 |
| 
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 10/29/2002 6:39 PM (GMT -6) |   | As Doc addresses in God of the Possible, there are instances of individual prophecy in Scripture that seem to be incompatible with open theism. The three most glaring examples are those of Cyrus, Josiah, and John (the Baptist). Before each of these individuals was even born, God predetermined not only their very names, but also predetermined that each would in some way follow God's will with regard to certain matters. At first glance, this seems problematic for open theists. After all, where is their free will and the possibilities that accompany that supposed free will? Could they have decided NOT to follow the predetermined wishes of God for their lives? Not if we believe in God's prophetic ability (and, as Scripture reveals, the prophecies about these three did indeed come true).
Doc deals with this rather briefly (it's an admittedly short book which attempts only to offer a basic treatment of open theism). I need to flesh this out a little further, and I'm hoping others here can offer some insight.
Let's discuss Josiah first. Three hundred years before he is ever born, Scripture refers to Josiah by name, and prophesies that he would burn the bones of false prophets upon the altar to their false gods and ultimately destroy the altar (I Kings 13:2-3). This is certainly an impressively specific prophecy, particularly because, centuries later, it would indeed come to pass in all of its detail: a king named Josiah would indeed be born, and he would indeed do exactly as God predicted that he would by destroying the altar and burning the bones of the false prophets upon it (See II Kings 23:15-20). Doc argues that this does not preclude an open theism perspective, because it only establishes that God does predetermine or “settle” SOME aspects of the future, but it does not show that God has predetermined ALL aspects of the future. Individuals must still have a substantive measure of free will—enough for love to be chosen and not forced. I take this to mean that God can predetermine a lot of things, but he cannot predetermine that people will follow His will. Those decisions must be freely chosen, and are therefore not predetermined or foreknown by God. The problem is that in this instance, it is not just Josiah’s name that is fore-ordained. His submission to God’s will is fore-ordained as well. His decision to punish the false prophets and destroy their false altars to false gods is apparently set in stone before he is even born. How is this consistent with open theism and free will in general?
Next is Cyrus. Approximately 140 years before he is ever born, Isaiah predicts that a man named Cyrus will “perform all [God’s] pleasure” by rebuilding Jerusalem for the Jewish people (Isaiah 44:28). This indeed occurs. A Medo-Persian emperor named Cyrus decreed in circa 539 BC that the Jews could return to Jerusalem to rebuild. Again, how can God predetermine that someone will follow His will? Did Cyrus actually have a choice as to whether he wanted to follow God’s wishes by allowing the Jews to rebuild Jerusalem?
Finally, I turn to Luke 1 in which the “angel of the Lord” tells Zechariah that his son John do so much of God’s will that he will be considered “great in the sight of the Lord,” and will bring “many people of Israel . . . back to the Lord their God . . . turn[ing] the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous – to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” This seems to me to be the most glaring example of God predetermining someone’s life to such an extent that it doesn’t seem that free will was even possible. If this prophecy was true (and, like the others above, it certainly turned out to be), then God was fore-ordaining that John the Baptist could do nothing but follow God’s will for his life. Again, is this free will, and is it consistent with open theism?
Hope this isn’t too rambling or incoherent. I’m writing quickly. Gotta run.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 10/30/2002 2:46 AM (GMT -6) | | BJS,
One of the things I think we can keep in mind as we consider the open view is the power of God and the control He really, really has. Too often we are caught in our limitations and conceptions of how much God is in control, and we attempt to rectify this (within discussion of the open view) by resorting to a form of determinism. But just look at Jonah. God knew well before the fact (because He knows the heart, will and mind) that Jonah would balk at God's command to go to Ninevah. So, God puts the pressure on, and Jonah does as he's suppose to.
What if, however, God had predicted years before that Jonah would go to Ninevah, but Jonah balks (as he did.) Often this is what we see in Scripture with other individuals, but without the details that rectify the matter. In Jonah's case, we are privy to the working power of God; in other cases, we are not.
That God can set the future of the name of an individual is no great feat. He did so with Cyrus no differently than he did with John the Baptist. He just didn't give us the details as to how God utilized His power to bring it about with Cyrus as He did with the Baptist. How easily we come to realize how limited our conception of an all-powerful God is!
Another thing to consider is that just because Cyrus or any other individual ends up doing God's will doesn't mean that that person wanted to (ala Jonah.) It simply means God insures what He wanted to come to pass. In the case with the Baptist, he is on God's side. But consider the fact that he has the prophecy in God's Word, his parents to promote the issue, and God Himself to further the Prophet along. Could the Baptist rebel? Sure he could have. But why would he? Could Paul have rebelled? Sure he could have, but I think his knowledge of who and what he was was overwhelming and kept him in line.
