ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

lee_merrill

New member
If God commands us to love him, he must mean a genuine love, right?
Certainly, and there is freedom to choose, and to love freely, within the will of God, but not outside it--thus God must make people alive first.

If God did predestine everything...
I don't believe he does, "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom," freedom to choose.

God asks us to "Chose now who you will serve"...
I note that Joshua is saying "choose which idol you will serve" here! Not "choose whether or not you will serve the Lord."

Blessings,
Lee
 

lee_merrill

New member
To name a few:
Israel was not slaves for as long as he said they would be.
Yet the genealogies can have gaps, note the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew.

Nineveh was not destroyed in 40 days.

Why didn't God destroy the Ninevites right away, if that was his plan?

Why did God send Jonah, and spoil his plan?

How can we trust God, if he can take action, and spoil his own plan himself?

How can we say that God didn't lie to the Ninevites, if he threatened unconditional destruction, yet he knew it might not happen?

Why did Jonah seem to have a better grasp of the situation than God did? He thought the Ninevites would probably repent, and thus he ran.

Why did the Ninevites seem to know better than God did? They thought they could repent, and God, apparently, did not.

Why didn't God keep the Ninevites from repenting after Jonah preached to them, like he did with the sons of Eli (1 Sam. 2:25) and with Amaziah (2 Chr. 25:16)?

Now we have to question God's unconditional promises, for the situation may change, and God may have to change his plan.

Also, God may act in a way that spoils his plan, not only may the situation change, and cause a change of plan, but God may do something that wrecks his own plan.

And we also need not always follow God's counsel, for another choice may turn out better, even from his perspective. Only Scripture says differently:

2 Cor. 2:9 For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything.
 

RobE

New member
Do you purposely ignore the parts of our discussions that prove us right?

What parts would those be? The following is your previous post....

post 6942 said:
You can't say God can't foretell future events if unless he possess exhaustive foreknowledge.. To do so implies you think God isn't smart enough to figure out what's going to happen next unless he actually saw it..

I think that is as "head-on" as ever.

Where's the part that makes you 'right'. I responded by trying to illuminate the connection between foreknowing and foresaying. What part should I have responded to?

Patrick said:
God foreknows what he preordains, Rob.

John 17:12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.​

Patrick said:
If he wants to make something happen, he can call it(foretell). Because it hasn't happened yet, and he proclaimed it will happen, it is prediction.

Well predicting(foresaying) and foreknowledge(foreknowing) are related. I'm not sure I'm following your dilineation here. Could you expand on it?
 

patman

Active member
What parts would those be? The following is your previous post....



Where's the part that makes you 'right'. I responded by trying to illuminate the connection between foreknowing and foresaying. What part should I have responded to?



John 17:12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.​



Well predicting(foresaying) and foreknowledge(foreknowing) are related. I'm not sure I'm following your dilineation here. Could you expand on it?

Rob,

Sorry, but we obviously have a huge communication gap. Maybe you can take it up with another O.T.
 

patman

Active member
Yet the genealogies can have gaps, note the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew.



Why didn't God destroy the Ninevites right away, if that was his plan?

Why did God send Jonah, and spoil his plan?

How can we trust God, if he can take action, and spoil his own plan himself?

How can we say that God didn't lie to the Ninevites, if he threatened unconditional destruction, yet he knew it might not happen?

Why did Jonah seem to have a better grasp of the situation than God did? He thought the Ninevites would probably repent, and thus he ran.

Why did the Ninevites seem to know better than God did? They thought they could repent, and God, apparently, did not.

Why didn't God keep the Ninevites from repenting after Jonah preached to them, like he did with the sons of Eli (1 Sam. 2:25) and with Amaziah (2 Chr. 25:16)?

Now we have to question God's unconditional promises, for the situation may change, and God may have to change his plan.

Also, God may act in a way that spoils his plan, not only may the situation change, and cause a change of plan, but God may do something that wrecks his own plan.

And we also need not always follow God's counsel, for another choice may turn out better, even from his perspective. Only Scripture says differently:

2 Cor. 2:9 For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything.

Lee, Eli's children didn't listen on their own. God didn't prevent them. You aren't understanding the text.. God wanted to kill them for their sins so their father warned them and they didn't repent anyway.

Moving on... you asked "How can we trust God, if he can take action, and spoil his own plan himself?" You said that to imply we can't. Then you said, "Also, God may act in a way that spoils his plan, not only may the situation change, and cause a change of plan, but God may do something that wrecks his own plan."

You are confusing. Your ideas contradict one another left and right. I guess you feel you have to believe them because you think they are scriptural. Let me give you some advice, if your ideas are this contradictory obviously one of them is not based on scripture. Otherwise they would align perfectly.

God made it plain that his will is that none should perish, that all come to salvation. That is the primary goal in everything. If God wants to destroy, he gives time for repentance because his will is that they repent. He even gives warning at times.

His plans in warning people involve them repenting. If they do not repent, that is one of God's plans that didn't work out as desired. Yes, Lee, we all go against God's will and are living contrary to his plans every day. People do it. None of this you see today was the way God hoped it would be.

He desires obedience, not sacrifice.

We can trust God because he is trustworthy. We can trust God because he loves us. Just because we go against his plans doesn't mean God is unable cause the BIG plan from happening. He was able to send his son and have him die on the cross as planned, he will be more than able to save us all and re-create this world.

I know I probably didn't answer everything. But you have a lot of things you should sort out before I say much more.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Lee,

You ask all the wrong questions and thereby (intentionally) miss the point. The question you have to answer is this...

Was God telling the truth when He said that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days or was He telling a lie?

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

lee_merrill

New member
... you asked "How can we trust God, if he can take action, and spoil his own plan himself?" You said that to imply we can't. Then you said, "Also, God may act in a way that spoils his plan, not only may the situation change, and cause a change of plan, but God may do something that wrecks his own plan."

You are confusing. Your ideas contradict one another left and right. I guess you feel you have to believe them because you think they are scriptural. Let me give you some advice, if your ideas are this contradictory obviously one of them is not based on scripture.
That's exactly my point, if the Open View has these implications, it's not true. This is a reductio ad absurdum argument--at the end there should be an absurdity.

If they do not repent, that is one of God's plans that didn't work out as desired.
So how did God change his mind with the Ninevites? His plan was clearly to save them, "Should I not be concerned?"

We can trust God because he is trustworthy. We can trust God because he loves us.
And because he does what he says.

"Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and then not fulfill?" The Open View would say yes, he does--another absurdity, to contradict such plain Scripture, so the Open View is evidently wrong.

Blessings,
Lee
 
Last edited:

lee_merrill

New member
Was God telling the truth when He said that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days or was He telling a lie?
The word is "overthrown", which is used both of destruction, and of changes in human hearts (e.g. Ps. 105:25), so indeed Nineveh was overthrown, by repentance, instead of by destruction.

Blessings,
Lee
 

lee_merrill

New member
So now you have these questions to address, Clete:

Why didn't God destroy the Ninevites right away, if that was his plan?

Why did God send Jonah, and spoil his plan?

How can we trust God, if he can take action, and spoil his own plan himself?

How can we say that God didn't lie to the Ninevites, if he threatened unconditional destruction, yet he knew it might not happen?

Why did Jonah seem to have a better grasp of the situation than God did? He thought the Ninevites would probably repent, and thus he ran.

Why did the Ninevites seem to know better than God did? They thought they could repent, and God, apparently, did not.

Why didn't God keep the Ninevites from repenting after Jonah preached to them, like he did with the sons of Eli (1 Sam. 2:25) and with Amaziah (2 Chr. 25:16)?

Now we have to question God's unconditional promises, for the situation may change, and God may have to change his plan.

Also, God may act in a way that spoils his plan, not only may the situation change, and cause a change of plan, but God may do something that wrecks his own plan.

And we also need not always follow God's counsel, for another choice may turn out better, even from his perspective. Only Scripture says differently:

2 Cor. 2:9 For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything.

Blessings,
Lee
 
Last edited:

patman

Active member
That's exactly my point, if the Open View has these implications, it's not true. This is a reductio ad absurdum argument--at the end there should be an absurdity.


So how did God change his mind with the Ninevites? His plan was clearly to save them, "Should I not be concerned?"


And because he does what he says.

"Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and then not fulfill?" The Open View would say yes, he does--another absurdity, to contradict such plain Scripture, so the Open View is evidently wrong.

Blessings,
Lee

Lee, I read pretty closely to your wiki link. You must not be understanding it very well.

Reductio ad absurdum is type of "proof by contradiction." It shows that the initial argument results in an absurd conclusion, so therefore it is false. There is nothing wrong with these type of arguments.

If you read closely, these type of arguments are used to prove such things as the square root of two is not a rational number. It goes in to quite bit of detail on this.

You said Open Theist use these. If this is so, there is nothing wrong with it. Then you go on to say we made an absurd claim.. so are you using it yourself now?

Theology differences aside, Lee, you are someone who jumps to a conclusion before you understanding what you are hearing or reading. I am not saying you are not capable understanding, but you do not have your facts straight. And that makes you come to these "off" conclusions.

It is like try to educate yourself but you let your bias, pre-conceived conclusions, or wondering mind... who knows... hinder what was presented to you and end up distorting what you heard.

Your argument for absurdity from my last post even shows that you are not even trying to understand. You should be capable of thinking this stuff through.

You don't think God wants to save everyone? If you do you disagree with this verse:

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.

Isn't that what I said?

"God made it plain that his will is that none should perish, that all come to salvation. That is the primary goal in everything. If God wants to destroy, he gives time for repentance because his will is that they repent." - Patman

But God's will is obviously not being fulfilled, because there are people killing, raping, murdering, doing really twisted or just plain wrong things, and they never repent.

So God has a secondary plan. For anyone who does not repent, he brings judgement.

Ezekiel 7:27
‘ The king will mourn, The prince will be clothed with desolation, And the hands of the common people will tremble. I will do to them according to their way, And according to what they deserve I will judge them; Then they shall know that I am the LORD!’”

Nineveh was unrepentant. So God was planning on judging. But first he gave them one last warning. What do you know? They repented. So God's secondary purpose was forsaken for the primary one.

How is that ridiculous?

Jonah 3:10
Then God saw their works, that they[Nineveh] turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

He said he was going to do it, Lee. God's words are not idol. It really was his plan! But for God, plan B always gives way to plan A (unless God can tell the repentance is temporary).

I hope you will really think this though for a day or two before hitting reply. Please do.:up:
 

lee_merrill

New member
You said Open Theist use these.
No, I am saying if you start with Open Theism premises, in the story of Jonah, you get contradictions. So then if the logic is correct, one of the premises is wrong. Since Scripture is not wrong, the bad premise must be the Open Theist conclusion that God changed his mind.

You don't think God wants to save everyone?
I have said this before, I even hope all will repent.

But God's will is obviously not being fulfilled, because there are people killing, raping, murdering, doing really twisted or just plain wrong things, and they never repent.
God's will was then also thwarted in the cross? And why do you and other Open Theists seem to believe that God cannot overcome the worst evils, and turn them to good, and "destroy the devil's work"?

Not just fix it as best he can...

So God has a secondary plan. For anyone who does not repent, he brings judgement.
So he is the invincible chessmaster, because whatever way people choose, he has a plan, though the goal may change? Well, I am invincible too for the same reason, and so is everyone else.

People in hell have a plan to have a bit of water dipped on their tongue.

They repented. So God's secondary purpose was forsaken for the primary one.

How is that ridiculous?
Repentance was God's primary plan, by the way, which is what Jonah knew--so he ran: "Is this not what I said?" And that is not ridiculous, my argument is based on Open Theists saying God essentially changed his mind, the Open View says God reversed himself here.

He said he was going to do it, Lee.
So he did really change his mind--now then you need to answer my questions:

Why didn't God destroy the Ninevites right away, if that was his main plan?

Why did God send Jonah, and spoil his primary plan?

How can we trust God, if he can take action, and spoil his own plan himself?

How can we say that God didn't lie to the Ninevites, if he threatened unconditional destruction, yet he knew it might not happen?

Blessings,
Lee
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
The word is "overthrown", which is used both of destruction, and of changes in human hearts (e.g. Ps. 105:25), so indeed Nineveh was overthrown, by repentance, instead of by destruction.

Blessings,
Lee

Oh, yeah! I can see the Ninevites shaking in the boots after hearing Jonah preaching "Yet 40 days and every one of you will have a change of heart!"

Wooo! It gives me goose bumps just to think of the shear terror that must have caused! There must just have been panic in the streets!

Give me a break!

Jonah chapter three clearly refutes this nonsense...

10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

And it does say that God REPENTED. The Hebrew word used is 'nacham' (Strong's #5162) and it DOES NOT mean relent, it means repent.

Why would God need to repent of changing their hearts, Lee? You say that was His intention all along but the Bible says that God repented of the disaster that He said He would bring upon the Ninevites. Shall we believe you or the Bible, Lee?

Why do you feel it necessary to play such games with the text like this, Lee? Why not just read it and take it for what it obviously says? Could it be that your theology cannot survive the plain reading of Scripture? :think:

So now you have these questions to address, Clete:
You didn't answer my question.

Was God telling the truth when He said He would destroy Nineveh or was He telling a lie?

Why didn't God destroy the Ninevites right away, if that was his plan?
Because they repented.

Why did God send Jonah, and spoil his plan?
Because mercy triumphs over judgment.

How can we trust God, if he can take action, and spoil his own plan himself?
You're stupid. I will not entertain such idiotic questions.

How can we say that God didn't lie to the Ninevites, if he threatened unconditional destruction, yet he knew it might not happen?
So your answer then is that God lied, is that what you are saying?

My direct answer to this question is that God's prophesy is never unconditional when it concerns peoples and nations. See Jeremiah 18. A chapter that sucks the life's blood out of your theology.

Why did Jonah seem to have a better grasp of the situation than God did?
Because, as I said a moment ago, you are stupid. I mean you'd have to be to get the impression that Jonah had a better grasp of the situation than God did.

He thought the Ninevites would probably repent, and thus he ran.
Precisely. So then, can we officially put you down for "God lied to the Ninevites!"?

Why did the Ninevites seem to know better than God did?
Because you're a blithering idiot who cannot seem to read and understand what has been written on a third grade reading level. My 7 (nearly 8) year old daughter would know better than this.

They thought they could repent, and God, apparently, did not.
This is just categorically stupid! There is no reason (or very little reason) for God to have sent a prophet if there was no opportunity for repentance. Again, see Jeremiah 18; perhaps the most important chapter of the entire Bible.

Why didn't God keep the Ninevites from repenting after Jonah preached to them, like he did with the sons of Eli (1 Sam. 2:25) and with Amaziah (2 Chr. 25:16)?
It must have been predestined. :idunno:

:rolleyes:
Now we have to question God's unconditional promises, for the situation may change, and God may have to change his plan.
Once again, read Jeremiah 18. It very clearly explains why God might change His mind concerning a prophesy. You might also read passages that tell us that God's righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne (i.e. sovereignty) and that we can trust God because He is righteous not because He is incapable of changing His mind.

Also, God may act in a way that spoils his plan, not only may the situation change, and cause a change of plan, but God may do something that wrecks his own plan.
You are a fool! You will answer for such blasphemy on judgment day unless you repent. You're simply throwing around emotionally based nonsense that doesn't follow from any Open Theist premise whatsoever. You're own inability to think clearly is causing you to sin. But then again, you must think that your saying such things has all been predestined anyway.

