On the omniscience of God

[Psychlo]

Also, typing out the term "Pro-omniscience people" once is one time too many, if you ask me so we need to figure out a more common and easier way to refer to those on this side of the debate. My preference is to refer to them as either "Calvinists" or "Augustinians". The latter is more technically accurate because there are other groups, such as Arminians and Catholics, that believe and teach that God is immutable (i.e. that God cannot change in any way whatsoever), and so I'll try to stick to using "Augustinians" but, if you catch me using the term "Calvinist", understand that I'm using that term out of habit and am referring to anyone who believes that God is immutable, which is the fundamental premise upon which all of these doctrines concerning time are based.

I agree that we need a more concise term. Even "Calvinist" or Augustinian" is problematic as they both inherently imply more than is likely accurate about a lot of believers in God's total omniscience. I myself believed it for many years but I was never a Calvinist nor an Augustinian. In fact, I was very much opposed to those groups theologically. Even something simple like "PO" (pro-omincience) and "AO" (anti) would work for me, but I'll leave that to you veteran posters to figure out.

 

[Psychlo]

Okay, so since I am an Open Theist, you won't be surprised to find out that I disagree with this list. In fact, I'm sort of baffled as to how anyone who can think as clearly as you seem to be able to could compile this particular list. It seems to me to be overly self-defeating list. Let's take them one at a time...

• God must be rational as WE perceive rationality
• God must be logical as WE perceive logic

That's not one at a time, you're thinking right now! Well, yes it is, right? Rationality is nothing other than our use of logic. It's the equivalent of making a distinction between speaking vs. the use of language.

This was simply a list I compiled of scattered claims quoted by folks in this thread, albeit paraphrased. And my point is really no more than that these are ideas which are not explicitly stated in the Bible. Therefore, they require extra formulation of thought and reason in order to get from point A (what the Bible says) to point B (the meaning of these particular quotes). My comment was not a critique of the validity or nonvalidity of any quote's premise.

I agree that logic and rationality are inextricably linked, and as you show, they are not strictly synonymous. At some level, I suppose someone could argue a point regarding their difference, but that's not me.

 

[Derf]

And He's also able to predict what Judas is going to do centuries before he does it. Along with predicting what Peter will do hours before he does it. Seems like He has a pretty big range or window in which to foresee our free choices.

What isn't clear is if God was somehow so sure that the Judas who was alive when Christ was choosing His disciples was someone whom He knew about specifically centuries before. I don't see that as a necessary understanding of the text.

 

[Derf]

Right. Good points. And another question that arises is whether or not this is a special circumstance. After all, it was God who initiated the entire series of events. So was He paying particular attention to Satan's actions regarding Job only because of the "deal" He made with Satan? Or is this indicative of how God pays attention to all of His creation? I presume the latter. He seems to be ever-watchful over His creation.

He seems to be ever-watchful over some of His creation, but maybe not those who don't worship Him??

 

[Clete]

I agree that we need a more concise term. Even "Calvinist" or Augustinian" is problematic as they both inherently imply more than is likely accurate about a lot of believers in God's total omniscience. I myself believed it for many years but I was never a Calvinist nor an Augustinian. In fact, I was very much opposed to those groups theologically. Even something simple like "PO" (pro-omincience) and "AO" (anti) would work for me, but I'll leave that to you veteran posters to figure out.

Whether you were consciously an Augustinian or not, if you ever believed that God is immutable, you have Augustine to thank for it. He is THE source of the doctrine in Christian doctrine and at least to that extent, all believers in the Classical attributes of God, which are all logically derived from the doctrine of immutability, are Augustinian and it is only in that sense that I use the term. It is not intended to imply that someone is any flavor of Catholic or related in any overt way to the Augustinian Order of monks or any other such thing.

I have been doing this for a long time and I have yet to find a more accurate term than "Augustinian" because it covers practically everyone who believes these doctrines because the doctrine of immutability and it's corollary doctrines survived the Reformation fully intact. Calvinism, in particular, is really nothing at all other than a "Reformed" version of Augustinian doctrine and when you combine the Calvinists with Catholics, you've already got a huge majority of Christianity and when you consider the fact that virtually all other sects of Christianity that teach that God is immutable, use the very same arguments that Aristotle, Augustine and Calvin did, then it really stops making any sense to call it much of anything else other than Augustinianism simply because Augustine was the closest thing we can find to a historically significant source of these doctrines who was also a Christian.

I mean, you could call them "Aristotelian" but I haven't encountered too many Christians who are on that side of the debate who would approve of that label. Referring to the doctrines as "Classical" is a direct reference to Aristotle and Plato and while there isn't as much resistance to that label, one is hard pressed to figure out why.

At any rate, it doesn't really matter what we call it so long as we are clear on what we're talking about. To that end, regardless of what term I use in whatever post I'm writing, any reference to Calvinism, Augustinianism, Classical Theism, Aristotelianism, etc. Is a reference to any or all of the following doctrines....

• Immutability (i.e. God cannot change in ANY WAY whatsoever) - I list this one first because it is THE premise upon which all the rest are derived.
• Omniscience (i.e. God knows absolutely everything)
• Omnipresence (i.e. God is always everywhere)
• Omnipotence (i.e. God can do ANYTHING)
• Impassibility (i.e. God does not experience emotions)
• Simplicity (i.e. God has no parts)
• Eternity (i.e. that God exists outside of time).
• Etc. (i.e. there are other, more obscure, doctrines that fall into this category)

Clete

 

[Clete]

This was simply a list I compiled of scattered claims quoted by folks in this thread, albeit paraphrased. And my point is really no more than that these are ideas which are not explicitly stated in the Bible. Therefore, they require extra formulation of thought and reason in order to get from point A (what the Bible says) to point B (the meaning of these particular quotes). My comment was not a critique of the validity or nonvalidity of any quote's premise.

I agree that logic and rationality are inextricably linked, and as you show, they are not strictly synonymous. At some level, I suppose someone could argue a point regarding their difference, but that's not me.

I get that this was your point and I feel like I did a rather good job of refuting that point, did I not?

I'd enjoy reading any response you might have to my three point argument on this specific point....

First, I would refer you to an essay I wrote that covers some important ground in this area. It's entitled "Our Moral God" and can be found HERE. I strongly urge you to read it. In it I establish that the bible IS explicit about God's rationality to the point of teaching the He IS Reason itself.​

​

Second, and more fundamentally, rationality and logic are absolutes. No intelligible communication, of any kind, can occur without the use of reason. The very fact that the bible is a book that can be read and understood at all is explicit endorsement of the use of reason. The first letter of Genesis 1:1 could never have been penned without the use of reason.​

​

Thirdly, there could be no such thing as "super-logic" nor could God be "supra-logical". The concept is utterly meaningless because anything you might say in attempt to explain it must necessarily use logic to do so, which an obviously self-defeating thing to do. It is the ultimate example of attempting to have your cake and eat it too.​

​

Lastly, there is Isaiah 1:18.​

​

Isaiah 1:18 “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the Lord,....​

​

It can't get too much more explicit than that.​

Just how much more explicitly biblical can you get? John 1:1-14 explicitly teaches that God the Son is Reason itself (Logos) and through the prophet Isaiah, God Himself says to us, “Come now, and let us reason together,” and Paul proclaims in Acts 26 that, "I am not mad,...but speak the words of truth and reason."!
When these biblical references are taken with the fact that there cannot be any other sort of logic or reason, and the fact that the bible, being a book that people can read and understand, is itself an exercise of the faculty of reason (i.e, the bible's very existence presupposes the validity of reason), the case seems to be inexorable established that these are invalid inclusions on your list of things that are not explicitly biblical.

I would just point out, by the way, that the premise of your original post is quite valid and it happens to be based on essentially that same premise that Open Theism itself is based. John Sanders put it best when he said that Open Theism is "an attempt to provide a more biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship". Open Theism is not the result of some sort of rebellion against any particular doctrine per se. It is rather, the result of what might be considered a completion, or at least a continuation of what Luther started in the 16th century. Luther's Reformation was about removing the unbiblical influences of what might be called the "Roman Catholic" doctrines of his day, such as indulgences and paying the church to get people out of Purgatory. Open Theism does something similar except that instead of Rome's influence, its the influence of pagan Greek philosophy that we seek to purge from Christian doctrine.

Clete

 

[JudgeRightly]

I get that this was your point and I feel like I did a rather good job of refuting that point, did I not?

