Looks like the Calvinists can't find a verse where God proclaims himself omniscient either.
Genesis 18:21 "I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know."
Without the ability to take in new information, your brain is static like a lump of coal. A God who knows everything he will ever know is by very definition a god of wood or stone: an impersonal (i.e. not a person) object.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
James White hates 1st Timothy 4:10
A Helmet has a post quoting James White, commenting on 1st Timothy 4:10, as saying:
LOL. A Helmet correctly notes:
1st Timothy 4:10 "For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe."
Seems clear to me. And to this passage can clearly be added 1st John 2:2 "And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." And, 1st Timothy 2:6 "who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time," which clearly means that he died for all and wants us therefore to preach to all. Again, Jesus Himself teaches that he is (as White scornfully puts it) "potential Savior of all men, but really the Savior only of those who believe" when He says "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:15-16) Preach to all, and whoever out of that all who happens to believe and get baptized will be saved. He doesn't say "whoever won the lottery will be saved" but "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."
This passage is not, in fact, in a soteriological context, and unless we are going to read it in a universalistic perspective, are we not forced to suggest that God is the potential Savior of all men, but really the Savior only of those who believe?
LOL. A Helmet correctly notes:
The joke is that the answer is in fact a clear and emphatic YES, for this is exactly what the text intends to convey, but White sounds here as if he was asking "are we not forced to suggest that the doctrines of grace are wrong?" --- And since this must not be, the text must be forced to say something else, right?
1st Timothy 4:10 "For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe."
Seems clear to me. And to this passage can clearly be added 1st John 2:2 "And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." And, 1st Timothy 2:6 "who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time," which clearly means that he died for all and wants us therefore to preach to all. Again, Jesus Himself teaches that he is (as White scornfully puts it) "potential Savior of all men, but really the Savior only of those who believe" when He says "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:15-16) Preach to all, and whoever out of that all who happens to believe and get baptized will be saved. He doesn't say "whoever won the lottery will be saved" but "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."
Saturday, May 30, 2009
What's missing in "faith" these days?
All we ever seem to hear these days is that faith saves us or we are justified by faith. But do the people preaching this today even understand what faith is? what faith means?
Look at Jesus' preaching, look at what the gospels say Jesus sent the apostles to preach during his earthly ministry, and you will see most of the emphasis is on repentance. Look at what God says in the cloud on the mount of transfiguration "This is my beloved son: HEAR him." Look especially at the sermon Peter preaches in Cornelius' house in Acts 10 and that Paul preaches in Acts 17, and at the parables of Christ in which Christ is depicted as Judge. The message of both Peter and Paul is that Jesus' resurrection was done to prove him to be Judge and to indicate that you need to repent. In Acts 24 Paul reasoned with Felix of "of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come," undoubtedly because Christ is Judge. In John 5:29 Jesus says those who have done good will be raised to eternal life, those who have done bad to eternal damnation. He says the Father has committed all the judging to the Son, and yet he also says that for those who reject his words (John 12:47) he will not judge personally but the words he has spoken will be the true judges.
In Romans 14:10 Paul says "for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ" and in 2 Cor 5:10 "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."
What's the point? This is what is missing in faith today. Everyone seems to believe in all or nothing salvation. The Judgment seat of Christ for Christians is gone, they think. The need to repent for Christians is gone, they think. Yet Jesus tells a parable in Luke 12:42-49 in which three servants are pictured. One is cut in pieces and given his portion with the unbelievers. (This shows that 'servants' in the parable means 'believers.') The next is beaten with MANY stripes. The next is beaten with few stripes. But everyone today says its either 100% scott-free frolicking in heaven or 100% broiling in hell. They fail to realize that even the saved can be beaten with many stripes. But what's worse, they fail to see that even a believer can be given his portion with the unbelievers if he refuses to live as a true Christian, for "if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?"
