Omniscience and Determinism

[HeirofSalvation]

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.

What if I said....as a Marginal Molinist...no, temporally, logic would not allow for such, but, in the same "logical moment" <----confusion is in the word "moment" it isn't descriptive of linear time...God might in the same "logical moment" do such a thing....

No B.S. here:
nothing can be both A and not-A in the same relationship...so also the unexcluded middle...in the same relationship.

But God's dealings with man are not in the same relationship as the whollistic perfection of all of God's perfect knowledge in the God-head...there were things that Christ CLEARLY said (as a full member of the God-head) that he simply did not "KNOW"...at least temporally. Only "THE FATHER KNOWETH".... We have no choice but to accept that as true and work our Philosophical and Theological pre-suppositions around that revelation. To wit:
Mar 13:32 ¶ But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father

Repeatedly...We find Christ Divinely knowing things that only a full member of the God-head in perfect Omniscience would know...such as the thoughts of men's hearts...and yet we also find Christ (as a man) having weaknesses and simply lacking certain knowledge that only the Father (possibly the Spirit) was privy to.

God could not involuntarily "starve to death"...but neither could he become as a man... and live forever without food...otherwise, Jesus' temptation in the wilderness was meaningless and he simply never was "In all was tempted such as we"... THAT woul be illogical (because it would exist in the same relationship)....

However, as a man, a full member of the God-head COULD do those very things apparently:
1.) Not know some things
2.) Starve to death
3.) be tempted

This is NOT illogical, because this was not a Supreme being condescending "IN THE SAME RELATIONSHIP"...as he presumably interracts with the whole of the rest of creation....

We have two contra-distinctive (but not contradictory) concepts, BOTH of which are true:
1.) God CANNOT be tempted:

1.) Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

2.) Christ (who was God) CAN be tempted, and was:

Hbr 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Hbr 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.

Is this illogical?

NO...It is not possible that God BOTH Can and Cannot be tempted...In the same relationship...but what we learn from Scripture is that that relationship when God condescends to man is not the same relationship as is enjoyed in eternal perfection in the wholeness of the God-head.
It is not sufficient to suggest that in EVERY signifigant passage wherein God speaks of himself as having limitations of any sort are merely anthropomorphic...if it's the case...than he actually believes we are more stupid than we really are, and he has erred by over-using that method to such an extent that entirely TOO many of us, have actually taken him literally.

It is heresy to maintain that Christ was not FULLY GOD...similarly...it is also heresy to maintain that he was NOT fully MAN too.

 

[Luke2427]

What if I said....as a Marginal Molinist...no, temporally, logic would not allow for such, but, in the same "logical moment" <----confusion is in the word "moment" it isn't descriptive of linear time...God might in the same "logical moment" do such a thing....

No B.S. here:
nothing can be both A and not-A in the same relationship...so also the unexcluded middle...in the same relationship.

But God's dealings with man are not in the same relationship as the whollistic perfection of all of God's perfect knowledge in the God-head...there were things that Christ CLEARLY said (as a full member of the God-head) that he simply did not "KNOW"...at least temporally. Only "THE FATHER KNOWETH".... We have no choice but to accept that as true and work our Philosophical and Theological pre-suppositions around that revelation. To wit:
Mar 13:32 ¶ But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father

It IS illogical. You have God knowing all things at the same time and, yes, in the same sense NOT KNOWING some things.

That is a clear violation of the law of noncontradiction.

Your example of Jesus not knowing the day nor the hour does not help your case either.

Jesus was certainly God while being man. But it is an error to think that Jesus was SIMPLY the mind of God placed inside a human body.

Jesus was a man with a brain. That brain was no different from his physical body. It was limited. It could not hold all of the information of the universe past, present and future. It had to learn. It had to study in order to be able to read, write and do arithmetic.

But to confuse his human brain with his divine mind is no different than confusing his human muscles (which were limited) with his divine omnipotence.

Humanly speaking Jesus could not ball up his fist and knock a crater the size of the Grand Canyon into the earth.
Just the same way, humanly speaking Jesus could not know the future.

But what we see in the life of Christ is that the human nature which was fused with the divine nature often tapped into the divine nature and performed with his human hands and human mind deeds that God alone could do.

But to say that he can in some way know something in his divine nature and at the same time and in the same sense (divine nature) NOT know many things is most assuredly a violation of the law of noncontradiction.

This spawns from a misunderstanding of hypostasis.
______________________________________________________


edited to add:

This is not Nestorianism. I am not saying that Jesus consisted of two different persons. I am not even saying that he had two different minds. I am saying, consistently with the Council of Chalcedon and the Third Council of Constantinople, that Jesus possessed two different ranges of consciousness.

