 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 4:04 AM (GMT -6) |   | Message
TGB
12/09/00 11:54 AM
Prophesied Bondage: Abraham, Part II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gen 15.13-14 “Then the LORD said to Abram, "Know of a surety that your descendants will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs, and will be slaves there, and they will be oppressed for four hundred years; but I will bring judgment on the nation which they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions.”
Hi all-
OK. How does God know that Abraham’s descendants will become slaves in Egypt? First, this cannot be a forecast based on anybody’s character (especially those of Joseph’s brothers or the Pharaoh, none of whom exist.) On the other hand, and secondly, this texts means that Israel’s bondage in Egypt was clearly not an event which God responded to “at the moment.” God clearly knew it was coming. The question is, How did he know? Thirdly, will open theists claim this is a “conditional prophecy,” like those issued to Hezekiah and Nineveh? But this hardly seems possible. Conditional prophecies work well when delivered to the person(s) to whom the condition is predicated (even when the condition is assumed), as with Hezekiah and Nineveh. But a conditional prophecy spoken generations before the event, and regarding an event which may happen only if certain acts of free will fall in place? Seems more than a stretch for God to say, "Look, I don't know the future, and I don't the what acts of free will might transpire on the part of your future descendents; nonetheless, your descendents "for a surety" WILL be slaves in Egypt for 400 years."
Somebody help me out! I know eventually I’ll have to come down on one side of this fence, but to date the options as I see them are “What God predicts is guaranteed because he KNOWS everything that will happen” (Calvinism) or “What God predicts is guaranteed because he MAKES people do what he needs them to do” (Open Theism as I understand it thus far). Free will flies out the window with either one.
Are there any other options?
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Craig
12/09/00 12:22 PM
RE: Prophesied Bondage: Abraham, Part II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is simple! God wanted a relationship so bad, He sinned and enslaved His own people! Er, uhh, did I just say that? Doh! Maybe God does have absolute foreknowledge! Great passage to bring up Tom, this should be an eye opening discussion. I know where I come from, lets see what Open Theists have to say.
I disagree that free will flies out the window, take a look at what I say in the last two or three posts of "is freedom irrevocable?". Man acts according to his own choices! I am a Calvinist and believe man is free. God knows man's choices because man is dead in his sin, and can only respond to God positively by Grace, making God's foreknowledge absolute, and man free to act according to his choice.
Craig
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
12/09/00 9:33 PM
Kinda Off the Subject...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom,
I'll be honest, man. I love reading your posts. You are obviously really trying to wrestle with all these issues and formulate your own opinions, taking all the information into accounts. Hat's off to you, sir.
I wanted to know something and I meant to ask this earlier. Could you send me some information about your missionary ministry? I do believe in spiritual warfare, and I try to make it a practice to pray for various ministries abroad, as well as support in other ways, if I can. If you would give me a little bit of information about yourself and your ministry, that would help me to focus my prayers. Just email it to me. My address should be at the upper left hand corner, there. I'd really appreciate it.
Your comrade-in-arms,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TGB
12/10/00 4:35 AM
RE: Kinda Off the Subject...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi2k-
Let me know if you don't get my email to you.
Blessings!
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ghost-dog-girl
12/13/00 4:01 PM
RE: Prophesied Bondage: Abraham, Part II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom, I agree with Mephi, your posts are great!
I too have often wondered about this and, again, I'm not sure what the official open view answer is (if such an answer exists).
Here's my theory: perhaps the Israelite sojourn in Egypt was a kind of corporate kenosis (emptying out). We know that God intended to bless the nations through Abraham's descendants, and perhaps just as Jesus would eventually come as a suffering servant, God intended the Israelites to minister to the powerful nation of Egypt from a subordinate position, Joseph being the example par excellence.
You said:
"...to date the options as I see them are “What God predicts is guaranteed because he KNOWS everything that will happen” (Calvinism) or “What God predicts is guaranteed because he MAKES people do what he needs them to do” (Open Theism as I understand it thus far)."
In Calvinism, God knows everything that will happen because he predestines everything to happen that way--EVERYTHING. Whereas in the open view, God can make Israel sojourn in Egypt for 400 years without ordaining every single time a Hebrew slave gets whipped by an Egyptian.
I believe that God's reason for leading the Israelites into Egypt was good, even though I'm not sure what the reason was (again, consider all the people of all different nations God used Joseph to minister to during the famine). And to whatever extent individual Egyptians abused the power they had over the Israelites, they will be held responsible for it because it was their choice. And to the individual Israelites who suffered under their oppression, God encouraged them with the promise of eventual justice.
