 |
| 
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 11/18/2001 12:01 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hey All,
Could someone please explain to me how an openess interpretation would account for Gen. 25:23, " Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger."
Now, I'm sure we all know how the story goes, however, how in the world, if God doesn't know the future free actions of an individual, could God know the future of Jacob and Esau (especially as it pertains to 1. the "two peoples from within you will be separated," and 2. the "older serving the younger")?
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 11/21/2001 5:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Hello...Is there anyone out there ready to lend some knowledge to a brother...Hellllooo?
Ok, I know, my question has either been delt with before, the answer is farrrrr toooooooo obvious, or it's is just to darn hard to find the time to answer this question when there are so many other wonderful threads to reply to  !
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers
| | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 11/21/2001 5:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Tiggers,
Do a search on Jabob and Esau using the web sites search facility. Lots of interesting talk about the subject.
peace and love, don
A quote from Rev. Gregory A. Boyd, PhD ... " Has anyone seen my keys? " | | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 11/21/2001 5:53 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Hello...Is there anyone out there ready to lend some knowledge to a brother...Hellllooo?
Hellllooo Tiggers!
Since you're looking for some responses to this question I will throw in how I understand God to know the future within the open view perspective.
God perfectly knows ALL the future choices we MIGHT make. God's foreknowledge is NOT LIMITED in the open view, it's actually GREATER since God perfectly knows EVERY possibility and has planned for each possibility.
God knows each person COMPLETELY thus has foreknowledge about ALL the possible ways a person MIGHT choose. Therefore, in regard to knowing about the two nations in the womb, I would say God knows the BIG picture just not every detail therein.
Here's one example I've been given in explaining future events: Person X is definitely going to a movie on Friday night BUT where person X sits, whether person X buys popcorn ... has not yet been decided. Now, the probability that they will sit in the middle of the auditorium and will buy popcorn is pretty great since that is where they normally sit and they love popcorn while watching a movie. However, the only thing that is definitely known with certainty is that person X will go to the movie on Friday night.
Does this help at all?
trosie
Edited by - trosie on 11/21/2001 10:55:28 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/21/2001 8:18 AM (GMT -6) | | Trosie said: "I would say God knows the BIG picture just not every detail therein."
Pot confesses: That statement is a very powerful one that yeilds much in unwrapping its potentialities. But I end up feeling, too, that I am not very capable of relating the Big-Pic. and the every-details. for me the break down in being able to analyze all this is with ME/us. Maybe that is char DOC meant when he wrote on this board once (a month or so ago) that the mystery is in Creation, and not with God. ***How'd I do DOC?*** I really can not define the big picture as the "sum of all" the little parts! And that is where I nod-off or tune-out in some of these discussions. (Dispite how good Trosie's example, even with ANY example.)
Maybe the particular moment is important for those with a Dispensational leaning. But I have gotten more out of trying to focus onthe Bog-picture as much as I can. I am disapointed by much Fundamentalist leaning to paint God as a wrathful God and not a John 3:16 God. The part of the Big-picture that seems to be lacking it the Anthropology of sin and death in Paul's writing. Understanding the problem before trying to prescribe a solution. But instead there is a tendency to piece together a stereotype of the fallen nature too, ignoring what remains even after the fall.
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 11/21/2001 12:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Trosie asserts,
“God knows each person COMPLETELY thus has foreknowledge about ALL the possible ways a person MIGHT choose. Therefore, in regard to knowing about the two nations in the womb, I would say God knows the BIG picture just not every detail therein.”
Tiggers reply,
If I understand you correctly, you are proclaiming God’s awesome power to know all possibilities with regards to all future free will actions of any human (this I’m sure would also probably imply superhuman as well), right? Thus, the crux of your above assertion would simply be for me to understand that God sees the big picture and NOT the exact future choice (If I’m wrong in my understanding just holler at me).
Trosie, I like where you’re going with this, however, maybe you could still lend me a hand in understanding your example of how your initial (e.g. above) assertion plays out in Gen. 25:23. Ok, here goes nothing…
1. X= person going to a movie
2. The knowledge of where X sits, or if X buy’s popcorn is unknown
because it has not yet happened (e.g the particulars).
3. God knows all possibilities, due to X’s biological and culturally
conditioned makeup, thus, it is almost certain that God could predict in his foreknowledge language (in retrospect, Gen. 25:23) that X will sit in the center of auditorium and will buy popcorn because that is what X always does.
4. What is known fore sure is that X will go to the movie
(e.g. the big picture)!
Tigger’s problem,
This logic is very good, yet it doesn’t seem to go far enough, for me that is. You see, in your example X’s possibilities are known because of his/her past choices (e.g. “will sit in the middle of the auditorium and will buy popcorn is pretty great since that is where they normally sit and they love popcorn while watching a movie”), however, in the case of Gen. 25:23 God’s foreknowledge is not based on X or Y's makeup because X and Y have not yet been out of Rebock’s womb. Therefore, while your example moves me to God’s awesome power (truly) I’m not able to parallel this with God knowing ahead of time that the older will serve the younger. I will grant you this, however, with regards to foreknowledge of “two nations” your example works splendidly .
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers
PS
Thanks Might Be Don, I may just have to dig back into the weeds of the Board’s archive. However, further help on this verse is greatly appreciated! LOL
| | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 11/22/2001 1:46 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tigger’s problem,
This logic is very good, yet it doesn’t seem to go far enough, for me that is. You see, in your example X’s possibilities are known because of his/her past choices (e.g. “will sit in the middle of the auditorium and will buy popcorn is pretty great since that is where they normally sit and they love popcorn while watching a movie”), however, in the case of Gen. 25:23 God’s foreknowledge is not based on X or Y's makeup because X and Y have not yet been out of Rebock’s womb.
I don't see much difference between when a person is born and when they are yet in the womb in God's ability to foreknow future possibilities. Personality, gifting ... are all developing within the womb. We were all created with unique and individual physical, social, and psychological traits at the moment of conception. Therefore, God foreknows what all the possibilities that we may choose are perfectly due to the way we were internally put together from the get go. Does this make sense?
Hey POW, Doc said something on the "ummm, I have a question" thread that I thought was really good to relay here regarding my understanding of the BIG PICTURE:
quote:
depends on how meticulous you want to define "control. " I'd say he's in ULTIMATE control
Ultimate control BUT not meticulous control.
Did I clarify at all?
trosie
| | Back to Top | | |
|
chance
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157
| Posted 11/22/2001 2:49 AM (GMT -6) | | The prophecy is fairly ambiguous and it is no problem for God to bring to pass such an ambiguous prophecy. Nowhere does it specifically say when the older nation will serve the younger. God will bring it to pass when He sees fit.
trosie said
quote:
I don't see much difference between when a person is born and when they are yet in the womb in God's ability to foreknow future possibilities. Personality, gifting ... are all developing within the womb. We were all created with unique and individual physical, social, and psychological traits at the moment of conception. Therefore, God foreknows what all the possibilities that we may choose are perfectly due to the way we were internally put together from the get go.
That seems to be exactly what Psalm 139 is saying - that God knows people intimately when they are in the womb.
chance
A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth
Edited by - chance on 11/22/2001 07:52:33 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/22/2001 5:54 AM (GMT -6) | | trosie: Hey POW, Doc "depends on how meticulous you want to define "control. " I'd say he's in ULTIMATE control"
trosie: Ultimate control BUT not meticulous control. Did I clarify at all?
Thanks trosie. I confess that I have to "shorthand" that to an idea of the ULTIMATE having flexible, adaptable alternatives and virtuosity at hand. (as in the banal example of how you can unload a dishwasher in an "almost"-innumerable -- careful, there may be physicists watching) number of ways, allowing more than one person (!) of free will to participate at one time.
I don't try to go farther than that. I might get a head ache.
(wabbling pot) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 11/22/2001 8:26 AM (GMT -6) | | I've come to terms with most everything in Scripture (that I can think of) that is for or against the open view; I now believe in the open view (yes, ladies and gentlemen, yet another new convert). The one area that still throws me a tad is two fold: the calling of Cyrus in Isaiah well before he was in his mother's womb; and the remarkable details given in Daniel 11 of what certain people will say and do. How does this square with the freedom these people should have that is seemingly in these areas noted in Scripture (particularly Daniel 11) denied?
Cyrus I can probably work through: God decided there was to be a man born named Cyrus who would be used to do a thing or two for God - let the people of Israel go. But what about those in Daniel? I mean, there's some serious details given. Don't these folks have a say-so?
Still working through it...
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
chance
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157
| Posted 11/22/2001 1:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman said
quote:
I've come to terms with most everything in Scripture (that I can think of) that is for or against the open view; I now believe in the open view (yes, ladies and gentlemen, yet another new convert). The one area that still throws me a tad is two fold: the calling of Cyrus in Isaiah well before he was in his mother's womb;
From what I've read and heard Cyrus is a title not a name like John or Bob. Even if Cyrus was a specific name God could have brought it about that the name Cyrus would be given to a specific person without coercing anyone.
quote:
and the remarkable details given in Daniel 11 of what certain people will say and do. How does this square with the freedom these people should have that is seemingly in these areas noted in Scripture (particularly Daniel 11) denied?
Was the prophecy given in Daniel 11 fulfilled in every detail? I recall Pinnock saying after giving his paper at the ETS Conference last week that the prophecy of Dan 11 was not fulfilled in exact detail. We should check the Scriptural and historical record to confirm whether a prophecy or prophecies have been fulfilled in every detail or not. We shouldn't just assume that a detailed prophecy has been fulfilled in every detail.
chance
A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth
Edited by - chance on 11/22/2001 6:33:17 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 11/22/2001 3:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Chance,
quote:
From what I've read and heard Cyrus is a title not a name like John or Bob. Even if Cyrus was a specific name God could have brought it about that the name Cyrus would be given to a specific person without coercing anyone.
Listen, I whole-heartedly agree, but my issue is really the call on his life, not his name. I believe that God was foretelling Isaiah that Cyrus would deliver the Jews. It's that call that gets me. What if Cyrus said, "no, that ain't me and I ain't doin' it!". I guess then he'd be treated like Jonah - how's a fish sound...a big one?! I guess this one's not too hard.
quote:
Was the prophecy given in Daniel 11 fulfilled in every detail? I recall Pinnock saying after giving his paper at the ETS Conference last week that the prophecy of Dan 11 was not fulfilled in exact detail. We should check the Scriptural and historical record to confirm whether a prophecy or prophecies have been fulfilled in every detail or not. We shouldn't just assume that a detailed prophecy has been fulfilled in every detail.
I personally don't believe that Daniel's been fulfilled completely, at least not from verse 21 on (if I recall). But as for the rest, I've heard the opposite; that it was fulfilled perfectly. I'd have to do the research historically to verify it, I suppose, and I wouldn't even know where to start except with some commentaries or something (I am NOT the historian, that's for sure!)
The point being that the details in Daniel are pretty concrete, I believe. This isn't a situation where God would change His mind because He hasn't let us know that, such as with Nineveh when Jonah was sent to them; God is merciful and it's no surprise that He changed His mind there; however, what's written in Daniel isn't open for change, in my opinion. History would, in this case, invalidate Scripture, not support God merely having changed His mind. So, it's still an unsolved issue to me...these people's freedom being very, very restricted.
Hehe, I'm getting the formatting stuff down!!!
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 11/22/2001 3:55 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Starkman: I now believe in the open view (yes, ladies and gentlemen, yet another new convert).
(Put this to the tone of a Texan cowboy)
YAHOO!!! Yet another one who's seen the light! As a fellow open view convert I want to extend a warm, kindly WELCOME!
Here's some rap in celebration:
(I think that the Doc might enjoy this too)
Starkman's converted
The board's been alerted
The open view theory
Has endured some fury
Open view is good theory
Although the future's not cleary
Yet God's in ultimate control
Whichever way we choose to stroll
Open view is so bad
It's the view with an ad...
Come on and join in
You'll be with cool kin
How was that? Am I getting BAD (I mean real BAD)? If I but bring one smile to a reader I will feel this total, vulnerable disclosure will have been well worth it 
Welcome aboard Starkman!
trosie
| | Back to Top | | |
|
n/a
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 218
| Posted 11/22/2001 5:38 PM (GMT -6) | |  oh Geez! Just kidding that was figgity phat! Dat is on da real, aiight?
Peace
Those who are spiritual discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else's scrutiny.1Corinthians2:15 NRSV Copyright© 1962, 1973, 1977 Oxford University Press, Inc. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 11/23/2001 7:24 AM (GMT -6) | | trosie
Ah! Thank you, thank you. It's good to be aboard. And I'd just like to say...(sorry, I almost started a speech!).
My awe and respect for God in view of coming to an open view conclusion has just gone through the roof. So many things fall into place. And what's wild is that I've deep, deep down always had a check in my spirit when people would say "God knows every thought you'll think..." etc. It's good to see now why I felt that check.
Freedom rules! And may it ever rule for Him!
