Featured Do non-cals believe in omniscience?

This is the most fair, honest, genuine, and humble posts from a reformed person I have seen on this forum. Thank you for this beneficial post. :thumbs:

 

No brother, I'm not trying to dodge your question, I'm just not willing to aquiesce to the option you provided.

 

Do you suppose God foresaw this in the crystal ball on that same day before he created Adam too? Sure seems like he would have chose a different option when he was deciding whether or not to create him anyway.

:godisgood: ...and much much bigger than what we could even suppose...

 

You are asking if I'm an Open Theist, as if there MUST be an answer to the dilemma that YOUR QUESTION has created. The answer is 'no.'

I do believe people make their own decisions and that men originate their own evil intent, and not God, because I believe that is what scripture tells us. I appeal to mystery regarding God's knowledge of such matters, period. For to attempt an answer would require that I speculate beyond the revelation of scripture.

 

I'll keep answering your questions when you start answering some of mine. We've got to be fair here.

 

So are my questions.

I have no problem with that statement in the BF&M. I told you in the other thread I was fine with you definition of omniscience.

If you would engage with all my posts instead of cherry picking points you want to address you would come to understand what I'm arguing, rather than trying to pigeon hole me into Openism or Determinism, as if they are the only two options.

As Jon explained, there is only a problem if we fail to appeal to mystery and begin making speculations. People make this same mistake in regard to the doctrine of the Trinity.

Got to run, talk to you later. Again, I appreciate the tone. This is a good discussion.

 

Another thing to think about in this discussion is that since God knows ALL possible outcomes and knows all things that possible be known...

This earth, with the fall satan Cross etc evidently was the best One that God could have created! As he would have designed and made it the best way for Him to get glory and for best of Humanity!

 

Right. My problem is the conclusions DRAWN based upon these truths, not the truths themselves.

I was referring to the fact that you keep trying to push me into Openism, as per your last post, because you see the PROBLEM of your question as only being solved by Determinism or Openism and I'm trying to help you to get outside that box. I'm sure objective observers can see that.

I concede that if one accepts the typical God 'foreknows and permits all things view' of the 'Arminian' (which I also believe is speculative in that it is anthropomorphic language) then their is a problem of: Why didn't God prevent instead of permit evil, and allow all those people to make free choices to reject Him and go to Hell?

But that is a much DIFFERENT problem than that of the determinist (compatibilist). As the question for a determinist would be: Why did God cause (determine) evil and then hold all those billions of people responsible for it?

Yes, both are problems, but they are very different problems. God permitting evil to enter the world and allowing billions of people to suffer the consequences of their free moral choices, is a very different problem than God causing evil to enter the world (through secondary means etc) so that billions of people would certainly suffer the consequences of God's decreed choices so as to bring Himself glory.

To equate those two as being equal problems is a fallacy of the the greatest magnitude.

 

Yes. How many times must I validate the definition of omniscience for you Luke? But I will notice it doesn't just say 'future' events because I don't think God's not really looking through the corridors of time as a man with foresight. This is where we concede that even our understanding of divine knowing is anthropomorphic. Statements of faith, like that of scripture are finite explanations of matters we can't fully grasp and we all admit that at some level in this discussion. I just believe we should admit it earlier than you do.

I understand that. That is fair. I don't deny omniscience. I just admit, as you have, that our understanding of divine knowledge is anthropomorphic, much like our understanding of his choices.

AWWWW, I just thought of something. Do you remember how you claimed that God doesn't make choices? You are doing the EXACT same thing Openness do with regard to Omniscience. Think about this. You both see these concepts as being DIFFERENT with God . You think divine choices are NOT like the way men make choices so you conclude, "God doesn't really make choices." Likewise, the Openists think divine knowledge is NOT like the way men know things and they conclude, "God don't really know everything." You both contradict the revelation in order to answer a mystery. My view is that God does know everything and he does make choices because that is what the bible says and I don't know how he does it so I don't pretend to know. I appeal to mystery.

We both agreed already that he knows differently than us, so my conclusion is that I don't know how that work. You are the one who pushes it past that into speculation.

As I've explained before, if I'm forced to speculate I prefer the concept of the knowledge of an 'eternal now' (I AM). Which would mean that now is the day before he created men and so is tomorrow and next year, and 2000 years ago. In this model His knowledge is more comparable to our present knowing, versus what we know of our past. Make sense? It's just as mysterious, indeed, but it makes your brain stretch a bit.

And this is why I agreed so strongly with Jon's statement earlier. We create the difficulty and the need to exonerate with our speculations, whereas if we appealed to mystery prior to the speculation there would be no difficulty. There is a place for faith in all this, right?

And of course I agree, but I just request that you (and Calvinists in general) do this one step earlier...you know before you conclude that God must causally determine man's nature so that it cannot do otherwise than what it does...etc.

 

So are you asserting that there are things God has 'willed" Himself not to be ableto know?

or are you saying that God has to wait for things to occur before he actually knows them?

God can chose to do as He wills, correct?

And based upon His exhaust lnowledge of all things, and the best possible choice he was to make, wouldn't his chosing to allow Sin and all other evils and have salvation as cals state that the Bible teaches be best way if God always choses the best way?

 

Something along those lines, yes.

God is Omniscient, He knows ALL things, even when He created the worlds...yet some attempt to confirm some ideology in attempt to seperate Him from this truth, as if He were not aware, placing Him in a dimension of the 'eternal now' or that He reacted to things as they came along, becoming aware, as if this somehow justifies it at the same time.

It's like some want to affirm Omniscience, while at the same time excusing it due to subjective rationalization.

God knows all things, and even using secondary means to accomplish His will.

 

How can we even be sure that He wins then in the end?
IF He is not able to freely know and be able to detrmine outcomes as He so wills?