God and Omniscience

Felgar · Post by **Felgar** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 2:59 pm

The Bible does in fact say that God certainly knew that Adam would fall. It says that God knows ALL things, does it not? There's no exception to what God knows - He know EVERYTHING. We're obviously not going to convince you and likewise you'll not convince us.

I think we need to look further back than where we're looking. First we need to examine whether or not it's possible to make a real choice when our choice is already known by God. This is the heart of the argument - Adam is just an extension of it. I believe that our choices are real to us because we are bound time, and known to God because He is not. In other words, we exist differently and this difference is what provides the means for us to make real choices that God already knows. It's like Kureiuo mentioned earlier - without the confines of time, the concept of choice breaks down.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:40 pm

Greetings to you all.

TO,

I asked each of those questions for a specific reason. If you struggle with the sincerity of God's command; it is logical that you struggle with the idea that Adam sinned. If Adam didn't Sin; it is logical that you struggle with the idea that you have Sin.

You seem to consider it irrational for God to have commanded Adam: If God had NOT commanded Adam would we have free-will? If there was no way to go against God could we Sin?

And lastly, if you believe that we would retain free-will without God's command to Adam: Is it rational for you to NOT command someone to not commit a crime when you know he will surely do it?

That is to say:
Would not Adam's Sin be on God's head if He had not warned Adam? If I know my neighbor is going to kill his wife, and I know I cannot prevent it, I am an accomplice to her murder if I do not try.

God did not have to create free-will, but He did. God created us to have a choice, but what could we choose to do if there was nothing to decide? Even in the Army you have a choice to follow the command of your superior officer. If you do not follow the ordered command you might end up paying with your life, but the choice is there.

God is Pure and Holy. God created free-will, and then God enabled us to use it, and we have chosen foolishly. If God had never issued that command, what good would our free-will be?

On a further note:
The things of the future do not effect the things of the past. Time is a forward progression. What God know of the future does not change what He does today. God is infinite: He does not change, and He has no limits. God is constant, unmoving in Holiness. We are not. We are stuck in the present, moving moment to moment.

Doc

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 11:00 pm

Felgar wrote:The Bible does in fact say that God certainly knew that Adam would fall. It says that God knows ALL things, does it not? There's no exception to what God knows - He know EVERYTHING. We're obviously not going to convince you and likewise you'll not convince us.

You cannot stand on that argument without being CONSISTENT with the fact that Jesus knew all things John 16:30; John 21:17 and yet He DOES NOT know the time of his return Mark 13:32. It says that Jesus knows ALL things, does it not?

Oh, my! Who said I am here to convince anybody? That's too naive to be my purpose.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 11:32 pm

The Doc wrote:Greetings to you all.

TO,

I asked each of those questions for a specific reason. If you struggle with the sincerity of God's command; it is logical that you struggle with the idea that Adam sinned. If Adam didn't Sin; it is logical that you struggle with the idea that you have Sin.

I dont struggle with God's command. In my view, God's command to Adam was genuine, sincere and truthfully warning Adam NOT TO eat of the fruit because He was not certain that Adam would fall. The other view, which perhaps yours, seems to me irrational since God CERTAILY knows that Adam would DEFINITELY sin and yet God commanded Adam not to sin as if God already knows that my baby is going to be a boy and yet still expects it to be a girl! That's illogical, brother!

You seem to consider it irrational for God to have commanded Adam: If God had NOT commanded Adam would we have free-will? If there was no way to go against God could we Sin?

And lastly, if you believe that we would retain free-will without God's command to Adam: Is it rational for you to NOT command someone to not commit a crime when you know he will surely do it?

As i have said many times, my issue is not between God's command and man's freewill. I dont have any problems with that.

That is to say:
Would not Adam's Sin be on God's head if He had not warned Adam?

You're not getting my point. According to your view, God was 100% sure that Adam would sin. But if he was already 100% sure that Adam would definitely sin, why warned him NOT to sin? What if Adam heed the warning and did not sin, what would happen to God's 100% certainty that Adam would definitely sin???? That's the reason why for God to seriously command Adam NOT TO when he's already 100% sure Adam would do it is irrational. Let me put it this way: Do you believe that God sincerely believe that Adam would heed the command and thus changing what he already knows that Adam would sin?

