 |
| 
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 4/23/2003 8:51 AM (GMT -6) |   | Some years ago (Before I was aware of OV or MGT) I was doing a study of God and His promises and I wrote an article about how it is necessary for us to put God in remembrance of His promises. The Scriptures seem to imply at times that God needs to be reminded of things and that at other times, the omniscient God intentionally chooses to forget things.
I am curious as to if Open Theists have ever pondered these things and if anyone has yet explored this issue. Here are just a few passages of Scripture to examine on this issue:
“I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins. Put me in remembrance: let us plead together: declare thou, that thou mayest be justified.” (Isa. 43:25-26)
"And it came to pass in process of time, that the king of Egypt died: and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage. And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob." (Ex. 2:23, 24)
"And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant." (Ex. 6:5)
Therefore, behold, I, even I, will utterly forget you, and I will forsake you, and the city that I gave you and your fathers, [and cast you] out of my presence: (Jer. 23:39)
Would you say that these passages are to be interpretted metaphorically or are they to be taken literally? Did God mean something else entirely by these statements? It seems that it was the groaning of the people that reminded Jehovah of His covenant (while in other passages he distinctly says that he will not forget His covenant and that He will not forget His people).
What sayest thou?
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Newcomb
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 5/7/2003 5:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Hmm, Interesting thoughts.
One thing we need to do is consider how we use the words to indicate remembering.
Remembering can be used to mean "brought to mind," for instance, "my wife reminded me to take out the trash." Had I forgotten that the trash went out on Thursday and today is Thursday? No, but she brought it to my attention. So, perhaps these are used that way:
quote:
". . . and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob." (Ex. 2:23, 24)
". . .and I have remembered my covenant." (Ex. 6:5)
The question next:
quote:
“I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins. Put me in remembrance: let us plead together: declare thou, that thou mayest be justified.” (Isa. 43:25-26)
is, does God actually not remember or is this a judicial "forgeting" of the sin? In other words, does God actually not remember or does he merely remove the judgement from the account, as it were? I don't know, however, the definition of omniscience would have to be revised, even our OV omniscience (God knows all things that are knowable). You would have to exclude those sins he forgot, so he would not know all knowable things.
This verse:
quote:
Therefore, behold, I, even I, will utterly forget you, and I will forsake you, and the city that I gave you and your fathers, [and cast you] out of my presence: (Jer. 23:39)
could mean the obverse, that is, he will not give you any favors or grace as opposed to not remembering who you are, which, again, would adversely effect his view of the present world (present to those to whom he practiced this threat).
Again, let's say I am Bill Gates and I say this to my son who made me mad, would it mean he couldn't remember him? No, it would mean he was cut out of the will.
If I say to my son, "I will remember your sin no more" what I really mean is "I won't hold it against you."
Again, you have to see how humans use the words and phrases and what would be true if God could/would do this (i.e., he would not know everything that is knowable because he could not remember certain things that are knowable, indeed, some sins that he forgave that are written in the Bible and how could he not know his own Word?
Just some thoughts.
"Neuk'em" | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/6/2004 10:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Great question, VW.
It seems to me to make the most sense of this question to think of the phrase as a metaphoric descriptive of God's pardoning, forgiving mercy, and that when God says he will remember their sins no more, he is not saying he will literally erase his memory of their sins, but that He will truly forgive and no longer hold their sins against them.
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
As to "remembering his covenant," that would seem to me to be a Hebrew idiom for God demonstrating his redemptive mercy towards his people. Unless we are willing to think of God as some kind of absent-minded old man (which I'm not) who all of the sudden said to himself, "Doh! I forgot that I had a covenant with these people!", I don't see how we can take this statement strictly literally, but I would love to hear what others here would think.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/6/2004 11:03 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by victoryword
Went to Gordon college bookstore (in Massechusettes) yesterday and found an interesting book. The title is Knowing the Unknowable God by James R. Lucas (A professor at Rockhurst University). Has anyone ever heard of this author or read this book?
The book sounds very interesting. So many books, so little time. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 5/6/2004 12:06 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by victoryword
Went to Gordon college bookstore (in Massechusettes) yesterday and found an interesting book. The title is Knowing the Unknowable God by James R. Lucas (A professor at Rockhurst University). Has anyone ever heard of this author or read this book?
In the book, he deals with what he calls paradoxes concerning God and attempts to help the reader understand them. One of the "paradoxes" that Open Theists might find interesting is Lucas' explanation concerning the God who knows all things, yet this same God chooses to forget certain things (particularly our past sin). The most interesting thing is that though Lucas believes that God knows all things, past, present, and future, He actually chooses to limit His knowledge of our future actions so that we could engage in reciprical relationships with Him. He believes that if God held on to knowledge of our past sins or knew what ugly things we might do later that this would make it difficult for both Him and us to have a real genuine relationship. He would not be able to look at us without being repulsed at what we have done or what He knows we are going to do.
