 |
|  Starkman Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001 Total Posts : 1747 | Posted 4/30/2002 12:11 PM (GMT -6) |   | ON GOD'S KNOWLEDGE AND POWER
One of the greatest misunderstandings found in those who oppose the OV is the concept of omniscience. It is constantly thought by the opposers (or should I call them the...Opposers!) is that God "limits" His knowledge. He doesn't. Neither does He limit His power.
It can be said that it's a pretty sure thing tomorrow will come for earth, but this is because God has ordained it as such. When Jesus told the disciples they were to go out and spread the gospel, it is given, in the OV, that there will be this future, for God foreknew this, in that He determined it to be. Something similar must be said about the power of God within the OV. God does not limit His power anymore than it could be said He does or does not limit His power in a non-OV; the World Trade Center event is no more a commentary for or against the OV than it is against the non-OV, be it Arminianism or Calvinism.
God knows all there is to know--the theological and philosphical implications of this having been well rehursed on this site--and He knows that which He has determined to be. He is, in fact, therefore, all knowing. He never limits His knowledge in the OV perspective. Too, God's power is no less limited, if one wants to hold to a concept of limitation, than what can be equally applied to a non-OV.
If God knows the future exhaustively in advance, or predetermines everything, than EVERYTHING is fixed, World Trade Center and all. There's no getting around this with "Well, God's in our daily lives and that gives us some sort of meaning, purpose, life, choice, etc." No, if God predetermines everything, than everything is predetermined. If God knows the future exhaustively, than it is already settled--determined.
If God doesn't predeterimine everything, than there is a content of "as the chips fall" that must be considered. It can't be said that God just predetermined the exact time Jesus would die on the cross without attributing God's control to every movement required in history to bring this about. Additionally, happen-chance, as in "It was just foreseen by God, it just happened to happen this way"-- offers no acceptable certitude to specific, timely events. Either God is controlling events or He's not. It just didn't happen that Christ died when He did because it just happen to work out perfectly in time. God controlled events to bring it to pass. Now at this point, the possibility of an OV should start to become clearer, or at least plausible.
Either God predetermines all or He doesn't. And, either God controls events completely or He doesn't--again, I stress that a view of God simply knowing what's going to happen affords no control over events to ensure their timeliness. It is at this point the OV steps in and says God both predetermines and controls but without tacking on exhaustiveness to predeterminism or God's control.
In a sense God's control is always at work, but He's not controlling everything at the microcosmic level; for example, He leaves room for a person to make decisions. God can control things down to the point, as in the case of Jonah, for instance, where Jonah is forced to do something he doesn't like, but even then Jonah could have simply said "I'm not budging," and promptly taken a knife and killed himself. This doesn't mean God failed, it means that God created mankind with the very ability to choose, and God is quite aware of all the options and is never, therefore, caught off guard merely because man doesn't cooperate.
Scripture makes it clear there is that which is predetermined. But Scripture also makes it very clear that man has choice, freedom, and it's real freedom. It's not exhaustive, but it's real, true, freedom. This is the open portion of the future most articulated in Scripture. God is not limited in His knowledge because of this freedom, and He certainly isn't less powerful compared to non-OV perspectives!
God cannot both be God and not God. He can't make Himself completely disappear, cease to exist, and still be God. It isn't that He chooses to not do this, it is that He can't. Well then, if we are to say that there's a few things God cannot do, surely we can understand the meaning of the statement "There's a few things God doesn't know" without that frigtening us. It isn't that there's something IN EXISTANCE that He doesn't know, rather, it is that portion of the future, that which hasn't yet been determined, namely, man's ability to choose, that is open. This should, however, never lead to the misconception that the OV Purports God limits His knowledge or His power.
ON GOD IN TIME
Something is to be said about time within the OV, as it constantly seems to be the barrier for many oppo...ahem...Opposers. (We are the Restorers, they are the Opposers. We shall be victorious. Away with the Opposers! "Ooooooff with their heads," as per the Queen of Hearts' frequent stately commands . . . you all HAVE seen Alice in Wonderland, haven't you?). Alright, back to reality here...
There is no specific time in which God or anyone could ever say to you, "I know exactly where you'll move your arm in 2 (or 10, or 30, etc.) minutes" because you can always change it. And if you do change it, God, in this case, could not say to you, "Oh, well, I knew you were going to do that, too." Then why wouldn't God have said such? Because there's never a place in time where free choice is finally settled until a person passes that time period. You always have the option to change whatever it is that someone says is fixed in time when they utter the statement that they know exactly what you'll do in X amount of time. It hasn't happened yet, therefore it is open.
Finally, if anything, the OV calls for a view of God that sharpens our understanding of just how powerful, and not powerless, God is. Other views do not jostle the mind, as does the OV, to give thought to this. For examples, Arminiansim concludes the future exhaustive--be it by God's foreknowledge, which has already been explained as an inadequate and inaccurate concept, or by determinism, which denies man's free will, thus there's no free choice; and Calvinism--with few exceptions within splintered groups-- confines all the future to have already been determined. Neither of these quite compels, as does the OV, a reconsideration of God's tremendous power. The proponent of the OV holds a view of God that declares, "Within the context of my freedom to choose--that part of life that's open--You, oh God are still able to secure and control the future as need be." Let one disagree with the concept of the OV--you nasty Oppossers, you!--but let the misunderstandings of the OV cease!
For the conversation,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 4/30/2002 2:06 PM (GMT -6) |   | Starkman,
Here are two quotes from the site linked which discuss the historical development of "foreknowledge" as it is thought in western philosophy/theology.
I'm no historian. But these are helpful to me to keep things apart enought to see them individually. The salient parts from below are as follows: Nominalist Reformers, following Ockham, assume that God can only foreknow what He has foreordained. In Reformation thinking, the virtual reality that God wills, replacing ontological reality (being) with what God wills. . . . Duns Scotus...came near to making foreordaining the basis for foreknowing (though he insisted that God is contemporaneous with every present moment in time); his followers took the step of making divine foreknowledge contingent on predestinating what was to happen...
That suggests that, in history at least, foreknowledge and mechanically tinkering with every last bit are not necessarily connected the way we all assume that they are.
quote: Lacking the difference between Essence and Energy (see below), Western theologians think (despite John 15:26) that the relation of the all-holy Spirit in the divine Essence has got to parallel His energetic relation to Jesus in the economy (dispensation) of the materiotemporal cosmos. If Thomists hold God's Essence to be "pure act" and intellect (see citations later)--thus confusing Energies with Essence, the Reformers give priority to will (a prime form of energy) in the divine Essence. Where the holy tradition thinks God foreknows what will happen since He is outside of time and contemporary with every moment of time, Nominalist Reformers, following Ockham, assume that God can only foreknow what He has foreordained. In Reformation thinking, the virtual reality that God wills, replacing ontological reality (being) with what God wills, defines Grace and Justification as well as Calvin's "as if" bodily presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper (see below). For what God wills (imputes) overrules, without erasing, what is; word and the pulpit efface the Mysteries (Sacraments); and of course the Second Person of the all-holy Trinity is a "Word" (rather than the creative Rational Principle of Order in the cosmos that He is in John 1:1). For Orthodoxy, Jesus Christ is not only the LOGOS but also YHWH--the o ON (so written on His icons) or "One Who IS" of Ex. 3:14 in the Greek Old Testament--which is older than known recensions of the Hebrew Old Testament.
quote: The Franciscan scholastic tradition begins with Alexander of Hales' lectures on Peter Lombard's Sentences--long the standard text for theological courses. Richard of Middleton and his later contemporary, John Duns Scotus, were the effective founders of Franciscan scholasticism; see H. O. Taylor's The mediaeval mind, 1951, II.542). Its early form is Scotism, but since William of Ockham carried a number of Scotist views to their conclusions, we term Franciscan scholasticism Scotism-Ockhamism--or, Nominalism or the via moderna. This school steadfastly maintained that "will is the noblest power in the soul" and that "will is simply nobler than the intellect." This Semitic view was due not least to the obvious causal efficacy of will--an "energy" in Eastern thinking. Duns Scotus made the divine will the norm and ground of righteousness or justice. He came near to making foreordaining the basis for foreknowing, though he insisted that God is contemporaneous with every present moment in time; his followers took the step of making divine foreknowledge contingent on predestinating what was to happen, though they emphasized predestination to Salvation more than reprobation--predestination to perdition. Though the Thomists held that the allegëd "indelible Character of the Sacraments" inheres in practical reason [i.e. wisdom], the Scotists held that it inheres in the will. Important figures in later Nominalism were Gregory of Rimini--a slightly later contemporary of Ockham's, a member of the Augustinian Hermits and a scholar of a strongly Augustinian outlook--and Gabriel Biel, a member of the Brethren of the Common Life and co-founder of the University of Tübingen whose view of Grace is reported by those who know to have been at the opposite pole from that of Gregory of Rimini.
at http://www.orlapubs.com/ORLAPUBS-R/R28.html
For the later conversation!
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 05/02/2002 06:03:41 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Ronald Ricketts Registered Member
 Date Joined Jan 2002 Total Posts : 50 | Posted 5/1/2002 4:11 PM (GMT -6) |   | Starkman, I really like what you have written about God's Knowledge and Power. You have helped with the issue of "control" which is most interesting to me.
Ronald | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Starkman Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001 Total Posts : 1747 | Posted 5/2/2002 1:29 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hey Ronald,
Thanks much!
And PoW,
Interesting!
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 05/02/2002 06:35:29 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 5/2/2002 11:00 AM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |  Starkman Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001 Total Posts : 1747 | Posted 5/2/2002 1:16 PM (GMT -6) |   | PoW, ma man! Sorry about the paucity of comment on your post. I'm so disgusted with my squandering of time, that I sometimes cut time where I should'nt--responding.
I will say that your edited addition helped me to graps the issue of the post; I wasn't sure what the context of the quote was, and that made it a tad hard to follow it. Thanks for adding what you did.
If all goes the way I hope, I'll, hopefully soon, be starting Bible college via distant-learning. Then it's all over; my time's history on the Net, except of research! Gads!
For the time,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:37 PM (GMT -6) There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads. In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3 dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|