 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 6:35 AM (GMT -6) |   | Message
writerdad
01/13/01 7:43 AM
Ware's interpretation of Genesis 22:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greetings! I am a tentative open theist, in that I am still studying the many facets of it and while I do believe certain aspects of it already (such as God changing in relationship to us )I still have many questions and that is why I was hoping to turn to this dicussion board and throw my questions out to you and hear what you have to say in response to them.
At Present I am readng Bruce Ware's God's Lesser Glory, which is a critique of Open Theism. My question deals with his interpretation of Genesis 22:12. In it he writes:
"...when God observes Abraham bind his son to the altar he has crafted and raise the knife to plunge it into his body, God literally sees and experiences in this moment what he has known from eternity. When the angel of the Lord utters the statement, "for now I know that you fear God," this expresses the idea that "in the experience of this action, I (God) am witnessing Abraham demonstrate dramatically and afresh that he fears me, and I find this both pleasing and acceptable in my sight." Through Abraham's action of faith and fear of God, God sees and enters into the experience of this action of obedience, which action and heart of faith he has previously known fully and perfectly. What this kind of interpretation offers is a way to understand the text as communicating a present and experiental reality that is true of God at the moment of Abraham's act of faith , while it also safeguards what scripture elsewhere demands, the previous full and perfect knowledge God had of Abraham's fear of him."
My question deals with God entering into the "experience of the act of obedience." Ware's point seems to be that, although God knows what we will do from all eternity, he enters into the experience we are going through in order that he may be in relationship with us and experience said relationship with us. Yet Ware is also quick to point out that God knew of this from all eternity, which brings up this point: if this act of obedience never happened before (and we can assume that, given that most Christians do not believe in reincarnation), it would seem that this act of Abraham is a unique act that Abraham did at one time and at no other. And while God may have perfect knowledge of the act and what happened or would happen in the act, he could not have had perfect knowledge of the experience of the act because the act did not happen until a certain point in time (and while God may be timeless, and we can grant that, for the sake of argument, though I am not sure I totally believe that, we are not, so it would have had to happen at a certain point in time for us and therefore God could have only experienced it at that point in time when it happened, for Ware adknowledges elsewhere that God does, indeed, enter time to relate to us), and, as such, would not God be learning something new through experiencing the act itself. Every act would seem, to me, unique, in and of itself and, when God experiences the act of another, no matter how much he knows of that act, it would seem that each experience is new in time and something is learned from it. So it seems Ware's view that God has perfect knowledge of everything is defeated because of the relationships God would have to experience.
A couple of other brief points related to the subject: as Philip Yancey points out in his book, "The Jesus I Never Knew," in the incarnation God learned, for before the incarnation God did not have a body, so he could not have known what it was like to have a body. Also scripture says Jesus was perfected through suffering. God could not have known what suffering was like before that.
Finally, it would seem that knowing what an egg tastes like and experiencing the taste of an egg anew each morning are two different things. Each experience of eating the egg brings some new knowledge of an egg's taste. And considering that God has relationships with an incredible amount of creatures, it would seem that each experience would generate something new and incredible for him. Anyway, I am interested in your responses. I am new, so if this subject has been brought up before, a thousand pardons...Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
02/11/01 11:21 PM
RE: Ware's interpretation of Genesis 22:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Precisely right!!
Kierkegaard offers a parable which illustrates your point nicely:
"Let us imagine a pilot (sailor), and assume that he had passed every examination with distinction, but that he had not as yet been at sea. Imgine him in a storm; he knows everything he ought to do, but he has not known before how terror grips the seafarer when the stars are lost in the blackness of night; he has not known the sense of importance that comes when the pilot sees the wheel in his hand become a plaything for the waves; he has not known how the blood rushes to the head when one tries to make calculations at such a moment; in short, he has no conception of the change that takes place in the knower when he has to apply his knowledge."
Now this is clear for us as humans, but why think this would be different for God as God enters into experiences God has not yet experienced? The infinite qualitative shift of God's experience as infinite to that of a finite person in Christ must be beyond profound!
Great insights here Harold, its too bad this post got overlooked for so long!
I have found that Ware is not generally very persuasive. If one wants to read better arguments from the opposition history has a rich supply in Calvin and Luther themselves. Of course they don't address openess by name but their arguments against the freedom of the will are much better that what has generally emerged in recent evangelical scholarship. In my opinion, there should be a rule that a new book should not be printed on a topic unless it is a worthy contribution to the argument as it moves forward. So far, Ware and Geisler in particular have failed this test. They would have done better to simply quote extensively from the reformers' debates nearly 500 years ago.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
02/12/01 11:29 AM
RE: RE: Ware's interpretation of Genesis 22:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes: I agree wholeheartedly with you. It is better to go back and read the earily reformers and flex your muscles against them than to read those two books. Plus, the reformers (by and large) had much more graciousness towards those they disagreed with. Geisler, in particular, disappointed me. He could not, it seems, seperate process theology in some areas of the book from the open view. Given that he had written many excellant books dealing with the Christian faith, I expected more from him. With Ware, he simply makes too many assumptions that are simply not valid and he is like many of the reformed. They are much at attacking than defending. As I read him I easily could compile many counterarguments to him without even thinking about it. Ware paints a rosy portrait of the reformed view without adknowledging that there are easily as many philisophical problems with it.
When one deals with how God answers prayer, why, and God's dealings with suffering, one should at the outset adknowledge that there is much we do not know. Yet Ware never does this. He seems to imply that if we would all simply accept reformed theology the church would be so much better off. As you said I found unpersuasive. I did want to mention that I find it funny that they put people like Piper and Carson on the book as endorsements. Its like, "all you reformed believers out there can read this!" Being endorsed by those who already believe you does nothing to promote the book...hey, thanks for answering. I had given up. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
unworthy
02/12/01 1:20 PM
RE: Ware's interpretation of Genesis 22:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
writerdad,
True enough.
As you read Ware's explanation, notice he wishes to interpret "for now I know..." as "for now I proclaim....". As you keenly perceive Ware wishes to turn it to entering into the experience what He already knew would happen. Now this at first seems to rescue the event for the traditional view of omniscience. But in the process, He actually sacrifices traditional impassibility and omniscience. For as you point out, he is recognizing the difference between intellectual assent, and experience. At the very least God changes between having experienced something, and having not experienced it.
Like others, Ware attempts to turn the focus of the statement from the stated experience of God ("for NOW I know...") to merely a proclamation of Abraham's experience. This is also the typical argument engaged regarding God changing His mind at Moses' appeal. The traditionalist argues that while it says "God changed His mind," really Moses changed his own mind/position in relation to God. Thus, they argue, it merely appeared to Moses that God changed His mind.
It's a neat little attempt at scripture twisting. But it doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
Sincerely,
Unworthy
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:45 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|