 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > Something I've been struggling with. | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 12/17/2003 5:59 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
I'm sorry. I thought it was obvious. My error. In God's story, of course, characters in the story are also readers of God's revealed account of the story, namely the Bible.
Are Hamlet and MacBeth aware that they are characters in a Shakespeare novel?
Oh my! Again, I thought that my earlier note sufficiently implied the answer to your question when I said, "After all, God alone can script a story in which his characters carry out their evil conspiracies and actions exactly as God foreordained that they should do and they bear full accountability for their actions without besmirching the author's character at all (see Gen 45:5-8; 50:20; Acts 4:27-28)."
Clearly, Hamlet and Macbeth are fictional characters. God alone could script a story in which real, live, self-aware characters fill the stage of the drama and fulfill all that they are foreordained to accomplish and do so without auditioning for their roles. God does not imitate human authors. Does he? Don't human authors imitate God?
Human authors, of course, cannot script stories in which they create a stage akin to God's creation (they have to contract workers to build it), create real and alive and self-aware characters (they have to have actors audition to play roles), plot a story line in which players (who do not audition) carry out their roles as purposed by the author and do so in such a manner that they are accountable for their choices and actions and cannot blame or credit the author of the story for their own choices and actions.
I'm sorry, again, for assuming too much.  | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 12/17/2003 6:31 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
I'm sorry, again, for assuming too much.
I'm just looking at the syntax of your analogy, disregarding the semantics for now. (I'm a software engineer, we differentiate between the correctness of program logic and what the logic actually accomplishes)
In your analogy, the author is an instance of the same type as the readers. Regarding books, a person writes a book, the readers of the book are other people who cannot quibble with how the writer-person wrote his book.
In real life, God is the author of the book and we are the characters. You say we are the readers as well. This is confusing, the readers have shifted from being of the same type as the author in one analogy to being of the same type as the characters in the second analogy.
venue writer character-type reader-type
-----------------------------------------------------------
book author(person) character person
life God person person
See the syntax of the analogy. We haven't even gotten into the semantics (meaning) of the analogy and the syntax (form) has already broken down.
I'm heading out for the day, so this post will be quick and brief.
Of course the analogy breaks down. I agree. I anticipated this claim. My earlier note to John implies the breakdown of the analogy. After all, we're speaking of God who scripted a story in which humans are both players and readers of the story. No human, as I've already acknowledged, can fully imitate God. Humans, who author stories, imitate God only as creatures can imitate God. We have no power to do what God alone can do in scripting the kind of story he has scripted. Of course, the analogy breaks down. It breaks down by God's design to remind us that when we write stories, we do so as creatures and not as God.
Again, I'm here to stimulate thought, not to argue.
Off to do a host of geezer things.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 12/17/2003 8:48 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
Of course, the analogy breaks down. It breaks down by God's design
You're using an analogy to prove something and then claim it breaks down by design? An analogy designed to be defective doesn't make much of a case for itself.
Popping in momentarily before heading off to other activities. Every analogy breaks down, else it would not be an analogy. Analogy, by definition, entails similarity and dissimilarity. Doesn't it? Here is the definition of analogy: "Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar."
When I said that the analogy breaks down by divine design I neither implied nor suggested that that the analogy is defective. The analogy, is not defective as designed by God. The analogy does precisely what God designed it to do. It uncovers how dissimilar we are to God. We are creatures who are completely dependent upon the Creator for our existence and for everything we have had, now have, or could wish to have. God, on the other hand, is utterly independent and sovereign over all his creation.
As to another note, you said, "The problem is proving that we are just characters in a play. That would require self-awareness." I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Please enlighten me. I do want to remind you, however, that I did not say that we are "just characters in a play." We are not. We are real, live, self-aware sentient beings made in the image and likeness of God, and, wonder of wonders, we are members of God's great cast of characters who occupy the stage of God's grand drama for a short time, however long God grants us the breath of life.
Oh, go ahead and pick at it all you want. That's why I've posted my notes. I want you to do just that. Of course, it would be nice if the picking were done for learning and understanding things of Scripture.
Soli Deo Gloria.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 12/17/2003 10:02 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
You started off by making an analogy between God and authors:
quote:
Human authors foreordain every detail of the stories they compose. Don't they? Human authors embed "foreshadowing" (a form of typology) into their stories so that events, persons, places, etc. foreshadow later features of the story. Human authors ordain that their stories will unfold according to their sovereign plans and that their stories will reach the ends they have foreordained.
After all, God alone can script a story in which his characters carry out their evil conspiracies and actions exactly as God foreordained that they should do and they bear full accountability for their actions without besmirching the author's character at all.
The analogy was to show how similar they are, authors scripting plays, God scripting our lives.
