Omniscience and Determinism

[Luke2427]

You equated my affirmation that God makes choices (which is what he said, not me) with the apocalyptic symbolism symbolism relating to God having horns. You do this every time I say something like, "We know God makes choices because he tells us that he makes choices," and you reply dismissively saying something like, "I suppose you think he has horns too?"

Does that demonstrate how you have done this clearly enough?

Suppose if you said, "God says he doesn't approve of homosexuality," and a homosexual advocate responded saying, "I suppose you think God has horns too?" You would say, "What? That doesn't even relate." I agree. It doesn't. Just like you saying it doesn't relate to God's revealing that he makes choices.

No, but this pretends that the lines for when to apply and when not to apply anthropomorphism to God are blurry.

They are not.

They are clearly defined. Whenever, whether in apocalyptic, poetic or didactic language the Bible ascribes some human-like characteristic to God which contradicts what the whole of Scripture clearly defines him as- then it is anthropomorphic.

God cannot consider in the sense that he needs to make up his mind what to do about something because the whole of Scripture clearly reveals that God is omniscient.

So we understand texts that say he considers, chooses, imagines, etc... to be anthropomorphic.

The homosexual in the anecdote you provide is not dismissing a surface teaching of a text based on it violating the nature of God clearly revealed throughout the whole of Scripture.

Thus, what the homosexual in that anecdote is doing and what I am doing by identifying such texts as anthropomorphic in nature cannot rightly be equated.

A = not A (law of non-contradiction)

No, no. That is not an accurate representative formula of what I am purporting.

A= anthropomorphic language not actual choice just like in another text A= anthropomorphic language not actual right hand.

Right, but your not going around to your church members contradicting that teaching by saying, "Jesus doesn't sit at the right hand of the Father." Do you?

I am not talking to my church members- I am talking to a seminary educated man.

And, actually, some of my church members DO understand this and do not choke on it and with them I do speak in those terms.

Of course you don't. Instead you probably say something like, "that symbolizes Jesus as in a place of authority with God." You are affirming the symbol not denying it. With the choice thing you are just denying it, you aren't offering anything except a A = not A.

Answered above.

God says he makes a choice and you believe he doesn't really make a choice, period. You think it just is, which isn't a choice, thus A = not A and you violate your own laws of logic.

God says Jesus sits at his right hand until he makes Jesus' foes his footstool too.

He doesn't really sit at the Father's actual right hand and the foes are not going to be literally turned into a footstool.

a= anthropomorphic language- not actual choice and not actual right hand and actual footstool.

As I said, even with man the concept of 'forgetting sins against you' has never meant an inability to recall them...so I don't see how this supports your point? We both affirm its actual meaning because neither of us think it means God doesn't have the ability to recall sins committed against him.

Yes, but I think God never has to RECALL it as if it is ever knowledge stored away that he needs to tap into. The knowledge of it is ever before him.
The reason I think this is because I believe the whole of Scripture teaches that God is TRULY omniscient.

 

[Skandelon]

Using your comparisons and the law of non-contradiction, here is what I see:

God has horns = God does not have literal horns because that is clearly apocalyptic symbolism.

God has a right hand = God doesn't have a literal hand but that is mean to convey a place of authority.

God forgets = God doesn't literally forget, but He can still recall it, this just means he doesn't hold it against us.

God chooses = God doesn't ever really make choices. Things just are and this is based on __________________

Fill in the blank: Luke's finite linear logic of the idea of infinite, omniscient, omnipotent Being knowing something before choosing it makes it impossible for him to understand it, so he concludes it just isn't true.

Why not simply conclude that God makes choices but its mysterious as he ways are higher than ours? Why contradict what God chose to reveal based on your inability to explain it?

 

[Yeshua1]

Using your comparisons and the law of non-contradiction, here is what I see:

God has horns = God does not have literal horns because that is clearly apocalyptic symbolism.

God has a right hand = God doesn't have a literal hand but that is mean to convey a place of authority.

God forgets = God doesn't literally forget, but He can still recall it, this just means he doesn't hold it against us.

God chooses = God doesn't ever really make choices. Things just are and this is based on __________________

Fill in the blank: Luke's finite linear logic of the idea of infinite, omniscient, omnipotent Being knowing something before choosing it makes it impossible for him to understand it, so he concludes it just isn't true.

Why not simply conclude that God makes choices but its mysterious as he ways are higher than ours? Why contradict what God chose to reveal based on your inability to explain it?

God will always do what is right and best, as His Will/plan/purposes will get accomplished...

