Great post, TB. I'm trying to keep in mind that the integrity of the Word is always at steak. It needs to be rightly-divided. There is a difference between a t-bone and a porterhouse. But the Word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder...
Now you've done it.
Man,
now I have to go eat something before I get into this subject.
19And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.
20For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
Psalm 147:2-5 (King James Version)
2The LORD doth build up Jerusalem: He gathereth together the outcasts of Israel.
3He healeth the broken in heart, and bindeth up their wounds.
4He telleth the number of the stars; He calleth them all by their names.
5Great is our Lord, and of great power: His understanding is infinite.
I Samuel 2:3b (King James Version)
for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.
Jeremiah 1:5 (King James Version)
5Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Isaiah 46:9-10 (KJV)
9Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
10Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
Isaiah 57:15a
15For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy
19And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.
20For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
This alone might be considered sufficient explanation in the eyes of some Christians.
God knows all things.
For those who wonder, Dictionary.com defines "omniscient" as
"1. having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things."
Looks like the Bible says God is "omniscient" right out of the barrel there.
Psalm 147:2-5 (King James Version)
2The LORD doth build up Jerusalem: He gathereth together the outcasts of Israel.
3He healeth the broken in heart, and bindeth up their wounds.
4He telleth the number of the stars; He calleth them all by their names.
5Great is our Lord, and of great power: His understanding is infinite.
If God's understanding is infinite, his knowledge must perforce be infinite. (How can he understand anything
He doesn't know?)
I Samuel 2:3b (King James Version)
for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.
"Knowledge" is one of God's Attributes. He is a God of Knowledge.
That means his knowledge is really up there.
Jeremiah 1:5 (King James Version)
5Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
I don't think Jeremiah posited any limitations to the knowledge of God- his entire life was in God's knowledge before he was born.
Isaiah 46:9-10 (KJV)
9Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
10Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
"Declaring the end from the beginning". God knows the conclusion before the beginning.
That's tough to do if you only perceive the present....
Isaiah 57:15a
15For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy
God inhabits Eternity.
We inhabit the present, minute by minute, but God inhabits all of time.
As I perceive it, to God, it's all already happened, and was so before humans ever walked the Earth.
Malachi 3:6a
For I am the LORD, I change not.
It's easy to see how a being that inhabits Eternity would be unchanging.
We all change-both physically as we age, and mentally as we add experiences.
For God to learn new things, to add to His knowledge, would mean He also changes.
Rationalizations and discussions are one thing, but if one cares what the Bible says, one's theories must be
fitted to what Scripture clearly says, and not the other way around.
With the DIRECT references clearly saying one thing, it's not particularly sensible to argue for the opposite,
5Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
It does not take away FREE will, it appears God knows his whole life before he was even formed - so God's hand was on him because he KNEW him before...
I've had a temporary change of heart (no I haven't change my pov on the subject) to take another crack at this subject.
Here is a question derived from the following doctrine:
Indeed, according to the doctrine of total inability (the first of the five points of Calvinism), the influence of sin has so inhibited the individual's volition that no one is willing or able to come to or follow God apart from God first regenerating the person's heart to give them the ability to love him.
If no one "is willing or able to come to or follow God without God "first regenerating" that "person's heart to give them the ability to love him." why would God not simply regenerate everyone's heart to love Him?
Either God is not all-powerful -- which the doctrine implies
Or God is not all loving -- which the doctrine also implies
Or the doctrine is false.
Perhaps a syllogism would help.
It takes God's power to regenerate a person's heart to come to Him.
If you have come to God it is because God has regenerated your heart.
If you have not come to God it is because God has not regenerated your heart.
Therefore it is God who determines who comes to Him and who doesn't.
Imo, there are far too many examples in the Bible that suggests that God may not be omniscient. For instance you have:
Genesis 22 – In this account you have Abram preparing to sacrifice his son.
In verses 11 and 12 it says "And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me."
In a simple reading of the text it seems apparent that God's knowledge is limited. In other words – How is it possible for this statement "now I know" to be true if the theology of God having fore-knowledge is true? In other words -- the verse seems to indicate that prior to Abram actually going as far as he did God didn't know Abram "fearest" Him. An all-knowing God would have known even before this that Abram did indeed "fear" Him.
Let's take a look at it.
Genesis 22. (NASB)
"1Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
2He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you."
3So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him and Isaac his son; and he split wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him.
4On the third day Abraham raised his eyes and saw the place from a distance.
5Abraham said to his young men, "Stay here with the donkey, and I and the lad will go over there; and we will worship and return to you."
6Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son, and he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So the two of them walked on together.
7Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and said, "My father!" And he said, "Here I am, my son." And he said, "Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"
8Abraham said, "God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." So the two of them walked on together.
9Then they came to the place of which God had told him; and Abraham built the altar there and arranged the wood, and bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood.
10Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.
11But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
12He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."
13Then Abraham raised his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him a ram caught in the thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram and offered him up for a burnt offering in the place of his son.
14Abraham called the name of that place The LORD Will Provide, as it is said to this day, "In the mount of the LORD it will be provided."
15Then the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven,
16and said, "By Myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son,
17indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies.
18"In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.""
======
Now,
avid readers of science fiction-or some comic-books- may be familiar with concepts of interactions between differently-dimensional beings.
what was the point of my digression into discussion of Flatland and a 5th Dimension, both fictional?
Simply this.
Both of them discuss conceptual existence where other dimensions, other levels of existence, are unperceivable
to people living in a limited number of dimensions.
In each case, those who exist in more dimensions must make measures to limit themselves to interact with
people in a more limited existence.
=======
We go into a look at Genesis 22.
I'll provide commentary as we go along.
Genesis 22. (NASB)
"1Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
[We know God knows where Abraham is- God's getting his attention.]
2He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you."
[There's been a number of different schools of thought on Abraham's instruction here. I think ALL the ones I've heard have
some merit here.
A) God mentions NOTHING about KILLING, and offering a human as a burnt offering, in Israel,
has meant they were separated to serve God for life. We saw that with Jephthah's daughter.
God mentions nothing about a KNIFE, WOOD, a ROPE, and whatever blunt instrument Abraham likely used to pop Isaac
in the head so he could tie him down and stab him or set him on fire.
So, does God intend Abraham to interpret this instruction as
"Kill your son for me at the designated location"?
Well, perhaps not. Then again, perhaps.
I think an intelligent argument can be made either way.
B) God almost certainly wanted Isaac set aside. We refer sometimes to time alone with God as a "mountaintop experience."
Did God want Isaac dedicated to Him, set aside, and brought alone to that mountaintop to educate him?
It is my belief that the evidence supports this, whether or not He clearly meant to indicate to Abraham
"just bring him and dedicate him" as opposed to "barbecue him."
Either instruction brings Isaac to the right place at the right time.
Furthermore, Abraham is past 100 years of age, and time is running out for God to raise up his replacement.
C) What was Abraham thinking?
Abraham received Isaac in the FIRST place by a reviving of "life" to himself and Sarah- Sarah was unable to bear children,
until God wrought a miracle in her. (God promised her, and she judged Him faithful who had promised.)
Raising the dead-for God-is not hard, as Abraham sees it. Abraham knows God promised him SPECIFICALLY that through
ISAAC-this here Isaac- will be all these things that haven't happened yet.
Therefore, nothing Abraham can do can change that.
Even if Abraham killed Isaac, burned him, and scattered the ashes,
God could produce a miracle, restore and raise Isaac, and then proceed to carry out His promises.
Hebrews 11:17-19 (NASB)
17By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son;
18it was he to whom it was said, "IN ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS SHALL BE CALLED."
19He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type.
Abraham had his trust in God, which he should have. Whether or not he had the wrong idea of how to offer his son,
he had the right devotion and trust.]
3So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him and Isaac his son; and he split wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him.
4On the third day Abraham raised his eyes and saw the place from a distance.
5Abraham said to his young men, "Stay here with the donkey, and I and the lad will go over there; and we will worship and return to you."
6Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son, and he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So the two of them walked on together.
7Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and said, "My father!" And he said, "Here I am, my son." And he said, "Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"
[i see Isaac had no idea what Abraham intended. Me, I think there's going to be quite an event when a 100-or-more-year-old man
tries to tie a young boy down to a wooden structure. I wish there was some text that addressed it....]
8Abraham said, "God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." So the two of them walked on together.
9Then they came to the place of which God had told him; and Abraham built the altar there and arranged the wood, and bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood.
10Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.
[Abraham is thinking "I will kill my son and set him ablaze as a burnt offering to God, and God shall raise him and
then carry out His promises." Abraham has AMAZING levels of trust in God.
Even with all those promises, I don't think I could have an heir late in life and accept killing him for God,
even at God's explicit instruction.
Was Abraham supposed to try to kill his son?
Or was that Abraham misunderstanding his instructions?
It doesn't matter- the result is exactly the same either way....]
11But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
12He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."
[1)Abraham has now been stopped from killing Isaac.
Immediate problem solved.
2) Isaac is now set aside for God, and on the mountaintop. He can now be educated by God with few distractions.
3) Did God mean Abraham to TRY to sacrifice Isaac,
or did He want Isaac simply dedicated to God?
Either way, God got it- Abraham did not withhold Isaac from God.
Abraham has demonstrated an unbreaking respect for God and obedience to His Will.
4) Did God know before this that Abraham was prepared to offer his son to God?
Yes, before He ever asked Abraham. (Scroll up in the thread- God knows the end from the beginning.)
Why, then, is He saying that "now He knows"?
Well,
if I wanted to be difficult, I could say
"The ANGEL is saying this. The ANGEL is limited in knowledge."
However,
I perceive this as ducking the issue.
God ALREADY knew. ABRAHAM probably didn't know until he did it.
Also, now everybody's physically where they were supposed to end up.
God-who DID know before- cannot lie.
He is declaring that He now has the PROOF that Abraham is that faithful.
God Himself did not need that proof-but He required ABRAHAM provide that proof for ABRAHAM's sake.
God LIMITED HIS INTERACTION with the puny human so that the human's little brain could keep up with God.
God demonstrated interaction on a level Abraham could comprehend.
Abraham knew God was transcendent, and had no limitations on knowledge or ability.
(Near as I can see, since he was confident about Isaac being brought back, and God's promises being guaranteed.)]
13Then Abraham raised his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him a ram caught in the thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram and offered him up for a burnt offering in the place of his son.
14Abraham called the name of that place The LORD Will Provide, as it is said to this day, "In the mount of the LORD it will be provided."
15Then the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven,
16and said, "By Myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son,
17indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies.
18"In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.""
[Again,
I see this as God phrasing and framing things in a manner that Abraham can comprehend,
limited Himself so Abraham can understand what he needs to.]
WW: I believe this is the first time I read something of yours I flat don’t understand.
“Consider a 3-dimensional being-such as one of us- attempting to interact with a realm where everything is 2-Dimensional.
They 2D'ers would not be able to perceive all of us in their realm-their realm doesn't HAVE enough dimensions to show us.
We would be perceived only when and where we intersect their realm- thus, we would APPEAR 2-Dimensional, and
only existing as the part that intersects theirs. If we rested, say, our fingertips there, we would be perceived
as 10 flat points- which is all they can perceive.
A 2-D'er would have great difficulty in understanding a 3rd dimension they have no method of perceiving at all.
