ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[themuzicman]

1Samuel 15

Does God repent?

I'm using the previous quote given to springboard into this discussion.

1Sa 15:29 And also the Glory of Israel will not lie nor repent, for He is not a man that He should repent.

Context: Saul says he repents of not following Jehovah. The problem: Saul is driven not by devotion to Jehovah, but his own desires and fears.
The only reason he is repenting is because Samuel is telling him that his reign as king has ended. The rest of the entire book is about Saul trying to hold onto the kingdom by his own power against Jehovah's command. Instead of stepping down humbly, he raises himself up by his own bootstraps which reveals very clearly his unrepentant heart. Contrast this to David's heart and actions. He constantly waits on Jehovah to accomplish His will. With Saul, God did not change His mind. Did he know Saul was an awful king? Let's look:

1Sa 8:7 The LORD said to Samuel, "Do everything the people request of you.5 For it is not you that they have rejected, but it is me that they have rejected as their king.

In verse four, we see the elders asking for a king just like all the other nations. They do not seek God, and in fact it is a rejection of God's sovereignty.

8:11-18 explains very clearly that Saul will be a lousy king. Verse 18 is explicit: "In that day you will cry out because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD won't answer you in that day."

1Sa 9:20 "Whom does all Israel desire? Is it not you, and all your father's family?"

Samuel, following God's direction, appoints Saul, not because he will be a great king, but because he will be a bad one just as it was already foretold.

1Sa 12:14 If you fear the LORD, serving him and obeying him and not rebelling against what he says, and if both you and the king who rules over you follow the LORD your God, all will be well.
1Sa 12:15 But if you don't obey the LORD and rebel against what the LORD says, the hand of the LORD will be against both you and your king.
1Sa 12:16 "So now, take your positions and watch this great thing that the LORD is about to do in your sight.
1Sa 12:17 Is this not the time of the wheat harvest? I will call on the LORD so that he makes it thunder and rain. Realize and see what a great sin you have committed before the LORD by asking for a king for yourselves."

There is a promise if Israel was to obey, but note it isn't going to happen. Samuel is very clear in 12:17.

Now for the troubling passages that seem to perplex:

1Sa 15:11 "I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned away from me and has not done what I told him to do."

This comes after the prophesied disobedience. Saul spares the Amalekite king and the best of the possessions against the Lord's command.
Was this anticipated? It surely was as we have clearly seen. There is no surprise here. It is all working out exactly as God planned.

But what do we do with these two verses? 1Samuel 15: 11 and 1Sa 15:35 ...but the LORD regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel.

Regret is not the best translation of this word, but it would take a commentary to clarify this point so translators use what works best. The Hebrew word is 'to sigh.'

One can envision an individual sighing, as they regret doing particular things. The translation is just fine.

You also provide the very answer to what you wish to claim, here:

we cannot convey this well in English without much explanation so we must go to the doctrinal scriptures to understand this passage.

This is dangerous, as words have a range of meaning, so to take how a word is used in one context and import it into another frequently leads to significant error.

Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie,
nor a human being, that he should change his mind.
Has he said, and will he not do it?
Or has he spoken, and will he not make it happen?

Human beings change their minds. Note Moses very specifically says God is NOT like this. This is a DOCTRINAL passage in explanation and is very clear. There can be no question here, it is true.

But the context is also important, here.

Num 23:14. So he took him to the field of Zophim, to the top of Pisgah, and built seven altars and offered a bull and a ram on each altar.
15. And he said to Balak, "Stand here beside your burnt offering while I myself meet the LORD over there."
16. Then the LORD met Balaam and put a word in his mouth and said, "Return to Balak, and thus you shall speak."
17. He came to him, and behold, he was standing beside his burnt offering, and the leaders of Moab with him. And Balak said to him, "What has the LORD spoken?"
18. Then he took up his discourse and said, "Arise, O Balak, and hear;
Give ear to me, O son of Zippor!

19. "God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent;
Has He said, and will He not do it?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

20. "Behold, I have received a command to bless;
When He has blessed, then I cannot revoke it.

21. "He has not observed misfortune in Jacob;
Nor has He seen trouble in Israel;
The LORD his God is with him,
And the shout of a king is among them.

22. "God brings them out of Egypt,
He is for them like the horns of the wild ox.

23. "For there is no omen against Jacob,
Nor is there any divination against Israel;
At the proper time it shall be said to Jacob
And to Israel, what God has done!

24. "Behold, a people rises like a lioness,
And as a lion it lifts itself;
It will not lie down until it devours the prey,
And drinks the blood of the slain."

25. Then Balak said to Balaam, "Do not curse them at all nor bless them at all!"
26. But Balaam replied to Balak, "Did I not tell you, `Whatever the LORD speaks, that I must do'?"
​

This is the story of Balaam, and Barak has asked Balaam to speak against Israel, which would require God violating His covenant. Thus, this IS doctrinal, but only tells us about God's covenantal steadfastness and loyalty.

