well now I understand open theism eisegesis takes a few favorite verses Genesis 22:12 “Now I know ”Gen 3:9 "where are you" and Jeremiah 18 “if that nation repents, I will relent” and makes them the controlling presupposition for the entire Bible.
as an open theist you must accept God doesn't know the present exhaustively or the future at all
reinterpret everything through these verses , Revelation , tear that book out & never mind the warning Rev 22:19
reminds me of the word of faith theology “You are gods” Psalm 82:6 / John 10:34 never mind the warning Exo 20:3
well now I understand open theism eisegesis takes a few favorite verses Genesis 22:12 “Now I know ”Gen 3:9 "where are you" and Jeremiah 18 “if that nation repents, I will relent” and makes them the controlling presupposition for the entire Bible.
as an open theist you must accept God doesn't know the present exhaustively or the future at all
reinterpret everything through these verses , Revelation , tear that book out & never mind the warning Rev 22:19
Are you really prepared to say that you know exactly what that passage means, despite 2000 years of scholars debating what it means? And that you will interpret all the rest of tge bible based on your understanding of those verses? That's astounding!
And now your only comment is to try to lump those who don't agree with you on Rev 22:19 into another group of heretics? Is that really all you've got? You've proved nothing except your inability to understand what one part of scripture says.
You have created a caricature of Open Theism, and have not identified any instance of eisegesis. You have merely applied the label to interpretations you dislike.
See post #278, arguments 9 and 23.
takes a few favorite verses Genesis 22:12 “Now I know
This is guilt by association combined with a false analogy.
You have identified no relevant similarity between Open Theism and Word of Faith theology. You have simply compared one doctrine you reject to another doctrine you reject.
That's not an argument against either position.
You responded to twenty-three numbered arguments without identifying a single error in any of the answers.
Choose an argument number, identify the particular premise or inference you reject, and explain why.
Repeating labels such as “eisegesis,” “heretical,” and “modal fallacy” does not answer the arguments.
Are you really prepared to say that you know exactly what that passage means, despite 2000 years of scholars debating what it means? And that you will interpret all the rest of the bible based on your understanding of those verses? That's astounding!
And now your only comment is to try to lump those who don't agree with you on Rev 22:19 into another group of heretics? Is that really all you've got? You've proved nothing except your inability to understand what one part of scripture says.
well now I understand open theism eisegesis takes a few favorite verses Genesis 22:12 “Now I know ”
open theism uses "now I know" , can only be interpreted as God doesn't know the future
Gen 3:9 "where are you"
open theism uses "where are you" as limited knowledge of the present
and Jeremiah 18 “if that nation repents, I will relent”
open theism uses “if that nation repents, I will relent” as prophecy is not settled
and makes them the controlling presupposition for the entire Bible.
as an open theist you must accept God doesn't know the present exhaustively or the future at all
reinterpret everything through these verses ,
and same problem here : not using the rest of the bible to interpret their key verses
kenneth copeland , benny hinn etc
word of faith theology “You are gods” Psalm 82:6 / John 10:34 makes the followers of that theology think they're gods
word of faith followers filter what the rest of the bible says through those verses
and open theist do the same with their verses so don't be so hard on the word of faith theology
and Jeremiah 18 “if that nation repents, I will relent”
open theism uses “if that nation repents, I will relent” as prophecy is not settled
once you say "they did not repent" may or may not be true you're off the reservation
you are saying the whole book of Revelation may or may not be true
you are the one that says it takes a thousand years to eat a piece of fruit to avoid the truth of spiritual death at the fall of man ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(II Timothy 3:7) Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth
what did I get wrong?
well now I understand open theism eisegesis takes a few favorite verses Genesis 22:12 “Now I know ”
open theism uses "now I know" , can only be interpreted as God doesn't know the future
Gen 3:9 "where are you"
open theism uses "where are you" as limited knowledge of the present
and Jeremiah 18 “if that nation repents, I will relent”
open theism uses “if that nation repents, I will relent” as prophecy is not settled
and makes them the controlling presupposition for the entire Bible.
as an open theist you must accept God doesn't know the present exhaustively or the future at all
reinterpret everything through these verses ,
and same problem here : not using the rest of the bible to interpret their key verses
kenneth copeland , benny hinn etc
word of faith theology “You are gods” Psalm 82:6 / John 10:34 makes the followers of that theology think they're gods
word of faith followers filter what the rest of the bible says through those verses
and open theist do the same with their verses so don't be so hard on the word of faith theology
And you're doing the same thing with Rev 22:19. If it's ok for you to filter the whole bible through ONE verse, which is what you've said the word of faith followers are doing (except that they use 2 verses), yet you admit in this post I'm responding to that open theists filter the whole Bible through two verses as well. So which is the better? filtering through only a single verse or two verses?
