ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
This thread will be a continuation of the thread ARCHIVE: Open Theism pt. 2

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

Enjoy and lets get back to the discussion!

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

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
This thread will be a continuation of the thread ARCHIVE: Open Theism pt. 2

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

Enjoy and lets get back to the discussion!

The future.... is it completely settled in advance or open to an extent?
 
Last edited:

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
assuranceagent said:
When God said, "Now I know" (albeit with a couple less caps than you included), He meant that at that point in time, He knew. That does not necessarily preclude Him from having known prior to that point.

So God knew, but then forgot. I get it now.
 

elected4ever

New member
This thread will be a continuation of the thread ARCHIVE: Open Theism pt. 2

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

Enjoy and lets get back to the discussion!

The future.... is it completely settled in advance or open to an extent?
Thanks for the re-praising of the question. Should make for a really good discushion
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Who is the angel of the Lord then? Never mind. Abraham loved the angel, not God. Got it.
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
I'm sure glad Abraham passed the test, or else God's unconditional promise of Gen 12:1-3 may have been foiled.

There's a lot of typology going on here, Abraham's faith is a picture of Jesus Christ's faith, Isaac as the promised seed is a picture of Jesus Christ as the promised seed.
 

elected4ever

New member
I'm sure glad Abraham passed the test, or else God's unconditional promise of Gen 12:1-3 may have been foiled.

There's a lot of typology going on here, Abraham's faith is a picture of Jesus Christ's faith, Isaac as the promised seed is a picture of Jesus Christ as the promised seed.
A test is not always to pass or fail but to prove a truth that already exist.
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Except for that little "Now I know..." part, you might have a point. The temporal reference is there specifically to contrast a previous condition opposite the present one. Ergo, God came to know at that moment whether Abraham would give up his promised son, if God asked.

Muz
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
I think the major theological point OVT makes about the future really has little to do with Abraham or any of the other examples that we clearly find in Scripture. I think the major theological point that OVT makes, here, is that God engages in loving relationships. 1 John 4:8 is about God's nature, and that is reflected in God's creation.

The problem of a settled future is that a loving relationship requires the possibility of rejection. If you create an entity that will act exactly as its nature defines it to act, you cannot engage in a truly loving relationship with it.

Same thing for us. If our future is already settled, all our decision already determined by whatever means, then no truly loving relationship is possible. The only way a loving relationship is possible is for the future to be at least partially open, especially with regard to our relationship with God.

The other side of OVT which demands a partially open future is God's just nature. If God designed creatures to act as He designed them, and they sinned, and God condemned them to hell, that's fine. But that would not be condemned based upon God's just nature. In a settled future, all sins are already predestined. The means by which this happens isn't germane. The fact is that the determiner of our decision to sin is the one who is justly punished, and in a settled future, that determiner simply cannot be us. Thus, an open future is necessary for justification to be required of us and for wrath to be hung over us.

Muz
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The Angel was God's messenger but not god himself. If you saw the real glory of an Angel I wonder what you would call him?

Now it came to pass after these things that God tested Abraham, and said to him, “Abraham!”And he said, “Here I am.”

Then He said, “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”


Just because you are in the body doesn't mean you should lead people astray. Quit applying your opinion of what you think your greek like god should be, and believe in the God of the Bible.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Either way, we all practically live as if the future is not fatalistically fixed. The Open View resonates with reality and Scripture.
 

Lon

Well-known member
"Yadda Yadda Yadda" ידע

And even Attah עתּה

Let's play a game of 'take little words and build a huge doctrinal position on them.'

I'm going to crush this so that the best one will be able to do is assert one is right. I will not assert I am, but once an equal resistance is added to a thing, and because OV is the one asserting against what is acknowledged by everybody else, it is up to the Open Theist to prove it or shut it.

Look at those two little Hebrew words Attah and Yadda. Do a bit of concordance work and also put them together. Because either of them can be debated as to meaning, your 'Now I know' is but one possible way of understanding the text.

Examples:

"Whereas I know" <- totally legitimate translation

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

"Now I answer" <- Yep, same.

"Now I declare"

"Now it is so"

"Now I make known"

"Now I instruct"

'Whereas' is also appropriate in place of those 'now's'

Even translated 'now I know' doesn't carry the same meaning between us so that it cannot be used as a proof text because we disagree. OV reads the passage and sees the test as discovery for God. E4 is correct, that the assumption is entirely within acceptable exegesis to expect that a test is not there for God to see what would happen, but for Abraham to see what would happen.

A couple of thought provokers: 1) When in history did God EVER ask for a human sacrifice that He followed through on? (tie them together here)
2) Did the animal in the thickets appear magically? Did it happen to get caught right at this moment? Did God in present knowledge know it was there? (Think about verse 14).
3) We agree human sacrifice is detestable to God and that God either knew He or Abraham would keep it from happening. What then, is at the heart of this demand? Certainly not Isaac but something instead for Abraham. I believe the result was to teach Abraham something, Not for God to learn something: That a relationship with God demands all of our allegiance. God had nothing to learn here. He is as committed to Abraham before and after. He isn't even wondering whether Abraham will follow through because He has already determined to make Isaac the object of inherited blessing. One way or the other, this sacrifice would NOT in fact take place. Rather, I believe it is specifically a picture of Christ. That God is revealing to Abraham a picture of His love for His own Son AND His creation. "Now I know (where I didn't before)" is quite deflating to both of these two primary concerns and is detrimental in taking focus from them. I believe it a poor misuse of the text for using it for such limited assertion.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
"Yadda Yadda Yadda" ידע

And even Attah עתּה

Let's play a game of 'take little words and build a huge doctrinal position on them.'

I'm going to crush this so that the best one will be able to do is assert one is right. I will not assert I am, but once an equal resistance is added to a thing, and because OV is the one asserting against what is acknowledged by everybody else, it is up to the Open Theist to prove it or shut it.

Look at those two little Hebrew words Attah and Yadda. Do a bit of concordance work and also put them together. Because either of them can be debated as to meaning, your 'Now I know' is but one possible way of understanding the text.

Examples:

"Whereas I know" <- totally legitimate translation

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

"Now I answer" <- Yep, same.

"Now I declare"

"Now it is so"

"Now I make known"

"Now I instruct"

'Whereas' is also appropriate in place of those 'now's'

Even translated 'now I know' doesn't carry the same meaning between us so that it cannot be used as a proof text because we disagree. OV reads the passage and sees the test as discovery for God. E4 is correct, that the assumption is entirely within acceptable exegesis to expect that a test is not there for God to see what would happen, but for Abraham to see what would happen.

A couple of thought provokers: 1) When in history did God EVER ask for a human sacrifice that He followed through on? (tie them together here)
2) Did the animal in the thickets appear magically? Did it happen to get caught right at this moment? Did God in present knowledge know it was there? (Think about verse 14).
3) We agree human sacrifice is detestable to God and that God either knew He or Abraham would keep it from happening. What then, is at the heart of this demand? Certainly not Isaac but something instead for Abraham. I believe the result was to teach Abraham something, Not for God to learn something: That a relationship with God demands all of our allegiance. God had nothing to learn here. He is as committed to Abraham before and after. He isn't even wondering whether Abraham will follow through because He has already determined to make Isaac the object of inherited blessing. One way or the other, this sacrifice would NOT in fact take place. Rather, I believe it is specifically a picture of Christ. That God is revealing to Abraham a picture of His love for His own Son AND His creation. "Now I know (where I didn't before)" is quite deflating to both of these two primary concerns and is detrimental in taking focus from them. I believe it a poor misuse of the text for using it for such limited assertion.



Heh . . .Lon is one of the best biblical "THINKERS" I have ever read.

No kidding . . .

Good luck OVT'ers, answering this intellectual challenge!

Nang
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
"Yadda Yadda Yadda" ידע

And even Attah עתּה

Let's play a game of 'take little words and build a huge doctrinal position on them.'

I'm going to crush this so that the best one will be able to do is assert one is right. I will not assert I am, but once an equal resistance is added to a thing, and because OV is the one asserting against what is acknowledged by everybody else, it is up to the Open Theist to prove it or shut it.

Look at those two little Hebrew words Attah and Yadda. Do a bit of concordance work and also put them together. Because either of them can be debated as to meaning, your 'Now I know' is but one possible way of understanding the text.

Examples:

"Whereas I know" <- totally legitimate translation

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

"Now I answer" <- Yep, same.

"Now I declare"

"Now it is so"

"Now I make known"

"Now I instruct"

'Whereas' is also appropriate in place of those 'now's'

Let's plug these in. Then I'll demonstrate why they don't work as a possible foil:

He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for whereas I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."​

Not substantially different from "now I know." Given that the following clause starts with "since", we have a cause of God's knowing, which is the action which has just taken place. Doesn't help.

He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I acknowledge that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."

Again, unless God is living in denial of His eternal knowledge, by not acknowledging what he knows, this isn't substantively different, either.

He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for Now I answer that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."

Makes no sense. No one asked God a question or said anything to Him regarding fearing Him, so there is nothing to answer.

He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for Now I declare that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."

The verb, here, is in the Qal, not the Piel. Yda doesn't mean "declare" in the Qal.

He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for Now it is so that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."

That's simply not a valid translation. Yda refers to knowing. This would require another verb.

He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for Now I make known that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."

Again, this would require that the verb be in a Piel form for this translation to be correct.

He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for Now I instruct that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."

Again, this would require that the verb be in a Piel form for this translation to be correct.

Even translated 'now I know' doesn't carry the same meaning between us so that it cannot be used as a proof text because we disagree. OV reads the passage and sees the test as discovery for God. E4 is correct, that the assumption is entirely within acceptable exegesis to expect that a test is not there for God to see what would happen, but for Abraham to see what would happen.

Then the text would say, "Now you know...."

A couple of thought provokers: 1) When in history did God EVER ask for a human sacrifice that He followed through on? (tie them together here)

Up to this point, there wasn't an established ritual of worship. God asked Abraham to do some unusual things, including moving half way across the populated world. Christ would be the only one.

2) Did the animal in the thickets appear magically? Did it happen to get caught right at this moment? Did God in present knowledge know it was there? (Think about verse 14).

Apparently it was there all along, but Abraham either didn't notice it, or disregarded it as irrelevant to his task.

3) We agree human sacrifice is detestable to God and that God either knew He or Abraham would keep it from happening. What then, is at the heart of this demand? Certainly not Isaac but something instead for Abraham.

Or from him.

I believe the result was to teach Abraham something, Not for God to learn something: That a relationship with God demands all of our allegiance.

Again the text has God saying, "now I know..." There may be some implied learning by Abraham, but that doesn't change what the text says.

God had nothing to learn here. He is as committed to Abraham before and after. He isn't even wondering whether Abraham will follow through because He has already determined to make Isaac the object of inherited blessing. One way or the other, this sacrifice would NOT in fact take place. Rather, I believe it is specifically a picture of Christ. That God is revealing to Abraham a picture of His love for His own Son AND His creation. "Now I know (where I didn't before)" is quite deflating to both of these two primary concerns and is detrimental in taking focus from them. I believe it a poor misuse of the text for using it for such limited assertion.

Wow.. That's quite a stretch. Given that you have no serious purpose for God saying "Now I know...", and thus no exegetical explanation, your attempt to tap dance around it by pointing out other things that may be germane to the story is odd at best.

The fact is that the text does not change. It says "Now I know..." The meaning here is clear.

Muz
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Taking things at face value supports Open Theism and conflicts with a settled view. Change your view, not the Word.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Ya know, you've done this before and let's just say the Hebrew didn't come with vowel points, those were later added 'for pronouncement!'
Nice assertion, keep trying to rip my language degree, I don't mind. I'm game.
Let's plug these in. Then I'll demonstrate why they don't work as a possible foil:

He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for whereas I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."​

Not substantially different from "now I know." Given that the following clause starts with "since", we have a cause of God's knowing, which is the action which has just taken place. Doesn't help.
It certainly reinforces my claim to your neglect: If it is at all dubious for assertion, it is not a great proof text, but an assertion. The weight of proof is in your court as the usurper and wow, all you've done is called into question interpretation, not proved a lick of anything.

(Sorry, I'm trying to hold back candor, but your lame attacks on my scholasticism are illaudable if amusing).


Again, unless God is living in denial of His eternal knowledge, by not acknowledging what he knows, this isn't substantively different, either.
"Whereas"


Makes no sense. No one asked God a question or said anything to Him regarding fearing Him, so there is nothing to answer.
An answer: to respond to an act or motion is well within parameters. <singsong> "You are asserting, you are asserting...."

The verb, here, is in the Qal, not the Piel. Yda doesn't mean "declare" in the Qal.


A Jewish translation doesn't require the 'now' so that a declaration of what is known is within translation parameters. You really should have acquiesced the point rather than trying to tenaciously give false hope to others. You know it and I know it.
That's simply not a valid translation. Yda refers to knowing. This would require another verb.

Try a derivative like "its a fact" or "it is true." Now you are just being silly.



Again, this would require that the verb be in a Piel form for this translation to be correct.

Like chapter devisions, you are assuming Massoretic points are inspired. They are helpers and mostly for pronunciations, not what you are trying to do with them for theological parring. Honestly, with what you seem to be compensating for something in your language assertions here.

Again, this would require that the verb be in a Piel form for this translation to be correct.

"You are asserting, you are asserting...."


Then the text would say, "Now you know...."

Did I say each and every one is proper translation? No, I said that each of them are ways these words are understood. In order for it to fit, you have to use context of the other Hebrew words (same in English). So rather than "Now you know..." It'd be 'whereas it's known...'

Your objection is silly.

Up to this point, there wasn't an established ritual of worship. God asked Abraham to do some unusual things, including moving half way across the populated world. Christ would be the only one.



Apparently it was there all along, but Abraham either didn't notice it, or disregarded it as irrelevant to his task.
Good call, that is Abraham's take. Back to the purpose God had put it there. Man, it's like He already knew something!


Or from him.

"...you are asserting..."


Again the text has God saying, "now I know..." There may be some implied learning by Abraham, but that doesn't change what the text says.
It couldn't be just OV asserting, no. We wouldn't want that.


Wow.. That's quite a stretch. Given that you have no serious purpose for God saying "Now I know...", and thus no exegetical explanation, your attempt to tap dance around it by pointing out other things that may be germane to the story is odd at best.
See, this is one of those "I'm a better language scholar than you are" type of statements. Now I'm not saying I'm better but I think I can keep up with you here just fine and you get no points for asserting authoritative superiority over me in these texts. I believe I've shown bias and misunderstanding on your part. You can certainly do the same but it keeps others from placing false-hope in some assumed superiority. I have a deep-seated feeling you are compensating for something here. My own prowess is 2 years in the languages with some ensuing upkeep and work.
The fact is that the text does not change. It says "Now I know..." The meaning here is clear.

Muz

Asserting. Your 'clear' presumes God has no prescience of man's future actions. This of course is logically problematic. He who knows the heart, knew precisely what Abraham would or would not do. Abraham seems fairly determined here to follow through. That's the best you and I can do, but God who knows the heart knows 'before' not 'now' exactly what Abraham is planning to do. We assume from the text that Abraham is single-focused. He's got the wood, the fire, and so as his servants will not interfere, they remain behind. Isaac says "where is the sacrifice?" So we guess at resolute but God would (did) know without doubt exactly what his plans were. So in reality, your 'now' was actually 'before' but of course you cannot except that as it would be an admission and denial of your OV supposition.

I'm going to crush this so that the best one will be able to do is assert one is right. I will not assert I am, but once an equal resistance is added to a thing, and because OV is the one asserting against what is acknowledged by everybody else, it is up to the Open Theist to prove it or shut it.

What have you proved? Unless you can without doubt prove 1) that the Hebrew can only be translated your way
2) that after doing so, can show that the meaning can only be taken your way

You can therefore only assert with much loud supplication that this is the way it is exegeted. The best you can do is assert that you are right but I will continue to assert that the text clues assert that you are wrong.

"Adam, where art thou?"

Did God really say: "Oh, there you are. 'Now I know.'"

Was He really asking a question to find something out?

How far? How far is OV willing to concede with such verses?
When will it stop? Is it inevitably doomed to suggest God's knowledge is no more than any man? When will the proof-texting of such absurd assertions stop? What is our next concession if we don't hold a line? You eventually must draw a line that, was unacceptable interpretation in one portion, is also unacceptable in another. Surely you have sympathies with my aversion to this proof-texting? Surely you will concede that I'm well within reasonable exegesis?
You don't want to debate me here and hypocritically call another on proof-texting from Genesis 3:9 do you?

As you explain that God knew exactly where Adam was then, I explain that God knew exactly that Abraham feared Him. He knew exactly what was in his heart and mind. It surely was not 'now' that He knew it. As I said, 'now' is fine as a translation if we are not caught up with trying to proof-text an absurd. If we know when we use 'now' that it is not a negligence of His omniscience, it cannot mean 'now' for proof-texting.
 
Top