The fact that the Son is not omniscient has nothing to do with Him not fully God. Jesus might not be authoritative as God the Father, but He is fully God and has been there from the beginning. There are just certain facts in the future that is the privy of God the Father.
I would challenge you to explain why the earliest Christians already worshipped Jesus as God, despite not yet having a fully developed Trinitarian framework—unless my explanation is correct, namely that the Trinity was already present in Scripture in nuce and simply needed to be properly articulated. You would also need to explain how Paul can affirm that there is only one God, and yet refer to Christ as “God over all, blessed forever.”
I don’t think it’s accurate to say they base their authority only on an anointing of the Holy Spirit.
The claim is actually twofold:
-
apostolic succession (historical continuity)
-
the guidance of the Holy Spirit (divine assistance)
So it’s not just a subjective appeal to the Spirit, but a visible, historical transmission of authority.
For example:
-
Acts 1:20–26 → the apostles replace Judas (the office continues)
-
2 Timothy 2:2 → Paul entrusts teaching to others who will teach others
-
Titus 1:5 → appointing elders in every city
This shows a pattern of structured succession, not just spontaneous inspiration.
Also, if the question is whether “the Holy Spirit is enough,” it raises a broader issue: how do we determine who interprets Scripture correctly?
After all, many can claim to be guided by the Spirit.
That’s precisely why the early Church emphasized:
-
continuity with the apostles
-
publicly traceable leadership
-
shared doctrine
And not just personal conviction.
The thing is…If authority is reduced to: “I have the Spirit, therefore I am right,” then there’s no clear way to resolve disagreements.
1 Like
I understand the point you’re making, but I don’t think it holds once we look at what “being God” actually entails.
In Scripture and classical theism, God is not just “a very great being”, He is defined by attributes like:
-
omniscience (knowing all things)
-
omnipotence
-
eternality
So if the Son is not omniscient in His divine nature, then He would lack something essential to what God is. And if He lacks an essential divine attribute, He is not fully God.
That’s why passages like:
-
John 21:17 → “Lord, you know all things”
-
Colossians 2:3 → “in Him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge”
are so important—they affirm Christ’s full divine knowledge.
So the issue is not: “can God be God without knowing everything?”
But rather: “Is omniscience essential to being God?”
If the answer is yes, then: denying omniscience to the Son (in His divine nature) means denying His full divinity.
This is exactly why the distinction matters:
-
If Jesus does not know something as man → no problem
-
If He does not know something as God → then He is not fully God
So the statement: “the fact that the Son is not omniscient has nothing to do with Him not fully God” is logically null and void, because full divinity necessarily includes full knowledge.
The only way to preserve both:
-
the passages where He does not know
-
and the passages where He knows all things
is to recognize the distinction already present in Scripture: Christ is fully God and truly man, not partially God.
Once again: holding together; not choosing. 
Maybe you can start by demonstrating when each book of the NT was written, by whom, where and then offer an objective account of its dissemination throughout the entire Church at large? Show step by step where it went and how influential it was compared to oral teaching.
Give me specific quotes by Christians from the first 100 years after Christ that comprehensively demonstrate those 27 books were widely recognized by the body of believers. Then give me quotes for the second hundred years. I want quotes from all over the Roman empire (to make sure it was wide spread) and I would like one from each generation (to make sure it was conssitent) to demonstrate “the 27 books accepted by the council was authoritative way before the council.” You are advocating a magic Bible from heaven view. Here is a map. Try to get me quotes from all over the organge places chronologically and geographically.
I also want a full accounting of how and why they accepted each book they did, the pros and cons off their reasoning and why some disagreed. For example, what are we to make of the mistaken belief that Matthew was the first Gospel written and that is was written in Hebrew?
I then want a full accounting of the ~50 other gospels and other epistles --some of which were quite popular and used by various Christian groups for centuries that did not make it into the NT and are unfit for faith.
You can also definitively settle whether the Muratorian canon is a late 2nd century or 4th century list. I’ll expect you to cite all the relevant scholarly literature on both sides then articulate which view is correct and why.
Sorry, but the apostles were mostly unlettered and taught orally. The early Church came to believe these books accurately represented apostolic teaching because they shared these views and in cases had views based off them before they were etched in stone. You have disconnected yourself from the Church and God’s guidance of it and have lost Scripture as a result.
Jesus didn’t send me a personal bible. He left behind a church of which I am a member of. And why not the 73 books or 81 books? Who decided your 66 book canon is the correct one?
And this is the sin of pride on your part. Interpreting alone thinking you are the key to understanding a 2,000-3,000 year old work that was written in several different languages I’m guessing you don’t know.
Enjoy starting your own religion.
Vinnie
1 Like
You are really funny Vinnie. and you know what really sound arrogant too thinking just because you have all these knowledge and then you can compare those knowledge to those who challenged you. I am sorry, but you sound like a seminary professor giving homework to your student. Is that what gracious dialogue is all about? Kind of arrogant of your own knowledge if I might add.
BTW. this topic is not what I am interested in for this post. All that you asked had nothing to do with trinitarian doctrine.
Of course I don’t know many ancient languages. Do you think I interpret this alone thinking in my own brain? Do you have any idea what kind of resources available to us online, in online commentaries, in dictionary, in maps, etc and all at the palm of our hand. Time have changed Vinnie. These knowledge are no longer the privy of the scholar, but are available to lay people who are interested in learning.
is it the sin of pride on my part? perhaps. However, I never claim that I have the utmost knowledge on every field, and nor I think should you. Do I have the right to individually interpret the Bible? Sure, why not. Do I make mistake or make a wrong conclusion? many times Vinnie and thus this post. I don’t post to impart knowledge, but to search for truth. If you have something to say, that does not automatically mean that I have to accept your assertion though I want to listen to what you have to say.
But if you think that you have all the right assertions without any doubt and then maybe you are not the right person I want to listen to. Sorry, but I like to discuss with open mind without condescending tone like a seminary professor looking at his kindergarten students.
Oh Btw, I don’t think you should reply to my post here. I am not sure that continuing our discussion is helpful in my search for truth, nor for other readers.
agree with you totally bro.
I agree that this is the view of God thru the lens of classical theism. There is a view about “the openness of God” by Clark Pinnock that might interest you to see how he might view the omniscient of God differently from classical theism.
as much as I want to embrace the trinitarian doctrine, I cannot overcome the obstacles of those passages that put Christ in different positions of God the Father. That tension is there. therefore in answer to your challenge, I said I cannot. The best I can do so far is that the existence and relationship between Jesus and the Father is a mystery and unexplainable.