Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Genesis 18:20-21

Forum Quick Jump

48 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

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

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/31/2002 1:34 AM (GMT -6)

Yankee-

I was just thinking today. Another reason why God's "choosing to be ignorant" of existing realities in Sodom and Gomorrah doesn't work is that this involves God in now choosing to go down in order to regain knowledge of what he chose to forget. Seems a stretch to me.

For what it's worth,

Tom

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/31/2002 3:19 AM (GMT -6)

Mephi-

We discussed Gen. 18 pretty thoroughly six months ago or more, but your anthropomorphic take got me to thinking. Thought I’d get some info from you. I guess I’m struggling to see what is really so “anthropomorphic” about your four points. Assuming anthropomorphism is a literary device, what anthropomorphisms stand behind each of your four points? I can see how the “outcry” is a metaphorical way of describing the sense in which the situation in Sodom and Gomorrah “gets” God’s attention. But in my view it’s the language that is non-literal, not the meaning.

Your second point somewhat begs the question we were asking about how and in what sense this passage informs our understanding of God’s knowledge. “God makes informed decisions.” I agree. But opponents of the open view tend to suggest that a consistent open view take on this passage would require us to posit a God that sometimes makes less than informed decisions (or at least a God who has to “confirm” his knowledge of present realities to make sure his knowledge isn’t wrong). Does the passage suggest this or not? How might what’s “in the text” suggest otherwise? Take me by the hand and show me how it does or does not do so. But saying “God makes informed decisions” still leaves us wondering how the text itself is to be interpreted.

I personally don’t see how your third view can be fully maintained by a consistent determinist. In what sense does a God who has, ala Calvinism, unconditionally and efficaciously determined all things “interact” with people? The same way an author interacts with the characters in a novel she’s writing? I suppose so. That’s certainly a far less “personal” sort of interaction than that which Scripture leads me to believe is the case. The lines of influence that originate IN the characters of a novel and run TO the author are not “personal” in this sense, for they actually originate in the author. So I don’t see how a determinist could consistently interpret the passage to mean “God interacts with people” in any way that upholds the integrity of the sense in which we as “persons” interact “personally” with “persons” other than ourselves. Your point here begs the question: What does this passage tells us about HOW God interacts with us? You leave this question unanswered I think (especially since your interpretation presupposes the “interaction” between God and us is of a sort that both open theists and determinists would agree about [which they obviously do not]). I know you think classical theology can accommodate such personal interaction, but I’m unconvinced.

Your forth point begs a further question which the passage creates as well. Granted that God ultimately judges evil, it remains to be asked whether this passage has anything to say about the openness of such situations. Might judgement be “impending” from God’s point of view? In what sense? Might “impending” judgment betoken an open future? What is there in THIS text that helps us answer THESE questions? What’s more, how does an anthropomorphic (as opposed to a literal) interpretation of the passage answer this questions?

So, in my view your points 2 and 3 beg the real questions that arise from the passage. Points 1 and 4 are informative and true, but again only as far as they go. Is what they say as much as can be said on the basis of this passage about how God relates to us? If so, then I’d suggest that they don’t really say a great deal about the more probing questions people are asking today about God’s relationship to us. That is, other than a) there’s a “sense” in which God is related to us but we can’t say much more than that, and b) God eventually judges evil people (but whether such judgment is ever uncertain in God’s mind by virtue of unresolved volitions, i.e., whether or not God ever acts to resolve such possibilities into realities, is not something this text addresses), there’s not a whole lot the passages says about God’s relatedness to us. But the text certainly presents itself as taking up these deeper questions. And if we grant that this text ostensibly involves us in questions related to an open future, how would your anthropomorphic (as opposed my literal) interpretation answer them? Suggesting, as you do, that the text means something that BOTH classical and open theists can agree upon is a minimal sort of interpretation. That’s OK. By all means, let’s agree with each other whenever we can. But this passage so obviously presents us with questions on which we disagree that I’m wondering how your anthropomorphic interpretation answers them.

Anybody else see what I’m driving at? Sorry if I’m less than clear Bro.

Good to talk to you on the phone last month. Sorry I called so early in the morning!

Blessings,
Tom

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/31/2002 6:19 AM (GMT -6)

Hi Tom! Thanks. I read it too.

I especially liked you post 01/29/2002 : 05:23:18 AM

I think it is on BabbleON that I've found myself in a discussion with someone called "Swalker." it follows along some of the same lines. All new thinking-paths for me. (I'm slow, and wobbly knee-ed.) But in addition to agreeing with your 01/29/2002 : 05:23:18 AM I'd want to remind myself and everybody else that the shared Will/energies of the three Persons of the Trinity and the perichoretic sharing that goes with it are also to be considered at the same time, paralleling what you said.

So, The Son knew our death "personally" through his hypostasis with us; but the whole Trinity knew it perichoretically.

What do you think?

I'll put this over there too.

PoW

Edited by - potonwheel on 01/31/2002 11:22:35 AM

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/31/2002 8:10 AM (GMT -6)

Hey, what's "perichoretically" mean anyways?

Tom

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/31/2002 8:28 AM (GMT -6)

Tom: Hey, what's "perichoretically" mean anyways?

The short answer is:

quote:
perichoresis
A term relating to the doctrine of the Trinity, often also referred to by the Latin term circumincession. The basic notion is that all three persons of the Trinity mutually share in the life of the others, so that none is isolated or detached from the actions of the others.
http://www.blackwellpublishers.co.uk/religion/relgloss.htm

But the REALY good answer comes from reading someone who really knows of what they speak. Here is something rich in context!:

quote:
The second point is that of the mutual interpenetration ('perichoresis') of persons. As we said at first, some people use the theology of the mutual interpenetration of persons which applies to the Holy Trinity, in order to characterise the relations between the persons in society and in the Church as well. A great deal is being said today about interpersonal relations and interpenetration of beloved Persons, according to the way of being of the persons of the Holy Trinity.

To be sure, the way of being of the Persons of the Holy Trinity refers to their hypostatic character and cannot demonstrate human relations. For how can unbegotten, begotten and proceeding, which are the ways of being of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, be transferred to the human facts?The term 'symbebikos', what has come together or happened, has many meanings. In human facts this refers to the manner of outward action, expression, and so forth, and not to the hypostatic characteristics as is said with reference to the Persons of the Holy Trinity.

The point is that what applies to the relationship between the Persons of the Holy Trinity cannot be transferred to human affairs as well, that is to say, what happens between the Persons of the Holy Trinity cannot happen in human relations.

In the teaching of the holy Fathers we see that there is a distinction in the manner of union. The union in nature which exists in the Persons of the Holy Trinity is a different thing from the hypostatic union which exists in the Person of the Logos through the assumption of human nature by the divine nature. And again the union in energy which took place by His creating man in the image of God and whenever man participates in the deifying energy of God. This means that man when united with Christ can never become God-man, even by grace, nor of course can he experience the union of essence which is proper to the Persons of the Holy Trinity.

Since man, receiving the grace of God, can never attain hypostatic union, it is never possible for created man to commune in nature with the uncreated God. Consequently he can never experience the way of being of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, and the interpenetration of the Persons of the Holy Trinity cannot be regarded as a pattern for human interpersonal relations.

The Persons of the Holy Trinity have a common nature and personal characteristics. In spite of their particular ways of being, the persons live within one another, and thus the Logos cannot be understood apart from the Father and the Holy Spirit, nor the Spirit apart from the Father and the Logos. But if we see the way of being and of communion of the Persons of the Holy Trinity as the pattern for human interpersonal human relations, then how can we understand the communion between people, given that there is a body as well? How is it possible for a communion of loved persons to exist according to the prototype of the Threefold God, when there are bodies, passions, etc.? How can they live in one another? I cannot understand this.

I think that St. John of Damaskos will help us greatly to see this difference. Since he makes the distinction that real seeing is one thing and taking a logical view is another, he says that in all creatures the distinction of the hypostases is meant in reality. Someone who is called Peter is independent of another who is called Paul. While they are actually separate from each other, their oneness is meant with reference to logic and thought. The common nature of the two is also understood with reference to reason. For we know that each one is a logical and mortal being and is flesh instilled with reason and a noetic soul. They do not contain each other's hypostasis. "Nor are the hypostases in one another". There are many things which separate the hypostases, such as time and manner and power, shape and habit, profession and all the characteristic features, but most of all, the fact that they are not living in each other. "They live not in one another but apart". Thus human hypostases cannot live in one another, but there are many elements which unite them. Therefore the division between the hypostases is real and the unity of natures is intelligible and rational, that is to say it is seen in thought.

The opposite is true of the Persons of the Holy Trinity. "It is quite the contrary in the case of the holy, suprasubstantial, all-transcendent, and incomprehensible Trinity". In the Holy Trinity the community and unity are understood in a real way, by reason of the identity of substance, energy, will, opinion, authority, power and goodness. Therefore the essence, energy, and power of the three hypostases is one. But while the oneness of the Persons of the Holy Trinity is real, the division is a "conception", that is to say it is with reference to their way of being. This means that, in spite of the particular hypostatic characteristics, there is real unity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity in nature and essence. In the Persons of the Holy Trinity there is no spatial distance, as there is in us, nor any difference of will, opinion, energy, power etc..

The words of St. John of Damascus defy every attempt to correlate the interpenetration of the Persons of the Holy Trinity with the interpenetration of the human persons in community, even within the Church. There is a chaotic difference between them. What man can say that it is possible to live completely, psychosomatically, within the hypostasis of another? In any case St. John of Damaskos rules it out. Perhaps a deified person can live it in part, but even this cannot happen in just the same way as in the interpenetration of the divine hypostases.

The second point is that of the mutual interpenetration ('perichoresis') of persons. As we said at first, some people use the theology of the mutual interpenetration of persons which applies to the Holy Trinity, in order to characterise the relations between the persons in society and in the Church as well. A great deal is being said today about interpersonal relations and interpenetration of beloved Persons, according to the way of being of the persons of the Holy Trinity.

To be sure, the way of being of the Persons of the Holy Trinity refers to their hypostatic character and cannot demonstrate human relations. For how can unbegotten, begotten and proceeding, which are the ways of being of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, be transferred to the human facts?The term 'symbebikos', what has come together or happened, has many meanings. In human facts this refers to the manner of outward action, expression, and so forth, and not to the hypostatic characteristics as is said with reference to the Persons of the Holy Trinity.

The point is that what applies to the relationship between the Persons of the Holy Trinity cannot be transferred to human affairs as well, that is to say, what happens between the Persons of the Holy Trinity cannot happen in human relations.

In the teaching of the holy Fathers we see that there is a distinction in the manner of union. The union in nature which exists in the Persons of the Holy Trinity is a different thing from the hypostatic union which exists in the Person of the Logos through the assumption of human nature by the divine nature. And again the union in energy which took place by His creating man in the image of God and whenever man participates in the deifying energy of God. This means that man when united with Christ can never become God-man, even by grace, nor of course can he experience the union of essence which is proper to the Persons of the Holy Trinity.

Since man, receiving the grace of God, can never attain hypostatic union, it is never possible for created man to commune in nature with the uncreated God. Consequently he can never experience the way of being of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, and the interpenetration of the Persons of the Holy Trinity cannot be regarded as a pattern for human interpersonal relations.

The Persons of the Holy Trinity have a common nature and personal characteristics. In spite of their particular ways of being, the persons live within one another, and thus the Logos cannot be understood apart from the Father and the Holy Spirit, nor the Spirit apart from the Father and the Logos. But if we see the way of being and of communion of the Persons of the Holy Trinity as the pattern for human interpersonal human relations, then how can we understand the communion between people, given that there is a body as well? How is it possible for a communion of loved persons to exist according to the prototype of the Threefold God, when there are bodies, passions, etc.? How can they live in one another? I cannot understand this.

I think that St. John of Damaskos will help us greatly to see this difference. Since he makes the distinction that real seeing is one thing and taking a logical view is another, he says that in all creatures the distinction of the hypostases is meant in reality. Someone who is called Peter is independent of another who is called Paul. While they are actually separate from each other, their oneness is meant with reference to logic and thought. The common nature of the two is also understood with reference to reason. For we know that each one is a logical and mortal being and is flesh instilled with reason and a noetic soul. They do not contain each other's hypostasis. "Nor are the hypostases in one another". There are many things which separate the hypostases, such as time and manner and power, shape and habit, profession and all the characteristic features, but most of all, the fact that they are not living in each other. "They live not in one another but apart". Thus human hypostases cannot live in one another, but there are many elements which unite them. Therefore the division between the hypostases is real and the unity of natures is intelligible and rational, that is to say it is seen in thought.

The opposite is true of the Persons of the Holy Trinity. "It is quite the contrary in the case of the holy, suprasubstantial, all-transcendent, and incomprehensible Trinity". In the Holy Trinity the community and unity are understood in a real way, by reason of the identity of substance, energy, will, opinion, authority, power and goodness. Therefore the essence, energy, and power of the three hypostases is one. But while the oneness of the Persons of the Holy Trinity is real, the division is a "conception", that is to say it is with reference to their way of being. This means that, in spite of the particular hypostatic characteristics, there is real unity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity in nature and essence. In the Persons of the Holy Trinity there is no spatial distance, as there is in us, nor any difference of will, opinion, energy, power etc..

The words of St. John of Damascus defy every attempt to correlate the interpenetration of the Persons of the Holy Trinity with the interpenetration of the human persons in community, even within the Church. There is a chaotic difference between them. What man can say that it is possible to live completely, psychosomatically, within the hypostasis of another? In any case St. John of Damaskos rules it out. Perhaps a deified person can live it in part, but even this cannot happen in just the same way as in the interpenetration of the divine hypostases.

http://www.waternet.gr/pelagia/htm/b23.en.the_person_in_the_orthodox_tradition.04.htm

yankee551
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 22

Posted 1/31/2002 6:34 PM (GMT -6)

Dear TGB,

Good to hear from you again. It is late and I have to go to work in the morning so I will only say a few things for now. I will give you a fuller response later so please be patient. I would like to say that I do believe that OMNIPRESENCE is one of God's attributes. I also believe that God possesses the attribute of being an ALL-SEEING God. It does however seem to me that my beliefs regarding how God incorporates these two attributes may not be quite the same as how you believe. I do not believe that God's capability of removing things (sins and iniquities)from his own memory applies to Genesis 18:20-21. I will write more on this soon. Have a good day.

Sincerly,
Yankee

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 2/1/2002 9:03 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
I do not believe that God's capability of removing things (sins and iniquities) from his own memory applies to Genesis 18:20-21.

Yankee-

My mistake. I thought you were suggesting this as a way to understand Gen. 18. In your first post on this thread you said, "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." I thought that meant "thoughts that have to do with how to undersand this thread." OK. Gotcha.

Tom

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 2/2/2002 12:49 PM (GMT -6)

Oops. I almost forgot that I was supposed to weigh in here, Tom.

The first thing that we have deal with is the reprecussions of asserting the possible existence of determinatism and what that means for the term "determinism" Here's the important question:

How would one expect a God with exhaustive definite foreknowledge to speak to persons coherently in various situations?

Let me restate this. Assuming that God had EDF, how would you expect God to speak to finite, temporal beings? Please give possible examples. This is a very important question, I believe, simply because it will have tremendous power in showing what we are supposed to contrast "evidence" for free will.

Let's start here.

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

yankee551
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 22

Posted 2/2/2002 3:48 PM (GMT -6)

Dear TGB,

Good to hear from you again. I do want to state that when it comes to God's attributes of OMNIPRESENCE and ALL-SEEINGNESS I still have much to learn. It would be wrong for me to be too dogmatic about what I have not put too much study into. A question has to be raised. Are these two attributes so much a part of God's nature that He cannot decide for himself what degrees He will and will not exercize them or are these attributes subject to his sovereign will in such a way that He is free and capable of exercizing them to whatever degree He sovereignly wills? Just as I do not deny God the power to not control whatever He wills to not control, not foreknow what He does not foreordain, and not remember what He deliberately forgets, I also do not deny God the power and capability to not be present wherever He wills to not be present and to not see whatever He wills to not see. I do however believe that God possesses the attributes of OMNIPRESENCE and ALL-SEEINGNESS. Am I contradicting myself again? When I read Genesis 18:20-21 I simply understand this passage as portraying God as not having an exhaustive knowledge of the PRESENT TENSE realty in Sodom and Gomorrah as a direct result of limiting his own present tense knowledge by withdrawing his omnipresence and all-seeingness from these two cities. One of the things that seems strange to me is how open theists will criticize classical theists for relying on "anthropomorphisms" when dealing with scriptures that suggest a partly unknown future and yet they themselves will rely upon this same hermeneutic of appealing to anthropomorphism when dealing with scriptures that suggest that some present tense realities are unknown to God. If classical theists are filtering the scriptures through the ancient Greek philosophers' concept of what constitutes a truly perfect God when reading passages that deal with God's knowledge of the future, then might open theists be guilty of the same thing when reading passages that deal with God's knowledge of past and present tense realities? When the scriptures speak of God in terms of his "remembering our sins and iniquities no more" I take these words literally. During my younger years being raised under what I would call fundamentalism with a small "f" I was taught that all I had to do to make the Bible say whatever I wanted it to was to take words and phrases found in the scriptures and replace their literal and natural definition with a "spiritualized" definition. They of course taught me that this is the cultist's favorite way of interpreting the scriptures. Since when did "remember no more" ever mean anything else other than to "forget"? Since when did "remember no more" take on the meaning, "though I will always remember them I will not hold them against you"? To be honest I think that we are all guilty of "spiritualizing" certain words and phrases in order to conform the scriptures to our preconceived ideas and that includes me as a guilty one. Perhaps you might know of certain passages of scripture that either do or at least seem to support the belief that God cannot limit his own omnipresence or all-seeingness. I'm afraid I'm relying quite heavily on what seems reasonable and logical to me. I must recognize the scriptures as the final authority. Have a good day.

Sincerly,

Yankee,

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 2/2/2002 4:20 PM (GMT -6)

I think that this is a great thread. But like someone above I'm more tempted to respond to the thread than to the particular passage mentioned in the thread's title. This is because of two things. First, I'm neither an Open Theist nor a "classical/blueprint/what-have-you." So, for me, this verse is not a battle ground. I'm not worrying about "anthropomorphisms." (I bet though that there do some exist that everyone agrees on.) I'm more just pretty confident that the God who spoke Son-to-Father to make a point, "that they may know" in the Gospels, and serveral other 'demonstrations' -- such a good communicator -- seems to have 'incarnated' his communication in many ways: literally, spatially, temporally, culturally (whatever that last one is).

Have fun with your verse. It means a lot to you.

I'm just remembering the scene in the book "Son of Laughter", by Fredrich Beuchner, where worship is going into a particular tent and filling one's mouth with gravel from a holy site. Neolithic. When in the Neolithic period, perhaps God "spoke" (Know Wolterstorff's recent work?) neolithically.

Edited by - potonwheel on 02/03/2002 6:31:43 PM

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 2/3/2002 3:25 AM (GMT -6)

Mephi: The first thing that we have deal with is the reprecussions of asserting the possible existence of determinatism and what that means for the term "determinism."

Tom: Don’t know what “determinatism” is and can’t find it in a dictionary. And I’m assuming that when you speak of EDF you mean it in the sense determinists mean it (that is, not as simple-foreknowledge).

Mephi: How would one expect a God with exhaustive definite foreknowledge to speak to persons coherently in various situations?

Tom: Two things. First, let me inquire into how you’re using “coherently” here. Grammatically coherent? Existentially meaningful? Just what kind of coherence am I to attach to God’s self-revelation here on the supposition that he possesses EDF? Secondly, to suggest a tentative answer to your question: I have no idea how a God possessing EDF would speak to us meaningfully in such situations. In fact, the lack of any answer to your question is, I take it, one piece of evidence against EDF.

Actually, I thought I was asking YOU how to make sense of the passage on the supposition that God possesses EDF. Now you’re asking me?

Mephi: Let me restate this. Assuming that God had EDF, how would you expect God to speak to finite, temporal beings? Please give possible examples.

Tom: I gave an example--God as novelist. I don’t think we live in such a world or that God relates to us as a novelist relates to his characters. (Again, are we talking about determinism here?) To repeat, I have no idea how God would speak to us if it is also true that he determines the human side of the conversation (including our actions). Are you suggesting that God’s conversation with Abraham here is an example of the way in which a God possessing EDF would speak to us? This leads me back to the same set of questions I asked in my last post: What IN THE TEXT leads you to believe that God possesses EDF or that sense can be made of the passage if in fact God possesses EDF? As for me, given EDF I would be at a complete loss to account for what’s going on in Gen. 18.

Tom

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 2/3/2002 4:44 AM (GMT -6)

Tom

quote:
Don’t know what “determinatism” is and can’t find it in a dictionary. And I’m assuming that when you speak of EDF you mean it in the sense determinists mean it (that is, not as simple-foreknowledge).

Sorry, misspelled. My bad. You're right on.

__________________________________

quote:
First, let me inquire into how you’re using “coherently” here. Grammatically coherent? Existentially meaningful? Just what kind of coherence am I to attach to God’s self-revelation here on the supposition that he possesses EDF? Secondly, to suggest a tentative answer to your question: I have no idea how a God possessing EDF would speak to us meaningfully in such situations. In fact, the lack of any answer to your question is, I take it, one piece of evidence against EDF.

You would be closer to my meaning with "existentially meaningful" Simply put...

How would a God who has EDF talk to a finite, temporally-immersed human being in a manner such that there would not be TOTAL confusion or frustration?

You make the statement that you have no idea how this would be...but then you say that this would be a piece of evidence AGAINST it. Let me just state my main intended point of all this.

I've argued time and again that, IF determinism is true, there would be no PERCIEVABLE difference between the two on our level phenomenologically. None at all. We would talk the same, walk the same, and act the same. NOTHING would be different to us. The only difference would be PERCIEVED at the level of God. Only GOD would see the true difference between an ultimately deterministic world and one with libertarian freedom. Keep this in mind! It is very important!

There is a comic book called "Watchmen" It's excellent! Anyway, they have this character in there called Mr Manhattan. Basically his power puts him at almost a godlike level. Now the Watchmen reality ASSUMES that determinism is true. One of the most interesting things that he does is see ALL the deterministic lines of causality...and his mind works such that he exhaustively knows past, present, and future all at the same time. This would be JUST LIKE someone having EDF. Now, here's the rub. Whenever he talks, he talks with chronological disjunction. Like this...

"I'd better get upstairs now. We have our big fight 3 minutes from now up there...and you start crying 4 minutes after that."

This next scene was a particularly CRAZY scene...

"I'd better get to the balcony. There, in ten minutes, you're going to confess to me that you've been sleeping with Bob."

