 |
| 
Keith Noren
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 5
| Posted 6/7/2003 4:14 AM (GMT -6) |   | I find the Open View of God appealing and have so for about 20 years before it really hit the evangelical world. It just creates a firmer foundation (than the alternatives) to understand Biblical accounts/exhortations, God's character, prayer, salvation, our inherent belief that we are free, etc. But I wonder if it goes far enough.
Open Theism (OT) frees God from the charge of being the "author" of all sorts of evil devised in the mind of man. It does not free God from being the "allower" of evil unless you propose that God's ominipotence is also somehow self-limited (like OTers say God's omniscience is self-limited to past and current events). Why didn't God intervene when He sees evil formenting in the mind of men before the act(s) take place? Could it be that He is powerless to prevent these acts from coming to fruition? That His only tools with man is through His Spirit (our consciences) and man doesn't always respond the way we should. I know some classical answers are (1) God allows evil to build up our character, (2) God allows evil for some inexplicable other good, (3) it is a mystery we cannot understand and (3a) it is sinful to even question the mind of God. All these answers don't quite ring the bell of my truth-meter this morning.
Furthermore what about natural evil. Earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, volcanoes, etc. You know in the Creation accounts (be they meaningful myths, or pure history over 7 days or 7 millenia), God looked down after each day and said "It is good" including man (Gen 1:31). To me that at least weekly implies that there was a chance that it would not turn out so good. And just like God found man in disobedience (Gen 3)in mild surprise, could it be that He was surprised also when the first earthquake came?
I know all these musings involve more than just questioning God's exhaustive nescience, it also questions God's omnipotence or perhaps just His omni-attentiveness. But such are Saturday morning musings.
Actually these thoughts have been going through my head for some time and I would appreciate this forum's comments. They have not been received warmly (or more importantly thoughfully) in other circles. Comments from a Biblical, Spiritual, reason-al (all the way from common-sensical to philosophical) and even tradition-al are welcome. Notice the Wesleyan quadrilateral form - but that's a whole other subject.
Keith Noren
keith@thenorens.net | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/7/2003 4:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Keith: It does not free God from being the "allower" of evil unless you propose that God's ominipotence is also somehow self-limited (like OTers say God's omniscience is self-limited to past and current events).
Tom: Hi Keith! Welcome to the site.
I do think God limits the exercise of his power for the sake of loving relationships. God certainly “has the capability” of preventing any evil act. But since doing so would mean removing the freedom necessary for the sort of loving relationships God wants, the possibility for evil exists.
Open theists do not generally argue that God limits is omniscience to past and current events. Pinnock and, perhaps, Dallas Willard are exceptions to this. It’s more consistently argued by open theists that God does omnisciently know the future (for what it is, of course). So it’s not that there’s something out there to know that God chooses not to know. He knows it all. It’s rather that what it out there to know is not what we have traditionally thought it out there to know.
Keith: Why didn't God intervene when He sees evil formenting in the mind of men before the act(s) take place?
Tom: Because to do so would mean abolishing the sort of freedom also necessary for us to choose to love him.
Keith: Could it be that He is powerless to prevent these acts from coming to fruition?
Tom: Not powerless. He has the ability to prevent, but the rules necessary for achieving the sort of loving relationships God desires require that God not exercise this ability.
Greg is the expert on natural evil. I’ll not comment on that. I have ideas, but am not firm on them.
Again, welcome aboard!
Tom 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Keith Noren
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 5
| Posted 6/7/2003 6:33 AM (GMT -6) | | TGB:I do think God limits the exercise of his power for the sake of loving relationships. God certainly “has the capability” of preventing any evil act. But since doing so would mean removing the freedom necessary for the sort of loving relationships God wants, the possibility for evil exists.
I should have mentioned this "semi-classical" answer to my list. And it is a good OT answer but a nagging question remains:
Why couldn't God selectively remove the worst of the worst actions? He would not have foiled ALL human freedom or the responsive loving relationships He desires from us. Just a limited set of people for a limited timeframe.
Wouldn't it is neater and cleaner (and I like things simple) if He just is powerless to act because of freedom past granted. Or maybe God is partially inattentive or has given up on making justice the norm on earth.
Or maybe I just have to get over these ideas of an God who is fair and good by any human standard. (Note how we blame the Cardinals over the pedophile priests because they could have stopped it; why not God 'cause he could have stopped many-a-"it"s).
Thanks for your thoughts.
Keith Noren
keith@thenorens.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 6/8/2003 2:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Keith:
Good questions.I have also wondered abouts God's apparent lack of intervention in worldly events.
A thought struck me though, when I read your posts, the question "Why couldn't God selectively remove the worst of the worst actions? " presupposes that God isn't already doing so. If you could demonstrate that the world has reach the absolute depths of possible corruption, then the question becomes pressing, but why think this? I can imaging a world that is much better than the one we inhabit but I can also imagine one much worse.
This is why libertarianism appeals to me, it can us help to understand our "middle of the road" existence between the best and worst of possible worlds.
Sorry to interupt you and Tom, please continue your discussion with him, he is a very lucid thinker.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Keith Noren
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 5
| Posted 6/8/2003 8:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Very good point Anewbegining. He very well could have intervened numerous times and, to couple in TGB thoughts, to intervene at all (or even most) instances that evil appears in the mind of man would in truth being doing away with the freedom to choose to act on evil urges. Still don't get how that would "remove the freedom necessary for the sort of loving relationships God wants".
Maybe there are some other thoughts about natural evil so that I can shut the wide open door a little more.
Keith Noren
keith@thenorens.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/10/2003 6:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi, I'm putting in a quote from Bob Mackie about how the OV really doesn't get God 'off the hook' from evil any more than the other theories do:
Consider the type of god who does not know what will happen in the future. Mackie (1982, pp. 175-176) writes: "When God created free agents - free in this sense - he had to do so without knowing how they would use their freedom. This development of the defence succeeds better than any other in detaching moral evils, the wrong choices of free agents, from God. But it does so at the price of a very serious invasion of what has commonly been meant by the omniscience ascribed to God. If he does not know future contingents, and, in particular, does not know what free choices human agents will make, it follows that in 1935, for example, he knew little more than we did about the catastrophic events of the twenty years to 1955, and equally he knows little more than we do about the next twenty years. And such a limitation of his knowledge carries with it a serious effective limitation of his power. Also, this account forces the theologian to put God very firmly inside time. It could only be before God created Adam and Eve that he could not know what they would do if he created them, and the theologian cannot, without contradiction, give God also an extra-temporal existence and extra-temporal knowledge."
"But even this is not the end of the matter. Although, on this account, God could not have known what Adam and Eve, or Satan, would do if he created them, he could surely know what they might do: that is compatible even with this extreme libertarianism. If so, he was taking, literally, a hell of a risk when he created Adam and Eve, no less than when he created Satan. Was the freedom to make unforeseeable choices so great a good that it outweighed this risk? This question must be answered not only with reference to the degree of human wickedness that has actually occurred: men might (strange as it may seem) have been much worse than they are, and God (on this account) was accepting that risk too. He would not then be the author of sin in the sense of having knowingly produced it; he could not be accused of malice aforethought; but he would be open to a charge of gross negligence or recklessness."
Second, even if god was unaware of what would ensue after his having created the universe, he is still admitted by the theist to know what happens spatially, i.e., at any point in time, as happenings are, indeed, realized. If so, god would have known, a posteriori, what his creation had given rise to, and hence could have rectified anything with which he was discontent (due to his omnipotence). This he has not done and thus is blameworthy for evil.
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 6/10/2003 2:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi ReasonableDoubt:
Mackie makes an interesting assertion-
"he was taking, literally, a hell of a risk when he created Adam and Eve, no less than when he created Satan. Was the freedom to make unforeseeable choices so great a good that it outweighed this risk?"
The risk I asume he refers to is the (great...inevitabe maybe?) possibility that finite creatures would misuse their freedom. Can we accuse God of recklessness for creating the possibility of evil? Depends on which direction you approach this question from I suppose.
If you believe "(creaturly) freedom to make unforseeable choices" was God's goal in creating, the possibility of evil seems imprudent or foolhardy.
If you believe, as most libertarians do, that genuine loving relationships are the goal of creation, and freedom or ontological distinction is a necessary requirement for this, the possibility of evil becomes an unavoidable element of such a creation. Most Libertarians believe genuine love must originate in the lover, not the loved, possible evil is a necessary risk in achieving this goal (LOVE!).
The idea that-
" god would have known, a posteriori, what his creation had given rise to, and hence could have rectified anything with which he was discontent (due to his omnipotence). This he has not done and thus is blameworthy for evil."
-has already been addressed.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/10/2003 4:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey there - Newbeginning - where has that been addressed here, at least recently? I'd be curious.
I thought the point was "a posterori"- after the fact - so if God truly did not know the outcome of his creation - yet after the fact he surely could see what was going on and what would continue to go on - why hasn't he stopped it?
In other words - when is enough enough? If there is no purpose for evil - it doesn't fit into the grand master plan b/c there really is no plan - why didn't God just end the universe a long time ago? Surely the "return" of love from finite beings is negligible after a certain point. I mean, come on, let's even give God up until WW2. With all the evil that had occurred from creation until then - is there really any credible reason for God to believe that after WW2- with 6 million of his own people dead - that at some time shortly thereafter vast amounts of love are going to arise out of the blue that will override all the evil there is?
That's just what I do n't get about this argument - that somehow, love, no matter how little, is enough to justify MASSIVE amounts of suffering - for thousands of years. If nothing else, that seems rather sadistic -t hat God wants or needs love so much , that he is going to sacrifice millions of people to lives of untold suffering, when, certainly, in his omnipotence he could end it all now - or a long time ago. Exactly how much love does he need?
The only thing that makes any sense to me is the Unknown Purpose Defense - that God does have a reason for all the suffering he allows - that he is fully in control of it - he is orchestrating it to fit his divine purposes. Of course I realize that is not a completely satisfactory answer either. But at least, if there is a Grand Master Plan - there is an end in sight - a culmination of the plan that God has purposed from the beginning.
Under the OV, there is no purpose - nor is there any end in sight - it is simply gratuitous for God to keep the universe going when he knows how much evil and suffering occur on a daily basis.
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
frog
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 10
| Posted 6/10/2003 6:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi!
Not about this subject, but I jumped when reading this:
quote:
[Pinnock and, perhaps, Dallas Willard are exceptions to this. ]
Is Willard OT?
/Roger | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/11/2003 3:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Frog: Is Willard OT?
Tom: I understand he is. First, in The Divine Conspiracy he comes out in favor of an open future when discussing the place of prayer. Can remember the page number. Pinnock refers to it in Most Moved Mover. Sanders refers to Willard also but mentions that Willard believes God choosesn not to know certain things. Pinnock has come close to that too.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/11/2003 4:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Instead of posting a quote extraction, let me direct ALL to the whole source. This is John of Damascus' "Exact Exposition of the Christian Faith." www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-09/Npnf2-09-29.htm#P2930_1712146 In it he refers to such things as:
quote:
Now the Greeks declare that all our affairs are controlled by the rising and setting and collision85 of these stars, viz., the sun and moon: for it is with these matters that astrology has to do. But we hold that we get from them signs of rain and drought, cold and heat, moisture and dryness, and of the various winds, and so forth86 , but no sign whatever as to our actions. For we have been created with free wills by our Creator and are masters over our own actions. Indeed, if all our actions depend on the courses of the stars, all we do is done of necessity87 : and necessity precludes either virtue or vice. But if we possess neither virtue nor vice, we do not deserve praise or punishment, and God, too, will turn out to be unjust, since He gives good things to some and afflicts others. Nay, He will no longer continue to guide or provide for His own creatures, if all things are carried and swept along in the grip of necessity. And the faculty of reason will be superfluous to us: for if we are not masters of any of our actions, deliberation is quite superfluous. Reason, indeed, is granted to us solely that we might take counsel, and hence all reason implies freedom of will.
Well, that quote was painless. (Note the underlining as an outline.)
If you want to go to the site, click on it. If you want to know a portion larger than the above, yet smaller than the whole, then for that I'll post a separate thread, and link to it HERE: www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2180
Its OUTLINE IS:
Chapter:
- XXIV. Concerning what is Voluntary and what is Involuntary
- XXV. Concerning what is in our own power, that is, concerning Free-will
- XXVI. Concerning Events
- XXVII. Concerning the reason of our endowment with Free-will.
- XXVIII. Concerning what is not in our hands
- XXIX. Concerning Providence
- XXX. Concerning Prescience and Predestination
TAKE A LOOK! | | Back to Top | | |
|
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 6/11/2003 4:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi RD:
You asked:
"I thought the point was "a posterori"- after the fact - so if God truly did not know the outcome of his creation - yet after the fact he surely could see what was going on and what would continue to go on - why hasn't he stopped it?
In other words - when is enough enough?"
Well...I recall reading something about the exceeding wickedness of men and a flood and a remnant saved, and a repentant God.
You wrote:
"That's just what I do n't get about this argument - that somehow, love, no matter how little, is enough to justify MASSIVE amounts of suffering - for thousands of years. If nothing else, that seems rather sadistic -t hat God wants or needs love so much , that he is going to sacrifice millions of people to lives of untold suffering, when, certainly, in his omnipotence he could end it all now - or a long time ago. Exactly how much love does he need?
The only thing that makes any sense to me is the Unknown Purpose Defense - that God does have a reason for all the suffering he allows - that he is fully in control of it - he is orchestrating it to fit his divine purposes. Of course I realize that is not a completely satisfactory answer either. But at least, if there is a Grand Master Plan - there is an end in sight - a culmination of the plan that God has purposed from the beginning."
Rd, do you have children? I do, I knew the risks involved in bringing them here, yet risky as this place is, I and my wife brought them. Maybe a poor parallel but as close as I can come.
You seem to feel that OT posits a purposeless God, Someone with no "plan". I see the oposite. OT's depiction of God shows a being far more approachable, loving, nurturing, and capable of geniune interaction with His creation. He doesn't know-
" little more than we did about the catastrophic events of the twenty years to 1955, and equally he knows little more than we do about the next twenty years."
He's God, an infinite mind with knowledge of ALL posible outcomes BEFORE he created. By His grace we have been granted a minute amount of autonomy to ASSIST in the determination of creation. In my mind the God of OT is orders of magnitude greater than the one-dimension God of the theistic determinist, but that's just me.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Christian
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 78
| Posted 6/11/2003 7:40 PM (GMT -6) | | NewBeginning, I would like to ask you to explain why the God of the OV is, in your words, "far more approachable, loving, nurturing, and capable of geniune interaction with His creation." You see, I myeself find God to be extremely approachable, loving, nurturing, and capable of genuine interaction but I do not agree with many aspects of the OV. How can I both disagree with the OV and at the same time know a loving, genuine, interactive God? The OV seems to insinuate that this is impossible, that it is only in the OV that this God exists.
What kind of plan does the OV believe God to have? You said you see the OV having a loving, approachable, nurturing, genuine God, and you also said you don't see him having no plan. But being "loving... genuine" is not indicitive to someone (God) having a plan. What plan does the OV God have according to the OV? Isn't the plan unraveled as we go along since even God is "surprised" by what happens day to day, year to year? According to the OV, we are creating the plan far more than God. It is after all, according to the OV, humans who create the future with their choices. In fact, according to G. Boyd, humans create their destinies because choice after choice leads to a character that has been formed by the person's choices and cannot change. He explains that belief differently but I cannot recall the words he uses. Hopefully you will recognize the idea and thought.
The OV mischaracterizes and misunderstands the trad. view by claiming God outside the OV is cruel, heartless, and ungenuine. You call the God of the theistic determinist "one dimensional" while you say the OV God is "orders of magnitude greater." I can almost guarantee that you and I both love the Lord greatly, both believe the Lord loves us, both find God to be genuine, nurturing, approachable, and interactive. He is not cold or cruel, he is intimate with us. Yet, the OV describes God in ways I find problematic. The OV assumes that if a person believes God knows even evil, then that person must also believe God is unloving because the OV cannot seem to accept that God can be loving yet know even the evil that will occur.
I suppose it will only be revealed to us in heaven who God truly is, the one who is "in control" or the one who is "not in control." Does it matter? Yes, very much so.
Edited by - Christian on 06/12/2003 12:43:23 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Keith Noren
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 5
| Posted 6/12/2003 1:41 AM (GMT -6) | | To refocus on a "Wide Open" theology I would like to point out that there are instances in the OTM (Old TestaMemt)where God is apparently lacking in knowledge of past events - like Adam's and Eve's eating from the tree. Just from the narrative it would appear that God sees them embarrassed and then surmises that they had done what He told them not to do in the past. Also He apparently doesn't know present attitudes of the mind - like Abraham's strength of faith so He devised a test - Isaac's scarifice. Bruce Ware mentions this objection to the coherency of OT (Open Theism) in his generally weak attack in "God's Lesser Glory" - about the only real point he makes in that book or a tape I have by him.
OTers like to point out the many instances of God not apparently knowing the future, God changing His own mind .... Anti-Open defenders of the faith say that this is all anthropomorphistic talk. Well, are OTers going to say these indications of God not knowing the future free decsions/detailed actions of man are not anthropomorphic but the apparent past and present non-exhaustive knowledge are anthropometric? Or should we be thinking in terms of a more "wide open" theology where perhaps God is not omin-attentive to earthly affairs past, present or future.
Also on the natural evil question I raised earlier, perhaps someone could point me to an earlier thread.
gotta to go to work - a necessary evil.
Keith Noren
keith@thenorens.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Magneton
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 6/12/2003 8:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Keith,
Some good threads on "natural evil":
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=579
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=938
(The 2nd one is a followup of the 1st one.)
Magneton
- - -
LECTURER: Fundamentally a star is a very simple structure...
AUDIENCE: You would look pretty simple too, at a distance of 10 parsecs. -- Cambridge
Edited by - Magneton on 06/12/2003 1:33:44 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 6/12/2003 5:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Christian:
I apologize if I have offended you with my comments about my views. My views are just that, mine. If the clasical view of God gives you comfort, I don't wish to disturb that. Why I find God more approachable, interactive...generally more personal in the open view has alot to do with the classical views' own desriptions of God as simple, immutable, unmoved etc.
What do I find disingenuine in the classical God? All of His conditional statements! As well as His decrees that we abstain from sins He has forordained. Again, my views only.
What is the OV God's plan? Well, among many other lesser things I would say it's to court a bride.
I'm sorry you feel so strongly opposed to OT. But in reading your post I can't help but feel you don't completely understand it. You give far to much credit to human free-will. We HELP create the future, but it's still GOD'S future. I don't even feel that free-will is what makes us in God's image, rather it's UNDERSTANDING.
As far as God's foreknowledge goes, I think Tom has nailed this one down. Simple foreknowledge (God knowing the future as we view a movie) is useless to a God, intent on regulating His creation.
As soon as God's simple forknowledge graduates from "such and such is certain" to "if I intervene here then this will occur instead of that", well, welcome to OT.
I too believe God knows evil events will occur, even particular evils BEFORE the fact. Such things grieve Him deeply. I just don't believe they were forordained.
If classical theism fulfills you, please disregard my views. I simply don't find comfort in it, and I held to it for some time.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/12/2003 5:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Keith: To refocus on a "Wide Open" theology I would like to point out that there are instances in the OTM (Old TestaMemt) where God is apparently lacking in knowledge of past events - like Adam's and Eve's eating from the tree.
Tom: Only a literal interpretation of God’s question “Have you eaten of the tree?”, an interpretation that would disallow rhetorical questions, would imply God lacked knowledge of a past event. But why think God is incapable of asking rhetorical questions?
Keith: Also He apparently doesn't know present attitudes of the mind - like Abraham's strength of faith so He devised a test - Isaac's scarifice.
Tom: It seems to me that the perceived problem is not real while the problem you create by going this far is a real one. Omniscience would be strictly ruled out. But why go with it? God can know Abraham’s present state of mind and heart perfectly and still require a test to resolve Abraham’s commitment IF Abraham is himself less than fully resolved. This IS the present state of affairs God knows.
Keith: Bruce Ware mentions this objection to the coherency of OT (Open Theism) in his generally weak attack in "God's Lesser Glory" - about the only real point he makes in that book or a tape I have by him.
Tom: If you’re correct about God not knowing past and present realities, then Bruce Ware is correct and open theists can’t maintain omniscience (in which case I’d reject it). But why not respond to Ware by showing that God’s question in Genesis is rhetorical and that there’s nothing about Abraham at any time that God doesn’t perfectly know?
Keith: OTers like to point out the many instances of God not apparently knowing the future, God changing His own mind .... Anti-Open defenders of the faith say that this is all anthropomorphistic talk. Well, are OTers going to say these indications of God not knowing the future free decsions/detailed actions of man are not anthropomorphic but the apparent past and present non-exhaustive knowledge are anthropometric?
Tom: It’s not such a one-way street. I mean, there is no reason why God cannot use anthropomorphic language in describing either past or future, or why God cannot speak literally of the past or future. There’s nothing about the past that requires anthropomorphic language and nothing about the future that demands literal language. There is no unique “open view” hermeneutic in other words.
Can we make sense of a term or phrase understood literally? Does it jive with the Bible’s entire picture of God? Can it mediate some MEANING to you? If “Have you eaten of the tree I commanded you not to?” is taken literally (viz., as implying that God didn’t know whether or not they had eaten of it), does this leave you with a picture of God that fits the rest of what the Bible says about God and his knowledge of the world? No, it doesn’t. So why feel the need to go with this literal interpretation if there’s a perfectly good solution—God speaks rhetorically? God can ask a rhetorical question if he wants to. The open view doesn’t suggest otherwise.
Now, why do OVers then suggest that passages describing God as “changing his mind” or “speaking conditionally of the future” ought NOT to be understood as anthropomorphisms (or as other than literal)? Because the attempt to do so cannot yield anything MEANINGFUL. Take Jer. 3.7-9 as an example. God says “I thought Israel would return and call me ‘Father’ but she did not.” OK, I’m open to this being non-literal (or anthropomorphic if you want). So tell me, what would it then MEAN? There’s the problem. See, “God is my Rock,” “God covers us with his wings,” and other such phrases are truly “literary” anthropomorphism, but we know what they MEAN (“God is strong and dependable,” and “God protects us”). So what does “I expected Israel to return, but she did not” mean if not that God actually expected Israel to return but she didn’t? The OV goes with the literal here because there is no meaningful option.
Similarly, there is a meaningful alternative to taking “Did you eat of the tree I commanded you not to?” literally (which would definitely undermine omniscience). God could be asking this question not because he doesn’t know whether or not they ate, but because he wants Adam to own up and confess. I’m a parent. I ask rhetorical questions all the time.
Keith: Or should we be thinking in terms of a more "wide open" theology where perhaps God is not omin-attentive to earthly affairs past, present or future.
Tom: Go ahead and call it what it is: giving up “omniscience” (“omni-attentive” is just a softer term). But again, there’s no reason to go this far. One can interpret the Bible consistently (at least AS consistently, more so in my view, as Calvinists and Amminians) without losing omniscience and still believe in the open view.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Keith Noren
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 5
| Posted 6/13/2003 12:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for the ideas. Rhetorical speech (where someone really knows the answer but is trying to make someone else give the answer to perhaps 'fess up, or tell a story themselves to give them credit, or otherwise make the recipients think) is different from anthropomorphic speech (where supposedly God is using human terms so as to enhance human understanding of some point or concept that could not be understood otherwise).
Say we analyze the “Have you eaten of the tree?”. If anthropomorphic, what would be the point He is trying to make more evident to us humans? Not sure. There is no real complexity taht needs simpler language about having eaten a piece of fruit. If rhetorical, I can see where God was giving them a chance to confess. So I think rhetoric speech makes more sense here. I agree.
Now let's consider the Abraham/Isaac story which anti-OTers claim is anthropomorphic. "for now I know that you fear God". Since the "now I know.." is not a question, it can't be a rhetorical question. If it is anthropomorphic speech, one would have to say the whole story of the curtailed sacrifice would have to be considered a "meaningful myth" meant to encourage loving God more than even family. And that could be true. Classical theists of a more liberal bent might buy this. But Classical theists of a conservative bent certainly wouldn't buy since all Genesis is pure history to them.
It is inetersting, that at a Cooperative Baptist Convention seminar on OT last year, one reviewer(not a conservative) felt like it was only Bible literalists that had to concoct something as innovative and concocted as OT to preserve Biblical infallability.
So thanks for thoughtful answer TGB. I'll have to think a little more to see if any of the other passages that seemed to limit God's past or present knowledge pass the rhetorical filter.
Keith Noren
keith@thenorens.net | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:59 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 |
|
|