Idolater
Popetard
First, did He already know the answer to the question He posed, "Will ye also go away?"
Honest struggles on God’s omniscience.
- Thread starter Skywatch89
- Start date
First, did He already know the answer to the question He posed, "Will ye also go away?"
Derf
Well-known member
At what time? When He first chose them (no, I don't think so)? At the time He asked the question (maybe)? or at the time He was arrested in the Garden (yes, and they did)?
70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” 71 He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve.
It is amazing, but maybe it shouldn't be, how many people that engage in theology on X either don't know what the Bible says, or ignore it because it shows they are wrong.
It is amazing, but maybe it shouldn't be, how many people that engage in theology on X either don't know what the Bible says, or ignore it because it shows they are wrong.
Derf
Well-known member
is that supposed to be addressed to me?
No. But anyone that wants to know why Judas was chosen, I think this is why.
Derf
Well-known member
Because he was a devil? That's what I think.
Last edited:
way 2 go
Well-known member
like I said
so the open theist wants us to believe God was prophesying his own sacrifice for the sin of the world without knowing whether Abraham would do it . Genesis 22:12 ,Revelation 13:8
God said : "now I know you fear me " Not that God gained new information , he said it for Abraham’s and Isaac’s benefit as praising a child for doing what you knew they would do
Derf
Well-known member
Saying something for a child's benefit doesn't mean one has to give a false statement.
What if Abraham told him no. He can't kill his own child?
way 2 go
Well-known member
the question is still , Do open theist deny Scripture ?
open theist like to take a text and then pretend the rest of scripture does not exist and interpret the text without scripture
open theist have God needing to go to sodom to figure it out if the place was evil , so much for all knowing ,
(Genesis 18:21) I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which has come to Me. And if not, I will know
God knew
(Genesis 13:13) But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD, exceedingly so.
This has already been addressed.
Repeating it as though it has not been answered does not make the argument stronger. It only makes it look like you cannot actually deal with the answer.
You are assuming that Abraham’s offering of Isaac was necessary in order for God to accomplish redemption.
Was it?
If Abraham had refused, would God have been unable to redeem the world?
Would Christ have been unable to die for sin?
Would God’s purpose have failed?
I do not believe God is that weak.
Abraham’s offering of Isaac was a type and shadow of what God Himself would do through Christ. But Abraham’s obedience was not the foundation of God’s ability to redeem mankind.
God can have His own purpose, His own plan, His own Son, and His own power to bring redemption to pass.
Genesis 22:12 still says “now I know.”
Revelation 13:8 does not erase that.
Because you say He didn't?
The whole ordeal was God testing Abraham's faith in Him.
And the text gives the result of 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.”
The word “since” matters.
God ties the knowledge to Abraham’s completed action.
“Now I know... since you have not withheld your son.”
That is the reason the text gives.
You are replacing that reason with your own.
You say God did not gain new information.
The passage says “now I know.”
You say God already knew what Abraham would do.
The passage says God tested Abraham, Abraham obeyed, and then God said “now I know.”
That is not my wording.
That is Scripture.
Again, because you say so?
The passage does not say God was praising Abraham.
The passage does not say God already knew and was only speaking for Abraham’s and Isaac’s benefit.
The passage says God tested Abraham, Abraham obeyed, and then God said:
“Now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
Saying something for someone else’s benefit does not require giving a false explanation.
If God already knew Abraham would do it, He could have said:
“I knew you would obey, and now you and Isaac know it too.”
But that is not what He said.
He said, “now I know.”
You are not explaining the text. You are explaining it away.
The answer is still no.
Open Theists are the ones insisting that the passages mean what they actually say.
God repented.
God relented.
God tested Abraham.
God said “now I know.”
God went down to see.
God responded to what men did.
You are the one repeatedly saying, “It does not really mean that.”
So if anyone is in danger of denying Scripture, it is the person who keeps explaining away the passages that do not fit his theology... YOU!
Talk about projection...
We are comparing Scripture with Scripture.
Genesis 22 says God tested Abraham and then said “now I know.”
Genesis 6 says God was sorry He made man.
Jonah 3 says God saw Nineveh’s works and relented from the disaster He said He would bring.
Jeremiah 18 says God may speak concerning a nation to destroy it, but if that nation turns from evil, God will relent.
Genesis 18 says God went down to see whether Sodom had done altogether according to the outcry, and “if not, I will know.”
That is Scripture interpreting Scripture.
You are the one importing Classical Theism into the text and then forcing all of those passages to mean something other than what they say.
That's.... Literally what Scripture says...
“I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which has come to Me. And if not, I will know.”
God says He will go down and see.
God says, “if not, I will know.”
You are offended at the plain wording of the passage because it does not fit your system.
No, so much for your imposed definition of “all knowing.”
God can know what can be known.
The question is whether every future free choice already exists as a settled fact before the person makes it.
You assume it does.
Then when Scripture presents God testing, investigating, relenting, responding, and saying “now I know,” you complain that we are denying God’s attributes.
No.
We are denying your philosophical definition of those attributes and your attempt to impose that definition onto the text.
There is a difference.
Genesis 13:13 says the men of Sodom were wicked and exceedingly sinful.
Nobody denies that.
But Genesis 18:21 is not asking whether Sodom had wicked men in it.
The issue is whether they had done altogether according to the outcry against it.
In other words, the passage presents God as investigating the full measure of the accusation before judgment.
That is not a problem for Open Theism.
That is righteous judgment.
God does not judge on rumor. He judges according to truth.
So Genesis 13:13 does not erase Genesis 18:21.
It only tells us Sodom was already wicked.
Genesis 18 tells us God investigated whether the outcry against Sodom was fully accurate before bringing judgment.
And again, your answer is to make the text theatrical.
God says:
“I will go down now and see... and if not, I will know.”
You say:
“God knew.”
Then why did He say it that way?
You need to stop merely asserting “God knew” and start proving from the text that “I will go down and see... and if not, I will know” actually means “I already know exhaustively and am only pretending to investigate.”
Because that is not what the passage says.
way 2 go
Well-known member
you think God didn't know ?
(Genesis 3:9) And the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, Where are you?
(Genesis 3:11) And He said, Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree which I commanded you that you should not eat?
(Genesis 18:21) I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which has come to Me. And if not, I will know
(Genesis 13:13) But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD, exceedingly so.
way 2 go
Well-known member
God was prophesying his own sacrifice for the sin of the world
God already knew Abraham was faithful
the question is still , Do open theist deny Scripture ?
open theist like to take a text and then pretend the rest of scripture does not exist and interpret the text without scripture
(Genesis 15:6) And he believed in the LORD. And He counted it to him for righteousness.
God already knew Abraham's faith
(Genesis 15:6) And he believed in the LORD. And He counted it to him for righteousness.
God knows thew future
Revelation 13:8 backs that up "slain from the foundation of the world"
God already knew Abraham's faith and He counted it to him for righteousness
(Genesis 15:6) And he believed in the LORD. And He counted it to him for righteousness.
(Romans 4:2-3) [2] For if Abraham were justified by works, he has whereof to glory; but not before God. [3] For what says the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
open theist like to take a text and then pretend the rest of scripture does not exist and interpret the text without scripture
supra
the question is still , Do open theist deny Scripture ?
open theist like to take a text and then pretend the rest of scripture does not exist and interpret the text without scripture
it sometimes takes more than a verse to understand
Use clear verses to interpret difficult or less clear verses
(Acts 17:11) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
(Genesis 18:21) I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which has come to Me. And if not, I will know
God knew
(Genesis 13:13) But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD, exceedingly so.
I deny your out of context of the rest of scripture interpretation of verses
God already knew
(Genesis 15:6) And he believed in the LORD. And He counted it to him for righteousness.
we're still here
God knew they needed to be preached to so they would repent
(Romans 10:14-15) [14] How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? [15] and how shall they preach, except they be sent? even as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that bring glad tidings of good things!
a verse , not a theology
(Genesis 13:13) But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD, exceedingly so.
you mean using all of scripture , yes I am guilty
your literal translation has God who knows the numbers of the hairs on your head not knowing what he already revealed he knew
(Genesis 13:13) But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD, exceedingly so.
it's your half baked view of God , you pay lip service to God but don't really believe what you say
infra.
you don't really believe that ,as shown above
God says he Knows the future you assume God doesn't know and liken to plane travel
(Romans 8:29-30) [29] For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren: [30] and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
you pretend this is not settled
(Revelation of John 9:20-21) [20] And the rest of the men who were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the works of their hands, that they should not worship demons, and golden, and silver, and bronze, and stone, and wooden idols (which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk). [21] And they did not repent of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.
(Revelation of John 16:9-11) [9] And men were burned with great heat. And they blasphemed the name of God, He having authority over these plagues. And they did not repent in order to give Him glory. [10] And the fifth angel poured out his vial on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom became darkened. And they gnawed their tongues from the pain. [11] And they blasphemed the God of Heaven because of their pains and their sores. And they did not repent of their deeds.
God knows
(Matthew 12:36) But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment
You didn't answer Nick’s question.
He asked what would have happened if Abraham refused.
Instead, you cited passages where God asks questions or says He will investigate, then simply asserted that He already knew.
That's not an argument. That's the very point in dispute.
And Genesis 13:13 does not cancel Genesis 18:21.
Genesis 13 says Sodom was wicked.
Genesis 18 says God went down to see whether they had done altogether according to the outcry, “and if not, I will know.”
Those are not the same claim.
You are still dodging the issue.
No one denied Abraham already had faith.
The question is whether God already knew Abraham would go through with offering Isaac.
Genesis 22:12 says:
“Now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son.”
Genesis 15:6 establishes Abraham’s faith.
Genesis 22 tests it.
You have repeated this accusation several times now, but repetition is not an argument.
If you think Open Theists deny Scripture, then demonstrate it.
Show where I denied a text.
Do not just keep asserting it because I refuse to accept your interpretation of texts that say God repented, relented, tested, investigated, responded, or said “now I know.”
Genesis 15:6 says Abraham believed God, and God counted it to him for righteousness.
It does not say God already knew Abraham would later go through with offering Isaac.
You are quietly replacing one claim with another.
Genesis 15 establishes Abraham’s faith.
Genesis 22 tests that faith, and only after Abraham does not withhold Isaac does God say:
“Now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son...”
No, it does not.
As already shown, Revelation 17:8 confirms that “from the foundation of the world” refers to the names written in the Book of Life, not to the Lamb being slain.
Again, no one denies that Abraham already had faith.
That is not what Genesis 22:12 says God came to know.
God did not say, “Now I know that you believe Me.”
He said:
“Now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
Genesis 15 and Romans 4 concern Abraham’s faith being counted for righteousness.
Genesis 22 concerns that faith being tested and demonstrated through obedience.
You have repeated this accusation several times now, but repetition is not an argument.
If you think Open Theists deny Scripture, then demonstrate it.
Show where I denied a text.
Do not just keep asserting it because I refuse to accept your interpretation of texts that say God repented, relented, tested, investigated, responded, or said “now I know.”
You have repeated this accusation several times now, but repetition is not an argument.
If you think Open Theists deny Scripture, then demonstrate it.
Show where I denied a text.
Do not just keep asserting it because I refuse to accept your interpretation of texts that say God repented, relented, tested, investigated, responded, or said “now I know.”
Agreed.
But using Scripture to interpret Scripture does not mean using one passage to erase another, as you are doing.
Genesis 15 says Abraham believed God.
Genesis 22 says God tested Abraham and then said, “now I know.”
Both are clear.
The Bereans searched the Scriptures to see whether what they were being told was true.
They did not use one passage as an excuse to explain away another.
Genesis 13:13 says Sodom was wicked.
Genesis 18:21 says God went down to determine whether they had done altogether according to the outcry against them.
Those are not the same claim.
Knowing Sodom was wicked does not mean God had already verified the full charge brought against it.
So no, Genesis 13:13 does not cancel:
“I will go down now and see... And if not, I will know.”
Then demonstrate that they are out of context.
Simply asserting “out of context” every time a passage does not fit your theology is not an argument.
Yes.
Because Genesis 6 does not say God would destroy Noah.
The very passage says:
“But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.”
God destroyed mankind from the face of the earth in the flood while preserving Noah and his household.
So “we’re still here” is not a rebuttal.
It is a failure to read the whole passage.
Again, that does not answer Jonah 3:10.
God knowing that preaching was needed does not mean God knew with certainty that Nineveh would repent.
Those are different claims.
Jonah 3:10 says:
“Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.”
And the word translated “relented” there is the same word, nacham, used in Genesis 6 when God was sorry He had made man.
So in Jonah:
God warned Nineveh.
Nineveh repented.
God saw their works.
God relented.
That is what the text says.
Romans 10 does not overturn Jonah 3:10.
One verse does not make a theology.
But neither may a theology ignore a verse.
And Jeremiah 18 is not alone.
It fits Genesis 6.
It fits Jonah 3.
It fits God’s repeated pattern of warning, responding, relenting, and judging according to what men actually do.
So no, Jeremiah 18 is not merely “a verse.”
It is an explicit statement of a principle that appears repeatedly in Scripture.
It's a verse your theology still has to account for.
Supra
No.
I mean using some Scriptures to silence others.
Using all of Scripture means allowing Genesis 15 and Genesis 22 to both say what they say.
It means allowing Genesis 13 and Genesis 18 to both say what they say.
It means allowing Romans 10 and Jonah 3 to both say what they say.
It means allowing prophecy passages to stand without using them to erase every passage where God tests, investigates, responds, repents, relents, or says “now I know.”
That is what you are refusing to do.
Again, Genesis 13:13 says Sodom was wicked.
Genesis 18:21 says God went down to see whether they had done altogether according to the outcry against them.
Those are not the same thing.
Knowing Sodom was wicked does not mean God had already verified the full charge that had come before Him.
So no, Genesis 13:13 does not make Genesis 18:21 say the opposite of what it says.
Insults are not arguments.
If you think my position contradicts Scripture, demonstrate it.
Merely sneering at it does nothing to answer the texts.
You have shown no such thing.
You have only repeated your assumption that God already knew what the text says He went to see and would then know.
Book, chapter, verse.
No.
I deny your assumption that future free choices already exist as settled facts to be known.
No.
The flight analogy was about a corporate outcome not requiring identification of every individual involved. It was answering your misuse of Revelation 9 and 16.
And Romans 8:29-30 does not say God foreknew every future free choice.
It says:
“Whom He foreknew...”
People, not every future event, and certainly not every future free choice.
So this passage does not prove the claim you are making.
No.
I deny that these passages prove what you say they prove.
They describe a corporate group in a prophetic vision refusing to repent under judgment.
They do not identify every individual involved, and they do not state that God exhaustively foreknew every future free choice of every person in that group.
A revealed corporate outcome is not the same thing as exhaustive foreknowledge of every future free choice.
Of course God knows what men have said and will judge them for it.
But Matthew 12:36 does not say God eternally foreknows every idle word before it is spoken.
Nor does it turn “I will go down now and see... and if not, I will know” into “I already knew.”
I asked a question and you are guessing wrong. Answer the question. What if Abraham said "No" when told to go to Moriah to sacrifice Isaac. Yes, there is a point to the question. I think you see it, which is why you redirected away from the truth.