Victoryword,
J.R. Lucas is a fairly well-known Christian philosopher. I'm not sure if he's still living, but his most well-known book is called "The Freedom of the Will" (Oxford, 1970). In that book he defends libertarian free will, advances a very interesting argument against mind-body physicalism based on Godel's Theorem, and presents the view of divine foreknowledge that you nicely outlined--namely that God limits his knowledge of our future free choices.
Dallas Willard proposes a similar idea in "The Divine Conspiracy".
I think this view correctly recognizes the tension between foreknowledge and free will but mistakenly supposes the problem can be solved if God voluntarily limits his foreknowledge. Along with the dominant philosophical tradition, Lucas and Willard assume that the future is in fact exhaustively settled because there exists an exhaustive and detailed set of truths about the future of the form "E will/will not occur at T" for all events E and all future times T. If this is so, however, then free will must be an illusion, for it is now and always has been determinately settled which choices everyone will make before they make them. Limiting God's foreknowledge will not change that result. So the solution that Lucas and Willard propose doesn't suffice to preserve the freedom that they want to preserve. God's limiting his foreknowledge turns out to be simply a means by which God fools himself into thinking that we are really free when in fact we aren't.
That said, I do think Lucas' and Willard's books are well worth reading.
God bless you.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 5/6/2004 8:04 PM (GMT -6) | | | I've read the book. I am not sure its the same guy that Alan is talking about. The author is described as a Christian counsler who lives in Kansas City. Anyway, it is a very good book, though he mispresents open theism (as process theology) and then actually describes God as open theists would.(in the chapter Victoryword mentioned). That said, I highly recommend the rest of the book. | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/7/2004 2:41 AM (GMT -6) | | To John Earp
quote:
Great question, VW.
It seems to me to make the most sense of this question to think of the phrase as a metaphoric descriptive of God's pardoning, forgiving mercy, and that when God says he will remember their sins no more, he is not saying he will literally erase his memory of their sins, but that He will truly forgive and no longer hold their sins against them.
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
As to "remembering his covenant," that would seem to me to be a Hebrew idiom for God demonstrating his redemptive mercy towards his people. Unless we are willing to think of God as some kind of absent-minded old man (which I'm not) who all of the sudden said to himself, "Doh! I forgot that I had a covenant with these people!", I don't see how we can take this statement strictly literally, but I would love to hear what others here would think.
John, Lucas would disagree with you on this point. On page 45 of the book, Lucas writes, "As far as our relationship with God is concerned, there is no better news than this, that he has an eraser that he is glad to use." Lucas seems to take God's choosing to forget LITERALLY.
Now at this point I am not saying whether or not I disagree with him, but just want to throw a thought at you: aren't you using the same argument for against God's divine forgetting (made that one up myself  ) that many of our opponents use against those of us who embrace Open Theism? What makes your choosing to see God's divine forgetfulness as metaphoric any different than those who tell us that those passage about God's divine mind change are nothing more than anthropomorphic?
I'm dealing specifically with the part about God not remembering our sins. Otherwise, I see your point about the "remembering His covenant" thing. I certainly do not believe in divine senility
To Alan Rhoda
quote:
I think this view correctly recognizes the tension between foreknowledge and free will but mistakenly supposes the problem can be solved if God voluntarily limits his foreknowledge. Along with the dominant philosophical tradition, Lucas and Willard assume that the future is in fact exhaustively settled because there exists an exhaustive and detailed set of truths about the future of the form "E will/will not occur at T" for all events E and all future times T. If this is so, however, then free will must be an illusion, for it is now and always has been determinately settled which choices everyone will make before they make them. Limiting God's foreknowledge will not change that result. So the solution that Lucas and Willard propose doesn't suffice to preserve the freedom that they want to preserve. God's limiting his foreknowledge turns out to be simply a means by which God fools himself into thinking that we are really free when in fact we aren't.
Durn it!!! I was ready to hop on this idea, thinking it might be more acceptable to those who might not otherwise accept Open Theism, until you just had to go blow holes in the argument. Well, back to the ol' drawing board.
I have heard of Dallas Willard but never bought any of his books. I am not sure if the Lucas you mentioned is the same one I have read but that book you mentioned (Freedom of the Will) sounds very interesting. Might consider it on my long list of books I want to buy.
To Feelinahole
quote:
I've read the book. I am not sure its the same guy that Alan is talking about. The author is described as a Christian counsler who lives in Kansas City. Anyway, it is a very good book, though he mispresents open theism (as process theology) and then actually describes God as open theists would.(in the chapter Victoryword mentioned). That said, I highly recommend the rest of the book.
