Omniscience and Determinism

[Luke2427]

Yes it does...hey I like only having to read the first line. It goes much quicker. Let me know when you want to start interacting with entire posts again, otherwise I'll stick to this method.

:wavey:

Interacting is what you are quite obviously trying to AVOID.

This is abundantly clear by your evading the ACTUAL questions posed to you.

 

[Skandelon]

Interacting is what you are quite obviously trying to AVOID.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing when you stopped after the first sentence of a post where I explained in detail my views. You 'yada yada' my post, and now expect me to treat you seriously?

Not going to happen.

If you'd like to be treated with respect and for me to interact with your points seriously I'd expect you to treat me with at least as much respect as you wish to be treated.

I think there is even a verse about that somewhere.

 

[Luke2427]

Funny, I was thinking the same thing when you stopped after the first sentence of a post where I explained in detail my views. You 'yada yada' my post, and now expect me to treat you seriously?

Not going to happen.

If you'd like to be treated with respect and for me to interact with your points seriously I'd expect you to treat me with at least as much respect as you wish to be treated.

I think there is even a verse about that somewhere.

If you want me to respect you, Skan, answer my questions directly without twisting them.

 

[Skandelon]

For those who may be following along...

Some people think their worldview is the only possible one that can exist and are unwilling (maybe unable?) to step out from under their own perspective (take off their colored glasses) to openly and objectively consider another perpective.

They perceive any attempt to reframe a question to correctly represent their own perspective as 'twisting' and 'avoiding' the argument. In reality, they are closing their eyes to a sincere effort to expound, dialogue and exchange ideas.

Some attempt to force an infinite attribute (like omniscience) into a finite linear construct. This presumes that what is known is known prior to its happening in a linear sense... As if God knows what will occur because of His seeing it before it happened rather than His experiencing it as it happens.

But, do to an unwillingness on the part of some to engage in open and objective dialogue, the real question remains unexamined. Is His knowledge of all things based in the mere foresight of future events and memory of past happenings (linear thinking)?

Or is His knowledge of all thing based in his omnipresent infinite nature as the great "I AM," who is at all places, at all times, at once? I know its difficult to think in such infinite concepts, for its mysterious indeed, but think on it. I'm not claiming that we can fully fathom such things, but it gives one pause as we remember that His ways are certainly higher than ours and we should think twice about drawing conclusions about what he can or can't do based on our finite linear perspectives. This alone should make one willing to openly and honestly dialogue about these complex and infinite matters without suspicion and accusation.

We naturally think linearly (past, present, future) and causally (cause A now, effect B later). Thus, when we consider omniscience (an infinite attribute) on a linear construct it becomes confounding and we draw conclusions such as, "If God knew it before creating it then he must have determined it to be." This confounds and blurs definitions of biblical terms such as foreknowledge and predetermination, for under such a linear cause/effect construct the idea of divine knowledge melts into hard determinism and confines God to that only possible world view, as if He is bound and boxed in by its restraints.

Picture God saying to himself (metaphorically speaking), "Dang it, I really want to create free and autonomous creatures who are truly responsible, but this darn omniscience attribute of mine makes it such that I have to causally determine everything they do, even the heinous sins." My point is simply this, if God, a infinitely powerful being, wanted to create a free and responsible world, certainly he could. And scripture certainly indicates that he treats us as if we are free and responsible. In fact, our common disposition is one that believes that when we are faced with a choice that it is a free one. The only reason to believe otherwise might be from attempting to fit an infinite attribute like omniscience into a finite linear logical construct, instead of just appealing to mystery regarding such infinite matters.

I'll be here "twisting" along with men like CS Lewis and AW Tozer, because apparently we are just too much like "ungrown men" to dialogue with some people.

:sleeping_2:

 

[Luke2427]

For those who may be following along...

Some people think their worldview is the only possible one that can exist and are unwilling (maybe unable?) to step out from under their own perspective (take off their colored glasses) to openly and objectively consider another perpective.

