 |
| 
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 2/18/2002 6:12 AM (GMT -6) |   | In "Battle For God: Responding to the Challenge of Neotheism" Geisler/House make this statement:
The Effect On Hermeneutics
"The nature of hermeneutics is affected by this debate. The neotheist is unwilling to recognize the metaphorical expression in reference to God changing his mind or repenting or regretting. This leaves biblical interpretation in a hermeneutic quagmire. If such clearly analogical statements must be taken literally, are we able to consider anything as metaphorical ? What about statements that God walked in the garden of Eden, that he forgets our sins, or indications that he lacks present and past knowledge of events and persons. If the difference between analogical and literal language is abandoned, Bible interpretation regarding God in all of his attributes will move in dangerous directions."
I guess my problem is two fold: is Geisler wrong (it seems to me he is) when he assumes that certain verses are metaphor? I mean, why does he assume that certain passages are? Just because he believes God wouldn't do such a thing? Is it simply based on his view of God, rather than what the scripture says? In all metaphor, is there not a truth of some kind? And what would that be, in case of God changing his mind? How can it both be a metaphor and also be true to what it is expressing about God (the changing of his mind. The scripture is making a specific statement about God and the truth that is expressed must be, in some way, guided by the words used. The scripture says God changed his mind, so, in some way, the truth of the passage must reflect this).
Must passages about God doing certain things always be metaphor? Must they always be interpreted in this way and not that? And if they are interpreted as literal truth, does the Bible become nonsense when God is walking and forget and such?
I do not like that Geisler/House simply make an assumption about certain passages. It gives the impression that anyone who disagrees is simply clueless, and it seems to simply dismiss any real look at such passages. It gives a "Just listen to me, I know," attitude. On the other hand, I think they make a valid point that one does have to tread softly in these areas. Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 2/18/2002 5:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Geisler: The neotheist is unwilling to recognize the metaphorical expression in reference to God changing his mind or repenting or regretting. This leaves biblical interpretation in a hermeneutic quagmire. If such clearly analogical statements must be taken literally, are we able to consider anything as metaphorical ?
Doc: This is utter silliness. Amazing, remarkably, outstandingly, gloriously BAD reasoning.
a) circular. "If such clearly analogical statements must be taken literally..." Well, assuming they are CLEARLY ANALOGICAL... but THAT is the very point in dispute! WHY think God changing his mind is analogical?
b) Bad logic. The reasoning that if we admit that THESE verses are NOT metaphorical, then we can't take ANY verses as metaphorical. That's no different from arguing that if ANY verses ARE metaphorical, then we can't take any verses LITERAL.
The reality is that ever sane exegete takes SOME verses as literal and SOME verses a metaphorical. The issue of which and which is an exegetical, not philosophical, issue.
SO, I would ask Geisler and House, what EXEGETICAL considerations make verses about
God changing his mind "clearly metaphorical"?
Answer: NONE. The issue is driven by a PHILOSOPHICAL PRESUPPOSITION that it can't literally be so.
And WE are the ones accused of overriding biblical teaching with philosophical presuppositions. You gotta love the irony! 
Cheers
Greg
Edited by - GregBoyd on 02/18/2002 10:07:59 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
B. Winningham
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 2/19/2002 2:58 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
... is Geisler wrong (it seems to me he is) when he assumes that certain verses are metaphor?
One thing that irks me about some so-called Bible scholars is how some are quick to jump to conclusions about scripture. If the scripture under discussion agrees with their way of thinking or interpretation, they are quick to take it literally. They will say "the scripture clearly says ......... " and call it a Bible truth. OTOH, if the scripture does not agree with them, they are quick to say "Oh, that is only a methaphor and you can't go by that."
I was once discussing a Biblical issue with an evangelical minister. I pointed out a particular scripture. The minister's reply was "Oh, that scripture written by the Apostle Paul who was only a man so you cannot go by that."
Do some so-called Christians lie about the Bible? I think so because many will say that the entire Bible is the inerrant and infallible word of GOD yet some will argue that certain scriptures have no merit if they do not agree with their way of thinking. Certain Classical THeists have been doing this for years.
B. Winningham
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 2/19/2002 3:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Your point is excellent Doc. Way to sock it to 'em!