Of course this is not a violation of logic either because we know full well that all healthy minded people have different ranges of consciousness. For example, we have in one mind a conscious and subconscious range of knowledge. We don't always know consciously what we know subconsciously and vice versa. Also, we have suppressed memories and old memories that we have to dredge up. I teach GED classes two days a week in the local state prison. I already knew how to get the measurement of certain angles given certain incomplete information. But I had to dredge it up. But the moment a particular bit of information hit my mind I immediately, without the need of further study, was able to do the formulations without trouble. The knowledge was IN MY MIND but not readily available to me.

This anecdote breaks down eventually as do all anecdotes but it sufficiently illustrates the logic of Jesus' two ranges of consciousness.

 

[psalms109:31]

I can only imagine pretty song

Jesus is the Son of Man and the Son of God. The Son of God is just like the Godhead, but the Son of Man only knew what He learned from His Father. If the Son of Man knew everything than we would know everything because everything He learned from His Father He made known to us.

Our mind can only hold and handle so much, so are not going to understand all of God.

God not only can be linear, not only can He be every where in all times, where there is not a time that God is not everywhere in time at one time. He can also be in a moment with us, just us. God has a relationship with us. God wanted to gather Israel as a hen gathers her chicks, that we are His bride He is the Groom. Jesus called her daughter. Our relationships are made up of a bunch of moments together. We cannot comprehend this, but it doesn't make it not true.

 

[Van]

Hi HOS,

1) I view things as happening in sequence, this happens before that. In the beginning God created.... Before the beginning He had not created. This is the biblical view. Men can invent a realm where there is no sequence, but that is a realm of invention of men, not the biblical view.

2) God did create physical time, and therefore can exist outside of physical time. But it is an argument from silence to claim God does not exist in spiritual time. Therefore when God made plans before physical time began, that does not require the assumption of always existing plans, rather the logical conclusion is that the plans were made and before they were made, no plan existed.

3) Skandelon does make the argument that we should accept his nonsensical view because God's ways are higher than our own. This simply claims one man's view of God is right, even if nonsensical. Twaddle.

4) Truth matters. I never asserted or implied my view was perfect, only that it made sense. I never used your term "philosophy of time."
Misrepresenting the views of others, then knocking them down is without merit.

5) Yes, the Calvinistic doctrine of exhaustive determinism is bogus, and so is the Arminian doctrine a time traveling deity who exhaustively knows what He will decide before He decides, and what we will decide before we decide. The fiction that God has created the future and can visit it and know it, is pure twaddle. No scriptural support exists. On the other hand, God makes plans for the future, then brings those plans to fruition. That is the Biblical view.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Hi HOS,

1) I view things as happening in sequence, this happens before that. In the beginning God created.... Before the beginning He had not created. This is the biblical view. Men can invent a realm where there is no sequence, but that is a realm of invention of men, not the biblical view.

Things do happen in a sequence...Skan's views, which you were abusing, are consistent with that, so also the views of most on this board who do not see perfectly eye-to-eye with you. No one is rejecting the idea that things occur out of sequence.

2) God did create physical time, and therefore can exist outside of physical time. But it is an argument from silence to claim God does not exist in spiritual time. Therefore when God made plans before physical time began, that does not require the assumption of always existing plans, rather the logical conclusion is that the plans were made and before they were made, no plan existed.

Perhaps...but what is "Spiritual Time"?....Newton posited something like absolute time and absolute space, as opposed to the more "relative" time-space we inhabit...is that what you mean?

3) Skandelon does make the argument that we should accept his nonsensical view because God's ways are higher than our own.

No he doesn't...He is merely explaining that his inability to explain or even comprehend every facet of it to everyone's satisfaction doesn't falsify it. He doesn't claim, that we should accept it because "God's ways are higher than ours". He is claiming that (if his view is Biblical and he believes it is) than you can't falsify it simply because he can't explain it perfectly.

This simply claims one man's view of God is right, even if nonsensical. Twaddle.

It isn't non-sense. Most people (I would argue) can or could understand it and either agree with it's details or dispute some finer points...YOU may think it is non-sense but that doesn't make it so. You are one of very few people who would consider it "non-sense"..."False" maybe "not reflective of reality" maybe, but you are playing fast and loose with the word "non-sense". Calvinistic "Determinism" which I would consider false and not reflective of reality isn't "non-sense" either.

I never used your term "philosophy of time."

No...uh...I did. What you are debating is what people call "Philosophy of Time".

Misrepresenting the views of others, then knocking them down is without merit.

True...and that is precisely what you do and are doing to Skan regularly....I haven't even mentioned your views, nor have I stated whether they be good or bad or right or wrong. I haven't "knocked them down"...I have merely stated that you were being unfair to Skan's Point of View.
Please tell me you are not suggesting that I "misrepresented your views" (I didn't mention them) or that I have tried to "knock them down" (I never either agreed or disagreed with them)....Is this a weird knee-jerk reaction of some kind??

and so is the Arminian doctrine a time traveling deity

1.) That is not an "Arminian Doctrine"..."Arminianism...is more or less silent on the topic.
But...no-one is suggesting a "time traveling deity" This would, in fact, be as you said

Misrepresenting the views of others, then knocking them down is without merit.

who exhaustively knows what He will decide before He decides, and what we will decide before we decide. The fiction that God has created the future and can visit it and know it, is pure twaddle.

Sure...but, again, the only one I am aware of on BB who mentions such insanity is you...No one else believes this.

No scriptural support exists.

No...it doesn't, you are correct congratulations you just posted a self-contradictory statement:

knows what He will decide before He decides

<---a self-contradictory statement
...and then called it un-Biblical. Tell us something else we don't know.

On the other hand, God makes plans for the future, then brings those plans to fruition. That is the Biblical view.

True. However, "The devil is in the details"... Skandelon, I have no doubt would actually agree with this statement, as do I. But you disagree with the details and therefore suggest that the Generally obvious truths are disputed. They aren't.

 

[Van]

HOS simply misrepresents others and himself. It is a waste of time trying to communicate.

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

.I haven't even mentioned your views,

The Arminian view is non-sense, and unbiblical.

God tells us what will happen in the future, then causes those future events to occur.

Spiritual time is a possible attribute of God, fully consistent with all scripture. It has nothing to do with any view of physical reality.

Denial of truth does not diminish truth. I a quoting Skan's very words, God's ways are higher than our own, and so to deny that is his argument is simply to spit into the wind.

Bottom line, Exhaustive Determinism is bogus, thus God has not fixed the future exhaustively. Calvinism has no explanation except absurdity for proclaiming exhaustive determinism yet God is not the author of sin. Arminianism has no explanation except absurdity for proclaiming God makes plans for what He will bring about in the future, yet He already knows what will occur in the future exhaustively.

In a word - NONSENSE!!!!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Let's take this line-by-line shall we?

HOS simply misrepresents others

In this particular thread you have accused me of "misrepresenting" others....meaning you
Please show where I have done so...

and himself.

Please explain how someone "misrepresents 'themself' " ???
HOLD ON EVERYONE!!!! Van shall (presumably) explain to us how one can "misrepresent themself"....and then demonstrate how HOS has personally done this...
LOL...Please do this:laugh:
You might have exposed a truly worth-while concept here...please start a thread for us about what the definition of "mis-representing oneself" is and it's dangers, and how it might be avoided??
I am ALL EARS... please explain to me how I might avoid "mis-representing myself" in the future...

It is a waste of time trying to communicate.

Often, it is...but, when done publically, light might be shown to others who "lurk" and learn by observing the failure of reasonable discourse....Some might understand WHY that exchange is rendered impossible, and note your post as being the reason for it...I'm sorry...but what form of SHEER STUPIDITY!!!!!! is a charge of "Mis-representing oneself" supposed to be???
What an idiotic and non-sensical charge that is....

The Arminian view is non-sense, and unbiblical.

Ok, yes... fine, whatever.. blah blah I only initially posted because of the obscene intellectual dishonesty you showed to Skan's argument...I couldn't care less about debating YOU...I never tried to...

Please show the court....where I even mention your views or argued against them...
There is nothing...I won't debate your views with you...I don't mention them...I don't EVER mis-represent them. There is no positive out-come which can be gleaned from attempting to debate the finer points of your views with you...I tried about 5 times in my personal history on this board...It took me that long to realise that any attempt to point/counter-point debate or discuss your views was pointless. I have NEVER tried since...I only object to your straw-men against Skan's posts...but I would NEVER attempt to engage you in a debate about such topics..I know better.

God tells us what will happen in the future, then causes those future events to occur.

A quote from your mouth....please quote anything similar from Skan's or mine...or you merely indict yourself. There is that option...or you may cease the sin of falsely accusing your brethren.

Spiritual time is a possible attribute of God,

Cute...and also insanely un-informative...what is a "possible attribute of God??"...
I clearly asked you what "Spiritual Time" was...and the truth is...you had no flippin' clue what it meant or what you were talking about...You just created a term out of whole-cloth and then pretended it was worth legitimate discussion and entertainment...

It wasn't...

fully consistent with all scripture.

OK...I have not denied the premise you have suggested that "Spiritual Time" isn't Scriptural....I've merely asked you to define it.....HECK, for the sake of mercy, I even gave you a possible out by suggesting that you might hide yourself behind Isaac Newton to do so....and you didn't accept it...What more do you want??? I haven't "denied" your premise of "Spiritual time"....I've merely asked you what the heck "Spiritual Time" IS...or do you not know yourself??

It has nothing to do with any view of physical reality.

So...."Spiritual Time" has nothing to do with physical reality???
MY question to you would be:
Does "Spiritual Time" have anything to do with "Spiritual reality"?
If so...Please explain...

Denial of truth does not diminish truth.

REALLLY!!!! I Did not KNOW this!!!
What an amazing fundamental axiom of basic logic you've just informed us of!!!
Thank you

I a quoting Skan's very words, God's ways are higher than our own, and so to deny that is his argument is simply to spit into the wind.

That is not, nor was it ever "his argument"...Skan's "argument" is not: "God's ways are higher than our own"....
Skan has posited his arguments clearly...he is refusing to accept the ridiculous idea that any mortal man is capable of explaining in sufficient detail how all of God's limitless faculties might work in meaningful words. He is honest enough to know that he hasn't a friggin CLUE...how the inter workings of God's limitless mind works...I'll accept that...What he is NOT doing is positing ANY facet of God's mind which he claims to be capable of knowing, and then refusing to defend it by claiming NOT to be able to explain it plausibly...Anything he asserts that is true about God's Omniscience...he will defend..anything not capable of comprehension he simply doesn't claim to understand...But he has NEVER appealed to his own ignorance of how to explain something as a form of "proof" for it's validity. He isn't that stupid. You are the only one who actually thinks that he is that stupid.

Bottom line, Exhaustive Determinism is bogus,

DUH....and when Skan supports Exhaustive Determinism...you may debate him on that topic...but, as he isn't a determinist...you won't get a lot of argument from him will you??

thus God has not fixed the future exhaustively.

Again....agreed...Skan knows this to....to whom do you address this then??

Calvinism has no explanation except absurdity for proclaiming exhaustive determinism yet God is not the author of sin.

Skan and I are all :applause::applause::applause: on this one...........

Arminianism has no explanation except absurdity for proclaiming God makes plans for what He will bring about in the future, yet He already knows what will occur in the future exhaustively.

True!!!
1.) "Arminianism" does not, in fact, have "AN" explanation...inasmuch as there are a multitude of possible and generally accepted and reasonable explanations for how that might be, and all of them are consistent with Arminian Theology...My explanations (for example) are not exactly as Skan's would be...even though similar (he seems to inherently dis-like the term "Middle-knowledge" and that's ok with me) ...and they are also not exactly as say....Jacobus Arminius' might be...and a multitude of others...he isn't "Wesleyan"...but, their explanations of that particular issue are close enough to decidedly be a sub-set of "Arminianism" but they are all close enough and reasonable enough to be worth consideration...

In a word - NONSENSE!!!!

Or...you might have chosen the term "Twaddle" again...whatever the heck that means...

 

[Van]

Hi HOS,

1) I quoted where you referred to my view, then said you had not referred to my view. That showed everyone with truth as an ally that your misrepresented both me and you.

2) Enough time wasted on this name calling, truth evading, derailer to any sort of biblical discussion

3) The bible tells us of God doing things in sequence before creation. Therefore the fiction that eternity lacks sequence is unbiblical.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Hi HOS,

1) I quoted where you referred to my view, then said you had not referred to my view. That showed everyone with truth as an ally that your misrepresented both me and you.

2) Enough time wasted on this name calling, truth evading, derailer to any sort of biblical discussion

3) The bible tells us of God doing things in sequence before creation. Therefore the fiction that eternity lacks sequence is unbiblical.

Okey dokey :thumbsup:

 

[Iconoclast]

Okey dokey :thumbsup:

Hos.....twaddle and fiddlesticks....you know that Van deals in realms that are one step beyond.....

So...."Spiritual Time" has nothing to do with physical reality???
MY question to you would be:
Does "Spiritual Time" have anything to do with "Spiritual reality"?
If so...Please explain..

Even if he explained it to you again ...we cannot possibly hope you could grasp what only Van alone can fathom. Perhaps only Winman who evidently in recent posts is able to channel Nazi minds and know what they knew and link them to calvinistic puritans is able to engage in Vanwinmanism star trek theology...going boldly where no man has gone before:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[Winman]

Hos.....twaddle and fiddlesticks....you know that Van deals in realms that are one step beyond.....



Even if he explained it to you again ...we cannot possibly hope you could grasp what only Van alone can fathom. Perhaps only Winman who evidently in recent posts is able to channel Nazi minds and know what they knew and link them to calvinistic puritans is able to engage in Vanwinmanism star trek theology...going boldly where no man has gone before:laugh::laugh::laugh:

I will start a thread on this just for you Iconoclast.