I'd enjoy reading any response you might have to my three point argument on this specific point....

First, I would refer you to an essay I wrote that covers some important ground in this area. It's entitled "Our Moral God" and can be found HERE. I strongly urge you to read it. In it I establish that the bible IS explicit about God's rationality to the point of teaching the He IS Reason itself.​

​

Second, and more fundamentally, rationality and logic are absolutes. No intelligible communication, of any kind, can occur without the use of reason. The very fact that the bible is a book that can be read and understood at all is explicit endorsement of the use of reason. The first letter of Genesis 1:1 could never have been penned without the use of reason.​

​

Thirdly, there could be no such thing as "super-logic" nor could God be "supra-logical". The concept is utterly meaningless because anything you might say in attempt to explain it must necessarily use logic to do so, which an obviously self-defeating thing to do. It is the ultimate example of attempting to have your cake and eat it too.​

​

Lastly, there is Isaiah 1:18.​

​

Isaiah 1:18 “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the Lord,....​

​

It can't get too much more explicit than that.​

Just how much more explicitly biblical can you get? John 1:1-14 explicitly teaches that God the Son is Reason itself (Logos) and through the prophet Isaiah, God Himself to says to us, “Come now, and let us reason together,” and Paul proclaims in Acts 26 that, "I am not mad,...but speak the words of truth and reason."!
When these biblical references are taken with the fact that there cannot be any other sort of logic or reason, and the fact that the bible, being a book that people can read and understand, is itself an exercise of the faculty of reason (i.e, the bible's very existence presupposes the validity of reason), the case seems to be inexorable established that these are invalid inclusions on your list of things that are not explicitly biblical.

I would just point out, by the way, that the premise of your original post is quite valid and it happens to be based on essentially that same premise that Open Theism itself is based. John Sanders put it best when he said that Open Theism is "an attempt to provide a more biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship". Open Theism is not the result of some sort of rebellion against any particular doctrine per se. It is rather, the result of what might be considered a completion, or at least a continuation of what Luther started in the 16th century. Luther's Reformation was about removing the unbiblical influences of what might be called the "Roman Catholic" doctrines of his day, such as indulgences and paying the church to get people out of Purgatory. Open Theism does something similar except that instead of Rome's influence, its the influence of pagan Greek philosophy that we seek to purge from Christian doctrine.

Clete

"The Reformation broke with Rome but not with Greece" sums it up nicely.

 

[Psychlo]

I'd enjoy reading any response you might have to my three point argument on this specific point....

First, I would refer you to an essay I wrote that covers some important ground in this area. It's entitled "Our Moral God" and can be found HERE. I strongly urge you to read it. In it I establish that the bible IS explicit about God's rationality to the point of teaching the He IS Reason itself.

Your essay is well-written. I have several thoughts and questions regarding your starting point and conclusions that would probably be better suited for another thread. But I'll try to address the points directly relevant to this discussion here.

Second, and more fundamentally, rationality and logic are absolutes. No intelligible communication, of any kind, can occur without the use of reason. The very fact that the bible is a book that can be read and understood at all is explicit endorsement of the use of reason. The first letter of Genesis 1:1 could never have been penned without the use of reason.

This is a tough one to sort out because there seems to be two different perceptions of logic being employed as if they are the same. Yes, reason is absolutely necessary for any intelligence to meaningfully exist. But, in a sense, reason is governed by perspective. Not absolutely, but rather perceptively. What seems reasonable to us, is not necessarily reasonable to God.

Here is an imperfect analogy which, nonetheless, hopefully illustrates my point:

Little Billy thinks he is being reasonable when he asks his mom for candy. He sees no problem with such a request whatsoever. He likes candy. He knows that candy was made for the specific purpose of being eaten. He feels the urge of hunger. All things point to it being a very rational and logical request. But Mom says no because it is almost dinnertime and he's already had his limit of sweets for the day. Billy can't understand why in the world his mom is being so unreasonable because, in his mind, it's a slam dunk.

The fact is, they were both being reasonable. But Mom's reason trumps Billy's because Mom is privy to a much higher plane of reason. She has access to information that Billy has no clue about. She has rationale that Billy can't comprehend. It's not Billy's fault; he can't help it. And it would be unproductive for Mom to attempt to explain to Billy the exact reasons for her denial of his request because he lacks the mental capacity for understanding certain concepts. She is fully aware of his inadequacies.

Regarding the analogy above, is this a possible quasi-proper representation of our relationship with God concerning reason/logic? Or is it an indisputable given that God's logic is equal to our own? There's no doubt that God's logic/reason is top-level. But did He create us with the capacity to understand His logic completely? If we say yes, how do we know that? His communication with His creation will no doubt always be at our level (otherwise it would be pointless), but thus far, we have been dicussing things that are above our station (which is an endeavor that is precarious at best). What God understands and what he divulges to us are very likely two different things. He created us in His image, but He didn't create us equal to Him. I know you're not implying that; I'm just trying to be clear on my point.

But it does, at times, seem like you're saying that our sense of logic/reason is equal to God's. Is that even something we could know? Short of God stating explicitly something like "Your ways are My ways, and your logic is My logic, and your thoughts are My thoughts", we cannot know the level of His logic. Rather, perhaps a better way to say it is that we cannot know how accurate our perception of His level of logic is. IMO

Now, I realize I haven't answered any questions here, and that's the main thrust of my point. Some of these concepts being discussed may have no knowable answer. You have made claims that I believe to be possible, but not necessarily true. I think there are alternative options that also have potential, which I'll get to subsequently.

Thirdly, there could be no such thing as "super-logic" nor could God be "supra-logical". The concept is utterly meaningless because anything you might say in attempt to explain it must necessarily use logic to do so, which an obviously self-defeating thing to do. It is the ultimate example of attempting to have your cake and eat it too.

I agree that there is no "super- or supra-logic" if you mean beyond or outside of logic. However, I would submit that there is very possibly absolute or complete logic, and then there are inferior levels of logic underneath that - which is where our understanding resides (like Billy).

Lastly, there is Isaiah 1:18.Isaiah 1:18 “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the Lord,....It can't get too much more explicit than that.

What is explicit is that He reasons with them. But what is not explicit is whether or not He is reasoning on their level, for their sakes.

 

[Derf]

But, in a sense, reason is governed by perspective. Not absolutely, but rather perceptively. What seems reasonable to us, is not necessarily reasonable to God.

This is a dangerous position. We might not know enough to reason with God, but that means our conclusion is faulty, even if logically arrived at, because it is based on faulty premises. If reasoning is right based on perception, then it was right for Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge:
Genesis 3:6 KJV — And when the woman saw [perceived] that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

These were all based on her perception, and therefore reasonable...in a catastrophically disastrous way.

 

[Hoping]

This is a dangerous position. We might not know enough to reason with God, but that means our conclusion is faulty, even if logically arrived at, because it is based on faulty premises. If reasoning is right based on perception, then it was right for Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge:
Genesis 3:6 KJV — And when the woman saw [perceived] that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

These were all based on her perception, and therefore reasonable...in a catastrophically disastrous way.

Eve's "reason" neglected God's command not to eat the fruit.
Her "reasoning" was only 75% reasonable.

 

[Clete]

Your essay is well-written. I have several thoughts and questions regarding your starting point and conclusions that would probably be better suited for another thread. But I'll try to address the points directly relevant to this discussion here.

In addition to asking anything that is relevant to this discussion in this thread, please feel free to ask any question you might have about that essay in the thread about that essay.

This is a tough one to sort out because there seems to be two different perceptions of logic being employed as if they are the same. Yes, reason is absolutely necessary for any intelligence to meaningfully exist. But, in a sense, reason is governed by perspective. Not absolutely, but rather perceptively. What seems reasonable to us, is not necessarily reasonable to God.

Two things here....

First, you should understand that reason is so foundational to any meaningful communication that any attempt to undermine is primacy is self-defeating because it would HAVE TO use the very thing its attempting to undermine.

Second, the laws of reason INCLUDE "perceptive" as you put it. "Context" is a better term. Thus....

1. The Law of Identity: What is, is. (A is A)
2. The Law of Excluded Middle: A truth claim is either true or it false, given a specific context.
3. The Law of Contradiction: Two truth claims that contradict each other cannot both be true, given a specific context.

Note however that these laws are not subjective. They are absolutes. If, by "perspective" you intended to imply that truth was not absolute then I challenge you to establish that claim. You'll find that it cannot be done because by establishing it, you'll have falsified it. In other words, the claim "All truth is relative." is presenting an absolute. It's the equivalent of the man who never tells the truth proclaiming that he's lying.

Here is an imperfect analogy which, nonetheless, hopefully illustrates my point:

Little Billy thinks he is being reasonable when he asks his mom for candy. He sees no problem with such a request whatsoever. He likes candy. He knows that candy was made for the specific purpose of being eaten. He feels the urge of hunger. All things point to it being a very rational and logical request. But Mom says no because it is almost dinnertime and he's already had his limit of sweets for the day. Billy can't understand why in the world his mom is being so unreasonable because, in his mind, it's a slam dunk.

The fact is, they were both being reasonable. But Mom's reason trumps Billy's because Mom is privy to a much higher plane of reason. She has access to information that Billy has no clue about. She has rationale that Billy can't comprehend. It's not Billy's fault; he can't help it. And it would be unproductive for Mom to attempt to explain to Billy the exact reasons for her denial of his request because he lacks the mental capacity for understanding certain concepts. She is fully aware of his inadequacies.

Holy smokes. This is one super dangerous path you've taken here. It would be fine if what we were talking about was something as innocuous as whether or not we get to eat a piece of candy, but that isn't the sort of thing we're discussing here. We're talking about the very nature of God Himself. The technical term for it "Theology Proper" and it forms the foundation for all other things related to theology not the least of which is Soteriology which deals with one's doctrines concerning salvation.
And let me tell you, there is a gaping wide gulf between what people on either side of these issues believe about how and why someone gets saved. The Calvinists, in particular, believe that God's decision about who is saved and who is damned, is entirely arbitrary; that the elect are chosen by God FOR NO REASON whatsoever. And that doctrine flows in a perfectly logical manner from the premise that God is immutable.
Further, if you're correct about the idea that our reasoning skills equate to that of children wanting candy for dinner, then what doctrine could ever be falsified? The bible does teach us the God's ways are higher than our ways but that is not teaching that God is super-logical or supra-rational because reason is the only means by which any truth claim can be falsified. If that were the case then a "prophet" could come along and command you to rape your neighbor's children on every third Thursday of the month and you've have no means by which to declare him to be evil because "God's ways are higher than our ways and our understanding is as a child's compared to his wise parent." Where is the line to be drawn?

There is a very specific answer to the question!

The answer is SOUND REASON! (Not yelling - capitals are for emphasis only).

Truth and sound reason come and go together. Neither is possible without the other.

Regarding the analogy above, is this a possible quasi-proper representation of our relationship with God concerning reason/logic? Or is it an indisputable given that God's logic is equal to our own? There's no doubt that God's logic/reason is top-level. But did He create us with the capacity to understand His logic completely?

Excellent questions!

Sound reason is THE ONLY tool you have to even begin to try to answer them.

God does not make errors of logic and He has all available information regarding any particular issue or question and He is perfectly wise and loving and so can be trusted to always make the correct decision. In this manner God's ways are very much indeed higher than our ways!
As for our understanding his logic "completely", I'd say that it depends on what you mean by "completely". To begin with, there isn't any need for us to know everything that God knows. God does not hold us responsible for what we do not know (unless we are being willfully ignorant) and He certainly doesn't hold us responsible for what we cannot know.

The question then becomes what can we know? Can we know God? I think we can!

John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.​

Thus, to whatever extent we can know God, we can understand Him (which is an unavoidable tautology). There are, of course, many thing we cannot know about God but we can know that God, if He is good, is rational and so we can, therefore, summarily reject as false any proposed doctrine that would have us accept as true that which is contradictory or otherwise absurd.

If we say yes, how do we know that?

If it was knowable, you'd know it the same way you know anything else, by sound reason. There isn't any other alternative other than to declare God irrational.

His communication with His creation will no doubt always be at our level (otherwise it would be pointless), but thus far, we have been discussing things that are above our station (which is an endeavor that is precarious at best).

Things that are above or below one's station does not imply irrationality with either party, as you yourself state in your hypothetical. Further, it's not as if we are coming to these issues in a manner that is frivolous or haphazard. There are things that we can KNOW about God through both general revelation (i.e. via the creation) and special revelation (via God's word) and we can proceed from those things which are known toward things that must be inferred. The degree to which a doctrine is logically inferred is the degree with which errors in thought process are possible and so we certainly must be diligent, careful and humble in our approach but even that attitude is itself the result of sound reason and not an excuse to pretend that logic doesn't apply to God.

What God understands and what he divulges to us are very likely two different things. He created us in His image, but He didn't create us equal to Him. I know you're not implying that; I'm just trying to be clear on my point.

Quite so, we are not His equal. To suggest that we are, would be a totally irrational extreme. However, the other extreme is just as irrational. We are no so far beneath God that we can't related to Him. Indeed, He created us for the purpose of relating to Him. That's the reason we exist. It is the entire point of the Christian faith.

John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.​

But it does, at times, seem like you're saying that our sense of logic/reason is equal to God's.

That sentence barely makes sense to me.

There is no "sense of logic/reason". It isn't an emotion or any other sort of feeling or instinct. Logical reasoning is correct thinking. It is an intentional process of thought that follows certain rules intended to place a boundary around our thoughts and confine our minds to that which is real.

Now, some people are better at it than others. Some are more intelligent than others. Some have more information than others. Some are more experienced than others. Some are just flat out wiser than others. The point is, however, that none of that implies that its ever okay to accept the irrational as truth because even if you're not that smart and don't have needed information, it is precisely sound reason that allows for the unwise or the ignorant person to be corrected!

Is that even something we could know? Short of God stating explicitly something like "Your ways are My ways, and your logic is My logic, and your thoughts are My thoughts", we cannot know the level of His logic. Rather, perhaps a better way to say it is that we cannot know how accurate our perception of His level of logic is. IMO

No! You are disarming yourself of the only tool you have with which to correct ANY error!

Listen carefully....

THAT'S HOW YOU CAN KNOW! (Again - not yelling!)

Do you see it? If what you're saying here is right then we can't know anything about God whatsoever and any claim anyone makes is equally as valid as any other contradictory claim. Indeed, it would go beyond God. If what you're saying is right, you couldn't know anything at all - period. The fact that you can read and understand this sentence is proof that you must be wrong.

Now, I realize I haven't answered any questions here, and that's the main thrust of my point. Some of these concepts being discussed may have no knowable answer. You have made claims that I believe to be possible, but not necessarily true. I think there are alternative options that also have potential, which I'll get to subsequently.

If you can refute a syllable of what I've said, I'll hear it gladly! (Seriously!)

I agree that there is no "super- or supra-logic" if you mean beyond or outside of logic. However, I would submit that there is very possibly absolute or complete logic, and then there are inferior levels of logic underneath that - which is where our understanding resides (like Billy).

You are conflating logic with information. You aren't talking about levels of logic, you're talking about levels of information. With more information, one's conclusions may change. There isn't anything irrational or even controversial about that. The problem comes when one postulates the notion that our information about God is so lacking that we can't figure out whether God is just or arbitrary, (which is precisely what the Calvinist (and most Catholics) would have you believe), or worse, to use your faculty of logic to conclude that you can't understand anything about God Who is the Fountain Head of Reason itself.

On the contrary, not only have we been made in the image of God for the purpose of relating to Him just as we relate to each other, but God Himself is manifest in countless ways throughout His creation that we, through and only through a process of rational thought can observe and understand. On top of that, God wrote us a very thick book that is all about Him from the first page to the last. For someone to take passages from that book and use them to argue that we can't understand who God is, is to miss the whole point of His having written the book in the first place.

What is explicit is that He reasons with them. But what is not explicit is whether or not He is reasoning on their level, for their sake.

This is how the above two sentences read in my mind....

"What is explicit is that He reasons with them. But what is not explicit is whether or not He is being irrational, for their sake."​

I have no doubt that you do not intend any such thing but I'm trying to get you to see that this is what you're implying although unintentionally so. There just very simply isn't any such thing as "reasoning on their level". The truth is true - period. A process of thought is either rational or it is in error. An idea is either consistent with itself and with reality or it is false. There isn't any third option.

Going back to your hypothetical, it isn't really about "levels of reason" as it is about levels of knowledge. That is, the child came to a conclusion which followed logically from his flawed premises. The point being that the false premises made his conclusion false and thus his reasoning was not sound.

As for any lack of knowledge on our part, as I said before, God does not hold one responsible for what he does not know, especially if its something that he cannot possibly know, but we're talking about the nature of Him who doesn't merely command our worship and obedience but WANTS desperately for us to come to know Him and to develop a REAL loving relationship with Him, which is no insignificant thing. Thus, we can know that we are, at the very least, capable of understanding Him, (i.e His thoughts, His personality, etc) in a manner sufficient to make such a relationship possible. Such is the very premise and purpose of Christianity itself.

Clete

 

[Psychlo]

This is a dangerous position. We might not know enough to reason with God, but that means our conclusion is faulty, even if logically arrived at, because it is based on faulty premises. If reasoning is right based on perception, then it was right for Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge:
Genesis 3:6 KJV — And when the woman saw [perceived] that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

These were all based on her perception, and therefore reasonable...in a catastrophically disastrous way.

But isn't that the exact danger we live with every day? We all have the freedom to apply faulty reasoning. And it's never on purpose.

God told Eve not to eat the fruit, whether she understood why or not. Her sin was not her lack of reason. It was disobedience. Our lesser reasoning does not excuse us. It proves us fallible.

Besides, any reasoning we require, we have available to us. That's part of God's justice. God doesn't expect more of us than we are capable of. IMO

We don't have to understand everything about God at His level in order to please Him. Only what He has revealed to us.

 

[Clete]

But isn't that the exact danger we live with every day? We all have the freedom to apply faulty reasoning. And it's never on purpose.

God told Eve not to eat the fruit, whether she understood why or not. Her sin was not her lack of reason. It was disobedience. Our lesser reasoning does not excuse us. It proves us fallible.

Besides, any reasoning we require, we have available to us. That's part of God's justice. God doesn't expect more of us than we are capable of. IMO

We don't have to understand everything about God at His level in order to please Him. Only what He has revealed to us.

We can't understand any of it if reason doesn't work. We cannot understand a thing about God if logic doesn't apply to God.

And in what manner was Eve's reasoning "lesser" except that it was flatly false? She, as you said, had all the information she needed to resist the temptation. That information being God's commandment. The correct line of thinking would have been for her to say to Satan, "I don't care what you say! I don't care whether you're right, wrong or indifferent! God said not to eat of that tree and so, therefore, I will not eat it." It wasn't any sort of lesser reasoning that lead her to an innocent conclusion. It was precisely a lack of reasoning that led to her sin.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Isaiah 1:18 “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the Lord,....

Can't do that until...
King James Bible
Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

And in what manner was Eve's reasoning "lesser" except that it was flatly false? She, as you said, had all the information she needed to resist the temptation. That information being God's commandment. The correct line of thinking would have been for her to say to Satan, "I don't care what you say! I don't care whether you're right, wrong or indifferent! God said not to eat of that tree and so, therefore, I will not eat it." It wasn't any sort of lesser reasoning that lead her to an innocent conclusion. It was precisely a lack of reasoning that led to her sin.

Totally opposite.
It was her reasoning that led her to be seduced.
Only the born again can reason with God.

 

[Derf]

But isn't that the exact danger we live with every day? We all have the freedom to apply faulty reasoning. And it's never on purpose.

We purposefully justify our bad behavior.

God told Eve not to eat the fruit, whether she understood why or not. Her sin was not her lack of reason. It was disobedience. Our lesser reasoning does not excuse us. It proves us fallible.

But that is saying the opposite of what you said before--that our perception determines our reasoning. Our perception can be false and misleading, so we can't base our reasoning on our perceptions. There has to be a standard that is outside our reasoning...one that doesn't change with perception. And God provides it. If, through our lesser reasoning, we reject God's standard, then we are culpable, as you say here.

Besides, any reasoning we require, we have available to us. That's part of God's justice. God doesn't expect more of us than we are capable of. IMO

I'm not so sure. If God doesn't expect more of us than we are capable of, then why does Christ's righteousness need to be imputed to us?

We don't have to understand everything about God at His level in order to please Him. Only what He has revealed to us.

Agreed. And even what He has revealed to us, we don't have to understand it to obey.

 

[Psychlo]

We purposefully justify our bad behavior.

Right. My point was simply that we don't apply faulty reasoning intentionally. It's often because we are limited in knowledge and understanding that makes our reasoning faulty. But poor reasoning certainly doesn't justify disobedience.

But that is saying the opposite of what you said before--that our perception determines our reasoning. Our perception can be false and misleading, so we can't base our reasoning on our perceptions. There has to be a standard that is outside our reasoning...one that doesn't change with perception. And God provides it. If, through our lesser reasoning, we reject God's standard, then we are culpable, as you say here.

We must base our reasoning on our perceptions, IMO. That's all we have. God created us with the ability to perceive the world around us. That is our only window to life. Now, as we study the Bible and pray, our perceptions generally become more accurate because our perceptions are constantly changing as we receive new information. Therefore our level of reasoning changes. Not God's reasoning - ours. You're right, God's reasoning is the standard and it's "outside of" our own. But we grow closer to it as we improve our perception of who he is and what he's done.

Our station as lesser beings determines our reasoning ability. We can't reason as perfectly as God. That's the gist of my claim.

If I'm trying to figure out why my '73 J10 won't run, I use my reasoning abilities to approach the problem. But that reasoning ability is completely governed by my knowledge and understanding of how the engine and its components are supposed to operate, along with my understanding of physics, mathematics, etc. Same goes for anything in life. It's not an attack on reason in general, only a critique of my personal abilites. God's abilities are way above my own. He wouldn't have to scratch his head over the J10 because his reasoning is perfect.

It seems you agree that we have lesser reasoning than God? That's all I'm saying.

I'm not so sure. If God doesn't expect more of us than we are capable of, then why does Christ's righteousness need to be imputed to us?

Because we choose to disobey. Not because God asks us to do the impossible. He doesn't make us one way, and then punish us for being that way. That would be unjust. His mercy is so amazing because, even though we consciously choose to go astray, he makes a way for us to be reconciled to him again - if we choose to repent. Otherwise, it wouldn't be mercy. It would be him making up for his previous unjust action and expectation. This takes us directly into a discussion of freewill vs determinism, which would be a YUGE rabbit trail.

Agreed. And even what He has revealed to us, we don't have to understand it to obey.

 

[Psychlo]

We can't understand any of it if reason doesn't work. We cannot understand a thing about God if logic doesn't apply to God.

I'm not sure which statements of mine you're arguing against here. I haven't ever claimed that "reason doesn't work" or that "logic doesn't apply to God". God's reason/logic is supreme. I've always maintained that. It's mankind who has a limitation on his own reasoning abilites. God has no such limitation.

And in what manner was Eve's reasoning "lesser" except that it was flatly false? She, as you said, had all the information she needed to resist the temptation. That information being God's commandment. The correct line of thinking would have been for her to say to Satan, "I don't care what you say! I don't care whether you're right, wrong or indifferent! God said not to eat of that tree and so, therefore, I will not eat it."

You don't consider Eve's false reasoning to be lesser than God's? It seems to me that your answer is in your own question. Please explain, because in my understanding, false reasoning is lesser than true reasoning.

 

[Psychlo]

It wasn't any sort of lesser reasoning that lead her to an innocent conclusion. It was precisely a lack of reasoning that led to her sin.

It seems that you and I don't define reason the same way. It appears that you believe someone either has reason or he doesn't have reason. Black or white. On or off. Binary. Only two possibilities. Please correct me if that is not your view.

Rather, I believe that reasoning ability is on a scale. God is at the top of the scale and has perfect reasoning. We are somewhere lower on that scale. Animals are even lower.

Let's start there because I think that's the crux of our disagreement. And it may just be that we're both looking at the same thing from two different angles.

 

[Jefferson]

It seems that you and I don't define reason the same way. It appears that you believe someone either has reason or he doesn't have reason. Black or white. On or off. Binary. Only two possibilities. Please correct me if that is not your view.

Rather, I believe that reasoning ability is on a scale. God is at the top of the scale and has perfect reasoning. We are somewhere lower on that scale. Animals are even lower.

Let's start there because I think that's the crux of our disagreement. And it may just be that we're both looking at the same thing from two different angles.

I can't tell you the number of times I've seen people debating here when they agreed with each other the whole time. They just had different definitions of a word or two.