This explains so much! Seriously, not trying to be funny. Many people who full blown Syngergist have to become Open Theist if they want to fully maintain their position. At least, that has been my observation in the past.

A synergist who believes in a God who knows all things exhaustively still has to deal with the fact that God knows who is going to heaven or hell before the foundation of the world. Thus, to some extent, they are locked in a form of predestination. Yet, if there is a god who does not know all things (note the lowercase “g”) then that completely sets men free, for not even god knows what is going to happen.

In an effort to maintain the monotheism of Scripture some sought to teach that there was no trinity. Today, in order to maintain this idea of “free will”, some will teach that god does not know all things.

(MN: You see why I like visual aids so much? It took a while, but we got to watch JJ and company move from I’m not a monergist/synergist! I don’t go with labels! Okay, okay - if you have to label me, I’m an Open Theist. )

(JJ) I’m not sure why you find it necessary to label me something (Armenian, synergist, etc.) unless that is the only way you can establish an opposite case, but if you want to give me a label than I deem myself as an open theist, but I think an anti-Calvinist is all you need.

(GV) Labels are identifiers and descriptives. You label me a Calvinist, right?? Why is that OK for you, but not OK for me to apply a proper descriptive back to you??

Generally, folks who don’t like labels don’t like them because they ARE descriptive, and as long as they can avoid a label they find it easier to be apologetically slippery.

(JJ) God’s knowledge is a secondary point to the main argument, which is actually something Melvin and I were discussing, but I’m more than happy to open it up, if you want to talk about that instead, and I will honor your request and make multiple paragraphs for you so that my drivel will not be as nauseous to your delicate senses.

(GV) God’s knowledge is NOT secondary to anything, because it’s reflective of His character,and violates Him at the center of His Being, making Him a liar in everything He has claimed about Himself.

For instance, if God is not omniscient, He is open to error. The only means of infallibility is perfect knowledge. God cannot infallibly tell us what the future holds as you describe Him because there are elements that may present themselves within future scenarios of which God is ignorant.

God’s ignorance therefore of necessity dissolves our confidence in Him as One Who will infallibly keep us as His Elect.

How can God know He will be able to keep us unto life Eternal when He doesn’t know all possible scenarios, and what circumstances may arise which He in His Open Theistic ignorance cannot anticipate??

How can He assure us that Christ is indeed the Way unto Life when He may well be ignorant of the fact that Buddha might be another way??

(JJ) Towards the question of God’s knowledge (and the minor point) the argument goes like this: If God has all power he cannot have all knowledge, because that would limit his power to not know some things, he could never choose to not learn something.

(GV) Possibly the silliest proposition I’ve ever seen on these pages, and I’ve been dealing with Benny Hinn fans here so that says something.

The Bible makes perfectly clear that God cannot do many things because of His fundamental nature.

For instance, God cannot lie. Is that because He has no POWER to lie and is therefore not omnipotent?? Of course not. Since God exercise of His power and will are tied inextricably to His nature,and His nature is pure holiness,and lying is antithetical to holiness, God cannot lie or He would violate His very nature and cease to be holy.

.(JJ) The requirement for full knowledge is that God must know everything, so if there is even one thing God does not know we cannot assign him the knowledge load you are requiring. This however does not mean that God’s knowledge is limited

(GV) Ever hear of The Law Of Non-Contradiction?? The Laws of Contradiction/Non Contradiction are the foundational basis for logic and discourse. Your statement above is in absolute violation of the laws of logic as embodied in the Law Of Non Contradiction. Let me define it for you:

Two contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time or in the same manner.

If “A” is the antithesis of “B”, “A” cannot be identical to “B” at the same time or the same manner. In other words, you cannot say that the sun is simultaneously hot and cold at the same time and in the same manner since hot is the antithesis of cold.

One of the two propositions may be true at any given time, but they cannot both be true simultaneously. Now,let’s look at your statement while applying this universal law of elementary logic.

You said God’s knowledge is not absolute, therefore by definition His knowledge is limited. You then went on to state in your statement directly above “This however does not mean that God’s knowledge is limited.”

HUH?? Really?? God’s knowledge is incomplete and therefore by definition limited,but that doesn’t mean it’s limited??

It’s an elementary abrogation of the laws of logic to state that God doesn’t have unlimited knowledge, yet His knowledge is not limited,since “limited” is the antithesis of “unlimited”, and “A”can’t be both “A” and “NON A”at the same time or in the same manner.

(JJ) or that his knowledge is not superior in every way to our own.

(GV) Category error. You’ve redefined terms right in the middle of this ridiculous proposition and hoped we wouldn’t notice.

The premise you stated is NOT whether God’s knowledge is superior to ours,the premise you put forward is that God’s knowledge is LIMITED. Whether His knowledge is superior to ours has no bearing on whether His knowledge is unlimited or limited.

For instance, my knowledge is superior in every aspect to the knowledge of my 7 year old son. What does that tell us about the limitations of my knowledge?? NOTHING. My knowledge could be either limited OR unlimited and in BOTH cases be superior to my son’s.

Seriously, the inanity of your premises is simply staggering.

(JJ) God could still have infinite knowledge and still not know everything

(GV) WRONG!! Let me define “INFINITE” for you. From the Oxford Dictionary Of The English Language:

infinite

• adjective 1 limitless in space, extent, or size.

From Websters Dictionary:

Infinite
Adjective

1. Having no limits or boundaries in time or space or extent or magnitude;

Again, “A” cannot be both “A” and “NON-A” at the same time or in the same manner. God’s knowledge CANNOT be both INFINITE and LIMITED at the same time and in the same manner. I do hope what we have thusfar is not an example of the “pointed” and “scholarly” characteristics which you’ve claimed for your other posts.

(JJ) God could still fathom all mysteries, and still choose to not know something.

(GV) AGAIN……..God CANNOT know ALL and NOT ALL at the same time and in the same manner. They are ANTITHETICAL PROPOSITIONS. Just like the sun cannot be both hot AND cold at the same time, or the wind be both hurricane force AND calm at the same time, or a post be both scholarly AND in violation of The Laws Of Non Contradiction and Logic at the same time.

(JJ) So what the real question is, is if there is a place in the bible where God seems to not know something.

(GV) So far, the real question is whether you’ve given a scintilla of thought to the illogic of your position.

(JJ) My suggestion is that there are multiple places where God seems to not know everything. Let’s have a look at some passages. The common ones come from Jeremiah. Jeremiah 26:2-3, Jeremiah 36:2-3 both use the word perhaps when God is talking about the future, implying a small amount of uncertainty. In Jeremiah 3:7 it clearly states that God says “I thought that after she had done all this she would return to me but she did not” implying that God did not realize what would happen. God repeats this sentiment in three places Jeremiah 7:31, Jeremiah 19:5, and Jeremiah 32:35 when he says that it never entered his mind that his people would act the way they have.

In exodus when moses doubts whether the Egyptians will listen to him God gives him several signs and says Exodus 4:8-9 that they may believe the first sign or the second but if they do not then to pour water out and it will become blood, implying that he is uncertain of the first two outcomes.

In Isaiah 43:25 God describes himself as the one who blots out transgressions and remembers sins no more, which shows that he does have the power to not know something and that there are some things he doesn’t know (unless of course no one is saved). That should get the ball rolling for now towards the minor point!

(GV) Look at the words you yourself use to describe your “proof texts.” They “seem to” say……they “imply”……….the “suggest”. Just as there are fundamental rules of logic such as the ones we explored above,there are also fundamental rules of Biblical interpretation.

One of the most fundamental is this:

ALWAYS interpret the IMPLICIT (that which seems to imply, or possibly suggests) in light of the EXPLICIT (that which is clear and definite).

Instead,you interpret the EXPLICIT (such as the verses which clearly and definitively show God’s unlimited knowledge) in light of these implicit and unclear verses. You have it exactly backwards. How can you elevate verses such as the ones you cited (which simply use figures of speech and anthropomorphic language) above explicit verses which make it clear that your mere “suggestions” and “implications” are wrong??

Why do you demand a wooden literalism in these verses rather than remain in harmony with the totality of Scripture in which God speaks using figures of speech and colloquialisms and anthropomorphic language??

For example, “It never entered my mind”, which we still use today as a figure of speech. When you use it,does it REALLY mean what you’re discussing NEVER entered your mind at any time?? Of course not. God uses HUMAN LANGUAGE with ALL its various patterns to communicate, including figures of speech.

When God says He will not remember our sins, the Hebrew word “zakar” translated “remember” means this……..

1) recall, call to mind.

God is simply saying He will not call them to mind and recall them against us. He doesn’t choose to not KNOW them, He simply removes them as far as “The East is from the West.” Again, simply a figure of speech. Don’t YOU choose “not to remember” some things people have done against you?? It’s called FORGIVENESS, right?? Does this mean you ACTUALLY forget, or simply that you choose not to bring it up against the person??

Really,this stuff is hardly worthy of the bandwidth.

Tell me, do you insist on this wooden literalism everywhere in Scripture?? “If God says something never entered His mind, that isn’t a figure of speech, it LITERALLY means it never entered His mind. Everything God says must be taken literally.”

Is THAT your hermeneutic?? If so, you have a funky-looking God because if you’re going to be consistent and apply that hermeneutic to God throughout Scripture this is the picture we get.

God describes Himself in various places in Scripture as having wings, as being a door, as having feathers, as being wind, as being a man of war, as being a rock,as being a shepherd,as being a mother, as being a father, as being a hen, etc etc etc.

Now,if we apply your wooden hermeneutic which denies God is obviously using figures of speech and anthropomorphisms here, God looks fairly strange. But no, in THESE instances you freely admit that God is simply using figures of speech and such, but you refuse to properly admit as much where it gives you your “suggestions” and “implications”.

Inconsistency is a sign of a failed hermeneutic.

So, rather than interpret EXPLICIT Scriptures about God’s unlimited knowledge in the light of your verses which you yourself claim only may “imply” or “suggest”, let’s see a few of the EXPLICIT Scriptures that negate your wooden literalism which you employ to create “implications” of a limited God.

Job 37:16 Dost thou know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him which is perfect (Heb-”complete, whole, entire”) in knowledge?

Job 36:4 Job 36:4 For truly my words [shall] not be false: he that is perfect (Same word as above) in knowledge is with thee.

1Jo 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

Hbr 4:13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things [are] naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
Isa 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:

Jhn 16:30 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.

Psa 147:5 Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.

Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

These and dozens of other verses explicitly define God as all-knowing. Let’s not elevate verses with a selective woodenly literal interpretation which ignores the Scriptures consistent use of language to invent “implications” that “seem to” contradict them.

BTW, in order for God to NOT be all-knowing, He would HAVE to be trapped within the space/time paradigm anyway. Only in space/time do events rush at us in sequential order, which is necessary to remain ignorant of all of the future. The Bible though describes God as residing OUTSIDE time/space, where time is not sequential (and therefore events are subject to being unknown) where time is observed as a whole, beginning to ending simultaneously just as God’s knowledge is described. Since He sees both the past, present, and future simultaneously and perfectly from outside the restrictions of time/space sequentiality, He therefore cannot “not know” anything in the future unless you also posit that there are things He may not know about the past.

(JJ) Now as towards the real point which is the whole Calvinist question of free will (and to which apparently several of my post have evaded your scholastic eye), I do not want to take all of melvin’s blog space repeating what I have already said, but if we can find a place to start I would enjoy returning to this topic as well. Cheers!

(GV) As for this question, Melvin has an upcoming post which will grant that opportunity.

djenk23,you’re going to be surprised at just how “Reformed’ Arminius was. What we call Arminianism today bears little resemblance to historical Arminianism.