ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[lee_merrill]

EDF requires that ONE SPECIFIC COURSE OF THE FUTURE occur.

Alright, that's fine, but the Open View holds that future free choices cannot be known, which is what I am disputing here, and any number of paths leading to the same choice, it cannot be known that all paths will have the same free choice made.

Yes, these do, in this case, involve free decisions by all participants. None of them are certainly and definitely foreknown, although Peter's response, based upon a limited number of options when queried (run, admit, deny), and the known consequences (death, death, escape), and the present state of his heart, makes denial Peter's obvious choice.

But not the certain choice! Is the point here, and yet Jesus said "I tell you the truth," both now, and then years into the future, about Peter's faithfulness in martyrdom.

And also that "only a remnant would be saved," and these decisions must be in the Open View the most free decisions, for love must be free, we do hear such people saying.

 

[themuzicman]

Alright, that's fine, but the Open View holds that future free choices cannot be known, which is what I am disputing here, and any number of paths leading to the same choice, it cannot be known that all paths will have the same free choice made.

Incorrect. All of the paths lead to a the same kind of choice. My choice to eat pizza at 3pm is different from my choice to eat an apple at 2pm, but both fulfill the prophecy.

That's the difference. EDF says "Prophecy MUST be fulfilled with a specific agent X doing specific action Y at specific time Z."

OVT says that "Prophecy is fulfilled when the kind of action prophesied happens, regardless of X, Y, and Z, limited by what is prophesied. Thus, in this case, X is specific (Peter), but Y and Z are not. Y only must be a denial of some kind based upon Peter's circumstance and present state, and Z must only be before morning.

But not the certain choice! Is the point here, and yet Jesus said "I tell you the truth," both now, and then years into the future, about Peter's faithfulness in martyrdom.

Again, God knows Peter's present heart and God's future actions in this regard.

And also that "only a remnant would be saved," and these decisions must be in the Open View the most free decisions, for love must be free, we do hear such people saying.

Free decisions do not imply unlimited ability. If you'd take the time to actually read your bible, you'd see:

4 But what is the divine response to him? "I have kept for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." 5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to [God's] gracious choice. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. 7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;​

Israel was hardened to its Messiah, and God's action was required to open the eyes of the remnant. And, as we see, Israel is seeking salvation, so when God opens the eyes of the remnant to see it, they accept it.

Muz

 

[Lon]

Rob, I was doing some reading and crossed these two verses for your arsenal.

John 13:10-11

 

[patman]

I thought we 'ground' this one out years ago, Patrick. You do realize that God said this to a free will agent Gen 15:13, the Egyptians were free will agents, the Jews were free will agents, and the Amorites were free will agents.

It occured over a 400 year period so the events actually required foreknowledge of untold free acts. It isn't very supportive of open theism.

You forgot the rest of the prophecy:

Genesis 15:14 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. 15 You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. 16 In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure."​

Your argument ignores, "they will come out with great possessions.", "will go to your fathers in peace", "will come back here", and "the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.".

Fairly specific prophecy. God, through His own power, could fulfill the parts where they come out with wealth, 'will come back here', but how about the sin of the Amorites?

Did God make the Amorites sin reach its full measure? I would say this is knowledge of a future free will act.

Rob

All thats nice.

Under settled theology, God said X would happen knowing that in the future Y happened... that's a lie. You aren't wise enough to admit the problem and welcome a solution.

 

[patman]

BTW, Rob

Gen 15:13 Then He said to Abram: “Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years.

I pointed this out before, the prophecy was they would be slaves 400 years.

And your math is really bad off if you think from abraham to Joseph's 37'th year only saw 100 years pass. Jacob alone was 140-something when he died in Egypt.

 

[themuzicman]

Isaac is 25 when Jacob is born
Jacob is 38 when Joseph is born
Joseph is 37 at 100 years....

 

[patman]

Let the punishment begin then.
A chronological problem exists in Acts 7:6, where Stephen said Israel would be enslaved and mistreated 400 years. For in Galatians 3:17 Paul implied that the period of time from the Abrahamic promise in Genesis 15:13-16 to Mount Sinai was 430 years. The difference between the 400 and 430 years can easily be accounted for by understanding that Stephen used round numbers. Another explanation is that the 400 years was the actual time of bondage whereas the 430 years described the time from the confirming of the covenant in Genesis 35:9-15 to the Exodus, which occurred in 1446 b.c. The main problem, however, is the time Israel spent in bondage in Egypt. If Galatians 3:17 means it was 430 years from the promise given to Abraham (Genesis 15:1-21) to the Exodus, the time in Egypt would then be 215 years. However, if Acts 7:6 is taken at face value the bondage was 400 years. Perhaps the best solution is to say Paul was looking at periods of time. The promises were given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. These three patriarchs were all recipients of God’s promise. The promise was reconfirmed in Genesis 46:1-4 to Jacob at Beersheba as he was on his way to Egypt. From that point (the end of God’s giving promises to the patriarchs) to the Exodus was 400 years. (See Harold W. Hoehner, “The Duration of the Egyptian Bondage,” Bibliotheca Sacra 126. October-December 1969:306-16.)

AMR

We cannot hold Stephen's speech to the measure so closely as to imply there is a chronological problem. He was speaking from memory, after all. If the narrator said something like this, I might raise an eyebrow. But anytime someone is being quoted in scripture does not make the words in that quote 100% truth.

Example, the Pharisees were quoted as saying Jesus had an evil spirit. Sure, it is in scripture, but the words in that quote can be recognized as wrong.

Steven, while highly accurate in his words, they shouldn't be given the same seriousness as Paul's words. Not because Paul was better than Steven, but because Steven was simply speaking his mind. People are more accurate in truth in writing than in speech.

I do not have time to investigate what Paul was talking about. Off the top of my head he was probably just talking about how long Israel was in Egypt.

Still, the problem I stated earlier is something the Settled Theist of this thread should recognize without sugar coating (like Rob did). I may do some research outside of scripture to figure out exactly how long they were slaves.

 

[patman]

Isaac is 25 when Jacob is born
Jacob is 38 when Joseph is born
Joseph is 37 at 100 years....

Ahhh, but what about Abraham's age, why did you leave it out?

Genesis 16 :3 Then Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar her maid, the Egyptian, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan.

Genesis 16 :16 Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ishmael to Abram.

Genesis 21:5 Now Abraham was one hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.

That makes at least 20 years from the promise(if not even 30).. So right now it is 120.

Sorry, I do not have time to get the exact number from scripture.:thumb:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

AMRWe cannot hold Stephen's speech to the measure so closely as to imply there is a chronological problem. He was speaking from memory, after all. If the narrator said something like this, I might raise an eyebrow. But anytime someone is being quoted in scripture does not make the words in that quote 100% truth.

Got to be the lamest statement I have seen to date. Well, like the saying goes,
"Nobody who has invested much time down a blind alley likes the messenger who shines a light at the brick wall up ahead." Press onward patman. sigh

 

[Edmond_Dantes]

But #1 isn't necessarily exhaustive, definite foreknowledge. I can say that "within the next two months, you will eat food." I don't say this out of definite foreknowledge, but out of the fact that you need food to eat.

In a similar way, Peter's heart wasn't at the point where he'd be willing to put his life on the line (present knowledge), and all courses of Peter's future included people identifying him at least as Galilean, and questioning him.

Again, this is NOT EDF.

I'm not settled on the matter, but I have a problem with this assertion.

First, thats a terrible analogy. If the Bible had prophets talking about people eating within a time span, they would probably be out of job right quick.

Secondly,

Matthew 26
33Peter replied, "Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will."

34"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times."

35But Peter declared, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the other disciples said the same.

This goes beyond Christ knowing what was in Peter's heart, his intentions, or attitude. This can't just be based off of someone, 3 someones in fact, possibly recognizing Peter as a Galilean. Christ is pinpointing an exact number of times within a limited time frame here. Not 'some time in the future', but before the night is over. Not 2 times or 4 times, but 3 times ( granted Peter could have went more than 3 and Christ would still be 'technically' right).

 

[themuzicman]

I'm not settled on the matter, but I have a problem with this assertion.

First, thats a terrible analogy. If the Bible had prophets talking about people eating within a time span, they would probably be out of job right quick.

My only point was to say that prophecy doesn't have to point to a specific person, circumstance and time. I can be fulfilled in a variety of ways.

Secondly,

Matthew 26
33Peter replied, "Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will."

34"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times."

35But Peter declared, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the other disciples said the same.

This goes beyond Christ knowing what was in Peter's heart, his intentions, or attitude. This can't just be based off of someone, 3 someones in fact, possibly recognizing Peter as a Galilean. Christ is pinpointing an exact number of times within a limited time frame here. Not 'some time in the future', but before the night is over. Not 2 times or 4 times, but 3 times ( granted Peter could have went more than 3 and Christ would still be 'technically' right).

1) There is a span of time, here. It's not a specific time, but a limited span.
2) God can interact in cuing someone into Peter's accent, if necessary.
3) I think God is able to make a rooster crow, if He needs to.

Muz

 

[patman]

Got to be the lamest statement I have seen to date. Well, like the saying goes,
"Nobody who has invested much time down a blind alley likes the messenger who shines a light at the brick wall up ahead." Press onward patman. sigh

Ah.

That is how you dismiss scripture problems with your theology, by attacking the person who points them out rather than addressing them.

That, AMR, is lame.:dunce:

 

[lee_merrill]

OVT says that "Prophecy is fulfilled when the kind of action prophesied happens, regardless of X, Y, and Z, limited by what is prophesied. Thus, in this case, X is specific (Peter), but Y and Z are not. Y only must be a denial of some kind based upon Peter's circumstance and present state, and Z must only be before morning.

And all these choices about denials are free choices, is the point here.

Again, God knows Peter's present heart and God's future actions in this regard.

Is Peter remaining faithful in martyrdom a free choice? If so, how can it be known? If not, how can such faithfulness without a free choice bring glory to God?

Free decisions do not imply unlimited ability. If you'd take the time to actually read your bible, you'd see...

Where did I say free decisions mean unlimited ability? and enough with the insults, Michael.

Israel was hardened to its Messiah, and God's action was required to open the eyes of the remnant. And, as we see, Israel is seeking salvation, so when God opens the eyes of the remnant to see it, they accept it.

What would this mean, then?

Romans 10:21 And concerning Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people."

But I need to know from you whether God seeks to save all men.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[RobE]

All thats nice.

Under settled theology, God said X would happen knowing that in the future Y happened... that's a lie. You aren't wise enough to admit the problem and welcome a solution.

I'm not sure you understand what a lie is. Not saying all that you know isn't lying.

An example would be:

2 Kings 20:1 In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, "This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover."​

Did God lie to Hezekiah?

If we use your idea of lying then God indeed lied to Hezekiah. See, God said, "...you are going to die;...".

Was this true? Did Hezekiah die from the illness? You can't have it both ways again. Either God foreknew Hezekiah would die and told him; or, God didn't foreknow Hezekiah would die and told him. Either way it was a lie according to your definition.

I would say that God always knew Hezekiah would repent and live another 10 years. That repentence was precipitated by God sending the prophet. If God didn't act Hezekiah would die.

Your position is simply that God said, "...you are going to die;..." with absolutely no idea of what was going to happen. Did God lie to Hezekiah when He said these words?

Now my response was valid when you ignore actions, of future free will agents, which were foretold of hundreds of years in advance. Find another example. One where free acts aren't foreknown or admit that foreknowledge and free will are compatible. It really is pretty simple. Either God foreknew outcomes of free acts in advance or He didn't. Whether its 400 years of 400 nano-seconds is of no consequence to what it does to open theism and its ideas.

 

[Lon]

Got to be the lamest statement I have seen to date. Well, like the saying goes,
"Nobody who has invested much time down a blind alley likes the messenger who shines a light at the brick wall up ahead." Press onward patman. sigh

Very funny!!!

(I've never heard that saying)

 

[RobE]

BTW, Rob

Gen 15:13 Then He said to Abram: “Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years.

I pointed this out before, the prophecy was they would be slaves 400 years.

And your math is really bad off if you think from abraham to Joseph's 37'th year only saw 100 years pass. Jacob alone was 140-something when he died in Egypt.

I haven't done any math! I'm not the one holding God to a timetable and then claim He's lying if I can't figure the math out.

This reminds me of Tyre and the King of Babylon. You know the one I mean---Alexander the Great.

Eternity is a long time. God fulfills His word according to His own plans and His own timetable. I think it's fair since He created everything. ALL prophecy and promises of God have been or will be fulfilled. Period. End of discussion. We both agree this is true. Does God lie? Never!

Let's discuss how God foreknows free will acts when the two are incompatible according to open theism. I'm willing to discuss the foreknown free acts of the Jews, Egyptians, or any other free agent which you believe upholds open theology. Considering the admission, that this ever really happened, defeats incompatibility.

Name an effect without a cause.

Your Friend Indeed,
Rob

 

[RobE]

Rob, I was doing some reading and crossed these two verses for your arsenal.

John 13:10-11

Thanks.

Unfortunately, the 'open' theists aren't currently 'open' to precise, literal words which contradict their position. Foreknowledge of free acts is possible when needed. Otherwise, it's impossible to foreknow free acts.

See according to open theism:

God exhaustively foreknows all possible worlds without knowing which possible world will actualize. That's why He interacts with history to bring one into existence(actualizes it), without actually interacting with it to bring it into existence(actualizing it). Sometimes the Deist position is correct(hands off) and sometimes the Calvinist position is right(brings about); but never is the compatibalist position right(simply foreknows). If compatibalism is true then atoms would cease to exist because logic would fail.​

 

[Lon]

My only point was to say that prophecy doesn't have to point to a specific person, circumstance and time. I[t] can be fulfilled in a variety of ways.



1) There is a span of time, here. It's not a specific time, but a limited span.
2) God can interact in cuing someone into Peter's accent, if necessary.
3) I think God is able to make a rooster crow, if He needs to.

Muz

I'm seeing a lot of misdirection here (intentionally or unintentionally, I'm not accusing).

I'm not disagreeing with your first statement, as there are double-fulfillments of some prophecies, etc. but I'd qualify that God isn't 'ball-parking' from my understanding.

1) Would be a very limited span in my mind and it is really pressing the envelope.
-3 times to deny (an exact number) ball-parking would have worked fine if that is all we are supposed to hone in on, but that isn't what happened is it?
-"on this night" very limited
-"after" the rooster crowed not after one denial, two denials, but exactly three

Mat 26:35 Peter said to him, "Even if I must die with you, I will never deny you." And all the disciples said the same thing.

-it wasn't just Peter. Jesus told all of them they would scatter and all of them said they'd die rather than abandon Him.
Not one stayed. The prophecy was fulfilled to the letter.

Our discussion here is: Does God control man's free-will ever? Does God really foreknow man's future decisions. One of these two must be correct. Which is the determinist here? (I'm for foreknowledge AND foreordination which is a double-bind, but I don't shy away from the implications upon my theology. It is incorrect to extrapolate that "I" believe God to be the author of sin). I'd love for the OV theist to embrace the implication here rather than running from it. 2) 3)The implication is hyper-determinist if God has no foreknowledge.

At this point, the OV has God intervening invasively to make a prophecy come to pass in order to free Him up from being the author of sin as it supposes a stance on EDF. EDF does not make God the author of man's choices, but the ordainer of those choices. OV comes much closer (albeit uncomforably and assumed) to a God who has direct involvement of the sinner in prophetic actions. It is a trade-off that is too close for comfort even if there is respite between those moments in the OV mindset.

 

[patman]

Time Line

Time Line

| = 10 years....

000_ Abraham Born - Genesis 11:26
010|
020|
030|
040|
050|
060|
070|
- 75 + Abraham is 75 and leaves Haran - Genesis 12:4
- 76 + Abraham is 76 and God tells him about the Slavery and the Exodus - Genesis 15
080|
- 86 + Abraham is 86 and Ishmael is born - Genesis 15
090|
100|
- 100 + Abraham is 100 and Isaac is born - Genesis 21:5
110|
120|
130|
140|
-140+ Isaac is 40 and marries Rebekah - Genesis 25:20
150|
160|
-160+ Isaac is 60 and Esau and Jacob are born - Genesis 25:28
170|
-175+ Abraham is 175 and dies - Genesis 25:7
180|
190|
200|
210|
220|
230|
240|
250|
-251+Joseph is born - Jacob is 91 - Gen 41:46, Gen 45:6,Gen 47:28 (147-17-(7*2-5[i.e.9])-30)
260|
270|
280|
-280+ Isaac is 180 dies - Genesis 35:28
-281+ Joseph is 30 and put over Egypt - Gen 41:46
290|
-290+ Jacob is 130 enters Egypt with the rest of Israel - Genesis 47:28 (147y-17y)
300|
-307+ Jacob is 147 and dies - Genesis 47:28
310|
320|
330|
340|
350|
360|
-361+ Joseph is 110 and dies - Genesis 50:26

Initial Conclusions
214 Years passed between the prophecy that Israel would serve another country for 400 years.
644 Years passed between that same prophecy and the time Israel left Egypt (290 + 430 -76)

But wait, that isn't final.

http://www.matthewmcgee.org/ottimlin.html Agrees with my findings. But he noted something interesting.....

Born 80 years before the exodus from Egypt, Moses was the son of Amram, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi (1 Chronicles 6:1-3). Of course, Levi was one of Jacob's 12 sons. We see from Genesis 46:8-11 that Kohath, the grandfather of Moses, was already born when Jacob and his family entered Egypt. Kohath lived to be 133, and his son Amram lived to be 137 (Exodus 6:18-20). Even if Kohath was only a year old when they entered Egypt, and Amram and Moses were each born in the last year of their father's lives, then the maximum time in Egypt could have only been 133 + 137 + 80 = 350 years, still well short of the traditional 400 years.

The absolute most that Israel could have been in Egypt as a whole was 350 years! Take into account the years Joseph lived after Jacob entered Egypt, you get 279 years max that Israel served Egypt. If Kohath and Amram were 20 when they conceived, that shaves another 40 years off. Since I do not know how old they were when they conceived children, I cannot say exactly, but we are looking at less that 280 years of slavery.
So what of this Exodus 12:40 "Now the sojourn of the children of Israel who lived in Egypt[a]was four hundred and thirty years. "

I didn't notice the footnote [a].

Exodus 12:40 Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint read Egypt and Canaan.
It appears That the 430 years counts the time Israel lived in both Canaan and Egypt.

Conclusions:

-Israel was slaves for 280 years at the most (240 is likely).
-The prophecy that Israel would be slaves for 400 years was shortened as far as the years went.
-The 430 Years refers to the time Israel was in Canaan and Egypt.

Based on those conclusions, you can see the future is Open. God, who does not lie, did not see a settled future where Israel served another land for 400 years, he instead changed that future because of his love and mercy.

 

[patman]

Lon, AMR, Rob

I grow tired of being accused of not being "precise."

As precisely as I could be in the time allotted me, I constructed the timeline you see above.

Now it is up to you to explain how the reality of two hundred years in slavery is not even close to the four hundred years prophesied.

Upon a very close examination of scripture, and with some research, I have shown how the facts.
:thumb: