 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 3:39 AM (GMT -6) |   | Message Go To Page 2 3 >>
TGB
12/04/00 12:35 AM
Cyrus: A Conditional Prophecy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all-
How 'bout that Abraham thread? Whew! So let me drop another name: Cyrus (Isa. 44 & 45). Genuine prophecy or retelling the story after the fact? I believe John Sanders (in *Open Theism*) suggested this was a conditional prophecy (then conveniently forgot to explain how such a thing could be the case). How so? What's the condition? If God doesn't know future acts of freewill, how can he prophesy (conditionallly) that a future ruler named Cyrus will release his people from captivity?
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
trosie
12/04/00 9:43 AM
RE: Cyrus: A Conditional Prophecy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to add to this before this topic becomes too "technical" for me if you don't mind. Doesn't the Open View hold that God knows the "big" picture of future events? He knows the major theme of life just not every minute detail therein. Wouldn't this prophecy about Cyrus be along the same lines ( but by no means on the same finite level) as me stating that Christmas will be on December 25. I know when Christmas will be but not every detail of the event of that day until it comes to pass. Why can't God predict, (with absolute accuracy due to His omniscience), what will take place in the future without implying that He has to know every detail as well?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TGB
12/04/00 12:00 PM
RE: RE: Cyrus: A Conditional Prophecy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Wouldn't this prophecy about Cyrus be along the same lines ( but by no means on the same finite level) as me stating that Christmas will be on December 25."
Trosie-
No, in my mind, your example describes two categorically different statements. How is a prophecy specifying by name the individual who will set Jewish captives free anything like knowing Christmas will be on Dec. 25th? We know when Christmas will be because WE set the date by an act of OUR will. That's how we know Christmas will be on the 25th. But a mother's naming of her child is an act of freewill which, it is claimed, God cannot know. His "name" will not exist for anybody, God included, to know before he's named. Isaiah's text, however, challenges this understanding by prophesying the name of the deliverer before he's born. How does God know decades before the event that Cyrus's Mom is gonna name him "Cyrus"? Or that her boy will in fact become who he in fact became, the one who releases Jews from captivity? Both are events rooted in acts of freewill not available to God to prophesy about.
This is part of the problem I have with the OV's dealing with prophecy. From what I've read, general statements are adopted and then thrown over difficult passages (at least the ones I struggle with!) in blanket fashion without actually walking readers through the process. If there are wholes in the theory, Cyrus is one. But I'm open to anybody's explanation.
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
NaveySealed
12/04/00 12:37 PM
Cyrus: Didn't Israel know who Isaiah was talking about?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a hard time believing that Isaiah is refering to a king by name that isn't even conceived yet. Would it be intelligible for Isaiah to prophesy that God will bring a king whom Israel has no knowledge of to do a specific job?
I'm not sure about the history of Cyrus and when Isaiah wrote this prophecy about him, but I think that Israel probably knew who this Cyrus was. I don't see this prophecy having much force if Cyrus didn't even exist yet. Imagine someone prophesying 60 years ago that God would bring Bill Clinton from Arkansas to D.C. to do whatever.
Sealed
Joel 2:13
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
TGB
12/04/00 2:49 PM
RE: Cyrus: Didn't Israel know who Isaiah was talking about?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have a hard time believing that Isaiah is refering to a king by name that isn't even conceived yet. Would it be intelligible for Isaiah to prophesy that God will bring a king whom Israel has no knowledge of to do a specific job?"
Sealed-
What's unintelligible about it? No more unintelligible than God inspiring prophesies of details regarding the future Messiah. Isaiah writes in the late 8th century BC. Cyrus arrives on the scene in the 6th century BC. My mention of a "few decades" should be corrected to read a couple of centuries. Of course, you can follow a great many interpreters who deny the possibility of genuine prophecy regarding future events, that Isaiah is speaking of a future deliverer called "Cyrus," and then argue that Isaiah is not one literary work, but two or three (that is, the passages which refer to Cyrus were written AFTER the fact, but intentionally written to LOOK like prophecies).
"Imagine someone prophesying 60 years ago that God would bring Bill Clinton from Arkansas to D.C. to do whatever."
Well, if you put it THAT way, I think I could agree to Open Theism tonight! Nevertheless, imagine someone prophesying hundreds of years before the events the many details regarding Christ, details which cannot all be covered under the blanket statement "God has *general goals* which he intends to realize in one way or another." There remain details prophesied before the event which appear to me to demand more knowledge of the future than theh OV would allow.
Blessings,
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Mephi2K
12/04/00 5:08 PM
RE: Cyrus: A Conditional Prophecy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Tom,
I like your thinking, man...
Meph
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
12/04/00 6:28 PM
RE: God is omnipotent in the OV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If need be, an Open Theist could always say that God found it necessary to be THAT specifically in control of THAT particular situation for purposes which are not evident to us. This would then constitute an exception which proves the rule. God sets the boundaries of creation but allows for freedom within those given boundaries. At this point God just set the boundaries tighter than usual for some divine purpose. Perhaps simply to show that he can! My point is, let us not forget that Open Theists believe in omniscience and that this could be a strong case in which it was exercised with unusual liberty. Even a handful of prophesies that are this specific would not cause me much alarm, as long as there were still so many which are clearly conditional and as long as so many passages show God's responsiveness to creation generally that the pattern is set that God does give significant "say so" to creation. How and when we have such say so is for God to decide.
Having said all of that, I actually think that it is more plausible that we are missing a piece of the puzzle here and the Cyrus reference is not so abitrary as it seems. I tend to think TGB is on to something...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
beso
12/04/00 6:29 PM
Cyrus and the partly settled future
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many scholars agree with NavySealed: Isaiah (or deutro-Isaiah) is talking about Cyrus after the fact/ OR they hold that Cyrus is a title, not a name. Doesn't matter. Look, the Open view, at least as Boyd argues it, holds that some of the future is settled and some of it is open. To impress the Jews that GOD is God and not idols, he controls a significant amount of the immediate future and TELLS them so. (This is the central theme of Isa 44-46). So he predetermines the future to the point that the parents of the future king will name him CYRUS (as happened with John the Baptist) and Cyrus will let the children of Israel go. What I don't understand Tom, is why it has to be all or nothing. Between saying that ALL of the future is settled, on the one hand, and NONE of the future is settled, on the other, is the common sense alternative: "SOME of the future is settled, and some of it is not." Boyd argues -- rightfully I think -- that this middle position is how we all in fact live our life. It fits common sense. And it fits all the Scripture.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
trosie
12/04/00 11:03 PM
RE: RE: RE: Cyrus: A Conditional Prophecy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Tom:
I am SORRY for the mistake I made in stating the parallel between God's foreknowledge of Cyrus and us foreknowing Christmas - VERY BAD choice on my part!! I carelessly used the first comparison that came into my mind when I wrote that statement.
You said, "This is part of the problem I have with the OV's dealing with prophecy. From what I've read, general statements are adopted and then thrown over difficult passages (at least the ones I struggle with!) in blanket fashion without actually walking readers through the process..."
I don't agree that OV's do these blanket statements like you are stating. I certainly hope that my ignorance doesn't render any kind of judgment toward people who defend the Open View (I am simply a lay person who enjoys getting involved in these discussions). I was simply trying to express my belief that God can know any event that He decides to and He can even orchestrate it (such as His foreknowing Cyrus's name) while still allowing for a large part of the future to be open to possibilites. The beauty I see in the Open View is that God can intervene whenever He wants to and make His divine plans fit with all the free choices that human agents make.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
justwondering
12/05/00 1:00 AM
RE: Cyrus: A Conditional Prophecy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since this conversation thread is about prophecy, here is a question a friend posed to me:
If the test for weeding out the false prophets from the true prophets (or vice versa) is to see which prophet's prophecies come true
AND
the penalty is stoning for the false prophets - isn't God "risking" the prophet's lives on the whims of free will?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
NaveySealed
12/05/00 8:39 AM
RE: RE: Cyrus: A Conditional Prophecy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God expected Israel to know what was going on. For instance, if a prophet prophesied destruction and Israel repented at the message and destruction didn't come, then Israel should recognize that their repentance brought about God's repentance (Jer 18:7-8; Jon 3). Jer 26 is an excellent illustration of this.
Jeremiah 26:1-19
1 In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, this word came from the LORD, saying, 2 "Thus says the LORD: 'Stand in the court of the LORD's house, and speak to all the cities of Judah, which come to worship [in] the LORD's house, all the words that I command you to speak to them. Do not diminish a word. 3 'Perhaps everyone will listen and turn from his evil way, that I may repent concerning the calamity which I purpose to bring on them because of the evil of their doings.' 4 "And you shall say to them, 'Thus says the LORD: "If you will not listen to Me, to walk in My law which I have set before you, 5 "to heed the words of My servants the prophets whom I sent to you, both rising up early and sending [them] (but you have not heeded), 6 "then I will make this house like Shiloh, and will make this city a curse to all the nations of the earth." ' " 7 So the priests and the prophets and all the people heard Jeremiah speaking these words in the house of the LORD. 8 Now it happened, when Jeremiah had made an end of speaking all that the LORD had commanded [him] to speak to all the people, that the priests and the prophets and all the people seized him, saying, "You will surely die! 9 "Why have you prophesied in the name of the LORD, saying, 'This house shall be like Shiloh, and this city shall be desolate, without an inhabitant'?" And all the people were gathered against Jeremiah in the house of the LORD. 10 When the princes of Judah heard these things, they came up from the king's house to the house of the LORD and sat down in the entry of the New Gate of the LORD's [house.] 11 And the priests and the prophets spoke to the princes and all the people, saying, "This man deserves to die! For he has prophesied against this city, as you have heard with your ears." 12 Then Jeremiah spoke to all the princes and all the people, saying: "The LORD sent me to prophesy against this house and against this city with all the words that you have heard. 13 "Now therefore, amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the LORD your God; then the LORD will repent concerning the doom that He has pronounced against you. 14 "As for me, here I am, in your hand; do with me as seems good and proper to you. 15 "But know for certain that if you put me to death, you will surely bring innocent blood on yourselves, on this city, and on its inhabitants; for truly the LORD has sent me to you to speak all these words in your hearing." 16 So the princes and all the people said to the priests and the prophets, "This man does not deserve to die. For he has spoken to us in the name of the LORD our God." 17 Then certain of the elders of the land rose up and spoke to all the assembly of the people, saying: 18 "Micah of Moresheth prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah, and spoke to all the people of Judah, saying, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts: "Zion shall be plowed [like] a field, Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins, And the mountain of the temple Like the bare hills of the forest." ' 19 "Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah ever put him to death? Did he not fear the LORD and seek the LORD's favor? And the Lord repented concerning the doom which He had pronounced against them. But we are doing great evil against ourselves."
Israel knew that God would respond and repent of what He said He would do if they repented. That's the character of the God of the Bible (Jonah 4:2; Joel 2:13). If Jer 26 isn't enough there's more about God's character and unfulfilled prophecy.
Sealed
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
TGB
12/06/00 2:21 PM
RE: Cyrus and the partly settled future
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beso-
I've tried several times to post a reply and keep losing the line. Each time I retype my comments they get shorter and shorter!
OK. God "predetermines the future to the point that the parents of the future king will name him CYRUS (as happened with John the Baptist) and Cyrus will let the children of Israel go." This must also mean (I think) that the naming of Cyrus, his rise to power, and his choice to free Israel were NOT acts of freewill. How could they be? I'm not claiming they have to be, I'm just trying to understand the OV. If they're not free, then where's that leave Cyrus? His career was predetermined.
"SOME of the future is settled, and some of it is not." I really want to be an open theist! I just cannot yet understand the mix, for the simple reason that the present and the unfolding future cannot be reduced to neatly defined categories of "settled" and "open." Are these not irrevocably interdependent? I think so. Are there no "settled" issues which depend on "open" choices? If so, in what sense are they settled?
Like I said, I wrote this note twice with a lot more in it. Better close and get it posted.
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Lion-Lamb
12/05/00 7:35 PM
RE: RE: Cyrus and the partly settled future
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TGB. May I offer a comment off subject? For longer notes try composing your message in a word processor, such as MS Word. Copy it and paste it into the note window. I find that it works much better. I can see the whole note that way. This window is so small. Composing in a word processor reduces one's risk of internet connection failure and a number of other variables without the opportunity to save your work.
Can you imagine a non-open theist talking about protecting against variables?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TGB
12/05/00 10:41 PM
RE: RE: RE: Cyrus and the partly settled future
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lion-Lamb,
How did I miss that? It makes perfect sense to prepare longer notes in a word processor. Thanks!
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
TGB
12/06/00 7:52 AM
RE: RE: RE: Cyrus and the partly settled future
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry about doubling up the posts. I tried to edit and didn't know what I was doing!
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
TGB
12/05/00 10:41 PM
RE: RE: RE: Cyrus and the partly settled future
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lion-Lamb,
How did I miss that? It makes perfect sense to prepare longer notes in a word processor. Thanks!
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
TGB
12/06/00 9:28 AM
Prophesied Acts of Free Will?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ModesofThought-
I LOVE this forum and am so thankful I found it.
You commented:
“If need be, an Open Theist could always say that God found it necessary to be THAT specifically in control of THAT particular situation for purposes which are not evident to us. This would then constitute an exception which proves the rule. God sets the boundaries of creation but allows for freedom within those given boundaries. At this point God just set the boundaries tighter than usual for some divine purpose. Perhaps simply to show that he can!”
