Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

41 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 5/30/2002 4:01 AM (GMT -6)

Ware on Gen. 22.12: “Now I know that you fear me.”

I’ve been reading through Ware’s objections to the open view understanding of several passages. As I work through them I thought I’d like to post some thoughts from time to time. To begin with, Ware poses three objections to the open view understanding of Abraham’s test. The first two objections are based on an inaccurate understanding of what the open view actually proposes. But Ware’s third point is interesting and I’d like to hear what you all might have to say.

Ware: First, if God must test Abraham to find out what is in his heart…then it calls into question God's present knowledge of Abraham's inner spiritual, psychological, mental, and emotional state.

Tom: Ware has fundamentally misunderstood what the open view suggests with regard to Abraham’s test, for what God desires to know is as yet undetermined, namely, how Abraham will act in such circumstances. In fact, it is God’s perfect knowledge of Abraham that is to account for the test at all. The present reality suggests Abraham might or might now do well in such circumstances. These possibilities need to be resolved.

Ware: Second, the even more interesting and important question is this: Does God need this test to know specifically whether Abraham fears God? That is, while it is significant that the openness interpretation implicitly denies God's present knowledge (the first point), even more telling here is the implicit denial of the specific content of this present knowledge, that is, knowledge that Abraham fears God. For we are told that only at the point that Abraham raises the knife over his son does God then learn that Abraham in fact fears God. But is it reasonable to think that God really does not know until this moment whether Abraham is God-fearing?

Tom: Again, Ware continues to misunderstand the open view to be calling into question God’s present knowledge of Abraham. I don’t doubt that Abraham in fact possessed a measure of the fear of God before the test. The point of the test is to resolve what God knows is in Abraham’s life unresolved commitment.

Ware: Third, given the openness commitment to the nature of libertarian freedom, God's test of Abraham simply cannot have accomplished what open theists claim it has. Yet, clearly this text (and all others cited in support of the openness view) has an intended meaning. It simply will not do to say, in response to the openness proposal, that when Genesis 22:12 says, for now I know it means, for I have eternally known. Openness advocates are right to point to something that takes place in relation to God when Abraham lifts his knife. But if this statement cannot refer to a literal acquiring of knowledge that Abraham fears God — knowledge of which God was ignorant until Abraham raised the knife to kill Isaac — what can this statement mean?...

Therefore, when God observes Abraham bind his son to the attar he has crafted and raise his knife to plunge it into his body, God literally sees and experiences in this moment what he has known from eternity. When the angel of the LORD utters the statement, for now I know that you fear God, this expresses the idea that in the experience of this action, I (God) am witnessing Abraham demonstrate dramatically and afresh that be fears me, and I find this both pleasing and acceptable in my sight.

Tom: Here I’d like to hear others. Ware is arguing that given the nature of libertarian free will, i.e. Abraham’s ability either to follow or not follow God, how doesn’t following God in this one instance tell God Abraham will certainly follow God afterwards? My response is that God seeks to sufficiently resolve Abraham’s will with respect to his obedience to God. Abraham could have back out of the covenant after the test. He remained free. But the test sufficiently resolves, or fixes, the direction of Abraham’s will. The test is dramatic enough a choice that making it solidifies Abraham enough to qualify him as a faithful covenant partner.

Is this where others would go? Perhaps openness folk need to work a bit better on articulating what it was God was looking for through this test, and whether or not libertarian free will would permit us to say achieving it was even possible for God. Just to clarify.

Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

Edited by - TGB on 05/30/2002 09:05:22 AM

allryledup
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 27

Posted 5/30/2002 7:40 AM (GMT -6)

Tom wrote:

quote:
Tom: Here I’d like to hear others. Ware is arguing that given the nature of libertarian free will, i.e. Abraham’s ability either to follow or not follow God, how doesn’t following God in this one instance tell God Abraham will certainly follow God afterwards? My response is that God seeks to sufficiently resolve Abraham’s will with respect to his obedience to God. Abraham could have back out of the covenant after the test. He remained free. But the test sufficiently resolves, or fixes, the direction of Abraham’s will. The test is dramatic enough a choice that making it solidifies Abraham enough to qualify him as a faithful covenant partner.

Is this where others would go? Perhaps openness folk need to work a bit better on articulating what it was God was looking for through this test, and whether or not libertarian free will would permit us to say achieving it was even possible for God. Just to clarify.

Hi Tom,

I really like what you're digging into here. I have a problem when you state that Abraham could back out of the covenant after the test. It seems to me that God would continually need to have Abraham pass tests to affirm his faith under the OV. This is where I think some of the thought process for different individuals becomes a tangled mess. You are comfortable with the statement that the test sufficiently fixes the direction of Abraham's will. I'm not.

I believe it was a settled matter before it happened, and I'm comfortable believing God can rightly credit Abraham for the obedience, even though he knew what would happen. Maybe this is where I need to give you room, and trust your understanding of the text, and you the same for me. You correctly pose the question whether or not the libertarian free will allows such a concept (whether God would know Abraham has faith, or that is, an enduring faith) can and will exist. I think Ware's book simplifies some things too much, but I find this point pretty solid. I think you have articulated well enough for someone like Ware to say he understands as he reads what the OV says. I guess what I want to know is whether you would agree with the statement that God is sort of "rolling the dice" with Abraham? That's really what it comes down to. It's sort of like someone telling me that my position means we're all robots. I say no. Yet, someone who disagrees with me can't understand that. I don't think you're going to say God is rolling the dice with creation, yet I can't see it any other way. So, what do we do?

I trust God has been blessing you since we last exchanged thoughts,

R.J.

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 5/30/2002 7:58 PM (GMT -6)

Tom, I handle the text just as you describe it. The "now" and the "for" in "now I know, for you have" must mean SOMETHING, and something very signicant, for its given as the POINT of the test. I don't see how Ware or any person in the classical tradition has adequantely explained this. God was resolving Abraham's character. If the test was genuine, and if the statement of God's that expresses the purpose of the testing is genuine ("now I know"), then it must have been possible for Abraham at this point NOT to pass the test.

What would have happened if this had transpired is anyone's guess. We're not smart enough to know what alternative plans God might have had in the wings if this had transpired. For all we know, Abraham was the third person he tried to form this covenant with.

Blessings

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 5/31/2002 3:24 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks Doc. What about Ware's claim that since Abraham continues to possess libertarian free will, the open view cannot claim that the test tells God how Abraham will act in the future and that the argument that God tests Abraham to know that Abraham will be a faithful covenant partner fails, for libertarian free will disallows it?

Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

GODesteem
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 34

Posted 5/31/2002 4:49 AM (GMT -6)

"Thanks Doc. What about Ware's claim that since Abraham continues to possess libertarian free will, the open view cannot claim that the test tells God how Abraham will act in the future and that the argument that God tests Abraham to know that Abraham will be a faithful covenant partner fails, for libertarian free will disallows it?

Tom"

Hi Tom. What about the opening verse of Genesis 22?

"Now it came about after these things, that GOD TESTED ABRAHAM, and said to him, "Abraham!", and he said, "Here I am." (caps are mine)

The word "test" is nissah which means to "put to the test." It was Abraham who was being tested, not for God's benefit, but for Abraham! The fact that this is a narrative passage should caution us in out attempts to establish God's character from such texts.

God put Abraham to the test. Moses is not writing about God's knowledge of yet-to-be-determined future decisions.

God loves Himself more than anything... He is our greatest treasure!

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 5/31/2002 6:39 AM (GMT -6)

GODesteem-

Hey Bro! Good to hear from ya. Where ya been? And what in the world happened to CPI?

About Abraham. I totally agree that Abraham is the one being tested. Wasn't suggesting otherwise. But as you know, the Old Testament is full of statements of God declaring "I tested you to know...." God's not testing himself, of course, but God tests for a purpose, and the passages in question clearly specify God is interested in coming to know something about those tested based on how they respond to the test.

Man it's good to hear you.

Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

Edited by - TGB on 05/31/2002 11:40:43 AM

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 5/31/2002 9:44 AM (GMT -6)

Hi GODesteem. Given your interpretation of Gen. 22:1, why do you think God later says to Abraham “Now I know…” instead of “Now YOU know…”? And could you say a little bit more about what you mean by this statement: “The fact that this is a narrative passage should caution us in out attempts to establish God's character from such texts”? Thanks! Electra

~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
He said to me, “Mortal, can these bones live?”
I answered, “O Lord God, you know.”
Ezekiel 37:3

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 5/31/2002 11:11 AM (GMT -6)

I have to admit to not being totally up to speed on this conversation... but I'm just wondering.

Do the issues involved, especially on Ware's side, really only matter if one follows the JURIDICAL position (imputed abstractly due to some deserved-ness)?

I'm thinking that the Greek Fathers might find this debate not just strange, but even foreign.

Just wondering!!!

PoW

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 05/31/2002 4:13:03 PM

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 5/31/2002 11:35 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Do the issues involved, especially on Ware's side, really only matter if one follows the JURIDICAL position (imputed abstractly due to some deserved-ness)?

Eh, Electra was just about to answer your question PoW, weren't you Electra?

I kinda follow ya, PoW. Fill in a few more blanks for me.

Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 5/31/2002 12:24 PM (GMT -6)

WARE: "...calls into question God's present knowledge of Abraham's inner spiritual, psychological, mental, and emotional state."

PoW: Here's my question -- not necessarily going anywhere yet....but, just WHAT criterion as to "Abraham's inner spiritual, psychological, mental, and emotional state" is being expected here? What criterion serves as background for it (state) to be judged against?

Tom: "what God desires to know is ... how Abraham will act in such circumstances." (and) "Abraham might or might not do well in such circumstances. These possibilities need to be resolved."

PoW: Might this be Nominalistic? Is the emphasis getting stuck on individual acts and specific circumstances? I think that God's purposes are very flexible/adaptable (And of course I don't put much credence in my own thoughts; I'm just participating in a webdiscussion is all.) Or is the scope being kept on the "faith." As in, how David was a rascal in many things BUT undergirding everything was that his heart hoped in God and he didn't replace that hope with anything of his own creation (as Solomon did).

Ware: "Does God need this test (sacrifice of Isaac) to know specifically whether Abraham fears God?" ...

PoW: While Ware probably is talking a lot about foreknowledge here (I'm not sure which side raised it.) his words, at least, open the door for an emphasis where I'd like to see it -- on God's knowledge of Abraham's HEART! That is where I'd like to see it.

I'd rather not see the emphasis on knowledge as data (I'm probably accusing anything-that-moves as being Gnostic-influenced...but...), nor on our decisions as constituting mere intellectual decisions -- versus BOTH extending from decisions of the moment, and extending from redemptive interior work of God in man.

Tom: "I don't doubt that Abraham in fact possessed a measure of the fear of God before the test. The point of the test is to resolve what God knows is in Abraham's life unresolved commitment."

PoW: I'm finding myself closer to Ware here, so far, than you, Tom. (What gives?)

I'm leaning to the side of giving more weight than you on the inner live and interior fiber in Abraham. As in how God looks on the heart. I'm thinking of "fear of God" as being "hard-wiring," and not just RAM memory that gets erased at every bootup.

Earlier this week I was going up post for post with Bob (contra Mid-Acts) about Abraham's faith being something so real that God's "reckoning/imputation" was not just some abstract dictation. Of course, I view "justification" as BOTH bestowal of Grace AND also real. (Biola University objected to some of its EO faculty with statements such as: "2. Human beings are justified by God on the basis of the righteousness of Christ which is reckoned to them. It is not based on any inherent righteousness or good works of the believer produced by the grace of God.") I see no conflict with Romans 4 in the position that God actually does "justify" us -- however much this side of our resurrection -- just as the NT says. And I view Abraham's being "reckoned" righteous as evidence of BOTH God's gracious divine Grace AND a "justifying" taking place in him (like a justification of a margin in word-processing).

