God's Omniscience and Theological Systems

[rhutchin]

The classical view of God's omniscience is that God's knowledge of all things past, present and future is exhaustive and there is nothing that happens that God does not know before it happens. Further, God had this knowledge before He created the world.

The Arminians and the Molinists have trouble with this because of their desire that people have free will because without free will, a person supposedly cannot be held responsible for his actions, but still they do not deny that God is omniscient in the classical sense.

To deal with omniscience, the Arminians say that God became omniscient by looking into the earth's future to see, and learn, how men exercising free will would behave. The Molinists speak of God knowing all the possible worlds that God could have created.

Nonetheless, Arminians and Molinists agree with the Calvinists that God had an exhaustive knowledge of the world and every action people would take before He actually created the world.

So, regardless the differences among Calvinists and most non-Calvinists, it must be true that if God knew all things before He created the world, then once God actually creates the world, everything plays out along the lines described by the Calvinists.

The Open Theists figured this out so they took away God's omniscience and set up a system whereby God can find out how a person will choose only at that point in time when the person actually makes his choice. This was a logical move by the Open Theists because it actually gives a person considerable freedom from God. However, the denial of God's omniscience is what makes Open Theism a heresy.

[Cow Poke]

So, it all comes down to "What did God know, and when did He know it".

[Xmansmommy]

Yeah, and let's ignore all the passages that support Open View Theism, right?

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, and let's ignore all the passages that support Open View Theism, right?

Actually, I'm still working on the "sin is bad - obedience is good" challenge. I'm beginning to get that through my skick thull.

[rhutchin]

So, it all comes down to "What did God know, and when did He know it".

That's the way it appears to me. If God knew it all before He created the world, then Calvinism explains the basics of what is unfolding before our eyes. God told His prophets what He was doing, they wrote it down for us to read, and Calvinism summarizes what they wrote.

[rhutchin]

Yeah, and let's ignore all the passages that support Open View Theism, right?

Sorta like Open Theists ignore all those passages that don't support Open View Theism, right?

[themuzicman]

The classical view of God's omniscience is that God's knowledge of all things past, present and future is exhaustive and there is nothing that happens that God does not know before it happens. Further, God had this knowledge before He created the world.

The Arminians and the Molinists have trouble with this because of their desire that people have free will because without free will, a person supposedly cannot be held responsible for his actions, but still they do not deny that God is omniscient in the classical sense.

To deal with omniscience, the Arminians say that God became omniscient by looking into the earth's future to see, and learn, how men exercising free will would behave. The Molinists speak of God knowing all the possible worlds that God could have created.

Nonetheless, Arminians and Molinists agree with the Calvinists that God had an exhaustive knowledge of the world and every action people would take before He actually created the world.

So, regardless the differences among Calvinists and most non-Calvinists, it must be true that if God knew all things before He created the world, then once God actually creates the world, everything plays out along the lines described by the Calvinists.

The Open Theists figured this out so they took away God's omniscience and set up a system whereby God can find out how a person will choose only at that point in time when the person actually makes his choice. This was a logical move by the Open Theists because it actually gives a person considerable freedom from God. However, the denial of God's omniscience is what makes Open Theism a heresy.

Actually, it's not a heresy, nor is it a denial of God's omniscience, per se. Everyone agrees that God does not know things that are not logically knowable, i.e. what a square circle looks like or how large a rock He has to make, such that He cannot lift it. Once we realize that the future free will decisions of men aren't logically knowable, they fall into this category, and God's omniscience is preserved, even without future free will decisions.

Granted that this is a departure from the classical view of omniscience, but only on what is knowable, rather than saying tht there are knowable things that God does not know.

So, declaring this a heresy is inaccurate, unless you're going to cite a specific eccumenical council that declares this.

[themuzicman]

That's the way it appears to me. If God knew it all before He created the world, then Calvinism explains the basics of what is unfolding before our eyes. God told His prophets what He was doing, they wrote it down for us to read, and Calvinism summarizes what they wrote.

The problem is if God knew it all before He created the world, then you're stuck in the problem of evil, and have a serious deficiency in explaining how a large part of God's nature is love. In short, it doesn't align with the bible in terms of God's interaction with man, and the bible's description of God's nature.

[RBerman]

The problem is if God knew it all before He created the world, then you're stuck in the problem of evil, and have a serious deficiency in explaining how a large part of God's nature is love. In short, it doesn't align with the bible in terms of God's interaction with man, and the bible's description of God's nature.

We're all stuck in the problem of evil, Muz. Even Open Theists think that God is clever enough to orchestrate the present to get the future which He wants. Evidently, for now, God wants a world where many people sin and go to Hell, where tsunamis wash away villages, etc. Why? He hasn't told us.

[Xmansmommy]

Sorta like Open Theists ignore all those passages that don't support Open View Theism, right?

Have you ever asked them how they interpret them differently? Because they don't ignore them...they just interpret them differently than Reformers.

[seanD]

However, the denial of God's omniscience is what makes Open Theism a heresy.

I never understood why this is the case, unless it completely falls outside of scripture. To define how God must be and how he must not be is much more presumptuous and heretical IMO.

[themuzicman]

We're all stuck in the problem of evil, Muz. Even Open Theists think that God is clever enough to orchestrate the present to get the future which He wants. Evidently, for now, God wants a world where many people sin and go to Hell, where tsunamis wash away villages, etc. Why? He hasn't told us.

OVT doesn't posit that God wants a world where many people go to hell. OVT provides a way out.

[seanD]

We're all stuck in the problem of evil, Muz. Even Open Theists think that God is clever enough to orchestrate the present to get the future which He wants. Evidently, for now, God wants a world where many people sin and go to Hell, where tsunamis wash away villages, etc. Why? He hasn't told us.

What scripture do you use to back up the idea that God "wants" this? According to the scripture I read, this is not the case (i.e. Ezekiel 18:23, 2 Peter 3:9).

[Cow Poke]

We're all stuck in the problem of evil, Muz. Even Open Theists think that God is clever enough to orchestrate the present to get the future which He wants. Evidently, for now, God wants a world where many people sin and go to Hell, where tsunamis wash away villages, etc. Why? He hasn't told us.

I don't think there's any indication that God WANTS that -- the thorns and problems of the world resulted from man's fall. And, yes, it brings about the "bad things happen to good people" discussion, but God is not willing that ANY should perish, but all should come to repentance.

[Xmansmommy]

Actually, I'm still working on the "sin is bad - obedience is good" challenge. I'm beginning to get that through my skick thull.

I'm sorry I responded without quoting....my comment was to rhutchin but it looked like it was to you. LOL!