ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
patman
Active member
The settled view limits God by saying he can not predict the future unless he also possesses the ability to foresee it perfectly.
Is absolute foreknowledge REALLY the only explination?
themuzicman
Well-known member
This is why I really question whether Calvinist believe in Omnipotence. It seems that every time something comes up that "might not go right" if God doesn't know how it's going to come out, the completely fail to consider that God's omnipotence and ability to bring about His purpose by acting in the moment, rather than fixing the game beforehand.
Do they seriously think that God is that powerless?
Muz
Do they seriously think that God is that powerless?
Muz
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Small details like the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem? I don't think you
take OT prophecies seriously enough. Is this your stance, "It's cool if they work
out, but if not, it's no big deal."?
The Bethleham prophecy is significant and is able to be brought about by God's providential, influential control. Likewise, Jesus was in control of His death and put his head down and then gave up his spirit (normally the spirit would leave first and the head would drop...note the detailed narrative on this point). Since he died earlier than expected, there was no need to break his legs to shorten his death. Again, this was not hard to fulfill. If his legs were broken, then the Spirit would not have inspired the OT illustrative verse to be applied to His situation.
There are many Messianic prophecies that can be explained by God's ability to orchestrate things. They do not require EDF for an explanation.
themuzicman
Well-known member
Would this be a bad time to mention that in the original prophecy of being born of a virgin, the Isaiah text probably doesn't mean "virgin", but just a young woman?
Muz
Muz
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
So, since the prophecy about no broken bones existed, did the Roman soldiers have the free will to break a bone? How about during his scourging? What prevented them from breaking his pinkie finger at some point? Or a fractured
jawbone when they smote him on the face?
I'm not trying to disprove OV, I just have some questions.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Not much of a prophecy then, since thousands of young women probably gave birth on the same day Jesus was born.
I believe my Bible. Virgin.
themuzicman
Well-known member
Well, the original prophecy was given for that time, and the original text uses what is called a "verbless clause", where "is" is inserted between two noun clauses.
In this case, the words are the "alma" (young woman), and "bearing a son", which means that the best translation is probably "this young women is bearing a son", speaking to the king to whom this was prophesied about a present circumstance.
So, if you're going to believe your bible, you need to read it and study it carefully, first. You seem to want to believe what some translator has interpreted for you, and then only those verses that you want to be in the bible, and not those that are inconveniently inconsistent with what you believe.
If you're serious, you'll begin serious study. You're like the guy who sits on his couch and looks at the super athelete, and says, "I wish I could do that", but doesn't actually make the effort to move in that direction.
Muz
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1699532&postcount=15
Was Jesus Christ born of a virgin?
By the way, I am a super athlete. I had a fastball in the mid 90's when I pitched
for my college baseball team
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
March 10th, 2008, 09:24 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, yes... when your argument is exposed, you run to Ad Homenim? No shock there.
Muz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, yes... when your argument is exposed, you run to Ad Homenim? No shock there.
Muz
Philetus
New member
How detailed does a 'prophecy' have to be to past your test to qualify as "much of a prophecy"? You can't read details into a text that aren't there. That doesn't mean that what is there isn't. Matthew sees the Isaiah text as pointing to the birth of Christ. He wasn't wrong but didn't make as much of it as you (and tradition) seem to want to.
We believe 'your' Bible too! We just don't 'believe' all the 'proof-texting' that has gone on down through the centuries, anymore than you 'believe' in the 'proof-texting' that goes on today. I believe Mary was a virgin at the time of her conception of the Son of God not on the strength of what Isaiah may or may not have said but rather on the strength of what the angel and Mary herself said. As Muz pointed out, the Isaiah text is a weak argument at best. The validity of the virgin birth stands on the New Testament texts alone.
What was 'done unto' Mary could have been 'done unto' any virgin anywhere in the world. God chose the place and time and the instrument and sought her consent; "Be it unto me..." Far more compelling and convincing is Luke's narrative and theological aims than digging back to bolster the same fact. Trust the witnesses but don't add to their testimony to strengthen your argument. It weakens your case.
Isaiah was a hint at God's intention and plan. After the fact, Luke is the better detailer of just what actually happened: a virgin conceived by the Holy Spirit and bore a Son. That is the 'particularity' that distinguished it from all other births, not Isaiah's limited prophetic insights.
Questing the exactness (on the basis of what isn't there) is not questing the validity or accuracy of the text on the basis of what is there. I believe the Isaiah text to be true not on the grounds of what isn't there but what is there and it is highly debatable whether it points to the virgin birth.
I believe my New Testament: Virgin!
Philetus
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
lee_merrill
New member
I certainly agree, but what I don't know is how this works exactly.
What, they can't also refuse? And I think he can have my palms up even if I try to keep my palms down.
"Do they seriously think that God is that powerless?" (with apologies to Muz)
This is why I really question whether Open Theists believe in Omnipotence. If God cannot bring my hands palms-up on a table, why believe he can do anything else in this world that involves choices of man?
Blessings,
Lee
Yes it would. The liberal RSV takes this approach. I think we can find credible conservative scholarship to support a virgin conception from the Messianic prophecy. Have you checked Keil and Delitzsch? A sign is not a young woman, but a supernatural conception. The one born is also Immanuel (deity), not some Spanish guy in Isaiah's day named Yay soos.
He may have had a fractured finger. This does not affect redemption. I don't think the verses preclude this possibility. The soldiers were free, but could be exceptionally constrained. We also are not positive it was a predictive prophecy as much as an illustrative application after the fact.
God could make you fly through the air and land on your head (omnipotence). God could make your palms do whatever He wants to, but did he or does he do these things (one is still omnipotent even if they do not do all things they can logically do at any given moment)? If you are arguing for causal determinism, be honest and do not talk about free will or compatibilism. God does not know which way your palms will go before you are born. He can know before they are turned by knowing your thoughts and nerve impulses. He cannot know from eternity past if you can freely turn them (as He sovereignly made possible at the expense of Him being omnicausal).
I would say that they definitely did have the free will to break his bones since they moved to do exactly that and the only reason they didn't is because He had already died.
It might be likened to someone having the desire, the ability and the opportunity to hit a home run but your throwing a timlely 90 mph fast ball preventing it from happening. You didn't over come the batter's free will, you just manipulated the circumstances with your own will via your skill and timing in order to prevent the homer.
If you think these through, your questions here don't really make a lot of sense. Jesus is God in the flesh. Do you really think that preventing a broken bone would have been that difficult a task? After all, the only reason He was being scourged in the place is because He willfully submitted to it, otherwise they couldn't have laid a finger on Him nor harmed a hair on His head, never mind broken any bones. God, it seems to me, was very clearly controlling the extent of His injuries as well as the exact manner and timing of His death. None of which requires exhaustive knowledge of the future nor the suspension of anyone's free will. Indeed, all it took was a knowledge of prophesy and the ability to manipulate the situation to whatever end He desired, which, of course, God has the ability to do.
Keep 'em coming!
It is refreshing to have a fresh set of questions coming from someone whom I know has the ability to think clearly. :thumb:
Resting in Him,
Clete
I would not attempt to argue that Issiah 7:14 is translated incorrectly but the glib "I believe my New Testament: Virgin!" or other similar pat response just doesn't cut it.
The fact is that the Hebrew word for virgin is not used in Issiah 7:14.
The Hebrew word for virgin is bĕthuwlah (Strong's #1330). Its first usage is Genesis 24:16.
Issiah 7:14 does not use bĕthuwlah, it uses `almah (Strong's #5959).
Now, you can see, if you follow the links to the definitions, those two words are not the same! Does that prove that Mary wasn't a virgin? Of course not! Does this even prove that the Issiah passage is not referring to a virgin? No, it doesn't prove that either. But the point is that the issue a just a little bit more complex than "I believe my Bible." God's word is indeed inspired but the English translation of it was not and it does no one any good at all to flippantly blow off valid objections and observations of its contents just because we think the answer should be perfectly obvious. If the objection is frivolous then expose it as such but if it is not then don't pretend like it is, but rather deal with it head on.
Resting in Him,
Clete
The fact is that the Hebrew word for virgin is not used in Issiah 7:14.
The Hebrew word for virgin is bĕthuwlah (Strong's #1330). Its first usage is Genesis 24:16.
Issiah 7:14 does not use bĕthuwlah, it uses `almah (Strong's #5959).
Now, you can see, if you follow the links to the definitions, those two words are not the same! Does that prove that Mary wasn't a virgin? Of course not! Does this even prove that the Issiah passage is not referring to a virgin? No, it doesn't prove that either. But the point is that the issue a just a little bit more complex than "I believe my Bible." God's word is indeed inspired but the English translation of it was not and it does no one any good at all to flippantly blow off valid objections and observations of its contents just because we think the answer should be perfectly obvious. If the objection is frivolous then expose it as such but if it is not then don't pretend like it is, but rather deal with it head on.
Resting in Him,
Clete
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Is God able to provide an English Bible that says exactly what he wants it to say?
Or, did he intend that only those fluent in Hebrew and Greek would have any chance of understanding his revelation to mankind?
If we don't have the Word of God in our hands, aren't we all wasting our time discussing it?
Or, did he intend that only those fluent in Hebrew and Greek would have any chance of understanding his revelation to mankind?
If we don't have the Word of God in our hands, aren't we all wasting our time discussing it?
- Status