Yet, since we are talking about the character of water in a glass, we don't say, "God infinitely knows about the air in the glass."
Omnis come from the standpoint of 'all that is' isn't co-eternal with God. As humans, the universe is all we know but God is 'all' there is and much more than simply this piece of His creative work (universe) so the omnis are a way of trying to grasp God's statements:
Almighty: Omnipotent (no other power, ever, that exists. He is all the all of it, not just 'in' the universe, but all.
Knows "All things" Omnipresent: Ephesians 1:23 Psalm 139:8–10 Proverbs 15:3 1 John 3:20
But the point is that there is a limitation to "everything" when we are talking about "what exists". So when we read "by Him everything exists", we are not allowed to infinitize it to say that "everything exists, including things that don't exist." It's a limitation based on the character of "everything that exists", which is exclusive of "things that do not exist".
If God is 'everything that exists' what is the limitation? "Sin" is the first answer, but sin isn't part of creation, it is the destruction of it.
Again, the point is that God is limited by His character to "goodness". It is a limitation, and one that He Himself iterates: "I am not a man that I should lie." You can say it isn't a limitation, but that's merely an obfuscation about a limitation that God gives us.
Not an obfuscation but a desire to describe more correctly not what God 'isn't' but what He is. When we are talking about a limitation, we generally mean a 'weakness.' Personal problem? No, this is why theologians have avoided such language in preference for understanding God in a 'fuller' context. Scripture says very clearly that God is beyond our ability, thus a 'limitation' is problematic for comparison to a God that 'exceeds.' How often does 'limitation' come up in conversation? Philippians 2 absolutely expresses a 'limitation' in love. We want to be careful we aren't so caught up in our own egocentrism, that we begin to think "God 'has' to have limitations in order to relate to me." Limitation is true, but in a voluntary manner and not at all a condition upon His relation. He came in the flesh, in order to bring us ascended, not Him descended. Whenever you see 'a personal problem' it will be likely from this concern.
He is limited to never lying. Is that a bad thing? By no means...we count on God because of His self-imposed limitations. For instance, we believe in the hope of our resurrection, because He cannot lie. We believe in the fact of creation, because God cannot lie.
Again, it isn't truth, but the phrasing and problematic comparison, analogy. Example: I'm currently on a doctor directed diet. You can ask "what don't you get to eat? (limitation). Better: What do you get to eat? (what are you
not limited from eating). If this doesn't make sense we can be done with this portion. I've a 'personal' aversion to 'limitation' when discussing God, partly because I'm nobody, just an incredibly limited creature, to qualify God's limitations (usually a negative). He is the One to do that, if He so desires. So perhaps it really is a personal problem, but I'll keep it. It feels a little like my dialogue with Clete, oddly enough. There are certain things that can become hot potatoes to another. "Limitation" regarding God, to me is a negative and certainly restrictive in language, for a God who is "able to do more than we can think or imagine." "Limitation" seems like a downer is talking in light of something much larger in discussion when we are to 'discover the height, breadth, and depth of God's love for us, that is
beyond measure!"
So "omniscience" has limits. It is limited to knowing things that actually exist, or are firm and settled, but not limited when it comes to things that don't exist, or are not settled. If, then, God decides something is settled, we can be assured (because He cannot lie) that those things are settled. "Lo, I am with you alway, even tot he end of the age." is a settled thing. "Lon will never deny Christ." may not be a settled thing. But even if Lon denies Christ, He cannot deny Himself--you changing your character limits what God can do with you (an obvious limit on God), but it doesn't limit what or who God is.
Yet He
does know about unicorns, and goblins, and Frankenstein. Point: If we make a statement that doesn't always work, then we aren't on the right track for description. I understand why Open Theism does this but I'm questioning the need that mostly only comes for an Open paradigm.
[Mat 23:37 NKJV] "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under [her] wings, but you were not willing!
Jesus was limited in what He could do by the unwillingness of Jerusalem. Not because He was unable to gather them against their will, but because He limited Himself to only gathering those who were willing to be gathered.
As with incarnation, it is a chosen limitation. It makes a difference: You and I 'cannot.' God 'will not' and thus limitation generally is a term for us that means 'unable' but for God means 'not can't but didn't or chose not to.' This too is why I don't believe limitation the best descriptor nor the best focus for talking about God.
In a nutshell, my whole conversation with you can be summed up: I don't like 'limitation' in these discussions. It isn't an accurate enough word most times in theology discussion and because of ideology that accompanies the term, is problematic to accurate conveyance.
I'd say our conversation for several posts can be summed up as:
Lon: "Limitation" is a poor term for theological discussion.
Derf: I like it and will continue to use it.
Lon: Here are my problems with it, here, on this, and thus.
Derf: I'll yet use it.
Lon: I'll continue to say it has problematic conveyance and illustrate why and where it is insufficient.
Not much more than that going on...
Sin has everything to do with God--because He is just. He has limited His responses (in the long term, to account for His patience) to only the just ones, even though He can do the unjust responses (grace). The unjust responses are limited to those who accept His son's sacrifice.
This too, is a discussion mostly on definitions and the place for certain definitions. Sin isn't on the table with God's attributes was the original.
Example: Hamartiology (sin) is a separate topic than Attributes of God in a Theology Proper book.
Gary took exception in that sin has nothing to do with God as being correct. You are describing rather God having 'remedy' for sin, not being connected to it. "God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all." It isn't talking about iridescence, but sin. "...none at all."
I don't understand the view that God cannot look on our naked bodies while we're in the shower or going to the bathroom. And I agree with you that He knows when little ones are abused. How He knows, I'll be willing to discuss more, because I'm really not sure. I expect He actually observes everything that happens and that's why He was remorseful about creating man in the first place.
[Gen 6:5 NKJV] Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every intent of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.
You have the traditional view of omnipresence here. "How" has elements both of Open paradigms and Arminian from you to date.
Not only did He see their wickedness in action, He saw it in the planning. I don't really see how one could say God is somehow missing some incident because He's closing His eyes to its wickedness. Justice only makes sense if the one who is most offended by the sin is actually offended by it.
I agreed with you in discussion with Clete. You'll likely always be an Open Theist of a different color with Arminian hold-outs as it were, I'd think.
I think I agree with this, but I haven't thought through all of the ramifications of it. I gave the example of Cain murdering Abel, and I don't think He was in the dark about any of it. Since Abel was perceived by some as the one from which Christ would eventually come, and thus Satan would desire to snuff him out, I don't think the seriousness of the sin can be denied, yet God knew what Cain did.