"I am Cod and there is none like me;"
Here, try this.
Posted on 06/05/2004 8:16:13 PM PDT by xzins
But I LIKED Bruce Almighty in a few ways. Yes it was blasphemous but there were a few good points.
For the secular world, it may have been something that rang home. Consider the target audience.
Too bad you have to go nitey-nite so soon.
His foreknowledge is His foreknowledge. It is separate, but still a facet of God.
I have to say after a cursory reading that I don't see how you're getting what you say you're getting out of it. I see no dependence of omniscience on omnipotence. In fact the author is talking about foreknoweldge and predestination. At most, you could maybe see an argument concerning the logical order of decrees, but omniscience and omnipotence are immutable attributes of God. His possession of those attributes is axiomatic. Without either of them, He is no God.
And how many angels can dance on . . .
Sigh.
Walter Martin had a good bit on this issue.
Too rushed and tired to get into it. Perhaps someone else will post it.
The last line says, "God foreknows the future because God foreordained the future."
Shouldn't it say, "God foreknows the future because God is omniscient?"
The way it is worded suggests strongly the dependence of God's knowledge on his omnipotence. The other highlighted sections add to that interpretation.
BTW, I found this quote to be interesting: what God foreknows must be as fixed and certain as that which is predestinated. I seem to recall that there was some specualation yesterday or the day before about God having the power to change the past. Some people were boasting about having a better God because of this. There are many many reason why this would be very bad theology. This cite is a good refutation of that kind of speculative theology.
Put simply, or in other words (Oh, dear, did I say that): What God already knows to be, whether past, present or future must be fixed and unchangeable. Otherwise you must concede that God's knowledge changes over time. This is the great error of Boyd and the Open Theists.
The only problem with the not quite in those deep waters Arminians is that the predestination which they hate so much is linked firmly to the absolute foreknowledge of God. In other words (I did it again), their inability to change their destiny does not end by throwing off the doctrine of predestination (that doctrine where God is firmly in control of the destiny of all things). All they have done is make God as helpless a spectator to their fate as they themselves are.
This was one of the things I realized as I have struggled with what predestination really means. It seems that I can either confess a kind of predestination wherein God is in control, or I can confess a kind of predestination wherein God is as helpless as I am. I'd prefer not to have the captain of my soul emasculated. So, I must confess that Jesus Christ is able to bring to pass that which I have committed to Him. This is my hope and stay.
Your brother,
Christian.
"I am Cod and there is none like me;"
Here, try this.
I think if God's ability to know the future is limited to only knowing what He causes to come about, then he is not omniscient at all, he is merely omnipotent and his omnipotency has structural limitations and boundaries.
Blowing into the wind! Trying to figure out God? I would say it's pretentious -- to the max. But not surprising. "My thoughts are not your thoughts and my ways are not your ways" says the Lord. Ours is not to solve the Mystery of God. Maybe it's time to spit out that peace of the forbidden fruit lest we think we are just like God.
"In other words..."
I think that these words capture the essence of this problem. Instead of taking the words used to describe God, at face value, we (all) try to "make sense of" those words.
Unfortunately, we use "other words." Thus, WE change the words which God, the Holy Spirit decided to use, to inform us of Him. We CANNOT actually comprehend the reality of God, because we are mortal, finite, and temporal, (for now) and He is not any of these.
Imagine what God is thinking, looking down at us, telling each other what He is like.
God IS, what IS. He has given us the Bible (and the natural world, and the Holy Spirit) to teach us about Him. Everything beyond THAT is "in other words."
Whoever "wins" one of these arguments has earned nothing. Nor, has he made the character of God fit his "other words."
The Character of God is what it is.
DG
p.s. I am not aiming this rant at you, personally. I am aiming it at all of us, including myself.
Again, I do not see any such thing. Look at the sentence again:
"God foreknows the future because God foreordained the future."
That could also be said this way with no change in meaning:
God foreordained the future, therefore He foreknows the future.
To say that foreknowledge is dependent on omnipotence can be reduced to saying that knowledge is dependent on power, when the old saying is that Knowledge IS Power. Can you truly say that if one is powerless, that they are therefore without knowledge? Or that If they have no knowledge, they therefore necessarily have no power? I don't see that either of those comparisons can be called truisms. The one does not follow from the other. A logical fallacy, if you will; A false causality. You're trying to draw a parallel where none exists.
His foreknowledge is His foreknowledge. It is separate, but still a facet of God.
Do you perhaps intend 'distinct' instead of 'separate'? All of God's attributes are distinct and yet work in harmony to reveal His character. God is not 'conflicted'.
Yes. Distinct was the concept I was thinking of when I wrote "Separate." Thank you.
That is exactly my concern. You see the logic of what I am worried about. Just because one is powerless does not mean that they are without knowledge.
The following 3 excerpts from Boettner do not seem to agree with either of us.
Scripture teaches very explicitly that God acts according to a plan And, knowing that plan, he knows the future.
His decrees therefore are eternal, unchangeable, holy, wise, and sovereign. They are represented as being the basis of the divine foreknowledge (q.v.) of all future events, and not conditioned by that knowledge or by anything originated by the events themselves.
...our fore knowledge does not precede determination, but follows it and is based upon it. God foreknows the future because he has foreordained the future. (Boettner, Wycliffe, "Predestination.")
This says three things: (1) that the decrees are THE BASIS of the divine foreknowledge. (2) It says that God has a plan, and that His knowledge of the plan leads to his knowing the future. (3) This says that God know the future BECAUSE he has foreordained the future.
Divine foreknowledge is based on Decrees.
Divine foreknowledge is based on God's knowledge of His Plan.
Divine foreknowledge is based on God's foreordinaton of the future.
Use those 3 points as the factual information on which you MUST BASE the answer to your question above: "Can you truly say that if GOD is powerless, that GOD IS therefore without knowledge?"
Using the facts presented by Boettner, I MUST conclude that if God were powerless that God could not have knowledge of the Future.
If what you say about "Cod" is true...then something seems really fishy to me.
I'm gonna let the questions in my mind float and I'll tackle them later. I don't intend to bait you with this reply, but I am hoping you'll get hooked into the conversation. I could net some good material for later, so I don't want to let this big one get away. Perhaps you'll get my drift and stay on line.
Seriously: What structural limitations and boundaries are you think of?
Also Seriously: If God is INDEPENDENTLY prescient, then He could not possibly have EVER not known the future, even when He was planning.
Are we to assume He refused to consult what He already knew when He laid His plans and made His decisions?
That's no different than those groups who get around the foreknowledge problem by saying "he refuses to look." How can he not know what he refuses to look at?
How can he not know the results even as he plans?
I don't understand why this worries you so, unless you are starting to see that Calvinists are right, and God HAS foreordained all that comes to pass.
The following 3 excerpts from Boettner do not seem to agree with either of us.
Scripture teaches very explicitly that God acts according to a plan And, knowing that plan, he knows the future.
The only issue I would take with this statement is the reference to a Plan as though it were something separate from God Himself. The Plan does not inform Him of the future, as though He had to consult it to know, the Plan exists within His Mind, and is integral to His Being. His Knowing of the Future (for us) is as detailed and precise as His knowledge of our present and past, and the past present and future of all creation and everything and eveyone in it. In short, there is no part of it hidden to Him, because He has decreed that all be as it is and shall be.
His decrees therefore are eternal, unchangeable, holy, wise, and sovereign. They are represented as being the basis of the divine foreknowledge (q.v.) of all future events, and not conditioned by that knowledge or by anything originated by the events themselves.
In essence, Boettner is saying (and I agree) that God's knowledge of future events is not based on having looked to see how it COULD or WOULD be, but based on the fact that He has decreed how it WILL be. Because He knows what He decrees, He knows the result of those decrees, because whatever he decrees comes to pass, exactly and specifically as He has decreed it. He does not need to look to know it, He knows it because He decreed it.
...our fore knowledge does not precede determination, but follows it and is based upon it. God foreknows the future because he has foreordained the future. (Boettner, Wycliffe, "Predestination.")
This is just another way of saying that he knows the future because He has decreed it to be so, and His decrees are never wrong, and never fail. This obliquely refers to His Omnipotence, but it is with reference to the surety and certainty of that which He decrees. Determination, I believe, refers to His absolute power to call those things that be not as though they are, and to know with certainty that they are exactly and specifically as they are decreed to be. Again referring to His Omniscience and Omnipotence.
Using the facts presented by Boettner, I MUST conclude that if God were powerless that God could not have knowledge of the Future.
And conversely, it follows that if God is ALL-Powerful (Omnipotent), then God has perfect and complete knowledge of the Future (Omniscience).
So, it seems we have refuted Open Theism, and also laid an axe to the root of Arminian theology.
On the contrary, Nby. It is those who say that God doesn't know who are the first kin of the open theists.
If Boettner is saying that God does not have independent total prescience, then Boettner, too, is calling into question the omniscience of God.
If I say that God only knows the future because He has planned the future, then I have made knowledge dependent on power, and AT LEAST called into question its independent existence.
...And laid yourself bare to the charge of necessitarianism, the belief that everything necessarily (of necessity) happens, because God has decreed it, including all things sinful. Logically, this is a contradiction, since for it to be sinful, it must be against what God has commanded; yet God has commanded them to do it (or commanded them to follow their nature, which is to do it--ultimately, responsibility for the actions taken doesn't shift because of the mental gymnastics).
Wasn't it CTD that was arguing a while ago that there were several members of the Swarm that were of the belief that God was the author of all things, even sin? And wasn't that how he (and others) have defined hyper-Calvinism?
As for the rest of the points, I need to get to work soon and am really tired, so I'll leave their discussion to others. I'll try to get back to any responses you may have by tomorrow afternoon.
So by establishing that God DOES know, Open Theism is toast. I think that we can agree that, given God being Omnipotent, He therefore DOES have complete and perfect Foreknowledge. His Omnipotence is pretty much a given, is it not? I, for one, can't see how anyone could say they believe in God and not believe in His Omnipotence.
If Boettner is saying that God does not have independent total prescience, then Boettner, too, is calling into question the omniscience of God.
This statement puzzles me. Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're getting at. "Independent Total Prescience"? What God knows, He knows completely and totally. Are you saying that "Knowledge" is something that exists apart from God?? How could that be? Since by His Omnipotence He called the Creation into existence, it follows that he knows everything about it, down to the smallest detail. It follows then that His Knowledge of the working of His Creation is also absolute.
If I say that God only knows the future because He has planned the future, then I have made knowledge dependent on power, and AT LEAST called into question its independent existence.
Once again, are you saying that Knowledge has an existence separate from God? When Knowledge is spoken of this way, it is an abstract concept. God is not abstract. His Knowledge is not abstract either, but specific. Can He know something that doesn't exist? Yes, because He can call into existence things that don't exist. To do so involves the power to create, and the knowledge of what it is He wants to create. Anything else is random, and randomness is entropy.
As I see it, you're still trying to make room for that autonomous free will that you're so certain you possess.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.