The omniscience of God

You are here: Index > Theology Proper > Theology Proper > Topic : The omniscience of God

Threaded Mode | Tell a friend | Print

The omniscience of God

eternally-gratefull	# March 19, 2010, 3:59 pm \| Post: 60
Group: Elite Member Posts: 292 Status:	Quote From : ronathanedwards March 19, 2010, 2:43 pm Quote If Abraham did not have any humility, He would not have faith So then, your are saved by humility and faith. FOR without humility, you can not have faith. THEREFORE, you are not saved by faith alone. The difference between the man's salvation and the other man's not being saved was due NOT to God (poor God is hamstrung) but on man being humble. You are presupposing humility. I am going on scripture that it is regeneration. I have 1 John 5:1. Can you please give me a verse that says you must be humble in order to be saved. Can you give me an argument from Paul, or Peter saying that humility is required for faith? I do not even know what to think about the way you think. Do you even know what humility is?? I am beginning to wonder. It takes humility to stop giving yourself credit ( things of which you can boast) and give God ALL credit. If you do not have humility, you can not have faith.. why? Because your still relying on yourself. You have failed to repent. Repentance is humility, and this leads to faith. God gets ALL credit when you are humble, You get zero credit. because you did nothing. You have failed to prove 1 john 5:1. I take 1 john 5: 1 literally. ' whoever believes that Jesus is Christ is born of God. regeneration comes out of belief, Belief does not come from regeneration. I also have scripture: I posted this before but you ignored it. I still have no reason why you fail to respond to what I post. Luke 18:9–14 (NKJV)*Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector9 Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ 13 And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven,[b] but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified* rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”[/b] I think it is quite clear what this means. The sinner recognized his sin, and his need for mercy. It is because of this he was justified. because he had faith. the pharisee had pride. He thought his works saved him,, he did not humble himself, He did not think he was a sinner, He did not think he needed salvation. thus there could be no faith an anything but his works..
IP: --

The omniscience of God

ronathanedwards	# March 20, 2010, 7:22 pm \| Post: 61
Group: Member Posts: 192 Status:	Quote God gets ALL credit when you are humble, You get zero credit. because you did nothing Your very language contradicts itself. ARE is a VERB. You ARE "being humble" You do get credit. You get credit for "being humble". I can punch someone in the face, and say "I didn't "do" anything. The statement doesn't prove that I didn't do anything. Quote You have failed to prove 1 john 5:1. I take 1 john 5: 1 literally. ' whoever believes that Jesus is Christ is born of God. regeneration comes out of belief, Belief does not come from regeneration. Again making a statement doesn't make it true. It's just a mantra. You have changed the meaning in the English also to deceive yourself. You changed the English from "has been" to "is". In order to try to make your point. However, I know the Greek VERY well. The Greek gegennatai is a perfect tense. I have shown you over and over again. But you remain stiff necked on this. It is a PAST ACTION (causal implications) with a PRESENT EFFECT. Why are you ignoring this? Did you fight over this issue with your grammar teacher in Jr. High? The past action was regeneration, the present tense is the reference. The present tense verb is believe. The cause was the regeneration and the effect was believe. Perfect parallel to 2:29. Everyone who practices righteousness has been born of God. By your understanding then: practicing righteousness causes regeneration. Do you want to say that? You must be righteous to be born of God? How can a dead man be righteous? (Or humble, lol) Those who overcome the world have been born of God, you have to overcome the world to cause regeneration? Really? Your love for the father causes you to be born of .... the father? How can you love a father who hasn't fathered you yet? You are going against the context, going against the grammar and going against the analogy of scripture. The Luke parable? A writer doesn't have to explicitly state every doctrine put into every verse. God's spirit being on the person and giving him the ability to be humble doesn't have to be described by the author for the implied doctrines to have taken place. If it is explicit that the Holy Spirit gives life in order to bear fruit (one of which is humility) and in a narrative in which one is described as being humble, then the narrative falls in line with the analogy of scripture and the implications that are governed by the explicit rules applies. In other words, the Spirit was on this person, working in him, IN ORDER to do this. It is not in the text, but because the explicit rules the implicit, it is a safe implication. You are assuming that this person had humility all by himself. This is an implication, and it is based not on governed explicit texts, but on further implications. An implication based on an implication is NOT safe, it is eisegesis. Quote I think it is quite clear what this means. The sinner recognized his sin, and his need for mercy. It is because of this he was justified. because he had faith This answer is question begging and a sign of eisegesis. Though the statement is correct, it does not answer the argument of what caused the faith. He already had true faith, therefore this explains the humility! Also the Pharisees didn't have faith, therefore they didn't have humility. What underlies both is the work of the Holy Spirit. This parable does not explain what the Holy Spirit was doing. But by the analogy of Scripture we know that He was working on the one and not on the Pharisees. Thank God for His grace that He chose him in order to believe when He could have been just like the Pharisees if it wasn't for His grace. It's all the Holy Spirit, and not man. ----------------------- Truth invites scrutiny, only error fears close examination. ~ Atruro Azurdia
IP: --

