BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)

[bling]

Patman, you did a wonderful job, but we still 7have the problem of explaining “WHY” this happened? Do you have any scriptures that show why God did not do what he said would happen? This may can be strong motivation for all of us to consider every remote possibility to this prophecy actually being completed. We do not want to show a weak God or Ezekiel giving false messages at this time (both these are now possibilities). Just for your edification there are very few secular pre 400BC records, we really have nothing for David or Solomon even in artifacts (some say the furnaces of Solomon for making steel and large stables were found, but those dates do not match.) The Bible talks of in King: 35 That night the angel of the LORD went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand men in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning—there were all the dead bodies! 36 So Sennacherib king of Assyria broke camp and withdrew. He returned to Nineveh and stayed there. Now if I remember right the secular history written by Sennacherib tells of his victory against the Jews and taking great bounty and them becoming a vassal state and the cities he concurred, only sparing Jerusalem. I believe the Bible and I thing the Assyrians painted a much different picture not saying 185,000 soldiers died in one night, but also not saying they concurred Jerusalem. Some right, some wrong, and some not told.
The bottom line is, I do not trust secular history. You use the Bible will to support your interpretation, but why do you think He changed His mind?

 

[patman]

Comments for Bling

Comments for Bling

The bottom line is, I do not trust secular history. You use the Bible will to support your interpretation, but why do you think He changed His mind?

Bling, thanks for taking the time to read. I do not know exactly why God changed his mind on Tyre.

But with Egypt and Necho, I believe that God changed his mind because Necho repented and afterwards died. God made it known for a long time that Babylon would take Israel, but Necho thinks he knows better than God and tries to help Israel fight Babylon. Necho meets Babylon at the Euphrates River and tries to crush Babylon. There were different reasons for doing this, Necho would make a lot of money if he possessed Israel, and Israel would pay him as long as he offered protection.

Thus, God became angry with Necho. He sent Nebuchadnezzar to claim Necho's land of Israel. And after Nebuchadnezzar won Israel, his next move was probably going to be Egypt. But Necho made a very wise decision, and that was not come out of Egypt again. He stopped helping Israel. He then repented, he stopped helping the Jews and let God send them to Babylon.

But God was still not pleased with Egypt. Necho still claimed to be a god, and was still mocking God by saying he created the Nile. God still wanted to deal with Necho using Nebuchadnezzar. And he probably would have to, but in the 12th year of Nebuchadnezzar, Necho suddenly disappears. It appears he just died. A new Pharaoh came about. And God must have felt he needed to give him a chance, in his great compassion.

But then something happened. The remnant of Judah fled to Egypt. Now God was really mad at Egypt for taking Judah under his wing, when he had appointed them for punishment. He still had in mind to punish Egypt from before as well. Thus in Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, Egypt was finally attacked. But God is compassionate; he did not utterly destroy it.

But why? There is a verse that goes something like this: "God will have compassion on whom he has compassion..." Amen. It is Gods choice.

As for Tyre: I have no solid proof as to why he changed his mind. Perhaps after Judah went to Egypt, Judah began to feel safe there and did not fear Babylon because they were busy fighting against Tyre. God had a greater responsibility to Judah than to Tyre, so he decides to give up on the Tyre project and go after Judah and Egypt instead. God probably felt that Tyre had learned their lesson.

The reasons why do not present a problem to the O.V.. We know there was a good reason, be it the one I present, or something else. But it is clear that God changed his mind and did not see through the things he proclaimed, and for good reason, as we all trust God for wise decisions.

I know you are open to God changing his mind, you said so in your last post. While I do not really want a direct answer to this question, because that would take us off of the original topic that I need to get busy on next. But I want you to just ponder this:

If God knows the future, he knows his future thoughts. If God knows the future, he cannot be wrong or surprised about anything. If God knows the future, he wouldn’t swear by his very name that one thing would happen knowing it really won’t, because that is a lie. So, if God knows the future, how can he change his mind?

Like I said, I don’t want you to answer this. Just think about it. You can answer if you wish, but I plan on going back to the topic of our original conversation A.S.A.P..

Thanks Bling
-patMan

 

[patman]

You did well Clete

You did well Clete

Thanks patman!

That was a really good couple of shows! When my call was done I was really thinking I had sounded stupid because I stumbled over my words a bit but it sounds better when you listen to it than it did when it was coming out of my mouth.

Your timeline post is brilliant, by the way. That must have taken hours and hours to write not to mention study out. I've saved it and intend to use it as a reference in the future. So, know that regardless of Lee's response (if any) your time wasn't wasted.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete, I agree it was a great show. And you did well on the show, you did not sound stupid at all. It was neat to hear you instead of reading you.

Thanks for your comments on the Timeline. Feel free to give a copy to everyone who will read. And thanks for your help in this thread. I was starting to feel overwhelmed with answering everyone. Your input is always good to read. Let us let the truth shine from our mouths.

-patmaN

 

[RobE]

Why He changed his mind is important here, Patman. I concur with Bling. The problem with using these scriptures to 'prove' that God didn't know the future is that not all of God's thoughts and actions are recorded in the Bible. We all agree it was possible for God to bring about the 'prophecy', but it doesn't disclose why it wasn't brought about. Remember the test for a false prophet I brought into the conversation before? Remember Clete's assertion that it was fulfilled?

If the prophecy wasn't fulfilled then A) God was lying or B) Ezekiel and Jeremiah were false prophets. The scripture leaves no room for any other logical solution(I guess you'd say C. God was mistaken). I just want to point out that even the OV would say He was capable of overthrowing Tyre. The inhabitants of Sodom and Gamorrah would probably concur. This leaves us with only one logical solution if the prophecy wasn't fulfilled-----There's some other occurance that the scripture doesn't reveal. Henceforth, why did He change His mind? And if He did change His mind is He, Himself, a false prophet or just simply fallible.

Let me say it again:

1) Prophecy not fulfilled
2) Prophecy is from God unless it isn't fulfilled
3) God lied, Ezekiel and Jeremiah false prophets, God was mistaken, or changed His mind.
4) He must've changed His mind, Why?

 

[patman]

RobE

RobE

Why He changed his mind is important here, Patman. I concur with Bling. The problem with using these scriptures to 'prove' that God didn't know the future is that not all of God's thoughts and actions are recorded in the Bible. We all agree it was possible for God to bring about the 'prophecy', but it doesn't disclose why it wasn't brought about. Remember the test for a false prophet I brought into the conversation before? Remember Clete's assertion that it was fulfilled?

It seems that it is a showdown between Deut 18 and Jeremiah 18. Funny how it is the same chapter in both books huh? Anyway…

Deut. 18
18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken.

Jeremiah 18
1 This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD : 2 "Go down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my message." 3 So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel. 4 But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

Both verses are true. And they both speak of God's word.

"If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken." But, "If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it."


Repentance is not the only reason God can change his mind. He can also change it because of compassion alone.

Hosea 11:8
"How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel? How can I treat you like Admah? How can I make you like Zeboiim? My heart is changed within me; all my compassion is aroused.

Lieing
We must talk about what a lie is. A lie is speaking about something, knowing that what you speak about is not true.

I have a million dollars. That is a lie. As much as I wish it weren’t, it is.

I have a car with a warrantee that will last for years. That is true. My car has a 10 year 100,000 mile warrantee. BUT if I drive it more than I planed to, the 10 year warrantee could expire early. That doesn't mean I lied.

God in the same way did not lie when he predicted one thing, and something else happened.

A Prophet's Job is to speak the word of God. If that word is allowed to change, The prophet is still speaking truth.

Just using the example with Tyre. God said Tyre would go down, but then said it wouldn't, but Egypt would instead. The prophet recording these words reported what would happen. Deut 18 stands true.

Unknown Reasons for change
RobE said "This leaves us with only one logical solution if the prophecy wasn't fulfilled-----There's some other occurrence that the scripture doesn't reveal." I do not disagree with this.

Something that must be understood is that We are the ones who are fallible. If we were not sinners, God wouldn't be in the situation to prophecy against us. But when we repent from sin, God is loving enough to take back the prophecy because he does not wish to punish those who turned to him and that he made righteous.

God isn't weak because he changes his mind. We have got to break away from this line of thinking.

The importance of knowing why
RobE, you said "Why He changed his mind is important here, Patman. I concur with Bling. The problem with using these scriptures to 'prove' that God didn't know the future is that not all of God's thoughts and actions are recorded in the Bible."

I know the Bible doesn't record everything. But my point is still proven despite that.

I accurately showed God changing his mind. I Used his words in context, where he said things by his Name that would happen, and they didn't.

What do you think? That God said to Jeremiah, "Write down that I will destroy Egypt under Pharaoh Necho, but between you and me, off the record, I already know I won't, but say it anyway." That sounds like a lie to me. That would be because it is one.

We both believe God cannot lie. How can God, knowing the future, proclaim something will happen that he knows will not happen?

