Do non-cals believe in omniscience?

[Skandelon]

The best explanation that I've found regarding the problem of evil and the omniscience of God presented evil as a wound. Evil is not a real thing. It is real, but real in a sense that a wound is real (it’s not a thing to be created). A man may have a wound on his arm – his arm is a real thing, the wound is real but only in relation to the arm. Evil is only real in relation to something (God, in terms of sin). Satan, then, authored his own evil. Likewise, men are the author of their evil. This only explains to me that God is not the author of evil – but what about omniscience?

I like much of what you have said here. You are very articulate. The only point I may take issue is the parenthetical statement "it's not a thing to be created." A wound is indeed real only in relation to the arm, but something created that wound, unless you are arguing the arm was created with the wound?

Think of it terms of intent. Where did Satan's intent to 'become like God' originate? Yes, that intent is only real in relation to Satan, but that doesn't change the fact that it must originate somewhere. I believe scripture where it says that it originated in Satan and I appeal to mystery regarding God's omniscience about that intent. I do the same with the evil choices of men. I don't speculate, as SOME do, that God created them with a nature and desire that when confronted by certain set predetermined stimuli (circumstances) that they could not have done otherwise than what they did. How can they KNOW that? God doesn't even tempt men to evil yet they would have us believe God causally determined (through secondary means) the very temptations and evil choices that he is revealed else where to so abhor. It makes no sense to me. Why not appeal to mystery before drawing such conclusions that impugn the holiness of God and the revelation of scripture?

 

[Skandelon]

What I think we're all trying to express is that we are unwilling to redefine God as not knowing all there is to ever know about everything just to exonerate him in our own minds.

You seem to be suggesting that I have "redefined God as not knowing all there is to ever know," but maybe you are referring to Van? I'm not sure. But I can assure you that I have never attempted to 'redefine' anything. I've accepted the distinctions between predetermination and foreknowledge (something I don't think you have done) and have appealed to mystery regarding the nature of man's free choices as they relate to God's omniscience...as I just explained in my last post to Jon. I also have rejected conclusions drawn on the basis of these definitions which seem contradictory to revelation.

 

[Skandelon]

Luke, I think you believe God is on a time line like us:

eternal
future (EF)

eternal
past (EP)


EP<----------God creates--------> EF

You seem to argue that if God KNEW ALL THINGS 'prior' to coming to that point on the time line where He created it then He is approving it and/or even determining it to be, thus setting history according to HIS DETERMINATION to 'create it anyway.'

Indeed, if this is really the way God works then Determinism is the only 'logical' conclusion. But that ASSUMES this anthropomorphic model of omniscience, divine determination on a linear time based model is accurate, which is a might HUGE ASSUMPTION to me.

When, in God's timeless/eternal existence, did he ever 'come to a point in time' where he CHOSE to create the world as HE foreknew it would be? Can our minds even begin to wrap around such things?

I believe the speculation that God is in the 'eternal now' (the I AM), is a much better model on which to 'better understand' God's divine omniscience. Its the difference of one knowing something because it is in our past and we experienced it (thus its done and determined and cannot change) versus knowing something that is in our present because we ARE experiencing it NOW. God's KNOWING is in the eternal present, the eternal NOW, which doesn't have to be 'determinative' in nature, but still such things admittedly remain mysterious indeed.

 

[Luke2427]

You seem to be suggesting that I have "redefined God as not knowing all there is to ever know," but maybe you are referring to Van? I'm not sure. But I can assure you that I have never attempted to 'redefine' anything. I've accepted the distinctions between predetermination and foreknowledge (something I don't think you have done) and have appealed to mystery regarding the nature of man's free choices as they relate to God's omniscience...as I just explained in my last post to Jon. I also have rejected conclusions drawn on the basis of these definitions which seem contradictory to revelation.

I guess I do think that you are, perhaps inadvertantly, trying to redefine omniscience to exonerate God from the origin of evil and the damnation of souls.

I think you do this by saying that God does not know like we know- which I agree with as far as it goes.

But what I do not agree with is what you seem to me to be implying from that truth: that God did not know that billions would perish if he made this world.

