Can We Experience Relationship With God in a Non-Open World

[Drew]

Stop the presses! Hold the phones! Pull the emergency brake on the train!

Drew, what are these things?

Hint: "Ti" means Titanium, "Sr" means Strontium.

Why, my good friend Novum, what this image shows is merely that "whatever is really out there" in that chunk of the real world (that has been placed under the electron microscope) happens to behave in the following way: it emits lights in particle like "clusters" that are themselves arranged in a geometrical lattice. It could be a bunch of tiny goblins, each holding a little light.

Flippancy aside, this photo is not evidence that there really are "little atoms with clouds of electrons whirring about". The content of the photo is really just a pattern of light - presumably resulting from illuminating the item with electrons. This is all we really know from this photo - we think that this photo supports the "reality" of atoms only because we have previously constructed the atomic model and brought that interpretive framework to the viewing of the photo. So when we see this picture, we naively conclude that "atoms are real".

Let's say I fire a series of golf balls at some unknown structure in a darkened room. Let's say the golf balls come right back at us. This behaviour is entirely consistent with each of the following hypotheses about what is "really out there":

1. The thing out there = a flat surface

2. The thing out there = a "U" shaped tube open at both ends - the golf ball enters the tube at one end and zips around the tube and comes right back at us.

3. The thing out there = a little goblin that always throws things back in the same direction from which they come.

Now we may use principles of simplicity to rule out number 3, but who is to say that the "goblin" model does not make the results of other experiments easier to explain.

The photos simply show how the underlying reality is expressed on a piece of photographic paper. Any further conclusions are based on a model of reality that is brought to the viewing of the photos.

 

[Novum]

Flippancy aside, this photo is not evidence that there really are "little atoms with clouds of electrons whirring about". The content of the photo is really just a pattern of light - presumably resulting from illuminating the item with electrons. This is all we really know from this photo - we think that this photo supports the "reality" of atoms only because we have previously constructed the atomic model and brought that interpretive framework to the viewing of the photo. So when we see this picture, we naively conclude that "atoms are real".

You appear to be under the impression that photographs derived from electron microscopes are the only (or best) evidence we have for our model of the atom. You are incorrect. This and this wikipedia article explain the development of atomic theory in much more detail.

Moreover, you appear to have a belief that scientific theories dictate the objective fact that scientists observe. This belief is demonstrably untrue and is directly at odds with the scientific method.

Now we may use principles of simplicity to rule out number 3, but who is to say that the "goblin" model does not make the results of other experiments easier to explain.

Easier to explain? Is that so? Which is really easier: the traditional atomic model, or the claim that tiny little goblins are holding a little light in that photograph?

As Philip K. Dick stated, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, is still there."

 

[Drew]

Flippancy aside, this photo is not evidence that there really are "little atoms with clouds of electrons whirring about". The content of the photo is really just a pattern of light - presumably resulting from illuminating the item with electrons. This is all we really know from this photo - we think that this photo supports the "reality" of atoms only because we have previously constructed the atomic model and brought that interpretive framework to the viewing of the photo. So when we see this picture, we naively conclude that "atoms are real".

You appear to be under the impression that photographs derived from electron microscopes are the only (or best) evidence we have for our model of the atom. You are incorrect.

And you appear to be incorrect in your fundamental understanding of what a scientific model really is or you are aguing against someone else. While I do not disagree about your statement that there is a lot of evidence for the atomic theory, this does not touch my explanation for how the photos do not support the "reality" of the atom (as your post strongly implies that they do). Scientific models are called models for a reason - they are conceptual representations of reality, not a declaration about the nature "of what is really out there"

The fact that the atomic model has lots of evidence means that it is an exceedingly good model. but I submit most scientists would say one is fundamentally confused about the nature of the scientific enterprise if one claimed that science ascribes to the atom any kind of reality beyond its powerful value as a model.

While you have never come out and said so, your posting of the photo seems to be an attempt to establish the "reality" of the atom. I say this because you posted the photo in response to my claim that atoms were only a model. In my response, I explained why this is not a justifiable conclusion.

You seem to be arguing against someone else when you point out the significant evidence for the atomic theory. I have never denied this.

More later as time permits.

 

[Drew]

Moreover, you appear to have a belief that scientific theories dictate the objective fact that scientists observe. This belief is demonstrably untrue and is directly at odds with the scientific method.

I have never said or implied such a thing. I believe it is you who thinks that I am going to "read my biases into nature". I have clearly stated that we look at nature first, and then construct a model that works in describing our observations.

