 |
| 
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/15/2003 4:06 PM (GMT -6) |   | An very important aspect of the Open View is that God in some cases does act unilaterally in history to accomplish his purposes. (The determinist POV is that this is what God does ALWAYS). In other words, the OV, uniquely among theological perspectives, can affirm both significant human freedom as well as divine control, without sacrificing or opposing either. According to the OV, when God deems necessary, God can of course act unilaterally to accomplish his purposes. And this would not even be arbitrary, for arbitrariness implies "random" or without purpose.
Applying this understanding to the Antiochus Epiphanes thing:
First, nowhere in Daniel is Antiochus referred to by name.
Second, for God, who knows the intents and the hearts of all people with absolute precision, to predict such a thing would neither be impossible nor the least bit improbable.
Also, as I have said before repeatedly in this thread, not everything that ever happened in history is revealed in Daniel and Revelation, only some things are revealed. In the OV, these things are that part of the future which is in fact determined by God.
Edited by - John Earp on 07/15/2003 9:43:51 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 7/15/2003 4:20 PM (GMT -6) | |
John:
quote:
Applying this understanding to the Antiochus Epiphanes thing:
First, nowhere in Daniel is Antiochus referred to by name.
The thing is, it doesn't matter if He referes to Atiochus or Hitler or anyone. My first point is you claim predictive prophecy is God saying "This is what I'm going to do!."
quote:
Second, for God, who knows the intents and the hearts of all people with absolute precision, to predict such a thing would neither be impossible nor the least bit improbable.
My second point being, this was predicted hundreds of years before fulfillment. Hundreds of years and millions of overriden free choices (human and angelic) later! God may know the future as probabilities as OV suggests, but accuracy that distant requires massive intervention.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/15/2003 4:26 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
John:
[quote] Applying this understanding to the Antiochus Epiphanes thing:
First, nowhere in Daniel is Antiochus referred to by name.
The thing is, it doesn't matter if He referes to Atiochus or Hitler or anyone. My first point is you claim predictive prophecy is God saying "This is what I'm going to do!."
John responds:
Yes, I have never denied that, but have in fact always affirmed it. You seem to have a very limited view of God's ability, intelligence, and powers of persuasion if you think "massive intervention" would present a real difficulty for Him who formed the worlds by speaking.
"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 | | |
|
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 7/15/2003 4:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Well John, pick your poison. Did God willfully cause Antiochus's decimation of the Jews or did He limit the supposed open future to one outcome?
Edited by - anewbeginning on 07/15/2003 9:39:16 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/15/2003 4:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Can anyone else see my frustration? Earp, you say "You seem to have a very limited view of God's ability, intelligence, and powers of persuasion if you think "massive intervention" would present a real difficulty for Him who formed the worlds by speaking."
Boy oh boy, if this doesn't sound traditional (if not Calvinist, at least Arminian...) I say the same. You seem to have a very limited view of God's ability, intelligent,ce and powers of persuasion if you think God making events correspond with his will presents a real difficulty for Him who formed the worlds by speaking.
It seems now, after months of being on this board, that I find the majority of OVers saying that they agree with Calvinism to some extent, i.e., God can and does determine some events. What I find so incredulous then is where's the leap from that to ALL events? If it's so easy for God to do it sometimes, why can't he do it all the time? If you're so repulsed by God doing it all the time, why aren't you repulsed by him doing it some of the time?
After all, perhaps you think your own will is separate from God's, and therefore you're ok, you're self-determined, you don't have to worry. What about Judas? You seem to concede that God intervened there - and overrode Judas' will. So poor Judas then was one of the unlucky ones who God happened to not respect his free will.
I just don't get this. A more convoluted theology may be out there, but I'm not aware of it.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/15/2003 4:58 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Can anyone else see my frustration?
Yes, your frustration is palpable, Gina.  This probably stems from an unmet need you have for everyone else to agree with you theologically. 
RD
Earp, you say "You seem to have a very limited view of God's ability, intelligence, and powers of persuasion if you think "massive intervention" would present a real difficulty for Him who formed the worlds by speaking."
Boy oh boy, if this doesn't sound traditional (if not Calvinist, at least Arminian...) I say the same. You seem to have a very limited view of God's ability, intelligent,ce and powers of persuasion if you think God making events correspond with his will presents a real difficulty for Him who formed the worlds by speaking.
John
The difference is that with your view, God unilaterally determines ALL things.
RD
It seems now, after months of being on this board, that I find the majority of OVers saying that they agree with Calvinism to some extent, i.e., God can and does determine some events.
John
Yes, that would be correct. The OV, unlike any other position I am aware of affirms both themes of Scripture (God's sovereignty and man's responsibility), and does so coherently. The OV simply denies the Calvinistic assertion that all things that happen are God's will.
