The Longer Road
Now when Pharaoh had let the people go, God did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines, even though it was near; for God said, “The people might change their minds when they see war, and return to Egypt.” Exodus 13:17 NASB
Change their minds – Does the way that you behave change the way God behaves? Be very careful how you answer that question. If you say, “Yes, my actions affect God’s choices,” then you will have to explain how it is possible that God didn’t know in advance what you would choose and adjust accordingly. If you say, “No, God’s plans are immutable. He doesn’t change,” then you will have to explain not only the clear sense of this verse but also how God can hold you responsible for actions that He knew you were going to take before you took them. If He knew in advance, could you have chosen to do something else? And if He didn’t know in advance, is He still omniscient?
The Hebrew verb in the expression “change their minds” is naham. It means “to be sorry, to repent, to regret, to be comforted, to comfort.” What a wide range of meanings! How can a verb that means “change their minds” in one place be the same verb that means “Comfort, comfort my people” (Isaiah 40:1) in another place? How can this verb be used when Genesis 6:6-7 says that God repented that He ever made Man and be the same verb that is used in “Your rod and your staff comfort me” (Psalm 23:4)? It’s complicated.
T. E. Fretheim offers the following comment on this passage: “One would expect that God, with all the power at the divine disposal, would not back off from leading the people into any situation. God would just mow the enemies down. No, the human situation makes a difference regarding God’s possibilities and hence affects the divine decisions” (italics original)[1] It certainly seems as if Fretheim’s comment is correct. But then we get this: “When nāḥam is used of God, however, the expression is anthropopathic and there is no ultimate tension. From man’s limited, earthly, finite perspective it only appears that God’s purposes have changed.”[2]
The tension between what seems obvious from the text and what is required for certain theological doctrines leads to a real conflict between God’s immutability (God cannot change) and God’s compassion (God feels what we feel). Most preachers don’t talk about this very much because impassibility (the doctrine that God cannot feel because feelings are changes in mood and God cannot change) is not very comforting. But the fact that we don’t talk about it doesn’t make it go away. We act as if our feelings, our plans, our hopes and dreams make a difference to God. But some classical theological doctrines tell us that this is just a delusion – something we need as a crutch but not actually true of God. How this theological nonsense came about is a study in the Greek influence on Christian thinking (which you can read about in my book, God, Time and the Limits of Omniscience, if you dare). But what seems quite obvious from this text and others like it is that what we do is critically important to God and He not only anticipates our possibilities but makes provision for them should they occur.
“The people might change their minds” does not say that they will change their minds. It only says that this possibility exists and because the possibility exists, God alters His actions. Now then, how many times has God altered His actions because of the possibilities that might occur in your life? How many times has God had to lead you on the longer path because He anticipated that you might not be up for the shorter route? How many times has God led you around potential obstacles rather than straight through them? Actually, you may never know. But this much you can be sure of. God modifies His plans to fit your potential. And that means that wherever you are now, it could have been worse. But God saw what you could handle and adjusted your path so that you took the road that didn’t have the really big rocks.
Topical Index: naham, repent, comfort, immutability, impassibility, Exodus 13:17
[1] T. E. Fretheim, Exodus: Interpretation (John Knox, 1991), p. 150.
[2] Wilson, M. R. (1999). 1344 נָחַם. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (571). Chicago: Moody Press.
Would the following verse help explain this? 1Corinthians 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
As often happens, reading Skip’s TW sends me off on rabbit trails following issue after issue as they link together. Today’s TW lead me to Rebbe Moshe Bogomilsky’s observation regarding a basic principle of the Jewish religion. It relates, I think, to today’s TW in the regard of our usual manner and habit of thinking. At least in mine, anyway.
