Question Concerning The Plot

[Crow]

Good. Some elements of God do not change, like His nature.

Isn't loving the Son an action, Crow?

Is His knowledge / understanding a element of His nature? Love is element of His nature but not His knowledge or understanding?

Love is an element of His nature, but does God love wickedness? I believe He chooses to hate it.

God is just. Why wouldn't the Father love the Son, and vice versa?

 

[Poly]

So He didn't have the choice.

Good, so you agree there are some elements of God that are set, right?

Jer. 19:5
(they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind)

Jer. 32:35
And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.'


So when God says "nor did it come to my mind", was He lying? Apparently He does have the choice of not knowing something. A thought cannot "enter" His mind if it was already there due to Him knowing every little thing.

 

[Freak]

So when God says "nor did it come to my mind", was He lying?

"Be assured that my words are not false; one perfect in knowledge is with you."

Understanding the text is paramount...Yes, it did not come (from the outward) to His mind for His mind (understanding/knowledge) is already perfect. He already knew the information.

Apparently He does have a choice not to know something. A thought cannot "enter" His mind if it was already there due to Him knowing every little thing.

There are some elements of God that He has not choice in, Poly. He does not have the choice in being unrighteous, right? His wisdom, understanding, knowledge is who God is. All of these elements are perfect for He is perfect.

 

[Freak]

Love is an element of His nature,

Ah. Do you believe His knowledge and understanding is an element of His nature?

but does God love wickedness? I believe He chooses to hate it.

He doesn't choose to hate wickedness. He hates it because it's contrary to His nature. Same with His triune nature. He didn't choose to be triune, silly. He is triune.

 

[Freak]

Will be back later after a power nap!

 

[Crow]

Ah. Do you believe His knowledge and understanding is an element of His nature?

He doesn't choose to hate wickedness. He hates it because it's contrary to His nature. Same with His triune nature. He didn't choose to be triune, silly. He is triune.

I believe that understanding is an element of His nature. I also believe that God chooses not to foreknow everything in order to allow mankind freewill, and I do not believe that this contradicts His nature.

 

[Poly]

There are some elements of God that He has not choice in, Poly. He does not have the choice in being unrighteous, right? His wisdom, understanding, knowledge is who God is. All of these elements are perfect for He is perfect.

God choosing not to know something doesn't make him imperfect, Freak. If He has no choice in the matter, He's not going to state something in scripture implying that He does. God choosing not to know something doesn't make him imperfect or go against His nature.

 

[Freak]

I believe that understanding is an element of His nature. I also believe that God chooses not to foreknow everything in order to allow mankind freewill, and I do not believe that this contradicts His nature.

This is where the 2 camps differ. I believe His knowledge/understanding is an aspect of His nature and one that doesn't change, in light of Scripture.

You on the other hand believe that this aspect of His nature changes.

 

[Freak]

God choosing not to know something doesn't make him imperfect, Freak.

As I mentioned earlier this where I differ with you. I believe His knowledge/understanding does not change.

If He has no choice in the matter, He's not going to state something in scripture implying that He does. God choosing not to know something doesn't make him imperfect or go against His nature.

Poly, God does not have choice in a great number of things--His triune nature, His holy nature, His righteous nature. This proves what I have been stating all along. There is some elements of God that does not change.

 

[godrulz]

Perhaps you need to allow the Holy Spirit to guide you to the truths found in Holy Scripture...


How great is God—beyond our understanding!
The number of his years is past finding out.

Great is our Lord and mighty in power;
his understanding has no limit.

Open Theists agree with this passage. God's past and present knowledge is perfect, as is HIs wisdom. Knowledge of a non-existent future is a logical contradiction since one cannot know a nothing. The future is only possible, not actual.

 

[godrulz]

There is no limitation to His understanding, means He is not limited in understanding the future.

God knows and understands reality in truth as it is. He correctly knows and understands the future as possible until it beomes actual through time and choices. Then the potential future becomes the fixed past and is perfectly known as a past event that is no longer real. He correctly distinguishes past, present, and future. He does not see them all at once as actually happening. The 2006 Superbowl has not been played yet, so it is not known as finished.

 

[godrulz]

Knight, question, why do you think many reject open theism? Is it not because of some clear texts that point to the reality that there are no limitations to God's nature.

Open Theism, properly understood and represented, does NOT limit God. This is a false accusation by critics who distort the view or confuse it with Process Theology/finitism.

 

[godrulz]

Good. Some elements of God do not change, like His nature.

Isn't loving the Son an action, Crow? Did you not agree that some actions are of His very nature (like love) and that they do not change or alter?

Is His knowledge / understanding a element of His nature? Love is element of His nature but not His knowledge or understanding?

The open theism debate is about the nature of the FUTURE, not the nature of God's OMNISCIENCE. We all agree that God is omniscient. We agree on the nature of the future. Is it all settled/predetermined (Calvinism), is it magically foreknown by seeing it (Arminian), or is some of the future settled/knowable and some of it unsettled/open/unknowable (Open Theism)?

 

[godrulz]

God choosing not to know something doesn't make him imperfect, Freak. If He has no choice in the matter, He's not going to state something in scripture implying that He does. God choosing not to know something doesn't make him imperfect or go against His nature.

God knows all that is logically possible to know (cf. omnipotence does not mean He does logically absurd things). The way God choses to not know the future exhaustively is to create a world with free moral agents and contingencies.

The extra phrase of knowing whatever He choses to know (or not know) muddies the water. It is unique to Enyart/Hill (others?), but is not a standard concept in Open Theism literature. If Satan and man can know something, then God knows it since it is a possible object of knowledge. How would an omniscient being chose to not know something knowable? I could whisper to God about the sin happening in the bar, and He would know it. It is more defensible to say He does not know future free will contingencies exhaustively because that is a logical contradiction/absurdity. Your other comment (Knight likes it too) is less defensible, in my mind.

 

[Poly]

The extra phrase of knowing whatever He choses to know (or not know) muddies the water. It is unique to Enyart/Hill (others?), but is not a standard concept in Open Theism literature. If Satan and man can know something, then God knows it since it is a possible object of knowledge. How would an omniscient being chose to not know something knowable? I could whisper to God about the sin happening in the bar, and He would know it. It is more defensible to say He does not know future free will contingencies exhaustively because that is a logical contradiction/absurdity. Your other comment (Knight likes it too) is less defensible, in my mind.

I don't really see it as a problem. In fact I think it helps the OV view. It helps to stress that God does not do the absurd. He doesn't know that which can't be known like future free will actions. If Satan and man can know something, as you said, then it wouldn't fall under the catagory of that which can't be known. When I say that God chooses not to know things, I'm saying that God could have created a world in which all things were known due to Him controlling every single action but He chose not to.

 

[godrulz]

Freak: There are some senses that God changes, and other ways He does not change. We agree with you that God's essential character and attributes do not change. However, HIs experiences, thoughts, actions, feelings, relations, knowledge does change (unless you make the passages that says He changes His mind figurative). As the potential future becomes the fixed past through the present His knowledge and experience changes. Like a perfect clock, change does not mean imperfection. God is dynamic and responsive, not a static idol (weak vs strong immutability).

The incarnation is the ultimate example of a change within God's being.

 

[godrulz]

I don't really see it as a problem. In fact I think it helps the OV view. It helps to stress that God does not do the absurd. He doesn't know that which can't be known like future free will actions. If Satan and man can know something, as you said, then it wouldn't fall under the catagory of that which can't be known. When I say that God chooses not to know things, I'm saying that God could have created a world in which all things were known due to Him controlling every single action but He chose not to.

I agree with your above assessment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Enyart and others go beyond this and say He does not have to know what is going on in a gay bar or in hell. I do not believe the omnipresent, omniscient God can turn off His radar. This would compromise His ability to Judge every thought, word, and deed of men. He does not have to dwell or focus on something, but this does not mean He literally does not know it. Likewise, 'forgetting our sins' is not amnesia (another example cited on TOL). Surely God can recall the same things we can bring to mind. This simply means that God choses to not bring our sins up again. Practically, but not literally, He 'forgets' them. "You owe me $100. Forget it." We can both recall the debt, but chose to never bring it up again. We do not dwell on it, but it is still an object of knowledge and thus knowable to us and God.

 

[Nineveh]

"This would compromise His ability to Judge every thought, word, and deed of men."

No, not really. Look at the instance of Sodom. Basically God says He's heard some things, so He sends His angels to find out if what He has heard is true. Could God know all things knowable at one time? I'm sure. Does He have to? No. Remember back in Gen? Their hearts were only evil all the time and God decided His Spririt would not contend with them/us? I am sure God's management system for keeping that book of deeds up to date is in Good Hands. But the Biblical evidence seems to suggest perhaps God doesn't want to be privy to all the evil in our hearts all the time.

 

[Poly]

"This would compromise His ability to Judge every thought, word, and deed of men."

No, not really. Look at the instance of Sodom. Basically God says He's heard some things, so He sends His angels to find out if what He has heard is true. Could God know all things knowable at one time? I'm sure. Does He have to? No. Remember back in Gen? Their hearts were only evil all the time and God decided His Spririt would not contend with them/us? I am sure God's management system for keeping that book of deeds up to date is in Good Hands. But the Biblical evidence seems to suggest perhaps God doesn't want to be privy to all the evil in our hearts all the time.

Great points, Nineveh.

Also consider 2 Chronicles 2:9.

"For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth to show Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is loyal to Him."

This suggests that God looks for hearts that are loyal to Him.

 

[godrulz]

"This would compromise His ability to Judge every thought, word, and deed of men."

No, not really. Look at the instance of Sodom. Basically God says He's heard some things, so He sends His angels to find out if what He has heard is true. Could God know all things knowable at one time? I'm sure. Does He have to? No. Remember back in Gen? Their hearts were only evil all the time and God decided His Spririt would not contend with them/us? I am sure God's management system for keeping that book of deeds up to date is in Good Hands. But the Biblical evidence seems to suggest perhaps God doesn't want to be privy to all the evil in our hearts all the time.

God chosing to not convict and draw them to mercy in favor of exercising justice does not mean He became blind or dumb.

I would not take the idea of God coming down with a wooden literalism. Psalms says nothing can hide from His eyes that rove the earth. I take most passages literally (God changing His mind, etc.) with other OT, but this expression may be one that our critics are correct to see as anthropomorphic. Regardless, in the end, God does know the knowable. Testing hearts to find out for sure what motives are there can still be taken literally (contrary to non- OT).