It seems the idea of "voluntary nescience" is not something commonly known in Christian circles. But, for those who are familiar with it, and yet reject the idea, I'd be curious to hear their reasons for doing so.
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
voluntary nescience
- Thread starter Resha Caner
- Start date
I assume this is a new idea for you then. Most of what you'll find on the Internet relates voluntary nescience to "open theism." IMO open theism leans more toward involuntary nescience, which belittles God. So, I make a distinction. Voluntary nescience is just that - voluntary.
There is scriptural support for it. The two most obvious ones are Phillipians 2:5-8 and Hebrews 2:5-9 (which applies Psalm 8:5-6 to Jesus).
Upvote
0
Jesus is God, so I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make.
Would you care to elaborate?
Upvote
0
Resha Carter,
In Luke 2:40 it says that Jesus was filled with wisdom. I can see where you going that he might didn't know as much of the scripture or what his purpose on life was until later years down the road in this particular verse, but also it doesn't state how much wisdom Jesus was filled with, for all we know..he could've of been filled with all wisdom despite of giving up his glory and becoming a servant in the flesh of mankind.
In Luke 2:40 it says that Jesus was filled with wisdom. I can see where you going that he might didn't know as much of the scripture or what his purpose on life was until later years down the road in this particular verse, but also it doesn't state how much wisdom Jesus was filled with, for all we know..he could've of been filled with all wisdom despite of giving up his glory and becoming a servant in the flesh of mankind.
Upvote
0
ittarter
Non-Metaphysical Christian Critic
"Jesus is God" is a theologically unclear statement for a debate about divine knowledge. Kenotic theory suggests that the incarnate son of God emptied himself of some of his divine attributes, such as omniscience. Therefore, to talk about Jesus' voluntary nescience is quite different than talking about God's voluntary nescience, which I presume would take place before the creation of the world.
In these books God on several occasions makes errors and regrets decisions. He cannot find people he is looking for and debates whether or not he should reveal his intentions to his followers. A superficial reading of such texts would conclude that the God described here does not know the future infallibly.
Upvote
0
I was afraid that was your reference - Gen 6:6 - one of the most misunderstood verses in the Bible. Sorry, not gonna go that way.
If the being of the Bible made mistakes, then he is not God. Maybe we could call him a "god", but he is not God. If that is the case, I might as well allow Zeus for the Greeks, Allah for the Muslims, etc.
For me it is an all or nothing proposition. God says he does not make mistakes (Matt 5:48). I believe that. If you don't, we have bigger issues than theological quibbles like the nature of omniscience.
Umm. Not unclear at all. Jesus is God. He didn't "empty" himself of his divine attributes. He was in possession of them the entire time of his incarnation. That is what makes God all the more amazing. That every second of every day he was choosing to be less than the angels.
This is the part I don't understand. People want to define omniscience as if the property controlled God - as if he had no choice but to succomb to his knowledge. Or, as the alternative, that he didn't have omniscience after all. That's not how I see it. I see it as an infinite ability to deal with knowledge as his perfect nature deemed it best to do so.
Upvote
0
Wisdom is not knowledge. Jesus' wisdom was knowing that the best course was complete trust in the Father. He was tempted to reach for his divine nature, but chose to trust the Father instead. I'm not saying he didn't know anything. He knew who he was, and he knew why he was incarnated. He was smarter than anyone who ever lived or ever will live. But that is still far short of excercising his full power as God.
With that said, you are close to a point I must concede.
All I wanted to demonstrate was that God did "lower" himself in one instance. So, voluntary nescience is possible. It's not a completely nutty idea. How far I can extrapolate that without going too far is a completely different matter. Is using voluntary nescience as an explanation of God's relationship to evil too much? I don't think so, but I thought others might have reasons for putting a check on that idea.
IMO, any other path leads to the most ridiculous conclusions, so I haven't found a reason to think otherwise ... yet. I'm open to discussing it, though.
Upvote
0
- Jun 29, 2010
- 4,255
- 3,571
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In my opinion it would keep God from knowing how to approach both individual and universal affairs. Without a perfect knowledge, he could then make mistakes. So any nescience (voluntary or not) would make Him fallible.
I like to think the following thought is correct.
"God has a vantage point we can never perceive. He sees into our eternal pasts and futures and knows our eternal needs. In his great love he answers prayers according to this eternal and omniscient perspective. He answers all prayers perfectly." [/FONT]
I like to think the following thought is correct.
"God has a vantage point we can never perceive. He sees into our eternal pasts and futures and knows our eternal needs. In his great love he answers prayers according to this eternal and omniscient perspective. He answers all prayers perfectly." [/FONT]
Upvote
0
A good point. I'll think on that.
My immediate reaction, though, is that it need not be as you say. I think you go too far, as if to say God doesn't know anything. I would say that what he chooses to know about us, he knows perfectly. Coupled with his nescience I think that what he has created is a world where certain things are determined. For example, he determined that Christ would be incarnated. But it is more than that. He determined the perfect time, place, and manner of the incarnation. There is nothing anyone could have done to dminish it and make it less than what it was. Yet, there were still people who chose not to give Mary a bed for the night. God did not interfere with that.
So maybe He chose not to know who would finally provide Mary a place to give birth. All he knew was that someone would.
This is a stretch, I know, so I'm not saying it had to be that way, only that it might have been that way.
So, when he chooses to act, he acts perfectly. When he chooses not to act (because he is not required to act in every instance), he can choose to not know how things will be.
Upvote
0
- Jun 29, 2010
- 4,255
- 3,571
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I have to wonder; is any act without consequence? How were the people who didn't provide a bed for Mary ultimately affected? How important was it for Christ to be born in a manger? Can we even speculate from our limited perspectives?
Interesting questions.
Interesting questions.
Upvote
0
ittarter
Non-Metaphysical Christian Critic
I made allusions to about a half dozen texts, not one. Don't be a dick. I am aware of the difficulty surrounding the interpretation of the myth found in Genesis 6 and I would never base such a grand theological claim on a single and highly controversial piece of data.
You asked me why I reject voluntary nescience. That is my reason. You could thank me for answering your question. You are under no obligation to debate anything with me and I have no use for your apology.
If that is your position then why are you even asking about voluntary nescience? If God limits himself and chooses not to know the future then he still retains his divine attributes but simply does not employ his potential omniscience in his governance of the universe.
And what is the bigger issue that would need to attend to?
Perfection in Matt. 5:48 does not denote "never making mistakes." If you take the trouble to read any commentary on this text you will get some information on the Greek word being translated here. Or you could just read it in context and discover that "perfection" here means impartiality and love for those who do not deserve it and those who do not love you in return.
By being "less than the angels" he is emptying himself of one of his divine attributes -- his glory. Hence the transfiguration being the exception rather than the rule.
I am not trying to prove kenotic theory to you. (If you want to learn about it you might as well start here.) My point is merely to say that, in a discussion about voluntary nescience, considering God incarnate as your subject is different than considering God in heaven as your subject. I am just trying to figure out which one you wanted to talk about. If Jesus didn't know everything while on earth, that's not the same as saying God is currently limiting his knowledge and has always been limiting his knowledge of the future. WHICH QUESTION IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD??
So you are redefining omniscience. Well, just be aware that the weight of conservative Catholic and Protestant scholarship affirms that God indeed does KNOW EVERYTHING.
Upvote
0
The tone of your reply is unnecessary. I didn't mean to offend you. And, even though you don't want my apology, I will give it.
I had no intention of misrepresenting your position. I simply thought your reply was too general, and I was trying to introduce some details. Clarify as much as you feel necessary ... or don't. You say your gave your answer. OK.
Upvote
0
ittarter
Non-Metaphysical Christian Critic
If I misread your own tone, then I apologize. I was annoyed that you dismissed my position out of hand based on a single citation that I didn't even make. It felt disrespectful. Reading it again, I can see that may not have been your intent.
I still don't know what this thread is about, though, so I'll quit banging our heads against a wall and move on.
I still don't know what this thread is about, though, so I'll quit banging our heads against a wall and move on.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
