Anthropomorphism

Hi Van—man we’re gonna become best friends if we keep interacting with each other in all of these threads-—But I beg to differ on posting any Scripture out of context! Let me ask you this about Ex 32—did Moses tell God anything He did not already know—lets see here Moses said—Why destroy the people you just saved God? Why act in a way that would make the Egyptians think you are evil? Recall the covenant you made with Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob in which you promised their seed blessings. Which one of these did God not already know? On which one of these could God say—“Huh- Moses good point I never understood it that way! Thanks for tha insight & for tha reminder! I almost forgot about that covenant I made—what was I thinking!” Isa 40:13 is clear that no man shows God counsel-thus Moses did nothing more than pray & plead with God not to carry out judgment! If God really wanted to carry out this judgment did He really have to talk to Moses about it first—or did He only talk to Moses to allow Him to be apart of His plan! What this passage really shows is that God is big enough to be all knowing & still allow His children to participate in His plan by their prayer! If you can demonstrate one thing from the passage that God did not already know—then you can talk about God not being all-knowing—otherwise you simply make God who you want Him to be—not the God described in the Bible who knows what will happen to us even before it does (Ps 139:16). Job 14:5 tells that God even knows the number of our days (or lifespan). Its not as if God did not know He was not going to destroy the Israelites, b/c as Job 14:5 tells us He knew when they would die! So He knew if He was going to kill them then or let them live! Even before Moses prayer! What your missing is that God is big enough to know all & still have the ability to let his children take part in His plan though their personal actions. Now this is a mighty God & this is the God of the Bible! Peace my brother!

 

Scripture says God changed His mind. Why did He do it if He knew the result beforehand. God does not make mistakes. You are in a box. What you ask me to accept is God knew He was not going to punish, but He said He would punish, to give Moses the opportunity to plead, and then God would say He changed His mind, not because it was true, but because He wanted to make Moses feel good. If this seems sound to you, Gabe, we can still treat each other with dignity and respect, but do not expect that I will see your assertions as sound.

 

Are you now pointing to open theism?

If so, come clean so at least we know where you stand.

 

It's these kind of quips that keep people from taking you seriously. Nothing he said even hinted at open theism. It shows you either like to deliberately misrepresent the views of others, or do not know the very phrases you like to throw around.

 

Web-I normally don’t like to be picky about this particular topic—but I do suspect he might be leaning toward the open theist route.

 

Lol—sure we can be civil—I’d have it no other way! But I do suspect you are a supporter of open theism---Although I support the notion that God does not change—I can honestly see why someone would not believe this idea. However, when it comes to the omniscience of God, denying this is very problematic! I’ve had this discussion with others of the non-reformed ideology & I can honestly see middle knowledge as a biblical plausibility—but to say God does not know (ie that God learns) is clearly not the God of the Bible! Once again Mr Van—show me just 1 thing that Moses told God that He didn’t already know—then maybe you’ll have a leg to stand on—otherwise admit God is all knowing! Or at least admit you’re an open theist!

 

Good explanation. My rule of thumb is that when God asks a question, he's not learning - he's teaching. And when God says "if", the results are actually and really contingent upon the response, but that does not alter the fact that 1) God already knows the response and results, and 2) God has decreed both the response and the results.

While the middle knowledge theory can explain how God can do this, it falls short of being true omniscience.

 

Naturally you have no problem since you ignore scripture and say it really means something not in scripture. I have asked you a question twice and still your only answer is to ask me a question.

Now you have the unmitigated gall to charge me with Open Theism. I am sick of the constant slander Calvinists direct toward those who hold biblical views that differ from the doctrines of grace. I suspect you do not even know what a horrendous false doctrine it is. And the unabashed temerity to say I do not believe in Omniscience, knowing that I do using a different definition than your. Goodbye Gabe, I have no interest in discussions aimed at disparaging me.

 

Just looked at this. Are you saying that God didn't know the result beforehand, or did I misread the second sentence?

 

Hi Jbh28, I am saying why did God change His mind, if He knew He would respond to Moses beforehand. Thus far, rather than answer that straightforward question, folks are trying to brand me as an Open Theist, which I am most definitely not. Why not discuss scripture rather than try to disparage me.

In case you missed it, I define Omniscience as "God knows everything He chooses to know." Others define it as "God knows everything imaginable." So when God says I will forgive your sins and remember them no more forever, God did not really mean what He said. When God says He changed His mind or relented or repented, He really did not mean what He said. As for me, I accept scripture as the final authority of doctrine and not the other way around. If someone can show me how the God knows everything imaginable doctrine fits with verse after verse after verse, I am sure willing to flip/flop.

 

I’m just glad to see your that emotional with the charge of open theism---which means we probably can find a ground to agree to disagree on! Listen---I don’t expect everyone to agree with every theological possibility I agree with—thus—I apologize if you felt I was disparaging you—now for the record I’m not a full-blooded Calvinist—but I am reformed--& I am interested in your definition of God’s knowing ability—I actually like you Van—you have interesting viewpoints—do I agree with most—no!—but nonetheless your fun to debate with—so sorry 4 tha misunderstanding—so what’s your view on Gods knowing ability?

 

He did it for Moses sake, not for His sake. He already knew what Moses would do. He already knows what you will do, nevertheless he desires for you to pray and worship Him anyway. He doesn't need your prayers, but desires that you do--for your benefit, not for His.

If God did not know all things then God could not be God. He is all-knowing. Anything less than that would make him deficient as a god.

Again, we run into many anthropormorphisms and anthropaphisms in the Bible. The Scriptures uses these figures of speech to indicate to us what God is like. We, like Moses, were not able to go up to Mt. Sinai and see a part of the glory of God. We were not with Peter, James, and John and see the Lord of glory transfigured on the Mount. John was able to say:

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)
--John was able to behold the incarnate God, full of grace and truth. Only a very few people were able to do that.

What about these verses:
Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of thy wings, (Psalms 17:8)

Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness. (Isaiah 41:10)

And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. (Exodus 24:10)

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (John 4:24)
--If you take the Bible literally, God is a Spirit, as John 4:24 above says. Spirits do not have wings, right hands, or feet. These are very obvious anthropormorphisms. They help us understand the nature of God.

Expressions such as God relenting, changing his mind, repenting, weeping, etc. are in the same category. I believe they are called antropaphisms. They convey the same thing--the nature of God in human terminology that man might have a better understanding of Himself.

God is omniscient, completely omniscient. He is the Alpha and Omega, knows the beginning from the end, knows our every thought. God does not choose to know; He does know.

For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether. (Psalms 139:4)

O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off. (Psalms 139:1-2)

 

Exactly!!!!

While I don’t personally endorse the theory—it still allows for God’s omniscience to be upheld----so I don’t get as bothered by it---but I understand the concerns.

 

No doubt this is an interesting debate. It is always interesting to listen to why Christians hold differing views on the same subject of this kind of issue. God is above our understanding and both sides would agree on that, yet both sides has figured Him out, at least in this area of discussion. I would say in this forum however it is a tough row to hoe for Van. I say tough because there are a greater number of those who hold an opposing view, although I don't throw out his views as there is scripture to support them. At the same time I do not throw out the opposing views as their is scripture to support them also.

Both sides seem to dig in and no amount of reasoning shakes the others view. In fact actually the opposite happens causing the other side to dig deeper. That being said let me sort of stir this a little. In one post I agreed with Van on his explanation of a topic. What I did not say was that I also hold the opposite view as well. Impossible some would say. However not if we do not hold them too tightly, understanding that we do not have enough information for either side. It is much like the God head. How in the world there can be one God in three distinct persons is beyond me, yet I do believe it as I believe that scripture teaches such. I realize that some have figured out how this is possible but I will just have to believe it and leave it at that.

In this discussion one side is dug in that God knows everything without exception and can offer scripture to support that view along with what they hold as logical conclusions as to why any opposing view is incorrect even when scriptures of equal value are offered for the opposing view.

The opposing view does the same thing. It is much like when I try and tell people that we do not have to sin daily (every single day of our lives) and give the scripture and the reasoning and claim I have done it as well as others have done it. Now THAT brings out the accusations and slandering's! To be honest my position on not sinning daily is not a comfortable position to take because of all the opposition, but it is one I believe to be accurate and every Christian should diligently seek to carry out and I believe they can.

I assume the same discomfort with Van, at least in this forum with the number of opposing views. Someone asks if he is an open theist. A valid question as his line of belief does fall under some of what they hold. I too hold some of what Van holds, but deny that I am an open theist as they or some of them claim that God makes mistakes and in all honesty there is scripture that seems to support the view that He has. However I just reject it as meaning it was really a mistake on His part.

The bottom line is this. Both sides in this debate have valid arguments, although not necessarily to the opposing side. In all honesty neither can absolutely prove the other wrong, except in their own minds. Each is seeking to understand the God they both serve while seeking to harmonize the impossible as far as men are concerned.

In things like this which are so debatable and impossible to absolutely know I hold both sides, or at least parts of both sides yet not as absolutes, but as being possibilities even though I might lean to one more then the other and have to admit when it comes right down to it, I don't know how it can be even though I might believe it.
How God can be perfect and not know all things of all times past, present, and future depends on what one holds as perfect, not if He is or not, because He is.

So I believe that Van has a valid argument, imperfect however, as he does not have enough information and it raises a lot of questions. I also believe that those who hold that God knows every event in all eternity and ordains every persons salvation as a possibility yet also imperfect as they do not have all the information and this also raises a lot of questions. Bottom line neither side knows as in absolute and neither side can with absolute assurance say the other is wrong. One day we might find out that both sides were wrong, but at this point neither sides view discredits their standing with God. How we respond to the others view can however. Something I am learning at great expense.

 

Van, I ASKED a question above concerning what appeared to be a shift toward an open theism position. The question was directly related to your post, which clearly indicated that you thought that God could and did change His mind in reaction to a prayer of Moses.

That, like it or not, is a position encompassed by open theism, which is why I asked the question.

I am not saying that you are indeed an open theist, and you have disavowed the theology, yet you continue to argue for a point that leads only to that conclusion.

I would suspect that there is something incoherent in your position, and you may need to refine some aspect in order to remove the issue of contradiction.

 

Hi DHK, I disagree that God must know everything imaginable to be God. He said He will remember our sins no more forever. To say God knows those forgiven sins is to say God is a liar. My view, God knows everything He chooses to know, does not deny that God could know everything imaginable if He chose to, but it also addresses all those passages where He says He changed His mind, He relented, He repented, where He reacts to our behavior.
Certainly God knows everything He has predestined, but He has not predestined all things. That is why He intervens and for example hardens the hearts of unbelieving Jews in Romans 11. He did not predestine that they would not believe, but chose to alter their spiritual ability so that they would not believe.

There is a lot wrong with Open Theism, but using a biblical definition of Omniscience is not one of them, in my opinion.

 

I certainly share some views with Open Theism, just like I share some views with Calvinism and with Arminianism. Only a calculated effort to disparage would conclude I am a Calvinist, Arminian or Open Theist, when I hold that most their views are false teachings.

And Glfredrick, it is your position that is incoherent, where a word like all means everything imaginable over here, and only what the author had it view over there. My minimalist view is "all" only means what the author had in view and not everything imaginable.

Do you really want me to teach on Open Theism, to deconstruct it, or do you just want to continue your guilt by association effort?

 

Hi Freeatlast, I do not agree that the "God knows everything imaginable" view cannot be disproved from scripture. Scripture is crystal. Again, the only way they support their view is to provide the definition of "all" and then use it incoherantly. Christ died for "all" but as Rippon accurately pointed out, that did not include those who had already died without obtaining approval by faith, so the all only meant what the author had in view, Christ died for all people living at the time of His death or in the future. God knowing everything imaginable is as flawed as those who say eternal means forever and ever over here, but limited duration over there.

Bottom line, the biblical definition of Omniscience is God knows everything He chooses to know, and only the fear that some will use that definition to support that our perfect God makes mistakes, keeps people from accepting it. You have got to be brave to stick to the truth.

God Bless

 

Well Van—even though you falsely accused me of not answering your question—when I clearly did in 2 posts, even though you’ve yet to be so kind as to answer the original questions I asked you (which came even before you asked me anything), even though you find it acceptable to claim that God is not truly all knowing (even though I feel this clearly counteracts Scripture)—I still don’t dislike you—but if you would be so kind as to answer---- what exactly about open theism do you disagree with?

 

I'm sorry, but you just further defined your views as truly open theism with your response above.

You are welcome to hold that view if you like, but don't disavow that you hold it. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too! I am not trying to pin any guilt by association, and I certainly do not need for you to "deconstruct" open theism. I've studied under Bruce Ware, one of the primary opponents of open theism and I am fairly well versed in the subject.

As for the "alls" of Scripture, each must be taken in context (as I and others have been saying repeatedly in threads that you share). In some cases "all" is truly universal -- EVERY human being EVER -- in other cases, all can be somewhat more restricted, such as "all the Jews" or "all the Gentiles" or "all the sinners" or "all the redeemed" etc. Unless one does the hermeneutical work to understand just whom the "all" is speaking of, errors can and are made in further theology derived from the passage containing the term.