omniscient, but that it seems that God limits himself.

 

Is this an assumption or does scripture reveal this? Or is this a probable conclusion that cannot be proven clearly by Scripture?

Does this apply to all of God attributes or just some?

 

Yes, but Van refuses to listen and has chosen to mock me. That's fine. I'm not offended other than his repeated postings of attack on the attributes of God. Not everything is written 100% literal and must be read that way. Winman said that in another thread(what? I've referenced Winman in two posts on the same day in agreement lol) that there are places that isn't taken literally 100%. There are figures of speech. Words have multiple meanings. We read it literarily. We have to look at the whole Bible. It doesn't contradict.

 

I'd say its a likely conclusion based upon the whole of scripture's revelation. How is the the doctrine of the Trinity developed and supported? No one questions if God the father knows the time of the second coming while God the Son admits that He doesn't. One God both knows and doesn't know at the same time. We accept it in faith knowing that "His ways are higher than our ways."

It applies to all the revealed attributes of God. We accept what is revealed, period. Just because we don't fully understand how it may work together doesn't mean we just dismiss it. If scripture says God 'changed his mind' or that he came to know something then I believe him and if He says He has always known all things then I believe Him. I don't think those two truths are really at odds considering that we are talking about a triune eternal God who exists both immanently and transcendently.

 

I meant that some of the claims of both sides is correct in that God both knows all things and came to know things. I agree that saying God doesn't know something is false. But I also think rejecting the clear meaning of the passages that say God has come to know things, or relents, is equally incorrect. I explained why I believe that in my last post to zrs...

I agree.

 

I will be honest and say I haven't followed Scripture usage of the thread to see what has been quoted. I would be interested in seeing your reasoning with various texts. I'm not asking you to do that, but I would think the question that needs to be answered is saying that God knows all and limits Himself not to know all is a seeming contradiction but guess could be a paradox. The passage regarding Jesus not knowing the second coming is difficult, but is that simply His way of limiting Himself in the flesh? At any rate a new line of thinking for me so this is interesting.

I agree that we do not dismiss something if Scripture doesn't tell us. God changing His mind, coming down to visit, remembering no more all seem to be a figure of speech. I won't go to far into this because it is a long discussion. In the end I do see where your coming from and will give it some thought.

 

Based on the whole of scripture sounds solid but is mere vapor. Only when specific scripture is cited, can doctrine be supported. I have shown using many verses that God remembers no more our sins forever. Therefore total omniscience is utterly false doctrine.

Scripture does say God is all knowing, but only by studying the context can we determine what He is all knowing about. The verses cited teach God is all knowing about the heart of those He is dealing with, such as Peter and the disciples in John 21. God knows everything in our heart, He knows all things of our heart. But to extrapolate this and claim scripture teaches God knows everthing imagineable is unsound. The balance of scripture contradicts this extrapolation at every turn. God makes plans, God hardens hearts to alter the outcome of events and cause them to conform to His plan.

Why would God say if you do this, I will do that, but if you do something else, I will do something else if He knows what they will do? Total Omniscience fails at every turn and from every perspective.

Zrs6v4 made a significant observation, if something cannot be proved clearly by Scripture, should it be taught as scriptual doctrine using the defense that God might be doing what is unstated? OF Course Not!!!!!!!!!!

Inherent Omniscience is support by all scripture, contextually considered, and does not extrapolate attributes of God not taught in scripture. To the extent the Bible teaches God has declared the future, He knows that future. But to the extent the Bible teaches God does or did not know something, Inherent Omniscience is also consistent with those scriptures. So as a minimalist, I have concluded that inherent omniscience is biblical, and total omniscience is unbiblical and based on shoddy bible study.

 

And to address one more silly argument, if God limits his action, that does not mean He has limited His power. Talk about a strawman. If God limits His knowledge by putting some aspect of our sin out of His mind, it is out of His mind and no longer known.

Only doctrines based on scripture should be taught, doctrines based on what scripture does not say, i.e. arguments from silence, should not be taught as biblcially based, and such is total omniscience.

 

How can God know my heart when he is somehow unaware of many of the key moments of my life where I have sinned against him? How does he really know Peter when he doesn't even know about his denial of Christ and all the faults in his character that makes up that heart?

If what you believe is true then a counselor who knows my past mistakes and tendencies would be more knowledgable than God. Does God just close his ears when a Christian talks about his past sins?

Again, I challenge you to provide a commentary that teaches this approach. I encourage everyone here to avoid discussing this issue until Van meets that simple request.

 

But, its not just a few "figures of speech." We are addressing large portions of scripture where God is revealed as one responding, reacting, becoming angry/sad, relenting etc. For example, the teaching in Luke 11 and 18 about persistence in prayer having an effect. Or all the talk of God patience with rebellious people, or his anger with the way they respond to his revelation. He seems to even been surprised by the lack of faith of some. Do these things undermine his transcendent characteristics of a God who knows everything? No. They are about God immanently interacting within his created order of time and space. Just a Christ was God and man at the same time, so too God can both transcend time and react within it.

That is my view anyway, but I admit there is a level of speculation anytime we deal with such infinite matters...

 

I see what your saying it is really hard to make generalizations and agree without looking at individual passages and discuss. Thats just how I think I guess. I have always assumed that God's action in time didn't delete His action in eternity. That is that if God changes His mind in time, He still decreed His change of mind from eternity past. That is of course just my understanding and thought process. The study is definitely no simple task.

 

zrs

From...JL Dagg;

 

Too bad Dagg wasn't there to instruct the author's of scripture.

Does the bible degrade his divinity when it attributes "human" faculties to Him? No. It explains how he interacts with us in time and space and it shows that it is ok to relate to him by those terms. There is no reason one cannot affirm that God's nature, characteristics, and personhood never changes, while still relating to him as one who hears our persistent requests and responds within our circumstances as he did with Abraham, David and others on many occasions.

 

I don't think Dagg was referencing anthropomorphic terms. Obviously Scripture does attribute human faculties to God so that we are able to understand. What Scripture does not do is impute human faculties to God, along with their inherent limitations.