ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[godrulz]

A couple of questions might help....

1. Where in scripture does it state that God 'hopes'?
2. How does proximal foreknowledge escape your ideas about foreknowledge in general concerning free will decisions?

Rob

There is an OT reference to God expecting good grapes from Israel (a form of hope?), but was distressed that they produced bad grapes. The great grief at Adam's fall was also a change. When God created Lucifer and Adam, it seems he expected or 'hoped' that their perfect setting would minimize the risk of falling. Things were 'very good'. After the fall, there was a change in disposition and He was grieved to the core and wanted to wipe man out. His 'hopes' were dashed leading to a plan of redemption that was anticipated, but not a foregone conclusion. Principles, not proof texts.

Weather predictions can be fairly accurate a few days out, but less probable beyond that. Not only does perfect past and present knowledge help with proximal foreknowledge, God can also intervene and influence exceptionally to make things come to pass. Judas and Peter and prophecy are OT objections with possible answers. It seems to me there are many more issues for non-OTs to deal with than these 2 or 3 objections.

OT can take all verses at face value. Non-OTs must subordinate one set of verses to another set in order to avoid contradiction. e.g. God does not and cannot change in any way is an assumption that necessitates making the 'changing' verses/motif as figurative. The better solution is to see two motifs where God changes in some vs all ways (but always consistent with His character). God is not wishy-washy and fickle, but He is also not a stone! This allows us to have a normative approach of taking the verses at face value unless a strong reason to see them as figurative. The only reason Calvinists and others make them figurative is to retain a preconceived idea of what a perfect God should be (philosophical, not biblical), not because the texts demand it.

Am I right, or what? I need some rep for a fix.

 

[lee_merrill]

There is an OT reference to God expecting good grapes from Israel (a form of hope?), but was distressed that they produced bad grapes.

Good point! Now if God knows Israel will eventually produce good fruit, then this hope is not wondering about the future.

Jer. 3:7 I thought that after she had done all this she would return to me but she did not, and her unfaithful sister Judah saw it.

Jer. 3:19-20 I thought you would call me 'Father' and not turn away from following me. But like a woman unfaithful to her husband, so you have been unfaithful to me,

"Thought" can be "said," though, and "but" can be "and." As in these translations:

"And I say, after her doing all these, Unto Me thou dost turn back, and she hath not turned back." (Young's)

"And I said, Thou shalt call me, My father; and shalt not turn away from following me. Surely as a woman treacherously departeth from her companion, so have ye dealt treacherously with me." (Darby)

"Said" and "and" are actually the usual meanings of these words here, "thought" and "but" are less-often-used meanings, especially "thought." Now if she does return in the future, and does not turn away forever, then what God said is true, and is not a mistake:

Jer. 31:18 I have surely heard Ephraim's moaning: "You disciplined me like an unruly calf, and I have been disciplined. Restore me, and I will return, because you are the Lord my God."

Isa. 5:4 What more could have been done for my vineyard than I have done for it?

But God is not asking for advice on his garden! He is asking them, and not needing information (re John 6:5-6) as indicated in the following verse:

Isa. 5:5 Now I will tell you what I am going to do to my vineyard...

God doesn't wait for their opinion, he tells them what more he could do, in fact. This would seem to indicate that good fruit in peoples' lives doesn't come from unvarying, pleasant circumstances:

Heb. 12:11 No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.

Jer. 48:11 "Moab has been at rest from youth, like wine left on its dregs, not poured from one jar to another— she has not gone into exile. So she tastes as she did, and her aroma is unchanged."

But this vineyard will be restored, and will even bear good fruit:

Isa. 27:6 In days to come Jacob will take root, Israel will bud and blossom and fill all the world with fruit.

So God will not be frustrated, in his purpose for this vineyard.

Mt. 12:33 "Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad..."

If God can "make a tree good," this would imply a way to change a tree that bears bad fruit into a tree that bears good fruit.

