The Closed Theism of Calvinism

[Van]

Reply to Skandelon

Ok, but it does say he chose "US" (meaning believers) to be holy and adopted. This should not be understood as meaning God has chosen certain individuals to be saved. It is meant to say that before the foundation of the world God chose to make all believers holy and blameless and to adopt them into his family. He made that determination before the foundation of the world. There is nothing in this text that supports the idea of individual election to faith. Make sense?


What text explicitly denies it? Does God's question, "Where are you?" to Adam and Eve in the garden mean that God didn't really know where they are? When a parent asks a child, "Did you take that cookie," does it mean the parent really didn't know?

See my point? We can't know what God does and doesn't know or how it relates to His interaction with us. We just need to say it is a mystery and leave it alone, IMO... I believe it is just as wrong to presume he doesn't know as it is to presume that because He does know he must have predetermined it. Make sense?

There is nothing in scripture to support individual election for salvation before creation. We agree on that. But we disagree because I say there are many many verses that quite plainly say we are chosen individually for salvation during our lifetime, and when we are chosen individually, we are placed into the corporately elected group - the body of Christ, the church - chosen before creation. Thus He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. Just read James 2:5, 1 Corinthians 1:25-30, 1 Peter 2:9-10 and 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

Yes, I think I see your point, but I disagree with saying inspired scripture does not mean what it says. I take scripture straight up unless doing so contradicts other scripture. Then I try to discern a common understanding that makes sense of both. I do not nullify one because I had an understanding of the other.

We can know when God says "now I know" that He did not know before "now." So it makes no sense to me to say this verse, and this verse and this verse, none mean what they say because of a man-made definition of omniscience.

Remember Romans 11. Why did God harden their hearts. Why did he harden those He knew would come to Christ, and why did He need to harden those who were not going to come to Christ. To me, this is strong evidence God had chosen not to know what they would do, He simply made sure they would continue to reject the gospel to spread the gospel to the Gentiles.

 

[Van]

Reply to DHK

Where does that leave God with his omniscience?
Does He not know those that love him; those who are rich in faith, and those who are heirs of the kingdom, before the creation of the world. Does he not know who will be saved?

James 2:5 supports individual election for salvation during our lifetime. It has little to do with defining Omniscience biblically. My definition of Omniscience is God knows everything He has chosen to know. Thus He can forgive our sins and remember them no more forever.

If you are really interested in how those two points tie together, consider this:

In order for God choose individuals before creation, He has to create them in His mind. But no verse supports that metaphysical assertion imported into Christian thinking from pagan Greek philosophy. But God certainly does know what He plans to make happen, and so if He planned to redeem, He would know He needs to choose a Redeemer and formulate a redemption plan which would redeem. So when God chose Christ to be His Lamb before the foundation of the world, He chose us [corporately] in Him before the foundation of the world. Now if He did not chose us individually before creation, then He must choose us individually during our lifetime. And James 2:5 supports that contention.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

I believe the role of the Holy Spirit is to convict. As it says in John 16, And when he comes, he will convict the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment.
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
It is through these two agencies that a person is saved. The gospel is presented. Man must have faith in the word of God, the gospel, that it is Christ who saves, and at the same time it must be the work of the Holy Spirit who is convicting him of sin to come to that place.
I believe that faith and repentance are two sides of the same coin and take place simultaneously. If one puts their faith in Christ, they are repenting. They are turning from a life of sin and turning to Christ simply by putting their faith in Christ. It is a new life that they are accepting by faith.

I think we are very close in our understanding, however I prefer the phrase ‘human responsibility’ (instead of free will), simply b/c it’s the Holy Spirit who makes the 1st move—thus its our responsibility to accept his conviction, while I see “faith” as the cross roads where man & God meet in the salvation process (ie I feel man is responsible for accepting it, but it is still nonetheless a gift from God that 1st must be offered)---but I can honestly say I have no real objections to what you said even if we slightly differ in terminology.

 

[DHK]

James 2:5 supports individual election for salvation during our lifetime. It has little to do with defining Omniscience biblically. My definition of Omniscience is God knows everything He has chosen to know. Thus He can forgive our sins and remember them no more forever.

If you are really interested in how those two points tie together, consider this:

In order for God choose individuals before creation, He has to create them in His mind. But no verse supports that metaphysical assertion imported into Christian thinking from pagan Greek philosophy. But God certainly does know what He plans to make happen, and so if He planned to redeem, He would know He needs to choose a Redeemer and formulate a redemption plan which would redeem. So when God chose Christ to be His Lamb before the foundation of the world, He chose us [corporately] in Him before the foundation of the world. Now if He did not chose us individually before creation, then He must choose us individually during our lifetime. And James 2:5 supports that contention.

4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? (James 2:4-6)

James is not a theological book, per se. It is a book teaching practical Christian living compared to Romans which teaches through the theology of salvation. One is theological; the other is practical Christianity. To take James 2:5 out of this context is to do injustice to the meaning that James is teaching. He is not teaching about election and predestination, etc. He is speaking about the poor and the rich. He is speaking of oppression. To take the words that he uses in this context and apply them to predestination is hermeneutically wrong.
Verse five is nothing more than a reference to the sermon on the mount (Mat.5:3), "Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of God."

I strongly disagree with your definition of omniscience. In fact it is not the definition of omniscience. You have re-defined the word. The word is omni (all) + science (knowledge) = all-knowing.

God is all-knowing. He isn't simply confined to knowing what he wants to know. That would mean that he is confined in his knowledge such as we are--limited.
We are finite beings; God is infinite. Somehow you are limiting an infinite God. If God is limited then God isn't God. To take the same logic on a linear plane or apply it to time, God would not be eternal. He would be limit or limiting himself in time. God cannot do that. He is eternal. And his knowledge is infinite. He cannot limit himself or be limited by anyone else. He omniscient--all-knowing; unlimited in knowledge.

 

[jbh28]

4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? (James 2:4-6)

James is not a theological book, per se. It is a book teaching practical Christian living compared to Romans which teaches through the theology of salvation. One is theological; the other is practical Christianity. To take James 2:5 out of this context is to do injustice to the meaning that James is teaching. He is not teaching about election and predestination, etc. He is speaking about the poor and the rich. He is speaking of oppression. To take the words that he uses in this context and apply them to predestination is hermeneutically wrong.
Verse five is nothing more than a reference to the sermon on the mount (Mat.5:3), "Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of God."

I strongly disagree with your definition of omniscience. In fact it is not the definition of omniscience. You have re-defined the word. The word is omni (all) + science (knowledge) = all-knowing.

God is all-knowing. He isn't simply confined to knowing what he wants to know. That would mean that he is confined in his knowledge such as we are--limited.
We are finite beings; God is infinite. Somehow you are limiting an infinite God. If God is limited then God isn't God. To take the same logic on a linear plane or apply it to time, God would not be eternal. He would be limit or limiting himself in time. God cannot do that. He is eternal. And his knowledge is infinite. He cannot limit himself or be limited by anyone else. He omniscient--all-knowing; unlimited in knowledge.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs: Well said DHK!

 

[preachinjesus]

BTW, I went and looked up "Closed Theism" in a couple of theological dictionaries and did a quick boolean search of top notch academic journals and can't find it anywhere.

Van, are you coining this term or have you heard it elsewhere before? If so can you provide some citations. Thanks!

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? (James 2:4-6)

James is not a theological book, per se. It is a book teaching practical Christian living compared to Romans which teaches through the theology of salvation. One is theological; the other is practical Christianity. To take James 2:5 out of this context is to do injustice to the meaning that James is teaching. He is not teaching about election and predestination, etc. He is speaking about the poor and the rich. He is speaking of oppression. To take the words that he uses in this context and apply them to predestination is hermeneutically wrong.
Verse five is nothing more than a reference to the sermon on the mount (Mat.5:3), "Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of God."

I strongly disagree with your definition of omniscience. In fact it is not the definition of omniscience. You have re-defined the word. The word is omni (all) + science (knowledge) = all-knowing.

God is all-knowing. He isn't simply confined to knowing what he wants to know. That would mean that he is confined in his knowledge such as we are--limited.
We are finite beings; God is infinite. Somehow you are limiting an infinite God. If God is limited then God isn't God. To take the same logic on a linear plane or apply it to time, God would not be eternal. He would be limit or limiting himself in time. God cannot do that. He is eternal. And his knowledge is infinite. He cannot limit himself or be limited by anyone else. He omniscient--all-knowing; unlimited in knowledge.

Very well said!! And from my understanding ur not a Calvinist, nor define ur self as Reformed---so the disagreement with Van’s definition of omniscience is not limited to one particular branch of theological supporters! Now my question is---what does this say about your problematic explanation Van?

 

[Skandelon]

There is nothing in scripture to support individual election for salvation before creation. We agree on that. But we disagree because I say there are many many verses that quite plainly say we are chosen individually for salvation during our lifetime, and when we are chosen individually, we are placed into the corporately elected group - the body of Christ, the church - chosen before creation. Thus He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. Just read James 2:5, 1 Corinthians 1:25-30, 1 Peter 2:9-10 and 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

Well, obviously God chooses to save those who believe, but the way you appear to be arguing the point makes it appear that God has chosen individuals to be saved thus leading them to faith, but I know that is not your view. (if I've understood you correctly)

God has chosen to show mercy to all by inviting all to be reconciled. For the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, first to the Jew and then to the Gentile. That means the gospel was sent to the Jews FIRST. That is corporate election. God chose to appeal for the Jews to be reconciled. Then he chose to appeal for the Gentiles (all non-Jews) to be reconciled. Again, corporate election. Those who accept that appeal are reconciled, made holy and blameless and adopted as sons, because God had predetermined to save anyone who believes in His Son.

Remember Romans 11. Why did God harden their hearts. Why did he harden those He knew would come to Christ, and why did He need to harden those who were not going to come to Christ. To me, this is strong evidence God had chosen not to know what they would do, He simply made sure they would continue to reject the gospel to spread the gospel to the Gentiles.

But as the scripture teaches, clearly Jesus knew Tyre and Sidon would have repented if exposed to the signs and wonders shown the modern cities.

With regard to Israel, He hardened them temporarily to ensure all of them would remain in rebellion. He knew that if exposed to the gospel (the POWER of God unto Salvation) they "might repent and be saved."

 

[Tom Butler]

Let's not forget that God's omniscience is closely tied to his immutability.

If God does not know something until it happens (or doesn't know something until he knows it, or chooses to know it), then that new knowledge is something new, and represents a change in God. Saying that God knows all that is knowable doesn't solve this problem.

 

[Iconoclast]

Are you kidding?

I think they are not kidding;

13And he answering said, `Every plant that my heavenly Father did not plant shall be rooted up;

14let them alone, guides they are -- blind of blind; and if blind may guide blind, both into a ditch shall fall.'

 

[Van]

Reply to DHK,

4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? (James 2:4-6)

James is not a theological book, per se. It is a book teaching practical Christian living compared to Romans which teaches through the theology of salvation. One is theological; the other is practical Christianity. To take James 2:5 out of this context is to do injustice to the meaning that James is teaching. He is not teaching about election and predestination, etc. He is speaking about the poor and the rich. He is speaking of oppression. To take the words that he uses in this context and apply them to predestination is hermeneutically wrong.
Verse five is nothing more than a reference to the sermon on the mount (Mat.5:3), "Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of God."

I strongly disagree with your definition of omniscience. In fact it is not the definition of omniscience. You have re-defined the word. The word is omni (all) + science (knowledge) = all-knowing.

God is all-knowing. He isn't simply confined to knowing what he wants to know. That would mean that he is confined in his knowledge such as we are--limited.
We are finite beings; God is infinite. Somehow you are limiting an infinite God. If God is limited then God isn't God. To take the same logic on a linear plane or apply it to time, God would not be eternal. He would be limit or limiting himself in time. God cannot do that. He is eternal. And his knowledge is infinite. He cannot limit himself or be limited by anyone else. He omniscient--all-knowing; unlimited in knowledge.

I did not take James 2:5 out of context, James was teaching that God chose the poor to the world, rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love Him. This was to illustrate God's value system is not based on worldly things, such as material wealth.

There is no biblical reason to claim the verse, and many others do not mean what they say.

It is ok to "strongly disagree" with my definition of omniscience, but to say it is not a definition misses the mark. You base your assessment on your definition of "all" as meaning "everything imaginable" which takes the word out of its context. "All" means all of whatever the author had in view. When I play for all the marbles, it refers to the marbles in the game I am playing, not to marbles in another state or nation.

Second your claim that God has infinite knowledge precludes he does not know something. This is unbiblical for God forgives our sins and remembers them no more for ever. Yes, a verse is sometimes translated using "infinite" but what the word actually means is "beyond our ability to measure or metaphorically beyond our understanding. The idea of infinite knowledge might be true, but it is conjecture, and cannot be supported biblically.

God choosing not to know something because that is according to His purpose and plan does not limit God. It de-limits Him, He is not limited to what you man-made definition requires.

My method of understanding the bible differs from many people, I use the minimalist approach where I ask the question, what is the least or smallest assumption view of this passage. I try not to say it means more than it says, or it means less than it says because that is not using the hermeneutic of minimalism.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

I did not take James 2:5 out of context, James was teaching that God chose the poor to the world, rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love Him. This was to illustrate God's value system is not based on worldly things, such as material wealth.

There is no biblical reason to claim the verse, and many others do not mean what they say.

It is ok to "strongly disagree" with my definition of omniscience, but to say it is not a definition misses the mark. You base your assessment on your definition of "all" as meaning "everything imaginable" which takes the word out of its context. "All" means all of whatever the author had in view. When I play for all the marbles, it refers to the marbles in the game I am playing, not to marbles in another state or nation.

Second your claim that God has infinite knowledge precludes he does not know something. This is unbiblical for God forgives our sins and remembers them no more for ever. Yes, a verse is sometimes translated using "infinite" but what the word actually means is "beyond our ability to measure or metaphorically beyond our understanding. The idea of infinite knowledge might be true, but it is conjecture, and cannot be supported biblically.

God choosing not to know something because that is according to His purpose and plan does not limit God. It de-limits Him, He is not limited to what you man-made definition requires.

My method of understanding the bible differs from many people, I use the minimalist approach where I ask the question, what is the least or smallest assumption view of this passage. I try not to say it means more than it says, or it means less than it says because that is not using the hermeneutic of minimalism.

Van---while I whole-heartedly disagree with this conclusion---I don’t think everything you said was totally unintelligible---but I have to ask—based on your understanding---did the rebellion of Satan take God by surprise? Was the fall of Adam & Eve something God did not foresee? Did God know Saul the persecutor of Christians would become Paul the apostle? What exactly is it—God chooses not to know & why?

 

[Van]

Reply to Gabriel

Van---while I whole-heartedly disagree with this conclusion---I don’t think everything you said was totally unintelligible---but I have to ask—based on your understanding---did the rebellion of Satan take God by surprise? Was the fall of Adam & Eve something God did not foresee? Did God know Saul the persecutor of Christians would become Paul the apostle? What exactly is it—God chooses not to know & why?

In one post you complain because I post the same thing over and over, yet Calvinists ask the same questions over and over. Lets go over it one more time.

Did the rebellion of Satan take God by surprise? This question implies my view allows for God to be surprised. I have specifically posted that God is not surprised. Why are you asking what has been answered. Perhaps you cannot remember or perhaps you did not read it? I do not know. Perhaps I should number my statements. That one is number 42, since today is his day.

Next, did God foresee the fall of Adam? God chose the Word to be His Lamb, His Redeemer before creation so based on what the Bible says, God's purpose in creation included "arranging" the fall of Adam. He knew Adam's heart and He allowed the circumstances to occur that led to Adam's sin. This view is shared by Pink, who supported Calvinism.

But to be clear, you used the word foresee and that could mean different things to different people. God did not look into some divine crystal ball and see the future fall of Adam, He brought it about because it was part of His purpose and plan for creation.

Did God know Saul would become Paul? Again, He brought about the circumstance that flipped Paul like a pancake. He knew his heart and therefore knew if this or that circumstance arose, what Paul would make of it.
Paul made a lot of it, but we do not praise Paul, we praise God, who asked a simple question, why are you persecuting me? Food for thought.

What has God chosen not to know? Well when He forgives our sins, He remembers them no more forever. When He tested Abraham to find out something about Abraham's character, He chose not to know beforehand by searching Abraham's heart, and so He said "now I know...."

If God had predestined everything imaginable, exhaustive determinism, then God would know everything imaginable. But that view is demonstrated false by many passages of scripture. So whatever God did not predestine, He could have chosen not to know according to my finite mind. Whether in that window of the possible, according to my dubious thinking about God's actions, He chose to know none, some or all, I do not know. I have studied all the verses, that I could find, that bear on this subject. Many others point to verse this or that and say that demonstrates the orthodox view, but every one of them requires unwarranted assumptions, and I use the minimalist hermeneutic.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

In one post you complain because I post the same thing over and over, yet Calvinists ask the same questions over and over. Lets go over it one more time.

Did the rebellion of Satan take God by surprise? This question implies my view allows for God to be surprised. I have specifically posted that God is not surprised. Why are you asking what has been answered. Perhaps you cannot remember or perhaps you did not read it? I do not know. Perhaps I should number my statements. That one is number 42, since today is his day.

Next, did God foresee the fall of Adam? God chose the Word to be His Lamb, His Redeemer before creation so based on what the Bible says, God's purpose in creation included "arranging" the fall of Adam. He knew Adam's heart and He allowed the circumstances to occur that led to Adam's sin. This view is shared by Pink, who supported Calvinism.

But to be clear, you used the word foresee and that could mean different things to different people. God did not look into some divine crystal ball and see the future fall of Adam, He brought it about because it was part of His purpose and plan for creation.

Did God know Saul would become Paul? Again, He brought about the circumstance that flipped Paul like a pancake. He knew his heart and therefore knew if this or that circumstance arose, what Paul would make of it.
Paul made a lot of it, but we do not praise Paul, we praise God, who asked a simple question, why are you persecuting me? Food for thought.

What has God chosen not to know? Well when He forgives our sins, He remembers them no more forever. When He tested Abraham to find out something about Abraham's character, He chose not to know beforehand by searching Abraham's heart, and so He said "now I know...."

If God had predestined everything imaginable, exhaustive determinism, then God would know everything imaginable. But that view is demonstrated false by many passages of scripture. So whatever God did not predestine, He could have chosen not to know according to my finite mind. Whether in that window of the possible, according to my dubious thinking about God's actions, He chose to know none, some or all, I do not know. I have studied all the verses, that I could find, that bear on this subject. Many others point to verse this or that and say that demonstrates the orthodox view, but every one of them requires unwarranted assumptions, and I use the minimalist hermeneutic.

Thank you for taking the time to answer---I’ve got to go finish 2 sermons today so I really don’t have time to read everything u just wrote—but I really do want to sit down & break down what u just said—at the very least it will be interesting---P.s. for the hundredth time, while I really don’t disagree agree with the overall concepts of 5 point Calvinism, I would reword the phrases irresistible grace & limited atonement---thus out of respect for the diehard 5 pointers I classify myself as reformed & not Calvinist---thanks again for the answer & I’ll reply as soon as I get the chance.

 

[Van]

Repeat of Statement 42

Open Theism correctly presents some biblical truths, while also presenting many mistaken views of scripture. Lets take a look at some of the mistaken assertions.

Does the Bible teach that God’s knowledge of the future is imperfect, that God confronts the unexpected? Open Theism advocates cite Isaiah 5:1-5 and assert God did not expect good grapes and was surprised when He got wild grapes. But is this what the text actually teaches? Nope.
The Hebrew word translated in some English versions of the text as “expected” actually means to await an outcome, or to look for an outcome while waiting, or to endure a circumstance for a purpose. Similarly, the Hebrew word translated bad grapes or wild grapes, actually means sour and unripe, suggesting God desired Israel to grow closer to God in its protected vineyard, but since it did not, the hedge was removed, and the environment changed.

So lets look at the passage using the NIV translation, which actually does justice to the text:

The Song of the Vineyard
1 I will sing for the one I love
a song about his vineyard:
My loved one had a vineyard
on a fertile hillside.
2 He dug it up and cleared it of stones
and planted it with the choicest vines.
He built a watchtower in it
and cut out a winepress as well.
Then he looked for a crop of good grapes,
but it yielded only bad fruit.
3 "Now you dwellers in Jerusalem and men of Judah,
judge between me and my vineyard.
4 What more could have been done for my vineyard
than I have done for it?
When I looked for good grapes,
why did it yield only bad?
5 Now I will tell you
what I am going to do to my vineyard:
I will take away its hedge,
and it will be destroyed;
I will break down its wall,
and it will be trampled

And now with a sound understanding of Isaiah’s words, lets turn to the Open Theism assertion concerning the text: Because the vineyard unexpectedly failed to yield grapes, the Lord sadly concludes, “I will remove its hedge and it shall be devoured (v5).”

But the actual message is that God desired for Israel to become more godly, and when they chose to remain worldly, God took action to foster His desired outcome. God may or may not have experienced the feeling of sadness when He took the action, but since the text does not say, we are left with His enduring efforts to draw us closer to Him. So while the text can be used to support the premise God has chosen to allow autonomous behavior rather than deterministically determining every thought and every outcome, it in no way supports the idea that God did not know the hearts of the people of Israel, or that He did not know that they needed to learn that their good fortune was a gift from God.

The second mistaken view of Open Theism is that God is surprised by the worldly behavior of Israel. To support this contention, Open Theism cites Jeremiah 19:5, but does it say God did not know what the people would do? Nope. Again the word translated “mind” in many English versions of the text actually means “heart” the seat of appetites and inclinations. In other words, Jeremiah was saying God did not desire this behavior.

Lets look at the verse using the HCSB translation: “5 They have built high places to Baal on which to burn their children in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, something I have never commanded or mentioned; I never entertained the thought.” With this correct understanding of Jeremiah’s message, we find no support whatsoever for the assertion that God was surprised by their wicked actions. The same thought is expressed in Jeremiah 7:31 (“did not come into My mind”) meaning I did not entertain the thought, or desire the behavior. Ditto for Jeremiah 32:35, all three actually indicate the behavior did not come up upon God’s heart, He did not entertain it nor desire it.

A third contention of Open Theism is that God thinks one thing is going to happen, but something else happens, indicating God knowledge of the future is wrong. To support this mistaken view, Open Theism cites Jeremiah 3:6-7, but does it say God held a mistaken view of the future? Nope. The verse does say that God said or thought that Israel would repent, but was the thought a desire or a statement of foreseen behavior? Desire. Why desire and not foreseen behavior? Because God says in verse 6 that He knows Israel is “faithless” so desire fits but foreseen faithfulness does not fit with faithlessness.

Open Theism also cites Jeremiah 3:19-20. Contextually the passage has the return of Christ in view. It is a prophecy of the millennial kingdom, verse 19, contrasted with Israel’s behavior under the Old Covenant, verse 20. And what does Open Theism make of this fairly straightforward passage? It asserts that since Christ has not inaugurated His millennial kingdom yet, God was mistaken in His prophecy. Sorry but that is a mistaken view of the text.

Does that fact that what God desires does not immediately or universally come to pass indicate God is not all-powerful? Nope. Rather it indicates God desires according to His purpose, and therefore His purpose is for mankind to bring Him glory autonomously, and not under deterministic control.

 

[DHK]

I did not take James 2:5 out of context, James was teaching that God chose the poor to the world, rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love Him. This was to illustrate God's value system is not based on worldly things, such as material wealth.

There is no biblical reason to claim the verse, and many others do not mean what they say.

It was a simple reference to Mat.5:3.
The word "chose" can be used in different ways. It does not have to be used in the context of predestination, and that is not the context in James chapter 2.

It is ok to "strongly disagree" with my definition of omniscience, but to say it is not a definition misses the mark.

Can you give me a dictionary definition of your definition.

You base your assessment on your definition of "all" as meaning "everything imaginable" which takes the word out of its context. "All" means all of whatever the author had in view. When I play for all the marbles, it refers to the marbles in the game I am playing, not to marbles in another state or nation.

But God is eternal; thus all is all. He is not limited to area. He is omnipresent. Thus all is all when we talk about God.
Omnipresent--not limited by space.
Omniscient--not limited in knowledge.
Omnipotent--not limited in power.
Eternal--not limited in time.

To limit God in any of these things is to deny God in his deity. It is to rob God, and make him less than God. Then God is not God. These are the unique attributes of God. He is immutable and cannot change. "I am the Lord, I change not." He always was, is, and will be.

Second your claim that God has infinite knowledge precludes he does not know something. This is unbiblical for God forgives our sins and remembers them no more for ever.

This is metaphorical language. The Bible uses it often.
He also says that he takes our sins and hides them behind his back.
He also says that he buries them in the depths of the deepest sea.

So which statement is true? If they are to be taken literally they all can't be true.
First, does God have a back? No. He is a spirit. Spirits don't have backs.
So we know that isn't true. It is a metaphor helping us to understand more about God. It is an anthropormorphism.

Second, did God bury them in the deepest sea?
If so, which sea was it? Where is this sea? If he buried them in a sea certainly he would not forget about the action of burying them, so they aren't forgotten.

Or, are they forgotten? This makes God look like a nice old man who has Alzheimer's. I don't want to sound blasphemous, but that is the picture that is painted. No, God knows all things. He is eternal, and eternal in his knowledge. The language used is anthropormorhic, and used to comfort us, using the strongest possible language to let us know that when God forgives, he forgives! He is not going to bring them up again, or bring those same sins and hold them against us again. They are truly and forever forgiven.

Yes, a verse is sometimes translated using "infinite" but what the word actually means is "beyond our ability to measure or metaphorically beyond our understanding. The idea of infinite knowledge might be true, but it is conjecture, and cannot be supported biblically.

Do you mean the human mind cannot discern a figure of speech when one is being used? I find that hard to believe.

God choosing not to know something because that is according to His purpose and plan does not limit God. It de-limits Him, He is not limited to what you man-made definition requires.

Consult your dictionaries. I am not making up the definitions here.
It is God that is omniscient: omni + science = all + knowledge = all-knowing. The math is simple. He is all-knowing or omniscient without any qualifiers.

My method of understanding the bible differs from many people, I use the minimalist approach where I ask the question, what is the least or smallest assumption view of this passage. I try not to say it means more than it says, or it means less than it says because that is not using the hermeneutic of minimalism.

The hermeneutic may be wrong.

 

[Van]

Hi DHK,

(1) Nothing in scripture supports you claim James was referring to Matthew 5:3. The context as I have shown, requires the reference to be of material wealth, or the lack thereof. God chose the poor to the world, puts individual election during our lifetime, after we are "rich in faith" and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God.

(2) "There is a distinction between:

* inherent omniscience - the ability to know anything that one chooses to know and can be known.
* total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known."


The above quote is from Wikipedia's article on Omniscience.

Note that my view does not address "what can be known" because God could know everything.

(3) All means whatever the author intended. Not what some philosophical claim says.
If we use your defintion in 1 Timothy 2:4 we have God desiring all men to be saved, not just the elect.

(4) My view does not limit God, but because God is all powerful, He has the power to limit Himself. To deny this is to deny the deity of God.

(5) Scripture says God remembers no more. Since this is contrary to your man-made doctrine you say scripture does not mean what it says. I believe these verses mean what they say.

(6) God does us figurative language, He is spirit and so does not have a "face, eyes, hands, back and front." But when this truth is extrapolated to include what He does have, "intellect, will, and emotion" is to deny the deity of God once again. He can remember no more forever, an operation of His very real spiritual mind.

 

[Skandelon]

Van, in an earlier post you seemed to equate divine foreknowledge of your choice with predetermination of that choice. Is that correct?

Do you believe God chose to know of your choice to believe in Him? If yes, then do you equate that with predetermination? If no, then are you also saying that God wasn't aware (foreknowing) of any of your works since you came to faith? Did he not foreknow you would witness to a friend, write theology on a Christian forum, preach, disciple others etc?

Thanks

 

[DHK]

Hi DHK,

(1) Nothing in scripture supports you claim James was referring to Matthew 5:3. The context as I have shown, requires the reference to be of material wealth, or the lack thereof. God chose the poor to the world, puts individual election during our lifetime, after we are "rich in faith" and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God.

The context of the Book of James does not support your view. If your view was correct than all the poor (not only in America, but in Mexico, India, all the third world countries) would inherit the kingdom of heaven. We know this is not true.

(2) "There is a distinction between:

* inherent omniscience - the ability to know anything that one chooses to know and can be known.
* total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known."
The above quote is from Wikipedia's article on Omniscience.

Wikipedia is not a good source for reliable definitions. Look in other dictionaries:

Omniscience
1. having infinite knowledge or understanding
2. having very great or seemingly unlimited knowledge
omniscience
1610s, from M.L. omniscientia "all-knowledge," from L. omnis "all" (see omni-) + scientia "knowledge" (see science).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omniscience

1. One having total knowledge.
2. Omniscient God. Used with the.
[Medieval Latin omnisci

ns, omniscient- : Latin omni-, omni- + Latin sci

ns, scient-, present participle of sc

re, to know; see skei- in Indo-European roots.]
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/omniscience

om·nis·cient (äm nis̸h′ənt; Brit & Cdn, -nis′ē ənt)
adjective
having infinite knowledge; knowing all things
Webster's New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.
Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/omniscient

You can't get away with the simple etymology of the word which I have given you repeatedly: all + science = all-knowing or omniscient. That is the only definition that is applicable to an eternal God.

Note that my view does not address "what can be known" because God could know everything.

It is not that he could; he does know everything. Anything less than that is taking away from his deity.

(3) All means whatever the author intended. Not what some philosophical claim says.
If we use your defintion in 1 Timothy 2:4 we have God desiring all men to be saved, not just the elect.

That is true. That is his will. His will is not accomplished here because of the depravity of man whom he gave free will.

(4) My view does not limit God, but because God is all powerful, He has the power to limit Himself. To deny this is to deny the deity of God.

You limit God in his power. You take away from his power. You take away from his knowledge. This is quite an amazing point of view; to make God less than who he is.

(5) Scripture says God remembers no more. Since this is contrary to your man-made doctrine you say scripture does not mean what it says. I believe these verses mean what they say.

Scripture says that God has wings also.
It also says that he has a back and a right arm.
Do you believe these things also? Is this "my man-made doctrine of saying scripture does not mean what it says," or your denial that there are metaphors in the Bible.

(6) God does us figurative language, He is spirit and so does not have a "face, eyes, hands, back and front." But when this truth is extrapolated to include what He does have, "intellect, will, and emotion" is to deny the deity of God once again. He can remember no more forever, an operation of His very real spiritual mind.

Again does God have wings.
To be more explicit, when Jesus said "I am the door," what kind of door was he? double or single? Wooden or metal? What was the size of the door? You are denying the use of metaphors in the Bible.

According to Scripture (and your interpretation thereof) what does this verse mean:
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:6)
--Are we the sheep?
If so, do you look like one?

 

[Van]

Hi Skandelon, What I said, if I recall correctly, is this view seems sound to me. Boettner's argument that to foreknow requires a certain future. Thus inorder to foreknow something, it must be predestined. This makes sense logically to my finite mind. But since with God all things are possible, it would not be something a person could assert with integety as biblical doctrine. But if Boettner's logic is sound, then if a choice is foreknown, it is predestined. Therefore according to this logic, God would choose not to foreknow who would come to faith in order to not predestine that choice.

I believe God knows everything about our present condition, and our past, and if He searches our hearts, He knows what we will choose in the future, given such and such a circumstance.

I believe the idea of an existent future, just hidden behind the vail of time, is fiction. I believe God allows us to make autonomous decisions that alter the outcome of our lives, that our future is not determined by our past, unless God intervenes and limits our range of choices. So once saved, I believe God protects our faith and devotion to Jesus, such that we are kept for our reward in heaven.

Now lets consider the future. Part of the future is predestined. God has declared what will happen and that part of the future will happen because God will fulfill His prophecy.
If God spiritually places us "in Christ" we are then predestined to be bodily resurrected, for example, so we cannot lose our salvation.

Lets take a look at the Arminian view, God knew who would come to faith and chose them before the foundation of the world. (1) this does not explain why God chooses individuals during their lifetime, James 2:5. (2) If God chose us in Him corporately, then according to my logic, He did not need to know who would choose to trust in Christ before creation. So there is no logical basis for claiming He did. Of course He could have, but without support in scripture, the view must be considered conjecture.