For the most part, my Christian upbringing has revolved and majored in gaining knowledge through many disciplined ways and traditions I learned within the communities I grew with. Attending conferences, reading books and showing up in various classes were honored notches earned over the years. Bogomilsky’s observation was one of significance to me, as was Skip’s observation, in the manner and method we tend to think these days. Rebbe Moshe Bogomilsky states “The fact that the hand tefillin are put on before the head tefillin represents the great and basic principle of the Jewish religion, that practice must come before theory. One must first fulfill the Divine commandments without question, and only then try to understand as much as possible their significance.”
It is quite the experience to reverse my hardened and learned habits, fears and inhibitions, as it was for those people when they left Eqypt. I am entrenched in being the ‘master of my domain’ in the Jerry Seinfeld sense rather than in the ways of my Master. It’s a challenge to let go and stop trying to figure out if I should or shouldn’t do something. The simpler way of merely obeying what He clearly says is so easily rejected due to me being trained so well to question, object to and resist. How mind boggling the effects of sin.
There are many miles on my own life’s odometer unnecessarily. I could have gone the short route so many times. God anticipated my flimsy response and saw to it the long route for me. I need a tune up. Everyday.
Is this the equation? The longer the route I take through Torah study and rest in Him the shorter each day’s journeys through all those difficult issues? Or is it the slower I chew my Torah nuggets obtaining the most nutritional wisdom as possible the less difficult life’s challenges become?
“Lucky those hungering and thirsting, I have come to restore your righteousness before God.”
(from pgs. 70,72 of “The Lucky Life The Backward Beatitudes”)
Feed me, Yeshua. I don’t want to go back to Egypt no matter how much diversity or how many challenges awaits me in the days ahead.
Since Eden, it has been man’s dream to “be like God” (Gen. 3:5). And in his rebellion, man would like to believe there is not substantive difference between himself and God. The metaphysical distinction between uncreated and created gets blurred. And it seems to become blurred most in discussions about human choice and God’s absolute sovereignty.
But the idea of salvation rests on an important proposition: the self-sufficiency, or the self-determination, of God. Theologians past and present have stressed that there is nothing by which God identifies himself other than himself: When Moses asked who should he say sent him, YHVH replied, “‘I AM WHO I AM.’ And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.'”
Can God be what he is not? Can God become non-God or less-than-God? If so, it would be self-contradictory for God to limit himself. If he is everywhere present, can there be places where he is not present? And if God is not omnipresent, should we limit out prayers to those occasions when he is present to hear us? If God is not all-powerful then he drops down the scale from Almighty to just Mighty. If God is not omniscient, then he becomes the God searching to fill in his knowledge gaps. Is God thus is in the process of becoming God?
And if he can become anything less than the self-determinative, or self-sufficient, God, then the whole idea of salvation is up for grabs, for YHVH can no longer go it alone. He needs assistance.
Well put.
………..and it could have been easier.
Hello sister girl! been missing ya!
Skip, What people do, how they behave, does have an effect on God’s actions/reactions.
And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
Jonah 3:10
This is the only sign Christ gives for this generation.
Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from you.
But he answered and said to them, An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
Matthew 12:38-41
” But God saw what you could handle and adjusted your path so that you took the road that didn’t have the really big rocks.”
Uhhh, the rocks in my path sometimes seem like really BIG rocks, but along the way one thing I discovered about myself is that-although male- I am a drama queen at heart and I can, and often do, make mountains out of molehills, but thankfully He makes molehills out of mountains! I am thankful for His perspective, power and perseverance.
I have yet to read the book (God, Time and the Limits….), but I am familiar with a book by Richard Rice called “The Openness of God”. In this book, Rice suggests that God loves us enough to allow us the freedom of choice – which by necessity means that he does not always know what we will choose.
I remember talking with someone from my church about this concept, it went something like this:
He: God CANNOT know what we will choose, AND we have free will.
I: Yuh-huh, He can too.
He: I’m not sure if you know this or not, but I am only one class short of a Master’s degree in philosophy. It is logically and rationally IMPOSSIBLE, the two ideas are incompatible. Free Will cannot exist if the outcome is known for-sure, in advance.
I: I’m not sure if you kno this, but I’ve taken quite a bit of post-graduate anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, ect. And I assume you DO know – rising from the dead is logically IMPOSSIBLE, right?
We didn’t get much further in the conversation because he didn’t see the parallel between a seeming physical impossibility and a philosophical/logical impossibility. I don’t feel completely entrenched on one side or the other, but I do find arguments based on philosophical impossibility – to be lacking.
But Gabe, you made a mistake in your argument. Rising from the dead is NOT logically impossible. It can be conceived of without contradiction. It might be physically impossible (I am not even sure about this), but your point is NOT compatible with his point. Logical contradiction entails logical impossibility. To say that God knows infallibly and completely every future human act and, at the same time, say that human freedom entails a certain degree of alternative choice IS LOGICALLY CONTRADICTORY. The full argument takes about 300 pages in my book, but be assured that there is no room left for a God who knows everything, in the classical definition of omniscience, and a human being who actually has what we commonly call “free” choice.
Okay, I do sense that I am missing something here. However, we are talking about a subject which is tricky to begin with – seeing that Free Will or Free Choice itself is at odds with our seemingly cause and effect universe.
The consistent atheists will tell you that “natural selection” eliminates choice. Everything is determined.
let me recommend the work of J. R. Lucas on the difference between determinism and freedom of choice.
Skip,
Is it not ALSO a logical contradiction to insist that man’s free will is identical to that of God’s free will?
P.s. I’ve read your book three times. 🙂
I don’t see logical contradiction here, but I do accept your point that the meaning of the terms “free will” may be different for God than they are for men. However, what we have is what God has revealed about Himself. That’s all we have. That there is more is most likely true, but any attempt to examine what is more leads directly to mystical speculation. Ultimately this leaves us with the via negativa view of God. I prefer to think that what God reveals about Himself in Scripture is accurate and sufficient for us to know what we are required to know about Him. And when I examine Scripture, I find a God who changes His mind, repents, alters course, re-examines events and actions and encourages us to do the same. That picture is incompatible with the strong view of immutability and certainly with the corollary of impassibility.
I suppose my real curiousity is – what are the other longstanding misconceptions about God or Christian life that are effected by this?
Skip, it might not be a question that can be answered here in a few short sentences, but where do you sit on Molinism and the proposition of God’s “middle knowledge” as a possible solution to the tension between omniscience, infallibility and free will?
Hmmm
Remember Matt Dillon in Gunsmoke?
Wasn’t the Logo “Wanted Or Alive”?
One or the Other
Doesn’t Matter which
“Wanted Or Alive”
oops, I meant
Wanted Dead or Alive
Two of my favorite topics: the free will of man (me) and the Sovereignty of God, (Him). Now friends, the question: Is it “either or?” or “both?” The answer is Yes. We are totally free in any of our choices, but we are not free in the consequences of our own choosing. As the scriptures state so simply, we will ~ reap what we sow ~ No one may sow their “wild oats” and then pray for crop failure. This is the Law of the Harvest. We all are “seed sowers.” (What’s in your seed basket?)
Is God Sovereign? Friends, the hairs of every head are numbered and God sees when each and every sparrow falls to the ground. He opens His hand and satisfies the desire of every living thing.
This gives me great comfort: We may sing the song, “I see the stars, – I hear the rolling thunder.. but our God is the God of the sparrows as well. He is LORD of the macro and LORD of the micro. Right on down to the minutest details of “inner space!” There are no thoughts hidden from Him. None. He knows us (much) better than we know our own selves, and yet (amazingly) loves us anyway and loves each of us “unconditionally”-. What (he inquired) can I (or any other) do to cause God to love me more? Nothing. And what (he inquired) may I do to cause God to love me less?
Is it then possible to grieve God? ~ what do the scriptures say? ~ Friends, what, according to God’s own words, is written concerning grieving God? As I recall, from one of the earliest verses of scriptures I ever committed to memory: ~ Jesus wept ~ (John 11.35) Did Jesus really cry? Did Jesus really laugh? Did Jesus really eat real food and walk on real ground and bleed red blood? Yes, to all of the above. God became a man ~ tempted/tested in all points like as we are, yet without sin ~
Is God compassionate? Does God suffer when we suffer? And when we sin, why does it grieve the heart of God? Just ask why. What are the wages (or consequences) of sin? Have we not see enough of the results of sin to know? -“touch this, and you will suffer the consequences.”
When I was but a wee “little one”, my mother’s instructions were- (as I was eyeballing and admiring my reflection in the aluminum coffee percolator), “Carl, don’t touch, – that’s hot!” But what does little Carl do? He disobeys the instructions of his own dear mother, who only wanted what was good for her little darlin’, and decided to “go his own way,” thinking (most greivously and erroneously) he knew better, and then proceeded to plant a big kiss on the coffee pot! If I even hear “hot lips” mentioned today, – it grieves me! Over time, the scars do heal, but the memories remain- and (hopefully) a lesson was learned that day ~ children, obey your parents! ~
Mom was right and only trying to protect me from harm. If only, I had listened to her instructions, I would have saved myself some suffering!
Why, (he inquired) do I always seem to learn things “the hard way?” You want to see some scars? lol! – (yeah, I can laugh now.. – but then- not so funny..)
Now on to One greater than Solomon.. – should we listen to Him? Does He know us better than we know our own selves? And does He, the incarnated Logos, “The Lover of our souls,” the Risen Redeemer and our Heavenly Boaz only want what is best for His beloved Bride?
And what (he inquired) are the consequences of obedience? We may have heard, but do we now know, and have we seen? – “He ever loves and cares for His own?” Even if one sheep belonging to Him strays,- our (always) Good Shepherd will pursue, retrieve and restore.
Hi Carl,
You have lots to say and I enjoyed reading it, but the dilemma is not between SOVEREIGNTY and FREE WILL. It is between OMNISCIENCE and FREE WILL. God can be complete sovereign and not have any impact on the concept of free will because sovereignty just means that He is ultimately in control. So it is possible to allow human free choice up to a point and then step in and take over, without a contradiction to freedom of choice.
But omniscience (in its strong form) coupled with infallibility presents a logical contradiction to the idea of free choice. That is the problem, not sovereignty.
“you can read about in my book, God, Time and the Limits of Omniscience”
““The people might change their minds”
Hi Skip,
I read your book some time ago and if I had any argument wouldn’t be qualified to make it
But seems to me that when we say “people might change their minds”
We are addressing two different points in time and potentially two different points in space
– same place same thought in future (I’m good at home)
– same place different thought in future (I’m not good at home)
– different place same thought in future (I’m good at work)
– different place different thought in future (I’m not good at work)
Man can only choose one option above at a given point in time and space
Man is always in the “here and now”
But as the Talmud states, God is Omnipresent
That is to say not constrained by time and space
And He can apparently adapt to all of the options above
At any given point in time and space
But I argue that the idea that God is “outside” of time is inherently contradictory, based on a Greek philosophical idea of perfection and not supported by the biblical text – although obviously incorporated into Christian theology via Augustine, Boethius and Aquinas. So, if you remove this false idea, then God’s point of view isn’t an “eternal present moment” as Aquinas suggests, and He does not take on ANY temporal point, as you suggest.
“So, if you remove this false idea, then God’s point of view isn’t an “eternal present moment” as Aquinas suggests, and He does not take on ANY temporal point, as you suggest.”
Hi Skip,
I am not thinking God is “outside of time”
Or that God’s point of view is an “eternal present moment”
I am thinking that God can be present for me here and for you there
This capacity of being present in many places at once is Other to mankind, except by phone/TV
In my mind, God created a process that continues in time
And we are morally free but determined by many factors
God is always in the present as we know it
So God will be present in the future
But the future doesn’t exist yet
William Lane Craig, to avoid the fallacy of the spatialisation of time and having God dwelling “outside” of time, proposes that God existed a-temporally sans creation and now dwells in and interacts with the created (temporal) universe. Note that it does not say “before” creation, since in an atemporal existence there can be no “before”.
I agree, and indeed God created time itself as one of the fundamental properties of the created universe. The axiom that “it is impossible to create an actual infinite by successive addition” suggests that, since time itself is a series formed by successive addition, time cannot be actually infinite – on the contrary, it must have had a beginning – a “first” moment. It must be finite into the past and potentially infinite into the future; however, only potentially infinite since, being a series formed by successive addition, the actual number is always finite, being 1 more than the previous value of the series after each addition.
Agreed on all points. I was only discussing this with my son the other day, who although being only 8 at times appears wise beyond his years and also appears quite able to deal, in a simple 8 y.o. kind of way, with very abstract concepts.
We basically concluded thus: There is only the present moment. The past exists only in our memory, and in the evidence it has left behind that we see in the present. The present is the sum total of all past choices and actions (by us and by others). The future exists only in possibilities, potential realities. Which potential(s) become actual is entirely dependent upon the choices we make and the actions we take in the present.
Molinism propses that God, being omniscient, knows all potential realities that could arise from all the possible choices of the present moment, and he also knows what we would choose in every possible circumstance and potential reality. In his omnipotence, he influences or engineers the circumstances such that we freely choose the course of action that will cause to be actualised the reality that corresponds to His perfect will.
Agree with some of this. Disagree with some of this. Will have to comment later.
Hi Rodney,
Maybe we could find bones to pick from the following points in Judaism 101?
1. G-d is Omnipresent
G-d is in all places at all times. He fills the universe and exceeds its scope. He is always near for us to call upon in need, and He sees all that we do. Closely tied in with this idea is the fact that G-d is universal. He is not just the G-d of the Jews; He is the G-d of all nations.
2. G-d is Omnipotent
G-d can do anything. It is said that the only thing that is beyond His power is the fear of Him; that is, we have free will, and He cannot compel us to do His will. This belief in G-d’s omnipotence has been sorely tested during the many persecutions of Jews, but we have always maintained that G-d has a reason for allowing these things, even if we in our limited perception and understanding cannot see the reason.
3. G-d is Omniscient
G-d knows all things, past, present and future. He knows our thoughts.
4. G-d is Eternal
G-d transcends time. He has no beginning and no end. He will always be there to fulfill his promises. When Moses asked for G-d’s name, He replied, “Ehyeh asher ehyeh.” That phrase is generally translated as, “I am that I am,” but the word “ehyeh” can be present or future tense, meaning “I am what I will be” or “I will be what I will be.” The ambiguity of the phrase is often interpreted as a reference to G-d’s eternal nature.
As a literary critic, you know how important it is to choose just the right word. So, I am going to pick on some of the words you have chosen. They are too general to serve their purpose when it comes to these complex theological issues.
1. Omnipresent does not mean the God “fills” the universe or that He exceeds its scope. That is a form of pantheism. What it means is that God is present in every spatial extension of the universe, but He is not co-present. He exists independently of all spatial extension of the universe since it depends of Him for it very existence, but He is locatable in any place with the spatial expanse of the cosmos
2. God can do anything that can logically be done. Thus, God is not capable of making a rock so big that He cannot lift it, as this is a logical contradiction. Omnipotence does not imply that “anything” can be done. It implies that anything logically conceivable can be done. You might consider how this affects the statement about God’s eternity. Is it logically possible for God to enter into your past and judge your grandfather and punish him with death prior to the birth of your father. Your definition of eternity carries this implication, but, as I hope you can see, it is contradictory.
3. Just as omnipotent has logical limitations, so does omniscient. God cannot know those things that cannot be known. So, the argument turns on the truth value of future pre-conditional statements, and I have argued that certain pre-conditional future statements cannot be known because their truth value does not exist until they are no longer future. Think about it for awhile. Try to move beyond the simple, naive idea of “knowing” and ask what knowing infallibly means when it is applied to any conceptualization of “free” choice.
4. The statement that God “transcends” time is immediately problematic since it employs a spatialization fallacy. Is time some thing that has spatial extension so that it might be “transcended”? Suggesting that God has no beginning and no end is one idea of TEMPORAL eternity, much like the idea that cardinal numbers have limitless extension. Notice that all the Biblical words and examples do NOT necessarily imply some a-temporal or ex-temporal existence. The reason that they are treated as though they support the idea of some non-temporal divinity is a result of another closely related but often overlooked Greek importation – namely, the idea of perfection. See James Barr, Biblical Words for Time. To suggest that God exists in some fashion that does not imply temporality is to introduce a myriad of problems.
“So, I am going to pick on some of the words you have chosen.”
Hi Skip,
Well I purposely did not choose to use my own words, they are from Judaism 101
Because I did not want to defend “my view”
These concepts appealed to me as a child in Catechism class (Catholic school)
Then I was surprised to find them in the Talmud a number of years ago
I was also surprised to find the informal description of these terms in Judaism 101
My sense is that in Judaism 101 these terms are not defined
To support “complex theological issues”
They are however concepts that are taken for granted about God
I don’t know if Protestants believe in these concepts
But it would seem that Catholics learned these concepts from Jewish Rabbis
I think the key here is “taken for granted.” Unfortunately, a lot that we take for granted just isn’t true when we really look at it, is it? Tradition, even in theology, is often a recipe for muddle.
Well I don’t take much for granted and much religion is muddle IMO 🙂
~ So it is possible to allow human free choice up to a point and then step in and take over, without a contradiction to freedom of choice ~
God will “step in and take over.”- when we will allow Him to- and not until. He (amazingly) needs our permission. He does not overstep His bounds, and what binds him is our unwillingness and stubbornness and selfishness in not giving Him the freedom to work His work in us. Yes, it is true- I have within me and you have with me, the God-given ability to say “no” to Him. This might be termed for lack of better vocabulary, our “inner fool!” ( for the fool has said in his heart, -no God!). If we truly see God for who He is, (the I AM) how would we then be able to say no to Him? – and after all He has done for us, and also does for us- our salvation, our safety, our surety, our supply, our sure-footing, our mental stability, our health, our families.. – the list goes on and on..
Since every good gift and every perfect gift comes from Him, again, -how can we possibly say “no” to our ABBA Father, the One who provides every single one of our needs and every single moment of every single day? Omniscient? Absolutely. Tell me one thing God does not know already. – Never, ever play chess with God. The only thing we have going for us is – He wants us to win! (I wouldn’t move there if I was you!) Remember His promise of the still small voice ~ this is the way, walk in it? ~ How wonderful for His guidance. How wonderful for His salvation. How wonderful for the safety He provides (the horse is prepared unto battle, but safety is of the LORD). Omniscient- all knowing- knowing the end from the beginning- He already knows how it all will end and victory is assured. Do we? Friends, I don’t even know what will happen in the next five minutes!- I am limited. But God? Is He?
Again, we are the ones who “limit” God, the (only) One who able to do “exceedingly abundantly” above all that we could ask or think by our “unbelief.” Is He worthy of our trust? The choice is mine and the choice is yours. One more thing.. love is a choice! ~ so choose you this day.. but choose wisely- for every choice (shall I trust Him?- shall I obey His voice?- is He worthy?) contains a consequence. What are the consequences of obedience? (Who was the most obedient Man ever to have lived?) Does God “demand” our obedience? (remember “na / please?”- God humbly asked Abraham, “please sacrifice your son”) or does God deserve our obedience? Love never “demands” and ~ God is love! ~ (1 John 4.8)
We might believe in the “greatness” of God, but do you believe God is good?
There’s a wideness in God’s mercy,
Like the wideness of the sea;
There’s a kindness in His justice,
Which is more than liberty.
There is no place where earth’s sorrows
Are more felt than up in Heaven;
There is no place where earth’s failings
Have such kindly judgment given.
There is welcome for the sinner,
And more graces for the good;
There is mercy with the Savior;
There is healing in His blood.
There is grace enough for thousands
Of new worlds as great as this;
There is room for fresh creations
In that upper home of bliss.
For the love of God is broader
Than the measure of our mind;
And the heart of the Eternal
Is most wonderfully kind.
There is plentiful redemption
In the blood that has been shed;
There is joy for all the members
In the sorrows of the Head.
’Tis not all we owe to Jesus;
It is something more than all;
Greater good because of evil,
Larger mercy through the fall.
If our love were but more simple,
We should take Him at His word;
And our lives would be all sunshine
In the sweetness of our Lord.
Souls of men! why will ye scatter
Like a crowd of frightened sheep?
Foolish hearts! why will ye wander
From a Love so true and deep?
It is God: His love looks mighty,
But is mightier than it seems;
’Tis our Father: and His fondness
Goes far out beyond our dreams.
But we make His love too narrow
By false limits of our own;
And we magnify His strictness
With a zeal He will not own.
Was there ever kinder Shepherd
Half so gentle, half so sweet,
As the Savior who would have us
Come and gather at His feet?
(Frederick W. Faber, 1854)
The whole point of sovereignty is that God has the option to take over WHENEVER He wishes, not just when we allow it.
“God will “step in and take over.”- when we will allow Him to- and not until.”
Hi Carl,
I’m not saying that I disagree with you, but tend to think in different terms
In my view, God creates every moment for us
And we are free to accept His will or not
For me the most difficult thing to do is accept His will
I try to do the things He wants but don’t always like the results
I get stressed out, and feel emotional pain and anxiety
Because I forget that the results are His will
Ok, this conversation is way beyond me! Skip, help me understand a few things:
Assuming God is not “Omniscient” as typical church doctrine suggests how do we explain prophesy? If God does not see the future before it happens but gives man revealed prophecy are you saying those instances are where “God has the option to take over WHENEVER He wishes?” For example, when Jeshua told Peter that he would deny Jeshua – did Peter still have a choice to not sin/deny or was this an instance where God took over and forced Peter hand? (that does not fit scripture – God does not tempt) If Peter would have chosen NOT to deny, would Jeshua not have then been labeled a false prophet? Or do you think Peter chose to deny because Jeshua told him to?
Many more questions but this is a good start for me.
Without entering into a very long discussion of the implications of a different view of omniscience (one which does not diminish the idea of God’s knowing at all but merely clarifies the logic of such a statement), I suggest to you that human decisions are both the product of deterministic causes and undetermined choices. Peter’s denial was the inevitable deterministic result of the forces acting upon him at that time. Yeshua saw those forces for what they really were, and concluded that Peter would deny Him as surely as my speeding through a crowded intersection of dozens of cars will result in some damage to something. Could Peter have at the last minute altered the course of this confluence of causes in his life? Yes, I believe so, but at the moment Yeshua made the statement, the factors that influenced Peter’s choices were so strong that any other result would have been a miracle.
I highly recommend that you read God, Time and the Limits of Omniscience, in order to gain perspective on the whole argument, which is necessary to see how the tense logic of future preconditional statements works in human thought (by the way, all we have for deciphering all this is HUMAN thought).
Ok, Ok, I will pull out your book once more. I must say, I have read most all of your books and find them easy to read and follow – although painful many times! However, I have started your “God, Time and the Limits . . .” book several times – very challenging and not an easy read – I will attempt that one again – very deep, academic – definitely not a light “read before bedtime” type book! Thanks again, Skip!
This book God, Time and the limits of Omniscience is a good book, but not the easiest of books or info from Skip to absorb. You almost have to be in a particular frame of mind to read it.