It seems to me (from this short exerpt) that Geisler and House are not taking the genre of the Biblical texts into consideration. From a traditional Christian perspective it is understood that some books and passages are meant to be historical accounts, while others are poetic, prophetic, apocalyptic, wisdom literature, etc. We expect to find metaphor in the Psalms (God is my rock), the Song of Songs, and other poetic and/or prophetic passages (the song of Miriam or Jeremiah's laments or perhaps the Creation account). But are they actually going to defend the idea that it is acceptable to intrepret classically "historical" passages of the Bible metaphorically, ie that in the midst of purely historical account the author suddenly shifted and began speaking metaphorically? I would be shocked if they would actually defend this. I assume they would attack such a notoriously "liberal" way of interpreting Scripture.
Note: I myself don't mind interpreting much the OT allegorically and metaphorically, but I think I'm the type that Geisler would disagree with vehemently! 
Hey...using their logic, it seems we could say that all reports of God's "emotions" or "feelings" in the OT are just metaphors too.
Pax,
Miss E
| | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 2/19/2002 5:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Geisler does believe that all emotions attributed to God are metaphors, since he believes (and attributes to classical theism) that nothing can hurt or act upon him. What is interesting is he also attributes to classical theology that God is timeless. There are many theologians today who are opposed to open theism who would not agree with that (William Lane Craig, for instance).
I am just starting his book (and I am mainly reading it in hopes that its better than his first book on open theism). After it I am going to read Frame's take on open theism. But I think Miss E's point is well taken. Classical theists will use the Psalms to make points on God's knowledge (when the Psalms are clearly a collection of poems...are we to take the parts of it literally that say God always rescues his followers?), yet ascribe metaphor to the historical books. Such ways of interpretation are clearly subjective. Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
B. Winningham
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 2/19/2002 5:40 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
(when the Psalms are clearly a collection of poems...are we to take the parts of it literally that say God always rescues his followers?)
Another good point! I think it is important for us who study the Bible to discren if the current scripture under discussion is referring to our physical life on earth -or- our spiritual life for eternity.
B. Winningham
| | Back to Top | | |
|
yankee551
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 2/27/2002 7:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Hello everyone,
I thought that I would add some of my thoughts to this thread. I do realize that I have voiced such thoughts as these in at least one other thread before. I would like to say that I do indeed believe that God did literally walk in the garden of Eden. If I deny God the capability of focusing his presence more in some places and less in others then I am guilty of upholding God's attribute of omnipresence to a level so high that I end up doing so at the expense of compromising God's other attribute of omnipotence. I also believe that God literally erases from his own memory our sins that we have repented for. If I deny God the capability of doing this then I am guilty of upholding God's attribute of omniscience to a level so high that I end up doing so at the expense of compromising God's other attribute of omnipotence. I also do not deny God the power to limit his knowledge of present and past events and persons. I believe that God limits his knowledge of present tense realities by voluntarily withdrawing or limiting the amount of omnipresence or all-seeingness he chooses to exercise whenever and wherever he chooses as in the case of Genesis 18:21 as was discussed in another thread. If I deny God the capability of doing this then I am guilty of exalting God's attribute of omniscience to a level so high that I end up doing so at the expense of compromising God's attribute of omnipotence. If I were to exalt God's attribute of omnipotence to a level so high that I even affirm that God is even capable of telling a lie when the scriptures declare he cannot, then I am guilty of exalting God's attribute of omnipotence to a level so high that I end up compromising God's other attribute of being absolutely holy and righteous. Again I will say that the only way that any of us can rightly understand any one of God's attributes is to understand it in light of what the scriptures declare concerning the rest of God's attributes. By the way, I wonder if there might be some others out there whose thoughts might bear some similarity to my own. Am I the only one who believes like I do? I will not say that I never appeal to anthropomorphism, but it does seem that I rarely do.
Sincerly,
Yankee
Dear Writerdad,
I reckon i'm guilty of everything Mr. Geisler spoke of.
Dear TGB,
Are you reading this thread? How have you been doing? I have not yet received any response from you yet since my last post on the Genesis 18 thread. I hope that doesn't mean I'm too dense to understand. I did however read the post that you wrote some time back that Greg Boyd reposted in the Genesis 18 thread. It was well written. I do have a question though. In that post you say, "Likewise, God goes down to Sodom not to know whether or not the information provided by the outcry was accurate or not (this WOULD involve God in ignorance of an existing reality), but rather to resolve the potential for better or worse with respect to the "will" of Sodom and Gomorrah's citizens.". I have to ask if God's knowledge of all present tense realities at the time of Sodom was exhaustive, then why was it necessary for God to "resolve the potential" seeing how his knowledge of all the present tense realities combined with his knowledge of the present tense status of the citizen's "wills" would have rendered any need to "resolve" pointless seeing that his exhaustive knowledge of all present and past tense realities would have made all "potentials" already known to him? If you are reading this feel free to respond. I would love to hear from you TGB. I would also love to hear from anyone else.
Sincerly,
Yankee
| | Back to Top | | |
|
yankee551
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 2/27/2002 8:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Hello everyone,
I would like to add to my previous post that although Geisler and other critics of the open view would surely consider the open view and my own views as beliefs that diminish God's greatness and bring God down to man's level, It is from my perspective that it is their beliefs that diminish God's greatness and bring God down to man's level. It would seem to me that their beliefs place more "cannots" on God then the open view and my own beliefs do. I wonder when the day will come when the critics of the open view will stop focusing so much attention on how the open view diminishes God's greatness (while ignoring those parts of their own theology that do the same thing) and focus instead on just simply refuting the open view with the scriptures. The classical view (especially when it is strongly calvinistic) has it's own dark side and double predestination whether by foreordination or foreknowledge is certainly a part of it. They will climb to the mountain tops to boldly proclaim the negative aspects of the open view to the people in the valley below, but have such precious little to say when it comes to such negative aspects of their own views such as Calvin's horrible decree. Just sweep them under the rug and pretend they don't exist. I suppose that if I wanted to prevent people from putting the open view to the acid test of the scriptures I would find ways of describing the God of the open view as lacking knowledge of certain things because he simply is too old and just not smart enough to know. Instead of describing the God of the open view as not controlling everything because he chooses not to control everything I would instead describe him as not controlling everything because either he isn't capable of it or because he isn't able to override our free wills. If I could do this then perhaps I could scare some people away from reading the writings of well known open theists. Is it just me or are there others who have sensed such tactics in some of the critics of the open view?
Sincerly,
Yankee
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/28/2002 10:59 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Yankee-
Check out the Gen. 18 thread. I responded to you there. Sorry it took so long. I thought we were finished over there!
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 3/1/2002 1:48 PM (GMT -6) | | When classical theists critise open theists, they do so mainly from an assumed position (that is they assume that their position is biblical and that there is only one way to interpret the verses that talk of God's knowledge). For instance, in Geisler's book The Battle For God, he spends maybe two pages on the texts that deal with God's foreknowledge, mainly asserting what he believes they say and never really quoting or breaking them down.
For instance, when Geisler does quote a full passage (Isaiah 48:3-7) in critises Doc's interpretation of it, the verse seems to read just as Doc (and Sanders) interpret it, that is that it is not talking about what God knows, but what God is going to do. Yet Geisler never even touchs on that aspect.
The book is mainly about what Geisler (and House, who co-wrote it) believe is worthy of God to be seem as, not what the scriptures say God is. I've slowed down in my reading of it because, since this is my four book critiquing open theism, I am beginning to realize there are not many new arguments out there against it. As such it is getting a little boring. Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 3/3/2002 11:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Writerdad: I am beginning to realize there are not many new arguments out there against it. As such it is getting a little boring.
Doc: Amen to that one. I'm beginning to realize that no matter what Open Theists say in response to their arguments, they just keep repeating them... and they keep repeating the same old caricatures of the view. (E.g. Bromley's article in CT).
I'm becoming a bit cynical. Are we really dialoguing, or is this more about politics. hmmm.
I don't have any interest in politics.
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 3/3/2002 6:50 PM (GMT -6) | | The CT article was sad...where does CT get these people?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
chance
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157
| Posted 3/4/2002 9:26 AM (GMT -6) | | CTMag is pathetic. The only time I read anything in there is when it has to do with the open view. CTMag and the ETS are two things I refuse to give any money to.
CTMag is more concerned with not upsetting those who are strongly opposed to the open view than those who are in favor of it. Otherwise, how could they print such garbage like Bromiley's article? Imagine if an open theist misrepresented the views of classical theism as badly as our views have been misrepresented by classical theists in CTMag. Imagine the response that would generate and the heat CTMag would take.
Sick of it all,
chance
A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:39 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 |
|
|