• 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!

God's knowledge debate

Status
Not open for further replies.

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
To summarize the last few pages of this thread, we have the side that denies the Bible means what it said resorting to name calling (rot, blasphemy, no understanding) and in every way trying to disparage those that accept Biblical truth.

No verse, not one, contextually considered, supports the premise that God cannot limit His knowledge as demonstrated by verse after verse where He does just that.

At its core, the argument against inherent omniscience, is philosophy not scripture. Here were the arguments:

1) It goes against the historical view. Well you do not have to go back very many years to find out when Omniscience came into the vocabulary.

2) It relies on the Greek philosophy view of an "existent" future (i.e. its written in the stars) except they green-wash it by saying its in the mind of God.


cannot take the Incarnation though as the "proof" that God limits His all knowing attribute thoguh!
basically, once one understands that that second person of trinity chose to humble and :limit: use of His divine attributes while here on earth, but father/HS still had them in full usuage

ALL claims to have God limited in Hi9s Omscience blows away in the wind!
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Lets consider yet another verse referenced in the OP, Proverbs 15:3, which says God's eyes are everywhere. So if the future exists in the mind of God, God knows the future exhaustively. But is there a verse or passage that suggests the future exists in its entirety in God's mind. Nope.

Next, does this verse require that God search everywhere, or could He close His eyes, i.e. not choose to aquire some thought, attitude or motive? No it does not. Capacity does not equate with action.

In summary, not one verse or passage supports the contention that God cannot limit His knowledge to suit His purpose, but logically God being all powerful means He can limit His knowledge according to His purpose.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Not according to the Lord Jesus.
Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am [he], and [that] I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

ALL of that of the Kenosis of Jesus Christ, by choosing to limit Himself to not using His divine attributes while in the form of a man , and that he chose to live by fully relying on the father and power of the HS...

ALWAYS was/is God, but also a man!
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Please Jesusfan, stay on target. Peter said Jesus was all knowing. You say Jesus was not all knowing because He was in the flesh. But then you did not address why all knowing means this in John 21:17, but something else when God in heaven is in view. My position is "all knowing" simply refers to whatever the author had in view, and to claim "everything imaginable" was in view is without support in scripture. As I said before, God being able to know our hidden thoughts and attitudes and beliefs is always in view, not "everything imaginable." Your doctrine is supported by taking stuff out of context.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Please Jesusfan, stay on target. Peter said Jesus was all knowing. You say Jesus was not all knowing because He was in the flesh. But then you did not address why all knowing means this in John 21:17, but something else when God in heaven is in view. My position is "all knowing" simply refers to whatever the author had in view, and to claim "everything imaginable" was in view is without support in scripture. As I said before, God being able to know our hidden thoughts and attitudes and beliefs is always in view, not "everything imaginable." Your doctrine is supported by taking stuff out of context.

Much of the references in OT especially to God is a type of applying human manners ways understands to God, in order to have us be able to relate at all to Him!

God does NOT have eyes as a man, nor wings, nor hands stretched forth as a man!
 

freeatlast

New Member
ALL of that of the Kenosis of Jesus Christ, by choosing to limit Himself to not using His divine attributes while in the form of a man , and that he chose to live by fully relying on the father and power of the HS...

ALWAYS was/is God, but also a man!

Perhaps the hang up is when I hear the word limited it sounds like they were present all the time while He was in the flesh and He simply chose not to use them. I don't hold that view. Perhaps set aside is a better way for me to understand what happened. He set aside his powers and relied on the Father through the Spirit to carry out His ministry, not that He had all His power while in the flesh and did not use it. And yes He was God and man but relied fully on the Father. I would raise another question here. I said, and we agree that He was God and man. Is he still God and man with His powers restored or just God and no longer God/man?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
Think of it this way, an iceberg. We can see what is on the surface, some of its nooks and crannies, but most of it is below the sea, beyond our view and thus unfathomable. So we can see some limitations, "now I know" rather than "I knew" and so forth.

There is nothing illogical or unstudied about my view, it happens to be more modern than the view you hold but that does not make it not more biblical.

I respect your integrity, but I have not seen, or perhaps recall, how you addressed that Peter said Jesus was all knowing, yet Jesus did not know the time of His return. I say this demonstrates that when we see the phrase, all knowing, it does not mean everything imaginable, it simply means what the author had in view, such as here Jesus knowing everything about Peter's heart, or perhaps everything about the hearts of those He encountered.

I do not understand how anyone can hold to the historical view in light of the scriptures I have cited.

I just read back through these posts as well and personally I have no problem with what JBH28 has argued. Like I said, "in the same way we might argue that God is 3 but 1, we may also argue He limits his ability while remaining unlimited in ability." I think we should all be in agreement on that point.

If Cliff Lee (major league pitcher) is playing ball with his 5 year old, he certainly has the ability to pitch a 98mph fast ball, but he may choose to lob an under-handed soft pitch to give his son a chance to engage. I believe God can and does the same with us. But, to in any way suggest there is a lack of God's ability is equal to suggesting that Cliff Lee didn't have the ability to pitch a major league fast ball simply because of all the examples of his choosing not to do so.

I hope that helps explain what I mean.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Perhaps the hang up is when I hear the word limited it sounds like they were present all the time while He was in the flesh and He simply chose not to use them. I don't hold that view. Perhaps set aside is a better way for me to understand what happened. He set aside his powers and relied on the Father through the Spirit to carry out His ministry, not that He had all His power while in the flesh and did not use it. And yes He was God and man but relied fully on the Father. I would raise another question here. I said, and we agree that He was God and man. Is he still God and man with His powers restored or just God.

IF He set them aside though, during His stay on earth no longer was God, and could not be Saviour fo mankind, as ONLY death of God in person of Jesus could atone for Sins of mankind!
 

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
The Calvinist: God knows all from beginning to end. He is too big not to know.

The Noncalvinist: God can't know all things. He's too small to know.
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
The Calvinist: God knows all from beginning to end. He is too big not to know.

The Noncalvinist: God can't know all things. He's too small to know.

That is a complete misrepresentation and clearly only intended to inflame. :tear:
 

freeatlast

New Member
IF He set them aside though, during His stay on earth no longer was God, and could not be Saviour fo mankind, as ONLY death of God in person of Jesus could atone for Sins of mankind!

You do understand that we are now way over both our heads in this discussion? That being said, I don't think His power made Him God. satan has power even though of not his own making. I think God's power is what allows Him to exercise who He is and He set that aside to be man yet God, while He relied on the Father to keep Him and His eternal relationship with the Father is why He is God.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

freeatlast

New Member
The Calvinist: God knows all from beginning to end. He is too big not to know.

The Noncalvinist: God can't know all things. He's too small to know.

I keep asking this and everyone shies away from it with flimsy excuse.
How does God know? Does he look down through history to see or does He ordain (causes) every single event including your hiccups.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
I keep asking this and everyone shies away from it with flimsy excuse.
How does God know? Does he look down through history to see or des He ordain (causes) every single event including your hiccups.
Yes to both, but there's more.

Time is a part of Creation, part of this physical universe. We experience a moment-by-moment existence. It is not like that in Heaven. Christ is the Alpha and Omega at the "same time." We are seated with Him in heavenly places (Eph. 2:6). We are there "now", though in time we are still waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God.

God sees the future, because He is in the future. He IS the future. And He is in control in the future just as much as He is in control now. Noncalvinists don't believe God is in control now, how can they believe God is in control of the future, or even know it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Winman

Active Member
I just read back through these posts as well and personally I have no problem with what JBH28 has argued. Like I said, "in the same way we might argue that God is 3 but 1, we may also argue He limits his ability while remaining unlimited in ability." I think we should all be in agreement on that point.

If Cliff Lee (major league pitcher) is playing ball with his 5 year old, he certainly has the ability to pitch a 98mph fast ball, but he may choose to lob an under-handed soft pitch to give his son a chance to engage. I believe God can and does the same with us. But, to in any way suggest there is a lack of God's ability is equal to suggesting that Cliff Lee didn't have the ability to pitch a major league fast ball simply because of all the examples of his choosing not to do so.

I hope that helps explain what I mean.

Your pitching analogy is sort of how I see it. If Cliff Lee threw a 98 MPH pitch to his 5 year old, he could possibly kill the little fella. And this is what I see in Exodus 33. God spoke to Moses face to face, but he limited his glory, otherwise Moses would have dropped dead.

And Moses seemed to know God had limited his glory, as he asked to see it.

Exo 33:18 And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.

In the next verse we see God speak of his glory, he calls it "all my goodness"

Exo 33:19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.

So, we see God can sort of turn his glory on or off at will. He said he would "make" all his goodness pass before Moses. But he could not allow Moses to see his face in his glory, or else Moses would die.

Exo 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

And so, when we read numerous accounts of God appearing to men in the OT, I believe he limited his glory so that those men would not be killed, he limits his power for a purpose.

And this is speculation on my part, but it might also be possible that God limits his knowledge at times for a purpose.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
Noncalvinists don't believe God is in control now, how can they believe God is in control of the future, or even know it?

Again, a complete and total misrepresentation. Aaron has studied enough to know better.

Adam Clarke, a NON-CALVINISTIC SCHOLAR, wrote: "the Being whose purposes and actions spring from himself, without foreign motive or influence: he who is absolute in dominion; the most pure, the most simple, and most spiritual of all essences; infinitely benevolent, beneficent, true, and holy: the cause of all being, the upholder of all things; infinitely happy, because infinitely perfect; and eternally self-sufficient, needing nothing that he has made; illimitable in his immensity, inconceivable in his mode of existence, and indescribable in his essence; known fully only to himself, because an infinite mind can be fully apprehended only by itself -- in a word, a Being who, from his infinite wisdom, can not err or be deceived; and who, from his infinite goodness, can do nothing but what is eternally just, right, and kind. "

Jacobus Arminius, another NON-CALVINISTIC SCHOLAR, wrote: "I consider Divine Providence to be "that solicitous, continued, and universally present inspection and oversight of God, according to which he exercises a general care over the whole world, but evinces a particular concern for all his [intelligent] creatures without any exception, with the design of preserving and governing them in their own essence, qualities, actions, and passions, in a manner that is at once worthy of himself and suitable to them, to the praise of his name and the salvation of believers. In this definition of Divine Providence, I by no means deprive it of any particle of those properties which agree with it or belong to it; but I declare that it preserves, regulates, governs and directs all things and that nothing in the world happens fortuitously or by chance. Beside this, I place in subjection to Divine Providence both the free-will and even the actions of a rational creature, so that nothing can be done without the will of God, not even any of those things which are done in opposition to it; only we must observe a distinction between good actions and evil ones, by saying, that "God both wills and performs good acts," but that "He only freely permits those which are evil." Still farther than this, I very readily grant, that even all actions whatever, concerning evil, that can possibly be devised or invented, may be attributed to Divine Providence Employing solely one caution, "not to conclude from this concession that God is the cause of sin." This I have testified with sufficient clearness, in a certain disputation concerning the Righteousness and Efficacy of Divine Providence concerning things that are evil, which was discussed at Leyden on two different occasions, as a divinity-act, at which I presided. In that disputation, I endeavoured to ascribe to God whatever actions concerning sin I could possibly conclude from the scriptures to belong to him; and I proceeded to such a length in my attempt, that some persons thought proper on that account to charge me with having made God the author of sin. The same serious allegation has likewise been often produced against me, from the pulpit, in the city of Amsterdam, on account of those very theses; but with what show of justice such a charge was made, may be evident to any one, from the contents of my written answer to those Thirty-one Articles formerly mentioned, which have been falsely imputed to me, and of which this was one."

John Wesley, a NON-CALVINISTIC SCHOLAR, wrote: "How strongly and beautifully do these words express the omnipresence of God! And can there be in the whole compass of nature a more sublime subject? Can there be any more worthy the consideration of every rational creature? Is there any more necessary to be considered, and to be understood, so far as our poor faculties will admit? How many excellent purposes may it answer! What deep instruction may it convey to all the children of men! And more directly to the children of God.

2. How is it then that so little has been wrote on so sublime and useful a subject? It is true that some of our most eminent writers have occasionally touched upon it, and have several strong and beautiful reflections which were naturally suggested by it. But which of them has published a regular treatise, or so much as a sermon, upon the head? Perhaps many were conscious of their inability to do justice to so vast a subject. It is possible, there may some such lie hid in the voluminous writings of the last century. But if they are hid even in their own country, if they are already buried in oblivion, it is the same, for any use they are of, as if they had never been wrote.

3. What seems to be wanting still, for general use, is a plain discourse on the omnipresence or ubiquity of God. First, in some manner explaining and proving that glorious truth, "God is in this, and eve~ry place;" and Then, applying it to the consciences of all thinking men, in a few practical inferences.

I. 1. Accordingly, I will endeavor, by the assistance of his Spirit, first a little to explain the omnipresence of God; to show how we are to understand this glorious truth, "God is in this, and every place. The Psalmist, you may remember, speaks strongly and beautifully upon it in the hundred and thirty- ninth Psalm; observing in the most exact order, First, "God is in this place;" and Then, "God is in every place." He observes, First, "Thou art about my bed, and about my path, and spiest out all my ways." (Ps. 139:3.) "Thou hast fashioned me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me." (Ps. 139:5) Although the manner thereof he could not explain; how it was he could not tell. "Such knowledge," says he, "is too wonderful for me: I cannot attain unto it.~" (Ps. 139:6) He next observes, in the most lively and affecting manner, that God is in every place. "Whither shall I go then from thy Spirit, or whither shall I go from thy presence? If I climb up into heaven, thou art there; if I go down to hell, thou art there also.'(Ps. 139:7, 8.) If I could ascend, speaking after the manner of men, to the highest part of the universe, or could I descend to the lowest point, thou art alike present both in one and the other. "If I should take the wings of the morning, and remain in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there thy hand would lead me," -- thy power and thy presence would be before me, -- "and thy right hand would hold me,' seeing thou art equally in the length and breadth, and in the height and depth of the universe. Indeed thy presence and knowled~ge not only reach the utmost bounds of creation; but

Thine omnipresent sight, E~ven to the pathless realms e~xtends Of uncreated night.

In a word, there is no point of space, whether within or without the bounds of creation, where God is not.

2. Indeed, this subject is far too vast to be comprehended by the narrow limits of human understanding. We can only say, The great God, the eternal, the almighty Spirit, is as unbounded in his presence as in his duration and power. In condescension, indeed, to our weak understanding, he is said to dwell in heaven: but, strictly speaking, the heaven of heavens cannot contain him; but he is in every part of his dominion. The universal God dwelleth in universal space; so that we may say...."

Hopefully now Aaron can address what we actually believe rather than attacking straw men that he has erected in order to inflame and undermine brethren who disagree with him regarding his Calvinistic soteriology.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Reply to Jesusfan,

Much of the references in OT especially to God is a type of applying human manners ways understands to God, in order to have us be able to relate at all to Him!

God does NOT have eyes as a man, nor wings, nor hands stretched forth as a man!

I am sorry but I do not follow your argument. God has eyes everywhere, does mean He has actual physical eyes everywhere, but rather the capacity to apprehend what is going on everywhere. One of the ways those believe in false doctrine us to nullify scripture is to claim it does not mean what it literally says, but is simply illustrating something supernatural. This is valid for hands, wings, arms, eyes, face, front etc, but is not valid for what is being illustrated, ability to know, see, decide, etc.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Reply to Skandelon

I just read back through these posts as well and personally I have no problem with what JBH28 has argued. Like I said, "in the same way we might argue that God is 3 but 1, we may also argue He limits his ability while remaining unlimited in ability." I think we should all be in agreement on that point.

If Cliff Lee (major league pitcher) is playing ball with his 5 year old, he certainly has the ability to pitch a 98mph fast ball, but he may choose to lob an under-handed soft pitch to give his son a chance to engage. I believe God can and does the same with us. But, to in any way suggest there is a lack of God's ability is equal to suggesting that Cliff Lee didn't have the ability to pitch a major league fast ball simply because of all the examples of his choosing not to do so.

I hope that helps explain what I mean.

I think you meant to say "He limits his action while remaining unlimited in ability. If so, then I do agree with that. As I have said over and over He chooses not to know things according to His purpose, and never He cannot know things because of lack of ability.

I have not seen, or perhaps recall, how you addressed that Peter said Jesus was all knowing, yet Jesus did not know the time of His return. I say this demonstrates that when we see the phrase, all knowing, it does not mean everything imaginable, it simply means what the author had in view, such as here Jesus knowing everything about Peter's heart, or perhaps everything about the hearts of those He encountered.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I see the old chestnut of God being in the future because He is outside of time being hoisted yet again. This is simply a fiction, with no scriptural support. What if just like we have "time" in the physical universe, created when the universe was created, God has eternal time, an attribute of His nature. Yes there is no support for that one either, but one conjecture cut out of whole cloth must be as valid as the next. See the problem?
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
You do understand that we are now way over both our heads in this discussion? That being said, I don't think His power made Him God. satan has power even though of not his own making. I think God's power is what allows Him to exercise who He is and He set that aside to be man yet God, while He relied on the Father to keep Him and His eternal relationship with the Father is why He is God.

So you do not think that jesus was God, the Second person in the Trinity?
That he was always God, but somehow became God will on earth? that he was 'adopted" by God, and made his Son?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

freeatlast

New Member
So you do not think that jesus was God, the Second person in the Trinity?
That he was always God, but somehow became God will on earth? that he was 'adopted" by God, and made his Son?

No. Jesus is and was always God. I believe He just set aside His powers while here as a man. Not adopted just God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top