This is a reply to Yorzhik's post
#973.
Yorzhik cited Gen 8:22 to support his claim that God declared He would not manipulate the natural order. "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."
Jim asked:
So are you saying that God does not really violate the verse as long as the violation is out in the open?
Yorzhik writes:
No, it's not a violation if it is out in the open, because it would be God interacting, ...
Is it not "God interacting" if it is done in secret?
Yorzhik writes:
... not God changing the rules.
Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by changing the rules. Is enabling a human to walk on water or making an axehead float considered "changing the rules"?
Yorzhik previously wrote:
I realize this is a fine point, so we need to get to the foundation of your claim. The point you are making, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that God, if He loved all men, would manipulate His creation to create the most favorable environment for men to come to Him in love.
Jim replied:
No. I'm saying that He could, based on statistics, carefully and selectively prevent the premature deaths of innocent people at the hands of evil people, knowing that, statistically speaking, the odds are in His favor of more people getting saved if they live longer.
Yorzhik writes:
And by living longer, aren't you saying that would be more favorable for those men to come to love Him?
No. Your statement referred to "all men." My statement pertains only to the events of His choosing, not to all men without exception.
Jim previously wrote:
I'm not saying that He has to step in all the time in every case
Yorzhik writes:
So being a supreme intellect He can violate His own rules?
I'm not understanding something here. Were miracles a violation of these "rules" or not? If not, please give an example of something that would be considered breaking the rules. If yes, please explain why God must do something out in the open for it to be allowed according to your view.
Yorzhik writes:
If He steps in sometimes, secretly, He obligates Himself to step in all the time. Any situation can be improved.
Why is He obligated? Isn't God allowed to choose when He will intervene and when He will not? When God was intervening with Israel, was He also intervening with the Aztecs? That seems to be what your premise suggests.
Yorzhik writes:
Any situation can be improved.
I want to make sure you really want to say this before I go after it. Do you stand by this claim, or do you want to revise it?
Jim wrote:
But if God has predetermined our desires, preferences, etc., then we will act in accordance with them, and He never has to touch us, so to speak. And we will perfectly fulfill His decreed plan for us, because He has predetermined everything about us that will influence all of our choices.
Yorzhik writes:
Sure, if God has predetermined everything, then our will is not free of God's. But we don't find this in scripture.
That's the rub of this debate, isn't it? I focus on verses that seem to teach this. You focus on verses that seem to oppose this. Both kinds of verses are found in scripture. Do you agree with those statements?
Jim wrote:
We can't make each other choose against our will, so in that sense, yes. I'm not sure of the relevance of your question.
Yorzhik writes:
It is an example of free wills that are captive (to themselves) but free from each other. By the many passages that tell us that God has a separate will from our will, I'll go with the bible.
This is the point of the prescriptive-decretive distinction. On my view, our wills are not free from God's will as decree (decretive will), which is the point of Paul asking rhetorically, "Who hath resisted His will?" That refers to God's decretive will. However, our wills often violate God's will as command (prescriptive will). "You do always resist the Holy Spirit." That refers to God's prescriptive will.
Jim wrote:
God gave himself rules to live by? Whence came those rules?
Yorzhik writes:
By God Himself, in some cases. Reality, in other cases.
It seems to me that your view of God presents Him as partly arbitrary (giving Himself rules) and also subordinate to a higher authority ("reality" as you call it). I wish I could impress upon you how absolutely denigrating these statements are to God's infinitude, authority, and holiness. On the other hand, I should not be surprised, coming from one who views God as a big super human (and somehow "much more").
Jim asked:
That doesn't help the innocent people who are in hell because they did not receive Jesus as their Lord and Savior.
Yorzhik writes: We aren't sure if the innocent go straight to hell.
I'm coming to the conclusion that Open Theists do not understand God's holiness. Of course the innocent go straight to hell. Their innate rebellion is sufficient to damn them for eternity. That is how holy (not a big super human and "much more") God actually is. That is why no one can stand in His presence apart from Christ without being obliterated. I've heard Bob Enyart say, "If sinners were allowed into heaven, they would turn heaven into hell." Clearly, Mr. Enyart is without a clue regarding the utter holiness of God. Sinners would be destroyed in the fulness of His presence. That is why those who saw God expected to die (Judges 13:22 Ge 32:30 Ex 33:20 De 5:26 Isa 6:5)
Jim asked:
Don't you believe that all innocent people who do not believe in Christ for their salvation go to hell?
Yorzhik writes:
We'll have to ask God, or observe when we got to heaven.
Amazing. Is that what all Open Theists believe? You're really not sure about this?
Jim wrote:
No. As I said before, He can be selective. He can make the statistical calculations and base His intervention or non-intervention on those calculations. Why wouldn't God do this if it improved His odds of more getting saved?
Yorzhik writes:
The God of the bible won't secretly manipulate physics for some people because that would obligate Him to change physics for everybody.
Do you really believe that? Were miracles being performed all over the world when God parted the Red Sea? Was iron swimming all over the world at the time when God did this for Elisha (2Ki 6:5,6)?
Jim wrote:
No, because I'm talking about preventing the work of evil men who seek to bring about the deaths of innocent people. I'm not talking about God preventing the unwise actions of innocent people and the consequences those actions bring. Evil men acting upon innocent men. Not innocent men acting upon themselves.
Yorzhik writes:
Why this limitation? Is there something in the bible where you get this from?
The limitations come from what seem to be imposed by the Open View. I'm trying to find a loophole in accordance with the Open View conception of God.
Jim wrote:
Also, it may be that you're not following my use of the word "innocent." It doesn't mean "pure as the driven snow." It means, in Open View terms (if I understand them correctly), not deserving of the consequences, whatever they may be.
Yorzhik writes:
We agree.
I should point out that it not my definition of "innocent," but what I view as the definition in Open View terms. I'm pleased that I got it right.
jim wrote:
In this case, I'm talking about those who did not deserve to die horrific deaths as consequence of the actions of evil terrorists.
Yorzhik writes:
Did not deserve? By what measure?
By the Open View measure. Didn't you just agree that there are certain innocent people who do not deserve certain consequences?
Jim wrote:
Consider this. Group A comprises 1,000 unbelievers who were all born on the same day. Group B comprises 1,000 unbelievers who were all born on the same day. The people in group A live only to age 30. The people in group B live to age 60. Of those 2,000 people, let's say a total of 250 believe in Christ and are saved from hell. Would it surprise you if the same scenario resulted in a total of 400 believing in Christ as a result of Group A living as long as Group B? Do you think God is capable of making such a calculation?
Yorzhik writes:
God can calculate. But the influence of those longer living people He could just as easily calculate will do more harm than good to group C. So instead of manipulating behind the scenes, He tells everyone the rules up front and lets the chips fall where they will. If they don't love God, they were warned.
Is that how you expect a big super human (and "much more") to treat those He loves? You wouldn't expect Him to step in every once in a while to the benefit of those He loves?
Jim asked:
But, statistically speaking, wouldn't the goodness and love that results from dozens who later come to Christ far outweigh the damage and the hate of those who do not?
Yorzhik writes: No. The damage done would outweigh the goodness.
Please give me an example where the "damage done" would outweigh the salvation of more people.
Yorzhik writes:
He is a big super human. He is also much more. Or you could say, we are a small image of God, and God is much more.
Those are not interchangeable statements. Being made in the image of God does not mean we are miniature versions of Him, or just lesser representations of Him. The imago Dei comprises a reflection of God's sentience, self-awareness, creativity, rationality and relationships. And while each of these can be examined in light of God's word to recognize that man was created in His image, we cannot turn around and extrapolate, thereby setting human limits on God's attributes and traits.
Jim wrote:
I'm glad for your admission, although it saddens me that you hold to this view. I will file your statement for future reference.
Yorzhik writes:
Okay. So you think if God is a big super human that He is not much more?
My view does not allow me to measure, assess or judge God on human terms. I see "much more" as an insulting understatement.
Jim wrote:
If you define these actions, thinking, and feelings in humans terms, the answer is no. Man is the imago dei, not the other way around. Man reflects, in finite terms, God's nature and character to varying degrees, not the other way around. So, at best, we can only have an anthropomorphic/anthropopathic inkling of the infinite God. God does not physically move. God does not "look" in order to see. God does not sleep. God does not "feel" the way we do. Our emotions are tied into so many peripherals that God does not have (uncertainty, mood, what we had for breakfast, how people are treating us, the level of seratonin in our brains, the synaptic response time in our neurological centers, our personalities, our genetics, etc.). So God does not cry. God does not forget. God does not get distracted. Yet there are all these verses in the Bible suggest these very things. Why? Because it was expected that the audience would recognize the figures, as well as their power and importance in enabling humans to relate to and better understand, in a severely limited and finite way, the infinite God.
Yorzhik writes:
But they don't help us to relate and understand if they are figures.
Then you don't know the importance or the power of figurative language, yet you use it all the time. Do you have E.W. Bullinger's
Figures of Speech Used in the Bible? It's not that expensive. I highly recommend it.
Yorzhik writes:
They help us throw up our hands and throw away the bible because it is meaningless.
Do you agree that Jesus' reference to Himself as the "way" is figurative? Is it meaningless to you? Do you agree that God does not have feathers and wings? Yet the Psalmist says, "He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust:" Is that meaningless to you?
Jim wrote:
What if God really is so transcendant (not a big super human) that all those "opposite statements" really are figures that God employed to convey otherwise unfathomable traits and attributes?
Yorzhik writes:
Because they don't show God as transcendent. They show God to be unable to communicate.
Yorzhik, I didn't say they "show God as transcendent." They communicate otherwise unfathomable traits and attributes. How can God or anyone communicate the infinite to finite creatures unless figurative language is used? Language itself is finite, Yorzhik. Surely you see this.
Jim asked:
What convinces you that you're right in taking these passages as literal and not figurative?
Yorzhik writes:
First, because we can do no other. We don't take something that we read that makes sense, and confuse the meaning in our minds for no reason.
I think we've hit upon the very nexus of this debate. You see, when I read a verse that puts human limits on God, that doesn't make sense in light of my theology, so I look for a figurative meaning that emphatically and purposefully communicates something to man. When you see a verse that puts human limits on God, you take it as literal because it makes sense in light of your theology.
Yorzhik writes:
Second, because our innate understanding of conscience, that God imparted a will in us.
I'm not denying conscience and will, so this is not a point of disagreement. The
nature and extent of that conscience and will is the issue.
jim wrote:
The Bible itself uses the author analogy, Yorzhik. "... and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." (Ps 139:16) "Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God." (Heb 10:7) "And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals." (Re 5:1) Who is the author of these books?
Yorzhik writes:
Right, but not in the context that you are arguing.
How is it a different context?
Jim wrote:
A study of the subject of prophecy reveals at least two things: There is prophetic utterance in the form of telling the future, and there is prophetic utterance in the form of command. The former is prophetic decree, the latter is prophetic prescription. Context determines the meaning in every case. Would agree up to this point? If not, I will happily supply the biblical support for these distinctions.
The question the astute Bible reader should ask every time he sees a prophecy uttered in scripture is: Is this a telling of the future, or is this a command from God? The context of Jonah indicates the latter. Jonah was prophesying to the Ninevites: Repent or you will be destroyed. It was not a telling of the future; it was a threat under a probationary period of 40 days. If Jonah's words were not prescriptive and intended to merely inform the Ninevites of their coming destruction, why give them any time at all? The fact of the probationary period (40 days even!) makes emphatic Jonah's warning to Nineveh to repent, or else.
Yorzhik writes:
What is clear from the story is that God's decree and subsequent change from that decree depended on the will of the King of Nineveh. He does exactly what He said He could do in Jer 18.
This was not a decree. It was a command. God did not plan to destroy Nineveh (that would be decree). Rather, He commanded Nineveh to repent, or else be destroyed. It is prescriptive, just as God's command to keep the Sabbath or be executed. God's decree was that Nineveh would repent, and it certainly came to pass.
Jim wrote:
... on the Open View, did God ~really~ need to discover for Himself whether or not Abraham would be obedient or not? God knew very well what Abraham would do.
Yorzhik writes:
That's not what the text says.
You're already supposed to know that going in. You're supposed to know that God is omniscient. So when you read something like, "Now I know," you realize what God is lovingly communicating to Abraham. Abraham knew that God already knew the outcome. Just as Peter already knew that Jesus knew his heart when He asked: "Do you love me?" Peter knew he was being tested, just as Abraham did. Peter knew Jesus already knew the outcome ("Lord, thou knowest all things. Thou knowest that I love thee." Jn 21:17), just as Abraham knew that God already knew the outcome of his test.
Jim wrote:
If you saw that the words were intended to convey information to Abraham, not to illustrate the limits of God's knowledge, then you could replace "now I know" with "see, Abraham? You passed the test!"
Yorzhik writes:
Thank you. You are the first person to actually answer the question. So we can replace the figure with what you wrote:
"And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: see, Abraham? You passed the test, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me"
While that is the meaning conveyed, the figure is unduly weakened by replacing it with my words. The way God said it makes it emphatic, makes it endearing, makes it poignant to Abraham. Just as I tried to show with my example about my son: "Now I know you're a smart boy!" is more emphatic than, "See, Caleb? You passed the test!"
Yorzhik writes:
There. Now that makes sense. Now just do that with all the figures in the bible where God is saying He does things in a human way and you'll have a theology makes sense.
Again, you've utterly missed the point of figures. You're not supposed to replace them. You're supposed to understand them as they are communicated. To say, "I'm cold," is a figure of speech. In Ukranian, they do not have this figure. If you were to say, "I'm cold," they would think you meant, "I'm dead." They know that a healthy body is approx. 98.6 degrees whether the air temperature is 30 degrees or 90 degrees. What one is literally conveying is, "The nerve endings in my skin are reacting to a decrease in air temperature and my brain is interpreting that sensation as a coldness that surrounds my warm body." But in our language, that's not the same, or as emphatic, or as poignant as saying, "I'm cold."
Jim wrote:
If you're only going to limit the figure to a secular definition, then I'll reject the word and come up with a new one. It is also the attribution of finite human feelings and characteristics to the infinite God.
Yorzhik writes:
The only way we can find out if God can have the same feelings we have attributed to Him is if He tells us.
Again, here is the crux of the debate. I view God as transcendent, far above human feelings. And the way He communicates His relationship to us is in
condescensio, describing otherwise unfathomable traits and attributes in finite terms. You view Him as a big super human (and "much more"), so you do not bring His infinitude and transcendence into consideration.
Jim wrote:
Anthropopathism cannot be applied to man, because it would be attributing human feelings or characteristics to humans, and the figure is lost.
Yorzhik writes:
Right, the figure is lost. But we have no reason to not attribute the same feelings that humans have to God because He does not deviate from a consistent presentation of Himself in any other way.
That's because human nature does not deviate. If (hypothetically speaking) God were to communicate with dogs, He would not deviate from a consistent presentation of Himself in dog terms. Open Theist dogs would assume that God is a big super dog.
Yorzhik writes:
Perhaps you should consider that we exhibit feelings in the same way that God does, but in a lesser way because we are finite.
I do believe that, although I would not use the word "lesser." Our feelings, self-awareness, emotional responses, rational faculties and relational interactions all reflect, but do not represent, God's "feelings, self-awareness, emotional responses, rational faculties and relational interactions." But that entire list is figurative, because the traits and attributes of the infinite cannot be adequately represented by the finite.
Jim wrote:
If it cannot be taken literally, then it is a figure, Yorzhik. And you're right, God is communicating to Adam, not describing His own attributes or character. Why do you recognize this here, but not in Gen 22:12?
Yorzhik writes:
Because each figure is taken in context. The context of the discourse with Adam is of one type, and the context of the discourse with Abraham another.
Please explain.
Jim wrote:
You've proven my point by your own example.
Yorzhik writes:
I've proven your point because God can use figures, speak literally, ask rhetorical questions, and use sarcasm?
You made the point that God was not speaking of His own lack of knowledge, but rather was communicating something to Adam. How do you know God was not speaking of His own lack of knowledge concerning Adam?
Jim asked:
Will He take you to heaven if you choose to rebel against Him from this moment forward, until you die?
Yorzhik writes:
He will let me reject Him and leave heaven when I get there. At least that is what "until" seems to mean.
Wow.
Jim asked:
Right. In what do you place your assurance? That God will try the best He can? What if His best isn't good enough? What if He gets totally surprised and has no backup plan?
Yorzhik writes:
Because God has solved the game of life, as it were.
But He doesn't know that. On the Open View, He may become surprised by something He did not anticipate, by something that never entered His mind. Sure, you can cross your fingers and hope that God knows what He is doing, but He has failed in the past. He could fail again.
Yorzhik previously wrote:
God is like a chess master that has solved the game of chess. He doesn't need to know what moves His opponent might make, He might even be surprised by some of the moves the opponent makes, but that can never change the fact that since God has solved the game, His will must be done in the end.
Jim replied:
This is a logical impossibility. He cannot know the outcome absolutely without knowing every move. He might have a good guess, He might even have odds in His own favor, but He cannot know absolutely the outcome.
Yorzhik writes:
What do you think "solved the game of chess" means?
It means nothing if He can be surprised by something that never entered His mind.
Yorzhik previously wrote:
So, could you be confident that the chess master that has solved the game will win? He doesn't know the future exhaustively.
Jim replied:
I wouldn't be. Not unless I was confident that the player knew, without fail, every move the opponent would make.
Yorzhik previously wrote:
Jim, that was a rhetorical question. You can say, "I wouldn't be", but that is unreasonable if you understood what was written.
What was written was unreasonable in light of OV claims.
