Theology Club: Does Open Theism Question/dispute the Omniscience of God

[Derf]

I agree. I think Stripe's point was that time is a conceptualization, like an 'inch' and a 'millimeter.' The measurements are accurate enough, but they are made up concepts, normalized or agreed upon by society thus they are a bit better set in our minds and thoughts as 'physical' measures. We then associate things like rulers and watches to these arbitrary but agreed upon measures. The measures themselves are not absolute, nor are the things being measured. Rather we think more concrete sequentially about them because we are all very familiar with them but they are naught but contrived concepts that are used only to be more consistent in our daily lives. Even our watches are off. They don't really keep track of 'time,' just help us get through our day according to schedules.

What they keep track of, perhaps in-accurately, is the passage of time, as we understand it. But you're right that they don't help us with an absolute understanding of time. The bible offers us the idea of a "beginning", but what is it the beginning of? Time? Or just the things associated with our world/universe.

When we say God holds the oceans in His hand (Is 40:12), we compare the largeness of God to the oceans. When we say God is the ancient of days (Dan 7:9), we compare the age of God with our expectation of death after some years (or the length of the world's existence with His). If He never had a beginning, such a concept can help, but doesn't fully realize the magnitude of God's existence. It's a concept we have no concept of.

It's understandable, then, if we say things like "outside of time", but such a concept is as foreign to us as something/someone who has always existed. We can't describe either, and the bible doesn't use the "outside of time" description, at least that I know of.

 

[Rosenritter]

What they keep track of, perhaps in-accurately, is the passage of time, as we understand it. But you're right that they don't help us with an absolute understanding of time. The bible offers us the idea of a "beginning", but what is it the beginning of? Time? Or just the things associated with our world/universe.

In the beginning ... of our story. Because John 1 has its beginning before that.

 

[Derf]

In the beginning ... of our story. Because John 1 has its beginning before that.

Oh, I think John 1 doesn't go back any further than Gen 1. At least it doesn't have to to be accurate.

 

[Lon]

I think you're confusing the movement of clocks with time.

I appreciate Enyart's discussion on the subject, but disagree. I disagreed in that thread as well. I do believe, however, he is correct that gravity affects clocks, but our perception of time can and does change at different points in our lives. A thousand years has never been a day, nor a day a thousand years to me, nor even 'felt' like it. That is God's alone. There is just no way Bob or me, or anybody else can ever relate. It is much more than merely an 'exaggeration.' I realize the Open Theist's whole paradigm is caught up in 'open' premise that drives the theology, but if it is wrong on even one point, the whole things falls and Open Theism isn't true. All of Open Theism rests on God being temporal. If He is not, there'd be no such thing as Open Theism.

 

[Derf]

I appreciate Enyart's discussion on the subject, but disagree. I disagreed in that thread as well. I do believe, however, he is correct that gravity affects clocks, but our perception of time can and does change at different points in our lives. A thousand years has never been a day, nor a day a thousand years to me, nor even 'felt' like it. That is God's alone. There is just no way Bob or me, or anybody else can ever relate. It is much more than merely an 'exaggeration.' I realize the Open Theist's whole paradigm is caught up in 'open' premise that drives the theology, but if it is wrong on even one point, the whole things falls and Open Theism isn't true. All of Open Theism rests on God being temporal. If He is not, there'd be no such thing as Open Theism.

This could as easily be turned around to say that settled theism rests on God knowing the future exhaustively, which begs the question. And either one could be used as a starting assumption, as long as we allow our starting assumption to fall if real contradictions arise. I submit that the number of contradictions is significantly greater with settled theism than with open theism. And the contradictions with open theism are "apparent" contradictions that result from over applying the text beyond what it is meant to apply, while the contradictions with settled theism are hard and fast and have resulted in the Arminian-Calvinism dichotomy, and possibly the Roman Catholic-Eastern orthodox dichotomy (I know far less about the RC-EO dichotomy, but saw an EO description one time that led me to think this).

When I've mentioned the idea of open theism to religious people, including one muslim, the reaction is to explain that God isn't like that, but with little evidence to offer except a personal idea of what God must be like. This, to me, is an indication of one of two things: 1) a concept of God that is provided inherently to every human by God Himself, or 2) a concept of God that comes from a human source.

In the case of #1, in every other instance of such a supposition, Calvinism would claim that even if it were there at one time, the total depravity doctrine would have it corrupted so that we can't trust it.

In the case of #2, we can't trust it because it isn't a revelation from God about Himself.

Both of these cases, of course, should drive us back to the text of scripture to verify the truth of the doctrine anyway, which leads me back to the contradiction discussion. It would seem worthwhile to compare the contradictions trotted out by each camp against the other, and the resolutions offered in return.

 

[Lon]

This could as easily be turned around to say that settled theism rests on God knowing the future exhaustively, which begs the question. And either one could be used as a starting assumption, as long as we allow our starting assumption to fall if real contradictions arise. I submit that the number of contradictions is significantly greater with settled theism than with open theism.

I'd suggest that is merely because we've wrestled with complex issues longer. "Settled" theism, btw, is a bit of a tell-tale that one is seated in Open Camps. They are the only ones that call all of Christendom 'settled' theists. One 'settled' theist said "...by that token, you Open Theists would be 'unsettled' theists."

And the contradictions with open theism are "apparent" contradictions that result from over applying the text beyond what it is meant to apply, while the contradictions with settled theism are hard and fast and have resulted in the Arminian-Calvinism dichotomy, and possibly the Roman Catholic-Eastern orthodox dichotomy (I know far less about the RC-EO dichotomy, but saw an EO description one time that led me to think this).

I disagree. They are worse. 1) I have had several Open Theists who suggested that God didn't know where Adam was Genesis 3:7-15. Another 2) 1 Samuel 15:11 but then 1 Samuel 15:29, AFTER the first verse, makes it clear that Open Theology does not understand very basic tenants of scripture: One is didactic, clearly telling you what you and I MUST believe. The other? Simply a passing statement such that to take it as God 'repenting' is literally, against the didactic teaching. This IS the main thrust of Open Theist theology: to take a 'comment' from a story and expound on it RATHER than taking something incredibly clear and necessary in God's direct instruction, and believing it.

In other words, the Open Theist is going to listen to his/her thoughts about a *non-teaching passage 'before' listening to God's clear instruction over a matter, especially a matter concerning His clear teaching of His own nature. Such is a MUCH starker and problematic contradiction from my exegetical and contextual understanding. It is a huge problem, comparatively.

*non-teaching, NOT pedantic. In story (mostly) you have discussion, but never a 'go and do likewise whoever is reading this passage' direction. The Bible WILL record something wrong someone says. The bible is not TEACHING us a wrong truth, but that someone held a wrong truth. Example: You read that Saul declared he'd kill whoever ate and Jonathan ate honey. The Bible is NOT teaching that eating during war is a bad thing. I've made this obvious, but the problem from reading a story IS direct application either to 'follow' or 'believe as true.' Rather the point of story is to always convey 'how to' than 'what to know.' The problem with Open Theism is it takes almost all of its doctrine from story where the teaching is not pedantically clear, but rather and often a wrong idea entirely like God not knowing where Adam was. Of course God knew where Adam was. "Adam, where are you" is dangerous in the hands of the Open Theist because he/she may (and as I said, some actually do :noway: believe God had absolutely no idea where Adam was). That's incredible.

 

[Rosenritter]

I disagree. They are worse. 1) I have had several Open Theists who suggested that God didn't know where Adam was Genesis 3:7-15.

I am glad that you are putting forth some points that may be addressed, but I would suggest that the existence of a person who answers badly may not be the best measure. I think that this first example (above) clearly falls in that category. If God knows when a sparrow falls to the ground, I think it is improbable to suggest that Adam was able to hide so well that he literally disappeared from God.

When God asks, "Where are you Adam?" he was obviously able to project this question to where ever Adam was hiding. This gives Adam a chance to answer. And why would he do this unless there was a reason for Adam to have a chance to answer? I would say that the fact that the question was asked is indicative of Open theology, too see how Adam would choose in his heart to answer. Or at the very least, even if God knew Adam's heart, so that Adam would see his own heart through his own response (which I admit does not require Open Theology).

Another 2) 1 Samuel 15:11 but then 1 Samuel 15:29, AFTER the first verse, makes it clear that Open Theology does not understand very basic tenants of scripture: One is didactic, clearly telling you what you and I MUST believe. The other? Simply a passing statement such that to take it as God 'repenting' is literally, against the didactic teaching. This IS the main thrust of Open Theist theology: to take a 'comment' from a story and expound on it RATHER than taking something incredibly clear and necessary in God's direct instruction, and believing it.

I don't understand the proposed problem here, unless it is a word game with the word "repent." Clearly God himself said that it repented him that he set Saul up to be king. It grieved him, he had set it before and now he was going to undo it for just cause. Verse 29 is in the context of his decision as delivered by Samuel to Saul in verse 28, God has delivered his ruling to Saul, it is sure and protests (or otherwise) will not change that.

But the question of settling or openness usually isn't brought down to trying to force the Bible into artificial contradictions with word plays, is it? I'm used to hearing that from people who protest that bats are not birds, whales are not fish, protests from people that don't understand how a king could begin ruling at more than one age, etc.

Is the problem with that God might take an action and later be grieved at the results? But that's not a contradiction, that's the basic essential element (the effect) of what we are discussing here and consistent with the Open premise (should we use Open and Closed perhaps, instead of Open and Settled?)

In other words, the Open Theist is going to listen to his/her thoughts about a *non-teaching passage 'before' listening to God's clear instruction over a matter, especially a matter concerning His clear teaching of His own nature. Such is a MUCH starker and problematic contradiction from my exegetical and contextual understanding. It is a huge problem, comparatively.

As opposed to the invisible Adam question formed from a non-teaching statement, God is teaching when he says it repented him that he set up Saul to be king. Unless he is lying to Samuel, it really does repent him (it grieves him and he is about to make a change for his stated reason.)

Spoiler

*non-teaching, NOT pedantic. In story (mostly) you have discussion, but never a 'go and do likewise whoever is reading this passage' direction. The Bible WILL record something wrong someone says. The bible is not TEACHING us a wrong truth, but that someone held a wrong truth. Example: You read that Saul declared he'd kill whoever ate and Jonathan ate honey. The Bible is NOT teaching that eating during war is a bad thing. I've made this obvious, but the problem from reading a story IS direct application either to 'follow' or 'believe as true.' Rather the point of story is to always convey 'how to' than 'what to know.' The problem with Open Theism is it takes almost all of its doctrine from story where the teaching is not pedantically clear, but rather and often a wrong idea entirely like God not knowing where Adam was. Of course God knew where Adam was. "Adam, where are you" is dangerous in the hands of the Open Theist because he/she may (and as I said, some actually do :noway: believe God had absolutely no idea where Adam was). That's incredible.

So far (from Genesis forward to this point) Open seems like the more natural explanation. If God gave a command it implies that he expects that his subject (if willing) is able to complete it, and a sentence of punishment for failure indicates that the fault was because of their resistant will. Even the example of Saul demonstrates that he was able to grieve God (indicative of a contrary will) and if God had "perfect foreknowledge of all things" in the Settled (or Closed) view would he say he was grieved later, and that the reason for his change of policy was Saul's actions?

Thanks for proceeding with these questions... it's nice to see this board as one of the more civilized here.

 

[Lon]

I am glad that you are putting forth some points that may be addressed, but I would suggest that the existence of a person who answers badly may not be the best measure. I think that this first example (above) clearly falls in that category. If God knows when a sparrow falls to the ground, I think it is improbable to suggest that Adam was able to hide so well that he literally disappeared from God.

This was literally argued in pro-open theism threads on this very site, not once, but three times. Open Theist pastors and teachers MUST recognize and correct their flock. The members of the Open Congregation believe literally, that God had no idea. Genesis 18:21 and Genesis 22:13 are given by nearly all Open Theists as God literally not knowing as well. If you aren't that kind of Open Theist? Great, but most are and it is doubtful if you are an Open Theist if you disagree with the majority of them. Again, both are a struggle to pull something from story and again, my contention is they pull an inaccuracy (the wrong point) from the story. Story is given, not to teach you pedantically, point for point. Didactic scriptures are given for that purpose. Rather, story is 1) the 'human' story and the need for God's interaction and correction and 2) usually 'how' a truth (already given pedantically, or about to be) plays out in life situations. In Bible college, we just don't take so-called 'truths' from story like we do from pedantic passages. We don't do so in language arts (English or other given language) either. Story doesn't generally teach pedantically, unless such a moral or truth is very clearly stated within its content/context.

