On the omniscience of God

[Lon]

Next "heresy." "Open View and nobody else: God didn't know what it was like to be a man." :sigh: I'm not a heretic! Rather I'm saying what Jesus 'became' was what he 'made' and sustains already! Didn't He walk with Shadrach, Meshack, and Abednego in the fiery furnace? Daniel 7:13?

That's heresy???? Show me.

From Grace Ambassadors there are 3 categorical heresies: 1) Jesus was not man 2) Jesus was not God 3) Jesus was neither God nor man.
And none of these either.

 

[JudgeRightly]

@Lon You will either repent of your heretical claim that Jesus already knew what it was like to be a man BEFORE He became a man, or you will not see another response from me to you.

 

[Clete]

@Clete While reading one of your posts, it really hit me that many false doctrines (particularly the omni's) are supported by reading generalizations in scripture as if they are absolutes. It happens so frequently and causes those that use them to have major consistency problems with the rest of scripture.

It is one of only a very few ways that a false doctrine can be "supported" by scripture. If all you did was avoid this one thing and refuse to have special definitions for otherwise common words, there'd be no way to support most of the doctrines that Open Theists reject. Just about the only hurdle left to clear at that point would be getting people to see that Pentecost was a Jewish Feast and that Israel wasn't cut off until Acts 9 with the stoning of Stephen and the conversion of Paul.

It's really surprising that more people don't see it and that so many completely freak out when it's presented to them. I mean you show someone something so utterly reasonable and they react to it like you just slapped their mother across the face.

 

[Clete]

@Lon You will either repent of your heretical claim that Jesus already knew what it was like to be a man BEFORE He became a man, or you will not see another response from me to you.

Wow! The lengths some people are willing to go to preserve a totally unnecessary doctrine that doesn't add a single ounce of benefit to their lives whatsoever.

 

[Lon]

@Lon You will either repent of your heretical claim that Jesus already knew what it was like to be a man BEFORE He became a man, or you will not see another response from me to you.

It is the difference between omniscience vs. a new song, right? It is also about whether He walked the earth with Shadrach Meshack and Abednego. How strong am I in Christology doctrine? Is even suggesting scripture may have this in mind, heretical? Can you name the heresy? How can I repent of something that scripture indicates. Can you show me "God became a man for the first time" passage? Can you show me what orthodox doctrines are harmed by believing that God became what He already made and was intimately aware of? Did He knit David's inward parts? It is/was a question: How much did God know of 'what was knowable.' Impossible? Why? Explain, and ty.

 

[Derf]

It has the weight of all of the other passages of scripture that say that God isn't a first person witness to everything that happens and that He utilizes the testimony of others to know that something is happening in a particular place....

• Genesis 3:9-11 – God asks Adam, “Where are you?” and inquires if he ate the forbidden fruit.

Questions don't imply ignorance.

• Genesis 4:9-10 – God asks Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?”

Same.

• Genesis 6:5-6 – God sees that human wickedness has increased, implying discovery.

No question that God "discovers". (I.e., I agree with you here.)

• Genesis 11:5-7 – God comes down to see the Tower of Babel.
• Genesis 18:20-21 – God says He will go down to Sodom to see if its sin is as bad as reported.
• Genesis 22:12 – God says, “Now I know that you fear God,” after Abraham obeys.
• Exodus 3:7-8 – God hears Israel’s cries and says He has come down to deliver them.

This is an argument from silence if you presume it means God didn't already know their condition.

• Deuteronomy 8:2 – God tests Israel to know what is in their hearts.
• 2 Chronicles 32:31 – God withdraws from Hezekiah to know what is in his heart.

Yep.

• Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6 – Satan reports to God about Job’s situation.

A situation that God already knew, since He asked Satan to consider Job.

• Isaiah 5:3-4 – God asks why His vineyard (Israel) produced bad fruit when He expected good.

Definitely rhetorical. His point was to show Israel that it was their responsibility to do right, not His to make them do so.

• Jeremiah 19:5 – God says Israel’s actions “did not come into My mind.”
• Jeremiah 32:35 – God again states that He did not conceive of Israel’s wickedness in advance.

I've suggested another reading that avoids that conclusion, and is easily in keeping with the scripture. It was was God's command to sacrifice babies that did not come into His mind. Why would it, since He would NEVER command His people to do such a thing...except if He already had another sacrifice prepared so that the command would not be carried out (like Abraham sacrificing Isaac).
[Jer 19:5 KJV] They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire [for] burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake [it], neither came [it] into my mind:
That last phrase, as others have pointed out before, is completely false if it means that God never even considered that they might sacrifice their children. Because God already told them NOT to do it:
[Deu 18:10 KJV] There shall not be found among you [any one] that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, ...
And He knew it was a potential problem as explained in the previous verse:
[Deu 18:9 KJV] When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.
Deuteronomy becomes weird and Jeremiah becomes untruthful if we say God never thought of them burning their children in the fire.

• Daniel 10:12-13 – An angel explains that he was delayed in reaching Daniel, implying God was not directly overseeing every detail.

Agreed!

I would agree that not all of those HAVE TO BE understood to be implying ignorance on God's part. The question God asks Cain could well be rhetorical, for example. But the point is that the bible does not present God in a way that comports with the Neo-Platonic omni-doctrines and so when we read passages such as Proverbs 15:3, we can know that it is speaking in general terms.

There are two concepts at work here, and it is important not to let the two get muddled together.
1. That God doesn't know all future actions of men. -- I agree.
2. That God doesn't know all past actions of men. -- I don't think scripture supports this idea. I'm up for discussion about HOW God knows, about what those "eyes" mean in Proverbs. But to say God doesn't know the past actions of men is unscriptural. None of those verses you gave teach that. NONE. But with all of those out of the conversation, the passage in Proverbs can and should still apply, that God observes what people do, good or evil.

BTW, knowing someone's "heart" is another way of saying, "I know how you will act in the future." So in the cases where God "went down" or God tested or God withdrew in order to find out something about them, it makes the most sense if God is finding our how they will act (future), not how they already acted.

 

[Derf]

Don't take my word for it, Derf. INVESTIGATE!

The alternative to what I said is to take (at least) that verse woodenly literally, and then try to reconcile it with the rest of scripture.

Or, you could recognize that Proverbs 15:3 is, as the book it is within suggests, a proverb, which by definition is just a short pithy saying in general use, stating a general truth or piece of advice.

I'm appealing to the definition of the word "proverb."

But by all means, investigate to see if what I say is true. Don't take my word for it.

But I think you understand my point. That when we take a verse and say that it means the opposite of what it says, we have cause for concern. That's what the Calvinists do, according to Bob Enyart.

So if the verse, saying the God sees "in every place", really means "God doesn't see in every place" in our doctrine, that's concerning. And the reason you say it isn't because Proverbs mean the opposite of what they say, but because your doctrine tells you to reject what the verse says.

 

[JudgeRightly]

But I think you understand my point. That when we take a verse and say that it means the opposite of what it says, we have cause for concern. That's what the Calvinists do, according to Bob Enyart.

So if the verse, saying the God sees "in every place", really means "God doesn't see in every place" in our doctrine, that's concerning. And the reason you say it isn't because Proverbs mean the opposite of what they say, but because your doctrine tells you to reject what the verse says.

I'm not saying "whatever it says, it means the opposite" though. That, I agree, would be bad!

I'm saying that it's a general rule of thumb. It's generally true, just not in literally every circumstance.

Take the following saying from https://kgov.com/sayings:

"Hollywood will never respect women off camera until they respect them on camera."

Does it mean that there are literally no women who are respected in Hollywood? No, of course not. Some women are respected, and others are not. It's a general statement. As a general rule, Hollywood does not respect women!

Likewise, Proverbs 15:3 is a general observation, like how Clete described.

 

[Clete]

Questions don't imply ignorance.

They most certainly do IMPLY ignorance. I've already stated that they do not prove it but there can be no denying that there is at least the implication.

Same.

Yeah, same point. Same response that I had already stated when I gave the list.

No question that God "discovers". (I.e., I agree with you here.)

Then where's the need for the nick picking?

This is an argument from silence if you presume it means God didn't already know their condition.

You need to think things through a little more. It is literally the opposite of an argument from silence if I give affirmative evidence of explicit statements that I understand to mean what they plainly state.

YOU are the one who has to presume something to suggest that they do not mean what they say and even then it wouldn't qualify as an argument from silence.

Yep.

Thank you for conceding the issue!

