Omniscience and Determinism

[Skandelon]

I should not have to explain anthropomorphism to a seminary graduate.

For most of Christian history most believers wouldn't have any clue as to what anthropomorphism is, yet they were able to relate to God as He chose to reveal himself. You don't need a degree to understand God's revelation of Himself. He inspired fishermen not philosophers for a reason. He chooses the simple to shame the wise.

If God wished to reveal himself in the terms by which you believe him to be he certainly could have chosen those terms. He most certainly is more capable than even Jonathan Edwards to plum the depths of human language by which to explain Himself and His workings. But he didn't use those terms. He chose relational words...words we can understand and relate to. He reveals, without qualification, that he makes choices, which is 'selecting between available possibilities,' something your construct outright denies based on your finite understanding of omniscience.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to deny revelation based on my finite logic of infinite matters.

 

[Luke2427]

For most of Christian history most believers wouldn't have any clue as to what anthropomorphism is, yet they were able to relate to God as He chose to reveal himself.

That's not true.

Christians have NEVER struggled with the idea that God has no corporeal form.

Christians have never had trouble understanding zoomorphism and apthropomorphism.

You don't need a degree to understand God's revelation of Himself. He inspired fishermen not philosophers for a reason. He chooses the simple to shame the wise.

Is this an appeal to the readers of this debate? Are you hoping to win folks over with a populist approach?

If God wished to reveal himself in the terms by which you believe him to be he certainly could have chosen those terms.

Not in mortal tongue. That's EXACTLY why there IS a such thing as anthropomorphism because there are no terms in mortal tongue by which we can understand these aspects.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to deny revelation based on my finite logic of infinite matters.

Logic is not finite. Logic is truth. Truth is not finite.

Something cannot exist and not exist at the same time. That is not finite. It is truth.

Something cannot be one thing and not be that thing at the same time.

That fact has nothing to do with finiteness.

 

[Skandelon]

Regarding this world:
1. The future does not already exist.

For those of us in time and space, no. The word 'future' is a linear word and only exists in space and time.

Have you ever studied the curvature of space and time in Science class? Where they show that an atomic clock that is placed on a jet flying at very high speeds actually travels slower than a clock left on the ground? It proves that an object in motion actually ages slower than an object at rest. Or, that time is relative to speed and mass. Light is one of the fastest substances we can measure and if it were possible for a clock to travel the speed of light it would travel even slower than the clock on the jet, because time is relative to speed and mass. Well, if this is true (which it has been proven to be), then it bears to reason that if something could travel faster than any mass could travel, it would be timeless...i.e. Spirit.

Kind of blows the mind, doesn't it. :thumbsup:

 

[Skandelon]

Logic is truth. Truth is not finite.

The only real truth we can know is what God has chosen to reveal. He reveals himself as one who makes choices. If you wish to dismiss that characteristic as to mean, "he doesn't make choices because he already knows what he is going to choose" as if he is stuck on some linear timeline with you, I can't stop you...

If you want to label every characteristic of God that doesn't fit in your box as anthropomorphic and dismiss it as such, go right ahead.

For me, I have no problem thinking of God with eyes, hands and feet; as He actually revealed himself as such in Christ, so I'm sure He isn't going to be upset if I think of him by those terms or with that visual imagery. When I read the Psalm about his holding me with his mighty hand and I visualize an actual large hand holding me, there isn't anything wrong with that. It's not contradicting anything about what has been revealed.

But if you start saying the OPPOSITE of what is revealed...(i.e. He doesn't ever really make a choice, it just IS) I'm going to disagree.

I'm disagreeing because I'm right or because God has determined me to be wrong, either way you are fighting God, so go for it.

 

[humblethinker]

For those of us in time and space, no. The word 'future' is a linear word and only exists in space and time.

Have you ever studied the curvature of space and time in Science class? Where they show that an atomic clock that is placed on a jet flying at very high speeds actually travels slower than a clock left on the ground? It proves that an object in motion actually ages slower than an object at rest. Or, that time is relative to speed and mass. Light is one of the fastest substances we can measure and if it were possible for a clock to travel the speed of light it would travel even slower than the clock on the jet, because time is relative to speed and mass. Well, if this is true (which it has been proven to be), then it bears to reason that if something could travel faster than any mass could travel, it would be timeless...i.e. Spirit.

Kind of blows the mind, doesn't it. :thumbsup:

Yes, it does.
Are you saying that God is timeless?
Would you say that God is simultaneously both atemporal and temporal?
Would you say that God's future already exists or does not already exist or that the future does not exist?
Are you saying that the future for time-space reality does exist but that we cannot travel to it?

In my view, things either exist or they don't. If something exists then it can be said that God is convinced of its existence. So, for me, when I consider that the future doesn't exist then that is the ontological status of it... it doesn't exist. It cannot be the case that a thing actually exist but actually not exist. So, if the future does exist, then it exists. You may mean that man cannot travel to it but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It seems this is your point: the future does exist but its observance of it is impossible for man.

So many questions to answer for us to all talk intelligibly with one another.

 

[Yeshua1]

Winman, I'm not denying God's ability to foresee things (or foretell of what is to come), I'm denying the logical conclusions that some draw based on such a limited view of God's infinite nature. In other words, I don't believe His knowledge is based on mere foresight, as God is revealed to be omnipresent, not merely a fortune teller.

Think of it this way. Does God know what will happen at the end of age because he merely foresees something that He is waiting to experience along with the rest of us, or because he is there, present, as the great I AM?

We can choose to limit the transcendent infinite God to a linear time based cause/effect construct, but why not appeal to mystery and simply affirm what we know of him from revelation? He makes choices, but he is omniscient. How do those truths work in harmony? I don't know. How can we? But I refuse to draw finite conclusions which deny one of those revealed truths. Make sense?

God knows all things that will ever happen, due to the fact that He either did them already directly. or else permitted them to happen, but all done within his plans/purposes!

Go back to when God created the Universe, at that 'time" God already knew all future historial events!

 

[webdog]

That's not true.

Christians have NEVER struggled with the idea that God has no corporeal form.

This was a major struggle in the early church that led to heresy.

Christians have never had trouble understanding zoomorphism and apthropomorphism.

I would say its safe to say 99.5% of believers do not even know what the phrases mean.

Logic is not finite. Logic is truth. Truth is not finite.

Something cannot exist and not exist at the same time. That is not finite. It is truth.

Something cannot be one thing and not be that thing at the same time.

That fact has nothing to do with finiteness.

How do you apply this reasoning to miracles like walking on water...the hypostatic union...and the Godhead?

 

[Skandelon]

Yes, it does.
Are you saying that God is timeless?
Would you say that God is simultaneously both atemporal and temporal?
Would you say that God's future already exists or does not already exist or that the future does not exist?
Are you saying that the future for time-space reality does exist but that we cannot travel to it?

I believe scripture supports that God is infinite, eternal, transcendent, omni-present, omnipotent and omniscient. I also believe scripture reveals him to be relationally immanent, forgiving, responsive, caring, concerned, and loving. Honestly, after all my studies on this subject I have to admit I have NO idea how all those work together logically. I've concluded that is what faith is all about and have chalked it up to, "His ways are higher than ours."

One thing I will say though, is it is much easier to cry, laugh, converse and appeal to his immanent attributes than it is his transcendant ones. I don't talk to Him like he already knows what I'm going to say, or like He won't respond to my prayers, or like He has decided who He will and won't save. He relates to me much more like a friend than a master since I've given up trying to shove him in a defined theological box.

 

[Luke2427]

This was a major struggle in the early church that led to heresy.



I would say its safe to say 99.5% of believers do not even know what the phrases mean.












How do you apply this reasoning to miracles like walking on water...the hypostatic union...and the Godhead?

Without difficulty.

 

[Luke2427]

The only real truth we can know is what God has chosen to reveal. He reveals himself as one who makes choices. If you wish to dismiss that characteristic as to mean, "he doesn't make choices because he already knows what he is going to choose" as if he is stuck on some linear timeline with you, I can't stop you...

