Can omniscience choose?

Are you saying that we don't study the Bible? Charles Spurgeon didn't study the Bible. And I guess you would say that neither did Adoniran Judson, William Care, John Bunyan, John Newton, Isaac Watts, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield or Matthew Henry.

What flawed man are you referring to. I'm sure we all have read books from people but I don't know of anyone that puts that over the Bible.

I didn't remember seeing anything in that verse that says that He died for the world. I see that He had a love for the world. I see that He sent his son for those that believe. I see that all those that believe will be saved.

But anyway, this isn't about the OP.

 

No, it means you can't draw conclusions that have not been clearly revealed by God based on that finite human logic, which is what you are doing by suggesting that God can't make choices when the bible clearly tells us that he does make choices. There is nothing wrong with saying that we don't know HOW he makes choices, just as we can say, we don't know what God's body "looks like" or is made "manifest." We know it is different than us, but that doesn't mean the truth revealed using anthropomorphic terms is untrue.

No. The bible clearly reveals Jesus was born of a virgin, so that is a conclusion drawn by the text, not human logic.

No, I want to accept the truth revealed to us by the anthropomorphic terms that the Bible employees. By your own definition the Anthropomorphic terms are there to help us understand, so what is wrong with understanding by those terms? We can say, yes it is different than man, but this is the best way we can explain it and understand it in our finite reasoning...leave it at that.

I've told you the way I want to say it. Please read it again.

Luke, what do the "nostrils" represent? Something about God we can't really grasp, right? So too, when it speaks of God choosing, it is revealing a concept about God we don't fully grasp. But, the bible (God) used these words to reveal himself and they way He works, so there can't be anything wrong with understanding and believing in him using those terms. We can admit that we don't understand how infinite beings make choices within time and space, but nevertheless that is what He has revealed.

I accept both to be true Luke. God makes choices and God is Omniscient. I'm okay not fully understanding how those two truths work together. I have faith God does and I leave it at that.

Patronizing comments don't reflect well on you brother. Let's be respectful.

Good, then you can admit that God makes choices. Move on. Plus, there are dozens of passages that speak of God making choices within time...for example:

This is what the Lord God says: On the day I chose Israel, I swore an oath to the descendants of Jacob's house and made Myself known to them in the land of Egypt. I swore to them, saying: I am the Lord your God. Ex 20:5

Did I ever define an infinite choice in this manner? As Don pointed out, I think its possible for God to fully know outcomes and pick one option over another (though I'm not pretending that we can fully understand or explain that process). BTW, you need to consider God's "choice" to create the world in the first place. If you insist He never chose this then you have accept that creation is a necessity which would imply God is not all self-sufficient and without need of anything outside himself. Would you want to imply that God was not free to not create the world? Was God not able to refrain from creating man?

 

Why does a choice mean lack of knowledge? I can base a choice upon knowledge. If I know it is going to be windy and cool today, I can choose to wear a long sleeve shirt, if I know it is going to be hot I can choose a short sleeve shirt. My choice is based on knowledge, not lack of.

 

I think he is referring to the knowledge or which one was chosen. I other words there was never a time God didn't already know what he was going to choose. I think that's what he speaking about.

 

Chapter and verse? You are drawing conclusions that the scriptures do not draw based upon your own finite reasoning. You have no authority backing you up on this conjecture.

No, it makes it an eternal and infinite quality that finite creatures cannot fully comprehend. It means God knows all things...it doesn't mean that God can't makes choices.

What is your obsession with nostrils? I've answered this objection many times. I don't believe God has a literal body like ours. That is a given. But that is doesn't correlate to God's ability to choose between available options.

Again you misrepresent my view: The bible uses the imagery of God's nostrils to reveal a truth about how God functions. I accept that as truth. As much as you would like imagery of divine nostrils to perfectly correlate to divine choice, they do not. For one, the passage where "nostrils" are mentioned are few and obviously poetic and using imagery. The revelation regarding God choices is very numerous and contained in both poetic, doctrinal and even direct quotes from God himself. I could use the exact same method you have employed for dismissing the idea of divine choice to dismiss the idea of divine love or joy or anger or any other human emotion. Yes, they are different but that doesn't mean they don't exist. We just don't understand them fully. We are created in his image so what we experience is a small and much lessor reflection of what He does. I don't pretend to comprehend it and I certainly don't draw conclusions which put God in a box by saying what he can or cannot do. You are saying God cannot make choices. You are saying God had to create the world and save you and there was no other possible options for Him...yet you accuse us have having a small/weak view of God?

Another misrepresentation. Have you read my responses to Van on this subject?