 

[Lon]

Lon and Rob are becoming increasingly hard to understand. Perhaps it is because their views are not water-tight.

I'm calling this one. Obfuscation, purposeful misdirection and misrepresentation.

It was very clear. Either you are confusing yourself or purposefully lying to squirm, it was blatantly easy to understand.

"Still" was your word, not mine and it is concession. To concede that particular point actually takes you out of the OV camp and you know it.

 

[Lon]

There is an OT reference to God expecting good grapes from Israel (a form of hope?), but was distressed that they produced bad grapes.

I expect my children to behave. They sin. Woah! Am I surprised or what? If I hope they will 'never' sin, I'm being foolish in my hopes. I'm a man. My hope can be fallible. God does not ever hope.

The great grief at Adam's fall was also a change. When God created Lucifer and Adam, it seems he expected or 'hoped' that their perfect setting would minimize the risk of falling. Things were 'very good'. After the fall, there was a change in disposition and He was grieved to the core and wanted to wipe man out. His 'hopes' were dashed leading to a plan of redemption that was anticipated, but not a foregone conclusion. Principles, not proof texts.

I completely disagree. I will not reconcile God's feelings or thinking in the Garden. It would be pure speculation on my part. I'm running your speculation to its logical end.

Weather predictions can be fairly accurate a few days out, but less probable beyond that. Not only does perfect past and present knowledge help with proximal foreknowledge, God can also intervene and influence exceptionally to make things come to pass. Judas and Peter and prophecy are OT objections with possible answers. It seems to me there are many more issues for non-OTs to deal with than these 2 or 3 objections.

Hmmm, "nothing new under the sun" I forecast over the next 450 years (unless the Lord comes back) that my summers will be hotter and dryer than the winters.
Let's go back to talking about God. He doesn't just predict, He knows. He declares things that arent as though they were. Here is a question: If LFW were wrong, would you then no longer be an OVer? Why or why not?

OT can take all verses at face value. Non-OTs must subordinate one set of verses to another set in order to avoid contradiction. e.g. God does not and cannot change in any way is an assumption that necessitates making the 'changing' verses/motif as figurative. The better solution is to see two motifs where God changes in some vs all ways (but always consistent with His character). God is not wishy-washy and fickle, but He is also not a stone! This allows us to have a normative approach of taking the verses at face value unless a strong reason to see them as figurative. The only reason Calvinists and others make them figurative is to retain a preconceived idea of what a perfect God should be (philosophical, not biblical), not because the texts demand it.

Am I right, or what? I need some rep for a fix.

Not true, the Hebrews were doing this work long before Calvinism or OV came around. Interpretation was not invented on a dime. You are ignore and rejecting not just hermenuetics, but the history of hermenuetics.

 

[RobE]

1. Where in scripture does it state that God 'hopes'?
2. How does proximal foreknowledge escape your ideas about foreknowledge in general concerning free will decisions?
New: 3. Where in scripture does it state that God 'changes'?
New: 4. Aren't the 'two motifs' identical to the two motifs of Molina?

Principles, not proof texts.
OT can take all verses at face value.

I am able to take all scripture at face value as well. If you are unable to find a scripture which states God 'hopes' and want to establish the principle then you must provide scriptures which logically support the principle. You know scriptures like the ones which logically support the idea of foreknowledge.

Not only does perfect past and present knowledge help with proximal foreknowledge, God can also intervene and influence exceptionally to make things come to pass. Judas and Peter and prophecy are OT objections with possible answers.

This doesn't answer the question(#2) above.

There is an OT reference to God expecting good grapes from Israel (a form of hope?), but was distressed that they produced bad grapes.

Lee answered this fully.

The great grief at Adam's fall was also a change. When God created Lucifer and Adam, it seems he expected or 'hoped' that their perfect setting would minimize the risk of falling. Things were 'very good'. After the fall, there was a change in disposition and He was grieved to the core and wanted to wipe man out. His 'hopes' were dashed leading to a plan of redemption that was anticipated, but not a foregone conclusion.

Did God have proximal knowledge of Lucifer's heart, mind, desires; etc.? How about Adam's desires? Did God realize the tree of Knowledge was in the garden? Did God provide a law which would make sin, utterly sinful? Considering the facts which God's proximal knowledge provided Him, is it reasonable for us to believe that God had any 'hope' that Adam might not eat the fruit; especially when considering the condition of Adam who had no knowledge whatsoever of 'good and evil'. All the while knowing Lucifer was indeed knowledgeable about 'good and evil' and had determined to engage in the creation of the latter?

The better solution is to see two motifs where God changes in some vs all ways (but always consistent with His character). God is not wishy-washy and fickle, but He is also not a stone! This allows us to have a normative approach of taking the verses at face value unless a strong reason to see them as figurative.

Middle knowledge of free actions and decree. The two motifs as far as I'm able to discern. Wouldn't these two explain the two motifs?

Am I right, or what? I need some rep for a fix.

No you are not right, but I'll give you what you desire more.

 

[Philetus]

There is an OT reference to God expecting good grapes from Israel (a form of hope?), but was distressed that they produced bad grapes. The great grief at Adam's fall was also a change. When God created Lucifer and Adam, it seems he expected or 'hoped' that their perfect setting would minimize the risk of falling. Things were 'very good'. After the fall, there was a change in disposition and He was grieved to the core and wanted to wipe man out. His 'hopes' were dashed leading to a plan of redemption that was anticipated, but not a foregone conclusion. Principles, not proof texts.

Weather predictions can be fairly accurate a few days out, but less probable beyond that. Not only does perfect past and present knowledge help with proximal foreknowledge, God can also intervene and influence exceptionally to make things come to pass. Judas and Peter and prophecy are OT objections with possible answers. It seems to me there are many more issues for non-OTs to deal with than these 2 or 3 objections.

OT can take all verses at face value. Non-OTs must subordinate one set of verses to another set in order to avoid contradiction. e.g. God does not and cannot change in any way is an assumption that necessitates making the 'changing' verses/motif as figurative. The better solution is to see two motifs where God changes in some vs all ways (but always consistent with His character). God is not wishy-washy and fickle, but He is also not a stone! This allows us to have a normative approach of taking the verses at face value unless a strong reason to see them as figurative. The only reason Calvinists and others make them figurative is to retain a preconceived idea of what a perfect God should be (philosophical, not biblical), not because the texts demand it.

Am I right, or what? I need some rep for a fix.

:first:

That is well said, GR, and I concur.

Apparently it scares the heck out of some to think that God has given significant others a say so in how the future plays out to some degree. (Got to admit; it scares me a little when I read responses like Lee's and RobE's and their preoccupation with what they think to be iron-clad counter points.) And it would seem that because I (an OT) mentioned it, they think a little hope destroys all God's power and abilities. Go figure. :doh:

I think this whole discussion on hope points to how entrenched we all are (or at least were) in 'classical theism' and how threatening the challenge really is. Like the wise lion roared once, "Never underestimate the power and influence of" residual thinking. The name of the game has for so long been proof-texting and doctrine-defending we have lost site of the basic principles.

REP!
Philetus

 

[godrulz]

Not true, the Hebrews were doing this work long before Calvinism or OV came around. Interpretation was not invented on a dime. You are ignore and rejecting not just hermenuetics, but the history of hermenuetics.

The history of hermeneutics is interesting. Does Philo (Hellenized Jewish philosopher) ring a bell? His allegorical method, despite being Jewish, created havoc and was rejected in the end.

You are missing the point. A view that must make plain texts figurative because they contradict the preconceived view is not a strong hermeneutic. A view that makes sense of both motifs at face value is a stronger hermeneutic since there is no reason to think these plain statements are figurative.

 

[Philetus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by godrulz
Still not the same as declaring this eventuality as certain from before the foundations of the world. Don't underestimate God's power and intelligence, but don't buy into the absurdity of EDF based on this scenario (which is proximal, not remote, specific, not exhaustive).

That is already a concession in the correct theological direction whether you realize it or not. You are 'almost' OV, almost Arminian. You are caught in the middle with this statement.

That isn't accurate, Lon.

As I see it, you guys are having a really tough time understanding that OV understands God as omnipotent, omniscient, .... living, dynamic, personal, relational, and above all as loving. When I make a little statement like God hopes, you guys do back flips and try to fit that statement into an understanding of God as static and by projecting that on Open Theism continue thinking that what I mean is that God can't do anything but hope. That is the absurdity of EDF; nothing future is unknown nor is there anything at risk. Of course God hoping for anything at all won't fit into your view of God as an 'unmoved mover'. There is nothing for such a static God to hope for ... it is all fixed (known in exhaustive detail) before it even exists. In that view even people created in the image of God are static (people who posse ill-gotten-knowledge of good and evil and who can live as if God doesn't exist). Your view of God isn't a view of reality and isn't even the way the bible portrays God. Our answer is to recognize that God knows what God will do and is able to do it, but doesn’t always know what men will do. That’s the way we read the bible; with both eyes wide open to more than one single motif.

Can I get a witness?
Philetus

 

[Philetus]

Originally Posted by godrulz
Lon and Rob are becoming increasingly hard to understand. Perhaps it is because their views are not water-tight.

I'm calling this one. Obfuscation, purposeful misdirection and misrepresentation.

It was very clear. Either you are confusing yourself or purposefully lying to squirm, it was blatantly easy to understand.

"Still" was your word, not mine and it is concession. To concede that particular point actually takes you out of the OV camp and you know it.

I'm going 50/50 on this one. RobE does so much flip-flopping I rarely if ever get him. Life is so much easier with him on ignore.

I don't always understand you perfectly, just as your recent post admitted my 'side line' didn't get through to you ... but you did make the connection to Lee's burning quest to understand 'remnant' from an OT perspective. We've been over that so often that nobody ever expects him to get it, or seems to even care. It is such a non issue for OT that Lee's harping goes unnoticed. Right or wrong that's the way I see it.

 

[Lon]

:first:

That is well said, GR, and I concur.

Apparently it scares the heck out of some to think that God has given significant others a say so in how the future plays out to some degree. (Got to admit; it scares me a little when I read responses like Lee's and RobE's and their preoccupation with what they think to be iron-clad counter points.) And it would seem that because I (an OT) mentioned it, they think a little hope destroys all God's power and abilities. Go figure. :doh:

I think this whole discussion on hope points to how entrenched we all are (or at least were) in 'classical theism' and how threatening the challenge really is. Like the wise lion roared once, "Never underestimate the power and influence of" residual thinking. The name of the game has for so long been proof-texting and doctrine-defending we have lost site of the basic principles.

REP!
Philetus

Gr's answer was not POTD worthy. If God hoped it wouldn't turn out the way it did, He saw what was happening and could easily have stopped it even according to the OV. You guys are great at side-stepping an issue and thinking you are out of the woods.

That isn't accurate, Lon.

As I see it, you guys are having a really tough time understanding that OV understands God as omnipotent, omniscient, .... living, dynamic, personal, relational, and above all as loving. When I make a little statement like God hopes, you guys do back flips and try to fit that statement into an understanding of God as static and by projecting that on Open Theism continue thinking that what I mean is that God can't do anything but hope. That is the absurdity of EDF; nothing future is unknown nor is there anything at risk. Of course God hoping for anything at all won't fit into your view of God as an 'unmoved mover'. There is nothing for such a static God to hope for ... it is all fixed (known in exhaustive detail) before it even exists. In that view even people created in the image of God are static (people who posse ill-gotten-knowledge of good and evil and who can live as if God doesn't exist). Your view of God isn't a view of reality and isn't even the way the bible portrays God. Our answer is to recognize that God knows what God will do and is able to do it, but doesn’t always know what men will do. That’s the way we read the bible; with both eyes wide open to more than one single motif.

