Happy Thanksgiving!

O give thanks unto the Lord; for he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever.

1 Chronicles 16:34

• Thanksgiving 2021 -- “Thanksgiving Day is a national holiday in the United States, and Thanksgiving 2021 occurs on Thursday, November 25.”
• Pilgrim-Wampanoag Treaty Established, March 29, 1621 -- “These Independents believed God should only be worshipped according to the commands of the Bible, a belief held by other Separatists and Presbyterians, a doctrine known as “the regulative principle of worship”. The congregation left England for the Netherlands, where such dissenters found a warm welcome. In 1620 a portion of Pastor John Robinson’s congregation pioneered another move, this time to the New World.”

We thank thee, heavenly Father, 

For every earthly good;

For life and health and clothing,

And for our daily food.

O give us hearts to thank thee,

For every blessing sent;

And whatsoe’er thou sendest,

Make us therewith content.

And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.

1 Timothy 6:8

No. 189, p.183 in The Children’s Hymnal with Tunes (John Ireland Tucker, editor. New York, NY: F. J. Huntington & Co., 1877)

Here is a standing reason for thanksgiving. Although we may not always be healthy, nor always prosperous, yet God is always good, and, therefore, there is always a sufficient argument for giving thanks unto Jehovah. That he is a good God essentially, that he cannot be otherwise than good, should be a fountain out of which the richest praises should perpetually flow.

...

The constant tenor and spirit of our lives should be adoring gratitude, love, reverence, and thanksgiving to the Most High.

Charles Haddon Spurgeon

In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.

1 Thessalonians 5:18

The Jesus Trilemma

A “trilemma” is a difficult choice from three alternatives. The “Jesus trilemma” is an apologetic argument defending the divinity of Jesus by postulating the unreasonableness of the alternatives. It is most often associated with British lay theologian Clive Staples “C. S.” Lewis, who is doubtless responsible for its popularity and notoriety. It is, nevertheless, something with deeper roots. It is simple and reasonable enough that some earlier Christian thinkers may have arrived at it independently of others who postulated a similar logical equation. This trilemma is often found designated as the “Lunatic, Liar, or Lord” argument, or the “Mad, Bad, or God” argument.

In Mere Christianity (1952, pp. 55-56) C. S. Lewis (1898–1963) wrote:

“A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. … Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God.” 

In 1936, Chinese Christian church leader Watchman Nee (1903-1972) in The Normal Christian Faith wrote:

“How can Jesus of Nazareth claim to be God? Before going on, we have to pause for a moment to seriously consider the matter. It is not a light thing to claim to be God. A person who makes such a claim falls into one of three categories. He must belong to one of these three categories; he cannot belong to all three. First, if he claims to be God and yet in fact is not, he has to be a madman or a lunatic. Second, if he is neither God nor a lunatic, he has to be a liar, deceiving others by his lie. Third, if he is neither of these, he must be God. You can only choose one of the three possibilities. If you do not believe that he is God, you have to consider him a madman. If you cannot take him for either of the two, you have to take him for a liar. There is no need for us to prove if Jesus of Nazareth is God or not. All we have to do is find out if He is a lunatic or a liar. If He is neither, He must be the Son of God. These are our three choices. There is no fourth.” (The Normal Christian Faith, Chapter 3, Section 3)

Scottish Free Church preacher John Duncan (1796-1870), in Colloquia Peripatetica (2nd edition. Edinburgh: Edmonston & Douglas, 1870, p. 107) wrote:

“Christ either deceived mankind by conscious fraud, or he was himself deluded and self-deceived, or he was Divine. There is no getting out of this trilemma. It is inexorable.”

American Congregationalist preacher Mark Hopkins (1802-1887) in Lectures on the Evidences of Christianity: Before the Lowell Institute, January 1844 (1846, p. 255), wrote:

“...either that those claims [by Jesus of who he was and what he would do, rlv] were well-founded, or of a hopeless insanity. No wonder those who did not believe said of him, ‘He hath a devil, and is mad: why hear ye him?’...No impostor of common sense could have had the folly to prefer such claims.”

The trilemma is based on accepting the New Testament as an inspired source that portrays Jesus accurately. I find that those who question the logic of the trilemma also question the accuracy of the New Testament record.

God is either the I AM or He is not at all.

Psalm 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

David Wheeler-Reed and God’s Gender

Last week I ran across online What the early church thought about God’s gender by David Wheeler-Reed of Albertus Magnus College.[i] At first I chose to ignore it, but then it also showed up in a local newspaper.[ii] In his article, Wheeler-Reed purports to tell us what the early church thought about God’s gender. Ultimately, he tells us what David Wheeler-Reed thinks about God’s gender.

