Theology Club: What determines the Omniscience of God

[Nang]

Impugning the character, ways, revelation of God is your problem, not mine.

The above consists of nothing but your unsubstantiated and false accusations against my beliefs. Testifying that all God's ways are "logical, legal, and good" is hardly impugning the character of God.

Declaring, as you do in your unbelief, that God is NOT Almighty and NOT Omniscient, indeed impugns the character and very description of God.

My view is not unbelief or rejection of God/Word, but a rejection of a wrong view called Calvinism (manmade).

Calvinists rightfully teach the attributes of God, which you deny in demonstration of your unbelief of His powers as Sovereign Creator.

Your sin. Not mine.

 

[godrulz]

I fully affirm that God is sovereign, Almighty, omniscient, omnipotent.

You are like talking to a wall.:deadhorse:

 

[Nang]

I fully affirm that God is sovereign, Almighty, omniscient, omnipotent.

You do not. You fake belief in the terminology you use. You do not deceive me.

:down:

 

[godrulz]

You do not. You fake belief in the terminology you use. You do not deceive me.

:down:

The problem is that you define terms your way and then beg the question. The same problem exists when we talk to Mormons (they use the same terms, but define them differently).

The debate is not about whether or not God is omniscient or not (He IS!), but the nature of the future (whether it actually exists or is settled before the fact or not).

Rejecting Calvinism, tradition, Augustine, etc. is not rejecting biblical sovereignty, omniscience, foreknowledge, predestination, etc.

Using your logic, if I reject impassibility as later developed by fallible men, then I am rejecting the Bible. Even classical theologians are rightly revisiting this and rejecting it. Likewise, immutability is being rethought by some of your buddies because an argument can be made for weak vs strong immutability (God changes in some ways, but not in other ways), lest we be be guilty of Platonism vs being truly biblical (if you think Augustine was not influenced by wrong philosophy and that you have not been influenced by him, then you are naive).

 

[surrender]

The debate is not about whether or not God is omniscient or not (He IS!), but the nature of the future (whether it actually exists or is settled before the fact or not).

Do people really not get this after explaining it over and over? I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I immediately understood this concept when it was presented. So, why in the word do intelligent people claim not to “get” this concept? I’m baffled. People, the open view is NOT about God's omniscience!

 

[SeraphimsCherub]

Omniscience is limited by what is knowable. The future is inherently not knowable in the same way the past and present are. God does have foreknowledge, but it is not exhaustive like His knowledge of the past/present is.

Psa 139:2 Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.
Psa 139:3 Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways.
Psa 139:4 For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.
Psa 139:5 Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.
Psa 139:6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.


Mat_9:4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?

JESUS already knew Perfectly what the word on their tongues would be,by the thoughts they were thinking. Otherwise HIS indictment in question form would have been a false accusation against them had HE not known Perfectly well what they were going to falsely say or ask HIM....WOW!

Mat_12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

Luk_5:22 But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answering said unto them, What reason ye in your hearts?
Luk_6:8 But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stood forth.
Luk_11:17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.



Blessings...
SC

 

[Bright Raven]

God cannot do the logically impossible/absurd. An omnipotent being cannot create square circles.

You doubt the Word?

Matthew 19:26
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

 

[surrender]

You doubt the Word?

Matthew 19:26
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

No one is doubting the Word. You can't see that there are varying interpretations among those who trust the Word? As far as Matthew 19:26, you really think he meant all impossible things? God can be God and be satan at the same time? That's impossible, for the very definition of God precludes God from being satan. God can allow one into the kingdom and at the same time cast that same one into the lake of fire? That's impossible, for one can't be both enjoying the kingdom and suffering the results of the lake of fire at the same time. God can call a circle a square? That's impossible, for the very definition of circle precludes it from being a square.

So, he didn't mean that God does the literally impossible.

 

[Bright Raven]

No one is doubting the Word. You can't see that there are varying interpretations among those who trust the Word? As far as Matthew 19:26, you really think he meant all impossible things? God can be God and be satan at the same time? That's impossible, for the very definition of God precludes God from being satan. God can allow one into the kingdom and at the same time cast that same one into the lake of fire? That's impossible, for one can't be both enjoying the kingdom and suffering the results of the lake of fire at the same time. God can call a circle a square? That's impossible, for the very definition of circle precludes it from being a square.

So, he didn't mean that God does the literally impossible.

And what would you call stopping the sun?

 

[Doormat]

Exhaustive definite foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is not possible if libertarian free will is true (and it is).

If libertarian free will is true then Romans 8:7 and Galatians 5:17 are false.

 

[surrender]

And what would you call stopping the sun?

How is that a logical impossibility or contradiction?

 

[Shasta]

All is possible with God.

I think everyone here would agree that it is impossible for God to do nonsense.

 

[surrender]

I think everyone here would agree that it is impossible for God to do nonsense.

:thumb:

 

[Shasta]

My open view:

God is as powerful as he needs to be.
God knows everything he needs to know.
God is everwhere he needs to be.

I am not sure what God "needs" I guess you mean He actually is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent in the usually understood sense but is capable of limiting Himself. I think that is exactly how it was for the Second Person of the Trinity when He became Jesus
Aside from that most the rest of your view is incompatible with Open Theology.

