Omniscience

[Skandelon]

What's the deal?

Sorry, this one must of got lost in the mix, I didn't see it until Winman's post bumped it back to the top. Like I said, if I miss a post just let me know...

 

[Skandelon]

We are going to have to get past this. I have never said and I have proven that I have never said that god DOES the evil deed. But God brings it to pass by his power and his will.

If we are going to remain friends we you are going to have to stop with this baseless accusation.

Luke, bro, you may not have intended it the way you said it, but I provided quote after quote of you saying that God did evil deeds but because he did them with good motives that weren't evil. You said over and over that God killed Jesus and claimed that to be the most evil deed ever done. "Bringing something to pass" is one thing, but that is not always the type of language you have chosen, which is why several other Calvinists on this board even called you out on it.

So, (1) this is not a baseless accusation and (2) we can still be friends and (3) just own up to what you have said and then provide clarity on what you intended to mean so we can move on.

That God eternally knows all there is to know about everything is all we are discussing at this point. The predertimining comes later after we have established this. What Augustine has to say about is moot at this stage of the conversation. We have an accord. God eternally knows all there is ton know about everything.

But the point I was making when I wrote, "I guess if he would have had Augustine or Calvin write the bible instead, He could have had them put it in terms that would have given us little better "grasp" of these matters, right?" was to rebut your point regarding anthropomorphic language.

If God chose to explain himself anthropomorphically (i.e. reacting to us within time) then is it wrong to understand him in those terms? Must we understand him instead the way in which the likes of Augustine and Calvin have explained him (i.e. non anthropomorphically)? Understand my question?

For the same reason it would be wrong to believe that God has a body.

But, if someone, like a child, understood and pictured a God with a body (like a father figure) or in the imagery scripture employees, would that be so terrible? In other words, is it WRONG to understand and relate to God in the terms He chose to reveal himself. Must we dismiss such terminology as overly simplistic and seek to understand and explain him to others with more complex (and maybe less biblical) terms?

Because we believe that God has always known all there is to know about everything.

But the revelation we have given to us by God says he made a choice. He chose to adopt Luke as his son. To deny that he made a choice because it doesn't fit your finite linear logic is shortsighted and frankly just plain unbiblical. Just as we say that God is three but one, we can say God is omniscient but made a choice and be okay with the mystery of those two statements. That is what faith is all about.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, bro, you may not have intended it the way you said it, but I provided quote after quote of you saying that God did evil deeds but because he did them with good motives that weren't evil. You said over and over that God killed Jesus and claimed that to be the most evil deed ever done. "Bringing something to pass" is one thing, but that is not always the type of language you have chosen, which is why several other Calvinists on this board even called you out on it.

No you didn't.

You provided quotes to prove that I said that and not ONE of them said it. You just tried to pull that inference from them but not ONE of the quotes you posted of mine said that God does an evil deed- not one.

God DID kill Jesus. But it was NOT AN EVIL DEED.
Pilate did kill Jesus. It WAS an evil deed.

God DID afflict Job but in so doing God was most certainly NOT doing an evil deed.
Satan did afflict Job at the same time but it WAS an evil deed.

This is the plain teaching of Scripture and it does not in ANY WAY imply that God is "doing the evil deed".

Now you and I have got to get past this.

I have put winman, snow and others on ignore for this same reason.

I am not going to be repeatedly accused by you of saying something I HAVE NEVER IN MY LIFE SAID.

You need to fix this- pronto.

So, (1) this is not a baseless accusation and (2) we can still be friends and (3) just own up to what you have said and then provide clarity on what you intended to mean so we can move on.

This is a problem.

If you can't get over this- let me know.

But the point I was making when I wrote, "I guess if he would have had Augustine or Calvin write the bible instead, He could have had them put it in terms that would have given us little better "grasp" of these matters, right?" was to rebut your point regarding anthropomorphic language.

There are no other words. That is EXACTLY why we have to HAVE anthropomorphic language.

If there were a better way to describe these things then God would have used those words. But we cannot grasp these things as they are outside of time, space and matter. So he speaks in terms we can understand. We call that kind of speaking- anthropomorphic language.

You do believe there is a such thing as anthropomorphic terms in the Bible, right?

If God chose to explain himself anthropomorphically (i.e. reacting to us within time) then is it wrong to understand him in those terms? Must we understand him instead the way in which the likes of Augustine and Calvin have explained him (i.e. non anthropomorphically)? Understand my question?

Yes, we must understand him the way he is. When he tells us that he has no body in one place but then speaks to us as though he did- then we can safely assume this is anthropomorphic language.

Just because he talks about his hands doesn't mean we are to believe that the eternal God has physical hands.

Just because he talks about making choices doesn't mean that the eternal God who has always known all there is to ever know about everything actually makes choices.

But, if someone, like a child, understood and pictured a God with a body (like a father figure) or in the imagery scripture employees, would that be so terrible?

No. It would just be wrong. We are not children- you and I. Let our theologies indicate that we have put away childish things and that we understand as men not babes in Christ.

In other words, is it WRONG to understand and relate to God in the terms He chose to reveal himself. Must we dismiss such terminology as overly simplistic and seek to understand and explain him to others with more complex (and maybe less biblical) terms?

It is not wrong for children and babes in Christ to do this. But you and I are to move on to maturity.

But the revelation we have given to us by God says he made a choice.

Anthropomorphic language. One who has always known all there is to ever know about everything cannot make real choices. He lives outside of time and has always in eternity past decided what he was ever going to do. Otherwise he could not have always known all there is to ever know about everything.

He chose to adopt Luke as his son.

Yes he did. In the eternal, timeless council halls of infinite wisdom and existence. There was no POINT at which he made this choice. There has never been a point in eternity past where he made this choice. Forever in eternity past I was chosen.

And even NOW I have to use words like CHOSEN because there are no other words to describe this. We do not have words to explain what happens outside of time, space and matter so even when we speak of these things we must use anthropomorphic language.

To deny that he made a choice because it doesn't fit your finite linear logic is shortsighted and frankly just plain unbiblical.

Bull. To force obvious anthropomorphic language into literal language which undermines the great attributes of the eternal, omnipotent, omniscient God is VERY dangerous.

Just as we say that God is three but one, we can say God is omniscient but made a choice and be okay with the mystery of those two statements. That is what faith is all about.

No it isn't ok. Three is one is LITERAL language and a doctrine that is meant to be understood literally.

God making choices is NOT literal language and is not to be taken literally anymore than the idea that God has hands and feet are to be taken literally.

When the Bible teaches that God has no body and then uses language to the contrary we do not say- SEE THERE!!! GOD HAS A BODY AND HE HAS NO BODY.

We understand that one is literal and the other is anthropomorphic.