On the omniscience of God

[Bright Raven]

From Gotquestions.org

Omniscience is defined as “the state of having total knowledge, the quality of knowing everything.” For God to be sovereign over His creation of all things, whether visible or invisible, He has to be all-knowing. His omniscience is not restricted to any one person in the Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all by nature omniscient.

God knows everything (1 John 3:20). He knows not only the minutest details of our lives but those of everything around us, for He mentions even knowing when a sparrow falls or when we lose a single hair (Matthew 10:29-30). Not only does God know everything that will occur until the end of history itself (Isaiah 46:9-10), but He also knows our very thoughts, even before we speak forth (Psalm 139:4). He knows our hearts from afar; He even saw us in the womb (Psalm 139:1-3, 15-16). Solomon expresses this truth perfectly when he says, “For you, you only, know the hearts of all the children of mankind” (1 Kings 8:39).

Despite the condescension of the Son of God to empty Himself and make Himself nothing (Philippians 2:7), His omniscience is clearly seen in the New Testament writings. The first prayer of the apostles in Acts 1:24, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart,” implies Jesus’ omniscience, which is necessary if He is to be able to receive petitions and intercede at God’s right hand. On earth, Jesus’ omniscience is just as clear. In many Gospel accounts, He knew the thoughts of his audience (Matthew 9:4; 12:25; Mark 2:6-8; Luke 6:8). He knew about people’s lives before He had even met them. When He met the woman collecting water at the well at Sychar, He said to her, “The fact is you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband” (John 4:18). He also tells His disciples that their friend Lazarus was dead, although He was over 25 miles away from Lazarus’s home (John 11:11-15). He advised the disciples to go and make preparation for the Lord’s Supper, describing the person they were to meet and follow (Mark 14:13-15). Perhaps best of all, He knew Nathanael before ever meeting him, for He knew his heart (John 1:47-48).

Clearly, we observe Jesus’ omniscience on earth, but this is where the paradox begins as well. Jesus asks questions, which imply the absence of knowledge, although the Lord asks questions more for the benefit of His audience than for Himself. However, there is another facet regarding His omniscience that comes from the limitations of the human nature which He, as Son of God, assumed. We read that as a man He “grew in wisdom and stature” (Luke 2:52) and that He learned “obedience through suffering” (Hebrews 5:8). We also read that He did not know when the world would be brought to an end (Matthew 24:34-36). We, therefore, have to ask, why would the Son not know this, if He knew everything else? Rather than regarding this as just a human limitation, we should regard it as a controlled lack of knowledge. This was a self-willed act of humility in order to share fully in our nature (Philippians 2:6-11; Hebrews 2:17) and to be the Second Adam.

Finally, there is nothing too hard for an omniscient God, and it is on the basis of our faith in such a God that we can rest secure in Him, knowing that He promises never to fail us as long as we continue in Him. He has known us from eternity, even before creation. God knew you and me, where we would appear in the course of time, and whom we would interact with. He even foresaw our sin in all its ugliness and depravity, yet, in love, He set his seal upon us and drew us to that love in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:3-6). We shall see Him face to face, but our knowledge of Him will never be complete. Our wonder, love and praise of Him shall go on for all millennia as we bask in the rays of His heavenly love, learning and appreciating more and more of our omniscient God.

 

[JudgeRightly]

From Gotquestions.org

Omniscience is defined as “the state of having total knowledge, the quality of knowing everything.” For God to be sovereign over His creation of all things, whether visible or invisible, He has to be all-knowing. His omniscience is not restricted to any one person in the Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all by nature omniscient.

God knows everything (1 John 3:20).

Men know all things. 1 John 2:20

He knows not only the minutest details of our lives but those of everything around us, for He mentions even knowing when a sparrow falls or when we lose a single hair (Matthew 10:29-30).

Current knowledge, not future knowledge.

Not only does God know everything that will occur until the end of history itself (Isaiah 46:9-10),

"Declaring the end from the beginning" is not "knowing everything that will happen in the future."

but He also knows our very thoughts, even before we speak forth (Psalm 139:4).

Again, present knowledge. "God can know our thoughts before we put them into words," not "God knows our thoughts before we think them."

He knows our hearts from afar; He even saw us in the womb (Psalm 139:1-3, 15-16).

Present knowledge. Not future.

Solomon expresses this truth perfectly when he says, “For you, you only, know the hearts of all the children of mankind” (1 Kings 8:39).

Present knowledge, not future.

Despite the condescension of the Son of God to empty Himself and make Himself nothing (Philippians 2:7), His omniscience is clearly seen in the New Testament writings.

Rather, "omniscience" is being read into the text.

The first prayer of the apostles in Acts 1:24, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart,” implies Jesus’ omniscience,

No, it doesn't.

which is necessary if He is to be able to receive petitions and intercede at God’s right hand.

No, it isn't.

On earth, Jesus’ omniscience is just as clear. In many Gospel accounts, He knew the thoughts of his audience (Matthew 9:4; 12:25; Mark 2:6-8; Luke 6:8).

Present knowledge.

He knew about people’s lives before He had even met them. When He met the woman collecting water at the well at Sychar, He said to her, “The fact is you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband” (John 4:18).

More present knowledge.

He also tells His disciples that their friend Lazarus was dead, although He was over 25 miles away from Lazarus’s home (John 11:11-15).

Again, present knowledge.

He advised the disciples to go and make preparation for the Lord’s Supper, describing the person they were to meet and follow (Mark 14:13-15).

Not future knowledge.

Perhaps best of all, He knew Nathanael before ever meeting him, for He knew his heart (John 1:47-48).

More present knowledge.

Clearly, we observe Jesus’ omniscience on earth, but this is where the paradox begins as well. Jesus asks questions, which imply the absence of knowledge, although the Lord asks questions more for the benefit of His audience than for Himself. However, there is another facet regarding His omniscience that comes from the limitations of the human nature which He, as Son of God, assumed. We read that as a man He “grew in wisdom and stature” (Luke 2:52) and that He learned “obedience through suffering” (Hebrews 5:8). We also read that He did not know when the world would be brought to an end (Matthew 24:34-36). We, therefore, have to ask, why would the Son not know this, if He knew everything else? Rather than regarding this as just a human limitation, we should regard it as a controlled lack of knowledge. This was a self-willed act of humility in order to share fully in our nature (Philippians 2:6-11; Hebrews 2:17) and to be the Second Adam.

Finally, there is nothing too hard for an omniscient God, and it is on the basis of our faith in such a God that we can rest secure in Him, knowing that He promises never to fail us as long as we continue in Him. He has known us from eternity, even before creation. God knew you and me, where we would appear in the course of time, and whom we would interact with. He even foresaw our sin in all its ugliness and depravity, yet, in love, He set his seal upon us and drew us to that love in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:3-6). We shall see Him face to face, but our knowledge of Him will never be complete. Our wonder, love and praise of Him shall go on for all millennia as we bask in the rays of His heavenly love, learning and appreciating more and more of our omniscient God.

The rest of this would be pointless to respond to, since it's just more of the same.

God knowing things in the present does not mean that God knows everything about the future, and when you have to concede that "Jesus grew in wisdom" and He "learned obedience," then clearly God isn't "omniscient" in the classical sense of the word.

 

[Derf]

From Gotquestions.org

Omniscience is defined as “the state of having total knowledge, the quality of knowing everything.” For God to be sovereign over His creation of all things, whether visible or invisible, He has to be all-knowing.

Why? What do you think "sovereign" means?

His omniscience is not restricted to any one person in the Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all by nature omniscient.

God knows everything (1 John 3:20). He knows not only the minutest details of our lives but those of everything around us, for He mentions even knowing when a sparrow falls or when we lose a single hair (Matthew 10:29-30). Not only does God know everything that will occur until the end of history itself (Isaiah 46:9-10), but He also knows our very thoughts, even before we speak forth (Psalm 139:4). He knows our hearts from afar; He even saw us in the womb (Psalm 139:1-3, 15-16). Solomon expresses this truth perfectly when he says, “For you, you only, know the hearts of all the children of mankind” (1 Kings 8:39).

Despite the condescension of the Son of God to empty Himself and make Himself nothing (Philippians 2:7), His omniscience is clearly seen in the New Testament writings. The first prayer of the apostles in Acts 1:24, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart,” implies Jesus’ omniscience, which is necessary if He is to be able to receive petitions and intercede at God’s right hand. On earth, Jesus’ omniscience is just as clear. In many Gospel accounts, He knew the thoughts of his audience (Matthew 9:4; 12:25; Mark 2:6-8; Luke 6:8). He knew about people’s lives before He had even met them. When He met the woman collecting water at the well at Sychar, He said to her, “The fact is you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband” (John 4:18). He also tells His disciples that their friend Lazarus was dead, although He was over 25 miles away from Lazarus’s home (John 11:11-15). He advised the disciples to go and make preparation for the Lord’s Supper, describing the person they were to meet and follow (Mark 14:13-15). Perhaps best of all, He knew Nathanael before ever meeting him, for He knew his heart (John 1:47-48).

