Do non-cals believe in omniscience?

[Benjamin]

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.

Good post, and maintains truth about the Nature of God, but of course a "determinist" will have to reject it because it doesn't fit his boxed system, and if he has nothing to rationally respond to he'll probably just dismiss it by accusing of you making MAN God. Don't have time to get into this but wanted to pass by with the :thumbs:.

 

[webdog]

Good post, and maintains truth about the Nature of God, but of course a "determinist" will have to reject it because it doesn't fit his boxed system, and if he has nothing to rationally respond to he'll probably just dismiss it by accusing of you making MAN God. Don't have time to get into this but wanted to pass by with the :thumbs:.

:thumbs: Seems if you cannot package just right it is then defaulted to a string of pejoratives. They irony is they create even more tensions and "mystery" by implementing their system in the place of the clear understanding of the text.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

:thumbs: Seems if you cannot package just right it is then defaulted to a string of pejoratives. They irony is they create even more tensions and "mystery" by implementing their system in the place of the clear understanding of the text.

The "street lingo" used to discribe the context of your commentary, I believe is

dissed

past participle, past tense of dis
Verb:
Act or speak in a disrespectful way toward another.

 

[glfredrick]

:thumbs: Seems if you cannot package just right it is then defaulted to a string of pejoratives. They irony is they create even more tensions and "mystery" by implementing their system in the place of the clear understanding of the text.

Why not explain that "clear understanding of the text" for us right now so that we can all see how it works out.

 

[Luke2427]

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.

I think many Arminians might think that their system does exonerate God from the origin of evil- but I think most of them who really ponder the matter realize that this is not so and are unwilling to compromise the definition of God's omniscience.

I think we find here on baptistboard that most of us with a few exceptions agree that God most assuredly KNEW before he made the world that it would fall and yet he made it any way.

 

[preacher4truth]

I think many Arminians might think that their system does exonerate God from the origin of evil- but I think most of them who really ponder the matter realize that this is not so and are unwilling to compromise the definition of God's omniscience.

I think we find here on baptistboard that most of us with a few exceptions agree that God most assuredly KNEW before he made the world that it would fall and yet he made it any way.

I would certainly hope so. There seems to be a trend to undermine the attributes of God, these things seem to be popular, and for the sake of unity, some have been seen to accept the views of Pinnock, when they should be rejected.

Roger Olsen thinks this is something that shouldn't be taken too seriously, and he is a noted Arminian. This should be an interesting read:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2010/08/why-open-theism-doesnt-even-matter-very-much/

 

[quantumfaith]

I think many Arminians might think that their system does exonerate God from the origin of evil- but I think most of them who really ponder the matter realize that this is not so and are unwilling to compromise the definition of God's omniscience.

I think we find here on baptistboard that most of us with a few exceptions agree that God most assuredly KNEW before he made the world that it would fall and yet he made it any way.

Not sure about the first statement, but I do like the second.

 

[Winman]

I knew before I had children that they would sin, but that does not mean I condone any sin they commit.

Jesus said sin is necessary. It "must needs be"

Mat 18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

God wants people who love him and choose him. To do this he must enable us to have free will. That free will that enables us to truly love and choose him necessitates that a person also be able to choose against God and hate him. It cannot be avoided, "it must needs be".

Programmed robots cannot love, only creatures with true free will can love. Free will always entails risk, to be able to obey and love, a person must also be able to rebel and hate.

 

[webdog]

Why not explain that "clear understanding of the text" for us right now so that we can all see how it works out.

Mark already did (with Scripture) and you just dismissed it while implying he is an open theist. Can you repent without changing your mind or intended actions?

 

[webdog]

The "street lingo" used to discribe the context of your commentary, I believe is

dissed

past participle, past tense of dis
Verb:
Act or speak in a disrespectful way toward another.

Thank you for the clearly biased and confusing commentary :thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

Why not explain that "clear understanding of the text" for us right now so that we can all see how it works out.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[Iconoclast]

How?

The god he described is beholden unto man......waiting and hoping that man responds...so then he can do something. he does not know what will happen...because evidently he has not purposed anything to actually happen....he kind of wishes ...and hopes it works out;
then he describes the god who somehow, draws everyman to jesus even those who have not heard of Him.....and he is not wiiling that any perish,and yet they do...so his will does not get done. he is a frustrated deity...unlike the biblical God who plans and purposes exactly who He will save,and then actually saves THEM...in Covenant grace and mercy.


THIS GOD;
11He shall see of the travail of his soul,
: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.


No hand wringing....no frustration, no "repenting".....He changes not.

 

[webdog]

The god he described is beholden unto man......waiting and hoping that man responds...so then he can do something. he does not know what will happen...because evidently he has not purposed anything to actually happen....he kind of wishes ...and hopes it works out;
then he describes the god who somehow, draws everyman to jesus even those who have not heard of Him.....and he is not wiiling that any perish,and yet they do...so his will does not get done. he is a frustrated deity...unlike the biblical God who plans and purposes exactly who He will save,and then actually saves THEM...in Covenant grace and mercy.


THIS GOD;
11He shall see of the travail of his soul,
: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.


No hand wringing....no frustration, no "repenting".....He changes not.

If only Mark had even hinted any of that convoluted mess....

 

[DaChaser1]

If only Mark had even hinted any of that convoluted mess....

Didn't need to, as the Apsotle John had it written and explained to us also!

 

[webdog]

Didn't need to, as the Apsotle John had it written and explained to us also!

Not the apostle, the one on this thread. Follow along

 

[Skandelon]

I think we find here on baptistboard that most of us with a few exceptions agree that God most assuredly KNEW before he made the world that it would fall and yet he made it any way.

But, with all due respect, even if that point is conceded it in no way equates the Calvinistic problem with the Arminian problem, as you argue. It is called the "You Too Fallacy" when one attempts to divert attention onto a similar, but not equal, problem of the opposition without providing any response to their own problem.

 

[glfredrick]

But, with all due respect, even if that point is conceded it in no way equates the Calvinistic problem with the Arminian problem, as you argue. It is called the "You Too Fallacy" when one attempts to divert attention onto a similar, but not equal, problem of the opposition without providing any response to their own problem.

So, you are conscious of what you are doing... :thumbs:

And, actually the problems are the same. Just that the solutions to them approach from opposite vantage points.

 

[Luke2427]

But, with all due respect, even if that point is conceded it in no way equates the Calvinistic problem with the Arminian problem, as you argue. It is called the "You Too Fallacy" when one attempts to divert attention onto a similar, but not equal, problem of the opposition without providing any response to their own problem.

I am not diverting attention from my position. My position is not in question on this thread, so there is no diverting at all.

There is no need to respond to my problem since it is the exact same as the Arminian problem which cannot be responded to unless there is a watering down of the definition of omniscience.

We are all in the exact same boat.

Denial of this divides us- recognizing this fact unites us.

Both Arminians (and non-cals) and Calvinists cannot exonerate God to our own emotional satisfaction from being the author of evil (though both of us know that he is NOT the author of evil).

We both affirm that God KNEW BEFORE HE MADE THIS WORLD WHAT WOULD COME OF IT- yet he went right ahead and made it anyway.

That's a problem for ALL orthodox Christians, Calvinist and Non-Calvinist alike.

It is not a problem for the person who (and this might not be you brother) simply says that since God's knowledge is not like ours then maybe he did NOT know BEFORE he made the world what would become of it.

But for all of us, and I think this probably includes you, who really do believe that God knew before he made the world what would come of it- we all share the same problem.

Division comes when either side denies this by redefining God. The Calvinist might say God is the direct creator of evil and actually performs evil. This is a redefinition of God. The Arminian might say, "Well God did not KNOW these things were going to happen." That's a redefinition of God.

We both ought to be able to say, "God knew EXACTLY what would take place, yet he made the world anyway and we just don't know how he is not the author of evil in light of these facts but we trust him."

That's when we can unite.

 

[convicted1]

I am not diverting attention from my position. My position is not in question on this thread, so there is no diverting at all.

There is no need to respond to my problem since it is the exact same as the Arminian problem which cannot be responded to unless there is a watering down of the definition of omniscience.

We are all in the exact same boat.

Denial of this divides us- recognizing this fact unites us.

Both Arminians (and non-cals) and Calvinists cannot exonerate God to our own emotional satisfaction from being the author of evil (though both of us know that he is NOT the author of evil).

We both affirm that God KNEW BEFORE HE MADE THIS WORLD WHAT WOULD COME OF IT- yet he went right ahead and made it anyway.

That's a problem for ALL orthodox Christians, Calvinist and Non-Calvinist alike.

It is not a problem for the person who (and this might not be you brother) simply says that since God's knowledge is not like ours then maybe he did NOT know BEFORE he made the world what would become of it.

But for all of us, and I think this probably includes you, who really do believe that God knew before he made the world what would come of it- we all share the same problem.

Division comes when either side denies this by redefining God. The Calvinist might say God is the direct creator of evil and actually performs evil. This is a redefinition of God. The Arminian might say, "Well God did not KNOW these things were going to happen." That's a redefinition of God.

We both ought to be able to say, "God knew EXACTLY what would take place, yet he made the world anyway and we just don't know how he is not the author of evil in light of these facts but we trust him."

That's when we can unite.

This is one of the best posts I have ever read of yours. There is so much about God we will never know(like seeing through a glass darkly), in our finite minds. Whatever happens, we can trust Him to protect us. People bite their nails worrying about the economy. I don't. I have my trust firmly planted in Him, and He will provide for me......

Psalm 37:22-26

22 For such as be blessed of him shall inherit the earth; and they that be cursed of him shall be cut off.

23 The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his way.

24 Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down: for the LORD upholdeth him with his hand.

25 I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread.

26 He is ever merciful, and lendeth; and his seed is blessed.

Oh, how sweet it is to proclaim I am I AM'S lock, stock, and barrell!! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Winman]

The god he described is beholden unto man......waiting and hoping that man responds...so then he can do something. he does not know what will happen...because evidently he has not purposed anything to actually happen....he kind of wishes ...and hopes it works out;
then he describes the god who somehow, draws everyman to jesus even those who have not heard of Him.....and he is not wiiling that any perish,and yet they do...so his will does not get done. he is a frustrated deity...unlike the biblical God who plans and purposes exactly who He will save,and then actually saves THEM...in Covenant grace and mercy.


THIS GOD;
11He shall see of the travail of his soul,
: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.


No hand wringing....no frustration, no "repenting".....He changes not.

Your view is exactly the same as the Jews had. They had expected the promised Christ to be this powerful king and military leader who would crush all of Israel's enemies. They could not perceive of Christ as this lowly carpenter.

Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them

Jesus did not come as this powerful military leader but a lowly carpenter, therefore the Jews were offended. He did not meet their expectations. And we see because of their unbelief that Jesus's power was limited, he could not perform mighty works among these unbelievers.

Calvinists must see God as this powerful being who's will cannot be frustrated, but the scriptures clearly show it was.

Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Jesus here is absolutely describing frustration at the Jews and said how he longed to bring their children unto himself but they refused and would not.

So, like the Jews, you start with a false presumption and therefore misinterpret scripture. God does not force people to obey him. God's power was limited by people's unbelief. And God's will on earth was not always done and he was frustrated.

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Jesus said only those who do the will of his Father shall enter the kingdom of heaven, therefore his will is not always performed.