What did you believe before Open Theism?

[JudgeRightly]

What does HIs understanding is infinite mean to you? Is it of some things or all things?

This is still eisegesis by way of leading questions.

You are not making an argument from Psalm 147:5. You are asking questions designed to smuggle your interpretation into the phrase “His understanding is infinite.”

The verse says God’s understanding is infinite. Amen. I affirm that.

But you are defining “all things” to include every future free act as an already-settled fact. That is the very point you need to prove, not something you get to assume.

God understands all reality perfectly. If a future free act is not yet a settled reality, then God understands it perfectly as what it is: a real possibility, not a settled certainty.

So again, Psalm 147:5 teaches God’s infinite understanding. It does not teach that every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens.

 

[Bright Raven]

This is still eisegesis by way of leading questions.

You are not making an argument from Psalm 147:5. You are asking questions designed to smuggle your interpretation into the phrase “His understanding is infinite.”

The verse says God’s understanding is infinite. Amen. I affirm that.

But you are defining “all things” to include every future free act as an already-settled fact. That is the very point you need to prove, not something you get to assume.

God understands all reality perfectly. If a future free act is not yet a settled reality, then God understands it perfectly as what it is: a real possibility, not a settled certainty.

So again, Psalm 147:5 teaches God’s infinite understanding. It does not teach that every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens.

Would you agree with what Norman L. Geisler has to say in defining Omniscience: From Systematic Theology in one Volume.

Definition of Omniscience

Historically,, the omniscience of God was a straightforward doctrine. God knows everything- Past, Present and Future; He knows the actual and the possible: only the impossible (the contradictory) is outside the knowledge of God. The contemporary debate, however,has changed the theological landscape on this doctrine. God's unlimited knowledge is now allegedly limited. His all-knowing is no longer the knowing of all. If we adhere to this, we are left with the oxymoronic view of limited omniscience. The attack on traditional omniscience has come from both outside and inside evangelicalism.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Would you agree with what Norman L. Geisler has to say in defining Omniscience: From Systematic Theology in one Volume.

Definition of Omniscience

Historically,, the omniscience of God was a straightforward doctrine. God knows everything- Past, Present and Future; He knows the actual and the possible: only the impossible (the contradictory) is outside the knowledge of God. The contemporary debate, however,has changed the theological landscape on this doctrine. God's unlimited knowledge is now allegedly limited. His all-knowing is no longer the knowing of all. If we adhere to this, we are left with the oxymoronic view of limited omniscience. The attack on traditional omniscience has come from both outside and inside evangelicalism.

No, I would not agree with Geisler’s definition as stated.

And notice what you just did again. You still have not made the biblical argument. You moved from GotQuestions, to Merriam-Webster, to Norman Geisler.

Geisler defining omniscience as knowledge of “past, present, and future” does not prove that every future free act already exists as a settled fact. It just restates the traditional position.

The question is still the same: does Scripture teach that the future is exhaustively settled before anyone acts?

Also, Geisler’s own statement admits that God knows “the actual and the possible.” That is much closer to the real issue than you seem to realize. Open Theism says future free acts are not yet actualities. They are possibilities until the agents choose. So God knows them as possibilities, not as settled actualities.

Calling that “limited omniscience” only works if you assume Geisler’s definition from the start. But that definition is the very point under dispute.

So no, I do not accept Geisler as the standard. Scripture is the standard.

Show the doctrine from Scripture.

 

[Bright Raven]

No, I would not agree with Geisler’s definition as stated.

And notice what you just did again. You still have not made the biblical argument. You moved from GotQuestions, to Merriam-Webster, to Norman Geisler.

Geisler defining omniscience as knowledge of “past, present, and future” does not prove that every future free act already exists as a settled fact. It just restates the traditional position.

The question is still the same: does Scripture teach that the future is exhaustively settled before anyone acts?

Also, Geisler’s own statement admits that God knows “the actual and the possible.” That is much closer to the real issue than you seem to realize. Open Theism says future free acts are not yet actualities. They are possibilities until the agents choose. So God knows them as possibilities, not as settled actualities.

Calling that “limited omniscience” only works if you assume Geisler’s definition from the start. But that definition is the very point under dispute.

So no, I do not accept Geisler as the standard. Scripture is the standard.

Show the doctrine from Scripture.

If you don't accept Geisler, you probably won't accept anyone who's correct theology opposes yours. I don't think you believe omniscience to scriptural anyway. It has already been shown to you and you don't believe, From where do you define omniscience.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If you don't accept Geisler,

I couldn't care less what Geisler says.
Geisler is not Scripture, nor does he have the authority of Scripture.

you probably won't accept anyone

I'm willing to be corrected. But you haven't demonstrated that I'm wrong. You've only asserted that I am wrong.

who's correct theology opposes yours.

You don't get to simply declare your theology “correct” and then accuse me of rejecting correction when I reject your unsupported assertion.

That's not an argument.

I don't think you believe omniscience to scriptural anyway.

You already admitted that “omniscience” is not in the Bible.

That means the concept has to be defined from Scripture, not imported into Scripture from Webster, Geisler, GotQuestions, or tradition.

It has already been shown to you

No, it has not.

You have quoted verses and then read exhaustive settled foreknowledge into them. Psalm 147:5 says God’s understanding is infinite. Amen. I affirm that.

It does not say every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens. That is your addition to the text.

and you don't believe,

I affirm the Scriptures.

I reject your interpretation of Scripture to fit your a priori theology.

From where do you define omniscience.

From Scripture.

The Bible tells us what God is like. It says God tests men, responds to men, relents, grieves, changes His declared course, and says “now I know.”

It never describes God the way your doctrine requires Him to be described.

Repeating your position over and over does not count as showing that your definition of omniscience is scriptural.

 

[Right Divider]

If you don't accept Geisler, you probably won't accept anyone who's correct theology opposes yours.

You simply claim that you're correct. It doesn't work that way.

I don't think you believe omniscience to scriptural anyway.

Not in the way that you (and others) are trying to define it.

It has already been shown to you and you don't believe,

No, you have not.

From where do you define omniscience.

We stick to the Bible for our definitions about God and His plans.

As I said before, you need to do your homework. You are making claims that you cannot support and are bashing something that you have no clue about.

 

[Nick M]

The Bible teaches belief in the total omniscience of God , do you?

No it doesn't. Read the first page of the Bible. Moses wrote it by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

According to Genesis, why did God bring the animals to Adam?

 

[Clete]

Why is it that you can't accept traditional omniscience.

First and foremost because it is neither biblical nor rational.

It isn't blasphemy.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

It is truth.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

What did you believe before the advent of Open Theism in the 1980's.

Open Theism is much older than the 1980s. That particular title for it showed up in the 80s but the doctrine is as old as the scripture itself.

And what is it that Christians have believed for 2000 years.

I don't care what Christians have believed for however long. Popularity is not a proper test for truth, particularly theological truth. If it were then we should all just drop Christianity in favor of any number of other religions that have a great many more adherents and that have existed for much longer.

Certainly not Open Theism.

You need to educate yourself about two logical fallacies, both of which you have employed in this post. Look up "Appeal to popularity" and "Appeal to antiquity". They are fallacious for good reason.

The only reason you aren't an open theist is because Augustine succeeded in importing Aristotelian dogma into Christianity in the 4th Century. Prior to that, no Jew or Christian believed that God was immutable, impassible, omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent (in the Classical sense of those terms) nor did anyone believe that everything that happens was predestined by God nor that He exists outside of time. All of that is imported from Plato.
That, by the way, is a fact of history that is not in dispute! The most strident adherents to such doctrines who know anything at all about the history of Christianity know that it is Plato that they are quoting when they tell you (wrongly) that anything perfect that changes much change for the worse. They know that these doctrines find their Genesis, not in Genesis, but in Plato's Republic and in Augustine's Confessions after that.

 

[Idolater]

1. G (Pr. Premise)
$$ Ge 2:19 [ ... out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them ... ]

The Scripture does read, "Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them"​

2. B (Rearranging 1, inserting "basically"; substituting "every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air" with "every animal", "he" with "Adam", and "them" with "the animals")

The Scripture does read basically that God brought every animal unto Adam "to see" what Adam would call the animals​

3. B→C (Pr.)

That the Scripture does read basically that God brought every animal unto Adam "to see" what Adam would call the animals, means that God brought every animal unto Adam because God was curious what Adam would call the animals​

4. ¬C→¬B (3, Contr. Contraposition)

If God was not curious what Adam would call the animals, then the Scripture would not read basically that God brought every animal unto Adam "to see" what Adam would call the animals​

5. C∨¬B (4, C.E. Conditional Exchange)

Either God was curious what Adam would call the animals, or the Scripture would not read basically that God brought every animal unto Adam "to see" what Adam would call the animals​

I disagree with Premise 3. I think that it is rhetorical that the Scripture does read basically that God brought every animal unto Adam "to see" what Adam would call the animals. I think it means God brought every animal unto Adam, for Adam to name the animals, and not because God was curious what Adam would call the animals.

 

[Derf]

1. G (Pr. Premise)
$$ Ge 2:19 [ ... out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them ... ]

The Scripture does read, "Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them"​

2. B (Rearranging 1, inserting "basically"; substituting "every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air" with "every animal", "he" with "Adam", and "them" with "the animals")

The Scripture does read basically that God brought every animal unto Adam "to see" what Adam would call the animals​

3. B→C (Pr.)

That the Scripture does read basically that God brought every animal unto Adam "to see" what Adam would call the animals, means that God brought every animal unto Adam because God was curious what Adam would call the animals​

4. ¬C→¬B (3, Contr. Contraposition)

If God was not curious what Adam would call the animals, then the Scripture would not read basically that God brought every animal unto Adam "to see" what Adam would call the animals​

5. C∨¬B (4, C.E. Conditional Exchange)

Either God was curious what Adam would call the animals, or the Scripture would not read basically that God brought every animal unto Adam "to see" what Adam would call the animals​

I disagree with Premise 3. I think that it is rhetorical that the Scripture does read basically that God brought every animal unto Adam "to see" what Adam would call the animals. I think it means God brought every animal unto Adam, for Adam to name the animals, and not because God was curious what Adam would call the animals.

What then do you think scripture is trying to say when it says God wanted to see what Adam would call the animals? Obviously it was to name them, but why did God want to see what he would name them? It seems like you are ignoring that ine part, or saying it means the opposite of what it says--that God already knew what Adam would call the animals?

 

[Idolater]

What then do you think scripture is trying to say when it says God wanted to see what Adam would call the animals? Obviously it was to name them, but why did God want to see what he would name them? It seems like you are ignoring that ine part, or saying it means the opposite of what it says--that God already knew what Adam would call the animals?

I don't think "to see" in Genesis 2:19 had anything to do at all about God's foreknowledge—I think it was rhetorical.

 

[Right Divider]

I don't think "to see" in Genesis 2:19 had anything to do at all about God's foreknowledge—I think it was rhetorical.

This is the method used by those that want to make the scripture agree with their philosophy,
Anything that doesn't agree with their philosophy must be rhetorical or symbolic or figurative or etc etc etc
It's so easy to wave the magic wand.

 

[Derf]

I don't think "to see" in Genesis 2:19 had anything to do at all about God's foreknowledge—I think it was rhetorical.

Meaning that the verse doesn't really mean what it seems to say, right?
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof. [Gen 2:19 KJV]
Can you rewrite the verse to deliver the meaning you think it has?
For instance, should it be
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof. [Gen 2:19 ISV (Idolater Standard Version)] ?

Why don't you think other parts of the verse are rhetorical? Maybe it should read like this:
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof. [Gen 2:19 ISV]
Why isn't the phrase "and brought them unto Adam" also rhetorical? Maybe "the LORD God formed" is rhetorical, too.
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof. [Gen 2:19 ISV]

If you do a search of verses with that phrase "to see what", you get 6 verses, the other 5 are here:
Wherefore I perceive that [there is] nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that [is] his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him? [Ecc 3:22 KJV]
I will stand upon my watch, and set me upon the tower, and will watch to see what he will say unto me, and what I shall answer when I am reproved. [Hab 2:1 KJV]
Then said I, Whither goest thou? And he said unto me, To measure Jerusalem, to see what [is] the breadth thereof, and what [is] the length thereof. [Zec 2:2 KJV]
And they that fed the swine fled, and told [it] in the city, and in the country. And they went out to see what it was that was done. [Mar 5:14 KJV]
Can you point out to me all of those other 5 that are also rhetorical?
Then they went out to see what was done; and came to Jesus, and found the man, out of whom the devils were departed, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid. [Luk 8:35 KJV]

 

[Nick M]

I disagree with Premise 3

The answer is in the text. Moses wrote as that is what the Holy Spirit had him write. To see what Adam would call them. You really are an idolater, just like the others here. You have your own version of God in your head. All I am doing is going with what the Bible says. Why is that so hard?