 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 12/21/2003 2:46 AM (GMT -6) |   | Check this out, John:
http://www.innercite.com/~tstout/attr/5.shtml
And these,
Exd 31:3 And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship,
Exd 35:31 And he hath filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship;
Pro 2:6 For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth [cometh] knowledge and understanding.
Pro 9:10 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy [is] understanding.
Isa 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;
Dan 1:4 Children in whom [was] no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as [had] ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.
Dan 1:17 As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.
Dan 2:21 And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:
Col 1:9 For this cause we also, since the day we heard [it], do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 12/21/2003 3:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Oh, let me add this John, that I also believe God knows all things at once, before they ever or actually occur, and I never despair over the minds many attempts to argue against such, or others things concerning God.
The matter or debate in my mind, should be more about in what manner, God knows all things and what does such knowledge, have in effect, upon the individual will, which is also evident.
Therefore, as I see it, what I believe is neither altogether, dismissing many of the thoughts of the Open View, as I have come to understand it, nor entirely disregarding what is termed as the Classical View, again, as I understand it.
My mind will not let me escape that all knowledge or information is found in or arrives from one source, such as the Scriptures above suggest, God. Nevertheless; unlimited, or endless would describe what I believe, about that which I also believe is not settled or fixed concerning such knowledge only God possesses, because of choice, which is evident to both views, Open and Classical.
Having to end in saying, the arguments seem trivial about the subject to me, at this point of arrival, 'when a person admits to an individual will, that is held accountable to or before God'.
Imagination projects unreal images out of the mind and seeks to attach reality to them. Faith creates nothing; it simply reckons upon that which is already there. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/21/2003 4:18 AM (GMT -6) | | Tim-
Just being honest here, not nit-picking at all, but I keep reading your five short paragraphs and I can't for the life of me make out what it is you're saying. I don't know why (comma placement, choice of words, seeming contradictions), but for some reason I just fail to get it. I can't figure out what you're denying and what you're affirming. Sorry.
Merry Christmas anyhow!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/21/2003 4:32 AM (GMT -6) | | John-
Good question (about whether Scripture actually teaches omniscience). I think most of us insist upon some beliefs as "biblical" in a derived sort of way. The Bible nowhere actually says, "God is omniscient, meaning that for every p, if p, then God knows that p and does not believe that not-p." But I think the same is true of most if not all our "systematic" theology. We sift through the "stuff" of the Bible and do our best to distill it in systematic expressions in our own langauge for our needs. That's OK, so long as our systematic theology doesn't get raised to the level of Scripture and we remain committed to keeping systematic theology alive and ongoing, always trying to express ourselves better and more accurately. In addition to omniscience, the authors of the Bible don't actually seek to "teach" overtly/intentionally (I don't think) that God is triune. Our systematic formulations of the trinity 'reflect' what we believe has to be the case about their beliefs if sense is to be made of what the DID say. Or, the biblical authors nowhere even attempt to prove the existence of God. There are no developed arguments for God's existence. So is belief in the existence of God "biblical"? Sure it is, cause we can't make sense of what the authors did believe and do say if in fact they didn't believe in God's existence.
Seems to me that if we add together all the Bible says about God's knowledge and wisdom, abilities, faithfulness, and perfection, it would be difficult to deny that there are any truths God does NOT know. On the contrary, to argue that there are truths God does not know would seem to undermine the biblical notion of God's greatness, perfection, and wisdom.
Just my thoughts.
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 12/21/2003 12:12 PM (GMT -6) | | | I agree, Tim. I still don't know what your verses have to do with the question. One does not have to know much as far as complete information to be wise. | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 12/21/2003 5:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Tim,
Thanks for responding. Not that it matters, but I guess I should say that I DO believe God has absolutely comprehensive present knowledge, as well as complete knowledge of what He intends to do, in addition to complete knowledge of all possibilities. This is one reason I refer to the Open View of the future as augmented foreknowledge rather than "limited foreknowledge," as some refer to the OV.
Now to the scriptures you cited: (I have taken the liberty of numbering them for later reference).
I. Exd 31:3 And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship,
II. Exd 35:31 And he hath filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship;
All that is said in the above verses is that God gave these men wisdom and knowledge in order to craft the furnishings of the tabernacle (see context).
III. Pro 2:6 For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth [cometh] knowledge and understanding.
This verse does not seem to prove the case, either. All that is said is that God gives wisdom, knowledge and understanding. So do human teachers.
IV. Pro 9:10 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: and the nowledge of the holy [is] understanding.
This seems to not say much more about God's knowledge than your previous verse.
V. Isa 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;
This sheds no more light upon the extent of God's knowledge than the first two about Bezaleel and Oholiab.
VI. Dan 1:4 Children in whom [was] no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as [had] ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.
?
VII. Dan 1:17 As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.
Ditto to the first five verses cited.
VIII. Dan 2:21 And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:
Ditto.
IX. Col 1:9 For this cause we also, since the day we heard [it], do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;
It is not clear to me how this verse says anything in particular about the extent of God's foreknowledge. Please clarify, if you will.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 12/21/2003 5:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Tim
quote:
The matter or debate in my mind, should be more about in what manner, God knows all things and what does such knowledge, have in effect, upon the individual will, which is also evident.
John
Okay by me. However, the question I am asking is, "What does the Bible teach with respect to God's knowledge? Trying to answer a question asked on another thread made me realize just how slim the degree of scriptural evidence is for the classical idea of omniscience, and even the idea of presentism per se. I am only asking for biblical references pertinent to the subject. Again, thanks for your responses.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 12/21/2003 5:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Here is my reply from the "Surfer Girl" thread:
If it can be shown from Scripture that God possesses exhaustive definite knowledge of the present, then it follows that He also possesses exhaustive definite knowledge of the past.
Just a few of the scriptures which show that God possesses exhaustive definite knowledge of the present:
Hebrews 4:13 - Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
Job 34:21 - "For his eyes are upon the ways of a man, and he sees all his steps.
Psalms 33:13 - The LORD looks down from heaven, he sees all the sons of men;
Proverbs 5:21 - For the ways of man are before the eyes of the LORD, and he pondereth all his goings.
Proverbs 15:3 - The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.
1 John 3:20 - For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
(End Quote)
The thing I found so intriguing was how little I was able to find to support this MAJOR doctrine of Christianity (or for that matter, monotheism).
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 12/21/2003 5:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Tom,
I certainly agree that many of our systematic theology doctrines are reached by seeking to synthesize all the pertinent the scriptural data about something (such as with the trinity). However, it seems to me that the basis of the historic Nicene trinitarian doctrine is founded on the following:
1. Various scriptures declare the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
2. Other scriptures (many times in the same context as those in #1) are quite unequivocal in stating that God is ONE.
3. Therefore, the trinity (tri-unity or three-in-oneness) of the Godhead has been the classic trinitarian conclusion.
The difference between the doctrine of the trinity and the doctrine of omniscience seems to me to be that the trinity doctrine is based on the two classes of Scripture referred to in #1 and #2, while the classical doctrine of omniscience is based on much less clearly stated scriptural references. (Hence my question in this thread).
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Seems to me that if we add together all the Bible says about God's knowledge and wisdom, abilities, faithfulness, and perfection, it would be difficult to deny that there are any truths God does NOT know.
I agree that God knows all truths. I honestly have no reservations about that philosophically, and I am defintely not having a crisis of faith (not that you're saying I am, but just in case anyone is wondering). I am simply and only trying to find plain scriptural evidence for omniscience.
quote:
On the contrary, to argue that there are truths God does not know would seem to undermine the biblical notion of God's greatness, perfection, and wisdom.
But isn't this precisely the same line of reasoning against OVT that is used by anti-openness writers? That we are somehow undermining God's greatness, perfection, and wisdom?
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/21/2003 9:49 PM (GMT -6) | | John: I agree that God knows all truths. I honestly have no reservations about that philosophically…
Tom: But given 1Jo 3:20, “…God knows all things…,” why should you have any reservations about affirming it biblically as well? In fact, when you take all the biblical passages together, what slice of knowledge could one argue God does not know? Personally, I find 1Jo 3:20 pretty categorical: God knows all things.
quote:
Tom: On the contrary, to argue that there are truths God does not know would seem to undermine the biblical notion of God's greatness, perfection, and wisdom.
John: But isn't this precisely the same line of reasoning against OVT that is used by anti-openness writers? That we are somehow undermining God's greatness, perfection, and wisdom?
Tom: It is the same “line of reasoning.” It just assumes a different notion of divine perfection. I never found it wrong to reason that if the open view undermined a notion of divine perfection that was indeed true, the open view ought to be wrong. The line of reasoning itself is OK with me. It all depends on what one’s notion of perfection is. I just think the presupposed classical notion of divine perfection is wrong. So I don't respond to the classical objection that the OV undermines God's perfection by claiming that their "line of reasoning" is wrong. On the contrary, their reasoning is very tight. What we do is grant the line of reasoning but reject their assumed notion of divine perfection. It's not that we have no notion of divine perfection whatsoever, or a notion of perfection which does not influence the sorts of conclusions we reach about God. I confess to having a notion of perfection which influences my thinking no less than their understanding of perfection influences them. I just assume a different notion of perfection. I then follow the same line of reasoning. So I think it's OK to argue that if what we believe to be a biblical understanding of God's perfection requires omniscience, then omniscience is biblical. I do have a notion of divine perfection (which I hope is more influenced by the Bible than anything else) and it tells me that God would be less than perfect if there were to exist truths he did not know. Philosophy I don't think tells me God would be less than perfect if he were to not know some truths. I think I get that notion of perfection from the Bible primarily.
But since we have 1Jo 3:20, we don't have to guess too much. If this isn't a categorical affirmation of omniscience in the Bible, what wold be?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 12/22/2003 1:53 AM (GMT -6) | | IX. Col 1:9 For this cause we also, since the day we heard [it], do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;
John: It is not clear to me how this verse says anything in particular about the extent of God's foreknowledge. Please clarify, if you will.
Tim: The knowledge or fact of God's will exist; and He desires to fill me with it, this is something very particular about God's foreknowledge, in my mind. The implication infers in the face of reality to me, God's perfect will for my existence was and is well known by Him, as well as what He would permit, before any of it took or takes place. Face it, the first desire of God is all wisdom and spiritual understanding for all of His Saints and for those who are not Saints, to receive such. Such would be perfection's will, and if I do not have all wisdom and spiritual understanding, then I must be operating out of what would be permitted out of His complete knowledge of all possibilities, as you have said.
Now I understand that if I meant someone or another person, other than God who has all wisdom and spiritual understanding . . . (to be continued)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 12/22/2003 5:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Originally posted by TGB
John: I agree that God knows all truths. I honestly have no reservations about that philosophically…
Tom: But given 1Jo 3:20, “…God knows all things…,” why should you have any reservations about affirming it biblically as well? In fact, when you take all the biblical passages together, what slice of knowledge could one argue God does not know? Personally, I find 1Jo 3:20 pretty categorical: God knows all things.
John
I simply wanted some input as to the scriptural evidence for the doctrine of omniscience. As to 1 John 3:20, I'm sure you know that it is not a sound approach to base a major doctrine on one verse. I'm just looking for feedback on verses that others view as teaching omniscience.
So far I have been quite surprised to find so little in the references available to me, and was also suprised to find how hard I had to look to find even the very few verses I have found in this search thus far. It does seem to me that many have assumed the doctrine of omniscience without critically examining the scriptural evidence for it.
As to God not knowing some things, what are we to do with the verses that express suprise on the part of God for how things turned out, and even when He says what the children of Israel did "did not even enter My mind?"
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/22/2003 5:50 AM (GMT -6) | | John: As to 1 John 3:20, I'm sure you know that it is not a sound approach to base a major doctrine on one verse.
Tom: If 1Jo 3:20 was all we had, I think it would still be the case that those affirming omniscience had more going for them than those denying it. As it is, we have everything else Scripture says about God's knowledge and wisdom, which John seems to think perfectly compatible with "God knows all things." So we're not really building omniscience on 1Jo 3:20 alone, it's more like we're explaining all that the Bible says about God's knowledge and wisdom in terms of 3:20. Did John write 3:20 in a vacuum? Was he saying something no Jew before him was likely to believe? Or is he faithfully and succinctly expressing biblical truth? I guess I don't expect the authors of the Bible to provide something overwhelming on an issue like this. A lot was assumed. Seems to me that enough of their assumptions comes out in their writing as to make it easy enough to conclude they believed in omniscience.
John: As to God not knowing some things, what are we to do with the verses that express suprise on the part of God for how things turned out, and even when He says what the children of Israel did "did not even enter My mind?
Tom: I'm not sure how God's being surprised at the improbable happening undermines omniscience. God knows all things. Part of the all things is an 80% chance that Israel will learn her lesson THIS time and return to God and call him "Father" (Jer 3). Israel doesn't return. God is surpised. Why? Becasue he didn't know "Israel might not return and call God 'Father'" was true? Or he thought it was false? If "surprise" has to entail less than complete preparedness or ignorance that things might have turned out other than they did, than omniscience is undermined (and John is wrong when he says "God knows all things"). But "surprise" doesn't require this does it?
On the "it didn't enter my mind" thing I think this is nothing more than God making use of a common expression, much the way I as a parent might say to my child who has just dont something stupid, "I never imagined in a million years you'd do something THIS stupid!" THe expression cannot mean what it literally asserts, namely, that Israel's wickedness never entered God's mind (in any shape or form). Then even the infinite intelligence argument is wrong. If Israel's behaving this way was a "possibility" (and that they behaved this way proves it was), then God would know this possibility, which means their acting this way DID, stricktly speaking, enter God's mind. So what's God's point? Just as our English equivalents show, we're perfectly capable of using such language to express amazement at the improbable and unlikely happening. Do I really mean I "never" even "imagined" that my child would do something this stupid? No. I in fact have imagined them doing far more stuipd things. The "mere" fact that such events are possible has entered my mind. But given my investment in my child, her relationship with the Lord, her general character, etc., I never imagined that at this point she'd do something so unlikely (thought technically possible).
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
David
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 12/22/2003 9:50 AM (GMT -6) | | WOW!
It's very interesting listening in on this conversation, because I almost feel like there has been a role switch somewhere with Tom in a similar position to someone defending the classical view of God's omniscience.
As John says, "But isn't this precisely the same line of reasoning against OVT that is used by anti-openness writers? That we are somehow undermining God's greatness, perfection, and wisdom?"
And here Tom seems to be using reasoning that might be used by someone with the classical view where Tom said:
"I'm not sure how God's being surprised at the improbable happening undermines omniscience. God knows all things. Part of the all things is an 80% chance that Israel will learn her lesson THIS time and return to God and call him "Father" (Jer 3). Israel doesn't return. God is surpised. Why? Becasue he didn't know "Israel might not return and call God 'Father'" was true? Or he thought it was false? If "surprise" has to entail less than complete preparedness or ignorance that things might have turned out other than they did, than omniscience is undermined (and John is wrong when he says "God knows all things"). But "surprise" doesn't require this does it?
On the "it didn't enter my mind" thing I think this is nothing more than God making use of a common expression, much the way I as a parent might say to my child who has just dont something stupid, "I never imagined in a million years you'd do something THIS stupid!" THe expression cannot mean what it literally asserts, namely, that Israel's wickedness never entered God's mind (in any shape or form). Then even the infinite intelligence argument is wrong. If Israel's behaving this way was a "possibility" (and that they behaved this way proves it was), then God would know this possibility, which means their acting this way DID, stricktly speaking, enter God's mind. So what's God's point? Just as our English equivalents show, we're perfectly capable of using such language to express amazement at the improbable and unlikely happening. Do I really mean I "never" even "imagined" that my child would do something this stupid? No. I in fact have imagined them doing far more stuipd things. The "mere" fact that such events are possible has entered my mind. But given my investment in my child, her relationship with the Lord, her general character, etc., I never imagined that at this point she'd do something so unlikely (thought technically possible)."
The above line of reasoning by Tom seems very similiar to some I have heard for the classical view, but possibly would be called invalid by OVT proponents for not following the plain, literal meaning of scripture. It might even be considered an invalid anthropomorphic view of God.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 12/22/2003 3:32 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by David
WOW!
It's very interesting listening in on this conversation, because I almost feel like there has been a role switch somewhere with Tom in a similar position to someone defending the classical view of God's omniscience.
The above line of reasoning by Tom seems very similiar to some I have heard for the classical view, but possibly would be called invalid by OVT proponents for not following the plain, literal meaning of scripture. It might even be considered an invalid anthropomorphic view of God.
Wow! Exactly!
Tom, you are not far from the kingdom!  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/22/2003 9:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Hardee har har ya'll. Maybe I should clarify a bit.
It shouldn’t surprise anybody that open theists and classical theists argue alike at some points. We are, after all, both theists! In particular, we each possess a notion of divine perfection (not the same one, but we each have our own) and both use our understanding of such perfection to weigh interpretive options. This much is all I meant by saying we share a “line of reasoning.” But because our notions of divine perfection are different (read d-i-f-f-e-r-e-n-t ) we end up concluding differently what undermines and what doesn’t undermine the greatness and glory of God. A determinist for example says “It undermines God’s glory if all evil is NOT unconditionally determined by God.” What does the open theist reply? That we operate without ANY notion of divine perfection whatsoever? Me Geneto! Not at all. We reply by offering a different notion of divine perfection, one that we think is more biblical and consistent with God’s granting us libertarian free will. The line of reasoning is the same; only the assumptions about perfection are different.
Concerning omniscience, we both agree that were there to exist truths God does not know, God’s perfection as we each understand it would be undermined. We differ of course on what “truths” there are, but we agree that were God in our respective systems to not know some truth, God would be less than perfect as we each understand it. So if some open theists have believed themselves free of possessing any notion of divine perfection that influences their theology, they ought to give it up, ‘cause it ain’t so.
On the “it never entered my mind” language, I wouldn’t be too happy if I were a classical theist. If this is a common expression used to describe surprise at the occurrence of what was believed to be highly improbable, then the classical theist has the task of explaining how a God who unconditionally determined that an event occur can also believe its occurrence highly improbable and so express such surprise over its happening. On the contrary, God believes the non-occurrence of the event is impossible! What sort of surprise obtains when an event determined by God’s will alone occurs? Determinists, in my opinion, can’t account for the reality behind this reality-depicting expression.
Same is true for classical Arminians. This event isn’t determined by God but it’s eternally foreknown. How? We don’t know. Still, when the time comes, what sense can we make of God’s expressing THIS sort of surprise with THIS sort of language? What truth about the divine side of the divine-human relationship does God intend to communicate to us by saying that some outrageous evil “never entered his mind”?
But of their understanding of divine perfection, determinists and classical Arminians can neither of them understand the expression “it never entered my mind” as meaning for God what it means for us when we use the expression, to which I reply, on what basis then are we to ascribe meaning to the expression applied to God?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/3/2004 1:22 AM (GMT -6) | | My notion of perfection? Wow. Tall order.
Well, I’d try to ground my thoughts primarily on how God reveals himself to us in Scripture. If God is perfect, maximally perfect, the best and greatest we can imagine, and if the Bible is the highest authority for our understanding what that perfection is like, then how is God revealed? Is God revealed in Scripture as absolutely immutable (incapable of change of any kind)? Is God revealed as impassible (incapable of changing states of emotion)? Is God revealed as unconditioned, unaffected by anything outside himself? Are we told in Scripture that God’s will and purposes are always undefeated?
Seems to me that Scripture is clear on answering each of the above questions with “No.” In Scripture, God changes his mind, experiences emotions, grieves that his will is resisted and even fails to come to pass, conditions his actions upon the decisions of others who are free to act in ways he does not will, and is affected by others.
What sort of perfection is consistent with such a picture of God as is revealed in Scripture? I conclude that divine perfection, whatever it is, is consistent with temporality, change, changing states of mind and emotion, and the openness to be affected by others. I find these traits conform quite nicely to a notion of perfection that is fundamentally “personal” and “relational.” If God and we are ‘persons in relation’ to one another, that is if “person” is the highest category under which we can conceive of God and his perfections, then change, openness, freedom, etc., are MORE perfect than being immutable, unconditioned, and acting unilaterally.
When we adjust the categories under which we frame our notion of perfection, the notion of perfection changes. One can only know what perfect is when one knows what perfect does. That is, we can only answer ‘What is perfect?’ when we first answer ‘For what?’ A perfect boulder is perhaps unchanging. But a perfect clock? No, a perfect clock must constantly change. A perfect computer is perhaps unfeeling. But a perfect ‘person’? Moreover, a perfect ‘person’ in loving, personal relationship to other ‘persons’? God is a perfect person, not a perfect stone or computer or program. So his perfections are the perfections of personhood.
On the Scripture passages, go here: http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=492 and you’ll find lots of passages to check out. Read the comments on each one and see what ya think.
Blessings,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:40 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 |
|
|