Thus, in context, not a problem for OVT.

Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever!

Can we attribute change to such a statement? Again, this is doctrine, not narrative. It is intended to teach blatant truths to be held to. We cannot go against doctrine even if narrative 'suggests' otherwise. This is a strong hermeneutic principal. We cannot get this wrong.

Again, context is important. This tells us:

Heb 13:5. Make sure that your character is free from the love of money, being content with what you have; for He Himself has said, "I WILL NEVER DESERT YOU, NOR WILL I EVER FORSAKE YOU,"
6. so that we confidently say, "THE LORD IS MY HELPER, I WILL NOT BE AFRAID.
WHAT WILL MAN DO TO ME ?"

7. Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith.
8. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
9. Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were so occupied were not benefited.
10. We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat.
​

This refers to the teachings of Jesus Christ, that His words and His truths do not change. Again, in context, not a problem.

Psa 89:34 I will not break My covenant, nor change the thing that has gone out of My lips.

Psa 102:26 They shall perish, but You shall endure; yea, all of them shall become old like a garment; like a robe You shall change them, and they shall be changed

Notice: God does not change, He changes 'us.'

Again, notice that we're talking about God with respect to His Covenants.

Mal 3:6 For I am Jehovah, I change not. Because of this you sons of Jacob are not destroyed.

Again, covenant loyalty

Jas 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness nor shadow of turning.

James 1:14. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.
15. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.
16. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.
17. Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.
18. In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.
19. This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger;
20. for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.
​

Again, God's righteousness doesn't change. Context matters. Again, not a problem for OVT

For a proper understanding of "God repenting that He had made Saul king." We must first see the dictates of doctrinal passages. We cannot ever interpret by our own inclination. Scripture interprets scripture or we get it wrong. In Judges, the recurring theme: "Every man did what was right in his own eyes." is a warning against doing such even in scripture reading and interpretation.

In my next post I desire to address some specific characteristics of God given doctrinally. Again, I will display doctrinal passages over and above narrative.

As poorly as you've represented Scripture, you've demonstrated only that you don't understand what context means.

Muz

 

[Lon]

One can envision an individual sighing, as they regret doing particular things. The translation is just fine.

You also provide the very answer to what you wish to claim, here:



This is dangerous, as words have a range of meaning, so to take how a word is used in one context and import it into another frequently leads to significant error.



But the context is also important, here.

Num 23:14. So he took him to the field of Zophim, to the top of Pisgah, and built seven altars and offered a bull and a ram on each altar.
15. And he said to Balak, "Stand here beside your burnt offering while I myself meet the LORD over there."
16. Then the LORD met Balaam and put a word in his mouth and said, "Return to Balak, and thus you shall speak."
17. He came to him, and behold, he was standing beside his burnt offering, and the leaders of Moab with him. And Balak said to him, "What has the LORD spoken?"
18. Then he took up his discourse and said, "Arise, O Balak, and hear;
Give ear to me, O son of Zippor!

19. "God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent;
Has He said, and will He not do it?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

20. "Behold, I have received a command to bless;
When He has blessed, then I cannot revoke it.

21. "He has not observed misfortune in Jacob;
Nor has He seen trouble in Israel;
The LORD his God is with him,
And the shout of a king is among them.

22. "God brings them out of Egypt,
He is for them like the horns of the wild ox.

23. "For there is no omen against Jacob,
Nor is there any divination against Israel;
At the proper time it shall be said to Jacob
And to Israel, what God has done!

24. "Behold, a people rises like a lioness,
And as a lion it lifts itself;
It will not lie down until it devours the prey,
And drinks the blood of the slain."

25. Then Balak said to Balaam, "Do not curse them at all nor bless them at all!"
26. But Balaam replied to Balak, "Did I not tell you, `Whatever the LORD speaks, that I must do'?"
​

This is the story of Balaam, and Barak has asked Balaam to speak against Israel, which would require God violating His covenant. Thus, this IS doctrinal, but only tells us about God's covenantal steadfastness and loyalty.

Thus, in context, not a problem for OVT.



Again, context is important. This tells us:

Heb 13:5. Make sure that your character is free from the love of money, being content with what you have; for He Himself has said, "I WILL NEVER DESERT YOU, NOR WILL I EVER FORSAKE YOU,"
6. so that we confidently say, "THE LORD IS MY HELPER, I WILL NOT BE AFRAID.
WHAT WILL MAN DO TO ME ?"

7. Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith.
8. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
9. Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were so occupied were not benefited.
10. We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat.
​

This refers to the teachings of Jesus Christ, that His words and His truths do not change. Again, in context, not a problem.



Again, notice that we're talking about God with respect to His Covenants.



Again, covenant loyalty

James 1:14. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.
15. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.
16. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.
17. Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.
18. In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.
19. This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger;
20. for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.
​

Again, God's righteousness doesn't change. Context matters. Again, not a problem for OVT



As poorly as you've represented Scripture, you've demonstrated only that you don't understand what context means.

