What did you believe before Open Theism?

[JudgeRightly]

I think you do not believe that God does not know about future events. Is that correct? If that is so you don't believe in the total omniscience of God.

Have I not represented you correctly?

No, you have not represented me correctly.

First, your sentence has a double negative, so I’m not entirely sure what you intended to say. But if you meant that I deny God knows anything about future events, then no, that is not correct.

I believe God knows future events that are settled, determined, promised, declared, intended, or otherwise knowable.

What I deny is that every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens.

You keep treating that denial as a denial of omniscience, but that only works if you first define omniscience as exhaustive settled foreknowledge of every future free act. That is the very point under dispute.

So no, you have not represented Open Theism correctly. You are conflating “God knows the future” with “every future free act is already settled.” Open Theism affirms the former and denies the latter.

 

[Bright Raven]

No, you have not represented me correctly.

First, your sentence has a double negative, so I’m not entirely sure what you intended to say. But if you meant that I deny God knows anything about future events, then no, that is not correct.

I believe God knows future events that are settled, determined, promised, declared, intended, or otherwise knowable.

What I deny is that every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens.

You keep treating that denial as a denial of omniscience, but that only works if you first define omniscience as exhaustive settled foreknowledge of every future free act. That is the very point under dispute.

So no, you have not represented Open Theism correctly. You are conflating “God knows the future” with “every future free act is already settled.” Open Theism affirms the former and denies the latter.

Thank you for the correction.

 

[Right Divider]

https://www.opentheism.org/

Ultimately, open theism is not based on man's freedom but on God's freedom. Open theism is the Christian doctrine that the future is not settled but open because God is alive, eternally free, and inexhaustibly creative. Although this undeniable truth is virtual heresy to many Calvinist and Arminian theologians, regardless, open theists affirm the obvious, that God is able to think new thoughts. And He can write new songs. And if He so desires He could design new butterflies too.

 

[Bright Raven]

https://www.opentheism.org/

If you believe this then how can you believe that God is totally omniscient.

 

[Right Divider]

If you believe this then how can you believe that God is totally omniscient.

Because we don't believe YOUR definitions about God. Instead... wait for it... we believe the BIBLE.

 

[Bright Raven]

Because we don't believe YOUR definitions about God. Instead... wait for it... we believe the BIBLE.

The Bible teaches belief in the total omniscience of God , do you?

 

[Right Divider]

The Bible teaches belief in the total omniscience of God , do you?

No, it does NOT!

You're like a broken record BR. Again, you've not listened to a single thing that others have said. You are DEAF and BLIND.

 

[Bright Raven]

No, it does NOT!

You're like a broken record BR. Again, you've not listened to a single thing that others have said. You are DEAF and BLIND.

What is it that you do not understand Psalm 147:5

Psalm 147:5

New King James Version

​

5 Great is our Lord, and mighty in power;
His understanding is infinite.

 

[Bright Raven]

What is it that you do not understand Psalm 147:5

Psalm 147:5​

​

New King James Version​

​

​

5 Great is our Lord, and mighty in power;
His understanding is infinite.

Glad to see you take it so humorously.

 

[Right Divider]

Glad to see you take it so humorously.

You proof-text a verse to force it to mean what you want it to mean and then you ignore the rest of the Bible.

It's not as much funny as it is sad.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If you believe this then how can you believe that God is totally omniscient.

Because “omniscient” does not mean “the future is exhaustively settled before anyone acts.” That is your definition, not the Bible’s.
God knows whatever He knows perfectly. He knows what He has determined, promised, declared, and intends to bring about. What I deny is that every future free act already exists as a settled fact.

The Bible teaches belief in the total omniscience of God , do you?

Yes, I believe God is omniscient.

What I reject is your philosophical definition of omniscience. You define omniscience as exhaustive settled foreknowledge of every future free act, then accuse anyone who rejects that definition of denying omniscience.

That is the point under dispute.

What is it that you do not understand Psalm 147:5

Psalm 147:5
New King James Version
5 Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite.

We understand Psalm 147:5 just fine. Your interpretation of it notwithstanding.

The passage says God’s understanding is infinite. Amen. No one here denies that.

The problem is not the passage. The problem is your interpretation of the passage.

Psalm 147:5 does not say every future free act already exists as a settled fact. That is what you are adding to the text. That is eisegesis.

And we have been over this passage multiple times already. You keep citing verses about God’s greatness, wisdom, and knowledge, then importing exhaustive settled foreknowledge into them as though the verse stated it outright.

It doesn’t.

God’s understanding is infinite. God understands reality perfectly. If a future free choice is not yet a settled fact, then God understands it perfectly as what it is: a real possibility, not a settled certainty.

Open Theism affirms Psalm 147:5. What we reject is your attempt to make it say more than it says.

Repeating “God is totally omniscient” is not an argument. The question is what omniscience means biblically. So either show from Scripture that every future free act is already settled, or stop treating your definition as though it were the verse itself.

 

[Bright Raven]

You proof-text a verse to force it to mean what you want it to mean and then you ignore the rest of the Bible.

It's not as much funny as it is sad.

2 Timothy 3:16-17

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[JudgeRightly]

2 Timothy 3:16-17

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Amen. All Scripture is profitable.

That is exactly why proof-texting Psalm 147:5 is not enough. Your doctrine has to account for Genesis 22:12, Exodus 32:14, Jonah 3:10, Jeremiah 18, and the passages where God grieves, relents, responds, tests, and says “now I know.”

2 Timothy 3:16-17 does not rescue your proof text. It requires you to deal with the rest of the Bible too.

 

[Bright Raven]

Because “omniscient” does not mean “the future is exhaustively settled before anyone acts.” That is your definition, not the Bible’s.
God knows whatever He knows perfectly. He knows what He has determined, promised, declared, and intends to bring about. What I deny is that every future free act already exists as a settled fact.



Yes, I believe God is omniscient.

What I reject is your philosophical definition of omniscience. You define omniscience as exhaustive settled foreknowledge of every future free act, then accuse anyone who rejects that definition of denying omniscience.

That is the point under dispute.



We understand Psalm 147:5 just fine. Your interpretation of it notwithstanding.

The passage says God’s understanding is infinite. Amen. No one here denies that.

The problem is not the passage. The problem is your interpretation of the passage.

Psalm 147:5 does not say every future free act already exists as a settled fact. That is what you are adding to the text. That is eisegesis.

And we have been over this passage multiple times already. You keep citing verses about God’s greatness, wisdom, and knowledge, then importing exhaustive settled foreknowledge into them as though the verse stated it outright.

It doesn’t.

God’s understanding is infinite. God understands reality perfectly. If a future free choice is not yet a settled fact, then God understands it perfectly as what it is: a real possibility, not a settled certainty.

Open Theism affirms Psalm 147:5. What we reject is your attempt to make it say more than it says.

Repeating “God is totally omniscient” is not an argument. The question is what omniscience means biblically. So either show from Scripture that every future free act is already settled, or stop treating your definition as though it were the verse itself.

Your argument is not with me it is with Merriam Webster.

Omniscient (/ɒmˈnɪʃ.i.ənt/) describes having complete, unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding of all things. Tracing back to Latin omni- ("all") and scientia ("knowledge"), it implies knowing everything—past, present, and future. It is frequently used in theology to describe God, or in literature to describe an all-seeing narrator.
Merriam-Webster

 

[JudgeRightly]

Your argument is not with me it is with Merriam Webster.

Omniscient (/ɒmˈnɪʃ.i.ənt/) describes having complete, unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding of all things. Tracing back to Latin omni- ("all") and scientia ("knowledge"), it implies knowing everything—past, present, and future. It is frequently used in theology to describe God, or in literature to describe an all-seeing narrator.
Merriam-Webster

Merriam-Webster is not Scripture, and dictionaries do not settle doctrine.

Dictionaries do not give inspired, fixed, technical meanings. They give common usage: groups of words used to approximate how another word is commonly used.

So even if “omniscient” is commonly glossed as “knowing everything,” that still leaves the actual question untouched: what counts as a “thing” to be known?

If a future free act is not yet a settled fact, then it is not a settled fact for God to know. God knows reality perfectly as it actually is.

You keep trying to win a biblical argument by appealing to outside authorities: GotQuestions, tradition, now Merriam-Webster. But the question is still Scripture.

Show from the Bible that every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens. Otherwise, you are just importing that assumption into the word “omniscient.”

 

[Bright Raven]

Merriam-Webster is not Scripture, and dictionaries do not settle doctrine.

Dictionaries do not give inspired, fixed, technical meanings. They give common usage: groups of words used to approximate how another word is commonly used.

So even if “omniscient” is commonly glossed as “knowing everything,” that still leaves the actual question untouched: what counts as a “thing” to be known?

If a future free act is not yet a settled fact, then it is not a settled fact for God to know. God knows reality perfectly as it actually is.

You keep trying to win a biblical argument by appealing to outside authorities: GotQuestions, tradition, now Merriam-Webster. But the question is still Scripture.

Show from the Bible that every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens. Otherwise, you are just importing that assumption into the word “omniscient.”

Omniscience per say is not in the bible. You need to go with Webster on this one.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Omniscience per say is not in the bible. You need to go with Webster on this one.

You just conceded the point.

If “omniscience” is not a biblical word, then the doctrine must be defined by Scripture, not Webster.

You cannot use a dictionary definition of a non-biblical term as the standard, then accuse us of denying the Bible when we reject your definition.

Show the doctrine from Scripture. That has been the issue the whole time.

 

[Bright Raven]

You just conceded the point.

If “omniscience” is not a biblical word, then the doctrine must be defined by Scripture, not Webster.

You cannot use a dictionary definition of a non-biblical term as the standard, then accuse us of denying the Bible when we reject your definition.

Show the doctrine from Scripture. That has been the issue the whole time.

Do you believe in the the totality of Psalm 147:5. Or are you of the same demeanor as Right Divider. Try 2 Timothy 3:16-17. I think it is rather clear, is it not?