Open Theism Discussion Board
  HomeLog InRegisterSearch the ForumHelp
   
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > (No Subject)
 
Forum Quick Jump
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Surrender
Registered Member


Date Joined Feb 2010
Total Posts : 41
 
   Posted 6/1/2010 2:07 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Hey Guys!
 
I haven't posted for some time, but I am currently in a discussion on another board and need some help.  This is the poster's argument:
 
Sometimes God talks as if He doesn't know, but He knows. There is a theological term for this that I can't remember, and I came across such examples a few times while reading my Bible. I didn't buy it before because I've never come across any concrete examples but now I have.

I can't remember all the examples offhand, but one I did remember was on the road to Emmaus.

Luk 24:13 That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem,
Luk 24:14 and they were talking with each other about all these things that had happened.
Luk 24:15 While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them.
Luk 24:16 But their eyes were kept from recognizing him.
Luk 24:17 And he said to them, "What is this conversation that you are holding with each other as you walk?" And they stood still, looking sad.
Luk 24:18 Then one of them, named Cleopas, answered him, "Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?"
Luk 24:19 And he said to them, "What things?" And they said to him, "Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, a man who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people,
Luk 24:20 and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him.

See, Jesus talked to them as if he didn't know what they're talking about. We know that's impossible because many times, Jesus knew what was in people's hearts even when they don't say anything. (Simon the Pharisee, the Pharisees in general, Nicodemus, etc.) During the last supper, the disciples were secretly discussing what Jesus had just said, and he knew what they were whispering about and Peter knew there was no hiding anything from the Lord. In fact Peter confessed when the Lord asked him 3 times that "You know all things."

Yet Jesus can ask these 2 disciples on the road such questions like "what is this conversation that you're holding with each other?" (As if He didn't know)

And "What things?" (again, as if He didn't know).

This convinces me that God does talk to us like this. It isn't that he doesn't know, but he talks down to our level I guess, so we can understand Him.
Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 6/1/2010 6:11 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Surrender: This convinces me that God does talk to us like this. It isn't that he doesn't know, but he talks down to our level I guess, so we can understand Him.
 
Jeff: Yes, humans do this with each other as well. It doesn't imply that we actually know everything, though. So I don't see how it has any relevance as to whether open theism is true.


 

Back to Top
 

Surrender
Registered Member


Date Joined Feb 2010
Total Posts : 41
 
   Posted 6/1/2010 1:44 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Hi there. Well, the argument is that since God can "pretend" when He really does know (like the examples above), then all the other times I've given support of OV (Gen. 2:19; Gen. 22:12; Ex. 13:17; Ex. 16:4, etc.) to show He tests people to "find out" or threatens only to change His mind later in response to prayer are now said to be simply times He was "pretending" not to know. He was just pretending not to know so He could put Abraham to a test. Just like on the road to Emmaus -- He pretended for a purpose. He was just pretending not to know He would relent in response to a prayer by Moses. He was just pretending not to know what Adam would call the animals so He could have an interaction with him. The argument is that since we can see He is capable of pretending (for whatever His purposes may be), the passages that look like He doesn’t know are simply times He was pretending. The argument is that I can’t use these passages as “proof” that God does not know when there is no way for me to tell when He is pretending and when He is not.
Back to Top
 

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 6/1/2010 3:34 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Surrender: Sometimes God talks as if He doesn't know, but He knows. There is a theological term for this that I can't remember, and I came across such examples a few times while reading my Bible. I didn't buy it before because I've never come across any concrete examples but now I have.

Tom: Like rhetorical questions? In Genesis God asks Adam, "Where are you?" and "Have you eaten of the tree I commanded you not to?" God knows the answer, so the question isn't about God's gaining information he doesn't have. The option is that God's seeking a CONFESSION we haven't yet made.

Surrender: I can't remember all the examples offhand, but one I did remember was on the road to Emmaus.... Jesus talked to them as if he didn't know what they're talking about. We know that's impossible because many times, Jesus knew what was in people's hearts even when they don't say anything. (Simon the Pharisee, the Pharisees in general, Nicodemus, etc.) During the last supper, the disciples were secretly discussing what Jesus had just said, and he knew what they were whispering about and Peter knew there was no hiding anything from the Lord. In fact Peter confessed when the Lord asked him 3 times that "You know all things." And "What things?" (again, as if He didn't know).

Tom: Right. I assume Jesus knew what they were taking about. But even assuming that, the question still makes sense. He wants to get THEM to share and open up. We do this with our own children and friends.

Surrender: This convinces me that God does talk to us like this. It isn't that he doesn't know, but he talks down to our level I guess, so we can understand Him.

Tom: Not so we can understand him, but so that we can discover something by means of a conversation. He's not coming DOWN to our level as much as he is engaging us laterally, the way we also engage others many times.

So I'd agree with Jeff, Christ's engaging us this way doesn't entail the fact that he knows which future free choices we'll make. One way to demonstrate the difference is to go ahead and suppose that God knows and then see if any problems are created. I submit to you that God's knowing past and present (current) facts poses no problem for rhetorical questioning, but God's knowing our future free choices does create insuperable problems.

Surrender: The argument is that since God can "pretend" when He really does know (like the examples above), then all the other times I've given support of OV (Gen. 2:19; Gen. 22:12; Ex. 13:17; Ex. 16:4, etc.) to show He tests people to "find out" or threatens only to change His mind later in response to prayer are now said to be simply times He was "pretending" not to know.

Tom: It’s all in your opponent’s use of “are now said to be simply.” There’s a huge assumption in those words that’s getting sneaked in. Like Jeff said, it doesn’t follow that since God sometimes uses rhetorical questions when he really does not the answer that God is always doing this. You still have argue the case. Rhetorical questions are pretty easy to note (Where are you? Have you eaten of the tree? What are you talking about? What events?) These can all be squared very easily with the companion belief that the one asking the question already knows the answer. But this is entirely different that supposing God knows all our future choices.

Surrender: The argument is that since we can see He is capable of pretending (for whatever His purposes may be), the passages that look like He doesn’t know are simply times He was pretending. The argument is that I can’t use these passages as “proof” that God does not know when there is no way for me to tell when He is pretending and when He is not.

Tom: That’s not entirely correct. There ARE obvious differences between rhetorical questions and the other passages you’re using as evidence of open theism. No problems are created by rhetorical questions; that is, we can SEE the point behind the question and why God’s knowing the answer isn’t problematic for freedom and genuine relationality. But the same is not true if you just assume across the board that all open view passages are rhetorical in this sense.

Besides, sometimes there just is no way to suppose the divine nescience is rhetorical for some other purpose. Sometimes God’s really not knowing something is what’s needed to secure the text’s point. Ex. 13.17 is a good example. How would you interpret this rhetorically since the writer is commenting on God’s own thought processes and motivations at the time? How would God “pretend” to himself?

Tom


KIXYTΘEMTA

Back to Top
 

Surrender
Registered Member


Date Joined Feb 2010
Total Posts : 41
 
   Posted 6/1/2010 3:50 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Thanks for some really great points, Tom. I will offer these points to the poster and see if it makes a difference. I wish he could remember the other examples where God seems to be pretending not to know something. Do you know what theological term he is referring to that describes the times when God talks as if He doesn’t know something when He really does?
Back to Top
 

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 6/1/2010 4:03 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Not sure on the term. You have anthropomorphism, which is ascribing to God some human physical feature (eyes, hands, arms, backside, etc.) or God's having things like a throne, or even God's being a 'rock' or covering us with his 'wings'. Then you have anthropopathisms which are ascribing to God human emotions. Everybody agrees God isn't a rock, doesn't have wings or a throne, hands and feet, so it's easy to see how the anthropomorphisms are a literary device (though still 'reality depicting'). There's debate about how to understand God's 'loving' (or experiencing joy, sorrow, anger, etc.). If these are used to describe something "analogous" to our experience of love, joy, etc., then the trick is to say just HOW that's the case.

I don't know of any theological term that zeros in on JUST God's pretending not to know what he does not. "Rhetorical question" is the closest thing I can think of.

Tom


KIXYTΘEMTA

Back to Top
 

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 6/1/2010 4:07 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
The important thing is that it just does NOT follow if God ever asks a rhetorical question, or otherwise pretends not to know what he does know, that God therefore must know our future free choices. That's just lame thinking. Nor does it follow that since there are texts where God obviously knows what he's pretending not to know that ALL texts that describe God as not knowing something are of this sort. It's perfectly possible that a God who truly faces an open future also be the sort of God who sometimes asks us rhetorical questions.

Tom


KIXYTΘEMTA

Post Edited (Tom) : 6/2/2010 6:23:07 AM (GMT-5)

Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 6/1/2010 7:54 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
"Lame" is right, Tom. The bottom line is, there are good philosophical reasons for thinking open theism is true. Those are not trumped by obvious over-generalizations of an exegetical nature.


 

Back to Top
 

Surrender
Registered Member


Date Joined Feb 2010
Total Posts : 41
 
   Posted 6/5/2010 12:03 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
He replied to my post with this...

I came across the term again while reading Ryrie. It's called Anthropomorphism.

This link talks a little about it. Basically God is transcendent and some of his attributes can be described in human words but others cannot so for us to understand in human terms, God describes it to us in terms we can understand.

For e.g. God is Spirit and he doesn't really have arms, hands, wings, etc. as some passages of Scripture describe.

http://christianity.wikia.com/wiki/Anthropomorphis
Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 6/5/2010 1:56 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Right. But the philosophical argument for open theism is what renders the particular scriptural arguments for it PLAUSIBLE. These guys are deducing an exegetical conclusion from their own philosophy. It's their PHILOSOPHY that I have trouble with. There's no getting around this. When metaphysics, etc. drives mutually exclusive exegetical results, we have to debate the metaphysics to strive for consensus. And that will usually be a long hard road. :-)


 

Back to Top
 

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 6/5/2010 5:07 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Surrender,

Your debate partner is confused about several things. No open theist thinks God's "eyes" or "arm" describes physical/anatomical eyes or limbs. But the words are "truth depicting." That is, they're metaphors (because not obviously literal in the physical sense) that describe SOMETHING true about God. So as he says, we should ask just what it is about God we're to understand in human terms about God when God describes himself in these terms? I think it's obvious enough: God "perceives" or "knows" (his eyes) all truths, and God "acts" mightily in the world (his arm). So the question is, when the Bible describes God as not knowing something, or as knowing an open future (and all the other "open" stuff), just what does your friend suppose we are to understand about God if it's also true that we know God does NOT face an open future? What's God condescending in such language to reveal about himself?

Tom


KIXYTΘEMTA

Back to Top
 

Surrender
Registered Member


Date Joined Feb 2010
Total Posts : 41
 
   Posted 6/5/2010 7:20 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I get what you mean, but I'm not sure our friend is ready to go there. I'll give it another try and see.
Thank you for your help. :-)
Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 6/6/2010 8:49 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Tom: So the question is, when the Bible describes God as not knowing something, or as knowing an open future (and all the other "open" stuff), just what does your friend suppose we are to understand about God if it's also true that we know God does NOT face an open future? What's God condescending in such language to reveal about himself?
 
Jeff: My bet is they're gonna go right back to their first approach, saying that God is just pretending to be ignorant. To me, that is implausible. To ask a question we know the answer to is something that humans do. So we have analogy for that mode of discourse. So we need to focus on the indicative statements, etc., rather than the questions. I wish my memory was better, but I'm betting there are enough of those to make a case. But it's hard to move to open theism over one good argument. There are emotions tied up with changing your view of God's attributes. There was with me, but I couldn't shake the logic that compelled it. And trusting logic involves an attribute of God as well!


 

Back to Top
 

Surrender
Registered Member


Date Joined Feb 2010
Total Posts : 41
 
   Posted 6/6/2010 4:33 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
OK guys, I'm posting to you what I plan to write to our friend. Just remember, I'm not "intellectual" and the OV is something that is not solid in my head. Please let me know if you would add something to what I plan to say to him. Oh, and most of the time, you guys talk over my head. I'm sure our friend will need it in layman's terms as much as possible too. Thanks for your help!


My reply:
I don’t quite see how God’s supposed “pretending” that He doesn’t know something when He really does know, falls into this category of anthropomorphisms. To say that God had to literally “stretch out His hand” to strike the Egyptians (which is an anthropomorphism) seems quite different than saying God literally “grieved” that He had made man and His heart was filled with pain (Gen. 6:6). According to Paul, we can literally grieve the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:30).

To say that God has literal wings and that our souls take refuge in the shadow of those wings (which is an anthropomorphism) seems quite different than saying that God literally “changed His mind” about the harm which He said He would do to His people (like in Ex. 32:14). According to Jeremiah, He can change His mind in a moment (Jer. 18:7).

Does God not have a mind that He can change? Does God respond to our free will choices (to believe or not to believe) and prayers or does He not respond to these choices and prayers? Are His responses, His change of mind, His emotions (grief & joy) simply anthropomorphisms?

I don’t necessarily think God literally had to stretch out His arm to strike the Egyptians, but if we consider that Jesus is God, can we say God has a hand He can stretch out if He wants to? God is Spirit, but God is also Jesus.

OK guys—what am I missing here? Is my argument illogical?

Thanks again for any help!
Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 6/6/2010 5:06 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Looks good to me, Surrender. In particular, "Are His responses, His change of mind, His emotions (grief & joy) simply anthropomorphisms?" is to the point.


 

Back to Top
 

Surrender
Registered Member


Date Joined Feb 2010
Total Posts : 41
 
   Posted 6/6/2010 5:16 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Thanks for your input Similtude. Our friend definitely leans pro-freewill (although he's currently trying to solidify his understanding of corporate election, because he sees Scripture that seems to speak individual predestination), so maybe this will get him to think a bit.
Back to Top
 

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 6/6/2010 10:02 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Go for it.

T


KIXYTΘEMTA

Back to Top
 

Surrender
Registered Member


Date Joined Feb 2010
Total Posts : 41
 
   Posted 6/6/2010 10:32 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Thanks for keepin' it in layman's terms, Tom. LOL!
Back to Top
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
   
Forum Information
Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:32 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