Last week, Vox Day coined a new word:
The problem with the concept of omniscience is that it’s a weirdly binary notion, wherein the only options are a superficially illogical all-knowing and a definitively non-Biblical naught-knowing of nonexistence. But how would one describe the knowledge of the Game Designer God, who can know or not know any given thing depending solely on His will?The concept of voliscience describes a Creator who knows whatever He wants, whenever He wants, to the extent that the concept of time is even relevant to such a being. Not only does this concept not limit God, but it has the additional benefit of being far more Biblically accurate than the traditional concept of an omniscient God.
Now you’ll remember that Vox has written about this before – Last November:
First, it is important to note that the Christian God, the god towards whom Dawkins directs the great majority of his attacks, makes no broad claims to omniscience. Although there are eighty-seven references to the things that the biblical God knows, only a single example could potentially be interpreted as a universal claim to complete knowledge.Among the things that God claims to know are the following: He knows the way to wisdom and where it dwells, he knows the day of the wicked is coming, he knows the secrets of men’s hearts, he knows the thoughts of men and their futility. He knows the proud from afar, he knows what lies in darkness, and he knows what you need before you ask him. He knows the Son, he knows the day and the hour that the heavens and the earth shall pass away, . . .
In some of what follows I am making some guesses about what Vox thinks – Vox, please correct me if I’m wrong.
Not only does Vox think that God doesn’t know all of what happens in the future; Vox thinks that God doesn’t know all of what is happening in the world currently. So, for example, I think he’s going to say (when he finally gets back to our argument) that he doesn’t think that God knew where Adam and Eve were when he called for them in the Garden after they ate the fruit.
So not only does this makes Vox an extreme Armenian (sp?), but it even makes him an extreme Open Theist (Can someone tell me if Boyd thinks that God doesn’t know everything about the current state of the world?). What I don’t understand is (A) What Vox thinks is the difference between a God who can at any time know anything, and a God who knows everything. And (B) If there is a difference, why does Vox think God limits himself this way? What possible motivation could God have to do this? An even greater super duper possibility for unfettered and fully appreciated free will?
On Wednesday, I’ll post my response to Vox regarding his addition to our vocabulary.
Update: I am reading Greg Boyd’s ‘God of the Possible’ and it really looks to me like Pastor Boyd believes in God’s Omniscience of the Present. But perhaps he has changed his mind or I haven’t read far enough.
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 25, 2008 at 2:51 pm
dlcarrol
He’s a consistent Arminian, not an Armenian.
February 25, 2008 at 3:57 pm
jamsco
Yeah, I always get that wrong.
February 26, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Dominic Bnonn Tennant
J—
This is the problem with people presuming to write Christian books when they haven’t even got a basic understanding of systematic theology. It looks like Vox is trying to make his case based on a keyword search. What about Colossians 2:3, which indicates that everything which can be known is known by God (the very definition of omniscience)? I guess that didn’t show up when Vox typed in “I know” or “he knows” on BibleGateway…
The more you quote this individual, the more it seems like you’re wasting your time. Why bother with someone who obviously considers his own opinion and knowledge of Scripture to be an acceptable substitute for careful research and investigation? Such people aren’t interested in discovering, declaring, or defending the truth. They just want attention and personal recognition. They want people to say how clever they are, or how original—or, failing that, how controversial.
Regards,
Bnonn
February 27, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Voliscience 2 « The Responsible Puppet
[...] 27, 2008 in Uncategorized On Monday I showed the new word that Vox has coined. After he did that I entered into a debate in the [...]
February 28, 2008 at 4:28 am
bethyada
jamsco, you proof read Vox’s book. You should have got much of this from his discussion at the end of the book on gaming. The protrait of God (at least for the analogy) was way too small. As if there could be other universes and other God’s not related to this one. God is so great that that is just not viable.
Bnonn, I believe jamsco and Vox are friends from way back.
dlcarrol, don’t muddy the waters or attempt to win debates by redefining words. Arminianism is defined by it’s stated beliefs, if you think they are inconsistent point them out. Stating Open Theism is consistent Arminianism, and by implication Traditional Arminianism is inconsistent, and thus wrong, is purely polemic and not logic.
Open Theism takes some ideas from Arminianism and adds others. And my problem with it is not its lack of consistency, rather its lack of biblical basis.
February 28, 2008 at 4:34 am
bethyada
Bnonn, Col 2 could be consistent with Vox’s position. He could argue that the all refers to the treasures not the knowledge, or that all is a mild all not an exhaustive all.
Vox is wrong. His portrayal of God seems too small often. But it is not always single verses that lead to the truth, it is the entirety of Scripture.
February 28, 2008 at 9:35 am
jamsco
“But it is not always single verses that lead to the truth, it is the entirety of Scripture.”
Yes, of course. But you can only look at (and discuss) the entirety of scripture one verse at a time.
And yes, obviously I knew to some degree, how Vox felt. I’m just commenting on it late, that’s all. And certainly I haven’t commented on everything I disagree with Vox.