ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[patman]

I know what you are trying to do.

Let me start with a riddle: How many animals did Moses have in the ark?

I'm teasing you here: Noah built the ark.

For starters, and I apologize for making this blunt: You inadvertently replace "Noah" for Moses in your lineage. A whopper of a mistake if you are throwing your work up there with scholars with more degrees behind their name than Vesuvius was hot.

It is clear that you are holding tenaciously to your proof of OV. You said to me: No matter what it says, if it is the truth, we need to be faithful to the truth and adjust our theology accordingly. I wonder if you are open to that same challenge.

AMR's link says in no uncertain terms both that your proof text isn't translated well if it connects the whole ball of wax to enslavement, that they agree with the number of years in Egyptian slavery being less than 400 years. They argue that the 400+year NT reference cannot refer to the time of the judges, and that God meant exactly what turned out in history as His prophecy.

It might prove interesting to you that Joseph was, in fact, a slave in Egypt.
Whatever else might be said, the slavery started early on. We are not told that Joseph or his family ceased being slaves. We are only privy to the fact that in the beginning of Exodus it became harsh. Assumption is that Joseph's rise in status elevated him above slavery but we could see from the text that he was doing Pharoah's service.
We also see Joseph commanding his family to take his bones out of Egypt when they leave. It wouldn't escape Joseph's notice that God had prophesied 400 years.

Lon, this proves to me that you are the ONLY one reading my posts. You are the only one who pointed out the NOAH thing. So thank you for reading.

Lon, I actually did read his PDF. I want to thank you for breaking it down, too. Everyone but you is trigger happy, wanting to shoot me first and ask questions later. Tonight has been a rough night(for IRL reasons). I do not seek compassion, but know it is encouraging that you, at the very least, are reading, and I am not just talking at the binary stream of octets that go between TOL and the internet cloud (AKA the wind).

I am open to the challenge, no one has addressed my question. I sound like a broken record lately. If we are to take the 430 years to mean their time in Egypt, we can do the following:

430 years - (110 years of Joseph's Life - 39 years of age Joseph was when he was when Jacob entered egypt.) 110-39 is 71. 430 - 71 = 359 years. Some years would have to pass beyond that too, because the Pharaoh who enslaved Israel did not know Joseph.

Which leaves us able to say that Israel was slaves less than 359 years. I still believe the number to be much less than this, because of Moses' genealogy only allows for 350 years of time in Egypt total. Yet even if we take this number, all the men of Joseph's Generation must die off before the new Pharaoh enslaved them (Exodus 1:6).

These figures are what they are. They were not slaves for 400 years at all, for even 350 is being somewhat liberal.

Even if we add Joseph's slave years (who was only one man, who ended up a 'king') we can only add 13 years, tops. He wasn't a slave that whole time. He was also a prisoner. But even if we say the slave years and prison years together should be counted, 13 is the most we can add Israel's enslavement, and that is just for one man. Then he became a king! Second only to Pharaoh, but that doesn't make him a slave...

Even if we were to count his service to Pharaoh, the number would be 430, still pretty far off. And that is going the extreme, making one man who became a ruler seem to be a slave (having a king over you does not make you a slave and being 2nd in command does not make you afflicted).

Exodus 12:40 Now the sojourn of the children of Israel who lived in Egypt[(a) and possibly canaan]was four hundred and thirty years.

Gen 15:13 Then He said to Abram: “Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years.

I am trying to give you the benefit of a doubt..... but look at how much you have to stretch.

 

[Lon]

Sorry, it is a stretch. My point was that it isn't even as easy to figure with your OV lenses. I'll concede the rest with the continued argument that I'm very confused that Moses could have written the exact number as the prophecy after their departure and not have it correspond directly to what was understood.

Let me go back and address one specific point. I'm reading your basic fundamental argument as Genesis 15:13 means and can only mean one thing: 400 years of Egyptian slavery.

Did any of the PDF document touch your objection at all? We really need to dig into the original language at that point (Gen 15:13). Perhaps I could get AMR to grace us with a Hebrew lesson (mine is only one semester and a quarter), if you promise to pay close attention and are open to that truth.