They perceive any attempt to reframe a question to correctly represent their own perspective as 'twisting' and 'avoiding' the argument. In reality, they are closing their eyes to a sincere effort to expound, dialogue and exchange ideas.

Some attempt to force an infinite attribute (like omniscience) into a finite linear construct. This presumes that what is known is known prior to its happening in a linear sense... As if God knows what will occur because of His seeing it before it happened rather than His experiencing it as it happens.

But, do to an unwillingness on the part of some to engage in open and objective dialogue, the real question remains unexamined. Is His knowledge of all things based in the mere foresight of future events and memory of past happenings (linear thinking)?

Or is His knowledge of all thing based in his omnipresent infinite nature as the great "I AM," who is at all places, at all times, at once? I know its difficult to think in such infinite concepts, for its mysterious indeed, but think on it. I'm not claiming that we can fully fathom such things, but it gives one pause as we remember that His ways are certainly higher than ours and we should think twice about drawing conclusions about what he can or can't do based on our finite linear perspectives. This alone should make one willing to openly and honestly dialogue about these complex and infinite matters without suspicion and accusation.

We naturally think linearly (past, present, future) and causally (cause A now, effect B later). Thus, when we consider omniscience (an infinite attribute) on a linear construct it becomes confounding and we draw conclusions such as, "If God knew it before creating it then he must have determined it to be." This confounds and blurs definitions of biblical terms such as foreknowledge and predetermination, for under such a linear cause/effect construct the idea of divine knowledge melts into hard determinism and confines God to that only possible world view, as if He is bound and boxed in by its restraints.

Picture God saying to himself (metaphorically speaking), "Dang it, I really want to create free and autonomous creatures who are truly responsible, but this darn omniscience attribute of mine makes it such that I have to causally determine everything they do, even the heinous sins." My point is simply this, if God, a infinitely powerful being, wanted to create a free and responsible world, certainly he could. And scripture certainly indicates that he treats us as if we are free and responsible. In fact, our common disposition is one that believes that when we are faced with a choice that it is a free one. The only reason to believe otherwise might be from attempting to fit an infinite attribute like omniscience into a finite linear logical construct, instead of just appealing to mystery regarding such infinite matters.

I'll be here "twisting" along with men like CS Lewis and AW Tozer, because apparently we are just too much like "ungrown men" to dialogue with some people.

:sleeping_2:

A lot of words to evade the fact that you are unwilling to answer a simple question as it is posed to you.

 

[Skandelon]

For those who may be following along...

Some people think their worldview is the only possible one that can exist and are unwilling (maybe unable?) to step out from under their own perspective (take off their colored glasses) to openly and objectively consider another perpective.

They perceive any attempt to reframe a question to correctly represent their own perspective as 'twisting' and 'avoiding' the argument. In reality, they are closing their eyes to a sincere effort to expound, dialogue and exchange ideas.

Some attempt to force an infinite attribute (like omniscience) into a finite linear construct. This presumes that what is known is known prior to its happening in a linear sense... As if God knows what will occur because of His seeing it before it happened rather than His experiencing it as it happens.

But, do to an unwillingness on the part of some to engage in open and objective dialogue, the real question remains unexamined. Is His knowledge of all things based in the mere foresight of future events and memory of past happenings (linear thinking)?

Or is His knowledge of all thing based in his omnipresent infinite nature as the great "I AM," who is at all places, at all times, at once? I know its difficult to think in such infinite concepts, for its mysterious indeed, but think on it. I'm not claiming that we can fully fathom such things, but it gives one pause as we remember that His ways are certainly higher than ours and we should think twice about drawing conclusions about what he can or can't do based on our finite linear perspectives. This alone should make one willing to openly and honestly dialogue about these complex and infinite matters without suspicion and accusation.

