On the omniscience of God

[Right Divider]

@Clete Great post Clete!

This is one of my pet peeves about many peoples understanding (or lack thereof) of scripture.

They cannot handle figures of speech. There are MANY generalizations in scripture. But many people cannot see that ALL does not always mean ALL in the absolute sense. Sometimes ALL is used as a generalization.

 

[Clete]

@Clete Great post Clete!

This is one of my pet peeves about many peoples understanding (or lack thereof) of scripture.

They cannot handle figures of speech. There are MANY generalizations in scripture. But many people cannot see that ALL does not always means ALL in the absolute sense. Sometimes ALL is used a generalization.

They can handle figures of speech whenever doing so supports their doctrine! What they seem truly blind to is the fact that they are picking and choosing which statements they're choosing to accept as figures of speech and which they are taking literally.

Of course, we pick and choose too! The difference is the premise behind what makes us choose the way we do. Our premise is that God is alive and personal and relational and good. Theirs is that God is a humongous, unchanging, power hungry, know it all.

How is it possible for anyone to not see that our premise is superior?

 

[Lon]

John 21:17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.
Psalm 147:5 1 John 3:20

!

 

[Right Divider]

John 21:17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.
Psalm 147:5 1 John 3:20

!

Are you another one that cannot understand a GENERALIZATION?

 

[Lon]

Are you another one that cannot understand a GENERALIZATION?

Suggesting that Peter was given to exaggeration? Anticipating this, I gave two other scriptures. If the Bible teaches "knows all things" and even in Open Theism: "Knows all things possible" it concedes these scriptures else even Open Theism would have absolutely no ground for "knows all things possible" statements. Circle squares perhaps?

 

[Right Divider]

Suggesting that Peter was given to exaggeration?

Generalization is NOT exaggeration.

Anticipating this, I gave two other scriptures. If the Bible teaches "knows all things" and even in Open Theism: "Knows all things possible" it concedes these scriptures else even Open Theism would have absolutely no ground for "knows all things possible" statements. Circle squares perhaps?

You're confused Lon. Go back to school.

 

[JudgeRightly]

1 John 3:20

One chapter earlier, John speaking to the Little Children (believing Jews):

But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.

Bible Gateway passage: 1 John 2:20 - New King James Version

But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.

www.biblegateway.com

 

[Idolater]

... AI is not "thinking" but running a program (which is what AI is) that allows it to VARY (and, yes, it's probably roughly pseudo-random) its output on each iteration.
Again, the point was that the AI is not "thinking"... just running a program. And that the program has variability build into it by its designer(s).

"Mouse", "eating", and "the Moon" are frequently associated with the Moon being made of cheese, which is why all the pictures have made the Moon cheese. That wasn't in the prompt, but the A.I. nonetheless said that basically if a mouse is eating the Moon, then the Moon's made of cheese. That's not variability or pseudorandom.

 

[Right Divider]

"Mouse", "eating", and "the Moon" are frequently associated with the Moon being made of cheese, which is why all the pictures have made the Moon cheese. That wasn't in the prompt, but the A.I. nonetheless said that basically if a mouse is eating the Moon, then the Moon's made of cheese. That's not variability or pseudorandom.

It's BY DESIGN. The "AI" did not "think it up".

 

[Lon]

One chapter earlier, John speaking to the Little Children (believing Jews):

But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.

Bible Gateway passage: 1 John 2:20 - New King James Version

But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.

www.biblegateway.com

Huge difference between 'all things' with man and 'all things' with God. In your former, it is definitely implied "all things pertinent to this topic." I don't believe you can readily apply the same to God knowing all things. There is no context implied. Grammar ftw?

 

[Lon]

Generalization is NOT exaggeration.

All Latinos eat tacos. Generalization or exaggeration? Study.

You're confused Lon. Go back to school.

Ah, nice old-school comeback, overused do you think?

I know what my education and yours is. You are an intelligent guy but try not to be this audacious in your return assessments (change it up please)? They say more about you than I. Theology isn't going to be won during recess on the playground. I was correct and you are trying too hard to be stark and different. There is practically none this time and it shows when you try too hard.

WAY more important/pertinent were the scriptures given. Address them, me not so much.

 

[Right Divider]

All Latinos eat tacos. Generalization or exaggeration?

That is a stereotype. It's a form of generalization.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stereotype

stereotype
2 of 2
noun
1
: a plate cast from a printing surface
2
: something conforming to a fixed or general pattern
especially : a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment

Study.

Cute.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Huge difference between 'all things' with man and 'all things' with God.

It's the same word used BOTH TIMES, Lon.

PAS. Means "All, the whole, every kind of."

Or are you trying to beg the question that it means something different just because it's talking about God?

In your former, it is definitely implied "all things pertinent to this topic." I don't believe you can readily apply the same to God knowing all things. There is no context implied. Grammar ftw?

It says "you know all things" in both passages.

So, either it means LITERALLY all things, in both passages, which makes man omniscient, OR, it doesn't mean literally all things, and the meaning of "all things" is determined by the context, in BOTH passages.

The latter, obviously, is true.

Man is not omniscient.

In 1 John 2:20, the context tells us that the "all things" is about the "anointing from the Holy One," not woodenly literally "all things."
In 2 John 3:20, the context tells us that the "all things" is about God knowing the things in our hearts, not woodenly literally "all things."

It's as simple as that.

 

[Lon]

It's the same word used BOTH TIMES, Lon.

PAS. Means "All, the whole, every kind of."

Or are you trying to beg the question that it means something different just because it's talking about God?

Yes. If man knows 'all things' in context it is talking about specifically their spiritual needs. They know what to believe and what to do. There is no contextual limitation with God.

It says "you know all things" in both passages.

So, either it means LITERALLY all things, in both passages, which makes man omniscient, OR, it doesn't mean literally all things, and the meaning of "all things" is determined by the context, in BOTH passages.

Context drives understanding.

The latter, obviously, is true.

Man is not omniscient.

In 1 John 2:20, the context tells us that the "all things" is about the "anointing from the Holy One," not woodenly literally "all things."
In 2 John 3:20, the context tells us that the "all things" is about God knowing the things in our hearts, not woodenly literally "all things."

It's as simple as that.

These verses cannot be pitted against God knowing all things. Context is limited even on an initial reading of 1 John 2:20. You know it is contextually driven about 'all that needs to be known about this subject.'

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes. If man knows 'all things' in context it is talking about specifically their spiritual needs. They know what to believe and what to do.

We agree on this.

There is no contextual limitation with God.

No, sorry, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

You can't just apply your reasoning to one passage and not another.

If the context is what tells us what "all things" is referring to in one passage, then the context is what tells us what "all things" refers to in another passage.

The context of 1 John 2:20 is that men konw "all things" about what they need to do.

The context of 1 John 3:20 is that God knows "all things"... ABOUT MEN'S HEARTS!

Context drives understanding.

THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT, LON!

The context of 1 John 3:20 drives understanding, just like it does in 1 John 2:20.

Don't ignore the context just because doing so allows you to believe something the Bible doesn't say!

1 John 3:20 is NOT saying God knows literally everything.

It's talking about God knowing what is in the hearts of men.

These verses cannot be pitted against God knowing all things.

Because you say so?

Because the context of BOTH verses precludes either men or God from knowing literally everything.

Context is limited even on an initial reading of 1 John 2:20.

That was my entire point, and you know it, Lon!

You know it is contextually driven about 'all that needs to be known about this subject.'

Now apply that to 1 John 3:20. You'll quickly realize that the passage isn't talking about omniscience according to the pagan Greeks.

 

[Lon]

We agree on this.



No, sorry, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

You can't just apply your reasoning to one passage and not another.

If the context is what tells us what "all things" is referring to in one passage, then the context is what tells us what "all things" refers to in another passage.

The context of 1 John 2:20 is that men konw "all things" about what they need to do.

The context of 1 John 3:20 is that God knows "all things"... ABOUT MEN'S HEARTS!



THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT, LON!

The context of 1 John 3:20 drives understanding, just like it does in 1 John 2:20.

Don't ignore the context just because doing so allows you to believe something the Bible doesn't say!

1 John 3:20 is NOT saying God knows literally everything.

It's talking about God knowing what is in the hearts of men.