When God asks, "Where are you Adam?" he was obviously able to project this question to where ever Adam was hiding. This gives Adam a chance to answer. And why would he do this unless there was a reason for Adam to have a chance to answer? I would say that the fact that the question was asked is indicative of Open theology, too see how Adam would choose in his heart to answer. Or at the very least, even if God knew Adam's heart, so that Adam would see his own heart through his own response (which I admit does not require Open Theology).

The very last sentence: NOT Open Theology, but the traditional understanding of the text AND a reasonable deduction based on other pedantic passages that tell us clearly that God knows the heart and thoughts of men.

I don't understand the proposed problem here,

I agree. I'll let an Open Theist chime in here because your observation is mine as well. :up:

unless it is a word game with the word "repent." Clearly God himself said that it repented him that he set Saul up to be king. It grieved him, he had set it before and now he was going to undo it for just cause. Verse 29 is in the context of his decision as delivered by Samuel to Saul in verse 28, God has delivered his ruling to Saul, it is sure and protests (or otherwise) will not change that.

Agreed. Here is how Boyd, Sanders, and Enyart have explained it: "God repented" means that He could not have known that Saul was going to fail and that God's mind can be changed." To the Open Theist, proof that God does not know all things, just 'all things that can be logically known' as well as "God can change His mind." For me, the only logical and scriptural position is that God knows all things because 'nothing that exists can exist without Him' and "I am God, I change not or you people would perish." Malachi 3:6

But the question of settling or openness usually isn't brought down to trying to force the Bible into artificial contradictions with word plays, is it? I'm used to hearing that from people who protest that bats are not birds, whales are not fish, protests from people that don't understand how a king could begin ruling at more than one age, etc.

These are not my presentations. They come from the Open camp as literal passages that support their position. I'll let an open theist weigh in on this one as well. It is an important question and conveying past conversation is a bit second-handed. Hopefully one or two will weigh in here.

Is the problem with that God might take an action and later be grieved at the results? But that's not a contradiction, that's the basic essential element (the effect) of what we are discussing here and consistent with the Open premise (should we use Open and Closed perhaps, instead of Open and Settled?)

The problem with 'settled' or 'closed' are that they are both terms used, by Open Theists, to describe the rest of Christendom, usually or often conveying derogatory by the description. I try to use rather 'orthodox' or 'traditional' or perhaps 'classically understood.' Self descriptors are generally the better terms.

As opposed to the invisible Adam question formed from a non-teaching statement, God is teaching when he says it repented him that he set up Saul to be king. Unless he is lying to Samuel, it really does repent him (it grieves him and he is about to make a change for his stated reason.)

Agree, but again, it'd be more meaningful, at this point, if an Open Theist such as Stripe or Judge Rightly or another participating Open Theist carried this part of the discussion for the contrast of the disagreement and further explanation.

So far (from Genesis forward to this point) Open seems like the more natural explanation. If God gave a command it implies that he expects that his subject (if willing) is able to complete it, and a sentence of punishment for failure indicates that the fault was because of their resistant will. Even the example of Saul demonstrates that he was able to grieve God (indicative of a contrary will) and if God had "perfect foreknowledge of all things" in the Settled (or Closed) view would he say he was grieved later, and that the reason for his change of policy was Saul's actions?

I think I'm understanding you and Derf a bit better here. From what I am gathering, you two are meaning that man is "Open" and God interacts with Him. That isn't, however "Open" according to the Open Theist. Rather, he/she is also stating that God is 'Open' (changing, relational, learning) too. That's the big 'Open' in "Open Theism." They agree that man needs to change, but believe God must and does change with them to meet man's needs, which includes His inability to know men's future thoughts and choices (He rather guesses/anticipates them in Open Theism). If an Open Theist responds here, I may continue to clarify/interact on this point. The basic disagreement for me is that the Bible does indeed give the Omni's such as God being all-knowing, being all-powerful, being in all places at once by necessity, etc. These in my mind and understanding, are biblical 'musts.'

Thanks for proceeding with these questions... it's nice to see this board as one of the more civilized here.

The problem? You and I don't get to talk often I've always appreciated your discussions :e4e:

 

[Derf]

In addition to [MENTION=18255]Rosenritter[/MENTION]'s response, which was stated very well, I'd like to offer a few more thoughts. I already commented on the strawman "Where are you Adam?" so I'll leave that one alone.

I disagree. They are worse.

Let's finish going through your list of unsettled theist contradictions (and you may add to the list as you see fit), and then we should talk about the settled theist contradictions.

Another 2) 1 Samuel 15:11 but then 1 Samuel 15:29, AFTER the first verse, makes it clear that Open Theology does not understand very basic tenants of scripture: One is didactic, clearly telling you what you and I MUST believe. The other? Simply a passing statement such that to take it as God 'repenting' is literally, against the didactic teaching. This IS the main thrust of Open Theist theology: to take a 'comment' from a story and expound on it RATHER than taking something incredibly clear and necessary in God's direct instruction, and believing it.

I think it's helpful to look at what God did to Saul and his progeny.

[1Sa 13:13-14 KJV] 13 And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the LORD thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the LORD have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever. 14 But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the LORD hath commanded him [to be] captain over his people, because thou hast not kept [that] which the LORD commanded thee.I'll borrow from Rosie and suggest that Samuel here is actually teaching Saul, so this can either be didactic or incorrect. If incorrect, then what is Samuel doing teaching incorrect things to Saul in the name of the Lord? If correct, then Samuel is telling Saul that his progeny would have ruled over Israel FOREVER, had Saul obeyed God's commandments.

The use of the two "now"s is intriguing. In one case God would have established Saul's rule, and in the other case He is discontinuing Saul's (and his progeny's) rule. Again, if these statements are not correct, then Samuel is speaking falsehoods to Saul. If they are correct, then they show that Saul made a serious blunder that day in sacrificing instead of waiting for Samuel to do it.

This idea has lasting implications, because it suggests that the promises to David, that came later, would not have happened if Saul had obeyed IN THIS ONE INSTANCE, it seems.

In other words, the Open Theist is going to listen to his/her thoughts about a *non-teaching passage 'before' listening to God's clear instruction over a matter, especially a matter concerning His clear teaching of His own nature. Such is a MUCH starker and problematic contradiction from my exegetical and contextual understanding. It is a huge problem, comparatively.

maybe we should ask God for a list of "teaching" vs "non-teaching" passages. For instance is a geneology a teaching passage? Is the story of creation or the flood a teaching passage? Is there anything in the bible that is NOT a teaching passage? You are saying "Yes", but how do you know this? Wouldn't you know this because of what a passage says and because of how it says it? Thus, you learn from the passage whether it is a teaching passage or not, which makes it by default a teaching passage. All the bible is meant to inform, as Paul tells us:
[2Ti 3:16 NIV] 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,So which scriptures are NOT useful for teaching? The question that we must ask for each passage is, "What does it teach?"

*non-teaching, NOT pedantic. In story (mostly) you have discussion, but never a 'go and do likewise whoever is reading this passage' direction. The Bible WILL record something wrong someone says. The bible is not TEACHING us a wrong truth, but that someone held a wrong truth. Example: You read that Saul declared he'd kill whoever ate and Jonathan ate honey. The Bible is NOT teaching that eating during war is a bad thing. I've made this obvious, but the problem from reading a story IS direct application either to 'follow' or 'believe as true.' Rather the point of story is to always convey 'how to' than 'what to know.' The problem with Open Theism is it takes almost all of its doctrine from story where the teaching is not pedantically clear, but rather and often a wrong idea entirely like God not knowing where Adam was. Of course God knew where Adam was. "Adam, where are you" is dangerous in the hands of the Open Theist because he/she may (and as I said, some actually do :noway: believe God had absolutely no idea where Adam was). That's incredible.

And of course you are saying that settled theists NEVER do this, right? Let's try it out with your example.
Here's a settled theist's division between didactic and narrative in 1 Sam 15 (from https://bible.org/article/examination-open-theism):

A common example of this poor hermeneutic is the open theist’s use of 1 Samuel 15. Open theists emphasize the narrative portions of this chapter involving God regretting that He has made Saul king (1 Sam. 15:11, 35) while marginalizing the didactic portion that clearly teaches that God is not like a man that he should change His mind (1 Sam. 15:29).46

You can clearly see the didactic line in the sand, right? 1 Sam. 15:29 is didactic, and 1 Sam 15:11, 35 are narrative. But why is vs 29 more didactic than vs 11? It is a record of Samuel saying something. It is NOT preceded by "Thus says the Lord". As in other places, like Job's friends, who tell about characteristics of God, it might or it might not be true. We trust it because we trust Samuel to tell the truth, and we trust Samuel because of the narrative that describes Samuel. Thus, the narrative (the whole book of 1 Samuel) is a superior reference to the didactic distinction, as the narrative establishes who is telling the truth in their didacticism.

The narrative, in providing the name of the speaker, has the potential to tell us which sources in the narrative are MORE authoritative and which are LESS so. Compare vs 29 with vs 11. According to the narrative, who is doing the speaking? Vs 29 is Samuel. Vs 11 is God. God is explaining to Samuel not only THAT He is removing the kingdom from Saul, but WHY. Thus, God is telling Samuel (and we get to listen in) something about Himself and His concerns. We can play around with the meaning of the words to try to understand it in the best way possible, but we can't deny that it is God who is teaching Samuel, vs Samuel teaching Saul in vs 29.

Unless, of course, you want to deny the truthfulness of the narrative. Once we do that, the whole book of 1 Samuel must be discarded, and you lose the "didactic" vs 29 as much as we lose vss 11 and 35. I'm not willing to do that, but you can, if you want.

But, let's just say, for the moment, that vs 29 is didactic--that Samuel is telling Saul what the Lord is like (not a "go and do likewise" passage, by the way). Is 1 Sam 15:29 MORE didactic than 1 Sam 13:13-14, where Samuel tells Saul what God would have done under different circumstances? I can't see why.

The only reason not to take 1Sam 13:13-14 as didactic is if you have already determined in your mind that God knew Saul 1. was going to fail, and 2. was going to fail at that particular time (thus the "now"s). Which means that you are interpreting the passage based on other knowledge of God, and not accepting the passage's description of God.

 

[Rosenritter]

This was literally argued in pro-open theism threads on this very site, not once, but three times. Open Theist pastors and teachers MUST recognize and correct their flock. The members of the Open Congregation believe literally, that God had no idea...

There isn't an Openness coalition. While I agree that we (Christians) should teach and talk one with another far more often than we do, the very essence of what I understand is meant by "Open" is simply allowing the scripture to be interpreted in its most plainest sense unless context and prior scripture / revelation provides other meaning. This is a very non-elitist approach that trusts that God can speak through his text through the Holy Spirit, that in most cases we should be able to understand without needing complicated methodologies of interpretation.

As for one (or more) examples of people saying that God didn't know where in his created Eden Adam was hiding I am baffled. (If I may speak foolishly) God could have asked a viper to locate Adam with its heat vision, or created a bloodhound from the dust to assist him with its nose if it was that difficult. Which is harder, knowing where Adam is hiding, or creating animals ex nihlo to assist in the task? I'd like to talk with those people and ask what they were thinking.

Genesis 18:21 and Genesis 22:13 are given by nearly all Open Theists as God literally not knowing as well. If you aren't that kind of Open Theist? Great, but most are and it is doubtful if you are an Open Theist if you disagree with the majority of them.

In Genesis 18:21, God says that he "... will go down and see whether they have done altogether according to the [grievous] cry of it,which is come unto me; and if not, I will know." Obviously God already knew of their grievous sin (else he would not be there) so why is he going down to see? What I understand is that God is testing them, and that what he does not know is whether they will change when tested.

Gen 22:12 KJV
(12) 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.

Likewise in Genesis 22:12, God is providing a test for Abram. He knows Abram's heart (to the degree that our hearts can be known) but we also train our hearts every day with the decisions that we make. Abram is given a momentous trial of his faith that will shape his heart. Abram makes his decision and is prepared to carry through, thus now God can say that he truly knows. This is no slight against God, it is rather an insight into how God chose to form us.

In Bible college, we just don't take so-called 'truths' from story like we do from pedantic passages. We don't do so in language arts (English or other given language) either. Story doesn't generally teach pedantically, unless such a moral or truth is very clearly stated within its content/context.

Rather than comment in length on such implications, may I refer to Derf as he spoke concerning pedantic and didactic views?

Agreed. Here is how Boyd, Sanders, and Enyart have explained it: "God repented" means that He could not have known that Saul was going to fail and that God's mind can be changed." To the Open Theist, proof that God does not know all things, just 'all things that can be logically known' as well as "God can change His mind." For me, the only logical and scriptural position is that God knows all things because 'nothing that exists can exist without Him' and "I am God, I change not or you people would perish." Malachi 3:6

I think I might be with Boyd, Sanders, and Enyart as to their conclusions for this example. If God created us with the capacity to actually choose (not simply the delusion of choosing) than he cannot truly know until we are tested (and decide) for ourselves what we shall be. Note: I suspect that we may form our own hearts through small decisions sometimes far before the actual event comes that helps to realize what we are.

These are not my presentations. They come from the Open camp as literal passages that support their position. I'll let an open theist weigh in on this one as well. It is an important question and conveying past conversation is a bit second-handed. Hopefully one or two will weigh in here.

Agree, but again, it'd be more meaningful, at this point, if an Open Theist such as Stripe or Judge Rightly or another participating Open Theist carried this part of the discussion for the contrast of the disagreement and further explanation.

Feel free to invite a few of those people to discuss here, if it would help to see how we conclude any of your questions among ourselves.

I think I'm understanding you and Derf a bit better here. From what I am gathering, you two are meaning that man is "Open" and God interacts with Him.

Wow. Those are preciously scarce words on these forums. And as far as the part gathered, I can concur so far.

That isn't, however "Open" according to the Open Theist. Rather, he/she is also stating that God is 'Open' (changing, relational, learning) too. That's the big 'Open' in "Open Theism." They agree that man needs to change, but believe God must and does change with them to meet man's needs, which includes His inability to know men's future thoughts and choices (He rather guesses/anticipates them in Open Theism).

I bolded the strange bit above. I don't think God "must" change because I understand his character to be perfect from the beginning. God planned for his Son to enter this world from its foundation because he knew that man could fall. I don't think that an "inability" to know future thoughts of men that perhaps have not even yet been conceived should be described as "changing to meet man's needs" (or even as an inability.)

If an Open Theist responds here, I may continue to clarify/interact on this point. The basic disagreement for me is that the Bible does indeed give the Omni's such as God being all-knowing, being all-powerful, being in all places at once by necessity, etc. These in my mind and understanding, are biblical 'musts.'
The problem? You and I don't get to talk often I've always appreciated your discussions :e4e:

I think that we should naturally exclude questions of paradox when considering the meaning of "all powerful" "all knowing" and "everywhere." This, however, is an issue that perception that may not change overnight. I think that God seems far more real the more we properly understand him, and isn't this one of the reasons he came to earth? That we might behold the image of the invisible God? That if we have seen him (as he chose to present himself) that we have seen the Father?

Peace, and good luck if you can round up people that we should be talking with among ourselves. This would be a great place for it.

 

[Derf]

This was literally argued in pro-open theism threads on this very site, not once, but three times. Open Theist pastors and teachers MUST recognize and correct their flock. The members of the Open Congregation believe literally, that God had no idea.

I agree! I don't go to an open congregation, so I get corrected on lots of other things.

Genesis 18:21 and Genesis 22:13 are given by nearly all Open Theists as God literally not knowing as well. If you aren't that kind of Open Theist? Great, but most are and it is doubtful if you are an Open Theist if you disagree with the majority of them. Again, both are a struggle to pull something from story and again, my contention is they pull an inaccuracy (the wrong point) from the story. Story is given, not to teach you pedantically, point for point. Didactic scriptures are given for that purpose. Rather, story is 1) the 'human' story and the need for God's interaction and correction and 2) usually 'how' a truth (already given pedantically, or about to be) plays out in life situations. In Bible college, we just don't take so-called 'truths' from story like we do from pedantic passages. We don't do so in language arts (English or other given language) either. Story doesn't generally teach pedantically, unless such a moral or truth is very clearly stated within its content/context.

You've given two more passages here. This is what I get from them:
[Gen 18:20 KJV] And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
[Gen 18:21 KJV] I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

I included the previous verse, because it sets the stage. "The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and ...their sin is grievous" reveals what God knows already about Sodom and Gomorrah. Vs 21 tells us that He is going to find out something in addition. What is that? I'd like to suggest that He's going to find out how far they will go in their sin. So when the two angels go into the city, they plan to sleep out in the open, as "bait", so to speak. They don't even get that far, as the men of the city attempt to break down Lot's door to get to them. To me, this was a test of the people of Sodom, one that God expected them to fail, no doubt, but one they could have passed if only 6 others were found that repented. "[Gen 18:32b KJV] And he said, I will not destroy [it] for ten's sake." Lot gave the men of the city the option to repent, though dispicable to us, by offering his daughters. The men of Sodom refused, confirming that they were continuing in sin, and not repenting. That's all the angels needed to see--they knew then that the city would be destroyed, and told Lot to get out of there.

I don't really see this as somehow contradictory--God had knowledge of what was, and He sought to see how far they would go.

The second passage, Genesis 22:1-13, is not unlike the first. God knew Abraham's heart, but only by testing Him could He find out whether Abraham trusted more in God than in his own offspring to bring about the promise of God.

Again, if God knew Abraham's heart ([Gen 18:19 KJV] For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.), but didn't know how far he would go to follow through, or maybe because He knew Abraham's heart, He suspected Abraham's loyalties might have wavered, it isn't a contradiction. It was a test of Abraham's faith. For God to learn how far Abraham would continue to trust Him. [Gen 22:12 KJV] 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.

Remember that this is God talking to Abraham. It is didactic, at least within the context of the story. For us to now, 4,000 years later, go back and say that God didn't really mean what He said to Abraham seems foolish to me. And it is interesting to note that the "now" word is used, like in 1 Sam 13.

I agree. I'll let an Open Theist chime in here because your observation is mine as well. :up:

Agreed. Here is how Boyd, Sanders, and Enyart have explained it: "God repented" means that He could not have known that Saul was going to fail and that God's mind can be changed." To the Open Theist, proof that God does not know all things, just 'all things that can be logically known' as well as "God can change His mind." For me, the only logical and scriptural position is that God knows all things because 'nothing that exists can exist without Him' and "I am God, I change not or you people would perish." Malachi 3:6

Because of Malachi 3:6, you want to alter the meaning of verses that say God changes His mind based on how people act. But in context, Malachi 3:6 is saying the same thing--that God will act differently toward his people, depending on how they act toward Him, though His actions will not violate His covenant with them. [Mal 3:7 KJV] Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept [them]. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the LORD of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return?

This gives perfect context to the extent of God's "I change not" statement. He is saying the same kind of thing Samuel said to Saul--He won't make Himself a liar by breaking His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob or make Himself a liar, after He said He would tear the kingdom from Saul, by letting Saul keep His kingdom. But it is not an all-inclusive "I change not" that doesn't even allow Him to react with mercy when a nation repents, or with anger if a nation walks away from Him. These are changes that are consistently illustrated throughout God's dealings with his people.

The problem with 'settled' or 'closed' are that they are both terms used, by Open Theists, to describe the rest of Christendom, usually or often conveying derogatory by the description. I try to use rather 'orthodox' or 'traditional' or perhaps 'classically understood.' Self descriptors are generally the better terms.

The problem with "orthodox" is that it means "correct". using the antithetical terms would result in "correct" theists and "incorrect" theists. "Traditional" carries similar baggage that is influential in the discussion, though not as much. I admit that "settled" and "unsettled" are rather bland terms, but they seem to convey the intended meanings without baggage, imo.

Agree, but again, it'd be more meaningful, at this point, if an Open Theist such as Stripe or Judge Rightly or another participating Open Theist carried this part of the discussion for the contrast of the disagreement and further explanation.

The question to Adam might not have been a "teaching" passage, but it was, as [MENTION=18255]Rosenritter[/MENTION] explained before, a "teaching moment" between God and Adam. I certainly wouldn't want to hold onto it as proof of God's ignorance of present things.

I think I'm understanding you and Derf a bit better here. From what I am gathering, you two are meaning that man is "Open" and God interacts with Him. That isn't, however "Open" according to the Open Theist. Rather, he/she is also stating that God is 'Open' (changing, relational, learning) too. That's the big 'Open' in "Open Theism." They agree that man needs to change, but believe God must and does change with them to meet man's needs, which includes His inability to know men's future thoughts and choices (He rather guesses/anticipates them in Open Theism). If an Open Theist responds here, I may continue to clarify/interact on this point. The basic disagreement for me is that the Bible does indeed give the Omni's such as God being all-knowing, being all-powerful, being in all places at once by necessity, etc. These in my mind and understanding, are biblical 'musts.'

I'm not sure I agree with your determination that Rosie and I are only saying "man is open", although the two are related. God is "open" in terms of dealing with men individually and nationally, but in terms of the human race, God is executing His plan to save it. God will execute all His purposes, but His purpose is not to destroy a nation that repents, or save a city that doesn't repent. He desires that all men come to repentance, but he realizes some won't. And repentance, like love, cannot be forced.

The problem? You and I don't get to talk often I've always appreciated your discussions :e4e:

This thread has been amazingly clean of drive-by detractors, and it is good to read yours and Rosie's posts.

 

[Rosenritter]

The problem with "orthodox" is that it means "correct". using the antithetical terms would result in "correct" theists and "incorrect" theists. "Traditional" carries similar baggage that is influential in the discussion, though not as much. I admit that "settled" and "unsettled" are rather bland terms, but they seem to convey the intended meanings without baggage, imo.

I was going to say something to that effect but deleted it to save space. Derf seems to share my thoughts on this topic with amazing frequency.

 

[Stripe]

"Open" and "settled" are better descriptions.

"Unsettled" is not descriptive.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Lon]

I agree! I don't go to an open congregation, so I get corrected on lots of other things.


You've given two more passages here. This is what I get from them:
[Gen 18:20 KJV] And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
[Gen 18:21 KJV] I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

I included the previous verse, because it sets the stage. "The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and ...their sin is grievous" reveals what God knows already about Sodom and Gomorrah. Vs 21 tells us that He is going to find out something in addition. What is that? I'd like to suggest that He's going to find out how far they will go in their sin. So when the two angels go into the city, they plan to sleep out in the open, as "bait", so to speak. They don't even get that far, as the men of the city attempt to break down Lot's door to get to them. To me, this was a test of the people of Sodom, one that God expected them to fail, no doubt, but one they could have passed if only 6 others were found that repented. "[Gen 18:32b KJV] And he said, I will not destroy [it] for ten's sake." Lot gave the men of the city the option to repent, though dispicable to us, by offering his daughters. The men of Sodom refused, confirming that they were continuing in sin, and not repenting. That's all the angels needed to see--they knew then that the city would be destroyed, and told Lot to get out of there.

I don't really see this as somehow contradictory--God had knowledge of what was, and He sought to see how far they would go.

Or was it anthropomorphic in conveyance to Abraham? The idea that God doesn't know what is going on in His universe, contrasted with 1 John 3:20 Colossians 1:17, John 15:5 Psalm 139:4, Romans 9:18-21 and James 4:13-16 When we wrestle with scriptures, dare we, His finite and limited creatures 'guess' or surmise that He has less? Logic is fine, but it cannot be used to 'over-ride' scriptures, just grasp them. There are times when "I don't know" is the appropriate answer.

The second passage, Genesis 22:1-13, is not unlike the first. God knew Abraham's heart, but only by testing Him could He find out whether Abraham trusted more in God than in his own offspring to bring about the promise of God.

This is an Open Theist comment and summation. It isn't God who had to know. It was Abraham. In a nutshell, that is the difference, when it comes to knowledge, between me and an Open Theist. As with the scriptures above, I believe implicitly there is never, ever, ever, ever something God learns. To me, scripturally as well as logistically, it makes God the product 'of' the universe rather than being the Creator and Maker with 'nothing else beside Him.' 1) I believe those scriptures have no wiggle room and are pedantic. There is no 'interpretive' power going on. 2) That as intelligent as I may be, there are times this applies to me Psalm 46:10 For me, entertaining a thought against a pedantic scripture given, is not taking Him seriously and second-guessing Him. "I am God and I do not change, lest you perish!" is about as pedantic and instructively clear as can be stated.

Again, if God knew Abraham's heart ([Gen 18:19 KJV] For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.), but didn't know how far he would go to follow through, or maybe because He knew Abraham's heart, He suspected Abraham's loyalties might have wavered, it isn't a contradiction. It was a test of Abraham's faith. For God to learn how far Abraham would continue to trust Him. [Gen 22:12 KJV] 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.

To me? A blatant contradiction. 1 John 3:20 Let me ask: Doesn't 'your' theory contradict God very God? To me, it inescapably does and so my mind is bewildered that 1 John 3:20 'cannot' mean what it clearly says. This is the Apostle trying to tell us something VERY SPECIFIC about God. Again, in my mind and confusion, how could God not know what was in Abraham's heart and intentions? Psalm 19:12

These are serious matters, but I'm not intending any of this to be confrontational so if this isn't working for a meeting of minds and hearts, let me know.

Remember that this is God talking to Abraham. It is didactic, at least within the context of the story. For us to now, 4,000 years later, go back and say that God didn't really mean what He said to Abraham seems foolish to me. And it is interesting to note that the "now" word is used, like in 1 Sam 13.

It isn't an instruction, however. It isn't telling you something to believe or telling you how to worship (show God's worth and giving respect) Him according to His self description. In addition, "now I know" is one small Hebrew word and often gets interpreted by the translator's word, rather than the context originally given. "Henceforth it shall be known" works very well in conveying the meaning. "Now I know" isn't necessary for this translation to be accurate. It is just yawd atah "henceforth known by [such and such actions]. We have a few Hebrew scholars on TOL who can confirm this.

Because of Malachi 3:6, you want to alter the meaning of verses that say God changes His mind based on how people act. But in context, Malachi 3:6 is saying the same thing--that God will act differently toward his people, depending on how they act toward Him, though His actions will not violate His covenant with them. [Mal 3:7 KJV] Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept [them]. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the LORD of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return?

:nono: It says exactly the opposite: BECAUSE God doesn't changed, you will not perish because of your sins. It means their sins warranted immediate judgment. It was the 'unchanging' character of God: His love mercy and grace, that they were not consumed.

This gives perfect context to the extent of God's "I change not" statement. He is saying the same kind of thing Samuel said to Saul--He won't make Himself a liar by breaking His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob or make Himself a liar, after He said He would tear the kingdom from Saul, by letting Saul keep His kingdom. But it is not an all-inclusive "I change not" that doesn't even allow Him to react with mercy when a nation repents, or with anger if a nation walks away from Him. These are changes that are consistently illustrated throughout God's dealings with his people.

No, not a reaction. God is NOT going to suddenly become 'more' loving. That is a changing God and is not consistent. If I've learned anything in being a parent these past 30 years, it is that consistency is one of the most loving attributes of any parent.

It is NOT that I'm "More" loving to my kids when they do something wrong, to return grace. That isn't it. What is rather the factor is that my kids are relational to 'my' grace and love. Interacting isn't a 'change' in the stronger person BECAUSE it shows forth during a weakness in the other. To suggest otherwise is to suggest a weakness in my parenting ability. No problem with me (untrue, but not a problem). Huge problem with saying it about God. He IS the perfect parent. He just cannot do it better. He is already the quintessential definition of perfection. He does NOT have 'more' mercy because that suggests a deficiency in His character, a flaw. Why? Because the logistic pattern points to something God was not already perfectly full of when you or I came to Him with the problem. More? It is only when I become like my heavenly Father in parenting, that I do it right. God and godliness IS the mark expected of me. I can't get higher OR ELSE God isn't the mark. Some 'ideal' would take His place. That just isn't possible and it is VERY problematic to suggest it.

The problem with "orthodox" is that it means "correct". using the antithetical terms would result in "correct" theists and "incorrect" theists. "Traditional" carries similar baggage that is influential in the discussion, though not as much. I admit that "settled" and "unsettled" are rather bland terms, but they seem to convey the intended meanings without baggage, imo.

:nono: orthodox means 'accepted.' "Correct" should coincide with that, but that isn't what the word means. It means simply "what the majority of us have argued and have come to agree upon as truth."

The question to Adam might not have been a "teaching" passage, but it was, as @Rosenritter explained before, a "teaching moment" between God and Adam. I certainly wouldn't want to hold onto it as proof of God's ignorance of present things.

You aren't quite grasping the difference between pedantic and 'teaching' in general. "Socratic" is also 'teaching' but it is not pedantic teaching. Rather, what theologians are telling you, at that point, is that God does take time, in His bible to clearly and precisely tell you something that you must know and at other times, will be teaching something else. Because of the nature of 'something else' it may be related to your subject interest but it is best said "not about your particular interest.' That is, the context is about something different, it just happens to touch upon another truth, as all truth does. The point is, take home what a passage actually IS trying to tell you about a specific truth. Next? If you have been told something absolute about God such as "God is [ ]." Make sure you do not disbelieve or start questioning that clear teaching.

I'm not sure I agree with your determination that Rosie and I are only saying "man is open", although the two are related. God is "open" in terms of dealing with men individually and nationally, but in terms of the human race, God is executing His plan to save it. God will execute all His purposes, but His purpose is not to destroy a nation that repents, or save a city that doesn't repent. He desires that all men come to repentance, but he realizes some won't. And repentance, like love, cannot be forced.

This is one of the key features of disagreement between an Open Theist and the rest of Christendom that disagrees. The example given is not in contention, but the point it is made for (God's lack of character or knowledge) certainly is.

This thread has been amazingly clean of drive-by detractors, and it is good to read yours and Rosie's posts.

Yours too. Thank you.

 

[Rosenritter]

Source text:

Genesis 22:11-12 KJV
(11) And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
(12) 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.

This is an Open Theist comment and summation. It isn't God who had to know. It was Abraham. In a nutshell, that is the difference, when it comes to knowledge, between me and an Open Theist. As with the scriptures above, I believe implicitly there is never, ever, ever, ever something God learns. To me, scripturally as well as logistically...

Just from the scriptural standpoint, when it tells us of the result of that action from Abraham, does it say that because of that God knew, or because of that Abraham knew?

As for identifying the speaker, it said that the angel of the LORD called out and said that "now I know..." but then in verse 12 the angel of the Lord says that "thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me." To me that looks like the LORD was speaking when he said "...for now I know" which seems to tell me that it was God who had to know. I'm sure Abraham learned also, but our scripture tells us that God said that he needed to know.

 

[Derf]

Or was it anthropomorphic in conveyance to Abraham? ...

Lon,
I started working a response to your post, but haven't finished and can't continue today. Maybe tomorrow. Thanks for the info about didactic vs socratic teaching.

Derf

 

[Lon]

Source text:

Genesis 22:11-12 KJV
(11) And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
(12) 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.



Just from the scriptural standpoint, when it tells us of the result of that action from Abraham, does it say that because of that God knew, or because of that Abraham knew?

As for identifying the speaker, it said that the angel of the LORD called out and said that "now I know..." but then in verse 12 the angel of the Lord says that "thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me." To me that looks like the LORD was speaking when he said "...for now I know" which seems to tell me that it was God who had to know. I'm sure Abraham learned also, but our scripture tells us that God said that he needed to know.

I appreciate this. Further: How does the church combat 'translation?' To me, we have to welcome Open Theism simply because we've allowed colloquialisms to enter translation of meaning. The two words we are concerned with are not 'now' only, but 'henceforth' and 'it will be known' is functional and appropriate instead of 'I know.' As I stated, a Hebrew scholar could come and correct me or give elaborated meaning, but from what I know of Hebrew, the translation, not the Hebrew, is the problem.

 

[Rosenritter]

I appreciate this. Further: How does the church combat 'translation?' To me, we have to welcome Open Theism simply because we've allowed colloquialisms to enter translation of meaning. The two words we are concerned with are not 'now' only, but 'henceforth' and 'it will be known' is functional and appropriate instead of 'I know.' As I stated, a Hebrew scholar could come and correct me or give elaborated meaning, but from what I know of Hebrew, the translation, not the Hebrew, is the problem.

Since you raised a question of whether the translation was proper, do you know of any English translation that does not say "Now I know" at this place?

 

[Rosenritter]

I encountered an article by Matt Slick on Genesis 22:12. I'm not placing it here as a good example for discussion, but rather for the purpose of analysis of the reasoning of his first paragraphs.

https://carm.org/genesis-2212-now-i-know-you-fear-god

Spoiler

by Matt Slick
12/08/08
Return to Open Theism Page
"And he said, 'Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me,'" (Gen. 22:12).
Open Theists say that we should look at the Bible and take verses like Gen. 22:12 strictly for what they say. Of course, there are times when we should do that and others when we should not. Nevertheless, the Open Theists conclude that God had to learn what Abraham would do; God had to learn. But if we just assume that God had to learn, then other problems arise when we examine this text in that light. Let's take a look.
If God did not know that Abraham was going to slay Isaac or not, then did God know if Abraham was going to take Isaac to the hill, tell Isaac to carry the wood, and a host of other decisions that had to be made in order for it all to work out. That is a lot of hopeful desires of God, hoping that Abraham will do what God ultimately wants him to do.
Furthermore, how did God know that once Abraham lifted the knife that at the last possible part of a second, Abraham wouldn't deflect the knife and not kill his son? According to open theism, God did not actually know because there was another second in which Abraham could have changed his mind.
The words of God in Gen. 22:12 are spoken after Abraham was about to sacrifice his Son Isaac on the altar. Abraham raised the knife by which he would have slain Isaac, and that is when God told Abraham to stop. God said, "...for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me." Does this mean that God did not know for sure what Abraham would do until He saw the raised knife? Does it also mean that God did not know whether or not Abraham feared Him as the verse states? The Open Theist is presented with a problem because in Openness God knows all the present completely and totally. If God knows all present things exhaustively, then did God not know the state of Abraham's heart regarding Abraham's reverent fear for God? How could He not? 1 Chron. 28:9 says, "...for the Lord searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts..." Since God knows even the intent of the heart, then He knew what the intent of Abraham's heart was during the three-day journey to the place of sacrifice, as well as whether or not Abraham feared Him. Again, He would have known that Abraham feared Him, and the test was unnecessary to establish this fact.
We might note that Gen. 22:5 says, "And Abraham said to his young men, 'Stay here with the donkey, and I and the lad will go yonder; and we will worship and return to you.'" Abraham was ready to sacrifice his son, and he expected the Lord to resurrect Isaac. This is what it says in Heb. 11:19, "He considered that God is able to raise men even from the dead; from which he also received him back as a type." So, God knew that Abraham was completely trusting in the Lord. Why then did God still need to test Abraham? It doesn't make any sense from the Openness position.

I just wanted to check if the non-Openness position (as represented here) can see why his argument against Open Theology might be less than persuasive? For example:

Furthermore, how did God know that once Abraham lifted the knife that at the last possible part of a second, Abraham wouldn't deflect the knife and not kill his son? According to open theism, God did not actually know because there was another second in which Abraham could have changed his mind.

This might be a good test to see how close we are to "being on the same page." So Stripe, Derf, etc (and myself included) let's hold back on this for a moment, but Lon, can you anticipate how one of us might reply to this particular statement above? Because it sure seems that Matt Slick thinks this is unanswerable...

 

[Stripe]

My answer should be pretty easy to guess.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk