ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[godrulz]

Your operating system has a socinus virus

Socinus, like JWs and Mormons, was wrong about the Trinity and Deity of Christ, but right about omniscience/predestination. He rejected a salvific truth, but was philosophically/biblically correct about a non-salvific one.

Using your logic, you are a Jewish-Muslim because you believe in one God.

I am a Mac user and we don't get viruses.

 

[godrulz]

"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev.13:8).

Interpret it vs quote it (as well as consider the textual variants found in footnotes, etc.). Was Jesus killed in eternity, Genesis, or in the first century? Gen. 3 made the potential plan of redemption certain (post-Fall), but it was not actualized until centuries later.


Now let's see what Boyd says (most Open Theist books deal with your objection; I have read anti-Open Theism books, so we can play this game forever):

http://www.gregboyd.org/qa/predesti...-life”-how-does-that-square-with-open-theism/

http://www.gregboyd.org/qa/predesti...orld”-doesn’t-this-conflict-with-open-theism/

I could start helping you with objection proof texts and responses, but you probably should do what I have done over 30 years and read both sides of the debate with an open Bible and make an informed decision (most anti-Open Theism books are simply pro-Calvinistic and are also anti-Arminian).

 

[godrulz]

What differences?

Would you give me your interpretation of the meaning of the following words?:

"And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption" (1 Cor.15:49-50).

Thanks!

In His grace,
Jerry

Off the top of my head, physical bodies would not be able to breath in heaven/outer space. People who have been burned or are rotting in the grave need a gloried body/resurrection. Jesus was not raised back to His incarnated state. There was continuity, but His body was not identical (nail prints; appear in closed room; ascend to heaven, etc.). This is the practical issue (we are not JWs who believe we just get raised again in bodies back to Paradise Earth, not do we believe that Jesus was raised as a spirit/ghost).

Exegetically, Paul is arguing that there is a contrast between Adam/earthly/natural body (whole chapter is about bodily resurrection defense) and the Last Adam, Christ, who now has a different heavenly, spiritual body. Resurrection in Scripture is always bodily, physical (vs spirit, angelic). It is a spiritual body, not a fading, fallen physical body, but it is body nonetheless (we are not ghosts floating around playing harps). We will have the latter body like Christ when we are raptured (I Thess. 4) and changed in a moment. The physical body is planted in the ground like a seed and is raised in the future as a spiritual BODY (continuity, but not identical).

Flesh and blood (natural body) could not enter the eternal state if it is dust and bones in the ground (I Cor. 15:24-28). The other issue is that flesh can be associated with the fallen state and sin. Unregenerate man cannot enter the kingdom of God without being spiritually regenerated/born again (Jn. 3). Regenerate man/Justification will also have a future hope of resurrection/glorification where even our physical body (now the temple of the Spirit) will be raised to new life, just as Christ did not remain in the grave.

I am agreeing more with you than muz (don't follow his argument).

 

[themuzicman]

Moved to another thread

 

[DFT_Dave]

Please read my last post on this thread.

Dave, I am not a liberal. But unlike those in the "Open Theology" camp I can recognize "figurative" language and I do not take things which are clearly figurative and interpret them literally.

For exampe, let us consider the following verses which are set in a narrative:

"Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation" (Ex.32:10).

First the Lord spoke of "consuming" all of the Israelites except Moses. But then "repents" (has a change of mind) in regard to is previous stated intention to "consume them."

"And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people" (Ex.32:14).

I do not take the events of this narrative "literally" as do those in the "Open Theology" community. I have two reasons for this. The first is that I believe that the following verse is speaking about the very "nature" of God, that He will not change is mind:

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" (Num.23:19).

The other reason why I believe that it should not be taken literal is in regard to whether or not the Lord's threat to "consume" the children of Israel was really a possibility within His plan. If He really had no intention of consuming them because of one reason or another then I do not believe that the events described in this narrative can be taken literally.

Earlier the Lord had made the following promise in regard to Judah:

"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be" (Gen.49:10).

My contention is that if the Lord consumed all of the children of Israel except Moses then it would then be impossible for the Lord to fulfill His promise regarding Judah. Therefore it is clear that His threat to consume all of them was never a realistic intention of the Lord's.

Therefore the events desribed in the narrative cannot be taken in a "literal" sense but instead must be understood in a "figurative" sense.

Now since I have answered all of the questions which you have asked me perhaps you will be kind enough to answer mine concerning the narrative just mentioned.

