An open challenge to all closed theists

[smaller]

It's real funny how 1Way preaches DIVINE REPENTENCE yet DISALLOWS GOD from repenting of His (supposed) intent on burning nearly everyone in torture forever...go figure.

Whatcha think 1way? Can God reneg on burning NEARLY everyone after they die??? This is your position that this IS POSSIBLE after all, eh?

I want to see you BACK STROKE 1WAY. You and the balance of your open view buddies.

Can GOD REPENT of BURNING THE UNBELIEVER FOREVER???

"Millions of hells of sinners cannot come near to exhaust infinite grace." -Samuel Rutherford

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi 1Way,

God did not by His words say nor imply any warning nor condition. What God did in fact say was concerning His prophesied destruction of Nineveh, HE DID NOT DO IT, He did not do what He said HE WOULD DO, He repented of bringing to pass His prophesy, that much is certain.

I don't think it's certain, though. What God said literally was "overthrown," and I think that may well refer to an implied destruction, and then when they repented, to their repentance.

Also, if God DID say as you falsified by saying that God’s word was a conditional warning, then you make God out to being a liar when He said that concerning that so called “conditional warning”, He did not do what He said He would do. By God complying with, and not contradicting against “a conditional warning”, then God would have said, so I will do what I said I would do and not bring destruction (if you repent), and God did do as He said He would do.

That's a good point. I have to take "what he said" to refer to destruction, without the implied condition. I believe the full statement here is "I will destroy Ninevah unless they repent, and forgive them if they do repent." I think that is reasonable to say that God said "I will destroy Ninevah unless they repent", i.e. to quote only part of the full statement, and thus it is reasonable to say God said "I will destroy Ninevah," without including the condition. Here is an example:

MT 8:31 The demons begged Jesus, "If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs."
MK 5:12 The demons begged Jesus, "Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them."

In Matthew, a condition is stated "if you drive us out", in Mark, the condition is not stated. But the demons are said to say "send us" in Mark, without stating the condition mentioned in Matthew.

Also, keeping my view that "overthrow" can mean either destruction or repentance, then the destruction was implied. Thus I also have to explain how "what he said" can mean "what he implied." The word "said" here is the Hebrew word "dabar", which has a wide range of meanings. In one place, the NASB translates "dabar" as "meant", in Ex. 16:23, so I think this word can mean "implied".

Jonah understood that God has a reputation for repenting from destruction because of His righteous mercies. “Nothing” is shown that he thought the Ninevites “would probably repent” nor anything about what God thought about that likelihood either.

But as you say, Jonah understood that "God has a reputation for repenting", thus I think this, along with the fact that he ran, and complains "this is what I said" (Jonah 4:2), implies that he did expect the Ninevites would probably repent. I think he knew that was God's purpose in sending him, that he was being sent on a mission of mercy. If Jonah had thought God was sending him on a mission of judgment, he would have been on the first ship to Ninevah!

I say that God did not know with absolute certainty that they would repent, He knew that the situation (as is) was on the verge of destruction, but allowed for the outside chance (however slim or likely) of a phenomenal occurrence of nationwide repentance. !!! What an outstanding and unusual reaction!!! And it was "only after" God learned of their repentance ("Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented") that God contradicted His previously prophesied judgment and did not do what He said He would do (=bring destruction upon Nineveh).

Now I understand your view better, thank you for the clarification. So now what I wonder is, did God have an overall plan? If so, then what was it? If God had an overall plan to destroy the Ninevites, then some of the questions I have mentioned previously apply. If God had an overall plan to get the Ninevites to repent, then that's pretty much what I believe, too.

Or did he have just contingencies and responses, and no overall plan? Then I'm not sure you can maintain that God "relented", if he apparently had no overall intent.

You do still seem to be saying that God's threat to the Ninevites was made with no implied condition, though, which I think means God said something that was not true, since, as you say, he did not do that.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[1Way]

Most people go to hell, only the few make it to heaven, so says God.

