I'm not talking about that text other than to say it absolutely 'doesn't' limit that knowledge,
The passage limits the scope of "all things" to what is defined in context.
To try to argue that it means anything more than that is to go beyond what the text says.
just gives 'hearts' as what else He knows all things about.
Thank you for conceding the entire discussion, and for admitting
You do too, the point of departure is how far we understand that knowledge.
Let's stick to what Scripture says. Not what we want it to say. Or what other people say about it...
See
Maimonides, a Jewish commentator on the Torah. Jews then and today believe God is omni.
I couldn't care less what some man has to say about the scriptures.
I care about what scripture says, and plainly.
"Omni"competent Means all.
Omnicompetent just means "able to handle any situation."
That's it.
It leads to other Omnis because to be Omni anything, means you are Omni everything, logically.
No, it doesn't, Lon.
As I stated above, it simply means "able to handle any situation."
It does not necessitate having all power, or having all knowledge, or being everywhere at once.
As I stated in my previous post, which you completely ignored, God can play chess against someone and win without knowing His opponent's thoughts, and additionally, He can do so without needing all power, and without needing to be everywhere at once.
It is why Jews then and today believe He is Omni.
And they are wrong for believing it.
To be Omnicompetent, you have to be omniscient.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Had you not ignored what I said above about God playing chess, you would have realized that.
Example: Open Theists compare God to a chess player where in their definition, God knows every move possible, thus is risking nothing in any game.
No, that's YOUR position. Or at the very least, it's not ours.
OUR position (as I clearly stated previously) is that God DOES NOT (nor needs to) know every move possible, let alone that He does not know (or need to know) His opponent's every thought, in order to win the match. He is capable of winning simply through strategy alone.
Nope just saying we logically know in the first that the scope is limited to whatever man can know about Salvation. We don't automatically assume that is all these men knew about. It isn't limited except we don't believe and rather know men are not omniscient. While God knowing hearts is given in scope to hearts, logically we know implicitly this is not all God knows.
There is very little that is logical in this paragraph of yours.
First of all, you've moved the goalposts. The point of contention I'm making is that NEITHER VERSE supports the idea of omniscience. Neither men nor God know literally everything. My point all along has been to show you that 1 John 3:20 DOES NOT support the claim of God being omniscient, because just like in 1 John 2:20, the context of the verse doesn't allow for it.
Second, your argument is a false dilemma, implying that since God's knowledge isn't limited to men's hearts, it must be omniscient, ignoring the middle ground where God has a vast amount of knowledge exceeding human understanding, but doesn't know literally everything.
I didn't say it did, but rather the passage doesn't limit God's knowledge to simply/only 'knowing men's hearts.' It is that simple.
No one has said that God's knowledge is limited only to knowing men's hearts.
This is the "moving the goalposts" I was talking about.
I specifically, and repeatedly, said that 1 John 3:20 limits the "PAS" within the verse to "knowing men's hearts."
Again, to make it explicitly clear:
WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF 1 JOHN 3:20, the phrase "[God] knows all things" is SPECIFICALLY referring to "knowing men's hearts."
To then argue that it means "God is omniscient/knows literally everything" is to go beyond the text, and to read omniscience into the verse, eisegesis.
I didn't. You aren't arguing any context of our disagreement on point.
That is the necessary implication of saying that 1 John 3:20 supports the idea that God is omniscient.
Without begging the question that God is omniscient, there is no reason to think the John was saying that God is omniscient in that verse.
When you start with the idea that God is omniscient, then the only way to support the idea that John was saying that God is omniscient is to assert that John suddenly went off on a tangent, because that is the only possible way that what John said could mean "God is omniscient."
Not in contention, again rather the extrapolation that such somehow 'limits' God's knowledge.
Supra, moving the goalposts, hasty generalization.
Agree. My point rather: God knows 'everything' about men's hearts from the passage but does not cause limitation to come to mind.
Supra, hasty generalization.
Just because God isn't limited by this verse doesn't mean there are no limits to His knowledge. Those limits might be far beyond what we can comprehend, but it's a leap to conclude that God knows everything when 1 John 3:20 only says that God knows "all things" that pertain to men's hearts, within the context of the verse. (PLEASE NOTE: I DID NOT SAY "that God ONLY knows 'all things' that pertain to men's hearts" HERE!!!)
You don't even think those men's knowledge of 'everything' was limited to only what they knew about salvation.
Supra, moving the goalposts.
Psalm 147:5
Great is our Lord and abundant in strength;
His understanding is infinite.
"Abundant" in strength.
"Infinite" understanding.
Not "Omnipotent."
Not "Omniscient."
He is really strong.
He is very wise.
It doesn't say He has all power, nor does it say He has all knowledge.
The Jews believed this long before Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine.
This is brief from a Jewish website but several of the Jewish 'foundations' are declare the omnis of God as absolute and foundational to Jewish faith.
They can declare it all they want, doesn't make it true, and even on that page, while I recognize they weren't making a full argument, none of the few verses they gave support the claim.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
blog.israelbiblicalstudies.com
