Were these accidents?

[Drew]

Think about God's Name.

"I am".

Present tense. He IS. There is no past, no future, just the eternal Now of the Present Existence.
.
.
.
Things in this world can ONLY happen the way God intends BECAUSE He sees all NOW. Thus, God does not "change His mind". God is eternal. There is no change for God as all decisions occur within that one moment of NOW. Time is a unit of measure for change. Since God is timeless and changeless, He is beyond all such chronological concepts of planning and thinking and waiting and executing. These are anthropomorphic ideas of trying to understand how God works, but it is inadequate. Plannning, executing, and watching the fruits of His work all happen "simultaneously" at once.

Hello:

I am familiar with these arguments and I do not find them to be all that convincing. I think you are inferring a little too much from such statements as "I am"

On precisely what basis do you conclude that "I am" means that God sees all in this "eternal now". Here is the reference that I assume you refer to:

God said to Moses, "I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' " God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, 'The LORD, [c] the God of your fathersâ€â€the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacobâ€â€has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation".

I would think that a more appropriate "take-away" from the "I am" statement is that God is asserting his eternality - the fact that He will live "from generation to generation".

I see no reason to draw the complex "God sees all in the eternal now" conclusion that you seem to draw from this text.

God may not change in his fundamental nature, but He is obviously not changeless in a strict sense- He acts in the world.

I have always found this "eternal now" argument to be speculative and not really supported in the Scriptures.

I would rather go with the "plain reading" as the default interpretation. And the plain reading of the Jeremiah text and others clearly state that God reconsiders, changes his mind, responds to human petition.

I submit that we should not try to re-work texts like 2 Kings 20 and the Jeremiah text from their clear "literal meaning" unless there is some compelling justification to do so.

I have also found the "anthropromorphising" argument to be dubious - why must we assume that the texts do not really mean what they say? And they say that God reacts, changes His plans, etc.

I suggest that we find this hard to accept simply because we cannot understand how such a "fluid" God can achieve his purposes. This is our lack of sophistication and imagination - I see no reason to assume that this kind of God cannot achieve all that He intends to do.

 

[Drew]

Drew
do you believe that God knows how many hairs you have on your head?
Do you believe God knows the very second you will die?

The number of hairs on my head is not really relevant to God's knowledge of the future. As for God knowing how long I will live, I assume that you are talking about Psalm 139:16.

I did a little investigation and have found at least one author who claims that the original Hebrew has made this text very hard to render. He states the following:

"This simply illustrates that there are serious textual problems in this verse. The verse has no clear meaning as it stands in Hebrew, and can only be made meaningful by assuming certain errors in the text and trying to reconstruct a possible reading"

I know nothing about the author's credentials except that He does have a Phd.

So, for me at least, some further study would be required to be confident that the rendering in texts like the NASB is trustworthy.

If God knows the precise time that I will die that this certainly implies that He knows a lot about the future - a firm stake in the ground re when a person dies really does constrain things quite a bit.

However, my intuition tells me that even such knowledge - constraining though it may in respect to other facts about my future - does not fully pin down everything about my future.

However, I do agree that if it can legitimately be concluded that the NASB rendering (for example) is true to the intended meaning, God certainly knows a tremendous amount about the future.

And of course, if Psalm 139:16 really does mean what it says in the NASB, then 2 Kings 20 cannot mean what it says when it plainly implies that God changed his mind about how long Hezekiah would live. I would caution any reader about simply choosing to believe the 'plain reading' of Psalm 139:16 and using that as a referent to 'explain away' the 'plain reading' of 2 Kings 20:1-7. That argument could cut both ways - one could take 2 Kings 20:1-7 literally and come up with an interpretation of Psalm 139:16 that is not consistent with its literal reading.

This is where we demonstrate sloppy reasoning a lot. If the plain meaning of text A is at variance with the plain meaning of text B, which is obviously the case with respect to Psalm 139:16 and 2 Kings 20, if both are "accurate" to the original language, then we cannot simply bring an otherwise unjustified belief to bear on the matter and use that belief to "choose" which verse to take literally.

Although some will argue that God could not have made things this hard for us, I submit that an objective evaluation suggests otherwise.

 

[francisdesales]

Hello:

I am familiar with these arguments and I do not find them to be all that convincing. I think you are inferring a little too much from such statements as "I am"

Afternoon,

That is only one example of Scripture that we can draw from to come to the conclusion that I have elaborated on. Another is that God is timeless. Another is God is changeless. God IS existence. We know He remains uncreated and is thus outside of time. All of this leads us to believe that God is more than just really old and deals with time in the same manner that we do. The Bible also tells us that God was able to predestine the elect before the beginning of time. How else would that be possible unless God has access to the future which has not happened for us yet?

On precisely what basis do you conclude that "I am" means that God sees all in this "eternal now".

Only simulataneous overlap of past, present, and future explains how God is able to be changless and outside of time and yet know what is to happen in our time continuum. I am open to any other suggestions that maintains the idea that God is not subject to change and exists for all time without any change.

I would think that a more appropriate "take-away" from the "I am" statement is that God is asserting his eternality - the fact that He will live "from generation to generation".

Does that make me eternal in respect to a bug or an ant that lives a few weeks? Remember that God existed BEFORE time existed, since He created time. He is not subject to time, although He effects it. God IS means God IS Being. ALL creation takes its existence from God's Existence that is without change.

God may not change in his fundamental nature, but He is obviously not changeless in a strict sense- He acts in the world.

Who is to say that our time, our creation, is not merely a moment of the present to God? If you could contract ALL of existence into one moment, then that one moment would be considered changeless if it continuously present to the Person outside of time - God. Thus, the creation of man, Christ's death on the cross, and the end of the world can all be seen as part of that one contracted NOW.

Again, as I said before, this is all just speculation on my part. I do not make any claims that I am without doubt correct on this matter.

I would rather go with the "plain reading" as the default interpretation. And the plain reading of the Jeremiah text and others clearly state that God reconsiders, changes his mind, responds to human petition.

And what about the "Hand of God"? How far are you willing to take this?

I submit that we should not try to re-work texts like 2 Kings 20 and the Jeremiah text from their clear "literal meaning" unless there is some compelling justification to do so.

I believe there is enough in my explanation to warrant it as a valid possible explanation of God and time.

I suggest that we find this hard to accept simply because we cannot understand how such a "fluid" God can achieve his purposes. This is our lack of sophistication and imagination - I see no reason to assume that this kind of God cannot achieve all that He intends to do.

Does God wait on us to do something? What are the implications of that "waiting" and "planning? Doesn't that subject God to man's determinations and that the future is not really planned, but depends on what man does and how God will choose to react? My explanation takes God's eternal plan and view into account and man's reaction that does not effect God's plan.

Regards

 

[stranger]

Ps 50:21
"These things you have done and I kept silence; You thought that I was just like you; I will reprove you and state {the case} in order before your eyes.

Is open theism an attempt to create god in man's image?

In all fairness, this is really not an argument about open theism.

What matters in my mind is what the Scriptures teach. It is, of course, equally possible that we (man) have conferred onto God our notions of what God's attributes must be.

In fact, I think that it is because we cannot imagine how God could fulfill His purposes without knowing the future exhaustively, that we confer a very human-centric idea about the nature of His omniscience.

Hi Drew,

The reason I mention this particular verse - is that is a part of God's self revelation about Himself. In other words God tells us what He is like and in this instance He is saying that man has got it wrong when men think God is like them.

The idea of God being 'omniscience' is not human centric. A human centric idea would be saying that God does not see, or God does not hear and does not know the future.

That we confer a very human-centric idea when we try to systematize the attributes of God, based upon scripture, and scripture does not provide as a complete a knowledge of God as would the person of Christ standing in front of us, we can still claim that what we say about God is true though our knowledge is not exhaustive nor comprehensive.

 

[Drew]

The idea of God being 'omniscience' is not human centric. A human centric idea would be saying that God does not see, or God does not hear and does not know the future.

I think your argument here has the following problem - you assume that just because man has attribute X, then God cannot be understood to have attribute X because that would make our vision of God "human-centric".

And in this case, X = "non-exhaustive knowledge of the future".

This is not a valid way to determine things about God. God's properties should not be deduced by this principle, especially since we know that we are created in the image of God. Furthermore, application of this principle would make our knowledge of God plummet to zero because anything we claim to know about God can be deemed a "human-centric" idea.

What Biblical support do you offer for your position?

And I think that attributing this kind of "exhaustive knowledge of the future" omniscience to God is, ironically, the very result of the tendency you talk about. It is we who cannot imagine how God could get things done without knowing the future exhaustively. It is a human limitation to not see that God can weave things like human free will and an open future into a tapestry that nevertheless achieves all His purposes.

 

[stranger]

Drew wrote:
I think your argument here has the following problem - you assume that just because man has attribute X, then God cannot be understood to have attribute X because that would make our vision of God "human-centric".

And in this case, X = "non-exhaustive knowledge of the future".

When men think that God is like they are, what is presented about God implies that there is life to be lived outside the scrutiny of an all seeing, all hearing and an all knowing God. This is what I have called human - centric and it shows the motive of wanting to hide from the light or what you appear to miss - not hide from all light but only that light which is incompatible with 'known sin'. So while conceivably some men attempt to hide from all light so called religious men I would suggest try to hide from some light.

This is not a valid way to determine things about God. God's properties should not be deduced by this principle, especially since we know that we are created in the image of God. Furthermore, application of this principle would make our knowledge of God plummet to zero because anything we claim to know about God can be deemed a "human-centric" idea.

The text I highlighted in blue is precisely why we rely on REVELATION to obtain the knowledge of God. By human centric I presume you mean innate knowledge of God all men have APART from revelation or scripture? This is different to God revealing Himself in terms that are human and aimed at the human senses. The latter is self evident.

And I think that attributing this kind of "exhaustive knowledge of the future" omniscience to God is, ironically, the very result of the tendency you talk about. It is we who cannot imagine how God could get things done without knowing the future exhaustively. It is a human limitation to not see that God can weave things like human free will and an open future into a tapestry that nevertheless achieves all His purposes.

? I don't think like that at all, I prefer the term 'radical pessimist' about the open future you thus describe.

What Biblical support do you offer for your position?

Lets start with 'revelation' - 1 Cor 2. We also need to agree upon 'meanings' such as human centric etc.

 

[lovely]

Drew,

What do you think about foreshadowing in Scripture...through literal historic events and allegory...and how it affects this debate about God's exhaustive knowledge of the future? I am wondering if the design of Creation, man's relationships, the Jewish temple and priesthood, and literal events like Abraham sacrificing Isaac, and the lie, are some proof that God knows the future exhaustively...enough to foreshadow it in detail. I am just curious about your thoughts on this. The Lord bless you.

 

[Drew]

Re: this whole "outside of time" thing.

I suspect this is one of those ideas that everybody believes but nobody will be able to defend from the Scriptures (please note that I used the word "suspect" - I am by no means certain).

If God knows everything about the future, then it is legitimate to say that He is "outside of time". Obviously, one cannot simply claim that God is outside of time and use that assumption to demonstrate that God knows everything about the future.

What is the Scriptural support for the notion that God knows everything about the future?

There are two other ways that I can think of to make the "God is outside of time" assertion stick. The first is to provide a Scripture that directly makes this statement. The other is to show that based on statements about specific things that God does know about the future, it logically follows that God knows everything about the future.

Any takers?

Up to this point, I see nothing more than unsupported claims that God is outside of time and that He knows the future exhaustively. In many threads, I believe that I have shown through detailed worked analogies how it is that some agent "A" can achieve a certain goal with absolute certainty even if that agent does not know everything about the future. I believe that these arguments stand unrefuted, but please correct me if I am wrong about this.

It is not enough to argue that God created time and thereby conclude that He is outside it. That argument makes a very critical assumption: that when God creates something, the result in no way limits or constrains God. And yet there is every reason to question this assumption and many Christians explicitly ascribe to this view of God "limiting Himself". For example, people will say that when God gave men free will (for those who believe in free will), He "gave up" something - and I agree with this thinking.

You cannot simply assume that when God creates a Universe with certain characteristics, that God is not in some sense "limited" by what He Himself has done.

Example: A God who gives men free will has limited the degree of control that He retains over the evolution of the Universe. People will deny this, but they are mistaken - there is no avoiding the conclusion (without throwing correct thinking out the window) that a God who gives men free will has limited His control over the Universe.

Same thing with time - God created time but you cannot simply assume that this act did not constrain God in some way in respect to time. Maybe God can create time and not thereby be constrained to exist in time. But one actually needs to make this case.

 

[Drew]

What Biblical support do you offer for your position?

If you are asking what Biblical support I have for "open theism", I would be surprised at the question.

I have shown that the plain reading of 2 Kings 20:1-7 supports open theism and I have also provided a text from Jeremiah 26 which states that God changed His mind.

The plain reading of these texts clearly supports the assertion that God does not know the future exhaustively.

That does not mean that someone can't make a case as to why the plain reading is wrong. But who has made a case to this effect?

 

[Drew]

What do you think about foreshadowing in Scripture...through literal historic events and allegory...and how it affects this debate about God's exhaustive knowledge of the future? I am wondering if the design of Creation, man's relationships, the Jewish temple and priesthood, and literal events like Abraham sacrificing Isaac, and the lie, are some proof that God knows the future exhaustively...enough to foreshadow it in detail. I am just curious about your thoughts on this. The Lord bless you.

Even though I have not used the following line of argument in this thread, I believe that it is questionable to even talk about "the future" as an object of possible knowledge. I am not even sure that "the future" is a "real thing".

I think it is more correct to say that God has declared that He will do certain things.

I am not sure I fully understand your question.

I believe that God intends to do certain things and that He will most certainly achieve all that He intends to do.

However, I see no reason to believe that God has a plan in respect to everything - maybe He has no plan re what I will eat for dinner tonight.

But I do agree that if God plans to do "X", this also nails down other things as well by implication. But I do not see why this would need to nail down everything.

 

[stranger]

If you are asking what Biblical support I have for "open theism", I would be surprised at the question.

I have shown that the plain reading of 2 Kings 20:1-7 supports open theism and I have also provided a text from Jeremiah 26 which states that God changed His mind.

The plain reading of these texts clearly supports the assertion that God does not know the future exhaustively.

That does not mean that someone can't make a case as to why the plain reading is wrong. But who has made a case to this effect?

Hi Drew,

When I have time I will look at your references in Kings and Jeremiah. When Adam was hiding in the garden God called out to him and asked 'Where are you?' Gen 3:9. My guess is that it is this type of thing to which you refer. Incidently, unless God reveals what is in His mind, how can we know what God knows and what God does not know in any given istant? For this reason Paul asks: who has known the mind of the Lord? (Which is from the passage I wanted to start with in the prior post).

As for God being outside time, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Creation is regarded as from 'ex nilo', if God merely reshaped matter that already existed, and gave evolution a shove to help it on its way - then God is not Creator and I can assure you everything else falls apart in the Christian faith.

The text is Genesis 1:1 to state the obvious. Prior to creation existing we do suppose God existed and was content to do so. So time for man starts at creation- before creation (of man) who is there to measure time? I have even heard a skeptic (of time) say time does not exist!

So with Open Theism, before creation did God know everything about Himself? Or was he 'exploring' that Being that He found Himself to be, 'even the depths of God' as the Apostle Paul says?

 

[MarkT]

And on and on and on and on and on and on. So sorry folks, nothing has been an accident. "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them falls to the ground apart from the will of my Father."

So does man have free will? Hardly. God has every single detail of his plan for creation worked out right down to the numbers of hairs on our heads. We were knit by Him in the womb, some created for noble purposes, others created for common use. So no indeed, man cannot altar one iota of God's plan. It's all being worked out the way he wants it to. "The Lord works everything out for His own ends-even the wicked for a day of disaster. People who believe in free will don't seem to believe that verse either.

Right. Everything that is done is done according to God's will. However, we do have freewill. The question is why does it matter and to whom would it matter? Let's look at Mary for example. She believed the angel when he said God had chosen her. She believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the LORD. She believed all things were possible with God. So we either believe or we do not. It's not by our will that we believe or disbelieve. No one is holding a gun to our head. And yet we do believe, just as Mary did, that all things are possible with God and we know why. It's because we recognize the voice of our master; Jesus. Right?

As far as the church is concerned, we know Jesus said, "No one can come to me except the Father draws him." It's plainly the will of God that we believe. However, since freewill is irrelevant to whether we believe or not, why is it always coming up in discussion? The only thing freewill is relevant to is sin; our desire to follow our passions and whether we will say 'no' to temptation. We do have the ability to say 'no'. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. It is our will, however, to please our Father. But remember Peter swore he would never betray Jesus and he did so three times and Jesus said don't swear by heaven or at all that you will perform anything because we can't make anything happen that isn't the will of God. We can not say what we will do at any time. But to say we have no freewill is wrong. Even Jesus had freewill. He had to learn obedience. As Paul said, "Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered." Hebrews 5:8 Jesus was given life in himself as the Father has life in himself. He was born a man. Satan tempted him. He resisted. But that's not to say he could do anything of his own accord. He could only do what he saw the Father doing. In a way, this is understood. It's the knowledge of God. In this way we understand ourselves; that we are in the true vine and God is the vinedresser. He directs our steps. We plan our way. So it all depends on where our mind is set; whether it is set on God or it is set on the troubles of this world. However, when we set our minds on God and on the imperishable things, then our choices are being directed and informed by the Spirit of Christ. In this way he is our shepherd and we are his sheep. Obedience doesn't make us robots. On the contrary, the truth sets us free. But in any event, we might stray; we might go after the things of this world but God help us, he will not let any of us go. He will not lose any that belong to him.

So I guess what I'm saying is it doesn't profit anyone to boast that they have freewill because Satan will then come along and challenge you to see if you can do anything apart from or without God.

 

[stranger]

Response to Drew:

2 Kings 20:1-7 (New American Standard Bible)

Hezekiah's Illness and Recovery
1(A)In those days Hezekiah became mortally ill And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him and said to him, "Thus says the LORD,
'(B)Set your house in order, for you shall die and not live.'"
2Then he turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD, saying,
3"(C)Remember now, O LORD, I beseech You, (D)how I have walked before You in truth and with a whole heart and have done what is good
in Your sight " And (E)Hezekiah wept bitterly.
4Before Isaiah had gone out of the middle court, the word of the LORD came to him, saying,
5"Return and say to (F)Hezekiah the leader of My people, 'Thus says the LORD, the God of your father David, "(G)I have heard your prayer, (H)I
have seen your tears; behold, I will heal you. On the third day you shall go up to the house of the LORD.
6"I will add fifteen years to your life, and I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria; and (I)I will defend this city for My
own sake and for My servant David's sake."'"
7Then Isaiah said, "Take a cake of figs." And they took and laid it on the boil, and he recovered.

General comment:

The King's indiscretion (showing treasure to the enemy in 2Kings 19) is, in my opinion, the cause of Hezekiah's death bed illness. There is an embodiment of Israel's impending death (by invasion) cojoined with Hezekiah's impending death. When Isaiah brings him the prophetic word - it is a word of interpretation of the King's situation as well as an affirmation of his impending death. Any hope of cure is further removed by the end 'and shall not live. So the word brought the already dying king even closer and deeper to the experience of death than his illness would afford. We know that 'as is the King so are the people' in terms of embodiment - Israel was threatened by invasion as the King lay helpless on his death bed. The first prophetic word also produced in Hezekiah - prayer and tears - I suggest of repentence in a similar way when Jonah preached yet 40 days and Ninevah will be destroyed. . . The second prophetic message was in response to Hezekiah's prayer - this was life from the dead in three days - death being the ultimate threat to separate the King from the house of the Lord. But crucial is the reason for God's names sake and for the sake of the promise to David. This was also threatened by the foreign invasion.

Overview:

Hezekiah's offence (shows treasure to the enemy)
Hezekiah's impending death - Israel's impending death
The prophetic word of interpretation / death sentence. . .
Hezekiah's (therefore israel's) repentence
The prophetic word of deliverance/ Hezekiah's delivernace /Israels deliverance
(the prophetic interpretation - For God's Names sake - and for David's sake (covenant promises).


Drews arguments

1. The Lord (though Isaiah) tells Hez that he will not recover. In order for God to not be lying, He (God) needs to believe that the future

includes the event of Hez' dying of his immediate illness.

2. After Hez prays, God states that Hez will indeed recover.

3. We know that Hez recovers. This is a fact.

4. So when God initially claimed that Hez would not recover, He held a view of the future that did not, in fact, match the future that actually played out.

5. Therefore God does not know the future exhaustively, at least at certain times, anyway.

Response:

God does not know the future exhaustively, at least at certain times anyway? I don't think this reasoning (points 1 to 5) does justice to the
text because: it is not spiritually based, nor does the claim to use a 'literal interpretation' give consideration to the the prophetic word nor overall context of what is happeneing.

1. The prophesy is that Hezekiah is to get his house in order and shall die and not live. The supposition is that it is related to Hezekiah showing an enemy delegation the treasures- a serious offence the King committed.

2. God says He has heard Hezekiah's prayer, seen his tears, and healed him. Three days later to go into the house of the Lord. Again death is the ultimate separation from the house of the Lord - this was also implicit in the threat now averted.

3. We know that God works deliverance to Israel, and Hezekiah recovers.

4. No future was played out other than what God sovereignly determined. While this is as much a statement of faith - it is also reasoned in terms of the context of the account. If my people should humble themselves and pray - God's hand humbled Hezekiah and I believe Israel.

5. God knows the future and keeps the covenant for His names sake and for the sake of His servant David (more explicitly - God's promise to David was threatened by Hezekiah's indiscretion).

In the example a prophetic word from Isaiah wrought repentance and averted the danger. The word included a threat and interpretation of the existing circumstances - let us remember that the King was already on his death bed. When you saythat God can't see into the future (for some things) as far as Hezekiah goes it was a time frame of three days. Are you limiting God's ability to see three days into the future - let alone the preparations of the massing of the foriegn army which even an astute diplomat could observe. (Likewise with Jonah - yet 40 days Ninevah would be destoyed, even Jonah knew God would be merciful if the people repented.) If my people humble themselves and pray God promises to answer. Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct Him?

 

[Drew]

Drews arguments

1. The Lord (though Isaiah) tells Hez that he will not recover. In order for God to not be lying, He (God) needs to believe that the future

includes the event of Hez' dying of his immediate illness.

2. After Hez prays, God states that Hez will indeed recover.

3. We know that Hez recovers. This is a fact.

4. So when God initially claimed that Hez would not recover, He held a view of the future that did not, in fact, match the future that actually played out.

5. Therefore God does not know the future exhaustively, at least at certain times, anyway.

Response:

God does not know the future exhaustively, at least at certain times anyway? I don't think this reasoning (points 1 to 5) does justice to the
text because: it is not spiritually based, nor does the claim to use a 'literal interpretation' give consideration to the the prophetic word nor overall context of what is happeneing.

1. The prophesy is that Hezekiah is to get his house in order and shall die and not live. The supposition is that it is related to Hezekiah showing an enemy delegation the treasures- a serious offence the King committed.

2. God says He has heard Hezekiah's prayer, seen his tears, and healed him. Three days later to go into the house of the Lord. Again death is the ultimate separation from the house of the Lord - this was also implicit in the threat now averted.

3. We know that God works deliverance to Israel, and Hezekiah recovers.

4. No future was played out other than what God sovereignly determined. While this is as much a statement of faith - it is also reasoned in terms of the context of the account. If my people should humble themselves and pray - God's hand humbled Hezekiah and I believe Israel.

5. God knows the future and keeps the covenant for His names sake and for the sake of His servant David (more explicitly - God's promise to David was threatened by Hezekiah's indiscretion).

In the example a prophetic word from Isaiah wrought repentance and averted the danger. The word included a threat and interpretation of the existing circumstances - let us remember that the King was already on his death bed. When you saythat God can't see into the future (for some things) as far as Hezekiah goes it was a time frame of three days. Are you limiting God's ability to see three days into the future - let alone the preparations of the massing of the foriegn army which even an astute diplomat could observe. (Likewise with Jonah - yet 40 days Ninevah would be destoyed, even Jonah knew God would be merciful if the people repented.) If my people humble themselves and pray God promises to answer. Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct Him?

I find your argument a little difficult to follow and precision is absolutely critical in these matters.

I want to ask you a specific question: Are you saying that if Hezekiah was to die, this would have threatened God's ability to keep His promise to David? It seems that this is the lynchpin to your argument.

If you can make that case, then you may have something. How do you know that God could not have kept his promise had Hezekiah indeed died?. Please be as specific as you can.

Can you also explain your reference to an army massing.

 

[Free]

I've been too busy so this is a little late.

There are a couple of problems with your Federer analogy. The first is that it is purely about a specific skill and thus falls very short as an analogy for man's free choices versus God's sovereign plan for Creation. The numerous prophecies in Scripture absoultely require that God know every choice a man will make, such seen in the lives of Moses and Joseph. Not only does it depend on their choices but of a myriad of people around them.

Could guide God merely guide every individual involved in a given prophecy to get the desired outcome without knowing the choices these individuals will make? Sure, it's possible, but there is no way that every prophecy would come true.

The second problem is that both Federer and you are living in time. God is not. Open theism traps God in time which means that he isn't eternal and therefore, not God.

Perhaps one of the biggest problems for open theism is that God both knows the future and doesn't know the future. But this is impossible - either God knows the whole future or he knows none of it. There is no possible way that God cannot know the future and yet guarantee the outcome of any given prophecy. This is echoed by John Sanders who admits that God can make mistakes.

1Jo 3:20 for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.

Joh 21:17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep."

Drew, I strongly suggest that you look at what CARM has to say. Open theism is not a theology that can be supported by Scripture and serves only to undermine God and Scripture. I must bow out of this discussion as I respect you too much to see you argue for such a theology (not that I'm right on everything either).

 

[stranger]

Hi Drew,

I find your argument a little difficult to follow and precision is absolutely critical in these matters.

I want to ask you a specific question: Are you saying that if Hezekiah was to die, this would have threatened God's ability to keep His promise to David? It seems that this is the lynchpin to your argument.

If you can make that case, then you may have something. How do you know that God could not have kept his promise had Hezekiah indeed died?. Please be as specific as you can.

Yes. The only successor to (Hezekiah's) throne was born after Hezekiah was healed. Had Hezekiah died then the promised lineage to David would have been terminated with Hezekiah. So Hezekiah was healed for the sake of God's name and for the sake of the promise to David which we know is fulfilled when the lineage reaches Christ. Also Manasseh (Hezekiah's son) and his son are seen in Matthew's genealogy as part of that unbroken promise. No plan B would work.

A similar type of scenario is found with Abraham and the promised son to Sarah. If Sarah did not conceive - due to old age or death - there was no plan B. Abraham had a version of 'plan B' via the son born to the slave woman - but her (Hagar's) son could not inherit the promise. So plan B was not viable. Yes, God's purpose would be thwarted indeed if He could not fulfil His promise in the specifics to the specific people concerned. God could raise a son to Abraham from a stone but He did not make the promise to a stone.

Can you also explain your reference to an army massing.

A figure of speech - the correct usage is probably 'to mass' an army means to gather a large number of solders together. I am not sure if Hezekiah was already under siege when he became ill.

 

[Drew]

There are a couple of problems with your Federer analogy. The first is that it is purely about a specific skill and thus falls very short as an analogy for man's free choices versus God's sovereign plan for Creation.

I agree but I think your observation only strengthens my argument. God is so much more in control of the evolution of the world than Federer is in charge of the tennis match. This is an even more compelling case to the effect that God need not know the future exhaustively and yet can still ensure outcomes.

The numerous prophecies in Scripture absoultely require that God know every choice a man will make, such seen in the lives of Moses and Joseph. Not only does it depend on their choices but of a myriad of people around them.

Could guide God merely guide every individual involved in a given prophecy to get the desired outcome without knowing the choices these individuals will make? Sure, it's possible, but there is no way that every prophecy would come true.

You need to defend this claim, not merely assert it. Why, and please be precise, does God need to know every choice that people make to ensure that the prophecy comes true? - you cannot just expect us to accept this without a supporting argument.

I believe I have done my part - I have provided an analogy which I think effectively shows that some agent, Roger Federer in this case, can indeed ensure a specific outcome without knowing everything about the future. I do not think you have found a flaw in the analogy. Your "specific skill" objection does not seem to work - I could easily rework the analogy to get around that objection. If you want me to, I will.

The second problem is that both Federer and you are living in time. God is not. Open theism traps God in time which means that he isn't eternal and therefore, not God.

You simply claim that God is not living in time. You need to justify this. Are you sure you are not using a vague cultural model of God to arrive at your conclusion? Why, and please be specific, does God not live in time? Because he created it? That is not an argument. God's act of creation could have involved limiting Himself to being confined by time. Christians who believe in any human free will at all have to admit that the very act of granting humans free will involves God "giving up" absolute control of every detail of the Universe's evolution through time.

Perhaps one of the biggest problems for open theism is that God both knows the future and doesn't know the future. But this is impossible - either God knows the whole future or he knows none of it.

I think this is incorrect. It is conceptually possible for a being to have limited knowledge of the future. Again, you are really just making a claim here.

There is no possible way that God cannot know the future and yet guarantee the outcome of any given prophecy

This is another assertion that needs to be supported by an argument.

 

[Drew]

Stranger:

For once, a valid argument against my take on 2 Kings 20. Good thinking. I will investigate but it appears you have a solid case. What say you to the Jeremiah text, though?

 

[stranger]

Drew wrote:
As a follow-on to my previous post: Consider the following text from Jeremiah 26:

Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him to death? Did he not fear the LORD and entreat the favor of the LORD, and the LORD changed His mind about the misfortune which He had pronounced against them?

If God had intention A at time t1 in respect to entity X, He must , at t1, have held in his mind a particular view of the future, F1, that included the effects of His carrying out intention A.

Since, at t2, God changed His mind in respect to what He wants to do to X, at t2 God has a new and different intention B in respect to entity X. So, at t2, He must hold in His mind a view of the future F2 that includes the effects of His carrying out intention B.

What does it mean to say that God knows the future exhaustively from the beginning of time? It means that God consistently over time holds a single view of the future.

Can F2 = F1 as would be required in order to assert that God exhaustively knows the future?

Of course not, F2 differs from F1 at least in respect to what will happen to X.

Therefore God cannot know the future exhaustively.

Now of course, one can always add unstated qualifiers to change the "He changed His mind" statement to effectively mean "He only seemed to change His mind".

I would be interested in possible justifications for such a move.

Hi Drew,

Let me say that the Bible is full of threatenings and warnings, a taboo thought but when I first heard it, it was a relief to hear.

In cases where 'God changed His mind' or 'God relented' the context is one of intercession eg by Moses for the people of Israel, OR a straight out 'change/ repentance' by those whom the impending judgment was aimed at. This change of mind or relenting/ sometimes expressed as repenting is covenant based.

Habakkuk 3:2
O Jehovah, I have heard the report of thee, and am afraid: O Jehovah, revive thy work in the midst of the years; In the midst of the years make it known; In wrath remember mercy.

The crossing of man past an invisible line, a point of no return, divides 'life' between mercy and judgment. That some men go too far can be readily accepted. The bringing back a man (like Hezekiah) from the brink of death is itself a miracle where God remembers mercy in judgment. So in examples like when God moves to destroy Israel - He also hand picked Moses to be an intercessor for Israel.

In the example in Jeremiah it is clear that the prophet(s) spell out the two options ie mercy and judgment, in v3 and 4 - see highlighted portions

3 Perhaps they will listen and each will turn from his evil way. Then I will relent and not bring on them the disaster I was planning because of the evil they have done. 4 Say to them, 'This is what the LORD says: If you do not listen to me and follow my law, which I have set before you, 5 and if you do not listen to the words of my servants the prophets, whom I have sent to you again and again (though you have not listened), 6 then I will make this house like Shiloh and this city an object of cursing among all the nations of the earth.' "


Covenant conditional clauses simplified:

A. IF you listen THEN I won't. . .F1 blessings
B. IF you don't listen THEN I will. . .F2 curse

For argument's sake suppose F1 and F2 represent possible futures. I would say the descriptions of both possible 'futures' are sufficiently detailed to reasonably assume that God in fact knows both 'futures'. Proof of God knowing the future is seen clearly because F1 and F2 were possibilities presented to the minds of the hearers. This is precisely an expansion of the covenant blessings and curses, nothing more. When this whole covenant logic was set up through Moses - God's foresaw the 'failure' of obedience by the Law as a means of salvation.

Can F2 = F1 as would be required in order to assert that God exhaustively knows the future?
Of course not, F2 differs from F1 at least in respect to what will happen to X.
Therefore God cannot know the future exhaustively.

I would agree that the futures F1 and F2 are very different in respect to X. But I don't see why F1 has to equal F2? God knows both paths and where they lead.

If A then F1, where F2 is set to 0.
If B then F2, where F1 is set to 0.

It is better to contemplate our Lord Jesus Christ: '2 Corinthians 5:21 NASB He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. In a unique way I suppose logic about the future finds resolution in Christ.

 

[lovely]

Hi Drew,

Even though I have not used the following line of argument in this thread, I believe that it is questionable to even talk about "the future" as an object of possible knowledge. I am not even sure that "the future" is a "real thing".

I think it is more correct to say that God has declared that He will do certain things.

I am not sure I fully understand your question.

I believe that God intends to do certain things and that He will most certainly achieve all that He intends to do.

However, I see no reason to believe that God has a plan in respect to everything - maybe He has no plan re what I will eat for dinner tonight.

But I do agree that if God plans to do "X", this also nails down other things as well by implication. But I do not see why this would need to nail down everything.

Hi Drew,

I am sorry I didn't respond sooner. I think that the future is real to humans, in a sense, because time as a measurement was created for us. We know that more events will happen in another second or so, even if we don't know what they are. And there are some we do know, those we are meant to know...like the rotation of the planet, or the seasons, etc. Of course, if God knows specific future events beforehand, then they are real to Him already, and are only being revealed to us by Him. (I know you probably do not agree here.) I guess I would say that the future is reality, but only for those who are not subject to time. Genesis says that time was created for us...the Universe was set like a clock by God, and even our own internal brain clocks are set, for the purpose of signs and seasons...days, weeks, months, years. If God created time for us, then I would suppose that He is outside of it ultimately. I think that is why He is able to foreshadow events for us, and why He enables some to prophecy. The time thing is for another discussion, though.

I understand your closing statement, but it seems to indicate that God is not interested in the individual, and the details that affect their lives... and the lives of others they touch. I don't think that is the case, and I don't mean to imply that you think it, but I think that would be the conclusion of the thought that some things are in God's hand (nailed down), but others aren't. I think His plan is made up of details, and that they are all related, and that if glued together they would make up God's plan through out the ages...throughout the day, the moment. I think the foreshadowing in Scripture can be added to things like prophecy to show that God does know events that will happen (Our future) in detail...both Heavenly and earthly, and those events that surround them, and those that surround them, and so on, and so on. Events that were, and are, shadows of things to come happen only to point to Christ, and to work God's will. Where do we draw the line, and how do we determine which events are significant to His plan, and which aren't? I guess I would assume that they all touch one another, and affect the future in an endless chain. I am not sure that one can assume that things happen outside of His will, and I don't see a pattern for that in Scripture. I just wanted to point out foreshadowing as another indicator of God's knowledge of the future in detail. I hope it is something else you consider as you search out the open theism ideas. The Lord bless you.