God and Omniscience

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:40 am

Kurieuo: Split from With God nothing is impossible thread.

it's like it is impossible for God to know the future free decisions of man when they are not decreed by God.

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:49 pm

That's like saying I can't know past events unless I decreed them.

Kurieuo.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 1:07 am

Well, God does not really know for certain man's future decisions (i.e., decisions that involve several choices) except when he decreed such decisions to take place. But it is imposible for God NOT to know past events.

And if you are all knowing, it's impossible for you nt to know past events.

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 10:48 pm

open theist alert . . .

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 2:43 am

Well, I disagree. I think God really does know all future actions we will make without having to decree them. If God had to decree future actions in order to know them, then God would not truly omniscient by nature.

In addition, I think you missed what my previous statement was getting at. I see no reason why ones knowledge of something happening, impacts on that something's happening. If God needed to decree future actions in order to know they would happen, then why didn't God need to decree past actions in order to know they would happen? Or to add a further example... if a fortune teller told the future of someone's decision, did the fortune teller take away that person's freedom to choose? (I wonder if that would make a good defense in court

)

Kurieuo.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 9:20 am

Kurieuo wrote:Well, I disagree. I think God really does know all future actions we will make without having to decree them. If God had to decree future actions in order to know them, then God would not truly omniscient by nature.

He would not be truly omniscient in the philosophical definitin of the term but not in the biblical view of omniscience. If the biblical God is omniscient (philosophically defiend), why then does God speak in the Bible in ways that he obviously does not know what Israel, for example, would do on certain occasions? Are these divine talks mere pretensions?

Kurieuo wrote:In addition, I think you missed what my previous statement was getting at. I see no reason why ones knowledge of something happening, impacts on that something's happening. If God needed to decree future actions in order to know they would happen, then why didn't God need to decree past actions in order to know they would happen? Or to add a further example... if a fortune teller told the future of someone's decision, did the fortune teller take away that person's freedom to choose? (I wonder if that would make a good defense in court )Kurieuo.

God does not need to decree a past action in order for him to know it since when he decreed the future (thus knowing the future) he would know what the "past" would be since that future which he decreed would become the "past" afterwards. For example, if God decreed FUTURE 1 (and thus knowing it), FUTURE one will certainly become the PAST 1 afterwards.

My contention is not God's foreknowledge takes away our freedom to choose. My point is that the Bible depicts God as not knowing as certain some future decisons of man. It's either the Biblical portrayal of God is true or it is false.

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 6:03 pm

ThirdOption wrote:He would not be truly omniscient in the philosophical definitin of the term but not in the biblical view of omniscience. If the biblical God is omniscient (philosophically defiend), why then does God speak in the Bible in ways that he obviously does not know what Israel, for example, would do on certain occasions? Are these divine talks mere pretensions?

There is really only one kind of omniscience, and that is knowing all truths (past, present and future). Anything less is a play on words. The Biblical God reveals Himself as knowing future truths as well as past (e.g., Mark 14:30).

ThirdOption wrote:God does not need to decree a past action in order for him to know it since when he decreed the future (thus knowing the future) he would know what the "past" would be since that future which he decreed would become the "past" afterwards. For example, if God decreed FUTURE 1 (and thus knowing it), FUTURE one will certainly become the PAST 1 afterwards.

If God didn't need to decree a past action in order for him to know it happened, then why does God need to decree a future action in order to know it will happen? Your allusion to Isaiah 46:9-11 I believe is being misconstrued.

TO wrote:My contention is not God's foreknowledge takes away our freedom to choose. My point is that the Bible depicts God as not knowing as certain some future decisons of man. It's either the Biblical portrayal of God is true or it is false.

References to Scripture would be helpful.

However, an infinite God to communicate and interact with us comes down to our level, and so God relates to humans in finite ways. For example, there are Biblical passages which if taken literally of God, would imply God has arms, hands and other features of human anatomy. There are also passages which suggest God can be surprised, refreshed and change His mind about things. Go to skeptics website, and I'm sure you'll find all of these things as arguments against God as revealed by the Bible. Yet, Christians would not necessarily take these examples literally, because God has been defined elsewhere as having spiritual and infinite qualities. And so it makes more sense to say that God is simply trying to relate to us on our own level.