In scope, agree but other passages lead to the broad perspective and disagreement. Open Theism caveats 'all things' as 'all things knowable' which is a derivative theology, a hypothesis that drives understanding of Who God is. I'd guess you've heard the logical statement: 'if one omni, then necessarily all omnis?' Even in Open Theism: omnicompetent leads to a necessity to consider all omnis.

Because you say so?

No, because in the same manner I agree that 1 John in scope and context means "men's hearts," we'd not extrapolate that it is a limitation, but rather understand the text is directing what specifically is one thing God knows all about.

Because the context of BOTH verses precludes either men or God from knowing literally everything.

No, the context does not. Rather we know from our experience that man does not know literally everything. You are jumping to a conclusion not in the text with the latter.

That was my entire point, and you know it, Lon!

Yes I do, and then the jump:

Now apply that to 1 John 3:20. You'll quickly realize that the passage isn't talking about omniscience according to the pagan Greeks.

That is extrapolating and export in idea.

 

[JudgeRightly]

In scope, agree but other passages lead to the broad perspective and disagreement.

False.

There is no passage in scripture, nor collection of passages as a whole, that communicates to us that God knows literally everything.

In order to arrive at that conclusion, you must intentionally read "omniscience" into the text.

Open Theism caveats 'all things' as 'all things knowable' which is a derivative theology, a hypothesis that drives understanding of Who God is.

Right, because what we're caveating is a pagan concept (omniscience) that was introduced into Christian theology by someone (Augustine) who placed Plato on a higher level than Scripture itself.

I'd guess you've heard the logical statement: 'if one omni, then necessarily all omnis?' Even in Open Theism: omnicompetent leads to a necessity to consider all omnis.

No, sorry. God being competent enough to deal with any situation does not require Him to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immutable, or impassive.

God can play chess and win without having to know His opponent's thoughts.

No, because in the same manner I agree that 1 John in scope and context means "men's hearts," we'd not extrapolate that it is a limitation, but rather understand the text is directing what specifically is one thing God knows all about.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Either "all things" in 1 John 3:20 is talking about "all things pertaining to men's hearts," or it is not.

The context tells us that it is.

Therefore, it does not mean "omniscience."

No, the context does not.

Yes it does, Lon!

The context of 1 John 2:20 is talking about the anointing from the Holy one, and men knowing all things about it. Clearly NOT literally everything.

The context of 1 John 3:20 is talking about men's hearts, and the things within them. Clearly NOT literally everything.

John in1 John 3:20 did not go from talking about the things in men's hearts to suddenly talking about how God is omniscient halfway through his sentence, then go right back to talking about men's hearts in the next!

HE SIMPLY DID NOT!

To assert that he did is eisegesis, it's reading omniscience into the text where it doesn't exist!

What he said is within the context of talking about our (men's) hearts, if they should condemn us, then we can rest assured knowing that God is greater, and knows that we are, or are at least trying to, "love not in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth!"'

GOD IS INDEED MERCIFUL, even when our hearts condemn us!

Rather we know from our experience that man does not know literally everything.

Yes, and?

You are jumping to a conclusion not in the text with the latter.

1 John 3:18-23 is talking about men's hearts and the things that are within them.

You can dispute that fact, but then you'd be wrong.

The only rational conclusion is that "pas" in verse 20 is referring to men's hearts and the things within them.

Yes I do, and then the jump:

That is extrapolating and export in idea.

All one has to do is read the text to know what I said is correct, Lon.

JUST READ IT!

My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him. For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God. And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.

Bible Gateway passage: 1 John 3:18-23 - New King James Version

My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him. For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us...

www.biblegateway.com

The context precludes any interpretation other than that "if our heart condemns us, God is greater than them, and knows our hearts" because "let us love not in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth" and "by this we know that we are of the truth and shall assure our hearts before Him" and "if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God" and "whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight!"

John is speaking about having mindset about serving God and loving one another.

It has EVERYTHING to do with men's hearts, BECAUSE OF THE CONTEXT!

It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with God knowing literally everything, BECAUSE OF THE CONTEXT!

Context is KEY.

 

[JudgeRightly]

understand the text is directing what specifically is one thing God knows all about.

Oh, and this is called "begging the question."

 

[Lon]

False.

There is no passage in scripture, nor collection of passages as a whole, that communicates to us that God knows literally everything.

In order to arrive at that conclusion, you must intentionally read "omniscience" into the text.

I'm not talking about that text other than to say it absolutely 'doesn't' limit that knowledge, just gives 'hearts' as what else He knows all things about. You do too, the point of departure is how far we understand that knowledge.

Right, because what we're caveating is a pagan concept (omniscience) that was introduced into Christian theology by someone (Augustine) who placed Plato on a higher level than Scripture itself.

See Maimonides, a Jewish commentator on the Torah. Jews then and today believe God is omni.

No, sorry. God being competent enough to deal with any situation does not require Him to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immutable, or impassive.

"Omni"competent Means all. It leads to other Omnis because to be Omni anything, means you are Omni everything, logically. It is why Jews then and today believe He is Omni. To be Omnicompetent, you have to be omniscient. Example: Open Theists compare God to a chess player where in their definition, God knows every move possible, thus is risking nothing in any game.

God can play chess and win without having to know His opponent's thoughts.



You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Nope just saying we logically know in the first that the scope is limited to whatever man can know about Salvation. We don't automatically assume that is all these men knew about. It isn't limited except we don't believe and rather know men are not omniscient. While God knowing hearts is given in scope to hearts, logically we know implicitly this is not all God knows.

Either "all things" in 1 John 3:20 is talking about "all things pertaining to men's hearts," or it is not.

The context tells us that it is.

Therefore, it does not mean "omniscience."

I didn't say it did, but rather the passage doesn't limit God's knowledge to simply/only 'knowing men's hearts.' It is that simple.

Yes it does, Lon!

The context of 1 John 2:20 is talking about the anointing from the Holy one, and men knowing all things about it. Clearly NOT literally everything.

The context of 1 John 3:20 is talking about men's hearts, and the things within them. Clearly NOT literally everything.

John in1 John 3:20 did not go from talking about the things in men's hearts to suddenly talking about how God is omniscient halfway through his sentence, then go right back to talking about men's hearts in the next!

HE SIMPLY DID NOT!

To assert that he did is eisegesis, it's reading omniscience into the text where it doesn't exist!

I didn't. You aren't arguing any context of our disagreement on point.

What he said is within the context of talking about our (men's) hearts, if they should condemn us, then we can rest assured knowing that God is greater, and knows that we are, or are at least trying to, "love not in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth!"'

GOD IS INDEED MERCIFUL, even when our hearts condemn us!



Yes, and?



1 John 3:18-23 is talking about men's hearts and the things that are within them.

You can dispute that fact, but then you'd be wrong.

The only rational conclusion is that "pas" in verse 20 is referring to men's hearts and the things within them.



All one has to do is read the text to know what I said is correct, Lon.

JUST READ IT!

My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him. For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God. And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.

Bible Gateway passage: 1 John 3:18-23 - New King James Version

My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him. For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us...

www.biblegateway.com

The context precludes any interpretation other than that "if our heart condemns us, God is greater than them, and knows our hearts" because "let us love not in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth" and "by this we know that we are of the truth and shall assure our hearts before Him" and "if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God" and "whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight!"

John is speaking about having mindset about serving God and loving one another.

It has EVERYTHING to do with men's hearts, BECAUSE OF THE CONTEXT!

Not in contention, again rather the extrapolation that such somehow 'limits' God's knowledge.

It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with God knowing literally everything, BECAUSE OF THE CONTEXT!

Context is KEY.

Agree. My point rather: God knows 'everything' about men's hearts from the passage but does not cause limitation to come to mind. You don't even think those men's knowledge of 'everything' was limited to only what they knew about salvation.

 

[Lon]

Wanted to hit these points:

False.

There is no passage in scripture, nor collection of passages as a whole, that communicates to us that God knows literally everything.

In order to arrive at that conclusion, you must intentionally read "omniscience" into the text.

Psalm 147:5
Great is our Lord and abundant in strength;
His understanding is infinite.

Right, because what we're caveating is a pagan concept (omniscience) that was introduced into Christian theology by someone (Augustine) who placed Plato on a higher level than Scripture itself.

The Jews believed this long before Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine. This is brief from a Jewish website but several of the Jewish 'foundations' are declare the omnis of God as absolute and foundational to Jewish faith.

No, sorry. God being competent enough to deal with any situation does not require Him to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immutable, or impassive.

Logically, it does.