What's in the truth?

Is it necessary that God is truth? Or does it happen to exist? Doesn’t He have the ability to make conscious decisions and those decisions must be truth and if so then God, who has no beginning or end, did He make it true or was it already true? Where did the truth come from since God is self derived? What makes things be true? Did God make it true or is it necessary that it be true? God, whose knowledge comes from Himself, then does He self imposing a condition upon Himself that must be truth or was it necessary to already be the truth and He follows that?

While contemplating a middle knowledge or looking into Molinism the question comes up, is God grounded in the truth or is the truth grounded in God.

Thinking about aseity here, does one depend on the other? Is there a necessary existence of truth for God to be perfect?

I’m thinking God possesses everything, even truth. His knowledge of this truth must come from himself and He has the power to do so along with His volition (the ability to make conscious choices or decisions) within the scope of truth. He is perfect, and since we are not, in comparison we can make a choice which is not the truth or even not understand the truth. God must know everything about what our choices might be, but is it true that He knows what that choice will be before it happens? If it was His will, knowing all, to create truth and follow it, then it could be His will to say something will happen and it must be true, but He has a choice in this matter and I think He gives us a will that is free to make choices also and it is necessary for it to be true, but He carries the truth.

Ok, my brain is tired now.

 

Well, starting at the beginning, couldn’t God have created a world where Adam would not have sinned? and Adam still have free will? This would not be a truth, would it?

God knew under the given circumstances that He made what Adam would do, but Adam had a decision if he had free will. If this is a truth then He by the attributes of His nature must have had to make the decision to let man fall, but not make man fall. God would know under any given set of circumstances what the truth would be and how we will react, but if He gives us free will then the circumstances could be ever changing. I think this is what a Molinist theology is based on when middle knowledge is brought up.

I don’t think that God would do something that He knew was going to fail. Would God choose to make a sinful act be true?

Molinism seems to be a theological position about God and His nature with a lot of truths pointing toward Him having some kind of a middle knowledge.

This is new to me and I don’t know what it will lead to other than to maybe cause some problems with the theology of Calvinism, but I find it interesting. I don’t know if this is taboo around here being I always thought of Baptist as having the Bible as the ultimate authority in searching for the truth.

I would go with that and add His attributes of truth also go along with love. So, how would God express His love in full if Adam hadn’t sinned?

(Joh 15:12) This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

(Joh 15:13) Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

(Joh 15:14) Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

How would God show us the truth of how deep His love goes without the fall of man?

Exactly, and I’m thinking these choices change circumstances that make the truth come alive in love which is what He wants and commands of us, why He gave us a free choice.

 

I agree, God could do anything including create a world where Adam could not have sinned but would He do it if it wasn’t true by Adam having a free will?

No, He knows everything but I think according to Molinist in order to allow free choice and for that to be true He uses a middle knowledge. I’m on the edge of my competency here myself about this. I don’t think it’s about Him learning, but Him allowing.

I’m trying to make sense of this myself so let me put it differently. BTW I’m not trying to defend Molinism only to figure out what the philosophy is. It does support an omniscient-omniscience God as far as I know.

2+2=4 that is a truth so as for Adam:

Would God who omniscient and omniscience and has only good is His will, create a world that is evil? Well, in order for good to exist there must be evil; that is a truth like 2+2=4. God could not be ignorant of the evil that the fall of man would bring about, but God does not look upon sin or create sin. So the truth is He gave us a free will choice knowing only the truth and love, but not looking upon that man would fall to evil? That hinges back (as far as my understanding of Molinism) or to some kind of middle knowledge.

At the end of the 6th day God saw everything that He had made and is was “very good.” So when the circumstances changed after man being left alone with that tree of “knowledge” and the influence of Satan, God could have destroyed His creation and been done with it but He (did choose?) not to condemn us but to show us His love and offer salvation because His creation was good (He said it and it must be true) I guess the point is that God can only be in the truth, that is the truth, and to allow free will there must be some kind of middle knowledge otherwise 2+2=5 and that is not the truth.

His knowledge can not be limited and comes from Himself, and He is always in the truth. God doesn’t change His knowledge or learn of things but does He allow things to change along with man having free will. Does God limit himself to the “truth” by His nature? Could He make 2+2=5? I guess He could do what ever He wants but that would not be the truth.

I would never say God is limited by anything including time; He made us for His pleasure, does He allow the time to enjoy it? I’m sitting here laughing. Sorry! It is fun.

This is a fuzzy topic and Yes, He is the truth and His Word is truth and in scripture there are at least a couple of passages that are very interesting on this subject of middle knowledge that I need to further study and see if I can come to some understanding before presenting them.

 

OK upon further research and in simpler terms what we’re talking about is reconciling omniscience with free will. I’ve been using the logic of truth and God’s nature to try and see if Molinism adds up. On a side note looks like I brought in the omnibenevolence of God along with the problem of evil. I see Molinism also addresses this problem.

POE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

Molinism is a religious doctrine that attempts to explain these problems in theology from God having a “middle knowledge”. Molinism still claims an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent God, so in at least this aspect is not heretical, although in contrast to Calvinism doctrine’s attempts to explain these things.

So anyway, Molinist support their case of middle knowledge of omniscient God with a free will agent under a different set of circumstances with Matthew 11:23 from Jesus’ statement:

(Mat 11:23) And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

Jesus claims knowledge of how the Sodomites would have responded under a different set of circumstances from those that actually occurred.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinism

There is more scripture that seems to support a “middle knowledge” and I need to look into it.

 

That helps to have the concepts spelled out and I also agree with essentialism because if God could have willed the world to be non-logical it would not be truth which would be against His nature.

So God’s nature “is” truth and therefore truth will always be logical or is limited to logic by His being, which would be perfect logic. God being omniscient is/was/always has been, able to think sensibly and come to rational conclusions based on facts in truth.

Then with essentialism we are saying in a sense God is truth and perfect in logic? It seems improper to say God is limited to anything but by His own nature His being “is” truth which only comes from perfect logic.

I would lean toward saying it is both God’s nature and logical to be contingent (true only under certain conditions or existing conditions) God all knowing what a creature would do given a set of changing circumstances and those circumstances where and are free to change, otherwise how would you logically solve the POE (problem of evil) from an omnibenevolent-omniscient God? Logically God allowed free will choices in spirit breathed man which was only good along with the truth of certain existing conditions or circumstances that could change from good. He did not make evil but man took the fall by choosing the knowledge of good and evil and then we HAD to keep choosing between it. Seems free will and changing circumstances are a factual logical truth from our beginning.

If God’s knowledge is not sequential then it may be true that He has more than one kind of knowledge “middle knowledge” contingent on free changing circumstances from free will. This seems to give Middle knowledge some merit.

You say: Essentialism is the correct view which seems to be the case, but for God to be logical and His knowledge to be not sequential and allow man free will to sin He must allow circumstances to change, that would seem to be a middle knowledge which I might add is rather incomprehensible to us regarding an omniscient God comparing to what that dreaded tree would reveal to Adam and Eve.

You are comparing a physical tree to a spiritual/invisible truth of nature. You can’t logically reverse to rot without first a tree, but I reverse the words good and evil around, and still have the logic of one not existing without the other.

"There can be infinite evil without the existence of good , but there cannot be infinite good . Good can only go as far as the evil , and evil must exist in order for good to exist."

That would be against the truth of God’s omnibenevolent nature in the world that He made so only thereby is not logical truth for man which was made only good in the likeness of God, but with choices.

Philosophically the objection could be said “true” but could also run into theological fatalism because of omnibenevolence, God can not lie, logically and biblically there is a good example in 1Sam 23 of scripture supporting some kind of "middle knowledge". What God said would happen was contingent on circumstances not changing otherwise it would make God a liar.

 

God is truth and truth is limited to logic… otherwise one could say, “If God can do anything, can He make a stone so big even He can’t lift it?”

 

Me too, I don’t know if we’re getting anywhere other than learning some new terms and ideas. I just hope you’re not answering me in 15 minutes or something or you are WAY ahead of me.

 

Just trying to figure some things out.

 

I’m not sure if you believe we have free will or not; I think we do but am trying to reconcile that with our omniscient God.

I’m mostly thinking out loud here about the truth and the way free will comes about; please forgive my tendencies to jump around on thoughts and subjects, I understand I can be hard to follow. As for changing circumstances:

In 1Sam 23 David being told that the Philistines fought against Keilah inquired of the Lord what he should do and He said, “Go get um and save Keilah” But David’s men weren’t to sure about this so he inquired again and the Lord said, “piece of cake, I’ll deliver them in your hand” so David went down and slaughtered them. Afterward David was warned that Saul knew of this and also knew that now he was trapped within the walls of the city and Saul planned to down to Keilah and besiege David and his men in this predicament. So once again David asked the Lord:

(1Sa 23:11) Will the men of Keilah deliver me up into his hand? will Saul come down, as thy servant hath heard? O LORD God of Israel, I beseech thee, tell thy servant. And the LORD said, He will come down.

(1Sa 23:12) Then said David, Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? And the LORD said, They will deliver thee up.

But David said, “I’m outa here!”

(1Sa 23:13) Then David and his men, which were about six hundred, arose and departed out of Keilah, and went whithersoever they could go. And it was told Saul that David was escaped from Keilah; and he forbore to go forth.

The Lord told David the truth as it was, but David having free will changed the circumstances and it did not happen.

My question to you is, How do you explain that what the Lord (who does not lie) said would happen didn’t?

Molinism claims this is evidence of middle knowledge.

I think God must have boundaries that He will or will not allow, I think He created us with the possibility to choose Him or reject Him, to return love or not to, He knows our hearts. I don’t know if God knew Jacob would lie to his father about who he was or if God just knew the hearts of the “twins” and under those circumstances who would receive the blessing. God sees things as true, He knows truths, does He have to force them to happen?

Don’t think God would have to know exactly what they would do to know how things would end up.

Of course in the end good will triumph over evil, but for now I don’t see how in our world of understanding and knowledge good could exist without evil.

No doubt!