On the omniscience of God

[Clete]

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

It is VERY likely that the phrase "mother of God" is packed with meaning that you have not properly articulated. I know I wouldn't answer that question as asked. As asked, it implies that Mary pre-existed God. That's obvious stupidity. Mary is a member of God's creation and could not be the mother of God - per se. The most accurate way to answer such a question, if one were compelled to do so, would be to say that Mary was the biological mother of Jesus, but I'm not sure that I would trust even that much of an answer inside the mind of a Catholic. There's just too much theological mumbo-jumbo rolling around to give a straight answer.

 

[Lon]

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

It is a packed question: here is the answer. Did you know most of Mariology in the RC was from the congregation, not the priests? They allowed heresy to enter when they began worshipping her (not just revere her). In your question, you 'intimate' that idolatry, raising her very high in your esteem. Part of this, in you I believe from your intimations, goes back to Pelagianism: that you believe Mary was born sinless. You 'can' have a sin nature at birth and not sin (else Christ couldn't have been tempted). In effect, Mariology often denies Jesus was born man and "tempted in all ways we were tempted" scriptures. Think on that: Many Catholics, especially in Latin America, inadvertently become the very thing they were trying to eschew over the error.

 

[Lon]

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

As I said, as a non-omniscient teacher, I know how all my students are going to do (I'm a good teacher). The test rather shows what I already know "to the student" (and their parents).

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

Because even in failure, they learn.

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

I'm a very good teacher. Isn't God much much much (exceedingly abundantly even) better?

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

In most theological circles, it isn't a priority question. Omniscient is omniscient. Do I at least appreciate Open Theism asking? Yes, but the answer for almost all of us is "yep, that too."

Both.

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

Why not? It is also a good question! If there is a test, the purpose of the test should be on the table. Realize most "so I will know" scriptures are English translations. If your theology is formed by English, it is the translators fault. Such, I do believe, is why "God changed His mind" is understandable. The culprit is well-meaning translators.

Assumption on your part.

Not when that is exactly what your theological position is doing. Open Theism is very interested in how God performs on tests, as the teacher.

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.

Exactly.

Disagree. But I may not be typical.

I think you could even leave 'may' off of that.

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.

I don't even think His condition. In this case, it was a needed confrontation.

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 didn't admit that at all! Now, it is certainly true I'm not omniscient, thus a test simply ratifies/justifies a grade I'd have given without them taking the test. Btw, I had a professor who did exactly that! No test grade, just what he calculated what kind of students we were! I'd aced every test and paper save one B+ and he gave me a B!!! I should have contested, but I didn't really like him and wanted distance. At any rate, we are in dialogue over what-ifs and a good thing, but maybe you have to be a teacher to get some of this :idunno:

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.

How would that work? Video? If God isn't omnipresent, how will He be just in judgement? Chalk this one up for the difference between what Open Theists must anthropomorphize and what the rest of Christianity must, over the difference. It clearly reveals what is at stake between the disagreement. I think we can leave the stark contrast as is, just showing the great point of contention. I literally believe God knows the number of hairs on your head at this present moment.

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.

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.

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".

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.

I concur, you are an Open Theist of a different color. Some of my intimation here isn't to you in specific but for thread posterity. It is a greater conversation about Omniscience and so appreciate you as different as well.

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.

Agree. The first Arians died off, too much infighting and not nearly enough collegiate work. There is no Open Theist scholar who has produced a Bible commentary for analysis, etc. Open Theism is yet an infant among theologies, but TOL is perhaps a good groundwork of beginnings.

 

[JudgeRightly]

This has always been the biggest problem I've had with Openness. This makes God know less than us.

No, it doesn't.

God has access to FAR more information (regarding the present, and thus the past as well) than any human ever could.

It's absurd on its face

Saying it doesn't make it so.

and makes me wonder if you believe in God at all.

We do.

How could He know less than us?

The answer is simple: He doesn't know less than us. He knows far more, and thus, is able to predict with great accuracy the future, ESPECIALLY since He will have a hand in bringing about the future He desires.

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.

"Canonical" XD

It's called the Bible, sir.

The Bible doesn't speak in terms of "openness" or "settled futures."

It speaks in terms of relationships and outcomes of actions.

