Honest struggles on God’s omniscience.

[Clete]

God isn't omniscient? That's heretical

Biblical is what it is.

It's only heretical for those who worship Aristotle's god.

 

[Clete]

God’s word describes Him is all knowing.

No, you read that into whatever passages you're thinking of.

Biblically, God knows what He wants to know of that information that is knowable.

There is not one single syllable of the bible you can find that will contradict that statement. Any and every attempt you make will require you to read your doctrine into the text.

 

[Skywatch89]

No, you read that into whatever passages you're thinking of.

Biblically, God knows what He wants to know of that information that is knowable.

There is not one single syllable of the bible you can find that will contradict that statement. Any and every attempt you make will require you to read your doctrine into the text.

Ok. So instead of trying to reason cordially, by being patient and loving, and instead of trying to help me understand, and reason and persuade, we will automatically assume that I’m reading what I believe into whatever passages I’m thinking of, and claim that any and every attempt I make will require me to read my doctrine into the text. However, I fully believe God is omniscient.

Having said that, did it ever occur to you that I’m simply trying to understand, learn and see if there’s another view to reconcile God’s omniscience with man’s freedom of choice in a way that resolves some “tension” that people have? I guess not…

 

[way 2 go]

Open theists do not believe in “partial omniscience.” We believe God knows everything that exists to be known. The dispute is whether future free choices already exist as settled facts before they are made.

(Revelation of John 9:20-21) [20] And the rest of the men who were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the works of their hands, that they should not worship demons, and golden, and silver, and bronze, and stone, and wooden idols (which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk). [21] And they did not repent of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.


(Revelation of John 16:9-11) [9] And men were burned with great heat. And they blasphemed the name of God, He having authority over these plagues. And they did not repent in order to give Him glory. [10] And the fifth angel poured out his vial on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom became darkened. And they gnawed their tongues from the pain. [11] And they blasphemed the God of Heaven because of their pains and their sores. And they did not repent of their deeds.

Now where does that verse say God has exhaustive definite foreknowledge of every future free choice?

Jesus never said ,"I am G-d"

Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord and mighty in power. His understanding is infinite.

you put a limit on his understanding to the past and only some of the present .

(Deuteronomy 18:22) When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not follow nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You shall not be afraid of him.

(Revelation of John 16:9-11) [9] And men were burned with great heat. And they blasphemed the name of God, He having authority over these plagues. And they did not repent in order to give Him glory. [10] And the fifth angel poured out his vial on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom became darkened. And they gnawed their tongues from the pain. [11] And they blasphemed the God of Heaven because of their pains and their sores. And they did not repent of their deeds.

Yes, God’s ways are higher than ours.

Higher, not lower.

Isaiah 55 is not a license to make God appear unjust

what is it with opentheist and G=d being unjust
foreknowledge is not the same as causing or approving it

(James 1:13) Let no one being tempted say, I am tempted from God. For God is not tempted by evils, and He tempts no one.

So if your theology makes God render men’s wickedness and damnation certain, then punish them for what they could never ultimately avoid, Isaiah 55 is not helping you.

who is preventing these people of repenting ?

(Revelation of John 9:20-21) [20] And the rest of the men who were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the works of their hands, that they should not worship demons, and golden, and silver, and bronze, and stone, and wooden idols (which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk). [21] And they did not repent of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

The question is whether God can change His stated course of action in response to man.

the bible is about man changing ,you have it backwards

the bible is not about G-d changing

He already knows what people will do (or pray), and He incorporates those responses into how He interacts with us in time.

And Scripture repeatedly says He does.

God said He would destroy Nineveh. Nineveh repented, and God did not do what He said He would do.

God told Hezekiah, “You shall die, and not live.” Hezekiah prayed, and God added fifteen years.

God said He would destroy Israel and make a nation from Moses. Moses interceded, and God relented.

the bible is about man changing

did G-d know Nineveh would repent if Jonah preached , yes

foreknowledge
(Jonah 1:17) And the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. ...

Jeremiah 18 gives the principle: if God announces judgment and the nation repents, He will relent; if He announces blessing and the nation turns evil, He will relent of the good.

open theist have G-d needing to go to sodom to figure it out if the place was evil , so much for all knowing ,
G-d did want a conversation with Abraham to teach us and Abraham

(Genesis 18:21) I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which has come to Me. And if not, I will know

So quoting “God does not change” does not erase every passage where God relents, regrets, responds, tests, warns, and changes His stated course of action.

teaching moments

God does not change morally. But He does change how He deals with men when men change.

men have to change, not G-d

That is not a defect in God. That is the behavior of a righteous and relational God.

And even the GotQuestions quote quietly admits the point by adding “in the sense of realizing a mistake.”

Fine. God does not change His mind because He made a mistake. But open theists are not claiming He does.

We are saying God genuinely responds to repentance, rebellion, prayer, and intercession.

So the issue remains:

If it is heretical to believe God can change His mind, why does Scripture repeatedly say that He does?

And if your theology has to explain those passages away every time they appear, maybe the problem is not open theism.

Maybe the problem is the settled-view tradition you are trying to protect.

you have no change from God without change from man ,

so it can be said it is God's uses his foreknowledge for teaching interventions

and G-d's foreknowledge tells that they don't repent

(Revelation of John 16:9-11) [9] And men were burned with great heat. And they blasphemed the name of God, He having authority over these plagues. And they did not repent in order to give Him glory. [10] And the fifth angel poured out his vial on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom became darkened. And they gnawed their tongues from the pain. [11] And they blasphemed the God of Heaven because of their pains and their sores. And they did not repent of their deeds.

 

[Clete]

Ok. So instead of trying to reason cordially, by being patient and loving, and instead of trying to help me understand, and reason and persuade, we will automatically assume that I’m reading what I believe into whatever passages I’m thinking of, and claim that any and every attempt I make will require me to read my doctrine into the text. However, I fully believe God is omniscient.

There was no insult intended. I've just been doing this for decades and already know all of your proof texts. None of them say what you likely believe them to say. If anything, my comments were simply intended as a challenge. Prove me wrong.

Having said that, did it ever occur to you that I’m simply trying to understand, learn and see if there’s another view to reconcile God’s omniscience with man’s freedom of choice in a way that resolves some “tension” that people have? I guess not…

Quite! Don't take my directness as hostility. So long as your responses are honest and substantive, you'll find that I have the patience of Moses with any inquiry you might have. Others here will tell you, if my intention had been hostility, there'd be no room for doubt about it. So far, you've given no reason for any hostility whatsoever. Again, I was simply offering a direct response to your single sentence post. I had no insult or any other sort of hostility in mind at all.

 

[Clete]

what is it with opentheist and G=d being unjust
foreknowledge is not the same as causing or approving it

Foreknowledge "causing or approving it" isn't the issue nor the argument.

There are several problems with the idea of exhaustive foreknowledge, not the least of which is that the bible does not teach it but your statement has to do with the issue of justice and so let's look at that issue in particular.

First of all, there is a strong possibility that you hold a different definition of the word "justice" in your mind, especially when applying it to God (the word "God" is spelled with an "o", by the way), and so let's start by defining terms.
"Good" is that which sustains, upholds, and promotes life in accordance with what is real and true. Evil is that which corrupts, diminishes, or destroys life by acting against what is real and true. (Deuteronomy 30:15)

Righteousness is the rational alignment of one’s thoughts, choices, and actions with the good, consistently choosing what sustains and advances life.

Justice is that same righteousness applied outwardly. It is the rational evaluation of actions in light of the good, rendering to each person what is rightly due, rewarding what sustains life and opposing or punishing what destroys it, so that life is maximally protected and upheld.
Good and evil are not merely outcomes, they are rationally chosen alignments with or against what sustains life. Righteousness is choosing the good. Justice is holding persons accountable for those choices. Remove free will, and that entire chain collapses.

Without free will, righteousness disappears. A person could not truly align himself with the good; he would only be acting out a script of some sort. There is no virtue in inevitability.

Further, without free will, evil loses its moral meaning. If a destructive act is unavoidable, it is no longer wrong in the moral sense, only unfortunate in the mechanical sense.

So, how does foreknowledge touch any of that?

It touches all of it by making everything unavoidable.

Free will is the ability to choose. It is the ability to do or to do otherwise. For there to be a choice, there has to be alternative possibilities from which to choose. That which is foreknown is necessary (i.e. logically necessary). If an action is necessary, there is no alternative, by definition. If there is no alternative, there is no choice. If there is no choice, the action is amoral. To reward or punish an amoral action is unjust, by definition.


Prof. Linda Zagzebski, the Kingfisher College Chair of the Philosophy of Religion and Ethics at Oklahoma University put the argument is more formal terms....
T = You answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am

1. Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
2. If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
3. It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
4. Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
5. If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
6. So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
7. If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
8. Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
9. If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
10. Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

Source

Now, she wasn't making any statement there about justice. Indeed, her argument doesn't even attempt to say whether or not foreknowledge exists. It simply demonstrates the mutually exclusive nature of foreknowledge and free will. If one is true, the other is false. Put simply, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Thus, those who say we have no choice are themselves left with a choice to make. If you believe in a just God then you must reject the doctrine of exhaustive divine foreknowledge, or vise versa.