Scriptural definition of "chance" and implications

Jesus in His unglorified 'humanity' was and even then that was limited to only some things.

 

Was surprised? Think about it more carefully, Allan. If God is omniscient, why is it He "wondered that there was no intercessor?" (Isa 59:16) Was He surprised? Did it really amaze Him? Did He not know this would be the case?

OR ... is "the Lord" in this passage the preincarnate Christ Who knows things in a "timely" manner? Isn't it the Son that is not privey to the "day and the hour" of His own return?

Which Person exists in eternity -- outside of time -- right now?

skypair

 

Well unfortunately Chance is a god in the non christian world view. Given enough time and chance, for instance, you develope complicated systems from simple building blocks enough to create life.
That doesn't mean a certain amount of randomness isn't built into creation. Thinking mathmatically it is the variable ingredient. Does this mean God does not know all possible out comes or possibilities? No. does this mean that God isn't directional in his variable? No. However, as human beings within creation and limited by time/space we have difficulty grasping certain consepts. God is outside both and encompasses both.
In the section quoted "chance" is not the important issue part of Jesus narration. He wanted to get to the point chance was his story telling device not to explain how the encountered occured but that it happened. Jesus was using a man made device with in his culture to explain an issue.

 

Nope, I don't believe the glorified Jesus is ever surprised. The Bible clearly teaches the incarnation, but it also teaches how He was restored to His rightful place after His resurrection. It was only during during that time on earth that He purposefully limited Himself (Phil. 2). He's 100% omniscient God and 100% perfect Man.

 

The priest in this verse is the one who acted randomly so how is it we could apply randomness to God when it was the man who by chance took the way he went?
If God were random He would not be the faithful God that He is. Being faithfull means we can count on God. There is nothing faithfull about being random. God didn't choose us by chance. Believing in chance is believing in LUCK.
MB

 

I have already done so..

If God.. 'IF' God .. is omniscient??
God IS omniscient.
From Ryrie's Basic Theology regarding God- subheading Catolog of the Perfections of God:

I can also quote from J.I. Packers Concise Theology, or Ericksons Theology or Hodges. or.. IOW- Both the Cals and Non-Cals agree on this subject without reservation. Maybe you need to come back to the 'reservation' - :laugh:

He didn't, at least not in the sense you are trying to ascribe to it. This is what is known as an anthropamorphism . This passage in context deals with the fact that man though he could both anything and everything apart from God so what vs 16 is more a 'cynical remark' God is making toward His hearers. God knowing full well man could not do anything (especially to redeem himself - which is more specific to what the passage is speaking of) allowed them to realize this on their own and thus suffer the consequences for not listening and believing Him. It is not that he was 'amazed' in the sense it took Him by surprize because He was unaware for He know all His works from the beginning. You need to read in context the surrounding passages carefully to understand what was going on.

This makes no sense here. The pre-incarnate Christ knows all things regardless of time because He existed outside of it and is eternal. Though the Son was not 'privy' to the day or the hour in His unglorified state is no longer true now that He is glorified.

All three of them. That is called what we call in theology, Omnipresents - in all places at once.

 

Hi Allan
I agree that God knows all there is... However His knowledge does not dictate my fate. I believe this is where Cal's take it a bit to far in there speculations.
MB

 

John, I respect your opinion and I am still investigating this BUT...

Who is it that that "wonders that there is no intercessor?" God would have known that, right? He would NOT have been surprised or amazed, would He? Who is it really that has the "anthropomorphic" character of "surprise"/"amazement?"

Who is it that wants to destroy the Israel of Abraham and start over with Moses? Father or Son?

Who is it repented over Nineveh? Father or Son?

Are you getting the picture? There is a "Calvinist God" that knows all and because He knows all it will comes to pass. And then there is a biblical God, Christ, who waits until the sinner receives Christ to declare him/her "elect."

Think about it, John. Three Persons -- three relationships with TIME. It's the same elephant but we none of us want to concede anyone else's description.

John -- Who is in directly charge of "earthly affairs" now?? What did the centurion in Mt 8, the one of whom Christ said, "Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel." (Mt 8:10) That centurion was acknowledging that JESUS, the temporal God, was in control! God is the CIC -- Jesus the 4 star general. GOD in charge of the strategy -- Jesus in charge of the tactics!

Please prayerfully consider this and see if a saint has brought some "intel" across "enemy lines."

I just want to add --- Jesus, the "angel of God" -- could have revealed much in the OT but it would have destroyed the "mysteries" that Satan would have known (1Cor 2:8), right? God was giving the "angel of God" only what COULD be revealed and that ended up to be all He knew. Do you believe that Jesus got most, maybe all, of His prophetic discourses from the OT scriptures?

skypair

 

Allan -- you're refusing to engage with me on whether the "Son" is the "Father." If we can say they are 3 Persons (trinity), why do we not say they are triune in TIME?

And Who was like man (anthropomorphic), Allan?? The Son, right? Whenever we see an "anthropomorphic" description of God, ought we not see CHRIST??? Whenever we see a description of a God Who is omniscient and totally sovereign, ought we not see GOD?? Should there not be a distinction -- especially if God has allowed one?

Theologies have "wrestled" with this since time immemorial! What's the problem? God "foreknows" but Christ "calls," right? God knows what Jesus will do but Jesus doesn't. Suppose Jesus got His "mission statement" strictly from the OT scriptures about Him. Suppose He got all that He told the OT saints (as the "angel of the Lord") from God's TIMELY revelation to Him?

Please reconsider and get back with me. God is not trying to "deceive."

NO, Allan! Who is "Alpha and Omega" --- beginning and end (hint: of TIME). Who did God give a temporal, earthly kingdom to??

This is SO SUBLIME I don't know if I can tell you. Paul might have heard it in the 3rd heaven! Christ is your BROTHER!! God reveals to you His plan in the same TIMELY manner that He revealed it to Christ!!! Can you grasp that??

Imagine you are Adam just as Jesus was "Alpha." God is walking with you and teaching you what is to come. You don't know any more that He tells you. He knows everything and you know what He tells you. C'mon, Allan. Open your Bible. What is God telling you? Jesus has ALWAYS known TIMELY things that God told Him -- but God has always known ALL things! You are just Jesus "surrogate" in this world! Born again but born of the Spirit just like Christ! Brothers! We are being "directed" by God but only told what we need to know in order to glorify Him.

What's going on now, Allan? We're so close to the rapture we can "taste" it! Is it any wonder (Isa 59:16) that the Spirit of Christ has shown us that at this TIME?? NO! The Spirit of Christ/God is ready to reveal it to us! God knew it before creation -- Christ/we see it, hear it, when it is TIMELY! When even Christ Himself anticipates it!

Which existed in eternity? All 3 of course. But then God went from 1 triune Person to 3 Persons in trinity in order to separate the physical and call a people unto Himself.

skypair

 

I'm having a hard time following your discussion. However, that last sentence I've quoted here seems very gnostic sounding. Ireaneus railed against certain gnostics that made Jesus into the Greek consept of Logos which was a demurge. The physical realm was then a creation of the demurge and was corruptable. However, the gnostics broke the God head into the trinity and then broke it down into a further group of demurges called Eons. What are you actually saying?

 

OK, check me out on this -- the Trinity existed "in the beginning," right (John 1:1). AND the "Word"/Christ made all things (John 1:3). So was it the Father operating "in time" or the Son?

Then we have the main issue -- some say that God "learns" and others that God "knows everything exhaustively." I agree that the Son learns because He operates in time. I believe with John 17:8 that Jesus "gave us the words which God gave Him" and that this is how He operates in the trinity -- that the Father above time tells the Son and then the Son reveals to us ("dispensationally" and "scripturally," if that helps) what we need to know in the course of time.

And yes -- Phil 2:7-9 -- tells us that Jesus made Himself lower than the Son/Creator/Angel of God that He was (BTW, the MAN part of the diagram seems flawed. If Jesus IS man, then the Spirit is ALWAYS in Him. In fact, MAN is not JESUS ["I in you and you in Me"] unless the Spirit ALWAYS dwells in him, right?)

I believe this makes the case that our only access to the Father is through the Son, right? I can only think of one place where God Himself is heard from heaven -- when Jesus was baptized. We KNOW that "no one at any time has seen God [the Father]," don't we? He passed by Moses while Moses was shielded in the "cleft of the rock," right?

But look in Rev 22:4 -- "they shall see His face." God has taken on a physical appearance (I would say Christ's body).

So without agreeing with the gnostics (I don't believe I do), tell me, jd and thinkingstuff, how this is the "third rail" of theology?

skypair

 

Jesus was referring to the custom of Jewish priests to cast lots to determine when and where they would serve in the Temple. They viewed the casting of lots not as "chance" but as allowing the Will of God to determine the outcome.

They would then travel to Jerusalem at their appointed time to serve (as with John the Baptist's father in Luke).

This is much the same as Peter and the Apostles casting lots to determine who would replace Judas.

They, as priests, should have known it was not a "chance" encounter, since they were following the "will of God" in coming to Jerusalem.

peace to youraying:

 

Don't have time to discuss all of this. We have a guest at our house and special meetings. But I will say:

1. I'm not a Calvinist. My view of God the Father and God the Son is not Calvinistic. It is Biblical. God is omniscient. Period.

2. You are making a classic theological error: dividing the trinity. They are one and they are three. It is an error to say the Father does or knows something that the Son or the Spirit doesn't, and vice versa.

 

Focusing on the word "chance" is over-exegeting. Just take it as an expression. If I find a nail in my tire and say "Fortunately it was far enough from the edge that they could repair it," that tells you nothing about whether or not I believe in a thing called "fortune."

"Chance" is a word we use to describe a situation where the causes are so numerous and so unknowable as to render the outcome totally unpredictable.

When I flip a coin and it comes up heads, what made it come up heads? I did! My arm motion, thumb motion, timing, etc. made it come up heads. But nobody other than God could possibly measure and compute all of those factors, so we call it "random."

As was mentioned in earlier posts above, "nobody" knows why the priest walked by when he did, so you descibe it with an expression like "chance" or "fortunately" or "and it came to pass."

 

I realize al this, John. All I was saying was that a different view sustains both perspectives.

When you get time, we need to discuss this. Calling the trinity "3 Persons" IS, in my view, doing what you say cannot be done.

And surely, as a bare minimum, you will confess that the Father knows the "hour and the day" which Christ Himself nor the angels in heaven know (Mt 24:36). Am I correct?

So far your view is not holding up to scrutiny, but I will withold any further critique until I understand how you can resolve your contradictory assertions.

skypair