Kurieuo wrote:There is really only one kind of omniscience, and that is knowing all truths (past, present and future). Anything less is a play on words. The Biblical God reveals Himself as knowing future truths as well as past (e.g., Mark 14:30).
I agree. God knows all truths. But it doesn't stop there. Omniscience is better defined as “God knows all truths and believes no falsehood.” But if he knew Adam would certainly disobey (i.e, the truth God knew), why did he expect Adam to obey (i.e., false, as far as the truth above is concerned). Why expect what is false? What happens to his omniscience then in that scenario?
If you are a solid Bible believer how would you explain Exodus 31:17:
“When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them on the road through the Philistine country, though that was shorter. For God said, "If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt." If God was sure that Israel would not change their mind, why did he say, "
If they face war, they
might change their minds and return to Egypt." That sounds to me that God wasn't sure whether the Israelites would change their mind or not.
Kurieuo wrote:If God didn't need to decree a past action in order for him to know it happened, then why does God need to decree a future action in order to know it will happen? Your allusion to Isaiah 46:9-11 I believe is being misconstrued.
You missed it. I did not say God has to decree future action IN ORDER for him to know it. When God decree a future action he therefore knows it. But whatever God's purpose for decreeing a future action is beyond me, but definitely it's not simply IN ORDER for him to know it.
Isaiah 46:9-11 is an example God declaring something to come to pass in the future and thus he knew what would happen:
“Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please. From the east I summon a bird of prey; from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose. What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do.” That passage doesn't simply speak about God knowing what will happen in the future. Rather, it speaks about what God declared what he's going to do
(“What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do”) and therefore he knew what is going to happen since he declared it to happen.
Kurieuo wrote:References to Scripture would be helpful.
Genesis 22:12: "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."
Exodus 16:4: Then the LORD said to Moses, "I will rain down bread from heaven for you. The people are to go out each day and gather enough for that day. In this way I will test them and see whether they will follow my instructions.
Deut. 8:2,3: Remember how the LORD your God led you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and to test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands. He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD."
Kurieuo wrote: However, an infinite God to communicate and interact with us comes down to our level, and so God relates to humans in finite ways. For example, there are Biblical passages which if taken literally of God, would imply God has arms, hands and other features of human anatomy. There are also passages which suggest God can be surprised, refreshed and change His mind about things. Go to skeptics website, and I'm sure you'll find all of these things as arguments against God as revealed by the Bible. Yet, Christians would not necessarily take these examples literally, because God has been defined elsewhere as having spiritual and infinite qualities. And so it makes more sense to say that God is simply trying to relate to us on our own level.
First, are you saying that the God to whom Moses talked to in Exodus 3,4 is not the REAL or ACTUAL God? That the REAL or ACTUAL God is not like what the Bible shows us? If He is not ACTUALLY like the one who talked to Moses and Abraham, where did you get the idea that he is not really like that?
Second, yes, I know that anthropomorphisms (i.e., God is describe as having arms, eyes, shadows, etc) were used in the Bible.
Dr. Millard Erickson, in his one-volume edition of
Christian Theology writes:
- There are, of course, numerous passages which suggest that has physical features such as hands or feet. How are we to regard these references? It seems most helpful to treat them as anthropomorphisms, attempts to express the truth about God through human analogies. (p.268)
It is true that the Bible uses figurative languages and that there are certain passages that are figurative and portray God in human terms. The following are some examples:
Deuteronomy 4:34 —
Has any god ever tried to take for himself one nation out of another nation, by testings, by miraculous signs and wonders, by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, or by great and awesome deeds, like all the things the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your very eyes?
Here God is said to have an “outstretched arm.” Taking that literally contradicts the John 4:24 passage that says God is Spirit. A spirit does not have an arm, much less a “outstretched arm.” But within that verse we are provided with the truth that this “outstretched arm” wishes to communicate. The “outstretched arm” clearly means within that verse the “power and might of God.” It is by his mighty power through signs and wonders that Israel was delivered from Egypt.
Psalm 17:8 —
Keep me as the apple of your eye; hide me in the shadow of your wings from the wicked who assail me, from my mortal enemies who surround me.
Does God have wings? Does God have a shadow of his wings? Taking this phrase literally is ridiculous since God has no wings and he does not have a shadow because he is a spirit. But again, within that verse we are provided with information what does that “shadow of your wings” whishes to communicate, and that is, protection from enemies. The truth about God that the figurative phrase “shadow of your wings” wishes to communicate is none other than Divine protection.
Psalm 91:1 —
He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the shadow of the Almighty.
What does the figurative term “shadow” wishes to communicate? The succeeding verse is clear: “I will say of the LORD, "He is my refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust." Thus, the truth about God that “shadow” wishes to communicate is God being our refuge ad fortress.
2 Chronicles 16:9 —
For the eyes of the LORD range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him. You have done a foolish thing, and from now on you will be at war."
What truth about God does the “eyes of the LORD” wishes to communicate? Literal eyes? We know it does not refer to literal eyes. The truth about God that “the eyes of the LORD” wishes to communicate is his being omnipresent (see also Deut. 11:12)
Now, after providing some examples of anthropomorphic (and even theriomorphic for “wings”) languages in Scripture, we must seriously consider some points against insisting that anthropomorphism/anthropopathism is THE correct and proper way of interpreting the passages I presented.
1. Interpreting some biblical passages as anthropomorphic is necessary and legitimate at times like in the examples given. But it must be noted that
anthropomorphic languages are nevertheless reality depicting. Meaning, an anthropomorphic language
depicts a particular reality about God. The expression genuinely conveys to us God's true characteristic although not in a literal fashion. (thus, “eyes” = omnipresence; “shadow of his wings” = divine protection; “outstretched arm = power and might).
2. When God says, “Now I know” or when the Bible says, “in order to now” (granting this is an anthropomorphism), what particular reality about God does it wish to communicate to us? If the “eyes of the Lord” (an anthropomorphism) communicates the truth about God's omnipresence, what truth about God does “IN ORDER TO KNOW” or “NOW I KNOW” communicate to us? Thus, “eyes” = omnipresence; “shadow of his wings” = divine protection; “outstretched arm = power and might; “Now I know” = _____??____
3. When the inspired Word tells us that God thinks and speaks in terms of “perhaps,” “maybe,” “if,” and “might,” or that God expected something that did not happen, if they are not literal but anthropomorphism only, what truth do they communicate about God's TRUE characteristics?
These, I think, are the points you must look into.
Kurieuo wrote:Now nowhere in Scripture does it say God did not know the future. It may portray God as being ignorant, but this does not mean God was actually so. If you can provide the Scriptures which outrightly declare "God does not know...", then you have a case. Otherwise I think this remains a point of silence.
The Bible may portray God as being ignorant and yet it does not mean God was actually so? That means that the Bible reveals to us a God different from what He really is. The Bible then cannot be called “God's revelation of himself” since the God we have in the Bible is not REALLY Himself.
Doing theology does not always require one to provide an explicit statement about something in order for it to be biblical. Could you provide a direct statement from the Bible that “God is one being in three persons”?
The passages ( of course there are few more) I brought up plus the issue I raised on Adam which I will be dealing with Doc are enough for me to have a case.