Now nowhere in Scripture does it say God did not know the future. It may portray God as being ignorant, but this does not mean God was actually so. If you can provide the Scriptures which outrightly declare "God does not know...", then you have a case. Otherwise I think this remains a point of silence.

Kurieuo.

RGeeB · Post by **RGeeB** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 2:11 am

God knew that Jesus would be the offspring of David and Bathsheba - That does not justify the adultery which David committed. This is an example of God fulfilling His purpose while David simultaneously having the freewill to obey the law of God. Hence David displeased God in a chain of events which fulfilled God's pleasure.

Now that invariably raises the question - Does God cause man to sin? Am I to blame God in creating me with a sinful body? The way I would approach this is to tell myself that I do have the freewill to make choices; God knows the right choices because He knows the consequences; so, I better do it His way. It is a comfort to know that God is all knowing - lifts the burden of the world from off my shoulders.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:45 pm

Greetings to you all.

First, before I start posting on this thread, I want to establish a few things.

-Does this issue rest more-or-less on the free-will of Man? (IE TO, are you asking if God command Adam: How could Adam do differently?)

-Does this issue rest more-or-less on the timelessness of God? (IE TO, are you asking if God [from the human perspective] was really able to be past, present, and future all at once?)

-Does this issue rest more-or-less on if Man has really sinned? (IE TO, are you asking that if God knew Adam was going to eat the fruit: Did God really mean His command not to eat that fruit?)

Doc

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:44 am

Kurieuo wrote:There is really only one kind of omniscience, and that is knowing all truths (past, present and future). Anything less is a play on words. The Biblical God reveals Himself as knowing future truths as well as past (e.g., Mark 14:30).

I agree. God knows all truths. But it doesn't stop there. Omniscience is better defined as “God knows all truths and believes no falsehood.” But if he knew Adam would certainly disobey (i.e, the truth God knew), why did he expect Adam to obey (i.e., false, as far as the truth above is concerned). Why expect what is false? What happens to his omniscience then in that scenario?

If you are a solid Bible believer how would you explain Exodus 31:17: “When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them on the road through the Philistine country, though that was shorter. For God said, "If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt." If God was sure that Israel would not change their mind, why did he say, "If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt." That sounds to me that God wasn't sure whether the Israelites would change their mind or not.

Kurieuo wrote:If God didn't need to decree a past action in order for him to know it happened, then why does God need to decree a future action in order to know it will happen? Your allusion to Isaiah 46:9-11 I believe is being misconstrued.

You missed it. I did not say God has to decree future action IN ORDER for him to know it. When God decree a future action he therefore knows it. But whatever God's purpose for decreeing a future action is beyond me, but definitely it's not simply IN ORDER for him to know it.

Isaiah 46:9-11 is an example God declaring something to come to pass in the future and thus he knew what would happen: “Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please. From the east I summon a bird of prey; from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose. What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do.” That passage doesn't simply speak about God knowing what will happen in the future. Rather, it speaks about what God declared what he's going to do (“What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do”) and therefore he knew what is going to happen since he declared it to happen.

Kurieuo wrote:References to Scripture would be helpful.

Genesis 22:12: "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."

Exodus 16:4: Then the LORD said to Moses, "I will rain down bread from heaven for you. The people are to go out each day and gather enough for that day. In this way I will test them and see whether they will follow my instructions.

Deut. 8:2,3: Remember how the LORD your God led you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and to test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands. He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD."

Kurieuo wrote: However, an infinite God to communicate and interact with us comes down to our level, and so God relates to humans in finite ways. For example, there are Biblical passages which if taken literally of God, would imply God has arms, hands and other features of human anatomy. There are also passages which suggest God can be surprised, refreshed and change His mind about things. Go to skeptics website, and I'm sure you'll find all of these things as arguments against God as revealed by the Bible. Yet, Christians would not necessarily take these examples literally, because God has been defined elsewhere as having spiritual and infinite qualities. And so it makes more sense to say that God is simply trying to relate to us on our own level.

