On the omniscience of God

[Clete]

Would you agree that there are not different types of reason, but rather we are able to access and implement it to different degrees?

Reason is man's ONLY tool of knowledge. Reason is a faculty that man has to exercise by choice. Man can choose to either use reason or not, which means he can choose to think or not to think. Thinking is not an automatic function. In any hour and issue of his life, man is free to think or to evade that effort.

Rationality is man’s basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues. Man’s basic vice, the source of all his evils, is the act of unfocusing his mind, the suspension of his consciousness, which is not blindness, but the refusal to see, not ignorance, but the refusal to know. Irrationality is the rejection of man’s means of survival and, therefore, a commitment to a course of blind destruction; that which is anti-mind, is anti-life.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.​

​

(Nearly all of the above is a quotation of someone other than me.)

Do you believe we can improve upon our reasoning ability and prowess?

Of course.

But, here's the kicker. Such improvement can only happen by means of reason itself. Without the use of reason, no error in logic can be detected, much less corrected. Thus, it is only a rational being that has the capacity to improve their own thinking skills. Reason IS that capacity.

 

[Psychlo]

Oops, I didn't mean to post that yet!

Continuing on....

Thought experiment:
If, after eating the fruit, Eve had disguised the fruit and tricked Adam into eating it (maybe she mixed it in with some other frutits or berries), would Adam be culpable? I don't thnk so. Even though technically, he ate the very thing he was commanded not to.

It's very much like the faith vs works argument. James says that works are the proof of faith. If you have true faith, works will follow. But works without faith is dead. Actions come from the heart.

 

[Psychlo]

Reason is man's ONLY tool of knowledge. Reason is a faculty that man has to exercise by choice. Man can choose to either use reason or not, which means he can choose to think or not to think. Thinking is not an automatic function. In any hour and issue of his life, man is free to think or to evade that effort.

Rationality is man’s basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues. Man’s basic vice, the source of all his evils, is the act of unfocusing his mind, the suspension of his consciousness, which is not blindness, but the refusal to see, not ignorance, but the refusal to know. Irrationality is the rejection of man’s means of survival and, therefore, a commitment to a course of blind destruction; that which is anti-mind, is anti-life.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.​

​

(Nearly all of the above is a quotation of someone other than me.)


Of course.

But, here's the kicker. Such improvement can only happen by means of reason itself. Without the use of reason, no error in logic can be detected, much less corrected. Thus, it is only a rational being that has the capacity to improve their own thinking skills. Reason IS that capacity.

As I suspected, this is mostly just a difference of semantics. I think we're on the same page. There's a difference between a rational being and being rational. Correct? I've been advocating from the latter perspective and you, the former.

 

[Clete]

I don't disagree with anything here. However, I do believe all sin comes from the heart.

When the bible speaks of "the heart", it is speaking about the mind. EVERYTHING volitional act you perform, whether thought, word or deed, comes from your mind. Since any moral action is a volitional action, by definition, then it follows that all of what could be considered righteousness or sin comes from the heart.

The actions that spring forth form the heart are the evidence. That's the difference between cold-blooded murder and self-defense manslaughter. It's the same action but with different motives.

It isn't the same action. The only thing the two have in common is that someone is dead.

Having said that, I do agree that motive, very often, makes the difference between right and wrong action

But that sort of misses the point, doesn't it?
The point is that you can both sin without taking any physical action and you can be tempted without sinning. If I envy my neighbor's property, I sin whether I actually take it or not, but, if the thought of taking something that doesn't belong to me happens to cross my mind but I dismiss it as stupidity, then I haven't sinned at all.

Same is true if you're forced or tricked into a "sinful act". If it wasn't your intention, you are not culpable.

Quite so.

Also, people cannot justly be held morally accountable for accidents.

Thought experiment:
If, after eating the fruit, Eve had disguised the fruit and tricked Adam into eating it (maybe she mixed it in with some other fruits or berries), would Adam be culpable? I don't think so. Even though technically, he ate the very thing he was commanded not to.

There's no need for the hypothetical. Notice biblically that we are fallen in Adam, not Eve. This is precisely because Eve was deceived by Lucifer, who, by every biblical indication, was still an Arch Angel at the time. It is Adam's fully cognizant decision to disobey God's command that has created the issue of the sin nature and it is through the father that the sin nature is passed, not the mother. (This is why Jesus could be born of a woman. He had no human father and so did not inherit the fallen nature of man).

Clete

 

[Clete]

It's very much like the faith vs works argument. James says that works are the proof of faith. If you have true faith, works will follow. But works without faith is dead. Actions come from the heart.

I get your point but its a bad example.
James was teaching law to believing Jews who were under the law and "zealous for the law".

Acts 21:18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law;​

​

James 1:1 James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,​

To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad:​

Greetings.​

Paul teaches something quite different....

Romans 4:4 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.​

​

5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:​

Notice that both Paul and James use the same Abraham as proof for their opposite teachings. This works because the first covenant that God made with Abraham (Abram at the time) was a covenant of grace where Abram wasn't even awake when God passed through the sacrifice and so had no terms to meet. Then, just a bit later, the covenant of circumcision (i.e. of law - circumcision is a symbol of the law) was put in place where Abraham was very much awake and was required to do all sort of things. Thus, Abraham is the father of both groups and is rightly used as the prototype for both groups.

Clete

 

[Clete]

As I suspected, this is mostly just a difference of semantics. I think we're on the same page. There's a difference between a rational being and being rational. Correct? I've been advocating from the latter perspective and you, the former.

Yes, I think so. I've been talking about reason per se, whereas you've been talking about the use of it - or lack thereof.

My point is simply that people, as rational creatures, CAN correctly use reason if they choose to do so.

 

[Psychlo]

When the bible speaks of "the heart", it is speaking about the mind. EVERYTHING volitional act you perform, whether thought, word or deed, comes from your mind. Since any moral action is a volitional action, by definition, then it follows that all of what could be considered righteousness or sin comes from the heart.


It isn't the same action. The only thing the two have in common is that someone is dead.

It very well could be exactly the same action. One human killing another. It's the motive that makes one wrong and not the other, right?

Having said that, I do agree that motive, very often, makes the difference between right and wrong action

But that sort of misses the point, doesn't it?

No, it's the entire point. It's the most important point. Motive is everything. Mind you, I'm referring to culpability for sin, not just a "wrong action". I just want to be clear that we're talking about a sinful action vs a non-sinful action. Motive separates the two. Can you sin by accident? Can you sin by proxy? Can you sin unwillingly?

There's no need for the hypothetical. Notice biblically that we are fallen in Adam, not Eve. This is precisely because Eve was deceived by Lucifer, who, by every biblical indication, was still an Arch Angel at the time. It is Adam's fully cognizant decision to disobey God's command that has created the issue of the sin nature and it is through the father that the sin nature is passed, not the mother. (This is why Jesus could be born of a woman. He had no human father and so did not inherit the fallen nature of man).

There's a fair amount of conjecture in this paragraph. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, but we must remain clear on what we're inferring and what we know for certain. This is especially critical as we build a larger and larger case based on compounded inferences. I don't subscribe to the idea of Federal Headship in relation to sin nature. I understand why some folks believe that way, but I don't think there's enough substance of scripture to support it convincingly.

1. We're not given why Adam bore the sin nature as opposed to Eve, if that's even true. The inference you assert is a definite possibility, but not the only one. Adam was the first human, and he may very well bare a natural responsibility by God's design. Throughout the Bible, men are always the leaders - whether civil, military, family, royalty, priestly, etc. There are very few exceptions, and those were extenuating circumstances, IMO. This was God's design. He created man first and woman from man.

2. We're not told it was Adam's "fully cognizant decision" that made the difference. Eve was every bit as guilty of sin, no? In fact, it could be argued that she was double-guilty (if that were such a thing) since she not only ate (sin #1), but then she knowingly gave it to her husband to eat (sin #2). Put that together with the fact that Paul states that the reason that Adam had authority over Eve is two-fold: He was created first, and because she was deceived and he wasn't. 1 Tim 2:13-14 So the strong indication is that Eve's sin was, in a sense, "less responsible(?)" than Adam's. Note: I've also heard it taught that Adam sinned purposely to take responsibility on himself and "cover" his wife's sin as the head of household. I don't see any scriptural merit to that, but it's interesting. Is that by chance what you're suggesting?

3. We're not told that the sin nature only passes on through males. Through the sperm but not eggs? What are the scriptures for that notion? I believe this is a spiritual or metaphysical event, not physical. Sin nature is not physical, correct?

4. We're not told how Jesus was conceived. This was a one-time, unique event. God could have used whatever means He wanted. He did not need an egg of Mary's, just as He didn't need sperm from Joseph. Jesus could have just appeared in utero as an untainted human being. So I see no need to search for a way to explain Jesus's lack of sin nature by way of Federal Headship. And, in case you're thinking it, I don't believe the "seed" argument is adequate reason to need FH either. These are spiritual conditions, not genetic. When Christ died and was raised, his forgiveness didn't have to pass backward through the DNA of all of the deceased faithful folks. Sin, just like the forgiveness of it, is on the spiritual plane, not physical.

I realize I'm in the minority on this view, and I'm okay with that. These are just my thoughts, and I wouldn't bet my life on any of them. But it is nice to contemplate and discuss these things with others who think deeply. I appreciate everyone's input. Growth is good.

 

[Clete]

It very well could be exactly the same action. One human killing another. It's the motive that makes one wrong and not the other, right?

Saying it doesn't make it so, Psychlo.

Think it through. Imagine a scenario where someone gets killed by someone else. While I'm sure that someone might be able to concoct a hypotheitical scenario where everything is identical except for the motive but that wouldn't ever happen in real life. The more details you give the scenario, the clearer it will become that the only things that the two have in common are the characters, the weapon and the fact that someone ends up dead. It is precisely because the motive is different that this is so. Different motives lead to different actions. Different actions leads to different evidence. Different evidence allows one to be proven as murder and the other not.

No, it's the entire point. It's the most important point. Motive is everything. Mind you, I'm referring to culpability for sin, not just a "wrong action". I just want to be clear that we're talking about a sinful action vs a non-sinful action. Motive separates the two. Can you sin by accident? Can you sin by proxy? Can you sin unwillingly?

Well, yeah, according to the bible you absolutely can!

​

Numbers 15:22 ‘If you sin unintentionally, and do not observe all these commandments which the Lord has spoken to Moses— 23 all that the Lord has commanded you by the hand of Moses, from the day the Lord gave commandment and onward throughout your generations— 24 then it will be, if it is unintentionally committed, [d]without the knowledge of the congregation, that the whole congregation shall offer one young bull as a burnt offering, as a sweet aroma to the Lord, with its grain offering and its drink offering, according to the ordinance, and one kid of the goats as a sin offering. 25 So the priest shall make atonement for the whole congregation of the children of Israel, and it shall be forgiven them, for it was unintentional; they shall bring their offering, an offering made by fire to the Lord, and their sin offering before the Lord, for their unintended sin. 26 It shall be forgiven the whole congregation of the children of Israel and the stranger who dwells among them, because all the people did it unintentionally.​

​

27 ‘And if a person sins unintentionally, then he shall bring a female goat in its first year as a sin offering. 28 So the priest shall make atonement for the person who sins unintentionally, when he sins unintentionally before the Lord, to make atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him. 29 You shall have one law for him who sins unintentionally, for him who is native-born among the children of Israel and for the stranger who dwells among them.​

​

There are, however, some sins that cannot be committed accidentally. Murder being one of them, along with any other sin that is also a crime.

But doing something accidentally vs. intentionally isn't quite the same thing as talking about motive. Murder is the intentional, offensive (i.e. as apposed to defensive) taking of a person's life without due process of law. Accidental killings, killing in the defense of other innocent people or of yourself, the killing that happens during a just war and the execution of those convicted of capital crimes fall outside that definition and so are not murder. Beyond that, however, the motive is irrelevant. It doesn't matter why someone murders someone else in so far as their guilt is concerned. It might be relevant in an effort to prevent other people from committing additional murders but in so far as the guilt of the murderer is concerned, it makes no difference. If you intentionally kill someone and you weren't fighting in a war or defending yourself or some other innocent person, then you are guilty of murder, regardless of why you did it. In fact, intent is the critical factor to the extent that those who attempt to murder someone should be punished as though they succeeded.

There's a fair amount of conjecture in this paragraph. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, but we must remain clear on what we're inferring and what we know for certain. This is especially critical as we build a larger and larger case based on compounded inferences.

The effort here is, or should be, to maintain a fully biblical and rationally coherent worldview. As such, one particular issue will pretty much always touch several others. The degree to which one issue is found to be interwoven through other seemingly unrelated issues is the degree to which that issue can be used as a test to determine whether one's beliefs are internally consistent vs. disconnected, discordant or outright contradictory.

All of that to say this...

While issues like the ones I brought up are definitely potential rabbit trails that are not directly relevant to the topic being discussed, it is something of an overstatement to call them conjecture. I can, for example, make a strictly biblical case for the idea that Lucifer was in Eden. In fact, it would be one who was making the opposite case who would be forced to resort to conjecture because the bible directly states as much.

I don't subscribe to the idea of Federal Headship in relation to sin nature. I understand why some folks believe that way, but I don't think there's enough substance of scripture to support it convincingly.

There is more than one thing that you could be referring to by the use of the term "Federal Headship".

If you are referring to the ridiculously unjust notion of "Original Sin" where all mankind is held guilty before God because of Adam's sin then we are in agreement. The Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin is heresy of the highest order and cannot survive even a cursory, surface reading of Ezekiel 18 (the whole chapter).

1. We're not given why Adam bore the sin nature as opposed to Eve, if that's even true. The inference you assert is a definite possibility, but not the only one. Adam was the first human, and he may very well bare a natural responsibility by God's design. Throughout the Bible, men are always the leaders - whether civil, military, family, royalty, priestly, etc. There are very few exceptions, and those were extenuating circumstances, IMO. This was God's design. He created man first and woman from man.

There can be no doubt at all about the fact that Adam is THE source of the sin nature.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned​

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.​

The "why" is a different question. We do know from the biblical record that Eve was deceived and that Adam was not (Genesis 3:9-13 & 2 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Tim 2:13-14). Perhaps that fact is what makes the difference and perhaps its based on the very valid observations you've made about Adam being the first human, etc. (Maybe it's a bit of both.) It does seem plausible that had Adam not joined with Eve that God could have created a new helper for Adam in the same way He had created Eve.

2. We're not told it was Adam's "fully cognizant decision" that made the difference. Eve was every bit as guilty of sin, no?

She sinned, yes but "every bit as guilty"?

How would that be consistent with what you've said about intent and motive?

In fact, it could be argued that she was double-guilty (if that were such a thing) since she not only ate (sin #1), but then she knowingly gave it to her husband to eat (sin #2).

No doubt that both actions were sinful but again, isn't the motive important here? Not in answering the question of whether she sinned but only the type and degree of her sin. She was deceived into believing that she was doing good. She wanted to be like God and Lucifer deceived her into believing that to eat of the Tree was a way to accomplish exactly that. Is it any surprise that she'd want Adam to come along side?

Put that together with the fact that Paul states that the reason that Adam had authority over Eve is two-fold: He was created first, and because she was deceived and he wasn't. 1 Tim 2:13-14 So the strong indication is that Eve's sin was, in a sense, "less responsible(?)" than Adam's. Note: I've also heard it taught that Adam sinned purposely to take responsibility on himself and "cover" his wife's sin as the head of household. I don't see any scriptural merit to that, but it's interesting. Is that by chance what you're suggesting?

So, there's nothing here to disagree with but I just wanted to take a second here to say that, while I was reading this section of your post, it just occurred to me how enjoyable this discussion has been! This is what TOL is supposed to be! Awesome!

3. We're not told that the sin nature only passes on through males. Through the sperm but not eggs? What are the scriptures for that notion? I believe this is a spiritual or metaphysical event, not physical. Sin nature is not physical, correct?

Holy cow. To much to go into here but just to touch it...

I didn't say it passes through sperm, although that is a distinct possibility.
As for sin being spiritual vs physical, I think that it's definitely both.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death,

What is death?

Death is a separation. Physical death is when one's spirit separates from their body. Spiritual death happens when one is separated from the Father, who is Life. Both are a consequence of sin. This is further evidenced by the fact that Jesus died in both ways...

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”​

​

John 19:30 So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.​

Further, by what method, other than physical, would it be passed that would be consistent with the biblical record and with the necessity of Christ NOT being burdened by the sin nature in order to qualify as our Kinsman Redeemer? The bible teaches that a man and his wife become one flesh. I think that 1 Corinthians 6:16 proves that this happens when the two have physical relations. That sounds kind of physical to me. Perhaps there's more going on that just the physical but the physical is definitely involved. Either way you slice it, it seems that Mary HAD TO BE a virgin.

4. We're not told how Jesus was conceived. This was a one-time, unique event. God could have used whatever means He wanted. He did not need an egg of Mary's, just as He didn't need sperm from Joseph.
Jesus could have just appeared in utero as an untainted human being. So I see no need to search for a way to explain Jesus's lack of sin nature by way of Federal Headship.

This is definitely incorrect.

Jesus HAD TO BE a physical blood descendant of David.

Matthew's gospel traces His line back through Joseph to David as proof of His qualification of being King. (i.e. Jesus' legal title to the throne of King David was through Joseph.)

Luke's gospel traces His line, through Mary, not only through David but all the way back to Adam showing not only Christ's humanity but establishing His blood title to David's throne.

John gives a genealogy of sorts at the beginning of his gospel (John 1:1-5 & 14) where he presents Jesus as the incarnate God Himself.

Thus, Christ is God Himself become man through the line of David and, as such, He is the rightful heir to David's throne.

And, in case you're thinking it, I don't believe the "seed" argument is adequate reason to need FH either. These are spiritual conditions, not genetic. When Christ died and was raised, his forgiveness didn't have to pass backward through the DNA of all of the deceased faithful folks. Sin, just like the forgiveness of it, is on the spiritual plane, not physical.

This doesn't seem to follow.
Forgiveness doesn't pass to anyone at all - period.
Neither does guilt, for that matter. (Again see Ezekiel 18)
The sin nature, or what Paul calls "the flesh", however, is a different matter.
How much more physical of a reference can be made to the sin nature than to refer to it as "the flesh", by the way?

I realize I'm in the minority on this view, and I'm okay with that.

As you should be. The truth is never held by the majority.

These are just my thoughts, and I wouldn't bet my life on any of them. But it is nice to contemplate and discuss these things with others who think deeply. I appreciate everyone's input. Growth is good.

I said it earlier but it bares being said again....

This discussion is what TOL is supposed to be! To Christian people coming together, discussing Christian issues with depth of thought and mutual respect. I haven't had this much fun on TOL in years!

Clete

 

[oatmeal]

Been watching a lot of Soteriology101 videos recently, in which Dr. Leighton Flowers consistently shows the errors of Calvinism, and promotes "Provisionism," which teaches that God has provided a way of salvation for mankind. (I definitely recommend listening to his shows on YT.)

But he pokes at the Open Theist camp (in love, of course) saying that he rejects our (as I am an Open Theist, too) view of God's omniscience, which is that God can know all things knowable, but also that God does not know the future. He obviously (because his show isn't really about Open Theism so much as it is Provisionism and attacking Calvinism,

I figured I'd start this thread to discuss what it means for God to be omniscient.

What is meant by the word know or knowing?

Both the Greek word oida and ginosko refer to knowledge or knowing.

oida could be defined as being simply aware of knowledge. Ie, known academically, or simply mentally aware of some bit of knowledge. For instance, I could know that the Eiffel tower is in Paris France. But, have I ever been there to experience that.

Ginosko refers to knowledge experience, including knowledge put into practice.

What is God's all knowing referring to? Mental awareness or experiencing or practicing some knowledge

Is God aware of evil? Yes, of course, but does God practice evil? Obviously and absolutely not.

What is meant by God's omniscience?

 

[Derf]

What is meant by the word know or knowing?

Both the Greek word oida and ginosko refer to knowledge or knowing.

oida could be defined as being simply aware of knowledge. Ie, known academically, or simply mentally aware of some bit of knowledge. For instance, I could know that the Eiffel tower is in Paris France. But, have I ever been there to experience that.

Ginosko refers to knowledge experience, including knowledge put into practice.

What is God's all knowing referring to? Mental awareness or experiencing or practicing some knowledge

Is God aware of evil? Yes, of course, but does God practice evil? Obviously and absolutely not.

What is meant by God's omniscience?

I would suggest that while some things God is experientially knowledgeable, the "all-knowing" can't include experiential knowledge of sin. God knows when we sin, but not as if He Himself had done the sin.

 

[Clete]

I would suggest that while some things God is experientially knowledgeable, the "all-knowing" can't include experiential knowledge of sin. God knows when we sin, but not as if He Himself had done the sin.

While the subject of the content and extent of God's knowledge is a perfectly legitimate topic to discuss, I wonder, if there's any sort of knowledge at all, whether experiential or otherwise, that God doesn't know, whether it even makes sense to say that God is all-knowing in the first place.

Although, I admit that I have no better term to suggest replacing "all-knowing" with.

 

[Derf]

While the subject of the content and extent of God's knowledge is a perfectly legitimate topic to discuss, I wonder, if there's any sort of knowledge at all, whether experiential or otherwise, that God doesn't know, whether it even makes sense to say that God is all-knowing in the first place.

Although, I admit that I have no better term to suggest replacing "all-knowing" with.

Yes, that's certainly something worth considering. Why do we think "omniscience" is something to cling to at all? Does "know all things" equate to "all-knowing"?

 

[Derf]

What is meant by the word know or knowing?

Both the Greek word oida and ginosko refer to knowledge or knowing.

oida could be defined as being simply aware of knowledge. Ie, known academically, or simply mentally aware of some bit of knowledge. For instance, I could know that the Eiffel tower is in Paris France. But, have I ever been there to experience that.

Ginosko refers to knowledge experience, including knowledge put into practice.

What is God's all knowing referring to? Mental awareness or experiencing or practicing some knowledge

Is God aware of evil? Yes, of course, but does God practice evil? Obviously and absolutely not.

What is meant by God's omniscience?

As a follow-up, we can search out scripture to find out how God knows things about us and our deeds. He "numbers" the hairs on our heads, unlike the feathers of a sparrow.
[Luk 12:7 KJV] But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.

He is "there" when we make our beds in Sheol.
[Psa 139:8 KJV] If I ascend up into heaven, thou [art] there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou [art there].
(I would be willing to retract this assertion, if we agree this is a verse about Christ's death instead of God's omniscience.)

The eyes of His seven Spirits are "sent forth into all the earth".
[Rev 5:6 KJV] And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

These verses are a mere sampling, but they seem to suggest that God gains knowledge by observing.

 

[oatmeal]

I would suggest that while some things God is experientially knowledgeable, the "all-knowing" can't include experiential knowledge of sin. God knows when we sin, but not as if He Himself had done the sin.

Yes, I agree

 

[Lon]

Yes, that's certainly something worth considering. Why do we think "omniscience" is something to cling to at all? Does "know all things" equate to "all-knowing"?

Omniscience is simply the term. "Knows all things" and "All Knowing" are interchangeable.

While He has never sinned, of course He knows all the ins and outs of its actions and influence else we'd not be saved from it, right? Jesus was 'tempted in every way.' I don't believe scripture is intimating that the Lord Jesus Christ had to be tempted with every nuance in circumstance.

"You know my thoughts from afar, O Lord you know all." Such includes the knowledge of all sin as well as what we ourselves do not understand about any given one in our limitation.

 

[Clete]

Omniscience is simply the term. "Knows all things" and "All Knowing" are interchangeable.

True, but the etymology of a term doesn't always convey what is actually meant when the term is used.

Open Theists accept the use of the term "Omniscient" in that we believe that God knows all knowable things. It's just that we have different ideas about what is knowable. Some of us also add an additional caveat in that we acknowledge that God, while capable, is not required to know every knowable fact of existence.

While He has never sinned, of course He knows all the ins and outs of its actions and influence else we'd not be saved from it, right? Jesus was 'tempted in every way.' I don't believe scripture is intimating that the Lord Jesus Christ had to be tempted with every nuance in circumstance.

"You know my thoughts from afar, O Lord you know all." Such includes the knowledge of all sin as well as what we ourselves do not understand about any given one in our limitation.

There are Calvinists who would count this has heresy, Lon! Any insinuation of any kind of lack in God's knowledge would explode God into dust in the minds of many, if not most, Calvinists. They simply don't care about the logical implications related to experiential vs. any other sort of knowledge. If it is knowledge that you have, then you have it, according to their doctrine, because God ordained it, decreed it, predestined it and caused you to have it.

That's what a Calvinist means by "Omniscience"!

 

[Lon]

True, but the etymology of a term doesn't always convey what is actually meant when the term is used.

Open Theists accept the use of the term "Omniscient" in that we believe that God knows all knowable things.

Who gets to decide what is knowable for God? The term 'knowable' usually has a lot of qualifications from what Open Theists believe i.e. having just inklings of what is happening in Sodom and Gomorrah that He has to go see, not knowing where Adam is actually hiding. Because God is the Actuator, the all, of the what and how the universe exists, there is nothing in it that He doesn't know nor how it will play out.

At the roots of our discussion we were traversing a scenario of having an almanac from the future. It isn't EDF certainly DF because an almanac only holds so much, but I believe it will suffice. All I have to do is show logically that if I know exactly what you will do 1) I know and 2) have nothing to do with, that you can choose, even if it is known. Recently, and I meant to bookmark it the moment I saw it from you, you told someone "I knew you were going to say that!" As I was reading along, I did too. Granted we both didn't know know, but it doesn't matter as far as logic is concerned: neither you nor I had power over his choice, we both just saw the choice coming from a long long distance off. Such, without extra steps needed for your objections in a proof set, does certainly indicate that we can have a prognosis. We aren't always right, but just because we are shown to have known something, proves at least casually, that choice can easily exist despite the knowledge.

It's just that we have different ideas about what is knowable.

Some of us also add an additional caveat in that we acknowledge that God, while capable, is not required to know every knowable fact of existence.

Again, how do you get to decide that? You have some Open grasp of scriptures that can intimate He does not, like "Adam, where are you?"
but this is the very thing contested. Because of that, the rest of us have to go back and say (rightly) "This isn't what Omniscience means."

There are Calvinists who would count this has heresy, Lon!

Even some Arminians. I'm not too caught up on that.

Any insinuation of any kind of lack in God's knowledge would explode God into dust in the minds of many, if not most, Calvinists.

I know I've said this in the past: There are different kinds of Calvinists. I cannot remember all of them, but Nang was/is a Double-pred Calvinist. AMR, and others were not.

They simply don't care about the logical implications related to experiential vs. any other sort of knowledge. If it is knowledge that you have, then you have it, according to their doctrine, because God ordained it, decreed it, predestined it and caused you to have it.

There is a 'sense' that you can follow that logic down the hole, but the end usually will hit a double-pred.

That's what a Calvinist means by "Omniscience"!

Not to that endth degree. "What do you have that you were not given?" It means to some degree we are on page: There is a sense of self and independence were are given. How much? (see the panentheism discussion you are already in with Moonbeam in Time Does not Exist). It partially covers 'extent' of God's interaction. I agree with you we certainly are given some independent accountability. Scripture says so.

 

[Clete]

Who gets to decide what is knowable for God?

We are perfectly capable of using the mind's God gave us. Sound reason works.

The term 'knowable' usually has a lot of qualifications from what Open Theists believe i.e. having just inklings of what is happening in Sodom and Gomorrah that He has to go see, not knowing where Adam is actually hiding. Because God is the Actuator, the all, of the what and how the universe exists, there is nothing in it that He doesn't know nor how it will play out.

If so, God is unjust.

At the roots of our discussion we were traversing a scenario of having an almanac from the future. It isn't EDF certainly DF because an almanac only holds so much, but I believe it will suffice. All I have to do is show logically that if I know exactly what you will do 1) I know and 2) have nothing to do with, that you can choose, even if it is known.

It would be impossible for you to show any such thing, as I have demonstrated in my previous post.

Recently, and I meant to bookmark it the moment I saw it from you, you told someone "I knew you were going to say that!" As I was reading along, I did too. Granted we both didn't know know, but it doesn't matter as far as logic is concerned: neither you nor I had power over his choice, we both just saw the choice coming from a long long distance off. Such, without extra steps needed for your objections in a proof set, does certainly indicate that we can have a prognosis. We aren't always right, but just because we are shown to have known something, proves at least casually, that choice can easily exist despite the knowledge.

God is not always right either, Lon!

Biblically, God knowing the future is just about exactly the same sort of knowledge I had when I declared "I knew you were going to do that!", except that God has far more information available to Him and He's infinitely wiser than any man and so can see such things coming both more accurately and from very much further away.

For the sake of clarity, in the argument presented in my previous post, this IS NOT this sort of knowledge being discussed! The argument very specifically states that it is referring to INFALLIBLE foreknowledge and not the sort of knowledge that one might have when they can see a "choice coming from a long long distance off", to use your phrase.

Again, how do you get to decide that?

I do not "decide" it as though it's something I simply choose in some arbitrary manner. Do you "decide" that two plus two equals four? Do you "decide" that water runs down hill? Do you "decide" that the Sun rises in the East?

You have some Open grasp of scriptures that can intimate He does not, like "Adam, where are you?" but this is the very thing contested. Because of that, the rest of us have to go back and say (rightly) "This isn't what Omniscience means."

It isn't directly relevant. Open theists do not believe their doctrine about foreknowledge based on such passages. Rather, we are merely free to understand them to mean what they say without contradicting our theological worldview.

Even some Arminians.

True!

I know I've said this in the past: There are different kinds of Calvinists. I cannot remember all of them, but Nang was/is a Double-pred Calvinist. AMR, and others were not.

There really isn't a dime's worth of difference between them. The differences come down to the degree to which they are logically consistent with their own premises. Nang was on one end of that spectrum while AMR was less consistent. Go far enough down that path and you find Arminians.

There is a 'sense' that you can follow that logic down the hole, but the end usually will hit a double-pred.

Exactly! It is purely a matter of how strictly they want to logically adhere to their own premises. The more logically flexible you are, the further you get from Nang and her ilk and the closer you get to Arminianism.

Not to that endth degree. "What do you have that you were not given?" It means to some degree we are on page: There is a sense of self and independence were are given. How much? (see the panentheism discussion you are already in with Moonbeam in Time Does not Exist). It partially covers 'extent' of God's interaction. I agree with you we certainly are given some independent accountability. Scripture says so.

The line is drawn most distinctly by God's own righteous character. Any belief that undermines God's righteousness, whether intentionally or not, is false. That's how we can know! That's how we can "decide". We know that God is just and based on that single notion we can know (and I mean infallibly know) that we have free will.

 

[Lon]

We are perfectly capable of using the mind's God gave us. Sound reason works.

I'll plead a bit on your former post that we cannot, as you rightly said, grasp all of who God is for one. Qualifying (2) is different between Open paradigms and the majority of the rest of Christendom. For this, because I and most of Christians believe the Omnis are very much beyond "Adam where are you" it reads "Adam quit trying to hide." It, for us, is the proper ideology coloring what God knows thus we read opposites between Open Theology and the rest of us, which passages we take figuratively and which we take literally.

If so, God is unjust.

This is how specifically your mind and logic figure it. It doesn't follow by necessity. I yet believe your and I knowing a certain poster was going to respond exactly as we thought he would had nothing (not at all other than your response) to do with what he chose. Knowing can be shown to not be a factor for freewill. In fact, it is our pattern of consistent choices that give us our unique personality. It isn't really our choices that make relationship, as it is our uniqueness shared 1 Corinthians 12.

It would be impossible for you to show any such thing, as I have demonstrated in my previous post.

Except we both knew that the guy you were talking to was going to reply a specific way. Having even an inkling that you would do something would suggest you have no freewill, but you and I would agree he did, just predictable on par with EDF.

My wife knows me as near as any other human can know another. She doesn't 'ask' when getting me something to eat. She knows. Her near EDF on specifics, never erases it as my actual choice. Your logic would almost accuse her of removing my freewill. It isn't true. I plays out as untrue. Similarly, God knowing something is not the impetus at all that has to do with my our your choices. Because we are delving into an area we know next to nothing about future travel, EDF, Almanac from the future in any practical sense; it is hard to logically assert 'no choice.' It 'seems' so, but it doesn't play out.

God is not always right either, Lon!

Let me repeat what I'm always hearing from OV: Saying it doesn't make it so!
I literally know of no time, ever, God wasn't right. Sure, I've seen what Open Theists intimate some scriptures mean, but it is like they plug their ears when I bring up contextual issues with trying to interpret scripture that way.

Biblically, God knowing the future is just about exactly the same sort of knowledge I had when I declared "I knew you were going to do that!", except that God has far more information available to Him and He's infinitely wiser than any man and so can see such things coming both more accurately and from very much further away.

Does any definite foreknowledge eliminate my freewill? I don't believe so. It may superficially seem so, but when the rubber meets the road, it does not. It simply looks like it 'might.'

For the sake of clarity, in the argument presented in my previous post, this IS NOT this sort of knowledge being discussed! The argument very specifically states that it is referring to INFALLIBLE foreknowledge and not the sort of knowledge that one might have when they can see a "choice coming from a long long distance off", to use your phrase.

I argue that 'any' knowledge, even 'if' occasionally wrong would be grounds enough under your proffered truth, to say freewill can not exist to any degree that you or I knew the outcome precisely because that is what is on the table: Foreknowledge. My wife knows knows I'll go for vanilla. Every time. Knows knows it. Is my preference then for vanilla invalidated? Not at all, it is the opposite: my choice, is validated, rather. If on a cursory glance this is true and with anywise DF in a limited way (it is, in fact definite like an almanac from the future), then certainly it'd fall upon the premise that EDF negates freewill as a false proposition.

I do not "decide" it as though it's something I simply choose in some arbitrary manner.

Exactly. It is rightly predictable and very near if not knowable, depending how well you know another person. When you intimately know another person such as a spouse, your argument would negate about half of my freewill right out of the gates. It is not true that foreknowledge eradicates freedom. It is a philosopher's speculation at Standford and they are incorrect.

Do you "decide" that two plus two equals four? Do you "decide" that water runs down hill? Do you "decide" that the Sun rises in the East?

God does. but this is misreading my intent: when Open Theists say this, they are meaning interpreting how they read scripture, not how I read it.

It isn't directly relevant. Open theists do not believe their doctrine about foreknowledge based on such passages. Rather, we are merely free to understand them to mean what they say without contradicting our theological worldview.

It contradicts what we alternatively actually believe is a pedantic passage, teaching that God is all-mighty.

There really isn't a dime's worth of difference between them. The differences come down to the degree to which they are logically consistent with their own premises. Nang was on one end of that spectrum while AMR was less consistent. Go far enough down that path and you find Arminians.

I'd say there is more than a dime's worth between Double-preds and Arminians, if some Calvinists are closer to Arminians.

Exactly! It is purely a matter of how strictly they want to logically adhere to their own premises. The more logically flexible you are, the further you get from Nang and her ilk and the closer you get to Arminianism.

It is why AMR said Double-pred was heresy, of course.

The line is drawn most distinctly by God's own righteous character. Any belief that undermines God's righteousness, whether intentionally or not, is false.

For consideration on the difference between Open Theism and the rest: There is a difference between actual and implication. We all cast a logical end to another's theology which is the 'why' substance of our resistance to their pov. I try to listen when an Open Theist says "Calvinist" but generally I try to bring the mental swing back into the circle of all Christians because most of the time the implication reaches all of us and even often falls back to Open Theism who, trying to distance, don't get the rock thrown that far away.

That's how we can know! That's how we can "decide". We know that God is just and based on that single notion we can know (and I mean infallibly know) that we have free will.

Not quite making the 'how we can know' connection. A bit more please and ty. Appreciate the dialogue. -Lon

 

[Derf]

Let me repeat what I'm always hearing from OV: Saying it doesn't make it so!
I literally know of no time, ever, God wasn't right. Sure, I've seen what Open Theists intimate some scriptures mean, but it is like they plug their ears when I bring up contextual issues with trying to interpret scripture that way.

Right! God can't be both wrong in prophecy and also give it contingently. Contingent prophecy--intended to help someone repent and avoid the punishment in many cases--cannot be wrong, because both outcomes are possible...in Open Theism, anyway. Not so in EDF, because God is giving an outcome He knows will be wrong in some of those cases. So, like always, EDF believers turn into Open Theists when they have to defend their position.

But it is a little odd that Open Theists would turn into EDF'ers when describing theirs.

Does any definite foreknowledge eliminate my freewill? I don't believe so. It may superficially seem so, but when the rubber meets the road, it does not. It simply looks like it 'might.'

I think you may have a much harder time proving that as we would the opposite. Any settling of future events such that God knows without error (your premise and mine, though not Clete's), and known before the person exists who could determine such for himself, must of necessity have been determined without the involvement of the person. There are two possibilities for who did the determining:
1. God
2. Someone else besides God who was in existence at the time (before creation).
Number 1 is standard fare Calvinism, and most don't try to hold onto any freewill except God's.
Number 2 is standard fare Arminianism, and most don't consider that they've lowered God to the level of Zeus being determined by the Fates, or Merlin peering into a crystal ball.

I think we all (you and us OT'ers) reject #2, because we don't recognize anyone higher than God. We're saying that #1 is to be rejected because of the meaninglessness and immorality of all things being determined by God, including eternal punishment for predetermined sin.