Is God Omniscient?

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Well, the problem seems to boil down to the relationship of the "free agency" of man and the sovereignty of God...the age old issue....

But I'd like to approach this from a little different angle, and use a couple of OT prophecies that (I believe) illustrate a harmony between the foreknowledge of God and the free will of man (I don't think the two are mutually exclusive).

First is Cyrus.

How would one explain this apart from God's foreknowledge?

I'll start by laying out some givens.

1. God knows the end from the beginning as well as all the possible outcomes of the decisions (paths) man will make but may or may not know which paths man will choose along the way to get to those infinate number of possible outcomes.

2. Man has the ability to choose his own actions BUT has very limited ability to control the consequences of his choices. In other words, man is sentient and free, but limited by his own ability and mortality.

3. God has an expectation of man based on man's God-given potential and holds man accountable for man's decisions and actions.

Now to get to the issue of man's "free agency" and God's Sovereignty I will repost something I said in another thread that has newfound relavence.

The first thing we realize about our freewill is that it is a function of our ability, resources, influence, and might. We are of course incapable of acting beyond those parameters which have been put in place at the highest perceivable level by natural law (GOD). Now, being confronted with the reality of natural law, we must assume that those laws had to be implemented by something powerful and intelligent that is NOT subject to the natural parameters. Then after coming this far we are left with these questions:

WHY would an intelligent and powerful being design the natural world and have us thrive in it? Did He just make us for the sake of creating something? Is our reality a small part of something much bigger?

Here's where belief comes in (in determining what above listed reason one subscribes to). I personally am persuaded that God created us, our universe, and the laws that govern it for reason's beyond what is contained within our sphere (the 3rd question). In other words, our existence plays a part in something bigger. So in a real since I believe we are the tools, yes I said tools used by God to accomplish something big. He had/has a PURPOSE for our world's creation that will be fully revealed in the course or at the end of what we call time.

Based on this assumption, I believe that after the creation act, God's only intervention in this world would occur for but 2 reasons. The first being to ensure that His ultimate will is accomplished and secondly, because He loves those He created, and His priority is based on that order (His will followed by His love for us).

To me, that is both a logical and simple explaination of the GOD - man - freewill dynamic and how it affects the parties involved.

 

[Who Says]

True...but the very definition of omniscience is having an infinite or total knowledge, i.e. all-knowing. Foreknowledge is but a part of omniscience.

The question remains then, can a perfect being have anything less than a perfect, infinite, and total knowledge by definition?

That is the question if we are the judge of God rather than he the judge of us.

Tell me if you know, why was he grieved to see how men had corrupted themselves before the flood?

 

[mcgyver]

The problem yet remains by that logic in that it is we imperfect humans that are judging that God's foreknowledge must contain knowledge of everything even before it was purposed by anyone to be created and therefore does not yet exist.

A legitimate question here (as in "not being snarky"): Are you a proponent of open theism?

Humans in the image of God have the power to purpose and to create too you know.

OK...

Are we who insist that God must be absolutely omniscient afraid that God would not know how to deal with it if he did not know it ahead?

I believe we impune God worse by saying he must have an absolute complete knowledge of everything aforetime else his knowledge is imperfect. That is no different than saying he is imperfect and all because we set our self up as a judge toward him, we in our pitiful little knowledge and understanding.

Hmmm...beautifully written, but He either is perfect or He is not perfect in all things. Anything else is a logical contradiction.

 

[mcgyver]

My response to this is to assert that the author of Job was speaking "poetically" when He made his statement. As for Jesus, I think it is obvious that Jesus is not really expecting us to be literally perfect - more evidence that we need to be careful as to how we read things in the Bible.

I assert that we in the 21st century west have lost sight of the fact that the Bible is "literature" - now don't anyone dare distort what I am saying into a claim that the Bible is not God's word. Because we misunderstand the genre of the Bible, we make all sorts of mistakes, such as taking all those "end of the world" metaphors (from Revelation and other places) literally. So while I know this will be somewhat unpopular, I think we need to recognize the "poetic" style of the Job text, on the one hand, and acknowledge Jesus cannot really be expecting us to become "perfect", on the other.

Besides, we still have texts like the 2 Kings 20 text - does anyone dispute that Isaiah has God declaring that Hez will die of his illness shortly, and yet this does not happen. How can this be possible if God perfectly knows the future?

Well, poetic or not...2 Tim 3:16 says all scripture is theopneustos (God-breathed)...and God says that He is perfect in knowledge...

As far as 2 Kings 20, I already responded but will do so again: simply a recounting of an event...and did not God say He would add 15 years to Hezekiah's life?

 

[Drew]

As far as 2 Kings 20, I already responded but will do so again: simply a recounting of an event...and did not God say He would add 15 years to Hezekiah's life?

But your response did not deal with the fact that, at one point in time, God tells Isaiah that Hez will not recover from his illness and will die from it.

And yet, this "prediction" of God's is not borne out in reality. This means that God cannot know the future perfectly - if He (God) makes declarations about the future that turn out to be false - as He clearly does in the Hez case - how can God's knowledge of the future be "perfect".

 

[mcgyver]

That is the question if we are the judge of God rather than he the judge of us.

Tell me if you know, why was he grieved to see how men had corrupted themselves before the flood?

Yet the question remains unanswered: Can a perfect God have less than a perfect knowledge...past, present, and future?

 

[mcgyver]

But your response did not deal with the fact that, at one point in time, God tells Isaiah that Hez will not recover from his illness and will die from it.

And yet, this "prediction" of God's is not borne out in reality. This means that God cannot know the future perfectly - if He (God) makes declarations about the future that turn out to be false - as He clearly does in the Hez case - how can God's knowledge of the future be "perfect".

How about this: God changed His mind...after all, who controls when one leaves this old earth?

If God can not know the future perfectly, then on what do you rest your hope of Christ's return?

 

[Who Says]

I'll start by laying out some givens.

1. God knows the end from the beginning as well as all the possible outcomes of the decisions (paths) man will make but may or may not know which paths man will choose along the way to get to those infinate number of possible outcomes.

You are aware aren't you that this idea that God "knows the end from the beginning" in the sense of knowing every detail ahead mis-represents what Isaiah chapter 46 says?

What he tells is his from the beginning is counsel (what he purposes to be). And he tells the end of his counsel from the beginning because, as it shows in that chapter, he makes it happen as he desires it to.

He tells us what it is he declares from the beginning:

Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Then he gives us examples of how he does it:

Isaiah 46:11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

He is warning us that we better listen as he is able to make it happen:

Isaiah 46:12 Hearken unto me, ye stouthearted, that are far from righteousness:

And then he tells us what his counsel is that has been declared from the moment that Adam sinned and is being accomplished in Christ:

Isaiah 46:13 I bring near my righteousness; it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory.

It is we judges who have not listened to him and made him out to be saying what he did not say.

We in our need to have him fit our requirements for him. How pathetic of us.

 

[Who Says]

Yet the question remains unanswered: Can a perfect God have less than a perfect knowledge...past, present, and future?

Are you going to decide what constitutes being able to judge his knowledge as imperfect?

Not me pal!!!

My job is only to listen to him and obey him.

 

[mcgyver]

I'll start by laying out some givens.

1. God knows the end from the beginning as well as all the possible outcomes of the decisions (paths) man will make but may or may not know which paths man will choose along the way to get to those infinate number of possible outcomes.

2. Man has the ability to choose his own actions BUT has very limited ability to control the consequences of his choices. In other words, man is sentient and free, but limited by his own ability and mortality.

3. God has an expectation of man based on man's God-given potential and holds man accountable for man's decisions and actions.

Now to get to the issue of man's "free agency" and God's Sovereignty I will repost something I said in another thread that has newfound relavence.

Good post...and the only thing that I would disagree with is part of one sentence: but may or may not know which paths man will choose along the way to get to those infinate number of possible outcomes.

But that's the reason we're tossing around ideas. :D

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Mcgyver,
What is meant by "perfect" because this seems to be an issue that is dividing us posters.


Who Says,

Your point is basically the jist of what I posted in 21. God has a purpose that WILL BE accomplished as He will insure that it is so. Between the beginning and the ultimate consumation of His purposes a myriad of things can transpire and God may or may not know exactly what decisions will be made in advance though He knows the outcomes of any and every one.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Good post...and the only thing that I would disagree with is part of one sentence: but may or may not know which paths man will choose along the way to get to those infinate number of possible outcomes.

But that's the reason we're tossing around ideas. :D

That's the whole point of this thread. We're trying to see whether or not God knows in advance every decision that will be made and every choice that will be chosen.

 

[mcgyver]

Are you going to decide what constitutes being able to judge his knowledge as imperfect?

Not me pal!!!

My job is only to listen to him and obey him.

No need to get your feathers ruffled...I mean no insult. But brother...if we can't discuss these things among ourselves (the Iron sharpening iron thingy), how in the world will we make a defense among the heathen???

 

[Who Says]

Mcgyver,
What is meant by "perfect" because this seems to be an issue that is dividing us posters.


Who Says,

Your point is basically the jist of what I posted in 21. God has a purpose that WILL BE accomplished as He will insure that it is so. Between the beginning and the ultimate consumation of His purposes a myriad of things can transpire and God may or may not know exactly what decisions will be made in advance though He knows the outcomes of any and every one.

Yes, I gathered that. I was trying to make sure everyone saw it.

A good example of him doing it is:

1 Kings 22:19 "And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.
20 And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.
21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.
22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so."

 

[mcgyver]

Ok then...let's define perfect (let the games begin! )

P.S. I love these discourses...long as they remain friendly of course.
​

 

[Who Says]

Ok then...let's define perfect (let the games begin! )​

P.S. I love these discourses...long as they remain friendly of course.​

Perfect is any standard set by God.

We do not question it. Our job is to aim for it as our target.

In fact the Hebrew word "chata'" for "sin" means "to miss the mark" and is a word that was used in racing to denote one falling short of the finish line.

He tells us. We do not tell him. What ever he tells us to aim at is the mark of perfection because he says it is.

 

[mcgyver]

I can buy off on that!

Would it be fair to say then that God is the very standard of perfection?

 

[Who Says]

I can buy off on that!

Would it be fair to say then that God is the very standard of perfection?

Most assuredly !!!

 

[Who Says]

A father gave his two sons work to do. He called the first son to himelf, saying, "Son I have one job for you." And the son proceeded to go to work.

Then the father called the second son to himself, saying to him, "Son, I have five jobs for you." Unlike the first son, this second son immediately began to complain, saying, "Why do I always have to do most of the work!"

Did the father act imperfectly toward his sons (who were by the way of equal age) in asking the second son to do most os the work?

 

[warhorse]

What do you make of the following text from 2 Kings 20 (with bolding added by me):

1 In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, "This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover." 2 Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD, 3 "Remember, O LORD, how I have walked before you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion and have done what is good in your eyes." And Hezekiah wept bitterly. 4 Before Isaiah had left the middle court, the word of the LORD came to him: 5 "Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of my people, 'This is what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the LORD. 6 I will add fifteen years to your life. And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend this city for my sake and for the sake of my servant David.' " 7 Then Isaiah said, "Prepare a poultice of figs." They did so and applied it to the boil, and he recovered.

This text will not be unfamiliar to some of you. I think this text is pretty much a slam dunk against God's exhaustive foreknowledge. The only respectable explanation I have heard from a believer in God's exhaustive foreknowledge is that there is an unwritten caveat to the "you will not recover" statement, namely that it really should be understood as "you will not recover unless you pray" and, of course, God know that Hez would indeed pray. Fine

Well, this is not what the text says, and adding such a caveat does substantially change the meaning. However, for the sake of argument, let's say that we accept the possibility that some texts need to be subject to such "implied qualifications". This same kind of argument can be used in regard to texts like Psal 139:16:

"Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them."

What if I were to propose an "implied qualifier" to the effect that "the days were ordained, subject to your following my ways".

I suggest that it is clear that, unless we can find some basis for not reading this 2 Kings text "as she is wrote", then we have here an example of God not exhaustively knowing the future.

I would say that is an example of God not exhaustively micro-managing the future, he seemed content to allow Jerimaih to die until Jerimaih prayed and changed his mind.