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 11/23/2001 1:18 PM (GMT -6) | | I expect that God would need to be in meticulous control, though, for "two nations" to come from Jacob and Esau, respectively. This requires not only knowledge of Jacob and Esau, but control of their lives (how could God know that they would have enough descendents to be called "nations" from just knowing their personalities?), and also control of the lives of their children, and their grandchildren, for many generations.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
chance
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157
| Posted 11/23/2001 1:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee said
quote:
I expect that God would need to be in meticulous control, though, for "two nations" to come from Jacob and Esau, respectively. This requires not only knowledge of Jacob and Esau, but control of their lives (how could God know that they would have enough descendents to be called "nations" from just knowing their personalities?), and also control of the lives of their children, and their grandchildren, for many generations.
So God is not able to make two nations out of these brothers if He exercises general sovereignty? I believe that God is infinitely intelligent and, therefore, able to bring this prophecy about.
In the Omniable God,
chance
A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 11/24/2001 9:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey All,
Love your thinking !
Lee asserts,
“I expect that God would need to be in meticulous control, though, for ‘two nations’ to come from Jacob and Eau, respectively. This requires not only knowledge of Jacob and Eau, but control of their lives (how could God know that they would have enough descendents to be called ‘nations’ from just knowing their personalities?), and also control of the lives of their children, and their grandchildren, for many generations.”
Tigger’s reply,
Hey Lee, it is great to hear from ya, and I hear what you’re saying; however, it seems to me that God would not have to have meticulous control (if what you mean by this is God controlling the very details to make the “two nations” come about) over this situation (e.g. “two nations”) if we look at this passage prophetically. For example, Gordon Wenham rightly suggests, “Abraham and Sarah had been promised that many nations would be descended from them (Gen. 17:4-6, 16), so the first line hardly says anything fresh. It is little more than an affirmation of the older promise …” Simply put, one could argue linguistically that it would not be an oddity at all to speak in terms of “nations”, given that Isaac was the direct son of Abraham, ya dig? Therefore, it could be postulated that Isaac and Rebekah knew they were having twins (whether it be told to them by God, woman’s intuition, or medically possible to know in that era), thus, calling them nations due to Abraham’s promise from God. Sooooo, Trosie and Chance both seem to be in the clear with regards to the big picture/non-meticulous control supposition  .
Now, in stating all of this, I still am exegetically (not philosophically) thrown for a loop here. You see, it seems to me that God needs either meticulous control or foreknowledge of future free actions to predict Gen. 25:23b (however, if the later is true, than I do have philosophical problems, and if God does meticulously control details, than I have a problem with the problem of evil, Aghhhhhh  !) to know the specifics (e.g. the younger ruling, etc.)…why?…because, because God knows to much specifically as the story unfolds.
Footnote: Gordon Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 2, “Genesis 16-50” (Dallas: Word Books, 175.
Chance asserts,
“So God in not able to make two nations out of these brothers if He exercises general sovereignty? I believe that God is infinitely intelligent and, therefore, able to bring this prophecy about.”
Tigger’s reply,
Could you define “infinitely intelligent” for me? I assume what you’re proclaiming is that God sovereignly knows all possibilities, within all situations, of all created biotic and/or abiotic elements (If I’m wrong in my assumption, sorry, just shoot me down  )! Nevertheless,
FIRST, if God knows the possibility that Jacob and Esah’s choices may go this way or possibly that way, then it is very possible that God’s prophecy could have gone wrong, right (hence the ability free will grants a creature)?
SECOND, if God’s infinite intelligence is as great as you proclaim, so great in fact that God can foreknow the younger will rule over the older (especially when this is not culturally a regular practice) then how does one not escape the downfall of the logical Open Theist critique of the traditional Arminian position. You see, I don’t know how with infinite intelligence God could logically guarantee this prophecy without some form of meticulous control. Now, this brings me to Trosie’s assertion...
Trosie Proclaimed,
“I don’t see much difference between when a person is born and when they are yet in the womb in God’s ability to foreknow future possibilities.”
Tigger’s reply,
Trosie, if you look back at your example used to illustrate the “big picture” for me than I believe you will come to understand my past critique. As far as your above proclamation, to me anyways, biological makeup can be definitely helpful in predicting future free will actions, however, do to the possible ability to do other than your biological makeup, and the fact that there are many other variables (e.g. one of the them being conditioned by their own and other’s free will acts) then it seems to me there must be a “difference between when a person is born and when they are yet in the womb in God’s ability to foreknow future possibilities.”
Warmly in Chirst,
Tiggers
PS
I’ve got noth’n but love for ya’ll!
Edited by - Tiggers on 11/26/2001 3:3
Edited by - Tiggers on 11/26/2001 3:40:12 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 11/24/2001 10:32 AM (GMT -6) | | I believe that God has in fact given us free will; that choice option revealed very early on in the first two chapters of Genesis: the choice to heed God's Word or not, a narrow concept of choice; and the more broader choice to participate in something of a more subjective choosing - the naming of animals.
What is never given to man (obvious by his limitations within his own existance and environment - for he is not free-free as God is) is freedom without certain restrictions which might even make him a little angry because they SEEM to violiate the freedoms he was told he could enjoy (those specific narrow and broader choices).
Man may in fact be manuervered to become a nation (Jacob/Esau), may be manipulated to work a job he flat plain doesn't want (Jonah), might be manipulated to marry when he may not have initially wanted to (Daniel 11). None of these, however, is a violation of man's inherent freedom to worship or not, to participate within God's parameters. We are not as free as we'd like to be. I've solved some of my own personal issues in Daniel 11 where so many specifics are given that initially caused me to raise objection to the open view: "Hey, aren't these people free to choose for themselves? Aren't their rights being violated?". Ah, but no. And neither was this exhaustive determinism. I just needed to consider that within my freedom, there are...limitations!
The issues of Jacob and Esau with regard to them becoming nations, as predicted by the Lord, neither violates the open view nor violates Jacob and Esau's freedoms. It merely caused me to re-evaluate the (very much) theological concepts of choice given in those early chapters of Genesis.
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 11/24/2001 12:11 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
So God is not able to make two nations out of these brothers if He exercises general sovereignty? I believe that God is infinitely intelligent and, therefore, able to bring this prophecy about.
Yes, I agree, he is, but not without micromanagement! Especially if God does not know the future exhaustively. For example, the reason the weather is difficult to predict is that it is "exquisitely sensitive," a butterfly in Africa can affect the weather in Europe (John Polkinghorne, once a physicist, now a priest).
So to keep Jacob and Esau's descendents from all hazards, to have them both be nations, seems to require, at least potentially, micromanagement.
And to have them and their descendants all have the offspring to make them nations requires potential infringement of their free will, as Starkman noted.
Which both seem to make the Open View more difficult to hold here...
God bless you,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/26/2001 11:59 AM (GMT -6) | | This is interesting. Having never intended to be either "Open" or "Determinist" I'll just post a view replays here, and hope very much to return and give my two bits. BTW- I really appreciate Lee, as one impossible to steriotype as Deteriminist, and also as one to keep the Opens on their toes.
quote:
trosie: Hey POW, Doc "depends on how meticulous you want to define "control. " I'd say he's in ULTIMATE control"
trosie: Ultimate control BUT not meticulous control. Did I clarify at all?
Lee: I expect that God would need to be in meticulous control, though, for "two nations" to come from Jacob and Esau, respectively. This requires not only knowledge of Jacob and Esau, but control of their lives (how could God know that they would have enough descendents to be called "nations" from just knowing their personalities?), and also control of the lives of their children, and their grandchildren, for many generations.
Blessings, Lee
Starkman: I believe that God has in fact given us free will; that choice option revealed very early on in the first two chapters of Genesis: the choice to heed God's Word or not, a narrow concept of choice; and the more broader choice to participate in something of a more subjective choosing - the naming of animals.
{bread crumbs begin here..... . . . . . . . . . . . . | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 11/26/2001 4:14 PM (GMT -6) | | I'd like to emphasize again that there are two wonderful concepts of freewill and choice opening the begining chapters of Genesis: a narrow choice only offering the freewill to choose life or death; the more broader choice (naming the animals) offering more lattitude in daily activity. HOWEVER, none of these gives man total freewill and none of these prohibits God from maneurvering, manipulating and doing other things within the affairs of man, including taking life (note David's son born to Bathsheba). The child did nothing to deserve death, but God reserves the right [who's going to argue] to take life, if He so deems. For God to take a life is not sin, cruel or wrong. It is His right. He NEVER gave us sovereignty over life. Welcome to the real deeper truth of the Noah's Ark issue: God agrees to not waste the world with water again, but what isn't said but implied is that God will work within this sinful framework. Whereas He never would have taken life before the Fall, He has complete right to do so now.
Micromanagment is always on going, but what we mean by that should be clarified. Quite plainly God's omniscience (and all those other "omnis") are simply the way it is for God - micromanagement is seeing over (and overseeing) all that goes on. It's not necessarily control, but there's times it is.
We constantly want to reference ourselves within that broader choice, conceptualized in naming the animals, when we talk about God being involved in our affairs. We create a puzzle to be solved when someone's future is too programmed, to known for God to be able to know this or that without seeing into the future. We stumble over Calvinism and Arminianism if someone's life looks predistined before one is even born. but it is within the first concept of choice ("You may freely eat...but not of...") that we forget is where we stand before God when we talk of these issues and not the broader choice.
Therefore, God is quite free Himself, without knowing a thing about Jacob and Esau's futures, to create their futures for His own purposes; this is the whole concept of Romans 9. God isn't violating anyone's rights, for He never gave anyone rights to be so soverign as to be untouchable in one's daily affairs by the Lord Himself...and in ways that just might not be too enjoyable at times (take Jonah for instance).
None of this requires God "knowing" every single thing that's going to happen to Jacob and Esau other than what God Himself has predetermined, and anything God does to them is not outside of God's right to do so.
If I have learned one thing about the open view, it is that the more open my view is, the less free I see I am before God Almighty. It's the same concept as "The more I learn about God, the less I know."
Finally, I refer to Daniel 11 where so much specific (pin-point detail, no less) is given about individuals. It bothered me as I was studying the open view, because these people's "rights" seemed to be violated, or...the open view was wrong and God does see every minute (micromangment) detail of the future. Ah! But it is within the framework of those freewill and choice passages in the first chapters of Genesis that makes sense of it all. I now see that (as I noted), really, I'm free, but...well, not THAT free after all. And I don't mind the least. I'm free where it counts!
For the conversation,
Starkman
p.s. My, I'm feeling somewhat eloquent today. Now watch someone come along and shoot me all to you know what! Gads!
Edited by - Starkman on 11/26/2001 9:25:36 PM
Edited by - Starkman on 11/26/2001 9:53:03 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/26/2001 4:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks starkman. to throw a monkey wrench into the works...I read a great portion by Paul Evdokimov who picked up on some of the Church father's treatment of Job and also what Jung did with Job. his point was that in Christ (the unjustly suffering servant), God answered Job and what Job had said.
Of course I'm not disagreeing with your or trying to be picky. I'm jsut "finding an opening and running with it."
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 11/26/2001 4:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Pot
Gads, I never even noticed your post right before the one I just did! Boy, observant I am these days (I keep telling the wife I need new glasses, but all she says is "Look at me when you're talking to me"!!).
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 11/28/2001 10:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman asserts,
“None of this requires God "knowing" every single thing that's going to happen to Jacob and Esau other than what God Himself has predetermined, and anything God does to them is not outside of God's right to do so.”
Tigger’s Reply,
Hey Starkman, this is some wonderful food to chew, and I love every bite…YUUUUMMMMMM ! I agree that God is self-determining, and furthermore, disciplines his creation (e.g. Noah’s era, etc.) for their sin as he determines fit. Yet, my possible point of departure from your hypothesis revolves around your above assertion. From what I gather, you seem to hold to an open view of God’s foreknowledge, yet to make up for the semi-loss of his omnipotence, due to his lack of foreknowledge, I presume, you interpret God granting creatures some form of compatibilistic freedom. Now, I have come to understand that a God, who is relational and participates through actions within his creation, only makes sense when paired with an open future (see Pinnock’s Most Moved Mover), yet I am at a loss why you then assert, “what God Himself has predetermined, and anything God does to them is not outside of God’s right to do so.” For, if a creature has free will in a libertarian sense as openness proposes than that creature must have the ability to do other than what God predetermines them to do (e.g. God is disappointed, regrets, etc.). Therefore, it seems to me that you propose God’s use of manipulative power over his creatures in such a way that they become sufficient causes which in turn determine the creatures to choose as they do. Now, what’s so wrong with this? Simple, that is, if God manipulates a creature such that the creature’s sufficient causes determine his/her actions than it is not the creature’s responsibility for a possible evil choice God manipulated, it’s God’s responsibility, right? Hence the Problem of Evil  !
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). | | Back to Top | | |
| 36 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:47 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 |
|
|