Like most Christians, I grew up believing that God was and is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, and I still believe that. This presents some problems for the thinking mind, however. For one thing, the Old Testament is filled with examples of situations in which God is angered by things that people have done, and it seems to me that He wouldn't be angry over something he knew was going to happen. If I know that my cat is going to try to catch and kill a bird when she's outdoors, I shouldn't be angry to find her at the back door with a dead bird in her mouth. Now, if I am trying to teach her not to kill birds, I am doing something that goes against her nature, which is not unlike God trying to persuade mankind to quit sinning, against their sinful nature. But, although I can make reasonable predictions based on what I know about cats, I am not omniscient, so I don't know that she is going to be at the back door with a dead bird in her mouth. An omniscient God would know whether or not we are going to succeed or fail at any appointed task, so it wouldn't seem reasonable for Him to be angered over it. That would be kind of like watching a movie twice in a row and hoping that it would end differently the second time. Another nagging problem with the omniscience of God is that it places the Armenian-Calvinistic argument in the role of semantics. If God knows in advance whether or not we are going to be saved or damned, then isn't free will a matter of semantics rather than reality? This is particularly true, I think, when you add omnipotence into the mix. The problem that I have always had with Calvinist thought is that it is kind of hard to look kindly upon a god who has decided before we were even born, that some of us are going to be damned, while a fortunate few were preordained to salvation, and that we have nothing to say about it whatsoever. It doesn't matter how much I might love God, how heartfelt my love for God might be, or how hard I strive to live a life that is Christlike, if I am preordained to damnation, then I am going to hell regardless. That's the problem that most people who ascribe to Armenian thinking view Calvinism. However, when we consider that God is omniscient and omnipotent, then this is almost a matter of semantics. The movie that determines whether I am going to heaven or hell was produced before I was even born, and I am little more than an actor faithfully performing on the stage that is life. The only way that I have come to reconcile these and other problems that the omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence of God presents is to believe that God limits Himself. We know that God limits Himself by living up to the promises that He makes, so that doesn't seem far-fetched. We also know that God limits Himself when it comes to His power of omnipotence, in that He doesn't fix everything Himself, although He certainly could do so, and does do so if He desires to. Could it be that God limits Himself in allowing us to live out our lives on our time without fast-forwarding the movie ahead to see, in advance, every decision that we may make, or every action that we take? Could it be that God is outside of time entirely, in such a way that we cannot understand? But if the latter, we're left with the problems presented by the omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence of God.
@Ken Anderson Everything you have considered and expressed above points up the inherent impossibility of resolution. Frank
Great topic, Ken , and one that probably most of us who are Christians have pondered before. I don’t believe that we are pre-ordained for salvation or damnation. If that were true, what need would there have been for Jesus to come down to earth, live life as a human, and die a horrible death ? Since we all have free will to make choices, God can know that we might choose to do the right thing or the wrong thing; but he would still be angry when we choose to do the wrong thing. I (as a mother) look at this the way that I would with my kids when they were growing up. If I ask my son to clean up his messy room, I know that he may or may not clean it up. However, if he chooses not to clean it up, then there will be repercussions for his decision. Now the example of the cat catching the bird is different to me. That is not deliberate disobedience of something they know not to do. As you said, catching birds is how kittycats are created, so there is no reason to be mad when it does catch and kill a bird. A dog chasing a cat is a similar thing because chasing is part of a dog’s nature. Chewing up your shoes because he is mad that he is home alone is different, and the dog is doing something that he would not do if you were there with him. The dog knows that is something that he should not do, and it would be natural for you to be upset when the dog chews your shoes. I believe that God gave us so many rules and guidelines because he knew mankind needed guidance to make the best decisions in life and to become a good human. If we do our best to follow those guidelines, then we are forgiven for our failures, and we can share a life in heaven eventually.
@Ken Anderson, I wrestled with this in my youth. I determined for myself that if the outcome is preordained, it makes Eve's action inconsequential, and even Jesus' sacrifice means nothing as He then had no choice and he WAS sacrificed and did not MAKE a sacrifice. To me there is a big difference. If Free Will is removed from the equation of life, life itself has no meaning and one's actions have no consequences as they were predetermined. If a murderer or rapist attacks someone and you believe that it was predetermined, jails are unnecessary and the only one you (or society at large) could blame would be God himself. I cannot help but believe that whatever my future holds, it is due to decisions I have made, not the script that was written before I was conceived. Much of the complexity is too much to address here.
