 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/21/2005 12:03 PM (GMT -6) |   | | Alright, we're all aware of the verse in Genesis before the Flood where God said it repented Him that He had made man. I used to think there was no plausible way to make sense of that verse in a non-open view. But now I can think of three ways to take it. They are:
1) God had not anticipated the possibility of man and angels becoming so decadent, and He really was saying that had He known that, He wouldn't have made man. He then proceeds to destroy all but Noah and lock up all the fallen angels but Satan and gets on with history, because He had already promised the Seed and must fulfill that promise.
2) God knew that man and angels might come to such a state of affairs, but He had planned the Flood just in case. In this view, the verse is a bit metaphorical, for it seems to be about how He FELT - not what He thought.
3) God absolutely KNEW that man and angels would come to such a state and the verse is just telling us how God FELT about it - not what He thought. Here, too, the verse is metaphorical.
These views don't imply that Genesis 1-11 is necessarily historical. They just assume that the statement in question is to be understood in it's seemingly historical context. So, Are there more possibilities? And what philosophical or theological evidence can we provide to determine which is the most probable?
wjs Post Edited (jefscott) : 5/22/2005 7:16:19 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PhilTheThrill
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 95
| Posted 5/23/2005 2:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Regarding your option 3, I would say that of the trio, it makes the least sense, or rather is the least plausible.
If one is of the opinion that God perfectly knew of the rebellion of man to the point that he regretted making the earth, why would he have made it in the first place then? Why wouldn't he have done something. It almost implies a sort of deism where God sets things up and then stands back and goes "Oooh, I regret that! Shoot!"
Then there's always the classic question of how can God experience a genuine change of emotion if all facts are known to him timelessly. How could God say in Chapter 1 "This is very good!" and then in Chapter 6 "I regret making this earth!" if he already knew about all of this? That would make him somewhat disingenuous in Chapter 1...
I tend towards a view like this:
God created the Earth, the Garden, Man and Woman, and turned it on. He gave Man and Woman instructions and they blew it. As punishment, he mortalized them, kicked them out of the garden, and forced man to work and woman to have painful birth. However, he maintained his relationship, intending to turn lemons into lemonade. As time went on, his own angels lusted after women and started having hybrid children that were worshipped as gods. God is frustrated and eventually finds that only 8 people on the entire planet are worth his time. He genuinely regrets how everything went down and is frustrated because he created this people in his image (the only creation that can claim that honor) and what do they do? They ignore him and make him mad. He angrily cleanses the Earth of the evil people and the hybrid Nephilim and starts over, promising not to cleanse the earth anymore. In a sense, I think God is playing it by ear and taking things as they come, responding dynamically to the events.
I guess that's closest to your 2. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/25/2005 6:45 PM (GMT -6) | | John: Why would He say he was SORRY for something He had known for an eternity to be an ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY?!?
Jeff: Well, I agree with your objection of course. But those who hold that view would have to interpret the "SORRY" as FEELING only, not true intellectual regret. But the same holds for #2, it would seem. If ALL contingencies are pre-known, then God, like the wise king, has "counted the cost" before creating, so the "SORRY" in #2 cannot be true intellectual regret either. I'm I missing something? If not, then #1 is the only possibe option I can think of that accounts for true intellectual regret.
John: With regard to #2, I honestly don't see any reason why God would have needed to "plan the flood just in case," either.
Jeff: Me either. I think God's omnipotence makes meticulous foreplanning or knowledge unnecessary for God. The less power you have, the more strategic you have to be. But God isn't lacking in power.
wjsPost Edited (jefscott) : 5/25/2005 6:49:18 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PhilTheThrill
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 95
| Posted 5/26/2005 11:48 AM (GMT -6) | |
jefscott said...Phil: In a sense, I think God is playing it by ear and taking things as they come, responding dynamically to the events. I guess that's closest to your 2. Jeff: If you mean "playing it by ear" they way I mean it, I would say you're closer to #1, which is the view I hold.
Could be. 1 and 2 aren't terribly different or opposed to each other. I think maybe I wasn't on-board with the "Keeping Noah around because he had promised the Seed" part. I think God kept Noah around because he liked him. :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 5/27/2005 1:26 PM (GMT -6) | | jefscott said...
John: Why would He say he was SORRY for something He had known for an eternity to be an ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY?!?
Jeff: Well, I agree with your objection of course. But those who hold that view would have to interpret the "SORRY" as FEELING only, not true intellectual regret. But the same holds for #2, it would seem. If ALL contingencies are pre-known, then God, like the wise king, has "counted the cost" before creating, so the "SORRY" in #2 cannot be true intellectual regret either. I'm I missing something? If not, then #1 is the only possibe option I can think of that accounts for true intellectual regret.
If my son (who is due to be born in a few weeks), turns out to be a terribly wicked person, while I of course would have known that to be a possibility, it would not mean I could not or would not grieve over his chosen path of evil.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://www.revivaltheology.cjb.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/27/2005 5:34 PM (GMT -6) | | John: If my son (who is due to be born in a few weeks), turns out to be a terribly wicked person, while I of course would have known that to be a possibility, it would not mean I could not or would not grieve over his chosen path of evil.
Jeff: CONGRATULATIONS, BRO!!!!!! 
Now, 'bout your point. Absolutely. But the verse doesn't say that it "repented God that man behaved badly." It says, "it repented God that He had MADE man on the earth." Quite different in implication. To be properly analogous, you would have to say if your son behaves badly, you would regret that you conceived him at all. Now, I don't think #2 allows for that possibility, since it claims God foresaw the possibility of the exact evil that transpired and proceeded with creation anyway. See my point?
wjsPost Edited (jefscott) : 5/27/2005 5:39:00 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/28/2005 12:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Congratulations from me too, John! Best wishes to you and your family...
jefscott said...
Now, I don't think #2 allows for that possibility, since it claims God foresaw the possibility of the exact evil that transpired and proceeded with creation anyway.
Quite true! That does seem to rule out #2 for the Open View, and thus how can God be the invincible chess master, who knows he will win regardless?
If he doesn't think of all the possibilities, if some events are quite out of his reckoning, and could cause him to conclude that he should not have made man in the first place. That's a rather major loss of objective...
Blessings,
Lee
P.S. The word "nacham" here can also mean "grieved," it need not mean "repented," or "sorry"...
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/28/2005 6:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee: If he doesn't think of all the possibilities, if some events are quite out of his reckoning, and could cause him to conclude that he should not have made man in the first place. That's a rather major loss of objective...
Jeff: Well, I think the Fall WAS a loss of objective. But God is powerful and wise enough to bring about glory to His Son and Himself regardless.
Lee: That does seem to rule out #2 for the Open View, and thus how can God be the invincible chess master, who knows he will win regardless?
Jeff: I don't see God playing chess in the Bible. I see Him flooding the earth, locking up angels, locking up Satan, destroying Gog and Magog and Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. You get the picture. God has plenty of prerogative left to act unilaterally when He wants to. Indeed, the only thing that restrains that prerogative is His own word and character.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/29/2005 8:38 AM (GMT -6) | | John: about the "repenting that he had MADE mankind," perhaps that's a particularly Hebrew way of expressing profound grief, like when Job said "cursed be the day that I was born," or when Jesus said concerning Judas that it would have been better if he had never been born.
Jeff: Yes, I think that would be the case for #2 and #3, above. But with respect to Judas, I suspect that we have no apriori reason to suppose Jesus was being anything other than factual. Only if I could be convinced of universalism (or some similar doctrine) would I feel compelled to doubt the literalness of Christ's statement about Judas.
It may also be true that Job actually meant literally what he said at the time, given the degree of his suffering.
John: That said, if any one of us turns out to be the father of the next Hitler, it seems reasonable to me that we might well wish we hadn't fathered that particular monster.
Jeff: Aye. ONLY universalism would probably cause us to think otherwise!!!
P.S. I'll be praying for you and yours!!! Again, congratulations!
wjsPost Edited (jefscott) : 5/29/2005 11:08:16 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/30/2005 12:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
Jeff said...
Well, I think the Fall WAS a loss of objective. But God is powerful and wise enough to bring about glory to His Son and Himself regardless.
But glory is not the same as success in carrying out your objective.
Various folks said...
Lee: That does seem to rule out #2 for the Open View, and thus how can God be the invincible chess master, who knows he will win regardless?
Jeff: I don't see God playing chess in the Bible. I see Him flooding the earth, locking up angels, locking up Satan, destroying Gog and Magog and Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. You get the picture. God has plenty of prerogative left to act unilaterally when He wants to. Indeed, the only thing that restrains that prerogative is His own word and character.
Well the Chess Master analogy was Greg Boyd's, and this seems to be an often-used way of explaining omnipotence in the Open View. I would be glad to hear of other explanations! And certainly God has many options before him, and can judge all the earth.
But did he not set out, with a different purpose, when he created it?
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/31/2005 8:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
jefscott said...
There are verses that seem to plainly indicate that God's objective for me is for me to not sin. So when I sin, His ideal objective has not been obtained.
Maybe that is part of the process of purifying us, though!
Daniel 11:35 Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end...
This this could be God's ideal objective for us, even then, and also as here:
Romans 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.
Various folks said...
Lee: Well the Chess Master analogy was Greg Boyd's, and this seems to be an often-used way of explaining omnipotence in the Open View. I would be glad to hear of other explanations! And certainly God has many options before him, and can judge all the earth.
But did he not set out, with a different purpose, when he created it?
Jeff: I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
Sorry that wasn't clear, I meant that if God has to destroy the whole world, wasn't creation of man a major objective, and wouldn't wiping out all mankind be a loss which an invincible Chess Master should not possibly suffer? Given that this is a major objective, I mean...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/2/2005 6:37 PM (GMT -6) | |
Lee said...
jefscott said...
There are verses that seem to plainly indicate that God's objective for me is for me to not sin. So when I sin, His ideal objective has not been obtained. Maybe that is part of the process of purifying us, though! Daniel 11:35 Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end... This this could be God's ideal objective for us, even then, and also as here: Romans 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Rom. 3:19 doesn't indicate anything about purifying. Dan: 11:33 talks about falling by the sword. So if it's the suffering of martyrdom that purifies, it doesn't make your case, for martyrdom is the result of righteousness, not sin.
Lee said...
I meant that if God has to destroy the whole world, wasn't creation of man a major objective, and wouldn't wiping out all mankind be a loss which an invincible Chess Master should not possibly suffer? Given that this is a major objective, I mean... But if anything is contrary to God's ideal will, that means He's not an INVINCIBLE chess master in the Calvinistic sense. Freedom eliminates the possibility of God inevitably getting everything His way.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/2/2005 7:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
jefscott said...
Rom. 3:19 doesn't indicate anything about purifying.
Yes, I meant a different purpose, "That all the world would become accountable to God," there may be many purposes in God's will, for all sinful actions.
jefscott said...
Dan: 11:33 talks about falling by the sword.
I had always thought that "stumble" meant a sin, not an attack, though.
jefscott said...
So if it's the suffering of martyrdom that purifies, it doesn't make your case, for martyrdom is the result of righteousness, not sin.
Well, I think in either case, we may conclude that this suffering was part of purifying them, since purifying as a result is mentioned specifically here.
jefscott said...
But if anything is contrary to God's ideal will, that means He's not an INVINCIBLE chess master in the Calvinistic sense.
Unless God will be "all in all"! And if "all tears" wiped away (Isa. 25:8) means all tears, and "no more pain" means just that, too...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/2/2005 9:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee: Yes, I meant a different purpose, "That all the world would become accountable to God," there may be many purposes in God's will, for all sinful actions.
Jeff: The verse doesn't say it was the purpose of sin. It was the purpose of the Law. Had there been no Fall, all would have been different. In other words, you have to assume non-openness to make your case.
jefscott said...
Dan: 11:33 talks about falling by the sword.
Lee: I had always thought that "stumble" meant a sin, not an attack, though.
Jeff: In the KJV, both words are "fall." If it's the same Hebrew word, the context may suggest falling by the sword only.
jefscott said...
So if it's the suffering of martyrdom that purifies, it doesn't make your case, for martyrdom is the result of righteousness, not sin.
Lee: Well, I think in either case, we may conclude that this suffering was part of purifying them, since purifying as a result is mentioned specifically here.
Jeff: No doubt. But that doesn't suggest that God uses all sin for some good purpose, ultimately. And that's what the question was originally about.
jefscott said...
But if anything is contrary to God's ideal will, that means He's not an INVINCIBLE chess master in the Calvinistic sense.
Lee: Unless God will be "all in all"! And if "all tears" wiped away (Isa. 25:8) means all tears, and "no more pain" means just that, too...
Jeff: How would that prove that ALL sin was purposed and served some good end? The two are not necessarily related at all. Again, you have to assume eternal decrees to conclude thus. The words don't say or imply it.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/3/2005 7:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
jefscott said...
The verse doesn't say it was the purpose of sin. It was the purpose of the Law.
Yes, but the consequences that follow from there also were meant, were they not?
Various folks said...
Lee: I think in either case, we may conclude that this suffering was part of purifying them, since purifying as a result is mentioned specifically here.
Jeff: No doubt. But that doesn't suggest that God uses all sin for some good purpose, ultimately. And that's what the question was originally about
Yes, and then the question came up as to whether sin thwarts God's ideal objective for us, and this could indicate that sin does not invariably do this.
jefscott said...
How would that prove that ALL sin was purposed and served some good end? The two are not necessarily related at all.
It might be possible, though? That's all I was after, here...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/4/2005 10:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Lee: But not better if he had never been conceived?
Jeff: I suppose that's a possible explanation, but contextually it seems weak if the point was the punishment he would receive for what he did as an adult. I hope universalism is true, but verses like that really make me wonder.
Lee: And as far as the unpardonable sin is concerned, Paul said he was the worst of sinners, so may we not hope that nobody ever does commit this worst of sins? Otherwise, Paul would have been worse than that.
Jeff: The case of Paul is irrelevant, of course, because he was forgiven for whatever sins he committed. But I had always thought the passage about the unpardonable sin suggested, contextually, that the Pharisees HAD committed it by saying that the Spirit of God was Satan. As for being forgiven "in the age to come," that could refer to the millenium for premillenialists like ourselves.
wjsPost Edited (jefscott) : 6/4/2005 11:01:02 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/4/2005 1:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
jefscott said...
Lee: And as far as the unpardonable sin is concerned, Paul said he was the worst of sinners, so may we not hope that nobody ever does commit this worst of sins? Otherwise, Paul would have been worse than that.
Jeff: The case of Paul is irrelevant, of course, because he was forgiven for whatever sins he committed.
But not if he was worse than these Pharisees he mentioned! And worse than any other sinner, ever, then we may hope no one ever goes over the line people can't come back from.
jefscott said...
But I had always thought the passage about the unpardonable sin suggested, contextually, that the Pharisees HAD committed it by saying that the Spirit of God was Satan.
Though it might be a warning? Especially since Jesus said "all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them" (Mk. 3:28), again giving reason to think no one will ever blaspheme the Holy Spirit, for this blasphemy will not be forgiven.
jefscott said...
As for being forgiven "in the age to come," that could refer to the millenium for premillenialists ...
Yes, I do think that is possible here, and even probable, though as a millennialist, I sit on a post! Meaning I'm not sure when the rapture will be, relative to the tribulation, I tend to think it will be at the middle, or the end...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
| 29 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:47 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|