Featured Omniscience and Determinism

What if I said....as a Marginal Molinist...no, temporally, logic would not allow for such, but, in the same "logical moment" <----confusion is in the word "moment" it isn't descriptive of linear time...God might in the same "logical moment" do such a thing....

No B.S. here:
nothing can be both A and not-A in the same relationship...so also the unexcluded middle...in the same relationship.

But God's dealings with man are not in the same relationship as the whollistic perfection of all of God's perfect knowledge in the God-head...there were things that Christ CLEARLY said (as a full member of the God-head) that he simply did not "KNOW"...at least temporally. Only "THE FATHER KNOWETH".... We have no choice but to accept that as true and work our Philosophical and Theological pre-suppositions around that revelation. To wit:
Mar 13:32 ¶ But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father

Repeatedly...We find Christ Divinely knowing things that only a full member of the God-head in perfect Omniscience would know...such as the thoughts of men's hearts...and yet we also find Christ (as a man) having weaknesses and simply lacking certain knowledge that only the Father (possibly the Spirit) was privy to.

God could not involuntarily "starve to death"...but neither could he become as a man... and live forever without food...otherwise, Jesus' temptation in the wilderness was meaningless and he simply never was "In all was tempted such as we"... THAT woul be illogical (because it would exist in the same relationship)....

However, as a man, a full member of the God-head COULD do those very things apparently:
1.) Not know some things
2.) Starve to death
3.) be tempted

This is NOT illogical, because this was not a Supreme being condescending "IN THE SAME RELATIONSHIP"...as he presumably interracts with the whole of the rest of creation....

We have two contra-distinctive (but not contradictory) concepts, BOTH of which are true:
1.) God CANNOT be tempted:

1.) Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

2.) Christ (who was God) CAN be tempted, and was:

Hbr 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Hbr 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.

Is this illogical?

NO...It is not possible that God BOTH Can and Cannot be tempted...In the same relationship...but what we learn from Scripture is that that relationship when God condescends to man is not the same relationship as is enjoyed in eternal perfection in the wholeness of the God-head.
It is not sufficient to suggest that in EVERY signifigant passage wherein God speaks of himself as having limitations of any sort are merely anthropomorphic...if it's the case...than he actually believes we are more stupid than we really are, and he has erred by over-using that method to such an extent that entirely TOO many of us, have actually taken him literally.

It is heresy to maintain that Christ was not FULLY GOD...similarly...it is also heresy to maintain that he was NOT fully MAN too.

 

It IS illogical. You have God knowing all things at the same time and, yes, in the same sense NOT KNOWING some things.

That is a clear violation of the law of noncontradiction.

Your example of Jesus not knowing the day nor the hour does not help your case either.

Jesus was certainly God while being man. But it is an error to think that Jesus was SIMPLY the mind of God placed inside a human body.

Jesus was a man with a brain. That brain was no different from his physical body. It was limited. It could not hold all of the information of the universe past, present and future. It had to learn. It had to study in order to be able to read, write and do arithmetic.

But to confuse his human brain with his divine mind is no different than confusing his human muscles (which were limited) with his divine omnipotence.

Humanly speaking Jesus could not ball up his fist and knock a crater the size of the Grand Canyon into the earth.
Just the same way, humanly speaking Jesus could not know the future.

But what we see in the life of Christ is that the human nature which was fused with the divine nature often tapped into the divine nature and performed with his human hands and human mind deeds that God alone could do.

But to say that he can in some way know something in his divine nature and at the same time and in the same sense (divine nature) NOT know many things is most assuredly a violation of the law of noncontradiction.

This spawns from a misunderstanding of hypostasis.
______________________________________________________


edited to add:

This is not Nestorianism. I am not saying that Jesus consisted of two different persons. I am not even saying that he had two different minds. I am saying, consistently with the Council of Chalcedon and the Third Council of Constantinople, that Jesus possessed two different ranges of consciousness.

