Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Piper Responds to Boyd (what do you think?)

Forum Quick Jump

38 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

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

GODesteem
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 34

Posted 11/10/2001 3:25 AM (GMT -6)

Benjamin Musclow
---------------------------------------------

Hey Tom, I told you! Please excuse my lack of discretion, as I did not review my post to see if it was sufficiently clear in its points. My basic frustration was over the lack of analysis of Piper's "Are there two wills in God" article, NOT the original article posted (which was a response to Greg Boyd's understanding of various Scriptures).
I probably should have started a new "thread" - then again, there is enough of those already!

"Tom: The point was that Piper’s “two wills” theory make one wonder whether God would not be internally conflicted in a similar way. You may want to explain how God’s having two wills, as well as thinking and feeling in opposite terms about the same events he’s predestined, is UNLIKE a personality disorder."

Ben: Well Tom, if you happen to glance over Piper's article again in finer detail, you will see a rather lengthy discussion of the issue. Here is a brief excerpt:

"Putting it in my own words, Edwards said that the infinite complexity of the divine mind is such that God has the capacity to look at the world through two lenses. He can look through a narrow lens or through a wide-angle lens. When God looks at a painful or wicked event through his narrow lens, he sees the tragedy or the sin for what it is in itself and he is angered and grieved. "I do not delight in the death of anyone, says the Lord God" (Ezekiel 18:32). But when God looks at a painful or wicked event through his wide-angle lens, he sees the tragedy or the sin in relation to everything leading up to it and everything flowing out from it. He sees it in all the connections and effects that form a pattern or mosaic stretching into eternity. This mosaic, with all its (good and evil) parts he does delight in (Psalm 115:3).

God's emotional life is infinitely complex beyond our ability to fully comprehend. For example, who can comprehend that the Lord hears in one moment of time the prayers of ten million Christians around the world, and sympathizes with each one personally and individually like a caring Father (as Hebrews 4:15 says he will), even though among those ten million prayers some are broken-hearted and some are bursting with joy? How can God weep with those who weep and rejoice with those who rejoice when they are both coming to him at the same time -- in fact are always coming to him with no break at all?

Or who can comprehend that God is angry at the sin of the world every day (Psalm 7:11), and yet every day, every moment, he is rejoicing with tremendous joy because somewhere in the world a sinner is repenting (Luke 15:7,10,23)? Who can comprehend that God continually burns with hot anger at the rebellion of the wicked, grieves over the unholy speech of his people (Ephesians 4:29-30), yet takes pleasure in them daily (Psalm 149:4), and ceaselessly makes merry over penitent prodigals who come home?

Who of us could say what complex of emotions is not possible for God? All we have to go on here is what he has chosen to tell us in the Bible. And what he has told us is that there is a sense in which he does not experience pleasure in the judgment of the wicked, and there is a sense in which he does.

Therefore we should not stumble over the fact that God does and does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked. When Moses warns Israel that the Lord will take delight in bringing ruin upon them and destroying them if they do not repent (Deuteronomy 28:63), he means that those who have rebelled against the Lord and moved beyond repentance will not be able to gloat that they have made the Almighty miserable. God is not defeated in the triumphs of his righteous judgment. Quite the contrary. Moses says that when they are judged they will unwittingly provide an occasion for God to rejoice in the demonstration of his justice and his power and the infinite worth of his glory (Romans 9:22-23)."

It is NOT as if God has conflicting emotions, it is as if God has two different perspectives!

"Tom: But more interestingly, how is it that this personality disorder thing is “ALL [you] have read” on this thread. Now THAT’s amazing. Of all that’s been said, “all” you’ve read is Wassuupp’s comment about personality disorder?"

Ben: As I stated in the first paragraph, I was referring explicitly to the Two Wills issue, not the whole thread. Boy am I confusing!

"Tom: Alternative understandings of the texts we’ve been discussing exist in abundance, Ben. Pick up Doc’s God at War or Satan and the Problem of Evil and check out just the footnotes. There are plenty of references to the sort of alternative proposals you claim no one has even attempted. And in all fairness, once you show in a representative sampling of such texts that the “two wills” view isn’t required to make sense of God’s relationship to the world I think the point is basically made. Naturally one will want to comb through every individual text and work it out, which some folks have done. So, I’m not sure how you can say “no one has even attempted to offer” understandings of such texts that differ from Piper’s. This is so obviously not the case."

Ben: I managed to spend two hours reading much of what Greg (assuming it was him) has put on the website, which I believe is a group of excerpts from the book GOD AT WAR (please correct me if I am wrong). Indeed, Boyd did attempt to deal with a few of the texts that Piper mentions, but for a completely different reason (to argue against compatibilism). However, I noticed that Boyd seems set on using Jesus' ministry as the paradigm through which all of the texts should be sifted through. How he came up with this as the overarching Scriptural hermenuetic is beyond me! This makes me ponder starting a whole new thread analyzing this issue, in discussion with Mr. Boyd of course. I prefer to let Scripture interpret Scripture myself (including what Jesus stated).

