ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[themuzicman]

This is a funny thread. This is the first I have seen this thread and it already has 422 pages so I can imagine that somebody has already covered what I am about to say but here goes anyways.
God is not subject to time. Time was made for us. God knows EVERYTHING, so that would by default mean that God knows all of our futures. He knows the end from the beginning.

The problem with this idea, of God not knowing the complete future, is that when something happens in our life we cease to see God in that issue and that it is just randomly acuring. When we know that ALL THINGS are working for the good.

The bible says that he would not put more on us than we could bare. The trials and tests we face as day to day Christians are put on us at the acceptance of God. Not a suprise to God. And in the same note when something good happens, is that just randomly acurring to? Every good gift and every perfect thing comes from the Father of lights.

God knew us from the foundation of the world.
To think otherwise lessens his powers as God.

So, you're one of those who think God is evil.

Great.

Thanks for your input.

Muz

 

[RobE]

Yes... if by 'allows' you mean 'does not prevent.' But according to your "SETTLED" theology, God ordained those abortions and thereby created the evil.

I think that the problem might be that we define the word ordain differently. In my thinking ordain = allows or enact.

Ordain from Webster:

1: to invest officially (as by the laying on of hands) with ministerial or priestly authority
2 a: to establish or order by appointment, decree, or law : enact​

I submit the first definition is correct when speaking of giving free will agents authority to act; and, the second is appropriate when speaking of God's own actions.

I believe you think the second is the only definition of ordain.

Enact: 1: to establish by legal and authoritative act; specifically : to make (as a bill) into law.​

Example: God enacted the process of creation. God enacted the natural law. God enacted man's nature. God said, "Let there be light....."

Destine: 1: to decree beforehand : predetermine
2 a: to designate, assign, or dedicate in advance b: to direct, devise, or set apart for a specific purpose or place.​

Example: God destined man to act freely. God destined man to make free choices. Free will destined man to make good and evil choices. God destined what would happen within creation through his own enactments. Etc.

Predestine : to destine, decree, determine, appoint, or settle beforehand​

Example: God knew(determined) beforehand what would happen within any creation.
God decreed beforehand that He would allow man free will.
God appointed man authority over his own choices.
God settled(decided, chose) on making our world within creation.
God predestined the outcome through His enactment.

Predetermine: 1 a: foreordain, predestine b: to determine beforehand
2: to impose a direction or tendency on beforehand.​

God knew(determined) beforehand what would happen within creation. God knew by choosing to create our world what direction it would take.

Foreordain : to dispose or appoint in advance : predestine​

God foreordained man would make free choices. He also knew(predetermined) some of them would be evil choices.

I am in agreement with the scripture you presented, and even your thoughts on them. I thought you knew I rejected that God created evil? It is my assessment of non-open theology that it puts God in the position of creating evil.

And I'm trying to explain to you why your position is wrong. By your thinking if God allows evil, beforehand or at any time, then He created it.

Yet I do not believe you can separate the creation from the evil it has become. Of course, I lump it together, but I really refer to man. Man has become evil, and this scripture shows that.

Ah, but man has not become totally evil and devoid of all righteousness. Those who are in Him escape their flesh nature. As long as they exist then not all men are evil as illustrated by the man Jesus of Nazareth.

Because man is evil, he has made the world evil. We are all guilty of sin, we all are evil, but God has redeemed those of us who use our freedom provided by the Cross to return to God.

The world is not evil. If a cancer ravages a man's body is the man's body evil? Of course not. So does the evil in the world make the world evil itself?

But Settled Theism is illogical because it does not even allow for that freedom.

Sure it allows freedom. God allowed freedom through His decrees. Freedom was predetermined, foreordained, predestined, enacted, and exists within mankind. It is evident. How does knowing what one will freely do make it unfree?

I was not aware I was "hung" on the word settled. You guys are so varied, I can't just say "you Calvinist" because some of you aren't. I can't call you "arminians" because not all of you are. But you are all settled theist... It is a short cut for saying "you all-future-knowledge-settled-future-freaks":cheers:

It would be better to call us Christians.

The very idea that the future is settled, even if it can be changed, screams that the future, even the changed parts, are ordained because God created it. If John Doe the 3rd's future is in hell, God created it that way.

Are you saying that God isn't the creator? If John Doe's future is to go to hell, is God able to avert that outcome according to the open view? Does open theism proclaim that God is unable to bring about John Doe's repentance and salvation? If God is able and allows it, then is He responsible for John Doe's evil outcome or is John Doe responsible for the outcome justly rendered?

And if John Doe the 3rd is a real person who wasn't given a real choice on where he wants to go, that is not loving... I consider it evil and cruel if he is a real person. If you stand behind the scripture you quoted, that God is now down with the "making evil" in creation,...thing,... you should become an open theist and just end it.

God does not 'make' evil, God allows evil. This is the same as your position. There is not one iota difference between our perspectives on this subject. The problem is that some of us has it firmly established, in their noggin, that if God knows the future then God creates the future through His own power. I say God has ordained man to make independent choices. Whether God knows what those choices are has no bearing on responsiblity.

Open theism has yet to answer my questions. Here's the first......

How are future free acts knowable if foreknowledge is incompatible with free will?

Rob

 

[RobE]

Repeat after me:

God knows all possible futures, and knows how His actions and the actions of individuals in certain cases will limit what futures come about.

Since God knows all the possible courses of the future, He is able to guide us into those that work for good.

Muz

Welcome to the world where foreknowledge of free actions creates good outcomes. Incompatibility is strangely absent at your cake feast. Would this be a better answer than claiming John 6:44 creates a positive reprobation for Judas Iscariot? If so, then will you forego the cake eating?

 

[themuzicman]

Welcome to the world where foreknowledge of free actions creates good outcomes. Incompatibility is strangely absent at your cake feast.

And Rob once again demonstrates that he has nothing more than being deliberately obtuse, or is just too stupid to be able to get the difference.

Muz

 

[RobE]

The way I interpret it, the OV loses ground in this argument. In the classic perspective where God foreknows good will come from evil, the OV position is impotent.

According to the OV, God allows evil for no greater purpose than the hope of some non-determined outcome(hopefully good).

Traditional Christianity would state that God allows evil for a foreknown, certain, and good outcome

This would seem to make the problem theodicy a bit more severe for the OV.

In the OV, God allows evil because He wants for it to be possible for people to love Him.

Yeah, RobE is right, the idea that people actually have to make a choice in order to be able to love anyone, including God, must surely be completely impotent garbage.

There is no theodicy problem in the Open View at all. In fact, the issue of theodicy is one of the primary reasons the OV makes sense!

How can any of you stand to read Rob's abject stupidity?!

Thank you for affirming my position. See, I've always said, "God allows evil because He wants for it to be possible for people to love Him". We are in agreement. So let's quit making false accusations claiming that the ov is the only minority sect which doesn't make God into an evil-doer. It's always been a ridiculous assertion by many around here.

I hate you more than any one else I can think of.

You don't know how to do anything but lie.

Why did I think it would be worth posting here again?

I will never post on this thread again, unless and until you are permanently banned from this site.

Just for the record, Clete: I love you and would ask you to repent of this 'open' idiocy you have adopted. It's confusing your entire theology.

You have not yet gone down the road many others here have placed their foot upon. A road which diminishes God's authority and power. So far you seem to only assert that He has limited knowledge which leads to mistakes. You're respected here and many will follow your lead. Remember that respect has a responsibility with it. A responsibility one might be held accountable for.

The perception that God's thoughts and plans might be mistaken will cause many to stumble on the narrow road.

Your Brother in Christ,
Rob Mauldin

You digust me! If you loved me you'd do something besides tell intentional lies every time you respond to one of my posts. You destroy what would otherwise be substantive discussion on the topic and if I could I would permanently ban you for it.

What lie, Clete? I'm going to tell you something which I probably should withold. Clete, I would love you even if I wasn't commanded to do so. I love you because I believe you seek the face of God, search out truth, and are a brother in Christ.

The last two discussions we had were on what it meant to know something in which you said that knowledge might be uncertain. Nonsense, since knowing is knowing and not guessing or speculating. The next to last discussion was on which attributes of God took precedence over the others. More nonsense, since God's love is all encompassing just as God's knowledge is all knowing. God's attributes are equal in quantity and quality. In both instances you became derogatory and ended the conversation.

I know in the last couple of years I've said some pretty outrageous things, but those were stated to expand the conversations; not to mislead or lie as you have consistently accused me of doing. What lies are you talking about?

 

[Lon]

I'm going to requote you here using OV terms and theological stances so you recognize the 'deeper' I'm talking about. You need to go deeper.

Lon,

Ordination proves my point about what you must believe as a[n OVer]. You try to make it sound nicer by saying "when God [sees at the time of the fall happening] has nothing to do with the fall from happening," but even that is untrue.

If God knew [at the moment it happened], everything is as it is because [H]e [allowed] it, created it, and therefore ordained it.

My definition of freewill is the ability to freely chose God or to freely reject [H]im. It is this love that allows this freedom. However, with ordination [in OV occurs when God sees it happening and allows it to happen], freedom to choose God is [incongruent with freewill]. Instead, God [chooses] who goes to heaven, and who goes to hell based on [man's choice, not on any time frame].

Grace has nothing to do with it [supposedly]. It is all God's imagination that determined who would "appear" to ask for salvation. It is plan, not salvation[?]

A few corrections are in order for your original statements
1)OVer's believe in ordination and predestination. OVer's do redefine election to be a ball-park figure refering to a group ala Lee's continued question about a remnant. Also, OVer's believe God ordains, you are more concerned over freewill at that point for a full acceptance of the implications of ordination. It puts fear in me not at all. Ordination is allowing and a stamp of approval on the way things will be dealt with (the cross of Christ).

2) Ordination happens either beforehand (traditional view with EDF in mind) or right when an act is allowed to happen (OV). When God foreordains or just ordains isn't a dime to slice more thinly, it deals with the same topic: ordination.

3) Freewill. Your definition of freewill is that it is God-given, but you view our ability to choose sin as a loving gift. It is my position that that ability was stolen. It was the knowledge from the tree of Good and evil. Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat of it. It is the same argument to say "I am free to shoplift." I am not, even if I could get away with it. This is the freewill dilemma I'm speaking of. In the garden: "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden (including the tree of life) but must not eat from this tree."
I believe freewill is doing whatever the Father intended for us and nothing else. Any other 'free' will decision is actually bondage to sin just as shoplifting. I am not free but in bondage under that curse.

4) Regardless of how you see grace, grace is found in the traditional views of Arminianism and Calvinism. Grace is unmerited favor. I did nothing to earn my salvation, it is a gift from God, not of works (Ephesians 2:8-9). Ordination is not the hyper predestination view. It isn't part of the predestination package. Predestination and ordination are words found in the Bible so you have to realize you are arguing against scriptural ideas here, not Lon. You need to take a look at those words in context and decide what you are going to believe and necessarily accept concerning those words, but you cannot reject them as a believer. That isn't an option. We cannot choose to delete portions of our Bibles. I believe a varied disagreement isn't a full rejection of those truths. I believe BobE and Pastor Hill believe in predestination, election, foreordination, and ordination.
My suggestion: embrace the terms and learn their Biblical context. That's the best place to engage another on these terms: when you've embraced them as Biblical and owned them as Christ intends. Our discussion is fruitless until you own those terms as from God. We will go much further in discussion if you do. Right now I see you as rejecting them outright (not good or wise).

But anyway.

I do not understand why you guys use the argument that "when he knew is irrelevant." If God can do anything, and he has complete and utter future knowledge, every action he takes or doesn't take with us, at the creation, determines the setting for the whole world.

God could have made the tree slightly taller so Eve couldn't reach it, but Adam could. How significantly could that have altered the future? Who knows? Yet these very setting variables could effect the future forever, and according to you, God foresaw what the variables would lead to. Therefore, we have no freewill. We are just following a program.

Not only are we a program, we are foreordained to follow it either to our predestined hell, or heaven, not of our will, but his.

Yet Scripture is pretty clear he wills everyone to go to heaven...

You are using ordination and predestination as synonymous terms and they are not.

Ordination is 'allowing' as in the wheat/tare analogy: "Let them (ordain) grow together for you (angels) may uproot a wheat stalk."

Predestination means "a determined spot-reservation." We have a predestined place with Christ. We are on the invitation. The invitation has everyone's name on it, but only those who RSVP are put on the list. Just because I know what color shirt you will pick tomorrow doesn't mean I pick out your shirt for you, nor does it take away any of your choice. There is no proximation for foreknowledge as I do not possess it. I do know for a fact, Christ will return and the old will pass away. This is a foreknown event, not because I know it, but because God knows it and has revealed His plan. I have nothing to do with His future plan. It is going to happen not because I know it is going to happen, but because it is God's will.

You are going to wear a certain shirt tomorrow, not because I will it, but because you will it. It has nothing to do with me even if I happened to have foreknowledge (Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge). Foreknowledge does not negate your choice. Is it set in cement? Yeah, because it is foreknown. Does it mean you didn't have a choice? No, it simply means your choice was known before you chose it. Could you have chosen otherwise? Yes, but your own determinations and desires make choices and they are known. One day we will know Him, even as we are fully known, scripture tells us. God knows us intimately. Even in an OV mindset, God can more than predict our choices because of His intimate knowledge. I'd like you to realize that kind of prediction where the outcome is almost entirely certain, is not really much different than knowing per fact because your logic is flawed to assert that one eliminates your choices where the other does not. If it doesn't in OV, it doesn't in the traditional view either. That is putting together logic from a faulty concept. Knowing what someone is going to do doesn't eliminate their will. If I am going to the store, and I tell you, you have virtual/proximal foreknowledge of my actions but it doesn't negate my decision and somehow make it your doing.

 

[Nang]

So, these things never happen to the Elect^tm?

Muz

The elect remain sinners, and they suffer the results of any unrepentant sin, just like all other human beings, corrupted in nature. However, God has promised to work ALL THINGS together for good for those who love Him. The non-elect do not possess this promise from God.

Even when the elect Christian sometimes fails in flesh and faithfulness, Christ remains faithful, and brings good out of any/all evil on their behalf.

Spiritual principle: Genesis 50:20

It is not that Christians do not suffer evil effects (judgments) from the sins they might cause but the gospel is: "There is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but in the Spirit." Romans 8:1

There is no such thing as "perfectionism" in a human being; not even in the elect sons of God. Christians have the law of sin remaining in their members, as you know and experience, I trust.

It is not sin per se that the Christian has been freed from, but the GUILT of sin. The believer will not know sinlessness until he is transformed to glory in the kingdom of heaven.

Of course, anyone professing to be a Christian, who continually practices unrepentant sin(s), is a lying hypocrite. (I John 3:9)

Nang

 

[Lon]

And, if in God's omniscience, He sees all possible futures leading to Peter denying Christ three times before a rooster crow, then it is truth, even if the fulfillment may happen in a large variety of ways.

Thus, it is TRUTH, even if there isn't just one way that it will happen.

This is a different kind of concession for OVer's though. You probably realize you have a foot still in the traditional/classical camp. OVer's believe God couldn't have known, only predict.

So, you're in opposition to Scripture. Fine. I'll stay with the bible.

LOL, you slay me sometimes. You know perfectly well I'm against your deduction rather than against scripture.

Your issue is that you forget that there is another free will agent involved who is not omnicompetent, but fallen! God did everything rightly with respect to Israel, and thought they would return, but they did not. I think you're stuck in that Calvinist determinist mindset, where man has no real say in what happens.

God didn't prophecy that Israel would return.



That's because you consistently misunderstand "mistake." I can believe that you will become an OVT because of my argument, and I may make all the right statements, but if you don't, I was mistaken. Not because I made a mistake, but because you did.



Get a better translation:

Jer 3:I thought, 'After she has done all these things she will return to Me'; but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it.

The KJV just isn't as good in translating this stuff.​

Jer 3:7 ואמר אחרי עשׂותה את־כל־אלה אלי תשׁוב ולא־שׁבה ותראה בגודה אחותה יהודה׃

(Reading backwards): ואמר (I said) אחר (after) עשׂותה(had done, she) את־ (everything/all) אלּה (these)" שׁבה (turn away/back, repent) אל (toward, near(me)"
שׁוּב(repent/turned)לא (not) [she].
שׁבה(her) בּגוד(treacherous) אחות(sister)יהוּדה (Judah) ותראה(saw)

Well, you'll have to take that up with God, then. Keep in mind that the prophets aren't back to back in the chronology, and many have overlapping events.

That's an honest "I don't know" answer. There is some concession in those statements and I appreciate your honesty.

Let's not go refuting Scripture with Scripture, now. Jeremiah says what it says.

I quite agree, I was saying that OV interprets them the same and it is deductive rather than inductive and counter-intuitive (not even a good deduction-as I hope I have shown with the Hebrew).

I don't have any issue with saying that God has His plans and knows (regardless of how individuals choose) how to fulfill them.

How does this fit with His expectation for Israel and Judah though? I mean if He really expected good grapes and was surprised Judah didn't repent, how much of the cross was in mind from the beginning? Do you see the counter-intuitive point I'm making here?

Again, no issue with this. But that doesn't mean we can throw Jeremiah 3:6-7 out of the bible, or refute it by calling other contexts. Jeremiah 3:6-7 is what it is, on its own, inerrant and inspired.

I agree based on my presentation here, but Idiago Montoya (Princess Bride) keeps ringing in my ears "I do not think it means what you think it means."

I am readily surprised at your assent to God knowing exactly what is going to produce good grapes. Knight believes God was caught fully surprised that nothing short of the cross would suffice: He expected good grapes but was mistaken.
Your concession here has you agreeing with me that the cross was always the plan. You are an OVer/traditional man of a different color. I'm always hopeful you'll see the problems and get both feet where they belong.

And which of these is God unable to accomplish through His omnipotence, omniscience, and just nature?

None.

Muz

Agree, but again, I have those PB Indiago echos in mind as I read "...omnipotence, omniscience, and just nature..." Using Omni's is an OV no,no. :nono:​

 

[themuzicman]

This is a different kind of concession for OVer's though. You probably realize you have a foot still in the traditional/classical camp. OVer's believe God couldn't have known, only predict.

Not really. The classical camp says that this prophecy had to be fulfilled in the exact way that it was reported to be fulfilled, and I don't make that claim.

LOL, you slay me sometimes. You know perfectly well I'm against your deduction rather than against scripture.

Sure, but you don't really provide a basis for that from this passage.

(Reading backwards): ואמר (I said) אחר (after) עשׂותה(had done, she) את־ (everything/all) אלּה (these) שׁבה (turn away/back, repent) אל (toward, near(me)
שׁוּב(repent/turned)לא (not) [she].
שׁבה(her) בּגוד(treacherous) אחות(sister)יהוּדה (Judah) ותראה(saw)

The problem is that you don't expand on the verbs.

"I thought(*), after I did for her (InfConstruct, 2fs suffix) all these things, she will return (Impf 3fs) to me..."

the KJV turns a lot of that around, and takes "return" as imperative, rather than imperfect, and puts "I said" next to it, ignoring the entire space that separates the two.

(*)This is the proper translation, as we are seeing God's "self talk", which we translate as "thought." See Gen 38.

That's an honest "I don't know" answer. There is some concession in those statements and I appreciate your honesty.

It means that you can't run to another context and then think it's going to change what the first context means. I believe Isaiah overlaps Jeremiah in terms of Chronology.

I quite agree, I was saying that OV interprets them the same and it is deductive rather than inductive and counter-intuitive (not even a good deduction-as I hope I have shown with the Hebrew).

You haven't shown it with the Hebrew, because you don't take into account the verbal forms in the Hebrew. (Studied Hebrew, Master's level.)

The fact is that the Hebrew supports me.

How does this fit with His expectation for Israel and Judah though? I mean if He really expected good grapes and was surprised Judah didn't repent, how much of the cross was in mind from the beginning? Do you see the counter-intuitive point I'm making here?

Again, you're assuming that God's plan is a one track, definite course, when God's plan could just as easily be knowing at what points in the various possible courses of the future that He would have to act to bring about His will.

I agree based on my presentation here, but Idiago Montoya (Princess Bride) keeps ringing in my ears "I do not think it means what you think it means."

That's because you don't know Hebrew :chuckle:

I am readily surprised at your assent to God knowing exactly what is going to produce good grapes. Knight believes God was caught fully surprised that nothing short of the cross would suffice: He expected good grapes but was mistaken.

I don't know why you'd be surprised.

Your concession here has you agreeing with me that the cross was always the plan. You are an OVer/traditional man of a different color. I'm always hopeful you'll see the problems and get both feet where they belong.

I am definitely NOT MAD. In fact, MAD folks frustrate me in some of the ways they abuse OVT to get around their problems.

Agree, but again, I have those PB Indiago echos in mind as I read "...omnipotence, omniscience, and just nature..." Using Omni's is an OV no,no. :nono:

I don't know why. All that's changed is what is logically knowable. We all agree that there are things that are logically unknowable (square circle, etc.), and the future just fits there for me. God is still omniscient in the proper definition.

Muz

 

[Lon]

The problem is that you don't expand on the verbs.

"I thought(*), after I did for her (InfConstruct, 2fs suffix) all these things, she will return (Impf 3fs) to me..."

the KJV turns a lot of that around, and takes "return" as imperative, rather than imperfect, and puts "I said" next to it, ignoring the entire space that separates the two.

(*)This is the proper translation, as we are seeing God's "self talk", which we translate as "thought." See Gen 38.

You haven't shown it with the Hebrew, because you don't take into account the verbal forms in the Hebrew. (Studied Hebrew, Master's level.)

The fact is that the Hebrew supports me.


That's because you don't know Hebrew :chuckle:


Muz

No, I'm not a master's level Hebrew scholar, but I'm fair enough to know you are mistaken and definitely not at the master's level.

With Strong's in hand, I do not see that it works out as you say. Where is the Hebrew word for 'thought?'

And who are you quoting from?

See here for disagreement.

It means "to say." It can be translated 'thought' when appropriate, but it isn't a Hebrew rule, but option. I believe it incorrect support for OV.

Furthermore, look at the LXX and show me 'thought.'

Jer 3:7 καὶ εἶπα μετὰ τὸ πορνεῦσαι αὐτὴν ταῦτα πάντα Πρός με ἀνάστρεψον, καὶ οὐκ ἀνέστρεψεν· καὶ εἶδεν τὴν ἀσυνθεσίαν αὐτῆς ἡ ἀσύνθετος Ιουδα.

If the Hebrews themselves translated it thus, you have made a further error in your estimation.

 

[lee_merrill]

It means "to say." It can be translated 'thought' when appropriate, but it isn't a Hebrew rule, but option.

Furthermore, look at the LXX and show me 'thought.'

Jer 3:7 καὶ εἶπα μετὰ τὸ πορνεῦσαι αὐτὴν ταῦτα πάντα Πρός με ἀνάστρεψον, καὶ οὐκ ἀνέστρεψεν· καὶ εἶδεν τὴν ἀσυνθεσίαν αὐτῆς ἡ ἀσύνθετος Ιουδα.

Good point! It's translated "say" here, and that is indeed the usual meaning. This is the rendering also in two literal 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." (Darby)

And they will turn back!

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."


Note also that this is not simply their decision, their prayer is for God to restore them, in fact he must do this.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

If you want an example go to Jeremiah 3:6-7. God thinks that Israel will return, and Israel doesn't. God is mistaken about what effect His actions will have on the nation of Israel. Did God err? No. God acted rightly and righeously, and Israel did not respond to Him. Is God imperfect? No, God was holy in his actions. God did not need to change, Israel did. But Israel did not.

Jeremiah 3:7 "I thought, 'After she {Israel} has done all these things she will return to Me'; but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it."

Boyd and others argue God truly did not know what the people would do. Boyd states of the passage,

“We need to ask ourselves seriously, how could the Lord honestly say he thought Israel would turn to him if he was always certain that they would never do so? If God tells us he thought something was going to occur while being eternally certain it would not occur, is he not lying to us?"

Boyd argues, well, God cannot lie, so He must not have truly known what Israel was going to do.

For this passage the openist must argue, God is thinking to Himself that given the current situation there is a high probability (greater than 0.5) that Israel will return to him. The openist argues God honestly believed one thing would happen but, sadly to God, the actual opposite came to pass instead.

How about we consider a more reasoned explanation, instead of this kind of eisegesis. Is not the “I thought” of Jer. 3:7 the same expression as we would use, when expressing dismay at a child, e.g., “Well, I thought you would have at least cleaned up your room while I was cooking dinner.” Now, honestly, does the use of “I thought” here imply some kind of cognition (knowledge) that openists would have us believe, or the mere displeasure at one’s actions?

Indeed it must be the clear interpretation that God is expressing disappointment, for we know that God knew all along that Israel would turn from Him.

 

[patman]

Jeremiah 3:7 "I thought, 'After she {Israel} has done all these things she will return to Me'; but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it."

Boyd and others argue God truly did not know what the people would do. Boyd states of the passage,

“We need to ask ourselves seriously, how could the Lord honestly say he thought Israel would turn to him if he was always certain that they would never do so? If God tells us he thought something was going to occur while being eternally certain it would not occur, is he not lying to us?"

Boyd argues, well, God cannot lie, so He must not have truly known what Israel was going to do.

For this passage the openist must argue, God is thinking to Himself that given the current situation there is a high probability (greater than 0.5) that Israel will return to him. The openist argues God honestly believed one thing would happen but, sadly to God, the actual opposite came to pass instead.

How about we consider a more reasoned explanation, instead of this kind of eisegesis. Is not the “I thought” of Jer. 3:7 the same expression as we would use, when expressing dismay at a child, e.g., “Well, I thought you would have at least cleaned up your room while I was cooking dinner.” Now, honestly, does the use of “I thought” here imply some kind of cognition (knowledge) that openists would have us believe, or the mere displeasure at one’s actions?

Indeed it must be the clear interpretation that God is expressing disappointment, for we know that God knew all along that Israel would turn from Him.

And you say I am unworthy?

The only reason you should read it out of context is because it disagrees with your theology. So you twist it so God didn't even mean what he said.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

And you say I am unworthy?

The only reason you should read it out of context is because it disagrees with your theology. So you twist it so God didn't even mean what he said.

Well, I thought that even you would understand this passage, given the clear rendering and since God clearly knew that Israel would turn away from Him. See how it works? Now did I mean to say here that I actually had cognitive knowledge that you would understand the passage, or that I am disappointed at your lack of understanding. Should be easy for you to guess which was my actual intent, no? :squint:

Thanks for driving by and making my point for me.:chew:

 

[patman]

I'm going to requote you here using OV terms and theological stances so you recognize the 'deeper' I'm talking about. You need to go deeper.

Lon,

I am going to agree with a lot of what you said. What is crazy is even though I agree with some of it, I still have not changed my mind... only it isn't crazy to me, it is crazy to you.

Future knowledge does not necessarily limit freewill.

You can stretch Ordination can be rooted in the present(though I refer to foreordination when I say ordination[bad english]).

I disagree that ordination equates to a stamp of approval when defined in such a way that simply letting an event happen. I would give an analogy as to why... but those don't work.

Simply put, there are times that one has no choice but to do nothing as something happens they wish wouldn't...

I could comment on other points of disagreement, but it was a long post, yet it didn't address the reason I posted.

Even though I agree that foreknowledge does not limit will, as I have always said, when you are a creator, foreknowledge molds will.

If God had absolute foreknowledge present at creation and also possessed power to create anything, there are unlimited possibilities on what to create. He would have had unlimited possibilities with a wide variety of futures. With the infinite powers, not being limited by possibilities, the future he foresaw was the one he wanted at creation.

Not to mention that if he settled the future, he would have had to make the future as is, unchangeable. Our actions are merely his creation too.

Under those circumstances, foreordination stole our freewill.

 

[patman]

Well, I thought that even you would understand this passage, given the clear rendering and since God clearly knew that Israel would turn away from Him. See how it works? Now did I mean to say here that I actually had cognitive knowledge that you would understand the passage, or that I am disappointed at your lack of understanding. Should be easy for you to guess which was my actual intent, no? :squint:

Thanks for driving by and making my point for me.:chew:

I just wanted to see if you added me to your ignore list:thumb:

 

[lee_merrill]

... when you are a creator, foreknowledge molds will.

But any choice a creator makes molds will, correct?

Not to mention that if he settled the future ... foreordination stole our freewill.

Certainly, if God settled the future then there is no freewill. Then the question becomes, is this the view of the non-open-view people?

Blessings,
Lee <- Doesn't believe God settled the future

 

[themuzicman]

No, I'm not a master's level Hebrew scholar, but I'm fair enough to know you are mistaken and definitely not at the master's level.

With Strong's in hand, I do not see that it works out as you say. Where is the Hebrew word for 'thought?'

And who are you quoting from?

Notes from my Pentateuch exegesis class, primarily. And the NASB.

But go to Genesis 38:11. You'll see that Judah "thought". Same word. It's making reference to "Judah said to himself", which we take as "thought."

Same thing in Jeremiah 3:6-7. The context is that God said to Himself, or thought...

See here for disagreement.

It means "to say." It can be translated 'thought' when appropriate, but it isn't a Hebrew rule, but option. I believe it incorrect support for OV.

Then you need to get beyond a pure Lexicon into translation. Context defines meaning.

Furthermore, look at the LXX and show me 'thought.'

Jer 3:7 καὶ εἶπα μετὰ τὸ πορνεῦσαι αὐτὴν ταῦτα πάντα Πρός με ἀνάστρεψον, καὶ οὐκ ἀνέστρεψεν· καὶ εἶδεν τὴν ἀσυνθεσίαν αὐτῆς ἡ ἀσύνθετος Ιουδα.

If the Hebrews themselves translated it thus, you have made a further error in your estimation.

Are you sure you want to put your textual eggs in the LXX basket? The Hebrew writers frequently take liberties from the Hebrew, especially outside the Torah.

Regardless, the LXX says that "The Lord said TO ME.." Thus, your idea that "Return" was commanded to Israel is still blunted. Plus, you have yet to deal with the verbal issue of "return" being imperfect, now imperative.

Muz

 

[Lon]

Lon,

I am going to agree with a lot of what you said. What is crazy is even though I agree with some of it, I still have not changed my mind... only it isn't crazy to me, it is crazy to you.

Future knowledge does not necessarily limit freewill.

You can stretch Ordination can be rooted in the present(though I refer to foreordination when I say ordination[bad english]).

I disagree that ordination equates to a stamp of approval when defined in such a way that simply letting an event happen. I would give an analogy as to why... but those don't work.

Simply put, there are times that one has no choice but to do nothing as something happens they wish wouldn't...

I could comment on other points of disagreement, but it was a long post, yet it didn't address the reason I posted.

Even though I agree that foreknowledge does not limit will, as I have always said, when you are a creator, foreknowledge molds will.

If God had absolute foreknowledge present at creation and also possessed power to create anything, there are unlimited possibilities on what to create. He would have had unlimited possibilities with a wide variety of futures. With the infinite powers, not being limited by possibilities, the future he foresaw was the one he wanted at creation.

Not to mention that if he settled the future, he would have had to make the future as is, unchangeable. Our actions are merely his creation too.

Under those circumstances, foreordination stole our freewill.

Again think of 'plan' in foreordination. It is again in-line with the wheat and tare analogy (Matthew 13:25-30). I believe that lesson to be a 1) God's communication to us about similarity 2) a teaching that conveys significant truths.

Mat 13:28 'Do you want us to go and gather them?'
Mat 13:29 But he said, 'No, since in gathering the weeds you may uproot the wheat with them.

There is either a direct correlation of uprooting, or an equal concern for the believer here conveyed. The plan (foreordination) is to allow for the specific reason of 'preservation.' OV, I do not believe, has any problem with ordination as presented in this story (it is Biblical).

Again, I believe it important for you to understand the scriptural terms. OVer's tend to over-extrapolate accusations that aren't part of the discussion (not understanding Biblical terms before rejecting them) and how to argue more productively. I have no problem arguing orthodoxy, but you have to get to a point where these truths are embraced as your own without the strawmen.

I honestly believe you to be sincere and studious in your OV stance. That isn't the problem. The problem is that you are arguing against some views OV, itself, doesn't or shouldn't have a problem with, like ordination.

I'm not sure how to unlock this for you, but I've repeated this and will do the service of doing so again: You are still confusing ordination and foreknowledge as a jumbled mess here. We can have foreordination without foreknowledge but an educated and reliable forecast. I know if I plant, I'll likely have produce as almost certain. I also know that there are dandelion seeds on the wind and will have to attend the garden. If I was concerned about uprooting, I'd have to ordain the weeds for a season. It is and isn't my desire. It isn't my desire to have weeds. It is my desire to allow them so my vegetables are not harmed. They must endure the presence of the life-sucking weeds, but ultimately it is for their preservation I allow the weeds. It isn't my desire or ordination that the weeds got there, and if I could preserve the vegetables AND pull the weeds I would. It isn't really my desire that they grow next to the vegetables, but I have to allow it if the vegetables are in danger in uprooting.

This is the case with God and us. There is a danger of some kind of interfering with evil. He deeply cares about every one of His creatures, but there is something holding Him back from interfering. Regardless if it was a plan at the beginning (traditional foreordinaton)or a plan at the moment(OV ordination), it is still a predetermined plan.

Bringing Foreknowledge (specifically EDF) into this discussion:

If I know exactly which vegetables are going to make it at harvest time, it isn't really the factor involved in the problem of weeds. Whether I intimately know which are going to be effected (traditional) or a pretty good guess (OV), it doesn't really effect the discussion of what I decided to do. The outcome is about the same. I could guess and be fairly accurate or know for certain (by some ability I do not possess) but it only answers the 'when' question. The 'why' question (ordination) is the only one to be dealt with.

Applying all this specifically to the problem of evil, sin, attrocity, it is His ordination that is brought to question (why), not when He knew (foreknowledge or extrapolation).

I hope this clears it up a tad more.

 

[Lon]

Notes from my Pentateuch exegesis class, primarily. And the NASB.

But go to Genesis 38:11. You'll see that Judah "thought". Same word. It's making reference to "Judah said to himself", which we take as "thought."

Same thing in Jeremiah 3:6-7. The context is that God said to Himself, or thought...



Then you need to get beyond a pure Lexicon into translation. Context defines meaning.



Are you sure you want to put your textual eggs in the LXX basket? The Hebrew writers frequently take liberties from the Hebrew, especially outside the Torah.

Regardless, the LXX says that "The Lord said TO ME.." Thus, your idea that "Return" was commanded to Israel is still blunted. Plus, you have yet to deal with the verbal issue of "return" being imperfect, now imperative.

Muz

This is more reasonable than your previous assertions.

I do not disagree that thought can be used, but again, I said it is a translation option for conveyance.

When we see 'thought' in context, I agree with AMR and Dallas Theological scholars that it there is a shift in the OV mindset when OVer's grab a hold of of the translations and miss the meaning.

'Thought,' in this case is 'thinking outloud' rather than a perception/belief. It doesn't convey a mistaken idea, but what is on one's mind.

Thought carries either/or both: I believed, or I silently said.

One does not equate the other and OV wrongly makes it a rule that they are both/and rather than either/or.

I argue 'said' from the Hebrew to convey this truth.