How to respond to classical theists who dodge Open Theism arguments

[Derf]

Isn't a strawman, there is no other reason any Open Theist ever has given.

Not true. We regularly quote scripture that give explanation for the ideas that God changes His mind, in which case, the future wasn't settled before He changed His mind each time.

It thus may be 'your' strawman, (it isn't, you have often argued about your free will in conversations as a concern), but it isn't an Open Theist free will strawman. Open Theism, is free will theism,

I don't necessarily disagree that Open Theism is free will theism. But that isn't the same as saying that free will is some principle that requires our adulation. That's where the straw comes in from you.

even your own arguments are founded in your desire to retain your free will and as necessary for relationship and love.

Not true. We desire to understand the bible, and in doing so we have found plenty of evidence that God changes His mind, and in doing so, proves that the future wasn't settled.

It isn't, as Clete denies, a consequence, it is part and parcel from every conversation I've ever had with an Open Theist.

Of course it is part and parcel. Because Open Theism is the only extant theology that faithfully (to the scriptures) retains something we find clearly evident in the scriptures.

He pops up more than I discussing free will in a search for "free will" Me always against it. Him always in support. JR, Derf, and most other Open Theists often post in support of free will as an argument (easy TOL search, I just did).

Yes, free will is an argument for Open Theism. Free will is found in scripture, from the very first story about man's actions to the very last. The stories lose all meaning if free will didn't exist from the very beginnning, and probably to the very end. It seems to me that the whole point of mankind's existence with the possibility of death is for its members to subject (a free will word) their wills (a free will word) to God's will. And those who don't will suffer consequences (a free will word).

Never said that. You are the one complaining of strawmen. This is just a wrong assumption.

Open Theists are incapable of listening? This is what you got from this discussion? None of this is even part of the conversation.
Open Theism, despite denial, is free will theism. It is all not a desire to prompt up God, but to read 'free will' into interactions.

Not true. It is a result of reading free will out of the pages of scripture.

It is always the first thing mentioned when omniscience is on the table from any Open Theist. It might be good to evaluate one's own assumptions.

LOL. I can and do. Open Theism is what is untenable. YOU don't see them as logical, that much is evident. Rather, it is more obvious that 1) I've been challenged to be very up front and lately I have been.

Good.

I realize it accosts, but we should hold our theology in such a way that God Himself can accost it. If you or I are able to deliver that message, well and good. 2) I've given Open Theism a lot of consideration, way more than you or any Open Theist contra wise.

How in the world would you know this? Are you able to tell me all of the thought I've put into considering other views, and how long I held them before settling on Open Theism? Or even how settled I am on Open Theism?

Do you even entertain you may be wrong?

Regularly. And every time I do so, in regards to Open Theism, Open Theism comes out on top. It better fits scripture over and over again.

Do none of these arguments or discussion even make a dent?

Yours? No. Because you discard the scriptures to speak of some other standard of truth, such as how you feel about God making you a robot, or how I should feel about aligning (a free will word) my will (a free will word, as already mentioned) with God's.

List one. I rather said that at the heart of Christianity, is a denial

(a free will word)

of self, a negation of free will. So you are poor at assessing? Yes. It has all been an address against anyone imperializing their will over God's.

Which is a free will concept.

It is then, an accusation. I'm accusing free will theists about being egocentric.

Okay. We don't understand such criticism. We believe we are bible-centric. And bringing such a criticism is red-herring-ish at the very least. So what if we were being egocentric, if the world God created was created for man? Isn't that the very point? And how do we know that the world was created for man? Because God gave mankind dominion over it.

That isn't Christian. So instead of 'guessing' wrongly, understand exactly what is at stake: Our will vs His will.

Which is a free will concept!!!!! If our will is involved, then our will matters to God.

Wasn't clear? I don't believe you. I don't believe you've been careful, or honest, or picked up at all what I've been throwing down and these responses are an insult, not challenging, not even meeting the challenge.

Sometimes insult gets you heated enough to hear beyond what you've allowed in before. Sometimes.

You 'ought to feel' that you need to follow

(a free will word)

His will and leave self-interest

(a free will word)

in theology behind. We live when we die.

(not exactly a free will concept on its face, but in your context it is)

If you don't understand Christ's teachings, say so. I'm trying to speak to eyes that don't want to see, and ears that don't want to hear.

You have little to say that bears on the conversation, and you have stated it over and over again for some reason that we don't understand, as evidenced by @Clete's post.

It is a declarative anyway. If it props up your free will, you may have gotten it wrong.

Then think how audacious

(a free will word)

you must think

(a free will word)

you are: There are millions of us, a few thousand of you.

How does this matter in a discussion about truth?

On my side? Scholars, not lazy theologians, who have produced a plethora of scholarly work. "Scripture doesn't support" isn't a very good leg to stand on.

It is. I suspect that's why you don't use scripture very often in this discussion.

You actually go to my scholars every time you open a commentary or concordance for crying out loud. Do you think before you speak? I'm beginning to think you guys emote quite a bit when cornered. These last responses from all of you are posturing posts with no substance other than "I love Open Theism and am hurt you'd think to question it." Look at Clete's as well, nothing but a lot of fluff and flutter and complaint that "Lon is being mean to us."

Some is fluff and flutter and complain, I agree. But that's purely his free will talking.

I am not. I'm talking about Open Theism. Instead? It becomes a 'I don't like Lon" show

I like you, Lon. I enjoy much of your content, and I often "like" your posts. But when it comes to this topic, you let your feelings (a free will concept) get in the way.

"Yes" I want you all to look a lot harder at what you've bought into with Open Theism. Why? Because I care. I care that you guys are so brainwashed you can't see in this thread that your ideas are being significantly challenged. Nobody likes to be wrong. Be wrong and get it right.

The pharisees used scriptures 'for their own well being' instead of doing theology, they did self-interest. So, my point, ever, is to allow God to eradicate what doesn't belong (between us).

You're assuming that Open Theism is what doesn't belong. Maybe the other options are what don't belong.

I've been hear over 25 years. I've allowed Open Theism a lot of assailing without a lot of complaint (not much at all, which is why I got 'whishy washy'). I took the challenge: I don't believe Open Theism holds up. As I said, ultimately, even in Open Theism, God has to become Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent.

In general I don't have a problem with those descriptions, when properly understood. You've even acknowledge my understanding of these a few times.

Prayer banks on a God who is an incredible Master Chess Player. One that can win.

Win against whom? Only against someone who has free will to seek to defeat Him. And if free will to seek such, then free will to seek the opposite.

I simply see God never loses.

God lost, temporarily, before the flood. God lost regularly in Canaan in the time of Judges. In the end, God will not lose, but if God never loses, then He must support and endorse sin in your view.

Open Theists think He loses sometimes, not on purpose. You say it doesn't support scripture? Prove it in thread. This ain't it. It isn't but posturing. Do I know why? I think I do. There aren't many reasons for it other than 'reasons for posturing' without an iota of support or address. Do better. You skipped the last post that was discussing these maters. -Lon

I didn't see the point in most of it, except to repeat your own posturing, which I've rejected as fluff and flutter and complaining. Sound familiar? But I think you can do better, just as you think I can.

 

[Clete]

After that post from Derf and the mention of God winning, this seems like a terrific place to inject the following into the discussion, especially since I had very little reaction to it when I put it in it's own thread. It speaks directly to the point about God winning...

The following is based on an essay I wrote years ago. I had GPT rewrite it in the style of an epistle written to a wayward believer...

An Open Theism Epistle....

To my beloved brother in the faith, grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

I write to you concerning the knowledge of God, for I perceive that many have been led to think of Him in a way that does not befit His greatness. They say that God’s wisdom consists in His foreknowing all things as a settled certainty, as if He wins His victories not by His superior wisdom but by having secretly read the outcome in advance. But I ask you, my brother, is this the way of true greatness?

