1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

4 Views on God's Foreknowledge - Omniscience

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Faith alone, Sep 13, 2006.

Top Posters
Page 6 of 6
  1. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    FA, what I desire to know is that if one lost in that storm never heard any instructions on where to go to be saved, if the one saving the others would place blame and administer eternal punishments for the one not arriving at the cabin. In hell could the one lost that never heard say justly, "What did I do to deserve my punishment? I never made the blizzard, not did I exercise my free will in a choice to be lost. Nor did I exercise my free will in choosing not to go to the cabin. How was I to know there even was a cabin available having never heard or seen of one in those parts before? What in eternity am I being punished for, for simply being born a man? So what if you claim I had a free will. What import does that have upon the suffering I now find myself suffering?"
     
    #101 Heavenly Pilgrim, Oct 10, 2006
  2. Faith alone

    Faith alone New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    0
    HP,

    Of course this illustration is not perfect, and no illustration can be so. I knew this when I posed it. That question is one that effects all of us, regardless of our position on this issue.

    Can not a person who never heard the gospel ask why God holds him accountable in your system as well?

    My position has to do with free will and election both being valid. Just because you do not believe in election does not mean that you do not face the same dilemma as does one holding to election or one holding to both simultaneously.

    But since you asked, I'll offer an explanation as I see it. In general, regardless of who you are speaking, the righteousness which man offers to God his own efforts to approach or please God - is unacceptable to God.

    Romans 4:2-4 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about--but not before God. What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation.

    Ephesians 2:1-3 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.

    We are none of us saved based on any good works or actions or attitudes or thoughts on our behalf. So it matters not whether we speak of the pagan in Africa or the Pharisee of Christ's time striving to keep the OT Law perfectly, everyone is in rebellion against God, and demonstrates such rebellion when he does not accept the revelation which God has given to him through nature.

    Though the pagan has not rejected the gospel of Christ, he has rejected this revelation in nature of the power and divine nature of God in His creation. Romans 1 says that instead of worshiping the Creator, he has chosen instead to worship the creation. Not only has he distorted God's revealed truth in creation, he has also perverted the use of God’s creation itself, to one degree or another. As such God is fully justified in condemning him for rejecting His revelation to him. (See Romans 1:18ff).

    FA
     
    #102 Faith alone, Oct 11, 2006
  3. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0




    HP: No. Their conscience will condemn them for failure to live according to what they know they should have, regardless of whether or not they have heard of salvation. They have, according to Scripture, became a law unto themselves.



    HP: Sure I believe in election. I just do not believe that election places God as the cause for my eternal resting place. His choosing is in agreement with and due to His cognizance of, my free will choice to be obedient to the gospel. When you speak of election, you make God ‘the cause’ of ones salvation. I do not believe scripture presents that to be true, nor do I believe first truths of reason bear that out either. Contrary choice is necessary to establish guilt and punishment. In your system, with God as the cause, no contrary choice is possible unless you believe you can do despite His election. If God is the cause, ones salvation or lack thereof, is necessitated, and nothing we could possibly do can affect God’s determinate choice in any way.



    HP: Yes I agree in one sense and disagree in another. Although none have obeyed God from first light of moral agency, at least in our dispensation as evidenced by the call for all to repent, and thereby found pleasing to God, Jesus clearly stated that the theoretical possibility exists that one could obey God and his actions be seen as righteousness before God. When the young ruler asked Christ, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus told him the following. "but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” Jesus directed the young man to keep the law, and by doing so would inherit eternal life. We know that such would not have been proper instructions to a sinner, for once one had sinned, nothing we can do can make up for one wrong committed. This very well could have been told him at the first light of moral agency, when this young man had reached and entered into the age of accountability. It very well could have been his first encounter with a moral decision. At any rate, we know that he rejected Christ’s call to obedience, and went away sorrowfully.

    The point is that the theoretical possibility has to exist that one from first light of moral agency could in fact do something to inherit eternal life just as Jesus proclaimed, or we are left with pure determinism. Although Scripture is clear that none do live blameless before Him from first light of moral agency, allowing for the possibility to exist makes it perfectly just for God to blame and punish man, for he was not coerced by his nature to sin, but willingly disobeyed a reasonable commandment of God that one was fully able to comply with.

    The statement can be made that by the works of the law, no flesh shall be justified in His eyes, due to the fact that Scripture also informs us that all have sinned.





