# Open Theism and 'those verses' that suggest God is not Omniscient



## Jon 316

Open Theists suggest that God is not Omniscient on the basis of these verses and others like them. Can anyone shed any light on these verses. Why does God have to 'come down' inorder 'to see'? Why does God need a report on The land's sin? Why is he then checking out that 'report'?

gen 11:5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building

gen 18:21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."


----------



## BobVigneault

We call that accommodating language and it is very common in Scripture. Scripture contains the revelation of God and accommodation is certainly one of the necessities of communicating. Accommodation is also a function of reconciliation.


----------



## PresbyDane




----------



## Jon 316

In otherwords... its as if God came down to see but he didnt really because he does not need to? 

Why the need for it though? 

In Genesis 6 when God is about to destroy the earth, it just says that God observes (my paraphrase... in otherwords there is an absense of this accomodating language...?


----------



## BobVigneault

The important point of that passage is not that God needed to better his location in order to see, but that he came DOWN. Just as a traveller always went UP to Jerusalem, because it was the city of God, God always comes down to man.

In God's mercy, God condescends to his beloved. That is the message of that verse.


----------



## VictorBravo

The seer, speaking to Asa, summed it up pretty succinctly:

"For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him. Herein thou hast done foolishly: therefore from henceforth thou shalt have wars." 2 Chron. 16:9

Obviously he was using figurative language to describe God's omniscience. I doubt anybody at the time of the kings was looking for eyeballs scurring around the globe. (Well, maybe some fools).


----------



## Jon 316

> The important point of that passage is not that God needed to better his location in order to see, but that he came DOWN. Just as a traveller always went UP to Jerusalem, because it was the city of God, God always comes down to man.
> 
> In God's mercy, God condescends to his beloved. That is the message of that verse.



I'm not an open theist, and in that sense I dont need convincing of God's Omniscience. However, from an exegetical point of view, can we really treat the text in this way? Especially when, it seems, the text itself includes the purpose for God 'coming down'. Its very clear. I'm coming down inorder to see if what I have heard is true. 

Its easy for me to accept your interpretation because I have embraced the doctrine of omniscience and as a result I can filter the verse through my doctrinal grid.  ...However, for the exegete, I'm not sure the answer is suffiscient.


----------



## Claudiu

Jon 316 said:


> Open Theists suggest that God is not Omniscient on the basis of these verses and others like them. Can anyone shed any light on these verses. Why does God have to 'come down' inorder 'to see'? Why does God need a report on The land's sin? Why is he then checking out that 'report'?
> 
> gen 11:5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building
> 
> gen 18:21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."



in my opinion, this is an issue of interpretation. 

The wiki article on "open theism":
this is found in the section "Critics of open theism...anyways here is something to think about

"Opponents of open theism claim that the verses commonly used are anthropopathisms (see Anthropopathy). They also point to verses that suggest God is immutable, such as:
Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
1Sa 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.
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:
Those advocating the traditional view see these as the verses that form God's character, and they interpret other verses that say God repents as anthropomorphistic. Authors who claim this can be traced back through Calvin, Ambrose, and Augustine."


So while the Bible uses these 'anthropomorphistic' ways of describing God, it is a way only to describe it in a sense that people can relate to. Certainly, God does not have to "get a better view" of something and change his position, he is omnipresent.

Just my $0.02 on the matter


----------



## Jon 316

cheers for that article cecat



> So while the Bible uses these 'anthropomorphistic' ways of describing God, it is a way only to describe it in a sense that people can relate to.



Allow me this, but why? Why the need? Like I said before, this approach was not used in the part of genesis where God looks and sees the wickedness and then destroys the earth.


----------



## VictorBravo

Context, rules of interpretation, and a feel for Semitic languages ought to help.

First, from other clear passages we know that God is omniscient. If we take those clear passages to be true, we have one of two choices: (1) Rule arbitrarily that the passages that seem to say God has to actually take a look are literal and decide that Scripture is not consistent, or (2) interpret the troublesome passages in light of what we know clearly from plain passages. Those who believe in the integrity of God's Word will not choose the first.

The other thing, context: In Genesis 18, the Lord is speaking almost as a narrative for Abraham's benefit. Of course he could have destroyed Sodom without coming down, but then we wouldn't have had Abraham conversing with God and trying to bargain for salvation. So God condescended to speak on Abraham's terms so that we could have an actual, though very limited, glimpse at God as a person.

And the Babel passage is similar. God didn't need "come down" to earth as he was creating it, because he was outside of creation. Most any person would grasp that. But when powerful men are building a tower to heaven, what better demonstration of God's active working than to say he came down to confound their language. You get the idea of God intervening in the smallest details.

Finally, if you've been around rural Arabs or rural Jews for any length of time, you'll immediately recognize the habit of using figurative language. It is as old as the region. I sometimes think bible scholars should spend at least a month sitting around the campfires of desert nomads to knock some of the silliness out of their heads.

Maybe I'm just too easily dismissing the problem. If an open theist wanted to use these passages to prove his point, I'd shrug and ask him if he worshipped doors and chickens too (you never know, one of them just might be Jesus).


----------



## Jon 316

Cheers Vic... that puts it in perspective


----------



## sotzo

A quote from John Frame on Exodus 32:14 is helpful:

How then should we understand God’s “relenting?” For one thing, God states as a general policy in Jer. 18:5-10 that if he announces judgment and people repent, he will relent; similarly if he pronounces blessing and people do evil. In other words, relenting is part of God’s unchanging plan, not a change forced on him by his ignorance. Further, God is not only transcendent, but immanent. He has dwelled on earth in the tabernacle and temple, in Christ, and in his general omnipresence (Psm. 139:7-12). When God interacts with people in time, he does one thing, then another. He curses, then blesses. His actions are in temporal sequence and therefore, in one sense, changing. But these changes are the outworking of God’s eternal plan, which does not change.


----------



## CubsIn07

Concerning Genesis 11, there is a clear reason why it is that said God came "down" to see what was going down. Those who were building the Tower of Babel were trying to reach God and the heavens with it and make a name for themselves. They were trying to go "up" into the clouds. But God is mocking them with his response. The tower didn't reach him (as if it could) and it certainly didn't go very high in the heavens, so God is said to have to come "down" to see what puny tower they made. Genesis 11 has nothing to do with God's omniscience.


----------



## Claudiu

This is one of those passages where it seemed necessary to show how God is greater than man by expressing it in a way that can show man can't compare to him. But it in no way takes away from any of his attributes, especially omniscience.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Jon 316 said:


> Open Theists suggest that God is not Omniscient on the basis of these verses and others like them. Can anyone shed any light on these verses. Why does God have to 'come down' inorder 'to see'? Why does God need a report on The land's sin? Why is he then checking out that 'report'?
> 
> gen 11:5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building
> 
> gen 18:21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."


To accept the open theist (the unsettled theist!) view of the passage is to accept that God's own creatures know more than He does about a particular situation.

See my debate with openist Bob Enyart, downloadable (80+ pages) here:
http://www.askmrreligion.com/AMR_vs._Enyart_Open_Theism_Questions.pdf


----------



## BJClark

victorbravo;



> I doubt anybody at the time of the kings was looking for eyeballs scurring around the globe. (Well, maybe some fools).



You mean like this??? 

The Eye of God? (Hubble Telescope Photo) - Urban Legends


----------



## Solus Christus

I'm not sure this is related, but this discussion reminds me of what took place during the Fall. I felt it strange that shortly after eating the forbidden fruit we read that God was _walking_ in the Garden. The He proceeds to call out to both Adam and Eve, who promptly hide. Of course it wasn't like He didn't know where they were or what they just had done. But what I found important was the interaction between divine Creator and now fallen creatures.

As Bob said before, this is accommodating language. It's helpful to see Adam had a chance to take full responsibility for his actions. Instead he first tries to hide, and then he passes the buck onto Eve. Without having God condescend interacting personally with them I feel we would have missed out on seeing some of God's character.



BJClark said:


> victorbravo;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt anybody at the time of the kings was looking for eyeballs scurring around the globe. (Well, maybe some fools).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this???
> 
> The Eye of God? (Hubble Telescope Photo) - Urban Legends
Click to expand...


Ugh, I don't think I'll ever be able to look at similar photos without thinking it's God's huge eye. 

_cue up Rockwell's_ [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD21JDMp86c"]Somebody's Watching Me[/ame]


----------

