Can we then say, "God's lies are not our lies"? In other words, can we not even tell what a lie would be for God? Are we really to the point where we can't tell what is a lie for God, because his ways (and therefore His truths) are not accessible to us? I think rather that God is telling us His ways. He was telling Job His ways. He is educating us with His word. So when He tells us something about Himself, like what He expects to happen, we should not then say, "No that is NOT what He expects to happen."
We ARE being educated but, as you well know: 1 Corinthians 13:12 1 John 3:2 As GREAT as any man thinks his/her mind is, it is well below par for where we should be. Can we then say "God, you lied." :nono: I'm having none of that and I've a fair mind and intelligence. Most of us believe enough of our own mistruths aren't as it is. It is truly sad to me when someone thinks he/she is the sole assessor of truth.
This is what God's revelation to us is all about--God reveals Himself to us, and we (hopefully) learn. What I think traditional theists are saying is, "Because we already know enough about God, we can't take the information provided without running it through our knowledge filter." This WAS Job's friends' issue, I'll agree with you. I'm not sure it was Job's issue. See below.
Wasn't it? Job 38:2 :think: Job 40:4 Job 42:3 :think:
I haven't studied the book of Job near enough to make proclamations about it, but I think he felt that he was owed some kind of explanation, and it wasn't forthcoming.
Job 38:2;42:6
I don't see any change of God in the Hezekiah story. I don't see a change of purpose, if you are talking about how He relates with Israel, with the world, in His plan for salvation, or any of that. And if that is the case, then whether Hezekiah lived or died made NO difference to God's plans--of the big picture. But if Hezekiah was to be part of the big picture was eminently important. If I understand correctly, Hezekiah had no children when the prophecy came that he would die. "Putting his house in order", as commanded by Isaiah, meant figuring out who would reign after him, I think. Manasseh was born three years later, and became king when Hez finally died, 15 years later (as promised in the retraction of the first prophecy). If Hez is supposed to be in the line of Christ from day one, then I agree that God can't have meant what He said in prophecy #1. But if it is possible for God to raise up children of Abraham from stones, surely He is able to produce offspring that will fulfill the prophecies about Christ's lineage without Hezekiah, if need be.
If God's understanding of the future changed, is that a change of "mind"? Remember that the idea here is that the future is what God and we make it, so if God changes the future, it is a potential change of His mind about what the future will be. OR if we change the future (by repenting of evil, perhaps, ala Jer 18), then God knows about it when we repent. The repenting doesn't have to be planned before time (and we) began.
Theory is okay. Speculating is okay, but when/if we are presumptuous and such does damage to the character of God, we are in trouble. An extreme example: Demi Lovato made a video in which she hired gays to act and dance and participate and said "Like I said before, the LOVING God that I believe in, would never condemn anyone for loving another human of the same sex."
Demi Lovato
The problem to observe: It doesn't matter what God someone makes up in their head. That's not God, just a made-up non-existing wishful thinking God. It doesn't matter what God we 'want' to exist. It matters which God exists AND we BETTER love THAT God heart, soul, mind, and strength. Note with me with a little fear and trepidation how many people say "the God of Calvinism is" or "the God of Open Theism is..."
It doesn't matter. It is unworthy for our consideration or of discussing our God. Rather, it is who God truly is that we need to be most concerned with. This, also, is one reason I try not to get into 'us/them' debates. In the end, it really doesn't matter. Only those who truly want to know their God rather than wanting to be egocentrically right, are those who will have the correct theology anyway. "My God is like...." Is somewhat pointless because it rather matters what "Our God is like...."
I don't see God's change in understanding of the future as a change in God, but a change in the future, which is not settled. Thus, there is nothing in God that changed, even if Hezekiah's outcome changed.
This statement, to me, denies and requalifies John 16:30 and John 21:17 :think: Does God know all things, or just 'some things?' :think: Who are you or I to make such a judgment about the God of the universe? Unless I get such explicitly from scripture, I just cannot be, but a classical traditional theist. For me, these and other scriptures fairly demand it. I'm not sure how an Open Theist manages it, but it just cannot work as I understand the scriptures. The good news? The two other guys who were wrong were Job's friends and the remedy was prayer and forgiveness. It gives me hope in such discussions as this. Job's friends were, I think, trying, albeit in theological arrogance and supposed high-road proposition. They were just called hard to accounts for poor theology but it was a correction. I think for the most part, our dueling theologies are on par within His
Do you think all those are required if we say God changed his _____ (fill in blank) on Hezekiah? Does that mean God is more human or less just or more fickle or less loving or more like the Greek gods? I don't see it.
It comes from other scriptural presuppositions. Calvinism is very much premise upon premise of scriptures. In this case, God has the number of our hairs always numbered Matthew 10:30 Philippians 2:13 James 4:14 Ephesians 2:10 (btw, I think MUCH more important than our debate/discussion, are the scriptures we bring to the table) and is Sovereign (lords/controls/makes happen) over His creation. Daniel 4:35 Acts 5:39 Romans 8:28; 9:19-21
And I don't see implications of imperfection with an open future. If God knows what the future is in a settled future, however, and then the future changes, I see implications of imperfection. That's what the Hezekiah story describes, thus you seem to be the one clinging to an imperfect God. Now, you can disagree with me about what the story is describing, and say that it is really describing a non-event in the settled future (where Hez dies, instead of surviving), but it is a fantasy in a settled future.
I think it is important that all Open Theists do 1) because most of us believers are not Open. There are few of you so it is important to know 'why' most Christians are not. 2) Traditional/Classic theology carries other presuppositional scripture truths as paramount to proper theology and one of these is that God not knowing the future is tantamount to a future outside of His reality. He is ALREADY the first and last. He is ALREADY infinite. Such a theory is not supported well by any scripture and does damage to scriptural doctrines concerning the very essence and character of God and importantly, "as revealed in scriptures." We really have to serve one another by pointing repeatedly to scriptures on this debate. I can see no higher or better purpose to these discussions than causing a brother/sister to read and consider the scriptures together further. Thank you again, for such.
So, I guess we can go down the road CS Lewis took, and say that God either believes that Hez is going to die (and is not omniscient), or He believes that Hez is going to live (and is not telling what He really believes, which I've called "lying"), or He believes Hez is going to die until the situation changes, then He reacts to the new situation (and both His omniscience and His honor are preserved--at the expense of the settled future). Why would you hold to the settled-ness of the future over the character of God?
Exactly the opposite as addressed above, but thanks for your sincere thoughts and feedback. I have to believe God is somewhat handicapped in talking to us because we are handicapped in what we actually can conceive and understand. How much? I think a great deal. Again, I'm encouraged by how God treated Job's friends. They were certainly wrong and chastised, but... Hebrews 12:5-9
And I think they, whatever other faults they may have, are not lazily accepting traditional explanations that are internally contradictory.
Yet, some of this IS problematic in that laymen who haven't studied near enough, are gaining the pastorate and imho, without really the where-with-all to lead flocks when they have little knowledge of the overall progression and 'scriptural' founding of some of these important truths. When I see an Open Theist being able to interact with scriptures without explaining away "Lord you know all things," I'm encouraged.
How do you stop someone that has decided to rebel? Kill them? Chain them up? Banish them? All these methods are used by God against rebels. But I don't see story in scripture where God fixes a rebellion problem by first altering someone's mind to think good thoughts instead of bad. Even the Westminster Confession recoils at such a thought--"nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures". I recognize this is a caveat for the foregoing, where God is ordaining everything, but it is important to see where they were on this topic of free will.
Wasn't Saul's conversion exactly this way? :think: Philippians 2:13 Isn't Ephesians 2:10 true of you? How much of 'you' do you want to keep? We are incredibly self-preserving. None of us wants to die to self. John 12:24,25
Your questions are good ones. And I think we do ourselves a disservice when we say these questions are too much to consider. God tells us in several places what He is attempting to do--have a godly people. If a godly people always chooses right over wrong, how do they get to that point? Do they have to experience sin in some way in order to see their need for 1. salvation (yes) and 2. godliness (I think so). But there is no such thing as "godliness" in a robot. (My attempt to segue into the following:...)
For me, God can use us in one another's life but scripture, His word, does not return void and Ephesians 2:10 may seem invasive, but to me, extremely comforting along with Philippians 2:13 because sink or swim, in the end, God wins AND He carries us to completion Philippians 1:6
The aversion to arrogance in our talk is commendable. Let's not use it to avoid discussion, however.
Rather, and I think you catch some of it, my point is/was a 'rest' that I entered in Him. Hebrews 4:11 and again Ephesians 2:10
I think your example touches on both the salvation and the godliness aspect of your child. But does your child recognize what you've done and make the right choice next time, if he never experiences the result of his impetuousness? I say he doesn't (supposition on my part). That's why we get lots of opportunities to say "no" for lesser things than running in front of cars (like touching hot stoves, perhaps). If I had the ability to bring my child back from the dead, maybe I wouldn't be quite too quick to inhibit his street access. I don't know.... There are way too many pieces of this puzzle that I haven't figured out.
You are not sovereign my friend. This question kind of assumes it. While I'm not into shirking 'responsibility' and there is a dichotomy between doing, and God doing, I'm convinced and with Hebrews 4:11 try to make every effort to enter that rest which I believe is knowing He is keeping His promises.
I guess I don't understand how I'm making the rules. I didn't invent the definition of "lie". I didn't invent the story of Hezekiah. And I'm not inventing how the two play together. I'm using a normal definition of "lie" to say that God can't say two opposite prophecies of the future that apply to the same person without there being an element of uncertainty in the outcome at some point. Why is that "making the rules"?
I sometimes assess the open theist is making a child-like first response accusation. There are some Open Theists I have on ignore simply because they actually ARE simple. They just think two-dimensionally and cannot get it through their heads they aren't 'brilliant' but actually shallow. There was a time on TOL I'd get 'baited' by simplistic yes/no questions that truly aren't but simpleton questions like "Can God make a rock He cannot pick up?" (the problem is a simple and simplistic mind for asking this particular question, the answer is "poor/incorrect comprehension of what you are 'trying' to ask - I used to have this limited understanding too, when I first heard the question).
Interaction 'in' time might change those things, but "future" is not 'in' time. It's outside of time. Does that make sense? Future is the realm of God in traditional theism. If God can't get His own realm correct when He reveals it to us, can you convince anyone that God has power over his realm?
Not my job and not 'my' wisdom, as smart as I think I am. :nono: Rather God IS the premier and for me, only Player worth mentioning. Let me state/ask this way: Is there ANY point to playing chess with God? 1) Can you EVER beat Him? :nono: 2) Is that ever going to change? :nono: So, 'what is the point?' I maintain, in the traditional sense, that the point is that "I" will change and get better for the effort. I don't pray to 'win.' Many many times, I pray rather "God, you know better than I" when praying on behalf of another.
And I was never a Calvinist--I was just a member of a Calvinist church for 11 years (after taking 4 years trying to decide if I should join)--though I didn't always know why I toed the line without jumping in. I'm not saying this to save face with other non-Calvinists or for any other reason than that I didn't agree with some things, and I couldn't put my finger on what it was. I think I can say now that it was the internal inconsistency. I joined with voiced reservations to the elders, and they understood that.
For me? I've been in NO denomination that has consistency, including Open Theists. I absolutely see problems in all theological schools of thought (how could any of us not? This very thread points them out, clearly, imho).
And to clarify, I neither thought God lied then, nor do I now think He lied. I'm saying it is the only logical conclusion in Calvinism.
Why do YOU get to be spokesman for/to Calvinism? I, as a Calvinist, have never, ever, thought God lied. :think: I'm trying to tell you, you are imposing that upon Calvinism 'as if' it were true. It is an accusation/assessment, that most of us Calvinists do not share. Honestly, as a good thinking Calvinist, this thought just hasn't been on the table and never will be. To me, it seems you are saying that in order 'for you' to have been or could be Calvinist, you'd have to assume God is lying 'from your own' viewpoint. If so, fair enough.
You didn't know the future. God did in your belief system. You wouldn't be lying, because you only knew what you knew. Yours was a contingent prophecy. God could, if He foretold a false outcome, because He already knew the real outcome, supposedly. This is the difference between His omniscience and your non-omniscience in your example and belief system.
Again, this places you as the arbiter of 'truth.' I know, per fact, both you and I have believe falsehoods were/are true. What does this do to your and my objectivity in being arbiters? It doesn't. God is judge alone and we are presumptuous otherwise. Job, again, was presumptuous with God until God asked him "who is ACTUALLY God, you or me?" :noway: (paraphrase, but that's what He asked Job from Job 39-41)
Who's accusing God? I'm certainly not--unless you have assumed your interpretation of the scriptures is the truth. But we don't dethrone God by seeking Him out--by learning about Him from His revelation. We only dethrone God when we say we know more about Him than He has revealed to us. If He reveals to us that He knows that Hezekiah will die, and we say, "No, God, you already know that he is going to live another 15 years", we are rejecting His revelation of Himself. And if we reject His revelation of Himself--we say that it is not true--we call God a liar.
See, here, you know more than I do in such assumption. You are making up the 'if this, THEN this." Well, yes, if this/then of course, probably, likely, maybe this, but both the premise AND the conclusion are assumed. It is like being cocky with asking if God can create a rock He cannot pick up. I've seen a few agnostics/atheists get really full of themselves and at one time I did mistake cocky for intelligence, vibrato for knowledgeable. In this case, with you, I do see your point but I just don't buy the conclusion. It isn't a 'certain must' nor is it the only option. Let me try to demonstrate:
1) God tells Hezekiah he is going to die
2) Hezekiah doesn't die
.: God lied
I realize you are seeing this ONLY from a Calvinistic viewpoint BUT your proposition applies directly to an Open Theist's understanding too. Do you know why? (why it needs work btw, it isn't true and you never escaped the same problem when you eschewed Calvinism - it is true of Open Theism "if" true (it isn't thankfully for either of us
).
I'm trying to offer a scenario where it is more apparent that God did not tell the future correctly. If there are no scenarios where God could ever lie, because we just turn it around and say that it doesn't count as a lie, then God never shows His character--He never shows ANY character in the realm of truth of falsehood.
Somewhat true and good thoughts here. It applies to your kobayashi maru scenario above. We need to know our limitations and when we are asking no-win or illogical scenarios.
He can't sincerely say, "test me now in this" (Mal 3:10) in ANY circumstance, because if we put Him to the test, and He doesn't do what He says, you will just say, "He meant it in another fashion that we can't comprehend." It makes the whole of His revelation about Himself a joke.
:nono: Else that would be a lie. RATHER, entertain with me that your logic could use some help here, with me. Before I get too cocky, I don't always know the answer, I've just come to be able to recognize illogical scenarios better. Seeing the problem in them doesn't mean I can answer for God. In the end, we still, between us, have to trust Him.
Again, you are using your definition of God as a filter for how to view God. Thus "perfect" is not how God describes Himself, but how you describe Him (or how you describe perfection).
"I change not" is rather His definition. It is VERY important we get this right.
Then you are ok with God not knowing the future exhaustively, since "perfection" could entail some change (read: "new") information?
There cannot be anything 'new' in a glass of water. Now I realize infinite is the contrast and such entails 'new' but we have to understand that God is ALREADY infinite. How? :idunno: This is one of those mind-boggling scenarios but I find it theologically, scripturally consistent to believe He is all-knowing. Scripture says He is. For me, I 'think' it dangerous to second-guess such scriptural givens. It certainly isn't a desire to 'be Greek' between either of us to wrestle over these scriptures. We are rather trying to ensure that whatever theology we embrace, it grasps all scriptures. To date, I know of no theology position that doesn't have tension with some scriptures.
But the passage about Hezekiah is telling us what GOD knew, not what Hezekiah knew. And then it tells us that God knew something different--something opposite. The only way that can work, it seems to me, is for the information to have changed--the information God possessed changed.
Yes, but 'if/then lie' isn't cut and dry logic here. As I said, it applies, equally, genuinely, to Open Theism as well. It is a 'logical' problem, not a denominational specific problem. You truly haven't escaped it, just not thought of it. The good thing about Open Theism is that most haven't thought through the same problems that equally apply, and so it gives people hope that things can be reconciled, but they really aren't. Open theism doesn't avoid any of these same exact problems. Not a one of them.
I don't associate God's statements to Hezekiah with a need.
There isn't even a need at all, if I follow such logical progression, to think that this story should exist at all, by that token. What have we learned? Why is it in the Bible? Again, my answer is 'to change Hezekiah.' It is an assumption, but it makes the most sense of the passage. I also observe with you, that the bloodline to Messiah needed to be established as well. You call it a lie, oddly. I see it as a necessity of information to ensure that things would take place otherwise. "The pot is going to boil over" was not a lie.
I think this is a misrepresentation of the usage of "change of mind". But as I mentioned before, I'm happy to consider a different term. I don't think you've approved of any, once we talk them through. They all end up saying something about God changed, and you think it isn't possible.
I agree. I have reservation about a good many scripturally enforced characteristics of God in mind to entertain such. I'd need something compelling to do so but am willing to discuss it further.
Ah! a fellow label eschewer. Don't feel too bad. I told AMR he's a closet open theist.
I don't think He finds comfort in being 'Calvinist' so much as being 'Biblically faithful.' I'd think that applies to most of us.