 

[Drew]

1. God did declare to Hezekia that He would not recover, and I believe that God meant it, and I also believe that He knew it would not ultimately happen. I think these two things can coexist in God’s nature without making God a liar. The moment God declared that Hezekia would die, that was true. God wasn’t just pretending, or manipulating. It was true up until the moment Hezekia prayed. Do you think that Hezekia would have died had he not prayed? I do. It was a statement about his future, and God knew it was true. So did Hezekia, and that is why he wept so bitterly. God did know that Hezekia would pray, and that His prayer would be granted. It was in His (God's) Will. If it was not in His will, Hezekia would have not recovered. We see the opposite when Christ prayed, and asked God to allow the bitter cup of His wrath to pass from Him. It was not in God’s Holy Will to grant such a request, even though Christ’s sweat was as blood.

I have to admit I am mightily perplexed by this. Lovely is claiming that God makes a statement about Hezekiah's future (namely that he would not recover), God believes this statement to be true, and yet knew it would not ultimately happen. This makes no sense and here is why:

The statement is a statement about Hez's future - what will happen to Hez - this is a what a statement about the future is. A statement from God about the future cannot be true "at the moment God declared it" and yet be false later. A statement from God declaring that "x will happen" is just that - a statement about what will come to pass. Lovely claims that God knew Hez would recover. There can only be one factual truth about whether Hez recovers, either he does or he does not. I do not know how else to say it - If God says "Hez will not recover" and Hez does recover, God is either lying or genuinely mistaken.

There can be no correct statements about the future that can be declared to be true at the time of their utterance and false later. A statement about the future is a statement about what will happen. If that event does not occur, the original statement is false. I do not know to say this more simply.

 

[TanNinety]

We already know that electrons and protons are made of quarks and antiquarks; science has certainly not reached its limit in that respect. Now, I'm not up to snuff on my string theory reading, but for now let's assume that atoms are constructed of "energy bands" as you claim. Even if string theory is shown to be true (the current scientific consensus, I believe, seems to be working against string theory), then that will not change the existence of atoms; nor will it change the fact that matter is comprised of them.

I saw that you did not agree with Drew calling atoms a scientific “model†and not real things out there. Energy bands or not something I claim, it is the beloved scientists whose science you and I love to cling to that made this claim. Well actually, let me take that back, they didn’t “claim†it, but proposed a scientific “modelâ€Â.

When has scientific consensus NOT been against some currently widely accepted scientific theories? When explaining light Newton proposed corpuscular theory which was a scientific “model†that said light was particles. Huygen proposed wave theory. Scientific consensus was against this wave theory. Faraday’s experiments in the 1800s I am guessing is what gave credibility to this wave theory of light and from which comes the quantum theory. So “scientific consensus†is JUST that, a consensus, not an actual experimental argument against a proposed theory.

Now string theory has a lot of implication to the picture you have posted. You seem to assume that these “atoms†in the picture you posted are real ball looking atoms which exist independently of my belief in them. If string theory is proven to be true these atoms are not particles but ENERGY bands which create a smoke screen of an actual atom existing that you can take a picture of. Atoms will then have to be explained as a part of energy vibrations rather than protons, electrons, quarks which is a different scientific model. And that is why these scientific theories are an explanation of the reality that works and can be verified experimentally, but not the actual reality itself.

Hope I haven’t brought more confusion into the issue that you and Drew are discussing.

 

[TanNinety]

The moment God declared that Hezekia would die, that was true. God wasn’t just pretending, or manipulating. It was true up until the moment Hezekia prayed.

Lets examine wedding vows: "I will love her, honor her, comfort her, and keep her in sickness and in health; forsaking all others, be true to her as long as I shall live"

Now if the husband leaves the wife, is that statement still true, according to your proposal up until the wife gets on the husbands nerves and he leaves? Or is it false to begin with because it carried a promise until death to be together and it was broken?

Let your yes be yes and your no be no said Yashuah. Statements coming from God which end up in the grey area of true or false or may be is not a good position to hold on to. It makes God a "do as I say not as I do" proponent ;)

 

[Drew]

God heals him and adds 15 years to his life. How does God know that, say, in 5 years, some assasin or deranged person stabs the king and kills him?

Or maybe the king falls off a cliff? or whatever?

The point is that how is it that a God, who [according to Open Theists] cannot see the future, can guarantee 15 years to a man's life.

Does God set the times of birth and death? And if so, how can he do so if He doesnt at least know the circumstances that will lead to a person's death? [/color]

How can God make such statements if He has no knowledge or control over the circumstances. What is the means of God's foreknowledge anyway? While God knows all that will happen He has also predetermined those things. God's providence is written all over this from chapter 18 - 20.

I cannot speak for others but I have never claimed that God does not know some things about the future. I think it would be hard to argue otherwise given the content of the Scriptures. I only claim that I believe that God does not know everything about the future.

I have likewise never asserted that God has "no control over the circumstances.

While God's knowledge of some things about the future constrains, perhaps greatly, how "open" the future is, it by no means fully constrains it. As I have argued in numerous posts, God can accomplish His purposes without controlling all the variables. While I will not repeat my argument (unless asked), I will at least give the flavour of it. Let's say the world's top 100 chessmasters and the world's best computer program team up to take me on in a game of chess. The only thing I know about chess is the way the pieces move. We play one game - me versus this vast array of chess expertise. Is my losing the game certain? I would answer yes even though I have some freedom to choose my moves and my opponents cannot know with certainty what move I will make next.

