1 Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰωάννου. Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The Greek term must be translated in two different ways (“Apocalypse of John,” “Revelation of Jesus Christ”), even in two occurrences so close to each other in the text. The book’s title almost certainly does not originate with John, but dates from a period at which this text was already considered an “apocalypse” (as far as we know, the earliest to be referred to by its author as an “apocalypse” might be 2 Baruch; cf. Bogaert 1969, 1:96; ET by A. F. J. Klijn, in Charlesworth I 1983; IT by P. Bettiolo in Sacchi II 1989). For John, the term means “revelation”and describes the content of the book, which is disclosed by Jesus Christ. Jesus is both the subject and the object of the revelation; he manifests himself in this book, whose form indeed is that of a manual of Christology cast in the form of images. I believe, however, that in this passage John means to emphasize the role of Jesus Christ as the subject of the revelation.There is a kind of hierarchy of authority at work: the revelation originates first with God, who “gives” it to Jesus Christ. He in turn “makes it known by sending his angel” to John, who, finally, “testifies.”
EGF: A question that's been asked before is, if Jesus is omniscient or fully God, then why was the revelation given to him. This statement implies that Christ did not have the contents of the Revelation until "God" gave the contents to him, which indicates there was something "God" knew that Jesus did not know. Lupieri says that the revelation "originates first with God," who subsequently vouchsafes the revelation to his Son.
Monday, October 14, 2024
Revelation 1:1 and Jesus Christ (Edmondo Lupieri)--Divine Omniscience?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
49 comments:
"if Jesus is omniscient or fully God, then why was the revelation given to him"
Because:
1. "Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle." (Council of Florence)
2. He also became human, and his human knowledge is different from the divine omscience.
According to Matthew 11:27, Christ said that the Father has given "all things" to Him (cf. John 13:), ergo all his knowledge, the fullness of his deity (cf. Col 2:9). So the fact that He received all his knowledge from the Father does not prove that He has less knowledge. And according to Jn 21:17, the apostle Peter specifically said to Jesus that "Lord, you know everything".
P.S. https://justpaste.it/bc9hl
https://earlyjewishwritings.com/2baruch.html - "but knows nothing of the revolt under Bar Kochba."
You don't write about an ongoing conflict at least not directly. That is really shoddy scholarship - but I know why he uses the argument.
Duncan, why are we talking about Baruch when the point of my blog entry concerns whether Jesus is omniscient or not? Why bring in this extraneous material or line of thought?
Are you reading the same quote as me?
We do not agree on what Revelation meant or who wrote it and when it was written. Nics argument is a non starter in any case and the whole idea of jumping around other writings to tell us what this author meant is deeply flawed.
My educated guess is that Nics will move onto something about Revelation 1:17.
I am reading the same quote, but I just provided the whole quote (including the part about Baruch) to supply context. The main reason I posted the quote is indicated by the title of the entry. I'm focusing on divine omniscience this time.
I'm not concerned for now with who wrote it or when. That has little bearing on the question I'm asking.
1. "Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle."
We are not discussing the 'having.' Omniscience is a state. We are discussing the 'giving,' an act. And in the context of Rev 1, what flowed to the Son was not restricted by any excuse of beatific knowledge, restricted by humanity. This is the raised and glorified Son of God who was 'given' a revelation.
Your comments on his humanity are not applicable in the discussion of this verse. But for arguments sake, if they were, the Revelation was communicable to John in a way he could understand and communicate as a man, therefore it was understandable and communicable by the human Jesus. To say the Revelation or knowledge of the Lord's day was restricted by Jesus' humanity is illogical.
Finally, you harass others regularly about using verses within the context, yet you rely on Jn 21:17 in this case?? Peter was professing his love and devotion and is CLEARLY referring to Jesus' intimate knowledge of himself. To say Peter was inspired to make a universal proclamation in this state regarding Christ's omniscience is lacking in justification.
-NC
While it's true that omniscience is a state, it is also important to recognize that in Trinitarian theology, all that the Son has—including omniscience—He receives from the Father. This is not a denial of His divinity, but an affirmation of the eternal relationship within the Trinity. The Son's reception of knowledge from the Father, even in His glorified state, does not imply a deficiency in His divine nature. As the Council of Florence and other Church Fathers have affirmed, the Son has ALL things from the Father, which includes omniscience. The divine knowledge that Christ receives from the Father is not a limitation but an expression of their eternal communion within the Godhead.
While Revelation 1:1 speaks of the Father “giving” the Son a revelation, this does not imply that the Son was ignorant of it beforehand. The action of "giving" reflects the eternal relationship within the Trinity where the Son receives all from the Father. The Son, even in His glorified state, continues to receive from the Father as part of the Trinitarian economy. This is not a sign of inferiority but of the unique roles within the Godhead. In John 16:15, Jesus says, "All that belongs to the Father is mine," which clearly affirms that everything the Father knows, the Son knows as well.
Actually, Christ’s humanity is relevant, even after His resurrection, because the incarnate Word (the second Person of the Trinity) remains fully human and fully divine. The hypostatic union means that Jesus possesses two natures—divine and human—in one Person. His human knowledge, while not the same as His divine knowledge, is nonetheless united to His divine nature. Thus, even as a glorified human, His human knowledge would not diminish His omniscience as God.
While it is true that Peter was expressing his love for Jesus in John 21:17, the statement "Lord, you know everything" is nonetheless a significant acknowledgment of Jesus' divine knowledge. The expression "you know everything" aligns with other Scriptural affirmations of Jesus’ omniscience, such as John 2:25, where Jesus "knew what was in man," and John 16:30, where the disciples say, "Now we know that you know all things." These verses point to the fact that, even in His incarnate state, Jesus’ divine omniscience was evident.
The key to understanding this debate is recognizing that the Son's knowledge is derived eternally from the Father within the Trinitarian relationship. This is not a matter of "having" or "giving" in a temporal sense, but of the eternal procession of the Son from the Father. To suggest that the Son is somehow inferior or lacking in omniscience because of Revelation 1:1 misunderstands the unique relationship between the Father and the Son within the Trinity.
As Augustine and other Church Fathers have noted, when Christ says that only the Father knows the day and hour of the final judgment (Mark 13:32), this does not indicate that the Son lacks knowledge in His divine nature. Rather, as many Church Fathers explained, Christ was referring to His human nature when He said that the Son did not know. His divine nature, fully united with the Father, knows all things.
Nincsnevem, I understand what Trinitarians believe about God and Jesus, but I simply disagree and don't accept the numerous philosophical assumptions baked into the trinity like how God the Father can give eternally/tirelessly to the Son and yet the Son always knew what the Father knew? Or you guys claim that Mark 13:32 applies to Jesus' human nature, not his divine nature.
Yet, I never read these explanations in the Bible. So, am I supposed to accept the word of the post-Nicenes or the Church without having an objective way to assess the truth of these claims?
I mean, the Bible never talks about or explains the eternal/timeless giving that is supposed to be from the Father to the Son nor did Jesus limit Mark 13:32 to his human nature. See also Acts 1:6-7.
1 John 220 (DR Bible): "But you have the unction from the Holy One, and know all things."
John 2:25 speaks about Jesus knowing what's in the heart of man and Matthew 24:36 Mark 13:32 include the wording, "only the Father"
As shown above, "all things" is not always absolute. Cf. Philippians 3:8 (DR)-"Furthermore I count all things to be but loss for the excellent knowledge of Jesus Christ my Lord; for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but as dung, that I may gain Christ"
When Trinitarians discuss Jesus' omniscience, they assert that all that the Son has is from the Father, including His divine knowledge. This is not to imply that Jesus, as the Son, lacks knowledge in any way, but rather it is a reflection of the eternal relationship within the Trinity. The idea that the Son "receives" everything from the Father, including knowledge, is a reflection of the Father-Son relationship that exists eternally within the Godhead (John 16:15).
Mark 13:32, where Jesus says that the Son does not know the day or the hour, must be understood within the context of the hypostatic union—the union of Jesus' divine and human natures. The limitation in knowledge pertains to Jesus' human nature, not His divine nature. The early Church Fathers such as Augustine, Athanasius, and Gregory of Nazianzus addressed this issue by explaining that Jesus, in His divine nature, knows all things, but in His human nature, He voluntarily limited certain aspects of knowledge. This voluntary limitation is consistent with the mystery of the Incarnation, where Christ "emptied Himself" (Philippians 2:7) to become fully human while remaining fully divine.
Revelation 1:1 states that the Father gave the revelation to the Son, who then passed it to John. This does not imply ignorance on the part of the Son but reflects the economy of the Trinity, where the Father is the source, and the Son, in His role as mediator, receives and reveals God's will to humanity. The Father giving the Son a revelation is an expression of the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son, not an indication that the Son lacked knowledge. As John 16:15 indicates, "All that belongs to the Father is mine," meaning that all divine knowledge is fully shared between the Father and the Son.
So the distinction between Christ’s divine and human natures (the hypostatic union) explains why Jesus could speak of "not knowing" certain things in His humanity (e.g., Mark 13:32). As a human, He grew in knowledge (Luke 2:52) and experienced the limitations of human understanding. This does not negate His divine omniscience, but rather shows that, as the God-man, Jesus had both divine knowledge and human experience. After the resurrection, His glorified humanity does not diminish His divine omniscience, but His role as the mediator continues, as He reveals what the Father wills to humanity.
JWs also claim that God can “choose” not to know certain future events. This claim undercuts their own argument against the deity of the Son, since, according to their theology, the Father could also "choose" not to know something while still being God. Therefore, even if one were to argue that the Son did not know something (as in Mark 13:32), this would not disqualify Him from being God, according to their own logic.
JWs interpret Mark 13:32 and Revelation 1:1 as indicating that Jesus is not fully God. However, this interpretation fails to consider the nature of Christ’s dual nature—both divine and human. The limitation in knowledge applies to His human nature, not His divine nature. Moreover, the Witnesses’ view of God’s foreknowledge as “selective” contradicts their claim that omniscience belongs solely to the Father. If the Father can voluntarily choose to limit His foreknowledge, as JWs suggest, then they cannot argue against Christ’s divine omniscience on the basis that He was unaware of certain details in His human nature.
The distinction between Jesus’ divine and human natures is essential for understanding passages like Mark 13:32. The Church Fathers consistently taught that Christ, in His divine nature, is omniscient, while His human nature may have limitations in knowledge. However, these limitations do not compromise His divinity or His unity with the Father and the Holy Spirit. This understanding aligns with the broader biblical narrative, where Jesus is worshipped as God (e.g., John 20:28) and possesses all authority and knowledge (e.g., John 16:30, Matthew 28:18).
https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.iv.i.iii.xii.html
Here, Augustine parallels the statement "neither the Son, but the Father" with Genesis 22:12 ("NOW I know that you fear God").
The primary thing here is eternal generation: if the Son's begetting from the Father is outside of time (there is no temporal before or after, only logical), then it is through the communication of his essence and thus outside of time by an act. It is not that the Son was born of the Father at some point of the time, and then independently of this act received certain attributes, as if a coat were simply added to him. The divine attributes (thus omniscience) are from the divine essence, so the fact that the Son "received" this from the Father is precisely the result of the eternal generation.
"His human knowledge, while not the same as His divine knowledge, is nonetheless united to His divine nature." - But this introduces a conflict in Mark 13:32, because Jesus clearly notes that neither angels nor the Son know. Why bring angels into it? When taken in a Trinitarian context, that would point clearly to his heavenly/divine nature, which should know. Rather, he says with authority and completely-- angels nor Son know. Only the Father.
John 2:25, Jesus knowing what was in man is not the same as omniscience. Was not Wisdom fond of man? Was not his forming of man imparting of knowledge? Was not his ability to read into the minds and thoughts of man knowledge? And in John 16:30, you may want to finish quoting that verse: his demonstrated knowledge showed he was "from God." I do not disagree.
And wasn't it Athanasius himself who excused away Mark 13:32 with 'He said He knew not for our profit, that we be not curious?' How out of harmony with the very next verse to take heed, watch and pray. Rather than not be curious-- be curious. Be attentive! Augustine then compounds this error by forcefully saying the verse means he would make others ignorant. Building on that reasoning, he later states that he was ignorant of things his apostles were unable to know from him. A date? Unable to know? No wonder the Catholic church had to clarify later developments that it refers solely to the human nature of of Christ, trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist without the Trinity. Jesus didn't know. That's it. Nothing further, nothing less.
And BTW, John 16:15 compares nicely to John 17 regarding 'all things' and what those are. But that would sidetrack the discussion from Revelation and omniscience.
But to avoid giving the wrong impression regarding Christ, I would only depend on the scriptures to supply something Jesus did not know, in this case the 'day or hour.' I would never imply that made him lacking in some regard. You seem to think that because I think him separate from his Father, I think him somehow lessened, as if our pitiful, fleshly, hierarchal thinking should be projected on the Almighty and His Son.
"If, then, the Son was not ashamed to ascribe the knowledge of that day to the Father only, but declared what was true regarding the matter, neither let us be ashamed to reserve for God those greater questions which may occur to us. For no man is superior to his master." (Iraneaus)
-NC
Nincsnevem, I understand the eternal generation teaching, but I don't put faith in it and I find the teaching logically problematic. It requires us to accept the notion of atemporal causation, something which we know little to nothing about. Plus, I do not believe the eternal generation is a biblical teaching. Hence, I do not accept it.
Why do you not cite sources when asked Ninc?
I asked for the Greek/ Latin source + the website in the last post - you didn't provide. Because you cant - because your theologically motivated, not driven by pure motives to share truth (Like Edgar and other Witnesses and my catholic friends)
p.s My Catholic friends even disagree with your reasoning.
and your also selectively ommiting sources when they disagree with your position...
"JWs also claim that God can “choose” not to know certain future events. " - source please, or we will take this as a Trevor Allin style claim, unfounded or an out and out lie (atleast I will)
So your saying God knew man would sin from the start?
I doubt God would create knowing that we would sin - rather I think its more likely he knows all possibilities of what will occur
But wasn't 100% on whether Man would take the left or right path. (a thing called a test)
this is more likely what JWs mean to say (Id love to be corrected by a witness i.e not Ninc)
"if the Son's begetting from the Father is outside of time" - time is a measurement, not something you can be outside of..
Did God create heaven and earth outside of time?
What about angels who were before the heaven and earth?
no time works differently for God, but he is not outside of it.
+ cite Bible verse for Son begettal outside of time, just 1 explicit Bible verse
John could have done it.. he proved that
Nics, https://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/articles/preexistDraft01.html
The passage in Mark 13:32 does state that only the Father knows the exact time of the final judgment. However, this verse must be understood within the broader context of Christian theology, especially in relation to the hypostatic union—Jesus' dual nature as both fully human and fully divine. The fact that Jesus, in His humanity, said He did not know the day or the hour does not contradict His divinity. As many Church Fathers have pointed out (including Augustine, Athanasius, and others), this passage refers to Christ’s human knowledge, not His divine nature.
The Son of God, as the second person of the Trinity, possesses all divine attributes, including omniscience. However, in becoming fully human, He voluntarily limited Himself in certain ways (Philippians 2:6-7: "though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant"). This voluntary limitation is not a denial of His divine nature but rather an expression of His humility and solidarity with humanity.
"Why bring angels into it?" – First of all, this is more of a question for those of you who think Jesus is an angel. The mention of the angels highlights a contrast between the created beings and God. Angels are powerful but limited beings, and their mention emphasizes that no created being, including angels and, in His humanity, the Son, knows the final day. Jesus is drawing a distinction between the created order (which includes the angels and His human nature) and the uncreated, eternal nature of God the Father.
In Trinitarian theology, the Son's reception of knowledge from the Father is a reflection of the eternal relationship within the Godhead, not a sign of inferiority. The Son eternally proceeds from the Father, and all that the Son has—including omniscience—He receives from the Father (John 16:15). This divine procession does not imply ignorance or inferiority, but rather the perfect unity and harmony within the Trinity.
"Athanasius excused away Mark 13:32" - Athanasius' explanation that Jesus spoke of not knowing "for our profit" is not a dismissal of the issue, but a profound theological point. Athanasius and other Church Fathers (such as Augustine) emphasized that Christ’s words served to direct our attention away from curiosity about the exact timing of the final judgment and instead toward the need for constant vigilance and readiness. Mark 13:33 follows with, "Be on guard, keep awake. For you do not know when the time will come."
Moreover, the explanation that Jesus did not know the day in His human nature is consistent with the doctrine of the Incarnation. The early Church Fathers were clear that Christ, as God, knows all things, but in His human nature, He voluntarily limited certain aspects of knowledge. This is part of the mystery of the hypostatic union, where Jesus possesses two natures—human and divine—without confusion or division.
"Jesus didn't know. That's it. Nothing further, nothing less." - This statement oversimplifies the theological complexity of Jesus' two natures. In Christian theology, Jesus is one person with two natures: fully divine and fully human. In His divine nature, He is omniscient, omnipotent, and eternal. In His human nature, He experienced the limitations of human knowledge and understanding. This does not diminish His deity; rather, it reflects the profound mystery of the Incarnation.
The Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) clarified that Jesus is "one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably." The limitations of Christ’s human knowledge do not negate His divine omniscience. Instead, they highlight the reality that Jesus, in His human nature, fully participated in the human experience, including its limitations, while still being fully divine.
"Why does the Holy Spirit not know?" - JWs’ question assumes that the Holy Spirit is excluded from divine omniscience. However, Scripture clearly affirms that the Holy Spirit is omniscient. 1 Corinthians 2:10-11 states, "The Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God." This passage affirms that the Holy Spirit, as a person of the Trinity, possesses full knowledge of God’s will and purposes, including the final judgment. The statement in Mark 13:32 refers specifically to the Father, but this does not mean the Son and the Spirit are ignorant. As noted earlier, this passage highlights the roles within the Trinity and Christ’s humanity, not a deficiency in divine omniscience. See my comments here: https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2023/09/alone-or-only-how-theyre-construed.html
While Jesus did say that the Son does not know the day or the hour, this statement must be understood in the context of His Incarnation. Jesus, as the God-man, had both human and divine knowledge. In His human nature, He voluntarily limited certain aspects of His knowledge (Luke 2:52, "Jesus increased in wisdom and stature"), but in His divine nature, He remains fully omniscient. This is the teaching of the Church Fathers and the Councils that clarified the doctrine of the Incarnation and the Trinity.
The doctrine of the Trinity and the hypostatic union explains how Jesus, as fully God, possesses all divine attributes, including omniscience, and yet, in His humanity, He can express limitations in knowledge. This is not a contradiction but a reflection of the mystery of the Incarnation—where the eternal Son of God took on human nature and, in doing so, fully entered into the human experience while remaining fully divine.
The passage in Mark 13:32 must be interpreted in light of the broader biblical context and the Church’s teaching on the dual nature of Christ. The Son’s "not knowing" the day or the hour of the final judgment refers to His human nature, not His divine nature, and does not undermine the doctrine of the Trinity or Christ’s deity.
The doctrine of the “eternal generation” of the Son is firmly rooted in Scripture, even if the term itself does not explicitly appear verbatim. For instance, passages like John 1:18 refer to Christ as the "only begotten Son," using the term MONOGENĒS, which emphasizes Christ’s unique and eternal relationship with the Father. This "begetting" is not a temporal event but an eternal truth about the relationship between the Father and the Son. Similarly, in John 5:26, Jesus says, “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself,” indicating that the Son’s life and existence are eternally from the Father, not in a temporal sense, but in the context of an eternal relationship.
Atemporal causation—an eternal relationship that does not involve a temporal "before" or "after"—is essential for understanding the nature of God. In God, there is no change or progression in time, as we experience it. The Father eternally generates the Son, and the Son eternally proceeds from the Father. This is not akin to a human father and son relationship in time, where one precedes the other. As God is outside of time, the relationship within the Trinity transcends human notions of cause and effect. While it is difficult to grasp fully, it is consistent with the nature of an eternal, unchanging God who exists beyond time and space.
Your objection to eternal generation based on a lack of understanding of atemporal causation overlooks that many theological concepts require us to think beyond human limitations. Just as the incarnation (God becoming man) is a mystery that transcends human logic, so too is the relationship between the Father and the Son. We know from Scripture that the Father and the Son are distinct persons, yet they share the same divine essence (John 10:30). The eternal generation of the Son reflects this reality: the Son is fully God and co-eternal with the Father, yet distinct in his person as one who receives everything from the Father. This is a key element of Trinitarian theology, ensuring that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons but share the same divine nature.
The idea of the Son receiving knowledge from the Father (as seen in Revelation 1:1) does not imply that the Son is ignorant or subordinate in essence. Rather, this reflects the distinct roles within the Trinity, known as the economic Trinity, where the Father is the source, the Son is the mediator, and the Spirit is the guide. Jesus himself affirms in John 16:15, “All that belongs to the Father is mine.” This includes divine knowledge, authority, and power. The role of the Son in receiving and revealing God's will does not diminish his divine nature but rather affirms the unique relationship within the Trinity. The Son knows what the Father knows because they are of the same essence, and this knowledge is shared eternally between them.
I feel I have returned to the 'justpasteit pulpit' rather than a discussion, so this will be my last comment on the subject.
You mention oversimplifying- but the answer really is simple. Jesus didn't know the day at that time. Jehovah did. Post ascension, Jehovah also relayed the revelation to Jesus to pass on to John. It's only complicated by Trinitarian theology. And dual nature can't be the solution, because even within the Trinity doctrine, Christ's supposed divine nature still isn't the Father. In Mark, Jesus didn't just tell us who didn't know, he firmly asserted who did know- the Father. You blur those lines when it suits your theology.
Finally, you frequently mention 'the key to understanding' is a certain doctrine and then mention all the mysteries within that understanding. It reminds me of the farcical 'embrace the paradoxical God' promoted by some. While there are genuinely difficult things to understand, and some mysteries, the use of mysteries (hypostatic union, dual nature, eternal generation, etc) to obfuscate the clear and basic teachings of the Bible is an unfortunate decision in this regard.
Have a good day and thank you for the discussion.
-NC
First, to answer the request for a source: Jehovah's Witnesses do indeed teach that God selectively chooses not to know certain future events. This is outlined in their publication, Insight on the Scriptures (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1988), under the entry for "Foreknowledge." Specifically, it explains that God has the ability to foresee all future events but does not always choose to do so. Another important reference is their book Reasoning from the Scriptures (1985), which discusses this selective foreknowledge idea. These teachings are also consistently reflected in their Watchtower publications.
One example directly supporting this point is the Watchtower of July 15, 2011, which states: “God does not predetermine each individual's future. Yet, he has the ability to foresee future events and choices, but does not always choose to do so in all cases."
This idea—that God can choose not to foresee certain things—is central to how Jehovah's Witnesses explain God's reaction to events such as Adam and Eve’s sin or the rebellion of Satan. They suggest that God allowed events to unfold without definitively knowing the outcome in order to respect free will. This notion of "selective foreknowledge" or God "choosing not to know" aligns with their denial of predestination and their particular understanding of God's omniscience.
“Did God Know Man Would Sin From the Start?” The argument you raise seems to imply that God wouldn’t create humanity if He knew they would sin. However, Christian orthodoxy and Catholic teaching hold that God, being omniscient, did indeed know that humanity would fall into sin. However, this knowledge did not mean God CAUSED sin, nor does it contradict free will. Rather, God's knowledge encompasses all possibilities and outcomes, including humanity’s free choices. This is key to understanding the doctrine of FELIX CULPA—the idea that the fall of humanity, though tragic, was permitted by God for a greater good, namely, the redemption of humanity through Christ.
The biblical evidence for God’s foreknowledge of the fall is significant. Revelation 13:8 speaks of Jesus as the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” This verse indicates that God had already planned for redemption BEFORE the fall occurred, meaning He knew in advance that sin would enter the world.
The JW interpretation that God tested Adam and Eve without knowing their choice (or only knowing all "possibilities") conflicts with this broader biblical teaching. From a traditional Christian perspective, God does not need to “test” in the human sense of uncertainty. While humans undergo tests to reveal their character or decisions, God, being omniscient, does not need to run such "experiments." He already knows the outcome, but respects human freedom in choosing that outcome.
Your claim that God knew all possibilities but wasn’t 100% sure of which path humanity would take creates a problematic view of God's omniscience. If God only knew possibilities and not certainties, this would imply a limitation on His knowledge. It would suggest that the future is inherently unknowable to God, which contradicts the classical understanding of God's omniscience as described in Scripture.
Verses like Isaiah 46:10 affirm God’s absolute foreknowledge: “I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come.” This reflects a view of God who knows the entirety of human history, not just possible outcomes but the actual choices people will make, all while preserving their free will.
God’s omniscience does not restrict human freedom. Knowing the outcome of a choice does not imply coercion. For example, a teacher may know their students well enough to predict who will pass or fail a test, but this foreknowledge does not cause the outcome. In the same way, God's knowledge of our choices does not eliminate our ability to make them freely.
The JW position raises a significant theological issue: If God was uncertain about humanity's future (as you suggest), it would imply that the fall of man took God by surprise, forcing Him to "react" to sin. This is incompatible with the classical doctrine of God's immutability (unchanging nature) and omniscience. Furthermore, this would reduce God's plan for salvation to a "Plan B" reaction to sin, rather than the preordained, redemptive act of Christ, which Scripture presents as part of God’s eternal plan (Ephesians 1:4-5).
In contrast, the doctrine of FELIX CULPA (Latin for "happy fault") holds that God allowed the fall because it would lead to a greater good—the Incarnation and redemption through Christ. As St. Augustine said, "God judged it better to bring good out of evil than not to permit any evil to exist.” This reflects the idea that God’s knowledge and sovereignty encompass all events, and even human rebellion serves His greater purpose.
Thus, God knew Adam and Eve would sin, and their fall did not change His plan but was already integrated into His plan for humanity's salvation.
In summary:
1. JWs do teach that God can choose not to know certain events, as shown in their publications. This idea is inconsistent with the biblical presentation of God’s omniscience.
2. God did know from the beginning that humanity would sin, but this foreknowledge does not negate free will. God’s knowledge is timeless and encompasses all choices without causing them.
3. The fall of humanity was not an unforeseen tragedy but part of God’s greater plan to bring about redemption through Jesus Christ. Far from being a "Plan B," the Incarnation was God’s original intention, allowing humanity to participate in an even greater union with Him.
Thus, God’s foreknowledge and human free will coexist without contradiction, and the idea that God "did not know" certain events, as suggested by Jehovah's Witnesses, is biblically and theologically flawed.
"Time is a measurement, not something you can be outside of" - Time is indeed a measurement in our created universe, but God is not bound by time. God, by definition, is eternal, which means He exists beyond the confines of time. Time is a created entity, and the Scriptures affirm that God is the creator of all things, including time itself. For example:
2 Timothy 1:9 speaks of God’s grace, “given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time.”
Psalm 90:2 says, "Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting, you are God." This underscores that God's existence is not limited to time. He exists "from everlasting to everlasting," which indicates that God exists outside of the temporal progression we experience.
God is transcendent, meaning He is not confined by time, space, or other limitations of the created world. The concept of atemporal causality—cause and effect outside of time—aligns with this understanding of God's nature.
"Did God create heaven and earth outside of time?" - God existed before He created time, space, heaven, and earth. Genesis 1:1 clearly says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." This indicates that there was a "beginning" when God brought time and creation into existence, but God Himself, who is eternal, existed before this beginning. If God created time itself, then He is, by necessity, beyond it. His actions before the creation of the universe, including the eternal begetting of the Son, are not confined by the temporal framework that we know.
"What about angels who were before heaven and earth?" - The Bible does not say angels existed before the creation of heaven and earth. The Scriptures suggest that angels are created beings, part of the created order. Nehemiah 9:6 says, "You alone are the LORD. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship you." This passage implies that the angels (the multitudes of heaven) are part of God's creation and thus began to exist at some point in time. Therefore, they are not outside of time like God is.
"No time works differently for God, but He is not outside of it." - Scripture makes clear that God is eternal and not confined by time. Revelation 1:8 refers to God as "the Alpha and the Omega... who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." This again underscores that God transcends time. He "is" (present), "was" (past), and "is to come" (future), all at once, reflecting His timeless existence.
Furthermore, 2 Peter 3:8 says, "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." This demonstrates that God’s relation to time is fundamentally different from ours. He is not constrained by the linear progression of time that affects created beings.
"Cite a Bible verse for Son's begetting outside of time" - While the Bible does not explicitly use modern philosophical terminology such as "atemporal causality," it teaches the eternal generation of the Son through several key passages.
John 1:1-3: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." This passage affirms that the Word (the Son) was present with God in the "beginning" (before creation) and that He was involved in the creation of all things. This indicates an eternal relationship, as the Son exists before the created order and time itself.
John 5:26: "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself." This verse implies that the Son's life is derived from the Father, but in an eternal sense, not a temporal one. This "granting" is not a one-time event in history but part of the eternal nature of the Son’s relationship with the Father.
Hebrews 1:3: "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word." This verse suggests that the Son shares in the eternal nature of the Father, being "the exact representation" of God. The Son is not a created being but is of the same divine essence as the Father, eternally reflecting God's nature.
These verses all imply an eternal, non-temporal relationship between the Father and the Son, which supports the doctrine of eternal generation. The lack of the specific modern term "atemporal" in the Bible does not invalidate the concept, just as the absence of the word "Trinity" does not undermine the reality of the triune nature of God as revealed in Scripture.
The concept of the Son's eternal generation is necessary for maintaining the coherence of Trinitarian theology. Without it, we would either reduce Jesus to a created being (which contradicts Scriptures like John 1:1) or collapse the distinction between the Father and the Son, undermining their distinct personal identities within the Godhead. So the Bible provides a robust foundation for understanding the eternal generation of the Son and God’s existence beyond time. The Father’s begetting of the Son is eternal, not a temporal event, and reflects the unique, unchanging nature of God, who is not confined to time.
This article attempts to refute the pre-existence of Christ by interpreting various biblical passages in a highly selective and reductionist manner. The most direct and powerful statement supporting the pre-existence of Christ comes from the prologue of John's Gospel:
"In the beginning WAS the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." (John 1:1, 14)
The key term here is "the Word" (Greek: Logos), which refers to Christ before His incarnation. John explicitly states that the Word existed from the beginning ("In the beginning WAS the Word") and that this Word was God. This clearly demonstrates that Christ existed in the divine realm before His incarnation. The phrase "the Word became flesh" points to the incarnation of Christ—His taking on human form—not to the creation of a new being but to the pre-existent Word entering into the human condition.
In John 17:5, Jesus prays, "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." This is a clear reference to Christ's pre-existence. Jesus speaks of a glory He shared with the Father before creation. If He were not pre-existent, He could not have possessed or shared this glory.
The passage in John 8:58 is crucial for understanding Jesus' divinity and pre-existence. When Jesus says, "Before Abraham was, I am," He uses the divine name "I Am" (Greek: egō eimi), echoing God’s self-identification in Exodus 3:14. This is not merely a claim of being older than Abraham but an assertion of His eternal existence. The Jews understood this as a claim to divinity, which is why they attempted to stone Him for blasphemy (John 8:59). To dismiss this passage as metaphorical or symbolic of Jesus' ministry is to ignore the clear implications of His words and the reaction of His listeners.
In John 6, Jesus identifies Himself as the "bread of life" that came down from heaven (John 6:35, 41). The article's argument claims that since Jesus' flesh did not literally descend from heaven, this must be symbolic. However, this misses the theological significance of the passage. Jesus is not saying that His physical body came from heaven; rather, He is describing His divine origin and His role in bringing eternal life to the world. His flesh, which He offers for the life of the world (John 6:51), is a reference to His sacrificial death, not a literal descent from heaven.
The article attempts to equate Jesus' sending of His disciples with the Father’s sending of Jesus. However, this is a false equivalence. When Jesus says, "As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you" (John 20:21), He is speaking of the mission, not the nature of the sending. Jesus' mission was unique, as He was sent by the Father as the pre-existent Son to take on human flesh. The disciples, on the other hand, were sent after having been anointed with the Holy Spirit, not to take on flesh but to proclaim the Gospel.
The argument also misrepresents the role of the Holy Spirit and the concept of the Trinity. It suggests that since the Holy Spirit is sent by Jesus and is not described as descending from heaven, the same must apply to Jesus. However, the Holy Spirit's role is distinct from that of the Son. The Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son to empower the Church and fulfill the mission of Christ. The fact that the Spirit does not take on human flesh is not relevant to the question of Christ’s pre-existence.
The article argues that since God's word (Logos) brings things into existence by divine decree, the pre-existence of Christ is simply a function of God's foreknowledge. However, this overlooks the fact that the Logos is not merely a spoken word or a concept but a person—the second person of the Trinity—who becomes incarnate. The Word was not just a divine plan; He was a living, active person with God from the beginning, as John 1:1-3 explicitly teaches.
"Jesus didn’t know the day at that time. Jehovah did." - First of all, where did you see "Jehovah" there? You are correct that in Mark 13:32, Jesus literally states that only the Father knows the day or hour, which can also be understood syncategorematical, and not in categorematical sense, just like the terms "only" and "alone" are used in relation to the divine persons elsewhere. However, understanding this statement requires a nuanced approach that considers Christ’s dual nature as both fully God and fully man. In Trinitarian theology, Christ has two natures: divine and human. When Jesus says that only the Father knows the time of the final judgment, He is speaking in His human capacity, where He voluntarily limited certain aspects of His knowledge. This is consistent with Philippians 2:6-7, which explains that Christ "emptied Himself" by taking on human nature. His divine knowledge was not lost, but it was not always fully expressed during His earthly ministry.
Moreover, it's important to recognize that even if Christ, in His human nature, did not know the day or hour, this does not contradict His divine omniscience. As the eternal Son of God, co-equal with the Father, Christ possesses the same divine attributes, including omniscience. The key is distinguishing between Christ’s divine knowledge and His human experience. The fact that He could receive knowledge from the Father (as seen in Revelation 1:1) does not undermine His divinity but reflects the relational economy within the Trinity.
"Dual nature can't be the solution, because even within the Trinity doctrine, Christ’s divine nature still isn't the Father." – This is half-truth, in Trinitarian theology, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons but share the SAME divine essence, but the term "the Father" in the Scripture does not necessarily and does not in all cases denote the person of the Father, since creatures have a paternal relationship not only with the Father, as the first person of the Trinity, but with the entire Godhead. Jesus, in His divine nature, is fully God, the same God as the Father, but as the Son, He is not the Father. However, this distinction does not imply inferiority or a lack of knowledge on the part of the Son. Rather, the Son receives everything from the Father, including divine knowledge (John 16:15: "All that belongs to the Father is mine").
Christ's statement in Mark 13:32 does not contradict this. In His human nature, He may not have had communicable knowledge (scientia communicabili) of the final day, but this does not negate His divine nature’s omniscience. The distinction between the two natures of Christ is crucial here. His human limitations do not undermine His divinity but rather emphasize the mystery of the Incarnation—that God truly became man.
"Mysteries in Theology" - You mention the issue of mysteries, such as the hypostatic union, being used to "obfuscate the clear and basic teachings of the Bible." It’s important to clarify that Christian theology doesn’t use mysteries to confuse or avoid clarity but to acknowledge the limitations of human understanding when contemplating God. The doctrine of the Trinity is indeed mysterious, but it’s not illogical. It’s an attempt to express the biblical witness to the nature of God, who is beyond full human comprehension.
By the way, I note that God himself (regardless of the Trinity) is a mystery. The concept of "mystery" in Christianity refers to truths revealed by God that are beyond our full understanding, yet they are not contradictory. For example, while we may not fully grasp how Christ can be both fully God and fully man, Scripture affirms both realities (John 1:1, 14). Acknowledging mystery is a way of showing humility before the transcendent nature of God.
"You blur those lines when it suits your theology" - The Trinitarian distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not about blurring lines but about recognizing the relational roles within the Godhead. In Mark 13:32, Jesus emphasizes the Father's unique role in determining the timing of the final judgment, which does not imply that the Son is somehow inferior or lacking in divine knowledge. Instead, it highlights the distinction of roles within the Trinity while maintaining unity in essence.
To say that Jesus didn’t know the final day in His human nature doesn’t mean He wasn’t omniscient in His divine nature. These two natures are united in the person of Christ but do not merge or confuse each other (Chalcedonian definition). This distinction allows us to understand how Jesus can be fully God and yet voluntarily accept human limitations.
In conclusion, the apparent limitations in Jesus' knowledge, as seen in Mark 13:32, are not a contradiction to His divinity but reflect the mystery of the Incarnation, where the eternal Son of God took on human nature. The distinction between His divine and human natures provides the theological framework to understand how He could be omniscient as God while experiencing human limitations. This explanation is not an attempt to "blur lines," but rather a consistent interpretation of the Scriptures within the framework of Trinitarian theology.
Thank you for the thoughtful discussion, and I hope this helps clarify some of the points raised.
In my view, the Incarnation is not just a mysterium, it's an unproved doctrine that is not explicitly spelled out in the Bible. No NT writer ever proclaims that Jesus is God and human. It's more than a mysterium, but rather a genuine problema which Kierkegaard called a "contradiction" although he believed it.
We've talked about the Incarnation here ad infinitum et ad nauseam. My one observation about the Incarnation is that two natures in one hypostasis sounds fishy, to say the least. I've never seen or been given hard evidence for a creature that has two natures (e.g., dog-human). I guess the Trinitarian believes that the only dual-nature hypostasis is the Lord Jesus Christ qua the God-man.
One thing I admired about the systematic theologian Owen Thomas was his frankness. He once wrote:
"But in fact the Christian faith is that it is precisely in Christ and nowhere else that we see what perfect godhead and perfect humanity are. Now Middle Platonist philosophy involved a doctrine of God as impassible, completely transcendent and immutable. Thus on these terms it is extremely difficult to understand how God and humanity could be united in one person. But the fundamental thing we know from Christ is that God can be perfectly united with humanity. This is where we begin in speaking about God and humanity. The problem is not how a union of God and humanity in one person is possible, but
given the union manifest in Christ what perfect godhead and humanity are."
You can fact check me on this point, but I'm fairly certain that Jesus is never called theos in Revelation just like we see in the 1:1 that "God" gives him the revelation, not simply the Father.
Quote from one of my theology books:
Objection: "If God is completely immutable, and gazes down upon the course of the world like some rigid formula or law, then the immediacy and intimacy of religious life freezes before His Medusa-like face. A rigid law and logical formula are deaf to supplication, unyielding to pleading, ignorant of suffering and misery, and offer no reciprocation for faithfulness, trust, or sacrifice."
Answer: God is not an insensitive, rigid law, as Hegel's pantheism teaches, nor is He like Shylock, who, with rigid one-sidedness, inexorably represents the letter of the law. Rather, though He is entirely just and holy—completely removed from anything called caprice, irrationality, arbitrariness, or favoritism (there is nothing 'irrational' or 'unexpected' in God, cf. Luke 20:15)—He still stands as Creator in relation to every one of His creatures, and to every moment of their existence. With the utmost care, wisdom, and tenderness, He has created everything; He is incomparably closer to each of His creatures than any two creatures are to each other, and thus He has the deepest love and most intimate concern for all their manifestations, including their religious aspects. As an absolute personal being, He regards everything in its rightful place and according to its value. No moment of existence diminishes the strength of His devoted interest and holy stance, despite His complete oversight of the entire order of existence. Though He sees the sinner’s repentance and integrates it into His divine plan, sin is no less abhorrent to Him; though He has established the entire world process with all its moments, the affliction and prayers of the righteous are no less valuable before Him. People, in their limitations, may sometimes unintentionally harm or injure even with the best intentions by handling one aspect of a situation in a one-sided manner (e.g., a parent's excessive affection, or a clumsy friend's misguided efforts to help); but God, because He considers everything in every circumstance, judges each person in the best possible way.
Moreover, God's immutability gives religious life new and irreplaceable motivations. God's immutability is most directly manifested toward humanity in the reliability of His promises and the unalterable sanctity of His moral will, thus being the root and foundation of trust in Him. It is true that God is not flexible like humans, He does not conform to people's changing tastes and moods, and He is not willing to measure by human standards. This is often unpleasant for people, who, in their instability, fickleness, and weakness of principle, would unwittingly wish for God to be less holy and to act according to less universal principles, showing partiality (see the parable of the workers in the vineyard and the elder brother of the prodigal son). But precisely because God in no way conforms to humans, the person living a serious religious life is most effectively called to conform in all things to God. There is no other refuge from our own instability and the volatility of life than the eternal Pacific of divine immutability, where the noise of passions, party strife, and struggles ceases, and where the restless soul finds peace. "The world passes away, and its desires; but the one who does the will of God remains forever." (1 John 2:17; cf. 4:16).
"Jesus is never called theos in Revelation"
That's true, but there are several other statements which refer to His deity.
" in the 1:1 that "God" gives him the revelation, not simply the Father"
This is a common objection, but we agree that the term "God" here denotes the person of the Father. The terminology "God and Jesus" does not mean that Jesus is not God. I can call the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as "the God and the Lord and the Spirit", although it is true for all three persons that they are God, Lord and Spirit.
Furthermore, this also rather suggests that it is not about the transfer of divine attribute of omniscienc to the Son within the framework of eternal generation, but rather the communication of Infused Knowledge to the man Christ as God's Mediator. In the context of Jesus' incarnational role and the economy of salvation, we see that Jesus, as the incarnate Son, remains obedient to the Father. The passage emphasizes His mediatory role, but this does not negate His divine nature. It is part of the mystery of the Trinity, where the Son, in His incarnate state, submits to the Father’s will without diminishing His deity.
While the New Testament may not use modern theological terminology like “hypostasis” or “two natures,” it clearly teaches the dual nature of Christ—His divinity and humanity. It would be futile to expect the Scriptures to use the technical language of the Chalcedonian definition verbatim, but this is just as true for other interpretations. For example, if I just say that "I have a son named John and a daughter named Jennifer", I haven't explicitly said "I'm a father of two", but I've actually declared it in the content. For the dual nature, we need to prove a total of two statements from the Holy Scriptures: 1. Jesus is man, 2. Jesus is God. And both are declared, you just need to coordinate the two.
Bible verses relevant to the Incarnation: John 1:14, Philippians 2:6-8, Colossians 2:9. These verses may not spell out the Incarnation in the precise terms later theologians used, but they unmistakably teach that Jesus is both God and man.
The concept of the Incarnation is indeed a “mystery” in the theological sense—meaning it is something revealed by God that transcends full human comprehension. However, this does not make it a contradiction. A contradiction would be asserting that Jesus is both fully God and not God, or both fully human and not human, which no orthodox Christian theology claims.
Kierkegaard, whom you referenced, was certainly aware of the philosophical challenge posed by the Incarnation, but it is crucial to differentiate between something being mysterious and something being logically contradictory. The mystery lies in the way divine and human natures coexist without confusion or division, but this does not involve a logical contradiction, as theologians have clarified throughout history.
The Council of Chalcedon (451) articulated the doctrine as “without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation,” emphasizing that the two natures remain distinct yet are united in the one person of Jesus Christ.
You mentioned that you’ve never encountered a creature with two natures, such as a "dog-human." This is a misunderstanding of the Incarnation. Christian theology does not suggest that Jesus is a hybrid or a mixture of two natures in the same way one might imagine a mythological creature. Rather, it teaches that Christ has two DISTINCT natures (divine and human) that are fully and completely present in one person.
Human examples like a "dog-human" fail to grasp the nature of what Christian theology teaches about the Incarnation because Jesus’ dual nature is indeed unique. The doctrine does not imply a physical merging of two beings but rather that the second person of the Trinity (the divine Logos) took on a complete human nature in the person of Jesus Christ.
The Incarnation is not a scientific proposition that can be “proven” in the same way we might prove a physical theory or biological fact. Instead, it is a theological doctrine based on divine revelation. The “evidence” for the Incarnation comes from the testimony of Scripture, the life, teachings, and works of Jesus Christ, and the witness of the early Church. This is not to suggest that faith in the Incarnation is blind, but that it is rooted in a theological understanding of who Christ is as revealed in Scripture and history.
Will answer the rest later but:
Well you have provided one… finally.. why couldn’t you be transparent and do that in the first place? ( where’s my other source I asked for?)
And I’m waiting you to quote me verbatim on 3 different things you claimed I said.. ( one in this answer)
Secondly: I don’t care about traditional interpretation - why should I believe it?
( the councils having the spirit is subjective…)
You give me no reason to want too..
I have Catholics in my life who have convinced me of way more than you. And I’m sorry are more Christian than you. ( they don’t go around being insulting to Witnesses for starters, actually they don’t rely on people like Atha either )
“Yet, he has the ability to foresee future events and choices, but does not always choose to do so in all cases."
“They suggest that God allowed events to unfold without definitively knowing the outcome in order to respect free will. “
This might be one of the worst interpretations I have ever heard
Where does it say he did not “definitively know” what the outcome would be?
When did they say this Ninc? Quote it verbatim.. They didn’t.
this is you reading more into the text to try to discredit Witnesses, however with me you don’t get away with that sort of rubbish.. Your motives were revealed ages ago - I only engage out of pure amusement now.. not worth my time or scholarship.
Again I understand this as he knew all possibilities but did not know what path mankind would take and allowed them to choose
And choosing not to know is still being omniscient - it’s called ignoring information ( don’t take this too literally)
Something God can also do.. unless you are going to say he can’t do that… In Which case, why are you limiting Gods abilities?
Again I question your comprehension of simple matters
“If God was uncertain about humanity's future (as you suggest),”
Where did I say this Ninc? I didn’t
To word it differently
God knew all possibilities and knew where humanity would likely go.. but left humanity to its own devices.
There was a chance humanity wouldn’t sin ( slight chance) and he was well aware of this possibility.
“This underscores that God's existence is not limited to time.” - or simply that God doesn’t age like humans and doesn’t die… that’s also possible.
I question whether the writers had a grasp on eternity as such
Rather they probably understood “indefinite time” I.e no definite beginning or end as far as the eye can see
“The Bible does not say angels existed before the creation of heaven and earth. The Scriptures suggest that angels are created beings, part of the created order.” - what you fail to realise is angels existed before “creation” as many of the church fathers acknowledge.
( if you can’t comprehend what I mean..)
Modern scholarship also concedes this..
you are outnumbered. And not credible
So are you trying to say, you are always right on biblical matters? Or the church fathers are? Because they are not.
We don’t need philosophy to define Gods nature as it was defined in the biblical text.. not hard to find. ( read Dixons study)
When I mentioned the dog-human example, I was talking about two distinct natures in one subject. I was not talking about a hybrid, but something that would be fully dog and fully human. In the Platonic tradition, both dogs and humans have fixed natures.
I teach logic and know that contradictions come in more than one form, but regardless, I'm pretty sure that Kierkegaard used that word to describe the Incarnation.
As to the "three hypostases" and "one ousia" , I found the reasoning in this podcast quite compelling.
https://youtu.be/ah2kyTrJ5g8?feature=shared
If we subscribe to the dogma of the creeds verbatim, the entire construct collapses at some point under the weight of its own claims. Interesting.
@Anonymous
You mentioned that I misrepresented the JWs’ view on God's foreknowledge. However, JWs do indeed teach that God can choose not to know certain future events, especially regarding free will choices. In their publication Reasoning From the Scriptures and Insight on the Scriptures, this idea is clearly expressed. They explain that while God can foresee all future events, He chooses not to foresee everything, particularly human free will decisions.
According the JW view, God has the ability to foresee future events and choices, but does not always choose to do so in all cases. You requested a verbatim quote, so here it is from the Insight on the Scriptures (1988), under "Foreknowledge": “Selective foreknowledge means that God could choose not to foreknow indiscriminately all the future acts of his creatures.” So God can choose to remember or not to remember certain things, and similarly, he can choose whether or not to foresee certain future events. This directly supports my claim, and it's not an interpretation but a documented belief within the JW theology.
Hence JWs do indeed claim God selectively chooses not to foresee the specific actions of humans to allow for genuine free will. They hold that God has the capacity to know all things, but He can choose to refrain from knowing specific outcomes to allow humans to exercise free will freely. Therefore, the doctrine of “selective foreknowledge” implies that God doesn’t always definitively know the exact outcomes of human decisions but is aware of all possibilities. The concept of God "choosing not to know" is unique to Jehovah's Witnesses and differs from traditional Christian beliefs about God's omniscience.
(With this we got a little far from the original topic of discussion, I just wanted to point out that based on JW logic one doesn't have to be actually and inherently omniscient to be God, so if Jesus' ignorance in Mark 13:32 does not refute his deity based on JW logic .)
You objected to the idea that God would "definitively know" the outcome of Adam and Eve's sin. However, according to Christian orthodoxy, God’s omniscience means that He knew the outcome of human history from the start. This is supported by several key biblical passages:
Isaiah 46:10: "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come." This demonstrates that God knows the future, not just possibilities but actual outcomes.
Revelation 13:8: Describes Christ as the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," indicating that God knew of humanity's fall and had already prepared a plan for redemption through Jesus Christ before creation.
Ephesians 1:4: "He chose us in him before the creation of the world," which shows that God's plan for salvation was preordained, not reactionary.
These verses affirm that God's foreknowledge includes not just potential outcomes but actual decisions, all while preserving human free will. The JW position, which claims that God does not definitively know the outcome of free will choices, imposes limitations on God's omniscience, which traditional Christian theology rejects.
You suggested that God knowing all possibilities and "choosing not to know" the exact path humanity would take still qualifies as omniscience. However, this presents a theological contradiction. Omniscience, by definition, includes the knowledge of all events—past, present, and future—without limitation. If God "chooses not to know" something, that implies a limitation or selective ignorance, which is incompatible with the classical understanding of omniscience.
Moreover, if God only knew possibilities and not certainties, it would imply uncertainty about future events. The Bible consistently portrays God as knowing the future with certainty, not merely as a set of possibilities. For instance, Romans 8:29 says, "For those God foreknew he also predestined," which indicates that God's knowledge includes specific future events, not just potential outcomes.
Your argument that God knew all possibilities but left humanity to its own devices is also problematic because it diminishes the biblical presentation of God's active involvement in history and salvation. God's foreknowledge of the fall of humanity and His preparation for it (Revelation 13:8, Ephesians 1:4) shows that His knowledge is comprehensive and not limited to mere possibilities.
If God only knows all possible outcomes but doesn’t definitively know the actual outcome, this diminishes His omniscience. Omniscience, by definition, entails knowing all that is possible AND actual. This is what distinguishes God’s knowledge from human knowledge. Humans can speculate about possible futures; God, however, is timeless and knows actual outcomes from eternity. Isaiah 46:10 emphasizes this: “Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done.” God’s knowledge includes not just possibilities but the definitive future, without infringing on human free will.
The fact that God knows the outcome does not negate free will. Knowing a future event does not cause it to happen. For instance, if I know that a friend is going to choose vanilla ice cream based on their consistent preference, my foreknowledge doesn’t force them to make that choice. Similarly, God’s foreknowledge encompasses the free choices of individuals without controlling those choices.
The argument that God can "choose not to know" an outcome (i.e., "ignore information") raises more theological problems than it solves. If God can choose not to know something, then He is limiting His omniscience, which is a fundamental attribute of God. God's nature is immutable (unchangeable). His omniscience is not selective but all-encompassing, and He doesn't need to "ignore" or "forget" information to respect free will. If God could somehow turn off His omniscience, this would imply imperfection or limitation, which contradicts the very nature of a perfect God.
You mention that “God knew all possibilities and knew where humanity would likely go” but suggest there was a “slight chance humanity wouldn’t sin.” This is where the concept of FELIX CULPA (happy fault) comes into play. Traditional Christian theology (especially in Catholicism) holds that God’s foreknowledge of sin was not just a matter of likelihood, but a certainty He foresaw from the beginning. God didn’t merely predict Adam and Eve’s fall—He knew it would happen and allowed it for a greater purpose, namely, the redemption of humanity through Christ.
Romans 5:20 speaks to this: "Where sin abounded, grace abounded much more." The fall, while tragic, was permitted as part of God's greater plan to bring about redemption through Jesus Christ. The fall wasn't a random possibility that God gambled on; it was something He knew would occur, and He had a redemptive plan in place from eternity (see Revelation 13:8, which refers to Jesus as “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”).
This idea of a “happy fault” means that even though God knew humanity would sin, He allowed it because He intended to bring an even greater good out of it—the Incarnation and the possibility of eternal union with Him through Christ.
You assert that God “knew all possibilities but left humanity to its own devices,” implying that God was uncertain about the final outcome. However, this perspective limits God’s foreknowledge to something akin to human guesswork about potential outcomes, which is not how Scripture describes God’s omniscience. God’s knowledge is not a mere awareness of possibilities; it is a perfect and complete knowledge of all events, including human choices, from eternity.
If God is truly omniscient, He knows what choices we will make, but this does not compromise our ability to freely make those choices. His knowledge is timeless and doesn't operate in the same linear, cause-and-effect fashion that we experience in time.
Here’s an analogy: Think of a parent who knows their child so well that they can predict how the child will react in a given situation. The parent's knowledge doesn’t eliminate the child’s freedom to choose; it simply reflects the parent's deeper understanding of the child’s nature. God, in His omniscience, fully knows the choices we will make, but this knowledge doesn’t force us to make them.
You raised the point that the biblical writers may have only understood eternity as "indefinite time" rather than an existence outside of time. While this interpretation could apply to human understanding, the biblical presentation of God transcends time itself. For instance:
Psalm 90:2: "From everlasting to everlasting, you are God." This phrase indicates that God's existence is not bound by time. He is eternal, not simply living within an extended timeline.
2 Timothy 1:9: "This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time." This passage shows that God’s actions are not limited by the temporal framework of the created universe. He existed before time and operates outside of it.
The idea that God is outside of time is fundamental to the doctrine of God's eternal nature. Limiting God to "indefinite time" would reduce His nature to something more akin to human experience, which contradicts the biblical portrayal of God's transcendence.
You mentioned that angels existed before the creation of heaven and earth, which you claim is supported by some Church Fathers and modern scholarship. However, the Bible consistently places angels within the created order:
Nehemiah 9:6: "You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host... the multitudes of heaven worship you." This suggests that angels were created beings and part of God's creation.
Colossians 1:16: "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him." This includes angels, indicating that they did not predate creation but were part of it.
While some early Christian writings speculate on the timing of the creation of angels, there is no definitive biblical statement suggesting that they existed before "creation" as defined in Genesis 1:1. The Church Fathers, though influential, are not infallible, and their views must always be tested against the biblical text.
In the Incarnation, Christian theology asserts that Christ has two distinct natures—divine and human—united in one person. This is not comparable to the fixed Platonic natures of "dogs" and "humans" because, in Platonic thought, the fixed nature of a dog or a human is tied to their SPECIES, and they are limited by the categories of creation. The divine nature, however, is not fixed in the same way as created beings. God, being uncreated, transcends such limitations. Therefore, the union of divine and human natures in Christ does not parallel a mixing of created species like your example of a dog-human.
The Incarnation is unique in theological history because it is the only case of such a union—God becoming man, without ceasing to be God. The union of these two natures is a mystery in the theological sense, but it does not constitute a contradiction. Christian doctrine has long held that Jesus is fully God (John 1:1) and fully human (John 1:14), with both natures remaining intact and unconfused.
This means that when we say Jesus is fully God and fully human, we are not saying He is two beings mixed together, but one person with two complete, distinct natures. The Council of Chalcedon carefully worded this doctrine to say that these two natures exist “without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.” This avoids any notion of hybridization (such as your dog-human analogy might imply) and underscores that Christ is fully divine and fully human in one person.
I appreciate your knowledge of logic, and Kierkegaard did indeed describe the Incarnation as paradoxical, but not in the sense of a formal contradiction. A contradiction would be, for example, saying that Jesus is fully God AND not God at the same time, or fully human AND not human simultaneously. The Incarnation does not claim this. Rather, it asserts that Jesus is fully God and fully human, without either nature negating the other.
In logic, a paradox may appear contradictory because it goes beyond human comprehension, but it does not violate the principles of non-contradiction. The Incarnation is one such paradox because it brings together two complete natures in one person, but not in a way that results in a logical contradiction. Christian theologians like Thomas Aquinas dealt with this issue rigorously, arguing that while the Incarnation is mysterious, it is not logically impossible or contradictory.
The difficulty lies in expecting the Incarnation to fit within a strict philosophical framework such as the Platonic or Aristotelian categories of fixed natures. But Christian theology operates on the premise that God, being transcendent and omnipotent, is not bound by such human categories. The Incarnation, from a Christian perspective, is an act of divine revelation, which surpasses human logic but is not in opposition to it. While philosophers might struggle to categorize it, the testimony of Scripture (e.g., Philippians 2:6-8, John 1:1, Colossians 2:9) reveals it as a coherent theological truth.
So while the New Testament does not use post-Chalcedonian terminology like "hypostatic union," the biblical evidence for Christ's dual nature is overwhelming. John 1:1 states that Jesus is divine, while John 1:14 emphasizes that He took on human flesh. Philippians 2:6-8 explains that Christ, "though He was in the form of God," took on the "form of a servant" and was "born in human likeness." These passages, alongside others like Colossians 2:9, demonstrate that the early Christians already understood Christ to be both fully divine and fully human.
Although the content of these expressions was affirmed from the beginning by the Church Fathers, in that they spoke of one divine reality as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the expressions themselves were not clearly defined from the beginning and only gained their precise meaning, as outlined above, after centuries of fluctuations. During this development, the use of the Latin language, thanks to Tertullian's linguistic genius and his unrivaled authority, settled more quickly.
Among the Greeks, there was never any disagreement that what is one in God was called φύσις. But many already identified οὺσία with ὑπόστασις in the spirit of Platonic philosophy, and thus, with Origen (Origen. Orat. 15, 1.), they professed ἑτεροουσία of the Father and the Son; the Antiochian council also interpreted ὁμοούσιος of Paul of Samosata as monarchianism in 269. The Latins long hesitated to use hypostasis, which means substantia in a literal translation, because since Tertullian, the Latin Church had used substantia to denote what is one in God. Even in 362, an Alexandrian council had no objection to someone professing a hypostasis about the Trinity or three hypostases of one essence (Cf. August. Trinit. V 2, 3; VII 4, 9). On the other hand, the Greeks struggled for a long time against the term persona because the appropriate Greek word: πρόσωπον also means actor's mask, role, performance, and in this sense, it was misused by Sabellianism. Basil (Ep 236, 6 etc.) significantly contributed to making the Greek terminology regarding the Trinity more precise. Since then, the Greeks' preferred formula has been: μία οὺσία ἐν τρίσιν ὑποσπάσεσιν.
Nincsnevem, I have to use created species to illustrate my point unless I use geometrical examples like square-circle since God is the only uncreated being. Surely we can agree on that.
As you also mentioned, we've gotten away from the original topic.
You're correct that we both agree God is the only uncreated being, and I understand why you'd feel the need to use created species to illustrate your point, given the limits of human language and analogies. However, I think the analogy you're using—whether it's a created species or something like a square-circle—still doesn't capture the theological concept of the Incarnation.
Let’s take a closer look at your analogy using created species. The analogy of a "dog-human" or "square-circle" is problematic because it involves categories that are mutually exclusive within the natural, created order. Dogs and humans belong to distinct species, just as squares and circles are defined by incompatible geometric properties. Thus, trying to merge these would naturally result in a contradiction because these entities cannot coexist without negating each other’s essential characteristics.
However, the Incarnation is not about merging or mixing two incompatible created categories. Christian theology does not suggest that the divine and human natures are incompatible in the same way that dog and human natures are, or that a square and a circle are geometrically incompatible. Rather, the divine nature and human nature are not defined in terms of exclusion in the way created species or geometric shapes are.
God’s divine nature is not subject to the same limitations as created beings. The divine nature, being uncreated and infinite, transcends the limitations of space, time, and materiality that characterize human existence. Human nature, on the other hand, is finite and created. But because the divine nature is not bound by created limitations, it is not contradictory for God to assume human nature while remaining fully divine. The human nature is added to the divine, but not in a way that confuses or diminishes either nature.
A square-circle is a contradiction because a square and a circle have mutually exclusive properties. One cannot be a square and a circle simultaneously because their definitions cancel each other out. In contrast, the union of the divine and human natures in Christ does not involve mutually exclusive properties.
The divine nature involves attributes like omniscience, omnipotence, and eternality. The human nature involves attributes like finitude, mortality, and temporal existence.
These are not mutually exclusive because the divine nature can assume human nature without losing its divine attributes. Jesus’ divinity does not negate His humanity, nor does His humanity limit His divinity. The two natures coexist in one person, not in opposition but in harmony. The divine nature is not diminished by taking on human form, nor is the human nature overwhelmed by the divine.
The doctrine of the Incarnation is not analogous to a biological or physical merging of two incompatible species or objects. Instead, it reflects a unique theological truth where the divine Word (the Logos) takes on a fully human nature while retaining His full divinity. This is why Christian theology emphasizes that the Incarnation is not a mixture or hybrid but rather a union of two natures in the one person of Christ.
In your analogy, the assumption is that because created beings with fixed natures cannot merge without contradiction, the same logic must apply to the divine and human natures of Christ. But this assumption overlooks the nature of divine omnipotence and the theological truth that God’s ways are beyond the categories of created things.
I'm very very sorry to interject into a discussion not mine, but please let me restate your defense and tell me if I have it right, because the interaction between you has me all confused:
"A square-circle is a contradiction because a square and a circle have mutually exclusive properties. One cannot be a square and a circle simultaneously because their definitions cancel each other out."
Then you go on to DEFINE the PROPERTIES of the divine vs human:
"The divine nature involves attributes like omniscience, omnipotence, and eternality. The human nature involves attributes like finitude, mortality, and temporal existence."
Then you explain how their definitions don't actually cancel each other out even though the definitions are 'mutually exclusive.' Infinite vs finite, mortal vs immortal, eternal vs temporal-- but that's not exclusionary because God can do anything, but the human nature is still eternal because the divine nature is, so even though Jesus was born at a certain time, it took place out of time, and it's only in time to us so that we can experience it, but it can be done in a way so as to not sacrifice eternality or mortality, because they are united in everything but their properties: so his death had to be the human nature, but it didn't actually sacrifice the immortality of his divine nature, so that those properties aren't actually exclusionary and is quite logical.
Is that the basic argument?
-NC
Post a Comment