Theology Club: What is Open Theism?

[Dialogos]

Not knowing something is not necessarily a limitation.

Of course it is, and anyone who has thought about it for more than a few minutes realizes that not knowing something necessarily means that one’s knowledge is limited. The OV limits God's knowledge to the present and now your version of OV not only limits God's knowledge temporally, it limits God's knowledge geographically.
It denies the clear teaching of scripture.
It denies the truth of Proverbs 5:21, Proverbs 15:3, Job 34:21-22, Jeremiah 23:24, Jeremiah 32:19 and Hebrews 4:13.
All of these passages teach very clearly that God sees the works of all humanity and that nothing is hidden from his sight. Furthermore, you do so based on a totally unnecessary interpretation of Genesis 18. A closer look at the passage indicates that God knew exactly what was going on in Sodom before He spoke with Abraham. Genesis 18:17 is clear that God already knows what He is going to do. What was God going to do? The text tells us exactly what God’s intention was from the start, Genesis 19:13 says the Lord sent the angels to destroy the city. Not to do angelic recon and report back, they were sent for the purpose of destroying the city and they were sent before Abraham’s negotiation with God as Genesis 18:22 proves. BTW, did God actually every go down, in physical manifestation to see Sodom? The angels that were with the Lord never reported back, did they?

I have never said that God is limited in any way.

You clearly believe that God is limited in His knowledge. All OVers believe that God has a limited foreknowledge of the future. Furthermore, you appear to be willing to go to some lengths to defend lighthouse’s asserting that God did not know some current facts (such as the veracity of the cries against Sodom).

God was perfectly able to find out the information that he wanted to know and did find it out. How was that a limitation?

If you need to go somewhere or do something to “find out” anything, it means your knowledge is limited. In fact, the only reason you would need to “find out” anything is because you didn’t already know it.

The anthropomorphism used in Genesis 18:21 should not be mistaken to assume that God didn’t know what He was going to do because Genesis 19:13 proves that God already knew.

What is a present fact. Your answer is vague: 'that which' is not saying anything at all. All you are doing is restating that present fact means present fact. I'm asking for meaning and explanation, not another set of words that still mean nothing.

Either you are being intentionally obtuse or you are severely limited in your intellect.

The average 10 year old can ascertain what a “present fact” is with less effort that I have already given to explaining it and can come away with an pretty comprehensive understanding.

Here it is one last time though I am pretty sure you aren't unable to understand, just unwilling to accept.

Present means now. Not the past, not the future. Now. Of course, this is from our perspective, not God’s necessarily.

Fact means a verifiable truth.

So when I say that God knows all present facts I mean that God knows all verifiable truths in the here and now (from our perspective).

In other words, nobody knows something God doesn’t.

Lighthouse’s interpretation of Genesis 18 (which you appear to be defending) invalidates that principle. There were crowds of people living in Sodom that Lighthouse apparently believes knew facts that God didn't know at the time, that is, they knew the truth of the wickedness of the inhabitants of Sodom.

My interpretation says that this is rubbish, God knew all along, He knew long before those voicing the “outcries” against Sodom.

Do you mean a statement which is true?

Yup.

If so, who decides whether it is true or not?

Nobody "decides" and most truths are pretty well demonstrably true. That’s what makes relativism so silly.

How is truth determined in general?

How do we know or how does it become true, these are two separate questions and your will have to clarify which one you mean. Either way, the questions are irrelevant to How God knows truth. God doesn't know because He “discovers” as if truth existed independent of God.

Are you falling foul of the Euthyphro dilemma by implying that God is subject to some kind of absolute criterion of truth which is outside of himself? In other words if God says something, who decides whether it is true or not? Is the statement sharable, i.e. is it in a language that some beings at least can understand, verify and appreciate as truth? I don't want to put words in your mouth but c'mon, use a little imagination!

Euthyyphro’s dilemma was not a true dilemma, nor is your permutation of it.

God does not “invent” what is true nor pronounce something true because it is true independent of Himself. God’s very Nature is the standard for what is and is not true. Every event that is a true event (meaning it actually happens) happens because God actively wills it or passively allows it. Therefore there are no events that Go unnoticed by God. “In Him we live, and move, and have our being (Acts 17:28).”

Finally, I guess you have punted on Young's translation given that you appear to want to move on from that argument, right?

 

[Desert Reign]

Dialogos:

The anthropomorphism used in Genesis 18:21 should not be mistaken to assume that God didn’t know what He was going to do because Genesis 19:13 proves that God already knew.

You pass the scripture off as anthropomorphism because you can't come to terms with
what it says. This is the typical Calvinist reaction: if all else fails, call it anthropomorphism.

You clearly believe that God is limited in His knowledge. All OVers believe that God has a limited foreknowledge of the future. Furthermore, you appear to be willing to go to some lengths to defend lighthouse’s asserting that God did not know some current facts (such as the veracity of the cries against Sodom).

You have to make that accusation as if it were a fact because you have no evidence for it and your position is nothing more than an assertion with no substance.

I can't speak for all OVers and I don't speak for Lighthouse but I can say that you have done nothing to counter my assertion that God is not limited in his knowledge. Whether of the present or the future or the past.

For your benefit I will restate my position in a nutshell: God knows everything he needs to know, is as powerful as he needs to be and is wherever he needs to be.

 

[Lighthouse]

The anthropomorphism used in Genesis 18:21 should not be mistaken to assume that God didn’t know what He was going to do because Genesis 19:13 proves that God already knew.

If you read those in context you will see the words spoken in Genesis 19:13 were spoken after they had seen for themselves that Sodom was as evil as they had heard in the outcry against it. Stop being dishonest.

 

[Dialogos]

Dialogos:
You pass the scripture off as anthropomorphism because you can't come to terms with
what it says. This is the typical Calvinist reaction: if all else fails, call it anthropomorphism.

I call it an anthropomorphism because not to do so invalidates other clear passages of scripture (all of which you have ignored).
Typical OV reaction, if all else fails, ignore relevant passages.

Hebrews 4:13 alone proves that Genesis was speaking anthropomorphically. If Hebrews 4:112-13 is true, then God doesn't need to come down from heaven to see anything, He already sees all things. He not only knew the actions of the Sodomites as they were occurring, he knew the thoughts and intentions of their hearts and knew what they had resolved in their hearts to do before they did it. Of course, as a Calvinist, I would go on to argue that God knew what they would do before they were even born, but I don't need to do that in order to show that both Lighthouse and yourself have taken Genesis out of the larger context of the biblical witness and used it as a pretext to establish a perverted doctrine, the logical conclusions of which entail that God is not all knowing even by OV definitions.

I can't speak for all OVers and I don't speak for Lighthouse but I can say that you have done nothing to counter my assertion that God is not limited in his knowledge. Whether of the present or the future or the past.

Do you believe that God knows all things that are knowable Desert Reign?

For your benefit I will restate my position in a nutshell: God knows everything he needs to know, is as powerful as he needs to be and is wherever he needs to be.

Needs to be as defined by whom?

Do you believe, as the majority of OVers believe, that God knows all things that are knowable?

 

[Dialogos]

If you read those in context you will see the words spoken in Genesis 19:13 were spoken after they had seen for themselves that Sodom was as evil as they had heard in the outcry against it. Stop being dishonest.

Stop perverting the scriptures. It doesn't matter when they said it, it means what it says.

Rather than believing the Lighthouse Perverted Version (LPV) I choose to believe what the scriptures actually say.

""For we will destroy this place, because the outcry against them has grown great before the face of the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it." (Gen 19:13 New King James)

Compared to:

"For we will destroy this place, because the outcry against them has grown great before the face of the Lord, though He is not an omniscient God and did not know if those outcries were true, so the Lord has sent us to find out for him what He did not know and now that we have discovered the truth, we are going to destroy it." (Lighthouse Perverted Version)

Do you believe that Hebrews 4:13 is true Lighthouse?

 

[Desert Reign]

Do you believe that Hebrews 4:13 is true Lighthouse?

For my part, yes I believe that and God sending his own agents to Sodom was the means by which it was true in that case. However, you haven't answered LH's really very very obvious point. Their statement was made after they had seen Sodom for themselves.

Do you believe that God knows all things that are knowable Desert Reign?

I believe what the Bible says. Which means that I believe that God went (through his own agents,) in order to see exactly what was happening in Sodom. After they had seen it, God pronounced judgement on it.

Do you believe the scripture, DL, or do you pass off whatever doesn't suit you as anthropomorphism because it doesn't fit your worldview of a static God who is unable to relate to the world dynamically as the Bible displays, in almost every page?

Fact means a verifiable truth.

Nobody "decides" and most truths are pretty well demonstrably true.

If nobody decides whether something is true or not then it cannot be demonstrated to be true. Because if it is to be demonstrated then someone needs to demonstrate it and someone else needs to be listening. And there also need to be some commonly accepted rules of communication between both of them that specify what adequate demonstration is. There's no need for you to hide behind passive constructions where the subject is conveniently omitted.

And what of your suggestion that there are some facts that God does not know if they are true or not, since you seem to think that at least some things are not demonstrably true? Your own position is self-defeating.

 

[Lighthouse]

Stop perverting the scriptures. It doesn't matter when they said it, it means what it says.

I'm not perverting anything. I also never said it didn't mean what it says. It means exactly what it says.

The problem here is you're too stupid to understand what it means.

Rather than believing the Lighthouse Perverted Version (LPV) I choose to believe what the scriptures actually say.

Idiot.

""For we will destroy this place, because the outcry against them has grown great before the face of the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it." (Gen 19:13 New King James)

Compared to:

"For we will destroy this place, because the outcry against them has grown great before the face of the Lord, though He is not an omniscient God and did not know if those outcries were true, so the Lord has sent us to find out for him what He did not know and now that we have discovered the truth, we are going to destroy it." (Lighthouse Perverted Version)

You're a moron.

You're taking it out of context by not interpreting it in light of Genesis 18:22 and all the verses in between wherein Abraham pleads with God to save the city if a certain number of righteous people could be found.

Do you believe that Hebrews 4:13 is true Lighthouse?

Why wouldn't I?

 

[Dialogos]

I'm not perverting anything. I also never said it didn't mean what it says. It means exactly what it says.

The problem here is you're too stupid to understand what it means.

Ah, the Ol' name calling gets trotted out again. Well everyone has to be good at something, you happen to be good at name-calling.

Idiot.

Just gettin' started arent' you?

:yawn:

You're a moron.

:BRAVO:

You're taking it out of context by not interpreting it in light of Genesis 18:22 and all the verses in between wherein Abraham pleads with God to save the city if a certain number of righteous people could be found.

You should stick to name calling, you have that down pretty good. Its the critical thought, responsible exegesis, and thinking through things scripturally that you stink at.

First, Genesis 18:22 tells us something very important that is right in front of your nose but you are too dense to see. Genesis 18:22 is "when" God "sent" the two angels into Sodom. Those angels told Lot that they were "sent" to destroy the city.

Explain to me how it is that God was totally clueless as to whether or not the outcries against Sodom were legit from Genesis 18:22-33 but you can affirm Hebrews 4:13?

True or false Lighthouse, before the two angels personally encountered the wickedness of Sodom, God knew that the outcries were true.

True or false?

If you answer false, then you deny Hebrew 4:13 because that would mean that some creatures were hidden from His sight, that some things were closed to the eyes of Him to Whom we must give an account. Prior the personal experience of the two angels, nobody could have affirmed the truth of Hebrews 4:13 because it wouldn't be true (that is if your interpretation was correct).

Thankfully, it always has been true, and you aren't.


It would also means that, before the angels came into town, there were things that men knew that God did not know. Which means that you deny the truth of 1 John 3:20 that God knows all things. You deny that God knows all things that are knowable and therefore you deny God's omniscience.

Essentially, you deny the God of the bible in order to construct a mental idol of a less than all knowing god.

I suppose you get your own little lighthouse icon and get to be pretty popular around those who have also traded in an all knowing God for a lesser god.

Hope it was worth it.

:loser:

 

[Lighthouse]

Ah, the Ol' name calling gets trotted out again. Well everyone has to be good at something, you happen to be good at name-calling.

Just gettin' started arent' you?

:yawn:

:BRAVO:

It's pretty sad you have to focus on this because you can't come up with any refutation to the Scripture and logic.

You should stick to name calling, you have that down pretty good. Its the critical thought, responsible exegesis, and thinking through things scripturally that you stink at.

Hypocrite.

First, Genesis 18:22 tells us something very important that is right in front of your nose but you are too dense to see. Genesis 18:22 is "when" God "sent" the two angels into Sodom. Those angels told Lot that they were "sent" to destroy the city.

I meant Genesis 18:21. Well, it should really be 20-21.

And the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”

And what about 23-33 wherein Abraham bargains with God going from 50 down to ten, and God agrees, each time, that if He finds that many righteous within the cities that He will not destroy them? If God already knew why did He just tell Abraham there weren't that many righteous within the city? And why did Abraham even ask if God already knew these things?

Explain to me how it is that God was totally clueless as to whether or not the outcries against Sodom were legit from Genesis 18:22-33 but you can affirm Hebrews 4:13?