Do you think that the threat of the Lord to "consume" the children of Israel and begin anew with Moses was really a threat which the Lord would have actually carried through if He had not repented?

If your answer is "yes" then tell me how the promise in regard to Judah could have ever been fulfilled.

Thanks!

In His grace,
Jerry

Yes, the promises to Abraham and the nation of Israel were always conditional anyway.

Genesis 18:19 For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice, that the Lord may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him.”

Genesis 22:15 Then the Angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time out of heaven, 16 and said: “By Myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son 17 blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies. 18 In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”

Genesis 25:1 There was a famine in the land, besides the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went to Abimelech king of the Philistines, in Gerar. 2 Then the Lord appeared to him and said: “Do not go down to Egypt; live in the land of which I shall tell you. 3 Dwell in this land, and I will be with you and bless you; for to you and your descendants I give all these lands, and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. 4 And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; 5 because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.”

Exodus 19:3 And Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: 4 You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Myself. 5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. 6 And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”

Deuteronomy 28:1“Now it shall come to pass, if you diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all His commandments which I command you today, that the Lord your God will set you high above all nations of the earth. 2 And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, because you obey the voice of the Lord your God:

15 “But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:

63 And it shall be, that just as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good and multiply you, so the Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you and bring you to nothing; and you shall be plucked from off the land which you go to possess. 64 “Then the Lord will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other.

If Moses had taken God's offer then we would be reading a different story about how God had made of Moses a great nation. But all the promises would not be unfulfilled since Moses is also a decendent of Abraham.

--Dave

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Was Jesus killed in eternity, Genesis, or in the first century?

Of course in "time" He was crucified in the first century. with that in mind how do we understand the following verse":

"According as he hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).

How is it possible that some were chosen "in Him" before the foundation of the world since He did not even exist as a flesh and blood man until the first century?

The reason we can read this is that the eternal things of God are timeless. Therefore things that did not happen until the first century can be spoken of as occuring "before the foundation of the world."

In His grace,
Jerry

 

[DFT_Dave]

That is because I never said that!

His question was in regard to the concept of "time" and I stated that based on the "concept of time" that God did indeed exist before the creation.

But the problem is that God does not have a concept of "time", therefore he does not exist before he created the world because there is no "before" in the eternal now, according to you.

--Dave

 

[godrulz]

Of course in "time" He was crucified in the first century. with that in mind how do we understand the following verse":

"According as he hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).

How is it possible that some were chosen "in Him" before the foundation of the world since He did not even exist as a flesh and blood man until the first century?

The reason we can read this is that the eternal things of God are timeless. Therefore things that did not happen until the first century can be spoken of as occuring "before the foundation of the world."

In His grace,
Jerry

Calvinists wrongly assume individual election here. Arminians and Open Theists generally see corporate election with individuals being added to the group as they exist and believe (Arminians assume simple foreknowledge vs predestination, but both are problematic compared to Open Theism's two motifs of some vs all of future predestined/settled).

The context is about the corporate election of the Church (Israel in OT) as the people of God. Election is corporate, conditional, in Christ, not individual, unconditional, apart from Christ.

God chooses, purposes, foreknows to have a Church, but the exact individuals who will eventually receive vs reject Christ are not predestined/foreknown. The Ephesians were believers, so they were in Christ and elect upon faith, not eternal decree nor FK.

Good question though....now let's see what Boyd thinks (he generally words things better than I do...I don't agree with everything he says, but good insights from a former atheist):

http://www.gregboyd.org/qa/open-theism/how-do-you-explain-ephesians-1-and-predestination/

What issues do you have with this reasonable, biblical response to your objection? Other non-Calvinist, non/anti-Open Theist thinkers also support corporate vs individual election: http://www.amazon.com/Elect-Son-Robert-Shank/dp/1556610920

I figured you would be less Calvinistic. Are you with the Pam B. and what is his name...they guy who is anti-Christmas, arrogant, MAD and Calvinist with ? part Japanese or something looks? What is his name someone? His avatar was his facial picture...? goatee.

Was it Jim Hilston? Did he change to philosophizer? Never mind. Knight confirmed Jim.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Yes, the promises to Abraham and the nation of Israel were always conditional anyway.

There are no "conditions" attached to the following promise:

"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be" (Gen.49:10).

Despite the fact that no conditions were attached you say that if certain conditions were not met then the promise would never be fulfilled.

