ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[genuineoriginal]

Then I would give this a long-hard second-look in light of what you present to me below.

You should give it a long-hard second-look.

You say Open Theology makes God subservient to men, I say classical theists have a profound misunderstanding of sovereignty.
You saying God is subservient to men is blaspheming God in order to argue against Open Theology.
My saying you don't know what you are talking about says nothing about God, but says something about your lack of understanding.

Without even looking yet at the verse in question, what are you showing you are most concerned with here? No doubt you are looking for scripture to support it, but I'm simply asking you to recognize what that thing is.

It is something called the Word of God.

We are called to His kingdom and glory. It supports the opposite paradigm: His program.

See here again. It is not a human message nor a human-centered message. It is God's message. It works in us which shows that our egocentric ideas come second or even not at all, including our freedom, to the primary concern of His Word and will.

It sounds like you are saying that Paul had the wrong paradigm when he wrote these verses under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Try reading the actual words of the verses for what Paul is saying instead of trying to proof-text them to say something else.

1 Thessalonians 2 9For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God. 10Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe: 11As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children, 12That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory. 13For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.​

Imitators have to start with God and His primacy first or it is not imitation. It is more of blending to do otherwise. Imitators are primarily concerned with how He does it, then they practice and relearn everything to copy what they've learned, putting it into practice. As I said, the OV is a paradigm shift to what is most important to man rather than a priority of what is most important and true about God.
As a reminder, I am not accussing the OV of not upholding God's character as important, but that its primary concern is to resolve problems and issues with man and his freewill. This is not the primary traditionalist concern. Anthropology is always one of the later chapters in our systematic theology books.

You claim you know things about God that are not in the Word of God, proving that you have some other source for your knowledge of God.
When Open Theists say that what they believe about God is what is written in His Word, classical theists start claiming that God's declarative will written in the Bible is superseded by God's decretive will which is not written in the Bible.
The gnostics before you also claimed to know things about God that are not in the Word of God, and they also believed in and taught about a higher more abstract God than is found in the Words of the Bible. Is imitating the gnostics worth that much to you?

Try imitating the Bereans instead:

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.​

 

[genuineoriginal]

As it says in Thayer's, it is the doctrine that is "tending to godliness."

Now let us look at the verse in question again:

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father..." (1 Pet.1:2).

It is good to do a study on the words used in a disputed passage and the various meanings of those words. I am learning a lot. Thank you.

Since you are spending time in Thayers, check out the word foreknowledge (πρόγνωσις - prognosis) which Thayers says means "forethought, prearraingement" when applied to 1 Peter 1:2. This is different than the use of the word (προγινώσκω - proginosko) which Thayers says means "to have knowledge of beforehand; to foreknow". The Holy Spirit must have had a reason for choosing one word over the other.

How does this rendering change the meaning of the verse?

Elect according to the prearraingement of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.(1 Peter 1:2)​

"Chosen" "in consequence of" the "prearraingement" of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit ...

Now the verse sounds like it is saying that God prearrainged for the sanctification of the Spirit, and that people are chosen because of that prearraingement.

What is your take on that?

 

[Totton Linnet]

Proximal is more likely than remote, specific vs exhaustive.

God had sovereign intentions for Jeremiah, Paul, etc. This does not mean intentions are irresistible (Lk. 7:30; Matthew 23:37). If Paul died in the womb, did not convert, decided to be a football player vs preacher, etc., then Scripture would have been recorded differently. Since Paul did ultimately walk in the will of God, the intentions were fulfilled vs thwarted. God also intended Lucifer and Adam to remain righteous, yet they fell.

God's will/grace is not irresistible. An exhalation of meticulous control above love, relationship, free will is not necessary nor biblical.

There is more than one way to skin a cat or to interpret a verse (though only one correct way to exegete).

William this is the god of fatalism or destiny, chance. No wonder Elijah laughed at the baals, "keep crying, call louder, perhaps your god is having a nap or is turned aside [he means for a pee] "

Where oh where do you see that Paul had a thing in the world to do with his salavation? yes how many hairs on a nit's leg, but God shone a light brighter than the noon day sun and hurled him backwards from his horse...I tell you after Jesus finished speaking to him Paul was reduced to a little child, this fierce arrogant man asking for someone "please! take me by the hand"

Just like Naaman of old God knows how to get each one of us into a corner.

God is irresistible in the day of His power, His plan irreversable...I agree He has a plan A and plan a B for us who are His people. But even so with foreknowledge He already knows which one it will be.

Our job is to DISCOVER His plan, yuk to free willery, we need to get on to God's plan.

 

[Lon]

You should give it a long-hard second-look.

You say Open Theology makes God subservient to men, I say classical theists have a profound misunderstanding of sovereignty.
You saying God is subservient to men is blaspheming God in order to argue against Open Theology.
My saying you don't know what you are talking about says nothing about God, but says something about your lack of understanding.

I have carefully preserved our conversation to specifically say that the concerns of the open view have God's character in a secondary postion (subservience).
This does not mean He is subservient, it means that the OV isn't primarily concerned with that first. It is first concerned with man's freewill. I have endeavored to make that beyond clear.

It is something called the Word of God.

We both claim that and I doubt it not at all about most Open Theists I've met. What I am driving at is the difference of our paradigms we bring with us into our endeavors. I am primarily concerned with what God is saying, especially when it troubles my egocentrism. I have a self-preservation, like the rest of mankind, that I think Our Lord addresses when He tells us 'to gain life, we must lose it, to deny ourselves and take up or cross, and that we are hid with Christ in God.'

It sounds like you are saying that Paul had the wrong paradigm when he wrote these verses under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Why? I would suggest again it is what we bring to them in the first place.
I saw Paul's writing as divinely inspired supporting our need to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. It is this I am emphasizing. We don't come to God's word concerned primarily with our freewill. We come to them concerned primarily with His will above and beyond our own or we will be accomodating rather than transformed imitators.

Try reading the actual words of the verses for what Paul is saying instead of trying to proof-text them to say something else.

I didn't proof text them. I do not claim we are without freewill. I claim that we should leave as much of ourselves behind when approaching His word to see His agenda, not ours.

1 Thessalonians 2​ 9For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God. 10Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe: 11As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children, 12That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.​ 13For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

You claim you know things about God that are not in the Word of God, proving that you have some other source for your knowledge of God.
When Open Theists say that what they believe about God is what is written in His Word, classical theists start claiming that God's declarative will written in the Bible is superseded by God's decretive will which is not written in the Bible.
The gnostics before you also claimed to know things about God that are not in the Word of God, and they also believed in and taught about a higher more abstract God than is found in the Words of the Bible. Is imitating the gnostics worth that much to you?

Two posts earlier, you said those were coincidal when I suggested this was a cloak and dagger topic pointing away for the OV.

I am not claiming anything other than what I read in the scriptures you provided. God says, in His word that what He wills to happen cannot be thwarted. He also reminds us through Jesus, that some things are allowed because of hardness of heart and etc. Therefore, His prescriptive and decretive will are scriptural ideas.

Try imitating the Bereans instead:

Acts 17:11​ These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.​

And I do, G.O.
The main gist isn't that either doesn't read his/her scriptures. It is what is the primary concern in approaching them. The OV cry against the traditional view is "puppets!" and "robots!" What is this concerned with? Man's freewill. My first concern isn't what implications this does to me but rather, what God is trying to convey, whether it bothers my sensibilities of freedom or not. It just isn't the priority to me it is to the OVer. It doesn't mean it isn't important, it just means it is not the first thing I look for reading His word. I'm most concerned with knowing Him and He molding me and changing me as He sees fit.​

For me, "He loves us" makes whether or not I'm a puppet of lesser consequence and concern. The only thing that matters, is that God loves us regardless of whether I'm autonomous or not. If slaves love their masters and know their masters love them, I'd argue they are the most free people on the earth no matter how restricted they might be.
First, because they know the master has their best intentions in mind even if it doesn't always 'feel' that way. Second, because they desire what the master desires as well. Freewill gives way to His-will because it is best for both concerned, beyond our comprehension. God loves us better than we can look after our own interests. I want God pulling my strings. That we need to talk about it only shows that it gets in the way. If we believer's truly had our own way, we'd do nothing but follow His-will and gladly deny ourselves and take up His cross. We negate 'desire to do otherwise' as New Creations wanting His-will.​

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yes, Paul was addressing many believers and not just one. And the fact is that he told them for salvation from the beginning.

Let us look at the following verse which speaks of the "foreknowledge" of God:

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).

One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "according" at 1 Peter 1:2 is "in consequence of" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

So the saved are described as "elect" and their election is "in consequence of" God's foreknowledge. And notice the "bold" in the following two verses:

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).

II Peter 3:17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.

I Peter 1:20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake.

Acts 26:4 My manner of life from my youth, spent from the beginning among my own nation and at Jerusalem, is known by all the Jews. 5 They have known for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that according to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee

Romans 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son.

The Greek word in each case is "proginosko".

Peter and Paul says we have foreknowedge just as God does.

--Dave

 

[genuineoriginal]

I would go so far as to say the OV is entirely too bold in making these assertions. They portray as arrogant and God needing to bow to men in order to support their theology, rather than us bowing before Him and not going beyond what is written, especially concerning what God can and cannot do.

I have carefully preserved our conversation to specifically say that the concerns of the open view have God's character in a secondary postion (subservience).
This does not mean He is subservient, it means that the OV isn't primarily concerned with that first. It is first concerned with man's freewill. I have endeavored to make that beyond clear.

No, God is not subservient to man in the Open View.

