ARCHIVE:God is NOT an OV'er (He said so)

[drdeutsch]

Jobeth,

First, when I say that I affirm God's omniscience, I mean that I believe God knows all that is knowable.

If it is easy for God to thwart human will when it conflicts with His own, and He does do that on occassion, then how do you know He isn't doing that all the time, like I suspect He is?

Well, Jobeth, I don't know for certain. At least, not with the certainty that God would know something with. To that degree, none of us know anything with that amount of certainty.

However, upon reading the bible, it appears to me that there are far too many "repent" verses, conditional statements (if, lest perhaps, etc.) unfulfilled prophecy, etc.. going on. If God were exercising meticulous control, then I would have to wonder why He continually thwarts His own will [Gk. thelema]. Of course, I wouldn't wonder that unless He made me wonder it. But why would God cause me to question Him, which is also thwarting His will? I'd prefer not to discuss this in this thread. If you want to start a new thread, that would be great, but right now I would like to concentrate on our Rev. 13:8 discussion.

Jaltus,

The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism says:

Tischendorf was of the opinion that four scribes wrote the manuscript [Sinaiticus]; he labelled them A, B, C, and D. It is now agreed that Tischendorf was wrong. The astonishing thing about these scribes is how similar their writing styles were (they almost certainly were trained in the same school), making it difficult to distinguish them. Tischendorf's mistake is based on the format of the book: The poetic books of the Old Testament are written in a different format (in two columns rather than four), so he thought that they were written by scribe C. But in fact the difference is simply one of page layout; scribe C never existed. For consistency, though, the three remaining scribes are still identified by their Tischendorf letters, A, B, and D.

It continues: "Of the three, scribe D was clearly the best, having almost faultless spelling. A, despite having a hand similar to D's, was a very poor scribe; the only good thing to be said about him was that he was better than B, whose incompetence is a source of almost continual astonishment to those who examine his work."

Anyway, the article pretty much makes clear that Aleph cannot be trusted. The page was last updated (according to the main page) April 29, 2002. You can view it here

As far as other information and other MSS:
"from the foundation of the world" is clearly adverbial and must, therefore, modify either "slain" or "written," not a noun, like "names" or "lamb." Many scholars, including the authors of the NASB and NRSV, as 1013 pointed out, choose to have it modify "written" rather than "slain" on the basis of Rev. 17:8 -- the "Scripture interprets Scripture" principle. Obviously, the author of Revelations closely associates "names written" with "from the foundation of the world." This is further support by Rev 5:12 "the lamb that was slain" (i.e. it does not say "lamb slain from the foundations of the world," whereas Rev 17:8 does say "written in the Book of Life since the foundations of the world.")

Although you are correct that the adverbial prep. phrase should modify the closest possible object, in this case, with the evidence cited above, many scholars choose to interpret it according to the OV translation. Romans 3:25 is a good example of an intervening phrase. "by His blood" cleary modifies "propitiation," not "faith."

If, however, as 1013, "from the foundation of the world" modified "slain," what would this mean? It cannot mean that Christ has been in the process of being slain ever since creation. Nor can it mean that Christ is "having been slain" since the creation, for He manifestly did not get slain at the time of creation. One cannot literally say that He has existed in a state of having been slain since the creation of the world. On a side note here, if God is timeless or outside of time, why would He make a distinction between "before" the foundation of the world, "since" the foundation of the world, etc.?

As 1013 pointed out, "since the foundation of the world" might not even be literal. Matthew 13:35 "things hidden since the foundation of the world." This is taken from Psalm 78:2, which actually means "I will utter riddles of old." Again, as 1013 pointed out, Luke 11:50 speaks of "the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world." Even if you wish to consider Abel a prophet (although Scripture never calls him a prophet), the blood of prophets has not literally been shed "since the foundation of the world."

Even better is Hebrews 9:26: "He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." I do not believe this verse is saying that Christ would have had to have been in a constant state of suffering since the foundation of the world (Why would Christ have to suffer before the fall?), but that his suffering would have to have been repeated several times since creation, or rather, the fall.
If "from the foundation of the world" must modify "slain" (and it mustn't) in Revelations 13:8, then I would go off of Hebrews 9:26 and interpret the verse to mean that Christ has died once and for all in the entire history of the world. I don't believe that this interpretation would damage the OV at all.

As far as MSS go, the 27th Nestle-Aland, the 4th UBS, and the Majority text all have the neuter singular to onoma autou, which means "the name of him." The p47vid and Aleph, according to my source, both have to onomata autwn, "the names of them." In fact, I think every text I found has a variant of this. At any rate, "since the foundation of the world" should clearly modify a verb, either "written" or "slain," not a noun. Both "written" and "slain" appear in every text.

The point is, Jaltus, that this interpretation is completely Biblical. So is your view. This interpretation can be argued either way, hence some Bible authors translate it as "written since..." and some authors translated it as "slain since..."
I can't prove that the OV interpretation is the only interpretation of Scripture. I don't want to. I only want to prove that the OV interpretation is a consistent, inerrant, Biblical interpretation. I think that, at the very least, we have proven that there is a strong case for translating Rev 13:8 as "written from the foundations of the world in the Book of Life of the slain Lamb." This, in turn, would make a very strong case for the OV belief, or at least my belief, that the fall of man was not foreknown, thus Christ's crucifixion did not become part of God's "determined purpose and foreknowledge" until after the fall of man. If this is so, the OV stands.

God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

Yes, I edited twice. I'm a fallible man. Even Hemingway rewrote the ending to A Farewell To Arms 39 times.

 

[geoff]

Surly,

Your right, I am leaving this to Jaltus, its kinda fun to watch and see what text they are going to try and manipulate next... we've gone biblical text to non biblical now.. heh

Jaltus:

have fun

 

[drdeutsch]

Geoff,

Was your NKJV (or other version) simply translated into English from one, large, Hebrew and Greek book preserved perfectly over 2,000 years?

The NKJV (and, by default, KJV) are both based on the Textus Receptus. That's Latin, Geoff.

For that matter, I was completely content to stick with my NKJV and NRSV, until Jaltus brought in the "text critical work." So now I have had to use textual criticism in order to stay in his league.
On a side note, I know next to nothing about Greek or textual criticism. I am, however, eager to learn and found all of my sources on the internet. I also sent out a few emails to theologians that I admire, although not all wanted to help me or even agreed with me.

1013, however, made a very nice post without using any Greek or text critical work.

Again, Geoff, you are an extremely close-minded, very poor theologian, obviously out of your league and unwilling to have your understanding opened, that you might comprehend the Scriptures (Luke 24:45).

God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[Surly-DwarF]

drdeutsch Again, Geoff, you are an extremely close-minded, very poor theologian, obviously out of your league and unwilling to have your understanding opened, that you might comprehend the Scriptures (Luke 24:45).

God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

That's rich I'll be chuckling over that for a while. You're right, good Dr., he's out of his league, I am, and Jaltus is too. Heck, we are all in awe of your theological prowess around here. Personally, I feel so fortunate that you're here to straighten us all out, as if the face of YHWH is shining right down on us. You OV'ers...really! Words fail me. Just because you manage to work yourselves into more and more confusion, then share it with others doesn't mean there's any validity to it. In fact, the OV is plain stupid and doesn't even deserve to be discussed by serious, rational people. There's the truth for you. Don't like it? Tough. Grow up and get over it.

 

[drdeutsch]

Surly Dwarf,

I'm sorry you feel that you and Jaltus are out of my league. Personally, I think Jaltus was doing a fine job. In fact, I must thank him wholeheartedly for pushing me far enough to have to do this sort of research in order to defend my beliefs. I only wish you and he could contribute more.

However you wish to evaluate them, my opinions of Geoff are my opinions. Likewise, your opinions of me (and OV'ers in general), apparent from your ironic statement, is your opinion. You are quite welcome to it.

The entire point, good Dwarf, is that it cannot be proven, beyond the shadow of a Scriptural doubt, that Christ was predestined before the fall of man to be crucified. Likewise, it cannot be proven that the Open View is completely and Biblically wrong. Of course, it also cannot be proven that the determinist view is completely and Biblically wrong. I was under the impression when I came to this website, that it was a forum for discussing religious beliefs, theology, and other such things. I thoroughly enjoy this discussion with Jaltus, although I could do without you and Geoff blatantly attacking OV'ers as "stupid" and saying that their views are "complete conjecture" without providing any evidence to support it.

No doubt, Surfly Dwarf, Geoff, and Jaltus, all of our religious views probably have more in common than you and I would be willing to admit.

May the grace and peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[geoff]

DRD,

Yep, I'm closed minded, a poor theologian, and I am in a league of my own.

However, I dont care what you think of me. I really really really dont care what you think of my theological abilities. Your comments only affirm what has already been said about OV'ers in this thread.

Once upon a time you could actually have an semi intelligent biblical/theological/philosophical discussion on this forum. However, the calibre of the posters on here has degenerated to the point where it is just plain useless to even try.

Let me just recap the reasons why the non OV argument fails in the words of OV'ers on this forum:
1. "i am not sure you are capable or presenting an argument, so I reserve the right to reject everything you say"
2. "Your theology is based on Greek Philosophy"
3. "You are closed minded and a bad theologian" (from a person who confessed he isnt a theologian - nor has he demonstrated any open mindedness)
4. "God did predestine and plan Christs work on the cross from the foundation of the world, however He didnt actually know He was going to do this and he didnt actually do it from the foundation of the world but from some indeterminant time later"
5. "Some technical textual babble" (from someone who confesses to knowing nothing about textual criticism)
6. "some technical Greek language argument" (from someone who confesses he has no knowledge of Greek)

This is typical of the way discussions go on this forum. I have been doing this for 4 years and it hasnt changed, except it has got worse. Do you think I should change my point of view just because you are new to the forum? You havent offered anything new, nor challenging, nor in fact, anything with a supporting argument.

Why dont you get off your high horse and get real with the rest of us, huh?

 

[jobeth]

Geoff:
I was right about you. You are not the sort of person who answers questions or objections.
I know of not one single person on this forum who understands your position about how God can exhaustively know the future without causing it. Do you?
I, too, have been around for the past 4 years, and we have had many, many discussions, both on the forum and privately, as you well know. So you are right to conclude that either I am incapable of understanding you or you are incapable of explaining yourself. I'll leave it to others to decide which is truly the case.

Let me add, that if even one person can explain the coherence of your view in such as way that you would agree with their description, I would be Very Happy! As it is, I am Sad and Disappointed over the seeming incoherence of your veiw and I know that won't change until you make it sensible to me. But do you even care about my Unhappy state?

Understandest thou what thou readest?
How can I, except some man should guide me?

 

[jobeth]

Dr. D.
Here are my objections to your philosophy:
1. You said, "I, as an OV'er, completely affirm God's omniscience. He knows all of the present and past exhaustively."

It sounds to me like the same kind of logic that says "God is love, because He loves the elect only." In other words, it is to change the definition of Omniscience to LIMIT God's Omniscience to only the present and the past in the same way that it is to change the definition of Omnibenevolent to LIMIT God's Love to only the elect. I cry "foul" in both cases, because OMNI means, by definition, ALL - without LIMIT.

2. You also said, "when I say that I affirm God's omniscience, I mean that I believe God knows all that is knowable.

Well, of course God knows ALL that is knowable. That is not disputed. The "unknowable", by definition, is that which CANNOT be known, even by God. Do you suggest that there actually exists ANYTHING that is truly UNKNOWABLE?

If what is Unknowable actually exists, then God is NOT omniscient. But if God is truly omniscient, then what is Unknowable does not exist.

Will you admit that the Open View specifically denies my claim that God knows BOTH what could happen AND what will happen? And will you admit that this denial constitutes a denial of God's Omniscience (All-Knowing Characteristic)?

There are those who claim to believe that God is Omnibenevolent (All-loving) and yet there are some whom God does not love. And there are some who claim to believe God is Omniscient (All-knowing) and yet there are some things that are unknowable to Him. It seems to me that both these statements, without changing definitions, are equally nonsense and contradictory. Wouldn't you disagree?

 

[Evangelion]

Jaltus -

Knowledge is not causative. Can we agree on that? Knowing my name is Jaltus does not cause my name to be Jaltus, rather my knowledge exists due to the fact that my name is Jaltus. Knowledge is caused, not causative.

Agreed!

 

[jobeth]

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

To claim the phrase "from the foundation of the world" refers to "written" rather than "slain" does not help the OVer's case.

If Christ was slain in the wisdom and purpose and foreknowlege of God from the foundation of the world, that would mean God knew Christ would die before the fall of man, since the fall occurred subsequent to the foundation of the world.

But if names were written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, that would mean that God foreknew who would and would not obtain life before Adam sinned, again because the fall of man occurred subsequent to the foundation of the world.

Propitiation (Lamb slain) must precede names being written, because names are written only as a result of belief in propitiation. Otherwise we would have Propitiation done (i.e Lamb slain) because (as a result of) names were written in the Book of Life. Which is nonsense.

If names were previously written, then why consequently have Lamb slain?

You don't mean to say that names were written first (from the foundation of the world) and then Adam sinned, and then Christ was slain, and then those whose names were recorded prior to Christ's sacrifice necessarily believed and those whose names were not recorded prior to Christ being slain necessarily did not believe, do you?

That would be an argument for Limited Atonement. Doesn't it make more sense for those who embrace Unlimited Atonement to affirm that is "the Lamb slain" from the foundation of the world, rather than it was "names written" from the foundation of the world?

 

[jobeth]

I agree that Knowledge is not causitive.
But whence comes Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge without Agency?

It seems to me, it's either both or neither.

OVer's acknowledge a little of both. I'll give them that much credit.

Can't you at least recognize that these two are not unrelated?

Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. (aion - ages)

 

[drdeutsch]

Jobeth,

Just quickly.
Yes, I believe that there are events that are not knowable. Our future freewill actions. However, I believe you said it right, I do believe that God knows infiite possibilities and probabilities. However, until we actually perform the action, it is merely that: a probability or possibility.

Also, I believe that "from the foundation of the world" should modify "written." Rev. 13:8 would then read: "whose names have not been written in the Book of life since the foundation of the world." This implies that everybody has a chance to have their name written in the book of life. How? By believing in Jesus Christ, of course.

Geoff,
God bless you.

I've got to head out. Hear from you all in about a week.
God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[geoff]

JoBeth,

it seems at least Jaltus and Evangelion (which is a big suprise) can get their heads around it... thats just 2 in this thread here.

Your point?

DRD:

I believe that there are events that are not knowable. Our future freewill actions.

How then, can God prophecy that certain events will happen, which are DEPENDANT on human free actions. If God says, this thing will come to pass, and it is dependant on human free actions, then He MUST have some idea about what will happen. And it can not be guesswork. It has to be certain knowledge. Anything that God PLANS must surely include certain knowledge regarding human actions, OR IT WILL NOT COME TO PASS.

Its really quite simple.

 

[jobeth]

Dr. D.
I agree that Future Free will actions are Unknowable, even for God.
And since I affirm that God is Omniscient, and that nothing is Unknowable to Him, I MUST deny that man has Freewill.

By Freewill, I mean "Free from God's control".

Also:
Where do you put the phrase "The Lamb slain"? You seem to have left Him out.

