Honest struggles on God’s omniscience.

[way 2 go]

The central questions remain:

Does “Now I know” mean “I already knew”?

Does “I will go down and see... and if not, I will know” mean “I already knew exhaustively”?

Does seeing something within a prophetic vision automatically transform every detail into immutable future history?

If God infallibly believed before a person existed that the person would choose A, could the person choose not-A?

If the answer is yes, God’s belief could be false.

If the answer is no, the alternative was impossible.

Repeating that foreknowledge did not cause the choice does not resolve that contradiction.

well now I understand open theism eisegesis takes a few favorite verses Genesis 22:12 “Now I know ”Gen 3:9 "where are you" and Jeremiah 18 “if that nation repents, I will relent” and makes them the controlling presupposition for the entire Bible.
as an open theist you must accept God doesn't know the present exhaustively or the future at all
reinterpret everything through these verses , Revelation , tear that book out & never mind the warning Rev 22:19

reminds me of the word of faith theology “You are gods” Psalm 82:6 / John 10:34 never mind the warning Exo 20:3

 

[Derf]

well now I understand open theism eisegesis takes a few favorite verses Genesis 22:12 “Now I know ”Gen 3:9 "where are you" and Jeremiah 18 “if that nation repents, I will relent” and makes them the controlling presupposition for the entire Bible.
as an open theist you must accept God doesn't know the present exhaustively or the future at all
reinterpret everything through these verses , Revelation , tear that book out & never mind the warning Rev 22:19

Are you really prepared to say that you know exactly what that passage means, despite 2000 years of scholars debating what it means? And that you will interpret all the rest of tge bible based on your understanding of those verses? That's astounding!

reminds me of the word of faith theology “You are gods” Psalm 82:6 / John 10:34 never mind the warning Exo 20:3

And now your only comment is to try to lump those who don't agree with you on Rev 22:19 into another group of heretics? Is that really all you've got? You've proved nothing except your inability to understand what one part of scripture says.

 

[JudgeRightly]

well now I understand open theism eisegesis

You have created a caricature of Open Theism, and have not identified any instance of eisegesis. You have merely applied the label to interpretations you dislike.

See post #278, arguments 9 and 23.

takes a few favorite verses Genesis 22:12 “Now I know

See #278, arguments 1 through 5.

Genesis 22:12 is Scripture, and its words must be accounted for. You don't get to ignore it or change its meaning to suit your theology.

”Gen 3:9 "where are you"

See #278, arguments 6 and 23.

and Jeremiah 18 “if that nation repents, I will relent”

See #278, arguments 16 and 17.

and makes them the controlling presupposition for the entire Bible.

See #278, argument 23.

Using Scripture to interpret Scripture while allowing each passage to mean what it says within its context is exegesis, way 2 go.

You begin with exhaustive foreknowledge as your controlling presupposition and reinterpret every contrary passage through it.

THAT is eisegesis.

as an open theist you must accept God doesn't know the present exhaustively

See #278, arguments 6 through 8 and 11.

or the future at all

See #278, arguments 11, 12, 14, and 17.

reinterpret everything through these verses , Revelation , tear that book out & never mind the warning Rev 22:19

See #278, arguments 9, 15, and 16.

reminds me of the word of faith theology “You are gods” Psalm 82:6 / John 10:34 never mind the warning Exo 20:3

Never heard of it. Doesn't matter anyways.

This is guilt by association combined with a false analogy.

You have identified no relevant similarity between Open Theism and Word of Faith theology. You have simply compared one doctrine you reject to another doctrine you reject.

That's not an argument against either position.

You responded to twenty-three numbered arguments without identifying a single error in any of the answers.

Choose an argument number, identify the particular premise or inference you reject, and explain why.

Repeating labels such as “eisegesis,” “heretical,” and “modal fallacy” does not answer the arguments.

 

[way 2 go]

Are you really prepared to say that you know exactly what that passage means, despite 2000 years of scholars debating what it means? And that you will interpret all the rest of the bible based on your understanding of those verses? That's astounding!

you are the one that says it takes a thousand years to eat a piece of fruit to avoid the truth of spiritual death at the fall of man ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

(II Timothy 3:7) Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth

And now your only comment is to try to lump those who don't agree with you on Rev 22:19 into another group of heretics? Is that really all you've got? You've proved nothing except your inability to understand what one part of scripture says.

what did I get wrong?

well now I understand open theism eisegesis takes a few favorite verses Genesis 22:12 “Now I know ”

open theism uses "now I know" , can only be interpreted as God doesn't know the future


Gen 3:9 "where are you"

open theism uses "where are you" as limited knowledge of the present

and Jeremiah 18 “if that nation repents, I will relent”

open theism uses “if that nation repents, I will relent” as prophecy is not settled


and makes them the controlling presupposition for the entire Bible.

as an open theist you must accept God doesn't know the present exhaustively or the future at all
reinterpret everything through these verses ,

and same problem here : not using the rest of the bible to interpret their key verses
kenneth copeland , benny hinn etc
word of faith theology “You are gods” Psalm 82:6 / John 10:34 makes the followers of that theology think they're gods

word of faith followers filter what the rest of the bible says through those verses
and open theist do the same with their verses so don't be so hard on the word of faith theology

 

[way 2 go]

Choose an argument number, identify the particular premise or inference you reject, and explain why.

and Jeremiah 18 “if that nation repents, I will relent”

open theism uses “if that nation repents, I will relent” as prophecy is not settled

once you say "they did not repent" may or may not be true you're off the reservation
you are saying the whole book of Revelation may or may not be true

 

[Derf]

you are the one that says it takes a thousand years to eat a piece of fruit to avoid the truth of spiritual death at the fall of man ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

(II Timothy 3:7) Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth


what did I get wrong?

well now I understand open theism eisegesis takes a few favorite verses Genesis 22:12 “Now I know ”

open theism uses "now I know" , can only be interpreted as God doesn't know the future


Gen 3:9 "where are you"

open theism uses "where are you" as limited knowledge of the present

and Jeremiah 18 “if that nation repents, I will relent”

open theism uses “if that nation repents, I will relent” as prophecy is not settled


and makes them the controlling presupposition for the entire Bible.

as an open theist you must accept God doesn't know the present exhaustively or the future at all
reinterpret everything through these verses ,

and same problem here : not using the rest of the bible to interpret their key verses
kenneth copeland , benny hinn etc
word of faith theology “You are gods” Psalm 82:6 / John 10:34 makes the followers of that theology think they're gods

word of faith followers filter what the rest of the bible says through those verses
and open theist do the same with their verses so don't be so hard on the word of faith theology

And you're doing the same thing with Rev 22:19. If it's ok for you to filter the whole bible through ONE verse, which is what you've said the word of faith followers are doing (except that they use 2 verses), yet you admit in this post I'm responding to that open theists filter the whole Bible through two verses as well. So which is the better? filtering through only a single verse or two verses?

Yet it's much worse for you, because you've shown that you have little understanding of which verses open theists use, meaning that you filter your understanding of open theists through your own limited knowledge of open theism, so you have nothing of substance to say about it, so you end up repeating refuted material over and over. You've got nothing.

 

[Idolater]

as an open theist you must accept God doesn't know the present exhaustively ...

This is the hardest part to swallow prima facie, that God doesn't even know necessarily what's going on rn. Seems beyond the pale and a bridge too far.

 

[Derf]

This is the hardest part to swallow prima facie, that God doesn't even know necessarily what's going on rn. Seems beyond the pale and a bridge too far.

If you read the passages about how God knows things, it becomes more clear. God "searches" our hearts to see if there is any wicked way in us. He "numbers" (counts) the hairs of our heads. If these passages mean what they seem to say, then God acquires information that He didn't have before. God "tested" Abraham in order to know something. God went down to Sodom to see if the report about them was true. There are two ways to take these passages.
1. That God's knowledge never increases, and therefore He already knew our hearts, our hairs, Abraham's faithfulness with his only son, and the full extent of Sodom's wickedness. In this case the bible passages are giving a fake view of God, because they mean exactly the opposite of what they say on the surface.
2. That God's knowledge increases as there is more information available, and God uses His senses (whatever "senses" are like for a spirit) to gather information. In this case, the passages are easy to understand, but what it tells us is in conflict with what we believe about God, which is #1: that God's knowledge never increases.

How do we know which one is correct? Don't we search the scriptures to see which one is true? If so, then the scriptures which say God's knowledge increases are equally important as the ones that say God has always known everything that will ever happen.

But the funny thing is that there are absolutely no scriptures that say God has always known everything that will ever happen. So if there are some scriptures that say God's knowledge increases and no scriptures that say His knowledge is static, which position should we choose?

The answer seems obvious to me.

