Idolater
Popetard
First, did He already know the answer to the question He posed, "Will ye also go away?"
Honest struggles on God’s omniscience.
- Thread starter Skywatch89
- Start date
First, did He already know the answer to the question He posed, "Will ye also go away?"
Derf
Well-known member
At what time? When He first chose them (no, I don't think so)? At the time He asked the question (maybe)? or at the time He was arrested in the Garden (yes, and they did)?
70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” 71 He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve.
It is amazing, but maybe it shouldn't be, how many people that engage in theology on X either don't know what the Bible says, or ignore it because it shows they are wrong.
It is amazing, but maybe it shouldn't be, how many people that engage in theology on X either don't know what the Bible says, or ignore it because it shows they are wrong.
Derf
Well-known member
is that supposed to be addressed to me?
No. But anyone that wants to know why Judas was chosen, I think this is why.
Derf
Well-known member
Because he was a devil? That's what I think.
Last edited:
way 2 go
Well-known member
like I said
so the open theist wants us to believe God was prophesying his own sacrifice for the sin of the world without knowing whether Abraham would do it . Genesis 22:12 ,Revelation 13:8
God said : "now I know you fear me " Not that God gained new information , he said it for Abraham’s and Isaac’s benefit as praising a child for doing what you knew they would do
Derf
Well-known member
Saying something for a child's benefit doesn't mean one has to give a false statement.
What if Abraham told him no. He can't kill his own child?
way 2 go
Well-known member
the question is still , Do open theist deny Scripture ?
open theist like to take a text and then pretend the rest of scripture does not exist and interpret the text without scripture
open theist have God needing to go to sodom to figure it out if the place was evil , so much for all knowing ,
(Genesis 18:21) I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which has come to Me. And if not, I will know
God knew
(Genesis 13:13) But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD, exceedingly so.
This has already been addressed.
Repeating it as though it has not been answered does not make the argument stronger. It only makes it look like you cannot actually deal with the answer.
You are assuming that Abraham’s offering of Isaac was necessary in order for God to accomplish redemption.
Was it?
If Abraham had refused, would God have been unable to redeem the world?
Would Christ have been unable to die for sin?
Would God’s purpose have failed?
I do not believe God is that weak.
Abraham’s offering of Isaac was a type and shadow of what God Himself would do through Christ. But Abraham’s obedience was not the foundation of God’s ability to redeem mankind.
God can have His own purpose, His own plan, His own Son, and His own power to bring redemption to pass.
Genesis 22:12 still says “now I know.”
Revelation 13:8 does not erase that.
Because you say He didn't?
The whole ordeal was God testing Abraham's faith in Him.
And the text gives the result of the test:
And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
The word “since” matters.
God ties the knowledge to Abraham’s completed action.
“Now I know... since you have not withheld your son.”
That is the reason the text gives.
You are replacing that reason with your own.
You say God did not gain new information.
The passage says “now I know.”
You say God already knew what Abraham would do.
The passage says God tested Abraham, Abraham obeyed, and then God said “now I know.”
That is not my wording.
That is Scripture.
Again, because you say so?
The passage does not say God was praising Abraham.
The passage does not say God already knew and was only speaking for Abraham’s and Isaac’s benefit.
The passage says God tested Abraham, Abraham obeyed, and then God said:
“Now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
Saying something for someone else’s benefit does not require giving a false explanation.
If God already knew Abraham would do it, He could have said:
“I knew you would obey, and now you and Isaac know it too.”
But that is not what He said.
He said, “now I know.”
You are not explaining the text. You are explaining it away.
The answer is still no.
Open Theists are the ones insisting that the passages mean what they actually say.
God repented.
God relented.
God tested Abraham.
God said “now I know.”
God went down to see.
God responded to what men did.
You are the one repeatedly saying, “It does not really mean that.”
So if anyone is in danger of denying Scripture, it is the person who keeps explaining away the passages that do not fit his theology... YOU!
