ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[DFT_Dave]

Of course the thing which the verse said that God did not know was whether or not Abraham feared or reverenced God.

But you continue to evade answering my question. What are you afraid of? Here it is for the third time:

So are you saying that even though Abraham had offered Isaac upon the altar that he did not have a fear or reverence for God at that time?​

That has nothing to do with the question which you continue to evade.

I've already answered your question and I understand how you apply it to what is said about Abraham having faith as stated in Hebrews. I take the account in Genesis literally and that Abraham acted in faith and proved to God that he truely and completely trusted and fear/reverenced him. This is important because Abraham had previously demonstated complete lack of faith and fear when he took matters into his own hand and took Sarah's maid in order to fulfill God's promise to him that he would have a son. Faith is an act not merely a state of mind.

--Dave

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I've already answered your question and I understand how you apply it to what is said about Abraham having faith as stated in Hebrews.

I did not see your answer so I will repeat my question and a simple "yes" or "no" will suffice:

So are you saying that even though Abraham had offered Isaac upon the altar that he did not have a fear or reverence for God at that time?​

Thanks!

 

[DFT_Dave]

I did not see your answer so I will repeat my question and a simple "yes" or "no" will suffice:

So are you saying that even though Abraham had offered Isaac upon the altar that he did not have a fear or reverence for God at that time?​

Thanks!

I gave you my answer with an explanation. Simple yes or no answers are not very enlightening.

--Dave

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I gave you my answer with an explanation. Simple yes or no answers are not very enlightening.

The more I look for your answer the more confused I become. So a simple "yes" or "no" to my following question will suffice. If you want to make any explanation after answering either "yes" or "no" then go right ahead.

So are you saying that even though Abraham had offered Isaac upon the altar that he did not have a fear or reverence for God at that time?​

 

[DFT_Dave]

The more I look for your answer the more confused I become. So a simple "yes" or "no" to my following question will suffice. If you want to make any explanation after answering either "yes" or "no" then go right ahead.

So are you saying that even though Abraham had offered Isaac upon the altar that he did not have a fear or reverence for God at that time?​

See post #3437

--Dave

 

[Jerry Shugart]

See post #3437

Here is what you said when you supposedly answered my question:

Nothing you have said changes what I said, the verse is very clear that God now "knew" something about Abraham he was not sure and certain about before hand. This is the answer to your question.

That does NOT answer my question. Anyone can read what you said there can see that it does not answer this question:

So are you saying that even though Abraham had offered Isaac upon the altar that he did not have a fear or reverence for God at that time?​

What are you afraid of? Why are you continuing to run from answering this question while pretending that you have answered it?

All it takes is a simple "yes" or "no" and then you can add anything at all to explain your answer.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Here is what you said when you supposedly answered my question:

That does NOT answer my question. Anyone can read what you said there can see that it does not answer this question:

So are you saying that even though Abraham had offered Isaac upon the altar that he did not have a fear or reverence for God at that time?​

What are you afraid of? Why are you continuing to run from answering this question while pretending that you have answered it?

All it takes is a simple "yes" or "no" and then you can add anything at all to explain your answer.

Your "yes" or "no" is not a valid answer.
Have you stopped beating your wife? (answer a simple "yes" or "no")

Philippians 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.​

Would Jesus have been obedient if he stopped short of the cross?

Would Abraham have been found to fear God if he stopped short of lifting the knife?


If you stop short of walking in faith until the end, will you still be saved?

2 Peter 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.​

 

[Lon]

Well, lets have Augustine explain God's timelessness for us and you can tell me if you agree with him or not.

Augustine "Thou dost call us, then, to understand the Word...which is spoken eternally and by which all things are spoken eternally. For what was first spoken was not finished, and then something else spoken until the whole series was spoken; but all things, at the same time and forever. For, otherwise, we should have time and change and not a true eternity, nor a true immortality." --Book XI:7
​

Hello Dave,
I would suggest that he, and even we, still have but a working theory of how this works. As I said, we are missing the parameters to properly assert much. I simply believe that God has revealed His eternal qualities circa Isaiah "...beside Me there is no one else..." and the like...
​

Let's change this from all that God says to all that God can do.

"Thou dost call us, then, to understand your power...which is eternal and by which all things are done eternally. For what was first done by you was not finished, and then something else done until the whole series was done; but you do all things, at the same time and forever. For, otherwise, we should have time and change and not a true eternity, nor a true immortality."
​

--Dave

It is hard to nail down how Augustine would rewrite his words, not that I think you didn't capture him, just that with such we are entering speculation, of which, I think you have a fair analysis. Regardless, I say again that it isn't cut and dried to be a complete expression. More specifically, I would disagree with him and you that we can definitively say something about the infinitude of God definitively (perhaps 'exhaustively' would be more accurate to what I'm trying to convey). I'm boggled just thinking of an eternal non-beginning. I have no language to adequately express that His past is still going long after my brain matter lost the trail. For us, what is past is over but this is not the case with God because it has no beginning to get 'past.' Such a concept, imo, quickly draws us away from any thinking that God is bound by our dimensions and understanding of duration. It is fact that He is not living in our same durative reality (why I might go for not exhaustive rather than definitive, since saying such is somewhat definitive). I can't even get my head around that, but I believe it implicitly given to us in scripture.

In Him

-Lon

 

[DFT_Dave]

Here is what you said when you supposedly answered my question:

That does NOT answer my question. Anyone can read what you said there can see that it does not answer this question:

So are you saying that even though Abraham had offered Isaac upon the altar that he did not have a fear or reverence for God at that time?

What are you afraid of? Why are you continuing to run from answering this question while pretending that you have answered it?

All it takes is a simple "yes" or "no" and then you can add anything at all to explain your answer.

Evidently Abraham did not have enough fear or reverence to satisfy God. I don't think it's a matter of all or nothing. As I said before, Abraham had, at best, very little faith in God when he bore Ishmeal, at worst, he had no faith at all.

I accept this Biblical account literally and historically, if we deny the literal we undermine the historical. If the Bible is not giving us a literal account of what God is like then how do we know it's giving us an actual history of a real historical person?

Even if we accept your belief that God foreknew what Abraham was going to do we are faced with the problem of God lying to Abraham. Instead of saying Abraham believed God would raise Isaac from the dead, in Hebrews, why doesn't it explain that Abraham had faith because he knew that God already knew that he feared him and knew what he would do before he did it?

You can't accept my refusal to just answer "yes" or "no" to your loaded question because you have a one track mind on this matter and only one argument you think proves your case. While demanding that I answer your question exactly the way you want me to answer it you have not answered any of mine or engaged in any of the points I have made. But, I foreknow exactly what you will say next despite eveything I have just said.

"That does NOT answer my question. So are you saying that even though Abraham had offered Isaac upon the altar that he did not have a fear or reverence for God at that time?"​

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Hello Dave,
I would suggest that he, and even we, still have but a working theory of how this works. As I said, we are missing the parameters to properly assert much. I simply believe that God has revealed His eternal qualities circa Isaiah "...beside Me there is no one else..." and the like...

It is hard to nail down how Augustine would rewrite his words, not that I think you didn't capture him, just that with such we are entering speculation, of which, I think you have a fair analysis. Regardless, I say again that it isn't cut and dried to be a complete expression. More specifically, I would disagree with him and you that we can definitively say something about the infinitude of God definitively (perhaps 'exhaustively' would be more accurate to what I'm trying to convey). I'm boggled just thinking of an eternal non-beginning. I have no language to adequately express that His past is still going long after my brain matter lost the trail. For us, what is past is over but this is not the case with God because it has no beginning to get 'past.' Such a concept, imo, quickly draws us away from any thinking that God is bound by our dimensions and understanding of duration. It is fact that He is not living in our same durative reality (why I might go for not exhaustive rather than definitive, since saying such is somewhat definitive). I can't even get my head around that, but I believe it implicitly given to us in scripture.

In Him

-Lon​

If you're saying we can't "definitively say something about the infinitude/timelessness of God" and that you are "boggled just thinking of an eternal non-beginning/time", how can you know what scripture is saying about God, implicitly or other wise, when you can't adequately understand either concept?

But really, I don't believe anything you wrote in this post. I don't think you're "boggled" in the least. I think you comprehend everything concerning this issue very well and I believe the logical implications don't escape you.

--Dave​

 

[Lon]

If you're saying we can't "definitively say something about the infinitude/timelessness of God" and that you are "boggled just thinking of an eternal non-beginning/time", how can you know what scripture is saying about God, implicitly or other wise, when you can't adequately understand either concept?

But really, I don't believe anything you wrote in this post. I don't think you're "boggled" in the least. I think you comprehend everything concerning this issue very well and I believe the logical implications don't escape you.

--Dave

Yes, I acquiesce, but again that's why I said perhaps I meant exhaustively and also acquiesced that some things are definitive (I was hunting for a better descriptor for what I was attempting to convey).

So, yes, we can 'definitively' say God has no beginning, yet, it does boggle my mind in the sense that I cannot escape finite thinking to apprehend the infinite in totality. So with that, I agree that what we apprehend partially is 'definable,' but I'd still not reckon that as 'definitive' (exhaustive).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I accept this Biblical account literally and historically, if we deny the literal we undermine the historical. If the Bible is not giving us a literal account of what God is like then how do we know it's giving us an actual history of a real historical person?

Do you think that the following words of God spoken to Adam can only be understood in a literal manner?:

"Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?" (Gen.3:8-9).​

If the words of God are to be taken literally then Adam could only understand that God really didn't know where he was. Do you believe that God could not locate Adam?

Evidently Abraham did not have enough fear or reverence to satisfy God.

So even though Abraham had "faith" when he offered up Isaac on the altar God still did not know at that point in time where or not Abraham had enough fear or reverence toward God to satisfy Him:

"By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac...Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure" (Heb.11:17,19).​

We can see that it was Abraham's act of offering Isaac upon the altar which resulted in him being justified before God:

"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God" (James 2:21-22).​

By the time Abraham offered Isaac upon the altar Abraham was justified in the sight of God. But you say that that kind of faith is not sufficient for God to know whether or not a person fears or reverences Him enough.

To me that is ridiculous and only those who cannot recognize figurative language would dare make such an assertion.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Do you think that the following words of God spoken to Adam can only be understood in a literal manner?:

"Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?" (Gen.3:8-9).​

If the words of God are to be taken literally then Adam could only understand that God really didn't know where he was. Do you believe that God could not locate Adam?

So even though Abraham had "faith" when he offered up Isaac on the altar God still did not know at that point in time where or not Abraham had enough fear or reverence toward God to satisfy Him:

"By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac...Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure" (Heb.11:17,19).​

We can see that it was Abraham's act of offering Isaac upon the altar which resulted in him being justified before God:

"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God" (James 2:21-22).​

By the time Abraham offered Isaac upon the altar Abraham was justified in the sight of God. But you say that that kind of faith is not sufficient for God to know whether or not a person fears or reverences Him enough.

To me that is ridiculous and only those who cannot recognize figurative language would dare make such an assertion.

Your statement, "By the time Abraham offered Isaac upon the altar Abraham was justified in the sight of God," would be a correct statement if used in the manner the writer of Hebrews used the phrase but not in the way you are trying to use it.

In every place in the Bible where an offering is mentioned, it involves the death of the sacrifice offered, so the proper way to understand the verse in Hebrews is that "offered Isaac his son upon the altar" refers to Abraham's attempt to slay his son on the altar, not to the binding of Isaac and laying him on the altar.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Do you think that the following words of God spoken to Adam can only be understood in a literal manner?:

"Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?" (Gen.3:8-9).​

If the words of God are to be taken literally then Adam could only understand that God really didn't know where he was. Do you believe that God could not locate Adam?

So even though Abraham had "faith" when he offered up Isaac on the altar God still did not know at that point in time where or not Abraham had enough fear or reverence toward God to satisfy Him:

"By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac...Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure" (Heb.11:17,19).​

We can see that it was Abraham's act of offering Isaac upon the altar which resulted in him being justified before God:

"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God" (James 2:21-22).​

By the time Abraham offered Isaac upon the altar Abraham was justified in the sight of God. But you say that that kind of faith is not sufficient for God to know whether or not a person fears or reverences Him enough.

To me that is ridiculous and only those who cannot recognize figurative language would dare make such an assertion.

Do you think "offering up Isaac" is not the same thing as "took the knife to slay his son"? If this so, explain why.

--Dave

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Do you think "offering up Isaac" is not the same thing as "took the knife to slay his son"? If this so, explain why.

No, the "offering" of Isaac upon the altar happened BEFORE Abraham took the knife to slay Isaac:

"And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son" (Gen.22:9-10).​

Under the Law first the animal was offered and then atonement was made and the slaying of the animal was an integral part of making atonement:

"And Moses said unto Aaron, Go unto the altar, and offer thy sin offering, and thy burnt offering, and make an atonement for thyself, and for the people: and offer the offering of the people, and make an atonement for them; as the LORD commanded. Aaron therefore went unto the altar, and slew the calf of the sin offering, which was for himself" (Lev.9:7-8).​

The offering was completed BEFORE the animal was slain.

Do you think that the following words of God spoken to Adam can only be understood in a literal manner?:

"Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? " (Gen.3:8-9).​

If the words of God are to be taken literally then Adam could only understand that God really didn't know where he was. Do you believe that God could not locate Adam?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

In every place in the Bible where an offering is mentioned, it involves the death of the sacrifice offered so the proper way to understand the verse in Hebrews is that "offered Isaac his son upon the altar" refers to Abraham's attempt to slay his son on the altar, not to the binding of Isaac and laying him on the altar.

WRONG!

The "offering" of Isaac upon the altar happened BEFORE Abraham took the knife to slay Isaac:

"And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son" (Gen.22:9-10).​

Under the Law first the animal was offered and then atonement was made and the slaying of the animal was an integral part of making atonement:

"And Moses said unto Aaron, Go unto the altar, and offer thy sin offering, and thy burnt offering, and make an atonement for thyself, and for the people: and offer the offering of the people, and make an atonement for them; as the LORD commanded. Aaron therefore went unto the altar, and slew the calf of the sin offering, which was for himself" (Lev.9:7-8).​

The offering was completed BEFORE the animal was slain.

 

[genuineoriginal]

WRONG!

The "offering" of Isaac upon the altar happened BEFORE Abraham took the knife to slay Isaac:

"And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son" (Gen.22:9-10).​

Under the Law first the animal was offered and then atonement was made and the slaying of the animal was an integral part of making atonement:

"And Moses said unto Aaron, Go unto the altar, and offer thy sin offering, and thy burnt offering, and make an atonement for thyself, and for the people: and offer the offering of the people, and make an atonement for them; as the LORD commanded. Aaron therefore went unto the altar, and slew the calf of the sin offering, which was for himself" (Lev.9:7-8).​

The offering was completed BEFORE the animal was slain.

You have a reading comprehension problem.

Your verses prove that binding and putting on an altar is not offering.
Slaying the sin offering is how it was offered in the verse you provided.

Offerings are killed

Leviticus 7:2 In the place where they kill the burnt offering shall they kill the trespass offering: and the blood thereof shall he sprinkle round about upon the altar.​

It is the blood and parts of the dead animal that is offered.

Leviticus 7:33 He among the sons of Aaron, that offereth the blood of the peace offerings, and the fat, shall have the right shoulder for his part.​

Deuteronomy 12:27 And thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the LORD thy God: and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out upon the altar of the LORD thy God, and thou shalt eat the flesh.​

 

[DFT_Dave]

No, the "offering" of Isaac upon the altar happened BEFORE Abraham took the knife to slay Isaac:

"And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son" (Gen.22:9-10).​

Under the Law first the animal was offered and then atonement was made and the slaying of the animal was an integral part of making atonement:

"And Moses said unto Aaron, Go unto the altar, and offer thy sin offering, and thy burnt offering, and make an atonement for thyself, and for the people: and offer the offering of the people, and make an atonement for them; as the LORD commanded. Aaron therefore went unto the altar, and slew the calf of the sin offering, which was for himself" (Lev.9:7-8).​

The offering was completed BEFORE the animal was slain.

Do you think that the following words of God spoken to Adam can only be understood in a literal manner?:

"Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? " (Gen.3:8-9).​

If the words of God are to be taken literally then Adam could only understand that God really didn't know where he was. Do you believe that God could not locate Adam?

Does that mean that the animal did not have to die?

Do you think Jesus did not have to die either?

I know what you will say, these are rhetorical questions.

"Where are you?"

--Dave

ps Oh, if God is timeless and spaceless, he's not really in the Garden is he?

Not rhetorical.

 

[Nick M]

Faith is an act not merely a state of mind.

--Dave

:up:

Not to make a rabbit trail, but to just tack on...this is why it is the faith and works of Christ that saves us. Not our faith in him.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You have a reading comprehension problem.

Offerings are killed

You have a "thinking" problem.

Since it was an "offering" which was killed then that means that that animal was already "offered" BEFORE he was killed.