User Tag List

Page 5 of 239 FirstFirst ... 23456781555105 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 3574

Thread: ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

  1. #61
    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
    1) Abraham was credited with righteousness, as Paul says in Romans 4.

    2) That not how the text of the story reads. When we come right down to it, God sees and now knows that Abraham will withhold nothing, and that is on the basis of Abraham's actions, not God's prior knowledge.

    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. #62
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,153
    Thanks
    1,638
    Thanked 3,254 Times in 1,970 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1628976
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    We're two out of three, which is more than we can say for you.
    I 'protest.'
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Imagine that. You've selected a nice group of reformed theologians who have the presupposition of EDF, and they all agree with you. What a shock.
    You guys don't even have commentaries! No Open Theist has done anything in commentaries, Language and translations, system of theology. With"2 for 3," I believe you are being generous (wishful) with such a claim. So I guess you are right, all I've got are Arminiain, Calvinist, (reformed) and even a few Orthodox links (the only things that exist). You've got a few nice little booklets from Intervarsity Press.

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    And you believe the ECFs to be inerrant?
    What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    So much for semper reforma...
    Always reforming or Always Reformed. Am I not by addressing OV concerns?

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    But that doesn't change anything, because this is followed by "since", which would define the basis for knowing.
    Go back to the language again, for 'lo' [לא]you are embarrassing me.
    (kidding, but look)
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    I don't build doctrine from Genesis 22:12. Genesis 22:12 is evidence that supports my view, but were I go give up on this passage it would have little to no effect on my theology, since I don't build upon anything here.

    If you look at my opening post for this thread, you'll see that.
    Psa 44:21 For He knows the secrets of the heart.
    Act 15:7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that some time ago God chose me to preach to the Gentiles so they would hear the message of the gospel and believe.
    Act 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, has testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us,
    Act 15:9 and he made no distinction between them and us, cleansing their hearts by faith.
    Luk 16:15 God knows their hearts.
    Rom 8:27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes on behalf of the saints according to God's will.
    1Ch 29:17 I know, my God, that you examine thoughts
    Psa 139:23 Examine me, and probe my thoughts!
    I see how you could use those. However, either they don't fit the context, or they don't help you.
    Meh, I'll move on, but thanks for recognizing that I've done some exegetical work.


    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    I would assert that this was an unsettled matter in Abraham's heart, such that the present knowledge of Abraham was unclear. After all, no man would seriously contemplate killing his own son without some serious basis for doing so.
    I get it. God doesn't know us better than we know ourselves.
    1Ch 29:17 I know, my God, that you examine thoughts
    Psa 139:23 Examine me, and probe my thoughts
    Mat 6:8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
    The ▲asserting▲ thing again....nvm


    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Or this was unsettled in Abraham's heart.
    Psa 139:1 O LORD, you examine me and know.
    Psa 139:2 You know when I sit down and when I get up;
    even from far away you understand my motives.
    Psa 139:23 Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts,
    Psa 139:24 and see if any wicked way is in me; and lead me in the way everlasting.
    Philippians 2:13 For it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.


    Well, since you don't ever really engage in the meaning of the context, you wind up with these kinds of discussions. That's the huge problem with prooftexting: Frequently the context gets missed.
    You mean like 'since?'[לא] I've read this passage over and over. I've looked to the language. I came to textual understandings and compared them to scholars who admittedly, conveniently agree with me. What have you been doing?

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    The context of the fall suggests that God is dealing with the fact that they are hiding, rather than expressing confusion about their whereabouts. The context of Genesis 22 is a test by God to see if Abraham will obey Him to the point of sacrificing his own son.
    Because He doesn't really know the heart and mind of a man? Because He really cannot search and know the heart and lead us?

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Look at the conclusion

    Gen 22:16 and said, "By myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, 18 and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice."

    Notice that the basis for God's extension of the promise to Abraham is based upon Abraham's actions. If God already knew Abraham's heart, then this would have been unnecessary.
    Okay, you have been doing some contextual work. I see 'what you've been doing.'
    Then we'd need ever do nothing. God knowing does not make us do the thing. We are the ones in sin and needing of refinement. This test was for Abraham.

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Again, you fail to deal with "since." You've chopped this story into tiny pieces, and thrown out the inconvenient ones. "Since" clearly suggests that the basis for God's knowledge is Abraham's actions
    "Lo" again. Look it up yet?


    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Except that there isn't, as I've shown. The context of each points in a different direction. That's the difference between proof text exegesis and narrative context exegesis.
    Okay, I 'can't say God didn't know where Adam was' but I 'can say that God didn't know whether or not Abraham (oops, OV, no 'whether or not) would obey.'


    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    God does say that the basis for His knowledge "since" is Abraham's action in raising the knife. That's the reason translators select "Now" to introduce the clause.

    Again, which is fine. Most of your alternative translations don't get away from this exegesis anyway.
    See my own understanding of the text above and check out that little word 'lo'לא

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    And the majority of the Church and the church do not see me as a heretic, either. The difference is that I don't base my theology on how many others believe as I do.

    So, are you going for confirmation soon?
    Sure, why not. If I did, would I have to agree with every RC doctrine? It is but one proof, but it is a strong one, lest we build it up to something to this extent. Why not just engage the strength of the position. I admit it gets blanketed, and I even use RC scholarship. My point isn't in our divergence, but on our agreements.



    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    And using the entire story to exegete the idea that the matter wasn't knowable, even in Abraham's heart.
    And there is the restriction upon past and present exhaustive knowlege, demolishing "God knows all that is knowable." This is better categorized as "God knows a lot of what's going on" and with that, God makes His decent down to the relational demands of man. Huge comfort there. Did you know Pinnock is dialoguing with Mormons on theology?

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    And it bears repeating that our hearts are not a constant. I have no problem with saying that this was a test for Abraham. He probably learned some thing about himself in the process. But God doesn't say "now you know." God says, "Now I know.. since...[לא]"
    Whereas or just "I know."
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    You have no basis for saying that this matter was settled in Abraham's heart at all. The context seems to suggest otherwise.

    Yes. When God says, "Where as I know ... Since...[לא]" God is establishing the basis for His knowledge.
    "Lo."
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Again, from the context of the story, that's how it is exegeted. You see, you want to make the basis of your exegesis the individual phrase, where as I look at the whole context, including the flow and point of the story. Yes, I focus on "Now I know", but only after careful review of what has happened and what follows.
    Because we exegete on a pericope level, not on a proof text level.

    Yes. Exegesis.

    That because you look for ways to reaffirm your theology and your methods. When something disagrees with both, you feel justified in attempting to use your methods to prove something is wrong, even if your method is invalid

    Muz
    You mean like that little word 'lo.' God must express storyline with these words to us or it wouldn't be a storyline. There is a dichotomy I presume, upon every narrative whether fiction or not. A 'now' for instance, in a story-line is a conveyance. "Now it came to pass" doesn't mean now then nor our now, now. We don't usually read it like you are. Neither 'now' or 'since' are necessary ideas from the text. The way translation is all put together needs to stay consistent. Our words are 'now' and 'since' and are easier to understand for us than whereas (at least that's what we'd always thought). The scholars were trying to convey the story and you are stuck in the English translation where even the scholars themselves who translated it in the first place don't agree with you. 'Now' is just a timeline consideration for the progress of the story. It is too vague of a word to stand or fall on prescience or lack thereof and is not a terrific text for OV based on little words where meaning is deliberated.

    As I've always read this passage, I've always looked at the necessity of this action for Abraham and have never tried to assume anything as to God learning something. I believe that is nowhere near the intention of conveyance of this text and for that, I believe, assert as you like as I've pressed contrary, that you are the one leaving the clear intention of the text.
    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. #63
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,153
    Thanks
    1,638
    Thanked 3,254 Times in 1,970 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1628976
    Quote Originally Posted by JCWR View Post
    Indeed!

    God certainly "knew" beforehand what Abraham would do in this predicament (Ps 139:1-6). The language here simply indicates that it was a test or demonstration of Abraham's complete loyalty to God.
    I'd always read and understood it this way. Studying it again only confirms this to me.
    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..."

  4. #64
    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
    You guys don't even have commentaries! No Open Theist has done anything in commentaries, Language and translations, system of theology. With"2 for 3," I believe you are being generous (wishful) with such a claim. So I guess you are right, all I've got are Arminiain, Calvinist, (reformed) and even a few Orthodox links (the only things that exist). You've got a few nice little booklets from Intervarsity Press.
    Which all adds up to one thing: theology by the numbers doesn't work, or you'd be Catholic.

    What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
    You're quoting Eucebius as though he has some authority.

    Always reforming or Always Reformed. Am I not by addressing OV concerns?
    Not when you say that the church through the last 500 years has believed X, therefore X

    Go back to the language again, for 'lo' [לא]you are embarrassing me.
    (kidding, but look)
    You've missed the conjunction. That's the causative. (Yes, I know what it means). Excuse the transliteration as I have no clue how to type Hebrew, here, but it's vla (Representing only the Hebrew consonants involved.)

    Even if we translate the conjunction as "and":

    "... whereas I know that you fear God, and you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me."

    Taking this as weakly as possible, there is still a basis for God's knowledge in this sentence. That's why it's translated "since." ("and" is awkward, here, but one cannot get away from the causative sense of that clause.)

    I get it. God doesn't know us better than we know ourselves.
    Didn't say that.

    You mean like 'since?'[לא] I've read this passage over and over. I've looked to the language. I came to textual understandings and compared them to scholars who admittedly, conveniently agree with me. What have you been doing?
    Did you bother to read the English translation that uses "since"?

    Because He doesn't really know the heart and mind of a man? Because He really cannot search and know the heart and lead us?
    Or because sometimes out hearts and minds are actually unsettled?

    Okay, you have been doing some contextual work. I see 'what you've been doing.'
    Then we'd need ever do nothing. God knowing does not make us do the thing. We are the ones in sin and needing of refinement. This test was for Abraham.
    To inform God.

    "Lo" again. Look it up yet?
    D'oh... You could at least use the whole word as it appears in the text.

    Okay, I 'can't say God didn't know where Adam was' but I 'can say that God didn't know whether or not Abraham (oops, OV, no 'whether or not) would obey.'
    That's how each story reads.

    See my own understanding of the text above and check out that little word 'lo'לא
    Go back and read the text and tell me how 'vla' is translated in that context. (or you could just look at how it is translated.)

    Sure, why not. If I did, would I have to agree with every RC doctrine? It is but one proof, but it is a strong one, lest we build it up to something to this extent. Why not just engage the strength of the position. I admit it gets blanketed, and I even use RC scholarship. My point isn't in our divergence, but on our agreements.
    If you did, there would be many doctrines for you to embrace, as they have been discovered "ex cathedra."

    And there is the restriction upon past and present exhaustive knowlege, demolishing "God knows all that is knowable." This is better categorized as "God knows a lot of what's going on" and with that, God makes His decent down to the relational demands of man. Huge comfort there. Did you know Pinnock is dialoguing with Mormons on theology?
    Should I care? I disagree with Pinnock on lots of things. (Nice attempt at guilt by association, btw.)

    You mean like that little word 'lo.' God must express storyline with these words to us or it wouldn't be a storyline. There is a dichotomy I presume, upon every narrative whether fiction or not. A 'now' for instance, in a story-line is a conveyance. "Now it came to pass" doesn't mean now then nor our now, now. We don't usually read it like you are. Neither 'now' or 'since' are necessary ideas from the text. The way translation is all put together needs to stay consistent. Our words are 'now' and 'since' and are easier to understand for us than whereas (at least that's what we'd always thought). The scholars were trying to convey the story and you are stuck in the English translation where even the scholars themselves who translated it in the first place don't agree with you. 'Now' is just a timeline consideration for the progress of the story. It is too vague of a word to stand or fall on prescience or lack thereof and is not a terrific text for OV based on little words where meaning is deliberated.
    You don't find it a bit odd that translators who were compelled to express things a particular way because the original demands it have to go to great lengths to explain it away?

    BTW, yes, I've studied this in the Hebrew. It's translated as it is for specific reasons.

    As I've always read this passage, I've always looked at the necessity of this action for Abraham and have never tried to assume anything as to God learning something. I believe that is nowhere near the intention of conveyance of this text and for that, I believe, assert as you like as I've pressed contrary, that you are the one leaving the clear intention of the text.
    The clear intention of the text is the exposure of Abraham's heart with respect to withholding nothing from God as the basis for reaffirming God's covenant with Abraham. That much is clear. What sticks out (at least one of the things that sticks out) is God's statement about His knowledge, and the basis of that knowledge. I know you're trying to find a Hebrew language hole, but I doubt you'll find one that makes sense.

    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.

  5. #65
    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
    Lon: What do you think of Bruce Ware and his modified Calvinism/molinism?

    Are you hyper-Calvinist (Gill) or hypo-Calvinist (Sproul)?
    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.

  6. #66
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,153
    Thanks
    1,638
    Thanked 3,254 Times in 1,970 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1628976
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    Lon: What do you think of Bruce Ware and his modified Calvinism/molinism?

    Are you hyper-Calvinist (Gill) or hypo-Calvinist (Sproul)?
    I really like Gill a lot, but obviously have strong leanings toward Sproul. It is like I'm approaching Calvinism leaning backwards with someone pushing me in. My feet are across the line, but my head has a hard time following all the way in (I'm still a fairly new Calvinist). From that perspective, you'd see why I'm a compatiblist (my theology isn't finished yet on this transition). It seems OV helps push here: The Post-Modern/relativism is pressing us to extremes. We either go back to the Reformers or we seek out answers on the other side of the spectrum. For me, there is a presupposition and love for those who have gone before. No doubt I'd have a hard time believing the OV from this loved angle. I love the traditions for bringing me to Christ. They were and are terrific thinkers and they did and are dealing with OV concerns in an academic manner. Even OV owes them much.
    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..."

  7. #67
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,153
    Thanks
    1,638
    Thanked 3,254 Times in 1,970 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1628976
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Which all adds up to one thing: theology by the numbers doesn't work, or you'd be Catholic.
    I am the product of a spiritually split marriage. It wholly was dependent on which of the parents raised me. Of course I'd have been Catholic if raised in that environment. I don't take that as much of a slam. We do have significant differences, but I do appreciate and enjoy looking toward their writings, traditions, and apologetics to better understand my Protestantism. You don't and reject it all, making a clean cut. It is almost like anti-academic.


    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    You're quoting Eucebius as though he has some authority.
    Yes, and Gill, Wesley, Lawlor, FF Bruce, etc. etc. etc. etc. Those were but a very few, I didn't even open my Bible programs.
    Jamieson, Faucett, Brown
    The Omniscient witness likewise declared His acceptance in the highest terms of approval
    Barnes
    This was known to God antecedent to the event that demonstrated it.
    Gill
    ...he knew full well beforehand what would be the consequence...
    I think I have about 50 more in back-up from Logos and other CD's.
    Eusebius is but one of many so I still don't see what this has to do with Octoberfest. If it were me as an OV, I'd have dropped this part of the debate a long time ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Not when you say that the church through the last 500 years has believed X, therefore X
    Yeah but that's why any would engage here on TOL. If we were so indoctrinated, you'd think we'd have written you off a long time ago. At least concede this is a bit over extrapolated on your part. If not, we can move on. It isn't important to me what you think about my views reforming or not in the grand scheme.


