Why can't He?
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
How can an omniscient God, by definition, be ignorant of things in the newspaper, things you and I know, things Satan knows?! Anything a creature knows/knew must be inherently known by the omniscient judge of the universe. God can handle the knowledge of gay sex (you guys seem to think he can not know what goes on in gay bars if he does not want to) and must know it if He is going to judge every word, deed, act, motive. Omniscience and omnipresence are related, but not identical. The future is not a place for God to be, but His awareness is 100% of the past and present universe, creatures, thoughts, etc. Nothing is hidden from his sight. Just as God cannot be made to cease to exist, He cannot chose to be ignorant of knowable things. In the mind of God, I imagine He can choose to not dwell or focus on things in some sense (He does not have to be distracted by millions of clocks ticking along), but your statements compromise divine reality that is inherent, not volitional.
Your definition of omniscience is flawed. God's omniscience must be in line with His other attributes, therefore He must be able to limit His knowledge as He sees fit if He so desires as He is also sovereign [including over Himself].
If God doesn't want to read the paper He doesn't have to.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
So according to your ideas God did not know whether or not Abraham feared Him until he pulled back his hand and a knife in order to slay Isaac:
"And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen.22:10-12).
According to your ideas God did not even know that Abraham feared Him until He saw Abraham;s actions. But that idea is directly contradicted by the Scriptures:
"But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart" (1 Sam.16:7).
You cannot even understand that figurative language is being employed at Genesis 22:10-12 and the figure of speech is called "Anthropopatheia": "Ascribing to God what belongs to human and rational beings, irrational creatures, or inanimate things" (The Companion Bible, Appendix #6: Figures of Speech).
Of course God had known for a long time that Abraham feared Him or had a reverance for Him and even had true faith:
"And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness" (Ro.4:19-22).
And even before that we read the following about
"And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness" (Gen.15:6).
Since you cannot recognize this figurative language you would have us believe that God did not even know if Abraham feared Him until he attempted to slay his son and therefore God could not see Abraham's heart.
Next you people will be saying that God must have gotten amnesia and He just forgotten that He had imputed righteousness to Abraham. You are constantly trying to bring God down to your level so nothing you might say would surprise me in the least.
Not only do you try to bring God down to your level you make Him out to be stupid. According to you God created man but He was surprised when they acted wickedly, as if He really didn't know the make-up of the creatures which He Himself created:
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them" (Gen.1:5-7).
According to your brand of "open" theology God was caught flat-footed by the behavior of the people which He Himself designed and created. We must also believe that God actually considered destroying men from the face of the earth even though that would mean that what He said earlier would never come to pass:
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" (Gen.3:15).
I have already shown that you must just ignore verses which prove that your ideas are in error so you can cling to your brand of "open" theology. Now we see that you will believe anything about God's nature, no matter how ridiculous, because you cannot distinguish between things which can be taken literally and things that cannot.
He is inherently aware of the paper. If I read the paper and the article is in my mind, are you telling me that God would also block this out so he would not have to be upset by the news/sin?! Your view is not omniscience, even by Open Theism standards. God does not have to read the newspaper line by line. In your view, He would also have to turn his eye away as it is being written. There is no good reason for Him to do so.
Sovereignty does not mean God can compromise His absolute, inherent attributes that define who He is. It does mean that volitional things such as mercy vs justice, healing vs not healing, etc. are under His control. Likewise, God does not lie by choice. Many argue that He cannot lie by nature, so sovereignty cuts both ways depending on one's view of it.
Using your logic, God could become the devil if He wanted to, He could chose to be a frog instead of eternal spirit, could cease to exist, God cease to be triune or make Himself 100-une.
Sovereignty does not mean God can do illogical things or things contrary to who He is by uncreated nature.
A view that has the devil knowing things that God is ignorant of is finite godism, a false accusation against Open Theism, but a true one against your perversion of academic Open Theism.
Jerry, the test was genuine. God knows the heart and mind perfectly since it is present/past knowledge. He also knows to a high degree of probability many aspects of the future. In the case of a test, He knows the heart and mind, but this does not mean that any given test in a moment will certainly turn out one way or other. 'Now I know'...relates to certainty as the potential future becomes the fixed past through the present. Even if God knew 99% which way the test would go (even probability can predict non-volitional issues), there was still 1% chance of the person acting out of character/expectation.
The future is inherently partially open/unsettled and known as such. Your view must make this motif figurative, including the 'now I know/God changing his mind phrases'). The Open view takes it at face value and lines up doctrine to match Scripture vs tradition without compromising His great omni/sovereignty attributes (properly understood).
The future is inherently partially open/unsettled and known as such. Your view must make this motif figurative, including the 'now I know/God changing his mind phrases'). The Open view takes it at face value and lines up doctrine to match Scripture vs tradition without compromising His great omni/sovereignty attributes (properly understood).
How so?
Arguing for square circles would be to contract yourself.
While agree that God cannot do the rationally absurd, including that which is self-contradictory, in what way is it rationally absurd to suggesting that God only knows that which He chooses to know (of that which is knowable)?
By your logic, you would force God to effectively be a first person eyeball witness to every vile act of perversion perpetrated in the bathrooms and back alleys of gay bars.
Resting in Him,
Clete
If God does not see these things, He cannot judge them (the Word is explicit that every thought, motive, act will be judged). You wrongly think that God cannot handle it because you cannot. He sees evil as do many men who are around it. He does not have to obsess about it, stare at it, but if He is omniscient, He must be aware fully of it, every detail (since men or Satan can be).
You have an assumption, not something that can be defended biblically or logically (beg the question). Few Open Theists would agree with this Enyart error.
Jerry, you quote 1 Sam.16:7 in refutation of a face value understanding of Gen.22:10-12.
How do that not teach the same thing?
Did not God get a good look at Abraham's heart when He put Abraham to the test? What reason could there have been for the test other than to test Abraham's heart? Never mind that we're told by the text that this was the reason (i.e. "Now I know...").
I mean, if it is figurative, what the hell does the figure mean? That God already knew? Is that what "Now I know" meant, the opposite of what it says?
And, by the way, suggesting that we teach that God was "caught flat footed" an that "God must have gotten amnesia..." are just stupid things for you to say. When you say such things you only undermine the foundation of your own position by demonstrating its non-existence. In other words, if your position was rationally sound, there would be no need nor impulse for you to say such idiotic things that you know are false when you say them.
Resting in Him,
Clete
How do that not teach the same thing?
Did not God get a good look at Abraham's heart when He put Abraham to the test? What reason could there have been for the test other than to test Abraham's heart? Never mind that we're told by the text that this was the reason (i.e. "Now I know...").
I mean, if it is figurative, what the hell does the figure mean? That God already knew? Is that what "Now I know" meant, the opposite of what it says?
And, by the way, suggesting that we teach that God was "caught flat footed" an that "God must have gotten amnesia..." are just stupid things for you to say. When you say such things you only undermine the foundation of your own position by demonstrating its non-existence. In other words, if your position was rationally sound, there would be no need nor impulse for you to say such idiotic things that you know are false when you say them.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Jerry, you quote 1 Sam.16:7 in refutation of a face value understanding of Gen.22:10-12.
How do they not teach the same thing?
Did not God get a good look at Abraham's heart when He put Abraham to the test? What reason could there have been for the test other than to test Abraham's heart? Never mind that we're told by the text that this was the reason (i.e. "Now I know...").
I mean, if it is figurative, what the hell does the figure mean? That God already knew? Is that what "Now I know" meant, the opposite of what it says?
And, by the way, suggesting that we teach that God was "caught flat footed" an that "God must have gotten amnesia..." are just stupid things for you to say. When you say such things you only undermine the foundation of your own position by demonstrating its non-existence. In other words, if your position was rationally sound, there would be no need nor impulse for you to say such idiotic things that you know are false when you say them.
Resting in Him,
Clete
How do they not teach the same thing?
Did not God get a good look at Abraham's heart when He put Abraham to the test? What reason could there have been for the test other than to test Abraham's heart? Never mind that we're told by the text that this was the reason (i.e. "Now I know...").
I mean, if it is figurative, what the hell does the figure mean? That God already knew? Is that what "Now I know" meant, the opposite of what it says?
And, by the way, suggesting that we teach that God was "caught flat footed" an that "God must have gotten amnesia..." are just stupid things for you to say. When you say such things you only undermine the foundation of your own position by demonstrating its non-existence. In other words, if your position was rationally sound, there would be no need nor impulse for you to say such idiotic things that you know are false when you say them.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Why would He have to block it out or turn away. He just doesn't have to look in the first place.
And it isn't about being upset about anything. It's about it being irrelevant.
You fail in that you assume absolute knowledge is one of His inherent attributes.
Now you're just being a moron, again.
No kidding.
Who says the devil can know things God doesn't?
Your error is in that you assume God judges individual sins rather than sin as a whole. Is there a different consequence in the end for different sins?
And where is that explicit verse?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Because if Abraham feared God then would not the Lord KNOW that fact without having to see him draw back his knife with the intention to stab Issac?
The narrative is showing that it was not until Abraham drew back the knife that the Lord KNEW whether or not Abraham feared God. If that is taken literally then we must believe that God really did not know of Abraham's "intentions" despite the fact that the Scriptures say that God "understands every intent of the thoughts":
"As for you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve Him with a whole heart and a willing mind; for the Lord searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts" (1 Chron.28:9).
Since God understood every intent of the thoughts of Abraham then He certainly would have been aware of the following thoughts of Abraham as well as His intentions:
"By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead" (Heb.11:17-19).
God certainly would not need to see Abraham raise his knife before He would know whether or not Abraham's intention was to kill Isaac. And this is supported by what is said here:
"But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart" (1 Sam.16:7).
God was talking to Abraham in terms that Abraham was familiar with. we see the same thing when God asked Adam, "Where are you?" Are we supposed to believe that God did not actually know where Adam was? Of course not.
God's words were for Abraham's benefit and the words "Now I know" were for Abraham because he needed to hear God affirm his faithfulness.
No, what is stupid is to imagine that God did not know what evil His creatures were capable of doing despite the fact that He created them and designed them.
Now to the most ridiculous argument. Those who follow the "open" theism of Greg Boyd say that God did not even know if Abraham feared Him until he was about to sacrifice his Son Isaac on the altar. Therefore, according to them, God really could not predict what anyone can do with certainity until He sees them actually begin to do it.
But then they turn around and argue that the Lord Jesus could predict that Peter would deny Him three times because He knew his character and knew just how he would act in certain conditions.
Boyd writes, "Third, regarding Peter’s predicted denial, there is no reason to conclude that this was a “crystal ball” view into the future rather than a divine understanding of Peter’s present character. I suspect that anyone who knew Peter’s character perfectly could have predicted with certainty that under certain circumstances he would act cowardly."
God was certainly aware of Abraham's character so why did He need to see Abraham draw back a knife with the intention of slaying Isaac before He would know whether or not he would actually slay his son? According to the "open" theists on this thread God knew, based on nothing more than a knowledge of Peter's character, the he would deny Him three times but God was not able to know Abraham's intentions in regard to Isaac until he had drawn back the knife to kill him.
Last edited:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Not only is it rationally sound but it is based on the Scriptures. The "open" theology promoted by people like Greg Boyd say that it is impossible for God to know free will contingencies that remain in the future because it is impossible that those things can be known. But can that idea stand up to the light of Scriptire? Let us first look at the following verse that says that Christians were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world:
"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).
Next we see a verse that speaks of that same choosing which was before the foundation of the world and by what is said we can know that God chooses those who believe the truth:
"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).
It is only "individuals" who believe the truth and it is "individuals" who are saved when they believe:
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Ro.1:16).
That is why we read the following:
"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).
One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "according" at 1 Peter 1:2 is "in consequence of" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).
So the saved are described as "elect" and their election or being chosen is "in consequence of" God's foreknowledge.
So before foundation of the world God chose individuals for salvation and that directly contradicts the brand of "open" theology promoted by people like Greg Boyd who say that it is impossible that God has a foreknowledge of free will contingencies.
Last edited:
genuineoriginal
New member
There is another explanation than the one you offer.
God told Abraham to sacrifice his son.
Abraham did not want to do it, but didn't want to disobey God, either.
Abraham brought Isaac to the altar, constantly looking for a way out without disobeying God.
He bound his son to the altar, still looking for a way out of killing his son without disobeying God.
Finally, he accepted that there was no way out of killing his son without disobeying God, and changed his worldview of God to include God being able to raise up Isaac from the dead.
It was only at that point that Abraham truly respected God's power to the point that he was willing to kill his son. Before that, he wasn't planning to go through with it.
Only after Abraham's heart changed from wanting to find a way out of killing his son to believing in God's power to raise his son from the dead was God able to say, "now I know."
God read the change in Abraham's heart, and stopped him.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
According to Greg Boyd God would know what a man will do in any situation and his knowledge of this is based on nothing more than knowing that man's character:
If God could know what Ababraham's ultimate decision would be concerning Isaac based on nothing more than knowing Abraham's character then He certainly would know beforehand that his future intention would be to slay Isaac. Therefore the verses that indicate that God did not know Abraham's intentions concerning Isaac until he drew back the knife cannot be taken literally.
Again, the passage under discussion employs figurative language called "Anthropopatheia": "Ascribing to God what belongs to human and rational beings, irrational creatures, or inanimate things" (The Companion Bible, Appendix #6: Figures of Speech
But if Greg Boyd is right then God would know what Abraham would do in the end, and God would have this knowledge much earlier than the actual event, as was the case of Peter and his three denials. And this knowledge would be based on nothing more than God having a knowledge of Abraham's character.
genuineoriginal
New member
Your argument:
It doesn't matter when Ababraham made the decision to believe God could raise Isaac from the dead, God knew far in advance what the ultimate decision would be, so God was speaking facetiously.
My argument:
God did not know based on Abraham's character before he held the knife, because Abraham's character underwent a paradigm shift in beliefs while he was holding the knife, so God was speaking truthfully.
Jesus knew Peter's heart through the power of the Holy Spirit, so He knew Peter was not being truthful to himself when Peter said, "Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended."
Jesus then spoke the words of the Father given to Him by the Holy Spirit and told Peter, "Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the **** crow, thou shalt deny me thrice."
The Holy Spirit moved in three people so that they drew the attention of the crowds around Peter when they asked Peter if he was a follower of Jesus. The first one was a woman that asked while Peter was watching Jesus being beaten by the crowd that looked over at him when the woman asked him if he was with Jesus.
Peter's character needed to go through a paradigm shift in beliefs before he could have answered any differently than he did, but he was denied that so the prophecy would be fulfilled.
Eventually Peter's character underwent the paradigm shift in beliefs (as shown by his death), but it happened after the resurrection.
Following my arguments, a person is "saved" when their character goes through a paradigm shift in beliefs into faith in Jesus and maintains those beliefs until the end.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
No, that is not my argument. My argument is that if the Open Theists want to use the following argument about Peter's three denials then the same argument must also fit Abraham. Here is the argument of Boyd in regard to Peter:
Here we see that Boyd is saying that the Lord Jesus made a prediction about the future actions of Peter and that prediction was based on nothing more that a divine knowledge of Peter's character.
So if that is true then God would know beforehand if Abraham would slay Isaac or not. But from the narrative it appears that God did not know beforehand what Abraham would do and it was not until Abraham actually took a knife to slay Abraham that God knew that Abraham would pass the test.
Boyd's entire argument in regard to Peter is based on the idea that the Lord Jesus knew Peter's character so therefore He could predict his actions. But all of a sudden you argue that it was not possible for God to predict Abraham's future actions based on his character:
Because the Lord Jesus knew Peter's character He could predict with certainty Peter's future actions but in the case of Abraham you assert that God's knowledge of his character was worthless to predict his future actions.
Why was the knowledge of Peter's character effective for predicting his future actions while the knowledge of Abraham's character was worthless for predicting his future actions?
Boyd said, "I suspect that anyone who knew Peter’s character perfectly could have predicted with certainty that under certain circumstances he would act cowardly."
If Boyd is right, then since God knew Abraham's character perfectly then He could have predicted with certainty that Abraham would pass the test but you say that even though God knew his character perfectly He was unable to predict his actions!
Why was the divine knowledge effective for predicting the future in Peter's case but ineffective for Abraham?
Omniscient only if it doesn't interfere with man's free will. :devil:
genuineoriginal
New member
If you are arguing against Boyd, then find him and convince him to argue his case.
You don't know the difference in God's actions in the two situations?
God was testing Abraham to the limits of Abraham's faith.
Jesus spoke a prophecy to Peter to prove who He was to Peter.
When God tests an individual, the person is put in a situation where God is unable to predict with certainty what choice the person will make because complete knowledge of the person's character before the test will only show that the person could choose from several courses of action, but cannot show which of those choices will be made by the person. Abraham was alone on the mountain with his son and nothing else to influence his decision except the words God spoke to him in the past and the son he was preparing to kill. Abraham knew that God promised that his descendants would come through Isaac, but then God told him to kill Isaac before he had any descendants. Abraham's character showed that he did not trust God's power completely (Hagar, Pharaoh, Abimelech), so this was a valid test. Would Abraham put his trust in God's power or would he try to help God by doing what he wanted to do anyway?
When God uses a prophecy as proof of His power, He makes the prophecy happen by orchestrating all the components of the prophecy. Peter's character showed that he was rash to speak without thinking about what he was speaking about. He had to be corrected several times about the issue. Now, the disciples were about to go through the most difficult time imaginable to them and told them about the prophecy (shepherd smited, sheep scattered) to prepare them. Peter spoke out saying that the prophecy would not happen (yet will I never be offended). Now, if Peter was not offended, then the prophecy would have been a lie and Jesus would have given a false interpretation of the prophecy. Jesus spoke another prophecy about Peter denying Him three times before the **** crowed. If both prophecies proved to be true, then Peter would not lose his faith, but if both prophecies proved to be false, then Peter would lose faith. (Satan sift Peter like wheat). God intervened (as little as possible) in the will of the people around Peter in order to make sure the prophecy was fulfilled.
Last edited:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Before you made no protest when I quoted Greg Boyd's argument as to how the Lord Jesus could predict that Peter would deny Him three times. But now you protest.
Now let us see what you say about the Lord Jesus' words that Peter would deny Him three times:
You offered nothing there that tells us WHY the Lord Jesus would predict that Peter would deny Him three times. On what basis do you think Christ made that prediction? Please be specific.