Still, someone may object, ‘But how could an all-wise God not have known?’ Granted, a facet of Jehovah’s great wisdom is his capability to know “from the beginning the finale.” (Isaiah 46:9, 10) However, he does not have to use this capability, just as he does not always have to use his immense power to the full. Jehovah wisely uses his ability of foreknowledge selectively. He uses it when it makes sense to do so and fits the circumstancesKeith says,
“Now here’s my question. If Jehovah God can wisely use his foreknowledge selectively, regarding Adam & Eve, then isn’t it also possible that Jesus could wisely use his foreknowledge selectively regarding the time of the end?”
This is the question Keith asks in his video starting at 2:00.
I feel I’ve already addressed this question but apparently others feel I’ve “missed the point.” In turn, I feel they have ‘missed my point.’ I’ll point out what I’ve pointed out before: In order for Jesus to “use his foreknowledge selectively regarding the time of the end,” you have assume he has this capability in the first place. In order to assume he has this capability in the first place, you have to assume he is God.
Because of these two assumptions that are contingent on one another, and because the question assumes those two assumptions in its phrasing, that is why I pointed out it was circular reasoning, i.e., the conclusion is read back into the phrasing of the question.
Let the readers make of it what they will.
This is just a quick note to let you know that I am working on a response. I'll post it later on today.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand the argument:
ReplyDeleteIf Jehovah doesn't choose to know all things unqualifiedly (ie. The Garden of Eden), then when Jesus lacks knowledge of a certain event (ie. the events of the Olivet discourse) he is not precluded from being God.
However this isn't as simple as choosing, or not choosing, to know what the future holds.
A point I made in earlier post is that in the Garden of Eden, God left 'variables' (what he chooses to selectively foreknow) on both sides of the equation (1+x=y; 1 is the starting point, x=Free will of Adam and Eve; y=result) God knew all the possibilities of 'x' (and therefore of 'y') but did not pick the outcome nor foreknow it.
The case of Mk 13:32 is completely different, the 'variables' (what God chooses to not know/decide) are on one side so something like: 1+x+y=2 (there are any number of possibilities for what 'x' equals and for what 'y' equals, but in the end x+y=1) The end result (ie. 2nd coming), what we call '2' is already determined, God has decided the end result but not the path to said result.
That is why I reject your comparison as flawed (and keep my proof-text), and I also reject dividing Jesus in half, and is one of the reasons why I ultimately reject the Trinity.
Regards,
Ivan, are you suggesting that one would have to prove that Jesus is God in order to make the argument that Keith is arguing? This seems unnecessary because we are dealing with the merits of a particular argument, not the correctness of a doctrine (i.e. deity of Christ). In other words, I think anyone could still hold to Unitarianism and still see this as a poor argument.
ReplyDeleteYes, that is exactly my point. Someone cannot legitimately say "Jesus used his selective foreknowledge in Mark 13:32" without first proving he has this foreknowledge to begin with, I think. Otherwise, we'd be jumping the gun and assuming too much; mostly out of theological necessity and not really because the text indicates or implies it as such.
ReplyDeleteif I choose to not know something would this make me God.Because this seems to be Mr.Walker's argument the fact that Jesus Chose not to know the day or hour Mark13:32.(now mind you he has supplied no evidence that Jesus ignorance is by Choice But we'll ignore that for now)proves that he is Almighty God,so we have circular reasoning and arguing from silence in one paragraph.Is this really the best trinitarians can come up with.
ReplyDeleteBlogspot is not letting me post my whole comment so I'll have to break it down into three posts.
ReplyDeletePart 1:
Ivan,
Thanks for inserting my video into your first blog post. It helps that now your readers have the complete context. Thanks also for all of the time and effort you have put into your argument. I hope that by titling this post your “Final response” you meant that this is the last time you will make a new thread, but not that this is the last time you will comment on the argument.
Like I mentioned previously, I am glad that we have this venue instead of the 500 character limit on YouTube because I feel as though you have not really heard my argument. You have consistently missed my point and I hope to clear it up. I know you will have more questions about my argument and I look forward to answering your questions.
With that all being said, nice graphic, but that isn’t even close to my argument. (By the way, what program did you use to create the graphic?) My argument IS NOT that Jesus is God. Yes, I am a Trinitarian and, yes I believe that Jesus is Deity, but the argument in my video is NOT that Jesus is God. My argument is a critique of one of the WTs arguments against the Deity of Christ. What I am saying is that claiming that Jesus is not Deity because He does not have certain knowledge is an invalid argument. Regardless of whether Jesus is or is not Deity, asserting that He is not Deity because there are things He does not know is unsound. I don’t even have to believe in the Deity of Christ to recognize that the WTs argument is bad.