Finally, the only--and I repeat, the only--freedom we really are given is our freedom to decide for or against God. When it all comes to putting it down on paper, we aren't given a whole lot that can't be adjusted, manipulated and controlled by God; ultimately, I do not believe that if an individual will ever be forced to serve God and like it, but he may be forced to serve Him regardless.
Well, these are some thoughts . . .
For a bigger picture of God's controlling power,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/30/2002 2:31 PM (GMT -6) | | I have a couple of thoughts on this. First off, I agree with Starkman about his ideas for a possible resolution. It is only essential that we are truly free with regard to salvation.
The other thing is that we often think of prophecy as a "strictly future telling event." Now, sometimes it is, and that is the point, and sometimes it is not, and an author (writing much later than the events being spoken of) is retrospectively crediting God for things, which is appropriate since God did indeed know all possibilities from eternity past and how God would react to each possible set of circumstances. But before we get too far downstream of the idea that this is a foretelling that God intended us to analyze as proof of God's sovereign control we should consider some things:
1. There are MANY unfulfilled prophecies. (I don't really think we want to say God "got lucky" with these highly specific ones Brett is bringing up but "blew it" on some other less specific but unfulfilled ones.)
2. There are many occurances of strange, backward crediting in the Bible. This offends our sense of "prophecy" but apparently didn't offend those who heard them and spoke them (well after the events). I am just saying that it might matter that the actual writing of some of these texts happened well after the events "prophecied" actually occurred. This gives the author access to more info than we might like to think. The rules of the game seemed to be different for this sort of thing back then.
For example, many who are interested in prophecy (in the modern sense of the word and office) know that the false prophet is to be killed, according to Scripture. Well, I know of no actual instance of this taking place in Scripture. And, yes, there are times where a false prophecy is uttered and one would expect the punishment to follow. I am just saying, Brett's questions really beg several other questions that are critical to engage at the same time.
I am just suggesting that we might need to broaden our sense of what to expect from some of these texts.
Just remember, I did start out with the more conservative friendly way of dealing with it. I just think that that may be a bit too simple, though if that really is the best we can do, so be it.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/30/2002 2:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Actually, rather than open up an whole 'nother can of worms here (too late?), why don't you just ask Electra to offer a bibliography that deals with the critical issues dealing with the nature of prophecy and how it is best read today.
Electra?
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 10/31/2002 4:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks, Starkman and Modes. A thought in response:
quote:
It is only essential that we are truly free with regard to salvation.
So God could have predetermined that John the Baptist would be “great in the sight of the Lord,” and would bring “many people of Israel . . . back to the Lord their God . . . turn[ing] the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous – to make ready a people prepared for the Lord,” but meanwhile he was entirely free with regard to his salvation?
This seems hard to believe.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/31/2002 4:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey man, I didn't say it was plausible!  Only that the bare necessity for freedom to be meaningful and for Love to be real (in the sense that we mean it) is that we are free to reject grace.
Starkman is right to point out that we often over-estimate our freedom anyway, it is possible that we may over-estimate it by a very large measure. But, I also pointed in some important directions for research on the ambiguities still unadressed in the issue of how prophecy "works" in the Bible. I personally would only fall back to a position like Starkman's if all else failed. It seems far more plausible to me that the fact that the texts where written after the fulfillment, though speaking of times prior, has something to do with the specificity of the statements. I think we "read" prophecy VERY differently than ancient people did. We know for sure simply because it got said, does not mean it got done.
Here's another angle, if Cyrus or Josiah HAD radically deviated from the "plan" if you will, then I suspect we might not have heard about them in the Bible. Likewise, if Paul HAD rejected Christ, we would not have his letters nor his testimony in our canon. We DON'T know who else God had plans for that DID reject them. We DO know that it is very possible to reject God's plans. See Luke 7:30. Don't take offense that it was the lawyers who rejected God's purpose though, 'k?
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 11/1/2002 9:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Of course it was the lawyers who rejected God's purpose. You've seen The Devil's Advocate, right? We're all in it together. . . 
More on your prophecy point later.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 11/2/2002 11:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Modes,
I've not studied that much of the scholarship promoting after-the-fact writing of prophecy, but I'd have to say that some of it was written because of a priori reasoning; the scholar already started out with the idea that miracles, hence foretelling of the future, wasn't possible.
Otherwise, I think there's something to be said about trying to work with the concepts of approach which folks of old may have interpreted prophecy, but I'm still in the dark why one would want to hold to an after-the-fact approach when well enough of the evidence is impossible to be interpreted this way: Jesus being born in Bethelem; John the Baptist being prophesised in Isaiah, Jesus healing out of Isaiah, etc. These are just a few of the impossiblities of after-the-fact.
I think what strikes me most against this position, though I can appreciate your working through the issue--and I pay attention when you post!--is that I think, like the ability to communicate to all around the world being a common demonitor, there is a common denomitor at stake here: the thrust of that portion of prophecy that is futuristic looses any semblance of purpose and reasoning to the reader if it doesn't mean what it implies--foretelling. You stated in your above post, "Here's another angle, if Cyrus or Josiah HAD radically deviated from the "plan" if you will, then I suspect we might not have heard about them in the Bible." I agree and because of why you said; it probably wouldn't have made it into Scripture if it didn't happen the way it was supposed to; the foretelling of the event being the thrust of the passage.
Let me quickly add that I have trouble with "prophecy" just as much as the next fellow. Some of the stuff in the New Testament ("and this was that it might be fulfilled . . .") is enough to drive me bonkers when you can't see how in the world the authors got this from the OT! So, I add this: pass on some good stuff you've read that I can more readily see where you're coming from.
Mucho gracious,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 11/2/2002 6:16 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm not sure how far to press Mode's notion of "retroactive prophecy," but it certainly IS the case that ancients didn't think of it quite the same way WE do. The New Testament's use of "fulfillment" is enough to prove this. They weren't thinking apologetically, but practically.
E.g., Jesus "fufilled" what David wrote when he said his enemies gave him "vinegar for water" NOT in the sense that someone HAD to give jesus "vinegar," but in the sense that the way they treated the Son of God PARALLELS and ILLUSTRATES the way God's servents have always been mistreated. If you read the original "prediction" (Ps 69), David also says, in the first half of the sentence, that his enemies gave him poison for food. Yet noone wondered why the first half of the sentence "wasn't fulfilled." This is true of MOST of the "prophecies" about Jesus. Read in their original context, there's nothing "predictive" about them.
With Josiah, Cyrus and John... several considerations:
* with Josiah and Cytrus, you have there NAME and a DEED predicted. Even without any thought of "retroactive prediction," this doesn't seem all that problematic. We have every reason to suppose that a great deal about our life is settled before we are born. Yet, within these parameters, we are free.
* John is more problematic because of the moral character the prophecy seems to imply. " he will be great in the sight of the Lord." (1:15). "He will turn many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God". (1:16). "With the spirit and power of Elijah he will go before him, to turn the hearts of parents to their children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (1:17).
Its seems God had strongly destined this man to play a significant role in the central event in history. He would be "filled with the Spirit...even before his birth" (1:16).
Now, even here there seems to be a degree of freedom. Hence Gabriel instructed Zechariahis, " he must never drink wine or strong drink" (1:16), implying, I suppose, that such things could sidetrack the plan. Also, given John's later confusion about Jesus (Matt 11), it seems he had SOME free will (unless one things his confusion was itself God ordained!). So...
It seems we could suppose that John was destined to be the forerunner of Jesus, though within these parameters he had some freedom. Everyone is given a different package to work with, and is held accountable for what they do with that package. Packages are not equal. Everyone answers to THEIR OWN master (Rom. 14). So, in this view, John's package was such that he WOULD in one way or another be a forerunner of the Lord, and so his freedom took place within these parameters.
OR, one might suppose that, even though John had been providentially advantaged to assume this role, he STILL could have opted out of it. (IN this sense he would be like Paul who was 'set aside' from his mothers womb [Gal 1] yet also implied to Agrippa that he could have been "disobedient to the heavenly vision" (Ac 26?). HAD John freely elected out of the destiny, God would have either had another person waiting in the wings to fill this role, or the role would not have been fulfilled, and the various "prophecies" that speak of a forerunner would have gone unnoticed.
What think ye?
Thanks for raising the issue BJS.
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 11/5/2002 5:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc said: quote:
OR, one might suppose that, even though John had been providentially advantaged to assume this role, he STILL could have opted out of it. (IN this sense he would be like Paul who was 'set aside' from his mothers womb [Gal 1] yet also implied to Agrippa that he could have been "disobedient to the heavenly vision" (Ac 26?). HAD John freely elected out of the destiny, God would have either had another person waiting in the wings to fill this role, or the role would not have been fulfilled, and the various "prophecies" that speak of a forerunner would have gone unnoticed.
What think ye?
John is definitely the one who, in my mind, poses the most problematic story against the concept of free will theism as well as the open view. I guess we either have to (1) agree that prophecy is not always the predictive absolute that we have typically thought it, or (2) we have to accept that God's prophetic capacity is not infallible (i.e., what He says will happen might not actually happen).
The former alternative is more comforting, that's for sure, but neither explanation is altogether convincing or satisfying to me.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori."
Edited by - BJS on 11/05/2002 10:05:12 AM | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:21 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 |
|
|