The only way it COULD perceive a 3rd Dimension would be for a 3-D'er to pluck them from their realm and show them
existence in 3 axes of direction-at which point, it may perceive its own realm as greatly limited.
(Comic-book fans may be familiar with the 5th Dimension of Zrrff, home of Mr Mxyzptlk, Qwsp, Johnny/Jakeem Thunder's Thunderbolt,
and Bat-Mite. One JLA/JSA crossover shows Captain Marvel and Green Lantern in the 5th Dimension, looking like flat playing cards,
as they interact with the natives, who are simplifying themselves to interact with them. Several natives travel to Earth,
contracting from 5-dimensions into 3-dimensions to do so.)”--WW
I basically get the point of the above. I understand what you said about Abraham, and I agree, completely. I understand the ideas separately, I just can’t connect the two together. I am not trying to be dense, obtuse, dumb….I just don’t get it. Too abstract for me? I don’t know. It isn’t for lack of reading or trying. I’ve read it over and over. It isn’t as though I can’t understand abstract ideas. I just don’t understand this one…
Aside from that, I am more than delighted to see you active in the doctrinal section. This is a great thread and important, imo. I have high hopes you will get into God’s sovereignty at some point. I don’t quite buy twi’s ideas on dominion.
Spot, I wish you could read it in the original comics! :D
Again,
I see this as God phrasing and framing things in a manner that Abraham can comprehend,
limited Himself so Abraham can understand what he needs to.
That's your point about the other-dimension beings, right? God condescends to meet with man?
And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as [he did] unto us;
Larry, I don't know what to think about your progression of ideas. Predestination is a tougher nut than I can presently crack.
Another Dan, there are a couple of books that address God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility that you might enjoy: What Love is This? Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God by Dave Hunt and Chosen but Freeby Norman Geisler. Two good books with lots of food for thought.
Hunt in What Love is This? [page 220] quotes from H.A. Ironside’sFull Assurance [pages 93, 94] and points out that passages on predestination make no reference to “either heaven or hell, but to Christlikeness eventually. Nowhere are we told in Scripture that God predestined one man to be saved and another to be lost.” And on page 233 Hunt makes an important distinction: “The blessings that God has eternally purposed to bestow upon the redeemed have nothing to do with how they are saved but follow their salvation.”
Geisler’s Chosen but Freegoes over the variations of Calvinism and gets more technical than Hunt. I found something interesting on page 45 that I thought was appropriate for this discussion on what does God know:
“Let’s again illustrate the harmony of predetermination and free choice. Suppose you cannot watch your favorite sports event live on TV. So you videotape it. When you watch it later, the entire game and every play in it are absolutely determined and can never be changed. No matter how many times you rerun it, the final score, as well as every aspect of every play, will always be the same.
Yet when the game happened, every event was freely chosen. No one was forced to play. Therefore, the same event was both determined and free at the same time.
Someone may object that this is so only because the event has already occurred, and that before the game occurred it was not predetermined. In response we need only point out that if God is all-knowing [omniscient], then from the standpoint of His foreknowledge the game was predetermined. For He knew eternally exactly how it was going to turn out, even though we did not.
Therefore, if God has infallible foreknowledge of the future, including our free acts, then everything that will happen in the future is predetermined, even our free acts. This does not mean these actions are not free; it simply means that God knew how we were going to use our freedom – and that He knew it for sure.”
Larry, I don't know what to think about your progression of ideas.
I understand Dan. Let me see if I can crack that particular nut a bit for you. Please try to listen with your heart instead of your head.
In my opening post (and subsequent posts) I've spoke of only two theological attributes of God -- Omniscience and Omnipotence. There is a third -- Omnibenevolence.
Now I can love a God that isn't Omniscient. I can even love a God that isn't Omnipotent but, I can't love a God that is not Omnibenevolent. In my mind the first two (as is commonly understood) negates the latter. So in order for me to believe in and to love God I have to, in all good conscience, jettison the first two.
You see my friend -- If you need to believe in a God that's Omnipotent and Omniscient in order to love Him, I'm fine with that. The bottom line is we both want to love God. Whatever gets you to the place where your love of God is deepen -- I'm all for it. I can't imagine when we both meet God face to face that He'll look over at me and say: "Why didn't you believe that?" or look over at you and say: "Why did you believe that?" I think He'll look at us both and say: "You loved me well and that pleases me greatly."
Larry. You've got me thinking as to whether or not I could love a God who does not love me. Where my thinking comes to a stop (and my heart) is at the point of choice. There is but one God. There are many lords and many gods, but only one God. His knowing is beyond my knowing, His power beyond mine, and His love is beyond me. My fear of Him was the beginning of knowledge, my weakness the beginning of reliance on Him, the cross the beginning of my appreciation of His love. He "brought down" His love to earth.
Herein is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son....
Herein is love: that he gave his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers.
One time, a couple of friends of mine passed a bottle of Jack Daniels around as we sat around the campfire. That night, we settled every question we ever had, it seems, including the "God problem." And then we passed out. Trouble is, I couldn't remember in the morning what any of those answers were.
I basically get the point of the above. I understand what you said about Abraham, and I agree, completely. I understand the ideas separately, I just can’t connect the two together.
anotherDan:
'Again,
I see this as God phrasing and framing things in a manner that Abraham can comprehend,
limited Himself so Abraham can understand what he needs to.'
That's your point about the other-dimension beings, right? God condescends to meet with man?
Right.
I mentioned as much in the 2nd of the long posts, starting off.
me:
Now then,
what was the point of my digression into discussion of Flatland and a 5th Dimension, both fictional?
Simply this.
Both of them discuss conceptual existence where other dimensions, other levels of existence, are unperceivable
to people living in a limited number of dimensions.
In each case, those who exist in more dimensions must make measures to limit themselves to interact with
people in a more limited existence.
