My impressions of the debate in progress

[_Rick_C]

Hello PaulT

Do you believe in the orthodox view of God? If you do then, help me out here is not Christ God? I’m not sure I specified which person of the trinity the passage was addressing, but the fact Christ is God and in Him is all wisdom and knowledge therefore if you believe in the orthodox view of God would it not follow that in God is all wisdom and knowledge.

Colossians 2 (NIV, in wider context)
1I want you to know how much I am struggling for you and for those at Laodicea, and for all who have not met me personally. 2My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments. 5For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit and delight to see how orderly you are and how firm your faith in Christ is.
6So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, 7rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.

8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.

My understanding of what Paul was writing about in these passages is that through knowing Christ himself, both the Colossians and Laodiceans have come to possess a personal knowledge of God. The God Who, before their coming to know Christ, had been a mystery.

I agree with you that all wisdom and knowledge ultimately originates in and comes from the Father. Yet to the Colossians "God, the mystery" had been explained in the person of His Son. Or as Jesus himself said, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" (Jn 14:9b).

Verse 9 brings out Paul's 'orthodox' view of the divinity of Christ. Jesus is said to have the fullness of the Deity (or godhead) and the Colossians have been given fullness in Christ. If it had not been for their coming to know Christ, God would otherwise have remained a mystery to them.

So, to me, though all wisdom and knowledge does ultimately come from the Father; and it could be said that "God is all wisdom and knowledge"; in Colossians Christ is both the "mediator of wisdom and knowledge" from God to humanity---and---is that wisdom and knowledge himself.

Put another way: If not for Jesus, "Who is God?" would be hidden from us all (is what I think Paul was getting at)....

Just some late nite thoughts, bedtime, church in the a.m., thanks.

[Guest]

Hello PaulT

Do you believe in the orthodox view of God? If you do then, help me out here is not Christ God? I’m not sure I specified which person of the trinity the passage was addressing, but the fact Christ is God and in Him is all wisdom and knowledge therefore if you believe in the orthodox view of God would it not follow that in God is all wisdom and knowledge.

Colossians 2 (NIV, in wider context)
1I want you to know how much I am struggling for you and for those at Laodicea, and for all who have not met me personally. 2My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments. 5For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit and delight to see how orderly you are and how firm your faith in Christ is.
6So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, 7rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.

8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.

My understanding of what Paul was writing about in these passages is that through knowing Christ himself, both the Colossians and Laodiceans have come to possess a personal knowledge of God. The God Who, before their coming to know Christ, had been a mystery.

I agree with you that all wisdom and knowledge ultimately originates in and comes from the Father. Yet to the Colossians "God, the mystery" had been explained in the person of His Son. Or as Jesus himself said, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" (Jn 14:9b).

Verse 9 brings out Paul's 'orthodox' view of the divinity of Christ. Jesus is said to be the fullness of the Deity (or godhead) and the Colossians have been given fullness in Christ. If it had not been for their coming to know Christ, God would otherwise have remained a mystery to them.

So, to me, though all wisdom and knowledge does ultimately come from the Father; in Colossians Christ is a kind of "mediator of wisdom and knowledge" from God to humanity---and---is that wisdom and knowledge himself.

Just some late nite thoughts, bedtime, church in the a.m., thanks.

No problem given that the Father and the Son are one in Being I don't see that as instrumental in my argument one way or the other. The point is knowledge is derived from God and not some concept eternally exisitng outside of Him.

PaulT

[_Rick_C]

PaulT, I did some editing while you quoted me (but didn't change much).

Right quick before I gtg to bed:

No problem given that the Father and the Son are one in Being I don't see that as instrumental in my argument one way or the other. The point is knowledge is derived from God and not some concept eternally exisitng outside of Him.

I wanted clarification on how you used Colossians 2:3 and it seems we've cleared it up well enough. (Perhaps it was a somewhat insignificant technical matter?).

As far as theology goes, it should be based on God as He can be understood and explained from the Scriptures, I'm sure we both agree.

Our knowledge of God can be "known fully" as God intended it to be known. That is, we know Christ himself which is precisely what God intended, as seen in the Colossians passage. This knowing-God is "gnosis" (from the Greek: a personal, deep, intimate knowledge of God through Christ).

At any rate, I felt it kind of important to point this out: that what God considers "knowledge of Himself" is found through Christ.

As far as Calvinist/non-Calvinist/Arminian doctrines go; at this point we enter into areas personal preferences and presuppositions, and some amount of speculation, imo. Or as Steve said earlier in so many words: "Not all Christians have a 'Calvinist-knowledge' regarding God," so to speak.

For some time now I've considered that the differences between Calvinists and Nons might simply be their having different personality and/or psychological types (is a theory I've been working on, anyway)....

In any event, I guess it's time to open the debate back up.
Bed time here, thanks.

[Guest]

Hi Sean,

(Why should fellow believers accuse each other of disbelieving scripture? I don't think I've done that to you...)

In any event, the illustration doesn't reach the issue.

Here is what happened:

• Saul did not come down to the city.

In order to prove Craig's statement rational, you need to demonstrate that God foreknew:

• Saul came down to the city.

You haven't done it. At best you've shown that Saul had an *intention* to come down, but that doesn't even illustrate foreknowledge; only a knowledge of the current state of affairs.

I remain unconvinced. Craig's assertion is still nonsense.

Cheers,
Bob

Interesting. The scripture says:

1Sa 23:11 Will the men of Keilah surrender me into his hand? Will Saul come down, as your servant has heard? O LORD, the God of Israel, please tell your servant." And the LORD said, "He will come down."
1Sa 23:12 Then David said, "Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?" And the LORD said, "They will surrender you."

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but aren't these questions about David's concern over future events? It doesn't seem reasonable that David is asking "Will x happen" if he's talking about current affairs. If Saul was marching toward David currently, I don't think David would need to ask the question. Tomorrow, even though it is very close, isn't (yet) a current affair. Neither can it be said that their surrendering of them is at that moment a current event.

It seems David is asking God about the future because David doesn't know the future, yet God does. God responds to David:

"He will come down." and "They will surrender you."

God did not respond: "Saul has an *intention* to come down".
It seems you are uncomfortable with exegeting the text as it stands. Interesting. If I were to quote Romans 9:6-24 and say "well, Paul really means man has a choice but just fails to mention it here". Would that be acceptable exegesis to a Calvinist?

Are there other times in the bible where God (or the apostles and prophets) comments about the future? Should we just assume these are God's *intentions*, but not a sovereign declaration of future realities?

Anyway, I don't see the need to argue this point further. If the text itself is unconvincing then I'm certainly not going to convince you.

In Christ,
Sean

[Guest]

PaulT, I did some editing while you quoted me (but didn't change much).

Right quick before I gtg to bed:

No problem given that the Father and the Son are one in Being I don't see that as instrumental in my argument one way or the other. The point is knowledge is derived from God and not some concept eternally exisitng outside of Him.

I wanted clarification on how you used Colossians 2:3 and it seems we've cleared it up well enough. (Perhaps it was a somewhat insignificant technical matter?).

As far as theology goes, it should be based on God as He can be understood and explained from the Scriptures, I'm sure we both agree.

Our knowledge of God can be "known fully" as God intended it to be known. That is, we know Christ himself which is precisely what God intended, as seen in the Colossians passage. This knowing-God is "gnosis" (from the Greek: a personal, deep, intimate knowledge of God through Christ).

At any rate, I felt it kind of important to point this out: that what God considers "knowledge of Himself" is found through Christ.

As far as Calvinist/non-Calvinist/Arminian doctrines go; at this point we enter into areas personal preferences and presuppositions, and some amount of speculation, imo. Or as Steve said earlier in so many words: "Not all Christians have a 'Calvinist-knowledge' regarding God," so to speak.

For some time now I've considered that the differences between Calvinists and Nons might simply be their having different personality and/or psychological types (is a theory I've been working on, anyway)....

In any event, I guess it's time to open the debate back up.
Bed time here, thanks.

Thanks, but I'm not sure I understand your point, my view is that "true" knowledge can only be accessed through God. IOW, though man may determine the cause of something as “naturalistic” in origin the fact is God created the cause. Perhaps we are splitting hairs but from the viewpoint of those who tend toward a Pelagian point of view I think it important to make the distinction. My view is simply that knowledge and truth do not in and of themselves exist a part from God. When the argument is framed this way it seems to me to be an extreme obstacle for those who think man as he is found today separated from God can make a decision about truth without God to overcome, for example see my current discussion with Troy.

PaulT

[Guest]

Are there other times in the bible where God (or the apostles and prophets) comments about the future? Should we just assume these are God's *intentions*, but not a sovereign declaration of future realities?

Hi Sean,

It's quite simple. The statement:

"X will occur"

is *not* a statement of God's foreknowledge, if X does not in fact occur.

If God *truly* believed that "X will occur", and then X does not in fact occur, then God's prior belief would have been false. But God holds no false beliefs.

So you're drawing a hasty conclusion about what the text is saying. You think it supports you and Craig, but it doesn't.

You (and Craig) may claim that this passage illustrates that God has counterfactual knowledge ("Saul will come down *if* David doesn't leave), and that may be the case. But counterfactual knowledge is just that: counter to the actual state of affairs.

You still haven't demonstrated that God foreknow that Saul came down. And you can't, because Saul *did not, in fact* come down.

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

Bob,

Just curious, if I may jump in here. You wrote:

You still haven't demonstrated that God foreknow that Saul came down. And you can't, because Saul *did not, in fact* come down.

Are you saying that God knew Saul would not come down when He said "He will come down." ? Could you provide your explanation of the passage?

[Guest]

Hi Sean,

It's quite simple. The statement:

"X will occur"

is *not* a statement of God's foreknowledge, if X does not in fact occur.

See your last quote below.

If God *truly* believed that "X will occur", and then X does not in fact occur, then God's prior belief would have been false. But God holds no false beliefs.

So did God tell David two false statements? Or was the outcome left to man to decide?

You (and Craig) may claim that this passage illustrates that God has counterfactual knowledge ("Saul will come down *if* David doesn't leave), and that may be the case. But counterfactual knowledge is just that: counter to the actual state of affairs.

In the case I cited, the interesting thing is that God's revealed word to David was counterfactual knowledge, because of how David acted on it. Interesting, isn't it. Man's choice in this case changed the outcome of what was stated by God to occur. Just like Jonah proclaiming: "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!". Yet that didn't happen either.

Maybe this has something to do with God's general policy:

Jer 18:7 "The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it,
Jer 18:8 "if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.
Jer 18:9 "And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it,
Jer 18:10 "if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

It seems as if God may "speak concerning a nation" one way or another, but it's the actions of the people that determine the outcome. Nineveh is an example of people not rejecting God's word, but rather repenting upon hearing it. Seems as if man has a choice in his outcome, and his choice is not always rebellion when given the opportunity to repent.

You still haven't demonstrated that God foreknow that Saul came down. And you can't, because Saul *did not, in fact* come down.

Cheers,
Bob

Only by your definition of foreknew and foreknow. Look up in the new testament how these very same Greek words are meant when they are stated about man. Why change the meaning just when Paul/Peter use these words with reference to God?

I however, am not here trying to make a case for these terms but rather I'm making a case for God's omniscience. If God can know counterfactuals (events that don't occur), then it is reasonable to conclude that God doesn't need to control all things to know all things.

Peace,
Sean

[Guest]

Bob,

Just curious, if I may jump in here. You wrote:

You still haven't demonstrated that God foreknow that Saul came down. And you can't, because Saul *did not, in fact* come down.

Are you saying that God knew Saul would not come down when He said "He will come down." ? Could you provide your explanation of the passage?

Hi Homer,

Yes, I am saying that God knew the actual outcome that would obtain, namely, that Saul did not come down.

So the explanation of the passage is similar to the "yet 40 days and Nineveh will be destroyed;" it is conditional. God told David that Saul would come down if he remained. David did not remain and Saul did not come down.

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

Only by your definition of foreknew and foreknow. Look up in the new testament how these very same Greek words are meant when they are stated about man. Why change the meaning just when Paul/Peter use these words with reference to God?

I however, am not here trying to make a case for these terms but rather I'm making a case for God's omniscience. If God can know counterfactuals (events that don't occur), then it is reasonable to conclude that God doesn't need to control all things to know all things.

Hi Sean,

That's why I asked you to carefully define the term when you explained how Craig's assertion is coherent.

But in your second assertion, God's knowledge is limited to knowledge of "would be" and not "will be". It seems that you argue that god "knows" the following:

(a) Saul will come down, if certain conditions AA obtain

(b) Saul will not come down, if certain conditions BB obtain

But do you deny that God foreknows in addition to those,

(c) Conditions BB will obtain

(d) Saul will not come down.

If God foreknows (c) and (d) then we are back to square one, and we can reformulate Craig's expression as:

"It is possible that Saul come down, even though God foreknows (c) and (d)."

I judge this to be incoherent.

Furthermore (getting off the topic a bit, but to the underlying argument), even if God knows only (a) and (b), how is libertarian freedom preserved under that regime? It would seem that (a) and (b) are predictable from certain sets of prior conditions. But isn't that the definition of determinism?

Cheers,
Bob