question on present knowledge/omnipresence of God - for OV theists only please

[Xmansmommy]

Deut 1:26-33 ~ ESV

“Yet you would not go up, but rebelled against the command of the Lord your God. And you murmured in your tents and said, ‘Because the Lord hated us he has brought us out of the land of Egypt, to give us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us. Where are we going up? Our brothers have made our hearts melt, saying, “The people are greater and taller than we. The cities are great and fortified up to heaven. And besides, we have seen the sons of the Anakim there.”’ Then I said to you, ‘Do not be in dread or afraid of them. The Lord your God who goes before you will himself fight for you, just as he did for you in Egypt before your eyes, and in the wilderness, where you have seen how the Lord your God carried you, as a man carries his son, all the way that you went until you came to this place.’ Yet in spite of this word you did not believe the Lord your God, who went before you in the way to seek you out a place to pitch your tents, in fire by night and in the cloud by day, to show you by what way you should go.

If God has all present knowledge, why did He go before them to seek out a place for them?

[James Peter]

Because it is simply anthropomorphic and non-literal language?

In the pentateuch there are countless (ok, they can be counted I'm just too lazy to) examples where God is spoken of in terms where he is neither omniscient or omnipotent. I mean... Jacob is stronger than God and so Gos has to fight dirty to 'win'? Say what?!?

I think the only way to deal with these verses is to accept that religion in ancient Israel developed. The idea that from the time of Abraham there was a belief in a single omniscient and omnipotent deity is probably false. Certainly later people tried to present that as having been the case but many of the stories in Genesis suggest something else entirely: that Yahweh and El were originally two deities amongst a pantheon who eventually consumed the entire pantheon into their own being. Ouch.

[Xmansmommy]

Then using the same reasoning James Peter, why say that God doesn't have all future knowledge? I mean don't the same principles apply to the language where God says He searches the heart as well as the other narratives of Him gaining knowledge?

[James Peter]

Because having all future knowledge requires that in some sense the future is already determined and I believe that it isn't. Certainly such language could merely be anthropomorphisms but my OVT is rooted as much in logic and reason as analysis of Scripture. The future is fundamentally unknowable because it doesn't exist yet and it cannot be predicted accurately because reality is far too indeterminate. I don't see why an omnipresent being cannot know everything that is though or why that being cannot remember everything that has been.

OVT can be supported by Scripture but ultimately proceeds from Reason. The same can be said of the alternatives though.

[Xmansmommy]

Because having all future knowledge requires that in some sense the future is already determined and I believe that it isn't. Certainly such language could merely be anthropomorphisms but my OVT is rooted as much in logic and reason as analysis of Scripture. The future is fundamentally unknowable because it doesn't exist yet and it cannot be predicted accurately because reality is far too indeterminate. I don't see why an omnipresent being cannot know everything that is though or why that being cannot remember everything that has been.

OVT can be supported by Scripture but ultimately proceeds from Reason. The same can be said of the alternatives though.

James Peter, a little background is perhaps in order. As I'm sure you well know I too am an OVT. I have however, struggled with the issue of God's present knowledge and the commonly held understanding of omnipresence. Mainly because of scripture such as this one I have often questioned by what biblical hermeneutic we determine what is anthropomorphic and what is literal. I've not had anyone explain to me (not that anyone is obligated to but I have asked politely) any specific set of rules on when to take scripture literal, figurative or anthropomorphically.

With that said, I think the same or similar principles should be implemented when considering God's present knowledge that we as OVTs use to determine his future knowledge. One way we as OVTs have done that is to not dismiss the clear narratives or scriptures based on the fact that God actually acted in accordance with those passages, ie. God's repentance, God learning, etc.

In the passages that deal with God's present knowledge (which I believe might possibly be related to his literal presense) we not only hear Him suggest that He will seek out a path for them (in the passage sited in the OP) but we see Him actually moving them through the wilderness with actions indicative of Him truly seeking said path. For instance, we learn in Numbers 9:15-23 that the pillar of fire and the cloud, literally went before them and told them when to camp and when to set out. If my memory serves me correctly (and it could be wrong) weren't there times when God would have an angel clear a path or where He would start/stop their travels because he was gaining present knowledge? Would this not in some way validate that God was actually seeking a path for them?

Since God learned the faithfulness of Abraham presently by Abraham's attempted offering of Isaac, why is it wrong to assume that much like that experience, God is gaining present knowledge? If the present is constantly being determined by our choices isn't then God's present knowledge also constantly increasing/changing?

Let me be clear here, I am not advocating any particular view. I've been honest for the last several years about my struggles in this issue and I'm honestly seeking a way to better understand scripture as well as be consistent with what the bible portrays.

Thanks for listening and I'm definitely eager to hear yours and other's thoughts on this.

Peace,
Linda

[James Peter]

A lot of it comes down to hermeneutics and if you want to retain anything even resembling inerrancy then my 'solutions' won't work for you. Some of the oldest biblical passages, as you have observed, do not understand God as being omnipresent or omni anything. In fact speaking of God in these verses is really not appropriate because they actually come from a polytheistic background. The idea that from the time of the Exodus Israel was monotheistic just can't be sustained, indeed most of the details of the exodus are pretty questionable. What we have are much later stories which were then even later redacted further to the point that what Abraham believed has virtually been lost. I could go into that a lot more but suffice is to say that just because Scripture says something doesn't mean it is true. Can you accept that because if you can't (and I understand reluctance to do so) then it isn't worth me going into more detail.

I guess its fair to say that just because the human authors of Scripture thought they were being literal it doesn't mean that they are actually giving literal truth rather than merely being captivated by metaphor. And ultimately can God be understood without metaphor? There is a reason the prophets were poets, description of God defies logic.

[Xmansmommy]

A lot of it comes down to hermeneutics and if you want to retain anything even resembling inerrancy then my 'solutions' won't work for you.

I certainly don't hold to biblical inerrancy although I do believe it is the best resource available to me.

Some of the oldest biblical passages, as you have observed, do not understand God as being omnipresent or omni anything.

Agreed. So why is it so commonly taught or assumed? What are your personal views on it and why?

In fact speaking of God in these verses is really not appropriate because they actually come from a polytheistic background. The idea that from the time of the Exodus Israel was monotheistic just can't be sustained, indeed most of the details of the exodus are pretty questionable. What we have are much later stories which were then even later redacted further to the point that what Abraham believed has virtually been lost. I could go into that a lot more but suffice is to say that just because Scripture says something doesn't mean it is true. Can you accept that because if you can't (and I understand reluctance to do so) then it isn't worth me going into more detail.

Of course I can and I'm your student so please go easy with me and keep it simple.

I guess its fair to say that just because the human authors of Scripture thought they were being literal it doesn't mean that they are actually giving literal truth rather than merely being captivated by metaphor. And ultimately can God be understood without metaphor? There is a reason the prophets were poets, description of God defies logic.

[James Peter]

Agreed. So why is it so commonly taught or assumed? What are your personal views on it and why?

Because the most recent texts do present God as, if not omnipotent, extremely powerful and so on. By the first century Judaism had this sort of view of God and so did some strands of greek philosophy, Christianity essentially inherited these views. Then we had the great dogmatic treatises of the middle ages which taught this sort of ontology of God thoroughly and the Reformation did not challenge it. Those who did challenge it were generally outside the Church and challenging the Church's perception of God was effectively challenging the Church. Politics and Power basically kept the view dominant for a very long time. Only now are people really able to challenge it and now it is such a basic assumption that its pretty hard work...

Do I personally think God is omnipotent and so on? Sort of. I believe that he was but the very act of creation involved his freely laying down some of his power abd giving it to others. He is by far the most powerful being in the universe and transcends it but is not, strictly speaking, omnipotent. He chooses to allow himself to be resisted. Similarly with knowledge... he can freely choose not to know certain types of information. At any point he could choose to know but doing so would violate the rules he set in place at creation and so he does not. Omnipresence is a little different. What does it mean to say that God, who has no physical form, is omnipresent? Essentially i believe it means he can be contacted from anywhere in the universe and can act anywhere in the universe both instantaneously and simultaneously. He isn't tied to a limited domain but the entire universe is his domain.