If you look at that link explaining Flatland, you may notice that the bottom of the page
mentions Carl Sagan discussing it on "Cosmos" once.
I saw that, and was introduced to the Flatland concept at that time.
When trying to conceptualize a God whose existence surpasses ours in more TYPES and not just
in magnitude (He isn't just "man, but moreso", He exists in ways we don't have names for),
I immediately went back to that explanation of Flatland.
Geisler’s Chosen but Freegoes over the variations of Calvinism and gets more technical than Hunt. I found something interesting on page 45 that I thought was appropriate for this discussion on what does God know:
“Let’s again illustrate the harmony of predetermination and free choice. Suppose you cannot watch your favorite sports event live on TV. So you videotape it. When you watch it later, the entire game and every play in it are absolutely determined and can never be changed. No matter how many times you rerun it, the final score, as well as every aspect of every play, will always be the same.
Yet when the game happened, every event was freely chosen. No one was forced to play. Therefore, the same event was both determined and free at the same time.
Someone may object that this is so only because the event has already occurred, and that before the game occurred it was not predetermined. In response we need only point out that if God is all-knowing [omniscient], then from the standpoint of His foreknowledge the game was predetermined. For He knew eternally exactly how it was going to turn out, even though we did not.
Therefore, if God has infallible foreknowledge of the future, including our free acts, then everything that will happen in the future is predetermined, even our free acts. This does not mean these actions are not free; it simply means that God knew how we were going to use our freedom – and that He knew it for sure.”
End of excerpts
I don't think I can improve on this explanation. This is how I see the interaction
I understand Dan. Let me see if I can crack that particular nut a bit for you. Please try to listen with your heart instead of your head.
In my opening post (and subsequent posts) I've spoke of only two theological attributes of God -- Omniscience and Omnipotence. There is a third -- Omnibenevolence.
Omniscience=All-Knowing.
Omnipotence=All-Powerful.
Omnibenevolence=All-Loving.
We can understand the basic concept of All-Knowing easily enough, more or less.
He knows EVERYTHING, past, present, future, to the tiniest degree.
We can understand the basic concept of All-Powerful easily enough, more or less.
He CAN do ANYTHING, so long as He chooses to, including squash our free will.
The problem with discussing "All-Loving" is that the ramifications of it are subject
to huge amounts of interpretation. There's a lot of PREDICTION when discussing
what God would WANT to do-which is hand-in-hand with His emotions like Love.
This means we get sentences like
"If God is Love, and He CAN end suffering, he would. Therefore, either He lacks the
POWER to end it, or doesn't CARE, or there is not God, pass me another tallboy."
Things along those lines, anyway.
We don't THINK like God, and CAN'T think like God. Predicting-or even pretending
to understand-the thinking of God is a futile effort.
The closest I can come is using a chess analogy, and the Big Picture.
A human chess player can consider possible moves long before the chessboard
reaches a stage where those moves would be used.
God can play with an infinite number of moves in mind, and act long before
something to prevent it or to make it happen.
He certainly has been seen to do so in Scripture. He told Noah-120 years beforehand-
about the Great Flood, and had him make preparations in that timeframe.
In the time of Daniel, 4 of His people taught wise men, whose students' students' students
(and so on) would see the stars, centuries later, and understand the birth of the King
of the Jews, and would then arrive at his home with gold and other valuables, then leave,
just when God needed to tell Joseph (and Mary and Jesus) to flee the country for their
lives- and could now say so when they had money (gold) for travelling in a hurry.
God acts on the long-term scale. God's plans are deep and we are not.
Now I can love a God that isn't Omniscient. I can even love a God that isn't Omnipotent but, I can't love a God that is not Omnibenevolent.
I can love a God that isn't Omniscient, Omnipotent, OR Omnibenevolent.
I love PEOPLE who are none of those things, and can love people who are
below average in knowledge and power, certainly.
What I may not be able to do is to put a lot of TRUST in someone whose
capabilities exceed the tasks he sets for himself.
In the case of God, my ability to trust a God who can make promises but not
offer 100% assurance of them- which a not-Omniscient and/or not-Omnipotent
God could not do- would be LIMITED.
In my mind the first two (as is commonly understood) negates the latter. So in order for me to believe in and to love God I have to, in all good conscience, jettison the first two.
You see my friend -- If you need to believe in a God that's Omnipotent and Omniscient in order to love Him, I'm fine with that. The bottom line is we both want to love God. Whatever gets you to the place where your love of God is deepen -- I'm all for it. I can't imagine when we both meet God face to face that He'll look over at me and say: "Why didn't you believe that?" or look over at you and say: "Why did you believe that?" I think He'll look at us both and say: "You loved me well and that pleases me greatly."
So, how do you define "All-Loving",
and what conditions do you require of God as the result of being All-Loving?
Some people would expect such a God to jump in and stop them from sinning.
Others would expect such a God to crush human suffering long before it was a huge issue.
(I answered my own question, phrased differently, earlier in the thread,
and visited another aspect of it in this post, if you're curious.)
Thank you WW. I understand now. You discussed “All Loving” on your post #29, page 2. Here’s some quotes from it:
“If all three statements are true, then there's something fundamentally missing from our understanding,
something that makes all of this make sense together, how a God of Love finds it sensible not to blast every instance
of evil from existence the moment it happened.
It is my conviction that this is true and that Scripture teaches this.
It is my belief that the matter missing is one of both FREE WILL and of the COMPLETE PICTURE.” --WW
“Am I stating I KNOW and can explain all suffering? No.
I'm saying that the little I DO know-and that's little enough but it's enough for you to see the basics-
is enough for me to be confident that trusting God and waiting for the ENTIRE PICTURE will mean it will all
make COMPLETE sense LATER.”—WW
For me personally I have no trouble accepting that there is evil or that bad things happen in light of God is love because I also believe He is righteous and just. I believe His judgments are just whether that is always evident right now or not. I would guess His righteousness and justice far exceed anything we can conceive of as well.
