God_Is_Truth
New member
sounds like a good idea to me :thumb:
An open challenge to all closed theists
- Thread starter 1Way
- Start date
sounds like a good idea to me :thumb:
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Turbo – Bless your sole you are doing a great job, but I think that your post 89 could use a second opinion. I feel that the quote from Sanders is a good quote, I personally agree with what he stated. You said
I think that the quotes sufficiently highlight the word’s “specific attention” as is well provided by the bible examples offered. I especially liked
In stark contrast, a closed theist would never say that God makes a mistake or would be found needing to stand corrected and uses the “impeccability of God” approach to try to make us OVer’s feel wrong in our views. Lastly, man can repent just like God does, right? We can make a righteous judgment/decision where later the circumstances change such that we need to change our mind in order to remain godly and righteous. So there is a remarkable kinship between God and man where we would never say that man is perfect in all his ways, yet man can repent just like God can! I hope that comparison highlights the possibility of innocent error that God’s judgments may righteously involve!
There simply is no moral guilt or unrighteousness in changing your mind in order to remain consistent with godly principles. I hope this helps.
Blessings to you and yours!
I would have said that the sort of mistake that John was intending was simply provided by scripture and need not be a sort of retort against anti-OVer’s. Much like the issue of “repenting”, there is not only one variety of “mistakes”, and the original word in the Hebrew for repent has other meanings than the two common ones for “man repenting when he sins” and God repenting “when He does not sin” but simply changes His mind.
I think that the quotes sufficiently highlight the word’s “specific attention” as is well provided by the bible examples offered. I especially liked
Being disappointed in your expectations necessarily means that your hopes was set too high. It’s not wrong to desire for better in our relationships and then be disappointed by their not coming to pass, authentic love is a risky business between success and failure. A mistake may imply nothing more than a judgment or decision that has become no longer right or just. I believe that this sort of “mistake” reflects what happens every time God repents from His previous course of action. Obviously if God followed through with His original plans, He would have been wrong or unjust in so doing, so since standing corrected does not imply guilt on God’s behalf as though He had done wrong, it just means that the circumstance changed such that now God needs to alter His judgment. That sort of “mistake” is no offense to man or God, it is simply a reality of not having exhaustive foreknowledge.
In stark contrast, a closed theist would never say that God makes a mistake or would be found needing to stand corrected and uses the “impeccability of God” approach to try to make us OVer’s feel wrong in our views. Lastly, man can repent just like God does, right? We can make a righteous judgment/decision where later the circumstances change such that we need to change our mind in order to remain godly and righteous. So there is a remarkable kinship between God and man where we would never say that man is perfect in all his ways, yet man can repent just like God can! I hope that comparison highlights the possibility of innocent error that God’s judgments may righteously involve!
There simply is no moral guilt or unrighteousness in changing your mind in order to remain consistent with godly principles. I hope this helps.
Blessings to you and yours!
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Swordsman – helmut – specifically
GIT – generally
Seems like some of you would be ashamed at righteous rebuke and sometimes harsh confrontation in the face of ungodliness. Swordsman, you said
This is the bible’s “voiding of scripture” condemnations selection of less than peaceful responses from a purely Godly point of view. I gave this to you in post 3 for your thoughtful, godly and “peaceful” consideration. Here it is again since you apparently overlooked it as it applies to this discussion.
Quote
*******NOTICE*******
THIS IS THE BIBLE’S
“VOIDING OF SCRIPTURE”
***CONDEMNATIONS****
...
We should always trust, not correct/overturn God’s word.
End quote
So I charge you with voiding scripture and God condemns you, who am I to disagree with God in order to make an outward appearance of peace with man?
GIT – generally
Seems like some of you would be ashamed at righteous rebuke and sometimes harsh confrontation in the face of ungodliness. Swordsman, you said
External superficial peace, is FAR different from comprehensive concrete peace. You politely and without rude language violate God’s word. So as for me, I appreciate those who exhibit integrity in all matters, including truth, and justice and righteousness as well as peace. People do terrible violence and sin in their hearts yet appear perfectly peaceful and such that any non-discerning person would agree that they conform to your qualifications for being peaceful. But Jesus said:
- Mt 23:27 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead [men’s] bones and all uncleanness.
This is the bible’s “voiding of scripture” condemnations selection of less than peaceful responses from a purely Godly point of view. I gave this to you in post 3 for your thoughtful, godly and “peaceful” consideration. Here it is again since you apparently overlooked it as it applies to this discussion.
Quote
*******NOTICE*******
THIS IS THE BIBLE’S
“VOIDING OF SCRIPTURE”
***CONDEMNATIONS****
...
We should always trust, not correct/overturn God’s word.
God’s word never returns void.
In vain worship and incredulous hypocrisy, men void God’s word of it’s divinely given meaning and authority.
Ultimately man must submit to God’s word.
You don’t have to listen to me, but you do have to obey God if you want to please Him. Maybe you reject these as not being literal also. (?)
End quote
So I charge you with voiding scripture and God condemns you, who am I to disagree with God in order to make an outward appearance of peace with man?
Last edited:
lee_merrill
New member
Hi Jeremy,
I can't keep up with all the posts! Sorry if I skip over someone's similar points or other responses...
But God gives the reason he doesn't repent:
1SA 15:29 ... for he is not a man, that he should change his mind.
It's not because Saul's repentance was false, it's because God is not like us. *We* could not change our mind when we see false repentance, too, that reason works fine for man. The reason you give here cannot be the reason God does not repent in this situation, I think.
Yes, and again, the reason is given, the same as before:
NU 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
He doesn't change his mind, because he is not like us, not because the situation demands it, this time.
God doesn't repent like we do, nor does he love like we do, or get angry as we do, either.
JAS 1:20 for man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires.
So how is God's repentance different? The above passages tell us, I believe. He is not like us, in that he doesn't change, i.e. his plan doesn't change. In the context of Jonah, God *did*overthrow Ninevah, but through their repentance, and not through destruction. His response changed, but his plan (to overthrow them) did not.
Here's Strongs on "nacham":
1) to be sorry, console oneself, repent, regret, comfort, be comforted
1a) (Niphal)
1a1) to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion
1a2) to be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent
1a3) to comfort oneself, be comforted
1a4) to comfort oneself, ease oneself
1b) (Piel) to comfort, console
1c) (Pual) to be comforted, be consoled
1d) (Hithpael)
1d1) to be sorry, have compassion
1d2) to rue, repent of
1d3) to comfort oneself, be comforted
1d4) to ease oneself
Lots of meanings! So I am not restricted to "change of mind or heart." It depends on the context, and on the verb form.
The implication here is that if God did change, the Israelites would be destroyed. More here is implied than just keeping the promise to David. Where do you see that in the context? This verse is almost by itself, as far as context is concerned, it stands out in the passage. God's power is involved here, God's faithfulness, God's love, all of his character is involved in keeping the Israelites from being destroyed.
JAS 1:17 ... the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation, or shifting shadow.
You say the context refutes the meaning that God doesn't change here, but you do need to state what context you mean.
PS 33:11 But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.
I will let *him* explain his plan! That I can't answer. God did "empty himself and come as a child." And Jesus grew and developed as a human being, and took on a resurrection body. But this is not changing his plan or his nature. He does change his response. The contention here, I think is, no change to his plan, it's "firm forever."
Yes, what he says is accurate. He speaks the truth, from our perspective, sometimes. "The sun rose," from our perspective, God can speak that way and not deceive or lie in so doing.
Yes he did repent, but not like we do, since "he is not a man." Just like his love is not like we love, and his anger different from ours. Yet similar enough that we may understand what he is saying, when he uses these terms.
Blessings,
Lee
I can't keep up with all the posts! Sorry if I skip over someone's similar points or other responses...
But God gives the reason he doesn't repent:
1SA 15:29 ... for he is not a man, that he should change his mind.
It's not because Saul's repentance was false, it's because God is not like us. *We* could not change our mind when we see false repentance, too, that reason works fine for man. The reason you give here cannot be the reason God does not repent in this situation, I think.
Yes, and again, the reason is given, the same as before:
NU 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
He doesn't change his mind, because he is not like us, not because the situation demands it, this time.
God doesn't repent like we do, nor does he love like we do, or get angry as we do, either.
JAS 1:20 for man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires.
So how is God's repentance different? The above passages tell us, I believe. He is not like us, in that he doesn't change, i.e. his plan doesn't change. In the context of Jonah, God *did*overthrow Ninevah, but through their repentance, and not through destruction. His response changed, but his plan (to overthrow them) did not.
Here's Strongs on "nacham":
1) to be sorry, console oneself, repent, regret, comfort, be comforted
1a) (Niphal)
1a1) to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion
1a2) to be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent
1a3) to comfort oneself, be comforted
1a4) to comfort oneself, ease oneself
1b) (Piel) to comfort, console
1c) (Pual) to be comforted, be consoled
1d) (Hithpael)
1d1) to be sorry, have compassion
1d2) to rue, repent of
1d3) to comfort oneself, be comforted
1d4) to ease oneself
Lots of meanings! So I am not restricted to "change of mind or heart." It depends on the context, and on the verb form.
The implication here is that if God did change, the Israelites would be destroyed. More here is implied than just keeping the promise to David. Where do you see that in the context? This verse is almost by itself, as far as context is concerned, it stands out in the passage. God's power is involved here, God's faithfulness, God's love, all of his character is involved in keeping the Israelites from being destroyed.
JAS 1:17 ... the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation, or shifting shadow.
You say the context refutes the meaning that God doesn't change here, but you do need to state what context you mean.
PS 33:11 But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.
I will let *him* explain his plan! That I can't answer. God did "empty himself and come as a child." And Jesus grew and developed as a human being, and took on a resurrection body. But this is not changing his plan or his nature. He does change his response. The contention here, I think is, no change to his plan, it's "firm forever."
Yes, what he says is accurate. He speaks the truth, from our perspective, sometimes. "The sun rose," from our perspective, God can speak that way and not deceive or lie in so doing.
Yes he did repent, but not like we do, since "he is not a man." Just like his love is not like we love, and his anger different from ours. Yet similar enough that we may understand what he is saying, when he uses these terms.
Blessings,
Lee
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Good point Jeremy, hopefully they will politely allow us to entreat them to their natural counter challenges. But I've been asking Rolf and all the others to do so since the beginning, even giving them a spillover thread to do it in, but so far they have altogether refused to do so, and instead of remaining on topic to this thread’s clear focus, the personal attacks predominate. I agree to a cease fire of these pointless personal attacks, but remain in agreement with God that righteous opposition against false doctrine is appropriate Christian discussion, and furthermore I did not hardly dwell on that issue.
The fact remains that meaningfully voiding scripture is condemnable violence and I even mentioned that I felt that most closed theists do not do this violence on purpose, they believe they are doing the right thing, but are mistaken in that belief, as I have abundantly provided evidence to that end.
The fact remains that meaningfully voiding scripture is condemnable violence and I even mentioned that I felt that most closed theists do not do this violence on purpose, they believe they are doing the right thing, but are mistaken in that belief, as I have abundantly provided evidence to that end.
God_Is_Truth
New member
what exactly was in reference to me?
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Lee – You said
But what an interesting translation you offered for “repent” by saying that the Hebrew “nacham” means to change one’s mind. Which translation is that? “Nacham” is the Hebrew word for repent, and although I suppose it can infer changing one’s mind, it does not always need to, and the words for change and mind are absent from the text, instead it’s nacham=repent. But to the main point,
God is said to
“repent” = nacham
and to
“not repent” = nacham
and both concepts are true about God, but obviously in different circumstances. So far you are providing no resolution of this fact, and I think that God says that He does not repent like twice, but says that He does repent like nearly 2 dozen times and this repentance that God does is usually fully DEMOSTRATED by the context so even if the word “nacham” was not there, God’s “repentance” from doing what He previously was going to do is replete.
“nacham” = repent because of:
1) sin, immorality
and
2) amorally from new information of changed circumstances
The fact is that God does not repent because of His own sin or moral error, man repents in that fashion, but God does not. But both God and man can repent from doing what they were previously going to do in a purely amoral way, namely that circumstances beyond their moral responsibility changed such that the need to alter our previous course of action is warranted.
Bible conformity challenge awaits your response
By the way Lee, this thread has a bible conformity challenge that you can read about in posts 2 and 3 where post 3 is the actual challenge, and I’ve even provided an example for the form of the answer requested in post 12 to demonstrate just how easy and doable this bible challenge is. Also the top of post 3 explains what I am not asking.
No closed theists have answered yet
Yet for some strange reason, so far not one closed theist has provided a commensurate answer. If you have some idea what the bible text in question means, specifically starting with Jonah 3:10 subsection part b, I’m sure we’d all be much obliged to hear it. Totally up to your free will.
Nu is right, you are wrong. God does not repent like man sometimes needs to, like when he lies (=moral instability, proneness to error) nor the son of man that He should repent.
But what an interesting translation you offered for “repent” by saying that the Hebrew “nacham” means to change one’s mind. Which translation is that? “Nacham” is the Hebrew word for repent, and although I suppose it can infer changing one’s mind, it does not always need to, and the words for change and mind are absent from the text, instead it’s nacham=repent. But to the main point,
God is said to
“repent” = nacham
and to
“not repent” = nacham
and both concepts are true about God, but obviously in different circumstances. So far you are providing no resolution of this fact, and I think that God says that He does not repent like twice, but says that He does repent like nearly 2 dozen times and this repentance that God does is usually fully DEMOSTRATED by the context so even if the word “nacham” was not there, God’s “repentance” from doing what He previously was going to do is replete.
“nacham” = repent because of:
1) sin, immorality
and
2) amorally from new information of changed circumstances
The fact is that God does not repent because of His own sin or moral error, man repents in that fashion, but God does not. But both God and man can repent from doing what they were previously going to do in a purely amoral way, namely that circumstances beyond their moral responsibility changed such that the need to alter our previous course of action is warranted.
Bible conformity challenge awaits your response
By the way Lee, this thread has a bible conformity challenge that you can read about in posts 2 and 3 where post 3 is the actual challenge, and I’ve even provided an example for the form of the answer requested in post 12 to demonstrate just how easy and doable this bible challenge is. Also the top of post 3 explains what I am not asking.
No closed theists have answered yet
Yet for some strange reason, so far not one closed theist has provided a commensurate answer. If you have some idea what the bible text in question means, specifically starting with Jonah 3:10 subsection part b, I’m sure we’d all be much obliged to hear it. Totally up to your free will.
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
GIT – That you went along with them without objection, namely their suggestion of impropriety via sometimes harsh confrontation while at the same time and given as a contrast against this nasty confrontation business, you did not reject their praise for being more “peaceful” and thus Christ-like.
Switch places you and I and then reconsider
If it was you they were referring to as being in the wrong for not being peaceful enough,
and it was I that they were praising for being so peaceful and Christ-like,
since naturally I agree with my objection to their peaceful/Christ-like views as stated, then I would have defended whoever they infer was not being Christ-like and opposed them, even rejecting their praise if need be, but instead you passively question me and accept their praise.
I’m not saying you were unChrist-like, they are saying that evidently I am for presuming to know God well enough to condemn others for doing violence to His word. And if you agree with me on all that, then join me against their false understanding.
Switch places you and I and then reconsider
If it was you they were referring to as being in the wrong for not being peaceful enough,
and it was I that they were praising for being so peaceful and Christ-like,
since naturally I agree with my objection to their peaceful/Christ-like views as stated, then I would have defended whoever they infer was not being Christ-like and opposed them, even rejecting their praise if need be, but instead you passively question me and accept their praise.
I’m not saying you were unChrist-like, they are saying that evidently I am for presuming to know God well enough to condemn others for doing violence to His word. And if you agree with me on all that, then join me against their false understanding.
God_Is_Truth
New member
1 Way,
i definately reject calvinism and am currently in support of the open view. but let us remember what Paul wrote to timothy:
2 Timothy 2
24And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
2 Timothy 4:2
Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage–with great patience and careful instruction.
i do understand the necessity of opposing doctrine contrary to what we see scripture telings us, but do remember that calvinists, arminians and anyone who is in between are still our brothers and sisters in Christ. we need to help them see the problem with their view about scripture but we need to do it lovingly, patiently, and with careful instruction so that they will come to know the truth.
i definately reject calvinism and am currently in support of the open view. but let us remember what Paul wrote to timothy:
2 Timothy 2
24And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
2 Timothy 4:2
Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage–with great patience and careful instruction.
i do understand the necessity of opposing doctrine contrary to what we see scripture telings us, but do remember that calvinists, arminians and anyone who is in between are still our brothers and sisters in Christ. we need to help them see the problem with their view about scripture but we need to do it lovingly, patiently, and with careful instruction so that they will come to know the truth.
Swordsman
New member
You see my friend GIT, they do not come from that school of thought. Their leader Father Enyart injects his argumentative spirits into their minds and create these monsters. That is where it is all derived from. They listen to this guy on the radio or read his little web page and get all giddied up about how ole Bob debates the world about everything. Notice that word "debate" too. He has them believing they are called by God to debate any and everybody who doesn't agree with the "one way" (better known as "his way"). He's nothing more than a politician running for office. He rallies all his little sheep up into a tizzie and sends them out. Most of em right here on TOL.
The more and more I look at his site and see the things he's doing, I'm reminded of David Koresh and the like.
Flame on Enyartites.....
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Swordsman – You just can’t stand it that you have been shown how you violate and contradict God’s word by your manmade traditions, so you invent cruel slander since you can do nothing better to salvage your views.
I presented everything I said about you because I care for you and that people deal righteously with God’s word. I worship and honor God not any man and that is why you stand condemned because you willingly violate God and His word even after being shown the error of your ways.
I presented everything I said about you because I care for you and that people deal righteously with God’s word. I worship and honor God not any man and that is why you stand condemned because you willingly violate God and His word even after being shown the error of your ways.
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
so judgmental, and perhaps unloving too
so judgmental, and perhaps unloving too
God Is Truth – I do love them, that is one unfair and untrue accusation. :nono: By your response Jesus and Paul and the many men of the bible that portrayed anything that was beyond mild peaceful interactions was UNGODLY and wrong? No way.
Are you saying that I was not being loving and did not show an clear escalation of confrontation AFTER they rejected the truth from God’s word?
On what basis do you agree with them that I was not Christ-like but you were? References please. No one can defend themselves with generalizations; give me something to respond to or stand corrected for spreading flimsy careless gossip.
I started out completely on the level sincerely seeking an answer to my bible conformity challenge, and all my early and initial responses were respectful, logical, reasonable and helpful, and I dare say Christ-like.
You even commended me for a good start!
It was not until after people started passing off lies (I answered your challenge) and deceit (it’s ok to void scripture of meaning and replace it with NOTHING) as “eternal truth” and “righteousness” that I was more confronting and harsh. Even then I rest my condemnation upon God’s condemnations, not my own.
Do you disagree with God’s condemnations against voiding scripture by manmade tradition?
so judgmental, and perhaps unloving too
God Is Truth – I do love them, that is one unfair and untrue accusation. :nono: By your response Jesus and Paul and the many men of the bible that portrayed anything that was beyond mild peaceful interactions was UNGODLY and wrong? No way.
Are you saying that I was not being loving and did not show an clear escalation of confrontation AFTER they rejected the truth from God’s word?
On what basis do you agree with them that I was not Christ-like but you were? References please. No one can defend themselves with generalizations; give me something to respond to or stand corrected for spreading flimsy careless gossip.
I started out completely on the level sincerely seeking an answer to my bible conformity challenge, and all my early and initial responses were respectful, logical, reasonable and helpful, and I dare say Christ-like.
You even commended me for a good start!
It was not until after people started passing off lies (I answered your challenge) and deceit (it’s ok to void scripture of meaning and replace it with NOTHING) as “eternal truth” and “righteousness” that I was more confronting and harsh. Even then I rest my condemnation upon God’s condemnations, not my own.
Do you disagree with God’s condemnations against voiding scripture by manmade tradition?
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
LightSon – I am waiting for your response over in the Archeological forum where I hope we could resolve some differences, but by your posts and non-responsiveness, it appears that you are ignoring me for some reason. If you are stalling for time, it's thoughtful to admit it instead of just leaving someone hanging, respectfully waiting for an answer but being ignored instead.
You gave me your tradition, and I gave you God’s word, I would hope that such an issue would prompt you to become responsive.
As to divine repentance
You said the following in your post #69.
We do not say that God both repents and not repents “at the same time”(!!!), that is a gross mischaracterization. If you say that God does not repent, then you risk rending the “God does repent” teachings void of meaning, and God is very clear about not voiding scripture because of manmade tradition.
God’s word is true, but if God can not repent from what He said He would do, then you would not allow Jer 18 the potter and the clay to ever be true then would you. According to your suggestion, it is a false teaching, but instead of that, it is God’s truthful teaching. Also, God said in Jonah 3:10 concerning His prophesy in 3:4, that He DID NOT DO WHAT HE SAID HE WOULD DO, “God repented from the destruction that He said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.” (!!!)
So according to your view, that was wrong too, God did destroy Nineveh in 40 days, even though God said He did not do that!!! God said He did not do what He said He would do, I am not making that up, God said it! Don’t you trust God? Don’t you believe that what God says is true?
You gave me your tradition, and I gave you God’s word, I would hope that such an issue would prompt you to become responsive.
As to divine repentance
You said the following in your post #69.
Either the future holds at least some contingency, or it does not, there is nothing in between.
We do not say that God both repents and not repents “at the same time”(!!!), that is a gross mischaracterization. If you say that God does not repent, then you risk rending the “God does repent” teachings void of meaning, and God is very clear about not voiding scripture because of manmade tradition.
God’s word is true, but if God can not repent from what He said He would do, then you would not allow Jer 18 the potter and the clay to ever be true then would you. According to your suggestion, it is a false teaching, but instead of that, it is God’s truthful teaching. Also, God said in Jonah 3:10 concerning His prophesy in 3:4, that He DID NOT DO WHAT HE SAID HE WOULD DO, “God repented from the destruction that He said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.” (!!!)
So according to your view, that was wrong too, God did destroy Nineveh in 40 days, even though God said He did not do that!!! God said He did not do what He said He would do, I am not making that up, God said it! Don’t you trust God? Don’t you believe that what God says is true?
Swordsman
New member
1Way, there is no need to patronize me. And please do not insult my intelligence by saying you care for me and love me. Nowhere did you ever come across with Christ-like love.
I'm an adult. I can take someone in a dialogue that doesn't agree with me all the time. But you see, all that talk about me "violating the Word" and "standing condemned" is exactly the way I feel about you.
So you see. We're getting nowhere here. I believe what I believe because I have experienced the presence of God speaking to me the truth. You believe what you believe for your reasons. I'm not condemning them or you, I just do not agree with you. That doesn't mean we need to have an all-out-war to "debate" or "battle" each other. This isn't Battleship.
I've spoken my peace. I know you probably think my faith is wholely based on paganism. You're entitled to your opinion. However, I strongly believe otherwise. My faith is in my because God gave it to me. Not developed from Calvin or any other author or preacher.
I expect nothing less than a reply from you, but I shall not give a rebuttal. You know where I stand. I know where you stand.
I'm an adult. I can take someone in a dialogue that doesn't agree with me all the time. But you see, all that talk about me "violating the Word" and "standing condemned" is exactly the way I feel about you.
So you see. We're getting nowhere here. I believe what I believe because I have experienced the presence of God speaking to me the truth. You believe what you believe for your reasons. I'm not condemning them or you, I just do not agree with you. That doesn't mean we need to have an all-out-war to "debate" or "battle" each other. This isn't Battleship.
I've spoken my peace. I know you probably think my faith is wholely based on paganism. You're entitled to your opinion. However, I strongly believe otherwise. My faith is in my because God gave it to me. Not developed from Calvin or any other author or preacher.
I expect nothing less than a reply from you, but I shall not give a rebuttal. You know where I stand. I know where you stand.
God_Is_Truth
New member
Re: so judgmental, and perhaps unloving too
Re: so judgmental, and perhaps unloving too
i did not mean to imply that you didn't love people who held a different position than you, only that sometimes it comes off as such.
i am not saying that your way of dealing with the misuse of scripture is wrong either, only that it sometimes comes off as harsh. perhaps you mean this and perhaps you don't. all i was establishing is that there is more than one wayD ) to correct someone in their teachings and that not everyone is willing to be corrected in the same fashion.
some people need to be shown right up front, direct and clear that what they are doing is wrong and incorrect. others need a gradual, step by step, slowly but surely presentation of how their interpretation of scripture is wrong.
the verses i used were just to make the point that no matter what method is used to show that someone is incorrect with their interpretation of scripture, we need to do it gently, patiently and with careful instruction. i was not implying that you were not doing these things, although once in a while they come off as a little harsh and perhaps after a while that's really a good thing.
again, i think most of what you are posting is great stuff. your argument is sound, clearly explained and well thought out. but on occasion your posts come off as a little harsh to your brothers and sisters in Christ and that's just something i want to avoid. 2 Timothy said to gently instruct, not harshly.
now i understand the necessity of pointing out that which is wrong which you have clearly done. but i'm not so sure that the "personal attacks" where you call the people of different positions things similar to the pharisees are necessary. it's only up to you to show them their fault, point it out, show them what it really says and why it should be that and why they need to change. you have clearly done this.
after that it's up to that person if they are willing to accept the correct position or stick with what they now know to be false. it's between God and them at that point; you've done all you are supposed to do. if they will not listen, then move on.
your posts are good 1Way, your points are made. now it's up to the people to either accept it or reject it and everyone one of us will stand before God and give an account of why we believed this or that. all we are called to do is look at the word God has given us and understand it as best we can and to share that with others. you've definately done your part 1Way and it's much appreciated. just remember that you don't have to convert anyone to the correct theology.
I'd rather someone be a calvinist who goes and witnesses to 100 people a day with the gospel then someone be an open theist and not witness at all. correct theology comes second to witnessing and brotherly love. we agree on the basics of christianity, the important doctrines, the essentials. let us not let the less important doctrines come between us and cause disagreement and division among us.
keep preaching what you know to be true 1Way, but don't feel like you have to win them over to your theology or make them believe as you do.
God bless.
In Christ,
God_Is_Truth
Re: so judgmental, and perhaps unloving too
i did not mean to imply that you didn't love people who held a different position than you, only that sometimes it comes off as such.
i am not saying that your way of dealing with the misuse of scripture is wrong either, only that it sometimes comes off as harsh. perhaps you mean this and perhaps you don't. all i was establishing is that there is more than one way
D ) to correct someone in their teachings and that not everyone is willing to be corrected in the same fashion.some people need to be shown right up front, direct and clear that what they are doing is wrong and incorrect. others need a gradual, step by step, slowly but surely presentation of how their interpretation of scripture is wrong.
the verses i used were just to make the point that no matter what method is used to show that someone is incorrect with their interpretation of scripture, we need to do it gently, patiently and with careful instruction. i was not implying that you were not doing these things, although once in a while they come off as a little harsh and perhaps after a while that's really a good thing.
again, i think most of what you are posting is great stuff. your argument is sound, clearly explained and well thought out. but on occasion your posts come off as a little harsh to your brothers and sisters in Christ and that's just something i want to avoid. 2 Timothy said to gently instruct, not harshly.
now i understand the necessity of pointing out that which is wrong which you have clearly done. but i'm not so sure that the "personal attacks" where you call the people of different positions things similar to the pharisees are necessary. it's only up to you to show them their fault, point it out, show them what it really says and why it should be that and why they need to change. you have clearly done this.
after that it's up to that person if they are willing to accept the correct position or stick with what they now know to be false. it's between God and them at that point; you've done all you are supposed to do. if they will not listen, then move on.
your posts are good 1Way, your points are made. now it's up to the people to either accept it or reject it and everyone one of us will stand before God and give an account of why we believed this or that. all we are called to do is look at the word God has given us and understand it as best we can and to share that with others. you've definately done your part 1Way and it's much appreciated. just remember that you don't have to convert anyone to the correct theology.
I'd rather someone be a calvinist who goes and witnesses to 100 people a day with the gospel then someone be an open theist and not witness at all. correct theology comes second to witnessing and brotherly love. we agree on the basics of christianity, the important doctrines, the essentials. let us not let the less important doctrines come between us and cause disagreement and division among us.
keep preaching what you know to be true 1Way, but don't feel like you have to win them over to your theology or make them believe as you do.
God bless.
In Christ,
God_Is_Truth
LightSon
New member
I would take it as an act of graciousness if you gave me the benefit of a doubt. I was sick for 2 days and have a tremendous backlog of threads to wade through. It is also possible that I just missed your question or otherwise took it as rhetorical. Off hand, I don't even know to what you are referring. If you PM the link, I will attempt to respond in a timely manner.
I believe God. God is truth. I do not believe God lies. I also believe that God has given us everything we need to know, which is not to say He has given us everything to know incisively.
If the closed view is correct, then God's repentance is an anthropomorphism. Does God repent? From our perspective - absolutely - God repents. That is why we pray and seek His face. From God's perspective, He is not surprised, nor does He have to wait on us for instruction. Hence "divine repentence" is a matter of perspective. It is not "voiding scripture" or "doing violence to God's word".
You would do well not to lock me in your sights on this issue, as I'm not prepared (positionally or academically) to go to the mat for any view.
I remain open minded about this issue, which is why I speak in subjunctive ways, like "if the closed view is correct". As far as I can tell, OPENNESS is a nascent view, hence that puts (IMO) a slightly greater burden of proof on the OVer. I have much reading to do, and honestly wonder if I'll ever come to a conclusion. I'm leaning towards a belief that perhaps God hasn't given this for us to know dogmatically.
God_Is_Truth
New member
what about me?
oh.......wait.........never mind :doh:
lee_merrill
New member
Hi 1Way,
Who is Nu? I can't find this post, or any other response than yours. This sounds like you are agreeing with me, not disagreeing. I think I don't understand your point here...
The translation is the NIV here, for Num. 23:19. 1 Sam. 15:29 has "change his mind" both in the NIV and the NASB. Maybe better would be "does not change his plan" (Ps. 33:11). I did give Strong's definitions of nacham, there are lots of meanings. But maybe nacham=repent here, so we have:
NU 23:19 God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. (NASB)
I can still make my point, that "God is not a man" is given as the reason he doesn't repent, not that the circumstances dictate that he doesn't repent this time. God doesn't repent like men do, I think is the point here.
When God says he does not repent, I think this explains that God's repentance is different from ours. So how is it different? That is the question.
God speaks from our perspective, and God does not change his plan, that is, I think, clear from Scripture.
Jesus came in the form of a man. So is he a man? Yes. And is he not a man? Yes. To demand a yes to one and a no to the other is to misunderstand that when God reveals himself to us, he speaks by analogy. And with an analogy, you must determine what parts of the analogy apply, and what parts do not apply.
Is Jesus a vine? Yes. Is Jesus not a vine? Yes again.
So does God repent? Yes. Does God not repent? Yes again.
Certainly God does not lie or repent of sin, so we agree there. But you are doing the very same thing you object to when we say God does not change! You are saying "when God repents," it does not mean he does *this* (lies, repents of evil). So why do you say non-OVs are voiding Scripture by saying he doesn't also change? This seems to be the very same type of move you are also making here.
But I think Ps. 33:11 rules the interpretation you give out:
PS 33:11 The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of His heart from generation to generation. (NASB)
Alrighty...
JNH 3:10 When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it.
JER 18:8 ... and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.
We have been discussing these verses, though! My thoughts on these verses are similar enough that I will interpret them together...
"When he does not do what he said he would, we as finite men can say only that he has changed his mind or repented, even though we should recognize, as Jonah did (4:2), that he had intended or desired this all along." (Expositor's Bible Commentary)
From our perspective, we see a change in God's response. Since we know God does not change (JAS 1:17, PS 33:11, MAL 3:6), then God has not changed his plan.
God does not repent like we do, he does not love like we do, he does not get angry like we do. So we must inquire as to what is the difference, and base our decision on what is different on the Scriptures, as much as we can.
Also, you state that God does not lie, which is very true. But how can God be exempted from the charge of lying, if there was no implied condition in Jonah 3:10?
If God really did change his plan, then he misled the people when he warned them. But there is a condition in both passages, implied in Jonah 3:10, and explicit in Jer. 18:8.
Blessings,
Lee
Who is Nu? I can't find this post, or any other response than yours. This sounds like you are agreeing with me, not disagreeing. I think I don't understand your point here...
The translation is the NIV here, for Num. 23:19. 1 Sam. 15:29 has "change his mind" both in the NIV and the NASB. Maybe better would be "does not change his plan" (Ps. 33:11). I did give Strong's definitions of nacham, there are lots of meanings. But maybe nacham=repent here, so we have:
NU 23:19 God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. (NASB)
I can still make my point, that "God is not a man" is given as the reason he doesn't repent, not that the circumstances dictate that he doesn't repent this time. God doesn't repent like men do, I think is the point here.
When God says he does not repent, I think this explains that God's repentance is different from ours. So how is it different? That is the question.
God speaks from our perspective, and God does not change his plan, that is, I think, clear from Scripture.
Jesus came in the form of a man. So is he a man? Yes. And is he not a man? Yes. To demand a yes to one and a no to the other is to misunderstand that when God reveals himself to us, he speaks by analogy. And with an analogy, you must determine what parts of the analogy apply, and what parts do not apply.
Is Jesus a vine? Yes. Is Jesus not a vine? Yes again.
So does God repent? Yes. Does God not repent? Yes again.
Certainly God does not lie or repent of sin, so we agree there. But you are doing the very same thing you object to when we say God does not change! You are saying "when God repents," it does not mean he does *this* (lies, repents of evil). So why do you say non-OVs are voiding Scripture by saying he doesn't also change? This seems to be the very same type of move you are also making here.
But I think Ps. 33:11 rules the interpretation you give out:
PS 33:11 The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of His heart from generation to generation. (NASB)
Alrighty...
JNH 3:10 When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it.
JER 18:8 ... and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.
We have been discussing these verses, though! My thoughts on these verses are similar enough that I will interpret them together...
"When he does not do what he said he would, we as finite men can say only that he has changed his mind or repented, even though we should recognize, as Jonah did (4:2), that he had intended or desired this all along." (Expositor's Bible Commentary)
From our perspective, we see a change in God's response. Since we know God does not change (JAS 1:17, PS 33:11, MAL 3:6), then God has not changed his plan.
God does not repent like we do, he does not love like we do, he does not get angry like we do. So we must inquire as to what is the difference, and base our decision on what is different on the Scriptures, as much as we can.
Also, you state that God does not lie, which is very true. But how can God be exempted from the charge of lying, if there was no implied condition in Jonah 3:10?
If God really did change his plan, then he misled the people when he warned them. But there is a condition in both passages, implied in Jonah 3:10, and explicit in Jer. 18:8.
Blessings,
Lee
Last edited:
Even as Paul spoke of WORKS and JAMES spoke of WORKS.
yet were NOT speaking about the SAME works.
Is it then so hard for soem to consider that when God says CLEARLY He does NOT repent and other scriptures CLEARLY say He does.
That if we know God at all then perchance it is OUR thinkign that needs REPENTING of?
and that the CONTRADICTIONS apparent are not contradictions at all but pertain to TWO different PRINCIPLES in action?
and if those who DENY the scriptures and say GOD .......DOES repent and JUSTYFY THEMSELVES with the scriptures that clearly say God DOES repent.
Would it not be wiser to JUSTYFY GOD rather than themsleves and look ALSO at those scriptures which as CLEARLY SHOW GOD DOES NOT repent as the ones they love which as clearly show HE DOES!
If then they LOVE God more than themselves which they claim.
Then they would seek God to be able to "rightly DIVIDE the scriptures" and so fullfill the law of CHRIST.
and see in WHAT MANNER AND WHY God DOES repent.
and in WHAT MANNER and WHY God DOES not!
For it is clear that in SOME matters He DOES .
and in SOME matters He DOES NOT!
Or else if we would deny it so we deny THE SCRIPTURES!
and if we deny them we deny HIM of whom they speak!
Of course we we know not HIM at ALL then it is no use 'arguing' THESE MATTERS at all!
For if we do not fear God then we have NO WISDOM anyway.
For it si the "fear of God which is the BEGINNING of wisdom"
It then would seem to me that those who deny the UNCHANGEABLENESS of God "For I change not" have no fear of God at all?
For they have not the wisdom or the grace to search ALL the scriptures.
and let THEM ALL speak FOR THEMSELVES and so justyfy God.
For those who deny the truth that God does NOT repent would speak not the truth about God.
For clearly in ALL the scriptures HE HAS NOT repented OF THOSE THINGS that HE will NOT repent of!
For He "cannot deny Himself"
Ive said it before and ill say it again...
The 'open veiw' and the closed veiw' are BOTH a SNARE of the devil.
To which men GRAVITATE to by the carnal minds. to one extreme 'position' or the other.
and which is RESOLVED PERFECTLY if we would CONSIDER HIM who died for us.
For IN HIM these 'veiws' are seen as folly in the LIGHT OF HIM who "enlightens every man that cometh into the world.
For you can either have the DEAD theology of the varios 'schools' of theology.
or the LIVING WORD.
and would IF we would so let; bring peace.
by the resolving of all 'contradictions'
yet were NOT speaking about the SAME works.
Is it then so hard for soem to consider that when God says CLEARLY He does NOT repent and other scriptures CLEARLY say He does.
That if we know God at all then perchance it is OUR thinkign that needs REPENTING of?
and that the CONTRADICTIONS apparent are not contradictions at all but pertain to TWO different PRINCIPLES in action?
and if those who DENY the scriptures and say GOD .......DOES repent and JUSTYFY THEMSELVES with the scriptures that clearly say God DOES repent.
Would it not be wiser to JUSTYFY GOD rather than themsleves and look ALSO at those scriptures which as CLEARLY SHOW GOD DOES NOT repent as the ones they love which as clearly show HE DOES!
If then they LOVE God more than themselves which they claim.
Then they would seek God to be able to "rightly DIVIDE the scriptures" and so fullfill the law of CHRIST.
and see in WHAT MANNER AND WHY God DOES repent.
and in WHAT MANNER and WHY God DOES not!
For it is clear that in SOME matters He DOES .
and in SOME matters He DOES NOT!
Or else if we would deny it so we deny THE SCRIPTURES!
and if we deny them we deny HIM of whom they speak!
Of course we we know not HIM at ALL then it is no use 'arguing' THESE MATTERS at all!
For if we do not fear God then we have NO WISDOM anyway.
For it si the "fear of God which is the BEGINNING of wisdom"
It then would seem to me that those who deny the UNCHANGEABLENESS of God "For I change not" have no fear of God at all?
For they have not the wisdom or the grace to search ALL the scriptures.
and let THEM ALL speak FOR THEMSELVES and so justyfy God.
For those who deny the truth that God does NOT repent would speak not the truth about God.
For clearly in ALL the scriptures HE HAS NOT repented OF THOSE THINGS that HE will NOT repent of!
For He "cannot deny Himself"
Ive said it before and ill say it again...
The 'open veiw' and the closed veiw' are BOTH a SNARE of the devil.
To which men GRAVITATE to by the carnal minds. to one extreme 'position' or the other.
and which is RESOLVED PERFECTLY if we would CONSIDER HIM who died for us.
For IN HIM these 'veiws' are seen as folly in the LIGHT OF HIM who "enlightens every man that cometh into the world.
For you can either have the DEAD theology of the varios 'schools' of theology.
or the LIVING WORD.
and would IF we would so let; bring peace.
by the resolving of all 'contradictions'
Last edited:
Peace Lee
You have written well. Many of these points have been detailed to 1way HOWEVER when a MAN thinks they have the market cornered on GOD as 1way does it is to no avail. 1Way knows EVERYTHING about GOD and is therefore able to tell GOD what GOD can and cannot do.
As soon as 1way let's go of this "I encompass God" position his entire theology crumbles like the piece of moldy blue cheese that it is...
enjoy!
smaller
You have written well. Many of these points have been detailed to 1way HOWEVER when a MAN thinks they have the market cornered on GOD as 1way does it is to no avail. 1Way knows EVERYTHING about GOD and is therefore able to tell GOD what GOD can and cannot do.
As soon as 1way let's go of this "I encompass God" position his entire theology crumbles like the piece of moldy blue cheese that it is...
enjoy!
smaller