Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
And all I have to say is, Who is your bishop? Clete.
On the omniscience of God
- Thread starter JudgeRightly
- Start date
And all I have to say is, Who is your bishop? Clete.
Right Divider
Body part
Lon
Well-known member
Jesus? :noway:
Lon
Well-known member
Is there any very clear omniscient passage?
Perhaps the Isaiah 46 passage is the clearest:
Isaiah 46:21-24 -
Present your case,” says the Lord.
“Bring forth your strong reasons,” says the King of Jacob. “Let them bring forth and show us what will happen; Let them show the former things, what they were, that we may consider them, And know the latter end of them; Or declare to us things to come. Show the things that are to come hereafter, That we may know that you are gods.
Peter says the actual words omniscience "Lord You know all things (panta gnosis)."
A biblical need for God to be Omniscient:
1) ALL things come from God. If posited anything exists outside of Him, the inevitable conclusion is that thing does not exist. While Open View will acknowledge this, there is limitation set, by them, upon what God 'can' know.
Consider:
Proverbs 2:6 For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.
-Drawn conclusion: There is no knowledge that doesn't come from God's infinite being.
Colossians 1:16,17 "Without Him, nothing (including all knowledge) exists, that exists. Open Theism will say the future doesn't exist but even for it to exist, it must proceed from God. If all knowledge of possibility comes 'from' God, it has to already exist in God by logical demands as well as a major problematic for Open Theists: It has to come from the Only Source of Knowledge of any kind: God Himself. That is why A) we believe scripture indicates clearly God is omniscient and B) that it has to mean God already knows it, there is no other place any knew knowledge 'can' come from according to Proverbs 2:6, but what emanates 'from' God, the only eternal being. It literally has no other place to exist. Therefore God is the only author of all existence and any 'new song' logically has no place to come from other than God Himself.
A better concept: We tend to limit God by finite. A 'new song' is thought outside of God's eternality. Nothing can exist outside of God's infinite being.
Accusation: "You are infected by Greeks!"
All truth, if it is true, is God's truth. Any truth comes from nowhere else, scripture explains clearly.
Sufficiency of this argument: While it may not convince, omniscience and eternality are the better cornerstone and grasp of a God Who has never had a beginning and is the sole reason anything exists at all. The Open View model has God creating outside of Himself, for relational reasons, a world and things that can exist outside of His existence from which all emanates, creating a superficial barrier to 'without Him, nothing exists that exists.' It denies the clear teaching of Colossians 1:16-20 which not only says that all things come 'from' His being, but that they are presently sustained by Him, thus Luke 12:7 that says all your hairs are numbered, isn't about Him counting, but that they are known explicitly because they exist 'because' of God. Why it boggles the mind, is likely because one does not entertain the idea that God is already infinite. He is the Author of existence as we know it in our limitation. In frankness, any limitation we intimate comes from a finite mind, not in keeping with an infinite God.
Perhaps the Isaiah 46 passage is the clearest:
Isaiah 46:21-24 -
Present your case,” says the Lord.
“Bring forth your strong reasons,” says the King of Jacob. “Let them bring forth and show us what will happen; Let them show the former things, what they were, that we may consider them, And know the latter end of them; Or declare to us things to come. Show the things that are to come hereafter, That we may know that you are gods.
Peter says the actual words omniscience "Lord You know all things (panta gnosis)."
A biblical need for God to be Omniscient:
1) ALL things come from God. If posited anything exists outside of Him, the inevitable conclusion is that thing does not exist. While Open View will acknowledge this, there is limitation set, by them, upon what God 'can' know.
Consider:
Proverbs 2:6 For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.
-Drawn conclusion: There is no knowledge that doesn't come from God's infinite being.
Colossians 1:16,17 "Without Him, nothing (including all knowledge) exists, that exists. Open Theism will say the future doesn't exist but even for it to exist, it must proceed from God. If all knowledge of possibility comes 'from' God, it has to already exist in God by logical demands as well as a major problematic for Open Theists: It has to come from the Only Source of Knowledge of any kind: God Himself. That is why A) we believe scripture indicates clearly God is omniscient and B) that it has to mean God already knows it, there is no other place any knew knowledge 'can' come from according to Proverbs 2:6, but what emanates 'from' God, the only eternal being. It literally has no other place to exist. Therefore God is the only author of all existence and any 'new song' logically has no place to come from other than God Himself.
A better concept: We tend to limit God by finite. A 'new song' is thought outside of God's eternality. Nothing can exist outside of God's infinite being.
Accusation: "You are infected by Greeks!"
All truth, if it is true, is God's truth. Any truth comes from nowhere else, scripture explains clearly.
Sufficiency of this argument: While it may not convince, omniscience and eternality are the better cornerstone and grasp of a God Who has never had a beginning and is the sole reason anything exists at all. The Open View model has God creating outside of Himself, for relational reasons, a world and things that can exist outside of His existence from which all emanates, creating a superficial barrier to 'without Him, nothing exists that exists.' It denies the clear teaching of Colossians 1:16-20 which not only says that all things come 'from' His being, but that they are presently sustained by Him, thus Luke 12:7 that says all your hairs are numbered, isn't about Him counting, but that they are known explicitly because they exist 'because' of God. Why it boggles the mind, is likely because one does not entertain the idea that God is already infinite. He is the Author of existence as we know it in our limitation. In frankness, any limitation we intimate comes from a finite mind, not in keeping with an infinite God.
