Pastor -

Extracted Article - Scriptural grounds for Omnipotence

In the Authorized King James Version of the Bible, as well as several other versions, in Revelation 19:6 it is stated ", the Lord God omnipotent reigneth" (the original Greek word is παντοκράτωρ, "all-mighty"

Many other verses in the Christian Bible do assert omnipotence of its deity without actually using the word itself. There are several mentions of the Christian deity being referred to as simply "Almighty", showing that the Christian Bible supports the belief of an omnipotent deity. Some such verses are listed below:

Genesis 17:1: And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. (The Hebrew word used here is "shadday" [8])

Jeremiah 32:27: Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?

Aside from this the reference in revelation to God as the Alpha and Omega reeks strongly of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. . .

I should note however that none of this addresses the pure illogicallity of strict omnipotence.

aletheia:

@OP: You ask that "We can use Job as a classic example of this anatomy of Christian suffering." I 'd like to know if you 've read the book of Job and what are your opinions on it as an explanation of suffering?

I have read the book of Job and i'll really want to think it was written by two separate authors and fused in a central text on Job. This may not be obvious to the skimming reader but the authors of Job had two contradictory world view.

The introductory part of Job is a work of prose which endorses that God rewards people who are righteous with riches as was the case of Job and if Job is rich because he's upright, i think it's fair enough to say non-upright people cant get such goodies(not yet my point). So we have a good and rich guy called Job who goes broke because of God's wager with Satan. His wife wants him to despise God and he shoves her off with this kind of comment : fire cant be cooking your food everyday and then you complain if it burns your finger. In other words, Job was patient and had an "e-go-better" attitude and never cursed God. Job is the patient sufferer.


Enter the friends Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite and the poetic conversations start. Job makes a statement, usually probing what exactly he has done wrong and the friends reply in turn like an Amos Tutuola dance-drama. After the three pals said what they had to say and left, a new figure arrives called Elihu laying more forcefully the other friends' case: That Job was suffering because of his sins and before Job could get to defend himself(or hire DeepSight ), God overwhelms him with his presence and TELLS HIM HE HAS NO RIGHT TO QUESTION HOW HE, THE ALMIGHTY DOES THINGS.

The early part of Job in addition to the friends' perspectives sees suffering as a punishment for sin while God's action after overwhelming Job strongly suggests that suffering is a mystery inferring that no matter how good you are, you can be screwd without any logical explanation.(Am God, i dont have to answer to you.)

Job starts his ordeal:

After this Job opened his mouth and
cursed the day of his birth. Job said:
“Let the day perish in which I was
born,and the night that said

‘A man-child is conceived.’ . . .
“Why did I not die at birth,
come forth from the womb and
expire?

Why were there knees to receive
me,or bosoms for me to suck? . . .
Or why was I not buried like a
stillborn child,like an infant that never
sees the light?”
Job 3:1–3, 11–12, 16

The first response comes
Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered:
“If one ventures a word with you,
will you be offended?

But who can keep from
speaking? . . .
“Think now, who that was
innocent ever perished?

Or where were the upright cut off?
As I have seen, those who plow iniquity
and sow trouble reap the same.

By the breath of God they perish,
and by the blast of his anger
they are consumed.”
Job 4:1–2, 7–9

The above suggest that this friend is quite sure that Job is suffering because of sin. The next response even defends God that he does not pervert justice and Job should repent. So I dont make an over-log post, see Bildad's response to Job in Job 8:1-7.

Eliphaz later declares

“Is it for your piety that he
reproves you,and enters into judgment with
you?

Is not your wickedness great?
There is no end to your
iniquities.

For you have . . . stripped the unclothed of their
clothing. You have given no water to the
weary to drink, and you have withheld bread
from the hungry. . . .

“You have sent widows away
empty-handed, and the arms of the orphans you
have crushed.

Therefore snares are around you,
and sudden terror overwhelms
you.”
Job 22:4–7, 9–10

Just check the above, how does that sound like the Job described as RIGHTEOUS and UPRIGHT and eschewed EVIL? This is a friend, so we can really accuse him of falsity except he is grossly exaggerating. Whichever you find more appealing, its a bit incompatible with early righteousness of Job. And if Job was truly wicked as the above verses say then, God need not accuse him of protesting since it would have been clear to both parties that the afflictions came because Job goofed somewhere along the line.

