ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Bob Hill]

I think Jim is a brilliant man. I also understand that we are very far apart when it comes to God's Word. I do detest Calvinism, but I don't detest Calvinists.

May the Lord bless you Jim.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[sentientsynth]

Perhaps you'll take note of the name: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Before the fall, the only evil act Adam and Eve knew to avoid was eating of the tree. They didn't have a "sinful nature", so there's simply no reason to say that they would have contemplated any kind of evil.

Muz,

Just curious. How did Eve's doctrinal error creep in? How is it she changed the wording of the commandment?

 

[Hilston]

Combined reply to Jerry Shugart, Poly and Knight

I. Reply to Jerry Shugart

Of course Jim says that the "cup" did pass from Him and that the "cup" was not in reference to His crucifixion.

Of course, Jerry Shugart contradicts Jesus Himself Who, using one of the strongest figures in the pantheon of linguistic devices, the rhetorical question, said:

"Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour." (Jn 12:27).​

In other words, "My soul is now troubled, but the whole reason why I came to hour is so that my soul would be troubled and that I would die for the sins of others. Shall I then ask the Father to save me out of this hour? Absolutely NOT!"

Of course, Jerry Shugart contradicts Jesus' actual prayer in which He acknowledges that the only way for the cup to pass from Him is for Him to drink it:

"He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done." (Mt 26:42)​

In other words, the only way the cup will pass from Jesus is if He drinks from it. Once He drinks from (i.e. tastes death), only then will it pass from Him, which it does. He was released from death. He did not drink the cup to the dreggs; He tasted it in the behalf of others, and it passed from Him.

Of course Jerry Shugart unabashedly claims that the Father answered Jesus' prayer "no," thus contradicting the scriptures that say Jesus' prayer for the cup to pass from Him (after drinking from it) was heard, i.e. answered "yes." The writer of Hebrews says:

"[Jesus]Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;" (Heb 5:7)​

Note that "heard" does not merely mean "audibly acknowledged." It means heard and heeded; the Father heard and answered "yes."

Even John Calvin admits that the "cup" refers to His death:

"This is the reason why, after having prayed to be freed from death, he immediately restrains himself, and, submitting to the authority of the Father, corrects and recalls that wish which had suddenly escaped him" (Commentary at Matthew 26:39).

I'm not denying that it refers to Jesus' death. But I happen to believe that He died (tasted the cup) and was resurrected (the cup then passed from Him). Calvin is wrong. And so is Jerry Shugart.

Both Shugart and Calvin make Jesus into an emotional whirlwind, who in one case baldly states that He will absolutely not ask the Father to take Him out of this Hour, and in another case pleads with the Father to take Him out of it. Both Shugart and Calvin contradict scripture by saying the cup did NOT pass from Jesus, when Jesus Himself said it would pass after He drank from it. Both Shugart and Calvin make Jesus' prayer for resurrection meaningless by saying that the cup did NOT pass from Him, suggesting that Jesus' prayer was answered "no". Both Shugart and Calvin make the scriptures contradictory by intimating that in one passage Jesus' prayer was not heard, but in another passage that same prayer was heard.

II. Reply to Poly:

As a Calvinist, I was praying for something or for a certain thing to happen in a given situation. But it had already been predestined what was going to happen. And if I prayed for wisdom or for Him to teach me I knew in my gutt that it was already settled if I was going to "learn", and even if I did, it wasn't me learning but I was a mere database with the information already loaded only to deliver the outcome already programmed by the programmer. So I knew it was already determined but I did it anyway, all the while knowing that it really wasn't going to affect God in any way since the answer was already set but, hey, He told us to and so by golly I better do it even if it didn't make sense. But don't think I didn't proudly pretend that it did.

Who did you learn these ideas from? Certainly no informed Calvinist, Reformer or Presbyterian would promote such a warped view of prayer. It's no wonder you chucked it. I would have, too.

As an Open Theist, I see the answers aren't settled, never to be changed. I can pray to a God who hears and is affected by what He hears.

For example? Can you give me an example from your life or the life of someone you know, even a hypothetical one, in which a prayer affects God and He responds. Please describe the request, God's reaction (how He was affected) and exactly what God did in response.

