ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[DFT_Dave]

That is not what the verse we are discussing says.

I want to discuss what is "literally" said but you do not. It does not say that "God did not know what Abraham was going to "actually" do until he was about to "actually" do it."

Instead it speaks about when God knew that Abraham had a fear or revererance of Him.

Now I will ask my question again and perhaps this time you will answer it:

Do you think that God did not know whether or not Abraham feared or reverenced Him until he stretched forth his hand and took the knife to slay Isaac?:

"And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here [am] I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me" (Gen.22:10-12).​

If you are saying that this verse is about "when" God knew, then you are saying that God "did not know" until this moment "when" Abraham was about to kill Isaac. Right?

The answer to your question is "yes". I thought you would have understood that already. Apparently we both agree.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Tell you what, you do the math and come back and explain it to me. If "Now" indeed is the only translation you can find at even a casual glance, I'll retract my 20 pages of argument from the beginning of this thread (provided, of course, you are being honest with what you find from a concordance on the matter). Nobody need be a language scholar to easily figure this out, it is just sad that no OVer decided to do such before Asserting ad Ridiculumn. Go for it, else I'll gladly just accept the accolades given on pretense or ortherwise. Take the page 2 challenge and go from there.

Oh, and I see you responded to Jerry (he's on my ignore, but not your quote of him). When you find the answer, be sure and share with him as well. Something so easily researchable is beyond me that even those without the language could assert otherwise. It frankly, boggles my mind, it is that entirely clear.

I would say that the syntax of this statement and the context of this story, literally, says that God, as a result of Abrahams actions, "now" knew, with absolute certainty, something about Abraham that he did not know, with absolute certainty, before hand. God knows all future events as "potentialities" with all the "possiblities", but not as "actualities" that have no other "possiblites"--fatalism.

If you believe there is a greater and more over riding principle of preknowledge of all events then we cannot take this passage literally. If we we cannot take this passage literally then we have no basis for taking this passage historically. Abraham need not exist, or if he did, we cannot know anything said Biblically about him as being "literally" historical. You do know that this lead to liberalism, right?

--Dave

 

[Lon]

I would say that the syntax of this statement and the context of this story, literally, says that God, as a result of Abrahams actions, "now" knew, with absolute certainty, something about Abraham that he did not know, with absolute certainty, before hand. God knows all future events as "potentialities" with all the "possiblities", but not as "actualities" that have no other "possiblites"--fatalism.

How could God not know beforehand? How consistent is it to say "Peter, you will deny me 3 times" and then turn around and say "But Abraham, I have no idea what you are going to do here."
We know what figures of speech are. They are things that aren't literal but stand for a literal idea. "Once upon a time..." We know that this simply is a way to begin something. Hansel and Gretel never existed there is no literal once in time. Not only that, but the statement doesn't mean 'once and only once.' In other words, whoever begins arguing over "once upon a time" has taken the figurative to a literal absurdity no one ever intended.

Back to translations. The Hebrew word Yadda coupled with Attah no-less, makes the English translations somewhat relative to our English understanding. Again, all this is covered from page 2 here to about page 22. Even if you insist that it is translated "Now I know" it doesn't at all mean "but I didn't before." This is an assumption. Nor, as I strongly cautioned Muz in this discussion, can you press too towardly else you begin to deny God's perfect past and present knowledge as well. I know you particularly are different than other open theists on this point, but I simply state it here for all other open viewer's reading along at present or later.

If you believe there is a greater and more over riding principle of preknowledge of all events then we cannot take this passage literally. If we we cannot take this passage literally then we have no basis for taking this passage historically. Abraham need not exist, or if he did, we cannot know anything said Biblically about him as being "literally" historical. You do know that this lead to liberalism, right?

--Dave

No. We are talking about two Hebrew words translated: Yadda and Attah, (now/whereas/it has come to pass, known/declared/recognized) not at all bothering the rest of the passage or questioning its veracity.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If you are saying that this verse is about "when" God knew, then you are saying that God "did not know" until this moment "when" Abraham was about to kill Isaac. Right?

The answer to your question is "yes".

If you answer is "yes" then how do you explain that the Scriptures reveal that Abraham had faith prior to the time when he was about to kill Isaac:

"By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure" (Heb.11:17-19).

Abraham had faith before the time when he was about to kill Isaac and that was when he offered up Isaac on the altar. Therefore, unless you are willing to argue that Abraham did not have reverence for God when he had "faith" and offered up Isaac on the altar then the facts reveal that he feared or reverenced God before he was about to kill Isaac.

So we can understand that the narrative at Genesis 22:9-12 can only understood in a figurative sense, and the figure of speech is named Anthropopatheia:

"Ascribing to God what belongs to human and rational beings, irrational creatures, or inanimate things" (The Companion Bible, Appendix #6: Figures of Speech).

 

[DFT_Dave]

How could God not know beforehand? How consistent is it to say "Peter, you will deny me 3 times" and then turn around and say "But Abraham, I have no idea what you are going to do here."

We know what figures of speech are. They are things that aren't literal but stand for a literal idea. "Once upon a time..." We know that this simply is a way to begin something. Hansel and Gretel never existed there is no literal once in time. Not only that, but the statement doesn't mean 'once and only once.' In other words, whoever begins arguing over "once upon a time" has taken the figurative to a literal absurdity no one ever intended.

Back to translations. The Hebrew word Yadda coupled with Attah no-less, makes the English translations somewhat relative to our English understanding. Again, all this is covered from page 2 here to about page 22. Even if you insist that it is translated "Now I know" it doesn't at all mean "but I didn't before." This is an assumption. Nor, as I strongly cautioned Muz in this discussion, can you press too towardly else you begin to deny God's perfect past and present knowledge as well. I know you particularly are different than other open theists on this point, but I simply state it here for all other open viewer's reading along at present or later.

No. We are talking about two Hebrew words translated: Yadda and Attah, (now/whereas/it has come to pass, known/declared/recognized) not at all bothering the rest of the passage or questioning its veracity.

The weakness of Peter's faith seems fairly well documented before his three denials. He had already been carrying a sword; that's not something a willing martyr, he told Jesus he would be, would do.

In John 13:2 tells "the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him," and in 13:27 that "Satan entered" Judas--no mystery there.

The faith of Abraham during his life is "up and down", at times strong and other times weak. A test is meant to strengthen weak faith.

If God has preknowledge of what Abraham will do then God also has preknowledge of what he himself will do and say. God then has no more "freedom" to say or do anything other than what he has predestined himself to say and do than Abraham has.

Also, words find their meaning in the syntax of the statement or sentence which finds it application within the context of all other statements that in the account or story. This story about Abraham is clear and tells us literally what happened and why. You must remake or create a different story out of it in order to say that God already knew what Abraham would do before he did it. One could only wonder why God would put him through this ordial if he already knew of his fear and faithfulness before hand.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

If you answer is "yes" then how do you explain that the Scriptures reveal that Abraham had faith prior to the time when he was about to kill Isaac:

"By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure" (Heb.11:17-19).

Abraham had faith before the time when he was about to kill Isaac and that was when he offered up Isaac on the altar. Therefore, unless you are willing to argue that Abraham did not have reverence for God when he had "faith" and offered up Isaac on the altar then the facts reveal that he feared or reverenced God before he was about to kill Isaac.

So we can understand that the narrative at Genesis 22:9-12 can only understood in a figurative sense, and the figure of speech is named Anthropopatheia:

"Ascribing to God what belongs to human and rational beings, irrational creatures, or inanimate things" (The Companion Bible, Appendix #6: Figures of Speech).

Abrahams faith was at times strong and other times weak. "Faith" and "fear/reverence" are not the same thing anyway.

--Dave

 

[genuineoriginal]

I don't know, but I don't care for discussion where resorting to grade-school tactics is the mode of the day.

You are the one that brought out the grade-school joke about needing to remove your brain in order to change your mind.

Are you now trying to change the rules of the discussion to prevent others from responding in kind?

 

[genuineoriginal]

How could God not know beforehand? How consistent is it to say "Peter, you will deny me 3 times" and then turn around and say "But Abraham, I have no idea what you are going to do here."

Abraham was given a test, Peter was given a prophecy.

Why can't you seem to understand that these are two different things?

 

[genuineoriginal]

No. We are talking about two Hebrew words translated: Yadda and Attah, (now/whereas/it has come to pass, known/declared/recognized) not at all bothering the rest of the passage or questioning its veracity.

Do you think you are able to completely ignore the rest of the account by focusing on only two words?

Genesis 22:1-2,15-18 1And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. 2And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. 15And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, 16And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: 17That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Abrahams faith was at times strong and other times weak. "Faith" and "fear/reverence" are not the same thing anyway.

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

 

[Lon]

You are the one that brought out the grade-school joke about needing to remove your brain in order to change your mind.

Are you now trying to change the rules of the discussion to prevent others from responding in kind?

I wasn't kidding/joking. I was trying to explain it isn't literal but a figure of speech, and an English figure of speech not found from that which it was translated from. That was and is my whole point.

Do you think you are able to completely ignore the rest of the account by focusing on only two words?

I don't have a problem. It doesn't affect my understanding of His prescience one way or the other.

Abraham was given a test, Peter was given a prophecy.

Why can't you seem to understand that these are two different things?

That isn't important. The comparison concerns what God knows about us before we actually do a thing.
I'm saying no difference.

 

[Lon]

The weakness of Peter's faith seems fairly well documented before his three denials. He had already been carrying a sword; that's not something a willing martyr, he told Jesus he would be, would do.

In John 13:2 tells "the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him," and in 13:27 that "Satan entered" Judas--no mystery there.

The faith of Abraham during his life is "up and down", at times strong and other times weak. A test is meant to strengthen weak faith.

If God has preknowledge of what Abraham will do then God also has preknowledge of what he himself will do and say. God then has no more "freedom" to say or do anything other than what he has predestined himself to say and do than Abraham has.

Also, words find their meaning in the syntax of the statement or sentence which finds it application within the context of all other statements that in the account or story. This story about Abraham is clear and tells us literally what happened and why. You must remake or create a different story out of it in order to say that God already knew what Abraham would do before he did it. One could only wonder why God would put him through this ordial if he already knew of his fear and faithfulness before hand.

--Dave

Hi again, Dave

Okay.
I believe it an assumption deduced but I understand what you are saying and why you believe it. Of course I disagree, but that's as far as this conversation direction can go, I think. It is hard to address assumptions other than expressing disagreement. For me, I don't believe a difference between temperments has anything to do with God knowing either Peter or Abraham's actions.
Even if I happened to be an open theist, I'd still believe God has an incredibly intimate knowledge of us that would provide for something very near perfect prescience in any case. That is, though this is a signature marked difference between traditional and open theology, even if I were pursuaded somehow to be an open theist, I'd have to hold God's perfect foreknowledge and prescience virtually the same as I do know for scripture and God's actions to make any sense to me. Even if I didn't call it that, it'd be very nearly understood the same. I could not skirt what I believe I'm seeing clearly in scripture. But I suppose, that's the reason we are polar opposites in the first place.

-Lon

 

[DFT_Dave]

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

The verse is very clear that God now "knew" something about Abraham he was not sure and certain about before hand. The word is translated "fear", but I think we both understand it to mean "reverence" for God more than "afraid" of God. You're trying to use the New Testament commentary on this by comparing "faith" in Abraham and "fear" in Abraham as being the same thing and there by altering the literal meaning in the Old testament account. Abraham did not have faith in God when he had Ishmael, right? So, I guess God had a reason for his doubt about Abraham's "fear" and "faith" being what he wanted.

--Dave

 

[Nick M]

How could God not know beforehand? How consistent is it to say "Peter, you will deny me 3 times" and then turn around and say "But Abraham, I have no idea what you are going to do here."

Very easy. God can bring people before Peter knowing Peter was weak. Abraham was dificult to tell, so he had to test him. Why don't you just accept what Moses wrote when he says "Now I know", because before he didn't know.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Hi again, Dave

Okay.
I believe it an assumption deduced but I understand what you are saying and why you believe it. Of course I disagree, but that's as far as this conversation direction can go, I think. It is hard to address assumptions other than expressing disagreement. For me, I don't believe a difference between temperments has anything to do with God knowing either Peter or Abraham's actions.
Even if I happened to be an open theist, I'd still believe God has an incredibly intimate knowledge of us that would provide for something very near perfect prescience in any case. That is, though this is a signature marked difference between traditional and open theology, even if I were pursuaded somehow to be an open theist, I'd have to hold God's perfect foreknowledge and prescience virtually the same as I do know for scripture and God's actions to make any sense to me. Even if I didn't call it that, it'd be very nearly understood the same. I could not skirt what I believe I'm seeing clearly in scripture. But I suppose, that's the reason we are polar opposites in the first place.

-Lon

I'd say that OV is what is "clear" in this passage. We're not complete opposites, we share a good sense of humor and cleverness that others have at times mistaken for arrogance, and we are both extremely brilliant.

I'd sure like your reflection on this.

If God has preknowledge of what Abraham will do then God also has preknowledge of what he himself will do and say. God then has no more "freedom", to say or do anything other than what he has predestined himself to say and do, than Abraham has.​

How would you describe God's relation to his "timeless self"?

--Dave

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The verse is very clear that God now "knew" something about Abraham he was not sure and certain about before hand. The word is translated "fear", but I think we both understand it to mean "reverence" for God more than "afraid" of God. You're trying to use the New Testament commentary on this by comparing "faith" in Abraham and "fear" in Abraham as being the same thing and there by altering the literal meaning in the Old testament account.

No, I did not say that having a "fear or reverence of God" and "faith" are the same thing. Instead, I am saying that if someone is in a state of faith toward God then he must have a reverance toward God.

So please answer my question:

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

Here we see that Abraham was in a state of "faith" when he offered up Isaac on the altar:

"By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure" (Heb.11:17-19).​

Remember, Abraham offered up Isaac on the altar BEFORE he took the knife and raised it to attempt to kill Isaac:

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

 

[DFT_Dave]

No, I did not say that having a "fear or reverence of God" and "faith" are the same thing. Instead, I am saying that if someone is in a state of faith toward God then he must have a reverance toward God.

So please answer my question:

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

Here we see that Abraham was in a state of "faith" when he offered up Isaac on the altar:

"By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure" (Heb.11:17-19).​

Remember, Abraham offered up Isaac on the altar BEFORE he took the knife and raised it to attempt to kill Isaac:

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

Nothing you have said changes what I said, the verse is very clear that God now "knew" something about Abraham he was not sure and certain about before hand. This is the answer to your question. Hebrews 11 does not contradict this.

Now, answer my question, did Abraham have faith in God when he had Ishmael?

--Dave

 

[Lon]

I'd sure like your reflection on this.

If God has preknowledge of what Abraham will do then God also has preknowledge of what he himself will do and say. God then has no more "freedom", to say or do anything other than what he has predestined himself to say and do, than Abraham has.
​

How would you describe God's relation to his "timeless self"?

--Dave

His own foreknowledge wouldn't 'lock' Him in, so to speak but yes in a sense I agree with you that He is much better at choices and knowing the outcome, such that His interactions will likely only be open to one avenue (the best choice). But I see this as a 'freedom' to be Himself, not a constraint persay. Of course this is philosophized reasoning. We really have a partial idea since we do not posses this attribute. Because we don't have this ability, we are left guessing and the open view can only guess along with us what it would mean for God. Though open theists often assert here, I don't believe they actually can do so. It is a commitment to a theological stance rather than something we can actually verify.
We cannot prove a hypothesis if we are missing the tools or material to make the experiment or assertion work (in this case, foreknowledge).
We are making educated guesses about something we don't have available to us.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

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

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

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

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

Now, answer my question, did Abraham have faith in God when he had Ishmael?

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

 

[DFT_Dave]

His own foreknowledge wouldn't 'lock' Him in, so to speak but yes in a sense I agree with you that He is much better at choices and knowing the outcome, such that His interactions will likely only be open to one avenue (the best choice). But I see this as a 'freedom' to be Himself, not a constraint persay. Of course this is philosophized reasoning. We really have a partial idea since we do not posses this attribute. Because we don't have this ability, we are left guessing and the open view can only guess along with us what it would mean for God. Though open theists often assert here, I don't believe they actually can do so. It is a commitment to a theological stance rather than something we can actually verify. We cannot prove a hypothesis if we are missing the tools or material to make the experiment or assertion work (in this case, foreknowledge). We are making educated guesses about something we don't have available to us.

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

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

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

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

--Dave