Can omniscience choose?

[Winman]

First, non sequitur. Also, can you stay on subject? We are talking about omniscience. And I didn't call you a child, I said you read like one(which you admitted when you said 10 year olds would agree with you).

Also, how is this even a response to what I said? What do you do with clear passages that say that God knows everything? You deny that by assuming something in the passage. Not all questions are meant to find out the answer because the questioner didn't know the answer already. If you think that when you read, you are reading as a child would read. You cannot make an assumption in a passage that contradicts Scripture. God knows everything. When He asks a question, he already knows the answer to that question. We do this all the time don't we? (hint: I already know the answer to that question.)

A question is asked. We have possibilities of why the question was asked. We are not told why, so we must assume. If our assumption contradicts Scripture(like saying he didn't know the answer) we are forced to throw out that interpretation on the grounds that it contradicts Scripture.

My point of ten year olds is that this story of Jacob wrestling with God is very simple and straightforward, a young person could easily understand it. Also, that the natural reading shows God did not know Jacob's name.

I do not deny that God in his glory in heaven is omniscient, I believe that. But the scriptures also show that in some instances God limits himself in his attributes. I believe this is when God comes down and personally interacts with man. In such instances God would need to limit himself, because no man can see God in his glory and live.

So, when we read of Adam, or Enoch, or Noah "walking with God", God must have limited himself or they would have died.

 

[Robert Snow]

You're wasting your time, aren't you?

WAIT A MINUTE! We already knew the answer to that question! Could I have been asking a question that I already knew the answer to in order to make a point???

No WAY!

I put this guy on ignore.

My experience on bb has been much more fruitful ever since.

I recommend you consider doing the same.

You sure are quick to put people you don't agree with on Ignore! I guess it's easier than answering difficult questions. It's the cowardly way out!

 

[jbh28]

My point of ten year olds is that this story of Jacob wrestling with God is very simple and straightforward, a young person could easily understand it. Also, that the natural reading shows God did not know Jacob's name.

No, the natural reading shows that God asked a question.

Now, you made mention about omnipotence here. I was thinking about it this morning. God allowed someone to be "stronger" than He. OK, did God still have all the power? Of course. He was stronger, just allowed someone else to "win." Here in this story, does God still have all the knowledge? Yes! That's my point. We don't have why God asked the question, but because he didn't know the name isn't one of them.

I do not deny that God in his glory in heaven is omniscient, I believe that. But the scriptures also show that in some instances God limits himself in his attributes. I believe this is when God comes down and personally interacts with man. In such instances God would need to limit himself, because no man can see God in his glory and live.

So, when we read of Adam, or Enoch, or Noah "walking with God", God must have limited himself or they would have died.

I understand where you are coming from on this. Just remember as in the omnipotence, God still have the power, so in omniscience, God still has the knowledge. (ok, badly worded sentence...)

Anyway, have a blessed Resurrection Day!

 

[Winman]

Now we are getting somewhere. So you agree that at times God is able to limit himself, in this case so much so that Jacob could prevail in a wrestling match?

I doubt you ever get Luke to agree.

And I contend it is possible God also limits his omniscience as well, thus easily explaining many verses where God makes it appear as though he is not omniscient.

Now, it's difficult to understand how God could be in heaven and be omnipotent and omniscient, and at the same time be on earth with limited attributes, but I think the scriptures show this.

This is why I quoted John 3:13 where Jesus told Nicodemus he was in heaven, yet Jesus was talking to Nicodemus (and limited in some ways as a man) at the same time.

If Jesus had come to earth in his glory, every man he met would drop dead.

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory I had with thee before the world was.

You see here that Jesus at this moment did not have his glory, he was limited.

I am no heretic, you will find my positions come from scripture.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You're wasting your time, aren't you?

WAIT A MINUTE! We already knew the answer to that question! Could I have been asking a question that I already knew the answer to in order to make a point???

No WAY!

I put this guy on ignore.

My experience on bb has been much more fruitful ever since.

I recommend you consider doing the same.

Ohhhh, LOL. Yea East be east & West be west & never the twain...:laugh:

 

[Aaron]

(On another note and for another thread, it is clear that God has revealed himself with a body of sorts throughout scripture, certainly it would be a "spiritual body" and different than man's, but I don't think its unreasonable for us to think of God has having some kind of "spiritual body" or body-like manifestation by which he relates to and reveals himself to man)

Noncalvinists have such a small god.

 

[Winman]

Ohhhh, LOL. Yea East be east & West be west & never the twain...:laugh:

Yeah, and I can't sleep nights worrying whether you or Luke will respond to my posts.

The reason Luke and others ignore me is because I present real challenges to your doctrine that often you cannot answer.

You guys think people are stupid, nobody is fooled by this except yourselves.

 

[Winman]

Noncalvinists have such a small god.

So, when the scriptures say Jacob wrestled "a man" and then Jacob says, " for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." he was wrestling a spirit? (Gen 32:24-30)

And don't think people don't notice you use the lower case "g" when you spelled god. You are implying that Skandelon and other non- Cals worship a false god in your response.

And how do you explain that Jacob prevailed over God when they wrestled?

 

[Skandelon]

Will anyone address the question of the OP, rather than just whether or not he knew Jacob's name or not?

And Aaron, I think your comment is probably not within the the realm of what is acceptable according to the rules of the board, and certainly isn't in good form if you want to be taken seriously in this discussion.

 

[jbh28]

Now we are getting somewhere. So you agree that at times God is able to limit himself, in this case so much so that Jacob could prevail in a wrestling match?

I doubt you ever get Luke to agree.

And I contend it is possible God also limits his omniscience as well, thus easily explaining many verses where God makes it appear as though he is not omniscient.

So are you advocating that God has the knowledge but chooses not to use it? Doesn't really make sense, but that's better than denying the omniscience of God. Strength and knowledge are two different things. How one works doesn't mean that the other works the same way.

This is why I quoted John 3:13 where Jesus told Nicodemus he was in heaven, yet Jesus was talking to Nicodemus (and limited in some ways as a man) at the same time.

Understand. Jesus had two natures. A fully human nature(100% man) and divine nature(100% God). How these two nature communicated with each other is difficult to understand.

If Jesus had come to earth in his glory, every man he met would drop dead.

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory I had with thee before the world was.

You see here that Jesus at this moment did not have his glory, he was limited.

I am no heretic, you will find my positions come from scripture.

maybe you need to define your definitions better. It almost seems as if you are advocating something different now.

 

[Skandelon]

So are you advocating that God has the knowledge but chooses not to use it? Doesn't really make sense, but that's better than denying the omniscience of God. Strength and knowledge are two different things. How one works doesn't mean that the other works the same way.

I think what some believe on this is that God can choose to relate to man on their level. So, in the same manner that Jesus, being fully God and fully man was able to limit his knowledge of future events, and feel pain, weep and have other human emotions, God as a person can do the same thing in relation to us anytime.

I personally don't attempt to argue that God chooses not to know somethings because I don't see that specifically taught in scripture. I don't like drawing conclusions that the scriptures themselves do not draw. We are finite linear thinking creatures and when we start speculating as to what an infinite God can or can't do or as to how He functions when relating within time and space we are bound to make mistakes which could lead to false conclusions.

Understand. Jesus had two natures. A fully human nature(100% man) and divine nature(100% God). How these two nature communicated with each other is difficult to understand.

And if 100% God can choose to step out of eternity and into a finite world in order to communicate and relate to us personally, then I don't believe there is any limit to what God might do in order to make himself known to us and to relate to us and a real personal friend and father.

 

[Winman]

So are you advocating that God has the knowledge but chooses not to use it? Doesn't really make sense, but that's better than denying the omniscience of God. Strength and knowledge are two different things. How one works doesn't mean that the
other works the same way.

I am not sure. The question that haunts me is, Why would God make statements that make him to appear not omniscient at times? In Genesis 18 alone he does this twice. In vs. 9 he asks Abraham where Sarah is. This is not a rhetorical question, but a direct question. Then, in vs. 21 he says "I will go down now, and see WHETHER they have done altogether to the cry of it, and IF not, I will know."

Why would God say things that makes him appear not to be omniscient? Why would he use words like "whether" or "if"? These are strange words for an omniscient person to use.

And God was not asking a question here, he was speaking to himself!

At the same time, God appears omniscient in vs. 15, as he knew Sarah laughed within herself (vs. 12).

So, I am saying I do not quite understand this, but I do not disregard or simply dismiss these questions and statements God has made in the scriptures.

I believe God is infinitely more intelligent than us, and knows how to properly express himself at all times. So, I do not understand why God would ask questions or make statements that make him to appear not omniscient, unless that is how he wants us to view him in these instances.

But we do clearly see God limited his omnipotence when he wrestled Jacob (he also asked his name), so it might be possible God also limits his omniscience at times.