I haven't read the whole book yet (only the intro and the chapter that most interested me. Most time I will read a book from cover to cover, occasionally I will skip to what interests me the most) but so far I did not find any mention of process theology nor open theism. Yet, you are right that he seems to pretty much represent the OV position without mentioning OV (so far. Perhaps I will soon run accross the part you speak about).
Nevertheless, it does not surprise me if he did misrepresent the OV but then presented the OV view without saying so. It seems to be the way that some people like to make the ideas they embrace seem legitimate. If a group that is deemed heretical by supposedly "sound" Christians hold to ideas that are similar to your own, make them to appear to be extreme or even more heretical and then present your own ideas as "balanced" and Scriptural.
I can name several examples of how I have seen this done and I could name names of people many of you probably are familiar with and have their books on your bookshelf. I find this tactic to be dishonest, or at the least, negligent. Therefore, I hope that Lucas does not do that or has at least modified this in the version of the book I have.
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
PhilTheThrill
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 95
| Posted 5/7/2004 9:00 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by victoryword
Now at this point I am not saying whether or not I disagree with him, but just want to throw a thought at you: aren't you using the same argument for against God's divine forgetting (made that one up myself ) that many of our opponents use against those of us who embrace Open Theism? What makes your choosing to see God's divine forgetfulness as metaphoric any different than those who tell us that those passage about God's divine mind change are nothing more than anthropomorphic?
I think there is a slight difference between figurative speech and anthropomorphisms, especially in this context.
Saying "I have forgotten your sins" seems to simply be a figurative way of saying "I have not counted them against you". You can show a logical idea he'd be trying to say. It's like a colloquialism. You know like "Forget I said it" or "Forget that we had this conversation..." it's obviously simply a way of saying, "don't let it count".
When God says "I thought Israel would turn back to me, but she didn't", it's harder to say that there is a figurative meaning there. What could God mean except that he thought something would happen that didn't?
I do think it's an interesting point you make. I just see the context differently. Could you make a case that the above OVT quote has a figurative, colloquial meaning that would/should be obvious? I'll have to think about it... | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/7/2004 9:19 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by victoryword
Now at this point I am not saying whether or not I disagree with him, but just want to throw a thought at you: aren't you using the same argument for against God's divine forgetting (made that one up myself ) that many of our opponents use against those of us who embrace Open Theism? What makes your choosing to see God's divine forgetfulness as metaphoric any different than those who tell us that those passage about God's divine mind change are nothing more than anthropomorphic?
Hey VW,
Dr. Sanders, in a lecture he gave at the EEM conference on the Open View I attended last fall in Indiana, made the provocative observation that all scripture is metaphor/figurative/anthropomorphic in some way or another. That is, all Scripture seeks to convey a divine message to human being and is thus by definition anthropomorphic.
I confess I'm still trying to work through the implications of this assertion, but it does seem that he has a point. I think what he's saying is that we can't (and shouldn't try to) take all of the statements in Scripture as expressing literal truth, unless there's no other reasonable way of looking at them.
I'm pretty sure Sanders would say that the meaning of the key "Openness" texts only make sense when seen from the Open View, but that the Open View does not stand or fall on those other texts (like, for example, when God "went down to Sodom to see if things were as bad as He had heard," etc.) that simply cannot make sense at all from either the traditionalist or Open points of view.
Like I said I am still working through this new facet of the Openness debate. I would love to hear what others have to say about Sanders' statement that all Scripture is metaphor in one way or another.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/10/2004 6:50 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PhilTheThrill
quote:
Originally posted by victoryword
Now at this point I am not saying whether or not I disagree with him, but just want to throw a thought at you: aren't you using the same argument for against God's divine forgetting (made that one up myself ) that many of our opponents use against those of us who embrace Open Theism? What makes your choosing to see God's divine forgetfulness as metaphoric any different than those who tell us that those passage about God's divine mind change are nothing more than anthropomorphic?
I think there is a slight difference between figurative speech and anthropomorphisms, especially in this context.
Saying "I have forgotten your sins" seems to simply be a figurative way of saying "I have not counted them against you". You can show a logical idea he'd be trying to say. It's like a colloquialism. You know like "Forget I said it" or "Forget that we had this conversation..." it's obviously simply a way of saying, "don't let it count".
When God says "I thought Israel would turn back to me, but she didn't", it's harder to say that there is a figurative meaning there. What could God mean except that he thought something would happen that didn't?
I do think it's an interesting point you make. I just see the context differently. Could you make a case that the above OVT quote has a figurative, colloquial meaning that would/should be obvious? I'll have to think about it...
Phil
I understand what you are saying and I realize that there probably are some "figures of speech" that cannot be interpreted with straightforward literalism. I am also a firm believer in a rule that I believe, Finis Dake once gave concerning Bible interpretation. Since I do not have any of his books with me, let me paraphrase him as best as I can. He said something to the effect, "The Bible should always be read LITERALLY except where it is clear that the Scripture ismetaphoric. In such cases, one must attempt to find the literal meaning of the metaphor.
Now if saying "I have forgotten your sins" is only figurative of saying "I have not counted them against you", why could he not just said the latter and not the former? Furthermore, you and I both believe that God's power is unlimited. Why would He not have the ability to "erase His own memory" for His own sake and for ours. Isa. 43:25 says that He blots out our transgression for HIS OWN SAKE!!
Say if He does not have a "divine memory eraser" (for lack of a better term or just to have some fun  ) that He can use on Himself. You go before Him and pray and while He wants to have fellowship with you, that memory of that sin you committed last year keeps popping up in the divine mind, making it difficult for God to have real genuine fellowship with you. If He cannot genuinely forget what you did - even of His own choice - can't you imagine that He might struggle with fellowshipping with us?
Furthermore, don't place limits on God's ability when we say that He cannot forget, even if He chooses to? And then we consign those passages in which He clearly says that He forgets to just "figures of speech?"
While I do not want to take Openness Theology to dangerous extremes, I would hate to see OVers go the way that Luther did with the Anabaptists. They felt he did not take the reformation far enough and held on to infant baptism. Therefore, Luther consented to their being "permanently baptized." Extreme example, yes I know. However, I really think that we openness folks need to look at God's divine forgetfulness a little more seriously than we do.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I am having fun here
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/10/2004 7:08 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
quote:
Originally posted by victoryword
Now at this point I am not saying whether or not I disagree with him, but just want to throw a thought at you: aren't you using the same argument for against God's divine forgetting (made that one up myself ) that many of our opponents use against those of us who embrace Open Theism? What makes your choosing to see God's divine forgetfulness as metaphoric any different than those who tell us that those passage about God's divine mind change are nothing more than anthropomorphic?
Hey VW,
Dr. Sanders, in a lecture he gave at the EEM conference on the Open View I attended last fall in Indiana, made the provocative observation that all scripture is metaphor/figurative/anthropomorphic in some way or another. That is, all Scripture seeks to convey a divine message to human being and is thus by definition anthropomorphic.
I confess I'm still trying to work through the implications of this assertion, but it does seem that he has a point. I think what he's saying is that we can't (and shouldn't try to) take all of the statements in Scripture as expressing literal truth, unless there's no other reasonable way of looking at them.
I'm pretty sure Sanders would say that the meaning of the key "Openness" texts only make sense when seen from the Open View, but that the Open View does not stand or fall on those other texts (like, for example, when God "went down to Sodom to see if things were as bad as He had heard," etc.) that simply cannot make sense at all from either the traditionalist or Open points of view.
Like I said I am still working through this new facet of the Openness debate. I would love to hear what others have to say about Sanders' statement that all Scripture is metaphor in one way or another.
I like Sanders. Along with the aforementioned book in this post, I also purchased Sander and Hall's "Does God Have a Future". Heck, a lot more cordial and loving to one another than James White and Dave Hunt's "Debating Calvinism" (In the latter book I thought those two guys would have enjoyed burning one another at a stake). Anyway, Sander's brings some very good points to the table and, from my perspective, was able to refute Hall. Also, much easier to read than his "The God Who Risks" though I did like the book. Have you read his online article, "Heffalumps and Heresies" yet? It's an excellent answer to critics of the OV.
Now that was my PRAISE for Sanders. Unfortunately my dispute with him on the belief ".... that all scripture is metaphor/figurative/anthropomorphic in some way or another" will need to be explained to me as I am a LITERALIST. Literalism is one of the things that convinced me that the OV position has to be right or else I would have to join all of those who do not take the Bible at face value. While my education no where near matches Sanders, this simple city boy who was always taught that the Bible is TRUTH (John 17:17) cannot accept the Sanders' statement as it reads. See my dilemma?
As I told Phil, I realize that there probably are some "figures of speech" that cannot be interpreted with straightforward literalism, but I am finding that a lot of what we want to make "figurative" or "anthropomorphic" is often due to our preconceived prejudices about what we think God should be like.
Anyway, I would be interested in any conclusions that you come to in this "new facet" of the Openness debate.
Still learning
Troy (aka VW)
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/10/2004 8:30 AM (GMT -6) | | VW,
If God truly forgets something, then he is no longer omniscient of all past events. If He doesn't know something as certain about the future, but rather as a possibility, then his omniscience is not lessened; he is simply seeing the future as it really is; i.e., to some extent contingent.
I will have to get back to you on the idea that all of Scripture is metaphor. I don't think he means to lessen the authority of Scripture by saying this, but rather to understand it. | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/12/2004 6:46 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
VW,
If God truly forgets something, then he is no longer omniscient of all past events. If He doesn't know something as certain about the future, but rather as a possibility, then his omniscience is not lessened; he is simply seeing the future as it really is; i.e., to some extent contingent.
I will have to get back to you on the idea that all of Scripture is metaphor. I don't think he means to lessen the authority of Scripture by saying this, but rather to understand it.
John
Thanks for your reply. I credit you as one of the people who has helped me in the past to cross over to the OV. So you know that I appreciate you.
However, in this case you seem to be defending your position using the common Open Theist mantra (God is knowledgeable of all past and present events, etc.) rather than addressing my points. Why would God choosing to literally forget something have an effect on His omniscience anymore than His choosing to limit His power take anything away from His omnipotence?
I have posed three other questions to Phil:
1. If saying "I have forgotten your sins" is only figurative of saying "I have not counted them against you", why could he not just said the latter and not the former? Why would He not have the ability to "erase His own memory" for His own sake and for ours. Isa. 43:25 says that He blots out our transgression for HIS OWN SAKE!!
2. If God is unable to literally forget, does this NOT effect Him genuinely when we attempt to have fellowshi before Him? Wouldn't just "seeing our face" kind of conjure up memories of our misdeeds in the divine mind? Wouldn't it be a struggle for God to have real fellowship with us when He still remembers how I told that lie last week? How I looked at a woman with lust in my eyes two months ago, etc.?
3. Are we or are we not placing man made limits on God by saying that He cannot even CHOOSE to forget, therefore all Scripture that makes any allusion to this idea is merely metaphorical?
Now, you guys are welcomed to let the subject drop if you wish and I won't pursue it anymore, but take note that unless Open Theists deal honestly with this issue, then OV is about as {i]closed (pun definitely intended) as any other theological system.
And please, do not burn me at the stake as I am wearing and clean, neatly ironed shirt
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 5/12/2004 8:58 AM (GMT -6) | | | VW: I am curious about your declaration that you are a literalist. What does that mean to you? And what do you do with descriptions of God in the Psalms that talk about him having hands and eyes, wings and stuff like that? Should that be taken literally? | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/12/2004 9:25 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by victoryword
John
Thanks for your reply. I credit you as one of the people who has helped me in the past to cross over to the OV. So you know that I appreciate you.
I appreciate you too, Troy.
quote:
However, in this case you seem to be defending your position using the common Open Theist mantra (God is knowledgeable of all past and present events, etc.) rather than addressing my points.
It seems to me that what I am addressing this from the standpoint of God's omniscience, as classically defined. Contrary to what it is commonly accused of, the Open View does not redefine omniscience per se; what the Open View posits is that the future is not completely settled, and that God perectly knows it as such.
quote:
Why would God choosing to literally forget something have an effect on His omniscience anymore than His choosing to limit His power take anything away from His omnipotence?
Good point. It is straightforwardly logical that if God has perfect knowledge of the present, that He would by definition retain this perfect knowledge into the past ad infinitum.
quote:
1. If saying "I have forgotten your sins" is only figurative of saying "I have not counted them against you", why could he not just said the latter and not the former? Why would He not have the ability to "erase His own memory" for His own sake and for ours. Isa. 43:25 says that He blots out our transgression for HIS OWN SAKE!!
No one is saying that God does not "blot out our transgressions." But by its very nature, how does one literally blot out past misdeeds or transgressions? It seems that this can only be a metaphor--not that this doesn't express something intensely meaningful (for it truly does). The plain fact is that our past sins are forgiven, and no longer held against us.
Col. 2:13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,
14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
quote:
2. If God is unable to literally forget, does this NOT effect Him genuinely when we attempt to have fellowshi before Him? Wouldn't just "seeing our face" kind of conjure up memories of our misdeeds in the divine mind? Wouldn't it be a struggle for God to have real fellowship with us when He still remembers how I told that lie last week? How I looked at a woman with lust in my eyes two months ago, etc.?
When you forgive someone, do you still hold it against them? It seems to me that the two things are mutually exclusive by definition.
quote:
3. Are we or are we not placing man made limits on God by saying that He cannot even CHOOSE to forget, therefore all Scripture that makes any allusion to this idea is merely metaphorical?
Everybody recognizes there are some metaphors in Scripture, and that we cannot take all of Scripture strictly literally in all cases.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/12/2004 10:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Troy,
It seems to me that Dake's principle:
quote:
"The Bible should always be read LITERALLY except where it is clear that the Scripture ismetaphoric. In such cases, one must attempt to find the literal meaning of the metaphor.
is essentially no different from what Sanders is saying in TGWR. Sanders says that we must find the meaning conveyed by the metaphor.
Some examples of this would be:
"The Lord is my shepherd." (God is LIKE a shepherd, but I don't know of any LITERAL sheepherding that Jesus or God has done)
"I am the door" (Jesus is LIKE a door, but he is not in fact a 3' x 7' wooden plank.)
"I am the bread of life" (Again, Jesus is LIKE bread in that he gives us spiritual sustenance and life, but it is not strictly literally true that He is bread or that He even WAS actually "the manna which fell from heaven.")
In TGWR, Sanders makes the point that metaphors are all true in one sense but not true in another.
Likewise, it seems to me that we can view God's "forgetting" as being true in the sense that it is AS IF He forgets them, but not necessarily in the sense of actually forgetting. The difference with regard to the future is that we know of no other way to explain God saying "if this happens, then...", while I think we can explain Him "forgetting" as metaphorical, while still remaining true to the meaning implied in Scripture. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PhilTheThrill
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 95
| Posted 5/13/2004 7:29 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by victoryword
1. If saying "I have forgotten your sins" is only figurative of saying "I have not counted them against you", why could he not just said the latter and not the former? Why would He not have the ability to "erase His own memory" for His own sake and for ours. Isa. 43:25 says that He blots out our transgression for HIS OWN SAKE!!
2. If God is unable to literally forget, does this NOT effect Him genuinely when we attempt to have fellowshi before Him? Wouldn't just "seeing our face" kind of conjure up memories of our misdeeds in the divine mind? Wouldn't it be a struggle for God to have real fellowship with us when He still remembers how I told that lie last week? How I looked at a woman with lust in my eyes two months ago, etc.?
3. Are we or are we not placing man made limits on God by saying that He cannot even CHOOSE to forget, therefore all Scripture that makes any allusion to this idea is merely metaphorical?
1. I dont know, if God isn't literally a bread or a door or a lion or a lamb or whatever else he's called himself, why didn't he just say what he literally is? I'm not even saying that God cannot erase his own memory. I dont see any sort of philosophical problem with God literally forgetting, I just think that the way he says "i'll forget your sins" sounds like a colloquialism, much like the Genesis creation account sounds like folklore. I'm a big literature buff, so I always keep an ear out for the sounds of things, and so that's where I'm coming from. But, I definitely don't see anything wrong with your position.
2. I wouldn't say his not literally forgetting impairs his relationship with us anymore than when we sin against each other. I have "forgotten" many of the times my loved ones have sinned against me, and we have a great relationship.
3. Perhaps. :) Like I said above, I don't think it's impossible. I just think its not as likely. I think scripture uses literary devices more than people think, especially with Paul. But, I think it's not unreasonable to think God literally forgets.
Perhaps, from an OVT perspective, God actually erases the past existence of it, so that not even he can see it. Much like he can't "see the future" if the future is unsettled, maybe he can't see our sins because they have been stricken from the record in the most cosmic sense. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/13/2004 11:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi all-
Interesting discussion. We had the same talk a couple years back. I think Mephi brought it up, and the passage was Gen. 9.12-16, in which God makes an everlasting covenant with Noah.
victoryword: Furthermore, don't [we] place limits on God's ability when we say that He cannot forget, even if He chooses to?
Tom: Yes, we do. And in this case I think we should.
victoryword: Why would God choosing to literally forget something have an effect on His omniscience anymore than His choosing to limit His power take anything away from His omnipotence?
Tom: It’s difficult to imagine how one chooses positively to forget, to wipe one’s memory clean. The choice of an object involves knowledge of the object. Forgetting the object involves ignorance of the object.
victoryword: 2. If God is unable to literally forget, does this NOT effect Him genuinely when we attempt to have fellowship before Him? Wouldn't just "seeing our face" kind of conjure up memories of our misdeeds in the divine mind? Wouldn't it be a struggle for God to have real fellowship with us when He still remembers how I told that lie last week? How I looked at a woman with lust in my eyes two months ago, etc.?
Tom: I thought you didn’t want to limit God?  Really, isn’t this just assuming that God is as poor at loving and forgiving as we are?
victoryword: 3. Are we or are we not placing man made limits on God by saying that He cannot even CHOOSE to forget…?
Tom: How does your (3) not challenge your (2)? Am I ascribing any real weakness or limitation to a general by saying “He can’t lose in battle?” or to Michael Jordan by saying, “He can’t miss”? Yes, one could argue that “God cannot choose to forget” is limiting God’s ability in some way, but it doesn’t ascribe any real weakness or failure on God’s part to not possess this ability, just as saying “God cannot choose to will himself out of existence” attributes no real limitation or weakness to God.
Anyhow, I think there are good reasons for believing God can’t literally erase the past from his memory. I think it does undermine omniscience not only by attributing God incomplete and fallible knowledge of the past, but also by attributing to him incomplete and fallible knowledge of the present. For part of what constitutes the present moment is the sum total of the past, that is, all those propositions about the past which are true and false NOW and whose truth values contribute to determining what the present now is. If God doesn’t know what sins he forgave you of last Wednesday, then God wouldn’t know the truth value of the proposition “God forgave victoryword of lying last Wednesday” spoken several days or several years after that particular Wednesday. Thus, if God erases his memory of some of the past, he possesses less than exhaustive and infallible knowledge of the present.
Consider the mess. Let’s assume that I continually struggle with accepting forgiveness, not letting go of the past, unable to get free from my own past mistakes. How is God to counsel me? What does God say to me when I want to discuss the past with him? How would he know if my memory is even accurate at all if his memory isn’t accurate? How could he forget when I don’t forget and his present knowledge of my memories IS infallible? The whole notion of God’s choosing to erase the past from his memory is problematic. And I don’t at all see what’s gained by believing it to be true.
Interestingly, when I sat with one of my denominational leaders (one responsible for my credentials and not favoring my acceptance of open theism) a couple years ago, he said to me, “I’m much more comfortable believing God chooses not to know some of the future so that we can be free.” I replied by saying if I held THAT to be true about God I would expect real objections, for to me this clearly amounts to denying omniscience.
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/13/2004 1:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Took me three hours to find this stupid thread! Couldn’t get the search engine to work. Had to wade through years of threads page by page. What was funny was noticing how many times I’ve complained about the search engine!
Here’s a thread, victoryword, where we discussed “remember” in the context of God’s covenant with Noah. Interesting, and fun to discuss!
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1259&whichpage=1&SearchTerms=Noah
Let me post part of one post from that thread:
-------------------------------
Take for example cases where God says “I will no more remember your sins.” This I think is pretty simple. Here God is essentially committing to no longer make our sins an issue between him and us, i.e., God will never again bring them up (= remember them). We still use the same verb (zakar) in Arabic today. Not “remembering” our sins I don’t think has to imply God’s literally forgetting them, as in erasing that part of history from his memory.
Things are a bit different with Gen. 9, where the language is couched in terms of a promissory covenant. And it would appear that in covenant language at least, “remembering” would function precisely as a reminder to both parties of the promises and warnings involved in the agreement. We already recognize, however, that where God is the partner in a covenant relationship some things change in light of the kind of person God is. Note for example the change in standard covenant procedure due to God’s character in Heb. 6.13: “When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself.”
Certainly the notion that without constant reminders God would be pouring buckets of water on the world is out of the question. This would imply an obvious imperfection that contradicts what we know to be true of God from other passages of Scripture…
…Part of the answer may come as well from just turning individual passage over and over in your hands looking at it from different perspectives. I wanna try this here with Gen. 9.
Let’s take seriously the “mutuality” of covenant language. God intends the rainbow to remind us of his promise regarding the future and in so doing, I think, to pull us into conversation and relationship with him, where the promise is “mutually” remembered by both man and God. Until the sign leads to a divine-human encounter of this sort it hasn’t served its purpose. I’m thinking of the Lord’s Supper, for example. We “remember” Christ’s death, not because we “forget” it, but because we “relive” or “reenact” it so to speak and in so doing appropriate grace and experience God. And THAT is what covenant signs are about. I wouldn’t have a problem, for example, expressing what the divine side of the Lord’s Supper means for God in covenant terms such as his “remembering.” What is meant by “remembering” here is quite legitimate: Recalling history to mind for a specific present purpose that involves a covenant partner. What’s important to remember (no pun intended!) is that this does not imply imperfection. God can do this sort of remembering.
In a similar fashion, as a reenactment (= remembering) for both us and God, the rainbow is a sign that calls us to sober living in light of God’s past judgment and also provides God (the other covenant partner) an opportunity to put his good memory to use by “reissuing” or “retelling” the promise in more intimate terms to subsequent generations of believers who see in the sign of the rainbow an invitation to experience the promise personally, to hear God make that promise TO THEM. The rainbow then is a sign that prompts God to remember in the sense that it is the covenant-specific means by which God rehearses (= remembers) the promise to any person who responds in faith to that sign. Simply put, every rainbow is an opportunity for US to hear GOD retell (i.e., remember) the history of the flood and reconfirm (i.e., remember) the promise he made THEN to us who experience it NOW.
As long as God is seen to relate to the “sign” independently of covenant mutuality, then perhaps one could argue that “remembering” is an inappropriate expression, because then remembering would be only about data-recall, something like what computers do. And certainly God doesn’t need reminders for THAT sort of information recall. But if it the covenant sign here (the rainbow) is understood as the means by which God actively seeks to rehearse this event WITH US, then I don’t see that “remembering” poses any problem.
--------------------------
Check out the thread, victoryword. See what ya think.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/13/2004 3:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey guys
Been a little busy between my secular job and ministry obligations, not to mention family stuff. Anyway, read all of your posts and will respond to all of you soon. Tonight I want to tackle feelinahole's question because this one is the shortest and easiest.
quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
VW: I am curious about your declaration that you are a literalist. What does that mean to you? And what do you do with descriptions of God in the Psalms that talk about him having hands and eyes, wings and stuff like that? Should that be taken literally?
You mean to tell me that you don't believe that God LITERALLY has hands and eyes? Yes, I know. The oft quoted "God is a spirit" (John 4) as if a spirit being cannot possess hands, eyes, back, etc.
Here is why I believe that God literally has "body parts" (for lack of a better phrase):
Exo 33:18 And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.
Exo 33:19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.
Exo 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
Exo 33:21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
Exo 33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
Exo 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.
I do not see how in any way, shape or form that this passage can be interpretted as anything but LITERAL. Besides, is not man made in God's "image and likeness"? I know many commentaries and scholars say that this is only a "moral image" but I beg to fiffer with them. I kind of like how the Good News Bible translates Gen. 1:26:
Then God said, "And now we will make human beings; they will be like us and resemble us. They will have power over the fish, the birds, and all animals, domestic and wild, large and small."(Gen. 1:26; Good News Bible)
I am not alone in sharing this view. The great evangelist and successor to D. L. Moody, R. A. Torrey wrote the following:
The image and likeness of God would seem also to have some reference to visible likeness. It is true God is essentially spirit (jno 4:24), and invisible (Col. 1:15), but God has a form in which he manifests Himself to the eye (Is. 6:1; Acts 7:56; Phil. 2:6 [See Thayer's Greek-English Lex. of the N. T. on the word translated "form" in this passage], and man seems to have been created not only in the intellectual and moral, but also the visible likeness of God (What the Bible Teaches, p. 294)
So I believe that any reference to hands, feet, eyes, etc. when it comes to God can indeed be taken literally.
"Wings" are another story. Since no appearance or visible manifestation recorded in Scripture ever included "wings" then I will have to say that here is where we see the metaphor and look for it's literal meaning. Psalm 91 uses God's "wings" as a metaphor for His protection over us. That is how I see other such references to God.
However, I dogmatically and emphatically believe that God literally has eyes, hands, a mouth, feet, legs, back parts, etc. I do not believe that a spirit being is just a "mist". The angels are spirits but descriptions are often given of them. Why not God?
Now, what does all that have to do with "God forgetting"? I dunno. I am seeing some very convincing arguments aginst my proposal to take this literally.
So John, Phil, and Tom, I will respond to you guys soon. I still have to chew on your posts and consider some things. However this present post ought to give YOU guys something to talk about.
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 5/13/2004 5:18 PM (GMT -6) | | It would seem to me, VW, that if you are going to be literal about such things, you need to be literal about ALL physical descriptions. Otherwise, you are not being consistant. And, in all frankness, you are not a literalist. Because as soon as you say one part is metaphor, then you are not a literalist. You are now making a judgment on scripture, just as Sanders did.
I would how God could be everywhere, if he in fact has a body. Jesus certainly could not as a human. How could God? Simply because angels appear and are described does not mean they possess a body. That is what is meant by being a spirit. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/13/2004 6:28 PM (GMT -6) | | victoryword: However, I dogmatically and emphatically believe that God literally has eyes, hands, a mouth, feet, legs, back parts, etc.
Tom: What a very very strange thing to be dogmatic about. Be dogmatic about God's existence, his goodness, about Christ's deity, the resurrection, and even about our need to be dogmatic about the right things, but that God has physical body parts? Is God male or female? Does he have both penis, breasts, and uterus?
What are you explaining by believing God possesses a physical body? If you grant that God doesn't have phyiscal "wings" and concede that in this case you must interprete the Bible figuratively, then you DO interpret figuratively. What possible case can you make for insisting that discriptions of God's hands and face be understood to mean God possesses a physical body? Just because God "appears" with hands, face, and backside? That seems to be your sole argument here. But this can only seal your case if you first prove it's impossible that God manifest himself in theophany, for if God can show up in theophany then you can't insist that he possess a physical body.
The translators of the GNB would rip their garments and toss ashes into the air over their heads to hear you use their translation of "resemble" in Gen. 1 to mean God has physical body parts. Oh my.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/13/2004 6:34 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by victoryword
I like Sanders. Along with the aforementioned book in this post, I also purchased Sander and Hall's "Does God Have a Future". Heck, a lot more cordial and loving to one another than James White and Dave Hunt's "Debating Calvinism" (In the latter book I thought those two guys would have enjoyed burning one another at a stake). Anyway, Sander's brings some very good points to the table and, from my perspective, was able to refute Hall. Also, much easier to read than his "The God Who Risks" though I did like the book. Have you read his online article, "Heffalumps and Heresies" yet? It's an excellent answer to critics of the OV.
Troy,
I haven't read the article; I will have to look at it. Do you have a link?
For more on Sanders on the issue of metaphor, look up the chapter in Does God Have a Future? in which he discusses metaphors. VERY interesting and helpful. Also, look in the index of TGWR for "anthropomorphism," "metaphor," and (I think) "symbolism."
Be blessed,
John
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
| 84 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:15 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 |
|
|