I hope that other people take a shot at answering your question. I'm curious about the various responses too.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
12/13/00 5:39 PM
von Rad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerhard von Rad in his Commentary on Genesis (Revised edition), Westminster Press 1972 publication had this to say:
"God's word in vs. 13-16 has long been recognized as an insertion…The concern of these verses is clear, they are 'aetiological,' designed to clarify a riddle: Abraham had received the promise, but it was not fulfilled for many generations. The answer is not to be found in a deficiency of God's power. The entr'acte, the Egyptian bondage, so filled with suffering, was not something unforseen; but Yahweh had provided for it all, 'for the iniquity of the Amorites' (here in the sense of 'Canaanite aborigines') 'is not yet complete.' God allots to the nations their times (Dan. 2.21). The 'iniquity of the Amorites' is here to be understood as their sexual corruption (Lev. 18.24-28). How the time span in v. 13 is related to Ex. 12.40 is not clear. But that of v. 16 does not agree either, for a 'generation' (dór) elsewhere in the Old Testament is not a hundred years. Abraham is to be allowed to die in peace before that." (pg. 187)
Hope that helps a bit.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
beso
12/13/00 11:21 PM
RE: von Rad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think most evangelicals would be comfortable with seeing this passage as an "aetiological" tale. Some scholars see this as a conditional prophecy. This seems to be a stretch. I think GDG is more on track, and in fact, here the Open Theist and classical theist would differ very little. God was going to allow, or specifically steer if need be, events to incubate his people in Egypt while preparing to judge the Amorites and then "kill two birds with one stone." Freedom is always restricted in a million ways. God uses these restrictions to his advantage. The open view simply differs from Calvinism in saying that these restrictions are not exhaustive.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Craig
12/14/00 7:13 PM
RE: Prophesied Bondage: Abraham, Part II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since we are celebrating the Advent of Jesus Christ; I thought I would throw in something for us all to ponder:
"When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him."14 So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt,15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son." Matthew 2
Remember this is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Hosea 11:1. With that in mind, ponder why there was a flight to Egypt: Herod was to kill all male children 2 years old and younger. Matthew testifies that this is a fulfillment of prophecy, how is it that the Open God didn't sin? Calvinists say it is man's will to do evil, so a thing like this fits God's Plan without God sinning. Not so with Open Theism. God has to manipulate men and situations, and tempt them in order to make a prophecy come true. Why is it He would go so far as to have "innocent" children murdured?
Why didn't God tell the Magi to go back to Herod, and have Herod search for, but not find Christ? Instead, God decided to allow children to be murdured.....peace on earth, good will toward men?
Craig
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TheOpenTheist
12/14/00 11:26 PM
This is an illustration of a past event
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt 2:15 is an illustration of a past event recorded in the scriptures. Here's Hos 11:1
Hosea 11:1 "When Israel [was] a child, I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son.
This is a statement that God has made concerning Israel. Dr. Edward Robinson wrote of the phrase in Matt 2:15, "that it might be fulfilled", in his Greek Lexicon of the New Testament saying that the
“Phrase is used as a formal quotation and implies ‘that something took place, not in order that a prophecy might be filled, but so that it was fulfilled; not in order to make the event correspond to the prophecy, but so that the event would and did correspond to that prophecy. The phrase is often used to express historical or typical parallelisms.’ ”
The holy family's flight into Egypt and their return to Israel parallels what happened to Israel in the past. God did not sin so He could bring about an event that paralleled an event in the past.
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ModesofThought
12/14/00 11:38 PM
RE: RE: von Rad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How important is it that we keep evangelicals comfortable here? I really don't mean this in a snotty way, but isn't it okay to challenge comfort zones? What if God intended it as aetiological? Your adding "tale" disparages that possibility somewhat dismissively. Why couldn't God communicate what God intended through a "tale" for that matter?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Craig
12/15/00 11:46 AM
RE: RE: RE: von Rad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes-
I am not sure what aetiological means, but it seems in the context it means that you don't think that the incident really happened.
I will go by this assumption, because I looked in a few dictionaries and couldn't find the word.
There is no way that you can know what was a true historical event in the Bible if you just pick and choose what was real. Obviously Matthew wrote with the idea that this really happened. Have you moved me from my comfort zone? Not at all. There would be no purpose to this "tale" if it didn't really happen. Well, it would, but it is stupid. It would mean that God couldn't fulfill His own prophecy so He had to make up a story to "fulfill" it. Why would you take this as a "tale" and not the idea of God changing His mind, and not knowing the future as being a "tale" with a purpose behind it? Perhaps it is because you decide to throw out what the Bible says if it would destroy your own anti-theology?
TheOpenTheist-
This is treated as a prophecy by Matthew to be fulfilled in Christ, I am not saying it dealt only with Christ, but it certainly entailed Christ since it says this: "And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."
Our Bible references take us to Hosea, but obviously there is a prophecy concerning Christ which says "Out of Egypt I called My son". Honestly, I don't know if it corresponds to the statement in Hosea, but that is what is in the note on that verse in Matthew. You must take in the WHOLE context, and Matthew said AND SO IT WAS fulfilled, ie it wasn't completely fulfilled before, but NOW IT IS.
