 |
| 
Ochuk
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 102
| Posted 6/12/2004 7:49 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Jeremiah 3
Unfaithful Israel
6 During the reign of King Josiah, the LORD said to me, "Have you seen what faithless Israel has done? She has gone up on every high hill and under every spreading tree and has committed adultery there. 7 I thought that after she had done all this she would return to me but she did not, and her unfaithful sister Judah saw it.
Jeremiah 3
19 "I myself said,
" 'How gladly would I treat you like sons
and give you a desirable land,
the most beautiful inheritance of any nation.'
I thought you would call me 'Father'
and not turn away from following me.
20 But like a woman unfaithful to her husband,
so you have been unfaithful to me, O house of Israel,"
declares the LORD .
Here we have a passage that speaks of God stating he "thought" his people would love him/return to him. In reading Sanders' comments on this passage he said the bible attributes "some mistakes" to God. Doc, on the other hand, is persuaded that this does not imply God was mistaken because God foreknew this “unlikely” possibility. God knew that this possibility was not probable and therefore "believed" that his people would act in a more probable way, i.e. loving/returning to him. However, the question remains, did God hold a false belief in thinking that his people would love/return to him? This implies that God's omniscience of counterfactual knowledge is compromised by this interpretation.
The dilemma I see is either God holds false beliefs or the passages aren't probability statements that support the open view.
Read my blog at ochuk.gizzar.com | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 6/12/2004 5:54 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Ochuk
Here we have a passage that speaks of God stating he "thought" his people would love him/return to him. In reading Sanders' comments on this passage he said the bible attributes "some mistakes" to God. Doc, on the other hand, is persuaded that this does not imply God was mistaken because God foreknew this “unlikely” possibility. God knew that this possibility was not probable and therefore "believed" that his people would act in a more probable way, i.e. loving/returning to him. However, the question remains, did God hold a false belief in thinking that his people would love/return to him? This implies that God's omniscience of counterfactual knowledge is compromised by this interpretation.
The dilemma I see is either God holds false beliefs or the passages aren't probability statements that support the open view.
I think God knew the scant possibility they could whore themselves around to other gods yet was genuinely surprised when they actually did.
As for God holding a "false belief", scripture says this about love, something God is pretty good at doing:
1 Corinthians 13:
4 Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant,
5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered,
6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;
7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
If God hopes His people return and they don't, is that a "false belief"? No, it's love, which hopes for the best, believes the best.
Let's say when you were a kid, you really wanted to hit a game winning home run but were the worse hitter in the league. You get your chance, you go up to bat and strike out. What do you want to hear from your mom and dad?
A. Son, we knew you couldn't do it but we were still pulling for you.
B. Son, we really thought you could do it, we believe the best for you.
Five minutes, number two pencil, no cheating....
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/13/2004 4:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Ochuck: The dilemma I see is either God holds false beliefs or the passages aren't probability statements that support the open view.
Tom: It all depends on your cosmology. Do you believe everything that happens follows determinately from previous circumstances? Or do you believe that identical circumstances may yield more than one possible outcome? If the former, then there’s only one possible course or story-line our world can follow, given the initial state of the world, from start to finish. If the latter, then there are a number of possible courses our world can follow from start to finish.
All events have a probability between 0 and 1 of occurring. In an exhaustively settled, or determined, world, all events that occur have a probability of 1 (=100%) of occurring before they occur and all other (logically) possible events have a probability of 0 that they will occur. So if the former cosmology is correct, then all God’s expectations would be fulfilled, for God would know all that happens occurs with a probability of 1. But if the future is partly open, then there are possible futures that have a probability of greater than 0 but less than 1 that they will occur, and an omniscient God would know this and would “expect” an event with a probability of, say, .87 to occur and would not “expect” an event with a probability of .05 to occur. If an event with a probability of .87 of occurring does not occur, it cannot be said to be a mistake to have “expected” it to occur. If this was Sanders’ view when he wrote his book, he was wrong. I think he’s developed his argument since then.