"You know about Bob?? Well, of course you know..."

[Conversation goes on for 9 minutes 55 seconds.]

"...and that's when I started sleeping with Bob."

[with shock] "You've been sleeping with Bob?!?!?"

"WHAT??? Why are you acting surprised? You KNEW that already!"

See, if there's one thing I like about comics, it's the level of imagination exhibited.

Dr. Manhattan speaks like this almost the entire book, and frustrates the HELL out of everyone he talks to. He will TELL them what's going to happen exhaustively...and THEN try to SPEAK like it's the "present" moment when that moment arrives. It sounds straight loony. Eventually, people just tell him to talk like a normal person. But let's take the thought further. Let's try having God talk this way...

"Well, Abraham, I already know that Sodom and Gommorrah will be destroyed utterly by me, but in exactly 3 minutes, I will assent to spare the town if there are 10 righteous people there."

Do you see how stupid that would sound? Now imagine God talking like this ALL OF THE TIME. See what I'm getting at? The reason why I asked you how a person with EDF would coherently speak to a sequence-immersed finite being who is IGNORANT of the future is to show you one thing...

The only way that coherent conversation between someone with EDF and someone WITHOUT it would be for the EDF person to talk ON THE LEVEL OF THE NON-EDF person.

Now what does this mean? It means just what it meant in the Watchmen book. Dr Manhattan would keep his knowledge to himself and speak like a normal person...until he specifically wanted to predict something for someone. It's reasonable to see that God would do the same thing. God would not talk to us in such an anachronistic way. It would grow to be simply UNBEARABLE. This is where the "God being disingenuous" idea falls flat. People want to say "Well, if God knows everything, then acting like he doesn't is lying." But NONE of this people ever try to imagine what God's speech would be like if he WERE to have conversations making it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that he had EDF. When you do this, as in the Dr Manhattan character above, it becomes crystal clear why God wouldn't do that. We'd be at our wits end! For God to have dialogue with us that would be MEANINGFUL and NOT somewhat incoherent to us, he would have to speak to us generally on our level.

Now, how does this apply to interpretation of Gen 18? Simply this. Gen 18 is dialogue between God and Abraham. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that:

1) determinism is true
2) God has EDF
3) God is interacting with Abraham (on our PHENOMENOLOGICAL level)

then how would the dialogue in Gen 18 be DIFFERENT from if libertarian free will were true, if God really wanted to interact MEANINGFULLY with Abraham on his level? It wouldn't differ at all! Use some imagination, you guys. Try to imagine God talking like Dr. Manhattan to Abraham about the whole S&G thing. Try to imagine God talking like this to Hezekiah...[I'll apply "counterfactuals" here]

"I'm going to extend your life 15 years. I WOULD tell my servant to tell you that you are going to die now, but then you would pray to me asking me for more time, and I'd grant it to you. So, let's just skip all that."

How ludicrous does it sound to you? Uh, huh. That's what I thought.

This is why I keep talking about hermeneutics. Doc will say abundantly, with respect to passages that he feels supports the existence of libertarian free will:

If God could change his mind and he wants to tell us this in Scripture, how ELSE could he articulate it?

I'm using the same argument, essentially...

If God did have EDF, how could God speak to others applying this while at the same time meaningfully communicating with his finite, temporally-immersed human beings??

On this issue, both sides are on the same level of play. One doesn't really have advantage over the other. No open view theist has ANY BASIS to say that Gen 18 strictly backs libertarian free will...OR that God is otherwise at fault for being disingenuous. I would assert that Gen 18 could go EITHER WAY and the free will or "changing mind" idea would have to be bolstered by texts OTHER THAN this one.

I expect questions, so keep it going...

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

Edited by - mephi2K on 02/03/2002 09:46:25 AM

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 2/3/2002 11:11 AM (GMT -6)

Mephi-

Thanks for getting back to me. I’m tracking with you perfectly.

First, you argue that “if determinism were true, there would be no PERCIEVABLE difference between the two on our level phenomenologically. None at all.”

To me this amounts to an admission on your part that determinism cannot be consistently lived, which I’m happy to hear you admit.

Let me add that it’s not enough to say both determinists and open viewers live as though their deliberations between options concerned real options (“real” being “real” for God as well as for us) and that therefore it doesn’t matter whether one is a determinist or not. If we find out later that everything was in fact predetermined, it’s certainly true that we cannot NOW live as though it were so. Thus, the fact that there’s no perceivable difference between the way determinists and non-determinists live doesn’t mean that both deterministic and non-deterministic world-views support the way we live. One does. One doesn’t. That much is clear. And yes, in my view this is one piece of evidence AGAINST determinism. It can’t be consistently lived.

Secondly, comic books are, I supposed, cool. I’m not into them. But I gotta tell ya, Mr. Manhattan doesn’t do a lot for me. Michael J. Fox traveled back in time and jeopardized his future. A lot can be imagined. So what? If it’s unbearably incoherent for Mr. Manhattan’s audience to hear him speak truthfully about the future, then I suggest that we close the comic books and come back to the real world. My point: If it is, as you admit, unbearably incoherent (i.e., existentially meaningless) for us to have God communicate to us truthfully about an exhaustively determined future, then I suggest the blame for this incoherence be laid at the feet of EDF and not at some inherently poor communication process God is handicapped by. In short, what you’re suggesting amounts to an admission that were God (possessing EDF) to speak truthfully with us about the events and decisions of our lives, life would be meaningless for us. I agree. It would be meaningless. What I’m arguing is that believing EDF renders life meaningless whether God speaks truthfully to us or not.

You will no doubt not want to admit my use of “truthfully” in this post.

Thirdly, you ask people who claim God would be disingenuous were he to speak about a determined future in terms of what “may” or “may not” be to “try to imagine what God’s speech would be like if he WERE to have conversations making it clear that he had EDF.” Interesting. You won’t allow this to be admitted as evidence of God’s disingenuousness. You will not allow the meaninglessness of existence that admittedly follows from God’s speaking truthfully to us about an exhaustively determined future to call EDF into question. Tell me, Mephi, what WOULD you accept as evidence for the incoherence of EDF?

My point is, it’s not only God speaking to us truthfully about an exhaustively determined future which results in incoherence and meaninglessness for us; it’s equally the belief that the future is exhaustively determined which results in incoherence and meaninglessness for us. So, determinists and non-determinists are not “on the same level” existentially. On the contrary, existentially it is determinists who are on the non-determinist’s level. There’s no existential neutral ground between determinism and non-determinism. We’re on one or the other. I think that tells us something about reality itself.

Fourthly, how you carry this over into Gen. 18, in my view, doesn’t work. But that’s just my opinion. You assume EDF and admit that a meaningful relationship with God cannot be had were God to speak truthfully (“truthfully” is, admittedly, mine. You’d use “accurately”?) to us about events and decisions. Thus, for you (or for the view you’re arguing for at least) the “integrity” of God’s relationship to us and his relatedness to the world is only apparent, i.e., phenomenological. That is, the “integrity” of God’s self-revelation does not require that revelation to speak truthfully about the divine side of the God-world relationship. This I think is disastrous.

Lastly, think this through Mephi. The view that a God who possesses EDF must speak contingently about the events and decisions of our lives in order to relate to us meaningfully actually undermines the meaning it purports to insure. For if WE believe that when God speaks to us about the future in terms of what “may” or “may not” the reality is in fact otherwise—for we believe God to possess EDF—then we also know that things are NOT what they appear to be. What they actually ARE we don’t know. We just know that they are not what they appear. How do WE find meaning in this? My point is, if EDF were true, we could only relate to God meaningfully if we were NOT to believe it, for believing EDF to be true undermines any meaningfulness we might otherwise find in relating to and conversing with God.

If I’m not representing your view accurately, correct me.

Super Bowl starts in five minutes. Gotta go!

Love ya,
Tom

Edited by - TGB on 02/03/2002 4:21:36 PM

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 2/3/2002 6:21 PM (GMT -6)

Meph man said:

quote:
God would not talk to us in such an anachronistic way. It would grow to be simply UNBEARABLE. This is where the "God being disingenuous" idea falls flat. People want to say "Well, if God knows everything, then acting like he doesn't is lying." But NONE of this people ever try to imagine what God's speech would be like if he WERE to have conversations making it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that he had EDF.

quote:
No open view theist has ANY BASIS to say that Gen 18 strictly backs libertarian free will...OR that God is otherwise at fault for being disingenuous.

First, along with TGB's immediate post above mine (and the guy's light years (Mephi too) ahead of my thinking and prose): logically it doesn't follow that God not having a way to talk to us in terms of an EDF format supports EDF. The argument is from silence. We're still back to square one with Genesis 18: does God know the future or not? There's nothing in the text or any other in Scripture to hint that God just can't talk to us in EDF format because we'd go bonkers! (boy, have comic books changed since I was a kid! Whatever happend to Archie, for pete's sake?!)

Second, we're not even wired in an EDF framework. On the contrary we're led to believe by our own intuitions and actions that EDF isn't the case in our thinking, actions or will (free will!). Oh, some say "Well, God knows everything that I'm going to think", but the statement is usually encapsulated in absence of having thought it through first:.we say we believe in EDF but live otherwise.

Finally, it would seem to me very disingenuous for God to lead us to believe He doesn't have EDF simply because He doesn't talk to us that way (I no longer see Scripture revealing and EDF God). Hey, at least lay the cards out on the table and go from there. After all, I'm wired to think non EDF. Being told once or twice the opposite by God won't kill me (people already say "Hey, He knows everything I'll ever think, do and say"). God might as well let the cat out of the bag.

Tom said:

quote:
What I’m arguing is that believing EDF renders life meaningless whether God speaks truthfully to us or not.

I can surely say now, after having come to understand open theism and the depths of relationship reality it affords me in Scripture, that if God were to exist in EDF, I'd feel, more than ever, meaninless in life. I'd loose my desire to live, to do...anything. I'd then worship Him only because He's still God and worthy. But I'd have no more life. The jig would be up.

I never would have thought that way before. Not an argument from silence, but a very real Scripturally oriented relationship with another person called God.

For the conversation,

Starkman

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 2/4/2002 1:29 AM (GMT -6)

Hi Starkman. This is of interest:

quote:
...that if God were to exist in EDF, I'd feel, more than ever, meaningless in life. I'd loose my desire to live, to do...anything. I'd then worship Him only because He's still God and worthy. But I'd have no more life. The jig would be up.

I don't feel what you're feeling yet. Care to reveal?

As for my two cents, I notice that in the EO liturgies God is spoken of (This is only my take, now, so don't trust it.) as, maybe, not so much outside-of-time (which by definition is beholding or measured by time as a referent) so much as not-measured-by-time. The first Lincoln-head is that God certainly Acts within, and actually causes-to-be time by His Acts. He molded Adam in clay. He acts in and through time. The second Lincoln-head is that God is also unbounded by time.

Personally, I don't have trouble imagining God having something as different (I'm building a ratio-like model now) from EDF as "outside-of-time" is from whatever can or can't be drafted to mean what I'm intending by "not-measured-by-time". It is not an abstraction because whatever it is it exists. But its beyond our reference.

But I did think the issue you raised was interesting, and important.

quote:
meaningless in life. . .I'd have no more life.

Christianity claims that we can have a relationship with God WITHOUT our own personal selves being annihilated. That is no small thing. Christ makes it possible. Christ also became in time. God relates to us very much in-time. But he also relates to us in the FULNESS of the Spirit.

