convicted1
Guest
, just going to go teach some Riemann Sums leading to the definition of the Definite Integral. That should eliminate it.
uh, yeah....now I need the excedrin....
-
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
uh, yeah....now I need the excedrin....
Probably cause it for others
convicted1
Guest
jonathan.borland
Active Member
Hey P4T,
Sorry for offending you. I will bow out of this thread now.
Sorry for offending you. I will bow out of this thread now.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Strong argument there, Luke.
I don't think you made a case for the problems being the same, so I guess we are even. :thumbsup:
As I stated, which you just dismissed, 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.
preacher4truth
Active Member
No offense taken bro. I simply looked to stay on track in answer to your direct question. If I've offended you in so doing and in that endeavor, then I ask for forgiveness.
I'd rather dialogue within that framework of direct answer to your posts.
I see the glory of God being manifest by those who recognize His choosing.
- Peace
Strong argument there, Luke.
I don't think you made a case for the problems being the same, so I guess we are even. :thumbsup:
As I stated, which you just dismissed, 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.
The "you too" fallacy doe snot defend one's own position. But that is not my goal on this thread.
My goal is to point point out that "you too" have the same problem that we have.
And it is the same problem.
If God knows that a world is going to fall if made a certain way and he could make it so that the world would not fall by making it differently- but he does NOT make it differently, then the problem of evil is there.
Both systems obviously have this problem.
It is no easier for the Arminian to escape determinism than the Calvinist.
We are in the same boat.
I am not saying determinism is so. I am saying that BOTH systems can reject it yet BOTH systems cannot justify rejecting it.
We both have to say, "God is holy and good. God knew what was going to happen before he made the world. I don't know how all of that works- but I trust him. What I am not willing to do is redefine God to exonerate him in my mind."
That's where we BOTH are.
BOTH of us have to abandon the issue to mystery and declare that we trust him though we don't understand Him.
Hey Rick......what is "doe snot"? Sounds icky! :laugh:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
And you have done so by suggesting that God's permissive will is equal to his decretive will, which is simply unfounded. As stated, and apparently ignored, 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.
And appealing to mystery PRIOR to concluding that God has actively decreed all things, yes even the sinful choices of man, is not 'redefining God.' It's just appealing to mystery before drawing unfounded conclusions. The only group 'redefining God' are the Openists and the Calvinists. Openists redefined God's omniscience and Calvinists redefine his Holiness. I do neither. I believe He is fully HOLY and thus has NOTHING to do with the origin or cause of man's rebellion. I also believe he knows all things.
I don't pretend to know how those perfectly work together. Openists try to make God out to be someone who really doesn't know the future choices of men and Calvinists make God out to be someone who causes sin, but does so through secondary means so as to avoid being culpable and impugning his holiness. Both efforts fall short because both groups should have appealed to mystery one step earlier. The bible reveals that God is perfectly HOly and does not even tempt men to sin. I can't in good conscience teach that God actually DOES tempt men to sin but he does so through secondary means. That seems very deceptive and the scriptures NEVER say that. That would be like me telling the police officer, "NO officer I didn't kill my wife." When in reality I paid someone else to kill her. Just because I used a 'secondary means' doesn't in any way remove culpability. That is what Calvinism does to God's holiness and I"m not willing to accept that. You are...
I've not said a word about his decretive will. You are the only one introducing determinism into this conversation.
No. It really is not. Both have God making a universe on purpose in which billions will perish.
We are both in the same boat.
Appealing to mystery in such a way that it redefines omniscience is redefining God.
When you say that you cannot be certain that God KNEW BEFORE HE MADE ADAM THAT ADAM WOULD SIN because the way God knows things is different from the way we know them- then you are using what we cannot know about omniscience to redefine what we can and do know about omniscience.
Systematic theologies the world over have never had trouble saying that God KNEW BEFOREHAND. The Bible does not have this trouble. Neither should you or I.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
You don't have to. When you equate your problem with our problem you are equating permissive will with decretive will.
It's why they perish that is the distinction you don't want to address. I think we all know why that is.
I agree. Who did that and can you quote their actual words?
BTW, you are the one who said that God knows things DIFFERENTLY than we KNOW them and that His KNOWING and CHOOSING is anthropomorphic language that really can't be understood by us, so when you speak of 'redefining omniscience' are you meaning defining it differently than the way we anthropomorphically understand it, or differently than God understands it?
Incorrect, I'm saying the same thing about God's KNOWING as you have said about God's CHOOSING. The scripture reveals that God knows and God chooses, but even his KNOWING and CHOOSING is different than the way in which we know and choose, so conclusions should not be drawn that aren't directly revealed. (i.e. "God knowing something prior to creating it but choosing to create it anyway is equal to determining it to be." )
No. I've done no such thing this entire thread. I am pointing out something that is obvious to us all- God knew before he made this world what this world would be like and he made it any way.
That's all.
Since we both affirm this we both have the same problem.
Skan, with all due respect, you are literally the only person in a rather large thread that has one time even REFERENCED this issue- and much of what you've contributed to this conversation in this whole thread has been diversion from the subject of the OP to determinism.
I did not say his "knowing" was anthropomorphic. I said his choosing was anthropomorphic. I think most people would agree with me on this.
We keep riding this merry go round together. But what it comes down t is this: N
NE BUT YOU and open theists have a problem with the idea that God knew BEFORE HE MADE THE WORLD EXACTLY what was going to happen yet he went right ahead and made it any way.What it appears you want to do is take that which is mystery concerning omniscience and redefine what is NOT mystery concerning omniscience.
I think that's a problem. God's knowing is not anthropomorphic. God actually DOES KNOW.
God's choosing is anthropomorphic because God does not make actual choices in any way that we are familiar with the term.
To choose is to not know something about two options, then consider those options and having obtained some information about them to then pick one.
Since God cannot NOT KNOW, God cannot CHOOSE- not in the way in which we think of choosing.
So when you see God "choosing" in the Bible it is obviously the same as when you see God flying or walking or roaring or any number of other anthropomorphic actions.
Yes to the former- no to the latter.
The Scripture no more reveals God making real choices than it reveals that God has all kinds of horns on his head and eyeballs in in the front and back of his head.
I did not say that his knowing it determines it. You said that.
I said in the OP of this thread that you would try to do this.
How did I know that? Because this is not our first rodeo together.:thumbs:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Are you saying you have NOT equated your problem with our problem, because that is ALL you have done this entire thread???
Your problem is a question of what God has DETERMINED and our problem is a question of what God has ALLOWED. That is the difference between God decretive and permissive will. Until you acknowledge this we are finished with this discussion, because we are just going around and around while you are avoiding the actual issue.
I'm saying that God's KNOWING something BEFORE is anthropomorphic because God is not on a before/after timeline like we are. You are talking of God as if he is an all knowing man, not an infinite eternal being. He is in the 'eternal now,' which is beyond our comprehension. Thus I DO NOT draw the conclusion that God creates things to be as he foreknows them, which is what your question presumes. That is determinism, whether you understand that or not.
Really?
You agreed completely with JonC who clearly stated that God's omniscience is anthropomorphic and now you are denying it.
Yet your entire system rests upon the concept that God CHOSE to irresistibly save those He unconditionally CHOSE because this the the method He CHOSE to bring Himself the most Glory. Go figure.
You said that He created the world to be exactly what he foreknew it would be, which is the same thing. The structure of your question has God's creating what He foreknows rather than God foreknowing the creatures that were freely created. There is a difference and its obvious you haven't come to understand this distinction, but hopefully I can introduce you to this common fallacy. No offense, but I think you are used to dealing with less than scholarly opponents on this matter. It's time to expand your horizons.
Last edited by a moderator:
No. What I have not done is say a word about permissive will VS decretive will. That is not the subject of this thread.
Whether God's foreknowledge of what would happen CAUSED it to happen is a discussion for another thread.
What this thread is about is what brings Calvinists and Arminians together- a common problem that neither of us can solve.
The actual issue Skan is the fact that we both agree that God KNEW BEFORE HE MADE THE WORLD THAT IF HE MADE THIS WORLD EVIL WOULD EXIST AND BILLIONS WOULD BE DAMNED.
I am afraid that you don't want to acknowledge that so you are demanding that we talk about something you are more comfortable talking about. That something is just the same old TALKING POINTS of the debate betwixt us.
Most of us are tired of the TALKING POINTS. We want to look at this issue from a fresh perspective. The fact that we both share the exact same problem should not be a problem for you. It is not for most Arminians and non-cals on this thread.
Before and after are realities. God has no problem knowing something BEFORE.
No systematic theology in the world would deny that God knows things BEFORE they come to pass. This is not anthropomorphic.
God walking, flying, considering, choosing, having dozens of eyeballs- these are NOT realities. Terms that have to do with such things are clearly anthropomorphic.
God's knowing beforehand IS MOST ASSUREDLY a reality that no one should try to make anthropomorphic.
There is no way around this plain fact, Skan- God does know beforehand EVERYTHING that will ever be. God knows what will result from his creation of things. God knows if he makes Adam a certain way exactly what Adam will do.
Now I really don't think anybody on this board who is not an open theist but you has a problem with this clear fact.
God knows what will result from his creation of things. God knows if he makes things a certain way exactly what those things will do and God is perfectly free to make them another way if he does not want them to do those things.
Unless you have a problem with God's perfect foreknowledge, I cannot understand why you would have a problem with this plain fact.
