 |
| 
Robert Furney
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 1/27/2002 11:37 AM (GMT -6) |   | While I do not accept the Apocrypha as Scripture I believe it is a good source of Jewish thought about God and other things. Here is some interesting passages about two important things: Foreknowledge of the Future, Problem of Evil-God's Mercy. All verses come from the NRSV.
Foreknowledge of the Future
1. Sirach 39:19-20. The works of all are before him, and nothing can be hidden from his eyes. From the beginning to the end of time he can see everything.
2. Sirach 42:18. For the Most High knows all that may be known; he sees from of old the things that are to come. (Hebrew. While the Greek has for the last sentence: he sees the signs of the age.)
3. Sirach 23:30. Before the universe was created, it was known to him, and so it is since its completion.
4. Wisdom of Solomon 19:1-4. (Pertaining to the Exodus) ...for God knew in advance even their future actions. ...they (Egyptians) reached another foolish decision. For the fate they deserved drew them on to this end, and made them forget what had happened, in order that they might fill up the punishment that their torments still lacked.
The Problem of Evil-God's Mercy
1. Sirach 15:11-20 (in part). Do not say, "It was the Lord's doing that I fell away"; for he does not do what he hates. He has not commanded anyone to be wicked, and he has not given anyone permission to sin.
2. Wisdom of Solomon 12:10,11. (About Israel's enemies in the land) But judging them little by little you gave them an opportunity to repent, though you were not unaware that their origin (nature) was evil and their wickedness inborn, and that their way of thinking would never change. For they were an accursed race from the beginning.
3. Wisdom of Solomon 11:23,24. ...and you overlook people's sins, so that they may repent. For you love all things that exist, and detest none of the things that you have made, for you would not have made anything if you had hated it.
5. Wisdom of Solomon 12:16 and 20. ...and your sovereignty over all causes you to spare all. ...granting them time and opportunity to give up their wickedness.
What impact do these ideas have on Open Theism?
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/28/2002 2:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Robert-
Personally I'd like to look into this. Very interesting. Great fodder for an M.A. thesis!
I would think this would need to be included in Doc's upcoming "Myth of the Blueprint" where he'll attempt to argue that determinism (?) made its way into Christian thought via Greek philosophy. Shouldn't this stuff from the Apocrypha be included in a historical review of the issue?
Doc?
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 1/28/2002 3:33 AM (GMT -6) | | GREAT IDEA, Robert. I can't believe that this has never been considered before! If not that, then this is my first time ever hearing of such.
If we were to accept this, do you have any any idea how much this exacerbates things? LOL 
Oh, my goodness. I'm just going to put the MOST POIGNANT of the passages to illustrate something:
A Text DIRECTLY affirming exhaustive definite foreknowledge:
Sirach 23:18-21
The one who sins against his marriage bed says to himself, "Who can see me? Darkness surrounds me, the walls hide me, and no one sees me. Why should I worry? The Most High will not remember sins." His fear is confined to human eyes and he does not realize that the eyes of the Lord are ten thousand times brighter than the sun; they look upon every aspect of human behavior and see into hidden corners. Before the universe was created, it was known to him, and so it is since its completion. This man will be punished in the streets of the city, and where he least suspects it, he will be seized.
[Meph: I find this one to be key, because the context is about the commision of a sin. Looking at the Greek text, the author is exalting God's knowledge of the actual sin in light of the sinners attempts to hide it. It's like this:
"'The Lord won't remember sins'?? You IDIOT. Before this whole thing was created, God knew you were going to do this. And that knowledge hasn't changed since you've done it!
This is BLATENT assertion of God's foreknowledge of a "free willed" event in Sirach.]
A Text DIRECTLY affirming that free will:
Sirach 14:11-20 NRSV
Do not say, "It was the Lord's doing that I fell away"; for he does not do what he hates. Do not say, "It was he who led me astray"; for he has no need of the sinful. The Lord hates all abominations; such things are not loved by those who fear him.
It was he who created humankind in the beginning, and he left them in the power of their own free choice. If you choose, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice.
He has placed before you fire and water; stretch out your hand for whichever you choose. Before each person are life and death, and whichever one chooses will be given.
For great is the wisdom of the Lord; he is mighty in power and sees everything; his eyes are on those who fear him, and he knows every human action. He has not commanded anyone to be wicked, and he has not given anyone permission to sin.
[Meph: Here we not only have a BLATENT statement about free will, but he goes so far as to say that God DOESN'T GIVE people permission to sin. What in the world would we do with the Peter and Judas episodes that we've concluded MAY be instances of compatibilistic work, even in the open view context?? Uh oh]
Ok, now, theologians and philosophers. IF we were to accept this as somewhat going to our discussion, playtime's over. I think we all know by now that libertarian free will and exhaustive definite foreknowledge are UNRECONCILABLE. Doc's gone out of his way to prove that...and he has, in my opinion. The only way to reconcile the two is basically to just charge the whole thing up to mystery and accept the COMPATIBILIST position as being true, more or less. However, given the positions of Pinnock, Doc, and Sanders, I don't think they'd be willing to do this.
My opinion? I'm thinking this is the problem. Bottom line: these authors didn't think about the philosophical ramifications of these assertions. They were possibly just content to assert them WITHOUT really thinking them out. Just like some Pentecostals I know who will on one hand affirm definite exhuastive foreknowledge while at the SAME time affirming libertarian freedom of the will. Content to say that God knows all things down to the last molecule from the beginning to end of time...while at the SAME time saying that we are "genuinely" free and have a reciprocating relationship with God on his level. It's complete contradiction that's made into PARADOX by lack of thinking and the application of the "mystery card" I'm betting the Jewish minded authors had absolutely NO problem with this. But we do, now don't we? These writers didn't know about many things that we do...and we take that into consideration when we try to do our theologizing. But how do we work this? Completely incompatible paradigms being placed in the SAME BOOK supposedly by the same apparently JEWISH author.
It's times like these that I'm SOOOOO glad that I really don't care so much about the whole free will deal, with respect to the Christian faith. If I did, this may be really problematic for me. But since free will really doesn't matter to me, I guess I'm off the hook. I can go either way. Heck, I can even affirm the nonsensical mysterious affirmation of EDF AND libertarian free will, I suppose...JUST to get along with ministry. (But deep inside, I'd probably find the whole thing idiotically absurd)
What do YOU guys think? Doc?
Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.
Edited by - mephi2K on 01/28/2002 08:38:03 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 1/28/2002 7:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephi:
A Text DIRECTLY affirming exhaustive definite foreknowledge:
Sirach 23:18-21
The one who sins against his marriage bed says to himself, "Who can see me? Darkness surrounds me, the walls hide me, and no one sees me. Why should I worry? The Most High will not remember sins." His fear is confined to human eyes and he does not realize that the eyes of the Lord are ten thousand times brighter than the sun; they look upon every aspect of human behavior and see into hidden corners. Before the universe was created, it was known to him, and so it is since its completion. This man will be punished in the streets of the city, and where he least suspects it, he will be seized.
[Meph: I find this one to be key, because the context is about the commision of a sin. Looking at the Greek text, the author is exalting God's knowledge of the actual sin in light of the sinners attempts to hide it. It's like this:
"'The Lord won't remember sins'?? You IDIOT. Before this whole thing was created, God knew you were going to do this. And that knowledge hasn't changed since you've done it!
This is BLATENT assertion of God's foreknowledge of a "free willed" event in Sirach.]
Iconoclast:
Disagree. I don't read it that way at all. I think it is simply saying the obvious. God knew that creating LFW beings would result in sin. This is knowledge of the future in the aggregate. Just as I am quite confident that all the molecules in the room are never going to all go into the corner at the same time. This text has absolutely nothing to say about knowledge of the individual free choice. It is saying that God is not confused about us NOT being sinners - we are. It is also saying that you cannot escape the consequences of your actions by trying to hide them.
As to the bit about God doesn't give permission to sin. Well this seems to me to be a tautology. If God did give permission to sin then it wouldn't be sin. Is it a sin for the tiger to kill and eat a gazelle? In other words if God causes someone to sin they are not responsible and hence they didn't sin. Now, if you mismatch and say well look at Judas - how could God foreknow what Judas would do? I would simply answer: think about what happened to mankind before Noah. We went really, really bad. Bad, bad, bad. I would submit that this is our "unguided" state. Actually I think unguided is an overstatement - I think God was working pretty hard to keep us on the straight and narrow even then. My point is: it is just not hard for God to predict that one out of twelve would reject him. Especially when God was picking the twelve to begin with!!
On to the bit about Peter. I have no problem saying that God compatibilistically caused Peter to deny him three times. As such I would argue that this was not sin. The extent to which it is sin is of course the extent to which Peter was disposed to deny Christ - the extent to which he wasn't fully in unity with Christ - and isn't this; our lack of unity with God - our true sin? For God to force the issue and make it visible - visible to Peter so he could correct it - is in my opinion an act of outrageous mercy. It is NOT giving him permission to sin or causing wickedness.
But Mephi, what I am really confused about is how you can defend this notion of "power of volition" being a power of choice that is somehow compatible with determinism. You have given no concrete analogy of this. How can we be responsible for something that is determined? By the way - the only thing that comes to mind when you say this is that I can choose to be "at choice" after the fact. I can choose to love God or not but I am not really choosing anything else - I am just kind of along for the ride. Is this what you are saying?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"being weird is rarely a total waste of time" - Greg Boyd | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 1/28/2002 7:39 AM (GMT -6) | | How about before I say anything else on this, let's see what Doc has to say.  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Robert Furney
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 1/28/2002 7:55 AM (GMT -6) | | That may be a good idea about giving this to Mr. Boyd for his upcoming book. I wonder what he would think?
God does make an interesting statement in Deuteronomy 31:16 and 21. In the first God says he knows that the people will disobey him. In the second verse he tells us how he knows. In the NIV he does their disposition; in the NRSV he knows what they are inclined to do.
These verses are very important in revealing to us how God knows certain things. I don't think I have seen these verses in any open theist book, however.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 1/30/2002 12:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Robert. Interesting stuff. It’s five in the morning and I’ve been up since 3:00 (which is why I’ve finally had time to interact with the site) and so these comments are preliminary, uninformed, and tired. But, for what little they’re worth, here’s my initial response.
1. I have never studied or cared much about the Apocrypha. It seems I should start, for Robert is right: while this material doesn’t have canonical authority (for me anyway), it is historically significant. To enter into this discussion in any sort of informed way, one would have to study the original languages and historical contexts.
2. I don’t know the dating of these books, but I seem to recall Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon are usually dated around the 2nd century BC. From the Dead Sea Scrolls we learn that Hellenistic fatalism was making inroads into Jewish thought, at least in some circles, at this time. (The War Scrolls have an almost Manichean determinism in them). These apocryphal books are clearly not fatalistic, but it is conceivable that they were influenced by this strand of thought to the point at least of affirming the "block" view of the universe (viz. time is present as a block from an eternal perspective).
3. On my initial exposure, it seems to me that the easiest reading of the (translated) texts Robert provides suggest the authors assume exhaustive definite foreknowledge. But
a) I wonder if there are other sections of these work that suggest a partly open future, a point which (as with Scripture) may lead us to a different understanding of these passages. Iconoclasts' "openness" interpretation may be justified, especially if there are such other passages. (After all, openness advocates affirm that "God sees all" and even "knows the future perfectly." They simply affirm that part of what God sees and knows is possibilities.)
b) The whole context of the passages must be considered. This often changes things significantly. For example, taken out of context, Isa 44’s "declares the end from the beginning" seems to suggest EDF. Yet the context makes it clear (to me at least) that Isaiah only means to communicate that God is declaring HIS PLAN (to deliver the Israelites) before he brings it to pass.
4. If an open theist has to worry about these non-canonical text (if only because of their historical relevance), the Calvinist has to worry MORE. What powerful affirmations of a non-blueprint, freedom affirming, worldview!
Wish I had more to offer, but that’s it for right now.
Thanks Robert and all for yet another intriguing thing to occupy my small and already over-filled brains.
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
Robert Furney
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 1/31/2002 6:26 AM (GMT -6) | | I am broadening this search into Jewish sources (at a local synagogue) to see if any Jewish scholars have believed in openness.
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:47 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 |
|
|