I need to go to a meeting now so thats it for a while. When I get back I should be working on some real work but I'll probably swing by here when I get bored...

[JackC]

Hello xmansmommy,

I usually do not apply religious defintions to myself, so I really don't know if I am an OTV. But if I may offer a couple of ideas related to your question?

Like James Peter, I consider the OT to be written at a level in which Israel could understand God, given their culture and world view at the time.

God cannot accurately be explained or described on a human level, but what can be explained is the effect of God on this world. How God's Spirit moves and works in this world - such though not intended to describe God Himself. And so all that is written about God is figurative or anthropomorphical.

All that such can offer to us, then, is what God does, not what God is.

The only part that I deem should be taken literally are commandments, the instructions given to us by God, through His Messengers. Guidelines for us to follow so that God can work in this world as He desires. Through Moses came commandments for Israel, and through Jesus, commandments that were to be followed in His time and continue to be our commandments for today.

I offer that our knowledge and understanding of God come by obedience, by obeying Jesus' commandments, literally, and not by studying the figurative and anthropomorphical pictures of God. As our understanding of God grows, via our obedience, certainly we can then look at how others have described God's workings, to validate and clarify our own understanding.

And actually, God's workings in this world are quite simple. He seeks to bring all into Unity, under one Head - Christ, and so all that He does is for this end. God judges and punishes what is evil and rewards what is good, not so that He can judge, and reward and punish, but so that all can be brought under Christ.





Jack

[Xmansmommy]

Because the most recent texts do present God as, if not omnipotent, extremely powerful and so on. By the first century Judaism had this sort of view of God and so did some strands of greek philosophy, Christianity essentially inherited these views. Then we had the great dogmatic treatises of the middle ages which taught this sort of ontology of God thoroughly and the Reformation did not challenge it. Those who did challenge it were generally outside the Church and challenging the Church's perception of God was effectively challenging the Church. Politics and Power basically kept the view dominant for a very long time. Only now are people really able to challenge it and now it is such a basic assumption that its pretty hard work...

Sounds reasonable.

Do I personally think God is omnipotent and so on? Sort of. I believe that he was but the very act of creation involved his freely laying down some of his power abd giving it to others. He is by far the most powerful being in the universe and transcends it but is not, strictly speaking, omnipotent. He chooses to allow himself to be resisted. Similarly with knowledge... he can freely choose not to know certain types of information. At any point he could choose to know but doing so would violate the rules he set in place at creation and so he does not. Omnipresence is a little different. What does it mean to say that God, who has no physical form, is omnipresent? Essentially i believe it means he can be contacted from anywhere in the universe and can act anywhere in the universe both instantaneously and simultaneously. He isn't tied to a limited domain but the entire universe is his domain.

Awesome James Peter, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Do you mind if I call you James or JP for short?

I need to go to a meeting now so thats it for a while.

Cool, have fun at your meeting.

When I get back I should be working on some real work but I'll probably swing by here when I get bored...

Ouch!

[James Peter]

It was a very bored meeting...dragged on for hours. The guy who runs it is so weak and so everything takes a long time to decide. I get to take all the new american arrivals out on friday night with my cute portugese colleague so I'm pretty happy despite my induced apathy. Now I just have to hope that one of them is a nice, sweet, very cute and intelligent girl who for some inexplicable reason is going to fall madly in love with me...

Anyway, James is what most people call me and JP is also more than fine. Use either or both.

[Xmansmommy]

Hello xmansmommy,

Hello JackC,

I usually do not apply religious defintions to myself, so I really don't know if I am an OTV. But if I may offer a couple of ideas related to your question?

Since it's relevant that's cool, I don't mind at all.

Like James Peter, I consider the OT to be written at a level in which Israel could understand God, given their culture and world view at the time.

Agreed. However the problem I have with that is that much of what is recorded is supposedly actual history. That along with supposed narratives of God, I have to wonder were they simply recording what they thought God was saying? If that's the case how do we know anything at all about the mind of God in relation to His own narratives and revelation? Not being facetious here but I do think it is a valid question.

God cannot accurately be explained or described on a human level, but what can be explained is the effect of God on this world. How God's Spirit moves and works in this world - such though not intended to describe God Himself. And so all that is written about God is figurative or anthropomorphical.

Should we consider at all the supposed literal words of God to Moses, Abraham, and other OT (or NT for that matter) people to be accurate in any sense? If so how?

All that such can offer to us, then, is what God does, not what God is.

The only part that I deem should be taken literally are commandments, the instructions given to us by God, through His Messengers.

Moses being one of them. And Moses said that God spoke literally to him for the benefit of the nation and eventually the world. If we suppose that Moses heard the voice of God and recorded the commandments accurately, why is it not safe to assume then that Moses accurately relayed the truth about God's intentions, interactions, etc?

Guidelines for us to follow so that God can work in this world as He desires. Through Moses came commandments for Israel, and through Jesus, commandments that were to be followed in His time and continue to be our commandments for today.

I offer that our knowledge and understanding of God come by obedience, by obeying Jesus' commandments, literally, and not by studying the figurative and anthropomorphical pictures of God. As our understanding of God grows, via our obedience, certainly we can then look at how others have described God's workings, to validate and clarify our own understanding.

How can anyone's writings validate and clarify our own understanding if their understanding was personally interpreted and not necessarily true?

And actually, God's workings in this world are quite simple. He seeks to bring all into Unity, under one Head - Christ, and so all that He does is for this end. God judges and punishes what is evil and rewards what is good, not so that He can judge, and reward and punish, but so that all can be brought under Christ.

Jack

I hope I don't come across as argumentative Jack. It's truly not my intentions. I just have alot of questions regarding some of the stuff you've shared. And I am indebted to you for sharing it because I enjoy a good conversation and a good challenge. That, this has been. I appreciate yours and JP's insight.

Thanks,
Linda

[Xmansmommy]

It was a very bored meeting...dragged on for hours. The guy who runs it is so weak and so everything takes a long time to decide.

Sorry to hear that.

I get to take all the new american arrivals out on friday night with my cute portugese colleague so I'm pretty happy despite my induced apathy.

It was worth it afterall I see.

Now I just have to hope that one of them is a nice, sweet, very cute and intelligent girl who for some inexplicable reason is going to fall madly in love with me...

Stranger things have happened, yaknow. Either way it sounds like fun, so enjoy!

Anyway, James is what most people call me and JP is also more than fine. Use either or both.

Sweet! Thanks, I think I'll call you James. It's my brother's and my ex's name but you don't seem to be anything like either one of them. Shhhhhh..that's a backhanded compliment.

[Duder]

Because having all future knowledge requires that in some sense the future is already determined and I believe that it isn't. Certainly such language could merely be anthropomorphisms but my OVT is rooted as much in logic and reason as analysis of Scripture. The future is fundamentally unknowable because it doesn't exist yet and it cannot be predicted accurately because reality is far too indeterminate. I don't see why an omnipresent being cannot know everything that is though or why that being cannot remember everything that has been.

OVT can be supported by Scripture but ultimately proceeds from Reason. The same can be said of the alternatives though.

Hello, James Peter, Xmansmommy and all -

The terms and turns of phrase James Peter has chosen make me think of the famous debate between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr. Bohr felt that quantum events are unpredictable in principle (so that God Himself would not know precisely what will happen), while Einstein felt that there are deep laws undiscovered by science that govern how all quantum events happen ("God does not play dice with the universe").

I remember also that in Einstein's general relativity time is understood to be a dimension in a continuum, like length, width and depth. If that is carried to its logical coclusion, then it appears that the future is and always has been present. The fact that creatures like ourselves do not see the future is a matter of epistemology, but not of ontology. There might be a greater being, such as God, who knows how to turn his head and cast his gaze into the "fourth dimension", and when He does, He sees the past and the future laid out whole and complete.

Einstein's God, if He is the creator, did not create a world at one moment of time and then watch to see what that world would do. Rather, his creative act would have to have created the whole thing, all of a piece. Viewed from within the temporal realm, we would say that God's creation continues even now - that we are observing God's creative action in every moment that we experience.

Doesn't this have to be true if we say that God has the ability to tell the future in the scriptures that he inspires? Moreover, if we said that there are random (quantum) processes beyond the control or knowledge of God, won't we, if his power to know and to act is limited by something outside of himself, have to conclude that God is not really the greatest conceivable being, and that since he is the greatest conceivable being, it cannot be true that there are no processes beyond his control or knowledge?

On the other hand, Bohr's God (if he had one - I don't know), has the advantage that he might not be personally responsible for evil. Evil could have arisen despite God's best intentions. He cannot and did not forsee the evil things that would be done in this world he made, and so those evil events are a surprise and an outrage to him. It makes sense for Bohr's God to be angry about sin, because sin had no place in his creative project. In Bohr's conception of reality, there is a place for a God whose goodness is beyond question or reproach, and who can judge and punish evil, because he did not set up a world in which those evil things would necessarily happen. They might not have happened, and the fact that they did happen is truly a crime.

Einstein's God is all-powerful, but not above reproach.

Bohr's God is above reproach, but not all-powerful.

But God is both all-powerful and above reproach!

Both Einstein's general relativity and Bohr's quantum mechanics are "perfect theories" that have withstood every experimental test, both of which are absolutely essential to modern science's understanding of the world. However, those two theories are at the most basic level incompatible with each other. They assume different things, both of which cannot be true.

In the same way, Calvinism and Arminianism are both essential to our understanding of theology. You cannot throw either of them out and be left with any kind of plausible theology. And yet, they disagree with each other at the most basic level.

My feeling is that when a grand unification in physics is acheived that brings both Einstein and Bohr together under a greater theory, there will arise at the same time a new theology that unifies Calvinism and Arminianism.

[Tercel]

Well, I second what JP has said in this thread.

In studying biblical history, it is clear that Israel's view and understanding of God changed over time from their god being one non-omniscient non-omnipotent tribal deity among many, through the influence of time and various other cultures upon Israel and their thinking, into the view that their God was the One Supreme Creator God. Even so, they seem to have continued to resist the Roman view that Fate and necessity controlled all, continuing to believe that God and humanity were free agents. But, over time, God was attributed with more and more power, until in the middle ages he was firmly pronounced to be "the being which none greater than could be conceived of", which meant he must be omni-everything.

Now I think God is undoubtedly very great, very powerful, and very knowledgeable, more than any other being in the universe. But I question the merits of going further than that. I refuse to say he is omnipotent or omniscient or anything like that. He might be. But what if he isn't? He might not be. If he is very powerful, very loving, very knowledgable, then that is enough for me.

The more we learn about the world the more we find this world is a great, strange and wonderful place. Quantum physics seems to show that the world is fundamentally indeterminate and exceedingly complex, so it looks like the future is inherently and fundamentally unpredictable. I'm sure God can make good guesses, just as we can predict the weather, or guess at the future behavior of friends we know well. He can, I imagine, probably make much much better predictions of such things than we can. But what if he can't perfectly predict where every atom in the universe will be ten years from now? What if it just can't be done? Of course, it might be able to be done, and indeed God might indeed be able to do such things. If he can, then good for him, but I don't require that he be able to. If he can't, no big loss. Personally, I enjoy entertaining the thought that God, like us, is keen to see what the future holds, that together we continue to create this wonderful world that God started, that we are free rather than circumscribed by fate or necessity.

So I wouldn't want to say that God has all future knowledge, nor even that he has all present knowledge. I don't know. I'm pretty sure he has lots of knowledge though.

As for Israel and the Bible, everyone interprets things that happen to them in light of their culture. The ancients believed that gods were anthropomorphic (human-like) and that part of their culture shows through into the bible - their stories about how the most high gods created mankind say that they created man in their image. Jacob wrestles with god. God is understood to act in the ways the culture said he ought to, repaying dishonor with wrath and honor with favor. Over time, as stories are passed down through a culture, the truth of the original experiences is interpreted and understood more and more in light of the cultural views.

The example was given here about how God went off looking for a path through the wilderness. Did he actually go looking? Or rather, did Israelite legend tell them that God had guided their ancestors through the wilderness and did the stories develop according to their understanding of an anthropomorphic god which said that even gods had to go looking for paths?

I wrote a blog post about culture and the bible a couple of months ago.