 |
| 
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 4/18/2002 2:05 AM (GMT -6) |   | Just FYI, here’s a few passages that someone brought to my attention which support the open view of the future, but which I don’t recall having discussed before.
Judg. 10:13-17 Yet you have abandoned me and worshiped other gods; therefore I will deliver you no more. Go and cry to the gods whom you have chosen; let them deliver you in the time of your distress." And the Israelites said to the LORD, "We have sinned; do to us whatever seems good to you; but deliver us this day!" So they put away the foreign gods from among them and worshiped the LORD; and he could no longer bear to see Israel suffer.
*** After telling the Israelites "I will deliver you no more" the Lord changes his mind because "he could no longer bear to see Israel suffer."
2Sam. 7:10-11 And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may live in their own place, and be disturbed no more; and evildoers shall afflict them no more, as formerly, from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel; and I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover the LORD declares to you that the LORD will make you a house.
*** It doesn’t come to pass.
And here's my favorite of the three:
Is. 63:8-10 For he said (or "thought") "Surely they are my people,
children who will not deal falsely";
and he became their savior
¶ But they rebelled
and grieved his holy spirit;
therefore he became their enemy;
he himself fought against them.
*** The Lord here says (or thinks) about something that doesn’t come to pass (as in Isa 5:1-5 and Jere 3:6-9; 19-20)). If the Lord foreknows (let alone predestines) all that comes to pass, the verse can't be communicating truth when it tells us the Lord thought "surely the will" when they DIDN'T!
Think about it.
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/18/2002 11:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc, this is what I don't get.
The tradition in the Openness debate is to cite scripture -- done by both sides -- as if a tape recorder were held up to God's lips.
Along that line, this is a quote from Tom -- which seems to be saying the same thing (Am I right?): "The old Documentary Hypothesis is out. Has been for a while. I’m surprised people still talk about it."
You will have guessed that readon a book by Tarazi is behind this. But it also struck me years now ago on the bgc.org debate.
Thanks.
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 4/19/2002 5:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi PoW,
I'm detecting a pattern.
PotOnWheel writes:quote:
The tradition in the Openness debate is to cite scripture -- done by both sides -- as if a tape recorder were held up to God's lips.
I have a couple questions. Do you hold a view variant from the verbal plenary inspiration of scripture? Do you believe the writers of scripture were not able to sufficiently recall and accurately/precisely record the Lord's revelation to them?
Efcharisto polu'
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 4/19/2002 5:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Doc,
It appears that your presuppositions drive you to immediately invoke a wooden/literalistic interpretation of anthropopatheic/anthropomorphic passages. It seems that it is unacceptable to you that God would predetermine His own actions (reactions, anthropopatheically depicted) to the predetermined actions of the Israelites. When you say the Lord changes His mind, the Bible is actually describing His mercy toward His people. When you say "it doesn't come to pass," you seem to make an assumption based on limited perception and the presupposition (apparently) that God is finished with Elect Israel. When you say the Lord thought something that wasn't true or didn't come to pass, the Bible is describing God as chiding His people for dealing falsely with their God. We, as parents, might do the same thing to shame or scold our children: "But I thought to myself, surely my own daughter, the one whom I love and care for and protect and clothe and feed, would never say such an awful thing about her own father. But you said it, didn't you?" By forcing a literalist misunderstanding, the message embedded in the anthropopatheic emphases is missed and the true force of the language and context is lost.
'Antio,
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 4/19/2002 9:38 PM (GMT -6) | |
Hilston: It appears that your presuppositions drive you to immediately invoke a wooden/literalistic interpretation of anthropopatheic/anthropomorphic passages. It seems that it is unacceptable to you that God would predetermine His own actions (reactions, anthropopatheically depicted) to the predetermined actions of the Israelites.
Doc: Its' not so much "unacceptable" as it is I don't see this in the text. I admit it doesn't seem natural to see God as predetermining his negative reactions to predetermined Israelites behavior which he disapproves of. Is it really just my presuppositions that are driving this sense of unnaturalness?
Hilston: When you say the Lord changes His mind, the Bible is actually describing His mercy toward His people.
Doc: What is the Bible "actually describing" when it says God intends to do one thing and then changes his mind (e.g. Ex.32:10-14)?
Hilston: When you say "it doesn't come to pass," you seem to make an assumption based on limited perception and the presupposition (apparently) that God is finished with Elect Israel.
Doc: You're willing to wager the credibility of your system on the future fulfillment of all unfulfilled prophecy?
Hilston: When you say the Lord thought something that wasn't true or didn't come to pass, the Bible is describing God as chiding His people for dealing falsely with their God. We, as parents, might do the same thing to shame or scold our children: "But I thought to myself, surely my own daughter, the one whom I love and care for and protect and clothe and feed, would never say such an awful thing about her own father. But you said it, didn't you?"
Doc: Would a parent say this if they knew (or predetermined!) with certainty the child would never do what they "thought"?
Hilston: By forcing a literalist misunderstanding, the message embedded in the anthropopatheic emphases is missed and the true force of the language and context is lost.
Doc: Well, I have to grant that the message is certainly "embedded," if you're interpretation is the correct one. So deeply, I'm afraid, that I tend to miss the "true force of the language."
I'm afraid I need some help here Hilston.
When the Lord tells us he intends one thing, but then changes his mind, the true meaning is not that he intended one thing but then changed his mind. This interpretation, I take it, is forced by my wood/literalistic presupposition. Rather, the true meaning is embedded, and it really means the Lord has mercy. He didn't really intend to destroy Israel, for example. He said this, but it really signifies...? His mercy? I simply don't see where its "embedded."
And when God says "surely his people" will do one thing, but they do another, and he's disappointed, the "true meaning" isn't that God really thought one thing, while another thing happened. No, the true meaning is that God was just chiding his people? (Is this your interpreation of Jere. 3:7-9, 19-20 as well, as well as Isa 5:1-5)?
Another question: When God has Ezekiel carry out a prophetic drama, telling him "perhaps the people will understand" (Ezek 12:3) and they don't... is it the result of a wooden/literalistic presupposition to think that the Lord really thought the people would "perhaps" understand, even though they didn't? "IN truth," he really knew -- or predetermined -- that they wouldn't understand, even though he told Ezekiel they MIGHT understand. So the "embedded" meaning of telling Ezekiel they might understand is....?
In my wooden/literalistic understanding, God lied if he knew (let alone predetermined) the people certainly wouldn't understand, but nevertheless told Ezekiel that "perhaps" they WOULD understand. Help me out here.
Thanks
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/19/2002 11:02 PM (GMT -6) | | James-
Gonna post this and THEN read Doc's response to ya. If I repeat anything he says, sorry. You addressed yourself to Doc. I hope he won’t mind my jumping in.quote:
Hi Doc,
It appears that your presuppositions drive you to immediately invoke a wooden/literalistic interpretation of anthropopatheic/anthropomorphic passages.
This is a sword that cuts both ways, James. I could as easily claim that it’s YOUR presuppositions that drive you to immediately invoke an anthropomorphic interpretation of what is intended to be taken literally. So, apart from presuppositions, HOW do you know these texts are meant to be taken as other than literal? Just wondering how one DOES one’s interpretation at this level.quote:
It seems that it is unacceptable to you that God would predetermine His own actions (reactions, anthropopatheically depicted) to the predetermined actions of the Israelites.
It doesn’t seem to me at all unacceptable that God would predetermine his own actions. But neither does it seem unacceptable to me that God would not predetermine all his actions. What seems unacceptable to you, so it seems, is that God would decide to create a world in which he does BOTH. As for whether or not all OUR actions are predetermined, it seems to me perfectly acceptable that God is capable of having predetermined all our actions as you suggest. But it also seems to me perfectly acceptable that God is capable of having not gone this route (something I’m guessing you presume is quite unacceptable). The question is, can we tell from the Bible which route God in fact took? If he took the partly determined/partly open route, would the Bible look any different than it does now?quote:
When you say the Lord thought something that wasn't true or didn't come to pass, the Bible is describing God as chiding His people for dealing falsely with their God. We, as parents, might do the same thing to shame or scold our children: "But I thought to myself, surely my own daughter, the one whom I love and care for and protect and clothe and feed, would never say such an awful thing about her own father. But you said it, didn't you?"
Are you sure you want to use this analgoy to argue God DOESN'T experience unfulfilled expectations? I ask becasue your analgoy describes exactly how I read these passages. What I would NOT do is say to my daughter “I thought to myself surely you would never say such an awful thing,” if it was also true that I either a) predetermined her to say it or b) knew that she certainly would say it. If either of these was true then my comment to her would be disingenuous at best, a lie at worst. Thanks for the analogy!
Tom 
Edited by - TGB on 04/20/2002 04:33:14 AM
Edited by - TGB on 04/20/2002 04:35:06 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 4/20/2002 8:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Doc,
Thanks for your reply and for your provocative questions.
Hilston wrote: It appears that your presuppositions drive you to immediately invoke a wooden/literalistic interpretation of anthropopatheic/anthropomorphic passages. It seems that it is unacceptable to you that God would predetermine His own actions (reactions, anthropopatheically depicted) to the predetermined actions of the Israelites.
Doc writes: quote:
Its' not so much "unacceptable" as it is I don't see this in the text.
I suspect that you have an apriori commitment to what is acceptable and it affects the way you interpret the text.
Doc writes: quote:
I admit it doesn't seem natural to see God as predetermining his negative reactions to predetermined Israelites behavior which he disapproves of.
Of course, it doesn't seem natural. Nothing in nature has that ability or the characteristics, nature and attributes that God has. It is, in fact, SUPERnatural.
Doc writes: quote:
Is it really just my presuppositions that are driving this sense of unnaturalness?
Yes. For those whose presuppositions acknowledge and accommodate the logical necessities of God's infinitude and forekknowledge, the "unnaturalness" is not a problem. God is not "natural," by human terms and perception.
Hilston writes: When you say the Lord changes His mind, the Bible is actually describing His mercy toward His people.
Doc writes: quote:
What is the Bible "actually describing" when it says God intends to do one thing and then changes his mind (e.g. Ex.32:10-14)?
It describes His mercy, His affectin for His People. In Ex 32, it describes not only His mercy and affection, but also serves to affirm the authority He has given Moses.
Hilston writes: When you say "it doesn't come to pass," you seem to make an assumption based on limited perception and the presupposition (apparently) that God is finished with Elect Israel.
Doc writes: quote:
You're willing to wager the credibility of your system on the future fulfillment of all unfulfilled prophecy?
Of course. What is remarkable is that you seem eager to denigrate the credibility of the scriptures and God Himself by suggesting such failures by God and His Word.
Hilston writes: When you say the Lord thought something that wasn't true or didn't come to pass, the Bible is describing God as chiding His people for dealing falsely with their God. We, as parents, might do the same thing to shame or scold our children: "But I thought to myself, surely my own daughter, the one whom I love and care for and protect and clothe and feed, would never say such an awful thing about her own father. But you said it, didn't you?"
Doc writes: quote:
Would a parent say this if they knew (or predetermined!) with certainty the child would never do what they "thought"?
Yes, that's my point, and precisely the emphatic force of the figure. Did Jesus know that the Samaritan woman in John 4:16-18 was shacking up with a guy who wasn't her husband? Why then did He ask her to go get her husband? Doesn't seem natural does it? Because it's NOT natural. It's SUPERnatural.
Hilston writes: By forcing a literalist misunderstanding, the message embedded in the anthropopatheic emphases is missed and the true force of the language and context is lost.
Doc writes: quote:
Well, I have to grant that the message is certainly "embedded," if you're interpretation is the correct one. So deeply, I'm afraid, that I tend to miss the "true force of the language."
Don't assume that "embedded" is meant to mean incomprehensible or difficult to grasp. When Jesus says, "You are the salt of the earth," there is a figure embedded there, but it's not difficult to grasp.
Doc writes: quote:
When the Lord tells us he intends one thing, but then changes his mind, the true meaning is not that he intended one thing but then changed his mind.
Right. Just as, when Jesus says "Go get your husband," He doesn't really mean that the Samaritan woman should go get her husband.
Doc writes:quote:
This interpretation, I take it, is forced by my wood/literalistic presupposition. Rather, the true meaning is embedded, and it really means the Lord has mercy. He didn't really intend to destroy Israel, for example.
Right. Just as Jesus didn't really intend to meet the Samaritan woman's husband.
Doc writes:quote:
He said this, but it really signifies...? His mercy? I simply don't see where its "embedded."
God showed his mercy and affection for Israel. They turned to Him from idols, so He was merciful toward them. Just as Jesus mercifully and graciously revealed Himself as Messiah to the Samaritan woman (which He wouldn't do for others, by the way), despite her illicit relationship.
Doc writes:quote:
And when God says "surely his people" will do one thing, but they do another, and he's disappointed, ...
Disappointed? This suggests that God had a certain expectation which went unfulfilled. Was Jesus disappointed that the Samaritan woman had a man who was not her husband?
Doc writes:quote:
... the "true meaning" isn't that God really thought one thing, while another thing happened. No, the true meaning is that God was just chiding his people?
Your use of "just" suggests God was "merely" chiding them. No, it was a grave matter; indeed, so grave that He used very emphatic linguistic figures in order to express it (called "anthropopatheia").
Doc writes:quote:
(Is this your interpreation of Jere. 3:7-9, 19-20 as well, as well as Isa 5:1-5)?
Jer. 3:7-9 uses figurative language to describe the idolatry of Israel and Judah.
Jer. 3:19,20 describes both the then-present condition of Israel and Judah and their future state following the consummation of the elect nation. 3:18 is precisely what Jesus prays for in Jn 17, the unity of the Nation of Israel.
Isa 5:1-5. Yes. Your question is answered in the opening verses of the prophet: quote:
Isa 1: 4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward. 5 Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. 6 From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment. 7 Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers. 8 And the daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city. 9 Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.
Doc writes:quote:
Another question: When God has Ezekiel carry out a prophetic drama, telling him "perhaps the people will understand" (Ezek 12:3) and they don't... is it the result of a wooden/literalistic presupposition to think that the Lord really thought the people would "perhaps" understand, even though they didn't?
Yes. God knew what they, as a nation, would do. He also knew that there were individuals within the nation who would respond favorably to the presentation. The Lord is wont to preserve a remnant, as we saw in Isa 5:9 above. Further, the prophetic "drama" was done in the sight of Israel. It served its purpose through the prophet.
Doc writes:quote:
"IN truth," he really knew -- or predetermined -- that they wouldn't understand, even though he told Ezekiel they MIGHT understand. So the "embedded" meaning of telling Ezekiel they might understand is....?
That He is being merciful to Israel, for whom He has great affection, and no doubt there are some who will respond to Ezekiel's analogy. The Lord might have just let them wallow in their rebellion, but instead He sends them another prophet. This all screams of God's mercy, and the figure makes the Lord's affection for Israel all the more emphatic.
Doc writes:quote:
In my wooden/literalistic understanding, God lied if he knew (let alone predetermined) the people certainly wouldn't understand, but nevertheless told Ezekiel that "perhaps" they WOULD understand. Help me out here.
See what I mean? You recognize the problem, but rather than acknowledge that God really is God and has all the attributes we would expect of God, thus denoting strong emphatic figurative language in the passages you cite, you rather assume that God is somehow less than God and is simply a bad guesser.
Thanks for your questions.
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org
Edited by - Hilston on 04/21/2002 01:43:38 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 4/20/2002 8:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Tom,
Thanks for posting. You raise some very good questions and relevant issues. My replies are interspersed below:
Hilston wrote: It appears that your presuppositions drive you to immediately invoke a wooden/literalistic interpretation of anthropopatheic/anthropomorphic passages.
Tom writes:quote:
This is a sword that cuts both ways, James.
Excellent observation. That's exactly right. That's why a debate about particular passages of scripture is nearly futile in this controversy (I stop short of saying absolutely futile). So the question pertains more to whose presuppositions are correct and whose are erroneous. What, in your opinion, would be the best way to ascertain whose presuppositions are correct?
Tom writes:quote:
I could as easily claim that it’s YOUR presuppositions that drive you to immediately invoke an anthropomorphic interpretation of what is intended to be taken literally.
I fully agree. So where do we go from here? We have to evaluate presuppositions, don't we?
Tom writes:quote:
So, apart from presuppositions, HOW do you know these texts are meant to be taken as other than literal? Just wondering how one DOES one’s interpretation at this level.
It's a good question, Tom. Critically important, I'd say. When Jesus says, "I am the door," is there any question in your mind as to whether or not that is intended as literal or figurative? How do you know which way to take it?
Hilston wrote: It seems that it is unacceptable to you that God would predetermine His own actions (reactions, anthropopatheically depicted) to the predetermined actions of the Israelites.
Tom writes:quote:
It doesn’t seem to me at all unacceptable that God would predetermine his own actions. But neither does it seem unacceptable to me that God would not predetermine all his actions.
Did you deliberately leave out "all" [his own actions] in your first sentence?
Tom writes:quote:
What seems unacceptable to you, so it seems, is that God would decide to create a world in which he does BOTH.
Do you accept the concept of a black-white ball-cube? Or a square triangle? Or a rock too big for God to lift? Are any of those concepts acceptable under any circumstances?
Tom writes:quote:
As for whether or not all OUR actions are predetermined, it seems to me perfectly acceptable that God is capable of having predetermined all our actions as you suggest. But it also seems to me perfectly acceptable that God is capable of having not gone this route (something I’m guessing you presume is quite unacceptable).
2 +2 = 5 is unacceptable. A true contradiction is unacceptable. The idea of God being surprised by His creation because He doesn't know what His creatures are going to do is incoherent, and therefore, unacceptable.
Tom writes:quote:
The question is, can we tell from the Bible which route God in fact took? If he took the partly determined/partly open route, would the Bible look any different than it does now?
It is an incongruity. You might as well say, "If He decided to create a rock too big to lift, would creation look any different?" It's a heretical hypothetical. It an inconceivable incoherency. I know many OV-ists claim that it is NOT inconceivable. I think that is because they have not adequately reflected on the nature of God as revealed in the scriptures, the logical necessities that attend His nature, all compounded by a rebellious determination to create a god in one's own image.
Hilston wrote: When you say the Lord thought something that wasn't true or didn't come to pass, the Bible is describing God as chiding His people for dealing falsely with their God. We, as parents, might do the same thing to shame or scold our children: "But I thought to myself, surely my own daughter, the one whom I love and care for and protect and clothe and feed, would never say such an awful thing about her own father. But you said it, didn't you?"
Tom writes:quote:
Are you sure you want to use this analgoy to argue God DOESN'T experience unfulfilled expectations? I ask becasue your analgoy describes exactly how I read these passages. What I would NOT do is say to my daughter “I thought to myself surely you would never say such an awful thing,” if it was also true that I either a) predetermined her to say it or b) knew that she certainly would say it. If either of these was true then my comment to her would be disingenuous at best, a lie at worst. Thanks for the analogy!
Like most open theists, you've totally missed the figure. It's amazing, really. Not only do your presuppositions preclude your ability to recognize and correctly interpret a biblical figure, you seem incapable of recognizing one in mundane scenarios. It's amazing. Now get this: Even if I had predetermined her to say it and knew for certain that she would say it, the chide serves its purpose. I offer you the same scriptural example I gave to Greg Boyd above: Did Jesus know that the Samaritan woman in John 4:16-18 was shacking up with a guy who wasn't her husband? Why then did He ask her to go get her husband? Was He being disingenuous or lying?
Thanks for your comments and questions.
Efcharisto polu',
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org
Edited by - Hilston on 04/21/2002 01:49:50 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/21/2002 10:21 AM (GMT -6) | | James-
I appreciate your response and the time you took to give it. I first want to affirm my appreciation for you as a brother in Christ.
I want also to confess that when you speak of the “rebellious determination” and “heretical hypothetical” of open theists it brings dialogue pretty much to an end for me. You’re obviously passionate about this issue. I may be misreading you, but such phrases make it really difficult for me to interact.
Keep an open heart and mind brother.
Bless you bro!
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 4/21/2002 11:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Tom,
You write:quote:
I want also to confess that when you speak of the “rebellious determination” and “heretical hypothetical” of open theists it brings dialogue pretty much to an end for me.
That's too bad. You had some really good questions and raised excellent points of discussion. I'm sure I'm not the only one disappointed. There are lots of people following this thread who were probably eager to hear your responses to my questions. I hope you reconsider -- and that you will also recognize that the terms with which you take issue are not directed at you personally. I myself ask "heretical hypotheticals" all the time. These are healthy questions, but not always coherent. It helps us to sort out truths from errors. As to "rebellious determination," I am speaking from my experience with other OV-ists. You may be different, as the quality of your questions seem to indicate. You should try not to be so thin-skinned.
You write: quote:
You’re obviously passionate about this issue.
That's a good thing. I prefer to discuss such important matters with people who have a passion for their beliefs.
You write:quote:
I may be misreading you, but such phrases make it really difficult for me to interact.
That's too bad. You might benefit from reading the debates of the 16th century. They were much more abrasive and accusatory than you might expect. Most debates I see these days are quite mild compared those, and those debates covered vast areas of theology resulting in some of the most influential writings in the history of christendom.
'Antio,
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 4/21/2002 7:55 PM (GMT -6) | | [Hilston: Doc writes: In my wooden/literalistic understanding, God lied if he knew (let alone predetermined) the people certainly wouldn't understand, but nevertheless told Ezekiel that "perhaps" they WOULD understand. Help me out here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To which Hilston replies: See what I mean? You recognize the problem, but rather than acknowledge that God really is God and has all the attributes we would expect of God, thus denoting strong emphatic figurative language in the passages you cite, you rather assume that God is somehow less than God and is simply a bad guesser.
To which Doc replies
A) Sorry bro. I don’t recognize "the problem." The "problem" is only a "problem" in your figurative interpretation. The problem doesn’t arise if we just let the text say what it says. If God says "perhaps," and he knows there IS a "perhaps," he’s telling the truth. He’s only lying if he says "perhaps" when he has predestined there IS NO "perhaps."
B) When you speak of the attributes of God "we would expect of God" you betray your own presuppositions. Obviously others (e.g. moi) DON’T "expect" these.
C) It’s ascribing to God the attributes "YOU expect" that alone "denotes strong emphatic figurative language." Without these there is no "denoting" to figurative language. Grammatically, text is quite straightforward.
D) Though it may look like it from inside your system, I don’t assume that God is "somehow less than God and is simply a bad guesser." Read my "infinite intelligence" piece in the Open Theism section of this web site if your interested in finding why I argue God doesn’t loose any sovereign power in knowing possibilities rather than certainties.
Hilston: 2 +2 = 5 is unacceptable. A true contradiction is unacceptable. The idea of God being surprised by His creation because He doesn't know what His creatures are going to do is incoherent, and therefore, unacceptable.
Doc: Are you sure about this Hilston? ANY possibility you got this wrong? You’re saying God by definition knows (or predetermines) the future exhaustively, like 2+2=4. God couldn’t create a future that was partly open if he wanted to, because it’s a logical contradiction. You certain about this?
Tom writes: The question is, can we tell from the Bible which route God in fact took? If he took the partly determined/partly open route, would the Bible look any different than it does now?
Hilston responds: It is an incongruity. You might as well say, "If He decided to create a rock too big to lift, would creation look any different?" It's a heretical hypothetical. It an inconceivable incoherency. I know many OV-ists claim that it is NOT inconceivable. I think that is because they have not adequately reflected on the nature of God as revealed in the scriptures, the logical necessities that attend His nature, all compounded by a rebellious determination to create a god in one's own image.
Doc: You sure you’re right about this Hilston? Any possibility your understanding is off? You’re claiming that Open theists are what they are because a) of an inadequate reflection on scripture, b) an inadequate reflection on "the logical necessities that attend His nature," and c) "a rebellious determination to create a god in one’s own image"? You must be pretty read-up on Overs and even know their hearts pretty well to stand behind that claim. 
TGB to Hilston/ I may be misreading you, but such phrases make it really difficult for me to interact….
Hilston to TGB: That's too bad. You might benefit from reading the debates of the 16th century. They were much more abrasive and accusatory than you might expect…. You should try not to be so thin-skinned.
Doc to Hilston : Brother, let me help you out, if I may. A standard rule of social discourse is for a speaker or writer to take responsibility for the impact you’re words have on those you are trying to dialoguing with. If you want genuine dialogue with somebody, and what you say offends them, its good to apologize and say you’ll try to avoid such things in the future. Saying "that’s too bad," appealing to 16th century debates (when they still burned people alive for heresy), and encouraging someone to "not …be so thin-skinned" isn’t likely to foster more helpful dialogue.
It’s okay to be wrong Hilston. Sooner or later, we all are. It's a pretty human thing.  Just trying to help with the exchange James.
Final Set of Questions
Ezek. 12:3 Perhaps they will understand, though they are a rebellious house.
--- Hilston, ANY chance at all in your mind that God MIGHT have actually meant "perhaps", as in "they may" or "may not"? Could you be wrong in thinking God predestined them NOT to understand, even while promising Ezekiel they might understand?
Ex. 13:17 for God thought, "If the people face war, they may change their minds and return to Egypt."
--- ANY chance, Hilston, that God really thought "if… they may.." ? (If you're write that God BY DEFINITION knows the future with exhaustive definiteness, isn't God entertaining a logical contradiction here?)
Matt. 26:39 "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want."
-- Is there any possibility in your mind, Hilston, that Jesus might have genuinely thought it MIGHT be possible to change the plan in the 11th hour?
Ex. 4:1 Then Moses answered, "But suppose they do not believe me or listen to me, but say, ‘The LORD did not appear to you.’"
-- the Lord had JUST TOLD MOSES the Elders WOULD believe. Any chance Moses was an Open Theist? 
Ex. 4:8-9 "If they will not believe you or heed the first sign, they may believe the second sign. If they will not believe even these two signs or heed you, you shall take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground; and the water that you shall take from the Nile will become blood on the dry ground."
-- Any remote chance, Hilston, that God really thinks of the future in terms of what people may or may not do… If they will not… they may…? Are you absolutely certain this can’t be?
Just curious.
Blessings to you
Greg
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul
Edited by - GregBoyd on 04/22/2002 01:03:13 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 4/21/2002 9:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Greg,
Thanks for your replies. See my rejoinder below:
You write: quote:
If God says "perhaps," and he knows there IS a "perhaps," he’s telling the truth. He’s only lying if he says "perhaps" when he has predestined there IS NO "perhaps."
Not if it's intended as an idiomatic expression. It is a powerful figure for the infinite God to say "perhaps," and the original audience would have understood it. We often allow our 20th century thinking, our insufficient/inadeqate English grammar and/or our cultural centrism to cloud the actual intent of the scripture.
Greg writes:quote:
B) When you speak of the attributes of God "we would expect of God" you betray your own presuppositions. Obviously others (e.g. moi) DON’T "expect" these.
I know you won't like this, but I'm claiming that you DO expect these attributes, but you've pertinaciously suppressed those expectations in favor of your theological predilection. You know the attributes of God innately, just as all men do, but you deny or distort some of them. That is why we need to examine and compare presuppositions, which we both have, and see which ones can stand the test of coherency.
Greg writes:quote:
C) It’s ascribing to God the attributes "YOU expect" that alone "denotes strong emphatic figurative language." Without these there is no "denoting" to figurative language. Grammatically, text is quite straightforward.
It's a straightforward figure, and as I perceive the OV doctrine thus far, it is missed by a concerted effort to strip God of His intrinsic attributes.
Greg writes:quote:
D) Though it may look like it from inside your system, I don’t assume that God is "somehow less than God and is simply a bad guesser."
But by your system, He is. I mean, when I read the accounts of Israel's rebellion, over and over again, it gets to the point where NO ONE should be surprised when they rebel yet again. So why does God express Himself as if He is surprised? By your system, one would be compelled to say, "Sheesh, Lord, even I saw that coming! Why are you so surprised at that?"
Greg writes:quote:
Read my "infinite intelligence" piece in the Open Theism section of this web site if your interested in finding why I argue God doesn’t loose any sovereign power in knowing possibilities rather than certainties.
Here are my comments regarding that article:
In your article re: "Divine Control and Libertarian Freedom", you write:quote:
... We are talking about God’s ability to perfectly anticipate and plan an ideal response for every decision every free agent might ever make. ...
Doesn't the idea of a "divine ability" to "perfectly anticipate and plan" fly in the face of the notion of God being "surprised"?
Greg writes:quote:
We are, in short, talking about God’s ability to ensure that his objectives for world history will be maximally realized, given that agents possess libertarian freedom.
But you yourself claim that God's objective (i.e. prophecies) have failed.
Re: The Infinite Intelligence of God, Greg writes:quote:
We must consider the implications of ascribing to God infinite intelligence, something all orthodox Christians assume to be true. Simply put, all orthodox Christians believe there is no limit to God’s intelligence.