The god of open theism sins, because he must tempt man. He is also a failure because he could have fulfilled the prophecy in a more loving way than killing children, but he didn't think about that I guess
Craig
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
12/15/00 11:55 AM
RE: RE: RE: RE: von Rad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will not find "aetiological" in the dictionary because it is an archaic spelling of "etiological." It basically means "assigning a cause or reason."
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TheOpenTheist
12/15/00 12:10 PM
Hos 11:1 refers to Israel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hos 11:1 refers to Israel.
Hosea 11:1-9
"When Israel [was] a child, I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son. 2 [As] they called them, So they went from them; They sacrificed to the Baals, And burned incense to carved images. 3 "I taught Ephraim to walk, Taking them by their arms; But they did not know that I healed them. 4 I drew them with gentle cords, With bands of love, And I was to them as those who take the yoke from their neck. I stooped [and] fed them. 5 " He shall not return to the land of Egypt; But the Assyrian shall be his king, Because they refused to repent. 6 And the sword shall slash in his cities, Devour his districts, And consume [them,] Because of their own counsels. 7 My people are bent on backsliding from Me. Though they call to the Most High, None at all exalt [Him.] 8 " How can I give you up, Ephraim? [How] can I hand you over, Israel? How can I make you like Admah? [How] can I set you like Zeboiim? My heart churns within Me; My sympathy is stirred. 9 I will not execute the fierceness of My anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim. For I [am] God, and not man, The Holy One in your midst; And I will not come with terror.
The Holy Spirit took Hos 11:1 and applied it to Christ's return from Egypt AFTER Christ returned from Egypt. It is impossible to read Hos 11:1 and get the idea that this is a prophecy that foretold the Messiah's return to Israel from Egypt. The only ones who believe that Hos 11:1 is a predictive prophecy are the ones who have not taken the time to actually read the passage themselves. Hos 11:1 says "When Israel [was] a child...". The focus is Israel and Israel was called out of Egypt.
You have bigger problems from Hos 11 in verses 8 and 9. You may want to attempt to explain those verses from the view that God is impassible and is unconditioned by anything instead of claiming that the God of open theists is a sinner based on a defective view of what prophecy is.
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Lion-Lamb
12/15/00 12:38 PM
RE: Hos 11:1 refers to Israel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whoa! You speak rather boldly as if you have done more serious study of Hosea 11:1 than biblical scholars have. Shhhh! Be careful!
Perhaps you should read some serious studies of Matt. 2:15 and its use of Hos 11:1 and discover what biblical scholars have to say about the two passages.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Craig
12/15/00 3:15 PM
RE: RE: Hos 11:1 refers to Israel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TheOpenTheist-
Nice try IF the Holy Spirit was only applying Hosea 11 to Jesus, then, pray tell, why does it say "AND SO IT WAS FULFILLED"? Have you ignored this? No, you're probably wrongly dividing the Word again
There is more than application here. The passage would lose all power to it if I were to read this only as an applicable prophecy. It could have said: and God told Joseph to go to Egypt, and check this out! It just so happens that Hosea said this about Israel! Pretty cool huh? Anyway, that is just a random note, sometimes I can't help myself."
But that would be pretty silly for the verse to read anything like that. You have to deal with this as a prophecy because the author was inspired by the Holy Spirit to say that this even FULFILLED prophecy.
Craig
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
12/15/00 3:57 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: von Rad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for watching my back GDG.
Aetiological looks so much cooler, though doesn't it?
What do you think about diving headlong into debate about a word you don't know the meaning of? Your a grammar girl, do you advise it?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
12/15/00 4:00 PM
RE: RE: Hos 11:1 refers to Israel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amen, preach it Lion-Lamb!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Geebob
12/17/00 3:32 AM
RE: RE: RE: Hos 11:1 refers to Israel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from Craig:
"why does it say'AND SO IT WAS FULFILLED'?"
Because it was fulfilled by Jesus. Just because a fraction of a passage that already has a use was paralleled in Jesus life doesn't mean that it had to be so especially since Hosea doesn't give any indication that this should be applied to the Messiah. Jesus is identified with the history and tradition in powerful way and this verse was recognized as applicable to Jesus in hindsight. We're taking for granted that "Fulfilled" necessarily means realization of a plan made long ago.
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Lion-Lamb
12/17/00 4:23 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: Hos 11:1 refers to Israel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geebob says,
We're taking for granted that "Fulfilled" necessarily means realization of a plan made long ago.
Hmmmmmm! When Matthew uses the word fulfilled in 2:15, as in every other use in his Gospel, he means nothing other than fulfillment of God's plan made long ago. Check it out!
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:32 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 |
|
|