The Omnipotence and Omniscience of Jesus

[apostoli]

Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite (Psalm 147:5, NASB).

Simple poetic rhetoric with no substance.

All Ps 147:5 demonstrates is that YHWH is infinitely compassionate, not that he is prescient. Compassion is a consequence of a retrospective viewpoint. Read all of Ps 145 and stop mining...

a. Keil and Delitzsch: and of His understanding there is no number, i.e. in its depth and fulness it is definable by no number. What a comfort for the Church upon its often labyrinthine and entangled ways! Its Lord is the All-wise as well as its Almighty (Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, Volume 3, page 409).

More fantastical commentary that has no basis in fact. Ps 147:6 states "The LORD lifteth up the meek: he casteth the wicked down to the ground", which is a wishful thought that has no substance in history. Ps 147:2 says "The LORD doth build up Jerusalem: he gathereth together the outcasts of Israel" and we all know from both the biblical and historical witness how many times Jerusalem fell, and we know from the NT that the "outcasts of Israel" have been thoroughly outcast...

Why then does Psalm 147:5 teach the omniscience of God?

Well it doesn't! Read all of Ps147 and get a clue!!!

If you are going to diminish the omniscience of God then why not His omnipotence? Is He the "Almighty"?

Trick question! How is it that God the Father is reliant on his Son to save the world??? How is it that Revelevation tells us that the Son and the Father share a throne, from which the waters of life flow?

Whilst I might agree that God is omnipotent (which automatically presumes he/they are omniscient and omnipresent), I would advocate, given human history, he/they have never exercised this faculty...

Wasn't Isaac a witness to the event with what took place with Abraham?

Nope! According to scripture he was the traumatised victim. In any case the worlds majority religion, Islam, reckons it was Ishmael who Abraham attempted to offer as a human sacrifice. There is an interesting debate amongst Jewish scholars concerning how prevalent human sacrifice was in early Hebrew culture. There are a couple of pointers in the OT that it was practiced...

Why is the Greek word kardiognwstes properly defined as being "omniscient"?
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ce%29%E2%80%8F

The Greek word means "heart knower". Which is not a precursor to prescience but a retrospective (knowledge after the fact). If you wish to contend with this observation then realise you are accusing God of fore-knowledge of man's fall ie: man was setup to fail from the start...

[JohnnyP]

Given the facts as depicted in scripture, one is inclined to understand that whilst God is omniscient in retrospect (knows whatever has already occurred), he is either not prescient or chooses not to be prescient. Without prescience, one cannot be fully omniscient...

Unfortunately, there is no scriptural support for your speculations, you are simply relying on innuendo and wishful thinking.

Of course there is scriptural support for God knowing the future, it's called prophecy! Haha.

[foudroyant]

Given the facts as depicted in scripture, one is inclined to understand that whilst God is omniscient in retrospect (knows whatever has already occurred), he is either not prescient or chooses not to be prescient. Without prescience, one cannot be fully omniscient...

Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite (Psalm 147:5, NASB).
a. Keil and Delitzsch: and of His understanding there is no number, i.e. in its depth and fulness it is definable by no number. What a comfort for the Church upon its often labyrinthine and entangled ways! Its Lord is the All-wise as well as its Almighty (Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, Volume 3, page 409).


Why then does Psalm 147:5 teach the omniscience of God?
If you are going to diminish the omniscience of God then why not His omnipotence? Is He the "Almighty"?


Wasn't Isaac a witness to the event with what took place with Abraham?

Why is the Greek word kardiognwstes properly defined as being "omniscient"?
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ce%29%E2%80%8F

[apostoli]

Agree.

The same thing can be said of Genesis 22:12.
He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me." (NASB)

Please see Steven C. Roy's "How Much Does God Foreknow: A Comprehensive Biblical Study" (page 180)
Norman Geisler speaks of the difference between cognition and demonstration.
There is nothing here [in Gen 22] about God's desire to learn anything. Rather, God wanted to prove something (cf. 2 Chr 32:31). What God knew by cognition, he desired to show by demonstration. By passing the test, Abraham demonstrated what God already knew: namely that he feared God. ("Creating God in the Image of Man?", Norman Geisler, page 88).
Geisler gives an illustration of a math teacher who might say to her class, "Let's see if we can find the square root of 49." Then, after demonstrating to her class what the square root of 49 is, she declares, "Now we know that the square root of 49 is 7." And she could legitimately say this even though she knew the correct answer all along. Geisler comments, "Even so, God, who knows all things cognitively from the beginning, could appropriately say after Abraham had proved his faith, "Now I know [demonstratively] that you fear God." (Ibid.)