He choses NOT to holdour sin debt against those in jesus now, but did not 'forget" them as we say that we do...

Bottom line in this is thatHios thoughts/ways are not ours, way above ours, and God is God, we are finite!

 

[Luke2427]

Using your comparisons and the law of non-contradiction, here is what I see:

God has horns = God does not have literal horns because that is clearly apocalyptic symbolism.

God has a right hand = God doesn't have a literal hand but that is mean to convey a place of authority.

God forgets = God doesn't literally forget, but He can still recall it, this just means he doesn't hold it against us.

God chooses = God doesn't ever really make choices. Things just are and this is based on __________________

Fill in the blank: Luke's finite linear logic of the idea of infinite, omniscient, omnipotent Being knowing something before choosing it makes it impossible for him to understand it, so he concludes it just isn't true.

Why not simply conclude that God makes choices but its mysterious as he ways are higher than ours? Why contradict what God chose to reveal based on your inability to explain it?

It EXTREMELY simple.

Because a being that already knows all things past present and future does not have to think, ponder, consider or choose.

He has always known what he will do with whom he will do it.

 

[Skandelon]

It EXTREMELY simple.

Because a being that already knows all things past present and future does not have to think, ponder, consider or choose.

He has always known what he will do with whom he will do it.

Linear God = Luke's perspective

Past<-----------God (present)------------>Future




Infinite God = Biblical perspective

GOD​

Past<-----present-----> Future

 

[Van]

11 pages on nonsense thus far. We have God knowing what He will decide before He decides because He is "all knowing" and that of course includes decisions He has not made. Then this foolishness is claimed to be biblical. Pure twaddle.

Then we have the "buy the pig in the poke" because God's ways are higher than our own. If they are incomprehensible, why assume your view accurately describes it. Thus the argument is my mind is higher than yours, so accept my view. Pure twaddle.

There is no actual support in scripture for this fictional invention of men. Just as with total spiritual inability, it has no answer for God needing to harden hearts to insure rejection of the gospel, here we have no answer for God making plans, i.e. deciding what will occur in the future.

The doctrine of exhaustive determinism is bogus

 

[HeirofSalvation]

11 pages on nonsense thus far. We have God knowing what He will decide before He decides because He is "all knowing" and that of course includes decisions He has not made. Then this foolishness is claimed to be biblical. Pure twaddle.

Wrong...not Skan's argument...never was his argument...you are equally as obsessed with seeing things in terms of "before" and "after" as many are....but that is not Skan's argument. Your failure to comprehend a Deity who transcends those descriptions is no argument against the version of events as described alternatively by Skan....You may disagree with him all you feel like (of course you will) but he isn't debating the "before" and "after" pablum that you want to debate...he has infinitely better fish to fry than that.

Then we have the "buy the pig in the poke" because God's ways are higher than our own. If they are incomprehensible, why assume your view accurately describes it.

No one does...I would like you to post the quote where Skan or anyone else who defends the notion that God "transcends" time claims that they can "accurately describe it" No one makes that claim...Please tell us where Skan may be quoted as claiming that he can "describe" it to your satisfaction?????? I haven't seen it.

Thus the argument is my mind is higher than yours, so accept my view. Pure twaddle.

Sure it's "pure twaddle"....only...no one ever made that argument...so...to whom do you offer this meaningful rejoinder???

There is no actual support in scripture for this fictional invention of men. Just as with total spiritual inability, it has no answer for God needing to harden hearts to insure rejection of the gospel, here we have no answer for God making plans, i.e. deciding what will occur in the future.

True...minus your later insertion of your insistence on your own perfect understanding of the Philosophy of Time...other than that, I agree with you 100%:thumbsup: "Total Spiritual inability" is bogus.

The doctrine of exhaustive determinism is bogus

Yes...So, also, though, your Philosophy of Time......

 

[convicted1]

God has horns = God does not have literal horns because that is clearly apocalyptic symbolism.

God has a right hand = God doesn't have a literal hand but that is mean to convey a place of authority.

God forgets = God doesn't literally forget, but He can still recall it, this just means he doesn't hold it against us.

I am usually on your side Brother, but I agree with everything posted here.

 

[convicted1]

It EXTREMELY simple.

Because God already knows all things past present and future does not have to think, ponder, consider or choose.

He has always known what he will do with whom he will do it.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

It EXTREMELY simple.

Because a being that already knows all things past present and future does not have to think, ponder, consider or choose.

He has always known what he will do with whom he will do it.

To "think"
To "ponder"
To "consider"

All are synonyms for the same thing...Skan isn't suggesting that God must cognate THREE different ways...And your post is designed to imply that Skan believes that God must cognate in numerous ways or forms temporally "prior" to "choosing". That is not Skan's view. Skan's assertion is ONLY that God might, in an eternity past (congruent with an a-temporal present and future) have already "worked" such out-comes perfectly within his Divine Purpose...

He doesn't claim to know how to explain it perfectly....but those three terms are synonymous...it is dis-ingenuous to act as though Skan must defend three different cognitive acts on God's part to explain them...He claims to hold to a "mystery" on one active cognation on God's part...not three...

 

[Skandelon]

I am usually on your side Brother, but I agree with everything posted here.

I agree with everything you quoted as well...so I'm not sure as to why you would not need to still 'be on my side?'

 

[convicted1]

I agree with everything you quoted as well...so I'm not sure as to why you would not need to still 'be on my side?'

I must have missed unnerstood u....oopsy....

 

[Skandelon]

To "think"
To "ponder"
To "consider"

All are synonyms for the same thing...Skan isn't suggesting that God must cognate THREE different ways...And your post is designed to imply that Skan believes that God must cognate in numerous ways or forms temporally "prior" to "choosing". That is not Skan's view. Skan's assertion is ONLY that God might, in an eternity past (congruent with an a-temporal present and future) have already "worked" such out-comes perfectly within his Divine Purpose...

He doesn't claim to know how to explain it perfectly....but those three terms are synonymous...it is dis-ingenuous to act as though Skan must defend three different cognitive acts on God's part to explain them...He claims to hold to a "mystery" on one active cognation on God's part...not three...

Correct. I'm refusing to limit God to a linear cause/effect temporal existence as Luke's perspective does. I appeal to mystery as to how God works out such infinite matters in eternity and refuse to draw conclusions that scripture itself doesn't specifically draw (i.e "if God knew it prior to creating it then he determined it, etc"...translated: "God determined Dahmer's evil actions.") The origin of evil desire cannot be placed on God, but a system which insists God cannot be informed by another certainly suggests He is the origin of all evil. I'm not willing to make such suggestions and would rather side with scriptures depiction of so-called anthropomorphic language than to side with such far reaching philosophical theories.

 

[Skandelon]

I must have missed unnerstood u....oopsy....

I was listing things we all agree with as in contrast with the one thing we don't so as to show that Luke's parallel doesn't follow. IOW, proving that symbolic imagery isn't literal doesn't prove that God's self revelation isn't true.

 

[AresMan]

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.

Speaking of Judas Iscariot, Jesus said:

Mar 14:21 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.

According to Peter, David spoke of Judas:

Act 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
Act 1:17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
Act 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
Act 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

This was part of God's will and decree:

Joh 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Act 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Act 4:25 Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?
Act 4:26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
Act 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
Act 4:28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

This all isn't just saying that God ordained that Christ die and the people somehow autonomagically added all the details. Peter said that Christ was delivered by the determinant counsel of God. This meant that Judas' betrayal (delivering up) was part of what God Himself determined to happen.
What Herod devised to do in attempting to kill Jesus so that He would go to Egypt was something that God's hand and counsel predestined to occur.
What Pontius Pilate did in succumbing to the demands to crucify Jesus was something that God's hand and counsel predestined to occur.
What the Romans and Jews did as part of carrying out the crucifixion was something that God's hand and counsel predestined[/u] to occur.

Yet they all did this willfully and they were all responsible if they did not seek God for Who He is and repent.

Judas' act was determined by God and prophesied, yet Judas was held fully responsible for his actions. Jesus said that it would have been better for him if he had never been born. Peter also said that Judas received "the reward of iniquity."

The actions were predetermined by God for His own mysterious glory.
They were carried out willfully by the actors.
The actors received their just punishment for intentionally committing heinous wickedness against God.

Just accept the truth.

 

[psalms109:31]

They were after Jesus from the beginning God didn't have to put it in them. They were going to seize Him many times and God had to prevent them from doing their own will not His, because it wasn't time.

They were after Him on their own it wasn't the will of God, because He had to stop them. God had a hedge of protection around Him until the time because of the wickedness of man.

To stop the message that Jesus was spreading that God loved the world that He sent His Son and whosoever believeth in Him will have eternal life. To them God saving those heathens was ridiculous. They were the righteous chosen ones, not those heathens. He eats and drinks with sinners and tax collectors working for the enemy.

There is those who refuse to repent and live (because our Sovereign God does not take pleasure in the death of anyone, but rather them to repent and live) that will wish they were dead, what is wrong with God using one of them to do His will to bring salvation to the world and that whosoever beleveth in Jesus will be saved. If Judas couldn't or didn't do that to Jesus he would of done it to someone else, steal, rob, and betray someone else.

If God put a hedge of protection around me a murderer could not kill me, but is it going to stop them from killing someone. No they will kill someone else. So my salvation cost someone else their life.

John 4 :
Many Samaritans Believe

39 Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I ever did.” 40 So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. 41 And because of his words many more became believers.

42 They said to the woman, “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.”

 

[Luke2427]

To "think"
To "ponder"
To "consider"

All are synonyms for the same thing...Skan isn't suggesting that God must cognate THREE different ways...And your post is designed to imply that Skan believes that God must cognate in numerous ways or forms temporally "prior" to "choosing". That is not Skan's view. Skan's assertion is ONLY that God might, in an eternity past (congruent with an a-temporal present and future) have already "worked" such out-comes perfectly within his Divine Purpose...

He doesn't claim to know how to explain it perfectly....but those three terms are synonymous...it is dis-ingenuous to act as though Skan must defend three different cognitive acts on God's part to explain them...He claims to hold to a "mystery" on one active cognation on God's part...not three...

You missed my point.

I was not expressing tension between the three words. I was pointing out that God cannot make choices anything anywhere near similar to the way that we make choices.

We come to options a and b and then we ponder. We think of the potential outcomes of a and then do the same with option b. WE DON'T ALREADY KNOW. And then we choose based on the information that we OBTAIN.

God cannot logically OBTAIN information if he already knows it all. So he simply does not make choices in any way similar whatsoever to the way we make choices.

Now here's the whole point. Since this is true, the passages in Scripture that speak of God "choosing" must be anthropomorphic.

If they do not mean to choose in the same way, or AT LEAST in a very similar way, than what it means to US to choose- then by VERY DEFINITION they are anthropomorphic.

 

[Luke2427]

Correct. I'm refusing to limit God to a linear cause/effect temporal existence

No sir. That simply isn't true. You are limiting God FROM a linear perspective. You are pretending as if God CAN'T see things that way.

We don't know all of the ways that God can see things but we do know that at least ONE OF the ways that he see things IS LINEARLY. He said in his word that he sees the end FROM THE BEGINNING.

That is linear. God may see in all kinds of ways that the human mind cannot comprehend, but he can AT LEAST see in the same way we see.

The origin of evil desire cannot be placed on God, but a system which insists God cannot be informed by another

You see this is phenomenal to me.

Skandelon is OPEN to the idea that God can BE INFORMED BY ANOTHER

At the SAME TIME Skandelon wants to give a nod to the the TERM omniscience as it pertains to God while utterly STRIPPING it of EVERYTHING that it means.
If you wonder why I brought up this issue of logic- here it is.


I am not willing to say that God can be informed by ANYONE or ANYTHING.


Logic does not allow for God to know and have always known all there is to ever know about everything and AT THE SAME TIME to be able to be informed by another.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

You missed my point.

I hate to admit it...but I didn't actually "MISS" the point...I pretended it didn't actually exist. I am intellectually honest with myself (I believe) usually...but, I will, in fact "cheat" in a debate if I might get away with it. Sometimes, you'll have to call me on it...I was actually throwing a cheap salvo against the wall and seeing if it would stick... I was "arguing about divisions and strifes of words" actually, and that's not helpful really.
1Ti 6:4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
Sorry....Ya just got to call me on the rare occasion I try it. :tear:
I will try to be more honest with my tactics in the future....ONLY.... I was, cap in hand with my favorite Calvinist against Skandelon (whom I respect) for too long. But, you're right...your point is well taken.

I was not expressing tension between the three words. I was pointing out that God cannot make choices anything anywhere near similar to the way that we make choices

.
On a legit level though...I will simply say that, I disagree. I believe God can, and I believe the Scriptures say as much. I believe (like presumably Skan and some others) that there is abundant evidence that God is [only due to the condescension he takes with man...] one who DOES, actually "Consider" or "Ponder" or "Consider"...or even....I'll say it, be "informed by" men's choices.

We come to option a and b and then we ponder. We think of the potential outcomes of a and then do the same with option b. WE DON'T ALREADY KNOW. And then we choose based on the information that we OBTAIN.

We do...and, I think that there is sufficient evidence Scripturally, that God does as well. There are, I think, more assumptions that you (and Calvies in general) make when denying these assertions. I believe that there is sufficient Scriptural evidence to suggest that God truly "condescends" to creaturely freedom such that God is actually "informed" by our decisions...

What I bolded were the terms which suggest where I disagree..God is not...(by nature) incapable of "knowing" all of those things "before" or what-not...I think we must recognize the distinction between logical and temporal priority...God knows in a logical "MOMENT" what may or will or does happen in time...but God's transcendence over time means that he would maintain his omniscience even though a creaturely free decision (always made in time by definition) "informs" him of it.

God cannot logically OBTAIN information if he already knows it all.

Well....he can...in "logical moments"...even if he doesn't in "temporal moments"....
MEN are temporal, and God's logical moments of Omniscience are independent of our decisions which take place in time...We do them in time, yes, but, God can know them "a-temporally".

So he simply does not make choices in any way similar whatsoever to the way we make choices.

Well, I would say that he doesn't make them "EXACTLY" as we do...but..."similarly"... yes. I think he does.

Now here's the whole point. Since this is true, the passages in Scripture that speak of God "choosing" must be anthropomorphic.

Therefore... your logic is sound...always was...hence, I actually like debating you, you are consistent. I believe I suggested to you why I object to your premises. If your premesis as you suggested them are true...than this conclusion is logically un-avoidable.

I object to the premise...but your logic is solid....God is logical, and I am glad he is.

If they do not mean to choose in the same way, or AT LEAST in a very similar way, than what it means to US to choose- then by VERY DEFINITION they are anthropomorphic.

Agreed...only....I believe they DO mean to "CHOOSE" in a very similar way.

Valid argument...I am not a Calvinist because I believe your premises to be "unsound"...but not "illogical".

If I accepted your premises in toto...I would be forced to agree with you... always a pleasure:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Luke2427]

I hate to admit it...but I didn't actually "MISS" the point...I pretended it didn't actually exist. I am intellectually honest with myself (I believe) usually...but, I will, in fact "cheat" in a debate if I might get away with it. Sometimes, you'll have to call me on it...I was actually throwing a cheap salvo against the wall and seeing if it would stick... I was "arguing about divisions and strifes of words" actually, and that's not helpful really.
1Ti 6:4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
Sorry....Ya just got to call me on the rare occasion I try it. :tear:
I will try to be more honest with my tactics in the future....ONLY.... I was, cap in hand with my favorite Calvinist against Skandelon (whom I respect) for too long. But, you're right...your point is well taken.
.
On a legit level though...I will simply say that, I disagree. I believe God can, and I believe the Scriptures say as much. I believe (like presumably Skan and some others) that there is abundant evidence that God is [only due to the condescension he takes with man...] one who DOES, actually "Consider" or "Ponder" or "Consider"...or even....I'll say it, be "informed by" men's choices.

We do...and, I think that there is sufficient evidence Scripturally, that God does as well. There are, I think, more assumptions that you (and Calvies in general) make when denying these assertions. I believe that there is sufficient Scriptural evidence to suggest that God truly "condescends" to creaturely freedom such that God is actually "informed" by our decisions...

What I bolded were the terms which suggest where I disagree..God is not...(by nature) incapable of "knowing" all of those things "before" or what-not...I think we must recognize the distinction between logical and temporal priority...God knows in a logical "MOMENT" what may or will or does happen in time...but God's transcendence over time means that he would maintain his omniscience even though a creaturely free decision (always made in time by definition) "informs" him of it.

Well....he can...in "logical moments"...even if he doesn't in "temporal moments"....
MEN are temporal, and God's logical moments of Omniscience are independent of our decisions which take place in time...We do them in time, yes, but, God can know them "a-temporally".

Well, I would say that he doesn't make them "EXACTLY" as we do...but..."similarly"... yes. I think he does.

Therefore... your logic is sound...always was...hence, I actually like debating you, you are consistent. I believe I suggested to you why I object to your premises. If your premesis as you suggested them are true...than this conclusion is logically un-avoidable.

I object to the premise...but your logic is solid....God is logical, and I am glad he is.


Agreed...only....I believe they DO mean to "CHOOSE" in a very similar way.

Valid argument...I am not a Calvinist because I believe your premises to be "unsound"...but not "illogical".

If I accepted your premises in toto...I would be forced to agree with you... always a pleasure:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Same here, however:


Logic does not allow for God to know and have always known all there is to ever know about everything and AT THE SAME TIME to be able to be informed by another.