The setup concerns the Episcopal Church decision “to revise its 1979 prayer book, so that God is no longer referred to by masculine pronouns.” He says, “religious leaders at the denomination’s recent triennial conference in Austin have agreed to a demand to replace the masculine terms for God such as ‘He’ and ‘King’ and “Father’.” From that setup, he jumps to tell us that The Old Testament, The New Testament, and early Christian writings “all refer to God in feminine terms.” See the linked article for examples.

In most cases Wheeler-Reed glosses over figures of speech in his race to prove a point – whether in the biblical examples or from the church fathers. Jesus says he would have gathered the children of Jerusalem “even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings” (Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:34). A literalistic reading of this figure of speech would as well make Jesus a chicken as a woman. Strangely, Wheeler-Reed even proposes Paul’s figure of speech about Paul himself (yes, Paul, who is obviously male, who is not God, but on the other hand often viewed as a maniacal misogynist by modern feminists) travailing in birth as proof of the feminine gender of God (Galatians 4:19).

Preliminary conclusions

• The fact that church fathers used metaphors and similes to explain certain aspects of God’s nature falls short of what the early church thought about God’s gender. What they thought is pretty much what the churches have always thought both then and up to the present before a radical departure set on proving God is our Father/Mother. Wheeler-Reed probably could have found some “Church Fathers” and “Church Mothers” from the vast array of non-biblical writings who plainly spoke of God as a woman or our Mother in heaven. But, if so, he choose to leave these records in a vague dark place so none would know who they were. The ones he identified were using figures of speech.
• Wheeler-Reed implies that the book of Proverbs teaches “Wisdom,” Sophia, was a goddess who assisted God in creating of the world. Sophia (σοφία) is, of course, the Greek word for wisdom, and somewhat irrelevant to a text originally written in Hebrew.[iii]
• Wheeler-Reed says “Yahweh is a combination of both female and male grammatical endings” and suggests the word is “genderless” and this somehow proves God was male and female. Yet the author of Genesis, who probably knew his own language as well as or better than Wheeler-Reed, uses masculine pronouns when referring to Yahweh (Jehovah/Lord God).
• Man is not created in the image of God in the sense that God has flesh and blood, or male and female body parts. Man was an unique “God-like” culminating point of creation – unlike any other part of God’s creation.

Primary conclusions

• The Bible is not afraid to apply a feminine figure of speech to some aspect of God’s character, such as a woman giving birth to Israel (Deuteronomy 32:18) or a mother comforting children (Isaiah 49:15; Isaiah 66:13). No Bible believer should fear it. We use and explain these figures of speech when properly exegeting the verses wherein they are contained.
• I suppose no orthodox Christian believes the “gender” of God corresponds to the human male gender.[iv] “God is not a man” and “God is a Spirit.” We should not think of the gender of God in human terms, yet must reject the world’s gender confusion which they intend to apply to the Bible. If God chose to inspire his word and refer to himself in masculine terms (e.g. “father”) and masculine pronouns (i.e. he, him) then the simple Bible believer should be satisfied with that rather than run after the ways of the world.

An article like “What the early church thought about God’s gender” is not really about God’s gender (which orthodox Christians have never exactly equated with human gender) or even about what the early church thought. It is about creating confusion concerning gender, presenting human gender as a social construct (as opposed to a physical characteristic), and promoting a society that finds gender dysphoria not just morally neutral but totally acceptable. God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33).

---

[i] Apparently Wheeler-Reed is a lecturer at Albertus Magnus, a Catholic College in New Haven, Connecticut. He is not listed on the faculty page. The article was originally published on The Conversation.

[ii] Longview News-Journal, Saturday, August 4, 2018, page 5B

[iii] The term philosophy (philosophia, φῐλοσοφῐ́ᾱ), meaning “love of wisdom,” is a compound word built on this root.

[iv] Yet I expect there are some unorthodox who believe this.

Made in the image of God

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him…

Question:  What does “man made in the image of God” mean?

As I began to study to answer this question, it became obvious that the theology of “Imago Dei”[i] is quite varied and complex, even among orthodox theologians. To this I had previously paid little attention. My unstudied view centered on the moral qualities of man. Louis Berkhof explains that he early Church Fathers “were quite agreed that the image of God in man consisted primarily in man’s rational and moral characteristics, and in his capacity for holiness…”[ii] My answer, however, will consider it from a contextual concept in the book of Genesis. I believe John Piper is correct stating, “The Bible is not as concerned as we are to discover the precise nature of man’s God-likeness.”[iii]

In the book of Genesis, there are three texts applicable to the “image of God” idea.[iv]

Genesis 1:26-27 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:[v] and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 5:1-2 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

The first mention in Genesis 1:26-27 provides several clues that should not be excluded from understanding that man is created “in the image of God.”