The omniscience of God

eternally-gratefull	# March 21, 2010, 2:30 pm \| Post: 62
Group: Elite Member Posts: 292 Status:	Quote From : ronathanedwards March 20, 2010, 7:22 pm Your very language contradicts itself. ARE is a VERB. You ARE "being humble" You do get credit. You get credit for "being humble". I can punch someone in the face, and say "I didn't "do" anything. The statement doesn't prove that I didn't do anything. Your whole argument is destroyed by Christ himself. He states having faith (A VERB) in Christ is a work of God.. It is no different than being Humble. Not only is it christ who gives you faith by giving you the "words" that give you faith. But he gives you enough humility to have faith. by giving you the "words" that show your sin, failure to meet his standard. and inablility to save yourself. for without agreeing with those three things in humility.. You will have no faith. I am not sure why your fighting this.. Quote From : ronathanedwards March 20, 2010, 7:22 pm Again making a statement doesn't make it true. It's just a mantra. You have changed the meaning in the English also to deceive yourself. You changed the English from "has been" to "is". In order to try to make your point. However, I know the Greek VERY well. The Greek gegennatai is a perfect tense. I have shown you over and over again. But you remain stiff necked on this. It is a PAST ACTION (causal implications) with a PRESENT EFFECT. You know. your not a very good debater. I did not change anything. John is talking to people who have "present tense" eternal life (for the life God gave did not end) because of a past action (faith in Christ) and the faith the had continues today. Yes it was a past action. Both faith and life were given in the past. and continue today.. your feeble attempt to try to force it otherwise is falling on death ears. because you can not prove your point. Just because believes is present tense does not mean that this belief did not start in the past. John is not talking to people who just now decided to believe, He is talking to people who already professed their faith in Christ. it was a past action which at present is still active. He is not saying your present belief is a result of your past new life.. your trying to force something that not only is not there. but is not substantiated by the rest of scripture. Quote From : ronathanedwards March 20, 2010, 7:22 pm Why are you ignoring this? Did you fight over this issue with your grammar teacher in Jr. High? Like I have said time and time again. Grammar must NOT be taken separately with context, and must be interpreted in harmony with scripture. Your trying to force grammar without looking at context and keeping it in harmony with scripture. You might know greek. But like the jewish pharisees, you do not understand context. or the rest of scripture. Quote From : ronathanedwards March 20, 2010, 7:22 pm The past action was regeneration, the present tense is the reference. The present tense verb is believe. The cause was the regeneration and the effect was believe. just because the present tense verb is believe does NOT mean that believe just happened.. John could have been talking to people who were saved for years.. Your taking this fact completely out of context to force your belief on the passage.. Quote From : ronathanedwards March 20, 2010, 7:22 pm Perfect parallel to 2:29. Everyone who practices righteousness has been born of God. By your understanding then: practicing righteousness causes regeneration. Do you want to say that? You must be righteous to be born of God? How can a dead man be righteous? (Or humble, lol) I tell you. You either do not listen.. or your think I am stupid. One can not be good unless they first have faith.. one can not have faith unless they are humble.. Righteousness comes from being born of God. But before one can be born of God, one has to be justified.. This can only happen by faith. Thge Holy Spirit can NOT enter a body that is still tainted with sin. that sin must be removed first.. Regeneration can NOT happen until Justification is present.. because otherwise the person is still dead to Christ.. but using your own words,, your too hard hearted to see this. Quote From : ronathanedwards March 20, 2010, 7:22 pm Those who overcome the world have been born of God, you have to overcome the world to cause regeneration? Really? Your love for the father causes you to be born of .... the father? How can you love a father who hasn't fathered you yet? Not sure what your trying to say.. looks like babble. Why does one love the father? Because the father sent his holy spirit to convict you of sin. Gave you the ability to believe by sending his son to die for you. And kept his promise by saving you because of his sons work. who would not love the father who did this. if you did not mean this. I do not know what you meant. Quote From : ronathanedwards March 20, 2010, 7:22 pm You are going against the context, going against the grammar and going against the analogy of scripture. no you are.. Quote From : ronathanedwards March 20, 2010, 7:22 pm The Luke parable? A writer doesn't have to explicitly state every doctrine put into every verse. God's spirit being on the person and giving him the ability to be humble doesn't have to be described by the author for the implied doctrines to have taken place. If it is explicit that the Holy Spirit gives life in order to bear fruit (one of which is humility) and in a narrative in which one is described as being humble, then the narrative falls in line with the analogy of scripture and the implications that are governed by the explicit rules applies. Nice try.. I had a nice laugh with this one.. This guy did not get credit for being humble. He was humble because he GAVE GOD CREDIT.. Keep trying.. You seem to think humility,, which means you give ALL credit to God.. is a work.. How can giving ALL credit to someone else. and going against human nature and taking non for yourself be a work you can be proud of?? Quote From : ronathanedwards March 20, 2010, 7:22 pm In other words, the Spirit was on this person, working in him, IN ORDER to do this. It is not in the text, but because the explicit rules the implicit, it is a safe implication. the spirit had not even been given yet. Thus your attempt to add something to scripture is thwarted.. Don't you know God warns about adding to his word?? Quote From : ronathanedwards March 20, 2010, 7:22 pm You are assuming that this person had humility all by himself. This is an implication, and it is based not on governed explicit texts, but on further implications. An implication based on an implication is NOT safe, it is eisegesis. No I am knowing that he heard the word of God and understood he was a sinner, and needed help because he could not earn it by himself. He heard the law, believed it. and was crying out to God for help. Again. Your adding something that is not there! Quote From : ronathanedwards March 20, 2010, 7:22 pm This answer is question begging and a sign of eisegesis. Though the statement is correct, it does not answer the argument of what caused the faith. He already had true faith, therefore this explains the humility! Also the Pharisees didn't have faith, therefore they didn't have humility. thanks for repeating what I have been saying all along about the pharisees. As for the sinner, He had faith because he was humble. If he never humbled himself, he never would have had faith. he would have never admited he needed mercy.. and would have never asked for mercy.. Quote From : ronathanedwards March 20, 2010, 7:22 pm What underlies both is the work of the Holy Spirit. This parable does not explain what the Holy Spirit was doing. But by the analogy of Scripture we know that He was working on the one and not on the Pharisees. Thank God for His grace that He chose him in order to believe when He could have been just like the Pharisees if it wasn't for His grace. It's all the Holy Spirit, and not man. Actually your wrong again. God has been working in the hearts of all men since the beginning.the holy spirit was working throuigh Christ personaly in all men he spoke to. Read john 6. it is the spirit who gives life. the words he speaks are spirit and life. anyone who hears the word of God are being spoke to by the spirit.. Again you reject this. you call God a liar. Edited by eternally-gratefull : March 21, 2010, 2:33 pm
IP: --

The omniscience of God

Sori	# July 16, 2010, 6:38 am \| Post: 63
Group: Member Posts: 3 Status:	E.G. There is a difference between receiving the Spirit, and the work of the Spirit in a person. We can see in the O.T. how the Spirit was working, but it wasn't until Christ sat in His throne when he sent the Holy Spirit, to live IN His children. It is true, the Holy Spirit makes you see that you are a sinner, but that doesn't mean you have the Spirit. It would be totally wrong to say that. According to Ephesians 1:13, the Spirit is given (to live in you) after we have believed. Of course, the Spirit has worked in us in order to open our eyes to see our sin, and to give us faith, to born us again. ----------------------- Let Your Name Be Great Among The Nations, Oh Almighty Lord!
IP: --

The omniscience of God

Divinesoteriology	# July 27, 2010, 8:25 pm \| Post: 64
Group: Administrator Posts: 485 Status: Ordo Solutis) Drawing, Faith, Union with Christ which entails Justification, Regeneration, Adoption	"God’s omniscience from the creature’s point of view is foreknowledge; but it is not foreknowledge from God’s point of view. The infinite mind comprehends all things in one simultaneous intuition, and, consequently, there is for it no “before” or “after.”Says Charnock (God’s Knowledge), “God considers all things in his own simple knowledge as if they were now acted; and therefore some have chosen to call the knowledge of things to come, not prescience or foreknowledge, but knowledge; because God sees all things at one instant.” Says Owen (Vindication of the Gospel, 5), “God knows all things as they are; and in that order wherein they stand. Things that are past, as to the order of the creatures, he knows as past; not by remembrance, however, as we do; but by the same act of knowledge wherewith he knew them from all eternity, even before they were.” But this knowledge of everything simultaneously and at once is for the finite mind equivalent to knowing before the event. Foreknowledge, strictly taken, implies an interval between the knowledge and the event. Had the Ninevites not repented, Nineveh would have been destroyed in accordance with the prophecy of Jonah. Forty days would have elapsed between Jonah’s foreknowledge of the event and the event itself. A series of occurrences and experiences would have intervened and become gradually known by Jonah. But this is not true of the divine mind. God is not conscious of an interval of several thousand years between his knowledge of Christ’s crucifixion and the occurrence of the crucifixion. For God, Christ was crucified from eternity, and the event was known and real to him from all eternity. Omniscience excludes both foreknowledge and subsequent knowledge. In this reference, Augustine (Concerning Diverse Questions 2.2.2) says: “What is foreknowledge but the knowledge of the future. But what is future to God? For, if divine knowledge includes all things at one instant, all things are present to him, and there is nothing future; and his knowledge is knowledge and not foreknowledge.” Says Charnock (God’s Knowledge): The knowledge of one thing is not, in God, before another; one act of knowledge does not father another. In regard of the objects themselves, one thing is before another; one year before another; one generation of men before another; one is the cause and the other is the effect; in the creature’s mind there is such a succession, and God knows there will be such a succession; but there is no such order in God’s knowledge; for he knows all those successions by one glance, without any succession of knowledge in himself." William Greenough Thayer Shedd and Alan W. Gomes, Dogmatic Theology, 3rd ed. (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Pub., 2003), 286-87. ----------------------- Faith is not knowing what the future holds, but knowing who holds the future.
IP: --

« Previous Next »

Threaded Mode | Tell a friend | Print

Jump To :

Users viewing this topic
	1 guests, 0 users.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is September 6, 2010, 5:53 pm.

Powered By AEF 1.0.8 © 2007-2008 Electron Inc.

Queries: 11 | Page Created In:0.182

Caughtup Ministries