Omniscience means fatalism.

H

Hawkins

Active member
genuineoriginal said:
These verses are problematic in every attempt to explain the omniscience of God.

Genesis 18:20-21
20 And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.​

Click to expand...

Genesis 18:2,16 (NIV2011)
2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.

16 When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way.



God often spoke in a human sense to ancient humans such as Abraham. Three men (believed to be angels) are sent to witness the deeds of Sodom and Gomorrah. All God wants is the legitimacy for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed not in accordance to God's foreknowledge but in accordance to open witnessing. On the other hand, God doesn't bother to explain what legitimacy and open witnessing are to Abraham the ancient human. The verses you quoted are an alternative way to describe the situation in order to make sense to Abraham.


In a similar fashion, God has all the names of the saved in the Book of Life of the Lamb. We are however not brought to heaven in accordance to His foreknowledge. We are brought to Heaven in accordance to open witnessing and by the standard defined in the New Covenant. It's all about legitimacy instead of God's omniscience.
 
genuineoriginal

genuineoriginal

New member
Hawkins said:
God often spoke in a human sense to ancient humans such as Abraham. Three men (believed to be angels) are sent to witness the deeds of Sodom and Gomorrah. All God wants is the legitimacy for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed not in accordance to God's foreknowledge but in accordance to open witnessing. On the other hand, God doesn't bother to explain what legitimacy and open witnessing are to Abraham the ancient human. The verses you quoted are an alternative way to describe the situation in order to make sense to Abraham.


In a similar fashion, God has all the names of the saved in the Book of Life of the Lamb. We are however not brought to heaven in accordance to His foreknowledge. We are brought to Heaven in accordance to open witnessing and by the standard defined in the New Covenant. It's all about legitimacy instead of God's omniscience.
Click to expand...
You seem to be saying that what is written in the Bible is not to be accepted as being anywhere close to the truth.
 
George Affleck

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
genuineoriginal said:

2 Peter 3:8
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.​


One day is with the Lord as a thousand years: This is about God's ability.
God can do more in a day than mankind can do in a thousand years.
This is the meaning shown in the verse about what God will do at the end of the age.

2 Peter 3:10
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.​



and a thousand years as one day: This is about how God perceives the passing of time.
God is patient because to an eternal being a thousand years is a fleeting small amount of time.
This is the meaning shown in the verse about God's waiting.

2 Peter 3:9
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.​

Click to expand...

You are creating a false dichotomy to justify a belief you have about this verse.

It is speaking of "one" thing, not two. "be not ignorant of this one thing..."

The two statements are reversible. A day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day. This is one principle and teaches one thing; that God is not controlled by time. Adding to what God says is just as bad as taking away from it.
 
genuineoriginal

genuineoriginal

New member
Hawkins said:
You seem to reject an Almighty God with His omniscience, while lacking the capability to interpret the Bible verses correctly.
Click to expand...
I worship the Almighty God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and accept what His word states about Him not having the kind of omniscience that the Greek Philosophers invented.
 
Clete

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I was reading through the thread and got to post 17 and had to respond. Others, I'm sure, have already responded but I can't resist...

Arthur Brain said:
Even if God knew everything it wouldn't mean that people are "fated" to act. It's just foreknowledge of what will happen.
Click to expand...

First of all, can someone please explain to me how it is even possible for someone to allow themselves to utter such a blatantly self-contractor comment?

Even if the thought left my mind intact, by the time I had typed it out, I'd have said, "Umm, wait a minute. Let me rethink that one!" and then I'd have deleted it.


But, leaving that aside, there is a very specific response to this that I've posted several times in the past and that deserves being revisited...


Here's a "formal" argument that might help you see why foreknowledge would settled the future to whatever extent the knowledge is accurate. Note that we believe strongly that free will is based on the Principle of Alternate Possibilities. That is, free will means to have the ability to do or to do otherwise and that the following argument is based on that definition. Also read this sort of slowly. It can glaze your eyes over if you go on the next step before understanding the previous one. People have noted confusion on point two. "E" stands for anything that occurred in the past, in this case, the fact that yesterday, God infallibly believed T. If you have any questions about it, you can, of course, feel free to ask! :thumb:

Presume that T = You will answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am.
(1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
(2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
(3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
(4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of "infallibility"]
(5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of "necessary"]
(8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]
source​

Resting in Him,
Clete
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Clete said:
I was reading through the thread and got to post 17 and had to respond. Others, I'm sure, have already responded but I can't resist...



First of all, can someone please explain to me how it is even possible for someone to allow themselves to utter such a blatantly self-contractor comment?

Even if the thought left my mind intact, by the time I had typed it out, I'd have said, "Umm, wait a minute. Let me rethink that one!" and then I'd have deleted it.


But, leaving that aside, there is a very specific response to this that I've posted several times in the past and that deserves being revisited...


Here's a "formal" argument that might help you see why foreknowledge would settled the future to whatever extent the knowledge is accurate. Note that we believe strongly that free will is based on the Principle of Alternate Possibilities. That is, free will means to have the ability to do or to do otherwise and that the following argument is based on that definition. Also read this sort of slowly. It can glaze your eyes over if you go on the next step before understanding the previous one. People have noted confusion on point two. "E" stands for anything that occurred in the past, in this case, the fact that yesterday, God infallibly believed T. If you have any questions about it, you can, of course, feel free to ask! :thumb:

Presume that T = You will answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am.
(1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
(2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
(3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
(4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of "infallibility"]
(5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of "necessary"]
(8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]
source​

Resting in Him,
Clete
Click to expand...

It's quite easy. Knowing the future and what decisions people will make isn't the same as programming events and if you can't see the difference then I doubt any argument would convince you.
 
ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Arthur Brain said:
Knowing the future and what decisions people will make ....
Click to expand...

An omniscient God knows that, presented with a choice between A and B, artie will choose A and not B

artie is presented with a choice between A and B



what will happen?

will artie choose A or B?

can artie choose B?
 
George Affleck

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
A Mistaken Conception of Free Will

A Mistaken Conception of Free Will

Free will does not consist in freedom to choose which sandwich to have for lunch. This is not biblical freedom and man has always had this kind of ability.

Biblical free will consists in the ability to worship God in Spirit and in Truth; something that unbelievers are totally incapable of. That ability is given by God, by grace, and the free gift of faith is the mark that God has freed that person's will from the bondage of original sin into the liberty in which Christ's blood makes us free.

Adam was free to worship God and relinquished it for himself and all of his progeny. Bond-servitude resulted until Jesus Christ who was born with free will; born of Adam's race physically through Mary and not of Adam's race judicially, having no earthly father. All who come to God have done so, and will do so, based on redemption by grace through faith having had free will restored by their standing in Christ.

Any discussion of free will outside of the subject of redemption is vain philosophy.
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
genuineoriginal said:
If God knows the future and what decisions He will make, then He is fated to do it the same way without being able to do anything to change it.
Omniscience means God loses His free-will.
Click to expand...

The post wasn't concerning what God knew in advance but simply what people would do with such foreknowledge. There's a difference between knowing the future and controlling it which really should be obvious but for some reason for some of you people it isn't. It's bemusing why you put human constraints onto an omnipotent God as well. Maybe a day isn't as a thousand years and the reverse also?
 
genuineoriginal

genuineoriginal

New member
Arthur Brain said:
The post wasn't concerning what God knew in advance but simply what people would do with such foreknowledge. There's a difference between knowing the future and controlling it which really should be obvious but for some reason for some of you people it isn't. It's bemusing why you put human constraints onto an omnipotent God as well. Maybe a day isn't as a thousand years and the reverse also?
Click to expand...
I am not the one putting constraints on an Almighty God.
That is being done by the people that think God had to preordain every event that would ever happen and by the people that think God has exhaustive knowledge of every future event.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top