I mean God doesn't need to test to see if He's right! If He was a first person witness to every event and has complete constant knowledge of every thought in our head then there'd not be much need to test anyone about anything.

A situation that God already knew, since He asked Satan to consider Job.

That's your doctrine. It is not what the text says nor even implies.

Definitely rhetorical. His point was to show Israel that it was their responsibility to do right, not His to make them do so.

That's your doctrine and it is in direct opposition to what the text of that chapter says.

Isaiah5:4 What more could have been done to My vineyard​

That I have not done in it?​

Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes,​

Did it bring forth wild grapes?​

I've suggested another reading that avoids that conclusion, and is easily in keeping with the scripture. It was was God's command to sacrifice babies that did not come into His mind. Why would it, since He would NEVER command His people to do such a thing...except if He already had another sacrifice prepared so that the command would not be carried out (like Abraham sacrificing Isaac).
[Jer 19:5 KJV] They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire [for] burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake [it], neither came [it] into my mind:
That last phrase, as others have pointed out before, is completely false if it means that God never even considered that they might sacrifice their children. Because God already told them NOT to do it:
[Deu 18:10 KJV] There shall not be found among you [any one] that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, ...
And He knew it was a potential problem as explained in the previous verse:
[Deu 18:9 KJV] When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.
Deuteronomy becomes weird and Jeremiah becomes untruthful if we say God never thought of them burning their children in the fire.

There is no need for "another reading" other than your doctrine. The entire point here is that the scripture itself, by itself, does not present to us a God who knows everything there is to know. It just doesn't.

Agreed!

It makes no sense for you to agree with even on single point of this without conceding the rest, especially given the fact that I already conceded that rhetorical questions are a possibility in some instances. I mean, you cannot have it both ways where God both is and is not a first person witness to every event that happens.

There are two concepts at work here, and it is important not to let the two get muddled together.
1. That God doesn't know all future actions of men. -- I agree.
2. That God doesn't know all past actions of men. -- I don't think scripture supports this idea.

Well, I've just proven that it does.

I'm up for discussion about HOW God knows, about what those "eyes" mean in Proverbs. But to say God doesn't know the past actions of men is unscriptural.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Derf! I just quoted scripture explicitly stating that God does not know ALL of the past actions of men! I mean I just got through quoting them for you!

You don't get to presuppose the accuracy of your doctrine and then formulate an argument based on that presumption. That's called begging the question. If you want to argue that these passages mean something other than what they seem to say then you have to come up with something other than your doctrine to prove it.

None of those verses you gave teach that. NONE.

Several of them state it explicitly. The fact that you aren't convinced away from your doctrine doesn't have anything to do with what those passage say.

But with all of those out of the conversation, the passage in Proverbs can and should still apply, that God observes what people do, good or evil.

HA! So you get to decide which passages mean what they seem to say and which do not. WHY?

Why is your doctrine that God knows every past event that has ever happened so superior that you can dismiss scripture's own explicit statement to the contrary but I am somehow not permitted to rightly accept the truth of a proverb as the generalization that almost all proverbs are no matter where you read them?

BTW, knowing someone's "heart" is another way of saying, "I know how you will act in the future."

No, it isn't. At least not directly. It's another way of saying that I am familiar with who you are, what you do and why you do it.

So in the cases where God "went down" or God tested or God withdrew in order to find out something about them, it makes the most sense if God is finding our how they will act (future), not how they already acted.

That is flatly NOT what the scripture says, Derf!

Genesis 18: 20 And the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, 21 I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”​

 

[Lon]

Questions don't imply ignorance.

Teacher/student consideration: Who are tests for? Not 'for' the teacher.

Same.

No question that God "discovers". (I.e., I agree with you here.)

When I test students, I already know, from previous, how they are going to do. God is the test-giver.
Anybody who switches that around 'for God to know' is checking on the teacher, not the student and questioning His ability, however omnicompetent.

This is an argument from silence if you presume it means God didn't already know their condition.

Exactly, making the 'grade' reflective on the teacher, not the student.

Yep.

