Verse that refutes both Calvinism and Open Theism at once?

[Homer]

Daniel,

You wrote:

And yet I haven’t mentioned the first reason that comes to my mind. It is that, for the skeptic, Open Theists have all but eliminated that chief internal biblical evidence the Bible uses to prove God—fulfilled prophecy. This is especially important for predictions involving people in which God is not manipulating man’s sinful responses. For to predict the actions of sinners who engage in sin—an activity God always opposes without exception (I take great issue with the common translation of Rom. 8:28, which implies God uses sin for His own ends, i.e., the good of the believer)—is to show that God is able to know the future without in any way manipulating future sin to come to pass.

Point well taken! Christianity is based on the belief of certain facts, and fulfilled prophecy is among the most important of facts. God is not just a "good guesser".

I suppose the open theist would argue that God fulfills prophecy by intervening as necessary in order to bring the fulfillment about. But then in that case, He must void free will, and it would seem necessary at times for Him to override free will in a large number of people to bring about His will. I am not arguing that God can not or does not do this, only that at least some of the time the open theist must admit (at least it seems to me) that God overrides free will. The question then becomes how often? To maintain their position, I would think that they would argue that the amount of time God intervenes is miniscule, but God can intervene by many means to bring about His will, and what proof have they that He does not directly intervene routinely? The answer can not be found in logic.

I ordered that tuna sandwich, all the while believing that God knew I would do so, and the only compulsion I felt was my preference for a tuna sandwich. Perhaps God made me compulsively desire tuna sandwiches, but then the time before I ordered chicken. And then again, perhaps God was totally surprised by all this. Hmmm..

[TK]

This morning on the way to work I was listening to Steve G talk about one of the Psalms- Ps 7 I believe.

That Psalm has imagery of God's bow being bent, ready to release "arrows" of judgment against the wicked.

Steve was addressing why God doesn't simply let the arrow fly; his point, which I believe to be correct, is that God is patient and waiting in order to give the wicked a chance to repent.

It is this type of thing that makes me have to at least keep an open mind about open theism.

Doesn't God know whether or not the wicked will repent? This whole idea of Him "waiting to see" only seems to be true if in fact He doesn't know.

I know DG brought up the prophetic passages, but there are also passages like this that sure seem to suggest God doesn't know (yet) some things. Of course, those passages could just be rhetorical, poetic, or anthropomorphic.

TK

[steve7150]

I suppose the open theist would argue that God fulfills prophecy by intervening as necessary in order to bring the fulfillment about. But then in that case, He must void free will, and it would seem necessary at times for Him to override free will in a large number of people to bring about His will. I am not arguing that God can not or does not do this, only that at least some of the time the open theist must admit (at least it seems to me) that God overrides free will.





Yes that would be the case, we may have free will to the extent it fits with God's plan but it's not a birthright.
In Gen 15.13 God tells Abraham the Israelites will be in Egypt 400 years yet due to Moses disobedience (killing the Egyptian) and going into the wilderness (which God did'nt tell him to do) the Israelites were in Egypt 430 years (Acts 7). It appears God allowed the scenerio to change due to the actions of Moses yet God still eventually used Moses when Moses was prepared. Yet God originally told Abraham 400 years and he could have included Moses disobedience originally in the prophecy and told Abraham, 430 years.
Some people claim it's a rounding thing to make 430 years into 400 years but i don't think it's any harder to say 430 years then 400 years , i think God changed his mind.

[DanielGracely]

Hi Steve 7150,

I think you're treating as synonymous the idea of Israel's "sojourn" (Ex. 12:40-41) and Israel's "affliction."

God tells Abraham in Gen. 15:13 that his descendents would be afflicted 400 years in a land that was not theirs. Steven in Acts 7:6 actually repeats this statement:

And God spake on this wise, That his [Abraham's] seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat [them] evil four hundred years.

The only references I have found so far referring to Israel's sojourn in Egypt being 430 years is in Ex. 12:40-41 and the same idea deduced from Gal. 3:17. I think a natural reconciliation of Gen. 15:13 and Acts 7:6 with Ex. 12:40-41 and Gal. 3:17 is to assume that Israel was afflicted in Egpyt for 400 years, but began their sojourn 30 years prior. If this is not the case, that is, if Israel immediately entered slavery upon their entrance into Egypt, it would require the immediate rise of a Pharaoh who "knew not Joseph," which doesn't seem to fit the narrative, and God's mistakenness about what he told Abraham, which I don't believe the Bible ever teaches.

[John]

I tend to ask the same types of questions as TK as I read through scripture. Ezekiel 22:30-31 comes to mind as God addresses the wickedness of Israel's leadership:

So I sought for a man among them who would make a wall, and stand in the gap before Me on behalf of the land, that I should not destroy it; but I found no one. Therefore I have poured out My indignation on them; I have consumed them with the fire of My wrath; and I have recompensed their deeds on their own heads,” says the Lord GOD. (NKJV)

So my question is, was God genuinely looking for someone He knew would not be there?

Another section of scripture that comes to mind is Isaiah 5:1-4:

Now let me sing to my Well-beloved
A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard:

My Well-beloved has a vineyard
On a very fruitful hill.
He dug it up and cleared out its stones,
And planted it with the choicest vine.
He built a tower in its midst,
And also made a winepress in it;
So He expected it to bring forth good grapes,
But it brought forth wild grapes.
“And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah,
Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard.
What more could have been done to My vineyard
That I have not done in it?
Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes,
Did it bring forth wild grapes?

I understand these verses to be literal. If they are anthropomorphic, what are they communicating? As I understand it, anthropomorphic language is supposed to communicate something about God (i.e. "the eyes of the Lord God" communicates something of his knowledge). Maybe they do, and I am just missing it. But a literal read seems to make sense to me.

I know that there are a lot of people on this board have put in a lot more work than me in this area regarding God's knowledge and the nature of reality. I appreciate your contributions to this thread, and I look forward to continuing to learn from all of you.

[RickC]

Greetings -

I can't follow all of this! (for a few reasons, some of which I've mentioned).
But I think I can reply to -

Hi RickC,

I’m puzzled why you would draw from this quote of mine…

One thing of note: they continue to agree with Edwards that to know the future would necessitate causing it to come to pass. That much they admit to. And that is where I disagree, based on the Greek semantic use of progonoskw (to foreknow), which they avoid discussing.

…the inference that I am claiming that Open Theists agree with Edwards that God’s foreknowledge causes future events. I have never thought nor stated that. Rather, I was merely restating in my own words what I emphasize in the below quote from Boyd et al's article that you directed me to:

“On the one hand, OFV proponents agree with Ockhamists (over against Edwardsians) that there are future contingents, i.e., that the future is causally open. For obvious reasons, we’ll call this the contingency thesis. On the other hand, they agree with Edwardsians (over against Ockhamists) that semantic settledness presupposes causal settledness."

Unless I’m misunderstanding what Boyd is saying, he’s not simply saying that Open Theists agree with Edwards that God knows everything there is to know. He is also saying that Open Theists agree with Edwardsians that the (theoretical) idea of God foreknowing human choice presupposes causality affecting the future (which Open Theists reject as an impossibility).

Hello Daniel -
The next sentence from the pdf can explain things (which sentence I have in bold).
"On the one hand, OFV proponents agree with Ockhamists (over against Edwardsians) that there are future contingents, i.e., that the future is causally open. For obvious reasons, we’ll call this the contingency thesis. On the other hand, they agree with Edwardsians (over against Ockhamists) that semantic settledness presupposes causal settledness. In other words, it is strictly true that something will happen if and only if it is causally determined that it happen."

Brief definition - Future Semantic Settledness (FSS, "semantic settledness" above):
There exists a set of truths that is both maximal and consistent and completely characterizes one unique future.

OFVs agree with Edwardsians that if something is causally determined [by God], it will happen.

From Boyd's lecture notes (first posted on p. 1) -
3. God Settles Whatever He Chooses Ahead of Time and Opens Up Possibilities Ahead of Time to Whatever Extent He Chooses

Now I'll break it down into 3a and 3b (to clarify where they agree and disagree) -

3a. God Settles Whatever He Chooses Ahead of Time
OFVs and Edwardsians agree that the future is semantically settled on "Whatever He Chooses" to be semantically settled. OFVs say some of the future is semantically settled, Edwardsians say it is all semantically settled.

3b. [God] Opens Up Possibilities Ahead of Time to Whatever Extent He Chooses
Edwardsians do not agree with this phrase as, for them, the entire future is semantically settled by reason of EDF (God's Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge).
================================================================

Thus, OFVs agree with Edwardians partially and only on a specific point.
They agree specifically on the point that God is the cause of what He has predetermined will happen. OFVs disagree specifically that God has settled the future exhaustively by virtue of EDF (Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge).
================================================================

'Don't know if that helps any, but I tried! Thanks!

[Homer]

And this makes no practical sense to me:

From Boyd's lecture notes (first posted on p. 1) -
3. God Settles Whatever He Chooses Ahead of Time and Opens Up Possibilities Ahead of Time to Whatever Extent He Chooses

And how are we to know how much of the future is settled and how much is open? Not even a sparrow falls to the ground apart from the Father. God is apparently involved in ordinary, everyday things. Did God determine the sparrow would fall? Was He surprised? Did He know it was going to happen and not veto it? Who knows?

I believe that God exhaustively knows the future and that man has free will. I understand the arguments of those of the reformed and open theist positions that say that my belief is a logical contradiction. I am content in the idea that God is unknowable to us except anthropomorphically. So I keep the following idea in mind:

Romans 11:33 (New King James Version)
Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!

Job 26:14 (New King James Version)

Indeed these are the mere edges of His ways,
And how small a whisper we hear of Him!
But the thunder of His power who can understand?”

[RickC]

Homer, et al,

Just in case anyone might be wondering; I've utilized this thread as a tool to better understand the OFV. If it seems like I'm "debating" or trying to convert anyone to my view - I'm not! (I'm still formulating it, even)! And thanks to all for the interaction!

It appears that I'm at least in a fair amount of agreement with Greg Boyd, based on what he said in his video (April 2008) and the articles he and others wrote (circa 2006). I don't know to what extent I agree with everything Boyd says (I'm finding that out as I go).

That I'm a "non-Calvinist" goes without saying (to those of you who know I debated against Calvinists on this forum, summer of 2006, if I'm not mistaken). Never the less, it's true that I've never found Arminianism satisfactory.

In any event, I concede that God cannot know future possibilities [as perfectly as if they are certainties] - if future possibilities are not ontologically real. So far, I see no reasons as to why they could not be - to God.

Actually, I thought this before reading or watching Greg Boyd or studying OFV. I was just thinking about it, quite some time ago. I didn't base my thinking that 'the future may have ontologically real possibilities' based on any certain scripture(s), that I can recall. I just thought that this could, surely, be possible with God. Much of what Boyd is saying, I'd thought about, but never articulated it out or thought it through.

That's "where I'm at" with all of this.

I (and/or Greg Boyd) could be wrong. So I continue studying....
That's all I have for now, thanks!

[DanielGracely]

Hi RickC,

Just a question before I run out, while admitting here to be so scheduled-up this morning as to not have read through all your comments (though, of course, I hope to by later today). But could you define for all of us what "semantic settledness" means in ordinary layman terms, that readers here would naturally agree to? Or is this "definition" the problem? I'm not actually sure (yet) that this request of mine can be answered by you to everyone's satisfaction, since I have come to believe (over the last year or so, in general) that what divides people in disputes is in the end fundamental disagreements about what words and terms actually mean. I can elaborate with an example of why I think so, if you wish. Or I might just go ahead and explain what I mean, as soon as I get the chance to return to commenting.

Thanks in the meantime for attempting a more or less universally-granted definition of "semantic settledness" in layman terms. And yet I remain concerned that even if you paraphrase this term in simpler language, the dispute may not disappear.

[steve7150]

The only references I have found so far referring to Israel's sojourn in Egypt being 430 years is in Ex. 12:40-41 and the same idea deduced from Gal. 3:17. I think a natural reconciliation of Gen. 15:13 and Acts 7:6 with Ex. 12:40-41 and Gal. 3:17 is to assume that Israel was afflicted in Egpyt for 400 years, but began their sojourn 30 years prior. If this is not the case, that is, if Israel immediately entered slavery upon their entrance into Egypt, it would require the immediate rise of a Pharaoh who "knew not Joseph," which doesn't seem to fit the narrative, and God's mistakenness about what he told Abraham, which I don't believe the Bible ever teaches




Hi Daniel,
According to my NIV in Ex 12.40 it says the Israelites were actually in Israel 430 years "Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years."
This is written by the same Moses who wrote in Gen 15.13 they would be in Egypt 400 years. The reason for the difference may have been because Moses murdered the Egyptian and fled , disobeying God.
In addition in 1st Sam 13.13 it says that if Saul would have been obedient to the Lord his kingdom would have endured forever, not David's. Also we have the case of God adding 15 years to Hezekiah's life and many other cases like these therefore if we read these literally, God changed his mind. Certainly we need not read these instances literally but i've often heard Steve G say "how would Jesus listeners understand his words" therefore i ask the same question about Moses audience.