Questions for Open View Theists Only Please

**bar Jonah** · February 10th 2003, 06:46 PM

YXboom, this is a minor detail, but I just wanted to point out something in your otherwise outstanding post.

Scripture indicates that YHWH refers either to the Son, or to the entire Trinity, but not to specifically God the Father, who I have a feeling you're really referring to here. Jeremiah 23:5-6 states that the name of the messiah will be YHWH. So I believe you may be making a slight misnomer in stating that Jesus the Son was privy to conversations in Heaven between YHWH and Satan.

Just a tiny FYI.

**Xmansmommy** · February 10th 2003, 06:59 PM

Yxboom ....

All this simply put is that I see a clear biblical portrait of our suffering Messiah and His ability to foretell our actions based on greater things than just our own volition but that of angelic influences, circumstances, etc. I feel there is no need to resort to an exhaustive foreknowledge as all Jesus would have needed and done: considered all things available and been able to make an accurate predication based on the sum of all that was in place...and did. Uh does that help

Fantastic post Y! Very helpful and detailed. Thanks. ;) But now, that brings to mind another question regarding this portion that is quoted.
If God is able to foretell our actions based on each of these things, why then are there instances in scripture where He wasn't so accuate in His predictions? I hope my ? makes sense. I know what I want to say, it's just that finding the words are oftentimes difficult :( Thanks for your post. ;}

For and By Him,
Linda

**yxboom** · February 10th 2003, 08:51 PM

RightIdea:
YXboom, this is a minor detail, but I just wanted to point out something in your otherwise outstanding post.

Scripture indicates that YHWH refers either to the Son, or to the entire Trinity, but not to specifically God the Father, who I have a feeling you're really referring to here. Jeremiah 23:5-6 states that the name of the messiah will be YHWH. So I believe you may be making a slight misnomer in stating that Jesus the Son was privy to conversations in Heaven between YHWH and Satan.

Just a tiny FYI.

I believe that Satan presented himself before the triune God not necessarily ONLY the Father. I apologize if I made this unclear. I believe the Holy Spirit was very much present as well, and for all intents and purposes the Son may have been there not physically but by omniscience. Which would result in the presence of the entire Godhead of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. :D

**geebob** · February 10th 2003, 08:54 PM

This will be the yxboom interjection which geebob has already alluded to which I don't ever recall sharing with him

**yxboom** · February 10th 2003, 08:57 PM

geebob:

<twilight zone music starts to play>

[jr asparagus] There were these space aliens who switched brains with the cows and the cows with the brains of the space aliens..........broke the plate! [/jr asparagus]

**geebob** · February 10th 2003, 11:48 PM

If God is able to foretell our actions based on each of these things, why then are there instances in scripture where He wasn't so accuate in His

recall what I said to RightIdea. Foreknowledge is always based upon what has been determined. Peters resolve was week, Satan had a plan, and God had decided to let this plan go only so far. the combination of the three yeilded certainty.

Things just aren't always like this. Sometimes there is a loose end because a free choice hadn't been made or a person's heart has not been hardened or matured sufficiently that their actions can be predicted. The suggestion is that all the loose ends had been accounted for, provided Peter did not repent right then and there asking "Lord, how can I prevent this." There were no doubt loose ends before, but by the time Jesus made his prediction, they had been resolved.

My question would be, I suppose, (and it's one that I have asked of CVT's many times without a sufficient answer) Is there a method or formula in which a person can know when to take the scriptures literally and when figuratively?

There are a few ways of taking this, and I'll mention breifly a rather sophisticated approach given by John Sanders in his second chapter of the God who risks. I think what I've written below is understandable, but hold your breath, it gets a little complex, and after this first answer, I have another one which I believe you may find easier.

The classical theists say that most of the descriptions of God in the bible are metaphorical. So when God is described as changing his plans, claiming the discovery of new information, or grieving or rejoicing, the classical theists will say that this is just God's condescention for us, or in other words, he is speaking in human terms "lisping like a nurse maid to babies" as Calvin puts it.

The interesting thing is that an open theist does not have to disagree that these are metaphores or that God is speakin to us in human terms. You see, where some open theists like Sanders cries foul is that in describing these as metaphores, the classical theist fails to say what these metaphores mean or that they give it an adequate meaning. They use the metaphorical nature of the metaphorical nature to toss out the descriptions (or at least that is often the way it appears).

Now in contrast to this devalueing of metaphores, Sanders suggests that metaphores reveal reality in degrees. So in the bible we have God described as a rock, a hen, a shepard, a husband, and a father and so on. So metaphores such as God as a rock, there is the least amount of contact between God and the rock. A mother Hen protecting her young in a crisis has a higher degree of reality depiction. Higer up is God as a shepard, then God as a husband or father. So the more personalistic the metaphore is, the closer it is to depicting God as he really is.

So sure, when God is described as having emotions, discovering new information, or changing his plans, but these metaphores really hit the nail on the head in terms of who God is because these are such personalistic metaphores.

Now you might ask, "don't we ov'ers believe that God literally changes his plans, discovers new information, and has changes in emotion?" The simple answer is "yes we do." But there is something about Sanders' picture that most unusual and most people do not catch on to it. Sanders does not believe in literal language. So the whole bible is metaphorical. Now some might take this to mean that he's some ultraliberal who for example doesn't believe that the resurrection really happened. That is totally wrong. He'd say that "Yes the resurection really happened." However, he'd add that "Yes the ressurection really happened" is a metaphorically based, no matter who says it and what they mean by it because metaphores are far more deep seated in language than we take for granted. This a radically new way to take language itself, and it has a richness and a lot of merit that we don't see in the simple literal/figurative dichotomy.

Now I don't know that this is in fact a valid way to take language, and you may not have to take it this way to still see that Sanders has a very good point in calling the cvt's to account when they use metaphore as a way of what could very well be argued as a mishandling and dimantling of the text instead of asking, "okay, just what is it that these metaphores are actually saying?" and even after they do this, it has to be convincing and adequate and not just an excuse.

Now I'll give you what I believe is perhaps an easier picture to deal with. Forget everthing I told you, lets go back to the normal view where there is indeed literal language and there are both metaphorical and literal descriptions of God. I'll give you some examples where cvt's say we are inconsistent so we have something to work with.

I will agree with the Calvinist that God accomodates himself to us in communicating us. He speaks so that we may have some understanding or sufficient understanding. This is the principle by which I wish to demonstrate the ov's consistency in taking some passages literally and some figuratively.

Now I say that when God says to abraham "Now I know that you fear the Lord," he is indicating an actual change in knowledge. When God says to adam and eve "where are you hiding?" he is not necessarily indicating a lack of present knowledge (which open theists believe he has exhaustively).

So how does this work? How can I claim this. Well lets start with the statement to Abraham. Some Calvinists suggest that when God says "now I know that your fear the Lord," it is like a teacher who says after explaining something "Now we know the velocity of an african swallow." So when God includes himself, he really is speaking of Abraham's situation. Now I simply don't see why we should or even can make this connection. Just because we can think of an example like the teacher and students doesn't mean that the same applies and I think that this example is too far removed from what we see with God and Abraham. God is testing Abraham, and then he says "Now I know." He does not include Abraham in this like the teacher does with her students. We are totally taking for granted the distinction of subject and predicate here. Abraham, specifically something about him, is the object of the knowledge and God is the one who is making the claim to knowledge and he does not include abraham in this.

And finally, lets consider this simple question. If God says "Now I know" when he really means that Abraham learned something, was he very accomodating? I don't see how. If you look at some of DDW's answers in another thread in this forum on young earth creationism, she asks concerning the issue of a literal creation "IF the text of Genesis 1 is not clear that God meant 6 24 hours days, how COULD he have worded it that would have been any clearer?" If God was merely commenting on Abraham's knowledge, he could have been clearer, and if God was commenting on his own knowledge, I don't think he could have been any clearer.

Now there is one way a cvt can get around this. He may attempt to show that there is an idiom or manner of speaking within Hebrew or within the Bible where a Human makes a similar claim "Now I know" when in fact he always knew precisely. And it of course has to be in a similar context such as after what might be considered a test or so on. Now if they could come up with such an example, it would not necessarily mean that we can't take it this way, but only that consistency would mean that we could not in a dogmatic sort of way. We would have to admit, yes, this does not prove our case, but we can still take it this way as one peice of evidence that although it does not stand on it's own contributes to a greater whole.

Now what about God's question to Adam "where are you?"? I suggest that we do have manners of speach that are similar to this in similar contexts where no ignorance is implied on the part of the questioner. I like to use star trek for my example. Suppose the Enterprise comes to a planet populated by Amazonian women who are fighting over the planets limited resouce of men. So commander Riker suggests that he offer himself to the amazonians to resolve some of the conflict. Captain Picard my look at him and say "Number One, what is the *Prime Directive?" You see the captain in no way is implying ignorance. In asking this, he is trying to guide rikers thoughts getting him to come to terms with what he suggested getting Riker to think on his own. Likewise, God asking Adam where he was was trying to guide Adam's thoughts, to get him to think about why he was hiding and to give him a chance confess his motivations in hiding.

*for those of you not familier with star trek, the prime directive is a law of star fleet which prohibits interference with the developement of other cultures.

**yxboom** · February 10th 2003, 11:56 PM

What was the prime directive of this thread again?

**Xmansmommy** · February 11th 2003, 02:12 AM

yxboom:
What was the prime directive of this thread again?

LOL actually I'm enjoying the discussion. I will however, have to re-read geebob's post another 20 times to hopefully better understand. ty geebob ;)

**yxboom** · February 11th 2003, 02:25 AM

The geebob short short version:

"Now I know"....how can it possibly be read any other way?!

"Adam where are you?" easily understood and accepted as a figure of speech because it can be relayed that way.

compare:

"Now I know"....how can it possibly be read any other way?!

:D

**Xmansmommy** · February 11th 2003, 09:44 AM

Y, so you are saying "if" we can take it literally take it literally, and if figuratively then figuratively, based on the surrounding text, correct? Just trying to make sure I understand. Thanks for your reply btw ;}

**geebob** · February 11th 2003, 10:42 AM

I will however, have to re-read geebob's post another 20 times to hopefully better understand.

feel free to ask more questions about it. I can always try to hit these things from other angles.

As for Sander's view on language, you could ask me about that, but with a view as complex as that, I'd think some book recomendations would be in order.

**Xmansmommy** · February 11th 2003, 10:49 AM

Geebob, Thanks. I will go over your post and pull out the details that need clarifying. As for books, I have TGWR but simply put, I'm looking for biblical evidence to support or deny OV. Although a friend is supposed to be sending *cough* me another book.

Also this week I am going to be listening to some Bob Enyart tapes...That ought to be really cool. Again, thanks.

In Christ,
Linda

**yxboom** · February 11th 2003, 08:35 PM

Xmansmommy:
Y, so you are saying "if" we can take it literally take it literally, and if figuratively then figuratively, based on the surrounding text, correct? Just trying to make sure I understand. Thanks for your reply btw ;}

Short answer is yes. I do believe that geebob was pointing out via ala Sanders that all language is metaphorical and we take to it what we will. In Scripture the idea is that every description we have of God is metaphorical but not untrue. Pinnock put it really good he said, all metaphors should be taken seriously even if not taken literally. So the point being even if we take all that Scripture says about God metaphorically and not literally we still need to take it seriously. What is the author trying to say about God is what we need to ask ourselves while we read instead of blowing it off as "metaphor". For instance take grieving the Holy Spirit Eph iv.30, grant that this is metaphorical language ruling out that it is literal. Ask yourself, what is Paul saying or portraying about the Holy Spirit? What is Paul attempting to convey by saying the Holy Spirit can be grieved? Think that here God is revealing something to us, what is it? Taken figuratively, what does it say about the Holy Spirit......that He grieves. Literally or figuratively it lines up with only one reason and purpose, we learn that we can grieve the Holy Spirit.

**Bob Hill** · February 12th 2003, 05:05 AM

Dear Linda,

Judas’ actions, predicted by Christ, were a real problem for me. Here is what I believe.

Most people think that Judas’ actions were ordained by God because they are prophesied. But, when we look at the Scriptures, the betrayal of Christ was never foretold in the prophets.

If the betrayal of Christ by Judas was foreknown and foreordained, how could Mat 26:24 be true? “The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”

Judas would have had no choice. Therefore, God would have predestined a man to damnation. Does God do evil that good may come? Jam 1:13-17 says God doesn’t even tempt men with evil let alone predestine them to do it.

What does, “That it might be fulfilled,” mean? Mat 2:15 and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.” 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, “He shall be called a Nazarene.” No OT Scripture says this, but we do have to consider Isa 11:1, where we find the Hebrew word nezer. But nothing says, “He shall be called a Nazarene.”

Barnes wrote that fulfilled means, “The words do aptly and appropriately express the thing referred to, and may be applied to it.” Bloomfield says, “Appears quite suitable or applicable to it.” Moses Stuart, “O.T. phraseology expresses in an apt and forcible manner, the thought which they desired to convey.”

For example, Isaiah 6:9,10 was fulfilled before the Babylonian captivity. But, confer John 12:37-40 & Mat 13:14 “And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says”. Act 28:28; Isa 6:9-10 And He said, “Go, and tell this people: ‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’ 10 “Make the heart of this people dull, And their ears heavy, And shut their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And return and be healed.”

Dr. Edward Robinson in Greek Lexicon of the New Testament: “Phrase is used as a formal quotation and implies ‘that something took place, not in order that a prophecy might be filled, but so that it was fulfilled; not in order to make the event correspond to the prophecy, but so that the event would and did correspond to that prophecy. The phrase is often used to express historical or typical parallelisms.’ ”

Consider Mat 27:9-10 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced, 10 and gave them for the potter’s field, as the LORD directed me.” However, there is no Jeremiah passage. However, Zec 11:12-13 says, Then I said to them, “If it is agreeable to you, give me my wages; and if not, refrain.” So they weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of silver. 13 And the LORD said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—that princely price they set on me. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD for the potter. Look at these verses too: John 15:24,25; Psa 35:19; John 19:36; Psa 34:19,20.

John 13:18 “I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me.’ ” Ps 41:9 “Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.” Ps 41:4-10. His prayer had been one for healing after confessing his sin (v. 4). However, he lamented the fact that his enemies took advantage of his condition. Wanting him to die (v. 5), they feigned friendship while slandering him (v. 6), saying that he would never survive (vv. 7-8).

Even his trusted friend betrayed (lifted up his heel against) him (v. 9). These words, of course, were quoted by Jesus concerning Judas (John 13:18). But here David had in mind the treachery of his friend Ahithophel, who betrayed him, and then hanged himself (2 Sam. 16:20-17:3, 23). Barnes wrote, “It is difficult to tell whether the text has any reference whatever to Judas Iscariot.”

John 17:12 “While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. John 6:37-40; John 10:27-29; Heb 2:13. But, No Old Testament Scripture says this.

In Acts 1:16 it says: “Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled [What Scripture?], which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus 17 for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry.” David didn’t say this about Judas. He said it about his “own familiar friend”. Psa 41:9 “Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.” These scriptures were fulfilled in the sense of illustration by Judas.

Acts 1:20 “For it is written in the book of Psalms: ‘Let his dwelling place be desolate, And let no one live in it’; and, ‘Let another take his office.’ Psa 109:8 Let his days be few, And let another take his office. Psa 69:25 Let their dwelling place be desolate; Let no one live in their tents. Peter said that David prophesied of Judas. But when did David discuss Judas Iscariot? Certainly he did not refer to him directly or name him.

The Psalms often anticipate Christ. Likewise the enemies of the royal psalmist became the enemies of the Messiah. Therefore, someone was predicted in Psalms 69:25 and 109:8. Both of these psalms are royal imprecatory psalms, but the prophecy is very general. Acts 1:20 applies them to Judas.

Therefore, I believe Judas had free will.

Bob Hill
I believe people are just

ing.

**geebob** · February 12th 2003, 10:56 AM

I hope you've caught that I've given two different answers to the question of interpretation.

yx sums up nicely the first answer.

The second one doesn't really bother with explaining how metaphores could be true of God.

It merely suggests that we go on commonsense trying to understand each individual case on it's own terms asking the question "is this really an effective way to communicate?" The method to determine this is to come up with other examples of similar uses of speach that support what is claimed about the text.

This isn't fail proof because just because we don't have a way of saying something in an odd way in english doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in hebrew. So then the challenge to the cvt's is for them to come up with examples that demonstrate a similar thought with regard to passages such as the one with God telling Abraham "now I know."

And within that second answer, there is an admission that the classical theists may indeed come up with such an example, but if that's the case, it doesn't mean that they are right to insist that there view is correct. It only means that what they say of the passage is reasonable, and we couldn't prove our view by that passage alone, but rather use this in a cummulative case where we have a lot of evidence that contributes to the strength of the case.