Foreknowing and foreknowledge

Really?
You told ANOTHER poster to "just remain silent", and that's apparently perfectly fine, but when I throw your words back in your face, you feign offense?

Why do you play these stupid games?
you are confused or intentionally misrepresenting me, I don't ever tell people here to stop posting,
And as often as we see you requiring people to note a post number, and you are not doing it, that points to the idea that you are inventing.
 
you are confused or intentionally misrepresenting me, I don't ever tell people here to stop posting,
And as often as we see you requiring people to note a post number,

That would be never.
I request people provide links, not "post numbers".

I know you don't want me to repeat myself, but if you are unable to acknowledge this straightforward idea, I am not sure what to say other than just be silent

I will accept your apology now.
Please stop playing these stupid games.
 
My response was for ME to be silent. not the other poster
Let's take a look at your comment.

"I know you don't want me to repeat myself, but if you are unable to acknowledge this straightforward idea, I am not sure what to say other than just be silent"

We can see that you start off by pointing toward another. We can see this by your use of the word "you." You are speaking toward another individual when you state, "I know you don't want me to repeat myself." We can also see the self reference by the words "me" and "myself".

Then comes another independent clause in the form of an "if"/"then" type of statement. However, it is an informal "if"/"then" statement because the "then" is never explicitly stated. The "then" is implied rather than explicitly stated. "If you are unable . . . [then] I am not sure . . ."

Two possible ways of reading the clause
We can note that your second independent clause is speaking toward the "you," for you state "if you are unable". It follows then that the second portion of the "if"/"then" is also addressing the "you" of the first portion. "If you are unable . . . [then] I am not sure what to say other than just be silent." Your wording gives every impression of addressing the "you" of the first portion of the "if"/"then" as an understood "you" with the imperative "be silent". Fully written out, it could be saying, "I am not sure what to say other than (you) just be silent."

However, I grant that the sentence can be read in the way that you state, "My response was for ME to be silent. not the other poster." It would be akin to saying that if you are unable to acknowledge this point, then I have nothing further to say. In this reading the final words, "just be silent," are understood as descriptive rather than a command with an understood "you".

Conclusion
My point, after all is said and done, is that the wording could be read both ways, and as such could have been worded a little better. However, I do hold to authorial intent, and if the author says that his meaning was for one of the two possible ways of interpreting his wording, then I have to take it as indicating what the author intends. I also went through all this to try and make the wording issues clearer for both parties. Even if that was not the meaning Alexander intended, (then) it still helps to see how someone could come to the conclusion that they did regarding his wording.
 
Last edited:
Let's take a look at your comment.

"I know you don't want me to repeat myself, but if you are unable to acknowledge this straightforward idea, I am not sure what to say other than just be silent"

Yes, he's talking about what he should "say", and the only option he suggests is (to say) "just be silent".

Having said that, it can be interpreted in the way he says he intended it. But I wonder if he'd be willing to admit to his poor choice of wording.
 
Let's take a look at your comment.

"I know you don't want me to repeat myself, but if you are unable to acknowledge this straightforward idea, I am not sure what to say other than just be silent"

We can see that you start off by pointing toward another. We can see this by your use of the word "you." You are speaking toward another individual when you state, "I know you don't want me to repeat myself." We can also see the self reference by the words "me" and "myself".

Then comes another independent clause in the form of an "if"/"then" type of statement. However, it is an informal "if"/"then" statement because the "then" is never explicitly stated. The "then" is implied rather than explicitly stated. "If you are unable . . . [then] I am not sure . . ."

Two possible ways of reading the clause
We can note that your second independent clause is speaking toward the "you," for you state "if you are unable". It follows then that the second portion of the "if"/"then" is also addressing the "you" of the first portion. "If you are unable . . . [then] I am not sure what to say other than just be silent." Your wording gives every impression of addressing the "you" of the first portion of the "if"/"then" as an understood "you" with the imperative "be silent". Fully written out, it could be saying, "I am not sure what to say other than (you) just be silent."

However, I grant that the sentence can be read in the way that you state, "My response was for ME to be silent. not the other poster." It would be akin to saying that if you are unable to acknowledge this point, then I have nothing further to say. In this reading the final words, "just be silent," are understood as descriptive rather than a command with an understood "you".

Conclusion
My point, after all is said and done, is that the wording could be read both ways, and as such could have been worded a little better. However, I do hold to authorial intent, and if the author says that his meaning was for one of the two possible ways of interpreting his wording, then I have to take it as indicating what the author intends. I also went through all this to try and make the wording issues clearer for both parties. Even if that was not the meaning Alexander intended, (then) it still helps to see how someone could come to the conclusion that they did regarding his wording.
Yes, I totally understand how it could be interpreted the other way, but as you said, I wrote it and I know what I meant.
Also, if what I meant was for the other poster to be silent, I would have acknowledged it when asked.
But your post might be helpful
But as far as the other poster, nothing ambiguous about his post, he was telling me to shut up
 
Yes, he's talking about what he should "say", and the only option he suggests is (to say) "just be silent".

Having said that, it can be interpreted in the way he says he intended it. But I wonder if he'd be willing to admit to his poor choice of wording.
You have your answer, I am the author I know what I meant. It was not intentionally ambiguous, but once you know what I meant, it is not hard to read it correctly,
But I am still wondering why that gave you the need to tell me to be silent
 
Conclusion
My point, after all is said and done, is that the wording could be read both ways, and as such could have been worded a little better.

I disagree, it has to be written with quotation marks to mean what you are trying to say.

I know you don't want me to repeat myself, but if you are unable to acknowledge this straightforward idea, I am not sure what to say other than, "Just be silent."

Else the only logical meaning in the context is him deliberating whether he should say anything at all.

I know you don't want me to repeat myself, but if you are unable to acknowledge this straightforward idea, I am not sure what to say other than [TO] just be silent.


edit per mod
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe my position is compatible with soft determinism. I do disagree with some in some minor areas but my position is historically defined by others before me. I'm not going to get into too many details until I see a rational answer from you on what you believe.

What is soft determinism? Does that mean some of it is libertarian at all?

I don't believe this is compatible with Arminianism. I know that many argue that Open Theism is usually represented by Armimians but I disagree somewhat in that determination. I don't believe Open Theism has settled yet. It is a position that seeks to limit God's own choice to what is "right in front of Him".

I'm not willing to do this.

God is subject to His own personality of how He will respond.

I would say my view is Arminian exhaustive simple foreknowledge of an unsettled open future.

I'd like to know more about this "incidental meticulous" oxymoron you've fabricated. I know you've said a few things about it but it really seems to be an attempt to blend "oil and water".

Incidental means miraculous, and meticulous means exhaustive ... ie miraculous exhaustive foreknowledge. Like if you toss two dice they can incidentally roll doubles without influencing each other. If it is a miracle it all makes sense.

Let me come at this a different way,

Do you believe we are complicated creatures? Creatures too complicated for God to discern/know us? I've mentioned this before to Atheists but do you know what "Chaos theory" is?
Thanks

I am not quite familiar with chaos theory. It seems to say randomness is determined or follows a pattern.

We are not too complicated for God since He made us and the rules. Randomness is not too complicated for God either as He would foreknow it.
 
Incidental means miraculous, and meticulous means exhaustive ... ie miraculous exhaustive foreknowledge. Like if you toss two dice they can incidentally roll doubles without influencing each other. If it is a miracle it all makes sense.

Incidental miracles? Can you provide a witness to an "incidental miracle"?

Rolling a double isn't a miracle. You're using a pair of loaded dice here. Miracles are supernatural events and you're treating as if they're not.

I am not quite familiar with chaos theory. It seems to say randomness is determined or follows a pattern.

Chaos theory is the study of deterministic laws in dynamic systems. While events appear to be chaotic/random, they are nonetheless subject to order. A example of chaos theory is weather patterns. We are generally good at predicting weather patterns in a short span of time. As the span increases we are less able to identify predictable order within the uncertainty. We are limited by our power.

We are not too complicated for God since He made us and the rules. Randomness is not too complicated for God either as He would foreknow it.

Yet you are appealing to randomness as miracles. Again. Chaos theory is about order that appears to be random. Yet it is not.

As I've said multiple times now to you and @Dizerner ..... You believe God's knowledge is predicated upon the man's knowledge of himself. That God can not fully know man. Thusly, you fabricated an "Open" system subject to random change. Not order. This allows your flawed system to give a sense of influence that God doesn't control.

You are so focused upon appearances that you're ignoring the very real fact of the Scriptures that God foreordains events and brings them to pass. He gives order to what you call chaos. The absence of God's personal supernatural work, nothing would be accomplished. There would be no deterministic laws that govern the future. Chaos Theory is deterministic.

Why are you ignoring the deterministic facts of our existence?

God knows His creation as well as He knows Himself. So complete is this knowledge that you can never call anything God does "random". There is order to it all.

Pro 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.
 
Incidental miracles? Can you provide a witness to an "incidental miracle"?