Consider a mighty king who is said to be the wisest of all rulers. If he triumphs in battle only because he has stolen the enemy’s war plans beforehand, does this display his wisdom? Or is the greater king the one who, by his own strategy, courage, and understanding, defeats every foe and brings about victory? Surely, it is the latter. And if we recognize this among men, how much more should we attribute to God?

It is written that His understanding is infinite, yet we are never told that He has no choice in what He knows. Indeed, the Scriptures bear witness to a God who searches, who inquires, who tests the hearts of men—not because He is lacking in wisdom, but because He is relational, engaged, and personal. Did He not say of Sodom, "I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to Me; and if not, I will know"? And when He tested Abraham, did He not say, "Now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me"?

Such words are not written in vain. God does not speak falsely, nor does He engage in empty gestures. If He says, "Now I know," then it was not known before in the same way. The prophets never declared that the Lord is a passive observer of a settled fate, nor did they teach that He must witness every vile act in its fullness, as though He is bound to gaze upon wickedness. Rather, they proclaimed that He is pure and holy, that He turns His face from evil, that He hides Himself from sin. Is He not free to grant privacy as He wills? Can He not turn away from what He has no need or desire to see? Must He be bound to witness that which He has already judged unworthy of His gaze?

Many have said that God must know all that is knowable, but where is it written? Is it not instead true that God knows what He desires to know? His knowledge is not a burden laid upon Him by necessity, but a power wielded according to His will. He does not need to see every wicked deed in order to judge it; He does not need to predetermine every choice in order to reign over history. His wisdom is not found in mere foresight, but in His perfect understanding of men, of creation, and of the paths that lead to life and death.

What, then, is the error of those who insist that the future is fixed in His mind? It is that they strip away both the living nature of God and the true significance of our choices. If God merely foresees all as settled fact, then He does not think anew, He does not respond, He does not strategize—He merely observes. And if our future is already settled, then our will is but an illusion, and our choices are but shadows cast by what has already been written. But this is not the God of Scripture!

The Lord is a God of action, of judgment, of risk, of love. He is a warrior, a counselor, a shepherd. He does not simply watch history unfold; He engages with it. He does not merely observe what men will do; He calls them, persuades them, warns them, and rejoices when they turn to Him. He is not a lifeless record-keeper but a living, relational Father, whose wisdom is seen in how He interacts, not in how much He has pre-ordained.

Do not be deceived by those who would reduce the Almighty to a mere archive of all that shall be. His greatness is not in a knowledge that renders all things inevitable, but in a wisdom that works all things together for good. He is not a God who wins by reading a script but by being the wisest, the strongest, and the most loving of all.

Therefore, my brother, take heart and rejoice in the living God! Walk before Him in true freedom, knowing that your choices matter, that your prayers are heard, that He is with you not as a distant spectator but as an engaged and present Lord. May His wisdom guide you, and may you always trust in the One whose greatness is not in what He foresees, but in what He does.

Grace and peace be with you always.

 

[Nick M]

We regularly quote scripture that give explanation for the ideas that God changes His mind, in which case, the future wasn't settled before He changed His mind each time.

Correct. I don't have a theology. I never heard of MAD or Open Theism before here. But I do believe what the Bible says. And that doesn't mean I had all together from the start. Of course not. I learned here too. Things I read and missed. And to prop him up, a huge gold nugget from Clete right here.

11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.

That isn't about Open Theism, just that I learned at TOL.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Not true. We regularly quote scripture that give explanation for the ideas that God changes His mind, in which case, the future wasn't settled before He changed His mind each time.

I don't necessarily disagree that Open Theism is free will theism. But that isn't the same as saying that free will is some principle that requires our adulation. That's where the straw comes in from you.

Not true. We desire to understand the bible, and in doing so we have found plenty of evidence that God changes His mind, and in doing so, proves that the future wasn't settled.

Of course it is part and parcel. Because Open Theism is the only extant theology that faithfully (to the scriptures) retains something we find clearly evident in the scriptures.

Yes, free will is an argument for Open Theism. Free will is found in scripture, from the very first story about man's actions to the very last. The stories lose all meaning if free will didn't exist from the very beginnning, and probably to the very end. It seems to me that the whole point of mankind's existence with the possibility of death is for its members to subject (a free will word) their wills (a free will word) to God's will. And those who don't will suffer consequences (a free will word).

Not true. It is a result of reading free will out of the pages of scripture.

Good.

How in the world would you know this? Are you able to tell me all of the thought I've put into considering other views, and how long I held them before settling on Open Theism? Or even how settled I am on Open Theism?

Regularly. And every time I do so, in regards to Open Theism, Open Theism comes out on top. It better fits scripture over and over again.

Yours? No. Because you discard the scriptures to speak of some other standard of truth, such as how you feel about God making you a robot, or how I should feel about aligning (a free will word) my will (a free will word, as already mentioned) with God's.

(a free will word)

Which is a free will concept.

Okay. We don't understand such criticism. We believe we are bible-centric. And bringing such a criticism is red-herring-ish at the very least. So what if we were being egocentric, if the world God created was created for man? Isn't that the very point? And how do we know that the world was created for man? Because God gave mankind dominion over it.

Which is a free will concept!!!!! If our will is involved, then our will matters to God.

Sometimes insult gets you heated enough to hear beyond what you've allowed in before. Sometimes.

(a free will word)

(a free will word)

(not exactly a free will concept on its face, but in your context it is)

You have little to say that bears on the conversation, and you have stated it over and over again for some reason that we don't understand, as evidenced by @Clete's post.

(a free will word)

(a free will word)

How does this matter in a discussion about truth?

It is. I suspect that's why you don't use scripture very often in this discussion.

Some is fluff and flutter and complain, I agree. But that's purely his free will talking.

I like you, Lon. I enjoy much of your content, and I often "like" your posts. But when it comes to this topic, you let your feelings (a free will concept) get in the way.

You're assuming that Open Theism is what doesn't belong. Maybe the other options are what don't belong.

In general I don't have a problem with those descriptions, when properly understood. You've even acknowledge my understanding of these a few times.

Win against whom? Only against someone who has free will to seek to defeat Him. And if free will to seek such, then free will to seek the opposite.

God lost, temporarily, before the flood. God lost regularly in Canaan in the time of Judges. In the end, God will not lose, but if God never loses, then He must support and endorse sin in your view.

I didn't see the point in most of it, except to repeat your own posturing, which I've rejected as fluff and flutter and complaining. Sound familiar? But I think you can do better, just as you think I can.

Excellent post, but let's not forget that Open Theism isn't really about man's free will, but rather God's. Yes, we often talk about men, but Bob Enyart did a great job refocusing the discussion back onto God's freedom, which you touched on here.

 

[way 2 go]

Interesting strawman.

so you're going with G-d's faith was tested and validated

it's your theology in a nutshell

you say G-d hoped Abraham would obey he didn't know and you don't need faith if you know.

"Faith" Heb 11:1

1 Corinthians 13:12

 

[Nick M]

It is time for you to change your avatar to this.

 

[Derf]

Excellent post, but let's not forget that Open Theism isn't really about man's free will, but rather God's. Yes, we often talk about men, but Bob Enyart did a great job refocusing the discussion back onto God's freedom, which you touched on here.

The discussion just has no meaning if man doesn't have free will. Even our whole conversation is pure drivel if man doesn't have free will with which to have such a discussion. But if man has anything from being made in God's image, it's that he, and He, have the ability to will things and bring them to pass, with God's power dwarfing man's if their wills conflict.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The discussion just has no meaning if man doesn't have free will.

I mean, I know what you're getting at, but I would point out that God having free will is more foundational to any discussion of the matter.

Even our whole conversation is pure drivel if man doesn't have free will with which to have such a discussion. But if man has anything from being made in God's image, it's that he, and He, have the ability to will things and bring them to pass, with God's power dwarfing man's if their wills conflict.

You just made my argument for me.

"We are made in His image."

Not the other way around.

Thus, "God is free" implies that man is free, because man is made in His image.