The chess masters accomplish their purpose without totally controlling my actions. How much more so is this possible with God, whose sophistication dwarks that of the chessmasters?

 

[lovely]

Drew, and Tan. Thank your both for your responses to me.

I have done the most I can do, in my ability, to explain something that I think is true according to Scipture, yet incomprehensible to fallen man. I do not believe that either of your responses address the heart of my posts, but that could be a failure to communicate well on my part.

It could be that I believe all of God's Holy Word, and not just part of it. Because of my own belief, I know that there are many things about God that I can not fully understand, much less prove, but I have a relationship with Him anyway. It is only by His grace and mercy, so please do not think I am stating this was somehow by my own doing. I think all men of God, throughout the Bible, have illustrated in theri lives that this lack of understanding only serves to strengthen their relationship with God. This is the point when they realized they were dealing with something infintely greater than themselves. Faith in who God is, and who they were, took hold in the depths of their souls, and gave them a knowing that God is all He says He is even if they can not fully understood in their own low state. Isaiah seems to understand this when He saw God's Holiness, and realized his own unclean state.

I have enjoyed delving into this, and have really had some wonderful time in the Word, and with God, as I searched, and search, this topic. I am looking forward to knowing more, if God grants. I leave you all in love, but in resolved disagreement. The Lord bless you.

 

[Klee shay]

1. God did declare to Hezekia that He would not recover, and I believe that God meant it, and I also believe that He knew it would not ultimately happen. I think these two things can coexist in God’s nature without making God a liar. The moment God declared that Hezekia would die, that was true. God wasn’t just pretending, or manipulating. It was true up until the moment Hezekia prayed. Do you think that Hezekia would have died had he not prayed? I do. It was a statement about his future, and God knew it was true. So did Hezekia, and that is why he wept so bitterly. God did know that Hezekia would pray, and that His prayer would be granted. It was in His (God's) Will. If it was not in His will, Hezekia would have not recovered. We see the opposite when Christ prayed, and asked God to allow the bitter cup of His wrath to pass from Him. It was not in God’s Holy Will to grant such a request, even though Christ’s sweat was as blood.

I have to admit I am mightily perplexed by this. Lovely is claiming that God makes a statement about Hezekiah's future (namely that he would not recover), God believes this statement to be true, and yet knew it would not ultimately happen. This makes no sense and here is why:

The statement is a statement about Hez's future - what will happen to Hez - this is a what a statement about the future is. A statement from God about the future cannot be true "at the moment God declared it" and yet be false later. A statement from God declaring that "x will happen" is just that - a statement about what will come to pass. Lovely claims that God knew Hez would recover. There can only be one factual truth about whether Hez recovers, either he does or he does not. I do not know how else to say it - If God says "Hez will not recover" and Hez does recover, God is either lying or genuinely mistaken.

There can be no correct statements about the future that can be declared to be true at the time of their utterance and false later. A statement about the future is a statement about what will happen. If that event does not occur, the original statement is false. I do not know to say this more simply.

Take your discussion with Novum about atoms. You are talking about an atom being an extremely good model, but that in reality it may not be complete as it is represented by science today. This is because there is always so much more to learn about one element in nature. Thus the model must change as we learn more about it.

When it changes however, does that mean the model which existed previously to the new one was false in any way?

The model of understanding Hezekiah had at the time God said he would die, was the future destined for him "IF" he did not weep bitterly and pray to God to remember the righteousness he had practiced before him. But God couldn't get Hezekiah to do that by saying, "you will die if you don't weep bitterly and cry out to me to remember the righteousness you practiced before me."

To even do it this way would give Hezekiah the power to determine his own future. This is not the righteous way, for it could only be God who determined his future. Yet God could not sit in consultation with a man who needed to make his "own choice" according to the faith he had in God.

What kind of test of faith would it be, if Hezekiah knew he would not surely die when God said he would? The real future ahead for Hezekiah was that he would surely die and it was this real fear of death that made him call out to God. Only then could God shew his mercy to the one who maintained his fatih and persevered in God's righteousness.

If Hezekiah had not chosen to strive for God's intervention, but rather gave in to his fate, Hezekiah would have died. This is the future God revealed to him through a prophet. And like Jacob who wrestled with the man in the desert - whom he would not let go until he blessed him - Hezekiah also wrestled with God for a blessing.

Did God change his mind about the future, or did he he know Hezekiah had the ability to either die as God had foretold him or to struggle with him for a blessing? This is probably only stuff we can speculate about though. :wink:

 

[Drew]

Take your discussion with Novum about atoms. You are talking about an atom being an extremely good model, but that in reality it may not be complete as it is represented by science today. This is because there is always so much more to learn about one element in nature. Thus the model must change as we learn more about it.

When it changes however, does that mean the model which existed previously to the new one was false in any way?

You are correct - the previous one was not false. However, the atomic model has never been represented by the scientiifc community as being "true" and the "final word" about the future. This does not seem to be the case about Hez - God says he will die - seemingly a definitive claim about the future of Hez (for which there is no analog in the example of the atomic model). Having said this, I find what you write below to be very compelling and perhaps the first "explanation" of this text I have read that I can find any sympathy for (other than, perhaps, the "unwritten qualifier explanation").

The model of understanding Hezekiah had at the time God said he would die, was the future destined for him "IF" he did not weep bitterly and pray to God to remember the righteousness he had practiced before him. But God couldn't get Hezekiah to do that by saying, "you will die if you don't weep bitterly and cry out to me to remember the righteousness you practiced before me."

To even do it this way would give Hezekiah the power to determine his own future. This is not the righteous way, for it could only be God who determined his future. Yet God could not sit in consultation with a man who needed to make his "own choice" according to the faith he had in God.

What kind of test of faith would it be, if Hezekiah knew he would not surely die when God said he would? The real future ahead for Hezekiah was that he would surely die and it was this real fear of death that made him call out to God. Only then could God shew his mercy to the one who maintained his fatih and persevered in God's righteousness.

If Hezekiah had not chosen to strive for God's intervention, but rather gave in to his fate, Hezekiah would have died. This is the future God revealed to him through a prophet. And like Jacob who wrestled with the man in the desert - whom he would not let go until he blessed him - Hezekiah also wrestled with God for a blessing.

Did God change his mind about the future, or did he he know Hezekiah had the ability to either die as God had foretold him or to struggle with him for a blessing? This is probably only stuff we can speculate about though. :wink:

This is a very reasonable argument and I find it very compelling indeed. Of course, one of the implications of this argument is that one can not always take the words of the scriptures at their face value. Under Klee shay's interpretation (as I understand it) God is not telling Hez the "plain and simple" truth when He foretells his death (I assume, Klee shay, that you are arguing under the premise that God knows the future exhaustively). I can accept that this does not make God a liar and I can see how such an interpretation makes this text not so problematic.

However, one must be consistent and apply Klee shay's "sophisticated-let-your-interpretation-be-informed-by-the-big-picture-and-not just-the-local wording" approach to other texts as well. I think this might yield some interesting results - and perhaps some not to the tastes of the "closed-theists". In fact, such an approach really makes the task of figuring things out more challenging - since we need to interpret each text in light of all sorts of other complex issues and not take the text at its "plain reading" as so many evangelicals are inclined to do. I can live with that.

On the whole though, this is the first explanation I have read for this text that seems reasonable to me.

 

[TanNinety]

Lovely, You are a very graceful poster. Don’t think I am nit picking your post but merely sharing my ideas with you.

I haven’t read the bible in its entirety yet but what I have read which is a lot, I haven’t come across seeing God as “ALL future knowingâ€Â. I see that you consider that God is outside of time since it is His creation. But I haven’t seen biblical proof that God created time. Time is something man has invented to relate to his world around him. So we talk about incidents past, present or future in relativity. Past and Future do not enjoy a real existence but as in memories and plans. There is nothing to foreknow for God that doesn’t exist. I do not question the big picture of God nor His will. He definitely has a will and a plan so does an architect who wants to build a giant structure lets say the golden gate bridge. Now the architect does not need to “foreknow†each and every step of how this bridge was built in the future exhaustively to deliver this final product. But this lack of exhaustive foreknowledge does not in anyway hinder the architect from delivering the bridge. For God to even enjoy His creation if everything was set in its place as His foreknowledge dictated How can He call His creation good and bless it? For example, I used to play a game of marbles, where you had to hop one marble over the other one and you get to take that marble out of the game and follow through where you had only one last marble left on the tray. In my first attempts there were almost more than 3 to 5 left on the tray. The game was very interesting. But upon countless tries I finally managed the right moves to leave only one marble. After that when I tried to play the game I knew all my moves ..every single step of the game and it took me no time to lose interest and the way I could relate to that game.

Now we all talk about how we need a relationship with our Father in heaven. But how about our Father in heaven having a relationship with us? Imagine you knowing your partners love at the time you married them “exhaustively†at each and every moment of the marriage, if they were going to desert you after 6 years or whatever ..how would you love them back? Would you be able to love them just the same based on this exhaustive foreknowledge?

For Gods divine will and His big pictures I do not see any need or biblical proof that He knows the future exhaustively. I do not doubt that satan has a fair game chance of winning against God and I do not doubt that God’s plan will be victorious over satan’s. I do not choose God because His victory is settled exhaustively to the end but because He is capable of bringing His victory to pass. But we can agree to disagree in this matter. May you enrich your relationship with our heavenly Father every day.

 

[TanNinety]

The model of understanding Hezekiah had at the time God said he would die, was the future destined for him "IF" he did not weep bitterly and pray to God to remember the righteousness he had practiced before him.

This model of understanding you are proposing that Hezekiah had at that point, Klee Shay is nothing but openness. If Hezekiah was a closed theist who believed in exhaustive foreknowledge of God, he had no reason not to take Isaiah’s prophetic words at face value and start preparing for his death. The reason Hezekiah started praying and weeping model lets us know that even he believed that God was “open†to the future where he did not have to die.

But God couldn't get Hezekiah to do that by saying, "you will die if you don't weep bitterly and cry out to me to remember the righteousness you practiced before me."

Not only that but God couldn’t have said “You WILL die†also. This exhaustive foreknowledge of God prohibits Him from saying anything other than what is true in the future. God's foreknowledge dictates that Hezekiah does not die, so not only could God couldn’t have said what you have quoted but also what Isaiah has quoted. This exhaustive foreknowledge renders God to be in these kind of situations where He will not be able to relate or communicate with His creation.

What kind of test of faith would it be, if Hezekiah knew he would not surely die when God said he would?

I agree. It would not be a good test at all. But does God have to sacrifice His truth so He can successfully test His creation?

The real future ahead for Hezekiah was that he would surely die

This statement is problematic for me to agree with. Is this real future according to Hezekiah or real future according to God? If it is real future according to God, you see this was not the case because God already knew Hez would not die according to His exhaustive foreknowledge. If it is real future according to Hez then God is a liar because He purposefully misrepresented this future to Hezekiah.

If Hezekiah had not chosen to strive for God's intervention, but rather gave in to his fate, Hezekiah would have died.

Hezekiah would have with a 100% surety have given in and have accepted his fate in a non-open world.

This is the future(Hez’s death) God revealed to him through a prophet.

Lets consider an example: I prophesied to my wife, “I will never cheat on youâ€Â. Then eventually she gets on my nerves, doesn’t do anything around the house, just eats watches tv and sleeps. Being disgusted I cheat on her. Assume I had foreknowledge that she was going to do all of this and that eventually I was going to cheat on her. Now my statement to my wife that I have made “I will never cheat on you†even though I had exhaustive foreknowledge of her being a lazy bum and me being vexed and cheating on her, would it be a true statement or false representation? Not forgetting the fact that I exhaustively foreknew all of this? Would I be right or wrong in telling her ÀœI will never cheat on youâ€Â? If not, why would God be right to do so?

 

[Drew]

He definitely has a will and a plan so does an architect who wants to build a giant structure lets say the golden gate bridge. Now the architect does not need to “foreknow†each and every step of how this bridge was built in the future exhaustively to deliver this final product. But this lack of exhaustive foreknowledge does not in anyway hinder the architect from delivering the bridge.

I have a lot of sympathy for this way of seeing things. I do not want to put words in your mouth, Tan, but I see you as implying that the future does not have the status of "reality" and hence is not an object of possible knowledge, even for God. As you suggest, it may be more appropriate to think of a God who has plans and has the resources and power to ensure that his plans come to fruition. I assume that, like me, you do not believe he has a plan for each and every low level event in the universe.

 

[Drew]

Greetings Klee shay and TanNinety:

This is getting really interesting. While I like Klee shay's explanation, I do think we need to bite the bullet and admit that, for Klee's explanation to work, God was not telling the truth to Hez when He told him (through the prophet) that he would die.

However, I guess I would say that not all misrepresentations are lies. Perhaps it is an overly technical reading on my part to think that any statement, known to be false is a lie - perhaps the very meaning of the term of the term lie entails a motive to hurt or not act in the bests interests of the person lied to.

Let's say a Marine sergeant yells the following at some recruit: "You will never survive boot camp, you pansy". Just for the sake of argument, let's suppose that the sergeant somehow knows that the recruit will in fact pass, but that a future where the recruit survives requires that the recruit be humiliated into increased effort. Is the sergeant's statement a misrepresention of the future? Yes. Is it a "lie". Perhaps not.

As I will argue in a thread on a text from Daniel that I hope to start soon, perhaps God's setting up the world a certain way "forces Him into a corner" where He really needed to "misrepresent" the future to Hez in order to achieve Hez's best interests.

So, I can see how a closed theist might use such an explanation to get out the muddle created by this text.

On the other hand, as TinNinety was so perspicaciously (?) pointed out, the whole scheme seems to depend on Hezekiah himself being an open theist. Without wanting to give a Tan a swelled head, I think this is a very keen insight. The very nature of the explanation provided by Klee requires that Hez believe that God meant what he said (predicting Hez's death) and that this was not a "you will die unless you pray" prediction. Having these beliefs drives Hez to his knees, in a state where he really believes that his choice to pray does not effect his deliverance , but rather God's actions. In short, the actions of Hez are those of a man who really believes he is going to die, and that he can do nothing to stop it. So, in desperation, he seeks God for mercy, although he does not really believe that his prayers will accomplish anything (to believe otherwise would violate the premise of Klee's argument)

So Hez has to believe that God will "change his mind".

So where are we? I think that the only way Klee's explanation can save the closed theist position (and I am not sure this was Klee's intent, although this what I have inferred) is for Hez to believe in an open future (remember that Klee is claiming that Hez does not believe the dire prediction is qualified by an "unless you pray" clause). So we get a curious situation where Hez needs to be an open theist in his personal theology in order for God's "mirepresentation" to bring about its desired result.. This is complicated but I hope have expressed myself well enough.

 

[TanNinety]

Tan, but I see you as implying that the future does not have the status of "reality" and hence is not an object of possible knowledge, even for God.

Hmm ..Yes. It probably deserves deeper explanation from me.
When we didn’t exist God did not have a problem bringing us into existence. Future doesn’t exist, but I wouldn’t put it past God to be able to make future to bring it into existence as a reality and as this future in reality becomes present and past keep this past a reality as well.
The problem I see with this model is, if God made past and future a reality, then He is currently living with us in the new established earth as well as also flooding the earth as noah is entering the ark. Now I don’t see why God needs such a creation where He is continually present at all parts of this reality of past, present and future ..flooding, saving Israel, crucifying Christ, saving gentiles, establishing a final new heaven and new earth ALL at the same time. His final purpose is lost in such a creation, which is to establish a restored kingdom. This establishment of the final kingdom is not possible if the past enjoys a real existence because He has to continually keep working that past into entering this future kingdom. He sets Himself up into this continuous time trap.

We can get out of the above confusing muddle by understanding that God did not create time but only refers to it as relative to present. It is man who has dream weaved this past and future into real existence. So my understanding as you have correctly stated, past exists in memories and future in plans and actions but not independently by themselves.

I assume that, like me, you do not believe he has a plan for each and every low level event in the universe.

Right on the dot. To explain that, lets take the life of a roman soldier who assisted in the crucifixion of Yashuah. I don’t believe God fore-ordained this soldier since his birth from his mother’s womb that he will be the soldier crucifying the Christ. This soldier being a free agent in Gods creation through his choices managed to end up being at that point of his job. Now God prophesied that not a bone of His lamb will be broken. So when this soldier was beating and crucifying Christ God came into the picture and drew a line and said this and not more. He brought His promises/prophesies to pass which is the big picture. So I don’t see God having to orchestrate each and every event to advance to His final purpose that He has for His creation.

Bible says to work out your salvation with fear. If the future is already “fixed†why do we need to “work†it out, unless God left it up to us to work it out? There is a lot I could ramble about how the world is indeed an open court with God the best coach we could have but I will give it rest for now.

 

[Klee shay]

Take your discussion with Novum about atoms. You are talking about an atom being an extremely good model, but that in reality it may not be complete as it is represented by science today. This is because there is always so much more to learn about one element in nature. Thus the model must change as we learn more about it.

When it changes however, does that mean the model which existed previously to the new one was false in any way?

You are correct - the previous one was not false. However, the atomic model has never been represented by the scientiifc community as being "true" and the "final word" about the future. This does not seem to be the case about Hez - God says he will die - seemingly a definitive claim about the future of Hez (for which there is no analog in the example of the atomic model). Having said this, I find what you write below to be very compelling and perhaps the first "explanation" of this text I have read that I can find any sympathy for (other than, perhaps, the "unwritten qualifier explanation").

[quote="Klee shay":852d8]The model of understanding Hezekiah had at the time God said he would die, was the future destined for him "IF" he did not weep bitterly and pray to God to remember the righteousness he had practiced before him. But God couldn't get Hezekiah to do that by saying, "you will die if you don't weep bitterly and cry out to me to remember the righteousness you practiced before me."

To even do it this way would give Hezekiah the power to determine his own future. This is not the righteous way, for it could only be God who determined his future. Yet God could not sit in consultation with a man who needed to make his "own choice" according to the faith he had in God.

What kind of test of faith would it be, if Hezekiah knew he would not surely die when God said he would? The real future ahead for Hezekiah was that he would surely die and it was this real fear of death that made him call out to God. Only then could God shew his mercy to the one who maintained his fatih and persevered in God's righteousness.

If Hezekiah had not chosen to strive for God's intervention, but rather gave in to his fate, Hezekiah would have died. This is the future God revealed to him through a prophet. And like Jacob who wrestled with the man in the desert - whom he would not let go until he blessed him - Hezekiah also wrestled with God for a blessing.

Did God change his mind about the future, or did he he know Hezekiah had the ability to either die as God had foretold him or to struggle with him for a blessing? This is probably only stuff we can speculate about though. :wink:

This is a very reasonable argument and I find it very compelling indeed. Of course, one of the implications of this argument is that one can not always take the words of the scriptures at their face value. I can see why you make this analogy. I guess the reason why I feel it shouldn't negate the open truth written in the bible is that Jesus said that all is revealed to his disciples. So there is nothing hidden in the text any more; whether it is in the Old testament or the New testament after Jesus finished his ministry and died on the cross - being raised again on the third day. If our relationship with God is based on our belief in his Son; then we need to trust Jesus when he said all is revealed. Of course, mankind may never come to grips with everything that has been revealed...but like the atom model you were discussing before; not knowing the full picture isn't necessarily a false understanding. Under Klee shay's interpretation (as I understand it) God is not telling Hez the "plain and simple" truth when He foretells his death (I assume, Klee shay, that you are arguing under the premise that God knows the future exhaustively). I can accept that this does not make God a liar and I can see how such an interpretation makes this text not so problematic.

However, one must be consistent and apply Klee shay's "sophisticated-let-your-interpretation-be-informed-by-the-big-picture-and-not just-the-local wording" approach to other texts as well. I think this might yield some interesting results - and perhaps some not to the tastes of the "closed-theists". In fact, such an approach really makes the task of figuring things out more challenging - since we need to interpret each text in light of all sorts of other complex issues and not take the text at its "plain reading" as so many evangelicals are inclined to do. I can live with that. On the whole though, this is the first explanation I have read for this text that seems reasonable to me.

I can see the bible does have many "plain texts" that are simply truth, but our discussion at present is the very nature of God and this is territory that we can only speculate about because no-one has seen the Father nor heard his voice. We have seen the Father and heard his voice as far as his Son's example is concerned (through the bible) - but we cannot comprehend The God (our Father in heaven) in our present state. We do our best by rationalising the scriptures to make consistent cases of truth, but I feel a lot depends on God as well and what he chooses to reveal to each individual. Like Hezekiah, God declared a simple truth of his impending death based on the current state of Hezekiah's faith; and he decided to take God at his word of "seeking him" where God wanted to meet him. If he hadn't of wanted to meet Hezekiah there; why warn him of his impending death?

It's been an interesting discussion. [/quote:852d8]

 

[Klee shay]

The model of understanding Hezekiah had at the time God said he would die, was the future destined for him "IF" he did not weep bitterly and pray to God to remember the righteousness he had practiced before him.

This model of understanding you are proposing that Hezekiah had at that point, Klee Shay is nothing but openness. If Hezekiah was a closed theist who believed in exhaustive foreknowledge of God, he had no reason not to take Isaiah’s prophetic words at face value and start preparing for his death. The reason Hezekiah started praying and weeping model lets us know that even he believed that God was “open†to the future where he did not have to die. Yes, I would have to agree with you. Either the closed theist would condemn Hezekiah (as a model) for not taking the word of God as truth and suffering his emanent doom like a faithful servant. Or the open theist would praise Hezekiah (as a model) for taking the rest of God's words (provider, protector, etc) as truth also and calling upon God's mercy. Does this support an open relationship with God? Well I think it does but the decision is always God's to do as he wills according to his knowledge.

But as God has granted free-will to mankind also; wouldn't he honour freedom in it's natural state and only act according to mankind's desire to seek him on an individual basis?

But God couldn't get Hezekiah to do that by saying, "you will die if you don't weep bitterly and cry out to me to remember the righteousness you practiced before me."

Not only that but God couldn’t have said “You WILL die†also. This exhaustive foreknowledge of God prohibits Him from saying anything other than what is true in the future. Why do you feel foreknowledge prohibits God in any way? I would say the will of man could prohibit him. If God didn't need Hezekiah's will to choose his mercy over death, why even let him know what future lay ahead of him without his mercy? Take King Saul for example. He was told that he would die, but instead of repenting to God and asking for his mercy - Saul went to his death with his pride in tact. God's foreknowledge dictates that Hezekiah does not die, so not only could God couldn’t have said what you have quoted but also what Isaiah has quoted. This exhaustive foreknowledge renders God to be in these kind of situations where He will not be able to relate or communicate with His creation.

[quote:59d41]What kind of test of faith would it be, if Hezekiah knew he would not surely die when God said he would?

I agree. It would not be a good test at all. But does God have to sacrifice His truth so He can successfully test His creation? Then how else can his glory become manifest, but through his creations? God's truth is God's truth and like little children we obey his truth. An open theist or a closed theist will see a different truth. Does this limit God's truth in any way though? Can anything limit God's truth? If God would send his beloved Son lower than heaven for a time; to declare his truth, why would mankind be so beneath God that they couldn't be obedient unto his glory and have faith in his provisions?

The real future ahead for Hezekiah was that he would surely die

This statement is problematic for me to agree with. Is this real future according to Hezekiah or real future according to God? If it is real future according to God, you see this was not the case because God already knew Hez would not die according to His exhaustive foreknowledge. If it is real future according to Hez then God is a liar because He purposefully misrepresented this future to Hezekiah. God gave mankind free-will to seek him. He cannot act against free will before the last day of judgement. Hezekiah's free will at the time God declared he would die, had an understanding of God that was practiced only through righteousness; but devoid of seeking his mercy in person. Without seeking God's mercy Hezekiah's fate was death - is this not all our fate without God's gift of mercy through Jesus Christ?

If Hezekiah had not chosen to strive for God's intervention, but rather gave in to his fate, Hezekiah would have died.

Hezekiah would have with a 100% surety have given in and have accepted his fate in a non-open world.

This is the future(Hez’s death) God revealed to him through a prophet.

Lets consider an example: I prophesied to my wife, “I will never cheat on youâ€Â. Then eventually she gets on my nerves, doesn’t do anything around the house, just eats watches tv and sleeps. Being disgusted I cheat on her. Assume I had foreknowledge that she was going to do all of this and that eventually I was going to cheat on her. Now my statement to my wife that I have made “I will never cheat on you†even though I had exhaustive foreknowledge of her being a lazy bum and me being vexed and cheating on her, would it be a true statement or false representation? Not forgetting the fact that I exhaustively foreknew all of this? Would I be right or wrong in telling her “I will never cheat on youâ€Â? If not, why would God be right to do so?

The only problem with this analogy is that as a man you don't have foreknowledge. You could not declare "I will never cheat on you" and know at the same time that you would. This is against your nature. When God says "I will never cheat on you," he knows at the same time (according to his foreknowledge of mankind's whoring after false Gods) that he means what HE says. This is consistent with his nature.

If you had foreknowledge of your wife's hypothetical annoying tendencies, why would you even marry her, after all you're a man not a God. In the case of God however, he created us with the foreknowledge that everything would come to pass as he willed - alongside the free will of mankind.

Your analogy lacks one vital ingredient to make it comparitable to God's nature...and that is God's nature. And aren't we all limited in our understanding by the same thing. :wink:[/quote:59d41]

 

[undertow]

Quote:
1. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit plays any role in the sinner coming to faith in Christ? (Because the Bible affirms this, all true evangelicals will answer 'yes')

2. Do you believe that, apart from any supernatural work of the Holy Spirit, the sinner, by nature, has the will, ability, affection and desire to come to Christ?
(Because the Bible denies this all true evangelicals will answer 'no')

Thus you have, in two simple questions, completely disarmed any and all argument against the free will of man. Here is plain proof that all Christians, without exception, believe that no man is found NATURALLY willing to submit to the humbling terms of the gospel of Christ. The natural man, apart from the Holy Spirit, has no desire and affection for Christ and thus no free will to believe the gospel or do any redemptive good, because, of necessity, due to a corruption of his/her nature, fallen man is in bondage to sin.

Lets imagine, that within a certain range, we have the ability to choose different options. For example, we have the ability to go out drinking tonight, or alternatively we could do something else like play badminton. There must be many different options available to us. (If we have free will anyway.) But lets suppose that we can't naturally choose to follow Jesus. Does this contradict the idea of libertarian free will?

If the Holy Spirit is somehow "available" to all men, or already at work to some extent to draw all men, then perhaps this acts to extend the range of options open to us. It doesn't compel man to choose Jesus, but it gives him the ability to make that choice. So both free will and the Holy Spirit would be required. So we can say: The natural man, apart from the Holy Spirit, has no desire for Jesus. But this is compatible with libertarian free will, and the sinner having to make a choice to follow Jesus.

 

[TanNinety]

…but the decision is always God's to do as he wills according to his knowledge.

But we are talking about exhaustive foreknowledge though. One cannot posses exhaustive foreknowledge and at the same time be able to make a decision.

Let me walk you through the knot we run into. Do you believe God possessed this exhaustive foreknowledge from eternity and eternity to come or did He start out with foreknowledge and eventually ended up with exhaustive foreknowledge?

Former Scenario: God possessed exhaustive foreknowledge from eternity. There was no knowledge that He could gain since eternity.
This leads me to believe that I existed in Gods mind since eternity. Jesus cannot be the first thing on God’s mind because that would mean that I was second and that would negate the fact that God did not know me from eternity but after He foreknew Jesus.

Latter Scenario: If God gained knowledge since eternity how can one be sure that this is already exhaustive into the future?

What I propose is that exhaustive foreknowledge is a quality that man has made up to ascribe to God. I haven’t come across any direct statements from God in the bible that suggest that He indeed possess this exhaustive foreknowledge. Can you find one? This does not make Him any less of a God in my book, but more of a vibrant God who can be related to as a Father, who is capable of prophesying in a world of “free-will†agents and yet bring that picture to come to pass.

It seems to me that you are unknowingly an open theist at heart but find it discouraging to accept any statement that seemingly at the surface diminishes one of the "omnis" ascribed to God. But I could be wrong about this guesstimation :fadein: