I have read that 'The mind cannot tell the difference between an actual experience and one vividly imagined.". For thinking creatures I believe that this is true.
On this board I believe that I have read that God cannot increase in knowledge (I think most here would agree to this). Is there a difference in God's knowledge of something that actually happens compared to something that will happen? If not then why should anything actually happen? Why shouldn't God's knowledge of it be adequate? If there is a difference, then how can it be said that He doesn't gain knowledge. Is His experience of actual events any different than His knowledge of the events? I can't help but think that God appreciates an actual experienced event compared to a theoretical event.
If knowledge is perfect then what is the need for experience?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by humblethinker, Jul 15, 2012.
Page 1 of 2
-
-
Not only His knowledge but all His ways are perfect.
Therefore, God is not limited by His knowledge in such a way as to prevent Him being Truth in His ways:
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
(Deut 32:4)
Often the focus on Divine Ominscience, to force fit it to determinism, is in disregard of His other attributes such as Omnipotence, creation in Love, Judgments, Justice and Nature of Truth. -
-
For humans, I would say it is a sign of our inherent weakness of mind that we sometimes confuse an occurring in a dream with a real event. God has no such weakness...and so he can distinguish in his mind between a foreseen event and a present or past event that has actually occurred.
Of course, this line of reasoning is by necessity rejecting that God is completely outside of time as some say, observing the future exactly as he does the past. I'm not sure what scriptures would help us decide which is correct.
The "lamb slain before the foundation of the world" and the statement that God "glorified" (past tense) those he called and justified could either be seen as evidence that God is outside of time such that to God Jesus was actually slain as soon has he determined to so it (which raises the question of when God decided anything, if he is outside of time)....OR it could be taken to simply mean that once god determines something, it is as sure to occur as if it had already happened.
I think I used to be an outside of time guy, but I'm leaning the other way now...still not sure... -
-
-
-
humblethinker said: ↑But as I understand calvinism, it requires that God's knowledge cannot change in quantity or quality (ie, God's knowledge cannot change in any way). Such a requirement, imo, necessitates a strictly atemporal God. Now, if God is always atemporal then how could foreknowledge ever exist? (And foreknowledge is a scriptural truth... How can an atemporal God have foreknowledge?)Click to expand...
B. (that's right, "B") Just to play devil's advocate, I think an atemporalist would simply describe foreknowledge as God telling us in terms we can understand that he knows things and people before they happen. I don't think the simple use of the word foreknowledge does away with an atemporal view.
...I don't think the evidence (scriptural nor philosophical) warrants an atemporal view as calvinism seems to require. Maybe we should ask of there are any Cals that are of the strong opinion that God is temporal... I've not known of any.Click to expand...
I would say that temporality is described as a sequence of events, not necessarily by measured time...So While God "knows" all the future perfectly, he also makes decisions, and ACTS, that have effects that happen after those decisions. Ie, He Said "Let there be Light", and there was light. He acted, and the action had an effect. I think the atemporal view would have to say that God (from his own perspective, not ours) is not any more finished with creation now than he was before he started.
Now, where temporality get's dicey is if you ask the question: If God always knew he would create the world, and certain action he would take in that world, has he actually ever made a decision? For example, Did God ever actually decided to create the world, or did he always know he would do it, and when, and then at the foreknown time, he simply started the plan he had known about for all eternity?
(I realize there is probably no answer to this :) -
12strings said: ↑1. I'm not sure if every form of Calvinism requires that God's knowledge cannot change in quality or quantity...Click to expand...
12strings said: ↑Would it not fit a Calvinist system to say simply that God's knowledge of future events is perfect in scope, but not actualized through experience...ie, there is nothing he does not know about this conversation we are having...but because his knowledge is perfect, he also knew last year that this conversation, with which he was perfectly familiar, had not actually happened yet.Click to expand...
12strings said: ↑B. (that's right, "B") Just to play devil's advocate, I think an atemporalist would simply describe foreknowledge as God telling us in terms we can understand that he knows things and people before they happen. I don't think the simple use of the word foreknowledge does away with an atemporal view.Click to expand...
12strings said: ↑Well, I may be one, depending on how you define "strong opinion." And I simply say that because I still believe in TU_IP, and am not going to get bent out of shape if someone calls me a calvinist, when in reality I can legitimately claim not to be.Click to expand...
12strings said: ↑I would say that temporality is described as a sequence of events, not necessarily by measured time...Click to expand...
12strings said: ↑So While God "knows" all the future perfectly, he also makes decisions, and ACTS, that have effects that happen after those decisions. Ie, He Said "Let there be Light", and there was light. He acted, and the action had an effect. I think the atemporal view would have to say that God (from his own perspective, not ours) is not any more finished with creation now than he was before he started.Click to expand...
12strings said: ↑Now, where temporality get's dicey is if you ask the question: If God always knew he would create the world, and certain action he would take in that world, has he actually ever made a decision? For example, Did God ever actually decided to create the world, or did he always know he would do it, and when, and then at the foreknown time, he simply started the plan he had known about for all eternity?
(I realize there is probably no answer to this :)Click to expand...
I would say that He knows all of His future choices as options which he might decide to enact. This way he is free to deliberate in the Trinity and free to act. -
humblethinker said: ↑I would like to see a calvinist on the board lead with that argument! The "immutability" of God's knowledge is one club used in offensive manuevers against Open Theism.Click to expand...
I agree! If they would say that then wouldn't you agree that it would be no philosophical stretch that the atemporal view would have to say that God, from his own perspective, is not finished with anything?Click to expand...
I would say that He knows all of His future choices as options which he might decide to enact. This way he is free to deliberate in the Trinity and free to act.Click to expand... -
OldRegular said: ↑Is this continued attempt to question, dissect the nature of God edifying to the Saints, the Church, or to God? I think not!Click to expand...
Attempting to describe God based on the Biblical revelation he has given us is a valuable endeavor that will lead us to worship him more because of his greatness and grow in awe of him for his complexity and vastness. Knowing God is the end for which we were created, and while we will not know everything, growing in knowledge that leads to worship for new aspects of God is not a wasted endeavor. I does edify the church and the saints!
--> You are correct that it does not "edify" God, as God has no need to be edified (built up). -
humblethinker said: ↑What I'm saying is that His foreknowledge of a future event is in some respect appreciably different than the actual experience of the event. What I'm asking is, If His experience is not appreciably different than his foreknowledge then what his purpose of experiencing actual events?Click to expand...
How He experiences all things at all times outside of time is indeed mysterious and shouldn't be the basis on which to draw unfounded and unbiblical conclusions, such as:
"If God knows it all before creating it then he must have determined it to be. Thus, God either determined all things to be or he doesn't really know it all."
That dilemma accepts the premise that God is finite and bound by the linear cause/effect constructs of time and space. That is the premise both Openists and Determinists wrongly presume must be true. -
Skandelon said: ↑I'd argue that God's foreknowledge is much more like our actual experience of the event than a mere foreseeing of what is yet to happen. He is the Great "I AM," not the great "I WILL BE."Click to expand...
Skandelon said: ↑How He experiences all things at all times outside of time is indeed mysterious and shouldn't be the basis on which to draw unfounded and unbiblical conclusions, such as:
"If God knows it all before creating it then he must have determined it to be. Thus, God either determined all things to be or he doesn't really know it all."
That dilemma accepts the premise that God is finite and bound by the linear cause/effect constructs of time and space. That is the premise both Openists and Determinists wrongly presume must be true.Click to expand... -
Skandelon said: ↑I'd argue that God's foreknowledge is much more like our actual experience of the event than a mere foreseeing of what is yet to happen. He is the Great "I AM," not the great "I WILL BE."
How He experiences all things at all times outside of time is indeed mysterious and shouldn't be the basis on which to draw unfounded and unbiblical conclusions, such as:
"If God knows it all before creating it then he must have determined it to be. Thus, God either determined all things to be or he doesn't really know it all."
That dilemma accepts the premise that God is finite and bound by the linear cause/effect constructs of time and space. That is the premise both Openists and Determinists wrongly presume must be true.Click to expand...
Other than the "I Am" Name, what scripture point to the former? -
12strings said: ↑YES!!!!!!
Attempting to describe God based on the Biblical revelation he has given us is a valuable endeavor that will lead us to worship him more because of his greatness and grow in awe of him for his complexity and vastness. Knowing God is the end for which we were created, and while we will not know everything, growing in knowledge that leads to worship for new aspects of God is not a wasted endeavor. I does edify the church and the saints!
--> You are correct that it does not "edify" God, as God has no need to be edified (built up).Click to expand...
Colossians 2:8.Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. -
humblethinker said: ↑The "Great 'I AM' " can comport with both views then. The temporal view believes in a temporal 'now' while the atemporal view proposes an eternal now. If I read you correctly, I believe you subscribe to eternalism rather than the growing block theory, correct?Click to expand...
No, that's not the premise that Open Theism presumes at all.Click to expand... -
12strings said: ↑I suppose the big question is, Does God interact with me right now in the same way he interacts with me 10 years from now? From God's persepective, is he answering my prayers that I am praying 10 years in my future right now? or does he simply KNOW what they will be?Click to expand...
Other than the "I Am" Name, what scripture point to the former?Click to expand... -
Skandelon said: ↑At this point I'm simply saying that those are mere 'theories' or speculations. A "theory" carries the premise that this information isn't fully knowable, which SOME here haven't seemed to accept. I could get into the weeds with you and talk about specifics of what I think could be the way it all works, but that really wasn't my desire in posting.Click to expand...
Skandelon said: ↑I'm beginning to realize that most proponents of Open Theism don't believe much of what they have been accused of believing, so I'll concede this point.Click to expand...
Skandelon said: ↑What I mean, is the stereotypical view of Open Theism, which claims they deny aspects of God's knowledge because they too accept the premise that it would necessitate determinism.Click to expand...
The right question is not so much, 'What kind of God is He?' but 'What kind of world has He created?', would you agree? -
OldRegular said: ↑Colossians 2:8.Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.Click to expand...
-
humblethinker said: ↑Yes, that would be the stereotypical view of Open Theism. Open Theism, regarding God's knowledge, is completely congruent with the statement, "God's knowledge is coextensive with reality." Open Theism holds that 'ontological possibilities' are part of reality.Click to expand...
Openist Theists are railed on as reducing the Divine attributes (i.e. God doesn't really know everything), but in reality those I've been reading seem to do just the opposite. They refuse to limit God to a determinative knowledge (past tense kind of knowledge), and insist on a dynamic knowledge (perfect/present tense...I AM). Objectively, I must say, the latter seems to promote a higher view of God's attributes, not a lower view.
.so many times as a communicator of meaning we are handicapped by our language or unskillful use of our language and so many times as a listener we are confused by our misunderstanding of the language used and are handicapped by our presumptuousness, impatience, egocentricity, etc.Click to expand...
The right question is not so much, 'What kind of God is He?' but 'What kind of world has He created?', would you agree?Click to expand...
Page 1 of 2