"To know." When you take a test, is it for the teacher 'to know' or is it a service for 'you' to know?
It is subtle, but why is Open Theism so interested in God when man is given a test? To grade God and His ability? When the test is for the 'student?' All intimations of Open Theism point to God not being a good teacher, needing to find out how man will do, instead of man needing to pass the test, for his/her own grading. Tests happen 'after' instruction. It isn't for the teacher 'to know,' he/she already knows the subject matter.
Absolutely 'yes.' Every comment ensuing misses the point of a test. All of scripture is turned around to 'so God could find out.'
It puts God in the subservient 'relationship' position and becomes an Open paradigm to 'test God.' While there are scriptures that say 'test me' it is when He is interacting, that He be found with a grade A-for 'always.'

A situation that God already knew, since He asked Satan to consider Job.

Agree: tests are for students.

Definitely rhetorical. His point was to show Israel that it was their responsibility to do right, not His to make them do so.

Like any good test, for the student to show they retain knowledge 'for themselves.'

I've suggested another reading that avoids that conclusion, and is easily in keeping with the scripture. It was was God's command to sacrifice babies that did not come into His mind. Why would it, since He would NEVER command His people to do such a thing...except if He already had another sacrifice prepared so that the command would not be carried out (like Abraham sacrificing Isaac).
[Jer 19:5 KJV] They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire [for] burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake [it], neither came [it] into my mind:
That last phrase, as others have pointed out before, is completely false if it means that God never even considered that they might sacrifice their children. Because God already told them NOT to do it:
[Deu 18:10 KJV] There shall not be found among you [any one] that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, ...
And He knew it was a potential problem as explained in the previous verse:
[Deu 18:9 KJV] When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.
Deuteronomy becomes weird and Jeremiah becomes untruthful if we say God never thought of them burning their children in the fire.

Agreed!

There are two concepts at work here, and it is important not to let the two get muddled together.
1. That God doesn't know all future actions of men. -- I agree.
2. That God doesn't know all past actions of men. -- I don't think scripture supports this idea. I'm up for discussion about HOW God knows, about what those "eyes" mean in Proverbs. But to say God doesn't know the past actions of men is unscriptural. None of those verses you gave teach that. NONE. But with all of those out of the conversation, the passage in Proverbs can and should still apply, that God observes what people do, good or evil.

I don't either. There is no way to hold one in judgement if God doesn't even know what they did. How could anybody be judged if God didn't know? It takes anthropomorphic intimation too far. 'Implied' (derived, guessed at) ignorance is no place to build a theological construct that forces all other texts against it to become less clear. How could He know every single hair on everyone of 8 billion peoples head? Jesus was teaching a truth, yet Open Theism doesn't believe Him, as being accurate, just making a general truism "Not literally every single hair, He was just saying God cares about us." Yet in the same breath concerning sparrows: "Not even one falls without God knowing it."

It is a stark line: We either see one set as anthropomorphic, or the other. Open Theism is on one side of what they believe aren't anthropomorphic, and everyone else in theology on the other. Oddly, Open Theists are O.T. Jews in what they adhere to: They are more interested in the O.T. than the New because they anthropomorph the New Testament statements of the Lord Jesus Christ. "He doesn't literally know every hair on your head." "He didn't know where Adam even was, how could He possibly know how many hairs were on his head at that given moment?" (we lose about 100-200 hairs every day throughout the day). Thus the line is drawn. Between us, we have but to echo "Who is on the Lord's side?" Exodus 32:26

BTW, knowing someone's "heart" is another way of saying, "I know how you will act in the future." So in the cases where God "went down" or God tested or God withdrew in order to find out something about them, it makes the most sense if God is finding our how they will act (future), not how they already acted.

On either side is a compromise of any given set of verses of scripture. Open Theism doesn't believe God knows the # of hairs on your head (He can't in that system). The other side believes it is exact. We either see one set as anthropomorphic, or the other.

 

[way 2 go]

Teacher/student consideration: Who are tests for? Not 'for' the teacher.

When I test students, I already know, from previous, how they are going to do. God is the test-giver.
Anybody who switches that around 'for God to know' is checking on the teacher, not the student and questioning His ability, however omnicompetent.

when a father questions a child did you eat the cookies while observing
the child's face with cookie crumbs on it
the father knows the answer , it's a teaching opportunity for the child.
not for the father to find out if the child ate the cookies


The Lord and Abraham both knew about sodom hence the discussion on how many righteous God would destroy

student learned from teacher

(Genesis 18:20-23) [20] And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous, [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. [22] And the men turned their faces away from there, and went toward Sodom. But Abraham still stood before the LORD. [23] And Abraham drew near and said, Will You also destroy the righteous with the wicked?

 

[Lon]

Posterity: I do not, in fact, hold to a heresy * needs to be addressed against the accusation. I think it a red herring to this Open vs the rest of theology rather.
What is actual heresy, Pelagianism,(not heterodoxy). For the record. Apparently from one 'heretic' to another -Lon

 

[Idolater]

And none of these either.

Then you admit Mary is the mother of God Lon? Are you sure? You know how Roman Catholic that sounds, right? From your link:

Nestorianism (5th Century)​

This heresy taught Mary only gave birth to Jesus’ human nature. The founder of the heresy, Nestorius, did not even want Mary to be called “Mother of God” but instead wanted her to be called “Mother of Christ”. In essence, the heresy maintained Jesus was really two separate persons, and only the human Jesus was in Mary’s womb. If that was true, then Jesus was not God incarnate while in the womb.

 

[Clete]

Then you admit Mary is the mother of God Lon? Are you sure? You know how Roman Catholic that sounds, right? From your link:

Nestorianism (5th Century)​

This heresy taught Mary only gave birth to Jesus’ human nature. The founder of the heresy, Nestorius, did not even want Mary to be called “Mother of God” but instead wanted her to be called “Mother of Christ”. In essence, the heresy maintained Jesus was really two separate persons, and only the human Jesus was in Mary’s womb. If that was true, then Jesus was not God incarnate while in the womb.

"You're a terribly black kettle!", said the pitch black pot!

 

[Lon]

Then you admit Mary is the mother of God Lon? Are you sure? You know how Roman Catholic that sounds, right? From your link:

Nestorianism (5th Century)​

This heresy taught Mary only gave birth to Jesus’ human nature. The founder of the heresy, Nestorius, did not even want Mary to be called “Mother of God” but instead wanted her to be called “Mother of Christ”. In essence, the heresy maintained Jesus was really two separate persons, and only the human Jesus was in Mary’s womb. If that was true, then Jesus was not God incarnate while in the womb.

See here (gist is that the RC got it wrong in accusation on many points). It has little to do with Mary, but rather is dealing with the nature of Christ as God and man. On either side you have Monophysitism (Only one nature) and Nestorian (probably misnomer) which stated that Christ had two 'separate' natures, was two separate beings (it is demonstrated he didn't believe Christ was two beings, but the heresy name stuck). See also Hypostatic Union

 

[Derf]

Teacher/student consideration: Who are tests for? Not 'for' the teacher.

Not quite true. It's for both, since a teacher needs to assess the student.

When I test students, I already know, from previous, how they are going to do.

Then why test? Just tell the student the grade they are getting on the test you aren't giving them.

God is the test-giver.

Yes, and that applies to some questions...not all.

Anybody who switches that around 'for God to know' is checking on the teacher, not the student and questioning His ability, however omnicompetent.

Not if God actually doesn't know in some cases. But the question that raises is, "What does God not know?"

Exactly, making the 'grade' reflective on the teacher, not the student.

"To know." When you take a test, is it for the teacher 'to know' or is it a service for 'you' to know?

Both.

It is subtle, but why is Open Theism so interested in God when man is given a test?

Open theism doesn't assume to know the purpose of the question (not necessarily "test").

To grade God and His ability? When the test is for the 'student?'

Assumption on your part.

All intimations of Open Theism point to God not being a good teacher, needing to find out how man will do, instead of man needing to pass the test, for his/her own grading. Tests happen 'after' instruction. It isn't for the teacher 'to know,' he/she already knows the subject matter.

It's not the subject matter the teacher gains access to, but the student's knowledge of the subject matter the teacher is testing for.

Absolutely 'yes.' Every comment ensuing misses the point of a test. All of scripture is turned around to 'so God could find out.'

Disagree. But I may not be typical.

It puts God in the subservient 'relationship' position and becomes an Open paradigm to 'test God.' While there are scriptures that say 'test me' it is when He is interacting, that He be found with a grade A-for 'always.'

I don't think this works. God giving a test suggests the test is needed for God, at least sometimes. "Adam where are you?" tests Adam in order for God to find out Adam's condition, not Adam's location.

Agree: tests are for students.

Like any good test, for the student to show they retain knowledge 'for themselves.'

