What did you believe before Open Theism?

[JudgeRightly]

What does HIs understanding is infinite mean to you? Is it of some things or all things?

This is still eisegesis by way of leading questions.

You are not making an argument from Psalm 147:5. You are asking questions designed to smuggle your interpretation into the phrase “His understanding is infinite.”

The verse says God’s understanding is infinite. Amen. I affirm that.

But you are defining “all things” to include every future free act as an already-settled fact. That is the very point you need to prove, not something you get to assume.

God understands all reality perfectly. If a future free act is not yet a settled reality, then God understands it perfectly as what it is: a real possibility, not a settled certainty.

So again, Psalm 147:5 teaches God’s infinite understanding. It does not teach that every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens.

 

[Bright Raven]

This is still eisegesis by way of leading questions.

You are not making an argument from Psalm 147:5. You are asking questions designed to smuggle your interpretation into the phrase “His understanding is infinite.”

The verse says God’s understanding is infinite. Amen. I affirm that.

But you are defining “all things” to include every future free act as an already-settled fact. That is the very point you need to prove, not something you get to assume.

God understands all reality perfectly. If a future free act is not yet a settled reality, then God understands it perfectly as what it is: a real possibility, not a settled certainty.

So again, Psalm 147:5 teaches God’s infinite understanding. It does not teach that every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens.

Would you agree with what Norman L. Geisler has to say in defining Omniscience: From Systematic Theology in one Volume.

Definition of Omniscience

Historically,, the omniscience of God was a straightforward doctrine. God knows everything- Past, Present and Future; He knows the actual and the possible: only the impossible (the contradictory) is outside the knowledge of God. The contemporary debate, however,has changed the theological landscape on this doctrine. God's unlimited knowledge is now allegedly limited. His all-knowing is no longer the knowing of all. If we adhere to this, we are left with the oxymoronic view of limited omniscience. The attack on traditional omniscience has come from both outside and inside evangelicalism.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Would you agree with what Norman L. Geisler has to say in defining Omniscience: From Systematic Theology in one Volume.

Definition of Omniscience

Historically,, the omniscience of God was a straightforward doctrine. God knows everything- Past, Present and Future; He knows the actual and the possible: only the impossible (the contradictory) is outside the knowledge of God. The contemporary debate, however,has changed the theological landscape on this doctrine. God's unlimited knowledge is now allegedly limited. His all-knowing is no longer the knowing of all. If we adhere to this, we are left with the oxymoronic view of limited omniscience. The attack on traditional omniscience has come from both outside and inside evangelicalism.

No, I would not agree with Geisler’s definition as stated.

And notice what you just did again. You still have not made the biblical argument. You moved from GotQuestions, to Merriam-Webster, to Norman Geisler.

Geisler defining omniscience as knowledge of “past, present, and future” does not prove that every future free act already exists as a settled fact. It just restates the traditional position.

The question is still the same: does Scripture teach that the future is exhaustively settled before anyone acts?

Also, Geisler’s own statement admits that God knows “the actual and the possible.” That is much closer to the real issue than you seem to realize. Open Theism says future free acts are not yet actualities. They are possibilities until the agents choose. So God knows them as possibilities, not as settled actualities.

Calling that “limited omniscience” only works if you assume Geisler’s definition from the start. But that definition is the very point under dispute.

So no, I do not accept Geisler as the standard. Scripture is the standard.

Show the doctrine from Scripture.

 

[Bright Raven]

No, I would not agree with Geisler’s definition as stated.

And notice what you just did again. You still have not made the biblical argument. You moved from GotQuestions, to Merriam-Webster, to Norman Geisler.

Geisler defining omniscience as knowledge of “past, present, and future” does not prove that every future free act already exists as a settled fact. It just restates the traditional position.

The question is still the same: does Scripture teach that the future is exhaustively settled before anyone acts?

Also, Geisler’s own statement admits that God knows “the actual and the possible.” That is much closer to the real issue than you seem to realize. Open Theism says future free acts are not yet actualities. They are possibilities until the agents choose. So God knows them as possibilities, not as settled actualities.

Calling that “limited omniscience” only works if you assume Geisler’s definition from the start. But that definition is the very point under dispute.

So no, I do not accept Geisler as the standard. Scripture is the standard.

Show the doctrine from Scripture.

If you don't accept Geisler, you probably won't accept anyone who's correct theology opposes yours. I don't think you believe omniscience to scriptural anyway. It has already been shown to you and you don't believe, From where do you define omniscience.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If you don't accept Geisler,

I couldn't care less what Geisler says.
Geisler is not Scripture, nor does he have the authority of Scripture.

you probably won't accept anyone

I'm willing to be corrected. But you haven't demonstrated that I'm wrong. You've only asserted that I am wrong.

who's correct theology opposes yours.

You don't get to simply declare your theology “correct” and then accuse me of rejecting correction when I reject your unsupported assertion.

That's not an argument.

I don't think you believe omniscience to scriptural anyway.

You already admitted that “omniscience” is not in the Bible.

That means the concept has to be defined from Scripture, not imported into Scripture from Webster, Geisler, GotQuestions, or tradition.

It has already been shown to you

No, it has not.

You have quoted verses and then read exhaustive settled foreknowledge into them. Psalm 147:5 says God’s understanding is infinite. Amen. I affirm that.

It does not say every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens. That is your addition to the text.

and you don't believe,

I affirm the Scriptures.

I reject your interpretation of Scripture to fit your a priori theology.

From where do you define omniscience.

From Scripture.

The Bible tells us what God is like. It says God tests men, responds to men, relents, grieves, changes His declared course, and says “now I know.”

It never describes God the way your doctrine requires Him to be described.

Repeating your position over and over does not count as showing that your definition of omniscience is scriptural.