Again, partronizing comments aren't really necessary, but if we get to heaven and God does happen to reveal himself to us and does have nostrils I am so going to rub your NOSE in it. :smilewinkgrin:

And what is wrong with that?

So what is the purpose of anthropomorphic language then?

Is that found in Opinions 4:13 or do you have some authoritative support for this?

Why did He intend it Luke? Where did that intent originate? If that intent eternally existed in God then are you saying God had to save Israel? Did he have to create the world? Is God not sufficient in and of himself? Is God not free?

But that intent originated somewhere and you were free not to make that order, too bad God doesn't have as much freedom as you do.

Did you notice the little word "prior" that you employed in your argument above. That word alone proves that your entire point is contingent upon linear time-based thinking. You are trying to logically deduce what our infinite God can or can't do based upon what is known PRIOR or BEFORE. I don't blame you, that is the only perspective we have. We are finite beings. His ways are higher than our ways. We are like worms trying to contemplate the intricacies of man...it ain't gonna happen, so stop drawing conclusions not supported by any divine authority.

 

So, what do you think Jbh? Do you believe God makes choices or not? And no, I don't mean making choices in the exact same manner we do, but do you believe God chose to create the world, for example, but could have chosen to do otherwise? Did he have to create?

 

We dont believe that God is "locked" into doing what he foresees/knows do we?
That he could not go "outside" the box and make a choice to do things?
Do we think God created all things, and bound Himself to the "master Plan" that he created in Eternity past?
Did God chose to abide by his own created rules/plans and thus is "stuck" as he planned everything that will come to pass, and cannot alter the master plan after he created All things?

Wouldn't that make God subservant to his creation than, almost like a form of Chrsitian Pantheism?

 

You are correct, there are instances where the phrase doesn't mean every one, but,I believe in John 3:16, God is talking about the "whole world."

 

I'm not sure what you believe, but if what Luke is saying is correct then even the idea or concept of God "planning" is not possible. In fact, creating anything new seems impossible. God had to create because he couldn't have made the choice to create because that would imply (in our finite logic) that God didn't know what he might have chosen at some point prior to his making that choice.

To me this line of reasoning leads to absurdities of all kind.

 

So does John Calvin and many other Calvinistic scholars, by the way.

 

If God cannot make choices, then he is frozen and does not possess free will.

 

just was saying by my questions that I do NOT believe same was as Luke does...

Indeed would be absurd, as God would have to foresee in his foreknowledge that His divine power wanted to do something not planned out to do originally, so he would choose to override the original choice, that require Him to have already seen that happening, and so on..... God would literally end up knowing nothing, so welcome to Openness for God, cannot know all things, as he keeps wavering on actually what he can/can't decide to do, as he gets"stuck" between His various attributes!

 

No, they believe that the world for which He died was the world of His elect. The world of souls for which He died do not have their trespasses imputed to them and therefore cannot be condemned (ll Cor. 5: 18-19).:jesus:

 

Well, we were speaking of the world for which He loves, but I can understand why you would equate those two.

 

is it true that John Calvin is very hard to "pin down" regarding this, as he had written things that seem to support both limited/unlimited atonement of Christ?

 

John Wesley wrote things that confounds me to....dont feel bad.:thumbs:

 

Holy cow. Gone a couple days and suddenly the last person one would expect to be a moderator is presuming to chasten me.

There's one thing about this Calvinist you must know. What others think of me isn't even on my list of things to consider. There's only one thing that frames my posts, and that is a love for the Truth, and a profound disdain for anything that would presume to rob it of its power.

 

Hear Hear....say it loud & proud! LOL

 

When I wrote that Barnabas had not yet appointed me as a moderator, otherwise I would have edited your comment and given you warning per Tom's instruction. To refer to others as believing in a "small god" is implying they are unbelievers and probably the most personally insulting thing anyone could say to a fellow believer. This is clearly a violation of BB rules. (See rule #3 and #4).

While I've openly admitted to being drug into the mud on occasion, I've attempted to avoid personal attacks and stick to the topics, which is why I was entrusted to this role on the board. If you can't respect that, I'm sorry, but it wasn't your decision to make. I am willing to work with you if you simply follow the rules.

Rom 12:18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.

1 John 4:20
If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.

You may want to reconsider that position. I have no animosity toward you. We simply disagree on our soteriological views and the rules of this board are very clear in how we are treat each other as we discuss those differences. If your lack of care for what others think leads you to continue breaking the rules then you will be corrected. If that is a problem then you shouldn't have agreed to those terms when you became a member.

That is fine, but you must do so within the confines of the rules established by the authorities on this board. Is that going to be a problem?