ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Pastor Hill,

I was wondering if you could answer a question for me that is not directly related to open theism (and so is off the topic of this thread). I promise not to turn it into a rabbit trail of any significance.

I know that you know New Testament Greek better than most and so I was wondering if you would you agree that the Greek word "Logos" is basically synonymous with the English word "Logic"?
More specifically I was wondering if you would agree with the following statement made by Gordon H. Clark...

"The well–known prologue to John's Gospel may be paraphrased, "In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God.... In logic was life and the life was the light of men."

This paraphrase––in fact, this translation––may not only sound strange to devout ears, it may even sound obnoxious and offensive. But the shock only measures the devout person's distance from the language and thought of the Greek New Testament. Why it is offensive to call Christ Logic, when it does not offend to call him a word, is hard to explain. But such is often the case. Even Augustine, because he insisted that God is truth, has been subjected to the anti–intellectualistic accusation of "reducing" God to a proposition. At any rate, the strong intellectualism of the word Logos is seen in its several possible translations: to wit, computation, (financial) accounts, esteem, proportion and (mathematical) ratio, explanation, theory or argument, principle or law, reason, formula, debate, narrative, speech, deliberation, discussion, oracle, sentence, and wisdom.

Any translation of John 1:1 that obscures this emphasis on mind or reason is a bad translation. And if anyone complains that the idea of ratio or debate obscures the personality of the second person of the Trinity, he should alter his concept of personality. In the beginning, then, was Logic."​

I look forward to your reply.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Logos is not equated to the word "logic".

Logos is literally "Word". The verb form is legw, which means "I speak".

However, it has many ramifications in Greek culture, from logic to knowledge to wisdom to "God-man."

The key to understanding Logos is understanding John and his audience, and what John is trying to communicate, of which at least the previous two aren't all that clear.

Muz
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
themuzicman said:
Logos is not equated to the word "logic".

Logos is literally "Word". The verb form is legw, which means "I speak".

However, it has many ramifications in Greek culture, from logic to knowledge to wisdom to "God-man."

The key to understanding Logos is understanding John and his audience, and what John is trying to communicate, of which at least the previous two aren't all that clear.

Muz
I am aware of Pastor Hill's qualifications in the area of New Testament Greek and therefore trust his opinion and Gordon Clark is consider by many to be the most important Christian philosopher in modern times. On the other hand, I'm not at all familiar with you or your qualifications to speak to this issue. Even readily available online Greek-English lexicons use the word "reason" in the definition of "logos" and so while I appreciate you trying to answer my question, you'll excuse me if I don't take your word for it and wait instead to hear from Pastor Hill.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Yeah, I guess a master's level study of Greek isn't worth much these days.

I realize that "reason" is listed as a potential meaning, but there are a couple of dozen potential meanings. Hebrew has a similar word that can mean "word", "matter", "thing" and other meanings, depending on context.

The point is that you can't assign the meaning "logic" to logos outside of a particular context, since logos has a pretty wide range of meaning, depending on how the author uses it. But, at it's core, it's a word or a message, usually spoken.

Even in Hebrews Logos is translated "account" (as in "to whom we must render an account.")

It can be teaching, conversation, preaching, and any number of things.

Again, the point is that logos needs a context in order to take on a specific meaning. You can't assume what logos is, and then insert it into a context.

Muz
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
A basic fact about Greek or any language is that words have a semantic range or bundle of meanings. Even if logos and logic can be used in one context does not mean they are interchangeable in all contexts. The personified logos made flesh is far more nuanced than simply 'logic'. An expository dictionary could spend page after page tracing the evolving background and myriad of uses of logos. Johannine use was further development for a specific application that connected with known concepts. Even if logic is one aspect of the meaning about Jesus, it goes beyond that.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
themuzicman said:
Yeah, I guess a master's level study of Greek isn't worth much these days.

I realize that "reason" is listed as a potential meaning, but there are a couple of dozen potential meanings. Hebrew has a similar word that can mean "word", "matter", "thing" and other meanings, depending on context.

