Verse that refutes both Calvinism and Open Theism at once?

[steve7150]

To have any real sort of personal relationship, and to derive any real joy from Creation, any all-knowing God MUST have needed to choose not to know certain things, etc





Or Open Theism is simply true which IMO the plain reading in the OT indicates. God repents, or changes his mind or regrets something, or tests Abraham to see, and maybe all the "if's" are really "if's".
Maybe the future isn't knowable yet God can know the heart of Peter and know if he thinks his life is at stake he would deny Jesus, even three times. God could intervene and cause certain things to happen without knowing the future.

[TK]

Speaking of platonic concepts -- even if God characterizes all of the "omni-s" and immutability, etc. in his natural state, the only way I see God working all this out for any real purpose for Himself is to see Him as having veiled His abilities in any variety of circumstances, so pretty much any system is on the table for me in that respect without diminishing God. To have any real sort of personal relationship, and to derive any real joy from Creation, any all-knowing God MUST have needed to choose not to know certain things, etc. He shows when He needs to that He can "open that squinted eye" when it serves His purposes. That doesn't mean His eye isn't squinted or even closed sometimes. We experience the same thing when we play "hide and seek" with our kids. Sure, I can open my eyes and listen closely and know where they're hiding, but where't the fun in that?

I agree- like i wrote on the old forum a long time ago:

The ramifications of accepting that God, in the inestimatable past, pre-ordained just exactly what every person would do, and every event that would ever occur in the universe is more than I can accept. For lack of a better phrase, what would the point in that be? Now, a child (or even an adult for that matter) may have fun arranging a long line of dominos in different configurations, only to have them all fall after the first one is pushed, but is that all we are, one big "domino" set up? Think about what that means.

I may be dating myself a tad, but I used to play a lot of electric football-- you know-- there are little plastic men that you place on this metal field that vibrates and caused the men to move. however, the games didnt last very long because, well, it got boring, at least to me, EVEN THOUGH i wasnt controlling EVERYTHING- i mean i arranged the players and pushed the start button, then off they went. But it wasnt all that exciting.

Now I am not saying that God needs excitement, or that he can be bored, but doesnt it seem a bit silly to suggest that every little thing that happens today was pre-ordained by God eons ago, and he is just sitting watching it play out (like a person wathcing dominos fall)? I like the Andy Griffith show, but even I dont watch if I have seen the episode so many times that I practically have it memorized.

TK

[Jeff]

Speaking of platonic concepts -- even if God characterizes all of the "omni-s" and immutability, etc. in his natural state, the only way I see God working all this out for any real purpose for Himself is to see Him as having veiled His abilities in any variety of circumstances, so pretty much any system is on the table for me in that respect without diminishing God. To have any real sort of personal relationship, and to derive any real joy from Creation, any all-knowing God MUST have needed to choose not to know certain things, etc. He shows when He needs to that He can "open that squinted eye" when it serves His purposes. That doesn't mean His eye isn't squinted or even closed sometimes. We experience the same thing when we play "hide and seek" with our kids. Sure, I can open my eyes and listen closely and know where they're hiding, but where't the fun in that?

I agree with this. I can allow for the possibility of Open Theology if it's God COULD know everything, but chooses not to know SOME things (ie Jesus not knowing what hour He would return, only the Father -> God the Son limiting His own knowledge). If Open Theology teaches that there are some things that God CANNOT know, then I cannot go along with that concept. Still have to watch the videos though...

[Jeff]

To have any real sort of personal relationship, and to derive any real joy from Creation, any all-knowing God MUST have needed to choose not to know certain things, etc





Or Open Theism is simply true which IMO the plain reading in the OT indicates. God repents, or changes his mind or regrets something, or tests Abraham to see, and maybe all the "if's" are really "if's".
Maybe the future isn't knowable yet God can know the heart of Peter and know if he thinks his life is at stake he would deny Jesus, even three times. God could intervene and cause certain things to happen without knowing the future.

Can't believe I haven't thought of this yet, but it seems that this prediction and all the fulfilled prophecies indicate that God can and does know the future. I've always taken the approach that even though God knew that Adam and Eve would fall, and all the sin that would follow, He still viewed us as "worth it" for the relationship that He would have with the ones that love Him.

[steve7150]

Can't believe I haven't thought of this yet, but it seems that this prediction and all the fulfilled prophecies indicate that God can and does know the future. I've always taken the approach that even though God knew that Adam and Eve would fall, and all the sin that would follow, He still viewed us as "worth it" for the relationship that He would have with the ones that love Him.Jeff




God can cause his prophecies to happen rather then seeing into the future. That would mesh better with the belief, man has freewill. I think there is no doubt God knew Adam would fall no matter which belief system one believes because He can read our hearts and predict even if the future is not knowable.

[RickC]

....I can allow for the possibility of Open Theology if it's God COULD know everything, but chooses not to know SOME things (ie Jesus not knowing what hour He would return, only the Father -> God the Son limiting His own knowledge). If Open Theology teaches that there are some things that God CANNOT know, then I cannot go along with that concept. Still have to watch the videos though...

Notes from Boyd's vids (2nd one, I think, re-posted from page one) -
The Open View of the Future (note Boyd doesn't say "of God")
1. God knows all things
2. All things includes future possibilities
--> Some of reality (past, present, and future) is definite and perfectly known by God as such
--> Some of reality (some of the future) is indefinite (possibly this and possibly that) and perfectly known by God as such
(Thus) Possibilities are Ontologically Real
3. God Settles Whatever He Chooses Ahead of Time and Opens Up Possibilities Ahead of Time to Whatever Extent He Chooses
4. God is Infinitely Intelligent and Can Therefore Anticipate Each Possibility as Perfectly As If It Was a Certainty

In the vids Boyd gives examples of things that are definite (such as the death of Jesus "from before the foundation of the world") - and - things that are indefinite (as the prolongation of Hezekiah's life - after God had said he would die).
=========================================================

Greg Boyd didn't say this...but I've been thinking about something (theorizing)....
If God knows what Boyd says (as outlined above), God could have had an infinite number of alternative plans for humanity, even before creation. The world could be very radically different than as we have it. E.g., Adam and Eve could not have sinned and possibly be alive right now. The chosen people could have been the descendants of Moses, but Moses talked God out of it. Had God prevailed in that "argument", Moses' descendants could have truly obeyed God, and salvation could have come through them (cf. 3, above).

But....
The God who is ever-involved with humanity engages with them in real time. As choices were made, and as time went along, from the very first sin to the coming of Jesus, we see God's definite plan happening. It could have been otherwise. Before the foundation of the world, there's no telling how many options and real possibilities - that is, actual things that could have conceivably happened - which were in the mind of God.

So....
When we see, in hindsight, that it was inevitable that Jesus was to come, die, be resurrected, and to reign; in God's infinite knowledge this could have actually been otherwise.

Mind-boggling.

Thanks!

[DanielGracely]

Jeff began this thread by saying that Matt. 11:21 “seems to refute both Calvinism…and Open Theism.”

Steve replied:

Good try but there are plenty of "if's" in the bible and none of them bother Calvinists. They may claim it's just a way for God to communicate to us in a way we can understand. Open Theism can say that God still can predict things in the future because even though the future is unknowable God can still cause things to happen in the future when he wants to.

First, I don’t see how the Calvinist hermeneutic about “if’s” biblically refutes Jeff’s position at all. While I grant that Calvinists do provide their own kind of ‘answer’, the real question is whether that answer is biblical. If it is not, it is no refutation of Jeff’s interpretation, and IMO it is not. But more on this later.

Second, nearly all Evangelical theologians appeal to logic, yet none of these (myself included) can appeal to logic consistently. At some point each of us, whether Calvinist, Arminian, Open Theist, or (like myself) some other Evangelical type, all have to claim that some passages which naturally appear literal must be viewed as literary. [By “literary” I primarily mean metaphorical or figure of speech (e.g. hyperbole)].

For example, Steve mentions in a follow-up comment that “God can’t know (according to OT) [the future choices of humans] but he can intervene and cause things to happen.” He says there are a few verses in Isaiah to support this. I’m not sure he has Is. 5 in mind, but even if not I think it serves as a close enough example of what Steve is talking about. There it speaks of God cultivating and planting his choicest vine—the men of Judah—and EXPECTING fruit, but none appeared. The Open Theist argument? God had a right to expect fruit for all his labour on behalf of Judah; therefore, by the rules of language, for God to say that He expected a positive response means He did not really know what their response would be. And, admittedly, here in Is. 5 the natural language of Isaiah suggests a literal understanding of “expected” and supports the Open Theistic view.

However, when Steve (if he is going to be consistent with his Open Theism) comes to Matthew 11:21, the literal meaning of Christ stating that Tyre and Sidon would have repented in sackcloth and ashes had they witnessed His miracles, must be understood as literary, not literal. That is, Christ must have spoken by rhetorical hyperbole, to the effect of saying: “C’mon, Chorazin, Bethsaida! Had these miracles been done in Sodom those people would still be around! And if my miracles had been done in Tyre and Sidon they would have repented!” An Open Theist must view this as hyperbole, for otherwise the natural reading implies there is divine foreknowledge of future human choice. But, in fact, the natural reading of Matt. 11:21ff does sound literal, not literary. And so despite however differently Open Theists or Calvinists may interpret it, the natural reading— the plain reading—is that Christ not only foreknew what the correct choice for Sodom would have meant for that city, but also what it would have meant for that city’s future 2,000 years hence.

I can almost imagine some Open Theist saying at this point, “Well, that is not the natural reading to me. Matthew 11:21ff just naturally strikes me as hyperbole.” Such a person, if there were one, would merely prove how dishonest he would be with himself. For surely if for some reason a literal and natural interpretation of the kind of language we find in Matthew 11:21 (in which words are taken in their normal sense) would benefit Open Theism, instead of argue against it, the Open Theist would insist on the natural reading.

So then, everyone, myself included, however begrudgingly we must admit it, must at some point treat as literary some passages which, in fact, sound like they ought to be taken literally.

Naturally, then, I am not without empathy for the Open Theist. I do identify with other comments here, and likewise feel that the Arminian view, which in this case is also my view, defines foreknowledge in such a way that it makes God appear less personable, as if all history to Him were like watching some Andy Griffith episode for the upteenth time, in which everything is known in advance, and thus all interaction of Him with human characters hopelessly predictable. And yet I reject the Open Theist view. Why? Because IMO it does not do justice with the natural reading of most Scriptures most of the time, relevant to this question.

That is, on balance, I find among the disputed (but also relevant, undisputed) passages a natural reading that refutes, rather than supports, Open Theism. Christ’s prediction of Peter’s three-fold denial before the cock crows twice (at daybreak) is just one such example. For why three times? Why not two, or four? And why before daybreak? I was surprised in my recent reading, given his reputation, that Greg Boyd in his explanation of this passage is so incredibly weak. No explanation from him about why it should be three times instead of two, or four, or how Christ could have known that a servant girl would be among the lingerers where Peter was, etc. And the rooster? Boyd actually states that God could have prompted it to crow upon the third denial. So that’s what we’re left with—God puppeteering a rooster. Well, then, maybe the same argument can explain the servant-girl!

If Open Theists find they have to accept these kinds of explanations to preserve logic, I can only say they do it at the expense of preserving logic in the majority of the disputed passages, if not also in the very passage(s) they are trying to explain. They also—and perhaps this is the most important point of all—do it at the expense of the lexical history of “to foreknow,” which demonstrates a consistent meaning of “to know in advance” without any suggestion of determination, elected love, predetermined choice, etc. In other words, divine foreknowledge, like any foreknowledge, is non-determinative. We know this because, for one, that is how the word behaves in extra-biblical literature. These extra-biblical writings serve as the lexical control group limiting the spectrum of a N.T. word’s meaning, when enough examples are extant. And as Thomas Edgar points out in his article on foreknowledge (a free online read), to inject a meaning into the verb “to foreknow” so that determinism is implied, is to simply ignore the history of that word’s actual, contemporary use in the first century Mediterranean culture. In fact, Edgar states that virtually no serious scholar challenges the fact of “foreknow"'s lexical use in extra-biblical literature. Indeed, I have observed that even James White is careful not to.

What I’m trying to get across here, then, is that we all hold antinomies to one extent or another. We cannot escape them. But that leaves the question about which hermeneutic to follow?

For myself, I feel the lexical parameters of language is the only way out of this morass. That is, we accept the normal meaning or words most of the time in the normal way in which words are understood. We ought not, as Calvinists do, for example, state that fallen man has freedom but no liberty. Such a statement merely turns synonyms into antonyms to justify the ‘logic’ of a choice between one thing. Unfortunately, this approach impresses a lot of people, and this is the kind of hermeneutical approach that would ‘answer’ Jeff’s observation about Matthew 11:21, because otherwise what Calvinists hold to be the deterministic nature of divine foreknowledge would be lost.

As Edgar points out, this is the commonality between Calvinism and Open Theism—a belief that divine foreknowledge of human choice would have to be deterministic.

No, I can’t explain how divine foreknowledge is NOT deterministic. But I can accept that conclusion by faith, because of the lexical and historical use of words.

[steve7150]

That is, on balance, I find among the disputed passages a natural reading that refutes, rather than supports, Open Theism. Christ’s prediction of Peter’s three-fold denial before the cock crows twice (at daybreak) is just one such example. For why three times? Why not two, or four? And why before daybreak? I was surprised in my recent reading, given his reputation, that Greg Boyd in his explanation of this passage is so incredibly weak. No explanation from him about why it should be three times instead of two, or four, or how Christ could have known that a servant girl would be among the lingerers where Peter was, etc. And the rooster? Boyd actually states that God could have prompted it to crow upon the third denial. So that’s what we’re left with—God puppeteering a rooster. Well, then, maybe the same argument can explain the servant-girl!





I can't say why God may have "pupperteered" the servant girl and the rooster and why three times , but i can say he could have.

"I am God there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times what is still to come. I say my purpose will stand and i will do all that i please. From the east i summon a bird of prey, from a far off land a man to fulfill my purpose. What i have said i will bring about. What i have planned that will i do. Isa 46.9-11

So God said He will summon the bird, He will do all that he pleases, He planned it and He will do his purpose. So it is within the realm of possibility that God summoned the servant girl and summoned the rooster to do His will because he had declared it would happen. So i don't see Boyd's explanation as being weak, unless Isaiah's explanation is also weak.
Another point to consider is that God says he will do what he pleases, which sounds like the future is not predetermined in every minute detail. God can be pleased or displeased based on our actions, which brings up the question again which is if he knows the future why would he be pleased or displeased?

[RickC]

That is, on balance, I find among the disputed passages a natural reading that refutes, rather than supports, Open Theism. Christ’s prediction of Peter’s three-fold denial before the cock crows twice (at daybreak) is just one such example. For why three times? Why not two, or four? And why before daybreak? I was surprised in my recent reading, given his reputation, that Greg Boyd in his explanation of this passage is so incredibly weak. No explanation from him about why it should be three times instead of two, or four, or how Christ could have known that a servant girl would be among the lingerers where Peter was, etc. And the rooster? Boyd actually states that God could have prompted it to crow upon the third denial. So that’s what we’re left with—God puppeteering a rooster. Well, then, maybe the same argument can explain the servant-girl!

I've not read any of Boyd's books. Just watched the video I linked to and read stuff online.

I don't know what you mean about how many times the rooster crowed or when it did. What's the significance? Why do you feel Boyd needed to explain the simple fact that Jesus foreknew possibilities that were definite? (From my video notes, cf. # 2).
1. God knows all things
2. All things includes future possibilities
--> Some of reality (past, present, and future) is definite and perfectly known by God as such

(You also said) -
Boyd actually states that God could have prompted it to crow upon the third denial.

Initially, this would seem inconsistent to what I've been hearing Boyd say. I'd have to read the book you read to see the context and what Boyd was getting at with "God could have prompted it to crow...". My understanding about roosters is: they starting crowing before sunrise. Jesus knew the definite possibility that Peter would deny him three times before right around then. Just from what I know about Boyd, I don't think he'd say "God puppeteered" anything. The servant girl could have been any number of people. She was simply there and said something.

I can see why you might think Boyd went "Calvinist" on this point.
Which of his books did you read?

Thanks!

P.S. You raised a lot of points, Daniel. But it's difficult to cover so many in one post.

[DanielGracely]

Hi Rick,
I appreciate that you can see why I feel Boyd went "Calvinist" on a particular point. In fact, the more I read Boyd's Responding to Objections under the Open Theism heading in his Q & A section at his website (http://www.gregboyd.org), the more astonished I am to find that his primary explanation of fulfilled propechy is that God "orchestrates" whatever is necessary (from much to little) to be sure prophecy is fulfilled, while having an exhaustive knowledge of present conditions the kind from which He can know what course history will take in the future. So, yes, I see this as a form of Calvinism, if a watered-down version. I hope to write to Steve and again to you in the next day or two about some of these matters. But in the meantime, here are some quotes from Greg Boyd's site to show how much faith Boyd puts into God's knowing the future based on the present, an idea that IMO undermines the fact that free will beings make choices without necessity to the present. Incidentally, I've only read some of his responses in his Q & A, not any of his books. It's only his general approach to objections that I'm interested in.

From Boyd's website:

How do you respond to Deuteronomy 30:16–23?
The Lord tells Moses of his impending death and then prophesies that “this people will begin to prostitute themselves to the foreign gods in their midst…breaking my covenant that I have made with them” (vs. 16). The Lord will have to judge them accordingly (vs. 17–18). He then inspires Joshua to write a song for them to sing when trials come upon them (vs. 22–23).

The omniscient Lord perfectly knows the hearts of humans, the long range effects of sin, and all the spiritual variables at work in the world (viz. the activity of evil spirits). This perfect knowledge of the present gives God the ability to anticipate the future in ways we can hardly imagine. For, at any given moment, a great deal of the future has already been decided by past and present circumstances.

This prophecy illustrates this truth. Given the rebellious character that this nation had already demonstrated despite the fact that they had a strong leader like Moses, the Lord discerns that things will only get worse when Moses dies. Such foresight doesn’t require a crystal ball perspective into the future. It simply illustrates God’s perfect knowledge of the present.

On the other hand, the prophecy could be read as a conditional prophecy of what the Lord suspects might happen if things don’t change. But (as evidenced by his subsequent struggles with Israel) he hopes it doesn’t come to pass and he does everything possible to prevent it.

How do you respond to Isaiah 44:28–45:1?

This passage is one of the most persuasive evidences of divine foreknowledge in the Bible. The verse proclaims the Lord as the one “who says to Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and he shall carry out all my purpose’; and who says of Jerusalem, ‘It shall be rebuilt,’ and of the temple, ‘Your foundation shall be laid.’ Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped to subdue the nations before him…”

According to the traditional view of the book of Isaiah, Isaiah recorded this prophecy about Cyrus over a hundred years before Cyrus was born. The passage is clear evidence that the Lord foreknew that a king named Cyrus would arise and would be instrumental in rebuilding Jerusalem.

At this time in world history, it fits the Lord’s overall providential plan to return the Israelites to their land. He thus takes unilateral control over a small portion of the immediate future and determines that it shall come about in a certain way. He even predetermines what the name of the king who shall release them shall be, undoubtedly as a sign to the Israelites that he—not the idols they were inclined to chase after—was responsible for setting them free (see 46:9–11; 48:3–5).

This passage is not a “crystal ball” sort of prediction. It is rather a declaration of what the Lord himself is going to accomplish. He is going to “grasp the hand” of Cyrus and direct him. This doesn’t imply that everything about Cyrus was directed by God or that Cyrus was not a free moral agent outside of God’s declared intentions. And it certainly doesn’t imply that everything about the future is foreknown by God. It only implies that whatever God has already decided he’s going to do in the future is known by him before he does it. He foreknows it by knowing his own intentions in the present.

Regarding Is. 53:9, Boyd states:
He would also have to plan on wisely orchestrating matters as much as was necessary to ensure that Jesus’ death would occur in a certain prescribed fashion, e.g. he would die with criminals and be buried in a rich man’s tomb. But again, we can’t imagine this being difficult for a perfectly wise and sovereign God to accomplish. And there’s no reason to suppose that God would have to temporarily turn people into robots to accomplish it.

Excerpts of Boyd’s response re: Matthew 26:36 and Peter’s denial

Second, the crowing of the cock reveals no special foreknowledge on Jesus’ part but was simply a way of referring to the break of dawn (when cocks always crow). Perhaps some providential intervention was necessary to have the cock crow immediately after Peter’s third betrayal in order to drive home the point of Jesus’ prophecy (Matt. 26:74–75), but that is certainly an easy feat for the sovereign Lord of history.

Finally, little if any divine intervention would be necessary to ensure that three people would notice and question Peter about his relationship with the Lord. After all, Jesus and his disciples had been public figures for some time.