Since Job has not done these evil things, he pressed on proclaiming his innocence because it's quite illogical to repent for something you're not guilty of in the first instance. This show of "holy-holy" is what vexes God into bowing him to dust in submission which further shows that Job could really be upright and the fact that he suffers shows how mystical(for now, lets restrain from seeing God as a sadist and focus on the issue) suffering is that no matter how pious you are, you no pass flogging. God always has the final say irrespective of how you think the world works. Mystery in its finest form!


Its not like other belief systems have a perfect overview or solution, we only are examining the christian perspective. I'll talk more on the book later. Have i been able to address your question a bit aletheia?

aletheia:

^^^Or did Job need the test in order to further develop or mature in his walk with God? .

I wouldn't know. Job is dead so you can't ask him, but the bible which is still around does not say whether or not Job, who already was a righteous man, became more righteous (if there is such a thing) as a result of his suffering or not.

Deep Sight:

Pastor -


Aside from this the reference in revelation to God as the Alpha and Omega reeks strongly of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. . .

I should note however that none of this addresses the pure illogicallity of strict omnipotence.

Pantokrator might be translated as omnipotent, yet doesn't say anything about omniscient (or omnipresent even) which is what we are actually talking about. There is no mention of omniscience anywhere, as far as I can recall.

Panto- in greek means all

Krator - actually means ruling, or rulership. Not might or potency. So I could argue with translating it as almighty or omnipotent.

Demo -Kracy = People's rulership

Pluto-kracy = money rules

Panto-krator = rulership over all.

Deep Sight:

Pastor -


Aside from this the reference in revelation to God as the Alpha and Omega reeks strongly of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. . .

I should note however that none of this addresses the pure illogicallity of strict omnipotence.

Dude what is 'strict ominipotence'??

You are either ominipotent or you are not.
Strict indeed

Edit

ilosiwaju:

I have read the book of Job and i'll really want to think it was written by two separate authors and fused in a central text on Job. This may not be obvious to the skimming reader but the authors of Job had two contradictory world view.

The introductory part of Job is a work of prose which endorses that God rewards people who are righteous with riches as was the case of Job and if Job is rich because he's upright, i think it's fair enough to say non-upright people cant get such goodies(not yet my point). So we have a good and rich guy called Job who goes broke because of God's wager with Satan. His wife wants him to despise God and he shoves her off with this kind of comment : fire cant be cooking your food everyday and then you complain if it burns your finger. In other words, Job was patient and had an "e-go-better" attitude and never cursed God. Job is the patient sufferer.


Enter the friends Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite and the poetic conversations start. Job makes a statement, usually probing what exactly he has done wrong and the friends reply in turn like an Amos Tutuola dance-drama. After the three pals said what they had to say and left, a new figure arrives called Elihu laying more forcefully the other friends' case: That Job was suffering because of his sins and before Job could get to defend himself(or hire DeepSight ), God overwhelms him with his presence and TELLS HIM HE HAS NO RIGHT TO QUESTION HOW HE, THE ALMIGHTY DOES THINGS.

The early part of Job in addition to the friends' perspectives sees suffering as a punishment for sin while God's action after overwhelming Job strongly suggests that suffering is a mystery inferring that no matter how good you are, you can be screwd without any logical explanation.(Am God, i dont have to answer to you.)

Job starts his ordeal:

After this Job opened his mouth and
cursed the day of his birth. Job said:
“Let the day perish in which I was
born,and the night that said

‘A man-child is conceived.’ . . .
“Why did I not die at birth,
come forth from the womb and
expire?

Why were there knees to receive
me,or bosoms for me to suck? . . .
Or why was I not buried like a
stillborn child,like an infant that never
sees the light?”
Job 3:1–3, 11–12, 16

The first response comes
Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered:
“If one ventures a word with you,
will you be offended?

But who can keep from
speaking? . . .
“Think now, who that was
innocent ever perished?

Or where were the upright cut off?
As I have seen, those who plow iniquity
and sow trouble reap the same.

