An open challenge to all closed theists

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Rolf,

Since you fail to respond to any of the points I raised and resort to personal attacks, I must conclude that you concede every point.

Maybe you can wash Pilate's feet after you both finish washing your hands of Christians...

--Jeremy

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by smaller

The "lesson" here is God Himself is NOT CAPTURED or DEFINED by the term "change" or the term "unchanging."

BOTH of these positions SERVE The One who IS Greater than ALL THINGS.

lol ok smaller. hey! i think i just figured out why you picked your name. because you consider yourself "smaller" than the one who is "greater than all things". am i right?

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

then he's not really changing his mind is he? if it was predetermined then he knew about it in advance and thus his mind was already set for that. repentence becomes an illusion.

In stead of "an illusion," why can't it be a matter of perspective? From man's perspective, it certainly appears that God repents and is even capricious.

If, ontologically speaking, God does not change, but describes Himself to man as though He does change, then this would amount to an anthropomorphism, just as the closed guys have been saying for centuries.

So from God's position of exhaustive foreknowledge, He did move to adjust man's perspective. God ordained a perspective change, and in doing so, man observes God repenting. That works for me. I just can't get my head around the possibility that God will be caught off guard.
"Surprise" - Adam sinned. I don't think God was surprised.
It just doesn't seem very Godlike.

 

[smaller]

It has been brought up many times in this thread that God's predisposition to lawlessness/evil is to curse it, but IF God LED the instruments of such things to repentence, then He can repent of his predetermined action as REPENTENCE was God's Predetermined action. Is this too difficult to grasp.....?

In either case God is free to do as entirely as He Pleases.

In the case of God's being "unchanging" how broad can the definitions be...??? for example, if ALL THINGS serve The Maker of ALL THINGS then He would be UNCHANGING in this aspect.

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

lol ok smaller. hey! i think i just figured out why you picked your name. because you consider yourself "smaller" than the one who is "greater than all things". am i right?

No. :nono:
This kind of rationale would make us all "smaller". In which case I would already be a universalist. :freak:

 

[smaller]

John the baptists statement comes to mind for all eh?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by LightSon

In stead of "an illusion," why can't it be a matter of perspective? From man's perspective, it certainly appears that God repents and is even capricious.

If, ontologically speaking, God does not change, but describes Himself to man as though He does change, then this would amount to an anthropomorphism, just as the closed guys have been saying for centuries.

So from God's position of exhaustive foreknowledge, He did move to adjust man's perspective. God ordained a perspective change, and in doing so, man observes God repenting. That works for me. I just can't get my head around the possibility that God will be caught off guard.
"Surprise" - Adam sinned. I don't think God was surprised.
It just doesn't seem very Godlike.

regardless of perspective, there are 2 choices. when God says he repents in the bible he either (A) really repented, or (B) did not really repent.

if you believe (B) then you must replace the phrase "God repented" with what it actually means or rather waht it is anthropormophizing. for example, i do not believe that the phrase "shelter of your wings O Lord" means that God literally has wings. i shall deem it to be anthropomorphic and replace it with "God protects us with his power and might, sheltering us. the phrase "shelter of your wings" is anthropomorphic of this truth". now please show what would be replaced if "God repented" is not literally true.

as for the surprise thing, it's not like God didn't know it was possible for adam to sin. God knew it was possible and i'm sure he had a plan set up for the possibility that it occured. he is never surprised by something coming to pass. however, he may be surprised THAT it actually did come to pass. thus, God is surprised and he is not surprised

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by LightSon

No. :nono:
This kind of rationale would make us all "smaller". In which case I would already be a universalist. :freak:

dont' worry, i'm not joining smallers theological denomination of "universalism" or anything else he supports like that or that just sounds contradictory in nature or weird

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

regardless of perspective, there are 2 choices. when God says he repents in the bible he either (A) really repented, or (B) did not really repent.
....

as for the surprise thing, it's not like God didn't know it was possible for adam to sin. God knew it was possible and i'm sure he had a plan set up for the possibility that it occured. he is never surprised by something coming to pass. however, he may be surprised THAT it actually did come to pass. thus, God is surprised and he is not surprised

Let us not dismiss the "perspective" angle too soon.

If you can say "God is surprised and he is not surprised",
then I can say "God repented and God does not repent".

Instead of "perspective", I would suggest:
from God's point of view, God does not repent.
from our point of view, God repents.

I'm sure we can agree that scripture cannot be broken, and in God's mind, there are no contradictions in His word.

 

[lee_merrill]

As GIT has explained, we can understand what the Bible means when it says He has an "arm" or something like that. The question still stands... What is the Bible trying to say the 20+ times it says God repents? Does God repent or not? Secondly, how do you interpret the passages that say God "does not repent" literally, but choose to interpret the passages that say He "does repent" figuratively?

Here is a passage like the one you mention:

1SA 15:11 I repent that I have made Saul king...
1SA 15:29 And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or repent; for He is not a man that He should repent.

God "repented" in verse 11, in verse 29 we are told he does not repent. In the same situation, God is described as both repenting and we are also told he does not repent. But we have more, here, we are told God does not lie, so we know he is not just pretending to repent (or not repent). Whatever it means, means something, it is not just a show.

Now, we would have an issue if God said, "I have an arm," if He does not actually have an arm. However, God never says that about Himself. Rather, OT authors describe physical attributes of God which we are able to explain the meaning behind. Now, I ask, why would God say He repents, if He does not repent?

It's true there's no Scripture verse that says "God doesn't have an arm". The closest I can think of offhand is Jer. 23:24. But Jesus says in John 15, "I am the true vine." Now we don't need Jesus to add somewhere "I am not *really* a vine."

So your question can be repeated here: "Why would Jesus say he is the vine, if he is not a vine?" I would answer: To tell us something about himself, by way of analogy. I don't think everything about a vine tells us something about Jesus, so we have to understand what parts of the analogy apply, and what parts don't.

In "repenting," in saying "the Lamb of God," in picturing the Holy Spirit as a dove, in all that God describes himself being or doing, we have to recognize that all analogies, all descriptions, are partial pictures (though not false pictures).

I think the passages that say "God does not repent" are intended to tell us that not all of what we do when we repent applies to God. And I think Scripture gives us an idea as to what parts don't apply:

MAL 3:6 I the Lord do not change.
JAS 1:17 ... the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation, or shifting shadow.

PS 33:11 But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.

God does not change, nor does he change his plan.

Another point: God oftentimes speaks with us from our point of view:

JN 6:5-6 When Jesus looked up and saw a great crowd coming toward him, he said to Philip, "Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?" He asked this only to test him, for he already had in mind what he was going to do.

GE 32:31 The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel...

Now God was well aware that the sun didn't actually rise. But he doesn't say "the earth rotated." Similarly with God's actions:

JER 26:3 Perhaps they will listen...

This was speaking from Jeremiah's perspective (see Jer. 36:6).

Similarly with "repents", we can say that God has a change of his response, a change even of emotional response, and speaks also from our perspective here.

And we can understand what he means by our own experience of repenting, it means something like what we experience, but it is also different. Like using our arm...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[lee_merrill]

i do not believe that the phrase "shelter of your wings O Lord" means that God literally has wings. i shall deem it to be anthropomorphic and replace it with "God protects us with his power and might, sheltering us. the phrase "shelter of your wings" is anthropomorphic of this truth". now please show what would be replaced if "God repented" is not literally true.

How anthropomorphic, if people don't have wings? (just kidding)

"God repented" means he changed his response, his emotional response, even. The difficulty with explaining analogies is that we have to resort to other analogies, "sheltering us" brings to mind a roof, for instance, "protects us" brings other analogies to mind, such as guards and armor, etc. Language is inherently analogical, it seems, and we have to pick between analogies, instead of choosing whether to use analogies.