You do not seem to disagree that God can change his mind. However, you think that it is possible for God to change it even though he knows the future, all of the future. But if God knows the future, his mind is already made up about what will happen. There is no way for change to happen.

Someone on here (at least I think it was on here) had an interesting approach. Whoever it was, I think it was Bling, hinted that maybe God can choose not to know parts of the future. Otherwise he knows it all. Whoever said is getting a little closer, but not quite there yet. If God could choose not to know that Adam and Eve would fall, he would then be choosing not to know everything that followed after. After all, if he looked into the future after the fall, 2000 years and saw that Adam was dead…. Well he would know. That’s a pretty hard paradox huh? Any future event God would choose not to know would have eternal consequences on any knowledge after that.

But a God who does not know the future has no problem with change. He also has no problem with not changing.

RobE, I am trying my best to break it down. Hope you will see the logic.


:guitar: :singer: :drum:
:bang:
-PatmaN
P.S. like my band? even has a head banger! They are singing my song.

 

[bling]

Patman, I did lesson to the show and in answering my questions, they both felt, from my question, God can destroy Satan at any time and Satan has a purpose. I think they addressed only a small part of Satan’s purpose, so we can follow-up at some point.

 

[patman]

Teaser for Bling

Teaser for Bling

Patman, I did lesson to the show and in answering my questions, they both felt, from my question, God can destroy Satan at any time and Satan has a purpose. I think they addressed only a small part of Satan’s purpose, so we can follow-up at some point.

Bling, here is just a taste of what I think. I think that God uses Satan for various reasons, dispite Satan leading a rebellion against God. God makes the best out of things.

 

[RobE]

Reply to Patman

Reply to Patman

Why He changed his mind is important here, Patman. I concur with Bling. The problem with using these scriptures to 'prove' that God didn't know the future is that not all of God's thoughts and actions are recorded in the Bible. We all agree it was possible for God to bring about the 'prophecy', but it doesn't disclose why it wasn't brought about. Remember the test for a false prophet I brought into the conversation before? Remember Clete's assertion that it was fulfilled?

If the prophecy wasn't fulfilled then A) God was lying or B) Ezekiel and Jeremiah were false prophets. The scripture leaves no room for any other logical solution(I guess you'd say C. God was mistaken). I just want to point out that even the OV would say He was capable of overthrowing Tyre. The inhabitants of Sodom and Gamorrah would probably concur. This leaves us with only one logical solution if the prophecy wasn't fulfilled-----There's some other occurance that the scripture doesn't reveal. Henceforth, why did He change His mind? And if He did change His mind is He, Himself, a false prophet or just simply fallible.

Let me say it again:

1) Prophecy not fulfilled
2) Prophecy is from God unless it isn't fulfilled
3) God lied, Ezekiel and Jeremiah false prophets, God was mistaken, or changed His mind.
4) He must've changed His mind, Why?

I wrote this post to show you that I understand your logic. My logic on the other hand sees other possibilities:

Unknown Reasons for change
RobE said "This leaves us with only one logical solution if the prophecy wasn't fulfilled-----There's some other occurrence that the scripture doesn't reveal." I do not disagree with this.

5) Neb changed his mind
6) God put a condition on the prophecy that Neb couldn't keep
7) The King of Egypt took an action we don't know
8) The King of Tyre took an action we don't know
9) God was doing a work in Neb
10)Etc.....

A Prophet's Job is to speak the word of God. If that word is allowed to change, The prophet is still speaking truth.

Is it possible the you believe the prophecy was fulfilled without it coming to pass?

The reasons why do not present a problem to the O.V.. We know there was a good reason, be it the one I present, or something else. But it is clear that God changed his mind and did not see through the things he proclaimed, and for good reason, as we all trust God for wise decisions.

Good reasons for Him to do what He will no matter his ability to see the future or not?

What do you think? That God said to Jeremiah, "Write down that I will destroy Egypt under Pharaoh Necho, but between you and me, off the record, I already know I won't, but say it anyway." That sounds like a lie to me. That would be because it is one.

No He didn't lie. Listen to this closely----- God is not under any edict to reveal everything He intends to anyone. He can't be questioned or held accountable for what He didn't say. To not say something is NOT a lie.

For example: If you eat of the tree you will surely die, but I will come later to redeem you from your mistake, Ok? Oh you ate, but you're not dead. I'm sorry I meant you would die spiritually, Ok?

Did He lie by not saying everything? Of course not.

I've said I believe God changes his mind for arguments sake, but obviously if He can see your future, which is boundless in an OV universe, then He couldn't change His mind because your power of free choice makes you His rival. I would say He can't change His mind, but can invent NEW things which would change the future. On the other hand, I can't see you doing a NEW thing so I believe He can see your future. Does this mean He changes His mind. No, because He doesn't change----everything around Him changes because of His action/will. To change His mind would change the future and we're just not that powerful or complex that He would have to.

Does that explain it? Can't you see that it more likely that you would change your mind than He would change His. Or did He find you and choose you and you didn't change. You conform to Him---Not Him to you. Get it!!!!

Yours in friendship,

RobE

 

[patman]

RobE

RobE

No He didn't lie. Listen to this closely----- God is not under any edict to reveal everything He intends to anyone. He can't be questioned or held accountable for what He didn't say. To not say something is NOT a lie.

For example: If you eat of the tree you will surely die, but I will come later to redeem you from your mistake, Ok? Oh you ate, but you're not dead. I'm sorry I meant you would die spiritually, Ok?

Did He lie by not saying everything? Of course not.

RobE, should we compare Eden to Tyre?

God tells Tyre plainly that they would be utterly destroyed. Not to be rebuilt. Nebuchadnezzar would carry away it's riches. This is exactly what God said would happen. So what are you saying in regards to this, forget everything else? That God didn't really mean what he said?

I shall wait for your response before I add on.

I would say He can't change His mind, but can invent NEW things which would change the future. On the other hand, I can't see you doing a NEW thing so I believe He can see your future. Does this mean He changes His mind. No, because He doesn't change----everything around Him changes because of His action/will. To change His mind would change the future and we're just not that powerful or complex that He would have to.

Rob, that Does make since. A God who knows the future cannot change. And he can create something that would change the future, but He himself cannot change. I agree. And because of that logic, I reject the Settled View, or any view that says God knows the future.

The Bible shows God changing, speaks of it, and shows it in so many ways. I believe in the Bible, not in the idea we place on the bible about the future. I believe it clouds scripture when we force that view on it.

Does that explain it? Can't you see that it more likely that you would change your mind than He would change His. Or did He find you and choose you and you didn't change. You conform to Him---Not Him to you. Get it!!!!

Yours in friendship,

RobE

I am much more fickle than God, I agree. But God does change his mind regardless of who is more likely to do it. But God does love me enough to change his mind for my sake. And that goes for you too, RobE.

I'll wait for your reply.
-Pat

 

[RobE]

RobE, should we compare Eden to Tyre?

God tells Tyre plainly that they would be utterly destroyed. Not to be rebuilt. Nebuchadnezzar would carry away it's riches. This is exactly what God said would happen. So what are you saying in regards to this, forget everything else? That God didn't really mean what he said?

I shall wait for your response before I add on.

I'm saying that God tells Tyre that they would be utterly destroyed. Not to be rebuilt. Nebuchadnezzar would carry away it's riches if nothing changed, just as you are. I'm just saying that it wasn't God's mind that changed; it was something else, that isn't revealed in the bible, changed such as the king of Tyre's mind, Nebuchadnezzar's actions, etc.....

Rob, that Does make since. A God who knows the future cannot change. And he can create something that would change the future, but He himself cannot change. I agree. And because of that logic, I reject the Settled View, or any view that says God knows the future.

Why would you fear a God who doesn't change? Doesn't that make him trustworthy. Doesn't that give us the goal to try to become righteous and holy as He is? Doesn't that give us surety in His promises? You only need change if you're not perfect, right?

The Bible shows God changing, speaks of it, and shows it in so many ways. I believe in the Bible, not in the idea we place on the bible about the future. I believe it clouds scripture when we force that view on it.

The Bible that speaks about the Alpha and Omega, crowing roosters, and all the other 'predictions' that came about, but not why God changed his mind, right? Listen Patman, I think we can probably get somewhere if we talk about the immutable qualities of God presented by the OV and leave the foreknowledge alone for a few posts.

I am much more fickle than God, I agree.

The same goes for Nebuchadnezzar. God changing a judgement doesn't change God at all. To change His mind would make foresight impossible because of the relational person HE is. I say He can see your future, but not past His own vastness. Your future on the other hand is much more limited because your not as able as He is. Honestly, I believe He can change His mind, but won't. Do you see this?

Lets not talk about the CV for a while. Let's discuss the OV qualities of Lovingness, etc....

Maybe through that you can see the box that I see the OV pushing Him into.

Truly Your Friend,

RobE

I can tell you really believe that God can't see what hasn't happened yet. I understand that.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Godrulz: Take both literally! In some situations, God will change His mind. In other scenarios, God will NOT change His mind.

I agree that this is the best OV interpretation, I was only trying to point this out to Clete, who, it seems, will not change his mind, and follow this OV principle!

Pat: Tyre was prophesied to NEVER be rebuilt.

Well, this might be "will not be built more" (see the UNASB), so that would require only that current building projects stop there, which in fact, they did.

Pat: It was Necho. And it didn't happen, Necho's reign ended during the 12th year.

Why does it have to be Necho, though? Must we say that no one in Egypt could have died or been born until all those who heard the prophecy had it fulfilled for them?

God changed his mind for reasons unknown. But he admits that Nebuchadnezzar was not able to take Tyre, and that he did not receive plunder from that land. History confirms it.

That is not a very strong God, who cannot take a city like Tyre!

Isaiah 50:2 Do I lack the strength to rescue you? By a mere rebuke I dry up the sea, I turn rivers into a desert; their fish rot for lack of water and die of thirst.

I do think we are very far off track here, if we hold that Tyre was not taken because of some inability, when God said it would happen. And Neb need not have taken plunder, "they" were said to do this, as in "many nations," which need not mean Neb specifically.

Now, if God can change his mind, how can he know the future? And if God can say one thing will happen, and then it doesn't, how does God know the future?

As in Jesus saying "truly, truly" twice about Peter? Once, when Peter would deny him, and again, when Jesus told Peter he would be faithful. And the second time, after Peter said "you know all things," which then makes Jesus' second prediction, saying "truly, truly" (this is not a guess!), a confirmation that he knows everything, including everything about the future.

I agree that this implies that God does not change his mind!

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

The Open View here would answer, "Yes, he does," but that is clearly not what the expected answer is here.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[patman]

Lee........

Lee........

Hi everyone,


I agree that this is the best OV interpretation, I was only trying to point this out to Clete, who, it seems, will not change his mind, and follow this OV principle!

Lee. :nono:

If you have a better way of interpreting it, I challange you to do it. But you can't take a verse here and a verse there. You have to do what I did. Present everything in it's full context.

You have yet to do that, instead you just say "No it isn't right."

Why?

"Just Because."

What's your proof?

"I don't agree with you"

Why not?

"Because this one verse way over here"

Is the verse in context?

"I think it is"

Sorry, Lee. Anyone should agree with this, your answers are only questions.

What is my proof? Read the second paragraph in your quote below. And notice how your explanation in the first paragraph completely ignores the problem that God said it would be GONE by Nebuchadnezzar's hand! And yet you yourself admit it went on because they simply stopped rebuilding.

Well, this might be "will not be built more" (see the UNASB), so that would require only that current building projects stop there, which in fact, they did.

Why does it have to be Necho, though? Must we say that no one in Egypt could have died or been born until all those who heard the prophecy had it fulfilled for them?

Lee, did you really read it all? Did you get out your Bible and see? Didn't you notice how Bad Tyre would get it? Remember, the Nuke? Gone, *poof*. No more Tyre! And yet they continued on. For how long? A good 200 years later Alexander the Great is taking it over. And 200 years before God said Nebuchadnezzar would make it "Vanish under the sea".

If I am addressing a letter to "the president", if the year is 2005, If I talk about his stature in the world and then tell him he would send men to the moon, and then It didn't happen. But 20 years later another President sends men to the moon, and then low and behold they discover my letter, would they think I was accurate in my knowledge of the future?

God addressed Pharaoh of the 10th, 11th and 12th year. Why would you think it wasn't Necho? That's what I said the first time. And your answer is, "Are you sure?" Yes! Didn't you see the proofs I used?

That is not a very strong God, who cannot take a city like Tyre!

Isaiah 50:2 Do I lack the strength to rescue you? By a mere rebuke I dry up the sea, I turn rivers into a desert; their fish rot for lack of water and die of thirst.

I do think we are very far off track here, if we hold that Tyre was not taken because of some inability, when God said it would happen. And Neb need not have taken plunder, "they" were said to do this, as in "many nations," which need not mean Neb specifically.

Amen to Isaiah 50:2, for we serve a God who could take a city like Tyre. And I shocked that you would call Nebuchadnezzar a god? I never said Nebuchadnezzar was a god. God said Nebuchadnezzar would take Tyre, but darn-it if Nebuchadnezzar didn't do it.

So you think God is weak because Tyre was not utterly destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar? That is something you will have to deal with, because it is the truth that those events did transpire, as we know from God's own lips.

As in Jesus saying "truly, truly" twice about Peter? Once, when Peter would deny him, and again, when Jesus told Peter he would be faithful. And the second time, after Peter said "you know all things," which then makes Jesus' second prediction, saying "truly, truly" (this is not a guess!), a confirmation that he knows everything, including everything about the future.

Jesus simply knew what would happen in that situation because he is smart. "Truly Truly" means it is going to happen, not that I know the future. And he does know all things, but the future is not something knowable, just like "nothing" is not knowable.

No doubt Jesus was pretty sure about this. But I don't see the words, "I know the future," Only you and other Settled Viewers do because you make the mistake of reading them into the verse, adding to the scripture.

I agree that this implies that God does not change his mind!

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

The Open View here would answer, "Yes, he does," but that is clearly not what the expected answer is here.

Blessings,
Lee

Lee, I presented all my verses in full context. I aided history's view of the events with what the Bible said. You must be careful to do the same.

Numbers 23:19 is not one of those verses you can just throw-up, make a mess, without asking why it made you sick.

Numbers 23

16 The LORD met with Balaam and put a message in his mouth and said, "Go back to Balak and give him this message."

17 So he went to him and found him standing beside his offering, with the princes of Moab. Balak asked him, "What did the LORD say?"

18 Then he uttered his oracle:
"Arise, Balak, and listen;
hear me, son of Zippor.

19 God is not a man, that he should lie,
nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?

20 I have received a command to bless;
he has blessed, and I cannot change it.

21 "No misfortune is seen in Jacob,
no misery observed in Israel. [a]
The LORD their God is with them;
the shout of the King is among them.

22 God brought them out of Egypt;
they have the strength of a wild ox.

23 There is no sorcery against Jacob,
no divination against Israel.
It will now be said of Jacob
and of Israel, 'See what God has done!'

24 The people rise like a lioness;
they rouse themselves like a lion
that does not rest till he devours his prey
and drinks the blood of his victims."

25 Then Balak said to Balaam, "Neither curse them at all nor bless them at all!"

26 Balaam answered, "Did I not tell you I must do whatever the LORD says?"​

You must ask, what is God not changing his mind about? You take it to mean anything. But, when you do the right thing, and quote God in context, you see there is an involved story that you take at face value.

A leader of a land that Israel is passing through, named Balak, wants a gifted prophet to curse Israel because whoever he curses is truly cursed. But God tells Balaam not to. So Balak asks him a second time. And God tells Balaam that he will not change his mind. Why? Because God made a Promise all those years ago to Abraham, and it is a promise that he has never forgot.

So what did we learn? God will not curse Israel, and he will not change his mind about it. In context, Lee.

I see 4 problems with your understanding of scripture. You take things out of context when it helps your point. You ignore scripture when it is inconvenient for you. And when you do this, you go back to your first problem and try to explain it away hoping we will all ignore the true context, and just foolishly pretend it was never said. And finally you are not humble enough to repent from this. Or are you?

Lee, there is an entire world of Scripture that shows you wonderful things about God that you are missing out on because you want it to fit your view. You Ignore the things that don't fit. One day, you will meet God. I hope you are disappointed when he doesn't know the future, because that might hurt his feelings. But don't worry, after all you are under grace.

In the end, the houses we built throughout our lives will be put through the fire. All the impurities will be burnt away, and only the pure things will be left for our reward in heaven. You owe it to yourself to read the Bible and not ignore it when you don't like what it says.

So there it is. I do not know if I wish to go the route Clete did and just say Goodbye. I can understand why he did that. But I will stop investing so much time in my answers to you. You do not value my time by disrespecting the obvious truth in your very face. But I will forgive you. Not because I have to, not that I am under the law. Because I hope, just as God hoped Israel would change, that something I will say will change you.

It is to bad nothing I saw will benefit you, you do not seem to believe that you could be guilty. I just hope you will search your soul with Gods light.

-Pat

P.S. For everyone else. I do not wish to be harsh with my brother Lee. Everything I saw is in the spirit of Love.

 

[bling]

Patman, what you said to Lee, I have said to others only to have it thrown in my face, when I have been shown to do the same thing. God has a funny way of doing that and I do laugh at myself some time afterwards. May you not get hurt? God bless you.

 

[patman]

Bling

Bling

Thanks Bling.
I hope so far in this form, you can see that when I was mistaken and was called on it, I was humble enough to admit my mistakes and take it back. I only want to stick to the truth, and do it honestly.

In the past, when I was guilty of doing the same thing Lee did, I was rebuked. And I am ever so thankful eternally for it. If I ever do it again, I hope I am rebuked again. It may hurt, but I'll be better for it. I am sure you have the same attitude about this.

I promise I don't like giving rebuke, It is hard for me to do, even in real life. I watch every word carefully to make sure I do not say something that is wrong. I only hope it makes Lee think and start to read the Bible in full context. He will find a new love for God. Even if he doesn't believe the O.V. he should at least watch how he quotes, ignores quotes, and disagrees with quotes in regards to context.

Thanks again,
-patMan

 

[patman]

Bling, I finally got to you, thanks for the patience

Bling, I finally got to you, thanks for the patience

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

And thanks for yours.

I am not saying, there are no other ways to interpret this verse. What I have heard from some O.V.ers is “we take verse literally if they can be taken literally, only and S.V. must use interpretations that fit.” Will the O.V.’s can’t take this verse literally they (you) have to interpret it to fit your conclusions, which does not mean you are wrong! And this is not a debate stopper. We could possibly go on discussing sin and what all happened on the cross, multiple event or different descriptions of the same event. We can pick that up later.

Agreed, well get back to this later if we want.

In one way we are trapped on earth, or in this universe, or in heave at some point. Do you really think Adam and Eve felt trapped?

We aren't really trapped here. At any moment, heaven forbid, we can leave on our own will. But that would be wrong of us to end our lives like that. Last weekend I, my wife, and my mother were in a car accident. No one was hurt, no one accept mom's car. She may be getting a new one. But it makes you think, life on earth is only the beginning.

Anyway, all is fine with us.

I do not think Adam felt trapped, because I do not think God trapped him. My story may have seemed to imply that I do, but that was only an analogy as to what the alternative was. I don't know if I just didn't do a good job of explaining it, or if it wasn't read right, but I do not believe that at all. Here is what I wrote last time:

Love does not trap the object of its affection into an eternity service. God would not trap man to be in the garden forever because that is not love. Thus he allowed for a truly genius way out. I hope to show that not loving God required more than a simple "yes,no" choice, but a true separation, and being separated from God required knowledge of good and evil.

If God did not trap Adam, Adam should not have felt trapped. Adam knew all along there was a way out, just simply by eating of one tree.

1a. What do you say to people that say: “ If God really loved us, He would not have done this or allowed that

Patman said:
So there are a few "positive" things... there would be no death, no knowledge of good and evil... but much love would give way to selfishness. And with no knowledge of good and evil and no love for God, man would be a very dangerous creature. If man can choose not to love God, he can choose no to love his fellow creation. This would put God in a very bad situation, because in order to keep man healthy, he would be compelled to tell them what not to do. This means issuing commandments, but that would introduce sin because with sin, if man knowingly disobeys, he is a sinner. And God cannot be joined to sin. So that person would be put away from God.
And a lot of other stuff.

Do you think God would not realize this and a whole lot more even before He created man?

I wonder if I was making myself clear in the last response, or if it read right. I know God realized this, that is why he didn't do it that way.

I am asked on here a lot "Why not just take the tree out of the Garden?" My answer is really deep. Perhaps I should have started a little differently.

Here is what I said last time. I am going to go through It again and make comments on it so it is clear.

Lets pretend that the choice to love God was as simple as just saying "yes" or "no".

I.E. Lets pretend that there was no tree. All Adam and Eve and anyone who came after them had to do is just say "Yes, I love God" or "No, I do not love God." What would have happened if that had been the case?

In the garden, everything was provided for them as blessings for being with God. Had man chose to hate Go. Because there was no sin involved, God continued to bless man regardless, because there was nothing to separate God from man. So even though man left God, God had nothing to separate him from man.

This is just some things that we can immediately see would be different. God's blessings were in the garden, with no tree, there would be no reason for God to stop giving the blessings because there was no sin to separate man and God. No tree meant no command. No commandment to break meant no sin. Man could hate god forever, and have all the blessings as those who loved him.

As man would begin to populate the garden, few would find reason to love God, but others would not, and instead take advantage of the free blessings. The more God would ask for love, the less he would get. Perhaps a few would love him. But they would be eternally cursed by those who didn't. Some would be cursed to the point that they wouldn't love him. Their curse would go on forever, because God could not justly put an end to it. After there was no wrong, ie sin involved, it was just a choice.

Someone sooner or later would choose to hate God. And he would take others with him. They would find stupid reasons to hate him, just like Israel did when they were leaving Egypt. God provided the food, and they said "We want meat instead of Manna! Why should we follow a God who only gives us Manna?" Perhaps that would have been the start of it? Some would want different food? And demand God give it, and in the process begin to stop loving God.

Remember, sin brought death to man. Without sin, there would be no death.

So there are a few "positive" things... there would be no death, no knowledge of good and evil... but much love would give way to selfishness. And with no knowledge of good and evil and no love for God, man would be a very dangerous creature. If man can choose not to love God, he can choose no to love his fellow creation. This would put God in a very bad situation, because in order to keep man healthy, he would be compelled to tell them what not to do. This means issuing commandments, but that would introduce sin because with sin, if man knowingly disobeys, he is a sinner. And God cannot be joined to sin. So that person would be put away from God.

There would be no way for the people who hated God to die in the garden if there were no tree, no sin, and thus no death. And some people might think that was a good thing. But they do not think about those who love God. Their love for God would be annoyed by those who had a lack of love for God. They would be forever stuck with them. Anytime they wanted to say for no reason "I love God! Praise God!" they would have to worry FOREVER if someone who didn't love God was near by. Because they would always get that "You God Lover!" snide remark that we endure today. Only this would NEVER end because there is no separation.

Also, without a tree, no one would ever know good and evil. The only way those in this situation could know it would be if God told them what things were right, and what things were wrong. He would want to make a law for them all, because they would not know it is evil to steal fruit from their neighbors tree. If man never ever knew good and evil he would be a dangerous creature. He may not know it, but his evil would abound forever with no control to stop it. If God cared for man, he would set up a law sooner or later. And the following would be the result:

As God put these sinners away, he would be sending them up the creek with out a paddle. Because they only have limited knowledge of good and evil. And since they were separated from God, they could not obtain more. The only way to obtain more would be to ask God, i.e. return to him. Some may, others may not, but in the end those who do will again be cursed by those who don't because of their ignorance. And this is going to go on forever!?

Now that people have commands to break, they have sinned and can be separated. But now they are in an ever worst situation, because their knowledge of good and evil is limited to God's law. And they become all the more dangerous. They know what some sin is, the do not know what other sin might be in their gut, as we do, and they would be out of control. Sinning forever, and sinning and not knowing they are doing it.

I hope you can see the problem created is very complex. That is why God had a better plan. In his great love, even for potential sinners, he devised a way for both Man and God to be separated should man choose, and a way for Man to make it on his own.

These reasons and more are why there was a tree, why there was death, and why it was required to take that route should you leave God.

Quote:
1b. Would you rather be in a situation where: a. your eternal close relationship with God was total dependent on your obedience to God’s command(s). Or b. Your eternal close relationship with God was totally dependent on God’s mercy?

Patman said: I must choose C. I choose a God who rightly and wisely gives commands for the good of man and is merciful enough to still accept msan when he repent.

You are avoiding the question, it is simple. You can have as many or as few commands (at least one) as you want: Would you rather be in a situation where: a. your eternal close relationship with God was total dependent on your obedience to God’s command(s). Or b. Your eternal close relationship with God was totally dependent on God’s mercy?

The garden is A. and what we have today is B. Do you think you are smarter then God was, before He even created man, He could not have figured this out, it seems real logical to me?

There is a lot going on in this situation that does not have to be written we can figure some of it out and I am sure God understands it all or does He?

Bling. I am not avoiding the question. You assume that A and B are the only choices. But there is a C, all of the above!

I have always believed the tree was more than a way for man to leave God. I have always believed that had man passed the test, and started to populate the earth, God would let man eat of the tree. This would be necessary, it seems, for man's survival with hundreds of other men. Otherwise they would be out of control. God wanted man to eat of the tree as he saw fit, not as man saw fit. The tree is a very powerful thing. If man did eat of the tree, and knew what sin was, sooner or later some would sin on purpose. This is why God had it planned, from the foundations of the earth, to give Jesus as an atonement for sin! He probably thought that sooner or later, it would be necessary. And with the death to sin found in Christ, man could forever live in the garden even after he sinned, should he choose. That's what I think God planned. He didn't create man to sin, he just knew it COULD happen, and out of love, he had a plan!

But because Adam and Eve jumped the gun, now none of use can enjoy the blessings like God wanted initially. But we can still be with God forever, because his plan for Christ never changed. That is why we will join him in Heaven, and stay with him Forever. God wouldn't offer us a way out without a way back.

The answer is C. Because God allows us a way out and a way back because of his commandments and his love and mercy.

Patman tell me how long you would last, I will give you the same command just worded differently: Thou can not desire that which thou should not have and/or you can not be jealousy of those that do possess what you should not have (thou shall not covet)?

It depends, do I get to answer knowing everything I know now? If I do, if I get to remember that my actions would kill billions of people, every human on earth, I wouldn't do it. And If I get to remember that it means separation from God, I wouldn't do it. Because I love God.

Wait, Adam did know this. He was told he would bring Death about. And he knew it was his way out. Wow, Adam really did an evil thing. Bling, you say you would have been weak and ate, but I do not know if I believe that. You love God, what would it take to get you to stop loving him? My guess is NOTHING, not even a tree with tasty fruit. That was the point of the tree, "do you love God or not; if not, eat."

Now we both know neither of us are perfect. And perhaps sooner or later we both would sin in some other way. That is why Jesus' Death and the Mystery spoken of by Paul was planned from before we were even created.

In Adam and Eve’s case there was no stopping the sin at the inward desire level, so it is obvious to all and above question, but you may not carry your desire to fruition, but it will still be the sin. Read Rm. 6, 7 ,8

God didn't command them not to want to eat the tree. He commanded them to not eat it. Eve mistakenly added "Do not even look at it" to the word of God. He didn't say that. He just said "Don't eat." If Adam and Eve desired to eat of the tree, If it were a sin, they didn't know it was. They only knew not to do it. Today we know that even inward lust can be a sin, because we have knowledge of good and evil.

God laid out what the sin would be that would separate them. That particular sin was well thought out, because any other sin would leave man helpless, because they would not know good and evil from it. In this situation, wanting to eat the tree, and eating the tree were not the same as wanting to steal and then doing it. We know better today than to lust. Adam and eve were not commanded not to lust, but not to eat.

I hope you do not think I am not familiar with what Paul said about sinning.
Our differences between O.V. and S.V. are in my opinion small compared to our understanding of purpose and objective. I have no problem with a God that would chose not to know some future in order to help man with his objective or even a God who can’t know the exact future, because of time, but to have “open or poorly thought-out objectives for things” is not a very smart God.
Since God is in control, the objective should drive everything, understand the objective and you are will on your way to the goal.

Being forgiven of just one sin (all that goes into that and all that comes out of that) makes a huge difference from not having a sin to be forgiven of and especially not being forgiven of one sin. Did God know that???
.....
Good let us think about this:
2cx. I did not suggest forgiveness is the only way to begin to develop agape love (I specify humans in question2f), having this Garden Story may show us though, for humans it maybe a requirement, Christ is talking about people not God! The angles could easily had some other set up which we really don’t need to know about. This in my opinion is one of the reasons for putting the Garden Story first.
2dx. That is the point!!! God is serving needy people he is showering agape love, how can Adam and Eve express their agape love for God, through obedience to the command which they can not/ do not achieve. Read your own question it does not work in reverse?
2ex. God may very much require needy beings at some point to be God. He served before man and will continue to serve after this world is gone. Can you imagine your God as not serving?
2fx. This question also can not be reversed. God shows the Love He already has with the Cross.

Bling, I do not mean to accuse you of thinking these things. I am glad we agree that God did not cause sin, and that agape love can exist without sin. I just wanted to use your own questions to point that out. I did not make them your words or mean to imply you thought them. It was just a way of showing that agape love was possible without sin.

You, however, believe agape love for humans being possible requires them sin that we might learn it. I reject that because I believe God wanted us to love him forever, even if we never did sin, and each other as well. Otherwise, God created us in such a way that it would be impossible to love him had we not sinned. That is where I see that thought process taking us. And that is why I reject it.

As a result of sin, we get to know first hand what it is like to be hated and sinned against, but it is not required that we know this. Even an innocent child who has yet to understand fully what sin is knows how to love it's parents.

Patman ask:
If God can love us without sinning, why can't we love God without sinning?

That is a good question and the question I really want you to ask. This is where we need to be. I do not have the time, energy or wisdom to give you the answer you deserve to this question; maybe together we can develop a partial answer.

I believe we can. Love is something you do.

5a. Is God not strong enough to do away with Satan now?

Patman said: Yes

I want to make sure that is the question you are saying Yes to?

Satan lost the war to angels, not to God directly. God has told us what will happen to Satan, so what is holding Him up, what will change with time, God strength, Satan’s strength? Or does Satan satisfy some purpose? I do not care if God planned this for Satan or just some great angel failure, God knew would eventually happen in Heaven and He would use on His future earth.

It does seem that Satan is being used by God today. I am sure that is why he is yet to be sent to hell. But I imagine God wishes to send all sinners away at the same time. But that time will happen when everyone has made up their minds.

During the 1000 year kingdom, I believe will be the last time for people to decide one way or the other. During that time Satan will be unbound to help everyone decide. This is a little off the subject, but I hope you can see where I am coming from. God uses everyone to help others decide to follow him or not, even Satan. This is not to say we were predestined or even planned to be this way.

Patman said:
If you do, I cannot disagree more. Our love for God does not require sin, just as his love does not for us. Satan, the fall of man, and the fall of angels are tragic events that God must make the best out of. Its not all for a purpose, it didn't happen just as God planned it. That would make God the author of all our sins.

We agree God allows sin to happen. The question is, why does God allow sin? You are trying to tell me (I think) so man can have free will, freely love and because God lacked the knowledge to program man correctly, to not feel trapped into doing good.( Maybe you can explain this again, specifically). I am saying, the develop of a selfless sacrificial agape love is so difficult that only man on this earth under extreme conditions and with everything God could possible do can and only might, develop such a love. That everything from God includes allowing Man to sin. God is not the “author” of sin does not like it, does not want it, hates it, but because His objective (in relation to man) is the ultimate in unselfishness of doing all He can to help Man fulfill his objective, God allows sin. If there was only another way.

That's not what I believe at all.

Everything I said there was in regards to a God knowing the future. We both know the world is sinful today. If God knew the future, and saw this sin happening to the world, he would not have created it this way. I think he would have done something different, because he would not create a world to be sinful.

But our world is sinful. That is why I believe that God did not know the future outcome to his creation, because had he known, I do not think he would have created it. After all, before the flood, God was sorry he created man. How can a God who knows the future not know he would wish he never created man because of how wicked he would turn out to be?

Gen. 6:5-7
Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, "I will destroy man who I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

WOW. Bling, how can God be sorry he made man when he saw the future, and that he would be sorry?

This is why I believe God didn't know the future, because had he known, things wouldn't be like they are today. Because I believe God would be powerful enough to look into the future of his potential creation and make it with out sin. But, here is the catch, that creation, which is without sin, is without freedom and choice, because it is without choice to sin.

So God did not make the future knowable. He didn't make the future at all. It isn't a creation, it isn't a thing to be known. Just as time isn't a creation. It is just how we describe when something will or had happened. That's all time and the future is.

And I try to prove that God doesn't know the future by opposing the idea that some prophecies came to pass, therefore God knows all of the future. I oppose it by showing with scripture that God, who does not lie, did not accurately predict a few future events.

I hope this helps, Bling
-patMan

 

[RobE]

What's Happened In My Debate....

What's Happened In My Debate....

I wanted to list some of the quotes I found interesting in this thread. It seems to me there is a growing concensus on many points. I also wanted to reiterate my position so when you ask future questions of me, you can try to at least avoid some of the positions I hold or address them.

Rob, that Does make since. A God who knows the future cannot change. And he can create something that would change the future, but He himself cannot change. I agree. And because of that logic, I reject the Settled View, or any view that says God knows the future.

He who is perfect need not change, right?

On God Lying

No He didn't lie. Listen to this closely----- God is not under any edict to reveal everything He intends; to anyone. He can't be questioned or held accountable for what He didn't say. To not say something is NOT a lie.

For example: If you eat of the tree you will surely die, but I will come later to redeem you from your mistake, Ok? Oh you ate, but you're not dead. I'm sorry I meant you would die spiritually, Ok?

Did He lie by not saying everything? Of course not.

I appealed to your logic on the subject of lying.

Yes. And would you agree that He is not lower than man? Or are you one of the many who think that a homosexual sodomizing a young boy gives pleasure and glory to God?

This post by Bob Enyart spurred my want to defend God's action whether He knows the future or not.

Just because the playwright/director knows the plot doesn't mean he doesn't watch and wonder how the actors will play their roles. Often he will coach the actors as they play their parts and replace actors who can't play the part correctly. All of which takes a lot of thought, planning, and intervention on HIS part; as well as, a lot of foresight to get the desired results. The plan is perfected through his vision(foresight) combined with his work(relationships). His own personality requires NO change and remains perfect(without mistakes/flaws) forever no matter how many of the actors believe he's not handling things correctly.

I laid out my position.

Which god reacted to outside stimulus and made decisions as he went along. Which god didn't know the entire future and had to wing it as he went along? Yours, mine, or the Greek gods? The foundation of Greek theology would seem to infer that the gods didn't have foreknowledge of events and therefore were worshipped by open view followers.

I compared our Lord to pagan gods.

Ezekiel 18:30 “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord GOD. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord GOD. “Therefore turn and live!”

Clete showed us our free will choice.

This still doesn't answer my question which addresses how God behaves, thinks, or rationalizes. My point was --- If God makes decisions, as time progresses, without foreknowledge; isn't he just like Zeus seeing the current situation and acting based on his emotion at the time. We all agree that there is a plan. It's how that plan is put into action that we're talking about here. Wouldn't you consider God from the OV perception to be more Zeus-like than from the CV perception. And if not, why not?

I was trying to get a handle on God if He wasn't 'All-Powerful'.

A plan? Like what? This terminology is usually loaded with meaning that I will almost certainly disagree with. I agree that there is an over all plan, sort of big picture type plan, but there is no specific plan that God has for my life or yours aside from his desire to see us do rightly and to love Him and His righteousness.

I was trying to understand God without a plan.

This is my concern....Did God create man to become gods or did man create God to become man? Is this the 'open' road? Does Jesus change the future or is he subject to it because it's out of his control? If you know everything aren't all outcomes possible? Aren't you responsible for everything if you know everything? Shouldn't you execute summary judgement on Adam and be done with it?.....

...Or show mercy and let Bob, Clete, RobE, Knight, and the ones you can; escape from the wreckage. Are you responsible for all the dead simply because you desired to give them all life? They rejected it and it saddened you, but some survived to become your 'sons' --for your glory. There's only one of you and it's my hope you're in the kingdom. And if that's my hope, what price will the Lord pay for your salvation. He knows, and that's part of the price for your uniqueness and his gift of free will.

I explained my position on Why doesn't God just end it.

I have a question. Does the 'open view' allow for the presence of any of the omni's such as omnipresent?

The reason I asked is-- in many of the posts against Calvinism(Armenianism) it is proposed that if God knows everything to the smallest detail that he's the author of such things as child molestation, rape, abortion, etc..

It occurs to me if he is omnipresent then he would be an accessory to these crimes even if he doesn't have extensive foreknowledge according to the open view objection to Calvinism above.

If he isn't omnipresent then why do you pray? Does he have a spiritual voice mail service? Are you just praying for your own benefit? Does he not yet realize that people are being killed at abortion clinics? Isn't he an accessory to abortion since he could stop it by using his supernatural authority? Or is he impotent to end certain wrongs because of his nature. Maybe his intervention would interfere with your free will?

I'm not sure. How would the 'open view' look on these issues?

If He's omnipresent He sees evil when it happens in the present.

Again, I point out that the open view doesn't stand up to the same test you put on the closed view......
Remember(per above) God is Love.

If God lives, day by day, without knowing the future then he's responsible for the events that happen around him. He's responsible that they're killing children at 20th & Vine(abortion), he's responsible for the hungry, the poor, this sick, etc..., ;whether he did it to them or not. We all agree that he could stop it if he wanted to. He thus becomes the God who walks among us and in his loving kindness allows murders, rapes, child abuse, abortion, homosexuality, etc.... to occur. Doesn't he know they're aborting human life? Hasn't he turned the TV on yet? This is the open view. God is the good Samaritan who walked on by. Is this less terrible than the closed view argument that God has a reason for his actions. That the Lord might have a plan and some insight into our future. Why do these things happen? Isn't this the same arguments that Atheists use to denounce Him?

This is my question?

I asked this question to point out that it doesn't matter WHEN God sees evil occurring as far as his culpability is.

The fact is that we have no Bible verse that says God knows the future. We use reasoning to come up with that idea because God predicted the future a good number of times. That is really the only reason people think he knows the future.

We have no verse that says he doesn't know the future, but have many which insinuates He does.

Scripture tells us that the Body of Christ was foreordained by God from the foundations of the earth. He planed it before creation! He is wise enough to know that some would fall, and some would need a savior. He didn't admit to know who those individuals were, but he had a plan for those, because he loves his creation!'

Foreordained by God means planned. You point out it was planned in your next sentence.

Remember, in Job, a heavenly wager was placed on Job's denial of God. God allowed Job to be tested. The same happened for Peter. Jesus told Peter that he was praying for Peter's faith because Peter was going to be handed over for testing. Jesus, having heard from God the test Peter would go through, knew Peter well enough to be certain about his reaction. Peter was a pretty thickel guy at that time. Jesus knew that Peter wouldn't pass the test, it was obvious to Jesus.

How did he foreknow Peter would be tested and not pass?

Apparently, for you, God expecting one thing to happen then getting another thing is dismissible. God's power is not in question. It is his knowledge of the future. Did god expect one thing, and then another happened? Yes.

Why did Jonah seem to have a better grasp of the situation than God did? He thought the Ninevites would probably repent, and thus he ran.
God thought they would repent too. that's why he sent Jonah. He wanted them to repent for heavens sake! And if they didn’t... well he had to do what he had to do.

You said God expected one thing and another happened and then God thought they would repent. Is this logical?

The alternate view satisfies a literal interpretation of all the relevant verses: God can and does change in response to changing contingencies; He settles some of the future without meticulously controlling or knowing all of the future.

Godrulz believes He has a plan for some, but not all, things.

Does he have any foresight/knowledge about that plan or is he just guessing? Did he create the universe? Make all the small details in nature that you see everyday? He did dictate every detail in creation, right? Who will resist the Lord?

I think Lee was trying to say that He exists outside of time being present in the past, present, and future. You say he only knows the past and present and sometimes the future, is that right? Or does he just have a best guess at what will happen and he can predict reliable outcomes because of his extensive knowledge of man. That's why mankind can suprise him, right?

Let me see.

1. Would it be fair to say that everything God thought or spoke is NOT in the Bible?

2. Is it possible that God exists in the past, present, and future and is not limited to a
sequence of events like we are?

3. Is God love as Bob Enyart said in the debate or merely loving?

The Lord is not responsible for sin even if he foresaw it bacause.....HERE'S THE ANSWER YOU'VE BEEN WAITING FOR......


Quoted from Patman

God is loving. And that is exactly why he allows sin. My short answer may not do it for you, but here is an analogy used often by us O.V.'ers(actually by all Christians): A man forces a woman to stay with him because he loves her, yet he is really hurting her because she doesn't love him back. In the end, the man really doesn't love the woman, he just imprisons her. I am sure you can agree that the man does not love the woman.

Should God be like this man? Should he prevent us from sinning so that he might have us in spite of the fact that we would rather sin?

If God wanted us to act like we loved him, he could have made us into robots, programed to say we love him... But instead, God did not program us. He made us like he is, free.

You wouldn't believe me or yourself on this issue.

Are you saying that humans can create new things or ideas apart from Him?

What on earth, and where on earth did you come up with that? That just shows me how bad you are reading me, RobE. All I said is that predicting human action is different from predicting the path of a moving object, and because it isn't a physics problem, human actions aren't predictable. Creating new things? That's a different thread.

Human actions aren't predictable unless they're Peter or live in Nineveh?

I'm not sure I understand your point. It is my understanding that this prophecy was fulfilled. After about 30 seconds of searching online I found the following which is in keeping with other explanations I've heard for years.

Thanks Clete.

The open view does not hold that God can be wrong. This is a straw man that has been dealt with about a million times. You quoted my statement about what the Scriptural test of a prophet is, where is it in there that God might be wrong?

If He says A and B occurs He was _______ ? If Clete would answer this I'd appreciate it.

I made a mistake on my last reply to him about why I thought God interrupted Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of Tyre to take Egypt, but as it turns out, I don't know why that happened. All I know is that both Egypt and Tyre were spared from the full wrath of God. And I trust God that it was for a good reason.

A good reason would seem to infer that something happened that we don't know about. Not that God couldn't overthrow Tyre or Egypt like He did Sodom.

I hope you can see that people actually turn their back to God because they cannot reason how a god that supposedly knows the future can answer such a prayer, knowing the consequences. Future knowledge is actually a stumbling block too, sometimes. It could be that if the Open View were more popular, these arguments would have not been made because we proclaim that the future is open to God and that he can change his mind even after he said something.
I think OV'ers can trust the Bible and the words of the prophets more than anyone reading. As it might appear the verses that I say didn't come to pass is final - cut and dry, there is always that twist that we adhere to from Jeremiah. I explained it to Lee that God said he would repent from his proclamations depending on the actions of the people for which the proclamations were declared.

If God knows my action in advance I have no ability to do otherwise and thus I am not free and am therefore not culpable for that action.

And it is this choice that we make which answers your question above about why God allows evil. If God did not allow for rebellion then He would render love impossible as well which would end the whole purpose of our having been created to begin with. Love triumphs over evil and mercy over judgment and thus it is profitable to allow evil to continue for a time but not forever and so rest assured, as I said above, God will visit justice upon those who reject Him and do evil.

Whose culpability, God's? God is not culpable for anything. Who is there that will judge God? You? Me? I don't think so. How could God be culpable for anything? God could theoretically do something against the current description of His nature and that would render Him unrighteous by definition but no one has the authority nor the ability to hold Him accountable for such an act aside from Himself and the other members of the Trinity.

So the open view adheres to the fact that God is NOT omnipresent? He just reads about it in the paper? I'm not sure where the OV is on this. If He sees people starving on TV in Ethiopia, and does nothing about it. How are these different: (1) He saw them starving to death 10,000 years ago. (2) He sees them starving to death today? Your answer below is correct whether He sees future events or not an actually makes my point for me......

Again I asked, Why does it matter when God found out?

If I took a test without knowing the outcome then I would do it freely, but if you 'foresaw' me in a vision passing the test then..... you made me pass the test by 'foreseeing' it; and free will was eliminated??

Love does not trap the object of its affection into an eternity service. God would not trap man to be in the garden forever because that is not love. Thus he allowed for a truly genius way out. I hope to show that not loving God required more than a simple "yes,no" choice, but a true separation, and being separated from God required knowledge of good and evil.

Therefore, the tree was the only way to live apart from God and to set up a system that would allow for justice. Man, in his very soul, knows good and evil. It is necessary that all man born outside of God's blessings know good and evil. And with death comes an end to hate and a deterrent to sin for those alive. And with it also comes our justification in Christ! Thanks be to God forever. Amen.

The example that works with God changing his mind is one such as Jonah preaching that God would destroy the City in 40 days, and does not do it. He changed his mind there, just as he said he would.

It also works if God foresaw the future and even fits better with a plan in mind.

Foreseeing and enacting a perfect plan doesn't make one responsible for the harms that are done by others, through their actions, as that plan plays out.

OV'ers say that God doesn't err, He just copes with the errors of his imperfect creation. If God made man NOT to sin then He made a mistake(mistake=He did everything right and it still turned out wrong). If He made them to sin then how could they be 'GOOD'. I point you to Gen. 3:22 for the answer. The tree was there for a purpose. Good doesn't mean perfect, right? The question is-----How does God perfect things?

Bling, here is just a taste of what I think. I think that God uses Satan for various reasons, dispite Satan leading a rebellion against God. God makes the best out of things.

Reasons like what without foresight of Satan's actions.

This is a long post, sorry. Can any of you find what kinds of questions these statement might raise in me?

RobE

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Pat,

Pat: If you have a better way of interpreting it, I challenge you to do it.

I hold that God does not change his mind, so I would interpret such verses as saying "I will not relent," in other words, this means that what is being said about the future is unconditional, from our perspective, this is certain, no action can change it. But let's not change the subject! We were discussing Egypt, and whether God can be wrong.

And notice how your explanation in the first paragraph completely ignores the problem that God said it would be GONE by Nebuchadnezzar's hand!

I have a different conclusion, though, about what this passage is saying, "many nations" need not mean only Neb. But we were discussing Egypt, I thought, not Tyre, again, let's not open lots of questions on lots of different fronts.

God addressed Pharaoh of the 10th, 11th and 12th year. Why would you think it wasn't Necho? That's what I said the first time. And your answer is, "Are you sure?" Yes! Didn't you see the proofs I used?

I still do hold that the prophecy of Egypt being conquered by Neb does not mean this had to happen to Pharaoh Necho, your point is not conclusive, that is all I am saying. We only know that Neb had to conquer Egypt at some time, and a statement that he had such and such amount of land does not mean he never had more than that, before or afterwards, nor does it mean that Neb would have added any country he conquered to his kingdom. We just don't know enough to claim a proof, which is what you are doing here, if I may say so.

I never said Nebuchadnezzar was a god. God said Nebuchadnezzar would take Tyre, but darn-it if Nebuchadnezzar didn't do it.

I agree that Neb was not a god, I meant that if taking Tyre failed because of Neb's inability (which point you did make), then that implies that God also was unable, because he couldn't help Neb in fulfilling this prophecy, enough to fulfill it. That is a weak God, and I do need a stronger one.

So you think God is weak because Tyre was not utterly destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar?

Well, no, I hold that Neb was not prophesied to be the one to destroy Tyre, "many nations" were said to do that, and the Bible doesn't refer to "the nations of Babylon," thus Babylon is only one nation, and thus more nations were meant. And it did happen, Tyre was "ruins built out of ruins," according to the eyewitness account of Renan the archaeologist ("Tyre through the Ages," Jidegian, p. 22), or Henry Maundrell calling the site "a mere Babel of broken walls, pillars, vaults" in 1697 (p.21).

Pat: Jesus simply knew what would happen in that situation because he is smart. "Truly Truly" means it is going to happen, not that I know the future.

Well, if it's really going to happen, then you know the future, I would say!

And he does know all things, but the future is not something knowable, just like "nothing" is not knowable.

Then why did Jesus follow up Peter's saying this (instead of correcting him), with another prediction about Peter's future choices? And Jesus again said "truly, truly" (Jn. 21:18), just as he did when predicting Peter's denial, which both times shows real knowledge of the future, to say "this will happen without fail."

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

Lee: The Open View here would answer, "Yes, he does," but that is clearly not what the expected answer is here.

Pat: You must ask, what is God not changing his mind about?

Then this must mean "Does he speak in this instance and not act? Will he promise this promise and not fulfill?" But this is clearly a general statement, with a deduction being made from that principle! Just like the other statement here that God will not change his mind because he does not lie. This cannot mean that God will possibly lie in other instances, only not here.

No, this is a general statement, and the fact that God will not change his mind here is derived from the fact that he does not change his mind, period, because "he is not a man." Here is the reason! It is not because he has made a decision in this instance not to change his mind, the reason he will not change his mind is because of his nature.

Thus the conclusion is quite clear, when God speaks, he acts, when he promises, he fulfills.

But let's assume your interpretation is correct here! This is only for this instance. But does this instance not involve a great number of free human choices? God has determined to bless Israel, now what if they all decide to become idol worshippers, and God must then destroy them? It came down to just Moses, time and again in the desert, what if Moses had then bowed before the golden calf? So the Open View is contradicted here, even within the OV interpretation.

It is too bad nothing I say will benefit you, you do not seem to believe that you could be guilty.

Well, I am certainly a sinner! Guilty as charged, on that account. Nor am I perfect in my beliefs, that is one reason I read and post here, to understand better...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[patman]

Reply to Lee

Reply to Lee

Lee, your convictions are strong. And that demands some respect. But on the other hand it demands some reproof when you are shown to be wrong 100 times over.

Reguarding Nebuchadnezzar being the one to take Tyre:

I have a different conclusion, though, about what this passage is saying, "many nations" need not mean only Neb. But we were discussing Egypt, I thought, not Tyre, again, let's not open lots of questions on lots of different fronts.

Ezekiel 26

7 "For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar [a] king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army. 8 He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you. 9 He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons. 10 His horses will be so many that they will cover you with dust. Your walls will tremble at the noise of the war horses, wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city whose walls have been broken through. 11 The hoofs of his horses will trample all your streets; he will kill your people with the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground. 12 They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea. 13 I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD.

....

9 "This is what the Sovereign LORD says: When I make you a desolate city, like cities no longer inhabited, and when I bring the ocean depths over you and its vast waters cover you, 20 then I will bring you down with those who go down to the pit, to the people of long ago. I will make you dwell in the earth below, as in ancient ruins, with those who go down to the pit, and you will not return or take your place in the land of the living. 21 I will bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more. You will be sought, but you will never again be found, declares the Sovereign LORD."​

Lee, you seem to be having problems with grammar here. "They" requires an antecedent. That would refer to Nebuchadnezzar AND his army mentioned.

An antecedent is the noun to which the pronoun refers. I guess I have to give you an english lesson before you'll agree?

http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/a/antecedent.html

The Oxford American Dictionary States"
they |ð?| pronoun [ third person plural ] 1 used to refer to two or more people or things previously mentioned or easily identified : the two men could get life sentences if they are convicted.

They = his army of horses
his=Nebuchadnezzar

I still do hold that the prophecy of Egypt being conquered by Neb does not mean this had to happen to Pharaoh Necho, your point is not conclusive, that is all I am saying. We only know that Neb had to conquer Egypt at some time, and a statement that he had such and such amount of land does not mean he never had more than that, before or afterwards, nor does it mean that Neb would have added any country he conquered to his kingdom. We just don't know enough to claim a proof, which is what you are doing here, if I may say so.

Lee, you obviously didn't read, OR comprehend my last post. We know plenty.

Jeremiah 46

1 The word of the LORD which came to Jeremiah the prophet against the nations. 2 Against Egypt.
Concerning the army of Pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt, which was by the River Euphrates in Carchemish, and which Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon defeated in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah:

....

19 O you daughter dwelling in Egypt,
Prepare yourself to go into captivity!
For Noph shall be waste and desolate, without inhabitant.

............

25 The LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, says: “Behold, I will bring punishment on Amon[c] of No,[d] and Pharaoh and Egypt, with their gods and their kings—Pharaoh and those who trust in him. 26 And I will deliver them into the hand of those who seek their lives, into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and the hand of his servants. Afterward it shall be inhabited as in the days of old,” says the LORD.
​

Necho's gonna get it!!!!!!!!!!!! Captivity!!!!!! And it has always been the plan that they get 40 years of it!

That is a weak God, and I do need a stronger one.

I'd watch what you say Lee, especially considering how you are not reading/comprehending well.

Well, no, I hold that Neb was not prophesied to be the one to destroy Tyre, "many nations" were said to do that, and the Bible doesn't refer to "the nations of Babylon," thus Babylon is only one nation, and thus more nations were meant. And it did happen, Tyre was "ruins built out of ruins," according to the eyewitness account of Renan the archaeologist ("Tyre through the Ages," Jidegian, p. 22), or Henry Maundrell calling the site "a mere Babel of broken walls, pillars, vaults" in 1697 (p.21).

Jeremiah 27

1 Early in the reign of Zedekiah [a] son of Josiah king of Judah, this word came to Jeremiah from the LORD : 2 This is what the LORD said to me: "Make a yoke out of straps and crossbars and put it on your neck. 3 Then send word to the kings of Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre and Sidon through the envoys who have come to Jerusalem to Zedekiah king of Judah. 4 Give them a message for their masters and say, 'This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: "Tell this to your masters: 5 With my great power and outstretched arm I made the earth and its people and the animals that are on it, and I give it to anyone I please. 6 Now I will hand all your countries over to my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; I will make even the wild animals subject to him. 7 All nations will serve him and his son and his grandson until the time for his land comes; then many nations and great kings will subjugate him.​

Lee, check out what Tyre looks like today.

http://www.middleeast.com/tyre.htm

Doesn't exactly look utterly destroyed does it? It dosen't remind me of a "smooth rock" at all, it looks like a rock with buildings sticking out of it.

Then why did Jesus follow up Peter's saying this (instead of correcting him), with another prediction about Peter's future choices? And Jesus again said "truly, truly" (Jn. 21:18), just as he did when predicting Peter's denial, which both times shows real knowledge of the future, to say "this will happen without fail."

Lee????? What happened to you wanting to stick to the subject?
Matthew 26

31 Then Jesus told them, "This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written:
" 'I will strike the shepherd,
and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.'[c] 32But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee."
33Peter replied, "Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will."

34"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times."

35But Peter declared, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the other disciples said the same.​

Mark 14

27"You will all fall away," Jesus told them, "for it is written:
" 'I will strike the shepherd,
and the sheep will be scattered.'[c] 28But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee."
29Peter declared, "Even if all fall away, I will not."

30"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "today—yes, tonight—before the rooster crows twice[d] you yourself will disown me three times."

31But Peter insisted emphatically, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the others said the same.​

Luke 22

31"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you[a] as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."

33But he replied, "Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death."

34Jesus answered, "I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me."​

John 13

31When he was gone, Jesus said, "Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in him. 32If God is glorified in him,[c] God will glorify the Son in himself, and will glorify him at once.
33"My children, I will be with you only a little longer. You will look for me, and just as I told the Jews, so I tell you now: Where I am going, you cannot come.

34"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

36Simon Peter asked him, "Lord, where are you going?"
Jesus replied, "Where I am going, you cannot follow now, but you will follow later."

37Peter asked, "Lord, why can't I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you."

38Then Jesus answered, "Will you really lay down your life for me? I tell you the truth, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times!
​

Lee? I thought you said Jesus said "truly truly here?" "And Jesus again said "truly, truly" (Jn. 21:18), just as he did when predicting Peter's denial," Did you quote all that out of your head, or did you have some translation? I want to know what the Bible says, not what you think it says.

My explanation is, once again, I see that Jesus is very, VERY, sure, but I don't see him saying "Oh trust me, I know the future."

Oh yeah, what about this verse?

Matthew 24:36
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

I thought Jesus knew all things and said truly truly and all that? Yet I guess all things just means.......... what? He doesn't? So he lied that one alleged time he said truly truly?

But it doesn't matter for right now. You, after all, were sticking to the subject of Egypt and Neb......

Then this must mean "Does he speak in this instance and not act? Will he promise this promise and not fulfill?" But this is clearly a general statement, with a deduction being made from that principle! Just like the other statement here that God will not change his mind because he does not lie. This cannot mean that God will possibly lie in other instances, only not here.

This is the last one. After all, we are sticking to the subject, and the rest of all that stuff you said isn't. (Have I driven the hypocrisy point about how you accuse me of getting off the subject home yet? If not, oh well, I am going to stop now.)

Hosea 11:8
"How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel? How can I treat you like Admah? How can I make you like Zeboiim? My heart is changed within me; all my compassion is aroused."

John 14:14
"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

God changed into flesh. God can't change??? I doubt it.

So I am going to :shut:.
Good luck Lee.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Pat,

They = his army of horses
his=Nebuchadnezzar

Well, I don't think horses would loot buildings! Nor throw stones into the sea. Further down, the pronoun changes to "I" (Eze. 26:13), does that mean Neb is God? Certainly not...

Jeremiah 46

1 The word of the LORD which came to Jeremiah the prophet against the nations. 2 Against Egypt.
Concerning the army of Pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt, which was by the River Euphrates in Carchemish, and which Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon defeated in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah:

....

19 O you daughter dwelling in Egypt,
Prepare yourself to go into captivity!
For Noph shall be waste and desolate, without inhabitant.

............

25 The LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, says: “Behold, I will bring punishment on Amon[c] of No,[d] and Pharaoh and Egypt, with their gods and their kings—Pharaoh and those who trust in him. 26 And I will deliver them into the hand of those who seek their lives, into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and the hand of his servants. Afterward it shall be inhabited as in the days of old,” says the LORD.
​

Necho's gonna get it!!!!!!!!!!!! Captivity!!!!!!

Which would imply that no one would die or be born in Egypt until this prophecy was fulfilled. Let us note as well that this was concerning "the army of Necho," thus the army is meant, not necessarily Necho himself.

Lee, check out what Tyre looks like today.

http://www.middleeast.com/tyre.htm

Doesn't exactly look utterly destroyed does it? It dosen't remind me of a "smooth rock" at all, it looks like a rock with buildings sticking out of it.

Yes, I hold that "will not be built more" (Eze. 26:14, UNASB) does not mean "will never be rebuilt," it means all the building projects current there would be stopped, and they were.

Then Jesus answered, "Will you really lay down your life for me? I tell you the truth, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times!
​

Lee? I thought you said Jesus said "truly truly here?"

Yes, that is what the translators translated as "I tell you the truth" here, literally, it is "amen, amen."

My explanation is, once again, I see that Jesus is very, VERY, sure, but I don't see him saying "Oh trust me, I know the future."

Well, if Jesus is sure, then he knows the future! But maybe you mean Jesus thought it was very probable, and then it would need to be shown that "Truly, truly" did not mean this statement was certain, and that Jesus saying this after Peter said "You know all things" was not a confirmation of knowledge of the future.

... what about this verse?

Matthew 24:36
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

I thought Jesus knew all things and said truly truly and all that?

I believe Jesus had access through the Father to all knowledge during the Incarnation (Jn. 11:22, 41-42), yet he needed to learn Aramaic and carpentry and the best places to eat in Jerusalem. After the resurrection, he resumed his omniscience (Jn. 21:17), and his omnipotence (Mt. 28:18), directly, that is what I believe.

But it doesn't matter for right now. You, after all, were sticking to the subject of Egypt and Neb...

Well I was trying to! Posts can become quite long, if the focus is not kept on some principle issue.

Hosea 11:8
"How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel? How can I treat you like Admah? How can I make you like Zeboiim? My heart is changed within me; all my compassion is aroused."

John 14:14
"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

God changed into flesh. God can't change??? I doubt it.

Certainly God's response can change, but not his nature. And God is a Trinity! So the Incarnation did not change God.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Hi Pat,



Certainly God's response can change, but not his nature. And God is a Trinity! So the Incarnation did not change God.

Blessings,
Lee

God changes in some ways (relations, exeriences, knowledge, emotions, etc.) and does not change in other ways (uncreated, triune, Creator, character). God always was triune, but the Word was not always flesh. The incarnation was a genuine, new change in the being and relations of the Godhead. The Word is now the God-Man forever. This was not true before the creation and incarnation.