On the omniscience of God

Lon

Well-known member
If God is omniscient which He is,
The proposition is sound, but an Open Theist would need the above proved. If however you meant "Let's say that nobody debated that God was omniscient..."
why do men believe in Open Theism
"...then would men be able to be Open Theists?" ...could be meaningfully answered. The answer would be 'no.' I believe from a physics standpoint (all created things) that we can show that " God knows all things knowable" (Open Theist paradigm given as true), necessarily applies to all created things, if Einstein's theory is consistently true (E=mc2). If we could/can show Peter meant "everything" literally when he said "all things," John 21:17 (perhaps quoting Psalm 139:1-6) we could prove omniscience from scripture (among other scripture considerations).

I do believe there is an onus, upon me, to show why I believe they do teach exactly that. A few scriptures do come to mind (listed in thread now). Foreknowledge is another: the 'literal' meaning is "knows" (not implication - 'knows' implicitly) "beforehand." It is at least strong evidence for the proposition. The immediate verse following John 21:18 is a revelation of foreknowledge regarding Peter's end of life. If there were any qualification we could infer, we'd truly want to see it in scripture: some incredibly pedantic expiation of 'all things that "I" can actually know.' The only thing we have that would even call us to question, would be "Adam where are you?" as if God didn't know.
While one and the other (Omniscience vs. limited) have implications that can assault our theology understanding, I've reckoned that the Open paradigm does more damage to what I expect to be Biblically true as well as doesn't ring true with all of scripture. While it may seem "Adam, where are you?" is damaged by omniscience, it is ever my understanding that God uses scriptures instructionally for 'my' (all men) understanding, thus does anthropomorphize language to us. He didn't ever need to 'come down.' If you follow: God could have sent an angel. It is always, rather, because the men (Adam, Lot) needed God's interaction. It necessitates that we realize God came not to 'find out' but 'to interact.' I do see dilemma, in that "If not I will know" implies His reason (not clearly stated) for 'coming down,' but that is rather an implication. Reading the rest of Genesis 18, we get the sense that both Abraham and God knew how many were righteous. Sodom and Gomorrah were not spared.
 

ttruscott

Active member
God knows all things knowable
the pagans like to add: from eternity past to eternity future, a good bit of logic if you don't know GOD which the Church accepted even though it conflicts directly with HIS other attributes of lovinging, righteous justice.

IF this definition of omniscience is true, all HE had to do to keep hell empty, as HE has told us was HIS desire and pleasure, was to not create those who HE knew would end in hell. The fact HE did create them is all the proof I need to see that we must redo the definition of HIS omniscience because a loving righteous and just Being would never knowing create those to eternal damnation for no good reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Lon

Well-known member
the pagans like to add: from eternity past to eternity future, a good bit of logic if you don't know GOD which the Church accepted even though it conflicts directly with HIS other attributes of lovinging, righteous justice.
Problem: It is a surmised assumption based on the line of reasoning that also assumes a truth. It isn't really engaging truth (of scripture) but sidestepping it to embrace an assumption. In this case "pagan" enters as a pejorative (much like "Greeks"). It next assumes that logic and love for God are in conflict. Even Clete would step in here against that blanketed assertion: it needs work. Finally, It doesn't, as far as 'my' apprehension, conflict at all with loving righteousness or justice.
IF this definition of omniscience is true, all HE had to do to keep hell empty, as HE has told us was HIS desire and pleasure, was to not create those who HE knew would end in hell. The fact HE did create them is all the proof I need to see that we must redo the definition of HIS omniscience because a loving righteous and just Being would never knowing create those to eternal damnation for no good reason.
My perspective: the parable of the wheat and tares rings true and accurate for my grasp:

Matthew 13:24b-29 “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.” ’ ”

While it may not seem 'loving' the parable is very loving. The reason given to answer your posit, from the parable is love and concern that no wheat is harmed. It explains why we go through what we go through in life through difficulty. If I may, the parable speaks both to traditional and Open Theism concerns well. It also works both for omniscience or what 'all things knowable.'

I've stated in the past that 'all things knowable' would also mean where Adam and Eve were. Such was wholly knowable without having to 'come down' because David reminds us nothing can flee from His presence "Omnipresence," Psalms 139: 7–8 "You are already there, wherever I go" and it is wholly 'knowable.' It means even many Open Theists deny that God didn't know where Adam was. It was why Sanders asked Enyart: It is one story that challenges Open paradigms.
 
Top