Does God know?

[idonthavetimeforthis]

Genesis 22:12 - "And He said, Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your sonly son, from Me."

Did God not already know? Was this test for God or for Abraham or both?

I'm interested to hear the various viewpoints.

 

[preacher4truth]

I heard Chuck Swindoll say God didn't know.

I whole heartedly disagree with him. The more I listen to Swindoll, the less I want to lately.

 

[quantumfaith]

Genesis 22:12 - "And He said, Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your sonly son, from Me."

Did God not already know? Was this test for God or for Abraham or both?

I'm interested to hear the various viewpoints.

Why would anyone think that an omniscient God did not know, or think that He would need to be tested?

 

[idonthavetimeforthis]

Why would anyone think that an omniscient God did not know, or think that He would need to be tested?

I don't know, but in reading some of the various posts on other threads since I have been on this site, it seems there are some who do believe that God does not know. They may not say it, but it seems to me that they have God in Heaven watching down on us just hoping that we will accept His offer of salvation.

 

[preacher4truth]

One on here taught what you say out in the open. That God doesn't know things until they happen. Swindoll said it on his broadcast on bott radio network 1-04-2011 in the specific text you use in the OP.

 

[quantumfaith]

One on here taught what you say out in the open. That God doesn't know things until they happen. Swindoll said it on his broadcast on bott radio network 1-04-2011 in the specific text you use in the OP.

Would you be kind enough to provide a link, I am looking but cannot find Swindoll. Would love to hear his comment.

 

[charles_creech78]

I believe he knows all things. He even knows what we stand the need of before we even ask.

 

[Tom Butler]

If God didn't know what Abraham was going to do, there are enormous implications. It means God is not immutable. To not know something, then to know it, is a change.

Since God said he doesn't change (I Sam 15:29), then for him to know something now that he didn't know earlier, would make God a liar. He's not, so we have to look elsewhere for answers.

 

[slave 4 Christ]

Genesis 22:12 - "And He said, Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your sonly son, from Me."

Did God not already know? Was this test for God or for Abraham or both?

I'm interested to hear the various viewpoints.

God knows all. But Abraham did not, therefore God gave a "trial of Faith".

With God's reply, "now I know", to Abraham's trust, now Abraham has no doubt unto the authenticity of his faith.

Because God revealed, after the trial of faith, what He already knew, now Abraham knows about himself, through the trial of faith, what God knows about Abraham.

KJV
6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:

7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

ESV
6 In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, 7 so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

The New Birth is proved by believe in Christ. Then our Father graciously provides trials of faith, so as to test the veracity of our faith. Not for HIS sake, but for ours.

TO GOD BE ALL THE GLORY!!!!!

 

[quantumfaith]

If God didn't know what Abraham was going to do, there are enormous implications. It means God is not immutable. To not know something, then to know it, is a change.

Since God said he doesn't change (I Sam 15:29), then for him to know something now that he didn't know earlier, would make God a liar. He's not, so we have to look elsewhere for answers.

Tom,

I think sometimes in haste, we get things a little bit "miscommunicated" here in BB land. I am no expert on open theism, but think that this reference might be in relation to that. I, personally, in no way hold to open theism, if in fact it means that God cannot know somethings.

I do know some "folks" who claim to be OT, and as far as I can tell, they feel is whatever maybe "unknown" to God, is from a basis of God "self-limiting" himself. Still, I dont see it.

 

[quantumfaith]

If God didn't know what Abraham was going to do, there are enormous implications. It means God is not immutable. To not know something, then to know it, is a change.

Since God said he doesn't change (I Sam 15:29), then for him to know something now that he didn't know earlier, would make God a liar. He's not, so we have to look elsewhere for answers.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[idonthavetimeforthis]

God knows all. But Abraham did not, therefore God gave a "trial of Faith".

With God's reply, "now I know", to Abraham's trust, now Abraham has no doubt unto the authenticity of his faith.

Because God revealed, after the trial of faith, what He already knew, now Abraham knows about himself, through the trial of faith, what God knows about Abraham.

KJV
6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:

7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

ESV
6 In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, 7 so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

The New Birth is proved by believe in Christ. Then our Father graciously provides trials of faith, so as to test the veracity of our faith. Not for HIS sake, but for ours.

TO GOD BE ALL THE GLORY!!!!!

Good post! :thumbsup:

 

[preacher4truth]

Would you be kind enough to provide a link, I am looking but cannot find Swindoll. Would love to hear his comment.

Yes. Go to bott radio network, http://www.bottradionetwork.com/. This site will not allow you, I don't think, to listen to Swindolls message from yesterday, but it is a great site that you can listen to online.

Also, you may find him on www.oneplace.com, specifically here for Swindoll, http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/insight-for-living/. This site has many great preachers and their messages. All you have to do is search. May I suggest giving Erwin Lutzer a listen? He is one of my favorite preachers.

Anyhow, you may be able to listen to yesterdays broadcast there. It was about Abraham.

- God bless you brother.

 

[kyredneck]

... Was this test for God or for Abraham or both?....

Now these things happened unto them by way of example; and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come. 1 Cor 10:11

...so that we would have these wonderful types and examples to discuss, debate, and thump each other over the heads with.... (immensely more profitable than watching TV) (reckon God 'foresaw' TV?)

[P.S. I love your moniker. Great articulation. How many times I've mumbled those very words under my breath when posting on this board!]

 

[Benjamin]

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Now qtf, you, as someone who studies Molinism, should see right through "Butler's (dogmatic) Boloney" and the fatalist determinist' implications it carries.


There are several places in Scripture which demonstrate God's counterfactual knowledge. The most famous being 1 Samuel 23. Read that passage, see what God said and what actually happened. Did God lie? I think not!

Note: David inquired of the Lord and received clear truthful instructions in the circumstances that existed at the time that he asked. Later David changed the unfavorable circumstances of his own free will because of the knowledge God gave to him as truth and this shows David had a choice and freedom to do so.

 

[quantumfaith]

Now qtf, you, as someone who studies Molinism, should see right through "Butler's (dogmatic) Boloney" and the fatalist determinist' implications it carries.


There are several places in Scripture which demonstrate God's counterfactual knowledge. The most famous being 1 Samuel 23. Read that passage, see what God said and what actually happened. Did God lie? I think not!

Note: David inquired of the Lord and received clear truthful instructions in the circumstances that existed at the time that he asked. Later David changed the unfavorable circumstances of his own free will because of the knowledge God gave to him as truth and this shows David had a choice and freedom to do so.

I concur, in that, Tom and I are often "interpretationally" at odds, I do respect and appreciate the "spirit" in which Tom presents himself and his arguments.

And yes, at this point in my "journey" I am very much more arminian/molinist.

The bad thing about being a pure molinist, is that you often get "grief" from both sides of the debate.

Blessings Brother

 

[Tom Butler]

Now qtf, you, as someone who studies Molinism, should see right through "Butler's (dogmatic) Boloney" and the fatalist determinist' implications it carries.


There are several places in Scripture which demonstrate God's counterfactual knowledge. The most famous being 1 Samuel 23. Read that passage, see what God said and what actually happened. Did God lie? I think not!

Note: David inquired of the Lord and received clear truthful instructions in the circumstances that existed at the time that he asked. Later David changed the unfavorable circumstances of his own free will because of the knowledge God gave to him as truth and this shows David had a choice and freedom to do so.

I freely admit that sometimes i very well may post boloney, and even dogmatic boloney, but if it is, I don't know it at the time. At the time, I believe it to be brilliant and incisive commentary.

I thought my comment on God's immutability and the implications of God's not knowing something was actually pretty good. So how does it carry fatalist-determinist implications?

I read the story in I Sam 23. I'm dense, I guess. I'm not making any connection between what I posted and that passage. So I'll rely on you to fill in the blanks.

 

[Benjamin]

I freely admit that sometimes i very well may post boloney, and even dogmatic boloney, but if it is, I don't know it at the time. At the time, I believe it to be brilliant and incisive commentary.

I thought my comment on God's immutability and the implications of God's not knowing something was actually pretty good. So how does it carry fatalist-determinist implications?

I read the story in I Sam 23. I'm dense, I guess. I'm not making any connection between what I posted and that passage. So I'll rely on you to fill in the blanks.

As per a previous discussion I had questions over Quantumfaith thumbs up, because of consideration of his theology, about Molinism/Middle Knowledge which attempts to reconcile Divine foreknowledge with creaturely freedoms, it does not deny God’s foreknowledge, but rather disputes the simplicity of man’s classical boxing of this attribute.

My previous post in this tread also noted about scripture demonstrating God’s counterfactual knowledge which directly disputes your previous reasoning (about your explanation of Divine foreknowledge and how it would otherwise have to make God a liar) here it is:

(1Sa 23:6) And it came to pass, when Abiathar the son of Ahimelech fled to David to Keilah, that he came down with an ephod in his hand.

(1Sa 23:7) And it was told Saul that David was come to Keilah. And Saul said, God hath delivered him into mine hand; for he is shut in, by entering into a town that hath gates and bars.

(1Sa 23:8) And Saul called all the people together to war, to go down to Keilah, to besiege David and his men.

(1Sa 23:9) And David knew that Saul secretly practiced mischief against him; and he said to Abiathar the priest, Bring hither the ephod.

(1Sa 23:10) Then said David, O LORD God of Israel, thy servant hath certainly heard that Saul seeketh to come to Keilah, to destroy the city for my sake.

(1Sa 23:11) Will the men of Keilah deliver me up into his hand? will Saul come down, as thy servant hath heard? O LORD God of Israel, I beseech thee, tell thy servant. And the LORD said, He will come down.

(1Sa 23:12) Then said David, Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? And the LORD said, They will deliver thee up.

(1Sa 23:13) Then David and his men, which were about six hundred, arose and departed out of Keilah, and went whithersoever they could go. And it was told Saul that David was escaped from Keilah; and he forbore to go forth.

(1Sa 23:14) And David abode in the wilderness in strongholds, and remained in a mountain in the wilderness of Ziph. And Saul sought him every day, but God delivered him not into his hand.

Side bar: “So how does it carry fatalist-determinist implications?” -> Those who hold Divine Foreknowledge and Determinism together as their view, being they are consistent in causal determination due to their interpretation of Divine foreknowledge, have a BIG a problem of heading down the path of denying other Divine attributes concerning God’s character while attempting to avoid the implications of assigning moral responsibility of evil on Him. (That’s why Determinism unavoidably leads to Fatalism)

The “BIG” problem being that if God determined all actions in advance, how can our actions logically be free by the view of advanced planning? Some form of indeterminism must be true for creaturely freedoms to exist; (1Sam 23 demonstrates this) MK simply proposes another solution. We could hash this out while you attempt to dish out a few rabbit trails and once again call anything other than "your" view Open Theism; then maybe go into moral responsibility of the “first cause” implications on God’s character…

…But frankly Butler, I know, and you know that we could go all through this, and that the subject of Divine foreknowledge is not new here; I and others could once again spend/waste hours explaining things, and yet, in the near future when the similar subject comes up again you will post the same ole standby arguments as if it had never been discussed. I’ve noticed for quite some time that this is your typical MO. So if you really want to know, as you are trying to decide whether you are “brilliant” or “dense”, instead of going into further details of what "I" think of the “spirit” of presenting your style of aforementioned “arguments” as if you haven’t heard it before, I’ve just simply referred to it as “Butler’s Boloney”.

:smilewinkgrin:

 

[quantumfaith]

As per a previous discussion I had questions over Quantumfaith thumbs up, because of consideration of his theology, about Molinism/Middle Knowledge which attempts to reconcile Divine foreknowledge with creaturely freedoms, it does not deny God’s foreknowledge, but rather disputes the simplicity of man’s classical boxing of this attribute.

My previous post in this tread also noted about scripture demonstrating God’s counterfactual knowledge which directly disputes your previous reasoning (about your explanation of Divine foreknowledge and how it would otherwise have to make God a liar) here it is:

(1Sa 23:6) And it came to pass, when Abiathar the son of Ahimelech fled to David to Keilah, that he came down with an ephod in his hand.

(1Sa 23:7) And it was told Saul that David was come to Keilah. And Saul said, God hath delivered him into mine hand; for he is shut in, by entering into a town that hath gates and bars.

(1Sa 23:8) And Saul called all the people together to war, to go down to Keilah, to besiege David and his men.

(1Sa 23:9) And David knew that Saul secretly practiced mischief against him; and he said to Abiathar the priest, Bring hither the ephod.

(1Sa 23:10) Then said David, O LORD God of Israel, thy servant hath certainly heard that Saul seeketh to come to Keilah, to destroy the city for my sake.

(1Sa 23:11) Will the men of Keilah deliver me up into his hand? will Saul come down, as thy servant hath heard? O LORD God of Israel, I beseech thee, tell thy servant. And the LORD said, He will come down.

(1Sa 23:12) Then said David, Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? And the LORD said, They will deliver thee up.

(1Sa 23:13) Then David and his men, which were about six hundred, arose and departed out of Keilah, and went whithersoever they could go. And it was told Saul that David was escaped from Keilah; and he forbore to go forth.

(1Sa 23:14) And David abode in the wilderness in strongholds, and remained in a mountain in the wilderness of Ziph. And Saul sought him every day, but God delivered him not into his hand.

Side bar: “So how does it carry fatalist-determinist implications?” -> Those who hold Divine Foreknowledge and Determinism together as their view, being they are consistent in causal determination due to their interpretation of Divine foreknowledge, have a BIG a problem of heading down the path of denying other Divine attributes concerning God’s character while attempting to avoid the implications of assigning moral responsibility of evil on Him. (That’s why Determinism unavoidably leads to Fatalism)

The “BIG” problem being that if God determined all actions in advance, how can our actions logically be free by the view of advanced planning? Some form of indeterminism must be true for creaturely freedoms to exist; (1Sam 23 demonstrates this) MK simply proposes another solution. We could hash this out while you attempt to dish out a few rabbit trails and once again call anything other than "your" view Open Theism; then maybe go into moral responsibility of the “first cause” implications on God’s character…

…But frankly Butler, I know, and you know that we could go all through this, and that the subject of Divine foreknowledge is not new here; I and others could once again spend/waste hours explaining things, and yet, in the near future when the similar subject comes up again you will post the same ole standby arguments as if it had never been discussed. I’ve noticed for quite some time that this is your typical MO. So if you really want to know, as you are trying to decide whether you are “brilliant” or “dense”, instead of going into further details of what "I" think of the “spirit” of presenting your style of aforementioned “arguments” as if you haven’t heard it before, I’ve just simply referred to it as “Butler’s Boloney”.

:smilewinkgrin:

Benjamin,

I think (mho) that if we are all intellectually honest, there exists a tension between divine foreknowledge and determinism. Throughout history, this has been hashed over by great thinkers, philosophers and theologians, all making wonderful and cogent arguments for their perspective. I have a great disdain for pejoratively being called a "free willer", but where I am (and have been for 30 years) is that I am personally convinced that there is some degree of freedom built into creation (man) intentionally by the creator. Molinism, for me at present best resolves the tension of that antimony.

Seems to me, extremes on either end of the spectrum lead to fruitless logical and theological dead ends and conundrums.

Having God "decreeing" the movement of every atom (although most certainly possible) inevitably leads to God being the author, orgiinator et al. of sin. In my feeble mind, this Cannot be.

Man having complete libertarian freedom does seem to me to lead one down the road to the ideas of "openness". Again, for me, a path I think to be wrong.

Compatibilist have attempted to resolve this tension for centuries. Unsuccessfully by most standards.

Kenneth Keathley in his book, Divine Sovereignty and Salvation describes one position that is quite appealing to me logically and theologically. He calls it "soft libertarianism". (Forming his definition of Molinism)

Blessings Brother, thank you for your contributions to the debate.

 

[Luke2427]

Benjamin,

I think (mho) that if we are all intellectually honest, there exists a tension between divine foreknowledge and determinism. Throughout history, this has been hashed over by great thinkers, philosophers and theologians, all making wonderful and cogent arguments for their perspective. I have a great disdain for pejoratively being called a "free willer", but where I am (and have been for 30 years) is that I am personally convinced that there is some degree of freedom built into creation (man) intentionally by the creator. Molinism, for me at present best resolves the tension of that antimony.

Seems to me, extremes on either end of the spectrum lead to fruitless logical and theological dead ends and conundrums.

Having God "decreeing" the movement of every atom (although most certainly possible) inevitably leads to God being the author, orgiinator et al. of sin. In my feeble mind, this Cannot be.

God can be the ultimate cause of evil and not be evil at all himself.

The issue is motive.

God's motive for ordaining that evil should exist is holy and noble and pure.

Motive is ALL that makes a thing morally right or morally wrong.

If I kill a man in his living room I am a murderer.

If I kill the same man on the battlefield I am a hero.

Same action same basic result- one is good and the other is evil.

Motive made the difference. Motive for one was malice. Motive for the other is defense of country.


We see this clearly with Joseph's brother. Joseph said, "You meant it for evil but God MEANT IT for good."

Same action, different motives.

Adam's motive for partaking of the forbidden fruit was evil.
God's motive for Adam partaking of it was good.

God meant the evil to come to pass and yet he is perfectly holy and righteous at the same time.

In fact, evil is NECESSARY for God to DISPLAY his grace and mercy and love to the fullest.

God COMMENDETH his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.

God uses our sin to SHOW his great love.

That in the ages to come he might SHOW forth the exceeding riches of his Grace in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. Ephesians 2.

God SHOWS his great grace and receives glory for it throughout eternity by sin.

God's motive is for evil existing is for his glory.

His glory is the highest and noblest of all motives for anyone- including Himself.