Omniscience and Determinism

[Skandelon]

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?

Please allow me to address your question by asking you a followup question, as I believe it will shed light on why I have opted for my position on this matter.

You said your view is:
3. God acts directly (controls) in all events. (Mine)

If this is the case, then what separates the divine work from the rest? What makes inspiration of scripture 'special' and 'of God' if every writing is equally 'controlled' by God in bringing it to pass? Do you understand my question? I'm trying to understand how you draw a distinction between the 'works of God' and everything else in a system where everything is equally under his control?

I think your answer to this question will help me know how to respond better to your question about my view. Thanks

 

[Luke2427]

Case and point....

When the question has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with God being limited to linear time perspective- when it in fact notes that he is NOT limited to that- and you evade the question by twisting it as though it asks you if you believe God is limited to linear time perspective....

Well that just does not qualify, Skan.

Any objective reader can see that.

 

[Van]

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.

God does know things before they happen. That is my view. God causes things He predestined to happen. That is my view. Please provide any support for your view God punishes men for sins they committed that were predestined.

You are long on misrepresenting the views of others, but short on supporting your monstrous views. Please stop changing the subject and provide support for your claim the orthodox view was God punishes people for the sins He predestined. Tick tock, tick tock. No answer will be forthcoming.

 

[Van]

Lets review Peter denial of Christ once again. Did God know Peter would deny Christ? Yes. Now according to Exhaustive Determinism, where God predestines whosoever comes to pass, then God predestined Peter's sin. Therefore, according to 12 Strings, God will count those denials against Peter even though they were predestined, because Peter knew it was wrong. So God can cause a person to sin and to know it is sin, and then punish the person. Behold the doctrine held according to 12 Strings by the church for 2000 years.

 

[12strings]

God does know things before they happen. That is my view. God causes things He predestined to happen. That is my view. Please provide any support for your view God punishes men for sins they committed that were predestined.

You are long on misrepresenting the views of others, but short on supporting your monstrous views. Please stop changing the subject and provide support for your claim the orthodox view was God punishes people for the sins He predestined. Tick tock, tick tock. No answer will be forthcoming.

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.

 

[12strings]

Lets review Peter denial of Christ once again. Did God know Peter would deny Christ? Yes. Now according to Exhaustive Determinism, where God predestines whosoever comes to pass, then God predestined Peter's sin. Therefore, according to 12 Strings, God will count those denials against Peter even though they were predestined, because Peter knew it was wrong. So God can cause a person to sin and to know it is sin, and then punish the person. Behold the doctrine held according to 12 Strings by the church for 2000 years.

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.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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.

Yea there is in fact value. (1) strengthens DoG apologetics (2) Strengthens my convictions towards my faith. But now I need to be in the company of learned men who support the Doctrines of Grace & not be distracted by such arguments that this forum continuously puts forth. I do not like that at all.

 

[percho]

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?

Mine is God acts in events relative to what he is doing.

When God put the man in the garden to dress and to keep it, who was already there?

For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. Heb 2:5

To whom is this present world in subjection?
And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Matt 4:9

Does God interfere with that subjection except when it is relative to what he is doing?

Jesus came presching the gospel of the kingdom of God and said repent and believe the gospel.

The world to come.

 

[zrs6v4]

Please allow me to address your question by asking you a followup question, as I believe it will shed light on why I have opted for my position on this matter.

You said your view is:
3. God acts directly (controls) in all events. (Mine)

If this is the case, then what separates the divine work from the rest? What makes inspiration of scripture 'special' and 'of God' if every writing is equally 'controlled' by God in bringing it to pass? Do you understand my question? I'm trying to understand how you draw a distinction between the 'works of God' and everything else in a system where everything is equally under his control?

I think your answer to this question will help me know how to respond better to your question about my view. Thanks

My view is that to bring about special events in scripture and in workings outside of scripture God is not removed from control of small events and the workings of fallen men. As I mentioned in previous postings I do not know how He controls evil. I dont think He directly causes it nor do i think He lets it completely run freely out of His control. Therefore He uses evil, and all acts in the universe purposefully to bring about His will. So divine work is isolated from other events but all work together. I dont have that completely figured out but thats the thrust of my view.

 

[Skandelon]

Luke,

Last time...

Your question: "DO you believe that God knew BEFORE he built the universe..." presumes a linear finite perspective. My answer explained that exhaustively and I've been as patient as I can with your belittling and dismissive remarks.

I affirmed omniscience while qualifying my perspective regarding the limitations of attempting to apply an infinite attribute like omniscience to a finite cause/effect construct. I believe I explained myself quite clearly as is reflected by the other replies and feedback I've received in other conversations on this same subject.

Your question is not a new question as it has been grappled with for centuries by much more intelligent men than us. I've read many of those men and have written papers about their views, which makes conversations like this aggravating as I'd like to get past the accusations and one-ups-man-ship and just discuss the perspectives in an intelligent objective manner (like I am with zrs6v4).

You may not be able to understand my perspective, which is fine, but please don't be accusatory and belittling, it only reflects poorly on you. If you'd simply engage with me in a discussion you might actually learn something about different perspectives. Even if you never agree with us at least you can walk away knowing you've understood something outside your current world view.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle

 

[Skandelon]

Therefore He uses evil, and all acts in the universe purposefully to bring about His will. So divine work is isolated from other events but all work together. I dont have that completely figured out but thats the thrust of my view.

You said 'divine work is isolated from other events' but I never heard how you draw a distinction between them since you seem to continue to maintain they are all under His control?

Let me put it this way:

In your view the writing of your last post was as much under God's control as the writing of scripture. Both were equally determined by God, right? If not, explain why. If so, then on what basis do your refer to scripture as being a 'work of God' and not your last post? Understand what I'm asking?

 

[Luke2427]

Luke,

Last time...

Your question: "DO you believe that God knew BEFORE he built the universe..." presumes a linear finite perspective. My answer explained that exhaustively and I've been as patient as I can with your belittling and dismissive remarks.

I affirmed omniscience while qualifying my perspective regarding the limitations of attempting to apply an infinite attribute like omniscience to a finite cause/effect construct. I believe I explained myself quite clearly as is reflected by the other replies and feedback I've received in other conversations on this same subject.

Your question is not a new question as it has been grappled with for centuries by much more intelligent men than us. I've read many of those men and have written papers about their views, which makes conversations like this aggravating as I'd like to get past the accusations and one-ups-man-ship and just discuss the perspectives in an intelligent objective manner (like I am with zrs6v4).

You may not be able to understand my perspective, which is fine, but please don't be accusatory and belittling, it only reflects poorly on you. If you'd simply engage with me in a discussion you might actually learn something about different perspectives. Even if you never agree with us at least you can walk away knowing you've understood something outside your current world view.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle

You still don't get it, Skan. The question asks CAN God see time in a linear perspective and your answer is "No, God is not limited to a linear perspective." Then you go on a diatribe about that which totally evades the ACTUAL question I put to you.

And this "I have been patient with you..." mess implies you are under some delusion of moral or intellectual high ground wherein you can speak down to your opponent like a sheriff to a criminal or a big man to a little man or an adult to a child.

Before you can claim any high ground at all in a debate you have to actually square off with your opponent and engage him rather than evade his ACTUAL questions in what appears to be a very cowardly fashion.

 

[percho]

Ya'll, yes I am southern, even Southern Baptist, are confused about what takes place presently because you believe what God did from Gen 1:3 through Gen 1:31 was the untimate of what God was bringing about. Most of you would go back to Gen 1:1.

Gen 1:3-31 was done in a fashion which could be destroyed and re-done.
When light (God) appeared on the scene, evil and darkness and death were already present.
Isa. 9:2 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.
The Lamb, the Son of God, the Son of Man was going to die before Spirit the God said, "Let there be light."

What happens on this earth from Genesis 2 until the present, present, present happens because of Satan the Devil except for what God brings about according to his purpose.

It matters not what Calvin or anyone else thought or thinks.

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Gal.1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

Ex 14:13 And Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the LORD,

 

[zrs6v4]

You said 'divine work is isolated from other events' but I never heard how you draw a distinction between them since you seem to continue to maintain they are all under His control?

Let me put it this way:

In your view the writing of your last post was as much under God's control as the writing of scripture. Both were equally determined by God, right? If not, explain why. If so, then on what basis do your refer to scripture as being a 'work of God' and not your last post? Understand what I'm asking?

Ok, i think I understand your question. God was in control of men who wrote scrpture. God is in control of me and my mouth (or my fingers in this case ). I am not inspired or used of God to write scripture. There is no more or less control but God uses people more powerfully or for greater purposes than others. I am not necessarily saying I have more or less of Gods control over my life bc at any moment He could turn me into a prophet or let me fall into Hitler degrees of sin. The difference is His purposes. He governs and maintains or every action and breath in ways I cant comprehend. Appealing to primary and secondary causation to simplify my answer shed little light on my view.

With that said God seemingly acts directly through prophets and scripture but less directly through fallible preachers. At any rate His control remains the same though one is more powerful than the other. We can agree that God could save us all and make a world of john the baptists, but He doesnt. Is he in less control or at submission of mens wills? No, but His purposes define varying degrees of what He does and how He exercises His control.

