ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Again consider what you are saying about God if you assert this position from -Genesis 18:20-21 as literal.
1) If God had to go down and see, He cannot even be said to have perfect present knowledge (i.e. He couldn't know without looking, the action had already taken place). Every OVer will fight you tooth/nail over this. They believe God has perfect present and past knowledge.
2) He couldn't be omnipresent. He'd actually have to travel from one place to another. He couldn't be listening to prayer from me without leaving you where you are to hear my request. He couldn't know all men's hearts and thoughts all at once.

Please, for your sake, learn today.

You know I'm not a moron or stupid. Be honest about people, not hurtful. I haven't given you any reason to be mean. I haven't reacted to you in a hurtful or angry rhetorical manner at all. I'm speaking gently, truthfully, and carefully. I'm addressing the post and treating you with respect.
If I were saying that God was incapable of knowing you would have a point. But that is not what I am saying. I am saying He didn't know because He didn't want to know. He had chosen not to look upon sin, and those cities were exceedingly abundant with it.

And you are a moron, because you're too stupid to understand what I was saying.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Again consider what you are saying about God if you assert this position from -Genesis 18:20-21 as literal.
1) If God had to go down and see, He cannot even be said to have perfect present knowledge (i.e. He couldn't know without looking, the action had already taken place). Every OVer will fight you tooth/nail over this. They believe God has perfect present and past knowledge.
2) He couldn't be omnipresent. He'd actually have to travel from one place to another. He couldn't be listening to prayer from me without leaving you where you are to hear my request. He couldn't know all men's hearts and thoughts all at once.

Please, for your sake, learn today.

You know I'm not a moron or stupid. Be honest about people, not hurtful. I haven't given you any reason to be mean. I haven't reacted to you in a hurtful or angry rhetorical manner at all. I'm speaking gently, truthfully, and carefully. I'm addressing the post and treating you with respect.


Maturity/integrity vs immaturity; truth vs error.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
If I were saying that God was incapable of knowing you would have a point. But that is not what I am saying. I am saying He didn't know because He didn't want to know. He had chosen not to look upon sin, and those cities were exceedingly abundant with it.

And you are a moron, because you're too stupid to understand what I was saying.

Lon is correct that you are compromising omniscience, even from an Open Theist qualified perspective. Enyart/Clete is not right on this one.

God cannot choose to not know things the devil and men know (He is a perfect Judge, not ignorant of anything knowable...He can handle seeing sin, so don't assume He is like you).
 

Lon

Well-known member
Well, we clearly have that nacham means repent.

Now:

re·pent 1 (rĭ-pěnt')
v. re·pent·ed, re·pent·ing, re·pents

v. intr.

  1. To feel remorse, contrition, or self-reproach for what one has done or failed to do; be contrite.
  2. To feel such regret for past conduct as to change one's mind regarding it: repented of intemperate behavior.
  3. To make a change for the better as a result of remorse or contrition for one's sins.

v. tr.

  1. To feel regret or self-reproach for: repent one's sins.
  2. To cause to feel remorse or regret.


[Middle English repenten, from Old French repentir : re-, re- + pentir, to be sorry (from Vulgar Latin *paenitīre, from Latin paenitēre).]

re·pent'er n.

Repent
Re*pent"\ (r?-p?nt"), v. i. [imp. & p. p. Repented; p. pr. & vb. n. Repenting.] [F. se repentir; L. pref. re- re- + poenitere to make repent, poenitet me it repents me, I repent. See Penitent.]1. To feel pain, sorrow, or regret, for what one has done or omitted to do. First she relents With pity; of that pity then repents. --Dryden. 2. To change the mind, or the course of conduct, on account of regret or dissatisfaction. Lest, peradventure, the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt. --Ex. xiii. 17. 3. (Theol.) To be sorry for sin as morally evil, and to seek forgiveness; to cease to love and practice sin. Except ye repent, ye shall likewise perish. --Luke xii. 3.

Let me carefully take them one at a time.

First of all, to the Hebrew word. It means literally 'to sigh.'
In connection with what is going on, we interpret the sigh, hence the ideas given. Notice that repent is only one of several ways to read that 'sigh.'

Second, if it is indeed contextual to say 'repent,' you and I have to ask which of the definitions we are considering.
1) self-contrition, remorse - Did God make a mistake in making Saul King?
He told Samuel it would not work right off the bat 1Sa 8:18
2) repented of intemporate behavior - I don't think you want this one on your table. It means God not only made a bad choice, but lacked temperance (self-control).
3) remorse over one's sins - worse yet, we don't even consider it.

Note that your last one is also dealing with sin.

1Sa 15:29 The Preeminent One [Lord] of Israel does not go back on his word or change his mind[nâcham - sigh], for he is not a human being who changes his mind[nâcham - sigh]."

