An open challenge to all closed theists

[1Way]

Everyone - this is a carry over thread prompted by Rolf about my condemning remarks toward Z Man. Rolf’s thread is about 2Pet 3:9, and my interaction with Z Man is in Does Calvinism Limit God, both of which are on this forum. I think this is a fascinating study of the inner workings of how the closed view actually treats God’s word when it comes to scripture that goes directly against their view.

Godrulz made an especially insightful observation when he said something to the effect of the following with my added emphasis, that; Open theism does not necessarily contradict the closed view’s “God does not change” proof text passages, although we disagree with the closed view’s interpretations especially to the extent that God does not change, but the fact is that we accept all these teachings in a way that does NOT violate the “God does change” passages.

But

The closed view does contradict the Open View passages that teach that “God does indeed change”, and their “supposed” harmonization involves some very bad interpretational methods. Thanks godrulz for that core idea comparison.

I call that bad interpretational method

“voiding God’s word and replacing it with nothing specific”

and only generally suggesting that their manmade traditions(*) should suffice the better understanding, even though they never say what the text actually means then.

(*) classic immutability=God (Himself) does not change at all, He exists outside of time, He never learns anything, etc.


So I hope you enjoy this exercise which I think may prove interesting and enlightening on several levels.

Lastly, please see my posts 2 and 3 to for what I am getting at with the open, closed view challenge. Thanks in advance for your time and interest.



Rolf – post 1 of 3 General response

You said I believe that the real issue concerns your refusal to acknowledge the fact that those scriptures which say God repents or repented do not at all contradict the scriptures which clearly teach that God neither repents nor changes. and is so saying you display the level of misunderstanding you bring to the table. In no way fashion or form do I suppose, let alone teach or believe that divine repentance contradicts other scriptures which clearly teach that God does not repent nor changes.

So as I respond to such remarks, I must consider where you are coming from and simply hope for better from you.

To that regard you also said. I am 67--old enough to remember a time in this country when men were too honorable to define someone who had taken a position contrary to theirs. They would say instead, "if you want to know that, you will have to ask him. I have no right to speak for him, and I will not do so because I might misrepresent him." I am respectful of your advance age compared to me and others. But with all due respect, our social times and concerns should not focused on anything less than God’s revealed word. The great men of the bible never said what you are proposing, instead, they did right, and risked the consequences. Standing up for the truth of God and His word is a timeless pursuit. The bible teaches us to share good report and bad, and if necessary to even reject from fellowship those who are unrepentantly heretical and sexually immoral, also, you who is spiritual judges all things, and all the many examples of godly men and women judging against someone else and if necessary, proclaiming that reality to others. I agree about your view in terms of idle gospel and such, but no further than that. My charges against Z man are on public record for all to see, nothing is hidden, all is in my opinion fully substantiated and verifiable.

To the point, you are arguing in the negative, anyone can do that, how about you stop making charges against me by providing the reasonable evidence that what I have said is not so. I don’t think you will be able to do that, and perhaps more importantly, I think you are in the same boat as he! But don’t take my word for it, since you are taking this issue off topic and it is your thread, then I presume you are doing so of your own free accordance, please answer the following to demonstrate your position as being not afraid of the text.

I rightly maintain that Z Man is afraid of the text, that is from the observation as stated that he does not come near it other than to quote it and then always do either one or both of the following two things First he voids it of meaning

Then he replaces the meaning he just voided with nothing. And I’ve been very clear that I do not hold this position of condemnation of doing so based upon anything less than God’s revealed word (see the third post in this 3 post installment), all of which you are not directly responding to, but instead you are simply changing me with impropriety, which is a cheap shot.

Continued next post

[1Way]

Rolf – post 2 of 3 specific response w/examles

So lets see if you will fare any better than the Z.

Answer the following directly and without whole scale aversion (= fear) and then you may have room to speak. Until then I think you are in the same boat as Z Man. I would start with the last post I give as an example, it is my open challenge to all closed theists, entitled;

“From God’s word on divine repentance - An open challenge to closed theists”



Quote from the following post http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=480524#post480524

Z Man – We understand your frustrations with not being able to rightly handle scripture over one of dozens of examples of God changing via divine repentance via

demonstrations of God not doing what He said and thought He would do,

but your unwillingness to stop voiding some aspects of scripture from meaning, along you’re your violating it with manmade traditions which contradict the message given, represents a violence against God and His word that we respectable and biblically consistent people can not condone, and of course we feel that God plainly condemns those who do as you do, as previously revealed from God’s word about not voiding scripture of meaning and contradicting it with man’s traditions.

So we consider the source of your remark, your a person who is so educated and biblically trained that you can not even deal with the following half of a verse (Jonah 3:10 subsection “b”) without

contradicting it

and without providing a cogent bible based alternative meaning that does not contradict what the text plainly says,

so frankly Mr. Z, who cares if you can’t tell that smaller’s statements that God does “murder” and (immoral) lying are purely moronic claims, your willfull blindness to such matters speaks louder than all your self (deluded) sense of self righteousness. Your thoughts are here for all to see, as well as my consistent reminder of them. :o You forgot about that? Ok, here it is again, Z Man, the willfully self condemned bible voider and contradictor.

This is the Z in his typical willfully blind splendor.
__________________Jon 3:10b
God repented from the disaster
that He had said He would bring
upon them, and He did not do it.
_________:darwinsm: Z Man = :dunce: duh, says
__God repented from the disaster that He
__had said He would bring. That actually means
__that He did not repent (from doing what He said He
__would do).
________________________. :kookoo:
__Obviously God did not repent and change
__His previous intended course of action. :chuckle:

__Here’s why, it’s because He did do what He
__always was going to do, yep, it’s really simple, so
__that “is” what those words “actually” mean.
_______________ :dunce: :readthis: :freak:
___________God is true :cloud9: and
__________Z Man :freak: is :eek: false :dunce:

End quote (Actually, that was a slightly improved and abrevieated version.)



Also, I realize that this approach involves ridicule, so here is the earlier fully respectful version of the same request.

The following is from this post http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=473461#post473461 dated 2-28
Also, an even earlier post will be re-posted on the next post to show you how far this whole thing goes back and how evasive Z Man has really been.



Quote

Question If God is not saying that He repented from what He said He would do, then, what “is He saying When He says” that He repented from doing what He said He would do? (Restated more simply.) What does that verse mean if you deny that God can repent and change His mind?
:think: :confused:

Jonah’s Nineveh prophesy
(God’s meaningful open view version)
Jon 3:10
Then God saw their works,
that they turned from their evil way;
and God relented from the disaster
that He had said He would bring upon them,
and He did not do it.

Jonah’s Nineveh prophesy
(Man’s meaningless closed view version)
Jon 3:10
...?... God .?.. their works,
..?.. they turned from their evil way;
and God ....?..... ...?... the disaster
..?.. He .?.. ..?.. He ...?.... ..?.. upon them,
and He .?. .?.. do .?.


It’s amazing and sad how some people void scripture of meaning and replace it with nothing and think nothing of doing so.


End quote

Continued next post

[1Way]

****THIS IS THE FORMAL CHALLENGE****
ALONG WITH THE BIBLICAL PROBLEM
WHICH WARNS AGAINST DOING VIOLENCE BY
VOIDING SCRIPTURE AND REPLACING IT WITH
NOTHING BECAUSE OF MANMADE TRADITION
INSTEAD OF SIMPLYCONFORMING TO GOD’S
UNDIVIDED WORD



Rolf – post 3of3

Here is the former challenge that no closed theist has yet to answer without violating the question. And this post is dated 2-21 with about a dozen “responses” from Z Man in which he never answers the challenge without violating the question or without violating God’s word, usually both.


From God’s word on divine repentance
An open challenge to closed theists


Quote


Z Man – Swordsman – closed theists - Consider the following, and please respond by answering the question below each example of God’s word provided.

Notice I am not interested in what you think the passage does not mean.
I am not interested in what you think the passage might mean.
I am not interested in what you think the passage should mean.
I am not interested in what you think the passage implies.
I am not interested in if you think the passage is or is not that important.
I am not interested in if you think the passage is or is not enough to promote the open view.
I am not interested in claims that the word “relent”/”nacham” does not necessarily mean repent/change one’s intended course or mind.
(need I say more? ... ?)


I am “only” interested in what you think the passage “does” mean, specifically concerning divine repentance/”nacham” from doing what He said and or thought He would do.

This is a fair inquiry and I dare say a biblical requirement for not “voiding”/”doing violence against” scripture. Scripture never returns void, and we should never violate/contradict scripture by our traditions/philosophy and “sincere” beliefs.


Question 1’s bible example


Here is my challenge to all closed theists. Any time you “void” the passage of meaning, you must replace it with a reasonable biblically provided replacement meaning. I’ll quote you verse 10 God’s version, and then I will quote you verse 10 in the closed view’s version. Jonah’s Nineveh prophesy
(God’s meaningful version)

Jon 3:10 Then God saw their works,
that they turned from their evil way;
and God relented from the disaster
that He had said He would bring upon them,
and He did not do it. Jonah’s Nineveh prophesy
(Man’s meaningless closed view version)

Jon 3:10 .. ? .. God .. ? .. their works,
..?.. they turned from their evil way;
and God ? ... ... ? ... ... the disaster
... ? ... ? ... ? ... ? ... ? ... ? ... ? ... upon them,
and He ...?...?...?.


Question 1


If God is not saying that He repented from what He said He would do, then, what “is He saying When He says” that He repented from doing what He said He would do? (Restated more simply.) What does that verse mean if you deny that God can repent and change His mind?
:think: :confused:




Question 2’s bible example


(Jer 18:1-10 NKJV)

The Potter and the clay


The Vision, figurative speech

“1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the
LORD, saying: 2 "Arise and go down to the
potter’s house, and there I will cause you to
hear My words." 3 Then I went down to the
potter’s house, and there he was, making
something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that
he made of clay was marred in the hand of the
potter; so he made it again into another vessel,
as it seemed good to the potter to make.


God’s explanation of the vision, literal application

5 Then the word of the LORD came to me,
saying: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with
you as this potter?" says the LORD. "Look,
as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you
in My hand, O house of Israel!


The general principle of divine repentance, literal
didactic truism

7 "The instant I speak concerning a nation
and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up,
to pull down, and to destroy it,
8 "if that nation against whom I have spoken
turns from its evil,
(then) I will *relent of the disaster
that I thought to bring upon it.

9 "And the instant I speak concerning
a nation and concerning a kingdom,
to build and to plant it,
10 "if it does evil in My sight
so that it does not obey My voice,
then I will *relent concerning the good
with which I said I would benefit it.



* nacham = Strongs #5162 = repent

“(then)” supplied in verse 8 for emphasis on
the “if then” conditional arrangement.

Question 2

Considering verses 7-10, if God is not saying that God will relent/repent/”nacham” from doing what He said “and” thought He would do, then, what is He saying When He says that He repents from doing what He said and thought He would do?
:think: :confused:


Thanks in advance for your respectful and thoughtful consideration and direct response. :thumb:



End quote



Actually, I gave this same argument using Jer 18:1-10 to Swordsman back on 2-18 at this post, http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=465487#post465487 and the same argument to Z Man using Jonah 3:10 on post 312 dated 2-19, http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=466336#post466336
from what I have since combined to make the fuller version previously displayed.


As to your challenging my authority and reasoning for stating the violence that has been perpetrated against God and His word on this issue, I sight the following.


*******NOTICE*******
THIS IS THE BIBLE’S
“VOIDING OF SCRIPTURE”
***CONDEMNATIONS****


Quote



Z Man – I will keep reflecting God’s word to you or whoever I please, because praise God His word never returns void, let alone goes out void, you are frustrated and (arguably) self condemned for voiding scripture of meaning and replacing that meaning with nothing. Here’s more of God’s authoritative word.


We should always trust, not correct/overturn God’s word.
Pr 30:5 Every word of God [is] pure; He [is] a shield to those who put their trust in Him. 6 Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar. God’s word never returns void. Isa 55:11 So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper [in the thing] for which I sent it. In vain worship and incredulous hypocrisy, men void God’s word of it’s divinely given meaning and authority. Mt 15:6 ‘then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 "Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 8 ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 9 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’" Ultimately man must submit to God’s word. Ro 3:4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: "That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged."
You don’t have to listen to me, but you do have to obey God if you want to please Him. Maybe you reject these as not being literal also.



End quote



So please reckon with what has actually transpired since all this has been placed before Z Man (on repeated occasions) and he has completely failed to respond without violating scripture as mentioned. I am not misrepresenting him, he is simply not dealing which what has been presented to him, and I greatly suspect, you will do the same, so heads up advanced warning, watch the hypocrisy, moral hypocrisy is a sin you know. ;)

[1Way]

******FAIR NOTICE******


I will not accept attempts to show how Z Man or anyone else has already answered this challenge, he has not. We can take up that issue in the thread of origination. This is not specifically about Z Man, this is specifically about the observation that closed theists do not treat these passages with the integrity and respect what God specifically requires as mentioned in the last part of post 3.


I will only accept attempts of directly answering the closed view challenge as presented in my third post with the title

“From God’s word on divine repentance - An open challenge to closed theists”

without violating the question nor the scripture at hand.

Any (unreasonable) deviation from closed theists from answering the challenge may be viewed as being off topic, I do not want more and more obfuscation going on. With the exception of Rolf dealing with my charges of Z Man’s fear of the divine repentance passages, the topic is specifically a request for closed theists to respond to this very simple bible conformity challenge.


***END OF FAIR NOTICE***


Sounds simple enough... ;)

[God_Is_Truth]

1 Way,

Good stuff :up:

[Rolf Ernst]

1Way--There you go again. I believe that you just have problem with understanding people's meaning. I spoke of being 67 not to evoke some compassion or consideration from you. It does not matter how young or how old someone may be, all are due the same consideration. A young whippersnapper like you is due as much consideration from me as I might expect from you. I said I was 67 only to indicate to you how long ago that minimal courtesy toward others might have passed into oblivion. You forget me being 67. My mind is as young (in a sense) and as sharp as yours, plus I have the advantage of years of study--Whippersnapper! Let 'er rip!
Also, I am beginning to believe that there is between us the obstacle of a divide between our cultural heritages. That may very well be the largest obstacle.
Also--you have not yet demonstrated HOW your belief that God both changes and repents does not conflict with those scriptures which clearly teach that God does neither. You have done nothing more than say it doesn't conflict.
I demonstrated to you that the few occasions upon which the words indicating repentance or change in God do not conflict with
those verses which clearly show God's immutability because they are either only figurative or anthropomorhic. I have defended my stance that God is immutable.
Your responsibility, since you maintain that God is mutable, is to show how that stance does not conflict with those verses which speak of God being immutable; but you have done nothing more than say, they don't conflict. OH? Excuse me, sir. They clearly do conflict.
How can your stance not conflict with "Known unto god are all His works from the beginning of the world" Acts 15:18 or this--"The LORD of hosts has sworn, saying, "surely as I have thought so shall it come to pass, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand." Isa. 14:24

Can you really believe that your just saying "they don't conflict" will be sufficient? How IS it that they do not conflict?

Again, I remind you of differences in our cultural heritages. I believe you must be from a different part of the country than i am.
Roll up yer sleeves an' put up yer dukes, youngster!

[Rolf Ernst]

1Way--again, I have already demonstrated how those verses do not conflict with verses which clearly states God's immutability.

Again, you claim that God is not immutable. I have answered the challenge already. You are the one who has not shown how your stance does not conflict. Can you show cause? I believe you switched the thread because you cannot pick up the gauntlet I cast down in the earlier thread. Go ahead. Pick it up. Pick it up, whippersnap. I reckon as how I'll show you yongsters a thang 'er two.!

[Berean Todd]

I have to get to class shortly, so unfortunately I don't have time to go too in depth here, but allow me to address some of your "questions" in brief.

Originally posted by 1Way
Question 1


If God is not saying that He repented from what He said He would do, then, what “is He saying When He says” that He repented from doing what He said He would do? (Restated more simply.) What does that verse mean if you deny that God can repent and change His mind?
:think: :confused:


God is going to smite people group X for doing abomination Y. They stop from doing abomination Y and call out for God's mercy. Now who has changed, the people or God?? They changed, and that change brought about God's mercy. Incidentally, God's prediction to destroy them would ultimately be fulfilled only roughly 150 years later, but that has no bearing on the case here. The fact is that the people changed, not God. That change in the people brought about another circumstance, in which God was able to display His mercy. As simple as that. And that word there is much better translated relented than repented.



Question 2
Considering verses 7-10, if God is not saying that God will relent/repent/”nacham” from doing what He said “and” thought He would do, then, what is He saying When He says that He repents from doing what He said and thought He would do?
:think: :confused:


Again, it is as simple as the answer to the above. God's response to our behavior does not mean that He has changed. He will bring destruction and judgment ultimately upon the unrepentent, but if we turn to Him and seek His face, then His mercy may be shown. That does not mean God has changed, it means that WE have changed and God then is responding to a new situation - that of a repentent person/people as opposed to an unrepentent.

Remember, God is longsuffering, gracious and loving. He will judge all people, and His anger may well be displayed against the unrighteous, but if those people were to turn and repent God would forgive and relent. That is not a change in God, it is God reacting to a change in us.

I need to get to class now, but I don't see the above answer as being either the "mental gymnastics" you claim is required for the closed view, nor is it that hard to grasp, understand, comprehend, or find in Scripture.

[Rolf Ernst]

Thanks, Berean Todd. Well said. I have decided I will not post again my answers to 1Way on the same verses he keeps posting. He has not bothered to justify his stance that God changes and repents even though God has said clearly that he does not. Man's inability to comprehend God's using words in a figurative or anthropomorphic sense does NOT justify their charging Him with being mutable. Our presentation of Scripture's meaning is much clearer than any presentation they can give of THEIR position. The burden is upon them to clear their understanding of scripture from contradictions.

[1Way]

Rolf – I would gladly respond to your questions as I often have done for others about this same issue, so don’t think that I am "unwilling" or "unable" to do so. Just point me to the location where you already asked me of this sort of thing and I’d be glad to respond in short order. I will not go off topic in this thread. I'm sure you can understand that much. Thanks for your time and thoughtful consideration.

[1Way]

I anticipated this might happen.

I did not post the second portion of post three for no good reason. I posted that portion to try to keep you closed theists from violating God’s word according to God’s word as highlighted. Please re-read that in order to better understand where my observation of biblical violence is coming from. And I am NOT saying that people violate and void God’s word of meaning and replace it with nothing on purpose. Ignorance is not condemnable, willful ignorance may be.

Everyone, please re-read the top of post 3 where I go to great pains to be as clear as possible what I am seeking in terms of your response. It should help to remember the problem before you answer so that the solution will fit the problem.

The problem is Don’t void scripture of meaning without replacing it with an appropriately biblically derived meaning. And that is not to say that you closed theists must agree with me as I have been falsely accused of my Z Man and others like him, it is simply to say that the biblical nature of a view must be readily demonstrated or else by necessity it is to be placed in doubt.

Because I realize that such a requirement, although very simple and easy for most free willer’s and open viewer’s to comply with, represents a significant obstacle for those of the “closed view”. So I will do everything possible to alleviate this problem by giving an example that particularly demonstrates the solution for Voiding the passage of it’s literal meaning
and
Replacing it with a biblically derived meaning Please consider the following post (w/a footnote after-post) as an “example” and “general guide” to what I am seeking as a response to this challenge.

[1Way]

******NOTICE THIS POST #12******

AN EXAMPLE AND GENERAL GUIDE
TO REPLACING THE VOIDED MEANING


All closed theists – This post was originally for Z Man, but is now for you.

Z Man – post 1 of 2
Thanks for your patience and respectful cooperation, this can be confusing. I am “only” interested in how this verse should be specifically interpreted/read=exegesis (a) the entire verse. Please consider the following as an example of the type of response I am looking for.


1 - “Hating” loved ones in order to be Christ’s disciple

Lu 14:26 "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.
Is this verse literally teaching that we are required to hate our family and our own life in order to allow anyone to be a disciple of Jesus Christ? Consider the following.

1) Is this a simple direct teaching, or one that involves competing relationships? Jesus contrasts Himself against other normally loving preferential relationships. So there is a deliberate contrast being drawn between Himself and others. 2) Since the literal use for the word hate presents an interpretation problem, consider other uses of the word “hate” w/the various forms to see if God uses this word in figurative ways. If this is not to be taken literally, then we need to show reasonable cause and biblical support for so doing. (b)

The following is the fourth use in the bible of the word hate/hatred, and more importantly, it is the first use in a non-literal sense.


2 - (Jacob) he “also loved” Rachel more than “Leah”

Ge 29:30 And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years. 31 And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren. 32 And Leah conceived, and bare a son, and she called his name Reuben: for she said, Surely the LORD hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me. 33 And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Because the LORD hath heard that I was hated, he hath therefore given me this son also: and she called his name Simeon. God did not simply say that Leah was hated, at first He said she was loved. It was Leah who naturally felt somewhat scorned because of her not being Jacob’s specific choice and desired love, it wasn’t that he didn’t love Leah, it was that in comparison, he loved Rachel more because Rachel was his chosen love and first wife to be, not Leah. Remember, God first said that Jacob “also” loved Leah in that he “loved Rachel more”. (c)


So the figure of speech of using the word “hate/hated” in conjunction with contrasting subjects actually means

“To love or prefer less then the other(s) in comparison.”


3 - The answer to what this particular “hating” means

The text should be interpreted as follows
Lu 14:26 "If anyone comes to Me and does not in comparison to Jesus, love/prefer less his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. Or more simply, restate the same idea in a positive sense, eliminating the double negative.
Lu 14:26 "If anyone comes to Me and does not love/prefer Jesus more than his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. That is the meaning of this passage of text, that is what this text is communicating. It is not about a literal hatred, it’s about preferring or loving Jesus more than others.

:up:

Thank you for your time and effort, I am looking forward to your response, but in particular, and I can’t seem to stress this enough, it must include your suggested replacement meaning of the text that you maintain it does not mean what it literally says, “The text should be interpreted as follows” portion is required.

(a) (b) (c) (Note, for more info and support reasoning, see the 3 additional comments in the following post.)

[1Way]

All closed theists – This post was originally for Z Man, but is now for you.


Z Man – post 2 of 2


(a)
As Jesus said Lu 10:26 He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading [of it]?" There is a difference between simple recognition of words = “reading”, and understanding what the words mean, “interpretation”. What is written, and what is your “reading” of it? We open and closed theists each “read” the same “written text” of Jonah 3.10 for example, but our “reading/interpretation” of it is very different, Jesus did not want to simply know what text applies, more importantly, He wanted to know what was the interpretation of the text. Thus we have two very different kinds of “reads” and arguably, the more important issue is that of interpretation (granting you have the appropriate text in mind).


(b)
I searched for “hate” along with it’s various forms and found the following uses

Gen 24.60 8130 saw-nay
Gen 26.27 8130 saw-nay
Gen 27.41 7852 saw-tam

All of which treat the word hate in a literal sense.


(c)
So when Rachel says that God heard that I was hated, she was over exaggerating her “affliction” which would be natural if you agreed to marry Rachel, your love, and then instead you are tricked into marrying Leah, the one you had not desired! So naturally she was afflicted in the cause of love and desire, but her admission that she evidently protested to God that she was hated, is obviously not accurate according to the entire contextual development, she was loved, but not desired as Rachel was both loved and desired. Ge 29:30 And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years. 31 And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren. 32 And Leah conceived, and bare a son, and she called his name Reuben: for she said, Surely the LORD hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me. 33 And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Because the LORD hath heard that I was hated, he hath therefore given me this son also: and she called his name Simeon. I think that God was wise by adopting a very special use of the word hate, instead of simply rejecting Leah’s affliction. Also, there is a strange twist to Leah’s affliction in that it seems all indications are that she was a willing partner in Jacob’s deception. She certainly did not have to go along with her father’s treachery, thereby she imposed her own problems upon herself! So knowing all this, it is also easier to see why her resolution to gain Jacob’s love, was of her own devising, namely that she bare him children, which although is a common blessing and normally serves well to bond the family in love, it again was not God’s idea, but her’s.

Thus, there is a bit of back and forth between verses 30, 31, 32, and 33. It seems the thought progression is revealed backwards from 33, to 31 where verse 32 is the general idea of the problem explaining this figurative use, she was afflicted because of the treachery, therefore v.33 says that from her view, God heard that she was “hated”, as a result, that explains verse 31 where God says that she was hated. In reality, she was loved, but not with a first choice preference, and not without deceit and treachery forcing their union. Thus in v.30 Leah is loved simply less than Rachel, and v.31 she is said to be hated.

[1Way]

Berean Todd – Among your other non-answers to my question, you said And that word there is much better translated relented than repented. I agree. :thumb: Relenting donates the added inter-relational aspect that is richly provided by the contextual development, the idea of one party giving in to another.

Like the common use of two wrestlers for example, where one pins the other and then requests that the pinned party relent and say “uncle”, or “I give” (up the struggle). Or, after petition and repeated petition, the judge or husband or whoever finally relents because of the constant struggle that he or she no longer desires to engage. Relenting is a wonderful word choice!

As to your misapplied response, the challenge is not as you assumed in your response, I am asking what the words mean that you effectively maintain that they do not mean what they plainly (or literally) say (and of course that the replacement meaning should be rightly derived from scripture).

[Berean Todd]

Originally posted by 1Way
As to your misapplied response, the challenge is not as you assumed in your response, I am asking what the words mean that you effectively maintain that they do not mean what they plainly (or literally) say (and of course that the replacement meaning should be rightly derived from scripture).

And I did exactly what you asked. For example, among your scriptures is:

7 "The instant I speak concerning a nation
and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up,
to pull down, and to destroy it,
8 "if that nation against whom I have spoken
turns from its evil,
(then) I will *relent of the disaster
that I thought to bring upon it.

And I told you plainly what it means. Those people above were doing evil, and God was intending to destroy them. They turn from the evil, causing a new set of circumstances. These are now repentent people, calling on God. God's mercy then is allowed to kick in, in response to their repentence. He has not changed. They did. Simple. Easy. Plain to see.

There's a reason that open theism is the black sheep of theology, and near every theological society is denouncing it, and declaring it heresy. It is un-Biblical. Period.

[1Way]

Berean Todd – You quoted me and then responded by saying As to your misapplied response, the challenge is not as you assumed in your response, I am asking what the words mean that you effectively maintain that they do not mean what they plainly (or literally) say (and of course that the replacement meaning should be rightly derived from scripture).

And I did exactly what you asked. For example, among your scriptures is:

7 "The instant I speak concerning a nation
and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up,
to pull down, and to destroy it,
8 "if that nation against whom I have spoken
turns from its evil,
(then) I will *relent of the disaster
that I thought to bring upon it.

And I told you plainly what it means. Those people above were doing evil, and God was intending to destroy them. They turn from the evil, causing a new set of circumstances. These are now repentent people, calling on God. God's mercy then is allowed to kick in, in response to their repentence. He has not changed. They did. Simple. Easy. Plain to see.

Not true.

Like I said, and you again did not pay attention to, I am asking what the words mean that you effectively maintain that they do not mean what they plainly (or literally) say. You did not even mention the concept, let alone give it’s replacement meaning in your supposed answer.

The idea that you were supposed to replace presented by the text in question (according to your example) is God sometimes does not do what He “thought” He was going to do You “claim” that you explained what that concept should instead mean, but the fact is that you have not done that. In fact, since you have presented God’s word without replacing any voided meanings (as you "claim" to have done, but did not do), happily God’s version remains meaningfully intact and still accurately expresses what it plainly says, namely that God does not always do what He previously thought He would do.

So by your repeated non-corresponding responses, apparently your understanding of what this passage means is exactly what it plainly says, which is what we open theists maintain it means. :eek: You little devil you. ;)

Say one thing and then do another.

Looks like yet another closed theist crumbles at arguably one of the simplest bible conformity challenges possible.

Just replace the one single idea

that is literally expressed by God’s word

with a biblically provided replacement meaning,

and they don’t even try.

[God_Is_Truth]

And I told you plainly what it means. Those people above were doing evil, and God was intending to destroy them. They turn from the evil, causing a new set of circumstances. These are now repentent people, calling on God. God's mercy then is allowed to kick in, in response to their repentence. He has not changed. They did. Simple. Easy. Plain to see.


so, when the people were doing evil, God intended to destroy them. now that they have repented, God no longer has any intention to destroy them.

in other words, since God was thinking "a" and is now thinking "~a" wouldn't you agree that he changed his mind? if not, can you ever really say he was thinking "a"?

[Berean Todd]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

so, when the people were doing evil, God intended to destroy them. now that they have repented, God no longer has any intention to destroy them.

in other words, since God was thinking "a" and is now thinking "~a" wouldn't you agree that he changed his mind? if not, can you ever really say he was thinking "a"?

He was thinking "a" in response to situation "x". He will likewise almost always or always think "a" in response to situation "x". Situation "x" disapeared though, and was replaced by situation "y". Situation "y" does not require response "a" from God, bur rather it engenders response "b".

[1Way]

Bearan Todd – In both of these examples Jonah and Jer, God says that He did not do, or may not do what He thought(*) He would do (i.e. previously thought He would do).

(*) or said He would do, God honestly speaks what He thinks

If those scriptures do not literally mean that, then you must replace that meaning with a biblically provided meaning.

[Berean Todd]

Originally posted by 1Way
If those scriptures do not literally mean that, then you must replace that meaning with a biblically provided meaning.

I don't know who taught you your voodoo hermeneutics, but I've never heard something that screwy in my life. Hermeneutical principles are simple. You start with what the original author was saying, in context, to the original audience. From that you can then find the theological principle that applies to all people and all times. From there you can go to homiletics, which would be to apply it to your culture and your time.

What you don't have to do, and what I've never seen any homiletical system purport, is that you must find some scripture that you can stick in there to make your meaning more clear. You do judge scripture and theology systematically, in light of other scriptures, and in that sense the Bible is clear - there is no shadow of turning in God.

The one going through mental gymnastics in this exercise 1Way is you, sir.

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Berean Todd

He was thinking "a" in response to situation "x". He will likewise almost always or always think "a" in response to situation "x". Situation "x" disapeared though, and was replaced by situation "y". Situation "y" does not require response "a" from God, bur rather it engenders response "b".

God was thinking "a". "a" did not happen. why did "a" not happen if God was thinking of it? the answer:something had to change the mind of God (circumstances) so that "a" did not come about.

"a" was clearly "in the mind of God". but since "a" did not come about, "a" must have left the mind of God. and what do we call it when something is thought of and then thought against? a change of mind.

[1Way]

Berean Todd I don't know who taught you your voodoo hermeneutics, but I've never heard something that screwy in my life. What I said was in full conformity to God’s word as mentioned in my post on this issue. It is not screwy, it is according to God’s word. If you disagree with this understanding of God’s word that plainly teaches that you can never void God’s word of meaning and replace it with nothing, then deal with the passages I already gave you for that instead of pretending like I did not already inform you of God’s word on this issue.

I’m seeing a pattern here where you folks who simply do not appreciate my beliefs actually treat my beliefs with hostility. Here’s my suggestion to help you overcome your repulsions from dealing with these things.

Take a deep breath,

exhale fully,

and then

just,,, deal with it.

It’s not that hard to do.

Please read my 3rd post, the second part, where God condemns folks for doing violence to His word as mentioned. You said What you don't have to do, and what I've never seen any homiletical system purport, is that you must find some scripture that you can stick in there to make your meaning more clear. You misunderstand the issue. When you suggest that the literal or natural reading of a portion of scripture is not true, it means something else, then that is fine if you would rightly establish what the alternative meaning is. If you do not or can not do that, then you have no basis for saying that the literal/natural meaning does not mean what it says.

It’s the same with any figure of speech. This is not rocket science, this is common sense 101. If anyone ever says that something should be taken figuratively instead of literally, then it is incumbent upon them to reasonably establish why and thus what the figure actually means.

Try this on for consistency’s sake
However, if you want to maintain that it’s ok to void any communication of it’s literal meaning without replacing that meaning with a reasonable alternative, then I have a proposition for you that you can not refuse. Come and work for me and I will pay you $50 dollars an hour, but no more than $100 per hour (not including other perks and bonuses). And we’ll have a great time. Really!

But...

and oh what a cool exception this is,

when it comes time for "me" to pay "you", I will entreat you with the same sort of violence you suggest is fine to do against God’s word by saying that I should no be taken literally when I said how much I would pay you, somehow it was just a figure of speech so I don’t have to pay you anything, but didn’t we have fun though?

See, there is no way that you would go for such dishonesty and perversion from any employer, which is good and right for you to object because it is wrong to violate your own (literal) word. Of course the same thing goes with not violating other people’s word as well. And of course, the same thing goes with God and His word, He is no more worthy of such violent treatment than you or anyone else is.

[smaller]

An example of 1way interpretation.

He cites hating father and mother and self etc. to be a disciple and concludes that it is a comparative hate.

In doing so 1way slices LOVE into PIECES. A lesser love for his family and a greater love for Jesus.

He would disregard scriptures that say people have satan as a father, or that Mystery Babylon is the mother of harlotry, or that our old selves were the slaves of sin. These would appear the obvious winners of HATE over our own families.

In this understanding 1way's FIRMLY FIXED UNMOVING example(s) quickly evaporate.

The fun part is watching the marbles roll out of the container when the sticks are removed from 1way's positions.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by 1Way
Question 1’s bible example

Jonah’s Nineveh prophesy
(God’s meaningful version)

Jon 3:10 Then God saw their works,
that they turned from their evil way;
and God relented from the disaster
that He had said He would bring upon them,
and He did not do it.

If God is not saying that He repented from what He said He would do, then, what “is He saying When He says” that He repented from doing what He said He would do? (Restated more simply.) What does that verse mean if you deny that God can repent and change His mind?
:think: :confused:

I'm gonna take this verse into context to avoid any misinterpretations.

Jonah 3:1-5
Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the second time, saying, "Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach to it the message that I tell you." So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, a three-day journey in extent. And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day's walk. Then he cried out and said, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!" So the people of Nineveh believed God, proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least of them.

So, Jonah obeyed God and gave His message to the people and they believed. The Ninevites had a change of heart here. We go on......

Jonah 3:6-9
Then word came to the king of Nineveh; and he arose from his throne and laid aside his robe, covered himself with sackcloth and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published throughout Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything; do not let them eat, or drink water. But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily to God; yes, let every one turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands. Who can tell if God will turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish?

Even the king was moved by Jonah's message from God. He even questioned 'Who knows what God will do with us.'

Jonah 3:10
Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.


Now here is the crux of the matter. God pronounced judgement on the people of Ninevah had they not changed their evil ways. God simply let them know the direction they were heading - destruction. Since they obviously changed and believed, He did not destroy them. THEY changed, not God. He wasn't ignorant of the future at all.

I'm sure I didn't answer your question like the way you wanted me to. But then again, I'm not of your Open View either.




Originally posted by 1Way
Question 2’s bible example

(Jer 18:1-10 NKJV)

The Potter and the clay


The Vision, figurative speech

“1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the
LORD, saying: 2 "Arise and go down to the
potter’s house, and there I will cause you to
hear My words." 3 Then I went down to the
potter’s house, and there he was, making
something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that
he made of clay was marred in the hand of the
potter; so he made it again into another vessel,
as it seemed good to the potter to make.


God’s explanation of the vision, literal application

5 Then the word of the LORD came to me,
saying: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with
you as this potter?" says the LORD. "Look,
as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you
in My hand, O house of Israel!


The general principle of divine repentance, literal
didactic truism

7 "The instant I speak concerning a nation
and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up,
to pull down, and to destroy it,
8 "if that nation against whom I have spoken
turns from its evil,
(then) I will *relent of the disaster
that I thought to bring upon it.

9 "And the instant I speak concerning
a nation and concerning a kingdom,
to build and to plant it,
10 "if it does evil in My sight
so that it does not obey My voice,
then I will *relent concerning the good
with which I said I would benefit it.



* nacham = Strongs #5162 = repent

“(then)” supplied in verse 8 for emphasis on
the “if then” conditional arrangement.
Question 2

Considering verses 7-10, if God is not saying that God will relent/repent/”nacham” from doing what He said “and” thought He would do, then, what is He saying When He says that He repents from doing what He said and thought He would do?
:think: :confused:

We all know that God abhors evil. God condemns evil. If a nation against whom He had spoken turned from their evil ways, God would spare it. God's covenant with the Israelites stood the test yet again. Had He not used threats to His people to turn them from their evil ways, they would have continued in sin.

Since God is in eternity and we are in a time frame, He has to deal with us in time, since that is all we can understand. The outcome has already been decided. But we don't see it. Therefore, He has to deal with us showing us the result of evil. If we turn and believe, he will save us. This story still applies for us today. God DOES NOT change, WE do.

Originally posted by 1Way
Thanks in advance for your respectful and thoughtful consideration and direct response. :thumb:

Again, I'm sure you're not satisfied with my answers. But I don't know how to please you with an answer, other than me lying to you saying that I believe God doesn't know everything and that He changes His mind based on our actions. I do not believe this since He has not revealed it to me. Also, by the wording of your questions and prerequisites, it seems that you're trying to trap those of us not of your belief.

Forget Boyd, Enyart, Spurgeon, Calvin, Arminius, etc...... Get into the Word for yourself. Ask God to show you the truth. He will. He always does. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He is.

[smaller]

2 Corinthians 5
17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
18 And all things are of God

[Rolf Ernst]

A question for those who weary themselves to read 1Way's rants: How many of you think 1Way understands the not uncommon use of hyperbole by the people among whom Jesus ministered?? This may be a good question for a poll--how many of you believe 1Way understands (1) what hyperbole is and (2) how common it was among the people to whom Jesus ministered?
Another interesting question--What was it which 1Way recently posted that makes me wonder this about him?
My answer to such a poll would be that 1Way neither understands what hyperbole is, nor how common its use was at that time.

P.S. I would be happy if 1Way would correct me by showing that he both knows what it is, and how common its use was. Go ahead, 1Way.

[1Way]

Here is the location for all off topic discussions, either post there, or call my attention to wherever else you request my response. The new thread in this same forum is called


An open challenge to all closed theists Part 2 “Off_topic_issues”

And here is the link

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=485674#post485674



smaller you are offtopic.

Rolf I expect you to answer post 10. This thread has a specific topic and focus, and like I said, I will be glad to engage your questions and challenges wherever else you decide.

[smaller]

only in your onesided view 1way....

typical

[1Way]

This is not about me not “liking” or “agreeing” with your response, nor about me forcing you to become an open theist. This is about providing sufficient reasonable evidence that the text should be understood figuratively instead of literally. Until you do that, God’s word wins, He literally meant what He literally said. I ask a simple bible conformity question and go to great lengths to make sure you understand exactly what I am looking for
I warn against meaningfully voiding God’s word by man’s tradition (quoting God as my source)
I demonstrated an appropriate example of how to establish a non-literal meaning as provided by God’s word
And yet no one has come close to complying with this bible conformity challenge, not one attempt at offering a replacement figurative meaning.

[1Way]

Here is the simplified and focused issue at hand.

The following is the portion of text that the closed view says should be taken figuratively and not literally. Ok, if that is true. ...

What does this figurative text mean?

_____________Jon 3:10b
God repented from the disaster
that He had said He would bring
upon them, and He did not do it.


The form of the answer
Your task is to specifically state the figurative meaning. We should be able to return to the literal words armed with the suggested non-literal meaning, such that when we read the text, we can understand what it means according to this non-literal meaning, i.e. it makes sense, it does not contradict the context, etc.

If you would do just that much, then half of the challenge would be answered. The other half is simply doing a reasonable demonstration establishing the meaning from scripture (so as to not void the meaning with a manmade tradition).

[smaller]

ALL THINGS ARE OF GOD.

What is not of God?

Can 1way name ONE THING that is NOT of GOD?

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by 1Way

This is not about me not “liking” or “agreeing” with your response, nor about me forcing you to become an open theist. This is about providing sufficient reasonable evidence that the text should be understood figuratively instead of literally. Until you do that, God’s word wins, He literally meant what He literally said. I ask a simple bible conformity question and go to great lengths to make sure you understand exactly what I am looking for

See, I think the difference between you, 1Way, and me is that you're looking to push your agenda upon the rest of us, and I merely believe what I believe because it is God, and God alone who has revealed it to me. I know that you probably do not care about my experience, but that aside, I understand what point you're trying to make. I think you have done well making it with the text you're using.

Figuratively, the text does not mean God changed His mind. I answered your question in my previous post. The key concept to remember at all times is that God is not caught up in our time line, but eternity. Knowing that, you can't possibly believe he doesn't know choices His people were going to make. But since you do not believe this, then there really is no argument and you shouldn't expect others to come to grips with your belief.

Originally posted by 1Way
I warn against meaningfully voiding God’s word by man’s tradition (quoting God as my source)
I demonstrated an appropriate example of how to establish a non-literal meaning as provided by God’s word
And yet no one has come close to complying with this bible conformity challenge, not one attempt at offering a replacement figurative meaning.

I'll admit I don't know all the truth, and probably never will. But I do know one thing: the view that God doesn't know everything, or chooses not to know, or can even change His mind is not the God I serve.

If you would like to start another thread on the sovereignty of God making points of what the word "sovereignty" means, please do so. But then again, the OVers say they believe God is sovereign but come back and say He takes risks and can even make mistakes.

So claim victory again over the "closed theists". Maybe one of your cronies will "high-five" ya or give you a POTD. Whatever does it for ya. :thumb:

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Swordsman

See, I think the difference between you, 1Way, and me is that you're looking to push your agenda upon the rest of us, and I merely believe what I believe because it is God, and God alone who has revealed it to me. Well, this is a debate forum. :doh: And if you didn't want to convince others that Open Theists are in error, you wouldn't be participating in these debates. You've even started threads to debate the topic. This business of "1Way has an agenda and I don't" smells like a cop out.


Figuratively, the text does not mean God changed His mind. I answered your question in my previous post. The key concept to remember at all times is that God is not caught up in our time line, but eternity. Knowing that, you can't possibly believe he doesn't know choices His people were going to make. But since you do not believe this, then there really is no argument and you shouldn't expect others to come to grips with your belief.Why not make an effort to prove scripturally that God exists/operates outside of time? What brings you to that conclusion?

But then again, the OVers say [God] can even make mistakes.I think you're being dishonest here. Many OVers on this board have clarified that they do not believe God makes mistakes. Here (point #6) (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=483906#post483906) is one example that I know you read. Please provide a quote of any OVer stating that God makes mistakes.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Turbo

Well, this is a debate forum. :doh: And if you didn't want to convince others that Open Theists are in error, you wouldn't be participating in these debates. You've even started threads to debate the topic. This business of "1Way has an agenda and I don't" smells like a cop out.

It isn't I that will convince you or anyone else that Open Theism is not of the Spirit. I merely asked on another thread "Does Open Theism Limit God?" Whether I got a debate or not, it was a question that I was curious about. I don't like "battling" or "debating" as you so eloquently put it. The Bible is "God-breathed". I don't debate anything about what God speaks to me. If so, I would be questioning His truth.

Originally posted by Turbo
Why not make an effort to prove scripturally that God exists/operates outside of time? What brings you to that conclusion?

Please tell me you believe in the One and Only Eternal God.....

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."

Matthew 28:20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.

John 1:1-2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

1 John 2:13 I write to you, fathers, because you have known Him who is from the beginning.

Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.

and on and on and on..............

Originally posted by Turbo
I think you're being dishonest here. Many OVers on this board have clarified that they do not believe God makes mistakes. Here (point #6) (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=483906#post483906) is one example that I know you read. Please provide a quote of any OVer stating that God makes mistakes.

OK. Here is a quote from an OVer John Sanders.

John Sanders in this book The God Who Risks
God's ability to predict the future in this way is far more accurate than any human forecasters, however, since God has exhaustive access to all past and present knowledge. This would explain God's foretelling Moses that Pharoah would refuse to grant his request. Nonetheless, this does leave open the possibility that God might be "mistaken" about some points, as the biblical record acknowledges. For instance, in Exodus God thought that the elders of Israel would believe Moses, but God acknowledges that Moses is correct in suggesting the possibility that they may not believe him (Exodus 3:16-4:9). God also thought the people of Jeremiah's day would repent and return to him, but they did not, to God's dismay (Jer. 3:7, 19-20).

[smaller]

Open View Newsflash!

God makes mankind and crosses his fingers in hopes that they will turn out right...

...but alas He fails not only miserably but nearly completely...

ONLY a few seeds that God Planted actually took root and bore FRUIT...pathetic fruit as it is....a few small bitter figs...

THEN GOD IS forced to burn the majority and balance of them forever in writhing torture

Hopefully the few little bitter figs who actually made it will satisfy you going forward and ripen in your LIGHT, BUT, but, but, you really do not know if even these can sustain themselves FOREVER....

Better Luck next time God.

You will get it right someday....after all, You do have an eternity to work on things...

God, you just NEVER KNOW....

[Rolf Ernst]

I have answered all your objections. You have just not read them or else you have willingly refused to understand.
Question for you, 1Way: your views of scripture and your interpretations are so far off base, I doubt that you can find a systematic theology by anyone who agrees with you. People who believe like that don't have the grasp of scripture necessary to write a book about it. QUESTION: Can you refer me to such a work? Who wrote it, and who published it?
Yet you demand everyone's time and space on this forum to endlessly mistreat the same scriptures over and over; and even though people properly exegete those texts you persist in saying that they have not answered your challenge.
I think you need to find a good systematic theology like Berkhof's
or Robert Reymond's, spend a year in study, and then come back and talk to us. Your continued haranging people about texts which they have already given good responses to is beginning to qualify as harrassment.

[Rolf Ernst]

Smaller--your post above, the 31st on this thread--I don't know if you were deliberately trying to do so, but you can be humorous with a touch of hilarity

[smaller]

Thanks Rolf

Personally I like #35 better as it is a summation of OV beliefs

I will not say 1Way is the 1thing that is not of God...;)

[1Way]

Swordsman – You said the following in response to Turbo I don't like "battling" or "debating" as you so eloquently put it. The Bible is "God-breathed". I don't debate anything about what God speaks to me. If so, I would be questioning His truth. I realize that you didn’t mean “questioning His truth” as though “seeking answers to sincere questions”, you meant you do not “question His truth” in terms of “doubting it’s righteousness or authority”. And I’m glad to hear you “say” such an honorable thing.

But, I think that you go well beyond “doubting God’s word” by rejecting the dozens of literal scripture teachings and demonstrations of divine repentance and doing so without violating scripture. You seem unwilling to face the fact that you do the following “three step stomp” on God’s word.

____ Presenting Closed Theism’s :freak:
______ very own “time-tested”

. Three . . Step . . Stomp!

Choreographically illustrated “step by step”
from authentic closed theism’s treatment
of God’s word

1
Void scripture’s authoritative teaching
Divine repentance does not mean what it (literally) says, it
is not literal, it is figurative.

2
Violate scripture by not discovering the
voided meaning from God’s revealed word

No one actually “knows” what the figure means, but we
(somehow) :eek: “know” it does NOT mean that God did
not do what He previously thought He would do. :freak:

So, “God repenting and DID NOT DO what He said He
WOULD DO”,

actually means that

He did NOT repent, He DID DO what He previously
thought He would do. :D

3
On top of all that violence, you hold in
higher esteem “closed theism’s” manmade
tradition than you do the literal message
from scripture, conveniently claiming
“no-fault” ignorance over what the figure
actually means

So as a closed theist, although I claim to honor and trust
God’s word, I have a longstanding habit of doing violence
to it because of very important manmade traditions.

And if anyone dare charge us with not conforming our faith
to God’s word, we just appeal to the great men of old,
saying obviously our glorious tradition has dealt with all
that long ago. ------- The proverbial Closed Theist


That is going well beyond just “questioning God’s word”, you actually purposefully reject it, and suppose that you have the standing to overturn what scripture literally says in dozens of places, specifically “knowing” what it can not mean, yet having no idea of what it does mean.
:dunce: :freak: :eek: :doh:

So ultimately Swordsman, as you fundamentally follow this pattern, you do violence to God’s word because of your manmade tradition, and when called to task for so doing, your case rests firmly on no-fault ignorance that is richly provided by the manmade tradition of closed theism.

A proposition (for non-hypocrites) that you “just can’t refuse” ;)
Here is my treatment for folks like you who wish to suggest a figurative meaning while not providing a reasonable “context conforming” figurative alternative. If you want to maintain that it’s ok to void communications of it’s literal meaning without replacing that meaning with a reasonable and verifiable alternative, then I have a proposition for you that you “can not refuse”. :D Come and work for me and I will pay you $50 dollars an hour, but no more than $100 per hour (not including other perks and bonuses). And we’ll have a great time. Really!

But...

(and oh what a cool (closed theist) exception this is,)

... when it comes time for "me" to pay "you", I will treat you with the same sort of violence you suggest is fine to do against God’s word by saying that I should no be taken literally when I said how much I would pay you, somehow it was just a figure of speech so I don’t have to pay you anything, but didn’t we have fun though?

See, there is no way that you would go for such dishonesty and perversion from any employer, which is good and right for you to object because it is wrong to violate your own (literal) word. Of course the same thing goes with not violating other people’s word as well. And of course, the same thing goes with God and His word, He is no more worthy of such violent treatment than you or anyone else is. So what gives? Will you, or will you not remain consistent with your “literal to figurative” violation process? If you work for me full time for a month straight before I pay you, I’ll give you the full $100/hour! But if have to pay you weekly, then I will only give you $50/hour. :thumb: Sounds like a great deal, DOESN’T IT? Surely your not a hypocrite, if it is godly to do what you do to scripture, then you’ll be happy to demonstrate consistency of your faith in your life when the rubber meets the roads. How about it? I’d even go for giving you $75/hour for a two week plan, just since it is you! :o

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by 1Way
So what gives? Will you, or will you not remain consistent with your “literal to figurative” violation process? If you work for me full time for a month straight before I pay you, I’ll give you the full $100/hour! But if have to pay you weekly, then I will only give you $50/hour. :thumb: Sounds like a great deal, DOESN’T IT? Surely your not a hypocrite, if it is godly to do what you do to scripture, then you’ll be happy to demonstrate consistency of your faith in your life when the rubber meets the roads. How about it? I’d even go for giving you $75/hour for a two week plan, just since it is you! :o

Proof of my faith and trust in God isn't for sale.

I respect your view 1Way, i just do not feel led to believe the way you do. Its only through experiences and seeking His Word has made me what I am today. Nothing else. Not John Calvin, or any church.

Its really pointless to argue about it. There is nothing I can do to try to make you or anyone else believe what or how the truth has been revealed to me. Everytime me or Zman or Rolf or Helmet84 speak of His sovereignty, they get shot down as "taking the Scripture out of context." Believe me, I'm not backing down, but I'm not gonna participate in any "battle" or "debate" with OVers or Arminians or Evangelicals.

I respect your view and what you have to say about it. I really do. You seem to be a man who stands up for what he believes in. And I recognize that.

The mysterious thing about all the different doctrines of the Bible is that we all "think" we have God figured out. I used to be this way back in my semi-Arminian days.

It isn't my agenda to push my belief upon anyone else. Only God can show one the truth. Not me or Greg Boyd or John MacArthur or anyone else. I pray that you seek out his truth daily. I do myself. More and more He opens my eyes and gives me a biblical world view.

In Christ,
swordsman

[smaller]

The open view god is like Bernie Ebbers or some high ranking politician....

this god says, golly, I really didn't know what was going to happen....

...somebody else had control of that area...

I was out of the loop

therefore I am blameless...

[Rolf Ernst]

Boy! If 1Way ever found Ezek. ch. 33 in the Bible, couldn't he lay down the charges against God for repenting despite the fact He had said that He doesn't. Of course, the PROPER exegesis of Ezek. 33 shows that God is explaining His principles of JUSTICE from which BECAUSE OF HIS IMMUTABILITY, He will never depart. He gives to Ezekiel the various scenarios possible in the conduct of men and after each scenario, informs Ezekiel of what His IMMUTABLE principle of justice is for that scenario. When you read through the chapter, it is clear that God is delineating terms--setting down HARD and FAST, IMMUTABLE principles of justice.
There it is, in black and white, oh man, and YOU CAN BE CERTAIN that God will NEVER alter from it. You can take it to the bank, Nineva. You've got forty days--the well known period of testing. The fact that the king responded so appropriately to the warning clearly demonstrates that he knew what the full import of Jonah's message was even though Jonah might not have-likely did not-speak a word about mercy upon repentance to the king--after all, Jonah didn't WANT them to repent--the king knew the God of the Israelites well enough to (1) know what the proper course for them was under that threatening of doom to come in 40 days and (2), had confidence that God, because of His immutability, would be merciful. Therefore he began a stedfast course of the repentance which he understood God would accept.
Immutably true to His principles of justice seen in Ezek. 33 and Jer.18:7-10, God showed mercy on Ninevah.
Now--what 1Way is seemingly incapable of grasping, is that God acted precisely as He had said He would in that scenario. He wavered from it not by one whit. And how glad the king was then for God's immutable faithfulness. Only Jonah was displeased. In the closing verses, God deals with Jonah about his anger. It is clear that God had sent Jonah to the Ninevites because He intended to turn them back to righteousness. Jonah knew God that well too. That is why he had fled in the opposite direction. His intent toward Nineveh was not one of mercy; but knowing his own wish against God's purpose was futile, he did all he could to not be a party to delivering them thar' wascally Ninevites. So Jonah knew what was up. The king knew what was up. Both understood God well enough to know what was in the offing. They knew on the basis of appreciating God's faithfulness to Himself. God did not vary. As a consequence, Jonah ended up in Ninevah despite his wishes to the contrary, and despite his wishes, the king repented which was God's immutable purpose in sending Jonah to nineveh.
God did not repent of His intention to send Jonah, nor did He repent of the PURPOSE for which He had sent Jonah--to show pity upon the Ninevite, (4:11).
Imagine the consternation of BOTH Jonah and the king if, after the repentance of the Ninevites God had not shown mercy. Jonah would have had to question what kind of change, what mutability in God had taken place that He would act so CONTRARY to the principles of Justive set down in Ezek.33 and Jer. 10 THAT--THAT is what would have been mutability on God's part. Now I want you all to notice that all this effort, all this careful consideration of Jonah, Ezek. and Jer. will (I expect) be wasted on 1Way. Why did I trouble myself?

[1Way]

All closed theists

Lovely, so despite all this gathering of (closed theist) minds, and their supposed superior or righteous bible understanding, no one has presented one single reasonable “bible derived” figurative meaning for Jonah 3:10 subsection part B (or any other literal divine repentance passages).

You have no reasonable basis for your claims against the literal understanding of divine repentance, God sometimes does not do what He said/thought He would do. God’s word remains true and shows that you are contrary against it.

I suggest you review God’s word that condemns you for voiding it of meaning because of your tradition.

[1Way]

Swordsman – You said Proof of my faith and trust in God isn't for sale. Really, you just sold out! You will not live what you say you believe. I’m sorry to see you go back on your words so quickly.

“Void, violate and nullify”, that is what you do, that is how you treat God’s word. If it was truly fine with you to “void, violate and nullify”, then you would be happy to work for anyone who would make figurative what is literal (for no well established reason), but you wont do that exactly because you KNOW that doing such things is wrong. And for that I respect you, but for turning right around and doing that to God’s word, you have no excuse because you know better.

If not, then stop this back and forth bit, come work for me for 2(!) months in a row before payment, and I will upgrade your rate to $150/hr. I'd like to watch as the double minded hypocrisy leaves you for "good".

[Lighthouse]

I'm beginning to think I don't agree with either side.

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by lighthouse

I'm beginning to think I don't agree with either side.

the only two sides are that either the future is open or it's closed.

i really don't see how can you pick neither. it's either open or it's closed. it can't be both open and closed and it can't be neither open or closed. however, just because you choose a particular side it does not mean you have to agree with everything people say about that side. being a closed theist just means you believe that the future is closed. being an open theists means you believe the future is open. THAT'S IT.

[*Acts9_12Out*]

1Way,

As usual, outstanding! I admire your diligence in defending the Faith! I have often asked the same question.

"What does God really mean when He says He REPENTS if God does not in fact repent?"

The answers that have been given thus far have been, "Um, God didn't change, the people changed..." What I find interesting is the inconsistency when dealing with a passage like Jonah 3:1-4:2. The question that must be asked first is,

"What did God mean when He said (through His prophet Jonah) 'Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!'?"

If God intended to overthrow Nineveh in 40 days, why was it not accomplished? Remember, God doesn't change, right? If only the people changed, then God should have destroyed Nineveh, because He doesn't change. :shocked:

One more thing I find interesting is we see that the people of Nineveh repent (they change), the king of Nineveh repents (he changes) and God repents (He DOESN'T change????)

The people changed, the king changed, but God remained the same?? :kookoo:

Yet another interesting point is as follows...

Jonah 3:9
9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish?

The CV'ers here say God does not repent. The king of Nineveh (who 'believed' God) wonders if God will repent. Why would the king of Nineveh wonder if God would repent if God does not repent? :confused:

Jonah also calls God a God who repents...

Jonah 4:2
2 So he prayed to the Lord, and said, “Ah, Lord, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who repents from doing harm.

So, we are to believe that God is gracious, merciful, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, right? Jonah says God is all of these things. However, the CV'ers here want us to dismiss the fact that Jonah calls God One who repents from doing harm. I wonder how that's supposed to work? :confused:

Moses also believes that God repents...

Exodus 32:12b
12b Turn from Your fierce wrath, and repent from this harm to Your people.

Now, why would Moses ask God to repent if God does not repent? :confused:

In fact, when Moses asks God to repent, how does God respond?

Exodus 32:14
14 So the Lord repented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.

God "repented" here, but did not change according to the CV'ers... :confused: Again, this makes no sense in light of the fact that God's intention was to destroy the people.

Exodus 32:9,10
9 And the Lord said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people!
10 “Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation.”

What's really interesting here is that the people never changed, but God still repented! God said He was going to kill them all, and start all over with Moses. Moses prayed, and God stayed the same? Uh, no... God changed His mind about the harm He said he was going to do...

Well 1Way, Jonah believes God repents. Moses believes God repents. Jeremiah and Ezekiel believe God repents... Seems to me that we're in great company! :thumb:

Take care brother,

--Jeremy Finkenbinder

[Rolf Ernst]

Poor, pathetic souls--unable to understand that, as I pointed out in the 42nd post of this thread, God relates to human instrumentalities; threatens them with destruction to provoke them to repentance; reveals to Abraham his servant His interest in Sodom and Gomorrah to provoke Abraham's intercession for those cities (believe it or NOT, OVer, God DOES work through human instruments and reveals to them truths concerning His principles of justice to provoke them to interceed on behalf of others); reveals to Hezekiah his illness to provoke him to prayer; promises a rebuilding of His people's land and then appends to that promise His requirement that though He is going to do that for Judah, yet He will have them plead to Him about doing so.

Poor, pathetic souls--unable to understand that what took place in regard to Nineveh takes place EVERYTIME a sinner is converted to Christ; unable to understand that EVERY sinner, until he is regenerated by the working of god's mighty power, is continually, without relief, under the wrath of God and ALL the threatenings of divine justice; unable to understand that the THREATENINGS of God's justice weigh down upon them just as heavily as those warnings pressed down upon the Ninevites

But Jonah was not as blind as the OVers. He knew what was up and did not want God to have pity on the Ninevites. Therefore he ran in the opposite direction--away from Nineveh--because he was not ignorant of God's ways. Though God had given Him a message of destruction to come in 40 days, Jonah knew 40 days as a period of testing, and that if in those 40 days Nineveh repented, God would be merciful according to His immutable principles of divine justice which God had Ezekiel write down in chapter 33 and Jeremiah express in 18:7-10; knew that if the Ninevites repented, God would be merciful, and he did not want that. so Jonah fled.
And even the Ninevite king understood God's principles of divine justice better than today's OVers; knew that God's threatenings were always withdrawn upon Godly repentance. When the Ninevite king heard the mention of a period of 40 days, he recognized it as a period of testing which the God of the Israelites often applied; recognized it as the length of time he was given to repent and therefore he quickly set out to avert the threatened judgment. He knew, you see, that God was immutable and would therefore be merciful. He was a Gentile--outside the usual reach of God's mercies. Yet He knew God would NOT REPENT of His divine principle of justice which ALWAYS extended mercy upon repentance.

Poor OVers--living in an age where so much of God's grace has been revealed and yet they are unable to understand as much about God's immutable principles of divine justice as that heathen king!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It has been forever true and STILL is that "A man can receive NOTHING except it be given him from heaven." All caps mine. I wash my hands of you!

[helmet84]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

It has been forever true and STILL is that "A man can receive NOTHING except it be given him from heaven." All caps mine. I wash my hands of you!

I was wondering when you were going to give up on these guys. The natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God; they are foolishness to him. Neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. We are all OVers and Arminians by birth. We will never change until the Spirit shows us otherwise.

It will be interesting to see people argue with God about these things when the wicked are finally judged. I wonder if He will let them? :think:
-- helmet84

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by helmet84
It will be interesting to see people argue with God about these things when the wicked are finally judged. I wonder if He will let them? :think:
-- helmet84

depends if it was predestined or not :D

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by helmet84
It will be interesting to see people argue with God about these things when the wicked are finally judged. I wonder if He will let them? :think:
-- helmet84

Interesting, indeed.....

[helmet84]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

depends if it was predestined or not :D

If you only knew how right you were . . .

:first:

-- helmet84

[lee_merrill]

"What does God really mean when He says He REPENTS if God does not in fact repent?"

What does God mean when he says he has arms if God does not in fact have arms? It means he's describing something to us in terms we can understand.

If God intended to overthrow Nineveh in 40 days, why was it not accomplished? Remember, God doesn't change, right? If only the people changed, then God should have destroyed Nineveh, because He doesn't change.

Jonah sees this differently:

JNH 4:2 I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity.

God is consistent in his responses to people who do change, we know what to expect, his response changes, but he remains the same. "I knew that you are..."

One more thing I find interesting is we see that the people of Nineveh repent (they change), the king of Nineveh repents (he changes) and God repents (He DOESN'T change????)

The people changed, the king changed, but God remained the same??

That's right, gorillas have arms, people have arms, but God does not have an arm. He doesn't change his plan. It means something we can understand, but also something different than what we do when we repent. You could read here "changed his response," instead of "repented", and say here the people changed their response, the king changed his response, and God changed his response. The people were changed in the process, but God was not. There's two answers for the price of one...

Now, why would Moses ask God to repent if God does not repent?

God does not have an arm...

What's really interesting here is that the people never changed, but God still repented! God said He was going to kill them all, and start all over with Moses. Moses prayed, and God stayed the same? Uh, no... God changed His mind about the harm He said he was going to do...

EZE 22:30 "I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it, but I found none."

Moses' prayer is a factor here, too. People repenting is not the only reason God will relent. Prayer is a reason, as well:

AM 7:2-3 When they had stripped the land clean, I cried out, "Sovereign Lord, forgive! How can Jacob survive? He is so small!" So the Lord relented. "This will not happen," the Lord said.

One more comment, about the Nineveh text, I would add that the city *was* overthrown, but by repentance, and not by judgment.

Blessings,
Lee

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by helmet84

If you only knew how right you were . . .

:first:

-- helmet84

must be God's fault for predestining me that way! :D

[God_Is_Truth]

Lee,

the point is that we can determine that when it says that God has an arm that its figurative of say his might or his power or his strenght or perhaps his protectiveness. we replace the literal meaning with what it's figuring. the problem with the repentence passages is that people say they are figurative WITHOUT telling us WHAT they are figuring.

[smaller]

God's Repentence is predetermined

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by smaller

God's Repentence is predetermined

then he's not really changing his mind is he? if it was predetermined then he knew about it in advance and thus his mind was already set for that. repentence becomes an illusion.

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Originally posted by helmet84

I was wondering when you were going to give up on these guys. The natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God; they are foolishness to him. Neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. We are all OVers and Arminians by birth. We will never change until the Spirit shows us otherwise.

It will be interesting to see people argue with God about these things when the wicked are finally judged. I wonder if He will let them? :think:
-- helmet84

helmet,

What I find interesting is the fact that you force a calvinistic conclusion into 1 Corinthians 2:14 that does not need to be there. You seem to imply that a "soulish" man is unable to respond to the gospel. In fact, you fail to realize the entire context of 1 Corinthians 2:14. We need to pick up the context in the first chapter...

I diasgree that verse 14 is saying that the "natural" or soulish man cannot or is unable to become saved. I'm sure this is fine with you since that's why we're here, right? To discuss our wonderful God's Word and try to reach a valid conclusion.

I hope that you'll agree that Paul writes 1 Corinthians soon after his encounter with the philosophers "in the midst of the Areopagus" in Acts 17:22-33. He is frustrated with the "wisdom" (sophia) of the world and spends the first 2 chapters of 1 Corinthians addressing the "sophia" or philosophy (lit. love of wisdom) of the world. He begins his discussion in 1 Cor 1:18,

1 Corinthians 1:18 (The New King James Version)
1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Paul references his encounter with the philosophers on Mars Hill. The message of the cross is foolishness to them, and they even mocked him.

Acts 17:31-32 (The New King James Version)
17:31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead."
17:32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, "We will hear you again on this matter."

Paul goes on to describe God's view of worldly rationalism and philosophy.

1 Corinthians 1:19-21 (The New King James Version)
1:19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
1:20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

helmet, please check out how many times the word "sophia" is used in chapters 1 and 2. This is Paul's emphasis, not the total depravity of mankind. When Paul opens chapter 2, he is still referring to his encounter on Mars Hill.

1 Corinthians 2:2-4 (The New King James Version)
2:2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
2:3 I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling.
2:4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,

Paul goes on to describe men like those he encountered on the Areopagus contrasted with believers. Let's look at how this unfolds.

1 Corinthians 2:9-15 (The New King James Version)
2:9 But as it is written: "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him."
2:10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.

Verse 10 clearly shows that God has revealed "The things which God has prepared for those who love Him." of verse 9. The Spirit searches all thins, yes the deep things of God.

2:11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.

This covers all men, saved or unsaved. The spirit of the man knows the things of the man, saved or unsaved. Only the Spirit of God knows the things of God. Next, Paul addresses Christians.

2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

What are those things that they have been given? The things which God has prepared for those who love Him of verse 9. They have an experetial knowledge of God. They understand His blessings, His peace that surpasses all understanding, etc..

2:13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

This verse shows that man's "philosophy" or "sophia" is nothing compared to the wisdom of the Holy Spirit.

2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Here's our controversial verse. helmet, would you agree that the context suggests that Paul is referring back to the philosophers who mocked him on Mars Hill? He is saying that those men who have not trusted in Christ will not experience God's blessings, peace, or The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.

2:15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.

The natural man, or soulish man does not have the Holy Spirit to judge all things.

helmet, don't you think that if God had wanted us to believe that man is unable to receive the things of God, He would've used a word to convey that idea? Why didn't God use the negative of "dunamai" in the first part of verse 14, which would definitely show the inability to receive the things of God? I think that the context suggests Paul's frustration with the philosophers of the world, and his security in Christ because he is experiencing, "The things which God has prepared for those who love Him."

Please look outside your calvinistic box and consider the true context of Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 2:14.

--Jeremy

[smaller]

then he's not really changing his mind is he? if it was predetermined then he knew about it in advance and thus his mind was already set for that. repentence becomes an illusion.

The "lesson" here is God Himself is NOT CAPTURED or DEFINED by the term "change" or the term "unchanging."

BOTH of these positions SERVE The One who IS Greater than ALL THINGS.

[*Acts9_12Out*]

lee,

As GIT has explained, we can understand what the Bible means when it says He has an "arm" or something like that. The question still stands... What is the Bible trying to say the 20+ times it says God repents? Does God repent or not? Secondly, how do you interpret the passages that say God "does not repent" literally, but choose to interpret the passages that say He "does repent" figuratively?

Now, we would have an issue if God said, "I have an arm," if He does not actually have an arm. However, God never says that about Himself. Rather, OT authors describe physical attributes of God which we are able to explain the meaning behind. Now, I ask, why would God say He repents, if He does not repent?

Jeremiah 15:6
6 "You have forsaken Me,” says the Lord, “You have gone backward. Therefore I will stretch out My hand against you and destroy you; I am weary of repenting!

Now, what does God mean when He says He repents, if He does not repent?

--Jeremy

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Rolf,

Since you fail to respond to any of the points I raised and resort to personal attacks, I must conclude that you concede every point.

Maybe you can wash Pilate's feet after you both finish washing your hands of Christians...

--Jeremy

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by smaller

The "lesson" here is God Himself is NOT CAPTURED or DEFINED by the term "change" or the term "unchanging."

BOTH of these positions SERVE The One who IS Greater than ALL THINGS.

lol ok smaller. hey! i think i just figured out why you picked your name. because you consider yourself "smaller" than the one who is "greater than all things". am i right?

[LightSon]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

then he's not really changing his mind is he? if it was predetermined then he knew about it in advance and thus his mind was already set for that. repentence becomes an illusion.
In stead of "an illusion," why can't it be a matter of perspective? From man's perspective, it certainly appears that God repents and is even capricious.

If, ontologically speaking, God does not change, but describes Himself to man as though He does change, then this would amount to an anthropomorphism, just as the closed guys have been saying for centuries.

So from God's position of exhaustive foreknowledge, He did move to adjust man's perspective. God ordained a perspective change, and in doing so, man observes God repenting. That works for me. I just can't get my head around the possibility that God will be caught off guard.
"Surprise" - Adam sinned. :( I don't think God was surprised.
It just doesn't seem very Godlike.

[smaller]

It has been brought up many times in this thread that God's predisposition to lawlessness/evil is to curse it, but IF God LED the instruments of such things to repentence, then He can repent of his predetermined action as REPENTENCE was God's Predetermined action. Is this too difficult to grasp.....?

In either case God is free to do as entirely as He Pleases.

In the case of God's being "unchanging" how broad can the definitions be...??? for example, if ALL THINGS serve The Maker of ALL THINGS then He would be UNCHANGING in this aspect.

[LightSon]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

lol ok smaller. hey! i think i just figured out why you picked your name. because you consider yourself "smaller" than the one who is "greater than all things". am i right?

No. :nono:
This kind of rationale would make us all "smaller". In which case I would already be a universalist. :freak:

[smaller]

John the baptists statement comes to mind for all eh?

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by LightSon

In stead of "an illusion," why can't it be a matter of perspective? From man's perspective, it certainly appears that God repents and is even capricious.

If, ontologically speaking, God does not change, but describes Himself to man as though He does change, then this would amount to an anthropomorphism, just as the closed guys have been saying for centuries.

So from God's position of exhaustive foreknowledge, He did move to adjust man's perspective. God ordained a perspective change, and in doing so, man observes God repenting. That works for me. I just can't get my head around the possibility that God will be caught off guard.
"Surprise" - Adam sinned. :( I don't think God was surprised.
It just doesn't seem very Godlike.

regardless of perspective, there are 2 choices. when God says he repents in the bible he either (A) really repented, or (B) did not really repent.

if you believe (B) then you must replace the phrase "God repented" with what it actually means or rather waht it is anthropormophizing. for example, i do not believe that the phrase "shelter of your wings O Lord" means that God literally has wings. i shall deem it to be anthropomorphic and replace it with "God protects us with his power and might, sheltering us. the phrase "shelter of your wings" is anthropomorphic of this truth". now please show what would be replaced if "God repented" is not literally true.

as for the surprise thing, it's not like God didn't know it was possible for adam to sin. God knew it was possible and i'm sure he had a plan set up for the possibility that it occured. he is never surprised by something coming to pass. however, he may be surprised THAT it actually did come to pass. thus, God is surprised and he is not surprised :D

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by LightSon

No. :nono:
This kind of rationale would make us all "smaller". In which case I would already be a universalist. :freak:

dont' worry, i'm not joining smallers theological denomination of "universalism" or anything else he supports like that or that just sounds contradictory in nature or weird :cool:

[LightSon]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

regardless of perspective, there are 2 choices. when God says he repents in the bible he either (A) really repented, or (B) did not really repent.
....

as for the surprise thing, it's not like God didn't know it was possible for adam to sin. God knew it was possible and i'm sure he had a plan set up for the possibility that it occured. he is never surprised by something coming to pass. however, he may be surprised THAT it actually did come to pass. thus, God is surprised and he is not surprised :D
Let us not dismiss the "perspective" angle too soon.

If you can say "God is surprised and he is not surprised",
then I can say "God repented and God does not repent". ;)

Instead of "perspective", I would suggest:
from God's point of view, God does not repent.
from our point of view, God repents.

I'm sure we can agree that scripture cannot be broken, and in God's mind, there are no contradictions in His word.

[lee_merrill]

As GIT has explained, we can understand what the Bible means when it says He has an "arm" or something like that. The question still stands... What is the Bible trying to say the 20+ times it says God repents? Does God repent or not? Secondly, how do you interpret the passages that say God "does not repent" literally, but choose to interpret the passages that say He "does repent" figuratively?

Here is a passage like the one you mention:

1SA 15:11 I repent that I have made Saul king...
1SA 15:29 And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or repent; for He is not a man that He should repent.

God "repented" in verse 11, in verse 29 we are told he does not repent. In the same situation, God is described as both repenting and we are also told he does not repent. But we have more, here, we are told God does not lie, so we know he is not just pretending to repent (or not repent). Whatever it means, means something, it is not just a show.

Now, we would have an issue if God said, "I have an arm," if He does not actually have an arm. However, God never says that about Himself. Rather, OT authors describe physical attributes of God which we are able to explain the meaning behind. Now, I ask, why would God say He repents, if He does not repent?

It's true there's no Scripture verse that says "God doesn't have an arm". The closest I can think of offhand is Jer. 23:24. But Jesus says in John 15, "I am the true vine." Now we don't need Jesus to add somewhere "I am not *really* a vine."

So your question can be repeated here: "Why would Jesus say he is the vine, if he is not a vine?" I would answer: To tell us something about himself, by way of analogy. I don't think everything about a vine tells us something about Jesus, so we have to understand what parts of the analogy apply, and what parts don't.

In "repenting," in saying "the Lamb of God," in picturing the Holy Spirit as a dove, in all that God describes himself being or doing, we have to recognize that all analogies, all descriptions, are partial pictures (though not false pictures).

I think the passages that say "God does not repent" are intended to tell us that not all of what we do when we repent applies to God. And I think Scripture gives us an idea as to what parts don't apply:

MAL 3:6 I the Lord do not change.
JAS 1:17 ... the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation, or shifting shadow.

PS 33:11 But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.

God does not change, nor does he change his plan.

Another point: God oftentimes speaks with us from our point of view:

JN 6:5-6 When Jesus looked up and saw a great crowd coming toward him, he said to Philip, "Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?" He asked this only to test him, for he already had in mind what he was going to do.

GE 32:31 The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel...

Now God was well aware that the sun didn't actually rise. But he doesn't say "the earth rotated." Similarly with God's actions:

JER 26:3 Perhaps they will listen...

This was speaking from Jeremiah's perspective (see Jer. 36:6).

Similarly with "repents", we can say that God has a change of his response, a change even of emotional response, and speaks also from our perspective here.

And we can understand what he means by our own experience of repenting, it means something like what we experience, but it is also different. Like using our arm...

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

i do not believe that the phrase "shelter of your wings O Lord" means that God literally has wings. i shall deem it to be anthropomorphic and replace it with "God protects us with his power and might, sheltering us. the phrase "shelter of your wings" is anthropomorphic of this truth". now please show what would be replaced if "God repented" is not literally true.

How anthropomorphic, if people don't have wings? :) (just kidding)

"God repented" means he changed his response, his emotional response, even. The difficulty with explaining analogies is that we have to resort to other analogies, "sheltering us" brings to mind a roof, for instance, "protects us" brings other analogies to mind, such as guards and armor, etc. Language is inherently analogical, it seems, and we have to pick between analogies, instead of choosing whether to use analogies.

So let us stick with the analogies God gives us, they explain best to us what he means, and let us work on explaining what part of the analogies apply, and what do not, how they apply, etc. But to replace one analogy with another one is to lose some of what God is trying to tell us, I would say.

as for the surprise thing, it's not like God didn't know it was possible for adam to sin. God knew it was possible and i'm sure he had a plan set up for the possibility that it occured. he is never surprised by something coming to pass. however, he may be surprised THAT it actually did come to pass. thus, God is surprised and he is not surprised :D

I do think sin "shocks" God, in some way:

MT 26:50 Jesus replied, "Friend, what have you come for?"

If this is the correct translation, Jesus was surprised by Judas' betrayal, though he knew it was coming. But I don't think God has to content himself with possibilities:

ISA 41:4 Who has done this and carried it through, calling forth the generations from the beginning? I, the Lord--with the first of them and with the last--I am he.

I didn't see LightSon's post on perspective before my previous post, I agree, I think that explains how God oftentimes will speak to us.

Blessings,
Lee

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by LightSon

Let us not dismiss the "perspective" angle too soon.

If you can say "God is surprised and he is not surprised",
then I can say "God repented and God does not repent". ;)

Instead of "perspective", I would suggest:
from God's point of view, God does not repent.
from our point of view, God repents.

I'm sure we can agree that scripture cannot be broken, and in God's mind, there are no contradictions in His word.

God is surprised and God is not surprised works because the relationship is different. God repents and God does not repent will not work in the same relationship. so, either God truly repented and we see it as such or he truly did not repent and we just see it as he did. in this relationship he either repented or he did not. we may not see it as it is but either he really did or he really didn't. so, when the bible says "and the Lord repented" what does it mean? did he truly repent or did he truly not repent? and if not, what really happened and why is the verse written like that?

[God_Is_Truth]

How anthropomorphic, if people don't have wings? (just kidding)

"God repented" means he changed his response, his emotional response, even. The difficulty with explaining analogies is that we have to resort to other analogies, "sheltering us" brings t