Idolater
Popetard
First, did He already know the answer to the question He posed, "Will ye also go away?"
Honest struggles on God’s omniscience.
- Thread starter Skywatch89
- Start date
First, did He already know the answer to the question He posed, "Will ye also go away?"
Derf
Well-known member
At what time? When He first chose them (no, I don't think so)? At the time He asked the question (maybe)? or at the time He was arrested in the Garden (yes, and they did)?
70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” 71 He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve.
It is amazing, but maybe it shouldn't be, how many people that engage in theology on X either don't know what the Bible says, or ignore it because it shows they are wrong.
It is amazing, but maybe it shouldn't be, how many people that engage in theology on X either don't know what the Bible says, or ignore it because it shows they are wrong.
Derf
Well-known member
is that supposed to be addressed to me?
No. But anyone that wants to know why Judas was chosen, I think this is why.
Derf
Well-known member
Because he was a devil? That's what I think.
Last edited:
way 2 go
Well-known member
like I said
so the open theist wants us to believe God was prophesying his own sacrifice for the sin of the world without knowing whether Abraham would do it . Genesis 22:12 ,Revelation 13:8
God said : "now I know you fear me " Not that God gained new information , he said it for Abraham’s and Isaac’s benefit as praising a child for doing what you knew they would do
Derf
Well-known member
Saying something for a child's benefit doesn't mean one has to give a false statement.
What if Abraham told him no. He can't kill his own child?
way 2 go
Well-known member
the question is still , Do open theist deny Scripture ?
open theist like to take a text and then pretend the rest of scripture does not exist and interpret the text without scripture
open theist have God needing to go to sodom to figure it out if the place was evil , so much for all knowing ,
(Genesis 18:21) I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which has come to Me. And if not, I will know
God knew
(Genesis 13:13) But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD, exceedingly so.
This has already been addressed.
Repeating it as though it has not been answered does not make the argument stronger. It only makes it look like you cannot actually deal with the answer.
You are assuming that Abraham’s offering of Isaac was necessary in order for God to accomplish redemption.
Was it?
If Abraham had refused, would God have been unable to redeem the world?
Would Christ have been unable to die for sin?
Would God’s purpose have failed?
I do not believe God is that weak.
Abraham’s offering of Isaac was a type and shadow of what God Himself would do through Christ. But Abraham’s obedience was not the foundation of God’s ability to redeem mankind.
God can have His own purpose, His own plan, His own Son, and His own power to bring redemption to pass.
Genesis 22:12 still says “now I know.”
Revelation 13:8 does not erase that.
Because you say He didn't?
The whole ordeal was God testing Abraham's faith in Him.
And the text gives the result of the test:
And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
The word “since” matters.
God ties the knowledge to Abraham’s completed action.
“Now I know... since you have not withheld your son.”
That is the reason the text gives.
You are replacing that reason with your own.
You say God did not gain new information.
The passage says “now I know.”
You say God already knew what Abraham would do.
The passage says God tested Abraham, Abraham obeyed, and then God said “now I know.”
That is not my wording.
That is Scripture.
Again, because you say so?
The passage does not say God was praising Abraham.
The passage does not say God already knew and was only speaking for Abraham’s and Isaac’s benefit.
The passage says God tested Abraham, Abraham obeyed, and then God said:
“Now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
Saying something for someone else’s benefit does not require giving a false explanation.
If God already knew Abraham would do it, He could have said:
“I knew you would obey, and now you and Isaac know it too.”
But that is not what He said.
He said, “now I know.”
You are not explaining the text. You are explaining it away.
The answer is still no.
Open Theists are the ones insisting that the passages mean what they actually say.
God repented.
God relented.
God tested Abraham.
God said “now I know.”
God went down to see.
God responded to what men did.
You are the one repeatedly saying, “It does not really mean that.”
So if anyone is in danger of denying Scripture, it is the person who keeps explaining away the passages that do not fit his theology... YOU!
Talk about projection...
We are comparing Scripture with Scripture.
Genesis 22 says God tested Abraham and then said “now I know.”
Genesis 6 says God was sorry He made man.
Jonah 3 says God saw Nineveh’s works and relented from the disaster He said He would bring.
Jeremiah 18 says God may speak concerning a nation to destroy it, but if that nation turns from evil, God will relent.
Genesis 18 says God went down to see whether Sodom had done altogether according to the outcry, and “if not, I will know.”
That is Scripture interpreting Scripture.
You are the one importing Classical Theism into the text and then forcing all of those passages to mean something other than what they say.
That's.... Literally what Scripture says...
“I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which has come to Me. And if not, I will know.”
God says He will go down and see.
God says, “if not, I will know.”
You are offended at the plain wording of the passage because it does not fit your system.
No, so much for your imposed definition of “all knowing.”
God can know what can be known.
The question is whether every future free choice already exists as a settled fact before the person makes it.
You assume it does.
Then when Scripture presents God testing, investigating, relenting, responding, and saying “now I know,” you complain that we are denying God’s attributes.
No.
We are denying your philosophical definition of those attributes and your attempt to impose that definition onto the text.
There is a difference.
Genesis 13:13 says the men of Sodom were wicked and exceedingly sinful.
Nobody denies that.
But Genesis 18:21 is not asking whether Sodom had wicked men in it.
The issue is whether they had done altogether according to the outcry against it.
In other words, the passage presents God as investigating the full measure of the accusation before judgment.
That is not a problem for Open Theism.
That is righteous judgment.
God does not judge on rumor. He judges according to truth.
So Genesis 13:13 does not erase Genesis 18:21.
It only tells us Sodom was already wicked.
Genesis 18 tells us God investigated whether the outcry against Sodom was fully accurate before bringing judgment.
And again, your answer is to make the text theatrical.
God says:
“I will go down now and see... and if not, I will know.”
You say:
“God knew.”
Then why did He say it that way?
You need to stop merely asserting “God knew” and start proving from the text that “I will go down and see... and if not, I will know” actually means “I already know exhaustively and am only pretending to investigate.”
Because that is not what the passage says.