Vox Day - Is God really omniscient?

[August]

Vox Day is a Christian blogger who wrote the book "The Irrational Atheist". It was an enjoyable read for me. Day pretty much refutes the popular atheist circus, and also spends some time on some of the more sophisticated ones like Dennet. He writes in a easy readable fashion, with bits of of humor, while never really getting too theologically sophisticated. This seems to be by design, he does state that he wishes to take on the pop-atheists on similar terms than that which they use.

But then towards the end of the book he states this: "First, it is important to note that the Christian God...makes no broad claims to omniscience. Although there are 87 references to the things God knows, only a single example could potentially be interpreted as a universal claim to complete knowledge."

Day then also refers to Dr. Greg Boyd's book, "Letters to a Skeptic", which he says chronicles the many Biblical examples of God being surprised, thwarted and changing His mind.

All of this open theism is to disarm the argument of evil that Dawkins and Hitchens relies upon heavily. Day argues that a very powerful, but not omnipotent God would be indistinguishable from each other for the human anyway: "Furthermore, there is no theological significance whatsoever to a reduced form of omniscience and omnipotence....one is still left with a God whose theoretical capabilities are sufficient to fulfill the the various claims about His knowledge and power made in His Word. Moreover, from the human perspective, this logically acceptable tantiscient (almost omniscient) God would be completely indistinguishable form the omniscient one."

As a result, this very powerful, but not omnipotent God, can not be held responsible for evil, it is either the direct result of Satan's domain and rule on earth, or it is the result of natural laws running their course.

Comments?

 

[py3ak]

Why bother vindicating such a god from atheistic attacks?

 

[Confessor]

"Furthermore, there is no theological significance whatsoever to a reduced form of omniscience and omnipotence....one is still left with a God whose theoretical capabilities are sufficient to fulfill the the various claims about His knowledge and power made in His Word. Moreover, from the human perspective, this logically acceptable tantiscient (almost omniscient) God would be completely indistinguishable form the omniscient one."

Well, so much of Scripture says that He knows all events and all feelings and all...everything.

Proverbs 15:3 - "The eyes of the LORD are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good."

Jeremiah 16:17 - "My eyes are on all their ways; they are not hidden from me, nor is their sin concealed from my eyes."

Hebrews 4:13 - "Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account."

1 Chronicles 28:9 - "And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the LORD searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts. If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever."


No knowledge is hidden from God regarding future events, either (including the "middle knowledge" of Molinist terminology, as demonstrated in 2 Kings 13:19).

1 Samuel 23:9-13 - Here, God tells flatly to David what will occur. He does not conjecture by any means; God tells David what exactly will happen because God knows that it will most certainly occur.

And here's the clincher, Psalm 147:5 - "Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit."

Not to mention all the talk of God's decretive will, in which God would have to absolutely know all things in order for this to be carried out. He could not simply guess and hope, and to even consider such a belief seems, to me, akin to blasphemy. However, to be fair, it is possible that the "unlimited" knowledge of God could just be pertaining to His comprehensive understanding of our universe and nothing else.

But, we have no reason to believe that there exists something besides our universe and God, and, much more importantly, the heretical open theism belief is vanquished either way. If we believe that God possesses all knowledge of this universe, which Scripture clearly states, then open theism is simply impossible.

I think it's safe to say that God's omniscience and omnipotence are truly "omni." Otherwise, if the author truly thinks that supremely high power and infinite power are equal, then why would he change his doctrine at all? Open theism would cease to be open theism if the two notions were the same.

No more pansy gods.

 

[Confessor]

Why bother vindicating such a god from atheistic attacks?

While it may be easy to simply say, "Atheism presupposes theism! You lose!" I believe that such atheistic attacks are still noteworthy, for the fact that they are an attack on Christianity's internal consistency. If, after all, Christianity does account for reason and for non-contradiction, then we would expect the Christian worldview, if internally consistent, to have no contradictions. If the existence of evil is not logically reconciled with the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent deity, then the worldview is internally inconsistent.

 

[Zenas]

He flees from the argument of evil? I suppose that's all Open Theism really is though, a retreat from that front. Sad, I really don't find the argument all that compelling in light of total depravity and causality. It all seems like one big emotional appeal stemming from the subjectivist notion that God has to be what some atheist or non-believer wants Him to be, if He's really going to be God.

*crazy*

 

[CDM]

Vox Day (pseudonym) is an open theist and member of Mensa and a non-denominational church. He is very intelligent and quite witty.

He believes the most satanic view of God in the world is Calvinism.

His arguments in every area from politics to video games are usually well-reasoned, thorough and honest. However, when he comments on Calvinism / DoG his argument is "try telling a husband and wife after they endured the slow death of a child that God is sovereign and planned it".

 

[August]

mangum, yes, I am totally underwhelmed by his love affair with open theism. It just opens such a can of worms when it comes to the ordo salutis. And I don't know enough about him to think otherwise, but it seems that his open theism is the result of having been painted into a corner by the problem of evil.

He does try to be a more sophisticated at some points in his book, but he is mostly evidential and sometimes a little classical, taking on the atheists at their own game. I guess we see the result of what happens when you answer a fool according to his folly.

 

[CDM]

mangum, yes, I am totally underwhelmed by his love affair with open theism. It just opens such a can of worms when it comes to the ordo salutis. And I don't know enough about him to think otherwise, but it seems that his open theism is the result of having been painted into a corner by the problem of evil.

He does try to be a more sophisticated at some points in his book, but he is mostly evidential and sometimes a little classical, taking on the atheists at their own game. I guess we see the result of what happens when you answer a fool according to his folly.

You may be right, but he has held his open theism views long before he wrote the book. He also denies Christianity is rightfully identified as a Monotheistic religion. He says Christianity is polytheistic. He also says polygamy is biblical and only "the man" made marriage monogamous.

My point is, he has many heretical views and most of them are not a result of the "problem of evil" but simply his pure arminianism. I have corresponded with him in the past. Check out his blog, it is very entertaining at points:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/