Then you do a 180:
quote:
The analogy does precisely what God designed it to do. It uncovers how dissimilar we are to God.
So your original analogy was to show which?
1. similarity
2. dissimilarity
You said that we're made in God's image. Would that be a "dissimilar" image then?
Oh my! Have I failed to communicate properly again? My error. I intended to say that the analogy does both. That we are made in God's image and likeness, rightly understood as analogy, signifies that we are both like God and unlike God. Images are both like and unlike the things they reflect. Are they not? If not, what sense is it to speak of an image?
The analogy of humans as authors like God signifies both similarity and dissimilarity. It depicts similarity in that humans imitate God when they author stories. Like God who foreordains all aspects and details of his story, so humans who author stories foreordain all aspects and details of their stories. Of course, as I thought I had said earlier and also repeated, human authors are also unlike God in that they cannot foreordain characters, settings, plotted conflict, etc. at the same level that God does. God scripts a story that entails real, live, accountable sentient beings. Human authors script stories that entail fictional characters.
I hope I'm making it clearer for you.
Soli Deo Gloria. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 12/17/2003 2:12 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
Images are both like and unlike the things they reflect.
When you look in the mirror, the image you see both looks like you and doesn't look like you? Very puzzling.
Have you considered getting a new mirror?
Well, I guess I will close out this discussion after I post this note. It seems to be going nowhere, and John hasn't returned to the thread. After all, I did post my notes first to John, if my old mind remembers correctly.
What does analogy mean? "Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar." Analogy does not mean "sameness."
What does likeness mean? "The state, quality, or fact of being like; resemblance." Likeness does not mean "identical."
What does image mean? As used of us made in God's image, the word surely means "resemblance." Image, in the biblical usage, does not mean "exactly alike." It cannot, for we are creatures, and God alone is God. God is independent and free. We are dependent and restricted.
So, when I look into the mirrors in my home I see an image, a likeness, an analogy of myself. It is not there unless I stand in front of the mirror. It is not three dimensional. It has no life of its own. It resembles me, but it is not an exact duplicate of me. Its presence in the mirror is completely dependent upon me. It is not self-existent.
After I go, you may want to rethink your claim that I made up the analogy--the book/author/characters. You said, "The problem with your book/author/characters analogy is that it isn't in scripture." Actually, my analogy is both in Scripture and is Scripture. I'm rather confident that you have noticed this; it's so obvious. What did God give to us? Did he not give to us a book? Is his book not a revelatory commentary upon God's great drama that has been, is now, and will be played out in earth history, upon earth's stage by and through characters that God has created and purposed for his own glorious designs? Does the Bible not portray God to us as having written things down, as having foreordained events, creatures, the plotted course of the story?
OK. Now I'm on my way.
Soli Deo Gloria.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 12/17/2003 7:50 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
Well, I guess I will close out this discussion after I post this note. It seems to be going nowhere, and John hasn't returned to the thread. After all, I did post my notes first to John, if my old mind remembers correctly.
Man I feel special! 
But seriously...
It seems to me that you assume that which still needs to be proven; i.e., that in fact all of the future is merely the acting out of a predetermined divine script. I know of no scripture which even implies that to be the case.
I know of lots of scriptures that state that God has a plan and a purpose that he would very much like to see actuated in our lives, and I know of several passages which demonstrate that God some times unilaterally acts in human history to effect His divine purposes at the time, but I know of no passages in Scripture that either state or imply that all of the future is already as certain as the past and present are to God.
To the contrary, I find that a great many passages of Scripture either state or imply that the future is to a significant degree truly contingent upon the choices of moral agents, and I infer from these passages that this conditionality with respect to the future is precisely the way God always intended creation to be.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 12/18/2003 1:28 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
After I go, you may want to rethink your claim that I made up the analogy--the book/author/characters. You said, "The problem with your book/author/characters analogy is that it isn't in scripture."
Whereas the parent/child analogy is what Jesus used.
"Our Father, who are in heaven" NOT "Our author..."
If an author is writing about real people (non-fiction) then he's just reporting how real, autonomous people with free-will chose and acted in the past. This is scripture.
If an author is writing a book of fiction, he's making up descriptions of people that don't exist, thus he can have them doing anything he desires. This is the book you're talking about.
We are not descriptions of non-entities, we're real, autonomous agents with free-will, thus your book of fiction is not an analogy for real life. And your book of fiction is not scripture, either.
Check out the analogies Jesus used, parent/child--->God/people.
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 12/18/2003 3:46 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
Well, I guess I will close out this discussion after I post this note. It seems to be going nowhere, and John hasn't returned to the thread. After all, I did post my notes first to John, if my old mind remembers correctly.
Man I feel special!
But seriously...
It seems to me that you assume that which still needs to be proven; i.e., that in fact all of the future is merely the acting out of a predetermined divine script. I know of no scripture which even implies that to be the case.
I know of lots of scriptures that state that God has a plan and a purpose that he would very much like to see actuated in our lives, and I know of several passages which demonstrate that God some times unilaterally acts in human history to effect His divine purposes at the time, but I know of no passages in Scripture that either state or imply that all of the future is already as certain as the past and present are to God.
To the contrary, I find that a great many passages of Scripture either state or imply that the future is to a significant degree truly contingent upon the choices of moral agents, and I infer from these passages that this conditionality with respect to the future is precisely the way God always intended creation to be.
You're right. I haven't attempted to prove that all future things were foreordained. I dropped my notes to prompt you and others to think about how the Bible prophesies future things by way of foreshadowing/typology. Indeed, I have no reason to believe contrary to what I presently believe that God has purposed to bring about the future just as he has planned it, and that includes all the free choices/actions of his creatures. I am convinced of this from the same Bible from which you come to radically different conclusions. I have not challenged your conclusions by demonstrating that my conclusions are correct.
In my notes I have assumed nothing more than you continue to assume. You have not demonstrated and cannot demonstrate that humans have the kind of libertarian freedom that you believe in. You cite Scripture passages as if they prove your case. They don't prove anything other than that you and I read the Bible with radically different outcomes.
So, I didn't enter the discussion to prove that I'm right and that you're wrong. I didn't come to prove that the outcomes of my reading the Bible are correct and that yours are incorrect. That would be an entirely different discussion. I entered the discussion with much lower objectives, simply to prompt you and others to consider that passages like Hosea 11:1, stated as fulfilled in Matthew 2:15, function typologically, and that those passages are designed by God to function as typological prophecies that have real fulfillment just as much as straight-line prophecies (such as Micah 5:2). In other words, my effort was to propose that there is a whole vast category of Old Testament Scriptures that open theists (Greg Boyd has clearly done this) seem to have dismissed as having no prophetic function because those passages don't contain any clearly expressed grammaticalization of future-talk. Thus, my point is that open theists, as long as they assume that they are reading the Bible correctly (given their assumed but undemonstrated belief in human libertarian freedom), will fail to see that vast portions of the Old Testament foreshadow future things, events, persons, etc. My hope, by doing this, was that some who may be inclined toward open theism would begin to recognize that the Old Testament does this and that it does so because God designed and purposed these things from the beginning.
Old Testament institutions, persons, events, places, etc. have typological-prophetic function by divine design, not as if God were making up the story as it somehow unfolds more or less independently from him, but by his creating-foreordaining design. Until we are willing to see how the Old Testament organically bears this typological-prophetic function, we will be virtual fideists who have little hope of demonstrating on the basis of Old Testament Scripture that the Messiah, the Son of God, is Jesus (John 20:30-31). I was once such a fideist. So, I know whereof I speak.
In other words, open theists and all who are inclined toward open theism need to engage fully in biblical theology--biblical intertextuality, the Old Testament's use of the Old Testament, the New Testament's use of the Old Testament, promise and fulfillment, literary features of Scripture, typology, forshadowing, imagery, etc., etc. This is what occupies those who have and continue to proclaim that the good news of Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the entire Old Testament and that Israel's bondage in Egypt functioned by God's design as a shadow and foreshadow of the Christ who was to come (See what occupies biblical scholars, and pastors and teachers who do exegesis of Scripture.) This should occupy anyone who is the least bit enticed by open theism. For anyone who is so enticed had better be as the Bereans and examine the Scriptures daily to see whether what open theists are saying concerning the Christ is really so (Acts 17:11). I only call you and all others to the Scriptures. That's my whole objective.
Of the approximately three hundred prophecies that various scholars claim that predict Messiah's advent, Greg Boyd (among others in these discussions) has reduced Old Testament prophecies to about six passages. Why has he done this? Why have others done this? I entered the discussion to suggest the reason for this. I propose that it's because open theists do not recognize how passages such as Hosea 11:1 actually function as typological prophecies. I did it. That's all. Now I'll go back to geezerdom.
Soli Deo Gloria.
P.S. As for Laika's last note, I'll leave it alone. I have failed to communicate much to him. So be it!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 12/18/2003 4:24 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by might-be-don
Gerry,
I'm way out of my leauge here...
Concerning the types/shadows, could it be that Jesus is the way He is because we are the way we are? Instead of we are the way we are because of who Jesus is. Looking back it's easy to say that the scripture narrative contains types/shadows of Jesus, but couldn't this be precisely because Jesus must be as He is because of who we are.
Must we assume we are shaped and formed throughout history just so that Jesus could look exactly like He does?
Just thinking out loud...
peace, don
I do not understand what you are asking. Remember, I'm a geezer. Help me understand what you are saying and asking. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 12/18/2003 6:19 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by might-be-don
Gerry,
Depending on your geezer cutoff point, I'm most likely a geezer also.
God designed all of history to be exactly like it is so that all things might point to the glory that is Jesus Christ. Each and every historical event was determined/directed/caused to happen with the express purpose of pointing us to the person and work of Jesus. My initial introduction to foreshadowing/typology was via Author Pink, a Calvinist's Calvinist if there ever was one ( my appologies to The Band ) . In order for Jesus to fulfill all the foreshadowing, the things that happened had to be crafted by God to be exactly as they were so that they would point to the way Jesus is.
I'm suggesting that instead of history being crafted by God to point to Jesus, Jesus came in the manner He did as a result of the way history played out ( not because God caused it to be that way ) .
Sorry, communicating this stuff is not my strong point.
peace, don
Thanks for clarifying. Now, even this old geezer understands what you are saying.
You advance a nice theory. But you will have to demonstrate the veracity of your theory by showing how the Bible actually supports it. Where is the Bible's evidence to support the theory?
If you go with your suggested theory, you will have to overcome a preponderance of evidence from the Bible that supports the view you were exposed to via Arthur Pink. All the promise and fulfillment language that fills the pages of Scripture would have to be overcome. What others on this thread have said concerning the fulfill/fulfillment language throughout the New Testament, such as in Matthew 2:15 does not satisfy either the demands of the vocabulary or the demands of the syntax of the text. "Fulfill," as used in Matthew's Gospel, does not mean "Jesus' going down to Egypt is like Israelites' going down to Egypt and becoming slaves from which they needed to be redeemed, and in that Jesus' going to Egypt is similar, this can be said to fulfill what happened to Israel in ancient times even though God did not plan or design Israel's exodus from Egypt to prophesy by way of foreshadow the recapitulation of this even by Jesus Christ." Such a reading of the text empties it of its plain meaning. When the Old Testament prophets, such as Hosea and Isaiah, recognized that God's great acts on behalf of Israel will be recapitulated when the One who was to come would come (see for example Isaiah 40-55), one has to engage serious begging-the-question to argue that Matthew 2:15 should not be understood as I have reasoned in my notes.
You would have to demonstrate how all the plain-spoken passages that run 180 degrees against your theory actually support your theory. Consider simply one passage in Ephesians 1:9-12.quote:
And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.
In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.
If you can demonstrate to me that your theory explains best the volumes and volumes and volumes of Scripture, similar to the passage I quoted above, then you will have me as a convert. Try it! But do it quickly, 'cuz this geezer doesn't have a lot of time left. And I surely want to die believing properly concerning the Lord Jesus Christ.
Soli Deo Gloria.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 12/18/2003 7:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Matthew 2:14 So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt.
15 He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON."
Why'd they go to Eygpt? In order "to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord".
Matthew 1:20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
21 "She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."
22 Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet:
23 "BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US."
Why did the angel command Joseph to name the child "Jesus"? In order "to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord".
Ezra 1:1 In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah, the LORD moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and to put it in writing:
Why did God move the heart of Cyrus to make a proclamation? "In order to fulfill the word of the Lord".
Even Jesus:
Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."
These all fall into the pattern set forth in Isaiah 48:3, God declares; when the time comes, God acts.
Isaiah 48:3 "I declared the former things long ago
And they went forth from My mouth, and I proclaimed them.
Suddenly I acted, and they came to pass."
This is what some prophecy is, God declares; followed by God acting in time to fulfill those prophecies.
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 12/18/2003 8:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Gerry,
The open view does not teach that ALL of the future is indefinite, nor does it ignore the passages which you cite that are typically used by determinists to support their contention that ALL is in fact predetermined.
By the same token, the classical determinist point of view has to explain away many many passages that indicate the future is to some extent truly contingent (even in God's mind). What the open view does is attempt to reconcile both classes of texts.
If all is predetermined, then how is God not the author of sin? And therefore the Ultimate and Original Sinner himself? If all is predetermined, then how are we to distinguish good from evil at all?
As to the Eph. 1 passage (which open theists definitely affirm), open theists do not dispute that God has a purpose and plan in history, and that he works all things out with that end in mind. But that has to do with God's supreme wisdom, intelligence, and omnipotence, rather than an entirely predetermined future.
The classical position, it seems to me, has to deny the veracity of Scripture in the many passages that plainly depict God's mind changing in response to human activity.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
timlings
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 130
| Posted 12/18/2003 11:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Laika
I liked your explanation of prophecy in scripture. I've thought for a long time that prophecy is God telling us what he's going to do, not what was going to happen anyway. Otherwise it doesn't really serve much point! And it makes sense with the bible too.
love in Christ
timlings | | Back to Top | | |
| 47 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:10 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|