Yet it's much worse for you, because you've shown that you have little understanding of which verses open theists use, meaning that you filter your understanding of open theists through your own limited knowledge of open theism, so you have nothing of substance to say about it, so you end up repeating refuted material over and over. You've got nothing.
This is the hardest part to swallow prima facie, that God doesn't even know necessarily what's going on rn. Seems beyond the pale and a bridge too far.
This is the hardest part to swallow prima facie, that God doesn't even know necessarily what's going on rn. Seems beyond the pale and a bridge too far.
If you read the passages about how God knows things, it becomes more clear. God "searches" our hearts to see if there is any wicked way in us. He "numbers" (counts) the hairs of our heads. If these passages mean what they seem to say, then God acquires information that He didn't have before. God "tested" Abraham in order to know something. God went down to Sodom to see if the report about them was true. There are two ways to take these passages.
1. That God's knowledge never increases, and therefore He already knew our hearts, our hairs, Abraham's faithfulness with his only son, and the full extent of Sodom's wickedness. In this case the bible passages are giving a fake view of God, because they mean exactly the opposite of what they say on the surface.
2. That God's knowledge increases as there is more information available, and God uses His senses (whatever "senses" are like for a spirit) to gather information. In this case, the passages are easy to understand, but what it tells us is in conflict with what we believe about God, which is #1: that God's knowledge never increases.
How do we know which one is correct? Don't we search the scriptures to see which one is true? If so, then the scriptures which say God's knowledge increases are equally important as the ones that say God has always known everything that will ever happen.
But the funny thing is that there are absolutely no scriptures that say God has always known everything that will ever happen. So if there are some scriptures that say God's knowledge increases and no scriptures that say His knowledge is static, which position should we choose?
Can you not see that the outcome of God's action is dependent on the nations action?
That is a decision that God says that He has made... Why does this cause you problems?
once you say "they did not repent" may or may not be true you're off the reservation
you are saying the whole book of Revelation may or may not be true
This is the hardest part to swallow prima facie, that God doesn't even know necessarily what's going on rn. Seems beyond the pale and a bridge too far.
This is the hardest part to swallow prima facie, that God doesn't even know necessarily what's going on rn. Seems beyond the pale and a bridge too far.
Second: Which of your beliefs come directly from Scripture, and which come from an interpretation of Scripture?
The belief that God must possess exhaustive knowledge of everything presently occurring everywhere is a theological premise. The question is whether Scripture requires that premise.
See post #278, particularly Arguments 6 through 8 and 11.
Those sections address the passages in which God investigates present circumstances, distinguishes between knowing that a matter exists and knowing all its details, and explains why denying exhaustive present knowledge does not diminish His wisdom, power, or ability to act.
Something may initially seem “beyond the pale” because it conflicts with the theology through which you have been taught to read Scripture. That does not establish that the theology is correct.
The question is whether Scripture itself presents God as possessing exhaustive present knowledge, or whether that conclusion is being imposed upon passages that describe Him investigating, observing, testing, and learning.
Already answered in #283 and in #278, Argument 23.
and same problem here : not using the rest of the bible to interpret their key verses
kenneth copeland , benny hinn etc
word of faith theology “You are gods” Psalm 82:6 / John 10:34 makes the followers of that theology think they're gods
word of faith followers filter what the rest of the bible says through those verses
and open theist do the same with their verses so don't be so hard on the word of faith theology
“And when He had called His twelve disciples to Him...”
Then:
“These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them...”
Jesus is speaking directly to the twelve disciples He is sending out. He warns them about persecution and tells them not to fear:
“Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.”
Jesus is assuring His twelve disciples of their Father’s care for them.
He uses two sparrows as His illustration. Grammatically, “one of them” refers to those two sparrows. The illustration expresses God’s general care for sparrows, but your claim about God continuously tracking an estimated fifty billion birds is something you imported into the passage.
Likewise, the “your” in “the very hairs of your head are all numbered” directly addresses the twelve disciples. Their hairs are numbered. The text does not say that their hairs were eternally foreknown, much less that God therefore possesses exhaustive knowledge of everything presently happening everywhere.
The Greek also does not contain the words “permission” or “will.” It says that one of the sparrows will not fall “apart from your Father.”
Even if the passage means that God knows whenever any sparrow falls, knowledge of that particular class of events does not logically entail exhaustive knowledge of every present fact.
Finally, I have never claimed that God could not keep track of Adam and Eve.
See #278, Arguments 6 and 23.
You are once again attacking an interpretation I explicitly rejected.
You have created a caricature of Open Theism, and have not identified any instance of eisegesis. You have merely applied the label to interpretations you dislike.
well now I understand open theism eisegesis takes a few favorite verses Genesis 22:12 “Now I know ”
open theism uses "now I know" , can only be interpreted as God doesn't know the future which = not settled
Then via eisegesis apply that to Revelation chapters 4-22 to wave them away while affirming those chapters exist but are unreliable as god doesn't know the future
special pleading via eisegesis Revelation chapters 4-22 could be wrong because god said "now I know"
open theism has the same problem here : not using the rest of the bible to interpret their key verses
kenneth copeland , benny hinn etc
word of faith theology “You are gods” Psalm 82:6 / John 10:34 makes the followers of that theology think they're gods
word of faith followers filter what the rest of the bible says through those verses
and open theist do the same with their verses so don't be so hard on the word of faith theology
Revelation supports exhaustive foreknowledge , open theism "affirms" (whatever that means) while denying via eisegesis Revelation chapters 4-22 using Genesis 22:12 “Now I know ” which = not settled future
not a false analogy
word of faith followers hold onto their verses Psalm 82:6 / John 10:34 like a fat kid loves candy
open theist wipe out almost an entire book of the bible because God said "now I know" but they affirm it while denying it
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(Revelation of John 22:19) And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
You have identified no relevant similarity between Open Theism and Word of Faith theology. You have simply compared one doctrine you reject to another doctrine you reject.
just word of faith followers hold onto their verses Psalm 82:6 / John 10:34 like a fat kid loves candy
and open theism does the same no matter what the rest of scripture says
(Matthew 10:29) “Two sparrows are sold for a penny, aren't they? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father's permission.
God is keeping track of an estimated 50 Billion birds today but couldn't keep track of the only two people on the earth
Gen 3:9 "where are you"
open theism uses "where are you" as limited knowledge of the present
makes this impossible
(Matthew 12:36) But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
well now I understand open theism eisegesis takes a few favorite verses Genesis 22:12 “Now I know ”
open theism uses "now I know" , can only be interpreted as God doesn't know the future which = not settled
Then via eisegesis apply that to Revelation chapters 4-22 to wave them away while affirming those chapters exist but are unreliable as god doesn't know the future
special pleading via eisegesis Revelation chapters 4-22 could be wrong because god said "now I know"
open theism has the same problem here : not using the rest of the bible to interpret their key verses
kenneth copeland , benny hinn etc
word of faith theology “You are gods” Psalm 82:6 / John 10:34 makes the followers of that theology think they're gods
word of faith followers filter what the rest of the bible says through those verses
and open theist do the same with their verses so don't be so hard on the word of faith theology
Revelation supports exhaustive foreknowledge , open theism "affirms" (whatever that means) while denying via eisegesis Revelation chapters 4-22 using Genesis 22:12 “Now I know ” which = not settled future
not a false analogy
word of faith followers hold onto their verses Psalm 82:6 / John 10:34 like a fat kid loves candy
open theist wipe out almost an entire book of the bible because God said "now I know" but they affirm it while denying it
¯_(ツ)_/¯
(Revelation of John 22:19) And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
just word of faith followers hold onto their verses Psalm 82:6 / John 10:34 like a fat kid loves candy
and open theism does the same no matter what the rest of scripture says
makes this impossible
(Matthew 12:36) But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
Only if you assume that God has no alternative means of gathering information.
Matthew 12:36 says that men will give an account for the words they have spoken. It does not say that God personally witnessed every word when it was spoken, much less that He eternally foreknew it.
Scripture shows God using created agents, including angels, to observe, investigate, report, and preserve information. It also describes records being kept and books being opened at judgment.
Even where no angel witnessed an action, men cannot conceal it from God. He can search their hearts and discover their thoughts, intentions, and the truth about what they have done.
God can therefore establish or reconstruct every fact necessary for righteous judgment. Nothing a man has done is beyond His ability to discover merely because He did not directly witness it when it happened.
None of that requires exhaustive present knowledge.
If you read the passages about how God knows things, it becomes more clear. God "searches" our hearts to see if there is any wicked way in us. He "numbers" (counts) the hairs of our heads. If these passages mean what they seem to say, then God acquires information that He didn't have before. God "tested" Abraham in order to know something. God went down to Sodom to see if the report about them was true. There are two ways to take these passages.
1. That God's knowledge never increases, and therefore He already knew our hearts, our hairs, Abraham's faithfulness with his only son, and the full extent of Sodom's wickedness. In this case the bible passages are giving a fake view of God, because they mean exactly the opposite of what they say on the surface.
2. That God's knowledge increases as there is more information available, and God uses His senses (whatever "senses" are like for a spirit) to gather information. In this case, the passages are easy to understand, but what it tells us is in conflict with what we believe about God, which is #1: that God's knowledge never increases.
How do we know which one is correct? Don't we search the scriptures to see which one is true? If so, then the scriptures which say God's knowledge increases are equally important as the ones that say God has always known everything that will ever happen.
But the funny thing is that there are absolutely no scriptures that say God has always known everything that will ever happen. So if there are some scriptures that say God's knowledge increases and no scriptures that say His knowledge is static, which position should we choose?
Maybe angels bridge the gap. It doesn't make any sense that God can have intimate knowledge at all times of 50 billion swallows, but not know what's going on with Adam and Eve, Abraham, and Sodom. Or why His vineyard's growing wild grapes. It doesn't make any sense.
So if instead, there are so many angels that they saturate space and time, they act as God's eyepieces, so that He never irresponsibly, like an irresponsible landlord, or an irresponsible ship's captain, misses something in the discharge of His duty (a passion project, since ofc nothing can impose a duty on God!) which leads to injustice, then perhaps we can have our cake and eat it too.
Do you find the following Scriptures literal, or figurative, metaphorical, symbolic, etc.?
$$ Ps 139:4
For [there is] not a word in my tongue, [but], lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.
$$ Ps 139:7
Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
$$ Ps 139:8
If I ascend up into heaven, thou [art] there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou [art there].
$$ Ps 139:11
If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.
$$ Ps 139:12
Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light [are] both alike [to thee].
$$ Ps 139:16
Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all [my members] were written, [which] in continuance were fashioned, when [as yet there was] none of them.
$$ Ps 139:18
[If] I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee.
$$ Ps 139:19
Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men.
$$ Ps 139:20
For they speak against thee wickedly, [and] thine enemies take [thy name] in vain.
$$ Ps 139:22
I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.
$$ Ps 139:23
Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
$$ Ps 139:24
And see if [there be any] wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.
I'm curious your interpretation of these verses, if you take them literally. If you don't take them literally, then maybe the presence of a diluvian population of angels can help to explain the prima facie disagreeing inferences we make from different sets of verses, such that, angels, as God's agents, as His 'tentacles' almost, are everywhere, and could report to God everything they see, but God doesn't as a matter of course always inquire of angels what's happening in every last case, unless it's 50 billion swallows, in which case He wants to know up-to-the-moment information on every last one of them.
I'm joking. It's not, I don't think, impossible on its face, that we might be surrounded by an engulfing host of angels at all times, so that exhaustive knowledge is always possible, not directly, but through a network of angels, to God, and, that He doesn't as a rule, necessarily utilize this surveillance network all the time and in every case. He certainly doesn't need to, if He doesn't want to. There is no duty imposed on Him.
it only says when they "fall to the ground", right? be careful of extrapolating. God might have told His angels to let Him know if any sparrows die. Did God know, at the foundation of the world, when all of the sparrows that would ever exist would die? Is it important to you that He has always known that?
they act as God's eyepieces, so that He never irresponsibly, like an irresponsible landlord, or an irresponsible ship's captain, misses something in the discharge of His duty (a passion project, since ofc nothing can impose a duty on God!) which leads to injustice, then perhaps we can have our cake and eat it too.
$$ Ps 139:7
Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
$$ Ps 139:8
If I ascend up into heaven, thou [art] there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou [art there].
$$ Ps 139:11
If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.
$$ Ps 139:12
Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light [are] both alike [to thee].
God can see in the dark, like when His Spirit hovered over the face of the waters before light was created. But if God can see in the dark and in the light, what is He seeing? Something He already knew about before the foundation of the world? Then why is "sight" necessary? Sight implies information garthering.
$$ Ps 139:16
Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all [my members] were written, [which] in continuance were fashioned, when [as yet there was] none of them.
God knows the result of the prenatal process, that it results in a man or woman, Hebrew or Gentile, ruddy or light or dark complexion, etc. God can read DNA, and you might say He wrote (coded) David's DNA, and whatever else determines stuff about us, like epigenetics. But the text talks about "seeing" again, meaning the gathering of information.
Needs vs 17 for context:
How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! [Psa 139:17 KJV]
So God thinks infinite numbers of things about us. Maybe He's even counting our hairs, our cells, our thoughts. This is not sight, but still information gathering, at least in part.
$$ Ps 139:19
Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men.
$$ Ps 139:20
For they speak against thee wickedly, [and] thine enemies take [thy name] in vain.
These tell us that God does not spend the same amount of time and energy on the wicked as He was doing with David. If He did, they wouldn't last long on the earth. So Gid might not know as much information about the wicked...just enough to know they are wicked perhaps.
God needed to be actively searching David to know his desires, good or bad, or at least David was an open theist. But it makes more sense to see it as God gathering information about David.
God doesn't already know about all wickedness that might be in David, even though He's thinking infinite numbers of things about him. He has to "see" (gather information) if there is any wicked way in David.
If you don't take them literally, then maybe the presence of a diluvian population of angels can help to explain the prima facie disagreeing inferences we make from different sets of verses, such that, angels, as God's agents, as His 'tentacles' almost, are everywhere, and could report to God everything they see, but God doesn't as a matter of course always inquire of angels what's happening in every last case,
It's not, I don't think, impossible on its face, that we might be surrounded by an engulfing host of angels at all times, so that exhaustive knowledge is always possible, not directly, but through a network of angels, to God, and, that He doesn't as a rule, necessarily utilize this surveillance network all the time and in every case. He certainly doesn't need to, if He doesn't want to. There is no duty imposed on Him.
Maybe He does utilize it. But there are more truthful and less truthful 'angels', some called demons or lying spirits. Maybe Sodom's angel/demon 'prince' was not reliable, but other people (and their angels) had experienced the evil and brought a bad report. Maybe they had a counsel in heaven, where accusations were made and refutations offered. Then God investigated (gathered information). Personally, I think God was not going down to Sodom to see if the past reports were true so much as to see if there was any hope for repentance with any in Sodom. He found out they were set in their ways, and their destruction was then assured.
Either way, God is presented as finding out information about Sodom. you have to reject the textual narrative to come to other conclusions.
well now I understand open theism eisegesis takes a few favorite verses Genesis 22:12 “Now I know ”
open theism uses "now I know" , can only be interpreted as God doesn't know the future which = not settled
Then via eisegesis apply that to Revelation chapters 4-22 to wave them away while affirming those chapters exist but are unreliable as god doesn't know the future
special pleading via eisegesis Revelation chapters 4-22 could be wrong because god said "now I know"
from#9
I affirm that Revelation says, “They did not repent.”
&
Writing “they did not repent” in a prophetic vision does not automatically establish that their future free choices were immutable facts before they existed.
from#15
The vision itself portrays what might happen in actual history if the relevant circumstances do not change.
“They did not repent.” not literal
“Now I know.” literal
open theism has the same problem here : not using the rest of the bible to interpret their key verses
kenneth copeland , benny hinn etc
word of faith theology “You are gods” Psalm 82:6 / John 10:34 makes the followers of that theology think they're gods
word of faith followers filter what the rest of the bible says through those verses
and open theist do the same with their verses so don't be so hard on the word of faith theology
from#9
I affirm that Genesis says, “Now I know.”
I affirm that Revelation says, “They did not repent.”
you affirm that these are written in the bible but that is all you mean when you say "i affirm"
“Now I know.” can only be interpreted the open theist way just like the word of faith theology “You are gods” literally only
“They did not repent.” not literal
instead it gets the open theist special pleading treatment because the “Now I know.”
means god doesn't know the future and its prophecy not settled future , they may repent
Only if you assume that God has no alternative means of gathering information.
Matthew 12:36 says that men will give an account for the words they have spoken. It does not say that God personally witnessed every word when it was spoken, much less that He eternally foreknew it.
(Matthew 10:29) “Two sparrows are sold for a penny, aren't they? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father's permission.
God is keeping track of an estimated 50 Billion birds today but couldn't keep track of the only two people on the earth
Gen 3:9 "where are you"
open theism uses "where are you" as limited knowledge of the present makes this impossible (Matthew 12:36) But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
(Psalms 139:4) For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.
(Psalms 139:7) Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
(Jeremiah 23:23-24) [23] Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off? [24] Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.
in reference to the birds he also named all the stars
(Isaiah 40:26) Lift up your eyes on high, and behold, who has created these, who brings out their host by number? He calls them all by names by the greatness of His might, for He is strong in power; not one is lacking.
(Psalms 147:4-5) [4] He appoints the number of the stars; He calls them all by their names. [5] Great is our LORD, and of great power; There is no limit to His understanding.
and one other thing about the 50 billion birds God has to keep track of them at all times in order to know if one falls which would not be a problem for God , two people maybe a problem
Scripture shows God using created agents, including angels, to observe, investigate, report, and preserve information. It also describes records being kept and books being opened at judgment.
special pleading because he uses angels he doesn't know all things ?
so this is not literal but "now I know" is
(John 21:17) He said to him the third time, Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me? Peter was grieved because He said to him a third time , Do you love Me? And he said to Him, Lord, You know all things, You know that I love You. Jesus said to him, Feed My sheep.
(I John 3:20) For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things
Even where no angel witnessed an action, men cannot conceal it from God. He can search their hearts and discover their thoughts, intentions, and the truth about what they have done.
God can therefore establish or reconstruct every fact necessary for righteous judgment. Nothing a man has done is beyond His ability to discover merely because He did not directly witness it when it happened.
You may like endlessly repeating yourself, but I do not.
If something has already been said, I would much rather simply point back to where it's already been said, than try to rehash something that clearly isn't making it through your thick skull.
You can lead a @way 2 go to reason, but you cannot make him think.
Post #278 catalogued and answered twenty-three of your recurring arguments. THAT'S 23, SIR!
I also answered your subsequent repetitions and additions in #283, #293, and #295.
And because you continue repeating yourself instead of addressing those answers, I am now having to create a second set of reference arguments for the few new proof texts you have added.
Referring you to answers you have ignored is not hypocrisy.
Repeating the same claims without engaging those answers is not effort.
well now I understand open theism eisegesis takes a few favorite verses Genesis 22:12 “Now I know ”
open theism uses "now I know" , can only be interpreted as God doesn't know the future which = not settled
Then via eisegesis apply that to Revelation chapters 4-22 to wave them away while affirming those chapters exist but are unreliable as god doesn't know the future
special pleading via eisegesis Revelation chapters 4-22 could be wrong because god said "now I know"
from#9
I affirm that Revelation says, “They did not repent.”
&
Writing “they did not repent” in a prophetic vision does not automatically establish that their future free choices were immutable facts before they existed.
from#15
The vision itself portrays what might happen in actual history if the relevant circumstances do not change.
“They did not repent.” not literal
“Now I know.” literal
Already answered. See #278, Arguments 1-5, 9, and 14-17.
Both statements are literal within their respective contexts. In Genesis, God literally said, “Now I know.” In Revelation’s vision, the men literally did not repent.
What you have not established is that everything portrayed in a prophetic vision is therefore an immutable transcript of future history.
open theism has the same problem here : not using the rest of the bible to interpret their key verses
kenneth copeland , benny hinn etc
word of faith theology “You are gods” Psalm 82:6 / John 10:34 makes the followers of that theology think they're gods
word of faith followers filter what the rest of the bible says through those verses
and open theist do the same with their verses so don't be so hard on the word of faith theology
You have repeated the comparison without identifying any error in my answer.
(Matthew 10:29) “Two sparrows are sold for a penny, aren't they? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father's permission.
God is keeping track of an estimated 50 Billion birds today but couldn't keep track of the only two people on the earth
Gen 3:9 "where are you"
open theism uses "where are you" as limited knowledge of the present
makes this impossible (Matthew 12:36) But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
I have also explicitly rejected the interpretation of Genesis 3:9 that you continue to attribute to me.
See #278, Arguments 6 and 23, and Arguments 24 and 28 below.
(Psalms 139:4) For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.
(Psalms 139:7) Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
(Jeremiah 23:23-24) [23] Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off? [24] Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.
in reference to the birds he also named all the stars
(Isaiah 40:26) Lift up your eyes on high, and behold, who has created these, who brings out their host by number? He calls them all by names by the greatness of His might, for He is strong in power; not one is lacking.
(Psalms 147:4-5) [4] He appoints the number of the stars; He calls them all by their names. [5] Great is our LORD, and of great power; There is no limit to His understanding.
and one other thing about the 50 billion birds God has to keep track of them at all times in order to know if one falls which would not be a problem for God , two people maybe a problem
special pleading because he uses angels he doesn't know all things ?
so this is not literal but "now I know" is
(John 21:17) He said to him the third time, Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me? Peter was grieved because He said to him a third time, Do you love Me? And he said to Him, Lord, You know all things, You know that I love You. Jesus said to him, Feed My sheep.
(I John 3:20) For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things
Past actions are settled facts. Information about them can be discovered through witnesses, records, angels, investigation, and searching the people involved.
Future free choices have not yet been made and are not settled facts.
You are conflating the recovery of information about something that has already happened with infallible knowledge of a choice that has not yet been made.
----
Now, the following arguments continue the reference numbering from #278.
24. Matthew 10:29 proves that God continuously tracks every bird
Spoiler
Raised in: #291, #294, #298.
Answered in: #293 and here.
Claim: Since not one sparrow falls apart from the Father, God must continuously track every one of the estimated fifty billion birds alive today. Therefore, He must possess exhaustive present knowledge.
Answer: Matthew 10 does not say that God continuously tracks every detail concerning every bird currently in existence.
Jesus is speaking directly to the twelve disciples whom He is sending out. He uses two sparrows as an illustration of their Father’s care:
“Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father.”
Grammatically, “one of them” refers to the two sparrows in the illustration. The illustration expresses a general truth about God’s care, but “fifty billion birds today” is something you imported into the passage.
The Greek also does not contain the words “permission” or “will.” It says that one of the sparrows does not fall “apart from your Father.”
Even granting that God knows whenever any sparrow falls, that establishes knowledge of a particular class of events. It does not establish exhaustive knowledge of every present fact concerning everything everywhere.
Your inference is:
God knows when sparrows fall.
Therefore, God automatically knows everything.
That conclusion does not follow.
25. Psalm 139 and Jeremiah 23 prove exhaustive present knowledge
Spoiler
Raised in: #296, #298.
Answered in: #297 and here.
Claim: Psalm 139 and Jeremiah 23 teach that God is everywhere and knows every present fact exhaustively.
Answer: Psalm 139 describes God’s intimate knowledge of David, His ability to find him wherever he goes, and His ability to search and examine him. It does not define God as automatically possessing every fact about everything everywhere.
Psalm 139:4 says:
“For there is not a word on my tongue,
But behold, O LORD, You know it altogether.”
The words a man is about to speak originate in his mind before they reach his tongue. Because God can search the heart and mind, He can immediately know what David is preparing to say before David says it.
That is knowledge of a thought already present in David’s mind, not infallible foreknowledge of words David has not yet decided to speak.
The verse does not say that God knew every word David would ever speak from eternity.
Psalm 139:7-12 says that David cannot flee from God or conceal himself in darkness.
God is capable of finding what He searches for. He does not need to be physically present at every point in the universe simultaneously for David to remain within His reach.
Darkness conceals things from human eyes. God is not limited by human eyesight.
Psalm 139:16 concerns fetal development.
The KJV supplies the word “members,” but there is no Hebrew word for “members” in the verse. The Hebrew explicitly says yamim, “days”:
“And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them.” (NKJV)
“All of them” refers to “the days,” and the verse ends by saying that not one of “them” yet existed.
David is poetically describing the developmental process God fashioned for him while he was still an unformed child in the womb. Those developmental days were written before any of them unfolded.
The passage does not say that every event and free choice throughout David’s life had already been written as settled future history.
Psalm 139:17-18 says that God’s thoughts toward David are exceedingly numerous. It does not say that God has a mathematically infinite number of thoughts about every person or that He knows every present fact.
Verses 19-22 concern David’s appeal against wicked men and his separation from them. They do not define divine knowledge.
Psalm 139:23-24 says:
“Search me, O God, and know my heart;
Try me, and know my anxieties;
And see if there is any wicked way in me.”
“Search,” “try,” “know,” and “see if” are words of active examination.
They are not words naturally used to teach that God already possesses exhaustive knowledge of David without searching, trying, or seeing.
Jeremiah 23:23-24 likewise teaches that false prophets cannot hide from God:
“Can anyone hide himself in secret places,
So I shall not see him?”
No one can conceal himself from God when God seeks him out.
Even if “Do I not fill heaven and earth?” were taken as spatial omnipresence, presence does not logically entail exhaustive conscious knowledge of every fact. Being present somewhere and attending to every detail there are separate propositions.
These passages establish God’s reach, perception, power, and ability to search men. They do not state exhaustive present knowledge.
26. Naming and numbering the stars proves exhaustive knowledge
Spoiler
Raised in: #298.
Answered in: Here.
Claim: Isaiah 40:26 and Psalm 147:4-5 say that God numbers and names the stars. Therefore, He exhaustively knows every fact about everything.
Answer: God created the stars, ordered them, numbers them, and calls them by name.
Of course He knows their names. He is the One who made and named them.
The passages demonstrate His immense power, understanding, and particular knowledge of the heavenly host. They do not say that He automatically possesses exhaustive knowledge of every unrelated present fact or infallible foreknowledge of every future free choice.
Psalm 147:5 says:
“His understanding is infinite.”
That praises the immeasurable greatness of God’s understanding. It does not define the total content of His knowledge, say that every conceivable fact has already entered His mind, or say that He presently attends to everything everywhere.
Scripture expressly says that certain wicked inventions had not entered His mind.
Once again, your inference is:
God knows an enormous number of things.
Therefore, God knows everything exhaustively.
That conclusion does not follow.
27. “God knows all things” always means exhaustive omniscience
Spoiler
Raised in: #298.
Answered in: Here.
Claim: John 21:17 and 1 John 3:20 say that God knows “all things.” Therefore, He possesses exhaustive knowledge of every present fact and every future free choice.
Answer: “All things” is governed by context.
Peter says:
“Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.”
The second clause identifies the matter under discussion. Peter appeals to Christ’s complete knowledge of Peter and the truth concerning Peter’s love for Him.
Peter is not interrupting the conversation to provide a philosophical definition of exhaustive omniscience.
Likewise, 1 John 3 concerns the heart condemning us:
“For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things.”
God knows the complete truth concerning the matter for which our hearts condemn us.
The same epistle says of believers only one chapter earlier:
“But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.” (1 John 2:20)
If “know all things” must always mean exhaustive omniscience, then John declared his readers exhaustively omniscient.
Scripture uses the same kind of language elsewhere:
“Those who seek the LORD understand all things.” (Proverbs 28:5)
David was described as knowing “all things that are in the earth.” (2 Samuel 14:20)
No one concludes that every believer who seeks God, or David, possessed exhaustive knowledge of every fact.
“All things” means all things within the scope established by the context.
Neither John 21:17 nor 1 John 3:20 says:
“God automatically possesses exhaustive knowledge of every present fact and every future free choice.”
28. Final judgment requires exhaustive present knowledge
Spoiler
Raised in: #294, #298.
Answered in: #295 and here.
Claim: Matthew 12:36 says that men will account for every idle word. Therefore, God must have personally witnessed and continuously remembered every word when it was spoken.
Answer: That follows only if you assume that God has no alternative means of gathering information.
Matthew 12:36 says that men will give an account for the words they have spoken. It does not say that God personally witnessed every word when it was spoken, much less that He eternally foreknew it.
Scripture depicts God using created agents to observe, investigate, and report. Angels patrol the earth and report what they find. Scripture also describes records being kept and books being opened at judgment.
Even where no angel witnessed an action, men cannot hide it permanently from God. He can investigate, search their hearts, and discover their thoughts, intentions, and the truth about what they have done.
God can therefore establish or reconstruct every fact necessary for righteous judgment.
That is not “rewinding the past.”
Past actions are settled facts. Information about settled facts can be discovered through witnesses, records, angels, investigation, and examination of the people involved.
Future free choices have not yet been made and are not settled facts.
You are conflating the recovery of information about something that has already happened with infallible knowledge of a choice that has not yet been made.
Using angels, records, investigation, or searching men’s hearts is not special pleading. Scripture presents God using such means.
None of this requires exhaustive present knowledge.
Conclusion
Your recurring error in these arguments is the same:
“God knows a particular thing, therefore God knows everything exhaustively.”
That inference is invalid.
Matthew 10 says that sparrows do not fall apart from the Father.
Psalm 139 describes God’s intimate attention to David and His ability to search him.
Jeremiah 23 says false prophets cannot hide from God.
Isaiah 40 and Psalm 147 say that God numbers and names the stars He created.
John 21 and 1 John 3 say that God knows the complete truth concerning the people and matters under discussion.
Matthew 12 says men will account for their words.
None of those passages states that God automatically possesses exhaustive knowledge of every present fact or exhaustive infallible foreknowledge of every future free choice.
You have now received answers to both your repeated arguments and your new proof texts.
Identify a particular premise or inference and demonstrate an error.
Otherwise, as I already told you, this conversation is over.
