What is Dynamic Omniscience - w/ Dr John Sanders

WHAT IS DYNAMIC OMNISCIENCE?

Dr John Sanders joins Idol Killer to discuss Dr. Sanders' views on God's foreknowledge.

What is Dynamic Omniscience? Is it consistent with Scripture? Has it been affirmed in the past? Does this deny God has perfect knowledge? These are but some of the questions we will be answering!

Dr. Sanders is an American theologian who has authored and edited seven books as well as over three dozen articles and book chapters. Three of his books were named in Christianity Today magazine’s books of the year awards. He has a doctorate in theology, spent a year as the Dominic Crosson Fellow at the Center for Philosophy of Religion at the University of Notre Dame, and is presently professor of religious studies at Hendrix College in Arkansas.

Most of Dr Sanders’ publications are on four topics: (1) open theism, (2) Christian views on the salvation of non-Christians for which he is a proponent of what is called inclusivism, (3) Christian views on the nature of hell, and (4) applying cognitive linguistics to theology. He has given over eighty presentations at academic conferences and dozens more in church settings. His work has generated a great deal of scholarly activity in that they are substantively engaged by or at least cited in 369 books, book chapters, and journal articles. In addition, 48 doctoral dissertations, and 26 masters theses engage his publications.

✈️ Visit Dr Sanders:

📚 Buy Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views

📚 The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence

#Omniscience #Foreknowledge

NOTICE:
We are paid commissions for purchases made through the links posted above.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

💡 About:
Idol Killer is committed to spreading the Gospel and making disciples of Christ. We are dedicated to promoting classic orthodox Christian doctrine (pre-Augustinian) and in doing so exposing extra-Biblical corrupt philosophies and presuppositions.

📈 Support Idol Killer

⚠️ DISCLAIMER:
Any view expressed by a guest is not necessarily reflective of the views of the host and visa versa.

🤝 Visit us online:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAIR USE NOTICE

[allyeatworld]

This was so so helpful thank you so much Warren and Dr Sanders!!! I naturally had this view when I first read the Bible on my own and became a Christian, but was shot down as it being an invalid view. I'm so glad it's a valid view as it makes the most sense to me in terms of reflecting God's character of love, being patient with his created beings to whom He chose to give free will, listening to us, always working all things out for our good, etc. Thank you.

[MarkRidlen]

Glad to see more people joining the fight against using the word "heresy"

[a.k.]

Thanks for this video! It was very informative and I love the spirit of peace in which it was conducted. There's a lot we can be wrong about and still be in Christ and so we should all be as charitable with one another as you and Dr. Sanders have demonstrated here.

[jesuschrististruth]

Thank you for the interview brothers! I'm reflecting on my past, on when I wasn't a calvinist I held to this view in my early christian years, as I became a calvinist I held to Compatiblism never felt right about determinism didn't even make sense to me as a calvinist. As I left calvinisim back in 2022 I had a crisis of how do I view God's sovereignty, it was hard but again I remember what I first believed and oddly enough dynamic omniscience is close as I can say this is what I believe, still looking into it. Funny thing when I was exploring calvinism my calvinist friend shot down the idea of dynamic omniscience telling me it was heresy so I rejected it outright...

[yvonnedoulos]

Thoroughly enjoyed this interview, WM. Thank you for exposing me to this perspective and to Dr. Sanders.

[a.k.]

Hey @Idol Killer, I think I've seen you use various video clips from movies and whatnot, I have a suggestion for you. There's various scenes from Judge Dredd (with Sly Stone) where he says, "I knew you'd say that." Might come in handy. 😊

[ms_ps]

I am blessed by presentation ! Shows a good understanding of topic! Good stuff!

[SusanMorales]

I just have to say that it was interesting watching this live but 15 minutes behind, while asking questions and talking to people in the chat who have seen into “the future” of the livestream from my perspective. Can I take away something from this experience related to dynamic omniscience? I don’t know 🤔

[christopherwest]

I really enjoyed this video and both of your perspectives on this subject. I admit I find that dynamic omniscience makes a lot of sense to me as I am reading through the Bible for my first time.

As for one point Dr. Sanders made regarding Ezekiel 26, I don’t think this is a case of unfulfilled prophecy (or prediction), rather it is a case of fulfillment in an unforeseen way.

The chapter starts by saying:

Ezekiel 26:3 (NASB20) therefore this is what the Lord GOD says: ‘Behold, I am against you, Tyre, and I will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves.

God will bring up “many nations”, like the “sea brings up its waves”. It’s not reliant on Nebuchadnezzar fulfilling every aspect of it.

The pronouns switch in the prophecy from third person singular (He) in verses 8-11 to third person plural (They) in verse 12.

We see that Nebuchadnezzar breached the walls of the part of the city that were on the mainland, but the inhabitants just fled to the island portion of the city. Couple hundred years later, Alexander the Great comes along and fulfills other aspects of the prophecy, namely verses 4-5 and 12, which talk about Tyre being made a bare rock by the debris being tossed into the sea to become a dry place for the spreading of nets. Alexander the Great fulfilled this by using the debris of the mainland city to build a causeway across the sea to attack the island citadel of Tyre.

Mike Winger has a great video on this in his evidence for the Bible series.

[a.k.]

@1:15:00 It's not just that God's knowledge is 100% right, it's that God cannot violate the law of non-contradiction. If He knows that Dr. Sanders had oatmeal, He also knows that He did not prevent it. In Dr. Sanders' analogy of Billy Bob and Susan he assumes that Susan will automatically heed God's warning, but we know from scripture that this isn't necessarily what happens when God warns us ahead of time. The fact that Peter did not heed what Jesus said and still denied Him is a good example of this.

[a.k.]

@41:00 Dr. Sanders makes a point that I've been arguing in favor of against calvinists, but says it in a much easier to understand way. I typically put it in more philosophical/ logical terms like this: It is not necessarily true that God desired Adam to sin just because He knew Adam would when He created.

[travissharon]

Whats the movie in your opening credits.

[JohnQPublic]

I'll never forget the long talk William Lane Craig gave where he explained why it was impossible to know future unactualized free-willed beliefs and actions and then at the end of his lecture he denied everything he said in the talk and embraced Gods exhaustive foreknowledge. lol!

[a.k.]

@2:10:00 Here's a noodle cooker for you: Dr. Sanders basically just said, "Hindsight is always 20/20." Of course the question posed is meant to be with regard to future true propositions. I hope I'm not taking too much liberty in saying that Dr. Sanders answered by indirectly asserting that there's no such thing as future true propositions.

[christian_gamer_guy]

I haven't heard a lot of open theists speak on their beliefs, and was looking forward to hearing this video.

I did however think the way that prophecy was both defined and explained here was VERY weak, and not what we're actually shown in scripture. John Sanders seemed to kind of deny prophecy as being certainly known and literally called it a "prediction".

I also thought that the question that was asked about "how to know a true prophet from a false one" hit the nail on the head. The way we tell a true prophet from a false is by waiting and seeing if what is spoken actually comes to pass *because God is the one who knows what WILL come to pass* . When a "prophet" speaks something that doesn't come to pass, it's not as if we should consider them a true prophet still, because, who knows, maybe God's prediction was wrong and this could still be a true prophet... no. We know that when what is spoken comes to pass, that the prophet had that knowledge, because God actually knows.

I'd like to hear an open theist deal with prophecy more honestly and effectively, if possible.

[ravissary]

4 views of divine providence is pretty fantastic too.
WLC and Boyd's contributions are both fantastic. Unfortunately the other two guys really phone it in.

[granthollandvideos]

Amazing discussion. I don't hold to this myself, but so enjoyed the tone and objectivity. I wish I was live to ask why this view and determanism seem to make knowledge causative. This seems illogical Also in the eternal now, by NOW, they do not mean God is stuck in a moment in time. The name is unfortunate, . Simply that God truly apart from the incarnation is actually not in time. But I think I need more study.

[labsquadmedia]

I was struck around minute 8:00 by the explanatory phrase "huge amounts of meaning" to describe metaphoric language as opposed to "literal" language. I was wracking my brain (metaphorically) trying to come up with a literal way to convey the thought "huge amounts of meaning" which uses two concrete metaphors ("huge", which is a spatial word, and "amount" which "literally" is a measure of matter) in order to quantify an abstract concept, "meaning". It is very difficult to avoid metaphoric language because it is so economical. For example to literally explain the phrase, "we have overcome many obstacles in our marriage journey" would require more words, perhaps in a list format of the exact "obstacle" and how it was "overcome". Although "literal" it would actually be lacking some content since "overcome, obstacles, and journey[together] imply emotion, difficulty, relational interaction, destination and vision, etc...and all in a very tight phrase.

In his book, "Old Testament Cosmology and Divine Accommodation", John W, Hilber, presents evidence by cognitive linguists that shows, "in normal human communication, we do not assume a literal interpretation and then switch to an alternate possibility only after perceiving that the literal makes no sense in the context...some experiments have shown that people default to metaphorical interpretations whenever such are available. So the burden of proof is actually on the interpreter to demonstrate literality." (Hilber, p.17)

[patricepetel]

Did Dr. Sanders give the links for the different views on the truth values of future propositions?

[a.k.]

@1:08:40 "If God knows it, there's nothing God can do to change it." This is *similar* to saying, _"if Dr. Sanders knows he just ate oatmeal, there's nothing he can do to change it."_ It assumes that free will requires the ability to violate the law of noncontradiction. I find this is the common theme amongst those who struggle with how man can be free despite God knowing what man will do.