Does God Deliberate?

[Vinnie]

@klw

To say that God’s covenant people ought to have had the best revelation of Him is not to conclude that he is completely absent from pagan nations in the time of the Greek philosophers.

Best revelation should not be confused with your open-theism view. That is under discussion. Best is a loaded word. Best for what? Teaching about God’s love and faithfulness? Sure. Teaching us metaphysics or science? Not so much. Secondly, as I have shown, we believe that many of the philosophical attributes of God from people like Aquinas are found in the Bible. You seem to just be comparing Hebrew beliefs as a whole, as if they were univocal, to Greek beliefs as a whole, as if they were univocal. Which Greek beliefs? Which Hebrew beliefs? From which time period? I am commenting on immutability and divine simplicity. This has nothing to do with every Greek thought or belief or Platonism. You also seem to think the verses you don’t interpret as anthropomorphic are identical to the Hebrew interpretation of God. That is hardly the case.

@klw

While not denying that pagans can have no insights into God whatsoever, isn’t it the orthodox Christian claim that scriptures are the authoritative revelation of God?

When properly interpreted by the Church. This doesn’t 't mean science or philosophy cannot illuminate our understanding of God or that there are not anthropomorphic conceptions of God we should definitely not treat literally (as you yourself don’t in genesis 2). We have two books, Scripture and nature, which includes philosophy.

@klw

how so? It doesn’t follow to me.

There is a difference between being subject to time as some external reality distinct from God and acting in time. If God is not pure act or being itself, this means there could be other Gods or a higher God. If you posit a image of God with potentiality the battle is lost in my mind.

@klw

For example, “eternal” and “everlasting” in the text means that God has no beginning and no end (something that open theists affirm) but the text does not say that God cannot experience a sequence of moments in his life (a bridge too far that Classical Theism asserts with no basis in the text).

The classical theist of the Thomist tradition distinguishes between real and “Cambridge properties” of God. The latter are extrinsic and relational and do not affect God’s divine essence. Intrinsic or essential properties would be something like omnipotence or immutability, both of which are strongly suggested by scripture and stem naturally from metaphysical arguments. Feser writes:

When Socrates grows a beard, that involves the acquisition by him of a real property. But when he becomes shorter than Plato, not because of any change he undergoes, but rather because Plato has grown taller, that involves the acquisition by Socrates of a Cambridge property. It is, in this case, Plato rather than Socrates who acquires a real property.

Now, it is possible for something to have a Cambridge property by virtue of also having a certain real property. To modify my example, suppose that Socrates had been Plato’s father, so that it is by virtue of his having been begotten by Socrates and inheriting Socrates’ genes that Plato eventually grew to be taller than Socrates. Then there is a sense in which you could say that Socrates’ action, the action of begetting Plato, caused Socrates (later on) to become shorter than Plato. Now, there is obviously a sense in which Socrates’ action of begetting is intrinsic to Socrates. Something has to happen in him in order for the begetting to occur. And so, something had to happen in him in order for Plato later on to grow taller, which resulted in Socrates being shorter than Plato. But does it follow that Socrates’ becoming shorter than Plato is not a Cambridge property after all but a real one? Of course not.

Now in the same way, it is certainly true to say that there is something intrinsic to God himself that makes it the case that the world is created. No defender of divine simplicity denies that. But it simply doesn’t follow that God’s acting to create the world is not after all a Cambridge property, any more than it follows that Socrates’ growing shorter than Plato is not after all a Cambridge property.

@klw

But there is better and worse exegesis is there not? For me, the classical view just falls short when one carefully examines the text, and I don’t see Classical theism emerging naturally. Rather it seems to be (post hoc) imposed based on an a priori commitment to Greek philosophy.

You think the classical view is post hoc and the Church got it wrong for 2,000 years until an open understanding of God popularized in 1994 got it right? Hard pass.

I quoted a bunch of verses, God is the creator and sustainer of all things, time doesn’t apply like it does for us, He doesn’t change, etc. All of these beliefs are clearly articulated in scripture. You can take them how you want.

@St.Roymond

We have evidence in scripture that God does not care about science, or even about math: pi, after all, is not actually equal to three (which the Egyptians knew, so Moses should have, yet he did not say that a round container 10 cubits across should be 31 cubits around, which would have been much closer than the 30 we read in the text).

Do we have evidence he doesn’t care about modern history, modern science, systematic theology, philosophy, internal consistency and so on? And that. a Biblical author gets something wrong doesn’t mean God did not care about it. My model of inspiration allows for that.

@St.Roymond

False dichotomy, BTW. The OT falls into neither slot.

But you are missing the point. @klw wrote:" I mean certainly the Hebrews were interested in portraying the best and true portrait of the character and Nature of God in their writing? And certainly God was in a position to reveal the most accurate portrait of himself to his people? No?"

The Old Testament is not some maximally accurate portrait of God. It is not a systematic theology or a philosophy text. Just as the moral rules in the OT are sometimes lacking, so to is what it says about God. Interpreting the Bible or what scripture intends to teach can be quite messy at times. And the OT most certainly regulates and permits slavery:

“20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.”

Not to mention the conquest slaves. Jesus is the maximally accurate portrait of God which the OT prefigures and points to.

Vinnie

[knor (Kai)]

@Vinnie

Ignore the context of Mary and instead focus on the idea of pagan precursors noted by Lewis.

All truth is not concentrated within Christian denominations. Pagan cultures may include valuable and correct pieces of understanding about this world. Yet, we should be cautious when we evaluate the beliefs of pagan cultures. Much of those beliefs are in conflict with the understanding we gain from the biblical scriptures and the other early apostolic tradition.

Many pagan cultures include praying or worship targeted to notable ancestors. Goddesses have also been part of most ancient belief systems. That does not mean that praying to Christian notable ancestors (‘saints’) or treating Mary like a goddess would be correct. If Mary listens to the problems of current Christians, I can only say: poor Mary! I hope you can rest in your blessed sleep without having to carry the burden of listening to prayers like a pagan goddess.

Philosophy is not like the belief in listening ancestors or goddesses of Heaven. Philosophy is basically logical thinking and might prove itself by showing that its’ conclusions are rational and based on valid assumptions. Cultures do affect philosophical thinking by setting the foundations for thinking, what is considered true without a need to prove the axioms. Healthy philosophy is aware of this caveat and can take it into account.

If the philosophy starts to build on the claims of previous thinkers, like Aristotle, there is a great risk that the potentially false axioms of the previous thinkers ‘pollute’ the philosophical thinking. Despite completely logical thinking, the ‘polluted’ results may represent a virtual universe, not our reality. That is one reason why I am somewhat sceptical towards the conclusions of philosophy, even if I value the logical approach to the questions. The conclusions might be correct or they might be ‘polluted’, it is difficult to know or trust without jumping deep into the details.

Mostly, I am not interested enough to put much of my time and energy to the verification of the philosophical conclusions. Yet, I enjoy reading the justifications of conflicting opinions about (Christian) interpretations.

[03Cobra (Vance)]

I don’t think we can draw any conclusions on math from the round container 10 cubits across which can be encircled by a rope of 30 cubits: that simply describes a container with a brim which is more becomes more narrow at the base. This is very common in tea cups and bathtubs.

On the topic of whether prayer is useful and God changes His mind, a good example is Hezekiah’s life extension.

2 Kings 20

1 In those days Hezekiah became sick and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz came to him, and said to him, “Thus says the Lord: Set your house in order, for you shall die; you shall not recover.”
2 Then Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the Lord:
3 “Remember now, O Lord, I implore you, how I have walked before you in faithfulness with a whole heart, and have done what is good in your sight.” Hezekiah wept bitterly.
4 Before Isaiah had gone out of the middle court, the word of the Lord came to him:
5 “Turn back, and say to Hezekiah prince of my people, Thus says the Lord, the God of your ancestor David: I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; indeed, I will heal you; on the third day you shall go up to the house of the Lord.
6 I will add fifteen years to your life. I will deliver you and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria; I will defend this city for my own sake and for my servant David’s sake.”

[03Cobra (Vance)]

As Jesus came to reveal the Father to us, the actions of Jesus reveal the nature of God. If we have seen Him, we have seen the Father.

Another relevant passage of scripture is Mark 7:

24 From there he set out and went away to the region of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know he was there. Yet he could not escape notice,

25 but a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately heard about him, and she came and bowed down at his feet.

26 Now the woman was a Gentile, of Syrophoenician origin. She begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter.

27 He said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.”

28 But she answered him, “Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”

29 Then he said to her, “For saying that, you may go—the demon has left your daughter.”

30 So she went home, found the child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.

What the woman said (and the faith that gave her the courage to say it) resulted in a change.

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

I appreciated this part from the linked article:

Depending on the specifics of the parts you’re affirming or denying of God, it might plausibly be very pressing or totally inconsequential to accept or reject divine simplicity.

        On the other hand, we may take the doctrine of divine simplicity to be a consequence of an even more basic theological claim: that of God’s unknowability according to nature. Call this the “apophatic” view of divine simplicity. On this account, the engine that is running the theological train, and the primary theological claim to be guarded, is the belief that the life of God is essentially unknowable and thus ineffably distinct from all else that exists. This is, to my mind, good sound Scriptural theology: *For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your ways my ways, says the Lord*. *For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.*

[klw]

@Vinnie

Best revelation should not be confused with your open-theism view.

Where did I say it did? You seem confused. My only argument is that open theism is more aligned with the picture of God in the biblical text (and in Jesus) than classical theism.

@Vinnie

Secondly, as I have shown, we believe that many of the philosophical attributes of God from people like Aquinas are found in the Bible.

I know what you said—Classical Theologians think the “classic” attributes of God are found in the bible. This is where I (and a swath of other Christian theologians going back to at least the 4th century) simply disagree. As stated in a very early post in this thread Tertullians quote “What has Athens got to do with Jerusaleum” is a long-standing debate in Christianity.

@Vinnie

You seem to just be comparing Hebrew beliefs as a whole, as if they were univocal, to Greek beliefs as a whole, as if they were univocal. Which Greek beliefs? Which Hebrew beliefs?

The discussion has been whether the “open” picture of God as described in Roger Olsons essay is more consistent with the God described in scripture (and Jesus) than the “classic” attributes derived from Greek Philosophy.

@Vinnie

When properly interpreted by the Church.

Well, as you well know, this is a Roman Catholic stance, so one which I (and protestants generally) do not share. Given that the “Classic Attributes” are taught by the catholic church, you are obviously personally committed to defending that framing and have a lot riding on it. I do not.

@Vinnie

There is a difference between being subject to time as some external reality distinct from God and acting in time. If God is not pure act or being itself, this means there could be other Gods or a higher God

No. Physics still has a very hazy idea of what ‘time” is. Some Christian theologians have posited that time is an inherent feature of God, as He has always been in relation with Himself as a trinity. “Relationships” seem impossible without time. This requires no other “gods” beside God. Others have pointed out that since God created ex-nihilo and voluntarily (not necessarily) that there was a moment when no creation existed, and another moment when God chose to create. This is a sequence of change “moments” in God’s life (which is defined as time). In fact, time seem necessary to conceive of an omnipotent God who creates out of free will, not necessity. This is most consistent with Orthodox (scriptural) views in my opinion and God as “pure act” makes no logical sense.

@Vinnie

The classical theist of the Thomist tradition distinguishes between real and “Cambridge properties” of God.

Yeah…I’ve read about Cambridge Properties and the extensive debate between philosophers like Ryan Mullins and Feser over whether these can “save” divine simplicity. I know you’re a big Feser fan, but this is where we again have to agree to disagree. To me, critiques of the Cambridge Properties arguments etc. still stand.

@Vinnie

You think the classical view is post hoc and the Church got it wrong for 2,000 years until an open understanding of God popularized in 1994 got it right? Hard pass.

I quoted a bunch of verses, God is the creator and sustainer of all things, time doesn’t apply like it does for us, He doesn’t change, etc. All of these beliefs are clearly articulated in scripture. You can take them how you want

Recycling the old time and majority argument again I see! And yes, you Gish-Galloped through a whole bunch of “apparently contrary” bible verses which I repeat for the the third time in this thread, have been addressed thoroughly from the Open Theist perspective in writings elsewhere. So for the third time in this thread! I encourage interested parties to investigate the contrasting interpretations of those passages (feel free to PM me if you want some resources), and judge for yourself whether the scriptural text clearly describes the “classic attributes”, or whether they are projected there based on Greek philosophical presuppositions.

______________________________________________________________________________

Edit: for those interested in a relatively easy read on the “open” interpretation of various scriptures Vinnie referred to, as well as the interesting question “What do Open Theists do about prophecy in the bible” I recommend Greg Boyd’s book: Amazon.ca

Greg Boyd also has a webpage called “Reknew” with blog posts on a whole range of theological topics. Typing in “Open Theism” in the search bar will reveal discussions on many of the common scripture passages etc. https://reknew.org/

[St.Roymond]

@Vinnie

“20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.”

I remember reaching that in Hebrew Readings class and my first thought was, “What about the ones who don’t recover for four or more days?”

[St.Roymond]

@klw

@Vinnie

When properly interpreted by the Church.

Well, as you well know, this is a Roman Catholic stance, so one which I (and protestants generally) do not share.

Nor did some significant church Fathers – sola scriptura was not a Reformation invention.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

@St.Roymond

“What about the ones who don’t recover for four or more days?”

Good question. I think after a couple of days, if they have not died, then it becomes an act of God whether they recover or not and the slave beater is off the hook. Maybe. Maybe two days is statute of limitations on that offense.

[Vinnie]

@klw

Where did I say it did? You seem confused. My only argument is that open theism is more aligned with the picture of God in the biblical text (and in Jesus) than classical theism.

The discussion has been whether the “open” picture of God as described in Roger Olsons essay is more consistent with the God described in scripture (and Jesus) than the “classic” attributes derived from Greek Philosophy.

It is not. Your reasoning depends on denying a distinction between God’s intrinsic and essential properties and God’s extrinsic and relational properties. Beyond that, I would say open-view theism is based on a concordant reading of Scripture that applies anthropomorphic features to God’s essential nature.

The better reading of scripture is not to force all the verses I quoted into teaching what you want or need them to say. Rather, it would be to accept them for what they plainly narrate and also the anthropomorphic ones as both telling us something about God. I have stated early that almost all our descriptions of God are anthropomorphic in some sense. But we have learned to parse between essential and relational properties.

@klw

Given that the “Classic Attributes” are taught by the catholic church, you are obviously personally committed to defending that framing and have a lot riding on it. I do not.

The existence of God (with a very CAPITAL G) and genuineness of the Christian faith rides on the classical attributes. For me, atheism and nihilism is the alternative. This has nothing to do with Catholicism.

@klw

No. Physics still has a very hazy idea of what ‘time” is. Some Christian theologians have posited that time is an inherent feature of God, as He has always been in relation with Himself as a trinity. “Relationships” seem impossible without time. This requires no other “gods” beside God. Others have pointed out that since God created ex-nihilo and voluntarily (not necessarily) that there was a moment when no creation existed, and another moment when God chose to create. This is a sequence of change “moments” in God’s life (which is defined as time). In fact, time seem necessary to conceive of an omnipotent God who creates out of free will, not necessity.

I don’t view creation as an act in the past. If you understand Aquinas #1 and Aristotle’s prime mover, God creates, sustains and upholds things at all times. As Jesus said, “My father is woking until now.” God’s creative activity is ongoing for us. The closest we can come is to say God is timeless and exists in an in eternal now of perfection. Asking what God was doing before creation makes no sense. Before God created time, there was no concept of before. It’s like asking what is North of the North Pole. Suffice to say, our language breaks down at this point, as it probably should when we get to the deepest and most accurate understanding of God possible.

Furthermore, we don’t compete or perfect God in any way. On an essential level, from everlasting to everlasting He is perfect and complete. He doesn’t pine for our approval, He is not famished when He doesn’t receive it. We don’t diminish or add to His perfection in anyway. Creation is the result of “love overflowing.”

@klw

This is most consistent with Orthodox (scriptural) views in my opinion and God as “pure act” makes no logical sense.

Aquinas #1 and Aristotles Unmoved mover are the strongest argument for God’s existence and completely logical. This is what they teach.If you want to argue against cosmological arguments as a Christian, that is your prerogative.

@klw

Yeah…I’ve read about Cambridge Properties and the extensive debate between philosophers like Ryan Mullins and Feser over whether these can “save” divine simplicity. I know you’re a big Feser fan, but this is where we again have to agree to disagree. To me, critiques of the Cambridge Properties arguments etc. still stand.

I have seen nothing to undermine that God has essential properties that are immutable and unchanging, but also accidental or relational ones that don’t change his nature. Do you think God is perfect? Can God’s perfection change? Do you not accept there are essential properties of God like omnipotence? It seems weird to me. Open-view theists can certainly reimage certain classical attribute (God had all the power or God knows all that can be known) but I wasn’t aware they denied God has essential (immutable and unchanging) properties. If you think God is perfect or God is love, and could never be otherwise, you believe in essential properties.

Vinnie

[klw]

@Vinnie

It is not. Your reasoning depends on denying a distinction between God’s intrinsic and essential properties and God’s extrinsic and relational properties.

I hate to break it to you, but I (and others) do not find the Thomistic philosophy around intrinsic and essential properties of God coherent. It is clear that you and Feser hate Ryan Mullins but I find his arguments and analytics convincing W.R.T. perspectives on time and change. For interested readers there is open access to Mullins most recent work on God and time: From Divine Timemaker to Divine Watchmaker | An Exploration of God’s T

@Vinnie

Beyond that, I would say open-view theism is based on a concordant reading of Scripture that applies anthropomorphic features to God’s essential nature.

We seem to be going in circles. Yes I know you said that– and I replied in multiple posts above, including addressing the question of genre of scripture. But the question I raised at the beginning of this thread, and the one that you still haven’t answered is,: why is one to assume that Greek Philosophy has the “more correct picture of God” such that it can judge all scriptural portrayals as being “just anthropomorphic or analogical”?

@Vinnie

the Christian faith rides on the classical attributes

according to you

@Vinnie

I don’t view creation as an act in the past. If you understand Aquinas #1 and Aristotle’s prime mover,

As stated above, I just find Thomistic views of timelessness logically incoherent. I do agree with the rest of your statements that God does not “need” us to complete him in any way…etc. All of that is consistent with Open Theism.

@Vinnie

Do you think God is perfect? Can God’s perfection change? Do you not accept there are essential properties of God like omnipotence?

Classical theism defines “perfection” and “change” in certain ways that other theologians/philosophers argue are logically incoherent and incompatible with the picture of God in Scripture. That is the longstanding philosophical debate (and one that will not be resolved here re-posting volumes of academic papers and books going back and forth on the subject). At the end of the day, I simply do not find the philosophical attempts to prop up classical theism convincing. If you are convinced by Thomistic reasoning, more power to you. Apparently I lack that gift.

[1Cor15.54 (Massimiliano)]

@Vinnie

If you understand Aquinas #1 and Aristotle’s prime mover, God creates, sustains and upholds things at all times.

Colossians 1,15-17

“The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

[03Cobra (Vance)]

@Vinnie

Is the best moral system one that sanctions or ends slavery?

As long as people have free will, I don’t think it is possible to change society in one instant.

“An eye for an eye” sounds brutal today, but when the Law of Moses was implemented it was a constraint, a prohibition of “A life for an eye.”

The transition to eliminating slavery was not something that could happen immediately while people have choices (i.e., free will).

[Vinnie]

@03Cobra

As long as people have free will, I don’t think it is possible to change society in one instant.

“An eye for an eye” sounds brutal today, but when the Law of Moses was implemented it was a constraint, a prohibition of “A life for an eye.”

The transition to eliminating slavery was not something that could happen immediately while people have choices (i.e., free will).

I’m pretty sure all of that was built in to the point I was using it to make.

Vinnie

[03Cobra (Vance)]

Great!

I apologize if I was redundant.

[St.Roymond]

@jpm

@St.Roymond

“What about the ones who don’t recover for four or more days?”

Good question. I think after a couple of days, if they have not died, then it becomes an act of God whether they recover or not and the slave beater is off the hook. Maybe. Maybe two days is statute of limitations on that offense.

It was one of those moments when on later reflection I wished the rabbis I knew later who had the Torah memorized (in Hebrew, one also in Greek) had been there.

[St.Roymond]

@1Cor15.54

The Son is the image of the invisible God

Just want to say that “image” can be rendered as “icon”.

[St.Roymond]

@03Cobra

The transition to eliminating slavery was not something that could happen immediately while people have choices (i.e., free will).

It took rabbis centuries to realize that if man is made in the image of God, then to claim to own another man is nigh unto blasphemous.
This struck me the moment I first read 1 Peter in the Greek: that for which the price was the Blood of the Lamb cannot be had for silver or gold without insulting that Blood.

@03Cobra

I apologize if I was redundant.

No one is redundant – or God wouldn’t have made that one.