Of course this is not a violation of logic either because we know full well that all healthy minded people have different ranges of consciousness. For example, we have in one mind a conscious and subconscious range of knowledge. We don't always know consciously what we know subconsciously and vice versa. Also, we have suppressed memories and old memories that we have to dredge up. I teach GED classes two days a week in the local state prison. I already knew how to get the measurement of certain angles given certain incomplete information. But I had to dredge it up. But the moment a particular bit of information hit my mind I immediately, without the need of further study, was able to do the formulations without trouble. The knowledge was IN MY MIND but not readily available to me.

This anecdote breaks down eventually as do all anecdotes but it sufficiently illustrates the logic of Jesus' two ranges of consciousness.

 

I can only imagine pretty song

Jesus is the Son of Man and the Son of God. The Son of God is just like the Godhead, but the Son of Man only knew what He learned from His Father. If the Son of Man knew everything than we would know everything because everything He learned from His Father He made known to us.

Our mind can only hold and handle so much, so are not going to understand all of God.

God not only can be linear, not only can He be every where in all times, where there is not a time that God is not everywhere in time at one time. He can also be in a moment with us, just us. God has a relationship with us. God wanted to gather Israel as a hen gathers her chicks, that we are His bride He is the Groom. Jesus called her daughter. Our relationships are made up of a bunch of moments together. We cannot comprehend this, but it doesn't make it not true.

 

Hi HOS,

1) I view things as happening in sequence, this happens before that. In the beginning God created.... Before the beginning He had not created. This is the biblical view. Men can invent a realm where there is no sequence, but that is a realm of invention of men, not the biblical view.

2) God did create physical time, and therefore can exist outside of physical time. But it is an argument from silence to claim God does not exist in spiritual time. Therefore when God made plans before physical time began, that does not require the assumption of always existing plans, rather the logical conclusion is that the plans were made and before they were made, no plan existed.

3) Skandelon does make the argument that we should accept his nonsensical view because God's ways are higher than our own. This simply claims one man's view of God is right, even if nonsensical. Twaddle.

4) Truth matters. I never asserted or implied my view was perfect, only that it made sense. I never used your term "philosophy of time."
Misrepresenting the views of others, then knocking them down is without merit.

5) Yes, the Calvinistic doctrine of exhaustive determinism is bogus, and so is the Arminian doctrine a time traveling deity who exhaustively knows what He will decide before He decides, and what we will decide before we decide. The fiction that God has created the future and can visit it and know it, is pure twaddle. No scriptural support exists. On the other hand, God makes plans for the future, then brings those plans to fruition. That is the Biblical view.

 

HOS simply misrepresents others and himself. It is a waste of time trying to communicate.

The Arminian view is non-sense, and unbiblical.

God tells us what will happen in the future, then causes those future events to occur.

Spiritual time is a possible attribute of God, fully consistent with all scripture. It has nothing to do with any view of physical reality.

Denial of truth does not diminish truth. I a quoting Skan's very words, God's ways are higher than our own, and so to deny that is his argument is simply to spit into the wind.

Bottom line, Exhaustive Determinism is bogus, thus God has not fixed the future exhaustively. Calvinism has no explanation except absurdity for proclaiming exhaustive determinism yet God is not the author of sin. Arminianism has no explanation except absurdity for proclaiming God makes plans for what He will bring about in the future, yet He already knows what will occur in the future exhaustively.

In a word - NONSENSE!!!!

 

Let's take this line-by-line shall we?

 

Hi HOS,

1) I quoted where you referred to my view, then said you had not referred to my view. That showed everyone with truth as an ally that your misrepresented both me and you.

2) Enough time wasted on this name calling, truth evading, derailer to any sort of biblical discussion

3) The bible tells us of God doing things in sequence before creation. Therefore the fiction that eternity lacks sequence is unbiblical.

 

Okey dokey :thumbsup:

 

Hos.....twaddle and fiddlesticks....you know that Van deals in realms that are one step beyond.....

Even if he explained it to you again ...we cannot possibly hope you could grasp what only Van alone can fathom. Perhaps only Winman who evidently in recent posts is able to channel Nazi minds and know what they knew and link them to calvinistic puritans is able to engage in Vanwinmanism star trek theology...going boldly where no man has gone before:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

I will start a thread on this just for you Iconoclast.