But you've admitted here that the teacher is finding something out--whether they can retain the knowledge for themselves. And so it is with God's questions sometimes--God is looking to see if the student has learned the lesson, something He doesn't necessarily know already.

I don't either. There is no way to hold one in judgement if God doesn't even know what they did. How could anybody be judged if God didn't know?

You've gone further than I did against the local idea that God doesn't know, by saying God will never know. I'm confident the locals don't believe that.

It takes anthropomorphic intimation too far. 'Implied' (derived, guessed at) ignorance is no place to build a theological construct that forces all other texts against it to become less clear. How could He know every single hair on everyone of 8 billion peoples head? Jesus was teaching a truth, yet Open Theism

Not Open Theism as a system, I dare say. But some Open Theists. I know you complained about the disparity amongst Open Theists before, because it's harder to argue against, but it does exist.

doesn't believe Him, as being accurate, just making a general truism "Not literally every single hair, He was just saying God cares about us." Yet in the same breath concerning sparrows: "Not even one falls without God knowing it."

The "not one" and "all numbered" are "extremes", so IMO they don't allow for any sparrows that are not known or any hairs that are not numbered.

It is a stark line: We either see one set as anthropomorphic, or the other. Open Theism is on one side of what they believe aren't anthropomorphic, and everyone else in theology on the other. Oddly, Open Theists are O.T. Jews in what they adhere to: They are more interested in the O.T. than the New because they anthropomorph the New Testament statements of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Again, I count myself an Open Theist, yet I don't mince words about the Father's knowledge. So, if you need to complain about some in this matter, please caveat "Open Theists".

"He doesn't literally know every hair on your head." "He didn't know where Adam even was, how could He possibly know how many hairs were on his head at that given moment?" (we lose about 100-200 hairs every day throughout the day). Thus the line is drawn. Between us, we have but to echo "Who is on the Lord's side?" Exodus 32:26

On either side is a compromise of any given set of verses of scripture. Open Theism doesn't believe God knows the # of hairs on your head (He can't in that system). The other side believes it is exact. We either see one set as anthropomorphic, or the other.

I don't. Because I don't see why it is important that God not know a fact about the past, nor do I see scripture saying there are facts about the past He is unaware of. Rather the opposite, as I pointed out.

On the Open Theism Systematic, I think it would be an interesting project. Taking Open Theism to its extremes (our future choices are not known to Him) will have some profound impacts on a number of contested doctrines, including eschatology.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Taking Open Theism to its extremes (our future choices are not known to Him) will have some profound impacts on a number of contested doctrines, including eschatology.

Or, in other words, "Ideas have consequences"...

 

[Idolater]

(our future choices are not known to Him)

This has always been the biggest problem I've had with Openness. This makes God know less than us. It's absurd on its face and makes me wonder if you believe in God at all. How could He know less than us?

As you say, this is "extreme" Openness, but also as you say, there is "disparity amongst Open Theists", which would lead one to ask, "Well then what is 'canonical' Openness?"

I mean what are the essentials? Because I don't want to dismiss Openness over "our future choices are not known to Him" if under canonical Openness, God at least knows what we know. That's at least not ridiculous.

And I rail against "our future choices are not known to Him" because we each know really well what all the people close to us will do, especially contingently, meaning given situation A we know they will do X, given situation B, they will do Y, and given C, Z, and so on. God at least knows that. Seemingly, self-evidently. So when we combine this knowledge with God's knowledge of future situations unconnected with our free will choices, meaning situations that arise independent of human choice, then not only does He know if A then X and if B then Y and if C then Z, but He also knows, for example, that situation B will obtain.

So He knows if situation B obtains, we will choose free choice Y. Which is just what we know too, about all those close to us.

And He also knows situations B will obtain, which is beyond our knowledge, but is within His knowledge.

So that's more of an argument to support why I find the notion "our future choices are not known to Him" PRIMA FACIE unserious.

 

[Idolater]

See here (gist is that the RC got it wrong in accusation on many points). It has little to do with Mary, but rather is dealing with the nature of Christ as God and man. On either side you have Monophysitism (Only one nature) and Nestorian (probably misnomer) which stated that Christ had two 'separate' natures, was two separate beings (it is demonstrated he didn't believe Christ was two beings, but the heresy name stuck). See also Hypostatic Union

So ... unclear. Are you Nestorian or not? Do you admit Mary is the mother of God or no?

 

[Clete]

This has always been the biggest problem I've had with Openness. This makes God know less than us. It's absurd on its face and makes me wonder if you believe in God at all. How could He know less than us?

In what way would it make God know less than us?

That's a real question! I'm not trying to play games or make some sort of rhetorical point. I really want to know what about the idea that God doesn't know our future choices has lead you to think that God somehow knows less than we do.

As you say, this is "extreme" Openness, but also as you say, there is "disparity amongst Open Theists", which would lead one to ask, "Well then what is 'canonical' Openness?"

Can you cite even one open theist that believes that God knows (i.e. has infallible foreknowledge of) our future actions?

I know that there are those who make every effort to preserve the doctrine of omniscience by positing that God knows every possible future but that isn't really the same thing as "knowing" the future in the absolute sense of that word.

I mean what are the essentials? Because I don't want to dismiss Openness over "our future choices are not known to Him" if under canonical Openness, God at least knows what we know. That's at least not ridiculous.

Absolutely God knows what we know! Why wouldn't He?

Biblically, God knows everything that He wants to know of that which is knowable. If you or I know it, then it is certainly knowable and unless there is some situation where God has chosen to not know (e.g. He is capable of giving people privacy and isn't required to live inside the head of every pervert on planet Earth) then of course God knows everything we know.

And I rail against "our future choices are not known to Him" because we each know really well what all the people close to us will do, especially contingently, meaning given situation A we know they will do X, given situation B, they will do Y, and given C, Z, and so on.

I know of no Open Theist that believes that God does not have this level of knowledge and much more.

I would point out, however, that this is not "knowledge" in the absolute sense. The fact of the matter is that, regardless of how close you are to a person, you do not know with certainty what someone with do in a particular situation. You can likely predict their behavior with a high degree of accuracy but prediction is not knowledge, expectation is not certainty, thus your own "especially contingently" caveat.

As for God doing this, this kind of predictive "knowledge" is a major mechanism by which Open Theists believe prophecy works and it is precisely the mechanism by which God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Indeed, open theism teaches that God works with, through, around and in spite of all kinds of people and His understanding of how individuals will behave has everything to do with how He interacts with them.

I just cannot understand why anyone would think that open theism teaches anything contrary to this.

God at least knows that. Seemingly, self-evidently.

I completely agree, as would any open theist that I know anything about.

So when we combine this knowledge with God's knowledge of future situations unconnected with our free will choices, meaning situations that arise independent of human choice, then not only does He know if A then X and if B then Y and if C then Z, but He also knows, for example, that situation B will obtain.

Again, when discussing what some particular person will do, there is no way to have this kind of knowledge (i.e. infallible foreknowledge). The people involved don't even have infallible foreknowledge of their own choices in many, if not most, cases.

Also, there are situations that arise independent of human choice that might well be unknowable. The validity of this point depends on just how God has made the universe which we really do not know with any real certainty, but, if God has in fact made the universe in such a way that certain things are not entirely causally deterministic, as Quantum Mechanics would seem to indicate is the case at microscopic scales, then that leaves open the possibility of events occurring that are genuinely unknowable.

Having said that, there is no need for God to know the motions and interactions of every sub-atomic particle in order to maintain control of His creation because He not only has a full and utterly complete understanding of it's workings but also the power to directly control any aspect of it should the need to do so arise.

So He knows if situation B obtains, we will choose free choice Y. Which is just what we know too, about all those close to us.

Again, no open theist denies this. The main caveat being that this is not knowledge in the sense of infallible certitude, either for God or us.

And He also knows situations B will obtain, which is beyond our knowledge, but is within His knowledge.

God's more complete knowledge, along with His infinite wisdom and power is precisely the mechanism(s) by which open theists believe prophecy works and the means by which God is able to choose His prophets and to defeats His enemies. Once again, however, expectation is not certainty.

So that's more of an argument to support why I find the notion "our future choices are not known to Him" PRIMA FACIE unserious.

I suspect the issue comes down to defining terms because it simply does not follow that "our future choices are not known to Him" means that we somehow know more than God does. That's silly and it is not what ANY open theist believes. None, at least, that I've ever been exposed to.

To be clear, open theism teaches that God knows all knowable things that He desires to know.