If you want to label every characteristic of God that doesn't fit in your box as anthropomorphic and dismiss it as such, go right ahead.

For me, I have no problem thinking of God with eyes, hands and feet; as He actually revealed himself as such in Christ, so I'm sure He isn't going to be upset if I think of him by those terms or with that visual imagery. When I read the Psalm about his holding me with his mighty hand and I visualize an actual large hand holding me, there isn't anything wrong with that. It's not contradicting anything about what has been revealed.

But if you start saying the OPPOSITE of what is revealed...(i.e. He doesn't ever really make a choice, it just IS) I'm going to disagree.

I'm disagreeing because I'm right or because God has determined me to be wrong, either way you are fighting God, so go for it.

Ok, we'll that's your problem. You think anthropomorphism is bunk and God literally has horns and a head covered with eyeballs and flies around with wings.

I'm content to have a theology very different from someone who believes such things.

I'm content that your soteriology is flawed because of this error.

So, it's really Calvinism or a belief that God is a really weird looking animal.

I can rest my case here- without trouble.

 

[webdog]

Without difficulty.

Oh? Didnt you state something cannot be one thing and something else at the same time? Water cannot be walked on yet it was. Wine does not come from water yet it did. You cannot be one person and three yet God is.

 

[Luke2427]

Oh? Didnt you state something cannot be one thing and something else at the same time? Water cannot be walked on yet it was. Wine does not come from water yet it did. You cannot be one person and three yet God is.

Water can be walked on. Wine can turn to water.

You are confusing the laws of nature and the laws of logic.

They are not the same.

An undergrad level class on logic would help you here greatly.

And the Trinity is not illogical either.

I refer you to a good article on this:

http://carm.org/trinity-makes-no-sense-it-isnt-logical

 

[Van]

Pitchback

I'm actually arguing that God knew Peter would sin, allowed it, and that it WAS a sin that Peter (a believer even at this point, i believe) needed to repent of before further Christian growth could occur, and that would have been held against peter had not he been covered by Christ's Blood...

What I'm waiting for from you is Historical support for the belief that Peter's Denial was an unusual occurance, that the normal course of life is that God does NOT know about our future sins until they occur. THAT is what I am convinced is not the historically Orthodox view.

Have you admitted punishing sinners for predestined sin is not the orthodox view? A yes or no would work for me.

Please stop trying to change the subject by misrepresenting my views.

1) If everything is predestined, God is the author of sin. That is the orthodox view.

2) Calvinism claims God predestines everything. Do you agree with Calvinism on this point?

 

[Van]

Pitchback

Answer:

1. I don't understand how the following verses work.

Mark 14:21 - For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”

Acts 2:23 - This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

2. I'm not willing to say at this point that God punishes people for sins he causes them to commit. I would lean toward a view that says he does not cause, but rather allows sin that he knows will occur. I reject that argument that knowledge of future events equals determining those events. So There's my "monstrous" view.

3. The "Subject" that I keep wanting to change back to is the OP's subject: Gods' Omniscience...Does God know everything that will occur before it occurs? You don't seem to think so, and have said so in the past. Your view is that God knows SOME things before they happen, but not others...otherwise he would not punish any sins. I don't think that is misrepresenting your view.

It is not an answer to a question to change the subject and claim not to understand two verses.

Then you evade the question by saying you will not say God punishes sinners for the sins He predestines. A yes or no is required.

Yes, God either causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass is the orthodox view, but Calvinism claims God predestines whatsoever comes to pass. Is Calvinism mistaken on this point, is Exhaustive Determinism a mistaken doctrine?

You say you believe God knows what we will choose to do with certainty but that still allows us to choose something else. I say that view is irrational nonsense.

At the end of the day, both Calvinism and Arminianism are irrational in that they deny logical necessity.

 

[12strings]

Have you admitted punishing sinners for predestined sin is not the orthodox view? A yes or no would work for me.

Yes, I admit that the majority of Christians in history do not believe God predestines people to sin, and then punish them of it...in fact most Christians do not believe God predestines sins at all.

However, many other Christians (high calvinists) have believed God does predestine every act of history, including sin, and holds people responsible for their sinful acts. Many good Christians have believed this, and served God faithfully while holding this view.

Please stop trying to change the subject by misrepresenting my views.

1) If everything is predestined, God is the author of sin. That is the orthodox view.

2) Calvinism claims God predestines everything. Do you agree with Calvinism on this point?

No, I would say God either predestines or allows everything...but that his knowledge of what he allows is exhaustive in that he knows I will sin before it happens. This fact (God knowing what happens before it happens) is also the historic orthadox view.

 

[12strings]

It is not an answer to a question to change the subject and claim not to understand two verses.

Then you evade the question by saying you will not say God punishes sinners for the sins He predestines. A yes or no is required.

Sorry I wasn't clearer, in saying "I will not say" I was saying that I would not say that because I'm not convinced that it is true. In saying that, I don't have a good explanation for the 2 verses I posted, and recognize some tension there.

Yes, God either causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass is the orthodox view, but Calvinism claims God predestines whatsoever comes to pass. Is Calvinism mistaken on this point, is Exhaustive Determinism a mistaken doctrine?

I would say Yes.

You say you believe God knows what we will choose to do with certainty but that still allows us to choose something else. I say that view is irrational nonsense.

Actually, if God knows what we will choose because he has perfect knowledge, then what he actually allows us to choose is simply what we choose, not something else.

At the end of the day, both Calvinism and Arminianism are irrational in that they deny logical necessity.

Probably, but denying God's knowledge of future free decisions (including sins) also presents logical problems.

Also, you keep saying I am misrepresenting your views...how have I done so?

 

[webdog]

Water can be walked on. Wine can turn to water.

not naturally or logically.

You are confusing the laws of nature and the laws of logic.

no I haven't.

They are not the same.

except when they are.

An undergrad level class on logic would help you here greatly.

And the Trinity is not illogical either.

I refer you to a good article on this:

http://carm.org/trinity-makes-no-sense-it-isnt-logical

It must be accepted on faith, not logic. God said let US reason TOGETHER. We cannot stand toe to toe with an infinite God on logic. Did your class teach you that?

 

[Skandelon]

It must be accepted on faith, not logic. God said let US reason TOGETHER. We cannot stand toe to toe with an infinite God on logic. Did your class teach you that?

You are exactly right. The whole deterministic appeal is to answer the question of an uncaused cause, but God himself is an uncaused cause, so by their own standard of only accepting what is 'logical' they dismiss the possibility of God's existence. He, along with his eternal, infinite attributes, must be accepted by faith, not logic, PERIOD.

 

[Skandelon]

Ok, we'll that's your problem. You think anthropomorphism is bunk and God literally has horns and a head covered with eyeballs and flies around with wings.

Now you are putting words in my mouth instead of quoting my actual words...an unhealthy pattern with you.

I said, there is nothing wrong with understanding God using the terms with which HE chose to reveal himself. Poetic and apocalyptic literature is very different from didactic teaching. I know you learned that in your Hermeneutics courses, as did I. You seem to want to equate the two taking passages that are clearly teaching about God electing/determining/choosing/deciding, and equating them to the extreme apocalyptic symbolism. Who else does this? What else can we dismiss from the didactic teachings using this standard? Maybe Heaven isn't really a place he went to prepare for us? Maybe Hell isn't really a place people are sent? Maybe divine judgement and wrath was just comparing to man's, but doesn't really exist? You must not dismiss clear didactic texts in this manner. It is very dangerous.

So, it's really Calvinism or a belief that God is a really weird looking animal.

And you don't recognize how ridiculous this sounds to anyone reading along? Come now, let's be reasonable.

 

[webdog]

You are exactly right. The whole deterministic appeal is to answer the question of an uncaused cause, but God himself is an uncaused cause, so by their own standard of only accepting what is 'logical' they dismiss the possibility of God's existence. He, along with his eternal, infinite attributes, must be accepted by faith, not logic, PERIOD.

...which is the summary of Hebrew 11. Imagine if Abraham appealed to logic.