Knight's POTD 06-05-2006

[Nathon Detroit]

Oh my gosh... this is a classic post!!! :rotfl:

Possibly Post Of The Year?

Hi Jim,

I hope your week is going well. Thank you for your reply. I enjoyed reading and reacting to it as well. My response and questions follow:

I’m glad you enjoyed my theme. I plan to keep it going, and ask the same repetitive questions. I chose this example because this is a woman that I used to work with. When I started at the Sheriff’s Office, I was assigned to the jail. After being assigned to the Patrol Division, I would sometimes go back and work overtime in the jail. We offer counselors for the inmates who may have issues that fall outside the realm of what jailers can deal with. One of those counselors was a woman named June Candelario. I worked with June a few times, but did not get to know her well. . Here’s an excerpt from a local News station.

Commerce City Police responded to 6775 Ash St. on a report of child abuse and arrested 61-year-old June Candelario.
Police say she kept her grandson in a plastic 46"x30"x35" dog kennel while she was at work. Candelario is a detention counselor for the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office. She works Monday-Thursday 4 p.m.-2 a.m.
Candelario would lock him in the kennel before she left for work, and then open the kennel when she got home around 3 a.m., according to police.
Candelario is in custody for second degree kidnapping, reckless endangerment, false imprisonment and child abuse. Her bond was set at $100,000.​

Here’s the link to the story and a video at 9News.com if you’re interested.

Now Jim, what glory can come to God from a 61-year-old woman locking her grandson in a cage while she’s working? Did God predestine June to lock her 13-year-old grandson in a cage while she worked? Let me predestine your answer… :chuckle:

Predestined? Yes, of course! It cannot be any other way if God is to be trusted.
Of course! How can it possibly be any other way and make sense of scripture? It must be this way, scripturally and logically. If God did NOT predestine that 61-year-old's behavior, then God cannot be trusted.

These answers were taken from your previous post and the only thing I changed was “12” to “61” bolded above. Last time, you said God predestined a 12-year-old to get high on methamphetamine, steal a car, and flee from the Police until he was pitted. I believe your answer will be along the same lines this time. You believe God predestined a 61-year-old woman to lock her grandson in a cage while she was at work. :nono: Now, on to your post and why my theme is relevant.

I apologize that I’ve fallen away from the question numbering format. I plan to ask questions and reply to all of yours. If I miss anything, let me know.
I would like to open with what I see as a huge problem for your view. I plan to present what I see as an inconsistency, and then present the problem you’ve created for yourself.
I’m trying to understand how you deal with God’s predestination of evil men / events, and how you say God is not culpable. In other words Jim, how do you deal with “The Problem of Evil” in God’s Word? I must say, I was a bit disappointed with your answer and even more disappointed with your logic. When asked if God was responsible for the evil men and the actions of the evil men He predestined, you respond:

II. Open Theists and the definition of 'responsible'
A. Refusal to acknowledge the meaning of 'responsible'
For the many years I've been debating Open Theists, there is something that none, not one, no one, no Open Theist has been willing to process: the definition of 'responsible'. Perhaps you will be the singular exception. But I'm not getting my hopes up.

Jim, I am the singular exception. I spent a number of hours this week processing the definition of responsible, and I offer the following response. Jim, I find it interesting that you accuse me of “humanistic sensibilities, vivid expressions of that humanism, and finally you say I am FORCED, not by logic nor by scripture, but by humanism…”, and then use a humanistic, human "inspired" definition to describe what God is not. In fact, this concept you present is going to be your downfall. More in a minute...

B. The definition of 'responsible'

Thanks for the definition. I’m sure it was helpful for those who did not understand the word. Thanks for the historical context of the word. I’m not sure how a humanistic definition helps your case.
You continue,

With the exception of number 5, none of the definitions from the Oxford Dictionary apply to God. Note that each of the entries with bold portions cannot apply to God, because God does not answer to anyone, is not held accountable by anyone, and submits to no authority that could rightly or even logically blame Him for anything. Furthermore, the lone exception, entry number 5, is NOT what Open Theists mean when they complain that the Settled View would make God responsible for evil. Moreover, on the Open View, even number 5 cannot be applied to God, which will be demonstrated below.

Jim, do you see the antinomy you present? Just because you define a word, then draw a logical conclusion on that definition, and apply that definition to your preconceived ideas about God, does not make your premise correct. In fact, I would agree with your conclusion. To quote you, “God does not answer to anyone, is not held accountable by anyone, and submits to no authority that could rightly or even logically blame Him for anything.” You’re right Jim, God cannot be responsible for sin! We agree. However, we disagree as to the origination of that sin.

You say God foreknew / predestined evil men to do evil things. Simple logic tells us that if a Being originates an evil thought or action, then that Being is culpable. You are stuck between a rock and a hard place Jim. Your "out" is based on a humanistic definition, and is illogical at best.

You’re answer to the quandary is simply, “Logically, God should be responsible for the sin He predestined. The English translation of that word implies that the ‘responsible’ party must be in subject to someone or something. Therefore, God cannot be responsible for anything.”

Again, note that each of the entries with bold portions cannot apply to God, because God does not answer to anyone, is not held accountable by anyone, and submits to no authority that could rightly or even logically blame Him for anything.

See what I mean? You just put a band-aid on the problem Jim, and the blood is already soaking through.

You can’t see the forest for the trees Jim. If God predestines evil, then He’s culpable. Simple logic. The OV rightly concludes that God does not predestine evil men to do evil things. Therefore, God is not culpable. That’s why I agree with your conclusion. The evil person who freely chooses evil is guilty and will be judged. This line you’ve drawn with defining “responsible” just scratches the surface for problems you create.

Next, I asked,
Originally Posted by Jeremy Finkenbinder
Is God responsible for the actions I describe, or is the fallen human being responsible?

See what I mean? Given the above definitions, God is not, will not and cannot be responsible for anything, to anyone, ever. Any other usage of this word is unwarranted and does violence to language.

Jim, here’s the biggest problem yet. God cannot be responsible for anything?

Is God responsible for creating the universe in seven days?

Is God responsible for the light and heat which comes from the sun?

Is God responsible for flooding the earth and wiping out the evil Nephilim?

Is God responsible for working a plan of redemption?

Is God responsible for annihilating the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah?

IS GOD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PREDESTINATION OF ALL THINGS?

If God is not responsible for anything, then how can God do anything? What word would you use to ascribe thoughts and / or actions to God Jim?

III. The Reign of Humanism Upon The Open View, or 'What Kind of God is Acceptable to Open Theists?

Originally Posted by Jeremy You have argued that God had predestined evil people to do evil things. I argue that evil people freely choose to do evil things and God is grieved by their actions.​

First, you've posed a false dichotomy. God predestines the evil that evil people freely choose.

False Dichotomy? Jim, it’s the only dichotomy. There are no other valid options. I see that you desire to redefine my statement about what you argue. I said,

(Jim) You have argued that God had predestined evil people to do evil things.

You want the statement to be amended to say,

God predestines the evil that evil people freely choose.

There’s that antinomy again Jim. Two things here: If God predestines the evil, then He is culpable. You use the term “evil people” and say they “freely choose’ to do the evil that God predestined. Who predestined the evil person to be evil Jim? You are forced to say “God” of course, again making Him culpable.

Second, Biblical descriptions of God's grief (indeed, all His emotions) are condescensions to the finite mind and emotions of man, giving rich and poignant emphases to His prescriptive will.

Jim, why do you worship a rock? I had no idea that you held to impassibility as well. I guess it is a logical conclusion. What confidence do you have in a god who is emotionless? The God of the Bible shows His emotion on every page of His Word. Why don’t you see this Jim?

Third, your argument is based on humanism and existentialist premises, the very thing that God's use of figurative language was intended to pre-empt. But instead of heeding God's obvious figurative descriptions, Open Theists use those very figures non-figuratively to reinforce their existentialism.

Jim, I take exception to you classifying me as an existentialist. If you’re going to throw those terms around, feel free to substantiate your claims. In fact, your view is more existentialist that the OV. You are unable to explain human existence and are steeped in philosophy. That’s why you made the mistake you made earlier, and that’s why you use a humanistic definition to describe something God cannot do. That’s why you have a philosophical / illogical conclusion when applying that humanistic definition to God.

We should all be forced only by the teachings of scripture and of sound logic.

Since when are antinomies logical Jim? Remember, you said,

God predestines the evil that evil people freely choose.

That doesn’t sound very scriptural or logical.

But it's clear to me that Open Theists are forced instead by their humanistic sensibilities and existential assumptions.

Prove it. Show me that I have failed to support my ideas about God with Scripture.

Open View proponents, not unlike atheists, find it unacceptable that God would use evil for His good purposes…

Since when does an atheist find anything unacceptable about God? Atheists deny the existence of God, hence the term... Since you like definitions,

a·the·ist
n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.​

…despite the fact that Bible teaches that very thing

Prove it Jim. Show me evidence that God uses evil for His good purposes. In fact, show that God predestines evil for His good purposes. Let me guess…
*Genesis 50:20, *Acts 2:23, *Acts 4:27, *Romans 8:28
If you have anything new to offer, let me know. Otherwise, we can start discussing each of these. You let me know.

So their humanism twists scripture to suit their sensibilities. They say things like:
"I could never believe in the God of the Settled View."
"If I were a Calvinist, I would hate God."
"I would rather spend eternity in hell than spend one day in heaven with the Calvinist God."
"I truly find it difficult to worship a God who causes those things."
Each of Jeremy's thematic offerings, in this post and his last, are vivid expressions of that humanism. Jeremy is affirming that he refuses to believe that God would use evil for good. That is to say, Jeremy is FORCED, not by logic nor by scripture, but by humanism and existentialism, to declare what kind of God he is willing to believe in. Atheists do this as well, by the way.

Jim, every single argument I’ve offered is based in Scripture and exegeted logically. The above statement is a flat out lie Jim.

IV. The Jeremy Theme, Episode 2
Originally Posted by Jeremy Finkenbinder
... Last week, ... [etc.] ... Now I ask again Jim, what glory can come to a God who predestines a 12 year old to get high on meth and steal a car?
This is what I (and Job) call a FWQ (Foolish Women Question). Your question is very similar to that of Job's wife:
Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die [i.e. "what glory can come to a God who predestines Job to be attacked by Satan?"]. But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.[Job 2:9,10]

Jim this is eisegesis. Your "i.e." is unsubstantiated. There is nothing in the book of Job to suggest that God predestined Job to be attacked by satan. Have you read the book of Job Jim? If you had, you would know that satan sought Job because of his relationship with God. You actually fall into the "foolish woman" camp with Job's wife. Mrs. Job and Hilston wrongly blame God for Job's trials and tribulations. The reality is, God allowed satan to take Job "in his hand" as long as satan did not kill Job. There is nothing to suggest that God predestined anything. Poor eisegesis Jim... BTW, you never answered my above question...

Originally Posted by Jeremy Finkenbinder
... Do you really believe God predestined this young man to commit this crime before the foundation of the world?​

Predestined? Yes, of course! It cannot be any other way if God is to be trusted.

This is sad Jim. You do not have a relationship with God. Your god is immutable, impassable and cannot be responsible for anything. Your god does not get angry, nor does he rejoice with you. When and if you pray, God does not hear your prayer. If you choose not to pray, then God predestined it anyway. Your "trust" in God is based on His predestination of evil. My trust in God is based on my relationship with Him. He is my Father Jim. I love Him, and He loves me. I am one of His children Jim. I wish you could share in my joy of this Loving Father. Unfortunately, I see you hugging your rock until you die. When you meet Him, you'll know better Jim.

[indentOriginally Posted by Jeremy Finkenbinder
... Do you believe God predestined a 12 year old to have no fear while a gun is pointed at his head?[/indent]Of course! How can it possibly be any other way and make sense of scripture? It must be this way, scripturally and logically. If God did NOT predestine that 12-year-old's behavior, then God cannot be trusted.

Jim, let go of your rock and embrace the God of the Bible.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Finkenbinder
... Maybe he's a calvinist and knows that God did not predestine him to die that day.​

That mischaracterization is beneath you, Jeremy, even in jest. It's the kind of stuff I warned against in my previous post. No Calvinist worth his salt goes around saying, "I am going to do something dangerous because I don't think God predestined me to die today," so even as a humorous dig, it doesn't apply. Think of it this way, Jeremy: What if I were to say, "Maybe he's an Open Theist and knows that God cannot be trusted." I'm sure you wouldn't think of that as funny. Remember, I make a distinction between what Open Theists SAY (A,B and C) and what Open Theism LEADS TO (X,Y and Z). So Jeremy, I urge you refain from that stuff if you wish for this to be a mutually beneficial discussion. If you continue with such tripe, it will quickly become unilaterally beneficial in my favor.

If you were offended, I apologize. I still see that as a valid XYZ for your position Jim. If you didn't like that, how about this Jim...

What did the calvinist say after he fell and broke his leg? "Thank God that's over with!"

V. God's Character and the Open View
In my previous post, I asked Jeremy: JHQ1: When you ask "Who is God?," is this question about God's character or God's behavior? In other words, what exactly do you want to look at in order to identify and describe God?
JHQ2: Do you see a difference between what God is in His essence and what God does? If so, what is the difference
JHQ3: Is trustworthiness an essential attribute of God?
JHQ4 Could God have become untrustworthy this morning if He wanted to? Why or why not?

Jim, I knew this was going to turn philosophical. When I asked "Who is God?" I wanted to know who you think He is. You have done a wonderful job showing me who you think He is. I allowed you to run with with your philosophical questions regarding who you thing God is. It’s really difficult to comment on this sort of assertion because Scripture doesn’t speak in such philosophical terms very often. Scripture simply assumes the righteousness of God, never making any attempt to trace it logically or even really to defend it. When confronted with the theoretical possibility that God might be unjust...

Romans 3:5b Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) 6 Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world?

...Paul simply responds, “then how can God judge the world?” (Rom. 3:6). If God is going to judge the world, He must be just. No attempt to work though the issue. Neither does Scripture talk much, if at all, about something like “God’s essence.” Maybe Hebrews 1:3, which calls Christ the ‘express image of His underlying substance’, but even that’s more about Christ as a manifestation of God than it is about trying to define what God’s ‘underlying substance’ is.

I wonder whether we’re really in a position to tell God which aspects of Him are essential to Him and which are not. For me – I emphasize the subjectivity here – God must be honest and truthful. I cannot imagine God dishonest or untruthful. Trustworthiness, in the sense I'm talking about it here (faithfulness to His commitments and such), for me, is part and parcel of honesty.

Scripture certainly affirms God’s truthfulness (Deut 32:4; Zeph. 3:5). But that knocks the discussion back a notch or two. If we don’t know for sure that God is truthful, how can we know whether the Bible is truthful? A spoken or written word is only as trustworthy as the one who expresses it. It seems odd to me that you fault me for endangering the notion of God’s trustworthiness when the only evidence you have for God’s truthfulness is the Bible’s claims on its behalf. Well, if a liar solemnly affirms he’s telling the truth, where does that leave his listener? At some level I think we pretty much have to assume God’s honesty as we trust that Scripture is His self-revelation. I'm not much for philosophy Jim. I'd much rather focus on Scripture, as long as you believe the Bible is truthful.

VI. Can the Open Theist God Be Trusted?
Hilston previously wrote: According to the logical conclusions of the claims of the Open View, there is no reason to thank God for anything, because God cannot be trusted and He cannot truly secure anything.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Finkenbinder
Is this XYZ? I would love to hear your ABC's for this one, because these claims cannot be substantiated.​

Yes, these are the logical conclusions of the Open View. And they surely can be substantiated, and have been repeatedly in this forum. If God is capable of evil, then why do you trust Him? How do you know He didn't turn evil a year ago?
JHQ5: I'm curious, Jeremy. On what grounds do you praise God for something He has not done and may very well change His mind about?

See what I mean Jim? Our discussion was about ability. I have the ability to murder my children. Because of my character, upbringing, morality and the holy Spirit in me, I will not exercise that ability. You ask why I trust Him if He has the ability to do evil? My children love and trust me, even though I have the ability to harm them physically if I choose. If God has the ability to do evil, why do I trust Him? Because I love Him. He's my Father. He has done nothing in His revealed Word to cause me to not trust Him. He has been Holy, Just, Righteous, Loving, Relational, Living, Personal, etc. since eternity past, and will not let me down. I believe His Word is true, and He tells me that I am seated with Him above the heavenlies Jim. I believe Him because He's my Father and He loves me.

Hilston previously wrote: On the Settled View, God can be trusted in everything, to the extent that even the evil and calamity that befalls us can be viewed as being worked by God, together with The Called, i.e. the Body of Christ (Ro 8:28), toward His immutable purpose (Eph 1:11).

Jim, the OV God cannot be trusted because He is capricious. He arbitrarily chooses who He will save and who He predestines to hell. Why do you trust Him Jim? How do you know you're one of the elect. Maybe God spoke to you figuratively / anthropomorphically. He said He saved you, but He meant the exact opposite. Seriously Jim, how do you know you're one of the elect?

Originally Posted by Jeremy Finkenbinder
Jim, I alluded to Romans 8:28 in another discussion. If you remember, I showed yo that a more accurate translation showed that God works together with those who love Him, those who are called according to His purpose, all things for good.

And if YOU remember, I showed you that I had already affirmed a even more accurate translation than you offered.

No you didn't. You failed to see my point. God works together with those who love Him, called according to His purpose, all things for good. You imply that the passage teaches God works all things that He predestined (good and evil) for good. You're wrong Jim. The passage does not say that.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Finkenbinder
You seem to spin the text to say that all things "even the evil and calamity that befalls us can be viewed as being worked by God."

It's not "spin." It's biblical. Job affirmed this. Paul instructs The Called to be patient in tribulation (Ro 12:12). The Settled View can take comfort in Paul's instruction because God is in control of our troubles and afflictions. Unless God is in control of our tribulation, there are no grounds on which to base our patience in the midst of it. We are told to rejoice in tribulations (Ro 5:3,4). Paul commended the Thessalonians for their patience and faith in all the persecutions and tribulations they endured (2Th 1:4). In the Open Theist world, there cannot logically be any comfort or patience or faith, because God is not in control of evil. When we pray, Paul says that God's peace that passes understanding will guard or garrison our hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. On the Settled View, this all makes sense, because God is truly in exhaustive and meticulous control, working together with The Called all things concerning their Hope, their security, their preservation. The Open View cannot have this confidence, if one is logically consistent and one's views (A,B and C) are taken to their logical conclusions (X,Y and Z). All Open Theists I've encountered thus far, without exception, refuse to connect these dots.

More eisegesis. God instructs us to abhor what is evil and cling to what is good. How can we, as members of His body, take comfort in tribulation that God causes / controls? An equally valid interpretation of the verses you cite are as follows: Romans 12:12 contextually falls in the middle of many exhortations from Paul concerning the Christian life. Paul, of all Christians, understands that the ministry and Christian life are tough. You imply that God causes the tribulations. The reality is, God protects Paul through those tribulations and Paul conveys to us that we should remain patient when the going gets tough. The same can be said for Romans 5 and 2 Th 1:4. You say we cannot trust God because He does not control evil. I trust God because His Holy Spirit protects me from evil. The SV's hope lies solely in whether or not God capriciously chose you as one of The Called.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Finkenbinder
You attribute all evil and calamity to God's predestination, but strip Him of culpability.

Culpability is responsibility. Culpability cannot be applied to God. There is no superior authority to which He would or could answer.

Again, I ask, is God culpable for predestination of all things?

Originally Posted by Jeremy Finkenbinder
This is an antinomy Jim. "God did it, but it's not His fault He did it," is what you essentially argue

Who is going to hold God accountable? Who will judge the ultimate Judge? There is no antinomy if you understand the meaning of 'culpable' and 'responsible.'

I do understand the terms Jim. The way you apply them to God causes you quite a problem. If that's the case, then He can't do anything good, either. If culpability for doing evil is dependent on being accountable to a higher authority, then so is merit for doing good. Jim, your thinking leads to an amoral God, to whom neither evil nor good can be attributed.
Next, we discussed the method of salvation...

False dichotomy, Jeremy. God predestines the elect to freely respond to God by the gift of faith God gives them. Prior to receiving the gift of faith, the elect are incapable of yielding to God (Ro 8:7). They are spiritually dead and unable to quicken themselves. The gift of faith that is given when the Holy Spirit regenerates the elect person is that which subsequently, not prerequisitely, enables a person to believe and to be converted. Conversion follows regeneration; not precedes it.

Jim, what about Cornelius in Acts 10?

Hilston previously wrote: God is already glorified. God is perfect, and is perfectly glorious. God was fully glorious before He created reprobates and He will be just as glorious after He sends them to hell.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Finkenbinder
Here's another mind blower Jim. I honestly can't believe that you argue that God, from before the foundation of the world, created reprobates for His own pleasure. ...

To clarify: Yes, you can be assured that I believe that God decreed the existence and behavior of the reprobates. This is why I can trust Him.

Jim, how do you know your not one of the reprobates? The God of the OV is relational and assures us of our salvation. When I heard the gospel, responded positively to it and was baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ, I was sealed by His Spirit for the day of redemption. My salvation is secure Jim. You might be a reporobate if that's how God wrote His script, right?

Originally Posted by Jeremy Finkenbinder
You offer no Scripture to support this idea Jim.

You didn't ask, Jeremy. There's plenty of scriptural support. Consider the following: God showed John the future ~ a future that Open Theists claim does NOT exist. John saw the future in visions and was able to write down, using his own language, infallibly and inerrantly guided by angelic supervision, exactly what he saw. In Revelation, John describes ten kings who will (they really will, Jeremy) freely decide and agree to give their power to the Beast. The angel helped John to understand what he was seeing, and in Revelation 17, John writes:

First off, There’s nothing here about God ‘decreeing’ anything here. Secondly, this was a vision of what God will do when the time comes. Do you really believe that Christ put John in a time machine and transported him to an actual future that already exists? Thirdly Jim, we have yet to discuss conditional prophecy. This text can be viewed easily enough through the lens of conditional prophecy (i.e. who knows in precisely what format this material will be realized). As to God putting these evil acts into the hearts of these kings, God puts in their hearts to do something for His purpose; the evil of it is their own. There's nothing new with God using evil men for His purposes. LIke I said earlier, I'll wait for your examples before commenting further.

VII. Questions
Hilston had asked Jeremy to explain what he means by "God's character."

Originally Posted by Jeremy Finkenbinder
God's character, God's nature, God's actions, God's behaviors, God's interaction with His creation, etc ...​

I was really hoping you would offer a more careful definition. God's character (determined by His nature and essence) is not the same as His actions, behavior and interactions. God's essential attributes are what define His character.
JHQ6: Jeremy, do you believe there is such a thing as God's essence that determines His character? Or is it God's behavior that determines His character?

I addressed this above.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Finkenbinder
Do you agree that Christ's increase in knowledge, stature and favor with God is a change within the relationship of the Trinity?

Jeremy, this is one of many Open View Clichés that is just bad exegesis. The passage is talking about Jesus' human childhood experience and maturation. The word for "increase" is "to move forward, to proceed." What you call knowledge is "sophia," which is wisdom. "Stature" refers to his physical growth and age. "Favor" is charis, which is grace. The entire passage is describing Jesus as a healthy growing human being with a particular precocity regarding the scriptures. Does this represent a change in God's essential attributes? No. Did God love Jesus more because of how He was moving forward in wisdom and size and age? No. Before the incarnation, God could not love Jesus any more. After the incarnation, God's love for Jesus did not increase.

That's what I call eloquent obfuscation. I never asked if this passage represented a change in God's essential attributes. You changed that question to suit your needs Jim. I'll ask yet again... Do you agree that Christ's increase in knowledge, stature and favor with God is a change within the relationship of the Trinity? In other words, has the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit ever changed, in any way?
I must admit Jim, your philosophical ideas caused me think quite a bit this week. While I was pondering your points, I came up with a couple of philosophical questions. We know that God created the heavens, the earth and everything in them in seven days. Would you agree that God is a creative God? When God rested on the seventh day, did His creativity end? Does God have the ability to create something new today? Now, on to the repent stuff....

Jeremy previously asked: JFQ3a - Jim, when the Bible says "God repents," what does that mean to you?

Hilston replied: Whenever the scriptures ascribe seemingly finite attributes to the Infinite God, or describe behavior that is characteristic of finite beings to the Infinite God, it is called an Anthropopathism (man-like emotions or behavior) or Anthropomorphism (man-like form or action), a figure of speech that is intended to poignantly convey information with emphasis. These are found on every page of the Bible, in seemingly innumerable quantities throughout scripture.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Finkenbinder
Jim, do you agree that a "figure of speech" helps us to understand the point which God is trying to convey?

I object to how you've characterized the purpose of figurative language and God Himself in your question. God does not "try" to convey anything. He conveys His Word infallibly, inerrantly and efficiently:

If you're statement is true, why are we discussing these issues then? I agree with with your statement, but you seem to add a caveat. You say He conveys His Word infallibly, inerrantly and efficiently, but need to clarify. When the Bible says "God repents," I agree that God repents. Jim says, "When the Bible says 'God repents,' God was saying the exact opposite of the actual case."

He uses the very language He has decreed to communicate His Word, including the rules of grammar and figures of speech, and communicates precisely in the manner that man is fully equipped to understand, if God gives him ears to hear.

Who was your "Ambrose of Milan" Jim? Who allegorized the Scriptures for you? Who said, "Jim, that doesn't really mean what it says, let me tell you what it really means...."

Originally Posted by Jeremy Finkenbinder
When the Bible says God repents, what is God really trying to tell us? You seem to argue that He is telling us the exact opposite.

When the Bible says God asked Adam where He was, what is God really trying to tell us? You seem to argue that He is telling us the exact opposite. To answer your question: God is not trying to tell us anything. He has told us. Period. Whether or not we hear and heed is another matter entirely.

Jim, more eloquent obfuscation. When The Bible says God repents, what does it mean? Let me see if I can make it simple for you...

God asks, "Adam where are you?" = Adam has sinned and has not escaped God's sight. God asks a rhetorical question. God knows exactly where Adam is...

God says, "I am weary of repenting!" (Jer 15:6) = ????????

Hilston previously wrote: For example, when the Bible says that God asked Adam where he was, we know that Adam had not really escaped God's sight. God was using Anthropomorphism to emphatically convey to Adam, by using a figure of speech, that Adam stood guilty before God. God could have said, "Adam, don't waste your time hiding from Me. You know fully well that I know where you are." But God showed Adam with powerful emphasis, through figurative language, that Adam's own behavior was an indictment against him.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Finkenbinder
I agree.

Strange. Then you apparently agree that God was saying the exact opposite of the actual case. Why don't you have a problem with it here, but you have a problem with that regarding God's repentance?

Apples and Oranges Jim. How can you compare God asking a question concerning Adam's physical location with God making a statement and then changing His mind? They don't even begin to compare...

Originally Posted by Jeremy Finkenbinder
God's questioning Adam's physical location is not to be taken literally. Common sense and our ability to discern God's true meaning is in effect here.

Common sense and our ability to discern God's true meaning applies to God's repentance as well.

Agreed. I'll show you why your common sense and ability to discern miss the mark in just a minute...

But when the Open Theist sees a verse that brings God down, as long as it's not TOO far down, they seize upon it and ignore the obvious figure.

First off, God's repenting does not bring Him down. Secondly, if the figure is so obvious, why won't you share it with me? I'll ask again...

When God says, "I am weary of repenting!" (Jer 15:6), what is the obvious figure I miss Jim?

Open Theists do this with so-called "failed prophecy" as well. Rather than assuming one's own fallible understanding and lack of knowledge, the Open Theist assumes God Himself lacks knowledge and is fallible in His understanding.

Whenever you're ready to start with the unfulfilled prophecies, let me know. I'll start with an easy one for you Jim.

Ezekiel 29
19 Therefore thus says the Lord God: 'Surely I will give the land of Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; he shall take away her wealth, carry off her spoil, and remove her pillage; and that will be the wages for his army.

When was this prophecy fulfilled Jim?

Originally Posted by Jeremy Finkenbinder
We know that Adam has sinned and stands guilty before God. You are so right when you say, "God showed Adam with powerful emphasis, through figurative language, that Adam's own behavior was an indictment against him."

It makes sense on my view. I don't see how it makes sense on yours, if you're going to be consistent. If you say God's repentance IS NOT figurative, on what grounds do you claim God's search for Adam IS figurative? My grounds are the essential, non-negotiable, immutable attributes of God. On what is your claim based, Jeremy?

Once again, you make a sweeping, universal declaration about who God is based on determinism. We must look at each passage and address it individually. God's questioning of Adam's physical location can be likened to me standing in the doorway of my son's bedroom. I instructed him the night before to clean his room. As I look into the room, it appears as if a tornado flew through just that portion of the house. I call downstairs, "Jared, did you clean your room?" I know full well that he did not clean his room. Jared knows by my tone of voice, that I know his room is still a mess. He stands guilty of disobeying me.

When God repents, we must also assess that situation. God tells Moses to leave Him alone so that He can consume the children of Israel with fire. Moses prays, and God mercifully spares the people. More on this later.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Finkenbinder
Please use the same type of example when God repents. What is he really trying to say? You sort of address it next, but not really...

I addressed it.

Where?

Hilston previously wrote: Just as one ought not to assume that God REALLY did not know where Adam was, similarly, one ought not to assume that God REALLY changes His mind, especially when we read elsewhere that God's decrees are immutable (Heb 6:17,18 Eph 1:11 2Ti 2:13). So when one reads passages where it says "God repents," the question should be asked: "What is God really describing when He says He has done something that would be contrary to His nature and character, such as changing His mind?" The way we answer such a question is to look at all the passages where this type of language is used and compare their contexts. For example:

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

Note that the context of God's repentance, as it is quite often in the scriptures, concerns idolatry and angelic corruption. How was this "repentance" of God manifested? God had allowed mankind and the fallen angels, according to His immutable decrees, to come to full fruition of wickedness and corruption. Mankind violated God's commands on every level, all according to God's immutable decrees, which set up the precursor/type for the Nephilim-infested world of Israel's future. "Lu 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man." So God changed His disposition toward mankind from that of providing life and sustenance to death and destruction. "... it repenteth me that I have made them" means "I will destroy them."

Originally Posted by Jeremy Finkenbinder
Really? I thought it actually meant God repented (or was grieved, or moved emotionally) because His creation had become so utterly wicked.

You thought that because Open Theism is humanistic, viewing God's emotions in light of man's, instead of the other way around. I know that Open Theists will not agree with the following, but I see it demonstrated on every front: The OV God is created in man's image.

No, what you have demonstrated is an amoral, capricious, deterministic rock created in Plato's image.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Finkenbinder
*Why didn't you use the same argument when you addressed Exodus 32?

I did.

No you didn't...

Hilston wrote previously: Another example:
Ex 32:12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. ... 14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Finkenbinder
In Genesis 6, you argue that "it repenteth me that I have made them" means "I will destroy them." You offer Exodus 32 where God actually says, "I will destroy them." However, God does not destroy them. What does God repent of here?

As I stated earlier, God's repentance represents a different course of action. Genesis 6 and Exodus 32 describes different types of changes, for two completely different purposes. In Genesis 6, God changed His course of action from creating and sustaining man to killing and destroying man. This is described as a repentance in order to emphatically convey His spurning of man's idolatry. In Exodus 32, God changed His course of action from seeking the destruction of Israel to that of preserving them. This is described as a repentance in order to emphatically convey God's commitment to His oath and mercy to Israel.

Are you serious? I guess you forgot to keep reading in Exodus.

Exodus 32
26 then Moses stood in the entrance of the camp, and said, "Whoever is on the Lord's side--come to me." And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together to him. 27 And he said to them, "Thus says the Lord God of Israel: 'Let every man put his sword on his side, and go in and out from entrance to entrance throughout the camp, and let every man kill his brother, every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.' " 28 So the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses. And about three thousand men of the people fell that day.

So let me get this straight Jim. God predestined the people to fashion a golden calf and idol worship. Then, God predestined Himself to "act like He was angry" and tell Moses He was going to consume the people with fire. Then, He predestined Moses to pray so that He wouldn't really kill the people. In fact, you said, "In Exodus 32, God changed His course of action from seeking the destruction of Israel to that of preserving them." So God preserved them, but predestined Moses and the sons of Levi to kill about 3,000 men that day. Jim, I really don't understand how your sinister mind works....

Originally Posted by Jeremy Finkenbinder
However, Moses prays and God responds to that prayer.

Moses knew his prayer was decreed and predetermined, as was God's response to that prayer.

Show me that Moses understood this. Moses, like Jonah, believes that God repents.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Finkenbinder
So, I ask again, when God said He desired to kill the people, and then did not, did He really mean what he said in verse 9? Is that an anthropopathism too?

God infallibly follows His own script, Jeremy. Part of that script was to experience and express His anger toward Israel. The next part was for Moses to respond and intercede in behalf of Israel. The next part was for God to hear Moses' plea and relent. It must be this way, otherwise, you have a God who is forgetful, neglectful and ignorant. Notice the content of Moses' prayer and what the Open View must, if it's consistent, take from that prayer:

*I have an addendum to a previous statement...
No, what you have demonstrated is an amoral, capricious, deterministic playwright (who stunt doubles as a rock) created in Plato's image.

[did God forget that they were HIS people?] [Did God need to be reminded of what He had done for HIS people?] [Did God need Moses to remind Him that the pagans were going to trash Him behind His back if He destroyed Israel? Does it really matter to God what a bunch of pagans have to say about Him?] [Did God really need to be reminded by Moses of His own oath to the Patriarchs?]

No, no, no, no and no. This is God showing true emotion Jim. God really was angry that the people He led out of captivity turned their backs on Him so quickly. More on this in a minute.

The God of Open Theism, when followed out logically, is impetuous, foolhardy, reckless, rashly impulsive, needs to be calmed down and must be reminded of His own OATHS! WHICH HE SWORE BY HIS OWN NAME! Good grief, WHY DO YOU TRUST THIS GOD, JEREMY?

No Jim, you miss the point. Let's discuss this issue you have with Exodus 32. Your premise is that God predestined no only the idol worship, but scripted the conversation that followed. Essentially, God meant the opposite of what He wrote in His script. Come, let us reason together...

I argue that God really desired to destroy the people in Exodus 32. God repented of the harm He said He would do. Jim, direct your attention to Numbers 13 and 14. This is after the Exodus account. The children of Israel are headed for the promised land. In Numbers 13, God sends spies to check out the promised land. Numbers 14 opens with the children of Israel complaining to Moses and Aaron.

Numbers 14
1 So all the congregation lifted up their voices and cried, and the people wept that night. 2 And all the children of Israel complained against Moses and Aaron, and the whole congregation said to them, "If only we had died in the land of Egypt! Or if only we had died in this wilderness! 3 Why has the Lord brought us to this land to fall by the sword, that our wives and children should become victims? Would it not be better for us to return to Egypt?" 4 So they said to one another, "Let us select a leader and return to Egypt."

Moses and Aaron fall on their faces before the people. Joshua and Caleb tell the children of Israel not to rebel against God. If the people remain strong, they will inherit the land. The protection of the people who occupy the land "has departed from them," and the Lord is with Israel.

Numbers 14
5 Then Moses and Aaron fell on their faces before all the assembly of the congregation of the children of Israel. 6 But Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, who were among those who had spied out the land, tore their clothes; 7 and they spoke to all the congregation of the children of Israel, saying: "The land we passed through to spy out is an exceedingly good land. 8 If the Lord delights in us, then He will bring us into this land and give it to us, 'a land which flows with milk and honey.' 9 Only do not rebel against the Lord, nor fear the people of the land, for they are our bread; their protection has departed from them, and the Lord is with us. Do not fear them."

How do the people respond? They want to kill Joshua and Caleb. How does the Lord respond?

Numbers 14
11 Then the Lord said to Moses: "How long will these people reject Me? And how long will they not believe Me, with all the signs which I have performed among them? 12 I will strike them with the pestilence and disinherit them, and I will make of you a nation greater and mightier than they." 13 And Moses said to the Lord: "Then the Egyptians will hear it, for by Your might You brought these people up from among them, 14 and they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land. They have heard that You, Lord, are among these people; that You, Lord, are seen face to face and Your cloud stands above them, and You go before them in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night. 15 Now if You kill these people as one man, then the nations which have heard of Your fame will speak, saying, 16 'Because the Lord was not able to bring this people to the land which He swore to give them, therefore He killed them in the wilderness.' 17 And now, I pray, let the power of my Lord be great, just as You have spoken, saying, 18 'The Lord is longsuffering and abundant in mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression; but He by no means clears the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation.' 19 Pardon the iniquity of this people, I pray, according to the greatness of Your mercy, just as You have forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now."20 Then the Lord said: "I have pardoned, according to your word; 21 but truly, as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord-- 22 because all these men who have seen My glory and the signs which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have put Me to the test now these ten times, and have not heeded My voice, 23 they certainly shall not see the land of which I swore to their fathers, nor shall any of those who rejected Me see it.

Sounds similar to Exodus, no? We see that God again desires to harm his people. Moses prays, and God "pardoned according to (Moses') word." I know, I know Jim... This is another anthropomorphism.

Secondly, if God swore that their fathers would inherit the land, why didn't they? It gets even more interesting Jim. Turn with me to Ezekiel 20.

Ezekiel 20
5 "Say to them, 'Thus says the Lord God: "On the day when I chose Israel and raised My hand in an oath to the descendants of the house of Jacob, and made Myself known to them in the land of Egypt, I raised My hand in an oath to them, saying, 'I am the Lord your God.' 6 On that day I raised My hand in an oath to them, to bring them out of the land of Egypt into a land that I had searched out for them, 'flowing with milk and honey,' the glory of all lands. 7 Then I said to them, 'Each of you, throw away the abominations which are before his eyes, and do not defile yourselves with the idols of Egypt. I am the Lord your God.' 8 But they rebelled against Me and would not obey Me. They did not all cast away the abominations which were before their eyes, nor did they forsake the idols of Egypt. Then I said, 'I will pour out My fury on them and fulfill My anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt.' 9 But I acted for My name's sake, that it should not be profaned before the Gentiles among whom they were, in whose sight I had made Myself known to them, to bring them out of the land of Egypt.

This first account took place while Israel was still in captivity in Egypt. This account was not recorded until God inspired Ezekiel to record it.

Ezekiel 20
10 "Therefore I made them go out of the land of Egypt and brought them into the wilderness. 11 And I gave them My statutes and showed them My judgments, 'which, if a man does, he shall live by them.' 12 Moreover I also gave them My Sabbaths, to be a sign between them and Me, that they might know that I am the Lord who sanctifies them. 13 Yet the house of Israel rebelled against Me in the wilderness; they did not walk in My statutes; they despised My judgments, 'which, if a man does, he shall live by them'; and they greatly defiled My Sabbaths. Then I said I would pour out My fury on them in the wilderness, to consume them. 14 But I acted for My name's sake, that it should not be profaned before the Gentiles, in whose sight I had brought them out. 15 So I also raised My hand in an oath to them in the wilderness, that I would not bring them into the land which I had given them, 'flowing with milk and honey,' the glory of all lands, 16 because they despised My judgments and did not walk in My statutes, but profaned My Sabbaths; for their heart went after their idols. 17 Nevertheless My eye spared them from destruction. I did not make an end of them in the wilderness.

God inspires Ezekiel to record the events of Exodus 32. Notice Jim, God did not pardon the people because as you suggest, Moses thought, "Oh my goodness. God is about to destroy Israel. God is out of control. God has clearly not given due consideration to the following: that these are His people. what He did for this people. what the Egyptians are going to say about Him if He goes through with this. the oath He swore with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob by His own name.

No Jim, God tells us why He spared His children. "But I acted for My name's sake, that it should not be profaned before the Gentiles, in whose sight I had brought them out." Guess what? Ezekiel comments on Numbers 14 as well.

Ezekiel 20
18 "But I said to their children in the wilderness, 'Do not walk in the statutes of your fathers, nor observe their judgments, nor defile yourselves with their idols. 19 I am the Lord your God: Walk in My statutes, keep My judgments, and do them; 20 hallow My Sabbaths, and they will be a sign between Me and you, that you may know that I am the Lord your God.' 21 Notwithstanding, the children rebelled against Me; they did not walk in My statutes, and were not careful to observe My judgments, 'which, if a man does, he shall live by them'; but they profaned My Sabbaths. Then I said I would pour out My fury on them and fulfill My anger against them in the wilderness. 22 Nevertheless I withdrew My hand and acted for My name's sake, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the Gentiles, in whose sight I had brought them out.

Jim, a couple of questions here. If God did not mean what He said in Exodus 32, and I'm assuming you would answer Numbers 14 the same way, why would He have Ezekiel comment on both, and add a third time Israel almost got it in the neck? Your interpretation was, "God meant the opposite of what He said when He repented." Now, we have three more examples that show God's intention, and repentance from the harm He said he would do. God was not fickle, foolish or forgetful as you suggest. He tells us, "I withdrew My hand and acted for My name's sake..."

Hilston previously wrote: Note that idolatry and angelic corruption are again the issue that evokes the strongest language from God. Moses pleads with God to change His mind (i.e. His disposition and actions) about destroying Israel. Moses knows that God's decrees are immutable, and in his pleading with God, he himself is doing that which God has immutably decreed. Moses' plea was heard, according to God's immutable decrees, and God changed His disposition and actions towards Israel.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Finkenbinder
Moses knows God's decrees are immutable? If Moses believes God does not really repent, why did Moses think He was a God who did repent?

You're equivocating, Jeremy. Remember that Moses understands figures of speech. Do you realize what you're suggesting?

You've done nothing to show that Moses believes God is a playwright. Do I realize what I'm suggesting? Yes, I do. I'm suggesting God was truly angry, wanted to destroy Israel at least three times, withdrew His hand and acted for His name's sake

That is what Open Theism leads to. Do you believe these things, or something similar, were really in Moses' mind? Do you actually believe Moses thought God had forgotten those things?

No Hilston, I believe Moses understood God was angry. Moses understood that God wanted to destroy Israel. Moses followed God and assisted with killing 3,000 men that day.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Finkenbinder
Seems foolish to me that Moses knows God has peredestined the people to worship the golden calf, desires to kill the people, predestines Moses to pray, but Moses asks God to repent, knowing full well that He is a God who does not repent.

You're equivocating, Jeremy. Moses understands and uses the word as a figure, remember? Which one seems more foolish: (1) Moses using a figure of speech acknowledging that God is fully aware of what He is doing (the Settled View), or (2) Moses thinking it was necessary to give a history lesson to an impetuous and forgetful God? (the Open View)

How about a third option? Moses understood God was angry. Moses understood that God wanted to destroy Israel. Moses followed God and assisted with killing 3,000 men that day. God withdrew His hand and acted for His name's sake

Originally Posted by Jeremy Finkenbinder, previously
JFQ3b - Jim, do you agree with Augustine / Calvin concerning 1 Sam 15:11,29 & 35?
Here is the Calvin quote addressing God's repentance in 1 Sam 15. Please note Jim, that God repents in verses 11 and 35, but does not repent in verse 35. Same word nacham in all three passages. ... [snipped excerpt] ...Do you agree with Calvin's take on 1 Sam 15?

I might quibble with a few details, but overall I agree.

Please explain why verses 11 and 35 are figurative and why verse 29 is literal.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Finkenbinder
Next, here's Augustine's reference to "a God who repents..." Augustine is responding to the Manichaeans. Augustine himself was a Manichaean, until Ambrose of Milan spiritualized the Scriptures that said God repented. The Manichaeans, like Moses (and Jonah) believed God was a God who repented.

According to the logical conclusions of Open Theism, Moses thought God had an inadequate memory, and Jonah was a false prophet.

According to the logical conclusions of Open Theism, Moses was genuinely concerned for God's people. Moses did not want God to kill everyone. Moses prayed and God acted for His name's sake. Jonah's prophecy was conditional. If there was no repentance on the people's part, God would have destroyed the city in 40 days Jim. The burden of proof is on you to explain why the city was not destroyed in 40 days.

Jim, as far as Augustine is concerned, I figured you would agree with Him. You, like Augustine, do not worship a God who repents over 20 times in the Old Testament.

Jim, thank you for the stimulating discussion. I look forward to your reply.

God Bless,
--Jeremy Finkenbinder

:first:

context

 

[kmoney]

:noway: So long.....

 

[Turbo]

:noway: So long.....

:wave2: Bye!

 

[kmoney]

:noid:

 

[koban]

No wonder Jeremy's post count is so low! :noway: