What single instance do you have in mind, Hans? Orthodox Christianity has traditionally understood texts which teach that God changes His mind or repents as anthropomorphisms, figures of speech according to which God accomadates His speech to human beings and presents Himself as He seems to us, not what he actually is.Originally Posted by Hans Deventer
The problem with that idea of antropomorphism is, however, that we have no revelation, higher than the Scriptures, by which we can assign such a statement to these events. The truth here is that the Scriptures didn't fit the preconceived notions of what a god should be, and the so called antropomorphisms are merely labeled as such as an escape for folks who rather submit to their own ideas than to the Scriptures. ("Of course God cannot......." Says who?). Pretty sad, actually. It is similar to the idea that God the Father cannot suffer. It all says more about human ideas about God than about the teachings of the Holy Writ.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 LaughingPaul DeBaufer - "thanks" for this post
marcus, I will give you two. Genesis 18 God says in the presence of Abraham - let us go down to Sodom and see if the outcry there is as great as we have heard. In Genesis 22 - just as the hand of Abraham is stopped, God says "now I know." In both cases the language is clear. God does not know - then He does. Now, later commentators have called these anthropomorphisms, but have done so because the text does not fit their theology. There is nothing in the text that directs the reader toward this view. We at least need to read the story as is, before we decide to fit it into our comfort zone.
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
BTW, there is an interesting phenomenon here that Michael Lodahl opened my eyes to in his "Claiming Abraham: Reading the Bible and the Qur'an Side by Side". Dr. Lodahl shows how both the Jewish tradition and the Qur'an moved in a similar direction, away from those "anthropomorphic" statements. Allah, of course, knows nothing of change, is all knowing, totally sovereign and basically demands submission. It's always interesting to see which Christian tradition suits this idea of God best.
The tendency is less strong in the Jewish tradition but it is remarkable how the direction there is similar.
It seems people have a very strong desire to create a god according to their own ideas. Of course the Early Church was strongly influenced by Greek philosophy, and had huge problems with the way especially the OT depicted God. It's funny how it all fits. Both in the later Jewish traditions, in the Early Church, in Islam, and in various later Christian traditions we find these tendencies to dismiss the parts of Scripture that describe God in ways that do not fit what they think suits a god. And thus they let their human ideas triumph over the testimony of the Scriptures.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
At least you're being consistent in your denial of anthropomorphisms. Are you denying Gods exhaustive knowledge of the present and past, also? Most open theists would have a problem with that. A literal interpretation of Gen 18 leads to the conclusion that God knows neither the past sins of Sodom, nor the present state of the city. The literal reading of this text as attributing ignorance to God is not only, imo, a failure in exegesis (failing to take a figure of speech as a figure) - but
also fundamentally abhorrent to Christian theism.
First, God had promised unconditionally more than once that He would make of Abraham a great nation. So any suggestion that God may possibly have to find someone else is, dare I say, impossible.
Second, God knew exactly what was in Abraham's heart as he trekked up the mountain, and Abraham even expressed his faith that he and Isaac would return (Gen, 22:5). It didn't take the raising of the knife for God to know Abraham's God fearing heart. He clearly already knew this about him.
And third, what did the 'openness god' learn from this test? Simply this, that in this one instance, Abraham fears God. Now this god can compile the data and make astute predictions about the probablity of the future faithfulness on Abraham's part. However, the openess god has no guarantee that Abraham will be faithful in the future. What assurances could God have to say Abraham would remain faithful in the future? This turns the "now I know" statement into nothing more than a mere transient comment/feeling.
This is why I never got into Greek philosophers. After reading so much of the bible from childhood on up, I never resonated with Hellenistics phillosophy.
I can see this philosophy in Crucified God by Moltmann. I wondered where on earth did he come up his conclusions and questions, then read more about Lutheran theology first. Once I realized that he believed in God's immutability [and I don't], I could better understand why this was such an issue for him when it wasn't for me.
Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. 1 John 3:18
There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. 1 John 4:18a
Become an organ donor ~ donatelife.net ~ www.organdonor.govPost Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
It is quite ridiculous to label the idea of antropomorphism as an "escape for folks who rather submit to their own ideas than to Scripture." Both Orthodox Christianity as well as traditional Rabinical interpretation of these texts has been to treat them as anthropomorphisms. These "folks" you speak of are Christians and Jews down through history. Do you realize how ridiculous that makes your comment above? Your open theism requires us to believe that the overwhelming majority of Christians and Jews have misunderstood history, theology, and exegesis for thousands of years.
12-15
"Preach the gospel; if necessary use words" is like saying "feed the poor and; if necessary use food."
Well, it is a bit of a mute point now. The point is really not relevant anymore as this thread has not dealt with the topic as a specific doctrine. If you look at Wilson's OP he basically says... "Hey you predestinarians, does predestination deal with salvation or everything?" To which I replied, that when spoken of theologically, as a specific doctrine, predestination deals only with Salvation or Soteriology, Hans also concurred.
Yes, it certainly does get confusing, as many non-predestinarians use the term predestination for everything, and to make it even worse some of "us" have used it in an accommodating way when writing to interact with "you guys."
Based upon the very specific question in the OP I presumed we would be using the precise theological terms, that hasn't happened. But, just for info, if you were to go to a Theological Library or search a Theological Dictionary, or even peruse most Christian or Systematic Theologies and you looked up "predestination" the definition/discussion would most often deal with salvation exclusively. To look up the "God wills Everything" stuff you have to look at the doctrine of Providence and really this is just part of that doctrine. If you go to Wyle's Christian Theology you'll find Providence under Cosmology and this is different from what you will read about Predestination which is earlier in the text.
So what you have done here is much like if you and I were assigned math problems, we would get and "answer" when we were done. Yet to the Mathematician "answer" is not strictly correct, he wants it phrased as, sum, product, quotient ect, There is need for specificity when speaking in this realm. Based upon the OP I thought we were headed that way, but we didn't...
So for us it is not so confusing, for you it probably is. In outline for it goes like this:
I. God's Sovereignty (Including God's Decrees Which is a doctrine you don't have)A. In CreationB. In Providence1. Salvation2. EverythingSo, this goes to my question to you about, Superlapsarianism, that is, what has it got to do with the price of tea in China (that is your objection to an active governing, controlling God)
Since I am hit or miss do to my Conference attendance I'll just make that rhetorical...
You see suprelapsarianism has nothing at all to do with your objection. The Infralaprarian and the Supralapsarian both as far as your position/objection is concerned are EXACTLY the same. Your attempted use of Superlaprarian as a modifier here is just incorrect; on the order of asking someone "what time is it? Only to receive the answer "Purple!"
You have no Doctrine of the Decrees of God therefore the order of those decrees means nothing to you. We have a Doctrine of the Decrees of God therefore the order of the decrees is an in house issue for the Predestinarian. That is all those terms refer to. Did the decree of God to save man, come prior to the foundation of the world, prior to the fall or did the fall occur and then God decreed the salvation of man. That's it. Either of these lapsarian understandings only deal with exactly when did the fall occur (Lapse) and they only deal with the salvation of man and have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with "God Controlling Everything For His Glory."
The lapse has nothing to do with God's Providence or active Governance. So your statement read sorta Like " There is more than one way to skin a stitch in time that has nine lives"
Or we can just stick with Purple!
George
Last edited by George Wallace; July 24th, 2012 at 10:13 PM.
"Preach the gospel; if necessary use words" is like saying "feed the poor and; if necessary use food."
As a Reformed Christian whose faith has so little connection to Christian tradition and historical theology, your appeal to history rings extremely shallow.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
Good one!
Sorry, just is what it is.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
congratulations
I'm not looking for any "congratulations" at all. However, for someone whose theological tradition itself shuns Tradition as a source of authority in favor of sola Scriptura and arrives, ultimately, at an articulation of the Christian faith that would be foreign to most Christians in most places, for most of Christian history, I am surprised by two things:
(1) That you would try to appeal to tradition where you feel it suits you
(2) That you are bothered or surprised at all that someone would be honest about how far removed your articulation of the Christian faith is from historical Christian tradition.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
But, by both of these comments you aren't just indicting Marcus and his Reformed-ness (Isn't he actually a Nazarene?) but you are indicting ALL of Protestant Christianity, to include the Church of the Nazarene and ironically also the church you attend, which is still The "Protestant" Episcopal Church.
"Preach the gospel; if necessary use words" is like saying "feed the poor and; if necessary use food."
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
The only ridiculous thing is that I tried to answer you seriously, Marcus. Sometimes, I'm just a fool. I should have known so much better by now. You know everything better, and always refuse to listen. To answer such a person in the first place, yes, that is ridiculous. My sincere apologies and I promise not to do it again. May God help me.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
In Ben's defense, I've attended Episcopal and Anglican services from time to time, and I can report that although there is no doubt regarding their protestant status, they actually consider themselves not to be. It is actually surreal to hear their conversation in this regard, cognitive dissonance perhaps? In any case it's only natural that Ben would pick this up.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
Marcus, take a step back and re-read the thread. You issued a challenge to cite one text where God does not know the future. In response I cited two. I could have gone to Amos or Jonah, where the text plainly states that God changes His mind, but did not. I could have cited a number of texts in Jeremiah where God plainly states, if you continue to do this, I will banish you....... But if you change, then I will relent from my plans....... Yet, I did not cite those either. I just mentioned two texts in Genesis where God clearly does not know. Simple and plain reading.
Then you respond by claiming I do not believe in God's knowledge of the past, and challenging me on what open theists believe or do not believe. Marcus, this is the problem. You cited a simple challenge, and I gave you 2 clear examples. The text says what it says. Now you immediately want to jump ahead with theological categories. You are already admitting that you are reading the text with later theological categories in mind. The text cannot mean what it says because later Greek thought has imposed these categories. Now, these categories may be important and may be right, but before we start to take the text and filter it through these categories, can we not at least admit the text plainly says what it says?
If you had asked me to cite texts where God has knowledge of the future, well, we could have listed many as well. Then we take the texts that seem to talk of God's knowledge of the future, and we take the many texts where He does not, and we honestly deal with both. We realize that Scripture is not uniform on some matters, so we examine, consider, and struggle with things from time to time. In this struggle we must be honest with the text and each other. There is time to talk about the pros and cons of open theism, but that was not your challenge. So in your responses, please at least remember what your challenge was.
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.Post Thanks / Like - 5 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Historical theology should play a vital role in shaping ones biblical, exegetical, and systematic theology, imo. Sola Scriptura is not a rejection of church tradition, it protects against church tradition having no reference to Scripture. As we've discussed before, its a straw man to argue that Protestants cannot appeal to tradition.
No worries, not surprised or bothered.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
No offense was intended, Hans. I realize that you were responding to me but your comments indicted the majority of Christian and Jews for thousands of years as interpreting these texts wrong, and you having it right. Do you see the irony?
Don't you see the irony? But I am wasting my time. Goodbye, Marcus.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)
Lol, funny. Actually, if you were to pay attention to our history in The Episcopal Church, you'd know that we took great pains to create our own Book of Common Prayer in 1979, which differs from the Anglican model, for the specific purpose of returning to more Catholic theology.
There is essentially nothing that goes on in my worship service that a Catholic wouldn't be 100% comfortable with, except for the lack of attention to Mary. But that is neither here nor there, because George missed the entire point anyways.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Well, George, this is simply false and you and I both know it is. You've boiled everything down to the lowest common denominator so as to group a bunch of stuff together that don't belong together. I'm not talking about only sola Scriptura, or even sola Fide. I am talking about the entire theology of Reformed Christianity.
Every Orthodox Christian I know, or have heard speak on the matter, has made a distinct difference between Anglican and Wesleyan theology on the one hand within Protestantism, and Reformed and Lutheran theology on the other. Every instance I know of has been very favorable to the former, and would say that the latter is much farther removed from their understanding of Christianity.... much farther removed.
Catholics also currently recognize Anglican Orders, while rejecting them outside of Eucharistic Communion with the Holy See of Rome. However, the only thing one needs to do is enter into communion, and they can become a priest in the Catholic Church. No such possibility exists for Reformed ministers, be they Baptist or Confessional.
The fact is that, Protestant or not, there is a wide chasm between Wesleyan/Anglican theology on the one hand and Reformed/Lutheran theology on the other, and the latter is a much larger departure from what would be recognizable as Christianity by most Christians, in most places, throughout most of Christian history.
When we get into "Baptist" versions (which is Marcus' theological community, regardles of where he worships), the chasm grows wider, and it is even more foreign.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
I understand this Ben, that's what makes it funny for me. When I sit in an Anglican service and hear a priest talk of his "protestant" friends it is difficult not to laugh out loud. Why imitation Catholicism? It makes no sense, just join up and actually be Catholic.
I don't know if George missed the point or not, I do know that should a dirty rotten predestinate scoundrel appeal to the witness of Christian practice and belief over the centuries, you who make tradition a voice in your beliefs should heed their counsel. You don't own tradition, you don't get to say who gets to appeal to it and who doesn't. It is part of the quad you know. While at the same time Marcus is right, Sola Scriptura is fully compatible with Wesleyan theology, Tradition, Reason and Experience cannot exist without Scripture which holds all authority. Thus to rely upon tradition which appears reasonable as an aid to interpret Scripture is very Wesleyan.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
There's more to being Catholic than theology. There is nothing "imitation" here. It is agreement with theology, while disagreement in polity.
Read my last response to him. He most certainly did.I don't know if George missed the point or not,
I don't know what this sentence means.I do know that should a dirty rotten predestinate scoundrel appeal to the witness of Christian practice and belief over the centuries, you who make tradition a voice in your beliefs should heed their counsel.
Never said I did. I simply pointed out that Marcus' appeal was shallow. He's more than welcome to do so, but it is going to sound very meaningless, considering where it is coming from.You don't own tradition, you don't get to say who gets to appeal to it and who doesn't.
Actually, the Quad, and sola Scriptura are completely different. They are not compatable, as they are 2 completely different ways of doing theology. I'm not talking about sola Scriptura here, at all, anyways. I'm talking about the entire theological construct of Reformed Christianity, all their theology together, is very foreign to most Christians, in most places, for most of Christian history.It is part of the quad you know. While at the same time Marcus is right, Sola Scriptura is fully compatible with Wesleyan theology, Tradition, Reason and Experience cannot exist without Scripture which holds all authority. Thus to rely upon tradition which appears reasonable as an aid to interpret Scripture is very Wesleyan.
The fact that they follow sola Scriptura should make this no surprise. However, sola Scriptura was never the point.... I know George wanted to hone in on that, but, again, he missed the point, and so is everyone trying to rally around it. And, again, it is a competing model with the Quad, not compatible, in any way.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
Can you explain further?
Oh, come now, Marcus. No Tradition is without reference to Scripture. You prove your position right there. lol. The only "tradition" for which that might be the case is a bunch of newer nonsense in the RCC that even the OC reminds them constantly isn't actually "tradition" at all.
Likewise, I didn't say Protestants cannot appeal to tradition. I said it rings shallow when Protestants like you attempt to do so.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
I'm not sure I would refer to it as a "challenge". I'm aware of the texts that when read in a literal sense seem to suggest God may not have exhaustive knowledge of the future. My inquiry wasn't for someone to inform me what the texts are. I was just curious which one's Hans finds most compelling, and since you responded, I responded to you.
I think you've read me wrong... most likely due to me not being more clear. I was speaking broadly, not necessarily to your individual beliefs, and wasn't challenging you on what open theist believe. My point was that if you find a literal interpretation of Gen. 18 compelling, the logical conclusion is that God does not have exhaustive knowledge of the past or present either. And I guess I assumed it went without saying that a discussion regarding anthropomorphisms is an admission that a literal reading of the text would suggest something else. So yes, since you asked, I confess that the "text plainly says what it says."
see above
The irony is that you accused me of claiming to be right and everyone else wrong, when in fact, this is what you were doing.
what part?
Similar to is ringing shallow when you appeal to Scripture? It all balances out.
The fact that you don't see the radical difference is very amusing. You are the one with an infallible source which rules over another..... not me.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
OK. Good and helpful response. Thanks. See, we can talk constructively.
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
nice going
I simply ask you make it plain for my understanding.
Again, it is what it is.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
Ben seems to think that Protestants disregard tradition and historical theology outright which is simply not true. Among other things, historical theology helps in distinguishing between orthodoxy and heresy and helps to provide sound biblical interpretation and theological formulations. It protects against individualism and an atmosphere where Christians pick and choose their doctrines like they pick and choose their fast-food meals.
As Alister McGrath puts it:In other words, Church tradition is ministerial, not magisterial. While it does not possess the authority to determine doctrine and practice, it still plays an important role in helping us to understand Scripture.Tradition is like a filter, which allows us to identify suspect teachings immediately. To protest that "We have never believed this before!" is not necessarily to deny the correctness of the teaching in question. But it is to raise a fundamental questions: why have Christians not believed this before? And, on further investigation, it usually turns out that there are often very good reasons for not accepting that belief. The past here acts as both a resource and a safeguard, checking unhelpful and unorthodox doctrinal developments by demanding that there supporters explain their historical and theological credentials. Importance of Tradition, p. 167
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Amen to this thought a hundred time over! This is applicable to every aspect, every office and every action contemplated by the Church!
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison KeillorPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
