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?

 

[Idolater]

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

This is basically my position and why I am not an Open theist, because you and I can successfully predict what people will do, and we certainly aren't limiting their free choice. Surely God is even more successful at predictions. The same logic must hold. The movie The Game with Sean Penn and Michael Douglas depicts a scenario where prediction is very advanced.

 

[JudgeRightly]

15
this would be presupposition :The vision itself portrays what might happen in actual history if the relevant circumstances do not change.

Already answered. See #278, Arguments 15-17 and 23.

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

The Revelation claim is already answered. See #278, Arguments 15-17 and 23.

God did not make a mistake concerning Hezekiah.

God announced what He intended to do. Hezekiah prayed, God heard him, and God changed what He intended to do by adding fifteen years to his life.

Changing an intention in response to prayer is not making an intellectual error.

Your treatment of Jonah fails for the same reason.

Jonah 4:2 does not say Jonah knew Nineveh would not be destroyed. It says Jonah knew that God was gracious, merciful, and willing to relent from judgment.

Jonah knew that God might spare Nineveh if they repented. He did not infallibly know that they would repent or that God would spare them.

That is confirmed by Jonah 4:5:

“Jonah went out of the city and sat on the east side of the city. There he made himself a shelter and sat under it in the shade, till he might see what would become of the city.”

If Jonah already knew the outcome, there was nothing left for him to wait and see.

You have confused Jonah’s expectation based upon God’s character with infallible foreknowledge of Nineveh’s response.

17
this would be presupposition : He may know

Already answered. See #278, Argument 17.

and you don't even acknowledge he knows all current things

Correct. I do not affirm exhaustive present knowledge merely because you assert it.

Your proof texts for that doctrine have already been answered. See #299, Arguments 24-28.

(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 the 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

Already answered. See #299, Argument 27.

You have repeated the verses without answering 1 John 2:20, Proverbs 28:5, or 2 Samuel 14:20, all of which use the same kind of “all things” language concerning men.

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 .

Already answered. See #278, Arguments 18-20.

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

Already answered. See #278, Arguments 15-17 and 23.

1 you are assuming its not

Already answered. See #278, Arguments 15-17 and 23.

2 who is responsible

Already answered. See #278, Arguments 18-20.

3 (Revelation of John 22:13) I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last

And?

That verse identifies who Christ is. It says nothing about exhaustive infallible foreknowledge of every future free choice.

Your argument appears to be:

Christ is the Alpha and the Omega.

Therefore, Christ infallibly knows every future free choice.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Quoting another title of Christ without explaining how it establishes your claim is not an argument.

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

Already answered. See #278, Arguments 6-8. See also #310.

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.

Already answered. See #278, Arguments 7 and 8. See also #310.

(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.

Already answered. See #295 and #299, Argument 28.

(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.

Already answered. See #299, Argument 25. See also #310.

open theism presupposition God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge

Already answered. See #278, Arguments 9, 10, and 23.

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

Already addressed in #308 and #310.

(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

Already addressed in #308 and #310.

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 .

Already addressed in #308 and #310.

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

Already answered. See #278, Arguments 6 and 23; #293; and #299, Argument 25. See also #310.

Gen18 go down and see

Already answered. See #278, Arguments 6-8. See also #310.

Gen 13:13

Already answered. See #278, Arguments 7 and 8. See also #310.

Jer 23:24

Already answered. See #299, Argument 25. See also #310.

Gen 22:12 know you fear God, already feared God

Already answered. See #278, Arguments 1-5. See also #310.

Gen 20:11

Already addressed in #310.

Gen15:1

Already addressed in #310.

Gen 18:19

Already addressed in #310.

 

[JudgeRightly]

This is basically my position and why I am not an Open theist, because you and I can successfully predict what people will do, and we certainly aren't limiting their free choice.

That's my point.

Exhaustive infallible foreknowledge is not necessary to make predictions, including highly accurate ones.

My prediction about way 2 go was based upon his established behavior. I expected him to repeat himself, and I was correct.

But I could have been wrong. He remained capable of doing otherwise.

That's why my prediction did not settle his choice.

Surely God is even more successful at predictions. The same logic must hold.

God is vastly better at prediction than we are. He knows people intimately, understands every relevant circumstance, and can anticipate what they are likely to do with extraordinary accuracy.

But greater accuracy is not the same thing as infallibility.

A prediction, however well founded, leaves the contrary possible.

Infallible foreknowledge does not. If God infallibly knows that a man will choose A, then the man cannot choose not-A without making God’s knowledge false.

So the same logic does not hold. You have changed a difference in degree into a difference in kind.

Scripture also contains many examples in which God expected one outcome while another remained genuinely possible, and the other outcome occurred.

God even gives prophecies of judgment hoping that the threatened outcome will not occur. They are warnings intended to provoke repentance so that He will not have to carry out the judgment.

See:

Open Theism Bible Verses in 33 Categories | Open Theism

opentheism.org

Categories 1, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 29, 31, 32, and 33.

The movie The Game with Sean Penn and Michael Douglas depicts a scenario where prediction is very advanced.

A fictional story can depict prediction as being as advanced as its author wishes. The author controls the characters, circumstances, and outcome.

That does not demonstrate that infallible foreknowledge and genuine alternate possibilities can coexist in reality.

We are not characters following a completed script.

We are free moral agents who can choose among genuinely possible paths, including paths God does not want and outcomes He does not expect.

Accurate prediction is entirely compatible with that freedom.

Infallible knowledge of one unavoidable outcome is not.