You seem to be very interested in logic and so am I. For the sake of those who may be unfamiliar with logic, one example of an unsound argument is an argument that has true premises (claims) and a false conclusion. There is no such thing as a valid argument with true premises and a false conclusion. If you have a false conclusion, then at least one of your premises is false.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteThe WTs argument is from the June 1st, 1988 WT on pages 12-13. The WT states, “’Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father.’ (Mark 13:32) Had Jesus been God Almighty, he would have known that day and the hour. But he did not know because he was not the All-knowing God. He was God’s Son and did not know everything that his Father knew.”
The form of the WT’s argument is a Modus Tollens and looks like this;
P implies Q,
Not Q,
Therefore not P.
The argument can be summarized thus;
(P) If Jesus is God, (Implies Q) He would have known the day and hour.
(Not Q) Jesus did not know the day and hour,
(Not P) Therefore, Jesus is not God.
This is a valid form for an argument, but the only way for the argument to be both valid in form and sound in conclusion is if both premises are true and the conclusion logically follows from those premises. Ivan, you believe that this is the case with the WTs argument. I do not. Remember, I am not making the claim that Jesus is God in this argument. I am challenging an argument presented by the WT. While the WT states that this argument is a reason to reject the Deity of Christ, I am saying that this argument does not prove what the WT says it proves. This argument is NOT a reason to reject the Deity of Christ. I can demonstrate that by testing the argument.
Part 3
ReplyDeleteOne way to test the argument is to use a counter example. If another example can be given where the basic premises of the argument are the same as the first argument, but the conclusion is false, then the first argument is invalid. I did that when I applied the WTs same basic argument to Jehovah.
(P) If Jehovah is God, (Implies Q) He would have known if Adam and Eve would sin.
(Not Q) Jehovah did not know that Adam and Eve would sin,
(Not P) Therefore, Jehovah is not God.
I have used the same Modus Tollens argument that the WT used. You have one of two choices. Either you agree with the argument, resulting in the option that neither Jesus nor Jehovah are God, or you have to admit that the argument is invalid. If the argument is invalid, that doesn’t prove that either person is or is not God. It just proves that this particular argument cannot disprove the Deity of Jesus nor Jehovah.
You believe that you have a third option; You stated in your first comment on your Thursday November 18th post, “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. Jehovah has foreknowledge and that He can choose not to use His foreknowledge.”
This is exactly my position regarding Jesus, yet you have accused me of circular reasoning. You have made it very clear that if I assume that Jesus is God who can limit His foreknowledge, then I am guilty of circular reasoning. How is that any different than you or the WT also assuming that Jehovah is God who can limit His foreknowledge? Why is it that when I assume Jesus is God, I am guilty of circular reasoning, but when you assume Jehovah is God, there is no problem? If I am guilty of circular reasoning, then so is the WT and so are you.
Sorry for the length, but I wanted to be thorough. I know you have questions, please ask.
God should know his own mind.if God knows the day and hour as mark13:32 clearly states and if Jesus is God he should know the day and hour.And your argument seems to be that watchtower society is claiming that Jehovah is willfully ignorant of existing facts that is not what the society is saying.The very nature of your question concerning Adam and eve.Pre-supposes that their act was fated or pre-determined that is the issue.The bible does not go along with the pagan-derived Notion that every occurrence is fated either by Jehovah or some parallel impersonal entity.Now Jehovah Could have fated their course if Chose to, he did not, out of regard for their free moral agency.You see According to the bible Jehovah does not simply foresee the future he foreordains the future.His foreknowledge is a combination of his foresight and his foreordaination.Isaiah46:11.So does Jehovah have the capacity to foreordain free moral agency?Your answer would be no.Clearly though this is in conflict with the scriptures.If we go with your view of a totally Fated future.Then Jehovah's offer here at Deuteronomy30:19 would be a sham.And his statement here to Abraham would be a lie Genesis22:12"And he went on to say'Do not put out your hand against the boy and do not do anything at all to him.'For NOW I do know that you are God-fearing in that you have not with held your son your only one from me"Consider also genesis2:19"Now Jehovah God was forming every wild beast of the field and every flying Creature of the heavens and he began bringing them to the man to what he would call them.."Clearly the mans actions were not pre-determined either by God or any other factor.Consider also exodus16:4.the Israelites actions were not fated.They were Granted free moral agency and so could rightly be held responsible for their actions.
ReplyDeleteKeith,
ReplyDeleteYou said: With that all being said, nice graphic, but that isn’t even close to my argument. (By the way, what program did you use to create the graphic?) My argument IS NOT that Jesus is God.
