ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Clete]

That isn't what God said.

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 3:10

You say God "did it" God says He didn't! :idunno:

:BRAVO:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The fact is that prophecy is intended more often than not as a warning to whomever hears it whether Godly or not. That's one of its primary purposes.

:up:

All prophecy without exception is intended to affect the will of man in one way or another.

Prophecy in and of itself is proof that the future is not settled. If all of time were settled in advance, prophecy would be meaningless.

 

[Nang]

That isn't what God said.

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 3:10

You say God "did it" God says He didn't! :idunno:

God did not do it within 40 days, for the sake of those He granted repentance. But God did overthrow Nineveh. Other Scriptures make this clear.

The prophecy was against the city at large, but prior to certain and eventual judgment, God saved a people.

You cannot see the spiritual significance of this truth?

Nang

 

[Nang]

No it wasn't just as God said. God said 40 days.

There is considerable spiritual significance to the "40 days" when one compares the Scriptures with Scriptures. There are several instances where "40 days" is used to denote a time of grace, within the context of judgment. For example: Noah being secured in the ark for 40 days while the rest of the world was flooded in judgment from God. Jesus Himself demonstrated a 40-day sanctification through testing.

The revelation of a time frame was intended to bring repentance, even though the eventual overthrow happened later.

I fear you are emphasizing the literal timing, more than the message and its eventual results.

ording to Jonah 3:10 and Jeremiah 18 and the other dozen or so prophecies that did not come to pass.

Now you are confusing commands with prophecy. When God commands men to believe in order to live and receive His blessings, it is not prophecy of what men will do, but a declaration of what men SHOULD do.

The Law was not given in expectation that mankind would obey it. The Law was given to reveal the total depravity of all men and to shine light upon their utter sinfulness and inability to be righteous under the Law.

The fact that Israel failed to obey the Law does not mean that God changes His Word or His mind or His purposes.

I fully expect the prophecies in Revelation to come to pass. The idea that mankind as a whole will repent is so unlikely that it's hardly worth discussing but the point holds that IF the world repents then so will God.

Then you are forming a doctrine based on pure speculation, rather than faith in God's word.

Nang

 

[Clete]

There is considerable spiritual significance to the "40 days" when one compares the Scriptures with Scriptures. There are several instances where "40 days" is used to denote a time of grace, within the context of judgment. For example: Noah being secured in the ark for 40 days while the rest of the world was flooded in judgment from God. Jesus Himself demonstrated a 40-day sanctification through testing.

The revelation of a time frame was intended to bring repentance, even though the eventual overthrow happened later.

I fear you are emphasizing the literal timing, more than the message and its eventual results.

The prophecy did not come to pass as stated Nang. No amount of theological back-flipping is going to get you around that. The prophecy was made and it failed and Jonah was unrighteously angry AT GOD because of it. That is what the whole book of Jonah is about. The only reason that exists for suggesting otherwise is if your theology cannot survive the plain reading of the text.

Now you are confusing commands with prophecy. When God commands men to believe in order to live and receive His blessings, it is not prophecy of what men will do, but a declaration of what men SHOULD do.

Neither Jonah 3:10 nor Jeremiah 18 are commands, nor are either of them about what men should do but about what God either did or will do in reaction to the repentance of men.

The Law was not given in expectation that mankind would obey it. The Law was given to reveal the total depravity of all men and to shine light upon their utter sinfulness and inability to be righteous under the Law.

True but completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The fact that Israel failed to obey the Law does not mean that God changes His Word or His mind or His purposes.

As stated this is also true but completely irrelevant.

Then you are forming a doctrine based on pure speculation, rather than faith in God's word.

You cannot possibly be this stupid.
No additional response is warranted.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

The prophecy did not come to pass as stated Nang.

The prophecy did come to pass, just not how you understand it.

No amount of theological back-flipping is going to get you around that. The prophecy was made and it failed and Jonah was unrighteously angry AT GOD because of it. That is what the whole book of Jonah is about.

