Open Theists believe in the Omniscience of God

Post by **_TK** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:48 pm

Bob-

thanks for the clairfication. does Compatibilism hold that God knows what man chooses before he (man) chooses? or that God knows man so well that He (God) knows what man will choose? there may be a fine distinction between these two, but i am not sure.

TK

Post by **_bshow** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:53 pm

TK wrote:Bob-

thanks for the clairfication. does Compatibilism hold that God knows what man chooses before he (man) chooses? or that God knows man so well that He (God) knows what man will choose? there may be a fine distinction between these two, but i am not sure.

Compatibilism holds that everything, including man's choices are within God's decree, who works all things after the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:11). The basis of God's foreknowledge is His decree.

Cheers,
Bob

Post by **_Paidion** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:54 pm

Bshow wrote:Please forgive me, but this supports your thesis exactly how? You've made no argument whatsoever. I'm assuming you expect us to draw some conclusion from the statement the "the LORD changed His mind". How this bears on God's knowledge of the future is left unexplained.

I assumed that it was obvious and needed no explanation.

God prophesied through Micah that Jerusalem would be destroyed.
If this prediction was based on his intention to destroy Jerusalem, and thus knew that He would destroy them, then how could He change his mind and not destroy them?

Surely He did not intend to destroy Jerusalem, but did not know whether He would succeed! He stated his intentions but changed his mind! And that all because his people implored Him to do so. If He had known his people were going to implore Him, would He have made such a definite prophecy in the first place?

Unless you have some strong exegesis here to show how the language demonstrates God's ignorance of Israel's future behavior, this is just wishful thinking on your part.

It is not ignorant not to know what cannot be known because there is nothing to know. God is not ignorant; He knows everything there is to know.

And why should I have any "wishful thinking" concerning the matter. I have no agenda. I'm just trying to understand.

Only if you have an extremely simplistic notion of God. You draw an inference (God's expression of regret is perfectly analogous to human feelings of regret), assume that is the only possible inference (without argument), and then use that inference to derive a statement about the extent of God's knowledge (God cannot have known that man would become wicked.)

And you think God's regret is quite different from man's regret? Have we not been created in God's image? Surely we are similar to Him in many mental aspects. Bob Pierce, founder of World Vision prayed, "May my heart be broken by the things which break the heart of God!". His whole vision of this ministry to the needy began with that prayer. We, like God, have emotions of sadness, joy, anger, and regret. We, like God have free will.

A simple illustration from our own experience shows this assumption to be too simplistic. For example, my parents are in their 60's now. I know that they will die someday. When that day arrives (If God permits me to live that long), will I feel grief and sorrow? Of course, but why? Wouldn't I just shrug my shoulders and say "oh well, I knew this was going to happen?"

Your illustration is not a good analogy. Your sorrow will be due to the fact that your parents have died (when it happens), but God's sorrow was not only that man had become evil. He regretted that He had made man at all!

Let me give you a better human analogy. You believe your son is trustworthy. You allow him to use the family car every Friday night. Then on one particular Friday, your son, using your car, participates in a street race with other young men. A crash ensues, and you car is demolished.
When you find out you say, "I am sorry that I ever allowed my son to use the family car." If you had known he was going to wreck the car, would you have made that statement? For if you had known, and still let him use the car, why would you be sorry?

Post by **_darin-houston** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:56 pm

I used to be an Arminian, and so I tried using those kinds of arguments as well (the Boethian argument is the "God is outside of time" argument), although I was arguing with atheists instead of Open Thiests. I have since seen as you have that those arguments just don't hold up. (cf. my discussions with Sean on this issue.)

Is it not possible that God is capable of knowing all things that may come true, but elects not to see/know such things? (blinds himself in a sense?) It's hard to think of a God that isn't capable of knowing the future, but it is so clearly indicated by scripture that He is surprised or changes His mind, etc. that you have to ignore the plain teaching of scripture and resort to mystery to resolve a logical contradiction.

Post by **_Paidion** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:29 pm

Is it not possible that God is capable of knowing all things that may come true, but elects not to see/know such things?

I think this is the position of even some open theists. However, I think this position brings out the contradiction of knowing the unknowable. It seems to be analagous to asking, "Is it not possible that God is capable of creating a stone so large that He can't lift it, but elects not to do so?"

There are some things in the future which come pretty close to God's knowing them. I am thinking of the things God has resolved to do, and has the means of carrying out those intentions --- a major one, for example, being Christ's return. But is it not possible that God could change his mind even about this one? If we take the stand that it is not possible, then are we not setting limits to the free will of God? Who are we to say what God can or cannot do?

Unlike most open theists, I have been thinking that none of the future has been settled (cut and dried, an established fact now). But some of the predictions or prophecies which God gave his servants are very, very, likely to come to pass, especially those things which God has declared that He will do, including those plans of which He knows the end from the beginning.

Post by **_darin-houston** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:45 am

Of course, the skeptic might then suggest that God, therefore, is able to just redefine things and after the fact in hindsight just say that we missed the meaning of his promises or prophecies and they were spiritual in nature, etc. when we thought they were political or physical or whatever. That makes a mockery of our faith, but it's probably a fair criticism to a God who can change his mind about things as centrally clear as Christ's return. I suspect this may be how the Pharisees viewed the claims of the Christians as to the Messiah.