The point is that you can't assign the meaning "logic" to logos outside of a particular context, since logos has a pretty wide range of meaning, depending on how the author uses it. But, at it's core, it's a word or a message, usually spoken.

Even in Hebrews Logos is translated "account" (as in "to whom we must render an account.")

It can be teaching, conversation, preaching, and any number of things.

Again, the point is that logos needs a context in order to take on a specific meaning. You can't assume what logos is, and then insert it into a context.

Muz
I agree that the meaning of a word is determined as much by its context as it is by its actual definition, which is why I included a quotation from Dr. Gordon Clark which discussed a specific passage of Scripture with which I know for a fact that Bob Hill is intimately familiar in both English and Greek. And I tried the best I could to keep from implying that you were unschooled in the Greek language. My point was simply that I don't know you from Adam and the point of my asking Bob Hill had to do with the fact that I do know him and have good reason to trust his judgment on matters of translation. If all I was looking for was the opinion of anyone with an education in Greek whether I knew them personally or not then it would be difficult to trump the knowledge, expertise, professional reputation, and lasting legacy of Dr. Gordon H. Clark. In fact, if Clark hadn't been a Calvinist, I would have no reason at all to question his opinion in the first place.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

patman

Active member
Lonster said:
You know what I find interesting? When Jesus was walking in Israel, He didn't really get into the theology debate that often. Did you notice? He could have easily settled many many debates between the Sadducees and Pharisees (the OV SV of the day?). Maybe He did a bit more correcting than the disciples wrote. John said if it were all written down, no library could contain the books. That's pretty powerful. So what are we left with? Know Jesus, live for Him and make Him known. That seems pretty reasonable to me. I'm not too hung up on our differences. For the record, I don't think I could ever be a true OV, but what I appreciate is that I can talk to those who need Jesus here and I pray over every post I write to them in hopes that one might come to the Jesus I love so much.

There are some differences I find pretty technical. What day did Jesus die on, that is technical, but not a make or break for most people's faith in Christ. Open theology verses settled is an important one. Had Jesus been around today, he would establish the viewpoint.

Jesus did get into theology of his day.. for example, the resurrection was a theological debate that Jesus gave an answer to when he told them God was the god of the living.

If the settled view is wrong, it is guilty of a great blaspheme. It clearly makes God out to be the author of sins. This is the reason I almost lost my faith... OV fixes this issue. I have since learned that faith, not theology is what we should cling to to get us through the doubts, but for those who need a little help, this issue is pretty important.
 

Lon

Well-known member
patman said:
There are some differences I find pretty technical. What day did Jesus die on, that is technical, but not a make or break for most people's faith in Christ. Open theology verses settled is an important one. Had Jesus been around today, he would establish the viewpoint.

Jesus did get into theology of his day.. for example, the resurrection was a theological debate that Jesus gave an answer to when he told them God was the god of the living.

If the settled view is wrong, it is guilty of a great blaspheme. It clearly makes God out to be the author of sins. This is the reason I almost lost my faith... OV fixes this issue. I have since learned that faith, not theology is what we should cling to to get us through the doubts, but for those who need a little help, this issue is pretty important.

It kind of shocks me that one would lose their faith. My faith was not intellectual to begin with because I was seven and needed a Savior. When I come to troubling passages, my faith is tested but these don't destroy my faith. I'm still perplexed when someone says they came close or lost their faith on just a troubling concept.
 

patman

Active member
Lonster said:
It kind of shocks me that one would lose their faith. My faith was not intellectual to begin with because I was seven and needed a Savior. When I come to troubling passages, my faith is tested but these don't destroy my faith. I'm still perplexed when someone says they came close or lost their faith on just a troubling concept.

Almost doesn't count. But many atheist/nonbeleivers use the Settled view theology to stay away from God. Why follow a God that would predetermine sin and love him? How is that loving? He must not be loving, that is the conclusion they came to and I almost came to.

Faith pulled me through until I found the answer, and that is the Open View. I must say faith sustained me for a long time before I came to the answer. But please, do not let the issue of faith blind you from the problem of the S.V., that is it pins all sin on God. Do you not have an issue with this?
 

Lon

Well-known member
patman said:
Almost doesn't count. But many atheist/nonbeleivers use the Settled view theology to stay away from God. Why follow a God that would predetermine sin and love him? How is that loving? He must not be loving, that is the conclusion they came to and I almost came to.

Faith pulled me through until I found the answer, and that is the Open View. I must say faith sustained me for a long time before I came to the answer. But please, do not let the issue of faith blind you from the problem of the S.V., that is it pins all sin on God. Do you not have an issue with this?

I'm not truly Calvinist so my theological stance isn't bothered by this no. I don't believe that we can blame God for this. I try to see God as doing things that fit Calvinism at times and OV at other times. If you tried to examine my life and create a humanology system to understand me, you'd be about half right and other times you'd be half wrong.

I believe Theology proper is important and I study all the time but I don't buy into any particular train of thought. Honestly, they all have some kewl things to point out about God and they all have their weaknesses. Just as I'd find it very difficult to be hyperCalvinistic, I don't believe OV fits with what I know from reading scripture. Some parts do, but there are so many basic tenets that I couldn't accept that would prevent me from moving to an OV position. I'd probably most closely relate to a Presbyterian and somewhat Lutheran viewpoint.
 

patman

Active member
Lonster said:
I'm not truly Calvinist so my theological stance isn't bothered by this no. I don't believe that we can blame God for this. I try to see God as doing things that fit Calvinism at times and OV at other times. If you tried to examine my life and create a humanology system to understand me, you'd be about half right and other times you'd be half wrong.

I believe Theology proper is important and I study all the time but I don't buy into any particular train of thought. Honestly, they all have some kewl things to point out about God and they all have their weaknesses. Just as I'd find it very difficult to be hyperCalvinistic, I don't believe OV fits with what I know from reading scripture. Some parts do, but there are so many basic tenets that I couldn't accept that would prevent me from moving to an OV position. I'd probably most closely relate to a Presbyterian and somewhat Lutheran viewpoint.

Some of this has a ring of truth to it.

There ARE some future events that are set. But not all of them. Exhaustive foreknowledge is what the OV is against... that doesn't mean God has no foreknowledge, it means he doesn't have all foreknowledge.

Jonah is a good example of OV at work. God changed his mind about a future event because the people repented. But in the future the kingdom of Heaven WILL happen, no matter what man does.

It is just impossible to make the future totally open and totally settled and the theology still fit with scripture. With this one can have confidence in a "happy ending" yet have no reason to blame God for creating things to be evil.
 

Lon

Well-known member
patman said:
Some of this has a ring of truth to it.

There ARE some future events that are set. But not all of them. Exhaustive foreknowledge is what the OV is against... that doesn't mean God has no foreknowledge, it means he doesn't have all foreknowledge.

Jonah is a good example of OV at work. God changed his mind about a future event because the people repented. But in the future the kingdom of Heaven WILL happen, no matter what man does.

It is just impossible to make the future totally open and totally settled and the theology still fit with scripture. With this one can have confidence in a "happy ending" yet have no reason to blame God for creating things to be evil.

I'm not hung up on the OV position so much. Knight told me I was an OV theoogian because of some of my beliefs. I still think God has an extensive foreknowledge. It is really hard for me to read the gospels any other way. Jesus said some things only the Father knew but other times He was incredibly accurate. The best sense from the text to me is that He saw it like it already happened. I know OV has a bit of a problem with God being able to transcend time like this, but I'd never be able to understand this kind of limitation. It doesn't make scripture contextual sense to me.
 

patman

Active member
Lonster said:
I'm not hung up on the OV position so much. Knight told me I was an OV theoogian because of some of my beliefs. I still think God has an extensive foreknowledge. It is really hard for me to read the gospels any other way. Jesus said some things only the Father knew but other times He was incredibly accurate. The best sense from the text to me is that He saw it like it already happened. I know OV has a bit of a problem with God being able to transcend time like this, but I'd never be able to understand this kind of limitation. It doesn't make scripture contextual sense to me.

I think of it as simple as this: God knows all things, but the future is not a thing to be known. God is smart enough and powerful enough to foresee and accomplish some future events.
 

elected4ever

New member
If you are talking about the human race born of Adam you would do will to read Cleat's post. They are right on.

When it comes to being saved or born again then the old has passed away and we are no longer the person born of Adam. The rules of open view no longer apply. Our identity changes from that of Adam (flesh) to that of God (Closed)

Jesus is the only person born with a body that was closed view. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God born of a woman and of the seed of God and not born of the seed of Adam.

The confusion comes into play when we continue to think of ourselves in terms of the flesh born of Adam. We have passed from death (Adam) to life (Jesus). This is understandable sense we still have the body of death after we enter into life. We the living relate to the world and those around us through the body of death that is passing away and still make decisions basted on the old free will of the flesh. It is impossible for us to do otherwise and that is why we are so easily confused as to our identity. It is not an easy thing to understand.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
e4e,

Your position on this just doesn't make any sense.

Are you suggesting that I, as a saved believer in Christ, wouldn't be able to freely choose between two equally righteous actions?

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Clete said:
e4e,

Your position on this just doesn't make any sense.

Are you suggesting that I, as a saved believer in Christ, wouldn't be able to freely choose between two equally righteous actions?

Resting in Him,
Clete
He's saying that you can't choose to be unrighteous, or unsaved.
 

elected4ever

New member
Clete said:
e4e,

Your position on this just doesn't make any sense.

Are you suggesting that I, as a saved believer in Christ, wouldn't be able to freely choose between two equally righteous actions?

Resting in Him,
Clete
As a man, a son of Adam, which we all are in the flesh, we still have the choice of choosing the good and the evil in relationship to the world around us. Your prety solid on that point.

As a righteous person born of God spiritually you are righteous even as God is righteous and evil is not a choice that you can make. It is beyond the capability of who you are in the spirit.. The problem is that our mind is still born of the flesh and it must be renewed by the spirit and it retains the ability to choose because that is who we are as relating to the physical world around us. Though the mind retains the ability to choose it does not change in any respect who we are in Christ. We do not sin ever, because we have been made the righteousness of Christ. It does not matter what choices our flesh makes to carry out a choice made because it remains dead. It is the spirit that quickens the mind to choose the right but that right choice must still be carried out in the flesh because that is the medium that we have to relate to the world. We are in the world and not of it.

God did not leave us to our own devices after we came to Him. He gave us his word to instruct us and took upon Himself the security of our salvation. The choices retained by the dead flesh are not something by which our salvation and our relationship to Christ is to be left too. They are for to whimsical to leave our destiny too. We are forever learning but never learning to be saved but in the fleshing out of the salvation that we possess. The more we learn the better job we do.

First and foremost we must know who we are in Christ if we are to have confidence to make choice without fear of failure. If we are not confident in god and as to our status in Him then all manner of doubt creeps in and our effectiveness as the living among the dead is nullified. There is a reason for the helmet of salvation. It protects our thinking because we do what we think about. Whether of the spirit or of the flesh. We think about it we usually wind up doing it.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
elected4ever said:
As a man, a son of Adam, which we all are in the flesh, we still have the choice of choosing the good and the evil in relationship to the world around us. Your prety solid on that point.

As a righteous person born of God spiritually you are righteous even as God is righteous and evil is not a choice that you can make. It is beyond the capability of who you are in the spirit.. The problem is that our mind is still born of the flesh and it must be renewed by the spirit and it retains the ability to choose because that is who we are as relating to the physical world around us. Though the mind retains the ability to choose it does not change in any respect who we are in Christ. We do not sin ever, because we have been made the righteousness of Christ. It does not matter what choices our flesh makes to carry out a choice made because it remains dead. It is the spirit that quickens the mind to choose the right but that right choice must still be carried out in the flesh because that is the medium that we have to relate to the world. We are in the world and not of it.

God did not leave us to our own devices after we came to Him. He gave us his word to instruct us and took upon Himself the security of our salvation. The choices retained by the dead flesh are not something by which our salvation and our relationship to Christ is to be left too. They are for to whimsical to leave our destiny too. We are forever learning but never learning to be saved but in the fleshing out of the salvation that we possess. The more we learn the better job we do.

First and foremost we must know who we are in Christ if we are to have confidence to make choice without fear of failure. If we are not confident in god and as to our status in Him then all manner of doubt creeps in and our effectiveness as the living among the dead is nullified. There is a reason for the helmet of salvation. It protects our thinking because we do what we think about. Whether of the spirit or of the flesh. We think about it we usually wind up doing it.
I don't think you understood the point of my question.

Whether the future is open or settled has entirely to do with our ability to freely choose. Notice that I did not say that it has to do with our ability to choose between good and evil. That is one choice we make to be sure, but that isn't the point. If I have the ability to choose between ANY TWO OPTIONS, then whether I'm a believer or not is irrelevant. You are making an argument that a saved person can no longer choose evil, which is obviously ridiculous, but be that as it may, even if you were right, one's inability to choose evil doesn't mean that they cannot choose at all. If, for example, there are two people whom I have the ability to help but I can only help one or the other then I can choose one or the other entirely of my own free will. Neither choice is evil but I still chose and could have chosen otherwise. Thus my choice was free, and the future is open, even for me as a believer.

Lighthouse said:
He's saying that you can't choose to be unrighteous, or unsaved.
He's saying more than that though, isn't he?

He saying that believers can no longer choose to be unrighteous and that therefore the future is not open for the believer. Even if the premise were true and valid, which it isn't, the logic just doesn't follow. Wouldn't you agree?

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

elected4ever

New member
Clete said:
I don't think you understood the point of my question.

Whether the future is open or settled has entirely to do with our ability to freely choose.
I believe we are free to choose between two options. The choice that is made settles your future.

Clete said:
Notice that I did not say that it has to do with our ability to choose between good and evil. That is one choice we make to be sure, but that isn't the point.
On that I can agree

Clete said:
If I have the ability to choose between ANY TWO OPTIONS, then whether I'm a believer or not is irrelevant.
No it is not irrelevant. A person can only choose within the context of his existence.

Clete said:
You are making an argument that a saved person can no longer choose evil, which is obviously ridiculous,
To you, it probably is ridiculous. Seeing that you equate salvation with the flesh and must live righteously in the flesh.

There is now and never was nor will there ever be a choice for the flesh to be righteous. There is no choice for the flesh to be righteous. Our flesh is dead it shell remain dead and will forever be dead. The flesh cannot choose righteousness. Even when the flesh thinks that it has done righteously it sins against God. If we are of the flesh, we are not of God period. It does not matter what we or all of mankind thinks are our good works. They are evil. So don't expect our supposed good works to get us anywhere but hell.

On the other hand when the Holy Spirit witnesses to our heart and convicts us of sin, of righteousness and of judgment. When the Holy Spirit presents us with Jesus as the remedy for our dilemma then there is opportunity to choose life and only then. No one chooses to be dead. All men are born dead to God. It is only when God presents His life to us do we even become aware of our death. We must then choose life God's way and not our way. We must choose the life that is in Christ or remain dead. God does not accept modifications. It is His way or the low way.

Once having chosen life, then God births within us a live Spirit of His own seed and our life is hide in Him. The new Spirit that God births within us is incapable of choosing sin. That is not a choice that the child of God has. "You are not of the flesh but of the Spirit if so be that the Spirit of God dwells in you", says Paul.

Clete said:
but be that as it may, even if you were right, one's inability to choose evil doesn't mean that cannot choose at all. If, for example, there are two people whom I have the ability to help but I can only help one or the other then I can choose one or the other entirely of my own free will. Neither choice is evil but I still chose and could have chosen otherwise. Thus my choice was free, and the future is open, even for me as a believer.
Off course your choose would be free choice. but only with in the limitations of your existence. An unsaved man can choose only within the limitations of his death and the saved only within the limitations of his life. It seems to me that you fail to take into account these limitation. All ways choose the good that you can do and not what you cannot do. If you are presented with a choice of two things that are good and you only have the means to do one of the two, God always has someone else to take care of the one you could not handle. So always choose to do for one and not to forgo both.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top