Once again folks, the inevitable pissing contest! :BangHead:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Do non-cals believe in omniscience?
- Thread starter Luke2427
- Start date
Once again folks, the inevitable pissing contest! :BangHead:
They keep asking why God does what he does, but jesus only answer to that is "Trust me!"
preacher4truth
Active Member
:applause: :wavey: :thumbsup:
I've been saying that for days. You can't figure out God. Why do we keep arguing about it?
Oh come on Amy.....don't you know men by now....it's all about who can shoot the stream further.:laugh:Or is that farther? Will have to ask the professor.
Are you saying that it would have gone much smoother if the Apsotles would have been women instead?
(double wink!)
Wow .....profound!!!! Your Eyes are wide open. :applause::applause:
or to be more blunt, could answer as jesus did peter, what does it matter to you? Come and follow me!
I think the reason this debate lingers is because some of us think that since God cannot be figured out, as you rightly stated, then two things:
1. He doesn't know like we know.
Which means....
2. He has not always really known what was going to happen in the universe before he made it.
I think this is problematic.
Why not just admit that neither Calvinists nor Arminians can really exonerate God in our own minds from being the author of evil and being responsible for the damnation of souls?
I don't think, as a Calvinist, that God is the author of evil or that God is responsible for the damnation of billions of souls- but I can't explain how he could know everything that would happen before he made the world and yet he went right ahead and made the world anyway- I can't explain how he is not responsible for evil and damnation. I just TRUST that he is not.
Most Arminians and non-cals join with me in this faith. They TOO, just like me, are TOTALLY unwilling to redefine God just to exonerate him in their minds from being the author of evil and damnation.
Why can't we just all admit that this is a problem for all soteriological systems that do not redefine God's omniscience?
This is something that ought to bring us together. We ought to be able to say, "Can you explain that? Me neither. I guess we're in the same boat!"
I agree. And I admit I don't have all the answers. It's enough to know that God knows what He's doing and I can trust Him completely. God's been showing me that lately.
And you're right. It should bring us together.
I think it may have been overlooked here that it is not really God who is changing God's mind but man who is directing the hand of God in one direction or the other. Let's take Jer. 18:8 for example:
"If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them."
We see here where God's mind is fixed on 2 courses of action, and it is man who will determine if God repents from the course He first spoke of. The same is true in salvation. God has determined to condemn man for sin, but if man repents and turns to God, then God will 'repent' and turn to man.
Look at Jonah 4:2, where Jonah bemoaned the fact that God turned from the judgment He had pronounced upon Ninevah when the city repented:
"And he prayed... for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and REPENTEST thee of the evil"
Is this really a God of love and compassion, not willing that any of the wicked should refuse to be saved and perish? Yes, indeed, that is our God of love! If a sinner refuses to turn to God, however, in spite of that which God does for him, lightening him with the Word of Truth, and drawing him with all men to Christ lifted up on the cross, then there will be no 'repentance' or turning away from the decreed judgment by God toward that willful rebel.
We will never know the answer to that question will we? :smilewinkgrin:
glfredrick
New Member
preacher4truth
Active Member
I disagree that non-Calvinists and Arminians don't try to exonerate God in their teachings by redefining Him. That's a chivalrous comment, but it just isn't true, and is proven by comments here that persons do in fact attempt to exonerate God, and redefine Him who are outside the Calvinist camp. Outside of the BB this is seen with those who embrace Open Theism who are not Calvinistic. That path is leading directly toward Socinianism. I've not met one person who would be considered Calvinist that has attempted to redefine God or has denied He is Omniscient and has always been.
In addition, it's not about whether we can explain it or not, that's not the issue. It's that we do explain it, biblically, and we either accept the biblical account, or we don't, and yet we don't comprehend it completely. I know that is semantics but that is what this is all about, and it better refines what we are saying. Unfortunately some want to and do overlook the Biblical account and try to explain away these hard truths.
The issue at hand is at the least twofold: 1) Whether or not God is Omniscient; 2) Whether or not God knew all things that would transpire including the evil. So it is basically whether or not this attribute is of God and expresses God and His true nature biblically. Denial of Omnsicience is denying an essential doctrine, and is describing a god who not being omniscient is not God at all.
Of course we believe both that He is Omniscient and knew all things at all times, or has always been all knowing. The testimony of Scriptures is that we receive evil at Gods hand as well, that He controls these things, or permits them, which again permitting is still effectual, efficacious.
The fact is God created and knew all things that would transpire when He did so. Either we trust God in this or we do not. One unfortunate thing is we just do not teach our people harder truths, or at least in my history of those who pastored me, and of others, these things were avoided or just never delved into, which is one reason I pursued to know more about God, being greatly disappointed with the theological concept of God stemming from these churches, and discovered these truths. In addition some people just don't read their Bibles in our churches, and they get their theology from anywhere but the Scriptures. This is why these teachings are so shocking to people, especially in our 'God is Love' culture and to those who have little theological acumen.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes,,,he has missed it:thumbsup:He is speaking of the open theist god
You didn't answer the question. First, we do not merit a gift, nor do we work for it. We do not assist the gift giver in giving it. We do not give it to ourselves. These are the caricatures DaChaser always presents that I call him out on.
Depending on how you define "passive", I might agree with part of your answer.
He said nothing of the sort. He presented the clear tension found in Scripture. Fact is we don't understand how God reacts / acts with His own creation. Admitting this is not an admission to open theism.
How?
glfredrick
New Member
I answered. You don't like my answer because it removes your very favorite expression of syncretism.
The truth is, gifts are given by a GIVER and the giftee has no role in the matter, except that they are passively present to accept the gift given. Yes, they might reject the gift, but they would then stand in precisely the same place they did moments before the offer of the gift -- without a gift -- and without any change.
There is no way to wrangle this allagorical example into some form of expression for syncretism concerning salvation, especially in light of John 3, where Christ makes it very clear that without Him, we are already condemned. The giftee who fails to take the gift does not change states. He or she remains the same, condemned already.
Ok. Whatever you say :laugh:
What do you know...they have to accept the gift, which is a ROLE in the process
Agreed.
He remains condemned for his refusal of truth which was presented to him from birth, not for not being one of the nebulous "elect"