Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The omniscience of god?
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 61 of 70 (532103)
10-21-2009 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blzebub
10-13-2009 2:03 PM


The OP
OK, so that seems quite clear: god is everywhere, he sees everything, and nothing is hidden from god. (Well, what would you expect, given that he's almighty, and all that? A biblical CCTV system should have been a piece of cake.)
But apparently, there's a few glitches:
Exodus 12:13 (King James Version): And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.
The point here, I think, is that God is teaching that He will not look inside the house to see who or what kind of person is inside. It is enough that He sees the blood on the outside.
This is a foreshadow of eternal redemption in Christ. Justice is imputed in His death. The only requirement is to be inside. What you are and what you did is taken care of. The blood on the outside for God to see justifies the one who abides in the house on which the blood is smeared.
"When I see the blood I will pass over you."
No human knows the extent of the value of that blood (ie. ultimately the blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God). No one knows HOW MUCH it means to God. Its eternal worth is impossible for man to calculate. God knows its worth. When God sees the blood of the Son's redemption He will pass over in His damnation of the sinner because justice has been imputed already on his behalf in the death of the Son of God.
How much He knows, and the issue of onmiscience, is probably too hard for me to answer. But I don't think the paradox presented to my finite mind of the eternally transcendent God is a "glitch". He clearly interacts with time and history though He "inhabits eternity".
Who am I to say He's not allowed to do that?
The Israelites have to mark their houses with blood in order for God to see which houses they occupy and "pass over" them, whilst he's doing a bit of light genocide. You'd think he'd know which people were which!
"I'm more righteous than God. At least I wouldn't have done that."
Okay. Some people think that way. A little jab along the way while talking about omniscience, is expected.
Also:
1 Samuel 8:21-22 (King James Version): And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD.
And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.
Samuel has to tell god what people have been saying.
I don't think things are a surprise to God. I think it is ourselves that need to see what is in us. God dealt with man in ways that often served to help man to see what was in himself.
It is not that God needed to know.
Also:
Genesis 4:9 (King James Version): And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
Of course God knew. He is giving Cain opportunity to confess. No glitch here, I think.
If you ever had kids be naughty, knowing exactly what they did, you as a parent may ask them "What did you do?"
You know. You are helping them to realize with their conscience. No glitch here I think.
God doesn't know where Abel is, and has to ask. He gets a cheeky response from Cain.
This case is similar to that of Adam who ran off to hide. God's first question was "Where are you?"
Experience is that the Holy Spirit sometimes comes to the sinner after years of neglecting fellowship with God and asks the sinner "Where are you? Look at where you are? Look at what you have become? Where are you? Recognize yourself what has become of your life."
It is not that He doesn't know where I am in life. He is giving me to a chance to realize and confess where I am. This is love. This is not a faulty omniscience or a glitch.
The handy dandy "Bible Mistakes" books that come out regularly are really superfiscial.
Quite apart from the obvious contradiction between being all-powerful, and all-knowing, the all-knowing part seems a bit shaky at times.
All powerful God does not mean that He will do anything.
All knowing does not mean that He will not give man the opportunity to see what has happened to himself, though God knew and knows perfectly well.
There is understandably a paradoxical tension between a creature created with a free will and a transcendent Creator whose knowledge is infinite.
For practical purposes I sense no problem in my exercise of my choices. I don't sense any coercion. I don't have the sensation that God's omniscience usurps my human will.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blzebub, posted 10-13-2009 2:03 PM Blzebub has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Blzebub, posted 10-21-2009 12:58 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 62 of 70 (532107)
10-21-2009 10:25 AM