Allow me to give an example from the Settled View of exhaustive foreknowledge and predestination:

The scriptures commands fathers to be a certain way toward their wives and children (God's prescriptive will). The doctrine of perseverance states that the elect will progress in their faith, which includes how their faith works out in practice, namely, in this case, the kind of husband and father I am. As an elect person, I have confidence that God will do that work in me, both to will and to work for His good pleasure (God's decretive will). That doesn't mean I will be a perfect husband or father; far from it. But I know, based on scripture, He will work within me, change my thinking, change my heart, make His word affect me, etc. The degree to which He does so in me versus another person is secret to God, known only by Him, and for His ultimate good purposes (decretive will).

Let's say I have a rough day. My temper flares, I say things to my wife and kids I shouldn't say. I ask their forgiveness and say, with God's help, I'll do better. When I'm alone, I thank God that I experienced that, knowing that He decrees all things for the good of the Called Ones. I thank God that I belong to Him, and knowing that it's for that reason He has motivated me to pray, according to His decrees. I know my prayer to change is as much decreed as the circumstances that prompted my prayer.

So my prayer is: "Lord, please work in my life to make me a better father and husband. Please cause your Word to work in my heart and mind so that I can do better. Open my mind and heart, make me more receptive and aware. Change me so that I'm less selfish and put them and their needs ahead of my own." Etc. God's "reaction" (in my view, a condescension and figurative way of describing the infinite God's interaction with finite man) is according to His decrees, and He will answer my prayer "yes." He hears and and answers yes because He decreed the commands in His word (His prescriptive will), He decreed the circumstances that would drive me to pray (His decretive will), He decreed the content of my prayer and He decreed the outcome of it.

What God does in "response" (again, I view that as a linguistic accommodation) is work in my life, bringing about, according to His decrees, the circumstances that will bring that prayer to fruition. It might even involve yet another temper flare, but it will be different, because He is using it to change me. I can look at each circumstance, each emotion that I experience, each thought that comes to mind, each passage of scripture that I read, hear or study, each conclusion that His Word evokes ~ even the wrong conclusions ~ and know that it's all working for good, toward answering that prayer and others. This is the confidence and assurance that ought to accompany prayer and which is exemplified and taught in scripture.

I can ask Him to teach me so that I can learn.

How would He actually teach you? What would He do that you couldn't do yourself?

... And I can know that this is a real possibility because He says He desires to do so and He delights in us learning from Him.

I agree completely. On my view it makes sense. I'm interested to know how it make sense on your view. What would God actually do that would not be confused with mere human effort?

... I can praise Him and thank Him for all the goodness He blesses me with ...

Again, I agree. But it makes sense according to the Settled View. I would like to see how it makes sense on the Open View. How do you distinguish between His blessings and human effort? I mean, there are plenty of anti-theists who have everything you have and more.

... So let's see.

Praying as a Calvinist, where prayers make no difference whatsoever concerning what the outcome of a situation will be and where praises and thanksgiving are merely lines of a play being acted out.

That is not Calvinism. It's no wonder you left it behind. I would have rejected it, too. I did, in fact, but not because of that warped notion of Calvinism. I rejected Calvinism because of what it actually teaches.

Praying as an Open Theist, knowing that the outcome of all things is not settled and my prayer can have a real impact on how God will respond in a situation.

That's the part I still want to understand. How does God actually respond to the Open Theist. What does He actually DO?

... And knowing that when I thank Him, it's real out of what I have learned of Him in His word concerning His righteousness and His goodness.

Why thank Him for what you've learned in His Word? Can't you do that without Him? What does He actually DO to help you learn His Word?

... I'd say "zesty" doesn't do justice in describing how much more meaningful prayer is to me as an Open Theist.

I hope you can see why I'm still not clear on that. I look forward to understand the Open View of God regarding what He actually DOES in response and answer to prayers.

III. Reply to Knight

Jim, since I have never been a settled viewer I cannot comment on if my prayer life is any better, different or worse as an open theist.

I understand.

But I can tell you that I pray that not mine but the Father's will be done.

That's a prayer we can agree on, but it means completely different things depending on one's view of God's sovereignty. When I pray that, I know He is actually DOING things, changing my heart, changing my mind, things I could not do on my own. When the Open Theists prays that God's will be done, what is He actually asking God to DO? Specifically.

... I pray that I lean not on my own understanding but instead let let Him direct my steps.

How will He answer that prayer? Will He change your will the next time you try to lean on your own understanding? Please be specific here. What will He actually DO if He answers "yes" to this prayer? How will He direct your steps? Will push or pull you emotionally? Psychologically? What does He manipulate exactly in order to bring about the answer to this prayer?

I pray for wisdom, patience, *mercy and judgment etc.

Again, a prayer I can agree with. But on your view, how does He grant you wisdom, patience, mercy and judgment? What does He actually DO to in order to give these things to you?

I believe that the Holy Spirit can answer these prayers by helping me follow God's will.

How does He help you, specifically? What does He DO? Say you come to a circumstance in which you're tempted to do one thing, which is clearly against God's will, but you prayed this morning that the Holy Spirit would help you to follow God's will. What will the Holy Spirit DO in that moment to help you?

... I believe that I have the ability (or shortcoming) to "shut out" God's will for me and do things that He doesn't will for me (by leaning on my own understanding).

Right. So what would the Holy Spirit do to help you override that ability?

... I also have the ability to allow the Holy Spirit to guide my steps and judgments so that I am following His will for me.

What would the Holy Spirit do to help you exercise that ability?

* I don't pray for God's mercy since I know I already have that. Instead I pray that I be merciful when I should be merciful.

And exactly how would God answer that prayer? Does He MAKE you merciful when you should be? Do you hear His voice?

I want to thank Knight and Poly for their responses. Perhaps I can get a better grasp of the Open View of prayer through this exchange.

In closing (for now), it should be noted that the Settled View on prayer has no resemblance whatsoever to the pathetic pleading and begging and groping that most people in Christendumb are engaged in when they "pray." They pray as if God is a stingey, miserly, stubborn and fickle God, who holds back more often than not. There is no generosity, no abundance, none of the things the Bible amply describes throughout its pages. The standard view of prayer suggest there must be some heretofore unknown way to really get His attention. More tears maybe? Pray louder maybe? Perhaps if I pray more often? Perhaps I'm not using the right words? Perhaps I need more faith? But isn't it the smallest mustard-seed-sized faith that is supposed to move mountains? This is the irrationality and ludicrous notion that prayer is reduced to when one does not have a clear grasp of God's meticulous sovereign control and exhaustively predestinated decrees. That's my view, anyway.

Now all of you just do the right thing and join me in a responsive reading of my latest homage, MacBook Love, Part IV:

MacBook™, O MacBook™.
So much did I lack. Look!
There upon the table.
Such power (2.0 GHz!). Such beauty.
And O so much more stable
Than that happy horse manure* Dell® puts out.​

And all God's people said: "Amen"

*Sanitized for Christendumb

All according to God's decrees, of course.
Jim

 

[godrulz]

I think Jim is a brilliant man. I also understand that we are very far apart when it comes to God's Word. I do detest Calvinism, but I don't detest Calvinists.

May the Lord bless you Jim.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

Gracious. Wisdom and maturity come with grey hair (I have some in my goatee ).

 

[Bob Hill]

If the future is settled in God’s mind, then it is fixed, and our freedom is only apparent. If the future is settled in God’s mind then He cannot repent of what He had thought to do (Jer 18:8) since there would be nothing to repent of.
Jer 18:5-10 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the LORD. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

However, this does not mean God doesn’t know anything about the future. He knows for certain those things which He plans to accomplish. When God determines a certain aspect of the future, it’s settled to the degree that our Creator decided to settle it. Certain aspects of the tribulation seem to be settled, because God brings to pass His counsel.

What is the purpose of a study of this stuff? For me it encourages a renewed understanding of the importance and significance of prayer. It helps resolve the problem of evil (Did God cause evil?), and it keeps us from feeling resigned to difficult circumstances.

We don’t have to be victims of the evil that some may contend God willed to happen to us. We can fight against it through Christ’s strength and have the victory. For some traditionalists, it means a diminished view of God, a loss of confidence in the future, and a general loss of security.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

Where’s the security in believing that whatever God knows will happen must happen? Security of damnation is not a comfort or a reason to praise God. And for open theists our confidence in the future resides in God’s ability to bring about His counsel, not in a static God who exists in an “eternal now”.

If we disagree with someone on this site, even if they are harsh, we can ask the Lord for guidance and in the end at least, we’ll have had the opportunity to think once again about the nature of our God and His astounding love.

Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

When I was going to the University of Illinois, I majored in Greek. Although I had 2 years of Biblical Greek, I had many more hours of Classical Greek. When I studied Thucydides, I was the only student in the class. Since then, I have taught Greek for about 50 years. I think it is very important to know Biblical Greek, because Christian doctrine was developed in a culture imbued with Greek thought. It was thus a product of revealed truths shaped by Greek forms of thought.

The Greeks had a fundamental belief that God was perfect and unchanging, that change of any kind was a weakness. Proponents of Open Theism say that this idea was taken into Christian theology, so that God came to be seen as being distant from and unaffected by His creation. It meant, for example, that He could not experience passions or deep emotional desires as we do, for that indicates a deficiency and the possibility of being controlled by outside forces.

It’s not only “proponents of open theism” who say that Greek concepts were taken into Christian theology and philosophy. It’s practically anyone who is aware of the history of Christian theology. We can see a vivid example of this mixing of Greek concepts with Christian theology in Augustine. Augustine said “For those absurdities which in those Scriptures were wont to offend me, after I had heard divers of them expounded properly, I referred now to the depth of the mystery: yea and the authority of that Book appeared so much the more venerable, and so much more worthy of our religious credit. - St. Augustine’s Confessions I, Loeb Classical Library, Bk VI, p. 285.

This kind of theology has permeated Christianity. For instance, here is what was written by W J Oats “On the Morals of the Catholic Church,” Basic Writings of Saint Augustine, New York: Random House Publishers, 1948, p. 327: We do not worship a God who repents, or is envious, or needy, or cruel, or who takes pleasure in the blood of men or beasts, or is pleased with guilt or crime, or whose possession of the earth is limited to a little corner of it. These and such like are the silly notions . . . the fancies of old women or of children . . . and in those by whom these passages are literally understood. . . . And should any one suppose that anything in God’s substance or nature can suffer change or conversion, he will be held guilty of wild profanity.

For He does not pass from this to that by transition of thought, but beholds all things with absolute unchangeableness; so that of those things which emerge in time, the future indeed, are not yet, and the present are now, and the past no longer are; but all of these are by Him comprehended in His stable and eternal presence.—The City of God, Modern Library, Random House, Book XI, p. 364.

I could go on multiplying quotes just from Augustine but this much should suffice.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Hilston]

"... by whom these passages are literally understood. . . . And should any one suppose that anything in God’s substance or nature can suffer change or conversion, he will be held guilty of wild profanity."

Bob, do you believe God DOES experience change in His substance (Augustine's term for "essence") or nature?

Please answer this.

 

[Bob Hill]

Many determinists believe God’s knowledge was fixed. They believe any change such as obtaining new knowledge or God changing His mind would indicate an imperfection. This, we open theists say, is a quite different picture than what we get of God in the Old Testament, a God who was seen as closely involved with His people, who was genuinely responsive to the circumstances of their lives.

This is especially true when we compare God’s actions in certain Old Testament passages: Gen 6:5-8 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

Gen 22:1-14 Now it came to pass after these things that God tested Abraham, and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” 2 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.” 3 So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son; and he split the wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him. 4 Then on the third day Abraham lifted his eyes and saw the place afar off. 5 And Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey; the lad and I will go yonder and worship, and we will come back to you.” 6 So Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife, and the two of them went together. 7 But Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and said, “My father!” And he said, “Here I am, my son.” Then he said, “Look, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” 8 And Abraham said, “My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.” So the two of them went together. 9 Then they came to the place of which God had told him. And Abraham built an altar there and placed the wood in order; and he bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, upon the wood. 10 And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the Angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” So he said, “Here I am.” 12 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.” 13 Then Abraham lifted his eyes and looked, and there behind him was a ram caught in a thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 And Abraham called the name of the place, The-LORD-WILL-PROVIDE; as it is said to this day, “In the Mount of The LORD it shall be provided.”

Praise the Lord,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

God Repented. He said He was going to consume Israel and make a great nation out of Moses.

Ex 32:9-14 And the LORD said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people! 10 “Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation.” 11 Then Moses pleaded with the LORD his God, and said: “LORD, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, ‘He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and repent from this harm to Your people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’” 14 So the LORD repented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

Hilston wrote:

Bob, do you believe God DOES experience change in His substance (Augustine's term for "essence") or nature?

Please answer this.

Hilston,
No, I do not believe God changes in His substance except when God the Son came to Earth and was born in a manger, etc.

Although I don't think these terms, substance or nature, are used of God, I would think that His nature would remain the same.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

God said He would not change: Mal 3:6 “For I am the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob. But in other places, we see that He changes His mind because of sin or compassion.

The view of God as unchanging has remained the orthodox view since the early church. However, it is overstating the case to suggest that Christian theology has been simply “Christianizing” Greek philosophy.

There are no passages within the Old Testament that say God exhaustively knows the future. It is my experience that the only way that a passage can be made to say that, is if it’s approached with the presupposition that God has exhaustive knowledge of the future.

In Exodus we read that God presented Himself to Moses as “I am who I am” (3:14). Although open theists say this refers to God’s consistent faithfulness to His people, traditionally it has been held to refer to God’s nature as well.

A great majority of biblicists would agree with us in our interpretation of Ex 3:14. Modern biblicists such as Nicholas P. Wolterstorff lament the fact that past theologians/philosophers used passages such as Ex 3:14 as support ”that God is metaphysically eternal and immutable. . . .when read in context, God’s answer, ‘I am who I am,” does not mean that God is pure being, as the tradition held, but that I, God, am who I have always been, namely, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” (Modern Reformation Sept/Oct 1999 Free Space). He has His being in Himself; He is independent of His creation.

So? Open theism affirms God’s independent existence and eternal distinctiveness.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Hilston]

Hilston,
No, I do not believe God changes in His substance except when God the Son came to Earth and was born in a manger, etc.

"Substance" in Augustinian terms refers to God's essence. The incarnation was not a change in God's essence, i.e., His essential attributes. Do you agree?

Although I don't think these terms, substance or nature, are used of God, I would think that His nature would remain the same.

The Bible talks about God's essential attributes as well as His nature. You talk about them yourself repeatedly. You seem to agree with Augustine. God is in no degree mutable in His substance (essential attributes) or nature.

If you believe otherwise, please explain to us how God's essential attributes changed. Remember, a change in manifestation is not a change in essential attributes.

Thanks,
Jim

 

[Servant101]

I think Jim is a brilliant man. I also understand that we are very far apart when it comes to God's Word. I do detest Calvinism, but I don't detest Calvinists.

May the Lord bless you Jim.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

Good post, and I leave that up in the air, Calvinism, if it is so, well it is beyond me to understand, and if they follow the Lord - well they do not judge who is who, not even themselves. Anyone who follows the Lord - overcoming evil with good - is O.K.


mmmm

 

[Bob Hill]

There are passages which are understood to refer to God’s unchangeableness. Mal 3:6 says “For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.” He does not change in regards to His character, but there is nothing in the Hebrew here that implies that God cannot change in any way (change His mind for example). There are, I believe, 5 words in Hebrew that are translated change and this one has the connotation of a change for the worse and not just simply any change at all.

He is the one “with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow” (Jas. 1:17). Again, this is in reference to God’s character and in no way implies that God cannot change in a way that is within His character such as is illustrated in 1 Sam 2:27-30: Then a man of God came to Eli and said to him, “Thus says the LORD: ‘Did I not clearly reveal Myself to the house of your father when they were in Egypt in Pharaoh’s house? 28 Did I not choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be My priest, to offer upon My altar, to burn incense, and to wear an ephod before Me? And did I not give to the house of your father all the offerings of the children of Israel made by fire? 29 Why do you kick at My sacrifice and My offering which I have commanded in My dwelling place, and honor your sons more than Me, to make yourselves fat with the best of all the offerings of Israel My people?’ 30 Therefore the LORD God of Israel says: ‘I said indeed that your house and the house of your father would walk before Me forever.’ But now the LORD says: ‘Far be it from Me; for those who honor Me I will honor, and those who despise Me shall be lightly esteemed.

We see a similar work of the Lord in Jer 18:1-10 The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying: 2 “Arise and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause you to hear My words.” 3 Then I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make. 5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the LORD. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9“And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10“if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

It is also said that God knows the end from the beginning. Isaiah 46:9-11 Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure,’ 11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, the man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it.

What does “Declaring the end from the beginning” mean? Does that mean everything in between? It doesn’t say that, and from other Biblical material, it doesn’t mean that.

It is impossible to get the word “know” out of the Hebrew word that it is translated from. You can get “make known”, but you cannot get the promotion of exhaustive definite foreknowledge that classical theists are looking for within scripture.

Classical theists start with a view of God that they’ve been taught (They’ve been taught God is impassible, strongly immutable, totally unconditioned, and has exhaustive definite foreknowledge.) and then look for support of that view within scripture.

1 John 3:20 says God “knows all things.” I affirm that! God does “know all things”, but that does not include those things which do not exist and are, therefore, unknowable. Psalm 139 has several verses referring to God’s knowledge of the writer’s life from birth to death (vv. 2,4,16).

Psalm 139 has been poorly translated in some Bible versions and gives the impression that God has exhaustive knowledge of the future. There is too much detail to go into in this response but here is an answer to the question, Were All Our Days Fashioned?

Verse 13 For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb.

God’s knowledge is incomprehensible to David. David has been telling God how well God knows him. God knows his ways, his thoughts from afar, and where he goes. When a word reaches his tongue, God knows it completely. Further, no matter where David goes, God is there to lead and hold him. Light or darkness makes no difference to God. Now, he switches to embryology. God has a marvelous plan for the growth of a baby from a one cell fertilized egg to a full term baby.

Verse 14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well. David marveled at God’s work – a human being, but he personalizes it, “I am fearfully and wonderfully made.”

Verse 15 My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

Not only was it not hidden from God, but God made the whole genetic transcription process by which we are skillfully made. A serious problem arises in this verse. What does “the lowest parts of the earth” mean? In other references it seems to mean Sheol. This is puzzling, unless David is using the ideas of his time which allude to the formation of a human being in Sheol before he was born.

Verse 16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them.

Because God could look at DNA, He could see any human’s exact likeness, his real substance as an adult, before he was even born. This means God could tell how a man would look at maturity just by looking at the DNA. Not only that, but all the processes and likenesses were written in the chromosomes, including the days it would take to have all this happen.

(Darby) For thou hast possessed my reins; thou didst cover me in my mother’s womb. 14 I will praise thee, for I am fearfully, wonderfully made. Marvelous are thy works; and [that] my soul knoweth right well. 15 My bones were not hidden from thee when I was made in secret, curiously wrought in the lower parts of the earth. 16 Thine eyes did see my unformed substance, and in thy book all [my members] were written; [during many] days were they fashioned, when [as yet] there was none of them.

(KJV) For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. 14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully [and] wonderfully made: marvelous [are] thy works; and [that] my soul knoweth right well. 15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, [and] curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. 16 Thine 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.

(My good friend, Tim McMahon) For you possessed my kidneys. You covered me in my mother’s womb. 14 I will praise You because I am awesomely marvelous. Your acts are marvels which my soul knows very well. 15 My bones were not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place [when] I was woven in the lowest parts of the earth. 16 Your eyes watched my fetus [in all its features] (In your book it was fully described in writing) as it was being formed over a period of time. And one of those [features] is His.

(NKJV) For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. 14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully [and] wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, and [that] my soul knows very well. 15 My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, [and] skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. 16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when [as] [yet] [there] [were] none of them.

Finally, Scripture presents a God who is sovereign over the course of history. Isaiah 48 speaks of the things God had “declared long ago,” and which He now was bringing about (vv. 3-5).

Bob Hill

 

[Hilston]

AUGUSTINE ON IMMUTABILITY​

Open Theists are famous for their disdain for Calvinism and Augustinian teachings because of the doctrine of divine immutability that Augustine derived from Platonistic thought. Open Theists believe that God changes in some ways, such as in His mood, His state of mind, His actions, etc., but not in others such as in His character and personality. That is to say, God is mutable in some ways and immutable in others. Augustinians happen to agree, but Open Theists are so fond of the argument that Augustine believed in utter divine immutability, that God cannot change at all in any way whatsoever, that they refuse to accept what Augustine himself wrote about God's mutability and immutability.

Note that in none of what precedes or follows do I profess agreement with Augustine's doctrine. In some cases I agree, in others I don't. That is not the point of this brief essay. The point is to expose how Open Theists selectively quote Augustine in order to smear him and to attack the Calvinistic doctrines that they so vociferously denounce.

The following are quotes that show not only that Open Theists do not understand Augustine's view, but that the Open Theists actually are in agreement with Augustine on the matter of divine immutability:

From Augustine's Confessions, pp 78,79:

For who is Lord but the Lord? or who is God save our God? ... Thou lovest, and burnest not; art jealous, yet free from care; repentest, and hast no sorrow; art angry, yet serene; changest Thy ways, leaving unchanged Thy plans; recoverest what Thou findest, having yet never lost; art never in want, whilst Thou rejoicest in gain; never covetous, though requiring usury ... [Emphases added]​

From the Letters of Augustine, pp. 949, 950

... this Word of God, I say, took to Himself, in a manner entirely different from that in which He is present to other creatures, the soul and body of a man, and made, by the union of Himself therewith, the one person Jesus Christ, Mediator between God and men, His Deity equal with the Father, in His flesh, i.e. in His human nature, inferior to the Father, unchangeably immortal in respect of the divine nature, in which He is equal with the Father, and yet changeable and mortal in respect of the infirmity which was His through participation with our nature. [Emphases added]​

Again, Open Theists assert that Augustine believed that "[God] could not change at all in any way whatsoever." Yet, above we see Augustine, as do all of the Calvinistic authors I've ever read, qualifying the ways in which God has experienced change and ways in which He has not changed, just like Open Theists do.

~James Hilston, Nov. 8, 2005

 

[Bob Hill]

Is 48:3-5 is a good example of a passage that affirms what the open view claims: that God works temporally or within human history. He does things in sequence. First He “declares” that He will do something then He does it. There’s no timeless “eternal now” implied in this or any other passage.

These Scriptures and others have been held to support the traditional view of God’s foreknowledge.

They have been shown to not provide the support that determinists claim they do rather convincingly by open theists and many Arminians.

We must first realize that God does know a lot about the future. He certainly knows what He has planned to happen. But even in that, we see that He sometimes repents of what He was going to do. What God seems to show repeatedly is that He does not know the future free decisions of individuals. Some of the future is foreknown because God is going to do it.

As we have seen, some biblical passages, which are presented by determinists, to show that God knows everything about the future, really only tell us God’s intentions for the future. One passage is Isaiah 46:9,10 in which God says “I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure.’”

What is the accurate translation? Do you think those reading this post, who are not open theists, won’t notice the difference in the way I translated Is 46:10 here (“Declaring the end from the beginning”) and the way that I used this passage to support what I said earlier (“He is also said to know the end from the beginning”)?

Classical theists say this passage not only declares God’s knowledge of the future, but that He knows the future because He planned it. But God is only speaking of those things He intends to do. It doesn’t say God knows everything about the future, but only those things which He has ordained will take place.

Is 46:10-11 is talking about God’s ability to bring about His counsel. An ability that no other “god” possesses.

Other prophecies can be explained by the fact that God can perfectly predict our behavior in certain circumstances. God knows us perfectly, and He knows all the possibilities which lie ahead.

Greg Boyd says God can predict a person’s behavior because of His knowledge of the person’s character combined with all future possibilities. So regarding Jesus’ foreknowledge that Peter would deny him, Boyd says that God “knew the effect Jesus’ arrest would have on him.” He used the circumstances to let Peter see how weak he really was.

The interpretations Boyd gives to these passages raise questions, however. While the Isaiah passage doesn’t say God knows everything about everything, it’s hard to see how God could know for certain that His plans would work out if free individuals making free decisions along the way were involved, which surely they would be.

I believe that God is able (Jer 32:27) and wise (1 Tim 1:17) enough to bring about His counsel in the face of great opposition from those who reject His counsel. It appears that many do not share my belief in God’s ability to do so in such a world. But I see plenty of scripture that establishes it.

Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

Some Calvinists believe the Open Theist view of the prophecy about Peter’s denial seems strained. Jesus could certainly make predictions based upon Peter’s character. But how could He know there would be three denials before the rooster crowed twice simply on the basis of Peter’s character and the circumstances?

But Satan had already asked permission to sift Peter. I think this is what happened. Luke 22:31,32, “Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.”

I believe, “when you have returned to Me”, shows us that Satan was going to be able to test him beyond what Peter was able to withstand in his own strength. I think this incident was like the one recorded in Job 1:6-12.

We can point to times where it appears that God regrets something He has done. Could God really regret having made man in the first place, as Gen. 6:6 says, if He knew all along what would happen? I say, No!

Similarly, how could God truly regret having made Saul king (1 Sam. 15:35) if He knew all along the direction Saul’s life would take? He couldn’t regret what He knew or, as many believe, He ordained to occur.

These are the problems for which the Open View has answers.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

God's passion is real. It wouldn't be real if He knew from all eternity exactly what was going to happen down to the scratching of an ear in my home. :banned:

Bob Hill