Do non-cals believe in omniscience?

[mandym]

I know the answer brethren and sisters. For the vast majority of you, the answer is an emphatic YES!

Most of us, Calvinists and Arminians and other orthodox Christians, believe that God has always known all there is to ever know about everything.

God has never learned anything because he has always known all there is to ever know.

God sees the future as clearly as he sees the present and the past and he has always known everything that would ever happen.

Because we all believe this, both major soteriological systems have problems.

The problem is that we cannot, neither one of us, offer an emotionally satisfying explanation of the origin of evil and the damnation of souls.

Both the Cal and Non-cal say, "God knew before he made the world exactly what would happen. He knew that evil would enter the world and that billions of people would die lost. Yet God went right ahead and made this world anyway."

It is a problem for both of us, isn't it? I confess, Calvinism does not scratch my itch on this issue.

But what I am not willing to do, and what I believe most of us are unwilling to do, is REDEFINE omniscience to pretend as if God did not know that if he built this world that billions would perish.

I don't fully know why he did it. But I will not, like most of you, make God less than God just so I can exonerate him in my own mind.

To make God less than truly eternally all-knowing is to make God less than God.

Addendum: I am not saying God KNOWING what would happen is what CAUSED it to happen. I am saying that God knew what would happen if he built this world and he went right ahead and built it any way. I can't explain that, and neither can, I suspect, anyone who is unwilling to redefine omniscience.

Skandelon will try at this point to turn this into another debate- one about determinism and God's knowledge being causally effectual of everything that happens. Since I am not saying that at all here, this thread should not be highjacked to talk about those things.

HERE IS THE QUESTION: Can ANY theological system which embraces the omniscience of God really explain this difficulty in any emotionally satisfying way? I contend that neither Calvinism nor Arminianism or any other non-cal system can.

This is the most fair, honest, genuine, and humble posts from a reformed person I have seen on this forum. Thank you for this beneficial post. :thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

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?

No brother, I'm not trying to dodge your question, I'm just not willing to aquiesce to the option you provided.

 

[Luke2427]

No brother, I'm not trying to dodge your question, I'm just not willing to aquiesce to the option you provided.

Are you more comfortable with this statement:
"God creates people, but the people create their own decisions, and therefore God cannot know what they will be, until they come to pass" ?

 

[Skandelon]

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."

Do you suppose God foresaw this in the crystal ball on that same day before he created Adam too? Sure seems like he would have chose a different option when he was deciding whether or not to create him anyway.

:godisgood: ...and much much bigger than what we could even suppose...

 

[Luke2427]

Are you more comfortable with this statement:
"God creates people, but the people create their own decisions, and therefore God cannot know what they will be, until they come to pass" ?

repost...

You must have missed this one.

 

[Skandelon]

Are you more comfortable with this statement:
"God creates people, but the people create their own decisions, and therefore God cannot know what they will be, until they come to pass" ?

You are asking if I'm an Open Theist, as if there MUST be an answer to the dilemma that YOUR QUESTION has created. The answer is 'no.'

I do believe people make their own decisions and that men originate their own evil intent, and not God, because I believe that is what scripture tells us. I appeal to mystery regarding God's knowledge of such matters, period. For to attempt an answer would require that I speculate beyond the revelation of scripture.

 

[Luke2427]

You are asking if I'm an Open Theist, as if there MUST be an answer to the dilemma that YOUR QUESTION has created. The answer is 'no.'

I do believe people make their own decisions and that men originate their own evil intent, and not God, because I believe that is what scripture tells us. I appeal to mystery regarding God's knowledge of such matters, period. For to attempt an answer would require that I speculate beyond the revelation of scripture.

Then it is a mystery to you whether or not God knew what Adam would do the day before God made Adam, right?

 

[Skandelon]

I'll keep answering your questions when you start answering some of mine. We've got to be fair here.

 

[Luke2427]

Then it is a mystery to you whether or not God knew what Adam would do the day before God made Adam, right?

And can you affirm this statement from the Baptist Faith and Message?

Article II of The Baptist Faith and Message, 2000 Edition -on the omniscience of God. "God is infinite in holiness and all other perfections. God is all powerful and all knowing; and His perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the future decisions of His free creatures."

 

[Luke2427]

I'll keep answering your questions when you start answering some of mine. We've got to be fair here.

Respectfully, Brother, these are the questions which this thread is all about.

Can you affirm this statement from the Baptist Faith and Message?

Article II of The Baptist Faith and Message, 2000 Edition
"God is infinite in holiness and all other perfections. God is all powerful and all knowing; and His perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the future decisions of His free creatures."

 

[Skandelon]

Respectfully, Brother, these are the questions which this thread is all about.

So are my questions.

I have no problem with that statement in the BF&M. I told you in the other thread I was fine with you definition of omniscience.

If you would engage with all my posts instead of cherry picking points you want to address you would come to understand what I'm arguing, rather than trying to pigeon hole me into Openism or Determinism, as if they are the only two options.

As Jon explained, there is only a problem if we fail to appeal to mystery and begin making speculations. People make this same mistake in regard to the doctrine of the Trinity.

Got to run, talk to you later. Again, I appreciate the tone. This is a good discussion.

 

[Luke2427]

So are my questions.

I have no problem with that statement in the BF&M. I told you in the other thread I was fine with you definition of omniscience.

Then you do definitely agree with the statement? In other words, it's not just that you don't have a "problem with it," but that you actually agree with it, right?

If you would engage with all my posts instead of cherry picking points you want to address you would come to understand what I'm arguing, rather than trying to pigeon hole me into Openism or Determinism, as if they are the only two options.

As Jon explained, there is only a problem if we fail to appeal to mystery and begin making speculations. People make this same mistake in regard to the doctrine of the Trinity.

Got to run, talk to you later. Again, I appreciate the tone. This is a good discussion.

I noted in the OP that you would try to make it about determinism. But I honestly think that everyone can read this thread and see that I have not promoted such an idea one iota.

I am simply pointing out that if you indeed affirm that God knows everything before it happens and yet God goes ahead and makes this world any way- as MOST non-cals gladly affirm with the rest of the Christian world (Arminian, Calvinist, Catholic, etc...) then you have the same problem that the rest of us have.

 

[DaChaser1]

The OP raises some very good questions.

Here is something to consider. Perhaps God created man to have fellowship with Him (Them). It started out that way in the Garden of Eden.

You cannot have fellowship with something unless it has a free choice to have that fellowship with; such as, you cannot have fellowship with a chair. So God created man for fellowship. Fellowship is a two-way street. Both parties must have a choice and want it to continue.

God knew man would choose to break that fellowship which Adam did by sinning. Jesus came to provide a sacrifice for our sins so that the fellowship could be restored. For those of us who are Christians, that fellowship will be restored for eternity. The time the fellowship was broken is a short time compared to eternity.

Man will appreciate that fellowship more throughtout eternity since it was once broken and then restored by God. His sacrifice also demonstrates just how much God loves us and treasures our fellowshsip.

Another thing to think about in this discussion is that since God knows ALL possible outcomes and knows all things that possible be known...

This earth, with the fall satan Cross etc evidently was the best One that God could have created! As he would have designed and made it the best way for Him to get glory and for best of Humanity!

 

[Luke2427]

This is the most fair, honest, genuine, and humble posts from a reformed person I have seen on this forum. Thank you for this beneficial post. :thumbs:

God bless you for your encouragement.

 

[Skandelon]

Right. My problem is the conclusions DRAWN based upon these truths, not the truths themselves.

I noted in the OP that you would try to make it about determinism. But I honestly think that everyone can read this thread and see that I have not promoted such an idea one iota.

I was referring to the fact that you keep trying to push me into Openism, as per your last post, because you see the PROBLEM of your question as only being solved by Determinism or Openism and I'm trying to help you to get outside that box. I'm sure objective observers can see that.

then you have the same problem that the rest of us have.

I concede that if one accepts the typical God 'foreknows and permits all things view' of the 'Arminian' (which I also believe is speculative in that it is anthropomorphic language) then their is a problem of: Why didn't God prevent instead of permit evil, and allow all those people to make free choices to reject Him and go to Hell?

But that is a much DIFFERENT problem than that of the determinist (compatibilist). As the question for a determinist would be: Why did God cause (determine) evil and then hold all those billions of people responsible for it?

Yes, both are problems, but they are very different problems. God permitting evil to enter the world and allowing billions of people to suffer the consequences of their free moral choices, is a very different problem than God causing evil to enter the world (through secondary means etc) so that billions of people would certainly suffer the consequences of God's decreed choices so as to bring Himself glory.

To equate those two as being equal problems is a fallacy of the the greatest magnitude.

 

[Luke2427]

Right. My problem is the conclusions DRAWN based upon these truths, not the truths themselves.

What is right? That you believe the Baptist Faith and Message is accurate as it pertains to the declaration that God has perfect knowledge of all future events including the free choices of his creatures?

I was referring to the fact that you keep trying to push me into Openism, as per your last post, because you see the PROBLEM of your question as only being solved by Determinism or Openism and I'm trying to help you to get outside that box. I'm sure objective observers can see that.

I'm not trying to push you into Openness theology. I'm trying to see where you differ from it. I can't seem to be able to notify among your posts any statements that Greg Boyd would have a serious problem with. It is perfectly possible that I did not thoroughly scrutinize every single statement of your though.

It seems to me that you believe that since God knows things differently from us, then he did not actually know, on the day before he made Adam, that man would fall and billions would be damned.

I concede that if one accepts the typical God 'foreknows and permits all things view' of the 'Arminian' (which I also believe is speculative in that it is anthropomorphic language) then their is a problem of: Why didn't God prevent instead of permit evil, and allow all those people to make free choices to reject Him and go to Hell?

Exactly. Most of us are able to admit that while we affirm that God knows- not only all possible futures- but actually knows every single thing that will ACTUALLY take place in THE future, then it is very difficult to exonerate God from the origin of evil in our own minds.

So we don't. We abandon the question to mystery and trust God.

But what we are NOT willing to do is say that God did not know Adam would fall before he made Adam.

 

[Skandelon]

What is right? That you believe the Baptist Faith and Message is accurate as it pertains to the declaration that God has perfect knowledge of all future events including the free choices of his creatures?

Yes. How many times must I validate the definition of omniscience for you Luke? But I will notice it doesn't just say 'future' events because I don't think God's not really looking through the corridors of time as a man with foresight. This is where we concede that even our understanding of divine knowing is anthropomorphic. Statements of faith, like that of scripture are finite explanations of matters we can't fully grasp and we all admit that at some level in this discussion. I just believe we should admit it earlier than you do.

I'm not trying to push you into Openness theology. I'm trying to see where you differ from it.

I understand that. That is fair. I don't deny omniscience. I just admit, as you have, that our understanding of divine knowledge is anthropomorphic, much like our understanding of his choices.

AWWWW, I just thought of something. Do you remember how you claimed that God doesn't make choices? You are doing the EXACT same thing Openness do with regard to Omniscience. Think about this. You both see these concepts as being DIFFERENT with God . You think divine choices are NOT like the way men make choices so you conclude, "God doesn't really make choices." Likewise, the Openists think divine knowledge is NOT like the way men know things and they conclude, "God don't really know everything." You both contradict the revelation in order to answer a mystery. My view is that God does know everything and he does make choices because that is what the bible says and I don't know how he does it so I don't pretend to know. I appeal to mystery.

It seems to me that you believe that since God knows things differently from us, then he did not actually know, on the day before he made Adam, that man would fall and billions would be damned.

We both agreed already that he knows differently than us, so my conclusion is that I don't know how that work. You are the one who pushes it past that into speculation.

As I've explained before, if I'm forced to speculate I prefer the concept of the knowledge of an 'eternal now' (I AM). Which would mean that now is the day before he created men and so is tomorrow and next year, and 2000 years ago. In this model His knowledge is more comparable to our present knowing, versus what we know of our past. Make sense? It's just as mysterious, indeed, but it makes your brain stretch a bit.

Exactly. Most of us are able to admit that while we affirm that God knows- not only all possible futures- but actually knows every single thing that will ACTUALLY take place in THE future, then it is very difficult to exonerate God from the origin of evil in our own minds.

And this is why I agreed so strongly with Jon's statement earlier. We create the difficulty and the need to exonerate with our speculations, whereas if we appealed to mystery prior to the speculation there would be no difficulty. There is a place for faith in all this, right?

So we don't. We abandon the question to mystery and trust God.

And of course I agree, but I just request that you (and Calvinists in general) do this one step earlier...you know before you conclude that God must causally determine man's nature so that it cannot do otherwise than what it does...etc.

 

[DaChaser1]

Yes. How many times must I validate the definition of omniscience for you Luke? But I will notice it doesn't just say 'future' events because I don't think God's not really looking through the corridors of time as a man with foresight. This is where we concede that even our understanding of divine knowing is anthropomorphic. Statements of faith, like that of scripture are finite explanations of matters we can't fully grasp and we all admit that at some level in this discussion. I just believe we should admit it earlier than you do.

I understand that. That is fair. I don't deny omniscience. I just admit, as you have, that our understanding of divine knowledge is anthropomorphic, much like our understanding of his choices.

AWWWW, I just thought of something. Do you remember how you claimed that God doesn't make choices? You are doing the EXACT same thing Openness do with regard to Omniscience. Think about this. You both see these concepts as being DIFFERENT with God . You think divine choices are NOT like the way men make choices so you conclude, "God doesn't really make choices." Likewise, the Openists think divine knowledge is NOT like the way men know things and they conclude, "God don't really know everything." You both contradict the revelation in order to answer a mystery. My view is that God does know everything and he does make choices because that is what the bible says and I don't know how he does it so I don't pretend to know. I appeal to mystery.

We both agreed already that he knows differently than us, so my conclusion is that I don't know how that work. You are the one who pushes it past that into speculation.

As I've explained before, if I'm forced to speculate I prefer the concept of the knowledge of an 'eternal now' (I AM). Which would mean that now is the day before he created men and so is tomorrow and next year, and 2000 years ago. In this model His knowledge is more comparable to our present knowing, versus what we know of our past. Make sense? It's just as mysterious, indeed, but it makes your brain stretch a bit.

And this is why I agreed so strongly with Jon's statement earlier. We create the difficulty and the need to exonerate with our speculations, whereas if we appealed to mystery prior to the speculation there would be no difficulty. There is a place for faith in all this, right?

And of course I agree, but I just request that you (and Calvinists in general) do this one step earlier...you know before you conclude that God must causally determine man's nature so that it cannot do otherwise than what it does...etc.

So are you asserting that there are things God has 'willed" Himself not to be ableto know?

or are you saying that God has to wait for things to occur before he actually knows them?

God can chose to do as He wills, correct?

And based upon His exhaust lnowledge of all things, and the best possible choice he was to make, wouldn't his chosing to allow Sin and all other evils and have salvation as cals state that the Bible teaches be best way if God always choses the best way?

 

[preacher4truth]

So are you asserting that there are things God has 'willed" Himself not to be ableto know?

or are you saying that God has to wait for things to occur before he actually knows them?
God can chose to do as He wills, correct?

And based upon His exhaust lnowledge of all things, and the best possible choice he was to make, wouldn't his chosing to allow Sin and all other evils and have salvation as cals state that the Bible teaches be best way if God always choses the best way?

Something along those lines, yes.

God is Omniscient, He knows ALL things, even when He created the worlds...yet some attempt to confirm some ideology in attempt to seperate Him from this truth, as if He were not aware, placing Him in a dimension of the 'eternal now' or that He reacted to things as they came along, becoming aware, as if this somehow justifies it at the same time.

It's like some want to affirm Omniscience, while at the same time excusing it due to subjective rationalization.

God knows all things, and even using secondary means to accomplish His will.

 

[DaChaser1]

Something along those lines, yes.

God is Omniscient, He knows ALL things, even when He created the worlds...yet some attempt to confirm some ideology in attempt to seperate Him from this truth, as if He were not aware, placing Him in a dimension of the 'eternal now' or that He reacted to things as they came along, becoming aware, as if this somehow justifies it at the same time.

It's like some want to affirm Omniscience, while at the same time excusing it due to subjective rationalization.

God knows all things, and even using secondary means to accomplish His will.

How can we even be sure that He wins then in the end?
IF He is not able to freely know and be able to detrmine outcomes as He so wills?