Isn't it possible that the Holy Spirit or the Father revealed these things to Jesus? If so, then they can't be used to say He is omniscient without admitting that we are omniscient, too, since the Father and the Holy Spirit also reveal things to us, right?

Clearly, we observe Jesus’ omniscience on earth, but this is where the paradox begins as well. Jesus asks questions, which imply the absence of knowledge, although the Lord asks questions more for the benefit of His audience than for Himself. However, there is another facet regarding His omniscience that comes from the limitations of the human nature which He, as Son of God, assumed. We read that as a man He “grew in wisdom and stature” (Luke 2:52) and that He learned “obedience through suffering” (Hebrews 5:8). We also read that He did not know when the world would be brought to an end (Matthew 24:34-36). We, therefore, have to ask, why would the Son not know this, if He knew everything else? Rather than regarding this as just a human limitation, we should regard it as a controlled lack of knowledge. This was a self-willed act of humility in order to share fully in our nature (Philippians 2:6-11; Hebrews 2:17) and to be the Second Adam.

How does the Son know what things He's not supposed to know? Doesn't He have to know those things He's not supposed to know in order to know He's not supposed to know them? I don't really see how this idea could work. Maybe the Father decides what He's not supposed to know, and then prevents the Son from knowing those things, but then the Father is mightier than the Son, so the Son is no longer omnipotent.

Finally, there is nothing too hard for an omniscient God, and it is on the basis of our faith in such a God that we can rest secure in Him, knowing that He promises never to fail us as long as we continue in Him. He has known us from eternity, even before creation.

We existed from all eternity? I thought God was the only eternally existing being.

God knew you and me, where we would appear in the course of time, and whom we would interact with. He even foresaw our sin in all its ugliness and depravity, yet, in love, He set his seal upon us and drew us to that love in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:3-6). We shall see Him face to face, but our knowledge of Him will never be complete. Our wonder, love and praise of Him shall go on for all millennia as we bask in the rays of His heavenly love, learning and appreciating more and more of our omniscient God.

Do you think God will appreciate our wonder, love and praise, not to mention our basking, when He knew from all eternity all that we will think and say in eternity? In other words. If we are growing in our appreciation, can God enjoy our growing appreciation even though it is all old and recycled for Him?

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

I just made it through Chris's opening statement and I wanted to thank you real quick for posting this.

 

[Shasta]

@Clete recently shared with me this article which describes one of the problems with saying that God can know the future.

Foreknowledge and Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

In it, the author(s) reason out the following logical argument:

A precise version of the argument can be formulated as follows: Choose some proposition about a future act that you think you will do freely, if any act is free. Suppose, for example, that the telephone will ring at 9 am tomorrow and you will either answer it or you will not. So it is either true that you will answer the phone at 9 am tomorrow or it is true that you will not answer the phone at 9 am tomorrow. The Law of Excluded Middle rules out any other alternative. Let T abbreviate the proposition that you will answer the phone tomorrow at 9, and let us suppose that T is true. (If not-T is true instead, simply substitute not-T in the argument below). Let “now-necessary” designate temporal necessity, the type of necessity that the past is supposed to have just because it is past. We will discuss this type of necessity in sections 2.3 and 2.6, but we can begin with the intuitive idea that there is a kind of necessity that a proposition has now when the content of the proposition is about something that occurred in the past. To say that it is now-necessary that milk has been spilled is to say nobody can do anything now about the fact that the milk has been spilled. Let “God” designate a being who has infallible beliefs about the future, where to say that God believes p infallibly is to say that God believes p and it is not possible that God believes p and p is false. It is not important for the logic of the argument that God is the being worshiped by any particular religion, but the motive to maintain that there is a being with infallible beliefs is usually a religious one. One more preliminary point is in order. The dilemma of infallible foreknowledge and human free will does not rest on the particular assumption of foreknowledge and does not require an analysis of knowledge. Most contemporary accounts of knowledge are fallibilist, which means they do not require that a person believe in a way that cannot be mistaken in order to have knowledge. She has knowledge just in case what she believes is true and she satisfies the other conditions for knowledge, such as having sufficiently strong evidence. Ordinary knowledge does not require that the belief cannot be false. For example, if I believe on strong evidence that classes begin at my university on a certain date, and when the day arrives, classes do begin, we would normally say I knew in advance that classes would begin on that date. I had foreknowledge about the date classes begin. But there is nothing problematic about that kind of foreknowledge because events could have proven me wrong even though as events actually turned out, they didn’t prove me wrong. Ordinary foreknowledge does not threaten to necessitate the future because it does not require that when I know p it is not possible that my belief is false. The key problem, then, is the infallibility of the belief about the future, and this is a problem whether or not the epistemic agent with an infallible belief satisfies the other conditions required by some account of knowledge, such as sufficient evidence. As long as an agent has an infallible belief about the future, the problem arises. Using the example of the proposition T, the argument that infallible foreknowledge of T entails that you do not answer the telephone freely can be formulated as follows: Basic Argument for Theological Fatalism. (1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge] (2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past] (3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2] (4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”] (5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle] (6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5] (7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”] (8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7] (9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities] (10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9] This argument is formulated in a way that makes its logical form as perspicuous as possible, and there is a consensus that this argument or something close to it is va

Perhaps God simply does not determine the choices of free will agents and that He endowed them with that gift precisely to let THEM decide.

 

[Right Divider]

If you are going to reply to someone... perhaps you should say something.

 

[Shasta]

If you are going to reply to someone... perhaps you should say something.

Sorry, I had to leave my desk to attend to some business.

 

[Shasta]

Why? What do you think "sovereign" means?

Isn't it possible that the Holy Spirit or the Father revealed these things to Jesus? If so, then they can't be used to say He is omniscient without admitting that we are omniscient, too, since the Father and the Holy Spirit also reveal things to us, right?

How does the Son know what things He's not supposed to know? Doesn't He have to know those things He's not supposed to know in order to know He's not supposed to know them? I don't really see how this idea could work. Maybe the Father decides what He's not supposed to know, and then prevents the Son from knowing those things, but then the Father is mightier than the Son, so the Son is no longer omnipotent.

We existed from all eternity? I thought God was the only eternally existing being.

Do you think God will appreciate our wonder, love and praise, not to mention our basking, when He knew from all eternity all that we will think and say in eternity? In other words. If we are growing in our appreciation, can God enjoy our growing appreciation even though it is all old and recycled for Him?

To the Predeterminists "sovereign" is just a code word not for OMNIPOTENCE but for a proposed divine policy of HOW God has decided to use that power. With Luther and the Reformers it meant controlling every variable of creation including every thought and desire of men and angels. By contrast, Jesus limited Himself to only know what the Father SHOWED Him and to only do what the Father empowered Him to do.

 

[Derf]

To the Predeterminists "sovereign" is just a code word not for OMNIPOTENCE but for a proposed divine policy of HOW God has decided to use that power. With Luther and the Reformers it meant controlling every variable of creation including every thought and desire of men and angels. By contrast, Jesus limited Himself to only know what the Father SHOWED Him and to only do what the Father empowered Him to do.

"Sovereign" doesn't seem to have either an "omnipotence" meaning (your first option) or a "knowledge" meaning (your third option), as far as I can tell. I agree that the Reformers used it to mean meticulous control, but I don't see how it means that in any biblical usage (though it isn't a common biblical word, either).

I think the usage in English, including during the reformers times and not too long afterward, is just who determines what is supposed to happen (laws), and who decides the punishment for violating the laws. Like the kings of England were called "Sovereign", not because they controlled everything meticulously, but because they met the criteria I just gave.

What do you think?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Were you going to say something? Or was there something in particular about these two posts of mine that you wanted to comment on?

 

[Clete]

"Sovereign" doesn't seem to have either an "omnipotence" meaning (your first option) or a "knowledge" meaning (your third option), as far as I can tell. I agree that the Reformers used it to mean meticulous control, but I don't see how it means that in any biblical usage (though it isn't a common biblical word, either).

I think the usage in English, including during the reformers times and not too long afterward, is just who determines what is supposed to happen (laws), and who decides the punishment for violating the laws. Like the kings of England were called "Sovereign", not because they controlled everything meticulously, but because they met the criteria I just gave.

What do you think?

To state it clearly, the word "sovereign" means "supreme authority" or "highest authority".

From ChatGPT....

There are Hebrew and Greek words that convey the concept of sovereignty, even if the English word "sovereign" isn't directly used. These words emphasize God's ultimate authority, dominion, and rule over everything. Let’s explore the relevant terms in both the Old and New Testaments:​

Hebrew (Old Testament):​

​

אֲדֹנָי (Adonai) – Meaning "Lord" or "Master."​

Usage: It emphasizes God's authority and His rule over all creation. "Adonai" is often used when expressing God’s sovereignty, acknowledging His control and governance.​

Example: In Psalm 8:1, the psalmist declares:​

"O Lord, our Lord (Adonai), how majestic is your name in all the earth!" This reflects God’s sovereign rule over creation.​

​

מֶלֶךְ (Melek) – Meaning "King."​

Usage: This title is often used to describe God as King over Israel and the universe, signifying His sovereign reign.​

Example: In Psalm 10:16:​

"The Lord is King (Melek) forever and ever; the nations perish from his land."​

​

שַׁדַּי (Shaddai) – Commonly translated as "Almighty."​

Usage: This term highlights God's all-powerful nature, emphasizing His sovereign control.​

Example: In Genesis 17:1, God says to Abraham:​

"I am God Almighty (El Shaddai); walk before me and be blameless."​

​

Greek (New Testament):​

​

κύριος (Kyrios) – Meaning "Lord."​

Usage: This word expresses the authority of Jesus Christ and God, often used in contexts where divine sovereignty and rule are being affirmed.​

Example: In Philippians 2:9-11, the sovereignty of Jesus is declared:​

"Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name... that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Kyrios), to the glory of God the Father."​

​

δεσπότης (Despotes) – Meaning "Master" or "Sovereign Lord."​

Usage: This term is often used to highlight the absolute rule and authority of God, similar to a master over a servant.​

Example: In 2 Peter 2:1:​

"But false prophets also arose among the people... even denying the Sovereign Lord (Despotes) who bought them."​

​

βασιλεὺς (Basileus) – Meaning "King."​

Usage: This word is used to refer to God or Christ as the ultimate King, underscoring His sovereign rule over all.​

Example: In 1 Timothy 6:15:​

"...which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King (Basileus) of kings and Lord of lords."​

​

Conclusion:​

​

While the exact English term "sovereign" isn’t always used, the Hebrew and Greek words such as Adonai, Melek, Shaddai, Kyrios, Despotes, and Basileus convey the meaning of sovereignty and are used throughout the Bible to express God’s ultimate authority and rule.​

​

Notice that there is no implication of "absolute control" or any other similar concept. The word(s) simply refer to the highest possible position of authority in whatever context it's being used. The "absolute control" or "meticulous control" version of "sovereignty" is an Augustinian theological contrivance. It is only one of a great many theological terms that Augustinians and Calvinists have redefined to suit their doctrine. A practice, by the way, that serves to make it all but impossible to debate any issue from within their ranks. If you question their doctrine about predestination, they'll accuse of you denying God's sovereignty. And, of course, no one wants to be accused of doing that! It's the theological equivalent of what the Democrats are doing when they accuse a conservative of being a racist.

 

[Lon]

Men know all things. 1 John 2:20

:nono: Not what it says.

Current knowledge, not future knowledge.

If you are the SOURCE of everything, can ANYTHING come outside of your being? Hint: It is why sin is called a privation. It is a messing up of what ALREADY exists.

"Declaring the end from the beginning" is not "knowing everything that will happen in the future."

It is the insurance of. Why is the ONLY reason you are against this set as a defense of Open Theism? Is Open Theism WORTHY of accolades if the premises fall short? Why not jettison an cherished idea in favor of what must be true contra wise (and why does this question upset you so? It shouldn't, not at all, our allegiance is to God, not man's ideas no matter how good they may appear)? I know it goes both ways, but I don't get upset about it simply because my desire it virtue/truth, no matter how bad it might hurt. It IS my agenda.

Again, present knowledge. "God can know our thoughts before we put them into words," not "God knows our thoughts before we think them."

Open Theism "A God who Risks." Unless He doesn't need to. Love nor relationship require me to meet God on His level of independence. In fact, every scripture points us back to subservience. Why? Because it isn't slavery, it is what we were MADE TO DO.

Present knowledge. Not future.

Same question as above: WHAT, can come outside of the Creator of EVERYTHING? Nadda, right? Why not? Why is an Open Paradigm by 'proposition' the hill to die on? Why is it not assailable? It seems too great of a loss for truth to me. I could care less about my 'feelings' involved in relationship. I just want to 'be like Him when I see Him face to face.' Every sense of meeting God is about 'our' need and 'our' lostness, not God's need to 'risk.' It just doesn't ring true/falls flat with the rest of us. God did meet us on our level, does not leave us there. That would be 'bad news' not gospel.

Present knowledge, not future.



Rather, "omniscience" is being read into the text.

"Lord you know all things..." "...Nothing is hidden (nothing)..."

No, it doesn't.

"And they prayed and said, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all..."

What about 'without me you cannot do anything?' "By Him all things consist/exist?" "IN Him we live and move and have our being?" "It is God IN you who moves and wills?" All good scriptures to ponder. Here is a hard question: What if Open Theism is totally completely wrong on this? What will it do to your theology? Theology has been assailed a very long time. It stands or falls on its appropriate good ideas and heterodoxy steps aside and heresy falls on its biblical shores. Try a VERY honest thread where Open Theism and Theism proper are looked at without the emotional attachments. I'm a traditional theist because at this venture, nothing has easily assailed biblical notions of God being Creator, Author, and Source of all creation.

 

[Derf]

If you are the SOURCE of everything, can ANYTHING come outside of your being?

I think you are telling us something God can't do, is that correct? Are you now saying that God can't create a world where it is possible to do something outside of His being? (I'm not sure what you mean there, so if there's a word missing, please correct your quote for me.) Which, I think, is saying that God is not omnipotent.

Hint: It is why sin is called a privation. It is a messing up of what ALREADY exists.

But building a house is neither messing up what already exists, nor is the house God's creation.

Naming a new contraption you've designed and built is three new things that are not privations.
1. The design
2. The completed contraption
3. The name of the contraption.

And if God built a contraption, and man calls it, say, "the solar system", two of the three things are from God, and the third (the name) is from man.

Does the bible support this idea? It does. God created numerous contraptions called "beasts of the field", and Adam named them. The names are Adam's, though the designs and completed contraptions are God's.

(I'll let @JudgeRightly answer the rest.)

 

[Right Divider]

I think you are telling us something God can't do, is that correct?

Yes

Tit 1:2 (KJV) In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;​

 

[Derf]

Yes

Tit 1:2 (KJV) In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;​

I've talked to @Lon about that one before, but he includes lying as privation, or lack of good, if I understand him correctly. I'm not sure how he justifies that as "not in His being" any more than other things one might do. I.e., I think if whatever is in His being does sinful acts, then those sinful acts are just as much attributable to God, using Lon's logic. But even giving him that concept that privations are not attributable to God, there are other things Being done that are specifically attributed to men and not to God.

God gave us the ability to create. Not from nothing (or at least we don't know how yet), but new things from his raw materials.

 

[Lon]

I've talked to @Lon about that one before, but he includes lying as privation, or lack of good, if I understand him correctly. I'm not sure how he justifies that as "not in His being" any more than other things one might do. I.e., I think if whatever is in His being does sinful acts, then those sinful acts are just as much attributable to God, using Lon's logic. But even giving him that concept that privations are not attributable to God, there are other things Being done that are specifically attributed to men and not to God.

A privation is the 'lack' thereof. It is not an invention, but a warping of what already exists. Sin then, in all nuances, is the lack of Godliness, not an entity that exists alongside God for all eternity. Am I following your logic: It seems you are saying if God makes knives (as an example to follow what your are intimating if I get this right), then it is His doing that men kill one another with them? If God had made knives, there was never the purpose 'to kill another' in original design. That is the privation: like using a wrench as a hammer.

God gave us the ability to create. Not from nothing (or at least we don't know how yet), but new things from his raw materials.

Lego makes Legos. Is there something that can be made from them that someone at Lego is unaware of? Surely not. Legos can be used to make pretty much anything imagination, time, and ability allows. Solomon said truly, 'there is nothing new under the sun.' Was he right or incorrect? I don't see Solomon's writings the way a lot of others' do. They are inspired works that ring true.

 

[Derf]

A privation is the 'lack' thereof. It is not an invention, but a warping of what already exists.

Yes, just like building a bridge is a warping of what exists. It is designed to fulfill a purpose using materials God made available. Nuclear bombs are a warping of what exists, designed to fulfill a purpose using materials God made available.

Sin then, in all nuances, is the lack of Godliness, not an entity that exists alongside God for all eternity.

I don't think Tacoma Narrows Bridge was an entity that existed alongside God for all eternity.

Am I following your logic: It seems you are saying if God makes knives (as an example to follow what your are intimating if I get this right), then it is His doing that men kill one another with them? If God had made knives, there was never the purpose 'to kill another' in original design. That is the privation: like using a wrench as a hammer.

Lego makes Legos. Is there something that can be made from them that someone at Lego is unaware of? Surely not. Legos can be used to make pretty much anything imagination, time, and ability allows. Solomon said truly, 'there is nothing new under the sun.' Was he right or incorrect? I don't see Solomon's writings the way a lot of others' do. They are inspired works that ring true.

Are you serious that Legos' creator must have known every creation anyone would ever make? How can you even suggest that?

 

[Lon]

I think you are telling us something God can't do, is that correct? Are you now saying that God can't create a world where it is possible to do something outside of His being? (I'm not sure what you mean there, so if there's a word missing, please correct your quote for me.) Which, I think, is saying that God is not omnipotent.

Yet what does scripture say? Jeremiah 32:17

But building a house is neither messing up what already exists, nor is the house God's creation.

1) Nothing new under the sun (scripture) and 2) Colossians 1:16 3) 1 Corinthians 4:7

- Point/counter-point to all of discussion between Openists and the rest of theology: Does God meet us where we are, with us staying where we are? Or does all of theology call us to deny self and become like Him?

For the Openist: Why? Why do we need to become 'like' Him if He is transitioning? What would be the point? What would be the perfection? How can Jesus tell us 'be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect?' How would it be possible if God doesn't know, isn't Who He is going to be, tomorrow? The Open paradigms force an introspection of God as God and man as man and must ultimately abandon whatever usurps Him as Holy and perfect. Perfection cannot (cannot) change else it becomes "not perfect" a "privation of perfection." James 3:2 Romans 12:2

"He must increase, and I must decrease." 1 John 3:2 says when we see Him, we will be like Him. Our Lord Jesus Christ said we must deny ourselves. The Point: How can we be 'like' someone who isn't already arrived in perfection? Did that idea really come from Greeks? (sure, but it is from Jesus and the Father first). All of Open Theism discussion with the rest of Christianity will rest on 1) what we believe about sense of self vs what we are called to be and 2) whether that means I conform or He 'relationally' meets me where I am at because 'that is what relationship does.' Relationship: A interaction, Creator with creature-fallen in a desperate need to become Holy as He is Holy.

Naming a new contraption you've designed and built is three new things that are not privations.
1. The design
2. The completed contraption
3. The name of the contraption.

A Lego by any other name... Was Solomon wrong? "Something new" under the sun? It is an Open mantra, but I believe Solomon is included as scripture because he was right and it necessitates Open Theism is incorrect i.e. "God can write a new song!" If we throw out Solomon, which part of the Bible is next? Do we do that to scriptures or do we conform to them? I don't believe Solomon allows for man, certainly, to write a 'new' song to God. Or do you believe Solomon was quipping a term not quite universal? "There is nothing new under the sun."

And if God built a contraption, and man calls it, say, "the solar system", two of the three things are from God, and the third (the name) is from man.

If we are to 'become one' as He and the Son are one, where does 'I/me' come into play? Isn't this an elevation of self? Scripture is replete with an idea of denying self and following. Where does ego/id play into that concept? Does it?

Does the bible support this idea? It does. God created numerous contraptions called "beasts of the field", and Adam named them. The names are Adam's, though the designs and completed contraptions are God's.

Not following

 

[Lon]

Yes, just like building a bridge is a warping of what exists. It is designed to fulfill a purpose using materials God made available. Nuclear bombs are a warping of what exists, designed to fulfill a purpose using materials God made available.

I don't think Tacoma Narrows Bridge was an entity that existed alongside God for all eternity.

Or any bridge for that matter? Legos, simplistically, all pre-exist for anything anything anything you'd create with them. It is about exponentials here. God created building blocks (Legos) called atoms.

Are you serious that Legos' creator must have known every creation anyone would ever make? How can you even suggest that?

Okay, you have me entertained for a moment. Name any one thing you'd 'create' with Legos you'd think would surprise me. A legos house? They kind of have that (not Legos, but Lego-like)

. A space ship? (exists). What? What amazing thing 'new under the sun' do you think is going to catch me by surprise? Honestly, nothing you come up with is going to be "Oh! I never thought of that!" It just isn't going to be true. A Lego electric guitar? I don't even think my 'creative' ideas are a shock or out of what you may or may not already have thought of. I truly believe nothing new under the sun.

 

[Idolater]

Or any bridge for that matter? Legos, simplistically, all pre-exist for anything anything anything you'd create with them. It is about exponentials here. God created building blocks (Legos) called atoms.

We know how atoms work. They are 100% determinist until the Planck scale, and then it's statistical, like rolling dice or flipping coins. Meaning we can't discern cause-and-effect anymore, not saying there's not cause-and-effect, just saying that we ...

Actually hold on. We do now know that there's not cause-and-effect. We've ruled out cause-and-effect. It means that at the Planck scale, it is metaphysically impossible for us to detect God's direct intervention in the World at the Planck scale, it means God's metaphysically undetectable. This is all assuming that where we look and only see eternal murk (the Planck scale positively rules out the metaphysical reality of local and non-local, and non-hidden and hidden variables that would determine (cause) the outcome observed at the Planck scale, per the most modern Bell's tests), God could be operating as obviously directly as possible, but we would never know it.

Perhaps with A.I. now we will be able to see God in the Planck scale morass somehow, in spite of the most modern Bell's tests. Perhaps A.I. can disprove the Bell's tests results somehow, and show that there indeed is cause-and-effect, and it is most certainly a non-artificial intelligence doing it; obviously (A.I. must somehow help us understand the Planck scale better, this part is hypothetical), at the Planck scale. Just not obvious to us rn, because we haven't programmed Ruby or Java or PHP or C or whatever other software does A.I., the right question to predict the answer to.

Okay, you have me entertained for a moment. Name any one thing you'd 'create' with Legos you'd think would surprise me. A legos house? They kind of have that (not Legos, but Lego-like)

There are a lot of squirrels where we live. We see dead ones all the time on the street. They try to cross the street and get hit by a car. They can't change that they're going to try to cross the street, and they can't change how to try to cross the street either, and it's the latter which distinguishes us from the animals, because we, if we were squirrels, could choose to change the way we tried to cross the street.

We'd have way fewer smashed cadavers. The people don't even clean us up off the road all that quickly, so we have to see our brother or sister squirrel's pulverized poor little body there, for days sometimes. After the carrion birds pick it apart, like @john w used to pick apart his prey, right here on TOL.

Anyway, squirrels don't have free will like us. We can choose how we try something, even if we have no control over whether we try to cross the street or not, we have complete control over HOW we try to cross the street, or whatever else we try to do.

. A space ship? (exists). What? What amazing thing 'new under the sun' do you think is going to catch me by surprise? Honestly, nothing you come up with is going to be "Oh! I never thought of that!" It just isn't going to be true. A Lego electric guitar? I don't even think my 'creative' ideas are a shock or out of what you may or may not already have thought of. I truly believe nothing new under the sun.

Have you seen the movie The Game? How the company was able to deploy a plan which was undetectably running things, and which was able to, using the Protagonist's own free choices, which were foreknown, lead the Protagonist to dramatically attempt suicide? But then already have a giant air mattress which protected him from his own self-destructive choice? Because the plan wasn't an evil plan? But was a plan for the good of the Protagonist? (iow cf. love is willing the good of another.)

The premise was far-fetched, but the logic wasn't. It has high initial plausibility, and I've never even heard of a proposed available defeater for the logic pattern expressed in the premise of The Game. It's directly intuitive that such a plan which was enacted by the company in the movie, could metaphysically be enacted by God.

I mean it's trivial. It can't even possibly be false, that God couldn't do what the company did in the movie The Game, with Sean Penn and Michael Douglas. If He wanted to.

We can't rule out that He's doing that. We just proved that we can't rule it out, with the most modern Bell's tests. And the thing about the squirrels is that I've actually seen some right in the middle of them crossing the street, and they have some choices to make. They can just run across. They can nonchalantly bound. They can walk. They can go halfway and stop. They can start nonchalantly and then suddenly run. They can go forward, then reverse direction. They can go back to the side of the street they came from. There's endless choices that they have to make, and clearly, many of them are just not up to having that choice. I mean that power, to choose their own life and death.

Like the Protagonist in The Game, you might make a choice which leads to death. But like the company in the movie, maybe God has a plan to catch you in a giant inflatable mattress, placed precisely already where it needs to be, just to save you. It wouldn't have saved anybody else, just the Protagonist. It was there just for the Protagonist, placed just so.

We can't prove that's not happening, not unless A.I. can somehow do it one day.

iow I believe in divine providence.