|
Post by robin on Mar 21, 2008 14:45:35 GMT -8
Hi Douglas, I'm curious why many see open theism as a threat the God's sovereignty over his creation. In my opinion, open theism is not threat to any characteristics that scripture describes God as having. Perhaps you could offer some specific examples for me to consider. What is it about our view of God that requires us to think He has full knowledge of all future events? I would love to have this discussion on the other thread only because I had some questions that I believe are difficult for arminians to answer. Plus I offered some scriptures that seem relevant to the topic and should be properly vetted by those who appose open theism, and they only scratched the surface of what is out there. Robin Thanks Robin Here's the link: God, Time, and Open Theism
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Mar 21, 2008 18:43:30 GMT -8
I haven't had much time to reply lately. But here are a few OT examples: 2 Sam 24:15-16 15 So the LORD sent a plague upon Israel from the morning till the appointed time. From Dan to Beersheba seventy thousand men of the people died. 16 And when the angel stretched out His hand over Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD relented from the destruction, and said to the angel who was destroying the people, "It is enough; now restrain your hand." And the angel of the LORD was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. NKJV
1 Kings 19:4-7 4 But he himself went a day's journey into the wilderness, and came and sat down under a broom tree. And he prayed that he might die, and said, "It is enough! Now, LORD, take my life, for I am no better than my fathers!" 5 Then as he lay and slept under a broom tree, suddenly an angel touched him, and said to him, "Arise and eat." 6 Then he looked, and there by his head was a cake baked on coals, and a jar of water. So he ate and drank, and lay down again. 7 And the angel of the LORD came back the second time, and touched him, and said, "Arise and eat, because the journey is too great for you." NKJVSeveral times in 1 Chron 21 But I'm still waiting to hear your case for Christophanies..
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 27, 2008 9:54:14 GMT -8
Well, those passages you cited are part of the reason I suspect the angel of the Lord is Jesus. I'm not going to pretend this is an air-tight case or anything (I've got no smoking gun, here ), but here's the logical chain. If a) the angel of the Lord is a term used (at least in some instances) synonymously with the LORD/ Yahweh/ God and if b) in other instances, the LORD speaks to the angel of the Lord as a separate person and if c) most of the time the Angel of the Lord appears it's in the context of some kind of physical manifestation and if d) Jesus is God in the flesh, one in essence with God but a separate person than the Father, then we might tentatively argue that the most logical identity of the angel of the Lord is: Jesus And if a) several times in Scripture it is said that God cannot be seen/ and that the Father is spirit, yet the New Testament tells us that we behold God face to face in Jesus Christ, then b) perhaps in those mysterious passages of the OT where people are said to "see God" (an apparent contradiction), then they aren't seeing "the Father", but rather "the Son"= the angel of the Lord. I don't have to time to include Scripture references, but you're probably familiar with the apparent contradiction between passages which indicate God can or cannot be seen. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me for the Father to say, "You can't see me" and keep showing up so that people keep saying "I saw Him". It makes a whole lot more sense for the Father to let people see the pre-incarnate Son.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Mar 28, 2008 11:29:53 GMT -8
Fair enough. One guess is as good as any and your case is logically sound as far as I can tell. However, I would point out a few things that I guess would prevent me from identifying theophanies as a certain member of the Trinity over the other: 1. When you say "pre-incarnate" Christ, I'm assuming you mean the 2nd person in the Trinity, or the "Word" (John 1:1 ... I don't know of anywhere prior to Jesus' birth that He is referred to as the "Son"). Was He not also spirit and like the Father? There seems no reason to me that it has to be Jesus. 2. you wrote: Where do you see the "Father" saying this. When God speaks in the OT, how do we know it's the Father? I point this out because it's exceedingly difficult to make a Trinitarian distinction in references to God, and when we do, I think we tend to unintentionally slip into some degree of polytheism. It's very mysterious to me, but I think in some way, Jesus Himself was not exclusively the 2nd person of the Trinity as far as I can tell. There are many places that seem to suggest some sort of overlap there.....for example: Paul said: 2 Cor 5:18-19 18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. NKJVCol 2:9-10 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; NKJVAnd even Jesus Himself said: John 10:30 I and My Father are one. NKJVJohn 14:11 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me NKJVJohn 17:20-21 20 "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. NKJVI don't quite understand it, but there seems to be some way that God is fully-present in all His manifestations, yet shares some sort of Trinitarian relationship within Himself. Boggles my mind.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 28, 2008 19:47:50 GMT -8
There is no reason it has to be. However, I like the idea that Jesus/the Logos is the person of the Godhead that likes to take on physicality- is the one that can be seen. This could be backed up by verses like 1 John 1:18 (regardless of the different ways it translates): 18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.Here we see fairly clearly that the Father is never seen, but it is in seeing the Son that the Father is made known. So, in the OT theophanies either: a) the Father created illusions to represent himself b) verses like this simply mean no one can see God in all His fullness, and in the theophanies the Father just revealed a small aspect of Himself or c) the theophanies were appearances of the one member of the Trinity that can be seen fully, Jesus Some further related verses: Exodus 33:20b ..."you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." Genesis 32:30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared." So, the "angel of the Lord" that Jacob wrestled, whom Jacob calls God, was seen. But the Father cannot be seen, so Jacob must have wrestled with Jesus if He was wrestling with the part of God that can be seen. Anyway, that's a test case for the logic. But the idea that God is fully present (as opposed to 1/3, for instance) in all the persons of the Godhead is the Trinitarian view. The idea that Jesus or the Spirit or the Father is 1/3 of the fullness of God was rejected by the Trinitarians. Next up: I'll be addressing my fool-proof rationale for how many angels really do fit on the head of a pin. ;D
|
|