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

One of these must be translated sigh for the verses come right next to each other.

We have similar words that must be translated in context for them to make sense.

That man who did that was horribly wicked.

That concert last night was wicked.

We know, even though the word is the same, that there is distinction: One means heinous, the other terrific.

It is the same with nâcham - sigh, regret. I believe from other scriptures, that God does not make mistakes and so doesn't repent. He feels for our pain, but it cannot be a change of mind toward sin. Sighing over making Saul king is not a poor choice, God allows it per 1Samuel 8:18. This doesn't mean He doesn't grieve for His people. It means He grieves and still does what is necessary. He makes no mistakes to be repentent of. His 'sigh' must be seen as emotionally involved with His children. If I discipline my kids and they cry, I sigh in sharing their pains. I cannot relent until I have their response, whether I can guess it coming or not. They have to respond and discipline is aimed at effecting that corrective response.
 

Lon

Well-known member
If I were saying that God was incapable of knowing you would have a point. But that is not what I am saying. I am saying He didn't know because He didn't want to know. He had chosen not to look upon sin, and those cities were exceedingly abundant with it.

And you are a moron, because you're too stupid to understand what I was saying.

Or because I don't agree with you?

You can be as vitriolic as you wish. I'll not return evil for evil here.

If my gentle answer does not appease, I have nothing left. I'll leave you with what I've written.
 

Lon

Well-known member

You are correct:

NIV

NET

NASB

Again, I just don't like the colloquial term. It is better expressed as sighing where the implications follow. The text cannot literally say "changed His mind" for that is a thought paraphrase rather than a word for word translation and it carries both a vague and corruptible concept as a colloquial term (will lose objectivity as the phrase falls into disuse, is already inaccurate). No one literally changes their mind, we all have the same mind. It is rather that we can change a decision and I don't have any problem with that concerning these scriptural considerations (it conveys more properly that situations can change so that we can redress the situation).

Examples:
"I'm not going to the party."

"What's-his-name won't be there."

"Really? Maybe I'll go."

My mind didn't really change, the situation did.

"The people will not like their king." 1Sa 8:18

"Saul is a lousy king" 1Sa 15:23

God rejects Saul for rejecting Him. 1Sa 15:26

God does not change His mind Compare 1Sa 15:26; 1Sa 15:35

He doesn't change His mind about Saul even after Saul begs forgiveness.
His judgement for the action remains. 1Sa 16:1 shows His resolve.
1Sa 8:18 and especially 1Sa 13:14 (He'd already been preparing Saul's replacement) show His foreknowledge.
1Sa 15:35 should, then, be seen as a sigh rather than a change of mind. It is addressed specifically to Saul's actions and already rejected status foretold in 1 Samuel 8:18 and further in 1Sa 12 .

There are presuppositions that steer my exegesis, we can hardly avoid these as we come to the texts with what we believe priority and emphasis. With such, we disagree of course, but I hope it at least levels the concerns for good assessments respectively.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Just because a situation or contingency changes does not mean you will change your course necessarily. An event may be cancelled, but you could show up anyway or change your mind/intention (reasonable concept) and not show up.

Hezekiah was a change of course for God in response to a changing contingency/prayer. The future is not fatalistically fixed, nor is God/man a deterministic robot.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Just because a situation or contingency changes does not mean you will change your course necessarily. An event may be cancelled, but you could show up anyway or change your mind/intention (reasonable concept) and not show up.

Hezekiah was a change of course for God in response to a changing contingency/prayer. The future is not fatalistically fixed, nor is God/man a deterministic robot.

I tend to agree. I don't think a Calvinist must see predeterminism as linear.

Let me try to explain how I'd see this (I'm a Calvinist noob so bear with me and forgive if I miss a premise).

God sees our future clearly. It is like fast-fowarding so that He sees what is actualized. At the same time; He is, in grace, interfering purposefully to steer man toward Savior. This would and does undoubtedly change our course. It doesn't resist our understanding of our decisions, but gives further parameters for how we respond (and further constraints). I don't think OV has a problem with that, freewill can be influenced and coerced.

When I come to a school, if the kids are resistant, I have a whole set of parameters set up for how to deal with them as with the compliant class. My goal is the same so it isn't really a change of mind, it is a change in how I address the classroom needs. My repertoire' is the same. Sometimes I get to have fun, sometimes I have to fight battles. Although I'm not perfect, God is. I may actually cause some of my own problems some days.

I don't think it is a good place to see God as needing to repent (change His repetiore'). It seems to me, that an omnicasual God is no contradiction to Foreknowledge and again, I believe the time consideration important to this discussion. God is unconstrained by time parameters as eternal. If all you meant by that were that God simply responds to given situations as appropriate, I think repent is a good word for that. It is when it gets confused with limitation upon the foreknowledge definition that I believe it causes problems (conjuntive problem rather than translation).

I don't think determinism is a problem either. With pre- we are just talking about prior determinations (like discipline repertoire' for a teacher). God determines as we go along what will and will not happen. That is His right as Creator and Lover involved with His creation.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Do you agree with TULIP?

Yes

T-otal depravity (total inability) - Salvation is completely God's work. Total depravity does not mean man has nothing left intact to redeem as some misunderstand.

U-nconditional Election - There is no merit in man that He should be chosen over another. God shows no favoritism.

I did and still do wrestle with portions of this, but as I understand this doctrine, it isn't a big hanging issue. We are chosen by God in Christ. It has to do with God not only foreknowing, but through whatever means is applying grace appropriately. Some deem this determinism, which is most certainly involved. How exactly it works is a debate point but it is written in addressing the Arminian side of concerns that would/might give meritorious favor to man for his salvation.
Eph 2:8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God;
Eph 2:9 it is not from works, so that no one can boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them.
John 10:16
I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.
John 6:44, 65
“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. . . .” And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”
John 15:16
"You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.
Joh 17:20 "I am not praying only on their behalf, but also on behalf of those who believe in me through their testimony,
Joh 17:21 that they will all be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. I pray that they will be in us, so that the world will believe that you sent me.
Joh 17:22 The glory you gave to me I have given to them, that they may be one just as we are one —
Joh 17:23 I in them and you in me — that they may be completely one, so that the world will know that you sent me, and you have loved them just as you have loved me.
Joh 17:24 "Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, so that they can see my glory that you gave me because you loved me before the creation of the world.
Joh 17:25 Righteous Father, even if the world does not know you, I know you, and these men know that you sent me.
Joh 17:26 I made known your name to them, and I will continue to make it known, so that the love you have loved me with may be in them, and I may be in them."
So, this one I'm still working on, but I understand the premise and the scriptures. It is true, but I'm still struggling over exactly what this means in predestination and application. Regardless, I have to see these as emphatic and truthful scripture. This is why there are 4 point Calvinists.
For me coming to accept this, it was more about the fact that in not understanding this, one might be lead to the opposite conclusion: God shows arbitrary favoritism in choosing some and rejecting others. At the same time, it presumes upon mercy and grace as meritorious or that "everyone should get a fair shake at Salvation." The problem with these is that it presumes upon grace. God's counsel is wise, loving, and right. We do not have to question, but trust. We may not know all the reasons, but I trust God. I do not believe Him arbitrary, for that is a show of neglected favoritism of which this doctrine is written to avoid. It is written to avoid the very thing that theologians would reject about it. Once I got past that hurdle, it was much more palatable to me and was my entry point into embracing 5 point Calvinism.

L-imited Atonement - Christ's redemptive work is 100% effectual but not all will be saved. Atonement means: Made right with God. Only His sheep are atoned.
Mar 12:10 Have you not read this scripture: 'The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner;
Mar 12:11 this was the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes'?"
Joh 17:9 I am praying on behalf of them. I am not prayingon behalf of the world, but on behalf of those you have given me, because they belong to you.
Christ is the Cornerstone or stumbling block to men respectively. His atonement works only for those who do not reject or stumble.

I-rresistable Grace -
Rom 9:15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
Rom 9:16 So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy.
Eph 2:8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God;
Eph 2:9 it is not from works, so that no one can boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them.
God pursues His own so that they are transformed. This does not mean God's grace cannot be resisted, but that ultimately God wins all the battles He chooses to fight. Jonah ran, Moses ran. Grace is such that in power, beauty, and love, the one finding it cannot resist.

P-erseverance of the Saints
- This to me isn't OSAS doctrine, but a truth:
2Co 5:17 So then, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; what is old has passed away — look, what is new has come!
Mat 7:17 In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad23 tree bears bad fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree is not able to bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree to bear good fruit.
1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us, because if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But they went out from us to demonstrate that all of them do not belong to us.
This is a debate but not devisive in any denomination that I'm aware of. I take a strong doctrinal position that saints will persevere.

It isn't OSAS because only God knows the heart of man. We only see fruit in season and some take time to grow and thrive before the fruit shows. As with the thief on the cross, with some people, their time is too short here to be able to inspect that fruit, but God knows who are His. Others may be influenced toward an appearance of godly fruit imitating those around them but may prove unregenerate. Because we see Salvation often as a 'prayer' I don't want to falsely give hope to one who believes He is saved because he/she at one time said a prayer at the altar.
 

Delmar

Patron Saint of SMACK
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You have to be somewhere and in some time. God is everywhere and thus, every when. Because His past is eternal, it never reaches a point of forward momentum if He is constrained by duration and sequence. If He were not unconstrained by it, He'd never be able to reach a point called now.

Don't make GodRulz' mistake here either. God is both relational to and unconstrained by time, duration, sequence.

Sounds like a lot of gobldy goo to me! The fact that one event happens before another is simply reality! The fact that God is real is not a constraint! The Bible presents God as doing things in sequence and you can't show one example that shows this is not the case.
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
I think this is a good point. There will come a time when death and hell are destroyed, it will be "impossible" for anyone from that point on to sin...to not love God.

Except that they've already made the choice to love God, before they got there

Muz
 

oftenbuzzard

New member
Yes

T-otal depravity (total inability) - Salvation is completely God's work. Total depravity does not mean man has nothing left intact to redeem as some misunderstand.

U-nconditional Election - There is no merit in man that He should be chosen over another. God shows no favoritism.

I did and still do wrestle with portions of this, but as I understand this doctrine, it isn't a big hanging issue. We are chosen by God in Christ. It has to do with God not only foreknowing, but through whatever means is applying grace appropriately. Some deem this determinism, which is most certainly involved. How exactly it works is a debate point but it is written in addressing the Arminian side of concerns that would/might give meritorious favor to man for his salvation.
So, this one I'm still working on, but I understand the premise and the scriptures. It is true, but I'm still struggling over exactly what this means in predestination and application. Regardless, I have to see these as emphatic and truthful scripture. This is why there are 4 point Calvinists.
For me coming to accept this, it was more about the fact that in not understanding this, one might be lead to the opposite conclusion: God shows arbitrary favoritism in choosing some and rejecting others. At the same time, it presumes upon mercy and grace as meritorious or that "everyone should get a fair shake at Salvation." The problem with these is that it presumes upon grace. God's counsel is wise, loving, and right. We do not have to question, but trust. We may not know all the reasons, but I trust God. I do not believe Him arbitrary, for that is a show of neglected favoritism of which this doctrine is written to avoid. It is written to avoid the very thing that theologians would reject about it. Once I got past that hurdle, it was much more palatable to me and was my entry point into embracing 5 point Calvinism.

L-imited Atonement - Christ's redemptive work is 100% effectual but not all will be saved. Atonement means: Made right with God. Only His sheep are atoned.
Christ is the Cornerstone or stumbling block to men respectively. His atonement works only for those who do not reject or stumble.

I-rresistable Grace - God pursues His own so that they are transformed. This does not mean God's grace cannot be resisted, but that ultimately God wins all the battles He chooses to fight. Jonah ran, Moses ran. Grace is such that in power, beauty, and love, the one finding it cannot resist.

P-erseverance of the Saints
- This to me isn't OSAS doctrine, but a truth: This is a debate but not devisive in any denomination that I'm aware of. I take a strong doctrinal position that saints will persevere.

It isn't OSAS because only God knows the heart of man. We only see fruit in season and some take time to grow and thrive before the fruit shows. As with the thief on the cross, with some people, their time is too short here to be able to inspect that fruit, but God knows who are His. Others may be influenced toward an appearance of godly fruit imitating those around them but may prove unregenerate. Because we see Salvation often as a 'prayer' I don't want to falsely give hope to one who believes He is saved because he/she at one time said a prayer at the altar.

Cool post!
 

assuranceagent

New member
Except that they've already made the choice to love God, before they got there

Muz

Muz, in just as concise an answer as the one I quoted, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this question:

Since it was their choice to begin with, what is to preclude them from choosing otherwise later?
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Since it was their choice to begin with, what is to preclude them from choosing otherwise later?

Especially in light of Clete's stance that there cannot be genuine love without the possiblity of hate. (There will be no hatred of God in the new heavens and new earth)
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Muz, in just as concise an answer as the one I quoted, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this question:

Since it was their choice to begin with, what is to preclude them from choosing otherwise later?

Good question. We aren't really told. Probably the same way that Christ came as a human and lived a perfect life in this sinful world.

Maybe a better question is this: Can you violate the law when there is no law?

Muz
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Sounds like a lot of gobldy goo to me! The fact that one event happens before another is simply reality! The fact that God is real is not a constraint! The Bible presents God as doing things in sequence and you can't show one example that shows this is not the case.

God has a history, His Story. Jesus is God and walked in time without ceasing to be God. Timelessness is incoherent for a personal being, even an eternal One (with no beginning or end, but experiencing endless time).
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Good question. We aren't really told. Probably the same way that Christ came as a human and lived a perfect life in this sinful world.

Maybe a better question is this: Can you violate the law when there is no law?

Muz

The lawless act of murder was a sin and breaking of laws based on God's character and sanctity of life (image of God). The first murder preceded the formal, written, codified law, and still had consequences.
 
Top