And we also need not always follow God's counsel, for another choice may turn out better, even from his perspective. Only Scripture says differently:
Name one single Open Theist who has ever said such a thing! Just one Lee! Can you name even one?

NO! You can't!

Show me the convoluted idiot logic that results in such stupidity! How, even in your own wacko brain, does this drivel even begin to follow from anything that any Open Theist has ever said?

Why can't you debate the issue for what it really is? Why do you feel the need to twist it and to distort it so badly? Is it because you have no defense against what Open Theism really teaches? Is it because you are forced to draw attention away from the real issues of this debate because your so weak in the defense of your own position that you might forced to concede that you are wrong? Is it because you've invested too much of your life into your theology and that it would cost you more than you are willing to afford to repent?

This sort of nonsense makes me want to puke! Why do you even come here and take the time this takes? So you can have an excuse to lie, is that it? You can't find someone at your work to lie too and so you come here to the internet so you can lie anonymously? Where's the pay off? I don't get it! Seriously, Lee! I do not get it! I thought the whole reason for coming here was to debate theological issues. But this isn't debate, this is tabloid journalism, this is gossip column drivel, this is Clintonesque spin doctoring at its worst, this is little more than Jerry Springer style mind candy. You're an embarrassment to yourself, to this website, and you're and embarrassment to Christianity itself and you aught to be ashamed of yourself. If you cannot debate the real issue then stop wasting everyone's time, get the heck off this thread and leave it to someone who both willing and able to be intellectually honest enough to deal with the real issues of this debate.


Resting in Him,
Clete
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Originally Posted by Clete
You see! Now that's a Biblical argument I can get behind! This one-liner "I believe my Bible." stuff is just beneath us all.

Resting in Him,
Clete

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Clete
Shall we believe you or the Bible, Lee?

Why do you feel it necessary to play such games with the text like this, Lee? Why not just read it and take it for what it obviously says? Could it be that your theology cannot survive the plain reading of Scripture?

Resting in Him,
Clete


:idunno:
 

patman

Active member
Originally Posted by Clete
You see! Now that's a Biblical argument I can get behind! This one-liner "I believe my Bible." stuff is just beneath us all.

Resting in Him,
Clete

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Clete
Shall we believe you or the Bible, Lee?

Why do you feel it necessary to play such games with the text like this, Lee? Why not just read it and take it for what it obviously says? Could it be that your theology cannot survive the plain reading of Scripture?

Resting in Him,
Clete


:idunno:

not :idunno: but :chuckle:

it isn't as funny when you have to explain.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Originally Posted by Clete
You see! Now that's a Biblical argument I can get behind! This one-liner "I believe my Bible." stuff is just beneath us all.

Resting in Him,
Clete

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Clete
Shall we believe you or the Bible, Lee?

Why do you feel it necessary to play such games with the text like this, Lee? Why not just read it and take it for what it obviously says? Could it be that your theology cannot survive the plain reading of Scripture?

Resting in Him,
Clete


:idunno:
Don't you get it STP?

When people make valid Biblical arguments, even if they they make incorrect conclusions based on them, I can respect the argument and the one who made it. But when people present an argument based on something they know for a fact is a completely inaccurate representation of whatever it is they are arguing against then that's dishonest and it disrespects not only the debate itself but everyone one of us who are here trying to have substantive discussions about things that we find to be very important.

And, by the way, I consider you to be one of those people! You don't have a habitual tendency to pull the sort of nonsense that Lee and Robe pull on nearly a daily basis. You strike me as one who is here to try to get to the bottom of these issues and as a general rule aren't afraid to take the time and effort required to make real arguments. Lee, hasn't just insulted me and other Open Theists with this "Why does it seem that Jonah was smarter than God?" nonsense, he's insulted you and everyone else who might be reading these posts with an interest in tackling the issues involved in this discussion.

I know that my style probably offends you but I've just had enough of these jerks basically hijacking every open theism thread in existence with these absolutely ridiculous posts. If any of them would care to repent and actually deal with what Open Theism really teaches then that would be great, but they aren't going too! They've only been doing this sort of nonsense for years now! YEARS! This isn't the first time that Lee has come up with this idiotic sort of argument and I and others have called him on it before and yet he persists. If he responds to my post at all it will amount to little or nothing more than a mere repetition of the same exact stupidity. He'll simply pretend like I said nothing at all, just like he always has. Heaven forbid that he respond with, "Wow, Clete! That was a really unexpected emotional response. Perhaps I really have misunderstood Open Theism's teaching on this issue. Could you explain it to me again so that I might better understand it?" Oh my good gracious! I think I'd probably fall out of my chair and have a heart attack if anyone actually showed up here with enough integrity and intellectually honest to respond in any way even remotely resembling that! But I've lost any expectation that anyone ever will. What most of those here who argue against their convoluted version of Open Theism have done is to turn the entire discussion into a big fat waste of time joke. The only thing worth doing at this point is harshly rebuking and ridiculing their intentional intellectual dishonesty and hoping that someone reading is smart enough to see their lies for what they are.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

RobE

New member
Rob,

Sorry, but we obviously have a huge communication gap. Maybe you can take it up with another O.T.

We always have had a communication problem. Several terms seem to confuse the issues.

Ordain:1. To order or arrange 2. To give authority to
God ordered and arranged creation. God gave authority to man to make free decisions. Either way God ordained the events.

Pre-(fore) Dict-(say): To predict requires accuracy according to definition. One of its synonyms is Forecast. The difference between predicting and forecasting is that one of them is based on probabilities. Predicting isn't the one.

Know: for philosophical discussion knowing is knowing for certain. I could say I know(am familiar with) Tom Cruise. I could say I know(believe) it will rain tommorrow, I know(hope) everything will be ok, or I know(speculate) the Broncos will win the superbowl. God knows with certainty Tom Cruise's body, heart, and mind; whether it will rain tommorow, whether things will turn out ok; and, whether the Broncos will win the superbowl.

Will or won't: A description of what actually occurs. For example: I will answer the phone tommorrow at 9 a.m.

Can or can't: A description of ability to perform. For example: I can answer the phone tommorrow at 9 a.m.

Do you see the confusion caused when will and can are used interchangeably?

Now your claim:
Originally Posted by post 6942
You can't say God can't foretell future events if unless he possess exhaustive foreknowledge.. To do so implies you think God isn't smart enough to figure out what's going to happen next unless he actually saw it..

I think that is as "head-on" as ever.

This claim is unfounded. I've always stated God is smart enough to figure out what' going to happen next with or without actually seeing it. It's open theism which says God isn't this intelligent. Either God foreknows the future through calculation or He exists outside of time. There, I said it again.

You said: God foreknows what he preordains, Rob. If he wants to make something happen, he can call it(foretell). Because it hasn't happened yet, and he proclaimed it will happen, it is prediction.

I agree. However, the question then becomes was Judas Iscariot free even through God preordained his reprobation? My answer is of course, "Yes.". Judas Iscariot was given the authority to become reprobate, by God.

Would you say that since Jesus knew of Judas' outcome that God 'ordered or arranged' Judas' reprobation as Muz has claimed(John 6:44)?

I strongly disagree with Muz's position. You see, I'm a free will theist.

But even God's ordinations can change if he wants them to if the conditions that provoked the ordination change (of course the ordination for his coming kingdom will never change).

Of course God is able to do anything which is possible. However, is God a man that He changes His mind? According to open theism nothing is unchangeable or certain. To say God is able to change His decrees in one instance and unable to change His decrees in the next is well - absurdly contradictory.

God demonstrates that he doesn't predestine everything when he places conditions on future events. "If this, that; if that, this."

All actions which haven't existed yet are contingent. In this sense "If this, that; if that, this." holds true. This has nothing to do with foreknowing this or that will occur.

Conditions are only possible when there is room for them to occur.

Yes. Until an event occurs it is contingent to do so. There's your room. I agree God is able to change the future from what is foreknown, but what proof have you that God has decided to do so? Perhaps God has already decided what future to ordain(give authority to) before the foundations of the world.

If God is promising an alternative future based on a condition he knows will not happen, he is not predicting the future - doing that would be a lie.

No. A lie would be if God says something is certain which is uncertain such as:

Israel was not slaves for as long as he said they would be.
Nineveh was not destroyed in 40 days.
Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Tyre.
Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Egypt.
Nebuchadnezzar did not enslave Egypt for 40ish years.
Israel did not repent when hearing the words of Jeremiah.
Jesus did not return during his own generation's lifetime
Daniel 11's last king never presented himself as he said.​

The scriptures state clearly that God cannot lie. That God does not change His mind. That God fulfills His purposes. Etc., etc., etc..

My position would be: Not revealing all that you know is not a lie. If God knew in the future Nineveh would not be destroyed how is it a lie with the understood condition to say, "In 40 days you will be destroyed" understanding "unless you repent" would result in not being destroyed. Jonah and the Ninevites seemed to understand the condition without being told of it.

Do you think Jonah, the Ninevites, Nebuchadnezzar, or Israel would claim God a liar because He said the outcome which didn't occur was certain? Don't you think God is smart enough to figure things out?
 

RobE

New member
Was God telling the truth when He said that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days or was He telling a lie?

Lee has answered this question. The Ninevites were overthrown. Has Clete gained the ability to frame an argument and its response?

Not revealing all that you know isn't a lie.

The phrase, "unless you repent." was known by Jonah and the Ninevites without it being spoken. Why else would the Ninevites try to supplicate God through their actions and bring about His mercy.

My question would be: How does one say, without lying, something is certain if in reality it isn't certain at all?

Apparently the Ninevites and Jonah believed it was uncertain as demonstrated by their actions. Isn't it probable that God knew His own mind and that the impending destruction of Nineveh was never a certainty; and, that the repentance of Nineveh was(as Jonah believed) to be the foreknown outcome.

Jonah 3:10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.​

How is it that Open Theism proclaims that it was indeed certain, when presenting their argument, without suggesting Our Lord is a liar? After all, saying something is certain when everyone involved believed it to be uncertain would be dishonest.

Another example would be the illness and recover of Hezekiah:

Isaiah 38: 1 In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, "This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover."

15 But what can I say?
He has spoken to me, and he himself has done this.
I will walk humbly all my years
because of this anguish of my soul.

16 Lord, by such things men live;
and my spirit finds life in them too.
You restored me to health
and let me live.

17 Surely it was for my benefit
that I suffered such anguish.
In your love you kept me
from the pit of destruction
;
you have put all my sins
behind your back.​

Do you see how Hezekiah understood the uncertainty of the trial/tribulation which God pronounced on him?

Yet open theism would state, "Hezekiah's doom was certain and God changed His mind!"

No. Hezekiah's doom was no more certain than that of the Ninevites. Hezekiah even states that God did it to bring about repentance. Did God lie? No, God merely didn't state all that was known. There was no need to.

If God stated as certain an uncertainty(according to open theism); was God dishonest?
 

lee_merrill

New member
... open theism would state, "Hezekiah's doom was certain and God changed His mind!"

No. Hezekiah's doom was no more certain than that of the Ninevites. Hezekiah even states that God did it to bring about repentance.
Jonah was thinking this as well.

Did God lie? No, God merely didn't state all that was known. There was no need to.
Just as you need not say "I'll post again tomorrow unless my Internet connection is down."

If God stated as certain an uncertainty (according to open theism); was God dishonest?
This is undeniable, yet OVT denies or ignores this.

Blessings,
Lee
 

lee_merrill

New member
Oh, yeah! I can see the Ninevites shaking in the boots after hearing Jonah preaching "Yet 40 days and every one of you will have a change of heart!"
But at that point the overthrow was destruction, one way or the other, Nineveh would be overthrown.

The Hebrew word used is 'nacham' (Strong's #5162) and it DOES NOT mean relent, it means repent.
You really should check other translations, and other lexicons than Strongs.

NIV Jonah 3:10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened.

NAU Jonah 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.

ESV Jonah 3:10 When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it.

NET Jonah 3:10 When God saw their actions– they turned from their evil way of living!– God relented concerning the judgment he had threatened them with and he did not destroy them.

NKJ Jonah 3:10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

NLT Jonah 3:10 When God saw what they had done and how they had put a stop to their evil ways, he changed his mind and did not carry out the destruction he had threatened.

Even Strong's says there are various meanings for this word: "nacham naw-kham' a primitive root; properly, to sigh, i.e. breathe strongly; by implication, to be sorry, i.e. (in a favorable sense) to pity, console or (reflexively) rue; or (unfavorably) to avenge (oneself):--comfort (self), ease (one's self), repent(-er,-ing, self)."

Do you also know that the verb form affects the meaning in Hebrew? This is the niphal form here, which has the following meanings in that form, according to Holladay: "1. regret: a) have regrets, a change of heart (1Sa. 15:29) b) allow onesf. a change of heart regarding, relent regarding (Exo. 32:12) c) abs. turn fm. former attitude, repent (Job 42:6) — 2. (allow onesf. to) be sorry: a) subj. God (Psa. 90:13) ; — 3. comfort, console onesf.: a) find comfort, consolation (Gen. 24:67); b) obtain satisfaction, take relish in (Isa. 1:24); c) observe time of mourning (Gen. 38:12); d) complete the rites of mourning, be consoled (Jer. 31:15)."

I left out some meanings here that apply when there are certain prepositions, or which apply specifically to man.

Shall we believe you or the Bible, Lee?

Why do you feel it necessary to play such games with the text like this, Lee?
One translation is not "The Bible," how can you be so scornful? And it is you who is playing games with the text here, Clete, or maybe Robert T. Hill, whose web site is the only place I could find this translation. Would this be the Bob Hill who has posted here, by the way?

You didn't answer my question.

Was God telling the truth when He said He would destroy Nineveh or was He telling a lie?
My answer is still that the Hebrew word is used also of changes in human hearts, Augustine saw this back many centuries ago, and said "overthrow" one way or the other was meant.

Because they repented.
I meant before they repented, why not destroy them without warning them, since a warning might cause a change of plan?

Because mercy triumphs over judgment.
But God's whole plan here was for judgment, says the Open View--if not, God did not actually change his mind.

You're stupid. I will not entertain such idiotic questions.
My friend Mr. Clete.

So your answer then is that God lied, is that what you are saying?
See above, with Rob's question, please...

My direct answer to this question is that God's prophesy is never unconditional when it concerns peoples and nations.
How is it that God then changed his mind? His plan was to a) destroy them or b) forgive them, conditioned on repentance. I agree.

Because, as I said a moment ago, you are stupid. I mean you'd have to be to get the impression that Jonah had a better grasp of the situation than God did.
Well, how is it that Jonah thought they would repent, and God apparently did not?

Because you're a blithering idiot who cannot seem to read and understand what has been written on a third grade reading level. My 7 (nearly 8) year old daughter would know better than this.
Tremendous response sir, simply tremendous.

Again, see Jeremiah 18; perhaps the most important chapter of the entire Bible.
I have seen it!

LM: Also, God may act in a way that spoils his plan, not only may the situation change, and cause a change of plan, but God may do something that wrecks his own plan.

Clete: You are a fool! You will answer for such blasphemy on judgment day unless you repent.
I'm not seriously proposing this, again it seems I must explain an argument ad absurdum.

Now you must tell me why Open Theism does not have this implication, if God changes his mind.

Name one single Open Theist who has ever said such a thing!
They certainly wouldn't step up to this, yet I claim this is a clear implication in their view.

You can't find someone at your work to lie too and so you come here to the internet so you can lie anonymously?
I use my name, actually, instead of anonymity. Look me up in the phone book if you wish!

Blessings,
Lee
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top