    HP: You are missing the point I have tried to make above. The question is not whether or not we are all sinners and in need of a Savior, the question is how did we come to find ourselves in that sinful state. You make men guilty without a choice, and receive the gift of salvation due to the fact God caused us to receive it. I believe we are sinners due to our own willful disobedience to a known commandment of God and in no wise a sinner from birth or on the account of another mans sin, and are saved as a direct consequence of our free will in obeying the gospel message provided to us by God on behalf of the atoning work of Christ.



    HP: Amen! I could not agree more with your statement here. It is not about the sin of Adam, it is all about one having, as you so aptly state, “chosen instead to worship the creation.” Indeed God is just in condemning all men.
     
    #103 Heavenly Pilgrim, Oct 11, 2006
  4. Faith alone

    Faith alone New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    0

    HP,

    Not sure if this is directed at me or not...

    Sorry, but this seems like so much gibberish to me. I'm not sure what you're saying. Free will is simply if I am free to choose to do whatever I want. Whether or not future circumstances may affect that choice is irrelevant. What you are saying, as I read it, and I'm not sure what that is to be forthright, appears to be that unless I am sovereign, and God is not, I have no free will. I see no logical or biblical basis for that.

    ???
    If you say there can be no other cause other than my will in order for it to be free, I disagree. I do not accept that either logically or biblically.
    Sorry, HP, but I do not agree one iota.

    FA
     
    #104 Faith alone, Oct 12, 2006
  5. Faith alone

    Faith alone New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    0
    HP,

    Just re-read my last post & I don't like the tone it comes across with. Just FYI, I only intended to say that I disagree.

    What I am saying is that logically, thinking merely as human beings, what you say makes some sense, but not as God thinks/works. WHat I am saying is that both are true. I am not negating man's choice and the fact that man's choice does determine his fate. God's choice determines it as well.

    FA
     
    #105 Faith alone, Oct 13, 2006
  6. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0


    HP: I appreciate your spirit FA. No offense taken here. I have just been considering your last post and praying about our conversations, and seeking wisdom in the direction to go.

    I can remember reading a theology book about half way through twice without seemingly getting anything of substance out of it. I spoke to the man that gave me the book and related to him my experience this far. He told me to just put it on my shelf and wait until I felt impressed from the Lord to pick it back up in in fact it ever happened. I did just that. I never looked at it for some time.

    About six months or so later, I was still plagued with some of the same thorny theological questions in my mind. I felt impressed of the Lord to take the book back up, and instead of just reading it, I determined to study it. There were many terms I was unfamiliar with, and so I took out a pencil, paper and dictionary, and purposed not to go past a word until I knew what it meant and could use it in a sentence. I purposed not to proceed with the next chapter until I had a handle on what the author was trying to get the reader to understand. I took many notes and wrote out many explanations as I went along to assure myself that I was gleaning from this author the intended ideas and thoughts.

    Why such care in addressing this book? I knew the man well that gave it to me and knew full well his love and devotion to the truth, and also knew his love for me and desire for me to be established in the faith.

    The author of this particular book was especially good at forcing the reader to form his own opinion as to the truth, after having been forced to examine the issues from several perspectives. As I read and studied, God allowed the truth presented by this author to drag my soul through the coals on many occasions. It forced me to take careful inventory of not only the beliefs I held but the life that I lived. It was a trying time for me, but in retrospect I see know that God was indeed directing my thoughts and path.

    I said all of that to say this. As I have grown in the Lord over the years, God has a way of granting to us insight at certain times in our lives, often that we refused or were unwilling for various reasons to confront and face at certain times. If we will just continue to study to show ourselves approved, God will direct our path and grant to us the needed insight He has for us in His timing and through the means He chooses to employ. May we listen to that still small voice and always be receptive to His bidding and instruction.

    God has indeed used men on both sides of many issues. That indeed does not make a whole lot of sense to me, but none the less it still appears that way to me. Take men like George Fox, the red hot Quaker. I cannot accept everything that man did or refuse to do, but God used him mightily at the time he lived in conjunction with the errors that existed in the Church at that time. May I be that kind of a man, sold out to God and blind and deaf to the world and the devices of the enemy of our souls.

    Keep the faith. Let’s live for God, and do everything we can for His kingdom, and above all else, have love one for another. I believe that is your heart. Oh Lord, let that be my heart as well!!
     
    #106 Heavenly Pilgrim, Oct 13, 2006
  7. GordonSlocum

    GordonSlocum New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would be a 3. In your opinion given the 4 examples - which example is Geisler closer to - would it not be a 3?
     
    #107 GordonSlocum, Oct 13, 2006
  8. Faith alone

    Faith alone New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    0
    GS,

    Having read his book, it was difficult to say. He is clearly not simply a 2 (simple foreknowledge). Nor is he simply a 4 either (Calvinistic view). He is holdng to both views. But I do not think that he would agree, of at least not completely, with the MK attempt to do that. Not sure how to categorize his position. His position is more theology than philosophy. He is saying that both 2 and 4 are biblical, yet I don't think he takes the MK approach.

    His book is good in terms of showing that both the Arminian approach (simple foreknowledge) and the Calvinistic are biblical. It doesn't really consistently explain how that can be philosophically.

    Thx,

    FA
     
    #108 Faith alone, Oct 13, 2006
  9. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0


    HP: This raises some interesting thoughts. Is it possible to hold a ‘biblical’ view without a philosophical approach, either clearly understood or assumed without direct cognizance of it? In other words, does not every man of necessity assume certain philosophical beliefs in his interpretation of Scripture, regardless whether or not one is even unaware of it or can articulate ones philosophical view point as such?
     
    #109 Heavenly Pilgrim, Oct 13, 2006
  10. Faith alone

    Faith alone New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    0
    HP,

    Thx for your gracious comments. I am convinced that both the free will of man and the sovereignty/election of God are true both biblically and logically.

    We really haven't been dealing with the MK view on this much. So i think I'll re-post that opening description:

    Middle knowledge - Talks about possible worlds which never came into existence. (What could have happened, but which never did - God did not actualize it.) Now it is assumed (by simple foreknowledge proponents) that for an action to be free, it must be determined by the agent performing the action. This means that God cannot will a free creature to act in a particular way and the act still be free. Free actions must be self-determinative. But middle knowledge essentially says that God has much greater knowledge than we give Him credit for. He knows all of the possibilities out there (referred to as "counterfactuals" since they never came or will come to pass). Proponents of middle knowledge believe that things could have been different than they, in fact, are. We could have married someone else, or bought a different car. The main objection to middle knowledge by the Augustinian view is that it affords people such a high view of freedom that God’s providence is compromised, they claim. IN MK the person says that God does know who will trust in Him if this or that were to happen. An example is when Christ spoke regarding Capernaum that if the things done in that city had been done in Sodom that it would have remained to that day!


    The proponents of MK are saying that the way that God predetermines (wills) what will happen is different in their system than is assumed in other systems. He actualizes a world in which the individuals freely choose as He willed before the world was created. I think what I'm not explaining so well is the fact that Godchooses a world in which things happen as He wills. So in that world the individuals truly have freedom.

    This is simply an attempt to explain how the apparent contradiction in scripture here can be explained. But the fact that both are true is, IMO, very clear in scripture. That is what Geisler does a good job of defending in his book.

    FA
     
    #110 Faith alone, Oct 13, 2006
  11. Faith alone

    Faith alone New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good question. IMO, that is the weakness in his arguments in his book. He demonstrates that his supposition is biblical well. But he doesn't show how that can be logically all that well, IMO. That's where Dr. William lane Craig shines.

    Geisler had to have revise his book to deal with some of the criticisms to his book.

    FA
     
    #111 Faith alone, Oct 13, 2006
  12. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks FA. I have my homework cut out for me. I need to do some reading and study.
     
    #112 Heavenly Pilgrim, Oct 13, 2006
  13. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    FA, you have stated, if I am correct, the notion that God is the 'cause' of our moral intents and or subsequent actions. Would you be so kind as to explain to me what you perceive the word ‘cause’ to consist of? I desire to see if we are on the same page as to what a 'cause' consists of. Thanks.
     
    #113 Heavenly Pilgrim, Oct 14, 2006
  14. Faith alone

    Faith alone New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    0
    HP,

    I'm not sure if I exactly said that God is the 'cause' of our moral intents - not that I would necessarily object to that. But I'm hesitent because in the middle knowledge system the way that God predetermines (causes, wills) what will happen is different in that God actualizes a world in which the individuals freely choose as He willed before the world was created. So yes, you could say that God 'caused' what occurs in this world, but not, in general, by coercing people to do His will. They freely choose. IOW, God chooses a world in which things happen, in which people choose, as He wills. So in that world the individuals truly have freedom.