I can love a God that isn't Omniscient, Omnipotent, OR Omnibenevolent.
Good for you. I suppose that means that you could love Him even if that means that He might have predetermined that all of your children even before they were born would be damned to Hell. He just decided not to share that knowledge with you.
So, how do you define "All-Loving", and what conditions do you require of God as the result of being All-Loving?
No fair. I asked you a question earlier that has yet to be answered.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
35
22
37
44
Popular Days
Sep 11
26
Sep 4
24
Sep 12
19
Sep 6
16
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 35 posts
T-Bone 22 posts
another spot 37 posts
Larry N Moore 44 posts
Popular Days
Sep 11 2007
26 posts
Sep 4 2007
24 posts
Sep 12 2007
19 posts
Sep 6 2007
16 posts
Popular Posts
WordWolf
Actually, I've posted some things, and others have posted some things. In some things, we've agreed, and in some we have not. We call that "discussion." Personally, I'd prefer more posting at the
WordWolf
Oh, and for the benefit of those (or one) who don't see the benefit of it, I'm going to ask a slightly self-serving question. Are others of you appreciating my posts on this thread to date? The on
WordWolf
It's come up that if God's perception is limited strictly to the present- as some have suggested- then all He can offer is a general hope that everything turns out all right. (No, it's not been pos
WordWolf
Now you've done it.
Man,
now I have to go eat something before I get into this subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
1 John 3:19-20 (King James Version)
19And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.
20For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
Psalm 147:2-5 (King James Version)
2The LORD doth build up Jerusalem: He gathereth together the outcasts of Israel.
3He healeth the broken in heart, and bindeth up their wounds.
4He telleth the number of the stars; He calleth them all by their names.
5Great is our Lord, and of great power: His understanding is infinite.
I Samuel 2:3b (King James Version)
for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.
Jeremiah 1:5 (King James Version)
5Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Isaiah 46:9-10 (KJV)
9Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
10Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
Isaiah 57:15a
15For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy
Malachi 3:6a
For I am the LORD, I change not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
This alone might be considered sufficient explanation in the eyes of some Christians.
God knows all things.
For those who wonder, Dictionary.com defines "omniscient" as
"1. having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things."
Looks like the Bible says God is "omniscient" right out of the barrel there.
If God's understanding is infinite, his knowledge must perforce be infinite. (How can he understand anything
He doesn't know?)
"Knowledge" is one of God's Attributes. He is a God of Knowledge.That means his knowledge is really up there.
I don't think Jeremiah posited any limitations to the knowledge of God- his entire life was in God's knowledge before he was born.
"Declaring the end from the beginning". God knows the conclusion before the beginning.That's tough to do if you only perceive the present....
God inhabits Eternity.
We inhabit the present, minute by minute, but God inhabits all of time.
As I perceive it, to God, it's all already happened, and was so before humans ever walked the Earth.
It's easy to see how a being that inhabits Eternity would be unchanging.
We all change-both physically as we age, and mentally as we add experiences.
For God to learn new things, to add to His knowledge, would mean He also changes.
Rationalizations and discussions are one thing, but if one cares what the Bible says, one's theories must be
fitted to what Scripture clearly says, and not the other way around.
With the DIRECT references clearly saying one thing, it's not particularly sensible to argue for the opposite,
or to make the opposite one's pet theory.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
He knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
god is GOD ! :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
I love this WW
It does not take away FREE will, it appears God knows his whole life before he was even formed - so God's hand was on him because he KNEW him before...
An all knowing God, IMO
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wrdsandwrks
Excie I think you nailed it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I've had a temporary change of heart (no I haven't change my pov on the subject) to take another crack at this subject.
Here is a question derived from the following doctrine:
If no one "is willing or able to come to or follow God without God "first regenerating" that "person's heart to give them the ability to love him." why would God not simply regenerate everyone's heart to love Him?
Either God is not all-powerful -- which the doctrine implies
Or God is not all loving -- which the doctrine also implies
Or the doctrine is false.
Perhaps a syllogism would help.
It takes God's power to regenerate a person's heart to come to Him.
If you have come to God it is because God has regenerated your heart.
If you have not come to God it is because God has not regenerated your heart.
Therefore it is God who determines who comes to Him and who doesn't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Let's take a look at it.
Genesis 22. (NASB)
"1Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
2He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you."
3So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him and Isaac his son; and he split wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him.
4On the third day Abraham raised his eyes and saw the place from a distance.
5Abraham said to his young men, "Stay here with the donkey, and I and the lad will go over there; and we will worship and return to you."
6Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son, and he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So the two of them walked on together.
7Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and said, "My father!" And he said, "Here I am, my son." And he said, "Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"
8Abraham said, "God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." So the two of them walked on together.
9Then they came to the place of which God had told him; and Abraham built the altar there and arranged the wood, and bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood.
10Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.
11But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
12He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."
13Then Abraham raised his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him a ram caught in the thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram and offered him up for a burnt offering in the place of his son.
14Abraham called the name of that place The LORD Will Provide, as it is said to this day, "In the mount of the LORD it will be provided."
15Then the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven,
16and said, "By Myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son,
17indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies.
18"In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.""
======
Now,
avid readers of science fiction-or some comic-books- may be familiar with concepts of interactions between differently-dimensional beings.
In one direction, we have "Flatland."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland
Consider a 3-dimensional being-such as one of us- attempting to interact with a realm where everything is 2-Dimensional.
They 2D'ers would not be able to perceive all of us in their realm-their realm doesn't HAVE enough dimensions to show us.
We would be perceived only when and where we intersect their realm- thus, we would APPEAR 2-Dimensional, and
only existing as the part that intersects theirs. If we rested, say, our fingertips there, we would be perceived
as 10 flat points- which is all they can perceive.
A 2-D'er would have great difficulty in understanding a 3rd dimension they have no method of perceiving at all.
The only way it COULD perceive a 3rd Dimension would be for a 3-D'er to pluck them from their realm and show them
existence in 3 axes of direction-at which point, it may perceive its own realm as greatly limited.
(Comic-book fans may be familiar with the 5th Dimension of Zrrff, home of Mr Mxyzptlk, Qwsp, Johnny/Jakeem Thunder's Thunderbolt,
and Bat-Mite. One JLA/JSA crossover shows Captain Marvel and Green Lantern in the 5th Dimension, looking like flat playing cards,
as they interact with the natives, who are simplifying themselves to interact with them. Several natives travel to Earth,
contracting from 5-dimensions into 3-dimensions to do so.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
If it's all the same to you I would prefer that you address my last post. Can you show me how my syllogism is in error?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Now then,
what was the point of my digression into discussion of Flatland and a 5th Dimension, both fictional?
Simply this.
Both of them discuss conceptual existence where other dimensions, other levels of existence, are unperceivable
to people living in a limited number of dimensions.
In each case, those who exist in more dimensions must make measures to limit themselves to interact with
people in a more limited existence.
=======
We go into a look at Genesis 22.
I'll provide commentary as we go along.
Genesis 22. (NASB)
"1Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
[We know God knows where Abraham is- God's getting his attention.]
2He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you."
[There's been a number of different schools of thought on Abraham's instruction here. I think ALL the ones I've heard have
some merit here.
A) God mentions NOTHING about KILLING, and offering a human as a burnt offering, in Israel,
has meant they were separated to serve God for life. We saw that with Jephthah's daughter.
God mentions nothing about a KNIFE, WOOD, a ROPE, and whatever blunt instrument Abraham likely used to pop Isaac
in the head so he could tie him down and stab him or set him on fire.
So, does God intend Abraham to interpret this instruction as
"Kill your son for me at the designated location"?
Well, perhaps not. Then again, perhaps.
I think an intelligent argument can be made either way.
B) God almost certainly wanted Isaac set aside. We refer sometimes to time alone with God as a "mountaintop experience."
Did God want Isaac dedicated to Him, set aside, and brought alone to that mountaintop to educate him?
It is my belief that the evidence supports this, whether or not He clearly meant to indicate to Abraham
"just bring him and dedicate him" as opposed to "barbecue him."
Either instruction brings Isaac to the right place at the right time.
Furthermore, Abraham is past 100 years of age, and time is running out for God to raise up his replacement.
C) What was Abraham thinking?
Abraham received Isaac in the FIRST place by a reviving of "life" to himself and Sarah- Sarah was unable to bear children,
until God wrought a miracle in her. (God promised her, and she judged Him faithful who had promised.)
Raising the dead-for God-is not hard, as Abraham sees it. Abraham knows God promised him SPECIFICALLY that through
ISAAC-this here Isaac- will be all these things that haven't happened yet.
Therefore, nothing Abraham can do can change that.
Even if Abraham killed Isaac, burned him, and scattered the ashes,
God could produce a miracle, restore and raise Isaac, and then proceed to carry out His promises.
Hebrews 11:17-19 (NASB)
17By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son;
18it was he to whom it was said, "IN ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS SHALL BE CALLED."
19He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type.
Abraham had his trust in God, which he should have. Whether or not he had the wrong idea of how to offer his son,
he had the right devotion and trust.]
3So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him and Isaac his son; and he split wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him.
4On the third day Abraham raised his eyes and saw the place from a distance.
5Abraham said to his young men, "Stay here with the donkey, and I and the lad will go over there; and we will worship and return to you."
6Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son, and he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So the two of them walked on together.
7Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and said, "My father!" And he said, "Here I am, my son." And he said, "Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"
[i see Isaac had no idea what Abraham intended. Me, I think there's going to be quite an event when a 100-or-more-year-old man
tries to tie a young boy down to a wooden structure. I wish there was some text that addressed it....]
8Abraham said, "God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." So the two of them walked on together.
9Then they came to the place of which God had told him; and Abraham built the altar there and arranged the wood, and bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood.
10Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.
[Abraham is thinking "I will kill my son and set him ablaze as a burnt offering to God, and God shall raise him and
then carry out His promises." Abraham has AMAZING levels of trust in God.
Even with all those promises, I don't think I could have an heir late in life and accept killing him for God,
even at God's explicit instruction.
Was Abraham supposed to try to kill his son?
Or was that Abraham misunderstanding his instructions?
It doesn't matter- the result is exactly the same either way....]
11But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
12He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."
[1)Abraham has now been stopped from killing Isaac.
Immediate problem solved.
2) Isaac is now set aside for God, and on the mountaintop. He can now be educated by God with few distractions.
3) Did God mean Abraham to TRY to sacrifice Isaac,
or did He want Isaac simply dedicated to God?
Either way, God got it- Abraham did not withhold Isaac from God.
Abraham has demonstrated an unbreaking respect for God and obedience to His Will.
4) Did God know before this that Abraham was prepared to offer his son to God?
Yes, before He ever asked Abraham. (Scroll up in the thread- God knows the end from the beginning.)
Why, then, is He saying that "now He knows"?
Well,
if I wanted to be difficult, I could say
"The ANGEL is saying this. The ANGEL is limited in knowledge."
However,
I perceive this as ducking the issue.
God ALREADY knew. ABRAHAM probably didn't know until he did it.
Also, now everybody's physically where they were supposed to end up.
God-who DID know before- cannot lie.
He is declaring that He now has the PROOF that Abraham is that faithful.
God Himself did not need that proof-but He required ABRAHAM provide that proof for ABRAHAM's sake.
God LIMITED HIS INTERACTION with the puny human so that the human's little brain could keep up with God.
God demonstrated interaction on a level Abraham could comprehend.
Abraham knew God was transcendent, and had no limitations on knowledge or ability.
(Near as I can see, since he was confident about Isaac being brought back, and God's promises being guaranteed.)]
13Then Abraham raised his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him a ram caught in the thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram and offered him up for a burnt offering in the place of his son.
14Abraham called the name of that place The LORD Will Provide, as it is said to this day, "In the mount of the LORD it will be provided."
15Then the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven,
16and said, "By Myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son,
17indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies.
18"In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.""
[Again,
I see this as God phrasing and framing things in a manner that Abraham can comprehend,
limited Himself so Abraham can understand what he needs to.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Now then, I see that you would prefer NOT to address my syllogism. Fine. It stands un-refuted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Or maybe I was busy working on a significant post, and missed your question,
and it had nothing to do with "preference."
I'll look at it when I have time to review it and compose a thoughtful answer.
(I could just rattle something off, but I'd prefer not to.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
That's always a possibility. As for myself I usually will see if there's any response to my last post before posting another one. But that's just me.
At your leisure. I'm not going anywhere for at least awhile.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Oh and btw WW -- in case anyone has any problem with my syllogism allow me to clarify it.
Premise 1: It takes God's power to regenerate a person's heart to come to Him. True or false?
Premise 2: If you have come to God it is because God has regenerated your heart. True or false?
Premise 3: If you have not come to God it is because God has not regenerated your heart. True or false?
Conclusion: Therefore it is God who determines who comes to Him and who doesn't. Does the conclusion follow from the premises?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
WW: I believe this is the first time I read something of yours I flat don’t understand.
“Consider a 3-dimensional being-such as one of us- attempting to interact with a realm where everything is 2-Dimensional.
They 2D'ers would not be able to perceive all of us in their realm-their realm doesn't HAVE enough dimensions to show us.
We would be perceived only when and where we intersect their realm- thus, we would APPEAR 2-Dimensional, and
only existing as the part that intersects theirs. If we rested, say, our fingertips there, we would be perceived
as 10 flat points- which is all they can perceive.
A 2-D'er would have great difficulty in understanding a 3rd dimension they have no method of perceiving at all.
The only way it COULD perceive a 3rd Dimension would be for a 3-D'er to pluck them from their realm and show them
existence in 3 axes of direction-at which point, it may perceive its own realm as greatly limited.
(Comic-book fans may be familiar with the 5th Dimension of Zrrff, home of Mr Mxyzptlk, Qwsp, Johnny/Jakeem Thunder's Thunderbolt,
and Bat-Mite. One JLA/JSA crossover shows Captain Marvel and Green Lantern in the 5th Dimension, looking like flat playing cards,
as they interact with the natives, who are simplifying themselves to interact with them. Several natives travel to Earth,
contracting from 5-dimensions into 3-dimensions to do so.)”--WW
I basically get the point of the above. I understand what you said about Abraham, and I agree, completely. I understand the ideas separately, I just can’t connect the two together. I am not trying to be dense, obtuse, dumb….I just don’t get it. Too abstract for me? I don’t know. It isn’t for lack of reading or trying. I’ve read it over and over. It isn’t as though I can’t understand abstract ideas. I just don’t understand this one…
Aside from that, I am more than delighted to see you active in the doctrinal section. This is a great thread and important, imo. I have high hopes you will get into God’s sovereignty at some point. I don’t quite buy twi’s ideas on dominion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Spot, I wish you could read it in the original comics! :D
That's your point about the other-dimension beings, right? God condescends to meet with man?
Larry, I don't know what to think about your progression of ideas. Predestination is a tougher nut than I can presently crack.
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Another Dan, there are a couple of books that address God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility that you might enjoy: What Love is This? Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God by Dave Hunt and Chosen but Free by Norman Geisler. Two good books with lots of food for thought.
Hunt in What Love is This? [page 220] quotes from H.A. Ironside’s Full Assurance [pages 93, 94] and points out that passages on predestination make no reference to “either heaven or hell, but to Christlikeness eventually. Nowhere are we told in Scripture that God predestined one man to be saved and another to be lost.” And on page 233 Hunt makes an important distinction: “The blessings that God has eternally purposed to bestow upon the redeemed have nothing to do with how they are saved but follow their salvation.”
Geisler’s Chosen but Free goes over the variations of Calvinism and gets more technical than Hunt. I found something interesting on page 45 that I thought was appropriate for this discussion on what does God know:
“Let’s again illustrate the harmony of predetermination and free choice. Suppose you cannot watch your favorite sports event live on TV. So you videotape it. When you watch it later, the entire game and every play in it are absolutely determined and can never be changed. No matter how many times you rerun it, the final score, as well as every aspect of every play, will always be the same.
Yet when the game happened, every event was freely chosen. No one was forced to play. Therefore, the same event was both determined and free at the same time.
Someone may object that this is so only because the event has already occurred, and that before the game occurred it was not predetermined. In response we need only point out that if God is all-knowing [omniscient], then from the standpoint of His foreknowledge the game was predetermined. For He knew eternally exactly how it was going to turn out, even though we did not.
Therefore, if God has infallible foreknowledge of the future, including our free acts, then everything that will happen in the future is predetermined, even our free acts. This does not mean these actions are not free; it simply means that God knew how we were going to use our freedom – and that He knew it for sure.”
End of excerpts
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I understand Dan. Let me see if I can crack that particular nut a bit for you. Please try to listen with your heart instead of your head.