• Mt 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide [is] the gate and broad [is] the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 "Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

God teaches His faithful and true and righteous and just character that some things He does not and will not repent from, those would be things that are based in His character and not some unstable thing. Maybe for you oh contrary smaller, maybe God (who is eternally true and loving and faithful, etc) can repent from being true and loving and faithful and then just become an evil lying unrighteous unloving God. You are such a bible contradictor when it comes to what you promote by your errant manmade doctrine of pagan immutability.

• "Millions of hells of sinners cannot come near to exhaust infinite grace." -Samuel Rutherford

Dubious move(!?!) making all other attributes of God inaccurate! Much better is ...

• ”Millions of hells of sinners cannot come near to exhaust God’s justice
  and righteousness, or any other of His eternal attributes.” –Any sentient biblically aware person

... thus wining divine approval by “conforming to”, instead of “contradicting” His word!

Nice try smaller, but your last posts (including Zman’s) were lame attempts at going astray of my discussion with Lee and how the closed view does violence against God’s word, which was particularly well demonstrated by Lee’s example as clearly exposed. He not only meaningfully contradicts God word, he also just plainly lied about it “actually says”.

Don’t worry, no matter how many times you or Z Man or anyone other closed theist tries to run the discussion astray, I can still repost the same post again in order to remain on track with the discussion. Your fear of dealing uprightly with this issue has been demonstrated every since I plainly asked all closed theists to please provide the replacement meaning they void from scripture for the case of divine repentance especially in the case of Jonah 3:10 subsection part b.

The complete silence (sans Lee’s lie) from the entire closed view community is deafening.

Lee plainly lied about what God said in order to support his errant theology, the rest of you at least seem to know better than to be so immoral. Well, I don’t know about you smaller, you contradict yourself and God’s word at the drop of a hat. Only one way to know if you have changed your ways or not. ...

• Can God (The existing, faithful and true, eternal God of the bible) make himself to have never existed?

Yes or no are the only two logically suitable answers. It is amazing to see the depths of depravity that “some” Christian’s will go through in order to contradict scripture by various manmade traditions; Lee with lying, you with contradiction, and Z Man with voiding scripture’s meaning without a biblical replacement, all of you violating scripture because of manmade tradition.

 

[1Way]

Lee - You will either deal with my words to you in the red, or we will not continue our discussion. I do not appreciate/respect liars, nor people who do not conform to biblical accountability for their actions.

 

[1Way]

Anyone besides me notice that Lee does not deal meaningfully with what I am saying in that he only responds to thin aspects which he must not be terrified of. But my main point remains untouched, which is that God said, not me, not Lee, not even John Calvin or “you the man” of closed theism Plato himself(!), none of them said it, God said that concerning what He said He would do (the prophesy of Nineveh’s lethal disaster), He repented from, and did not do it.

Thus by God's testimony on the matter, His prophecy was not literally a conditional warning that God compiled with, instead, concerning what God actually said about His prophesy, He said that He did not do it (He did not comply with what He said He would do).

GOD SAID IT, YOU IGNORE IT, BUT STILL, GOD SAID IT AND IT IS STILL TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU KEEP IGNORING AND VIOLATING THIS BIBLICAL MEANINGFUL TRUTH.

A thousand times and it’s still true! God said that He did not do what He said He would do. That eliminates the conditional warning aspect of what He prophesied even though it does not eliminate all conditionality within God who has the right to repent from what He said and thought He would do, via Jer. 18 7-10. This teaches that after God speaks a national prophecy He might learn new mitigating information and then because of the altered case that He did not previously know about, He changes His course of action in terms of reversing from doing what He had previously said and THOUGHT He would do.

First (but not foremost) you (Lee) resort to lying in order to support your biblically contrary view, then you completely ignore what God says He did in order to void scripture of meaning in favor of your false manmade tradition.

 

[1Way]

Here again is my post #146, the one that Lee has completely ignored my immediate claims of wrong doing via violence against God’s word.

****
Quoting post 146.
****

Lee – The first thing you said was

No, the destruction was not figurative, God's statement was this: "If there is no repentance, there will be destruction." Real destruction was threatened, and repentance averted it. God knew that would happen, but the threat was not an illusion.

There’s no easy way around this, ,,, that is a lie, I know you know the truth about what God actually said, but you still falsified anyway. God did not by His words say nor imply any warning nor condition. What God did in fact say was concerning His prophesied destruction of Nineveh, HE DID NOT DO IT, He did not do what He said HE WOULD DO, He repented of bringing to pass His prophesy, that much is certain. Also, if God DID say as you falsified by saying that God’s word was a conditional warning, then you make God out to being a liar when He said that concerning that so called “conditional warning”, He did not do what He said He would do. By God complying with, and not contradicting against “a conditional warning”, then God would have said, so I will do what I said I would do and not bring destruction (if you repent), and God did do as He said He would do.

Here is God’s word again that you keep rejecting in favor of your manmade traditions.

Jon 3:4 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!" ...

... 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 watch my take on this, and examine the humble truth conformity as opposed to your outright contradiction. God relented (lit. “repented” as a response to the nation’s repentance, so “relented” is a fabulous translation showing real-time relational synergism) from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. That is perfect, that is what happened, God did not do what He said He would do, He did not do it. God is right and you are wrong for trying to void this easy teaching of meaning.

...

...

...
...

(3) Why did Jonah seem to have a better grasp of the situation? He thought the Ninevites would probably repent, and God apparently did not.

(4) How is it that God did not lie to the Ninevites, if there was no implied condition in the threat of destruction? (repeat question here)

... you “know” it is wrong to state a serious proposition in a literal way, and then later just claim it was figurative pretending like I never really intended on paying you any money in the first place.

...
...
(3) Jonah understood that God has a reputation for repenting from destruction because of His righteous mercies. “Nothing” is shown that he thought the Ninevites “would probably repent” nor anything about what God thought about that likelihood either. You pervert, twist, fabricate and falsify a lot. Please stop doing this, I enjoy reasonable honorable discussions.

(4) Because God was going to destroy them based upon the current situation He was perfectly righteous and justified in so prophesying. When the circumstance changed, so did God’s judgment against them. I say that God did not know with absolute certainty that they would repent, He knew that the situation (as is) was on the the verge of destruction, but allowed for the outside chance (however slim or likely) of a phenomenal occurrence of nationwide repentance. !!! What an outstanding and unusual reaction!!! And it was "only after" God learned of their repentance ("Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented") that God contradicted His previously prophesied judgment and did not do what He said He would do (=bring destuction upon Nineveh).


You seem completely afraid to deal uprightly with this biblical fact. God's word is clear that God did not do what He said He would do, quote, "and He did not do it". That eliminates the unsupported notion that the prophesy was just a threat by God's honest and holy word on the matter.

Divine repentance is a glorious godly doctrine that you should stop voiding from scripture.


****
End quoting post 146.
****

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Berean Todd to 1 "Nicer then God" way


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.

:up: :up: :up: That's it. The Holy Scripures speaks against the newest theological fad--open theism.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by 1Way

Lee - You will either deal with my words to you in the red, or we will not continue our discussion. I do not appreciate/respect liars, nor people who do not conform to biblical accountability for their actions.

1Way you're looking like a clown. Stop being nicer then God. We demand repentance from you as you have falsely accused Lee and Zman. :down:

 

[1Way]

Imagine of all things, Freak straying the issue at hand in order to subjectively attack the messenger instead of dealing with the message, even though it was only highlighted in the immediately proceeding post. Freak is supreme truth avoidance in action! :up:

 

[smaller]

Oh 1way, Can GOD REPENT of BURNING BILLIONS in FIRE????

eat your CROW STEW buddy...

 

[smaller]

1Way may have to drive his truck for several days before a YES OR NO can come out of him for the above question.

After all IF GOD CAN CHANGE HIS MIND as 1WAY and other OPEN VIEWERS purport.....

it would stand to REASON that God can REPENT of burning the WICKED forever in FIRE eh????

Who knows what such a god can do????

He may CHANGE HIS MIND at any moment eh???

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by 1Way

Freak is supreme truth avoidance in action!

Absurd! For I root my faith in the holy Scripture where you derive truth from plot materials. Big difference.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi 1Way,

God did not by His words say nor imply any warning nor condition.

God said that He did not do what He said He would do. That eliminates the conditional warning aspect of what He prophesied even though it does not eliminate all conditionality within God who has the right to repent from what He said and thought He would do, via Jer. 18 7-10.

But if all conditionality is not eliminated within God, then I think you are saying that God had an implied condition in mind when he warned the Ninevites. Is that what you are saying?

Assuming that is what you are saying, then for the Ninevites to perceive this implied condition is not so far-fetched. Thus I think it is proper to say a condition was implied, if it did exist, and people could correctly deduce that it existed.

What God did in fact say was concerning His prophesied destruction of Nineveh, HE DID NOT DO IT, He did not do what He said HE WOULD DO, He repented of bringing to pass His prophesy, that much is certain.

It's not certain if you take my view! If overthrow can refer to repentance, as well as destruction. Then the destruction was implied, as well as the condition.

Also, if God DID say as you falsified by saying that God’s word was a conditional warning, then you make God out to being a liar when He said that concerning that so called “conditional warning”, He did not do what He said He would do. By God complying with, and not contradicting against “a conditional warning”, then God would have said, so I will do what I said I would do and not bring destruction (if you repent), and God did do as He said He would do.

Well, I'm tempted to post my reply here again! I did address what you said, and to simply repeat your question is not as appropriate as addressing my answers. Glad to hear where I am mistaken, I'm not anxious to believe a lie, nor to speak one.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by lee_merrill

Hi 1Way,

.
.
.

Well, I'm tempted to post my reply here again! I did address what you said, and to simply repeat your question is not as appropriate as addressing my answers.

Get use to that when you debate with 1Way.

I'm beginning to think that he's just an autobot who continues to ask the same stupid questions, over and over again, no matter how many times you answer them. A real human would interact and acknowledge that their questions had been answered and then address those answers in an appropiate manner as such in a human vs human debate. How bout it 1 Way? Are you human? Then prove it by acknowledging Lee's answers and then addressing his questions as well.

This should be etertaining... :chuckle:

 

[1Way]

Main unanswered offense

Lee – I’ve asked you to respond to the same issue way too many times already. I see that you are nearly doing what I asked you to do, but you have not addressed let alone remedy the specific charge of lying against scripture. Answer the following and then I will post the next issue of offense in hopes that you will finally become accountable for your actions that I immediately exposed and you have not dealt with yet.

God did not say what you said He did. I agree that some conditionality may be implied within God by waiting to bring the disaster upon them and sending the prophet ahead of the disastrous (even lethal) judgment,

but (!!!),

the fact remains that God said that He did not do what He said He would do (bring the prophesied disaster upon Nineveh), so that statement (from scripture!) of non-compliance eliminates conditionality conveyed in the prophesy itself.

Again, if God conveyed a conditional threat or warning, saying effectively, “shape up or else”, then He lied when He said that He repented from doing what He said He would do, and He did not do it! However God did not lie when He admitted non-compliance with what He said He would do. By God saying that He did not do what He said He would do (bring a disastrous overthrow upon Nineveh) eliminates the idea of a conditional warning. God did not comply with His prophesied word, He contradicted it via 100% reversal, saying plainly that He repented from it, and He did not do it.

That fact remains, and if you have some other understanding of Jonah 3:10 subsection part b, then I await your response. Until then, God’s word stands, the prophesy was not conditional even though God has the right to repent from doing what He said He would do.

We should be able to get passed this because we both agree that some gracious conditionality existed in God, but concerning what scripture says, you “lie” against scripture when you said that God’s conveyed prophetic message was conditional. God’s word conveys the opposite of your view concerning the prophetic message because of God’s non-compliance with it, and because of God’s literal testimony of non-compliance concerning it.

Unanswered offense: The lie
Quotes:

No, the destruction was not figurative, God's statement was this: "If there is no repentance, there will be destruction." Real destruction was threatened, and repentance averted it. God knew that would happen, but the threat was not an illusion.

There’s no easy way around this, ,,, that is a lie, I know you know the truth about what God actually said, but you still falsified anyway. God did not by His words say nor imply any warning nor condition. What God did in fact say was concerning His prophesied destruction of Nineveh, HE DID NOT DO IT, He did not do what He said HE WOULD DO, He repented of bringing to pass His prophesy, that much is certain. Also, if God DID say as you falsified by saying that God’s word was a conditional warning, then you make God out to being a liar when He said that concerning that so called “conditional warning”, He did not do what He said He would do. By God complying with, and not contradicting against “a conditional warning”, then God would have said, so I will do what I said I would do and not bring destruction (if you repent), and God did do as He said He would do.

Here is God’s word again that you keep rejecting in favor of your manmade traditions.

Jon 3:4 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!" ...

... 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 watch my take on this, and examine the humble truth conformity as opposed to your outright contradiction. God relented (lit. “repented” as a response to the nation’s repentance, so “relented” is a fabulous translation showing real-time relational synergism) from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. That is perfect, that is what happened, God did not do what He said He would do, He did not do it. God is right and you are wrong for trying to void this easy teaching of meaning.

Unanswered offense: The lie
End quotes.


Please directly, clearly, and commensurately, deal with what you said, and my immediate charge of your wrong doing (especially the highlights and the underlines). I realize that you believe you are right about your bible understanding, but that is besides the point concerning the charge of you lying or not. First make amends for the lying bit, and then our otherwise friendly discussion may re-engage.

I do not accept nor respect liars.

 

[smaller]

ahem, ONEWAY!

Can GOD REPENT of torturing BILLIONS of unbelieving people in eternal FIRE???

A. YES
B. NO

A is the essence of YOUR POSITION.

You should be able to anticipate such logical conclusions of a god who CHANGES HIS MIND and has NO EXHAUSTIVE FOREKNOWLEDGE.

 

[1Way]

Z Man and Lee – Welcome back Z, too bad your so plagued with ill temper and such.

I both understand and acknowledge that Lee gave what he feels is an “answer” to my objection about God’s non-compliance stated in Jonah 3:10 subsection part b. But “a response” that does not answer the objection is not a commensurate or fitting answer. And it is not about my disagreement with it, its that it plainly does not answer the objection. Dealing uprightly with the truth of the matter is the struggle, not did someone address a point with some relevant but mismatched response. (Specific and clear answer refuting your point.) I agree that a condition can be stated or simply implied even without specifically stating the condition, and that your example of the demons and the pigs makes that point very well, but that is not the issue we are dealing with. We have a relationship that is engraved in scripture that you can not do away with by aversion, and that is concerning compliance (or non-compliance) with what one previously said he will do. Your demon and pig example does nothing about a later non-compliance with what was earlier truthfully said would happen. And since God did not comply with what He said He would do, then His prophesy could not have been conditional (shape up or else) because He could not rigtheously not comply with that message, yet He did not comply with his prophetic message, He even contradicted it.

Before the fact
“Nineveh will be overthrown in yet 40 days.” Overthrown is also qualified by the following engraved in scripture facts: (“bring disaster upon them”, “Who can tell if God will turn and relent, and ... we may not perish?”), hence the contextually developed meaning of national overthrow was one of national disaster and was accurately recorded without correction that it included national death.

After the fact
God did not do what He said He would do (“bring disaster upon them”), and He did not do it.

So if the prophesy was conditional as you keep suggesting it was, conveying the general meaning that disaster is coming unless you repent, then God lied when He said that He did not do what He said He would do, and He did not do it. Jonah 3:10 subsection part b eliminates your notion that the prophesy was conditional because God admitted that He did not do it, He did not comply with what He said He would do. The conditionality you wish you could insert into scripture of “shape up or else” covers both ends of the spectrum concerning their repentance or non-repentance, and so no matter what would happen, God would end up complying with what He said He would do.

It is this fact of unadulterated scripture from Jonah 3:10 subsection part b that you have not dealt with, you have only insinuated that it is somehow not binding or truthful or applicable to the given prophesy, but clearly it is applicable and truthful and relates to the prophesy even though it serves well to destroy the closed view’s position on divine repentance as God’s word is thankfully faithful and consistent in doing.

 

[1Way]

God’s word says that His character and ways are holy and righteous and good (loving, merciful, just, wise, etc. etc.). I see no reason to doubt God concerning His character, so your wrong in assuming that concerning matters that rely strictly upon His character, that the open view promotes instability let alone duplicity or immorality in God. A kingdom can not stand if it is divided against itself. Say one thing and do another (without just cause) is the sin of hypocrisy. God is not a hypocrite. The open view specifically addresses the realistic nature of the extent of what is knowable, even what God can know.

My understanding of why God set up heaven and hell with eternal consequences is that God based those decisions upon His righteous and holy character such that I expect God would not repent from complying with Himself. Same question applies to salvation just as equally.

Could God repent and not save anyone? Yes or no? Or is God’s salvation truly based in Himself and His character and ways?

If you understand that “salvation” and “damnation” are more arbitrary and subjective issues that based upon God’s character and ways, then I would require sufficient evidence, otherwise the it is worthless conjecture. But God teaches against standing on anything less than the solid ground of His word. God says that He is “eternal” and “true” and “faithful” and His actions conform to His word 100%, so for you to suggest that God can make Himself to have never existed, is ludicrous yet your view allow for such insanity. Also, the closed view does not allow God to fulfill Jer. 18 by letting God completely reverse from doing what He thought He would do. But I am not so indignant and rebellious as to think that I know better than God’s word! Praise God, He can do what man can do, repent from doing what He previously thought He was going to do. Imagine the thought that man can do that, but God can’t, talk about a superiority complex! The closed view is full of it.

 

[Z Man]

Yep, 1 Way is an autobot alright.

:think: ..... Knight must of programed it somehow into the forum to get on people's nerves. Like Agent Smith from the Matrix, 1 Way is a negative, trying to "unbalance the equation". Interesting... Nice work Knight! :thumb:

 

[1Way]

Z Man - We understand if you are frustrated because Jonah 3:10 subsection part b stumps and escapes your understanding, but the fact remains that God did not do what He said He would do, and He even plainly admitted as much, if you can understand the text (taken in context) just mentioned. So here’s what I suggest.

Take a deep breath

then

deal with it.

The challenge just might do your otherwise “no autonomous critical thinking mode” some good. In any event, it will be good to finally see you stop mud slinging and actually present some constructive intellectual and spiritual contributions. Of course, not that you must do as I would ask of you, you are certainly free to be as childish and bitter and vile as you’d prefer, after all, the actual issue at hand has all closed viewers baffled and I am a nearby target. Ummm, you haven’t advanced to flying military weaponry aircraft yet, have you? ...

Like the wings. Say, wouldn’t you like to have a full sized airplane like the one in my avatar? Pretty cool ay? It’s a fully aerobatic, even 3D flight capable, RC aircraft. The guy did a half hour video from Japan where it was created, and in the first 3-4 minuets, he just flies his plane into the solid rock stairs! Then he immediately picks it back up, and tosses it into the air, maybe once he had to reset the prop onto the prop saver which can come off the rubber like tie-down setup.

That has to be one of the most fascinating videos I’ve ever seen, that and that kid on a human powered hydroplane setup, called something like the “pogo stick floater” something or another, that was excellent too. He went zooming around the pier doing a pogo stick maneuver and the pontoons came out of the water, and he really did not look like he was working very hard to go that fast. Made me a believer, not going to row if I can pogo instead!