[godrulz]

Originally Posted by elected4ever

I have learned enough from him to pity those that fall for his garbage.

[Bob Hill]

And here I am, 74 years old, and still learning!

Bob

[Lon]

Can you believe I've been on here for just over 3 months and didn't know this thread existed?

Give me time, with 5000 posts I've got a lot of reading to catch up on.

First off, I am going to repeat this over and over and over and over. I believe strongly that much of the problem is a communication gap.

From spending time here, I can see a few points and I'll continue to read and post here so that we might be able to dialogue more correctly.

1) The approach to understanding is completely different so that we are really almost talking about 2 entirely different things when discussing the same terms.

2) We have a diffferent commitment to knowledge here. The SV says that there are characteristics that belong to God that cannot be fully known or expressed because they are His characteristics alone and we do not share them so see Him through a glass darkly. What this means, is that the SV position will always be an incomplete and attackable theology. We continue to make concessions for our understanding because we are trying to put together a puzzle where God speciffically has not given us all the pieces and has promised to do so at a later date.

3) Our commitments or rejection of the 'greek' influences will continue to be a wedge. The SV position isn't so much committed to all greek ideology as they are to coincidal truth of the matter. You can blame the greeks, but our position comes naturally from scripture and most SV isn't as linked to greek philosophy as you purport. Until this idea is either dismissed or at least recognized as not a true factor, you'll continue to make a faulty assumption much like we do with Sanders and other early OV writers(Pinnock). We both have to get to a point where we recognize that some of our founders' writings do not adequately express all of our views.

We need to go back to ontological meaning for almost all of our terms and discuss them for meaning. I've seen both sides reject the other's view and I'm convinced that neither understands what the other is saying. Here is a started thread for instance that speaks to this directly: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...4&page=1&pp=15

We need to stop prejudice. Sanders and Pinnock are often used to refute OV theism. Greeks are used to refute SV and nobody gets down to talking about what they really believe. On top of this, once a discussion does get started, accusations start flying and instead of asking "what do you mean?" we either blast the individual as being retarded or go back to dissing on the forefathers again.

What if I said "I hate OV theology." So what? If you said "I hate SV theology." So what?

I do not hate OV, I just don't happen to agree with the position but I care about OVer's because I believe they love God. I believe they love Jesus. You know what I find interesting? When Jesus was walking in Israel, He didn't really get into the theology debate that often. Did you notice? He could have easily settled many many debates between the Sadducees and Pharisees (the OV SV of the day?). Maybe He did a bit more correcting than the disciples wrote. John said if it were all written down, no library could contain the books. That's pretty powerful. So what are we left with? Know Jesus, live for Him and make Him known. That seems pretty reasonable to me. I'm not too hung up on our differences. For the record, I don't think I could ever be a true OV, but what I appreciate is that I can talk to those who need Jesus here and I pray over every post I write to them in hopes that one might come to the Jesus I love so much.

Sure, let's continue to talk about our differences but let's focus on things Jesus tended to focus on, Major on the Majors and minor on the minors. Theology is important. Being right is important. We agree on the Majority of the rights, let's reach those who need Him most. I have no problem if an unbeliever becomes SV or OV. I honestly believe that we will not be OV or SV in heaven. I'd like to hope I'm more right than wrong, but the one thing I do know is that Jesus saves and our world desperately needs Him.

[Bob Hill]

When I look at God's wonderful works, they are awesome, especially when He suffers and is grieved by our behavior.

When I read about His passion, I'm amazed at how much He suffers because of us, and how glad He feels when we come through an ordeal in a good way.

Genesis 6:6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

Genesis 22:12 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”

In Christ,
Bob Hill

[Bob Hill]

In the book of Exodus, He shows His love, patience, and thoughtfulness for Moses and His people.

Exodus 13:17 Then it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, “Lest perhaps the people change their minds when they see war, and return to Egypt.”

Exodus 16:4 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you. And the people shall go out and gather a certain quota every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in My law or not.

Exodus 32:7-14 And the LORD said to Moses, “Go, get down! For your people whom you brought out of the land of Egypt have corrupted themselves. 8 “They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them. They have made themselves a molded calf, and worshiped it and sacrificed to it, and said, ‘This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!’ ” 9 And the LORD said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people! 10 “Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation.” 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? 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 repent from this harm to Your people. 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.’ ”

And the amazing part is when our almighty God repented.

14 So the LORD repented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.

Bob Hill

[Bob Hill]

God IS open to His people.

Praise God!!

Bob Hill

[Clete]

Pastor Hill,

I was wondering if you could answer a question for me that is not directly related to open theism (and so is off the topic of this thread). I promise not to turn it into a rabbit trail of any significance.

I know that you know New Testament Greek better than most and so I was wondering if you would you agree that the Greek word "Logos" is basically synonymous with the English word "Logic"?
More specifically I was wondering if you would agree with the following statement made by Gordon H. Clark...

"The well–known prologue to John's Gospel may be paraphrased, "In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God.... In logic was life and the life was the light of men."

This paraphrase––in fact, this translation––may not only sound strange to devout ears, it may even sound obnoxious and offensive. But the shock only measures the devout person's distance from the language and thought of the Greek New Testament. Why it is offensive to call Christ Logic, when it does not offend to call him a word, is hard to explain. But such is often the case. Even Augustine, because he insisted that God is truth, has been subjected to the anti–intellectualistic accusation of "reducing" God to a proposition. At any rate, the strong intellectualism of the word Logos is seen in its several possible translations: to wit, computation, (financial) accounts, esteem, proportion and (mathematical) ratio, explanation, theory or argument, principle or law, reason, formula, debate, narrative, speech, deliberation, discussion, oracle, sentence, and wisdom.

Any translation of John 1:1 that obscures this emphasis on mind or reason is a bad translation. And if anyone complains that the idea of ratio or debate obscures the personality of the second person of the Trinity, he should alter his concept of personality. In the beginning, then, was Logic."

I look forward to your reply.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[themuzicman]

Logos is not equated to the word "logic".

Logos is literally "Word". The verb form is legw, which means "I speak".

However, it has many ramifications in Greek culture, from logic to knowledge to wisdom to "God-man."

The key to understanding Logos is understanding John and his audience, and what John is trying to communicate, of which at least the previous two aren't all that clear.

Muz

[Clete]

Originally Posted by themuzicman

Logos is not equated to the word "logic".

Logos is literally "Word". The verb form is legw, which means "I speak".

However, it has many ramifications in Greek culture, from logic to knowledge to wisdom to "God-man."

The key to understanding Logos is understanding John and his audience, and what John is trying to communicate, of which at least the previous two aren't all that clear.

Muz

I am aware of Pastor Hill's qualifications in the area of New Testament Greek and therefore trust his opinion and Gordon Clark is consider by many to be the most important Christian philosopher in modern times. On the other hand, I'm not at all familiar with you or your qualifications to speak to this issue. Even readily available online Greek-English lexicons use the word "reason" in the definition of "logos" and so while I appreciate you trying to answer my question, you'll excuse me if I don't take your word for it and wait instead to hear from Pastor Hill.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[themuzicman]

Yeah, I guess a master's level study of Greek isn't worth much these days.

I realize that "reason" is listed as a potential meaning, but there are a couple of dozen potential meanings. Hebrew has a similar word that can mean "word", "matter", "thing" and other meanings, depending on context.

The point is that you can't assign the meaning "logic" to logos outside of a particular context, since logos has a pretty wide range of meaning, depending on how the author uses it. But, at it's core, it's a word or a message, usually spoken.

Even in Hebrews Logos is translated "account" (as in "to whom we must render an account.")

It can be teaching, conversation, preaching, and any number of things.

Again, the point is that logos needs a context in order to take on a specific meaning. You can't assume what logos is, and then insert it into a context.

Muz

[godrulz]

A basic fact about Greek or any language is that words have a semantic range or bundle of meanings. Even if logos and logic can be used in one context does not mean they are interchangeable in all contexts. The personified logos made flesh is far more nuanced than simply 'logic'. An expository dictionary could spend page after page tracing the evolving background and myriad of uses of logos. Johannine use was further development for a specific application that connected with known concepts. Even if logic is one aspect of the meaning about Jesus, it goes beyond that.

[Clete]

Originally Posted by themuzicman

Yeah, I guess a master's level study of Greek isn't worth much these days.

I realize that "reason" is listed as a potential meaning, but there are a couple of dozen potential meanings. Hebrew has a similar word that can mean "word", "matter", "thing" and other meanings, depending on context.

The point is that you can't assign the meaning "logic" to logos outside of a particular context, since logos has a pretty wide range of meaning, depending on how the author uses it. But, at it's core, it's a word or a message, usually spoken.

Even in Hebrews Logos is translated "account" (as in "to whom we must render an account.")

It can be teaching, conversation, preaching, and any number of things.

Again, the point is that logos needs a context in order to take on a specific meaning. You can't assume what logos is, and then insert it into a context.

Muz

I agree that the meaning of a word is determined as much by its context as it is by its actual definition, which is why I included a quotation from Dr. Gordon Clark which discussed a specific passage of Scripture with which I know for a fact that Bob Hill is intimately familiar in both English and Greek. And I tried the best I could to keep from implying that you were unschooled in the Greek language. My point was simply that I don't know you from Adam and the point of my asking Bob Hill had to do with the fact that I do know him and have good reason to trust his judgment on matters of translation. If all I was looking for was the opinion of anyone with an education in Greek whether I knew them personally or not then it would be difficult to trump the knowledge, expertise, professional reputation, and lasting legacy of Dr. Gordon H. Clark. In fact, if Clark hadn't been a Calvinist, I would have no reason at all to question his opinion in the first place.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[patman]

Originally Posted by Lonster

You know what I find interesting? When Jesus was walking in Israel, He didn't really get into the theology debate that often. Did you notice? He could have easily settled many many debates between the Sadducees and Pharisees (the OV SV of the day?). Maybe He did a bit more correcting than the disciples wrote. John said if it were all written down, no library could contain the books. That's pretty powerful. So what are we left with? Know Jesus, live for Him and make Him known. That seems pretty reasonable to me. I'm not too hung up on our differences. For the record, I don't think I could ever be a true OV, but what I appreciate is that I can talk to those who need Jesus here and I pray over every post I write to them in hopes that one might come to the Jesus I love so much.

There are some differences I find pretty technical. What day did Jesus die on, that is technical, but not a make or break for most people's faith in Christ. Open theology verses settled is an important one. Had Jesus been around today, he would establish the viewpoint.

Jesus did get into theology of his day.. for example, the resurrection was a theological debate that Jesus gave an answer to when he told them God was the god of the living.

If the settled view is wrong, it is guilty of a great blaspheme. It clearly makes God out to be the author of sins. This is the reason I almost lost my faith... OV fixes this issue. I have since learned that faith, not theology is what we should cling to to get us through the doubts, but for those who need a little help, this issue is pretty important.

[Lon]

Originally Posted by patman

There are some differences I find pretty technical. What day did Jesus die on, that is technical, but not a make or break for most people's faith in Christ. Open theology verses settled is an important one. Had Jesus been around today, he would establish the viewpoint.

Jesus did get into theology of his day.. for example, the resurrection was a theological debate that Jesus gave an answer to when he told them God was the god of the living.

If the settled view is wrong, it is guilty of a great blaspheme. It clearly makes God out to be the author of sins. This is the reason I almost lost my faith... OV fixes this issue. I have since learned that faith, not theology is what we should cling to to get us through the doubts, but for those who need a little help, this issue is pretty important.

It kind of shocks me that one would lose their faith. My faith was not intellectual to begin with because I was seven and needed a Savior. When I come to troubling passages, my faith is tested but these don't destroy my faith. I'm still perplexed when someone says they came close or lost their faith on just a troubling concept.

[patman]

Originally Posted by Lonster

It kind of shocks me that one would lose their faith. My faith was not intellectual to begin with because I was seven and needed a Savior. When I come to troubling passages, my faith is tested but these don't destroy my faith. I'm still perplexed when someone says they came close or lost their faith on just a troubling concept.

Almost doesn't count. But many atheist/nonbeleivers use the Settled view theology to stay away from God. Why follow a God that would predetermine sin and love him? How is that loving? He must not be loving, that is the conclusion they came to and I almost came to.

Faith pulled me through until I found the answer, and that is the Open View. I must say faith sustained me for a long time before I came to the answer. But please, do not let the issue of faith blind you from the problem of the S.V., that is it pins all sin on God. Do you not have an issue with this?