In my opening post (and subsequent posts) I've spoke of only two theological attributes of God -- Omniscience and Omnipotence. There is a third -- Omnibenevolence.
Now I can love a God that isn't Omniscient. I can even love a God that isn't Omnipotent but, I can't love a God that is not Omnibenevolent. In my mind the first two (as is commonly understood) negates the latter. So in order for me to believe in and to love God I have to, in all good conscience, jettison the first two.
You see my friend -- If you need to believe in a God that's Omnipotent and Omniscient in order to love Him, I'm fine with that. The bottom line is we both want to love God. Whatever gets you to the place where your love of God is deepen -- I'm all for it. I can't imagine when we both meet God face to face that He'll look over at me and say: "Why didn't you believe that?" or look over at you and say: "Why did you believe that?" I think He'll look at us both and say: "You loved me well and that pleases me greatly."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
TBone. That helps a lot. Really.
Larry. You've got me thinking as to whether or not I could love a God who does not love me. Where my thinking comes to a stop (and my heart) is at the point of choice. There is but one God. There are many lords and many gods, but only one God. His knowing is beyond my knowing, His power beyond mine, and His love is beyond me. My fear of Him was the beginning of knowledge, my weakness the beginning of reliance on Him, the cross the beginning of my appreciation of His love. He "brought down" His love to earth.
One time, a couple of friends of mine passed a bottle of Jack Daniels around as we sat around the campfire. That night, we settled every question we ever had, it seems, including the "God problem." And then we passed out. Trouble is, I couldn't remember in the morning what any of those answers were.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
another Spot:
anotherDan:Right.
I mentioned as much in the 2nd of the long posts, starting off.
me:
If you look at that link explaining Flatland, you may notice that the bottom of the pagementions Carl Sagan discussing it on "Cosmos" once.
I saw that, and was introduced to the Flatland concept at that time.
When trying to conceptualize a God whose existence surpasses ours in more TYPES and not just
in magnitude (He isn't just "man, but moreso", He exists in ways we don't have names for),
I immediately went back to that explanation of Flatland.
I don't think I can improve on this explanation. This is how I see the interaction
between Omniscience and free will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Omniscience=All-Knowing.
Omnipotence=All-Powerful.
Omnibenevolence=All-Loving.
We can understand the basic concept of All-Knowing easily enough, more or less.
He knows EVERYTHING, past, present, future, to the tiniest degree.
We can understand the basic concept of All-Powerful easily enough, more or less.
He CAN do ANYTHING, so long as He chooses to, including squash our free will.
The problem with discussing "All-Loving" is that the ramifications of it are subject
to huge amounts of interpretation. There's a lot of PREDICTION when discussing
what God would WANT to do-which is hand-in-hand with His emotions like Love.
This means we get sentences like
"If God is Love, and He CAN end suffering, he would. Therefore, either He lacks the
POWER to end it, or doesn't CARE, or there is not God, pass me another tallboy."
Things along those lines, anyway.
We don't THINK like God, and CAN'T think like God. Predicting-or even pretending
to understand-the thinking of God is a futile effort.
The closest I can come is using a chess analogy, and the Big Picture.
A human chess player can consider possible moves long before the chessboard
reaches a stage where those moves would be used.
God can play with an infinite number of moves in mind, and act long before
something to prevent it or to make it happen.
He certainly has been seen to do so in Scripture. He told Noah-120 years beforehand-
about the Great Flood, and had him make preparations in that timeframe.
In the time of Daniel, 4 of His people taught wise men, whose students' students' students
(and so on) would see the stars, centuries later, and understand the birth of the King
of the Jews, and would then arrive at his home with gold and other valuables, then leave,
just when God needed to tell Joseph (and Mary and Jesus) to flee the country for their
lives- and could now say so when they had money (gold) for travelling in a hurry.
God acts on the long-term scale. God's plans are deep and we are not.
I can love a God that isn't Omniscient, Omnipotent, OR Omnibenevolent.I love PEOPLE who are none of those things, and can love people who are
below average in knowledge and power, certainly.
What I may not be able to do is to put a lot of TRUST in someone whose
capabilities exceed the tasks he sets for himself.
In the case of God, my ability to trust a God who can make promises but not
offer 100% assurance of them- which a not-Omniscient and/or not-Omnipotent
God could not do- would be LIMITED.
So, how do you define "All-Loving",
and what conditions do you require of God as the result of being All-Loving?
Some people would expect such a God to jump in and stop them from sinning.
Others would expect such a God to crush human suffering long before it was a huge issue.
(I answered my own question, phrased differently, earlier in the thread,
and visited another aspect of it in this post, if you're curious.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
Thank you WW. I understand now. You discussed “All Loving” on your post #29, page 2. Here’s some quotes from it:
“If all three statements are true, then there's something fundamentally missing from our understanding,
something that makes all of this make sense together, how a God of Love finds it sensible not to blast every instance
of evil from existence the moment it happened.
It is my conviction that this is true and that Scripture teaches this.
It is my belief that the matter missing is one of both FREE WILL and of the COMPLETE PICTURE.” --WW
“Am I stating I KNOW and can explain all suffering? No.
I'm saying that the little I DO know-and that's little enough but it's enough for you to see the basics-
is enough for me to be confident that trusting God and waiting for the ENTIRE PICTURE will mean it will all
make COMPLETE sense LATER.”—WW
For me personally I have no trouble accepting that there is evil or that bad things happen in light of God is love because I also believe He is righteous and just. I believe His judgments are just whether that is always evident right now or not. I would guess His righteousness and justice far exceed anything we can conceive of as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Good for you. I suppose that means that you could love Him even if that means that He might have predetermined that all of your children even before they were born would be damned to Hell. He just decided not to share that knowledge with you.
No fair. I asked you a question earlier that has yet to be answered.
Edited by Larry N MooreLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.