My Response: Keith, I never said your argument was that “Jesus is God” or that the graphic represents your argument. My point is that your argument assumes “Jesus is God” all throughout your counterexample. That is why in minute two of your video you asked if it were possible for Jesus to use his selective foreknowledge. My question is how do you know Jesus has this capability? I’m talking about more than just forms and syllogisms, but of the actual content of the arguments.
Secondly, Keith, the argument you are presenting here is not the argument you presented in your video. I was responding to the question you presented in minute 2 and following of your video.
With that said, I would agree that on the sole basis of words of the argument, not knowing an event does not disqualify a person from a particular office. In fact, not even the angels or Satan are disqualified from being God solely based of the argument. However, I’m not too sure that is the Society’s argument. Their argument they state in their journal on paragraph 12, first sentence, is to stress God’s superiority over Christ. Superiority is what is at stake here.
Also, I’m not sure your counterexample is all that appropriate given that the Adam & Even account directly involves free will creatures and their decisions, whereas Mark 13:32 is not about knowing or not knowing the actions of a free will creature but of knowing or having knowledge of a specific eschatological event, namely, the Second Coming.
Once more, to emphasis, it appears that their point in using Mark 13:32 is to emphasis “God’s superiority” over Christ in knowledge (see topic sentence of paragraph 12). Perhaps you misread the journal’s article.
Microsoft Word, by the way. It’s called “SmartArt.”
Ivan,
ReplyDeleteLet's start over. One of the fears that I had in writing such a long post was that you would again miss my point. Before one can agree or disagree with an argument, one must first understand it. I don't think you understand my argument.
I really need you to try to understand my point from my perspective. Once you do that, feel free to critique. Until then, you'll just continue to miss the point.
Let's do this. Forget the video. Forget that I am a Trinitarian. Forget any of our previous posts. Let's assume that you believe that Jehovah is God and I do not.
I present the following argument to you in order to try to disprove that Jehovah is God.
(P) If Jehovah is God, (Implies Q) He would have known if Adam and Eve would sin.
(Not Q) Jehovah did not know that Adam and Eve would sin,
(Not P) Therefore, Jehovah is not God.
Please explain how to refute that argument without assuming that Jehovah has foreknowledge that He can limit because according to you, that would be circular reasoning.
I look forward to your response.
Keith:
ReplyDeleteWithout assuming God has selective foreknowledge, there is no way to refute that argument, except for pointing out that (P) doesn't necessarily imply (Q). (Implies Q) is based on an assumption of what it means to be "God," namely, 'knowing' if Adam and Eve would sin. That's an unproven premise, which I wouldn't grant if it were used to try to disprove Jehovah is God. However, if I were to grant it then I would concede there is no rebuttal to it.
@keith you have neither proven that Jehovah cannot have selective foreknowledge nor have you proven that Jesus (and the angels for that matter) do have selective foreknowledge.Your argument hinges on two unproved assumptions.The Day and hour in question are the determination of Jehovah.Hence Jehovah should know his own determination.Isaiah40:13"who has taken the proportions of the spirit of Jehovah,and who as his man of counsel can make him know anything"No one informs Jehovah but Jehovah.if Jehovah chooses to make a certain outcome unforeseeable to himself it will be unforeseeable to everyone else.when he does choose to foreordain a certain outcome he will be the first to foresee it.Hence the notion that some one can foresee any event prior to Jehovah is unscriptural.
ReplyDeleteIvan,
ReplyDeleteNow we are getting somewhere. If the form of the argument is valid, yet the conclusion is false, then at least one of the premises is wrong. I agree with you that the conclusion, (Jehovah is not God) is wrong.
That being the case, we need to figure out which, if not both, of the premises are false. Keep in mind though, to whatever we change the premises, we must also make that same allowance for Jesus. If we do not make the same changes to both arguments, then it is not a valid substitution.
If we are going to say that Q is wrong for Jehovah (That He would necessarily have to know if Adam and Eve would sin), then we must also say that Q is wrong for Jesus. He does not necessarily have to know the time of the end.
Therefore, not knowing the future about certain events does not exclude one from being God. Are you following me?
no apparently we are not getting somewhere.According to Isaiah40:13 no one can know as much or more than Jehovah on any given subject.At mark13:32 Jehovah (unsurprisingly)knows more about Jehovah's Determination of the timing of the end(in fact he knows all about it)than Jesus and the angels do.Our contention is that this is so because Neither Jesus nor the angels are Jehovah.Jehovah's selective use of his foreknowledge does not render him ignorant of existing facts.To safeguard the free moral agency of his intelligent creation he has employed his power to foreordain to render absolutely unforeseeable the moral decisions they would make after their creation .that is why he can sincerely make the offer he does at deuteronomy30:19.This cannot be considered ignorance about the future, rather Jehovah understands the true nature of the future.i.e it is not absolutely pre-determined or fated esp.Where the moral decisions of his intelligent creation are concerned.
ReplyDeleteKeith:
ReplyDeleteBefore this conversation goes further, I want to understand something from your perspective first.
Why or on what basis, do you compare an event involving free will (Adam & Eve) with an event that doesn't (Second Coming)?
To use these two events as analogous is to engage in a category error, I think. This is so because Jesus' ignorance isn't as a result of his allowing someone to use or exercise his or her free will. In contrast, Jehovah's allowing Adam & Eve to use their free will is entirely different than Jesus' not knowing the day or hour.
Ivan,
ReplyDeleteGood question, but you are making an assumption.
Before I can answer that question, I need to know from your perspective why you think the two events are different. I understand your point that Adam and Eve had free will, but what is it about the second coming that nullifies free will from those involved? I'll be able to answer your question once I have a better grasp of your assumption.
Btw, I just want to thank you for a stimulating, respectful dialogue. This has been good... and fun!
Keith:
ReplyDeleteI think the two events are different because Adam & Eve were permitted, of course, to have free will and exercise it.
Mark 13:32 has to do with 'knowing' a particular day, not finding out how a particular few would chose to use their free will.
Simply put, 1 involves free will creatures and their decisions whereas the other is simply concerning knowledge of a particular day.
Ivan,
ReplyDeleteYes, but don't the events of that particular day have to be set in motion? Who does that?
@keith walker-Jehovah decides, the problem is that at mark13;32 he already made the determination.so we have a case here where someone knows more about Jehovah's own determination than he does.If we go with the notion that Jesus and the angels are Jehovah that is.Acording to Isaiah40:13 no other person can know more about any topic than Jehovah does, that would especially be true with regard to his own determination.Isaiah40:13"who has taken the proportions of spirit of Jehovah,and who as his man of counsel can make him know anything"At Mark13:32 we are dealing with a determination already Made, not one pending as was the case with Adam and eve,so that would cancel out the free will issue.It may even in a sense cancel out the foreknowledge issue.likely jehovah's determination may have been made soon after Adam and Eve made their determination.In any case it was made sometime before Jesus made his statement at Mark13:32.So that is the real Neither Jesus nor the angels can be the Jehovah spoken of at Isaiah40:13
ReplyDeleteKeith:
ReplyDeleteYes, they have to be set in motion--by Jehovah. This might have been done at the time of the fall, given the Bible prophecy of Genesis 3:15.
I don't see how that is relevant to Mark 13:32, though. As aservantofJehovah has said above, we are dealing with an already set date of the the second coming whereas in Adam and Eve there was nothing determined beforehand, given their exercise of free will.
Ivan,
ReplyDeleteSorry for the delayed response. We had a VERY busy holiday weekend and a bunch of personal projects that needed (and still do) my immediate attention.
For the sake of argument, let's say that Jehovah limited His knowledge of Adam and Eve's decision right before He gave Adam instruction about the fruit. At that point, there is something that He does not know until the decision is made.
Like-wise, let's say that right after things were set in motion at the time of the fall, Jesus decided to limit His foreknowledge of the second coming. At that point, there is something that He does not know.
What is the difference?
you obviously did not read the my comments.no foreknowledge is invovlved at mark 13:32 the decision was made thousands of years prior to mark 13:32.And Jehovah did not limit his knowledge.He used his sovereign power to safeguard Adams free-will there is a difference.
ReplyDeletealso at Isaiah40:13 it is made clear that no one can know more than Jehovah about any topic, therefore no one is supposed to know more about,the day or hour than Jesus and the angels if they are jehovah.
aservantofJehovah,
ReplyDeleteIf you don't think I am reading your comments, then why bother telling me that? ;-)
No disrespect intended, but I came here to discuss things with Ivan. He posted some comments on my YouTube channel so I wanted to clear up some things. I've read every single comment you've posted. I just don't want to diverge the conversation in another direction. Addressing your comments would do that.
Ivan, according to my last post, what's the difference?
@keith you need to lighten up.Still sorry for any offense I may have caused.
ReplyDeleteaservantofJehovah,
ReplyDeleteLighten up? May I suggest that you read a tone into my comments that was not intended? No offense taken and none intended.
Feel free to come by my YouTube channel and comment there.