On the omniscience of God

[VladtheDestroyer]

This is not an attack. I am certain that the people who are most involved with this forum have likely been put up to sacrifice more and have dedicated themselves more and have a better understanding of most things than I have. Actually I am not only certain of this, I know that it this a fact.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No one has the right to charge people to teach them God's word.

You seem to be missing the thrust of my argument:

People do not have the right to any service that someone else provides. That's theft.

The only exception is if they offer that service for free. And even then, you still don't have a right to it.

As you said, if someone doesn't want to pay someone to have them teach them the Bible, they don't have to take such a class.

But if someone is offering such a class, and they charge you for their time teaching it, you don't have the right to refuse to pay for their provided service. You have the option of not using their service, of course. But should you decide to use it, you are obligated to pay for it if they require payment for their services.

In a nutshell: you don't have the right to their life.

Bob Enyart never "charged" people for any of his material! He always made it clear that if you didn't have the money, he would just send it to you for what ever you could give.

Bob Enyart Live

science, philosophy, theology, morality, criminal justice, the Bible, apologetics

store.kgov.com

You cannot find most of the products available there for free elsewhere.

And the latter still isn't "for free."

And he did not want to build an institution! He was against that! He taught that institutions will become increasingly wicked over time!

He made the decision that his ministry would be dissolved, dismantled, after three generations as a result. A wise decision, if sad.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

The only exception is if they offer that service for free. And even then, you still don't have a right to it.

That's a good point. But even though I might be wrong about some of the things I am saying, there is still something that frustrates me about your last post. Even if I cannot explain why.

 

[JudgeRightly]

your last post

#1079?

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

#1079?

Yes

To part of me it seems you are playing too much by "their" rules and not considering the power of God.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

I think institutions take power away from Christianity. In the west we build Christian institutions to teach people to fight against other western Christian institutions. While Christians are slaughtered elsewhere in the world.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

While we were busy trying to figure out how many thousands of dollars someone should pay to study the Bible, this baby was getting whacked in the head with a machette by people who came to slaughter Christians in Nigeria. This was on Christmas of last year. Yes. Christmas.

 

[Clete]

This is such a great point that others are also beginning to raise. Why are Christian colleges charging people $40,000 to study the Bible when they can study it themselves for free at home?

Being self taught usually doesn't hold a candle to getting a good education, regardless of the field of study. Theology is no exception. The trick, however, is finding a school that is teaching good theology.

We don't need institutions.

I disagree. There is great value in standing on the shoulders of giants. There is great value in studying under talented teachers who have spent the time to not only learn the material in depth but have spent a great deal of time and effort in figuring out a systematic method of both understanding God's word but also of teaching it. Good doctrine is built precept upon precept and it's a great help if you find yourself learning from people who have already gone through the process of figuring out which precepts to start with and in what order they are best presented and learned.

We are doing it all wrong. There are over 2 billion people in this world who claim Jesus as their savior. We need a network. Paul didn't build an institution. He built a network. That's why he was traveling all the time. It's time to end all institutions and build this network again.

What are schools if not major nodes in a network? People don't generally choose a seminary to attend at random. They choose them based on whatever flavor of Christianity is taught at that school. The schools are just outgrowths of churches of various denominations, right? Some Presbyterian evangelists comes to Princeton, New Jersey and plants a church which grows and grows and a few dozen years later the Presbyterian Church founds Princeton Theological Seminary.

So which of the institutions do you get rid of? The denomination, the seminary which they founded, the local church with thousands of members that wouldn't exist if not for the denomination, the church on the corner with three hundred members that wouldn't exist without first having been the tiny house church with a dozen members that was start by the one Calvinist guy that came across the pond from Germany after the revolutionary war ended?

The point there being that growing into large institutions is the nature of such networks.

 

[Clete]

God is more powerful than the government.

No one has the right to charge people to teach them God's word. God's word is strong enough so that those who teach it will be sustained. The Holy Spirit will move people to sustain it. Paul and the early Christians were not sustained by miracles. They were sustained by the charity inspired by teaching God's word. Nothing has changed since then.

How do you think the people who teach the Bible in places like China or countries in Africa are sustained? Where Christians can be slaughtered and imprisoned by default. If anything, we should be paying $40,000 to learn the Bible from them. Not from people who are guaranteed to live comfortably in their modern homes in Arizona for the rest of their lives. Bob Enyart never "charged" people for any of his material! He always made it clear that if you didn't have the money, he would just send it to you for what ever you could give. He wasn't a great business man! He was a great teacher of the Bible! And he did not want to build an institution! He was against that! He taught that institutions will become increasingly wicked over time!

Most international missionaries have attended a seminary and are financed by churches that believe they are qualified to be missionaries because they attended that seminary - for good reason.

 

[Right Divider]

Being self taught usually doesn't hold a candle to getting a good education, regardless of the field of study. Theology is no exception. The trick, however, is finding a school that is teaching good theology.

And there lies the problem...

Most of the schools of Theology teach Churchianity instead of Biblical Christianity.

 

[Lon]

Lon, you're seriously overthinking this! I'm glad you think it was a good question, but you're overthinking it! It's an excellent point that I didn't even think of, that even further blows your position out of the water, but it wasn't what I was getting at.

When I asked you, "Does your wife know that you will be at work tomorrow," you instantly understood exactly what I meant! Your answer should have been a resounding YES, despite your wife being a fallible human being like everyone else.

To the best of her ability, she knows that you will go to work tomorrow! She doesn't need to have omniscience to know that. She can make a reasonable assumption and know for a fact that, based on the current circumstances, you will, in fact, go to work tomorrow.

It isn't that she 'needs' omniscience to know something. You are just talking about assumptions, educated extrapolation etc. I'm not saying God 'needs' omniscience to know Abraham's heart. I'm rather saying it is 'why' He knows (incidental to omniscience). If He knows the # of hairs on my head, right after a shower (or before), for me, 'omnipresent' and something linked near enough to omniscience holds water.

But somehow, when the Bible records God as saying, "Now I know that you fear God," all of a sudden it must mean something different, why? Because God must be omniscient! He must have all knowledge about everything and everyone in all places all at once!

True.

He can't know now (from that moment onwards), based on the current set of circumstances, that Abraham fears God?

As we've said, the knife never plunged. As you've said, Abraham was wrestling. It was at this point God did know, but how did He know? Was it 'now?' I'm not sure that is accurate. If Abraham just went all in, God knew the conflict was over, that He was going to love God and do what He was called to do. That, however, isn't God's 'now' but Abraham's. I was watching a video of a sick infant. In the head of the child every time the child learned something, synaptic nerves connected. It was fascinating. In Abraham's brain, most connectors were in place. There was one that had to be connected for Abraham to sacrifice his son. At the moment of connection, God was aware of it, the need for the obedience. It could be that 'now' was the moment of connection, but that Hebrew can mean 'Upon this I know.' It has a 'now' sense to it, but God directs our paths and interacts in a way that connections are both made and unmade in our brains when He relates to us and molds us into His image. Obviously Abraham feared God prior. This was one more item in a series of faithfulness on Abraham's part. "Would you even sacrifice your son?" Because I believe God knows what we will do, before we do it, 'now' would be rather a comment on Abraham's commitment and neurology such that it isn't God 'knowing now' but that the point of going back was 'now gone.' I realize, for the Open Theist, these answers aren't direct for them (a good list of omniscient grounded scriptures in there). Perhaps the best that can happen is a realization of the other's whole thinking behind why they read scriptures a certain way.

He had to know it beforehand, and "Now I know" must not mean exactly what it says?

Yes. True. "Now we both know something" might make better sense etc. "Now" isn't the only English word that Attah is translated into. "Wherefore, henceforth, etc." A few other items: "Angel of the Lord." If God had given this job as His own representation, then the angel wouldn't have had omniscience. Etc. For me, the easiest fix is simply to relook at the translation.

Why couldn't God know that Abraham would be going to sacrifice his only son Isaac in the same way your wife can know that you will be at work tomorrow, while simultaneously not know that Abraham feared God? Why is that not possible? Why must God know it beforehand, when it makes the phrase "Now I know" superfluous?

Even for Open Theism on point? In essence, would we be on the same page?

Why is it problematic?

Abraham had followed God's commands before, starting in Genesis 12, and continuing up for however many years until chapter 22, and beyond.

But not one of the things God asked him to do even compares to offering up one's only begotten son on an altar!

Agree

God could say that Abraham honored God, but He couldn't say that Abraham honored God to the point of even offering up his only son, as God was planning to do!

And as I mentioned previously, it's likely even Abraham wasn't sure about it! How could God know something about Abraham capability that Abraham himself wasn't even sure of‽

I concur.

If the only way you can answer that is that "God is omniscient," then you have completely missed the point of the entire Bible up to that point, and probably beyond!

It depends on how much you are on page with the 'now' question. I think a connected synapse can answer the Open question, that at that specific point God [or the Angel of God representing Him], saw the connection and intent. Barring that, 'now' couldn't even have been quite known. Even an Open Theist would.

The answer is that He could not, and you even agreed with me that God cannot know someone's thought if that thought never exists!

Might have to go a bit of distance on it. For instance, an Arminian will assert that God knows all possible outcomes (possible nerve connections) ahead of time. For me, Arminian thought has to qualify omniscience and are not quite on page with others who believe God is completely omniscient, for example. I'm not sure I went so far as to say God cannot know something even if we never do it. It seems to me that God does know what 'didn't happen' but such presents problems for thinking what God can and cannot know, especially when we are qualifying or trying to qualify 'what' that entails.

Could you imagine God asking you to take a three day journey where once you arrive at your destination, you are commanded to offer up your child as a burnt offering? Could you imagine what must have been going through Abraham's mind the entire trip? How it would have pained him to answer his son's question, "Where is the lamb for a burnt offering," knowing that in a few moments, he would have to tie up his son, and offer him up as the very burnt offering?

I'd be questioning myself the ENTIRE WAY! Could I follow through with God's command? Do I really trust God, who promised to make me the father of many nations, to work out how He will do so after commanding me to kill my only son?

And at some point, putting his faith in God that He'll work it out somehow, and reaching out to take the knife to kill his son‽

Agree.

I don't think anyone could know whether they would be able to have that sort of trust in God until they were actually put in that situation!

It is foreign. God never asked this of anybody else other than Himself before or since. That alone makes it a difficult passage as we try to make sense of it.

Which is entirely the point!

Had Abraham failed and said, "I can't do it, God, I can't offer up my son to you," the rest of Abraham's life would likely have been a lot different! But the fact remains that God would have known, for sure, at the very moment Abraham made up his mind either way, "Now I know. Here in the thicket is the ram for you to use as the burnt offering in place of your son."

I think we agree here.

None of this requires omniscience. It simply requires God having a ram caught in a thicket, and for God to command someone who has at least so far been loyal to Him to go and do something, and to watch him do it.

God is LIVING, He is capable of responding to the actions of His creation.

I think either way, omniscient or not, which is why it isn't a huge hanging issue between us. Rather the thread is asking for a revisit on omniscience. I'm attached to a lot of the texts given in the link above that seem to uphold omniscience. Would appreciate your thoughts on it if time allows and is warranted for this thread.

Presentism is the answer.

The future does not exist.

Presentism also carries the idea that Revelation 'is happening' now. It also doesn't hold that anything God says about the future is 'true' per say. I'm sure you are aware.

The past does not exist anymore.

Only the present exists. God cannot know the future because it does not exist.

Prophecy?

God can make really good predictions, far better than any man ever could, based on the current circumstances, but because circumstances can and do change, God's predictions do not always come to pass.

I've heard this, but don't agree. Not sure it needs another long discussion. I'm pretty sure you are aware with the contention. A quick 'presentism' search brings up all the issues fairly quickly.

In the case of Genesis 22, God predicted with a relatively high degree of certainty that 1) Abraham would journey three days to Mount Moriah, 2) Abraham would ascend the mountain with his son Isaac, and 3) that Abraham would build an altar for a burnt offering. None of these things God knew because He somewhow knew the future, but because He knew ABRAHAM! He had formed a relationship with Abraham over the past 40-odd years! Do you think He got to know Abraham at least a little bit, to know what he is like and how he will respond to things?

Yes, which still brings up problems with 'now' in light of such.

Because the future doesn't exist!

God cannot know what does not exist!

He is what exists. "Without Him nothing exists that exists?"

There does not exist a married bachelor, or a triangle with four sides. The boogie man does not exist, therefore God cannot know how many hairs are on his head.

It would be whatever He says, no? Things come into existence by His word.

What keeps what from happening? You lost me...

Are you talking about what keeps God from knowing what exactly will happen in the future? It's because it hasn't happened yet! God can't know something that hasn't happened!



What is there to reconcile? Why do you assume they are opposite? They're two sides of the same coin, so to speak.

God cannot know something that doesn't exist.

But the moment a thought is had, God can know it.

That's where the question comes in. Why can't God know whether Abraham will obey or not? What 'keeps' it from happening? Does God purposefully limit Himself so He cannot know? My question is simply 'why not?' Because I would have no freewill? What really 'keeps' God from knowing anything? If He is infinite, and His thoughts are infinite, isn't 'infinite' already involved in every thing we'd ask?

And at the point it happens, God can say "Now I know" that thought, because that thought has occurred. And if it's a thought that someone is going to put into speech, as Scripture says, God knows it before it's on their tongue (Psalm 139:4).

True. Plunging a knife?

I'm not sure if you're trying to compare your angst to Abraham's struggle, but I sure hope not. Either way...

No, was just saying I believe God knew everything with me as well.

The difference is that you didn't have the conviction to follow through, no matter how painful (in your case, thankfully).

Conviction is what God was looking for. "Now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."

Abraham had the conviction to follow through. At the point of conviction in his heart, God stopped him.



Knowing what you are currently going through is present knowledge, Lon.

Yes, but it is whole knowledge.

Not future knowledge.

I read John interacting with individuals 'in the future' in Revelation, remember?

Being able to predict what you will do is not the same as knowing what you will do, and He cannot know what you will do until you actually commit to doing it and then do it!

I'd have to 'be' Open Theist to even say 'okay' here. There are all kinds of priori. I'm going to stop here and come back to tackle your link indepth. My holidays have me a bit swamped but I'll get back to this. In Him -Lon

 

[JudgeRightly]

It isn't that she 'needs' omniscience to know something.

She does according to your view of what knowledge is!

You are just talking about assumptions, educated extrapolation etc.

The same kind of knowledge that God has about things yet future.

The only difference is that He has access to FAR more information than any human ever could in order to make such predictions, extrapolations, etc.

I'm not saying God 'needs' omniscience to know Abraham's heart. I'm rather saying it is 'why' He knows (incidental to omniscience).

That's called "begging the question."

It's a fallacy for a reason.

There is no need for God to be omniscient for Him to be able to know Abraham's heart, because other things can account for the knowledge God would have about Abraham.

If He knows the # of hairs on my head, right after a shower (or before), for me, 'omnipresent' and something linked near enough to omniscience holds water.

Omniscience removes God's ability to count.

I blame "immutability" and "timelessness" for this.

True.

WRONG!

I was mocking you because of how ridiculous your position is, Lon!

And you completely missed it, because you're too focused!

STEP BACK.

GET THE BIG PICTURE!

Read what I said again!

I was not agreeing with you!

I was showing how irrational your position was, because it DOES NOT FOLLOW!

There is LITERALLY ZERO reason to think that the knowledge your wife has of you going to work tomorrow is any different than the knowledge God has of the future. NONE!

ONLY ACCORDING TO YOUR VIEW MUST IT BE DIFFERENT!

As we've said, the knife never plunged.

The knife was never raised to begin with!

As you've said, Abraham was wrestling. It was at this point God did know, but how did He know? Was it 'now?' I'm not sure that is accurate. If Abraham just went all in, God knew the conflict was over, that He was going to love God and do what He was called to do. That, however, isn't God's 'now' but Abraham's.

No, that doesn't work, for two reasons:

One is that it begs the question that God's "now" is different than our "now," when there is no reason to believe it is.

Two:

I read it.



That's nice, but completely irrelevant. A casual Bible reading is enough to glean the meaning from the Bible.

You don't need to be a studied professor of Hebrew or Greek to know what the Bible says at face value.

It's easy enough for a child to understand.



I'm not sure what you were trying to prove here.

None of this goes against anything I said.

The point was that God, prior to Abraham reaching out and grabbing the knife, did not know whether Abraham would not withhold his only son, and that, "henceforth," "this time forth," "whereas" Abraham had not, and "now" he did pick it up, NOW God knows.

Thanks for proving my position and falsifying yours.

The very definitions which you provided do not comport with the idea that God knew "now" earlier (which is a contradiction, by the way, and contradictions mean that something is false).

---

I was watching a video of a sick infant. In the head of the child every time the child learned something, synaptic nerves connected. It was fascinating. In Abraham's brain, most connectors were in place. There was one that had to be connected for Abraham to sacrifice his son. At the moment of connection, God was aware of it, the need for the obedience. It could be that 'now' was the moment of connection, but that Hebrew can mean 'Upon this I know.'

But that's not what "ki attah yadati" means.

It has a 'now' sense to it, but God directs our paths and interacts in a way that connections are both made and unmade in our brains when He relates to us and molds us into His image.

Again, you're overthinking this!

What does scripture say?

Then they came to the place of which God had told him. And Abraham built an altar there and placed the wood in order; and he bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, upon the wood. And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the Angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!”So he said, “Here I am.” And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 22:9-12 - New King James Version

Then they came to the place of which God had told him. And Abraham built an altar there and placed the wood in order; and he bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, upon the wood. And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the Angel of the Lord called to...

www.biblegateway.com

Does the passage give any indication, at face value, for what you're trying to say?

NO!

It simply says:

1) Abraham and Isaac arrived at the place of which God had told him.
2) Abraham built an altar, bound his son, and put him on it.
3) Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.
4) God stopped him, and said "Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."

Obviously Abraham feared God prior.

There is no "prior" for God, according to your view!

In fact, God cannot know what time it currently is, if your position is true!

Which means that for God to say "now I know" makes even less sense!

But "NOOOOOOOOO Let's just stick with my beliefs and assume that "Now I know" doesn't mean exactly what it says, and that somehow God is omniscient!"

That's you right now!

This was one more item in a series of faithfulness on Abraham's part. "Would you even sacrifice your son?"

There cannot be a series if God is outside of time.

That's YOUR view, not mine.

Because I believe God knows what we will do, before we do it,

I reject your opinion, because Scripture does not teach this.

It teaches that God predicts people's actions, and then later they change, and falsify whatever prophecy God had given!

Don't believe me? JUST READ THE BOOK OF JONAH!

'now' would be rather a comment on Abraham's commitment and neurology such that it isn't God 'knowing now' but that the point of going back was 'now gone.'

No.

Abraham likely had not decided whether to follow through, until he reached out and took.

Yes, there was no going back once he took the knife.

But that's MY position, not yours.

Your position is that Abraham was going to take it, that God infallibly knew that Abraham would take the knife, from eternity past. No?

If so, then Abraham's choice was settled, predetermined, known beforehand.

I'm simply saying God did not know, because Abraham himself did not know, because God cannot know infallibly that which has not happened yet, because the future does not exist, and God cannot know what does not exist.

But once Abraham committed, and took the knife, that's when God knew, because that's when Abraham knew, thus "NOW I know that you fear God."

I realize, for the Open Theist, these answers aren't direct for them (a good list of omniscient grounded scriptures in there). Perhaps the best that can happen is a realization of the other's whole thinking behind why they read scriptures a certain way.

None of those "answers" requires omniscience (knowing literally everything). I.E., the classical, pagan doctrine of omniscience.

And the fact that they don't understand that Psalm 139 is not about our entire lives, but rather about fetology, tells me that they're just prooftexting, and have no idea what the context of those verses is saying.

Yes. True.

With this you literally just said that "now I know" does not mean exactly what it says.

You're literally calling God, the author of Scripture, a deceiver.

Shame on you!

Quit with your heresy!

"Now we both know something" might make better sense etc.

That's simply not what it says!

"Now" isn't the only English word that Attah is translated into. "Wherefore, henceforth, etc."

I addressed this in post #1067.

A few other items: "Angel of the Lord." If God had given this job as His own representation, then the angel wouldn't have had omniscience.

1) Lon: "A few other items"
Also Lon: *proceeds to only give one item*
2) The Angel of the Lord is generally understood to be a theophany of Christ, preincarnate, and certainly is in this passage! "... You fear God... since you have not withheld your son ... from Me."

Etc.

:mock:

For me, the easiest fix is simply to relook at the translation.

See post #1063.

Even for Open Theism on point?

No. Open Theism allows the passage to say exactly what it says, no interpretation needed!

At the point Abraham took the knife, God can say "now I know" because at that point, He knows, whereas before He did not know!

In essence, would we be on the same page?

No, because on your view, God knew "before," rather than "now."

Agree

I concur.

If Abraham wasn't sure, the God could not be sure, because Abraham had not yet made the decision.

God cannot know what decision someone makes until they make it!

It depends on how much you are on page with the 'now' question. I think a connected synapse can answer the Open question, that at that specific point God [or the Angel of God representing Him],

Supra.

saw the connection and intent. Barring that, 'now' couldn't even have been quite known. Even an Open Theist would.

You're getting too hung up on the "now."

Again, if God knew "before" Abraham made the decision, then "now I know" makes no sense.

If God did not know "before" Abraham made the decision, then "now I know" makes perfect sense.

Might have to go a bit of distance on it. For instance, an Arminian will assert that God knows all possible outcomes (possible nerve connections) ahead of time. For me, Arminian thought has to qualify omniscience and are not quite on page with others who believe God is completely omniscient, for example.

I can't speak for Arminians, though they are closer to Open Theists than they are to pagans, at least.

I'm not sure I went so far as to say God cannot know something even if we never do it.

God cannot know something that never happens.

He can predict outcomes, and those outcomes might not come to pass, if circumstances change.

It seems to me that God does know what 'didn't happen' but such presents problems for thinking what God can and cannot know, especially when we are qualifying or trying to qualify 'what' that entails.

If God cannot know even one thing, then He is, by definition, not omniscient.

It is foreign.

Whatever that's supposed to mean here...

God never asked this of anybody else other than Himself before or since. That alone makes it a difficult passage as we try to make sense of it.

It's not a difficult passage at all, Lon!

Take off the "omniscient lenses" for a moment and just read the passage plainly!

Presentism also carries the idea that Revelation 'is happening' now.

No it doesn't. Where did you get THAT wacky idea from? If only the present exists, and Revelation is yet future, then of course Revelation isn't happening now!

It also doesn't hold that anything God says about the future is 'true' per say.

So what?

What God says is true at the moment He says it.

It may not be true later, but that's not because God was wrong, it's because circumstances changed.

I'm sure you are aware.

This is presentism:

Philosophical presentism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm not aware of anything about presentism that would indicate that what God says about the future isn't true, at the moment he says it.

Prophecy?

What about it? Prophecy is God's prediction of the future. It's not saying "this will happen." It's saying "this will happen if things continue as they are."

God's prophecies fail, and in fact, God wants certain prophecies to fail, because God cares more about His creation than He does about His prophecies coming true!

I've heard this, but don't agree.

It's not a matter of opinion, Lon! Scripture says it!

See the https://opentheism.org/verses page.

Not sure it needs another long discussion. I'm pretty sure you are aware with the contention. A quick 'presentism' search brings up all the issues fairly quickly.

But you won't post the issues here?

Just "it has issues"?

Yes, which still brings up problems with 'now' in light of such.

There is no problem with "now" except in your own position.

Drop your position, and the problem(s) go away.

He is what exists.

This is Pantheism.

Not Panentheism.

Pantheism.

God is not the only thing that exists.

And it has nothing to do with what I said!

I said THE FUTURE DOES NOT EXIST.
I said God cannot know what does not exist!

THUS

GOD CANNOT KNOW THE FUTURE!

"Without Him nothing exists that exists?"

That's not what John 1:3 says.

It says "without Him nothing was made that WAS MADE.

The future does not exist.

It was not made.

It would be whatever He says, no?

That would violate the law of non-contradiction.

God is not irrational.

Don't be irrational, Lon.

Things come into existence by His word.

None of those things exist ontologically, because they are all contradictions in terms.

God cannot force a contradiction in terms to exist ontologically. That would be irrational.

God is rational.

That's where the question comes in. Why can't God know whether Abraham will obey or not?

Because Abraham himself doesn't know.

He hasn't made the decision yet.

I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand, Lon.

What 'keeps' it from happening?

Abraham keeps God from knowing his choice simply by not deciding.

You ask as if there is some other answer.... I can assure you, there is not!

Does God purposefully limit Himself so He cannot know?

More question begging.

It's not a matter of God limiting Himself.

It's a matter of the future not existing, and thus God not having future knowledge.