No. I expressed a general agreement with what he was saying in a lengthy post. That did not mean that I agreed with everything he was saying in the post. And I did not take form that post that he was saying that God's OMNISCIENCE was anthropomorphic- that would be silly. I took from that post that he was saying that the kind of terms we have to employ to discuss his REAL omniscience are often anthropomorphic in nature.
You're getting ugly, Skan- and I am not for the record. I have been very patient and respectful of you- even amidst all of your efforts to highjack this thread and talk about determinism instead of what the thread is actually about.
No it is not the same thing at all. That may be true, and that is for another thread. But it is not what I am purporting here.
What I am purporting here is that IF GOD KNEW PERFECTLY what would come to pass if he made this world, and he made it anyway- that's a problem for both systems.
I think most folks are more than willing to acknowledge this. I wish you would.
Yea, this is more ugliness. Most of my friends have doctorates, brother. The arguments I am employing here are arguments that some of the best educated theologians in the country use. I do think your comments here are disrespectful. You need to do better than this when you get frustrated- you need to behave better.
Maybe you're having a rough day. I hope it gets better.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
It is but you haven't realized it yet because you haven't been willing to acknowledge the distinction in our views. You are trying to equate our problems by equating our claims about how God has foreknown and created.
Then stop implying that God MUST have created it as He foreknew it would be, as if his creating it is contingent upon his knowing it will happen...which whether you acknowledge it or not you continually do.
Luke, don't you know that your argument is the basis of determinism? The idea that God foreknew and then created it to be as he foreknew it, IS DETERMINISM. That is the foundational premise and if you don't understand that then we really can't continue our discussion.
And you are doing so by presuming we accept the above premise, but we don't. At least those scholars who've studied the subject don't.
As explained numerous times, the concept of "God knew before" is an anthropormophic phrase, as you admitted. This is like saying God foreknows stuff as a man would (like a psychic) and thus the same logical finite conclusions can be drawn about God as would be true of a man. What is "before/after" in a place without time?
Listen, we are just repeating ourselves so I'll bow out. I'll send you some scholarly links of people much smarter than us discussing these things and maybe that will help you see what I'm saying. I said that I think you are used to dealing with this issue in non-scholarly circles because you are not seeming to recognize and acknowledge the scholarly perspective that I'm presenting as being valid. You said that N
NE expect me is saying this, which leads me to conclude you haven't read much on this, which if fine. I'm still learning a lot of them myself. We are all still growing... It wasn't meant to be anymore insulting than you accusing me of standing alone on this matter. I hope you understand. I'm not trying to be negative so please don't read that tone into it. Cool?Got to run... Later. :thumbs:
Last edited by a moderator:
No real Arminian embraces determinism yet MOST Arminians acknowledge that God knew before he made the world exactly what would happen and that he was free to make it another way if he did not wish for these things to happen.
Yes, that seems to lead to determinism- that's where many Calvinists and all Arminians say, "Yes, that how it seems, but somehow, mysteriously it is not determinism."
What you seem to me to do is something that most Arminians (besides Greg Boyd and Clark Pinnock and William Lane Craig type Arminians [not grouped as if the first tswo are the same as the last one]) do not do.
That is have a real problem with the idea that God knew what would happen BEFORE he made the world.
I was educated in an Arminian institution. Many of my theology and doctrine books were written by well respected Arminian theologians (Robert Picirili, Leroy Forlines, etc...) The Arminian theologians that educated me did not have the problem you have with the idea that God knew BEFORE he made the world.
I have also read Molinists and open theists and some of them do exhibit the same problem you have with this terminology.
But it seems that you are trying to say that what I am saying is a common problem that Calvinists and Arminians share is just not so because Arminians, as a whole, do not grant that God REALLY KNEW BEFORE he made the world what would happen.
I know better. And I think you do, too. And you have acknowledged a few times that many Arminians do grant my premise. It just seems that what you give with one hand you take away with another.
In other words, it is certainly not a lack of scholarship on my part that drives me to argue that most Arminians do not have a problem with the terminology "God knew before he made the world..."
The implication is that God is free to make the world any way he wanted and he made it the way he did knowing exactly what it would become. Do you not believe that he could have made a world in which man would never have fallen if he wanted to???
The foundation of my house is the basis for this office in which I now type this message. But this office is not the ONLY thing that finds it's basis on the foundation of this house.
This argument is the basis for a lot of things. Some of those things may be valid and some of them may not be.
But just because it is potentially the basis for one argument does not mean that it is totally invalid as a basis for any number of other arguments.
This is also the basis for the real omniscience of God which includes real foreknowledge as revealed literally in the Scripture.
Just because you don't like it because it is the basis for one thing does not mean you should reject it as solid basis for something else.
I think I explained this above.
See, this is what is not true. This statement seems to pretend that many, if not most, Arminian scholars would not say, "God knew before he made the world what the world would be like...."
And I don't mean to go tit for tat but I have to say that if you think that all Arminian scholars would not say this, then perhaps your study spectrum has been too narrow.
I'm afraid we are not following the argument as it actually unfolds on this thread. I have not said, at least I did not intend to, that the language that "God knew before" is anthropomorphic.
I do not think that most, even ARMINIAN, scholars would argue that God did not know before in a real way- not just one that is anthropomorphic.
Anthropomorphisms represent things that are not actual, i. e. God walking, God breathing, God choosing, etc... They do not apply to terms that express actualities like God knowing beforehand.
I don't think it is and I don't see any reason to think that it is.
You said that N
No, brother. You misunderstood me. The "N
NE" was referencing baptistboard members who have participated in this discussion.There's no reason to think that I meant "no scholar in the world" since I recognized that Open Theists, many of whom are bible scholars, also argue that God did not really KNOW before hand.
God bless!
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Luke,
You seem to think that because there are no other BB members who are pressing you on this point that all classical Arminians (who are not Open Theists) support your conclusions. That is factually incorrect and the reason I alluded to you not being familiar with scholarly views on this particular point.
I'd be interested in studying all those Arminians who say what you seem to think they say. I'm not denying some exist, but these are not the circles I run in, so to speak, so I'd like to read their works for myself. If you could provide a few links to Arminians who say it in the way you have described I really would like to read them.
Here are a couple of links to give you more insight into the views with which I'm more familiar. You will notice they do not support your conclusions and they are not Openists, but they would consider themselves "Arminian" in theology, thus showing that I'm not 'standing alone' on this point.
Allow me this disclaimer before you view these links. I would not necessarily use the exact terms these scholars do, nor would I attempt to make as many speculative comments as they do. I've come to be fine with the mystery, so I don't feel the need to present too many theories as to how I think God accomplished creating 'contra-causually free' moral creatures...I just believe He did it and leave the "HOW" to faith.
http://wesleyanarminian.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/god-and-time/
http://wesleyanarminian.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/an-explanation-of-simple-foreknowledge/
There are MANY more but this is a good primer to reveal my point. Also, allow me to say I REALLY appreciate how kind and respectful you are being. It is a joy to discuss theology without resorting to personal attacks. It's fine to disagree and even do so strongly, but still be respectful and Christlike in our dealings. I appreciate your heart in that!!! :thumbs:
You seem to think that because there are no other BB members who are pressing you on this point that all classical Arminians (who are not Open Theists) support your conclusions. That is factually incorrect and the reason I alluded to you not being familiar with scholarly views on this particular point.
I'd be interested in studying all those Arminians who say what you seem to think they say. I'm not denying some exist, but these are not the circles I run in, so to speak, so I'd like to read their works for myself. If you could provide a few links to Arminians who say it in the way you have described I really would like to read them.
Here are a couple of links to give you more insight into the views with which I'm more familiar. You will notice they do not support your conclusions and they are not Openists, but they would consider themselves "Arminian" in theology, thus showing that I'm not 'standing alone' on this point.
Allow me this disclaimer before you view these links. I would not necessarily use the exact terms these scholars do, nor would I attempt to make as many speculative comments as they do. I've come to be fine with the mystery, so I don't feel the need to present too many theories as to how I think God accomplished creating 'contra-causually free' moral creatures...I just believe He did it and leave the "HOW" to faith.
http://wesleyanarminian.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/god-and-time/
http://wesleyanarminian.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/an-explanation-of-simple-foreknowledge/
There are MANY more but this is a good primer to reveal my point. Also, allow me to say I REALLY appreciate how kind and respectful you are being. It is a joy to discuss theology without resorting to personal attacks. It's fine to disagree and even do so strongly, but still be respectful and Christlike in our dealings. I appreciate your heart in that!!! :thumbs:
The problem from your side is that you ultimately try to argue that there is a moral standard that transcends God to which the creature can hold God Himself accountable. From where did the definition and "origin" of this moral standard come if God is subject to it? ANY argument that says that God can be "wrong" if He does something just because a sinful, faulty, finite creature feels so is fundamentally flawed.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Ares,
I've made no such assertion. God defines Good and evil, but this thread is nearing our limit so I'll not attempt to start a new discussion at this point. Instead I'll start a new thread on the subject of "good and evil" and this "moral standard" so that we can pick up the discussion there...
I've made no such assertion. God defines Good and evil, but this thread is nearing our limit so I'll not attempt to start a new discussion at this point. Instead I'll start a new thread on the subject of "good and evil" and this "moral standard" so that we can pick up the discussion there...