Honest struggles on God’s omniscience.

[JudgeRightly]

Are you kidding? Did you not read his last 2 posts at all?

No, all he can do is repeat himself, and maybe bring up a new favorite-prooftext or two when he remembers it. He is incapable of responding to anything beyond what he's been brainwashed indoctrinated into believing, and will stubbornly cling to it probably until the day he dies. He will never move an inch off his position.

See, I know the future too! I'm clearly not God. I clearly don't have exhaustive divine foreknowledge, so how do I know these things? Because way 2 go has done nothing but repeat himself for the last however many pages. What little that's new that he's brought up is hardly worth responding to, except to catalogue in a reference post so that I don't have to respond to it again, due to how simple of an argument it is.

But here's hoping, as God did for the Israelites, that he changes his ways.

 

[Clete]

No, all he can do is repeat himself, and maybe bring up a new favorite-prooftext or two when he remembers it. He is incapable of responding to anything beyond what he's been brainwashed indoctrinated into believing, and will stubbornly cling to it probably until the day he dies. He will never move an inch off his position.

See, I know the future too! I'm clearly not God. I clearly don't have exhaustive divine foreknowledge, so how do I know these things? Because way 2 go has done nothing but repeat himself for the last however many pages. What little that's new that he's brought up is hardly worth responding to, except to catalogue in a reference post so that I don't have to respond to it again, due to how simple of an argument it is.

But here's hoping, as God did for the Israelites, that he changes his ways.

Perfect!

 

[Idolater]

... I clearly don't have exhaustive divine foreknowledge, so how do I know these things? Because way 2 go has done nothing but repeat himself for the last however many pages. ...

I don't understand. This is the same logic that I have used since I started at TOL in no later then 1999 to defend God's foreknowledge of human free choices. I brought up the movie The Game right away, back in 1999, when I first encountered one of the first manifestations of Sozo here, I brought up the movie to him, he approved of the movie, but didn't see the point I was making.

obv @way 2 go is free to choose whatever argument he wishes, you obv have no control over what he's going to choose, but you do know what he's going to do, and this doesn't make him not free by virtue of you knowing what he's going to do, but somehow Open theists always want to say that God's foreknowledge does conflict with human freedom.

I do not understand how you can say the above with a straight face.

 

[Derf]

I don't understand. This is the same logic that I have used since I started at TOL in no later then 1999 to defend God's foreknowledge of human free choices. I brought up the movie The Game right away, back in 1999, when I first encountered one of the first manifestations of Sozo here, I brought up the movie to him, he approved of the movie, but didn't see the point I was making.

obv @way 2 go is free to choose whatever argument he wishes, you obv have no control over what he's going to choose, but you do know what he's going to do, and this doesn't make him not free by virtue of you knowing what he's going to do, but somehow Open theists always want to say that God's foreknowledge does conflict with human freedom.

It is unlikely that he will change his mind, but he could. Repentance (change of direction, not turning from sin) is possible, but based on a few factors, it is unlikely in @way 2 go’s case. He isn’t currently addressing even the arguments presented, so how would he be convinced by them? Repentance (turning from sin) is possible for those in his Revelation passage, but unlikely based on a few factors, like previous, continual rejection of the gospel. That’s essentially how these people are defined, having already resisted the truth to this point, so a little more hardship is unlikely to change anything.

 

[way 2 go]

I don't understand. This is the same logic that I have used since I started at TOL in no later then 1999 to defend God's foreknowledge of human free choices. I brought up the movie The Game right away, back in 1999, when I first encountered one of the first manifestations of Sozo here, I brought up the movie to him, he approved of the movie, but didn't see the point I was making.

obv @way 2 go is free to choose whatever argument he wishes, you obv have no control over what he's going to choose, but you do know what he's going to do, and this doesn't make him not free by virtue of you knowing what he's going to do, but somehow Open theists always want to say that God's foreknowledge does conflict with human freedom.

I do not understand how you can say the above with a straight face.

"Open theists always want to say that God's foreknowledge does conflict with human freedom" if he had it ,
with the "Rev 9:20-21 they did not repent" which is clearly foreknowledge the open theist applies their presupposition of God has no foreknowledge and viola no proof text for you therefore no conflict with open theism

 

[JudgeRightly]

"Open theists always want to say that God's foreknowledge does conflict with human freedom" if he had it ,

with the "Rev 9:20-21 they did not repent" which is clearly foreknowledge the open theist applies their presupposition of God has no foreknowledge and viola no proof text for you therefore no conflict with open theism

And there it is.

I predicted that you would repeat Revelation 9:20-21 instead of addressing the answers already given, and you immediately did exactly that.

Yet you could have done otherwise. You could have addressed Arguments 15-20 in #278. You could have answered Derf’s distinction between what is unlikely and what is impossible. You simply chose not to.

That is why my prediction was not infallible foreknowledge. It was a well-founded expectation based upon your established behavior.

As for Revelation:

“Clearly foreknowledge” is an assertion, not an argument.

I have already explained that the men literally did not repent within the vision. What you have not demonstrated is that every event portrayed within the vision was already an immutable fact of actual future history.

Calling my conclusion a “presupposition” does not answer the reasoning that produced it.

You are assuming:

1. Everything portrayed in the vision is an immutable transcript of actual future history.
2. Therefore, the men’s failure to repent was already an immutable future fact.
3. Therefore, Revelation proves exhaustive infallible foreknowledge.

Premise 1 is the very point in dispute.

See #278, Arguments 15-20.

Thank you for proving my prediction correct while simultaneously demonstrating that a correct prediction does not eliminate the possibility of doing otherwise.

 

[way 2 go]

And there it is.

I predicted that you would repeat Revelation 9:20-21 instead of addressing the answers already given, and you immediately did exactly that.

Yet you could have done otherwise. You could have addressed Arguments 15-20 in #278. You could have answered Derf’s distinction between what is unlikely and what is impossible. You simply chose not to.

That is why my prediction was not infallible foreknowledge. It was a well-founded expectation based upon your established behavior.

15
this would be presupposition :The vision itself portrays what might happen in actual history if the relevant circumstances do not change.
16
this would be presupposition : the vision was not intended as an infallible recording of unalterable future history ( i added "not" as that is the open theist view )
so Hezekiah to a classic theist is used as a story as to why God might not heal , what do open theist use it for , God makes mistakes
Jonah knew Nineveh would not be destroyed which is why he didn't want to go 4:2 I assert God must have known too
17
this would be presupposition : He may know
and you don't even acknowledge he knows all current things

(John 21:17) He said to him the third time, Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me? Peter was grieved because He said to him a third time , Do you love Me? And he said to Him, Lord, You know all things, You know that I love You. Jesus said to him, Feed My sheep.

(I John 3:20) For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things

18&19&20
if God infallibly knows their choice of "they did not repent" who is responsible for "they did not repent" God or the unrepentant
open theist don't believe in foreknowledge , so open theist deny a mechanism ,they say it is necessary but not who is responsible thus avoiding the modal fallacy .

As for Revelation:

“Clearly foreknowledge” is an assertion, not an argument.

I have already explained that the men literally did not repent within the vision. What you have not demonstrated is that every event portrayed within the vision was already an immutable fact of actual future history.

Calling my conclusion a “presupposition” does not answer the reasoning that produced it.

but it is by the open theism presupposition that Revelation 9:20-21 is waved away

You are assuming:

1. Everything portrayed in the vision is an immutable transcript of actual future history.
2. Therefore, the men’s failure to repent was already an immutable future fact.
3. Therefore, Revelation proves exhaustive infallible foreknowledge.

Premise 1 is the very point in dispute.

See #278, Arguments 15-20.

Thank you for proving my prediction correct while simultaneously demonstrating that a correct prediction does not eliminate the possibility of doing otherwise.

1 you are assuming its not
2 who is responsible
3 (Revelation of John 22:13) I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last

 

[Clete]

"Open theists always want to say that God's foreknowledge does conflict with human freedom" if he had it ,
with the "Rev 9:20-21 they did not repent" which is clearly foreknowledge the open theist applies their presupposition of God has no foreknowledge and viola no proof text for you therefore no conflict with open theism

Classical theists always want to say that God's knowledge is exhaustive and immutable. But when they come to Genesis 18:21, 'I will go down now and see....and if not, I will know', which is clearly a statement that God does not already possess sort of omniscience that Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine attributed to Him, the classical theist simply applies his presupposition that God already knows everything exhaustively and voilà! No proof text for you, and therefore no conflict with classical theism.

Classical theists always want to say God possesses exhaustive, settled knowledge of every fact. But when they read Jeremiah 3:7, 'I thought, After she has done all this she will return to Me, but she did not return', which plainly depicts God expecting one outcome but another occurring, they simply apply their presupposition that God does have exhaustive foreknowledge and that therefore the passage couldn't possibly mean what He says. Voilà! No proof text for you, and therefore no conflict with classical theism.

Classical theists always want to say that God cannot change His mind. But when they come to Exodus 32:14, 'So the LORD repented from the disaster which He said He would bring upon His people,' which is clearly teaches that God does change His mind, the classical theist simply applies his presupposition that God never actually changes His mind. Voilà! No proof text for you, and therefore no conflict with classical theism.

 

[way 2 go]

Classical theists always want to say that God's knowledge is exhaustive and immutable. But when they come to Genesis 18:21, 'I will go down now and see....and if not, I will know', which is clearly a statement that God does not already possess sort of omniscience that Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine attributed to Him, the classical theist simply applies his presupposition that God already knows everything exhaustively and voilà! No proof text for you, and therefore no conflict with classical theism.

this to open theism is fact , God did not know
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


this to open theism is God knew but didn't know
(Genesis 13:13) But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD, exceedingly so.

(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.
(Jeremiah 23:23-24) [23] Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off? [24] Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.

Classical theists always want to say God possesses exhaustive, settled knowledge of every fact. But when they read Jeremiah 3:7, 'I thought, After she has done all this she will return to Me, but she did not return', which plainly depicts God expecting one outcome but another occurring, they simply apply their presupposition that God does have exhaustive foreknowledge and that therefore the passage couldn't possibly mean what He says. Voilà! No proof text for you, and therefore no conflict with classical theism.

open theism presupposition God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge

mkjv(Jeremiah 3:7) And I said after she had done all these things , Turn to Me! But she did not return. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it

Classical theists always want to say that God cannot change His mind. But when they come to Exodus 32:14, 'So the LORD repented from the disaster which He said He would bring upon His people,' which is clearly teaches that God does change His mind, the classical theist simply applies his presupposition that God never actually changes His mind. Voilà! No proof text for you, and therefore no conflict with classical theism.

(Exodus 32:13 [MKJV]) Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give to your seed, and they shall inherit it forever


did God change his mind ?
or did God give Moses , the shepherd of his people , an opportunity for intercession , God could have kept it to himself .

I find examples from open theist to be just that , opportunities for interaction not for God to gain knowledge.
Gen 3:9 where are you? Jer 23:24
Gen18 go down and see Gen 13:13 Jer 23:24
Gen 22:12 know you fear God , already feared God Gen 20:11 Gen15:1 Gen 18:19

 

[Derf]

this to open theism is fact , God did not know
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

Yes, that's correct. Open Theism thinks that "I will go down now and see" and "if not, I will know" means that God did not have some information that later He would have. God is an Open Theist.

this to open theism is God knew but didn't know
(Genesis 13:13) But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD, exceedingly so.

God knew something, but He didn't know something else. There is disagreement among Open Theists about what it was God didn't know, but the text indicates that God (who was talking in Gen 18:21) was telling the truth about Himself, indicating that there was something He was going to find out--because He didn't know. You write this as if it is surprising to you, but that's the most straightforward reading of the text. If you have a different reading of the text that you think is more accurate, please share it with us.

What do you think God meant when He said, "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"?

(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.

This does not say God currently knows everything men shall speak. Do you think it does say that?

(Jeremiah 23:23-24) [23] Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off? [24] Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.

This does not say God already knew everything everyone will ever do at the foundation of the world. Instead it says that God gathers information by "seeing". Are you suggesting that it means something else? Please tell us what you think it means when it says that God sees.

open theism presupposition God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge

No, not a presupposition. The presupposition is that When God tells us something about Himself, it is accurate. When He says that He sees what men do in secret places, we believe that it means "God sees what men do in secret places." You don't need to see something in a secret place when you already have foreknowledge about it.

mkjv(Jeremiah 3:7) And I said after she had done all these things , Turn to Me! But she did not return. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it

Did something get cut off in your post? Please add it back in if you want to talk about it. I don't see how your quote from Jeremiah 3:7 helps your position.

(Exodus 32:13 [MKJV]) Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give to your seed, and they shall inherit it forever


did God change his mind ?
or did God give Moses , the shepherd of his people , an opportunity for intercession , God could have kept it to himself .

Of course God gave Moses a chance for intercession. But if God had decided to start over with Moses, He would still have been faithful to Abraham, Isaac, and Israel (Jacob), because Moses was descended from them. The two things are not exclusive of each other.

I find examples from open theist to be just that , opportunities for interaction not for God to gain knowledge.

These passages are opportunities for interaction, indeed. But that doesn't mean they aren't also texts that tell us something about God.

Gen 3:9 where are you?

This one doesn't require that God not know where Adam is to ask the question. It is a weak Open Theism proof text. But Just because it is an opportunity for interaction doesn't mean one way or the other whether God already knew where Adam was. It is equally weak for exhaustive foreknowledge.

Jer 23:24
Gen18 go down and see Gen 13:13 Jer 23:24

Jeremiah 23:24 KJV - Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.
This is the opposite of a proof text for exhaustive foreknowledge. The text reads that God gathers information. It is an excellent proof text for Open Theism.

Gen 22:12 know you fear God , already feared God Gen 20:11 Gen15:1 Gen 18:19

Is it possible for a man to fear God at one point in his life and not fear God later in life? Or to fear God with regard to one part of his life (possessions or marriage or other) and not fear God with regard to another (children, perhaps)? I am not worried about my past--God has forgiven me from all of my past sins. Should I be worried about my future sins? Depends on how far from Him I stray. He might need to chasten me with illness or even death.

Even though Abraham had shown God that he was faithful in the past things, like leaving Ur to go to Canaan, or going after the kings that took Lot captive, or being willing to stay in the less pleasant parts of the land when Lot chose the greener pastures, but was he willing to give up his only son to God's hand? God doesn't test us to find out what He already knows, but to find out ("learn") what He doesn't know already.
Genesis 22:12 KJV - And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me.
God is telling Abraham something about Himself, that He has gained knowledge about Abraham, when He says, "Now I know..." But you are saying that God didn't really mean what He said, that YOU know better what God meant to say than God knew.
We also learn from the tests. But that's not what the text is saying. It's about the text, and what is the message the text is relaying to us about the story. If God already knew everything about Abraham's fear of God, then the text is deceptive. And if deceptive texts are inspired by God, you seem to be saying that God is deceptive. Is that what you think?