Which all adds up to one thing: theology by the numbers doesn't work, or you'd be Catholic.
I am the product of a spiritually split marriage. It wholly was dependent on which of the parents raised me. Of course I'd have been Catholic if raised in that environment. I don't take that as much of a slam. We do have significant differences, but I do appreciate and enjoy looking toward their writings, traditions, and apologetics to better understand my Protestantism. You don't and reject it all, making a clean cut. It is almost like anti-academic.
You're quoting Eucebius as though he has some authority.
Yes, and Gill, Wesley, Lawlor, FF Bruce, etc. etc. etc. etc. Those were but a very few, I didn't even open my Bible programs.
Jamieson, Faucett, Brown
The Omniscient witness likewise declared His acceptance in the highest terms of approval
Barnes
This was known to God antecedent to the event that demonstrated it.
Gill
...he knew full well beforehand what would be the consequence...
I think I have about 50 more in back-up from Logos and other CD's.
Eusebius is but one of many so I still don't see what this has to do with Octoberfest. If it were me as an OV, I'd have dropped this part of the debate a long time ago.
Not when you say that the church through the last 500 years has believed X, therefore X
Yeah but that's why any would engage here on TOL. If we were so indoctrinated, you'd think we'd have written you off a long time ago. At least concede this is a bit over extrapolated on your part. If not, we can move on. It isn't important to me what you think about my views reforming or not in the grand scheme.
You've missed the conjunction. That's the causative. (Yes, I know what it means). Excuse the transliteration as I have no clue how to type Hebrew, here, but it's vla (Representing only the Hebrew consonants involved.)
Even if we translate the conjunction as "and":
"... whereas I know that you fear God, and you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me."
Taking this as weakly as possible, there is still a basis for God's knowledge in this sentence. That's why it's translated "since." ("and" is awkward, here, but one cannot get away from the causative sense of that clause.)
"... whereas I know that you fear God, and you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me."
I agree, which was also my initial premise in this thread. I've been arguing for exactly that with statements like 'difficult passage for assertion,' 'broad meaning to small Hebrew words,' 'no good proof text for either of our doctrinal assertions' etc.
I know, but I was rather expressing the objection to it. You cannot press this as hard in the opposite direction or it naturally leads to this position.
Did you bother to read the English translation that uses "since"?
Sorry, no. I was reading Hebrew and going to my translation guides. What was the question?
Or because sometimes out hearts and minds are actually unsettled?
Presupposition. Those aren't bad, but we still need to recognize them especially for disagreements such as this. The text doesn't say Abraham's heart or mind was unsettled, but even if context pushes you this direction, would God know Abraham's heart and mind better than he did? Wouldn't God, who searches the heart and can reveal what is hidden to us (ala Ps 139) know even if we didn't? You don't see this as a restriction on God's Past and Present perfect knowledge? You don't see the danger I'm warning against even against OV's theological position?
This is a very large difference in presupposition for understanding this text. You assert mine is supposition-driven exegesis. I can live with that, as I've said pedantic passages drive our suppositions in approaching narrative, but you don't seem to realize the same in your own exegesis. Furthermore, you haven't quoted other pedantic scriptures like I've been doing this whole thread to support that supposition. You know, like verses that specifically say God is not prescient or Hebrew scholars that agree with you, or commentaries by noted language scholars.
D'oh... You could at least use the whole word as it appears in the text.
Go back and read the text and tell me how 'vla' is translated in that context. (or you could just look at how it is translated.)
Gen 22:12 ויאמר אל־תשׁלח ידך אל־הנער ואל־תעשׂ לו מאומה כי
עתה ידעתי כי־ירא אלהים אתה ולא חשׂכת את־בנך את־יחידך ממני׃
???
Should I care? I disagree with Pinnock on lots of things. (Nice attempt at guilt by association, btw.)
No, you misunderstand, I was trying to say that it is precisely this particular topic that seems in agreement with their stance. Perhaps it was hasty, but I was more looking for 'if' this was one of your doctrinal agreements. So your disagreement with Pinnock clears that up, at least for implication.
You don't find it a bit odd that translators who were compelled to express things a particular way because the original demands it have to go to great lengths to explain it away?
BTW, yes, I've studied this in the Hebrew. It's translated as it is for specific reasons.
It is enough that you know and understand what I'm saying here and that the scholars (who I deem more credible than I) are saying the same thing.
The clear intention of the text is the exposure of Abraham's heart with respect to withholding nothing from God as the basis for reaffirming God's covenant with Abraham. That much is clear. What sticks out (at least one of the things that sticks out) is God's statement about His knowledge, and the basis of that knowledge. I know you're trying to find a Hebrew language hole, but I doubt you'll find one that makes sense.
Muz
I didn't find it, it has always been presented that way. In order to counteract that, very credible men who hold to your position must redact it, fiercely, strongly, and consistently for it to even be considered. You asserting against a history of scholasticism who've come to the opposite conclusion is daunting and against such a body of work, merely a piff in historical context. I'm not the one asserting superior exegesis to these men, I agree with them. I'm not, at least in this point in time, their equals to be able to assert otherwise. So, yes, history, scholarship, and traditions carry huge weight for me, especially if I was so bold as to diverge with them on any given point. If I ever do, I will have book-length treatise and support for my divergence for it will be asserting against all of history and them. I recognize and take seriously that even with such a single work, I will be in the minority. People would expect that I would be a linguist master, have historical theological prowess, have credentials in multiples, be recognized in academic circles, etc. In short, my theology would be questioned and scrutinized on all levels for the divergence. Anything less from me would be asserting arrogance and an unheard piff in theological history.
