Featured Omniscience and Determinism

That's not true.

Christians have NEVER struggled with the idea that God has no corporeal form.

Christians have never had trouble understanding zoomorphism and apthropomorphism.

Is this an appeal to the readers of this debate? Are you hoping to win folks over with a populist approach?

Not in mortal tongue. That's EXACTLY why there IS a such thing as anthropomorphism because there are no terms in mortal tongue by which we can understand these aspects.

Logic is not finite. Logic is truth. Truth is not finite.

Something cannot exist and not exist at the same time. That is not finite. It is truth.

Something cannot be one thing and not be that thing at the same time.

That fact has nothing to do with finiteness.

 

Yes, it does.
Are you saying that God is timeless?
Would you say that God is simultaneously both atemporal and temporal?
Would you say that God's future already exists or does not already exist or that the future does not exist?
Are you saying that the future for time-space reality does exist but that we cannot travel to it?

In my view, things either exist or they don't. If something exists then it can be said that God is convinced of its existence. So, for me, when I consider that the future doesn't exist then that is the ontological status of it... it doesn't exist. It cannot be the case that a thing actually exist but actually not exist. So, if the future does exist, then it exists. You may mean that man cannot travel to it but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It seems this is your point: the future does exist but its observance of it is impossible for man.

So many questions to answer for us to all talk intelligibly with one another.

 

God knows all things that will ever happen, due to the fact that He either did them already directly. or else permitted them to happen, but all done within his plans/purposes!

Go back to when God created the Universe, at that 'time" God already knew all future historial events!

 

This was a major struggle in the early church that led to heresy.

I would say its safe to say 99.5% of believers do not even know what the phrases mean.

How do you apply this reasoning to miracles like walking on water...the hypostatic union...and the Godhead?

 

Without difficulty.

 

Ok, we'll that's your problem. You think anthropomorphism is bunk and God literally has horns and a head covered with eyeballs and flies around with wings.

I'm content to have a theology very different from someone who believes such things.

I'm content that your soteriology is flawed because of this error.

So, it's really Calvinism or a belief that God is a really weird looking animal.

I can rest my case here- without trouble.

 

Oh? Didnt you state something cannot be one thing and something else at the same time? Water cannot be walked on yet it was. Wine does not come from water yet it did. You cannot be one person and three yet God is.

 

Water can be walked on. Wine can turn to water.

You are confusing the laws of nature and the laws of logic.

They are not the same.

An undergrad level class on logic would help you here greatly.

And the Trinity is not illogical either.

I refer you to a good article on this:

http://carm.org/trinity-makes-no-sense-it-isnt-logical

 

Pitchback

Have you admitted punishing sinners for predestined sin is not the orthodox view? A yes or no would work for me.

Please stop trying to change the subject by misrepresenting my views.

1) If everything is predestined, God is the author of sin. That is the orthodox view.

2) Calvinism claims God predestines everything. Do you agree with Calvinism on this point?

 

Pitchback

It is not an answer to a question to change the subject and claim not to understand two verses.

Then you evade the question by saying you will not say God punishes sinners for the sins He predestines. A yes or no is required.

Yes, God either causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass is the orthodox view, but Calvinism claims God predestines whatsoever comes to pass. Is Calvinism mistaken on this point, is Exhaustive Determinism a mistaken doctrine?

You say you believe God knows what we will choose to do with certainty but that still allows us to choose something else. I say that view is irrational nonsense.

At the end of the day, both Calvinism and Arminianism are irrational in that they deny logical necessity.

 

Yes, I admit that the majority of Christians in history do not believe God predestines people to sin, and then punish them of it...in fact most Christians do not believe God predestines sins at all.

However, many other Christians (high calvinists) have believed God does predestine every act of history, including sin, and holds people responsible for their sinful acts. Many good Christians have believed this, and served God faithfully while holding this view.

No, I would say God either predestines or allows everything...but that his knowledge of what he allows is exhaustive in that he knows I will sin before it happens. This fact (God knowing what happens before it happens) is also the historic orthadox view.

 

Sorry I wasn't clearer, in saying "I will not say" I was saying that I would not say that because I'm not convinced that it is true. In saying that, I don't have a good explanation for the 2 verses I posted, and recognize some tension there.

I would say Yes.

Actually, if God knows what we will choose because he has perfect knowledge, then what he actually allows us to choose is simply what we choose, not something else.

Probably, but denying God's knowledge of future free decisions (including sins) also presents logical problems.

Also, you keep saying I am misrepresenting your views...how have I done so?

 

not naturally or logically.

no I haven't.

except when they are.

It must be accepted on faith, not logic. God said let US reason TOGETHER. We cannot stand toe to toe with an infinite God on logic. Did your class teach you that?

 

...which is the summary of Hebrew 11. Imagine if Abraham appealed to logic.