Joined: 07 Jan 2005 Posts: 65 Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 6:20 pm Post subject: Openness Theology and Conditionality of Prophecy
Hi Eugene (and others)
I'm up to p. 19 of your Ends of Time booklet. A thought: have you considered the relevance of Openness Theology to your thesis? This view proposes that the future is partly settled and partly open. It seems to fit nicely with your view of conditionality and multiple scenarios.
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:20 pm Post subject: Re: Openness Theology and Conditionality of Prophecy
spozzie wrote:
Openness Theology...proposes that the future is partly settled and partly open.
I'm not aware of a single Bible text that sustains their suspicions. You must think there are many. What, in your opinion, is the single best Scripture reference to prove true the speculation that God doesn't know the complete future?
Joined: 07 Jan 2005 Posts: 65 Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:27 am Post subject: Re: Openness Theology and Conditionality of Prophecy
Eugene Shubert wrote:
spozzie wrote:
Openness Theology...proposes that the future is partly settled and partly open.
I'm not aware of a single Bible text that sustains their suspicions. You must think there are many. What, in your opinion, is the single best Scripture reference to prove true the speculation that God doesn't know the complete future?
Hi Eugene
Now, I am truly mysified. I understood you to be suggesting that God had provided multiple scenarios in Revelation for the end of all things on the basis that Christ could have returned at any of those times. Your whole approach to conditionality only makes sense if the future is, at least, partly open and influenced by human decisions. Otherwise, if it was set, God could have just given one scenario! Anyway, allow me to offer one single Bible text as a preliminary example (not claiming it is the best):
' He said, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.”' (Ge 22:12, NRSV)
God did not know the outcome of Abraham's test until he chose to be faithful.
Therefore, the future is, at least, partly open, even for God.
One more for good measure :-) Your Jeremiah text about God changing his plans according to the response of a nation also demonstrates that the future is partly open.
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:00 pm Post subject: The Seventh-day Adventist view
spozzie wrote:
Now, I am truly mystified.
And you should be mystified. Therefore you may have arrived at a sensible state of mind.
spozzie wrote:
I understood you to be suggesting that God had provided multiple scenarios in Revelation for the end of all things on the basis that Christ could have returned at any of those times.
That is correct.
spozzie wrote:
Your whole approach to conditionality only makes sense if the future is, at least, partly open and influenced by human decisions.
It's obvious that we have free will and that our decisions impact the future. There's no need to prove that. You allege that free will contradicts God's foreknowledge. That is where you and I disagree.
You also presuppose that if a concept is beyond human understanding, then it is a contradiction. Your belief system is naïve and dangerous. It's clear that the Bible teaches the free will of man and the foreknowledge of God.
spozzie wrote:
Otherwise, if it was set, God could have just given one scenario!
If you start with the presupposition that God is finite and only a little bit smarter than you, then I suppose it's easy for you to rationalize the belief that you are fully aware of what God means when He speaks in Scripture and the real purpose and intent behind everything He does and the complete range of His possible options when dealing with rebellious creatures that possess a free will.
spozzie wrote:
God did not know the outcome of Abraham's test until he chose to be faithful.
So you must think that God is a reckless cosmic gambler who ran the risk of sin possibly becoming immortalized and Christ possibly being defeated by Satan. Surely if God didn't know the outcome of Abraham's test, then He couldn't have known the outcome of the test (to be devised by Satan in the future) that Christ was to endure. Matthew 4:1-11; Matthew 26:52-54.
See Patriarchs and Prophets, page 43, paragraph 1
Chapter Title: Why was Sin Permitted?
"He that ruleth in the heavens is the one who sees the end from the beginning--the one before whom the mysteries of the past and the future are alike outspread, and who, beyond the woe and darkness and ruin that sin has wrought, beholds the accomplishment of His own purposes of love and blessing."
"The purpose and plan of grace existed from all eternity. Before the foundation of the world it was according to the determinate counsel of God that man should be created, endowed with power to do the divine will. But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. God knows the end from the beginning. . . . Therefore redemption was not an afterthought . . . but an eternal purpose to be wrought out for the blessing not only of this atom of a world but for the good of all the worlds which God has created."
Joined: 07 Jan 2005 Posts: 65 Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:01 pm Post subject: Re: The Seventh-day Adventist view
Eugene wrote:
Spozzie wrote:
Your whole approach to conditionality only makes sense if the future is, at least, partly open and influenced by human decisions.
It's obvious that we have free will and that our decisions impact the future. You say that free will contradicts God's foreknowledge. That is where you and I disagree.
Correct. I believe that God sovereignly chose to make the world in such a way that the future is partly settled and partly open. The partly open part is not known by God until it happens. In my view, the Scripture evidence points in this direction.
Quote:
You also presuppose that if a concept is beyond human understanding, then it is impossible. Your belief system is naïve and dangerous. It's clear that the Bible teaches the free will of man and the foreknowledge of God.
I do not presuppose that if a concept is beyond human understanding then it is impossible. For example, I do not understand exactly how Jesus can be fully human and fully divine -- but I do believe that is possible because the Bible teaches it. You have ascribed a presupposition to me which I do not hold.
IMO it is not so clear that God has complete foreknowledge of the future. I could provide an almost endless list of Scriptures that point to this fact (if you desire them). The link you have provided on God's foreknowledge lists a series of proof texts that do not teach that all of the future is settled and, therefore, God has comprehensive foreknowledge of future events. Not one of the texts deal with the issue of whether or not God knows the future outcomes of human decisions or not. These texts are understood to say this because of a presuppostion that the future is completely settled. For example, Isaiah 46:10-11 is discussing the certainty of God bringing about what God decides to do and proclaims God will do. The claim that these texts refute "openness theology" can easily be demonstrated to be incorrect.
Quote:
spozzie wrote:
Otherwise, if it was set, God could have just given one scenario!
If you start with the presupposition that God is finite and only a little bit smarter than you, then I suppose it's easy for you to rationalize the belief that you are fully aware of what God means when He speaks in Scripture and the real purpose and intent behind everything He does and the complete range of His possible options when dealing with rebellious creatures that possess a free will.
I do not believe God is finite, nor do I believe that God is 'only a little bit smarter than' me. God is infinite, omniscient, and omnipotent. Suggesting that I am rationalizing my belief of what God means when God speaks in Scripture does not address the actual evidence. You, yourself, have provided an argument in favour of an approach to prophecy which claims new light on how God has presented future events. I could just as easily respond to your argument by saying that you are rationalising the belief that you are fully aware of what God means when God spaks in Scripture. I don't do that because it is not relevant. What is relevant is whether or not you have provided a solid argument that is consistent with Scripture. IMO, openness theology has done just that.
What is interesting to me is that your own theology of multiple scenarios is precisely what one would expect to be true if openness theology is correct in its understanding of the nature of the reality God has sovereignly created. It is your approach which provides more evidence for openness theology. You may discover, if you haven't already done so, that the same willingness you desire from your readers when exploring your own thesis regarding multiple scenarios, when applied to openness theology, may give you added weight to your own theology of prophecy.
Quote:
spozzie wrote:
God did not know the outcome of Abraham's test until he chose to be faithful.
So you must think that God is a reckless cosmic gambler who ran the risk of sin possibly becoming immortalized and Christ possibly being defeated by Satan. Surely if God didn't know the outcome of Abraham's test, then He couldn't have known the outcome of the test (to be devised by Satan in the future) that Christ was to endure. Matthew 4:1-11; Matthew 26:52-54.
You have caricatured openness theology here. God is not a reckless gambler, but God did run the risk of the consequences of sin becoming immortalised and Christ possibly being defeated. You are quite correct, actually - God neither knew the outcome of Abraham's test or Christ's test. And your whole approach to prophecy is the same. You identify a range of times when, if Israel had responded to God's will time would have come to an end. In response, God alters his activities to bring about his overall plan (which, because God is infinitely capable, is guaranteed to come about despite the responses of people).
Whatever arguments you propose undermine openness theology have the same effect on your thesis of multiple scenarios.
Quote:
See Patriarchs and Prophets, page 43, paragraph 1
Chapter Title: Why was Sin Permitted?
"He that ruleth in the heavens is the one who sees the end from the beginning--the one before whom the mysteries of the past and the future are alike outspread, and who, beyond the woe and darkness and ruin that sin has wrought, beholds the accomplishment of His own purposes of love and blessing."
Openness theology is completely consistent with this statement from EGW (note, though, I would prefer biblical evidence).
"The purpose and plan of grace existed from all eternity. Before the foundation of the world it was according to the determinate counsel of God that man should be created, endowed with power to do the divine will. But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. God knows the end from the beginning. . . . Therefore redemption was not an afterthought . . . but an eternal purpose to be wrought out for the blessing not only of this atom of a world but for the good of all the worlds which God has created."
The only thing that EGW is incorrect in here is saying that God knew of the actual defection of humanity. Everything else is correct. EGW herself describes the risk God took:
Quote:
Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss.
The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth!{DA 49.1-2} (emphasis supplied)
If the future outcome of Christ's incarnation and testing was known beforehand, then there can have been no risk. Risk requires uncertainty.
Quote:
Jesus took upon Himself human nature, and with it the possibility of yielding to sin (DA 117). He was permitted to “meet life’s peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss” (DA 49). Only thus could it be said that He “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). Otherwise, if, as some assert, Jesus, being divine, could not be tempted—then His temptation was a farce. It was through His human nature that He experienced temptation (cf. DA 686). Had His experience with temptation been in any degree less trying than our experiences with it, “He would not be able to succor us” (DA 117).
Nichol, F. D. (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary : The Holy Bible with exegetical and expository comment. Commentary Reference Series (Mt 4:2). Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association.
Risk was a part of God's sovereign plan. Risk requires uncertainty. Therefore, uncertainty was part of God's sovereign plan.
I could provide an almost endless list of Scriptures that point to this fact
I'm sure that you could. But what you can't do (I bet) is demonstrate that you studied all the evidence carefully by presenting only one Scripture evidence that you think is the most conclusive.
It's obvious that we have free will and that our decisions impact the future. There's no need to prove that. You allege that free will contradicts God's foreknowledge. That is where you and I disagree.
You have failed to understand my point, even after I revised it. Please provide a cogent argument that proves a contradiction.
Joined: 07 Jan 2005 Posts: 65 Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:58 pm Post subject:
Eugene Shubert wrote:
spozzie wrote:
I could provide an almost endless list of Scriptures that point to this fact
I'm sure that you could. But what you can't do (I bet) is demonstrate that you studied all the evidence carefully by presenting only one Scripture evidence that you think is the most conclusive.
I think you are asking something which is unfair. There are some things that need to be concluded after weighing up all the evidence. I am suggesting that everything you have written about conditionality in prophecy and multiple scenarios is evidence in favour of the view that the future is partly open.
Anyway, my original question was to ask whether you saw the relevance of the openness view for your view. Clearly you don't so that is ok. I do and it helps to confirm a lot of what you are saying.
Joined: 07 Jan 2005 Posts: 65 Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:04 pm Post subject:
Eugene Shubert wrote:
Eugene wrote:
It's obvious that we have free will and that our decisions impact the future. There's no need to prove that. You allege that free will contradicts God's foreknowledge. That is where you and I disagree.
You have failed to understand my point, even after I revised it. Please provide a cogent argument that proves a contradiction.
Before I present any argument, can I be clear what I am stating. I am asserting that the future is partly settled and partly open - and that there are some parts of the future that are not even known by God. God is omniscient in the sense of knowing all there is to know. But God has sovereignly chosen to create a reality where human choices influence future events and God waits to see the outcome of those choices.
Prove that free will contradicts an exact foreknowledge of the future by any argument. Also prove that the Scripture's teach that the Father has limited vision with respect to future events.
Joined: 07 Jan 2005 Posts: 65 Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 5:30 pm Post subject:
Eugene Shubert wrote:
Prove that free will contradicts an exact foreknowledge of the future by any argument. Also prove that the Scripture's teach that the Father has limited vision with respect to future events.
I'm not willing to engage in a philosophical debate on the first point because I know, from prior experience, that it doesn't get anywhere. There are philosophical arguments that I am aware of that allow people to deny the first claim.
However, I am very willing to look at Scripture in support of the second point. If that is confirmed from Scripture, then the first issue is redundant.
Because this is a discussion forum, then I would be happy to proceed in the following way:
1) I will state two claims.
2) I will provide a series of Scriptures (one at a time) which I believe are evidence for the two claims.
3) We discuss each passage, sharing our interpretations of each passage, and why we interpret it the way we do.
4) We then move on to the next passage.
In this post, I will do 1) above and present the first passage with my interpretation and then wait for responses from everybody. When we feel that we have exhausted the discussion on that one passage, I will present the next one.
IMO, approaching it this way brings some order to the discussion and gives us an opportunity for each of us to have our thinking tested out to see how we are faring. In addition, we can examine the evidence more comprehensively than we have so far.
My two claims are:
1. The future is partly open and partly settled.
2. God has given humans the ability to make choices for which God does not know the outcome until they are made.
The first Scripture passage I would like to offer for discussion is:
The author of Genesis wrote:
' So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.' (Ge 2:19, NRSV)
My Interpretation
God wanted Adam and Eve to have authority over the animal kingdom (Gen 1:28). Therefore, God created the animals and birds and brought them to Adam for naming. The text states that God did so 'to see what he would call them'. This text implies two things:
1) God gave Adam the choice of what to name the animals.
2) God did not know what Adam was going to name them because God is described as waiting 'to see what he would call them'
If God had predetermined Adam's choices, God would have known beforehand what Adam would name the animals. If God already knew what Adam would name the animals, then the text is incorrect in describing God's motive in bringing the animals to Adam. If God did, indeed, know what Adam was going to call the animals, the text could just have easily said something like, 'God predestined Adam to name the animals as he willed; so God brought the animals to Adam to be named so that God's glory and authority could be displayed.' The text doesn't say anything of the sort.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
