I have just gotten into Fretheim’s “The Suffering God”. I confess it’s like reading another language. But my question at this point is; if we take away God’s omniscience; haven’t we reduced Him to an exceptionally good statistician who’s really quick on His feet?
Also, what are the implications for prophecy?

Re: The Resourceful-Reacting Statistician
I’m skeptical. I would say we haven’t taken away God’s omniscience. Rather, we have only theologically ascribed omniscience to God. Whether or not we call God omniscient or not will only effect those people with strong theological attachments to God’s omniscience.
Perhaps we should ask ourselves: when did we start saying that God was omniscient? Under what conditions was this interpretation made? Is it still relevant today?
Re: The Resourceful-Reacting Statistician
Process theology has modified the notion of omniscience to mean all that can logically be known in an attempt to address the existence of evil (theodicy) issue.
Omniscience as an attribute of a deity can be found in Plato.
Omniscience as an attribute of the one God is usually credited to Philo the Founder (ca. 20 b.c. - 54 a.d.), father of classical theism.
He said, "God, the creator of all living things, is thoroughly acquainted with all his works, and before he has completely finished them he comprehends the faculties with which they will herafter be endowed, and altogether he foreknows all their actions and passions."[Works of Philo Judaeus, trans. C. D. Yonge (London: George Bell & Sons, 1890), #47, p 131.]
Re: The Resourceful-Reacting Statistician
Thanks for the genealogical sketch.
It’s interesting to know that omniscience is a Greek category.
Re: The Resourceful-Reacting Statistician
Your welcome, if the thanks is not facetious. Philo of course was a Jew from Alexandria. The use of Greek wordconcepts is pervasive in the commentaries and in the output of the councils at least through Constantinople 3.The use of such wordconcepts is also extant in the Gospels, the most notable example of which I can think of is John and the concept of logos. I think not enough scholarship has been devoted to considering that these early thinkers were trying to express in words thoughts and ideas that really had never been expressed before, in any language. Aramaic, Hebrew, early dialects of what is now Arabic, did not contain analogs for the ideas (or should I say feelings) that these early writers were trying to express. Certainly, as any part of a deconstruction project, one would want to get at this state of the vocabulary at the time these writers were working as well as the semantic shift that occured and has occured through the centuries. It is interesting. As for me, I think nothing turns on the use of the prefix "omni," as defined as "all." In an environment where there were many gods, what was being imparted as to the one God was really "the most" or "more than any other" or the "supreme." Thus, an argument that focuses on the question whether God is "all-knowing" misses the point that it is not necessary for God to be all-knowing, just that God be more knowing than any other life or force in being.
Re: The Resourceful-Reacting Statistician
Nope, it was a genuine thanks. I’m always interested in the genealogy of words and concepts.
I’m just skeptical that the word describes or corresponds to an attribute of God. I’m more inclined to say that the word constitutes a theological perspective on God.
Re: The Resourceful-Reacting Statistician
Kant says words to the effect that along with God, we take God’s predicates. Also see my response to Mr. Anderson.
Re: The Resourceful-Reacting Statistician
While not an intelectual, I am a student of etymology, and enjoy it. But, where God is concerned, it seems that by definition He is all-in-all. He is all there is.He is infinite, we are finite. That, right there, should answer most of our questions. He was Creator of the universe and all in it. Look around you. Think what that implies. Remember he is also sustainer. He is holding this all together. With this kind of power, doesn’t the question of His omniscience become moot?
Re: The Resourceful-Reacting Statistician
In re intellectual, don’t worry about it, no one else is either.
God can’t be defined so you can’t begin with “by definition.” In making the claim you do, you run the risk of being labeled a reductionist, something theologians don’t like very much.
God is simple not complex, singular and infinite. According to Tillich and others, God is the ground of being. Tillich is also the theologian who based an entire system of thought about God and humans on the very relationship you identify. But saying these things is just the start not the finish, insofar as human beings have been concerned.
Your point on omniscience seems to mesh with mine.