What seems impossible to account for, assuming the former cosmology is correct and God is omniscient, is God saying he expected/hoped or thought something would occur which does not occur. But this is only a dilemma if you adopt a deterministic view of creation.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/13/2004 6:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Ochuk: Under the Open View creation is "indeterministic" meaning there is for than one possible outcome to every situation. In the bible, however, there are numerous passages that speak of there only being one possible outcome (Jesus dying on the cross). Is it possible for creation to be both indeterministic and deterministic? If it is, what or who decides what is determined and not? Is not a creator of infinite intelligence, in a sense, following a divine blueprint?
Tom: Great questions. Now, in the open view creation is only “partly” indeterministic. It’s also partly determined. I don’t know of any open theist who argues creation is exhaustively indeterministic. So, yes, creation can (we argue) be partly open and partly settled, so long as we don’t claim one and the same event is both open and settled in the same respects. I supposed several things contribute to deciding whether an event is determined or not: divine, angelic, and human will and action, and physical laws).
I should think that a creator of infinite intelligence would have ‘settled goals’ but ‘open routes’ (as Sanders says), that is, a blue print in terms of ultimate goals and objective, but many contingent plans for how, when, where, and via whom those goals come to pass (or not). I can determine that I’ll be in my office at 8 AM, for example. That much can be determined. But I can drive or walk there, or I could go through town or take the by-pass. It’s also possible that the fulfillment of some of God’s goals is itself not determined (like the goal that a particular person would know and love God when that person chooses instead to ultimately reject God) while the fulfillment of others is determined.
What d’ya think?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/13/2004 3:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Laika,
quote:
1 Corinthians 13:
4 Love ... believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
If God hopes His people return and they don't, is that a "false belief"? No, it's love, which hopes for the best, believes the best.
Now you have God having faith, though, or something. I don't think that's Scriptural! So I think some parts of this passage describe people loving, and not God's love...
And the passage in question doesn't mention God hoping Israel would return, if this verse means God thought they would return, then his perception of the character of Israel was mistaken, thus he did have a false belief.
This undoes all the prophecies about individuals and nations, too, I think, if God can be mistaken like this.
EX 3:18 "The elders of Israel will [probably] listen to you."
NU 24:18 Edom will [maybe] be conquered; Seir, his enemy, will [possibly] be conquered, but Israel [I expect] will grow strong.
And much of the promises go by the boards, 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 | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 6/13/2004 4:03 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
Hi Laika,
quote:
You saying God doesn't love?
Not me! I don't think God has faith, though, so I take part of the 1 Cor. 13 passage as referring to us, and not to him...
The subject is listed in the first word of verse 4, "Love". Not "us".
If God loves and 1 Corinthians 13 says "love hopes all things", then God "hopes all things".
Parable of the Talents
14 "For it is just like a man about to go on a journey, who called his own slaves and entrusted his possessions to them.
15 "To one he gave five talents, to another, two, and to another, one, each according to his own ability; and he went on his journey.
16 "Immediately the one who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and gained five more talents.
17 "In the same manner the one who had received the two talents gained two more.
18 "But he who received the one talent went away, and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.
19 "Now after a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them.
20 "The one who had received the five talents came up and brought five more talents, saying, 'Master, you entrusted five talents to me. See, I have gained five more talents.'
21 "His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge (i.e. "entrust") of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'
22 "Also the one who had received the two talents came up and said, 'Master, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more talents.'
23 "His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge (i.e. "entrust") of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'
24 "And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, 'Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed.
25 'And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.'
26 "But his master answered and said to him, 'You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed.
27 'Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest.
28 'Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents.'
29 "For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.
30 "Throw out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
1. Who's the master in this parable? God
2. "Entrust" implies hope, expectation. God hopes, expects, entrusts, as 1 Corinthians says, God hopes all things, believes all things.
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/13/2004 5:17 PM (GMT -6) | | You also have God "hoping" Israel would yeild the fruit of righteousness is Isa. 2.
