Featured Do non-cals believe in omniscience?

uh, yeah....now I need the excedrin....

 

Probably cause it for others

 

ffffffffrrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaappppppppp!!!!!


Better? :laugh:

 

Hey P4T,

Sorry for offending you. I will bow out of this thread now.

 

Strong argument there, Luke.

I don't think you made a case for the problems being the same, so I guess we are even. :thumbsup:

As I stated, which you just dismissed, 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 why did he 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. And is the "YOU TOO" fallacy to which I was referring... You can't answer the problem with your system so you point to a PERCEIVED problem within mine instead, but our problem is not near as severe as your problem and in fact, our problem is ONLY a problem IF one refuses to appeal to mystery regarding divine knowledge as it relates to God's creation of time and finite creatures with morally accountable wills.

 

No offense taken bro. I simply looked to stay on track in answer to your direct question. If I've offended you in so doing and in that endeavor, then I ask for forgiveness.

I'd rather dialogue within that framework of direct answer to your posts.

I see the glory of God being manifest by those who recognize His choosing.

- Peace

 

Hey Rick......what is "doe snot"? Sounds icky! :laugh:

 

And you have done so by suggesting that God's permissive will is equal to his decretive will, which is simply unfounded. As stated, and apparently ignored, 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.

And appealing to mystery PRIOR to concluding that God has actively decreed all things, yes even the sinful choices of man, is not 'redefining God.' It's just appealing to mystery before drawing unfounded conclusions. The only group 'redefining God' are the Openists and the Calvinists. Openists redefined God's omniscience and Calvinists redefine his Holiness. I do neither. I believe He is fully HOLY and thus has NOTHING to do with the origin or cause of man's rebellion. I also believe he knows all things.

I don't pretend to know how those perfectly work together. Openists try to make God out to be someone who really doesn't know the future choices of men and Calvinists make God out to be someone who causes sin, but does so through secondary means so as to avoid being culpable and impugning his holiness. Both efforts fall short because both groups should have appealed to mystery one step earlier. The bible reveals that God is perfectly HOly and does not even tempt men to sin. I can't in good conscience teach that God actually DOES tempt men to sin but he does so through secondary means. That seems very deceptive and the scriptures NEVER say that. That would be like me telling the police officer, "NO officer I didn't kill my wife." When in reality I paid someone else to kill her. Just because I used a 'secondary means' doesn't in any way remove culpability. That is what Calvinism does to God's holiness and I"m not willing to accept that. You are...

 

You don't have to. When you equate your problem with our problem you are equating permissive will with decretive will.

It's why they perish that is the distinction you don't want to address. I think we all know why that is.

I agree. Who did that and can you quote their actual words?

BTW, you are the one who said that God knows things DIFFERENTLY than we KNOW them and that His KNOWING and CHOOSING is anthropomorphic language that really can't be understood by us, so when you speak of 'redefining omniscience' are you meaning defining it differently than the way we anthropomorphically understand it, or differently than God understands it?

Incorrect, I'm saying the same thing about God's KNOWING as you have said about God's CHOOSING. The scripture reveals that God knows and God chooses, but even his KNOWING and CHOOSING is different than the way in which we know and choose, so conclusions should not be drawn that aren't directly revealed. (i.e. "God knowing something prior to creating it but choosing to create it anyway is equal to determining it to be." )

 

You doe not want to know.

 

Are you saying you have NOT equated your problem with our problem, because that is ALL you have done this entire thread???

Your problem is a question of what God has DETERMINED and our problem is a question of what God has ALLOWED. That is the difference between God decretive and permissive will. Until you acknowledge this we are finished with this discussion, because we are just going around and around while you are avoiding the actual issue.

I'm saying that God's KNOWING something BEFORE is anthropomorphic because God is not on a before/after timeline like we are. You are talking of God as if he is an all knowing man, not an infinite eternal being. He is in the 'eternal now,' which is beyond our comprehension. Thus I DO NOT draw the conclusion that God creates things to be as he foreknows them, which is what your question presumes. That is determinism, whether you understand that or not.

Really?

You agreed completely with JonC who clearly stated that God's omniscience is anthropomorphic and now you are denying it.

