ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Lon]

I'd expect AMR to be along any moment to sort out any mess I've made

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I'd expect AMR to be along any moment to sort out any mess I've made

Looks OK to me. Others see the defect to foreshadow the impending judgment upon Judah (Israel) described in Jer. 19 and 20. Or, the defect in the jar could be nothing at all, for the real point is that God can and will do with His creation as He sees fit to do.

 

[lee_merrill]

... for the real point is that God can and will do with His creation as He sees fit to do.

Yes, and note Jeremiah 19, where the Lord says what he will do with the pot called Jerusalem. How can this judgment be certain? can they not repent, per Jeremiah 18?

Jeremiah 11:14 Do not pray for this people nor offer any plea or petition for them, because I will not listen when they call to me in the time of their distress.

Jeremiah 14:12 Although they fast, I will not listen to their cry; though they offer burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them. Instead, I will destroy them with the sword, famine and plague.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Looks OK to me. Others see the defect to foreshadow the impending judgment upon Judah (Israel) described in Jer. 19 and 20. Or, the defect in the jar could be nothing at all, for the real point is that God can and will do with His creation as He sees fit to do.

OK, but why does God say He remade the vessel?

 

[Lon]

OK, but why does God say He remade the vessel?

Jeremiah 19:11 and say to them, ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts: “Even so I will break this people and this city, as one breaks a potter’s vessel, which cannot be made whole again;"

The blight in this case is a people that cannot be redeemed. Like the pottery, the clay has been baked hard with the blight.

Jeremiah 19:15"Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, 'Behold, I am about to bring on this city and all its towns the entire calamity that I have declared against it, because they have stiffened their necks so as not to heed My words.'"

How bad off was that vessel?

Jer. 20:1&2 When Pashhur the priest, the son of Immer, who was chief officer in the house of the LORD, heard Jeremiah prophesying these things,
Pashhur had Jeremiah the prophet beaten and put him in the stocks that were at the upper Benjamin Gate, which was by the house of the LORD.

It has to be completely crushed and returned to the original state. Ezra and Nehemiah are the beginnings again from the dust of that crushing.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Yes, and note Jeremiah 19, where the Lord says what he will do with the pot called Jerusalem. How can this judgment be certain? can they not repent, per Jeremiah 18?

Jeremiah 11:14 Do not pray for this people nor offer any plea or petition for them, because I will not listen when they call to me in the time of their distress.

Jeremiah 14:12 Although they fast, I will not listen to their cry; though they offer burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them. Instead, I will destroy them with the sword, famine and plague.

There is no offer to repent in Jer. 18, for they were way past the point with God. God had stated his command for them to change their ways, but they reply to God's command (v.11) with:

Jer 18:12 "But they say, 'That is in vain! We will follow our own plans, and will every one act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart.'

So, at first God’s reply in Jer. 14:12 seems surprising. Rather than accepting the people’s confession, God upbraids them for their waywardness. But, God knew (e.g., 18:12) that their confession was merely superficial. They claimed God as their Lord, but they refused to restrain their feet from following evil. Because of their continuing desires toward sin, God said He would not accept their superficial confession. Instead He would punish them for their sins.

God told Jeremiah not to pray for the people (cf. Jer. 7:16; Jer. 11:14). The people's shallow efforts to manipulate God took several forms. They would fast and offer burnt offerings, hoping to appease the Lord and avert His wrath. But God cannot be bought off. He vowed to destroy the rebels with the sword, famine, and plague—the three divine hammer blows of divine judgment--see Lev. 26:23-26; Jer. 21:6-7, Jer. 21:9; Jer. 24:10; Jer. 27:8, Jer. 27:13; Jer. 29:17-18; Jer. 32:24, Jer. 32:36; Jer. 34:17; Jer. 38:2; Eze. 5:12; Eze. 6:11; Eze. 7:15; Eze. 12:16; Rev. 6:8; also note Jer. 42:17, Jer. 42:22; Jer. 44:13).

 

[Lon]

God's Character: Divine Impassibility

God's Character: Divine Impassibility

Continuing on the God's Character series I began, from God repenting I proceed to Divine Impassibility.

Impassibility is a theological term that means God does not change in His emotions. Confusion often arises over whether God can 'feel' in any changing way or indeed if He can feel at all (ala greek gods).

Classic theism treats biblical [passages concerning God's emotions] as anthropopathisms—figurative expressions ascribing human passions to God.
-Phillip R. Johnson

Which basically means: We understand God through our own expressions.

To be perfectly frank, impassibility is a difficult doctrine, both hard to understand and fraught with hazards for anyone who handles it carelessly. And dangers lurk on both sides of the strait and narrow path. -Paul Helm

The danger here he is speaking of is one of either attributing human characteristics and emotions to God in such a way that He becomes essentially a divine man as we, or to pose God as an immovable iceberg with no emotions at all.

Johnson clarifies:

"If any one disbelieves that God cares for [His creation], he will thereby either insinuate that God does not exist, or he will assert that though He exists He delights in vice, or exists like a stone, and that neither virtue nor vice are anything, but only in the opinion of men these things are reckoned good or evil. And this is the greatest profanity and wickedness."

But Johnson also balances this with the danger of the other extreme:

We must begin by acknowledging that we are all too prone to think of God in human terms. "You thought that I was just like you," God says in Psalm 50:21. "I will reprove you and state the case in order before your eyes" (NASB). "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9). Again and again, Scripture reminds us that the affections of God are ultimately inscrutable (cf. Ephesians 3:19; Romans 11:33).

Both scholars present the preceding quagmire but begin to hone:

Wherefore, let us willingly leave to God the knowledge of himself. “He alone is a fit witness to himself who is known only by himself.” This knowledge, then, if we would leave to God, we must conceive of him as he has made himself known, and in our inquiries make application to no other quarter than his word. -Institutes, 1, 8, 21

...God has true affections. [But] the divine affections [are] always active, never passive. God is the sovereign initiator and instigator of all His own affections—which are never uncontrolled or arbitrary. He cannot be made to emote against His will, but is always the source and author of all His affective dispositions.

Nah 1:2 God is jealous, and Jehovah revenges; Jehovah revenges and is a possessor of wrath. Jehovah takes vengeance against His foes, and He keeps wrath against His enemies.
Nah 1:3 Jehovah is slow to anger, and great in power. And He does not by any means acquit the guilty. Jehovah has His way in the tempest and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of His feet.

... passions are involuntary and non-rational; whereas affections are volitions and dispositions that are under the control of the rational senses.
... whereas God is "without passions," He is surely not "without affections."

Paul Helm says it is a danger to think of God as passionate in the way we are passionate. The reminder is that God is not like a man, nor thinks like we do. Unsurprisingly, Impassibilty (not driven by emotions) is connected with immutability (God is perfect).

Our emotions are very much affected and uncontrollable. God's are completely controlled in perfection. Our emotions are subject of our sin nature. God's are Holy (hence be angry and don't sin-be holy as I am holy).

[Impassibility is] not impassivity, unconcern, and impersonal detachment in face of the creation; not insensitivity and indifference to the distresses of a fallen world; not inability or unwillingness to empathize with human pain and grief; but simply that God's experiences do not come upon him as ours come upon us, for his are foreknown, willed and chosen by himself, and are not involuntary surprises forced on him from outside, apart from his own decision, in the way that ours regularly are.
-J.I. Packer

Summarizing, Impassibility isn't about God being without emotion, but that His emotions are consistent with His perfect nature. He doesn't have 'fits' (uncontrolled emotions) of rage, jealousy, love, etc. He is slow to anger (unlike man). His rage against sin is appropriate (unlike man's rage). His love is not fickle (unlike ours). Impassibility thus, is the way God is emotional. He isn't reactionary in His attributes, but consistent. We fall under His emotional consistency with our behavior. God is perfectly consistent in His anger over sin, His rage is consistent over evil. His love is consistent over His sheep. It is the consistent nature of God's character and interactions with man, that we say God is impassible in His emotions toward us (We cannot 'make' God mad). God is mad in accordance with His will and nature. He is impassible in them, because we cannot make God loving, angry, sad. He chooses by His own will how He will relate to us in emotion, perfectly and consistently. Again, because He is perfectly consistent, we say He is impassible in emotions (They are always perfect, consistent and therefore dependable).

 

[RobE]

Agreed.:thumb:

And how is that possible under settled theism?

It is not a lie to leave untold all that you know.

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.​

With God's statement, "they will afflict them four hudred years.", how many years did God mean? 200? 240? 80? or 400?

If the answer in your mind is other than 400, then you claim God lied.

 

[godrulz]

Most evangelicals have moved away from the classical, traditional understanding of impassibility to a modified version.

 

[Lon]

Most evangelicals have moved away from the classical, traditional understanding of impassibility to a modified version.

Modified explanation perhaps. I don't think we've modified our view at all (reformed position).

Post-modernist would have to be sure.

 

[patman]

It is not a lie to leave untold all that you know.

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.​

With God's statement, "they will afflict them four hudred years.", how many years did God mean? 200? 240? 80? or 400?

If the answer in your mind is other than 400, then you claim God lied.

RobE,

I will never deny the truth behind the words of God. If Settled Theology is true, yes, God lied. If Open Theism is true, he did not.

Don't modify the word of God to fit your theology, modify your theology to fit God's words.

 

[patman]

No Jeremiah 18:7-10 does not teach what you are claiming.

First, let's agree that the ESV or NASB versions of these verses more accurately renders the Hebrew:

Jeremiah 18:7 (ESV)
7 If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it,
(NASB)
7 "At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it;

Jeremiah 18:8 (ESV)
8 and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it.
(NASB)
8 if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.

Jeremiah 18:9 (ESV)
9 And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it,
(NASB)
9 "Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it;

Jeremiah 18:10 (ESV)
10 and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.
(NASB)
10 if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it.

What is the context here?

God instructed Jeremiah to go to the potter’s house. There the Lord would give His prophet a very special message for the people of Judah. The Lord included Jeremiah’s experience in His Holy Word because He intended that the message be shared with the nations and people of every generation.

When Jeremiah arrived at the potter’s house, he saw him working at the wheel, attempting to mold the clay into a jar. Turning the bottom wheel with his feet, the potter worked the clay on the top wheel as it turned. All of a sudden the potter noticed a defect, a flaw in the jar. It had not turned out as he had hoped. So the potter squashed the jar into a lump of clay and started again. Patiently, he worked and reworked the clay time and again until he had formed the jar he wanted.

When the jar was finished, the Lord explained that the potter and clay illustrated His relationship with His people (vv.5-10). As the potter held the clay in his hands, so the Lord held His people in the palm of His hand. This is a descriptive way of saying that the Lord can do with His people as He wills. Holding them in His hands means that He possesses all rights and power over them. He can set up the laws that decide people’s fate (v.6). In other words, God is sovereign-- supreme in power, rank, or authority.

You are arguing that the pairs relent-intend/planned and think better/promised, imply that God is “open” to changing His mind. These verses contain God’s decree by which the whole of God’s conduct towards man is regulated.

God is saying that He will relent of the punishment He was going to bring upon a people if that people turns from its sin. In fact, God often tells them that He will punish them, which causes them to repent, whereby God then proclaims that He will not punish them. God knew they would repent, and knew this from eternity. God used His spoken threat to bring them to that place of repentance. If He did not tell them what would happen to them if they were to continue in sin, they wouldn't have repented. In other words, God ordained the means of that repentance. Nothing in these verses suggests God is changing His mind. (I speak to this aspect of God's ordaining the ends as well as the means in another context here that is worth reviewing.)

The changes spoken of in these verses are not in God, but in the circumstances which regulate God’s dealings: just as we say the land recedes from us when we sail forth, yet it is we who recede from the land (Eze. 18:21; Eze. 33:11). This is applied practically to the Jews’ case.

Unsettled theists cannot use narrative verses in the scriptures to circumvent proper grammatical-historical exegesis. See Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, 2d ed. (Reprint; Grand Rapids: Zondervan).

Yah know, AMR, I agree with everything you said.. pretty much. I liked how you said this most of all:

"God is saying that He will relent of the punishment He was going to bring upon a people if that people turns from its sin. In fact, God often tells them that He will punish them, which causes them to repent, whereby God then proclaims that He will not punish them."

That sums Open Theism. The future is open, God doesn't know what will happen 100% of the time, so IF is a big word. "IF you do X..." implies the uncertainty of a particular future action.

These few verses are just one example of the openness of the future, but I don't want to get into all those right now. The one I do want to add on to this verse is:

Romans 9:15
For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”

It is up to him when he has compassion. As you said, it is his call. I believe he had mercy on Israel when he saw their sorrow, as they served Egypt, and saw it best to help them at 200 years instead of waiting the 400 to be fulfilled.

He didn't lie, because when he said "400 years," the actual amount of years was truly unknown. He did not intentionally speak false. Because a lie is "intentionally speaking falsely" this exempts him, and he is justified because it is his mercy to give, for any reason.

Open Theism teaches God's compassion and mercy for us can cause God to change the outcome of the plans he has for us. Our prayers really have an effect.

That is just inside info from the Open Theist stand. Now here are my questions:

You said "God often tells them that He will punish them, which causes them to repent." If God tells them he will punish them, when he knows he really won't, isn't that a lie too? Even if the end result is to inspire repentance, there is still a lie being told, isn't there? If not, how?

I am still not satisfied by the answers shown to me concerning Gen 15. God said 400 years of affliction and service to another nation. It didn't happen. How is that not a lie when he foresees everything?

 

[patman]

I wanted to be able to help you with 'seed' for a plural understanding. It was one of your points and I want to walk through this with you one step at a time.
We have to start somewhere. If you want a broad generalization, we can do that.

Let's start here. You gave me this as a link we could both use so I'm perplexed.

In it is a time chart that shows 430 years.

I am also trying to show relevance to how the early church fathers (Paul,Stephen) understood this.



I look at both Paul's and Stephen's understanding. They used the 400(+) years for apologetics. They weren't embarrassed for God.
Acts 13:16-21, Paul is addressing Jews and Gentiles. If there was a discrepancy on the understanding, Paul would have needed to clarify God was wrong, mistaken, or what-have-you. He didn't. Stephen didn't either. Both Paul and Stephen recognized the duration of the 400+ years as starting with Abraham and/or his offspring. For them, the numbers added up. They understood how the numbers fit.

Exodus 12:40 Notice 'after' the time, this comment is made. Either the whole ball of wax is completely wrong and in gross error even an OV view of God could not make, or we have to see the timescale as something completely different than just enslavement in Egypt.

I have not run the numbers at this point, but again, we have to come to an agreement of where to begin with the numbers. Do we take God's and Paul's and Stephen's word for it?

Hi Lon,

I take all the word of all 3 men as truth. I do not believe Paul was talking about the same thing God and Stephen were.

Stephen was quoting God. God was quoting.... his plan. I do not believe there is any issue at all with what Stephen said, we should just put it to rest because he was just saying what God said.

Acts 7:6
But God spoke in this way: that his descendants would dwell in a foreign land, and that they would bring them into bondage and oppress them four hundred years.

I agree. That is exactly what God said would happen.

Genesis 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.

Stephen was right. God said 400 years of bondage and oppression.

I was looking at the timeline you posted. It confirms what I have said. The bondage and oppression could only last 250ish years (by that time line). Look at when Joseph entered Egypt. From memory, scripture said he was 17 when he was sold. He was 39 when Israel came to Egypt. Joseph died when he was 110. After that, Israel was in bondage.

Look at the time line you posted. There is no way they were slaves for 400 years. Joseph wasn't even born until the middle of that 430 year time span.

It just wasn't possible.

Paul's 430 years, and the 430 years spoken of in Exodus, are not referring to the slavery years which were in the 200's. I am intreged by what Paul was talking about, but am not too concerned with it for the sake of this discussion because it is not relevant because he is not talking about slavery. I am, the slavery years are key in my point. I am also not concerned about the 430 years spoken of in Exodus because I think that includes Canaan years (some manuscripts imply that).

So now we are faced with the definition of a lie. What is a lie? The dictionary says it is "intentionally speaking falsely." Did God lie?

There now stands two possibilities. The future is settled, God knew the future, and knew how long they REALLY would be slaves, OR, the future is open, God didn't know the future, and he did not know 100% how long they would be slaves.

Only one off those two possibilities allows God to be "not lying."

 

[patman]

I would say prophecy being fulfilled confirms the point that God cannot lie, the question then becomes: how could Jesus say "Truly, truly" about Peter's denial, and future faithfulness in martyrdom years later, knowing it might not be true?

And if (as Muz did say) Peter had already decided to be faithful, after denying the Lord, and could not reverse this years later, how would faithfulness in martyrdom, when you could not change your decision made long ago, bring special glory to God?

Wouldn't the glory be in having a real choice to remain faithful at that time, and choosing to do so, instead of being unable to choose any other way than to be faithful?

And I do wonder how a decision can be made to remain faithful, that is impossible to reverse. Why then all the terrible warnings in Hebrews about falling away, though the writer is convinced of better things in their case, he is convinced of their salvation?

Um, that means each of the 10 sons had 860 sons! not counting daughters, doesn't that seem to you to be a little out of kilter?

The starting number was 73:

Genesis 46:27
And the sons of Joseph who were born to him in Egypt were two persons. All the persons of the house of Jacob who went to Egypt were seventy.

I believe they had around 350 years to grow to the number they ended up in Egypt. The slavery, however, was only around 250 years. So the population growth, while incredible, is still plausible.

I do not believe the "Truly, truly" question answers my point. There are many ways Jesus could know Peter would deny him besides the Future being settled. Maybe while he was counting the hairs on Peter's head he noticed in Peter's heart a willingness to forsake Him.

Lee, how do you explain "God is not lying" when he foretold "400 years of 'slavery'" while at the same time seeing the future and knowing the reality was only 250ish?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Yah know, AMR, I agree with everything you said.. pretty much. I liked how you said this most of all:

"God is saying that He will relent of the punishment He was going to bring upon a people if that people turns from its sin. In fact, God often tells them that He will punish them, which causes them to repent, whereby God then proclaims that He will not punish them."

That sums Open Theism. The future is open, God doesn't know what will happen 100% of the time, so IF is a big word. "IF you do X..." implies the uncertainty of a particular future action.

Actually, this is anther example of your imprecision. My actual words were:

God is saying that He will relent of the punishment He was going to bring upon a people if that people turns from its sin. In fact, God often tells them that He will punish them, which causes them to repent, whereby God then proclaims that He will not punish them. God knew they would repent, and knew this from eternity. God used His spoken threat to bring them to that place of repentance. If He did not tell them what would happen to them if they were to continue in sin, they wouldn't have repented. In other words, God ordained the means of that repentance. Nothing in these verses suggests God is changing His mind. (I speak to this aspect of God's ordaining the ends as well as the means in another context here that is worth reviewing.)

This is why I claim you are frequently imprecise, patman. You don't get to cherry pick my words and then make it appear we are in some sort of agreement. Does my fully quoted argument above agree with your views? If so, welcome to a proper understanding of divine foreknowledge.

You said "God often tells them that He will punish them, which causes them to repent." If God tells them he will punish them, when he knows he really won't, isn't that a lie too? Even if the end result is to inspire repentance, there is still a lie being told, isn't there? If not, how?

You should have looked at the link embedded in my full quote above. God ordains the ends as well as the means of His purposes. God's admonishments are links in the chain of ordained facts. In my post linked above, I offered an example to clarify:

Consider Paul about to be shipwrecked in Acts 27. God assured Paul that no one would lose their life in that shipwreck. Yet, despite this clear assurance from God, Paul admonishes those on the ship that unless the persons trying to leave by the lifeboat remain on board, those on the ship would not be saved. Note that Paul was assured of their salvation, he knew the means of their salvation, and his warning produced the desired result.

Paul knew the outcome. It was a certainty. Was Paul's admonishment a lie? No, it was part of the means to the end--links in the foreordained chain. The admonishment produced the desired effect, those attempting to depart stopped, ultimately saving the lives of everyone.

You go on about how your prayers change God's mind. How is that possible in the face of so much Scripture that clearly states God knows what you want before you ask Him? Or that you have not because you ask not?

Prayer is not intended to change God's purpose, nor is it to move Him to form fresh purposes. God has decreed that certain events shall come to pass through the means He has appointed for their accomplishment.

For example, God has elected certain ones to be saved, but He has also decreed that these shall be saved through the preaching the Gospel. The Gospel, then, is one of the appointed means for the working out of the eternal counsel of the Lord; and prayer is another. God has decreed the means as well as the end, and among the means is prayer. Even the prayers of His people are included in His eternal decrees. Therefore, instead of prayers being in vain they are one the means through which God exercises His decrees.

That prayers for the execution of the very things decreed by God are not meaningless is clearly taught in the Scriptures. Elijah knew that God was about to give rain, but that did not prevent him from at once taking himself to prayer (James 5:17, 18). Daniel "understood" by the writings of the prophets that the captivity was to last but seventy years, yet when these seventy years were almost ended we are told that he set his face "unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes" (Dan. 9:2, 3). God told the prophet Jeremiah “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you.” (Jer. 29:11, 12).

Here then is the design of prayer: not that God's will may be altered (for it cannot), but that God's will may be accomplished in His own good time and way. It is because God has promised certain things that we can ask for them with the full assurance of faith. It is God's purpose that His will is brought about by His own appointed means, and that He may do His people good upon His own terms, and that is, by the 'means' and 'terms' of pleas and supplication. Did not Christ know for certain that after His death and resurrection He would be exalted by the Father? Of course He did. Yet we find Christ asking for this very thing: "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." (John 17:5)! Didn’t Christ know that none of His people could perish? Yet He sought God the Father to "keep" them (John 17:11)!

God's will is unchanging, and cannot be altered by our pleas. When the mind of God is not toward a people to do them good, it cannot be turned to them by the most fervent and troublesome prayer of those who have the greatest interest in Him: "Then the LORD said to me, "Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people. Send them out of my sight, and let them go!" (Jer. 15:1). Similarly, the prayers of Moses to enter the Promised Land are another example.

So, in summary, we have a satisfactory answer, namely, that our prayers are in the predestination, and that God has as much ordained His people's prayers as anything else He has ordained, and when we pray we are producing links in the chain of ordained facts. Destiny decrees that we should pray—we pray; destiny decrees that we shall be answered, and the answer comes to us.

 

[godrulz]

What an odd view of prayer reduced to cause/effect instead of flowing from reciprocal love relationship. You would do well to not dismiss Sander's insights so quickly for a decretal system that is not found in Scripture.

God is omnicompetent, not omnicausal (T-shirts for sale). He is responsive and providential, infinite and personal, not a control freak (He macro vs micromanages). He has created significant others with a say so. His perfect will is not always done (the rape and murder of a baby is not decreed, desired, nor His will at all).

 

[patman]

Actually, this is anther example of your imprecision. My actual words were:
This is why I claim you are frequently imprecise, patman. You don't get to cherry pick my words and then make it appear we are in some sort of agreement. Does my fully quoted argument above agree with your views? If so, welcome to a proper understanding of divine foreknowledge.

You should have looked at the link embedded in my full quote above. God ordains the ends as well as the means of His purposes. God's admonishments are links in the chain of ordained facts. In my post linked above, I offered an example to clarify:

Consider Paul about to be shipwrecked in Acts 27. God assured Paul that no one would lose their life in that shipwreck. Yet, despite this clear assurance from God, Paul admonishes those on the ship that unless the persons trying to leave by the lifeboat remain on board, those on the ship would not be saved. Note that Paul was assured of their salvation, he knew the means of their salvation, and his warning produced the desired result.

Paul knew the outcome. It was a certainty. Was Paul's admonishment a lie? No, it was part of the means to the end--links in the foreordained chain. The admonishment produced the desired effect, those attempting to depart stopped, ultimately saving the lives of everyone.

You go on about how your prayers change God's mind. How is that possible in the face of so much Scripture that clearly states God knows what you want before you ask Him? Or that you have not because you ask not?

Prayer is not intended to change God's purpose, nor is it to move Him to form fresh purposes. God has decreed that certain events shall come to pass through the means He has appointed for their accomplishment.

For example, God has elected certain ones to be saved, but He has also decreed that these shall be saved through the preaching the Gospel. The Gospel, then, is one of the appointed means for the working out of the eternal counsel of the Lord; and prayer is another. God has decreed the means as well as the end, and among the means is prayer. Even the prayers of His people are included in His eternal decrees. Therefore, instead of prayers being in vain they are one the means through which God exercises His decrees.

That prayers for the execution of the very things decreed by God are not meaningless is clearly taught in the Scriptures. Elijah knew that God was about to give rain, but that did not prevent him from at once taking himself to prayer (James 5:17, 18). Daniel "understood" by the writings of the prophets that the captivity was to last but seventy years, yet when these seventy years were almost ended we are told that he set his face "unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes" (Dan. 9:2, 3). God told the prophet Jeremiah “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you.” (Jer. 29:11, 12).

Here then is the design of prayer: not that God's will may be altered (for it cannot), but that God's will may be accomplished in His own good time and way. It is because God has promised certain things that we can ask for them with the full assurance of faith. It is God's purpose that His will is brought about by His own appointed means, and that He may do His people good upon His own terms, and that is, by the 'means' and 'terms' of pleas and supplication. Did not Christ know for certain that after His death and resurrection He would be exalted by the Father? Of course He did. Yet we find Christ asking for this very thing: "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." (John 17:5)! Didn’t Christ know that none of His people could perish? Yet He sought God the Father to "keep" them (John 17:11)!

God's will is unchanging, and cannot be altered by our pleas. When the mind of God is not toward a people to do them good, it cannot be turned to them by the most fervent and troublesome prayer of those who have the greatest interest in Him: "Then the LORD said to me, "Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people. Send them out of my sight, and let them go!" (Jer. 15:1). Similarly, the prayers of Moses to enter the Promised Land are another example.

So, in summary, we have a satisfactory answer, namely, that our prayers are in the predestination, and that God has as much ordained His people's prayers as anything else He has ordained, and when we pray we are producing links in the chain of ordained facts. Destiny decrees that we should pray—we pray; destiny decrees that we shall be answered, and the answer comes to us.

AMR,

I believe God's will ultimately is to save souls. But his compassion can be touched by his children. There are many "I heard you so now I will do this" to show God is active with us because of what we prayed.

I cannot reconcile how we have a will, yet "God ordains the ends as well as the means of His purposes" to the ends you put forth.

AMR, I seem to always have to put out a fire with you. I do get to cherry pick the parts I agreed with you about. And I do get to ask you to be more precise when I do not follow your reasoning. You issue with me is that I disagree with you, and any question I put forth you take as an insult.

Please, answer the two questions I had at the end of my post.

Paul's shipwreck and Gen 15 hardly relate. God said something would happen that didn't. In your example, Paul saved the ship by warnings to bring about the foretold safety of its crew. It is interesting, but God did not lie there.

I never believe God lies. I only wish you would be more direct with Gen 15. I am sure you are sick of it, but it is a powerful question.

God is saying that He will relent of the punishment He was going to bring upon a people if that people turns from its sin. In fact, God often tells them that He will punish them, which causes them to repent, whereby God then proclaims that He will not punish them. God knew they would repent, and knew this from eternity. God used His spoken threat to bring them to that place of repentance. If He did not tell them what would happen to them if they were to continue in sin, they wouldn't have repented. In other words, God ordained the means of that repentance. Nothing in these verses suggests God is changing His mind. (I speak to this aspect of God's ordaining the ends as well as the means in another context here that is worth reviewing.)

I think most of this is true, AMR. Of course, you know where I disagree. You speak or foreordination as if God planned everything to work out like it did. I think God foreordained a relationship that requires interaction. Yet the outcome is always not known. That is one aspect. But you know.

My question is how is that not lying when God foresees that his "threats" are idle? Even if the end outcome is good, the means to get there required an "intentional false statement."

AMR, with that asked, you are going to have to take me a lot less temperamentally. We know where each other disagrees, everything I said above my questions, that was just my insight. You don't have to agree, but don't make it into something more than it is. Don't turn my words into sarcasm when they aren't, and don't turn them into an attempt to twist your words when they are not. I am just trying to show you where I stand and express my questions.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I think most of this is true, AMR. Of course, you know where I disagree. You speak or foreordination as if God planned everything to work out like it did. I think God foreordained a relationship that requires interaction. Yet the outcome is always not known.

As posted here (since you don't follow links and want me to type words):

Yes, God could be (and is) far more competent, powerful, able, and effective than any human being who does not possess exhaustive foreknowledge. But, if the underlying assumption of your words is to then argue that God could accomplish His purposes by respecting the liberty of indifference (libertarian free will) of His creatures, and thus not being able to know the future, I contend that such an position gives no guarantee of the eschaton to God’s children in Christ.

If God is genuinely responsive to humans and to the course of history, and if God cannot infallibly know the future free decisions of man, it is in principle impossible for God to know infallibly what He will do in the future as well.

If God is like a Grand Master chess player, yet human freedom is truly libertarian, how can God guarantee He will be able to respond to every move in the cosmic chess game that is made by free creatures? Yes, God's wisdom, skill, and resourcefulness is infinitely greater that the greatest Grand Master chess player, but what guarantee do you have that the novice (human) will not simply stumble by blind chance into the one in a million move that the Grand Master cannot respond to? As long as libertarian free will always exists this must be conceded to be always a possibility, even if the likelihood is small.

In other words, God's knowledge of His own actions in the future is at best probabilistic. Thus, God's statements that He will ultimately triumph over evil is no absolute guarantee. But, I know you and I agree that God is not a liar, so the assumptions by unsettled theists about God's knowledge must therefore be incorrect. The problem then, lies with unsettled theism’s assumptions of what God knows and God's sovereignty.

When we examine the 4,017 predictive prophecies in the bible, we find that 2,323 are related to a future human decision or event (See Steven Roy, How Much Does God Know, Ph.D. dissertation, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2001, or his book How Much Does God Foreknow?: A Comprehensive Biblical Study, Intervarsity Press, 2006). Therefore, if God does not know the future, how does God predict the future with such detailed accuracy?

From the above are we then forced to observe that if unsettled theism is true, the scriptures in some way in some places must be false. But which ways and places? Could not these tenuous means and places be the very narratives and optatives of prophecy that unsettled theists depend upon to make a case for its own dogma?

Given the unsettled theist’s conceptual probabilistic nature of God’s future actions, for unsettled theists to insist on a guaranteed final outcome in history, either:
(1) God must be able to unilaterally intervene and override libertarian free will, or
(2) Unsettled theists must assume that God's ultimate plan to eliminate evil is not an absolute certainty.

And, if God unilaterally intervenes, the question remains, given the free choices of man, how God can infallibly know when it would be the right time for Him to intervene. In effect God must make His decision to intervene based upon incomplete knowledge.

Moreover, if God intervenes, such intervention overrules the unsettled theist's free will, for God’s intervention seen to be 'coercive'. Given unsettled theism’s position on moral responsibility and sin, the unsettled theist would be forced to conclude that there is no moral responsibility for those that would be held accountable by God who have had their free will overridden by God's intervention.

 

[Lon]

Hi Lon,

I take all the word of all 3 men as truth. I do not believe Paul was talking about the same thing God and Stephen were.

Stephen was quoting God. God was quoting.... his plan. I do not believe there is any issue at all with what Stephen said, we should just put it to rest because he was just saying what God said.

Acts 7:6
But God spoke in this way: that his descendants would dwell in a foreign land, and that they would bring them into bondage and oppress them four hundred years.

I agree. That is exactly what God said would happen.

Genesis 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.

Stephen was right. God said 400 years of bondage and oppression.

I was looking at the timeline you posted. It confirms what I have said. The bondage and oppression could only last 250ish years (by that time line). Look at when Joseph entered Egypt. From memory, scripture said he was 17 when he was sold. He was 39 when Israel came to Egypt. Joseph died when he was 110. After that, Israel was in bondage.

Look at the time line you posted. There is no way they were slaves for 400 years. Joseph wasn't even born until the middle of that 430 year time span.

It just wasn't possible.

Paul's 430 years, and the 430 years spoken of in Exodus, are not referring to the slavery years which were in the 200's. I am intreged by what Paul was talking about, but am not too concerned with it for the sake of this discussion because it is not relevant because he is not talking about slavery. I am, the slavery years are key in my point. I am also not concerned about the 430 years spoken of in Exodus because I think that includes Canaan years (some manuscripts imply that).

So now we are faced with the definition of a lie. What is a lie? The dictionary says it is "intentionally speaking falsely." Did God lie?

There now stands two possibilities. The future is settled, God knew the future, and knew how long they REALLY would be slaves, OR, the future is open, God didn't know the future, and he did not know 100% how long they would be slaves.

Only one off those two possibilities allows God to be "not lying."

How did you miss this Pat?

I've put all kinds of bells and whistles on it for you. I spent an hour, admittedly not more than that but this screamed at me like 3-D text.

Exodus 12:40 Notice 'after' the time (slavery in Egypt, 400 years), this comment is made. (and expanding) --> Moses wrote this down, coming out of that very exile. Either the whole ball of wax is completely wrong and in gross error even an OV view of God could not make, or we have to see the timescale as something completely different than just enslavement in Egypt.

I can think of several scenarios that might get you out of this but they all lead to a God who makes very huge blunders, a Bible that is errant, or a confusion so huge, no scholar in the history of the church was brilliant enough to catch and you've been fortunate enough to present an argument every atheist will pat you on the back for and say "well done, mate."

 

[patman]

As posted here (since you don't follow links and want me to type words):

Yes, God could be (and is) far more competent, powerful, able, and effective than any human being who does not possess exhaustive foreknowledge. But, if the underlying assumption of your words is to then argue that God could accomplish His purposes by respecting the liberty of indifference (libertarian free will) of His creatures, and thus not being able to know the future, I contend that such an position gives no guarantee of the eschaton to God’s children in Christ.

If God is genuinely responsive to humans and to the course of history, and if God cannot infallibly know the future free decisions of man, it is in principle impossible for God to know infallibly what He will do in the future as well.

If God is like a Grand Master chess player, yet human freedom is truly libertarian, how can God guarantee He will be able to respond to every move in the cosmic chess game that is made by free creatures? Yes, God's wisdom, skill, and resourcefulness is infinitely greater that the greatest Grand Master chess player, but what guarantee do you have that the novice (human) will not simply stumble by blind chance into the one in a million move that the Grand Master cannot respond to? As long as libertarian free will always exists this must be conceded to be always a possibility, even if the likelihood is small.

In other words, God's knowledge of His own actions in the future is at best probabilistic. Thus, God's statements that He will ultimately triumph over evil is no absolute guarantee. But, I know you and I agree that God is not a liar, so the assumptions by unsettled theists about God's knowledge must therefore be incorrect. The problem then, lies with unsettled theism’s assumptions of what God knows and God's sovereignty.

When we examine the 4,017 predictive prophecies in the bible, we find that 2,323 are related to a future human decision or event (See Steven Roy, How Much Does God Know, Ph.D. dissertation, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2001, or his book How Much Does God Foreknow?: A Comprehensive Biblical Study, Intervarsity Press, 2006). Therefore, if God does not know the future, how does God predict the future with such detailed accuracy?

From the above are we then forced to observe that if unsettled theism is true, the scriptures in some way in some places must be false. But which ways and places? Could not these tenuous means and places be the very narratives and optatives of prophecy that unsettled theists depend upon to make a case for its own dogma?

Given the unsettled theist’s conceptual probabilistic nature of God’s future actions, for unsettled theists to insist on a guaranteed final outcome in history, either:
(1) God must be able to unilaterally intervene and override libertarian free will, or
(2) Unsettled theists must assume that God's ultimate plan to eliminate evil is not an absolute certainty.

And, if God unilaterally intervenes, the question remains, given the free choices of man, how God can infallibly know when it would be the right time for Him to intervene. In effect God must make His decision to intervene based upon incomplete knowledge.

Moreover, if God intervenes, such intervention overrules the unsettled theist's free will, for God’s intervention seen to be 'coercive'. Given unsettled theism’s position on moral responsibility and sin, the unsettled theist would be forced to conclude that there is no moral responsibility for those that would be held accountable by God who have had their free will overridden by God's intervention.

AMR,

Thank you for placing the text in the response to me. That made it much easier to know what part of the original post you wished to relate to the conversation.

I do not believe answering a question with a question in the way you did, is an answer. It just shows you have a question, too. Take this question you asked as an example.

how can God guarantee He will be able to respond to every move in the cosmic chess game that is made by free creatures?

A question like this implies there is no way, no other answer but yours. But when an answer is found, it really just shows you had a question about Open Theism that you didn't know the answer to.

I think the answer is easy. After all, if God is powerful enough to make this chess game, I think he can handle it's pieces. (Ever watch the Harry Potter movies? There is a part where Harry Potter must play a game of chess, but the chess pieces are huge, they come alive and attack each other, putting in danger the lives of the players. God is not threatened, nor is he at a disadvantage by this chess game, it is nothing at all like the game of chess played by Harry Potter.)

God made the heavens and the earth. He created the DNA that gives us life. He set into action the flight of the birds, and the burning of the stars. If he did it once, and we are living proof that he did do it once, he can do it again. Why do you say "I contend that such an position gives no guarantee of the eschaton to God’s children in Christ"

God can handle you and I. He can keep us safe, and take us through any storm. If Egypt and all it's army could not stand up to God at the Exodus, what will stop his blessings for us in Christ? What did a plague of frogs have to do with foreknowledge? It was his power, not his foreknowledge, that saved Israel, and it will be that same power that saves you and me.

if God does not know the future, how does God predict the future with such detailed accuracy

I believe humans to be quite predictable. But we are not always 100% predictable. God can also influence a person's will without overturning it. Moreover, if a man wills to flap his arms and fly, that does not mean it can happen. There is only so much a man's will can do for him, and God is mighty and wise, he can predict a great many things.

What of Gen 15? It is a thorn in that question's side. It shows that there is at least one time that God didn't predict the future that came about.

AMR, I am going to stop here. I am afraid I have added more wood to the fire by answering what I did, because you will want to comment on the answers, changing the original dialog. Would you please answer my questions directly?