 |
| 
nofuture
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 12/28/2003 2:06 AM (GMT -6) |   | Since my last question was answered in a coherent manner, I am hoping to have something else clarified for me. It has to do with the nature of God's knowledge, or 'omniscience', if you will. I want to look at two passages in Genesis involving the Lord conversing with Abraham. Here's the first...
Genesis 22:12
"Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."
This of course follows Abraham lifting his knife to slay Isaac in obedience to the Lord. Here we see God wasn't 'certain' what Abraham would actually do until the last second. This is how I believe open theists would interpret this passage, and so would I.
However, another passage intrigues me that I hope someone can shed light on. The setting is earlier in Abraham's life when the Lord and two angels came to visit him prior to destroying Sodom & Gomorrah. Here it is...
Genesis 18
20 Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know." (NIV)
Here it seems that God not only doesn't 'know' all future events, but doesn't even 'know' all present events without taking a 'closer' look. I find this passage very interesting and would love to see how this passage is interpreted by open theists, or anyone else for that matter. Thanks... | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 12/28/2003 3:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Matthew Henry on Gen 18:16-22
The messengers from heaven had now dispatched one part of their business, which was an errand of grace to Abraham and Sarah, and which they delivered first; but now they have before them work of another nature. Sodom is to be destroyed, and they must do it, ch. 19:13. Note, As with the Lord there is mercy, so he is the God to whom vengeance belongs. Pursuant to their commission, we here find, 1. That they looked towards Sodom (v. 16); they set their faces against it in wrath, as God is said to look unto the host of the Egyptians, Ex. 14:24. Note, Though God has long seemed to connive at sinners, from which they have inferred that the Lord does not see, does not regard, yet, when the day of his wrath comes, he will look towards them. 2. That they went towards Sodom (v. 22), and accordingly we find two of them at Sodom, ch. 19:1. Whether the third was the Lord, before whom Abraham yet stood, and to whom he drew near (v. 23), as most think, or whether the third left them before they came to Sodom, and the Lord before whom Abraham stood was the shechinah, or that appearance of the divine glory which Abraham had formerly seen and conversed with, is uncertain. However, we have here,
I. The honour Abraham did to his guests: He went with them to bring them on the way, as one that was loth to part with such good company, and was desirous to pay his utmost respects to them. This is a piece of civility proper to be shown to our friends; but it must be done as the apostle directs (3 Jn. 6), after a godly sort.
II. The honour they did to him; for those that honour God he will honour. God communicated to Abraham his purpose to destroy Sodom, and not only so, but entered into a free conference with him about it. Having taken him, more closely than before, into covenant with himself (ch. 17), he here admits him into more intimate communion with himself than ever, as the man of his counsel. Observe here,
1. God’s friendly thoughts concerning Abraham, v. 17–19, where we have his resolution to make known to Abraham his purpose concerning Sodom, with the reasons of it. If Abraham had not brought them on their way, perhaps he would not have been thus favoured; but he that loves to walk with wise men shall be wise, Prov. 13:20. See how God is pleased to argue with himself: Shall I hide from Abraham (or, as some read it, Am I concealing from Abraham) that thing which I do? "Can I go about such a thing, and not tell Abraham?’’ Thus does God, in his counsels, express himself, after the manner of men, with deliberation? But why must Abraham be of the cabinet-council? The Jews suggest that because God had granted the land of Canaan to Abraham and his seed that therefore he would not destroy those cities, which were a part of that land, without his knowledge and consent. But God here gives two other reasons: —
(1.) Abraham must know, for he is a friend and a favourite, and one that God has a particular kindness for and great things in store for. He is to become a great nation; and not only so, but also in the Messiah, who is to come from his loins, All nations of the earth shall be blessed. Note, The secret of the Lord is with those that fear him, Ps. 25:14; Prov. 3:32. Those who by faith live a life of communion with God cannot but know more of his mind than other people, though not with a prophetical, yet with a prudential practical knowledge. They have a better insight than others into what is present (Hos. 14:9; Ps. 107:43), and a better foresight of what is to come, at least so much as suffices for their guidance and for their comfort.
(2.) Abraham must know, for he will teach his household: I know Abraham very well, that he will command his children and his household after him, v. 19. Consider this, [1.] As a very bright part of Abraham’s character and example. He not only prayed with his family, but he taught them as a man of knowledge, nay, he commanded them as a man in authority, and was prophet and king, as well as priest, in his own house. Observe, First, God having made the covenant with him and his seed, and his household being circumcised pursuant to that, he was very careful to teach and rule them well. Those that expect family blessings must make conscience of family duty. If our children be the Lord’s, they must be nursed for him; if they wear his livery, they must be trained up in his work. Secondly, Abraham took care not only of his children, but also of his household; his servants were catechized servants. Masters of families should instruct and inspect the manners of all under their roof. The poorest servants have precious souls that must be looked after. Thirdly, Abraham made it his care and business to promote practical religion in his family. He did not fill their heads with matters of nice speculation, or doubtful disputation; but he taught them to keep the way of the Lord, and to do judgment and justice, that is, to be serious and devout in the worship of God and to be honest in their dealings with all men. Fourthly, Abraham, herein, had an eye to posterity, and was in care not only that his household with him, but that his household after him, should keep the way of the Lord, that religion might flourish in his family when he was in his grave. Fifthly, His doing this was the fulfilling of the conditions of the promises, which God had made him. Those only can expect the benefit of the promises that make conscience of their duty. [2.] As the reason why God would make known to him his purpose concerning Sodom, because he was communicative of his knowledge, and improved it for the benefit of those that were under his charge. Note, To him that hath shall be given, Mt. 13:12; 25:29. Those that make a good use of their knowledge shall know more.
2. God’s friendly talk with Abraham, in which he makes known to him the purpose concerning Sodom, and allows him a liberty of application to him about the matter. (1.) He tells him of the evidence there was against Sodom: The cry of Sodom is great, v. 20. Note, Some sins, and the sins of some sinners, cry aloud to heaven for vengeance. The iniquity of Sodom was crying iniquity; that is, it was so very provoking that it even urged God to punish. (2.) The enquiry he would make upon this evidence: I will go down now and see, v. 21. Not as if there were any thing concerning which God is in doubt, or in the dark; but he is pleased thus to express himself after the manner of men, [1.] To show the incontestable equity of all his judicial proceedings. Men are apt to suggest that his way is not equal; but let them know that his judgments are the result of an eternal counsel, and are never rash or sudden resolves. He never punishes upon report, or common fame, or the information of others, but upon his own certain and infallible knowledge. [2.] To give example to magistrates, and those in authority, with the utmost care and diligence to enquire into the merits of a cause, before they give judgment upon it. [3.] Perhaps the decree is here spoken of as not yet peremptory, that room and encouragement might be given to Abraham to make intercession for them. Thus God looked if there were any to intercede, Isa. 59:16.
Imagination projects unreal images out of the mind and seeks to attach reality to them. Faith creates nothing; it simply reckons upon that which is already there. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/28/2003 4:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Read this thread 100 times! 
http://www.christusvictorministries.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=36
| | Back to Top | | |
|
nofuture
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 12/28/2003 4:18 PM (GMT -6) | | TGB said:
Read this thread 100 times!
http://www.christusvictorministries.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=36
Thank-you, TGB, for your 'helpful' response. Although I only read that thread through one time, I found only one small comment relating to my main question, and it was by Greg Boyd saying, quote:
"Rather than ASSUME that I know so much about what God's omnipresence and omniscience mean, and rather than 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?"
Pastor Boyd said that over 3 years ago. I thought perhaps someone frequenting this forum might have received some of those 'insights' Greg was hoping for back then. How about it folks? Any fresh ideas or explanation why the Lord would have to go see for Himself how wicked Sodom was? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/28/2003 5:59 PM (GMT -6) | | Oooops. Sorry nofuture. I didn't read your WHOLE question. 
Here are three threads about Gen. 18. Read THESE 100 times each! 
I'll try to chime in Iconoclast when I get a few minutes. In the meantime, nofuture, I hope these posts help.
Omniscience and Gen 9:12-16 and 18:20-21
http://www.christusvictorministries.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=412&whichpage=1&SearchTerms=18
Genesis 18:21, Problem passage for the OV
http://www.christusvictorministries.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1271&SearchTerms=18
Genesis 18:20-21
http://www.christusvictorministries.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=788&whichpage=1&SearchTerms=18
Omnipresence and Genesis 18 revisited
http://www.christusvictorministries.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=282&SearchTerms=18 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/28/2003 8:38 PM (GMT -6) | | nofuture-
I think Iconoclast's idea of a "test" is the way to go. If you read through those posts, that's basically what we argued. But what openned it up for me was a more (I thought) accurate way to translate Gen. 18.21. Here's a bit from one of the posts:
quote:
Verse 21 is not the easiest of verses to translate, so this is tentative, but it seems to me that what English translations I have here all overlook something. You have the Hebrew kalah, an adverbial particle modifying the verb ’asu (the “they have done” of the RSV, NIV, NAS, and KJV). kalah means (check it for yourselves) something like “accomplished or completed end,” “full end,” or “finish.” Here kalah directly follows the verb “they have done,” which comes out in the RSV as “whether they have done altogether as the outcry” or, in the NAS as “whether they have done entirely according to its outcry.”
However, it’s possible that these translations slightly miss the point. After checking on how kalah is used in the OT (e.g., 1Ki 6.38; Neh. 9.31; Isa. 10.23; 15.6; Jer. 5.18; 8.20; Dan. 11.36; Nah. 1.8f; 2.1 and others) it seems to me that v. 21 ought to be understood as saying something like, “I will go down to see whether or not their deeds have reached their fill as the outcry suggests.” You’re probably ahead of me. The point, given the discussion between Abraham and God that follows v. 21, is that just as the sin of the Amorites had “not yet reached its full measure” (Gen. 15.16), so we ought to view the divine visitation to Sodom as intended to confirm whether or not Sodom’s sin had reached its “fill,” whether or not these cities had ’asu kalah, or “had acted fully” as in fact the outcry suggested.
What you want to avoid is translating v. 21 the way the NLT does: "...whether or not the outcry was true." That's not the issue. God's not attempting to find our whether what he knows is correct or not. That's problematic for omniscience. But if the "going down" is to resolve the will of the people, then we can make sense of omniscience in this particular passage.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 12/29/2003 4:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Not sure how many of you feel about the late Finis Dake (the author of the "Dake's Annotated Reference Bible") but I think it would be worth considering his comments on this. In his book, "God's Plan For Man" Daek wrote the following:
quote:
God Is Omniscient
The question of the omniscience of God is also much misunderstood. The Bible makes many simple statements that limit God’s knowledge. There would be no sense to such passages if we do not believe them literally. There is no meaning to them if we take them figuratively. There was no object in God saying such things about Himself if they were untrue. God gets to know things concerning the free moral actions of men as others do (Gen. 6:5-7; 11:5-7; 18:21; 22:12; 2 Chr. 16:9; Zech. 4:10; Job 12:22; 24:23; Ps. 7:9; 44:21; Ps. 139:1-6; Prov. 24:12; Jer. 17:10; Ezek. 11:5; Rom. 8:27; 1 Thess. 2:4). God sends messengers throughout the Earth who report to Him of all that they find in the Earth that goes on (Dan. 10:13-21; 11:1; 12:1; Zech. 1:7-11; 6:1-8; Mt. 18:10-11; Heb. 2:4). God does not take care of every detail of His vast business in all the kingdoms of the universe. His agents help Him and they are found in every part of the universe on missions for God. Certain angels are responsible to God for carrying out His will in almost infinite detail concerning the billions of suns, moons, planets and all free moral agents on them. God does not personally do everything that is done in all acts and events, nor has He known, elected, chosen, or predestinated all the acts and events from all eternity past. Several times God Himself said of certain events that they did not come into His mind (Jer. 19:5; 32:35; 44:21). God did not know beforehand that men would become so wicked (Gen. 6:5-7); that they would plan Babel (Gen. 11:5-7); that Sodom would be so wicked (Gen. 18:21, 26, 28-32); that Abraham would actually proceed to offer up Isaac (Gen. 22:12). God did not know whether it would take one or two or three signs to make Israel believe in Him (Ex. 4:1-12); or whether testing Israel would cause them to obey Him, or not (Dt. 8:2, 16). He did not know that Israel would backslide as far as she did (Dt. 32:19-29; Isa. 59:15-19). Furthermore, He searches to find men whom He can bless (2 Chr. 16:9); He discovers deep things (Job 12:22); tries the hearts and reins of men so that He may know them (Ps. 7:9; 44:21; 139:1-6, 23-24; Jer. 17:10; 1 Chr. 28:9; Rom. 8:27; 1 Cor 2:10; Rev. 2:23), proving all men for the same reason (Ps. 17:3; 66:10; 81:7).
God sends messengers throughout the whole of His vast creations to find out for Him what He wants to know, the same as the head of any other business would be likely to do, so that plans may be made and actions taken accordingly. Examples of such agency constantly reporting to God can be found in Gen. 18:21-22; Dan. 10:13-21; 11:1; 12:1; Zech. 1:7-11; 6:1-8; Mt. 18:10-11; Heb. 1:14; 2:2; Rev. 1:1; 7:1-3; 8:2-13; 9:1; 14:6-20; 15:1-8; 16:1-21; 18:21; 22:6, 8-9, 16).
The 6,468 commands in the Bible regulating man as to his part in the eternal plan of God, and setting forth his responsibility to God and man, the 1,260 promises of curses and blessings, rewards or loss of rewards, the hundreds of warnings, curses, blessings and dealings of God on the basis of conformity to His will, the 1,522 "ifs" and the many hundreds of conditional requirements of God throughout Scripture are sufficient proof that God does not cause all acts and events by His own decrees—and sufficient proof that He changes His own dealings with men, as they conform or refuse to conform to His will. Such facts and many others make it clear that God does not know from all eternity what any one man will do, much less what different types and dispositions of men will do under various circumstances that are not yet present to deal with. We have no statement in the entire Bible saying that God knows or even would like to know all acts and particular events of all vast creations of free moral agents from all eternity past; or that He has fixed decrees choosing and predestinating all the thoughts, acts, and deeds of free wills from all eternity past to all eternity future. God’s eternal plan for man is known from the beginning to the end and what He plans to bring to pass on Earth He has power to do, but concerning the free actions of free moral agents He does not know from all eternity what they will do before they are in existence and are here to have a part in His plan. He does not know which ones will be saved and which ones will be lost. He has made a plan for all to be saved alike and all who conform to His plan are blessed with the predestined blessings. Those who willfully rebel will be cursed with the predestined punishments according to the plan. It is the plan that is known from the beginning to the end, not the individual conformity to it by free moral agents. It is left up to each person to choose His own destiny. God wills all men to be saved but if man does not choose to be saved that is his responsibility (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9; Jn. 3:16; Rev. 22:17).
Anyway, I thought some of you might enjoy his perspective.
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 12/29/2003 5:05 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by victoryword
Not sure how many of you feel about the late Finis Dake (the author of the "Dake's Annotated Reference Bible") but I think it would be worth considering his comments on this. In his book, "God's Plan For Man" Daek wrote the following:
Hey VW,
That's really cool! Being fourth-generation Pentecostal, I of course had heard of Dake, and since I received a copy of his study Bible a few years back I've been studying it off and on. I had noticed some of his study footnotes in Dake's Annotated Reference Bible seem to lean strongly in favor of what is now known of as the Open view of the future.
The Full Life Study Bible, put out by the A/G and several other Pentecostal denoms a few years back (now renamed The Life in the Spirit Study Bible, I think), in its article on "The Attributes of God" observed that "God knows all certainties as certain, and all contingencies as real contingencies." (Something to that effect).
Looks like I'm gonna have to get a copy of God's Plan for Man. Thanks for the info. That's really cool.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 12/29/2003 8:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks John and Laika
I was almost afraid to mention Dake here as I know that he is taboo among many nonPentecostals. I did not want to begin a debate on the validity of his writings here. However, in light of nofuture's question, I could not resist. I remember reading Dake's view of omniscience and foreknowledge 11 years ago but I rejected it at the time. Only in the past two years have I begun to reconsider it due to studying Open Theism. Not sure though how much Dake's view of omniscience fits with OVs definition of omnicience that God knows all things past and present.
In another part of the same book, Dake wrote:
quote:
XVI. FOREKNOWLEDGE (Rom. 8:28-30)
The word foreknowledge simply means the prescience of God or the knowing beforehand certain events that will happen. If we are to take the Bible for what it says about God we will have to recognize that God gets to know certain things concerning free moral agents just as they get to know some things about each other. This is plainly stated in Gen. 3:8; 6:6,7; 11:5-8; 18:18-21; 22:12; Ex. 2:24, 25; Psalm 1:6; Jer. 17:10. God knows His plan from the beginning to the end, and certain passages used to teach foreknowledge from all eternity in connection with detailed events in the lives of free wills really refer to His general plan only, not to free moral acts of those particular men, as we have seen under election above (Isa. 42:9; 45:11; 46:9; 48:6; Dan. 2:28, 29; Acts 15:18; Matt. 13:35; 24:36; Rev. 21-22; etc.).
Dake was promoter of MGT so his views are are not surprising.
Also, John, thanks for the info on the Full Life Study Bible. I have an older copy of that Bible but never looked at what was written about foreknowledge. I will definitely take a look at it tonight. :)
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/29/2003 9:40 AM (GMT -6) | | I had no idea Dake espoused this view. No idea. I'm very surprised. Dake was consummed by Pentecostals for decades. I grew up hearing about it, thinking it was "Dake's Annointed Reference Bible"!
The Full Life Study Bible article (all the notes and articles were authored by A/G Missionary Don Stamps [Brazil]; it's now officially supported by the A/G) in that article states: "When the Bible speaks of God's foreknowledge...it means that he knows all things possible as possible, all things certain as certain, all things contingent as contingent, all things future as future, all things past as past, all things foreordained as predestined certainties...God remains free to make decisions and alter his purposes in time and history...."
Being A/G, I'm flabbergasted. Struggling to defend my views as I have the past two years in A/G circles makes me suspicious of Stamps' comments. I can hardly believe he meant what open theists mean when they use such language. Still, I don't know what else he could mean. Since he's dead now, we can't ask him.
I'm speechless.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 12/29/2003 10:18 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
I had no idea Dake espoused this view. No idea. I'm very surprised. Dake was consummed by Pentecostals for decades. I grew up hearing about it, thinking it was "Dake's Annointed Reference Bible"!
The Full Life Study Bible article (all the notes and articles were authored by A/G Missionary Don Stamps [Brazil]; it's now officially supported by the A/G) in that article states: "When the Bible speaks of God's foreknowledge...it means that he knows all things possible as possible, all things certain as certain, all things contingent as contingent, all things future as future, all things past as past, all things foreordained as predestined certainties...God remains free to make decisions and alter his purposes in time and history...."
Being A/G, I'm flabbergasted. Struggling to defend my views as I have the past two years in A/G circles makes me suspicious of Stamps' comments. I can hardly believe he meant what open theists mean when they use such language. Still, I don't know what else he could mean. Since he's dead now, we can't ask him.
I'm speechless.
Tom
Oh Tom, it'll be alright. Just take two Tylenol and do not try to think for the rest of the night 
If it helps you to overcome the initial shock of Pentecostals teaching OVism, maybe you may feel a little more comforted by the A/G's official position this:
http://www.agts.edu/faculty/faculty_publications/articles/railey_open-theism.pdf
Well, I THINK it's their official position. They seem to claim to be speaking for Arminians and Pentecostals as a whole. I personally consider myself Charismatic/Pentecostal - I believe in speaking in tongues and practice it consistently, I believe that all gifts of the Spirit are for us today, etc.
When I read books by many of the Pentecostal pioneers I have a hard time seeing how the average Pentecostal teachings on prayer, faith and healing make any sense in any way other than from an OV position. Though I often thought from an Arminian perspective before embracing OVism, I always pondered certain questions about how these truths reconciled with God's foreknowledge. It was not until I was actually challenged by someone who embraces a strong deterministic position that I began to rethink these things.
Before that, I often used one of my favorite Bible Teacher's lines: Foreknowledge no more determines a man’s actions than afterknowledge. (R. A. Torrey) While that statement occasionally stumped my opponents, it did not work in every debate. Occasionally, I was thrown a question about my views of God and faith that could not be answered in the light of exhaustive foreknowledge.
Ah, but I ramble. Forgive me ...
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
nofuture
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 12/29/2003 4:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Thank you to all who pointed me toward possible answers to my original question. It seems no one is totally confident in explaining how the Lord wanted to go to Sodom "to see if what He heard about it was true". Before asking my question, my wife and I were discussing the passage and were wondering if the different parts of the trinity might have something to do with it. If the O.T. appearances of the Lord 'as a man' are similar to Jesus' arrival in the N.T., then perhaps the pre-existent Christ lacked the 'omniscience' of the Father or Holy Spirit. Maybe the outcry from Sodom (prayers) were relayed to the Son in heaven by angels (something like the angels offering the saints' prayers in Rev. 8:3,4), and then Christ appeared to Abraham with a couple of angels to check things out. Obviously this is speculative but in the archives I see that Greg Boyd also suggested something related to this idea.
Anyway, it was good reading all the posts relating to Gen.18 and I can't wait to ask the Lord about that one in heaven someday, unless of course He chooses to 'leak' that info to one of us before then.
Thanks again, to all who responded... | | Back to Top | | |
|
wondering04
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 45
| Posted 12/29/2003 5:15 PM (GMT -6) | | I am not a Biblical scholar, but there are a few things that strike chords with me. One is that to separate a verse out of context can shade the meaning a lot. Sometimes the heart of God can get lost in the mix. Often there is a lot of history that goes on before you even get to the situation. As I read and study more, I see more connections and more of how the heart of God is not to have to destroy, but rather to save.
Often God would come to a situation and almost hope that He would not have to destroy a town or a city. Abraham interceded with God to find righteous men in the town to offset the destruction. Abraham asked God ultimately if he would not destroy the town if there were 10 righteous men in the town. Unfortunately there were not even ten righteous men.
In Luke Chapter 17, Jesus talks about Sodom in reference to the last days, in Luke 17:20 it says, "Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed."
If you look at much of what is going on in our culture today, there are many elements of Sodom and Gomorrah occuring now. Even today we go on with our everyday lives. Would that we would take warnings from the lessons of the Old Testiment.
In 2Peter 2:6"...and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly;"
God knew what He would find, He knew but also still would love men to repent as they did for Jonah in Nineva, when the town was spared. But these people in Sodom were too far gone to be saved from destruction.
Frankly I am glad God would want to take a closer look, that makes him a way more personal God.
One thing to keep in mind in the Old Testiment is that often years go by before God intervenes. He let the Israelites stay in Egypt for 400 years before sending them to conquer Canaan, again in the hopes that the people of Canaan would repent and change their ways.
My pastor once explained it this way, suppose you came into your kitchen and discovered a rat on your kitchen counter. You would not show the rat any mercy, not only would you kill the rat but you would look for the offspring and the other rats in the house and destroy them. If not, the rats could take over the house.
Often when it comes to sin and sinful behavior, God gives chances to repent, but if the people do not change, He must destroy them to protect others from the contamination. This is not God's desire, his desire was the perfect situation of the Garden of Eden, but humans turned the earth over to satan, and from there sin multiplied.
Fortunately we can count on God's mercy and grace if we repent and change our ways.
Regarding Abraham and Isaac, one thought to consider is that God knew Abraham's heart, but Abraham did not know. By having Abraham go through the motions, not realizing that there would be a good ending, Abraham learned that God would provide, he learned that He loved God more than even his son, He learned that he could trust God more than ever. Abaham is considered one of the heros of faith in the New Testiment. For us to know that we have faith, it has to be tested and sometimes the tests are very hard. I suspect I would not be able to do what Abraham did.
I hope this helps,
Heather | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/29/2003 5:59 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
If it helps you to overcome the initial shock of Pentecostals teaching OVism, maybe you may feel a little more comforted by the A/G's official position this:
http://www.agts.edu/faculty/faculty_publications/articles/railey_open-theism.pdf
Well, I THINK it's their official position. They seem to claim to be speaking for Arminians and Pentecostals as a whole.
Hi victoryword-
Yeah I've been all through Railey's article. We discussed it. It's kinda complicated (in my mind), but he does NOT claim to be representing anything other than his own personal view. He wasn't writing for the A/G. When I asked if, since there is no official view and since a 'con' article had been printed, I (or anyone) could write the 'pro' article in response to Railey's, I was told no.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/29/2003 6:04 PM (GMT -6) | | nofuture: It seems no one is totally confident in explaining how the Lord wanted to go to Sodom "to see if what He heard about it was true".
Tom: How confident is "totally confident"? I mean, I'm pretty confident in my view. It's based on the text. It makes sense. It jives with the context and other similar passages, etc.
I hope you're right too, John, about Pentecostals being more fitted for the open view. Pinnock seems to think so as well. I'm not holding my breathe, but I am hoping.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 12/29/2003 8:24 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by victoryword
I was almost afraid to mention Dake here as I know that he is taboo among many nonPentecostals. I did not want to begin a debate on the validity of his writings here.
I try to take the "chew the meat and spit out the bones" approach to just about any theologian or commentator. Dake's Bible has some things in it that I believe to be in error. However, on the whole I think he did a great job at being a self-taught theologian to the middle decades of the Pentecostal movement, when most Pentecostals viewed theologians with a lot of suspicion.
quote:
However, in light of nofuture's question, I could not resist. I remember reading Dake's view of omniscience and foreknowledge 11 years ago but I rejected it at the time. Only in the past two years have I begun to reconsider it due to studying Open Theism. Not sure though how much Dake's view of omniscience fits with OVs definition of omnicience that God knows all things past and present.
I would like to hear how Dake explains specific predictive prophecies in light of his views of omniscience. Until my copy of GPFM gets here, all I have to go on is my copy of his Annotated Bible. Any clues as to good places to look in his Bible for info about how predictive prophecy works in his understanding?
quote:
Dake was promoter of MGT so his views are are not surprising.
While there are some strong similarities between Dake's theology and Moral Government Theology, in view of the fact that Dake affirmed that all sinned in Adam (Original Sin) as well as the Penal Substitution theory of the Atonement, it would not be accurate to say he was a promotor of Moral Gov't Theology. The Augustinian Doctrine of Original Sin as well as the Penal Substition theory of the atonement are very emphatically denied by Moral Gov't Theology. Where it appears Dake agrees with MGT is in:
1. Real freedom from sin being the Christian's privilege and responsibility in Christ (that is, holiness is God's standard of living for his people).
2. Perseverance of the Saints conditioned upon actual continuance in holiness.
3. The Atonement is universal in potential application. (It seems Dake is inconsistent on the Atonement as far as I can tell. If the atonement was a Penal Substitution as well as universal in its application, then Universalism must necessarily follow, though of course, Dake did not believe in or teach Universalism.
4. Conditional Election.
5. Grace able to be resisted.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
| 33 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:45 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|