Do non-cals believe in omniscience?

[DaChaser1]

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.

it was the Will of God that His people as a whole would reject Him, God would preserve and save out a faithful remnant, and through their rejection salvation be offerred to both Jews/Gentiles alike...

HOW was that a "failure to having His will done?"

 

[Skandelon]

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

Well, I'll give you that, but I was speaking more generally in our discussion over these many different threads. My contention is that the start of this thread is a type of "you too" fallacy by attempting to equate the Calvinistic problem (which makes God appear to be the author of evil) and the Arminian problem (which you seem to think is the exact same problem.) Which you prove when you go on to write...

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.

What you call 'watering down' is actually JUST drawing the distinction between predetermination and foreknowledge, something you are unwilling to do. I know, I know, you don't think you are even talking about predetermination, but you are. When you equate God's "knowing before" with His "creating it anyway" to suggest an inevitable predetermined world you have stepped out of the realm of revelation and into the realm of speculation.

As I stated before: 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 why did he 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. And is the "YOU TOO" fallacy to which I was referring... You can't answer the problem with your system so you point to a PERCEIVED problem within mine instead, but our problem is not near as severe as your problem and in fact, our problem is ONLY a problem IF one refuses to appeal to mystery regarding divine knowledge as it relates to God's creation of time and finite creatures with morally accountable wills.

 

[DaChaser1]

Well, I'll give you that, but I was speaking more generally in our discussion over these many different threads. My contention is that the start of this thread is a type of "you too" fallacy by attempting to equate the Calvinistic problem (which makes God appear to be the author of evil) and the Arminian problem (which you seem to think is the exact same problem.) Which you prove when you go on to write...


What you call 'watering down' is actually JUST drawing the distinction between predetermination and foreknowledge, something you are unwilling to do. I know, I know, you don't think you are even talking about predetermination, but you are. When you equate God's "knowing before" with His "creating it anyway" to suggest an inevitable predetermined world you have stepped out of the realm of revelation and into the realm of speculation.

As I stated before: 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 why did he 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. And is the "YOU TOO" fallacy to which I was referring... You can't answer the problem with your system so you point to a PERCEIVED problem within mine instead, but our problem is not near as severe as your problem and in fact, our problem is ONLY a problem IF one refuses to appeal to mystery regarding divine knowledge as it relates to God's creation of time and finite creatures with morally accountable wills.

Future is FIXED to God though, as He already either know what would hapen exhaustively, or else he direct caused it to occur!

 

[Winman]

it was the Will of God that His people as a whole would reject Him, God would preserve and save out a faithful remnant, and through their rejection salvation be offerred to both Jews/Gentiles alike...

HOW was that a "failure to having His will done?"

That's what you say, but that is not what Jesus said. Jesus said he "would" have gathered Jerusalem as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but they would not.

Show me where Jesus ever said it was his Father's will that any person be lost.

 

[Skandelon]

Let me put this another way:

Suppose you have a dad in your congregation who is having a problem with his rebellious teenage daughter. He knows that you too have a daughter, so comes to you for counsel.

He tells you that he gets up every morning a slips a mind altering drug into his daughters orange juice every morning without her knowing which causes her to be unable to obey him, so when she doesn't obey he punishes her, pleads with her to repent and she just keep rebelling.

After hearing this you say, "Bro, stop drugging you daughter, you are causing her to remain in her rebellion and then punishing her for rebelling and that is unfair."

He responds and says, "Well, you are doing that too."

You say, "What?! How am I doing that to my daughter?"

He says, "Well, before having kids didn't you KNOW for certain that they would rebel and sin?"

You say, "Yes."

He says, "See, but you chose to have her anyway, right? So, you caused her rebellion."

You say, "Bro, that is TOTALLY different from what you are doing."

He says, "NO ITS NOT...and puts his fingers in his ears and runs away."

That is what I feel like in this discussion. I know, this analogy is just an analogy and it doesn't perfectly represent all the claims of your system, but its not meant to. Its meant to show you the DISTINCTION between someone merely FOREKNOWING and permitting sin versus PREDETERMINING sin. We don't believe God's knowing something before it happens is what fixes it (i.e. 'it must happen because God knows it' vs. 'God knows that it will happen.'). Such arguments are all based in linear timebased, finite constructs.

 

[DaChaser1]

That's what you say, but that is not what Jesus said. Jesus said he "would" have gathered Jerusalem as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but they would not.

Show me where Jesus ever said it was his Father's will that any person be lost.

would say that the Bible has several verses in the OT showing us that God anger burns agains t the ungodly, and that those like Judas were vessals prepared beforehand by God for destruction, that there are some that were destined to do as they desired and would be indeed lost!

 

[DaChaser1]

Let me put this another way:

Suppose you have a dad in your congregation who is having a problem with his rebellious teenage daughter. He knows that you too have a daughter, so comes to you for counsel.

He tells you that he gets up every morning a slips a mind altering drug into his daughters orange juice every morning without her knowing which causes her to be unable to obey him, so when she doesn't obey he punishes her, pleads with her to repent and she just keep rebelling.

After hearing this you say, "Bro, stop drugging you daughter, you are causing her to remain in her rebellion and then punishing her for rebelling and that is unfair."

He responds and says, "Well, you are doing that too."

You say, "What?! How am I doing that to my daughter?"

He says, "Well, before having kids didn't you KNOW for certain that they would rebel and sin?"

You say, "Yes."

He says, "See, but you chose to have her anyway, right? So, you caused her rebellion."

You say, "Bro, that is TOTALLY different from what you are doing."

He says, "NO ITS NOT...and puts his fingers in his ears and runs away."

That is what I feel like in this discussion. I know, this analogy is just an analogy and it doesn't perfectly represent all the claims of your system, but its not meant to. Its meant to show you the DISTINCTION between someone merely FOREKNOWING and permitting sin versus PREDETERMINING sin. We don't believe God's knowing something before it happens is what fixes it (i.e. 'it must happen because God knows it' vs. 'God knows that it will happen.'). Such arguments are all based in linear timebased, finite constructs.

Thing in this is that God has perfect forknowledge of ALL things that we call the Future, SOME of those were directly caused by him, and all things are fixed, as he already knows what will happen. Period!

 

[preacher4truth]

would say that the Bible has several verses in the OT showing us that God anger burns agains t the ungodly, and that those like Judas were vessals prepared beforehand by God for destruction, that there are some that were destined to do as they desired and would be indeed lost!

And Christ died for the who? The ungodly; Romans 5:6. Interesting that some seem to think they aren't ungodly pre salvation.

 

[DaChaser1]

And Christ died for the who? The ungodly; Romans 5:6. Interesting that some seem to think they aren't ungodly pre salvation.

THIS is love, in that while we were YET sinners, Christ would willingly die for us, the godly for the ungodly!

NONEof us were "good people/able to decide to allow God to save us!"

 

[Skandelon]

Thing in this is that God has perfect forknowledge of ALL things that we call the Future, SOME of those were directly caused by him, and all things are fixed, as he already knows what will happen. Period!

Are they fixed BECAUSE he foreknows them, or does he foreknow them because they freely happened? See the difference?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

THIS is love, in that while we were YET sinners, Christ would willingly die for us, the godly for the ungodly!

NONEof us were "good people/able to decide to allow God to save us!"

Correct & one Queue:thumbsup:

 

[preacher4truth]

Are they fixed BECAUSE he foreknows them, or does he foreknow them because they freely happened? See the difference?

I see the difference, so do others, it's not a big mystery, but the difference is clear, in our view it is determinative on Gods choice, and by your wording it is determinative upon mans choosing. I find it interesting that some fight against God being 'deterministic' as if it cannot be, but glory in man being 'deterministic' (the determining factor).

See the difference?

By the way, 'because they freely happened' ('them' being the subject) is an unbiblical fallacy and illogical, basing the whole thing on chance happenings, instead of upon the God who has chosen those who are saved.

To Calvinists He causes salvation, contrary to the human determinism of Arminian theology which Edwards describes with great acumen, that it is the persons will that is deterministic (in their theology), and he is spot on.

Again, to 'us' we see it is God that is the determining factor, not our will.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Again, to 'us' we see it is God that is the determining factor, not our will.

So when people get saved and God chooses himself he gets glory how? And when people don't get saved God rejects himself he gets glory how? I may be dumb but I don't get it.

 

[Skandelon]

So when people get saved and God chooses himself he gets glory how? And when people don't get saved God rejects himself he gets glory how? I may be dumb but I don't get it.

Calvinists pride themselves on making sure ALL the glory goes to God, but they do so at the expense of actual biblical revelation. They reason that God's glory is better displayed through their concept of deterministic sovereignty rather than than His holiness (no hint of evil). Where as we believe true sovereignty and divine holiness is much more clearly demonstrated in a world where He wins the victory against an actual enemy versus the deterministic image of 'playing both sides of the chess board,' so to speak.

Calvinists mistakenly presume God wants all the glory for himself when clearly in His infinite wisdom and grace He has always planned for our glory. In so doing he makes the riches of his glory all the more known. They think they are doing God a favor by painting him as a omni-everything, deterministically sovereign being who is really only interested in his own pleasure and glory. But, it baffles me as to how one would think such a view of God is glorifying. Horrifying maybe, but glorifying?

God is love. He is gracious, long-suffering, patient with sinners, longing to gather them under his saving wings, not wanting for any to perish but all to come to repentance and reconciliation. He is HOLY, and doesn't even tempt men to sin, much less effectually and unchangeable decree it.

 

[preacher4truth]

So when people get saved and God chooses himself he gets glory how? And when people don't get saved God rejects himself he gets glory how? I may be dumb but I don't get it.

I wouldn't say you're dumb, but that you're perhaps trying to cast another as dumb by pretense? There is no reason you don't get this unless you are newer to the faith.

I won't tarry long with you here. Have you seen the numerous times in Scriptures where those chosen are glorifying He who had chosen them?

And yet you ask how can He get glory in choosing?

Surely you've seen this truth of God being glorified by those whom He has chosen, and for this fact. The NT epistles are laden with this truth. Acts is another example.

Have you not read in the Scriptures examples of those whom God rejects? If one thinks it unfair then they refuse to trust God, and cannot glorify Him for His Omniscience, Sovereignty and purpose.

 

[convicted1]

I wouldn't say you're dumb, but that you're perhaps trying to cast another as dumb by pretense? There is no reason you don't get this unless you are newer to the faith.

I won't tarry long with you here. Have you seen the numerous times in Scriptures where those chosen are glorifying He who had chosen them?

And yet you ask how can He get glory in choosing?

Surely you've seen this truth of God being glorified by those whom He has chosen, and for this fact. The NT epistles are laden with this truth. Acts is another example.

Have you not read in the Scriptures examples of those whom God rejects? If one thinks it unfair then they refuse to trust God, and cannot glorify Him for His Omniscience, Sovereignty and purpose.

God gets glory when one sinner comes to Him wanting Him to change their life. There is more rejoicing in heaven for one who repents than 99 who need no repentence. When there's rejoicing in heaven, He gets all the praise.

 

[jonathan.borland]

I wouldn't say you're dumb, but that you're perhaps trying to cast another as dumb by pretense? There is no reason you don't get this unless you are newer to the faith.

I won't tarry long with you here. Have you seen the numerous times in Scriptures where those chosen are glorifying He who had chosen them?

And yet you ask how can He get glory in choosing?

Surely you've seen this truth of God being glorified by those whom He has chosen, and for this fact. The NT epistles are laden with this truth. Acts is another example.

Have you not read in the Scriptures examples of those whom God rejects? If one thinks it unfair then they refuse to trust God, and cannot glorify Him for His Omniscience, Sovereignty and purpose.

That's not what my question meant, so I'll rephrase it. If God causes us to choose him, then he is in effect choosing himself, and how could he get glory from doing so? Likewise, if God causes others to reject him, then he is in effect rejecting himself, and how could that be glorious to himself. It would be a house divided against itself. Jesus said even Satan's house was not like that. Get it?

 

[preacher4truth]

That's not what my question meant, so I'll rephrase it. If God causes us to choose him, then he is in effect choosing himself, and how could he get glory from doing so? Likewise, if God causes others to reject him, then he is in effect rejecting himself, and how could that be glorious to himself. It would be a house divided against itself. Jesus said even Satan's house was not like that. Get it?

Here was your question:

So when people get saved and God chooses himself he gets glory how? And when people don't get saved God rejects himself he gets glory how? I may be dumb but I don't get it.

Your question was plain and to the point.

Here was my answer:

I wouldn't say you're dumb, but that you're perhaps trying to cast another as dumb by pretense? There is no reason you don't get this unless you are newer to the faith.

I won't tarry long with you here. Have you seen the numerous times in Scriptures where those chosen are glorifying He who had chosen them?

And yet you ask how can He get glory in choosing?

Surely you've seen this truth of God being glorified by those whom He has chosen, and for this fact. The NT epistles are laden with this truth. Acts is another example.

Have you not read in the Scriptures examples of those whom God rejects? If one thinks it unfair then they refuse to trust God, and cannot glorify Him for His Omniscience, Sovereignty and purpose.

Now to continue with this, again:

Your question was plain and to the point, I answered it, now you're dodging and changing directions pretending you meant something else completely? Come on. I'm not buying it. You're being disingenuous.

God rejecting others is not Him rejecting Himself. That's utterly ridiculous and unfounded in Scripture.

Answer my post where I showed your error in your questioning 'how can God be glorified if He chooses us.' (to paraphrase your question)

Answer it and stay on track and quit dodging, and show or acknowledge how in Scripture He is glorified in choosing us, as I alluded to, and show how you acting as if you don't get it is unreasonable when it is plainly taught throughout the Scriptures.

I answered you, now you want to ignore this as if it doesn't exist and doesn't show your error.

I find it quite odd how you and others make pretense of desire to be faced with truth, yet when you are, you do not own up to what is plainly showed you, and want to change the channel as if you meant something else altogether. Will we talk next that what you really meant is what was Noahs Ark made of?

 

[glfredrick]

Calvinists pride themselves on making sure ALL the glory goes to God, but they do so at the expense of actual biblical revelation. They reason that God's glory is better displayed through their concept of deterministic sovereignty rather than than His holiness (no hint of evil). Where as we believe true sovereignty and divine holiness is much more clearly demonstrated in a world where He wins the victory against an actual enemy versus the deterministic image of 'playing both sides of the chess board,' so to speak.

Calvinists mistakenly presume God wants all the glory for himself when clearly in His infinite wisdom and grace He has always planned for our glory. In so doing he makes the riches of his glory all the more known. They think they are doing God a favor by painting him as a omni-everything, deterministically sovereign being who is really only interested in his own pleasure and glory. But, it baffles me as to how one would think such a view of God is glorifying. Horrifying maybe, but glorifying?

God is love. He is gracious, long-suffering, patient with sinners, longing to gather them under his saving wings, not wanting for any to perish but all to come to repentance and reconciliation. He is HOLY, and doesn't even tempt men to sin, much less effectually and unchangeable decree it.

I need to call you out on this, but it will only lead to the same sort of arguments we have continually. You will demand that I prove it, I will, then you will either close the thread or change topics.

God ALWAYS INTENDED to share His GLORY with man... Okay. There is a term for that concept. REBELLION.

 

[Skandelon]

That's not what my question meant, so I'll rephrase it. If God causes us to choose him, then he is in effect choosing himself, and how could he get glory from doing so? Likewise, if God causes others to reject him, then he is in effect rejecting himself, and how could that be glorious to himself. It would be a house divided against itself. Jesus said even Satan's house was not like that. Get it?

:thumbsup:

He seemed to think you were asking how God's get glory from choosing, when it is clear you were asking about how God gets glory from causing (by irresistible grace/regeneration) a select number of people to choose him.

It's the difference in finding a wife who genuinely loves you and freely chooses to marry you versus the casting a spell method like you see in the movie Sheik where a love potion causes someone to love another. The first clearly is more glorious.