ARCHIVE: Genesis 18:20-21

R

RunnerOnAir

New member
I have been reading sections of Bruce A. Ware's book "God's Lesser Glory" and would like to present an interesting verse that was brought up:

Genesis 18:20-21 "And the Lord said, 'the outcry against Sodom and Gomorroah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave. I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know."

Now, this verse brings an interesting scenario for the open theism hermeneutic of interpreting divine knowledge texts. Applying the open theism hermeneutic, we come to a denial of more than foreknowledge. First, God doesn't know NOW the vastness of their sin--a denial of God's present knowledge. In addition, in addition, it denies GOd's OMNIPRESENCE, as He must actually "go down" to the city to "find out." So for the open theist to be consistent, he must deny other attributes of God as well.
 
Arminian

Arminian

New member
First, God doesn't know NOW the vastness of their sin--a denial of God's present knowledge.
Click to expand...

They don't deny any present knowledge. It's the future knowledge they have a problem with. The verse seems like one they would want to employ to the degree that God is acting within history to investigate.

So the verse isn't exactly the best for or against their case, nor the non-OV'er's case.
 
Last edited:
Y

Yxboom

Guest
Speaking as OV I was gonna to respond to that; however, you did so as I would have so thanks. The act of "going down and investigating" the matter was a traditional act of a judge to determine greivious matters. As a physical going to Sodom is not an OV concept for the 2 angels sent were representative for YHWH and sufficient for judgment.
As for omnipresence well that is another matter all together. ;)
 
Y

Yxboom

Guest
On an aside I will have to agree with Arminian's conclusion that the passage used neither builds nor exterminates the case for OV. Not only does OV'ers have to qualify that passage but so does any other view. Therefore it doesn't bolster nor discredit any proof against it.
 
R

RunnerOnAir

New member
<Not only does OV'ers have to qualify that passage but so does any other view. Therefore it doesn't bolster nor discredit any proof against it.>

I would agree here. However, it does show one thing: that both the traditional view of God and OV come at the divine knowledge verses with assumptions from the rest of Scripture, and, consequently, they shouldn't be used to prove the OV position, since there isn't consistency...
 
R

RunnerOnAir

New member
To Quote Bruce Ware on the matter:

"Hermenuetical consistency, it would seem, requires that if Genesis 22:12 (a classic OV proof text) means that God learned something new, as open theists claim, then Genesis 18:21 means that God does not know all of the past or present and that He is spatially confined. SO which should it be? Shall we follow the openness appraoch consistently and deny even more of God's attributes than have already been trimmed away? Or shall we, with great caution and care, consider whether Scripture elsewhere teaches, with sufficient clarrity and fullness, that God in fact knows the past, present, and future and is everywhere present, in order then to reconsider the narrative and personal dialogue form of these Genesis texts and others, to discern in them their proper and intended meanings?"

In other words, our doctrines of God's knowledge must come from elsewhere than these anthropomorphic verses, as they would lead to major doctrinal inconsistency and the hermenutic must be selectively applied to support the OV.
 
Y

Yxboom

Guest
I am having a problem following that? Because there is different types of language used (not dialects) regarding God's knowledge we are to discredit all knowledge? I am unclear.
 
R

RunnerOnAir

New member
"They don't deny any present knowledge. It's the future knowledge they have a problem with. The verse seems like one they would want to employ to the degree that God is acting within history to investigate."

I understand the open position only denies certain future knowledge. But the problem is that their hermeneutic takes divine knowledge verses literaly, and you can't be selective in your hermenutic application when its these verses you use to prove your position.
 
R

RunnerOnAir

New member
"I am having a problem following that? Because there is different types of language used (not dialects) regarding God's knowledge we are to discredit all knowledge?"

Sorry, I'm having a hard time following your question...
 
Y

Yxboom

Guest
When Jesus says "I am the door" John 10:9. The context is quite clear regarding the anthropormorphism. It is not one of consistency as it is one of reasonability.
 
Y

Yxboom

Guest
Contrast that passage with Jesus saying that He is the way. Is He really the way?
 
R

RunnerOnAir

New member
Maybe an example might be in science. You employ a very set method in investigating ants to prove a certain thing about ants. However, one day, your method proves something different about ants than you had hypothesized. So therefore you change your method that day to fit your hypothesis. So the open theist method is to always interpret divine knowledge passages literaly to prove that God is only limited in His foreknowledge. However, when you come across a passage that the literal interpretation doesn't fit what you are trying to prove, you change your method and don't take it literaly--i.e. it must be figurative because we know God is omnipresent. So the Open theist doesn't apply their method consistently, only when it proves their point.
 
R

RunnerOnAir

New member
"When Jesus says "I am the door" John 10:9. The context is quite clear regarding the anthropormorphism."

Yes, because you know elsewhere that God is Spirit. However, what other passages besides these "divine knowledge (or lack thereof)" passages do OV use to support their position? You take "I am the door" as anthropomorphism becuase God is not a door. Consequently, classical theism takes divine knowledge passages as anthropomorphic because we believe other places in Scripture teach that God doesn't change His mind and that he knows the future. So you can't accuse classical theism of misinterpretation of the obvious any more than you can accuse a Christian of misinterpreting the "obvious" statement that Jesus is a door.
 
Arminian

Arminian

New member
"When Jesus says "I am the door" John 10:9. The context is quite clear regarding the anthropormorphism."
Click to expand...

He's not giving human characteristics to the door. It's not an anthropormorphism.
 
Arminian

Arminian

New member
However, when you come across a passage that the literal interpretation doesn't fit what you are trying to prove, you change your method and don't take it literaly--i.e. it must be figurative because we know God is omnipresent. So the Open theist doesn't apply their method consistently, only when it proves their point.
Click to expand...

I don't know what an OV'er would say. However, we need to be careful not to get too philosophical. Narrative is written to be experienced by the reader.

It's clear from the narrative the God wanted us to know that he was going to turn his attention there and consider what needed to be done. That can't be ingored.
 
Y

Yxboom

Guest
Where did I accuse classical theism of anything? I just pointed out what Arminian had already done so well.
 
R

RunnerOnAir

New member
<Where did I accuse classical theism of anything? I just pointed out what Arminian had already done so well.>

Ok, sorry about the personal pronoun :) I was making a point about the open theist in general, in that they have no grounds for accusing the classical theist of misinterpreting the so called "divine knowledge" passages as anthropomorphic, as the open theist does the same thing when it suits their assumptions from the rest of Scripture (example of Genesis 18:21-22)...
 
G

geralduk

New member
One must be carefull in denying that which is CLEAR in scripture;in this case the omnipresence of God and OMNISCIENCE.
So to presume this verse contradicts that which MANY other assert is a too hasty decision.

Perhaps a look at the account of the LORD cursing the fig tree will help.
In that He saw there were leaves and so went to get soem figs.
saw that it did not have any and cursed the tree from its ROOTS.

Now this was not some arbitary action ruled by a quick temper becasue He did not gte what He wanted.
But the FIG TREE is a type for ISREAL.
Not only that a fig tree has the FRUITS FIRST then comes the leaves.
The leaves SPOKE that it had FRUIT but had none.
So it was cursed.
The Lord often SPAKE inparables but here He WORKED a parable.
For it was when He was going up to JERUSALEM for the last time.
and ISREAL were rejecting the kingdom.

If we look at the building of the tower of BABLE we see what MEN said.
"let us build us a tower up to heaven and make a name for our selves.
But God had ALREADY said they were to "go out into all the world"
NOT stay "in this place"
So as their voice CAME up to Him in rebellion He WENT DOWN in JUDGEMENT.

If we look at the account of Caine and ABLE.
Ables blood SPOKE to Him out of the ground.
and so He came and SPOKE to CAINE.

As Moses was up in the mountain with God the VOICES of the tumult BELOW came UP.
So He went DOWN.

There is a TIME when SIN has reached its PEAK,the cup is FULL and when the STINK reaches heaven.
It is then when God comes down.
and DEALS with it.
God is JUST and does not go by hearsay.
nor by a SMELL but will come and see if it is so.
bringing His judgement with Him.

So it will be in the last days also.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top