 

[Skandelon]

I am not inspired or used of God to write scripture. There is no more or less control but God uses people more powerfully or for greater purposes than others. I am not necessarily saying I have more or less of Gods control over my life bc at any moment He could turn me into a prophet or let me fall into Hitler degrees of sin. The difference is His purposes.

But if what your writing is truth and what they wrote was truth and both were equally brought about by God's active working, then on what basis do we, as humanity, declare one to be inspired and the other not? We call it inspired and accept it because of our traditions, but that is based on scriptures references to itself as being 'of God'...'breathed by God'...'under HIS CONTROL.' If you attempt to claim that about EVERYTHING then don't you remove the basis for why we appeal to the authority of scripture? If Dahmer's crimes were just as under His control as the flood, then why do we credit God for the flood but not for molesting, killing and eating children? My point is to help us distinguish between actual works of God and the free actions of mankind. To lump them all together only serves to demean His works, impugn his holiness, and cause reproach on His name...IMO.

With that said God seemingly acts directly through prophets and scripture but less directly through fallible preachers.

I don't understand that difference in a deterministic worldview. Are the preachers more free and the prophets less free? I'm not following...

At any rate His control remains the same though one is more powerful than the other.

Still not following this... It's either His power and control or it isn't, right? How is he less sovereign in one instance and more so in another under your definitions of those terms?

 

[Skandelon]

You still don't get it, Skan. The question asks CAN God see time in a linear perspective

Here is the thread I replied to. From the first question to the last you presume a linear perspective. You may not realize that you are, but trust me when I say that you are. I've highlighted the linear words to prove it:

So then you DO believe that God knew BEFORE he built the universe exactly what would happen and everything that would happen including the acts of Jeffry Dalmer which you so often like to reference?

God knew exactly what would happen in the universe that is and he went right ahead and built it any way- right?

God may not be LIMITED to a linear perspective of time like we are but he is not handicapped so that he can NOT see that way either- right?

He can AT LEAST look into the past and see it behind and look into the future and see it before. We can do that. So he can do MORE but he certainly cannot do LESS than us there, right?

All of those phrases presume God to be on the linear timeline looking into the future (or past) and making decisions according to what he sees (i.e. He sees a future and decided to create based on approval of what he sees), which is circular logic that confounds everything we know of our linear world view of cause and effect. Please allow me to explain and please be open minded about this...

What future is God foreseeing while looking through the corridors of time? A future He determined or one brought about 'freely?' If he is foreseeing a determined future prior to His actually determining it then what is he actually seeing? And wouldn't whatever he SAW affect his future determinations? Confounding, right?

Think about this, how can God be seeing something that he hasn't yet determined and if He can see it prior to determining it then couldn't that affect His determinations? It's a question of CAUSE and EFFECT. Is God's SEEING the future the CAUSE or the EFFECT of what is determined? Or is what God determines the CAUSE or the EFFECT of what is FORESEEN? Understand the circular dilemma? This is why even the concept of foreknowledge melts into hard determinism if you accept that God is merely foreseeing a determined world. The world foreknowledge or foresight might as well not even exist if this is the case.

Now, if what God is seeing is a 'free future' (one in which men are contra-causally free), then you have various approaches to explain this equally mysterious concept. You can still approach it linearly where God is merely looking down the corridors of time to see the free moral actions of men and then choosing to 'build the world' in which those foreseen free choices will certainly be made. This view carries some of the same circular baggage as the other because it has God merely foreseeing that which He has yet to build along with the free choices of his creatures and how can he foresee that which he hasn't built without once again confounding the linear concepts of cause and effect? (i.e. Does he built it because he saw it that way, or did he see it that way because He built it...which comes first...which is the cause and which is the effect?)

The only way to remove this dilemma (or at least speculate as to how it might be understood), is to recognize the infinite/timeless nature of God and not attempt to fit his infinite attributes into our logical linear constructs. (see my other explanations for details as to how this is often viewed)

And this "I have been patient with you..." mess implies you are under some delusion of moral or intellectual high ground wherein you can speak down to your opponent like a sheriff to a criminal or a big man to a little man or an adult to a child.

My patience is not with your lack of intellect, or on the basis of my being 'higher' than you, as I don't believe either of those to be true. That would be more reflected in calling you an 'ungrown man' or something belittling like that. The expression of patience was in regard to your unwillingness to engage with my perspective after several appeals and explanations.

It is possible for you to have studied areas that I don't know a much about and if you wanted to tell me about them you'd appeal for me to hear you out and attempt at a rational objective dialogue, right? The same is true in this regard. I have happened to spend much time studying differing views on these complex ontological issues and I can tell by your replies that you may not be as familiar with the various views that exist. Nothing wrong with that, but it is a bit aggravating when you attack and demean me because I attempt to point out these facts.

 

[Luke2427]

Here is the thread I replied to. From the first question to the last you presume a linear perspective. You may not realize that you are, but trust me when I say that you are. I've highlighted the linear words to prove it:

All you do here Skan is simply emphasize the phrases you want to notate while ignoring the phrases you do not.

The phrases you ignore place the phrases you notate in proper context so that the phrases you notate COULD NOT MEAN "limited to a linear perspective

So then you DO believe that God knew BEFORE he built the universe exactly what would happen and everything that would happen including the acts of Jeffry Dalmer which you so often like to reference?

God knew exactly what would happen in the universe that is and he went right ahead and built it any way- right?

God may not be LIMITED to a linear perspective of time like we are but he is not handicapped so that he can NOT see that way either- right?

He can AT LEAST look into the past and see it behind and look into the future and see it before. We can do that. So he can do MORE but he certainly cannot do LESS than us there, right?

All of those phrases presume God to be on the linear timeline looking into the future (or past) and making decisions according to what he sees (i.e. He sees a future and decided to create based on approval of what he sees),

Here is what you are missing Skan. The point of the question is that God is on the linear time line AS WELL AS whatever else there is.

I am not limiting God TO the linear time line.

You are limiting God FROM it.

He might indeed be able to see time in all kinds of ways, but he can AT LEAST see it as we can.

You seem to think we can see in a way he CANNOT.

which is circular logic that confounds everything we know of our linear world view of cause and effect. Please allow me to explain and please be open minded about this...

What future is God foreseeing while looking through the corridors of time? A future He determined or one brought about 'freely?' If he is foreseeing a determined future prior to His actually determining it then what is he actually seeing? And wouldn't whatever he SAW affect his future determinations? Confounding, right?

He is seeing a determined future that he has always determined.

I don't think that is confounding at all.

Think about this, how can God be seeing something that he hasn't yet determined and if He can see it prior to determining it then couldn't that affect His determinations? It's a question of CAUSE and EFFECT. Is God's SEEING the future the CAUSE or the EFFECT of what is determined? Or is what God determines the CAUSE or the EFFECT of what is FORESEEN? Understand the circular dilemma? This is why even the concept of foreknowledge melts into hard determinism if you accept that God is merely foreseeing a determined world. The world foreknowledge or foresight might as well not even exist if this is the case.

It has never been that he had not determined it. The knowledge and thoughts of God are always; they don't take place at a point in "time".

God never learns anything because he has always known all there is to ever know about everything.

As far as cause and effect- that is a law God created no differently than the law of the conservation of matter.

God is not bound by it.

As far as the word having no meaning: What it does is serve anthropomorphic purposes just like where the Bible speaks of God choosing or considering.

 

[Skandelon]

The knowledge and thoughts of God are always; they don't take place at a point in "time".

Ok, then why even speak of his foreseeing or foreknowing of something? He never merely foreknows anything in this construct, he determines it.

But why speak of God determining anything? He never chooses or determines anything in this construct, it just is.

This should cause you great pause before accepting that view, because the God of the bible doesn't hesitate to reveal Himself as a God who makes choices. Why not trust the revelation and the terms by which HE chose to reveal himself?

 

[Luke2427]

Ok, then why even speak of his foreseeing or foreknowing of something? He never merely foreknows anything in this construct, he determines it.

I just answered that in the very post to which you are responding.

But why speak of God determining anything? He never chooses or determines anything in this construct, it just is.

It is- BECAUSE he determined it.

This should cause you great pause before accepting that view, because the God of the bible doesn't hesitate to reveal Himself as a God who makes choices.

He doesn't HESITATE to reveal himself as a God who has eyes and hands and wings and horns who travels from point a to point b and walks and flies, etc, etc etc... as well.

Why not trust the revelation and the terms by which HE chose to reveal himself?

It's not about trusting the revelation- it's about UNDERSTANDING it.

I understand that God does not literally have wings and that God does not literally WALK around the Mariana's Trench on feet with toes and toe nails and ankles.

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

 

[humblethinker]

Yes, he knows everything.

Skan, We all agree with this. However, it is our disagreement over what actually is included in this 'everything' that has us all in trouble with each other.

The better question is not what kind of God is he but rather what kind of world has he created. We all make presumptions as to what kind of world this is when we claim that God must have a certain knowledge.

I propose that we lay out some basic statements that describe the world and also shed light on what we should understand God's knowledge to be. The following represents my understanding:

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

Would you generally agree with that? I know we can get hung up on specifics later, but for now would you agree?