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

[drdeutsch]

Geoff,

If I come to the Bible with the understanding that many of the traditional views of Scripture are rooted in the Hellenistic philosophy (e.g. the doctrine of Immutability) it is because it is true. This can be traced back to Plato, Plotinus, and others. These men were pagans. Not Christians. I'm not saying that they weren't learned men or Erudites. They were very competent. However, I'm not going to take an understanding of Scripture from someone who doesn't believe in God.
As far as Augustine goes, he was a very great scholar. He didn't believe God changed at all. He was a philosopher first and foremost, Christian second. Augustine changed, however, after Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan, allegorized the OT and showed Augustine that God can indeed and does change.
After listening to Ambrose, Augustine wrote:

“For those absurdities [my note: repent verses] which in those Scriptures were wont to offend me, after I had heard divers of them expounded properly, I referred now to the depth of the mystery: yea and the authority of that Book appeared so much the more venerable, and so much more worthy of our religious credit.”

But, let's throw away our presuppositions. Many (Piper, Hall, Calvinists, non-OV's) say that God doesn't change. Many others (Boyd, Sanders, OV's) say that God does change. Why should I believe any one of them over the Bible? They are just men, and men are fallible. So I look at the bible. I look at the 26 instances which say that God repented [nacham]. Enough said.

As I said before, Geoff, I was a Calvinist at one time. I subscribed to all of the traditional views of God. Speaking of traditional, I was raised Catholic. I had tradition stuffed down my throat every sunday morning. (this is not a knock against the Catholic church - just that I didn't really like going to mass because it put me to sleep. Does any kid really enjoy going to mass?) Anyway, I swallowed everything that theologians put out there - immutability, impassability, timelessness, etc... Then, I got a wake-up call. I started reading the other side. I kept an open mind, and I started comparing everything against Scripture, doing my own research, and praying that God would "open my mind to an understanding of the Scriptures." Bless Him, He has.

Please don't make any more presuppositional comments about me, Geoff. By the way, where do you preach?

God bless, all.
Dr. Deutsch

 

[Surly-DwarF]

Wow,

I wish I had more time to keep up with this threa. There's a lot I want to comment on, but must limit myself presently.

1013Sproul concluded his essay in a book that he contributed to, Bound Only Once : The Failure of Open Theism (I think thats the book, unless there's another collection of essays against the open view with Sproul Jr. as a contributer, which I doubt) with something like "may God destroy these idolotrous thoughts and those who think them".

1013,

"With something LIKE," eh? Well, with that kind of charge, it better be something VERY like. Personally, I'd like the exact quote, as I don't believe he said it until I have concrete proof.

JaltusRC Jr is just riding his father's coattails. Ignore him, since he ignores the Bible. (not a knock on Calvinists, just on Jr.)

Yeah, I'd like to add something here too. I'm not a knee-jerk defender of any and all Calvinists and whatever they might say. But, to my knowledge, that is a very unfair and untrue thing for you to say about the Sprouls, Jaltus, particularly Sr., who I have learned an incredible amount from, and who seems to me to be one of the most gracious, easy-going and irenic guys I can imagine, especially for a theologian. Jr. may be a bit more aggressive and fiery, but some of his messages, particularly on child-rearing are among the best I've heard as well, so until I have something more than 1013's hearsay to indict them, I'll continue to defend their character, insofar as I'm privy to a knowledge of it. If I'm proven wrong, I'll own up to it.

I find it funny that Calvinists are so quick to call everyone else a heretic.

I don't think we/they are so quick to do that. But hey, if the shoe fits....

Mike

 

[Jaltus]

Actually, Sproul Jr. said that all true believers should "call down fire" on those who believe such things (his words).

Surly,

I did not knock Sr at all, only Jr. Most in the know know that Jr. is not a biblicist in any sense of the word. His father is a wellknown and thoroughly versed man. His son is but a pale shade, riding his father's coattails. There is no knock on Sproul with that (my parents, by the way, do know Sproul, so I try to refrain from commenting on him, as I am biased by my parent's views).

Dr Deutsch,

So you take as normative 25 or 26 descriptive passages and deny all passages which affirm as God unchanging with respect to His nature, purpose, plans, and will? What kind of hermeneutic do you have in order to do so? (honest questions, not lambasting)

As per the argument from "Greek philosophy," you do know what all Boyd, Sanders, et al are espousing is just Aristotelian philosophy? You are just changing one system for another (as per your understanding).

For me, it boils down to this:

Can the OV God truly fulfill Romans 8:28? The answer, as is seen in Boyd's book, is no:

It is true that according to the open view things can happen in our lives that God didn’t plan or foreknow with certainty (though he always foreknew they were possible). This means that in the open view things can happen to us that have no overarching divine purpose. In this view, ‘trusting in God’ provides no assurance that everything that happens to us will reflect his divine purposes, for there are other agents who also have the power to affect us, just as we have the power to affect others. This, it must be admitted, can for some be a scary thought.

God of the Possible, pp. 155-156. Humorously, or sadly, Boyd is reversing himself from only a few pages earlier, pg. 153, where he says the exact opposite:

[Openness] affirms that whatever happens, God will work with us to bring a redemptive purpose out of the event (Rom. 8:28).

Obviously, such a position is not truly tenable.

In other words, I like my Bible whole and read according to the genre it is written in. therefore, doctrinal essays (i.e. Romans) are read as PRESCRIPTIVE, telling the reader what is true and what should be done about it. Narrative texts are DESCRIPTIVE (i.e. accounts of what historically happened), telling us what happened. In the case of telling us what God did, what human language can adequately grasp what God thinks or what God feels?

These are some of the issues that need to be considered in this debate.

 

[Jaltus]

Edgar,

Yes. You can only be expelled for not holding to inerrancy or for not holding to Trinitarianism, therefore a wide range of beliefs can be held, so those thrust out are considered not saved, or at least heretical with a need to come back to the fold.

 

[Surly-DwarF]

Jaltus,

Ok, I guess I misunderstood you about R.C. Sr., sorry. I’m a little surprised that Jr. would have said that, and I’d still like to see the quote in full context, but if he did I don’t endorse it, and would hope he’d take it back if given the chance. As to the rest of your comments, you’ve made a number of good points.

Mike

 

[drdeutsch]

Jaltus,

There are 26 instances in which the Hebrew word nacham is used of God. There are also many instances which say that God does not repent [nacham] or change. I have examined them all. They are mostly specific cases. Malachi 3:6 for example. "I am the Lord. I do not change. Therefore, O sons of Jacob, you are not consumed." The Hebrew in Mal 3:6 is not nacham, it is lo shanah and, in this instance, God is saying that He will not go back on His word - He will not renege - on His covenant with David. This verse does not speak about the immutability of God's character, it is saying that God is trustworthy. He made a covenant with David and He's not going to go back on that by destroying Israel. Another one is when God made Saul king. First, He repents for having made Saul king, then He takes the kingdom away from Saul. When Saul prays to Him, He says "I will not change." God means that He will not change His mind. He is firm in His decision to not give the kingdom back to Saul.
I'm pretty sure that I've examined all of these verses. If you have any more, feel free to email me any more of your questions: drdeutsch@hotmail.com

I am by no means a great theologian. I am very much still a beginner and don't know the answer to many questions. I don't believe that my theology is perfect or infallible in any way. In fact, I read a lot of non-OV and Calvinist articles to try to find faults in my theology. Obviously, many of the views shared on these forums help with that also.

As far as Boyd is concerned, I do not subscribe to everything that Boyd subscribes to. I have read God At War and found it to be a very informative. It made me think a lot. If there are faults in his theology, perhaps you should point that out to him. Like I said, I read all views in order to "brainstorm," so to speak. If something fits, I examine it against the Bible and see how it works out. I'm fairly sure that my theology - like all men's theologies - is riddled with flaws. Only God is perfect.