In Open Theism the limitations of God's knowledge are not voluntary but ontological. The reason things are unknowable to Him is because He has been defined as a temporal Being, time being defined as a series of successive changes. God is, will and has from all eternity been undergoing some kind continual successive changes.

Because of this, God exists only in the present moment and the limitations of His knowledge are defined by this. Whether God NEEDS to be any other way to get some things done is being debated. Within Open Theism God cannot know whatever He wants by choice. Some things He is unable to know.

 

[Bright Raven]

How is that a logical impossibility or contradiction?

Not your everyday occurrence.

 

[surrender]

Not your everyday occurrence.

Indeed! But, still, it's not a logical impossibility.

 

[Desert Reign]

I am not sure what God "needs" I guess you mean He actually is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent in the usually understood sense but is capable of limiting Himself.

.

No. I meant what I said.

I think that is exactly how it was for the Second Person of the Trinity when He became Jesus
Aside from that most the rest of your view is incompatible with Open Theology.

I invented openness theology myself so I don't see how you can assert that my view is incompatible with what I myself have invented. Of course, I wasn't the first to invent it but what I have invented, was invented entirely independently of others. And of course by invented I mean expressed/discovered/promoted, etc.

Openness theology is relational. As I said previously, absolute statements are not part of the ethos of openness because absolute statements, by definition, close all loops.

In Open Theism the limitations of God's knowledge are not voluntary but ontological.

Are you trying to tell me this? You speak as if knowledge were some absolute thing. (But of course most people misunderstand this anyway, please don't take it personally). Knowledge is what we do to evaluate what we perceive. I know this is a tulip. To some other person it might be a bright spring morning, to another person it might be a Single Late or a Darwin Hybrid (he's not sure...) All of us have different ways of looking at things but there is no absolute right way. Most of the above things are actually compatible with each other. So they are all true but at the same time different. Knowledge is just how we apply shared language to shared experiences. It's not like a bank account where when the numbers go down, I have nothing left. It's not something that I can get more of and trade with others like a commodity. It's relational.

The reason things are unknowable to Him is because He has been defined as a temporal Being, time being defined as a series of successive changes. God is, will and has from all eternity been undergoing some kind continual successive changes.

Nope. The reason why some things are unknowable to God is that they are logically unknowable because the shared language we use (as I explained above knowledge is an expression of shared language) prohibits statements of certain kinds.

For example the statement 'I always lie'. Is logically invalid. Shared language does not permit this statement. You can say the words but there is no communicable meaning behind them. In the same way, the absolute statement 'God is omnipotent' is logically meaningless. (I take that in the sense 'There is nothing that God cannot do'.) The same thing is true of both omniscience and omnipresence. These absolute statements were invented to express the majesty of God, which I suppose was a good purpose but they are unreliable, they don't have a practical meaning that any of us can share or that can be mediated to us.

It would be more practical to say something like 'What God knows is of more worth than what human beings know.'

And there is of course the Biblical witness which clearly states that there are some things that God cannot do. But I guess that is another argument.

 

[godrulz]

Psa 139:2 Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.
Psa 139:3 Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways.
Psa 139:4 For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.
Psa 139:5 Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.
Psa 139:6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.


Mat_9:4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?

JESUS already knew Perfectly what the word on their tongues would be,by the thoughts they were thinking. Otherwise HIS indictment in question form would have been a false accusation against them had HE not known Perfectly well what they were going to falsely say or ask HIM....WOW!

Mat_12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

Luk_5:22 But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answering said unto them, What reason ye in your hearts?
Luk_6:8 But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stood forth.
Luk_11:17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.



Blessings...
SC

These verses are all e.g. of past or present knowledge. Open Theists affirm God's exhaustive knowledge of these realities, but rightly see that the future is at least partially open/unsettled/unknowable (known as possible until the potential/anticipatory future becomes the fixed past through the actual present).

You wrongly assume Open Theism denies omniscience verses (it does not).

 

[godrulz]

You doubt the Word?

Matthew 19:26
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Cmon. This is a fallacy. There are things that God cannot do (uncreate Himself, etc.). The context is about salvation, not an absolute statement that would mean God could create married bachelors or square circles. The best atheistic and theistic thinkers recognize that an omnipotent being cannot make square circles or exist and not exist at the same time. Using your logic, God could make 2+2=4 and 5 at the same time because all things are possible for God vs man. You are proof texting out of context and lacking credibility among the best Christian thinkers who see this simple point.

This is why it is hard to reason about debatable issues at times. If you deny basic facts/logic, you will accept simplistic views that happen to be wrong.

It is also stupid to say I doubt the Word when I interpret it in context and in light of other relevant verses/truths. I doubt your wrong view of it, NOT God's Word (why do MAD types always play this card to shut down intelligent debate?).

 

[godrulz]

And what would you call stopping the sun?

That is open to interpretation as to how or what happened. God doing the supernatural is not an impossibility for Him. God doing the absurd or illogical (like making Satan omnipotent, eternal, omniscient) is not a limitation on God. Just because God cannot make someone pregnant and not pregnant at the same instant does not mean He is not God, not supernatural, not omnipotent, not the God of the impossible (many things are impossible for us and possible for God, but this must be qualified since some things are logically impossible for God...like making 2+2=4 and 40 at the same time).