Theology Club: For Dialogos

[Lighthouse]

You don't seem to know what omniscient means. If God, has chosen, at any time in the past or present, not to know something that is knowable, then God isn't omniscient. You may argue (erroniously) that God has chosen not to be omniscient, but that still makes him non-omniscient.

Is God sovereign? Is He omnipotent?

If you answer yes to either and then say He cannot choose to not be omniscient [according to your definition] you contradict yourself and thus negate your argument.

I also still fail to see any Scripture that states God is omniscient.

So as much as you want to pretend that this is irrelevant....

It wasn't relevant to that particular thread.

It is relevant.

See above.

It is for two reasons.

See above.

First, by arguing that God does not know, or did not know in the past, facts that were knowable, you place yourself outside the mainstreem of open theism and that makes you a pretty poor spokesperson for the view.

As I told you, I'm not the only person who sees the passage in question as meaning that God did not know what was really going on in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Also, there is the story of the sacrifice of Isaac, wherein God told Abraham that He now knew how deep Abraham's love was for Him, indicating that He did not know before, which is why the test.

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.”
-Genesis 22:12

Two, if you base your theory of open theism, in part, on the erroneous conclusions you come to in regarding Gods knowledge of the present, then your understanding of God's knowledge of the future will be equally erroneous.

I don't base my theory on that; it's a secondary conclusion thus it goes the other way around. If I did not believe in the general consensus of the open view I wouldn't believe this.

The fact that you thought otherwise belies your refusal to consider the open view in any rational way for the purposes of a valid discussion on the subject.

In other words, you don't actually care, you just want to belittle the open view.

So?

Its still wrong.

Irrelevant to the fact that you're treating me like it is my idea and that I alone hold the view.

And you still haven't proved it erroneous.

Nice try. Its entirely relevant to the topic of God's omniscience. And its entirely relevant to whether or not you have a consistent theology. If you can't keep your thoughts strait in your own head, then why should any of us consider what you say?

1. It's not relevant to the point of the other thread.
2. My theology is consistent.
3. My thoughts are perfectly straight in my own head.
4. You have no basis for your accusations against the consistency of my theology and the order of my thoughts.

So, do you agree that God knows all things that can be known?

Only insofar as He wants to know them.

 

[Dialogos]

Is God sovereign?

Yes.

Is He omnipotent?

Yes.

If you answer yes to either and then say He cannot choose to not be omniscient [according to your definition] you contradict yourself and thus negate your argument.

This is perhaps the worst case of pitting one of God's attributes against another that I have every seen.

Lets take the same argument and use it against God's other attributes.

Is God Sovereign?

Yes.

Is God Holy?

Yes.

If we answer yes to both and yet say that God cannot choose to be unholy are we also contradicting ourselves and thus negating our argument?

Uhhh, no.

Because God's attributes aren't pitted against one another. God isn't unholy, can't be unholy and therefore the Soveriegn attribute of His nature only serves to uphold and strengthen His holiness.

So lets stop there and let you answer your own kind of argument.


Do you think that God is Sovereign, Lighthouse?

Do you think that God is Holy?

Do you think that God, in His sovereignty can choose to become unholy??

I also still fail to see any Scripture that states God is omniscient.

Do you think that God is omniscient or not?

As I told you, I'm not the only person who sees the passage in question as meaning that God did not know what was really going on in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Parroting error is not a very good excuse.

Also, there is the story of the sacrifice of Isaac, wherein God told Abraham that He now knew how deep Abraham's love was for Him, indicating that He did not know before, which is why the test.

The reason for the test was the development of Abraham's character, not the perfection of God's knowledge see James 1:2-4.

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.”
-Genesis 22:12

And in your view, if God says He now knows something, it necessarily follows that God did not know it previously.

That's a false conclusion, and it is easily demonstrated to be a false conclusion.

Are you "now" an open theist Lighthouse?

 

[Lighthouse]

This is perhaps the worst case of pitting one of God's attributes against another that I have every seen.

God is sovereign over His attributes, which means He can control them and do with them as He will.

Lets take the same argument and use it against God's other attributes.

Is God Sovereign?

Yes.

Is God Holy?

Yes.

If we answer yes to both and yet say that God cannot choose to be unholy are we also contradicting ourselves and thus negating our argument?

Uhhh, no.

His omniscience is not an attribute in the same manner as His holiness.

His holiness is something He is, not something He can do. Omniscience is is an ability.

Because God's attributes aren't pitted against one another. God isn't unholy, can't be unholy and therefore the Soveriegn attribute of His nature only serves to uphold and strengthen His holiness.

So lets stop there and let you answer your own kind of argument.

Do you think that God is Sovereign, Lighthouse?

Do you think that God is Holy?

Do you think that God, in His sovereignty can choose to become unholy??

See above.

Do you think that God is omniscient or not?

God is knowledgeable in all things knowable insofar as He chooses to be so, according to His own words from His word.

Parroting error is not a very good excuse.

You haven't proven it to be error.

The reason for the test was the development of Abraham's character, not the perfection of God's knowledge see James 1:2-4.

So God didn't mean what He said?

And in your view, if God says He now knows something, it necessarily follows that God did not know it previously.

That's a false conclusion, and it is easily demonstrated to be a false conclusion.

If it is so easily demonstrated then demonstrate...

Are you "now" an open theist Lighthouse?

There was a time I was not. When I say I am now OV I say it to indicate that once I was not.

 

[Dialogos]

God is sovereign over His attributes, which means He can control them and do with them as He will.

You don't actually mean that, you'll contradict yourself in your next sentence. You don’t think that God’s sovereignty can nullify God’s holiness and you’ll go on to try and say that holiness is a different kind of attribute than omniscience.

His omniscience is not an attribute in the same manner as His holiness.

His holiness is something He is, not something He can do. Omniscience is is an ability.

False distinction. There is absolutely no logical reason to try and draw a wedge between God’s attributes and his abilities. In fact, God’s abilities flow from His attributes.

God’s Omnipotence is a description of both God’s nature and God’s behavior.
God’s Omnipresence is not only a description of God’s nature it also tells us about where He can be.
God’s Holiness is not only a description of God’s moral character, it also tells us about God’s moral interaction with His creatures.
And in the same way, God’s Omniscience says as much about His nature, character and wisdom as it does about His ability to know all things.

God is knowledgeable in all things knowable insofar as He chooses to be so, according to His own words from His word.

And God has chosen know all things (1 John 3:20). I’d simply ask why it is that every time the scripture makes a definite statement about what God knows, it affirms that God knows all but you continue to qualify your statements with “insofar as he chooses to be so" as if the matter were scripturally unclear.

It isn't.

1 John 3:20 proves two things.

1. God is able to know all things.
2. God has chosen to know all things.

Either you believe 1 John 3:20 or you don’t.

There was a time I was not. When I say I am now OV I say it to indicate that once I was not.

Are you now a male?

 

[Lighthouse]

You don't actually mean that, you'll contradict yourself in your next sentence. You don’t think that God’s sovereignty can nullify God’s holiness and you’ll go on to try and say that holiness is a different kind of attribute than omniscience.

False distinction. There is absolutely no logical reason to try and draw a wedge between God’s attributes and his abilities. In fact, God’s abilities flow from His attributes.

God’s Omnipotence is a description of both God’s nature and God’s behavior.
God’s Omnipresence is not only a description of God’s nature it also tells us about where He can be.
God’s Holiness is not only a description of God’s moral character, it also tells us about God’s moral interaction with His creatures.
And in the same way, God’s Omniscience says as much about His nature, character and wisdom as it does about His ability to know all things.

And God has chosen know all things (1 John 3:20). I’d simply ask why it is that every time the scripture makes a definite statement about what God knows, it affirms that God knows all but you continue to qualify your statements with “insofar as he chooses to be so" as if the matter were scripturally unclear.

It isn't.

1 John 3:20 proves two things.

1. God is able to know all things.
2. God has chosen to know all things.

Either you believe 1 John 3:20 or you don’t.

Are you now a male?

1 John 3:20 is speaking of the heart; God knows the hearts of men. That is all it says.

There are two stories of Abraham of which we have spoken, both showing God claiming He was either presently or previously unaware of something; one of which is clearly extant and thus knowable at the time He says He did not know it, and that story includes at least two things of which God shows Himself to be unaware. The other it can be argued that not even Abraham knew his own devotion thus the test revealed to himself and God just how deep it ran.

It is not unclear; the story of Sodom and Gomorrah spells it out very clearly; in His claim that He will go down to see if what He has heard is true and in Abraham's bargaining. Abraham seemed to be convinced God did not know the exact number of righteous people within, why do you think otherwise?

 

[Dialogos]

1 John 3:20 is speaking of the heart; God knows the hearts of men. That is all it says.

Ummm, no. John is arguing that even if our hearts condemn us, God is greater than our hearts, and since He knows all things, we can trust Him rather than our fickle hearts.

He is saying, if God knows all things, (παντα) in Greek, then clearly He knows our ends better than our self-condemning hearts do.
That is why verse 21 says we have "confidence before God."

There are two stories of Abraham of which we have spoken, both showing God claiming He was either presently or previously unaware of something;

There are two stories of Abraham in neither of which does God say that he was previously unaware. In one, He declares the truth and you ignore it (Genesis 18:20), and the other you jump to conclusion that God's present knowledge precludes his previous knowledge which I show is a non-sequiter. Again, just because you are "now" a male does not mean that at some point you weren't.

But beyond that, if you actually believe what you say above - "God knows the hearts of men" - then you would realize that God didn't need to see the results of the test in Genesis 22 in order to know Abraham's heart.

So who was the test for?

If not for God to find out Abraham's heart, then who was it for?

Easy.

James 1:2-4.

Incidentally, I applaud the reasonableness of your answer here.

The other it can be argued that not even Abraham knew his own devotion thus the test revealed to himself and God just how deep it ran.

Exactly.

It is not unclear; the story of Sodom and Gomorrah spells it out very clearly; in His claim that He will go down to see if what He has heard is true and in Abraham's bargaining. Abraham seemed to be convinced God did not know the exact number of righteous people within, why do you think otherwise?

I think this horse has been beat dead in another thread.

:deadhorse:

Nevertheless, I'll give you three reasons to chew on.

First, Genesis 18:20 says, "and their sin is very grave." That's a statement of fact. God knew.
Second, Abraham is approaching God according to a historically recognized method of negotiating with a superior. When asking a king (or God) you don't just jump in and ask for everything you want, you make a succession of smaller requests so as not to offend the most powerful king (or God).
Its not that Abraham thought he knew something God didn't, its that Abraham wants to save his nephew (and his nephew's family) in a way that honors God.
Third, I look to the rule of faith, I let scripture interpret scripture. If you really believe that "God knows the hearts of men" and you understand 1 John 3:20 to mean the hearts of "all" men. Then you have a conundrum.

Either (A) 1 John 3:20 is somehow historically bound in that God somehow started knowing the hearts of all men after Genesis 18 or (B) 1 John 3:20 is simply wrong and Genesis 18 proves it or (C) 1 John 3:20 is true, it has always been true since creation and God's coming down to "see" the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah is not a sign that God is ignorant of the hearts of the Sodomites (which would have accused them of their sin according to Romans 2:15), it is a sign that God has come down to personally execute judgment, which He has shown He is willing to do to demonstrate the gravity of sin (see Gen 11:7).

I choose option C.

Which do you choose?

 

[Lighthouse]

Ummm, no. John is arguing that even if our hearts condemn us, God is greater than our hearts, and since He knows all things, we can trust Him rather than our fickle hearts.

He is saying, if God knows all things, (παντα) in Greek, then clearly He knows our ends better than our self-condemning hearts do.
That is why verse 21 says we have "confidence before God."

Isn't the Calvinist mantra, "All doesn't always mean all"?

There are two stories of Abraham in neither of which does God say that he was previously unaware. In one, He declares the truth and you ignore it (Genesis 18:20), and the other you jump to conclusion that God's present knowledge precludes his previous knowledge which I show is a non-sequiter. Again, just because you are "now" a male does not mean that at some point you weren't.

I already trashed this argument when you asked if I were now an open theist. How does it feel to fail?

But beyond that, if you actually believe what you say above - "God knows the hearts of men" - then you would realize that God didn't need to see the results of the test in Genesis 22 in order to know Abraham's heart.

Except that Abraham didn't even know, thus it was not in his heart and therefore unknowable even as present knowledge.

So who was the test for?

If not for God to find out Abraham's heart, then who was it for?

Easy.

James 1:2-4.

Incidentally, I applaud the reasonableness of your answer here.

Exactly.

So you have my answer twice now. It was for both, because not even Abraham knew.

I think this horse has been beat dead in another thread.

:deadhorse:

Nevertheless, I'll give you three reasons to chew on.

First, Genesis 18:20 says, "and their sin is very grave." That's a statement of fact. God knew.

No. It's a statement of contingency predicated on the truth of the aforementioned outcry.

Second, Abraham is approaching God according to a historically recognized method of negotiating with a superior. When asking a king (or God) you don't just jump in and ask for everything you want, you make a succession of smaller requests so as not to offend the most powerful king (or God).

Not the point, genius. If God knew how many righteous were in the cities He would not have answered Abraham as He did, rather He would have told Abraham flat out that there were not that many righteous in the cities each time Abraham offered a number. Including the last as we know the cities were not spared.

Its not that Abraham thought he knew something God didn't, its that Abraham wants to save his nephew (and his nephew's family) in a way that honors God.

I never suggested Abraham knew something of which he thought God unaware. Abraham clearly didn't know either. I am making the suggestion that Abraham made his request with phrasing indicating that he believed God did not already know. Just like when David prayed to God asking Him to change His mind regarding the death of his infant son.

Third, I look to the rule of faith, I let scripture interpret scripture. If you really believe that "God knows the hearts of men" and you understand 1 John 3:20 to mean the hearts of "all" men. Then you have a conundrum.

No I don't.

Either (A) 1 John 3:20 is somehow historically bound in that God somehow started knowing the hearts of all men after Genesis 18 or (B) 1 John 3:20 is simply wrong and Genesis 18 proves it or (C) 1 John 3:20 is true, it has always been true since creation and God's coming down to "see" the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah is not a sign that God is ignorant of the hearts of the Sodomites (which would have accused them of their sin according to Romans 2:15), it is a sign that God has come down to personally execute judgment, which He has shown He is willing to do to demonstrate the gravity of sin (see Gen 11:7).

I choose option C.

Which do you choose?

A. And I've already explained why.

 

[Dialogos]

Isn't the Calvinist mantra, "All doesn't always mean all"?

No.

We define "all" grammatically and contextually. Nice attempt at a smokescreen though, do you believe all means all in 1 John 3:20 or not?

I already trashed this argument when you asked if I were now an open theist. How does it feel to fail?

Right, you win. The fact that you can say that you are now an open theist means that there was neccesarily a time in the past in which you weren't an open theist, and the fact that you can say that you are now a male means that at some time in the past you weren't a male.

What was your name before the operation, Brandy?

:chuckle:

Except that Abraham didn't even know, thus it was not in his heart and therefore unknowable even as present knowledge.

Read your bible.

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, 18 of whom it was said, "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." 19 He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back. (Heb 11:17-19 ESV)

You say:

Not the point, genius. If God knew how many righteous were in the cities He would not have answered Abraham as He did,

You don't have the first clue what God would do. Read your bible!
Start here genius, (Isaiah 55:8-9).

I never suggested Abraham knew something of which he thought God unaware. Abraham clearly didn't know either. I am making the suggestion that Abraham made his request with phrasing indicating that he believed God did not already know. Just like when David prayed to God asking Him to change His mind regarding the death of his infant son.

No, you suggest that the citizens of Sodom and the wicked men of Sodom knew something God didn't know. And you deny the truth of 1 John 3:20 by suggesting such a thing.

Note to the casual observer. Lighthouse did not respond to the following question.

Either (A) 1 John 3:20 is somehow historically bound in that God somehow started knowing the hearts of all men after Genesis 18 or (B) 1 John 3:20 is simply wrong and Genesis 18 proves it or (C) 1 John 3:20 is true, it has always been true since creation and God's coming down to "see" the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah is not a sign that God is ignorant of the hearts of the Sodomites (which would have accused them of their sin according to Romans 2:15), it is a sign that God has come down to personally execute judgment, which He has shown He is willing to do to demonstrate the gravity of sin (see Gen 11:7).

I choose option C.

Which do you choose?

I wouldn't hold my breath. He won't because he can't.

 

[Lighthouse]

No.

We define "all" grammatically and contextually. Nice attempt at a smokescreen though, do you believe all means all in 1 John 3:20 or not?


Right, you win. The fact that you can say that you are now an open theist means that there was neccesarily a time in the past in which you weren't an open theist, and the fact that you can say that you are now a male means that at some time in the past you weren't a male.

What was your name before the operation, Brandy?

:chuckle:

Read your bible.

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, 18 of whom it was said, "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." 19 He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back. (Heb 11:17-19 ESV)

You say:

You don't have the first clue what God would do. Read your bible!
Start here genius, (Isaiah 55:8-9).

No, you suggest that the citizens of Sodom and the wicked men of Sodom knew something God didn't know. And you deny the truth of 1 John 3:20 by suggesting such a thing.

Note to the casual observer. Lighthouse did not respond to the following question.

I wouldn't hold my breath. He won't because he can't.

Not only do you come with nothing but a patronizing attitude, full of conceit and refusal to consider the possibility you might be in error, you also lie, as evidenced by the fact that I did answer:

A. And I've already explained why.

So I'm done with you.