The Theory of God's [lack of] Omniscience

[Poly]

Originally posted by dave boy

Bye.

See YA!!! :wave2:

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by dave boy

Clete, no offense.

But I have read your posts and you call people liars and jerks. Why doesn't anybody reprimand you?

On the other hand it looks like if people make comments against this Bob guy than they are booted off.

I think there is some serious biases on this site. I thought this site was open to discuss all different points of view, but looks biased to Bob's point of view only.

Why don't you just rename the site "enyart's theology online" and then people will know it's a waste of time to come here unless you follow Enyart.

Bye.

I respect Enyart, but am not familiar enough with him to judge. I have disagreed with "The Plot" and am allowed academic freedom and courtesy at this site. Show respect and you will be respected.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by dave boy

Clete, no offense.

But I have read your posts and you call people liars and jerks. Why doesn't anybody reprimand you?

Because I do not do so without cause.

On the other hand it looks like if people make comments against this Bob guy than they are booted off.

Only if they do so without cause after having been repeatedly warned to chill out.

I think there is some serious biases on this site. I thought this site was open to discuss all different points of view, but looks biased to Bob's point of view only.

You haven't been here nearly long enough to make such a judgement. If this we actually the case, it would be a pretty dad gum borring web site. Bob Enyart is venerated pretty highly around here because he happens to be the pastor of the guy who owns the web site (as well as several others of us) but what has occured on this single thread should not taken as normative for the site as a whole. Knight is actually way more toterant of people like jjjg than he should be. jjjg's been a waste of time on this board for a very long time. His uncalled for attack on Bob (who is not here to defend himself) was merely the straw that broke the camel's back.

Why don't you just rename the site "enyart's theology online" and then people will know it's a waste of time to come here unless you follow Enyart.

Because that would be a lie, frankly.
How well do you know jjjg, by the way?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by godrulz

I respect Enyart, but am not familiar enough with him to judge. I have disagreed with "The Plot" and am allowed academic freedom and courtesy at this site. Show respect and you will be respected.

Well said! :BRAVO:

 

[1Way]

Poly! ,,, Clete! Hey there, how's it going?

:thumb:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I banned jjjg errrrrr.... dave boy.

 

[1Way]

dave boy,

Of all things...

You said

Reason might lead us to making a leap of faith, but faith itself is mystery and our full understanding of the free will/full knowledge of God is partially mystery to us.

Maybe that is where the real argument lies. Not necessary in God being all knowledgable, but that he predestines us for heaven or hell.

I always find it hard to hear someone promote ignorance, but that you do so over such an important and reasonable aspect of Christianity, is especially sad. God plainly speaks to ignorance and knowledge and irrationality concerning us and Him and salvation, that we should

• have a full assurance of understanding
  love the truth that you might get saved,
  and that "the truth is what sets you free indeed.

Faith in God is not so much of a mystery, rather it is substantial and evidential, it's rational, intelligent, and true.

There's always some brave souls who "know better" by siding with ignorance and irrationality. No one is saying that God can be fully known, especially this side of life eternal.

Nowhere in the bible does God's word teach that God predestines particular individuals for heaven or hell. So why do you keep promoting the "knowledge" of such a foreign concept, but at the same time you promote a mysterious leap of faith and mystery about God,,, our savior of all things?

 

[Poly]

Originally posted by 1Way

Poly! ,,, Clete! Hey there, how's it going?

:thumb:

Hey 1Way! Good to see you again.

 

[Janus]

Dear 1 way,
You describe faith as 'about as rational and scientifically based as could be. God asks us to believe in things not seen because of things we experience and know and fully understand.'

Cool, rationally why shy should I believe the scripture if there is no primary source available. Science is an art of observation and repetition (speaking as an engineer). What miracles are we observing and are repeating. If this is what God tells us about faith surely the deduction is "don't believe in organized religion" after all isn't it responsible for most of the wars in history. The very antithesis of Jesus' message.

 

[Turbo]

Janus, you're post is completely off-topic.

Post your questions in a new thread if you want.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by 1Way

Poly! ,,, Clete! Hey there, how's it going?

:thumb:

Hey! Where've you been?

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Janus

Dear 1 way,
You describe faith as 'about as rational and scientifically based as could be. God asks us to believe in things not seen because of things we experience and know and fully understand.'

Cool, rationally why shy should I believe the scripture if there is no primary source available. Science is an art of observation and repetition (speaking as an engineer). What miracles are we observing and are repeating. If this is what God tells us about faith surely the deduction is "don't believe in organized religion" after all isn't it responsible for most of the wars in history. The very antithesis of Jesus' message.

Janis,

Turbo is right, this is better suited for another thread but your answer is here...

The Impossibility of Atheism

You'll have to read a good portion of the thread but Hilston does an excellent job of proving the logical incoherence of unbelief.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Janus]

Originally posted by 1Way

2 - God describes faith as being substantial and evidential, it's about as rational and scientifically based as could be. God asks us to believe in things not seen because of things we experience and know and fully understand. The Christian faith is a fully rational and reasonable faith.

Sorry Turbo, wasn't entirely off point, just reffering back a few postings. The argument stands

 

[Turbo]

It's called a tangent, Janus, and it would distract from the main topic of this thread.

Let your argument "stand" in a new thread if you want you want to discuss it. This is not the place for it.

 

[Ninjashadow]

Originally posted by 1Way

ninjashadow,
I went back and I did not see you answer any of my posts. I have posted to you three different times with two different posts and this was your first response. I'm not trying to rush you, I'm just trying to understand why you said that you had already responded.

You said You don't seem to be clarifying things between your view and mine. Please explain your answer in light of my view. Here is what I said. Do you mean, for example, that God chooses to be an everlasting God? I gave you some specific examples to show how I think your view was wrong, but you did not respond to any of them. Do you agree or disagree with my view on point 1?

You said Here is what I said. The issue of free will is not so much about choosing what you want to do or not, because a computer or a puppet can simulate that pretty well, yet most people do not agree that a puppet or a computer has free will. You need to eliminate others from control over your will, you are free to govern your own will from any other sources than yourself. And to utilize freewill, you must live in a world where various outcomes to any given situation may happen as a result of personal choices.

Now, back to your theology as I understand it so far. By your view, no one can do whatever they want to do, they have no choice but to do what God foreknows they must do. The lack of optional outcomes eliminates free will because there are no alternative choices to choose from, it's, would you like a cheeseburger and fries tonight, or how about the manager's special instead? It's a cheeseburger with fries! That is not a choice, there are no alternatives, no options, thus, no free will.

Here is what I said. You said If you emphasize that God has no limits, then maybe that sounds reasonable, but if you consider that God is righteous and just and holy and good and does not lie, then your idea servers strongly to contradict (in various ways or degrees) all of these well known facts about God! God is a bit sensitive about how people represent God, He requires that His followers should not portray Him in a bad light. To say that you are changing your mind, when all along you never changed your mind, is a perfect lie and a logical contradiction that can not be true. However God is true and He does not lie, so it is elementary that God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge and also changes His mind because they are completely incompatible.

First of all, I'm sorry that the post didn't show up. I typed it and hit submit and the computer acted like it posted it, but apparently not. I've been having problems with my server.
Secondly, I think that God is everlasting because He is. What I meant when I said that He has self imposed limitations, I meant that there are somethings that he could do, but limits himself to not doing.
I've changed my stance slightly and I know believe that the future is both open and closed.

 

[Lighthouse]

Firstly, "Banus?":darwinsm:

Okay, now, ninjashadow...why do you not respond to my questions?

 

[Ninjashadow]

In case anyone didn't see my reply to 1way, I have changed my stance slightly. I believe that the future is both open and closed. Or at least half and half. The reason I have done this is because, doing my own research, I found many passages where God seems to have changed is mind and the passages were the same in context to the rest of the passages. Secondly, I have come to the conclusion that God CHOOSES to limit His knowledge of the future, but COULD have exhaustive foreknowledge if He so wished. So, good sir Knight, mark me down as a "middle viewist."

 

[Ninjashadow]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Firstly, "Banus?":darwinsm:

Okay, now, ninjashadow...why do you not respond to my questions?

Read my last few posts, right before this one. Also, I am having problems with my server and cannot always stay connected for long and I am doing my best to get to everyone.

 

[Lighthouse]

Okay.

Well, I have a question for you. If God knows that Skip will never become a Christian, and Skip's brother [we'll call him Jack] is a Christian, and he prays that Skip will get saved, what does Jack's prayer accomplish? The answer would be nothing, right? But Jack is a righteous man, and the Bible says his prayers will availeth much, don't they? So why doesn't Jack's prayer have any effect? Especially when he witnesses to Skip every occasion he can? And others do too. My real question here is this, why pray for change, if there are no options other than what God knows? Is it merely because we don't know? Or do we pray, hoping that God might change His mind [as David did], or that He might influence change, like bringing someone to Himself? If God can change, than how is the future known?

 

[Ninjashadow]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Okay.

Well, I have a question for you. If God knows that Skip will never become a Christian, and Skip's brother [we'll call him Jack] is a Christian, and he prays that Skip will get saved, what does Jack's prayer accomplish? The answer would be nothing, right? But Jack is a righteous man, and the Bible says his prayers will availeth much, don't they? So why doesn't Jack's prayer have any effect? Especially when he witnesses to Skip every occasion he can? And others do too. My real question here is this, why pray for change, if there are no options other than what God knows? Is it merely because we don't know? Or do we pray, hoping that God might change His mind [as David did], or that He might influence change, like bringing someone to Himself? If God can change, than how is the future known?

That is one reason why I have altered my belief a little bit. If the future is exhaustively known, then prayer is obsolete. However, I still think that part of the future is closed, otherwise there could be no prophecies in the bible and Revalation is no good.