On the omniscience of God

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
There is nothing rational to the natural mind that the statement that a thousand years are equal to one day in God's eyes while at the same time, one day is equal to a thousand years in God's eyes. The natural mind cannot explain that in secularist mathematical terms.
JR already handled this quite well and so I won't go into detail here except to say that there isn't anything the slightest bit irrational about 2 Peter 3:8.

The verse isn't try to tell you that a thousand years IS a day to God and and that a day IS a thousand years. It's an expression with a completely obvious meaning. It's just saying that God doesn't care how long it takes. It's not as if God is going to run out of time and He's as perfectly patient as His perfect wisdom requires Him to be. In short, God isn't worried about how long something takes to happen. Whether it takes a single day or 365243 days (i.e. a thousand years) it makes no difference to God.

I will also take this opportunity to emphasize an important point that I've made repeatedly over the years...

There is no such thing as an irrational truth. If some claim is irrational, it is false - by definition. If you discover some aspect of your belief system that proves to be irrational then you have discovered an aspect of your belief system that is false and you have a choice to make. You can reject the belief as false or you can choose to believe a lie. There is no third option. It's reject the falsehood or lie to yourself. There is no in-between. In any compromise with sound reason, only falsehoods can profit.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
God is not bound by time. He dwells at the beginning of time while simultaneously occupying the end of time. That is not something earth's math geniuses can compute with natural mathematical formulas.
This is Calvinist stupidity. Literally, Marke, it's stupidity. It's no different than believing that Marvel Comic books are a record of real events.

You're right about one thing, though! No amount of genius could ever compute the notion with "natural mathematical formulas" (I have no idea what the word "natural" signifies in that comment). But it's not a limitation of manthematics or nature or even human beings, its a limitation of reality. It's a contradiction! It cannot even be postulated without contradicting yourself. Contradictions do not exist. Therefore, the idea of divine timelessness (or any other sort of timelessness, for that matter) is fantasy that belongs in science fiction movies and comic books, not God's word.
 

marke

Well-known member
JR already handled this quite well and so I won't go into detail here except to say that there isn't anything the slightest bit irrational about 2 Peter 3:8.

The verse isn't try to tell you that a thousand years IS a day to God and and that a day IS a thousand years. It's an expression with a completely obvious meaning. It's just saying that God doesn't care how long it takes. It's not as if God is going to run out of time and He's as perfectly patient and His perfect wisdom requires Him to be. In short, God isn't worried about how long something takes to happen. Whether it takes a single day or 365243 days (i.e. a thousand years) it makes no difference to God.

I will also take this opportunity to emphasize an important point that I've made repeatedly over the years...

There is no such thing as an irrational truth. If some claim is irrational, it is false - by definition. If you discover some aspect of your belief system that proves to be irrational then you have discovered an aspect of your belief system that is false and you have a choice to make. You can reject the belief as false or you can choose to believe a lie. There is no third option. It's reject the falsehood or lie to yourself. There is no in-between. In any compromise with sound reason, only falsehoods can profit.
I know God is rational. The wicked think God's truth is irrational.
 

marke

Well-known member
This is Calvinist stupidity. Literally, Marke, it's stupidity. It's no different than believing that Marvel Comic books are a record of real events.

You're right about one thing, though! No amount of genius could ever compute the notion with "natural mathematical formulas" (I have no idea what the word "natural" signifies in that comment). But it's not a limitation of manthematics or nature or even human beings, its a limitation of reality. It's a contradiction! It cannot even be postulated without contradicting yourself. Contradictions do not exist. Therefore, the idea of divine timelessness (or any other sort of timelessness, for that matter) is fantasy that belongs in science fiction movies and comic books, not God's word.
If you do not believe God is eternal and dwells outside the dimension of time then we disagree.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
God is not bound by time. He dwells at the beginning of time while simultaneously occupying the end of time.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

That is not something earth's math geniuses can compute with natural mathematical formulas.

Whatever that's supposed to mean...

If you do not believe God is eternal and dwells outside the dimension of time then we disagree.

Disagreeing on something is one thing, Marke.

Being right or wrong on something is another matter entirely.

It's like you're not even playing in the same ballpark as us.

The problem isn't whether we agree or disagree. It's that we're right and you're wrong, and we've backed it up directly through scripture any number of times already to you, but like I said, it's as if you're not even on the same field, and it goes completely over your head.
 

marke

Well-known member
Saying it doesn't make it so.



Whatever that's supposed to mean...



Disagreeing on something is one thing, Marke.

Being right or wrong on something is another matter entirely.

It's like you're not even playing in the same ballpark as us.

The problem isn't whether we agree or disagree. It's that we're right and you're wrong, and we've backed it up directly through scripture any number of times already to you, but like I said, it's as if you're not even on the same field, and it goes completely over your head.
The Apostle John saw things of the future in his day that are still future to us today and God was there. But God was also there in John's day at the same time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
The Apostle John saw things of the future in his day that are still future to us today and God was there. But God was also there in John's day at the same time.

This is conjecture at best, and intentionally misinterpreting scripture at worst!

All we know, because scripture doesn't give details, is that John was caught up in a vision.

It doesn't mean that John was transported to the future (time travel is impossible, despite what fiction writers say). It certainly doesn't mean that God is timeless (God is rational, "timelessness" is by definition, irrational).

The fact of the matter is that all you have are claims based on misinterpretations of scripture, when what scripture actually says is that God is in time, has a past, and is looking forwards to the future.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I know God is rational. The wicked think God's truth is irrational.
Oh wow! You made it to two sentences! I'm not sure I'll have the time to respond to it all!

Not honestly they don't. It isn't a limitation inherent in Dartman, or most anyone else for that matter, that prevents him from understanding that Jesus is the fleshly incarnation of God Himself. It's not that he CANNOT understand it, it's that he is choosing to reject it. There's a gigantic difference.

As an unbeliever, there are LOTS of spiritual truths that Dartman has no ability to comprehend, as I have already gone into but the gospel isn't one of them.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
If you do not believe God is eternal and dwells outside the dimension of time then we disagree.
You believe a Greek philosophical fantasy and I believe the word of God which teaches that God has always existed, not that He exists outside of time. Aristotle taught that God exists outside of time and Augustine imported that belief into the Catholic church.

If you believe that God exists outside of time you have no rational grounds upon which to reject the rest of Calvinism (i.e. Augustinianism - whether reformed or not), Marke! It's all the very same thing.
 
Last edited:

Psychlo

New member
Hello all,
I just found this forum and have thoroughly enjoyed reading through the conversation. I've probably only read 90% of the postings (skipped through some of the reiterations), so please forgive me if I missed something stated previously.

It seems I'm sort of an impartial observer here, though I would never claim to be totally objectively unbiased. That's impossible! 😁 But I have no strong convicton either way on the issue of omniscience. Even though I strive for an answer, I find no compulsion to settle on one if the evidence is not convincingly conclusive. That goes for any topic.

I see very reasonable arguments made on both sides of the debate over God's omniscience or lack thereof. And I also notice some assumptions that are taken for granted on both sides, myself included. I think it's okay to make an assumption in theology (we must sometimes because we're not given enough info), but it must be acknowledged as such, and not be imposed upon other folks. Otherwise, we can't have very productive interactions. In fact, it may be downright impossible to make meaningful progress if these assumptions are not admitted to. And we should not be dogmatic on ANY assumption we make, right?

For clarity, I'll give a few examples of my point:

Pro-omniscience claims which are not explicit in the Bible:
  • God created time
  • God exists outside of time
  • God is not bound by time
  • God can control time
  • God exists in the eternal present
  • God's unchangeableness applies to His nature and His will
Anti-ominiscience claims which are not explicit in the Bible:
  • God must be rational as WE perceive rationality
  • God cannot operate in a way that is outside of our own experiential knowledge or understanding
  • God must be logical as WE perceive logic
  • God's unchangeableness applies to His nature only. His will can change.
  • God cannot control time
I'm not saying any of these points are untrue just because they are assumptions. But none of them are explicitly stated in the Bible. So we have to start with that fact and acknowledge that both camps are relying on their own reasoning to make and explain these points - not scripture alone. And that's okay. There are many things the Bible doesn't address head-on or explain in detail, so in order to form an opinion, we must piece together fuller ideas from the bits of evidence we're given. God's nature is one of those topics where we're given a bunch of scriptures that speak of who He is and how He behaves and what He is like, but we are not usually told the extent of these attributes, nor the exceptions to them. Nor are we always given a clear indication of whether to take a statement as literal or figurative.

And that seems to be one of the main problems here. We disagree with each other based upon which scriptures we take literally and which ones we take figuratively (or spiritually, or allegorically, or anthropomorphically, etc, etc).

Another problem is that we don't agree on which scriptures we (sometimes unwittingly) think are more important or weighty or relevant than others. Obviously, certain passages are going to have a heavier bearing on a particular topic than others will. But proving or disproving that "heaviness" is often difficult. Much of it comes down to preconceived notions and gut feelings (which may be valid or invalid).

I'm certainly not implying that these studies are futile; rather the opposite. They draw out our differences and cause us to consider new ideas. But it needs to be understood that two equally rational people can come to different conclusions -- because we're sentient beings and have unique perspectives and influences and desires.

Open theology is a fairly new concept to me as a construct. Not that I didn't know it existed, but just never delved into it. I was raised with a traditional view, but I've been reconsidering God's absolute omniscience for a handful of years now. The idea that His knowledge is limited to some degree seems to be the most logical conclusion, based on how we understand the way the universe operates and how the Bible speaks about it.

Sorry for the long post. It just kinda spilled out. But I would appreciate your thoughts.
 

Derf

Well-known member
The idea that His knowledge is limited to some degree seems to be the most logical conclusion,
The most reasonable version of the open view imo doesn't say His knowledge is limited to anything but those things which are at any time possible for Him to know.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
The most reasonable version of the open view imo doesn't say His knowledge is limited to anything but those things which are at any time possible for Him to know.
Right. God knows everything that is knowable that He wants to know.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Sorry for the long post. It just kinda spilled out. But I would appreciate your thoughts.
One of the most practical, real world consequences of living with the knowledge that God doesn't need to control everything in order to know everything is the freedom from trying to figure out what God's will is for every single detail of your life. The shepherd cares that a sheep is in the pasture. The shepherd does not care which specific tuft of grass the sheep is grazing on.

Therefore, if I wanted to start a new career and there was nothing unbiblical about that career, then that career would be "in the pasture." I wouldn't even pray about it. I would just go ahead and go for it because I know that career would be within His will.

You can relax with the knowledge that you are in God's gigantic pasture with a million tufts of grass and that you have the freedom to graze on any one of them you choose.
 
Last edited:

Derf

Well-known member
Right. God knows everything that is knowable that He wants to know.
I think if He has a way of not knowing something that is knowable, then it speaks to the mechanism of His knowing. For instance, if He decides not to know what Satan was doing, then how does He know if Satan is actually not doing the things God forbids him to do. Satan was at first allowed to attack Job emotionally and financially, but not physically. God must actually be watching our for what happens to Job. This comports well with the description of the seven Spirits of God in Revelation.
Revelation 5:6 KJV — And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
So, because of a decidedly boring lack of substance from most everyone here on TOL who doesn't already agree with me, I've not posted here in the last couple of weeks. It was my intention to stay away for at least the rest of the summer and that may still be what I do because it has been a nice break. But, when I sat down at my computer this morning, I hit the link to TOL just due to the force of habit and, since it was up on the screen, I decided to look to see what I'd missed. I found (obviously) the Psychlo's post, which gave me hope that a substantive discussion was possible and, since this happens to be one of my favorite topics, I've decided to pick up the discussion and see what happens!

This turned out to be quite a long post and I don't have time at the moment to do any proof reading! My apologies for any typos. I'll go through and fix them later!

Hello all,
I just found this forum and have thoroughly enjoyed reading through the conversation. I've probably only read 90% of the postings (skipped through some of the reiterations), so please forgive me if I missed something stated previously.
90% is way more than most people read through a thread before responding so, you're ahead of the game on that score.

Pro-omniscience claims which are not explicit in the Bible:
  • God created time
  • God exists outside of time
  • God is not bound by time
  • God can control time
  • God exists in the eternal present
  • God's unchangeableness applies to His nature and His will
I'm glad that you used the term "claims" here rather than the word "assumptions" that you had started with. These are definitely claims that these folks make but I don't think that "assumptions" is quite accurate. They do not merely assume that these ideas are true, they are derived logically. Their logic is flawed and we can discuss that but I just wanted to make clear that I don't think these folks are just making this stuff up out of whole cloth.

Also, typing out the term "Pro-omniscience people" once is one time too many, if you ask me so we need to figure out a more common and easier way to refer to those on this side of the debate. My preference is to refer to them as either "Calvinists" or "Augustinians". The latter is more technically accurate because there are other groups, such as Arminians and Catholics, that believe and teach that God is immutable (i.e. that God cannot change in any way whatsoever), and so I'll try to stick to using "Augustinians" but, if you catch me using the term "Calvinist", understand that I'm using that term out of habit and am referring to anyone who believes that God is immutable, which is the fundamental premise upon which all of these doctrines concerning time are based.

Anti-ominiscience claims which are not explicit in the Bible:
  • God must be rational as WE perceive rationality
  • God cannot operate in a way that is outside of our own experiential knowledge or understanding
  • God must be logical as WE perceive logic
  • God's unchangeableness applies to His nature only. His will can change.
  • God cannot control timed
Okay, so since I am an Open Theist, you won't be surprised to find out that I disagree with this list. In fact, I'm sort of baffled as to how anyone who can think as clearly as you seem to be able to could compile this particular list. It seems to me to be overly self-defeating list. Let's take them one at a time...
  • God must be rational as WE perceive rationality
  • God must be logical as WE perceive logic
That's not one at a time, you're thinking right now! Well, yes it is, right? Rationality is nothing other than our use of logic. It's the equivalent of making a distinction between speaking vs. the use of language.

There is LOTS to say on this particular topic and I won't even try to cover it all here in this post. I'll just make three quick points and leave it at that for now and we can go as far down the rabbit hole as you want to go in later posts.

First, I would refer you to an essay I wrote that covers some important ground in this area. It's entitled "Our Moral God" and can be found HERE. I strongly urge you to read it. In it I establish that the bible IS explicit about God's rationality to the point of teaching the He IS Reason itself.

Second, and more fundamentally, rationality and logic are absolutes. No intelligible communication, of any kind, can occur without the use of reason. The very fact that the bible is a book that can be read and understood at all is explicit endorsement of the use of reason. The first letter of Genesis 1:1 could never have been penned without the use of reason.

Thirdly, there could be no such thing as "super-logic" nor could God be "supra-logical". The concept is utterly meaningless because anything you might say in attempt to explain it must necessarily use logic to do so, which an obviously self-defeating thing to do. It is the ultimate example of attempting to have your cake and eat it too.

Lastly, there is Isaiah 1:18.

Isaiah 1:18 “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the Lord,....

It can't get too much more explicit than that.

Okay, lets move on to the other claims in your list....
  • God cannot operate in a way that is outside of our own experiential knowledge or understanding
No Open Theist that I know of has ever made such a claim. On the contrary, the bible seems undeniably explicit that God very definitely can, has, does and will continue to operate in ways that are well outside of our own experiential knowledge or understanding. As proof, I give you the single most quoted sentence of the entire bible, and perhaps of all literature....

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Just take half a moment to consider the vastness of that teaching. We humans cannot create one single gram of earth (we can assemble the already existent ingredients that make up earth but that isn't the same thing), much less Earth itself or any of the mind boggling vastness of even our solar system, which is just an inconceivably tiny portion of what God created within the first hour of the first day of the creation week.

In addition to Open Theists acknowledging God as the Creator, we also obviously acknowledge everything else that the bible records that God has done, is doing, and will do in the future that is supernatural, all of which is outside of our own experiential knowledge or understanding.

Having said that, I think what this point of yours is really driving at is more or less a repeat of the point about God being rational. This is evidenced by the fact that it sits inbetween the points about reason and logic. If that is, in fact, the case, then my statements about those two point apply equally to this point and I'll add to it by simply asserting the rationally undeniable fact that God cannot do the rationally absurd - by definition. That is to say that God cannot do the rationally absurd because the rationally absurd cannot be done at all. God, for example, cannot be in a place that does not exist. Nor could God create a perfect sphere with 14 sides.

To assert otherwise is to exit the realm of reality and so open the door to the validity of anything wacky thing that one might conjure up. If God can do the absurd and logic does not apply to our theology proper (i.e. our doctrines about God) then by what means could any doctrine ever be disproved?

Moving on....
  • God's unchangeableness applies to His nature only. His will can change.
Once again there are gigantic volumes of material that could be brought up on this point and since this is already becoming a long post I'll restrain myself to simply proving that the bible IS explicit on this point by quoting it outright...

One thing that you should note about the following quotations. I quote almost entirely out of the New King James but I have, on purpose, changed the word "relent" to the word "repent" in the following passages. The word in the original language is nāḥam (pronounced naw-kham') and it absolutely does mean "repent". The use of the word "relent" is indefensibled and evidence of the translator's Augustinian doctrinal bias. The King James Bible correctly uses the word "repent" but is otherwise harder for to read than the New King James and so think of this as a hybrid between the two translations....

Exodus 32:11 Then Moses pleaded with the Lord his God, and said: “Lord, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, ‘He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and repent from this harm to Your people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’ ” 14 So the Lord repented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.
Psalms 106:40 Therefore the wrath of the Lord was kindled against His people,​
So that He abhorred His own inheritance.​
41 And He gave them into the hand of the Gentiles,​
And those who hated them ruled over them.​
42 Their enemies also oppressed them,​
And they were brought into subjection under their hand.​
43 Many times He delivered them;​
But they rebelled in their counsel,​
And were brought low for their iniquity.​
44 Nevertheless He regarded their affliction,
When He heard their cry;
45 And for their sake He remembered His covenant,
And repented according to the multitude of His mercies.
46 He also made them to be pitied​
By all those who carried them away captive.​

Jeremiah 15:5 “For who will have pity on you, O Jerusalem?​
Or who will bemoan you?​
Or who will turn aside to ask how you are doing?​
6 You have forsaken Me,” says the Lord,​
“You have gone backward.​
Therefore I will stretch out My hand against you and destroy you;​
I am weary of repenting!

There are several others but I'll stop with one last quotation from Jeremiah chapter 18, which just so happens to be one of the most important chapters of the entire bible....

Jeremiah 18:7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.​
And lastly, I'll briefly address your last point...
  • God cannot control time
I'd agree with the simple assertion that this concept is not explicitly stated in scripture but, as I said at the beginning of what has now become entirely too long of a post, this is NOT a mere assumption on our part. Further, this objection isn't valid against the Open Theist in the first place as it tacitly implies a need for us to prove a negative or to make an argument from silence. There is no evidence that God can control time, either biblical or otherwise. Indeed, there is no evidence that time is even an ontological thing that can be controlled in the first place. Time is an idea. Time is a convention of language that is used to communicate information about the sequence and duration of events relative to other events. It does not exist outside a thinking mind.

Alrighty then! That's way more than enough for now! It seems that my break from TOL has given me a case of diarrhea of the mouth (or whatever the text form equivalent of that would be)!
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
One of the most practical, real world consequences of living with the knowledge that God doesn't need to control everything in order to know everything is the freedom from trying to figure out what God's will is for every single detail of your life. The shepherd cares that a sheep is in the pasture. The shepherd does not care which specific tuft of grass the sheep is grazing on.

Therefore, if I wanted to start a new career and there was nothing unbiblical about that career, then that career would be "in the pasture." I wouldn't even pray about it. I would just go ahead and go for it because I know that career would be within His will.

You can relax with the knowledge that you are in God's gigantic pasture with a million tufts of grass and that you have the freedom to graze on any one of them you choose.
So the "pasture" in this metaphor is the set of God's moral laws basically then, right? (Based on your "nothing un-Biblical" being the pasture's 'fence,' basically, right?) And I would say the same for my view of Catholicism Jefferson. I mean, it's uncanny how similar I live life to you, given I'm a quote-unquote "works salvation" Catholic.
 

Psychlo

New member
I think if He has a way of not knowing something that is knowable, then it speaks to the mechanism of His knowing. For instance, if He decides not to know what Satan was doing, then how does He know if Satan is actually not doing the things God forbids him to do. Satan was at first allowed to attack Job emotionally and financially, but not physically. God must actually be watching our for what happens to Job.
Right. Good points. And another question that arises is whether or not this is a special circumstance. After all, it was God who initiated the entire series of events. So was He paying particular attention to Satan's actions regarding Job only because of the "deal" He made with Satan? Or is this indicative of how God pays attention to all of His creation? I presume the latter. He seems to be ever-watchful over His creation.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Right. Good points. And another question that arises is whether or not this is a special circumstance. After all, it was God who initiated the entire series of events. So was He paying particular attention to Satan's actions regarding Job only because of the "deal" He made with Satan? Or is this indicative of how God pays attention to all of His creation? I presume the latter. He seems to be ever-watchful over His creation.
And He's also able to predict what Judas is going to do centuries before he does it. Along with predicting what Peter will do hours before he does it. Seems like He has a pretty big range or window in which to foresee our free choices.
 

Psychlo

New member
I'm glad that you used the term "claims" here rather than the word "assumptions" that you had started with. These are definitely claims that these folks make but I don't think that "assumptions" is quite accurate. They do not merely assume that these ideas are true, they are derived logically. Their logic is flawed and we can discuss that but I just wanted to make clear that I don't think these folks are just making this stuff up out of whole cloth.
My bad. That's me being sloppy. I probably should have used the term "presumption" rather than "assumption". I didn't mean to imply these claims had no merit whatsoever -- just that they aren't stated per se in the Bible.
 
Top