User Tag List

Page 3 of 239 FirstFirst 1234561353103 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 3574

Thread: ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

  1. #31
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56720
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    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
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  2. #32
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,155
    Thanks
    1,638
    Thanked 3,257 Times in 1,971 Posts

    Mentioned
    69 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1629457
    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.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  3. #33
    Over 500 post club assuranceagent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    664
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    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.

  4. #34
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    9,273
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    11790
    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).
    Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

    They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
    I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

    Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

    "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

    The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

  5. #35
    Over 500 post club assuranceagent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    664
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    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?

    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.

  6. #36
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    9,273
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    11790
    ? 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).
    Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

    They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
    I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

    Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

    "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

    The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

  7. #37
    Over 500 post club assuranceagent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    664
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    ? 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.

  8. #38
    Over 500 post club assuranceagent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    664
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    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.

  9. #39
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    9,273
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    11790
    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.
    Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

    They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
    I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

    Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

    "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

    The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

  10. #40
    Over 500 post club assuranceagent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    664
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    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.

  11. #41
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,155
    Thanks
    1,638
    Thanked 3,257 Times in 1,971 Posts

    Mentioned
    69 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1629457
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    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).
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    'Now I know' is but one possible way of understanding the text.

    Examples:
    Please show me where I said 'now YOU know.'

    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    "Whereas I know" <- totally legitimate translation

    "Now I acknowledge" <- Yep, you guessed it, legitimate.

    "Now I answer" <- Yep, same.

    "Now I declare"

    "Now it is so"

    "Now I make known"

    "Now I instruct"

    'Whereas' is also appropriate in place of those 'now's'
    As I reread the entire thread, nobody said that. Why in the world would you bring up such a thing unless you are trying purposefully to discredit with slander? I'd like to concede it is just faulty presupposition or perhaps some other obscure disagreement you've had in the past instead but only you'd be able to clear this up. It has a slanderous and obfuscating tenor I'd like to see cleared up. We can go back to Muz' Ockham Razor and trim what is unnecessary.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  12. #42
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    15,056
    Thanks
    105
    Thanked 7,155 Times in 5,734 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147789
    Quote Originally Posted by Knight View Post
    This thread will be a continuation of the thread ARCHIVE: Open Theism pt. 2

    Which at the time of this posting had 8,094 replies and almost 154,954 views! yet because of the size of the thread it had grown sluggish therefore we shut it down and opened part 3 here!

    Enjoy and lets get back to the discussion!

    The future.... is it completely settled in advance or open to an extent?
    Part THREE?!?!

    One would have thought all this would have been settled by now.

    Settled. Get it .. settled?





    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.


  13. #43
    Over 500 post club assuranceagent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    664
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    Part THREE?!?!

    One would have thought all this would have been settled by now.

    Settled. Get it .. settled?






  14. #44
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    9,273
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    11790
    Quote Originally Posted by assuranceagent View Post
    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.
    Does Boyd correctly represent your view? His alternate view represents mine (in light of similar principles elsewhere...cumulative evidence).

    http://www.gregboyd.org/qa/open-thei...-genesis-2212/

    Lon: now you know....this would better fit your theory since you believe God knew in advance...i.e. it was for his benefit, not God's.
    Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

    They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
    I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

    Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

    "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

    The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

  15. #45
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,155
    Thanks
    1,638
    Thanked 3,257 Times in 1,971 Posts

    Mentioned
    69 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1629457
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    Does Boyd correctly represent your view? His alternate view represents mine (in light of similar principles elsewhere...cumulative evidence).

    http://www.gregboyd.org/qa/open-thei...-genesis-2212/

    Lon: now you know....this would better fit your theory since you believe God knew in advance...i.e. it was for his benefit, not God's.
    All your link did was assert what has already been argued against.
    I am impressed however, usually your links take me to Amazon where I have to hunt and search too long to find the point you are trying to make. Clicking on 'inside' give me a headache because I'm meeting success about 40% of the time. Granted that after 5 minutes, my efforts diminish and I become lazy.

    So, as Boyd asserts, so have you and Muz. No new information or proof added there other than you are presenting the 'authority' behind the assertion. It is good to know that you are following in the footsteps. If only I could get you to rely on the Holy Spirit, sound exegesis, and other scholars, I might be able to actually welcome you back to orthodoxy.

    John Wesley:
    Now know I that thou fearest God - God knew it before, but now Abraham had given a memorable evidence of it. He need do no more, what he had done was sufficient to prove the religious regard he had to God and his authority. The best evidence of our fearing God is our being willing to honour him with that which is dearest to us, and to part with all to him, or for him.
    John Lawlor
    In translating the Hebrew:
    "I know that you fear God"
    As I'd said, the Hebrews themselves do not translate 'now.'

    Young's Literal Translation
    and He saith, 'Put not forth thine hand unto the youth, nor do anything to him, for now I have known that thou art fearing God, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only one, from Me.
    Mathew Henry:
    Abraham did indeed love God better than he loved Isaac, the end of the command was answered; and therefore the order is countermanded, without any reflection at all upon the unchangeableness of the divine counsels: Lay not thy hand upon the lad.
    Long Hebrew Commentary by Albert Van Der Heide page 144
    Designations of temporality in relation to God should be understood as designations of causality: Abraham's deed of obedience was the cause of acknowlegement of his piety, which was of course, already known to Him...
    From Eusebius page 133
    That is "Now you have shown" as reads the Hebrew for he does not bring forward the ignorance of God, but rather strictness of trial, as [expressed in] Gen 18:21 that I must go down and see if they are as wicked as the outcry suggests. If not, I want to know."
    ...It is somewhat ambiguous in the Hebrew, and that in fact, at the same time also..."you have...manifest."
    This long history and linguistic expertise shows that the OV is merely asserting an alternative exegesis of this text. Hebrew scholars understand the text as is classically/traditionally given. Open Theists must produce similar scholarship by expertise. Muz or I, who are but initiates in the languages, - can, if honest, merely affirm the scholarly works by our study, but have no league with such men. These are the ones who we rely on to learn the language in the first place.
    Matthew 10:24
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us