Lon
Well-known member
"...changing in knowledge...judgments..."
This is the part where OV goes further than traditional immutability acquiesces.
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
"...changing in knowledge...judgments..."
This is the part where OV goes further than traditional immutability acquiesces.
God knows all that is knowable. What changes is the objects of knowledge that move from possible to actual, not yet, to real. God knows reality as it is. The issue is the nature of reality, not so much whether God changes or not.
Conditional prophecy is evidence that God is not locked in a fatalistically fixed future, but is responsive to changing contingencies. Again, the issue is the nature of creation (settled or only partially settled), more than whether God 'changes' or not.
He does NOT change in His essential character and attributes, we agree.
Psalms 139 is about the development of the fetus in the womb. The process if very precise, very predictable, with particular things happening at specific times during that process, which God knows in advance. God knows, for example, what color of hair you would have from the very moment you were conceived. He didn't have to wait and see like you and I do today. God can look at your DNA and know so very much about who you are and what you are going to be like, not just in appearance but in personality and temperament and He knows (or is able to know) this from the moment you first exist, before you are born and before you are fully developed in your mother's womb. And so the psalm isn't talking about the days of your whole life but simply those days of your fetal development in your mother's womb, while your frame (i.e. your skeleton) was being formed etc.
Read the Psalm again with this context in mind and see if it doesn't become crystal clear. It really is as plain as can be.
Resting in Him,
Clete
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Psalms 139 is prophecy about Jesus Christ's birth and resurrection.
Christ is the only man (verse 15) who has been wrought in the lower
parts of the earth.
Christ is the only man (verse 15) who has been wrought in the lower
parts of the earth.
"Lower parts of the Earth" refers to the place of the dead...
Psalm 63:8 My soul follows close behind You;
Your right hand upholds me.
9 But those who seek my life, to destroy it,
Shall go into the lower parts of the earth.
10 They shall fall by the sword;
They shall be a portion for jackals.
Isaiah 44:22 I have blotted out, like a thick cloud, your transgressions,
And like a cloud, your sins.
Return to Me, for I have redeemed you.”
23 Sing, O heavens, for the LORD has done it!
Shout, you lower parts of the earth;
Break forth into singing, you mountains,
O forest, and every tree in it!
For the LORD has redeemed Jacob
Ezekiel 32:23 Her graves are set in the recesses of the Pit,
And her company is all around her grave,
All of them slain, fallen by the sword,
Who caused terror in the land of the living.
24 “ There is Elam and all her multitude,
All around her grave,
All of them slain, fallen by the sword,
Who have gone down uncircumcised to the lower parts of the earth,
Who caused their terror in the land of the living;
Now they bear their shame with those who go down to the Pit.
25 They have set her bed in the midst of the slain,
With all her multitude,
With her graves all around it,
All of them uncircumcised, slain by the sword;
Though their terror was caused
In the land of the living,
Yet they bear their shame
With those who go down to the Pit;
It was put in the midst of the slain.
Ephesians 4:9 (Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth?
Your right hand upholds me.
9 But those who seek my life, to destroy it,
Shall go into the lower parts of the earth.
10 They shall fall by the sword;
They shall be a portion for jackals.
Isaiah 44:22 I have blotted out, like a thick cloud, your transgressions,
And like a cloud, your sins.
Return to Me, for I have redeemed you.”
23 Sing, O heavens, for the LORD has done it!
Shout, you lower parts of the earth;
Break forth into singing, you mountains,
O forest, and every tree in it!
For the LORD has redeemed Jacob
Ezekiel 32:23 Her graves are set in the recesses of the Pit,
And her company is all around her grave,
All of them slain, fallen by the sword,
Who caused terror in the land of the living.
24 “ There is Elam and all her multitude,
All around her grave,
All of them slain, fallen by the sword,
Who have gone down uncircumcised to the lower parts of the earth,
Who caused their terror in the land of the living;
Now they bear their shame with those who go down to the Pit.
25 They have set her bed in the midst of the slain,
With all her multitude,
With her graves all around it,
All of them uncircumcised, slain by the sword;
Though their terror was caused
In the land of the living,
Yet they bear their shame
With those who go down to the Pit;
It was put in the midst of the slain.
Ephesians 4:9 (Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth?
The place of the dead is also referred to as the womb...
Job 1:21 And he said: “ Naked I came from my mother’s womb, And naked shall I return there. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; Blessed be the name of the LORD.”
Ecclesiastes 5:15 As he came from his mother’s womb, naked shall he return, To go as he came; And he shall take nothing from his labor Which he may carry away in his hand.
And in Psalms 139 "mother's womb" and "the lower parts of the Earth" are both used to refer to the same thing...
13 For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them.
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them.
Now, I don't disagree that this is a Messianic Psalm but when David wrote this Psalm he was talking to God about himself, not the Messiah. In other words, the prophetic application does not negate the direct application. Agreed?
Resting in Him,
Clete
Lon
Well-known member
I really wish I could get you to understand you are rationalizing in finiteness. God alreay expands beyond those limits for you that I know you acquiesce, but you haven't gotten to the point yet where He can do more than you can hope or imagine. You are way too rational for your own good.
Using your logic, you might argue that omnipotence means God can do anything, including making square circles or making rocks too heavy to lift or married bachelors. Omnipotence means that God can do anything logically doable, not just anything because He is 'infinite'.
The issue with omniscience also involves a logical contradiction and does not compromise God's infinitude. God knows all that is knowable and knows reality as it is. The issue is not His omniscience (which we both affirm), but the nature of reality or creation that He knows/actualizes. By allowing genuine creaturely freedom, an inherent limitation on the nature of His future knowledge was voluntarily introduced. Exhaustive definite foreknowledge is possible in a deterministic view, but not in a libertarian free will view (so perhaps the debate moves on to the nature of freedom and contingencies and whether God is timeless eternal now or experiences endless time/duration in a unidirectional manner). So, God correctly knows some of the future as settled (by His ability) and some of the future as open (by His sovereign choice). He fully knows all that is knowable distinguishing possible from actual/certain. As possible contingencies become certain, they are then known as such (without a change in omniscience, but just a change in possible objects of certain knowledge...He is ignorant of nothing, but to know a non-existent nothing is absurd).
Properly understand, Open Theism is not finite godism nor Process Thought.
LightSon
New member
Your argument looks really good 'rulz.
However, as specious arguments go, they all look good; that is their nature. I have not concluded your argument is specious, but from my fledgling perspective, I don't have to tools to discern a specious argument from a valid one. The both look good.
I take it then you are an Open Theist. Correct?
However, as specious arguments go, they all look good; that is their nature. I have not concluded your argument is specious, but from my fledgling perspective, I don't have to tools to discern a specious argument from a valid one. The both look good.
Would you happen to have a proof text or texts for this assertion? It sounds axiomatic and I'd like to press on it just a bit.
Is it possible that our minds are 3D and time dependent, and therefore are simply not able to fully apprehend unto the capabilities of a time independent being? Perhaps this is similar to being a 2 dimensional being trying to comprehend 3D.
I take it then you are an Open Theist. Correct?
Lon
Well-known member
I make a non-omniscient prediction that a "Star Trekkie accusatory" will follow in the next week or two for believing in science 'fiction.'
(of course he's already said as much which is why I trouble him to think about his rationalizations)
I, on the other-hand, see this as an astute realization based upon observed reality but our theologies are fairly aligned despite my Calvinist leanings.
Blessings
Lon
Lon
Well-known member
You are presenting the absurd, but a square cirlce isn't a logical problem but an English contradiction. God does not do contradictory things, this isn't a limit, it defines omniscience (to the best of our finite comprehension).
A squarish round object is neither a circle or square but we may use those words to describe the object as it is neither for the purpose of distinguishing it both from a square and a circle. A square circle or round square would not be accurate, but a close approximation. With God, we are told flat out that we have approximations. To say EDF disqualifies your choices 1) isn't varifiable by finite, 2) is limited by that same finite mindset for true viable assessment. 3) is dismissing of revelation that strongly points to the contrary based on OV supposition of Greek tainting and unrecognition of logical inability.
That being said, the main difference between us, is that I believe EDF to be strongly supported from those scriptures regardless of incompatibilty simply because Jesus' work is necessary even for that. Logic alone cannot drive us to the Savior because every part of us is fallen including intellect. OVer's consciously or unconsciously deny intelligence and logic perception were affected by the fall unless an evolutionist comes to the board.
There are many subject matters that belong to Him that I will never be able to qualify or quantify because I'm finite. I could never explain the logic or compatibility of them nor is God required to explain them to us.
Again, this is a paradigm shift between us and I accentuate it here.
I am a biblical theist, I hope. Yes, I think Open Theism is more biblical than raw Calvinism or Arminianism.
Many concepts on these discussions do not have explicit proof texts, but are based on biblical principles and godly, biblical philosophy/logic/critical thinking. The Bible does not resolve every possible issue, so it is the glory of a king to search out a matter (Proverbs). Just as we study medicine, so we should also study things that are not described in detail in Scripture.
You touched on an important issue: is God an 'eternal now' timeless simultaneity or does He experience endless time/duration/sequence/succession? This will affect issues like foreknowledge.
themuzicman
Well-known member
Read the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac in Genesis 22. God says, "Now I know that you ...." Notice the temporal reference to God gaining knowledge: Now I know.
Look at the story of Noah. God "repents/relents/etc" (doesn't matter how you translate it), that He created man. This is clearly a result of the fact that what has happened was not in any sense God's will. Simply put, we have arrived at a place that, during creation, God did not know for certain creation would go. He knew it was possible, but not that this would be the exact course.
There are a variety of examples of God interacting and responding to man's decisions (See Exodus 32 as well), which clearly indicate a lack of exhaustive, definite foreknowledge of all events.
Muz
LightSon
New member
Thanks Muz.
How would you then reconicile your view of God with the following 2 verses?
and
LightSon
New member
This touches on something I can't quite explain. You say "he"never changes.
The verse I quoted, the Lord says, "I change not".
Yet, we also have
People that are the same today as yesterday do not increase in wisdom.
People that do not change, also do not learn, yet Jesus learned.
How do we resolve this apparent contradiction?
themuzicman
Well-known member
Mal 3:1 "Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the Lord of hosts. 2 "But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap. 3 "He will sit as a smelter and purifier of silver, and He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, so that they may present to the Lord offerings in righteousness. 4 "Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the Lord as in the days of old and as in former years. 5 "Then I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers and against those who swear falsely, and against those who oppress the wage earner in his wages, the widow and the orphan, and those who turn aside the alien and do not fear Me," says the Lord of hosts. 6 "For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.
God is speaking of His covenant keeping nature, He does not violate His covenants. This isn't a statement about God's knowledge or His emotions or anything other than this.
James 1:12 Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which [the Lord] has promised to those who love Him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. 15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. 16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. 17 Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow. 18 In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.
This speaks of God's righteousness, which does not change. God does not tempt us, and then demand that we refrain from that temptation. That would constitute a change in God's righteous nature. That which comes to us from God is good and just. Always. Temptation does not come from God.
You see, the problem with proof texting is that you need to be careful of the context. Because you've not considered why the authors wrote these things (under the guidance of the HS), you've missed the point of what is being said.
Muz
themuzicman
Well-known member
Heb 13:7 Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. 9 Do not be carried about[c] with various and strange doctrines. For it is good that the heart be established by grace, not with foods which have not profited those who have been occupied with them.
What is unchanging about Jesus regarding this text? Isn't it what He taught?
Muz
God changes in some ways, but not in other ways. God does not change in a fickle, capricious way like man does (context vs proof text). His character and attributes are unchanging, but His relations, knowledge, responses to changing contingencies, etc. can and does change. Weak (biblical) vs strong immutability (Platonic) fits the evidence. A totally unchanging being would be impersonal, not personal. God is faithful, but that does not mean He is a static stone. He is the Most Moved Mover (Pinnock/biblical), not the Unmoved Mover (Gk. Philosophy).
Lon
Well-known member
"Most moved Mover" makes me as queezy as Unmoved.
Here is something to ponder. When God says a thing, we as created should be very careful in trying to 'qualify' what He says.
It is 'revelation' that God doesn't change (unqualified by Him).
It is 'presumptuous' to over-analyze what that means.
*****************************************
I truly appreciate an inquisitive mind but must be careful myself to build theology off of extrapolations and OV is an exercise in such. It isn't poor thinking by any means, but it is precisely the problem I have with OV. It is built off of extrapolations 'of man.' Again, it is a paradigm shift between us. I do have a fine mind given by God (I believe) but I don't wholly trust it because I have no idea how fallen I truly am.
I have inklings of what was lost and I maintain that a certain percentage of our critical thinking isn't wired quite right. Would we have felt pain in a perfect garden? Would we have been smarter? Because the answers are all speculative rather than known, I cannot acquiese anything outside of revelation. See plausibility? Yes.
But plausibility isn't doctrine and I continue to trust revelation even over my own rationalization simply because I don't believe I'm wholly rational no matter how hard I try. Revelation is not wholly rationalizable. There are mysteries unanswered 1) because God chose not to explain 2) because we are finite (have limits on what we can truly understand as created beings) 3) because it is a trust issue where we must depend on God without a definitive answer.
- Status