 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 3:56 AM (GMT -6) |   | Message Go To Page 2 3 4 5 >>
TGB
11/30/00 1:28 AM
Abraham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello All-
I'm new to this list. Am very interested in Open Theism. Live in Beirut, Lebanon with my family. We're missionaries.
Regarding Abraham. After his test in Gen. 22 God declares, "Now I know that you fear me." This is used by Open Theists to claim that God "learned" something he previously did not know.
Isn't this equivalent to saying "God doesn't presently know us exhaustively"? That is, God did not know if Abraham in fact feared him and instituted the test to find out. Thus, Abraham's experience actually attributes to God less than complete knowledge of the state of our hearts "in the present." He does not know if we fear him, or love him, etc.
What of it?
Blessings,
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Luther
11/30/00 4:48 PM
RE: Abraham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom-
you are absolutely right. Open Theism says God cannot know the future, yet He can make accurate prophecies about it since He knows us so well. But if He knows us so well, why did it take Him so long to finally learn Abraham was willing to sacrifice his own son? I would say that if OT is correct, then God doesn't even exhaustively know this moment. Open Theists deny that God speaks anthropomorphically about His repentance, and such, and so they fall captive to things that they really don't want to accept.
I think that God was really teaching Abraham a lesson, not the other way around. It is also interesting to see that this incident was a foreshadowing of Christ's substitutionary death, which would lead me to believe God had more in mind here than "learing" if Abraham was really willing to kill Isaac. He was showing us that we won't make the sacrifice, He will, and He did! It should be interesting as to how the Open Theists will get around this one.
Soli Deo Gloria
Luther
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
12/01/00 10:07 AM
RE: Abraham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom, welcome to the discussion and thanks for your great question. I don't know what the "official" open view response is (if there is one), but I would like to take a shot at it.
If God created humans to be self-determining (within parameters established by God), then it is understandable that God might have to test people in some circumstances to know their character--especially if they are unsure what their own response will be. Perhaps Abraham had not yet determined the extent of his devotion to God, so God offered him an opportunity to do so.
God called Abraham's father Terah to the land of Canaan also, but he ended up settling with his family in Haran instead. Now that Abraham had a family of his own, it was quite possible that Abraham would end up settling like his father did instead of obeying God's call. God's decision to test Abraham's commitment is evidence of wisdom, not ignorance, on God's part.
As for Luther's (the discussion board guy, not the reformer) suggestion that God intended the story of Abraham and Isaac to be an illustration to Christians--who wouldn't exist for thousands of years--of Christ's substitionary atonement (meanwhile, what are Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, and every Jew after them supposed to make of it?), nothing in the text suggests this. But I guess if you start with the assumption that biblical portrayals of God testing people must be anthropomorphic because our theology says that God can't really test people, then you can make the text mean whatever you want. Luther's interpretation of this passage is a perfect example. We can either agree with him that the Abraham/Isaac story is really an anthropomorphic illustration of a particular theological position on the atonement, or we can agree with what the text says in Gen. 22:1: "....God tested Abraham..." and what the angel of the Lord says in Gen. 22:12: "...now I know that you fear God..."
If this text is an illustration, it is far more likely to be a polemic AGAINST child sacrifice--one of the most significant distinctions between the Jews and the surrounding nations--rather than a prophecy FOR God as a child sacrificer himself.
I'm not a fan of the substitutionary view of the atonement (aka divine child abuse). I think that the expiatory and christus victor (surprise, surprise) models are much more consistent with God's character as revealed in scripture.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TGB
12/01/00 12:41 PM
RE: RE: Abraham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GDG-
"If God created humans to be self-determining (within parameters established by God), then it is understandable that God might have to test people in some circumstances to know their character--especially if they are unsure what their own response will be. Perhaps Abraham had not yet determined the extent of his devotion to God, so God offered him an opportunity to do so."
Thanks for the response. At different points in my survey of open theism (a view I would LIKE to embrace) I have feared that "God not knowing the future exhaustively" would ultimately wind up meaning "God does not know the present exhaustively either." It seems to me this is where your comment above leads (in spite of the fact that I agree with you regarding the Christological implications of the passage).
I don't have a problem with God giving *Abraham* an opportunity to determine the extent of his devotion to God. I struggle with the claim that God does not at any given moment know the state of our hearts, whether we in fact love him or not, fear him or not. The problem is that the open view of Abrham's test amounts essentially to God not knowing the state of our hearts at any given moment in time. I could possibly agree that God did not know whether or not Abraham would in fact go through with the deal and sacrifice Isaac. That would limit God's knowledge with respect to a future "act" of Abraham. As it is, the open view limits God's knowledge with respect to the present "state" of our hearts. "Now I know you fear God" necessarily means "Previously I did not know whether you in fact feared me or not." Am I still missing something?
Thanks again!
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ghost-dog-girl
12/01/00 2:33 PM
RE: RE: RE: Abraham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello again TGB. Hopefully this will help: You say "I struggle with the claim that God does not at any given moment know the state of our hearts, whether we in fact love him or not, fear him or not." I think that God DOES know the exact state of our hearts at any given moment in the past and present (and I think all open theists will concur), but the state of our hearts is not always an "either/or" affair and it is constantly in flux, tending more toward one direction than others at any moment. For instance, if our hearts are currently unresolved in our love for God, then God would exhaustively know our hearts as such. If God needs to know our hearts as resolved one way or another, then God can provide an opportunity for us to further resolve them--a "test." Since both classical and open theists believe in God's exhaustive knowledge of all settled reality (open theists simply include open reality in their understanding of God's omniscience whereas classical theists deny there is any such thing as open reality), we all must deal with the tension between this text and our theology (at least those of us who are willing to admit there is tension here). I think there are better ways to do this than dismissing the text as anthropomorphic--especially since God's testing of Abraham is such a key moment in God's redemptive activity in human history. Calling it figurative for the sake of a particular metaphysical view of God's omniscience may make us feel better about our theology but is completely extraneous to this passage.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
12/01/00 1:54 PM
RE: RE: Abraham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know what sort of "Lutheran" you are, but clearly, Martin Luther would never have said anything like "He [sic, God] was showing us that [if] we won't make the sacrifice, He will, and He did!" Luther's view of grace has nothing to do with OUR making atoning sacrifices for ourselves and everything to do with God doing so through Christ. Where does Luther ever entertain the idea that we could make the sacrifice? Even if we could and did, it would not be sufficient. Only God's permeating presence through the incarnation and the release of the Spirit in a new way can change the world.
Futhermore, God's testing of Abraham was not an object lesson for far distant future readers. Abraham was being tested in a way that only Abraham can understand (unless you can say that God has asked you to sacrifice the future salvation of all nations which is latent in your child?) and this is not to be taken lightly or reread in terms of NT events. Whatever this text is about, FIRST it is about Abraham and his faith relationship with God and his parent relationship with his son. For what it's worth, the best reading of this story that I am aware of is still Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling".
This is a pre-Christian event and whatever it means, it's most relevant application has very little to do with Open Theism vs. Classical Theism and very much to do with personal faith and faithfulness. This is after all, in Genesis, not Romans. G-D-G is right to attend to the context.
As far as any secondary implications the text may have for the Open theism debate, those would all be suspect if we acknowledge that this communication from God is quite indirect. We are hearing the voice of an angel of the Lord. Even if this were not the case, we should be careful not to import metaphysical meanings into interpersonal conversations. The Old Testament simply does not admit of a Platonic Classical Theistic deity. All of the best Old Testament Scholars agree on this point: Terrance Fretheim, Walter Brueggemann, Jon Levenson, Gerhard Von Rad and so forth.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TGB
12/01/00 2:05 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: Abraham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GDG-
Wow, that was a quick reply. Thanks again. I follow so far.
Blessings,
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
TGB
12/01/00 2:28 PM
RE: RE: RE: Abraham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...we should be careful not to import metaphysical meanings into interpersonal conversations."
ModesofThought-
I am a rather new student of Open Theism, and I'm no philosopher, but would not your above statement mean having to rewrite most (if not all) of the Open View books presently on the market? Is not "concluding what God is like metaphysically on the basis of interpersonal conversations" exactly what the Open View argues FOR?
Blessings,
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ghost-dog-girl
12/01/00 2:43 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Abraham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TGB- Here's another thought: Perhaps the fact that God must test us at times to find out where we're at says more about the transitory/unstable nature of human hearts than it does about God's omniscience.
By the way, blessings to you and your family and your ministriy in Beirut!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TGB
12/01/00 2:54 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Abraham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now there you go again. Earlier you agreed God knows the state of our hearts exhaustively at any given moment. But now he must test us "to find out where we're at." Did I miss something?
Beirut is an awesome place!
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ghost-dog-girl
12/01/00 3:10 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Abraham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're right: bad choice of words on my part. I will stick by my original phrasing that God knows our hearts exhaustively at any given moment. Thus if our hearts are unresolved, he knows them as such and a test may be in order if God desires further resolution one way or the other.
I was attempting to shift the focus from this passage's implications for God's knowledge (which we confess to be omniscient) to its implications for the nature of our own hearts (which we know from experience to be unstable and transitory).
Good call.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
justwondering
12/01/00 10:53 PM
RE: Abraham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greetings...
I'm new to the forum and am hoping that these comments do not impinge upon the conversation at all. However, I have been wondering a great deal about God's exhaustive knowlege of the present in the Open view and have not seen any Openness theologians discuss Genesis 18:20-21 or the Tower of Babel story. If the other texts are not to be taken anthropomorphically, are these texts to be taken literally as well? Is that to say that God really didn't know how many righteous men were in Sodom? Why did God need to go down to Babel to find out what was going on? Did he or did he not know Adam's location in the garden?
I look forward to your comments...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
12/01/00 11:57 PM
RE: RE: Abraham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good questions "Just Wondering." Glad to have you on board. Let me make three points in response.
1) ALL evangelical believers hold that some (most?) things in Scripture are literal, others are figurative. This is NOT a unique issue for Open Theists. We ALL have to make decisions about this. The only thing that is distinctive about Open Theists is that we see no grammatical, historical or theological reasons to conclude that the passages about God regretting, experiencing surprise, changing his mind, etc. are "anthropomorphic."
2) If Genesis 18:20-21 is a problem for Open Theists, it is no more so than it is for all Bible believers. We ALL have to wrestle with what this text, and texts like it, says. The text must mean SOMETHING over and above "we don't take this text literally." Bruce Ware (in his book God of a Lesser Glory) acts as though Open theists must take this verse literal simply because we take God changing his mind literally. But one could just as easily argue that Bruce should take this verse literal just because he takes God's love literal. Dr. WAre also acts like HE and other classical theists don't have problems with this passage, while Open Theists do. Unfortunately, he doesn't give us what his interpretation is. He just tells us what he's sure it's NOT. And what the verse does NOT mean is what the verse says -- viz. God "really" went down to see the state of Sodom.
3) This leads directly to a third point. Here's an important methodological distinct point between most Open Theists and most Classical Theists. Rather than ASSUME that I know so much about what God's omnipresence and omniscience mean, and rather then conclude on this basis that Genesis 18:21-22 CAN'T mean what we all know it SEEMS to be saying, I'd rather let Genesis 18:21-22 say what it seems to be saying and try to square it into our theology. Let the cognitive dissonance stand for a couple of years. It just might generate new insights. It strikes me as arrogant when we trample over the very clear meaning of texts (e.g. "I change my mind"; "I regret"; "I thought you'd turn to me" ) because we assume we know so much about God already. What if there's a way we can combine a belief in God's omnipresence with his "going down" to Sodom or Babel? Can God perhaps be everywhere in one sense, and yet travel in a different sense? Are we so smart that we can instantaneously judge this idea as being "anthropomorphic"? Don't we already sometimes refer to God's presence being "present" in a distinct way -- as when we say God was IN CHRIST in a unique way (though he was still omnipresent) or when we say that believers are "filled" with the Holy Spirit ( in a sense different than unbelievers or lamp posts are "filled" with God)? And might there not be a way to combine a belief in God's omniscience with his going down "to find out" things? Could God in some sense limit himself (kenosis) to finding out even present information by various means (in this case, by means of his theophany)?
I am not saying I affirm any of this. I am only saying that I shall not dismiss this text -- OR the texts about God changing his mind, etc. -- simply because it doesn't square with what I already believe on the basis of church tradition, or whatever.
Blessings, and welcome to the website.
Greg Boyd
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Luther
12/02/00 1:33 AM
RE: RE: Abraham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ghost dog girl, and others-
My explanation of Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac wasn't limited only to the idea that it foreshadowed Christ's death. Here is what I said:
"I think that God was really teaching Abraham a lesson, not the other way around. IT IS ALSO interesting to see that this incident was a foreshadowing of Christ's substitutionary death, which would lead me to believe God had more in mind here than "learing" if Abraham was really willing to kill Isaac. He was showing us that we won't"
The foreshadowing was an aside. God's main point was to teach Abraham. Teach him what? It was a confirmation of Abraham's faith in God that He would do something so that Isaac should come back safely. We see in the story that this is what Abraham beleived. He told his servants that the BOTH of them would make a sacrifice and that the BOTH of them would come back. Who learned what? I say it was Abraham that learned, not God. He learned to be sure his faith was well placed, since God proved to keep His word to him.
You also ignored a key argument in defense of this being anthropomorphic. Open theism says that God knows man so well that He is able to make fairly accurate prophecies and have a knowledge of the future. It would seem that God didn't know Abraham all that well. It took Him up to the point where Abraham was about to plunge the knife into Isaac before He stopped him. I am thinking He probably should have figured it out by the time Abraham had Isaac on top of the altar. I am sure that Isaac was quite traumatized by the image of his own father holding a weapon ready to sink it into his flesh, so it seems, GDG, that God still performed an act of child abuse. Too bad God didn't know his own covenantal partner, Abraham, very well.
I am sorry you folks thought I was saying the text was only relavent to those arriving on the scene after Christ's Substitutionary Atonement, that was only supposed to be an aside. I agree this text proves God is very imminent and cares for His people, but He doesn't have to be learning new things in order to be involved with us.
For the record: I am not a Lutheran, I am a Christian who believes Reformed Theology is the most biblically faithful explanation of God and His Word. Martin Luther has heavily influenced my thinking on Predestination: I highly recommend Luther's Bondage of the Will.
Luther
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
NaveySealed
12/03/00 3:05 PM
RE: Abraham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Boyd said
"Bruce Ware (in his book God of a Lesser Glory) acts as though Open theists must take this verse literal simply because we take God changing his mind literally. But one could just as easily argue that Bruce should take this verse literal just because he takes God's love literal. Dr. WAre also acts like HE and other classical theists don't have problems with this passage, while Open Theists do. Unfortunately, he doesn't give us what his interpretation is. He just tells us what he's sure it's NOT."
You know John Piper did the same thing when he criticized you of taking Jer 3:6-7 for what it says!? I read Piper's article on the Bethel 4knowledge debate page. He says that your wrong and never gives his interpretation of the passage!! I'm reading the article and waiting for him to correct the open theist heretics and tell everyone WHAT JER 3:6-7 REALLY MEANS and he never even hints at what he believes the passage is saying
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
NaveySealed
12/03/00 3:22 PM
RE: Abraham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luther says "Now Abraham knows"
God says "Now I know" (Gen 22:12)
Who you gonna believe?
Sealed
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
beso
12/03/00 4:01 PM
RE: RE: Abraham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning Tom's issue about God's PRESENT knowledge of "what's in Abraham's heart," do WE not often ask "What's in your heart?" and MEAN by this "What will you choose to do"? It's an idiomatic way of talking about free will. It's not like there's a fact "in" the heart waiting to come out. Concerning Luther's argument for an anthropomorphic reading: Is this not a perfect example of how the anthropomorphic reading doesn't CLARIFY scripture: it DEPLETES it of meaning. As NavySealed points out: Instead of GOD coming to know, he has God NOT coming to know so that ABRAHAM can come to know. So too with the "changing my mind" passages. Whenever God says "I change my mind" it MEANS either "YOU can your mind" or "I DON'T change my mind" -- or both. Odd exegesis. Just read WARE's *God of a Lesser Glory.* The book is FULL of this "odd" exegesis. It's UNBELIEVABLE how he undermines or even reverses the "apparent" meaning of a text in his attempts to tell us the "true" meaning of the text -- all the while blasting Sanders and Boyd for being heretics for FOLLOWING what everyone agrees is the "apparent" meaning of the text.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Luther
12/03/00 10:31 PM
RE: Abraham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been pointed out that I have said the incident involving Isaac is really Abraham learning. I do believe this is the case. It seems that if this were not the case this story is all about God coming to know something. Will someone tell me if Abraham learned something or not? Navey has pointed out that taking what God says as being anthropomorphic takes the meaning out of the Scripture, since I believe God did really know all along. Not true. I hope to be able to substantiate this, and prove there is significance in God's use of words "Now I know...". Why would He say this, especially in light of the fact that I believe God did know all along? This incident is NOT about God learning, to say this is the main thrust is to spit in God's face and miss what the point really is about: FAITH IN ACTION. After all, that is the only TRUE type of saving faith. Remember, God was testing Abraham, God was trying to reveal, or create something, or strengthen something. That something that was revealed was that God is faithful, faith in action was enacted, and God strengthened Abraham's faith through this. So why should God say "Now I know"? Well, what was missing or lacking before? I suggest it was any of the three or all of the three things I just discussed. God spoke this to illustrate: faith is made evident by more than belief, you can trust God, and He proved it, now move forward in the ways He tells you. Far from stripping this of meaning, we see the full meaning. Yes, it was Abraham that learned, not God. God did speak anthropomorphically for a reason, and I gave a few possibilities of its significance.
I think this is a pretty good explanation. Classical theists have been accused of stripping meaning from this passage, I think I have captured at least most of the meaning. If God really did mean He didn't know before if Abraham would obey, I think this would be inconsistent with Open Theism still. As I have pointed out, and it has for some reason been ignored: If God can know at least some of the future because He knows man soooo well, and God was in covenant with Abraham, which I would think means God knew him really well, why did it take God to the point where it did before He stopped Abraham? Would not the image of one's own father raising a deadly weapon to peirce his son's flesh be traumatizing, indeed, child abusive (I don't think so, but I found it interesting that GDG said she didn't believe in a substitutionary atonement because that would have been abusive, so this was only an aside)? God had to do all of this because He just couldn't foresee whether his faithful Abraham would follow Him. What a beautiful, awe-inspiring, and revealing Word about how powerful God is!
Luther
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
trosie
12/04/00 12:50 AM
RE: RE: Abraham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please forgive me if I repeat anything that has already been posted but sometimes I find there is so much interesting stuff to read that I forget what I have read and what I have thought about as I have read (could be the aging process ) I thought of something as I was reading these postings tonight. Whether one believes God foreknew what Abraham would do in this test or not, wouldn't we agree that God was transforming Abraham through this testing, just as He does with each of His children? He was using this test in order to strip away an idol (his long awaited son) from Abraham's life. He wanted to bring Abraham to a "crises of belief" where he had a BIG choice to make. Abraham acted in obedience to God because of his faith and reverence for Him proving that he had no idols that stood in the way to his obedience to God. I guess what I am not really clear on is WHY it makes a difference whether God foreknew the decision that Abraham would make? What I believe to be true is that God knew, in whatever choice Abraham made, Isaac would NOT be sacrificed (since He is the Author of life and death). I guess, as I see it, we all continually have choices to make and SOMETIMES these decisions are a direct result of God's testing in order to encourage us on in our Christian development. I think that this testing of Abraham is more about developing and purifying Abraham's heart than anything else.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
12/04/00 10:11 AM
RE: RE: Abraham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luther, you say: "...I have said the incident involving Isaac is really Abraham learning....It seems that if this were not the case this story is all about God coming to know something." Why does it have to be either/or? Of course Abraham learned something. Just because the text suggests that God may have learned something as well (i.e. God says, "now I know...") doesn't mean that Abraham didn't learn anything.
You also say, "If God can know at least some of the future because He knows man soooo well, and God was in covenant with Abraham, which I would think means God knew him really well..." Covenants can only happen between people, and exhaustive knowledge of people is different than exhaustive knowledge of things. For example, people have minds, hearts, and wills of their own that grow and change over time. While we may "know" each other according to superficial categories such as black/white, man/woman, old/young, orthodox/heretical, faithful/unfaithful, I suspect that God's knowledge of human hearts is more sophisticated.
Also, you say, "Would not the image of one's own father raising a deadly weapon to peirce his son's flesh be traumatizing, indeed, child abusive....God had to do all of this because He just couldn't foresee whether his faithful Abraham would follow Him. What a beautiful, awe-inspiring, and revealing Word about how powerful God is!" If you mock the power of God as revealed in his testing of Abraham (if this test is interpreted as genuine and not anthropomorphic), I wonder what your perspective is on the power of God as revealed in Jesus Christ, crying and kicking in the straw of a manger as a newborn baby, or sweating blood in the darkness of Gethsemane, begging for this cup pass from him. Although Christians agree that God is all-powerful, God doesn't seem to be too preoccupied with impressing us by awesome displays of power.
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:12 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 |
|
|