We naturally think linearly (past, present, future) and causally (cause A now, effect B later). Thus, when we consider omniscience (an infinite attribute) on a linear construct it becomes confounding and we draw conclusions such as, "If God knew it before creating it then he must have determined it to be." This confounds and blurs definitions of biblical terms such as foreknowledge and predetermination, for under such a linear cause/effect construct the idea of divine knowledge melts into hard determinism and confines God to that only possible world view, as if He is bound and boxed in by its restraints.

Picture God saying to himself (metaphorically speaking), "Dang it, I really want to create free and autonomous creatures who are truly responsible, but this darn omniscience attribute of mine makes it such that I have to causally determine everything they do, even the heinous sins." My point is simply this, if God, a infinitely powerful being, wanted to create a free and responsible world, certainly he could. And scripture certainly indicates that he treats us as if we are free and responsible. In fact, our common disposition is one that believes that when we are faced with a choice that it is a free one. The only reason to believe otherwise might be from attempting to fit an infinite attribute like omniscience into a finite linear logical construct, instead of just appealing to mystery regarding such infinite matters.

I'll be here "twisting" along with men like CS Lewis and AW Tozer, because apparently we are just too much like "ungrown men" to dialogue with some people.

:sleeping_2:

A lot of words to evade the fact that you are unwilling to answer a simple question as it is posed to you.

Case and point....

 

[zrs6v4]

Skan,

It is definitely hard to openly reason outside of our own views I'll give you that. One of the reasons my view does come off deterministic is because of events in history. I do not fully understand how youve worked out the details in your view of God and I respect the fact that they are well thought out.

The bible does reveal that God is infinite in His attributes, knows all, all things before Him, all powerful etc. It also reveals truths, seemingly, on a level we can see. For example, God has a purpose in creation before the world was created. So we see things are revealed on our level: past, present, future. Philosophically speaking God probably sees all events in and outside of time therefore he is not trapped on our present time. Further philosophical reasoning would tell me that Gods omniscience means he never reasons or plans at all because He is always all knowing to perfection already. To say he at some point made plans also says He at some point didnt know something in the future.

Going back to my opening 2 sentences above and back to reality as it is revealed to us in Scrpture (on a humanly level). Lets look at 4 events that link across scripture and i dont plan this to be a long debate. The fall, the life of judah, the life of King david, and the coming of Christ. Now we both should agree that before creation God knew all events and made no mistakes. He created a world destined to fall pretty quickly so that a few thousand years downs the road He would step into it to die for it. Dont stop and take that statement to far. The fall of man then came as God planned. He hated it but it was necessary. Clearly in the same chapter jesus was the purpose. And the line of descendants began abel, seth, enoch, noah.... Then we cone to Judah the line of kings and descendent of this line.... Then we get to David... And after many generations Jesus is born.

My point is, how intricate is that? How in the intricate course of history can God bring about His purpose of the christ? Does he control no events but merely sees these events happen as He has allowed? Does He only control important events to insure things go as planned? Or does He control all events to insure that things go as planned?
I dont think omniscience goes far enough, nor do I think controlling a few events can righlty bring about His purposes, therefore I think the point of Scripture shows God in all events working out all things to His purpose.

I simply cant see (humanly speaking) how God can leave things unattended and they not effect the things We call big things (chosen line to christfor example).

Example: what if in eternity past God saw that Adam would not sin? David refuse to be king, isaiah committing suicide, or the jews accept the christ and not kill Him? Those are just big things, but how important are the small events we dont think about? Dont they all work together? Thus is God not in control of all things?

 

[Skandelon]

Skan,

It is definitely hard to openly reason outside of our own views I'll give you that. One of the reasons my view does come off deterministic is because of events in history. I do not fully understand how youve worked out the details in your view of God and I respect the fact that they are well thought out. ...

I simply cant see (humanly speaking) how God can leave things unattended and they not effect the things We call big things (chosen line to christfor example).

You make valid points and ask very good questions...questions that get to the heart of this discussion.

First, some determinists/compatibilists argue that indeterminists cannot account for certain clear cases of divine intervention throughout history. But, please understand there is nothing within our framework (as I have understood it) that would prevent us from recognizing that there are "special cases" (e.g., divine inspiration of scripture; various answers to prayer, supernatural events, etc) in which God overrides the human will and determines human choice to accomplish a greater purpose. Make sense?

In these "special cases" the means by which God causally determines the wills and environment so as to bring about the divinely desired outcome, most certainly could be very similar to that speculated by compatibilists. The differences are:

1) According to my view, these actions on God's part truly are "special cases," (works of God's active agency) rather than the mundane universal way all things are brought to pass. Thus, things like the inspiration of scripture (a SPECIAL CASE) can uniquely be referred to as a divine WORK OF GOD, and not just another everyday causally determined event in history like any other.

2) In my view, these interventions by which God causally determines human choice are examples of His overriding human freedom, not examples of actual contra-causal freedom; thus my view draws a distinction between the two instead of equating them as normative. (and much more could be said on this point as to how I believe God goes about doing this)​

Reichenbach, a notable indeterminist, comments about this: "God does at times restrict human freedom. For example, his rescue of Peter from prison restricted the freedom of the jailor. Similarly we restrict the freedom of others; by closing the cellar door I restrict the movement of my two year old, Rachel. But when persons must be manipulated or restricted (as, for example, when we forceably restrain one person from harming another), it must be recognized that such manipulation and interference can destroy the personhood of the individual. Thus, interference which restricts human freedom cannot be condoned without just cause or good reason. And interferences which would totally remove morally significant freedom, the freedom to make our own moral choices, is completely dehumanizing and unacceptable. Full humanization and moral growth occur when freedom is encouraged" ("God Limits His Power," Predestination and Free Will, p. 109).

All this to say, that I too recognize the clear cases throughout history where God actively participates to ensure His desired outcome, which as you rightly concluded, would be absolutely necessary to bring about his detailed plans and purposes in human history, especially as it relates to redemption. The question is, do these cases support the concept of God's decisive conditioning of all happenings? For reasons stated above, I don't believe so.

I hope that answers your questions and thank you for the objective and open conversation about these very complex matters. I doubt any of us have it really figured out. To God we probably appear as ants attempting to comprehend the thoughts and works of man. :1_grouphug:

 

[Van]

What we have here is a failure to communicate. God has a time-travel crystal ball. He does not foresee what will happen, He foresees what has happened. Therefore, He knows what we will choose, yet this choice was made freely, since God's knowledge is of our choice, not of what we will choose.

The above slice of baloney is simply what is called in the propaganda business an enabling scenario. You take all the known facts, and create a story that incorporates them in a way consistent with your agenda. Never mind the bible explicitly demonstrates this view is utterly bogus. God does not foresee the future, He brings the future event into existence, He causes it to happen as He foretold it would happen.

So by the numbers once again:

1) Calvinism offers an irrational view, whatsoever comes to pass was ordained (predestined) by God but God is not the author of sin. This logical impossibility is defended by pointing that it is possible for God to do what we think is impossible. However, since scripture does not say God predestines everything, for it says things happen by chance, the whole premise is irrational. At its core, it simply is selling a pig in a poke.

2) Arminianism offers an irrational view, God knows the future exhaustively, yet this does not predetermine the future to what God knows will happen. To support this the time traveling crystal ball is invented.

3) The third view, one that is not irrational, and is consistent with all scripture, has been determined by those probably holding one of the above views, to be unorthodox.

 

[12strings]

3) The third view, one that is not irrational, and is consistent with all scripture, has been determined by those probably holding one of the above views, to be unorthodox.

This view, as you have described it, that God does not know about certain future events, but does know about others...even some sins which he knows about, and predestines, but then does not consider as sinful and worthy of punishment, like Peter's denial of Jesus...IS NOT in line with the last 2000 years of church belief regarding the omniscience of God. You may be the only one who sees it correctly, but at least admit that you are breaking with the vast majority of Church history.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

And where do the Primitive Baptists fit in to this whole cabal? Ive begun to believe I follow a different gospel than most people, that I am in a minority position. If this is so then there is no need (except to argue my scriptural beliefs) to be posting here or to give my time to even signing in. Im far better off communicating with my own.

 

[webdog]

Yea, it figures.

I have never in my life conversed with anyone so evasive.

All you have to do is answer the ACTUAL questions people ask you.

It is curious that you are not able to do that.

you win the ironic
post of the year award :laugh:

 

[12strings]

And where do the Primitive Baptists fit in to this whole cabal? I've begun to believe I follow a different gospel than most people, that I am in a minority position. If this is so then there is no need (except to argue my scriptural beliefs) to be posting here or to give my time to even signing in. I'm far better off communicating with my own.

Perhaps in some ways, except for the fact that "As Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." Assuming that there are ZERO men who have it all figured out, then you are by necessity left to converse with men (& women) who do not have all the correct beliefs, and and who probably don't have all the same beliefs as you.

 

[webdog]

Some seem to think that God's omniscience logically necessitates a deterministic worldview. I find this to be a very small and limiting view of an infinite, omnipotent, mysteriously complex God.

I don't have a problem affirming God's omniscience, but I do have a problem with the limitations people place on God based on finite conclusions drawn from this affirmation.

Some seem to presume that God's knowledge rests on his ability to read the future like a Psychic might do it. They seem to presume that God, while existing at some point in the past, looks through the corridors of time to foresee what will come to pass and they think that is the basis of His knowledge and subsequent decisions. This seems to be a very shortsighted view of God to me. Of course, we are all just speculating when we go beyond the revelation of scripture, which we can all admit often portrays God with more human like responses and not as some omni-everything to the max eternal being.

He is the great "I AM," and thus if I were to speculate about his knowledge of all things as an infinite Being, I'd suspect that it is more like our knowledge of present reality rather than our knowledge of past fixed events or our foresight of future fixed events (as if we had a crystal ball, or something).

In other words, I don't think His knowledge is based on foresight of what he is waiting to experience, but on actually experience. He is all present and infinite. He isn't on some linear timeline limited to the cause/effect realities of a finite existence, which is the very heart of such finite logically conclusions as: "If God knew it prior to creating it, then he must have determined it do be exactly as he knew it." This is what blurs, if not completely erases, the distinction in God's determinations and His knowledge.

Thoughts?

I agree. Omniscience and omnipresence tie in with His many omni attributes, some we can understand to a degree like omnipotence, but omniscience and omnipresence are mysterious to us and might always be as we are finite beings. I've been mocked her for my understanding that God can know all, and at times appear not to know something. This is a tension found in scripture. The very concept of prayer encompasses this, as how can the righteous persons prayer mean diddly to a deterministic God? I'm fine with agreeing with these tensions and don't need a systematic theology to try and explain everything.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Perhaps in some ways, except for the fact that "As Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." Assuming that there are ZERO men who have it all figured out, then you are by necessity left to converse with men (& women) who do not have all the correct beliefs, and and who probably don't have all the same beliefs as you.

And so, how is that different from what I have in here now?

 

[Van]

Pitchback

This view, as you have described it, that God does not know about certain future events, but does know about others...even some sins which he knows about, and predestines, but then does not consider as sinful and worthy of punishment, like Peter's denial of Jesus...IS NOT in line with the last 2000 years of church belief regarding the omniscience of God. You may be the only one who sees it correctly, but at least admit that you are breaking with the vast majority of Church history.

I am not!! Was it sin for Abraham to prepare to sacrifice his son, his only son? What has been the view for 2000 years!! Does God punish the person responsible, or does God punish the son for the sins of the father? Your belief God punishes people for the actions He predestines breaks with the vast majority of Church history. Other than hyper Calvinists, you will not find any support for your monstrous view.

Here is a "Reformed" source, knowing you do not seem able to grasp any other view:

This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. In the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin. This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin
who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.”

 

[12strings]

I am not!! Was it sin for Abraham to prepare to sacrifice his son, his only son? What has been the view for 2000 years!! Does God punish the person responsible, or does God punish the son for the sins of the father? Your belief God punishes people for the actions He predestines breaks with the vast majority of Church history. Other than hyper Calvinists, you will not find any support for your monstrous view.

I'm curious as to what you think my "monstrous" view is. I think you'll find it closer to what you call the arminian view than what you call the calvinist view...except there is no Crystal ball involved.

Abraham obeyed God, Peter did the opposite of what he knew would be obedience. Orthodox view is: God knew Peter would sin, but Peter still sinned and was responsible for it.

I'm simply asking you to quote someone, ANYONE from church history (other than open theists from the last 150 years) who agrees with your view that God DOESN'T know things before they happen.

Here is a "Reformed" source, knowing you do not seem able to grasp any other view:

This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. In the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin. This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin
who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.”

I'm glad you see there is some variance among those who hold varying degrees of "reformed" thinking, so we don't unfairly characterize one group of people for holding a view that they don't actually hold.

 

[12strings]

And so, how is that different from what I have in here now?

I was simply saying I think there is value in this board, and in conversing with those of varying opinions...You seemed to be saying there was not value in it other than for us to be convinced of your views...I would say there is value for both sides...even the side who already has the correct view.

 

[percho]

Alternative views.

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, Heb 9:27 1st part

When was that appointment made?
What man who was without sin would keep that appointment?
When was the appointment of death for the Son of God born of woman made?
Why was it so determined?

But with the precious blood of Christ, (death) as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, 1 Peter 1:19,20 (Being the same statement as.) And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Van, I understand you disagree with that.)

The first man Adam had not yet been created. This Adam; Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Romans 5:12 This Adam;
For as in Adam all die, 1 Cor 15:22 1st part

What was God doing?

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Death wasn't the judgement. Judgement takes place at some point in time after, yet maybe also before. Who is going to do the judging?

Are all presently being judged as to what there future will be? Or maybe we should ask whether they will, to be or not to be. The wages of sin death.

Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Acts 15:14,16,17

Do those in bold assist the Lord in the judgement? Were they called (elected) for the sole purpose of salvation or for something else?

even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Cor 15:22 For since by man death, by man also the resurrection of the dead. 1 Cor 15:21 but after this the judgment: Heb 9:27 lst part

I charge [thee] therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

I will leave you with.

For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. Romans 5:6

 

[zrs6v4]

In these "special cases" the means by which God causally determines the wills and environment so as to bring about the divinely desired outcome, most certainly could be very similar to that speculated by compatibilists. The differences are:

1) According to my view, these actions on God's part truly are "special cases," (works of God's active agency) rather than the mundane universal way all things are brought to pass...

2) In my view, these interventions by which God causally determines human choice are examples of His overriding human freedom...:​

We all fall under one of the three categories i mentioned:

1. God allows all things and acts directly (controls) in nothing.

2. God acts directly (controls)in certain events (you).

3. God acts directly (controls) in all events. (Mine)

Now whatever caregory each of us fall under and have sometimes radical variations from another in our caregory. A typical cal would fall under caregory 3, try to incorporate some of category 2 and then get maligned (sometimes rightfully) for inconsistency. The same goes for most non cals in category 2.

I am starting to understand how you deal with category two and how that leads you to deal with passages in the NT that Calvinists use.

Anyway, how do you deal with separating certain events as special events that God directly controls from those He simply lets run freely? I assume only events you see God controlling in scripture?​