Derf
Well-known member
GPTZERO.ME flagged this post as likely AI, too. I havent tested any others.
Honest struggles on God’s omniscience.
- Thread starter Skywatch89
- Start date
Idolater
Popetard
lol oh. Well I guess I won't put a lot of stock in it then lol.
Derf
Well-known member
That's exactly what an AI bot would say.
Idolater
Popetard
That's exactly what an AI bot would say.
You lmk the AI bot that talks like me, I want to meet this guy.
Derf
Well-known member
His forum name is Aidolater.
Idolater
Popetard
Nice.
No.
I am simply applying a single definition of knowledge to both cases.
Knowledge means knowledge.
Foreknowledge means prior knowledge.
The difference between man’s knowledge and God’s knowledge is not that the word “knowledge” changes meaning when applied to God.
God’s knowledge is greater, deeper, wiser, and more perfect than man’s.
But you do not get to redefine “foreknowledge” to mean “exhaustive infallible knowledge of every future free choice” every time God is the subject.
That has to be proven from the text, and Genesis 22 does not prove it.
Genesis 22 says God tested Abraham, Abraham obeyed, and then God said:
“Now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son...”
The amount and quality of God’s knowledge compared to man’s knowledge is not in dispute.
Of course God knows infinitely more than man.
The question is whether God knows future free choices as settled facts before those choices exist.
That is the point you keep skipping.
Open Theists do not deny that God knows all that can be known.
We deny that a future free choice, before it is made, already exists as a settled fact to be known.
So simply saying “God’s knowledge is greater than man’s” does not prove exhaustive foreknowledge of every future free choice.
Again, no one disputes that God’s knowledge is infinitely greater than man’s, but the word “knowledge” does not change meaning when applied to God.
If something does not yet exist as a fact, then there is no fact there to know.
So the issue is not whether man plays “T-ball” and God plays “major league.”
The issue is whether future free choices already exist as settled facts before they are made.
That is the claim you keep assuming instead of proving.
Thanks for finally conceding the point!
You've now admitted that you're importing the idea that God already knew Abraham would obey into Genesis 22, because the verse itself does not say that.
On its own, the verse does not teach your theology.
And you have yet to show otherwise from the rest of scripture than that you're just forcing your theology onto the text (IOW, eisegesis).
No.
This is not “proof” that Open Theists ignore the rest of Scripture. It is proof that when Genesis 22 does not say what you need it to say, you appeal vaguely to “the rest of Scripture” to override the passage in front of you.
That's called eisegesis.
Using Scripture to interpret Scripture does not mean using other passages to prevent this passage from meaning what it says.
It means allowing all the passages to speak.
And Genesis 22 speaks plainly:
God tested Abraham.
Abraham obeyed.
God said, “Now I know.”
You still have not shown where “the rest of Scripture” says God already knew Abraham would obey before the test.
Meanwhile, I have repeatedly appealed to the rest of Scripture: Genesis 6, Genesis 18, Jonah 3, Jeremiah 18, and other passages where God repents, relents, investigates, tests, responds, or says He will know.
There is also an entire catalog of such passages at https://opentheism.org/verses.
Those passages are part of “the rest of Scripture” too.
So the issue is not that Open Theists ignore the rest of Scripture. It's that I am doing exegesis from the passages themselves, while you are importing exhaustive foreknowledge into Genesis 22 and then accusing me of ignoring Scripture because I refuse to accept your eisegesis.
No, that's a straw man.
Genesis 22 is not my “proof text that God does not have foreknowledge.”
The question is not whether God can know anything beforehand, it's whether God exhaustively foreknew Abraham’s free choice before Abraham made it.
And you have already conceded that Genesis 22 does not say that.
So now your argument has shifted to this:
Genesis 22 does not teach my position, but “the rest of Scripture” supposedly forces my position onto Genesis 22 anyway.
That is not exegesis, it's just you importing your conclusion into the passage.
And again, “the rest of Scripture” does not mean “whatever verses you can quote to force Genesis 22 to mean something else.”
The rest of Scripture includes Genesis 6, Genesis 18, Jonah 3, Jeremiah 18, and many other passages where God repents, relents, investigates, tests, responds, or says He will know.
So I am applying the rest of Scripture.
I'm just not letting your theological assumption override the passage in front of us.
Me beating this dead horse you keep bringing up isn't going to make it any more dead.
Revelation 9 describes a group of people within a prophetic vision. Remember, prophecy is not prewritten history, and within scripture, God often hopes that things prophesied do not come to pass.
Again, that passage says they did not repent.
It does not say they could not repent.
It does not identify every individual involved.
It does not say God exhaustively foreknew every future free choice of every person in that group.
And it does not say God already knew Abraham would obey before Genesis 22.
So quoting it again does not make it answer Genesis 22.
Thank you for making the Open Theism point for me. Modifying the “infallible foreknowledge = no free will” argument only shows that your position has God judging men for things they had no real choice in doing.
That utterly destroys your position!
If God infallibly believed beforehand that these men would not repent, and God’s belief cannot be false, then they cannot do otherwise than not repent.
That means they could not repent.
And if they could not repent, then God would be judging them for failing to do what they had no ability to do.
That makes God unjust.
But Revelation 9 does not say they “could not” repent.
It says they “did not” repent.
So after laying out an argument that concludes their action would not be free, you simply turn around and assert that they freely chose it anyway.
You cannot rescue the position by tacking the word “freely” onto the end.
You are just restating the contradiction.
The argumentation above is sound. There has yet to be anyone who has tried to show that the the logic is in some way in error. It's clear that, if God infallibly knows what someone will do, then they will not do it freely:
If God infallibly believed beforehand that they would not repent, and God’s belief cannot be false, then they cannot do otherwise than not repent.
That means they could not repent.
And if they could not repent, then they did not freely choose not to repent in any meaningful sense.
Calling it “freely choose” does not fix the problem.
It just labels necessity as freedom and hopes nobody notices.
Worse, it makes God unjust, because God would be judging men for failing to do what they had no ability to do.
And again, Revelation 9 is a prophetic vision describing a group of people under judgment.
It is not a list of named individuals whose every future free choice has been exhaustively foreknown.
Nor is prophecy simply prewritten history. Scripture often gives prophetic warnings so that men may repent and the announced judgment may not come to pass.
Revelation 9 says they did not repent.
It does not say they could not repent.
And it does not prove exhaustive foreknowledge of every future free choice.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
If the choice is genuinely free, then it is not already fixed as an infallibly foreknown certainty before the person makes it.
And if it is already fixed as an infallibly foreknown certainty, then the person cannot do otherwise.
You are trying to preserve free will by placing “people’s free choice” first in the sentence, but under your theology God’s exhaustive foreknowledge already exists before the choice occurs.
So the order in your sentence does not solve the problem.
Either they could repent, in which case their not-repenting was not infallibly settled beforehand.
Or they could not repent, in which case they were not freely choosing not to repent.
Revelation 9 says they did not repent.
It does not say they could not repent.
Exactly.
That's the very problem you have with your position.
Your theology requires Genesis 22 to mean:
“I always knew.”
But the text says:
“Now I know.”
Those are not the same statement.
If God exhaustively foreknew Abraham’s obedience, then “now I know” cannot mean what it says.
So instead of interpreting the passage, your theology has to correct it.
No. If Abraham had refused, it would not have been a pointless walk. It would have revealed something about Abraham. That is what tests do.
The actual test revealed that Abraham feared God and would not withhold Isaac.
A failed test would have revealed that Abraham was not yet willing to trust God with Isaac.
Either way, the test would not have been pointless.
This is the same principle seen four chapters earlier in Genesis 18, where God says He will go down to see whether Sodom had done altogether according to the outcry against it, “and if not, I will know.”
Either way, God would know.
If the outcry was true, God would know.
If the outcry was not true, God would know.
Genesis 22 works the same way.
If Abraham obeyed, God would know that Abraham feared Him and would not withhold Isaac.
If Abraham failed, God would know that too.
That's not pointless at all.
A real test reveals the truth.
And the ram would not have been provided “just because.”
It would still have taught the same central lesson: God provides a way out.
If Abraham obeyed, as he did, the ram replaced Isaac.
If Abraham failed, the ram could still have shown Abraham that God is not like the pagan gods, that He does not require human sacrifice, and that He Himself provides what man cannot.
Open Theism does not make the trip pointless. Your view, however, does.
If God already exhaustively knew the outcome, then the test was not to discover anything. It was only theater.
Insults are not arguments.
And if by “dumbed down” you mean reading Genesis 22 as though a test is a real test, “now I know” means “now I know,” and God providing a ram means God provided a ram, then I will gladly take that over a theology that has to turn the entire scene into pre-scripted theater.
The simple reading is not the dumb reading.
The dumb reading is the one that requires “God tested Abraham” to mean “God staged a test whose result He already exhaustively knew” and “Now I know” to mean “I always knew.”
There's no depth to your view, just evasion on your part.
Why is that a problem?
The ram was provision on God's part.
If Abraham obeyed, as he did, the ram replaced Isaac.
If Abraham had failed, the ram could still have taught Abraham that God does not require human sacrifice, that He is not like the pagan gods, and that He Himself provides what man cannot.
Either way, the ram would not be pointless.
It would still reveal God’s provision.
The variable was whether Abraham would obey, and since Abraham did obey, God said:
“Now I know that you fear God...”
So the ram being there does not prove exhaustive foreknowledge. It proves that God provides.
If Abraham had failed, then yes, he would have been unfaithful in that moment.
So what?
That would not make God fail.
That would not make the test pointless.
That would reveal something about Abraham, which is what tests do.
And the substitute sacrifice would still teach the central lesson: God provides what man cannot.
In the actual event, Abraham obeyed, and the ram replaced Isaac.
In a failed test, the ram could still have shown Abraham that God does not require human sacrifice, that He is not like the pagan gods, and that He Himself provides.
You are acting as though God’s ability to provide only matters if Abraham already passes the test.
But provision is especially meaningful when man is weak, failing, or unable.
That is the gospel, not a problem for it.
No.
God’s faith was not being tested.
Abraham was being tested.
If Abraham obeyed, the test revealed Abraham’s obedient faith.
If Abraham failed, the test would have revealed Abraham’s failure.
Either way, God would not have failed. Abraham would have.
And the gospel point would not vanish simply because Abraham failed.
Derf already answered this well: the gospel is about God providing for fallen men. If Abraham had failed and God still provided, that would still be a meaningful picture of the gospel.
It would be a different picture, yes, but not a meaningless one.
In the actual event, Abraham obeyed. So the typology stands exactly as written: the father does not withhold his son, his only son, the son is under sentence of death, and God provides the substitute.
But the possibility of Abraham failing does not mean God’s faith was being tested. It just means Abraham’s test was real.
so from an open theist position they believe God didn't know if Abraham would have gone through with it , then from their perspective God can make mistakes
No. God knew it was likely Abraham would follow through and pick up the knife, because He knew Abraham very well, and so God was prepared to stop him if he did. But that doesn't mean that God would have made a mistake if Abraham did not.
A real test having more than one possible outcome does not mean God can “make mistakes.”
It means the test is real.
And God is a God who risks.
He created beings capable of real love, real obedience, real rebellion, and real failure. He does not always get what He wants, not because He is weak or mistaken, but because He chose to create a world where relationship is real.
A risk does not become a mistake merely because the creature fails.
A teacher does not make a mistake because a student fails a test.
The test reveals what is in the student.
Likewise, Genesis 22 says God tested Abraham.
If Abraham obeyed, the test revealed obedient faith.
If Abraham failed, the test would have revealed failure.
Either way, God would not have made a mistake.
Your position is the one that empties the test of meaning by making it a scripted demonstration of what God already exhaustively knew.
This is the one I used:
That's exactly what an AI bot would say.
Thread derailment. Take it to a different thread, please.