If I know my neighbor is going to kill his wife, and I know I cannot prevent it, I am an accomplice to her murder if I do not try.

That's not my point. My point is if you are 100% sure that your neighbor would kill his wife and the killing would definitely happen, then you cannot prevent it because if you would then the killing would not happen which means your knowledge that the killing would certainly happen fails. You got it?

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 11:14 am

Greetings to you all.

TO,

I think you must have misunderstood my reasoning.
Also, to clarify one point, I believe that we were created with free-will, but if there is no discission to be made, we cannot choose. And that God commanding Adam; God was giving Adam the ability to use the free-will he was given while being created.

I dont struggle with God's command. In my view, God's command to Adam was genuine, sincere and truthful...

Excellent!

...ly warning Adam NOT TO eat of the fruit because He was not certain that Adam would fall.

This is Biblically inaccurate, and could be considered blasphemy. God knows all. God does not travel through time, He is outside of time. Therefore, there is nothing God does not know. Because God can see the future WITH the past, He knows the out-come of our every discission, before we're even born.

since God CERTAILY knows that Adam would DEFINITELY sin and yet God commanded Adam not to sin as if God already knows that my baby is going to be a boy and yet still expects it to be a girl!

That is not why God commanded Adam. God was not commanding Adam not to sin. There are two clear reasonings:
1) If God had no command to Adam there would be no Sin, and our free-will would be of none effect. 2) If it were still Sin for Adam to have eaten that fruit, and God did not command Adam not to, God would be guilty of Adam's sin.

In essence, God was saying, 'I have created you with free-will. Now I am giving you the opportunity to use it.'

if he was already 100% sure that Adam would definitely sin, why warned him NOT to sin?

This is my point: If God did not command Adam not to eat, and it was still Sin, God would be guilty of Adam's sin, because He did nothing to prevent it. There was nothing wrong with the fruit, nor with the tree, without the command of God, Adam had no way to Sin. There would be no discission to make, and therefore, there would be no reason to have free-will. We would be perfect, but we would be robots.

Free-will is the ability to choose to disobey God. If God does not tell us to do anything, or not do something how can we disobey?

Does that make sense?

Doc

PS I noticed that you did not comment on the second half of my last post; I hope this clarified it for you anyway.

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 6:02 pm

ThirdOption wrote:Bro., the question is why did God use “IF” and “MIGHT” which are terms of possibility and not certainty. I guess you missed answering my question correctly. Try again.

My answer remains above, and I'm sure is clear to all but you. So I leave it up to you to either search it out or to ignore it.

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 6:21 pm

ThirdOption wrote:
Kurieuo wrote: What part of my reply didn't you get? I'll try again. God's knowing by cognition is different to what He knows by demonstration.
So he knows it by cognition but DOES NOT know it by demonstration? Is that what you are saying?

An example, is also Adam and Eve. If they did not know about sin (i.e., know good and evil) until after they ate the fruit, then how could they know not to eat the fruit (a sin)? The answer is that although they knew it was a sin (i.e., going against God) to eat the fruit, they didn't actually know what sin was as they never experienced it. There are a variety of ways one can know, and you have your work cut out for you to show that by "know" above God was meaning He didn't "cognitively know."
Is that the answer? So are you saying that though God KNEW about Abe's fear, God DIDN'T ACTUALLY know Abe's faith was until Abe actualizes it?

No, that is not what I'm saying and I'm certain you know it. I also find it significant you bypassed the Strong's definition for the word translated as "know". Now I know this discussion to be a fruitless exercise if only for you, even though I knew this to be so beforehand.

I think I've said all I desired to say, and your position in my opinion has been found wanting in a major way, that is, if it is to be found Scriptural, or if it is to be found logically consistent while maintaining that God is omniscient and omnipotent despite His not knowing all future truths. On the other hand I'll leave it up to readers to judge my own replies for themselves on whether they find my responses to objections satisfactory and fulfilling.

As I believe this thread will continue to go in circles (as it feel it has been), I am tempted to close it. However I will leave it open for now to respect Felgar's and Doc's decisions to respond and discuss as they please.

Kurieuo.

Felgar · Post by **Felgar** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:40 pm

Kurieuo wrote:As I believe this thread will continue to go in circles (as it feel it has been), I am tempted to close it. However I will leave it open for now to respect Felgar's and Doc's decisions to respond and discuss as they please.

Kurieuo.

I believe it will go in circles too, and I think I've said all I care to say on the topic too. There comes a point where someone has to understand that making the last post doesn't mean that you're poven correct.

Having said that though, I agree with your decision to leave the thread open - except for extraordinary circumstances I would think it best to never close a thread as doing so cuts off dialog and fellowship - the very reason for forum in the first place.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 10:19 am

Genesis 18:16-22
Seems like Omniscience to me. I'm not taking the time to read the three pages worth of discussion though :\

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 8:36 pm

I just want to make something very clear..YOU CAN'T INTERPRET PARTS OF THE BIBLE WITHOUT APPLYING THE TRINITY! ok let me clarify:

OT you claim that Jesus doesn't know the time of his return, Jesus specifically says that not even the son of God will know and only the father.

Ok lets examine this with the trinity which i will briefly explain and there is an extensive explanation by Rich Deem on the website. Ok, Jesus is fully man and fully divine. Jesus is the Almighty God, but the son of God is not referring to the divine nature of Jesus but the human one. Notice how jesus says not even God's son will know the day of his return...Jesus doesn't say not even "I". God's son is referring to the human aspect of Jesus not the divine. So when Jesus says only the father knows, he is talking about himself!

God, the father, the son, and the holy spirit coexist and outside of our universe God is the father..within our universe God is the son(Jesus), and within us, God is the holy spirit. This should make a lot of sense and so Jesus was talking about himself!

I also don't wanna hear arguments against the trinity because it fits with literally every verse in the bible.

So your argument really has no proof based on scripture and i think its time you reconsider what everyone has been telling you.

RGeeB · Post by **RGeeB** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 6:07 am

I would conclude that two truths co-exist simultaneously:
1) God is in control of and knows the outcome.
2) We have the freewill to choose for or against God's will.

This explains the meaningfulness of prophecy. A good example of this is the repentance of Nineveh at the preaching of Jonah. Also, it is theoretically true that if there was a complete worldwide repentance right now, we would not have to face the Armageddon scenario.

Since God functions outside of the confines of a timeline, He can let pre-destination and freewill co-exist. Again, its in His mercy that we get glimpses of the future through conditional commands and prophecy.

Is that a third option?

Felgar · Post by **Felgar** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:54 am

vvart wrote:God, the father, the son, and the holy spirit coexist and outside of our universe God is the father..within our universe God is the son(Jesus), and within us, God is the holy spirit. This should make a lot of sense and so Jesus was talking about himself!

That is an interesting concept... The idea that depending on the context, the actual reference to God will change. I've never looked at it like that before.

But both the Son and the Father reside in Heaven, no? Under the interpretation you just provided, I would expect only one 'version' of God to actually be in Heaven if that interpretation holds. Could you clarify that concept a little more?

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Sat Dec 25, 2004 2:02 am

Regarding what i said earlier I found a passage where Jesus says not even "I" know and only the Father does, but the point i was making earlier still stands.

Well in Revelations isn't God the seated figure on the great throne, while Jesus is represented as the sacrificial lamb?
I believe the seated figure is the Father who the Son is a part of.

By the way this question is an interesting one and i didn't think of it extensively until now, so whats your take on it?

OH AND MERRY CHRISTMAS TO EVERYONE!!!!
-Remember its not about Santa Claus its about our Lord!

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 11:56 am

What were we talking about to begin with?
God being omniscient right? Or a difference between the Father and the Son's omniscience?

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 3:01 pm

I was wondering if the father and son at one point become one?
In revelations, their is only 1 throne with 1 seated figure