    I would note that it is not a perfect world by far, because of the sin and evil in it. IMO God has chosen to allow people to have free will, and as a result the worlds open to Him, though there are an almost infinite number of possibilities, are limited. He cannot do whatever He pleases for He is limited by His own divine character. God could never, and would never, choose a world in which He lied or sinned in some way. Similarly, IMO God does not choose worlds in which our free will is violated. I would not go so far as to say that He never over rules our free will. But at least in general, He does not - by His choice.

    The possibilities that I have been speaking about which never occur are referred to as 'counterfactuals' by philosophers. Typically those who hold to the Augustinian/Calvinistic view say that isn't possible and that such 'counterfactuals,' since they are not 'real' - they never have happened nor will they happen - are not figured into God's plan. They say He only deals with the real world. But I see evidence in scripture that God does know about such counterfactuals. We see Jesus saying that IF the things done in Capernaum had been done in Sodom (note that they were not done there, of course) that Sodom would still have been around. When David was hiding out in Keilah with his men, he asked God what would happen, and God told him. Yet those events never occured since David and his men fled Keilah.

    And if God has such knowledge, which He clearly does, then why should we assume that He would act without full knowledge of the complete consequences of every action he takes? As I see it, we must assume that God does act with full knowledge of all the minute consequences of every action He takes and every action He does not take. He does know the thoughts of each one of us at all times and he can work out all the possibilities and consequences, for He is sovereign and infinite in wisdom and knowledge. He does know all the possible worlds out there, for He is God. How can God know all these consequences and not act such that what He wills occurs, for He is God?

    What I like about the middle knowledge approach is that it does not restrict God. It does not limit His knowledge or sovereignty. It describes a God who is beyond what we may have assumed about Him. The other viewpoints do limit God in some manner, IMO.

    I imagine that the MK view is just one way to attempt to reconcile the apparent conflict between free will and election (as well as with God's sovereignty), and I am interested in other positions. But I need to also see the scriptural examples and groundwork for such positions.

    Thx,

    FA
     
    #114 Faith alone, Oct 16, 2006
  15. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0


    HP: What you imagine, I see as mere imagination.

    I believe I have rebutted the issues you set forth in several former posts I have written, so I will not go into detail again at this time. I am sure the issue will be revisited from time to time. Thanks again for your excellent spirit that was shown in our discussions. :thumbs:
     
    #115 Heavenly Pilgrim, Oct 17, 2006
  16. Faith alone

    Faith alone New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    0
    HP,

    I too appreciate your spirit. But no one has addresssed the several scripture passages I listed - for both sides. And I see no rebuttal of middle knowledge - at all - more a rebuttal of your interpretation of middle knowledge. Actually, it was really a rebuttal of the Reformed system and a re-classification of my position as Reformed essentially - which it is not at all. So you can interpret it as an effective rebuttal, but as I see it the points I made were just not addressed.

    Middle knowledge may be missing the boat, when all is said and done. But I still fail to see the logical break down with the middle knowledge approach of crediting God with greater knowledge than the other systems do. That is what it is about. The other systems significantly limit God either in terms of His knowledge and sovereignty or in terms of His compassion as well as re-interpeting what God has chosen to do - in terms of free will. And I gave scriptural evidence for such a knowledge base. Again, no arguments were made to oppose it.

    I am sorry that I must need be so spotty in my responses... I am swamped and of necessity away from the board for days at a time. :type:

    And I did not really start this thread to debate with people on middle knowledge, or the simple foreknowledge system that you follow or the Calvinistic system either. (Though IMO the simple foreknowledge system and the Reformed system take a very non-literal approach to many scriptures in this area. But my desire was not to put down either system which people have developed in an attempt to understand a very difficult subject.) But I genuinely wanted input about this topic in general - to spur some discussion on a subject that is never really adrressed in much depth on these boards.

    That has happened to a degree. Perhaps those who were lurking or who may peruse this thread in the future will be stimulated to think this through.

    Take care,

    FA
     
    #116 Faith alone, Oct 18, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 18, 2006
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 6 of 6
Loading...