I sometimes think about the verses that say that God knows the beginning from the end. I am definitely not content with arguments that merely say that God plans everything in a blueprint and then follows it. Nor am I content with arguments that say that God does partial blueprints. I can accept either of them in part (Part of the first is the second...oooops!), but that, I think, doesn't begin to scratch the surface. So I like a word like "PURPOSE" because it is a big umbrella. That word allows me to track, to imagine God (as a sketch--gotta avoid the idolatry of defining God--as your own imagination) condescending to work with us almost any way that it takes, flexibly interacting (I set aside "adjusting, compensating, etc., because they sounded too mechanical.) with us.

I liked Docs talk about parents on another thread. The distance in UNDERSTANDING of parent to child, the disjuncture of scope of view, or understanding, of responsibility even give me just a tad bit of insight. Parents have a Purpose that kids just don't see.

Our heavenly Father will not give us a rock. (But he will give us a fish.)

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 2/4/2002 3:17 AM (GMT -6)

Um...

Tell you what. I think that this will be too uphill a battle for me right now. Not that I'm not interested. I am. But there'd be a LOT of stuff to cover and, honestly, it would take up way too much time...because of the issues involved. Maybe I can pick up on this later. This is not to diminish the things that you guys are bringing up. I do think that response is possible. I just don't have it in me right now. Please forgive a brotha.

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 2/4/2002 4:35 AM (GMT -6)

Hi all-

First, Mephi. No problem on your not following this up right now. But I’m blaming myself! I can’t help but think that you’re discouraged from following it up now because there is so much in my thinking you feel is simplistic and unphilosophical. When you don’t reply to somebody it’s NOT usually because you don’t have an answer, it’s because the other person is too dense to understand! Arghhhh!

Am I THAT dumb?

Well…let me offer a few thoughts to POW…

quote:
[To Starkman] I don't feel what you're feeling yet. Care to reveal?

POW-

You later admitted:

quote:
I am definitely not content with arguments that merely say that God plans everything in a blueprint and then follows it.

Why are you not content with a determined blueprint? Are your reasons only academic or are some existential? I’d bet your existential reasons for rejecting the blueprint worldview are the same as Starkman’s for feeling that determinism (EDF) results in a meaningless life (i.e., an existential dead-end). Just a guess.

quote:
Personally, I don't have trouble imagining God having something as different (I'm building a ratio-like model now) from EDF as "outside-of-time" is from whatever can or can't be drafted to mean what I'm intending by "not-measured-by-time". It is not an abstraction because whatever it is it exists. But its beyond our reference.

Good point, but maybe I’m misunderstanding you. I do think God is far MORE than he reveals himself to be. I just don’t think this means that he’s LESS than he’s revealed himself to be (or that he is not in fact what he’s revealed himself to be). There’s lots out there beyond our reference point, but whatever it is it cannot (if WE are to live meaningfully and with integrity) mean our “reference point” is not a “reference point.” Does this help clarify what it is I’m fighting for when I talk about the “integrity” of the divine side of the God-world relationship?

Tom

Edited by - TGB on 02/04/2002 09:38:31 AM

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 2/4/2002 12:24 PM (GMT -6)

Brotha Meph!

I have to say, Meph, that you are one of those folks on this board who, when you speak and I want to respond intimidates me! You're a very powerful thinker, and I'm just learning how to think. So, I always look forward to reading your posts and responses, because if nothing else, you make me think, dude!

Brotha POW,

You know, before, as a determinist (and I wasn't even one so much because I believed it doctrinally as much as I just thought it was so and thus believed it), I never had a clue that life had a meaning, or rather, the meaning that it does with thoughtfull consideration to just what all freewill is for me, particularly in view of Genesis 2. I just kind of went along SAYING "We have freewill" but contradicting it with EDF statements. Well, to tell you the truth, I never even really talked much about it, but when the topic came up there was always a small check in my being that said "God REALLY knows everything I'm going to do? Well, okay, I guess". But there was uneasiness. I just never worked it mentally to figure out why.

After becoming exposed to OV (de-programmed in some respects from having ignored the check in my being for so long), I now have no check. I now feel alive, feel free, worship God with greater desire to please Him in view of this freedom I've always had but never understood under an EDF framework.

You see, I can never go back to EDF. I can never see how someone can relate to another, including God, in anyway other than from a free will framework. Why, I've been doing it all along and didn't even think about it that way. Now that I KNOW and am aware I'm free, that God really relates to me (and always has) with this freedom in action I, how can one ever go back to "Well, everything you'll ever think, do, say, listen to is already known; just try to get on with it as if it's not"? How can one do that after understanding this precious, precious gift called free will? Hmmph!

No, I'd worship God, as I said I would, because He's worth it, but I'd be lifeless.

Now, the issue about God and the concept of time! No, I don't believe (as little as I understand time) that God is "outside" of it. He's not bound to it, that much I believe. After all, there's motion and movement in heaven, is there not? There will always be motion and movement, but it is not slave to MEASUREMENT as our time-framework currently is. Therefore, motion (and that's not the word I'm looking for) will always take place, but there's nothing ever to measure it before God.

What's that got to do with EDF and OV? Um...I forget! Gads, my memory!

Okay, personally, I feel that if something barks like a dog, wags its tail like a dog, takes doo-doos on my lawn (neighbor's too!) like a dog (of course, that'd be the end of the dog, as far as I'm concerned!), it therefore must be a dog, wouldn't you say!

So, from a Scriptural point, I'd say that God has shown Himself to not be EDF. Okay, there's arguments and such to say "not so", but I believe it's solid enough. Therefore, I don't feel too much of a need to look for other answers as far as the main thrust of the OV concept goes. There is, however, much study and thought to be given to all of the surrounding framework that affords the picture more beauty.

Well, I've got to go do dinner.

For the conversation,

Starkman

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 2/4/2002 12:58 PM (GMT -6)

I can't believe that I'm on this thread. (I haven't earned a place here like you guys.)

Starkman. Thanks. That was very good. Thanks.

A note... As to "After all, there's motion and movement in heaven" I'd say NO. doc would pull out his middle-Plato..., but I'd have to feebly answer that I think that the Church when it has adopted some of the language of its setting USED the verbage about unchanging to say something different than the Greek philosophers did. BUT I think that there is something seriously important in the kinds of statements that have been formulated about god being immutable. BUT that does not mean that he does not RISK. That he is unmoved by us. God became incarnate, and planned it all along. So we are left with that illogic that Doc tried to call me on the first time I was on thie board. God is immutable and moved. But it is such wacky statements that LOTS is hidden; and can be unfolded.

Tom...

quote:
Why are you not content with a determined blueprint? Are your reasons only academic or are some existential? I’d bet your existential reasons for rejecting the blueprint worldview are the same as Starkman’s for feeling that determinism (EDF) results in a meaningless life (i.e., an existential dead-end). Just a guess.

Quick answers. No, not existential.

1. The history of an "anti-time" God via freezing God in a knowable Essence.

2. Not feeling a need to have everything determined because instead I am interested/facinated by the role of my own will in synergy with the Spirit. Since that is my focus, I'm not even asking questions about EDF--and feel kinda rude for wandering onto this site.

Gotta run.

PoW

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 2/4/2002 8:20 PM (GMT -6)

PoW-

Thanks for the quick reply. And Starkman, I totally feel with ya on your other post about not being able to catch up with all the new threads. Arghh!

PoW, I asked you if there were any existential reasons for your rejecting EDF. You said, "No, none at all,” and then gave two comments, one of which was:

quote:
2. Not feeling a need to have everything determined because instead I am interested/facinated by the role of my own will in synergy with the Spirit. Since that is my focus, I'm not even asking questions about EDF--and feel kinda rude for wandering onto this site.

All I see in this is existential reasoning from beginning to end. In fact, it’s very nearly identical with what I’ve been arguing. Where are we different? I’m not asking questions about EDF anymore either. But let me probe some more, PoW. You’re “fascinated by the role of your own will in synergy with the Spirit.” In fact, that’s your “focus.”Let me ask, Do you think the integrity of this synergy, this relationship with the Spirit, would be at all called into question if it was also true that God unconditionally predetermined every aspect of it in eternity? Would EDF pose any sort of threat to your fascination with and enjoyment of this relationship? Sounds to me like it would. And if it would, then would not you have an existential beef with EDF?

Tom

Edited by - TGB on 02/05/2002 01:25:53 AM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 2/5/2002 1:23 AM (GMT -6)

I track with you Tom. One could say that; but I won't.

quote:
Tom: Let me ask, Do you think the integrity of this synergy, this relationship with the Spirit, would be at all called into question if it was also true that God unconditionally predetermined every aspect of it in eternity? Would EDF pose any sort of threat to your fascination with and enjoyment of this relationship? Sounds to me like it would. And if it would, then would not you have an existential beef with EDF?

Fair. THAT would be an existential thing. You can in fairness say the other too. But I divided them due to the seemingly obvious thing that on this board lots of people are having existential beefs with "if it was also true that"s -- and what I have been putting front-and-center is not speculative philosophy.

Actually, I'd have to pause on "integrity of this synergy, this relationship with the Spirit" because on this page it sounds like too much emphasis got put on me.

Let me ask you something fresh. What is EDF -- I mean, HOW WOULD IT WORK? Would it be the Uhrwerk of the 18th cent. German philosophers?--set in motion like a well trained bowling ball. Where is God in that. Would it be God deciding something, and then remembering it? Where is the Creation in that? (Where is the panethropy in that?) The EDF thing seems so external to me--so abstract.

I'm also not done with my first cup of coffee.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 2/28/2002 11:01 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Are you reading this thread? How have you been doing? I have not yet received any response from you yet since my last post on the Genesis 18 thread.

Sorry. I got sidetracked. But looking back on your last post on page 3, I thought we kind a finished.

quote:
I hope that doesn't mean I'm too dense to understand.

Not in a million years Yankee! Believe me, I own the gold medal around here for being dense.

quote:
…you say, "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.". I have to ask if God's knowledge of all present tense realities at the time of Sodom was exhaustive, then why was it necessary for God to "resolve the potential" seeing how his knowledge of all the present tense realities combined with his knowledge of the present tense status of the citizen's "wills" would have rendered any need to "resolve" pointless seeing that his exhaustive knowledge of all present and past tense realities would have made all "potentials" already known to him?

Exactly. The potentials (possibilities, right?) were known to him. One of these possibilities (and one which was increasingly becoming more and more certain) was that the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah would corporately cross that mysterious line of no return. That’s not something God wants them to do so God acts to forestall it. But free will being what it is, the citizens in mass refused the opportunity to turn things around and so sealed their fate. It was resolved. It wasn’t resolved as God would have wished perhaps, but given the situation this was the last chance. Make sense? What I suggest is that what is “unresolved” is their potential for destruction or blessing. God’s knowledge of present realities only means that God perfectly understood the possibilities not necessarily how the visit would turn out.

Tom

yankee551
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 22

Posted 3/1/2002 2:04 PM (GMT -6)

Dear Tom, (TGB)

Man o man are you a deep thinker. Thank you for your response. Good to hear from you. I do still have some unanswered questions though. If you feel it is time to move on to other subjects rather than to keep dragging this one along I can certainly understand. I do still wonder how many there might be out there who like me affirm that God does indeed possess the attribute of omniscience while still maintaining that he has the power to limit his knowledge of present and past realities if that is what he wills to do.

Sincerly,
Yankee

48 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:43 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual