Posted on 08/07/2002 9:26:57 AM PDT by P-Marlowe
Like that's really heavy man.
Actually being one in three and three in one and then ONE all at the same time is pretty heavy too.
Maybe like uh God like really doesn't want any of us to like understand all this stuff at all. Ya know man? Maybe he like uh just wants us to like uh believe it or something, huh?
Anyone who says you can't love something and hate it at the same time has never played golf -- P-Marlowe
Out to the woodshed, with you. Have you been so long with us and yet have such a surprise as you describe? It cannot be. Methinks thou are jesting.
Notwithstanding, you do get us back to the above.
I'm from the simple foreknowledge group. Yet I fully recognize that we do some violence to the texts which talk about God being surprised, God changing His Mind, about God being grieved, etc. (Both we and the calvinists must de-literalize the texts to avoid a disengenuous God....which is the result of our normal literal style of reading.)
Personally, I don't think anyone's explained it to my satisfaction yet. Some form of allowing the tension to exist for the time being is a very honest position.
I wonder if they come together in some way similar to a parent sending a child off to summer camp with full intention of allowing that child independence? What will cause the parent to intervene? I just don't know how to elevate this idea to the divine realm.
The normal way of reading anything is to view it as literal unless the context demands the figurative.
Can not 'figures of speech' be allowed in scripture as in any other form of writing?
The Bible is not a theological text book and cannot be approached as such.
Context will explain the figures of speech and the only way one can know if the figure must be viewed as a figure is constant comparing and searching scriptures.
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth (2Tim.2:15)
What do you mean, 'He knew He was going to change'
History is running as God is controlling it,(factoring in the free will decisions of mankind and Angels) with no 'shocks' or 'suprises' to God.
You make four statements and I agree with them all. But the problem is the 'disconnect' between statement 1 and statements 2 and 4. Of course, there are 'figures of speech' in the Bible and, yes, context can explain them, BUT, as you aptly put it in statement 1, we can't leave 'plain meaning' unless there is some clue that the writer intended a figure of speech.
For example, a common clue might be where mountains are said to call out. Since we know that, in human experience, mountains are not heard to speak or call out, we take that as a clue to figurative interpretation.
But it is hard to say that God pondering or considering a course of action or changing His intended course of action in response to the importuning of His people is beyond His capability.
Consider, for example, God's reaction to the Israelites' worship of the golden calf in Exodus 32:9-14. One of the reasons the passage is so problematical is precisely because there is no indication whatever in the text that anything is intended in any figurative sense. There seems little room for 'reconstructing' this passage.
Many have argued that God doesn't change, but the creature changes. But this passage doesn't really allow for that. It is quite clear that God changed His announced (and presumably intended) course of action in direct response to Moses' plea.
As to your question in #308, "What do you mean, 'He knew He was going to change'?" I mean simply this. Under either the determinist view or the simple foreknowledge view, God knew, at all times (for example) that He would come out at the Ex. 32:14 position, and He similarly knew that He would initially take the Ex. 32:9-10 position in response to their apostacy.
Thus, my point: under either view, He had to know He was going to change His position. Under such a view, it seems to me that one has to argue that He purposefully took variant positions (and that the first one was insincere) in order to encourage or validate certain behavior by Moses that would appear to cause Him to change His position. That is a troubling interpretation to me, because there is not an ounce of a clue in the text to that effect and therefore it clearly violates your statement 1 (with which I agree). Your thoughts?
Don't have one. Obviously, I am not a determinist (not because of any foreknowledge problems, but because I don't think the determinist view can be reconciled with the nature of God as revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ).
Neither am I a Molinist (the second category) because I am not sure how it could work. Molina's concept was that man could be a be a free agent with libertarian free will (merely a term to contradistinguish compatibilist free will) and God could still control the outcomes because He can foreknow all possible outcomes and influence them. [My metaphor here is the police setting up road blocks on all the roads leaving town, so the perp has complete free will on which road he takes, but God still handles the outcome. That's my own homely example. The Molinists in the crowd (if there are any) would probably have a cat.] The Scholastics were convinced that one could have both free will and determinism everywhere else, but I'm just don't understand how. [Guess you have to be a Jesuit to understand it. :-)]
The next step down the determinist ladder is 'simple foreknowledge' which is the view I have always held and defended. This view posits God knowing all outcomes without causing them. As usual, Mr. Wesley displayed the concept well,
"... it should be well observed, that when we speak of God's foreknowledge, we do not speak according to the nature of things, but after the manner of men. For, if we speak properly, there is no such thing as either foreknowledge or afterknowledge in God. All time, or rather all eternity, (for the children of men,) being present to him at once, he does not know one thing in one point of view from everlasting to everlasting. As all time, with everything that exists therein, is present with him at once, so he sees at once, whatever was is, or will be, to the end of time. But observe: We must not think they are because he knows them. No: he knows them because they are."
This is the 'outside history' solution to the foreknowledge issue.
But this view has the problems we have been discussing. They may not be quite as fatal to the view (as they would be to determinism or Molinism) but they are very troubling for they require us to abandon our usual hermeneutical principles to preserve our construct. And, as all here well know, I think defending a priori constructs at the expense of inductive interpretation of Scripture is a bad, bad puppy.
So, I not only don't have a one-liner, I don't have a good answer to the dilemma.
Amen.
But it is hard to say that God pondering or considering a course of action or changing His intended course of action in response to the importuning of His people is beyond His capability. Consider, for example, God's reaction to the Israelites' worship of the golden calf in Exodus 32:9-14. One of the reasons the passage is so problematical is precisely because there is no indication whatever in the text that anything is intended in any figurative sense. There seems little room for 'reconstructing' this passage. Many have argued that God doesn't change, but the creature changes. But this passage doesn't really allow for that. It is quite clear that God changed His announced (and presumably intended) course of action in direct response to Moses' plea.
Yes, but God always knew that Moses would pray that prayer and thus God's 'intention' and Moses prayer were always known, with God's wrath giving way to mercy. What God 'saw' outside of time, really occured in time. The decisions that were made by both God and Moses were real ones.
As to your question in #308, "What do you mean, 'He knew He was going to change'?" I mean simply this. Under either the determinist view or the simple foreknowledge view, God knew, at all times (for example) that He would come out at the Ex. 32:14 position, and He similarly knew that He would initially take the Ex. 32:9-10 position in response to their apostacy. Thus, my point: under either view, He had to know He was going to change His position. Under such a view, it seems to me that one has to argue that He purposefully took variant positions (and that the first one was insincere) in order to encourage or validate certain behavior by Moses that would appear to cause Him to change His position. That is a troubling interpretation to me, because there is not an ounce of a clue in the text to that effect and therefore it clearly violates your statement 1 (with which I agree). Your thoughts?
I do not see it that way. The problem we have is realizing that what happens in time (although known by God) is nevertheless real.
Thus, God saw the incident happen in time,with His wrath about to destroy the Jews and Moses's prayer. That was a 'real' time event. That God always knew about it doesn't effect the ral nature of it! God sees after the incident how it would turn out and thus, knows that Moses reacted correctly and He in turn responds to that prayer.
In real time,it could have turned out differently. A case in point is Saul and his rejection by God. God states that had Saul not disobeyed Saul's family would have ruled (1Sam.13:13).
God is speaking truthfully, yet, God always knew that the rule would come from the line of Judah and predicted that back in Gen.49.
Another example is Christ. Christ had to suffer and go to the Cross.
Failure was a possiblity since the temptations were real. Thus, what God sees in time really happens and God just knows them before hand.
Did God always knew that Moses would pray that prayer-yes.
However, God knew that Moses would do so on the basis of a real situation that God was in fact on the verge of doing.
The same case can be made for Ninevah.
That city was going to be destroyed but repented.
God always knew that they would repent, but He knew on the basis of a real threat!
Thus, God sees actions in time as real because they are.
In time, the action is dynamic with a real tension since real decisions must be made.
Outside of time, the end is a given since God has seen every real decision, and knows the consquences of every decision and action.
In other words, could we look at like this?
God desires to create rational beings to share His love with. He runs 'history' like a 'tape' or 'computer program'. He sees what will happen if He creates Lucifier, what will happen when He creates Adam, He sees every free will decision as actually occuring. Thus, that 'tape' contains every decision made, including His own interventions. After running the 'tape' and seeing how free will operate, the entrance of sin and death, and His own handling of it, God says, 'this one will do' and that is the 'tape' or 'program' that we call 'history' which includes all the free will decisions of man and Angels.
The 'tape' that we know as 'history' and 'time' is being run for real now but God always forsaw what the actions would be when they occured in real time.
I have always contended that that is the best answer. We know in part. Isn't that enough? I agree that when you read the bible inductively you don't have to solve these problems, because they don't exist as problems. It is only when you dance around the scripture looking for "proofs" that you end up with these doctrinal difficulties.
You can prove Calvinism by "proof" texts and you can prove Arminianism by "proof" tests. So what does that prove. It proves they are both right and they are both wrong -- at the same time. (kinda like God existing in all places and all times at the same "time.")
"Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you, God?"
"Yes, you're ugly." -- Steven Wright
OK, let's take this a step at a time. God didn't just vent His wrath, He promised two distinctly different approaches in 32:9-10 and 14:
[1]"I have seen this people, that they are a stiff-necked people. So now, leave me alone so that my anger can burn against them and that I may consume them; and I will make from you a great nation." and[2]Then the Lord relented over the evil that he had said he was going to do to his people.
So, when He promised to annihilate the Israelites and build a new nation from Moses, did He really mean it? When He said that was that His true intention and purpose?
If so, then He genuinely changed His mind after He heard Moses' plea. And so, under the simple foreknowledge view, we have God, knowing He is going to change His mind. He knows He is going to take position A, that Moses is going to importune Him about it, and that He is then going to take position B as a result of Moses' plea. What sense does that make?
The determinists are even worse off. Because they would have everything set from the foundation of the world, they would have a schizophrenic god 'decreeing' B, then A, then B. So, they have to reinterpret the Scripture (without a whit of justification in the text to do so) in order to preserve the construct.
I agree with everything you say about 'inside history' being dynamic, etc. That would be fine if only we changed in that 'dynamic' process. But the problem is not that God knows the outcome, but how do we handle clear, unconditional statements of Scripture that God took different positions at different times within that 'dynamic' history?
Outside of time God knew the sequence: 1, 4, 7, 9, 12, 72 would transpire. At the time of God's knowing, 1,4,7,9,12,72 are not real YET. However, my writing of the sequence in time just a few minutes ago (1,4,7,9,12,72) made it finally real.
I truly felt like I was choosing those numbers off the cuff; totally uncoerced. They became real FOR ME for the very first time. They became real FOR GOD for the very first time.
Let's start over. Let's say that in addition to knowing 1,4,7,9,12,72 that God also predicted 1,4,7,9,12,72. A few minutes before the numbers were to be published, let's say God directly says to me, "I am grieved. Write 1,4,7,12,72, 99." I say, "Please don't follow through on that." God says, "OK. Make it 1,4,7,9,12,72." And I do.
1. God's prediction is upheld.
2. God gives the impression that he IS ABLE AND ALLOWED to change the "becoming real" of a predicted event.
It seems to me that you are saying that, when God told you personally to write "1 ... 99", He was being disingenuous, i.e. He 'gives the impression ...." I agree that this is where one must go with 'simple foreknowledge.'
That was what I meant in #309 above to FTD:
"Under such a view, it seems to me that one has to argue that He purposefully took variant positions (and that the first one was insincere) in order to encourage or validate certain behavior by Moses that would appear to cause Him to change His position. That is a troubling interpretation to me, because there is not an ounce of a clue in the text to that effect and therefore it clearly violates your [hermeneutical principle of literalism absent textual clues for figurative treatment] (with which I agree)."
Doesn't that trouble you? It seems to me that we are then doing exactly what we continually criticize the Calvinists for doing, allowing their construct to dictate the interpretation of Scripture. Your thoughts?
[BTW, it sounds like someone in your congregation has had some experience in praying for Powerball numbers. :-)]
They were 'real' as God saw them are they not? God saw you in time thinking that. They became 'real' for you but God always saw them as real.
I truly felt like I was choosing those numbers off the cuff; totally uncoerced. They became real FOR ME for the very first time. They became real FOR GOD for the very first time.
They were always 'real' for God because God saw what you would do in time.
For example, barring the Rapture, we are going to die.
That time and day and moment is fixed.
It is real to God even though it hasn't yet happened.
When it happens to us, it will be real only to us, not to God since God always saw the event as being real.
Let's start over. Let's say that in addition to knowing 1,4,7,9,12,72 that God also predicted 1,4,7,9,12,72. A few minutes before the numbers were to be published, let's say God directly says to me, "I am grieved. Write 1,4,7,12,72, 99." I say, "Please don't follow through on that." God says, "OK. Make it 1,4,7,9,12,72." And I do. 1. God's prediction is upheld. 2. God gives the impression that he IS ABLE AND ALLOWED to change the "becoming real" of a predicted event.
Yes, but it is not an 'impression' but is real since it predicated on your response to God's grieving and that He always knew how you would really respond.
If you had not responded but reacted then the predication would have come about.
I don't know about you, but I am getting a headache!:>)
Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, it is high, I cannot attain unto it (Psa.139:6)
Rotflol!!!
Exactly. God gives the impression He is able and allowed to change the "becoming real" of a predicted event. If He is NOT able or allowed to change the becoming real, then He has gone through a disengenuous exercise, going out of His way to give a false impression.
The fact that this event has just become "real" doesn't change the implications of it for God.
Marlowe says to hold it in tension until a better answer shows up. I'll go with simple foreknowledge until that time, but I'm uncomfortable with the charge of disengenuousness on the part of God BECAUSE such a charge would have legitimacy.
The anthropomorphic (pathic) answer doesn't satisfy either. There's not a hint of such a thing in the text at all. The only reason one would propose such an answer is because they'd been stymied by the apparent disengenuousness if changing direction for God were not possible.
Yes, God really meant it.
If so, then He genuinely changed His mind after He heard Moses' plea. And so, under the simple foreknowledge view, we have God, knowing He is going to change His mind.
Correct, that is the 'dynamic nature' of time.
He knows He is going to take position A, that Moses is going to importune Him about it, and that He is then going to take position B as a result of Moses' plea. What sense does that make?
God sees (on this tape) Himself in time interacting with mankind.
The reactions of man are part of the dynamic quality of free will that God himself adjusts to!
God wants to save Jerusalem but 'ye would not', so the city is destroyed!
We are dealing with a 'directive' and 'permissive' will that God is allowing.
Now, you say what 'sense' does that make regarding Moses.
God has decided to give his rational creatures and active role in His Plan.
Abraham almost saves Sodom and Gomorah! He does save Lot (which was his intention), but had he continued to ask God to spare the city down to 1 (Lot) the city might have been spared.
Only in eternity will be know what God would have done differently had we prayed!
God knows the end from the beginning, but He has allowed His own actions to be moved by the responses of His own creatures.
The determinists are even worse off. Because they would have everything set from the foundation of the world, they would have a schizophrenic god 'decreeing' B, then A, then B. So, they have to reinterpret the Scripture (without a whit of justification in the text to do so) in order to preserve the construct.
They remove 'freedom' which is the 'problem' that God faced!
Chafer noted that the creation of rational creatures created a 'crises in the essence of God', in other words, once it was decided that rational creatures were going to be able to say 'no' to God, God had to deal with the resultant problems of sin and death, which cost Him His own life!
The desire for God to share His own love with rational creatures who could respond freely to that love meant a dynamic system, one in which God interacted with those creatures and giving them real choices and options.
God knew what those decisions would be and what His decisions would be.
I agree with everything you say about 'inside history' being dynamic, etc. That would be fine if only we changed in that 'dynamic' process. But the problem is not that God knows the outcome, but how do we handle clear, unconditional statements of Scripture that God took different positions at different times within that 'dynamic' history?
I see God responding to man's decisions, a response that God always knew He would make, yet which was nevertheless a real decision in time.
It is as if God could detach Himself and put Himself in time while remaining outside of it.
He notes Himself about to destroy Ninevah and then He sees the repentance and so He decides not to do so (since He is merciful).
Outside of time, God is 'noting' all of this and when history is completed all of His own actions in time with the actions of mankind have been 'set' as history.
He could have seen Ninevah not repent and then seen history differently, destroying it.
That 'history' did not happen in real time, thus, God sees both His intent for destroying Ninevah as real and the 'change' in his mind, due to repentance as real.
Outside of time, God always knew it but only because He saw it in time as really happening, including His own reactions and responses to prayer,repentence and rejection.
I do not understand how a charge like that could be held to be legitimate.
You are playing chess with God.
He knows every move you are going to make.
Some moves that He chooses to make are in response to yours, some are not.
Your moves are completely free as are His.
He knows your moves and yet allows them.
He may even tell you, don't move your pawn or I will take your rook. You do not move and so He doesn't take the rook.
If you had moved the pawn you would have lost the rook.
Did God always know what you would do to his warning? Yes, but the warning was real as was your reaction to it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.