 

[themuzicman]

I used to think you had a grip on OT prophecy concerning Christ. You are beginning to have me concerned.

I do... But recent study on the OT and how "fulfilled" works in the NT have shed some new light on the subject. As I recall the only "prophecy" about Jesus' death was that he "be hung on a tree", and that's only a general statement about "cursed is the one who is hung on a tree", so being hung by a rope around the neck would qualify.

I think the presupposition that God foreordained every event of history has locked us into the idea that everything that has been claimed as a fulfillment of prophecy must have referred to exactly how it actually worked out, when neither the prophecy nor how the NT author uses it really supports that claim.



So, are you interested in a thread on some of the exegetical underpinnings of Calvinism?

Muz

 

[Philetus]

I only wish some would be more interested in "increasing in the knowledge" (Colossians 1:10) by actually studying and reading ground amply plowed before them. :think:

Some ground has been over plowed for years and still hasn't produced a crop. Maybe it needs to lay fallow for a while. Besides, just plowing won't produce a harvest. Some plowed ground is still full of rocks. Plant and water a little. You'll be amazed at what God can do with the right efforts.

Originally Posted by godrulz
Books on alleged Bible discrepancies or commentaries propose resolutions. I trust the Word of God, so no it is not an issue. I am not following this debate knowing the answers are readily available.

'Strong immutability' and impassibility is traditional, Platonic and makes God out to be a stone, the 'perfect' Unmoved Mover. Most have moved to a weak immutability/impassibility concept where God does not change in some ways (character/attributes), but does change in other ways (relations, actions, thoughts, feelings).

God is personal, not impersonal. This should be the starting point.

Jay Wesley Richards and others have done some work on this. The Platonic views are simply unbiblical. This is not just an Open Theist issue, but even traditional, classical theologians are shifting their understanding, but not as far as OT.

Just because God does not instantly prevent something from happening, does not mean He desires or condones it. Hyper-sovereignty is a wrong view, as is omnicausality. Issues of irrevocable freedom, by God's sovereign choice, must be considered. We know that heinous evil is contrary to His revealed character and Word, so a hyper-sovereignty view that rejects freedom and exalts hyper-sovereignty ends up impugning the character and Word of God. Therefore, change the wrong view, not the Word. Boyd and Sanders have written significant works on theodicy (problem of evil) and providence. I have wrestled with it for decades, but cannot convince you in a post or two. I am pointing the honest student to a place to consider alternative views that are more credible than traditional ones.

:first: Change the wrong view, not the WORD.

Nice plowing, GR!

Philetus

 

[Philetus]

I think the presupposition that God foreordained every event of history has locked us into the idea that everything that has been claimed as a fulfillment of prophecy must have referred to exactly how it actually worked out, when neither the prophecy nor how the NT author uses it really supports that claim.

So, are you interested in a thread on some of the exegetical underpinnings of Calvinism?

Muz

That is well said, Muz! Endlessly arguing about meticulous details (both past and supposed future) has become such a distraction that the essential truth about God has been/is being suppressed by the very people who claim to be proclaiming it. It is a black hole that we (especially Open Theists) continue to fall into.

No group within the ranks of 'orthodox churchianity' has been more 'successful' in this self deceiving endeavor while deceiving others than Calvinism. Digging a hole is a worthwhile task if one's intention is to dig a hole. But if the goal is more than having a hole when you are finished ... just continuing to dig won't produce different results.

Good luck with the thread to the blind, deaf and dumb. Calvinism isn't a well. It's just an over dug dry hole. You have done excellent work in this thread. Maybe your exegetical work can help fill in the hole.

Philetus

Don't press it or I'll tell you how I really feel.

 

[Lon]

I do... But recent study on the OT and how "fulfilled" works in the NT have shed some new light on the subject. As I recall the only "prophecy" about Jesus' death was that he "be hung on a tree", and that's only a general statement about "cursed is the one who is hung on a tree", so being hung by a rope around the neck would qualify.

I think the presupposition that God foreordained every event of history has locked us into the idea that everything that has been claimed as a fulfillment of prophecy must have referred to exactly how it actually worked out, when neither the prophecy nor how the NT author uses it really supports that claim.