Can I get a witness?
Philetus

Here is your witness: No scripture testifies to your derivative. There is no scripture about God hoping. Doesn't the absence speak strongly for EDF?
It should. Not unmoved, but knowing. There is a difference. Even in the OV world, the one that knows 'wins.'

Let me ask another question for a clarifier:
Does God always win? Does He ever lose?

 

[Lon]

The history of hermeneutics is interesting. Does Philo (Hellenized Jewish philosopher) ring a bell? His allegorical method, despite being Jewish, created havoc and was rejected in the end.

You are missing the point. A view that must make plain texts figurative because they contradict the preconceived view is not a strong hermeneutic. A view that makes sense of both motifs at face value is a stronger hermeneutic since there is no reason to think these plain statements are figurative.

I am not missing the point. Even today there are whack job hermeneutics. They should be the exception, not the rule. I argue that it is a strong hermeneutic. Doctrinal passages are pedantic and we do carry those conceptions into other interpretation. OV has its own set of problematics in your approach. If you deny that, you aren't being honest.

Start with an example and let's examine your claim. 1 Samuel 15 we've been over and over. I say it is you who missed the plain vs. anthropomorph.

 

[godrulz]

I Sam. 15 illustrates both truths: in some cases, God will not change His mind (not that He cannot). In other cases, He does change His mind. Read the whole chapter for both statements. I can take these at face value because God is personal, not a stone. You must make one of them figurative, without warrant, to retain strong immutability. Bad exegete, bad.

Every time someone rejects God's provision and goes to hell, is God 'losing' in a sense. A win would be for the person to go to heaven like God intended. God's will can be thwarted in individual lives, but not in His overall project to redeem a people and judge evil (Matthew 23:37; Lk. 7:30).

 

[Lon]

I Sam. 15 illustrates both truths: in some cases, God will not change His mind (not that He cannot). In other cases, He does change His mind. Read the whole chapter for both statements. I can take these at face value because God is personal, not a stone. You must make one of them figurative, without warrant, to retain strong immutability. Bad exegete, bad.

It is deeper than that, we see God as relational as well, but God doesn't change His mind. His mind is the same, He does not change. We change and all of who God is, is offered up for response. He is perfectly consistent in emotion.
He is not an unmoved mover, He is who He is and provides Himself to our circumstances. Repentance on God's part, means 'we' are going through experiece change, not that He is. If we repent, He applies the appropriate response to us relationally. He doesn't change, we do. God is perfectly consistent in being and emotion.

Every time someone rejects God's provision and goes to hell, is God 'losing' in a sense. A win would be for the person to go to heaven like God intended. God's will can be thwarted in individual lives, but not in His overall project to redeem a people and judge evil (Matthew 23:37; Lk. 7:30).

I don't agree. God could save everyone if this was indeed His will. God never loses. Some are destined for grace, others for destruction.

 

[RobE]

I Sam. 15 illustrates both truths: in some cases, God will not change His mind (not that He cannot). In other cases, He does change His mind. Read the whole chapter for both statements. I can take these at face value because God is personal, not a stone. You must make one of them figurative, without warrant, to retain strong immutability. Bad exegete, bad.

Every time someone rejects God's provision and goes to hell, is God 'losing' in a sense. A win would be for the person to go to heaven like God intended. God's will can be thwarted in individual lives, but not in His overall project to redeem a people and judge evil (Matthew 23:37; Lk. 7:30).

Well, if we take 'losing' in this sense. Let me ask: If God 'loses' is it because He is unable to 'win' or because He has a decided(decreed) that its for the greater good of creation that He 'loses'?

So not to be confusing....

1. Is God choosing not to win in some circumstances?
or
2. Is God unable to win in some circumstances?

 

[RobE]

When I make a little statement like God hopes, you guys do back flips and try to fit that statement into an understanding of God as static and by projecting that on Open Theism continue thinking that what I mean is that God can't do anything but hope.

Can I get a witness?
Philetus

Yes. I'm not sure you want to know what I see though.

God would only need to hope if He were unable to do anything about the situation, PHiletus.

Hope is needed when your in a position of powerlessness. I hope my kids will be good because I am unable to force them to be good.

This is probably why there is no scriptural proof for your idea. God is powerful in contrast to 'a kindly old grandmother'. He is able to bring about His desires; and, therefore, has no need to 'hope' whether foreknowledge is true or not.

Is the God of open theism 'omnicompetent' or not?

 

[godrulz]

I don't agree. God could save everyone if this was indeed His will. God never loses. Some are destined for grace, others for destruction.

Even Calvin thought double predestination was 'horrible', yet he believed it. TULIP is flawed.

 

[godrulz]

Well, if we take 'losing' in this sense. Let me ask: If God 'loses' is it because He is unable to 'win' or because He has a decided(decreed) that its for the greater good of creation that He 'loses'?

So not to be confusing....

1. Is God choosing not to win in some circumstances?
or
2. Is God unable to win in some circumstances?

God, in His sovereignty, actualized a creation that involved love, relationship, freedom, and risk. A risk-free model is determinism, not relational.

I would avoid win vs lose terminology except with Satan losing to God, the Victor. The loss is for the creature who rejects God. God is hurt and grieved, but He does not lose His status.

God can do anything logically possible. In wisdom and love, He chose a non-deterministic universe. This has implications for outcomes. Things are not the way God desired or intended. God paid a great price to redeem man, but it is our fault that it was necessary.

 

[godrulz]

Is the God of open theism 'omnicompetent' or not?

You wrongly assume that one has to be omnicausal to be omnicompetent. It actually takes more ability to rule free moral agents and yet bring one's purposes to pass than using a meticulous control model.

The best chess players or doctors respond to contingencies with their superior ability. They do not depend on controlling or knowing everything in advance. There is nothing praiseworthy about a Dictator.

 

[Philetus]

I'm not sure you want to know what I see though.

For once you are totally right. Well, not totally ... you can be sure ... I don't.

 

[Philetus]

It is deeper than that, we see God as relational as well, but God doesn't change His mind. His mind is the same, He does not change. We change and all of who God is, is offered up for response. He is perfectly consistent in emotion.



He is not an unmoved mover, He is who He is and provides Himself to our circumstances. Repentance on God's part, means 'we' are going through experiece change, not that He is. If we repent, He applies the appropriate response to us relationally. He doesn't change, we do. God is perfectly consistent in being and emotion.




I don't agree. God could save everyone if this was indeed His will. God never loses. Some are destined for grace, others for destruction.

Open Theists can agree in part and principle with the second paragraph above.
But together the three sound so inconsistent to the Open Theist. "If we repent" ... what if we don't? Is God's response the same in either contingency? "God could" but 'never' AND then your EDF REQUIRES you to add "Some are destined for grace, others for destruction" which sounds like an admission on your part that EDF is deterministic or dependent on it.

OT says that God is "perfectly consistent in being and emotion" EVEN WHEN God adjusts to changing circumstances caused by the freedom God has granted humans. That shapes the unsettled, not-yet-existent future.

Spin it anyway you want ... The God of EDF (a settled future) is an unmoved mover ... the unchanging creator of an unchanging future. That isn’t reciprocal loving relationship. There is no IF in that view of God. No chance, no risk, no give and take. And no reason for anyone, ANYONE to have hope. It's all settled.

Philetus