Rolling a double isn't a miracle. You're using a pair of loaded dice here. Miracles are supernatural events and you're treating as if they're not.

If the dice is loaded then it isn't a miracle anymore but man's logic.

Chaos theory is the study of deterministic laws in dynamic systems. While events appear to be chaotic/random, they are nonetheless subject to order. A example of chaos theory is weather patterns. We are generally good at predicting weather patterns in a short span of time. As the span increases we are less able to identify predictable order within the uncertainty. We are limited by our power.

However if we toss only one coin it randomly turns out only heads or tails. And if we keep tossing it the statistics get ever closer to 50-50. That is order that is still random. In the chaos theory the initial cause could still be random because it is either triggered or it's not, randomly.

Yet you are appealing to randomness as miracles. Again. Chaos theory is about order that appears to be random. Yet it is not.

The dice are only an analogy. God though is actually miraculous.

As I've said multiple times now to you and @Dizerner ..... You believe God's knowledge is predicated upon the man's knowledge of himself. That God can not fully know man. Thusly, you fabricated an "Open" system subject to random change. Not order. This allows your flawed system to give a sense of influence that God doesn't control.

God doesn't influence foreknowledge. It's just knowledge. But foreknowledge reflects that God controls the universe because nothing gets out of hand.

You are so focused upon appearances that you're ignoring the very real fact of the Scriptures that God foreordains events and brings them to pass. He gives order to what you call chaos. The absence of God's personal supernatural work, nothing would be accomplished. There would be no deterministic laws that govern the future. Chaos Theory is deterministic.

God foreordains but not unconditionally.

Why are you ignoring the deterministic facts of our existence?

God did determine us. But not meticulously.

God knows His creation as well as He knows Himself. So complete is this knowledge that you can never call anything God does "random". There is order to it all.

Foreknowing a random event would certainly be knowing creation.

Pro 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.

The disposing of the lot is only of the Lord if the Lord is in it giving guidance. The Urim which they used was some type of dice.

1 Samuel 28:6 (KJV) And when Saul enquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.
 
Last edited:
As I've said multiple times now to you and @Dizerner ..... You believe God's knowledge is predicated upon the man's knowledge of himself.

I swear to you, this is not what I believe.

This is what you think my position logically entails. And I understand that concept.

However, you have not provided sufficient reasons to believe that.

You constantly insist on making God naturalistic in how He operates.

That is, unless you feel like you can understand HOW God does something, you think it is logically impossible for God to do it.

God knows a thing without any kind of logical correlation or interaction with the thing known.

God knows what I would freely do in an infinite number of universes without it being contingent upon anything from me, or anything at all.

That's what supernatural omniscience really means.

You are actually the one limiting God and not allowing him to be outside of time—just like Open Theism is off topic in this forum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the dice is loaded then it isn't a miracle anymore but man's logic.

I said YOU are loading the dice. Miracles are supernatural events. Not natural events. Supernatural power. God.


The disposing of the lot is only of the Lord if the Lord is in it giving guidance. The Urim which they used was some type of dice.

1 Samuel 28:6 (KJV) And when Saul enquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.

No doubt. They cast the lot and God dispensed the outcome. It was an illusion of choice to them.
 
I swear to you, this is not what I believe.

This is what you think my position logically entails. And I understand that concept.

However, you have not provided sufficient reasons to believe that.

I've asked you to explain your position and you posted a video. I've extensively debated these subject in my life. As I've said before, I refuse to deal with people's claims of this nature without them owning the perspective themselves. I've wasted my time too much debating details to only find out that person really doesn't understand their position and ultimately denies their original claim.


You constantly insist on making God naturalistic in how He operates.

I disagree. I expect God to have "reason" or to be "reasonable". Such is a Divine Quality of Divinity. There is no such thing as God having a "messy room" that He ultimately cleans up when it gets too dirty. God has purpose... direction. Ultimately a goal. Providence. That isn't "naturalistic". There are things I do not understand but the framework exists. We can define the framework. I expect to hear arguments with reason. Where I don't believe we can know, I'm glad to admit it.

That is, unless you feel like you can understand HOW God does something, you think it is logically impossible for God to do it.

In ANY GREAT HOUSE..... There is a foundation that is built upon rocks and walls. I start with the foundation of what God has revealed to us in His Character. I extensively studied the Character of God throughout my life. I desire to know HIM more. I lead with this. Everything I believe must be constrained by what I believe God's character demands. If you see me say anything contrary to God's character, then please let me know.

I believe you are leaving too many things to "chance" to "guesses" of mistaken philosophy or personal desires. I do have my own personal desires. I have what I want to see in my theology but it must be constrained by what has been revealed by God to us in the Scriptures.

God knows a thing without any kind of logical correlation or interaction with the thing known.

Any? Any logical correlation?

Interacting with the "thing" is a different issue. Open Theism does not teach this. Which is why I'm challenging @Kampioen

I actually like Greg Boyd. I think he is a good and honest man. A very learned Theologian. I disagree with him on many things but he is reasoned. Calculating. He has dealt with Calvinists that have been rather cruel toward him. Men that should know better. Shallow men that care more about their reputations than they do the truth. However, I don't believe what I believe because of men nor because of my relationships with men. At times, good men get it wrong and bad men get it right. I go point by point. Precept by precept.

Isa 28:9 “To whom will he teach knowledge, and to whom will he explain the message? Those who are weaned from the milk, those taken from the breast?
Isa 28:10 For it is precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little.”

God knows what I would freely do in an infinite number of universes without it being contingent upon anything from me, or anything at all.

All I have asked is that explain the basic framework of how that works. As others have said and I agree, if you study the biblical languages, foreknowledge is God's choice. There is a philosophical argument to be made that Omnipotence can be the singular focus of all Divine qualities. Absolute Power isn't limited by us.

I have alluded to concepts of Predictability. I can accept some form of argument that includes a sense of predictability. I believe that is compatible with my view of how time operates.

That's what supernatural omniscience really means.

You are actually the one limiting God and not allowing him to be outside of time—Edit er mod.

Not when I have clearly stated that time is Infinite.

I've tried to engage you on this to a greater degree. I haven't been successful. Just because you say that God is outside of time doesn't equal God being limitless in your construct. We need more information. I see it as a rather empty argument.

It basically goes... "God is outside of time, I win...."

You still have a construct that requires information from a source other than God. Saying "it is a miracle, I don't have to explain" is empty as well.

God's purpose is Limitless and Eternal. Time without end.
God's providence is Limitless and Eternal. Time without end.

Neither one of these two statements creates a scenario where there is an issue. Saying, "God knows and I don't have to explain how, He just does" doesn't establish a Systematic Theology.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That is, unless you feel like you can understand HOW God does something, you think it is logically impossible for God to do it.

If you can't demonstrate, from Scripture, how God does something, then you cannot reasonably deny another belief about how God does something.

God knows a thing without any kind of logical correlation or interaction with the thing known.

Where does the Bible teach such nonsense?

God knows what I would freely do in an infinite number of universes without it being contingent upon anything from me, or anything at all.

How does God know?
Why are you unable to answer this?
And upon what authority do you deny other answers as to how God knows this, if you can't give a reason yourself?

That's what supernatural omniscience really means.

Where is this taught in the Bible?

You are actually the one limiting God and not allowing him to be outside of time—just like Open Theists do.

Not at all.
Learning about God does not "limit" Him.
That is insane.
 
Incidental miracles? Can you provide a witness to an "incidental miracle"?

Rolling a double isn't a miracle. You're using a pair of loaded dice here. Miracles are supernatural events and you're treating as if they're not.



Chaos theory is the study of deterministic laws in dynamic systems. While events appear to be chaotic/random, they are nonetheless subject to order. A example of chaos theory is weather patterns. We are generally good at predicting weather patterns in a short span of time. As the span increases we are less able to identify predictable order within the uncertainty. We are limited by our power.



Yet you are appealing to randomness as miracles. Again. Chaos theory is about order that appears to be random. Yet it is not.

As I've said multiple times now to you and @Dizerner ..... You believe God's knowledge is predicated upon the man's knowledge of himself. That God can not fully know man. Thusly, you fabricated an "Open" system subject to random change. Not order. This allows your flawed system to give a sense of influence that God doesn't control.

You are so focused upon appearances that you're ignoring the very real fact of the Scriptures that God foreordains events and brings them to pass. He gives order to what you call chaos. The absence of God's personal supernatural work, nothing would be accomplished. There would be no deterministic laws that govern the future. Chaos Theory is deterministic.

Why are you ignoring the deterministic facts of our existence?

God knows His creation as well as He knows Himself. So complete is this knowledge that you can never call anything God does "random". There is order to it all.

Pro 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.
I'll be focusing upon one statement, since this statement is precisely what Dizerner says he does not hold (post 133). Christ undivided says,

"You believe God's knowledge is predicated upon the man's knowledge of himself."

First, since this point is under direct contention, to what specifically of Dizerner's (and Kampioen) posts are you referring? I'm looking for a direct quote that either directly substantiates your statement here. Or I am looking for a direct quote where you can make an argument that Dizerner logically endorses your quoted statement above. Either route, direct statement or logical implication, needs to be based upon something Dizerner actually said.

Second, what exactly are you saying by the above quote? I'll be honest here. I'm not entirely following your meaning in the quoted portion in blue. Are you saying that man's method of knowing is the template used to understand God's knowledge? Are you saying that Dizerner's idea is based upon self-knowledge being applied to God? Are you saying that God's knowledge is dependent upon human self-knowledge? Truly, I'm unsure as to your meaning here. Please explain.
 
Last edited:
This is a good post with thoughtful ideas. but you need to figure out where scripture teaches these things, or where it points to them.
That does not mean that anyone will follow you there, but at least you will have spoken from a specific Biblical point of view
People here ask for scripture, and experience says if they don't already know the doctrine they will either claim the scripture does not say what you are saying, or if they are really convinced, they will go silent.
The importance of scripture being our ultimate authority cannot be overstated. The idea of ultimacy does not rule out lesser authorities, rather, it puts the lesser authorities in their place. People ask for scripture here because our consciences are bound by what God says; we generally do not grant people the same level of authority as divine revelation. In comparison, a person may have good thoughts, but if what they say is not substantiated by scripture, then the obedient Christian must evaluate their words in light of the higher authority of God's word. If there is a conflict between some seemingly good thoughts and God's word, then the answer is obvious. I hope that we can agree on the issue of ultimate authority.
 
I'll be focusing upon one statement, since this statement is precisely what Dizerner says he does not hold. Christ undivided says,

"You believe God's knowledge is predicated upon the man's knowledge of himself."

First, since this point is under direct contention, to what specifically of Dizerner's (and Kampioen) posts are you referring? I'm looking for a direct quote that either directly substantiates your statement here. Or I am looking for a direct quote where you can make an argument that Dizerner logically endorses your quoted statement above. Either route, direct statement or logical implication, needs to be based upon something Dizerner actually said.

His position requires certain things to be true to function. He is claiming "miracles" are logical outcomes from man's choices. He is simply avoiding the clear implication.

Second, what exactly are you saying by the above quote? I'll be honest here. I'm not entirely following your meaning in the quoted portion in blue. Are you saying that man's method of knowing is the template used to understand God's knowledge? Are you saying that Dizerner's idea is based upon self-knowledge being applied to God? Are you saying that God's knowledge is dependent upon human self-knowledge? Truly, I'm unsure as to your meaning here. Please explain.

Yes. All the above are true.

As I've mentioned, the traditional position and implication is that God is outside of time and thus knows the freewill choice of a self determining individual because God has witnessed the choice. They can deny this all they want but it is the implication that Arminianism creates in denying determinism. When I ask for details of how this logical is constructed given the Revelation of God to humanity and, I get claims of "natural miracles".

They know the issues surrounding such claims. To combat the implications, some often deny that God can know the freewill choice of man. This has given rise to Open Theism. I've lived long enough and been part of the debate (80s and 90s) to know this through personal experience with the subject.
 
His position requires certain things to be true to function. He is claiming "miracles" are logical outcomes from man's choices. He is simply avoiding the clear implication.



Yes. All the above are true.

As I've mentioned, the traditional position and implication is that God is outside of time and thus knows the freewill choice of a self determining individual because God has witnessed the choice. They can deny this all they want but it is the implication that Arminianism creates in denying determinism. When I ask for details of how this logical is constructed given the Revelation of God to humanity and, I get claims of "natural miracles".

They know the issues surrounding such claims. To combat the implications, some often deny that God can know the freewill choice of man. This has given rise to Open Theism. I've lived long enough and been part of the debate (80s and 90s) to know this through personal experience with the subject.
Your comments here remind me of a good book I read a while back. "No Place for Sovereignty: What's Wrong with Freewill Theism" by R. K. McGregor Wright. The author of the book points to his interaction with certain Open Theists. He interacted with Pinnock at Trinity (p39). Write also states the following on page 13.

"This is one reason the Greek philosopher *Socrates said 'Know thyself' and concluded that the unexamined life is not worth living. By the standards of Christianity he was wrong on both counts, but Socrates believed that the autonomous human consciousness is its own sufficient reference point, so the key to ultimate truth is to be found 'within.' As Christians informed by God's Word, we realize that the world cannot interpret itself. True knowledge of the self involves first hearing God speak in Scripture. Christians have also concluded that the value of a person's life does not depend on the ability to examine oneself in terms of some philosophy, but on the place that person has in God's plan."
 
Back
Top