If God is not free, then men are not free, as a consequence.

Thus, if you can establish that God is free, man being free follows naturally, necessarily.

 

[way 2 go]

View attachment 13854

It is time for you to change your avatar to this.

ad hominem , good choice .

 

[Idolater]

That isn't knowing the future. He brought the animals to Adam to see what Adam would call them.

4 “Because they have forsaken Me and made this an alien place, because they have burned incense in it to other gods whom neither they, their fathers, nor the kings of Judah have known, and have filled this place with the blood of the innocents 5 (they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind),

He could not believe they would do such a thing.

I will back up to Genesis. Because you are evil (you don't change your mind, you are evil) this is for others.

5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

Feel free to try and explain away what the prophets say.

You guys all act like rhetoric doesn't exist until Aristotle or Cicero or some skubalon. You make no argument, it's just a silent presupposition—there's really no rhetoric in the Bible to speak of.

Rhetoric is an attempt at persuasion. Under Aristotle, meaning ideally, rhetoric is the truth—but not the whole truth. Not out of trying to deceive, but trying to persuade. Not because you're reporting falsely, but you're reporting the interesting part, and skipping the boring part. The boring part will just confuse people, so you leave it out anyway, just because it's confusing, but it's also boring, and you can miss the point entirely if you look too hard at the boring stuff, a potential rabbit hole, especially for the wrong party, who for one reason or other, just either has a chip on his shoulder, or for some other reason is captured by his pet theory.

I mean maybe. It doesn't have to be any of those reasons, but Aristotle would say, you first establish the whole truth, and then you curate or even cherry pick the parts of the whole truth that are persuasive, and then you construct your rhetoric from that subset of the whole truth. It's the same way storytellers work, and journalists. Not every last detail is provided. The newspaper would be a mile long if journalists told the whole truth, every day. c. "Not every story is an anecdote. You have to discriminate."

So I'm not "explaining away" anything the Prophets (the Holy Spirit; at the end of the day, we all confess, us Catholics, that He "has spoken through the Prophets", so that's Him) said, not one thing. He, the Spirit, and the Prophets did too, had every right to use rhetoric. Whatever it is that God was trying to persuade people to do, went into what He and they chose to say to them. And the rhetoric either worked or it didn't work, and it doesn't mean in the story, to the characters we're reading about—it also means to you the reader. Does the prophecy or saying or story or narrative make you believe or feel something, does it make you reconsider your path in life, and to change your ways? That could be why the rhetoric, it might be not an attempt to convince you of something that did or didn't happen historically, it might be an attempt to get you to change. You the reader.

I know that's what all you guys who deny the Real Presence of Christ tell me when I quote to you the words of consecration, which start with, "This is My body." Certainly you believe the Lord doesn't literally mean it. You believe it's rhetoric, it's an attempt to persuade. Same as John 6, the "bread of life" discourse. It's rhetoric.

So in one case, you act like rhetoric doesn't exist, to prove Open Theism is true, and in the other, you act like rhetoric does exist and in fact is the prima facie explanation for the words of Jesus, and any attempt to claim otherwise is condemned, scorned, rebuked, criticized, excoriated and even ridiculed.

You know, that's talking out of both sides of your mouth, and you're apparently unaware that you're even doing it, but it's been here on TOL for all [to] see for over 25 years now, over 25 years and counting, here on TOL, we all have all the proof we need that my claim here is right, that you are all hypocrites and actors, forked tongues. The mere existence and possibility of rhetoric as a genre of literature in the Bible cannot be countenanced if Openness be true, and also ofc when Jesus said He is bread, He is being rhetorical.

Forked tongue. Subtil.

 

[Lon]

Not true. We regularly quote scripture that give explanation for the ideas that God changes His mind, in which case, the future wasn't settled before He changed His mind each time.

For what reason? It, in fact is true. Why must you have God unable to know the future? Let me say this again: You will never find a verse that says God changed His mind. Open Theists repeat this and repeat this and it doesn't exist anywhere in scripture.

I don't necessarily disagree that Open Theism is free will theism. But that isn't the same as saying that free will is some principle that requires our adulation. That's where the straw comes in from you.

"For what reason?" Every time I hear the answer, it is "because then we'd have no free will." Every time. You intimate it in your every response. It is 'self' that produces this, "otherwise we'd be robots" or worse? Slaves? Yes, we are slaves serving one of two masters.

Not true. We desire to understand the bible, and in doing so we have found plenty of evidence that God changes His mind, and in doing so, proves that the future wasn't settled.

"Evidence?" You are building an entire unsystematic/systematic theology off an idea that is never mentioned in scripture, not once? Because you are a slave to English translation, I think such does lead to Open Theism ideas. Because of that, you may see threat that I question strongly, the veracity of Open Theism, but at this venture, I just want people to think about your and others ideas, and perhaps let the rest of us see problems and distinctions. It is a good thread, it'll mark the stark differences.

Of course it is part and parcel. Because Open Theism is the only extant theology that faithfully (to the scriptures) retains something we find clearly evident in the scriptures.

Each is consistent: Both sides see anthropomorphic language: Open Theists take literally (and often because of problematic English translation) story. Story is notoriously vague other than main points that it tries to teach. Conversely, the rest of us take pedantic (direct teaching passages) as literal. I believe God literally knows the number of hairs on your head at the moment of this typing and your 'now' as well, and that they were significantly different. It literally (by the letters of scripture themselves) means omnipresence and omniscience. That is the literal faithful extent of theology and scripture. I think Open Theism exists primarily because of problematic English translation: It is our/their fault so I take the existence of Open Theism as 'partly my fault.' Open Theism has forced me to look and relook at my doctrine and His scriptures. For that, I'm thankful. I'm more convinced today, than ever, that Open Theism got it wrong.

Yes, free will is an argument for Open Theism. Free will is found in scripture, from the very first story about man's actions to the very last. The stories lose all meaning if free will didn't exist from the very beginnning, and probably to the very end. It seems to me that the whole point of mankind's existence with the possibility of death is for its members to subject (a free will word) their wills (a free will word) to God's will. And those who don't will suffer consequences (a free will word).

There you go, Open Theism, is free will theism despite the contention of anybody.

Not true. It is a result of reading free will out of the pages of scripture.

"Free will" does exist in some modern translations, not in the original languages or the KJV. The word is Hebrew "ratson" - ability, desire, pleasure. None of these intimate 'free' though some English translations give "free will" as an indicator, it is my estimation an 'idea' is planted by the intimation not in the original languages. I do find "almighty" in scripture, word for word (omnipotence, literally). I do find "knows all" (omniscience). I do find "no where You aren't" in scripture (omnipresence). My theology if founded upon literally what the Bible says.
For the difference, and posterity.

Good.

How in the world would you know this? Are you able to tell me all of the thought I've put into considering other views, and how long I held them before settling on Open Theism? Or even how settled I am on Open Theism?

25 years? You recently became Open Theist, I was here.

Regularly. And every time I do so, in regards to Open Theism, Open Theism comes out on top. It better fits scripture over and over again.

For posterity: All my theology are actual bible words, found explicit in the bible. You have "God changed His mind, God never thought of it, free will," nowhere found, but intimated, deduced by the mind of man from the scriptures (sometimes poor English translation/paraphrases).
I'll keep the contrast.

Yours? No. Because you discard the scriptures to speak of some other standard of truth, such as how you feel about God making you a robot, or how I should feel about aligning (a free will word) my will (a free will word, as already mentioned) with God's.

I do? I'll take it for the contrast: every last one of mine are explicit (word for word) from the scriptures.

(a free will word)

Which is a free will concept.

Okay. We don't understand such criticism. We believe we are bible-centric. And bringing such a criticism is red-herring-ish at the very least. So what if we were being egocentric, if the world God created was created for man? Isn't that the very point? And how do we know that the world was created for man? Because God gave mankind dominion over it.