Revelation 13:8 And kai <2532> worshipped proskunhsousin <4352> (5692) him autw <846> ALL pantev <3956> who oi <3588> inhabited katoikountev <2730> (5723) upon epi <1909> the thv <3588> earth ghv <1093> who wn <3739> not ou <3756> had had written gegraptai <1125> (5769) their ta <3588> name onomata <3686> in en <1722> that th <3588> Book biblw <976> of his thv <3588> Life zwhv <2222>of that tou <3588> Lamb arniou <721> slain esfagmenou <4969> (5772) from apo <575> the conception of katabolhv <2602> the world. kosmou <2889>

 

[jobeth]

Jaltus and/or Evangelion:
Geoff claims that you understand his view. If that is true, will you please explain it to me, since Geoff refuses to do so?

Specifically, I'd like to know his explanation for how God can have EDF of the future without causing it.

If the future already exists, then how did it come to exist without God's creative agency?
And if the future does not already exist, then how can God know for certain what will happen without determining it of Himself?

 

[drbrumley]

Just a post by Bob Hill on this topic. Im researching this and have found no problem with what was said on this post.
______________________

Many theologians say that God determines everything. But is this right? The answer is, No!! We find that God determines some things in the Bible, but He does not determine all things.
For instance, Job was completely ignorant of the conflict between God and Satan. Job was blind to the thought that Satan was counting on fatalism as his most potent weapon. Fatalism is a paralyzing problem that has saturated Christianity with devastating results. It has infected many Christians with the complacency of whatever they do, God did it and it could be no different.

Satan wanted Job to think of God as a fiend and deny Him. Job didn’t have much, if any, of God’s word. He didn’t know what God’s will was.

What is God’s will? I believe we can break God’s will down into 3 scriptural categories. His intentional will (thelayma), His circumstantial will (thelayma), and His ultimate, or determinate will or counsel (boulay).

When we look at His intentional will, we see is that we were created for His will (pleasure). Rev 4:11 “You are worthy, O Lord, To receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, And by Your will they exist and were created [kai dia to thelayma sou aysan kai ektisthaysan].”

Next, He wants us all to love Him. Mk 12:30,31 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. This is the first commandment. 31 And the second, like it, is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these.
1 Co 16:22 If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. O Lord, come!

He wills us all to love one another. John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 1 Th 4:9,10 But concerning brotherly love you have no need that I should write to you, for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another; 10 and indeed you do so toward all the brethren who are in all Macedonia. But we urge you, brethren, that you increase more and more.

He wills all to be saved. 1 Tim 2:4 “who wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Because man totally rebelled against God, in order to receive salvation, man must believe God and do what He says for salvation. Mat 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Mat 12:50 “For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.” Heb 10:36 For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise. For us in this dispensation of grace, His will is found in Acts 16:31, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.

We also see His will is that we be holy. 1 Th 4:3-8 “For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, 5 not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 that no one should take advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter, because the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also forewarned you and testified. 7 For God did not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness. 8 Therefore he who rejects this does not reject man, but God, who has also given us His Holy Spirit.” I have not met one Christian who lives a totally sanctified life, living totally for God.

His will is that we work out our salvation. Phi 2:12-13 “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.” However, His will can be thwarted by us just as Israel thwarted His will for them as recorded in Psa 78:40,41 How often they [Israel] provoked Him in the wilderness and grieved Him in the desert! 41 Yes, again and again they tempted God and limited the Holy One of Israel.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Jaltus]

Specifically, I'd like to know his explanation for how God can have EDF of the future without causing it.

If the future already exists, then how did it come to exist without God's creative agency?
And if the future does not already exist, then how can God know for certain what will happen without determining it of Himself?

There are many answers to this, so I'll throw out one for starters.

Time exists. Both the past, present, and future are knowable by God because God is not constrained by time.

Space is generally defined as three dimensions: height, depth, width. However, physicists and mathematicians have come to realize that space is actually four dimensional: time. Time is the fourth part of what space is (as seen by relativity theory and Minkowskian space-time).

Therefore, if you believe in an ominpresent God, you believe in an omnitemporal God (at least to some extent).