My question is simply 'why not?' Because I would have no freewill? What really 'keeps' God from knowing anything? If He is infinite, and His thoughts are infinite, isn't 'infinite' already involved in every thing we'd ask?

God cannot know what does not exist.

If the knowledge does not exist, then He cannot know it.

It's literally as simple as that!

True. Plunging a knife?

Plunging a knife comes a few steps after "reaching out and picking up the knife."

No, was just saying I believe God knew everything with me as well.

From eternity past?

Yes, but it is whole knowledge.

Only if God chooses to find out.

God is not required to know every single detail down to the subatomic level about your current situation.

I read John interacting with individuals 'in the future' in Revelation, remember?

I'm no expert on Revelation.

All I know is that Revelation was just that, a revelation to John.

It doesn't mean that everything in Revelation will come to pass (Matthew 24:22).

I'd have to 'be' Open Theist to even say 'okay' here.

Which just shows how stubborn you're being.

There are all kinds of priori.

So question them. Don't assume.

I'm going to stop here and come back to tackle your link indepth.

Don't forget the rest of my post. And make sure you include post #1067 as well.

 

[Lon]

She does according to your view of what knowledge is!

True. I'd say she doesn't know, just estimates, reasons.

The same kind of knowledge that God has about things yet future.

The only difference is that He has access to FAR more information than any human ever could in order to make such predictions, extrapolations, etc.

Which is why I'm not hung up too much. We alternately assume things based on what we believe. For what it is worth, because I believe He actively sustains the universe, I believe He is omnipresent as a necessity and omniscient as nothing 'can' act without His sustaining power. I do entertain seriously the need for free will and in every sense that we are made like Him in reciprocal relationship and it does indeed pause and give contemplation as necessary (don't think your effort here falls on deaf ears, I'm listening).

That's called "begging the question."

It's a fallacy for a reason.

There is no need for God to be omniscient for Him to be able to know Abraham's heart, because other things can account for the knowledge God would have about Abraham.

I agree. It is rather our priori that informs the passage for us. I know intuitively that I need to look up terms in a concordance. This may help you much more than me: the Septuagint uses νυν which generally but not always is translated 'now' as well. For you, it isn't 'know' like I understand the term. It causes problems for me. It means I either have to toss what I know or look for what the text could mean. At this venture, our uses of 'know,' I think, are significantly different. I always start with "Is this translated correctly" because it comes from my language studies. I can read Greek, would need to brush up on my Hebrew (just saying it is the first place I go when a passage causes difficulty). Certainly Attah doesn't have to mean 'now' and sometimes isn't translated that way. So, at this venture, thank you for all the discussion on point and the service rendered. I won't change over night, but will continue to study. Scripture priori has me using omniscience because of so many other scriptures and reading. At the very least, I do appreciate where you are coming from more today. That's something. In appreciation...

Omniscience removes God's ability to count.

Rather the 'need' not the ability. Was watching an episode of the Office today before it cut out. They asked the accountant to 'crunch the numbers again' on a computer program. Cracked me up, he just hit 'enter.' I think it informs our conversation thoughts here so included it.

I blame "immutability" and "timelessness" for this.

The concept that God is all there ever was and is all that ever was informs the biblical thought on point. When I consider that everything everything everything that exists is from God and nowhere else, it has a huge all-encompassing truism. Spirit has no'where' to be. It isn't a 3 dimensional truth from scripture but beyond it. I take some cues from higher mathematics and scientific research, that things exist apart from our physical senses and thinking. As such, many of the people who do higher math and metascience believe the implications point to God who never had a beginning, never lived anywhere etc.

WRONG!

I was mocking you because of how ridiculous your position is, Lon!

I know, but it isn't that ridiculous nor is it just mine. A good many very good minds have weighed in here. Granted I can and do see it better today from your perspective but often times I wonder if you guys really recall what you believed before adopting Open Theism. What I mean is, if I ever became an Open Theist, I'd have immensely more empathy and long suffering for anybody that didn't believe it. I'd know for sure what hurdles I had to cross and would be very compassionate on point.

And you completely missed it, because you're too focused!

STEP BACK.

GET THE BIG PICTURE!

Read what I said again!

I was not agreeing with you!

I was showing how irrational your position was, because it DOES NOT FOLLOW!

Two-way street BUT I've never not been classic in what I understand about theology. Do you remember what you believed before? Or did you not have any solid theology beliefs before Open Theism? At the point of "Open" did the rest just become absurd?

There is LITERALLY ZERO reason to think that the knowledge your wife has of you going to work tomorrow is any different than the knowledge God has of the future. NONE!

I HAVE to disagree. Even you said God has much much more knowledge toward the point of prescience and full-knowledge my wife nor I have. Is my objection reasonable? With what you describe yourself, I'm left, at this venture, thinking even Open Theism means something significantly different between what my wife 'knows' vs what God knows.

ONLY ACCORDING TO YOUR VIEW MUST IT BE DIFFERENT!

See just above. Appreciate a bit more and further if it applies and ty.

The knife was never raised to begin with!

Perhaps: Gen 22:10 And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.

No, that doesn't work, for two reasons:

One is that it begs the question that God's "now" is different than our "now," when there is no reason to believe it is.

Two:



The very definitions which you provided do not comport with the idea that God knew "now" earlier (which is a contradiction, by the way, and contradictions mean that something is false).

---

The reason, of course, would be 1) that 'now' doesn't make the best sense (attah or νυν) or 2) the angel of God didn't know, 3) etc.

But that's not what "ki attah yadati" means.



Again, you're overthinking this!

What does scripture say?

Then they came to the place of which God had told him. And Abraham built an altar there and placed the wood in order; and he bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, upon the wood. And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the Angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!”So he said, “Here I am.” And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 22:9-12 - New King James Version

Then they came to the place of which God had told him. And Abraham built an altar there and placed the wood in order; and he bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, upon the wood. And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the Angel of the Lord called to...

www.biblegateway.com

Does the passage give any indication, at face value, for what you're trying to say?

We should, I agree, try to eschew priori. It is very hard to imagine 'now' if one believes God is omniscient unless we (generally the rest of us), see this as an angel's limited knowledge, see 'now' as not quite right for English, etc. Barring that, I'd become Open Theist, but that would be a long time from now. I have to keep studying and use the ideas presented, like a Berean, prayerfully, hopefully. If never? At least I'm asking the questions. It seems the better answers are from the page: An angel wouldn't have known, perhaps 'now' isn't exactly the best translation etc.

NO!

It simply says:

1) Abraham and Isaac arrived at the place of which God had told him.
2) Abraham built an altar, bound his son, and put him on it.
3) Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.
4) God stopped him, and said "Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."



There is no "prior" for God, according to your view!

See above

In fact, God cannot know what time it currently is, if your position is true!

Which means that for God to say "now I know" makes even less sense!

Why? What in classic theism points that direction?

But "NOOOOOOOOO Let's just stick with my beliefs and assume that "Now I know" doesn't mean exactly what it says, and that somehow God is omniscient!"

That's you right now!

Correct.

There cannot be a series if God is outside of time.

It isn't an all or none proposition, if you follow our thoughts. It isn't that God is 'outside' of time completely, but both, like me sticking my hand in my fish tank. I'm 'outside' of the tank mostly, but partly 'in' as well by analogy. I'm 'both.'

That's YOUR view, not mine.

But did it used to be?

I reject your opinion, because Scripture does not teach this.

It teaches that God predicts people's actions, and then later they change, and falsify whatever prophecy God had given!

Don't believe me? JUST READ THE BOOK OF JONAH!

I see all story as relating truths 'for us' not for God. I see Him relational like my hand in the fishtank, but not stuck there (like my hand in the fishtank).

No.

Abraham likely had not decided whether to follow through, until he reached out and took.

Yes, there was no going back once he took the knife.

But that's MY position, not yours.

Your position is that Abraham was going to take it, that God infallibly knew that Abraham would take the knife, from eternity past. No?

We've talked enough that I can understand your and other nonOpen positions on the matter that is akin to the Master Chess Player analogy. a 'yes' would be a done conversation, but I can and do entertain these other ideals, more so today. In general, I'd have just said yes. Today? I think 'perhaps' leaves conversation going. I'm entertaining your thoughts and concerns.

If so, then Abraham's choice was settled, predetermined, known beforehand.

I'm simply saying God did not know, because Abraham himself did not know, because God cannot know infallibly that which has not happened yet, because the future does not exist, and God cannot know what does not exist.

The presentism idea is open for another thread. I'm at 'present' in need of some careful study. A bit of study yesterday opened a plethora of debate and concerns over the term. I think there needs to be a 'presentism' thread. One already? A search on TOL said 'nothing found.'

But once Abraham committed, and took the knife, that's when God knew, because that's when Abraham knew, thus "NOW I know that you fear God."



None of those "answers" requires omniscience (knowing literally everything). I.E., the classical, pagan doctrine of omniscience.

And the fact that they don't understand that Psalm 139 is not about our entire lives, but rather about fetology, tells me that they're just prooftexting, and have no idea what the context of those verses is saying.



With this you literally just said that "now I know" does not mean exactly what it says.

You're literally calling God, the author of Scripture, a deceiver.

Not true. I'm saying 'translators' got it wrong. I'm not even intimating deception. Remember this was an angel of God, for one. That alone 'can' mean 'now' for instance. If something doesn't quite jive, I, at least, have to read and dig.

Shame on you!

Quit with your heresy!

We all make incorrect assessments as you've just done. We need to evaluate our thoughts because what I believe is nowhere near what you surmised. Next? We discuss and get correction and then readjust according to accuracy. This whole conversation is good and profitable, or at least that is the way I see it.

That's simply not what it says!



I addressed this in post #1067.



1) Lon: "A few other items"
Also Lon: *proceeds to only give one item*
2) The Angel of the Lord is generally understood to be a theophany of Christ, preincarnate, and certainly is in this passage! "... You fear God... since you have not withheld your son ... from Me."



:mock:



See post #1063.

An angel speaks 'for' God in His stead as a representative. However we read scriptures, let's pay attention to all details, no? Such doesn't throw a monkey in my particular wrench.

No. Open Theism allows the passage to say exactly what it says, no interpretation needed!

At the point Abraham took the knife, God can say "now I know" because at that point, He knows, whereas before He did not know!

Again, just realize 'now' is an English word. Both Hebrew and Greek allow for us to think what the proper sense of English conveyance is. There is no magic word-for-word translation. We do the 'best' we can. When it doesn't make perfect sense? We dig.

No, because on your view, God knew "before," rather than "now."

God? Yes. Angel? Probably not. God can and does work through others as His representative. These theophanies are either angels or the Lord Jesus Christ (such as when He was with the 3 in the fires in Daniel). I believe especially Open Theists must work through theophanies.

If Abraham wasn't sure, the God could not be sure, because Abraham had not yet made the decision.

God cannot know what decision someone makes until they make it!

That is an Open View paradigm. The rest of us are questioning its veracity (or many eschewing it altogether).

Supra.



You're getting too hung up on the "now."

Again, if God knew "before" Abraham made the decision, then "now I know" makes no sense.

See, that's what I said! I agree! So I start digging to try to grasp and understand. It'd be GREAT if I were Open Theist instead of digging and digging and digging. You are correct, I'm making it a huge study point! I'm somewhat jealous of the simplistic or simple answer for the Open Theist. You don't have to work as hard most of the time. Convoluted? Well, I get why you say that but I'm still often looking for the empathetic/sympathetic Open Theist (you are often it for me and thank you for however far you remember back).

If God did not know "before" Abraham made the decision, then "now I know" makes perfect sense.



I can't speak for Arminians, though they are closer to Open Theists than they are to pagans, at least.

God cannot know something that never happens.

He can predict outcomes, and those outcomes might not come to pass, if circumstances change.

Again, these are declaratives from a position that are foreign to ones not held, or objectionable at the worst. We are saying "God can know what man does not, easily." We either have to dismiss and drop it or go the extra mile on these.

If God cannot know even one thing, then He is, by definition, not omniscient.



Whatever that's supposed to mean here...



It's not a difficult passage at all, Lon!

Take off the "omniscient lenses" for a moment and just read the passage plainly!



No it doesn't. Where did you get THAT wacky idea from? If only the present exists, and Revelation is yet future, then of course Revelation isn't happening now!

It was a link. Presentism needs a thread...

So what?

What God says is true at the moment He says it.

It may not be true later, but that's not because God was wrong, it's because circumstances changed.

For what it is worth, most of us or all of us, do not grasp the impetus behind Open statements that would render or accept them as true. It is yet very much part of my theology that God is never wrong. I think you phrase it better than Sanders ever did.

This is presentism:

Philosophical presentism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm not aware of anything about presentism that would indicate that what God says about the future isn't true, at the moment he says it.



What about it? Prophecy is God's prediction of the future. It's not saying "this will happen." It's saying "this will happen if things continue as they are."

Agree. As I said, you state this better and presentation worthy better than Sanders and even Boyd do.

God's prophecies fail, and in fact, God wants certain prophecies to fail, because God cares more about His creation than He does about His prophecies coming true!

This is where I'd say that these aren't prophecies, but conditions. It might help when discussing with another to entertain that prophecy isn't going to extend to promise, conditional covenant, etc. A few verses that guide:

Deuteronomy 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.18:22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.
Ezekiel 13:3 This is what the Lord GOD says: Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit yet have seen nothing.

It's not a matter of opinion, Lon! Scripture says it!

See the https://opentheism.org/verses page.



But you won't post the issues here?

Just "it has issues"?



There is no problem with "now" except in your own position.

Drop your position, and the problem(s) go away.



This is Pantheism.

Not Panentheism.

Pantheism.

God is not the only thing that exists.

Not pantheism nor Panentheism. It is from Isaiah 45:5 (no other beside me) and 1 Kings 8:27 “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built! Acts 7:49 ("No where I can dwell"). John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. Colossians 1:17 Etc. Would appreciate your thoughts.

And it has nothing to do with what I said!

I said THE FUTURE DOES NOT EXIST.
I said God cannot know what does not exist!

THUS

GOD CANNOT KNOW THE FUTURE!

What is Revelation? I'm not grasping anything you are saying in light of it? It isn't making sense.

That's not what John 1:3 says.

It says "without Him nothing was made that WAS MADE.

The future does not exist.

It was not made.



That would violate the law of non-contradiction.

God is not irrational.

Don't be irrational, Lon.



None of those things exist ontologically, because they are all contradictions in terms.

God cannot force a contradiction in terms to exist ontologically. That would be irrational.

God is rational.



Because Abraham himself doesn't know.

He hasn't made the decision yet.

I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand, Lon.



Abraham keeps God from knowing his choice simply by not deciding.

You ask as if there is some other answer.... I can assure you, there is not!



More question begging.

It's not a matter of God limiting Himself.

It's a matter of the future not existing, and thus God not having future knowledge.



God cannot know what does not exist.

If the knowledge does not exist, then He cannot know it.

It's literally as simple as that!



Plunging a knife comes a few steps after "reaching out and picking up the knife."



From eternity past?



Only if God chooses to find out.

God is not required to know every single detail down to the subatomic level about your current situation.



I'm no expert on Revelation.

All I know is that Revelation was just that, a revelation to John.

It doesn't mean that everything in Revelation will come to pass (Matthew 24:22).



Which just shows how stubborn you're being.



So question them. Don't assume.



Don't forget the rest of my post. And make sure you include post #1067 as well.

This all covering what we are talking about, but please bring back anything needful. To me, it looks like we've covered these. Will be working on a response on the latter. Holidays definitely have me jumping so please give me a few days or week. Thank you. In Him

 

[Lon]

While we were busy trying to figure out how many thousands of dollars someone should pay to study the Bible, this baby was getting whacked in the head with a machette by people who came to slaughter Christians in Nigeria. This was on Christmas of last year. Yes. Christmas.

One of the children I supported in Zimbabwe was in this situation. We cried for two years while we continued support and no word on his well-being. Three years later he was a man , thankfully had escaped the slaughter, and we sent him to trade-school for two years. I hear you and appreciate your heart.

 

[Lon]

I believe I've addressed most of this, regarless, will do so now. I do need to go to your link and address it sufficiently and that will take a bit of the week (I'm in and out these days).

I read it.



That's nice, but completely irrelevant. A casual Bible reading is enough to glean the meaning from the Bible.

There are all kinds of nuances in the O.T. alone that a cultural class in Hebrew customs and practices is worth the effort (means I somewhat disagree).

You don't need to be a studied professor of Hebrew or Greek to know what the Bible says at face value.

Its a handicap, like watching a black and white tv. Color is preferable, especially when we are talking about details. I'm glad you have and use a concordance.

It's easy enough for a child to understand.

A lot of it. All of it? No, of course not. Ezekiel for instance?

I'm not sure what you were trying to prove here.

Intimating God knew whether I would push the knife at that early age. He didn't send an angel.

None of this goes against anything I said.

The point was that God, prior to Abraham reaching out and grabbing the knife, did not know whether Abraham would not withhold his only son, and that, "henceforth," "this time forth," "whereas" Abraham had not, and "now" he did pick it up, NOW God knows.

Thanks for proving my position and falsifying yours.

Welcome? You asked what the point would be: to let 'Abraham' know what was in his heart. We have to go through things to learn.

Do you believe there is a huge hanging issue between us disagreeing here? I'm not copping out, just trying to say we are more on page than not with scripture despite the disagreement. I am listening. I told Clete I'm a slow burn. I just do not and never have moved theologically very quickly. There is a TON of paradigms that require shifts of this kind with me so of course you are correct I over-think everything. I believe I have to, in order to honor God with my thoughts. I smoke hams, turkeys, and briskets. They require much much more patience than simply cooking something. My theology is a cold smoke by analogy (requires days). In Him.

 

[Lon]

What is there to settle on, other than whether it is true or false that God goes through time like the rest of us, interacting and forming relationships?

I think, in the long run, Open Theists and all others who are His, have a good relationship with God. He continually is challenging us through His scriptures and life to be more like His Son. In a nutshell, 'how' we understand Who He is, is important. In that, He has given us instruction that is clear enough that we know we love Him and are able to have relationship with Him. I know, for example, that Open Theists pray and the rest of us pray. It isn't upon our clarity of scriptures per say, but upon our relationship with Him that our prayers are answered. It means, I'd postulate, that we can be wrong on a good many points yet His. The only point on your concern is that, I personally, want to be right. It doesn't mean that I am, just that I want to follow Him in truth. Scripture, I believe, intimates that God is all-knowing and all-present. Wrong? I don't think so, but am okay on the disagreement for now.

Very specifically: I want my thinking about Him to be Biblical. Is it beyond us? Likely, but I want as much clarity as is possible and I (we) know that scripture is where that is honed. It all has to make sense. Is it a deal breaker? At this venture I count Open Theists among my brethren.

Especially when the bible is clear that God does not know everything?

I've not seen that, granted as you say, I'm reading differently than you (as are most theologians).

Have you considered that maybe it's not a matter of it being "too trite" or "too quick at early dismissal," but that you're just too stubborn to let go of a belief that you have been shown is false?

Yes. Recently. I'm looking.

I don't think you have. Or if you have, you're in denial about it being false.



Or, the simpler solution is that Jesus did not know who touched Him, because he was in the middle of a crowd, and thus asked the question. You know, just like the Bible says...

With me: Asking a question does not mean a lack of knowledge. "If" He knew, the question is to elicit a response.

And you've been shown to be wrong on this.

Realize your 'wrong' comes from how you read the text. We cannot be just sponges whenever we read. Thought has to take place and there is a dynamic between reader and writer always present.

The translation makes perfect sense, and is consistent with the Hebrew. At this point, you're going against Scripture itself. That should, repeat, SHOULD, give you pause.

It does, assuredly. That doesn't mean going to the easiest answer every time. Critical thinking skills would be of little value if that were the case.

The simple answer is because He did not know it before, but NOW he knows, at the moment Abraham committed to picking up the knife to offer up his son.

And who touched Him (sorry Clete, not a sentence, just a response to one). It 'can' mean that very simply but does it? If nothing else, there is comfort in the idea of God already knowing everything, not for the Open Theist likely?

Supra.



But He didn't know the outcome.

If he knew the outcome, then why the test?

For us. He has no need for conformity to anything. We have need of conformity rather, to everything. If I ever became Open Theist, everything would be under a whole new scrutiny (I always over think everything). I'd probably be a lousy Open Theist on point.

Because God cannot know that which does not exist.

You've said this any number of times (I stopped counting after the tenth). While it is probably an excellent Open statement, it usually isn't accepted by anybody else. I do believe God knows things that "do not exist." I believe He can make a square circle having seen a couple of science experiments. In a word: I think a lot of things people say 'do not exist' exists. I've seen plenty of unicorns real and imagined. I've seen a couple of square circles. I've seen pink elephants, sober. I've seen green rabbits etc. etc. Point: I believe God knows things that 'do not exist' because He knows even more than the possibility: He can speak it into existence from His infinite understanding. Luke 1:37 cc

The future does not exist. Abraham had not yet made the decision. God cannot know decisions that have not been made. But once they have been made, God can know, AT THE MOMENT THEY ARE MADE!

Romans 4:17 as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.
In this case, a nation and nations that did not exist declared 'to exist.' The previous link I gave had reference to Josiah, being named and explained what he would do 300 to 600 years before he was born. Another that He knew His prophet before he was even conceived etc. (Wouldn't I make a lousy Open Theist?)

This really isn't that hard to understand, Lon!

Unless I have a plethora of other scriptures in mind that seem to intimate it? I posted a link to a good many prior.

Because God knows the hearts of men.

Especially Abraham's heart... Abraham, a man he had gotten to know over the past 40 years or so. Abraham had committed to offering up Isaac in His heart.

God wasn't looking for Abraham to start swinging his arm down. He was looking for the commitment within Abraham's heart.

I hear 'knows' and then 'didn't know' out of that. While it may make perfect sense to you, I apologize for the obtuse. I don't get it.

God did not want Abraham to kill his only son.

God wanted to see if Abraham feared God more than he feared losing his son.

Agree.

He didn't need Abraham to even come close to raising his hand against his son. It wasn't necessary to know whether Abraham would raise his hand with the knife in it.

It was only necessary for Abraham to demonstrate his fear of God.

In other words, He didn't know that Abraham would stop. He didn't know that Abraham would follow through.

Okay, and forgive me as obtuse: Why then 'now?' What caused the 'know?'

It never got to that point in the first place!

Read the text!

It never says Abraham had raised his hand with the knife in it!

It says God stopped him the moment he stretched out his hand and took the knife!

It omits a few points in that it isn't there to describe the last detail. It makes the best sense of the text to grasp the 'point.' That 'now' God knew? I don't believe that is the thrust, but rather obedience of Abraham brought an all encompassing covenant that would bless his offspring and by extension, the rest of the world. We are delving into details where upon we may disagree (and obviously do). I will work the rest of this week on the link you gave so bear with me. I had some time tonight. Hope your holiday season is filled with His presence and blessed. -Lon

 

[Bladerunner]

While we were busy trying to figure out how many thousands of dollars someone should pay to study the Bible, this baby was getting whacked in the head with a machette by people who came to slaughter Christians in Nigeria. This was on Christmas of last year. Yes. Christmas.

When the "restrainer" leaves this earth, scenes like this will increase exponentially.

 

[Clete]

While we were busy trying to figure out how many thousands of dollars someone should pay to study the Bible, this baby was getting whacked in the head with a machette by people who came to slaughter Christians in Nigeria. This was on Christmas of last year. Yes. Christmas.

While it is true that the Christian community sometimes gets it's priorities out of whack, the reality here is that all the money in the world isn't going to wipe out evil and most seminaries aren't exactly what one could call greedy, money grubbing, money chasers. If you sent all the money people spent on a theological education to Nigeria, all that would happen is that Boko Haram would line their pockets with the money, spend it on ways to root out the Christians so they could arrive at the Christian churches in shiny new trucks and with brand new machetes with which to kill even more Christians than ever before. That, and there'd be a severe lack of pastors to lead churches which might then have the funds it takes to send missionaries to such places as Nigeria.

The fact is that an education is valuable and providing an education is a valuable service and just as with anything else, you get what you pay for. That isn't a flaw, it's a feature! There is no such thing as free. Someone somewhere pays for everything of value in some sort of way. The exceptions are called theft.

 

[Right Divider]

@Clete sever -> severe

 

[glorydaz]

Interesting. Abraham certainly had free will, but did God know? I believe He did because He can look back in time as it’s happening. I think we’re seeing through a glass darkly.

Isaiah 48:3-7
3 I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass.
4 Because I knew that thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass; 5 I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it came to pass I shewed it thee: lest thou shouldest say, Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image, hath commanded them. 6 Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it? I have shewed thee new things from this time, even hidden things, and thou didst not know them. 7 They are created now, and not from the beginning; even before the day when thou heardest them not; lest thou shouldest say, Behold, I knew them.