• The significance of man in creation is seen in the consultation of the Godhead: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (v. 26). This consultation is abruptly inserted into a record of creation that previously proceeded without discussion. Man’s creation is distinct and different from what came before.
• The responsibility of man over creation is seen in the dominion that he is given: “let them have dominion” (v. 26). No other thing created in these six days is given dominion over the earth and the things of the earth.
• The uniqueness of man among creation is seen in the unity and duality of his creation: “created he him; male and female created he them” (v. 27) “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. (Genesis 2:21-22). Man, Adam and Eve, are creative, procreative, and united in one. No animals were created in this distinct way.
• The importance of man to creation is seen in his being the final and crowning point of the creation: “Let us make man…And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.” (6th day)…”And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made” (7th day). No other creatures or things were made after man. They were the finishing touch!

Note that there is no indication that man lost the image in his fall, though it might be considered marred. Even in his depraved condition man continues the benefits of being created in God’s image. Genesis 9:6 cites the “Imago Dei” reasoning to condemn murder and support punishment of murderers. This is not only after the fall, but after the flood as well! Man was still “in the image of God.” (Cf. also 1 Corinthians 11:7, man is (presently) “the image and glory of God,” and James 3:9, which also speaks of man in the image of God in the present tense.)

In some way man is like (in the likeness of) God. Adam and Eve do not resemble God in the sense that God has flesh and blood, or male and female body parts. “God is not a man” and “God is Spirit” (Numbers 23:19; John 4:24). God exists without a body, as we understand it. Nevertheless, it is best to understand that the whole man (combining body and soul) is created in God’s image – rather than parcel the “Imago Dei” out piecemeal.

Unlike the animals, with whom man shares physical characteristics (e.g. eyes, ears, legs, etc.) man also has the breath of God in them (Genesis 2:7). Unlike the angels, who are ministering spirits (Hebrews 1:14), man is created with authority, to have dominion over the world God made (cf. Genesis 1:26-27). The statements of Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 5:1-2 support man’s unique role in God’s creation as his “Imago Dei.” This interpretation remains consistent with Genesis 9:6, as well as 1 Corinthians 11:7 and James 3:9.

---

[i] The Latin Imago Dei is the common theological term for the concept “Image of God.”

[ii] Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1939, p. 202. See, for example, Augustine in The City of God (New York, NY: The Modern Library, 1950, p. 407): “God...created him a soul endowed with reason and intelligence...”

[iii] The Image of God: An Approach from Biblical and Systematic Theology (Studia Biblica et Theologica, March 1971)

[iv] “Likeness” in Genesis 5:1; “likeness” translates the Hebrew word demût; “image” translates the Hebrew word selem. In addition, Genesis 5:3 speaks of Adam’s son born in his image: “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:” Seth was begat in a way that he was like his father. As Seth was patterned after Adam, so Adam was patterned after God.

[v] Some writers claim a difference or distinction between the words image (selem) and likeness (demût) in Genesis 1:26, where God consults and resolves to create “in our image, after our likeness.”  The commentary on the actual doing of the resolution in verse 26, as stated in verse 27, clarifies that “likeness” is a restatement of “image” – therefore it is not necessary to mention likeness (demût) again in verse 27.

Nietzsche is dead

In 1882 Friedrich Nietzsche announced, “God is dead.” And God laughed. 18 years later God announced, “Nietzsche is dead.” And Nietzsche died.

Declaring the end from the beginning

Isaiah 46:9-10 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

The Scriptures teach that God knows all things, and from eternity knows what He knows (1 Chronicles 28:9; Psalm 139:1-6; Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 46:9-10; John 2:24–25; 1 John 3:20). Because man is finite and God’s omniscience is inscrutable, men often draw back from such knowledge. With David let us be satisfied that “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.” May we never seek to explain away God’s infinite and eternal knowledge.

For those who wish to redefine things that our minds can’t comprehend, there are passages available. For example, God brought the animals he created unto Adam “to see what he would call them” (Genesis 2:19). Through an angel God told Abraham “now I know that thou fearest God,” after Abraham offered Isaac his son (Genesis 22:12). God seemed to not know what Adam would name the animals. God seemed to not know how Abraham would respond when he commanded him to offer Isaac. How do we interpret and understand such texts?