Muz

You are trying to make the context say what it is not. The words are very clear: God does not change. You are forcing the context with jibberish.

You are again building doctrine off of narrative and ignoring the doctrinal passages.

As to 'sighing' you are ignoring the meaning and choose willfully to use only one definition. If we are going to be literal, let's choose "sighed" for that is what it means. Let me ask, did God literally sigh? Again I contend you are wrong and will continue to uphold that the word needs a careful translation. The 'danger' I see, is to attach a coloquial term like "changing one's mind." That colloquial is loaded with faulty perceptions which OV take and run with. There is no foundation for such a take on that Hebrew word.

No, the scripture is clear. I'd suggest that you are taking your doctrine into those passages as baggage to be used for your context. I see no such thing. I believe you've 'doctrined' your context.

 

[Lon]

Almighty God

Almighty God

El Shaddai

Almighty God

Gen 17:1 And when Abram was ninety-nine years old, Jehovah appeared to Abram and said to him, I am the Almighty God! Walk before Me and be perfect.

Abraham Isaac and Jacob knew God only as Almighty.

Exo 6:3 And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as God Almighty. But I was not known to them by the name JEHOVAH.

Omnipotence is a word meaning all (omni) powerful (potent). Almighty is the same All powerful. It was not the Greeks who have given this concept but scripture.

Jer 32:17 Ah, Lord Jehovah! You have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power and stretched out arm. Nothing is too great for You.

Job 40:2 Shall a reprover contend with the Almighty? He who reproves God, let him answer it.

The power of God is such that it is unquestionable simply by sheer might. Power alone is so overwhelming in God that this attribute overwhelms.

We catch glimpses of this sheer power in creation, in judgement, in holding everything together. Colossians 1 reminds us that everything that has been made comes from Him and holds together.

Let's consider some philosophical ramifications:

"Can God make a rock He cannot pick up?" There are variations to this question but it is important to note this is a wrong-minded question. It is like asking if He can make square circles or inhuman humans. It is negated by the contradiction in the sentence. It has a negating disqualifier that makes the question both meaningless and therefore unanswerable just like a square-circle.

Asking if God can do something He can't do like sin, is a negating question. It has nothing to do with omnipotence, but with a self-negating concept in fallacy. We must be careful to note when we are being illogical in our postulations. Almighty does not mean God will or can do the unintelligible. We need to ask appropriate questions. A poorly asked question does nothing but negates our own logic and portends to an incorrect concept.

Can God make 2+2=5? No. We are not asking about God's power, we are asking an absurd concept. God is Almighty without restriction. If we understand the limit from absurdity, there is nothing God cannot do. "Nothing is too difficult for Thee!"

I start with this one as it is an omni that is easily seen in scripture. I do not believe OV can take issue with this first installment of who God is.

 

[patman]

Responsible and implicable are separated ideas. I hope analogy continues to help you see this clearly. It is important for you to correctly analyze a Calvinistic stance and is the problem with not seeing it correctly. It is like trying to throw parents in jail for their children's behavior. It is the difference between responsibility and impicability. God is not implicated in a Calvinist understanding. It is an extrapolated misconception that needs continued clarifying and understanding.
God is responsible for us. He chooses to be. He is not implicated however.

Lon,

If parents know their child is about to shoot up their school and do not do something to stop it, do you believe those parent's are innocent of any wrong doing?

 

[patman]

From my perspective, man's free decision causes --------> Sin and God's foreknowledge.

Your perspective, God's foreknowledge causes --------> Sin and Man's free decisions.

Have you considered that things work out the way God wants them to in any timeline?

Rob,

I agree with you. Man's free choices put us where we are today. What I am truly trying to make you see is that there are no "free choices" where there is complete and total foreknowledge when there is a creator God using it for the sake of his creation.

If there is foreknowledge, the world you see before you is the ideal world God foresaw when he created us like he did.

And in a more perfect analogy, Person A, B, C, D, all the way to Z could have had multiple outcomes depending on how he made us. With foreknowledge, the people who were saved were chosen over those who were not saved. Just how he created us, our environment, and our attitudes makes a difference, small adjustments here or there results in different future actions.

And choosing one person over another is favoritism.

If there is foreknowledge, there is no freewill, only the illusion.

 

[themuzicman]

You are trying to make the context say what it is not. The words are very clear: God does not change. You are forcing the context with jibberish.

You are again building doctrine off of narrative and ignoring the doctrinal passages.

Actually, I going off a hermeneutic that say that Scripture means what it says ,rather than what Lon wants it to say.

The context of each of these doctrinal passages is important. I don't think you grasp the consequences of what you're saying.

As to 'sighing' you are ignoring the meaning and choose willfully to use only one definition. If we are going to be literal, let's choose "sighed" for that is what it means. Let me ask, did God literally sigh? Again I contend you are wrong and will continue to uphold that the word needs a careful translation. The 'danger' I see, is to attach a coloquial term like "changing one's mind." That colloquial is loaded with faulty perceptions which OV take and run with. There is no foundation for such a take on that Hebrew word.

I wasn't using that as the definition, but pointing out that "sighing" is often an element of regret, and that Hebrew frequently uses these kinds of things to represent other concepts. (For example, one word for anger is "nose" or "nostril".)

No, the scripture is clear. I'd suggest that you are taking your doctrine into those passages as baggage to be used for your context. I see no such thing. I believe you've 'doctrined' your context.

LOL... You're the one imposing upon these contexts!

Muz

 

[Lon]

Lon,

If parents know their child is about to shoot up their school and do not do something to stop it, do you believe those parent's are innocent of any wrong doing?

You can't impinge God with this argument. I understand where you are coming from, but even in such a scenario, the ones who knew are not often prosecuted for it is difficult to discern motive, heart, etc.

Remember in the news recently where that old man was beaten and robbed in front of ten onlookers? Nobody did anything. They are impinged but they were not prosecuted. I'm just saying if our law system has a hard time doing this, we should be careful in extrapolating to a Calvinist perspective. Sometimes the accusations fly unfounded and they extrapolations none-the-less. We need to be careful with faulty assumptions. Calvinists do not hold that God is impinged. It is an incorrect exrapolation. You understand this, we do it with OV at times too. I welcomed the reminder that there is a difference between OV and MAD. That is always a good reminder or I can make a faulty extrapolation. That is what I'm shooting for here. We want to avoid faulty preconception.

 

[Lon]

Actually, I going off a hermeneutic that say that Scripture means what it says ,rather than what Lon wants it to say.

Uhhhggg, then read that phrase given multiple times. It mentions covenant in every instance not at all. You'd think, if it is always about covenant that we'd see that in one of the phrases. Unfortunately for you, covenant is sadly lacking in EVERY one of them.

The context of each of these doctrinal passages is important. I don't think you grasp the consequences of what you're saying.

And I'm accusing you of what you are accusing me of. You are fabricating. There is no mention of covenant in any of those scripture quotes. No not one. Context? Covenant coincides, that is a strong case, BUT you are rephrasing the actual quote. That to me is more dangerous. You are re-writing God's Word to fit your theology. That is why you say OV has no problem. You must do this to hold to your view. I'm the one that takes the phrase at face value: God does not change. That is what it says, not just in one place, in multiple places. It is so clear as is. You are the one doctrining it, not me.

I wasn't using that as the definition, but pointing out that "sighing" is often an element of regret, and that Hebrew frequently uses these kinds of things to represent other concepts. (For example, one word for anger is "nose" or "nostril".)

That's good, we can agree on that point then.

LOL... You're the one imposing upon these contexts!

Muz

Changing context is easy for anyone to see. OV must literally change the wording 'using context.'

I took it a face value. Again, I accuse you of building context on narrative rather than taking the doctrinal statements at face value. The doctrinal statements are quite clear to me.

 

[Lon]

Rob,

I agree with you. Man's free choices put us where we are today. What I am truly trying to make you see is that there are no "free choices" where there is complete and total foreknowledge when there is a creator God using it for the sake of his creation.

If there is foreknowledge, the world you see before you is the ideal world God foresaw when he created us like he did.

And in a more perfect analogy, Person A, B, C, D, all the way to Z could have had multiple outcomes depending on how he made us. With foreknowledge, the people who were saved were chosen over those who were not saved. Just how he created us, our environment, and our attitudes makes a difference, small adjustments here or there results in different future actions.

And choosing one person over another is favoritism.

If there is foreknowledge, there is no freewill, only the illusion.

The difference would be between EDF and simple foreknowledge, but I agree with you, if we are to take the Biblical word and definition the way it is, foreknowledge exhaustively or otherwise is a problem for OV.

This is a good place to remind that we have differing definitions. It is always important to remember in our discussions we define differently. Our preconceptions continue to have us speaking from different premise. This is where preconception has us extrapolating into each other's theological perspectives.

 

[lee_merrill]

This is the story of Balaam, and Barak has asked Balaam to speak against Israel, which would require God violating His covenant. Thus, this IS doctrinal, but only tells us about God's covenantal steadfastness and loyalty.

The problem of course is (as has been pointed out) that Israel was unfaithful to this covenant, remember broken tablets at the mountain's foot? So what becomes of this interpretation?

Jeremiah 31:32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant.

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.​

This refers to the teachings of Jesus Christ...

Why teachings? why not say the grace of Jesus Christ does not change?

But the text is clear, Jesus is the subject, not "the teachings" or "the grace" or any aspect of Jesus, yes, you are reading qualifications into the text that are not there, as Lon said, and making "Jesus" be an adjective, without any warrant--in fact--against the grammar.

Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.
18. In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.
19. This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger;
20. for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.
​

Again, God's righteousness doesn't change. Context matters.

Well, why not his will? or his word of truth? Again, this is simply arbitrary, and again, this is in plain violation of the grammar, God is the subject here.

As poorly as you've represented Scripture, you've demonstrated only that you don't understand what context means.

Physician, heal thyself?

Lon is on track here.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Nang]

Lon is on track here.

Blessings,
Lee

Yes, and Lee with him . . .

May God bless the spiritual insights He has given you both.

Nang

 

[patman]

You can't impinge God with this argument. I understand where you are coming from, but even in such a scenario, the ones who knew are not often prosecuted for it is difficult to discern motive, heart, etc.
.......
foreknowledge exhaustively or otherwise is a problem for OV.(taken from other post)

Lon, I do not impinge God. I impinge the perspective you give to God. I hope you can see the difference.

Before you try to turn the tables on OV, I would like you to address these issues I have with SV. It is only fair that we get these out of the way before changing topics.

Just for the record, and without getting into it, foreknowledge is not a problem for O.V. at all.

Justice is justice. And sin is sin. We know a few things about God from scripture that contradict calvinism.

1. He does not show favoritism.
2. He does not tempt.
3. He is patient.
4. He does not lie.

With these 4 things, calvinism and S.V. raise serious issues. You can't sweep them under the rug like you did with your last posts. If God tells us about these things, we can't continue with a theology that disagrees with them.

I am sure you, as a person, would agree with them. But by your theology, you preach to others they are wrong.

Calvinism tell others about the elect, being chosen as though God choose you as an individual, but not John Doe, before he created earth. That, Lon, is favoritism. More over, he ordained by how he made us for there to be suffering, and evil in the world, yet some get more, some get less. Favoritism.

Calvinism tells us us that God causes evil (even AMR tells us through secondary causes). But yet scripture says he doesn't tempt, nor is tempted. How can God tempt evil? Yet calvinist say he does (whether they sugar coat it or not).

Calvinism tells us that God knows the entire future perfectly. He knows when what is going to happen, he is even outside of time. Yet scripture tells us he is patient. Being patient requires waiting for time to pass. How can God be patient, when time is all the same to him(word it how ever you like)?

Calvinism tells us that God knows the future perfectly. Yet scripture shows us times that God prophesied destruction for a nation, then it didn't happen (take Jonah for example). If God foresaw it not happening, yet said it would happen, that is a lie.

Lon, like I said, we can discuss the OV perspective on these four issues after you satisfy my issues with S.V. theology. I just want to stay focused and not throw too much wood on the fire at once.

Thanks.

 

[patman]

Well, I said....

Well, there's two ways to look at this. Either A, 'God looked at all possible worlds and decided to create the best choice that He had'; or, B, 'God decided to create this world because He loved you'.



This is what Calvinism has concluded. I believe God shows compassion and love by creating all of us. Life in itself is a gift. It rains on the good and evil alike. The grace of life was universally given without our consent. Eternal life requires our consent. How is God wrong as long as it's universally offered despite what God foreknows?



But this is only conjecture. Who's to say that 'B' doesn't choose hell in every possible world? I'm not sure you have considered this. Imperfect vessels remain imperfect no matter what environment you place them in.



No. I'm saying God allowed evil for a higher purpose. What evil did I say that God did?



From my perspective, man's free decision causes --------> Sin and God's foreknowledge.

Your perspective, God's foreknowledge causes --------> Sin and Man's free decisions.

Have you considered that things work out the way God wants them to in any timeline?

Patrick, I would normally speak of children now, but I see Lon has already done so. God loves us. God loves the world. God even loves His enemies, but hates their actions. From both our perspectives God allows evil as not to interfere with the free actions of man. Foreknowledge only specifies 'when' God finds out, not what God is going to do about it.

Hi Rob,

I could have swore that I responded to this... but I don't see it anywhere. Weird.

Anyway, here'gos again.

You asked "Have you considered that things work out the way God wants them to in any timeline?"

If I were forced to believe the S.V., I guess I would have to rationalize that by faith. But that would be an irrational rationalization (like that?).

Scripture is pretty clear about God not liking the way things are going.

Luke 13:34 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!

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

Jeremiah 5:7 "How shall I pardon you for this? Your children have forsaken Me And sworn by those that are not gods. When I had fed them to the full, Then they committed adultery And assembled themselves by troops in the harlots’ houses."

Isaiah 5:4
What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?

The list of verses could go on and on. God is not happy with the world, Rob, even though you are. Do you really think that "God looked at all possible worlds and decided to create the best choice that He had?" I am not so concerned with your opinion (no offense) but rather God's. He has pointed out wickedness that he was disappointed with, yet this is the creation he choose?

You asked "How is God wrong as long as it's universally offered despite what God foreknows?" Do you not see the problem with your question? I know you want me to see that God isn't causing evil, etc, etc, I know that. But what I want you to see is how your thinking is illogical.

It is impossible to truly say grace is available to everyone when, from creation, as foresaw by God, that there are those who will not get saved, and he created us just so that some would not chose. That is your option A in your post above. If you don't like how I said it, I could just say it the way you said it. It is the same thing, and it is a problem you should reconcile.

 

[godrulz]

Impinge?

Impugn?

 

[patman]

Impinge?

Impugn?

Order in the court!:crackup:

 

[Lon]

Lon, I do not impinge God. I impinge the perspective you give to God. I hope you can see the difference.

Before you try to turn the tables on OV, I would like you to address these issues I have with SV. It is only fair that we get these out of the way before changing topics.

Good idea. I'll stick with them as well, but allow for some confusion as I'm not seeing all your points.

Just for the record, and without getting into it, foreknowledge is not a problem for O.V. at all.

It is if God knows anything future. Again I believe it important to dilineate our difference here, so for the record: "What does foreknowledge mean to you?"

If you can be exact here it'll help. I'll precursor that if it means He knows future (the definition) even in part, what does He know and what doesn't He? I mean if He only knows what He is going to do, it will take us down the rabbit trail again a ways. We've discussed this before, but I'm always up for redressing it.

If foreknowledge means He 'knows' rather than predicts, that's an important point and substantiates the NonOV position. If by 'fore' it means future, this also strengthens the traditional stance.

Justice is justice. And sin is sin. We know a few things about God from scripture that contradict calvinism.

I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought here.

1. He does not show favoritism.
2. He does not tempt.
3. He is patient.
4. He does not lie.

With these 4 things, calvinism and S.V. raise serious issues. You can't sweep them under the rug like you did with your last posts. If God tells us about these things, we can't continue with a theology that disagrees with them.

I have no trouble with those ascertations as 'I' understand them. For the most part we need to discuss 'favoritism' I think. It is where I believe our discussion lies for a good debate. I do not see foreordination as favoritism so let's talk about that. Knowing who will respond may be what you are thinking about here concerning favoritism. I do see a point here. When the beggar woman came to Jesus He told her "Shall I give the food that belongs to my children to the dogs?"

We want to be careful how we see and explain favoritism but I do not believe it is a Calvinist exclusive for our discussion, nor that of 'Settled View' as you call it. The same scripture must be explained by OV and I do not see a corner on the market. It often perplexes me that you take a perspective like this and try to be excluded from the conversation. OV cannot be excluded from this one either. You have to explain the same scriptures. This is similar to me to what I said about God allowing evil. "When" isn't as big an issue or question as 'why.' You cannot escape the discussion simply by asking a peripheral question. That is obfuscation. OV rarely if ever escapes the bigger question. I believe you are honestly deluded by the peripherals and it obfuscates the big question. Simply trying to tack it onto Calvinism and or Tradition does not excuse you from the exercise. I ask again: How is choosing Israel for His own people not favoritism? How was Jesus' response to the gentile woman not favoritsm? (note, I have an answer, but I'm trying to get you to realize your accusation is inescapable as well). My point is that claiming it is strictly a nonOV or Calvinist's dilemma is really not true. OV must and should deal with the same exact question. It is a bit of prejudism to see it in another's eye and not see it in your own. So I am trying to get you to just realize that OV doesn't handle the problem, it just obfuscates it so that it avoids the same question altogether (or tries to).

I am sure you, as a person, would agree with them. But by your theology, you preach to others they are wrong.

And that is why I've tried to give it a fair treatment here. Do you see the point?

Calvinism tell others about the elect, being chosen as though God choose you as an individual, but not John Doe, before he created earth. That, Lon, is favoritism. More over, he ordained by how he made us for there to be suffering, and evil in the world, yet some get more, some get less. Favoritism.

You have to realize I'm a Calvinist babe here. I've never thought of election as favoritism but as God simply knowing who His grace was efficatious. As Nang repeats here, we are all undeserving of His grace. I do believe the parable of the wheat and tares indicates that there are those who are wheat (His) and those who are tares. It is true God favors His wheat over the tares.

Calvinism tells us us that God causes evil (even AMR tells us through secondary causes). But yet scripture says he doesn't tempt, nor is tempted. How can God tempt evil? Yet calvinist say he does (whether they sugar coat it or not).

This is one of those 'wrong preconceptions' I've been talking about. You insist they do, yet they insist they do not say that. Apparently my father/children analogy was for naught.

Calvinism tells us that God knows the entire future perfectly. He knows when what is going to happen, he is even outside of time. Yet scripture tells us he is patient. Being patient requires waiting for time to pass. How can God be patient, when time is all the same to him(word it however you like)?

It simply means He doesn't act until the right time for us. I'm not following your objection very well here. We wait patiently when we trust God to act. It is a trust issue for us. It isn't a trust issue with God. He knows what He is going to do and is confident. We are the ones who need His interjection. To me, His patience is a loving wait for the best time 'for us.' You may need to elucidate a bit here for me.

Calvinism tells us that God knows the future perfectly. Yet scripture shows us times that God prophesied destruction for a nation, then it didn't happen (take Jonah for example). If God foresaw it not happening, yet said it would happen, that is a lie.

It is a challenge to obedience, not a lie regardless of how we respond. We are the ones who need to change. Sin left us far behind in doing what is right. We need prompts in our lives to do what is right. That is an act of mercy and grace on God's part. I believe God can even use our failures to bring about change, either for us, or someone watching. This I believe was the trial and test of Pharoah when Moses called him to let the people go. We know Pharoah refused, but interjection from God came. God had the Israelites in mind regardless of how Pharoah responded, and He even tells Moses ahead of time that Pharoah will not respond favorably. This does not stop God from intervening.

Lon, like I said, we can discuss the OV perspective on these four issues after you satisfy my issues with S.V. theology. I just want to stay focused and not throw too much wood on the fire at once.

Thanks.

You betcha, I missed chatting with you actually. We may never see eye to eye, but most of the time I appreciate the way in which you honestly debate these matters.

 

[Lon]

Impinge?

Impugn?

Impinge is to have something thrust upon them.

Impugn is similar (to dirty one's moral record). I guess we should say "God is not guilty for sin."

 

[Lon]

You asked "How is God wrong as long as it's universally offered despite what God foreknows?" Do you not see the problem with your question? I know you want me to see that God isn't causing evil, etc, etc, I know that. But what I want you to see is how your thinking is illogical.

It is impossible to truly say grace is available to everyone when, from creation, as foresaw by God, that there are those who will not get saved, and he created us just so that some would not chose. That is your option A in your post above. If you don't like how I said it, I could just say it the way you said it. It is the same thing, and it is a problem you should reconcile.

I have this Weed 'n' Feed that is supposed to starve the weeds and encourage growth in the grass. I'm not sure how that works. It seems odd to me. I'm not even sure if it works because my thumb is pink. I never did inherit the green one.

The same substance that causes one to grow will condemn the other. It is the righteousness for those who will respond, and a condemnation for those who will not. I see His grace as effective for both.

 

[godrulz]

Impinge is to have something thrust upon them.

Impugn is similar (to dirty one's moral record). I guess we should say "God is not guilty for sin."

The nerve in my shoulder is impinged at the moment.

Calvinism impugns the character of God by attributing evil to His will.

 

[patman]

Good idea. I'll stick with them as well, but allow for some confusion as I'm not seeing all your points.


It is if God knows anything future. Again I believe it important to dilineate our difference here, so for the record: "What does foreknowledge mean to you?"

If you can be exact here it'll help. I'll precursor that if it means He knows future (the definition) even in part, what does He know and what doesn't He? I mean if He only knows what He is going to do, it will take us down the rabbit trail again a ways. We've discussed this before, but I'm always up for redressing it.

If foreknowledge means He 'knows' rather than predicts, that's an important point and substantiates the NonOV position. If by 'fore' it means future, this also strengthens the traditional stance.


I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought here.



I have no trouble with those ascertations as 'I' understand them. For the most part we need to discuss 'favoritism' I think. It is where I believe our discussion lies for a good debate. I do not see foreordination as favoritism so let's talk about that. Knowing who will respond may be what you are thinking about here concerning favoritism. I do see a point here. When the beggar woman came to Jesus He told her "Shall I give the food that belongs to my children to the dogs?"

We want to be careful how we see and explain favoritism but I do not believe it is a Calvinist exclusive for our discussion, nor that of 'Settled View' as you call it. The same scripture must be explained by OV and I do not see a corner on the market. It often perplexes me that you take a perspective like this and try to be excluded from the conversation. OV cannot be excluded from this one either. You have to explain the same scriptures. This is similar to me to what I said about God allowing evil. "When" isn't as big an issue or question as 'why.' You cannot escape the discussion simply by asking a peripheral question. That is obfuscation. OV rarely if ever escapes the bigger question. I believe you are honestly deluded by the peripherals and it obfuscates the big question. Simply trying to tack it onto Calvinism and or Tradition does not excuse you from the exercise. I ask again: How is choosing Israel for His own people not favoritism? How was Jesus' response to the gentile woman not favoritsm? (note, I have an answer, but I'm trying to get you to realize your accusation is inescapable as well). My point is that claiming it is strictly a nonOV or Calvinist's dilemma is really not true. OV must and should deal with the same exact question. It is a bit of prejudism to see it in another's eye and not see it in your own. So I am trying to get you to just realize that OV doesn't handle the problem, it just obfuscates it so that it avoids the same question altogether (or tries to).

And that is why I've tried to give it a fair treatment here. Do you see the point?

You have to realize I'm a Calvinist babe here. I've never thought of election as favoritism but as God simply knowing who His grace was efficatious. As Nang repeats here, we are all undeserving of His grace. I do believe the parable of the wheat and tares indicates that there are those who are wheat (His) and those who are tares. It is true God favors His wheat over the tares.


This is one of those 'wrong preconceptions' I've been talking about. You insist they do, yet they insist they do not say that. Apparently my father/children analogy was for naught.

It simply means He doesn't act until the right time for us. I'm not following your objection very well here. We wait patiently when we trust God to act. It is a trust issue for us. It isn't a trust issue with God. He knows what He is going to do and is confident. We are the ones who need His interjection. To me, His patience is a loving wait for the best time 'for us.' You may need to elucidate a bit here for me.

It is a challenge to obedience, not a lie regardless of how we respond. We are the ones who need to change. Sin left us far behind in doing what is right. We need prompts in our lives to do what is right. That is an act of mercy and grace on God's part. I believe God can even use our failures to bring about change, either for us, or someone watching. This I believe was the trial and test of Pharoah when Moses called him to let the people go. We know Pharoah refused, but interjection from God came. God had the Israelites in mind regardless of how Pharoah responded, and He even tells Moses ahead of time that Pharoah will not respond favorably. This does not stop God from intervening.


You betcha, I missed chatting with you actually. We may never see eye to eye, but most of the time I appreciate the way in which you honestly debate these matters.

Wow, looks like the favoritism thing took an unexpected turn.

Luke 20:21
Then they asked Him, saying, “Teacher, we know that You say and teach rightly, and You do not show personal favoritism, but teach the way of God in truth:

Galatians 2:6
But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.

I try to sum things up for the sake of moving the discussion along, then going into more detail once we are on the same page. The blanket statement "God does not show favoritism" is not enough to address all the issues you brought up. These verses above show in what ways he does not show favoritism.

Favoritism is more of a "he is rich, give him more attention, or more grace" type thing. Jesus' answer to the rich man was no different than it was for the poor man. Paul's message was no different from the jew than it was for the gentile. There is even a verse in Peter where he warns us about treating others better just because of their status.

God has favorites. There is no doubt there, but he does not have favorites because of favoritism. Abraham wasn't his favorite because he was rich, but because he was righteous. Same for Noah. Israel was chosen because of Abraham. But all men were equals before God when it came to their status among men. He did not chose them because of favoritism as described above.

You are not a very good calvinist, Lon. So you won't really understand why this is a problem. Maybe if hilston were around. Or maybe if AMR thought I was worth something, they would understand where this applies to them. You should probably loose the title. Calvinism takes the "elect" of God to a personal level. He picked us before time as individuals according to calvinism, and the rest..... well, not so much.

What was it based on? According to calvinism, he created us all the way we are. Our unrighteousness is somehow or another caused by him, so he must have his favorites based on our status that he created. See where I am going now?

But I don't really want to talk about something we both agree on. If I am wrong and you do not agree that we have free choice, let me know and we'll pick this back up. However, know calvinism does think these things. Don't let them sugar coat it for you.

On patience you said "It simply means He doesn't act until the right time for us."

I am sorry I wasn't very clear.

Isaiah 30:18
Therefore the LORD will wait, that He may be gracious to you; And therefore He will be exalted, that He may have mercy on you. For the LORD is a God of justice; Blessed are all those who wait for Him.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance

Psalm 145:8
The LORD is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy

From these verses, we see God is in time. Being patient requires time. To disagree is to write off the meaning of these verses. You must say "Oh, God didn't REALLY mean he waits, he doesn't reeeealy mean he is slow, it is all a figure of speech."

But the thing is that the only reason anyone would call these particular verses a figure of speech (in whatever form) is because they think God is outside of time.... but that is not found in scripture. Because it is not found in scripture, I take these verse to mean what they say, that God is in time, and the future isn't already written.

On the lie-thing.

I agree with your thoughts, but they did not address my point, just so you know. My point is that when God predicts the future and the prediction doesn't happen, and God knew it wouldn't happen, that is a lie.

Question, does God know when the kingdom will come because it is a fixed moment in time(aka because he foresaw when it would happen)?

Mark 9:1 And He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.”

Why did Jesus say this? Yeah, he said he didn't know the hour, but what about the century? Jesus acted like he knew everything that would happen, but his timing was a biiiit different than what happened. 2000 years later, and the kingdom has not come. All those men tasted death, even Jesus. Yet it did not come. It is not present and with power.

Either God foresaw the hour fixed in time, or the hour is his to descried. He obviously doesn't lie, so he must have had it planned, then changed his plan because as 2 Peter 3:9 said, he is waiting on us to repent. As you said "We need prompts in our lives to do what is right."

Very true. But these prompts are lies if the future is completely foreknown.

Ok, lastly. You asked I cleared up my definition of foreknowledge (of God). God can foresee what might happen. But he does not foresee what will happen for every instance. A lot of the time, he knows what will happen because he can calculate in his minds the likelihood of events. But the area of the unknown lies with the decisions we have not already made (our freewill).

So when God tests someone, for example, the test is for us and him together. God wanted to know if Abraham would give his son to Him. So he tested him. As you have heard from the O.V. perspective, God said "now I know" (again another 'God in time' reference.) God wanted that answer because he could not foresee it. It was not a decision Abraham was ever faced with, the answer was unknowable until the situation was created.