By the breath of God they perish,
and by the blast of his anger
they are consumed.”
Job 4:1–2, 7–9

The above suggest that this friend is quite sure that Job is suffering because of sin. The next response even defends God that he does not pervert justice and Job should repent. So I dont make an over-log post, see Bildad's response to Job in Job 8:1-7.

Eliphaz later declares

“Is it for your piety that he
reproves you,and enters into judgment with
you?

Is not your wickedness great?
There is no end to your
iniquities.

For you have . . . stripped the unclothed of their
clothing. You have given no water to the
weary to drink, and you have withheld bread
from the hungry. . . .

“You have sent widows away
empty-handed, and the arms of the orphans you
have crushed.

Therefore snares are around you,
and sudden terror overwhelms
you.”
Job 22:4–7, 9–10

Just check the above, how does that sound like the Job described as RIGHTEOUS and UPRIGHT and eschewed EVIL? This is a friend, so we can really accuse him of falsity except he is grossly exaggerating. Whichever you find more appealing, its a bit incompatible with early righteousness of Job. And if Job was truly wicked as the above verses say then, God need not accuse him of protesting since it would have been clear to both parties that the afflictions came because Job goofed somewhere along the line.

Since Job has not done these evil things, he pressed on proclaiming his innocence because it's quite illogical to repent for something you're not guilty of in the first instance. This show of "holy-holy" is what vexes God into bowing him to dust in submission which further shows that Job could really be upright and the fact that he suffers shows how mystical(for now, lets restrain from seeing God as a sadist and focus on the issue) suffering is that no matter how pious you are, you no pass flogging. God always has the final say irrespective of how you think the world works. Mystery in its finest form!


Its not like other belief systems have a perfect overview or solution, we only are examining the christian perspective. I'll talk more on the book later. Have i been able to address your question a bit aletheia?

^^^Yes, you have. Thanks.
Did you also notice that the conundrum for Job and his three friends lay in their understanding that: "Righteous men do not suffer calamity"
Job 31:2-3 What would be my portion from God above
and my heritage from the Almighty on high?
Is not calamity for the unrighteous,
and disaster for the workers of iniquity?

1. For Job's friends: since Job was suffering, He had to be undoubtedly unrighteous.
2. For Job: "I know that I am righteous, yet I am suffering?"
These were the two poles which they couldn't reconcile.

ilosiwaju:

After the three pals said what they had to say and left, a new figure arrives called Elihu laying more forcefully the other friends' case: That Job was suffering because of his sins. . .

I disagree withyou with regard to Elihu because;

Job 32:2-3
Then Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, burned with anger. He burned with anger at Job because he justified himself rather than God.
He burned with anger also at Job's three friends because they had found no answer, although they had declared Job to be in the wrong.

Rather than taking either side what Elihu does is to rebuke both Job and his friends and then go on to extol God's power, justice and majesty.
It is instructive to note that at the end, Elihu is exempt from the threat of punishment.


ESV: 42: 7. After the LORD had spoken these words to Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite: My anger burns against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.
42: 9. So Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite went and did what the LORD had told them, and the LORD accepted Job's prayer.

We may never be able to take find an intellectually satisfying rationale for all suffering, but we can know that it all falls within the purpose of God. The lesson of Job for me is that I may not be able to find an explanation for suffering but I can know that God is just. And as Abraham asked: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?
I know He will so I will "give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you".

P.S. Not everyone will find this an acceptable answer.

Tudór:

Dude what is 'strict ominipotence'??

You are either ominipotent or you are not.
Strict indeed

There are different suppositions regarding omnipotence. . .

Meanings of omnipotence

Between people of different faiths, or indeed between people of the same faith, the term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following:

1.A deity is able to do anything that is logically possible for it to do[4].
2.A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do[5].
3.A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).
4.Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.[6]
5.A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan.
6.A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible.

The sixth is what many religionists imagine is the omnipotence of God. . .that sort of omnipotence is internally inconsistent and inconceivable.

Pastor AIO:


Panto- in greek means all

Krator - actually means ruling, or rulership. Not might or potency. So I could argue with translating it as almighty or omnipotent.

Demo -Kracy = People's rulership

Pluto-kracy = money rules

Panto-krator = rulership over all.

"Omnipotence = omni-potens. . .all powerful. . . how is this materially different from "rulership over all?" ? ? ? ? ?

Besides you ignored the Biblical quotes I pointed you to which clearly infer omnipotence whereas you claimed it is not a biblical concept. . .?

Tudor -

Scholastic definition

Thomas Aquinas acknowledged difficulty in comprehending a deity's power. Aquinas wrote that while "all confess that God is omnipotent, it seems difficult to explain in what God's omnipotence precisely consists." In the scholastic understanding, omnipotence is generally understood to be compatible with certain limitations upon a deity's power, as opposed to implying infinite abilities. There are certain things that even an omnipotent deity cannot do. Medieval theologians drew attention to some fairly trivial examples of restrictions upon the power of a deity. The statement "a deity can do anything" is only sensible with an assumed suppressed clause, "that implies the perfection of true power." This standard scholastic answer allows that creaturely acts such as walking can be performed by humans but not by a deity. Rather than an advantage in power, human acts such as walking, sitting or giving birth were possible only because of a defect in human power. The ability to 'sin', for example, is not a power but a defect or an infirmity. In response to questions of a deity performing impossibilities (such as making square circles) Aquinas says that "Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God."

aletheia:

^^^Or did Job need the test in order to further develop or mature in his walk with God?

Pastor AIO:

I wouldn't know.  Job is dead so you can't ask him, but the bible which is still around does not say whether or not Job, who already was a righteous man, became more righteous (if there is such a thing) as a result of his suffering or not.

Thanks for your response. I am sorry if I seemed to imply that Job became more righteous as a result of his trials. Job was righteous, because God had declared him to be so. But from the human point of view, his experience of that righteousness needed maturation.
To extend the analogy of the fetus, I would liken the point of conception of the fetus as the point at which God declares Job righteous, but note that the fetus still needs to grow and mature and become born in order to attain to its full potential. Even after being born, the child will experience hunger, discomfort etc. It will have to learn to crawl, and walk - no doubt tripping and falling with occasional injury (all forms of suffering, from its point of view).
The passage in Hebrews speaks to this point.
12:6-11. For the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
and chastises every son whom he receives.
It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline?
If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.
Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live?
For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness.
For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

When all is said and done, we have to realize that the story of Job is the story of the suffering of a righteous man.

Deep Sight:

There are different suppositions regarding omnipotence. . .

The sixth is what many religionists imagine is the omnipotence of God. . .that sort of omnipotence is internally inconsistent and inconceivable.

Bros, I still maintain that ominipotence without being ominipotent is not ominipotence at all.

It seems everyone just invents their own idea of ominipotence and tailors it to suit them. Soon I'll say my dog is ominipotent except outside dog.gy nature. Na so

Can we focus please fellas? Pastor AIO and DeepSight, what's with these recent issues with grammar? Elsewhere it was "staggering" now its omnipotence. Kiloshele eyin bros?

I don suffer abi suffer it to be so.

You just can't withstand my staggering ominipotence.

Pastor AIO:

You just can't withstand my staggering ominipotence.

I looooooove this guy! ! !

Pastor AIO:

You just can't withstand my staggering ominipotence.

Deep Sight:



I looooooove this guy! ! !

Meeeeeee tooooo.

Yes back to suffer suffer. I'm not too clear on the OP's inquiry. Is it why do christians suffer OR while does anyone suffer OR what's christian perspective on anyone's suffering OR . . . , but not to worry, i'll attempt to touch it generally. There are various reasons for suffering, much as there are various kinds of suffering.
-a person(christian or otherwise) can suffer because of ill advice.
-a person(christian or otherwise) can suffer because of hasty decision or action.
-a person(christian or otherwise) can suffer because of wrong actions earlier in life. You reap what you sow.
-a person(christian or otherwise) can suffer because of others. Like if your dad lost his job, you're likely to suffer mehn.
-a person(christian or otherwise) can suffer because of sin, your sin or others'.
-a person(christian or otherwise) can suffer because of someone else's carelessness. Like passengers in a car accident.
-a person(christian or otherwise) can suffer because of not trusting God. God can decide to punish an individual's self-reliance or pride.

The last one on your list is a complete nonsense. The creator of the universe punishes no one on such grounds. Perhaps your own god does. The creator God rewards us for self-reliant and pride in what we do and achieve. Perhaps you meant to say, "arrogance". I agree with the rest of the list, though.

Image123:

Yes back to suffer suffer. I'm not too clear on the OP's inquiry. Is it why do christians suffer OR while does anyone suffer OR what's christian perspective on anyone's suffering OR . . . , but not to worry, i'll attempt to touch it generally. There are various reasons for suffering, much as there are various kinds of suffering.
-a person(christian or otherwise) can suffer because of ill advice.
-a person(christian or otherwise) can suffer because of hasty decision or action.
-a person(christian or otherwise) can suffer because of wrong actions earlier in life. You reap what you sow.
-a person(christian or otherwise) can suffer because of others. Like if your dad lost his job, you're likely to suffer mehn.
-a person(christian or otherwise) can suffer because of sin, your sin or others'.
-a person(christian or otherwise) can suffer because of someone else's carelessness. Like passengers in a car accident.
-a person(christian or otherwise) can suffer because of not trusting God. God can decide to punish an individual's self-reliance or pride.

What else? Ehnn -a person(christian or otherwise) can suffer because of going beyond his/her strength. If you embark on a project or carry a load heavier than you can bear, you go suffer.
-a christian will suffer because ALL who live godly will suffer persecution. Na Bible talk am.
-a person may suffer if he neglects good actions like prayer, giving. This is allowed to warn him. It's like what's called a yellow card in soccer.
Whatever. Satan is the chief behind the suffering of MANY(christian or otherwise). But thank God that for children of God, He is able to make ALL things work together for good to them that love God (Romans 8v28).
1Peter 1v7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
Christians being special and peculiar can have their sufferings turned into a refining. Just like gold passing through fire. It's not necessarily to prove that the gold is original or pure. The fire refines it and makes it more marketABLE. Satan thinks/hopes his fire will melt us like the others, but we(the gold) come out shining to the glory of God.

Jenwitemi
Who do you think I was referring to, your creator god? No, I'm talking about the only wise God.

But of course, image.

Image123:

Jenwitemi
Who do you think I was referring to, your creator god? No, I'm talking about the only wise God.

A person who is self-reliant and self-trusting is the kind of person that God smiles on, because such a person trust God through self-trust and reliance. I am not sure you would understand that.

Back to the subject of suffering.

A new programme just came on red ice radio just about the same time as this thread was opened talking about the source of human suffering. Very interesting perspectives to the discussion. http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2010/07jul/RIR-100708-staylor.mp3

I think you guys should listen to this radio talkshow to get a wider perspective on this topic on why humanity live in suffering.

ilosiwaju:

I can see the NL spirit setting in. One thing we all know for sure is that changing one's beliefs is much more than philosophical discussions or smart NL posts. Since we know that, why dont we see this as a way of seeing from the other person's perspective which is HONESTLY the aim of this thread. So i refuse to be drawn into the US vs THEM thing which this may lead to.

Unfortunately the aim of this thread is NOT to see from the other perspective. Neither you nor the other atheists here are even bothering to engage in our own explanations, merely trotting out your own preconcieved ideas.

ilosiwaju:

The truth is that no belief system has a full diagnosis for suffering but we all can alleviate it to some extent hence we are not looking for a full diagnosis on the thing but rather how christianity views/adopts/intends to solve it. Its not a God-bashing or belief-bashing thread. Okay uncle david?  

To the christian mind, this is and has never been a problem. Why are you interested in us solving it? For what purpose? As a mere academic exercise?

ilosiwaju:

Except we want to either deceive ourselves or have not read Job very well. The book of Job is one that calls for some serious analysis(contrary to shallow arguments that will follow here soon). The book starts with the claim that Job was a righteous man(which is a strong title in the bible) and God later brags to the adversary about how such an upright man Job is and the adversary challenges God that he is upright because he is richly blessed, if his wealthy possessions get taken away from him, he'll despise God. So after the "torment but dont kill him" agreement, Job does not curse God, he starts mourning:
Job 1:20

Job 1:22 further assures that Job did not sin or charge God with any offence. After plenty plenty afflictions, his wife tells him to curse God and end it quick(die) but refuses with a rather philosophical answer:
As an observant reader bible reader with support from other brilliant scholarly works, am intrigued in the part when Job is visited by his 3 friends and gentle Job became an Oshiomole/Gani- protester   and this time due to Job kinda blackmailing God " i have not done anything wrong, how come you're screwing me up like this. . .sort of" and God changes the rules. By changing the rules, i mean God humiliated Job telling him that i dont have to give you a reason why am making you suffer, i created the world, am almighty and all those superior stuffs. This to me indicates(even though we may be carried away with the prose/poetry of the book) that suffering is something mystical. First for Job, it was a test of faithfulness and later something his mere mind cannot grasp any longer.

this is total nonsense. Did you READ (rather than simply skim the parts you wish to see) Job at all? One thing the book of Job teaches us is simple - as christians we can approach God when we do not fully understand why we go through trials. Note God did not simply come down and beat down Job for daring to complain about his situation.

Now you say God simply told Job all about "superior stuff" . . . FOUL, read it again - God was merely telling Job the simple truth . . . if you can trust me to create everything that you see, can you not trust me that when i put you through a trial it is to achieve a righteous purpose, to enrich you, make your faith stronger and i will never forsake you in the midst of it?

Note job's contrite response following God's counter argument.

I love a situation where both God and His creation can "reason it out" with each other.

ilosiwaju:

Enough story, after all the trials and tribulations God restores Job, showing him sympathy Job 42:11. The part I want my christian folks to explain to me about Job is the IMO, the fuzzy idea of replacing ten children with another ten children. Am only human, the idea does not really sit well with me. I doubt if anyone feels comfortable with it as well.

- An idea does not have to "sit well with you" to either make sense or be right. Its just fine that the idea makes sense to others who can see beyond their deliberate unbelief.

- What is the problem with Job having his 10 kids replaced? Would you rather the dead kids were brought back to life?

Job knew those other 10 kids were now in heaven (which is why we are told God replenished him 2-fold).

Jenwitemi:

A person who is self-reliant and self-trusting is the kind of person that God smiles on, because such a person trust God through self-trust and reliance. I am not sure you would understand that.

You mean your "humanist" idea of "god"?

Tudór:

Small question noetic; Will there be free will in heaven?
Do angels have free will too?

OF course there will be . . .but its quite different there. As we would have put off the corruptible and put on the incorruptible . . .there will be no basis for lustful desires of the flesh.
but since we will all be of a sane mind and with independent thoughts. . .we would all have our free will. Remember that the scriptures also assert that we shall judge the angels. what would we judge them of, if they had no free will?

@ "Pastor AIO"

Surely you can see that free will is not compatible with Omniscience.

On the contrary, they both go hand in hand. God uses His omniscient ability to determine that you would commit a holocaust in 2017 . . . .but offers you repentance and salvation (by noetic's preaching) All you can do is either go ahead with ur holocaust agenda or accept His gift of repentance and salvation. Your choice is called FREE WILL. God's ability to see this future event is called OMNISCIENT. They go hand in hand.

ps. And neither have biblical foundations.

This is FALSE.

When Christ preached His gospel, He simply asked all men to use their free will. john 3:16 states that IF ANY MAN BELIEVES. . . , this implies that if by the volition of free will, any man chooses to believe in the gospel of JC, he shall be saved.

In 1 corth 2:10 we know that the spirit searches EVERYTHING including the deep unknown things of God. We are also told of the ability of this spirit to know the future and bring His will/prophecies to pass Zech 4:6

There is a word that needs greater attention or to be used more often in discussions of the more abstruse Christian theological issues. That word is antinomy which, roughly, means the holding at one and the same time of two {apparently} contradictory laws or principles or truths (edit). A major example from Christian theology would be ---- Jesus is at one and the same time God [b]AND[/B] MAN!

If our perception of God is that He is so far above our comprehension, i.e. our finite minds can only understand so much ---- then we will realise that any theory concerning freewill/predestination/omniscience that humans put forward will probably be inadequate. On the other hand, if we recognise antinomy, we would not have to hold that free will and omniscience are necessarily incompatible at all events.


EDITED I have just found a very useful link (particularly the excerpt from J I Packer) I would like to bookmark here: http://www.reformedreader.org/rbb/reisinger/gwmwfwch04.htm

Enigma:


EDITED I have just found a very useful piece which I would like to bookmark here: http://www.reformedreader.org/rbb/reisinger/gwmwfwch04.htm

But that useful piece by dint of being so convoluted does exactly what Noetic's post above does, ie. exposes the whole notion as ludicrous nonsense.

^^^ What "notion": free will/ omniscience or 'antinomy' per se?

Enigma:

^^^ What "notion": free will/ omniscience or 'antinomy' per se?

Free-will/omniscience.

But I didn't read the whole piece though.

Cool; that's why I needed to be clear. My first contribution, I believe, was implicit that generally free will and omniscience are incompatible. On the face of it if an omnipotent God knew what would happen and not only allowed it to happen but also made provision for its happening, then there is no choice in the matter of the 'happening'.

One may look at the situation of 'Adam and Eve' in this way --- did God not know before they were created that they would 'fall'? (Think there is a current thread like that) Evidently He did because He made provision for it even "before the founding of the world" (Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world and all that . . .) On this reasoning, it is difficult to maintain that 'Adam and Eve' had much choice in the matter.

On the other hand, I don't think we can doubt that there are many things on which human beings are clearly left to exercise a choice. Take a banal example: should I wear a green or a red tie today? Nevertheless, the fact that they do exercise a choice does not mean an omniscient God did not know, even beforehand the choice they would make. In a way this takes us back to 'Adam and Eve' (even though not very convincingly to me myself) in that one line of thought is that God did give them free will (of sorts, I guess), and, knowing before hand the choices they would make, made provision.


PS Regarding that linked piece, it wasn' t so much the author's own writing I really wanted to highlight but the excerpt of J I Packer's work in it; I will modify my first post to make this clear.

EDITED PS also: what do you make of Kant's third antinomy?

If people will forgive, I think it may be helpful to post a small extract from the J I Packer extraction here for a brief explanation on the point about antinomy.

The particular antinomy which concerns us here is the apparent opposition between divine sovereignty and human responsibility, or (putting it more biblically) between what God does as King and what He does as Judge. Scripture teaches that, as King, He orders and controls all things, human actions among them, in accordance with His own eternal purpose. Scripture also teaches that, as Judge, He holds every man responsible for the choices he makes and the courses of action he pursues. Thus hearers of the gospel are responsible for their reaction; if they reject the good news, they are guilty of unbelief. “He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed.” Again, Paul, entrusted with the gospel, is responsible for preaching it; if he neglects his commission, he is penalized for unfaithfulness. “Necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!” God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility are taught us side by side in the same Bible; sometimes, indeed, in the same text. Both are thus guaranteed to us by the same divine authority; both, therefore, are true. It follows that they must be held together, and not played off against each other. Man is a responsible moral agent, though he is also divinely controlled; man is divinely controlled, though he is also a responsible moral agent. God’s sovereignty is a reality, and man’s responsibility is a reality too. This is the revealed antinomy in terms of which we have to do our thinking about divine command and free-will.

To our finite minds, of course, the thing is inexplicable. It sounds like a contradiction, and our first reaction is to complain that it is absurd. Paul notices this complaint in Rornans 9: “Thou wilt say then unto me, Why does he [God] yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?” (Rom. 9:19). If, as our Lord, God orders all our actions, how can it be reasonable or right for Him to act also as our Judge, and condemn our shortcomings? Observe how Paul replies. He does not attempt to demonstrate the propriety of God’s action; instead, he rebukes the spirit of the question. “Nay but, 0 man, who are thou that repliest against God?” What the objector has to learn is that he, a creature and a sinner, has not right whatsoever to find fault with the revealed ways of God. Creatures are not entitled to register complaints about their Creator.7

This incomprehensible antinomy—God’s will, man’s will, and free will—occupies a large part of God’s truth. Does this subject have a message for ministers and Christians in this day of doctrinal indifference and ignorance? It most certainly does.