The inspired Scripture describes God as all-knowing, an attribute we theologically label omniscience. It extends that knowledge not only to the past and present, but also to the future. First, it is wise to notice that the first passages listed above (Psalm 139:1-6; Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 46:9-10; et al.) are clearly fashioned to teach about the extent of God’s knowledge. These come from an eternal perspective. There are no “ifs,” no contingencies, no questions, no uncertainties. The next passages (Genesis 2:19; Genesis 22:12) are embedded in narratives of God’s dealings with Adam and Abraham. They are not designed to speak specifically to God’s eternal attribute of knowledge, but to narrate how God interacts with these men. Here God steps “into time” and deals with man on his level. From man’s standpoint there are “ifs,” contingencies, questions, and uncertainties. Some might prefer the term “anthropomorphism” – ascribing human attributes to God – to describe or understand these texts. When eternal omniscient God deals with temporal finite mankind, he must accommodate his speech and actions to their level. It is unnecessary to hedge that God’s knowledge is somehow bound by the decisions of men and the outcomes of events in time and space.

“Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.”

LORD, Lord and lord

Question: Why is the word Lord printed in different ways in the Bible? For example, Psalm 38:15 says, “For in thee, O Lord, do I hope: thou wilt hear, O Lord my God.” The first appearance is in capitals and the second starts with a capital letter followed by small letters. What is the reason for this?

Answer: The passage in Psalm 38:15 uses two print styles, but the Bible actually distinguishes the English word “lord” in three different ways. Sometimes it is in “small caps” or all capital letters (Lord or LORD).[i] Sometimes only the first letter is capitalized (Lord). Sometimes all letters are lowercase (lord). Isaiah 19:4 is one verse that uses all three. “And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, the Lord of hosts.” [bold emphasis mine]

The first “lord” in Isaiah 19:4 is a translation of adon, as well as the second “Lord.” The all lowercase spelling “lord” is used of a human lord/master/ruler. “Lord” beginning with a capital letter denotes the use of adon or adonai in reference to God. The third use of “Lord” in Isaiah 19:4 is a translation of the Hebrew word YHWH/Yahweh/ JHVH/Jehovah. So in Psalm 38:15 we have, “For in thee, O Lord [JHVH], do I hope: thou wilt hear, O Lord [Adonai] my God [Elohim].”[ii] In Isaiah 19:4 we have “And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord [Adon] ; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord [Adon], the Lord [JHVH] of hosts.”

This original language name in Isaiah 19:4 can be illustrated with The Names of God Bible (© 2011 by Baker Publishing Group). It transliterates[iii] “the Lord, the Lord of hosts” as “Adonay Yahweh Tsebaoth.”

So the general rule of usage in the Old Testament is:

• lord (all lowercase) – a human master or ruler
• Lord (capital followed by lowercase) – the divine master or ruler, God
• Lord (small caps or uppercase) – God, translating his name Jehovah or Yahweh (or the shortened form Jah or Yah)

Disclaimer: This is a general rule, but there are exceptions to the rule.

History

The name “Tetragrammaton” (four letters) refers to the four Hebrew letters יהוה‎ name for God,[iv] now most commonly transliterated into Latin letters as YHWH. According to Jewish practice the Tetragrammaton was not pronounced but read aloud as Adonai or Elohim. This practice was transferred into translations of the Bible, and hence our English typography Lord was generally used to designate the Tetragrammaton, i.e. JHVH or Jehovah. There are a few exceptions that necessitated its use – in English (usually) as “Jehovah.”[v] The King James Bible has 4 such exceptions (Exodus 6:3, Psalm 83:18, Isaiah 12:2, and Isaiah 26:4).[vi]

Usage

According to The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon[vii] at Bible Study Tools, King James Bible word usage of YHWH totals 6519 – Lord 6510, God 4, JEHOVAH 4,[viii] variant 1.

According to The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon at Bible Study Tools, King James Bible word usage of Jah/Yah (a shortened form of YHWH/Jehovah) totals 49 – Lord 48, JAH 1.

According to The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon at Bible Study Tools, King James Bible word usage of adonai totals 434 – Lord 431, lord 2, God 1.

According to The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon at Bible Study Tools, King James Bible word usage of adon totals 335 – lord 197, master(s) 105, Lord 31, owner 1, sir 1.

New Testament

The common words in the New Testament are Lord for kurios (κυρίος) and God for theos (θεὸς).

I hope this helps, and I hope the small caps formatting turns out OK on the blog!

---

[i] This may vary according to the printer – especially for individuals – but the usual print style is what is called “small caps”. Small caps typography (small capitals) is short uppercase/capital letters designed to substitute for and blend with lowercase text. In the practice of spelling Lord in the Bible, this begins with one full uppercase or capital letter (L), followed by three “small caps” (ord). Printers unable to use small caps typography will use all capitals instead (LORD).

[ii] In the Old Testament when “God” is used, it is usually (though not always) a translation of the Hebrew word “Elohim.”

[iii] Transliterate: to change (letters, words, etc.) into corresponding characters of another alphabet or language.

[iv] Jod (י), He (ה), Vau (ו), He (ה) in the King James Bible – see Psalm 119 headings for the transliteration of the letters.

[v] It has been transferred into English as Jehovah, Yahweh, Yehowah, and various other ways.

[vi] Isaiah 26:4 Trust ye in the Lord for ever: for in the Lord [JAH] JEHOVAH [YHWH] is everlasting strength:

[vii] The Hebrew lexicon is Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon.

[viii] Not counting the cases in Genesis 22:14, Exodus 17:15 and Judges 6:24.

Two spiritual truths

Two spiritual truths and their consequence:

There is a God.
You are not Him.
Trust Him.

Open Theism: a Conclusion

C. S. Lewis once wrote, “Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow.”
 My, how things have changed.

While Open Theism isn’t on the radar of many Baptists in their local churches, it is growing in popularity in the theological world. Both the Christianity Today periodical and the Evangelical Theological Society seem to be promoting its acceptance (at the least not warning against it). It is founded in ideas of radical libertarian freewill, and appears, in part, to be an adverse reaction to strong views on the predestination, decrees and purpose of God. It seeks to “reconcile” God’s sovereignty and man’s free will. It is a growing issue, as Martyn McGeown notes, “Open theism is not on the lunatic fringe in Christendom. Leading evangelicals espouse this heresy.”

Open Theism presents an unbiblical view of God. A warped view of God can distort other doctrines, such as God’s wrath, God’s righteousness, the substitutionary atonement, salvation by grace and others. A biblical view of God embraces “God and the Three O’s” -- omnipresence (all present; Proverbs 15:3), omnipotence (all powerful; Revelation 19:6); and omniscience (all knowing; John 21:17). Open Theism disputes most directly God’s omniscience, but this affects thoughts on his omnipresence and omnipotence as well.

Open Theism should be pointed out, warned against and rejected.

God is not a man. He is not like us. “For he is not a man, as I am...(Job 9:32)” “...Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself...(Psalm 50:21).” “...I am God, and there is none like me. (Isaiah 46:9)”

Open Theism: What Is It?
Open Theism: Against God's Omniscience
Open Theism: Problem Passages

Open Theism: Problem Passages

There are some verses and incidents in the Bible that seem to contradict God's outright omniscience in all cases at all times. Let’s look at a few of these that are raised by Open Theists and others.

Did God know where Adam and Eve were hiding? 

• Genesis 3:8b-9 “...Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?” 
• Open Theistic Conclusion: God had to look for Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, so he doesn't know everything. 
•  This example is actually a quite strange objection – very often mentioned but well understood textually even by most of those who don’t believe God is absolutely omniscient. Rather than a confused God who is looking for a couple he can’t find, God is asking a question to draw out the thoughts of his hearers, Adam and Eve. God uses this method again, recorded in Genesis 4:9-10 “And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper? And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.” It is unquestionably clear that God does not ask this question for his own knowledge, but to draw out the thoughts of his hearer, Cain. This is a common teaching technique.

Did God make a mistake in creating mankind? 

• Genesis 6:6 “And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” 
• Open Theistic Conclusion: God made a mistake, not foreseeing what would go wrong with his creation. 
• Genesis 6:6 doesn't delve into the arena of knowledge or foreknowledge. It relates what we would describe as “feelings”. On the other hand, verse 3 is about knowledge and foreknowledge, when God unequivocally states what he is going to do: “And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.” In “it repented the Lord” and “it grieved him” we find two of many biblical uses of anthropomorphic language.[1] When the Bible says that the sun rises and sets, it adapts to man-centered language -- rather than using God-centered language. From God’s perspective the sun doesn’t move. From man’s perspective the sun rises and sets. God does as he pleases (Psalm 115:3; 135:6), and in this case it pleased him to “repent” and “grieve” (Daniel 4:35). From their perspective, some men say God did not know what would happen when he created the world.  But Isaiah says he knows and declares the end from the beginning. The statement in Genesis 6 is not addressing the knowledge of God from an intellectual standpoint. It is, rather, addressing the concern of God for his creation -- expressing his great displeasure of sin and explaining why he would judge the whole earth.

Is God uncertain of the future? 

• Exodus 4:9 “And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe also these two signs, neither hearken unto thy voice, that thou shalt take of the water of the river, and pour it upon the dry land: and the water which thou takest out of the river shall become blood upon the dry land.” 
• Open Theistic Conclusion: God gave extra signs, since he didn’t know for sure which ones the Israelites would believe. 
• Did God know how the people would react? Yes. Rather than directly telling Moses that he knew they would not immediately respond to the signs, God is preparing Moses -- by demonstrating his power and supplying him with other signs to perform when they respond unfavourably to the first signs. The signs operated just as God designed and foreknew. The continual demonstration of his ample grace increases faith, first of Moses, and then of the children of Israel.

Did God change his mind about Israel because he didn’t know something? 

• Exodus 32:11-14 “And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.” 
• Open Theistic Conclusion: Because of unforeseen circumstances, God was about to wipe out the nation he was creating. 
• The Lord knows the way of the righteous and will bless it. The Lord knows the way of the ungodly and shall judge it (Psalm 1:6). God demonstrates both his fierce wrath and ample grace. In “the Lord repented” we again find the biblical use of anthropomorphic language, an expression of God’s “feelings”. In Exodus 32, from Moses’s perspective, God seemed to change. And in the sense of responding conditionally, he did “change” (see Jeremiah 18:5-11; “if that nation…turn from their evil, I will repent”). He answered Moses’s prayer. This is a series of actions demonstrating God’s justice and grace and not a lack of foreknowledge on God’s part (cf. Jonah 3:4b,10; 4:2).

Is there something that never entered God’s mind? 

• Jeremiah 32:35 “And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.”
• Open Theistic Conclusion: The thought of sacrificing children was something God was unable to foresee. 
• This is an expression of incredulity in the human sense, not a remark on God’s overall knowledge.  The statement emphasizes the presumptuous nature of their acts. God did not order it by his law or his prophets, and in no way approved of their actions. It was a grievous sin and an abomination.

Was God surprised by what happened? 

• Isaiah 5:3-4 “And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?” 
• Open Theistic Conclusion: God expected something that did not come to pass. 
• Was God surprised by the progress of his vineyard?  This is a simple manner of expression of truth my means of a parable rather than conundrum concerning God's knowledge. “When I looked that it should bring forth grapes” speaks of the lack of proper and timely response to the work of God, as would by nature occur in a vineyard, and is not expressly saying something about God’s foreknowledge.

The above verses are a small sampling of some of those used by Open Theists to “prove” that God is not omniscient or all-knowing. A Google search will easily reveal other disputed verses, as well as answers to the Open Theist view much better than the ones provided here.

Open Theism: What Is It?
Open Theism: Against God's Omniscience


[1] Anthropomorphic language – “ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human, especially to a deity” (Dictionary.com) Anthropomorphic language in the Bible presents God in human terms that we might have some human understanding of and empathy with his actions.

"The term “anthropomorphism,” in its restricted sense, refers to the representation of God with the forms of humanity (such as an arm or hand). “Anthropopathism” refers to the representation of God with the feelings of humanity. “Anthropopraxism” refers to the representation of God with the activities of humanity." -- From Recognizing and Interpreting Anthropomorphic Language

Open Theism: Against God's Omniscience

Hank Hanegraaff writes, “It’s not too surprising to hear non-Christians and even cultists deny that God is omniscient.[1] But what is surprising is that a growing number of theologians today who profess to be evangelicals also deny it.” Open Theism posits a view of God’s knowledge in which there are things which are unknowable to God. This is the big difference between Open Theism and more traditional views of God. Christians have usually professed that God knows all things.[2] Open Theism attempts to reconcile God’s knowledge, man’s free will and the “problem” of evil (while embracing some verses which appear to say that God did not know something). Like any other theological view, all points of Open Theism are not agreed even among those who hold the view. The consistent thread seems to be: God does not know the future exhaustively because the future depends on human libertarian free will choices – which do not exist until man makes them.

The Bible teaches that God is omniscient or all-knowing: 1 John 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. His omniscience extends throughout eternity, embracing past, present and future.

In the past

• “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.” (Ecclesiastes 1:9)
• “Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.” (John 1:48)
• “for thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.” (John 4:18)

In the present

• “For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven;” (Job 28:24)
• “And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?” (Matthew 9:4) 
• “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.” (Matthew 10:29-30)

In the future

• “Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.” (Psalm 139:16)
• “that saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;” (Isaiah 44:28-45:1)
• “Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.” (Matthew 26:34)

Man knows something of the past and the present, but only partially. He knows the future only as a possibility. God knows all things – past, present and future. The truth of his omniscience is seen in declarative statements of the Bible. He knows everything that will occur from the beginning to the end of human history (Isaiah 46:9-10). He knows our thoughts and words, even before we think or speak them (Psalm 139:4), knows our prayers before we ask (Matthew 6:8) and knows our hearts and their secrets (1 Kings 8:39; Psalm 44:21). His eyes are in every place (Proverbs 15:3), and his understanding is infinite or unlimited (Psalm 147:5). There is nothing that escapes God’s knowledge or notice (Psalm 19:6, Psalm 139:7-12; Proverbs 5:21). His knowledge of what’s going to happen in the future is seen in fulfilled prophecies (Isaiah 41:21-24; 42:9; 44:7), whether fulfilled shortly (1 Kings 22:28-38; Matthew 26:34) or many years later (1 Kings 21:23; cf. 2 Kings 9:36; Matthew 24:2).

Isaiah 46:9-11 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

Other verses to consider include: Psalm 115:3; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Isaiah 48:3-6; Jeremiah 1:5; John 16:30; John 18:4; John 21:17; Hebrews 4:13; 2 Peter 3:8.

Throughout the Bible, its writers in distinct ways regularly tell us that God knows everything. There are some verses and incidents that seem to contradict this. But when understood rightly in their context these cases are clarified and fit the overarching biblical theme of God’s omniscience. Let’s look at some of those tomorrow.

Open Theism: What is It?

[1] Omniscient – “having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.” (Dictionary.com)
[2] While there are variations of belief – such as debating about contingencies – orthodox Christians consistently maintain that God knows all things. Matthew 11:21-23 indicates that God knows what people would have done if he had put them in different circumstances (“...if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes...if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.”).

Open Theism: What is It?

What is Open Theism?

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines Open Theism as "the thesis that, because God loves us and desires that we freely choose to reciprocate His love, He has made His knowledge of, and plans for, the future conditional upon our actions. Though omniscient, God does not know what we will freely do in the future." Further that "Open Theists affirm that God knows all the truths that can be known, [but] they claim that there simply are not yet truths about what will occur in the 'open', undetermined future. Alternatively, there are such contingent truths, but these truths cannot be known by anyone, including God."

Responding on Rachel Held Evans's blog, Open Theist Greg Boyd writes, "If I had to define 'Open Theism' in one sentence, I would say that it as the view that the future is partly comprised of possibilities and is therefore known by God as partly comprised of possibilities...God chose to create a cosmos that is populated with free agents – at least humans and angels. To have free will means that one has the ability to transition several possible courses of action into one actual course of action...While God can decide to pre-settle whatever aspects of the future he wishes, to the degree that he has given agents freedom, God has chosen to leave the future open, as a domain of possibilities, for agents to resolve with their free choices." He acknowledges this view "conflicts with the understanding of the future that has been espoused by classical theologians."

According to Matt Slick at Carm.Org "Open Theism, also called openness and the open view, is a theological position dealing with human free will and its relationship to God and the nature of the future. It is the teaching that God has granted to humanity free will and that in order for the free will to be truly free, the future free will choices of individuals cannot be known ahead of time by God....that God can only know that which is knowable, and since the future has not yet happened, it cannot be exhaustively known by God."

Tim Challies defines open theism as "a sub-Christian theological construct which claims that God’s highest goal is to enter into a reciprocal relationship with man. In this scheme, the Bible is interpreted without any anthropomorphisms - that is, all references to God’s feelings, surprise and lack of knowledge are literal and the result of His choice to create a world where He can be affected by man’s choices. God’s exhaustive knowledge does not include future free will choices by mankind because they have not yet occurred." He quotes Open Theist Clark Pinnock saying, "Decisions not yet made do not exist anywhere to be known even by God. They are potential—yet to be realized, but not yet actual. God can predict a great deal of what we will choose to do, but not all of it, because some of it remains hidden in the mystery of human freedom."

* I thought I had posted on this subject before, but cannot find that I have -- so am addressing it in a few posts.

The Son of God

In Friday's links I posted Was Jesus the Son of God? It's Complicated by James D. Tabor. I always include a disclaimer with my links, but want to follow up with this further "disclaimer".

When asked the question, "Do you believe that Jesus was the Son of God," Tabor concludes that answering is quite complicated. Certainly the Bible is no Kindergarten reader, and an eternal God who is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient is a wee bit more than we can truly comprehend. But the gist of Tabor's piece is that he doesn't believe that Jesus is the Son of God in the way the question is posed -- and that does call for a little subterfuge. The three words "son of God" can (and does) have different meanings -- even in the Bible. Don't let anyone use that to confuse you about what the New Testament clearly claims for Jesus -- He is eternal God incarnate who died to take away the sins of the world, rose again for our justification and is alive in heaven. If folks like Tabor don't believe the New Testament claims, that's one thing. To claim the New Testament doesn't proclaim the divinity of Jesus is quite another.

Go figure

Today I saw a sign that said:

  "There's probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

I want a lot more assurance than probably to be comfortable enough to "stop worrying"!

Time change

Yesterday in the U.S. we experienced what we call a "time change" -- actually "time" stayed the same while we ran our clocks up an hour. From what I could find online, the first experiment with "Daylight Savings Time" occurred in Germany in 1916. It was first tried in the U.S. in 1918. Its appears that both cases were related to World War I and to conserve on the use (and cost) of artificial lighting. According to timeanddate.com, a few U.S. cities continued to use it after it was repealed up to the time it was re-instituted in 1942.

Yesterday at church we talked about a true time change, when God changed time for the battle at Gibeon.*

Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

This incident is a severe stumblingblock to moderns who have exalted science over scripture. It seems to be no cause for concern among those who believe God is greater than the universe He created.

* Another time change is recorded in Isaiah 38:8 - Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.

The effect of the mercy of God

"Let my soul be favoured with a sweet discovery of the mercies of God; let them reach my heart, soften and subdue my spirit, then there is no cross too heavy to be taken up, no trial too hard to be endured, no path of suffering and sorrow in which we cannot patiently, if not gladly, walk. The reason why the precepts are not obeyed is because the mercies of God are not felt. Love and obedience attend each other as the shadow waits upon the sun." -- J. C. Philpot

7 Omnis of God

Omni is a prefix that means all, every, everywhere, and is used in the formation of compound words. This prefix is often attached with words that describe God, for God is omni, all in all.

According to the Bible, God is: 

1. Omnibenevolent, always doing good. Everything that God does is good, without exception. Omnibeneficent is also used to describe the same quality. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning, James 1:17. (Cf. also Psalm 18:30; 19:7; Romans 8:28; I John 4:8)

2. Omnific or omnificent, all-creating. The Lord hath made all things...Proverbs 16:4. Everything was made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made, John 1:3. This word is rarely used today, but see Milton’s “Paradise Lost.” Omnificent is another adjective with the same or similar meaning – “creating all things; having unlimited powers of creation.” See Genesis 1; Psalm 33:6; Revelation 4:11.

3. Omnipotent, almighty. God is infinite in power. He possesses unlimited authority and power. Cf. Job 42:2; Daniel 4:35; John 19:11. Even the powers that be are ordained of God.

4. Omnipresent, being all places at all times; present everywhere at the same time. Read Psalm 139:7-9; Hebrews 4:13; Psalm 33:13-14; and Isaiah 57:15.

5. Omnipure, altogether pure, free from anything degrading or sinful. God is altogether holy without mixture or taint of sin. He is unique, separate and distinct from all. 1 Samuel 2:2; Revelation 4:8.

6. Omniscient, having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things. This can also be described as omnipercipient – perceiving everything – though the former word is almost always used. God knows all things (1 John 3:20). Psalm 147:5, His understanding in infinite. Job 28:24. 

7. Omni. Period. God is all in all. Ephesians 1:23 ...him that filleth all in all. Ephesians 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

God is so omni that the English language doesn’t have enough omni-words to describe Him!!

These words are usually found in theological discussions, and a few may be coined by theologians rather than words with a long dictionary history, e.g. omnibenevolent, omnipure.

Silence, ye troubl’d waves, and thou Deep, peace
Said then th’ Omnific Word, your discord end:
Nor staid, but on the Wings of Cherubim
Uplifted, in Paternal Glorie rode
Farr into Chaos, and the World unborn;
For Chaos heard his voice: him all his Traine
Follow’d in bright procession to behold
Creation, and the wonders of his might
Then staid the fervid Wheeles, and in his hand
He took the golden Compasses, prepar’d
In Gods Eternal store, to circumscribe
This Universe, and all created things
John Milton – Paradise Lost, in Book 7, Line 217