A Personal testimony of Divine Omniscience
Sharing personal testimonies in a hostile environment is problematic at times. But I am going to give this true testimony of what I believe must have been God's omniscience in my marriage.
When I got married my dear wife of over 30 years did not tell me this right away. It was years after we were united that she confessed this.
The first day I walked into the meeting hall of the church she said God spoke to her and said "That is the man you are going to marry"
Now, a few things have to be clarified:
1.) My wife did NOT want to be married period at that time. Her father had been an alcohol and home life had been a hell for her. She was not one of these women who was dying to find a husband. She wanted nothing to do with a husband in those days. She never came to any weddings. Whenever there was a wedding I noticed that she always had business across town to take care of.
2.) When I walked into the meeting hall for the first time I was oblivious to her. However generally speaking I was opened to being married.
3.) I had a very strong anti- pressure attitude. I resisted any kind of congregation match making. I was reactionary against any suggestion that this or that girl would make a good match for me.
4.) I had no concept that my future wife would be in that locality. I assumed that I would have to go traveling around the country to meet Miss Just Right. And I had a list. I fiercly guarded my freedom to choose. It was going to be my and only my choice who to marry, (if any woman would have me). It was going to me MY choice, not societies, the church's, or my family's, or my friends' decision.
To make a long story short, when I did notice and court this difficult woman, I had not an inkling of a sensation that it was anything else beside my freedom of choice. And through a difficult courtship which was on and off again, we eventually decided to marry.
Now, years latter she confessed to me. "You know the first day you walked into the meeting hall, God said to me That is the man you are going to marry. And I said to God, Okay but I am going to fight you on that."
It is mysterious to me that our coming together seemed 100% the result of my free will and that beforehand God knew that I would marry that woman.
I cannot defend how freedom of will and God's omniscience work together. That is a philodophical problem too hard for me to solve. But my wife and I did have that experience.
Oh, we were married in 1977 and raised two children who are now 27 and 30 years of age. And we are very very happy with each other. We now have some foster children as well.
I think God was omniscient here. Or at least He knew what was going to happen to two stubburn and independent minded people. How can I blame Him for being like that ?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 63 of 70 (532130)
10-21-2009 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by jaywill
10-21-2009 10:01 AM


The point here, I think, is that God is teaching that He will not look inside the house to see who or what kind of person is inside. It is enough that He sees the blood on the outside.
But if "The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good", the there's no need for god to "look" anywhere.
Of course God knew. He is giving Cain opportunity to confess. No glitch here, I think.
An omniscient being would already know that Cain wouldn't confess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by jaywill, posted 10-21-2009 10:01 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by jaywill, posted 10-21-2009 8:45 PM Blzebub has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 64 of 70 (532155)
10-21-2009 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by jaywill
10-21-2009 9:18 AM


Re: a few glitches
Jaywill:
Which is all Jastrow did, speak of the best fit. Read the quote again. Notice the expression "Astronomers have now found that they have painted themselves into a corner ... etc.". The best fit for the moment. Ie. at the present time the evidence points here.
Ok, let's review that quote:
"Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover .... That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."
The last sentence is pure nonsense. It is NOT possible to PROVE something like the theory of the universe - as I said in my last message. Scientific theories are simply the 'best fit' models that are currently available on evidence and our ability to technologically manipulate and intellectually infer based on that evidence uncovered at that time.
Whenever I hear anyone say something is 'proved' especially in relation to complex theorems (and they don't get any more complex than the theory of the universe - we still haven't got a unifying theory of gravity for instance) I wince. When it's a trained scientist who does it I wince even more....s(he) should know better!
and as for that statement "And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover"....well that is like the 18th century doctor who claimed man could never travel at greater than 30 miles an hour as the pressure of air on his rib cage would cause it to collapse!!
Beware of statements of sentiment - they are apt to leave a legacy of embarrassment. As far as Jastrow's comment here is concerned - do you know we are now within T^-23 seconds away from the big bang event itself - eighty years ago we didn't even know that there was a big bang at all....it's only a matter of time (pun intended!).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by jaywill, posted 10-21-2009 9:18 AM jaywill has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 65 of 70 (532156)
10-21-2009 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by jaywill
10-21-2009 9:31 AM


Re: a few glitches
You're right Jaywill I was on the wrong thread altogether there...such was my desire to get the thread back on topic...oops!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by jaywill, posted 10-21-2009 9:31 AM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 66 of 70 (532183)
10-21-2009 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Blzebub
10-21-2009 12:58 PM


But if "The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good", the there's no need for god to "look" anywhere.
My way of reading the Bible is different from yours, I think. I learned to take in everything it says. The temptation to be selective is strong. But I have been trained to resist it. And I think it is a test to the human heart when God utters things in more than one way.
I think we are dealing with a very profound Being. And the unvieling of different aspects of His nature is progressive.
An omniscient being would already know that Cain wouldn't confess.
You may want to make the matter of omniscience the only subject in Scripture. But some of us see a lot of other things going on there besides manifestations of God's omniscience.
I think you are projecting how you would use omniscience if you possessed it. But that is your style. That may not be God's style. You may argue that there is no need for God to ask Cain "Where is your brother". But that's your style.
I come to the Bible very open minded and take in all the utterances found there to arrive at a well rounded understanding of the acts and ways of my heavenly Father. I don't like to get caught on a "one liner" and expect that that one line of thought is the only angle by which to comprehend this Eternal Father.
An omniscient being would already know that Cain wouldn't confess.
There is simply too much else to learn from Scripture for me to get hung up on this one passage around the matter of omniscience. He loved Cain and questioned him about his brother Abel.
Perhaps the only thing on your mind is efficiency. It was not necessary to ask for God, so why does He ask? Efficiency apparently was not the only thing in His heart.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Blzebub, posted 10-21-2009 12:58 PM Blzebub has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-23-2009 1:53 AM jaywill has replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 67 of 70 (532364)
10-23-2009 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by jaywill
10-21-2009 8:45 PM


Hi jaywill -- it's always a pleasure to read your posts.
jaywill writes:
I think we are dealing with a very profound Being. And the unvieling of different aspects of His nature is progressive.
I wonder... does this imply that it is inappropriate to use the term "omniscient" -- in an absolute sense -- to describe God? Would you consider it more appropriate to use the term in a more "relative" sense (something to the effect of: "compared to mankind, God knows so much more as to seem omniscient")?
Perhaps unrelated, but interesting to me: in using a description like "the progressive unveiling of ... His nature", which of the following would you say is progressive?
  • Each individual's personal understanding of this Being
  • The description(s) of this Being as revealed in the temporal sequence of biblical texts
  • The Being Himself (i.e. the nature of God may have been different in some sense, depending on when/by whom He was being considered
  • Any combination of two or more of the above
Your way of reading the bible is of course different from that of anyone who does not believe in the God of Abraham and of the Apostles (such as myself). Your approach to interpreting the text would seem to me to be an ongoing attempt to reconcile the various scriptural depictions into a single coherent entity that you believe surely exists (perhaps because you somehow directly sense its presence), that you choose to worship, and that you feel is the sole provider of tangible and essential benefits for you, and is even aware of (even knows) you as an individual.
In contrast, my interpretation of the text is simply an attempt to understand the thoughts and concerns of the people who wrote the text; I have no personal investment or expectations regarding its "factual" value. To me, it is mythology.
In any case, I think the OP topic might be better served -- even though this might not have been Blzebub's intention -- if you would try to answer this question: Based on your current belief and understanding, do you think God knows the choices you will make in your life, before you make those choices?
If you say "yes", that constitutes absolute omniscience, and it poses a number of logical difficulties (free will, mercy, and so on). On the other hand, if you say "no", perhaps that constitutes an untenable degree of ignorance on His part. If you say "it depends", then perhaps this makes God out to be not all that different from people in this respect -- sometimes we can tell what other people are going to do before they do it, and other times we can't.
If you say "I really don't know", then the next place to go might be to wonder where this notion of omniscience comes from, and how important is it, really? Given that some believers tend to speak often of God's omniscience -- of things being pre-ordained or pre-destined -- is this something that all believers should accept in the same way? Does it matter to you, and how so (or why not)?
Edited by Otto Tellick, : fixed silly typo

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by jaywill, posted 10-21-2009 8:45 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by jaywill, posted 10-23-2009 1:07 PM Otto Tellick has seen this message but not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 68 of 70 (532447)
10-23-2009 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Otto Tellick
10-23-2009 1:53 AM


I wonder... does this imply that it is inappropriate to use the term "omniscient" -- in an absolute sense -- to describe God?
I recall that I have heard in the past a theological argument leaning that way. I would have to review the subject.
Would you consider it more appropriate to use the term in a more "relative" sense (something to the effect of: "compared to mankind, God knows so much more as to seem omniscient")?
Statements of the Bible, without question, emphasize that God knows much more than humans. Some of His actions are probably designed to convince us of that. I don't think He needed to in order to convince Himself.
Perhaps unrelated, but interesting to me: in using a description like "the progressive unveiling of ... His nature", which of the following would you say is progressive?
Each individual's personal understanding of this Being
The description(s) of this Being as revealed in the temporal sequence of biblical texts
The Being Himself (i.e. the nature of God may have been different in some sense, depending on when/by whom He was being considered
Any combination of two or more of the above
1.) "Each individual's personal understanding of this Being"
I surely would have to confirm this in the life of Abraham, Sarah, as well as even with Hagar the slave woman, and Jacob and others. Since they are all representatives of common people, it would be true of others as well.
The promise of Jesus that He will manifest Himself to His disciples, I would regard, as not a once for all event. It should be deepening and progressive. The epistles of the apostles point to this and they took the lead in the personal experience of Christ.
"He who has My commandments and keeps them, he is he one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will manifest Myself to him." (John 14:21)
Since "him" is used in such an individual way, I understand a progressive revelation of Christ to the individual.
The description(s) of this Being as revealed in the temporal sequence of biblical texts
I would not be surprised if one day we could throw our Bibles away, not out of disrespect but because God's manifestation has encreased to a tremendously greater degree. I do not think that time is before the second coming of Christ. But if "the former things will not be remembered" in the new heaven and new earth perhaps the present day revelation will have been so surpassed that we will not need the Bible:
"For I am now creating new heavens and a new earth, and the former things will not be remembered, nor will they come up in the heart. But rejoice and exult forever, in what I create ..." (See Isaiah 65:17)
I won't be discarding my Bible on this side of the second coming of Christ however.
The Being Himself (i.e. the nature of God may have been different in some sense, depending on when/by whom He was being considered
That may be too difficult for me to answer briefly or at all.
For the Word to become flesh (John 1:14) surely reveals God taking upon Himself what He did not previously have, human nature. The incarnation, I think, has to be thought of as change of God.
The last time I spoke this way to a Brethren Bible teacher he questioned "How can there be a change in perfection?" And I had no reply. However I cannot deny that the there are two great becommings in the New Testament:
"The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us ..." (John 1:14)
" ... the last Adam [Christ] became a life giving Spirit" 91 Cor. 15:45)
These "becommings" indicate that something happened to the Divine Being and there was a before that becomming and an after that becomming. Is that a change in God? I am still meditating on that.
Another paradoxical issue to complicate it is that sense God transcends the time element, He appeared as a man in the Old Testament a number of times. This was before the incarnation, ie. before "the Word became flesh". He could appear to Abraham in Genesis 18 as a man and even have lunch with he and his wife. And He appeared as a man and wrestled with Jacob.
I would like to think more about your last proposition. If I understand you correctly you are speaking about an actual progression in God's Being and nature. We do have:
1.) The eternal God becoming a man in John 1:1,14.
2.) The man becomming a "life giving Spirit" in First Corinthians 15:45 and John 14.
3.) I would have to add this God imparting His life and nature into all of His redeemed people so as to deify them into a corporate expression of Himself - "New Jerusalem".
Your way of reading the bible is of course different from that of anyone who does not believe in the God of Abraham and of the Apostles (such as myself).
Of course that is true. But I would not say it is absolutely the case. In the revelation of God, the impression of some passage from the Bible might come across the same way even to an unbeliever as it comes across to a believer. The reaction to that speaking may be different.
"All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" conceivably could hit the atheist the same way it hits the believer in Christ. Yet one may recoil and close up to the Holy Spirit whereas the other may be convicted and open up to the Holy Spirit.
I count this as not different readings of God's book but as different reactions to it.
Your approach to interpreting the text would seem to me to be an ongoing attempt to reconcile the various scriptural depictions into a single coherent entity that you believe surely exists
I think perhaps man does have an innate tendency to want to reconcile differences and to produnce oneness. Robert Govette writes that it is a glory to human intellect to trace different results to one principle. Man aims is to clear up ambiguities. to show how, through varied appearances, one law holds. And Govette says that anything that stands in the way of the completeness of this, he eludes or denies, as something destructive of the glory of the efficiency of his discovery.
So I also have this urge to reconcile Bible passages. However, I think I see that I have that need. And I suspect that Bible's way of putting forth opposing principles is evidence that it is not merely a work of human invention.
Look at the order of God's cretion. The planets are moving in a beautiful order around the sun. But not one force is at work, but two: two forces pulling each particle of matter in two opposited directions at the same instant. If only one force was at work the earth would fly away into infinite space. Let the other prevail and it would be sucked into the furnace of the sun.
So as in creation God's revelation has more than one force operating. We may not always be able to reconcile the differences. I have learned to trust that God has spoken both truths and that I should not use one to fight against the other.
(perhaps because you somehow directly sense its presence), that you choose to worship, and that you feel is the sole provider of tangible and essential benefits for you, and is even aware of (even knows) you as an individual.
The sense of the Holy Spirit to me is very real. However, He is not always sensed. Like the human body, sometimes you are only really conscience of your body when something is wrong. In a similar way many times I only become aware of the Holy Spirit when something is not right with my walk with Christ. When there is normality, I may not sense the Spirit that much.
Fact preceeds feeling though. I have seen people accept Jesus with strong inner senses at once. I have also seen people receive Jesus with no particular sense of having changed. In some cases a few months passed by before they seemed to ignite with the realization that they have been changed.
The natural life can start very very small. And the divine life in regeneration also can begin very imperceptibly small. A man may pray "Lord Jesus, I receive you as my Lord and Savior". No thunder or lightening. Then a few days latter he notices the color of the grass as he has never noticed before. He realizes "Something has happened to me." He has been reconciled to the heavenly Father.
In contrast, my interpretation of the text is simply an attempt to understand the thoughts and concerns of the people who wrote the text; I have no personal investment or expectations regarding its "factual" value. To me, it is mythology.
I understand. I am happy that you are reading the text. You may still become like me if though.
I recall the experience of a lawyer friend of mine. He's a very smart man. He was a staunch unbeliever. But he went through a very painful divorce. He told me that during the time of his pains he would sit in his motel room. Across the room was a Gideon Bible. He said he didn't read it. He just sat there looking at it, wondering, thinking, feeling his pain, considering whether he should turn to God.
I can see him there just sitting in that lonely room just staring at a Bible on a table. Somewhere along the line, I don't know when, Jesus Christ came into his life. He never opened that Bible but he got saved.
In any case, I think the OP topic might be better served -- even though this might not have been Blzebub's intention -- if you would try to answer this question: Based on your current belief and understanding, do you think God knows the choices you will make in your life, before you make those choices?
I think maybe He does. However, I have no clue as to what my choice will be. And I feel no coercion whatsoever.
Free will and God's foreknowldge must both at work in a way beyond my finite understanding.
I tried to bring this out in my exposition on the very last verse of the Bible Revelation 22:21 - "The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the saints."
After the future of mankind and the direction of history has been foretold by God, there is no sense that the believers should just fatalistically wait. Rather, the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ is there to nourish their cooperation, endurance, encouragement, and fellowship with God.
I think that God's desire to put Himself into man is not that much effected by His foreknowledge of possible omniscience. He wants the grace of Christ to be dispensed into the believers. I tend to read the Bible with this focus of God wanting to impart His Spirit into man as the center matter. His foreknowledge, omniscience, predistination, pre-awareness, etc. all seem to be secondary to this.
God asked Cain "Where is your brother?" A principle is set that He wants Cain's heart of love and harmony. Touting divine foreknowledge seems secondary somehow.
If you say "yes", that constitutes absolute omniscience, and it poses a number of logical difficulties (free will, mercy, and so on).
I don't believe I can eliminate all "logical difficulties" from the Bible at all. Perhaps I can only show that such difficulties are no insurmountable obstacles in studying what the Bible means in many places.
On the other hand, if you say "no", perhaps that constitutes an untenable degree of ignorance on His part. If you say "it depends", then perhaps this makes God out to be not all that different from people in this respect -- sometimes we can tell what other people are going to do before they do it, and other times we can't.
It is a rather mysterious matter. To repeat, in the life of Joseph, his dream instigated the hatred of his brothers. But their conspiratorial opposition to him, because of his dream, was the very catalyst that caused Joseph's dream to be fulfilled !
Here we have God's foreknowled knowing what is about to happen. And here we also have man's negative reaction to the prophecy actually causing the prophecy to become fulfilled.
You can imagine how frustrated Satan must feel in doing all he can to stop God. It must be like playing chess with an impossibly wise opponant.
Anyway, there is a logical difficulty with the Joseph story and other accounts which are unapologetically written in this Bible. I am suspicious that the writers surely must have realized the tension but wrote them just the same. My belief is they did because the events were true.
They could have easily omitted what they realized were "logical difficulties" involving paradoxical and contradictory details. I suppose either they were going out of their way to give human minds unsolvable puzzles or they were frank and faithful to the details of what actually happened.
I believe the latter to be the case.
If you say "I really don't know", then the next place to go might be to wonder where this notion of omniscience comes from, and how important is it, really? Given that some believers tend to speak often of God's omniscience -- of things being pre-ordained or pre-destined -- is this something that all believers should accept in the same way? Does it matter to you, and how so (or why not)?
As an evangelical Christian, I don't feel as strong a need to defend a creed of omniscience as you might expect. In the final analysis only what the Bible said is the most important thing. Man's theological creeds may be imperfect.
I think the ploy here with some people is to the Christian "Come here and defend the creed of the Omniscience of God. Explain its logical and philosophical problems."
The creed may be of limited help. But what the Bible said is to me more important. I take the creed of the omniscience of God as something theologians invented. It may have limitations.
Now let's set aside creed for the moment. If I am challenged then to explain how the biblical statements can be reconciled logically then. Sometimes I will respond by saying - "I don't know".
Then I hope for an easier question. But I believe the Bible and try to help people to believe it.
I am not sure if my attitude is that much different from that of the scientist. She hopes in the future she will better understand something which she cannot now explain. He recognizes that some things cannot be explained yet, but they are apparently the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-23-2009 1:53 AM Otto Tellick has seen this message but not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 69 of 70 (532631)
10-25-2009 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Blzebub
10-15-2009 5:54 PM


Re: a few glitches
Blzebub writes:
The thread is about omniscience. Omniscience means "all-knowing". This includes all events, thoughts and motives in the past, present and future. The biblical god doesn't satisfy these conditions, because he keeps changing his mind, and fails to anticipate future events (including various intercessions).
While he does know all about us at this present moment, there is evidence that he does not deliberately look into our futures to determine the outcome of future events.
Think about this. If God choose to foresee everything, then even before he made Adam and Eve, he would have known that they would disobey him. And yet God told the first couple Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it
This indicates that he did not know that they would fail to fulfill the prospect he had put before them. The only explaination for this is that he choose not to look into the future of the first couple.
The idea that God foreknows all the decisions we make would mean that he would be responsible for all that happens including wars, injustices, and suffering. But the evidence is that he does not use his omniscient ability in such a way to see our individual actions. The scriptures show that he encourages all people to choose the right course and to do good and turn away from badness.
this is also a part of having free will...if he used his omniscience to dertermine our actions, then free will becomes obsolete because our lives would be predestined by his own knowledge.
Blzebub writes:
Omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive. This is because an omniscient entity knows all their future thoughts, decisions and actions. This knowledge robs them of the power to alter any of their future thoughts, decisions and actions: hence they are not omnipotent.
The knowledge of the future does not rob God of his infinite power...it enhances it for the reason that he can alter his own course as he sees events developing. He can become whatever he needs to become in order to achieve his purposes.
When mankind rebelled, it didnt cause God to change his purpose as if he was now powerless to fulfill his purpose. It merely caused him to alter the course he was taking. He put a plan immediately into place to ensure his purpose would still be realised.
His ability to see the future when he chooses to, only enhances his ability to act in certain ways and display his infinite power.
Interestingly the name YWHY or Jehovah actually means
'He Causes to Become' This implies he can become whatever he needs to become to fulfill his purpose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Blzebub, posted 10-15-2009 5:54 PM Blzebub has not replied

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 70 of 70 (536436)
11-23-2009 3:48 AM


Omnipotence: God can achieve whatever His will wishes
Omniscience: God knows everything His will wishes to know
Omnipresence: God can be anywhere His will wishes to be
He wants to know what Sammuel and Cain will answer. He allows you to speak for yourself. Sometimes He won't ditate what your will wishes to say.
Moreover, God may choose to ignore those in hell under a separatoin from God.
Goat's blood is for the angels to see and to passover the Jews and head for the Epgysians. It's a prophecy that Blood of Jesus (male sheep) will leave Christian a mark to be saved. Egypsians mean the wicked, the dead.
Hades is under water like visually, as a result,
1) Baptism means we are buried in Hades then raised later on.
2) Moses (the name means "raise from water") is going to lead Jews to go across the Red Sea (water) to the promised Canaan, saving them from being enslaved.
Jesus is greater than Moses, He's going to lead Christians (raise from water) to go across Hades (Hades is sea-like) to the promised New Heaven and New Earth, saving them from being enslaved.
3) Noah's story means a spiritual ark which is under the construction will finally carry all the saved, that is, human minority (Noah's family) in human history, out of Hades (water).
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024