Can God originate a thought?

Well, there is the difference, you start with a presupposition, and then interpret scripture to conform with it. I simply read scripture for what it says, and then form my doctrine from that. Now, in this case, I admit I do not fully understand the answer, so I cannot take a dogmatic view for either position. I personally believe scripture never contradicts itself, so there must be an answer that satisfies this seeming contradiction, but at this point I do not know what it is. Perhaps I will never know.

 

No, my view starts that the Bible clearly teaches that God is all knowing. It never says that God doesn't know things. Now when I come across passages that say that God "searched" it is expressive. It doesn't say He didn't know. We must make an assumption. And of course that assumption would contradict Scripture. That's why I have the view that I do because I have clear Scripture teaching one thing.

 

I just quoted Scripture to you showing you differences. Any disagreement is not based on Scripture. God knows everything. To deny this fundamental truth is to deny the Scriptures. And I didn't say I understood everything.

 

That just is not so. When God said "for NOW I know that thou fearest God, SEEING thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" to Abraham in Gen 22:12, God clearly seems to be saying he did not know for certain that Abraham would be faithful until he observed it.

I simply believe God for what he said here, I see no purpose whatsoever in God using language that could be misleading. Why would the scriptures numerous times say God tries or tests men if God already knows the answer? This suggests to me that God is limited in knowing what men will choose, which argues for free will. I can see why Calvinists would be repulsed by such an idea, as it refutes their doctrine, nevertheless, this is what the scriptures say many times.

 

God is unchanging. What he was yesterday, he is today
...but he is reactive.

Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil, for who is able to govern this your great people?”
It pleased the Lord that Solomon had asked this.
1 Kings 3:9–10 (ESV)

"Pleased" was a reaction, (a thought) based upon a human action.
He would not have been pleased if the human action had not occurred.

Rob

 

It has nothing to do with Calvinism. Even you admitted that Jesus knows who will believe and who will not, so that point is moot. The Bible is clear that God has all knowledge, so any interpretation that seems to say that He doesn't is wrong. For "now I know" can be God expressing that Abraham has proven himself faithful. It's not saying that God didn't know if Abraham would be faithful or not. It's not misleading whatsoever. God is saying that Abraham proved himself. His faith was evident.

What you have done here is made an assumption which contradicts the clear Scriptures of God having all knowledge.

 

Another relevant passage for this thread (and Augustinian original sin)

Matthew 15:19For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

 

...and Jesus was fully God while fully man, which is a tension that cannot be explained away, even with Scripture used to state the contrary.

 

of course! The places that seem to be contrary are places where Jesus limited himself(phil 2:8-9). It doesn't make him any less God. So that's why this cannot be used as evidence to support God know knowing something.

 

God himself is the author of the scriptures. God knew his recorded words would be read by many millions of men over many centuries. All that we know of God is revealed to us through his recorded word, there is no other reliable way for men to know the truth.
God is no fool and knows exactly how to express himself explicitly. If God wanted to tell Abramam he had proven himself, he could have said, "Well done Abraham, you have proven yourself'" or a very similar expression. God is smart enough to realize that if he said, "now I know thou fearest God" that men could interpret this to mean he knows some things in time.

When folks start telling me things like "God did not mean all the world in John 3:16" or "God is not willing that any should perish only means the elect ", I quit listening to that person. God is fully able to say exactly what he wants to say.

 

To add a little more, if God had told Abraham, "Well done, you have proven yourself" it would still mean the same thing. If God already knows the answer, why is there any need to test a man?

And your feeble excuse will not work with Gen 18:21

Gen 18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grieveous; 21 I will go down NOW, and SEE whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; AND IF NOT, I WILL KNOW.

I cannot explain this, I do not know why God said he would go down and personally observe Sodom and Gomorrah to know if they were actually doing the things he had heard, but that is what God said, so I believe it.

 

Well,thankfully our side hasn't given up on you and others who interpret John 3:16 and 2 Peter 3:9 the way you do. When you quit listening,you quit growing as a Christian.

 

In 2 Tim 2:15 we are told to study the word of truth, the scriptures, not the theories of men.

And in verse 16 we are told to "shun" profane and vain babblings.

So, when I hear the vain babblings of men who obviously contradict the plain teaching of scripture, I shun them, I quit listening just as we are instructed to do.

When you see folks write a mini-novel to try to explain why "whole world" means only a few elect, you can be certain that is vain babblings.

 

And God could have worded it just as he did and mean the same thing. As I mentioned before, any interpretation that says God learns something in time(which God isn't even in time) is a contradiction of Scripture. Compare Scripture with Scripture. Figurative language can and is used in Scripture. Language is boring without it.

context determines words like "world" and "all." But I'm not going to discuss that here.

 

Of course believe it, but don't add to it by saying something that other Scripture contradicts. You are assuming something here.

 

And those who differ from you theologically on matters of soteriology you believe are following the theories of mere men instead of the Bible. Shame on you.

You don't know what you have gotten yourself into here Winman. In verse 18 it says that these teachers have wandered away from the truth. And it says that they say that the resurrection has already taken place. Do you wish to plainly state that Calvinists here are guilty of these charges?!

I guess you never listen to a sermon where a preacher tries to explain a theological concept. You never read a commentary which seeks to explain a pasage of Scripture. Therefore,you're as silly as a babbling brook.

 

I have heard many great preachers and learned much from them, but I always compare what they say to scripture. If they begin to teach something that clearly contradicts with scripture, then I quit listening.

And I said not one word about Calvinists teaching the resurrection is past. Clever trick, but no gold ring for you. I was simply saying the scriptures tell us to shun vain babblings.

 

Yes,it's very good to be a Berean. What you now see as contradictions to Scripture I pray that the Lord will open your eyes to understand its conformity to the Word of God.

Well then you don't believe in context but slicing and dicing. You quoted from 2 Tim.2:15 and 16.Verses 17 and 18 follow up the progression of Paul's thought. But I accept your left-handed apology that you you didn't mean to imply that Calvinists are guilty of the charges that Paul brought forth against the false teachers in 2 Tim.2:16 et.al.

 

And as far as saying you follow the teachings of men, what do you call yourselves? CALVINists!

And what is the favorite thing many call us who disagree with you here on BB lately? NO-NAME THEOLOGISTS.

See, you can't assign a man's name to us!

I'll tell you a secret, put down your Institutes and other works of men for awhile and simply study the Bible and you'll see where we derive our theology.

 

I didn't apologize to you, you are the one who should apologize, you falsely accused me of saying Calvinists teach the resurrection is past.

You are not nearly as clever as you believe yourself to be.