However God sees the future, or the present and past for that matter, it is not INFERIOR to the way we see and understand the present and the past.

He may not see it like we see it- but he does not see it in a more limited way for sure.

God KNEW that this world would be one in which billions would perish before he made the first man- yet he made him anyway.

That is a problem for anybody who does not lessen the definition of omniscience.

It is therefore a problem for me- a Calvinist who affirm God's omniscience.

It is also a problem for all of my non-cal brethren who do the same.

 

[glfredrick]

You make a valid point. I do agree that we are to understand God within time, what other option do we have really? But, I think you would agree, that understanding must be firmly rooted in His revelation, not our logical constructs. I've been arguing the 'appeal to mystery' from the beginning on this subject because I believe where the scripture is silent so should we be.

I've also argued that if God chose to reveal himself using anthropomorphic terms then it can't be wrong for us to understand him according to those terms.

This is why I have rejected speculative conclusions such as, "If God knew it prior to creating it then He must have determined it to be." The bible doesn't say that.

I agree. Not the first, but close enough. :laugh:

God, by His very nature must have utter and comprehensive knowledge apart from any reconciliation with time. To say otherwise is to suggest that God is not complete or lacking in something to which He, in a future sense, grows into. That is not true, for God lacks nothing, including exhaustive knowledge as if all is present time.

We might have to parse "anthropomorphic terms" but I agree that God certainly has revealed Himself in that way. Whether that is the way we are to understand Him is another issue and there may not be a direct cause and effect proposition to be made to that effect. Calvin expressed the notion that God speaks to us in "baby talk" so that we can have some grasp of what He utters to us. I believe some of the Fathers said likewise in various terminology but I cannot place a distinct time offhand. Calvin never indicated, however, that the "baby talk" was the full extent of God. Actually, he said just the opposite, i.e., that God "stooped" to speak to us in a way that we could grasp, but that His ways are higher than our ways by magnitudes of order so that if He cared, He could have written the Word in such a way as to leave us completely in the dark. That for me gives rise to the inference that there is more to God and understanding God than "baby talk." And indeed, most of Christendom has said likewise.

 

[JonC]

Skandelon,

Very good points. I didn’t say it, but I think that the wound may have very well been self inflicted. Regarding the sin of Satan, I don’t think that there was a source, other than Satan, for the intent to ‘become like God.’

I think that you are correct in appealing to mystery. C.S. Lewis noted that one cannot continue seeing through things for ever, for the whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it (The Abolition of Man). We sometimes try to reason away what is legitimately there because we lack understanding – or cannot reconcile what is present with our reasoning or the theological system to which we cling.

 

[preacher4truth]

It sounds to me that there was a point and form of "Deism" in all of this at a point within the belief of some.

There is opposition to God knowing all things at all times as though God needs defended against His total Sovereignty, thus, after this rationalizing it can all sit well, and things can feel comfortable within some.

 

[Skandelon]

I think you do this by saying that God does not know like we know- which I agree with as far as it goes.

If you agree then why are you accusing me of redefining it, when all I'm doing is appealing to mystery regarding conclusions BASED on it?

But what I do not agree with is what you seem to me to be implying from that truth: that God did not know that billions would perish if he made this world.

Again, that statement, whether you recognize it or not, puts God back onto the time line where he is subject to cause/effect laws and understanding. I believe it is possible for God to fully know (in the enteral now) that many will perish because they 'freely' chose to rebel. I also believe God can sincerely desire for all to come to repentance while longingly and genuinely holding out his hands to them. I also believe that God created time, space, free creatures, and this entire world.

I believe its possible to hold to all these truths independently without drawing hard and fast conclusions based linear finite logic, especially when such logic leads one to adopt the view that God determined evil, when scripture clearly says He doesn't.

I can believe God is three persons. And I can believe God is one. Does that mean it makes perfect logical sense? No.

However God sees the future, or the present and past for that matter, it is not INFERIOR to the way we see and understand the present and the past.

That is MY point. You are the one LIMITING God's choices, knowledge and workings to the level of man by concluding IT MUST BE "this way" because that is the way it would be IF God were a man who 'knew everything' and 'created it anyway.' I'm saying that is a limited and INFERIOR view of an infinite being. I'm saying we can't know such things.

He may not see it like we see it- but he does not see it in a more limited way for sure.

You seem to assume that a 'non-deterministic' way of knowing, creating and working is 'more limited' but isn't that kind of begging the question? Because you CAN define it using your finite logic proves your way is limited. I'm the one appealing to mystery and saying it is so complicated that it can't be limited to our logical finite linear constructs. Your answer is the one that defines and draws conclusions.

God KNEW that this world would be one in which billions would perish before he made the first man- yet he made him anyway.

When is BEFORE? Before he create time? When is that? PRIOR to AFTER or BEFORE the PAST? :laugh:

I think we must sound like worms discussing the origin of dirt, to God.

That is a problem for anybody who does not lessen the definition of omniscience.

Lesson or Heighten?

One says: we have it figured out: "God knew it prior to creating it and did it anyway thus determining it to be."

The other says: "We can't possibly understand how God knows, chooses and works in his infinite, eternal ways, so we can't draw conclusions about such matters. Let's just stick with the anthropomorphic 'coos' of divine revelation."
​

I'm arguing the second is a higher view, so to assume the first is the 'higher' view is once again begging the question.

 

[Skandelon]

I agree. Not the first, but close enough. :laugh:

Well then, I'm going to leave well enough alone. I don't want to ruin this moment for us. :laugh:

 

[Luke2427]

If you agree then why are you accusing me of redefining it, when all I'm doing is appealing to mystery regarding conclusions BASED on it?

Again, that statement, whether you recognize it or not, puts God back onto the time line where he is subject to cause/effect laws and understanding. I believe it is possible for God to fully know (in the enteral now) that many will perish because they 'freely' chose to rebel. I also believe God can sincerely desire for all to come to repentance while longingly and genuinely holding out his hands to them. I also believe that God created time, space, free creatures, and this entire world.

I believe its possible to hold to all these truths independently without drawing hard and fast conclusions based linear finite logic, especially when such logic leads one to adopt the view that God determined evil, when scripture clearly says He doesn't.

I can believe God is three persons. And I can believe God is one. Does that mean it makes perfect logical sense? No.

That is MY point. You are the one LIMITING God's choices, knowledge and workings to the level of man by concluding IT MUST BE "this way" because that is the way it would be IF God were a man who 'knew everything' and 'created it anyway.' I'm saying that is a limited and INFERIOR view of an infinite being. I'm saying we can't know such things.

You seem to assume that a 'non-deterministic' way of knowing, creating and working is 'more limited' but isn't that kind of begging the question? Because you CAN define it using your finite logic proves your way is limited. I'm the one appealing to mystery and saying it is so complicated that it can't be limited to our logical finite linear constructs. Your answer is the one that defines and draws conclusions.

When is BEFORE? Before he create time? When is that? PRIOR to AFTER or BEFORE the PAST? :laugh:

I think we must sound like worms discussing the origin of dirt, to God.

Lesson or Heighten?

One says: we have it figured out: "God knew it prior to creating it and did it anyway thus determining it to be."

The other says: "We can't possibly understand how God knows, chooses and works in his infinite, eternal ways, so we can't draw conclusions about such matters. Let's just stick with the anthropomorphic 'coos' of divine revelation."
​

I'm arguing the second is a higher view, so to assume the first is the 'higher' view is once again begging the question.

It is not about "figuring it out," Skan.

It is about omniscience MEANING something. I don't have to understand it fully to be able to understand it at all.

I don't understand the Trinity but I know at least this much- there are three persons of the godhead.

I don't have to understand omniscience fully to know that God always knew everything that would ever happen.

What I CAN know is this: God has eternally known all there is to ever know about everything.

That is enough.

That means of necessity that he always knew what would happen in this world.

Do you think that he did not?

You are right that God's knowledge is not like ours- but what it certainly is not is INFERIOR to ours.

Do you not believe that God KNEW billions would perish before he made man?

 

[JonC]

I believe the speculation that God is in the 'eternal now' (the I AM), is a much better model on which to 'better understand' God's divine omniscience. Its the difference of one knowing something because it is in our past and we experienced it (thus its done and determined and cannot change) versus knowing something that is in our present because we ARE experiencing it NOW. God's KNOWING is in the eternal present, the eternal NOW, which doesn't have to be 'determinative' in nature, but still such things admittedly remain mysterious indeed.

I like this explanation. It also speaks to the immutability of God.

No one can "solve the problem" because there isn't one to solve, it is simply and beyond us. We are not qualified. If I can identify issues with my understanding (which I can), I'm sure no one else will have problems doing the same. God, other than what He has revealed of Himself, is a mystery.

 

[Luke2427]

I like this explanation. It also speaks to the immutability of God.

No one can "solve the problem" because there isn't one to solve, it is simply and beyond us. We are not qualified. If I can identify issues with my understanding (which I can), I'm sure no one else will have problems doing the same. God, other than what He has revealed of Himself, is a mystery.

I agree- particularly with the last statement.

What God HAS revealed of himself to us is that he is omniscient. And whatever ELSE that may mean that we do not understand- it definitely means this much: God has always known all there is to ever know about everything.

What that means is that God knew before he made man what would happen to man- yet he made him anyway.

This is a problem for both major systems that embrace all that is taught in classical Theology Proper.

 

[Skandelon]

I like this explanation. It also speaks to the immutability of God.

No one can "solve the problem" because there isn't one to solve, it is simply beyond us. We are not qualified. If I can identify issues with my understanding (which I can), I'm sure no one else will have problems doing the same. God, other than what He has revealed of Himself, is a mystery.

:applause::applause::applause:

 

[Skandelon]

I agree- particularly with the last statement.

I don't think you do, based on what you go on to say...

What God HAS revealed of himself to us is that he is omniscient. And whatever ELSE that may mean that we do not understand- it definitely means this much: God has always known all there is to ever know about everything.

Stop right there and we'll be fine, but you have to keep going and contradict what you just agreed to...

What that means is that God knew before he made man what would happen to man- yet he made him anyway.

And there it is... You draw a conclusion based upon what you just agreed was a mystery, thus CREATING the problem.

Explain the phrase, "God knew before...." You do know that is another way of saying, "Prior to the existence of time, the eternal infinite Creator existed IN a TIMELINE and looked down the corridors of time to see all that would come to pass IF he created and then MADE A CHOICE to create anyway."

How do you know that is how it works Luke? How can you possible know that? Didn't you just say that God doesn't make choices? And didn't you agree that even our understanding of omniscience is limited and 'anthropomorphic'? So, how can you claim to even come to this conclusion?

 

[Luke2427]

I don't think you do, based on what you go on to say...


Stop right there and we'll be fine, but you have to keep going and contradict what you just agreed to...

And there it is... You draw a conclusion based upon what you just agreed was a mystery.

Explain the phrase, "God knew before...." You do know that is another way of saying, "Prior to the existence of time, the eternal infinite Creator existed IN a TIMELINE and looked down the corridors of time to see all that would come to pass IF he created and then MADE A CHOICE to create anyway."

How do you know that is how it works Luke? How can you possible know that? Didn't you just say that God doesn't make choices? And didn't you agree that even our understanding of omniscience is limited and 'anthropomorphic'? So, how can you claim to even come to this conclusion?

It is not a mystery that God knew BEFORE HE MADE MAN WHAT MAN WOULD DO.

There is no mystery to that, Skan.

Even if you want to turn eternity past before there was time into a problem- there was TIME that passed BEFORE HE MADE MAN.

He made man IN TIME.

He made man last as a matter of fact.

Before he made man he knew what man would do.

Do you disagree with that?

 

[Skandelon]

It is not a mystery that God knew BEFORE HE MADE MAN WHAT MAN WOULD DO.

1. You agreed to our understanding of Divine Omniscience is anthropomorphic (meaning he doesn't KNOW things in the same manner we KNOW them), right?

2. You agreed that God is infinite (meaning he is not bound by time or linear constructs. i.e. before/after), right?

3. You agreed that God doesn't make choices in the same manner men do (i.e. deliberate among options and pick one instead of the other), right?

But you don't think there is any mystery in drawing the dogmatic conclusion that "God KNEW (mysterious) what man would do BEFORE (finite and linear) He CREATED (time begins, very mysterious) but He CHOSE (mysterious) to CREATE anyway (as if He picked between the option to create or not create, or to change something he foreknew or not). Really? Its that easy for you to make that dogmatic assertion? Are you sure your not talking just a little above your head here? I know I am.

 

[Luke2427]

1. You agreed to our understanding of Divine Omniscience is anthropomorphic (meaning he doesn't KNOW things in the same manner we KNOW them), right?

2. You agreed that God is infinite (meaning he is not bound by time or linear constructs. i.e. before/after), right?

3. You agreed that God doesn't make choices in the same manner men do (i.e. deliberate among options and pick one instead of the other), right?

But you don't think there is any mystery in drawing the dogmatic conclusion that "God KNEW (mysterious) what man would do BEFORE (finite and linear) He CREATED (time begins, very mysterious) but He CHOSE (mysterious) to CREATE anyway (as if He picked between the option to create or not create, or to change something he foreknew or not). Really? Its that easy for you to make that dogmatic assertion? Are you sure your not talking just a little above your head here? I know I am.

Do you believe that, the day before God made Adam, that he knew what Adam would do or not?

 

[Skandelon]

And amidst all this mystery we also run into versus like this:

Genesis 6:7:
Then the Lord said, "I will wipe off the face of the earth: man, whom I created, together with the animals, creatures that crawl, and birds of the sky-for I regret that I made them."

And, while we can label it as 'anthropomorphic,' it doesn't change the fact that all the attributes of God including his omniscience and omnipotence are understood 'anthropomorphically' as well. We can't grasp his knowledge or his power as if it's like ours, but an infinite amount of it. I say that we just accept what we have been told and stop speculating.

 

[Skandelon]

Do you believe that, the day before God made Adam, that he knew what Adam would do or not?

Ok, I'll play along.

The day before man is created God is sitting there in heaven and he looks into his crystal ball (excuse the sarcasm, but how else do I illustrate the linear mindset being imposed on the infinite God?)

He sees through his 'crystal ball' that Adam will be tempted by Eve and choose to sin, so He thinks to himself, "Should I create him anyway or not? Or maybe I can create him differently, so that he won't make that choice? Or maybe I just won't put Eve there so he won't be tempted? Or, maybe I could just not put the tree in the garden in the first place? Let's see, which option do I want to do? I choose 'this one.'"

Is that what you are supposing? Because I could have swore you said that God doesn't make choices like we do. And I could have swore you agreed that he doesn't KNOW things in the same way we KNOW things. And I'm almost certain you agreed that God is not bound by linear time constructs. Yet, somehow you seem to be quite certain that THIS is the manner God went about it? Weird.

 

[Luke2427]

Ok, I'll play along.

The day before man is created God is sitting there in heaven and he looks into his crystal ball (excuse the sarcasm, but how else do I illustrate the linear mindset being imposed on the infinite God?)

He sees through his 'crystal ball' that Adam will be tempted by Eve and choose to sin, so He thinks to himself, "Should I create him anyway or not? Or maybe I can create him differently, so that he won't make that choice? Or maybe I just won't put Eve there so he won't be tempted? Or, maybe I could just not put the tree in the garden in the first place? Let's see, which option do I want to do? I choose 'this one.'"

Is that what you are supposing? Because I could have swore you said that God doesn't make choices like we do. And I could have swore you agreed that he doesn't KNOW things in the same way we KNOW things. And I'm almost certain you agreed that God is not bound by linear time constructs. Yet, somehow you seem to be quite certain that THIS is the manner God went about it? Weird.

No. I just want you to answer the question.

Do you believe that the day before God made Adam that he knew what Adam would do or not?