So let us stick with the analogies God gives us, they explain best to us what he means, and let us work on explaining what part of the analogies apply, and what do not, how they apply, etc. But to replace one analogy with another one is to lose some of what God is trying to tell us, I would say.

as for the surprise thing, it's not like God didn't know it was possible for adam to sin. God knew it was possible and i'm sure he had a plan set up for the possibility that it occured. he is never surprised by something coming to pass. however, he may be surprised THAT it actually did come to pass. thus, God is surprised and he is not surprised

I do think sin "shocks" God, in some way:

MT 26:50 Jesus replied, "Friend, what have you come for?"

If this is the correct translation, Jesus was surprised by Judas' betrayal, though he knew it was coming. But I don't think God has to content himself with possibilities:

ISA 41:4 Who has done this and carried it through, calling forth the generations from the beginning? I, the Lord--with the first of them and with the last--I am he.

I didn't see LightSon's post on perspective before my previous post, I agree, I think that explains how God oftentimes will speak to us.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by LightSon

Let us not dismiss the "perspective" angle too soon.

If you can say "God is surprised and he is not surprised",
then I can say "God repented and God does not repent".

Instead of "perspective", I would suggest:
from God's point of view, God does not repent.
from our point of view, God repents.

I'm sure we can agree that scripture cannot be broken, and in God's mind, there are no contradictions in His word.

God is surprised and God is not surprised works because the relationship is different. God repents and God does not repent will not work in the same relationship. so, either God truly repented and we see it as such or he truly did not repent and we just see it as he did. in this relationship he either repented or he did not. we may not see it as it is but either he really did or he really didn't. so, when the bible says "and the Lord repented" what does it mean? did he truly repent or did he truly not repent? and if not, what really happened and why is the verse written like that?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

How anthropomorphic, if people don't have wings? (just kidding)

"God repented" means he changed his response, his emotional response, even. The difficulty with explaining analogies is that we have to resort to other analogies, "sheltering us" brings to mind a roof, for instance, "protects us" brings other analogies to mind, such as guards and armor, etc. Language is inherently analogical, it seems, and we have to pick between analogies, instead of choosing whether to use analogies.

So let us stick with the analogies God gives us, they explain best to us what he means, and let us work on explaining what part of the analogies apply, and what do not, how they apply, etc. But to replace one analogy with another one is to lose some of what God is trying to tell us, I would say.

repenting means a couple different things based on context. but lets look at jonah. when God repented of the judgement he'd said he would bring upon them, do you believe God really, actually, and truly changed his mind as the word repent leads us to believe?

I do think sin "shocks" God, in some way:

MT 26:50 Jesus replied, "Friend, what have you come for?"

If this is the correct translation, Jesus was surprised by Judas' betrayal, though he knew it was coming. But I don't think God has to content himself with possibilities:

ISA 41:4 Who has done this and carried it through, calling forth the generations from the beginning? I, the Lord--with the first of them and with the last--I am he.

oh i agree. sin is somewhat "shocking" to God, in a sense. all i'm saying is that he's never surprised by something "new" so to speak as he is aware of all possibilities. he is just surprised that particular things indeed come to pass and were in fact done by individuals.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Jeremy--Re: post 61--I did not mean to wash my hands of you as individuals, but to no longer entertain your thoughts on this particular topic, 1Way's posts are so long that it is painful to read them; especially since they are always liberally laced with strange errors in doctrine. Looking at them makes me sick at heart. I don't want to look at them any more. I have many times answered his errors and he has not even realized that my posts have answered his errors. Rather than realize the import of what I have posted, he just keeps coming back asking why I haven't answered. If he is not receptive, why go on? I wash my hands of the issue in that sense. Therefore don't presume (as you did just above) that my absence is an admission of defeat. Far from it. It is nothing more than exasperation with those who willfully refuse to LISTEN.

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Originally posted by lee_merrill

Here is a passage like the one you mention:

1SA 15:11 I repent that I have made Saul king...
1SA 15:29 And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or repent; for He is not a man that He should repent.

God "repented" in verse 11, in verse 29 we are told he does not repent. In the same situation, God is described as both repenting and we are also told he does not repent. But we have more, here, we are told God does not lie, so we know he is not just pretending to repent (or not repent). Whatever it means, means something, it is not just a show.

How right you are lee... It most definitely "means something..." I also ask that you consider the context of 1 Samuel 15 which has been discussed at length HERE. Please feel free to comment on my opening post. I ask that you notice why God repents in verses 11 and 35, but does not repent in verse 29.

Another favorite "God does not repent" verse is Numbers 23:19. Feel free to look at the context HERE as well. God does not repent because of a specific reason. You continue,

It's true there's no Scripture verse that says "God doesn't have an arm". The closest I can think of offhand is Jer. 23:24. But Jesus says in John 15, "I am the true vine." Now we don't need Jesus to add somewhere "I am not *really* a vine."

So your question can be repeated here: "Why would Jesus say he is the vine, if he is not a vine?" I would answer: To tell us something about himself, by way of analogy. I don't think everything about a vine tells us something about Jesus, so we have to understand what parts of the analogy apply, and what parts don't.

In "repenting," in saying "the Lamb of God," in picturing the Holy Spirit as a dove, in all that God describes himself being or doing, we have to recognize that all analogies, all descriptions, are partial pictures (though not false pictures).

You see, we are mashing physical ascriptions with God's nature and are trying to make them the same. We agree that physical attributes (arms, feathers, being a vine, etc...) can be explained. Now, we must deal with God's nature. You say He doesn't repent. God is love. God is mercy. God is wrath. The list goes on and on. How are we to decide which of God's attributes are real, and which are anthropomorphic / anthropopathic? As noted in the Jonah passage, Jonah says God repents. Jonah calls God a God who is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who repents from doing harm.

Now, how do we discern which descriptors are literal and which are not? Is God gracious? Is God merciful? Is God slow to anger? Is God abundant in lovingkindness? If you answer "YES" to any of the above, then you must agree that God repents. You continue,

I think the passages that say "God does not repent" are intended to tell us that not all of what we do when we repent applies to God. And I think Scripture gives us an idea as to what parts don't apply:

The definition of "nacham" is simply a change of heart or mind. If God repents, He is changing His heart / mind from a previous statement or decision. Let's look at your verses...

MAL 3:6 I the Lord do not change.

Again, I ask that you read the context. God will not change concerning the promise He made to David. Malachi 3:6 in no way implies God NEVER changes...

JAS 1:17 ... the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation, or shifting shadow.

Context again...

PS 33:11 But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.

Again, ripping a passage out of it's context and making it a pretext is not sound...

God does not change, nor does he change his plan.

This is such a broad statement. What do you mean by "God does not change,"? Did God "empty Himself" and come in the form of a child? Dod God grow into a man? Did He ascend back to heaven in a glorified body? Are those changes or not? How about His plan? What is this unchanging plan?

Another point: God oftentimes speaks with us from our point of view:

JN 6:5-6 When Jesus looked up and saw a great crowd coming toward him, he said to Philip, "Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?" He asked this only to test him, for he already had in mind what he was going to do.

GE 32:31 The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel...

Now God was well aware that the sun didn't actually rise. But he doesn't say "the earth rotated." Similarly with God's actions:

JER 26:3 Perhaps they will listen...

This was speaking from Jeremiah's perspective (see Jer. 36:6).

Huh? Are you implying that the most perfect communicator in the Universe is unable to accurately communicate with His creation? How does one discern what is "God's perspective" and what is "man's perspective?" I'm sorry my friend, but God is an effective communicator.

Similarly with "repents", we can say that God has a change of his response, a change even of emotional response, and speaks also from our perspective here.

And we can understand what he means by our own experience of repenting, it means something like what we experience, but it is also different. Like using our arm...

Huh? So does God repent or not? When God said He intended to destroy the children of Israel in Exodus 32, did He really mean it? Did God really repent of His stated harm in Exodus 32:14 or not?

In Christ,

--Jeremy

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Jeremy--Re: post 61--I did not mean to wash my hands of you as individuals, but to no longer entertain your thoughts on this particular topic, 1Way's posts are so long that it is painful to read them; especially since they are always liberally laced with strange errors in doctrine. Looking at them makes me sick at heart. I don't want to look at them any more. I have many times answered his errors and he has not even realized that my posts have answered his errors. Rather than realize the import of what I have posted, he just keeps coming back asking why I haven't answered. If he is not receptive, why go on? I wash my hands of the issue in that sense. Therefore don't presume (as you did just above) that my absence is an admission of defeat. Far from it. It is nothing more than exasperation with those who willfully refuse to LISTEN.

rolf,

Maybe it's because you aren't answering the points. I can't speak for 1Way, but I know for a fact that you totally passed over my claim that 2 Peter 3:9 has a more valid translation showing that God has "counseled" all "to have room for" repentance. You didn't even look at the original language to see if my exegesis was sound. You totally dismissed what I had to say and have done the same here. The fact that you refuse to answer specific points speaks volumes. It seems that you must include yourself "with those who willfully refuse to LISTEN."

God Bless,

--Jeremy

 

[1Way]

Rolf – You said

Jeremy--Re: post 61--I did not mean to wash my hands of you as individuals, but to no longer entertain your thoughts on this particular topic, 1Way's posts are so long that it is painful to read them; especially since they are always liberally laced with strange errors in doctrine. Looking at them makes me sick at heart.

:thumb: Thanks for admitting your personal problems with dealing what I plainly say, you say you have answered my posts and you have not and instead you generally treat me with disgust and you turn to personal attacks on Acts9 so you have a pattern of spite instead of dealing respectfully and intellectually with the bible issues at hand. While we understand your frustrations, we can not condone your treatment of God’s word. My suggestion, is that instead of contradicting God’s word by your traditions, conform to it. :thumb:

Guilt from violence is not pleasant
You stand condemned by God for doing violence to God’s word by voiding it with a manmade tradition and then claiming “no fault ignorance” for what the “so called” figure means, so you should have problems with what I have been saying, you are guilty and that “should” bother you.

The issue is simple and clearly communicated
Also, we are dealing with an issue of interpretation that most any youngster would handle with ease, namely that if you can’t even demonstrate the figure’s meaning, then you have no standing to suggest it is figurative instead of literal. Like I said to Swordsman, if you want to play that toon, come work for me and I’ll pay you handsomely, only when it comes time for me to “literally” pay you, I’ll invoke your little cutesy “no faulty ignorance” of what my figurative speech actually means and not pay you a red cent because my words were not literal, they were somehow figurative. You are living a lie, you know that no one can rightly suggest a figure and at the same time say, uh, well, but I don’t know what the figure means. :duh:

Consider the source
So the fact that ALL you closed theists are completely stumped over this challenge shows everyone rather clearly where you all are coming from, you simply do not want to deal with the bible’s consistent teaching on divine repentance, perhaps the strongest demonstration that God sometimes changes in dramatic and obvious ways. This has been a very productive exercise.

After the initial posts, which were longer in order to sufficiently cover the issue at hand, I have been concise, understandable and helpful via examples and direct feedback, so your “complaint” (more like non-constructive whining) further reflects your personal frustrations which are several, rather than my ability to communicate appropriately. Or do you have a commensurate response to this closed theist challenge?

You have no standing for suggesting that divine repentance is not literally true, you can’t even offer a reasonable figurative replacement meaning.

 

[1Way]

they are frustrated and upset,,,

they are frustrated and upset,,,

Jeremy – Thanks much for the support and aid. We OV’ers do NOT void and violate God’s word in the passages that the CV’ers think establish there case, but these CV’ers do violate via contradiction of the literal message WITHOUT replacing the voided out meaning with the contextually evident figurative meaning. And it is this issue that I would like to highlight before wrapping up this bible conformity challenge.

So far no one seems willing to actually answer the challenge, so I guess I’ll have to agree to alter this thread’s otherwise narrow topic and let it be for the closed theist to challenge us. :chuckle: It is clear that they are not able to deal with one half of one small verse because evidently = divine repentance renders them meaningfully ignorant, and apparently willingly so. Hence my charge of no fault ignorance, claiming it’s figurative and not literal without even knowing what the figure means. :kookoo:

Rolf makes some bible based arguments and challenges, so respectfully started another thread with this topic's title for all “off topic” issues, but so far no one has respected my wishes to do so. Go figure, plus it’s a debate forum, and most folks do not read up the first posts that started a particular thread. It was my 10th post on the first page where I respectfully asked Rolf to either deal with this bible conformity challenge, or make other posts in other threads so that I may reply there. Also, see my 4th post, which was the last of a series of introductory posts which clearly stated the focus and topic for this thread. And see my 27 post asking all off topic issues to join me in the off topic spillover thread. But not a single post has been made there to date.

Apparently, since they have come up with nothing useful for their defense for their views in light of God’s condemnation against voiding and violating scripture because of manmade traditions, they are striking out with anything they can, i.e. personal attacks, charges of aversion, and so on, while they have not presented one single commensurate response to the challenge on topic. I don’t mind the change in topic and focus, I just want to make it clear the nature of these charges of our avoiding their points, they are bold hypocrites and I have been willing to respond since the first requests to do so. Insolent and spiteful they seem to be.

 

[1Way]

Jeremy - Your Jesus with a dainty “white lace” garnished “red puffy pillow” heart is,,, (chuckles) ,,, different. Plus then universal “Hey dude, thumbs up man” gesture, complete with the wink and pointing finger at someone, all represent interesting issues. Is that His tongue hanging out of His mouth too, or am I not seeing things correctly? Very unique indeed.

Did you get my posts to you on Rolf’s thread on coming to verses making room for repentance? Here’s the links, it’s about your wishing to be able to post Greek text directly, I think you can.

This was the first one, probably this one has priority
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=474005#post474005

and this was a follow up which included more details and stuff for Mac/Apple people
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=480633#post480633

I hope this helps!

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Originally posted by 1Way

Jeremy - Your Jesus with a dainty “white lace” garnished “red puffy pillow” heart is,,, (chuckles) ,,, different. Plus then universal “Hey dude, thumbs up man” gesture, complete with the wink and pointing finger at someone, all represent interesting issues. Is that His tongue hanging out of His mouth too, or am I not seeing things correctly? Very unique indeed.

Did you get my posts to you on Rolf’s thread on coming to verses making room for repentance? Here’s the links, it’s about your wishing to be able to post Greek text directly, I think you can.

This was the first one, probably this one has priority
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=474005#post474005

and this was a follow up which included more details and stuff for Mac/Apple people
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=480633#post480633

I hope this helps!

1Way,

Thank you for the link to the resources. I will check them out when I get home this evening. I apologize for not responding in the other thread, but sort of gave up on rolf when he said this and this.

It really showed me that rolf has no interest in reasoning together and checking out another point of view. He refused to look at the original context and language to see that 2 Peter 3:9 actually means God "counsels all to have room for repentance." When I read rolf's comments linked above, I never went back to the thread.

Again, thanks for the Online Bible link. As for my avatar...

It is a jpeg from a movie called Dogma. I wouldn't recommend the movie, but I enjoyed the picture (as it is portrayed in the movie as a Catholic statue of the "kinder, more easy going" Buddy Jesus). I don't think that His tongue is out, but rather has a large smile.

God Bless,

--Jeremy