ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Ask Mr. Religion]

In light of open view theology anyone can read 1st Samuel 15 in the most plain, simple, and straightforward manner....

God repented that He made Saul King....

1Samuel 15:10 Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying, 11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.

Saul begs Samuel and asks that God pardon him.

1Samuel 15:24 And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice. 25 Now therefore, I pray thee, pardon my sin, and turn again with me, that I may worship the LORD.

But Samuel says... "nope!" God is not going to repent and pardon you.

1Samuel 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

Then God affirms that He repented that He made Saul King.

1Samuel 15:35 And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel. ​

Observe how open theists use narrative passages to build doctrine around. Indeed, open theist Pinnock writes, “In terms of biblical interpretation, I give particular weight to narrative and the language of personal relationships in it.” (See Pinnock, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God’s Openness (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 20.)

This means that scriptural narrative passages that describe what God does have greater weight to open theists than scripture passages describing what God is like. Open theists have things backwards. What God is like should be used to explain what God is doing in the Scriptures. Unfortunately, the poor hermeneutical method of the open theists presumes what Scripture ought to be teaching and then open theists proceed to teach it.

1 Samuel 15 is one of the open theist's most common examples of this poor hermeneutic. To show God changing His mind the verses above are quoted by the open theist, and the key didactic verse 29 that clearly teaches that God's essential character is not like a man's and that God does not change His mind is inexplicably marginalized. Instead we read the open theist attempting to force the didactic verse 29 into some colloquialism: GOD- "Nope I am sticking to my guns on this one" despite the verse's clear teaching of God's unchanging nature. In verse 35 we find no conflict with God's unchanging nature nor in God's knowledge of the future.

The origin of the Hebrew root of "repent", nacham, reflects the idea of "breathing deeply," hence the physical display of one’s feelings, usually sorrow, compassion, or comfort. Nacham is an expressive word; it can express sorrow, remorse, and even satisfaction. In the Hebrew bible the word has different shades of meaning with respect to its different stems. The Niphal stem uses it to mean to suffer sorrow or remorse, or it can also mean to console oneself, to be comforted or relieved (by taking vengeance). The Piel stem uses it to mean comfort or console. The Pual stem uses it to mean comforted or consoled. Lastly, the Hithpael and Niphal stem usages are similar. (See TWOT 2:570)

The same word is used to describe God's unchangeability in Num 23:19.

Saul was unable to establish a dynasty. In Gen. 49:8-10, we find Jacob's prophecy stated the royal king would arise from the tribe of Judah. God's eternal plans were not violated because God rejected Saul because of the king's disobedience. Unlike the marginalized interpretation by Knight shown above, we should rightly view the passage that because God is not like man, God would neither relent nor lie and He was not going to relent or lie regarding His decision to give the kingship to David. Instead of repenting, we see God "sorrowed" in the sense that God expressed the appropriate moral response to the failure of Saul. When nacham is used of God the expression is anthropopathic. From man’s limited, earthly, finite perspective it only appears that God’s purposes have changed. (See TWOT 2:571)

Flawless brother! :up: Very well said indeed!

Perhaps after all the congratulatory remarks, PK will eventually get around to responding to folks in this thread that have pointed out the errors of his most recent previous posts.

Note: TWOT = Theological Word Book of the Old Testament

 

[themuzicman]

This is possibly the most heinous Calvinist straw man of all. Knight is NOT building a doctrine or theology solely from the narrative. He's demonstrating the consistency of his theology with what God says that He has done.

OVT theology is built through a careful exegesis of Scripture, creating a consistent biblical theology, a building a view of God that includes ALL of His attributes as expressed in Scripture, and supported by God's own narrative.

I find it odd that Mr. Religion poo-poos using the narrative of Scripture as evidence of what one's carefully constructed theology reveals.

Maybe there's just too much evidence against him.

Muz

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

This is possibly the most heinous Calvinist straw man of all. Knight is NOT building a doctrine or theology solely from the narrative. He's demonstrating the consistency of his theology with what God says that He has done.

On the contrary, open theism is built upon priority of the narratives versus the didactives, prioritizing an interpretive center as a filter for all other verses, and using discourse analysis, all of which are widely disclaimed as poor heremeneutical approaches (just pick up any text on the subject).

A sampling along with open theism's claims:

Ex. 4:1-9- God does not know how the Jewish leaders would respond to Moses
Matthew 26:39- The crucifixion was not certain
Gen. 22:12- God does not know the choices persons make beforehand
Numbers 14:11; 1 Kings 22:20; Hosea 8:5- God does not know things
Gen. 6:6, 1 Sam. 15 - God's repenting
Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; 32:35- God does not know things, is surprised

 

[themuzicman]

On the contrary, open theism is built upon priority of the narratives versus the didactives, prioritizing an interpretive center as a filter for all other verses, and using discourse analysis, all of which are widely disclaimed as poor heremeneutical approaches (just pick up any text on the subject).

A sampling along with open theism's claims:

Ex. 4:1-9- God does not know how the Jewish leaders would respond to Moses
Matthew 26:39- The crucifixion was not certain
Gen. 22:12- God does not know the choices persons make beforehand
Numbers 14:11; 1 Kings 22:20; Hosea 8:5- God does not know things
Gen. 6:6, 1 Sam. 15 - God's repenting
Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; 32:35- God does not know things, is surprised

These are evidence, not the theology.

The theology is based in a study of sin and God's just nature and God's loving nature and the nature of salvation and the creation of man and his nature.

Muz

 

[Stripe]

On the contrary, open theism is built upon priority of the narratives versus the didactives, prioritizing an interpretive center as a filter for all other verses, and using discourse analysis, all of which are widely disclaimed as poor heremeneutical approaches (just pick up any text on the subject). A sampling along with open theism's claims:
Ex. 4:1-9- God does not know how the Jewish leaders would respond to Moses
Matthew 26:39- The crucifixion was not certain
Gen. 22:12- God does not know the choices persons make beforehand
Numbers 14:11; 1 Kings 22:20; Hosea 8:5- God does not know things
Gen. 6:6, 1 Sam. 15 - God's repenting
Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; 32:35- God does not know things, is surprised

Wow. Awesome post AMR!

More please.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

These are evidence, not the theology.

The theology is based in a study of sin and God's just nature and God's loving nature and the nature of salvation and the creation of man and his nature.

Muz

Er, no. These are prima facie examples of how bad hermeneutics leads to bad doctrine.

Ex. 4:1-9- God does not know how the Jewish leaders would respond to Moses

Proper intepretation:
This passage does not mean this at all. God had told Moses the response of the Jewish leaders in advance (Ex. 3:18).

Matthew 26:39- The crucifixion was not certain

Proper interpretation:
The scriptural claims are clear. God foreknew the sacrifice of Christ (Acts 2:23; Revelation 13:8.).

Gen. 22:12- God does not know the choices persons make beforehand

Proper interpretation:
God previously declared Abraham righteous because of his faith and established an unconditional covenant (Genesis 15; Romans 4). Hebrew scholars note that the term translated in Genesis 22:12 as "know" denotes a confirmation of knowledge.

Numbers 14:11; 1 Kings 22:20; Hosea 8:5- God does not know things

Proper interpretation:
Open theists God assume God is asking non-rhetorical questions about the future. As an example, in Genesis 3:9-13 we read God asking Adam and Eve the following questions: "Where are you?" "Who told you that you were naked?," "Have you eaten from the tree?," "What is this you have done?" The open theist's non-rhetorical interpretation of these passages in Genesis suggests that God lacks knowledge of the past, as well as, the present and future. Similarly, in Numbers and Hosea God rhetorically asked "how long" His people would despise Him. Indeed, God frequently asked rhetorical questions in connection with the commissioning of a servant (1 Kings 22:20; Isaiah 6:8) without implying a lack of knowledge.

Gen. 6:6, 1 Sam. 15 - God's repenting

Proper interpretation:
Neither of these passages affirms that God does not know the future. Open theists claim that God would have decided on another course of action if He foreknew the results. To interpret Genesis 6:6 as an expression of divine ignorance insinuates that God did not foresee the fall of humanity into moral corruption. If the corruption of sin took God by surprise, how could God establish a redemptive plan prior to creation?

See my previous post about 1 Sam. 15.

Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; 32:35- God does not know things, is surprised

Proper interpretation:
Three times God said that the idolatrous abomination of child sacrifices never "entered my mind." Yet, the passage does not claim that God never thought about this specific behavior. Three times God specifically warned Israel of this particular sin centuries before the sixth-century prophet Jeremiah (Leviticus 18:21; Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10). Rather, the phrase "enter my mind" describes intention. The act of child sacrifice indisputably opposed God's intention or will.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Wow. Awesome post AMR!

More please.

Ah, yes, another barnacle attaches himself to the conversation and the heavy lifting of others, never contributing substantively to the work at hand.

 

[Stripe]

Aw

 

[themuzicman]

Er, no. These are prima facie examples of how bad hermeneutics leads to bad doctrine.

Ex. 4:1-9- God does not know how the Jewish leaders would respond to Moses

Proper intepretation:
This passage does not mean this at all. God had told Moses the response of the Jewish leaders in advance (Ex. 3:18).

Matthew 26:39- The crucifixion was not certain

Proper interpretation:
The scriptural claims are clear. God foreknew the sacrifice of Christ (Acts 2:23; Revelation 13:8.).

Gen. 22:12- God does not know the choices persons make beforehand

Proper interpretation:
God previously declared Abraham righteous because of his faith and established an unconditional covenant (Genesis 15; Romans 4). Hebrew scholars note that the term translated in Genesis 22:12 as "know" denotes a confirmation of knowledge.

Numbers 14:11; 1 Kings 22:20; Hosea 8:5- God does not know things

Proper interpretation:
Open theists God assume God is asking non-rhetorical questions about the future. As an example, in Genesis 3:9-13 we read God asking Adam and Eve the following questions: "Where are you?" "Who told you that you were naked?," "Have you eaten from the tree?," "What is this you have done?" The open theist's non-rhetorical interpretation of these passages in Genesis suggests that God lacks knowledge of the past, as well as, the present and future. Similarly, in Numbers and Hosea God rhetorically asked "how long" His people would despise Him. Indeed, God frequently asked rhetorical questions in connection with the commissioning of a servant (1 Kings 22:20; Isaiah 6:8) without implying a lack of knowledge.

Gen. 6:6, 1 Sam. 15 - God's repenting

Proper interpretation:
Neither of these passages affirms that God does not know the future. Open theists claim that God would have decided on another course of action if He foreknew the results. To interpret Genesis 6:6 as an expression of divine ignorance insinuates that God did not foresee the fall of humanity into moral corruption. If the corruption of sin took God by surprise, how could God establish a redemptive plan prior to creation?

See my previous post about 1 Sam. 15.

Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; 32:35- God does not know things, is surprised

Proper interpretation:
Three times God said that the idolatrous abomination of child sacrifices never "entered my mind." Yet, the passage does not claim that God never thought about this specific behavior. Three times God specifically warned Israel of this particular sin centuries before the sixth-century prophet Jeremiah (Leviticus 18:21; Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10). Rather, the phrase "enter my mind" describes intention. The act of child sacrifice indisputably opposed God's intention or will.

I would like to know who makes these specific arguments. It looks like some Calvinst's misrepresentation of the OVT position. I know I've not made these specific arguments. I use Gen 22:12, but not in the way this suggests.

I would suggest a better source for OVT arguments.

Regardless, again, these are not the foundations of OVT doctrine. One does not refer to these verses as the foundation for an open future. They are cited as evidence of the foundation, similar to how Calvinism refers to many verses in the Psalms (ignoring the genre, of course) to demonstrate its position.

So, you can drop the straw man anytime.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

I did not say God causes errors. I should have added the word (supposed) I suppose.





You do not believe God continually overcomes the evil of mankind by His good works? This priniciple is taught in Genesis 50:20 and Romans 8:28, which explains all of God's dealing with wickedness while accomplishing His own good purposes.






Well, of course I do not believe God is ever wrong, but that is not the teaching of you and your OV buddies.

Nang

Of course I believe God is at work overcoming evil and wickedness in order to accomplish his own good purposes. I'm just curious why in your settled view of the future you would say that 'God continues to work' ... at what? Why? What more could he do? He knows everything (including the future), he has predestined everything .... what requires his continuing work? That easy to answer in the Open View but I don't get it in the settled view.

No it isn't. God isn't ever wrong. God uses the word IF very effectively.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

From man’s limited, earthly, finite perspective it only appears that God’s purposes have changed.

And that is all I am saying as well. God's purpose changed, He no longer supports Saul as king and He isn't going to relent/repent/sigh or feel sorrow about that change in purpose.

Do you know of any Open Theist or any other flavor of theologian that think that God's nature or righteous character changes??? :idunno:

You and Nang are fantastic at battling strawmen. I wonder how you will do if you ever decide to battle what's actually being discussed? :think:

 

[Lon]

You and Nang are fantastic at battling strawmen. I wonder how you will do if you ever decide to battle what's actually being discussed? :think:

One can only argue what one is given. The strawmen he's knocking down are all that has been given (your definition of strawmen here). AMR has tried to do your work for you, and then is accused of not addressing the subject at hand (the strawment given). He's asked repeatedly for a systematic doctrinal statement, and been repeatedly told there isn't one.

What is left but to try to construct one on the data given or to continue to knock down what is purported?

How can OV exist without a doctrinal statement? Even JW's have a doctrinal statement: http://www.watchtower.org/e/jt/index.htm?article=article_07.htm

 

[themuzicman]

I've posted a doctrinal basis for OVT in this thread. It was ignored.

Muz

 

[Nathon Detroit]

One can only argue what one is given. The strawmen he's knocking down are all that has been given (your definition of strawmen here).

No, you are wrong.

AMR and Nang continue to battle as if we open theists assert that God's nature, or His righteous character, changes and we argue no such thing and never have.

 

[Nang]

How so?

How is that contradictory? If you are going to assert it you should do us the favor in backing up your assertion with an explanation of how and why it breaks the law of non-contradiction.

One cannot establish a premise and add or take away from that premise with conclusions.

You cannot possibly say God is Almighty, and conclude that He is changeable, less than all knowing, often mistaken or wrong.

Based upon your teachings, you force another premise altogether. If you insist on saying God never does wrong (as Philetus posted), but conclude that there are occasions where God has had to repent, or there are events prophesied God but never fulfilled, or that God does not know all things, then your premise cannot be that God is Almighty.

To be consistent and logical, you must deny that premise, and admit your premise is God is variable, not all in all, less than all knowing, and often wrong.

There is nothing contradictory about a sovereign God changing His mind or plan based on the actions of freewill agents.

There certainly is. To make the above statement, you cannot hold to the premise that God is Sovereign God. Your argument contradicts sovereignty, in that it describes God as a reactionary, not a sovereign.

God Himself says it best....

Jeremiah 18:5-10 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the LORD. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! “The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, “if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. “And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, “if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it. ​

God's nature and essence do not change but God is able to adjust in relation to His creation. There is simply nothing contradictory about that.

No, but that was not your entire argument. You also conclude that God plans "based on the actions of free will agents" which deviates from your supposed premise that God is Sovereign.

If God ordains all that happens, how could He actually "overrule" anything? Isn't everything that happens (according to you) by His design?

Yes, everything happens according to God Amighty's design, including providing remedy for the sins of men . . .hence the "Lamb slain before the foundation of the world."

Nang

 

[themuzicman]

One can do everything right and have someone else mess it all up, and leave you wishing you hadn't done it in the first place. It seems that you're playing word games, here.

Muz

 

[Nang]

One can do everything right and have someone else mess it all up, and leave you wishing you hadn't done it in the first place. It seems that you're playing word games, here.

Muz

Can you simply state the OVT theological premise for their views?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

You cannot possibly say God is Almighty, and conclude that He is changeable, less than all knowing, often mistaken or wrong.

Greek philosophy teaches that what is perfect cannot change (otherwise it would change from perfect to less than perfect).

However that philosophy breaks down when discussing living things or animated things.

A perfect clock MUST change, otherwise it is broken.

A perfect living being MUST change otherwise it is dead.

God changes because He is capable. Capable of acting and reacting to His creation.

Based upon your teachings, you force another premise altogether. If you insist on saying God never does wrong (as Philetus posted), but conclude that there are occasions where God has had to repent, or there are events prophesied God but never fulfilled, or that God does not know all things, then your premise cannot be that God is Almighty.

Apparently you don't know what the word repent means and frankly I don't feel like explaining it to you.

To be consistent and logical, you must deny that premise, and admit your premise is God is variable, not all in all, less than all knowing, and often wrong.

It isn't wrong to react to changing circumstances, read Jeremiah 18.

No, but that was not your entire argument. You also conclude that God plans "based on the actions of free will agents" which deviates from your supposed premise that God is Sovereign.

How so?

How does God being sovereign deviate from His ability to react to freewill agents?

God is sovereign, there is no power greater than He.

Yet God has control over His own faculties, God has control of His own sovereignity, He can delegate authority to others if He so chooses because He has the power to control His own power.

Nang, do you believe that God has control over His own power?

 

[Lon]

I've posted a doctrinal basis for OVT in this thread. It was ignored.

Muz

I'll look, but a link'd be helpful. Thanks

 

[Lon]

No, you are wrong.

AMR and Nang continue to battle as if we open theists assert that God's nature, or His righteous character, changes and we argue no such thing and never have.

See, here a doctrinal statement would help clarify. As long as one doesn't exist, nuance will continue to be problematic and even the OV will be divergent, unclear, and non-unified.