So, are you interested in a thread on some of the exegetical underpinnings of Calvinism?

Muz

Sure, PM me when it is up please.

Let's start the ball rolling on prophecy fulfillment and your recent epiphanies.

 

[Lon]

That is well said, Muz! Endlessly arguing about meticulous details (both past and supposed future) has become such a distraction that the essential truth about God has been/is being suppressed by the very people who claim to be proclaiming it. It is a black hole that we (especially Open Theists) continue to fall into.

No group within the ranks of 'orthodox churchianity' has been more 'successful' in this self deceiving endeavor while deceiving others than Calvinism. Digging a hole is a worthwhile task if one's intention is to dig a hole. But if the goal is more than having a hole when you are finished ... just continuing to dig won't produce different results.

Good luck with the thread to the blind, deaf and dumb. Calvinism isn't a well. It's just an over dug dry hole. You have done excellent work in this thread. Maybe your exegetical work can help fill in the hole.

Philetus

Don't press it or I'll tell you how I really feel.

Ouch! Your continued characterization of the rest of all Christianity...er...churchianity leave a very distinct impression. If you are by yourself on that issue, I can certainly name the animal without accusation toward the rest of ToL. If however you are parroting from a leader, I'll hold my tongue for now. By your own words you are positioning yourself against the rest.

Elitist is a kind word for that and you don't even have 144,000 to fill the bill.

 

[RobE]

Just because God does not instantly prevent something from happening, does not mean He desires or condones it.

Of course it does. The question would be --- Why does He condone it? This question applies to both positions.

 

[RobE]

God saying "400 years" and "250 years" as the actual outcome does not constitute the "hiding his knowledge" defense. If he said 400 years and knew it would be 400 years, I would bank on it being 400 years, but it wasn't.

I'm saying that if God said '400 years' and the actual outcome was '10' years then there would be a reason and it would fall into the same category as the other arguments. 'Yet 40 days and Nineveh will be destroyed' is the same argument. 'Hezekiah you will die' is the same argument.

This argument does nothing to prove your position or disprove mine.

It was 400 or 430 years to be precise, but it is of no consequence to the discussion. You are unable to say that God knew 400 and it didn't happen. This would render both of our positions as God lying by your definition of lying.

 

[patman]

Sorry, it is a stretch. My point was that it isn't even as easy to figure with your OV lenses. I'll concede the rest with the continued argument that I'm very confused that Moses could have written the exact number as the prophecy after their departure and not have it correspond directly to what was understood.

Let me go back and address one specific point. I'm reading your basic fundamental argument as Genesis 15:13 means and can only mean one thing: 400 years of Egyptian slavery.

Did any of the PDF document touch your objection at all? We really need to dig into the original language at that point (Gen 15:13). Perhaps I could get AMR to grace us with a Hebrew lesson (mine is only one semester and a quarter), if you promise to pay close attention and are open to that truth.

Hi Lon,

I wanted to say this a few posts ago, but forgot, maybe now is a good time to bring it up. I think this one topic is evidence for OV, not proof. That is how I started this whole thing, by presenting it as evidence, actually.

If I made a mistake, I will concede it. I have in the past, and I will make mistakes in the future that I will have to rethink and concede. I used to be a settled viewer many years ago. After years of first hearing of Open Theism, I finally couldn't deny that it makes the most since of any theology that I have been exposed to.

AMR's PDF was interesting. It made some interesting points, but I do not think it applies here. I have said all along the 430 years was factual, contesting only the amount of time that Israel was slaves...

If someone would give a good explanation how I am wrong about the 400 years of slavery not truly being 400 years, OR explain how it isn't actually a lie for God to know it was going to be 250 years yet say 400 anyway, I would drop this.

 

[Philetus]

Ouch! Your continued characterization of the rest of all Christianity...er...churchianity leave a very distinct impression. If you are by yourself on that issue, I can certainly name the animal without accusation toward the rest of ToL. If however you are parroting from a leader, I'll hold my tongue for now. By your own words you are positioning yourself against the rest.

Elitist is a kind word for that and you don't even have 144,000 to fill the bill.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've seen you post. And that's saying a lot.

You think Calvinism is "the rest of all Christianity" and I'm the only one opposing it with such strong terms? Wake up Lon. I'm not alone. There is a ground swell of opposition to Calvinism and even more so against church-as-usual and my words are tame by comparison. You need to get out more. In fact while you are here playing footsies with Calvin, its getting harder and harder to find a hard core advocate for a five-leaf-tulip anywhere else.

Get a grip, Lon! I don't represent TOL. :rotfl: And I don't speak for any leader or followers ... the shoe is mine and the shoe fits and I'll gladly wear it. There is a large and growing movement bordering on reform if not revolution that is fed up with the Western-Empire-church and all its trappings. The way you do church is closing down. So, it isn't your tongue you better be holding on to.

Philetus

 

[patman]

I'm saying that if God said '400 years' and the actual outcome was '10' years then there would be a reason and it would fall into the same category as the other arguments. 'Yet 40 days and Nineveh will be destroyed' is the same argument. 'Hezekiah you will die' is the same argument.

This argument does nothing to prove your position or disprove mine.

It was 400 or 430 years to be precise, but it is of no consequence to the discussion. You are unable to say that God knew 400 and it didn't happen. This would render both of our positions as God lying by your definition of lying.

RobE, you keep trying to assert my definition of lying is something it isn't. You could take me out of the picture, and the problem is still there, I just made you see it.

I believe the problem is only a problem when you have a settled view on the future because adding that stipulation confuses the issue(which SV say the future is settled in every case, so...).

If we could hook up an ordinary man up to a lie detector, and asked him a question about his plans, the lie detector could tell us if he lied. If we asked him "Do you think this is True or False: Worms have 10 hearts. " and he answered "I think it is false," the lie detector would do one of two things, flag a lie, or flag for truth. The truth is, they do have 10 hearts, did he lie?

What makes a lie? If the man had actually thought it was true yet answered false, then that makes it a lie.

It is the intentional telling of a false statement. 430 is a good round number. It isn't 432, it isn't 429. It is round. It could even be rounded further by making it 450, or even 400, but that makes it 30 off one way, and 20 the other. 450 is much more round, and even more precise than 400.

Either way doesn't matter, the slavery actually was only about 250 years. You should prove that wrong instead of the plea for me to be ignorant, or hope that for some reason God rounded 30 years down..

This point is one of many I hope to go through with those on this thread. It is merely evidence among others. It shows how Settled Theology makes God out to be lying about this one thing (which one lie is more than scripture allows, God does not lie).

 

[patman]

There is a large and growing movement bordering on reform if not revolution that is fed up with the Western-Empire-church and all its trappings. The way you do church is closing down. So, it isn't your tongue you better be holding on to.

Viva Revolution!!!
:thumb:

 

[Lon]

Hi Lon,

I wanted to say this a few posts ago, but forgot, maybe now is a good time to bring it up. I think this one topic is evidence for OV, not proof. That is how I started this whole thing, by presenting it as evidence, actually.

If I made a mistake, I will concede it. I have in the past, and I will make mistakes in the future that I will have to rethink and concede. I used to be a settled viewer many years ago. After years of first hearing of Open Theism, I finally couldn't deny that it makes the most since of any theology that I have been exposed to.

AMR's PDF was interesting. It made some interesting points, but I do not think it applies here. I have said all along the 430 years was factual, contesting only the amount of time that Israel was slaves...

If someone would give a good explanation how I am wrong about the 400 years of slavery not truly being 400 years, OR explain how it isn't actually a lie for God to know it was going to be 250 years yet say 400 anyway, I would drop this.

I'm sorry Patman. I have been trying. Let me try once more here.

I do think the Hebrew language lesson is important. I'll hit a few points in hopes that you pick up on what we have been trying to say and possibly something will finally connect.

From the article:

"There are at least 3 possible solutions to the problem of the Length of Israel's Sojourn (wanderings)."

In the discussion, they mention your work and stance as one possiblity.