Greg, how are you defining intelligence here? As "information", as in "the CIA gathers intelligence," or do you mean ability to learn (Webster's) or do you mean capacity for knowledge or do you mean actually held knowledge? It seems like your definition, at least by the following context, is all over the place:
Greg continues:quote:
Now, we humans are more confident when we only have to prepare for one forthcoming event than we are when we have to prepare for a multitude of possible forthcoming events because we possess finite intelligence. Our intelligence gets spread thin the greater the number of possibilities we must confront. Hence our ability and confidence to respond ideally to a possible future event is lessened in proportion to the number of alternative possibilities we have to consider alongside this event.
Greg writes:quote:
... Hence, God can be as perfectly anticipate and be prepared for any possible future event as he is for any certain future event.
Yet, according to your thesis, God still gets surprised. Throw me a bone, Greg. :)
Greg writes:quote:
In other words, for a God of infinite intelligence, there is no distinction that can be made between possibilities and certainties in terms of providential advantage. Any view that denies this thereby concedes that it doesn’t presuppose that God is infinitely intelligent.
This is question-begging, Greg. You assume in advance what you're trying to prove. If, indeed, there are no "possibilities" -- only decreed certainties -- in the divine intelligence, then God's intelligence is indeed infinite.
Greg writes:quote:
Clearly, the criticism that God must worry and can only guess at what the future will bring if the future includes might-counterfactuals is predicated on a limited, anthropomorphic view of God.
Even if I were to grant that God takes all "possible outcomes" into consideration, the way you interpret the passages above indicate that God is still a bad guesser when it comes to which "possible outcome" He gives the more consideration.
Hilston had written: 2 +2 = 5 is unacceptable. A true contradiction is unacceptable. The idea of God being surprised by His creation because He doesn't know what His creatures are going to do is incoherent, and therefore, unacceptable.
Greg writes:quote:
Are you sure about this Hilston? ANY possibility you got this wrong? You’re saying God by definition knows (or predetermines) the future exhaustively, like 2+2=4. God couldn’t create a future that was partly open if he wanted to, because it’s a logical contradiction. You certain about this?
How can it be otherwise? How could God guarantee the outcome of a single event with the precision and accuracy depicted in scripture without knowing exhaustively every thought, inclination and decision, as well as the trajectory and mass of every electron, and the velocity and position of every discrete quantum particle in the universe at any and every given moment in the past, present and future? It seems to me that a god who is surprised by Israel's rebellion isn't going to fare too well when it comes to making other more detailed kinds of predictions.
Tom had written:The question is, can we tell from the Bible which route God in fact took? If he took the partly determined/partly open route, would the Bible look any different than it does now?
Hilston responded: It is an incongruity. You might as well say, "If He decided to create a rock too big to lift, would creation look any different?" It's a heretical hypothetical. It an inconceivable incoherency. I know many OV-ists claim that it is NOT inconceivable. I think that is because they have not adequately reflected on the nature of God as revealed in the scriptures, the logical necessities that attend His nature, all compounded by a rebellious determination to create a god in one's own image.
Greg writes:quote:
You’re claiming that Open theists are what they are because a) of an inadequate reflection on scripture, b) an inadequate reflection on "the logical necessities that attend His nature," and c) "a rebellious determination to create a god in one’s own image"? You must be pretty read-up on Overs and even know their hearts pretty well to stand behind that claim.
I will grant that my assessment may be preliminary. This is my perception thus far. I'm still learning about the OV theology; trying to get a grasp of the various facets of OV doctrine. That's why I'm here. Perhaps I should qualify my opinion with "From what it appears thus far ..."
Greg writes:quote:
Brother, let me help you out, if I may. A standard rule of social discourse is for a speaker or writer to take responsibility for the impact you’re words have on those you are trying to dialoguing with. If you want genuine dialogue with somebody, and what you say offends them, its good to apologize and say you’ll try to avoid such things in the future.
I am eager to ask forgiveness for sinning against a brother, if that were the case. I did indeed present my apology for the terms I used. I also offered what I think is a helpful suggestion regarding theological discourse in general (viz., not being thin-skinned and considering previous debates in history). I will not avoid stating the truth regarding such paramount matters just because it might offend someone.
Greg writes:quote:
Saying "that’s too bad," appealing to 16th century debates (when they still burned people alive for heresy), and encouraging someone to "not …be so thin-skinned" isn’t likely to foster more helpful dialogue.
I appreciate your admonition, but my experience with those who focus on these peripheral matters really don't want to discuss the issues. I may be wrong about Tom, but it is typically the case that they realize they've bitten off more than they can chew and they look for an excuse to quit. I'm happy to give them one. I'd rather spend time engaging someone who will focus on the content and substance of the *point*, and not be put off by the plate it's served on.
Greg writes:quote:
It’s okay to be wrong Hilston. Sooner or later, we all are. It's a pretty human thing. Just trying to help with the exchange James.
Dear brother, I truly appreciate your expressed concern. Believe it or not, I carefully weigh the words I use, and I continue to learn that some words work better than others. I am wrong quite often, and I enjoy learning about my own error -- but not without a fight :) -- because I don't want to have a misplaced zeal, and end up kicking myself later (which I also do quite a bit because of my previous zeal for views I no longer hold). I assure you that I do not want any of my discussions to degenerate into mudslinging and name-calling, but I will call a spade a spade when it is appropriate and when it serves the point I wish to make. Anyone is free to disagree and to call me to the carpet to prove my allegations.
Greg writes:quote:
Final Set of Questions
Ezek. 12:3 Perhaps they will understand, though they are a rebellious house.
--- Hilston, ANY chance at all in your mind that God MIGHT have actually meant "perhaps", as in "they may" or "may not"?
Any chance I am a better guesser than God, if that were the case? If Ezekiel were an open theist, I would expect him to say to God: "No way, Lord. Look at their track record! Of course they won't understand. Even I can see that, and I don't have Your wisdom and knowledge!"
Greg writes:quote:
Could you be wrong in thinking God predestined them NOT to understand, even while promising Ezekiel they might understand?
Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but a "promise" with the word "perhaps" in it is not a promise. Stacking the deck that way is not playing nice. :) I see this a lot lately; I hope it's not a deliberate ploy. Magicians do this with card tricks. They "force" a card on the other person, and then keep saying, "... the card you randomly chose ...", in order to make the trick seem all the more amazing.
Greg writes:quote:
Ex. 13:17 for God thought, "If the people face war, they may change their minds and return to Egypt." --- ANY chance, Hilston, that God really thought "if… they may.." ? (If you're write that God BY DEFINITION knows the future with exhaustive definiteness, isn't God entertaining a logical contradiction here?)
It's an idiom, Greg, expressed by God to Moses in terms of human rationale (i.e. anthropopatheism), showing His foresight and aim toward miraculous deliverance at the banks of the Red Sea.
Greg writes:quote:
Matt. 26:39 "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want." -- Is there any possibility in your mind, Hilston, that Jesus might have genuinely thought it MIGHT be possible to change the plan in the 11th hour?
Here, I think Jesus was speaking from both His humanness and His deity. In His human experience, Jesus longed for release from His mission, but in His deity, He is steadfast, as we see in Luke 9:51.
Greg writes:quote:
Ex. 4:1 Then Moses answered, "But suppose they do not believe me or listen to me, but say, ‘The LORD did not appear to you.’" -- the Lord had JUST TOLD MOSES the Elders WOULD believe. Any chance Moses was an Open Theist?
Amazing. You would have Moses calling God a liar? Didn't God just tell Moses unequivocally that the elders would hearken? And you seem eager to denigrate so great a man of God. It seems (as far as I can tell thus far) that this is yet another example of where the OV lens (cataract?) precludes a proper understanding of the text. Note that Moses is told what to say to the elders and that the elders will hearken to Moses's words (Ex 3:16-18). The Lord then shifts from instruction regarding the elders to instructions regarding the People (vv. 21,22). Thus, the context informs us that the antecedent of the pronoun "they" in Ex. 4:1 is the People. Moses knows the elders will hearken because God told him so, and God is not a liar. Now he asks about the People -- what if the People do not believe me or listen to me?
Greg writes:quote:
Ex. 4:8-9 "If they will not believe you or heed the first sign, they may believe the second sign. If they will not believe even these two signs or heed you, you shall take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground; and the water that you shall take from the Nile will become blood on the dry ground."
The Nation comprised lots of people. Some believed right away. Some needed further convincing, whilst yet others needed further convincing still. This event, and every single ingredient down to every precise liliputian detail, was predestined to be the hallmark of God's deliverance/salvation of His People, to be remembered throughout Israel's history/heritage, and well into eternal state. Thus, the Lord gave Moses sufficient ammo to get the job done.
Greg writes:quote:
-- Any remote chance, Hilston, that God really thinks of the future in terms of what people may or may not do… If they will not… they may…? Are you absolutely certain this can’t be?
I'm as certain about this as I am that 2+2 does not equal 5, but I'm not sure how to go about convincing you and others. I can only deal with the texts and your interpretations as you all proffer them, and critique your presuppositions as I learn them.
Before I close, I asked you some questions about John 4, above. Would you kindly respond to some of them, if you have time? Gracie'.
Salubrious wishes,
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org
Edited by - Hilston on 04/22/2002 03:12:27 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/22/2002 2:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Ah what the heck!
James-
Just to clarify—though I have no wish to return to the debating style of the sixteenth century, I’m not as thin-skinned as you might suppose. A lot of people are sometimes abrasive but still acknowledge that they might be wrong about a good many things (like, eh, Mephi for example!  ). My point was that since I have so little time to devote to this site as it is, I don’t particularly want to spend it trying to prove to people who think I’m rebelliously determined to redefine God that I’m really not. Now, if your first-hand experience with open theists was with folks who were rebelliously determined to do so, you can hardly suspect this is true of those open theists who have gone to print (particularly Doc and Sanders).
In any case, this site gives you every reason to suspect such a rebellious design is not what open theists are about. So, for the time being assume the best about us (that we desire to know the truth just as much as you do and attempt to read the Scripture just as prayerfully and honestly as you do). In the meantime I’ll assume that you’re not like so many theological determinists I’ve met. Agreed?
About the discussion itself, Doc’s pretty much addressed things. But let me clarify a point or two…
I commented: “It doesn’t seem to me at all unacceptable that God would predetermine his own actions. But neither does it seem unacceptable to me that God would not predetermine all his actions.” You wondered if I intentionally left the word “all” out of the first sentence. No, I didn’t leave it out intentionally. Go ahead and put it in. What I’m essentially saying is it doesn’t seem to me unacceptable that God would either a) unconditionally and exhaustively predetermine all of history (as you seem to be suggesting) or b) predetermine some of history and leave some of it open (as open theists suggest). I have no logical reason to dismiss either one of these out of hand. I think God could have done either one, though I think it’s obvious that both cannot be true.
So, what do we do? We go primarily to Scripture. What do we find? I find God speaking of the future and relating to the world in predetermined ways, and I also find God speaking of the future and relating to the world in unpredetermined (i.e., responsive, i.e., open) ways (i.e., in ways not eternally and unconditionally predetermined by God). Scripture appears to me to be exactly what one would expect to find if (b) above were true and not what one would expect to find if (a) above were the case. So I don’t “presuppose” that (a) cannot be true. I simply don’t find it in Scripture.
Now, having said that much I STILL am open to being convinced by you that God is unlike what Scripture so forthrightly seems to make him out to be. I can be convinced. You’ll have to walk me by the hand through the HOW TO of understanding God’s claiming “Perhaps they might believe” to mean “I know they won’t believe but am speaking this way to communicate my grace, relatedness…” or whatever. Your insisting that I read open theism into the text because of my presuppositions about what God can or cannot do, or because of my refusal to follow the implications of God’s perfection to it’s logical end simply doesn’t fly. I don’t see anything about (b) that is self-contradictory (as you suggest) in and of itself unless one approaches the text with the presupposition that God cannot do such a thing. But then such a presupposition isn’t informed by one’s reading of Scripture is it?
If (a) were true, then logic (which you appear to appreciate—i.e., you agree that logical impossibilities cannot be attributed to God) would seem to me to rule certain things out, for example, genuine love and moral responsibility. Since I believe Scripture clearly teaches both of these, affirming that God exhaustively and unconditionally predetermines all things would involve us (in my view) in exactly the sort of logical contradictions you agree we ought to avoid.
Jesus’ question to the woman in Samaria only proves that Jesus is capable of asking a rhetorical question. What’s your point? That this proves all Jesus’ (or God’s) questions are therefore similarly rhetorical? That it means all instances of God speaking of the future in conditional terms are merely rhetorical? And how does this follow logically?
I agree with you that “I am the Door” presents itself to us immediately as figurative language. We don’t have to wonder whether or not Jesus is a material door (either hinged, sliding, or revolving). You seem to think this is an argument FOR reading passages that depict God as “changing his mind” or speaking of the future in terms of “if’s” and “maybe’s” as equally and obviously figurative. But again, how does this follow logically? I don’t see that at all in the text. In fact, it seems to me that such texts present themselves to us quite matter-of-factly as non-figurative passages. You certainly have no problem taking those passages that depict God as controlling and determining as matter-of-factly literal. What is in these passages that says “Take me literally!” and in the open passages that says, “Take me figuratively!” except for your own prior belief that God can do one and cannot do the other?
By the way, Pittsburg is a nice place. I have a very good friend there.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Newcomb
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 4/22/2002 5:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc, great rejoinders.
It is interesting that Hilston is so wrapped up in the Platonic version of God that he mistakes that version for logic. This is, of course, a logical fallacy. Very interesting is the irrational 2+2=5 relation to the logical rule A v non-A (read "either A or non-A"). The rules of addition are not the same as the rule of non-contradiction, but let's ignore the irrational shortcut and get to the meat. He keeps reasserting his Greek roots with phrases that sound as though his familiarity with them makes then necessarily true. We have "innate" understanding of his theology:
quote:
You know the attributes of God innately, just as all men do, but you deny or distort some of them. That is why we need to examine and compare presuppositions, which we both have, and see which ones can stand the test of coherency.{/quote]
The dominance of Bezarian Calvinism doesn't make it universal, true, or innate knowledge, just like 2+5=5 is not a contradiction, it is an error, much as his use of it when he writes:
[quote]
2 +2 = 5 is unacceptable. A true contradiction is unacceptable. The idea of God being surprised by His creation because He doesn't know what His creatures are going to do is incoherent, and therefore, unacceptable.
Sorry, but this is erroneous. It is begging the question. Why? Because his theological presupposition of Beza/Augustinian/Platonic foreknowledge is presumed in his word "incoherent." Let's break it out to illustrate. We can represent it thusly:
"The idea of God being surprised by His creation because He doesn't know what His creatures are going to do is incoherent (with Calvinistic theology which specifically calls out absolute foreknowledge), and therefore, unacceptable."
Ah, now it is clearer isn't it? He built in a major premise into the argument and presumed it by his statement.
The question should be: Is it possible that God can be surprised by his creation?
The OV people believe the scripture to be read simply and straight forward. The Calvinists have spent hundreds of years defining complex relationships between words and misusing them (like "sovereign" which means "supreme authority" not whatever they want it to mean or justify) to develop linguistic defenses for the irrational. Here, Hilston merely injects it and covers it by begging the question.
Let's fish or cut bait: Exactly what does God being surprised contravene, or what is it incoherent with? The truth is it contradicts Plato's understanding of the "ultimate being" at the head of the pantheon taught to Augustine by neo-platonic Roman rhetoricians, brought into the church when he was converted, accepted by Beza (not Calvin), then branded on the European church at Dort.
It is not a logical incoherency nor contradiction to state that God created a world with people having free will and their free will choices sometimes surprise God. These ideas are coherent regardless of Hilston’s irrational claim to the contrary.
It is inconsistent to his theology, but so what? He has to live with the inconsistent and incoherent contradictions of his theology claiming God predetermined everything and that man has a free will and is held responsible for his choices. These are true incoherencies and irrational contradictions that cannot be explained without the magic dust of “sovereign” as if that made contradictions non-contradictions. How does this happen? Well, it seems to the Calvinists, the word “sovereign” means “justification for the irrational belief.”
How can you hold that God knew the future absolutely before he created (all things were designed in his plan as they are now happening) then created without changing things like the Holocaust and my sister’s rape, like Pol Pot and Stalin, did not change the plan, and then punishes man in eternal hell fire for fulfilling his plan which he designed, created, and implemented??? How can sin (the violation of God’s will) happen when everything is designed by God. THAT is a contradiction in fact, a true incoherency.
It seems the basic Calvin doctrine is fraught with irrational theology then sprinkled with the magic dust called “sovereignty” to cover it up, or they wrap it in Latin to make it sound so proper and true.
His writing has many such irrational comments in it, much too numerous for me to go through.
"Neuk'em"
"Neuk'em" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 4/22/2002 10:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Newcomb,
Your post was difficult to resist, so I'll have to come back to Tom's later.
Newcomb writes: quote:
It is interesting that Hilston is so wrapped up in the Platonic version of God that he mistakes that version for logic. This is, of course, a logical fallacy.
Which logical fallacy would that be?
Newcomb writes:quote:
Very interesting is the irrational 2+2=5 relation to the logical rule A v non-A (read "either A or non-A"). The rules of addition are not the same as the rule of non-contradiction, ...
Did I equate irrational expressions with LNC? I must have missed that. I've merely stated that irrationalities are axiomatically self-contradictory. I could have also included the 4-sided triangle and the rock too big for God to lift. Sounds like your reaching or just trying to pick a fight.
Newcomb writes:quote:
He keeps reasserting his Greek roots with phrases that sound as though his familiarity with them makes then necessarily true.
We're off to a great start. I'm glad to have a psychic on board to tell me what I really mean. It sounds more like Mr. Newcomb doesn't like multi-syllabic sesquipedalia.
Newcomb writes:quote:
We have "innate" understanding of his theology: ...
Surely you've read Ro 1:19,20? God has made His character, nature and attributes known to you. You have an innate knowledge of these traits, but you suppress them. Of course I expect you to disagree.
Hilston wrote: You know the attributes of God innately, just as all men do, but you deny or distort some of them. That is why we need to examine and compare presuppositions, which we both have, and see which ones can stand the test of coherency.
Newcomb writes:quote:
The dominance of Bezarian Calvinism doesn't make it universal, true, or innate knowledge, just like 2+5=5 is not a contradiction, it is an error, much as his use of it when he writes:quote:
2 +2 = 5 is unacceptable. A true contradiction is unacceptable. The idea of God being surprised by His creation because He doesn't know what His creatures are going to do is incoherent, and therefore, unacceptable.
Um, I didn't call 2 + 2 = 5 a contradiction. It is a false statement. What must be false cannot be true. You seem more desperate with each passing sentence.
Newcomb writes:quote:
Sorry, but this is erroneous. It is begging the question. Why? Because his theological presupposition of Beza/Augustinian/Platonic foreknowledge is presumed in his word "incoherent."
How do you know that? Maybe it's merely rooted in "Intro' to Logic 101."
Newcomb writes:quote:
Let's break it out to illustrate. We can represent it thusly: "The idea of God being surprised by His creation because He doesn't know what His creatures are going to do is incoherent (with Calvinistic theology which specifically calls out absolute foreknowledge), and therefore, unacceptable."
Nice try (not really). Seeing the incoherency doesn't require a Calvinistic underpinning. A first year student of logic would recognize it. It logically follows that certainty in the precision and accuracy of one's predictions is directly proportional to one's knowledge and control of all mitigating parameters. The precision and accuracy with which the scriptures prophesied future events required more than just a best guess or some alleged "divine out-maneuvering."
Newcomb writes:quote:
Ah, now it is clearer isn't it? He built in a major premise into the argument and presumed it by his statement.
Clear as mud, I'm afraid. It doesn't matter how hard you pound your pulpit, you can't make an incoherency cogent, except perhaps to those willing to be convinced.
Newcomb writes:quote:
The question should be: Is it possible that God can be surprised by his creation?
What must be false cannot be true. God's meticulous providence is proven by the impossibility of the contrary. That should be obvious, as it ought to have been to the Romans, which is why Paul rhetorically asks the question in Ro 9:19.
Newcomb writes:quote:
The OV people believe the scripture to be read simply and straight forward. The Calvinists have spent hundreds of years defining complex relationships between words and misusing them (like "sovereign" which means "supreme authority" not whatever they want it to mean or justify) to develop linguistic defenses for the irrational. Here, Hilston merely injects it and covers it by begging the question.
Your specious claims are as irrelevant as they are unfounded. You will not find me appealing to church history or Calvinist authors to support my arguments, except to critique Calvinists. You will not find me appealing to invented words that are unsupported by scripture. So let's dispense with the ad hominem tripe and get to the substantive matters of the discussion, K?
Newcomb writes: quote:
Exactly what does God being surprised contravene, or what is it incoherent with?
It is logically incomprehensible, given the claims of scripture. If God has predetermined any single event, then He logically must have meticulously determined and control ALL events without exception. This is very simple; it isn't advanced academic legerdemain, nor does it require some turbo-powered philosophical intellect. Any child who has witnessed a well presented card trick recognizes this principle. What is more impressive: A card trick in which the magician personally handles the deck of cards and reveals the one you secretly chose? Or a card trick in which the magician let's you handle the cards from beginning to end, and you yourself are directed to produce your secretly chosen card from within a seemingly random deck?
Newcomb writes:quote:
The truth is it contradicts Plato's understanding of the "ultimate being" at the head of the pantheon taught to Augustine by neo-platonic Roman rhetoricians, brought into the church when he was converted, accepted by Beza (not Calvin), then branded on the European church at Dort.
Um -- so what? Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. This is a red herring non sequitur and a ad hominem fallacy to boot. I base my claims on clear exegesis and sound logic, not fallible claims of errant men (Ro 3:4).
Newcomb writes:quote:
It is not a logical incoherency nor contradiction to state that God created a world with people having free will and their free will choices sometimes surprise God.
Not if God has predetermined future events with precision and accuracy, putting His reputation on the line and urging His believers to find comfort and assurance in those predictions. If God, as scriptures say, has precisely and accurately predetermined any single event in advance (redundancy intended), then libertarian free will and a so-called "surprising of the divine" are incoherent.
Newcomb writes:quote:
These ideas are coherent regardless of Hilston’s irrational claim to the contrary.
Unproven assertion, Nuke.
Newcomb writes:quote:
He has to live with the inconsistent and incoherent contradictions of his theology claiming God predetermined everything and that man has a free will and is held responsible for his choices.
You've erred a bit. I don't believe man has a free will as you appear to define it.
Newcomb writes:quote:
These are true incoherencies and irrational contradictions that cannot be explained without the magic dust of “sovereign” as if that made contradictions non-contradictions.
This is a straw man, Newcomb. I don't need to invoke the alleged "magic dust" because there is no such thing as a true incoherency. Nor are there irrationalities in scripture. I'm not the one who has a problem with the God of the Bible.
Newcomb writes:quote:
How does this happen? Well, it seems to the Calvinists, the word “sovereign” means “justification for the irrational belief.”
You might as well save your breath and jettison the Calvinist calumniations. Most Calvinists disagree with the bulk of my theology and are loath to align themselves with me at all. Secondly, you merely assert this "irrational belief" business and you haven't proven a thing. Your specious polemic is quite colorful on the surface, but rather insipid once one sinks one's teeth into it.
Newcomb writes:quote:
How can you hold that God knew the future absolutely before he created (all things were designed in his plan as they are now happening) then created without changing things like the Holocaust and my sister’s rape, like Pol Pot and Stalin, did not change the plan, and then punishes man in eternal hell fire for fulfilling his plan which he designed, created, and implemented???
First, how can you hold that God watched all that happen, including the rape of my sister and the violent brutal death of my mother in a high speed car crash, knowing that He could have stopped each an every atrocity or suffering by snuffing out the life of each perpetrator or intervening just enough to avert the collision, but didn't? My theology accommodates these facts of history with biblical cogency. Yours depends upon humanizing God, stripping Him of His infinitude and requires the concoction of fantastic creativity (like the difference between non-contingent "love" and "solidified love"). Second, why shouldn't God punish the guilty for their evil, even if He decreed their desires and actions in advance? It's not a problem for me or for the scriptures that time and again affirm that God uses the desires and actions of evil men for His expressed good pleasure and good purposes.
Newcomb writes:quote:
How can sin (the violation of God’s will) happen when everything is designed by God. THAT is a contradiction in fact, a true incoherency.
That's a convenient definition of sin. It's not biblical. The scriptures define sin as "missing the mark." Further, I recognize that God gives commands that do not always align with His decrees. You seem to recognize this, too, to a degree. On your view, God sits by and watches things continue, which are clearly against His character and commands. Why didn't God stop Hitler at, say, 3 million murders? Why did He wait until 6 million Jews were killed? Or didn't God have anything to do with Hitler's death?
Newcomb writes:quote:
It seems the basic Calvin doctrine is fraught with irrational theology then sprinkled with the magic dust called “sovereignty” to cover it up, or they wrap it in Latin to make it sound so proper and true.
Funny. Your creative claims notwithstanding, you haven't proven that I hold a single irrationality or logical contradiction. Your assertions are empty, Nuke.
Newcomb writes:quote:
His writing has many such irrational comments in it, much too numerous for me to go through.
That's so easy to type isn't it? Proving your allegations would be a bit more difficult.
Thanks for the spar. :)
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org
Edited by - Hilston on 04/22/2002 3:11:15 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Newcomb
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 4/22/2002 2:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Hilston, insults are not rational arguments, so yours will be snipped.
(snip)
(snip)
Hilston writes:
quote:
Did I equate irrational expressions with LNC? I must have missed that. I've merely stated that irrationalities are axiomatically self-contradictory. I could have also included the 4-sided triangle and the rock too big for God to lift.
(snip)
This stems from his quote:
[quote}2 +2 = 5 is unacceptable. A true contradiction is unacceptable. The idea of God being surprised by His creation because He doesn't know what His creatures are going to do is incoherent, and therefore, unacceptable.
OK, did we misunderstand you? Were you just ambiguous here? It is true you did not directly connect them in the text, but what else could this mean? You quoted 2 +2 = 5 but didn't intend for us to tie this to the next statement? How is that? You may have intended to state that irrationalities are axiomatically self-contradictory, but that isn't what was written. Are we to be the mind readers??
You have not told us how it is contradictory or what it contradicts. God's surprise at our actions is no contradiction to the OV, it is to the Platonic classical view you hold. Making a statement is not the same as making a case. Anyone can claim irrationality but not support it, as you have done. You claim a contradiction, but don¡¦t show us where A ƒÞ non-A is broken by the chain of thought. So where is it, what exactly is contradictory? My claim is that it only contradicts your theology.
quote:
Newcomb writes:quote:
He keeps reasserting his Greek roots with phrases that sound as though his familiarity with them makes then necessarily true.
We're off to a great start. I'm glad to have a psychic on board to tell me what I really mean. It sounds more like Mr. Newcomb doesn't like multi-syllabic sesquipedalia.
Are we reduced to insults? You see linguistic oral perspicacity is not economically burdensome, and linguistic circumlocutions, regardless of the eloquence score only with the uneducated, so let¡¦s stick to rational argument not ad hominems, shall we?
quote:
Surely you've read Ro 1:19,20? God has made His character, nature and attributes known to you. You have an innate knowledge of these traits, but you suppress them. Of course I expect you to disagree.
This is a claim anyone can make. It is not a rational argument. The generic version goes like this: My theology is the one talked about in Romans 1:19-20, if you disagree, you are doing __________.
Prove that Calvinism is the one spoken of here and not the OV.
Of course you cannot. Neither can I prove it is the OV that is spoken of there.
Of course, when read in context, Paul is speaking of the problem of immorality in Rome at that time. I would argue that your theology is not in compliance with v20 which states:
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:¡¨
If you want to argue that verse you will need to argue not from a Bezarian Calvinism, but from nature. It would be quite a reach to argue a theology developed by pantheists a few hundred years BC is what Paul is speaking of.
Hilston wrote: quote:
You know the attributes of God innately, just as all men do, but you deny or distort some of them. That is why we need to examine and compare presuppositions, which we both have, and see which ones can stand the test of coherency.
That would be better than simple statements. Try this next time and explain EXACTLY where the contradiction lies, but no logical fallacies, no begging the question no consensus gentium, no ambiguities. We will examine a good statement, make one.
I¡¦ll keep snipping the insults to see if we can get to some rational arguments (snip).
quote:
Newcomb writes:quote:
Sorry, but this is erroneous. It is begging the question. Why? Because his theological presupposition of Beza/Augustinian/Platonic foreknowledge is presumed in his word "incoherent."
How do you know that? Maybe it's merely rooted in "Intro' to Logic 101."
Huh? It was the only way I could see to make some type of contradiction. Don¡¦t obfuscate the issues. Logic 101 doesn¡¦t teach irrationality. If you want to explain what you mean, then do so. Is this not the fully stated premise you were arguing? Just for clarification, you respond and explain what you mean when you wrote:
quote:
2 +2 = 5 is unacceptable. A true contradiction is unacceptable. The idea of God being surprised by His creation because He doesn't know what His creatures are going to do is incoherent, and therefore, unacceptable.
You explain with a formal argument, major and minor premise, and conclusion how this can make sense. You haven¡¦t thus far. You have only states unsubstantiated truth claims.
(snip)
quote:
(snip) It logically follows that certainty in the precision and accuracy of one's predictions is directly proportional to one's knowledge and control of all mitigating parameters. The precision and accuracy with which the scriptures prophesied future events required more than just a best guess or some alleged "divine out-maneuvering."
I don¡¦t believe this statement supports your theology. Examine it, it almost sounds OV. Here you defend the OV view that God is examining the existing parametrics of accessible and current circumstances to predict the future, much as we would do (of course with much less data or control), which is the OV.
Am I mistaken in thinking you believe either a supra or infralapsarian view? My guess would be supralapsarian.
(snip)
Newcomb wrote: The truth is it contradicts Plato's understanding of the "ultimate being" at the head of the pantheon taught to Augustine by neo-platonic Roman rhetoricians, brought into the church when he was converted, accepted by Beza (not Calvin), then branded on the European church at Dort.
Hilston wrote: quote:
Um -- so what? Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. This is a red herring non sequitur and a ad hominem fallacy to boot. I base my claims on clear exegesis and sound logic, not fallible claims of errant men (Ro 3:4).[
Interesting, exactly where is it a red herring? (Trying to take one off the track with a tempting bait) this merely points to the etiology of the system of belief, which isn¡¦t the Word of God, as it is usually claimed to be. How is it an ad hominem? I didn¡¦t attack you, as you have me, I point out the etiology.
You might base your claims on exegesis, but you need to start showing that, thus far, you are merely making unsupported truth claims. Support them.
Newcomb wrote:It is not a logical incoherency nor contradiction to state that God created a world with people having free will and their free will choices sometimes surprise God.
Hilston wrote:quote:
Not if God has predetermined future events with precision and accuracy, putting His reputation on the line and urging His believers to find comfort and assurance in those predictions. If God, as scriptures say, has precisely and accurately predetermined any single event in advance (redundancy intended), then libertarian free will and a so-called "surprising of the divine" are incoherent.
OK, here we agree absolutely. This is a true statement. The logical hypothetical proposition is well stated. The question is, is that true (that God predetermines . . .)? If it is true, you are correct, and we are wrong; if not, you are wrong and we are correct. That is the question, but this is what I claimed above when you insultingly referred to me as a ¡§psychic,¡¨ remember? I¡¦m glad we finally have some truth coming out.
quote:
You've erred a bit. I don't believe man has a free will as you appear to define it.
Thank you for the clarification on that. Perhaps you are more in Luther¡¦s camp, one of the truly honest theologians that also admits that point. This is an unusual honesty. Thanks. My mistake. Here you are internally consistent.
(snip)
quote:
First, how can you hold that God watched all that happen, including the rape of my sister and the violent brutal death of my mother in a high speed car crash, knowing that He could have stopped each an every atrocity or suffering by snuffing out the life of each perpetrator or intervening just enough to avert the collision, but didn't? My theology accommodates these facts of history with biblical cogency. Yours depends upon humanizing God, stripping Him of His infinitude and requires the concoction of fantastic creativity (like the difference between non-contingent "love" and "solidified love"). Second, why shouldn't God punish the guilty for their evil, even if He decreed their desires and actions in advance? It's not a problem for me or for the scriptures that time and again affirm that God uses the desires and actions of evil men for His expressed good pleasure and good purposes.
Sorry to hear about your sister as well as mine, but was she evil? Mine wasn¡¦t. She was attending Christian High School at the time and was raped there by a fried of the family at 16 years old. Evil would describe Dan, the perpetrator, but not the victim. Are you claiming that all evil is punishment? Then for what? For fulfilling God¡¦s plan? How is it evil to fulfill what God predestined? Or it is for his pleasure that these things happen? If it is his pleasure that these things happened to our sisters, then that kind of God is this? If it isn¡¦t for his pleasure that these things happened, why did he create it this way?
I would like you to explore this more in line with your reasoning.
Newcomb wrote:How can sin (the violation of God¡¦s will) happen when everything is designed by God. THAT is a contradiction in fact, a true incoherency.
quote:
That's a convenient definition of sin. It's not biblical. The scriptures define sin as "missing the mark." Further, I recognize that God gives commands that do not always align with His decrees. You seem to recognize this, too, to a degree. On your view, God sits by and watches things continue, which are clearly against His character and commands. Why didn't God stop Hitler at, say, 3 million murders? Why did He wait until 6 million Jews were killed? Or didn't God have anything to do with Hitler's death?
Hmm, let me clarify a bit: I don¡¦t believe God sits by, but I don¡¦t believe he continually interferes in man¡¦s will either. You are off a bit on your definition of sin, sin is defined by the Bible in !John 3:4 ¡§Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.¡¨ You refer to the use of the Greek word for sin as missing the mark or falling short, the Biblical definition is succinct. I can¡¦t answer for God, he is, of course, sovereign and can interfere or not, I fully agree that man contradicts God¡¦s will, how do you deal with this? How can a created animation like a predetermined absolute clock which cannot do anything but exactly what it is designed to do violate it¡¦s maker¡¦s wishes? This required free will by definition. There stands the contradiction in your theology, it cannot be both ways. Admit is or not, it is irrational (because it breaks the A v non-A law) to hold that all is God¡¦s will, and man violated God¡¦s will. It cannot be both ways regardless of the theological construct you build to explain why it can be A and Non-A at the same time.
¡§Neuk¡¦em¡¨
"Neuk'em" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 4/22/2002 4:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom writes:quote:
Ah what the heck!
I'm glad you've reconsidered. You seem to be an astute gentleman and not a lazy thinker. I'm delighted you've come back. I will try to keep my taunts and jabs to a minimum. :)
Tom writes:quote:
What I¹m essentially saying is it doesn¹t seem to me unacceptable that God would either a) unconditionally and exhaustively predetermine all of history (as you seem to be suggesting) ...
I must admit this surprises me. Let's suppose, for the sake of discussion, that you have never read or even seen a Bible. Let's stipulate that you don't even know such a thing exists. Let's further say that someone like me comes along and describes God to you in "predeterministic" "Calvinistic" terms (i.e., that all of your decisions, actions, thoughts, inclinations are predetermined and exhaustively known by God. That God holds you morally responsible for those decisions, actions, etc. and will condemn you to eternal punishment if you persist in your rebellion. That you have no grounds for complaint. But that the good news is that God sent His son to die for sinners. And that you should repent and believe this good news.) Do think you would have objections to those descriptions? If so why?
Tom writes:quote:
... or b) predetermine some of history and leave some of it open (as open theists suggest). I have no logical reason to dismiss either one of these out of hand. I think God could have done either one, though I think it¹s obvious that both cannot be true.
I agree that both cannot be true. But could he have really done (b)? According the OV, as far as I understand it, God did predetermine *some* events, right? Also, doesn't the Lord urge us to have confidence, assurance, and take comfort from what He has revealed about future events? How can we have unwavering confidence, assurance and take comfort in the face of the OV possibility that God will change His mind or fail to bring to pass that which He has prophesied?
Tom writes:quote:
So, what do we do? We go primarily to Scripture. What do we find? I find God speaking of the future and relating to the world in predetermined ways, and I also find God speaking of the future and relating to the world in unpredetermined (i.e., responsive, i.e., open) ways (i.e., in ways not eternally and unconditionally predetermined by God).
The fact that you admit here, admirably so, that God speaks of the future in predeterministic terms. Given that, how can there any assurance or confidence in a partial predetermination if He is not exhaustively meticulously holding, sustaining, and directing the entire created order and all events therein? Partial predetermination is no determination at all. It's a roll of the dice, and as OV-ists claim, some prophecies fail (!).
Tom writes:quote:
Scripture appears to me to be exactly what one would expect to find if (b) above were true and not what one would expect to find if (a) above were the case. So I don¹t ³presuppose² that (a) cannot be true. I simply don¹t find it in Scripture.
Yet you find the anthropopatheic figures uncompelling. It seems to me that the figure of anthropatheia makes the passages in question all the more emphatic, and glorify God both in His transcendence and His immanence. The OV perception the verses renders them incoherent.
Tom writes:quote:
Now, having said that much I STILL am open to being convinced by you that God is unlike what Scripture so forthrightly seems to make him out to be.
If so, then you have to give up the tendentious qualifier you just used, "forthrightly". To me the straightforward meaning emphatically accommodates the EDF (exhaustively definite foreknowledge) of God and His meticulous providence.
Tom writes: quote:
I can be convinced. You¹ll have to walk me by the hand through the HOW TO of understanding God¹s claiming "Perhaps they might believe" to mean "I know they won¹t believe but am speaking this way to communicate my grace, relatedness" or whatever.
Are you familiar with the figurative language of the scripture writers? Are you familiar with Hebraisms and Hebrew idioms? There is such clarity and cogency in recognizing these, and unfortunately these are too often taken at face value through the lens of our 20th century ethnocentrism.
Tom writes:quote:
Your insisting that I read open theism into the text because of my presuppositions about what God can or cannot do, or because of my refusal to follow the implications of God¹s perfection to it¹s logical end simply doesn¹t fly. I don¹t see anything about (b) that is self-contradictory (as you suggest) in and of itself unless one approaches the text with the presupposition that God cannot do such a thing.
Newcomb graciously agreed with the following paragraph. Do you as well?
Newcomb wrote: It is not a logical incoherency nor contradiction to state that God created a world with people having free will and their free will choices sometimes surprise God.
To that I responded: Not if God has predetermined future events with precision and accuracy, putting His reputation on the line and urging His believers to find comfort and assurance in those predictions. If God, as scriptures say, has precisely and accurately predetermined any single event in advance (redundancy intended), then libertarian free will and a so-called "surprising of the divine" are incoherent.
Do you agree with the way the scenario is characterized here?
Tom writes:quote:
If (a) were true, then logic (which you appear to appreciate‹i.e., you agree that logical impossibilities cannot be attributed to God) would seem to me to rule certain things out, for example, genuine love and moral responsibility.
Before I proceed, I really need you to define "genuine love" and "moral responsibility."
Tom writes:quote:
Since I believe Scripture clearly teaches both of these, affirming that God exhaustively and unconditionally predetermines all things would involve us (in my view) in exactly the sort of logical contradictions you agree we ought to avoid.
How do exhaustive and unconditional predetermination involve a logical contradiction?
Tom writes:quote:
Jesus¹ question to the woman in Samaria only proves that Jesus is capable of asking a rhetorical question. What¹s your point?
The point is that you said this: quote:
Are you sure you want to use this analgoy to argue God DOESN'T experience unfulfilled expectations? I ask becasue your analgoy describes exactly how I read these passages. What I would NOT do is say to my daughter “I thought to myself surely you would never say such an awful thing,” if it was also true that I either a) predetermined her to say it or b) knew that she certainly would say it. If either of these was true then my comment to her would be disingenuous at best, a lie at worst.
Regarding which I asked: Did Jesus know that the Samaritan woman in John 4:16-18 was shacking up with a guy who wasn't her husband? Why then did He ask her to go get her husband? Was He being disingenuous or lying?
Tom writes:quote:
That this proves all Jesus' (or God) questions are therefore similarly rhetorical? That it means all instances of God speaking of the future in conditional terms are merely rhetorical? And how does this follow logically?
It goes to a seeming arbitrary interpretation. How do you know God's statements in other cases, the so-called "openness verses" aren't rhetorical?
Tom writes:quote:
I agree with you that "I am the Door" presents itself to us immediately as figurative language. We don¹t have to wonder whether or not Jesus is a material door (either hinged, sliding, or revolving). You seem to think this is an argument FOR reading passages that depict God as "changing his mind" or speaking of the future in terms of "if's" and "maybe's" as equally and obviously figurative.
It is indeed. Please demonstrate otherwise.
Tom writes:quote:
But again, how does this follow logically?
Is it logical to think that Jesus is not an actual door? Of course. So it is with verses that seem to make God more human and finite. We know He is not finite, so any verses that suggest this are found to be figurative, which means there is an emphatic point being made that would otherwise be missed if it were not recognized as a figure.
Tom writes:quote:
In fact, it seems to me that such texts present themselves to us quite matter-of-factly as non-figurative passages.
How so? Isn't "I am the door" spoken in a quite matter-of-factly manner?
Tom writes:quote:
You certainly have no problem taking those passages that depict God as controlling and determining as matter-of-factly literal.
Maybe I should take those figuratively. Do you have a suggestion as to what emphatic point such a figurative construction would be making?
Tom writes:quote:
What is in these passages that says "Take me literally!" and in the open passages that says, "Take me figuratively!" ...
Sound exegesis and clear logic are sufficient to indicate what meanings were intended.
Tom writes:quote:
By the way, Pittsburg is a nice place. I have a very good friend there.
If ever find yourself in town, please look me up. It would be a pleasure to meet you and your friend. (My friends tell me that I'm not as "mean" in person). :)
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/23/2002 4:04 AM (GMT -6) | | James-
I shouldn’t be ignoring the office work that’s screaming to me beside my laptop right now, but since I love this site and the discussions that go on here and NOT office work, I’ll just have to postpone those reports one more day! I apologize for the length ahead of time.
You’ll find lots of info also in the archives. There are some good threads on God’s infinite intelligence and anthropomorphic language. Take your time.
Tom: What I’m essentially saying is it doesn’t seem to me unacceptable that God would either a) unconditionally and exhaustively predetermine all of history…
James: I must admit this surprises me.
Tom: Open theists I’m familiar with all admit that God could have predetermined the minutia of history. I mean, if God wanted that sort of a world he could have had it. I just don’t see any logical reason to assume that’s the only type of world he could have created nor any biblical reason for concluding that’s what he was interested in. One has to go primarily to Scripture to find out how God has in fact decided to relate to us. It also seems clear (more below) that if God did in fact go the route of exhaustive predetermination, then other things must also be true (about love, relationships, freedom, etc.).
James: Let's suppose, for the sake of discussion, that you have never read or even seen a Bible. Let's stipulate that you don't even know such a thing exists. Let's further say that someone like me comes along and describes God to you in "predeterministic" "Calvinistic" terms (i.e., that all of your decisions, actions, thoughts, inclinations are predetermined and exhaustively known by God. That God holds you morally responsible for those decisions, actions, etc. and will condemn you to eternal punishment if you persist in your rebellion. That you have no grounds for complaint. But that the good news is that God sent His son to die for sinners. And that you should repent and believe this good news.) Do think you would have objections to those descriptions? If so why?
Tom: As you’ve described it, James, I honestly wouldn’t be interested. Holding me accountable for what he’s scripted me to do? I’d begin by asking you what reasons you could give me for believing that this was true. From the hip I’d say 1) this would make God directly responsible for evil and for holding people responsible for what he predetermined for them. What reason could you give me for choosing to love and worship a God who does this? 2) Whether I repent or not is one of the things unconditionally predetermined by such a God. So, you’re not really offering me anything. You’re simply informing me that it might be the case that God’s Son died for me and God chose to forgive the sins he determined I should commit. 3) A God who predetermines people to sin and holds them accountable gives us every reason to suspect him capable of breaking any promise he might make to us. Personally, I wouldn’t know how to trust such a God. 4) This makes my acceptance of God HIS choice of me and not my acceptance of anything really. Relationally speaking it’s a dead-end.
So, all in all, I would not buy this camel from you.
James: I agree that both cannot be true. But could he have really done (b)?
Tom: A ray of hope! Why could God not have gone this route?
James: According the OV, as far as I understand it, God did predetermine *some* events, right? Also, doesn't the Lord urge us to have confidence, assurance, and take comfort from what He has revealed about future events? How can we have unwavering confidence, assurance and take comfort in the face of the OV possibility that God will change His mind or fail to bring to pass that which He has prophesied?
Tom: I understand that existential factors figure in big-time regarding where folks come out on open theism, and in the end I would never urge anybody to adopt a view of God they felt undermined their confidence and trust in God. I think the more you talk to openness folk you’ll get a feel for how trust and confidence are not only maintained but actually bolstered. You’re a hard nut to crack, James, so it may take some time!
The main reason I trust God is because of his character as revealed ultimately in Jesus. God loves me unconditionally, remains faithful to his purposes, cannot sin, etc. So, personally my trust has nothing to do with God’s seeing into a crystal ball all that will happen. (It would bother me, of course, if there were aspects of reality God did NOT know. But the open view doesn’t claim this.) In fact, it seems to me that “trust” and “confidence” become irrelevant in an exhaustively determined world. Besides it including our knowing that our trust and confidence in God are, like all other events, predetermined, it does away with any need to trust and have confidence. If God predetermines all that I do and all that happens to me, where is there room for me to trust?
About God’s “changing his mind” affecting our confidence, remember that it’s not God’s “character” that’s changing, but rather his response to changing events. Are you trusting in God or in “the Script”? In God’s character or in a particular story line? God’s not going to change his mind about those things which are themselves responsible for inspiring trust and confidence in the first place (character, faithfulness, goodness, holiness, purity, etc.). Do you need the crystal ball? Or for everything to be meticulously predetermined?
Perhaps you could give me a scenario that illustrates the impossibility of trusting God were it also true that the future is partly open. Help me out.
James: …how can there [be] any assurance or confidence in a partial predetermination if He is not exhaustively meticulously holding, sustaining, and directing the entire created order and all events therein? Partial predetermination is no determination at all. It's a roll of the dice, and as OV-ists claim, some prophecies fail (!).
Tom: You kind of lumped together things I agree with and things I don’t agree with. I certainly agree that creation is “sustained” by God. And depending on what you mean by “holding,” I could also agree that God is actively involved in creation. But what need is there of assurance or confidence in an exhaustively predetermined world? I simply don’t see how it’s true that unless everything is settled nothing can be settled. We don’t live that way. We live our lives everyday believing that some of the day is settled ahead of time and some is not. What are you basing your assumption on?
If prophecy amounts to God revealing to us what he infallibly sees in a crystal ball or what he’s eternally predetermined, then failed prophecies are a big problem, but only for those who hold to EDF. On the other hand, if the future is partly open, then a prophecy could fail to come to pass because circumstances warranted it (in which case it was conditional). If God tells us he’s willing to change his intentions on condition of repentance or stubbornness (Jer. 18.1-10), why think unfulfilled declarations reflect a “failure” on God’s part?
James: Yet you find the anthropopatheic figures uncompelling. It seems to me that the figure of anthropatheia makes the passages in question all the more emphatic, and glorify God both in His transcendence and His immanence. The OV perception the verses renders them incoherent.
Tom: I find anthropomorphic language very compelling and moving. I doubt life would be very meaningful without it. Marriage would be a total drag without it! I also find descriptions of God’s compassion and love very moving. No problem here.
The question is whether or not God “changing his mind” and speaking of the future in conditional terms are literary anthropomorphisms, and if they are what they mean. There are two really good (and lengthy) threads in the archives entitled “Anthropomorphism” (I think) that deal with this. You should check ‘em out. No need to repeat the whole discussion here.
Tom: Now, having said that much I STILL am open to being convinced by you that God is unlike what Scripture so forthrightly seems to make him out to be.
James: If so, then you have to give up the tendentious qualifier you just used, "forthrightly." To me the straightforward meaning emphatically accommodates the EDF (exhaustively definite foreknowledge) of God and His meticulous providence.
Tom: You’re funny James. But I’ll make you a deal. I’ll give up “forthrightly” if you give up “straightforward” and “emphatically.” My point of course was that being “open to being convinced by you” meant you’d have to give me some reasons for giving up my “forthrightly” for your “emphatically.”
Tom: I can be convinced. You’ll have to walk me by the hand through the HOW TO…
James: Are you familiar with the figurative language of the scripture writers? Are you familiar with Hebraisms and Hebrew idioms?
Tom: Enough to follow along I think.
James: There is such clarity and cogency in recognizing these, and unfortunately these are too often taken at face value through the lens of our 20th century ethnocentrism.
Tom: OK, so take me on the tour. I promise to keep up!
James: Newcomb graciously agreed with the following paragraph. Do you as well? “…If God, as scriptures say, has precisely and accurately predetermined any single event in advance…then libertarian free will and a so-called ‘surprising of the divine’ are incoherent.”
Tom: Sure. All OVers agree that IF God exhaustively predetermined all things then libertarian free will is out. This isn’t news. However, the opposite, we argue, is also true.
And don’t mistake “surprise” for “experiencing what was not foreknown in any sense of the word.” Foreknowledge of possibilities (and their relevant probabilities) allows for the sort of “surprise” the open view attributes to God. My wife and I decided to have four children even though we knew the possibility existed that our children could be born deformed, murdered, or die in a car accident. But we deemed the value of love worth the risk. Still, when any of the tragedies we foreknew as possibilities hits, we’re surprised. The point is, foreknowledge of possibilities isn’t itself incompatible with surprise or frustration. Such surprise can still be possible even in situations over which we have a great deal of control but where possibilities still exist. Of course, God’s foreknowledge of possibilities is supremely perfect. Infinite in fact. But this doesn’t change the fact that sometimes things happen that God knew as improbable. Could say much more on this, but gotta move on! Doc’s the main man for the infinite intelligence argument.
James: Before I proceed, I really need you to define "genuine love" and "moral responsibility."
Tom: I obviously don’t define them in compatibilistic terms. Unconditionally predetermined love is, in my view, not genuine love. Unconditionally predetermined choices are not morally responsible choices. If it is the case that God holds us accountable for actions he unconditionally predetermined us to perform, then we’d have to admit at least for now that God’s justice is what WE call injustice. If it’s meaningful to you now, then do us the favor of providing an analogy from life of how a person may justly be held accountable for actions he was predetermined to make. If no analogy exists, then I have no way of deriving meaning from the claim.
You can argue that when we get to heaven we’ll see things differently, but that doesn’t help us much now. This is what makes your presentation of the gospel to me above uninviting and unacceptable. People are supposed to think on and consider the gospel. I wouldn’t know how to ask them to do it if I was presenting them what you presented to me.
Tom: Since I believe Scripture clearly teaches both of these, affirming that God exhaustively and unconditionally predetermines all things would involve us (in my view) in exactly the sort of logical contradictions you agree we ought to avoid.
James: How do exhaustive and unconditional predetermination involve a logical contradiction?
Tom: …logically contradict libertarian free will, that is; as you’ve already agreed.
Regarding the Samaritan woman and your analogy of chiding a child for saying what you predetermined them to do, I still don’t see the connection. Jesus asks the woman a rhetorical question. He knows she’s shacking up and asks her to bring her husband. Why? To get her to face and admit the truth about her situation. To bring her out. No problem.
I think this is quite dissimilar to telling my child “I thought you wouldn’t do this” if it was also true that I predetermined the child to do it. If you John 4 to provide a parallel for your analogy, then Jesus would need to say something like, “I thought you would marry the guy you’re now shacking up with, but you didn’t.” Different animals altogether. Rhetorical questions assume their answers. So, granting for the moment that “I thought you wouldn’t do this” is rhetorical, what answer/truth does it assume if it’s also true that I predetermined my child to do what they did? It still achieves its purpose of chiding my child? Sorry. I don’t raise my kids like that. And I have no categories (biblical or otherwise) for admiring a God who does so (or people who do so). The wiring’s simply not there.
James: It goes to a seeming arbitrary interpretation. How do you know God's statements in other cases, the so-called "openness verses" aren't rhetorical?
Tom: Because if they were rhetorical (or anthropomorphic in the sense you’re arguing) I’d be at a loss to derive any meaning from them whatsoever (other than that God is sometimes disingenuous).
James: Is it logical to think that Jesus is not an actual door? Of course. So it is with verses that seem to make God more human and finite. We know He is not finite, so any verses that suggest this are found to be figurative, which means there is an emphatic point being made that would otherwise be missed if it were not recognized as a figure.
Tom: I of course agree that God is not finite. But I don’t see that God’s possessing the ability to change his mind makes him finite. Why must this be the case?
James: Isn't "I am the door" spoken in a quite matter-of-factly manner?
Tom: Quite so. My point was that those passages describing God as changing his mind also describe God equally “matter-of-factly,” not equally “figuratively.”
Tom: You certainly have no problem taking those passages that depict God as controlling and determining as matter-of-factly literal.
James: Maybe I should take those figuratively. Do you have a suggestion as to what emphatic point such a figurative construction would be making?
Tom: Exactly my point.
Tom: What is in these passages that says "Take me literally!" and in the open passages that says, "Take me figuratively!" ...
James: Sound exegesis and clear logic are sufficient to indicate what meanings were intended.
Tom: Doesn’t sound like an answer. Is “sound exegesis” by definition that which yields a deterministic worldview? Take me to a couple of “open texts” and show me how such exegesis forbids an open view of them.
This post is too long. Sorry!
James, what books have you read by open theists thus far? I recommend reading all you can get your hands on (pro AND con). There are also several excellent threads in the archives of this site with lots of interaction between determinists like yourself and others. In fact, if I had to choose between buying a couple of books on open theism and a CD with all the threads of this site on it, I’d go for the CD. Lots of good stuff here to wade through.
I came to this site just a month or so after it got started very skeptical of the open view. I took the long view; told myself I’d take at least one full year to research things, interact, etc., and then make my mind up. Even after deciding that the open view made more sense of the Bible and experience than the alternatives, I can still honestly say that I can be convinced otherwise. I try to keep an open mind on this. I wouldn’t say, for example, that “It’s the Open God or no God.”
You, however, seem to have already concluded that the open view is unbiblical (heretical?) though you admit to being only partially acquainting with it. It’s just a suggestion, James, but take your time and just hang out here. Kick your feet up and light up a Cuban! Relax. Give yourself at least a year. Set yourself the goal of being able to articulate the open view and its supporting arguments to an open theist (like Doc for example) before deciding on the view. Then at least you’ll know that what you’re rejecting is the open view and not a caricature of it.
Blessings,
Tom
Edited by - TGB on 04/23/2002 09:10:21 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 4/23/2002 4:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Yo folks,
I've gotton obsessed with writing out stuff on Bonhoeffer, so haven't been able to make it over here. Enjoying the exchange.
But if I had the time to interject, it would be exactly what TGB interjected, just not as good.
Here's a world class scholar who translates Hebrew into Arabic, and he has the humility to answer the question "Are you familiar with the figurative language of the scripture writers? Are you familiar with Hebraisms and Hebrew idioms?" with the answer "Enough to follow along I think." And then later, "OK, so take me on the tour. I promise to keep up!"
Bro, as much as I like your mind, I like your heart MORE.
Got to run, but just one encouraging word to Hilston: You several times have made the case that nothing can be predestined unless EVERYTHING is predestined. I'd encourage you to a) read up on some contemporary science, complex adaptive systems, non-linear differential equations, game-theory, statistics and the like. They all prove your assumption mistaken. b) read chs 5-7 of Satan and the Problem of Evil where I apply some of this stuff to the issue of providence.
ABOVE ALL, CLOTHE YOURSELF WITH LOVE. Col. 3
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/23/2002 6:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Kudos Doc. You exaggerated somewhat, but I forgive you! I won't say which part was exaggerated. I wanna use it all as leverage!
Tom
PS What's "kudos" mean anyhow?
"It will change, but not soon." Greg Boyd
Edited by - TGB on 04/24/2002 1:22:43 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 4/24/2002 7:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Tom,
You've piqued my curiosity on several points, so I want to answer the posts out of order, and come back to Newcomb's later. I offer my reply in two posts. Here is part I:
Tom wrote: What I¹m essentially saying is it doesn¹t seem to me unacceptable that God would either a) unconditionally and exhaustively predetermine all of history.
James wrote: I must admit this surprises me.
Tom writes:quote:
Open theists I¹m familiar with all admit that God could have predetermined the minutia of history.
I am aware of that. What surprises me is your claim that (a) doesn't seem unacceptable to you. Most open theists I've encountered seem to take this scenario as seriously as God creating a rock so big He can't lift it.
Tom writes:quote:
It also seems clear (more below) that if God did in fact go the route of exhaustive predetermination, then other things must also be true (about love, relationships, freedom, etc.).
For example?
James wrote: Let's suppose, for the sake of discussion, that you have never read or even seen a Bible. Let's stipulate that you don't even know such a thing exists. Let's further say that someone like me comes along and describes God to you in "predeterministic" "Calvinistic" terms (i.e., that all of your decisions, actions, thoughts, inclinations are predetermined and exhaustively known by God. That God holds you morally responsible for those decisions, actions, etc. and will condemn you to eternal punishment if you persist in your rebellion. That you have no grounds for complaint. But that the good news is that God sent His son to die for sinners. And that you should repent and believe this good news.) Do think you would have objections to those descriptions? If so why?
Tom writes:quote:
As you¹ve described it, James, I honestly wouldn¹t be interested.
Why not?
Tom writes:quote:
Holding me accountable for what he¹s scripted me to do?
Why is that a problem? Especially when you know that in your experience you make choices based on a multitude of mitigating factors. God demands an accounting, and as your Creator, He can do so with complete carte blanche. We have no justified complaint.
Tom writes:quote:
I¹d begin by asking you what reasons you could give me for believing that this was true.
I would appeal to the innate knowledge that you and all men have, God's revelation of Himself within you. I would tell you that you already know this God and that you stand before Him without excuse or complaint. You are commanded to repent and believe the Gospel.
Tom writes:quote:
From the hip I¹d say 1) this would make God directly responsible for evil and for holding people responsible for what he predetermined for them.
God is not responsible for anything. The term "responsible" has no meaning in reference to the Creator who answers to no one. He has full discretionary power; no one judges Him or calls Him to account. He can do with His creation whatever He pleases. This is the God I both love and reverently fear.
Tom writes:quote:
What reason could you give me for choosing to love and worship a God who does this?
The reason is, if you don't you will die in your sins and suffer eternal punishment. If you choose instead to yield to Him and to love Him, you will be saved from your sins and spend eternity with Him. I would also point out that, left to oneself and one's own sinful inclinations and propensities, one would not choose to love and worship the God of the Bible. That is why God must save one in spite of oneself. I personally never would have chosen Him. As it says in Jn 6:44, I needed to be dragged into it.
Tom writes:quote:
2) Whether I repent or not is one of the things unconditionally predetermined by such a God. So, you¹re not really offering me anything.
Exactly! Repentence and belief are not "offers" or "invitations." They are commands that require obedience. Mt 3:2 4:17 21:31,32 Lu 24:47 Ac 2:36-38 2Ti 2:25
Ro 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: [Emphasis added]
Tom writes:quote:
You¹re simply informing me that it might be the case that God¹s Son died for me and God chose to forgive the sins he determined I should commit.
Not explicitly, but sure, that can be inferred.
Tom writes:quote:
3) A God who predetermines people to sin and holds them accountable gives us every reason to suspect him capable of breaking any promise he might make to us.
Why would you think that? It doesn't follow. It's certainly not a logical consequence of the premise. Predetermination says nothing of breaking promises. In fact, it implies the opposite: No Plan "B".
Tom writes:quote:
Personally, I wouldn¹t know how to trust such a God.
In our humanness, we can only hate and rebel against God. Trust is in God is not natural and contrary to our sin nature. That is why we cannot save ourselves. Left to ourselves, we would never trust Him. Trust, belief and faith in God are His unconditional gifts to His elect.
Tom writes:quote:
4) This makes my acceptance of God HIS choice of me and not my acceptance of anything really.
Exactly. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. (Eph 2:8,9) Recall that belief, too, is a work (Jn 6:29).
Tom writes:quote:
Relationally speaking it¹s a dead-end.
Not at all. See, this is the thing I find curious and seems common amongst OV-ists. Why do you assume that God cannot be immanent in the world that He has created IF in fact He predestinated and meticulously controls all things without exception? It is not a logical consequence, so it seems to be an arbitrary complaint (i.e., that they just don't like it). I'm going to give this a name, so that I can make explicit reference to this whenever it comes up. I will call it the Transcendence/Immanence Bifurcation Fallacy (TIBF).
Tom writes:quote:
So, all in all, I would not buy this camel from you.
OK. So, from a human perspective, without involving any claims from scripture, you don't like this God I've presented. For the sake of our discussion, would you give me your OV version of the "camel"? I would gladly do it, but it would be better coming from you -- and I'm likely to muck it up.
James wrote: I agree that both cannot be true. But could he have really done (b)? [As a refresher, let me paste (a) and (b) here: Tom had written: What I¹m essentially saying is it doesn¹t seem to me unacceptable that God would either a) unconditionally and exhaustively predetermine all of history (as you seem to be suggesting) or b) predetermine some of history and leave some of it open.]
Tom writes:quote:
Why could God not have gone this route?
If God brings to pass any singular prophesied event with absolute precision and accuracy, such as the crucifixion of Christ, then He logically must have predestined all events leading up to that, without exception, else that particular event may have been defeated with no chance of precise and accurate fulfillment.
James wrote: According the OV, as far as I understand it, God did predetermine *some* events, right? Also, doesn't the Lord urge us to have confidence, assurance, and take comfort from what He has revealed about future events? How can we have unwavering confidence, assurance and take comfort in the face of the OV possibility that God will change His mind or fail to bring to pass that which He has prophesied?
Tom writes:quote:
I understand that existential factors figure in big-time regarding where folks come out on open theism, ...
Why do you suppose that is the case?
Tom writes:quote:
... and in the end I would never urge anybody to adopt a view of God they felt undermined their confidence and trust in God.
I'm not sure I get what you're saying. Are you saying that you would not disabuse someone of a false view of God as long as that false view did not undermine their confidence and trust in God?
Tom writes:quote:
I think the more you talk to openness folk you¹ll get a feel for how trust and confidence are not only maintained but actually bolstered.
I am very interested in this particular point. I hope you can assist me.
Tom writes:quote:
The main reason I trust God is because of his character as revealed ultimately in Jesus. God loves me unconditionally, remains faithful to his purposes, cannot sin, etc. So, personally my trust has nothing to do with God¹s seeing into a crystal ball all that will happen.
Does your trust in Him have anything to do with your security in salvation? Does He have anything to do with your eternal state? (i.e., How do you know you will not turn your back on Him and end up being ground to powder (Lu 20:18)? Or that you haven't put your hand to the plow, only to remove it later?) What precisely do you trust Him *about*?
Tom writes:quote:
(It would bother me, of course, if there were aspects of reality God did NOT know. But the open view doesn¹t claim this.)
Please explain. Do you not include, say, the next 3 seconds that haven't yet elapsed as "reality"? I'm thinking of getting up to get some coffee. I may or may not do it. God, on your view, does not *know* for certain what a free agent will do, right? He may have a better guess than the average observer, but isn't this an aspect of reality He does NOT know?
Tom writes:quote:
In fact, it seems to me that ³trust² and ³confidence² become irrelevant in an exhaustively determined world. Besides it including our knowing that our trust and confidence in God are, like all other events, predetermined, it does away with any need to trust and have confidence. If God predetermines all that I do and all that happens to me, where is there room for me to trust?
This is the Transcendence/Immanence Bifurcation Fallacy again. My trust and confidence in the Lord rests upon the foundation of His assured victory, my assured salvation, the assured future consummation of all His prophecies, all things guaranteed by His transcendent qualities and immanent control. My trust and confidence in Lord also rests upon the foundation that He intends all events in my life for the purpose of my growth in Christ, my increased understand and love for His word, my usefulness to the Body of Christ, etc., all things influenced by His transcendence and immmanent control.
Tom writes:quote:
Perhaps you could give me a scenario that illustrates the impossibility of trusting God were it also true that the future is partly open. Help me out.
Let's say my 8-year-old son and I are together in the car on our way to the market. We see a horrible car accident: A man and his young son are struck by another vehicle that seems to come out of nowhere. Nobody sees it coming. At first, both trapped in the car, but the father gets himself free. Unfortunately, as the father is moving toward the back of the vehicle to attempt to get his son out, the car explodes, killing the son. Let's suppose this has a huge impact on my son, as it would anyone. He is afraid to ride in a car now because he doesn't want that to ever happen to us. Is there any way to relieve his worry based upon his trust in *me*? Could I blame the father in the accident for being negligent and assure my son that I would be more careful than that guy? Could I say that the man in the accident didn't love his son the way I love mine? Could I say that father failed to do *anything* that would have prevented that accident? Why is it logical for my son not to trust my ability to keep him from this kind of harm should he decide to ever ride in a car again? Because, from his perspective, all future car excursions are *partly* open. I can do my best about the "closed" parts: making sure my son is in his safety seat, not driving recklessly, not driving with distractions, etc. So even though my son can trust me about those things, that does not satisfy his anxiety. Why? Because maybe the father in the accident made sure of all those things, too, and he still couldn't do anything to prevent his son from dying.
Now let's ask the question differently: What would I need to do (or be able to do) in order to *truthfully* secure my son's trust that such an accident will never happen to him should he decide to ride in a car again? I would have to *close* the future. I would have to know exhaustively and control meticulously all things without exception.
So I must ask, precisely what are we trusting in God for, if He Himself cannot guarantee everything about the future?
James wrote: how can there [be] any assurance or confidence in a partial predetermination if He is not exhaustively meticulously holding, sustaining, and directing the entire created order and all events therein? Partial predetermination is no determination at all. It's a roll of the dice, and as OV-ists claim, some prophecies fail (!).
Tom writes:quote:
You kind of lumped together things I agree with and things I don¹t agree with. I certainly agree that creation is ³sustained² by God. And depending on what you mean by ³holding,² I could also agree that God is actively involved in creation.
I'm glad we are finding points to agree on. That means we should be able to make progress.
Tom writes:quote:
But what need is there of assurance or confidence in an exhaustively predetermined world? I simply don¹t see how it¹s true that unless everything is settled nothing can be settled. We don¹t live that way. We live our lives everyday believing that some of the day is settled ahead of time and some is not. What are you basing your assumption on?
This is the transcendenced/immanence bifurcation fallacy again. Try this: Pretend you're able to *settle* something in the future. What would that mean? What would you have to know in order for that settled thing to come to pass? What would you have to secure in order to bring your settled event/condition to pass? Isn't it obvious that you could not leave a single thing to "chance"? You would have to control the flight paths of every commercial airline, because the site or circumstances of your settled event/condition might get flattened by an out-of-control airline before you can bring it to pass, right? I'm sure you've heard the butterfly's-wing-in-China scenario of causation, right?
Tom writes:quote:
If prophecy amounts to God revealing to us what he infallibly sees in a crystal ball or what he¹s eternally predetermined, then failed prophecies are a big problem, but only for those who hold to EDF. On the other hand, if the future is partly open, then a prophecy could fail to come to pass because circumstances warranted it (in which case it was conditional).
First of all, there are no failed prophecies I am aware of. Do you have any examples? Second, are you saying that all "failed prophecies" were originally contingent? Do you have some examples?
Tom writes:quote:
If God tells us he¹s willing to change his intentions on condition of repentance or stubbornness (Jer. 18.1-10), why think unfulfilled declarations reflect a ³failure² on God¹s part?
Describing the consequences of certain actions does not require a partly open future. The Lord is stating the facts: Do this, and these are the consequences; do that, and those are the consequences.
Tom wrote: Now, having said that much I STILL am open to being convinced by you that God is unlike what Scripture so forthrightly seems to make him out to be.
James wrote: If so, then you have to give up the tendentious qualifier you just used, "forthrightly." To me the straightforward meaning emphatically accommodates the EDF (exhaustively definite foreknowledge) of God and His meticulous providence.
Tom writes:quote:
You¹re funny James.
I'm glad you got that. I am sometimes amazed at how long I can get away with using the word "clearly" after I've criticized someone for using it without first proving the clarity they appeal to.
James wrote: Are you familiar with the figurative language of the scripture writers? Are you familiar with Hebraisms and Hebrew idioms?
Tom writes:quote:
Enough to follow along I think.
What is your opinion of their relevance? Would you agree that Hebraic figures are too often misunderstood and result in the wrong application of scripture? Have you encountered idiomatic erotesis in the Hebrew/Aramaic? Do you view them to be legitimate considerations in the proper interpretation of the text?
Tom writes:quote:
All OVers agree that IF God exhaustively predetermined all things then libertarian free will is out.
That's not what I said, Tom. I didn't say "all things," I said "any single event." Do you believe God has precisely and accurately predetermined any single event in advance?
Tom writes:quote:
And don¹t mistake ³surprise² for ³experiencing what was not foreknown in any sense of the word.² Foreknowledge of possibilities (and their relevant probabilities) allows for the sort of ³surprise² the open view attributes to God.
It sounds like you're reaching. As I stated earlier, the Biblical cases cited as examples of God being "surprised" are not forehead-slapping events. Any astute reader is going to say, "What was so surprising about THAT?" I hope you can provide a better explanation than this. It seems pretty weak.
Tom writes:quote:
My wife and I decided to have four children even though we knew the possibility existed that our children could be born deformed, murdered, or die in a car accident.
It's not a good analogy, Tom. The OV claims that God knows more than just the possibilities. According to Greg Boyd, God has a perfect and supreme knowledge of all possibilities. It follows that no one is a better guesser than God.
Tom writes:quote:
But we deemed the value of love worth the risk. Still, when any of the tragedies we foreknew as possibilities hits, we¹re surprised. The point is, foreknowledge of possibilities isn¹t itself incompatible with surprise or frustration.
That's not foreknowledge, Tom. Weighing possibilities is not foreknowledge. It is having advance *knowledge* of actualities, not just conjecture or possibilities. Consider the usage of proginosis/proginosko: Ac 2:23 26:5 Ro 8:29 11:2 1Pe 1:2,20 2Pe 3:17.
Tom writes:quote:
Such surprise can still be possible even in situations over which we have a great deal of control but where possibilities still exist. Of course, God¹s foreknowledge of possibilities is supremely perfect. Infinite in fact. But this doesn¹t change the fact that sometimes things happen that God knew as improbable.
Foreknowledge of possibilities is not knowledge, Tom. Proginosko is a compound word, as I'm sure you're aware. The "ginosko" part is refers to a particular kind of knowledge that is distinguished from other lexical definitions. Consider the distinctions between the word for "knowledge" that could have been used:
ginosko: a knowledge grounded on personal experience
eido: to see with the mind's eye, signifies a clear and purely mental perception
epistamai: a knowledge obtained by proximity to the thing known, cf. our understanding
suneimi: implies a native insight, knowledge gained through the five senses
It would appear that you've jiggered the definition to suit your presuppositions. Why didn't the Biblical writer use "pro" + "eido" if the intended meaning was merely "advance knowledge of all possibilities"? Why use "pro" + "ginosko", which connotes advance knowledge grounded in personal experience?
More to come.
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 4/24/2002 8:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Hilston said:
Unfortunately, as the father is moving toward the back of the vehicle to attempt to get his son out, the car explodes, killing the son. Let's suppose this has a huge impact on my son, as it would anyone. He is afraid to ride in a car now because he doesn't want that to ever happen to us. Is there any way to relieve his worry based upon his trust in *me*? Could I blame the father in the accident for being negligent and assure my son that I would be more careful than that guy? Could I say that the man in the accident didn't love his son the way I love mine? Could I say that father failed to do *anything* that would have prevented that accident? Why is it logical for my son not to trust my ability to keep him from this kind of harm should he decide to ever ride in a car again? Because, from his perspective, all future car excursions are *partly* open. I can do my best about the "closed" parts: making sure my son is in his safety seat, not driving recklessly, not driving with distractions, etc. So even though my son can trust me about those things, that does not satisfy his anxiety. Why? Because maybe the father in the accident made sure of all those things, too, and he still couldn't do anything to prevent his son from dying.
Now let's ask the question differently: What would I need to do (or be able to do) in order to *truthfully* secure my son's trust that such an accident will never happen to him should he decide to ride in a car again? I would have to *close* the future. I would have to know exhaustively and control meticulously all things without exception.
So I must ask, precisely what are we trusting in God for, if He Himself cannot guarantee everything about the future?
Semeia:
Great analogy.
But in your worldview, God is the one that predetermined the boy burning to death. As well as every murder, rape, torture in the history of the world. Do you believe these things happen to people because they're bad people? What explanation do you have for why God would do this? Why would God predetermine Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot to massacre millions of people? Why not predetermine a good world? Is God a sick perverted torturer? Why would God give us life just to poke our eyes out and slit our throats and rape us and have our limbs ripped off? If God predetermined everything then he is a psychotic rapist murderer. Because if he predetermined everything then he is the Author of All Evil.
It seems to me your trust is based on the idea that you are saved, and that won't happen to you. You talk about how your son could only trust that he was safe if you could predetermine everything.
But what about the other boy? What if he had turned to God and asked, "Will you keep me safe?" What is the answer to the question if God has predetermined that he will be trapped in the back of a car and burned to death in front of his father? And furthermore, he was going to burn in hell, because he was unlucky enough to be predetermined from the beginning of time to be unsaved.
The only way someone can enthusiastically endorse a view that says one's life now and throughout eternity is predetermined is if they believe that they themselves are saved.
Because if you believed that everything was predetermined and you were slated for hell, then there wouldn't be a lot of motivation to make something of yourself, would there be?
You certainly wouldn't love or trust someone who decided before you were born that you were going to hell, would you?
But most importantly, the question I'm most curious about, is if God predetermined the whole history of the world, why did he make it so filled with evil? Is he not a powerful enough God to have made it good? Why create evil? Why?
Freedom is the only explanation for evil that doesn't implicate God as a deranged torturer, burning people alive, killing for pleasure.
Why would thinking that God is the author of that make you trust him more?
I don't have time to stay in this conversation, but your analogy just kind of grabbed me. It seemed like powerful evidence for the open view.
Thanks,
Semeia
PS, If everything is predetermined by God, what difference does it make that you think
that you are saved? Couldn't God have predetermined you to believe that you are saved, when in fact he decided long before you were born that you were going to hell? How do you know what God has decided for you?
Wouldn't the boy in the back of the car have felt like he was going to be ok, like every other trip he had made with his father? And if God is so easily the author of every tragedy, what possible difference can your own belief in your own salvation mean? In your worldview, how could it possibly matter? How could you ever know?
But if we have the freedom to choose, then our belief in God is everything.
If we don't, it's a sick game played by a God with too much time on his hands.
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Seymour
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 105
| Posted 4/24/2002 9:23 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
PS, If everything is predetermined by God, what difference does it make that you think
that you are saved? Couldn't God have predetermined you to believe that you are saved, when in fact he decided long before you were born that you were going to hell? How do you know what God has decided for you?
oooh that's a good one. its kinda like the question i always have about the preservation of the saints, that's the good ol' P in TULIP. according to most who like P it is impossible for someone to really fall away from Christ because once you're saved you're always saved. many who hold to P find this view rather reassuring to their faith. I however can't imagine why you would find this reasuring because it seems to always put your salvation at risk. According to many who hold to P those who appear to have fallen away were in actuality never really saved in the first place.
So how do you or i ever really know that we are saved in teh first place? what if, even though we do not know it now, we fall away at the age of 97. This would have been, of course, preordainded by God from eterity past. Now we know, according to P, that it is impossible to really fall away, only appearntly so. SO taht means that at the age of 97 we will find out that we were never really saved to begin with, that we aren't really saved now, that if we died tonight eternal damnation would await us (which of course we couldn't die tonight because it is preordained that we live to 97 and appear to 'fall away').
if i held to P it would give me nightmares, my salvation would seem very peirolouis indeed. how are we to know what God's got up her sleave? we could be damned at any moment!
Some folks dance cool, all angels and swaying hips, Sensual as all get out and in. Me, I'm a hick, and I dance like one, I just kinda jump around and grin.
--Greg Brown | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/25/2002 4:17 AM (GMT -6) | | James-
I appreciate the time you’re putting into this. Wish I had as much to reply point for point, but I just don’t right now. I thought I would win the prize for being the only person to have posted something longer than PoW’s longest post, but it looks like you’ll get the prize instead! Congrats!
Eh, let’s see. About figurative language in Hebrew, you can save time by going straight to specific texts. Lay 'em out there. Take me on the tour bro!
Don’t forget to include in part II your analogy of how we justly hold individuals morally responsible for crimes they were predestined to commit. I need that analogy to derive any meaning from your claim that God justly holds us accountable for sins he’s predetermined us to commit.
About our innate knowledge of God, I could agree with you that humans possess such knowledge of God. But it is not true that we would conclude that a God innately believed to exist would be the sort of God you’re proposing.
You asked if I believed God has predetermined any single event. Yes, I do. To begin with, I think God unconditionally determined to create the world. How does this necessitate the belief that unless God unconditionally predetermined all history he could not have so created the world?
About assurance of salvation, I don’t mind discussing it, but it isn’t a uniquely open view issue. I don’t claim to have absolute assurance that I will never apostatize and I don’t offer such assurance to others. I haven’t found this ever to be a reason why people refuse to believe the gospel or refuse to persevere after they’ve believed.
I don't see that your analogy of the car wreck establishes the impossibility of trusting God regarding a future that is partly settled and partly open.
About the possibility of knowledge of possibilities, what can I say? The mention of Greek words hardly proves the point.
How about we get right to your analogy of how we justly hold individuals accountable for crimes they were predetermined to commit. That’ll really help me out. If you can provide the analogy in question then you will have gone a long way in convincing me to reconsider all these other points.
Tom
"It will change, but not soon." Greg Boyd
Edited by - TGB on 04/25/2002 3:29:35 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 4/25/2002 6:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Semeia,
Thanks for writing. I hope you have a chance to answer a few questions.
Semeia writes: quote:
Great analogy. But in your worldview, God is the one that predetermined the boy burning to death.
Of course. It can't be any other way.
Semeia writes: quote:
As well as every murder, rape, torture in the history of the world.
Of course. It's not possible for it to be any other way.
Semeia writes: quote:
Do you believe these things happen to people because they're bad people?
No. This is the second time I've been asked this question. Whoever suggested such a thing?
Semeia writes: quote:
What explanation do you have for why God would do this?
We know that all His decrees are according to His own good pleasure and purposes. I have the explanations He gives for particular cases given in scripture, such as Judas's betrayal and Joseph's brothers's jealously. God explained why those things were ordained. But He doesn't give specific reasons for all events, nor is He obligated to.
Semeia writes: quote:
Why would God predetermine Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot to massacre millions of people?
For His own undisclosed purposes. We know He decrees good purposes from bad events; the scriptures give specific examples. On your view, why would God allow Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot to masssacre millions of people? Surely He saw it coming. If not, at least He could have flicked a boulder off of a hillside while Hitler was walking by and squashed him and a few ranking officers. Why didnt' God stop these evil men?
Semeia writes: quote:
Why not predetermine a good world? Is God a sick perverted torturer?
Why not stop the Ted Bundies, Adolf Hitlers, and Marquis de Sades of the world? Is God not paying attention? Is He somehow powerless to act? My worldview gives a sufficient and biblically consistent explanation. What answer do you have for these unmitigated atrocities?
Semeia writes: quote:
Why would God give us life just to poke our eyes out and slit our throats and rape us and have our limbs ripped off?
God does not decree these things capriciously. He has a morally justified reason within Himself for what He has determined.
Semeia writes: quote:
If God predetermined everything then he is a psychotic rapist murderer.
According to whom? Who will dare sit in judgment of what the Creator does with His creation?
Semeia writes: quote:
Because if he predetermined everything then he is the Author of All Evil.
What do you mean by the word "author"?
Semeia writes: quote:
It seems to me your trust is based on the idea that you are saved, and that won't happen to you.
Wrong. My trust is based on His revealed character as taught in His Word. Just because I'm saved doesn't mean I will not die from a long, painful illness, or burn to death in a fire, or be tortured by a psychopathic homosexual. Bad things happen to saved people for purposes that God does not specifically reveal. But my Hope is not found in this life and on this earth, but rather awaits me when I am with Christ forever in heaven.
Semeia writes: quote:
You talk about how your son could only trust that he was safe if you could predetermine everything.
Right. The analogy was designed to ask what would be required in order to truthfully and sufficiently secure my son's trust that I could keep him from harm.
Semeia writes: quote:
But what about the other boy? What if he had turned to God and asked, "Will you keep me safe?" What is the answer to the question if God has predetermined that he will be trapped in the back of a car and burned to death in front of his father?
It is futile to ask such a question, be one a child or an adult. God does not make promises to His elect regarding physical care and well-being in this dispensation. The only promise He gives regarding this life is that we shall persevere and progress in our faith over the course of our lives. All other promises appertain to eternity (eternal salvation, a heavenly abode, in the presence of Christ, righteously governing and blessing the angelic host, etc.).
Semeia writes: quote:
And furthermore, he was going to burn in hell, because he was unlucky enough to be predetermined from the beginning of time to be unsaved.
I didn't say that. Maybe he was elect and went on to be with his Lord.
Semeia writes: quote:
The only way someone can enthusiastically endorse a view that says one's life now and throughout eternity is predetermined is if they believe that they themselves are saved.
Exactly! I wouldn't expect a God-hating rebel to endorse Biblical predeterminism. This is what concerns me so much about the OV-ists that I care about, namely, that their reactions to God's meticulous providence sounds very similar to the kinds of protests I hear from atheists and sub-/quasi-christian religions.
Semeia writes: quote:
Because if you believed that everything was predetermined and you were slated for hell, then there wouldn't be a lot of motivation to make something of yourself, would there be?
Of course! That's precisely the point, and that is why the unsaved/atheist/God-hating rebels work so hard on their God-less theories, aggressively opposing themselves and denying and suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Ro 1:19ff).
Semeia writes: quote:
You certainly wouldn't love or trust someone who decided before you were born that you were going to hell, would you?
Of course not! People who are predestined for hell hate God. They don't want to love Him. They don't want Him on His terms. Some will invent a god to suit their rebellion. They modify the concept to fit their needs and desires, all the while actively rebelling against the true God.
Semeia writes: quote:
But most importantly, the question I'm most curious about, is if God predetermined the whole history of the world, why did he make it so filled with evil? Is he not a powerful enough God to have made it good? Why create evil? Why?
He made the world according to His own predeterminate counsel (Eph 1:11). He doesn't give us "why". In particular cases He gives us specifics, but that is not the norm. I have a better question for you: Why does God not make the world LESS evil? Is He not a powerful enough God to diminish the degree of atrocities we see on a daily basis? On your view, why doesn't God flick commerical airliners into the ocean before they can hit buildings and kill thousands of people? Surely, if He could create the earth and all that is in it, diverting a plane should be easy. Why didn't He do it? My view accommodates this question with consistency and coherence. Does yours?
Semeia writes: quote:
Freedom is the only explanation for evil that doesn't implicate God as a deranged torturer, burning people alive, killing for pleasure.
"Implicate God?" That's irrational! Who brings the indictment? Who is His judge? He is the Creator. He does what He wants with full discretionary power.
Semeia writes: quote:
Why would thinking that God is the author of that make you trust him more?
Because He laid His life down for me. He shed His blood so that I could know that love and have the assurance of being with Him forever. I know His blood paid the price for me and that He keeps me. It depends upon Him completely, whose nature and promises do not change. My efforts, my belief, my decision have nothing to do with my security in Him and my future with Him forever. On the Open View, there doesn't seem to be this assurance because the future is open and there are things that God does not know. Prophecies and promises sometimes fail. How can you trust a God who is so debilitated?
Semeia writes: quote:
I don't have time to stay in this conversation, but your analogy just kind of grabbed me. It seemed like powerful evidence for the open view.
How does it support the open view? The analogy had to do with trust. You must've missed the point. How do you trust a Father who cannot guarantee that He can keep you from eternal damnation and the fires of hell?
Semeia writes: quote:
If everything is predetermined by God, what difference does it make that you think that you are saved?
It makes a difference because I am saved. If I weren't saved, I wouldn't care. I would consider it offensive and foolishness.
Semeia writes: quote:
Couldn't God have predetermined you to believe that you are saved, when in fact he decided long before you were born that you were going to hell?
This is true for lots of people. Think of all the cultic sub-Christian religions out there, full of people who think they are saved, but are really God-hating rebels (that is, they hate the God of the scriptures, but love the god they've created in their own image).
Semeia writes: quote:
How do you know what God has decided for you?
Do you mean how do I know He chose me? Christians know they belong to God because of the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, the gift of faith that causes them to believe the Word of God and to own His promises for themselves. This is not proof to others, which is another category altogether, but this is sufficient witness for oneself.
Semeia writes: quote:
Wouldn't the boy in the back of the car have felt like he was going to be ok, like every other trip he had made with his father?
Of course; even adults do not foresee these kinds of tragedies when before they happen. How is that question relevant?
Semeia writes: quote:
And if God is so easily the author of every tragedy, what possible difference can your own belief in your own salvation mean?
My own belief makes no difference. It is the consequence of regeneration, not the cause. The unaided mind and heart is unable to submit to the Lord (Ro 8:7). One must first be regenerated before one will repent and believe in Christ. He must first be dragged by the Father in order to come to the Son (Jn 6:44).
Semeia writes: quote:
In your worldview, how could it possibly matter? How could you ever know?
It doesn't matter in the eternal salvation transaction (ransom = blood of Christ). I could not pay the debt. It had to be paid for me.
Semeia writes: quote:
But if we have the freedom to choose, then our belief in God is everything.
Then you are saved by works, contra the scripture. Belief is a work (Jn 6:29). There is no assurance of confidence in my own belief. My own belief will fail. God, however, will never fail and gives me assurance and confidence because I know He is in perfect and complete meticulous control.
Semeia writes: quote:
If we don't, it's a sick game played by a God with too much time on his hands.
I am sad that you think this. Where does your confidence and assurance come from? You might end up in the flames of hell. How do you know you won't? What guarantee do you have that you won't be eternally damned?
Here are two questions I asked above (to TGB). I wonder what your responses are:
What would I need to do (or be able to do) in order to *truthfully* secure my son's trust that such an accident will never happen to him should he decide to ride in a car again? I would have to *close* the future. I would have to know exhaustively and control meticulously all things without exception.
So I must ask, precisely what are we trusting in God for, if He Himself cannot guarantee everything about the future?
Thanks again. Arrivederci,
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org
Edited by - hilston on 04/25/2002 11:52:59 PM | | Back to Top | | |
| 40 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:52 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 |
|
|