God bless you all,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[drdeutsch]

Jaltus,

Also, as far Aristotleian philosophy and Hellenistic philosophy are concerned, I wasn't aware that I was interchanging the two. Augustine drew from many Greek philosophers. Here is an article by Bob Hill from his book Calvinism Unmasked that explains it pretty well:

http://www.biblicalanswers.com/CalvinismUnmasked_ch2.htm

God bless you all,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[geoff]

Jaltus,

You are af course correct. OV'ers have done exactly what they accuse everyone else of. They seem to forget that Paul was one of the greatest philosophers around... doesnt stop them from forming their church around his teaching though...

DrD,

unfortunately Bob Hill is no expert on philosophy. He doesnt even realise what He has done.

BTW, a time bound god, who can not know the future, who must change and react is no better than the baals and the marduks of the ancient near eastern religions. OV makes the God of Scripture, the equal of the gods of the pantheists of ancient times... talk about a philosophical muddle.

 

[1013]

Jaltus, I'm afraid I still don't see the problem with Romans 8:28. Even Boyd's take on it.

I don't think that everything that happens to us has a divine purpose. But God can work with those things that didn't have that divine purpose into his plans.

Furthermore, how do you take this position without subscribing to specific soverignty?

All does not mean absolutely all significant and insignificant. If some electron on the opposite side of mars swerves one way, does that have to be part of God's plan? Does it have to be part of God's plan that I brushed my teeth this morning with 48 strokes and not 45?

Suppose I have a crippling accident that wasn't determined by God. Why did God have to know about that beforehand to use it. Can't he use that even if it was due to some free and uncontrolled decision of a driver to drive drunk which God did intend to be on the road and gave him the real possibility to stay off the road?

BTW, I do believe that in the Four views book the answer given to the calvinist was something to the effect that there was a better translation of the verse that did not lend itself as much to the cause of specific soverignty and was more compatible with more indeterministic views. I'm not sure if it was Pinnock who pointed this out or not.

 

[drdeutsch]

Paul may have been a philosopher, but I believe he was divinely inspired. The Hellenistic philosophers, on the other hand, were not divinely inspired. At least I don't believe so. However, since the bible is "God-breathed," Paul was therefore divinely inspired and can be considered a reliable source to learn from.

Bob Hill doesn't have to be a philosopher in order to write a brief history of traditional doctrines. I'm not a carpenter, but I could probably do some miscellaneous handywork. I'm also not a philosopher, but that doesn't stop me from reading history and learning about historical past events, historical truths. By the way, I'm not historian, either. I study mainly languages and linguistics.

Would it make you feel better if I found a brief history of Hellenistic philosophy compiled by someone else?

God bless you all,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[1013]

Paul wasn't a Philosopher. He doesn't deal with the issues that Philosophers deal with. The Bible makes lots of metaphysical claims, and some epistemic claims that has implications for philosophy and very interesting ones at that, but it is not a book of philosophy.

BTW drdeutch,

we've had an interesting thread on nachum and Moses' perspective on God's changing. I might bump it for you

 

[geoff]

Honestly man... thats just dumb,... EVERYONE is a philosopher... you cant think about life without philosophising...

I have just read a series of articles by a gent doing his phd thesis on Pauls integration of Hellenistic philosophy...

I suggest you read up on it. THere is NO WAY in hades that an amateur philospher could do what Paul did, or have the grasp of things philosophical that Paul did. Its quite obvious that Paul was taught by, and came in contact with many great philosophers of the Hellenistic age (and their students). And there is no way that what they taught would not have been integrated into his thought, any less than his hebrew-ness would have been able to have been set aside.

come on gents, start using your heads please.

 

[1013]

Paul wasn't a philosopher.

 

[geoff]

I said, START USING YOUR HEAD.

honestly...
this is very very sad

 

[Surly-DwarF]

Geoff,

Uhh, your avatar is kinda creepin' me out

1013 II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions;[4] yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.

I don't think your view flys with this second article on God's eternal decree in the westminster confession, which is alright if you don't adhere to it. But it is a calvinist standard

Rob,

I agree with the West Conf. What I said about foreknowledge/predest. earlier wasn’t necessarily intended to be a full statement of what I believe, but an explanation of how the two things aren’t exactly the same. Though I’d note that the WC also, in addition to that bit you just quoted, states that God does this in such a way that no violence is done to the will of the creature, etc. Gerstner says that in some profoundly mysterious way, God sovereignly predestines things in the same way the WC states, but in accordance with our free choices. Of course, I’m talking about “free choices” in the natural sense of decisions based on preference (what to eat, where to live, what movie to see), not the “moral liberty” of the unregenerate to choose God or do spiritual good, which I presume is part of your Lib. FW paradigm.

 

[geoff]

Mike,

We are the CalvinistBorg - we will not assimilate your theology, we will defeat it with sound reasoning, logic, and exegesis!

ADDEnDUM: I am not a calvinist... it was a JOKE!

 

[Edgar Caiña]

Jaltus

Jaltus

Jaltus,

What if Boyd, et al. (say) are finally expelled from ETS, would that mean they are no longer Christians in the eyes of ETS?

Originally posted by Jaltus
Edgar,

Yes. You can only be expelled for not holding to inerrancy or for not holding to Trinitarianism, therefore a wide range of beliefs can be held, so those thrust out are considered not saved, or at least heretical with a need to come back to the fold.

Am I reading you right? YES? That would mean they are NO LONGER Christians in the eyes of ETS? I thought you (and the majority in ETS) are a Calvinist?

 

[Edgar Caiña]

Actually, Sproul Jr. said that all true believers should "call down fire" on those who believe such things (his words).[/b]Well, if that fire was predetermined to come down upon those who believe such things, RC has nothing to worry about, it would come down upon us. But that invitation for true believers to "call down fire" makes me to question again his belief of fixity of all things. Does he truly believe that's possible, I mean for true believers to influence God in prayer to send fire upon the "heretics"? Anyway, It's just a sort of musing things... Im sure RC was not serious with those words...

 

[Jaltus]

I am Arminian. The majority of those in the ETS are Calvinists. Of course, the Calvinists would argue that they were never saved to begin with (an argument which begs the question), but that is beside the point.

The words are in print (though I cannot remember where) and it was quoted at the last ETS conference in CO. Even those in the anti-OV camp knew that Jr. meant it.

Again, Jr. is not Sr., but he weilds too much influence to be saying those kind of things ANYWHERE and still be considered a man of God. You'd think he never read Luke 9:51-62.

 

[Jaltus]

Dr. D,

Let me just say that I am firmly convinced that nacham does not mean what you think it does, or rather is not limited to the range of meaning you think it is. While I am no Hebrew scholar, I have a friend who is fluent in both biblical and modern Hebrew, who will pursue his Ph D in linguistics from Ohio St (in Hebrew) when he is done working at a church plant.

Go see the thread on nacham that should be in this forum somewhere. It is quite lengthy, but the arguments are wonderful.

My point about philosophy is that allegedly historical Christianity (specifically classical theism) has fallen prey to Platonism. However, the OV response has been to throw out Platonism and unknowingly replace it with Aristotileanism, virtually replacing one Greek philosophy for another (those Greeks were quite bright, and all of Western civilization is based on their philosophy anyway). Thus, the critique loses much power when it is understood to only be self-serving, and not a true "starting over from scratch" as it claims.

If you want a REAL critique of classical theism done well (and briefly), I highly recommend Ronald Nash's The Concept of God. If you want a good philosophical critique of classical theism from an OVer, read The Openness of God, chapter 2, which I believe is by one of the Basingers.

1013,

How can you not see that those two quotes from Boyd contradict each other point by point?