Therefore, God is at all times just as He is at all places (in some sense). Because He is at all times, He sees everything that happens. This means He sees the future happen, even though He does not cause it (since man has free-will, an assumption of this defense which is superfluous to go into).

Therefore, God sees it happen before it becomes the present for us. The future is thus known by Him without Him causing it. Therefore, EDF is not causative just as knowing my name does not cause it to be my name.

 

[Evangelion]

Jobeth -

Jaltus and/or Evangelion:
Geoff claims that you understand his view. If that is true, will you please explain it to me, since Geoff refuses to do so?

Specifically, I'd like to know his explanation for how God can have EDF of the future without causing it.

If the future already exists, then how did it come to exist without God's creative agency?
And if the future does not already exist, then how can God know for certain what will happen without determining it of Himself?

You are committing the typical atheist fallacy of confusing foreknowledge with causation. There is no causal relationship between God's knowledge of future events, and their literal occurrance. If you believe that there is, the onus is on you to prove it.

 

[Surly-DwarF]

drdeutsch Surly Dwarf,

I'm sorry you feel that you and Jaltus are out of my league. Personally, I think Jaltus was doing a fine job. In fact, I must thank him wholeheartedly for pushing me far enough to have to do this sort of research in order to defend my beliefs. I only wish you and he could contribute more.

deutsch,

Allow me to help you out. I was being sarcastic. There is no inferiority complex here.

However you wish to evaluate them, my opinions of Geoff are my opinions. Likewise, your opinions of me (and OV'ers in general), apparent from your ironic statement, is your opinion. You are quite welcome to it.

Well, thank you

The entire point, good Dwarf, is that it cannot be proven, beyond the shadow of a Scriptural doubt, that Christ was predestined before the fall of man to be crucified.

Yes it can, and has been, many times on many threads.

Likewise, it cannot be proven that the Open View is completely and Biblically wrong.

Yes it can, and has been, many times on many threads. Most of them long before you arrived on the scene.

Of course, it also cannot be proven that the determinist view is completely and Biblically wrong. I was under the impression when I came to this website, that it was a forum for discussing religious beliefs, theology, and other such things.

As far as I know it is

I thoroughly enjoy this discussion with Jaltus, although I could do without you and Geoff blatantly attacking OV'ers as "stupid" and saying that their views are "complete conjecture" without providing any evidence to support it.

Slight correction, I believe I attacked the OV itself in distinction from OV’ers as being stupid. And I stand by the rest.

No doubt, Surfly Dwarf, Geoff, and Jaltus, all of our religious views probably have more in common than you and I would be willing to admit.

Why more than I would care to admit? I think it’d be great if we all agreed 100%. Really, I do. However, I think we probably have less in common than maybe you’d care to admit. *Shrugs* I bear you no personal ill will though.

 

[drdeutsch]

Jobeth,

My completely translation of Rev. 13:8 would read "All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written since the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb slain."
This is based on the MSS evidence above, and also Rev. 5:6 and 17:8, which many scholars cite as support that "since the foundation of the world" should modify "written" rather than "slain."

Surly-Dwarf,

I personally have not seen anybody prove that the OV is completely and Biblically wrong. Historically unorthodox, yes. Biblically wrong? No. For every OV argument, there will be a determinist argument to counter it. For every determinist argument, there will be an OV argument to counter it. The email debate between John Sanders and Chris Hall is a good example. Chris Hall, in my opinion, did make a better argument than Sanders, but that doesn't mean he would make a better argument against Hasker or Boyd or any other OV'er.

As far as having a lot in common, I was referring to many traditional Christian beliefs: Jesus Christ as the Son of God, as the only way to Salvation. The Triune God. Divine inspiration and infallibility of the Bible (the Hebrew OT and Greek NT anyway) etc...

I know. I know. This really is my last post for a week. I have to go out to Mount Rushmore to pull security duty for the 4th of July celebration.

God bless,
Dr. Deutsch