Theology Club: What determines the Omniscience of God

[godrulz]

Isaiah 57:15

God inhabits eternity.

He inhabits all time, backward and forward and beyond time.

The past and present and future are all the same to God.

He occupies eternity

" For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones."

o'meal

This is not a proof text for timelessness/eternal now. The past, present, future is distinct to God, not all one divine simultaneity (which would leave Jesus on the cross and creation co-eternal with God).

 

[Shasta]

.

No. I meant what I said.

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.

1. I suppose being the "discoverer and inventor" of Open Theism you think you have the final authority to say what it is all about. All I can say if you wanted to be the expert you should have published a book and gotten it copyrighted.Why is it so important for you to lay claim to Open Theism anyway? No truth is anybody’s personal property.
2. Isn't it rather late in history to “invent” or even “discover” a brand new doctrine? Paul found several great mysteries hidden in scriptures but I think he had more credibility than you.
3. Just think how differently things would have turned out if the, first century teachers had known it? They were under the mistaken impression that transcendent foreknowledge was perfectly compatible with human free will. God must have given their teachers the Apostles black marks on their report cards for leaving Open Theism out of their curriculum

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.

This is an absolute statement.

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.

1. Because a single truth can have many aspects does not mean the truth is not absolute. If is only by looking at the separate puzzle pieces of: a trunk, 4 legs and 2 tusks in the right way that we will come up with the whole elephant.
2. Individuals with Schizophrenia have perceptions that the rest of us less open-minded people call “hallucinations” The delusional system he invents to organize and interpret his perceptions I suppose would be classified as “knowledge.” His, system, however is not valid because there IS an absolute right way of looking at things. My belief that he is the Mad Hatter is much closer to the truth than his view that he is the king of England.

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 Bible many times says to “get knowledge” Proverbs 18:15. This is verified throughout the whole of scripture. You can learn more and more. In fact, there is no end of what can be known. I would also say that knowledge can be shared and exchanged as we share the word with each other. If this were not possible why bother going to school? Why bother listening to people teaching Open Theism?

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.

So when your claims seem to be "logically unknowable" it is not due to any error on your part but to the inadequacy of the language. This just tells me that the common words of the Bible do not communicate what you want them to. Is this an attempt to covertly create another lexicon? Well I prefer the original one.

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'.)

It is only by using “omnipotence” in a way thinking people have never accepted that you have arrived at your conclusion that it is "logically invalid." You cannot misrepresent a term and they build a case on it. C.S.Lewis said something to the effect that nonsense is impossible even if we tack "God can" on the end. .This sleight-of-hand may work on a lot of people but not on those who are better informed.

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.'

1. Where have you found etymological, historical, and philosophical basis to conclude that those words were intended to express the majesty of God rather than what they have have always been understood to mean? Do you know more about their intentions than they did? History has already spoken as to what the Early church believed.
2. The ancients were not so stupid that they could not have come up with words that expressed highly abstract ideas congruent to yours if that was what they intended to convey. If they were having difficulties they could have consulted the writings of Heraclitus.
3. It is presumptuous of you after privately studying at your desk to one day declare that these terms having now served their purpose and can henceforth be considered as "unreliable" Have the teachings of Boyd brought you to the same denial of Biblical Inerrancy in favor of some "relational" view of truth 3.
4. We don’t determine whether or not something is true by whether it is practical or usable to us. Pragmatism should not shape theology. Aside from that I think God’s omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience does have a great deal of personal fulfillment and usefulness.

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.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

If you really think that God's will on earth is for babies to be raped and murdered on film, then you are sick and your idea of God is little different than Satan.

Keep taking your cues from Olson and one day you (and he) will have to answer for your sins against God. Just sayin'. :AMR:

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Shasta,

You really need to master the quote function. Impossible to read your posts as they are currently being posted...as in the post above.

AMR

 

[godrulz]

Keep taking your cues from Olson and one day you (and he) will have to answer for your sins against God. Just sayin'. :AMR:

AMR

Take it up with Nang and beloved57 who seem to think these things would logically be the will of God (omnicausal).

 

[Shasta]

Shasta,

You really need to master the quote function. Impossible to read your posts as they are currently being posted...as in the post above.

AMR

Yeah you are right let me try it again

 

[Shasta]

Sorry to all I I got it figured out this time

Sorry to all I I got it figured out this time

No. I meant what I said.

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.

1. I suppose being the "discoverer and inventor" of Open Theism you think you have the final authority to say what it is all about. All I can say if you wanted to be the expert you should have published a book and gotten it copyrighted.Why is it so important for you to lay claim to Open Theism anyway? No truth is anybody’s personal property.

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.

This is an absolute statement

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 Bible many times says to “get knowledge” Proverbs 18:15. This is verified throughout the whole of scripture. You can learn more and more. In fact, there is no end of what can be known. It is not just relational. It can be shared and exchanged as we share the word with each other. If this were not possible why bother going to school? Why bother listening to people teaching Open Theism?

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.

1. Because a single truth can have many aspects does not mean the truth is not absolute.
2. Individuals with Schizophrenia have perceptions that the rest of us less open-minded people call “hallucinations” The delusional system he invents to organize and interpret his perceptions I suppose would be classified as “knowledge.” His, system, however is not valid because there IS an absolute right way of looking at things. My belief that he is the Mad Hatter is much closer to the truth than his view that he is the king of England.

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.

1. It is only by using “omnipotence” in a way thinking people have never accepted that you have arrived at your conclusion that it is "logically invalid." You cannot misrepresent a term and they build a case on it. C.S.Lewis said something to the effect that nonsense is impossible even if we tack "God can" on the end. .This sleight-of-hand may work on a lot of people but not on those who are better informed.

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

Practicality is not the first issue. It never should be. Truth comes first and then the application of the truth.

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.

1. Where is your proof that these words were intended to express the Majesty of God? Maybe they mean what they "appear" to mean

2. Do you know more about their intentions of those that coined the "omni" terms than they did?

4. History has already spoken as to what the Early church believed.
5. The ancients were perfectly capable of inventing words that expressed highly abstract ideas. They could have come up with words to express Open Theism had they wanted to.

3. It is presumptuous of you to declare that these terms having now served their purpose and can henceforth be considered as "unreliable" Have the teachings of Boyd brought you to his same denial of Biblical Inerrancy in favor of some "relational" view of truth 3. We don’t determine whether or not something is true by whether it is practical or usable to us. Pragmatism should not shape theology. Aside from that I think God’s omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience does have a great deal of personal fulfillment and usefulness.