Talk about projection...
We are comparing Scripture with Scripture.
Genesis 22 says God tested Abraham and then said “now I know.”
Genesis 6 says God was sorry He made man.
Jonah 3 says God saw Nineveh’s works and relented from the disaster He said He would bring.
Jeremiah 18 says God may speak concerning a nation to destroy it, but if that nation turns from evil, God will relent.
Genesis 18 says God went down to see whether Sodom had done altogether according to the outcry, and “if not, I will know.”
That is Scripture interpreting Scripture.
You are the one importing Classical Theism into the text and then forcing all of those passages to mean something other than what they say.
That's.... Literally what Scripture says...
“I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which has come to Me. And if not, I will know.”
God says He will go down and see.
God says, “if not, I will know.”
You are offended at the plain wording of the passage because it does not fit your system.
No, so much for your imposed definition of “all knowing.”
God can know what can be known.
The question is whether every future free choice already exists as a settled fact before the person makes it.
You assume it does.
Then when Scripture presents God testing, investigating, relenting, responding, and saying “now I know,” you complain that we are denying God’s attributes.
No.
We are denying your philosophical definition of those attributes and your attempt to impose that definition onto the text.
There is a difference.
Genesis 13:13 says the men of Sodom were wicked and exceedingly sinful.
Nobody denies that.
But Genesis 18:21 is not asking whether Sodom had wicked men in it.
The issue is whether they had done altogether according to the outcry against it.
In other words, the passage presents God as investigating the full measure of the accusation before judgment.
That is not a problem for Open Theism.
That is righteous judgment.
God does not judge on rumor. He judges according to truth.
So Genesis 13:13 does not erase Genesis 18:21.
It only tells us Sodom was already wicked.
Genesis 18 tells us God investigated whether the outcry against Sodom was fully accurate before bringing judgment.
And again, your answer is to make the text theatrical.
God says:
“I will go down now and see... and if not, I will know.”
You say:
“God knew.”
Then why did He say it that way?
You need to stop merely asserting “God knew” and start proving from the text that “I will go down and see... and if not, I will know” actually means “I already know exhaustively and am only pretending to investigate.”
Because that is not what the passage says.
way 2 go
Well-known member
you think God didn't know ?
(Genesis 3:9) And the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, Where are you?
(Genesis 3:11) And He said, Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree which I commanded you that you should not eat?
(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
(Genesis 13:13) But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD, exceedingly so.
way 2 go
Well-known member
God was prophesying his own sacrifice for the sin of the world
God already knew Abraham was faithful
the question is still , Do open theist deny Scripture ?
open theist like to take a text and then pretend the rest of scripture does not exist and interpret the text without scripture
(Genesis 15:6) And he believed in the LORD. And He counted it to him for righteousness.
God already knew Abraham's faith
(Genesis 15:6) And he believed in the LORD. And He counted it to him for righteousness.
God knows thew future
Revelation 13:8 backs that up "slain from the foundation of the world"
God already knew Abraham's faith and He counted it to him for righteousness
(Genesis 15:6) And he believed in the LORD. And He counted it to him for righteousness.
(Romans 4:2-3) [2] For if Abraham were justified by works, he has whereof to glory; but not before God. [3] For what says the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
open theist like to take a text and then pretend the rest of scripture does not exist and interpret the text without scripture
supra
the question is still , Do open theist deny Scripture ?
open theist like to take a text and then pretend the rest of scripture does not exist and interpret the text without scripture
it sometimes takes more than a verse to understand
Use clear verses to interpret difficult or less clear verses
(Acts 17:11) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
(Genesis 18:21) I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which has come to Me. And if not, I will know
God knew
(Genesis 13:13) But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD, exceedingly so.
I deny your out of context of the rest of scripture interpretation of verses
God already knew
(Genesis 15:6) And he believed in the LORD. And He counted it to him for righteousness.
we're still here
God knew they needed to be preached to so they would repent
(Romans 10:14-15) [14] How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? [15] and how shall they preach, except they be sent? even as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that bring glad tidings of good things!
a verse , not a theology
(Genesis 13:13) But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD, exceedingly so.
you mean using all of scripture , yes I am guilty
your literal translation has God who knows the numbers of the hairs on your head not knowing what he already revealed he knew
(Genesis 13:13) But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD, exceedingly so.
it's your half baked view of God , you pay lip service to God but don't really believe what you say
infra.
you don't really believe that ,as shown above
God says he Knows the future you assume God doesn't know and liken to plane travel
(Romans 8:29-30) [29] For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren: [30] and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
you pretend this is not settled
(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.
God knows
(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
You didn't answer Nick’s question.
He asked what would have happened if Abraham refused.
Instead, you cited passages where God asks questions or says He will investigate, then simply asserted that He already knew.
That's not an argument. That's the very point in dispute.
And Genesis 13:13 does not cancel Genesis 18:21.
Genesis 13 says Sodom was wicked.
Genesis 18 says God went down to see whether they had done altogether according to the outcry, “and if not, I will know.”
Those are not the same claim.
You are still dodging the issue.
No one denied Abraham already had faith.
The question is whether God already knew Abraham would go through with offering Isaac.
Genesis 22:12 says:
“Now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son.”
Genesis 15:6 establishes Abraham’s faith.
Genesis 22 tests it.
You have repeated this accusation several times now, but repetition is not an argument.
If you think Open Theists deny Scripture, then demonstrate it.
Show where I denied a text.
Do not just keep asserting it because I refuse to accept your interpretation of texts that say God repented, relented, tested, investigated, responded, or said “now I know.”
Genesis 15:6 says Abraham believed God, and God counted it to him for righteousness.
It does not say God already knew Abraham would later go through with offering Isaac.
You are quietly replacing one claim with another.
Genesis 15 establishes Abraham’s faith.
Genesis 22 tests that faith, and only after Abraham does not withhold Isaac does God say:
“Now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son...”
No, it does not.
As already shown, Revelation 17:8 confirms that “from the foundation of the world” refers to the names written in the Book of Life, not to the Lamb being slain.
Again, no one denies that Abraham already had faith.
That is not what Genesis 22:12 says God came to know.
God did not say, “Now I know that you believe Me.”
He said:
“Now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
Genesis 15 and Romans 4 concern Abraham’s faith being counted for righteousness.
Genesis 22 concerns that faith being tested and demonstrated through obedience.
You have repeated this accusation several times now, but repetition is not an argument.
If you think Open Theists deny Scripture, then demonstrate it.
Show where I denied a text.
Do not just keep asserting it because I refuse to accept your interpretation of texts that say God repented, relented, tested, investigated, responded, or said “now I know.”
You have repeated this accusation several times now, but repetition is not an argument.
If you think Open Theists deny Scripture, then demonstrate it.
Show where I denied a text.
Do not just keep asserting it because I refuse to accept your interpretation of texts that say God repented, relented, tested, investigated, responded, or said “now I know.”
Agreed.
But using Scripture to interpret Scripture does not mean using one passage to erase another, as you are doing.
Genesis 15 says Abraham believed God.
Genesis 22 says God tested Abraham and then said, “now I know.”
Both are clear.
The Bereans searched the Scriptures to see whether what they were being told was true.
They did not use one passage as an excuse to explain away another.
Genesis 13:13 says Sodom was wicked.
Genesis 18:21 says God went down to determine whether they had done altogether according to the outcry against them.
Those are not the same claim.
Knowing Sodom was wicked does not mean God had already verified the full charge brought against it.
So no, Genesis 13:13 does not cancel:
“I will go down now and see... And if not, I will know.”
Then demonstrate that they are out of context.
Simply asserting “out of context” every time a passage does not fit your theology is not an argument.
Yes.
Because Genesis 6 does not say God would destroy Noah.
The very passage says:
“But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.”
God destroyed mankind from the face of the earth in the flood while preserving Noah and his household.
So “we’re still here” is not a rebuttal.
It is a failure to read the whole passage.
Again, that does not answer Jonah 3:10.
God knowing that preaching was needed does not mean God knew with certainty that Nineveh would repent.
Those are different claims.
Jonah 3:10 says:
“Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.”
And the word translated “relented” there is the same word, nacham, used in Genesis 6 when God was sorry He had made man.
So in Jonah:
God warned Nineveh.
Nineveh repented.
God saw their works.
God relented.
That is what the text says.
Romans 10 does not overturn Jonah 3:10.
One verse does not make a theology.
But neither may a theology ignore a verse.
And Jeremiah 18 is not alone.
It fits Genesis 6.
It fits Jonah 3.
It fits God’s repeated pattern of warning, responding, relenting, and judging according to what men actually do.
So no, Jeremiah 18 is not merely “a verse.”
It is an explicit statement of a principle that appears repeatedly in Scripture.
It's a verse your theology still has to account for.
Supra
No.
I mean using some Scriptures to silence others.
Using all of Scripture means allowing Genesis 15 and Genesis 22 to both say what they say.
It means allowing Genesis 13 and Genesis 18 to both say what they say.
It means allowing Romans 10 and Jonah 3 to both say what they say.
It means allowing prophecy passages to stand without using them to erase every passage where God tests, investigates, responds, repents, relents, or says “now I know.”
That is what you are refusing to do.
Again, Genesis 13:13 says Sodom was wicked.
Genesis 18:21 says God went down to see whether they had done altogether according to the outcry against them.
Those are not the same thing.
Knowing Sodom was wicked does not mean God had already verified the full charge that had come before Him.
So no, Genesis 13:13 does not make Genesis 18:21 say the opposite of what it says.
Insults are not arguments.
If you think my position contradicts Scripture, demonstrate it.
Merely sneering at it does nothing to answer the texts.
You have shown no such thing.
You have only repeated your assumption that God already knew what the text says He went to see and would then know.
Book, chapter, verse.
No.
I deny your assumption that future free choices already exist as settled facts to be known.
No.
The flight analogy was about a corporate outcome not requiring identification of every individual involved. It was answering your misuse of Revelation 9 and 16.
And Romans 8:29-30 does not say God foreknew every future free choice.
It says:
“Whom He foreknew...”
People, not every future event, and certainly not every future free choice.
So this passage does not prove the claim you are making.
No.
I deny that these passages prove what you say they prove.
They describe a corporate group in a prophetic vision refusing to repent under judgment.
They do not identify every individual involved, and they do not state that God exhaustively foreknew every future free choice of every person in that group.
A revealed corporate outcome is not the same thing as exhaustive foreknowledge of every future free choice.
Of course God knows what men have said and will judge them for it.
But Matthew 12:36 does not say God eternally foreknows every idle word before it is spoken.
Nor does it turn “I will go down now and see... and if not, I will know” into “I already knew.”
I asked a question and you are guessing wrong. Answer the question. What if Abraham said "No" when told to go to Moriah to sacrifice Isaac. Yes, there is a point to the question. I think you see it, which is why you redirected away from the truth.
way 2 go
Well-known member
he didn't answer mine
you want to make the testing of Abraham's faith to be a testing of God ?
it wasn't the buildings of sodom that were evil
(Genesis 13:13) But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD, exceedingly so.
(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
more proof of this
open theist like to take a text and then pretend the rest of scripture does not exist and interpret the text without scripture
testing of God's faith
(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
(Genesis 13:13) But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD, exceedingly so.
(Matthew 12:36) is true so your open theist view of Genesis 18:21 is wrong . Genesis 13:13 also proves it too but you're in denial
open theist not going to like this one , anthropomorphic ,God speaking in human terms
the “Book of Life” can only be if the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world
so the open theist wants us to believe God was prophesying his own sacrifice for the sin of the world without knowing whether Abraham would do it . Genesis 22:12 ,Revelation 13:8
God's gain ? .
Abam already declared righteous Gen 15:6 Abraham covenant of circumcision Gen 17:10
Abraham's gain ?
Abraham received a saving act of grace by God and was faithful thereafter
and we the readers have God prophesying his own sacrifice for the sin of the world scape goat and all.
The Bereans did what I'm doing to you
you claim a verse means God didn't know something
when other scriptures show what he clearly knows so your interpretation of the verse can't be correct
Jesus never said ,"I am God"
(John 8:58) Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I AM
in the above example we would have to use other means to prove Jesus is God, it's close but not there
so
you claim God doesn't know something from a verse (Genesis 18:21)
I show from other verses God clearly does know(Genesis 13:13) (Matthew 12:36)
already knew , see above
did all ready ,God didn't need to go to sodom , you hold on to this like a fat kid loves candy
I'm only demonstrating God knew what was knowable but I get it , it's a open theist verse of God not knowing the God who guesses
(Genesis 13:13) But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD, exceedingly so.
(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
it's a failure to agree with you
Noah is a part of mankind and we're still here
open theist claim God had a world wide flood ready to go but no foreknowledge for the necessity of a world wide flood . LOL good guesser
sounds like an example of the gospel to me , not open theism
(Romans 10:14-15) [14] How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? [15] and how shall they preach, except they be sent? even as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that bring glad tidings of good things!
wow , man will be held responsible for his actions even though God foreknew their actions
(Romans 9:18-23) [18] Therefore He has mercy on whom He will have mercy , and whom He will, He hardens. [19] You will then say to me, Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will? [20] No, but, O man, who are you who replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him who formed it , Why have you made me this way? [21] Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor? [22] What if God, willing to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction; [23] and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy which He had before prepared to glory;
(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.
I'm using scripture to interpret scripture
it's a conversation about God's mercy, but open theist make it about memory loss or not knowing what's knowable
open theist claim God can know all that is knowable
then when shown God knows about all sin down to idle words
then I get God doesn't know all that is knowable
future , history , can't repent
(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.
see above
whom he foreknew a statement only God could make
and open theist don't want to acknowledge all the things that had to happen for them to exist
(Romans 8:29-30) [29] For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren: [30] and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
(Revelation of John 22:13) I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end
these are people not bots
and the prophecies
tell us of their sins , God's judgements , and that they did not repent , like it or not that's exhaustive foreknowledge
(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.
If God knows every idle word then he knew all the sins of sodom
Then press him on yours.
That does not excuse you from dodging his.
No.
Nick’s question tests your argument, not God.
You claimed Abraham’s obedience was necessary for God’s prophecy of Christ’s sacrifice.
Nick asked what would have happened if Abraham refused.
That is a fair question, and you still have not answered it.
No one said the buildings were evil.
Genesis 13:13 says the men of Sodom were wicked.
Genesis 18:21 says God went down to see whether they had done altogether according to the outcry against them, “and if not, I will know.”
And Matthew 12:36 says men will give account for their words in judgment.
None of that makes Genesis 18:21 say the opposite of what it says.
No, it is more proof that you keep repeating the accusation instead of proving it.
Neither Genesis 13:13 nor Matthew 12:36 says what you need them to say, and neither cancels Genesis 18:21.
No.
Testing your argument.
You claimed Abraham’s obedience was necessary for the typology to work.
Nick asked what follows if Abraham refuses.
You cannot answer that without conceding the point.
Neither verse says what you need it to say.
Genesis 13:13 says the men of Sodom were wicked.
Matthew 12:36 says men will give account for every idle word in the day of judgment.
Genesis 18:21 says God went down to see whether Sodom had done altogether according to the outcry, “and if not, I will know.”
Those claims do not contradict each other.
You keep insisting Genesis 18:21 cannot mean what it says, but you have still not shown any actual contradiction.
“Anthropomorphic” is not an argument.
It is an escape hatch you use whenever the text refuses to fit your theology.
Genesis 22 says God tested Abraham, Abraham obeyed, and then God said:
“Now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son...”
If you want to claim that does not mean what it says, then demonstrate it from the text.
Simply slapping “anthropomorphic” on the passage only proves that you need a way around it.
Because you say so?
Revelation 17:8 explicitly places “from the foundation of the world” with the names written in the Book of Life.
You do not get to overturn that by simply asserting that the Book of Life “can only be” if Revelation 13:8 means what you want it to mean.
Why was it necessary for Abraham to reach for the knife?
Do you think God’s plan of salvation would have been impossible if Abraham had refused?
Abraham’s offering of Isaac was a type and shadow of Christ’s sacrifice.
It was not the thing that made Christ’s sacrifice possible.
Yes, God’s gain.
Genesis 22:12 says exactly what God gained from the test:
“Now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
Genesis 15 says Abraham believed God.
Genesis 17 records the covenant of circumcision.
Neither verse says God already knew Abraham would go through with offering Isaac.
Genesis 22 says that is what God came to know through the test.
That does not answer the passage either.
Genesis 22 does not say the test was merely for Abraham’s gain.
It says God tested Abraham, Abraham obeyed, and then God said:
“Now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
Whatever Abraham gained from the ordeal, the text explicitly states what God gained from it.
Yes.
And none of that requires God to have already known Abraham would reach for the knife.
God’s sacrifice of His own Son did not depend on Abraham successfully completing the type.
No.
The Bereans searched the Scriptures to see whether a claim was true.
You are trying to bludgeon disagreement with proof-text after proof-text, as though merely quoting a verse proves that it says what you want it to say.
That's avoiding the argument, not searching the Scriptures.
No.
I am saying Genesis 18:21 means what it says:
God already knew Sodom was wicked.
He then went down to see whether they had done altogether according to the outcry against them, “and if not, I will know.”
You keep pretending those are the same thing.
They are not.
That conclusion only follows if the verses you cited actually contradict my interpretation.
They do not.
Genesis 13:13 says Sodom was wicked.
Matthew 12:36 says men will answer for every idle word.
Genesis 18:21 says God went down to see whether Sodom had done altogether according to the outcry, “and if not, I will know.”
Those claims fit together just fine.
You have not shown a contradiction. You have merely asserted one.
That is not analogous.
John 8:58 is used alongside other passages to establish a doctrine the verse itself strongly supports.
You are doing the opposite.
Genesis 18:21 explicitly says God would go down and see, “and if not, I will know.”
Rather than letting that text say what it says, you appeal to verses that do not contradict it and use them to make Genesis 18:21 mean the opposite of what it says.
That is not Scripture interpreting Scripture.
That is Scripture being used to override Scripture.
No. You showed that God knew Sodom was wicked, and that men will answer for every idle word in judgment.
Genesis 18:21 says God went down to see whether Sodom had done altogether according to the outcry against it, “and if not, I will know.”
Those are different claims.
You have not shown that God already knew the specific matter Genesis 18:21 says He went to investigate.
No.
Genesis 13:13 says Sodom was wicked.
That is a general statement.
Genesis 18:21 concerns a specific outcry against them:
“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.”
Knowing that a city is wicked is not the same as knowing whether a particular accusation against that city is true in full.
A judge may know that a defendant is a habitual criminal. That does not mean he already knows whether the specific charge presently before the court is true. He still investigates the charge before judgment.
Likewise, God already knew Sodom was wicked.
Genesis 18 says He went down to determine whether the specific outcry against them was fully warranted.
Those are not the same thing.
No, you asserted it.
You did not demonstrate it.
Genesis 18:21 says God went down to investigate a specific outcry against Sodom, “and if not, I will know.”
Genesis 13:13 only says Sodom was wicked generally.
Those are not the same claim.
And the insult does not bridge the gap in your argument.
Genesis 13:13 shows that God knew Sodom was wicked generally.
Matthew 12:36 says men will give account for every idle word they speak.
Neither proves that God already knew the specific matter Genesis 18:21 says He went down to investigate.
God does not need exhaustive foreknowledge to judge every idle word. He can know every word when it is actually spoken, whether by His own direct observation or by reports from His heavenly agents.
So Matthew 12:36 does not rescue your argument.
Knowing that Sodom was wicked is not the same as knowing whether they had done altogether according to the outcry that had come before Him.
That is not “the God who guesses.”
That is the God who judges righteously.
No, it is a failure to read the passage carefully.
God said He would destroy man from the face of the earth.
Then the very next verse says:
“But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.”
So the passage itself identifies Noah as the exception.
“We’re still here” does not refute Genesis 6. It confirms that God preserved the one man the passage says He spared.
You keep switching categories whenever it suits you.
When Revelation speaks corporately of “the rest of the men,” you treat it as though it must identify every individual without exception.
But when Genesis 6 speaks corporately of mankind being destroyed, and then immediately identifies Noah as the individual exception, you act as though the exception falsifies the statement.
You cannot have it both ways.
No.
Open Theists believe God is capable of responding decisively to human wickedness when it actually develops. God can plan for contingencies. He can build a mechanism into the earth that He may use to bring judgment upon His creation, should it become necessary because of what men might do.
That does not require Him to eternally foreknow that the Flood would become necessary.
Genesis 6 does not say God eternally foreknew the flood would become necessary.
It says God saw that man’s wickedness had become great, was grieved that He had made man, and then declared judgment.
That is not “guessing.”
That is a wise God planning ahead for a potential future, and then responding righteously to what men had actually done.
Whether Jonah foreshadows gospel preaching does not answer the point.
Jonah 3:10 still says God saw Nineveh’s works and relented from the disaster He said He would bring.
That is the text under discussion.
Romans 10 does not make Jonah 3:10 say something else.
That is your assertion, not Jeremiah 18.
Jeremiah 18 says God may announce judgment against a nation, and then relent if that nation turns from evil.
It presents a genuinely conditional warning and a genuine divine response.
And it would be unjust for God to hold men accountable for choices they had no ability to do otherwise than make.
So simply replying, “God foreknew it anyway,” does not answer the passage.
Romans 9 does not erase Jeremiah 18.
Paul’s potter-and-clay imagery comes from Jeremiah 18, where the meaning is explicitly conditional.
And there is an important question here:
Did the potter at the wheel ever finish making the first vessel?
The answer is very clearly "no."
Jeremiah says:
“And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel...”
The vessel became marred while still in the potter’s hand, and the potter responded by reshaping it.
The defect lies with the clay, not with the potter.
So the point is not that God infallibly knew the clay would be marred and then blames them for being ruined. The point is that God, as the Potter, has the right to respond to the actual condition of the clay.
That is the context for the potter imagery.
It depicts God’s right to deal with men and nations according to what they actually become.
That is exactly why Jeremiah 18 immediately explains:
If a nation marked for judgment turns from evil, God relents.
If a nation marked for blessing turns to evil, God relents from the good He intended.
Romans 9 does not overturn that. It draws from it.
Already addressed.
This describes a corporate group in a prophetic vision refusing to repent under judgment.
It does not identify every individual involved, and it does not say God exhaustively foreknew every future free choice of every person in that group.
A revealed corporate outcome is not the same thing as exhaustive foreknowledge of every future free choice.
Same answer.
This is a corporate description within a prophetic vision.
It says that these men, as a group, do not repent under judgment.
It does not identify every individual involved, and it does not state that God exhaustively foreknew every future free choice of every person in that group.
A revealed corporate outcome is not the same thing as exhaustive foreknowledge of every future free choice.
No. You're not. Take it from someone who isn't you.
You are using one passage to override another when it does not fit your theology.
Scripture interpreting Scripture means allowing both texts to say what they say, then harmonizing them honestly.
It does not mean quoting a verse that says God knew one thing and using it to erase a verse that says He went to investigate another.
No. We are dealing with the words you keep trying to explain away.
Yes, the passage concerns God’s mercy.
It also says:
“I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which has come to Me. And if not, I will know.”
You do not get to appeal to the broader theme of the conversation as an excuse to ignore the specific statement under discussion.
No.
Matthew 12:36 says men will give account for every idle word they speak.
It does not say God eternally foreknows every idle word before it is spoken.
God can know every idle word because He was present when it was uttered, or because it was reported to Him.
Exhaustive foreknowledge is not necessary for judgment.
You keep adding “can’t repent,” but the passages do not say that.
They say they did not repent.
That is not the same claim.
And again, these are corporate descriptions in a prophetic vision. They do not identify every individual involved, nor do they prove exhaustive foreknowledge of every future free choice.
I did.
Above, you repeated passages that say they did not repent.
You did not provide a passage saying they could not repent.
No.
The same word translated “foreknew” in Romans 8:29 is used of men elsewhere in Scripture.
In Acts 26:5, Paul says the Jews had known him beforehand:
“They knew me from the first, if they were willing to testify...”
And in 2 Peter 3:17, Peter says:
“You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand...”
So the word “foreknow,” in itself, does not describe something only God can do.
And “whom He foreknew” still does not mean, “whose every future free choice He exhaustively foreknew.”
Open Theists acknowledge that many things had to happen for those people to exist.
What we deny is that Romans 8:29–30 says God exhaustively foreknew every one of those prior events and every future free choice involved in them.
The passage says:
“Whom He foreknew...”
It speaks of people, not of every event required for their eventual existence.
And Revelation 22:13 says Christ is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.
Amen.
But that verse does not say He exhaustively foreknows every future free choice either.
You keep citing verses that affirm great truths about God, then treating them as though they state your conclusion.
They do not.
No, it is not.
A prophecy concerning the future actions of a corporate group is not exhaustive foreknowledge of every future free choice of every individual who will ever live.
That is the leap you keep making without proving it.
Revelation 9 and 16 tell us what that group will do in that judgment scene.
They do not tell us that God exhaustively foreknows every future free choice.
Already addressed.
These passages describe a corporate group in a prophetic vision.
They tell us what that group does in that scene.
They do not identify every individual involved, and they do not say God exhaustively foreknew every future free choice of every person in that group.
Quoting them again does not turn them into a proof of exhaustive foreknowledge.
That does not follow.
Matthew 12:36 says men will give account for every idle word in the day of judgment.
Genesis 18:21 concerns God’s investigation of a specific outcry against Sodom before bringing judgment.
Even if God knows every idle word ever spoken, that does not prove He had already verified the particular charge Genesis 18 says He went down to investigate.
Derf
Well-known member
Why was that necessary if he had already been declared righteous? (Gen 15:6, as you pointed out)
And he was already known to be faithful extending to his family? i.e., it didn't appear to be because of the interrupted sacrifice of Isaac that Abraham was faithful thereafter.
Genesis 18:19 KJV — For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.
So if there's no gain for eather God or Abraham, why go through it at all?
Rather it was part of a process of God testing Abraham, first to leave his homeland, then to trust for a new home, then to trust for a child-heir (from Sarah), then to trust for God's provision no matter what (he was confident that God could raise him from the dead, even:
Hebrews 11:19 KJV — Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
But not at first. Abraham was not that trusting at first. He didn't think God could give him a child by Sarah. So the testing came over 25 years until Isaac was born, then another bunch of years (unspecified, but I'd propose 15) until the almost sacrifice. Did God do this for Abraham's gain or God's? Why not both? Abraham grew in knowledge of God, why can't God grow in knowledge of Abraham? Isn't it only because you have already decided that God already knows all future things based on other verses that don't require it?
