DOCSLIB.ORG

Two Puzzles About Omniscience

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Two Puzzles About Omniscience © Michael Lacewing Two puzzles about omniscience This handout follows the handout on ‘The divine attributes’. Read that handout first. If God is the most perfect possible being, then each of the perfections attributed to God must be possible, and the combination of the perfections must also be possible. Both of these requirements lead to difficulties. In this handout, we consider two puzzles about omniscience. KRETZMANN, ‘OMNISCIENCE AND IMMUTABILITY’ Is omniscience possible? Is it possible for God to know everything, or at least everything that it is possible to know? Norman Kretzmann argues that, as long as we think that God cannot change – that God is ‘immutable’ – then God cannot be omniscient. The thought that God cannot change comes from the thought that God is perfect. Kretzmann argues: 1. A perfect being is not subject to change. 2. A perfect being knows everything. 3. A being that knows everything always knows what time it is. 4. A being that always knows what time it is is subject to change. 5. Therefore, a perfect being is subject to change. 6. Therefore, a perfect being is not a perfect being. 7. Therefore, there is no perfect being. This argument is a reductio ad absurdum, which is a form of argument that shows that some claim leads to a contradiction. The contradiction is (6). If (1)-(5) are true, then the concept of a perfect being is incoherent. The most obvious premise to attack is (4). Kretzmann starts there. 1. Objection: Just because what time it is changes doesn’t mean that knowing what time it is counts as a change in knowledge. Reply: Yes it does. If you know first that it is 1.30 and then you know that it is not 1.30 (because it is 1.40), you know one thing and then another. So what you know changes. 2. Objection: A change in your beliefs like this doesn’t count as a change in you. Reply: It’s true that you haven’t changed your mind or decided that you were wrong. And it’s true that the change in your beliefs isn’t very significant. But it is still true that your beliefs have changed, and so your mind has changed. Two more objections attack premises (3) and (4) together: 3. Objection: God knows everything about the universe ‘simultaneously’, not ‘successively’. In other words, God knows everything ‘all at once’; his knowledge doesn’t change as the universe changes. (For example, God might know everything ‘all at once’ because God is transcendent.) Reply: But this means that God cannot know what time it is now, and so is not omniscient. Perhaps God knows the time at which each thing happens – past, present or future. But that doesn’t mean that God knows when in time we are. To know that involves knowing something that changes. If God doesn’t change, then God doesn’t know where we are in time, so God is not omniscient. 4. Objection: God is transcendent, outside time. So God cannot change. Reply: God’s transcendence is usually understood as there being no time from God’s point of view. But that would mean that time is an illusion that we suffer from. In turn, that means that it is never true to say ‘it is now 1.30 (or any other time)’. If time doesn’t exist, then nothing changes. This is implausible, so we should reject the idea of God’s transcendence. Perhaps the difficulty is with our interpretation of omniscience (2). 5. Objection: Omniscience is not knowing everything, or everything that it is possible to know. Omniscience is knowing what it is logically possible for a perfect being to know. A perfect being transcends time. Therefore, it is logically impossible for a perfect being to know what time it is. But not knowing what it is logically impossible for a perfect being to know is no limitation. Reply: This form of argument is unsatisfactory. For instance, ‘I am a mortal being, and so it is logically impossible that I should not die. Therefore, dying is no limitation on me’. Obviously, dying is a limitation! The correct conclusion is that a perfect being – one that both transcends time and is omniscient – is logically impossible. 6. Objection: Omniscience is knowing everything that it is possible for a perfect being to know without ceasing to be perfect. Knowing what time it is is only possible if one changes, and to change is to be imperfect. Therefore, a perfect being is omniscient without knowing what time it is. (One might argue that a perfect being could know what time it is, but chooses not to because to know that would mean becoming changeable.) Reply: This is highly counter-intuitive. Knowing what time it is is knowing what is happening now. To not know that is to lack significant knowledge. And it won’t work to say that God chooses not to know everything: omniscience isn’t merely the power to know everything; it is knowing everything. Perhaps the problem, then, is thinking that in order to be perfect, God must be unchangeable (1). 7. Objection: Knowing what time it is from one moment to the next is not a change that affects God’s perfection. So God’s knowledge does change, in this one small respect. Reply: Being perfect has also meant being ‘complete’, never in a state of potential. If God knows what time it is, God’s knowledge is – in this respect – not complete; God is yet to know what time it is next. Suppose nothing ever changed, including time. In such a world, God could know everything and be unchangeable. So what makes omniscience and immutability incompatible is a contingent fact, the fact that things change. So if God exists, God isn’t the most perfect possible being – the most perfect possible being only exists in a world in which nothing changes. At best, God is the most perfect actual being – but that being can’t be absolutely perfect, because God must either change or can’t be omniscient. OMNISCIENCE AND HUMAN FREEDOM If we were able to solve Kretzmann’s challenge to God’s omniscience, we would still face another puzzle about the relation between God’s knowledge and time. Can God know what I will do in the future? If God is eternal, existing outside time, the problem doesn’t seem to arise. God already knows what happens in that period of time which we call ‘future’. Being outside time, God’s knowledge of all events is ‘simultaneous’. Past, present and future are all the same to God. This response defends God’s omniscience (although it leads to some of the problems above – see Objections (c) and (d)). But a new problem then arises. If God knows what I will do in the future, are my actions free? 1. For me to do an action freely, I must be able to do it or refrain from doing it. 2. If God knows what I will do before I do it, then it must be true that I do that action. 3. Therefore, it cannot be true that God knows what I will do before I do it and be true that I don’t do that action. 4. If it is true that I do that action, then nothing I can do can prevent it coming true that I am doing that action. 5. Therefore, if God knows what I will do before I do it, then I cannot refrain from doing that action. 6. Therefore, if God knows what I will do before I do it, then that action is not free. 7. (Therefore, conversely, if my actions are free, God does not know what I will do before I do it.) If I am free, then this argument entails that God does not know what I will do before I do it. So there is something God does not know, and so God is not omniscient. (For God not to have knowledge of the future, all time cannot be the same for God, so God cannot be eternal, but in some way, must exist within time.) Furthermore, as the future unfolds, God would gain new knowledge. Again, if God gains knowledge, he wasn’t previously omniscient. We could simply conclude that God is omniscient and we are not free. However, this raises another conflict for the concept of God. Freedom – free will – is a great good that allows us to do good or evil and to willingly enter into a relationship with God or not. Without free will, we couldn’t choose how to live or what kind of person to be, so our lives would not be meaningful or morally significant. As supremely good, God would want our lives to be morally significant and meaningful, so he would wish us to have free will. If we are not free, God is not supremely good. Can I be free and God be omniscient? We may argue that God’s not knowing what I will do before I do it is not be a restriction on God’s knowledge. It is impossible to know the future because of the existence of free will. So God still knows everything it is possible to know at any given time. And God’s gaining knowledge as time passes is consistent with God being omniscient: God always knows everything it is possible to know. It is just that what it is possible to know changes over time. This reply accepts the argument (1)-(7) above, but claims that the argument does not show that God isn’t omniscient.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Abstract This Dissertation Addresses a Lacuna in the Study of the Literary
    Abstract This dissertation addresses a lacuna in the study of the literary portrayals of divine retribution in the Old Testament. Focusing on narrative texts, this work posits the presence of the divine messenger opposition type-scene, conventional scenes in which an antagonist opposes a divine messenger on whom God inflicts extreme fates that often seem disproportionate to the offense and occur in the absence of any divine proscription. Opposition to the messenger seems to be the offense grave enough to merit the peculiar fates these characters experience. The introduction discusses how the historical analysis of divine retribution has been limited to theological treatments. Recent studies have slightly expanded the analysis to sociological and anthropological approaches, but literary approaches to the topic have been scant. Addressing the intersection of convention and historiography provides a foundation for moving the discussion forward. Employing a literary-critical treatment—supplemented by form-, source-, historical-, and redaction-critical approaches where beneficial—to multiple narrative passages reveals the presence of the proposed type-scene. Chapter 2 explores Moses as the prototypical prophet validated through the bizarre fates experienced by his opponents. Korah’s destruction, Miriam’s leprosy, and the biting serpents all represent divine responses to opposition to Moses. Korah’s rebellion represents a paradigmatic template of the type-scene, one in which God validates Moses. Chapter 3 examines the type-scene in narratives involving the classical prophets. The stories of Jeroboam’s deformity, Ahab’s death, the fiery death of Ahaziah’s military squads, the mauling by bears of Bethel youths, Gehazi’s leprosy, and the trampling of a court official during the siege of Samaria all utilize the type-scene in a manner that validates the legitimacy of a prophet.
    [Show full text]
  • ATTRIBUTES of GOD IMMUTABLE-Omniscience-Omnipr Esence-Omnipotence
    THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD IMMUTABLE-Omniscience-Omnipr esence-Omnipotence Attributes: is a quality, character, characteristic or property, originating, produced or residing in or belonging to a person, place or thing THE ACTORS GUILD A one-line description of it He studied his walk, talk, character, & attributes in order to give the best rendition of Ali he could ➔ so we must study to show ourselves approved (2 Tim 2:15) because as believers to whom much is given much is required (Luke 12:48) ➔ Studying God’s attributes allows us to have a limited understanding of his person ➔ Just as Will Smith has to be true to the characters’ he portrays, we are to strive to be as true to the character of Christ as we can (2 Peter 1:10) ● THE STAGE IS SET (in the Earth/World) ● THE ManuSCRIPT has been handed to us (BIBLE) The Mental & Moral attributes of God That HE shares with us... As HE is so are we in this world - 1 John 14:17 ○ Mental ■ Knowledge (Psalm 27:8; 2 Peter 3:18) ■ Wisdom (Prov. 9:10; James 1:5; James 3:17) ■ Truthfulness (John 14:6,21; John 16:13) ○ Moral ■ Holiness (1 Peter 1:15-17) ■ Righteousness & Justice (Matt. 5:48; 2 Cor 5:21) ■ Love (1 John 4:19) ■ Grace & Mercy (Eph. 4:2) The NATURAL attributes of God That HE does NOT share with us... ■ SOVEREIGNTY (in control, subject to no one) ● God all of the Universe in and of Himself ● One Being, One Purpose ● In control, all-consuming ■ ETERNALITY (no beginning, and no end) ● Infinite -Absolute-Independent ● EverBeing in Essence, Attributes & Perfection The NATURAL attributes of God (CON’T) That HE does NOT share with us..
    [Show full text]
  • Does Classical Theism Deny God's Immanence?
    Scholars Crossing LBTS Faculty Publications and Presentations 2003 Does Classical Theism Deny God's Immanence? C. Fred Smith Liberty University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lts_fac_pubs Recommended Citation Smith, C. Fred, "Does Classical Theism Deny God's Immanence?" (2003). LBTS Faculty Publications and Presentations. 147. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lts_fac_pubs/147 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in LBTS Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of Scholars Crossing. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BiBLiOTHECA SACRA 160 (January-March 2003): 23-33 DOES CLASSICAL THEISM DENY GOD'S IMMANENCE? C. Fred Smith HE CONCEPT OF THE OPENNESS OF GOD has recently gained a foothold among some evangelical thinkers. Others who have T sought to refute this view have done so by emphasizing God's transcendent qualities. This article examines the criticism of clas­ sical theism by advocates of open theism and seeks to demonstrate that they portray classical theism inaccurately and that they have accepted a false understanding of God. OVERVIEW OF OPEN THEISM The movement's foundational text is The Openness of God, pub­ lished in 1994.l Most of what open theists have said since then amounts to a reiteration of arguments made in that book. Basic to open theism is the idea that God's being is analogous to that of humans, and so God experiences reality in ways similar to the ex­ periences of human beings. As evidence of this point Rice cites the fact that humankind is created in the image of God.2 In addition C.
    [Show full text]
  • The Immutability of God Is Related To, but Clearly Distinct From, His Eternity
    Basic Doctrine – God 1 of 5 (L4) – God’s Immutability (Grace Fellowship – revised 2/23/14) Lesson 4 God’s Immutability Immutability Basic Idea: God is unchangeable in His essence and attributes The immutability of God is related to, but clearly distinct from, His eternity. In saying that God is eternal, in the sense of everlasting, we mean that He always has and always will exist. He was preceded by nothing and shall be succeeded by nothing. In saying that God is immutable we mean that He is consistently the same in His eternal being. The Being, who eternally is, never changes. (adapted from Sam Storms; Enjoying God Ministries; www.enjoyinggodministries.com). READING #1 As an infinite and absolute Being, self-existent and absolutely independent, God is exalted above all the causes of and even above the possibility of change. Infinite space and infinite duration cannot change. They must ever be what they are. So God is absolutely immutable in His essence and attributes. He can neither increase nor decrease. He is subject to no process of development, or of self-evolution. His knowledge and power can never be greater or less. He can never be wiser or holier, or more righteous or more merciful than He ever has been and ever must be. He is no less changeable in His plans and purposes. Infinite in wisdom, there can be no error in their conception; infinite in power, there can be no failure in their accomplishment. He is “the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” (James 1:17) “God is not a man that He
    [Show full text]
  • The Holy See
    The Holy See IL FERMO PROPOSITO ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X ON CATHOLIC ACTION IN ITALY TO THE BISHOPS OF ITALY Venerable Brethren, Health and the Apostolic Blessing. 1. The firm purpose and desire which We resolved upon at the beginning of Our Pontificate to consecrate all the energy which the good Lord deigns to grant Us in the work of restoring all things in Christ, reawakens in Our heart a great trust in the all powerful grace of God. Without that grace We can neither plan nor undertake anything great or fruitful for the good of souls here below. At the same time, however, We feel more than ever the need of being upheld unanimously and constantly in this venture both by you, Venerable Brethren, called to participate in Our pastoral office, as well as by all the clergy and faithful committed to your care. Truly, all of us in the Church are called to form that unique Body, whose Head is Christ; "closely joined," as the Apostle Paul teaches, "and knit together through every joint of the system according to the functioning in due measure of each single part."[1] In such a way the Body increases and gradually perfects itself in the bond of charity. Now, if in this work of "building up the body of Christ"[2] it is Our primary duty to teach, to point out the correct way to follow, to propose the means to be used, to admonish and paternally exhort, it is also the duty of Our beloved children, dispersed throughout the world, to heed Our words, to carry them out first of all in their own lives, and to aid in their effective fulfillment in others, each one according to the grace of God received, according to his state in life and duties, and according to the zeal which inflames his heart.
    [Show full text]
  • Omniscience, Immutability, and the Divine Mode of Knowing
    Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 8 Issue 1 Article 2 1-1-1991 Omniscience, Immutability, and the Divine Mode of Knowing Thomas D. Sullivan Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Sullivan, Thomas D. (1991) "Omniscience, Immutability, and the Divine Mode of Knowing," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 8 : Iss. 1 , Article 2. DOI: 10.5840/faithphil1991815 Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol8/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. OMNISCIENCE, IMMUTABILITY, AND THE DIVINE MODE OF KNOWING Thomas D. Sullivan* Recent attacks on the classical doctrine that God is both omniscient and immutable reason that God's knowledge of temporal events must be ade­ quately expressible in indexical or nonindexical propositions, and that, on either account, the doctrine is incoherent. I argue that this is a false dilemma, that Aquinas exposed it as such, and that he offered a solution to the problem seldom considered by either proponents or opponents of the classical theory. I then defend Aquinas' neglected proposal. 1. The Problem There was a time when it was widely held that God, perfect in all ways, was beyond change. Indeed, change did not even exist until God created the world. By his thought and loving action, God thereafter transformed the world, not himself.
    [Show full text]
  • Immutability of God in Christian Terms
    Theological Research ■ volume 2 (2014) number 1 ■ p. 67–84 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15633/thr.679 Szymon Drzyżdżyk, Zuzanna Kosińska The Pontifical University of John Paul II in Krakow, Poland Immutability of God in Christian Terms Abstract This article deals with the issue of the immutability of God in Himself. What is meant by “immutability” and why God should (or must) be immutable? Doesn’t He – whom Christians preach – contradict His immutability by showing interest in man? These questions, taken by a number of philosophers and theologians have appeared more or less frequently throughout history. The article is devoted to the immutability of God as one and the Holy Trinity on the grounds of Christianity. The article quotes the thoughts of representatives from the Church in the West and in the East – Tertullian and Origen. This thought formed in an era when Trinitarian heresy flourished and had a sig- nificant impact on the further development of theological reflection. Then the theological and philosophical position of Thomas Aquinas is taken into ac- count as one who in his investigations on the nature of God used the compo- nents of ancient Greek philosophy. Keywords God, immutability, suffer, St Thomas Aquinas. 68 Szymon Drzyżdżyk, Zuzanna Kosińska Introduction The truth about the immutability of God has been the subject of debate among philosophers and theologians from different religious and philo- sophical environments and systems. Adopted by Christianity, it has be- come one of the attributes of God’s nature and an indispensable element of statements concerning His existence and activities. Christian theol- ogy, which has been developing for many centuries, has not, however, supported this in a rash or reflection-free manner.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 – the Immutability Of
    Sermon #1 The New Park Street Pulpit 1 THE IMMUTABILITY OF GOD NO. 1 A SERMON DELIVERED ON SABBATH MORNING, JANUARY 7, 1855 BY THE REV. C. H. SPURGEON AT NEW PARK STREET CHAPEL, SOUTHWARK “I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.” Malachi 3:6 IT has been said by someone that “the proper study of mankind is man.” I will not oppose the idea, but I believe it is equally true that the proper study of God’s elect is God—the proper study of a Christian is the Godhead. The highest science, the loftiest speculation, the mightiest philosophy, which can ever engage the attention of a child of God, is the name, the nature, the person, the work, the doings, and the existence of the great God whom he calls his Father. There is something exceedingly improving to the mind in a contemplation of the Divinity. It is a subject so vast, that all our thoughts are lost in its immensity—so deep that our pride is drowned in its infinity. Other subjects we can compass and grapple with—in them we feel a kind of self-content, and go our way with the thought, “Behold I am wise.” But when we come to this master-science, finding that our plumb line cannot sound its depth, and that our eagle eye cannot see its height, we turn away with the thought that vain man would be wise, but he is like a wild ass’s colt, and with the solemn exclamation, “I am but of yesterday, and know nothing.” No subject of contemplation will tend more to humble the mind, than thoughts of God.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice & Divine Vengeance Pursuing Crime by Pierre-Paul Prud'hon, 1805
    Justice & Divine Vengeance Pursuing Crime by Pierre-Paul Prud’hon, 1805 – 1806. A murderer flees with his victim’s belongings in his arms. Above him, Divine Vengeance illuminates the villain as Divine Justice, sword in hand, pursues him. Prud’hon made this study for a monumental painting destined to hang behind the judges’ bench in the criminal courtroom of the Palace of Justice in Paris. Source: J. Paul Getty Museum. 4 Providence_spring16_final_pages.indd 4 5/31/16 7:25 PM FEATURE THE MORAL UNDERPINNINGS OF JUST RETRIBUTION: JUSTICE & CHARITY IN SYMBIOSIS J. DaryL CHarLes hree generations ago Dorothy Sayers chided the Chris- Ttian church for its indifference toward theological foundations. The result of this deficiency, she lamented, was a church devoid of substance. Ethically, as she saw it, this dearth ended up paring “the claws of the Lion of Judah.”1 It is difficult to understate Sayers’ burden, by professional (religious) ethicists as well as for if the church’s condition in her day was at the popular level. unhealthy, in our own it may well be anemic. But this essay concerns itself neither with This opposition, of course, is by no means ecclesiology nor formal theology per se. Its confined to religious thought. The notion of burden, rather, is to identify a key deficiency retribution or punishment,2 which is foun- in the way that much of the Christian commu- dational to any construal of justice, has long nity thinks about ethics and ethical issues. It been the scourge of social science. For several is concerned to address the perceived opposi- generations, social scientists (including not tion between—when not the outright divorce a few criminologists) have viewed punish- of—justice and charity.
    [Show full text]
  • The Immutability of God
    Immutable The Attributes God is eternally unchangeable. of God The Immutability of God Malachi 3:6a James 1:17 “For I the Lord do not change;” Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. Immutability is an attribute that God is immutably omniscient. belongs to all of God’s attributes. The result of His immutability in God is immutably omnipotent. power and knowledge is that His plan and purposes are immutable as well. Numbers 23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Do you ever change your mind? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? If so, why? 1 Samuel 15:29 “And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret.” Isaiah 55:8-11 Job 42:2 “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.” Isaiah 46:8-11 Hebrews 6:17-20 Psalm 33:10-12 Psalm 102:25-27 Isaiah 40:6-8 These passages remind us of the unstableness and temporary state of 1. Security of Salvation everything while also reminding us to turn to the One who is permanently changeless. Security of Salvation Security of Salvation Even though you are saved, do you still have doubts whether or not 1 Peter 1:3-6 you will truly be saved in the end? Security of Salvation John 10:28-30 “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
    [Show full text]
  • 2/9/20 Eternal, Infinite, Immutable, Sovereign the Attributes of God, Pt. 3 As We Have Been Studying the Attributes of God, We B
    1 2 2/9/20 4. Mercy. 5. Grace. Eternal, Infinite, Immutable, Sovereign 6. Goodness. The Attributes Of God, Pt. 3 7. Kindness. 8. Love. As we have been studying the attributes of God, we 9. Patience. begin to see the uniqueness of the Person of God, in that He stands in distinction from angels, creation, I. Eternal. man and certainly above the kingdom of Satan for He is the Creator of all things. A. The attribute of God regarding His eternal essence means that it is contrary to time, as we We have studied five natural attributes of God that are know it a permanent state of His being. incommunicable to man, they are God’s alone. 1. Whenever we think about eternity, we 1. Omnipotence. usually think about a quantity of time that 2. Omnipresence. never ends as opposed to a quality of time. 3. Omniscience. a. Yet as we look at the attribute of God 4. Foreknowledge. being eternal, we get a proper perspective 5. Wisdom. about that which is eternal, in that it deals more with quality than with quantity. We want to look at four more natural attributes of b. The attribute of being eternal is a God that are incommunicable to man, once again they perpetual duration, which has neither are God’s alone. beginning or and end. 1. Eternal. c. The attribute of being eternal has nothing 2. Infinite. to do with growth, development or 3. Immutable. maturity for it is an immutable state. 4. Sovereign. 2. The definition of pupil in the institute for the dumb in Paris regarding of being eternal.
    [Show full text]
  • Sys Theo- Session 10 Infinite- Omnipresence, Intro Immutability
    Systematic Theology Last Time ➢ Time ➢ How Does God Interact With It? God’s Omnipresence ➢ God’s relationship to space ➢ Omni= all ➢ Presence= being somewhere Scriptural Support ➢ God is everywhere present ➢ No matter where, we will find God’s presence Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there! If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me. If I say, “Surely the darkness shall cover me, and the light about me be night,” even the darkness is not dark to you; the night is bright as the day, for darkness is as light with you. Psalm 139:7-12 ESV “Am I a God at hand, declares the Lord, and not a God far away? Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the Lord. Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the Lord. Jeremiah 23:23-24 ESV Scriptural Support ➢ God does not dwell in a localized place “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built! 1 Kings 8:27 ESV The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, for “ ‘In him we live and move and have our being’; Acts 17:24, 28 ESV the Danger of -Isms ➢ Pantheism- ➢ Everything is God, God is the universe ➢ Panentheism- ➢ The world is part of God Systematic Summary ➢ Two opposite errors ➢ We
    [Show full text]