"Tom: But the debate is about whether or not God has in fact revealed himself as Piper and Edwards have claimed. It is NOT obvious that God has done so. And since Piper openly admits that neither “logical nor theological deduction” have anything to do with concluding that the “two wills” distinction is in fact Scriptural, I’d like to know of one single passage where it is an “inescapable” truth of Scripture. I can’t find one."

Ben: But Tom, there is not any single passage of Scripture that expounds this truth - it is the combination of a multitude of passages which do! The basic principle is that there is one sense in which God wills something to happen which in another sense he disproves of (or even hates!). Again, a review of the middle part of the article will easily verify the above. Piper isn't arguing philosophically, he is arguing Scripturally (yes, it is his OWN take on the passages - notice I said PASSAGES).

"Tom: Secondly, all I did was ask “questions,” and honest one’s at that. If you can’t answer them, or don’t want to, then just say so. But don’t accuse me of not appreciating the glory and honor of God or of setting myself up as arbiter of how God must run his universe. I’m not asking GOD these questions. I’m asking YOU these question. I assume that with Piper you claim that the “inescapable” message of the Bible is that it’s all about God’s glory and that this MUST mean, indeed can ONLY mean, that God exhaustively predetermines all things, including the choice to make the majority of people for Hell, so that his glory is revealed all the greater. I’m asking you, assuming that the Bible is God “revealing the glory of this TO US” and “communicating the glory of this TO US,” what is so glorious about it? The inescapable message of Scripture you claim is that it’s glorious for God to exhaustively predetermine all of history, consigning the majority to Hell with an “unconditional” decree. Do tell us what YOU believe to be “glorious” about this. If you don’t know what’s glorious about it, then in what sense has God “revealed” it to you?"

Ben: Well basically you forgot the most important part. Namely, that God's will to save all people is restrained by his commitment to the glorification of his sovereign grace (Ephesians 1:6,12,14; Romans 9:22-23). To let another speak, hear Jonathan Edwards:

"It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite glory to shine forth; and for the same reason, it is proper that the shining forth of God’s glory should be complete; that is, that all parts of his glory should shine forth, that every beauty should be proportionably effulgent, that the beholder may have a proper notion of God. It is not proper that one glory should be exceedingly manifested, and another not at all. . . .

Thus it is necessary, that God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God’s glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.

If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God’s holiness in hatred of sin, or in showing any preference, in his providence, of godliness before it. There would be no manifestation of God’s grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from. How much happiness soever he bestowed, his goodness would not be so much prized and admired. . . .

So evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which he made the world; because the creature’s happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and the sense of his love. And if the knowledge of him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be proportionably imperfect."

Since we are created to glorify God by enjoying Him forever, we must have a perfect knowledge of Him for the elect to have ever-increasing joy in Heaven! Of course, we do not have perfect knowledge of God now. And an eternity will be spent growing in the knowledge of God. But if something in the character of God is not known, and never to be known, then our happiness will be imperfect.

"Tom: Lastly, I earlier thought that by setting aside Piper’s name in bold preceding his comments, making it look like he was here engaging others, others might think we were ganging up on Piper. I’ll try to format things more accurately. But in any event, Ben, it’s not about Piper. It’s about his understanding of these passages argued for in this particular article. What’s the problem? Do you think discussing this article without him around is illegitimate?"

Ben: I think that all involved simply need to interact with whatever particular issue is at hand. If you are discussing the "supposed" two wills of God, then you should he citing what Piper has said, and responding to it, UNLESS you are talking about general thoughts, or something that Piper has not mentioned. I am sure John would say that he has not exhausted the issue, and probably will write more on such things. But he has made a short attempt to explain what he believes the Bible has said, even though the issue is difficult, and many may scoff at the well-thought-out answers.

Thanks for the gracious reply, Tom. I think I will head back to CPI for a while....

God loves Himself more than anything... He is our greatest treasure!

geej
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 93

Posted 11/10/2001 6:18 AM (GMT -6)

Dave,
Although, I tend to agree with some of the B profs 80 -90% of the time (funny how that happens when you belong to the same denomination), other than Christ, I am no one's minion. In fact, I don't don't completely trust ANYONE.
I am loyal to the profs there but my loyalty in no way should be interpreted to mean that I trust their judgement 100% of the time or that I'm their little rat girl who parrots their message and follows blindly. We (theology students of my era) were taught not to believe anything ANYONE said on face value; we were taught to go find out for ourselves and we were taught that we had darned well better be scholarly in the way we approached our research.
WHC is my church; its my chosen home because I agree with them in their theology; I spent from 93 - 2000 exploring other churches... never even tried WHC until it finally occured to me: "shoot! What am I doing? I agree with them; why don't I go there?" Isn't it amazing that we not only tend to go to colleges where we agree with the beliefs espoused but we also tend to go to the churches with whom we most agree? Truly, I am STUNNED that that would happen!

Geej

Jewgrass
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 113

Posted 11/12/2001 10:45 AM (GMT -6)

I was just reading Piper's essay on the two wills of God. The following excerpt appears to be very compelling. Any comments?

PIPER: There are two reasons that we turn next to Revelation 17:16-17. One is that the war against the Son of God, which reached its sinful climax at the cross comes to final consummation in a way that confirms what we have seen about the will of God. The other reason is that this text reveals John's understanding of God's active involvement in fulfilling prophecies whose fulfillment involves sinning. John sees a vision of some final events of history:

And the ten horns that you saw, they and the beast will hate the harlot; they will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire, for God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose by being of one mind and giving over their royal power to the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled (Revelation 17:16-17).

Without going into all the details of this passage, the relevant matter is clear. The beast "comes out of the abyss" (Revelation 17:8). He is the personification of evil and rebellion against God. The ten horns are ten kings (v. 12) and they "wage war against the Lamb" (v. 14).

Waging war against the Lamb is sin and sin is contrary to the will of God. Nevertheless the angel says (literally), "God gave into their [the ten kings'] hearts to do his will, and to perform one will, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled" (v. 17). Therefore God willed (in one sense) to influence the hearts of the ten kings so that they would do what is against his will (in another sense).

Moreover God did this in fulfillment of prophetic words. The ten kings will collaborate with the beast "until the words of God shall be fulfilled" (v. 17). This implies something crucial about John's understanding of the fulfillment of "the prophesies leading up to the overthrow of Antichrist." It implies that (at least in John's view) God's prophecies are not mere predictions which God knows will happen, but rather are divine intentions which he makes sure will happen. We know this because verse 17 says that God is acting to see to it that the ten kings make league with the beast "until the words of God shall be fulfilled." John is exulting not in the marvelous foreknowledge of God to predict a bad event. Rather he is exulting in the marvelous sovereignty of God to make sure that the bad event comes about. Fulfilled prophecy, in John's mind, is not only prediction, but also promised performance.

This is important because John tells us in his Gospel that there are Old Testament prophecies of events surrounding the death of Christ that involve sin. This means that God intends to bring about events that involve things he forbids. These events include Judas' betrayal of Jesus (John 13:18; Psalm 41:9), the hatred Jesus received from his enemies (John 15:25; Psalm 69:4; 35:19), the casting of lots for Jesus' clothing (John 19:24; Psalm 22:18), and the piercing of Jesus' side (John 19:36-37; Exodus 12:46; Psalm 34:20; Zechariah 12:10). John expresses his theology of God's sovereignty with the words, "These things happened in order that the scripture be fulfilled." In other words the events were not a coincidence that God merely foresaw, but a plan which God purposed to bring about. Thus again we find the words of I. Howard Marshall confirmed: "We must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen."

Taken from http://www.desiringgod.org/Online_Library/OnlineArticles/Subjects/DoctrinesGrace/2wills.htm

--Greg Burris, gburris.jewgrass@mail.utexas.edu

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 11/13/2001 6:11 AM (GMT -6)

Greg-

Perhaps others will offer their views as well on this.

Shooting from the hip, I’d say:

1. I thought the I. Howard Marshall quote was funny, seeing that Marshall is an Arminian (Methodist) who disagrees with Piper’s view on the two wills of God. Whatever Marshall meant regarding God’s will (and I think I know what he meant), it is not what Piper means.

2. If you really want to follow this through, Greg, then you’d enjoy reading Doc’s Satan and the Problem of Evil. He deals with how God can know as certain something like the crucifixion without specifically determining the evil acts that bring it about.

3. It would hardly be difficult for God to know for certain that Satan would attempt to spoil what God does, whether it relates to the incarnation or to the eschatological consummation of the Kingdom. Predicting that Satan will wage war wouldn’t require God to possess exhaustively definite foreknowledge. Given Satan’s character, God may know certainly far in advance that as things begin to wind down Satan will use every means available to oppose God. So, predicting that Satan would coordinate the evil hearts of world leaders to wage “war” against God’s purposes would not require God’s active, meticulous control of the event. From God’s perspective, Satan’s behaviour in such situations is perfectly predictable.

4. God “giving it into their hearts to do his will,” is, as I understand it, a reference to God’s judgment upon world leaders who have made their actions predictable by freely willing themselves into such a character. When you’re at war, and your enemy is resolutely settled in her will to fight you, it’s not immoral to “lure” them into a trap. One might say that just as a wise military commander sets up circumstances to deceive the enemy and lead them into adopting (i.e., committing their will to) a course of action HE wants, God will orchestrate the compatibilistic wills of evil persons and angels to adopt certain courses of action which in the end will spell their own doom. And there’s no inconsistency in saying God “wills” that such evil agents take the bait.

5. This last point is different, however, from what Piper argues. I claim God never wanted the war in the first place. But now that the war rages against him, he finds himself “willing” to act in ways (i.e., having to wage this war against evil) which were never originally a part of his plan. I wouldn’t call this “two wills.” What Piper says is that God “willed” the war in the first place. He willed it unconditionally and because it was necessary to reveal what a great fighter he can be when opposed in such ways. Piper claims this magnifies his glory.

6. I think the two wills thing is unnecessary. If all the evil which occurs is necessary because it enhances God’s glory, and enhancing his own glory is what it’s all about, then two wills aren’t needed. Why should God need “in some sense” NOT to will evil as Piper claims? Is this necessarily to provide a basis upon which we can say to people that God didn’t really want all those people to die in the Word Trade Center? What I would say if I believed what Piper believes (maybe what he has said, I don’t know) to the family members of the victims is, “God unconditionally determined this should happen to your loved ones and actively brought it to pass because it enhances his glory, but there’s a sense in which he also didn’t want it to happen. You can find comfort in knowing that what happened to your loved ones enhances his glory.”

Tom

Edited by - tgb on 11/13/2001 2:34:23 PM

Edited by - tgb on 11/13/2001 6:44:18 PM

Jewgrass
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 113

Posted 11/13/2001 2:55 PM (GMT -6)

TGB: If you really want to follow this through, Greg, then you’d enjoy reading Doc’s Satan and the Problem of Evil. He deals with how God can know as certain something like the crucifixion without specifically determining the evil acts that bring it about.

Jewgrass: I ordered this book, along with Divine Foreknowledge, Piper's Justification of God, and Laurence Vance's The Other Side of Calvinism last week. I read God at War this summer and it really opened my eyes in many ways (although I still define my theology as being a "spiritual mutt"... a hodgepodge of confusion somewhere between supralapsarianism and process theology).

TGB: I think the two wills thing is unnecessary. If all the evil which occurs is necessary because it enhances God’s glory, and enhancing his own glory is what it’s all about, then two wills aren’t needed.

Jewgrass: This God willing evil to glorify himself sounds very fishy to me. Reminds me of that line in the movie Gladiator when the evil emperor screams "AM I NOT MERCIFUL!?!?"

TGB: What I would say if I believed what Piper believes (maybe what he has said, I don’t know) to the family members of the victims is, “God unconditionally determined this should happen to your loved ones and actively brought it to pass because it enhances his glory, but there’s a sense in which he also didn’t want it to happen.

Jewgrass: Thats pretty much Piper's stance. He recently wrote an article entitled "Why I Do Not Say, 'God Did Not Cause the Calamity, But He Can Use It for Good.'" This article can be found here: http://www.desiringgod.org/Online_Library/OnlineArticles/FreshWords/2001/091701.htm

--Greg Burris, gburris.jewgrass@mail.utexas.edu

"My religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed." -- General Stonewall Jackson

Edited by - jewgrass on 11/13/2001 7:56:13 PM

GODesteem
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 34

Posted 12/3/2001 5:15 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Tom! I hope you are still checking this particular topic often, as this response is over a month later than yours! I actually only want to state two (or three or...) things, since I believe I can speak on Piper's behalf on them (but do not hold me as a spokeperson, email DGM or Bethlehem Baptist! :c).

You wrote (in response to Piper's words):

"Strange indeed. A repentance that is “unlike anything we experience.” This removes it even from the category of anthropomorphism/anthropopathism. It is in a category of its own."

My response:

You seem hung up on the idea that EVERYTHING God says has to somehow relate to us, to something WE experience. As you admit, this repentance is "strange", because it is NOTHING like human repentance! It is GOD's repentance. Why complicate things by trying to rip God's emotions into human experience, as if we could actually ALWAYS comprehend them? God has chosen to reveal Himself to whomever He chooses, and has chosen to reveal as much or as little of Himself as He chooses. If He states that He does not repent like a man, then I take that statement as a warning NOT to attempt to use my experiences to interpret a definition.

Tom wrote:

"The problem I have with this particular open view approach to Gen. 6 is simple. The text doesn’t say God was “sorry that man sinned so much” (though he doubtless was). It explicitly says God was “sorry the he [God] made humankind.” I take this to mean the God regretted having started the project in the first place. That’s way out there I know. And if the text said anything other than what it actually said perhaps I could go with other open viewers who locate God’s passion here all in the mere fact of the “extent” of human sin. God is sorrowful over this, yes, but what does he regret? He regrets “creating humanity.” Whew. This I think implies something significant about what God believed was and was not possible prior to creation."

My response:

Tom, you are assuming your definition of "repent" here. This is the whole argument. When God says He "repents", what does He mean? If the Bible says He DOES NOT repent like a man, then why use human experience as the parameters around just how God can repent?

Tom wrote:

"God powerfully influencing our hearts and intentions and seeking to safeguard us and keep us close to him is one thing, but this does not require us to assume that what God seeks to do or attempts to bring about always happens. The hearts God seeks to direct sometimes stubbornly wander from him. Piper’s assuming that God “guiding” our hearts (in 1Ch 29) means God “determines” our hearts. Why am I not surprised?"

My response:

Just what do you do with Jeremiah 32:40-41 ?

"Jer 32:40 "I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me.
Jer 32:41 "I will rejoice over them to do them good and will faithfully plant them in this land with all My heart and with all My soul."

Kind of sounds like God is making a guarantee on this "everlasting covenant", one in which He makes sure BOTH ends of the agreement are kept! I wonder how an Open Theist explains the saints eternal life in Heaven - can they sin in heaven?

Tom wrote:

"There’s nothing else Piper can propose. If you come to Gen. 6 already believing that God knows eternally all that is to come, what else can one say? Again, certain passages (those which depict God as knowing some future event) are handpicked and made the rule by which other passages (passages which depict God as not knowing some future event) are either allowed to contribute after a good deal of qualification (and the qualification is always one-directional, from “settled” passages to “open” passages) to our understanding of God’s knowledge of the future or judged to not have anything to contribute at all."

My response:

In all honesty, I could easily use the same argument AGAINST Open Theism. Whenever a "settled" passage is quoted, the Open Theist "fudges" around the text, especially ones dealing with prophecy. Somehow Jesus claim to Deity in predicting in detail the future actions of both Judas and Peter is turned into a revealing of Jesus amazing ability to predict based on past performance (and somehow, all things being equal, Peter and Judas WOULD have done otherwise???). Frankly, Open Theism implicitly denies this evidence for Jesus' deity, and in turn the inerrancy of Scripture! Yes that is a serious judgement. I will take the time to expand on this in another post (and probably on CPI as well).

Tom also wrote:

"The notion that God is, or has been, eternally experiencing all the joy, sorrow, regret, anger, and love he will ever feel and that God has just decided to “express” it here for us seems to me highly contrived and forced. But I’m certainly open to hearing arguments for how this makes sense or is meaningful to any who want to comment. One question though, since God is “timeless” and experiences all of history timelessly, does Piper suppose that God will continue into eternity feeling all these things?"

My response:

Please provide references in which Piper believes that "God is “timeless” and experiences all of history timelessly". I would be greatly enlightened, as I have read the contrary. As for an explanation, I will dig up some of Bruce Ware's articles, in which he attempts to explain God's "experience" of emotion within the timeline of history.

Tom concludes:

"One last thought. Piper claims God eternally feels sorrow over the depth of human sin in Gen. 6. But, as I mentioned above, the text claims that God regretted “having made humankind.” This is more significant that feeling bad about their sin. Does Piper claim God eternally regrets making humans? And being timelessly eternal, won’t God be regretting that he made us forever?"

My response:

Why are you asking an Open Theism board about John Piper's believes on the "timelessness" of God? Do you expect an unbiased answer? :c) I will be waiting for those references.....

Benjamin "I don't have all the answers" Musclow

God loves Himself more than anything... He is our greatest treasure!

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 12/4/2001 12:01 PM (GMT -6)

Hey Ben, how are ya? Can’t tell you how good it is to see you interacting on this board. It’s very good to have you sparing with us! I think we might be limited on how much of this we could carry over to CPI. I don’t think there’s a lot of interest there, and most people aren’t patient with longer posts.

Ben: You seem hung up on the idea that EVERYTHING God says has to somehow relate to us, to something WE experience…

Tom: Somebody said ”All meaning is analogical.” It makes basic sense. If something God says TO US is utterly unrelated to our experience, then what God says can mean nothing to us. Seems to me that if God is the one communicating to us, then God takes this into account, being a consummate communicator. So, when God says, “I change my mind” or “I repent” God expects me, I believe, to locate the meaning of this (fundamentally, but not necessarily exhaustively) in my own experience of changing my mind.

Ben: …If He states that He does not repent like a man, then I take that statement as a warning NOT to attempt to use my experiences to interpret a definition.

Tom: We’ve been here. When God tells Samuel “I am not a man that I should repent,” contextually the best option is to understand this to mean “I do not, like humans, change my mind about changing my mind,” or “I am not fickle about changing my mind.” Point is, God changed his mind about pursuing his agenda for the nation through Saul. It is THIS change of mind about which God speaks when he tells Samuel to lay off interceding for Saul. It’s hermeneutically illegit to lift “I am not a man that I should repent” out of its context and claim it means God doesn’t genuinely change his mind. The context is there. We can’t ignore it.

Ben: Tom, you are assuming your definition of "repent" here [with regard to Gen. 6]. This is the whole argument. When God says He "repents", what does He mean? If the Bible says He DOES NOT repent like a man, then why use human experience as the parameters around just how God can repent?

Tom: It should be clear that “I am not a man that I should repent” is not to be used as you are using it. If God were to have said, “I’m grieved by human sin and I regret having made them,” and then returned later to say, “Well, on second thought, you know, I’m not really THAT grived. I don’t regret having made them,” THEN I’d agree that you’d have a point. The text you want to use doesn’t mean God never genuinely changes his mind at all (as human do). Context suggests that it means God never flip-flops about having changed his mind (which is distinctive about much of the way we humans change our mind). This alone, it seems to me, makes sense of the statement in light of Samuel’s pleading before God that he change his mind about his rejection of Saul.

Ben: Just what do you do with Jeremiah 32:40-41? "I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me. I will rejoice over them to do them good and will faithfully plant them in this land with all My heart and with all My soul."
Kind of sounds like God is making a guarantee on this "everlasting covenant", one in which He makes sure BOTH ends of the agreement are kept! I wonder how an Open Theist explains the saints eternal life in Heaven - can they sin in heaven?

Tom: Well, I’d say that there never was a problem in God keeping his side of any covenant he ever made. I’m sure you’d agree. The New Covenant was needed, as Hebrews says, because of our weakness, our selfish misuse of freedom. More was needed to bring about fundamental change in us. God guarantees that the New Covenant will do what the Old could not because of us. And it has. But I don’t see how this guarantee regarding the efficacy of the New Covenant suggests that we aren’t individually free to accept or reject the change that this covenant holds out to us.

Ben: In all honesty, I could easily use the same argument AGAINST Open Theism. Whenever a "settled" passage is quoted, the Open Theist "fudges" around the text, especially ones dealing with prophecy. Somehow Jesus claim to Deity in predicting in detail the future actions of both Judas and Peter is turned into a revealing of Jesus amazing ability to predict based on past performance (and somehow, all things being equal, Peter and Judas WOULD have done otherwise???). Frankly, Open Theism implicitly denies this evidence for Jesus' deity, and in turn the inerrancy of Scripture!

Tom: Hmm. I see two different things here. First, open theists fudge the “settled” texts. Secondly, we deny the evidence of Jesus’ deity in accurate prophesying Peter’s denial. About the first, since there is in Scripture no explicit claim saying, “God possesses exhaustive definite foreknowledge of all that will ever come to pass,” the settled passages and the open passages have to been taken equally seriously. The open passages cannot be taken to mean that ALL the future is open. These texts don’t say that. And the settled passages shouldn’t be taken to mean what they don’t actually say either, namely, that ALL the future is settled and unchangeable from God’s perspective. The future is as open as the texts claim they are and as settled as the texts claim they are. Both are true. So I don’t see where openness folks fudge the settled texts. I see a lot of fudging of the open passages being done by those who want to claim that they don’t mean what they ostensibly portray but that the settled passages mean far more than they actually claim.

Secondly, how is Jesus’ prophecy regarding Peter an evidence of Jesus’ deity? How is any prophecy evidence of divinity? Is Agabus’ prophecy that a famine would hit the Empire an evidence of his deity? Or are the prophecies of the OT evidence of the prophets’ deity? I heartily believe in Christ’s deity, but I’d never try to build a case for it on prophecy. Even if the open view understanding of Peter’s denial of Jesus is wrong, it still can be claimed that God simply revealed the future to Christ on this occasion. Of course, the passage is not evidence that Jesus isn’t divine either. It’s simply not a concern of this particular text.

And “in turn the inerrancy of Scripture”? I’ve heard that Ware made a bid deal of the fact that openness folk cannot possibly hold to an inerrant and infallible Scripture. Why is that so Ben?

Ben: Please provide references in which Piper believes that "God is “timeless” and experiences all of history timelessly". I would be greatly enlightened, as I have read the contrary. As for an explanation, I will dig up some of Bruce Ware's articles, in which he attempts to explain God's "experience" of emotion within the timeline of history.

Tom: You’re quite right, Bro. I was assuming Piper’s views on timelessness. Sorry. You know him far more intimately than I. But the fundamental point remains; whether God exhaustively foreknows the future as settled timelessly or not, it is difficult to make sense of God’s experiencing emotion “on cue,” so to speak, regarding such events. I’m not suggesting that God is not capable of a complex emotional life. He must. He’s grieving over sin in China, rejoicing over somebody’s salvation in South America, angry about the World Trade Centers, etc. etc., all at the same time. My earlier point was not that God was incapable of such complexity, but that he doesn’t both grieve and rejoice over the sin in China, or feel both anger and satisfaction over the World Trade Center. This is what you were suggesting was the case (as Piper’s “lenses” argument suggests).

Ben: Why are you asking an Open
Theism board about John Piper's believes on the "timelessness" of God? Do you expect an unbiased answer? :c)

Tom: Well, I didn’t start this thread. :o) OrhodoxBerean did. He was grappling with Piper’s responses to Doc and wanted to know what people thought. So I jumped in. Then you jumped in. And here we are!

Blessings,
Tom

Tiggers
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219

Posted 12/4/2001 1:24 PM (GMT -6)

Hey Tom,

Maybe you can help me understand...PLEASE

!

Tom asserts,
" since there is in Scripture no explicit claim saying, “God possesses exhaustive definite foreknowledge of all that will ever come to pass,” the settled passages and the open passages have to been taken equally seriously. The open passages cannot be taken to mean that ALL the future is open. These texts don’t say that. And the settled passages shouldn’t be taken to mean what they don’t actually say either, namely, that ALL the future is settled and unchangeable from God’s perspective. The future is as open as the texts claim they are and as settled as the texts claim they are."

Tigger's Reply,
Ok, I thought the Open position always held to free will in the libertarian sense. However, if the future is partly settled and known as such (e.g. God knowing Peter would deny him, etc.) than it would seem that because God foreknew as settled, simply that, x would do y in s (specific situation) at t (specific point in time) before the time that x did y then x never had the choice to do otherwise, thus, logic seems to tell me that x was determined by God himself. Now, if a creature is free in the libertarian sense than how can this partly settled future work. It seems that you want to have your cake and eat it too.

Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers

“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie).

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 12/5/2001 3:49 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Ok, I thought the Open position always held to free will in the libertarian sense. However, if the future is partly settled and known as such (e.g. God knowing Peter would deny him, etc.) then it would seem that because God foreknew as settled, simply that, x would do y in s (specific situation) at t (specific point in time) before the time that x did y then x never had the choice to do otherwise, thus, logic seems to tell me that x was determined by God himself. Now, if a creature is free in the libertarian sense than how can this partly settled future work. It seems that you want to have your cake and eat it too.

Tiggers-

I never freely choose a piece of cake unless I determine to eat it!

Good question. I see your point. Here’s how I’ve come to see it (as argued by others before me). Libertarian free will is finite. As we exercise it in repetitively good or evil ways our characters are formed. You know the saying: Our choices become habits, our habits become character, and our character in turn determines our choices. Over time, we become what we have chosen. Our options are narrowed and our freedom is restricted as we expend it throughout life. We choose our way into fixed ways of behaving, or as Doc would say, libertarian free will gives way to compatibilistic free will.

So, the definiteness of some of our choices may in fact precede those choices if the definiteness proceeds from factors we were responsible for in the first place. For example, if we freely choose to experiment with drugs, we can choose our way into drug abuse. We then severely restrict, or perhaps even completely forfeit, our freedom to refuse cocaine when it’s offered us. In such a case, taking cocaine on a particular occasion would be a forgone conclusion before choosing to do so. It is in a sense “determined,” but not by God. The same thing could be true of any habitual sin we allow ourselves to become entrenched in. We freely choose our prison, then our prison cell defines our options. You can only go so far left or right. Make sense?

Something like this can explain Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denial. Given his perfect knowledge of Peter’s character at the time, Jesus can know how Peter will perform if placed in certain circumstances. Not all openness folks go this route to explain the Peter episode, but I think it works best. But the important thing to note is that, at least in Peter’s case, there’s no indication that God knew (much less determined) from eternity that Peter would deny Christ.

Holla back.

Tom

Tiggers
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219

Posted 12/5/2001 4:50 PM (GMT -6)

Tom,
I totally understand and agree with what you’re saying here (e.g. habits become character and character determine choices), however, maybe you can still tweak my thinking a bit,

! Ok, from my limited understanding of Open Theism, God knows all possible future free will actions, but does not know them exhaustively until they occur…right? Now, I have no problem with this, it’s only when one claims a partly settled future that I start attaining blurry vision. You see, as an Open Theist I’m sure you hold to God’s regret (e.g. making Saul King, etc.), being surprised/confronting the unexpected (e.g. Is. 5 and the wild grapes; Jer. 19:5; 3:6-7), etc., but how does one reconcile a partly settled future within a framework of libertarian freewill. Now, I understand the habit/character bit, but it’s obvious if one is to take the above passages literally that one’s character do to libertarian free will (e.g. Saul’s) can change or still surprise God (to the point of regret even) in the end. Now, this seems to make sense to me because God only knows things as real contingently as they happen, otherwise free will is only an illusion, right? Ok, getting back to something like Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denial (Matt. 26:31-35), how does Jesus have foreknowledge that Peter would deny him 3 times not just once before the rooster crows (and what’s up with this Rooster bizzz anyways

?)? There seems to be some specifics that seem to imply that Jesus actually had to have the foreknowledge of say a rooster crow and 3 denials, soooo, my evolving point seems to be that,

1. God must either foreknow a specific event as real before it happens, or
2. God must create sufficient causes to make or manipulate creatures to do his will (which seems like compatiblism to me).
3. Hmmmmmm?

Well, I should take off (I’m soooooooo sleeeeeepy

), so in your words

"Holla Back"

Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers

“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie).

streetpreacher
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 16

Posted 12/5/2001 8:35 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Tom,

I read some of your posts on CPI before I had to leave the list (too time consuming). I really enjoyed them then and found this particular exchange very edifying.

You wrote:

"Others on this forum doubtless know Piper than I, but my hunch is Piper would simply reply that God’s grace and mercy appear far more praiseworthy when set against the backdrop of the fall and hell. I think of the kind of white photocopy paper I prefer using in my office. You buy a ream of white paper and it “looks” really white. But then set it next to a more expensive brand and the first sheet turns out to be a little yellow. You wouldn’t—in fact couldn’t—have noticed had you not had the “whiter” sheet to compare it to. Set it against a black backdrop and you reeeally come to have a sense of how “white” white can be.

I believe this is part of what Piper and others are getting at when they suggest evil and human sin were predestined “in order to display the glory of God.” They would argue that when set against the backdrop of evil and sin, God’s glory is shown/displayed more vibrantly. The contrast highlights God’s grace more.

Add to this the fact that some attributes of God simply cannot be revealed AT ALL apart from evil and sin. God can’t be revealed as a “healer” if there aren’t some “sick” people to heal, can’t “forgive” if there aren’t some “guilty” people to forgive."

I reply: Not a deep theological musing here, but doesn't this almost sound Yin/Yangish (not a word, I know), more reflective of Eastern philosophy than Biblical truth? Good needs evil to exist?

In His Love (For Truth),

Carlton

My brother, sister, friend - read, study, think, and read again. You were made to think. It will do you good to think; to develop your powers by study. God designed that religion should require thought, intense thought, and should thoroughly develop our powers of thought.-- Charles G. Finney

Edited by - streetpreacher on 12/06/2001 02:06:42 AM

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 12/6/2001 2:49 PM (GMT -6)

Yo Tiggers-

Tiggers: Ok, from my limited understanding of Open Theism, God knows all possible future free will actions, but does not know them exhaustively until they occur…right?

Tom: Not exactly (as I understand it). Just change your “exhaustively” to “as certainties” and you’ve got it. God possesses “exhaustive foreknowledge” across the board, but not “exhaustively definite foreknowledge.” It’s knowledge of both possibilities and certainties. When we resolve a particular range of possibilities into one single certainty, we give determinateness to that event. Being omniscient, God keeps perfect track of it all. His knowledge is co-terminus with reality.

Tiggers: …but how does one reconcile a partly settled future within a framework of libertarian freewill.

Tom: I personally don’t see how we can be morally responsible for those actions of ours the determinateness of which eternally preceded our choice to act. So, the “settled” stuff fits well within a framework of libertarian free will so long as the “free” stuff and the “eternally settled” stuff aren’t one and the same.

Tiggers: Now, I understand the habit/character bit, but it’s obvious if one is to take the above passages literally that one’s character do to libertarian free will (e.g. Saul’s) can change or still surprise God (to the point of regret even) in the end. Now, this seems to make sense to me because God only knows things as real contingently as they happen, otherwise free will is only an illusion, right?

Tom: Right.

Tiggers: Ok, getting back to something like Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denial (Matt. 26:31-35), how does Jesus have foreknowledge that Peter would deny him 3 times not just once before the rooster crows…? There seems to be some specifics that seem to imply that Jesus actually had to have the foreknowledge of say a rooster crow and 3 denials…

Tom: The freedom of roosters isn’t important! God made him crow! And the fact that Peter would deny Christ three times, as opposed to only once, seems to have been arranged for by God personally. Ya think? It couldn’t have been difficult to see to arrange three opportunities for Peter to speak up for Christ. Those who approached Peter were not sinning in inquiring into his identity. That’s where I am on this right now. I think J. Sanders takes this in a little different direction.

Tiggers …soooo, my evolving point seems to be that, 1. God must either foreknow a specific event as real before it happens, or 2. God must create sufficient causes to make or manipulate creatures to do his will (which seems like compatiblism to me). 3. Hmmmmmm?

Tom: I like no. 3!

Tom

Edited by - tgb on 12/06/2001 7:51:18 PM

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 12/6/2001 2:52 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
I reply: Not a deep theological musing here, but doesn't this almost sound Yin/Yangish (not a word, I know), more reflective of Eastern philosophy than Biblical truth? Good needs evil to exist?

Carlton-

Welcome back! I don’t know the whole Yin/Yang thing, but I think it’s basically equivalent to metaphysical dualism, viz., that good/evil are eternally separate, distinct, and independent metaphysical realities. Piper, with all classical theology, would rightly deny this. Evil “came to be” (though we and Piper disagree exactly how and why) as opposed to “was eternally over and against” God. And evil will come to an end too (which is a good place to spin off on a discussion of Doc’s chapter in SPE (Satan and the Problem of Evil) on hell. Whooah.

Tom

38 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:20 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