How does God know what He knows?

[Dale-c]

J.D. in other words what you are saying is that there is nothing that God can do to bring himself down to the level of Man in any way.
Likewise, there is NOTHING that man can do to bring himself to the level of God.

 

[J.D.]

God knows by thinking. He knows what he knows because everything originates in his own thoughts.

He doesn't take in info. That would be learning. Rather, he puts out info.

Right!!! He "puts out info", as in, decrees. That's the point. For man to know is for man to learn. For God to know is for God to decree. Therefore, if it is, it is decreed.

Amy G, Scarlett, are you out there? You learning anything here?

 

[J.D.]

If God has said that something will happen and that He has a plan, then He must then have the power to back it up.

Yes, that is one of the implications. Also, if he said it will happen, it essentially has already happened.

 

[J.D.]

J.D. in other words what you are saying is that there is nothing that God can do to bring himself down to the level of Man in any way.
Likewise, there is NOTHING that man can do to bring himself to the level of God.

Another implication. "But we have the mind of Christ" - the only way we can approach God is through Christ, through His "mind".

 

[J.D.]

Having learned what we now know about the knowledge of God, that He can not learn any thing, and what He knows He decrees, let me repeat the question I addressed to Scarlett a while ago:

Question: in light of the fact that God can not learn anything, what does this verse mean: "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God"?

 

[canadyjd]

Question: in light of the fact that God can not learn anything, what does this verse mean: "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God"?

You have quoted a verse as "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God". Could you give me that passage of scripture, please?

peace to youraying:

 

[J.D.]

You have quoted a verse as "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God". Could you give me that passage of scripture, please?

peace to youraying:

I Peter 1:2

 

[canadyjd]

I Peter 1:2

Thank you. The NASB uses "chosen" instead of "elect".

I don't think Peter is talking about "information" when he uses the word "foreknowledge" (neither is Paul in Romans 8)

He is refering to a relationship. The "foreknowledge" spoken of is God knowing us in a relationship before the foundation of the world.

The word can carry that meaning, or so my lexical aids tell me.

peace to youraying:

 

[J.D.]

Thank you. The NASB uses "chosen" instead of "elect".

I don't think Peter is talking about "information" when he uses the word "foreknowledge" (neither is Paul in Romans 8)

He is refering to a relationship. The "foreknowledge" spoken of is God knowing us in a relationship before the foundation of the world.

The word can carry that meaning, or so my lexical aids tell me.

peace to youraying:

Yes, there is a relational element to foreknowledge, but does any of your lexical aids offer an epistimoligical or decretive definition?

Relational or not, the thing is that foreknowledge, in any case, can not be properaly defined as God "looking into the future" to see who would be saved and who wouldn't, and then electing (choosing) them. Looking into the future would imply the God observed and then learned the future, and then validated it by choosing to allow it. We've already established that God can not learn any thing. That makes "foreknowledge" virtually synonymous with "decreed before".

 

[Alcott]

That's right. There are things that God can not do. He can not not be God (double negative intended), and as a consequence, he can not do anything that makes Him less than "God". Like literally forget something. He can not determine to do something and then fail to do it. He can not fail in any way. He can not surrender His sovereignty. He can not learn. Just to name a few.

Alright, it's plain, then, that our God is not all-powerful. This is also, perhaps unkowingly or unintended on your part, an argument against the trinity.

 

[Rippon]

Alcott , are you paying attention ? J.D. was simply saying that God can't go against His nature . He does not do irrational things .

 

[Alcott]

You pay attention, bud, and that's not exactly what he said. He said, "there are things that God can not do."

 

[Jarthur001]

You pay attention, bud, and that's not exactly what he said. He said, "there are things that God can not do."

yes...and why do you have a problem with that?

Like sin.

Logically it is not possible for God to sin. If God does something ...anything...anything at all, it is Gods will to do it. Therefore how could God transgress God..which is what sin is.

Therefore God cannot sin.

Yet this has noting to do with the fact that He still is God and in full control of all things.

 

[Alcott]

yes...and why do you have a problem with that?

Who said I have a problem with it?

 

[Benjamin]

:laugh: Yeah Alcott, I would have to agree with J.D. and Jauthur001 that there are things that God can not do. :type:

Like God can not sin, or that God can not logically go against the truth of His Nature because He is Truth; and so He can not lie. Therefore, God can not create sin, as it would be against the truth of His Nature. God didn’t create evil, and since He didn’t create evil then He wouldn’t determine by the truth of His Nature that some of His “not so special” created creatures would be predestination by His Will to be evil.

Without determinism all five points of the TULIP crash. But not a problem, like Jauthur001 says, “God is in control of all things”, so He provided a Way for His free will creatures that He made in His likeness and image and who gained the knowledge of good and evil on their own accord to choose the Good. (The Way in Truth is logically influence and response-not cause and effect, as this determination of truth hinges on responsibility.)

God knew of course that by man having a free will he would choose the knowledge and fall from the beginning, and He knew that man would need a Redeemer so He provided one in a promise before the foundation of the world; giving of Himself His Only begotten in Love for His creatures by Grace.(Man was responsible for his own sin or God’s Grace wouldn’t logically be truth-to say God is responsible for creating evil is not truthful to the meaning of giving Grace,) Grace means man didn’t deserve the mercy- it would be a lie to give mercy to man if responsibility of the sin of man was God’s by predestination.

God knew that His creatures could not be forced to love as they were naturally made by His Sovereign design in His image, and to be force would logically go against the truth of His Nature which is Love in Truth.

God knowing His creatures would need to be reborn in His Spirit in order to live eternally in the Perfect, Only Good, Kingdom of Heaven, would fall short in their desires to be gods by the choices He gave them in creation to have the knowledge of good and evil making themselves sinful.

In His Sovereignty over His creation God knew that when us creatures fell in the first Adam that in His Sovereignty over His creation of Heaven and Earth that He could raise us creatures up in the second Adam in the Truth of the design in which He made them.

Alcott :tonofbricks: , like Rippon says, “God does not do irrational things” like create evil, or lie that He is Only Good, or look at His creation and say, “it is very good” if it were not true; neither would He have provided His Son for a propitiation needlessly. By all rational logic He would have predestined all His creatures to be good and saved Himself the trouble if that coincided with the truth in the design of the nature in which He created His creatures.

I’m sure God knew of the sacrifice He would have to make because of the truth of His design because He is a Sovereign God of Grace and Truth.

Hope I straightened you out Bro.