What are the "conditions" and who had to fulfill those conditions?

Genesis 18:19 For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice, that the Lord may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him.”

this is about things that were spoken to Abraham, and that has nothing to do with Genesis 49:10.

Genesis 22:15 Then the Angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time out of heaven, 16 and said: “By Myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son 17 blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies. 18 In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”

This is about conditions which Abraham had already fufilled and not about fulfilling conditions so that Genesis 49:10 would be fulfilled.

Genesis 25:1 There was a famine in the land, besides the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went to Abimelech king of the Philistines, in Gerar. 2 Then the Lord appeared to him and said: “Do not go down to Egypt; live in the land of which I shall tell you. 3 Dwell in this land, and I will be with you and bless you; for to you and your descendants I give all these lands, and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. 4 And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; 5 because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.”

Again, this is not about a future fulfilling of conditions but instead something that had already happened--"because Abraham obeyed My voice."

Exodus 19:3 And Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: 4 You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Myself. 5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. 6 And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”

Here the fulfillment of the conditions were in regard to Israel becoming a "kingdom of priests" and a "holy nation."

Those conditions have nothing to do with the fulfillment of Genesis 49:10.

Deuteronomy 28:1“Now it shall come to pass, if you diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all His commandments which I command you today, that the Lord your God will set you high above all nations of the earth. 2 And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, because you obey the voice of the Lord your God:

15 “But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:

63 And it shall be, that just as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good and multiply you, so the Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you and bring you to nothing; and you shall be plucked from off the land which you go to possess. 64 “Then the Lord will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other.

None of those conditions apply to Genesis 49:10.

If Moses had taken God's offer then we would be reading a different story about how God had made of Moses a great nation. But all the promises would not be unfulfilled since Moses is also a decendent of Abraham.

The promise of Genesis 49:10 is in regard to Judah and his Descendant, the Lion of Judah, and not to Abraham. Moses was of the tribe of Levi and not Judah.

In His grace,
Jerry

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Calvinists wrongly assume individual election here. Arminians and Open Theists generally see corporate election with individuals being added to the group as they exist and believe (Arminians assume simple foreknowledge vs predestination, but both are problematic compared to Open Theism's two motifs of some vs all of future predestined/settled).

That is not why I quoted the verse and I cannot for the life of me why you thought that the issue I was raising was about "individual election." If you will read what I said then you will see that this verse teaches that the eternal things of God are timeless:

Of course in "time" He was crucified in the first century. with that in mind how do we understand the following verse":

"According as he hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).

How is it possible that some were chosen "in Him" before the foundation of the world since He did not even exist as a flesh and blood man until the first century?

The reason we can read this is that the eternal things of God are timeless. Therefore things that did not happen until the first century can be spoken of as occuring "before the foundation of the world."

In His grace,
Jerry

 

[DFT_Dave]

There are no "conditions" attached to the following promise:

"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be" (Gen.49:10).

Despite the fact that no conditions were attached you say that if certain conditions were not met then the promise would never be fulfilled.

What are the "conditions" and who had to fulfill those conditions?

this is about things that were spoken to Abraham, and that has nothing to do with Genesis 49:10.

This is about conditions which Abraham had already fufilled and not about fulfilling conditions so that Genesis 49:10 would be fulfilled.

Again, this is not about a future fulfilling of conditions but instead something that had already happened--"because Abraham obeyed My voice."

Here the fulfillment of the conditions were in regard to Israel becoming a "kingdom of priests" and a "holy nation."

Those conditions have nothing to do with the fulfillment of Genesis 49:10.

None of those conditions apply to Genesis 49:10.


The promise of Genesis 49:10 is in regard to Judah and his Descendant, the Lion of Judah, and not to Abraham. Moses was of the tribe of Levi and not Judah.

In His grace,
Jerry

The conditions of "obeying God's commands" in order to receive the promise are very obvious to anybody who reads through the story from Abraham to Moses. I didn't think you would surrender your bias based on the context of scripture anyway. But never the less, it's important to establish this in your mind, that you may see the truth eventually.

--Dave

 

[Jerry Shugart]

But the problem is that God does not have a concept of "time", therefore he does not exist before he created the world because there is no "before" in the eternal now, according to you.

God created "time" so it is impossible that He does not have a concept of time. He is not bound by time so therefore He is not restrained by "time" and He therefore does not live in "time."

The following verse demonstrates that He is neitherr bound nor constrained by time:

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day"(2 Pet.3:8).

Since this shows a speeding up of time while at the same time it shows a slowing down of time it is evident that "time" has no holds on Him. This shows that time is not relevant to His existence..

But when you ask a question in regard to something about "time" (as your question about the existence of God "before" creation implies) your question can only be answered with the concept of time in view. If the Lord was specifically asked a question in regard to the timeline of which man is aware He would say that He existed before the creation.

In His grace,
Jerry

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The conditions of "obeying God's commands" in order to receive the promise are very obvious to anybody who reads through the story from Abraham to Moses. I didn't think you would surrender your bias based on the context of scripture anyway. But never the less, it's important to establish this in mind, that you may see the truth eventually.

Just because you assert that there is a condition attached to genesis 49:10 does not mean that there is a condition.

When I asked you what that condition is and who must fulfill those so-called conditions you have no answer.

There are unconditional promises of God in the Scriptures whether or not you believe that there are. Just because you say that a promise is conditional means nothing unless you can name those conditions. And you have not done that.

This leaves a HUGE, UNSURMOUNTABLE problem for those who advocate the "Open View."

In His grace,
Jerry

 

[DFT_Dave]

Just because you assert that there is a condition attached to genesis 49:10 does not mean that there is a condition.

When I asked you what that condition is and who must fulfill those so-called conditions you have no answer.

There are unconditional promises of God in the Scriptures whether or not you believe that there are. Just because you say that a promise is conditional means nothing unless you can name those conditions. And you have not done that.

This leaves a HUGE, UNSURMOUNTABLE problem for those who advocate the "Open View."

In His grace,
Jerry

As I said before if Moses had taken God's offer then we would be reading a different story about how God had made of Moses a great nation. But all the promises would not be unfulfilled since Moses is also a decendent of Abraham. And some promises may not be fulfilled, such as Gen. 49:10. Abraham fulfilled the conditions of "obeying and believing God" when he was willing to offer up his son Isaac.

The conditions of "obey my commandments" is repeated over and over again to Israel.

Dueteronomy 8:1 “Every commandment which I command you today you must be careful to observe, that you may live and multiply, and go in and possess the land of which the Lord swore to your fathers. 2 And you shall remember that the Lord your God led you all the way these forty years in the wilderness, to humble you and test you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not."

Dueteronomy10:12 “And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways and to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13 and to keep the commandments of the Lord and His statutes which I command you today for your good?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

God created "time" so it is impossible that He does not have a concept of time. He is not bound by time so therefore He is not restrained by "time" and He therefore does not live in "time."

The following verse demonstrates that He is neitherr bound nor constrained by time:

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day"(2 Pet.3:8).

Since this shows a speeding up of time while at the same time it shows a slowing down of time it is evident that "time" has no holds on Him. This shows that time is not relevant to His existence..

But when you ask a question in regard to something about "time" (as your question about the existence of God "before" creation implies) your question can only be answered with the concept of time in view. If the Lord was specifically asked a question in regard to the timeline of which man is aware He would say that He existed before the creation.

In His grace,
Jerry

If God does not live in time there would be no "before" for him in relation to the creation of the world. In a "timeless" eternity God could not have existed "before" he created the world so the world has always existed. This is so simple to understand.

A day passes for God just as does a thousand years passes for God. This verse is not about timelessness. Peter merely comments on how long it will be before the return of Christ, for us a long time, for God not so long.

If there was no "before" for God, Jesus would be lying if he said there was.

Time for God is "sequence of activity", God does not do everything all at once. He does some things before he does other things.

--Dave

 

[Jerry Shugart]

As I said before if Moses had taken God's offer then we would be reading a different story about how God had made of Moses a great nation. But all the promises would not be unfulfilled since Moses is also a decendent of Abraham. And some promises may not be fulfilled, such as Gen. 49:10. Abraham fulfilled the conditions of "obeying and believing God" when he was willing to offer up his son Isaac.

The conditions of "obey my commandments" is repeated over and over again to Israel.

But that condition" is never applied to Genesis 49:10. If that "condition" did apply to that verse then we would have read that "condition" attached in some way to that verse. But that promise is "unconditional" and no matter how much you must depart from the context of Genesis 49:10 in order to try to find a "condition" you will fail. That is because the promise is "unconditional."

Dueteronomy 8:1 “Every commandment which I command you today you must be careful to observe, that you may live and multiply, and go in and possess the land of which the Lord swore to your fathers. 2 And you shall remember that the Lord your God led you all the way these forty years in the wilderness, to humble you and test you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not."

So you found a "condition" here. The problem with that "condition" is that it is not in regard to Genesis 49:10.

Dueteronomy10:12 “And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways and to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13 and to keep the commandments of the Lord and His statutes which I command you today for your good?

This says nothing about the requirements for the fulfilment of the promise of Genesis 49:10.

The conditions of "obeying God's commands" in order to receive the promise are very obvious to anybody who reads through the story from Abraham to Moses.

Here is what is said about the fulfillment of the promises made by the hand of Moses:

"Blessed be the LORD, that hath given rest unto his people Israel, according to all that he promised: there hath not failed one word of all his good promise, which he promised by the hand of Moses his servant" (1 Ki.8:56).

The fact that there are no conditions attached to the promise of Genesis 49:10 proves that your theory is bankrupt and this in turn proves to be a HUGE, UNSURMOUNTABLE problem for those who adhere to the "Open View."

Those within the "Open" community cannot tell the difference between verses that are obviously "figurative" in nature from those that are to be taken "literally."

In His grace,
Jerry

 

[Jerry Shugart]

A day passes for God just as does a thousand years passes for God.

But you forgot to mention that a thousand years passes for God just as does a day passes for God.

Since with God there is a speeding up of time while there is also a slowing down of time it is obvious that the "laws of time" which apply to mankind does not apply to God. But you would have us believe that He is constrained by the same "laws of time" as is mankind.

God is not bound by time and time is no constraint upon Him. In fact, time has no revelance in His eternal state. He is timeless.

And since with Him there is a speeding up of time while there is also a slowing down of time it is useless to argue that He is under the same "laws of time" as is mankind. Everyone knows that the same thing cannot be said of man.

In His grace,
Jerry

 

[Zeke]

As I said before if Moses had taken God's offer then we would be reading a different story about how God had made of Moses a great nation. But all the promises would not be unfulfilled since Moses is also a decendent of Abraham. And some promises may not be fulfilled, such as Gen. 49:10. Abraham fulfilled the conditions of "obeying and believing God" when he was willing to offer up his son Isaac.

The conditions of "obey my commandments" is repeated over and over again to Israel.

Dueteronomy 8:1 “Every commandment which I command you today you must be careful to observe, that you may live and multiply, and go in and possess the land of which the Lord swore to your fathers. 2 And you shall remember that the Lord your God led you all the way these forty years in the wilderness, to humble you and test you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not."

Dueteronomy10:12 “And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways and to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13 and to keep the commandments of the Lord and His statutes which I command you today for your good?

--Dave

It would have made Jacob a liar! seeing he foretold the future of his sons by the Spirit before Moses was born.
Boy good thing for Jacob Moses was there.

 

[DFT_Dave]

It would have made Jacob a liar! seeing he foretold the future of his sons by the Spirit before Moses was born.
Boy good thing for Jacob Moses was there.

And it was a good thing for all of us that Noah was there.

--Dave

 

[Jerry Shugart]

And it was a good thing for all of us that Noah was there.

Here is another example where God changes His mind and instead of destroying all of mankind he spares a few. Before Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord He said:

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them" (Gen.6:5-7).

Was it really in the plans of God to destroy mankind at that point? Was this a realistic option?

Of course not!

If God destroyed all of mankind then the following statement made by Him would have never been fulfilled:

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" (Gen.3:15).

God says that if He says something then He will make it happen:

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" (Num.23:19).

If the Lord would have destroyed mankind at that point then what He said at Genesis 3:15 would not have been "made good."

this would have made Him a liar, but we know that God cannot lie:

"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began" (Titus 1:2).

What does all of this teach us. That any narrative that shows God changing His mind cannot be taken literally. It can only be understood in a figurative sense.

The same can be said about the word "repent" as used in the same verse:

"And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them" (Gen.6:6-7).

Did the Lord really change His mind in regard to the fact that He had created man?

If He did not create man then He would never have received the love from all of His saints. He would have never received the praise of the glory of His grace. So again, we can only conclude that His words in regard to having a change of mind in regard to the creation of man cannot be taken literally.

Those within the "Open Theology" community cannot distinguish between which things should be taken literally and which things shouldn't.

In His grace,
Jerry