Honest struggles on God’s omniscience.

[way 2 go]

The central questions remain:

Does “Now I know” mean “I already knew”?

Does “I will go down and see... and if not, I will know” mean “I already knew exhaustively”?

Does seeing something within a prophetic vision automatically transform every detail into immutable future history?

If God infallibly believed before a person existed that the person would choose A, could the person choose not-A?

If the answer is yes, God’s belief could be false.

If the answer is no, the alternative was impossible.

Repeating that foreknowledge did not cause the choice does not resolve that contradiction.

well now I understand open theism eisegesis takes a few favorite verses Genesis 22:12 “Now I know ”Gen 3:9 "where are you" and Jeremiah 18 “if that nation repents, I will relent” and makes them the controlling presupposition for the entire Bible.
as an open theist you must accept God doesn't know the present exhaustively or the future at all
reinterpret everything through these verses , Revelation , tear that book out & never mind the warning Rev 22:19

reminds me of the word of faith theology “You are gods” Psalm 82:6 / John 10:34 never mind the warning Exo 20:3

 

[Derf]

well now I understand open theism eisegesis takes a few favorite verses Genesis 22:12 “Now I know ”Gen 3:9 "where are you" and Jeremiah 18 “if that nation repents, I will relent” and makes them the controlling presupposition for the entire Bible.
as an open theist you must accept God doesn't know the present exhaustively or the future at all
reinterpret everything through these verses , Revelation , tear that book out & never mind the warning Rev 22:19

Are you really prepared to say that you know exactly what that passage means, despite 2000 years of scholars debating what it means? And that you will interpret all the rest of tge bible based on your understanding of those verses? That's astounding!

reminds me of the word of faith theology “You are gods” Psalm 82:6 / John 10:34 never mind the warning Exo 20:3

And now your only comment is to try to lump those who don't agree with you on Rev 22:19 into another group of heretics? Is that really all you've got? You've proved nothing except your inability to understand what one part of scripture says.

 

[JudgeRightly]

well now I understand open theism eisegesis

You have created a caricature of Open Theism, and have not identified any instance of eisegesis. You have merely applied the label to interpretations you dislike.

See post #278, arguments 9 and 23.

takes a few favorite verses Genesis 22:12 “Now I know

See #278, arguments 1 through 5.

Genesis 22:12 is Scripture, and its words must be accounted for. You don't get to ignore it or change its meaning to suit your theology.

”Gen 3:9 "where are you"

See #278, arguments 6 and 23.

and Jeremiah 18 “if that nation repents, I will relent”

See #278, arguments 16 and 17.

and makes them the controlling presupposition for the entire Bible.

See #278, argument 23.

Using Scripture to interpret Scripture while allowing each passage to mean what it says within its context is exegesis, way 2 go.

You begin with exhaustive foreknowledge as your controlling presupposition and reinterpret every contrary passage through it.

THAT is eisegesis.

as an open theist you must accept God doesn't know the present exhaustively

See #278, arguments 6 through 8 and 11.

or the future at all

See #278, arguments 11, 12, 14, and 17.

reinterpret everything through these verses , Revelation , tear that book out & never mind the warning Rev 22:19

See #278, arguments 9, 15, and 16.

reminds me of the word of faith theology “You are gods” Psalm 82:6 / John 10:34 never mind the warning Exo 20:3

Never heard of it. Doesn't matter anyways.

This is guilt by association combined with a false analogy.

You have identified no relevant similarity between Open Theism and Word of Faith theology. You have simply compared one doctrine you reject to another doctrine you reject.

That's not an argument against either position.

You responded to twenty-three numbered arguments without identifying a single error in any of the answers.

Choose an argument number, identify the particular premise or inference you reject, and explain why.

Repeating labels such as “eisegesis,” “heretical,” and “modal fallacy” does not answer the arguments.

 

[way 2 go]

Are you really prepared to say that you know exactly what that passage means, despite 2000 years of scholars debating what it means? And that you will interpret all the rest of the bible based on your understanding of those verses? That's astounding!

you are the one that says it takes a thousand years to eat a piece of fruit to avoid the truth of spiritual death at the fall of man ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

(II Timothy 3:7) Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth

And now your only comment is to try to lump those who don't agree with you on Rev 22:19 into another group of heretics? Is that really all you've got? You've proved nothing except your inability to understand what one part of scripture says.

what did I get wrong?

well now I understand open theism eisegesis takes a few favorite verses Genesis 22:12 “Now I know ”

open theism uses "now I know" , can only be interpreted as God doesn't know the future


Gen 3:9 "where are you"

open theism uses "where are you" as limited knowledge of the present

and Jeremiah 18 “if that nation repents, I will relent”

open theism uses “if that nation repents, I will relent” as prophecy is not settled


and makes them the controlling presupposition for the entire Bible.

as an open theist you must accept God doesn't know the present exhaustively or the future at all
reinterpret everything through these verses ,

and same problem here : not using the rest of the bible to interpret their key verses
kenneth copeland , benny hinn etc
word of faith theology “You are gods” Psalm 82:6 / John 10:34 makes the followers of that theology think they're gods

word of faith followers filter what the rest of the bible says through those verses
and open theist do the same with their verses so don't be so hard on the word of faith theology

 

[way 2 go]

Choose an argument number, identify the particular premise or inference you reject, and explain why.

and Jeremiah 18 “if that nation repents, I will relent”

open theism uses “if that nation repents, I will relent” as prophecy is not settled

once you say "they did not repent" may or may not be true you're off the reservation
you are saying the whole book of Revelation may or may not be true

 

[Derf]

you are the one that says it takes a thousand years to eat a piece of fruit to avoid the truth of spiritual death at the fall of man ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

(II Timothy 3:7) Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth


what did I get wrong?

well now I understand open theism eisegesis takes a few favorite verses Genesis 22:12 “Now I know ”

open theism uses "now I know" , can only be interpreted as God doesn't know the future


Gen 3:9 "where are you"

open theism uses "where are you" as limited knowledge of the present

and Jeremiah 18 “if that nation repents, I will relent”

open theism uses “if that nation repents, I will relent” as prophecy is not settled


and makes them the controlling presupposition for the entire Bible.

as an open theist you must accept God doesn't know the present exhaustively or the future at all
reinterpret everything through these verses ,

and same problem here : not using the rest of the bible to interpret their key verses
kenneth copeland , benny hinn etc
word of faith theology “You are gods” Psalm 82:6 / John 10:34 makes the followers of that theology think they're gods

word of faith followers filter what the rest of the bible says through those verses
and open theist do the same with their verses so don't be so hard on the word of faith theology

And you're doing the same thing with Rev 22:19. If it's ok for you to filter the whole bible through ONE verse, which is what you've said the word of faith followers are doing (except that they use 2 verses), yet you admit in this post I'm responding to that open theists filter the whole Bible through two verses as well. So which is the better? filtering through only a single verse or two verses?

Yet it's much worse for you, because you've shown that you have little understanding of which verses open theists use, meaning that you filter your understanding of open theists through your own limited knowledge of open theism, so you have nothing of substance to say about it, so you end up repeating refuted material over and over. You've got nothing.

 

[Idolater]

as an open theist you must accept God doesn't know the present exhaustively ...

This is the hardest part to swallow prima facie, that God doesn't even know necessarily what's going on rn. Seems beyond the pale and a bridge too far.