On creation, yes. However, since the fall of Adam, mankind has had a sin nature. As it is in the nature of a cat to kill mice and birds, it is in the nature of mankind to sin. Cats have been trained not to kill, and dogs have been trained not to chase cats. We, also, can learn not to sin.
@Don Alaska, is the significance of free will affected by a God who know what choices you will make before you were even conceived?
If God doesn't predetermine those choices, the choices are still mine. Precognition does not mean predetermination. If you are familiar with the concept of "Sacred Time", it kinda means for God, everything takes place at the same time, where, as for us, it is a progression through a timeline. As I said, it gets a little too complicated for a forum thread, and may offend some people; I am reluctant to do that.
This is the kind of discussion that ants hold, when trying to determine the real meaning of what a picnic is.
@Don Alaska Absolutely nothing voiced here can offend me.......unless it is voiced against me.......then I may be a bit perturbed... Frank
Okay, may I try? The Romans 8:29 scenario has been a mystery for the best of theologians and I do believe that much of the confusion in their explanations of it lays directly within the realm of time and thought with a dab of a dimensional view tacked on. One of the most crucial points I have found is God’s reluctance to give Himself a name. Yes, He finally said to call Him Jehovah (Judeo Christian view) but His initial name or rather, explanation of Himself was given to Moses when He told him to say, “I am” sent you or more accurately “I am that I am.” All terminology prior to that was purely descriptive and given by mankind in order to give some sort of relationship between the unseen and the seen. God’s own description of Himself of “I am that I am” leads me to thought itself: it’s omnipresent and omnidimensional and since time is only openly relevant to the workings of mankind, it has no time constraint because time does not exist which is a further problem. Human mentation relies on reference points and time is one of them just as the oft used word “eternity” is. The eternal reality is that there is no eternity other than being a reference point in which mankind uses to visualize his own paradigm of what he believes it to be. God tried to lead us by saying that our thousand years is as a second to Him which stands as a paradox because a second nor a thousand years truly exists but again, stands as something that mankind can grasp if only in a very miniscule manner. Now, in a dimensional study, one must now admit that mathematically there are several dimensions and to me, God exists in all dimensions which leads to omnipresence in all time factors as we think of them. Hence, if we say that God knew us before the creation of the world [we live in] then we can also say that He knew us in an eternal sense. Ergo, that which we did, do and will do has already happened. Bottom line is: Live our lives as faithfully and sincerely to our beliefs as we can, denying any temptation to do ill will, then let God do the rest because there just ain’t no way we’re going to totally understand it.
I believe, not unreasonably, that if it was important for us to have all of the details right, then God would have given us all the details. However, He did give us an inquisitive mind that seeks a way in which things can make sense to us, so I see no harm in questioning such things. Indeed, that is what Christian scholars have done throughout history. Unfortunately, given the power, some of them denied others the right to question. I know that it all makes sense to God and that it doesn't have to make sense to me but insofar as I can make sense of the things of God, my faith is strengthened. We are encouraged to study the Bible and to know it well enough to be able to persuade others. I think that requires questioning those things that don't make sense, or that in which our own understanding is lacking.
There is a song, one that I have always liked, that goes like this... Old Time Religion Give me that old time religion Give me that old time religion Give me that old time religion It's good enough for me. It makes me love everybody Makes me love everybody Makes me love everybody It's good enough for me. Well, it was good enough for mother It was good enough for papa It was good enough for sister And it's good enough for me. Give me that old time religion Give me that old time religion Give me that old time religion It's good enough for me. It will do me when I'm dying It will do me when I'm dying It will do me when I'm dying It's good enough for me. It will take us all to heaven It will take us all to heaven It will take us all to heaven It's good enough for me. Give me that old time religion Give me that old time religion Give me that old time religion It's good enough for me. Give me that old time religion Give me that old time religion Give me that old time religion It's good enough for me. Yes, it's good enough for me... In one sense, I am tempted to agree that yes, it is good enough for me. There is no logical reason to believe that the Gospel that Christ brought to us should change to meet the demands of a new generation. I think that's the thrust of the thinking of those who agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment expressed in this song. I join with them in this sentiment. However, if you read the words, is it really speaking of a faith in God, in the sacrifice that Christ made on the cross that we might have the opportunity of salvation, of the power that is available through the Holy Spirit, or is it speaking of a faith in tradition? Is our faith in tradition, and is it enough that we believe that it will help us to live a good life and get us to heaven when our life here is over? Or are we expected to have a better understanding of our beliefs? That doesn't mean that the faith of our fathers and mothers was necessarily wrong. But should you be a Baptist because your parents were Baptists? What if your parents were Mormon? Buddhist? Muslim? Is your father's faith good enough for you? If you believe as your parents believed because you honor, love, and respect your parents, and trust them to have made the right choice, then is your faith in God or is your faith in your parents? If it's good enough for mother, and i'ts good enough for papa, and it's good enough for sister, it may well be good enough for you but it's not your faith until you make it yours, and faith comes by hearing the message and not simply be trusting the messenger. Of course, there is more to it than hearing the message or everyone who heard the message would be saved, and we probably all know people who were raised in a Christian home, hearing the message week after week, yet who rejected it. Wherever the Gospel message is preached, or otherwise communicated, there is the potential for faith. But faith doesn't come automatically. We have to hear the message, and we have to understand it at least well enough that we can believe and accept it, and we have to act upon it. Let us imagine someone who has heard the message, believed it, and asked Christ to come into his heart. Mainstream Christianity would say that this person is now a Christian, I think, although I would add that he must also take that first step of obedience, which is to be baptized. Let's say that someone has done these things. What if he now says, "That's enough. I don't need anything more." Believing that he has fulfilled his obligations, this new Christian goes about his life much as he had before. There's no need to go go church because he's already learned everything that he needs to know, and done everything that he needs to do. A friend of mine would say that he has entered the narrow gate, and sat down, refusing to go any further. It's for God to decide whether this person is still a Christian, while us mere mortals might question whether he ever actually was. But I think most of us would agree that this is not the ideal. Certainly, the authors of the New Testament expected more. There is something about studying to show yourself approved. The Modern English Version says, "Study to show yourself approved by God, a workman who need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15) Paul is writing to Timothy there, and speaking to Christians. What does it mean if someone is not approved by God? Does that just mean that he doesn't get an "attaboy" when he comes face to face with Christ, or does it mean something more dire than that? Paul also suggests that it's important for the Christian to be able to rightly divide the word of truth. In fact, Jesus prayed for Peter's faith to be strengthened (Luke 22:32). "I urge you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, and acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service of worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God." (Romans 12:1-2) How do we prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God if we don't know what it is that we believe in? There are countless verses in the New Testament that encourage and even command us to study and to better understand that in which we believe, so is it really enough to say that God understands it, so I don't have to? True enough, we will have to accept that we do not have the mind of God, and we will find that there are some things that we will not - and cannot - fully understand through the minds that God has given us. But I get the idea that we are supposed to try to understand it as much as we are able. In secular terms, we can learn to drive a car without fully understanding what makes it work, but wouldn't we have a better appreciation of the vehicle if we did? When we know what the various gauges mean, we can sometimes avoid expensive maintenance and repair fees. The more we understand about the car that we drive, the more efficient we are with it. Some people are sufficiently familiar with their cars as to be able to perform their own maintenance and to make repairs. If we were called upon to sell others on the value of owning such a car, as Christians are called to spread the Gospel, couldn't we do this more efficiently if we understood it enough to be able to answer questions? That's why I believe that there is value in theological discussions even over matters that are not salvational, including those for which we will not have a definitive answer during our time here, not because the answers are so important but because it helps us to better understand the things of God. Does grammar and spelling really matter as long as people are able to understand what I am trying to say? You might say that I can get my message out regardless, but spelling, grammar, fluency, and eloquence can have an effect on the how the message is received. I think that's true about our Christian witness, too.
The empiricist nay sayer says, “I need visible proof”. I say, “I am an empiricist and I have proof and it is called faith”. The former asks how faith can be evidence of that which is real? I say, “faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen”. The nay sayer says, “faith is not evidence for certainly the object of your faith cannot be seen, heard, felt or measured ergo it does not exist”. I say: “If faith is not evidence then do please explain thought. It is only upon faith that someone can declare the reality of thought although It cannot be measured, it is not seen, it cannot be heard or felt yet.....thought exists. As an empiricist, show me the evidence whereby one can absolutely conclude that one has thought. When you can truthfully deny the existence of thought, then I too will deny the existence of God.