Jim asked: And where did He say He would leave them the way He said He would?
Yorzhik cites Gen 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
Are you suggesting that God violated Ge 8:22 whenever He wrought a miracle?
Excellent point. But, no, it isn't the same. When God wrought a miracle, he did it out in the open because He was interacting with humans – not secretly manipulating them. I realize this is a fine point, so we need to get to the foundation of your claim. The point you are making, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that God, if He loved all men, would manipulate His creation to create the most favorable environment for men to come to Him in love. Now, this doesn't work if He is open about his miracles - announcing who is doing them and why – because then that puts Himself as an interloper, not a manipulator. And putting Himself as one of the players creates a reaction to Him, not to the situation He would create. And as we see repeatedly in scripture, miracles result in a rejection of God.
Let me ask you: Do you agree with 1Way when he says the following:
Logical impossibility of contradicting your own will: No matter what, you will always act according to your own will, there is no other alternative. If you say your will is to do "A", but then you try to thwart your own will and do something "non-A" instead, that very response was an act of your own will, so you can NEVER escape the reality that you always act in accordance to your own will, even if you conflict with another aspect of your own will. [emphasis added]
That doesn't sound like freedom to me.
Just because we are not free from ourselves, doesn't mean we are not free from God.
Are we free from each other?
I realize that you’re going to claim that you didn’t mean what I’m about to say, but I need you to clarify it anyway: Does every miracle go against the rule you cited in Ge 8:22 or not? If not, please explain.
Yes. Good point, but I explained above.
God is obligated? By whom?
By Himself. God is not Just because, by definition, everything God does is Just. God is Just because He actively follows the "rules of justice".
The best thing for God to do to save the most people is to let the consequences of their actions be evident.
That doesn’t help the innocent people who die and plunge into hell at the hands of evil men. Are you saying it was better for innocent men, women and children to die in the WTCs than it would be for them to live?
No, it doesn't help those innocent people except that they are moved to the next stage in life. How God deals with them, I'm not sure. But it helps the innocent and guilty people that view the evil acts of those evil men during this stage in life. As for the guilty ones, they were already warned.
No, the best way to save the most people is let them experience the consequences of their actions.
How can a dead person get saved?
Well, if they were innocent, then God handles that situation from His side of the fence. Exactly how that works, I don't know. I don't think God tells us. As for the guilty ones, they've already been warned.
Many more would not be saved if God did not allow us to experience the consequences of our actions.
I’m not suggesting that God prevent us from experiencing the consequences of our actions.
By your next sentence, didn't you really mean to say, "I’m not suggesting that God prevent us from experiencing the consequences of our actions if we are innocent."
I’m suggesting that He intervene secretly whenever innocent people, who may later believe, are about to be killed by evil men. That would not require God to prevent us from experiencing the consequences of our actions.
If you are innocent, it would. Right?
It would prolong the lives of people, thereby giving them further opportunity to believe in Him.
Prolonging lives creates conditions that are favorable to loving God? Are you sure about that? Also, what of the damage they might do to their own and other's possible relationship with God if they live?
So decrees the mighty Hilston.
Let me ask you, do you intend for this to turn hostile, or should I read that statement as levity?
I went too far. Usually when a person simply restates their premise as an answer, it invites ridicule. But you also included a little more information than your premise, so I was out of line.
God disagrees with you if He really is God and not just a big super human.
He is a big super human. He is also much more. Or you could say, we are a small image of God, and God is much more.
What if what He has written in His Word is misunderstood by you? Is that at all possible?
Yes. You would answer "yes" to the same question, correct?
The very idea of God “thinking” and “knowing” and “seeing” are figures of speech called anthropopathisms. They’re unavoidable because the infinite God is communicating to finite creatures, and finite creatures understand best in finite terms. Thus, the infinite must employ figures of speech to convey His thoughts and actions (and to even speak of God's "actions" and "thoughts" is figurative as well).
Can God do an "action" at all? Or "think" at all? And beyond that, can God "feel" at all?
So Hilston claims without support.
Is that really what you think, or do you just like going around poking people with a stick to see what they'll do? As much as I disagree with your views, Yorzhik, I would never say anything so naive, ignorant and stupid as “So Hilston claims without support.” You ask me to respond to your post, which I'm happy to do, yet I have to put up with that kind of puerile tripe.
I agree. My statement goes too far. However, I expect that you treat "stating one's premise" as an answer with the same unfriendly treatment. You're statement was more than just your premise, so that is why I agree that it is uncalled for.
Consider the rationale here. I believe God knows the future exhaustively, not because He wanted the answers to the test in advance, but because He cannot help but know everything. Yorzhik views this as something God has chosen to do (to know the future exhaustively). Why? Because Hilston's God is a big wuss and doesn't want to take the risk of not knowing the future. So He cheats by peeking. Have you ever considered that it’s not a failure, but an essential attribute of being the Creator. Can an author write a book and not know how it is going to turn out and everything in between? Of course not. It is impossible. So it is with God and His creation. He doesn't "choose" to know the future. He simply cannot help it. It is intrinsic in who He is as Creator.
That is how I would view it as well if God didn't state the opposite in scripture. I'll stick with the bible, and you can stick with your author analogy.
Another thing, sometimes when God says something will come to pass, it doesn't. If God says something about what will happen, isn't that, by definition, a prophecy?
For example?
Jonah.
”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.”
You said yourself that “God is very smart, and thus a very good predictor.” You also said, “... as creator of all things, He's very good at knowing how the things He created work.” You boasted, “Even *I* can predict some things with great certainty without knowing the future exhaustively.” Yet you suggest by this verse that God did not know Abraham feared God until he offered up Isaac. Even *I*, someone who is "without support" for his beliefs," can read Genesis and know that Abraham feared God long before the offering of Isaac occurred. So despite God being very smart and a good predictor, the you say He nonetheless did not know that Abraham feared Him? By your own words, Yorzhik, you are greater than your own God!. The idea is absurd, even based on your own statements. So maybe this would be a good time ponder this as a figure of speech.
You based a statement on a faulty assumption about half way through your quote. The faulty assumption is that since I said God is a great predictor and very smart, that He would have known exactly what Abraham was going to do long before the last moment. However, being a great predictor does not mean "able to predict exhaustively perfect", and very smart does not mean "to know every action exhaustively". If that were true then machines (under the conditions of working as intended with data that is not in error) could be considered smart. So how much did God know, even being a very good predictor and very smart? I wouldn't be able to draw the line. I would have to ask God. Lucky for us, God simply told us.
Now, the reason I
cannot consider it a figure of speech is because I cannot replace the "now I know" with anything other than "I have always known". And that is outside the rules of understanding figures.
So this is an anthropopathism?
Absolutely! And a great one!
Thanks for clearing that up. The definition of an anthropopathism is: "Attribution of human feelings to things not human, such as inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena." I'm curious if you feel that God has no feelings, or why they would be different than human feelings. It just seems that an "anthropopathism" could never be applied to God in the same way that it can never be applied to a human. Perhaps you can explain that, or at least make it more clear.
You have a strange view of historical record. Figures of speech are used constantly in historical documentation.
You are correct. I shouldn't have used the fact that this was a historical record as a reason that the phrase in question was not a figure. Although recording of events do not require figures, they do use them. So let's move on with the explanation of your figure:
The event was a test. God knew Abraham and fully knew that Abraham would pass the test. What God knew is not the point; the point is twofold: Abraham had to realize his own justification before God, and God would then acknowledge and publicize (document) Abraham's faith. There are different senses of justification for each believer taught in scripture. There is the justification of God's decrees concerning a man within the Godhead. There is justification of a man before God by the blood of Christ alone. There is justication of a man before himself by faith (i.e. how one knows one is saved, that one is justified before God, and has a righteous standing before God). And there is justification of a man before others by works. This test of Abraham accomplished the latter two, (1) because Abraham saw his own faith, thereby recognizing his own righteous standing before God, and (2) because God documented (via Moses) the event for posterity, thereby justifying him by works before others. This is what Romans 4 is teaching. Abraham was justified by works, and could glory in his works, but not before God (v. 2). By faith, Abraham saw himself as justified (v. 3). This is what it means when Paul says it was "counted" to him (Abraham) as righteousness. That is, it was "told" to him, or "accounted" to him that he had a righteous standing before God. The anthropopathism used by God denoted these facts by a rich figure.
When you get to your point at the end of this quote, "The anthropopathism used by God denoted these facts by a rich figure." You lose all connection with Romans 4, which was support worth considering for what you where saying about the event. There is nothing in Romans 4 which makes a comment about your claim that "now I know" is an anthropopathism. We'll have to investigate this further.
Yorzhik writes:So, Hilston says, "Now I know" does not mean "Now I know". Fair enough - figures mean other than what is actually written. Until Hilson tells us what it means, the only thing we can know about the meaning of this phrase is that it cannot mean "I have always known". That is the only meaning (at this point) that we can rule out as a possible meaning.
The phrase is an anthropopathic way of acknowledging Abraham's standing before God as righteous.
I'd disagree, but that's just my claim against this one.
Yorzhik writes:So, Hilston, please tell us the meaning of this linguistic figure. When you are done, we should be able to replace the phrase "Now I know" with what you relate to us.
Sure, I can say it much better than God.
Perhaps not better than God, but you'd have to admit, the translator said it better than you.
Here is a figure in the bible:
Num 11:23 And the LORD said unto Moses, Is the LORD'S hand waxed short? thou shalt see now whether my word shall come to pass unto thee or not.
So, the question is, does God have hands that can shorten, and how does that affect Israel? It is because God is not talking about His hand, but His ability. So we can replace the words "waxed short" with "ability weakened" and you will get the same meaning. Not as good as God can say it, but it is good enough to demonstrate the figure.
One more note on figures. One thing we know the figure does not mean, before we try and figure out what it does mean, is that it cannot mean the opposite of what was literally said. Therefore, the figure cannot mean "God's hand has grown longer".
So let's try again, what does the figure "now I know" really mean? And you don't have to say it better than God.
Let me ask you this: Do you think God really did not know where Adam was in Gen 3 when He said, "Adam, where are thou?"? Do you think God really did not know whether or not Adam had eaten from the tree when He asked, "Have you eaten of the tree that I commanded you that you should not eat?" Perhaps you could please improve upon God's words so we can replace these words with what you relate to "us."
I cannot improve on them. I wasn't asking you to do such a thing, why do you ask me to? But I can tell you what was meant when God asked where Adam was and when He asked if Adam had done something he wasn't supposed to do. It simply isn't a figure, but another convention of communication. When God was asking these questions, it was closer to sarcasm. I use the same convention on my little children frequently because I want them to think about what is taking place.
Can you find an example that is a figure?
Yorzhik writes:I trust my dad, and he doesn't decree every case without exception.
Do you trust your dad for your salvation? Do you trust your dad to secure your future with him in eternity?
I'd trust my dad to save me, or do what he could to save me if I were in dire peril. He saves on one level (or could), and God on another level, a much higher level.
Yorzhik writes: Are you saying I shouldn't trust God, who is perfect, without exhaustive forknowledge, but I can trust my dad, who not only cannot see very far into the future, but he is sinful as well?
No, I'm saying, on your view, you shouldn't trust God for your salvation or for your sempiternal future. There is no assurance, no confidence. Sure, God will do the best He can, just as He has always done. But look at the disasters of history that God couldn't do anything about because He's hogtied by the bully freewills of men. He has said in His word that He knows the end from the beginning, but according to the OV, He is often surprised and His plans are thwarted. Specifically what, Yorzhik, do you trust Him for? Give me specifics: "I trust God to __________(insert action here)_______." "I trust that God will __________(insert action here)_________."
"I trust God to take me to heaven when I die, or at the end of this age, whichever comes first."
And there is no assurance… why? Because God does not know the future exhaustively?
I'm sure you've heard of the chess master analogy, correct? For anyone that hasn't heard it, it goes like this:
God is like a chess master that has solved the game of chess. He doesn't need to know what moves His opponent might make, He might even be surprised by some of the moves the opponent makes, but that can never change the fact that since God has solved the game, His will must be done in the end.
So, could you be confident that the chess master that has solved the game will win? He doesn't know the future exhaustively.