 

[Luke2427]

Would you agree that is human finite logic? Or is this logic clearly spelled out and concluded in the scriptures by God? If so, where does he say "omniscience cannot make a choice" or anything remotely similar?

Your so called logic is the same used by Mormons:

Everything I do is human. I happen to be human. So yes- it is human logic.

If something being human makes it faulty by default then we cannot know ANYTHING.

I believe that Jesus was born of a Virgin according to the Scriptures.
You would say, "But isn't that your human understanding of the Scriptures?"

Well, yea, I guess it is.
You say, "AHA!!! Then it may be that Jesus was NOT born of a virgin. It may be that Jesus did NOT rise from the dead!! SEE YOU FOOL! You base everything you believe on your HUMAN understanding!"

See how ignorant this line of reasoning of yours is when carried out to it's natural end?

- God is one
- Oneness by definition means there is no more than one
- Therefore the Triune understanding of god cannot be the true God

The problem here is that the Bible actually TEACHES that when it comes to God the first premise is faulty.

You want to deny anthropomorphic language in the Bible and thereby demand that God does not REALLY know everything.

You want to say it like this.

"I believe God has always known all there is to ever know about everything."
Oh yea? Was there a point at which God did not know what he would do concerning some decision he would make- and THEN all of the sudden at that point he did know so that right then and there he could make a choice?
"Yea, I believe that!"
Then doesn't that mean that God did NOT know all there is to ever know about everything if he did not even know what HE was going to do? Especially since he must have made many millions of choices, if you demand that his "choosing" and his "electing" were literal events that occurred at some point?
"NO! MYSTERY! MYSTERY! MYSTERY! Just look at the TRINITY!! HA! HA!!"

It doesn't work that way.

Before you start crying, "mystery" you have to have some biblical grounds.

God saying he chose this and that- it's not enough for the very same reason that God saying he has nostrils is not enough to demand that the eternal God has nostrils.

His ways are higher than our ways Luke. Just stick with the biblical concepts and terms and don't allow you intellect and speculative reasoning distort the clear revelations with which God chose to reveal himself. If God didn't want us to believe he made choices then he could have used your terms to describe God's workings (i.e. "God doesn't make real choices"), but instead His terms reveal that He makes choices. I'll stick with the biblical terms...I actually can understand them. Go figure, maybe that is why they are used! Why go beyond them?

I do stick with the biblical account. The one that teaches that God is omniscient. That is the one you need to concern yourself the most with, Skandelon.
And a refresher on anthropomorphic language and Theology Proper would help you greatly here too.

Even according to you the scriptures teach, "God chose to save you." But couldn't it just have easily said, "God from eternity past, without beginning, saves his elect as it has been the infinite plan of God." The word "choice" doesn't have to be employed to communicate your point of view.

It actually DOES say something like that. It says that he chose me in Christ BEFORE the foundation of the world.

THAT LITERALLY MEANS back in eternity past. There was no TIME before the foundation of the world. If there was no time, what is left? ETERNITY PAST. So was there an actual POINT at which God chose me?

Not according to the BIBLE.

Just stick with the biblical concepts and terms and don't allow you intellect and speculative reasoning distort the clear revelations in which God chose in eternity past which BY DEFINITION means it did not occur at a single point- and therefore was not a REAL choice.

What would be ridiculous is dismissing the concept that God gave life to Adam simply because the scripture used Anthropomorphic ("nostril") language to describe how God did it.

The analogy is faulty, Skandelon.

I am not dismissing that God elects. I am dismissing this idea that he didn't know what he was going to do then he finally made up his mind at some point.
As best I can tell, that is heresy.

Choice is not real choice with God. REAL choice REQUIRES a deficiency of information prior to the act of choosing- by DEFINITION of the term. If you try to make God one who makes REAL choices you cross the line into heresy.

Just as you dismiss that God makes choices simply because you can't logically understand how an infinite omniscient God functions.

Logic is not the enemy of theology. Theology is BASED on logic. Good theology applies logic to the truth of Scripture. Abandon logic and you abandon theology.
The only time you have permission to abandon logic is when the Bible EXPLICITLY states something that you cannot figure logically.

Anthropomorphic language is not sufficient grounds to abandon logic.

 

[Don]

REAL choice REQUIRES a deficiency of information prior to the act of choosing- by DEFINITION of the term.

