A Question for Open Theists Genesis 18:20,21

[seer]

Genesis 18:20,21

"And the LORD said, The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave. I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know."

Did God really not know how grave Sodom's sin was? Did He really have to travel down to Sodom to find out?

Or doesn't God know the present?

[yxboom]

Can you be more clear in your subject because all ready there are like 4 "A question for Open Theists" threads

[seer]

Well according to the text,God did not know how bad Sodom's sin was. If we are to take it literally...

[themuzicman]

I'm sure He did know. He had a purpose for coming down to investigate, and that was to interact with Abraham. The open view doesn't claim that God isn't omniscient about all knowable things.

Michael

[doogieduff]

Actually, we do need to take this literally, BUT this isn't God the Father speaking, but rather God the Son. And if you start reading in Genesis 18 you will clearly see that the Lord came down onto earth in human form. The story continues and God as a man says "I will go down and see." Christ would have had to do the same thing when He was on earth. He didn't know what was going on on the opposite side of the earth while He was a man unless He actually went there. Genesis 19:24 shows the two manifestations of God, one reigning in heaven and one on earth.

Now Seer, I think I have you figured out. You want to show how we're not supposed to take this verse literally, and in turn, shouldn't take Genesis 22:12 literally. Well, YOU'RE WRONG! They both need to be read literally AND in context. The Open View does not fail...

[geebob]

I like the way Greg Boyd deals with this.

Verse 21 is not the easiest of verses to translate, so this is tentative, but it seems to me that what English translations I have here all overlook something. You have the Hebrew kalah, an adverbial particle modifying the verb ’asu (the "they have done" of the RSV, NIV, NAS, and KJV). kalah means (check it for yourselves) something like "accomplished or completed end," "full end," or "finish." Here kalahdirectly follows the verb "they have done," which comes out in the RSV as "whether they have done altogether as the outcry" or, in the NAS as "whether they have done entirely according to its outcry."

However, it’s possible that these translations slightly miss the point. After checking on how kalah is used in the OT (e.g., 1Ki 6.38; Neh. 9.31; Isa. 10.23; 15.6; Jer. 5.18; 8.20; Dan. 11.36; Nah. 1.8f; 2.1 and others) it seems to me that v. 21 ought to be understood as saying something like, "I will go down to see whether or not their deeds have reached their fill as the outcry suggests."...

That God both knows perfectly existing realities (i.e., the state of Sodom’s sinfulness) AND would desire to further know something about Sodom is not a contradiction of terms any more than that God perfectly knew Abraham but yet desired to resolve Abraham’s potential for better or worse on a particular point. Likewise, God goes down to Sodom not to know whether or not the information provided by the outcry was accurate or not (this WOULD involve God in ignorance of an existing reality), but rather to resolve the potential for better or worse with respect to the "will" of Sodom and Gomorrah’s citizens.

There is more from Greg Boyd quoted by Payaso at this thread in another forum:
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1271

[seer]

First doogieduff, your reference to 19:24 does not prove what you suggest. Second there is no evidence that this is speaking of God the Son. Even if it was why wouldn't He know,even before He came to earth, what the state of Sodom was? So this passage proves that many of these texts should not be taken literally, but as devices God uses to interact with men.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 07:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=85799#post85799)
seer:

First doogieduff, your reference to 19:24 does not prove what you suggest.

Show me.


Second there is no evidence that this is speaking of God the Son. Even if it was why wouldn't He know,even before He came to earth, what the state of Sodom was? So this passage proves that many of these texts should not be taken literally, but as devices God uses to interact with men.

Are you saying that their state cannot change? Of course it can. He wanted to see what it was at that time, and therefore said, "Let's go down and see." Let me get this straight, do you think God was lying?

[seer]

...Show me.

"Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven."

There is not necessarily two Lords here...

....Are you saying that their state cannot change? Of course it can. He wanted to see what it was at that time, and therefore said, "Let's go down and see." Let me get this straight, do you think God was lying?

No, think if we follow your logic God (either the Son or Father) is clueless about present activitives as well as future. Like it said it is a literary device God uses to interact with man. And how did the Lord know that Sarah "laughed WITHIN herself" and yet did not know how sinful Sodom was?

Psalm 91:4

"He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler."

Will God literally cover you with His feathers and wings? Or is this a lie.

Also, how do you know that the Lord in Genesis 22:12 is not God the Son? Who you believe does not have complete foreknowledge?

[seer]

Also doggie, you saw Greg Boyds explaination on this:



"That God both knows perfectly existing realities (i.e., the state of Sodom’s sinfulness) AND would desire to further know something about Sodom is not a contradiction of terms any more than that God perfectly knew Abraham but yet desired to resolve Abraham’s potential for better or worse on a particular point. Likewise, God goes down to Sodom not to know whether or not the information provided by the outcry was accurate or not (this WOULD involve God in ignorance of an existing reality), but rather to resolve the potential for better or worse with respect to the "will" of Sodom and Gomorrah’s citizens."


I do not see why one can not use this very same logic with texts like Gen. 22:12

[themuzicman]

You're implying from the context that God didn't already know. We don't specifically know what His purpose was for coming "in person" to check it out.

Nice try, but you're reading more into it than is there.

Michael

[seer]

You're implying from the context that God didn't already know. We don't specifically know what His purpose was for coming "in person" to check it out.

We know exactly why God went down to Sodom. To see if it was as bad as outcry against it suggested. If Open Theists want to remain consistent they will have to say that God also does not know present events. Sorry Mike, this text is a killer for your position.


"And the LORD said, The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave. I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know."

[yxboom]

Seer looks to me like you haven't read geebob's response very well.

[seer]

Seer looks to me like you haven't read geebob's response very well.

It seemed like a two step to me. But I'am open (no pun intended) school me...

[yxboom]

ok

Verse 21 is not the easiest of verses to translate, so this is tentative, but it seems to me that what English translations I have here all overlook something. You have the Hebrew kalah, an adverbial particle modifying the verb ’asu (the "they have done" of the RSV, NIV, NAS, and KJV). kalah means (check it for yourselves) something like "accomplished or completed end," "full end," or "finish." Here kalahdirectly follows the verb "they have done," which comes out in the RSV as "whether they have done altogether as the outcry" or, in the NAS as "whether they have done entirely according to its outcry."

However, it’s possible that these translations slightly miss the point. After checking on how kalah is used in the OT (e.g., 1Ki 6.38; Neh. 9.31; Isa. 10.23; 15.6; Jer. 5.18; 8.20; Dan. 11.36; Nah. 1.8f; 2.1 and others) it seems to me that v. 21 ought to be understood as saying something like, "I will go down to see whether or not their deeds have reached their fill as the outcry suggests."...

That God both knows perfectly existing realities (i.e., the state of Sodom’s sinfulness) AND would desire to further know something about Sodom is not a contradiction of terms any more than that God perfectly knew Abraham but yet desired to resolve Abraham’s potential for better or worse on a particular point. Likewise, God goes down to Sodom not to know whether or not the information provided by the outcry was accurate or not (this WOULD involve God in ignorance of an existing reality), but rather to resolve the potential for better or worse with respect to the "will" of Sodom and Gomorrah’s citizens.



:thumb:

[seer]

This makes NO sense to me yxboom:

"That God both knows perfectly existing realities (i.e., the state of Sodom’s sinfulness) AND would desire to further know something about Sodom is not a contradiction of terms any more than that God perfectly knew Abraham but yet desired to resolve Abraham’s potential for better or worse on a particular point. Likewise, God goes down to Sodom not to know whether or not the information provided by the outcry was accurate or not (this WOULD involve God in ignorance of an existing reality), but rather to resolve the potential for better or worse with respect to the "will" of Sodom and Gomorrah’s citizens."

Perhaps you could translate, and tell me why this reasoning would not also apply to Gen.22:12...

[yxboom]

Ok let me get to it in a bit I am busy right now. :bunny:

[Theolog]

Wow this is great. Next will come a verse that will show that God does not even know the past because he is to busy in the now counting all the hair on my head one at a time.

The whole open theist theory uses conjecture from verses that are not purposed to teach “doctrine” but are purposed as historical narrative, written to produce a meaning and lesson to man, and the lesson is not on “the nature of God”

Seems like a serious misuse of the principles of logic to me. But I will hang in there with you guys and see what other wonders you have up your sleeves.

[geebob]

Seems like a serious misuse of the principles of logic to me.

they aren't principles of logic. They are principles of exegesis/hermeneutics and some of those principles we reject.

The Jewish God is a God who acts in history and we have faith that the narratives faithfully report what essentially went on there and give us an accurate picture of what God is like and what kind of activity he engages in.

[themuzicman]

THink about this from an OV for a moment.

God knows what has been going on and is going on. He also hears the outcry from that city.

He comes to earth, to give the city time to change its ways, and to give Abraham an opportunity to respond to His plans.

Remember, OV means present not future. God wanted to know what the city would be like when He took the time to go there, visiting Abraham on the way.

Michael

[geebob]

Perhaps you could translate, and tell me why this reasoning would not also apply to Gen.22:12...

I know what I'd say to this but I want yx to have a shot at it.

[yxboom]

Today @ 09:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86967#post86967)
geebob:



I know what I'd say to this but I want yx to have a shot at it.

Blap!

[dizzle]

BadBoom!!! I came here to read that substantive post you were bragging about. I may have to reconsider giving you those five pearls for reading you the Riot Act.

[dizzle]

<dodging shoes and whatever else>

I believe Seer's point is extraordinarily valid. I will try to clear some time to really examine Boyd's explanation, but to be honest, at first blush, it seemed like and "explaining away." The same principles that are woodenly applied to other texts would seem to me to need to be woodenly applied here if we are to be consistent. If the other texts really teach that God does not know the future, then this one, as Seer has postulated certainly would then seem to teach that He did not know the present.

[Woman]

I have a couple of naive questions. Would it be correct to read all the encounters on earth between God and man as the person of Jesus Christ? Actually that makes more sense to me, as I don't picture God the father with a body.

So this means that Christ was active in the old testament. He walked with Adam in the garden?

Why did He have to reincarnate as an infant 4000 years later? That's harder to grasp.

[yxboom]

Today @ 03:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86651#post86651)
seer:

This makes NO sense to me yxboom:

&quot;That God both knows perfectly existing realities (i.e., the state of Sodom’s sinfulness) AND would desire to further know something about Sodom is not a contradiction of terms any more than that God perfectly knew Abraham but yet desired to resolve Abraham’s potential for better or worse on a particular point. Likewise, God goes down to Sodom not to know whether or not the information provided by the outcry was accurate or not (this WOULD involve God in ignorance of an existing reality), but rather to resolve the potential for better or worse with respect to the &quot;will&quot; of Sodom and Gomorrah’s citizens.&quot;

Perhaps you could translate, and tell me why this reasoning would not also apply to Gen.22:12...


Either I am confused by your question or just unclear. I will just contrast the 2 so to make sure I cover whatever it may be.

Genesis 18:20 Then the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, 21 I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know."

At this point God knew where these men's hearts are just as He knew Abraham's when He made His promise to Abraham that He would bear a son resulting in Him imputing righteousness towards Abraham. But God still "tested" Abraham to "know" that Abraham truly feared Him. It is paralleled here. God knew there was an outcry and God knew their sin was very grave. God knew what was in these people's hearts but the "outcry" and outward expression had yet to be revealed. When tested would they repent and would God find faith where there was none, or would their sin reach it's full.
These men just as Abraham didn't pass or fail the test before it was administered; ergo the statement by Boyd that their sin was yet to be "full", notice not until the angels went down and the men seek to rape these angels had their sin in God's eyes become "full" as when these men made their sin evident the angel's response was:

Genesis 19:11 And they struck with blindness the men who were at the entrance of the house, both small and great, so that they wore themselves out groping for the door. 12 Then the men said to Lot, "Have you anyone else here? Sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or anyone you have in the city, bring them out of the place. 13 For we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it."

Parallel this to the offering of Isaac. Just as when Abraham successfully showed his faith in God that God would declare, "Now I know...", Sodom's sin reached it's full and God would respond "Now I know..." with fire and brimstone.

God sent down 2 angels to Sodom for the express purpose to find righteousness. 10 righteous at minimum. God had sent these angels to search Sodom so that these men had a true possibility of expressing faith in God and repent but they choose rather to wallow in their perversion. These events weren't fixed. Up until the moment that the fire and brimstone fell men had the real possibility to repent to which God Himself would promise to repent (Jer.18). After all the angel told Lot to go and evangelize his family to leave the city as well. They had the choice to believe but instead they mocked Lot. God knew what these people were like for He knew their hearts, but it wasn't until they chose to reject repentance that God would declare their sin is "full" and worthy of destruction and in fulfillment of Gen 18:20 "if not I will know."

In Gen 22:12 God knew Abraham's heart far before but when Abraham had finally reached the point that God tested him, God only knew what was in his heart but not the outward expression of faith. Abraham succeeded in his test whereas Sodom failed. God knew all present realities in both situations, as God sought an outward expression of faith in Abraham in the offering of Isaac; as well as, the righteous in Sodom in the leaving of the city. Both stories have God seeking righteousness and in their testing God finds righteousness in Abraham, but wickedness in Sodom. Hope that helps.

[dizzle]

God knew what was in these people's hearts but the "outcry" and outward expression had yet to be revealed.

I am sorry but that right now seems like a total explaining away. The passage does not say that, it says that God heard certian things about them (ie the outcry) and had to go down to see whether those things be so.. about the present and even the past. It says nothing about the future or about future repentance, it phrases that God will see if the men "had done" according to what was told Him. If... we are going to take it "anthropomorphism-free" that is.

[yxboom]

Today @ 10:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86991#post86991)
Dee Dee Warren:

&lt;dodging shoes and whatever else&gt;

I believe Seer's point is extraordinarily valid. I will try to clear some time to really examine Boyd's explanation, but to be honest, at first blush, it seemed like and &quot;explaining away.&quot; The same principles that are woodenly applied to other texts would seem to me to need to be woodenly applied here if we are to be consistent. If the other texts really teach that God does not know the future, then this one, as Seer has postulated certainly would then seem to teach that He did not know the present.

Read my substantative post. There is no explaining away because both are addressed together not seperated. :poke:

[yxboom]

Today @ 10:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87008#post87008)
Dee Dee Warren:



I am sorry but that right now seems like a total explaining away. The passage does not say that, it says that God heard certian things about them (ie the outcry) and had to go down to see whether those things be so.. about the present and even the past. It says nothing about the future or about future repentance, it phrases that God will see if the men &quot;had done&quot; according to what was told Him. If... we are going to take it &quot;anthropomorphism-free&quot; that is.
What was the outcry? What was it they have done? They were a perverse city. When tested would they succeed or fail. The sending of the angels were the fullness of that test to see "if these things be so" Do you promote the angels were there for another reason?

Edit to add:

In ANE it was practice that a judge would first visit the scene of the crime to evaluate the circumstances and situation. This is not only found here but also in the Tower of Babel. God solidified through practice what He knew within.

[doogieduff]

Yesterday @ 07:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86833#post86833)
Theolog:

Wow this is great. Next will come a verse that will show that God does not even know the past because he is to busy in the now counting all the hair on my head one at a time.

The whole open theist theory uses conjecture from verses that are not purposed to teach “doctrine” but are purposed as historical narrative, written to produce a meaning and lesson to man, and the lesson is not on “the nature of God”

Seems like a serious misuse of the principles of logic to me. But I will hang in there with you guys and see what other wonders you have up your sleeves.

God doesn't need to lie about Himself to teach us "doctrine." The "nature of God" is present in everything He does. I disagree with a lot being said here, even from OV'ers. The whole key to the verse is and if not, I will know.

Even if He had knowledge before He came to earth as man, that doesn't mean He would retain that knowledge. I mena, Christ was not omniscient when He was on earth.

Mark 13:32
32 But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

So I don't know why this verse is such an issue. If HE truly knew the state of Sodom, then He would have been lying when He said "and if not, I will know."

Are you going to get to those unfulfilled prophecies?...

[dizzle]

Ironically, I agree with Doogieduff here, though not in his explanation or conclusions. He has consistently read the verse in his OV paradigm, and in that paradigm, to me, it says what it says.

Now know, I am not trying to be disrespectful or argumentative at all here. I would rather lose a debate point than be disrespectful to Boom who is one of my most cherished friends. I just think this is a good point and narrow enough that I could probably handle the conversation despite not being as educated on the entire subject as the other participants.

[doogieduff]

Yesterday @ 04:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86243#post86243)
seer:

&quot;Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven.&quot;

There is not necessarily two Lords here...

Yes it is! Show me that it's not, because it's rather obvious to me.


No, think if we follow your logic God (either the Son or Father) is clueless about present activitives as well as future. Like it said it is a literary device God uses to interact with man. And how did the Lord know that Sarah &quot;laughed WITHIN herself&quot; and yet did not know how sinful Sodom was?

Jesus Christ did not have complete foreknowledge on earth even though He already had it as deity!

Mark 13:32
32 But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Tell me why this verse has to be any different. Even if He already knew, He lost that knowledge when He came to earth as man, and therefore went to Sodom to see. Jesus Christ COULD read the hearts of men on earth, so your point does not stand. Peter, Judas...the list goes on and on. I have no problem that He could see Sarah laughing within herself. BTW, that was a present action which He knew.


Psalm 91:4

&quot;He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.&quot;

Will God literally cover you with His feathers and wings? Or is this a lie.

Well, it's not God speaking, so it's rather moot to me. I don't even have time, nor want to read what the context says. Is it even talking about all men? Who knows and who cares? Not a very good parallel.

Joshua 3:10
10 And Joshua said, "By this you shall know that the living God is among you, and that He will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizzites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Jebusites.

This never happened, which is why your verse in Psalm is moot. We're talking about verses where God is speaking about Himself and His attributes.


Also, how do you know that the Lord in Genesis 22:12 is not God the Son? Who you believe does not have complete foreknowledge?

Nobody has complete exhaustive foreknowledge from before the foundation of the world!

[seer]

In Gen 22:12 God knew Abraham's heart far before but when Abraham had finally reached the point that God tested him, God only knew what was in his heart but not the outward expression of faith. Abraham succeeded in his test whereas Sodom failed.

Sorry but this seems like a two step to me. If God had certain knowledge of Abraham's heart then God already knew for certain the outcome, and then saying that "I know" - like real information was now forthcoming seems at best redundant. Beside this, nothing in the other text even suggests that this was a test for Sodom.

[seer]

....Also, how do you know that the Lord in Genesis 22:12 is not God the Son? Who you believe does not have complete foreknowledge?



...Nobody has complete exhaustive foreknowledge from before the foundation of the world!

Prove it. But it could be the Son speaking in Gen.22:12 - correct? I mean how would we know?

[yxboom]

Today @ 08:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87257#post87257)
seer:

Sorry but this seems like a two step to me. If God had certain knowledge of Abraham's heart then God already knew for certain the outcome, and then saying that &quot;I know&quot; - like real information was now forthcoming seems at best redundant. Beside this, nothing in the other text even suggests that this was a test for Sodom.

Deuteronomy 8:2 And you shall remember the whole way that the LORD your God has led you these forty years in the wilderness, that he might humble you, testing you to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep his commandments or not.

God foretells that He will "test" Israel for what purpose "to know what was in [their] heart". How would this test be done, through outward expression or inward desire? Obviously they had to keep the commandments which were outward expressions of inward desires. Why is God testing them to know what does not need to be outwardly expressed to be "full"?

Deuteronomy 9:6 "Know, therefore, that the LORD your God is not giving you this good land to possess because of your righteousness, for you are a stubborn people.

But God had already told Israel that He will test them yet behold He delcares that they are a stubborn people. Looks to me like God knows their inward hearts and desires but still wants to test them. I can read that and see no redundancy cause this is NEW information. Apparantly knowing a person's heart is a seperate issue from witnessing their deeds. 10 seconds before the test they did not pass or fail. Only IF God already knew as true that they would fail or pass is it redundant and for all it's worth arbiturary. Your objection stumbles your position not mine as God did gain new information from the events in Sodom when they sought to molest the angels and Abraham when he went to sacrifice his son. Which is why God says in both instances, I will know or for now I know!

And I pose the same question to you as I did with DDW. What other purpose were the angels sent?

[geebob]

the confusion expressed seems originally seemed to be about the last paragraph from Boyd. However, It seems that people didn't quite catch what he said in the previous paragraphs.

But as for seer's question, why not apply this to Genesis 22, there is something slightly awkward about. I'd say, sure it can be applied, but what is missed here is that it is the ov take on Genesis 22 that informs our strategy for explaining Genesis 18 (on the metaphysical side, the exegetical issue is argued from other scriptures). So in a sense, it's an understatement to say that we apply this strategy to 22. Boyd is in fact deriving it from Gen 22 (or the ov explanation of 22).

There exists within abraham an unresolved potential. That means he truly could have refused to offer his son. You see, there was a fact of the matter that Abraham feared the Lord, but there was no fact of the matter as to whether he would continue to fear the Lord if he had to choose between his son and the Lord (or radically trust the well being of his son to the Lord). That was the unresolved potential. It was a present tense unresolved potential for which certainty could not be derived. That certainty would have to develope in the course of events.

And likewise in Sodom, God wanted to give them one more chance and that was the test of sending the angels. Under that stimulus, the men resolved their unresolved potential and they did so for the worse.


"I will go down to see whether or not their deeds have reached their fill as the outcry suggests."...

Whether or not they have reached their fill will be determined by what they do in the future. Will they deviate from their destructive path, or will they show that they have some decency left within them to respond to the grace of God positively? Thus it is not a question of the past or present but of the future and the future is indeterminate.

[yxboom]

Excellent! Thanks Geebob :bunny:

[doogieduff]

05-04-2003 @ 09:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87260#post87260)
seer:



...Nobody has complete exhaustive foreknowledge from before the foundation of the world!

Prove it.

Ezekiel 29:17-21
17 And it came to pass in the twenty-seventh year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, that the word of the Lord came to me, saying,
18 "Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon caused his army to labor strenuously against Tyre; every head was made bald, and every shoulder rubbed raw; yet neither he nor his army received wages from Tyre, for the labor which they expended on it.
19 Therefore thus says the Lord God: 'Surely I will give the land of Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; he shall take away her wealth, carry off her spoil, and remove her pillage; and that will be the wages for his army.
20 I have given him the land of Egypt for his labor, because they worked for Me,' says the Lord God.
21 'In that day I will cause the horn of the house of Israel to spring forth, and I will open your mouth to speak in their midst. Then they shall know that I am the Lord.' "

The Lord God said Himself here that He would give the king Egypt for his labor against Tyre and because he recieved nothing from Tyre. Well, this never happened. If God knows the future as you believe, why would He be wrog as to what He Himself was going to do?

The story of Hezekiah is one of my favorites...

Isaiah 38:1-5
1 In those days Hezekiah was sick and near death. And Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, went to him and said to him, "Thus says the Lord: 'Set your house in order, for you shall die and not live.' "
2 Then Hezekiah turned his face toward the wall, and prayed to the Lord,
3 and said, "Remember now, O Lord, I pray, how I have walked before You in truth and with a loyal heart, and have done what is good in Your sight." And Hezekiah wept bitterly.
4 And the word of the Lord came to Isaiah, saying,
5 "Go and tell Hezekiah, 'Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: "I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely I will add to your days fifteen years.

The Lord spoke to Hezekiah through Isaiah, and explicitly stated that his illness was deadly and "you shall die and not live." Well, God repented of what He said, healed Hezekiah, and even added 15 years to his life. What a wonderful God working with us in time! You may not have a problem with this verse, as some do not see where I am going, but the question I ask is this...If God foreknew He would heal Hezekiah and add 15 years to his life, how can He remain honest when stating "you shall die and not live."?

Here's one more for you, sometimes known as the Immanuel prophecy...

Isaiah 7:10-14
10 Moreover the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying,
11 "Ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God; ask it either in the depth or in the height above."
12 But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, nor will I test the Lord!"
13 Then he said, "Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also?
14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

As you can see in vs. 11, God asked Ahaz to ask from the Lord a sign for himself. In verse 14, "the Lord Himself will give you (Ahaz) a sign." Well, the sign of the Son indeed came to pass, but it just so happens, that Ahaz died before the sign, which was supposed to be given to him, came to pass.

I will stop here, I have more if you want them. Here's some more verse to think about, although they're not prophecies per se.

Genesis 22:12
12 And He said, "Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."

Key into the part of the verse wher God says "Now I know."

If anyone had exhaustive foreknowledge from before the foundation of the earth, none of these examples would be in the Bible.

[johnnybanano]

It is my opinion that God is not necessarily omniscient. God has the full capability of knowing anything. That does not mean that he automatically does. He has countless angel servant/messengers who are capable of looking into any area of God's interest. It is a common theory among Old Testament scholars that most of the occasions when "the LORD said...", it was an angel of the LORD speaking. I believe that the Spirit of God is also capable of scouring the earth or able to "...go down now..." to Sodom that he might see if the Sodomites had done according to its outcry.
The verse states "...its outcry, which has come to Me." This indicates that God had somehow recieved an outcry either from a messenger or from the Sodomites themselves. If the outcry was directly from the Sodomites to God, then most likely the only reason God needed to "...go down..." to Sodom was for verification, much the same way that someone would check for a burn when their child had touched a hot stove. We saw them touch the stove; we know that the stove was hot; yet, we still check their hand to verify that there is a burn. Okay, so it's not the best example.
ANYWAY. Had God received the outcry by message of an angel or the Spirit, which was also probably what would be
"...go[ing] down...", then he would not necessarily be able to automatically know the behavior of the Sodomites.

All righty. Well, I don't know if this has answered your question but I hope it has. If you have any questions feel free to email me or whatever. My address should be on the profile.

[johnnybanano]

Doggie,

As I said before, I believe that God has the CAPABILITY of knowing anything.

In your first example, you state that God made a promise to Babylon, more specifically Nebuchadnezzar, that he would be granted the land of Egypt. In all honesty, this one I will have to look at for a while, as I cannot come up w/ an explanation at this time for why Babylon never aquired the land of Egypt.


In Dr. Joe Temple's---The Burden of Egypt-Part IV he states as follows:

"We suggested to you when we began to look together at the burden that was delivered against the nation or the city of Babylon, that such was not the case, for there were certain things related to that message that were not fulfilled in any of the historical incidents of the past. Therefore, the things that were not fulfilled in such incidents must yet be fulfilled."

Dr. Temple is speaking of Isaiah, however, this idea can certainly be applied across the scripture. Simply because Egypt was not given to Nebachudnezzar (which, by the way, I am still looking into), doesn't meant that the prophecy wasn't or won't be fulfilled through someone taking Nebachudnezzar's position. This is as close as I can find to an answer for the lack of fulfillment w/o getting into the symbolism that he talks about in this article.

As for your other examples, I would suggest that God has both the capability and perogative of changing his mind. Most people would cite the Flood as an example here, but i believe that that was not an instance in which God "changed His mind".
In Genesis 18, it almost seems as though Abraham "bargains" w/ God on how many people need to be righteous in order for God to spare Sodom.

Now, on Ahaz's sign. The sign which Ahaz received was not the birth of Immanuel. The sign was that "before the boy knows enough to regect the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.(v. 16)" Now granted, this is awfully specific to be taken simply at face value. I intend to look into this much deeper.

I apologize for the disorganization and lack of fluency in this reply but i am quite tired. Again, any questions, email me.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 08:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91972#post91972)
johnnybanano:

Doggie,

As I said before, I believe that God has the CAPABILITY of knowing anything.

I probably agree with you for the most part. Although I'd agree solely on past and present things. Do you think God is capable of knowing something which has not happened yet? If He did, then my passages bring problems. If not, then the passages are perfectly fine. With Hezekiah, if God knew beforehand that He would heal Him, God could not be truthful in His words, "You shall die, and not surely live." I believe God is capable of knowing anything existant or pre-existant.


In your first example, you state that God made a promise to Babylon, more specifically Nebuchadnezzar, that he would be granted the land of Egypt. In all honesty, this one I will have to look at for a while, as I cannot come up w/ an explanation at this time for why Babylon never aquired the land of Egypt.


In Dr. Joe Temple's---The Burden of Egypt-Part IV he states as follows:

&quot;We suggested to you when we began to look together at the burden that was delivered against the nation or the city of Babylon, that such was not the case, for there were certain things related to that message that were not fulfilled in any of the historical incidents of the past. Therefore, the things that were not fulfilled in such incidents must yet be fulfilled.&quot;

Dr. Temple is speaking of Isaiah, however, this idea can certainly be applied across the scripture. Simply because Egypt was not given to Nebachudnezzar (which, by the way, I am still looking into), doesn't meant that the prophecy wasn't or won't be fulfilled through someone taking Nebachudnezzar's position. This is as close as I can find to an answer for the lack of fulfillment w/o getting into the symbolism that he talks about in this article.

I have no problem with the prophecy being fulfilled by another party, but the point still stands. It was to Nebuchadnezzar. Complete foreknowledge would make God out to be a liar, as Nebuchadnezzar never recieved Egypt.


As for your other examples, I would suggest that God has both the capability and perogative of changing his mind. Most people would cite the Flood as an example here, but i believe that that was not an instance in which God &quot;changed His mind&quot;.
In Genesis 18, it almost seems as though Abraham &quot;bargains&quot; w/ God on how many people need to be righteous in order for God to spare Sodom.

This is something that the vast majority of Christians won't admit. I most definitely believe God can change His mind. Once again though, what does this about the foreknowledge of God?


Now, on Ahaz's sign. The sign which Ahaz received was not the birth of Immanuel. The sign was that &quot;before the boy knows enough to regect the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.(v. 16)&quot; Now granted, this is awfully specific to be taken simply at face value. I intend to look into this much deeper.

I apologize for the disorganization and lack of fluency in this reply but i am quite tired. Again, any questions, email me.

You're right, he didn't recieve the sign of Immanuel. Yet verse 14 clearly states he would.

[Kenny]

05-03-2003 @ 11:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86651#post86651)
seer:

This makes NO sense to me yxboom:

&quot;That God both knows perfectly existing realities (i.e., the state of Sodom’s sinfulness) AND would desire to further know something about Sodom is not a contradiction of terms any more than that God perfectly knew Abraham but yet desired to resolve Abraham’s potential for better or worse on a particular point. Likewise, God goes down to Sodom not to know whether or not the information provided by the outcry was accurate or not (this WOULD involve God in ignorance of an existing reality), but rather to resolve the potential for better or worse with respect to the &quot;will&quot; of Sodom and Gomorrah’s citizens.&quot;

Perhaps you could translate, and tell me why this reasoning would not also apply to Gen.22:12...

I think the idea here is that, just as God tested Abraham, God tested Sodom and Gomorrah by placing them in a situation that would give them and opportunity for further evil. When God went down to the city of Sodom, the towns folk surrounded its visiters and tried to rape them. This confirmed that the people here were indeed very wicked. But, on the open view, God would not have known whether they would have done this unless God created the situation that gave them the opportunity to do it.

Even though I am not an open theist, it is a rather clever interpretation, I must admit.

In Christ,
Kenny

Whoops; I didn't see the third page when I posted this. I see that geebob has already said basically the same thing. Still, it is a clever interpretation. I am impressed. :smile:

[geebob]

Whoops; I didn't see the third page when I posted this. I see that geebob has already said basically the same thing. Still, it is a clever interpretation. I am impressed.

thank you much, the real genius though is in Mr. Boyd's exegesis of the passage which makes the move possible. It's quite a gem as you won't find it in any translation or in anything as of yet that he has published.

[yxboom]

Clever as in... :poke:

[geebob]

I hope so!

[dizzle]

Again, I am bopping in, and I do not normally get involved in these discussions, but I found this very interesting. Once again the text:


Genesis 18:20,21

"And the LORD said, The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave. I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know."

And the initial question:

Did God really not know how grave Sodom's sin was? Did He really have to travel down to Sodom to find out?

Or doesn't God know the present?

I find those very, very good questions in light of the OV paradigm and whether or not it can be held consistently. If we are going to read these verses as “literally” as the OV does other verses we would have to conclude that God has to act to know, not only the present, but the past, for He said He had to “go down” to see if “they have done” according to the outcry. Didn’t He know that already? I have found the OV explanations dissatisfying…


Author : themuzicman
Date : 05-02-2003 08:18 PM

I'm sure He did know. He had a purpose for coming down to investigate, and that
was to interact with Abraham. The open view doesn't claim that God isn't
omniscient about all knowable things.

The text does not say that. The text says that God has to “come down” to know whether things were and are according to the outcry, not whether they “will be.”


Geebob provided the most substantive explanation with a quote from Boyd….



[Post 6]
Author : geebob
Date : 05-02-2003 08:52 PM

I like the way Greg Boyd deals with this.

“Verse 21 is not the easiest of verses to translate, so this is tentative,
but it seems to me that what English translations I have here all overlook
something. You have the Hebrew kalah, an adverbial particle modifying the
verb ’asu (the "they have done" of the RSV, NIV, NAS, and KJV). kalah
means (check it for yourselves) something like "accomplished or completed
end," "full end," or "finish." Here kalahdirectly follows the verb "they
have done," which comes out in the RSV as "whether they have done
altogether as the outcry" or, in the NAS as "whether they have done
entirely according to its outcry."

However, it’s possible that these translations slightly miss the point.
After checking on how kalah is used in the OT (e.g., 1Ki 6.38; Neh. 9.31;
Isa. 10.23; 15.6; Jer. 5.18; 8.20; Dan. 11.36; Nah. 1.8f; 2.1 and others)
it seems to me that v. 21 ought to be understood as saying something like,
"I will go down to see whether or not their deeds have reached their fill
as the outcry suggests."...


I am sorry but that seems like special pleading to me and does not solve the problem to begin with. The “entirely” does not refer to the completeness of their sin (that would make NO sense in the context) but to the completeness (i.e. accuracy) of the report that came to God. Second, if God knew the present and the past, He would know if their deeds have reached their full. This again is not about the future at all.

That God both knows perfectly existing realities (i.e., the state of
Sodom’s sinfulness) AND would desire to further know something about Sodom
is not a contradiction of terms any more than that God perfectly knew
Abraham but yet desired to resolve Abraham’s potential for better or worse
on a particular point. Likewise, God goes down to Sodom not to know
whether or not the information provided by the outcry was accurate or not
(this WOULD involve God in ignorance of an existing reality), but rather
to resolve the potential for better or worse with respect to the "will" of
Sodom and Gomorrah’s citizens.”

But that is not what the text says!! Sure that is “possible” in theory, but that is not what the text says at all.


[Post 11]
Author : themuzicman
Date : 05-03-2003 03:08 PM

You're implying from the context that God didn't already know. We don't
specifically know what His purpose was for coming "in person" to check it out.

Nice try, but you're reading more into it than is there.


I am sorry but the text does say the purpose, and if taken in a consistently OV hermeneutic would mean that God did not know the present or the past.

The Jewish God is a God who acts in history and we have faith that the
narratives faithfully report what essentially went on there and give us an
accurate picture of what God is like and what kind of activity he engages in.

Then we would have to conclude that He was not straightforward here where it appears that He did not know the present or the past.


Remember, OV means present not future. God wanted to know what the city would be
like when He took the time to go there, visiting Abraham on the way.

The text does not say that.


[Post 26]
Author : yxboom
Date : 05-04-2003 01:31 AM

At this point God knew where these men's hearts are just as He knew Abraham's
when He made His promise to Abraham that He would bear a son resulting in Him
imputing righteousness towards Abraham. But God still "tested" Abraham to "know"
that Abraham truly feared Him. It is paralleled here. God knew there was an
outcry and God knew their sin was very grave. God knew what was in these
people's hearts but the "outcry" and outward expression had yet to be revealed.

The text does not say that.

When tested would they repent and would God find faith where there was none, or would their sin reach it's full.
These men just as Abraham didn't pass or fail the test before it was
administered; ergo the statement by Boyd that their sin was yet to be "full",
notice not until the angels went down and the men seek to rape these angels had
their sin in God's eyes become "full" as when these men made their sin evident
the angel's response was:

Genesis 19:11 And they struck with blindness the men who were at the entrance of
the house, both small and great, so that they wore themselves out groping for
the door. 12 Then the men said to Lot, "Have you anyone else here? Sons-in-law,
sons, daughters, or anyone you have in the city, bring them out of the place. 13
For we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people
has become great before the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it."

This does not solve the problem of the initial verse which does not say that, and by the principle of believing that these types of phrases should be taken literally, then God does not the future or the past in this instance.

Parallel this to the offering of Isaac. Just as when Abraham successfully showed his faith in God that God would declare, "Now I know...", Sodom's sin reached it's full and God would respond "Now I know..." with fire and brimstone.

The text does not say that.

God sent down 2 angels to Sodom for the express purpose to find righteousness. 10 righteous at minimum. God had sent these angels to search Sodom so that these men had a true possibility of expressing faith in God and repent but they choose rather to wallow in their perversion. These events weren't fixed. Up until the moment that the fire and brimstone fell men had the real possibility to repent to which God Himself would promise to repent (Jer.18). After all the angel told Lot to go and evangelize his family to leave the city as well. They had the choice to believe but instead they mocked Lot. God knew what these people were like for He knew their hearts, but it wasn't until they chose to reject repentance that God would declare their sin is "full" and worthy of destruction and in fulfillment of Gen 18:20 "if not I will know."

That still does not solve the tension of God not knowing whether the past outcry was correct.

I think Bruce Ware articulates the problem well:

"And the LORD said, The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave. I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know."

“Again a moment’s reflection on this text reveals the severe doctrinal implications that would follow were one to employ here the openness hermeneutic of Genesis 22:23. By God’s own admission, first, he does not presently know whether the sin of Sodom is as great as its outcry. Second, he does not know the past sin of Sodom fully, since he must see if they have done according to its outcry. Third, he is not omnipresent, since he needs to travel there and only then will be able to see what the status of their sin is; and when he arrives and looks, then (and only then) he will “know.” Hermeneutical consistency, it would seem requires that if Genesis 22:23 means that God learned something new, as open theists claim, then Genesis 18:21 means that God odes not know all of the past or present and that he is spatially confined. So which should it be? Shall we follow the openness approach consistently and deny even more of God’s attributes than have already been trimmed away? Or shall we, with great caution and care, consider whether Scripture elsewhere teaches, with sufficient clarity and fullness, that God in fact knows the past, present, and future and is everywhere present, in order then to reconsider the narrative and personal dialog form of these Genesis texts (and others) to discern in them their proper and intended meanings?”

[geebob]

I am sorry but that seems like special pleading to me and does not solve the problem to begin with. The “entirely” does not refer to the completeness of their sin (that would make NO sense in the context) but to the completeness (i.e. accuracy) of the report that came to God.

I think you miss the point of the re-translation. "entirely" drops out of boyd's translation and is replaced along with some other english words with "reached their fill" describing not the outcry but the sin. You say it makes no sense, the notion of sin reaching an intolerable point is repeated elsewhere in the bible. I fail to see how this is special pleading. The outcry of course would be the wailing of the victoms of S&G and that is not an issue of God's accuracy but the accuracy of the suggestion of the oppressed.

Second, if God knew the present and the past, He would know if their deeds have reached their full. This again is not about the future at all.

I understand that this contention could still be had. If God is researching the accuracy of what sodom and gomorrah had done, then there is an issue of omniscience to deal with. But with Greg Boyd's adjustment, we have a shift from the specific past actions (which of course should be entirely known as certain) to their sin, and that's a concept that doesn't simply shift to action as sin is a "something" and not simply an act. But still, it is explicitely said that God is looking into something described with a past tense verb "reached" and so some can indeed press the issue further as you have.

But what does it mean to reach one's fill of sin? Though it has been expressed here with a past tense verb, is the notion fully satisfied with a complete past tense concept and set of facts? That is where the road meets the rubber. If it is not, then the open view taking this passage "literally" can very well cohere with the view of omniscience that we argue, knowledge of the past and present as completely certain(quotes are indeed appropriate for the term "literal" as open theists cannot really be described as taking all these passages literally as they are for one, perfectly comfortable with the term "anthropomorphic" as describing many key texts for openness).

One thing to note is that we can indeed ask questions about past tense propositions which are really about future tense facts. For example, if we live in an area with a rainy season, we can ask has the rainy season ended? Well that depends on whether we get rain tomorrow or within the next few weeks.

Now boyd presents this as an issue of men's hearts, but I believe it is both about men's hearts and God's patience. Has God's patience reached the end. Well that depends on whether the people of S&G will show any scrap of decency before judgement. There lies the unresolved potential and if they respond horrendously to this one last stimulus, Then as far as God is concerned, there sins are through and have reached there fill. The cup of his wrath against them is now full and will be spilled upon them.

But that is not what the text says!! Sure that is “possible” in theory, but that is not what the text says at all.

right. The text does not interpret and explain itself. The text does not say that God has exaustive definite foreknowledge nor does it give a molinistic explanation and it doesn't give clear indicators that God isn't literally investigating the issue. Everyone has to go outside of the text to explain it (except the open theist who does deny omniscience, and if you'll follow the link to boyd's site I provided, you will actually get a solid explanation for that view, but of course, I have focused on defending the more traditional outlook here. Boyd just makes sure he covers all the bases). The question is whether the explanation coheres with the text.

[yxboom]

Geebob bro. Seriously thanks a ton. This whole response I was going to make to DDW you had saved me a lot of keystrokes. But for emphasis I will amplify. The text ALONE proves nothing for any side. It is a complete Biblical portrait that needs to be considered which I believe that this passage in light of many similar situations ie. the Flood, Egypt and Nineveh of Jonah's day are all explicit examples of the same actions being taken and the same theme being built on. Nineveh being the contrast to these other events in that results were the people did repent and God withheld his wrath unlike that which is recorded in the Sodom and Gomorrah story.

[dizzle]

I will be back to respond.. but my time is limited during the week, so, I still think this passage is the ringer against this view and I will expound more why.

[Kenny]

05-10-2003 @ 01:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92466#post92466)
yxboom:

Clever as in... :poke:

No, impressed does not mean convinced. I'm still as much a Calvinist as I ever was :tongue:

[yxboom]

Today @ 09:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94304#post94304)
Kenny:



No, impressed does not mean convinced. I'm still as much a Calvinist as I ever was :tongue:

Which is why I wondered exactly what you were getting at although I did not know you were Calvinist.

[yxboom]

...and now back to our regular scheduled broadcast :poke:

[geebob]

I will be back to respond.. but my time is limited during the week, so, I still think this passage is the ringer against this view and I will expound more why.

I think my observation on ending rainy seasons effectively dissolves the problem rather elegantly, but If you could show that it did not work, there are other answers that though they may be awkward, are reasonable nonetheless.

As for a "ringer," well one problem verse is not quite enough to topple a paradigm. But I'm looking forward to it any way.

[yxboom]

Today @ 06:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94825#post94825)
geebob:



I think my observation on ending rainy seasons effectively dissolves the problem rather elegantly, but If you could show that it did not work, there are other answers that though they may be awkward, are reasonable nonetheless.

As for a &quot;ringer,&quot; well one problem verse is not quite enough to topple a paradigm. But I'm looking forward to it any way.

These were my sentiments exactly when I had the oppurtunity to address this with DDW on Paltalk. However I do look forward to added thoughts on this.

[johnnybanano]

[QUOTE]05-09-2003 @ 05:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92116#post92116)
doogieduff:


Do you think God is capable of knowing something which has not happened yet?

I think that God is capable of knowing how things will come together. That is to say, God knows the hearts of people and can determine their sincerity. For example, I believe that God can, at birth, set aside a person for a specific purpose. However, man can interfere with that person's destiny. Someone could murder that person whom God has chosen to use for fulfilling a specific purpose. Now what? Did God know that this person was going to be murdered? Obviously not. Was God capable of knowing that this future event would happen? Let me explain that this way...
God could have looked into the present heart of the murderer and seen that there was a potential for a manifestation of evil---

----------------------ALL RIGHT! HANG ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-------------------

Sorry, but I have just thought of something that no longer allows me to continue on this line of thought. My question now falls to Revelation and some of the scriptures where God tells that certain things will happen, not as a result of exercising HIS power but as a result of his knowledge of how people will act.

If anyone has some good scripture on God predicting the actions of men w/o his intervention please email them to me.
Thanks johnny

[doogieduff]

Today @ 08:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95229#post95229)
johnnybanano:

[QUOTE]05-09-2003 @ 05:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&amp;postid=92116#post92116)
doogieduff:


Do you think God is capable of knowing something which has not happened yet?

I think that God is capable of knowing how things will come together. That is to say, God knows the hearts of people and can determine their sincerity. For example, I believe that God can, at birth, set aside a person for a specific purpose. However, man can interfere with that person's destiny. Someone could murder that person whom God has chosen to use for fulfilling a specific purpose. Now what? Did God know that this person was going to be murdered? Obviously not. Was God capable of knowing that this future event would happen? Let me explain that this way...
God could have looked into the present heart of the murderer and seen that there was a potential for a manifestation of evil---

----------------------ALL RIGHT! HANG ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-------------------

Sorry, but I have just thought of something that no longer allows me to continue on this line of thought. My question now falls to Revelation and some of the scriptures where God tells that certain things will happen, not as a result of exercising HIS power but as a result of his knowledge of how people will act.

If anyone has some good scripture on God predicting the actions of men w/o his intervention please email them to me.
Thanks johnny

I agreed strongly with your first line of reasoning. Don't throw that away so easily. People assume way too much that the book of the Revelation is some sort of vision that God saw when He peeked into the future. I have my weird thoughts about the book, which I won't go into, but I think Revelation is a vision given to John. I don't think John was looking into the future. Also, i consider the book of the revaelation more of what God will do, not really what He "saw." I also hold that the book of teh Revelation may not happen like it says, and I have no problem with that. There are many unfulfilled prophecies in the Bible as God can change His mind, and this may be the case too.

[dizzle]

Okay I am back on this issue… here again is the passage in question.

Genesis 18:20,21

"And the LORD said, The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave. I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know."

I pointed out as did Bruce Ware in my quote that this passage has extraordinary difficulties for the open theists, and Boom forthrightly conceded on PalTalk that it is a difficult passage for his view. I think Ware’s quote bear repeating:

“Again a moment’s reflection on this text reveals the severe doctrinal
implications that would follow were one to employ here the openness hermeneutic
of Genesis 22:23. By God’s own admission, first, he does not presently know
whether the sin of Sodom is as great as its outcry. Second, he does not know the
past sin of Sodom fully, since he must see if they have done according to its
outcry. Third, he is not omnipresent, since he needs to travel there and only
then will be able to see what the status of their sin is; and when he arrives
and looks, then (and only then) he will “know.” Hermeneutical consistency, it
would seem requires that if Genesis 22:23 means that God learned something new,
as open theists claim, then Genesis 18:21 means that God odes not know all of
the past or present and that he is spatially confined. So which should it be?
Shall we follow the openness approach consistently and deny even more of God’s
attributes than have already been trimmed away? Or shall we, with great caution
and care, consider whether Scripture elsewhere teaches, with sufficient clarity
and fullness, that God in fact knows the past, present, and future and is
everywhere present, in order then to reconsider the narrative and personal
dialog form of these Genesis texts (and others) to discern in them their proper
and intended meanings?”

Geebob had said,

I think you miss the point of the re-translation. "entirely" drops out of Boyd’s translation and is replaced along with some other English words with "reached their fill" describing not the outcry but the sin. You say it makes no sense, the notion of sin reaching an intolerable point is repeated elsewhere in the bible. I fail to see how this is special pleading. The outcry of course would be the wailing of the victims of S&G and that is not an issue of God's accuracy but the accuracy of the suggestion of the oppressed.

No I do not think I missed that point at all, and it does not alleviate the problem at all. Either way at the time God made that statement He did not know the status of their sin, full or not full. The passage does not say that God needs to go down to see if, when tested, they will fill up their sin, it says that He had to go down to see what the present state of their sin was if we apply the openness hermeneutic consistently to this passage. I never argued with the idea of sin reaching its fill at all, in fact that is a key idea in preterism.

I said,

“Second, if God knew the present and the past, He would know if their
deeds have reached their full. This again is not about the future at all.”


Geebob said,

[I understand that this contention could still be had. If God is researching the
accuracy of what Sodom and Gomorrah had done, then there is an issue of
omniscience to deal with. But with Greg Boyd's adjustment, we have a shift from
the specific past actions (which of course should be entirely known as certain)
to their sin, and that's a concept that doesn't simply shift to action as sin is
a "something" and not simply an act. But still, it is explicitly said that God
is looking into something described with a past tense verb "reached" and so some
can indeed press the issue further as you have.

This is a major and honest concession, and I appreciate it. I did not however press the issue, I applied the consistent openness hermeneutic to the passage and this is what pops out. It is special pleading on your part as it is a deviation from the simple openness hermeneutic which states that God does not “deceive us” by saying He does and thinks things that He really doesn’t. You make a distinction without a difference in your statement, the present sin or actions (shifting from actions to sin changes nothing) should be known as well as the past. The past and present NOT the future are clearly indicated in the passage, and the fact that God had to do something to confirm His present information.


But what does it mean to reach one's fill of sin? Though it has been expressed
here with a past tense verb, is the notion fully satisfied with a complete past
tense concept and set of facts? That is where the road meets the rubber. If it
is not, then the open view taking this passage "literally" can very well cohere
with the view of omniscience that we argue, knowledge of the past and present as
completely certain(quotes are indeed appropriate for the term "literal" as open
theists cannot really be described as taking all these passages literally as
they are for one, perfectly comfortable with the term "anthropomorphic" as
describing many key texts for openness).


I am sorry but that made no sense to me.

One thing to note is that we can indeed ask questions about past tense
propositions which are really about future tense facts. For example, if we live
in an area with a rainy season, we can ask has the rainy season ended? Well that depends on whether we get rain tomorrow or within the next few weeks.

That as well, and it makes no analogy to what this passage actually says. The passage states that God needs to confirm the accuracy of past and present knowledge.

Now Boyd presents this as an issue of men's hearts, but I believe it is both
about men's hearts and God's patience. Has God's patience reached the end. Well
that depends on whether the people of S&G will show any scrap of decency before
judgment. There lies the unresolved potential and if they respond horrendously
to this one last stimulus, Then as far as God is concerned, there sins are
through and have reached there fill. The cup of his wrath against them is now
full and will be spilled upon them.

God knows men’s hearts and that would includes what they would do. It doesn’t require foreknowledge for this. Jesus spoke of this in relation to the judgment when He said that Tyre and Sidon would have repented if the works done in the first century had been done in them. That requires and absolute knowledge of men’s heart and potential actions to make that statement. That to me also is a blow to open theism…..


right. The text does not interpret and explain itself. The text does not say
that God has exhaustive definite foreknowledge nor does it give a molinistic
explanation and it doesn't give clear indicators that God isn't literally
investigating the issue. Everyone has to go outside of the text to explain it
(except the open theist who does deny omniscience, and if you'll follow the link
to Boyd’s site I provided, you will actually get a solid explanation for that
view, but of course, I have focused on defending the more traditional outlook
here. Boyd just makes sure he covers all the bases). The question is whether the
explanation coheres with the text.

Well I would say that the open theist who denies present omniscience is on dangerous ground, and I will not deal with that issue as that is not who I am dealing with here. But I will say that at least that open theist is consistently following the openness hermeneutic to its horrendous conclusion (in this passage) rather than explaining it away.

As for a "ringer," well one problem verse is not quite enough to topple a
paradigm. But I'm looking forward to it any way.

I do not say things like that hastily geebob for my own systems have problem verses, but this one I believe is a vexatious ringer for your system for these reasons. First of all, a good many of the text that are classically used to undergird open theism come from Genesis and use the same or similar wording as this passage so it is a good test of the consistency of the system. If it cannot be consistently applied in a similar passage by the same human author, I say there is a serious problem.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 03:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99643#post99643)
Dee Dee Warren:

Okay I am back on this issue… here again is the passage in question.

Genesis 18:20,21

&quot;And the LORD said, The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave. I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know.&quot;

I pointed out as did Bruce Ware in my quote that this passage has extraordinary difficulties for the open theists, and Boom forthrightly conceded on PalTalk that it is a difficult passage for his view. I think Ware’s quote bear repeating:


You're very wrong here. This passage DOESN'T create an extraordinary problem for Open Theists, it creates an extraordibary problem for anybody! The Open View has nothing to do with this verse really. The Open View as well as any other view holds to past perfect and present perfect knowledge correct? If this is so, it creates a problem for all. Where the Open View differs from other views is complete perfect exhaustive foreknowledge from before the foundation of the world. If anything, this verse supports our difference! How do you Dee Dee hold to complete foreknowledge from before the foundation of the world, and interpret this verse?

I have been corrected (Thanks Jeremy!) from my past line of reasoning on this passage, and I really like GeeBob's answer. I think God was giving them a chance to repent as He's done many many times in the Bible.

[seer]

You're very wrong here. This passage DOESN'T create an extraordinary problem for Open Theists, it creates an extraordibary problem for anybody!

It is obvious that these and many other such verses that OT use, are simply ways of God talking to men in terms that they can understand. Or God "play acting" to get a response or prove a point.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 05:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99851#post99851)
seer:



It is obvious that these and many other such verses that OT use, are simply ways of God talking to men in terms that they can understand. Or God &quot;play acting&quot; to get a response or prove a point.

Dude, no. This ISN'T obviously the case and I hear this way too much. You have ABSOLUTELY NO SCRIPTUAL BASIS that this is the case. Who are you to decide when God is acting or not? Anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms are the most unbiblical and the most offending thing I hear. It's a straight copout trying to make verses fit one's belief system and it's sick!

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 04:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100043#post100043)
doogieduff:



Dude, no. This ISN'T obviously the case and I hear this way too much. You have ABSOLUTELY NO SCRIPTUAL BASIS that this is the case. Who are you to decide when God is acting or not? Anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms are the most unbiblical and the most offending thing I hear. It's a straight copout trying to make verses fit one's belief system and it's sick!

doogie,

You seem to veer from normal OVers( I know that you do from conversations) but from what I have read and discussed with others even Open Theist appeal to Anthropomorphisms at times. especially with text that portray God as forgetting things. Just curious if Anthropomorphisms are "unbiblical" as you say should we interpret verses that portray God as rather weak literally?

Blake

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 12:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99851#post99851)
seer:



It is obvious that these and many other such verses that OT use, are simply ways of God talking to men in terms that they can understand. Or God &quot;play acting&quot; to get a response or prove a point.

Ahhh.... a drop of reason in a sea of confusion! Thanks seer!

Blake

[seer]

You have ABSOLUTELY NO SCRIPTUAL BASIS that this is the case. Who are you to decide when God is acting or not?

Here is an example of God in the flesh play acting to draw out a response:

Luke 24:27-29

"And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus ACTED AS IF he were going farther. But they urged him strongly, Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over. So he went in to stay with them. "

Christ knew that they would urge Him to stay. But He also knew to get this response He would have to ACT as if He was going to keep moving on. God is an actor in His own play. Quite humble and wonderful of Him if you ask me....

[doogieduff]

Today @ 12:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100140#post100140)
Blake Reas:



doogie,

You seem to veer from normal OVers( I know that you do from conversations) but from what I have read and discussed with others even Open Theist appeal to Anthropomorphisms at times. especially with text that portray God as forgetting things. Just curious if Anthropomorphisms are &quot;unbiblical&quot; as you say should we interpret verses that portray God as rather weak literally?

Blake

I'm still undecided. I still want someone to explain to me how we are to decide when it should be anthromopomorphic or not. I think God's love is anthrompomorphic. How are you going to prove otherwise? Different views hold to different passages as being anthropomorphic, showing that any verses which seem to "hurt" their view they just make them anthropomorphic. It's trash. BTW BLAKE, thanks for responding to my anthropomorphic thread. Admit it, I'M RIGHT!

[doogieduff]

Today @ 04:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100276#post100276)
seer:



Here is an example of God in the flesh play acting to draw out a response:

Luke 24:27-29

&quot;And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus ACTED AS IF he were going farther. But they urged him strongly, Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over. So he went in to stay with them. &quot;

Christ knew that they would urge Him to stay. But He also knew to get this response He would have to ACT as if He was going to keep moving on. God is an actor in His own play. Quite humble and wonderful of Him if you ask me....

When I used Jesus as a proof text for God, Blake jumped all over my back. Jesus was man and God and I have no probem with this verse, especially because it's talking about a man, and especially because it explicitly says He was acting. None of your anthropomorphic verses explicitly say God was acting. Now, you want to use this verse to prove God "acts" and now, in turn, give yourself power to change whatever verse you want into God acting. So, I'll stick to my newfound theology of anthropomorphisms, and I believe God's love is anthropomorphic!

[doogieduff]

Today @ 12:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100140#post100140)
Blake Reas:



but from what I have read and discussed with others even Open Theist appeal to Anthropomorphisms at times.
Blake


WHY THEN DOES THIS PASSSAGE PORTRAY A PROBLEM FOR OV'ERS IF OV'ERS HOLD TO ANTHROPOMORPHISMS AT TIMES!?!?!?!?!?!

[seer]

None of your anthropomorphic verses explicitly say God was acting.

You are correct. But it does show that God is able to act to draw out a response.That such acting is not out of character. Also doggie,let's be honest, if it isn't something like this in the Genesis text(s) then God does not know the present - as well as the future.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 09:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100371#post100371)
seer:



You are correct. But it does show that God is able to act to draw out a response.That such acting is not out of character. Also doggie,let's be honest, if it isn't something like this in the Genesis text(s) then God does not know the present - as well as the future.

What if God didn't know the present perfectly? So what? I believe God is omnipresent, yet I don't believe He is everywhere at all times. He's not in the lake of fire is HE? He's not in my toilet seat right now is HE? I don't think so. Why would He be? Show me biblically where God claims to know the present perfectly or where God claims to be everywhere at all times. I think there's something HUGE that the Lord was a man in these Genesis passages. He was walking on the earth. Nobody's talking about this. I could show a passage where Jesus Christ "grows in wisdom" then everybody jumps on my back because "He was man too!" Why can't that be the case here too?

[seer]

What if God didn't know the present perfectly? So what? I believe God is omnipresent, yet I don't believe He is everywhere at all times. He's not in the lake of fire is HE?

1. So God now does not perfectly know the present? You keep resricting God more and more doggie.

2. God IS the lake of fire. We can do a word study if you like.

He's not in my toilet seat right now is HE? I don't think so. Why would He be? Show me biblically where God claims to know the present perfectly or where God claims to be everywhere at all times.

Are you suggesting that God can not perfectly SEE your toilet seat right now?

Psalm 139:

"Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether. Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee."

Seems pretty universal to me doggie.




I think there's something HUGE that the Lord was a man in these Genesis passages. He was walking on the earth. Nobody's talking about this. I could show a passage where Jesus Christ "grows in wisdom" then everybody jumps on my back because "He was man too!" Why can't that be the case here too?

A big difference doggie. Christ emptied Himself to take on the mantle of a man. To be the perfectly obedient man. There was no reason or need for God to empty Himself in the Genesis appearances.

[geebob]

I am sorry but that made no sense to me.

well that really is key. The criticism of the open view with regard to this passage only works if the fullness of sin is future indifferent. If not, if the future makes a difference (and since the future is often open), it does not significantly effect the opennes view of omniscience to say that God does not know whether or not their sins have reached their fill.

That as well, and it makes no analogy to what this passage actually says. .

I doesn't matter that there are disanalogies here. The importance is that future relevent past tense propositions are demontrated as a coherent concept and I would have to see an explanation as to why the "fullness of sin" cannot be the subject of future relevent past tense propositions. Perhaps you could insist "either the sins have reached their fullness or they haven't." But I would counter "either the rainy season has ended or it hasn't."

God knows men’s hearts and that would includes what they would do. It doesn’t require foreknowledge for this. Jesus spoke of this in relation to the judgment when He said that Tyre and Sidon would have repented if the works done in the first century had been done in them. That requires and absolute knowledge of men’s heart and potential actions to make that statement. That to me also is a blow to open theism…

you would be generalizing here. tsk tsk. I would say and insist that knowledge of men's hearts often leads to knowledge of how they will act or would act in some situations, but that is not an exhaustive account. I go into more details in this thread starting at the post linked to.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=43721#post43721

however, I only discuss only compatibilistic freedom and libertarian freedom for a bit and I don't get into what I believe is relevent, "self determined" freedom until this post:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=69403#post69403

[dizzle]

Today @ 02:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100539#post100539)
geebob:



well that really is key. The criticism of the open view with regard to this passage only works if the fullness of sin is future indifferent.

That still makes no sense in the confines of the passage


If not, if the future makes a difference (and since the future is often open), it does not significantly effect the opennes view of omniscience to say that God does not know whether or not their sins have reached their fill.

Of course it does!! You have to concede that sins do reach a full, you argued that point yourself. Either they have reached a full to merit judgmnet, or they have not. According to the open view God did not know a present or a past fact IF (cause I know you don't believe that) the open hermeneutic is consistently applied here. You have not defeated that.

I doesn't matter that there are disanalogies here. The importance is that future relevent past tense propositions are demontrated as a coherent concept and I would have to see an explanation as to why the &quot;fullness of sin&quot; cannot be the subject of future relevent past tense propositions.

Again that makes no sense. The openess hermeneutic is simple (do not mean that in a derogg sense) and it can be simply applied. Applying here yields ridiculous results. Applying that standard God did not know the present or the past.


Perhaps you could insist &quot;either the sins have reached their fullness or they haven't.&quot; But I would counter &quot;either the rainy season has ended or it hasn't.&quot;

Doesn't work geebob. Obviously they have or they have not. That is true in all systems. If they have, judgment is warranted, if they have not, it is not. YOu seem to be implying that determination can never be made which then makes the passage make even less sense. And the rainy season does end, but that doesn't mean it cannot still rain. The analogy has NO relevance to the subject matter at hand. People who have biblically filled up their sin to warrant judgment can still sin some more, that is not the point. The analogy fails completely.

you would be generalizing here. tsk tsk. I would say and insist that knowledge of men's hearts often leads to knowledge of how they will act or would act in some situations, but that is not an exhaustive account. I go into more details in this thread starting at the post linked to.

Well that was a side comment that I deny was a generalization but it was perhaps something that should not have been added here as I would like to stick to this one passage so my bad for bringing up something else.

[joelkaki]

[doogieduff]
What if God didn't know the present perfectly?

Then you have a pitiful god indeed. Such would not be God. God does know all things, and any view that says He does not recreates God in man's image and essentially means you have a being supposedly watching over you that may not even know what you are doing now. Not to mention unscriptural.

Joel

[yxboom]

Today @ 12:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100558#post100558)
joelkaki:

[doogieduff]


Then you have a pitiful god indeed. Such would not be God. God does know all things, and any view that says He does not recreates God in man's image and essentially means you have a being supposedly watching over you that may not even know what you are doing now. Not to mention unscriptural.

Joel

Not that I agree with Doogieduff's conclusion; however, I just find this comment so hilarious.

If anyone is accused of making God in man's image it is God.

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 01:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100558#post100558)
joelkaki:

[doogieduff]


Then you have a pitiful god indeed. Such would not be God. God does know all things, and any view that says He does not recreates God in man's image and essentially means you have a being supposedly watching over you that may not even know what you are doing now. Not to mention unscriptural.

Joel

I never said this is what I believe. I did format in a question didn't I? I also asked for a scriptural basis of a God who knows the present perfectly and have yet to recieve it.

[geebob]

That still makes no sense in the confines of the passage

If the rest of your post isn't an elaboration, please, elaborate.

Of course it does!! You have to concede that sins do reach a full, you argued that point yourself. Either they have reached a full to merit judgmnet, or they have not.

What does it mean for sins to reach their fill? That they merit judgement. Yes no? What does it mean that they merit judgement? That God is fed up with them. So God wants to go down and see if he is fed up with them. He in his mercy is still holding out on wrath so he gives them one last chance.

The openess hermeneutic is simple (do not mean that in a derogg sense) and it can be simply applied.


for one, there is no one openness hermeneutic. There are several espoused by several different scholars. But what any openness hermeneutic seeks to affirm is that God succesfully communicates using human language. past tense future relevent propositions have a place in our basic everyday language. "Has the rainy season ended?" "Are you fed up with his shananigans?" (to which the answer could be "I don't know, lets give him one last chance." thus making a question about a past tense statement a future tense fact). That last one could reasonably be rephrased into the question "Has his shenagins reached their fill?" and between two folks, it is a meaningful question that very well could depend upon the future for an answer.

And the rainy season does end, but that doesn't mean it cannot still rain.

it does end and if the rainy season is defined by the last day it rains in a year (and I am defining it so) the answer cannot be determined with certainty until a reasonable amount of time passes to where in this region (the nation of geebobia) further rain is a tremendous unlikelyhood.

The analogy fails completely.

I wasn't trying to draw an analogy. I was demonstrating future relevent past tense statements or facts. Of course as I am insisting that the question of reaching their fill and the ending of a rainy season can be expressed in the same type of statements, those which express something about the future though they are past tense statements, there is something that they have in common (a little analogy if you will) namely that they express something about the future using the past tense. that they don't have everything in common is irrelevent.

[joelkaki]

Yesterday @ 04:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100644#post100644)
yxboom:
Not that I agree with Doogieduff's conclusion; however, I just find this comment so hilarious.

If anyone is accused of making God in man's image it is God.

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, &quot;Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.&quot; 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

That verse says nothing about God making himself in man's image. It is about man being made into God's image. There is a big difference. Man is made in God's image, but that was corrupted through the fall, not to mention being made in God's image does not mean that man would have omniscience etc.

[doogieduff]
Yesterday @ 07:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100761#post100761)
doogieduff:

I never said this is what I believe. I did format in a question didn't I? I also asked for a scriptural basis of a God who knows the present perfectly and have yet to recieve it.

You phrased it as a question, but it seemed that you were saying by the rest of your post that you believed that. God knowing the present perfectly is all throughout Scripture, but if you really want me to I'll go find an exact passage that says so. But again, if he didn't know the present perfectly, he would not be God.

Joel

[doogieduff]

Today @ 07:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101110#post101110)
joelkaki:




[doogieduff]


You phrased it as a question, but it seemed that you were saying by the rest of your post that you believed that. God knowing the present perfectly is all throughout Scripture, but if you really want me to I'll go find an exact passage that says so. But again, if he didn't know the present perfectly, he would not be God.

Joel

Ok, I'll wait for your verse. Also, since you've added a new idea, show me a verse where it states that God must know
the present perfectly to be God.

[joelkaki]

Well, I'll be giving that verse, but I gotta go pretty soon, so I'll just say that all would agree that God is omniscient, and as such, he must know the present perfectly. Unless of course you are questioning omniscience, which it would seem to be, but as soon as I find the exact reference I will give it to you.

Joel

[geebob]

For those interested in the position that God is not omniscient (particularly doogieduff), seriously, follow the link I provided in my first post in this thread. It's not a bad arguement and it is based on Greg Boyd's warfare theology which is a biblical theology. It also utilizes the biblical statements to the effect that God is driven out by the wickedness of men.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 06:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101612#post101612)
geebob:

For those interested in the position that God is not omniscient (particularly doogieduff), seriously, follow the link I provided in my first post in this thread. It's not a bad arguement and it is based on Greg Boyd's warfare theology which is a biblical theology. It also utilizes the biblical statements to the effect that God is driven out by the wickedness of men.

Thank you, will do. It's not necessarily the position I hold to, but one I'm deeply considering.

[yxboom]

would that be considered neo-molinist or hyper-OV?

[geebob]

hyper OV or hyper neo molinist. (I still have reservations about the term neo molinist). Actually, I'd just call them open viewers who don't believe in omniscience, or in a sort of limited omniscience (I will insistantly deny that the view of omniscience that I typically defend here is limited in any significant or real sense). I don't care for the idea of coming up with a new title for them emphasizing a division.

It isn't Greg Boyd's position mind you that God doesn't have edp (exhaustive definite present knowledge), but he provides a biblical basis for that position, However, skimming through it again, I don't see that Boyd ever explicitely pointed out that he provides a basis for this view.

for those who follow the link to that thread, a forum member called newcomb presents this more limited view of omniscience before Payaso posts his quote of Greg Boyd.

[yxboom]

Thanks GB I saw that.

[johnnybanano]

05-18-2003 @ 10:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100399#post100399)
seer:



1. So God now does not perfectly know the present? You keep resricting God more and more doggie.

Is that really a problem if the restrictions are valid? Besides, doggie isn't "restricting God". He is showing a point where he believes that God is restricted, restricted perhaps even by his own choice and doing.


2. God IS the lake of fire. We can do a word study if you like.


I would definitely love to see this. I have never heard this before, and it would definitely help explain a lot. I would much appreciate it if you could explain this idea.


Thanks,

Love and Respect.

[dizzle]

Doogie stated:

You're very wrong here. This passage DOESN'T create an extraordinary problem for Open Theists, it creates an extraordinary problem for anybody!

Actually it doesn’t, and to me is the proverbial tie-breaker between choosing anthropomorphic or colloquial speech, which would then consistently resolve this passage with the others, or having to resort to using an inconsistent hermeneutic which the OV does with this passage. If the OV hermeneutic were consistent, this very passage using the same terminology as in the other Genesis OV proof texts, would be interpreted in the same way, applying the words woodenly and hyperliterally. But it is not, and that my friend, as I see it right now, and no one has given me any cause to think otherwise, is the soft white underbelly. And I am saying this as one who does not have an overly emotional reaction against the OV. Boom is my witness that I have evaluated and categorized the view fairly and have not resorted to distortions


The Open View has nothing to do with this verse really. The Open View as well as any other view holds to past perfect and present perfect knowledge correct?

Yes it does, at least any view that I would accept as within orthodoxy, but that is the problem. Using the OV hermeneutic, past perfect and present perfect knowledge is denied.

If this is so, it creates a problem for all. Where the Open View differs from other views is complete perfect exhaustive foreknowledge from before the foundation of the world. If anything, this verse supports our difference! How do you Dee Dee hold to complete foreknowledge from before the foundation of the world, and interpret this verse?

I am sorry but that sentence made no sense. You will need to articulate exactly what you see to be the problem with this verse and the classical view hermeneutic, consistently applied. I am not judging this verse for OV implications using my hermeneutic, that would not be entirely fair in the context of this discussion. I am taking the OV hermeneutic and testing it for consistency and finding it coming up wanting without any clear reason why other than its consistent application here produces ridiculous results.

Doogie further says regarding anthropomorphisms:

You have ABSOLUTELY NO SCRIPTUAL BASIS that this is the case. Who are you to decide when God is acting or not? Anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms are the most unbiblical and the most offending thing I hear. It's a straight copout trying to make verses fit one's belief system and it's sick!

Well I would not use such terminology, but what you are accusing seer here of doing is exactly what I see the OV doing here, though I would not call it sick. I see it as an explaining away attempt to make verses fit one’s predetermined belief system. As far as having no Biblical basis for anthropomorphisms, that is a ridiculous statement or do you believe God has a very large and smoky nose (Exodus 15:8; 2 Samuel 22:9) or even closer to home for OV issues, did God literally have to “remember” Noah (Genesis 8:1)? I could multiply examples, but I do not think I need to. I think it rather a foolish thing to deny that there are anthropomorphisms etc in the Biblical text. Do you want to go so far as a Mormon and make God out to literally be a man? They do not pull that idea out of think air you know, they take the idea that there are NO anthropomorphisms to its logical conclusion. Are you willing to do that?

And then later (violating the rule against all caps) Doogie shouts:

WHY THEN DOES THIS PASSSAGE PORTRAY A PROBLEM FOR OV'ERS IF OV'ERS HOLD TO ANTHROPOMORPHISMS AT TIMES!?!?!?!?!?!

Because it is inconsistent with the handling of other similar texts! That is the problem. It uses the same language almost exactly to other OV proof texts within the same book of the Bible, yet a consistent application of the OV hermeneutic to this text produces ridiculous results. The appeal to simplicity is destroyed. With all due respect to geebob, who’s intellectual ability outweighs mine, the maneuvers that he must do to get around what this text plainly says (and that is what Overs keep stressing to me about Genesis 22) is speaking volumes.

Now back to geebob and I’s conversation… when I told him that what he said made no sense to me he stated:

well that really is key. The criticism of the open view with regard to this passage only works if the fullness of sin is future indifferent. If not, if the future makes a difference (and since the future is often open), it does not significantly effect the openness view of omniscience to say that God does not know whether or not their sins have reached their fill.

No it doesn’t geebob, and I thought I made that clear but I guess I did not. I showed in prior posts that the future fullness of sin is irrelevant. I never denied what you were saying about that since that is key in preterist thought. But the passage is speaking of whether or not sin was full YET in the present or in the past, NOT whether it would be full in the future. And that is the horns of the OV dilemma here. And of course there is a serious problem if God cannot know if sins have presently reached their fill. This leads to the ridiculous conclusion that he can never know since the future is always future, and he could never judge them. If He cannot know NOW if they are full, how can He know ten minutes from now, which will then become NOW.

I doesn't matter that there are disanalogies here. The importance is that future relevant past tense propositions are demonstrated as a coherent concept and I would have to see an explanation as to why the "fullness of sin" cannot be the subject of future relevant past tense propositions. Perhaps you could insist "either the sins have reached their fullness or they haven't." But I would counter "either the rainy season has ended or it hasn't."

Then you have rendered meaningless whether or not sins have. This makes no sense at all. The disanalogies rendered the analogy impotent. And as far as judgment is concerned (thus limiting the reference as we could limit the reference in a rainy season very bad analogy) they have either reached their full or they haven’t otherwise judgment could never come since God could never tell.

you would be generalizing here. tsk tsk. I would say and insist that knowledge of men's hearts often leads to knowledge of how they will act or would act in some situations, but that is not an exhaustive account. I go into more details in this thread starting at the post linked to.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sh...43721#post43721

however, I only discuss only compatibilistic freedom and libertarian freedom for a bit and I don't get into what I believe is relevant, "self determined" freedom until this post:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sh...69403#post69403

I thank for that geebob, but since this is my first significant foray into this debate I will keep it limited, plus, I have to confess you speak over my head at times. I have to ask that you dumb down your statement a bit for me. I am not a philosopher, you will need to spoon feed me at times.

EEEK! I see now I already answered that post of yours, but I will keep these comments…. Since some time has passed. To move on to your further comments:

What does it mean for sins to reach their fill? That they merit judgment. Yes no? What does it mean that they merit judgment? That God is fed up with them. So God wants to go down and see if he is fed up with them. He in his mercy is still holding out on wrath so he gives them one last chance.

Yes. Why does He have to down to see if He is fed up with them? The passage does not say He is giving them one last chance, it says He does not KNOW. You are destroying the “elegant simplicity” of the OV hermeneutic. I did not put that in quotes to indicate sarcasm, I put it in quotes to indicate that this is a selling point of the OV but I see it failing utterly here.

for one, there is no one openness hermeneutic. There are several espoused by several different scholars. But what any openness hermeneutic seeks to affirm is that God successfully communicates using human language. past tense future relevant propositions have a place in our basic everyday language. "Has the rainy season ended?" "Are you fed up with his shenanigans?" (to which the answer could be "I don't know, lets give him one last chance." thus making a question about a past tense statement a future tense fact). That last one could reasonably be rephrased into the question "Has his shenagins reached their fill?" and between two folks, it is a meaningful question that very well could depend upon the future for an answer.

Much better analogy, thank you. But it still fails because it proves my point. I as a human can tell you when I am fed up with someone or whether I want to give them another chance. That is not what this passage says, and your analogy is then affirming that God did not know something in the present. The passage says basically that God has been “told” that their sins had reached their full, but He didn’t “know” so He had to go down and see, and will not “know” until then.

it does end and if the rainy season is defined by the last day it rains in a year (and I am defining it so) the answer cannot be determined with certainty until a reasonable amount of time passes to where in this region (the nation of geebobia) further rain is a tremendous unlikelihood.

That is just such a poor analogy, that I am not going to comment upon it. However, I would like to hear more about geebobia.

hyper OV or hyper neo molinist. (I still have reservations about the term neo molinist). Actually, I'd just call them open viewers who don't believe in omniscience, or in a sort of limited omniscience (I will insistently deny that the view of omniscience that I typically defend here is limited in any significant or real sense). I don't care for the idea of coming up with a new title for them emphasizing a division.

I would if I were you geebob, because that is going off the deep end with all due respect, and I am sure glad you do not hold it. I do not object to OV in the visceral way that some do because I recognize the argument is more about the nature of the future than the power of God. The idea of “limited” omniscience is an oxymoron. But then again we do have jumbo shrimp so go figure.

It isn't Greg Boyd's position mind you that God doesn't have edp (exhaustive definite present knowledge), but he provides a biblical basis for that position…

Good thing because I would say at that point one has jumped off the cliff.

[geebob]

Actually it doesn’t, and to me is the proverbial tie-breaker between choosing anthropomorphic or colloquial speech

anthropomorphic and metaphorical speach IS colloquial.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=112039#post112039

would be interpreted in the same way, applying the words woodenly and hyperliterally.

some ov scholars don't even believe in literal language. See sander's second chapter in TGWR.