The failure of this argument is that there were no third non-aligned party witnesses to the event. Woopy do, Abram proved himself to God but nobody else!!! A good tale for Bedouins to tell around the camp fire (nb: According to my Muslim neighbors, it was Ishmael who Abram attempted to sacrifice, not Isaac - they have a party each year on their particular feast day).

We have this scenario of proof of faith throughout the OT. Either God knows someone's faithfulness or he doesn't!!! Unless such faithfulness is witnessed by a third non-aligned party then your retort fails...

[apostoli]

The text doesn't say God did not know, but that God decided to intervene upon free will, after God already allowed free will.

You may see "repented/sorry/regretted" as being caught by surprise. But suppose you stole something and knew it was wrong to start with, then "repented/sorry/regretted" doing it? You aren't surprised by it, you already knew it from the start. So that's not the correct way to treat the text, in my view.

Unfortunately, there is no scriptural support for your speculations, you are simply relying on innuendo and wishful thinking.

The options are simple:

1. God created mankind (and all creation) to be defective and knew it would fail, so in the pursuit of vainglory set up a plan to redeem it, or...
2. God created mankind (and all creation) in perfection, but given the allowance of free will, God was not able to constrain their excesses (which demonstrates God is not omnipotent) and so destroyed all living things (except for the very defective creatures he preserved on the Ark, who simply perpetuated the problem).
3. God created mankind (and all creation) in perfection, but given the full scope of free will had allowed creation free reign with no direct interference in their choices.
4 etc etc

Read the OT! God is depicted as being hapless...reacting to one problem after another, and without consistency...(well apart from mass extermination of one society or another)...

Don't get me wrong. I believe that God exists, but probably not the pagan God most follow. I believe in the Father who sent his only begotten Son to save the world...and from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds...and is received by us via the Son...

[foudroyant]

From "The Finished Mystery" on Revelation 5:6 in application to the Lord Jesus (page 100):
Having seven horns.- Perfect power. "All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth." - Matt. 28:18; 1 Sam. 2:1, 10; Deut. 33:17; 1 Ki. 22:11.
Having seven eyes.- Perfect wisdom. "In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." - Col. 2:3; Zech. 3:9; 4:10; Rev. 1:4; 3:1; 4:5; 2 Chron. 16:9

[foudroyant]

I don't think it implies God didn't know, rather that they thought they were hiding and God was calling them out. Kind of like when your kids get in trouble and try to hide, you may know where they are but you still say, "Ok where are you?" forcing them to come out and face the music. In a sense playing along with them, not that you really don't know.

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/9567942-md.jpg

Agree.

The same thing can be said of Genesis 22:12.
He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me." (NASB)

Please see Steven C. Roy's "How Much Does God Foreknow: A Comprehensive Biblical Study" (page 180)
Norman Geisler speaks of the difference between cognition and demonstration.
There is nothing here [in Gen 22] about God's desire to learn anything. Rather, God wanted to prove something (cf. 2 Chr 32:31). What God knew by cognition, he desired to show by demonstration. By passing the test, Abraham demonstrated what God already knew: namely that he feared God. ("Creating God in the Image of Man?", Norman Geisler, page 88).
Geisler gives an illustration of a math teacher who might say to her class, "Let's see if we can find the square root of 49." Then, after demonstrating to her class what the square root of 49 is, she declares, "Now we know that the square root of 49 is 7." And she could legitimately say this even though she knew the correct answer all along. Geisler comments, "Even so, God, who knows all things cognitively from the beginning, could appropriately say after Abraham had proved his faith, "Now I know [demonstratively] that you fear God." (Ibid.)

[apostoli]

The text doesn't say God did not know, but that God decided to intervene upon free will, after God already allowed free will.

You may see "repented/sorry/regretted" as being caught by surprise. But suppose you stole something and knew it was wrong to start with, then "repented/sorry/regretted" doing it? You aren't surprised by it, you already knew it from the start. So that's not the correct way to treat the text, in my view.

In my view, it is necessary to read what is written and not read into the text our own imaginings. For instance: for whatever reason God chose the scum of the earth to be his biblical heroes eg: Abraham who for the sake of self preservation attempted to prostitute his wife (who was in fact his sister). David who broke most of the ten commandments - a statutory rapist, adulterer, murderer etc who usurped the high priesthood and had himself worshiped as God (1 Chronicles 29:20). In the case of Abraham we read of God's intervention after the event. In the case of David - well ultimately his linage was condemned and his temporal throne ceased to exist.

Given the facts as depicted in scripture, one is inclined to understand that whilst God is omniscient in retrospect (knows whatever has already occurred), he is either not prescient or chooses not to be prescient. Without prescience, one cannot be fully omniscient...

[JohnnyP]

A valid comment, but consider how it was that "God" did not know that mankind and certain angels would become degenerative, causing "God", as if in surprise, to irrationally lose his temper and wipe out all living things upon the earth (apart from those he set apart on the Ark).

The text doesn't say God did not know, but that God decided to intervene upon free will, after God already allowed free will.

You may see "repented/sorry/regretted" as being caught by surprise. But suppose you stole something and knew it was wrong to start with, then "repented/sorry/regretted" doing it? You aren't surprised by it, you already knew it from the start. So that's not the correct way to treat the text, in my view.

[apostoli]

But they also addressed the Father as δέσποτα in Acts 4:24 and "Lord" in Acts 4:29.
And both of these are also applied to the Lord Jesus.

But if you are a Trinitarian, then you accept Jesus is not the Father...and all attributes, attributed to Jesus are at the grace of the Father...including his resurrection (Acts 2:32, 4:10, 10:40, 13:30,37; Rom 10:9 " if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved").

[apostoli]

I don't think it implies God didn't know, rather that they thought they were hiding and God was calling them out. Kind of like when your kids get in trouble and try to hide, you may know where they are but you still say, "Ok where are you?" forcing them to come out and face the music. In a sense playing along with them, not that you really don't know.

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/9567942-md.jpg

A valid comment, but consider how it was that "God" did not know that mankind and certain angels would become degenerative, causing "God", as if in surprise, to irrationally lose his temper and wipe out all living things upon the earth (apart from those he set apart on the Ark).

[foudroyant]

ps: Note the prayer that Jesus taught his disciples did not begin with "Dear God" but "Our Father..."

But they also addressed the Father as δέσποτα in Acts 4:24 and "Lord" in Acts 4:29.
And both of these are also applied to the Lord Jesus.

[JohnnyP]

Lets start with Genesis 3:9, where we learn YHWH elohim didn't know where Adam and Eve were hiding...

I don't think it implies God didn't know, rather that they thought they were hiding and God was calling them out. Kind of like when your kids get in trouble and try to hide, you may know where they are but you still say, "Ok where are you?" forcing them to come out and face the music. In a sense playing along with them, not that you really don't know.

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/9567942-md.jpg

[apostoli]

See Post #6

Please supply the clearest text from the Old Testament in which you think the God of Israel was not omniscient.

Lets start with Genesis 3:9, where we learn YHWH elohim didn't know where Adam and Eve were hiding...

One thing you need to learn is the difference between omniscience (a retrospective) and prescience. Jesus did demonstrate a limited degree of prescience (eg: the fall of Jerusalem) but nothing more than any intelligent person might predispose over a wide time frame given the history of the region.

Given we have been waiting close to two thousand years for the coming of the kingdom, I am of the opinion that it will arrive when we are ready for it! ie: when we divest ourselves of the concept of "God/s" and instead embrace the concept of the universal family and, via Biblical metaphor, accept our adoption by the Father via the mechanism of us being the bride of his only true Son...

ps: Note the prayer that Jesus taught his disciples did not begin with "Dear God" but "Our Father..."

[foudroyant]

See Post #6

Please supply the clearest text from the Old Testament in which you think the God of Israel was not omniscient.