My response will be in blue, Keith's in Red and my new reply in black.
Ivan: Then by Trinitarian standards, one person of the Godhead has knowledge that the other two members don't. How is that even remotely compatible with the notion of the creeds that affirm that all persons of the polypersonal God are "co-equal" and "all knowing"?
Ivan: Then by Trinitarian standards, one person of the Godhead has knowledge that the other two members don't. How is that even remotely compatible with the notion of the creeds that affirm that all persons of the polypersonal God are "co-equal" and "all knowing"?
Further, one must assume Trinitarianism in order to even suggest the question that Jesus has selective foreknowledge, or at least assume two natures. It's circular reasoning.
Keith: Of course I am assuming the Trinity is true. It is the only way to counter arguments AGAINST the Trinity. Plus, you are missing the point. If Jehovah can use His foreknowledge selectively, then why can't the Son? If Jehovah can do that and still be considered all knowing, then that refutes the argument that Jesus cannot be Deity because He doesn't know certain future events.
Ivan: You admit circle reasoning in your argument ("assuming the Trinity is true), I'm curious as to why that doesn't give you reason to pause and re-evaluate your argument?
Keith: Circular reasoning is assuming the conclusion within a premise. I have not done that. You need to brush up on your logical fallacies. My argument is a RESPONSE to a bad argument which I will sum up in my next post.
Ivan: Sure you have. You even said "of course, I am assuming the Trinity is true," thus your premise that Jesus even has the capability of selective foreknowledge is based on circular reasoning and assumptions.
In order to say Jesus used selective foreknowledge you have to assume he is God.
Keith: I think the best way to get you to see that I am not using circular reasoning is to get you to look at the argument from my perspective. The basic argument is- Only God knows all things. Jesus does not know all things, therefore Jesus is not God.
How would you answer the argument if it was directed at Jehovah?
Only God knows all things. Jehovah does not know all things, therefore Jehovah is not God.
Try to answer that argument without assuming that Jehovah is God.
My Response: Is it not true that you assume Jesus has selective foreknowledge? Is it not also true that you assume he has this selective foreknowledge because he is God? I think you would answer in the affirmative to the 2 questions. If so, how is that not circular reasoning? You begin by assuming Jesus has this selective foreknowledge then proceed to ask if Jesus could use it. Of course he could use it if he were God. But we should not start with that assumption given that it assumes too much, that is, it assumes he's God from the outset without proof.
You would have to prove that he is God first, then you can make your selective foreknowledge argument.
"Petitio princippii [begging the question, aka, circular reasoning] is, therefore, committed when a proposition which requires proof is assume without proof." - James Welton, A Manual of Logic, page 279.
Here's what's going on Keith: You "assume without proof" that Jesus has this capability of selective foreknowledge.
My argument: Jesus can't use "selective foreknowledge" because he doesn't have that ability.
You asked how I would answer the question or argument "Only God knows all things. Jehovah does not know all things, therefore Jehovah is not God" and I'm suppose to answer that argument without assuming Jehovah is God.
Firstly, the statement that "Jehovah does not know all things" is not necessarily accurate. If it were true that Jehovah does not know all things, this would only be due to his use of choosing not to know. If he choose not to know a specific event and thus did not know all things as a result of that voluntary choosing, then it still does not follow that he is not God. It does not follow because the question or statement does not take into account that he can choose not to know.
In other words, the premise of the question doesn't even get off the ground.
Ivan, I think one of the problems here is on "proving" and "assuming" the Trinity. If we can get past all of that and even hold a neutral position on the identity of Christ, I still don't think this is a good argument, even if Jesus isn't God.
ReplyDeleteThe JW view is that the Father does not have exhaustive foreknowledge. In addition, Jesus doesn't not have exhaustive foreknowledge. But in one case, one person (The Father) knows something that the other doesn't. However, in the end you are still left with two persons without exhaustive foreknowledge.
So what is the argument supposed to prove in the end?
Mike:
ReplyDeleteI don't think it is accurate to say that the Witness view point sees Jehovah as not having "exhaustive foreknowledge." He certainly can have "exhaustive foreknowledge" when he choses to exercise it.
If you want an accurate overview of the Witnesses understanding of Jehovah's foreknowledge, I think this quote pretty much summarizes it:
w06 6/1 p. 25 par. 17 Jehovah Tells “From the Beginning the Finale”
Jehovah apparently chose not to foresee what Adam—and Eve—would do, even though He has the ability to know everything in advance. It is therefore a question, not of whether Jehovah can foresee the future, but of whether he chooses to do so.
If Jehovah does not currently have exhaustive foreknowledge, then he doesn't have exhaustive foreknowledge. If you asked God, "Do you know everything?" He would have to say, "No." As far as I can tell, this is an accurate depiction, even if God has the ability. But even aside from my depiction, do you still see the original argument concerning Jesus' knowledge a good one?
ReplyDeleteMike:
ReplyDeleteI'm still not following.
Jehovah does have "exhaustive foreknowledge." The question is if he is going to use it or not. It doesn't follow that because he doesn't use it in one or more instances that he therefore doesn't have it.
I think he would answer in the affirmative to your question. (Isaiah 46:10)
Concerning Keith's argument, no, I don't think it is a good one. I believe it is an invalid comparison. Further, I don't truly even believe that he believes Jesus has selective foreknowledge. It's almost like arguing for something you don't believe. I also believe it is based on several unwarranted assumptions.
So if Jehovah chooses not to use his full might,Does this mean he is not almighty?There are a number of fallacious assumptions in play here.I believe that one of the most important of these is the assumption that all occurences are pre-determined and that Jehovah is unable to grant GENUINE free moral agency(or for that matter any genuine choice at all) to his intelligent creatures.So all that has happened,is happening and will happen.Was pre-determined.The trouble with this is that Jehovah is made responsible for all the evil and sufffering in the world.So the real issue is does Jehovah have the power and wisdom to grant GENUINE free moral agency to his intelligent creation Deuteronomy30:19.
ReplyDeleteIvan, let's say I write a number on a piece of folded up paper and hand it to you. You have the choice of opening up the paper to see what the number is, or leaving it. But before you open it, do you know what the number is? Of course not. But you have the ability to if you so choose.
ReplyDeleteIt would seem that the same would go for the WT's view of God. Unless God knows all, you can't claim that he has exhaustive knowledge. This is especially the case when God actually had to learn what Adam and Eve did when they sinned. A God who has to learn things is not a God who knows all things no matter how you look at it.
The point is, regardless of whether or not God has the ability to know all things if he chooses, the fact of the matter is, in the WT's view, God is ignorant on some or many things. And therefore, you cannot claim that he *has* exhaustive knowledge. The most you can claim is that God could get exhaustive knowledge if he so chooses.
Mike:
ReplyDeleteAgain, that would be a misunderstanding of the Witnesses view of God. Jehovah not choosing to know something doesn't mean he's "ignorant" of the thing he chose not to know. Why? Because God certainly knows all the possibilities or options that his free willed creatures could have taken, given that he was the one that made them possible in the first place. That is hardly, "ignorant."
This question of foreknowledge is far more complex than it would appear. For example, does God know what it is like to be an imperfect human? Of course not. He's not human nor imperfect. Does that therefore mean that God doesn't "know all things"?
See this is the problem.Fatalists have an imaginary future chiseled in stone from eternity in there heads.And their misunderstanding of this issue is based on this fallacy.Jehovah has an exhaustive knowledge of the real future.The real future is composed of both real possibilities and real actualities.Jehovah fully knows all the possibilities and all the actualities because he created them.That is why he can genuinely make the offer he does at deuteronomy30:19.
ReplyDeleteP.S. Remember the topic is not knowledge,its foreknowledge.The nature of the future must also be considered.Does Jehovah know the future as it truly is or as fatalists erroneously conceive it?
ReplyDeleteaservantofjehovah,
ReplyDeleteThat is a good point. The issue is with Mark 13:32 and how it relates with "foreknowledge," that is, an understand of future events. Knowledge is of what you know either through study or experimentally. These two should not be confused.
Let's get past the semantics and get back to the issue. Does God have exhaustive foreknowledge of all future events? If he does, then he knows all future events. If God has selective foreknowledge, then his actual knowledge is no longer exhaustive. Go back to the piece of paper example. One does not have knowledge of what's inside the piece of paper until he actually looks. Similarly, God doesn't have foreknowledge of all future events until he looks. Therefore, God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge.
ReplyDeleteGod knows all possible outcomes for a given event but doesn't necesarilly choose which one will happen.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the Garden of Eden God didn't choose [in my view] what would happen (ie. 1+2+free will=x) God knows all the possibilities for 'x', but didn't choose one.
Remember we are not dealing with just any event. In Mark 13:32 (cf. Matt 24:36) we are talking about THE day, that date is already known [by the father] so we have something like 1+'x+y'+3=5 ('x+y'=diff possibilites for free will=1)
God should know '5' but doesn't choose 'x'+'y' (our decisions), but does choose that they will equal '1'.
So why doesn't Jesus know '5'(but of course it's only his human nature that doesn't know)?
Respectfuly,
Ivan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for really looking into my argument. I am honored that you would spend so much time and energy on it. Thanks also for not deleting my comments on your original blog post. I hope that I can continue to post here and be involved in further discussion. It will be much easier here than having a 500 character limit on my Youtube channel.
Before I get started, may I ask you to consider posting my video on your blog? I really think this whole thing would be MUCH closer to resolution if your readers were able to hear my original argument from my own lips. Quoting our conversation is one thing, but your readers do not have the context of my video in mind. They only have your understanding of my argument, which is to say, a misunderstanding at best.
I really think you've missed my original point.
@apologeticfront your question is based on the false premise that all future events are pre-determined,fated if you will.They are not.That is why Jehovah can in all sincerity make the offer he does at deuteronomy30:19.Some events are pre-determined by Jehovah,as is his sovereign rightIsaiah46:10(note please Jehovah does not simply passively know the future he creates the future.),and some he leaves to his intelligent creation to determine again as is his sovereign right.1samuel2:30"that is why the utterance of Jehovah the God of Israel is 'I did indeed say,as for your house and the house of your forefather,they will walk before me to time indefinite.'BUT now the utterance of Jehovah is 'it is unthinkable,on my part,because those honoring me I shall honor,and those despising me shall be of little account."
ReplyDelete@aservantofjehovah
ReplyDeleteRegardless of my views on God's sovereignty, you still have to deal with the WT's argument as it relates to the Father's and Jesus' ability to know the future.
I did deal with the issue, you continue to trip over your erroneous understanding of the nature of the future.Jehovah created a future compose of both constants a variables.This objective future is the one he foreknows.Not the imaginary future compose entirely of constants that you keep basing your arguments on.
ReplyDelete