The Book of Jonah was inspired by the Holy Spirit to reveal God's failure to keep His word? This is blasphemy on your part.

 

[Lon]

Philetus, Clete, Godrulz

Thank you a bunch for going through my post. I'll repost with clarifiers for some of the obscure questions or notions.

I just wanted to say thanks.

In Him

Lon

 

[Clete]

The prophecy did come to pass, just not how you understand it.

This is a lie. Not only do you ignore the plain statement of the text itself (Jonah 3:10) but you state things that you know are not so. Why do you have to defend your theology with a lie?

The Book of Jonah was inspired by the Holy Spirit to reveal God's failure to keep His word? This is blasphemy on your part.

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

Jeremiah 18: 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, I will repent 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 repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.​

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

This is a lie.

It is?

God did not overthrow and destroy Nineveh?

Archaeologists are still digging up the ruins.

 

[Clete]

It is?

God did not overthrow and destroy Nineveh?

Archaeologists are still digging up the ruins.

Not in relation to Jonah's prophecy He didn't, no!

Jonah 3:10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and HE DID NOT DO IT.​

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

SIZE="6"]HE DID NOT DO IT[/SIZE]

Then why is Nineveh historically recognized and examined as a pile of ash?

Two big mounds, to be exact.

 

[Lon]

Not in relation to Jonah's prophecy He didn't, no!

Jonah 3:10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and HE DID NOT DO IT.​

Resting in Him,
Clete

Yar, it is not easily defendable if it were unconditional prophecy and then not immediately fulfilled. I do not see it as unconditional prophecy. I know OV doesn't either, at least not with a relational God, because as I reason out your view (and I may be misunderstanding something here), if God can make a change, then you would have to conclude no prophecy is fully unconditional wouldn't you? I'd be interested to see your exposition on how OV sees any prophecy, for a God who is relational would necessitate all prophecy not being unconditional wouldn't it? If it is able to be changed due to relationships, how could there ever be an unconditional prophecy?

Rather, I see this either as a promise that would be fulfilled w/o repentance or a conditional prophetic statement.

I know most here do not cotton to that notion, so I'm asking a bit more for understanding your's. Thanks

In Him

Lon

 

[godrulz]

You're wrong. Exhaustive foreknowledge is causal.

I am an Open Theist, but I am not sure I agree with this. Simple foreknowledge claims to not be causal. The issue relates to logical contradictions and absurdities. I would tackle the defense from this point of you rather than falling into determinism.

Calvinistic determinism is an explanation for exhaustive foreknowledge. It would be causal.

Arminian simple foreknowledge is problematic, but I would not say it is causal. It is just a logical contradiction.

The bottom line is that exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies in a logical absurdity or contradiction.

Exhaustive foreknowledge would be possible in an omnicausal, deterministic worldview. Free will must be compromised to retain this.

Ex. fore. with simple foreknowledge does not imply determinism, but it does seem to negate genuine freedom since the future is fixed, not contingent. At best, it is a confused, inconsistent issue (hence the strength of open theism over arminianism).

A book by Basinger on free will theism seems to allow for free will with middle knowledge, simple foreknowledge, or the open view. It is a rather technical debate. I think it was Sanders who showed that exhaustive foreknowledge would be NO advantage for running the universe since He has infinite, responsive, creative ability. Again, these arguments are fairly sophisticated at a philosophical level.

 

[godrulz]

A simple example from scripture: Jesus told Peter that he would deny him 3 times before the **** crowed. Peter did deny Jesus by his own will, yet Jesus foreknew it. How does this fit into the open/settled issue?

This is a classic objection to the open view. We have answered in detail before as have open theist writers.

A consideration is that this is proximal, not remote knowledge. Jesus did not predict this trillions of years ago before Peter was born. Based on perfect past and present knowledge, and perhaps some divine orchestration, it would not be hard to predict this. It would be impossible trillions of years ago unless determinism and micromanagement/meticulous control was God's way (which it is not).

 

[godrulz]

(Everyone should read Martin Luther's "Bondage of the Will.")

Nang

Luther overstated this. Total depravity does not mean total inability. God commands us to repent and believe because it is possible to do so in response to His convincing and convicting.

Jonah is a conditional prophecy. Even classical scholars (closed theists) recognize this (but do not have as coherent explanation as an open theist does).

 

[Nang]

Total depravity does not mean total inability.

You probably deny total depravity, so why object to the ramifications of the doctrine? Total depravity surely means total inability to serve God and His righteousness.

God commands us to repent and believe because it is possible to do so in response to His convincing and convicting.

If this were true, we would have examples of sinners who managed to do so. But there are none.

God's commands say what man should do, but no man can do, what he should do.

That is why God sacrificed His Son, who alone, could do all that the Holy Law demands. Jesus Christ was the only Man who could do, and did do, what mankind should do, to please God.

No sinner ever repented and believed apart and prior to grace being shown by God through the indwelling (regeneration) of the Holy Spirit. Because of the original sin of Adam, it is impossible for man to fully obey the righteous law of God.

Can you provide Scriptural witness of any man, other than the Man Jesus Christ, who did so?

Jonah is a conditional prophecy. Even classical scholars (closed theists) recognize this (but do not have as coherent explanation as an open theist does).

The open theist does not have a coherent explanation for how, when, or why the prophecy about the destruction of Nineveh was fulfilled.

 

[godrulz]

Hundreds of millions of unbelievers have volitionally changed their minds, repented, and trusted Christ in response to the gospel preached persuasively. The Holy Spirit draws, woos, influences, loves, persuades. He does not cause or coerce. If He could/would, then all would be saved (universalism). Even Calvin said double predestination was an aweful doctrine, yet He believed it, contrary to God's self-revelation and character.

 

[patman]

For what it matters, I don't want to spend eternity with the likes of Hitler.

 

[patman]

Yar, it is not easily defendable if it were unconditional prophecy and then not immediately fulfilled.

Hey Lon,

Here is something to think about. If the future is settled, is there a such a thing as a conditional prophecy? Or one could ask, "If the future is settled, is there such a thing as conditional?"

How can God make a conditional prophecy when he knows the outcome of the conditional? If I promise you $50 for cleaning my bike but know you can't clean my bike because I don't have one, did I really make a true promise?

 

[Yorzhik]

I am an Open Theist, but I am not sure I agree with this. Simple foreknowledge claims to not be causal. The issue relates to logical contradictions and absurdities. I would tackle the defense from this point of you rather than falling into determinism.

Calvinistic determinism is an explanation for exhaustive foreknowledge. It would be causal.

Arminian simple foreknowledge is problematic, but I would not say it is causal. It is just a logical contradiction.

The bottom line is that exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies in a logical absurdity or contradiction.

Exhaustive foreknowledge would be possible in an omnicausal, deterministic worldview. Free will must be compromised to retain this.

Ex. fore. with simple foreknowledge does not imply determinism, but it does seem to negate genuine freedom since the future is fixed, not contingent. At best, it is a confused, inconsistent issue (hence the strength of open theism over arminianism).

A book by Basinger on free will theism seems to allow for free will with middle knowledge, simple foreknowledge, or the open view. It is a rather technical debate. I think it was Sanders who showed that exhaustive foreknowledge would be NO advantage for running the universe since He has infinite, responsive, creative ability. Again, these arguments are fairly sophisticated at a philosophical level.

If we are talking about the first cause being the one with exhaustive foreknowledge, then obviously the first cause is the entirety of causes. So in that case exhaustive foreknowledge is causal.

But perhaps we have a situation where a caused being is given exhaustive foreknowledge by the first cause. Thus, a being with exhaustive foreknowledge is not necessarily a cause for any particular event but holds simple foreknowledge as you describe. But then the "caused holder of knowledge" is merely a part of the first cause, and thus the being with exhaustive foreknowledge exists or existed encompassing all cause.