It's kinda funny. I had to make a choice the other day: Whether to choose option 1 or option 2. Option 1 was how the system should have been designed and implemented in the first place, but would require an entire new security testing and evaluation for certification and accreditation. Option 2 was junkier, adding additional devices rather than streamlining the architecture, but would require no additional certification.

In both cases, I had all the information necessary for both options, and knew the outcome of each option before I chose. The decision was, which outcome was I willing to accept?

So - if I had all the information necessary before making my choice, does that mean it wasn't a "real" choice?

 

[Luke2427]

[/SIZE][/U][/B]It's kinda funny. I had to make a choice the other day: Whether to choose option 1 or option 2. Option 1 was how the system should have been designed and implemented in the first place, but would require an entire new security testing and evaluation for certification and accreditation. Option 2 was junkier, adding additional devices rather than streamlining the architecture, but would require no additional certification.

In both cases, I had all the information necessary for both options, and knew the outcome of each option before I chose. The decision was, which outcome was I willing to accept?

So - if I had all the information necessary before making my choice, does that mean it wasn't a "real" choice?

You did NOT have all the information. You point this out in your very analogy.

You asked a question- which outcome was I willing to accept?

Why did you have to ask that question? Because you did not know the answer.

The information that you did not have was what YOU WOULD DO.

If God does not know what he is going to do then God is not omniscient.

He cannot know all there is to ever know about everything if he does not even know what HE is going to do.

This is the point, Don. This is why this idea is so dangerous.

Real choice REQUIRES a deficiency of information prior to the choosing.

God cannot be both omniscient and deficient of any information.

To say that God makes literally BILLIONS of real choices is to say that God does not have all the information about BILLIONS of scenarios.

Surely you see how dangerous this is.

This is why non-calvinistic theologies tend to Open Theism

I have found that the SMARTEST Arminians are the CLOSEST to Open Theism because they are smart enough to follow their doctrines to their logical ends.

Skandelon is the closest on here I have seen for that very reason- he is one of the smartest non-cals, I think the smartest, on BB.

 

[Calv1]

Everything I do is human. I happen to be human. So yes- it is human logic.

If something being human makes it faulty by default then we cannot know ANYTHING.

I believe that Jesus was born of a Virgin according to the Scriptures.
You would say, "But isn't that your human understanding of the Scriptures?"

Well, yea, I guess it is.
You say, "AHA!!! Then it may be that Jesus was NOT born of a virgin. It may be that Jesus did NOT rise from the dead!! SEE YOU FOOL! You base everything you believe on your HUMAN understanding!"

See how ignorant this line of reasoning of yours is when carried out to it's natural end?



The problem here is that the Bible actually TEACHES that when it comes to God the first premise is faulty.

You want to deny anthropomorphic language in the Bible and thereby demand that God does not REALLY know everything.

You want to say it like this.

"I believe God has always known all there is to ever know about everything."
Oh yea? Was there a point at which God did not know what he would do concerning some decision he would make- and THEN all of the sudden at that point he did know so that right then and there he could make a choice?
"Yea, I believe that!"
Then doesn't that mean that God did NOT know all there is to ever know about everything if he did not even know what HE was going to do? Especially since he must have made many millions of choices, if you demand that his "choosing" and his "electing" were literal events that occurred at some point?
"NO! MYSTERY! MYSTERY! MYSTERY! Just look at the TRINITY!! HA! HA!!"

It doesn't work that way.

Before you start crying, "mystery" you have to have some biblical grounds.

God saying he chose this and that- it's not enough for the very same reason that God saying he has nostrils is not enough to demand that the eternal God has nostrils.




I do stick with the biblical account. The one that teaches that God is omniscient. That is the one you need to concern yourself the most with, Skandelon.
And a refresher on anthropomorphic language and Theology Proper would help you greatly here too.



It actually DOES say something like that. It says that he chose me in Christ BEFORE the foundation of the world.

THAT LITERALLY MEANS back in eternity past. There was no TIME before the foundation of the world. If there was no time, what is left? ETERNITY PAST. So was there an actual POINT at which God chose me?

Not according to the BIBLE.

Just stick with the biblical concepts and terms and don't allow you intellect and speculative reasoning distort the clear revelations in which God chose in eternity past which BY DEFINITION means it did not occur at a single point- and therefore was not a REAL choice.






The analogy is faulty, Skandelon.

I am not dismissing that God elects. I am dismissing this idea that he didn't know what he was going to do then he finally made up his mind at some point.
As best I can tell, that is heresy.

Choice is not real choice with God. REAL choice REQUIRES a deficiency of information prior to the act of choosing- by DEFINITION of the term. If you try to make God one who makes REAL choices you cross the line into heresy.



Logic is not the enemy of theology. Theology is BASED on logic. Good theology applies logic to the truth of Scripture. Abandon logic and you abandon theology.
The only time you have permission to abandon logic is when the Bible EXPLICITLY states something that you cannot figure logically.

Anthropomorphic language is not sufficient grounds to abandon logic.

Cool down brother! I've noticed that most on this forum have no exegetical skills, and are ignorant of what scripture teachs.

I will never tell another man how to respond, but I would suggest that you tell them with scripture show them how they are very misguided. They are diluded by tradition and emotions.

I, myself fought the doctrines of grace for years, I wrote papers and a
"Book" against Calvinism, but eventually there was no way I could ignore scripture any longer.

These people need to hear the truth, for they are not glorifying God.

 

[Robert Snow]

Cool down brother! I've noticed that most on this forum have no exegetical skills, and are ignorant of what scripture teaches.

I will never tell another man how to respond, but I would suggest that you tell them with scripture show them how they are very misguided. They are deluded by tradition and emotions.

I, myself fought the doctrines of grace for years, I wrote papers and a
"Book" against Calvinism, but eventually there was no way I could ignore scripture any longer.

These people need to hear the truth, for they are not glorifying God.

I submit it is you who are misguided. Anyone who studies the bible knows that Calvinism is false. Most Calvinist here are more concerned with the teachings of this flawed man than they are what God actually says. For instance, John 3:16. A reading of this wonderful verse shows that God indeed died for the whole world. Only with some slight of hand twisting does the Calvinists make this verse say what it does not say.

 

[Luke2427]

Bernanke Practices Golf as the Whole World Watches

Nemcova: 'Whole world hurt by Japan disaster'


Prop 23: The Whole World Watches as Narrow Interests and the Planet Collide in California



The Whole World Joins Forces in Sending Disaster Relief Teams to Japan

Obama travels, whole world watches

Israel against the whole world

Japan earthquake aftermath: The whole world is watching

The Whole World Together For Japan


The whole world listens to the word of the street


Japan disaster will cost 'whole world'


When this Emcee Speaks the Whole World Listens!!!

Tragedy in Japan affects whole world


It's not just Japan - it's the whole world!



No intelligent person thinks that "whole world" means every single person. That is not the normal use of the phrase.


The WHOLE WORLD knows this.


.

 

[Calv1]

I submit it is you who are misguided. Anyone who studies the bible knows that Calvinism is false. Most Calvinist here are more concerned with the teachings of this flawed man than they are what God actually says. For instance, John 3:16. A reading of this wonderful verse shows that God indeed died for the whole world. Only with some slight of hand twisting does the Calvinists make this verse say what it does not say.

During the reformation, there was NO THEOLOGY. What would people know? The Roman Church? Or something else? How about Molinism? What about Universilism? Calvin laid out the scripture at an important time, doctrine means much, and we believe that Calvin was the closest to the mark of what the New Testament and Old taught.

You bring up John 3:16 as usual. Have you never read the Greek? It is clear that "God so loved the world, that the believing ones...................."

Since you wish to say "Anyone who studies the bible", then answer me, if you can, John 6, Romans 9, and Ephesians 1. Remember to pay attention to EVERY WORD, don't discard what you don't like or what does not fall into your tradition. I will await your answers.

And that's just for starters!

 

[Luke2427]

During the reformation, there was NO THEOLOGY. What would people know? The Roman Church? Or something else? How about Molinism? What about Universilism? Calvin laid out the scripture at an important time, doctrine means much, and we believe that Calvin was the closest to the mark of what the New Testament and Old taught.

You bring up John 3:16 as usual. Have you never read the Greek? It is clear that "God so loved the world, that the believing ones...................."

Since you wish to say "Anyone who studies the bible", then answer me, if you can, John 6, Romans 9, and Ephesians 1. Remember to pay attention to EVERY WORD, don't discard what you don't like or what does not fall into your tradition. I will await your answers.

And that's just for starters!

See post 58 and before you engage Snow too far on anything, I recommend you consider a couple of things:

1- Don't. I tried for months until... [Edited for violation of Rule #4]... I put him on ignore.

2- Consider taking the Romans 9, John 6 and Ephesians one discussion to another thread. If you guys start talking about that here it will hijack this thread. PM me if you don't know yet how to start a thread. It's easy. I can tell you in a couple of easy steps.