Omniscience v Determinism

[Alive]

4 minutes ago, Josheb said:

We have.

I do not think there is a consensus on that point. You, Riverwalker, and I may agree to that point but it appears Diaste may not (as evidenced by his statement the ability to choose salvation persists even in the sinless stated and the posted interpretation of John 3:16-17). 

Ya--that is what I referred to. It surprised me. IMO this is vitally fundamental as so much follows from that understanding.

Edited July 23, 2021 by Alive
keyboard has a mind of its own

[Alive]

I would like to address something in order to make sure we are clear. When mentioning saved, being saved and will be saved---yes I agree that this is what scripture teaches, however--we must also see and embrace the historicity of 'our' inclusion in the Cross, Resurrectiona and Ascension---a done deal.

I don't think I need to quote a bunch of scripture on this.

One of these days I need to make good on my threat to use the Israelite progressive taking of the 'land' as analogous to our ongoing salvation/sanctification.

[Justin Adams]

12 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Synergism

Perhaps this is the opposite of Providence..?  

[Alive]

1 minute ago, Josheb said:

Yes, and given the stated desire not to digress far afield of the op and wander off into soteriology the temptation is challenging . 

If all the scriptures pertaining to the effects of sin are posted it become very clear sin is despotic; tyrannically determinative. Many of these verses are written to the already regenerate believers about the effects of sin on their redeemed lives, such as Romans 8:6. Throughout the epistolary we also read a juxtaposition between the flesh and the Spirit, what the flesh does (and cannot do) and what the Spirit does and enables. 

Unregenerate people do NOT have the Spirit! 

ALL they have is flesh. 

This is another determinism that occurs solely as a consequence of God's foreknown design of creation. Not only does sin kill but it changes the flesh of the sinner in very dysfunctional ways that scriptures itself describes and salvifically impotent. Some of the most obvious example are, 

Romans 1:21-25
"For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  Professing to be wise, they became fools,  and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.  Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.  For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen."

Notice the text does not attribute a single aspect to volition. We might infer that but there is nothing in the text exegetically or otherwise automatically implying the God-denying, truth-suppressing sinner's will is the cause. What is states is the failure to honor God made them futile in their speculations, and their hearts darkened. It states quite unequivocally God gave them over to their lusts. That is a statement of determinism. There is a parallel between this portion of scripture and things God said in Genesis 3 after A&E disobeyed God. Centuries later those same conditions still persisted as Paul wrote about the idol worshipers of his day. Lastly, notice the text plainly states they served the creature, not the Creator. 

What was it you posted earlier about "self-willed"? 

Creature, not Creator.

 

Yes--we are in complete agreement on these matters. Few things are more clear when scripture is studied. I do not mean that to be an offense to anybody, who may differ.

[Diaste]

On 7/23/2021 at 1:37 PM, Josheb said:

Well, first, I previously read it stated that God knows all aspects of His creation. I am aware that may have been said while sleep deprived but I have not seen that statement recanted or edited to say anything different. So if that belief is still held then there exists a conflict between that post and this one. If He knows all aspect then He knows the effects of His own knowledge and actions.

Second, it isn't that God's external pre-existent necessarily dictates any action; it is His creating that dictates action. The first act is causal. Or, as I have otherwise worded it, God is the First Cause of all subsequent causes and the contingencies thereof. So, yes, Genesis 1:1 does in fact necessarily dictate action. The actions consequential to the First Action and the first actions are a direct consequence and deterministically so. If there's be no words spoken, "Let there be....." there'd be no being . There'd be no human beings being anything. God saying "Let there be light," did not necessitate there being any animals or humans, but the moment that light became a heat-generating light (such as the sun) other effects were dictated. 

And as I have already mentioned, the moment God states a pre-existing cause-and-effect condition then His external pre-existence does also dictate another action. "If you eat of the tree in the middle of the garden...." is one of them. "If you eat from the tree of life....." is another. If the (previously) stated consequences do not occur then God ends up being wrong and this conversation then proves nothing more than an exercise in sophistry.

 

So, yes, his external existence does imbue a characteristic: an axiomatic external existence. It is the basis for the very concepts being discussed because there is no omni-anything if God does not exist externally, and the moment He starts to create actions are necessarily dictated. 

So I tried posting over the last week and whatever was going on it wasn't working very well. I would submit and it would save for 10 minutes, then work in the background for what seemed like an eternity. Seems to be working today.

For me it I have what I need from this conversation. It's been very interesting and fruitful.

Thanks for engaging. 

[Diaste]

2 hours ago, Josheb said:

 

As to the op, what did you need from the conversation? 

Well, the exploration into the concepts in general. I have heard a great deal but didn't ever give it much thought as I was comfortable in what I already believed.

I heard many intriguing ideas from you as well as what I feel is a reasonable, logical conclusion. 

So thank you!

I don't feel any better prepared though as the concepts are applied subjectively.

There is no real way to know how much or under what circumstances, nor the variations, scope or depth. 

Trust in Jesus is the right path.

[Alive]

2 hours ago, Josheb said:

Great post but free will was not defined. Omniscience was defined. Determinism was defined. Free will was not.

Omniscience = the state of knowing all that can possibly be known
Determinism = the doctrine human actions are caused by sources external to the human will (Oxford begged the question)
Free = not under the control, power, or influence of another, unfettered, without restraint 
Will = the faculty of the mind that selects, at the moment of decision, an option among the various options knowingly present

Free will = a completely unfettered faculty of the mind able to select from among all existing options (because a lack of known options would be a fetter)

Maybe add a wee bit on 'autonomy'? To fill it out.

:-)