Biblical is what it is.
It's only heretical for those who worship Aristotle's god.
Honest struggles on God’s omniscience.
- Thread starter Skywatch89
- Start date
It's only heretical for those who worship Aristotle's god.
No, you read that into whatever passages you're thinking of.
Biblically, God knows what He wants to know of that information that is knowable.
There is not one single syllable of the bible you can find that will contradict that statement. Any and every attempt you make will require you to read your doctrine into the text.
Skywatch89
New member
Ok. So instead of trying to reason cordially, by being patient and loving, and instead of trying to help me understand, and reason and persuade, we will automatically assume that I’m reading what I believe into whatever passages I’m thinking of, and claim that any and every attempt I make will require me to read my doctrine into the text. However, I fully believe God is omniscient.
Having said that, did it ever occur to you that I’m simply trying to understand, learn and see if there’s another view to reconcile God’s omniscience with man’s freedom of choice in a way that resolves some “tension” that people have? I guess not…
Last edited:
way 2 go
Well-known member
(Revelation of John 9:20-21) [20] And the rest of the men who were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the works of their hands, that they should not worship demons, and golden, and silver, and bronze, and stone, and wooden idols (which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk). [21] And they did not repent of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.
(Revelation of John 16:9-11) [9] And men were burned with great heat. And they blasphemed the name of God, He having authority over these plagues. And they did not repent in order to give Him glory. [10] And the fifth angel poured out his vial on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom became darkened. And they gnawed their tongues from the pain. [11] And they blasphemed the God of Heaven because of their pains and their sores. And they did not repent of their deeds.
Jesus never said ,"I am G-d"
Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord and mighty in power. His understanding is infinite.
you put a limit on his understanding to the past and only some of the present .
(Deuteronomy 18:22) When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not follow nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You shall not be afraid of him.
(Revelation of John 16:9-11) [9] And men were burned with great heat. And they blasphemed the name of God, He having authority over these plagues. And they did not repent in order to give Him glory. [10] And the fifth angel poured out his vial on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom became darkened. And they gnawed their tongues from the pain. [11] And they blasphemed the God of Heaven because of their pains and their sores. And they did not repent of their deeds.
what is it with opentheist and G=d being unjust
foreknowledge is not the same as causing or approving it
(James 1:13) Let no one being tempted say, I am tempted from God. For God is not tempted by evils, and He tempts no one.
who is preventing these people of repenting ?
(Revelation of John 9:20-21) [20] And the rest of the men who were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the works of their hands, that they should not worship demons, and golden, and silver, and bronze, and stone, and wooden idols (which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk). [21] And they did not repent of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.
the bible is about man changing ,you have it backwards
the bible is not about G-d changing
He already knows what people will do (or pray), and He incorporates those responses into how He interacts with us in time.
the bible is about man changing
did G-d know Nineveh would repent if Jonah preached , yes
foreknowledge
(Jonah 1:17) And the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. ...
open theist have G-d needing to go to sodom to figure it out if the place was evil , so much for all knowing ,
G-d did want a conversation with Abraham to teach us and Abraham
(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
teaching moments
men have to change, not G-d
you have no change from God without change from man ,
so it can be said it is God's uses his foreknowledge for teaching interventions
and G-d's foreknowledge tells that they don't repent
(Revelation of John 16:9-11) [9] And men were burned with great heat. And they blasphemed the name of God, He having authority over these plagues. And they did not repent in order to give Him glory. [10] And the fifth angel poured out his vial on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom became darkened. And they gnawed their tongues from the pain. [11] And they blasphemed the God of Heaven because of their pains and their sores. And they did not repent of their deeds.
There was no insult intended. I've just been doing this for decades and already know all of your proof texts. None of them say what you likely believe them to say. If anything, my comments were simply intended as a challenge. Prove me wrong.
Quite! Don't take my directness as hostility. So long as your responses are honest and substantive, you'll find that I have the patience of Moses with any inquiry you might have. Others here will tell you, if my intention had been hostility, there'd be no room for doubt about it. So far, you've given no reason for any hostility whatsoever. Again, I was simply offering a direct response to your single sentence post. I had no insult or any other sort of hostility in mind at all.
Foreknowledge "causing or approving it" isn't the issue nor the argument.
There are several problems with the idea of exhaustive foreknowledge, not the least of which is that the bible does not teach it but your statement has to do with the issue of justice and so let's look at that issue in particular.
First of all, there is a strong possibility that you hold a different definition of the word "justice" in your mind, especially when applying it to God (the word "God" is spelled with an "o", by the way), and so let's start by defining terms.
"Good" is that which sustains, upholds, and promotes life in accordance with what is real and true. Evil is that which corrupts, diminishes, or destroys life by acting against what is real and true. (Deuteronomy 30:15)
Righteousness is the rational alignment of one’s thoughts, choices, and actions with the good, consistently choosing what sustains and advances life.
Justice is that same righteousness applied outwardly. It is the rational evaluation of actions in light of the good, rendering to each person what is rightly due, rewarding what sustains life and opposing or punishing what destroys it, so that life is maximally protected and upheld.
Good and evil are not merely outcomes, they are rationally chosen alignments with or against what sustains life. Righteousness is choosing the good. Justice is holding persons accountable for those choices. Remove free will, and that entire chain collapses.
Without free will, righteousness disappears. A person could not truly align himself with the good; he would only be acting out a script of some sort. There is no virtue in inevitability.
Further, without free will, evil loses its moral meaning. If a destructive act is unavoidable, it is no longer wrong in the moral sense, only unfortunate in the mechanical sense.
So, how does foreknowledge touch any of that?
It touches all of it by making everything unavoidable.
Free will is the ability to choose. It is the ability to do or to do otherwise. For there to be a choice, there has to be alternative possibilities from which to choose. That which is foreknown is necessary (i.e. logically necessary). If an action is necessary, there is no alternative, by definition. If there is no alternative, there is no choice. If there is no choice, the action is amoral. To reward or punish an amoral action is unjust, by definition.
Prof. Linda Zagzebski, the Kingfisher College Chair of the Philosophy of Religion and Ethics at Oklahoma University put the argument in more formal terms....
T = You answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am
- Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
- If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
- It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
- Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
- If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
- So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
- If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
- Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
- If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
- Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]
Now, she wasn't making any statement there about justice. Indeed, her argument doesn't even attempt to say whether or not foreknowledge exists. It simply demonstrates the mutually exclusive nature of foreknowledge and free will. If one is true, the other is false. Put simply, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Thus, those who say we have no choice are themselves left with a choice to make. If you believe in a just God then you must reject the doctrine of exhaustive divine foreknowledge, or vise versa.
Last edited:
Okay, and?
You quoted Revelation saying some people did not repent.
What argument are you making from that?
Open theists do not deny prophecy. We do not deny that God can reveal future events. We do not deny that God can know or declare particular future outcomes.
So merely quoting a passage where Revelation says men did not repent does not prove exhaustive definite foreknowledge of every future free choice.
You need to connect the dots.
Are you arguing that because God revealed this future rebellion, therefore every future free choice of every person is already settled from eternity?
If so, that conclusion does not follow.
So what?
Are you saying a doctrine does not need to use the exact phrase to be biblical?
I completely agree.
The exact wording does not have to be there, but the concept still has to be taught.
Christ’s deity is taught throughout Scripture, even without that exact phrase.
So the issue is not whether the Bible uses my preferred wording. It's whether it actually teaches your doctrine.
Psalm 147:5 says God’s understanding is infinite.
Amen.
But you’re taking a line from a praise Psalm and using it like a didactic prooftext club to bash your opponents over the head with.
Read the Psalm. The psalmist is not giving a technical definition of exhaustive foreknowledge. He is praising God for His greatness, wisdom, power, care, provision, justice, and faithfulness.
And the context actually cuts against your position. The Psalm presents God as active: He builds, gathers, heals, counts, calls, lifts up, casts down, sends rain, feeds, strengthens, blesses, commands, and declares.
That is the living God doing things, not a prooftext for a frozen future.
So yes, the verse proves God is immeasurably wise and understanding.
It does not say the future is exhaustively settled. It does not say every future free choice already exists as a fact before it is made. And it does not prove your settled-view definition of omniscience.
Deuteronomy 18:22 does not help you as much as you think.
That passage is not about God being locked into every warning of judgment no matter how men respond. It is about false prophets, men who presume to speak in God’s name when God has not spoken.
Yes, if a man falsely claims, “Thus saith the Lord,” and the thing does not come to pass, he has exposed himself as a false prophet.
But that is not the same thing as God sending a prophet with a warning of judgment meant to bring men to repentance.
The Bible is not confused about which prophets are speaking for God and which are false. When Scripture presents a prophet as sent by God, that prophet is not suddenly demoted to “false prophet” just because God’s warning accomplished its purpose.
Jonah is the obvious example.
God sent Jonah to Nineveh. Jonah preached, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.” Nineveh repented, and God did not overthrow it.
Was Jonah a false prophet?
Of course not.
That is because many judgment prophecies are not prewritten history. They are warnings. They tell men what is coming if they continue on their present course.
Jeremiah 18 gives the principle plainly: if God announces judgment against a nation and that nation repents, God will relent of the judgment He intended to bring.
So Deuteronomy 18 is not a prooftext for an exhaustively settled future. It is a test for presumptuous prophets.
God is not a pagan fortune-teller reading off a fixed script. He is a righteous and relational God who warns men so they repent.
The point of many judgment prophecies is not fulfillment.
The point is repentance. Something that cannot happen if the future is settled.
Foreknowledge is not causation.
Agreed.
But that does not answer the issue, and it especially does not help a Calvinist.
First, if God is “outside of time” in the classical sense, then “foreknowledge” is already the wrong category. “Fore” means before. But if there is no before or after with God, then He does not “foreknow” in any normal sense of the word.
Second, “foreknowledge is not causation” is an Arminian escape hatch, not a Calvinist one. Calvinists like to act like Arminians whenever foreknowledge becomes morally inconvenient. But on Calvinism, God does not merely foreknow the future. He decrees it. He renders it certain. He ordains whatsoever comes to pass.
So appealing to “foreknowledge isn’t causation” does not help the Calvinist at all.
And even for the Arminian, the problem is not solved. The issue is not merely causation. The issue is certainty. If God infallibly foreknows before a man exists that he will never repent, then that man’s non-repentance is certain before he is ever born.
So the question remains:
Could he actually do otherwise than what God already infallibly knew he would do?
If yes, then God’s foreknowledge could be wrong.
If no, then the future was already fixed.
Either way, simply saying “foreknowledge is not causation” does not answer the problem.
James 1:13 is true.
God does not tempt anyone to evil.
But that does not help your position. It actually creates a problem for it.
The issue is not whether God personally whispers temptation into a man’s ear. I never claimed that.
The issue is whether your theology makes every evil desire, temptation, and sinful act certain before the man ever commits it.
James does not say temptation originates in God’s eternal decree. It says each man is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires.
That fits my view just fine.
But if your theology says God ordained whatsoever comes to pass, including every sinful desire and every evil act, then quoting James 1:13 does not solve the problem. It exposes it.
God can determine and accomplish His purposes without being the author of every evil act. The crucifixion proves God can use evil men to accomplish redemption. It does not prove every evil desire, temptation, and sin was decreed by God.
So yes, God does not tempt men.
But if your theology says every temptation and sin was eternally rendered certain by God, then James 1:13 is not helping you.
“Who is preventing them from repenting?”
On my view, no one.
That's the point.
They did not repent because they refused to repent.
Revelation says they “did not repent.” It does not say God eternally decreed their non-repentance, rendered it certain before they existed, and then punished them for doing what they could never avoid.
If anything, Revelation supports my point. Revelation 2:21 says:
“I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.”
That is God giving opportunity, not God scripting refusal.
God warns, judges, gives space to repent, and calls men to turn. Men can resist Him. Men can refuse. Men can harden themselves.
So to answer the question, “who prevented them from repenting?”: on the Calvinist view, God Himself did, because He decreed whatsoever comes to pass. On the settled Arminian view, their refusal was still infallibly certain before they ever existed.
On both views, repentance was not a genuinely open possibility. And that runs contrary to the entire presentation of Scripture, where God calls men to repent as though they really can repent, and judges them because they really refuse.
You are halfway conceding my point.
If man changes, and God deals with that man differently because of that change, then God has changed in relation to that man.
That does not mean God’s character changed. It does not mean God became more holy, less holy, more righteous, less righteous, more wise, or less wise.
But it does mean there has been a real change in God’s relationship and course of action toward that man.
Classical theologians would call that an “accidental” change, not an essential change.
In other words, God does not change in His essence or character, but He can change in His actions, relations, and disposition toward men.
That is exactly what I am arguing.
When Nineveh repented, God’s character did not change. But His announced course of action toward Nineveh did.
When Hezekiah prayed, God’s character did not change. But His stated course of action toward Hezekiah did.
When Moses interceded, God’s character did not change. But His intended action toward Israel did.
So saying “the Bible is about man changing” does not refute my point. It proves it. If God responds differently when men change, then God is not a frozen abstraction. He is relational, responsive, and living.
Jonah 1:17 does not prove God knew Nineveh would repent.
It proves God was prepared for Jonah. God can act, and preemptively if necessary.
That is a very different claim.
God already knew Jonah. Jonah was His prophet. God knew his character, his fears, his hatred of Nineveh, and his likely reaction to being sent there. And since running in the opposite direction meant getting on a boat, having a fish ready was not exactly a theological crisis.
That shows God’s wisdom and preparedness.
It does not prove exhaustive foreknowledge.
You are trying to move from “God prepared a fish for Jonah” to “God already knew Nineveh would repent.”
That is a non sequitur.
And when you say, “Did God know Nineveh would repent? Yes,” you are just assuming the very thing you need to prove.
The text says Jonah preached, Nineveh repented, God saw what they did, and God relented of the disaster He said He would bring.
That sequence matters.
Jonah’s warning was not prewritten history. It was a warning of judgment. And the point of a warning is repentance.
Even Jonah understood that. That is why he fled. He knew God was gracious, merciful, slow to anger, and willing to relent from disaster.
So the book of Jonah does not support a frozen future.
It shows the living God warning men, seeing their response, and relenting when they repent.
Genesis 18 does not embarrass my position. My position matches it.
The Bible repeatedly presents God as personally involved in His creation. He walked in the garden. He spoke with Adam. He wrestled with Jacob. He appeared to Abraham. He came down to see Babel. He came down to see Sodom.
Those passages only become a problem after importing a doctrine that makes such interactions impossible, fake, or merely theatrical.
And “all-knowing” has not been established yet. That is the point under dispute. You cannot assume your definition of omniscience and then use that assumption to explain away the passages that challenge it.
Genesis 18 says God went down to see whether the outcry against Sodom was true, “and if not, I will know.”
Far from making God foolish, the passage presents Him as a righteous judge. He hears the outcry, examines the matter, interacts with Abraham, and judges justly.
You can call it a “teaching moment” if you want, but the text itself presents God personally and judicially engaging with His creation.
And again, notice the selective literalism: when a passage says God knows, predicts, or declares something, you take it at face value. But when a passage says God investigates, regrets, relents, tests, or responds, suddenly it becomes figurative, a teaching device, or an accommodation.
At that point, the text is being made to serve the system.
“Teaching moment” does not erase the text.
God can teach through real interactions, real warnings, real repentance, and real relenting.
And yes, men have to change. That is the point.
When men change, Scripture says God changes how He deals with them. That does not mean His character changes; it means His relationship and course of action toward them changes.
Exactly.
That is my point.
When man changes, God changes how He deals with man.
That does not mean God changes in character, righteousness, holiness, or wisdom. It means He genuinely responds to repentance, rebellion, prayer, and intercession.
That is the relational God Scripture presents.
If a man repents and God relents, then both sides of the relationship changed: the man turned from evil, and God turned from the judgment He had intended to bring.
You can say that, but you still have to prove it.
That is the same assumption being smuggled back into the text.
When Scripture says God relented, regretted, tested, investigated, or responded, you keep saying, “Well, He already knew and was just using foreknowledge to teach.”
But that is not what the passages say.
That is what your system needs them to mean.
Again, Revelation says they did not repent.
Fine.
But the text does not say their refusal was eternally fixed before they existed. That part is being added.
Revelation itself uses the language of real opportunity and real refusal:
“I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.”
That is how Scripture presents God’s dealings with men. God warns, judges, gives space to repent, and calls men to turn. Men can still refuse, and when they do, they are guilty because the refusal is theirs.
So Revelation does not prove a settled future. It proves that men can stubbornly reject God even under judgment.
And that is the pattern throughout this whole discussion. You keep quoting passages where God knows, warns, judges, or prophesies, and then adding the conclusion that the future must be exhaustively settled.
But that conclusion does not come from the text.
It comes from the system you are bringing to the text.
ttruscott
Well-known member
ImCo,
I found a theology that fully satisfies me as to the kind of creation a holy loving GOD would make if HE was trying to create a Bride for HIMself.
Without a true free will acceptance of the marriage proposal, no marriage can be real. IF HE created us to be able to choose by our free will to become HIS bride, all deviance from being able to become HIS bride able by rejecting HIM as a liar and unworthy to be their husband, must also be only by their free will not by HIS will because creating us evil unable to be HIS bride would go against HIS purpose for our creation.
All deviance from being able to be HIS perfect Bride in heaven can only have come from, arise from, our free will rejection of HIS purpose. All our choice to sin in HIS sight was only by our free will and living with the consequences of choosing to be sinners, death and suffering - the wages of sin not life - must also only arise from our own free will.
HE created no one under slavery ie knowing the truth but willing to repudiate it for a lie, enslaved to sin by loving the lie more than the truth, Rom 1:18 to the end...all evil was self created only by the free will of some of HIS creation.
ttruscott
Well-known member
Since some liked my quote of this verse, here is a repeat of my Christian opinion on its implications ...
Skywatch89
New member
What about the passages that talks about the fulfillment of scripture? (Mk. 15:28; Lk. 4:21; Jn. 13:18, 17:12, 19:24, 28, 36; Acts 1:16; Jms. 2:23).
Fulfilled Scripture is not a problem for open theism.
Open theists do not deny prophecy. We do not deny that God can declare what He intends to do, bring His purposes to pass, or arrange events so that His word is fulfilled.
The question is whether fulfilled Scripture requires every future free choice of every person to be exhaustively settled from eternity.
It does not.
God can determine some events without determining all events. He can know and reveal some future things without the entire future being a frozen script.
Mark 15:28 says Jesus was “numbered with the transgressors.”
That is about Christ’s crucifixion fulfilling Isaiah 53.
No problem there. God determined that Christ would suffer, die for sin, and be counted among sinners.
But God determining the central redemptive event in history does not prove that every future free choice is already settled.
That is the leap I deny.
Luke 4:21 is Jesus saying, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”
Amen.
Jesus fulfilled the messianic Scriptures. That proves God keeps His promises and brings His redemptive plan to pass.
It does not prove exhaustive definite foreknowledge of every future free act.
John 13:18 concerns Judas, but notice what kind of “fulfillment” this is.
The passage Jesus applies to Judas is Psalm 41:9:
“Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.”
In its original setting, that is David speaking about betrayal by a close companion. It is not a direct predictive prophecy saying, “Judas Iscariot will betray the Messiah.”
Judas fulfilled that Scripture because his betrayal matched and filled up that biblical pattern.
That does not prove Judas had no genuine alternative.
If Judas had repented, God could still have brought about the crucifixion. The religious leaders already wanted Jesus dead. God was not dependent on Judas’s sin in order to redeem the world.
So Judas’s betrayal fulfilled Scripture, yes.
But “fulfilled” here does not mean “Judas was eternally locked into betraying Christ.” It means Judas’s act became the fullest expression of that Scripture.
John 17:12 is also about Judas, “the son of perdition,” and Scripture being fulfilled.
Same issue.
Fulfillment does not automatically mean a direct prediction was made and then mechanically came true.
Sometimes Scripture is fulfilled when a later event brings an earlier passage to its fullest expression.
Judas’s betrayal fits that category. It fulfilled Scripture, but it does not prove exhaustive foreknowledge of every future free act.
John 19 gives several fulfillments: the dividing of Christ’s garments, His thirst, and none of His bones being broken.
These are tied directly to the crucifixion.
And again, open theists do not deny that God can arrange, predict, or accomplish specific events.
If God intends the Messiah’s bones not to be broken, then His bones will not be broken.
That does not mean every future free act of every person is settled.
It means God is capable of bringing His declared purposes to pass.
Acts 1:16 also concerns Judas.
Again, Judas’s betrayal fulfilled Scripture, but that does not mean Judas was a puppet.
Had Judas repented, God’s redemptive plan would not have failed. God was not dependent on Judas’s sin to crucify Christ.
The cross was determined by God.
Judas’s personal betrayal was still Judas’s sin.
James 2:23 says Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness, and he was called the friend of God.
That is a very different kind of “fulfillment.”
It is not about God predicting every future free choice. It is about Scripture being brought to completion or shown true in Abraham’s life.
Abraham believed God, then his works demonstrated that faith.
So this passage especially does not prove exhaustive foreknowledge. It shows Scripture being fulfilled in the sense of being carried out, completed, or confirmed.
So overall, yes, Scripture is fulfilled.
Absolutely.
But fulfilled Scripture does not equal an exhaustively settled future.
It proves God is faithful, wise, sovereign, and able to bring His purposes to pass.
It does not prove that every future free choice already exists as a settled fact before it is made.