ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[themuzicman]

Then why doesn't God eliminate it according the the o.v. if it serves no purpose in what He is trying to achieve?

Eliminate "it"? That would require annihilating creation. God will eventually eliminate evil in such a way that He has a restored creation with a people for Himself.

Exactly what purpose if God hasn't the ability to know the outcomes will be good?

Who said that God doesn't have the ability to know if the outcome will be good?

Muz

 

[RobE]

Eliminate "it"? That would require annihilating creation. God will eventually eliminate evil in such a way that He has a restored creation with a people for Himself.

It didn't require it in the garden.

Who said that God doesn't have the ability to know if the outcome will be good?

Muz

Open Theism. Knowing in advance is impossible remember.

Don't underestimate God's great wisdom and intelligence. You seem to think that God cannot extrapolate possible outcomes and plan for contingencies and predict probabilities (even insurance companies and weathermen can do this statistically; sociology also shows that group behavior is predictable, even if individual behavior is not).

You seem to be realizing that even man is able to foreknow the future with his limited knowledge and ability. For example weather and sociology which studies the effects of natural behavior within the natural law. How much more is the One who established that law, able to foreknow what will happen.

He is able to do these things without foreseeing possibilities as actualities like watching a completed movie.

Absolutely! Molinists have written extensively about this.

He can operate in real time. We base many of our finite decisions on our limited ability to know consequences, outcomes, etc. The universe has order and complexity without being fixed in advance. There are parameters and God knows all possible objects that are knowable. He also correctly distinguishes the reality of past, present, future, possible vs actual, necessary vs contingent, etc.

Just as He bases his eternal decisions on His UNlimited ability to know consequences, outcomes, etc....

 

[themuzicman]

It didn't require it in the garden.

Evil didn't exist in the garden.

Open Theism. Knowing in advance is impossible remember.

Knowing the exact course of the future is unknowable. Knowing possible futures is perfectly acceptable.


Oh, and Molinism falls apart in Middle Knowledge.

Muz

 

[RobE]

Evil didn't exist in the garden.

Maybe the fall occured in Tibet then?

Knowing the exact course of the future is unknowable. Knowing possible futures is perfectly acceptable.

Not all 'possible futures' are 'good'.

Who said that God doesn't have the ability to know if the outcome will be good?

Muz

You did just as open theism does.

Oh, and Molinism falls apart in Middle Knowledge.

Muz

How so?

 

[lee_merrill]

Lee: That would then be granting the ability to repent, but God grants repentance. Editing the text is not good exegesis.

Muz: Not editing necessary. That's simply the context.

Erm, what context? Simply saying "context!" does not constitute an argument, nor is it exegesis.

If you actually read the story, you don't see God's actions in the story until after Joseph is sold into slavery.

So then what does "it" refer to, if not Joseph being sold as a slave? "You meant it for evil", says Joseph, "But God meant it for good", there really is no way around the conclusion here, since this must refer to a wicked deed, that God meant for good--not "responded to."

Mr. Fix-it Man, Open Theism's idea of God? Only sometimes he cannot fix a problem, even, try though he may, says the Open View.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[themuzicman]

Rabbit trail. So what if it is corporate or individual? Weren't they made up of individuals? This doesn't speak to anything, maybe good diversion to avoid the subject. <dunno> Your post makes no sense to me. It doesn't directly address anything. A little help or elucidation please.

Nang doesnt' do her exegetical homework, and doesn't consider possibilities other than her own systematic theology.

Israel was made up of individuals, but they were elected not based upon individuals, but upon the fact that they were descendants of those at Sinai who embraced the Old Covenant.

In the same way, those who are elect in the New Covenant consists of all those who have placed their faith in God, and not a selection of individuals.

Thus the distinction between groups and individuals.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

Erm, what context? Simply saying "context!" does not constitute an argument, nor is it exegesis.

You don't appreciate exegesis anyway, Lee.

So then what does "it" refer to, if not Joseph being sold as a slave? "You meant it for evil", says Joseph, "But God meant it for good", there really is no way around the conclusion here, since this must refer to a wicked deed, that God meant for good--not "responded to."

Well, this is where the Hebrew abandons you. You see, the bible was written in Hebrew, so it's best when parsing the meanings of words like this to go back to the original.

The Hebrew word there means "planned" or "reckoned." Thus, while Joseph's brothers were planning evil, God, knowing the possible courses of the future and how His actions would affect it, planned good.

Mr. Fix-it Man, Open Theism's idea of God? Only sometimes he cannot fix a problem, even, try though he may, says the Open View.

And most times Mr. "I don't have a clue, but I play on on TV" doesn't do his homework and gets spanked.

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

You don't appreciate exegesis anyway, Lee.

This also is not an argument. "Grant" being the verb, "repentance" is the direct object, to "hit the ball" does not mean you enable ball-hitting.

Well, this is where the Hebrew abandons you. You see, the bible was written in Hebrew, so it's best when parsing the meanings of words like this to go back to the original.

This however is just what John Piper did:

"The text says, 'You meant evil against me.' Evil is a feminine singular noun. Then it says, 'God meant it for good.' The word 'it' is a feminine singular suffix that can only agree with the antecedent feminine singular noun, 'evil.' And the verb 'meant' is the same past tense in both cases. You meant evil against me in the past, as you were doing it. And God meant that very evil, not as evil, but as good in the past as you were doing it.

The Hebrew word there means "planned" or "reckoned." Thus, while Joseph's brothers were planning evil, God, knowing the possible courses of the future and how His actions would affect it, planned good.

Regarding that one evil event, we can't erase the word "it" here, God meant this for good.

And most times Mr. "I don't have a clue, but I play on on TV" doesn't do his homework and gets spanked.

The Open View however, does hold that there is evil in the world that God cannot remedy.

 

[CabinetMaker]

The Open View however, does hold that there is evil in the world that God cannot remedy.

No, the Open View does not believe that God cannot remedy evil. The Open View believes that God gave us free will to choose between good and evil. If we choose to ignore God and do evil, there will be a consequence for that. If we choose to listen to God and accept His gift of faith, then there is a different (and much better) consequence for that.

God can do anything. God chooses not to. The alternate view, the settled view, is that God has done everything and there is no choice period. (By the way, the settled view means that God designed and directed every evil act.)

 

[lee_merrill]

No, the Open View does not believe that God cannot remedy evil.

Now I meant within the framework of all decisions that he will not revoke, and of his character, as described by the Open View: There is some evil that God cannot remedy, with all these considerations in view, see Greg Boyd's Warfare Worldview, in which there are real and regrettable losses, even from God's perspective, which God would have avoided if he could have done so.

 

[themuzicman]

This however is just what John Piper did:

"The text says, 'You meant evil against me.' Evil is a feminine singular noun. Then it says, 'God meant it for good.' The word 'it' is a feminine singular suffix that can only agree with the antecedent feminine singular noun, 'evil.' And the verb 'meant' is the same past tense in both cases. You meant evil against me in the past, as you were doing it. And God meant that very evil, not as evil, but as good in the past as you were doing it.


Regarding that one evil event, we can't erase the word "it" here, God meant this for good.

Again, Calvinist colored glasses. I hadn't disputed what "it" meant. Somehow you think that dealing with this "it" helps you. It doesn't.

Both are prepositional phrases. Neither is the direct object of "planned." "Evil" is the object of "upon" or "on account of" or "according to." "Good" uses the dative, which means "for" or "to." There is no "IT" in the Hebrew, per se. Both "good" and "evil" are substantive adjectives. So, even Piper's point is very questionable, since there isn't really an antecedent relationship between them. The fact that both are feminine only indicates that they may relate to the same thing.

So. let's me try the 5th grade level. Imagine a time line with events on it. A time 1, the brothers plan to send Joseph into slavery, and tell their father the Joseph had died. At time 2, which comes after time 1, God plans to use this evil to save Joseph's family from the coming famine.

Thus, "What you planned (first) on account of evil, God planned (in response) for good.

I can't make it any clearer than that. (Not that I think clarity is the issue. I fully expect Lee not to get the point.)

The Open View however, does hold that there is evil in the world that God cannot remedy.

The remedy is judgment and wrath.

However, this is better than the Reformed theologian who says that evil is actually good.

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

Both are prepositional phrases. Neither is the direct object of "planned."

I assume the word "planned" is the word I am reading as "meant."

"Evil" is the object of "upon" or "on account of" or "according to."

Where is this in the text? "Evil" is the object of "meant," these other words are not in our verse here.

There is no "IT" in the Hebrew, per se.

Sure there is, it's the suffix Piper refers to.

Both "good" and "evil" are substantive adjectives. So, even Piper's point is very questionable, since there isn't really an antecedent relationship between them.

The antecedent relationship is due to the preposition referring to the matching noun, "evil", "you meant evil, but God mean it for good."

The fact that both are feminine only indicates that they may relate to the same thing.

This is exegesis? It means actually, the preposition refers to the matching noun.

Imagine a time line with events on it. A time 1, the brothers plan to send Joseph into slavery, and tell their father the Joseph had died. At time 2, which comes after time 1, God plans to use this evil to save Joseph's family from the coming famine.

Thus, "What you planned (first) on account of evil, God planned (in response) for good.

Even on your view here, God meant that evil for good at this point, so this evil indeed had a purpose.

The remedy is judgment and wrath.

But a punishment does not undo the evil.

However, this is better than the Reformed theologian who says that evil is actually good.

This is a straw man, but if God means a deed for good, even a sinful deed, such as the cross, he cannot fulfill this purpose? If you stay consistent here, you must insist that the evil of the crucifixion had no purpose in the mind of God.

 

[Lon]

Nang doesnt' do her exegetical homework, and doesn't consider possibilities other than her own systematic theology.

Israel was made up of individuals, but they were elected not based upon individuals, but upon the fact that they were descendants of those at Sinai who embraced the Old Covenant.

In the same way, those who are elect in the New Covenant consists of all those who have placed their faith in God, and not a selection of individuals.

Thus the distinction between groups and individuals.

Muz

Thanks for addressing the question, Muz.

How is a corporate election different? I belong to a credit union that all city employees may belong to. We could see this similarly with Israel except a foreigner could become a Jew.

"Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." Acts 5:31

"When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." Acts 11:18

With Christ's work, it is already world-wide so I'm not seeing how your election term is corporate in that sense. Isn't repentance granted not only to the group, but the individual within it? I'm not seeing what difference it makes in your discussion.

************************************************************

2 Tim 2:24 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, 25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.

This is referring to people who are already saved.

This one is a bit of a side-track, but the verse meaning depends on who Paul meant by "those in opposition to 'the servant of the Lord.'" Your rendering seems to equate the indirect object with the subject(direct object).

 

[themuzicman]

I assume the word "planned" is the word I am reading as "meant."

The word "planned" is the sense of the Hebrew word that is in the original. "Meant" is a translation.

Where is this in the text? "Evil" is the object of "meant," these other words are not in our verse here.

That's because you're reading a translation.

Sure there is, it's the suffix Piper refers to.

Ah, I missed the suffix. However, the problem remains that "evil" isn't the direct object of planned.

First, to say that evil is the antecedent is evil doesn't make any sense. Joseph is using a parallel construction with an implied object, that being the thing that they did. For God's plan to refer back to the prepositional phrase doesn't make any sense.

The antecedent relationship is due to the preposition referring to the matching noun, "evil", "you meant evil, but God mean it for good."

However, you're making "evil" the direct object, and it's not. That's the point. The prepositional phrase means "on account of" or "upon" (or a host of other meanings), but clearly is NOT the direct object. The direct object is the act that they intended.

This is exegesis? It means actually, the preposition refers to the matching noun.[/quot]

Well, not necessarily. We don't know exactly what was said to Joseph, so the feminine could refer to what his brothers said to him.

However, to say that the direct object refers to the object of a proposition and not the implied object of the previous parallel verb makes no sense. Again, you have to get away from the idea that "evil" is the object of "planned."

If you knew Hebrew, it would be clearer.

Even on your view here, God meant that evil for good at this point, so this evil indeed had a purpose.

And this is the other issue. You're using "meant" in a way that doesn't fit the verb that is used in Hebrew. The brothers "planned" on account of evil, but God planned, in response, to do good.

But a punishment does not undo the evil.

Nothing can undo evil. There is no remedy, regardless of one's theology. Even Calvinism doesn't remedy evil. It just tries to make it good.

This is a straw man, but if God means a deed for good, even a sinful deed, such as the cross, he cannot fulfill this purpose? If you stay consistent here, you must insist that the evil of the crucifixion had no purpose in the mind of God.

From and OVT perspective, the cross was made necessary by the actions of men, and committed by the actions of men, and once man made the cross necessary, God takes the evil that men commit and uses it for good.

Notice that Jesus' crucifixion wasn't unique for Israel, as they killed the prophets sent to them (from Abel to Zechariah), so this wasn't something God had to make happen. It was going to happen anyway.

Muz

 

[atdcross]

God: the First Cause

God: the First Cause

(When quoting please add the links to the quotes you are using. The context of this post is here.)

Yes, God is ultimately responsible, as the first cause, for all events, including Adam's self-determined choice to sin...There are no events outside of God's providential control, so I do not agree that an "uncontrolled event" exists.

I can agree that God is the First Cause of all events but only in the sense that He created all things. e.g. God created man with a free will. Man choose to sin. God, although the First Cause due to Creation is, nevertheless, not responsible for man's sin. (Of course, things do seem to get complicated if man as a sinner is considered to have lost possession of free will to, at least, choose to believe or reject and refuse to believe God's offer of salvation).

Is it possible to consider God to have predetermined the occurrence of an event although it may not be what he has himself desired to occur?

...foreknowledge presupposes foreordination, but foreknowledge is not itself foreordination. Since all these events are foreknown, they are fixed and settled. Nothing can have fixed and settled them except the good pleasure of God, freely and unchangeably foreordaining whatever comes to pass. But God’s foreordination and foreknowledge implies certainty, for what God decides to happen will happen and, as a consequence, God certainly knows what He has decided.

I agree foreknowledge is not fore-ordination. However, when you state, "what God decides to happen will happen", are you speaking in terms of an event God has predetermined to allow or an event, which God himself acts to bring about, or both?

 

[Nang]

Nang doesnt' do her exegetical homework, and doesn't consider possibilities other than her own systematic theology.

Israel was made up of individuals, but they were elected not based upon individuals, but upon the fact that they were descendants of those at Sinai who embraced the Old Covenant.

Man, are you sloppy! The descendants of those who received the covenant of Sinai, are the lost children of flesh who perished in the wilderness. These are typical of all the UNELECT!

"Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar." Galatians 4:24

In the same way, those who are elect in the New Covenant consists of all those who have placed their faith in God, and not a selection of individuals.

All the spiritual offspring of Abraham are the true ELECT son of promise, whether O.T. or N.T.

"Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise." Galatians 4:28

Thus the distinction between groups and individuals.

This is a product of your imagination. All the elect of God are named individuals, written in the Lamb's Book of Life.

"Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven." Luke 10:20

 

[lee_merrill]

... the problem remains that "evil" isn't the direct object of planned.

No, the problem is that the translation reads "you meant it for evil," but the Hebrew is "you meant evil, but God meant it [the evil--the pronoun refers back to this noun] for good."

Joseph is using a parallel construction with an implied object, that being the thing that they did.

Right, but the Hebrew grammar has as its antecedent the word "evil", making it unmistakably clear that God meant that evil deed for good.

The direct object is the act that they intended.

Certainly, and God meant that act for good.

... the feminine could refer to what his brothers said to him.

This is not good exegesis, though, a remote possibility at best.

However, to say that the direct object refers to the object of a proposition and not the implied object of the previous parallel verb makes no sense.

I don't think I have said this.

Again, you have to get away from the idea that "evil" is the object of "planned."

Only if I need to be an Open Theist.

If you knew Hebrew, it would be clearer.

I do know a little Hebrew.

You're using "meant" in a way that doesn't fit the verb that is used in Hebrew.

John Piper too! Only he is a scholar of note.

Nothing can undo evil. There is no remedy, regardless of one's theology.

Unless God can bring an entirely good result, again, you limit the power of God.

... once man made the cross necessary, God takes the evil that men commit and uses it for good.

Yes, God meant this evil deed for good.

... so this wasn't something God had to make happen. It was going to happen anyway.

And yes, God meant it for good, inevitability need not erase intent. I might note here that I believe God had a choice in this matter, that the cross was chosen freely, as indeed Jesus said he chose freely.

 

[RobE]

No, the Open View does not believe that God cannot remedy evil. The Open View believes that God gave us free will to choose between good and evil. If we choose to ignore God and do evil, there will be a consequence for that. If we choose to listen to God and accept His gift of faith, then there is a different (and much better) consequence for that.

How does the open view know this if God is unable to know outcomes whether 'good' or 'evil'.

God can do anything. God chooses not to. The alternate view, the settled view, is that God has done everything and there is no choice period. (By the way, the settled view means that God designed and directed every evil act.)

Using what logic is the above statement substantiated. Do you have proof that this is true or are you just making it up?

I think you're forgetting that open theists lump everyone who believes God knows the future together, not just hyper-Calvinists. It would be the same if I were to claim that all open theists were Pelagiasts(?, maybe Pelagianists?). Some are, but most would adamantly deny this.

Both views, settled and unsettled, agree that God allows evil acts for greater purposes. I'm not sure why your logic leads you to conclude that 'God designed and directed every evil act' when the o.v. holds the same stance on evil that most of the s.v. does.

 

[themuzicman]

Thanks for addressing the question, Muz.

How is a corporate election different? I belong to a credit union that all city employees may belong to. We could see this similarly with Israel except a foreigner could become a Jew.

Let's say that I declare that anyone who is in room 101 at 6pm will receive a lollipop. Now, I've elected (chosen) a group of people who will receive lollipops without knowing exactly who will be there. At 6pm, there could be 5 people or 500 people, but they'd all be elect because they fulfilled the conditions of the election.

With Christ's work, it is already world-wide so I'm not seeing how your election term is corporate in that sense. Isn't repentance granted not only to the group, but the individual within it? I'm not seeing what difference it makes in your discussion.

Romans 5:18 says that Justification came to all men. "Granted" is used in the same way, in that all are enable to repent, but that they must first believe.

************************************************************
This one is a bit of a side-track, but the verse meaning depends on who Paul meant by "those in opposition to 'the servant of the Lord.'" Your rendering seems to equate the indirect object with the subject(direct object).

Well, the beginning of that verse starts with two participles, and then the noun "might give", followed by "to them." So, it would be impossible for them to agree in case. I'm trying to remember my Greek rules for that, and I seem to remember something about a particular kind of pronoun only needing to agree in number and gender but not case.

Practically speaking, it doesn't make sense any other way.

Muz

 

[CabinetMaker]

God can do anything. God chooses not to. The alternate view, the settled view, is that God has done everything and there is no choice period. (By the way, the settled view means that God designed and directed every evil act.)

Using what logic is the above statement substantiated. Do you have proof that this is true or are you just making it up?

By the definition of everything. Either God did everything or He didn't.