Most Open Theists would disagree strongly with point 3, a compromise of omniscience by any definition (knows all that is knowable; why would He be ignorant of things Satan and men know? He cannot be...).
Theology Club: What is Open Theism?
- Thread starter surrender
- Start date
Most Open Theists would disagree strongly with point 3, a compromise of omniscience by any definition (knows all that is knowable; why would He be ignorant of things Satan and men know? He cannot be...).
I’m not sure I’m following your point. So, omniscience, to know all things knowable, is not possible?
Yes, we know you deny the Scripture; you don't need to keep telling us.
I am denying your interpretation of it, not a right interpretation of it. Calvinists make too many things figurative/anthropomorphic, but that does not mean that none exist. Most Open Theists will agree with me and disagree with you based on original language research, context, etc.
Your view compromises omniscience, so you should recheck how you are proof texting your view that few see in Scripture.
Does it occur to you that you might be wrong? This is black and white. You have men and Satan and angels and newspapers knowing things that God does not. This means your interpretation/view is wrong (there is an accommodation in some texts that we cannot take as wooden literalism, while other views too often won't take things at face value because it contradicts their theology...they can change their view to match Scripture, but I would have to compromise sound thinking/interpretation to defend your fringe view that most Open Theists would or should take you to task on; you make it harder to have credibility for our view by clinging to your caveat).
Nang
TOL Subscriber
The reason I have adopted this view, is that I found it answered all logical, biblical, and spiritual problems. And I do not exaggerate!
Islam is "Fatalistic Philosophy" and a false religion.
Reformed faith is the Scriptural, historical, and promised Covenantal blessing of grace from God.
Amen.
Really?
Okay, interpret this:
"I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know."
-Genesis 18:21
:blabla:
Your view contradicts the very words of God Himself.
More often than it occurs to you that you might be; clearly.
God can do that if He wants to; He's God.
Because you say so? Your argument is very poor.
I cling to the words of the Lord. Deal with it.
Gen. 18 http://www.opentheism.info/index.php/questions/genesis-1821/
Likewise, when God asked Adam where he was, God was not ignorant, but this is a rhetorical question (vs your wooden literalism approach; there are figurative expressions in Scripture).
You are reading too much into the proof text and ignoring common sense and revelation elsewhere.
Your view compromises omniscience, even by Open Theism standards. It is built on your pet interpretation of a text when alternate Open Theism understanding that is less problematic overall exists.
Hermeneutical principle to keep in mind: http://reknew.org/2008/01/isnt-god-changing-his-mind-an-anthropomorphism/
Likewise, when God asked Adam where he was, God was not ignorant, but this is a rhetorical question (vs your wooden literalism approach; there are figurative expressions in Scripture).
You are reading too much into the proof text and ignoring common sense and revelation elsewhere.
Your view compromises omniscience, even by Open Theism standards. It is built on your pet interpretation of a text when alternate Open Theism understanding that is less problematic overall exists.
Hermeneutical principle to keep in mind: http://reknew.org/2008/01/isnt-god-changing-his-mind-an-anthropomorphism/
Yeah, run to someone else for the answer, because you're not smart, honest or genuine enough to formulate your own.
And this argument falls apart in light of the fact that the two cities were not warned, as Nineveh was; so there's no reason to assume God was waiting to see if they would repent.
It is quite easy to interpret that God was being rhetorical with Adam, and even with Cain when He asked him where Abel was. But Gen. 18:21 is not at all the same type of scenario. First off, he wasn't speaking to the guilty; He wasn't trying to get anyone to admit to anything. He was speaking to someone who would have known, full well, that God is omniscient and already knew the answer, in the event that God did know the answer; so there was no reason for Him to phrase it that way in the moment if He did not mean exactly what He said.
Reading into it? I'm taking it at face value.
What it doesn't compromise is God's power over Himself. And if your definition of omniscience is true and God is omniscient, where is the verse that tells us so?
No, because first off it would be an anthropopathism, and secondly God actually, truly, changes His mind thus the phrase is neither.
It's not just one verse; we simply happen to be discussing one of the many.
There are some things that are regarded as common or shared knowledge, such as who won the battle of Hastings or that water starts expanding at 4 degrees C before it freezes at 0 degrees. there are other things that could be known by someone but which aren't such as the number of paving stones I walk over on my journey from the station to the school. Would you say that I was more knowledgeable for actually counting them? I guess that most people would not because they assume that when you talk of how much you know, they are implicitly comparing you with other people so it only makes sense to compare knowledge of commonly known things. There again, most people would not consider all the thoughts that one has as entering into that pool of knowledge even though these thoughts use common language. There are many non-verbal thoughts too such as feelings and emotions.
I'm thinking of the Bible here - and common sense. As you can see, there are so many assumptions that are being made, often completely unknown to the person making the statement. I doubt that most people when they say that God is omniscient have a clear concept of the kind of knowledge they are talking about. And I would bet that even if they did, they would be wrong. Because people tend to think that the most intelligent beings are like them only faster or more extensive. The Bible scotches this idea when it says that to God a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day. It's about perspective. This statement says at the same time that God is interested in many more details than we are interested in and that he is much less interested in the details that we are interested in and more interested in the bigger picture. We would say in modern terms that he has a 'different agenda' to what we have.
So here's a synopsis of the position:
1. The term omniscient, as used in 'God is omniscient' frequently implies a comparison with the knowledge possessed by human beings. God is portrayed in effect as a superhuman. Since God has a different agenda to us, the comparison is worthless.
2. Although the assumptions in the statement are often vague, there is one that is probably most often present and that is that God can and does read the minds of everyone and is privy to every thought. I honestly don't see this is in the Bible at all. Perhaps an example of the agenda issue. In the Bible I find that God is an excellent judge of character and motive but not a mind reader.
3. Because the assumptions in the statement are vague, I don't see why I should have to comment on it as if it were a matter of doctrinal importance. If terms were better defined, I might be more sympathetic but 'All that is possible to know' sounds like a cop out', sound bites.
'Now I know that you fear God' is a text I discussed at length with Lon in the 1-on-1. Feel free to have a look. I also mentioned the incident when God came down to visit Sodom to find out what it was like there. I really don't think it is necessary to suggest (and even less to be dogmatic about it) that God needs to know 'everything there is to know' in order for him to be God.
Last edited:
Hey, cool it bro! Surely you first have to say what exactly you mean by knowledge? Why would God be at all interested in what a camera knows? We know for a fact that he is not interested in oxen and if a camera knows something, I'm sure oxen do.
What is Open Theism?
Well, among other things, Open Theism is Christian theism.
One my favorite articles on the subject of Open Theism is linked to at the bottom of every one of my posts. I'd love to post the entire essay here but its just too long. It is very well worth the read though and I encourage all of you to read it as soon as you're able.
Is Open Theism Christian Theism? by John Sanders
Clete
Well, among other things, Open Theism is Christian theism.
One my favorite articles on the subject of Open Theism is linked to at the bottom of every one of my posts. I'd love to post the entire essay here but its just too long. It is very well worth the read though and I encourage all of you to read it as soon as you're able.
Is Open Theism Christian Theism? by John Sanders
Clete
Thanks for giving some info. on your position. I can see why you’ve come to some of your conclusions and not so clear on others. For example, I know God is a mind reader, because once He answered a prayer of mine quite specifically and my prayer was not spoken aloud. I guess you can’t argue with another’s experience. As far as finding evidence of His mind reading abilities in Scripture, Psalm 139:4 and Rom. 2:16 come to mind. And when I ask if God can know all things knowable, it’s not meant to be a cop out. I wouldn’t know any other way to ask. And I don’t know if God “needs” to know everything to be God. I think He can know everything knowable and chooses what He “needs” to know.
edit to add: I found the thread you mentioned. I'm going to read through it.
Last edited:
Thanks, Surrender. If we pray in faith, I am sure God hears us because he is looking out for faith (his eyes roam the whole earth). I am sure also he looks out for other things, including some of what is going on in people's heads. But that doesn't mean that he is automatically privy to every thought and emotion. Hope you enjoy the reformed hermeneutics thread.
God bless.
....or wants to know!
There is some debate on this among Open Theists and so I suppose that this could not be considered a distinctive accept in the sense that no one other than an Open Theist would understand God's mind in this way.
This is not the only 'omni' trait that many Open Theists have a modified understanding of.
For many Open Theists, God is neither Omniscient, Omnipotent nor Omnipresent in the Classical sense of those terms.
As to God's....
Omnipotence; God can do anything doable that He chooses to do and cannot be forced to do that which does not choose to do.
Omniscience; God knows all that He wants to know of that which is knowable.
Omnipresence; God is everywhere He wants to be at once. God is not in any place that He does not choose to be nor can He be forced to go there. God cannot be in nor go to any place that does not exist.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Clete. Thanks. About omnipotence: that literally means capable of doing anything etc. However, the Calvinists reinterpret this into 'actually does control everything'.
It is this that gives rise to another one of my mottos describing Calvinism: God's omnipotence at the expense of man's impotence. (See the T in my sig). I'm not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg but the visible expression is certainly a boat load of misanthropy.
It is this that gives rise to another one of my mottos describing Calvinism: God's omnipotence at the expense of man's impotence. (See the T in my sig). I'm not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg but the visible expression is certainly a boat load of misanthropy.
You are making me think about this. As I said, your ponderings are a little over my head, but it's nice to stretch. For example, the idea that God doesn't have to know every thought in my head in order to know my motives and intentions is a valid point. At least, I think it is. And God certainly doesn't need to know how many dust particles are on my desk in order to be the God He is. I mean, what's that knowledge have to do with being God anyway, right? :think:
I can't say why I'd disagree with any of this. Thanks for posting it for consideration, Clete.