Yet your entire system rests upon the concept that God CHOSE to irresistibly save those He unconditionally CHOSE because this the the method He CHOSE to bring Himself the most Glory. Go figure.

You said that He created the world to be exactly what he foreknew it would be, which is the same thing. The structure of your question has God's creating what He foreknows rather than God foreknowing the creatures that were freely created. There is a difference and its obvious you haven't come to understand this distinction, but hopefully I can introduce you to this common fallacy. No offense, but I think you are used to dealing with less than scholarly opponents on this matter. It's time to expand your horizons.

 

It is but you haven't realized it yet because you haven't been willing to acknowledge the distinction in our views. You are trying to equate our problems by equating our claims about how God has foreknown and created.

Then stop implying that God MUST have created it as He foreknew it would be, as if his creating it is contingent upon his knowing it will happen...which whether you acknowledge it or not you continually do.

Luke, don't you know that your argument is the basis of determinism? The idea that God foreknew and then created it to be as he foreknew it, IS DETERMINISM. That is the foundational premise and if you don't understand that then we really can't continue our discussion.

And you are doing so by presuming we accept the above premise, but we don't. At least those scholars who've studied the subject don't.

As explained numerous times, the concept of "God knew before" is an anthropormophic phrase, as you admitted. This is like saying God foreknows stuff as a man would (like a psychic) and thus the same logical finite conclusions can be drawn about God as would be true of a man. What is "before/after" in a place without time?

Listen, we are just repeating ourselves so I'll bow out. I'll send you some scholarly links of people much smarter than us discussing these things and maybe that will help you see what I'm saying. I said that I think you are used to dealing with this issue in non-scholarly circles because you are not seeming to recognize and acknowledge the scholarly perspective that I'm presenting as being valid. You said that NNE expect me is saying this, which leads me to conclude you haven't read much on this, which if fine. I'm still learning a lot of them myself. We are all still growing... It wasn't meant to be anymore insulting than you accusing me of standing alone on this matter. I hope you understand. I'm not trying to be negative so please don't read that tone into it. Cool?

Got to run... Later. :thumbs:

 

Luke,

You seem to think that because there are no other BB members who are pressing you on this point that all classical Arminians (who are not Open Theists) support your conclusions. That is factually incorrect and the reason I alluded to you not being familiar with scholarly views on this particular point.

I'd be interested in studying all those Arminians who say what you seem to think they say. I'm not denying some exist, but these are not the circles I run in, so to speak, so I'd like to read their works for myself. If you could provide a few links to Arminians who say it in the way you have described I really would like to read them.

Here are a couple of links to give you more insight into the views with which I'm more familiar. You will notice they do not support your conclusions and they are not Openists, but they would consider themselves "Arminian" in theology, thus showing that I'm not 'standing alone' on this point.

Allow me this disclaimer before you view these links. I would not necessarily use the exact terms these scholars do, nor would I attempt to make as many speculative comments as they do. I've come to be fine with the mystery, so I don't feel the need to present too many theories as to how I think God accomplished creating 'contra-causually free' moral creatures...I just believe He did it and leave the "HOW" to faith.

http://wesleyanarminian.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/god-and-time/

http://wesleyanarminian.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/an-explanation-of-simple-foreknowledge/

There are MANY more but this is a good primer to reveal my point. Also, allow me to say I REALLY appreciate how kind and respectful you are being. It is a joy to discuss theology without resorting to personal attacks. It's fine to disagree and even do so strongly, but still be respectful and Christlike in our dealings. I appreciate your heart in that!!! :thumbs:

 

The problem from your side is that you ultimately try to argue that there is a moral standard that transcends God to which the creature can hold God Himself accountable. From where did the definition and "origin" of this moral standard come if God is subject to it? ANY argument that says that God can be "wrong" if He does something just because a sinful, faulty, finite creature feels so is fundamentally flawed.

 

Ares,

I've made no such assertion. God defines Good and evil, but this thread is nearing our limit so I'll not attempt to start a new discussion at this point. Instead I'll start a new thread on the subject of "good and evil" and this "moral standard" so that we can pick up the discussion there...