RD
What I find so incredulous then is where's the leap from that to ALL events? If it's so easy for God to do it sometimes, why can't he do it all the time? If you're so repulsed by God doing it all the time, why aren't you repulsed by him doing it some of the time?
John
The reason I personally find the Calvinist view morally repulsive is that it presents the following as undeniable to its system:
1. God commands man to avoid that which is impossible to avoid (sin), on pain of eternal death.
2. What's more, as everything is God's will, it follows that God wills that all sin, while at the same time forbidding they do so. God then damns them all to hell for doing that which God forced them to do.
3. God, before time ever began decided to make the vast majority of mankind for no other ultimate purpose than to deep-fry them in hell for eternity (including "non-elect" babies).
4. All of the above somehow reveals God's "glory."
5. And this God is presented in his word to man, the Scriptures, as absolutely righteous, holy, GOOD, and LOVING.
RD
After all, perhaps you think your own will is separate from God's, and therefore you're ok, you're self-determined, you don't have to worry. What about Judas? You seem to concede that God intervened there - and overrode Judas' will. So poor Judas then was one of the unlucky ones who God happened to not respect his free will.
John
As to Judas, it has been pointed out by OVers before that:
1. Judas' character was at this point solidified against God (and Jesus).
2. Therefore, his choice was basically equivalent to that of a heroin addict taking one more shot.
3. Judas' free will was real to the extent that his character was not solidified (or, IOW, his heart was not fully hardened).
RD
I just don't get this. A more convoluted theology may be out there, but I'm not aware of it.
John
Except Calvinism, a more convoluted, God-dishonoring, tyrannical presentation of God is only presented in Islam.
"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
Edited by - John Earp on 07/15/2003 10:26:41 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 7/15/2003 5:02 PM (GMT -6) | | There's a third possibility. God is demonstrating his forknowledge of human history including freely chosen actions and intent.
RD, I understand your frustration, in OV God binds Himself to certain rules of conduct in interaction with creation, but once in a while He says "Psych!" and unbinds Himself. It seems more than a little inconsistent. Determinism isn't your only option though.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/15/2003 5:06 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Well John, pick your poison. Did God willfully cause Antiochus's decimation of the Jews or did He limit the supposed open future to one outcome?
There are more options that you allow in your above question. I would say God knew full well, human nature being quite predictable as it is, that a tyrant such as Antiochus would in fact, given the proper political circumstances, inflict much evil upon the Jews. (This seems not unlike Jesus saying that "all men shall hate you for my name's sake." Apparently not universally true).
We do find God often in the OT uses calamity to inflict punishment on Israel for her disobedience. In such cases, the calamity inflicted was only after MUCH pleading through the prophets to steer Israel back on a righteous course, and only after God saw that repentance on Israel's part was not going to happen. (See also God's promise to Abraham in Gen. 15 concerning the Promised Land - "The sin of the Amorites is not yet full.") As we see graphically displayed in Revelation, there is a time when God says, "ENOUGH!" and metes out temporal judgment on sin. At times he even uses evil human rulers to chastise Israel. I think it is at least possible that this is what happened to America on 911.
Unless we are willing to charge God with sin, we should not say that God causes moral evil.
"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
Edited by - John Earp on 07/15/2003 10:07:35 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/15/2003 5:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey - yes, I understand that. The main thing that bugs me about the OV is that they seem to argue that it is a metaphysical impossibility, even for God, to exhaustively know the future- since the future has not yet occurred and we are all free creatures, etc etc. Aside from all the assumptions just there - well, if it is in fact a metaphysical impossibility, then how is it metaphysically possible in SOME instances that he CAN know the future?
Previously on this Board I tried to argue that at the very least, God can exhaustively know his own future, ie, what he is going to do. OV'ers don't seem to have a problem with that. But what exactly is it that God chooses to do? Doesn't he choose to raise up Pharoah, to love Jacob and hate Esau, to have mercy on whom he chooses, to choose Abraham out of many, and the list goes on. So in fact, his choices about what he will do in the future almost necessarily involve imposition of his will on other people. This is really clear in the OT battles where God blatantly tells Israel how they are going to win battles ahead of time, even when the odds are quite against them.
There's some verse (which of course I can't recall) about how you (mankind) meant an action for evil, and yet God meant it for good. In other words, the same action that was intended by a person to be bad, God used that action, and accomplished his will and intent, to bring about good. I think it was Paul who said that (could be wrong...) But how could any man say that, if it was the case that actually God only knew the action as a possibility, and then after the fact "declared" that he was going to use that action for good?
This is all very confusing. | | Back to Top | | |
|
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 7/15/2003 5:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Johnny:
quote:
We do find God often in the OT uses calamity to inflict punishment on Israel for her disobedience. In such cases, the calamity inflicted was only after MUCH pleading through the prophets to steer Israel back on a righteous course, and only after God saw that repentance on Israel's part was not going to happen.
Ahh, but my question doesn't involve the culpability of the Jews, only HOW God causes fulfillment of prophecy.
quote:
I would say God knew full well, human nature being quite predictable as it is, that a tyrant such as Antiochus would in fact, given the proper political circumstances, inflict much evil upon the Jews.
Daniel is a very interesting book. He was perhaps the most specific of God's prophets for he was given not just themes but actuall events, including timing. So, the question isn't one of God just "knowing" Israel would fall away "someday" and need chastisemnet. It's how did God know Israel's future to such detail, down to dates, so far in advance?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/15/2003 5:47 PM (GMT -6) | | I do not go by "Johnny."
As to the specific events prophesied in Daniel, I have answered this question already. Not the answer you want, but I have nevertheless answered it. Those things which are specifically predicted in Daniel and Revelation are that part of the future which is in fact settled, while those things that are not specifically predicted in Daniel are that part of the future which are, barring other prophetic Scriptures to the contrary, in fact open.
"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 7/15/2003 8:19 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Hey - yes, I understand that. The main thing that bugs me about the OV is that they seem to argue that it is a metaphysical impossibility, even for God, to exhaustively know the future- since the future has not yet occurred and we are all free creatures, etc etc. Aside from all the assumptions just there - well, if it is in fact a metaphysical impossibility, then how is it metaphysically possible in SOME instances that he CAN know the future?
I think the emphasis in Open Theism is not so much that it is impossible for God to know than it is that the Bible does not reveal God in this way.
quote:
Previously on this Board I tried to argue that at the very least, God can exhaustively know his own future, ie, what he is going to do. OV'ers don't seem to have a problem with that. But what exactly is it that God chooses to do? Doesn't he choose to raise up Pharoah, to love Jacob and hate Esau,
First, the oft-cited, "Jacob I have loved, and Esau I have hated," refers in its original context to the state of the respective nations which proceeded from these men. Adam Clarke, noted Methodist commentator, has this to say:
For the children being not yet born—As the word children is not in the text, the word nations would be more proper; for it is of nations that the apostle speaks, as the following verses show, as well as the history to which he refers.
Neither having done any good—To merit the distinction of being made the peculiar people of God; nor evil, to deserve to be left out of this covenant, and the distinguishing national blessings which it conferred; that the purpose of God according to election might stand—that such distinctions might appear to depend on nothing but God’s free choice, not of works, or any desert in the people or nations thus chosen; but of the mere purpose of him who calleth any people he pleases, to make them the depositories of his especial blessings, and thus to distinguish them from all others.
Romans 9:12
The elder shall serve the younger—These words, with those of Malachi, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated, are cited by the apostle to prove, according to their typical signification, that the purpose of God, according to election, does and will stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; that is, that the purpose of God, which is the ground of that election which he makes among men, unto the honor of being Abraham’s seed, might appear to remain unchangeable in him; and to be even the same which he had declared unto Abraham. That these words are used in a national and not in a personal sense, is evident from this: that, taken in the latter sense they are not true, for Jacob never did exercise any power over Esau, nor was Esau ever subject to him. Jacob, on the contrary, was rather subject to Esau, and was sorely afraid of him; and, first, by his messengers, and afterwards personally, acknowledged his brother to be his lord, and himself to be his servant; see Genesis 32:4; 33:8, 13. And hence it appears that neither Esau nor Jacob, nor even their posterities, are brought here by the apostle as instances of any personal reprobation from eternity: for, it is very certain that very many, if not the far greatest part, of Jacob’s posterity were wicked, and rejected by God; and it is not less certain that some of Esau’s posterity were partakers of the faith of their father Abraham.
From these premises the true sense of the words immediately following, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated, Malachi 1:2, 3, fully appears; that is, that what he had already cited from Moses concerning the two nations, styled by the names of their respective heads, Jacob and Esau, was but the same in substance with what was spoken many years after by the Prophet Malachi. The unthankful Jews had, in Malachi’s time, either in words or in their heart, expostulated with God, and demanded of him wherein he had loved them? I have loved you, saith the Lord: yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Malachi 1:2-5. To this the Lord answers: Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? Yet I loved Jacob and hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the Lord of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever. And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say, The Lord will be magnified from the border of Israel.
1. It incontestably appears from these passages that the prophet does not speak at all of the person of Jacob or Esau, but of their respective posterities. For it was not Esau in person that said, We are impoverished; neither were his mountains nor heritage laid waste. Now, if the prophet speaks neither of the person of the one nor of the person of the other, but of their posterity only, then it is evident that the apostle speaks of them in the same way.
2. If neither the prophet nor the apostle speaks of the persons of Jacob or Esau, but of their posterity, then it is evident that neither the love of God to Jacob, nor the hatred of God to Esau, were such, according to which the eternal states of men, either in happiness or misery, are to be determined; nor is there here any Scriptural or rational ground for the decree of unconditional personal election and reprobation, which, comparatively, modern times have endeavored to build on these scriptures. For,
1. It is here proved that Esau is not mentioned under any personal consideration, but only as the head of his posterity.
2. The testimony of Scripture amply proves that all Esau’s posterity were not, even in this sense, reprobated; nor all Jacob’s posterity elected.
3. Neither does that service, or subjugation to Jacob, which the Divine oracle imposed on Esau, import any such reprobation as some contend for; as the servant may be elected, while the master himself is in a state of reprobation.
4. Were it even granted that servitude did import such a reprobation, yet it is certain that Esau, in person, never did serve Jacob.
5. Nor does the hatred of God against Esau import any such reprobation of the person of Esau, because it is demonstrable that it related, not to Esau personally, but to his posterity.
6. The scope of the apostle’s reasoning is to show that God is the sovereign of his own ways, has a right to dispense his blessings as he chooses, and to give salvation to mankind, not in the ways of their devising, but in that way that is most suitable to his infinite wisdom and goodness.
Therefore,
1. He chose the Jewish people from all others, and revealed himself to them. Thus they were the elect, and all the nations of mankind reprobate.
2. When the fullness of the time came he revealed himself also to the Gentiles, who gladly received the Gospel: and the Jews rejecting it, were cast off. Thus the elect became reprobate, and the reprobate, elect.
3. He published to all mankind that the pardon of sin could and should be obtained ONLY by faith in his Son Jesus, and not by any obedience to any law. And the Jews, the descendants of Jacob, who rejected this way of salvation, became precisely like the Edomites, the descendants of Esau; they builded, but God pulled down; their mountains and heritage are NOW laid waste for the dragons of the wilderness; and they properly may now be called the border of wickedness, a people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever: they have rejected the Lord that bought them, and so have brought upon themselves swift destruction.
7. That no personal, absolute, eternal reprobation of Esau can have been intended, we learn from this; that he was most amply reconciled to his brother, who had so deeply wronged and offended him, by depriving him of his birthright and his blessing: and his having forgiven his brother his trespasses, was no mean proof that God had forgiven him. See our Lord’s words, Matthew 6:14. Therefore there can be assigned no competent ground of his damnation, much less of his personal reprobation from all eternity.
8. And were such a personal reprobation intended, is it not shocking to suppose that the God of endless mercy, in whose sight his pious parents had found favor, should inform them, even before their child was born, that he had absolutely consigned him, by an irrevocable decree to eternal damnation? A message of such horrid import coming immediately from the mouth of God, to a tender, weak, and delicate woman, whose hour of travail with two children was just at hand, could not have failed to produce abortion, and destroy her life. But the parents perfectly understood their God, and saw no decree of reprobation in his message; two manner of nations are in thy womb—and the elder shall serve the younger.
9. There is no reason, worthy the most wise and gracious God, why he should make known to the world such a thing concerning Esau, who was yet unborn, that he had reprobated him from all eternity. Such a revelation could be of no spiritual advantage or edification to mankind, but rather of a malignant influence, as directly occasioning men to judge hardly of their Maker, and to conceive of him as no faithful Creator; as having no care, no love, no bowels of compassion towards the workmanship of his own hands. See Goodwin’s Exposition: and see my notes on Genesis 27 (note).
"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 7/15/2003 8:22 PM (GMT -6) | | More Adam Clarke:
Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the New Testament
Clarke, Adam
Romans 9:14
What shall we say then?—To what conclusion shall we come on the facts before us? Shall we suggest that God’s bestowing peculiar privileges in this unequal manner, on those who otherwise are in equal circumstances, is inconsistent with justice and equity? By no means. Whatever God does is right, and he may dispense his blessings to whom and or what terms he pleases.
Romans 9:15
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy, etc.—The words of God to Moses, Exodus 33:19, show that God has a right to dispense his blessings as he pleases; for, after he had declared that he would spare the Jews of old, and continue them in the relation of his peculiar people, when they had deserved to have been cut off for their idolatry, he said: I will make all my goodness pass before thee; and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee; and I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. As if he had said: I will make such a display of my perfections as shall convince you that my nature is kind and beneficent; but know, that I am a debtor to none of my creatures. My benefits and blessings are merely from my own good will: nor can any people, much less a rebellious people, challenge them as their due in justice or equity. And therefore I now spare the Jews; not because either you, who intercede for them or they themselves have any claim upon my favor, but of my own free and sovereign grace I choose to show them mercy and compassion. I will give my salvation in my own way and on my own terms. He that believeth on my Son Jesus shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be damned. This is God’s ultimate design; this purpose he will never change; and this he has fully declared in the everlasting Gospel. This is the grand DECREE of reprobation and election.
Romans 9:16
So then it is not of him that willeth, etc.—I conclude, therefore, from these several instances, that the making or continuing any body of men the peculiar people of God, is righteously determined; not by the judgment, hopes, or wishes of men, but by the will and wisdom of God alone. For Abraham judged that the blessing ought, and he willed, desired, that it might be given to Ishmael; and Isaac also willed, designed, it for his first-born, Esau: and Esau, wishing and hoping that it might be his, readily went, ran a hunting for venison, that he might have the blessing regularly conveyed to him: but they were all disappointed—Abraham and Isaac, who willed, and Esau who ran: for God had originally intended that the blessing of being a great nation and distinguished people should, of his mere good pleasure, be given to Isaac and Jacob, and be confirmed in their posterity; and to them it was given. And when by their apostasy they had forfeited this privilege, it was not Moses’ willing, nor any prior obligation God was under, but his own sovereign mercy, which continued it to them.
Romans 9:17
For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh—Instead of showing the Israelites mercy he might justly have suffered them to have gone on in sin, till he should have signalized his wisdom and justice in their destruction; as appears from what God in his word declares concerning his dealings with Pharaoh and the Egyptians, Exodus 9:15, 16: For now, saith the Lord, I had stretched forth my hand, (in the plague of boils and blains), and I had smitten thee and thy people with the pestilence; and thou hadst (by this plague) been cut off from the earth; (as thy cattle were by the murrain); but in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up—I have restored thee to health by removing the boils and blains, and by respiting thy deserved destruction to a longer day, that I may, in thy instance, give such a demonstration of my power in thy final overthrow, that all mankind may learn that I am God, the righteous Judge of all the earth, the avenger of wickedness. See this translation of the original vindicated in my notes on Exodus 9:15 (note), Exodus 9:16 (note); and, about the hardening of Pharaoh, see the notes on those places where the words occur in the same book.
Romans 9:18
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will—This is the apostle’s conclusion from the facts already laid down: that God, according to his own will and wisdom, in perfect righteousness, bestows mercy; that is to say, his blessings upon one part of mankind, (the Jews of old, and the Gentiles of the present time), while he suffers another part (the Egyptians of old, and the Jews of the present day) to go on in the abuse of his goodness and forbearance, hardening themselves in sin, till he brings upon them a most just and exemplary punishment, unless this be prevented by their deep repentance and general return to God through Jesus the promised, the real Messiah.
Romans 9:19
Why doth he yet find fault?—The apostle here introduces the Jew making an objection similar to that in Romans 3:7: If the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory, that is, if God’s faithfulness is glorified by my wickedness, why yet am I also judged as a sinner? Why am I condemned for that which brings so much glory to him? The question here is: If God’s glory be so highly promoted and manifested by our obstinacy, and he suffers us to proceed in our hardness and infidelity, why does he find fault with us, or punish us for that which is according to his good pleasure?
Romans 9:20
Nay but, O man, who art thou—As if he had said: Weak, ignorant man, darest thou retort on the infinitely good and righteous GOD? Reflect on thyself; and tell me, after thou hast abused the grace of God, and transgressed his laws, wilt thou cavil at his dispensations? God hath made, created, formed the Jewish nation; and shall the thing formed, when it hath corrupted itself, pretend to correct the wise and gracious Author of its being, and say, Why hast thou made me thus? Why hast thou constituted me in this manner? Thou hast done me wrong in giving me my being under such and such conditions.
Old John Goodwin’s note on this passage is at least curious: “I scarce (says he) know any passage of the Scripture more frequently abused than this. When men, in the great questions of predestination and reprobation, bring forth any text of Scripture which they conceive makes for their notion, though the sense which they put upon it be ever so uncouth and dissonant from the true meaning of the Holy Ghost, yet, if any man contradict, they frequently fall upon him with—Nay but, O man; who art thou? As if St. Paul had left them his heirs and successors in the infallibility of his spirit! But when men shall call a solid answer to their groundless conceits about the meaning of the Scriptures, a replying against God, it savours more of the spirit who was seen falling like lightning from heaven, than of His, who saw him in this his fall.”
Romans 9:21
Hath not the potter power over the clay—The apostle continues his answer to the Jew. Hath not God shown, by the parable of the potter, Jeremiah 18:1, etc., that he may justly dispose of nations, and of the Jews in particular, according as he in his infinite wisdom may judge most right and fitting; even as the potter has a right, out of the same lump of clay, to make one vessel to a more honorable and another to a less honorable use, as his own judgment and skill may direct; for no potter will take pains to make a vessel merely that he may show that he has power to dash it to pieces? For the word came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, Arise, and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words. Then I went down to the potter’s house, and, behold, he wrought a work upon the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hands of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. It was not fit for the more honorable place in the mansion, and therefore he made it for a less honorable place, but as necessary for the master’s use there, as it could have been in a more honorable situation. Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying, O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; if that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation—to build and to plant it; is it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good wherewith I said I would benefit them. The reference to this parable shows most positively that the apostle is speaking of men, not individually, but nationally; and it is strange that men should have given his words any other application with this scripture before their eyes.
Romans 9:22
What if God, willing to show his wrath—The apostle refers here to the case of Pharaoh and the Egyptians, and to which he applies Jeremiah’s parable of the potter, and, from them, to the then state of the Jews. Pharaoh and the Egyptians were vessels of wrath—persons deeply guilty before God; and by their obstinate refusal of his grace, and abuse of his goodness, they had fitted themselves for that destruction which the wrath, the vindictive justice of God, inflicted, after he had endured their obstinate rebellion with much long-suffering; which is a most absolute proof that the hardening of their hearts, and their ultimate punishment, were the consequences of their obstinate refusal of his grace and abuse of his goodness; as the history in Exodus sufficiently shows. As the Jews of the apostle’s time had sinned after the similitude of the Egyptians, hardening their hearts and abusing his goodness, after every display of his long-suffering kindness, being now fitted for destruction, they were ripe for punishment; and that power, which God was making known for their salvation, having been so long and so much abused and provoked, was now about to show itself in their destruction as a nation. But even in this case there is not a word of their final damnation; much less that either they or any others were, by a sovereign decree, reprobated from all eternity; and that their very sins, the proximate cause of their punishment, were the necessary effect of that decree which had from all eternity doomed them to endless torments. As such a doctrine could never come from God, so it never can be found in the words of his apostle.
Romans 9:23
And that he might make known—God endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath:
1. To show his wrath, and to make his power known. And also,
2. That he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy.
Which he had afore prepared unto glory—The Jews were fitted for destruction long before; but the fittest time to destroy them was after he had prepared the believing Gentiles unto glory. For the rod of the Messiah’s strength was to be sent out of Zion, Psalm 110:2. The Jewish nation was to supply the first preachers of the Gospel, and from Jerusalem their sound was to go forth into all the earth. Therefore the Jewish state, notwithstanding its corruptions, was to be preserved till the Messiah came, and even till the Gospel preached by the apostles had taken deep root in the Gentile world. Another thing which rendered the time when the Jewish polity was overthrown the most proper, was this, because then the immediate occasion of it was the extensiveness of the Divine grace. They would not have the Gentiles admitted into the Church of God; but contradicted, and blasphemed, and rejected the Lord that bought them: thus, then, the extensiveness of the Divine grace occasioned their infidelity, Romans 9:33; 10:3; 11:11, 12, 15, 28, 30. Thus the Jews were diminished by that abundance of grace which has enriched the Gentiles. And so the grace of God was illustrated; or, so God made known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy—the apostles and primitive believers among the Jews, and the Gentile world, which received the Gospel by the preaching of the apostles and their successors.
Romans 9:24
Even us, whom he hath called—All the Jews and Gentiles who have been invited by the preaching of the Gospel to receive justification by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and have come to the Gospel feast on this invitation.
Romans 9:25
As he saith also in Osee—It is a cause of not a little confusion, that a uniformity in the orthography of the proper names of the Old and New Testaments has not been preserved. What stranger to our sacred books would suppose that the Osee above meant the Prophet Hosea, from whom, Hosea 2:23, this quotation is taken: I will have mercy on her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people. The apostle shows that this calling of the Gentiles was no fortuitous thing, but a firm purpose in the Divine mind, which he had largely revealed to the prophets; and by opposing the calling of the Gentiles, the Jews in effect renounced their prophets, and fought against God.
"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 | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/16/2003 3:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey RD,quote:
Previously on this Board I tried to argue that at the very least, God can exhaustively know his own future, ie, what he is going to do. OV'ers don't seem to have a problem with that. But what exactly is it that God chooses to do? Doesn't he choose to raise up Pharoah, to love Jacob and hate Esau, to have mercy on whom he chooses, to choose Abraham out of many, and the list goes on. So in fact, his choices about what he will do in the future almost necessarily involve imposition of his will on other people. [emphasis Starkman's] This is really clear in the OT battles where God blatantly tells Israel how they are going to win battles ahead of time, even when the odds are quite against them.
As noted before, we are not as free as we think we are. Yes, sometimes (perhaps a whole lot of times) God's will moves right into the lives of others, e.g., Jonah. And for all we know, RD, YOU may have been chosen to come here to this site, whether you wanted to or not, in order to discuss this subject! How's 'bout them apples! Further, you (as the rest of us) may have had a whole lot of things happen in your life that were completely out of your control. But it is your choice to serve God or not. And sometimes for some individuals in Scripture (and outside Scripture), RD, that may be the only choice visible to the onlooker (again, someone like Jonah).
As I noted before, God doesn't find someone and say, "YOU! You're to be the Antichrist," or "I hate you; you'll never be one of mine." Rather, God is simply so apt and able to orchestrate events (and people, whether they like it or not) to do as He wishes.
We are not as free as we think we are. We just live lives that tend to make us think we are ... until God tightens the ropes.
For very limited freedom,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truedud
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 7/16/2003 5:57 AM (GMT -6) | | I believe that "foreknowledge" needs to be explained in light of the events prophesied by Daniel and Revelation. Is it classical in the sense that God "sees into the future the events before they take place?" Is it calvanistic in the sense that God puts the pieces in place before they take place in a predetermined aspect?
If it is calvanistic than the OV position says that God determines only certain historical events before their time. If it is classical than the OV position says that God has willed to "use a person or an event" for his ends when that time comes. Which one does the OV person take? Or perhaps there is a third position.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/16/2003 6:30 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
If it is calvanistic than the OV position says that God determines only certain historical events before their time. If it is classical than the OV position says that God has willed to "use a person or an event" for his ends when that time comes. Which one does the OV person take? Or perhaps there is a third position.
It seems to me that the Scriptures do in fact state in many places that God does in fact act unilaterally to accomplish His purposes when necessary. It also seems that the Scriptures demonstrate in many places that God allows mankind significant freedom to act. One of the real strengths of the OV is that it affirms both themes of Scripture, without either canceling out the other. Partly settled, partly open... (Let's all recite the OV mantra now. Is everyone in the lotus position?)
Partly settled, partly open
Partly settled, partly open
Partly settled, partly open
Now reach up and over yourself with your right hand while exhaling gently but steadily. Hold. Relax. Back to center. And again...
Partly settled, partly open...
"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 | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/17/2003 4:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Trudud,quote:
If it is calvanistic than the OV position says that God determines only certain historical events before their time. If it is classical than the OV position says that God has willed to "use a person or an event" for his ends when that time comes. Which one does the OV person take? Or perhaps there is a third position.
Well, God doesn't look into the future that hasn't happened yet and see it completed, as if it's already happened; as if God's already seen every single iota of everything that will ever be, and then we (humans) re-run it. Further, if the traditional view were correct, God must be able to see EVERYTHING in the future or He sees nothing. One or the other. And if He does see everything, then nothing can be changed; it is fixed from eternity past, and there is no modification that can be made. And that just doesn't jibe with Scripture, so scratch that idea.
Next, God does determine that certain things will happen (so there's, perhaps, something here from a Calvinistic concept). The difference, though, is in HOW God and we arrive to that foreseen determined future. Most of the time it is simply by God's previous and present manipulating to arrive at the foreknown. That's not to say, though, that God hasn't predetermined SOMEONE to do something: it was pre-determined before the world began that the second person of the Trinity would die for man's sin. That's Calvinistic. But the manner in which God brought it about was not; for not every single iota and event were determined prior to the Son of God's death on the cross. (God is quite able!)
Scripture reveals God's determinism in regard to the future similar to Calvinism (Calvin had to get his ideas from something along these Scriptural lines), but Scripture does not reveal the CONTEXT of said determinism in Calvinistically. Further, Scripture reveals the open perspective of the future similar to Arminianism, but does not reveal the CONTEXT of it Arminianistically. The Open View, however, satisifies the tension; it acknowledges the determined and the openness of the future without destroying the very real freedom both God and humanity have.
For Mr. Calvin, Mr. Arminius, and Mr. ... Boyd!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/17/2003 4:50 AM (GMT -6) | | I know i've harped on this incessantly, but I still don't understand the "partly settled, partly opened" mantra. To me, it's like saying, God is partly omnipotent, and partly not. Partly omnipresent, and partly not, etc.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but i hear the OV saying that the future is not knowable, b/c it does not exist. And it redefines omniscience to saying "knowing all there is to know which does not include the future b/c it is not there to know."
So if that's the case, then isn't the future completely open? How can it be partly settled if it's not there to know?
I hear the OV saying then that God can determine it , and therefore settle it, if he wants to. So in those instances then, the future MUST be knowable, right? B/c God knows what he will do and can forsee his own actions, certainly.
So you see my dilemma. "The future is not knowable bc it does not yet exist, but, it IS knowable sometimes b/c it does exist sometimes." _ this seems incoherent to me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 7/17/2003 5:46 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
So you see my dilemma. "The future is not knowable bc it does not yet exist, but, it IS knowable sometimes b/c it does exist sometimes." _ this seems incoherent to me.
Thought I'd play with the big boys/girls for a moment.
I think they (OV'ers) would say that the future *never* exists. Only that because God says ( determines ) sometime will happen, it WILL happen. Thus we can talk about the future *as if* it existed. They would also say that God does determine somethings ( partly settled ) and leaves other things up to other folks ( partly opened ).
Another way to look at it might be... The future doesn't exist now, but we can be sure the things God determined will be there when we get there.
peace and love, don
---
"You cannot step twice into the same river; for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you." Heraclitus | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truedud
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 7/17/2003 7:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Thank you for the clarity of this argument Might-be-Don, Starkman, and Reasonable Doubt. This is where I thought OV stood when it comes to foreknowledge. In the Calvinist camp. That being determined (excuse the pun) I can now move into the reasons for this discussion centered around Daniel and Revelation. The foreknown events, remember from Calvin's perspective, are determined by God! Therefore, the events of Antichrist, 1/3 of the world being annihilated, Antiochus wreaking havoc upon the Jews, Carnivorous animals representing four kingdoms wreaking havoc upon the earth, the Beast destroying millions of people where all determined by God! Is this what I am picking up in OV theology?
The Dude
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/17/2003 7:18 AM (GMT -6) | | | Yeah - so might-be-don - what's the implication for free will then? Youre saying that the only way the future is partly settled is b/c God knows what he will do, so those things are settled. I presume then that all prophecy must be God telling things that he has determined will come to pass, correct? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/17/2003 7:31 AM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt
quote:
Yeah - so might-be-don - what's the implication for free will then? Youre saying that the only way the future is partly settled is b/c God knows what he will do, so those things are settled. I presume then that all prophecy must be God telling things that he has determined will come to pass, correct?
If God sees Satan currently deceiving many people and then says, "in those [future] days, Satan will deceive many", that is God predicting what Satan will do without God determining it.
In the coming days, ReasonableDoubt will post at CVM. This is a prediction not a determination of anyone's will.
Some prophecy are predictions, some are determination of wills. There's probably some other forms as well.
Edited by - Laika on 07/17/2003 12:32:53 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 7/17/2003 7:59 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Yeah - so might-be-don - what's the implication for free will then? Youre saying that the only way the future is partly settled is b/c God knows what he will do, so those things are settled. I presume then that all prophecy must be God telling things that he has determined will come to pass, correct?
Well... If it is truly prophecy, and not just a conditional "if you do this, I'll do that" kind of statement, I'd say yes, they will come to pass. I think the implication for free-will is clear, in some instances God has decided that our desires are not quite as important as His. I don't have a problem with that notion. He is God after all.
peace and love, don
p.s. Oh yeah, and what Laika said above.
---
"You cannot step twice into the same river; for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you." Heraclitus
Edited by - might-be-don on 07/17/2003 1:03:51 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/17/2003 8:52 AM (GMT -6) | | RD, quote:
So if that's the case, then isn't the future completely open? How can it be partly settled if it's not there to know?
I hear the OV saying then that God can determine it , and therefore settle it, if he wants to. So in those instances then, the future MUST be knowable, right? B/c God knows what he will do and can forsee his own actions, certainly.
It sounds as if you're still trying to contextualize foreknowledge from a Classical or Traditionalist's approach: what God knows of the future must be known exhaustively. That God determined to send the second person of the Trinity to earth, for instance, does not require all of the other surrounding events and details to be known, and this, then, is when we are challenged with our understanding and comprehension of God's omnipotence. God simply doesn't HAVE to know all of the future in order to determine that some things will happen and some things won't. The all-encompassing mind and ability of God to both plan and control is way beyond the confines of Traditional or Classical attempts to define God's ominipotence in view of their concept of God's omniscience. The OV simply pushes this envelope to the max.
So, if the future is partly "open," it is open because there is truly nothing to be known OTHER THAN that part of the future God has determined as settled. However, two things: First, that doesn't mean that every single iota of information is exaustively known; for wrapped up in the very essence, it seems, of God's determining certain things is the unknowables that concommitantly accompany that which is determined. Second, God is so fully "aware" of all that makes man what he is, and all that makes the universe what it is, that an understanding of His omipotence must be kept in view of His knowledge. More than must being omnipotent is that He is omnipotent in context to all else that characterizes what it is for Him to be God. Therefore, for God to control things is to do so in the context of all attributes functioning in complete and full capacity. The creation of the universe, of earth and its semi-free people poses no threat or weakness to God's omniscience and omnipotence.
However ...
We are led right back to my slogan: we are not as free as we think we are.
For His power and knowledge,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/17/2003 8:57 AM (GMT -6) | | I think we need to keep in mind the complexity of how God works in and through individuals; i.e., libertarian free will becomes compatabilistic free will. That is to say, as an individual persists in choosing for or against God, their character is being formed, until finally character solidification occurs, and that person's "choices" merely reflect their already-formed character. Once this point is reached, it does not take any great deal of foresight even to predict what they will do, nor does it make any real difference in how they are finally judged for their deeds, for an addict is no longer free to quit apart from the grace of God, even so these have indeed so entrenched themselves in sin that it involves no violation of their free will at all to determine or even cause their actions from this point forward.
"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 | | |
| 97 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:06 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 |
|
|