See the contrast again: Literally all of my theology words are given from Greek and Hebrew. You'll not find any Open Theism words in scripture, but rather derived 'from' it. That is the difference.

Which is a free will concept!!!!! If our will is involved, then our will matters to God.

You are conflating 'desire' with 'free.' These are not 'free' will words. You won't even find 'free will' in the languages, nor the KJV.

Sometimes insult gets you heated enough to hear beyond what you've allowed in before. Sometimes.

I rarely find that true. What I do try to do is treat the subject as clinically as I can. A doctor can either call me 'fatso' or suggest in dire terms I need to take care of my health. Rather, I think I'm hitting nerves, and it is my intention, but for no mean intent. I realize "whishy washy" has upped my game to produce content that challenges. If I'm to be iron sharpening iron, I've had to wire-brush my approach as it were. Such brings consequence and I had to be willing to take it. I am, but I'm also going to call lack of content out. The rest is just emoting.

(a free will word)

(a free will word)

(not exactly a free will concept on its face, but in your context it is)

You have little to say that bears on the conversation, and you have stated it over and over again for some reason that we don't understand, as evidenced by @Clete's post.

(a free will word)

(a free will word)

How does this matter in a discussion about truth?

It is. I suspect that's why you don't use scripture very often in this discussion.

LOL, do some research, I'm ever amazed I get this accusation. If you look up my posts, there is almost always scriptures involved with links painstakingly given. I also did research on who actually posts the most scriptures on TOL. Guess who comes up at or near the top?

Guess how many times I opened my bible just to answer this post? I may not have quoted them, but it has been the labor of many scriptures, and I believe it is evident even when I don't quote or link them.

Some is fluff and flutter and complain, I agree. But that's purely his free will talking.

I like you, Lon. I enjoy much of your content, and I often "like" your posts. But when it comes to this topic, you let your feelings (a free will concept) get in the way.

Your feelings or mine? Do you see me emoting much? The accusation just above is unfounded and provably false, for instance.

You're assuming that Open Theism is what doesn't belong. Maybe the other options are what don't belong.

In general I don't have a problem with those descriptions, when properly understood. You've even acknowledge my understanding of these a few times.

Win against whom? Only against someone who has free will to seek to defeat Him. And if free will to seek such, then free will to seek the opposite.

Listen to your sentence: How self-willed are you? Dying to self means we don't imperialize 'us' over Him. Opposition from God, against our id, is good. When we lose our lives, we find it. Our identity is supplanted in Him.

God lost, temporarily, before the flood. God lost regularly in Canaan in the time of Judges. In the end, God will not lose, but if God never loses, then He must support and endorse sin in your view.

It is the same view, just a different angle. We are standing on a mountain ridge and seeing above and below but where our eyes are laid are in a different place most often. There is literally, no verse that says God changes His mind. It is an English colloquialism that most other languages would find odd (literally taking our brain out and trading it with another). It is found nowhere in actual scripture. It is a paraphrase. Most of Open Theism ideology is based on English paraphrases. Think of that: Your actual paradigms aren't even in the bible. They are colloquialisms from a translators head.

I didn't see the point in most of it, except to repeat your own posturing, which I've rejected as fluff and flutter and complaining. Sound familiar? But I think you can do better, just as you think I can.

You engaged in this post, not the one prior, just complaining. That man was you. ▲ This fluff and flutter? ▲ I don't believe so, but rather see some emoting still on your side.

 

[Lon]

Anyone can cite or quote a few Bible verses and make them say what they want them to say. Doesn't mean what is being said is rational, or good.

Hence...:



Matthew 27:5; Luke 10:37, as an extreme example of what NOT to do.

First, I'm not sure I responded. Second, for Derf (just one of many) 2 Timothy 3:16 Isaiah 55:11. That said: Proverbs 4:7
(JR, you forgot to link your verses as you often ask me to do, was familiar with the set, so didn't need to look it up, but maybe others need it).

 

[JudgeRightly]

"You will never find a verse that says God changed His mind."

*cough cough*

Spoiler

8 - God Says He Repents and Changes His Mind and His Actions and actions are not words, so reversing an action cannot be a mere figure of speech; for example, putting a man on a throne and then repenting by removing him is an action and not conceivably a mere figure of speech; and God of course does not repent as a man repents, from sin.
God saw Nineveh's turning away from their sin and so God repented (standard Hebrew word for repent, nacham, as throughout) Jonah 3:10; 3:2-4; 4:11 that is, "God repented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it"; then there's Samuel's repent sandwich 1 Sam. 15:11, 29, 35 in which God says 15:11 and 15:35 that He repented that He made Saul king (so He replaced Saul with David), and in the middle of those two statements, 15:29, He insists that He will not repent of having ended Saul's dynasty, that is, He will not repent from having repented. (This cannot be a figure of speech because it is an action, see below, i.e., actually removing Saul is not just words; it is action 1 Sam. 15:26-28; 1 Sam. 13:13-14. Like other times when God repents, here He does not only repent in word but also in deed. So therefore, the repentant deeds themselves cannot be figures "of speech" and thus they show actual, not figurative, repentance of heart and mind.) The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and He repented that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart Gen. 6:6; So the Lord said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth... for I repent that I have made them" Gen. 6:7; Num. 14:12, 20; Ex. 32:14 (etc.); "the Lord was moved to pity" [repented, Heb. nacham] Jud. 2:18 deciding to avert the consequences of their actions; 2 Sam. 24:16; 1 Chr. 21:15; Ps. 106:45; 135:14 (in the Hebrew); God says He is "weary of repenting" (from not meting out more severe judgment) Jer. 15:6; weary, for example, from repeated episodes such as when Israel "served... the gods of the Philistines... So the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel; and He sold them into the hands of the Philistines... they harassed and oppressed the children of Israel... so that Israel was severely distressed and... cried out to the Lord, saying, 'We have sinned against You' ... So the Lord said... "Did I not deliver you from the Egyptians... Yet you have forsaken Me and served other gods. Therefore I will deliver you no more. Go and cry out to the gods which you have chosen; let them deliver you in your time of distress." And the children of Israel said to the Lord, “We have sinned! Do to us whatever seems best to You; only deliver us this day, we pray." So they put away the foreign gods... And His soul could no longer endure the misery of Israel" so God repented in that He did again deliver them Jud. 10:6-11, 13-16; "Perhaps [Israel] will listen and turn... that I may repent concerning the calamity which I purpose to bring on them because of the evil of their doings" Jer. 26:3; God wants to repent "concerning the doom that He has pronounced against" Jerusalem Jer. 26:13; God repented from the doom which He had pronounced against them Jer. 26:19; in forbidding Judah to flee to Egypt God repents of the destruction that He had brought upon them 42:10 (i.e., He is willing to give them a reprieve); God repents of destroying Jerusalem by way of Micah’s prophecy Micah 3:12 with Jer. 26:18-19; God is worthy of Zion's trust because He repents Joel 2:13 as Jonah knew the Lord also as the kind of God who repents Jonah 4:2; the Lord repented of destroying Jacob's late harvest Amos 7:1-3; the Lord repented of His desire to bring a fiery judgment upon His people Amos 7:6; when I say I will destroy a nation, if that nation repents then I will not destroy the nation "that I thought" to destroy Jer. 18:7-8, 11 (again, this is the actual interpretation, God's interpretation of The Potter and the Clay passage); when I say that I will bless a nation, if they disobey Me, I will not do that which I said I will do Jer. 18:9-10; so, implicit in God's urging Jersualem to repent is that He is willing to change His mind about His own plans Jer. 18:11.

Spoiler

10 - God Says He Will Do Something that He Never Does.
Drive out: The Lord parted the Jordan to confirm the promise He gave through Joshua who said to Israel, “hear the words of the Lord your God... By this you shall know that the living God is among you, and that He will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizzites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Jebusites" Josh. 3:9-10; yet a generation later, "I said, 'I will never break My covenant with you... But you have not obeyed My voice...' Therefore I also said, 'I will not drive them out before you; but they shall be thorns in your side' " Jud. 2:1-3; "Thus the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites" Jud. 3:5; with the Bible emphasizing this repeatedly, "I will send My Angel before you, and I will drive out the Canaanite and the Amorite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite." Ex. 33:2; "When the Lord your God brings you into the land which you go to possess, and has cast out many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites" Deut. 7:1; "When the Lord your God cuts off from before you the nations which you go to dispossess, and you displace them and dwell in their land" Deut. 12:29; this prophesy to the generations that entered Canaan promised a steady and methodical possession of the land for, "If you should say in your heart, 'These nations... how can I dispossess them?'— you shall not be afraid of them, but you shall remember well what the Lord your God did to Pharaoh... So shall the Lord your God do to all the peoples of whom you are afraid. Moreover the Lord your God will send the hornet among them until those who are left, who hide themselves from you, are destroyed. You shall not be terrified of them; for... the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you little by little; you will be unable to destroy them at once, lest the beasts of the field become too numerous for you. But the Lord your God will deliver them over to you and will inflict defeat upon them until they are destroyed. And He will deliver their kings into your hand, and you will destroy their name from under heaven; no one shall be able to stand against you until you have destroyed them Deut. 7:17-24; yet "you have forsaken Me and served other gods. Therefore I will deliver you [Israel] no more" Jud. 10:13; so the generation following Joshua did not see fulfilment of the prophecy as promised for, " 'Because this nation has transgressed My covenant... I also will no longer drive out before them [in the timeframe prophesied] any of the nations which Joshua left when he died, so that through them I may test Israel, whether they will keep the ways of the Lord, to walk in them as their fathers kept them, or not.' Therefore the Lord left those nations, without driving them out immediately; nor did He deliver them into the hand of Joshua" Jud. 2:20-23 as had been prophesied; of course, after the recreation on the New Earth pagan nations will not occupy the land but these prophecies were not of the distant future but about Israel's entrance into the land.
Etcetera: "let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them [Israel] and I may consume them. And I will make of you [Moses] a great nation" Ex. 32:10; "I will not go up in your midst" Ex. 33:3 yet God repented and did accompany the Israelites through the wilderness for Moses said to the Lord, "See, You say to me, 'Bring up this people.' But You have not let me know whom You will send with me... Now therefore, I pray, if I have found grace in Your sight, show me now... And consider that this nation is Your people. And [God] said, 'My Presence will go with you...' " Ex. 33:12-14; "Behold, I will bring calamity on you" Ahab 1 Ki. 21:21 yet "See how Ahab has humbled himself before Me? Because he has humbled himself before Me, I will not bring the calamity in his days..." 1 Ki. 21:29; "Therefore [God] said that He would destroy them, had not Moses His chosen one stood before Him in the breach, to turn away His wrath, lest He destroy [Israel]" Ps. 106:23; "I will pour out My fury on them and fulfill My anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt.’ But [then] I acted for My name’s sake" and did not destroy the Hebrews Ezek. 20:8-9; then "the house of Israel rebelled against Me in the wilderness... Then I said I would pour out My fury on them in the wilderness, to consume them. But [then] I acted for My name’s sake" though I had "also raised My hand in an oath... that I would not bring them into the land... because they despised My judgments... Nevertheless My eye spared them from destruction. I did not make an end of them in the wilderness" Ezek. 20:13-17; and then again, for "I said I would pour out My fury on them... Nevertheless I withdrew My hand" Ezek. 20:21-22; "Therefore because of you [Israel's lying priest and prophets] Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins" by Micah's prophecy Micah 3:12 yet God repented of Micah's prophecy for "Micah... prophesied in the days of Hezekiah... 'Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins' ... [Yet] the Lord repented concerning the doom which He had pronounced against them" Jer. 26:18-19.
See Also: Category 20 is even stronger than this category in that in those verses God Himself is the one who says that He will no longer do something that He said He would do, such as, "I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it" Jer. 18:7-8, whereas this Category 10 is based on the Bible text showing, though God Himself may not state it, that He will not do something (for divinely perfect reasons of course) that He had said He would do.

Spoiler

13 - God Shows Regret similar to repent and uses the same Hebrew word, nacham.
I greatly regret making Saul king 1 Sam. 15:11 therefore God deposed Saul from the throne and gave the dynasty to David. For "Samuel said to Saul, 'You have done foolishly. You have not kept the commandment of the LORD… For… the LORD would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. But now your kingdom shall not continue…' " 1 Sam. 13:13-14. [An "action" cannot be a figure of speech. Why not? Because an action is not only speech; it is an action. God "repenting" that He made Saul King 1 Sam. 15:11, 35 could theoretically be a figure of speech (but if so, then as a figure, it would have to convey some actual meaning). However "to repent" does not refer only to words or thoughts, but it can also refer to an action (to turn from). When any word, including the word "repent", refers to an action, then it cannot be a figure "of speech", because it is an action. When God removed Saul from the throne, and then actually gave the dynasty to David, that deposing of Saul was an action that God performed. This powerfully illustrates a reason why God inspired His Word as a historical narrative rather than merely as a series of abstractions, so that we would constrain our interpretations based on the biblical accounts.] The Lord repented that He had made man on the earth and was grieved Gen. 6:6-7 so He destroyed the earth's population, which is not speech but an action [except for Noah's family Mat. 24:37-38; 1 Peter 3:20] etc., including the other repent verses.

Spoiler

20 - God Says He Will No Longer Do Something He Said He Would Do.
When I say that I will bless a nation, if they disobey Me, I will not do that which I said I will do Jer. 18:9-10; God acted on this warning as described by Isaiah: "... A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard [Israel]: My Well-beloved has a vineyard On a very fruitful hill. He dug it up and cleared out its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, And also made a winepress in it; So He expected it to bring forth good grapes [faith], But it brought forth wild grapes [unbelief]. And now... Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard. What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes? And now, please let Me tell you what I will do to My vineyard: I will take away its hedge, and it shall be burned; And break down its wall, and it shall be trampled down. I will lay it waste; It shall not be pruned or dug, But there shall come up briers and thorns. I will also command the clouds That they rain no rain on it.” For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel... He looked for justice, but behold, oppression..." Isa. 5:1-6; Drive out nations Joshua 23:13; Judge 2:21; Jonah 3:10.

Spoiler

23 - God's People Believe God Can Change His Mind.
Moses pleaded with the Lord his God, and said: "Lord, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people... Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, 'He brought them out... to consume them from the face of the earth'? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and repent from this harm to Your people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel [Jacob...] to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, 'I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.' " Ex. 32:11-13; God promised Abraham to give him a son by Sarah and "Abraham said to God, 'Oh, that Ishmael might live before You!' " Gen. 17:16-18; Abraham pressed God to be merciful to Sodom saying, " 'Would You also destroy the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there were fifty righteous within the city... Far be it from You to do such a thing...' So the Lord said, 'If I find in Sodom fifty righteous... then I will spare all the place...' Then Abraham answered... 'Suppose there were five less than the fifty... Suppose there should be forty... Suppose thirty... Suppose twenty... Suppose ten should be found there?' And [God] said, 'I will not destroy it for the sake of ten.' " Gen. 18:23-32; "the Lord was very angry with Aaron and would have destroyed him; so I prayed for Aaron" Deut. 9:19-20; David therefore pleaded with God for the child, and David fasted... Then his servants said to him, "What is this that you have done? You fasted and wept for the child while he was alive, but when the child died, you arose and ate..." And he said, "While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who can tell whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?' " 2 Sam. 12:16, 21-22; "Therefore He said that He would destroy them, had not Moses His chosen one stood before Him in the breach, to turn away His wrath, lest He destroy them" Ps. 106:23; etc.

Spoiler

24 - God’s People Believe they can Change God’s Mind and they Do Change His Mind including as Jesus teaches.
"Then Moses pleaded with the Lord his God" Ex. 32:11-13; "I was afraid of the anger and hot displeasure with which the Lord was angry with you, to destroy you. But the Lord listened to me at that time also. And the Lord was very angry with Aaron and would have destroyed him; so I prayed for Aaron" Deut. 9:19-20; Jeremiah believed people could change God's mind, and especially Moses and Samuel, as indicated by him writing this under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, "Then the Lord said to me, 'Even if Moses and Samuel stood before Me [even then!], My mind would [still] not be favorable toward this people...' " Jer. 15:1; "Therefore He said that He would destroy them, had not Moses His chosen one stood before Him in the breach, to turn away His wrath, lest He destroy them" Ps. 106:23; persistent widow Luke 18:4-7; Abraham pressing God to be merciful to Sodom and Gomorrah Gen. 18:23-32.

Spoiler

25 - God’s People Believe a Prophecy Does Not Have to Come To Pass which belief the inspired Scriptures report not as their error but positively, which is the Holy Spirit's affirmation that the future is not settled but open.
"Thus says the Holy Spirit, 'So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this belt...' Now when we heard these things, both we and those from that place pleaded with him not to go up to Jerusalem" Acts 21:11-12; Hezekiah was sick and near death and Isaiah the prophet went to him and said, "Thus says the Lord: 'Set your house in order for you shall die and not live.' Then [Hezekiah] turned his face toward the wall, and prayed to the Lord, saying, "Remember now, O Lord, I pray, how I have walked before You in truth and with a loyal heart, and have done what was good in Your sight." And Hezekiah wept bitterly. And it happened, before Isaiah had gone out into the middle court, that the word of the Lord came to him, saying, "Return and tell Hezekiah the leader of My people, 'Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: "I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely I will heal you." ' " 2 Kings 20:1-5 and Isa. 38:1-5; Moses Ex. 33:15-16.

Spoiler

29 - Prayer Can Change What Would Otherwise Be the Future.
Jehoahaz pleaded and God listened and helped deliver Israel 2 Kings 13:4; God told Hezekiah to prepare for "you shall die and not live" but the King pleaded with God who then said, "I have heard your prayer and surely I will heal you... And I will add to your days fifteen years" 2 Kings 20:1-6; a persistent widow pleaded with an unjust judge and Jesus interpreted His own parable, Shall not God answer the prayers of those who continue to ask God Luke 18:1-7; the friend who comes asking for bread at midnight is resisted until his persists and Jesus interprets His parables saying So ask God "and it will be given to you" Luke 11:5-9; Jesus could call for twelve legions of angels (to save Him from the cross) Mat. 26:53; etc.

Spoiler

Open Theism Bible Verses in 33 Categories | Open Theism

opentheism.org

Anyone who claims to know God's word and says that the Bible doesn't say that God changed His mind is a liar, plain and simple.

 

[Nick M]

Under Aristotle

We aren't talking about philosphy, merely what God says about himself in the Bible. I will let him speak for himself. You are not an authorized prophet, and you cannot speak for him.

 

[Derf]

"You will never find a verse that says God changed His mind."

*cough cough*

Spoiler

8 - God Says He Repents and Changes His Mind and His Actions and actions are not words, so reversing an action cannot be a mere figure of speech; for example, putting a man on a throne and then repenting by removing him is an action and not conceivably a mere figure of speech; and God of course does not repent as a man repents, from sin.
God saw Nineveh's turning away from their sin and so God repented (standard Hebrew word for repent, nacham, as throughout) Jonah 3:10; 3:2-4; 4:11 that is, "God repented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it"; then there's Samuel's repent sandwich 1 Sam. 15:11, 29, 35 in which God says 15:11 and 15:35 that He repented that He made Saul king (so He replaced Saul with David), and in the middle of those two statements, 15:29, He insists that He will not repent of having ended Saul's dynasty, that is, He will not repent from having repented. (This cannot be a figure of speech because it is an action, see below, i.e., actually removing Saul is not just words; it is action 1 Sam. 15:26-28; 1 Sam. 13:13-14. Like other times when God repents, here He does not only repent in word but also in deed. So therefore, the repentant deeds themselves cannot be figures "of speech" and thus they show actual, not figurative, repentance of heart and mind.) The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and He repented that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart Gen. 6:6; So the Lord said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth... for I repent that I have made them" Gen. 6:7; Num. 14:12, 20; Ex. 32:14 (etc.); "the Lord was moved to pity" [repented, Heb. nacham] Jud. 2:18 deciding to avert the consequences of their actions; 2 Sam. 24:16; 1 Chr. 21:15; Ps. 106:45; 135:14 (in the Hebrew); God says He is "weary of repenting" (from not meting out more severe judgment) Jer. 15:6; weary, for example, from repeated episodes such as when Israel "served... the gods of the Philistines... So the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel; and He sold them into the hands of the Philistines... they harassed and oppressed the children of Israel... so that Israel was severely distressed and... cried out to the Lord, saying, 'We have sinned against You' ... So the Lord said... "Did I not deliver you from the Egyptians... Yet you have forsaken Me and served other gods. Therefore I will deliver you no more. Go and cry out to the gods which you have chosen; let them deliver you in your time of distress." And the children of Israel said to the Lord, “We have sinned! Do to us whatever seems best to You; only deliver us this day, we pray." So they put away the foreign gods... And His soul could no longer endure the misery of Israel" so God repented in that He did again deliver them Jud. 10:6-11, 13-16; "Perhaps [Israel] will listen and turn... that I may repent concerning the calamity which I purpose to bring on them because of the evil of their doings" Jer. 26:3; God wants to repent "concerning the doom that He has pronounced against" Jerusalem Jer. 26:13; God repented from the doom which He had pronounced against them Jer. 26:19; in forbidding Judah to flee to Egypt God repents of the destruction that He had brought upon them 42:10 (i.e., He is willing to give them a reprieve); God repents of destroying Jerusalem by way of Micah’s prophecy Micah 3:12 with Jer. 26:18-19; God is worthy of Zion's trust because He repents Joel 2:13 as Jonah knew the Lord also as the kind of God who repents Jonah 4:2; the Lord repented of destroying Jacob's late harvest Amos 7:1-3; the Lord repented of His desire to bring a fiery judgment upon His people Amos 7:6; when I say I will destroy a nation, if that nation repents then I will not destroy the nation "that I thought" to destroy Jer. 18:7-8, 11 (again, this is the actual interpretation, God's interpretation of The Potter and the Clay passage); when I say that I will bless a nation, if they disobey Me, I will not do that which I said I will do Jer. 18:9-10; so, implicit in God's urging Jersualem to repent is that He is willing to change His mind about His own plans Jer. 18:11.

Spoiler

10 - God Says He Will Do Something that He Never Does.
Drive out: The Lord parted the Jordan to confirm the promise He gave through Joshua who said to Israel, “hear the words of the Lord your God... By this you shall know that the living God is among you, and that He will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizzites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Jebusites" Josh. 3:9-10; yet a generation later, "I said, 'I will never break My covenant with you... But you have not obeyed My voice...' Therefore I also said, 'I will not drive them out before you; but they shall be thorns in your side' " Jud. 2:1-3; "Thus the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites" Jud. 3:5; with the Bible emphasizing this repeatedly, "I will send My Angel before you, and I will drive out the Canaanite and the Amorite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite." Ex. 33:2; "When the Lord your God brings you into the land which you go to possess, and has cast out many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites" Deut. 7:1; "When the Lord your God cuts off from before you the nations which you go to dispossess, and you displace them and dwell in their land" Deut. 12:29; this prophesy to the generations that entered Canaan promised a steady and methodical possession of the land for, "If you should say in your heart, 'These nations... how can I dispossess them?'— you shall not be afraid of them, but you shall remember well what the Lord your God did to Pharaoh... So shall the Lord your God do to all the peoples of whom you are afraid. Moreover the Lord your God will send the hornet among them until those who are left, who hide themselves from you, are destroyed. You shall not be terrified of them; for... the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you little by little; you will be unable to destroy them at once, lest the beasts of the field become too numerous for you. But the Lord your God will deliver them over to you and will inflict defeat upon them until they are destroyed. And He will deliver their kings into your hand, and you will destroy their name from under heaven; no one shall be able to stand against you until you have destroyed them Deut. 7:17-24; yet "you have forsaken Me and served other gods. Therefore I will deliver you [Israel] no more" Jud. 10:13; so the generation following Joshua did not see fulfilment of the prophecy as promised for, " 'Because this nation has transgressed My covenant... I also will no longer drive out before them [in the timeframe prophesied] any of the nations which Joshua left when he died, so that through them I may test Israel, whether they will keep the ways of the Lord, to walk in them as their fathers kept them, or not.' Therefore the Lord left those nations, without driving them out immediately; nor did He deliver them into the hand of Joshua" Jud. 2:20-23 as had been prophesied; of course, after the recreation on the New Earth pagan nations will not occupy the land but these prophecies were not of the distant future but about Israel's entrance into the land.
Etcetera: "let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them [Israel] and I may consume them. And I will make of you [Moses] a great nation" Ex. 32:10; "I will not go up in your midst" Ex. 33:3 yet God repented and did accompany the Israelites through the wilderness for Moses said to the Lord, "See, You say to me, 'Bring up this people.' But You have not let me know whom You will send with me... Now therefore, I pray, if I have found grace in Your sight, show me now... And consider that this nation is Your people. And [God] said, 'My Presence will go with you...' " Ex. 33:12-14; "Behold, I will bring calamity on you" Ahab 1 Ki. 21:21 yet "See how Ahab has humbled himself before Me? Because he has humbled himself before Me, I will not bring the calamity in his days..." 1 Ki. 21:29; "Therefore [God] said that He would destroy them, had not Moses His chosen one stood before Him in the breach, to turn away His wrath, lest He destroy [Israel]" Ps. 106:23; "I will pour out My fury on them and fulfill My anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt.’ But [then] I acted for My name’s sake" and did not destroy the Hebrews Ezek. 20:8-9; then "the house of Israel rebelled against Me in the wilderness... Then I said I would pour out My fury on them in the wilderness, to consume them. But [then] I acted for My name’s sake" though I had "also raised My hand in an oath... that I would not bring them into the land... because they despised My judgments... Nevertheless My eye spared them from destruction. I did not make an end of them in the wilderness" Ezek. 20:13-17; and then again, for "I said I would pour out My fury on them... Nevertheless I withdrew My hand" Ezek. 20:21-22; "Therefore because of you [Israel's lying priest and prophets] Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins" by Micah's prophecy Micah 3:12 yet God repented of Micah's prophecy for "Micah... prophesied in the days of Hezekiah... 'Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins' ... [Yet] the Lord repented concerning the doom which He had pronounced against them" Jer. 26:18-19.
See Also: Category 20 is even stronger than this category in that in those verses God Himself is the one who says that He will no longer do something that He said He would do, such as, "I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it" Jer. 18:7-8, whereas this Category 10 is based on the Bible text showing, though God Himself may not state it, that He will not do something (for divinely perfect reasons of course) that He had said He would do.

Spoiler

13 - God Shows Regret similar to repent and uses the same Hebrew word, nacham.
I greatly regret making Saul king 1 Sam. 15:11 therefore God deposed Saul from the throne and gave the dynasty to David. For "Samuel said to Saul, 'You have done foolishly. You have not kept the commandment of the LORD… For… the LORD would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. But now your kingdom shall not continue…' " 1 Sam. 13:13-14. [An "action" cannot be a figure of speech. Why not? Because an action is not only speech; it is an action. God "repenting" that He made Saul King 1 Sam. 15:11, 35 could theoretically be a figure of speech (but if so, then as a figure, it would have to convey some actual meaning). However "to repent" does not refer only to words or thoughts, but it can also refer to an action (to turn from). When any word, including the word "repent", refers to an action, then it cannot be a figure "of speech", because it is an action. When God removed Saul from the throne, and then actually gave the dynasty to David, that deposing of Saul was an action that God performed. This powerfully illustrates a reason why God inspired His Word as a historical narrative rather than merely as a series of abstractions, so that we would constrain our interpretations based on the biblical accounts.] The Lord repented that He had made man on the earth and was grieved Gen. 6:6-7 so He destroyed the earth's population, which is not speech but an action [except for Noah's family Mat. 24:37-38; 1 Peter 3:20] etc., including the other repent verses.

Spoiler

20 - God Says He Will No Longer Do Something He Said He Would Do.
When I say that I will bless a nation, if they disobey Me, I will not do that which I said I will do Jer. 18:9-10; God acted on this warning as described by Isaiah: "... A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard [Israel]: My Well-beloved has a vineyard On a very fruitful hill. He dug it up and cleared out its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, And also made a winepress in it; So He expected it to bring forth good grapes [faith], But it brought forth wild grapes [unbelief]. And now... Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard. What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes? And now, please let Me tell you what I will do to My vineyard: I will take away its hedge, and it shall be burned; And break down its wall, and it shall be trampled down. I will lay it waste; It shall not be pruned or dug, But there shall come up briers and thorns. I will also command the clouds That they rain no rain on it.” For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel... He looked for justice, but behold, oppression..." Isa. 5:1-6; Drive out nations Joshua 23:13; Judge 2:21; Jonah 3:10.

Spoiler

23 - God's People Believe God Can Change His Mind.
Moses pleaded with the Lord his God, and said: "Lord, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people... Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, 'He brought them out... to consume them from the face of the earth'? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and repent from this harm to Your people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel [Jacob...] to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, 'I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.' " Ex. 32:11-13; God promised Abraham to give him a son by Sarah and "Abraham said to God, 'Oh, that Ishmael might live before You!' " Gen. 17:16-18; Abraham pressed God to be merciful to Sodom saying, " 'Would You also destroy the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there were fifty righteous within the city... Far be it from You to do such a thing...' So the Lord said, 'If I find in Sodom fifty righteous... then I will spare all the place...' Then Abraham answered... 'Suppose there were five less than the fifty... Suppose there should be forty... Suppose thirty... Suppose twenty... Suppose ten should be found there?' And [God] said, 'I will not destroy it for the sake of ten.' " Gen. 18:23-32; "the Lord was very angry with Aaron and would have destroyed him; so I prayed for Aaron" Deut. 9:19-20; David therefore pleaded with God for the child, and David fasted... Then his servants said to him, "What is this that you have done? You fasted and wept for the child while he was alive, but when the child died, you arose and ate..." And he said, "While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who can tell whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?' " 2 Sam. 12:16, 21-22; "Therefore He said that He would destroy them, had not Moses His chosen one stood before Him in the breach, to turn away His wrath, lest He destroy them" Ps. 106:23; etc.

Spoiler

24 - God’s People Believe they can Change God’s Mind and they Do Change His Mind including as Jesus teaches.
"Then Moses pleaded with the Lord his God" Ex. 32:11-13; "I was afraid of the anger and hot displeasure with which the Lord was angry with you, to destroy you. But the Lord listened to me at that time also. And the Lord was very angry with Aaron and would have destroyed him; so I prayed for Aaron" Deut. 9:19-20; Jeremiah believed people could change God's mind, and especially Moses and Samuel, as indicated by him writing this under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, "Then the Lord said to me, 'Even if Moses and Samuel stood before Me [even then!], My mind would [still] not be favorable toward this people...' " Jer. 15:1; "Therefore He said that He would destroy them, had not Moses His chosen one stood before Him in the breach, to turn away His wrath, lest He destroy them" Ps. 106:23; persistent widow Luke 18:4-7; Abraham pressing God to be merciful to Sodom and Gomorrah Gen. 18:23-32.