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
Copy/paste from post #1345
Lon
Well-known member
Realize on these, I was trying to argue more of Credo's intent. Isaiah 46:10 is fine the way OT and conversely I see it.
Lon
Well-known member
He touches all around Isaiah but for these specific verses, that are again juxtaposition of a difference between God and man specifically. I might argue a few of his other observations, didn't see anything in particular, but nothing really in the way of these specific scriptures Credo posted. -Lon
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Every word of the Scripture is the literal word of God and all the words together is the Word of God, capital W. Everything in the Bible is taken to be what's I think commonly called foundational in the literature, meaning basically it's taken as evident and fundamental, a priori knowledge, this is ofc taken on faith, it's inherent to the definition of Sola Scriptura, that the whole Scripture is infallible (which entails inerrant).
So we are permitted all other a priori knowledge, just like everybody else, we just also have the Bible in the a priori knowledge category as well, because it's the literal Word of God, so it belongs there.
Sola Scriptura is basically this initial starting condition. So you have Luther's two-ingredient formula, Scripture and reason. Reason is just all a priori knowledge, including logic and math and stuff like that. Even words and their definitions are a priori knowledge, again, foundational.
Up means up and not down is as foundational as 2+2=4, and for Sola Scriptura, as In the beginning God.
Most everybody agrees with you. On both sides. And I'm saying something different than most vanilla Roman Catholic simpliciter apologists are saying, they will say Sola Scriptura is self-defeating, self-contradictory, that's not my stance. My stance is that under Sola Scriptura, its starting conditions, are a trail of breadcrumbs, and the trail leads to believing in that it's Apostolicity that is foundational, which INCLUDES the whole Scripture, and the belief in the infallibility of every single word in the whole entire Bible, but it entails that anything Apostolic, that doesn't happen to have been captured in Scripture, is still just as infallibly God's Word as what IS in the Scripture.
So Sola Scriptura is incomplete, but contains within it the seed of its own germination, sprouting, maturation, and fruition, which is vanilla Roman Catholicism simpliciter.
It is 100% consistent with the Bible to heed your bishop. And certainly to know his name.
I've made no commitment to TOL, I just like it. I like the challenge, it's way different energy from times past, especially the early days (I'm in my 27th year since I first started here). The early TOL was more like how nee_Twitter is today. Tons and tons of posts flying around, tons of long posts, and everybody would jump on anything you dared post, that was way different energy. Nowadays we're highly auto-curated. Not many of us like this, and I even caught flak for intimating that another user here was maybe just a little fragile for mature TOL. Maybe go over to nee_Twitter, maybe that's more your speed.
This is in contrast to our understanding of God's providence. Being vanilla Roman Catholic simpliciter is like being married, in that you've made a public commitment. You trust that in honoring your promise, that it will work for you in the end, and that's part of why you're keeping your vow. It's just part of faith, and it always has been, the idea that your faith does NOT include this commitment, really doesn't appear in history in any significant number until the Reformation. And then not even—there was still a commitment to those fledgling Protestant ecclesial traditions, but soon Sola Scriptura purified Protestant theology of anything unfounded by and unfound in Scripture, at least things not hitting you over the head.
So any kind of commitment to your Protestant tradition fell by the wayside eventually, and drifting Protestant Christians became unconnected in any objective way to any organization or putative "church". Once these people realized their similar situations, they all gathered together to form Evangelicalism. The tradition for people with commitment issues. You don't need to commit to Evangelicalism, you're just a member of the Evangelical assembly if you say so, it's like, What is a Woman? A woman is someone who identifies as a woman, and it's the same for Evangelicals, because there's no public commitment, it's like a cohabitating couple, instead of a married couple.
And the married couple is really what the earliest Church traditions all were.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I wasn't ... but you know, if you have to believe that, that's fine. :carryon:
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
So like I said, I'm Augustian in as much as Augustine was Roman Catholic (which he was), and Clavinism is cafeteria Augustianism, because Clavinists just take what they like from Augustine and leave all the rest.
They mainly like his polemics against Pelagius, and pay no mind to his belief in the primacy of the Pope, neither his position on Donatism, which is the heresy that through committing sins, bishops can corrupt the office of a bishop.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I already know you're not a Clavinist, neither am I. Total Depravity plus Unconditional Election means Reprobation, it's 2+2=4, but you'll still find some Clavinists who resist the necessary entailment of their theology.
Nobody is denying this.
The key word is "meant", it means that there's a plan or an intent in play. God meant it for good. But it was evil. iow God meant evil for good.
JP2's Catechism of the Catholic Church just teaches God's providence, permissive will is Clavinism.
You're the only one trying to contrast "perfect will" with "permissive will", you even say yourself you admit, that God permits "certain things to happen". That's just the definition of permissive will. Are you saying that when He permits things, it's AGAINST His will? ofc you're not saying that. So you believe in His permissive will, just based on your own words. Otherwise the word "permit" doesn't mean anything, and it just means God is passive, because you said God "permits certain things to happen". If He can't stop it from happening, that's not permission.
So maybe you just didn't mean to use the word "permit", or, maybe you have a surprising definition for the word, that really means, God couldn't stop it from happening.
No it doesn't. It starts with the premise that for every 10 thousand people who die, one of them goes to Hell, and everybody else doesn't. It means that the only people who don't go to Heaven are basically violent criminals in our societies. One out of every 10 thousand of us.
Under this scenario, which is hypothetical, granted, what would we expect God to do? Would we expect God to arrange to have those people put to death? So is He being unjust, if they're not put to death? If violent criminals are allowed to live, and commit violent crime against innocent victims, is God somehow responsible for it, because He didn't arrange to have these people put to death, before they could hurt anybody?
That's just Calvinism right here.
But what about God's actions? is the point. God meant evil for good, that's literally right from Genesis 50:20 verbatim. Close enough.
One example where my theology conflicts with Scripture?
And if that's the standard, then every single one of you stands condemned, and you are all PRETENDING. To care about the truth, to care about Sola Scriptura, to care what God's will is for your life. You're all pretending, because you know your theology doesn't comport with all the Scripture, every single one of you have passages which are surprising under your theology. Like why are they there? If your theology is true, then why are these passages in the Bible? They're surprising. It doesn't entail you're wrong, so long as you've got a good explanation, that overcomes the low initial plausibility.
Lon
Well-known member
I don't take it that way, and of course my abandoning RC connections is wholesale for all kinds of important reasons.
Well, as evidenced by your next post, it seems that this little nugget of nonsense wasn't all you had to say.
There is no such real thing as a "Bishop" based on the Catholic definition of the term.
So it is precisely as I suspected. You DO NOT actually believe anything close to what the actual doctrine that the entire world knows as "sola scriptura" actually teaches but rather your own made up out of whole clothe version of it.
Sola Scriptura is the doctrine which says the Bible alone is the ultimate and sufficient authority for Christian faith and practice, rejecting any additional sources of authority (such as tradition or church teachings) as equal to Scripture.
I'm sorry but this is literally too stupid to even warrant me responding to directly.
Everyone, just read the above and that alone is it's own best refutation.
Laughably idiotic. You're talking yourself right out of being a Christian at all, Idolater.
I couldn't really follow this rambling mess and I really couldn't care less about why you're here. Your highest value is in being a demonstration of the degree to which one must shut down their cognitive faculty in order to buy into three syllables of the Catholic system. It's flagrant lunacy from the word go.
Repeat yourself all you like. Saying it doesn't make it so.
Making stuff up as we go now, is that it?
The history of Luther's rejection of certain Catholic doctrines is VERY well documented. We are quite certain about the content of Martin Luther's 95 Theses posted on the door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg in 1517. There is no surviving original document, but the Theses were quickly translated from Latin into German and widely distributed throughout Europe, making it impossible to question their general content. Early printed copies and eyewitness accounts help establish a high degree of confidence in the text's accuracy. While some minor variations might exist in early copies, the core message remains consistent across historical sources.
The following is from Chat GPT in direct response to your claims....
The claims made have several inaccuracies in terms of historical context and theological nuances. Here's a breakdown:
Luther's Polemics Against Pelagius: Luther did indeed argue against Pelagianism, particularly in his emphasis on the total depravity of humanity and the necessity of divine grace for salvation. However, Calvinists typically emphasize aspects of Luther's theology related to the sovereignty of God and predestination more than his anti-Pelagian polemics. While they would likely appreciate Luther's stance against Pelagius, it's not the defining feature of his influence on Reformed thought.
Luther's Belief in the Primacy of the Pope: Luther initially did uphold the Pope's authority within the Church, but he eventually rejected it during the Reformation. His famous break with the Catholic Church over doctrinal issues, such as justification by faith alone and the authority of Scripture, was not compatible with papal primacy. In fact, the rejection of papal authority became central to his theological position, especially after the posting of the 95 Theses.
Luther's Position on Donatism: Donatism was a controversy in the early Church concerning the validity of sacraments administered by bishops or priests who had lapsed in their faith. Luther, like Augustine, argued that the personal holiness of the minister does not affect the validity of the sacraments. The claim that Luther believed "bishops can corrupt the office of a bishop" through sin is misleading. While Luther did have criticisms of the clergy, he did not hold to the Donatist position that the sinfulness of the minister necessarily invalidates the office.
In summary, the claim oversimplifies and misrepresents Luther's views, particularly in relation to his stance on papal authority and his position on the Donatist controversy. Reformed traditions typically focus more on Luther's critiques of Catholic practices and doctrines, rather than these specific elements mentioned in the claim.
Unresponsive. Pay attention. Stop wasting my time.
Yes they are.
Blasphemy.
That's the last straw. I'm not wasting any more time with your stupidity.