I don’t see a problem at this point with what you’re saying. God says, “x will happen in a couple hundred years,” and he MAKES it happen. The guarantee is in his power, not in his knowledge. Three things follow for me:
1) Would not this mean that the phrase “God chooses not to know the future” as an explanation of the OV is not true. Rather, God cannot know future acts of freewill, and if a prophecy describes what is to be (the naming of Cyrus, his rise to power, his choice to free Israel), what it describes cannot be an act of free will. God cannot prophesy future acts of free will. To get what he prophesies, he has be “specifically in control” (your choice of words). Is that a veiled way of saying, “he overrides/manipulates human will” (to get Cyrus’s Mom to name him Cyrus, for example). And doesn’t this just mean that the key difference between the Classical and Open Theism views on HOW God goes about achieving his purposes is that the CV posits the guarantee of prophesied events in God’s knowledge (he sees the event ahead of time), while the OV posits the guarantee in God’s power (which with respect to the choices of people means he “specifically controls” their wills)?
2) This works fine for naming Cyrus and other similar events which are morally speaking, inconsequential. But not all prophecies are inconsequential in this way. We could list a host, but why not toss out Judas for now. What of Judas’ betrayal, and Peter’s interpretation of the event in Acts 1:15 “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus”?
3) Whether God uses his power (OV) or his knowledge (CV) to guarantee the future, aren’t the implications the same with respect to free will? Was Cyrus’ Mom free to name him Fred or Sam? I don’t see that she was. Was Cyrus free to go into Air Conditioning or Carpentry instead of Political Science? I don’t see that he was. Saying God didn’t know the future doesn’t resolve the tension for me. As your quote above shows, prophecy does many times speak of future “choices” in an unconditional sense.
Here’s a sample of the sort of treatment of prophecy I have run across in the OV (Rice, in *The Openness of God*, p. 56):
“Second, it may be true that God occasionally acts by fiat and directly causes something to happen. Yet even if he determines one event, it does not necessarily follow that he determines all events. [Fine, I agree.] If God wants something specific to happen—say, the parting of the Red Sea—and his power alone is a sufficient condition of its occurring, then he can bring it about entirely on his own initiative. Where human decision is presupposed, however, [watch what Rice does here…] God cannot achieve his objectives unilaterally. He requires our cooperation. [Really? Apply this to the naming of Cyrus.] Endowing creatures with significant freedom means that God gave them the ability to decide a good deal of what occurs. Consequently, the actual course of history is not something God alone decides all by himself. God and the creatures both contribute. So even though some thing happen as a direct result of divine action, this is not true of everything that happens.”
Rice is avoiding one class of future contingencies: prophesied acts of free will, and of the sort which cannot be neatly tucked into an "eventual-sooner or later" fulfillment as history moves toward its ultimate end. There are some prophesied acts of free will that are highly specific and limited to deadlines (i.e. Cyrus and Judas’ betrayal).
Back to your comment:
“My point is, let us not forget that Open Theists believe in omniscience and that this could be a strong case in which it was exercised with unusual liberty. Even a handful of prophesies that are this specific would not cause me much alarm…”
It should cause us alarm if such specifics, by virtue of their being guaranteed by God’s power (or by his knowledge) are no longer acts of genuine free will. My question is, then, doesn't the OV suffer from the same weakness as the CV by removing free will, albeit via God's power instead of his foreknowlege?
Clear as mud?
Blessings,
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Mephi2K
12/06/00 10:34 AM
RE: Prophesied Acts of Free Will?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom,
It's clear as crystal, citizen.
Meph
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
NaveySealed
12/06/00 12:00 PM
RE: Prophesied Acts of Free Will?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TGB said
"What of Judas’ betrayal, and Peter’s interpretation of the event in Acts 1:15 “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus”?"
Here's an excellent article I've found on the prediction of Peter's betrayal. And here's one on Judas.
Let me know if these are helpful
Sealed
Joel 2:13
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Lion-Lamb
12/06/00 12:37 PM
RE: Prophesied Acts of Free Will?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clear as mud? No! It's crystal clear.
Initially, open theism set out to resolve the alleged problem that "classical Christian theism" (whatever that is) has had, namely the notion that God coerces his creatures to do this or that, including evil. Well, open theism has stepped right into the problem that allegedly belongs to Calvinism. To explain Jesus' prediction concerning Peter's three-fold denial, open theism is willing to concede that God essentially coerces ("orchestrates") the situation to bring about the thing predicted. Not even the best among Calvinists ever concedes that God coerces his creatures to do anything.
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:52 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 |
|
|