Spoiler

25 - God’s People Believe a Prophecy Does Not Have to Come To Pass which belief the inspired Scriptures report not as their error but positively, which is the Holy Spirit's affirmation that the future is not settled but open.
"Thus says the Holy Spirit, 'So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this belt...' Now when we heard these things, both we and those from that place pleaded with him not to go up to Jerusalem" Acts 21:11-12; Hezekiah was sick and near death and Isaiah the prophet went to him and said, "Thus says the Lord: 'Set your house in order for you shall die and not live.' Then [Hezekiah] turned his face toward the wall, and prayed to the Lord, saying, "Remember now, O Lord, I pray, how I have walked before You in truth and with a loyal heart, and have done what was good in Your sight." And Hezekiah wept bitterly. And it happened, before Isaiah had gone out into the middle court, that the word of the Lord came to him, saying, "Return and tell Hezekiah the leader of My people, 'Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: "I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely I will heal you." ' " 2 Kings 20:1-5 and Isa. 38:1-5; Moses Ex. 33:15-16.

Spoiler

29 - Prayer Can Change What Would Otherwise Be the Future.
Jehoahaz pleaded and God listened and helped deliver Israel 2 Kings 13:4; God told Hezekiah to prepare for "you shall die and not live" but the King pleaded with God who then said, "I have heard your prayer and surely I will heal you... And I will add to your days fifteen years" 2 Kings 20:1-6; a persistent widow pleaded with an unjust judge and Jesus interpreted His own parable, Shall not God answer the prayers of those who continue to ask God Luke 18:1-7; the friend who comes asking for bread at midnight is resisted until his persists and Jesus interprets His parables saying So ask God "and it will be given to you" Luke 11:5-9; Jesus could call for twelve legions of angels (to save Him from the cross) Mat. 26:53; etc.

Spoiler

Open Theism Bible Verses in 33 Categories | Open Theism

opentheism.org

Anyone who claims to know God's word and says that the Bible doesn't say that God changed His mind is a liar, plain and simple.

See, you didn't find "a" verse.

 

[Derf]

First, I'm not sure I responded. Second, for Derf (just one of many) 2 Timothy 3:16 Isaiah 55:11.

That say what? Removed from context of the discussion, I'm unsure of your point. That you sometimes throw in some references to scripture that don't seem to apply? No need to show me that.

That said: Proverbs 4:7

Thanks, you too!

 

[Clete]

You guys all act like rhetoric doesn't exist until Aristotle or Cicero or some skubalon. You make no argument, it's just a silent presupposition—there's really no rhetoric in the Bible to speak of.

Rhetoric is an attempt at persuasion. Under Aristotle, meaning ideally, rhetoric is the truth—but not the whole truth. Not out of trying to deceive, but trying to persuade. Not because you're reporting falsely, but you're reporting the interesting part, and skipping the boring part. The boring part will just confuse people, so you leave it out anyway, just because it's confusing, but it's also boring, and you can miss the point entirely if you look too hard at the boring stuff, a potential rabbit hole, especially for the wrong party, who for one reason or other, just either has a chip on his shoulder, or for some other reason is captured by his pet theory.

I mean maybe. It doesn't have to be any of those reasons, but Aristotle would say, you first establish the whole truth, and then you curate or even cherry pick the parts of the whole truth that are persuasive, and then you construct your rhetoric from that subset of the whole truth. It's the same way storytellers work, and journalists. Not every last detail is provided. The newspaper would be a mile long if journalists told the whole truth, every day. c. "Not every story is an anecdote. You have to discriminate."

So I'm not "explaining away" anything the Prophets (the Holy Spirit; at the end of the day, we all confess, us Catholics, that He "has spoken through the Prophets", so that's Him) said, not one thing. He, the Spirit, and the Prophets did too, had every right to use rhetoric. Whatever it is that God was trying to persuade people to do, went into what He and they chose to say to them. And the rhetoric either worked or it didn't work, and it doesn't mean in the story, to the characters we're reading about—it also means to you the reader. Does the prophecy or saying or story or narrative make you believe or feel something, does it make you reconsider your path in life, and to change your ways? That could be why the rhetoric, it might be not an attempt to convince you of something that did or didn't happen historically, it might be an attempt to get you to change. You the reader.

I know that's what all you guys who deny the Real Presence of Christ tell me when I quote to you the words of consecration, which start with, "This is My body." Certainly you believe the Lord doesn't literally mean it. You believe it's rhetoric, it's an attempt to persuade. Same as John 6, the "bread of life" discourse. It's rhetoric.

So in one case, you act like rhetoric doesn't exist, to prove Open Theism is true, and in the other, you act like rhetoric does exist and in fact is the prima facie explanation for the words of Jesus, and any attempt to claim otherwise is condemned, scorned, rebuked, criticized, excoriated and even ridiculed.

You know, that's talking out of both sides of your mouth, and you're apparently unaware that you're even doing it, but it's been here on TOL for all [to] see for over 25 years now, over 25 years and counting, here on TOL, we all have all the proof we need that my claim here is right, that you are all hypocrites and actors, forked tongues. The mere existence and possibility of rhetoric as a genre of literature in the Bible cannot be countenanced if Openness be true, and also ofc when Jesus said He is bread, He is being rhetorical.

Forked tongue. Subtil.

This has got to be the single most irrational gem of glaring stupidity posted on TOL in months!

There's a crazy dude around here somewhere that thinks Noah's contemporaries invented viruses as a form of biological warfare. You've got him beat! I mean, you don't even do a convincing job of burning down the straw men that you set up! That's pretty amazing!

So, is there anything that open theists actually believe that you have an argument against or is this made up nonsense all you've got?

 

[Lon]

Anyone who claims to know God's word and says that the Bible doesn't say that God changed His mind is a liar, plain and simple.

*cough cough* Note that it is a commentary by an Open Theist, not scriptures. Why? Because you will never find "God changed His mind."
"Liar" not with any kind of standing. It is reckless to make the assertion. Granted Open Theism must have it true, but it is not. You'll never find any modern colloquialism in all of scripture. Commentary such as above? Sure. Commentaries can take liberty with the text, translations aren't appropriately translations, just paraphrases if they include any obscure modern colloquialism. I stand correct, despite the attempted defamation.

See, you didn't find "a" verse.

No, not even one "God changed His mind" exists nowhere in scripture. It is only but a paraphrase, a modern colloquialism, thus certainly cannot be found any more than "that's so rad" could be found in scripture either. Neither exists but in modern day colloquialism. Should we use modern colloquialism to translate any scripture? :nono: Such is a paraphrase specifically because such isn't in scripture, it is 'sloppy' if called translation, rather is rightly called a paraphrase. That is all anyone will ever find of "God changed His mind." We all have but one mind, thus it is even sloppy for us today akin to "that's so rad" as any kind of biblical intimation.

 

[Lon]

That say what? Removed from context of the discussion, I'm unsure of your point. That you sometimes throw in some references to scripture that don't seem to apply? No need to show me that.

These apply specifically in the accusation that I don't quote scripture often. So far in thread I've been accused of not quoting scripture, not being honest, etc. I used to think I only had one accuser Is it possible that someone is so vested in their own theology that they'd call any friction on such terms? I'll be taking time off from TOL for a bit and simply let my posts stand on their own merit. I don't believe accusation good for discussion, as it means other's are doubling down instead of actually considering whether their view is biblical and Christ-honoring.

Thanks, you too!

I thought you said it didn't apply? Might see you in a month or two. Take care. -Lon Will keep you all and these matters in prayer.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Anyone who claims to know God's word and says that the Bible doesn't say that God changed His mind is a liar, plain and simple.

See, you didn't find "a" verse.

If someone is incapable of admitting that those verses show God changing His mind, he either hasn't read the passages cited, or he's lying to himself.

Such passages clearly show God changing His mind, His followers believing He can change His mind, and even acting towards that option, and God even getting tired of changing His mind!

It's utter foolishness to deny what scripture clearly demonstrates just so one can hold onto his precious doctrine.