Faith in Christ, faith in his death, burial and resurrection, is also faith in what that means: God raised him from the dead to show that he will be the Judge! The voice of God from the bright cloud says "This is my beloved Son: HEAR him." Hear him, for he is the Judge. OBEY his doctrine, for his words will Judge you in the end. And He is "the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;" (Hebrews 5:9)
Look at Jesus' preaching, look at what the gospels say Jesus sent the apostles to preach during his earthly ministry, and you will see most of the emphasis is on repentance. Look at what God says in the cloud on the mount of transfiguration "This is my beloved son: HEAR him." Look especially at the sermon Peter preaches in Cornelius' house in Acts 10 and that Paul preaches in Acts 17, and at the parables of Christ in which Christ is depicted as Judge. The message of both Peter and Paul is that Jesus' resurrection was done to prove him to be Judge and to indicate that you need to repent. In Acts 24 Paul reasoned with Felix of "of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come," undoubtedly because Christ is Judge. In John 5:29 Jesus says those who have done good will be raised to eternal life, those who have done bad to eternal damnation. He says the Father has committed all the judging to the Son, and yet he also says that for those who reject his words (John 12:47) he will not judge personally but the words he has spoken will be the true judges.
In Romans 14:10 Paul says "for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ" and in 2 Cor 5:10 "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."
What's the point? This is what is missing in faith today. Everyone seems to believe in all or nothing salvation. The Judgment seat of Christ for Christians is gone, they think. The need to repent for Christians is gone, they think. Yet Jesus tells a parable in Luke 12:42-49 in which three servants are pictured. One is cut in pieces and given his portion with the unbelievers. (This shows that 'servants' in the parable means 'believers.') The next is beaten with MANY stripes. The next is beaten with few stripes. But everyone today says its either 100% scott-free frolicking in heaven or 100% broiling in hell. They fail to realize that even the saved can be beaten with many stripes. But what's worse, they fail to see that even a believer can be given his portion with the unbelievers if he refuses to live as a true Christian, for "if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?"
Faith in Christ, faith in his death, burial and resurrection, is also faith in what that means: God raised him from the dead to show that he will be the Judge! The voice of God from the bright cloud says "This is my beloved Son: HEAR him." Hear him, for he is the Judge. OBEY his doctrine, for his words will Judge you in the end. And He is "the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;" (Hebrews 5:9)
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Literal Omniscience - a true attribute of God?
"How can you answer the origin’s of evil without jeopardizing God’s omniscience?" (Cadis)
How does an omniscient God say, as in Genesis 18:21, "I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know"?
The statement "and if not, I will know" clearly indicates that he does not already know. This ought really to be obvious, as it is clear that thoughts are by definition the processing of new information, and therefore no being who is beyond the ability to receive new information (i.e. to learn) can possibly have thoughts. If you know everything, you can't think, because thinking presupposes an attempt to learn. Therefore, when God says "my thoughts are higher than your thoughts," he admits to having "thoughts," and by extension, to not knowing everything already. It would be interesting to do an exhaustive search in the Bible to see if God really ever says "I know everything" or if omniscience is only attributed to him by human speakers in the Bible, as when Peter says to Jesus "Lord, thou knowest all" (John 21:17) or where the disciples say "Now are we sure that thou knowest all things," (John 16:30) It could also be observed the same omniscience is actually ascribed to Christians by John, when John says in 1st John 2:20 "But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things." With that verse taken into account, it becomes apparent that literal omniscience is clearly not the meaning of "you know all things"!!!! "You know all things" is clearly somewhat of an exaggeration, even in the Bible. So, does the Bible really teach that God is literally omniscient at all, or is this altogether a misinterpretation? or an extra-biblical philosophic concept superimposed on the Bible?
How does an omniscient God say, as in Genesis 18:21, "I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know"?
The statement "and if not, I will know" clearly indicates that he does not already know. This ought really to be obvious, as it is clear that thoughts are by definition the processing of new information, and therefore no being who is beyond the ability to receive new information (i.e. to learn) can possibly have thoughts. If you know everything, you can't think, because thinking presupposes an attempt to learn. Therefore, when God says "my thoughts are higher than your thoughts," he admits to having "thoughts," and by extension, to not knowing everything already. It would be interesting to do an exhaustive search in the Bible to see if God really ever says "I know everything" or if omniscience is only attributed to him by human speakers in the Bible, as when Peter says to Jesus "Lord, thou knowest all" (John 21:17) or where the disciples say "Now are we sure that thou knowest all things," (John 16:30) It could also be observed the same omniscience is actually ascribed to Christians by John, when John says in 1st John 2:20 "But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things." With that verse taken into account, it becomes apparent that literal omniscience is clearly not the meaning of "you know all things"!!!! "You know all things" is clearly somewhat of an exaggeration, even in the Bible. So, does the Bible really teach that God is literally omniscient at all, or is this altogether a misinterpretation? or an extra-biblical philosophic concept superimposed on the Bible?
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Hebrews 11:6 - Calvinists cannot be saved as Calvinists
Hebrews 11:6 says,
PS: For Calvinists who say "ooo...man can't seek God. Paul says so in Romans 3:11." How interesting that Paul in Acts 17:26-28 says:
We can't seek God, huh? Looks like Paul can't agree with himself on that point. Need I even mention James 1:8 here? Look up that term and Paul's picture should be there.
In other words, in order to please God you must have faith, and that faith absolutely must include two things:
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
- A belief in God's existence.
- A belief that God rewards those who diligently seek him.
PS: For Calvinists who say "ooo...man can't seek God. Paul says so in Romans 3:11." How interesting that Paul in Acts 17:26-28 says:
And [God] made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
We can't seek God, huh? Looks like Paul can't agree with himself on that point. Need I even mention James 1:8 here? Look up that term and Paul's picture should be there.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Cory denies inherited sin? Good for him!!! He's now a fugitive like Douglas Wilson!
In a post called "Answering the Objections to the Identity of the First Beast" Cory somehow strayed onto the topic of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
There, Cory made a major mistake (a very good mistake), writing four very interesting paragraphs which disprove his entire system of belief.
This I find very interesting. Why? Because Calvinists ALWAYS teach that Jesus' flesh is different from ours. Because they believe we all inherit original sin from Adam, and that original sin makes us totally depraved or totally disabled, they can't have Christ inheriting this malady! After all, if Christ were totally disabled, we'd be in big trouble since he was coming to save us! Plus, by inheriting Adam's sin, he would be born sinful, and hence disqualified from being the perfect spotless, sinless lamb of God. He could not take away the sins of others if he had sins of his own, and therefore if he inherited Adam's sin, we'd all be without hope. So the Calvinist always DENIES that Jesus took on the same type of flesh as us. In fact, the Calvinist uses the very passage that Cory cites in proof that Jesus did take on our flesh in order to prove that Jesus did not take on our flesh, latching on to the Docetic tendenz (i.e. tendency) in Paul, the Calvinist interprets "God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh," (Romans 8:3) as meaning that Jesus only came only in the "likeness" of our flesh and did not actually take on our flesh. "Nay!" they say "He took a pure and spotless flesh from the Virgin!" just like the Catholics say.
Essentially, Cory has just denied that we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin or a total depravity from him and Cory has just interpreted the sinfulness of our flesh as nothing more than a bent or tendency to sin or a predisposition which can be overcome by the will. Otherwise, by saying that Jesus took on the same "sinful flesh" as ourselves, he would be disqualifying him from being the perfect sacrifice. Cory has just annihilated the entire Calvinist system by making one glorious mistake from which the truth shines through like the son in all its glory! Calvinism is dead. Augustinianism is dead. The doctrine of inherited guilt from Adam is dead. Welcome to Pelagianism, Cory!
Now, the Catholics have invented the immaculate conception of Mary in order to make Christ born without original sin. The Calvinists also have invented the theory that original sin is passed on exclusively by males, i.e. by sperm, so that Jesus would be born without original sin by virtue merely of the virgin birth. Of course, their own favorite proof texts is Psalm 51:5 "in sin my mother conceived me" which disproves this very theory, for if this verse teaches the passing on of original sin at all then it also teaches that it is passed on by the mother, and hence Mary would pass it on to Jesus! So, the Calvinist view that the virgin birth itself kept Jesus from being born with original sin fails, and something like the Catholic view of an Immaculate conception is necessary to guard Jesus from inheriting original sin (if anyone inherits it at all).
Basically, the only way to believe in inherited original sin (i.e. that we inherit Adam's sin) without saying that Jesus was born guilty of Adam's sin, is to believe in the Immaculate Conception. The virgin birth could not shield Jesus from original sin, because if Psalm 51:5 does indeed teach original sin, then "in sin my mother conceived me," that is, original sin can be passed on by a virgin mother. Psalm 51 mentions no father in verse 5, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." Mother only!
And doesn't it make sense that women by themselves would pass on original sin, since "Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression"? (1st Timothy 2:14) If Adam is off the hook, and the woman is the only one who was "in the transgression" (as Paul is clearly saying) then only women should pass on original sin. Hence, Mary would have passed original sin on to Christ even as a virgin!
You must either believe in the Immaculate Conception, or deny original sin altogether, or find a way for Christ to be born guilty of Adam's sin and yet be an acceptable sinless sacrifice for us anyway! Perhaps you could say that his original sin was washed away in John's baptism! (LOL!)
But in my view, Psalm 51:5's "in sin my mother conceived me" is the response of the unborn child in Bathsheba's womb to David's lie in verse 4 "[Lord] against you only have I sinned" and David responds in verse 6 praising God for the miracle of the unborn child rebuking him for God is teaching David wisdom "from the hidden part." Also, per Ezekiel 18:20 and Romans 7:9 it is clear that we do not inherit Adam's sin, but are born spiritually alive. Our own personal sin results in our spiritual death, Adam's sin only resulting in our physical death. Christ was born without original sin, just like the rest of us.
The difference between us and him is in his perfect will, not in his having been born with a different type of flesh! That is clear by Paul saying that "[Jesus] was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Heb 4:15) rather than as chapter 8 of the Westminister Confession says "[Christ did] take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin: being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary." Note how Paul makes Christ's sinlessness a matter of WILL while the WCF (the standard Calvinist confession) makes it a matter of BIRTH.
You're a fugitive like Douglas Wilson now, Cory! Watch out for your fellow Calvinists when you cross the street!
There, Cory made a major mistake (a very good mistake), writing four very interesting paragraphs which disprove his entire system of belief.
First John 4:2-3 and 2 John 7 spell out one requirement for the Antichrist: He must deny that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. Does the papacy do that? They do in a very, very subtle way.
First, we have to define what sort of “flesh” that Jesus came in. According to Paul, God sent Jesus in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3). Even though Jesus had the same sinful flesh that we have, he remained “holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners. . .” (Heb 7:26). He was tempted in all ways as we are, but remained without sin (Heb 4:15). Jesus came in the same flesh as we have, that is, sinful flesh.
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception says that Mary was preserved free of sin from the moment of her conception. According to official Catholic sources, when Jesus was born, he took this sinless nature from Mary, a flesh unlike our own. Cardinal Gibbons said it this way:
[I omit quote from Gibbon, see Cory's post if you want to see that.]
That means Christ took on a perfect nature, not a fallen one. The Bible teaches that Christ had the same sinful flesh that we have, as outlined above. This amounts to a denial that Jesus came in the flesh!
This I find very interesting. Why? Because Calvinists ALWAYS teach that Jesus' flesh is different from ours. Because they believe we all inherit original sin from Adam, and that original sin makes us totally depraved or totally disabled, they can't have Christ inheriting this malady! After all, if Christ were totally disabled, we'd be in big trouble since he was coming to save us! Plus, by inheriting Adam's sin, he would be born sinful, and hence disqualified from being the perfect spotless, sinless lamb of God. He could not take away the sins of others if he had sins of his own, and therefore if he inherited Adam's sin, we'd all be without hope. So the Calvinist always DENIES that Jesus took on the same type of flesh as us. In fact, the Calvinist uses the very passage that Cory cites in proof that Jesus did take on our flesh in order to prove that Jesus did not take on our flesh, latching on to the Docetic tendenz (i.e. tendency) in Paul, the Calvinist interprets "God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh," (Romans 8:3) as meaning that Jesus only came only in the "likeness" of our flesh and did not actually take on our flesh. "Nay!" they say "He took a pure and spotless flesh from the Virgin!" just like the Catholics say.
Essentially, Cory has just denied that we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin or a total depravity from him and Cory has just interpreted the sinfulness of our flesh as nothing more than a bent or tendency to sin or a predisposition which can be overcome by the will. Otherwise, by saying that Jesus took on the same "sinful flesh" as ourselves, he would be disqualifying him from being the perfect sacrifice. Cory has just annihilated the entire Calvinist system by making one glorious mistake from which the truth shines through like the son in all its glory! Calvinism is dead. Augustinianism is dead. The doctrine of inherited guilt from Adam is dead. Welcome to Pelagianism, Cory!
Now, the Catholics have invented the immaculate conception of Mary in order to make Christ born without original sin. The Calvinists also have invented the theory that original sin is passed on exclusively by males, i.e. by sperm, so that Jesus would be born without original sin by virtue merely of the virgin birth. Of course, their own favorite proof texts is Psalm 51:5 "in sin my mother conceived me" which disproves this very theory, for if this verse teaches the passing on of original sin at all then it also teaches that it is passed on by the mother, and hence Mary would pass it on to Jesus! So, the Calvinist view that the virgin birth itself kept Jesus from being born with original sin fails, and something like the Catholic view of an Immaculate conception is necessary to guard Jesus from inheriting original sin (if anyone inherits it at all).
Basically, the only way to believe in inherited original sin (i.e. that we inherit Adam's sin) without saying that Jesus was born guilty of Adam's sin, is to believe in the Immaculate Conception. The virgin birth could not shield Jesus from original sin, because if Psalm 51:5 does indeed teach original sin, then "in sin my mother conceived me," that is, original sin can be passed on by a virgin mother. Psalm 51 mentions no father in verse 5, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." Mother only!
And doesn't it make sense that women by themselves would pass on original sin, since "Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression"? (1st Timothy 2:14) If Adam is off the hook, and the woman is the only one who was "in the transgression" (as Paul is clearly saying) then only women should pass on original sin. Hence, Mary would have passed original sin on to Christ even as a virgin!
You must either believe in the Immaculate Conception, or deny original sin altogether, or find a way for Christ to be born guilty of Adam's sin and yet be an acceptable sinless sacrifice for us anyway! Perhaps you could say that his original sin was washed away in John's baptism! (LOL!)
But in my view, Psalm 51:5's "in sin my mother conceived me" is the response of the unborn child in Bathsheba's womb to David's lie in verse 4 "[Lord] against you only have I sinned" and David responds in verse 6 praising God for the miracle of the unborn child rebuking him for God is teaching David wisdom "from the hidden part." Also, per Ezekiel 18:20 and Romans 7:9 it is clear that we do not inherit Adam's sin, but are born spiritually alive. Our own personal sin results in our spiritual death, Adam's sin only resulting in our physical death. Christ was born without original sin, just like the rest of us.
The difference between us and him is in his perfect will, not in his having been born with a different type of flesh! That is clear by Paul saying that "[Jesus] was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Heb 4:15) rather than as chapter 8 of the Westminister Confession says "[Christ did] take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin: being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary." Note how Paul makes Christ's sinlessness a matter of WILL while the WCF (the standard Calvinist confession) makes it a matter of BIRTH.
You're a fugitive like Douglas Wilson now, Cory! Watch out for your fellow Calvinists when you cross the street!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
I am wondering if anyone can find a statement anywhere in the Bible where God says “I know everything” or “I am all-knowing.” We find where the disciples confess to Jesus “Now we know that you know all things” and Peter “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” But where does Jesus ever say “I know everything”? Jesus actually confesses ignorance of when his second coming will be. So, where does God Himself, either before or after the Incarnation actually profess Himself to be Omniscient? Certainly saying “I declare the end from the beginning” does not actually amount to omniscience, whereas “I will go down and see if they have done altogether according to the outcry against them, and if not, then I will know” does absolutely amount to a confession of non-omniscience. It is further interesting that God says “My thoughts are higher than your thoughts” because thoughts by very definition cannot be had by someone who knows everything. If you know everything, you don’t ever think because you already know. Thoughts are the processing of new information in order to derive knowledge from that information. An all-knowing God would, therefore, be a God with no thoughts, for he who knows all thinks none. But God professes thoughts, which implies an ability to learn. In the absence of a direct statement by God to the effect “I know all things” this must be seen as decisive in favor of him not having truly literal omniscience but only relative omniscience.
So far, not much but a repeat of at least one other post, if not two. But here's something new.
All the verses in the Bible (KJV) that use the phrase "know all."
2nd Samuel 3:25 "Thou knowest Abner the son of Ner, that he came to deceive thee, and to know thy going out and thy coming in, and to know all that thou doest." Nothing but a man declaring that Abner has come as a spy.
2nd Samuel 14:20 "To fetch about this form of speech hath thy servant Joab done this thing: and my lord is wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God, to know all things that are in the earth." A woman professing a belief that the angels of God know everything that happens on earth. (In this sense, the angels are clearly viewed as spies just like Abner.)
2nd Chronicles 32:31 "Howbeit in the business of the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon, who sent unto him to inquire of the wonder that was done in the land, God left him, to try him, that he might know all that was in his heart." God does not know from all eternity what is in a man's heart, but must try (i.e. test) men to learn what is in their hearts.Psalms 50:11 "I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine." Words imputed to God, but he doesn't claim here to know all things exhaustively but only to know all the fowls of the mountains.
Mark 4:13 "And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?" Jesus is instructing the disciples that the parable of the sower is the key to understanding all his other parables.
Acts 26:4 "My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;" A probable exaggeration on Paul's part, for every Jew in all the world probably did not know of his former conduct in Judaism.
1st John 2:20 "But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things." John tells Christians they have an anointing that makes them know all things, but clearly 'all things' here only means 'all things necessary to salvation' and not literally 'all things.'
All the verses in the Bible (KJV) that use the phrase "knowest all."
Numbers 20:14 "And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the king of Edom, Thus saith thy brother Israel, Thou knowest all the travail that hath befallen us:"1st Kings 2:44 "The king said moreover to Shimei, Thou knowest all the wickedness which thine heart is privy to, that thou didst to David my father: therefore the LORD shall return thy wickedness upon thine own head;"
Jeremiah 18:23 "Yet, LORD, thou knowest all their counsel against me to slay me: forgive not their iniquity, neither blot out their sin from thy sight, but let them be overthrown before thee; deal thus with them in the time of thine anger."
John 16:30 "Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God."
John 21:17 "He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep."
All the verses in the Bible (KJV) that use the phrase "know every."
1st Kings 8:38 "What prayer and supplication soever be made by any man, or by all thy people Israel, which shall know every man the plague of his own heart, and spread forth his hands toward this house:"In none of these do we find God saying "I know everything."