divine mutability?

=======================================

Thanks Nosborne

Of course I have a high opinion of your scriptures believing that in the originals they are inspired. Unfortunately the text is not as certain as that of the NT.

The reason I felt I could ask ,apart from your prior generosity of taking the time to respond, was your maKing a point about the tense of 'bara', wasn't it? On the other thread you refer to what Torah does and does teach. So the bible appears somewhat authoritative (?) , seems important, to you. But were the meaning of words as elohim, the lexics involved and grammar of verbs which connect to it, insignificant, then I supposed you would not care. But if you did care, then I wondered why. Why be so careful with that which only has its origin in man. Thanks for trying to explain!

I know I impose, but only as you have time and interest, I would like to know why you insist that Messiah according to Torah must be man. Why would Messiah not die efficaciously for man's salvation according to your scriptures? Are these reasons exegetical, theological, traditional or? Of course Christians believe Jesus is Man, and evangelicals, as you know, believe also He is God.

 

Hey Bill,

Taking the Judeo-Christian perspective of God, what is there of God to change? He encompasses all things. In regard to His character, we see Him being good and not evil; from this perspective, He cannot (or could not) change, for He has said so Himself.

However, I've been giving some consideration to the idea that at core, that is, in God's essense, there is no good or bad, terms which denote a moral qualification, which I'm not so sure is a part of God AS HE EXISTS APART FROM DEALING WITH US--sinners in a sinful, fallen, bad environment. In this environment, God reveals Himself as being "good", but what about when He's not subjected to anything with evil in it--pre-creation?

I'm positing God being outside of the concept of "good" in His perfect habitation. I mean, what, is an angel going to say, "Boy, God sure is good, isn't He," as if another angel could respond "Yeah, He's real good. Glad He's not just good." There isn't any referent. There's nothing by which to judge God being morally good because there's no evil present to make the word "good" a comparison.

All this to say that it may be that even within the context of a quality of morality God is still unchangable. Otherwise, one could suggest that God could go "bad" on us--a change, most certainly, for the . . . worse! Can He? Apparently not; again, He says He cannot.

With regard to your note about open theism--"Open theism maintains that God is not exhaustively omniscient and that the choices His creatures make add to God's knowledge. It could be argued that an increase in knowledge is a change,"--I'd like to offer a more sharpened edge to this statement: open theism maintains that God is not exhaustive in his FOREKNOWLEDGE (He is exhaustive in his omniscience; He knows all there is to know.)

And for God to "learn" that we choose this instead of that, for instance, isn't to add anything to His "knowledge." If God did not know that such option existed, that such possibility was available, then He would be learning. But, as the master chessplayer He is, you may choose to move your rook instead of your Knight, but you haven't taught God anything. He hasn't learned anything. For He knows all possible moves and every combination of possible moves. You can't catch Him off guard.

2+2 is always 4. This is knowledge learnt, if God doesn't know this already. That one drives on the right side of the street verses the left (as in Europe), this is a possibility, and God knows about these also.

I happen to be an open theist, and I know that you weren't trying to misrepresent them or disrespect them. I just felt the need to sharpen up what most any open theist believes from the mouth of an open theist himself: me!

For the thoughts of God changing,

Starkman

 

Hey Bill,

Bill: Foreknowledge is part of omniscience.

Starkman: You define omniscience as including the future. The definition of omniscience is to know everything; it is knowing everything that there is to know. If there is no set future, there is no information to know, hence the future can't (in an open theist's view) be included in omniscience. God, of course, knows that particular future He has destined, but the rest hasn't happened. There isn't anything to know beyond what God's determined.

Bill:=========================================
And for God to "learn" that we choose this instead of that, for instance, isn't to add anything to His "knowledge."
=======================================
Of course it is! Boyd says "God finds things out." Boyd. Open View of future, p.5 . ... "Open Theism says God learns", John Frame, No other God, p23

Starkman: Again, Boyd isn't saying God learns in the sense of "Oh my, I never would have thought of that. Well, I'll be. That's news to me. This is information I never knew existed." That's not the pont at all. I should know more precisely what Boyd meant, because I've posted with him and read many, many clarifying posts about what he means in his open theism works. He does not mean that God learns new, unknown information--stuff like 2+2=4, stuff that always is, always will be. He does learn, however, when someone chooses to move the rook instead of the knight: "Well, he moved the rook. I wouldn't have Myself, but I haven't learned anything by His moving the knight instead of the rook--for I know all possible moves and am never caught off guard. I have, however, learned which move he chose."

As to God being surprised, wrong, ignorant, etc., these words, again, are only ways of saying that God goes through time with us. If there's no exhaustive future to know, and God wishes for Israel to obey Him--even hopes they will--and they don't, then God, as expressed clearly in Scripture, is sorrowful, let down, disapointed. He's not ignorant in the sense that He had no idea this knowledge was even available or possible--for God knows all possibilities. He's just expressing that which is part of the image in which we ourselves are made.

Oh, and I haven't quoted Boyd at all. Wasn't even thinking of him as I first posted. I've learned a lot from him and his site, but I know where I stand on the subject of open theism enough to not have to quote him. (Hek, it'd be more work for me to try and quote him than it is just to say what's on my mind!)

Finally, I know you weren't arguing that God changes. I was simply working out on my post what was in my head. I understand what you meant.

Thanks for loving me in all my good and wonderful theology (I'd make a smiley sticking its tongue out at you but . . . I can't seem to figure . . . out how to do it. Nope, I can't get it to post!!!

Starkman

 

Hey Bill,

Bill: Where are you getting your definition of omniscience?

Starkman:]/b] I got the definition from dictionaries. Hence, the simple, plain meaning of the word without theological additive:

om·nis·cient Pronunciation Key (m-nshnt)

adj.
Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.

n.
One having total knowledge.
Omniscient God. Used with the.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Medieval Latin omniscins, omniscient- : Latin omni-, omni- + Latin scins, scient- present participle of scre, to know; see skei- in Indo-European Roots.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
om·niscience or om·niscien·cy n.
om·niscient·ly adv.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
omniscience

\Om*nis"cience\, n. [Cf. F. omniscience.] The quality or state of being omniscient; -- an attribute peculiar to God. --Dryden.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
omniscience

n : the state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University


Bill: Yes, yes but what you are not apparantly getting is that Open Theism is being attacked right now by evangelicals who are quite adept and understand that system better than you do. See the JTS, June, 2002 or works Frame 0r Ware, and they say as I.. Further , Boyd either has or had the denomination which supports Bethel after his hide too. Neither are these unable to interpret him correctly and they say as I.

Starkman: I don't have Ware's work in front of me, though I've read some of his work, but . . . no, Ware doesn't have a better understanding of open theism than I (that probably shocked the day lights outta ya, eh!) I haven't read much of anything--stuff straight from the ETS meetings themselves--that's both of a better understanding than I have and argued well enough to have represented OT properly. And where the scholar has at least grasped the basics of OT, the rebuttals are from a pressuppostional stance which already precludes any chance of open mindedness. I believe Ware is more charged emotionally to thwart open theism than he is Scripturally or logically doing so (he's working from his pressups.) Just because someone has a degree, even a doctorate, doesn't mean one understands an issue better than someone else.

To tell you the truth, Bill, I didn't even know that Boyd used the chess analogy! I came up with that myself some time ago when posting on his site. I used it to explain open theism to others. No one ever brought it to my attention that Boyd had used it.

Finally, with regard to anthropomorphisms, you don't take any literally . . . ANY? Bill, I'll bet you do, just not those that construe God as having emotions, getting upset, etc. We all take some anthros literally. (Hey, I don't believe God's a chicken simply because the Psalmist says God will keep us under his wings! I'm not THAT bad!)

Well, truck driving school calls! And . . . it not only is accredited (regionally, because it's at a "junior tech college"), but it's better than the standard specs! Hey, it ain't London Bible College--oh, if only I could get that going--but it's hopefully a job!

Yak at ya later, Bill,

Starkman

 

=======================================

No I give up Starkman, you won! Be blessed and happy and believe what you will.

 

Starkman

My conscience is bothering me. I think I was flip and confrontive. Sorry. Let's agree to disagree.

 

Hey Bill, not a problem.

It's a very sensitive subject, that's for sure.

What I didn't say, though (and I'm in perfect agreement with you), is that, yes, my view is contrary to classical theism. I don't dispute that at all. That is also why I think the simple, plain definition from the Herritage dictionary, for instance, states the meaning unbiased (theologically.) For, if one doesn't believe there's an exhaustive future to know, how can one define (from an OT perspective) omniscience and including all of the future? That'd be awfully conviluted.

As to my feeling that I understand OT better than Ware, perhaps I should rephrase (gads, I didn't initially mean it to sound arrogant! Yikes!): I believe I understand the heart of OT, as an OT myself, better than how Ware argues against it from his theological standpoint; how often an argument against OT with straw men supporting it claims the OT makes God helpless, a dummy, etc., because an OT claims that part of the future isn't in existance for God to know if it hasn't already been determined by God.

Now granted, this may be at odds with classical theism, but is OT the first ever in the history of theological develpment where accepted orthodox theology wasn't initally excepted? Further, it is, as I say, a type of straw man defense to utilize such tactics as I stated above to support an argument against OT. Ware has consistantly been harsh and equally as pitfalled in his argumentation with logical disturbances in trying to defend classical theism. He often becomes ad hoc often.

We may disagree on OT, Bill, as we do, but the one thing I would at least ask you to consider is that the last thing an OT believes, or makes God out to be, is helpless, stupid, and dependant on us for His success, merely because we believe that the future is not exhaustively known. In almost all other areas of theological arena, an OT is as much evangelical as the one who holds to classical theism. It guess that's really what's at heart for me. And Boyd's taken a lot of heat for this and has gained little respect for the heart-felt passion he has, and demonstrates, in other works he's produced. It's all tossed to the side because he holds an non classical theistic perspective in one issue, mind you. One, at least of which I'm aware.

We agree, brother Bill, to disagree.
Let's get on to some simple, easy-going topics like . . . our mutual affection for Trinity!!! HA!

Starkman

 

Thanks Starkman

Actually the UZ product deals with Open Theism only as an aside. My problem is whether by factoring into cognate doctrines the functional subordination of the Son that trinal relationship can be defined as either ontological or economic only.

Chapter two consists essentially of the working out of two of my syllogisms ..which I look upon with some distrust. My lack of faith in my own logic is because I've never seen them before used. One would think if they were good they'd be in the literature. Of course these are in the context of evangelicalism.

One of these is:


No part of God is decreed

But the functional subordination of the Son is decreed.

Therefore, The functional subordination of the Son is not a part of God.


Open Theism comes into play under premise 2 along with Molinism, Arminianism, and Calvinism. Hopefully I will not misrepresent OT. I should finish chap two within 30 days.

Truck safely,

 

Hmm! I'd have to think more on this, Bill, to fully digest the issue. (I ain't no theologin, you see!)

I, personally, do not hold to an eternal ontological decree of functional subordination of the Son; at what point in time was the Son decreed? The logic of this alone has led me to consider the concept suspect. Within the eternalness of the Essence of the Trinity, there is, in my opinion, no decree; however, there is with regard to redemptive purposes. Otherwise, however, the functionality of the Son within an eternal perspective is simply subordinate (to use the term) because this is the essence of God, not because of decree. This much, as we understand this concept of subordination of the "Son" to the "Father within the functionality of the Essence of the Trinity is ontological.

These terms, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as I'm sure you agree, are post eternal; they are for our benefit. But what is God apart from any disturbance of the eternal, so to speak? What is His essence ontologically? Sequenced? Yes, I hold to this. But with a beginning? No, of course not--there is not eternal retrogression affording a decree, as I believe that leads, as I'm told, to a contradiction logically. And where then is there room to attach a decree but then define it as "It has always been that the Son was decreed." I'm not sold on this.

Ah, but I've not read the theological developments for this, and as far as open theism goes, I'd probably confuse the matter even more! I am, however, at the moment, not sure that open theism is involved with your concern if the concept of decreed subordination functionality is removed from the eternal and placed in within the sphere of God having always known the possibility and potential of human redemptiveness involving the decree of the Son to redeem. This places your specific concern of subordinate decree into the economic, if I'm correct.

As I say, though Bill, I'm far from a theologin, and if I'm just ramblin here, hey, kick me . . . I'll wake up!

You've got your work cut out for you, though, that's for sure!

Backin' ya, Bill,

Starkman