Exodus 12:40 "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years."

The man who holds this view says that Genesis 15:13 must include sojourning in Caanan as it was not their land and that the Egyptian slavery reference isn't specific to the 400+ year sojourning on the whole, but a part of the prophecy.

In effect, Abraham's offspring would wander 400 years and spend 'part' of that 'wandering' stuck in Egypt.

Specifically, he points out that the Hebrew language can support either assertation and it is not necessary to be staunch on a 400 year enslavement in Egypt. It can be taken as meaning sojourning for 400 years as well.

For further support he points to the Samaritan's writings where the latter is specifically interpreted this way in understanding so that it is reasonable to suspect how the Hebrew text was understood (it renders both the time sojourning in Caanan and sojourning in Egypt).

Further monkey's in the wrench:

Keil and Delitzsch, Very respected scholars in Hebrew language and commentary, suggest it would be nearly impossible to actually calculate the years in the first place because nonessential patriarchs are often omitted from Hebrew time lines.

Of course, after this the article goes into other views, one being they were actually in bondage in Egypt for the full 400 years, but we are just looking at your scenario.

Because it cannot be certain what specifically the 400 years are applied to in the Hebrew language, it can be rendered either as to the Egyptian slavery or the complete time wandering of which Abraham's offspring would take part.

So it would be very difficult to assertain a 'lie' or mistake based on the text alone.


I hope this illuminates what you've been asking for here.


Blessings in His Word.

 

[Lon]

That's the most ridiculous thing I've seen you post. And that's saying a lot.

You think Calvinism is "the rest of all Christianity" and I'm the only one opposing it with such strong terms? Wake up Lon. I'm not alone. There is a ground swell of opposition to Calvinism and even more so against church-as-usual and my words are tame by comparison. You need to get out more. In fact while you are here playing footsies with Calvin, its getting harder and harder to find a hard core advocate for a five-leaf-tulip anywhere else.

Get a grip, Lon! I don't represent TOL. :rotfl: And I don't speak for any leader or followers ... the shoe is mine and the shoe fits and I'll gladly wear it. There is a large and growing movement bordering on reform if not revolution that is fed up with the Western-Empire-church and all its trappings. The way you do church is closing down. So, it isn't your tongue you better be holding on to.

Philetus

You might be right to a degree here. I read your blanket statement as concerning all Christianity (churchianity) and connected it to something Knight said as well that lends to the elitist view. I can see that it was an over-stated understanding of what you were trying to say. Knight recently made a similar statement of how all of the rest of Christianity has failed as well. I read 'elitism' into your post inadvertently.

Calvinism is a large portion of Christianity, and I'm not sure of your figures but Christianity Today did an article last year about this time on the Reformed traditional churches as growing, not shrinking. I'd suggest we are seeing polarization between Tradition and Postmodernism, but it isn't a shrinking church. The church is actually growing.

 

[godrulz]

Of course it does. The question would be --- Why does He condone it? This question applies to both positions.

A holy God opposes evil as contrary to His will. Jesus came to resist and destroy sin, sickness, evil, etc. The lake of fire is judgment on evil doers. If he condoned it, he would not pour out His wrath, but would let everyone in heaven.

Justice delayed is not justice denied.

You underestimate the significance of irrevocable freedom and the risk God takes in order to have love relationships. He did not desire nor intend the Fall. When it happened it grieved Him.

I can't believe your basic assumptions are so flawed. No wonder your conclusions are also off.

 

[godrulz]

You might be right to a degree here. I read your blanket statement as concerning all Christianity (churchianity) and connected it to something Knight said as well that lends to the elitist view. I can see that it was an over-stated understanding of what you were trying to say. Knight recently made a similar statement of how all of the rest of Christianity has failed as well. I read 'elitism' into your post inadvertently.

Calvinism is a large portion of Christianity, and I'm not sure of your figures but Christianity Today did an article last year about this time on the Reformed traditional churches as growing, not shrinking. I'd suggest we are seeing polarization between Tradition and Postmodernism, but it isn't a shrinking church. The church is actually growing.

Calvinism thinks it is the only true view. Politically, it opposes any challengers as heretical, and wants to retain its power base. It reminds me of Catholicism in some ways.

Based on my ministry in a community, the evangelical churches were vibrant, while the Reformed/Calvinistic groups opposed evangelism and had unregenerate members that showed no fruit or evidence of faith (yet had many of their members respond to a Billy Graham associate because they had wrongly assumed growing up in the covenant church or family was sufficient for salvation, yet they lived like the devil or nominally for the most part...not all Reformed people are 'born again', but have a form of religion and deny its power).

 

[Lon]

Calvinism thinks it is the only true view. Politically, it opposes any challengers as heretical, and wants to retain its power base. It reminds me of Catholicism in some ways.

Based on my ministry in a community, the evangelical churches were vibrant, while the Reformed/Calvinistic groups opposed evangelism and had unregenerate members that showed no fruit or evidence of faith (yet had many of their members respond to a Billy Graham associate because they had wrongly assumed growing up in the covenant church or family was sufficient for salvation, yet they lived like the devil or nominally for the most part...not all Reformed people are 'born again', but have a form of religion and deny its power).

I think everyone thinks thiers is the only view or we'd all be Calvinist (or Arminian).
Perhaps in the NW the congeniality is greater because we are the most unchurched of nearly any place in the world. In my Baptist Church which is essentially Calvinist, we have just as many Arminians in attendance.

Every denomination has members go forward during crusades. If in your neck of the woods, they happen to be Calvinists, that's a good sign. It means the planting and watering have been done but remember the alter call isn't necessarily a salvation event. I have known people to go forward upon every alter call. It shows a desire for spirituality, but remember our differences in theology for what an alter call means. I see it as a step in this walk of life, and certainly an instance of quickening to Christ in many people's lives potentially. I responded to a salvation message.

 

[Philetus]

You might be right to a degree here. I read your blanket statement as concerning all Christianity (churchianity) and connected it to something Knight said as well that lends to the elitist view. I can see that it was an over-stated understanding of what you were trying to say. Knight recently made a similar statement of how all of the rest of Christianity has failed as well. I read 'elitism' into your post inadvertently.

Calvinism is a large portion of Christianity, and I'm not sure of your figures but Christianity Today did an article last year about this time on the Reformed traditional churches as growing, not shrinking. I'd suggest we are seeing polarization between Tradition and Postmodernism, but it isn't a shrinking church. The church is actually growing.

I haven't seen that in Knight's posts. Link it for me.
At least I knew I touched a nerve. :chuckle:

Sure there are growing churches, but I suspect if you take a closer look, the over all numbers will show that the church in the US is declining in membership and attendance and that for the most part, growth in individual churches is through transfer not conversion.

There is a glaring exception however. In his book Revolution (which has cost him dearly in traditional church circles where before this book his every word and poll became 'scripture') George Barna points to the grass roots Jesus movements in the West as the only places where real numerical growth is taking place.

Another example is China. Underground yet phenomenal growth.

I'm 100% for the church. Just not the kind of church in Sardis with a reputation of being alive, but is dead.

I think you have your head in the sand. :sigh: The polarization IS NOT between Tradition and Postmodernism, IT IS between Tradition and Truth. And because in so many traditional churches tradition is winning, the CHURCH is not growing. The postmodern world isn't even listening. You yourself said to GR that just responding to an alter call isn't necessarily 'church growth' and I would add neither is increasing attendance in our buildings.

Postmodernism is not a threat to Truth. But it is playing havoc on our cherished traditions. Tradition for the sake of tradition is deadly. Tradition for the sake of truth can be healthy. The question we are facing is: Which is it?

I suggest you google 'missional church' and just start reading the discussion that is going on out there, beyond tradition. It is a dynamic discussion that will take you out of your comfort zone in a hurry and quickly answer the question ... which do I love more, Truth or my tradition? ... Am I holding up the church as an attraction or am I lifting Jesus up as God's drawing card?

Give it a go. What have you got to lose?

Philetus

 

[themuzicman]

Calvinism is a large portion of Christianity

LOL... I think you'd better review your demographics.

Muz