Question Concerning The Plot

[godrulz]

Great points, Nineveh.

Also consider 2 Chronicles 2:9.

"For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth to show Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is loyal to Him."

This suggests that God looks for hearts that are loyal to Him.

This is knowable knowledge. Our view of omniscience and omnipresence means that God does continually search hearts and is continually, perfectly aware of all present and past objects of knowledge. We see that the future is not knowable since it is not here yet. I think we are getting on shaky ground to say He does not know some present knowledge exhaustively (could be a valid point of attack by our critics). I do not think He could not know someone's heart or chose to not know this. This is inherent in being an omniscient God. If it was theoretically possible, then some evil could slip under God's radar. He could theoretically miss someone repenting before they got killed, etc.

JWs seem to think that God is confined to a location and sends out angels and his impersonal radar, the holy spirit, to gather info. I think we want to avoid anything that might smells like this.

 

[Nineveh]

God chosing to not convict and draw them to mercy in favor of exercising justice does not mean He became blind or dumb.

I claimed neither, so why are you?

I would not take the idea of God coming down with a wooden literalism.

Abraham did. Fed Him even. I would also take the angels just as literally as did the men of Sodom.

Psalms says nothing can hide from His eyes that rove the earth. I take most passages literally (God changing His mind, etc.) with other OT, but this expression may be one that our critics are correct to see as anthropomorphic.

Ok, so why bring up Psalms then? Both evidences I used were from Genesis. (before the flood and Sodom)

Regardless, in the end, God does know the knowable.

We agree. [ Edit to correct] We agree in as far as He wants to know the knowable. It's not a matter of His power to do so but His desire to do or not do so.

Testing hearts to find out for sure what motives are there can still be taken literally (contrary to non- OT).

Please read my reply to Poly for my reply to this

Poly,
Good point. Thanks
It doesn't take much to get God's full attention, just a willing heart searching for Him

 

[godrulz]

I was referring to God checking in on Adam. The other Genesis was a theophany, the preincarnate Christ, the Angel of the Lord. I take this with a wooden literalism.

I still find a problem with knowing what He wants to know. He knows exhaustively all that is logically knowable. Future free will contingencies are not knowable exhaustively, logically. It seems some of you are suggesting there is present knowledge that He does not know (whether by choice or not). I understand why our critics see this as a compromise of omniscience, even beyond basic Open Theism.

 

[Nineveh]

godrulz,
Please address what I brought up about Sodom and the Flood. It appears it is merely your desire God must absolutely be witness to every evil act of man. The Bible seems to indicate otherwise.

 

[godrulz]

godrulz,
Please address what I brought up about Sodom and the Flood. It appears it is merely your desire God must absolutely be witness to every evil act of man. The Bible seems to indicate otherwise.

Did I not comment? Which post was it? I cannot find it. Was that the one I thought we should not interpret with a wooden literalism? God did come down and see. I think you are reading more into the text to assume God could be hoodwinked and not see if He did not want to. There is no thought, word, or deed that the Judge of the universe does not know. This is how He judges with perfect justice and knowledge.

 

[Freak]

Freak: There are some senses that God changes, and other ways He does not change. We agree with you that God's essential character and attributes do not change.

Yes, but I believe, in light of Scripture, that His knowledge/understanding of even the future is knowable. You disagree. That's fine. This is another in house debate among believers that doesn't affect ones salvation status.

The incarnation is the ultimate example of a change within God's being.

God has always been triune and spirit. This has not changed. There are some elements within His nature that doesn't change, which I believe includes His understanding of what you would consider "unknowable." What mere humans consider unknowable isn't unknowable to Him.

 

[Freak]

JWs seem to think that God is confined to a location and sends out angels and his impersonal radar, the holy spirit, to gather info. I think we want to avoid anything that might smells like this.

Yep. Nineveh is bordering on the abusrd in understanding the omnipresence of God and God's understanding of the hearts of men. Her beliefs align closer to come cults that I know of.

 

[Freak]

I don't really see it as a problem. In fact I think it helps the OV view. It helps to stress that God does not do the absurd.

Absurd in whose eyes?

 

[Nineveh]

Did I not comment?

Well, yes, but obviously about every thing but what I said.

Which post was it? I cannot find it.

Post 98.

Was that the one I thought we should not interpret with a wooden literalism?

If it is, I'd sure like to know how you take the Flood and Sodom any other way.

God did come down and see. I think you are reading more into the text to assume God could be hoodwinked and not see if He did not want to.

It's hard to ignore the events as they transpired. Out of curiosity though, if He knew and was witness to all these events, was He lying when He said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

There is no thought, word, or deed that the Judge of the universe does not know. This is how He judges with perfect justice and knowledge.

I totally agree. However I think where we differ is how He knows. Like I said before, and perhaps you missed post 102 as well, but It's not an issue of His power or ability. It's an issue of not wanting to bear witness to every evil act of man. Didn't God deligate authority? Why be so adamant His angels aren't capable? They were at Sodom.

 

[godrulz]

Yes, but I believe, in light of Scripture, that His knowledge/understanding of even the future is knowable. You disagree. That's fine. This is another in house debate among believers that doesn't affect ones salvation status.

God has always been triune and spirit. This has not changed. There are some elements within His nature that doesn't change, which I believe includes His understanding of what you would consider "unknowable." What mere humans consider unknowable isn't unknowable to Him.

Jesus, the Word, was not always flesh. He became flesh (Jn. 1:1, 14). The preexistent Christ changed to the God-Man, the man Christ Jesus (Paul in Timothy called Him this after the resurrection). God was still spirit and triune, but the Word now took on flesh (Phil. 2). The is clearly a change in the Godhead. Immutability is not absolute in every sense.

 

[godrulz]

Ninevah: God's omnipresence means there is no place hidden from His awareness and influence, among other things. Omniscience means He knows whatever is logically knowable. The contingent future is not knowable exhaustively without determinism. There is no need to question God's absolute awareness and knowledge of the past and present exhaustively. Few Open Theists add your clauses and would consider it a compromise of Open Theism. The closed theists have even more problem. It is bad enough for them to think future knowledge is not knowable. It is even worse to think His presence and knowledge is limited in relation to existing reality.

 

[Nineveh]

godrulz,
Ok, I won't ask you to reply to my post on this topic again, thanks for ignoring me

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Ninevah: God's omnipresence means there is no place hidden from His awareness and influence, among other things. Omniscience means He knows whatever is logically knowable. The contingent future is not knowable exhaustively without determinism. There is no need to question God's absolute awareness and knowledge of the past and present exhaustively. Few Open Theists add your clauses and would consider it a compromise of Open Theism. The closed theists have even more problem. It is bad enough for them to think future knowledge is not knowable. It is even worse to think His presence and knowledge is limited in relation to existing reality.

I think the reason the argument is valid is two fold:

A. The biblical material (Nineveh's examples)
B. The idea that God is in control of His faculties and not that God's faculties are in control of Him.

However, this being said, I don't think I am prepared to be dogmatic on this issue either way. I think the larger issue (God's knowledge of future events) is far more important.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

You disagree. That's fine. This is another in house debate among believers that doesn't affect ones salvation status.

So then why would your next post be so overdramatic . . .

Yep. Nineveh is bordering on the abusrd in understanding the omnipresence of God and God's understanding of the hearts of men. Her beliefs align closer to come cults that I know of.

:down:

 

[chance]

Consider these enlightening passages that tell us about God's knowledge freak:

2 Chronicles 32:31 However, [regarding] the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon, whom they sent to him to inquire about the wonder that was [done] in the land, God withdrew from him [Hezekiah], in order to test him, that He might know all [that was] in his heart.

Jeremiah 3:7 "I [God] thought, `After she has done all these things she will return to Me'; but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it.

Isaiah 5:1-4 Now let me sing to my Well-beloved A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard: My Well-beloved has a vineyard On a very fruitful hill. 2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, And also made a winepress in it; So He expected [it] to bring forth [good] grapes, But it brought forth wild grapes. 3 " And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard. 4 What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected [it] to bring forth [good] grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?

What do these passages tell us about God's knowledge freak?