ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[godrulz]

Lon is not stupid, but can be frustrating. There are credible OT answers for all your objections.

 

[Lon]

Taking things at face value supports Open Theism and conflicts with a settled view. Change your view, not the Word.

Taking things at face value supports the long-held Traditional view and conflicts with Open Theism. Change your view, not the Word.

"...You are asserting...."

 

[godrulz]

"...You are asserting...."

Don't tell AMR:rip:

It is the settled view that plays the anthropomorphism card, not us. The Open view takes both motifs with a normative, literal hermeneutic (a strength), while the settled view (we do not deny the settled passages, but you deny the open passages) must resort to making things figurative to retain a preconceived view. The issue is a controlling metaphor: is creation at least partially open with a responsive, capable God, or is it fatalistically fixed with a controlling God who subordinates love, freedom and relationship? You need a paradigm shift to interpret in a balanced way.

 

[Lon]

Don't tell AMR:rip:

It is the settled view that plays the anthropomorphism card, not us. The Open view takes both motifs with a normative, literal hermeneutic (a strength), while the settled view (we do not deny the settled passages, but you deny the open passages) must resort to making things figurative to retain a preconceived view. The issue is a controlling metaphor: is creation at least partially open with a responsive, capable God, or is it fatalistically fixed with a controlling God who subordinates love, freedom and relationship? You need a paradigm shift to interpret in a balanced way.

Alright, I give you the Genesis 3:9 challenge.

Why was God asking where Adam was?

By the same hermeneutic you are using in Genesis 22, it could be supposed God was clueless where Adam was couldn't it?

I truly believe I'll agree with you but use the same for at least conceding the OV is not a superior hermeneutic in Genesis 22 because you are using mine to answer Genesis 3.

 

[assuranceagent]

It is the settled view that plays the anthropomorphism card, not us.

:rotfl: You can't be serious, godrulz.

With all the passages that make clear and perspicuous statements about the attributes of God that are diametrically opposed to the positions of the OV you actually have the nerve to suggest that OVers don't play the 'anthropomorphism card?!'
OVers don't have room in their hermeneutic for figurative statements? How then, praytell, would you handle the following:

- Jeremiah 32:17 - Does God literally have outstretched arms by which He made the Heavens and the Earth?
- Psalm 139:7-12 - is God truly in all places or are we to take this figuratively?
- I John 3:20 - Does God literally know all things? Is 'all things' limited to "all that can be known" as the OVer says? And if God is in all places and knows all that can be known, then...
- Genesis 3:9 - Why would He need to ask Adam where he was, since He was not only there with him, but knew what could be known about Adam's location?
- I Sam. 15:29 - how about this one? This one isn't going to be taken figuratively by you OVers? If you read that literally (as it should be read) then you would not be so inclined to say that the OV's position on God's changes of mind is the only 'consistent biblical position' now would you?​

Furthermore, you and NickM have both argued now that the phrase, "now I know" suggests that this knowledge was new, and that God did not possess it prior. If that is the case, and if what God now knows is that Abraham fears Him, then you have violated your own assertion that 'God knows all that can be known' in that He somehow failed to know Abraham's heart. Unless, of course, you also want to state that the hearts of men are one of the 'unknowables', in which case you are going to have a hard time due to the fact that your hermeneutic will not allow you to 'play the anthropomorphism card' with Psalm 44:21.

Contrary to what you may say, the OV is not a more consistent position with regards to 'reality and the Bible.' In fact, as I read you and NickM, I'm more and more inclined to say that the OV isn't even consistent with itself.

 

[godrulz]

Alright, I give you the Genesis 3:9 challenge.

Why was God asking where Adam was?

By the same hermeneutic you are using in Genesis 22, it could be supposed God was clueless where Adam was couldn't it?

I truly believe I'll agree with you but use the same for at least conceding the OV is not a superior hermeneutic in Genesis 22 because you are using mine to answer Genesis 3.

Gen. 3 is a rhetorical question based on context and all relevant verses.

Gen. 22 is not in the same category and can be taken literally if you are OT (Now I know...if God wanted to convey this truth, how else could He apart from the explicit words He used?!). Context is king.

 

[Lon]

Gen. 3 is a rhetorical question based on context and all relevant verses.

Gen. 22 is not in the same category and can be taken literally if you are OT (Now I know...if God wanted to convey this truth, how else could He apart from the explicit words He used?!). Context is king.

If it is king, you cannot therefore imply that it has anything to do with His unknowing from one to knowing in the other. It isn't consistent and therefore shows assumption and agenda. The context of Genesis 22 is that God knows Abraham's mind and heart. The context is that He was pointing to a truth and an incredible act of love. It is not however a good support for limitation on His prescience. That, again is abuse of the text. I'll leave you with Assurance's post because I have a different doctrinal gun fight on my hands "Muzzie Ringo!"

 

[godrulz]

Muz is the man. Makes me look like a girl.

 

[themuzicman]

Ya know, you've done this before and let's just say the Hebrew didn't come with vowel points, those were later added 'for pronouncement!'

And clarity. There is certainly no textual basis for claiming that the added pointings were wrong.

It certainly reinforces my claim to your neglect: If it is at all dubious for assertion, it is not a great proof text, but an assertion. The weight of proof is in your court as the usurper and wow, all you've done is called into question interpretation, not proved a lick of anything.

You've made an assertion that these are possible translations. I'm showing that either each of these possible translations doesn't help, or don't fit the text.

(Sorry, I'm trying to hold back candor, but your lame attacks on my scholasticism are illaudable if amusing).

I understand what you are trying to do. I'm just pointing out that you haven't apparently put your alternatives into the text to see how they work. So, I've done that for you.

"Whereas"

That still doesn't change anything, since it's still a causative clause. "Whereas I acknowledge that you fear God since you have not..."

It's still time based. Acknowledgment comes as a result of Abraham's obedience.

An answer: to respond to an act or motion is well within parameters. <singsong> "You are asserting, you are asserting...."

"Whereas/now I answer that you fear God, since you have not..."

Again, the combination of "Whereas" or "Now" with "since" simply doesn't let you out of the box.

A Jewish translation doesn't require the 'now' so that a declaration of what is known is within translation parameters. You really should have acquiesced the point rather than trying to tenaciously give false hope to others. You know it and I know it.

It doesn't matter what you put there.

Try a derivative like "its a fact" or "it is true." Now you are just being silly.

I think Ockham's Razor would apply, here.

Like chapter devisions, you are assuming Massoretic points are inspired. They are helpers and mostly for pronunciations, not what you are trying to do with them for theological parring. Honestly, with what you seem to be compensating for something in your language assertions here.

LOL... I don't know of any Scholar who thinks that we should disregard that work of the Masorites in pointing the text. I realize that they are not inspired, and if there were textual evidence of some variant, you might have a leg to stand on. But, to my knowledge, this is how pretty much everyone agrees it should be.

We also have the opinion of the LXX translators, who used ginwskw, I know.

Did I say each and every one is proper translation? No, I said that each of them are ways these words are understood. In order for it to fit, you have to use context of the other Hebrew words (same in English). So rather than "Now you know..." It'd be 'whereas it's known...'

Ah, your language skills fail you. Even just looking at the consonants, we know that this verb is in the first person. Translations using 2nd (you) or 3rd (he/she/it) are invalid on a basic translational level.

Good call, that is Abraham's take. Back to the purpose God had put it there. Man, it's like He already knew something!

Like God knew He was going to stop Abraham, if Abraham didn't stop. What a concept...

It couldn't be just OV asserting, no. We wouldn't want that.

At least we don't have to tap dance to explain the text away.

See, this is one of those "I'm a better language scholar than you are" type of statements. Now I'm not saying I'm better but I think I can keep up with you here just fine and you get no points for asserting authoritative superiority over me in these texts. I believe I've shown bias and misunderstanding on your part. You can certainly do the same but it keeps others from placing false-hope in some assumed superiority. I have a deep-seated feeling you are compensating for something here. My own prowess is 2 years in the languages with some ensuing upkeep and work.

Only two? Would that include studying at the Master's level?

Asserting. Your 'clear' presumes God has no prescience of man's future actions. This of course is logically problematic. He who knows the heart, knew precisely what Abraham would or would not do. Abraham seems fairly determined here to follow through. That's the best you and I can do, but God who knows the heart knows 'before' not 'now' exactly what Abraham is planning to do. We assume from the text that Abraham is single-focused. He's got the wood, the fire, and so as his servants will not interfere, they remain behind. Isaac says "where is the sacrifice?" So we guess at resolute but God would (did) know without doubt exactly what his plans were. So in reality, your 'now' was actually 'before' but of course you cannot except that as it would be an admission and denial of your OV supposition.

Huh? Abraham could just as easily have been saying, "This can't be real. This can't be real", but following God's instructions anyway, and the moment Abraham actually put God directly before Isaac was when the knife was raised. Again, we aren't told what was going on in Abraham's heart, we can only infer from the text. But God saying "Now I know.." clearly puts God's knowledge (and presumably Abraham's whole devotion to killing Isaac) at the moment the knife is raised.

What have you proved? Unless you can without doubt prove 1) that the Hebrew can only be translated your way
2) that after doing so, can show that the meaning can only be taken your way

You've provided several possible alternatives, most of which don't help you, since the construction of the clause points to whatever you put in the first part of the sentence being caused by Abraham's action.

You can therefore only assert with much loud supplication that this is the way it is exegeted. The best you can do is assert that you are right but I will continue to assert that the text clues assert that you are wrong.

Except that the exceptions you provided don't help.

"Adam, where art thou?"

Did God really say: "Oh, there you are. 'Now I know.'"

No, God didn't say "Now I know." That's not in the text.

Even I ask questions I already know the answer to for other purposes (like hearing the response.) Are you saying that God can't do that?

Was He really asking a question to find something out?

No.

How far? How far is OV willing to concede with such verses?
When will it stop? Is it inevitably doomed to suggest God's knowledge is no more than any man? When will the proof-texting of such absurd assertions stop? What is our next concession if we don't hold a line? You eventually must draw a line that, was unacceptable interpretation in one portion, is also unacceptable in another. Surely you have sympathies with my aversion to this proof-texting? Surely you will concede that I'm well within reasonable exegesis?

I guess I have faith that when we say that bible is inerrant, that each verse, in its context, and within its pericope and book, is inerrant, as well.

Your attempt to put exegeis in my mouth with the Adam example fell apart. To this point, I know of no places where I have taken a proof text out of context.

You don't want to debate me here and hypocritically call another on proof-texting from Genesis 3:9 do you?

Why would I? God isn't claiming to know or not know something there.

As you explain that God knew exactly where Adam was then, I explain that God knew exactly that Abraham feared Him. He knew exactly what was in his heart and mind. It surely was not 'now' that He knew it. As I said, 'now' is fine as a translation if we are not caught up with trying to proof-text an absurd. If we know when we use 'now' that it is not a negligence of His omniscience, it cannot mean 'now' for proof-texting.

You can assert all you want. There is nothing in Genesis 3:9 to suggest that God knew or didn't know. However, there is ample evidence in Genesis 22 to suggest that God's knowledge was caused by Abraham's decision.

So, if you want to go on about Genesis 3:9, please show us where the text says that God didn't know where Adam was, or God declares that He comes to discover where Adam is. Otherwise, this is a red herring.

Muz

 

[Lon]

Only two? Would that include studying at the Master's level?

How many years? The courses for 4 year and post-grad are the same.

I have one year of Greek, One of Hebrew.

So, if you want to go on about Genesis 3:9, please show us where the text says that God didn't know where Adam was, or God declares that He comes to discover where Adam is. Otherwise, this is a red herring.

Muz

It is not a red herring. If you assert that the question is not about God's knowledge (and I concur) then why would you say Genesis 22 is about God's knowledge? Or, are you seeing that a critical eye is necessary for the question: "Where are you?" It is so so easy to say God had no idea where Adam was as it is to assert God had no idea what was in Abraham's heart. Both are heinous examples of exegesis and faulty asserting.

Even I ask questions I already know the answer to for other purposes (like hearing the response.) Are you saying that God can't do that?

So why couldn't it be true of Gen 22? You are virually writing my argument.

 

[themuzicman]

It is not a red herring. If you assert that the question is not about God's knowledge (and I concur) then why would you say Genesis 22 is about God's knowledge?

Oh, I don't know.. maybe because God says, "NOW I KNOW" in Genesis 22, whereas He does not in Genesis 3:9?

Or, are you seeing that a critical eye is necessary for the question: "Where are you?" It is so so easy to say God had no idea where Adam was as it is to assert God had no idea what was in Abraham's heart. Both are heinous examples of exegesis and faulty asserting.

OK, grammar lesson. "Where are you?" is a question. It does not make a statement of fact.

"Now I know.. since..." is a statement of fact. God is asserting something about His knowledge, here.

You you see a simple, basic difference between the two?

So why couldn't it be true of Gen 22? You are virually writing my argument.

Umm.. because Genesis 22 specifically says something about God knowing something. Genesis 3:9 only portrays a question, and doesn't imply a lack of knowledge regarding the answer.

Muz

 

[Lon]

Of course "where are you?" is a question. So what?

You are arguing a different forest view. I'm arguing for God's knowledge here in both cases and what each means.

In the very same way it is deductive insertion/assertion to think God has no idea where Adam is, it is the same deductive instertion/assert to say that "Now I know" means He didn't before. Any whack theology job can say 3:9 proves God isn't omnipresent and less knowing even than OV gives credit for. The bummer is, your exegesis is consistent with 'his' claim, not mine. I see them both as at best, vague for such an assumption. You can argue til your blue, hold your breath, count to 10. Doesn't matter. It is inconsistent on your part and nothing but assertation. You can assert all you like. You can say it is 'more' consistent all you like.

My premise again: The majority of people believe your interpretation is weak and incorrect. The burden of proof hasn't been done to our satisfaction. Asserting is going to wind up just being a hesaid/shesaid. But I don't have to convince many, you have to convince all.

 

[assuranceagent]

OK, grammar lesson. "Where are you?" is a question. It does not make a statement of fact.

"Now I know.. since..." is a statement of fact. God is asserting something about His knowledge, here.

You you see a simple, basic difference between the two?

Man, it's downright silly the lengths some of you will go to to try to defend your position. Even when an argument is absolute tripe you'll hold on to it with all your might, popping your head in the sand and claiming invisibility.

What you are arguing here is that 'where are you' suggests nothing outside of the meaning of the individual words used and that one is in error should one find implied meaning. So according to this line of reasoning, the idea that the question, 'where are you' is motivated by the questioner's apparent lack of knowledge about where the object of that sentence is is in error, since the question makes no such statement of fact.

In other words, if we boil that logic down, what you are saying is, 'take the sentence ONLY at face value and extrapolate no meaning other than that expressly stated.'

Fine. Let's apply it to the phrase, 'now I know.' Two parts to that phrase: a statement of fact (I know) and a chronological modifier(Now). If we take that phrase only at face value and extrapolate no meaning other than that expressly stated, what we are left with is: at this point in time, right now, the Angel of the Lord knows that Abraham fears God.

We cannot suggest that this statement implies that God didn't know prior to 'now,' because the phrase doesn't expressly state that and implication is apparently off-limits (at least it is if we are to remain consistent in our reasoning). Therefore, by your own standard, this argument is vain and dead because while you may wish to claim that the implication is that God knows now what He did not at one point in the past know, the phrase you are proof texting makes no such 'statement of fact' to quote you. It only clearly states that right now, He knows.

 

[godrulz]

Gen. 3 is a rhetorical question. We see these elsewhere in Scripture, including in Christ's ministry.

Gen. 22 is a statement of fact that involves a chronological sequence. There is no warrant for making it figurative or rhetorical in this context (except to retain a flawed preconception).

 

[assuranceagent]

Gen. 3 is a rhetorical question. We see these elsewhere in Scripture, including in Christ's ministry.

Gen. 22 is a statement of fact that involves a chronological sequence. There is no warrant for making it figurative or rhetorical in this context (except to retain a flawed preconception).

So then that only leaves you two options:

1. God did not know Abraham's heart and thus failed to know 'all that could be known,' violating that tenet of Open Theism.

or

B. God did not know Abraham's heart because the hearts of men are one of those things that 'cannot be known,' violating the plain and perspicuous reading of scripture. Psalm 44:21, Acts 15:8​

It really can be no other way with what you and muz and NickM are asserting. And it really doesn't matter which one it is because they both illustrate a major flaw in thinking. So which one is it? :idunno:

To fail to anthropomorphize Genesis 22 either leads to a violation of Open Theism, or a violation of the Bible, but there is no situation in which it supports your position.

 

[godrulz]

? false dichotomy...there could be a third option...just because we act consistently most of the time, does not mean we could not act out of character one time. The heart can be 99% discernible, but one could still fail a genuine test (I have made mistakes in life that would seem unpredictable based on previous track record in a moment of fatigue or weakness).

God expected good grapes from Israel and was surprised when they produced sour grapes. He expected Adam to succeed in 'very good' paradise, yet was grieved to the core when he unnecessarily failed.

Modal logic distinguishes between possible, actual, certain, necessary, probable, etc. and so should we. The issue relates to freedom and the nature of creation and the future (open and past fundamentally different than the future), not to God's omniscience which we both affirm.

Until the test, God could know with high probability the heart at the moment. He would not know with 100% certainty how the person would do with the test until the potential future (may or may not pan out due to the nature of contingencies) became the fixed past through the present.

The first thing is to figure out if presentism (A theory of time) or eternalism (B theory of time) is true. It will affect how we view things.

If you are correct, 'now I know' would not be the inspired record (chronology). It does not say 'now YOU know' as some suggest that it was for man's awareness, not God's. You also have the problem that IF God wanted to communicate His experience with an open future and free moral agents, that He would not have any other language to use except what He did use to convey both concepts. So, until proven otherwise, take it at face value and change your theology (mine does not rely on one proof text like this, but a cumulative weight of biblical evidence and logic).

 

[assuranceagent]

? false dichotomy...there could be a third option...just because we act consistently most of the time, does not mean we could not act out of character one time. The heart can be 99% discernible, but one could still fail a genuine test (I have made mistakes in life that would seem unpredictable based on previous track record in a moment of fatigue or weakness).

Oh, I see. So God can only know the hearts of men to a 99% certainty? He can't actually know 'all that can be known'?

Three problems with your vain attempt to salvage this line of reasoning:

1. If God only knows the heart of man to a 99% certainty, He does not truly know the heart of man. Therefore He STILL does not truly 'know all that can be known' and you are still in violation of your own theological framework.

2. If, in fact, failing this particular test would have been out of keeping with Abraham's character, then it proves nothing of his heart with regards to his fear of the Lord. You and I fear God and yet we still fall on our face from time to time. Only were failing this test in keeping with Abraham's character would it serve to prove that Abraham lacked fear of the Lord. As the test was given and according to your reasoning, the failure of this particular test would have simply been an exception in the life of an otherwise God-fearing man.

3. Regardless of the outcome of this particular test, God knew Abraham's heart prior to administering it. Unless of course, again, God does not truly know all that can be known. If God knew Abraham's heart prior to this test being given, then God knew whether or not Abraham truly feared Him. Period.​

I reiterate. As badly as you wish it to be so and as loudly as you proclaim it to be: this is NOT a false dichotomy. Following the OV logic on this passage (at least as it has been laid out by you, NickM, and Muz) can lead one to ONLY two possible conclusions. I have listed them for you once. I need not list them again.

This argument is beneath you, godrulz. You're smarter than this. Why cling to the Titanic as it sinks? There are at least a hundred other arguments for the OV that have potential merit. This is not one of them. Any intellectually honest person with half your intelligence could see that and would have had to admit as much by this point. Your continued persistence in this ridiculous vanity is embarrassing. Let it go already.

You are not serving to strengthen the OV's side of this debate. This line of reasoning weakens YOUR OWN POSITION because it's conclusions lead only to contradictions with BOTH OV and Settled Theism.

 

[assuranceagent]

God expected good grapes from Israel and was surprised when they produced sour grapes. He expected Adam to succeed in 'very good' paradise, yet was grieved to the core when he unnecessarily failed.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the passage in Genesis 22. Let's stay focused, shall we?

Modal logic distinguishes between possible, actual, certain, necessary, probable, etc. and so should we. The issue relates to freedom and the nature of creation and the future (open and past fundamentally different than the future), not to God's omniscience which we both affirm.

Again, we are not arguing this. We are arguing the specific implications of Genesis 22 and whether anthropomorphism is THE ONLY justifiable interpretation of those verses.

And if God could not have known Abraham's heart, prior to administering His test, then you are most certainly NOT affirming God's omniscience, which has been my point from the beginning.

I know that you would affirm God's omniscience (with regard to what can be known). That's why I find your continued adherence to this position to be so ludicrously self-defeating and asinine.

Until the test, God could know with high probability the heart at the moment.

Knowing with 'high probability' is NOT KNOWING! It is forecasting. It's guessing. It's no more than I can do with my OWN WIFE. It amazes me that the deeper one digs into the thoughts of the OVers, the more God conforms to the image of man.

He would not know with 100% certainty how the person would do with the test until the potential future (may or may not pan out due to the nature of contingencies) became the fixed past through the present.

Then:

A. He doesn't truly know their heart.

or

B. The test does not truly indicate the underlying condition of their heart.​

The first thing is to figure out if presentism (A theory of time) or eternalism (B theory of time) is true. It will affect how we view things.

Neither one of them matters in a discussion over whether God truly knows 'ALL THAT CAN BE KNOWN' in this context. We are talking about Abraham's heart at the time of the test. Either it could be known or it couldn't. Period.

You also have the problem that IF God wanted to communicate His experience with an open future and free moral agents, that He would not have any other language to use except what He did use to convey both concepts.

You appropriately made that 'if' big. Because it is just that.

So, until proven otherwise, take it at face value and change your theology (mine does not rely on one proof text like this, but a cumulative weight of biblical evidence and logic).

With all due respect, godrulz, my contention from the beginning is that YOU are the one who is going to have to change your theology to hold your position. God cannot simultaneously 'know all that can be known' and yet fail to know Abraham's heart. So the only way to keep your position is to forfeit the idea that God knows all that can be known.

And I find it downright hysterical that as long as we are talking about your proof texts you want us to 'take things at face value' but the moment someone pulls a text that says that God does not change His mind, or that God knows ALL things, or if the text would lead you to what you view as a particularly unpleasant conclusion, like Genesis 3, suddenly 'face value' goes out the window and we begin to marginalize and figuratize the text.

Give me a break.

 

[godrulz]

God knows reality as it is. The future is not there yet to know, including the outcome of one FUTURE test (it is correctly known as possible/probable until it becomes certain/actual after the contingent choice).

God exhaustively knows the fixed past and the actual present. Before the test, it was a future contingent and known as such. After the test, it is correct to say with certainty: 'now I know', which could not be said with the same certainty despite God knowing the heart perfectly in real time.

I feel this interpretation is valid even if you consider it lame or weak. Our worldview will affect how we interpret some passages. It is my desire to distinguish literal vs figurative contexts regardless of whether I was Open or Closed theistic.

 

[assuranceagent]

God exhaustively knows the fixed past and the actual present.

2 Hours before the test was administered, the condition of Abraham's heart was a matter of the 'actual present.' Abraham did not suddenly fear God as a result of passing his test.

There is simply no way around it. To hold your position on this text indicates ONLY that God did not know all that could be known exhaustively. Even if you try to throw out the 99% certainty thing.

Exhaustive = 100%.

You might even be able to argue that God did not know the outcome of the test (meaning the actual outcome, not it's implications). But unless the test fundamentally changed Abraham and AT THE MOMENT HE PASSED IT, caused him to fear God, then his fear of God was NOT a future event. It was a present event.

But please, keep arguing this passage. It's not just a weak argument, it does violence to your own position.