We both claim that and I doubt it not at all about most Open Theists I've met. What I am driving at is the difference of our paradigms we bring with us into our endeavors. I am primarily concerned with what God is saying, especially when it troubles my egocentrism. I have a self-preservation, like the rest of mankind, that I think Our Lord addresses when He tells us 'to gain life, we must lose it, to deny ourselves and take up or cross, and that we are hid with Christ in God.'

We both claim that as well.

I saw Paul's writing as divinely inspired supporting our need to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. It is this I am emphasizing. We don't come to God's word concerned primarily with our freewill. We come to them concerned primarily with His will above and beyond our own or we will be accomodating rather than transformed imitators.
I didn't proof text them. I do not claim we are without freewill. I claim that we should leave as much of ourselves behind when approaching His word to see His agenda, not ours.

Somehow you managed to say nothing like that in your earlier post. What you said here are things we both agree on.

The argument that classic theology uses ancient philosophy is not groundless, but it is off-base.
The correct argument is that classic theology begins with assumptions about the nature of God and then uses proof-texts from the scriptures to support those assumptions. There were some Greek philosophers who did not know the God of the Bible that speculated on the nature of an ultimate god and came up with a deistic god that has the same attributes that classical theology applies to the God of the Bible.

Two posts earlier, you said those were coincidal when I suggested this was a cloak and dagger topic pointing away for the OV.

I would not claim it was coincidental, since I don't believe in coincidence.
I did claim that the argument (Greek Philosophy being the basis of the list of God's attributes that classical theologists impose on scripture) is not groundless, but is off-base, and I explained why.

I am not claiming anything other than what I read in the scriptures you provided. God says, in His word that what He wills to happen cannot be thwarted. He also reminds us through Jesus, that some things are allowed because of hardness of heart and etc.

You are applying what God says in regards to a specific prophecy to a larger scope than God intended it.

God normally seeks for a righteous man to stand before Him and argue for mercy, even when the people in the land deserve judgment.(Ezekiel 22:30) But there are times when God says that He will not turn aside from judgment. (Ezekiel 14:13-14)
There are other times when God when God says that He will do something regardless of all obstacles, such as returning the children of Israel from captivity to the land He promised their forefathers so they could be His people and He could be their God. (Isaiah 55:11) These usually times when God has made an unconditional covenant that He will ensure that He will keep. (Jeremiah 33:20-26)

From these examples, we can see that God prefers mercy, but sometimes He will not turn aside from Judgment. We can also see that when God establishes an unconditional covenant, then He will not be thwarted in its fulfillment.

Therefore, His prescriptive and decretive will are scriptural ideas.

God’s sovereign or decretive will is not to be confused with his revealed or prescriptive will—his commandments. While his prescriptive will forbids sin, his decretive will ordains sin for his own glory.
(source)​

No, prescriptive will and decretive will are not scriptural ideas.
God does not ordain sin for His own glory.

And I do, G.O.
The main gist isn't that either doesn't read his/her scriptures. It is what is the primary concern in approaching them. The OV cry against the traditional view is "puppets!" and "robots!" What is this concerned with? Man's freewill. My first concern isn't what implications this does to me but rather, what God is trying to convey, whether it bothers my sensibilities of freedom or not. It just isn't the priority to me it is to the OVer. It doesn't mean it isn't important, it just means it is not the first thing I look for reading His word. I'm most concerned with knowing Him and He molding me and changing me as He sees fit.

For me, "He loves us" makes whether or not I'm a puppet of lesser consequence and concern. The only thing that matters, is that God loves us regardless of whether I'm autonomous or not. If slaves love their masters and know their masters love them, I'd argue they are the most free people on the earth no matter how restricted they might be.
First, because they know the master has their best intentions in mind even if it doesn't always 'feel' that way. Second, because they desire what the master desires as well. Freewill gives way to His-will because it is best for both concerned, beyond our comprehension. God loves us better than we can look after our own interests. I want God pulling my strings. That we need to talk about it only shows that it gets in the way. If we believer's truly had our own way, we'd do nothing but follow His-will and gladly deny ourselves and take up His cross. We negate 'desire to do otherwise' as New Creations wanting His-will.

The only difference between what you are saying and what Open Theists say is that you want to be God's puppet. God does not make men into puppets, no matter how much you want to be God's puppet.

Open Theism is a more difficult road than classical theism because the future is not settled.
With Open Theism, a man has to continually make the conscious decision to humble himself and submit to Gods will in obedience out of love and respect for God. After a while it becomes easier and enjoyable.

Open Theists know that if we believers do not make a conscious decision to humble ourself and obey we would not deny ourselves and take up the cross. That is why we must choose to be imitators of Christ who showed obedience. Even when the will of Jesus was to avoid the cross, He submitted Himself to the Father's will.

A classical theist can look at evil happening in the world and say that it is happening as part of God's plan.
Open Theists must look at evil and know that it was never something God desired. We must seek God to find out if the evil is from His judgment on a nation to stop the spread of evil in the nation or whether it is the evil of men that we are seeing. God can use anything that happens for good (like using the holocaust to give birth to the nation of Israel), but that does not mean He planned for the evil to happen in order to bring about the good.

Ultimately, all of God's covenants will be fulfilled and all the enemies will be destroyed, including death. In that time those who fear the Lord will be together with Him in the new heaven and the new earth where dwells righteousness.
God knows who fear Him because He can search out the hearts of men, not because He has seen the future or (worse) because He has planned out our every choice in eternity past, including whether we will be saved.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It is good to do a study on the words used in a disputed passage and the various meanings of those words. I am learning a lot. Thank you.

You are welcome.

Since you are spending time in Thayers, check out the word foreknowledge (πρόγνωσις - prognosis) which Thayers says means "forethought, prearraingement" when applied to 1 Peter 1:2. This is different than the use of the word (προγινώσκω - proginosko) which Thayers says means "to have knowledge of beforehand; to foreknow". The Holy Spirit must have had a reason for choosing one word over the other.

The difference between the two words is that one is a "verb" and the other is a "noun."

Proginōskō is the verb and it is made up of the prefix pro which means "before" and ginōskō which means "to get a knowledge of."

And the root of the noun prognōsis is proginōskō which means "to have knowledge before hand."

So in effect the word prognōsis means "knowledge that came beforehand" or "foreknowledge."

With this in mind we can understand the meaning of the following verse:

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).

The Christian is chosen and his being chosen is "in consequence of" God's foreknowledge. And that is the same thought expressed in the following verse:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The Greek word in each case is "proginosko".

Peter and Paul says we have foreknowedge just as God does.

Yes, a man can be said to be able to koreknow things. For instance, my newspaper announces that this weekend a certain movie will be playing at a certain theater. Therefore, I have a "foreknowledge" that that movie will be playing this weekend.

But that foreknowledge cannot be compared to the kind of foreknowledge that God possesses because His foreknowledge can look into the future and see things which are not announced beforehand.

From the following two verses we can see that God's choosing men for salvation was based on a foreknowledge, before the foundation of the world:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

God can look into the future and see who will believe and it is on that basis that He choses men for salvation. And that is what the following verse is saying:

"Elect (chosen) according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).

So the Christian is chosen and his being chosen is "in consequence of" God's foreknowledge.

A man can have a foreknowledge of what is playing this weekend at a certain movie theater based an an advertisement which he read in a newspaper but he does not have an ability to look into the future and know who will believe the gospel.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Also the power at the cinema may be out.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yes, a man can be said to be able to koreknow things. For instance, my newspaper announces that this weekend a certain movie will be playing at a certain theater. Therefore, I have a "foreknowledge" that that movie will be playing this weekend.

But that foreknowledge cannot be compared to the kind of foreknowledge that God possesses because His foreknowledge can look into the future and see things which are not announced beforehand.

From the following two verses we can see that God's choosing men for salvation was based on a foreknowledge, before the foundation of the world:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

God can look into the future and see who will believe and it is on that basis that He choses men for salvation. And that is what the following verse is saying:

"Elect (chosen) according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).

So the Christian is chosen and his being chosen is "in consequence of" God's foreknowledge.

A man can have a foreknowledge of what is playing this weekend at a certain movie theater based an an advertisement which he read in a newspaper but he does not have an ability to look into the future and know who will believe the gospel.

Foreknowledge is something we know before it happens, all these verses tell us is the point at which God's foreknowledge begins. These verses do not say that God sees the future any more then the verses about "our" foreknowedge is because we see the future.

You are reading "God sees the future" into these texts because you believe that all of human history has already happened. If God sees the future, all of human history, then God does not foreknow, he just knows. There is no such thing as the future for God, according to you all, for God there is no such thing as "before, or after, the foundation of the world". If all things are "now" for God there is no such thing as God's foreknowledge, there is no such thing as God looking ahead or looking back.

What does "God's choosing men for salvation was based on a foreknowledge, before the foundation of the world" mean? Does it mean that God saw us believing in Christ and becoming Christians, before he created us, and then chose us to become Christians? How dumb is that? :darwinsm:

--Dave

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You are reading "God sees the future" into these texts because you believe that all of human history has already happened.

If you are right and God exists in time and not outside of time then the following verses tells us exactly "when" God chose men for salvation:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

You have tried your best to attempt to prove that these verses do not speak of God's "foreknowledge" but you have failed. If you could only see that God exists outside of time then an explanation can be given for these verses which prove that the "settled" view is in error.

A world class detective and world class Bible commentator named Sir Robert Anderson understood that answering the Calvinist's "settled" view depends on first understanding that God exists outside of time. He wrote:

"What is, in plain words, the practical difficulty of election in its bearing upon the gospel? Why, that at some epoch in the past, God decided that this or that individual was to be saved or lost; and, therefore, that his future depends, not on the present action of the grace or the righteousness of the living God Who can appeal through the gospel to his heart and conscience, but on what is nothing more or less than an iron decree of fate. May not the whole difficulty depend on the arrogant supposition that God Himself is bound by the same laws that He has imposed upon His creatures?" (Anderson, The Gospel and Its Ministry [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1978], 78).

The "law" of which he speaks is the "law of time."

Anderson knowledge of the Bible was highly respected in his day. Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) said that Anderson's book Human Destiny is "the most valuable contribution on the subject I have seen." James M. Gray (1852-1935), who served for thirty years as President of Moody Bible Institute and was one of the seven editors of the original Scofield Reference Bible, said the following about Anderson:

“Sir Robert Anderson is in some respects the most remarkable of current writers on religious subjects, whether we consider his personal history or the range and character of his work…To sit at the feet of a man with such knowledge, mental power, courage and native wit, who is at the same time Spirit taught, is for the true Christian one of the greatest privileges.”

He was also the Chief of the Criminal Investigation Department of Scotland Yard and Warren Wiersbe wrote that Anderson "tracked down myths and religious error, arrested and exposed it, with the same skill and courage that he displayed when he tracked down criminals." He is described in the Baptist Testimony as “a master Bible teacher who approaches his subject as only Sir Robert Anderson could: methodically, logically, and only after a thorough investigation…Anderson is a giant amongst giants and anything he wrote is worth having on one's library shelf."

 

[Lon]

No, God is not subservient to man in the Open View.

We both claim that as well.

Somehow you managed to say nothing like that in your earlier post. What you said here are things we both agree on.

Meh, you know how first and often-second attempts go, but I really worked on this time!

I would not claim it was coincidental, since I don't believe in coincidence.
I did claim that the argument (Greek Philosophy being the basis of the list of God's attributes that classical theologists impose on scripture) is not groundless, but is off-base, and I explained why.

If I use the word "coincidal" is my second attempt more meaningful?

You are applying what God says in regards to a specific prophecy to a larger scope than God intended it.

We can get by with assessment like this in general, but my question has to be
"Are you sure that it is beyond God's intention?"

This is interesting to me, because the OV doesn't deny God's decretive will, but rather His prescriptive will. They agree with the rest of believers that what God decides will happen, happens (i.e. the cross, His return, etc.). But then deny that He allows things to happen that He doesn't desire (sin in the Garden and so forth). On this point, I don't believe you represent the OV. They believe He is a master chess player that cannot be thwarted.

God normally seeks for a righteous man to stand before Him and argue for mercy, even when the people in the land deserve judgment.(Ezekiel 22:30) But there are times when God says that He will not turn aside from judgment. (Ezekiel 14:13-14)
There are other times when...God says that He will do something regardless of all obstacles, such as returning the children of Israel from captivity to the land He promised their forefathers so they could be His people and He could be their God. (Isaiah 55:11) These [are] usually times when God has made an unconditional covenant that He will ensure that He will keep. (Jeremiah 33:20-26)

From these examples, we can see that God prefers mercy, but sometimes He will not turn aside from Judgment. We can also see that when God establishes an unconditional covenant, then He will not be thwarted in its fulfillment.

God’s sovereign or decretive will is not to be confused with his revealed or prescriptive will—his commandments. While his prescriptive will forbids sin, his decretive will ordains sin for his own glory.
(source)
​

Agreed.

No, prescriptive will and decretive will are not scriptural ideas.
God does not ordain sin for His own glory.

Above you describe what we believe about the two and the difference between them. We will of course disagree on which is which and for what reasons, but it doesn't appear at all to me that you are disagreeing with the idea behind both of these. Might I suggest clicking/reading from Hilston's sig further on this specific topic?

The only difference between what you are saying and what Open Theists say is that you want to be God's puppet. God does not make men into puppets, no matter how much you want to be God's puppet.

As I said, it doesn't matter and it isn't a concern to me. We are what we are as His creatures. We have a will, but this is a argument OV makes toward Arminian and Calvinists. My point in bringing it up, is that it doesn't matter a whit, imho.
It is a strawman that doesn't exist in our experience and doesn't have any teeth for the OV/Tradition debate.

However, I don't think it the only difference and disagree. The difference is the paradigms of import alternatively between the two debating sides, when coming to scripture.

Open Theism is a more difficult road than classical theism because the future is not settled.
With Open Theism, a man has to continually make the conscious decision to humble himself and submit to Gods will in obedience out of love and respect for God. After a while it becomes easier and enjoyable.

This is an assumption/logical-problem that foreknowledge elminates this. It does not. Knight started a thread on this specific topic.
My contributions are here and here.

Open Theists know that if we believers do not make a conscious decision to humble ourself and obey we would not deny ourselves and take up the cross. That is why we must choose to be imitators of Christ who showed obedience. Even when the will of Jesus was to avoid the cross, He submitted Himself to the Father's will.

Yes, but the steering OV paradigm, that I believe gets in the way of reading His word, is free-will. It agendizes scriptures. I have a hard time reading future revelation with OV lenses. It does not fit my understanding of the text.
Exhaustive definite Foreknowledge does not affect freewill so there really shouldn't be any aversion to considering these passages against the idea.

A classical theist can look at evil happening in the world and say that it is happening as part of God's plan.
Open Theists must look at evil and know that it was never something God desired. We must seek God to find out if the evil is from His judgment on a nation to stop the spread of evil in the nation or whether it is the evil of men that we are seeing. God can use anything that happens for good (like using the holocaust to give birth to the nation of Israel), but that does not mean He planned for the evil to happen in order to bring about the good.

Again, this OV concern is primarily concerned with man-first and God secondary.
I restate that it is bringing in a load of agenda to scripture study.

Ultimately, all of God's covenants will be fulfilled and all the enemies will be destroyed, including death. In that time those who fear the Lord will be together with Him in the new heaven and the new earth where dwells righteousness.
God knows who fear Him because He can search out the hearts of men, not because He has seen the future or (worse) because He has planned out our every choice in eternity past, including whether we will be saved.

"...whether we will be saved." <-- what is this primarily concerned with?

 

[genuineoriginal]

You are welcome.

The difference between the two words is that one is a "verb" and the other is a "noun."

Proginōskō is the verb and it is made up of the prefix pro which means "before" and ginōskō which means "to get a knowledge of."

And the root of the noun prognōsis is proginōskō which means "to have knowledge before hand."

So in effect the word prognōsis means "knowledge that came beforehand" or "foreknowledge."

With this in mind we can understand the meaning of the following verse:

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).

The Christian is chosen and his being chosen is "in consequence of" God's foreknowledge. And that is the same thought expressed in the following verse:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

So, you completely discount the meanings given by Thayer of "forethought" and "prearraingement"?

But that foreknowledge cannot be compared to the kind of foreknowledge that God possesses because His foreknowledge can look into the future and see things which are not announced beforehand.

I can't find that anywhere in the Bible.
What translation are you using?

 

[DFT_Dave]

If you are right and God exists in time and not outside of time then the following verses tells us exactly "when" God chose men for salvation:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

You have tried your best to attempt to prove that these verses do not speak of God's "foreknowledge" but you have failed. If you could only see that God exists outside of time then an explanation can be given for these verses which prove that the "settled" view is in error.

A world class detective and world class Bible commentator named Sir Robert Anderson understood that answering the Calvinist's "settled" view depends on first understanding that God exists outside of time. He wrote:

"What is, in plain words, the practical difficulty of election in its bearing upon the gospel? Why, that at some epoch in the past, God decided that this or that individual was to be saved or lost; and, therefore, that his future depends, not on the present action of the grace or the righteousness of the living God Who can appeal through the gospel to his heart and conscience, but on what is nothing more or less than an iron decree of fate. May not the whole difficulty depend on the arrogant supposition that God Himself is bound by the same laws that He has imposed upon His creatures?" (Anderson, The Gospel and Its Ministry [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1978], 78).

The "law" of which he speaks is the "law of time."

Anderson knowledge of the Bible was highly respected in his day. Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) said that Anderson's book Human Destiny is "the most valuable contribution on the subject I have seen." James M. Gray (1852-1935), who served for thirty years as President of Moody Bible Institute and was one of the seven editors of the original Scofield Reference Bible, said the following about Anderson:

“Sir Robert Anderson is in some respects the most remarkable of current writers on religious subjects, whether we consider his personal history or the range and character of his work…To sit at the feet of a man with such knowledge, mental power, courage and native wit, who is at the same time Spirit taught, is for the true Christian one of the greatest privileges.”

He was also the Chief of the Criminal Investigation Department of Scotland Yard and Warren Wiersbe wrote that Anderson "tracked down myths and religious error, arrested and exposed it, with the same skill and courage that he displayed when he tracked down criminals." He is described in the Baptist Testimony as “a master Bible teacher who approaches his subject as only Sir Robert Anderson could: methodically, logically, and only after a thorough investigation…Anderson is a giant amongst giants and anything he wrote is worth having on one's library shelf."

You have made no attempt to answer my last post. I don't care who Anderson is or what he did or says. He is not here, you are and so you have to give an answer to my post, if you can. Here it is again, give it a try, if you can't just say so.

You are reading "God sees the future" into these texts because you believe that all of human history has already happened. If God sees the future, all of human history, then God does not foreknow, he just knows. There is no such thing as the future for God, according to you all, for God there is no such thing as "before, or after, the foundation of the world". If all things are "now" for God there is no such thing as God's foreknowledge, there is no such thing as God looking ahead or looking back.

What does "God's choosing men for salvation was based on a foreknowledge, before the foundation of the world" mean? Does it mean that God saw us believing in Christ and becoming Christians, before he created us, and then chose us to become Christians?

Please explain your position more clearly.

--Dave

 

[genuineoriginal]

If I use the word "coincidal" is my second attempt more meaningful?

You used the word in your first attempt, but I thought you just made a spelling error. There is a difference between two things happening at the same time (coincidal) and two unrelated things that appear related (coincidental). To me it no longer matters whether the philosophers or the gnostics borrowed the attributes of a deistic abstract god from each other or whether they developed them in isolation. Somehow those attributes made it into classical theism, but they didn't get there from the Bible.

We can get by with assessment like this in general, but my question has to be
"Are you sure that it is beyond God's intention?"

This is interesting to me, because the OV doesn't deny God's decretive will, but rather His prescriptive will. They agree with the rest of believers that what God decides will happen, happens (i.e. the cross, His return, etc.). But then deny that He allows things to happen that He doesn't desire (sin in the Garden and so forth).

You are oversimplifying the argument and missing the nuances.

God's commandments represent His desire for the behavior of men, but He does not force any man to keep His commandments except by means of the consequences of not keeping them. Violations of God's commandments cause effects based on natural laws (natural laws were also created by God). Violations of God's commandments also make man worth God's judgments. God's sovereignty is shown in His issuing laws and judgments, as these are the powers and responsibilities of a sovereign. We need to study the Word of God to find out what He desires for our behaviors and conform to those desires or accept the consequences for rebellion against Him.

God also makes contracts with men. Sometimes the contracts are unilateral contracts where only God is responsible for fulfilling the contract, other times men are also responsible for fulfilling part of the contracts or are liable for the consequences for failure to fulfill that are part of the contract (see blessings and curses in Deuteronomy). We need to study the Word of God to find out what contracts we are under and what our responsibilities are according to those contracts.

God also makes declarations of His future actions. Some of the declarations that God gives on His future actions are ones that He is unwilling to change (Ezekiel 14:13-14), others are ones that He desires to change if man repents (see Jonah). We need to study the Word of God to find out what His declarations are and whether He can be persuaded to show mercy. If He can be persuaded to show mercy, then we need to persuade Him.

On this point, I don't believe you represent the OV. They believe He is a master chess player that cannot be thwarted.

You must have missed the posts in another thread where I compared God to a grandmaster weiqi player, since chess can be mastered by a computer but weiqi cannot.
:angel:

Above you describe what we believe about the two and the difference between them. We will of course disagree on which is which and for what reasons, but it doesn't appear at all to me that you are disagreeing with the idea behind both of these. Might I suggest clicking/reading from Hilston's sig further on this specific topic?

Hilston's comments on the differences between prescriptive will and decretive will are an extreme example of what is wrong with classical theism.

Again, this OV concern is primarily concerned with man-first and God secondary.
I restate that it is bringing in a load of agenda to scripture study.


"...whether we will be saved." <-- what is this primarily concerned with?

It is primarily concerned with God's Word.

1 Timothy 2 3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.​

I have a hard time reading future revelation with OV lenses. It does not fit my understanding of the text.
Exhaustive definite Foreknowledge does not affect freewill so there really shouldn't be any aversion to considering these passages against the idea.

Future revelation is the main reason that people cannot accept Open Theism.
It is easy to believe that God can say that "they shall look upon me whom they have pierced" because He has seen it from before creation or from outside time or because He determined everything that would ever happen in creation down to the quantum level so there can be no deviation that could cause His Word to fail.
It is harder to believe in a God that is able to make that kind of prediction and still have it come to pass in the midst of the turmoil caused by (and despite) the competing wills of men and the adversary who seeks to undermine God's plans.

Open Theists have a hard time reading the phrases God uses in His Word through the classical theology lens because it makes God sound disingenuous at best.

Open Theists and classical theists both seek a reason to believe God's promises. Classical theists find comfort in believing that God has seen what will happen or that God orchestrates everything that happens.

Open Theists find comfort in believing that God's power is so great that He can orchestrate everything that happens, but that He refrains from using it in order to find the "pearls of great price" who are men that choose to love and obey Him despite the turmoil caused by the competing wills of men.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You have made no attempt to answer my last post.

Since you reject the idea that God exists outside of "time" then my argument will be from your own perspective that He exists in "time." You asked:

What does "God's choosing men for salvation was based on a foreknowledge, before the foundation of the world" mean?

It means that before the foundation of the world God chose some men to be saved:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).

The "choosing" was before the foundation of the world and here Paul refers to that same choosing as being "from the beginning":

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

This has to be speaking of a choosing in regard to "individuals" because it is "individuals" who are saved and it is "individuals" who believe the truth.

Since God was able to know from the foundation of the world who would believe the truth then common sense dictates that He has a "foreknowledge" of these things. And that truth is stated here:

"Elect (chosen) according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).

The Christian is chosen and his being chosen is "in consequence of" God's foreknowledge.

Does it mean that God saw us believing in Christ and becoming Christians, before he created us, and then chose us to become Christians?

Again, it is as a result of God's "foreknowledge" that He is able to determine beforehand ("before the foundation of the world") who will believe and who will not. And those who do believe become Christians when they believe.

I have used your view of "God and time" to frame my argument so you cannot object to that. If you can prove that anything which I said above is in error then have at it.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So, you completely discount the meanings given by Thayer of "forethought" and "prearraingement"?

First of all, the majority of translations of 1 Peter 1:2 use the word "foreknowledge."

Secondly, I gave you the root of the Greek word and the idea of "foreknowledge" is consistent with the root. It is not consistent with either "forethought" or "prearrangement."

Thirdly, there is another Greek word that expresses the thought of "prearrangement" and that word is horizō and it means "that which has been determined" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

I can't find that anywhere in the Bible.
What translation are you using?

I was not quoting from the Bible but instead I was summing up my argument. First I explained the reason I gave for thinking that the word means "foreknowledge" and then I said:

With this in mind we can understand the meaning of the following verse:

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).

The Christian is chosen and his being chosen is "in consequence of" God's foreknowledge. And that is the same thought expressed in the following verse:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

 

[genuineoriginal]

Thirdly, there is another Greek word that expresses the thought of "prearrangement" and that word is horizō and it means "that which has been determined" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

"that which has been determined" is not the same as "forethought" or "prearrangement".

First of all, the majority of translations of 1 Peter 1:2 use the word "foreknowledge."

Secondly, I gave you the root of the Greek word and the idea of "foreknowledge" is consistent with the root. It is not consistent with either "forethought" or "prearrangement."

"foreknowledge" is a direct translation of pro-gnosis, which explains why the translators used it.

The question then becomes whether the use of the word "prognosis" in the first century is consistent with our use of the word "foreknowledge" today, or whether we are interpreting the word in a manner inconsistant with the way it was used in other Greek manuscripts of the first century.

There is no lexical proof outside of the New Testament that proginosko or prognosis mean more than "to know beforehand." For them to refer to what God predestined would be known or to be coextensive with what He predestined, evidence must come from their use in the New Testament itself.
(source)​

 

[DFT_Dave]

Since you reject the idea that God exists outside of "time" then my argument will be from your own perspective that He exists in "time." You asked:

It means that before the foundation of the world God chose some men to be saved:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).

The "choosing" was before the foundation of the world and here Paul refers to that same choosing as being "from the beginning":

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

This has to be speaking of a choosing in regard to "individuals" because it is "individuals" who are saved and it is "individuals" who believe the truth.

Since God was able to know from the foundation of the world who would believe the truth then common sense dictates that He has a "foreknowledge" of these things. And that truth is stated here:

"Elect (chosen) according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).

The Christian is chosen and his being chosen is "in consequence of" God's foreknowledge.

Again, it is as a result of God's "foreknowledge" that He is able to determine beforehand ("before the foundation of the world") who will believe and who will not. And those who do believe become Christians when they believe.

I have used your view of "God and time" to frame my argument so you cannot object to that. If you can prove that anything which I said above is in error then have at it.

I didn't ask you how my view works, and you didn't get that right anyway. Explain how God "timelessly" foresees things. Explain why God "timelessly" looking ahead into time and seeing us becoming Christians and then chosing us to become Christians is anything but dumb. You do see how irrational that is, don't you?

--Dave

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I didn't ask you how my view works, and you didn't get that right anyway.

The subject of this thread is "Open Theism."

And that is exactly the subject that I am discussing. People like Greg Boyd, who is recognized as a leading proponent of the Open View, says that no "individuals" are predestinated to salvation. The verses that I have quoted prove that he is absolutely wrong.

And you have said nothing that demonstrates that what I said is in error. In the following verse we can see that before the foundation of the world God chose some men to be saved:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).

The "choosing" was before the foundation of the world and here Paul refers to that same choosing as being "from the beginning":

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

This has to be speaking of a choosing in regard to "individuals" because it is "individuals" who are saved and it is "individuals" who believe the truth.

Since God was able to know from the foundation of the world who would believe the truth then common sense dictates that He has a "foreknowledge" of these things. And that truth is stated here:

"Elect (chosen) according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).

The Christian is chosen and his being chosen is "in consequence of" God's foreknowledge.

Again, it is as a result of God's "foreknowledge" that He is able to determine beforehand ("before the foundation of the world") which INDIVIDUALS will believe and who will not. And those who do believe become Christians when they believe.

This directly contradicts the brand of Open Theology promoted by Greg Boyd.