God, logic and His attributes

[TCGreek]

If after we've plumbed the depths of Scripture to understand the true nature of God, we're not brought to the doxology of Romans 11:33-36, something is seriously wrong with our motives.

 

[Humblesmith]

Two things are clear:

1. I referred to orthodoxy myself and then you, in some odd form of presumption, tell me to check them out. That is the worse kind of arrogance and has no place in debate. You presume I haven't by telling me to check them out when I mentioned them myself.

2. You state God must be infinite, good not one said he wasn't and that isn't being debated.

I am sorry friend, but your capacity for responding to the context of statements and the ideology of a posting on the whole appears to me to be wanting severely and I am going to skip any further dialogue with you.

Huh? Where'd that come from? I just thought we were discussing.......

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Okay, here.

I will assume for now that my response will be received and responded to in like detail as you are requesting a response to a question and conflict you pose that requires more than a mild reference or two or casual consideration.

I stated that God is not an agent of foreknowledge or for that matter, any of His attributes. Another way of saying that is that God is not an effect of foreknowledge, neither are the acts of God an effect of foreknowledge or His attributes.

This prompted the legitimate question: How does God relate to His attributes?

First, God is an agent of Himself. His attributes combine to make up God (those attributes revealed in Scripture).

The intelligence or mentality of God acts as the determiner of what characteristics of his what attributes will function or need to function in order to accomplish whatever He determines.

This is how mentality works and the Bible makes clear God has a mentality, a Divine one to be sure. So, instead of God possessing foreknowledge and being compelled to act upon that foreknowledge in any and every situation, this dimension of His attributes is used to serve His determinations. God does not exist to serve foreknowledge but foreknowledge is present in God to serve Him.

An attribute is a capacity but not a mentality. Attributes don’t make determinations, mentality does. Attributes are capacities that enable mental determinations to be accomplished.

Even the attribute of omniscience is not a mentality but describes the mentality of God, all knowing. God is not an agent or effect of omniscience, rather omniscience is an effect of God and exists to serve God.

In the case of God, His mentality determines what it determines and His attributes give Him the capacity to accomplish that. In a crude sense the attributes of God are subordinate to the mentality of God.

Let’s say you can run 100 meters in 10.9 seconds. Does this mean every time you travel 100 meters you are going to run it in 10.9 seconds? Of course not. I realize you and I are not God but the illustration is legitimate in making a point.

Because God possesses an attribute it does not necessarily require that part of His essence to be manifested in His acts. Remember my earlier comment that spurred this thread:



Let me be clear. I am not saying God, by not necessarily acting in acquiescence to one or all of His attributes is diminishing Himself, God cannot diminish, but that ultimately the employment of His attributes are resolved, not by the attributes themselves but by His mentality, His determinations. And you can be sure that those determinations never lead God to do anything that can be described or understood as God not being 100% faithful to His essence.

Again, the hope is my response will be considered and prompt equally challenging and thoughtful reflection.

Okay, you've stretched my brain and part of me thinks I'm in way over my head. But I'm pushing on in the discussion.

My use of an example will serve to see if I have understood you correctly.

Acts 2:23 (NIV)
This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,put him to death by nailing him to the cross.

Acts 2:23 (KJV)
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

This verse indicates that God's "determinate counsel" or "purpose" is the reason for His foreknowledge which is what I think you have explained.
Using your terms, God's mentality determined something that His attribute of foreknowledge gave Him the capacity to accomplish.
In this verse, the specifics are:
Christ was "delivered" up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.
It was not God's foreknowledge that determined that Christ would be delivered up, but His determined counsel, or set purpose.
So God's foreknowledge is based on His purpose, counsel, decree, etc.
God foreknew the details of Christ's death because He decreed them.

God's mentality decreed that Christ would be crucified in a prescribed manner and His foreknowledge gave Him the capacity to accomplish Christ's death in that decreed manner.

I'll stop here.

Have I applied what you've stated correctly?

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Huh? Where'd that come from? I just thought we were discussing.......

HS

My post was too rash but honest. I should have been more tempered so I apologize there. However, some of your statements were provocative in that they were structured as lectures assuming ignorance on my part. Lectures are great if I have asked posed a question or reveled profound ignorance that simply begs one. But without either of those they certainly aren't the most effective method of eliciting response.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Okay, you've stretched my brain and part of me thinks I'm in way over my head. But I'm pushing on in the discussion.

My use of an example will serve to see if I have understood you correctly.

This verse indicates that God's "determinate counsel" or "purpose" is the reason for His foreknowledge which is what I think you have explained.
Using your terms, God's mentality determined something that His attribute of foreknowledge gave Him the capacity to accomplish.
In this verse, the specifics are:
Christ was "delivered" up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.
It was not God's foreknowledge that determined that Christ would be delivered up, but His determined counsel, or set purpose.
So God's foreknowledge is based on His purpose, counsel, decree, etc.
God foreknew the details of Christ's death because He decreed them.

God's mentality decreed that Christ would be crucified in a prescribed manner and His foreknowledge gave Him the capacity to accomplish Christ's death in that decreed manner.

I'll stop here.

Have I applied what you've stated correctly?

abracadabra. We understand each other on this occasion well. The passage you found is supreme in every manner relating to our discussion, thanks.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

abracadabra. We understand each other on this occasion well. The passage you found is supreme in every manner relating to our discussion, thanks.

Great.
So what about this next passage:
1 Peter 1: 1-2 (NIV)

1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood:
Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

1 Peter 1: 1-2 (KJV)

1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

This verse speaks about God's election of the Jewish believers who were scattered abroad.
"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father"
Applying what has been said before we can say, God's foreknowledge did not determine who these elect were. It gave Him the capacity to accomplish the election, but not the mentality to determine the elect.
The determination of the elect came from His mentality.
His determination that there would be those who through sanctification by the Holy Spirit would be obedient to Jesus Christ and worthy of the sprinkling of His blood did not come from His foreknowledge.
His foreknowledge of these Jewish believers scattered abroad was determined by His determinate counsel, purpose or plan which comes from His mentality and in this passage is called, the plan is referred to as "elect[ion].
So election, according to this passage, is the reason for God's foreknowlege of the believers. And not the other way around. God's foreknowledge did not determine His election, instead it gave Him the capacity to accomplish it.

Are we still in agreement?

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Great.
So what about this next passage:
1 Peter 1: 1-2 (NIV)


1 Peter 1: 1-2 (KJV)


This verse speaks about God's election of the Jewish believers who were scattered abroad.
"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father"
Applying what has been said before we can say, God's foreknowledge did not determine who these elect were. It gave Him the capacity to accomplish the election, but not the mentality to determine the elect.
The determination of the elect came from His mentality.
His determination that there would be those who through sanctification by the Holy Spirit would be obedient to Jesus Christ and worthy of the sprinkling of His blood did not come from His foreknowledge.
His foreknowledge of these Jewish believers scattered abroad was determined by His determinate counsel, purpose or plan which comes from His mentality and in this passage is called, the plan is referred to as "elect[ion].
So election, according to this passage, is the reason for God's foreknowlege of the believers. And not the other way around. God's foreknowledge did not determine His election, instead it gave Him the capacity to accomplish it.

Are we still in agreement?

I am traveling this weekend but will take time out Friday or Saturday for a thorough response. Regardless of whether we come to an agreement at any or all places, I admire the nature of your pursuit for enlightenment and you appear to be have developed a certain intellectual integrity necessary for discovery.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Great.
So what about this next passage:
1 Peter 1: 1-2 (NIV)


1 Peter 1: 1-2 (KJV)


This verse speaks about God's election of the Jewish believers who were scattered abroad.
"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father"
Applying what has been said before we can say, God's foreknowledge did not determine who these elect were. It gave Him the capacity to accomplish the election, but not the mentality to determine the elect.
The determination of the elect came from His mentality.
His determination that there would be those who through sanctification by the Holy Spirit would be obedient to Jesus Christ and worthy of the sprinkling of His blood did not come from His foreknowledge.
His foreknowledge of these Jewish believers scattered abroad was determined by His determinate counsel, purpose or plan which comes from His mentality and in this passage is called, the plan is referred to as "elect[ion].
So election, according to this passage, is the reason for God's foreknowlege of the believers. And not the other way around. God's foreknowledge did not determine His election, instead it gave Him the capacity to accomplish it.

Are we still in agreement?

I could not have represented my own thoughts regarding the conceptualizing and mechanics of Divine determiniation and the capacity of foreknowledge any better.

Though we do not agree on the understanding of election, here it isn't necessary in order for the subject, foreknowledge and the mentality of God, to be understood.

The point you make is very critical, I believe:

So election, according to this passage, is the reason for God's foreknowlege of the believers. And not the other way around. God's foreknowledge did not determine His election, instead it gave Him the capacity to accomplish it.

And to and for anyone reading this, it is without doubt we humans are limited in our capacity for conceptualizing the infinite and Divine but God does reveal Himself and communicates certainties and ideas about Himself that can be discussed with conviction and reasonable pursuit...so if anyone discovers the slightest smidgen of imperfection in the dialogue or course of reasoning...well join the party because it's gonna be that was until we get to the other side.

 

[Allan]

Okay, you've stretched my brain and part of me thinks I'm in way over my head. But I'm pushing on in the discussion.

My use of an example will serve to see if I have understood you correctly.

This verse indicates that God's "determinate counsel" or "purpose" is the reason for His foreknowledge which is what I think you have explained.
Using your terms, God's mentality determined something that His attribute of foreknowledge gave Him the capacity to accomplish.
In this verse, the specifics are:
Christ was "delivered" up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.
It was not God's foreknowledge that determined that Christ would be delivered up, but His determined counsel, or set purpose.
So God's foreknowledge is based on His purpose, counsel, decree, etc.
God foreknew the details of Christ's death because He decreed them.

God's mentality decreed that Christ would be crucified in a prescribed manner and His foreknowledge gave Him the capacity to accomplish Christ's death in that decreed manner.

I'll stop here.

Have I applied what you've stated correctly?

I just about fell out of my chair. :laugh:
Your spot on and MUCH better in your wording than I have been.

 

[Allan]

Great.
1 Peter 1: 1-2 (NIV)


1 Peter 1: 1-2 (KJV)


This verse speaks about God's election of the Jewish believers who were scattered abroad.
"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father"
Applying what has been said before we can say, God's foreknowledge did not determine who these elect were. It gave Him the capacity to accomplish the election, but not the mentality to determine the elect.
The determination of the elect came from His mentality.
His determination that there would be those who through sanctification by the Holy Spirit would be obedient to Jesus Christ and worthy of the sprinkling of His blood did not come from His foreknowledge.
His foreknowledge of these Jewish believers scattered abroad was determined by His determinate counsel, purpose or plan which comes from His mentality and in this passage is called, the plan is referred to as "elect[ion].
So election, according to this passage, is the reason for God's foreknowlege of the believers. And not the other way around. God's foreknowledge did not determine His election, instead it gave Him the capacity to accomplish it.

I agree with Alex. This is VERY well worded. Did you get these from a sourse or did you just set it forth?

 

[Allan]

If after we've plumbed the depths of Scripture to understand the true nature of God, we're not brought to the doxology of Romans 11:33-36, something is seriously wrong with our motives.

And to this I UTTERLY agree. Who can truly know the mind of God?

We can postulate many things about how, when, or what God knew.
Both sides delve in here TCG, the Calvinist as much as the Non-Cal.

All we know from scripture is that He DID know, He DID Elect, and beyond that we must remember that He IS God and we are NOT. Beyond that it is mere speculation but it is important for our theologies to work properly.

Can you imagine trying to explain Calvinism without try to explain how or in what manner God determined His decree, or Election?
You would loose a lot of your material. So it is necessary for the construct of our theological view, but what comes to mind then is - should we really be basing (either side) on that which we truly do not understand?

 

[TCGreek]

You would loose a lot of your material. So it is necessary for the construct of our theological view, but what comes to mind then is - should we really be basing (either side) on that which we truly do not understand?

1. While I agree with elements of the unknown when it comes to the sovereign will of God, I must maintain that sovereign election is all over Scripture, from the call of Abram to the election of Israel to the election of those who become believers in the NT.

2. We know that God's election of us is not based on anything that we have done, but sole based on his sovereign electing grace (Eph 1:4-6; 2 Tim 1:9, 10; Rom 9:14-18).

3. We can only go with what the Scriptures affirm, and I believe the Scriptures affirm sovereign election, for its everywhere.

 

[Allan]

1. While I agree with elements of the unknown when it comes to the sovereign will of God, I must maintain that sovereign election is all over Scripture, from the call of Abram to the election of Israel to the election of those who become believers in the NT.

2. We know that God's election of us is not based on anything that we have done, but sole based on his sovereign electing grace (Eph 1:4-6; 2 Tim 1:9, 10; Rom 9:14-18).

3. We can only go with what the Scriptures affirm, and I believe the Scriptures affirm sovereign election, for its everywhere.

Yes, but that 'is not based on what we have done' is ALWAYS specific to works, and faith is not a work.

 

[TCGreek]

Yes, but that 'is not based on what we have done' is ALWAYS specific to works, and faith is not a work.

Faith is a gift of God given to the elect (Acts 13:48; 16:14).

 

[JustChristian]

Titus 1:2 says God cannot lie. God operates freely within his nature and attributes because he must. To operate outside his nature would be an impossibility.

God is immutable. He does not change. He cannot change because to do so would nullify his immutability.

I think we are all uncomfortable in saying that God "cannot" do something. But Paul doesn't mind saying so to Titus, so neither should we.

I believe that using words like "cannot" with respect to God is truly questioning His sovereignty and omnipotence. We use words like immutability to describe Him but doesn't that represent putting Him in a box that we have constructed?

 

[Humblesmith]

In 1 Peter, "elect in accordance with the foreknowledge" is not a tricky verse. It means what it says..........election is in accord with foreknowledge. It does not speak of either one causing the other, for there is no causality in that verse. "in accordance with" could be explained as "in agreement with" or "in parallel with."

Part of the issue here is our human insistance on trying to put God's decrees in a logical order, of one causing the other. Rather, God's thoughts are non-sequential; they are all in accordance with each other, and God does not have to reason through issues to make a decision.

So we are indeed sovereignly elected, and this election is in accordance with foreknowledge, love, justice, and all the other divine attributes.

 

[David Lamb]

I believe that using words like "cannot" with respect to God is truly questioning His sovereignty and omnipotence. We use words like immutability to describe Him but doesn't that represent putting Him in a box that we have constructed?

That is definitely not "a box that we have constructed." "Immutable" means "unchangeable", and God says of Himself in Malachi 3.6, "I am the Lord, I do not change." Not only so, but God's Word tells us that He "cannot lie." No man-made "box" there!

Far from such things limiting God's power, they show how great it is. Who else could truly say, "I do not change"? We all change - we are affected by things within us and things outside us. God is so powerful that He cannot be changed by circumstances.

If we were to say something such as, "That person is so evil; God cannot save him!" that would indeed be "questioning His sovereignty and omnipotence." If we were to say, "God can lie" or "God can change," that also would be "questioning His sovereignty and omnipotence."

 

[Bro. James]

Putting God in a Box

How many years does one need to study God to find that He is HOLY, HOLY, HOLY? That is day one at seminary. Day two: God is potter, we are clay. Day three: graduation. Send your tuition to your favorite charity.

Now what? Pick up cross. Follow Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Allan]

Faith is a gift of God given to the elect (Acts 13:48; 16:14).

If you mean that men would not 'have' faith (as in come to faith) then I agree.
If you mean that God must give men faith. Then the burden of proof is on you. And those verse you quote in no show this.

 

[TCGreek]

If you mean that men would not 'have' faith (as in come to faith) then I agree.
If you mean that God must give men faith. Then the burden of proof is on you. And those verse you quote in no show this.

1. The Jerusalem guys refer to repentance as a gift (Acts 11:18); Paul refers to faith as a gift (Eph 2:8; Phil 1:29).

2. Because of the prior divine work of God in bringing sinful man to himself, and because man cannot come to God on his own, the saving faith man expresses is correctly termed a gift from God.