Tom, you say: "unresolved commitment." INTERESTING OXYMORON! You said: "The point of the test is to resolve what God knows is in Abraham's life unresolved commitment."

Maybe you have a good out with your: "unresolved commitment." That is good cause for the whole mountain scene. BUT, I think you stopped short, Tom, when you only spoke of "resolve what God knows." Or maybe you are saying it enough!

When you say "to resolve what God knows is in Abraham's life unresolved commitment" are you saying that God knows (what) is in Abraham's life. (You've got punctuation problems?) Are you saying that Abraham had unresolved commitment. Hope so. But then isn't a big part of the fruit of the episode to "resolve" that commitment -- to resolve Abraham's commitment? Hope so.

The emphasis, then, isn't solely on "God learning."

OK, I'VE DEFINITELY GOTTEN MYSELF LOST HERE. WHO IS SEEKING TO FOCUS ON GOD LEARNING: YOU OR WARE?

Ware: "Openness advocates are right to point to something that takes place in relation to God when Abraham lifts his knife."

PoW: What "takes place in relation to God?" Is it God learning data? Or is it a growth in Abraham in degrees of ontological fulness?

(THAT'S WHAT I'M PAYING ATTENTION TO AT THIS POINT, ANYWAYS.)

Ware: "When the angel of the LORD utters the statement, for now I know that you fear God, this expresses the idea that in the experience of this action, I (God) am witnessing Abraham demonstrate dramatically and afresh that he fears me, and I find this both pleasing and acceptable in my sight."

PoW: I'm looking at the "for now I know" and thinking of what can be done with it. I think of the "blibical sense of to-know," as in marriage. "Now" I know DOESN'T have to imply not knowing before. It can just be a spotlight, and something emblematic. And then emblematic things can be real-symbols that serve within the fullness of everything else that participates in the covenantal (small "c") of that real-symbol. Like a friendship cemented. What was before and what was after ALL seem to converge on that one moment. Yet the moment would have no life without all the other moments too!!!

Tom: "how doesn't following God in this one instance tell God Abraham will certainly follow God afterwards"

PoW: This is too Nominalistic (reductive?) a question. See the paragraph I have right on top of this. I like how I said it.

Tom: "Abraham could have back out of the covenant after the test. He remained free. "

PoW: As in my treatment of a real-symbol when pertaining to a friendship, "covenant" NEVER has to deny free will. In fact, if my thinking is clear right now, it is in the temporal nature of how the moments-before (whether preparatory or not) AND the moments-after to all -- as I said above -- to : "serve within the fullness of everything else that participates in the covenantal (small 'c') of that real-symbol."

HOW POLYSYLLABIC OF ME!

Tom: "The test is dramatic enough a choice that making it solidifies Abraham enough to qualify him as a faithful covenant partner."

PoW: Maybe it is you, Tom, who is the one who I sensed bringing a juridical view of salvation into the mix? OR MAYBE NOT. Depends on what you are saying.

I'm meaning, that when you say "enough to qualify him"... is that to say that something was hard enough -- meritorious enough (Theodore of Moptussia, an early Antiochian had a Christological view where Christ earned merits.) that God would then, independently of all that was real in Abraham, "impute" in such a way that God pretends?

Or, do you mean -- and I would applaud -- that "The test is dramatic enough"... "it solidifies Abraham" in such a way that the change is interior and persistent. Persistent especially with God continuing to work with him. That I like.

Our friend allryledup said: "You are comfortable with the statement that the test sufficiently fixes the direction of Abraham's will. I'm not."

PoW: So, I ask, what does "fixes" mean? Does it refer to an abstraction, an intellectual or imaginative decision. Or is it a "fix" more like epoxy setting? (As the twig is bent...so grows the tree.)

I can agree with Doc that it was possible for Abraham to not have passed the test. Just as (unless I'm messing this up) it was "possible" for Christ to sin (in his fallen humanity--like us in every way except sin) despite the eternal fact that he never, ever would in his divine nature/will actually sin. At every point of temptation, over and over again in suffering...the immutable God suffered and willed over and over again, His human will willing to follow his divine will in obedience to the Father's will.

Despite what ever infinitely, incomparably, minute righteousness was in Abraham (Evangelicals hate when the OT speaks of anyone begin a "righteous man" -- don't we?) Despite that, Abraham "still" -- as for Christ he "still" -- had to will to follow God.

The experience was essential.

And while not a once-for-all, it seems to be a big deal!

Electra : Hi GODesteem. Given your interpretation of Gen. 22:1, why do you think God later says to Abraham “Now I know…” instead of “Now YOU know…”?

PoW: I like to get a lot of mileage from the "biblical/conjugal" version of "know." (But that' is me.)

----------------------------------

WELL, AS I SAID: I HADN'T READ VERY WELL. NOW THAT I HAVE, I HOPE THIS IS OK, TOM!

- PoW

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 05/31/2002 11:08:35 PM

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 5/31/2002 12:35 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

.
.____________________________________
.
.____________________________________

Artists. Sheesh.

Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 5/31/2002 6:12 PM (GMT -6)

Hey, Tom, 1490 words and no long quotes. Your lucky day!

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 5/31/2002 9:52 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Hey, Tom, 1490 words and no long quotes. Your lucky day!

I love it! Wonderful. I'd say you "filled in the blanks."

Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 5/31/2002 11:05 PM (GMT -6)

Good stuff PoW-

First, I noticed you didn’t made your nickname bold. I was just wondering if, as an artist, you meant anything by this. Is this implicit self-deprecation?

PoW: Is the emphasis getting stuck on individual acts and specific circumstances? I think that God's purposes are very flexible/adaptable…Or is the scope being kept on the "faith." As in, how David was a rascal in many things BUT undergirding everything was that his heart hoped in God and he didn't replace that hope with anything of his own creation (as Solomon did).

Tom: Right. I think the point is that the test is designed to resolve issues surrounding Abraham’s faith. Had Abraham not done well here God would have kept him on the potter’s wheel and continued fashioning him.

PoW: While Ware probably is talking a lot about foreknowledge here (I'm not sure which side raised it.) his words, at least, open the door for an emphasis where I'd like to see it -- on God's knowledge of Abraham's HEART! That is where I'd like to see it.

Tom: Totally agree. I’m probably wording myself poorly. The emphasis IS on God’s knowledge of Abraham’s heart. The open view (as you know) simply suggests that what Abraham’s heart IS is known by God to be undetermined in certain respects (which would be exactly how an omniscient God would know his heart—as it is) where God desires it to be determined and dependable. Thus the test.

PoW: I'm finding myself closer to Ware here, so far, than you, Tom.

Tom: Call in the troops!

PoW: I'm leaning to the side of giving more weight than you on the inner live and interior fiber in Abraham. As in how God looks on the heart. I'm thinking of "fear of God" as being "hard-wiring," and not just RAM memory that gets erased at every bootup…[and comments on justification]…

Tom: I’m following ya. No problem. You want to say Abraham was really (and previously) “made righteous.” But you still agree (?) that there remains throughout life a sense in which WE learn to live this out, unpack it, apply it, or whatever? And wouldn’t it make perfect sense to view this testing of Abraham as that sort of thing? I’m not saying Abraham wasn’t a godly, righteous, person who loved God. But aren’t we, and are hearts—which is where you want to place the emphasis—mixed bags? If not, then what would you suggest the test is designed to accomplish? By all means, let’s put the emphasis on God’s knowledge of Abraham’s HEART. What I think the passage says is that through experiencing this test Abraham’s heart really changes. Something is resolved in Abraham that wasn’t prior to the test and THAT is what God was after. So much for his hearts. But then, lastly, what do God’s words “Now I know” tell us about God’s KNOWLEDGE of Abraham’s heart and the change it undergoes?

PoW: When you say "to resolve what God knows is in Abraham's life unresolved commitment" are you saying that God knows (what) is in Abraham's life. (You've got punctuation problems?) Are you saying that Abraham had unresolved commitment. Hope so. But then isn't a big part of the fruit of the episode to "resolve" that commitment -- to resolve Abraham's commitment? Hope so. The emphasis, then, isn't solely on "God learning."

Tom: Exactly! Bad punc-tu,a:tion on my part! And “unresolved commitment” is an oxymoron I suppose. Sorry. What’s unresolved in some respect is Abraham’s heart. God knows his heart as unresolved in this respect. God wants to resolve it. When it’s resolved (which is the point of the test), God THEN knows it as resolved.
I was particularly interested, also, in Ware’s argument that if we possess libertarian free will then Abraham’s heart cannot be “resolved.” If after the test Abraham remains free to do other than be faithful, then what has the test accomplished? That’s Ware’s third point.

PoW: WHO IS SEEKING TO FOCUS ON GOD LEARNING: YOU OR WARE?

Tom: Neither of us. Ware is focusing on the denial that God can learn. I admit God’s knowledge does change, but I wouldn’t call it the “focus” of the passage. It’s become the focus of the debate with Ware because openness folk deny that God knew for certain how the test would turn out.

PoW: PoW: What "takes place in relation to God?" Is it God learning data? Or is it a growth in Abraham in degrees of ontological fulness?

Tom: It’s God’s knowledge of the growth in Abraham. I mean, the point of the test would seem to be Abraham’s growth, right? Well, if Abraham changes, if what was in some respect unresolved in his heart becomes resolved, then wouldn’t God know this change? And if he “knows” the change, then God’s knowledge changes with a changing world.

PoW: I'm meaning, that when you say "enough to qualify him"... is that to say that something was hard enough -- meritorious enough (Theodore of Moptussia, an early Antiochian had a Christological view where Christ earned merits.) that God would then, independently of all that was real in Abraham, "impute" in such a way that God pretends?

Tom: No, not that.

PoW: Or, do you mean -- and I would applaud -- that "The test is dramatic enough"... "it solidifies Abraham" in such a way that the change is interior and persistent. Persistent especially with God continuing to work with him. That I like.

Tom: Yeah, that’s what I’m saying. I’m also saying that this sort of relational change, or rather, the integrity of reciprocal relationships like this, is difficult if not impossible to account for on the supposition that everything about the relationship is either a) predetermined by God, or b) exhaustively known by God in eternity. This is what Ware is objecting to.

PoW: So, I ask, what does "fixes" mean? Does it refer to an abstraction, an intellectual or imaginative decision. Or is it a "fix" more like epoxy setting? (As the twig is bent...so grows the tree.)

Tom: As the twig is bent.

Pow:I can agree with Doc that it was possible for Abraham to not have passed the test. Just as (unless I'm messing this up) it was "possible" for Christ to sin (in his fallen humanity--like us in every way except sin) despite the eternal fact that he never, ever would in his divine nature/will actually sin.

Tom: Christ’s will aside (that’s another thread, and we’ve done it twice!), certain Abraham could have failed the test. Here’s the $64,000 question: Do you think God believed Abraham “could have” failed the test? Does the statement “Abraham could have failed” only represent our mistaken human point of view (i.e., it’s only epistemological), or does it represent a reality which God knows as
well?

PoW: PoW: I like to get a lot of mileage from the "biblical/conjugal" version of "know."

Tom: Only married folk can get mileage out of conjugal versions of any verb, period.

Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 6/1/2002 2:13 AM (GMT -6)

Nice job, Tom.

quote:
Tom: I’m following ya. No problem. You want to say Abraham was really (and previously) “made righteous.” But you still agree (?) that there remains throughout life a sense in which WE learn to live this out, unpack it, apply it, or whatever? And wouldn’t it make perfect sense to view this testing of Abraham as that sort of thing? I’m not saying Abraham wasn’t a godly, righteous, person who loved God. But aren’t we, and are hearts—which is where you want to place the emphasis—mixed bags? If not, then what would you suggest the test is designed to accomplish? By all means, let’s put the emphasis on God’s knowledge of Abraham’s HEART. What I think the passage says is that through experiencing this test Abraham’s heart really changes. Something is resolved in Abraham that wasn’t prior to the test and THAT is what God was after. So much for his hearts. But then, lastly, what do God’s words “Now I know” tell us about God’s KNOWLEDGE of Abraham’s heart and the change it undergoes?

We are tracking together.

Tom: “unresolved commitment” is an oxymoron ...

ITS A WONDERFUL OXYMORON!

Tom, of Ware: because openness folk deny that God knew for certain how the test would turn out.

PoW: I think that the tendency to slip back into treating knowledge as an autonomous bit of data goes back to the invention of "Created Grace" that is evident in Thomism. That's my guess. It is pretty persistent in this debate.

Tom, ever read "Being as Communion" by John Zizioulas?

Tom: Tom: Christ’s will aside (that’s another thread, and we’ve done it twice!)...

PoW: But it is a mistake to put Christ's example asside. That is what has been done, so often, that in the Incarnation thread it was like beginning from square one for lots of folk. Christ's example is very important. And Mary's is too! The same modeling, paralleling Abraham can be traced in the Annunciation story. IN FACT, one heresy is the idea -- that went around -- that the whole universe held its breath waiting to find out what Mary's answer would be. God knew. And commentary about that episode does not involve predetermineed forewknowledge. The emphasis is on Mary's heart!

But, as I mentioned above, a sneaky autonomism seems to sneak in to this particular debate about Abraham. "Heart" gets treated as something ontologically autonomous. (Did you read my post about "knowledge of sacred and profain?") Just as ontologically we are not persons without communion with other people. (Gen. called us not-good without.), just as... we are not fully human without relationship with God. Abraham's heart does not stand by itself (as it would in paralleling "Created Grace"). A patristic, energistic view (ala: Palamas, Maximus, and of course earlier Fathers too...) would not allow that sort of creeping autonomism.

What to say...?

Treat the accomplishment in Abraham, after the "resolution" as: not just being static self-continuing state; nor a known/tested autonomous fact. Treat it as being an according-to-design state of operational function. (Enoch was the most operationally functional -- walking with God.)

WHERE'S THAT COFFEE?

p*w

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 6/1/2002 2:57 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks PoW-

I’m still interested in how you’d answer my last question. If you believe Abraham could have failed the test, would you grant that God believed Abraham could have failed the test? Does the statement “Abraham could have failed” represent only our mistaken human point of view on the situation (in which case our belief that Abraham could have failed is false), or does it represent a reality which God knows as well? Or are you uncomfortable answering the question because you think it takes us in the wrong direction?

One reason why I’m interested in this is because I think the integrity of the give-and-take-ness of the divine-human relationship turns partly on whether or not the words God uses to address us, to reveal himself to us, describe what is real for God.

Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 6/1/2002 4:22 AM (GMT -6)

First:

quote:
Thanks PoW-

I’m still interested in how you’d answer my last question. If you believe Abraham could have failed the test, would you grant that God believed Abraham could have failed the test? Does the statement “Abraham could have failed” represent only our mistaken human point of view on the situation (in which case our belief that Abraham could have failed is false), or does it represent a reality which God knows as well? Or are you uncomfortable answering the question because you think it takes us in the wrong direction?

I've got no problem with "Abraham could have failed the test."

That is a bit different with Christ and with His Mom. For Christ we can say that he "could" have sinned; but we would never say that he "would." (Boy, taking German in high school and college sure helped. Sollen==Shall, while Wollen==Will. "I will" means I want to -- eat cake. "I shall" means that I am going to do it -- clean my room.) Christ never would sin, even though he could. With the moment of the Annuciation, God knew Mary's heart, that she would say 'fiat'; even though (and BECAUSE OF THE FACT!) she "could" say no. In that aspect, of exercising truly free will, the Theotokos is the summation of all that God did leading up to it -- including Abraham.

Tom: Does the statement “Abraham could have failed” only represent our mistaken human point of view (i.e., it’s only epistemological), or does it represent a reality which God knows as
well?

PoW: What if we say that God knows AS we are known. Mabye if we work on how we are known, first, the rest will follow?

- P*W

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 6/1/2002 4:32 AM (GMT -6)

(Tom, especially considerint where you live...do you dare send me your wmail address?)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 6/1/2002 5:39 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
(Tom, especially considerint where you live...do you dare send me your wmail address?)

Yeah man, I just emailed it to you via your preferences on this site. Right?

Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

Winghead
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132

Posted 6/2/2002 12:27 PM (GMT -6)

Tom,

I am way behind in reading the board, so forgive me if this has been already addressed.

Tom:

quote:
Thanks Doc. What about Ware's claim that since Abraham continues to possess libertarian free will, the open view cannot claim that the test tells God how Abraham will act in the future and that the argument that God tests Abraham to know that Abraham will be a faithful covenant partner fails, for libertarian free will disallows it?

First, what or who is "Ware"?

Second, this appears to miss the point of the test and Gen 22:12. It says:

He said, "Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him; or now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." Gen. 22:12 (NRSVA)

God says that he knows that Abraham "fears God". The above question appears to take Gen 22 beyond its intent. Gen 22 is not trying to say that God will exhaustively know what Abraham will do in the future. What God appears to be doing, is to be testing the "metal" of Abraham's heart. Apparently, it proved to be geniune "gold." It is also important to note that this does not mean that God does not know the thoughts and intentions of Abraham's heart, but what we intend and what we do are often different things. Knowing that Abraham "fears God" to the point of being willing to give up God's promised blessing says a lot. However, Abraham also had a lot of faith in God.

Then Abraham said to his young men, "Stay here with the donkey; the boy and I will go over there; we will worship, and then we will come back to you." Gen. 22:5 (NRSVA)

Note he says "WE" will come back to you!!!

Then again, we cannot discount the Messianic implications of this text. Without it, we would not have a powerful type for Christ, as the substitutionary Lamb of God.

We must be careful in our discussions about foreknowledge to not lose the context of the text we are discussing. People who take a text like this, and try to refute an opposing view, sacrificing the clear contextual messages, are losing more than they are gaining, apologetically. IMHO.

Trusting in God's Lamb,
Winghead

"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 6/2/2002 4:22 PM (GMT -6)

I read the first page, so I am going to skip the second page for now, and just hop in, hope this qualifies me.

I am experiencing God, experiencing me, experience Him.

Abraham was then and still is experiencing God, experiencing him, experience God.

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 6/2/2002 6:12 PM (GMT -6)

I am experiencing God, experiencing me, experience Him. Abraham was then and still is experiencing God, experiencing him, experience God.

Doc. Wonderful. But does God's "experiernce of us experiencing him" at all depend on how we RESPOND to our "experience of him"? Or is the whole thing REALLY just God experiencing himself THROUGH us, and we are in truth have nothing to contribute to the loop? IF our experience of God and God's experience of us is INTERPERSONAL, than we must be PERSONAL, which means we actually make a CONTRIBUTION to the "loop." God doesn't just experience himself. He experiences US -- and we are persons.

FYIW (for what its worth)

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

diamondd
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 42

Posted 6/2/2002 8:00 PM (GMT -6)

hey winghead, "ware" i am assuming is bruce ware and his book "God's Lesser Glory" which is a critique of open theism. hope that helps.

have a good day,

David

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 6/2/2002 8:39 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
hey winghead, "ware" i am assuming is bruce ware and his book "God's Lesser Glory" which is a critique of open theism. hope that helps.

Da very same. Ware has just come out with The Battle for God which I understand is comprised in part of a series of quotes from Church fathers which confirm the classical view. Are you here Max Herrera? Can you confirm? I'm trying to pull you into this discussion good buddy!

Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 6/3/2002 1:15 AM (GMT -6)

Hey Greg,

I believe, God's "experience of us experiencing him", does depend on how we RESPOND, to our "experience of him", thus, contributing to the loop?

However, I also believe, the whole thing is REALLY about God, experiencing himself, THROUGH us.

That is to say, God does, just experience himself, while He experiences US, experiencing him -- and we are our own persons.

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

In God’s Love,

Tim

41 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:16 AM (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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual