What Frank?
God is life. One cannot be alive and not have emotion. Even dumb animals have emotion. When God repented that he had made man is not the same thing as when man repents. It is just that God felt sorrow for the man that He had created. He gets angry and vengeful at the evil a man does. God intended for us to know that. He also wonted us to know that he is long suffering, loving and generous. God is not aloof from it all and that as we act so does He. This does not mean that God changed His mind about man or that God does not know. If God did not know, then why reveal that He had made provision from the foundation of the world. It is not God who changes His mind but man who changes. It is not that God does not know but that it is man that does not know. God knows and man does not. God is reliable. Man is not. That is why salvation is of God and not of man. If God changes, then man can have no confidence in God that He will keep his word. That is why the god of the OVer is no better than any pagan god in history. It is religion according to man as man has practiced it from ages past and has changed God in the heart of man from real to a false god. From a real God to that of myth.Frank Ernest said:God said He is a jealous God. That's pretty emotional if you ask me. Look at what He did to various idolaters and what He said about them. I do believe He made a point here -- a very emotional one which tends to preclude the above-it-all and aloof view proposed by Augustine.
Really? Are you sure? Does an Earthworm have emotion? How about a bacterium or the cells that make up the muscle fibers in my left leg? They are definately alive. Do they have emotion? In fact it would seem that the lower the life form the less likely it is that it has emotion and yet Calvinists insist that God is impassible like worms and gutter slime.elected4ever said:God is life. One cannot be alive and not have emotion. Even dumb animals have emotion.
Had He always felt sorrow? Did He not see His creation and say "it is very good" just a few chapters earlier? That sounds like a change of mind to me! Isn't that what the word repent means, to change one's mind?When God repented that he had made man is not the same thing as when man repents. It is just that God felt sorrow for the man that He had created.
Nice preaching but its self-contradictory nonsense. Your own words have already proven that God does change His mind. That is unless you think He was lying when He said that He was pleased with His creation and that it was "very good". Was God being long suffering when He flooded the whole place out? Or had His patience come to an end? It can't be both. God had either decided to continue being patient and please or had decided enough was enough and got angry enough to do something about it.He gets angry and vengeful at the evil a man does. God intended for us to know that. He also wanted us to know that he is long suffering, loving and generous. God is not aloof from it all and that as we act so does He. This does not mean that God changed His mind about man or that God does not know. If God did not know, then why reveal that He had made provision from the foundation of the world. It is not God who changes His mind but man who changes. It is not that God does not know but that it is man that does not know. God knows and man does not. God is reliable. Man is not. That is why salvation is of God and not of man.
Your premise is faulty and so therefore your conclusion is false. A proper premise would be that if God's character changes then He could not be trusted to keep His word, but His character does not change and open theism does not teach that it changes nor would I accept it as truth if it did.If God changes, then man can have no confidence in God that He will keep his word. That is why the god of the OVer is no better than any pagan god in history. It is religion according to man as man has practiced it from ages past and has changed God in the heart of man from real to a false god. From a real God to that of myth.
Beautifully Put :BRAVO: :first:seekinganswers said:Your understanding of "knowledge" is a very Greek one. The Greeks understood knowledge as a entity that came to us passively through the senses. This is not what knowledge signifies in the scriptures (and especially not in Hebrew). To know something in Hebrew means to affect it. It does not signify a passive entrance of that knowledge to us through the senses, but indicates a power to shape, to mold, and to act. When God "knows" good and evil, it does not mean that God simply can discern it. It means that God enacts the good that God sees fit to enact. To know good and evil is not to be a sage of it, but to be one who determines, who sets it into place. Good cannot be distinguished from the embodiment of that God. Abstractions are useless as far as the Hebrews were concerned.
So for God to "know" the future has nothing to do with a passive receiving of knowledge. God knows the future as the actant in Creation who drives the Creation to its proper telos in God. This is the absurdity of both the Open view and of Calvinism, because they both attempt to understand God within the framework of the Enlightenment, which is nothing more than a mythology of the Modern Nation-state.
Peace,
Michael
Well said SA........:BRAVO:seekinganswers said:Your understanding of "knowledge" is a very Greek one. The Greeks understood knowledge as a entity that came to us passively through the senses. This is not what knowledge signifies in the scriptures (and especially not in Hebrew). To know something in Hebrew means to affect it. It does not signify a passive entrance of that knowledge to us through the senses, but indicates a power to shape, to mold, and to act. When God "knows" good and evil, it does not mean that God simply can discern it. It means that God enacts the good that God sees fit to enact. To know good and evil is not to be a sage of it, but to be one who determines, who sets it into place. Good cannot be distinguished from the embodiment of that God. Abstractions are useless as far as the Hebrews were concerned.
So for God to "know" the future has nothing to do with a passive receiving of knowledge. God knows the future as the actant in Creation who drives the Creation to its proper telos in God. This is the absurdity of both the Open view and of Calvinism, because they both attempt to understand God within the framework of the Enlightenment, which is nothing more than a mythology of the Modern Nation-state.
Peace,
Michael
seekinganswers said:So for God to "know" the future has nothing to do with a passive receiving of knowledge. God knows the future as the actant in Creation who drives the Creation to its proper telos in God. This is the absurdity of both the Open view and of Calvinism, because they both attempt to understand God within the framework of the Enlightenment, which is nothing more than a mythology of the Modern Nation-state.
Peace,
Michael
:shut:godrulz said:elected is rejecting a straw man caricature of Open Theism...
Clete, is that your picture or a movie star's picture...I pictured you as a green swamp monster :LoJo:
:rotfl:godrulz said:Clete, is that your picture or a movie star's picture...I pictured you as a green swamp monster :LoJo:
Okay everyone: IN UNISON...seekinganswers said:Your understanding of "knowledge" is a very Greek one. The Greeks understood knowledge as a entity that came to us passively through the senses. This is not what knowledge signifies in the scriptures (and especially not in Hebrew). To know something in Hebrew means to affect it. It does not signify a passive entrance of that knowledge to us through the senses, but indicates a power to shape, to mold, and to act. When God "knows" good and evil, it does not mean that God simply can discern it. It means that God enacts the good that God sees fit to enact. To know good and evil is not to be a sage of it, but to be one who determines, who sets it into place. Good cannot be distinguished from the embodiment of that God. Abstractions are useless as far as the Hebrews were concerned.
So for God to "know" the future has nothing to do with a passive receiving of knowledge. God knows the future as the actant in Creation who drives the Creation to its proper telos in God. This is the absurdity of both the Open view and of Calvinism, because they both attempt to understand God within the framework of the Enlightenment, which is nothing more than a mythology of the Modern Nation-state.
Peace,
Michael
Clete said:Okay everyone: IN UNISON...
SAYING IT DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!
My standard of truth is not Hebrew idioms, manners of thinking or tradition but the plain reading of the text of Scripture. If you would like to establish the relevance of this nonsense with Scripture and sound reason I invite you to do so. Otherwise, I am not interested in your simple opinions.
Further, word play doesn't impress me one little bit. There are several words that can mean what we Gentiles commonly refer to as knowledge and the word knowledge can carry several meanings including that of sexual relations (which is also a Biblical use of the term, by the way). The Bible uses terms like 'understanding' and 'wisdom' to refer to knowledge as well and so to suggest that Hebrews knew nothing of what you refer to as Greek understanding of knowledge is disingenuous at best. The point being that the sort of knowledge we are talking about doesn't have to mean what you are suggesting even in a Hebrew's head.
Further still, the sort of knowledge that you say is Greek cannot be escaped. Notice your own wording...
"Your understanding of "knowledge" is a very Greek one."
My understanding of knowledge vs. a Hebrew understanding of knowledge. You say there is a Greek idea of knowledge and a Hebrew idea. I'm wondering which you are referring to when you use the word "understanding" in this sentence.
That is somewhat of an obscure point but let me just say it bluntly. When I speak of knowledge I'm speaking of logical certainty in whatever form. If you would like to get into a discussion about epistemology then I would be happy to oblige but I don't think you'd be up for it. The simple fact is that logic cannot be escaped. The fact that the Greeks wrote about it and even formalized it does not mean that they invented it or even discovered it. Indeed, God is the God of logic and theology is the 'logos of the theos' and cannot be done rightly apart from sound reason whether one is a Hebrew, or a Greek.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Au, contraire...........I think he does.godrulz said:Clete defends Open Theism and stands against the Hellenistic, pagan Greek influences on Christianity (Platonic, Augustinian, etc.). We acknowledge the Hebraic roots of Christianity and the errors of much of Greek philosophy. I think you are attacking a straw man and do not really understand what we believe.
godrulz said:There are OT Hebrew words for knowledge and NT Greek words for knowledge. There may be similarities and differences. The Holy Spirit chose Koine Greek to inspire the revelation of God in the New Covenant. The language has nuances that are more precise than many other languages (e.g. more than one word for love). The writers used Greek words like 'logos', but expanded and changed it to convey Christian truth. It still retained some of the original Greek ideas. We should not pit Hebrew against Greek, but see both as part of the full, progressive revelation of God. Clete is correct that it is an exegetical fallacy to assume any word has a limited meaning. Context, culture, time periods, etc. all affect the nuanced interpretations.
godrulz said:Clete defends Open Theism and stands against the Hellenistic, pagan Greek influences on Christianity (Platonic, Augustinian, etc.). We acknowledge the Hebraic roots of Christianity and the errors of much of Greek philosophy. I think you are attacking a straw man and do not really understand what we believe.
godrulz said:You have a propensity for jumping to conclusions and misunderstanding what people believe based on brief posts.