The Theory of God's [lack of] Omniscience

[Emo]

Originally posted by ninjashadow

1way, my change was not as sudden as you may think. If you fully followed my posts, I have said that I am not a staunch CV'er. I have always been open to others opinions. I like to consider myself a reasonable guy and will listen to others.
Now, I have said all along that I agree that God has power over His powers. God IS, WAS, and ALWAYS will BE and I have no doubt about that. Now, as for the self imposed limitations, I believe that God COULD exhaustively know the future, but chooses not to because, in the grand scheme of things, He would know that Skip would reject him and that does not fit into what the bible says. However, God has to know part of the future, otherwise, how else would he be able to tell John the book of Revelations?

Like godrulz has recommended, I suggest reading the book God of the Possible by Gregory Boyd. It definitely helps to prove that the future is not exhaustively settled like most Christians think. A friend let me borrow the book one time & Boyd's substantive arguments are truely valid.

Pedro - a man of few words but easy to get along with
"make her a cake"

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by emohaslove

Pedro - a man of few words but easy to get along with
"make her a cake"

Build her a cake or something.

 

[Emo]

Originally posted by Turbo

Build her a cake or something.

Is that what he said? If so, thanks for clarifying Turbo. Too bad his cake idea bombed. Oh yeah, still trying to keep Pedro a secret.

Nice hair Pedro!

 

[1Way]

emoslave and ninjashadow,
I don't recommend digging deep into details until you get a solid overview of truth. God's word should be the primary source for our faith and is how I best understand the open view among other things. Plainly, although I'm sure that you can learn a lot from Gregory Boyd's ideas, I have not read much of his work but many open theists like his stuff. But you also stand to learn some bad stuff from him too. I believe that he has room for improvement when it comes to broader theological disciplines. I believe that the issue is very simple if you give God's word a fair shake while also suspending so many manmade presuppositions.

My advice is to not focus on man's ideas, instead seek and promote what God promotes, understand His word first and foremost prior to becoming well read in man's ideas. Human tradition and what seems right in man's eyes is "the" hotbed for false teachings, but God's word is the location of truth. The choice should be easy, but man has an appetite for novelty.

If I was to promote a manmade work over this issue, it would be stuff from Bob Enyart. He does an excellent job and from my understanding, he is most conservative and tends to not stray from what God's word clearly teaches. He's also one of my favorite bible teaches, so this suggestion is a bit biased.

 

[Ninjashadow]

I did not mean to insinuate that you are an Arminian, but only that you reason (somewhat) like one. However I find your clarification to be both helpful and encouraging, but I still wonder about your response to Knight's line drawn in the sand, please respond. You have been repeatedly drawn attention to it and yet for some reason you seem to be reluctant to respond.

Which question haven't I answered? It has not been my intention to avoid any question. I've been doing my best to answer all questions.

 

[1Way]

ninjashadow,
I didn't say it was a question, sometimes clarifications, and challenges, or tests, or curiosities of one's views are more or less implied. Here is what Knight said to you.

... The most important thing is realizing that God doesn't ordain all the details of all of time either through direct decree or through exhaustive foreknowledge.

And here is what I said to Knight in response.

What you said is so solid and right to the point, but I'm not sure what you said sits well with him yet. It'll be interesting to see his reaction.

I am guilty of mostly reading what others directly reply to myself, and so I didn't fault you for not catching my follow up comment which was directed at Knight. I'm just pointing out that Knight sort of elaborated the conclusion using somewhat different words which you may or may not agree with, and I'm just curious about that.

Actually, I'm more interested in what you really believe beyond simply stating that you have acquired a new view. Sometimes a changed view is not very different especially if the support reasoning is a bit unfamiliar. But I have found some things that you did not respond to. Here's the most curious one. I said

Now, back to your theology as I understand it so far. By your view, no one can do whatever they want to do, they have no choice but to do what God foreknows they must do. The lack of optional outcomes eliminates free will because there are no alternative choices to choose from, it's, would you like a cheeseburger and fries tonight, or how about the manager's special instead? It's a cheeseburger with fries! That is not a choice, there are no alternatives, no options, thus, no free will.

2b
Exhaustive foreknowledge and divine repentance
The second problem is that God does not lie, right? But in His word, God rationally explains and demonstrates that He sometimes relents/repents by not doing what He said and/or thought He was going to do. Whether you agree with that concept or not, that is what God's word says God does. So at least from my perspective, rational divine repentance is a bible truth that contradicts the view that God has exhaustive foreknowledge, ,,, because if God knows everything that will ever happen, then of course He would never truthfully change His mind and not do what He thought He was going to do, instead, He would always do what He always knew He was going to do.

Then you said

2b. If God has an exhaustive knowledge of the future, then he would already know if he chose to change his mind then, wouldn't he?

and then I said

If you emphasize that God has no limits, then maybe that sounds reasonable, but if you consider that God is righteous and just and holy and good and does not lie, then your idea servers strongly to contradict (in various ways or degrees) all of these well known facts about God! God is a bit sensitive about how people represent God, He requires that His followers should not portray Him in a bad light. To say that you are changing your mind, when all along you never changed your mind, is a perfect lie and a logical contradiction that cannot be true. However God is true and He does not lie, so it is elementary that God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge and also changes His mind because they are completely incompatible.

To which you never directly responded.

I would say that unless you have been holding back on us, you are possibly susceptible to an argument against your new view on the basis that scripture does not actually teach that God changes His mind, He only sounds like He does to our finite minds, but in truth He never changes His mind! Many closed theists try to explain away divine repentance in the scriptures by saying that it does not mean what it says, it's figurative speech, God was not caught off guard and then had to change His mind, instead, man changed and God did not.

So here's your chance to test the waters of your new position. How would you answer that exact bible challenge against the open view, namely that God never honestly changes His mind?

 

[Ninjashadow]

I have said that I believed that God knew the future exhaustively because it seemed that God wouldn't be all powerful if He could not know the future. I didn't like that idea at all, however, as I have said several times, I started this thread with an open mind and wanted to figure things out. I argued against open view, because I wanted to be convinced. I think that it has been demonstrated that in the long run (all of the future) that if God knows it exhaustively, then free will IS lost. God would know that Skip would reject Him and that does not fit with scripture. God wants every person to come to Him. I have tried to describe what I believe by the scenario about the author. If you don't understand what I meant by that, I can explain more.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by ninjashadow

I have said that I believed that God knew the future exhaustively because it seemed that God wouldn't be all powerful if He could not know the future. I didn't like that idea at all, however, as I have said several times, I started this thread with an open mind and wanted to figure things out. I argued against open view, because I wanted to be convinced. I think that it has been demonstrated that in the long run (all of the future) that if God knows it exhaustively, then free will IS lost. God would know that Skip would reject Him and that does not fit with scripture. God wants every person to come to Him. I have tried to describe what I believe by the scenario about the author. If you don't understand what I meant by that, I can explain more.

:BRAVO:

 

[1Way]

ninjashadow,
Thanks for the clarification. I did not read the original scenario, so I'm a bit vague on your treatment, even though I picked it up and used it once. You can be a bit unclear at times. For example, you said

I have said that I believed that God knew the future exhaustively because it seemed that God wouldn't be all powerful if He could not know the future. (1) I didn't like that idea at all, however, as I have said several times, I started this thread with an open mind and wanted to figure things out. I argued against open view, (2) because I wanted to be convinced.

(1) You didn't like what idea? That God might not know all of the future, or what you said you believed that God knew the future exhaustively because it seems that God wouldn't be all powerful if He could not know the future. Sometimes, perhaps often, we believe ideas that we do not particularly like.

(2) You wanted to be convinced of what?

I said

I would say that unless you have been holding back on us, you are possibly susceptible to an argument against your new view on the basis that scripture does not actually teach that God changes His mind, He only sounds like He does to our finite minds, but in truth He never changes His mind! Many closed theists try to explain away divine repentance in the scriptures by saying that it does not mean what it says, it's figurative speech, God was not caught off guard and then had to change His mind, instead, man changed and God did not.

So here's your chance to test the waters of your new position. How would you answer that exact bible challenge against the open view, namely that God never honestly changes His mind?

But you refrain from answering. You don't have to answer if you don't want to, but you seem like the kind of person who was enjoying this discussion...

 

[Ninjashadow]

(1) You didn't like what idea? That God might not know all of the future, or what you said you believed that God knew the future exhaustively because it seems that God wouldn't be all powerful if He could not know the future. Sometimes, perhaps often, we believe ideas that we do not particularly like.

What I meant was that I thought that if God could not know the future, then He was not all powerful. The OV was first presented to me by a philosophy professor who (besides converting to a sect of judiasm just so he could believe whatever he wanted) presented it in such a way that it sounded like God would have to know the future exhaustively to be God and if He did know it, then humans have no free will. So, what the professor pretty much said was that humans either have no free will or God is not really God. That was the only knowledge that I had of the open view.

(2) You wanted to be convinced of what?

I wanted to be convinced that God could still be God and not know the future exhuastively.

But you refrain from answering. You don't have to answer if you don't want to, but you seem like the kind of person who was enjoying this discussion...

I am enjoying the discussion and I appreciate that you are taking the time to help me out. I'm sorry, but I thought I've answered your questions. I am not intentionally avoiding answering anything, so please tell me what I am not answering.

 

[Emo]

Originally posted by 1Way

emoslave and ninjashadow,
I don't recommend digging deep into details until you get a solid overview of truth. God's word should be the primary source for our faith and is how I best understand the open view among other things.

I agree

Romans 3:4

Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar.

I believe that he has room for improvement when it comes to broader theological disciplines.

Boyd simply analyzes Scripture to help prove that the Bible is full of open theism. My faith is relatively new & he gives great insight & theological perspective. You & I share the view of Open Theism. Remember, I'm not a "middle viewist.":think:

If I was to promote a manmade work over this issue, it would be stuff from Bob Enyart. He does an excellent job and from my understanding, he is most conservative and tends to not stray from what God's word clearly teaches. He's also one of my favorite bible teaches, so this suggestion is a bit biased.

I know someone personally who is a big fan of Enyart. I think Bob would agree with most of G. Boyd's theology since they both teach the Open View. They may slightly differ on a few things, mostly semantics. I have read some of "The Plot" & would also highly recommend it to anyone who seeks sound Biblical teaching.

 

[1Way]

ninjashadow,
Nonresponses
1
LOL Answering a responsive or clarifying idea does not always correlate to answering a question. In particular, this is the second time I told you that it was not a question, it was just a statement using new terms over the same basic idea. And I was just curious how you viewed the restatement of your view. First here is a recent question about that from me from post 177.

Please respond to Knight's comment about what you supposedly believe. Is it accurate or what would you change and why?

And this was the statement that Knight originally said

The most important thing is realizing that God doesn't ordain all the details of all of time either through direct decree or through exhaustive foreknowledge.

Again, it was just a curiosity, after all this time, my interest has waned and changed onto other things.

2
But that was not the question I was asking you about where you said that you thought you already answered. It was in the post you were responding to. Perhaps you are scanning these posts a bit quickly. Here it is again.

I would say that unless you have been holding back on us, you are possibly susceptible to an argument against your new view on the basis that scripture does not actually teach that God changes His mind, He only sounds like He does to our finite minds, but in truth He never changes His mind! Many closed theists try to explain away divine repentance in the scriptures by saying that it does not mean what it says, it's figurative speech, God was not caught off guard and then had to change His mind, instead, man changed and God did not.

So here's your chance to test the waters of your
new position. How would you answer that exact
bible challenge against the open view, namely
that God never honestly changes His mind?

I am even more so encouraged by your response to the open view and more importantly, to what God teaches instead of what man teaches. Your description of that professor was rather chilling. Am I right in assuming that you may have suspected that he did not accurately represent the open view?

 

[1Way]

emohaslove,
You said

Boyd simply analyzes Scripture to help prove that the Bible is full of open theism. My faith is relatively new & he gives great insight & theological perspective. You & I share the view of Open Theism. Remember, I'm not a "middle viewist."

Ah but you gave the middle view credence (right?), something that I think I would not do. But more to the point. I have discussed some matters with Mr. Boyd, and I do not find him to be particularly amendable to corrections to various sorts of errors, especially biblical issues.

I have personally met with Mr Sanders (In general, I find his reasoning to be more bible focused than I do Boyd), he's one of the fab five who wrote the book "Open Theism", and I sat in on one of his classes maybe 2 years ago or so (before he was let go from his job because of theological pressures and a lack of enrolment concerns). And I learned a great deal, no kidding, it was great! I would love to see Boyd in person because he has such awesome speaking capabilities and enthusiasm. But I don't think he and I would fare well hashing out our theological differences.

Like I said, I'm confident that one can learn great things from someone like Greg Boyd, but I openly doubt his broader theological background. I say that his errors would likely spill over into his teachings even though you may think it does not.

I don't think it's about semantics with Boyd's issues, it's that he can become too philosophically concerned and go for a long time without referencing the bible. I get the greatest thrills from hearing God and His word set people free. There is a point where philosophy that is overdone becomes dubious. He's way smarter and better learned than I am, but, I think I'm doing just fine relying on God's word as heavily as possible.

 

[Ninjashadow]

The most important thing is realizing that God doesn't ordain all the details of all of time either through direct decree or through exhaustive foreknowledge.

I realize that God does not know the future exhuastively, but that certain parts are closed and cannot be changed (i.e. the events of Revelation)

I would say that unless you have been holding back on us, you are possibly susceptible to an argument against your new view on the basis that scripture does not actually teach that God changes His mind, He only sounds like He does to our finite minds, but in truth He never changes His mind! Many closed theists try to explain away divine repentance in the scriptures by saying that it does not mean what it says, it's figurative speech, God was not caught off guard and then had to change His mind, instead, man changed and God did not.

I would say that God was not caught off guard, but sort of gave people an out. For instance, He said one thing would happen, but if someone did something, something else would happen. It sounds like He changed His mind, but in reality, being the divine and all good God that he is, he allowed people to change what was going to happen.

I am even more so encouraged by your response to the open view and more importantly, to what God teaches instead of what man teaches. Your description of that professor was rather chilling. Am I right in assuming that you may have suspected that he did not accurately represent the open view?

I didn't really know. That was the first time that I had heard that particular concept and wasn't sure what to think. That is one reason why I began this thread.

 

[Balder]

Before setting Creation in motion, and before creating the Lake of Fire for Satan and his angels, do you think that God knew that the majority of humankind would end up there, even if He didn't know how many or exactly whom?

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Balder

Before setting Creation in motion, and before creating the Lake of Fire for Satan and his angels, do you think that God knew that the majority of humankind would end up there, even if He didn't know how many or exactly whom?

God knew the possibilities and probabilities. He would not know the actualities/certainties until space-time history unfolded as choices were made and beings came into existence through procreation.

The millennial kingdom will see new people born throughtout eternity in addition to those in glorified bodies who will not procreate. This would mean that eventually the righteous will outnumber the fixed number of lost people. It is speculation, but perhaps other planets will be populated in eternity, in addition to us who are in the New Jerusalem with a heavenly hope that comes down above the new earth. This is not to be confused with Mormon and JW concepts.

The important thing now is that what we do in our generation may determine whether heaven has a greater population than hell (Dave Irwin). We must plunder hell to populate heaven (Bonnke) as we proclaim the Gospel in the power of the Spirit

 

[Emo]

Originally posted by 1Way

Ah but you gave the middle view credence (right?), something that I think I would not do.

"middle view"

I was definitely joking, couldn't you tell? I saw this terminology used in a prior post on this thread. But, I think "middle view" is a step forward (progress) instead of a big step backward (regress) like "closed view."

I have seen Ninjashadow transition through this whole thread & am proud to see his ability to utilize an "open" mind.

By the way, the Mr. Sanders you mentioned, could you provide me with a list of some of his work?

Thank you

 

[Lighthouse]

Balder-
No. I don't think God knew that any men would end up in the lake of fire when He created it. And I'm not certain that the majority of mankind will end up there, either.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Balder-
No. I don't think God knew that any men would end up in the lake of fire when He created it. And I'm not certain that the majority of mankind will end up there, either.

:think:

Is there any Biblical basis for believing that the lake of fire was created separate from the rest of the creation?

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.

This seems to indicate that Lucifer and the rest of the Angelic beings were all created sometime during the creation week. If the lake of fire was created afterward, then it would still have been after to fall of man (There is reason to believe that Lucifer's sin was the tempting of Adam and Eve).
Of course we can't know for certain but the point is that dogmatic statements either way cannot be made. It depends on when the Lake of Fire was made.
One thing is for certain, God could not have known what percentage of men would end up in Hell. It was not impossible that all men would end up there when He created mankind. What I think is terrific is that God considered it worth the risk regardless of the number that would follow Him.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Satan appeared in the garden early in human history. My impression was that Lucifer and angels were created before material creation (universe/earth).