First, are you saying that the God to whom Moses talked to in Exodus 3,4 is not the REAL or ACTUAL God? That the REAL or ACTUAL God is not like what the Bible shows us? If He is not ACTUALLY like the one who talked to Moses and Abraham, where did you get the idea that he is not really like that?

Second, yes, I know that anthropomorphisms (i.e., God is describe as having arms, eyes, shadows, etc) were used in the Bible. Dr. Millard Erickson, in his one-volume edition of Christian Theology writes:

There are, of course, numerous passages which suggest that has physical features such as hands or feet. How are we to regard these references? It seems most helpful to treat them as anthropomorphisms, attempts to express the truth about God through human analogies. (p.268)

It is true that the Bible uses figurative languages and that there are certain passages that are figurative and portray God in human terms. The following are some examples:

Deuteronomy 4:34 — Has any god ever tried to take for himself one nation out of another nation, by testings, by miraculous signs and wonders, by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, or by great and awesome deeds, like all the things the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your very eyes?

Here God is said to have an “outstretched arm.” Taking that literally contradicts the John 4:24 passage that says God is Spirit. A spirit does not have an arm, much less a “outstretched arm.” But within that verse we are provided with the truth that this “outstretched arm” wishes to communicate. The “outstretched arm” clearly means within that verse the “power and might of God.” It is by his mighty power through signs and wonders that Israel was delivered from Egypt.

Psalm 17:8 — Keep me as the apple of your eye; hide me in the shadow of your wings from the wicked who assail me, from my mortal enemies who surround me.

Does God have wings? Does God have a shadow of his wings? Taking this phrase literally is ridiculous since God has no wings and he does not have a shadow because he is a spirit. But again, within that verse we are provided with information what does that “shadow of your wings” whishes to communicate, and that is, protection from enemies. The truth about God that the figurative phrase “shadow of your wings” wishes to communicate is none other than Divine protection.

Psalm 91:1 — He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the shadow of the Almighty.

What does the figurative term “shadow” wishes to communicate? The succeeding verse is clear: “I will say of the LORD, "He is my refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust." Thus, the truth about God that “shadow” wishes to communicate is God being our refuge ad fortress.

2 Chronicles 16:9 — For the eyes of the LORD range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him. You have done a foolish thing, and from now on you will be at war."

What truth about God does the “eyes of the LORD” wishes to communicate? Literal eyes? We know it does not refer to literal eyes. The truth about God that “the eyes of the LORD” wishes to communicate is his being omnipresent (see also Deut. 11:12)

Now, after providing some examples of anthropomorphic (and even theriomorphic for “wings”) languages in Scripture, we must seriously consider some points against insisting that anthropomorphism/anthropopathism is THE correct and proper way of interpreting the passages I presented.

1. Interpreting some biblical passages as anthropomorphic is necessary and legitimate at times like in the examples given. But it must be noted that anthropomorphic languages are nevertheless reality depicting. Meaning, an anthropomorphic language depicts a particular reality about God. The expression genuinely conveys to us God's true characteristic although not in a literal fashion. (thus, “eyes” = omnipresence; “shadow of his wings” = divine protection; “outstretched arm = power and might).

2. When God says, “Now I know” or when the Bible says, “in order to now” (granting this is an anthropomorphism), what particular reality about God does it wish to communicate to us? If the “eyes of the Lord” (an anthropomorphism) communicates the truth about God's omnipresence, what truth about God does “IN ORDER TO KNOW” or “NOW I KNOW” communicate to us? Thus, “eyes” = omnipresence; “shadow of his wings” = divine protection; “outstretched arm = power and might; “Now I know” = _____??____

3. When the inspired Word tells us that God thinks and speaks in terms of “perhaps,” “maybe,” “if,” and “might,” or that God expected something that did not happen, if they are not literal but anthropomorphism only, what truth do they communicate about God's TRUE characteristics?

These, I think, are the points you must look into.

Kurieuo wrote:Now nowhere in Scripture does it say God did not know the future. It may portray God as being ignorant, but this does not mean God was actually so. If you can provide the Scriptures which outrightly declare "God does not know...", then you have a case. Otherwise I think this remains a point of silence.

The Bible may portray God as being ignorant and yet it does not mean God was actually so? That means that the Bible reveals to us a God different from what He really is. The Bible then cannot be called “God's revelation of himself” since the God we have in the Bible is not REALLY Himself.

Doing theology does not always require one to provide an explicit statement about something in order for it to be biblical. Could you provide a direct statement from the Bible that “God is one being in three persons”?

The passages ( of course there are few more) I brought up plus the issue I raised on Adam which I will be dealing with Doc are enough for me to have a case.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:46 am

The Doc wrote: -Does this issue rest more-or-less on the free-will of Man? (IE TO, are you asking if God command Adam: How could Adam do differently?)

No, Doc. The main issue is how could God genuinely expect something other than what he certainly knew what Adam would do? If God certainly knew Adam would eat of the fruit, then the command (sincerely) NOT to eat of the fruit was nonsense.

The Doc wrote: -Does this issue rest more-or-less on the timelessness of God? (IE TO, are you asking if God [from the human perspective] was really able to be past, present, and future all at once?)

No, doc. No that one. But I don't believe that God is in one “eternal moment” though. I believe God experiences succession of events and thoughts. Thus, God is not timeless in that sense.

The Doc wrote: -Does this issue rest more-or-less on if Man has really sinned? (IE TO, are you asking that if God knew Adam was going to eat the fruit: Did God really mean His command not to eat that fruit?)

That's it, Doc. Because for God to really mean for Adam not to eat of the fruit means that God was expecting Adam not to eat of the fruit. But for God to expect something contrary to what he certainly knew would happen is nonsensical for God.

BavarianWheels · Post by **BavarianWheels** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 9:37 am

ThirdOption wrote:No, Doc. The main issue is how could God genuinely expect something other than what he certainly knew what Adam would do? If God certainly knew Adam would eat of the fruit, then the command (sincerely) NOT to eat of the fruit was nonsense.

That's it, Doc. Because for God to really mean for Adam not to eat of the fruit means that God was expecting Adam not to eat of the fruit. But for God to expect something contrary to what he certainly knew would happen is nonsensical for God.

Really? So if you have children, will you not allow them to play outside, ride a bike...knowing they will hurt themselves? Knowing your child will one day disobey you and touch that which is hot and burn themselves, will you not have a stove in your house? Will you not have a set of rules in your home knowing the day will come when your child will rebel against the rules as you set them?

Even though God knew Adam and Eve would sin, he allowed them to live their own life and gave them freewill. Heck, ask yourself why Lucifer was allowed to live knowing he would be the cause of sin to enter.

Had God kept Lucifer from living because of knowledge of His coming death, God would be guilty of stealing. Stealing freewill. There is no true love when the freedom to love or not love is taken away. Likewise there is no true obedience when the ability to truly obey is taken away.
.
.

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:28 am

I just want to ask TO a general question: if God doesn't know the future decisions of men (based on the idea that such knowledge is unknowable, and therefore outside the realm of omniscience), how is it that we find prophecy in the Scriptures? Daniel 11 is a great example. We have references to certain men who will choose to do certain things. God certainly does that. And what about the Antichrist? God certainly knows about him. God has even told us some of that man's decisions (forcing a mark, calling people to worship himself, etc.).

If, then, God can know the future decisions of some men, why can God not know the future decisions of Adam? It doesn't do any good to argue that God couldn't hold Adam accountable for an action He knew Adam would commit, because, in the same way, God knew the actions of the previously mentioned men and has already condemned them. So, we see that we ARE held accountible for our actions.

How do you reconcile these facts?

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 7:44 pm

ThirdOption wrote:If you are a solid Bible believer how would you explain Exodus 31:17: “When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them on the road through the Philistine country, though that was shorter. For God said, "If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt." If God was sure that Israel would not change their mind, why did he say, "If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt."

Firstly the example in Scripture you quote to support your position, that God does not know for certain whether Israel would not change their mind, is double-edged. Because the same passage makes out God believed that Israel would face war. So doesn't such omniscience go against your belief that God can't know with certainty future events? There must be a solution, and I believe the solution lies on my side of the fence.

If you read further, the Egyptians caught up with the Israelites anyway, and the Israelites were indeed going to face war. Thus, God perhaps knew whichever way Israel went that they would face war. Yet, God used His words to entice the Israelites in going the longer way, where He could further demonstrate to them and nations around, that He was behind Israel's release from slavery and could be trusted. Scripture itself says, "when the Israelites saw the great power the Lord displayed against the Egyptians, the people feared the Lord and put their trust in him and in Moses his servant." (Exodus 14:31) Leading Israel into a position where they needed to be totally dependant on Moses and God, no doubt had an enormous impact on their belief and trust.

Now before leaving Egypt, the Israelites didn't have much trust in God and Moses. God knew the Israelites would want to change their minds, and return to Egypt as soon as a confrontation eventuated: "As Pharaoh approached, the Israelites looked up, and there were the Egyptians, marching after them. They were terrified and cried out to the Lord. They said to Moses, "Was it because there were no graves in Egypt that you brought us to the desert to die? What have you done to us by bringing us out of Egypt? Didn't we say to you in Egypt, 'Leave us alone; let us serve the Egyptians'? It would have been better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the desert!" (Exodus 14:10-12) As we read further, the only thing that stopped them from returning to Egypt was their dependance upon God to carve a path through the sea.

Now think about it. If Moses just told Israel, "No, I know a much longer way, and it leads to a dead end at a sea;" do you think they would have followed rather than taking the shorter way? That isn't to say what God said was a lie, because at the same time God knew that perhaps either way, the Israelites would come to a war scenario. However, it was one path He chose to ensure the Israelites did not turn back, which was by leading them to the sea. By this, God was also able to gain their trust and make Himself more fully known as the reason for their freedom. And this path depended upon God saying, "If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt." Little did the Israelites understand that they would face a confrontation anyway, but then God planned their journey out with such precise knowledge of the future (quite the opposite to what you've made out), that He was able to guide them out of Egypt safely and without the Israelites returning to slavery.

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:11 pm

ThirdOption wrote:Genesis 22:12: "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."

Exodus 16:4: Then the LORD said to Moses, "I will rain down bread from heaven for you. The people are to go out each day and gather enough for that day. In this way I will test them and see whether they will follow my instructions.

Deut. 8:2,3: Remember how the LORD your God led you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and to test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands. He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD."

I obviously believe that God in His omniscience knew exactly what Abraham would do, because He knows all things about us (Psalms 139:1-6; Jeremiah 17:10; Acts 1:24; Hebrews 4:13). So how do I reconcile such with God? Well, what God knows by cognition is different to what He knows by demonstration. Grasping this resolves every passage you quoted above. Understanding this concept seems to be where you always come unstuck, as it seems you often fall into thinking God's knowing is equivalent to the action taking place. So after Abraham had obeyed God, he demonstrated what God always knew, that he had faith in and feared God.

Also at play is that God is addressing finite human beings here, and so God speaks from a human perspective. To more convincingly illustrate this, allow me to provide an example I read which also resolves every passage above. There is a maths teacher who is teaching a class of students. He says, "Let's see whether we can discover the square root of 49." Then once working it out, he declares, "Now we know that it is 7." Does this necessarily mean the maths teacher did not know the answer from the beginning? Of course not.

TO wrote:Doing theology does not always require one to provide an explicit statement about something in order for it to be biblical. Could you provide a direct statement from the Bible that “God is one being in three persons”?

But when there are passages in Scripture which obviously contradict a Christian's theological position on something, then that Christian should revise their beliefs in order to make them compatible with Scripture.

Kurieuo.