ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[patman]

The verse has nothing to do with slavery lasting 400 years. This is your fundamental error. Do you see what I mean?

Do you think "and shall serve them" and the "and they shall afflict them" parts have nothing to do with slavery?

And does this mean you think the whole sojourning lasted only 400?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Do you think "and shall serve them" and the "and they shall afflict them" parts have nothing to do with slavery?

And does this mean you think the whole sojourning lasted only 400?

I said "slavery lasting 400 years". The verse includes slavery and sojourning that is to be measured from specific points. You step outside of these points then you will get different numbers.

See the structure I outlined here for the verse.

 

[Lon]

Limited atonement is diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching, actually. And Catholic theology differs with Calvinism on many of the particulars of the others as well. I think it would be more accurate to say that both Catholicism and Calvinism draw heavily on the same Augustinian doctrines on the central importance of God's grace.

I seem to have had a few disagreements over it. My point wasn't to show all Catholics, EOrthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans are all Calvinists, but show there is a strong foundation in those ideologies and beliefs. For certain, they are all more Calvinist than Arminian. I've read many treatments of Calvinism from Catholics, and while some do toss it, the vast majority I've read support many aspects.

So yes, I agree with your statement here, but do see a lot of agreement in discussing those Calvinistic points.

 

[RobE]

Do you see what I mean? It didn't happen in 400 years! You can hate me for saying it, but it is true, it didn't happen... God changed the outcome, praise him for it..

A quick note - How can you change something which isn't exhaustively foreknown?

 

[themuzicman]

Man. What a thread. Seems like Open Theism diminishes God in being God by bringing Him down to our understanding.

Incorrect. It incorporates the idea that God is Love back into God's attributes.

How about everybody taking time out and review this link below. It claims it has the logical refutation to open theism.

http://www.carm.org/open/logical_refutation.htm

I don't respect CARM as unbiased with regard to OVT. Last I checked there were many inaccuracies and arguments that had long since been refuted

As much as Calvin and other names have been thrown around, I can't help but think of this verse.

1 Corinthians 2: 2For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

In regards to future events in God not knowing, what about the books that were written ahead of time by God for us to do?

Is God not wise? Must God fix history beforehand in order to know what to do?

Hebrews 10: 6In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 7Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. 8Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

There has to be books about us, because the Psalmist was saying this too.

And?

Psalm 40: 6Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. 7Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, 8I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart. 9I have preached righteousness in the great congregation: lo, I have not refrained my lips, O LORD, thou knowest. 10I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy lovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation.

Psalm 139: 1O lord, thou hast searched me, and known me. 2Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off. 3Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. 4For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether. 5Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me. 6Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it. 7Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? 8If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. 9If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. 11If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. 12Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee. 13For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. 14I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. 15My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. 16Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. 17How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! 18If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee. 19Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men. 20For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain. 21Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? 22I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies. 23Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: 24And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

If there are doubts to God being God in the Bible, I am sure it is because of our lack of wisdom in understanding His Words. I wouldn't be sold to Open Theism if I were you. I believe God is God.

I believe that God is God, as well. However, OVT makes a greater attempt to follow a faithful exegesis of Scripture, rather than trying to make a systematic theology fit into it.

Romans 9: 9For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. 10And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth 12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. 14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? 25As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. 26And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. 27Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: 28For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. 29And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha. 30What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. 31But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 32Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; 33As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Romans 9 is generally about covenants, old and new.

Are you saying that God is unable to bring about His will without fixing history beforehand?

I believe God is omnipotent. Do you?

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

Here's to God's foreknowledge.

We have this commandment; the great commission.

Matthew 28: 18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

And yet, God withheld the Gospel from Asia and Mysia at that time in Acts.

Acts 16: 6Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia, 7After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not.
8And they passing by Mysia came down to Troas. 9And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us. 10And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them.

Did they approach the man from the dream in real life and say, we heard you calling for us? No. But God knew that man was seeking Him. He also knew at that time, no one would receive the Good News in Asia and Mysia, because He knew they were not seeking and prefer sin over Him.

Sounds like exhaustive present knowledge to me. What does this have to do with foreknowledge?

Look at the promise for God for all those that seek Him.

Matthew 7: 6Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
7Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

So not only do we know that if some poor African child in some desert dies from starvation without ever hearing the Gospel, God knew that child would not receive Him. Any argument about God being unjust in sending a child to hell for not hearing the Gosple at all is out the window, because of God's promise and foreknowledge.

That's just silly. If they don't hear the gospel, it's the result of the church not reaching them, not God's foreknowledge. You've done nothing more than impose upon the text, here.

So while we rest in God being God, we trust in Him to lead us in serving Him as He enables us by the grace of God.

Romans 10: 14How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. 18But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

Thus all those that would have believed if they had heard the Gospel would have heard the Gospel. We know that because God is God.

LOL.. are you actually going to do any exegesis, or just impose on the text?

John 3: 17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Those who do not presently believe are already condemned. This isn't an eternal condition, but a present one. If one believes, then they go from condemnation to salvation.

Again, when we stop the Calvinist imposition on the text, things become clearer.

To be honest, you're going to have to do better than this.

Muz

 

[Evoken]

Catholics does have Calvinists...

Actually both views are incompatible. You cannot be a Catholic and a Calvinist.

...and/or those with strong Calvinist leanings and I have links if I need them.

Besides trying to impose a Calvinistic understanding on what The Church teaches and trying to define her doctrines in Calvinistic terms and thinking that Calvinism has a form of monopoly on certain doctrines leading to the idea that anyone who teaches say, predestination, must be Calvinistic. What do you mean by "strong Calvinists leanings"?

For certain, they are all more Calvinist than Arminian. I've read many treatments of Calvinism from Catholics, and while some do toss it, the vast majority I've read support many aspects.

Supporting some aspects of Calvinism does not makes Catholics "Calvinistic" any more than supporting some aspects of an atheist movement makes them "atheistic".

We are neither Calvinists, nor Arminians, nor Pelagians, nor Semi-Pelagians nor Jansenists. We are simply Catholics. When it comes to the issues of grace either Thomists or Molinists. Neither of which is the same as these groups. We do not define our doctrines in protestant terms nor do a lot of the terminology and divisions among Protestantism apply to our faith.

Don't get me wrong. There is much I admire about Calvinism and as a Thomist I find that there are a lot of areas where our beliefs meet, most notably when it comes to the issues covered by TULIP as expressed from the infra view of Calvinism. But there are also strong differences and I don't appreciate the idea of defining The Church by something that is as a whole opposed to her and specially by something that came after her.


Evo

 

[Evoken]

Of course, Catholics do not subscribe to Limited Atonement, due to the Pelagian influence

Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism have been condemned by The Church. It is an error to assume that anyone who disagrees with some point of Calvinism is Pelagian. I notice that some Calvinists love to use the "Pelagian" label to refer to everyone who disagrees with their views. This is quite similar to what the unsettled theists do here with the "Calvinist" label. Both are painting with a rather large brush.


Evo

 

[patman]

I said "slavery lasting 400 years". The verse includes slavery and sojourning that is to be measured from specific points. You step outside of these points then you will get different numbers.

See the structure I outlined here for the verse.

I understand how you are trying explain it. Even with it, do you not believe your explination to contradict the 430 years?

I am at a disadvantage because I cannot read the original. I must rely on the translations.

Genesis 15:13 (New International Version)
13 Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years.

Genesis 15:13 (King James Version)
13And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;

Genesis 15:13 (New King James Version)
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.

Genesis 15:13 (Young's Literal Translation)
13 and He saith to Abram, `knowing -- know that thy seed is a sojourner in a land not theirs, and they have served them, and they have afflicted them four hundred years,

The consensus in translating this into english places the 400 years with the affliction (the slavery).

While I disagree with your explination, even if I did, there still exists a problem of the duration of the sojourn and the actual duration of the sojourn.

 

[patman]

A quick note - How can you change something which isn't exhaustively foreknown?

I am not following you, Rob... Did you mean to include "without it being a lie?" Or are you asking something else?

 

[Lon]

Actually both views are incompatible. You cannot be a Catholic and a Calvinist.

Side-tracking the thread at this point so I'll take the rest to PM.

You've conceded the main point I was trying to get across

there are a lot of areas where our beliefs meet, most notably when it comes to the issues covered by TULIP as expressed from the infra view of Calvinism

and your points are conceded as well.

 

[Pariah]

Hi Philetus,

Wow. You got us. “Open Theists don’t believe God is God.” Looks as if we’ve finally been busted.

I guess since we can’t fool anyone by bringing God down to our own understanding we will just have to settle for incarnation and leave it at that.

Sheesh … and for a second there I thought we were on to something

I believe I was referring to the topic of Open Theism, not Open Theists. I didn't say that those engage in it do not believe in God. I was referring to the topic.

If you would rather be identified by that, that is your call, but I would rather be identified by faith in Jesus Christ. Paul addressed that about whom believers are to be identifying themselves with.

1 Corinthians 3: 5Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 6I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. 7So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

And yet believers are identifying themselves with Calvin and other such men.

And now, you as an Open Theist. You said it. I didn't it.

Guess you didn't have a thing to say about the link logically refuting open theism.

I think this thread is more man than God since it edifies not, and I should not waste any more time in it as it is an obvious vanity and vainglorying of exalting one's intellect over another and in referencing another intellect's over another. I can see already by your behaviour that I should not have come in at all.

Galatians 5: 14For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 15But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

I would advise that for all those that value their relationship with the Lord that if you cannot discuss this thread in Christ's love, then you are not serving Him at all in this topic, and follow suit. There are plenty of threads to edify one another in the faith which we are called to do, so that we may be found ready when He appears.

 

[RobE]

I am not following you, Rob... Did you mean to include "without it being a lie?" Or are you asking something else?

I'm simply asking how do we know a change occured unless we exhaustively foreknew what was originally going to occur?

The point being --- without foreknowledge change is impossible.

... God changed the outcome, praise him for it..

How do you know this is true?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I understand how you are trying explain it. Even with it, do you not believe your explination to contradict the 430 years?

As noted earlier, the 400 or 430 years is contextually related to when the time is being measured. The number 430 is from the time the Law was given after the promise. Another perspective is that the period began with the confirming of the Abrahamic Covenant with Jacob (Genesis 35:9-12). Yet another is that the period began with the final confirmation of the covenant to Jacob (given in Genesis 46:1-4). Thus, the 430 years went from the end of one era (the Age of Promise) to the beginning of another (the Age of Law). Moreover in Acts 13:20, the 450 years includes the oppression in Egypt (400 years), the wilderness sojourn (40 years), and the Conquest of Canaan under Joshua (10 years).

One needs to be mindful of the surrounding context of the verses and not isolate them. From these contexts the verses show no contradictions. Outside of the context, 400, 430, 450, and even 520 years (see the Bullinger or The Dake (ugh!) bibles for the calculations), appear contradictory. But none of these issues are doctrinally relevant to say, open theism or Reformed theology. Instead they are doctrinally relevant to the non-contradictory nature of God's word. That is where one must start. Hence, if there is no contradiction in God's word, how are these verses reconciled? They must be reconciled from their historical-grammatical context. If that method shows no issue, one then looks at other clear teachings to attempt reconciliation. Fortunately, in this case, the historical-grammatical context offers explanations.

What you are doing is building upon supposed contradictions, sans context, and creating a doctrinal argument. That is incorrect hermeneutics.

In general number counting in the Scriptures is not always an exact form. Just look at the census taking issues. Now you could have quite a bit of fun trying to sort that all out, too. But would that lead a person to conclude that because the numbers don't work out an argument can be made that God did not know the exact procreative goings-on among the Israelites, so He could not predict an exact count? That would be a strained argument at best, proving only that God is a bad mathematician, at worst. :chuckle:

When numbers mean something about doctrinal matters they are overwhelmingly clear in the Scriptures, e.g., seven days of creation, forty days and nights of rain, forty days in the wilderness, three days and rise again, etc.

Now, of you want a real challenge, tell me what is wrong with the numbers shown (calculated by Harold Camping of Family Radio) here.

If he is correct, we have until the fall of 2011 to get our souls and affairs in order, for the Second Coming is at hand. :chuckle:

 

[patman]

I'm simply asking how do we know a change occured unless we exhaustively foreknew what was originally going to occur?

The point being --- without foreknowledge change is impossible.



How do you know this is true?

I do not agree that change is impossible without 100% foreknowledge. Some we have some foreknowledge ourselves that we use to try to prevent or bring about certain events. And I agree, God has some foreknowledge... a lot more than any of us. I simply cannot agree that he has total foreknowledge.

 

[patman]

As noted earlier, the 400 or 430 years is contextually related to when the time is being measured. The number 430 is from the time the Law was given after the promise. Another perspective is that the period began with the confirming of the Abrahamic Covenant with Jacob (Genesis 35:9-12). Yet another is that the period began with the final confirmation of the covenant to Jacob (given in Genesis 46:1-4). Thus, the 430 years went from the end of one era (the Age of Promise) to the beginning of another (the Age of Law). Moreover in Acts 13:20, the 450 years includes the oppression in Egypt (400 years), the wilderness sojourn (40 years), and the Conquest of Canaan under Joshua (10 years).

One needs to be mindful of the surrounding context of the verses and not isolate them. From these contexts the verses show no contradictions. Outside of the context, 400, 430, 450, and even 520 years (see the Bullinger or The Dake (ugh!) bibles for the calculations), appear contradictory. But none of these issues are doctrinally relevant to say, open theism or Reformed theology. Instead they are doctrinally relevant to the non-contradictory nature of God's word. That is where one must start. Hence, if there is no contradiction in God's word, how are these verses reconciled? They must be reconciled from their historical-grammatical context. If that method shows no issue, one then looks at other clear teachings to attempt reconciliation. Fortunately, in this case, the historical-grammatical context offers explanations.

What you are doing is building upon supposed contradictions, sans context, and creating a doctrinal argument. That is incorrect hermeneutics.

In general number counting in the Scriptures is not always an exact form. Just look at the census taking issues. Now you could have quite a bit of fun trying to sort that all out, too. But would that lead a person to conclude that because the numbers don't work out an argument can be made that God did not know the exact procreative goings-on among the Israelites, so He could not predict an exact count? That would be a strained argument at best, proving only that God is a bad mathematician, at worst. :chuckle:

When numbers mean something about doctrinal matters they are overwhelmingly clear in the Scriptures, e.g., seven days of creation, forty days and nights of rain, forty days in the wilderness, three days and rise again, etc.

Now, of you want a real challenge, tell me what is wrong with the numbers shown (calculated by Harold Camping of Family Radio) here.

If he is correct, we have until the fall of 2011 to get our souls and affairs in order, for the Second Coming is at hand. :chuckle:

I think I'll pass Though it would be nice if he were right (or better y et if it was even sooner.)

AMR, thank you for your answer! It is really good info! I still can't totally agree, BUT I am satisfied that you have a pretty good info. I feel that my context is well considered and the translations by most agree the 400 years was to be applied to slavery, and not the sojourn, too. I also strongly feel the 350 year sojourn is the max we can apply to Egypt (because of Moses' genealogy, that while acknowledging the sojourn also included canaan), and 270 is the tops we can get out of the slavery/affliction (Moses' genealogy minus Joseph's rule in Egypt after Jacob entered Egypt plus Moses' age when they left egypt).

Because the slavery was only 270, and the translations agree that the slavery was 400 years (even though other events are mentioned near the number, the number is applied to the affliction part only).

I agree that this is not proof. It is simply something that shows that maybe God's foreknowledge of events is not absolute written in stone.

 

[Nang]

It is simply something that shows that maybe God's foreknowledge of events is not absolute written in stone.

:nono:

It blows my mind that someone would so stubbornly want to insist that God is not absolutely omniscient, inerrant, and infallible.

I don't get it.

I can understand the atheistic mindset far easier than I can understand this.

Nang

 

[patman]

:nono:

It blows my mind that someone would so stubbornly want to insist that God is not absolutely omniscient, inerrant, and infallible.

I don't get it.

I can understand the atheistic mindset far easier than I can understand this.

Nang

I believe God is omniscient. But God can only know what exists. I simply do not believe the future "exists."

Don't hate me.

 

[patman]

Wow, I say "simply" a lot on here don't I?
:chuckle:

I just realized that.

 

[Nang]

I believe God is omniscient. But God can only know what exists. I simply do not believe the future "exists."

Don't hate me.

I don't hate you. I don't understand you.

If the future does not exist, but our children do, and God created our children . . .you are saying there is no future in the mind of God for them. You are saying that my two granddaughters have nothing on which to trust in life.

Both of them have committed themselves to remaining chaste, trusting in God to provide them Christian and faithful husbands. If the future does not exist, what purpose for such decision, hope, and trust?

Get my gist ? . . .

Nang