Omniscience - Revision history

Dataclarifier: /* Some other arguments against omniscience */

2019-06-25T20:37:06Z

Some other arguments against omniscience

DavidB4-bot: /* top */clean up, typos fixed: Therefore → Therefore,

2018-09-25T21:30:48Z

top: clean up, typos fixed: Therefore → Therefore,

Dataclarifier: added "free-will" conclusion - " Therefore it is always possible to repent, to turn from evil, and choose to do good, in free-will response to the enabling power of God's saving grace."

2018-09-21T06:06:37Z

added "free-will" conclusion - " Therefore it is always possible to repent, to turn from evil, and choose to do good, in free-will response to the enabling power of God's saving grace."

Dataclarifier: Calvinist and Non-Calvinist views of salvation - summarized

2018-09-21T06:01:09Z

Calvinist and Non-Calvinist views of salvation - summarized

DavidB4-bot: clean up & uniformity

2016-07-13T16:57:47Z

clean up & uniformity

Copleston at 18:52, December 17, 2014

2014-12-17T18:52:26Z

Copleston at 04:46, December 17, 2014

2014-12-17T04:46:18Z

Copleston at 03:59, December 17, 2014

2014-12-17T03:59:31Z

Copleston at 03:58, December 17, 2014

2014-12-17T03:58:10Z

Copleston at 03:57, December 17, 2014

2014-12-17T03:57:35Z

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 ==Some other arguments against omniscience==
-Philosopher Patrick Grim of SUNY Stoney Brook has argued that modern set theory disproves omniscience because there can be no single set of all truths.<ref>Moreland, J.P., Meister, Sweis, eds. ''Debating Christian Theism''. Oxford: OUP, 2013. Print. Pages 169-180.</ref> One way to answer this argument is by saying that God's nature transcends logic and math and therefore, as difficult as it may be to comprehend for our human minds, God is still omniscient and mathematical and logical laws do not apply to God. This somewhat similar to the defense which [[William of Ockham]] gave for the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
+Philosopher Patrick Grim of SUNY Stoney Brook has argued that modern set theory disproves omniscience because there can be no single set of all truths.<ref>Moreland, J.P., Meister, Sweis, eds. ''Debating Christian Theism''. Oxford: OUP, 2013. Print. Pages 169-180.</ref> One way to answer this argument is by saying that God's nature transcends logic and math and therefore, as difficult as it may be to comprehend for our human minds, God is still omniscient and mathematical and logical laws do not apply to God. This is somewhat similar to the defense which [[William of Ockham]] gave for the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
 ==References==

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 Some have questioned whether omniscience is compatible with [[free will]]; specifically, [[Calvinist]]s have argued that God knows whether a person will be saved before he is born. If God has foreknowledge, then only one path (known, albeit, only to God) can be chosen and therefore allows only one action can be taken; if God had seen that the man were bound to heaven, for example, he could not be but virtuous, while were he bound to hell he must, by definition, sin.
-However, some believe knowledge of what the outcome of a man or woman's free will will be does not preclude his or her freedom. They contend that it is possible for God to know how a man or woman will exercise their free will and at the same time not interfere with it. [[Calvinism|Calvinists]] who deny that man has free will teach that God bestows saving grace (Irresistible Grace) only on those he already knows will only by the determination of his grace choose heaven, the elect, whom he has elected to save from all eternity. Non-Calvinist Christians who assert that man has free will teach that the gift of saving grace is available to all ("not willing that any should perish"<ref>2 Peter 3:9</ref>) and that those who freely choose to persistently resist God's will are condemned by their own fault, and those who persistently choose to freely submit to the gift of his will to save "whosoever will" shall certainly be saved. Therefore it is always possible to repent, to turn from evil, and choose to do good, in free-will response to the enabling power of God's saving grace.
+However, some believe knowledge of what the outcome of a man or woman's free will will be does not preclude his or her freedom. They contend that it is possible for God to know how a man or woman will exercise their free will and at the same time not interfere with it. [[Calvinism|Calvinists]] who deny that man has free will teach that God bestows saving grace (Irresistible Grace) only on those he already knows will only by the determination of his grace choose heaven, the elect, whom he has elected to save from all eternity. Non-Calvinist Christians who assert that man has free will teach that the gift of saving grace is available to all ("not willing that any should perish"<ref>2 Peter 3:9</ref>) and that those who freely choose to persistently resist God's will are condemned by their own fault, and those who persistently choose to freely submit to the gift of his will to save "whosoever will" shall certainly be saved. Therefore, it is always possible to repent, to turn from evil, and choose to do good, in free-will response to the enabling power of God's saving grace.
 Some believe that this creates a logical paradox, but the paradox hinges on the concept of time.

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 Some have questioned whether omniscience is compatible with [[free will]]; specifically, [[Calvinist]]s have argued that God knows whether a person will be saved before he is born. If God has foreknowledge, then only one path (known, albeit, only to God) can be chosen and therefore allows only one action can be taken; if God had seen that the man were bound to heaven, for example, he could not be but virtuous, while were he bound to hell he must, by definition, sin.
-However, some believe knowledge of what the outcome of a man or woman's free will will be does not preclude his or her freedom. They contend that it is possible for God to know how a man or woman will exercise their free will and at the same time not interfere with it. [[Calvinism|Calvinists]] who deny that man has free will teach that God bestows saving grace (Irresistible Grace) only on those he already knows will only by the determination of his grace choose heaven, the elect, whom he has elected to save from all eternity. Non-Calvinist Christians who assert that man has free will teach that the gift of saving grace is available to all ("not willing that any should perish"<ref>2 Peter 3:9</ref>) and that those who freely choose to persistently resist God's will are condemned by their own fault, and those who persistently choose to freely submit to the gift of his will to save "whosoever will" shall certainly be saved.
+However, some believe knowledge of what the outcome of a man or woman's free will will be does not preclude his or her freedom. They contend that it is possible for God to know how a man or woman will exercise their free will and at the same time not interfere with it. [[Calvinism|Calvinists]] who deny that man has free will teach that God bestows saving grace (Irresistible Grace) only on those he already knows will only by the determination of his grace choose heaven, the elect, whom he has elected to save from all eternity. Non-Calvinist Christians who assert that man has free will teach that the gift of saving grace is available to all ("not willing that any should perish"<ref>2 Peter 3:9</ref>) and that those who freely choose to persistently resist God's will are condemned by their own fault, and those who persistently choose to freely submit to the gift of his will to save "whosoever will" shall certainly be saved. Therefore it is always possible to repent, to turn from evil, and choose to do good, in free-will response to the enabling power of God's saving grace.
 Some believe that this creates a logical paradox, but the paradox hinges on the concept of time.

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 Some have questioned whether omniscience is compatible with [[free will]]; specifically, [[Calvinist]]s have argued that God knows whether a person will be saved before he is born. If God has foreknowledge, then only one path (known, albeit, only to God) can be chosen and therefore allows only one action can be taken; if God had seen that the man were bound to heaven, for example, he could not be but virtuous, while were he bound to hell he must, by definition, sin.
-However, some believe knowledge of what the outcome of a man or woman's free will will be does not preclude his or her freedom. They contend that it is possible for God to know how a man or woman will exercise their free will and at the same time not interfere with it.
+However, some believe knowledge of what the outcome of a man or woman's free will will be does not preclude his or her freedom. They contend that it is possible for God to know how a man or woman will exercise their free will and at the same time not interfere with it. [[Calvinism|Calvinists]] who deny that man has free will teach that God bestows saving grace (Irresistible Grace) only on those he already knows will only by the determination of his grace choose heaven, the elect, whom he has elected to save from all eternity. Non-Calvinist Christians who assert that man has free will teach that the gift of saving grace is available to all ("not willing that any should perish"<ref>2 Peter 3:9</ref>) and that those who freely choose to persistently resist God's will are condemned by their own fault, and those who persistently choose to freely submit to the gift of his will to save "whosoever will" shall certainly be saved.
 Some believe that this creates a logical paradox, but the paradox hinges on the concept of time.

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 The problem with this question is that it assumes that God would not have had some purpose in allowing evil to arise.
-===Some other arguments against omniscience===
+==Some other arguments against omniscience==
-Philosopher Patrick Grim of SUNY Stoney Brook has argued that modern set theory disproves omniscience because there can be no single set of all truths. <ref>Moreland, J.P., Meister, Sweis, eds. ''Debating Christian Theism''. Oxford: OUP, 2013. Print. Pages 169-180.</ref> One way to answer this argument is by saying that God's nature transcends logic and math and therefore, as difficult as it may be to comprehend for our human minds, God is still omniscient and mathematical and logical laws do not apply to God. This somewhat similar to the defense which [[William of Ockham]] gave for the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
+Philosopher Patrick Grim of SUNY Stoney Brook has argued that modern set theory disproves omniscience because there can be no single set of all truths.<ref>Moreland, J.P., Meister, Sweis, eds. ''Debating Christian Theism''. Oxford: OUP, 2013. Print. Pages 169-180.</ref> One way to answer this argument is by saying that God's nature transcends logic and math and therefore, as difficult as it may be to comprehend for our human minds, God is still omniscient and mathematical and logical laws do not apply to God. This somewhat similar to the defense which [[William of Ockham]] gave for the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
 ==References==
-<references>
+<references/>
-[[category:theology]]
+[[Category:Theology]]