Go watch the video from Godisopen that I posted where he is in a debate on Isaiah 40-48.

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.

Let me put it this way:

It's not so much "our future choices are not known to Him" as it is "our likely future choices are known to him, but we could still decide otherwise," and also "God does not infallibly know the future."

The reason we deny that God infallibly knows the future is because the following argument removes God's freedom, not just man's, and the Bible throughout indicates that God is not only free, but capable of responding to men's choices and actions:

T = You will answer the phone tomorrow at 9 am. (1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge] (2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past] (3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2] (4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”] (5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle] (6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5] (7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the phone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”] (8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the phone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7] (9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities] (10) Therefore, when you answer the phone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

(https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/)

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.

Will obtain... what?

So He knows if situation B obtains,

Obtains what?

we will choose free choice Y. Which is just what we know too, about all those close to us.

Supra.

And He also knows situations B will obtain,

Obtains what?

When you end your sentence with this, it no longer makes any sense.

which is beyond our knowledge, but is within His knowledge.

Which is consistent with the OV.

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.

When you straw man a position, it's no surprise that you'll be able to knock it down easily.

 

[JudgeRightly]

This is why claiming Christ knew what it was like to be a man, prior to the incarnation, is heretical:

ChatGPT - Jesus and the Incarnation

Shared via ChatGPT

chatgpt.com

 

[Lon]

This is why claiming Christ knew what it was like to be a man, prior to the incarnation, is heretical:

ChatGPT - Jesus and the Incarnation

Shared via ChatGPT

chatgpt.com

I get that people (and apparently Chatgpt) 'think' it looks like a heresy. Note that even Chat GPT could not mention the supposed heresy! There is no name for it supposedly. My point (and only this far): God 'made' man. Chat GPT is interestingly, Open Theist! Who knew? If God is omniscient, it means something. We know God walked as 'the son of man' in the O. T. There is some acquaintance necessarily, 'what it is like to be a man.' He knows our interworkings Psalms says. Did He ever have a headache prior to incarnation? No, at least not that we are aware of. The 'reason' Jesus grew in stature is because He 'emptied' Himself. That is likely a 'first time,' at least that we are aware of. To make this a heresy, you'd literally have to have a verse that says "God didn't know what it was like to be a man." The incarnation showed that Jesus was tempted in every way you and I are (Hebrews). Of course I agree on many many points with you. My point is (and what I said): He became that which He was familiar, and that which was man. In His emptied form, He indeed grew in wisdom and stature developmentally. There is no disagreement with that either.

The largest reason you want this to be a heresy is for Open Theism reasons. If this were true to the end that you are implying I've said (I didn't, He likely never had a headache prior to becoming a man); then it'd do severe damage to Open Theism. Did He know what a headache was? Yes!! He created those muscles and put those nerves in place 'for' that. Really, this is an argument about His omniscience (this thread).

 

[Lon]

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

Very clear: I'm not Nestorian.

 

[Derf]

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?

Why do you think that God knows less than we do in that case? If we know our future decisions, then God, who knows our thoughts before we speak them, could know our future decisions, too. But if our future decisions are still future, then we don't know them, and God doesn't know them. He doesn't know less than us in that instance.

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?"

My point was to take the Openness idea to its extremes, not to suggest a new breed of extreme Open Theism. An extreme might be what Openness theology would lead us to think about the beginning of the world, for instance, or the time of the Apocalypse.

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.

Supra.

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,

We do? In every given instance?

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.

Do you always make the same choice? Given the options of Fruit Loops or Raisin Bran (or pick two that you like), will you always choose Fruit Loops when both are available? I like to have just butter on my waffles sometimes, and sometimes I have butter and syrup. Or peanut butter and honey. And I can't tell you today what I will have tomorrow, although it likely will be just butter, since it is a choice I like more. If I don't know what I'm going to choose, then how can you or my family, even, know what I will choose. The choice hasn't been made yet. So God is not lacking knowledge in a case where no knowledge is available.

 

[Lon]

Do you always make the same choice? Given the options of Fruit Loops or Raisin Bran?

Yes. Incredibly predictable 0.o Ice cream: Vanilla Cereal: Peanut Butter. I do eat something else when not available, but my choice is cancelled out. It is rather "yes" or "no" to chocolate ice cream (always 'no thank you'). Relationally (what is generally at stake for Open Theist concern), I would laugh if you asked if I wanted chocolate as an inside joke. I have no problem with you knowing me this predictably: I'm not threatened at all, in fact think you care, when you never but offer me vanilla ice cream. Because it is 'my choice?' I don't think it is. I just like one, not the other. Choice isn't really involved (an illusion). God 'made me' liking one flavor. I am in bliss when I am following my nature, however I'm enslaved to it by Open intimation.

Now, let me entertain this from an Open concern: "What if you 'liked' being sinful?" What if that were your proclivity? In that, relationship is indeed involved and 'choice' isn't so much 'my' choice but 'our' choice. JR often says love has to be a choice for it to be 'love.' I'd rather intimate that 'relationship' is the context, not choice per say. Adam and Eve, created to love in the Garden, weren't unloving. Choice isn't the motivator, being loved and created that way, rather. Jesus, said, "If you love someone who loves you, what is that? Don't even heathen do that?" I have some agreement with JR on point, but in that love is a choice for us, who struggle against a nature that dictates and eye for an eye instead. In Christ, we have (are supposed to have) a different nature. Love is the high road, but I don't think we really have a choice one way or the other: Jesus will make us into lovers as He is. Rather 'choice' is the high road that is love (only one choice for us, and it has already been made 'for' us (not our choice, we accept Jesus making it for us). If "I don't want to be like Jesus!" then we can't (again, no choice, still in our sin). We are learning to follow our new nature (if it is there). TOL is a good place to see if that is happening, if we are maturing.

 

[Derf]

Yes. Incredibly predictable 0.o Ice cream: Vanilla Cereal: Peanut Butter. I do eat something else when not available, but my choice is cancelled out.

But I said "pick two that you like." You picked one that you like. If you have nothing that you waver between, then perhaps everyone around you always knows exactly what your future choices are. But imagine for a moment that vanilla didn't exist. Would you always pick chocolate over butter pecan? Would you always pick ice cream over cookies? Would you always put just butter on your waffles? Is it Butterworth's or Aunt Jamima? Crunchy or smooth peanut butter? Are you really telling me that you never pick spaghetti over lasagna, chicken over beef, romaine lettuce over iceberg (or whatever it is where you like two things equally well)? Please answer the question asked, instead of jumping to a different question.

It is rather "yes" or "no" to chocolate ice cream (always 'no thank you'). Relationally (what is generally at stake for Open Theist concern), I would laugh if you asked if I wanted chocolate as an inside joke. I have no problem with you knowing me this predictably: I'm not threatened at all, in fact think you care, when you never but offer me vanilla ice cream. Because it is 'my choice?' I don't think it is. I just like one, not the other. Choice isn't really involved (an illusion). God 'made me' liking one flavor. I am in bliss when I am following my nature, however I'm enslaved to it by Open intimation.

Now, let me entertain this from an Open concern: "What if you 'liked' being sinful?" What if that were your proclivity? In that, relationship is indeed involved and 'choice' isn't so much 'my' choice but 'our' choice. JR often says love has to be a choice for it to be 'love.' I'd rather intimate that 'relationship' is the context, not choice per say. Adam and Eve, created to love in the Garden, weren't unloving. Choice isn't the motivator, being loved and created that way, rather. Jesus, said, "If you love someone who loves you, what is that? Don't even heathen do that?" I have some agreement with JR on point, but in that love is a choice for us, who struggle against a nature that dictates and eye for an eye instead.

Not just a nature, but God dictates it, too.

In Christ, we have (are supposed to have) a different nature. Love is the high road, but I don't think we really have a choice one way or the other: Jesus will make us into lovers as He is. Rather 'choice' is the high road that is love (only one choice for us, and it has already been made 'for' us (not our choice, we accept Jesus making it for us). If "I don't want to be like Jesus!" then we can't (again, no choice, still in our sin). We are learning to follow our new nature (if it is there). TOL is a good place to see if that is happening, if we are maturing.

Sure. And in the midst of following are new nature, we still choose badly sometimes. But you are saying, I think, that God knows which times we will choose the wrong and which the right, which means that we aren't the ones choosing.