Pre and post cross. Before the cross believers were not indwelt with the Holy Spirit of God and God did not intrude upon their hearts and minds as He did not live within them. Now He lives in us; our hearts and minds are His dwelling place thus He has free reign to know His home.

True or false Lighthouse, before the two angels personally encountered the wickedness of Sodom, God knew that the outcries were true.

True or false?

False. I take Him at His word.

If you answer false, then you deny Hebrew 4:13 because that would mean that some creatures were hidden from His sight, that some things were closed to the eyes of Him to Whom we must give an account. Prior the personal experience of the two angels, nobody could have affirmed the truth of Hebrews 4:13 because it wouldn't be true (that is if your interpretation was correct).

1. See above, re: pre and post cross.
2. Things change, including God's mind: that is the crux of the open view.

Thankfully, it always has been true, and you aren't.

Where in Hebrews 4:13 [or in the surrounding context] does it state that it has always been true? Or any other place in the Bible, for that matter?

Try again.

It would also means that, before the angels came into town, there were things that men knew that God did not know. Which means that you deny the truth of 1 John 3:20 that God knows all things. You deny that God knows all things that are knowable and therefore you deny God's omniscience.

You're taking that verse out of context. It is speaking of the heart; God knows all things of our hearts; and again, this is post cross.

And I affirm God's sovereignty over His own mind, consciousness and knowledge: He knows all things knowable that He chooses to know.

Do you deny God is capable of choosing to not know something?

Essentially, you deny the God of the bible in order to construct a mental idol of a less than all knowing god.

You deny is sovereignty over Himself; you deny His omnipotence.

I suppose you get your own little lighthouse icon and get to be pretty popular around those who have also traded in an all knowing God for a lesser god.

Hope it was worth it.

:loser:

And you condemn me for insulting you and calling you names? Your hypocrisy runs deep.

 

[Dialogos]

I meant Genesis 18:21. Well, it should really be 20-21.

And the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”

God does not say that he doesn't know whether or not the outcries against Sodom and Gomorrah are true. And you are pretty much alone in interpreting this verse thusly.

Incidentally, you don't get to appeal to the Open View on this one. Greg Boyd, who literally wrote the book on the Open View has this to say about this verse.

These are tough verses, Gen 3:8-9, Gen 11:5, and Gen 18:21, but I will take a crack at them. For the sake of time, let’s stick to one verse on this, I’ll choose Gen 18:21, “I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know.” Several things, first, notice that the entirety of chapter 18 shows Abraham in definite dialogue with God. God is physically present with Abraham, on earth, in some form of incarnation not at all dissimilar to God walking in the garden of Eden with Adam and Eve. ]Also notice that God is well aware of Sodom and Gomorrah’s sin. He is not in the dark and indeed has already developed a plan of action before he intends to go take a look. We see him deliberate as to weather he should share his plan with Abraham. Ultimately, for the sake of the relationship he has developed and hopes to continue to develop, he tells Abraham and they discuss it in similar fashion to Moses on Mount Sinai appealing to God to spare the Israelites from a much deserved fate.
Greg Boyd's Answer to This Scripture Bold and underline added by me.

So how is it that Boyd understands that God knows what's going on but you don't? It isn't because of the OV, Boyd is as OV as it gets. No, its because you have developed a perversion of the OV that most real OVers wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole. The Open View holds to a notion of God's omniscience claiming that God knows all things that can be known. Before the cross, you deny that.

Therefore you have created your own perversion of the Open View. We'll see this play out is some surprising and pretty shocking examples of twisting scripture.

And what about 23-33 wherein Abraham bargains with God going from 50 down to ten, and God agrees, each time, that if He finds that many righteous within the cities that He will not destroy them? If God already knew why did He just tell Abraham there weren't that many righteous within the city?

What of it? The matters is important to Abraham because Lot and his family live there. According to Boyd, "for the sake of the relationship" God dialog's with Abraham. Boyd would argue that God didn't know where Abraham would stop, I would argue that God knew from the outset what Abraham was going to say but neither of us argue that this dialog indicates in any way that God is ignorant of the veracity of the outcries against Sodom.

As to why God didn't just tell Abraham that there less than 10, scripture doesn't say. Just like it doesn't say why God didn't just come out and say He is a Trinity, just like God didn't just come out and tell Abraham where He was going when He called him and just like God doesn't tell you when you are going to die. God works the way He works and He doesn't need to explain the "whys" to you.

And why did Abraham even ask if God already knew these things?

Because Abraham doesn't know what God knows and because Abraham has an interest in keeping His cousin and his cousin's family safe.

Now regarding Hebrews 4:13 you give an answer that shows that you no nothing of the scriptures and are making illogical, unscriptural and dangerous leaps into heretical conclusions.

Pre and post cross. Before the cross believers were not indwelt with the Holy Spirit of God and God did not intrude upon their hearts and minds as He did not live within them. Now He lives in us; our hearts and minds are His dwelling place thus He has free reign to know His home.

:doh:
Where to begin?

This answer is just jaw droppingly stupid. It appears you haven't read in your bible past Genesis 18.

First, many of the scriptures I have provided substantiating that God knows the hearts of the evil and good alike are from the Old Testament, before the cross.

Including:
Proverbs 5:21, Proverbs 15:3, Job 34:21-22, Jeremiah 23:24, Jeremiah 32:19

Second, It is clear from scripture that God knows the hearts of nonbelievers and believers alike.

Jeremiah 11:20 and 17:10 tells us clearly that God searches the heart and knows the mind (Just to remind you, Jeremiah wrote before the cross).

But wait! There's more!

Isaiah 16:7, 1 Chronicles 28:9, Psalm 7:9, Proverbs 17:3 and John 2:25 were all examples (before the cross) of God knowing the hearts of good and evil alike.

Yet you say:

Before the cross believers were not indwelt with the Holy Spirit of God and God did not intrude upon their hearts and minds as He did not live within them.

This statement is just a moronic statement that can only come from not being familiar enough with the bible to realize that it was moronic. Or you have a single minded dedication to a viewpoint of Genesis 18 such that it doesn't matter what the rest of the bible says.

False. I take Him at His word.

You liar, you falsify the clear teachings of scripture in order to argue that God didn't know the hearts of men before the cross. And you do so in order to defend an interpretation of Genesis 18 that the most notable OV scholars would run from.

You and your little band of merry cronies are all alone on this one.

1. See above, re: pre and post cross.
2. Things change, including God's mind: that is the crux of the open view.

Clearly this is false, if it was the "crux of the open view" then Boyd would support your argument. The fact that he doesn't shows (A) that you don't understand the open view and (B) It isn't the crux of anything other than your perverted attack against God's omniscience.

Where in Hebrews 4:13 [or in the surrounding context] does it state that it has always been true? Or any other place in the Bible, for that matter?

Here are some more scriptures.

2 Chronicles 6:30, Psalm 33:13-15 (notice where God is able to see the hearts and deeds of man).

Now you try and pull the "Can God make a rock even He can't move?"

Please...

And I affirm God's sovereignty over His own mind, consciousness and knowledge: He knows all things knowable that He chooses to know.

Do you deny God is capable of choosing to not know something?

Are you capable of realizing that the scripture say that God has not, does not and will not do that?

2 Chronicles 28:9 Lighthouse

The Lord searches all hearts and understands every plan....

 

[Dialogos]

For my part, yes I believe that and God sending his own agents to Sodom was the means by which it was true in that case.

Which is a much more reasonable answer than the one Lighthouse gave, that is that Hebrews 4:13 was not true prior to the cross.

Nevertheless your argument that the two angels were the means by which God discovered the truth about Sodom fails for two reasons.

First, because it would mean that prior to the angels entry into Sodom, God was ignorant of something than some men knew. Or in other words, that man knew something that God did not know. Which would mean that God does not always know everything that can be known and that conclusion contradicts the clear teaching of other passages regarding God's knowledge. I have referenced those passages so many times now that I think it would only be obnoxious to do so again.

Second, because inherent in the passage itself is the clue that tells us that God does, in fact, know the truth. God sent the two angels into Sodom with a plan. What was that plan?

It was to destroy the city.

That's what the angels say the plan was. There isn't anyplace in scripture where anyone says that the plan was to do recon and then re-evaluate the options at a later time.

This is where Lighthouses objection comes into play.

However, you haven't answered LH's really very very obvious point. Their statement was made after they had seen Sodom for themselves.

But the fact that the angels made the statement after they had seen Sodom does not negate the fact that they were sent into Sodom to carry out God's plan.

Again, even Greg Boyd sees this in the text and He and I would agree on very little, but we both agree that the text should not be read the way Lighthouse does and we both agree that the statement that is made in Genesis 18:21 does not necessitate ignorance of the facts on God's part. In fact, in verse 20 God states the truth "Their sin is very grave." He does not say, "Their sin might be very grave" nor does He say, "Their sin is rumored to be very grave." He says, "their sin is very grave.

He already knows. And if we read the text carefully it is right there in black and white for us to read.

So either God already knows that the sins of Sodom are grave in verse 20, or God is making an unjust judgment, pronouncing guilt before He is in full possession of the facts as the angels had not be dispatched.

Which do you think is more likely? That God actually knows Sodom's sin or that God is guilty of making an unjust judgment?

I believe what the Bible says. Which means that I believe that God went (through his own agents,) in order to see exactly what was happening in Sodom. After they had seen it, God pronounced judgement on it.

You are making the assumption that the only reason the angels went was to learn something, to discover unknown information. The text never says that. Boyd argues that they went to give Sodom a chance to repent, I argue that they went to do God's will, to execute God's just judgment and to destroy the city. God has before "come down" in in order to look upon the sins of mankind with Theophonic eyes. In the tower of Babel narrative, that was a sign of God's judgment, not a sign that God was curious to discover something He did not already know.

Do you believe the scripture, DL, or do you pass off whatever doesn't suit you as anthropomorphism because it doesn't fit your worldview of a static God who is unable to relate to the world dynamically as the Bible displays, in almost every page?

First, I don't have a worldvview of a static God who unable to relate to the world dynamically. Your arrows here have missed their mark, that's not my worldview. Nor is it the worldview of most Calvinists. Second, Boyd surely would not be so described by you, would he?

And yet Boyd doesn't assume God is in the dark here.

Finally, I do believe the scripture. I believe verse 21, I also believe verse 20 and I believe chapter 19 verse 13 and I believe the myriad of other passages that say that God knows the every intention of every human being. I don't pass off these passages as anthropomorphic, I recognize that it is a bit silly not to recognize that a God who has taken on human form has anthropomorphized (that is what the term means, to take on human characteristics) and is therefore likely to speak anthropomorphically.


Now I have to admit that I neither understand where you are going with the following, nor do I think, in other contexts, you would even agree with your own statements regarding the following:

If nobody decides whether something is true or not then it cannot be demonstrated to be true. Because if it is to be demonstrated then someone needs to demonstrate it and someone else needs to be listening.

Here you sound so much like a relativist that its scary. Do you really believe that if no one decides whether or not something is true that it cannot be demonstrated to be true?

How about marriage Desert Reign. Who gets to decide that marriage is between a man and a woman? Does any human get to decide that? No? Do you then agree that it cannot be demonstrated to be true?

Of course you don't!

No human being decided that marriage was to be between a man and a woman, nevertheless the nature of creation itself testifies to just how demonstrably true it is, wouldn't you agree?

And there also need to be some commonly accepted rules of communication between both of them that specify what adequate demonstration is.

No there doesn't. God has communicated many truths and whole legions of people have rejected the rules of communication that God has proposed.

What does that tell you if not that the legions of people who reject God's truth are wrong?

We don't need to agree on how to communicate truth in order for truth to be true.

There's no need for you to hide behind passive constructions where the subject is conveniently omitted.

I really have no idea what this means or why you think it is relevant.

Facts are what is true, the present is what is happening right now and God knows all present facts (He happens to also know all future facts as well, but that's as a different debate).

And what of your suggestion that there are some facts that God does not know if they are true or not, since you seem to think that at least some things are not demonstrably true? Your own position is self-defeating.

What?

1. I have never suggested that there are some facts that God does not know. I have argued quite strongly to the contrary.
2. There may be some things that are not "demonstrably true" to us, that doesn't mean God is the least bit confused by such things.
3. My position is really the only one that doesn't end up being self defeating because my position on this matter does not take the Creator of man and subject Him to the limitations of man.

 

[Lighthouse]

God does not say that he doesn't know whether or not the outcries against Sodom and Gomorrah are true. And you are pretty much alone in interpreting this verse thusly.

He states that He will go down and see if the outcries are true, which implies He doesn't know. Then He says that "if not then I will know," which confirms He doesn't already know.

And the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”
-Genesis 18:20-21

Then He enters into Abraham's bargain, which again shows He does not know, else He would have simply told Abraham there weren't that many righteous people in the cities.

Incidentally, you don't get to appeal to the Open View on this one. Greg Boyd, who literally wrote the book on the Open View has this to say about this verse.

I didn't appeal to Greg Boyd. Boyd is wrong; or do you not think it's possible for Boyd to be in error?

So how is it that Boyd understands that God knows what's going on but you don't? It isn't because of the OV, Boyd is as OV as it gets.

So since you agree with Boyd on this issue you get to appeal to him? How convenient for you.

No, its because you have developed a perversion of the OV that most real OVers wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole. The Open View holds to a notion of God's omniscience claiming that God knows all things that can be known. Before the cross, you deny that.

Actually I hold that there are things today even that He does not know, because He's allowed to not know something if He doesn't want to; most of the time He simply doesn't care, because it doesn't matter.

Therefore you have created your own perversion of the Open View. We'll see this play out is some surprising and pretty shocking examples of twisting scripture.

You are a fool to think I am alone in my understanding of this passage. You are a fool to think I came up with it, or was even the first to proclaim it publicly.

What of it? The matters is important to Abraham because Lot and his family live there. According to Boyd, "for the sake of the relationship" God dialog's with Abraham. Boyd would argue that God didn't know where Abraham would stop, I would argue that God knew from the outset what Abraham was going to say but neither of us argue that this dialog indicates in any way that God is ignorant of the veracity of the outcries against Sodom.

“If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.” -Genesis 18:26, as opposed to “There are not fifty righteous people in the city.”

Yes, Abraham would have still gone on, if God had known He would not have responded with if/then statements.

As to why God didn't just tell Abraham that there less than 10, scripture doesn't say. Just like it doesn't say why God didn't just come out and say He is a Trinity, just like God didn't just come out and tell Abraham where He was going when He called him and just like God doesn't tell you when you are going to die. God works the way He works and He doesn't need to explain the "whys" to you.

The Bible is clear God is triune and He doesn't know when I'm going to die.

But nice excuse anyway.

Because Abraham doesn't know what God knows and because Abraham has an interest in keeping His cousin and his cousin's family safe.

If Abraham at least knew that God knew then he would have asked, "Are there fifty righteous people in the city?"

Now regarding Hebrews 4:13 you give an answer that shows that you no nothing of the scriptures and are making illogical, unscriptural and dangerous leaps into heretical conclusions.

Genesis 18 bears out my conclusion.

:doh:
Where to begin?

This answer is just jaw droppingly stupid. It appears you haven't read in your bible past Genesis 18.

Speaking of jaw-droppingly stupid things to say...

First, many of the scriptures I have provided substantiating that God knows the hearts of the evil and good alike are from the Old Testament, before the cross.

Including:
Proverbs 5:21, Proverbs 15:3, Job 34:21-22, Jeremiah 23:24, Jeremiah 32:19

Second, It is clear from scripture that God knows the hearts of nonbelievers and believers alike.

Jeremiah 11:20 and 17:10 tells us clearly that God searches the heart and knows the mind (Just to remind you, Jeremiah wrote before the cross).

But wait! There's more!

Isaiah 16:7, 1 Chronicles 28:9, Psalm 7:9, Proverbs 17:3 and John 2:25 were all examples (before the cross) of God knowing the hearts of good and evil alike.

How sad for you that none of these say what you want them to say.

If He knew their hearts and minds He wouldn't need to test, or search, them.

Yet you say:

This statement is just a moronic statement that can only come from not being familiar enough with the bible to realize that it was moronic. Or you have a single minded dedication to a viewpoint of Genesis 18 such that it doesn't matter what the rest of the bible says.

I've yet to see anything in the Bible that contradicts my belief on this.

You liar, you falsify the clear teachings of scripture in order to argue that God didn't know the hearts of men before the cross. And you do so in order to defend an interpretation of Genesis 18 that the most notable OV scholars would run from.

What have I falsified? Where have I lied?

You and your little band of merry cronies are all alone on this one.

So were the 12, at one time.

Clearly this is false, if it was the "crux of the open view" then Boyd would support your argument. The fact that he doesn't shows (A) that you don't understand the open view and (B) It isn't the crux of anything other than your perverted attack against God's omniscience.

The only thing I said was the crux of the open view was that things change, including God's mind. If you weren't ignorant of comprehension you would have understood that.

Here are some more scriptures.

2 Chronicles 6:30, Psalm 33:13-15 (notice where God is able to see the hearts and deeds of man).

Tho only verse that says what you claim here is the one from 2 Chronicles.

יָדַע

to know

1. (Qal)
   1. to know
      1. to know, learn to know
      2. to perceive
      3. to perceive and see, find out and discern
      4. to discriminate, distinguish
      5. to know by experience
      6. to recognise, admit, acknowledge, confess
      7. to consider
   2. to know, be acquainted with
   3. to know (a person carnally)
   4. to know how, be skilful in
   5. to have knowledge, be wise
   6. (Niphal)
      1. to be made known, be or become known, be revealed
      2. to make oneself known
      3. to be perceived
      4. to be instructed
   7. (Piel) to cause to know
   8. (Poal) to cause to know
   9. (Pual)
      1. to be known
      2. known, one known, acquaintance (participle)
   10. (Hiphil) to make known, declare
   11. (Hophal) to be made known
   12. (Hithpael) to make oneself known, reveal oneself

And there is even a slew of other words this into which this word was translated, including 'understand."

KJV: wist, shew, know, knowledge, understand, certainly, consider, acknowledge, acquaintance, declare, tell, misc, known, perceive, teach

So it does not necessarily mean "know" in the way you want it to.

Now you try and pull the "Can God make a rock even He can't move?"

No I don't; that's an illogical question.

Please...

How you think my question equates to the illogical question you referenced is beyond me. You clearly are incapable of recognizing the difference between logical and illogical.

Are you capable of realizing that the scripture say that God has not, does not and will not do that?

2 Chronicles 28:9 Lighthouse

The Lord searches all hearts and understands every plan....

As I stated earlier that verse doesn't say what you claim.

 

[Desert Reign]

Which is a much more reasonable answer than the one Lighthouse gave, that is that Hebrews 4:13 was not true prior to the cross.

Thanks for your answer. But there is no need (in case you were thinking of it) to play LH against me since we both know the extent to which we agree and disagree. I am certain that Calvinists disagree amongst themselves about lots of things but that wouldn't stop you from defending Calvinism.

And Greg Boyd doesn't come into this discussion either for the same reason. I have met him and heard him preach and I have many things in common with him. But the fact is that I wrote the open view myself independently before I had even heard of him or any of the other OV proponents. So it would be a good idea to just argue on basics.

First, because it would mean that prior to the angels entry into Sodom, God was ignorant of something than some men knew. Or in other words, that man knew something that God did not know. Which would mean that God does not always know everything that can be known and that conclusion contradicts the clear teaching of other passages regarding God's knowledge.

You're assuming the conclusion. I don't argue that God knows everything. You have a static view of knowledge which is imbued with ancient Greek philosophy. I haven't. I'm not saying that he doesn't know everything, just that knowledge is not the kind of thing to which the category of 'all' or 'infinite' applies. Knowledge is dynamic. Also, it is not relative, as you seem to think I believe, but it is contextual, as everything is in an open universe.

The other thing you are doing is playing scripture against scripture. A typically Calvinist methodology. By doing that, you indicate your belief that scripture contadicts itself. Every scripture passage should be interpreted on its own merits in its own context. Drawing in other passages to qualify a given passage is eisegesis.

Second, because inherent in the passage itself is the clue that tells us that God does, in fact, know the truth. God sent the two angels into Sodom with a plan. What was that plan?

It was to destroy the city.

It's really simple:

1. God heard the cries of people from the city about how bad it was.
2. He determined that if these reports were true, then he would want to judge the city.
4. The outcries were so severe that he wanted to check for himself if they were true.
5. He realised that Abraham had relatives down there.
6. He visited Abraham (who was called a friend of God) to explain the situation to him.
7. The angels visited the city to ascertain the exact situation.
8. Since it turned out to be as described previously, the planned judgement went ahead but Lot and relatives were allowed to escape.

That's what the angels say the plan was. There isn't anyplace in scripture where anyone says that the plan was to do recon and then re-evaluate the options at a later time.

Yes there is. See above.

First, I don't have a worldvview of a static God who unable to relate to the world dynamically.

You do. But it is so ingrained in your psyche that you don't realise it. It is no longer p.c. to argue that God is impassible so Calvinists say that they believe God is dynamic but in reality they still believe God is impassible.

Finally, I do believe the scripture. I believe verse 21, I also believe verse 20 and I believe chapter 19 verse 13 and I believe the myriad of other passages that say that God knows the every intention of every human being.

LH answered this adequately. Most of the scriptures you quoted don't actually say what you assert.

I don't pass off these passages as anthropomorphic, I recognize that it is a bit silly not to recognize that a God who has taken on human form has anthropomorphized (that is what the term means, to take on human characteristics) and is therefore likely to speak anthropomorphically.

So, in other words, you pass off these passages as anthropomorphic.

 

[Desert Reign]

The rest:

Do you really believe that if no one decides whether or not something is true that it cannot be demonstrated to be true?

Truth only has a meaning in relation to intelligent beings. Rather obvious really. Nothing to do with relativism, objectivism or any other ism. Just common sense.

No human being decided that marriage was to be between a man and a woman, nevertheless the nature of creation itself testifies to just how demonstrably true it is, wouldn't you agree?

Testifies to whom?

No there doesn't. God has communicated many truths and whole legions of people have rejected the rules of communication that God has proposed.
What does that tell you if not that the legions of people who reject God's truth are wrong?
We don't need to agree on how to communicate truth in order for truth to be true.

Well, if some people have rejected it, then they must have heard it in words they could understand at least. But my point would stand because it would not have been the rules of adequacy that were rejected. It would be the details of the specific issue. Just above you said creation testifies to something. You use a metaphor from court procedure. No one is saying that the court system is wrong. It is just that they reject the conclusion of the court (which is their own personal decision). But there has to be a commonly accepted court system. People can reject truth but truth is not self-existent, it requires relationships with accepted protocols (a court system to use your analogy).

Facts are what is true, the present is what is happening right now and God knows all present facts (He happens to also know all future facts as well, but that's as a different debate).

Again, facts are not self-existent. Facts are only statements which you, DL, think are true. If someone else thinks they are not true, then you are stuck, even if that person is God. This is why I say that your view of the universe is more static than you would like to think. You believe that facts are self-existent, that God knows all of them and humans know some of them. That's not how it is. Facts are statements which someone has to make in the first place. This implies the existence of people in relationship, a dynamic universe (including God) and common language (ability to communicate). It's much more relational than you have so far imagined.

 

[Dialogos]

He states that He will go down and see if the outcries are true, which implies He doesn't know.

It only implies that if you refuse to read verse 20 where he states emphatically "...and because their sin is very grave..."

It only implies that if you refuse to consider what the rest of the bible says on the topic of God's knowledge.

Then He enters into Abraham's bargain, which again shows He does not know, else He would have simply told Abraham there weren't that many righteous people in the cities.

You don't have the slightest clue what God would do. You refuse to take God at His word time and time again regarding What His word says He knows which proves that you don't know God well enough to know what He would say to Abraham.

That may be what you would say. But nobody should care what you would say.

I didn't appeal to Greg Boyd. Boyd is wrong; or do you not think it's possible for Boyd to be in error?

I know Boyd is in error on a great number of things. I pointed out Boyd's treatment of this scripture to show that it is not in any way essential to the Open View to interpret that scripture thusly.

Now Regarding God's Knowledge you continue to put your ignorance on display. You continue to bring God down while exalting your own opinion.

Actually I hold that there are things today even that He does not know, because He's allowed to not know something if He doesn't want to; most of the time He simply doesn't care, because it doesn't matter.

Now you outright deny Hebrews 4:13.

Heretic.

You are a fool to think I am alone in my understanding of this passage.

You are a fool for having that understanding of this passage. I am not all that concerned how many other clowns you have in your circus of fools.

How sad for you that none of these say what you want them to say.

These are simply worded truths about God's soveriegnty and omniscience that you just deny. You may think that by trying to sweep them all aside by saying, "they don't say what you want them to say" that they will all go away, but they won't. They testify against your stubborn refusal to acknowledge God's Sovereignty and glorify Him for it.

If He knew their hearts and minds He wouldn't need to test, or search, them.

Acts 1:24, Acts 15:8 I could go on.

I've yet to see anything in the Bible that contradicts my belief on this.

1 Kings 8:39, Psalm 44:21...

I could go on and on, but it wouldn't matter. You don't get your theology from the bible, you get it from somewhere else and then impose your theology on the bible.

That's where you have lied Lighthouse. You refuse to give God the glory that is due Him because you refuse to acknowledge His Sovereignty and His omniscience.

The difference between your merry band of fools and the 12 disciples is clear. They took God at His word. That's why they came to be known worldwide for their obedience to God, their wisdom of His word and their obedience to His ways. And the fact that you refuse to take God at His word is why you will likely only be known here on theology-online and you will likely be known mostly for being rude and obnoxious.

I think that is sad.

There is still good news for you Lighthouse.

If you turn from the puny image of a god who knows not the heart to the God who knows perfectly His creation God will show you grace and mercy.

 

[Lighthouse]

It only implies that if you refuse to read verse 20 where he states emphatically "...and because their sin is very grave..."

The sin of which they have been accused by the outcry against them. There is no indication that He knew for certain the accusations were true. Stop ignoring context.

It only implies that if you refuse to consider what the rest of the bible says on the topic of God's knowledge.

FALSE!

You don't have the slightest clue what God would do. You refuse to take God at His word time and time again regarding What His word says He knows which proves that you don't know God well enough to know what He would say to Abraham.

You are a fool.

I know what God would do because His word tells me. It tells you too, if you'd shut up and listen when you're reading it.

You refuse to take God at His word when He says He doesn't know something.

And you have yet to provide me with a single verse that I deny.

The denier here is you; you deny His word at face value and demand that it doesn't mean what it says, but rather something else entirely.

That may be what you would say. But nobody should care what you would say.

You seem to care. A lot.

I know Boyd is in error on a great number of things. I pointed out Boyd's treatment of this scripture to show that it is not in any way essential to the Open View to interpret that scripture thusly.

And I never said that interpretation was essential to the open view. But I'm not surprised you didn't understand that since you so obviously have a hard time understanding the written word and taking it at face value.

Now Regarding God's Knowledge you continue to put your ignorance on display. You continue to bring God down while exalting your own opinion.

Now you outright deny Hebrews 4:13.

Heretic.

Really? How so? How have I denied that verse?

You are a fool for having that understanding of this passage. I am not all that concerned how many other clowns you have in your circus of fools.

I am a fool for taking Him at His word? For taking the plain words of Scripture at face value? You are the one juggling.:juggle: Here, have your cap.:Servent:

These are simply worded truths about God's soveriegnty and omniscience that you just deny. You may think that by trying to sweep them all aside by saying, "they don't say what you want them to say" that they will all go away, but they won't. They testify against your stubborn refusal to acknowledge God's Sovereignty and glorify Him for it.

Then I challenge you to lay out exactly how it is they say what you claim.

Acts 1:24, Acts 15:8 I could go on.

After the cross.

You should really learn to pay attention. Acts 15:8 even supports what I said regarding the indwelling of the Spirit.

1 Kings 8:39, Psalm 44:21...

I already answered you on the 1 Kings verse. How much do you want to bet the verse in Psalm uses the same word?

Well, look at that! According to Strong's it is the same exact word.

And it means "to ascertain by seeing," which means He does not already know, but He looks and ascertains.

And what does "ascertain" mean? It does not mean "to already know," rather it means "to find out, to learn." That's right, your verses say that God learns.

And here's the kicker! It's the same exact word used in Genesis 18:21!

I could go on and on, but it wouldn't matter. You don't get your theology from the bible, you get it from somewhere else and then impose your theology on the bible.

I'd reference the pot/kettle analogy, except that I'm not do that of which you accuse me. You, however, are; which makes you a hypocrite.

That's where you have lied Lighthouse. You refuse to give God the glory that is due Him because you refuse to acknowledge His Sovereignty and His omniscience.

I'm the one who acknowledges His sovereignty over his own omniscience; you deny it.

The difference between your merry band of fools and the 12 disciples is clear. They took God at His word. That's why they came to be known worldwide for their obedience to God, their wisdom of His word and their obedience to His ways. And the fact that you refuse to take God at His word is why you will likely only be known here on theology-online and you will likely be known mostly for being rude and obnoxious.

Give me one example wherein I have not taken God at His word.

I think that is sad.

What's sad is your denial that God can do as He pleases.

There is still good news for you Lighthouse.

If you turn from the puny image of a god who knows not the heart to the God who knows perfectly His creation God will show you grace and mercy.

God knows what He desires to know, because He is God and He can do that.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

God knows what He desires to know, because He is God and He can do that.

But, apparently there are things God does not know, for example:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3530617#post3530617

:AMR:

AMR

 

[Lighthouse]

But, apparently there are things God does not know, for example:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3530617#post3530617

:AMR:

AMR

That's what I said.

God can't know the unknowable, and the answer to that question is unknowable. Neither Fred nor Bob know why they chose as they did; and no one else can know.

 

[Dialogos]

The sin of which they have been accused by the outcry against them. There is no indication that He knew for certain the accusations were true. Stop ignoring context.

I suppose if you are using the Lighthouse Perverted Version of the scriptures that would be the case. But I don't.

"Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because it might be very grave, though I have no way of knowing for sure at the moment. Genesis 18:20 (Lighthouse Perverted Version)

I choose to follow a translation that is more faithful to the text.

"And the Lord said, 'Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave. (NKJ)

You refuse to take God at His word when He says He doesn't know something.

Quote for me the passage where God says "I don't know...." Because Genesis 18:21 isn't that passage. Its not that passage because 18:20 says that He does know. If God doesn't know for certain that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is very grave, then God is lying for saying that it is. My God doesn't guess, make unjust judgments about things He does not know for certain or lie. I am sorry that your god does.

And you have yet to provide me with a single verse that I deny.

Lets narrow 'em down a bit, you deny too many to deal with in one post.

Lets start with Acts 1:24.

Your response is:

After the cross.

And you think that this solve your problem because...

Pre and post cross. Before the cross believers were not indwelt with the Holy Spirit of God and God did not intrude upon their hearts and minds as He did not live within them. Now He lives in us; our hearts and minds are His dwelling place thus He has free reign to know His home.

Can you tell me where in scripture you believe God poured out His holy Spirit on "all flesh?"
Are you speaking of Pentecost here?

If so, then you have a chronological problem.

That happened in Acts 2 and Acts 1:24 comes before Acts 2.

If you actually plan to back it up to the cross, then you are going to have to show us some scripture that says that, during the crucifixion, God's Spirit began to "intrude on the hearts and minds" of men because the crucifixion of Jesus (rather than Pentecost) was the event the inaugurated the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Is that what you believe?

That the Holy Spirit began to live in the hearts of me during Christ's crucifixion, before Pentecost?

If so, then provide scripture please, if not then you have a problem because Acts 1:24 comes before Acts 2 in my bible, does it in yours as well?

:chuckle:

Now let's go to 1 Kings 8:39.

Your response was as follows:

I already answered you on the 1 Kings verse. How much do you want to bet the verse in Psalm uses the same word?

Well, look at that! According to Strong's it is the same exact word.

And it means "to ascertain by seeing," which means He does not already know, but He looks and ascertains.

First, it does not mean that He does not already know as is evidenced by the fact that the Hebrew word Yada in the Qal imperfect tense is very often used for current knowledge. And Yada in the Qal perfect tense always refers to past action of some kind.

You can't just open strongs lexicon and declare victory you actually have to pay attention to the tense of verbs in Hebrew.

So in 1 Kings 8:39 you have a problem because the second time the word Yada is used in that verse, it is in the perfect tense.

"then hear in heaven Your dwelling place, and forgive, and act, and give to everyone according to all his ways, whose heart You know {Qal imperfect}(for You alone know {Qal perfect} the hearts of all the sons of men)," (1Ki 8:39 NKJ)

If you want to stick with "ascertain" then we can for the sake of argument. The context makes "know" a much better choice which is why every translation, ancient and modern uses, "know" as the translation here. But it doesn't matter because the perfect tense tells us that action of the verb was perfected in the past. As such God already knows all the hearts of the sons of men as His work of "ascertaining" is past and completed.

How a perfect tense verb is translated depends on the kind of sentence and the meaning of the word itself. The perfect tense is in the indicative mood (which presents the action as an objective fact) and essentially reflects completed action (i.e. "perfect" action in a linguistic sense.)

God has already "ascertained" and He has done so regarding the hearts of "all the children of men."

Which directly contradicts your patently ridiculous statement that....

Before the cross believers were not indwelt with the Holy Spirit of God and God did not intrude upon their hearts and minds as He did not live within them.

Some further comments.

And what does "ascertain" mean? It does not mean "to already know,"

It does in the perfect tense. Once you have "ascertained it" you "know it."

Again, know is really a better translation but even allowing for "ascertain" as a translation, your point fails.

And here's the kicker! It's the same exact word used in Genesis 18:21!

Sorry to spoil your triumphal grand finale Lighthouse but Yada is in a different tense and a different mood in Genesis 18:21, it is in the imperfect tense and is cohortative which expresses either request or resolve ("let us", or "I will"). In 1 Kings 8:39 the second occurrence is in the perfect tense which means it's a done deal.

I'm the one who acknowledges His sovereignty over his own omniscience; you deny it.

First, it is ridiculous to play one attribute of God against another. Second, it is irrelevant because 1 Kings 8:39 says that God already knows the hearts of all the sons of men. So even if God could choose not to know the hearts of some of the sons of men, the scripture tells us that He has rather chosen to know all of them.

 

[Lighthouse]

I suppose if you are using the Lighthouse Perverted Version of the scriptures that would be the case. But I don't.

Thou art a fool.

"Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because it might be very grave, though I have no way of knowing for sure at the moment. Genesis 18:20 (Lighthouse Perverted Version)

Not at all what the Bible says.:nono: I know this. I do not read it any other way than what it says.

I choose to follow a translation that is more faithful to the text.

I choose to follow the text.

"And the Lord said, 'Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave. (NKJ)

"And the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”
-Genesis 18:20-21 (NKJV)

Quote for me the passage where God says "I don't know...." Because Genesis 18:21 isn't that passage. Its not that passage because 18:20 says that He does know.

18:21 shows that God does not know for certain; it shows that 18:20 is regarding the outcry against them, the accusation. The sin of which they are accused is very grave.

If God doesn't know for certain that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is very grave, then God is lying for saying that it is.

No He isn't. He is stating that the sin of which they are accused is very grave, and it is. He knows for certain that said sin is very grave. What He doesn't know, which is shown by the fact that He will go and see, is if they are guilty. And if they are not He will know. According to His own words.

My God doesn't guess, make unjust judgments about things He does not know for certain or lie. I am sorry that your god does.

What guess? What unjust judgment? What lie? I have accused God of none of these, nor have I implied He is guilty.

Lets narrow 'em down a bit, you deny too many to deal with in one post.

Lets start with Acts 1:24.

Your response is:

And you think that this solve your problem because...

Can you tell me where in scripture you believe God poured out His holy Spirit on "all flesh?"
Are you speaking of Pentecost here?

If so, then you have a chronological problem.

That happened in Acts 2 and Acts 1:24 comes before Acts 2.

You're right; I wasn't thinking.

The word used here, doesn't simply mean "know," by the way.

Do you know what it means?

If you actually plan to back it up to the cross, then you are going to have to show us some scripture that says that, during the crucifixion, God's Spirit began to "intrude on the hearts and minds" of men because the crucifixion of Jesus (rather than Pentecost) was the event the inaugurated the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Is that what you believe?

That the Holy Spirit began to live in the hearts of me during Christ's crucifixion, before Pentecost?

If so, then provide scripture please, if not then you have a problem because Acts 1:24 comes before Acts 2 in my bible, does it in yours as well?

:chuckle:

I'm not planning on doing any such thing.

Let's see if you can figure out what I will do...

Now let's go to 1 Kings 8:39.

Your response was as follows:

First, it does not mean that He does not already know as is evidenced by the fact that the Hebrew word Yada in the Qal imperfect tense is very often used for current knowledge. And Yada in the Qal perfect tense always refers to past action of some kind.

You can't just open strongs lexicon and declare victory you actually have to pay attention to the tense of verbs in Hebrew.

So in 1 Kings 8:39 you have a problem because the second time the word Yada is used in that verse, it is in the perfect tense.

"then hear in heaven Your dwelling place, and forgive, and act, and give to everyone according to all his ways, whose heart You know {Qal imperfect}(for You alone know {Qal perfect} the hearts of all the sons of men)," (1Ki 8:39 NKJ)

If you want to stick with "ascertain" then we can for the sake of argument. The context makes "know" a much better choice which is why every translation, ancient and modern uses, "know" as the translation here. But it doesn't matter because the perfect tense tells us that action of the verb was perfected in the past. As such God already knows all the hearts of the sons of men as His work of "ascertaining" is past and completed.

Not according to this.

God has already "ascertained" and He has done so regarding the hearts of "all the children of men."

Which directly contradicts your patently ridiculous statement that....

Some further comments.

It does in the perfect tense. Once you have "ascertained it" you "know it."

Again, know is really a better translation but even allowing for "ascertain" as a translation, your point fails.

Sorry to spoil your triumphal grand finale Lighthouse but Yada is in a different tense and a different mood in Genesis 18:21, it is in the imperfect tense and is cohortative which expresses either request or resolve ("let us", or "I will"). In 1 Kings 8:39 the second occurrence is in the perfect tense which means it's a done deal.

I was thinking through my response when I got to here.

Make up your mind.

First, it is ridiculous to play one attribute of God against another. Second, it is irrelevant because 1 Kings 8:39 says that God already knows the hearts of all the sons of men. So even if God could choose not to know the hearts of some of the sons of men, the scripture tells us that He has rather chosen to know all of them.

You have contradicted yourself and refuse to even see it. I am done with you, for your heart is as hard as your nose.

:nightall: