 |
| 
¡Que Payaso!
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 108
| Posted 1/4/2002 4:16 PM (GMT -6) |   | Judging by a post from Harold writerdad on the “A repeat please...” thread (12/31/2001 11:21:04 PM), it appears as though Genesis 18:20-21 has been addressed elsewhere on this discussion board. I tried hunting for it but didn’t come up with anything.
The verses read as follows:
So the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so blatant that I must go down and see if they are as wicked as the outcry suggests. If not, I want to know."
At face value, in keeping with the OV hermeneutic, this passages states that God lacked knowledge of past or present events concerning the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah. In Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, Doc mentions this passage and recognizes it as an anthropomorphism ( I don’t have the page number with me; I believe it was in his response to W.L. Craig).
Boyd has elsewhere offered in defense of a non-figurative interpretation of “open” passages, that an anthropomorphism communicates some truth about God. If “open” passages are not teaching us that God really repents, regrets, etc. then what is it that they do communicate?
My question is this: if we are to take Genesis 18:20-21 as an anthropomorphism, what is this passage teaching us about God?
On a related note, Tom GB spent a good deal of time on the “Piper Responds to Boyd (what do you think?)” thread answering the objections of John Piper. Unfortunately however, Piper’s objection #8 did not receive a response. Piper wrote:
There are passages in the Pentateuch that show that there is a disconnect between the way that God talks about knowing, and the way he actually knows. For example, Genesis 18:21 "I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know." This text portrays God as if he were too far away in heaven to know what is happening for sure in Sodom. But there are reasons for this way of speaking: it stresses God's condescension to be involved with his creatures and his intimate dealing with them and knowledge of them.
I would be interested in hearing the OV response to this.
Thank you.
Edited by - payaso on 01/04/2002 9:17:28 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
n/a
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 218
| Posted 1/4/2002 4:53 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 1/8/2002 3:52 PM (GMT -6) | | I think "know" in this and similar passages does not refer to mere factual knowledge, but rather to experience (here in this passage) and relationships (in other passages such as Gen. 22:12).
Just as you could know all the facts about Cleveland Ohio, and still not know Cleveland, in the experiential sense, from having never been there. So even though God is present everywhere, he is not present in the same way everywhere, more present in worship than elsewhere, for instance.
So "I will go down and see" may mean God's presence drew near to the city in a deeper sense, which may have elicted the sinful gathering of the whole city around Lot's door, i.e. people's typical response to God would intensify the more he became present to them.
God bless you,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/9/2002 2:10 AM (GMT -6) | | I think we can confidently ask ourselves in regard to the meaning behind this Genesis passage, "Do we really think that God didn't know what was going on?"
Consider Exodus 32 where Moses is talking with God up on the mountain. Right in the middle of the conversation, God tells Moses, "Okay, I've had it, off with you; the people are corrupting themselves." Clearly God knew.
Figure it this way: the open view espouses free will and non-exhaustive determined future. To take it further than that and ask if God "knows" something that's going on at any given time is to miss the boat; He's not God if He doesn't know everything that there is to know!
Remember, God does occasionaly talk to man as if man really is man! He doesn't treat the conversations He has with man with all of the up-frontness of "I know everything, no need to even talk at all to me...know it all already!". See what I mean? He treats man as a intelligent and talks with Him as if he were just that: not God, but man.
For the conversation,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/10/2002 3:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey payaso (cool name!),
Well, let me first say I'm glad that something I stated in that earlier post helped, but let's look at a response or two from you.
You mentioned However, this is precisely why Genesis 18:20-21 might be a chink in the open-view armor. For the classical theist (with a simple verb transformation) takes the same approach to deny the open view. They 1) ask rhetorically "Do we really think that God doesn't know what will be going on?" and then 2) provide an example of where God knows future events.
It isn't good logic (and I'm not saying you're espousing it) to believe that just because God knows the present He must therefore know the future! And He does know the future; that future which He Himself has determined (if you haven't read "God of the Possible" by Boyd, that would be a good start), but there's simply that future which hasn't happened yet that is undetermined. I won't take time right now to list them, but God will say one thing and adjust it later (most always because man repents, if only for a time).
Now, as to what I believe is your original question: is Genesis 18 anthropomorphic? Based on the FIRST understanding which OV's and Classical's have, it'd HAVE to be! None of us would say "Well, I suppose God just didn't know and had to ask someone if what he heard was true". No, we all agree that God knows the present.
His appearance to Abraham is noted in a very unique passage which sheds some light on what's going on; note Genesis 19:24: "Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimestone and fire from the Lord out of heaven"! Hmmm! Interesting, eh!
It is the common held view, again from OV and Classical theists, that the Trinity is at work here. It is commonly held that appearances of the Lord to men are what we call Christophinies..Christopha...Christo...pre-incarnate appearances of the Jesus, the second person in the Trinity!! Say, if you already know this, I dont' mean to belittle you!!!).
As the pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus is negotiating with Abraham, the Lord (Father) in heaven rains down the doom.
So finally, the statement by God "I'll go over there and see if what I've heard is true" is anthropomorphic. Gads, if it isn't, find me another God, please! Ha!
For the conversation,
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 01/10/2002 08:34:46 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/10/2002 3:59 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Payaso,
My handle Starkman? Well, it was given to me many years ago by a Vietnam vet whom I was helping to cope with PTSD. I'm 41 - to young to be a Nam vet, but I had a heart for them because my step father is a vet. The fellow I was helping me nicked-named me Starkman and it stuck!
I'm sorry I missed your main point. I understand now what you're after. Very good question, too. It's making me ponder and concretize my thoughts on your very question.
I had little struggle myself (compared to others' struggles) when it came to embrasing an open view of God. There's two things I'd like to share with you. No, not to convince you - heavens, you've got your head on straight in regard to your position. I'm just in the mood to write about your question. Hope you don't mind.
A wonderful construction of our being is in what you said: I suppose he is correct when he notes that in everyday life, we behave as though the open view is reality.
As I consider how we humans live, it's a unique and almost translucent perspective, missed unless pondered upon - we relate to an all-knowing God as if He's not! Oh, I don't mean that we don't know that He's all-knowing, I mean that we (most fascinatingly those in Scripture) treat God in their relationships - our song, our prayer, our supplications, our lifes - as if God's just another one of us.
We bargin with God (Abraham and God over Sodom and Gomorah), we talk God out of doing something that might not be too cool in the long run, at least as we perceive it (Moses telling God "No man, don't waste Israel"), and on and on it goes.
We KNOW God knows all, we know He's in control, we know, we know, we know, but we live (and not wrongly) from a framework that's quite human in element. God joins this and reciprocates without breaking stride; He doesn't remind us unless we really need it (remember Job!) that He's all-knowing, all-powerful (I get tired of writing all those omni this and omni that, you know) and everywhere at once. It's not condescending, it's relationship, and WE ACCEPT THIS!
So, what does this passage say about God from an anthropomorphic view? Simply what I've just noted. God is one of the guys (if I can say that respectingly). He just "hangs out" sometimes (unfortunately all too often in Scripture in sour conditions). And it's nice to just talk to God and not have to remember any of that omni stuff. I think this is most natural. "Oh God, great and wise and all-knowing, thou are all powerfull and knowest all things. Yea, we do approach thy light trepidly...um...okay!) It's like a king saying "Look we got the formalities out of the way, let's talk now".
Amazing to me, it is!
For the Master,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 1/13/2002 12:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Payaso, welcome aboard. Sorry I've been absent for so long, but I'm in a particularly crazy-busy time right now.
I'll give a brief response, then post something Tom (TGB) posted some time ago on this passage. This is the best thing I've EVER read on Gen 18:21 (I liked it so much I saved it.)
a) I haven't concluded how to take Gen 18:21. If an Open Theist decided it must be anthropomorphic, they are no worse off than classic theists. Its an odd verse on anyone's reckoning.
b Nor do they have any more reason to deny that its anthropomorphic than the classic theists. Everybody takes some passages literal and some anthropomorphic. The issue must be decided on a case by case basis. The reasoning that since Open Theists take repentance passages as literal they must take ALL passages about God as literal has no more merit applied to Open Theists than it does Classical Theists (since they too take some passages about God as literal.) By "literal" I mean "direct referent." There is, of course, a sense in which all God-talk, and even most human talk, is metaphorical, hence non-literal. When I say "John changed his mind" I am speaking metaphorically, since John didn't LITERALLY exchange brains. Yet we all know the direct referent of my sentence. In saying a certain statement about God is "literal," we simply mean that it has the same referential quality as in ordinary speech. So, for Open Theists, to say "God changed his mind" is literal in the same sense as "John changed his mind" -- though in fact neither is literally "literal." Got it?
c) Now, there is nothing in the text that suggests the text is anthropmorphic. Nor is it clear (as you are discovering) what the text means if it IS anthropomorphic. Hence, I'm inclined to deny that the text is anthropomorphic, though I'm not sure what exactly it means if taken literally. [size =1] (I don't recall saying it was anthropomorphic in my essay in Four Views. Perhaps I just conceded the interpretation for the sake of argument. Or maybe at the moment I wrote it I was convinced it was anthropomorphic -- though in more sane moments I am more cautious. (I am in truth so forgetful I sometimes forget what I believe on various particular matters!!!  Sad but true). ) [/size=1].
d) TGB gave some insight into what the text might mean, if taken more literally. Here is his very fine entry from six months ago. Enjoy.
TGB on GENESIS 18:21
[God and Abraham talk
In Gen. 18.17-33 Abraham carries on a most interesting conversation with his angelic visitors. I’m intrigued by Abraham’s entire line of questioning, for it presupposes the belief that God does not know entirely what the future holds for these cities. If Abraham believed God already knew exactly what would happen, then little sense can be made of his bargaining for the innocent. The same is true of God’s responses to Abraham throughout.
Everything about this conversation betokens belief that the future of Sodom and Gomorrah was not yet settled in God’s mind. On the other hand, the difficulty here is that the issue includes God’s knowledge of existing reality. Did God not know how evil the cities were? Did he not know how many righteous persons lived there? Can sense be made of this on the Open View? I think so.
I’d like to suggest that when God here speaks of "finding" righteous persons in Sodom, rather than attributing to God ignorance of an existing reality (i.e., the number of righteous persons in Sodom and Gomorrah at the time Abraham and God discuss the issue), we understand the existing reality to refer to the number of persons who might possibly respond in faith to the angelic visitation and whatever message they might have presented. In this case the number of righteous persons that God and Abraham are discussing is as yet undetermined. This is in fact the purpose of the visit, to engage Sodom’s citizens directly and in so doing determine the response of the citizens and so decide their future. Some may repent. How many? Time would tell. But what Abraham is able to do through interceding on behalf of the Sodom is secure God’s promise to spare the city if in response to their visit Abraham’s angelic visitors receive a faith-filled welcome by at least five persons.
Does God "check things out"?
Following our consideration of the discussion Abraham and God have regarding the future of Sodom, we have also the puzzling announcement by God in Gen. 18.21: "I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry which has come to me; and if not, I will know." Doesn’t God possess exhaustive knowledge of all present realities? Why does God need to check things out?
What does God intend to communicate by telling Abraham he is going down the check things out to know whether or not the situation is as bad as the outcry which has reached him? Is this simply an anthropomorphism? If so, what’s the abiding reality behind the narrative? And what is the relationship of the "outcry" (which ostensibly forms the BASIS of God’s knowledge of what’s going on in Sodom and Gomorrah) to God’s omniscience?
I’d like to suggest a possible Open View take on this passage. It touches upon one’s understanding of hell and the eternal destiny of Satan and his cohorts. More specifically, it asks whether or not God will be present throughout eternity in hell. Or is hell at least partly defined by the withdrawal of God’s presence? If God’s presence will not extend to hell itself, then we have a possible explanation of Gen. 18.
* Hell is characterized by the eternal and irrevocable fixed sinfulness of the will.
* Hell is characterized by the total absence of God’s presence.
* There is a link (which I’m suggesting is the case) between the increased fixedness of the will in sin and God’s abiding presence, and hence his direct knowledge of things. Greater sinfulness means the steady decrease in God’s presence. This is realized absolutely in Hell.
* The residents of Sodom and Gomorrah "as a community" had become so steeped in sin that the exercise of their wills became (nearly) irrevocably fixed, a kind of "hell on earth." Whatever dynamics are at work between the increased sinful fixedness of the human will and God’s continued presence (and God’s abiding knowledge of the situation), Sodom and Gomorrah are examples of where this dynamic relationship peaked.
* At some point, in an important sense of the word and for reasons presently shrouded in the mystery of his creation, God chose not to be in Sodom and Gomorrah. Is this an example of God’s sovereign choice to involve angels somehow in administrating his creation? Chapters one and two of Job certainly suggest as much. This angelic "outcry" moved God to action. The rest is history.
Gen. 18.21: What’s the point?
Let me try to further qualify what it is I’m trying to assert with regard to Sodom and Gomorrah. First, my back is out and I’ve been down for a few days (and will be for another two or three), so I haven’t had a chance to refer to any authorities on what I share here. But after running a comparison of the Hebrew elsewhere in the OT it seems very workable.
Verse 21 is not the easiest of verses to translate, so this is tentative, but it seems to me that what English translations I have here all overlook something. You have the Hebrew kalah, an adverbial particle modifying the verb ’asu (the "they have done" of the RSV, NIV, NAS, and KJV). kalah means (check it for yourselves) something like "accomplished or completed end," "full end," or "finish." Here kalahdirectly follows the verb "they have done," which comes out in the RSV as "whether they have done altogether as the outcry" or, in the NAS as "whether they have done entirely according to its outcry."
However, it’s possible that these translations slightly miss the point. After checking on how kalah is used in the OT (e.g., 1Ki 6.38; Neh. 9.31; Isa. 10.23; 15.6; Jer. 5.18; 8.20; Dan. 11.36; Nah. 1.8f; 2.1 and others) it seems to me that v. 21 ought to be understood as saying something like, "I will go down to see whether or not their deeds have reached their fill as the outcry suggests."
You’re probably ahead of me. The point, given the discussion between Abraham and God that follows v. 21, is that just as the sin of the Amorites had "not yet reached its full measure" (Gen. 15.16), so we ought to view the divine visitation to Sodom as intended to confirm whether or not Sodom’s sin had reached its "fill," whether or not these cities had ’asu kalah, or "had done/acted fully" as in fact the outcry suggested.
That God both knows perfectly existing realities (i.e., the state of Sodom’s sinfulness) AND would desire to further know something about Sodom is not a contradiction of terms any more than that God perfectly knew Abraham but yet desired to resolve Abraham’s potential for better or worse on a particular point. Likewise, God goes down to Sodom not to know whether or not the information provided by the outcry was accurate or not (this WOULD involve God in ignorance of an existing reality), but rather to resolve the potential for better or worse with respect to the "will" of Sodom and Gomorrah’s citizens.
The facts/information contained in the outcry (if this is even a good way to describe it) provide God with all the information he needs to wipe them out. God expects to do this, but it is not yet certain. This shouldn’t both us either. In Jer. 3.7, 19 the facts (God’s patient endurance of Israel, God’s investment in them over time, etc.) led God to expect Israel to return to him and call him Father. But, free will being what it is, that didn’t happen. Here the facts (via the outcry) lead God to expect having to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, but two truths warrant a "test" to resolve the potential for blessing or judgment; 1) libertarian free will, and 2) God, as Jonah later learned (Jon. 4.2), "is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love…." God is justified in judging Sodom, but he desires something else. He wants to know if the situation is redeemable. To know THIS, God must "resolve the potential" via a "test." Thus, the angelic visit.
So, in my view Gen. 18 doesn’t present a challenge to the view that God is both omniscient and omnipresent. Neither does it require us to posit a partly ignorant theophany (not that I doubt such a thing would be possible for God; I just don’t think the passage needs it).
The LXX weighs in
On to some final thoughts about Gen. 18. I was poking around the LXX today and noticed two interesting things about v. 21, which stand out in bold in the transliterated Greek: ei kata tein krougein autwn tein erchomenein pros me suntelountai ei de mei hina gvw. A quick literal rendition: "Whether according to their cry reaching me they are making an end for themselves (or "are fully carrying out"), and if not so that I may know." Here’s Brenton's translation: "I will therefore go down and see, if they completely correspond with the cry which comes to me, and if not, that I may know."
First interesting thing—suntelountai.I’m not sure why Brenton translates "suntelountai" as "correspond." Too many late nights and caffeine perhaps. The verb is "sun" (together) + "telew" (telos = end, i.e, "to finish"), thus, something like "to bring a course of action to its end." The UBS dictionary briefly lists the meaning as "end, complete, finish; establish, make (a covenant); carry out, bring about."
The middle voice here may suggest that they are "carrying out" or "completing" the action with respect to themselves, i.e., "making an end for themselves." If I was translating this in common lingo, I’d say God wanted to see if in fact they had "closed the door on themselves." Interestingly, whereas the Hebrew has 'asu kalah (whether "they have done fully/completely"), that is, a verb followed by an adverbial particle, the LXX translators render both by a single Greek word that captures the verbal and adverbial ideas, suntelountai (something like "fully completed" or "make an end of committing" [that which they were committing, i.e., sin]), very much along the lines with what I've already said in the previous two posts.
What God wants "to see" (v. 21) is whether or not they have "sinned to the full," whether or not there’s any hope that the situation can be turned around. The facts as they stand (i.e., the "outcry") suggests they’ve crossed the line. But it’s not yet certain.
Other interesting points about suntelountai are a) it has no object! It’s as if God wants simply to see "if they’ve fully done…" or "made an end of committing.…" Committing what? The LXX doesn’t say. Understood within the context of the sins described, God’s interested in the nature of the verb (not necessarily its object) at this point. How have they acted? Have they crossed the line? The lack of an explicit object for suntelountai here confirms what I was thinking above about the middle voice; i.e., God wants to know if they’ve closed the door "for/on themselves."
And b) suntelountai is in the present tense, a strange fact in light of the Hebrew perfect (’asu, "they have done") that stands behind it.
Again, I’m wondering if this might suggest that it’s not simply established events of the PAST (i.e., what they DID) that God is interested in as much as what these people are becoming, what their sinning is DOING to them (or rather, given what they’ve done up to this point, to what end might their actions presently be leading them to?).
Further tid bits. I earlier argued that we ought to understand what was happening here in Gen 18 in the way we understand Gen. 15.16 where the iniquity of the Amorites is "not yet complete (mallei)." But I thought it might be a problem that mallei("to fill up") is used in 15.16, whereas in 18.21 kalah ("to finish or complete") is used. I wondered if there was any chance mallei and kalah might sometimes overlap each other a bit and allow the Amorites to function at least as an example (if not a direct parallel) to what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah.
Interestingly, the LXX provides a possible link. I’m still thinking on this, but here it is. There are several verses to choose from, but Gen. 29.27 will do. Here we have "Complete this bridal week and we will give you the other [wife] also..." (Those stinking Eastern, olive-complexioned males! ). The Hebrew for "complete" here is mallei ("fill up" or "bring to an end"), the same verb used to describe the sins of the Amorites as "not yet complete." The LXX translates the Hebrew "mallei" in 29.27 with suntelew ("to finish" or "to complete"), the same Greek verb used in Gen. 18.21 to describe the Sodom and Gomorrah as "having done kalah ("fully]" or "completely"). The point is, my hunch that the Hebrew adverb kalah in 18.21 ought to be understood in this case as describing the same sort of phenomenon as the Hebrew mallei in 15.16 describes is borne out in the LXX's rendering both Hebrew words by the Greek suntelew.
A possible problem is that the LXX in 15.16 uses pleirao (another verb for "to fill up") and not suntelew. So, though the Hebrew mallei and kalah do meet via the LXX in Gen. 18.21 and 29.27 (and other verses), they don’t meet where my argument would really like them to meet, i.e., in 18.21 and 15.16.
But for certain reasons (which would make this post too long) I think that’s OK. The LXX at least provides an avenue through which we see that the Hebrew mallei and kalah are in this context at least somewhat synonymous.
Worst case scenario? The Amorites of Gen. 15.16 provide only an "example" (as opposed to a direct "parallel") to the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah. All else considered, that’s enough for me.
Second interesting thing—hina.
I'm further encouraged along these lines by the LXX's hina clause at the end of v. 21. Whereas the Hebrew ends v. 21 with "and if not I will know." The LXX gives us (very interestingly) "hina I will know" (i.e., "so that I will know") thus describing the purpose the divine visitation. It’s a kind of "test" designed to discover or to resolve what is as yet uncertain about how their wonton abandonment to sin (which abandonment God perfectly knows) might determine their future.
Perhaps God believes that if he waits any longer the sinful tendencies of the cities will indeed cement them in. Maybe there’s a merciful side to this visit after all. God knows enough about sin and sinfulness to know "it’s now or never" for Sodom and Gomorrah.
I realize the LXX is a translation and sometimes misunderstands the Hebrew (like many translations do). I don't want to argue that the LXX "proves" anything. I do think it "encourages" the view that what God is doing is Gen. 18.21 is going down to "resolve" the as yet "undecided" will of the people. And better than that, it proves that I’m not the first one to read 18.21 in this way! So hey, I’m NOT a world-class physicist. Give me break!
Summary of TGB’s position on Gen 18:21
* God is omnipresent in the cities.
* God has perfect knowledge of the facts.
* The facts figuratively cry out for action on God’s part. The cities are certainly deserving of judgment and so God intends (Gen. 19.13) to destroy them. The "certainties" which rise from the "outcry" (i.e., the facts perfectly known by God) motivate God to action and are what is responsible for his intention to destroy the cities.
* However…there are also "uncertainties" which arise out of these facts. Will they repent? Will they turn to God? All this means is that the future is not exhaustively determined by present realities! This certainly sounds familiar!
* It appears to be that aspect of the future not determined by present realities which makes God’s destroying the cities, as he intends to do, less than certain and THIS is what is behind a) v. 21’s "if not I will know" and b) God’s willingness to hear and respond to Abraham’s interceding (as opposed to God’s not being willing to hear Samuel’s pleading on Saul’s behalf).
* What God goes down to "see" (v. 21) is "whether or not they have made an end of sinning," which I take to refer NOT to God’s ignorance of an existing reality (i.e., the accuracy of the "outcry"), but to God’s desire to "confirm" what the facts indicate, that being "the cities are to be judged." The "if" of v. 21 is predicated not to an epistemological gap in God’s knowledge of PAST reality (me geneto!), but to an epistemological gap regarding the FUTURE, more precisely, HOW the past (and present, remember the LXX) will end up determining the future of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Hope this helps. Thanks to Tom (TGB) for the great post.
Blessings
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/16/2002 4:17 PM (GMT -6) | | After considering what Doc posted about Genesis 18, I'd have to say that if that translation holds, and it looks good, I'd say then the passage isn't anthropomorphic. If not, then it is.
Funny, but that passage has always been one of those that had me thinking "You know, there's something more here. Hmmm!"
Starkman!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/22/2002 4:45 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Hope this helps. Thanks to Tom (TGB) for the great post.
Thanks for the compliment, Doc. That really means a lot. I don't mind saying that as I read again what my own thoughts were I thought, "If I hadn't written it, I'd be convinced." Ha.
I'm still just finding my way around all the posts that have come in during my absence. Whew.
More importantly, does Gen. 18 make better sense now Payaso? I haven't closed the book on this one either, so any constructive criticisms would be appreciated.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/22/2002 9:22 AM (GMT -6) | | TGB,
What's interesting is that I intuitively seemed to know that that is exactly what the passage was saying! I mean, you KNOW God's not saying "Hey, I don't have the slightest idea what's going on in the world - sheesh, I better look into this", or that someone's reporting to Him in some sense like "Latest reports from Sodom, Boss", and God says "OH MY ME, YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIIDNG ME...THEY'RE DOING THIS???".
It's very obvious to me intuitively that God is merely telling Abe "Hey, there's stuff going on. I'll look into it, see what kind of negotiating, if any can be done to get these people to wake up".
But...one can't be authoritative on intuition, now, can one! You, however, did a great job looking into the passage's Hebrew. Guess I'll have to study the stuff one of these days!
For the conversation,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/22/2002 9:23 AM (GMT -6) | | TGB,
What's interesting is that I intuitively seemed to know that that is exactly what the passage was saying! I mean, you KNOW God's not saying "Hey, I don't have the slightest idea what's going on in the world - sheesh, I better look into this", or that someone's reporting to Him in some sense like "Latest reports from Sodom, Boss", and God says "OH MY ME, YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIIDNG ME...THEY'RE DOING THIS???".
It's very obvious to me intuitively that God is merely telling Abe "Hey, there's stuff going on. I'll look into it, see what kind of negotiating, if any can be done to get these people to wake up".
But...one can't be authoritative on intuition, now, can one! You, however, did a great job looking into the passage's Hebrew. Guess I'll have to study the stuff one of these days!
For the conversation,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
alwyn
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 1/24/2002 10:05 PM (GMT -6) | | i've posted a piece expl. how i view the passage at:
http://www.angelfire.com/journal/althehare/sodom.html
i suggest that maybe it's less an anthropomorphism than we think...
I read through a large majority of the previous posts on this subject but if my question was answered I sure missed it. I noticed that some took Gen 18:20-21 as an anthropomorphism, but it was not clearly explained what truth about God was being communicated by means of such figurative language. I am especially curious as to how Doc understands the passage since he recently regarded this passage as an anthropomorphism in Divine Foreknowledge.
Again, if we are to take Genesis 18:20-21 as an anthropomorphism, what is this passage teaching us about God?
Thanks.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/25/2002 5:11 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Again, if we are to take Genesis 18:20-21 as an anthropomorphism, what is this passage teaching us about God?
Alywn-
If we take it as anthropomorphic in the stirct literary sense, then your guess is as good as mine. I argue we take it literally, but I want to have a look at your comments to.
Tom
Edited by - TGB on 01/25/2002 10:12:32 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 1/26/2002 4:00 AM (GMT -6) | | payaso:
quote:
I am curious about the anthropomorphic take on this passage. I am not interested so much in arguing whether or not this passage should be taken as an anthropomorphism, but rather, assuming that it is, what truth is being communicated to us about God? I am asking that, for the sake of argument, the anthropomorphic interpretation be a given.
and...
quote:
Rather, for the sake of argument, I was interested in assumming that Gen 18:20-21 is an anthropomorphism. In such a given case, I was curious about what an open theist would understand the truth about God to be which this passage intended to communicate to us.
and...
quote:
I've almost reached Mephi's "Part III" in my reading. Hopefully he has provided a good answer to my original question
First of all, thanks to Faithfull for posting those links. Preciate ya. Second, I was hoping to more directly answer the question while using some of the stuff in my Part III. From what I'm hearing, anthropomorphisms are being seen primarily as conveying some type of truth, albeit somewhat indirectly, about God. And payaso's wondering what that "truth" could be IF we take the Anthropomorphic route.
I show in those posts WHY I'm so about the Anthropomorphic take, but I briefly go into the truths I believe are revealed. Let me here.
1) God hearing and RESPONDING to "cries"
In the passage, it is revealed that God RESPONDS to screams of evil as well as to the cries of the oppressed. Just like Abel's blood was crying from the ground. God is not unaware of these things and WILL deal with them in his own time, in his own way.
2) God making informed, not irrational decisions
The passage shows a God who doesn't make off the cuff IGNORANT decisions. When God does something, he doesn't do it with incomplete information.
3) God interacting with people
I think this one is very important. God has chosen to INTERACT with people! (Whether you are open view or classical, it still holds) God is willing to BRING US IN into certain things with him when it's QUITE possible for him to exclude us from things. His interaction with Abraham shows this well.
4) God won't tolerate evil forever
This is one that wasn't in Part III. The passage shows that, THOUGH JUDGEMENT MAY NOT BE IMMEDIATE, God is still watchful and the day of reckoning does eventually come.
Please notice that these messages can be conveyed WITHOUT being considered a "sham". They are equally workable, open view or not. This could very well be the way God wishes to relate to us and what God wants us to understand Him. Capice? 
I hope this helps, payaso. If you need any clarification, just holla. Glad to have you here. 
Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love. | | Back to Top | | |
|
alwyn
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 1/26/2002 6:27 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
quote:
Again, if we are to take Genesis 18:20-21 as an anthropomorphism, what is this passage teaching us about God?
Alywn-
If we take it as anthropomorphic in the stirct literary sense, then your guess is as good as mine. I argue we take it literally, but I want to have a look at your comments to.
Tom
Edited by - TGB on 01/25/2002 10:12:32 AM
| | Back to Top | | |
|
alwyn
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 1/26/2002 6:57 AM (GMT -6) | | (sorry for the empty post - my mistake)
Tom, i just read your essay (posted by Dr.Boyd on pg.1) and I gotta commend u on the textual analysis - solid stuff! Me own piece probably converges with yours in its basic thesis but has nothing like your word studies.
Payaso, thanks for the clarification on your question. However, I'm afraid i can't get beyond agnosticism if we were to go this way...one reason I chose the 'literal' view is that I couldn't find an anthropormorphic *referent* in the passage...apart from God 'coming down' (which IMO can rather non-controversially refer to the theophany), the rest of the verse looks quite straight-forward: "...see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not I will know."
I'm unable to find any parallels of such a statement in the accepted anthropomorphisms (or even rhetorical questioning) i.e. no poetic elements, no 'hyperbole', no sarcasm, no emotional outbursts, etc.
but do let me know if any new ideas pop up...
rgds,
Al
quote:
Again, if we are to take Genesis 18:20-21 as an anthropomorphism, what is this passage teaching us about God?
If we take it as anthropomorphic in the stirct literary sense, then your guess is as good as mine. I argue we take it literally, but I want to have a look at your comments to.
Tom
Edited by - TGB on 01/25/2002 10:12:32 AM
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/26/2002 10:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Payaso,
Good points you make in what you said here (bold my emphasis)
"
However, when faced with Genesis 18:20-21, it appears as though "face-value" will not work, i.e., the passage must be metaphorical. But the explanation of what this passage is telling us that you have provided could oh, so easily explain what many of the open-motif passages mean. For example, rather than saying that God truly repents or is sorrowful (Gen 6:6; 1 Sam 15:11, 35; Jon 3:9-10; 4:2), we could instead say that these texts simply speak of God in our "relational" terms, as though he was "just another one of us," to use your words.
But why would we restrict your anthropomorphic explanation only to passages which concern God's knowledge of past/present events and not to those which speak of his knowledge of future "unsettled" events? What is to be our hermeneutical dividing line?"
Let's first look at this statement: "However, when faced with Genesis 18:20-21, it appears as though "face-value" will not work, i.e., the passage must be metaphorical."
We can't resort to only the conclusion that it must therefore be metaphorical. That, I believe, wouldn't be sound. There's other options. But let's go on...
You asked this: "What is to be our hermeneutical dividing line?"
First, we know God knows everything. As an open theist, this is "He knows everthing there is to know and that which He has determined". Therefore, He must know what's going on in S&G. And therefore, too, a literal interpretation would nullify and contradict the well known fact of God's omniscience. So, sure it can't be literal in meaning: "I'm going to go see if what I've heard about is really true" (my paraphrase!).
Second, apart from being able to prove what TGB so articulatingly wrote (see the post above by Greg Boyd quoting TGB), I'd have only one other conclusion I can think of to come to: it must therefore incorporate something of anthropomorphism in the passage in question. What else is there? Metaphor? Nothing in the text hints of this. The passage is clear: God spoke to Aberam, they had a conversation and something of the conversation isn't quite square with our thinking/understanding yet. But there's nothing to hint of metaphor.
Also, there's faulty logic in concluding that just because this passage may be a time when God chose to convey His concerns over S&G as being anthropomorphic (boy, that really taxes the typing skills, I tell ya), that therefore every other passage of seemingly questionably content (God repents, God is surprised, etc.) must therefore be anthr...andthr0...um, you know! It just doesn't follow logically.
When God surely states and clearly leaves interpretive characteristics that He does get surprised, does repent (change His mind about something), and has given us freewill (which explains these actions clearly), we've no need to move into anthropomorphisms. But in Genesis 18, there's not much else left to work with (until TGB wrote) hermeneutically. And that wouldn't be a problem for me personally if God were simply "being one of the guys" here. But that doesn't mean He's doing that everywhere else in question.
I hadn't thought through the issue enough to catch some of the things that alwyn has brought out in his post refering to a work he did on the subject. So, I'm having to read that, too.
Hey, for the conversation!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
alwyn
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 1/26/2002 8:09 PM (GMT -6) | | hi starkman,
Some thoughts regarding your statement below:
"First, we know God knows everything. As an open theist, this is "He knows everthing there is to know and that which He has determined". Therefore, He must know what's going on in S&G. And therefore, too, a literal interpretation would nullify and contradict the well known fact of God's omniscience. So, sure it can't be literal in meaning: "I'm going to go see if what I've heard about is really true" (my paraphrase!)."
I think a salient points about my essay (and Tom's) is that our understanding of 'what can be known' may need rethinking not only in relation to the 'free actions' of agents (something in the future), but also their 'ultimate characters' (something 'present' yet inextricably tied to what they do in the future)...
to use existentialist terms: our Being, because it's in no small part of result of our Becoming, may thereby fall within the realms of the 'unknowable' so commonly applied to the latter by the OV.
therefore, i propose that a stronger understanding of 'WHAT CAN BE KNOWN' (which all OV ppl agree to be the past, present and the 'settled' aspect of the future), more work will be needed in the area of 'what the Present CONSISTS OF' (especially in the area of our 'hearts').
Gen 18 and Gen 22 seems, to me at least, to highlight some ambiguities here.
rgds,
Al
| | Back to Top | | |
|
yankee551
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 1/27/2002 9:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Hello everyone,
Well it has been some time since I have written anything on this site. This thread as it pertains to Genesis 18:20-21 caught my attention and so I thought I would offer up a few of my thoughts. To me it seems strange that open theists would affirm that God in his omnipotence can limit the amount of foreknowledge he possesses by not foreordaining everything and yet deny God the power to place limits upon his own present tense and also his past tense knowledge. It would seem to me that the open theist must reason that God's present tense knowledge must be exhaustive in order for God to be truly omniscient. The bible does speak of God as being omniscient. It also speaks of God as being omnipotent. The same bible that speaks of God in terms of his "knowing all things" also speaks of his "REMEMBERING our sins and iniquities no more". I still believe that God has the power to literally erase from his own memory things that have occurred in the past if that is what he chooses to do. I do believe that God is omniscient. I also believe that God is capable of limiting the amount of knowledge that he possesses of present and past realities if that is what he chooses to do. Am I contradicting myself here? I believe that God is omnipotent (all powerful) and yet I also believe that there are some things that our omnipotent God CANNOT do. Am I contradicting myself again? The Bible does speak of God as being omnipotent and yet it also mentions some things that our all powerful God CANNOT do. Is the Bible contradicting itself in calling God omnipotent and yet listing some things that he CANNOT do? Hebrews 6:18 says it is impossible for God to lie. James 1:13 says that God CANNOT be tempted with evil. Second Timothy 2:13 tells us that he CANNOT deny himself. If the omniscient God of the Bible does not have the power to place limits upon the amount of knowledge he possesses of present and perhaps even past tense realities then how can the scriptures declare of Christ, "And Jesus INCREASED in WISDOM (Luke 2:52)"? John 8:28 speaks of Christ as being TAUGHT by the father. Hebrews 5:8 speaks of Christ having LEARNED obedience by the things which he sufferred. While hanging on the cross He cried out to the father "why hast thou forsaken me?". If Christ's knowledge of all present tense realities was exhaustive then why did he cry out "why hast thou forsaken me" seeing how he already knew why? Personally I think that the kenosis of Christ stands as proof that the omniscient God of the Bible does indeed have the power of limiting not only his knowledge of future realities but also past and present tense realities. When it comes to God's attributes we should remember that they all tie in together. We do err if we take any one of his attributes and so totally isolate it apart from the rest of his attributes that we fail to see how it ties in with the rest of his attributes. We must not understand God's omnipotence apart from his other attribute of absolute holiness. We must not understand God's omniscience apart from his omnipotence either. We also err if we fail to understand God's love in light of his wrath. Each of God's attributes must be understood in light of what the scriptures declare concerning his other attributes. Well I'd better go now. So what do you think?
Sincerly,
Yankee
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/28/2002 2:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Yankee-
I’m from the Commonwealth of Virginia, so I hope that doesn’t mean we’ll be on the opposite side of every issue!
Good comments. Here’s a quick reply on some of ‘em:quote:
To me it seems strange that open theists would affirm that God in his omnipotence can limit the amount of foreknowledge he possesses by not foreordaining everything and yet deny God the power to place limits upon his own present tense and also his past tense knowledge.
I don’t know about other OVers, but I never speak of God “limiting” his knowledge as a defence of the open view. I know Pinnock uses such language, but I think it confuses people. It suggests that there’s something there to know which God doesn’t know. I would agree that when he created the world God could have predetermined all history and so foreknown the future as certain (as determinists argue). But given the KIND of world God decided to create (one in which libertarian choices are possible) God could not foreknow all the future as certain. If this is a sort of “self-limitation” on God’s knowledge, then OK. But given this kind of world, God still possess “exhaustive foreknowledge” of the future.
quote:
It would seem to me that the open theist must reason that God's present tense knowledge must be exhaustive in order for God to be truly omniscient.
You mean God’s knowledge of “present realities”? Right. That’s what I’d aruge.
quote:
The bible does speak of God as being omniscient. It also speaks of God as being omnipotent.
Not using those words, but OK, the ideas are there.
quote:
The same bible that speaks of God in terms of his "knowing all things" also speaks of his "REMEMBERING our sins and iniquities no more."
I see where you’re going, but it’s going to involve you in some difficulties. When the Bible speaks of God “remembering” our sins no more, I’d argue that it means God promises to not confront us with them, bring them up, call them to our attention, or hold us accountable for them. He still knows, I’d argue, what we did, for he knows the past perfectly.
quote:
I still believe that God has the power to literally erase from his own memory things that have occurred in the past if that is what he chooses to do.
Just because the Bible says God will “remember no more” our sins?
quote:
Am I contradicting myself here? I believe that God is omnipotent (all powerful) and yet I also believe that there are some things that our omnipotent God CANNOT do. Am I contradicting myself again?
Others are better at laying this out than I am, but I’d suggest remembering that the “omni’s” represent our own systematic attempts to articulate things. At the very least, “omni” shouldn’t include logical impossibilities. I’d think open theists would argue that God not knowing (even by choice) some past event is a logical impossibility.
quote:
The Bible does speak of God as being omnipotent and yet it also mentions some things that our all powerful God CANNOT do. Is the Bible contradicting itself in calling God omnipotent and yet listing some things that he CANNOT do?
Again, the Bible doesn’t “call” God “omnipotent.” But you’re right, I think we’ve always qualified omnipotence to exclude the performing of logical impossibilities.
quote:
If the omniscient God of the Bible does not have the power to place limits upon the amount of knowledge he possesses of present and perhaps even past tense realities then how can the scriptures declare of Christ, "And Jesus INCREASED in WISDOM (Luke 2:52)"?
This is a little different. Others can hop in here if they want to, but my guess is that the incarnation involved the surrender of omnipotence. So Jesus would not provide an example of an omnipotent God either choosing to “erase from his memory” some event or gaining knowledge of what was previously unknown.
quote:
If Christ's knowledge of all present tense realities was exhaustive…
I don’t think it was. But again, I don’t think you can draw parallels between the kind knowledge possessed by Jesus (viz. God incarnate) and the kind of knowledge God possesses in Gen. 18 (viz. God unincarnate).
I think God choosing to wipe out of his memory some past event is a logical impossibility (in the case of God). It would logically forbid his being able to remember such events. If God can index forgotten events for recall, then they’re not really wiped out of his memory are they? Wiping out events from his memory would mean God’s knowledge of the past would have holes in it, like a video of a movie with patches of blank, unrecorded sections here and there.
More importantly, why do you think this is necessary?
Blessings,
Johnny Reb (Tom)
Edited by - TGB on 01/28/2002 07:23:53 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
yankee551
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 1/28/2002 10:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear TGB,
Good to hear from you. Actually I am a transplanted yankee living in South Carolina. With regards to the word omnipotence, it is in the bible but not perhaps in the translation you are reading from. It is found in the kjv. I was however unable to find the word omniscience in the kjv. I searched for it in my strong's concordance. I do think that we would both agree that most translations if not all do teach these concepts even if they don't use these particular words. In your reply you say, "I don't think you can draw parallels between the kind of knowledge possessed by Jesus (viz. God incarnate) and the kind of knowledge God possesses in Genesis 18 (viz. God unincarnate). From my perspective I cannot affirm that one person in the trinity has the power to do something that the other two cannot do and maintain my belief that they are all three co-equal. If I say that the second person in the trinity has the power to limit his knowledge of present and past tense realities by becoming incarnate and yet deny the first person of the trinity the power to limit his own knowledge of present and past tense realities then it becomes hard for me to maintain my belief that they are all co-equal. Who am I to deny Father God the capability and power to do the same acts of voluntary divine self limitation as the Son can do? I will say that I do not believe that Jesus was fully equal to Father God during his thirty some years on earth. Jesus declared, "for my Father is GREATER than I" in John 14:28. You ask,"More importantly, why do you think this is necessary?". I really cannot answer the question of whether or not is necessary. I'm just trying to figure out the differences between truth and error from my own studies of the scriptures. It just seems to me that the concepts of self-limited present and past tense knowledge offer an explanation worthy of consideration for some of the passages of scripture that trouble open theists. I certainly still have much to learn. It seems no matter how far I dig into the scriptures there is still more truths to be found. Have a good day.
Sincerly,
Yankee
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/29/2002 12:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Yankee-
quote:
Actually I am a transplanted yankee living in South Carolina.
Close enough!
quote:
In your reply you say, "I don't think you can draw parallels between the kind of knowledge possessed by Jesus (viz. God incarnate) and the kind of knowledge God possesses in Genesis 18 (viz. God unincarnate). From my perspective I cannot affirm that one person in the trinity has the power to do something that the other two cannot do and maintain my belief that they are all three co-equal.
Let me try again. If you want to argue that the Father and Spirit are capable of the same kenosis (self-limitation) that the incarnate Word (Son) was capable of, fine. Go ahead. I’ll agree for the sake of argument. My point was that the Father and Spirit would only be capable of this voluntary self-limitation in incarnate form. To evidence the limitations of incarnation, the Word became incarnate. To evidence the same limitations, the Father and Spirit would necessarily have to be incarnate. Right? See my point? You’re arguing the God in unincarnate form (in Gen. 18) can evidence the kind of ignorance of existing realities that follows from self-emptying incarnation. Make sense?
quote:
If I say that the second person in the trinity has the power to limit his knowledge of present and past tense realities by becoming incarnate and yet deny the first person of the trinity the power to limit his own knowledge of present and past tense realities then it becomes hard for me to maintain my belief that they are all co-equal.
You said it, “by becoming incarnate.” But you’re failing to carry this over in your parallel. On the one hand you claim that the second person of the Trinity has the “power to limit his knowledge of present and past tense realities by becoming incarnate." Fine. I agree. But on the other hand you claim the first person of the Trinity can choose to limit his knowledge of the same realities without becoming incarnate. This is what I’m objecting to. The incarnation involved the second person of the Trinity in a self-limitation of specific traits. Granted. To be consistent with your parallel, you can claim the other persons of the Trinity are capable of the same self-limitation as long as it involves the same act of incarnation as in the case of Christ. Agree? No?
quote:
Who am I to deny Father God the capability and power to do the same acts of voluntary divine self limitation as the Son can do?
No problem. That voluntary act IS the incarnation. If the Father wants to incarnate and so voluntarily limit himself in the same way the Word did, fine. But it’s VIA incarnation.
Personally, I have no idea of whether or not the Father and Spirit are capable of incarnation. I know some who deny it, and I tend to agree. If one would claim that the Word (Son) is uniquely equipped for incarnation in a way the Father and Spirit are not, I don’t see that this would undermine the co-equality of the three.
Tom
Edited by - TGB on 01/29/2002 05:26:20 AM
Edited by - TGB on 01/29/2002 05:27:38 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
yankee551
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 1/29/2002 2:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear TGB and all,
I read your (TGB) last post and you made some good points. I would like to thank you for your input and consider the things you have said. I feel that there is something that I should say. In my previous post I made the statement, "Who am I to deny Father God the capability and power to do the same acts of voluntary divine self-limitation as the Son can do?". I want to make sure that I say that I do believe that those who reject the notions of self-limited present and past tense knowledge also seek to approach the scriptures with humility. I do not believe that they are seeking to dictate for God what He can and cannot do. I do believe that their reasons for rejecting what I have suggested are based upon either a belief that it detracts from God's greatness or that it simply doesn't pass the scripture test. We are all just simply trying to come to a scriptural understaniding of what God is like and what He can and cannot and will and will not do. I will admit that I do not understand why it is necessary for God to first become incarnate before He can limit His knowledge. Have a good day.
Sincerly,
Yankee
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/29/2002 4:52 AM (GMT -6) | | You bet Yank! I so appreciate this site for introducing me to people like you. Let's keep thinking and looking to God for the answers...
Blessings,
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/29/2002 12:16 PM (GMT -6) | | alwyn,
In regard to your post:
[i/to use existentialist terms: our Being, because it's in no small part of result of our Becoming, may thereby fall within the realms of the 'unknowable' so commonly applied to the latter by the OV.
therefore, i propose that a stronger understanding of 'WHAT CAN BE KNOWN' (which all OV ppl agree to be the past, present and the 'settled' aspect of the future), more work will be needed in the area of 'what the Present CONSISTS OF' (especially in the area of our 'hearts').
I had figured that into my previous post (at least mentally). I didn't go much further, however, to include the unknowable variable(s) that come into play. But yes, it's awefully true that in many ways, our Being constitutes a whole other realm of God's "knowing" all things.
However, (and I still have to read your thesis - time, I tell you!) we're still in the same house of the open view: there is the "unknown" which God doesn't know. Unafraid of this as a limitation, it is the heart of Scripture, I believe, which unlimits God, particularly in our relationship to Him just as it does with one human being to another.
(I'm agreeing with you, by the way!)
Hangin' in there for the conversation,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
| 48 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:02 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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|