 

[Right Divider]

and Jeremiah 18 “if that nation repents, I will relent”

open theism uses “if that nation repents, I will relent” as prophecy is not settled

Can you not see that the outcome of God's action is dependent on the nations action?
That is a decision that God says that He has made... Why does this cause you problems?

once you say "they did not repent" may or may not be true you're off the reservation
you are saying the whole book of Revelation may or may not be true

You're all over the road and not making any logical sense.

 

[Clete]

what did I get wrong?

Everything!

 

[way 2 go]

This is the hardest part to swallow prima facie, that God doesn't even know necessarily what's going on rn. Seems beyond the pale and a bridge too far.

true

(Matthew 10:29) “Two sparrows are sold for a penny, aren't they? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father's permission.

God is keeping track of an estimated 50 Billion birds today but couldn't keep track of the only two people on the earth

 

[JudgeRightly]

This is the hardest part to swallow prima facie, that God doesn't even know necessarily what's going on rn. Seems beyond the pale and a bridge too far.

Then you need to check your starting premises.

First: How does God describe Himself?

Second: Which of your beliefs come directly from Scripture, and which come from an interpretation of Scripture?

The belief that God must possess exhaustive knowledge of everything presently occurring everywhere is a theological premise. The question is whether Scripture requires that premise.

See post #278, particularly Arguments 6 through 8 and 11.

Those sections address the passages in which God investigates present circumstances, distinguishes between knowing that a matter exists and knowing all its details, and explains why denying exhaustive present knowledge does not diminish His wisdom, power, or ability to act.

Something may initially seem “beyond the pale” because it conflicts with the theology through which you have been taught to read Scripture. That does not establish that the theology is correct.

The question is whether Scripture itself presents God as possessing exhaustive present knowledge, or whether that conclusion is being imposed upon passages that describe Him investigating, observing, testing, and learning.

 

[JudgeRightly]

what did I get wrong?

Everything you've said about Open Theism.

well now I understand open theism eisegesis takes a few favorite verses Genesis 22:12 “Now I know ”

open theism uses "now I know" , can only be interpreted as God doesn't know the future

False.

See #278, Arguments 1-5, 11, 12, and 17.

Gen 3:9 "where are you"

open theism uses "where are you" as limited knowledge of the present

See #278, Arguments 6 and 23.

and Jeremiah 18 “if that nation repents, I will relent”

open theism uses “if that nation repents, I will relent” as prophecy is not settled

See #278, Arguments 16 and 17.

and makes them the controlling presupposition for the entire Bible.

Already answered in #283 and in #278, Argument 23.

as an open theist you must accept God doesn't know the present exhaustively

Already answered in #283 and in #278, Arguments 6 through 8 and 11.

or the future at all

False.

See #278, Arguments 11, 12, 14, and 17.

reinterpret everything through these verses

Already answered in #283 and in #278, Argument 23.

and same problem here : not using the rest of the bible to interpret their key verses
kenneth copeland , benny hinn etc
word of faith theology “You are gods” Psalm 82:6 / John 10:34 makes the followers of that theology think they're gods

word of faith followers filter what the rest of the bible says through those verses
and open theist do the same with their verses so don't be so hard on the word of faith theology

Already answered in #283.

See also #278, Arguments 9, 10, and 23.

and Jeremiah 18 “if that nation repents, I will relent”

open theism uses “if that nation repents, I will relent” as prophecy is not settled

See #278, Arguments 16 and 17.

once you say "they did not repent" may or may not be true you're off the reservation

I did not say that.

See #278, Argument 15.

you are saying the whole book of Revelation may or may not be true

False.

See #278, Arguments 16 and 17.

You have repeated the claims without identifying an error in any of the answers.

true

(Matthew 10:29) “Two sparrows are sold for a penny, aren't they? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father's permission.

God is keeping track of an estimated 50 Billion birds today but couldn't keep track of the only two people on the earth

(@Idolater as well)

Read the passage in context.

Matthew 10 begins:

“And when He had called His twelve disciples to Him...”

Then:

“These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them...”

Jesus is speaking directly to the twelve disciples He is sending out. He warns them about persecution and tells them not to fear:

“Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.”

Jesus is assuring His twelve disciples of their Father’s care for them.

He uses two sparrows as His illustration. Grammatically, “one of them” refers to those two sparrows. The illustration expresses God’s general care for sparrows, but your claim about God continuously tracking an estimated fifty billion birds is something you imported into the passage.

Likewise, the “your” in “the very hairs of your head are all numbered” directly addresses the twelve disciples. Their hairs are numbered. The text does not say that their hairs were eternally foreknown, much less that God therefore possesses exhaustive knowledge of everything presently happening everywhere.

The Greek also does not contain the words “permission” or “will.” It says that one of the sparrows will not fall “apart from your Father.”

Even if the passage means that God knows whenever any sparrow falls, knowledge of that particular class of events does not logically entail exhaustive knowledge of every present fact.

Finally, I have never claimed that God could not keep track of Adam and Eve.

See #278, Arguments 6 and 23.

You are once again attacking an interpretation I explicitly rejected.

 

[way 2 go]

You have created a caricature of Open Theism, and have not identified any instance of eisegesis. You have merely applied the label to interpretations you dislike.

well now I understand open theism eisegesis takes a few favorite verses Genesis 22:12 “Now I know ”

open theism uses "now I know" , can only be interpreted as God doesn't know the future which = not settled

Then via eisegesis apply that to Revelation chapters 4-22 to wave them away while affirming those chapters exist but are unreliable as god doesn't know the future

special pleading via eisegesis Revelation chapters 4-22 could be wrong because god said "now I know"

Using Scripture to interpret Scripture while allowing each passage to mean what it says within its context is exegesis, way 2 go.

open theism has the same problem here : not using the rest of the bible to interpret their key verses
kenneth copeland , benny hinn etc
word of faith theology “You are gods” Psalm 82:6 / John 10:34 makes the followers of that theology think they're gods

word of faith followers filter what the rest of the bible says through those verses
and open theist do the same with their verses so don't be so hard on the word of faith theology

You begin with exhaustive foreknowledge as your controlling presupposition and reinterpret every contrary passage through it.

THAT is eisegesis.

Revelation supports exhaustive foreknowledge , open theism "affirms" (whatever that means) while denying via eisegesis Revelation chapters 4-22 using Genesis 22:12 “Now I know ” which = not settled future

Never heard of it. Doesn't matter anyways.

This is guilt by association combined with a false analogy.

not a false analogy
word of faith followers hold onto their verses Psalm 82:6 / John 10:34 like a fat kid loves candy

open theist wipe out almost an entire book of the bible because God said "now I know" but they affirm it while denying it
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

(Revelation of John 22:19) And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

You have identified no relevant similarity between Open Theism and Word of Faith theology. You have simply compared one doctrine you reject to another doctrine you reject.

just word of faith followers hold onto their verses Psalm 82:6 / John 10:34 like a fat kid loves candy
and open theism does the same no matter what the rest of scripture says

(Matthew 10:29) “Two sparrows are sold for a penny, aren't they? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father's permission.

God is keeping track of an estimated 50 Billion birds today but couldn't keep track of the only two people on the earth

Gen 3:9 "where are you"

open theism uses "where are you" as limited knowledge of the present

makes this impossible
(Matthew 12:36) But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You bore me, way 2 go. If you cannot stop repeating the same arguments over and over again, then I'm just not going to bother anymore.

Either put more effort into your thinking, or this conversation is over.

well now I understand open theism eisegesis takes a few favorite verses Genesis 22:12 “Now I know ”

open theism uses "now I know" , can only be interpreted as God doesn't know the future which = not settled

Then via eisegesis apply that to Revelation chapters 4-22 to wave them away while affirming those chapters exist but are unreliable as god doesn't know the future

special pleading via eisegesis Revelation chapters 4-22 could be wrong because god said "now I know"

See #278, Arguments 1-5, 9, and 14-17.

open theism has the same problem here : not using the rest of the bible to interpret their key verses
kenneth copeland , benny hinn etc
word of faith theology “You are gods” Psalm 82:6 / John 10:34 makes the followers of that theology think they're gods

word of faith followers filter what the rest of the bible says through those verses
and open theist do the same with their verses so don't be so hard on the word of faith theology

See #283 and #278, Arguments 9, 10, and 23.

Revelation supports exhaustive foreknowledge , open theism "affirms" (whatever that means) while denying via eisegesis Revelation chapters 4-22 using Genesis 22:12 “Now I know ” which = not settled future

See #278, Arguments 14-17.

not a false analogy
word of faith followers hold onto their verses Psalm 82:6 / John 10:34 like a fat kid loves candy

open theist wipe out almost an entire book of the bible because God said "now I know" but they affirm it while denying it
¯_(ツ)_/¯

(Revelation of John 22:19) And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

just word of faith followers hold onto their verses Psalm 82:6 / John 10:34 like a fat kid loves candy
and open theism does the same no matter what the rest of scripture says

See #283 and #278, Arguments 9, 10, 15, 16, and 23.

(Matthew 10:29) “Two sparrows are sold for a penny, aren't they? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father's permission.

God is keeping track of an estimated 50 Billion birds today but couldn't keep track of the only two people on the earth

Gen 3:9 "where are you"

open theism uses "where are you" as limited knowledge of the present

See #293 and #278, Arguments 6 and 23.

makes this impossible
(Matthew 12:36) But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

Only if you assume that God has no alternative means of gathering information.

Matthew 12:36 says that men will give an account for the words they have spoken. It does not say that God personally witnessed every word when it was spoken, much less that He eternally foreknew it.

Scripture shows God using created agents, including angels, to observe, investigate, report, and preserve information. It also describes records being kept and books being opened at judgment.

Even where no angel witnessed an action, men cannot conceal it from God. He can search their hearts and discover their thoughts, intentions, and the truth about what they have done.

God can therefore establish or reconstruct every fact necessary for righteous judgment. Nothing a man has done is beyond His ability to discover merely because He did not directly witness it when it happened.

None of that requires exhaustive present knowledge.

See #278, Arguments 7, 11, and 14.

 

[Idolater]

If you read the passages about how God knows things, it becomes more clear. God "searches" our hearts to see if there is any wicked way in us. He "numbers" (counts) the hairs of our heads. If these passages mean what they seem to say, then God acquires information that He didn't have before. God "tested" Abraham in order to know something. God went down to Sodom to see if the report about them was true. There are two ways to take these passages.
1. That God's knowledge never increases, and therefore He already knew our hearts, our hairs, Abraham's faithfulness with his only son, and the full extent of Sodom's wickedness. In this case the bible passages are giving a fake view of God, because they mean exactly the opposite of what they say on the surface.
2. That God's knowledge increases as there is more information available, and God uses His senses (whatever "senses" are like for a spirit) to gather information. In this case, the passages are easy to understand, but what it tells us is in conflict with what we believe about God, which is #1: that God's knowledge never increases.

How do we know which one is correct? Don't we search the scriptures to see which one is true? If so, then the scriptures which say God's knowledge increases are equally important as the ones that say God has always known everything that will ever happen.

But the funny thing is that there are absolutely no scriptures that say God has always known everything that will ever happen. So if there are some scriptures that say God's knowledge increases and no scriptures that say His knowledge is static, which position should we choose?

The answer seems obvious to me.

Maybe angels bridge the gap. It doesn't make any sense that God can have intimate knowledge at all times of 50 billion swallows, but not know what's going on with Adam and Eve, Abraham, and Sodom. Or why His vineyard's growing wild grapes. It doesn't make any sense.

So if instead, there are so many angels that they saturate space and time, they act as God's eyepieces, so that He never irresponsibly, like an irresponsible landlord, or an irresponsible ship's captain, misses something in the discharge of His duty (a passion project, since ofc nothing can impose a duty on God!) which leads to injustice, then perhaps we can have our cake and eat it too.

Do you find the following Scriptures literal, or figurative, metaphorical, symbolic, etc.?

$$ Ps 139:4
For [there is] not a word in my tongue, [but], lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.

$$ Ps 139:7
Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
$$ Ps 139:8
If I ascend up into heaven, thou [art] there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou [art there].

$$ Ps 139:11
If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.
$$ Ps 139:12
Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light [are] both alike [to thee].

$$ Ps 139:16
Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all [my members] were written, [which] in continuance were fashioned, when [as yet there was] none of them.

$$ Ps 139:18
[If] I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee.

$$ Ps 139:19
Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men.
$$ Ps 139:20
For they speak against thee wickedly, [and] thine enemies take [thy name] in vain.

$$ Ps 139:22
I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.
$$ Ps 139:23
Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
$$ Ps 139:24
And see if [there be any] wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

I'm curious your interpretation of these verses, if you take them literally. If you don't take them literally, then maybe the presence of a diluvian population of angels can help to explain the prima facie disagreeing inferences we make from different sets of verses, such that, angels, as God's agents, as His 'tentacles' almost, are everywhere, and could report to God everything they see, but God doesn't as a matter of course always inquire of angels what's happening in every last case, unless it's 50 billion swallows, in which case He wants to know up-to-the-moment information on every last one of them.

I'm joking. It's not, I don't think, impossible on its face, that we might be surrounded by an engulfing host of angels at all times, so that exhaustive knowledge is always possible, not directly, but through a network of angels, to God, and, that He doesn't as a rule, necessarily utilize this surveillance network all the time and in every case. He certainly doesn't need to, if He doesn't want to. There is no duty imposed on Him.