Aaron,

The example is given. God cannot give man a free will while at the same time ordaining every act the man ever does. Either man gets a free will or God ordains the mans every action.

Greg,

Knowing humanity, causing a murder to happen is not very difficult. Not even causing ones own murder. Preach the truth about homosexuality in a slum gay bar if you want verification on that. Jesus told crowds the truth about Himself and their spiritual state and had to walk through lynch mobs on occation because His time had not come yet.

So God does not know the future, but is simply good at predicting it? Are you saying that every prophecy in the Bible is simply God’s best guess of what will happen?

And if so, how do you explain Isaiah’s prophecy that the Messiah would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14)?

By the way, in my part of the world, if I do as you suggest in a gay bar, I’m more likely to be laughed at than murdered.

Greg

Ok, so it was a bad example. Maybe the result would come if you went to a church and preached against sin?

My question is, is Amos speaking about prophecy in this text?

7Surely the Lord GOD does nothing
Unless He reveals His secret counsel
To His servants the prophets.

God tells His servants what He intends to do and the messages gets called prophecies by the prophets audience.

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 06 February 2008 09:42 AM

John Piper, on his site, had edited and put it online for free a book entitled “Beyond the Bounds”, Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity. That’s strong language, but it reflects the reality that what is at stake is nothing less than Christianity itself. Open theism is a denial of central, essential Christian beliefs, and consequently has a direct bearing on salvation. You can download the book here, http://www.desiringgod.org/media/pdf/books_bbb/books_bbb.pdf

Gabriel

Having now read two of the chapters of the book, I find that there is much to consider in it. Perhaps some of you could help me with this by giving your views of reformed covenant theology?

västergötland - 07 February 2008 12:24 AM

God tells His servants what He intends to do and the messages gets called prophecies by the prophets audience.

This is my understanding as well. But what God intends to do is His will, and His will takes precedence over ours. Returning to the example of the virgin birth, God said the Messiah would be born of a virgin hundreds of years before it happened (Isaiah 7:14). This was not merely His “best guess” of how Jesus would be born, it was a declaration of a future event.

God’s providence, foreknowledge and sovereignty all intersect in this example. From the foundation of the earth, Jesus was the lamb who was slain for sins (Revelation 13:8) and God ordained that His son would take on human flesh, born of a virgin.

Coming from the perspective of open theism, God would not have been able to declare that Mary would give birth to Jesus—He would have simply been left with predicting that this would happen with high probability. But God’s Word leaves no room for interpreting the prophecies as merely predictions that were achieved with high frequency—the prediction of Isaiah 7:14 is not conditional and it leaves us with no room to believe God was merely hopeful that Jesus would be born of a virgin.

On another thread, Dan Hagan made the observation that God exists outside of our earth-bound concept of time. He sees the expanse of time before Him in a way we are not capable of understanding. Knowing that He is not bound to our earthly frame of reference should help us to understand His ability to see and intervene in any part of human history—past, present or future. Open theism fundamentally undermines this quality of God and as a result, fundamentally obscures what He has revealed about Himself.

Greg

I still think that God’s providence and sovereignty are capable of explaining prophecy appart from foreknowledge. Coming from the persepctive of open theism, God did not declare that “Mary” would give birth to Jesus, but that a virgin would do so. This virgin happened to be Mary.

What scripture support the idea that God would exist outside of time? Can the concept of being outside of time even be found in the bible? What would we gain by believing that God is outside of time? What could be lost by not believing this? Viewing God as not bound by time is “a” way of understanding His ability to intervene in any part of human history but sertainly it is not the only way to reach such an understanding. I do not see why God existing within time would make Him any less capable of intervention, past present and future.

So you really believe Mary was a “random virgin” that happened to give birth to the Messiah, but she was one of any number of candidates God would have used if she happened to not cooperate?

About time, is God earth-bound or not? This will answer your question, because our concept of time depends upon living on a globe that revolves around the sun every 365 days.

Greg

And dovetailing with my last question, was Jesus a random Messiah who died a random death? By implying that Mary was not required to be “the one” virgin who would give birth, you’ve opened the door for Jesus not being “the one” Messiah who would die “the one” death on the cross. västergötland, obviously I find this blasphemous, but the formulation of God’s providence you’ve presented leads me to ask these questions.

Greg

Greg - 07 February 2008 10:40 AM

So you really believe Mary was a “random virgin” that happened to give birth to the Messiah, but she was one of any number of candidates God would have used if she happened to not cooperate?

Why not? In this particular case there is no threat to any teaching of scripture...

About time, is God earth-bound or not? This will answer your question, because our concept of time depends upon living on a globe that revolves around the sun every 365 days.

Greg

While that used to be the case, today the definition of time is: “Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.”

As far as we know this would give the same length of a second everywhere in the universe, at least everywhere with a simmilar gravitation as we have on earth. Therefore time is not earthbound and God not being earthbound does not matter for this consideration.

Greg - 07 February 2008 10:45 AM

And dovetailing with my last question, was Jesus a random Messiah who died a random death? By implying that Mary was not required to be “the one” virgin who would give birth, you’ve opened the door for Jesus not being “the one” Messiah who would die “the one” death on the cross. västergötland, obviously I find this blasphemous, but the formulation of God’s providence you’ve presented leads me to ask these questions.

Greg

Don’t be rediculious. There is nothing random about God incarnate.

But this is where your open theism leads—to an unknowable future where God is dependent upon the twists and turns of man’s will. Isn’t it ridiculous to assert that Mary was not in God’s definite plans for bringing the Messiah to this world? Yet you won’t acknowledge that she was the one whom the prophet Isaiah referred to hundreds of years before Christ’s birth (Isaiah 7:14). You won’t acknowledge this because it creates a very large hole in the arguments for open theism.

Greg

västergötland - 07 February 2008 10:56 AM

As far as we know this would give the same length of a second everywhere in the universe, at least everywhere with a simmilar gravitation as we have on earth. Therefore time is not earthbound and God not being earthbound does not matter for this consideration.

Your conclusions are self-refuting, because God is not limited to earth’s gravitational forces. The time standard you referred to is derived empirically from the earth’s physical properties (e.g. a 24-hour day and a 365-day year), not some universal physical property.

Greg - 07 February 2008 11:14 AM

But this is where your open theism leads—to an unknowable future where God is dependent upon the twists and turns of man’s will. Isn’t it ridiculous to assert that Mary was not in God’s definite plans for bringing the Messiah to this world? Yet you won’t acknowledge that she was the one whom the prophet Isaiah referred to hundreds of years before Christ’s birth (Isaiah 7:14). You won’t acknowledge this because it creates a very large hole in the arguments for open theism.

Greg

The difference between your argument and the arguments I read thus far in the book Gabriel recomended is that the book authors have clearly made the effort to understand that which they critique. When I see that they made their homework, I take notice of what else they have to say. Maybe you should try that approach? You repeating silliness such as the last one that Gods ability to incarnate on earth would be limited despite my atempts to deny I would believe such a thing grows old.

Do you or do you not believe that Mary was the one—the only one—referred to in Isaiah 7:14?

västergötland - 07 February 2008 12:10 PM

The difference between your argument and the arguments I read thus far in the book Gabriel recomended is that the book authors have clearly made the effort to understand that which they critique. When I see that they made their homework, I take notice of what else they have to say. Maybe you should try that approach? You repeating silliness such as the last one that Gods ability to incarnate on earth would be limited despite my atempts to deny I would believe such a thing grows old.

In the very first sentence of John Piper’s introduction to the book you are comparing me with, he calls open theism “a departure from historic Christianity” and “a dishonor to Christ”. A few sentences later, he references a quote which identifies open theism as “heresy”.

västergötland, maybe I’ve been beating around the bush. I was hoping to help you see where open theism leads, but perhaps Piper’s approach is better. Yes, open theism is a departure from historic Christianity, Christ-dishonoring and it is certainly heresy.

Greg