    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    You've missed the conjunction. That's the causative. (Yes, I know what it means). Excuse the transliteration as I have no clue how to type Hebrew, here, but it's vla (Representing only the Hebrew consonants involved.)

    Even if we translate the conjunction as "and":

    "... whereas I know that you fear God, and you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me."

    Taking this as weakly as possible, there is still a basis for God's knowledge in this sentence. That's why it's translated "since." ("and" is awkward, here, but one cannot get away from the causative sense of that clause.)
    "... whereas I know that you fear God, and you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me."

    I agree, which was also my initial premise in this thread. I've been arguing for exactly that with statements like 'difficult passage for assertion,' 'broad meaning to small Hebrew words,' 'no good proof text for either of our doctrinal assertions' etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Didn't say that.
    I know, but I was rather expressing the objection to it. You cannot press this as hard in the opposite direction or it naturally leads to this position.


    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Did you bother to read the English translation that uses "since"?
    Sorry, no. I was reading Hebrew and going to my translation guides. What was the question?



    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Or because sometimes out hearts and minds are actually unsettled?
    Presupposition. Those aren't bad, but we still need to recognize them especially for disagreements such as this. The text doesn't say Abraham's heart or mind was unsettled, but even if context pushes you this direction, would God know Abraham's heart and mind better than he did? Wouldn't God, who searches the heart and can reveal what is hidden to us (ala Ps 139) know even if we didn't? You don't see this as a restriction on God's Past and Present perfect knowledge? You don't see the danger I'm warning against even against OV's theological position?

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    To inform God.
    This is a very large difference in presupposition for understanding this text. You assert mine is supposition-driven exegesis. I can live with that, as I've said pedantic passages drive our suppositions in approaching narrative, but you don't seem to realize the same in your own exegesis. Furthermore, you haven't quoted other pedantic scriptures like I've been doing this whole thread to support that supposition. You know, like verses that specifically say God is not prescient or Hebrew scholars that agree with you, or commentaries by noted language scholars.

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    D'oh... You could at least use the whole word as it appears in the text.

    Go back and read the text and tell me how 'vla' is translated in that context. (or you could just look at how it is translated.)
    Gen 22:12 ויאמר אל־תשׁלח ידך אל־הנער ואל־תעשׂ לו מאומה כי עתה ידעתי כי־ירא אלהים אתה ולא חשׂכת את־בנך את־יחידך ממני׃ ???

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Should I care? I disagree with Pinnock on lots of things. (Nice attempt at guilt by association, btw.)
    No, you misunderstand, I was trying to say that it is precisely this particular topic that seems in agreement with their stance. Perhaps it was hasty, but I was more looking for 'if' this was one of your doctrinal agreements. So your disagreement with Pinnock clears that up, at least for implication.


    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    You don't find it a bit odd that translators who were compelled to express things a particular way because the original demands it have to go to great lengths to explain it away?

    BTW, yes, I've studied this in the Hebrew. It's translated as it is for specific reasons.
    It is enough that you know and understand what I'm saying here and that the scholars (who I deem more credible than I) are saying the same thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    The clear intention of the text is the exposure of Abraham's heart with respect to withholding nothing from God as the basis for reaffirming God's covenant with Abraham. That much is clear. What sticks out (at least one of the things that sticks out) is God's statement about His knowledge, and the basis of that knowledge. I know you're trying to find a Hebrew language hole, but I doubt you'll find one that makes sense.
    Muz
    I didn't find it, it has always been presented that way. In order to counteract that, very credible men who hold to your position must redact it, fiercely, strongly, and consistently for it to even be considered. You asserting against a history of scholasticism who've come to the opposite conclusion is daunting and against such a body of work, merely a piff in historical context. I'm not the one asserting superior exegesis to these men, I agree with them. I'm not, at least in this point in time, their equals to be able to assert otherwise. So, yes, history, scholarship, and traditions carry huge weight for me, especially if I was so bold as to diverge with them on any given point. If I ever do, I will have book-length treatise and support for my divergence for it will be asserting against all of history and them. I recognize and take seriously that even with such a single work, I will be in the minority. People would expect that I would be a linguist master, have historical theological prowess, have credentials in multiples, be recognized in academic circles, etc. In short, my theology would be questioned and scrutinized on all levels for the divergence. Anything less from me would be asserting arrogance and an unheard piff in theological history.
    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..."

  8. #68
    Does Whatever A Light-House Can Lighthouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Anderson, IN
    Posts
    20,720
    Thanks
    1,174
    Thanked 13,117 Times in 10,018 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147864
    Quote Originally Posted by JCWR View Post
    Indeed!

    God certainly "knew" beforehand what Abraham would do in this predicament (Ps 139:1-6). The language here simply indicates that it was a test or demonstration of Abraham's complete loyalty to God.
    Those verses give no indication, whatsoever, that God knows anything before it actually takes place.

    In fact, it says the opposite. It says that the word is on his tongue, and God knows it. It does not say the word is not yet on his tongue.

    Quote Originally Posted by nicholsmom View Post
    I am puzzled by this. This does not seem to be the typical OV position: that God does not know something that is actually knowable, seems contrary to any sort of omniscience - even the OV view of it.
    What if God does not want to know?

    Also, if God always knows things why did He have to go see if the cries against Sodom and Gomorrah were true or not?

    And the LORD said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, 21 I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”
    -Genesis 18:20-21


  9. #69
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,153
    Thanks
    1,638
    Thanked 3,254 Times in 1,970 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1628976
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    Lon: What do you think of Bruce Ware and his modified Calvinism/molinism?

    Are you hyper-Calvinist (Gill) or hypo-Calvinist (Sproul)?
    I missed the first part of this concerning Bruce Ware and Molinism.

    You are correct to say it is modified in his view(compatible modified molinism). It is a bit of a philosophical discussion based on propositions. We have some indication in scripture that would lend weight, but because those take a careful wade, I'm also careful on taking a strong stance. I haven't read his book, he leans toward Luis de Molina's position on the matter (hence the name). Basically, it is the idea that God knows all possible outcomes. This would fit with an OV position if prescience was allowed. I'm not opposed to such, but I'm trying to be swayed more by scripture here and would need to investigate those scriptures to come to a more solid position. I think I do naturally support the ideas from the text, such as when David asks about Saul and the outcome, God gives is one possiblility (1 Samuel 23:8-14 is widely used for support of this view). It would be interesting if it led to some concessions between OV and traditional doctrines (i.e. that God could in perfect past and present knowledge have a certain kind of prescience where He knew those possibilities, but I depart from there at least in particular instances such as Peter's denial where the outcome is given without question (and this also is where Ware modifies and adds 'compatible'). I believe OV has it wrong on this point but perhaps a restructure in OV circles on some of these will have a division of 'more orthodox' OVer's in the future. I dunno, lot of guessing and hopefulness in such a speculation. I've used this critique for source material in addressing this and think he does a pretty good job of discussing the main points. I'm not quite on the same page with his assessment: that Ware is more aligned with Amyrauldianism (4 point Calvinism) which he also admits is a bit of liberty in assessment. I'd say it is more of a 5 point position that is trying to bridge the gap suitably between God's Sovereignty and omniscience with man's choice and accountability. So where OV has come to a point of rejecting, I'm rather not a baby/bathwater tosser. It doesn't sit well with me to jump on a rejection bandwagon when I look at tradition and history. If the RC had reformed itself in practice, I don't think we'd be having this particular conversation, so I truly value and appreciate that I'm really a product of the RC and owe them much for my godly heritage. For this reason, despite any difficult disagreements, I try to keep in mind that they preserved what I have whether I fully agree with them or not. This also carries true to Arminianism.
    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..."

  10. #70
    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
    I am the product of a spiritually split marriage. It wholly was dependent on which of the parents raised me. Of course I'd have been Catholic if raised in that environment. I don't take that as much of a slam. We do have significant differences, but I do appreciate and enjoy looking toward their writings, traditions, and apologetics to better understand my Protestantism. You don't and reject it all, making a clean cut. It is almost like anti-academic.
    So, how do you resolve this with your argument that majority rules? Or is it only the majority of those you agree with?

    I think I have about 50 more in back-up from Logos and other CD's.
    Eusebius is but one of many so I still don't see what this has to do with Octoberfest. If it were me as an OV, I'd have dropped this part of the debate a long time ago.
    But this is an important point. Only the RCC says that we MUST accept the doctrines of those theologians who have gone before us. Semper Reforma means that we can look at the doctrines and exegesis of those who have gone before us and compare them with Scripture. To be honest, I'm taking reformation theology, now, and I have a far better understanding of why reformers embrace what they do, and a better understanding of where they've gone wrong.


    Yeah but that's why any would engage here on TOL. If we were so indoctrinated, you'd think we'd have written you off a long time ago. At least concede this is a bit over extrapolated on your part. If not, we can move on. It isn't important to me what you think about my views reforming or not in the grand scheme.
    I'll conceded that OVT doesn't have an extended following throughout church history.

    "... whereas I know that you fear God, and you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me."

    I agree, which was also my initial premise in this thread. I've been arguing for exactly that with statements like 'difficult passage for assertion,' 'broad meaning to small Hebrew words,' 'no good proof text for either of our doctrinal assertions' etc.
    And this verse is not the foundation of any doctrine. It's merely evidence that other doctrine is accurate.

    I know, but I was rather expressing the objection to it. You cannot press this as hard in the opposite direction or it naturally leads to this position.
    Except that I'm not pressing in the direction that you think I am.

    Sorry, no. I was reading Hebrew and going to my translation guides. What was the question?
    If you disagree with "since" as the translation, and yet every translation you have says "since", and you're into doctrine by majority, why do you question it?

    Presupposition. Those aren't bad, but we still need to recognize them especially for disagreements such as this. The text doesn't say Abraham's heart or mind was unsettled, but even if context pushes you this direction, would God know Abraham's heart and mind better than he did?
    Better, yes.

    Wouldn't God, who searches the heart and can reveal what is hidden to us (ala Ps 139) know even if we didn't?
    Yes, God can do that. But this has nothing to do with whether the matter was settled in Abraham's heart. It's quite possible that Abraham thought it was settled, and God, knowing Abraham's heart, knew it was not, and decided to test Abraham to see.

    Thus, the idea that God knows our hearts better than we do doesn't change the possibility that God knew Abraham's heart was unsettled.

    You don't see this as a restriction on God's Past and Present perfect knowledge? You don't see the danger I'm warning against even against OV's theological position?
    Absolutely not. In fact, it reinforces it. God wasn't acting out of ignorance of Abraham's heart, but out of complete knowledge of it.

    This is a very large difference in presupposition for understanding this text. You assert mine is supposition-driven exegesis. I can live with that, as I've said pedantic passages drive our suppositions in approaching narrative, but you don't seem to realize the same in your own exegesis. Furthermore, you haven't quoted other pedantic scriptures like I've been doing this whole thread to support that supposition. You know, like verses that specifically say God is not prescient or Hebrew scholars that agree with you, or commentaries by noted language scholars.
    Since I don't consider such commentaries to be authoritative, I don't see the point of posting them. I refer to commentaries to see what other people think, and evaluate, but in the end, I'm adopting my own position, not someone else's.

    [quote]Gen 22:12 ויאמר אל־תשׁלח ידך אל־הנער ואל־תעשׂ לו מאומה כי עתה ידעתי כי־ירא אלהים אתה ולא חשׂכת את־בנך את־יחידך ממני׃ ???

    what about it?

    No, you misunderstand, I was trying to say that it is precisely this particular topic that seems in agreement with their stance. Perhaps it was hasty, but I was more looking for 'if' this was one of your doctrinal agreements. So your disagreement with Pinnock clears that up, at least for implication.
    Never heard the Mormon stance on this.

    It is enough that you know and understand what I'm saying here and that the scholars (who I deem more credible than I) are saying the same thing.
    I guess I consider Scripture more credible.

    I didn't find it, it has always been presented that way. In order to counteract that, very credible men who hold to your position must redact it, fiercely, strongly, and consistently for it to even be considered. You asserting against a history of scholasticism who've come to the opposite conclusion is daunting and against such a body of work, merely a piff in historical context. I'm not the one asserting superior exegesis to these men, I agree with them. I'm not, at least in this point in time, their equals to be able to assert otherwise. So, yes, history, scholarship, and traditions carry huge weight for me, especially if I was so bold as to diverge with them on any given point. If I ever do, I will have book-length treatise and support for my divergence for it will be asserting against all of history and them. I recognize and take seriously that even with such a single work, I will be in the minority. People would expect that I would be a linguist master, have historical theological prowess, have credentials in multiples, be recognized in academic circles, etc. In short, my theology would be questioned and scrutinized on all levels for the divergence. Anything less from me would be asserting arrogance and an unheard piff in theological history.
    Unfortunately, every scholastic master has presuppositions, and the Greek philosophy about god has been an influence in Christian theology since very early (at least Augustine, 7th CE), and many a scholar has adopted these philosophies.

    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.

  11. #71
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,153
    Thanks
    1,638
    Thanked 3,254 Times in 1,970 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1628976
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    So, how do you resolve this with your argument that majority rules? Or is it only the majority of those you agree with?
    I seek to understand the difference. I think American philosophy also influences our declarations of personal independence, but this also has draw-backs. We all too often toss baby with bathwater. I endeavor, as even with OV, to understand context of commonality and divergence. An RC that didn't have practical problems (indulgences, persecutions) is more palatable than one that does (or rather did). If we can see hypocrisy in ourselves (removing the plank) we can appreciate and even find much agreement as even Chestertonrules and OV have done in uniting against certain doctrines either understood or misunderstood concerning Calvinism.
    So, in my mind, 80-90% agreement on doctrines is a majority consideration and support. I didn't say they are always right, I said that they are most nearly always right. Any divergence should have an incredible amount of documentation and the Protestant movement has exactly that. It has met our divergence with a preponderance of material for all to assess.


    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    But this is an important point. Only the RCC says that we MUST accept the doctrines of those theologians who have gone before us. Semper Reforma means that we can look at the doctrines and exegesis of those who have gone before us and compare them with Scripture. To be honest, I'm taking reformation theology, now, and I have a far better understanding of why reformers embrace what they do, and a better understanding of where they've gone wrong.
    We have a three-legged stool and they have a chair with four legs. It is important for discerning the two. AS removes questions and doubts from an RC mindset. With exception to cults and resurgence of obscure positions in recent times (including OV), protestants did not fall far from the tree. OV is twice-removed coming from the tree. We are trying to discern if they fell in or out of the orchard (it's a close call, some see it as cult outside of orthodoxy, and others see it as divergent but within). Until the structure is developed further it will remain a hard call.




    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    I'll conceded that OVT doesn't have an extended following throughout church history.



    And this verse is not the foundation of any doctrine. It's merely evidence that other doctrine is accurate.



    Except that I'm not pressing in the direction that you think I am.



    If you disagree with "since" as the translation, and yet every translation you have says "since", and you're into doctrine by majority, why do you question it?
    Because it isn't a bad translation. That is, it was never understood or intended to support the assertions OV is applying. I probably would have translated it the same (with my initiate language ability).
    Even if you look up 'now' in the dictionary in conjunction with since, the understanding of the term has other options than only one possibility that OVer's assert. There are other considerations for possible meaning that are conveyed adequately by those words (both in English and Hebrew).


    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Better, yes.

    Yes, God can do that. But this has nothing to do with whether the matter was settled in Abraham's heart. It's quite possible that Abraham thought it was settled, and God, knowing Abraham's heart, knew it was not, and decided to test Abraham to see.

    Thus, the idea that God knows our hearts better than we do doesn't change the possibility that God knew Abraham's heart was unsettled.

    Absolutely not. In fact, it reinforces it. God wasn't acting out of ignorance of Abraham's heart, but out of complete knowledge of it.
    Again, it is presupposition upon the text to see that this was a situation for God to find out something as opposed to Abraham finding out something. I believe, from other scriptures in supposition, that God knew the outcome but is necessary for Abraham to know the outcome. Again, we both come to it with supposition, it is rather our disagreement that I hoped, from the very beginning, would force us to consider other scriptures for those suppositions that are not express from this particular text. Again, OV is divergent from every other supposition upon this text and my point is that there is nothing in the text to drive that view, regardless of whether it can be shown that we also come to the text with supposition. The difference is not the text, it is our suppositions before coming to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Since I don't consider such commentaries to be authoritative, I don't see the point of posting them. I refer to commentaries to see what other people think, and evaluate, but in the end, I'm adopting my own position, not someone else's.
    Gen 22:12 ויאמר אל־תשׁלח ידך אל־הנער ואל־תעשׂ לו מאומה כי עתה ידעתי כי־ירא אלהים אתה ולא חשׂכת את־בנך את־יחידך ממני׃ ???

    what about it?
    The maverick approach has some merit, but much more danger and demands. Whether authoritative or not isn't the question but they carry authority by virtue regardless. They hold up to academia, scrutiny, orthodoxy, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    I guess I consider Scripture more credible.

    Unfortunately, every scholastic master has presuppositions, and the Greek philosophy about god has been an influence in Christian theology since very early (at least Augustine, 7th CE), and many a scholar has adopted these philosophies.

    Muz
    This has always been a precarious indictment from Open Theists and I'll not repeat the rebuttals for space and time. I simply point to it as unproven and unfounded.

    The theological position was built upon discussion most nearly resembling those here in the first place.

    We don't have to argue about the difference between scripture and scholars, but they carry much more weight against opposing and foreign views. A maverick is always scrutinized. It is part and parcel for moving uncharacteristically against what the majority holds and approves. I am more inclined toward them, including the church fathers, not to inerrancy elevating them to scripture, but insomuch as they uphold those scriptures.
    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. #72
    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
    So, in my mind, 80-90% agreement on doctrines is a majority consideration and support. I didn't say they are always right, I said that they are most nearly always right. Any divergence should have an incredible amount of documentation and the Protestant movement has exactly that. It has met our divergence with a preponderance of material for all to assess.
    So, in 20 years, you'll be able to embrace OVT, when there are more scholars, but not now?

    We have a three-legged stool and they have a chair with four legs. It is important for discerning the two. AS removes questions and doubts from an RC mindset. With exception to cults and resurgence of obscure positions in recent times (including OV), protestants did not fall far from the tree. OV is twice-removed coming from the tree. We are trying to discern if they fell in or out of the orchard (it's a close call, some see it as cult outside of orthodoxy, and others see it as divergent but within). Until the structure is developed further it will remain a hard call.
    Since OVT is arguably closer (in terms of Soteriology) to Arminius (and ostensibly the RCC) that Calvin was, I'd say OVT is just where it needs to be.

    Because it isn't a bad translation. That is, it was never understood or intended to support the assertions OV is applying. I probably would have translated it the same (with my initiate language ability).
    Even if you look up 'now' in the dictionary in conjunction with since, the understanding of the term has other options than only one possibility that OVer's assert. There are other considerations for possible meaning that are conveyed adequately by those words (both in English and Hebrew).
    OK, we're back to the Lexical issue. The problem isn't that there are other definition of "now" in the dictionary. The problem is that none of those "other definitions" fit the context. Either they don't make sense, or they mean the same thing.

    Same thing with "since".

    Again, it is presupposition upon the text to see that this was a situation for God to find out something as opposed to Abraham finding out something. I believe, from other scriptures in supposition, that God knew the outcome but is necessary for Abraham to know the outcome. Again, we both come to it with supposition, it is rather our disagreement that I hoped, from the very beginning, would force us to consider other scriptures for those suppositions that are not express from this particular text.
    And this position is just laughable. There is nothing in the text that suggests that Abraham was the one to do learning, here. If there is a presupposition being imposed, it's yours. At least mine has some basis in the text.

    Again, OV is divergent from every other supposition upon this text and my point is that there is nothing in the text to drive that view, regardless of whether it can be shown that we also come to the text with supposition. The difference is not the text, it is our suppositions before coming to it.
    From your presuppositional point of view, that might be the case. From a textual point of view, there is at least something to be discussed.

    This has always been a precarious indictment from Open Theists and I'll not repeat the rebuttals for space and time. I simply point to it as unproven and unfounded.
    Given that it was Augustine who formulated it, it's not a large leap to make. If one does not presume immutability and impassibility, one would not derive them from Scripture.

    We don't have to argue about the difference between scripture and scholars, but they carry much more weight against opposing and foreign views. A maverick is always scrutinized. It is part and parcel for moving uncharacteristically against what the majority holds and approves. I am more inclined toward them, including the church fathers, not to inerrancy elevating them to scripture, but insomuch as they uphold those scriptures.
    I don't mind being scrutinized. That's what I'm here for. But scrutiny works both ways, does it not?

    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.

  13. #73
    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
    Ware considers himself in the Reformed tradition but modifies views on time, immutability, middle knowledge, etc. He is a strident critic of Open Theism.

    I do appreciate his heart and mind: He fears and loves God; he desires to be theocentric (as we all do); he remains open to correction from others (teachable).

    This is an interesting read:

    http://www.amazon.com/Perspectives-D.../dp/0805430601

    (go Sanders go)
    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.

  14. #74
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,153
    Thanks
    1,638
    Thanked 3,254 Times in 1,970 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1628976
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    So, in 20 years, you'll be able to embrace OVT, when there are more scholars, but not now?
    I've said before that ideas found in the OV camp are not new debates and have been soundly refuted. I do go to those texts, but it seems OV would do well to do the same research with many links, works of scholarship, language and scriptural considerations etc. Because OV is asserting here, I'm saying the subject hasn't even come solidly to the table yet.


    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Since OVT is arguably closer (in terms of Soteriology) to Arminius (and ostensibly the RCC) that Calvin was, I'd say OVT is just where it needs to be.
    As we look at soteriology, I believe we are all closer, but our topic is not salvific, but about God's Character and interactions with man. There you find the departure.
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    OK, we're back to the Lexical issue. The problem isn't that there are other definition of "now" in the dictionary. The problem is that none of those "other definitions" fit the context. Either they don't make sense, or they mean the same thing. Same thing with "since".
    You are back to whipping the horse, which is a good direction for getting this all back to the premise of Genesis 22.

    As I said, you continue to assert against, despite word studies, commentaries, and history.

    The point was, "Now I know, since" is within contextual parameters to mean something quite different than you believe. It is about as ridiculous as believing God has wings, or has no idea where Adam is.
    "Where are you" should have been "I know where you are, come out." You have no trouble with that, but for some reason cannot see the point that "Now I know" is also relational in the intended conveyance: "Now I know, and have known...." Your rejection of this is absolutely against prescience presupposition or there would be no discussion here.


    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    And this position is just laughable. There is nothing in the text that suggests that Abraham was the one to do learning, here. If there is a presupposition being imposed, it's yours. At least mine has some basis in the text. From your presuppositional point of view, that might be the case. From a textual point of view, there is at least something to be discussed.
    No, laughable is when one asserts against many that see it totally different. Laughable is when you ignore what has already been said that should have stopped you from revving your engine with your tires stuck in the quagmire of OV assertion and and supposition.
    Laughable is a repeat of asserting here in hopes that some would forget what has been said, you failed to acknowledge that I have no problem with presupposition, if it is proved true, but I also see strengths in the position from the text. Asserting your position on supposed exegesis is what's problematic. Hasn't this come full-circle yet? I assert that everything I've said about the text is correct. You asserting over exegesis of others, over scholars, over history, that's laughable until you prove your point, which you haven't. I still disagree with you and so does the rest of Christiandom.

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Given that it was Augustine who formulated it, it's not a large leap to make. If one does not presume immutability and impassibility, one would not derive them from Scripture.

    I don't mind being scrutinized. That's what I'm here for. But scrutiny works both ways, does it not?

    Muz
    Asserting asserting asserting, none of it makes it truth or raises acquiescence. Curiosity for the initiate to investigate? Yes, but that's all it accomplishes, it encourages a historical investigation with satisfying results against such. Scrutiny is no problem for us either, but yours is going to be amplified as is proper for divergences. OV flames to the traditional kitchen take much longer to reach the roast than the stew meat. The scrutiny one way is much smaller than that going the other, again, as it should be. Holding a match to a roast takes much longer than a convection oven on a much smaller piece of meat. The problem is, one of the pieces is inedible and the rest of us have tasted the roast and are wondering what you are talking about. Maybe you got a bad taste, a garlic or a bone, or a grisly fatty bite. OV not only has to plop something palatable and substantial on the plate, it has to entice greatly away from what we already have, especially because the ideas have already been rejected before.
    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..."

  15. #75
    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
    Calvinism is driven by God's 'control', while OT is driven by His character (love and goodness; free will is not the main issue, but a means to the end of love and relationship).

    Since sovereignty is providential, not meticulous, and since God is omnicompetent, not omnicausal, I declare victory for OT.
    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.

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