reality is not optional

answering james white

Posted on July 15, 2014 by christopher fisher

This post will take James White’s cross examination questions to Bob Enyart and answer them. It should be noted that in Enyart’s cross examination, James White avoided direct questions such as answering the simple question “In Gethsemane, at the moment Jesus stated that God could send legions of angels to rescue Jesus, could God have done so at that moment?” Enyart, for the most part, directly answered White’s questions.

1. Did God know you would exist when he created the world?

No. In Genesis 6 we see God repenting of making man. God had decided that if He had known that man would become that wicked that God would never had created them. This is exactly how the text reads:

Gen 6:5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
Gen 6:7 So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

God then performs a global reset, showing that God did truly repent of making the world. He destroys not only man, but birds, trees, animals, and the entire world’s terrain . This was God showing He regretted creating the world (the text is explicit). God did not foreknow that individuals would exist who were that evil and wicked. God repented when He saw the end result of His creation. God does not foreknow all individuals from eternity past.

While White believes the repentance in Genesis 6 is more of a “deep grief”, the repentance more fits the normal use of the word such as in Jonah:

Jon 3:10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

See also:
Restraint of Free Will

As an interesting side note, in hypnotist manuals they stress that they cannot even hypnotize people to do something against which the person is morally opposed.

9. In Isaiah 41 we hear “tell us the former things, what they are, that we may consider them, that we may know their outcome.” Could you please explain how it is that God can give this challenge, and can you tell us how God can fulfill this challenge, Himself, in an open theist universe?

This is where I might vary from Enyart’s answer. The verse in question is in the context of power actions. The entire 9 chapters from Isaiah 40-48 is God attempting to convince Israel that God is powerful enough to accomplish what He says He will do.

Imagine that. Not only did Israel at that time doubt God’s ability to perform even the simplest of actions but God dedicates His own words and time to convince them otherwise. God is wholeheartedly attempting to convince Israel that He is the one true God and is powerful enough to do what He says. Ancient Israelites not only did not believe God was omniscient, omnipresent, timeless, and immutable, but also they did not believe God was omnipotent. How differently would Isaiah have written if he were a Calvinist instead of an Open Theist? Instead, Isaiah writes like an Open Theist: God is powerful enough to do what He says.

That is the context of Isaiah:

Isa 41:22 “Let them bring forth and show us what will happen; Let them show the former things, what they were, That we may consider them, And know the latter end of them; Or declare to us things to come.

God says something an brings it about. See the very next verse:

Isa 41:23 Show the things that are to come hereafter, That we may know that you are gods; Yes, do good or do evil, That we may be dismayed and see it together.

In short, here is God’s argument why Israel should believe God is the true God:

I am God and I will protect you and kill the wicked. Once you see this you will know that I am God because I said it and I brought it to past. Look at these false gods. What power acts have they claimed they would do and then accomplished. (Note how this filters the claim that a false god performed just any random event. Whereas a coincidence might to attributed to a false god, if the false worshipers are asked to produce a prediction of the event before the event happened then it is much harder to attribute randomness to a false god.) Furthermore, I challenge them to predict their own power acts right now, just as I have just done, and we will see who is the true God.

This is NOT a claim of knowledge. That would be counter to the entire point of Isaiah 40-48. God, as is echoed throughout the Bible, is saying that He knows what will happen because He is powerful enough to bring it about. God says He will do something and the God does that thing.

This is NOT about all past events in history, such as the first man stubbing his toe or some future man flushing a toilet. The context is God’s prophecy and acts, particularly in regards to Israel’s current and past geopolitical status. Isaiah’s point is that God will act and has acted, with prophecy confirmation. This proves God is the true God.

Also see:
An Overview of Isaiah 40
Understanding Isaiah 41

10. Do you believe Judas could have repented and not betrayed the Lord?

Yes. God, throughout the Bible, states that if the wicked repent then God will respond in turn. Ezekiel 18 and Jeremiah 18 are the most prominent examples of this in the Bible, but these normal operating procedures are repeated ad nauseam in case people just don’t understand. God rejoices when the wicked repent. He is not mad that his prophecy doesn’t come true. Instead, God uses His failed prophecy to illustrate His mercy (such as in Jonah).

11. In light of.. John 13, when Jesus says, he specifically cites the scripture “but the scripture will be fulfilled “he who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.” Could you explain how the scripture could not be fulfilled and yet Jesus not be speaking falsehood here?

The Augustinian Christians have an unnatural standard for what they believe constitutes falsehood. In Jonah 3:4, God had Jonah prophesy 40 days until Nineveh would be destroyed. Nineveh was not destroyed. The prophesy did not come true. But neither God nor Jonah were speaking “falsehoods”.

Likewise, God had promised to drive out enemy nations from Israel, but in Judges 2:20 God says that He will not do what He had promised. God was not speaking falsehoods.

The reason both these incidents (and others) are not falsehoods is because the conditions changed and a fulfillment would be unreasonable. If you tell your teenager that you will take them to Disneyland, but then they run away from home, you do not have to track them down, tie them up, and smuggle them to Florida in order to “not have been speaking falsehoods”. That would be absurd. Likewise, God uses reasonable standards when dealing with both people and nations. God will respond to nations and God will respond to people:

Jer 18:7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it,
Jer 18:8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.
Jer 18:9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it,
Jer 18:10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

Notice that God does not do what He thought He would do also that God does not do what He said He would do depending on the actions of the people. The only people insistent that everything has to happen as planned is the Calvinist, and this is because of their dedication to the Platonist attributes of God.

In short, something God thinks or something God says can be falsified without God having spoken falsehood.

In response to James White’s second point, about the prediction itself, it is not an actual prediction. The reference is to Psalm 41 and this is a Psalm where King David is talking about his dealings with his enemies:

Psa 41:7 All who hate me whisper together against me; Against me they devise my hurt.
Psa 41:8 “An evil disease,” they say, “clings to him. And now that he lies down, he will rise up no more.”
Psa 41:9 Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, Who ate my bread, Has lifted up his heel against me.
Psa 41:10 But You, O LORD, be merciful to me, and raise me up, That I may repay them.
Psa 41:11 By this I know that You are well pleased with me, Because my enemy does not triumph over me.
Psa 41:12 As for me, You uphold me in my integrity, And set me before Your face forever.

There is no hint of prophecy in these verses. This is why it needs to be stressed “fulfilled”, as used throughout the book of Matthew, is better translated as “paralleled”. The Jewish culture of Jesus’ time were looking for parallel concepts, not predictions of the future. If Jesus’ life and ministry significantly paralleled Old Testament themes, that is how it was considered true.

12. (Referencing John 13:19) If Judas had not done what Jesus had said, then how would the disciples know that Jesus is the I AM?

Joh 13:19 Now I tell you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe that I am He.

One very interesting thing about John 13:19 is that White claims this as a parallel “deity test” to various verses in Isaiah 40-48. White also admits that Jesus did not know the end times per Mark 13:32. This means that both John 13:19 and Isaiah 40-48 do not necessitate fatalistic knowledge of the future! God and Jesus can both not “know” various things and still makes these claims. This is an excellent verse against Calvinism.

But how could Jesus make such claims with accuracy and stake his claim to being the Messiah upon it? Certainly this is the same Judas that Jesus spent three years preaching alongside. Certainly this is the same Judas who had been showing increasing dissatisfaction with Jesus. Certainly this is the same Judas who has been stealing money from the collections for his own use. Jesus intimately knew Judas’ character, plus had access to God to fill in the details of what had already transpired. This first part is how Jesus knew Judas would not repent. Judas was already in deep with the plot. The second part is speculation of one of the many ways Jesus could know about the plot. Nothing in the verses necessitate omniscience or fatalism. In fact, because Jesus did not know everything they destroy other Calvinist prooftexts about omniscience.

13. Could Jesus have not gone to the cross?

Yes. Jesus, himself, believed he did not have to go to the cross. This was discussed in question 3. In the actual debate, Enyart had explained this earlier as well.

14. Is it possible for the Son as a human being with free will to have chosen to rebel against the father?

Satan definitely believed so. Satan tempts Jesus in the wilderness in an attempt to get Jesus to side with Satan.

James White believes he knows more about what Jesus can and cannot do than the authors of the Bible and than Satan. Satan will engage in bets with God (Job 1 and again in Job 2). Satan did not believe God knew the future. Many people throughout the Bible negotiate with God to revoke His prophecies (Exodus 32 and Genesis 18). But James White does not see God in the same light as those who best knew God. James White thinks he knows better than those who spoke with God “face to face”.

James White instead bases his understanding about God on how the implications make him feel and how the implications interact with his grand and crazy metaphysics. This is not a rational way to do theology. Truth is not dependent on James White’s personal whims. The Bible should not be viewed through the lens on Plato.

When Jesus says that he willed not to die by crucifixion, Jesus should be believed (not James White). James White has a crazy belief that if Jesus actually exercised his will (to not die by crucifixion) then the Godhead would “cease to exist”. Is that a Biblical belief? What verses explain the results of Jesus rebelling from God or ever suggest it cannot happen? Why would it even be a rational conclusion that rebelling would make the Godhead “cease to exist”?

Like so much of James White’s theology, it is just made up in his own head. Here is White’s argument: “if the future is not settled, if Jesus can rebel, if God can change, then we cannot trust Him.” The points and purposes of most James White’s questions are all about feel good metaphysical implications without reference to the Bible. The Bible gives reasons we can trust God and it is always by pointing out past faithfulness (not by falling back on impecability or immutability or any other pagan attribute). Enyart responds mostly with Biblical illustrations showing how even the Bible undermines White’s emotional arguments. White responds by emoting.

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, God, Immutablility, Jewish History, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Omniscience, Open Theism, Prophecy, Theology | 1 Comment

the nirvana fallacy

Posted on July 1, 2014 by christopher fisher

From a post by David Henderson:

When people advocate government intervention, they rarely, maybe never, tell us how the incentives will be set up so that government will do the right thing. Think about how asymmetric the argument is. Incentives in the private sector are such that someone will do something in his interest that hurts others in society, but he doesn’t take account of that hurt in his decision. Or, someone could take action that would benefit others a great deal but it isn’t in his interest to take the action. Notice the use of reasoning about incentives to show why the market fails. Therefore, continues the argument, we should have government intervene.

Did you catch the non sequitur?

…

The late George Stigler once said it’s like a judge at a beauty contest seeing just the first contestant and then awarding the prize to the second contestant.

Henderson is describing the Nirvana fallacy. This fallacy is when a imperfect something is compared to an idealized other. In this case, a market problem is being compared to a perfect and costless government solution. But reality does not work that way.

What should happen is a cost-benefit analysis to verify that all things considered the government is not worse than the free market. This is always failed by advocates of state action, although government problems abound.

The problems of government: dead weight loss due to taxes, dead weight loss due to regulations, cost of compliance of regulations, perverse government incentives, static and not dynamic handing of issues, tendency for government not to be held to any standard (poor employees are never fired and good employees are not rewarded), budget bloat (agencies are rewarded for maximizing and not minimizing budgets), special interest capture, etc. This does not even count the human toll, as the government enforces it’s actions against individuals.

When advocating state action, people need to keep in perspective the government costs involved.

Posted in Econ 101, Economics, Goverment, State Worship | Leave a comment

ehrman on the letters of paul

Posted on June 29, 2014 by christopher fisher

Ehrman gives an excellent summary of Paul’s letters in the book Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene:

In his letter to the Romans Paul has to defend himself against charges leveled by other, trusted Christian authorities that he preached a gospel that leads to lawless behavior and that impugned God on the ground that he reneged on his promises to the Jews. In 1 Corinthians he attacks those who think—based on his own teaching, evidently—that they have already experienced the glories of a spiritual resurrection with Christ. In 2 Corinthians he attacks new apostles who have arrived in town with a similar message, sarcastically calling them “super-apostles.” In his letter to the Philippians he attacks Christians who urge his converts to be circumcised, calling them “dogs” who were concerned only for their own pleasure and who “worship the belly.” And most notably in Galatians, he fires off a letter of reproach for Jewish Christians of similar ilk, who have argued that the covenant God made with the Jews was eternally binding. For Paul, these so-called Judaizers stand under God’s curse, and anyone who accepts their message has “fallen from grace.”

Posted in Bible, Bible Critics, Dispensationalism, Ehrman, Theology | Leave a comment

ehrman on dispensationalism

Posted on June 28, 2014 by christopher fisher

Although Bart Ehrman does not use the term “Acts 9 Dispensationalist”, he makes very simlar points in the book Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene:

As I’ve intimated, Paul’s own writings show that not everyone agreed with this view of the law, including Peter. We never hear his side of the argument in Antioch—just Paul’s. One can only wonder whether Peter readily yielded and agreed that he’d been bested. It seems rather unlikely. Certainly the other missionaries who came to Galatia in Paul’s wake disagreed with him, insisting that it was their message that had been given by God. In fact, as we’ll see in a later chapter, virtually everywhere Paul went, he had opponents who taught different understandings of the Christian message, all of whom, naturally, believed they were right and Paul was wrong. What a pity for historians that the other sides of these stories have not been preserved.

Posted in Bible, Bible Critics, Dispensationalism, Ehrman, Theology | Leave a comment

God is perfect

Posted on June 28, 2014 by christopher fisher

Perfection is a loaded word in theology. There is a long history of people using Greek philosophy to define the particulars of “perfection”. The Platonists used to claim that whatever changes can only change for the better or the worse. If something is perfect then it cannot get better, so any change is for the worse. This is high Platonism.

Of course perfect things change. A perfect baby changes every day. A perfect waterfall is dynamic. A perfect watch never stops. And God defines Himself as living. But Platonism has so influenced “Perfect Being” theology that Calvinists make the silly claim all the time. It is Platonism. But this is a good illustration to show that “perfect” is a loaded word. It is important to remember the Biblical definition of “perfection”. It is synonymous with “righteous”.

Here are the common Biblical references of attributing “perfection” to God:

Psa 18:30 As for God, His way is perfect [taw-meem’]; The word of the LORD is proven; He is a shield to all who trust in Him.

2Sa 22:31 As for God, His way is perfect [taw-meem’]; The word of the LORD is proven; He is a shield to all who trust in Him.

Here is the word used in more common settings:

Exo 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish [taw-meem’], a male of the first year. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats.

Lev 3:9 And he shall offer of the sacrifice of the peace offering an offering made by fire unto the LORD; the fat thereof, and the whole [taw-meem’] rump, it shall he take off hard by the backbone; and the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards,

Here is the word in reference to ordinary humans:

Gen 6:9 This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect [taw-meem’] in his generations. Noah walked with God.

Deu 18:13 You shall be blameless [taw-meem’] before the LORD your God.

Job 12:4 I am as one mocked of his neighbour, who calleth upon God, and he answereth him: the just [taw-meem’] upright man is laughed to scorn.

2Sa 22:24 I was also upright [taw-meem’] before him, and have kept myself from mine iniquity.

1Ki 15:14 But the high places were not removed. Nevertheless Asa’s heart was loyal [taw-meem’] to the LORD all his days.

2Ch 15:17 But the high places were not removed from Israel. Nevertheless the heart of Asa was loyal [taw-meem’] all his days.

Biblical perfect equates to righteousness. The word means “without blemish”. Literally it applies to food and sheep having no discernible problems. Figuratively it applies to people being righteous. In this sense, God too is perfect. God is not sinful and God is righteous. That is Biblical perfection.

In fact, the Bible implores people to be perfect like God:

Mat 5:48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

Posted in God, Morality, Theology | Leave a comment

presentism in the Bible

Posted on June 26, 2014 by christopher fisher

lain

Presentism is the theory of time that states that the only thing that exists is the present. The “past” is not a place one can travel into and change. The “future” is not a place that one can travel into and change. We live in an ever changing “now”.

This theory of time is the most natural for humans to understand. After all, this mirrors our real life experiences. The past is a memory and the future is not yet real. At an early age we learn that if we break our toys they will never be the same.

It is not a coincidence that this is the view of the Bible. The Bible speaks in real time. Past events are always memories. Future events are always future. There is no time travel in the Bible. There is no traveling into the past to change events. The past is set and gone. The future is open.

God is described throughout the Bible in terms of presentism, even the verses commonly used to support “timelessness”:

Rev 1:4 … from Him who is and who was and who is to come…

Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it is past, And like a watch in the night.

Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Notice in each “proof” of timelessness the understanding that time is real and experienced in the present. God was, is, and will be. A thousand years disappear into the past. Jesus was, is and will be. Days and years are spoken of as experienced time. And this is not assuming any of the above verses are idiomatic. All of this is the reality of the Bible.

Throughout the Bible, the presentism is strong.

Gen 9:16 The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.”

God here says that He anticipates doing something in the future that will remind Him of the past.

Deu 7:18 you shall not be afraid of them, but you shall remember well what the LORD your God did to Pharaoh and to all Egypt:

Here God remembers Egypt as the past and then calls on others to recall those events to shape their current thoughts.

Throughout one of the primary passages used by negative theology advocates, God speaks exclusively in presentism:

Isa 42:9 Behold, the former things have come to pass, And new things I declare; Before they spring forth I tell you of them.”

Things “spring forth”. They come into being. Other things are “pass”.

Isa 42:14 “I have held My peace a long time, I have been still and restrained Myself. Now I will cry like a woman in labor, I will pant and gasp at once.
Isa 42:15 I will lay waste the mountains and hills, And dry up all their vegetation; I will make the rivers coastlands, And I will dry up the pools.

God speaks of enduring for a long time and now He has reached a point of action.

Isa 43:3 For I am the LORD your God, The Holy One of Israel, your Savior; I gave Egypt for your ransom, Ethiopia and Seba in your place.
Isa 43:4 Since you were precious in My sight, You have been honored, And I have loved you; Therefore I will give men for you, And people for your life.

God reminds the people of God’s acts in the past. God then mentions His past love for Israel. God lastly mentions what He will do in the future for Israel.

Isa 44:7 And who can proclaim as I do? Then let him declare it and set it in order for Me, Since I appointed the ancient people. And the things that are coming and shall come, Let them show these to them.

God challenges other gods to do what God does: declare what will happen in the future (things that “shall come”).

The entire text of the Bible speaks in these terms, any verse concerning time-frames is evidence of this. The concept of timelessness is not existent in the Bible. Events will happen, are happening, or have happened. There is no time travel, past or future. There is no “viewing time from outside of time”. The writers of the Bible were presentists: all that exists is now. The past is gone and the future is not yet.

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, God, Immutablility, Open Theism, Theology | 10 Comments

positional change and God

Posted on June 25, 2014 by christopher fisher

There is a claim that is regurgitated in Calvinist circles that any change in God seen in the Bible is really a positional change in man. Nineveh was evil. God will destroy the evil. Nineveh repositions itself to righteousness. God then will not destroy Nineveh. Pretending that this makes any sense (which it fails on multiple levels), several repentings of God in the Bible cannot be claimed as positional changes.

Isaiah is crystal clear:

Isa 43:24 You have bought Me no sweet cane with money, Nor have you satisfied Me with the fat of your sacrifices; But you have burdened Me with your sins, You have wearied Me with your iniquities.
Isa 43:25 “I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake; And I will not remember your sins.

Israel had not changed in this scenario. Israel continued with wickedness. But God, for His own sake, chose to forget Israel’s sins. The change is not with the people (the people continue doing what they always do), but God changes. God chooses to overlook wickedness. There is no room to claim a positional change in man.

This is not isolated. In Exodus 32, Moses changes God’s mind without any change in the people.

Exo 32:11 Then Moses pleaded with the LORD his God, and said: “LORD, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?
Exo 32:12 Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, ‘He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and relent from this harm to Your people.
Exo 32:13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’ ”
Exo 32:14 So the LORD relented [repented] from the harm which He said He would do to His people.

The text attributes the change to Moses, and confirms this every time the event is referenced in the Bible. There was no change in the people. The change was with God.

Elsewhere, God doesn’t change even when the people change. Saul is one such example.

1Sa 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent [repent]. For He is not a man, that He should relent [repent].”

This statement comes just after God took the kingdom from Saul. Saul attempted to repent a few verses previously:

1Sa 15:24 Then Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice.
1Sa 15:25 Now therefore, please pardon my sin, and return with me, that I may worship the LORD.”

But Saul’s repentance was not headed. It is after this that God seeks someone after God’s own heart and finds David to replace Saul.

Often, God is so angry that He warns the people that they will repent, but He will not listen. Their repentance will be ignored because they missed their chance:

Jer 14:12 When they fast, I will not hear their cry; and when they offer burnt offering and grain offering, I will not accept them. But I will consume them by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence.”

Eze 8:18 Therefore I also will act in fury. My eye will not spare nor will I have pity; and though they cry in My ears with a loud voice, I will not hear them.”

Mic 3:4 Then they will cry to the LORD, But He will not hear them; He will even hide His face from them at that time, Because they have been evil in their deeds.

God is personal. God changes sometimes without any change in man. In fact, the Bible records different actions for the exact same reasoning. God is not a static input-output device. God is living.

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, God, Immutablility, Open Theism, Theology | Leave a comment

when evil people prosper

Posted on June 17, 2014 by christopher fisher

Psa 37:1 A Psalm of David. Do not fret because of evildoers, Nor be envious of the workers of iniquity.
Psa 37:2 For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, And wither as the green herb.

Pro 10:27 The fear of the LORD prolongs days, But the years of the wicked will be shortened.

One consistent theme in the Bible is that those who are evil will receive present punishment from God. This is not punishment in the afterlife, but punishment that kills them in this life. As such, the authors of the Bible at various times become confused when present justice is not being carried out by God on Earth. The wicked are prospering while the righteous suffer:

Job 21:7 Why do the wicked live and become old, Yes, become mighty in power?
Job 21:8 Their descendants are established with them in their sight, And their offspring before their eyes.
Job 21:9 Their houses are safe from fear, Neither is the rod of God upon them.
Job 21:10 Their bull breeds without failure; Their cow calves without miscarriage.
Job 21:11 They send forth their little ones like a flock, And their children dance.
Job 21:12 They sing to the tambourine and harp, And rejoice to the sound of the flute.
Job 21:13 They spend their days in wealth, And in a moment go down to the grave.

Job is wondering to God why he suffers while people that are manifestly evil continue to prosper. Notice Job’s mindset: God actively should and does punish people who are wicked. Not only striking down their livestock, but also their children. God should and does create misery, even a painful death. “At a moment go down to the grave” is Job saying “They die peacefully.” This offends Job’s sense of righteousness.

Jeremiah wonders similarly:

Jer 12:1 Righteous are You, O LORD, when I plead with You; Yet let me talk with You about Your judgments. Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why are those happy who deal so treacherously?
Jer 12:2 You have planted them, yes, they have taken root; They grow, yes, they bear fruit. You are near in their mouth But far from their mind.

Jeremiah takes a pause from preaching to inquire why God waits to punish the wicked. He is confused, but quickly returns to prophecies of impending judgment of God. To Jeremiah, God’s rightful activity was punishing the current wicked on earth during their own lifetime. Jeremiah does not find it presumptuous to ask God why God is taking His current inactivity. In fact, it seems that Jeremiah believes he might be able to stir God to action.

The writer of Psalms 94 (unattributed psalm) states the same theme:

Psa 94:3 LORD, how long will the wicked, How long will the wicked triumph?
Psa 94:4 They utter speech, and speak insolent things; All the workers of iniquity boast in themselves.
Psa 94:5 They break in pieces Your people, O LORD, And afflict Your heritage.
Psa 94:6 They slay the widow and the stranger, And murder the fatherless.

The writer of Psalms 94 appeals to God’s love of God’s own people. Like Moses on Sinai and in the promise land, the writer appeals to God’s promise to Abraham (God’s heritage). The writer also appeals to God’s mercy towards the downtrodden (the widows, stranger, and orphans). This writer channeled his confusion about the wicked’s prosperity into a well reasoned call to action towards God. The second half ends with dire prophecy against the wicked.

Similarly themed in Psalms 73 (psalm of Asaph):

Psa 73:3 For I was envious of the boastful, When I saw the prosperity of the wicked.
Psa 73:4 For there are no pangs in their death, But their strength is firm.
Psa 73:5 They are not in trouble as other men, Nor are they plagued like other men.
Psa 73:6 Therefore pride serves as their necklace; Violence covers them like a garment.
Psa 73:7 Their eyes bulge with abundance; They have more than heart could wish.
Psa 73:8 They scoff and speak wickedly concerning oppression; They speak loftily.
Psa 73:9 They set their mouth against the heavens, And their tongue walks through the earth.

Psalms 73 laments the easy life of the wicked, comparing it against the suffering righteous. This psalm focuses on resentment. It also reads as if a called to action for God. The second half ends with dire prophecy against the wicked.

This was the hope of the writers of the Bible: God will rise up and punish the wicked who are currently prospering. This helped them deal with the understanding that some wicked appeared to prosper.

As everyone may know, judgement does not always happen. Mao Zedong (who murdered more human beings than anyone ever) died old. There are plenty of other examples. On the other hand, King David’s psalms petitioning God to act all seem to have worked. King David died old while his enemies died young.

Addendum:

Ecc 7:15 In my vain life I have seen everything. There is a righteous man who perishes in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man who prolongs his life in his evildoing.

Hab 1:2 O LORD, how long shall I cry for help, and you will not hear? Or cry to you “Violence!” and you will not save?
Hab 1:3 Why do you make me see iniquity, and why do you idly look at wrong? Destruction and violence are before me; strife and contention arise.
Hab 1:4 So the law is paralyzed, and justice never goes forth. For the wicked surround the righteous; so justice goes forth perverted.

Hab 1:13 You who are of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong, why do you idly look at traitors and remain silent when the wicked swallows up the man more righteous than he?

Job 12:6 The tents of robbers are at peace, and those who provoke God are secure, who bring their god in their hand.

Posted in Bible, God, Omnipotence, Open Theism, Theology | Leave a comment

dignum deo fallacy

Posted on June 17, 2014 by christopher fisher

Dignum deo means “that which is fitting of God” or “that which is dignified of God”. The term is used to label theology that bases its understanding of God on what God “should” be. This is usually synonymous with “Perfect Being” theology.

Plotinus assumed that God “should be” the “greatest good”. Plotinus built his theology around the implications of what the “greatest good” should mean (timelessness, immutability, omniscience, etc.). Modern Christians adopt the same dignum deo theology when they label God as “perfect” and then form their theology around what they determine to be “perfect”.

The problem is dignum deo and “perfect being” theology is that this metric is very arbitrary. What necessitates that God be the “best conceivable” being? If one takes the God of the philosopher (who the philosopher determines to be “perfect”) and then one small item is disallowed (maybe God is perfect except that He cannot make a “Big Mac”), then why is it that this being cannot be “God”? The philosopher will object because that would violate the definition of God (the same definition they arbitrarily created despite world history using a very different definition). The philosopher just uses word definitions to disallow opposition. Assumedly, he would be forced to label anyone who believes in “God who cannot make Big Macs” as an “atheist”.

Another huge problem is that value is subjective. Maybe one person thinks that immutability is perfection and reasons that God never changes in any detail. Alternatively, a modern American might value dynamitism and then reason that God is dynamic in all things always. The philosophers argue endlessly about what makes a being “perfect” with zero resolutions. Their assumption is that there is some sort of secretive and non-obvious standard of perfection. This claim is not obvious on face value. Different people can have difference “perfect” cars in mind. Both are right, because there is no such thing as a perfect car unless it is allowed multiple and rival states of perfection. This seems to be the case as well with Perfect Being theologians. The problem with dignum deo theology is that completely opposite conclusions can be reached because the theology is heavily based in subjectivity.

Of course, reality is not determined by subjectivity. One cannot just make up definitions to words or subjectively determine what would be a best possible state in order to change reality. No matter how much someone wants to believe a destroyed bridge will allow them to cross a river, they will get a strong dose of reality when they try to cross. Good intentions and arbitrary beliefs do not translate to fact.

Opposed to dignum deo theology is Biblical theology. God’s attributes are defined by the Bible. As long as the Bible is consistent about who God is, this is not a problematic theological approach. The problem comes in when individuals try to mix dignum deo with the Bible. Often passages must be allegorized and misinterpreted to fit people’s notion of what is fitting.

Rightly, Open Theists call out Calvinists who do so. This is a major argument for Open Theism. Also rightly, Calvinists call out Open Theists who hold a double standard. Bruce Ware states:

We read, “Then the LORD said, ‘Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to Me. And if not, I will know” (vv. 20-21, emphasis added). Open theists insist that language about God learning from what happens ought to be taken “literally” or in a “straightforward” manner. Well, consider what we would end up with from this passage if we follow this openness approach. First, we would have to deny that God is omnipresent (i.e. , everywhere present), because God says that he has to “go down to see” if what he has heard is true. This indicates, on a “straightforward” reading, that until God gets to Sodom, he cannot know whether the reports he has heard are correct. Second, we would have to deny that God knows everything about the past, for he has to confirm whether the Sodomites have done these horrible things. Evidently, then, God does not know whether what he has heard about their past actions is true, so he doesn’t know the past perfectly. Third, we would have to deny that God knows everything about the present. Because he has to go down to see, God doesn’t know right now whether the reports are true.

William Lane Craig also points out:

1. Openists have their own conception of what is dignum deo, and they don’t hesitate to draw on it when the Scriptures are silent. For example, if the openists are right that the Bible doesn’t clearly teach exhaustive omniscience with respect to the future, it’s no less true that it doesn’t clearly teach exhaustive omniscience with respect to the past and present; yet openists accept the latter. Why? Presumably because ignorance of any detail of the past and present would not be dignum deo.

We can see this failing of leading Open Theists at work. In the Openness of God, William Hasker writes on dignum deo (perfect being theology):

The difficulties with perfect being theology do not, in my view, stem from the assumption that God is an absolutely perfect being-that he is “whatever it is better to be than not to be.” Rather, difficulties have arisen because people have been too ready to assume that they can determine, easily and with little effort, what perfection is in the case of God-that is, what attributes a perfect being must possess. Yet it clearly is no simple matter to say what is the best kind of life for a human being or what are the ideal attributes (or virtues) for a human being to possess. So why should we assume that this is simple in the case of God? I do not think it should be taken as obvious, without long and thoughtful consideration, that it is “better” for God to be temporal or timeless, mutable or immutable, passible or impassible. So if we are going to object to Plato’s argument, we need not reject perfect being theology as such; rather, it is the application the argument makes of divine perfection that we must question.

A few pages later Hasker falls for the same error he criticizes. Hasker attributes “omniscience” to God and then defines it based on “fitting” terminology rather than proving it from the Bible:

Divine omniscience. Just as God is said to be all-powerful, he is also said to be all-knowing, or omniscient. Here also we need to go beyond the mere word to a careful definition. My proposal is: To say that God is omniscient means that at any time God knows all propositions such that God’s knowing them at that time is logically possible.

Hasker does this improper defining of several attributes, definitions of God’s attributes based on what Hasker believes is a good definition rather than a Biblical definition. A large portion of Open Theists are dignum deo Open Theists, believing that God is Open based on what would be fitting of a “loving God”. The same mindset is present in process theists. This mindset should be rejected as subjective and non-Biblical. Human beings cannot just invent things in their own mind and expect reality to conform. If people want to consider themselves Biblical Christians, they should base their understanding of God on the Bible wherever the Bible will take them.

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, God, Immutablility, Omniscience, Open Theism, Theology | 7 Comments

understanding psalms 88

Posted on June 13, 2014 by christopher fisher

Psalms 88 is perhaps one of the darkest passages in the Bible. Unlike the psalms of despair by King David, this psalm does not break into praise and hope. It ends decisively and abruptly in abandoned hope. This is not a typical psalm.

Psa 88:1 A Song. A Psalm of the Sons of Korah. To the Chief Musician. Set to “Mahalath Leannoth.” a Contemplation of Heman the Ezrahite. O LORD, God of my salvation, I have cried out day and night before You.
Psa 88:2 Let my prayer come before You; Incline Your ear to my cry.

The Psalm is attributed to the Sons of Korah. Korah was an individual sucked alive to hell by God (Num 26:10). This judgment against Korah did not extend to his sons (Num 26:11). Korah’s descendants (of which Samuel was one) became prominent in singing during the reign of David (1Ch 15:19). This Psalm is probably by a son of Korah during the time of David, but with a Psalm of Moses (Psalm 90) in existence this psalm could have been created by a direct son of Korah as well.

The Psalm starts with the author setting up his history in his pleas to God. The author has been calling to God for some length of time previous to this psalm. This psalm is not a point event, but a systematic event in the life of the author. The author implores God to listen to his prayers, which are constant and sincere.

Psa 88:3 For my soul is full of troubles, And my life draws near to the grave.
Psa 88:4 I am counted with those who go down to the pit; I am like a man who has no strength,
Psa 88:5 Adrift among the dead, Like the slain who lie in the grave, Whom You remember no more, And who are cut off from Your hand.

The author believes he will soon die. This is a physical death that the author describes. The author says that he is “counted” among the dead. It seems that others also believed he was on the verge of death. The author never explains the exact details of the situation, but it is imminent and real. The author compares himself to the already dead. The dead are silent, so God does not listen to the dead. In the same sense, the author feels God is treating him as if he were part of the dead.

Psa 88:6 You have laid me in the lowest pit, In darkness, in the depths.
Psa 88:7 Your wrath lies heavy upon me, And You have afflicted me with all Your waves. Selah
Psa 88:8 You have put away my acquaintances far from me; You have made me an abomination to them; I am shut up, and I cannot get out;
Psa 88:9 My eye wastes away because of affliction. LORD, I have called daily upon You; I have stretched out my hands to You.

The author attributes his problems to God. To the author, God was punishing him for some unnamed reason. God has even gone so far as to turn the author’s friends against him. The author then begins bargaining with God:

Psa 88:10 Will You work wonders for the dead? Shall the dead arise and praise You? Selah
Psa 88:11 Shall Your lovingkindness be declared in the grave? Or Your faithfulness in the place of destruction?
Psa 88:12 Shall Your wonders be known in the dark? And Your righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?

The author’s point is that if God lets him die, then God would be forgoing certain benefits. God will not be able to show the author God’s works. God would forgo the praise of the author. God would not benefit from the author’s recommendations of God to others about God’s love, faithfulness, power and righteousness (the author attacks every angle he can). God would be forgoing a strong advocate if God were to let the author die.

Psa 88:13 But to You I have cried out, O LORD, And in the morning my prayer comes before You.
Psa 88:14 LORD, why do You cast off my soul? Why do You hide Your face from me?
Psa 88:15 I have been afflicted and ready to die from my youth; I suffer Your terrors; I am distraught.
Psa 88:16 Your fierce wrath has gone over me; Your terrors have cut me off.
Psa 88:17 They came around me all day long like water; They engulfed me altogether.
Psa 88:18 Loved one and friend You have put far from me, And my acquaintances into darkness.

The psalm ends on a negative note. The author prays fervently, but God does not listen. God is nowhere to be found, except in judgment on the author. The author compares his pain to waters covering his face and drowning him. It is a dark image.

The author ends the psalm by stating he is alone. Not only has God abandoned him, but God has also caused the author’s friends to abandon him as well. He is alone.

The author’s conception of God was that God could be moved. The author spends his time in earnest prayer attempting to move God to compassion. The author lays out skillful reasons for God to save him. The author even speaks of praising God’s faithfulness, even after severe abandonment. This was the reality of God to the author.

Posted in Open Theism, Theology | 1 Comment

reality is not optional

answering james white

the nirvana fallacy

ehrman on the letters of paul

ehrman on dispensationalism

God is perfect

presentism in the Bible

positional change and God

when evil people prosper

dignum deo fallacy

understanding psalms 88

Recent Posts

Categories

Audio

Blogroll

Video

Archives

Meta