Lee, it's only a mistaken belief if the probability that Israel would not return (in Jer. 3) was 1 (i.e., 100%). In that case, to think she "would return" would have been mistaken. But if the probability was less than one, say, if it was in fact quite low, and the probability that Israel would return was in fact greater, then God would have been mistaken to NOT think Israel would return. You simply refuse to understand or concede the appropriateness and intelligibilty of unfulfilled expectations in a partly open world. There is nothing mistaken about unfulfilled expectations is this case. Attempts to spin the text to avoid the conclusion that God was mistaken are only necessary if one believes God knew the probability of Israel's not returning was 1.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Rebecca
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2004
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 6/13/2004 5:22 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 6/13/2004 9:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee: And the passage in question doesn't mention God hoping Israel would return, if this verse means God thought they would return, then his perception of the character of Israel was mistaken, thus he did have a false belief.
GB: Only if your assume character deterministically brings forth particular actions. But as TGB and others have lucidly pointed out, if reality, including character, is somewhat "open," then God can perfectly know an individuals and a nations "character" and THEREFORE believe that there's x probability they wil do this, and y probability they will do that... God's "beliefs" perfectly correspond to reality, and in the open view, reality is to some extent probablistic.
Lee: This undoes all the prophecies about individuals and nations, too, I think, if God can be mistaken like this.
EX 3:18 "The elders of Israel will [probably] listen to you."
NU 24:18 Edom will [maybe] be conquered; Seir, his enemy, will [possibly] be conquered, but Israel [I expect] will grow strong.
GB: And yet you DO find God speaking about SOME things in the future as "perhaps," and "maybe."
Ezek 12:3: perhaps they will understand
Ex. 13:17 IF they are attacked they MAY change their mind
Ex. 4. IF they don't believe the first miracle PERHAPS they'll believe the second
etc.. etc...
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PhilTheThrill
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 95
| Posted 6/14/2004 6:11 AM (GMT -6) | | There is another verse in the Bible that hits me hard everytime:
Genesis 6:6: "The Lord regretted that he had made mankind on the earth and he was highly offended."
A straightforward reading seems to say that God did something he later regretted! That floors me! That's a huge huge theological point right there.
My question is this: If God regretted doing something, could it be said he made a mistake? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Rebecca
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2004
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 6/14/2004 7:30 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
quote:
Originally posted by PhilTheThrill
There is another verse in the Bible that hits me hard everytime:
Genesis 6:6: "The Lord regretted that he had made mankind on the earth and he was highly offended."
A straightforward reading seems to say that God did something he later regretted! That floors me! That's a huge huge theological point right there.
My question is this: If God regretted doing something, could it be said he made a mistake?
Or Saul. Ideally, God wanted to be Israel's king. But they wanted an earthly king. So God appointed Saul. Saul failed. Next up was David. God doesn't make mistakes but He does have to readjust how He achieves His goals due to our failings.
But that's the mark of a dynamic, resourceful deity.
Amen. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Ochuk
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 102
| Posted 6/14/2004 10:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Rebecca!
quote:
I should think that a creator of infinite intelligence would have ‘settled goals’ but ‘open routes’ (as Sanders says), that is, a blue print in terms of ultimate goals and objective, but many contingent plans for how, when, where, and via whom those goals come to pass (or not). I can determine that I’ll be in my office at 8 AM, for example. That much can be determined. But I can drive or walk there, or I could go through town or take the by-pass. It’s also possible that the fulfillment of some of God’s goals is itself not determined (like the goal that a particular person would know and love God when that person chooses instead to ultimately reject God) while the fulfillment of others is determined.
What d’ya think?
I think this makes sense on a human level, however, I'm not sure this applies to God. To continue with your office example, I would ask God, "How will Tom get to work tomorrow?" Under the Open View this can be answered in a variety of ways. God would say, "He might take the bus (.10 Prob), he might ride his bike (.20 Prob), or he might drive his car (.70)."
I reply to God, "That doesn't answer my question. Will he either take the bus, ride his bike, or drive his car?"
God: That is determined by him.
Me: Why?
God: Because I determined that it would be determined by him.
Me: Well then, when will you know?
As crude as this dialogue may be, it illustrates theological determinism determining cosmological indeterminism. That may be an easy philosophical conjecture to accept given select biblical data, but it becomes confusing (at least to me) when we observe biblical data stating God has decreed and determined choices and events to come to pass from all eternity. Perhaps it is unfair to ask the question, "How does God decide what to leave open and what to make settled?" However, that mystery doesn't leave me any more content than the Calvinistic view. Here's what I mean:
Timothy George made an argument that said that Open Theism doesn't get God of the hook, so to speak, of the problem of evil. If God has infallible knowledge of the past and present, and if he has the power to intervene in the course of hisory, then why doesn’t he deliver us as as soon things start to fall apart? Perhaps he didn't have exhaustive information about the event on September 11th. Yet as things started to unfold, as the planes flew towards, the towers, why didn't he stop it? Did he "allow" it to go on just to preserve the terrorist's free will? It would seem to be that God has just as much to account for as the classical deity. George says, "Open theism grants God too much power to get Him off the theodicy hook, but not enough power to support a plausible doctrine of providence."
The reason I bring all this up is because I could never figure this out when I was an open theist. Like when my uncle was murdered I asked, "Did God have this event settled in his mind, or was this an unsettled possibility?" "Why didn't God stop this?"
Read my blog at ochuk.gizzar.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/14/2004 11:11 AM (GMT -6) | | The following is an excerpt of Finney from the "Oberlin Evangelist" magazine, 1840. In this, Finney draws the distinction of what God can and cannot do wisely. (Though Finney believed in the "Eternal Now" view of omniscience, he very emphatically believed in (libertarian) free will, and as such, his views on this particular subject seem pertinent to the discussion of theodicy).
(Begin Quote)
God's government implies in man the power to will, or not to will;--to will right, or to will wrong;--to choose or to refuse the great good which Jehovah promises. It also implies intelligence. The beings to whom law is addressed are capable of understanding it. They have also, as I have said, a conscience, by which they can appreciate and must affirm its obligations.
You need to distinguish broadly between the influence of motive on mind and of mechanical force upon matter. The former implies voluntariness; the latter does not. The former is adapted to mind and has no adaptation to matter; the latter equally is adapted to matter but has no possible application to mind. In God's government over the human mind, all is voluntary; nothing is coerced as by physical force. Indeed it is impossible that physical force should directly influence mind. Compulsion is precluded by the very nature of moral agency. Where compulsion begins, moral agency ends. If it were possible for God to force the will as he forces the moon along in her orbit, to do so would subvert the very idea of a moral government. Neither praise nor blame could attach to any actions of beings, so moved. Persuasion, brought to bear upon mind, is always such in its nature that it can be resisted. By the very nature of the case, God's creatures must have power to resist any amount of even his persuasion. There can be no power in heaven or earth to coerce the will, as matter is coerced. The nature of mind forbids its possibility. And if it were possible, it would still be true that in just so far as God should coerce the human will, He would cease to govern morally.
God is infinitely wise. Men can no more doubt this than they can doubt their own existence. He has infinite knowledge. He knows everything--i.e. all objects of knowledge; and knows them all perfectly. He is also infinitely good, his will being always conformed to his perfect knowledge and always controlled by infinite benevolence.
His infinite goodness implies that He does the best He can, always, and every where. In no instance does He ever fail to do the very best He can do, so that He can appeal to every creature and say--What more can I do to prevent sin than I am doing! Indeed, He does so appeal to every intelligent mind. He made this appeal through Isaiah to the ancient Jews--"And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?"
Every moral agent in the universe knows that God has done the best he could do in regard to sin. Do not you know this, each one of you? Certainly you do. He himself, in all his infinite wisdom could not suggest a better course than that which He has taken. Men know this truth so well, they never can know it better. You may at some future day realize it more fully when you shall come to see its millions of illustrations drawn out before your eyes; but no demonstration can make its proof more perfect than it is to your own minds today.
Now sin does in fact exist under God's government. For this sin, God either is or is not to blame. Every man knows that God is not to blame for this sin, for man's own nature affirms that He would prevent it if He wisely could. Certainly if He was able wisely to prevent sin in any case where it actually occurs, then not to do so nullifies all our conceptions of his goodness and wisdom. He would be the greatest sinner in the universe if, with power and wisdom adequate to the prevention of sin, He had failed to prevent it.
Let me here note also that what God can not do wisely, he cannot, (speaking morally,) do at all. For He cannot act unwisely. He cannot do things which wisdom forbids. To do so would be to undeify himself. The supposition would make him cease to be perfect, and this were equivalent to ceasing to be God.
Or thus; if He were to interpose unwisely to prevent a sinner from sinning, He would sin himself. I speak now of each instance in which God does not in fact interpose to prevent sin. In any of these cases, if He were to interpose unwisely to prevent sin, He would prevent a man from sinning at the expense of sinning himself. Here then is the case. A sinner is about to fall before temptation, or in more correct language, is about to rush into some new sin. God cannot wisely prevent his doing so. Now what shall be done? Shall He let that sinner rush on to his chosen sin and self-wrought ruin; or shall He step forward unwisely, sin himself, and incur all the frightful consequences of such a step? He lets the sinner bear his own responsibility. Why should not He? Who would wish to have God sin?
http://www.gospeltruth.net/1854OE/540802_where_sin_occurs.htm
"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 | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/14/2004 3:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
Laika: The subject is listed in the first word of verse 4, "Love". Not "us".
If God loves and 1 Corinthians 13 says "love hopes all things", then God "hopes all things".
Parable of the Talents
27 'Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest.
1. Who's the master in this parable? God
2. "Entrust" implies hope, expectation. God hopes, expects, entrusts, as 1 Corinthians says, God hopes all things, believes all things.
But you have to proceed a little more cautiously. Otherwise you will have "God comes from God" in 1 Jn. 4:7. And Jesus is predicting the outcome in the parable, I think! So he's not hoping, here...
quote:
Tom: You also have God "hoping" Israel would yield the fruit of righteousness is Isa. 2.
I don't think God is asking for advice on gardening, though! He doesn't wait for their opinion, either, and says what more he is going to do. I think the point being made here is that good fruit in people comes through suffering, and not from unvarying pleasant circumstances:
JN 12:24 But if it dies, it produces many seeds.
quote:
Greg Boyd: God can perfectly know an individuals and a nations "character" and THEREFORE believe that there's x probability they will do this, and y probability they will do that...
Thanks for your reply, Dr. Boyd, I agree that this is a debatable point, I would only mention that we speak in such instances as if we made a real mistake, we don't talk as if we had just had a spell of bad luck: "I guess I was wrong about Fred," we say.
quote:
you DO find God speaking about SOME things in the future as "perhaps," and "maybe."
Ezek 12:3: perhaps they will understand
Yes, but I think God is speaking from Ezekiel and Moses' perspectives in these instances, as Jesus did in questioning Andrew (Jn. 6:6). If these passages, and the one under discussion really mean God estimates when he predicts, then that wipes out lots of prophecies and promises:
ZEC 13:9 I will [maybe] refine them like silver and test them like gold. They will [possibly] call on my name...
ISA 49:23 "I am the Lord; those who hope in me will [I expect] not be disappointed."
quote:
Phil: Genesis 6:6: "The Lord regretted that he had made mankind on the earth and he was highly offended."
My question is this: If God regretted doing something, could it be said he made a mistake?
I think this is grief here, and not regret, r.e. the NIV:
GE 6:6 The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.
quote:
Laika: Or Saul. Ideally, God wanted to be Israel's king. But they wanted an earthly king. So God appointed Saul. Saul failed. Next up was David. God doesn't make mistakes but He does have to readjust...
I don't see how you can insist that God doesn't make mistakes, if Saul didn't turn out as expected, though. Again, we use language that indicates we were really mistaken, in such instances, "I wouldn't have thought that of Sally."
quote:
Ochuk: Yet as things started to unfold, as the planes flew towards, the towers, why didn't he stop it? Did he "allow" it to go on just to preserve the terrorist's free will? It would seem to be that God has just as much to account for as the classical deity.
I agree, and I think God setting up the world the way he did (however you may hold that he set it up), implies responsibility for possible outcomes. I think the human analogies of parents giving responsibility to children are not the same, since parents don't create the whole world for their children.
I'll have to read some more tomorrow, I think, it's getting later and later, for some reason, and I have to get up early...
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 | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/14/2004 4:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Ochuk: Timothy George made an argument that said that Open Theism doesn't get God of the hook, so to speak, of the problem of evil. If God has infallible knowledge of the past and present, and if he has the power to intervene in the course of history, then why doesn’t he deliver us as soon things start to fall apart?
Tom: If the open view really doesn’t do any better than other views in dealing with the problem of evil, it doesn’t do any worse either. So in terms of score, at the very worst we’re even. I’d say though, that George assumes God exercises power ‘unconditionally’, for only then would one wonder why a God who has the ‘power’ to intervene does ‘not’ intervene. But if the exercise of God’s power is conditioned upon at least some factors outside himself, then even if we don’t always know how those factors combine in any one situation, we can always know that in the case of any specific evil God did what God could do—given the sort of world he created in the first place, and his character, love, and goodness, as well as the freedom of others all interfacing—to prevent and/or minimize evil. In my view that’s something and it’s more than the determinism or simple foreknowledge advocates can say. It’s doesn’t give me perfect knowledge of all the factors involved that determined why a particular evil was or was not prevented, but I don’t need that. If the mystery lies outside God’s character, then I can trust that character. Exhaustive explanations aren’t required then.
Lee:I don't see how you can insist that God doesn't make mistakes, if Saul didn't turn out as expected, though. Again, we use language that indicates we were really mistaken, in such instances, "I wouldn't have thought that of Sally."
Tom: It’s easy to insist God doesn’t make mistakes. You would see how this is possible, perhaps, if you would think about how we often do NOT consider our expectations to be mistaken when things turn out unexpectedly. Sometimes we do consider these expectations mistaken, i.e., when we discover that the probabilities were in fact different than we had thought. But God doesn’t miscalculate the probabilities. So his expectations are always on the mark, and so never mistaken when the improbable occurs.
“I wouldn’t have thought that of Sally” seems to me to be an admission of a less than complete knowledge of Sally’s character. Sure. But this is not the ONLY sort of unfulfilled expectations we humans know, nor is it how God’s unfulfilled expectations are to be interpreted.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 6/15/2004 2:32 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
quote:
Laika: The subject is listed in the first word of verse 4, "Love". Not "us".
If God loves and 1 Corinthians 13 says "love hopes all things", then God "hopes all things".
Parable of the Talents
27 'Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest.
1. Who's the master in this parable? God
2. "Entrust" implies hope, expectation. God hopes, expects, entrusts, as 1 Corinthians says, God hopes all things, believes all things.
And Jesus is predicting the outcome in the parable, I think! So he's not hoping, here...
Jesus is telling a parable and He's predicting the outcome of the parable??? 
The master in the story is doing the hoping, the entrusting.
This is a parable about the kingdom of God so the master in the story represents God. God is doing the hoping, the entrusting of talents.
Lee, I'm curious, what's your native language?
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 6/15/2004 2:38 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Ochuk: Timothy George made an argument that said that Open Theism doesn't get God of the hook, so to speak, of the problem of evil. If God has infallible knowledge of the past and present, and if he has the power to intervene in the course of history, then why doesn’t he deliver us as soon things start to fall apart?
Timothy George seems to assume God has no adversary in this world.
Daniel 10:12 Then he [angel] said to me, "Do not be afraid, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart on understanding this and on humbling yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to your words.
13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia."
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
PhilTheThrill
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 95
| Posted 6/15/2004 6:10 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
quote:
Phil: Genesis 6:6: "The Lord regretted that he had made mankind on the earth and he was highly offended."
My question is this: If God regretted doing something, could it be said he made a mistake?
I think this is grief here, and not regret, r.e. the NIV:
GE 6:6 The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.
My translation is the NET translation, in case you are curious. :)
The word for grieved/regretted is "naham" which can mean to experience emotional pain, regret, relent from, or retract. The words at the end of the verse for "was offended" or "his heart was filled with pain" is "asab". This can mean to be injured, to be depressed emotionally, to be insulted, or to be embarrassed.
Any way you want to read it, God is upset over something he did. In fact, he seems to have insulted himself or injured himself emotionally. It's just not something you usually would picture God doing.
I dont know if I would classify it as a mistake per se, but it's interesting to think about. | | Back to Top | | |
| 131 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:56 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 |
|
|