Or was it anthropomorphic in conveyance to Abraham? The idea that God doesn't know what is going on in His universe, contrasted with 1 John 3:20 Colossians 1:17, John 15:5 Psalm 139:4, Romans 9:18-21 and James 4:13-16 When we wrestle with scriptures, dare we, His finite and limited creatures 'guess' or surmise that He has less? Logic is fine, but it cannot be used to 'over-ride' scriptures, just grasp them. There are times when "I don't know" is the appropriate answer.
You're saying it is ok to ignore God's revelation as long as we know it's not true?
This is an Open Theist comment and summation. It isn't God who had to know. It was Abraham. In a nutshell, that is the difference, when it comes to knowledge, between me and an Open Theist. As with the scriptures above, I believe implicitly there is never, ever, ever, ever something God learns. To me, scripturally as well as logistically, it makes God the product 'of' the universe rather than being the Creator and Maker with 'nothing else beside Him.' 1) I believe those scriptures have no wiggle room and are pedantic. There is no 'interpretive' power going on. 2) That as intelligent as I may be, there are times this applies to me Psalm 46:10 For me, entertaining a thought against a pedantic scripture given, is not taking Him seriously and second-guessing Him. "I am God and I do not change, lest you perish!" is about as pedantic and instructively clear as can be stated.
But don't we determine what that means from what He says about Himself? And if what He says about Himself allows for some kinds of change, then we can gain understanding of God from both types of statements, the one where He says He doesn't change and the one where He says He does.
To me? A blatant contradiction. 1 John 3:20 Let me ask: Doesn't 'your' theory contradict God very God? To me, it inescapably does and so my mind is bewildered that 1 John 3:20 'cannot' mean what it clearly says. This is the Apostle trying to tell us something VERY SPECIFIC about God. Again, in my mind and confusion, how could God not know what was in Abraham's heart and intentions? Psalm 19:12
What is the definition of "God very God"? If God tells us what He is like, then we need to use that to define the terms that aren't so clear. "God very God" can certainly mean that He is able to execute His plan, in spite of all defiance, but doesn't require that He has to arrange only the "right" defiance so He can overcome it.
What about "things"? What does "all things" mean? do we use our understanding of God, apart from scripture, to determine what that means? Or do we see the portions of scripture that says God changed how He dealt with a person or nation based on their prayers of repentance or sneers of rebellion? The latter makes more sense, and can help us to define "things" as what is and what was, and what God plans to do (the latter of which doesn't need to be included, since the passage is talking about what our heart is condemning us of).
I think it is a little disingenuous to say "all" here means everything we can think of, but "all" in other places is limited.
These are serious matters, but I'm not intending any of this to be confrontational so if this isn't working for a meeting of minds and hearts, let me know.
No, I agree this is serious, but iron should be sharpening iron here, with soft hearts toward each other and with unity in mind.
It isn't an instruction, however. It isn't telling you something to believe or telling you how to worship (show God's worth and giving respect) Him according to His self description. In addition, "now I know" is one small Hebrew word and often gets interpreted by the translator's word, rather than the context originally given. "Henceforth it shall be known" works very well in conveying the meaning. "Now I know" isn't necessary for this translation to be accurate. It is just yawd atah "henceforth known by [such and such actions]. We have a few Hebrew scholars on TOL who can confirm this.
I think I'll let [MENTION=18255]Rosenritter[/MENTION]'s reply suffice here.
:nono: It says exactly the opposite: BECAUSE God doesn't changed, you will not perish because of your sins. It means their sins warranted immediate judgment. It was the 'unchanging' character of God: His love mercy and grace, that they were not consumed.
Absolutely! the character of God is unchanging, but not His predetermined actions. But once you allow for God to change a predetermined action, you've just jumped into the open camp. Welcome aboard!
No, not a reaction. God is NOT going to suddenly become 'more' loving. That is a changing God and is not consistent. If I've learned anything in being a parent these past 30 years, it is that consistency is one of the most loving attributes of any parent.
It is NOT that I'm "More" loving to my kids when they do something wrong, to return grace. That isn't it. What is rather the factor is that my kids are relational to 'my' grace and love. Interacting isn't a 'change' in the stronger person BECAUSE it shows forth during a weakness in the other. To suggest otherwise is to suggest a weakness in my parenting ability. No problem with me (untrue, but not a problem). Huge problem with saying it about God. He IS the perfect parent. He just cannot do it better. He is already the quintessential definition of perfection. He does NOT have 'more' mercy because that suggests a deficiency in His character, a flaw. Why? Because the logistic pattern points to something God was not already perfectly full of when you or I came to Him with the problem. More? It is only when I become like my heavenly Father in parenting, that I do it right. God and godliness IS the mark expected of me. I can't get higher OR ELSE God isn't the mark. Some 'ideal' would take His place. That just isn't possible and it is VERY problematic to suggest it.
Again, I quite agree! His characteristic of lovingness (if you'll pardon my coinage) is not changing. But how He applies that characteristic will, based on what His children do. Just like our children. We love our children differently depending on how they behave. We never lose our characteristic of being their father, but if they need it, we chastise or even curse, in some degree. And if they repent, we bless.
:nono: orthodox means 'accepted.' "Correct" should coincide with that, but that isn't what the word means. It means simply "what the majority of us have argued and have come to agree upon as truth."
Etymology: from early French orthodoxe or Latin orthodoxus, both meaning "orthodox," from Greek orthodoxos (same meaning), from orthodoxein "to have the right or true opinion," derived from orthos "right, true" and doxa "opinion". Thus, the opposite of "orthodox" would be "wrong opinion". And even though that's not in the dictionary, it is what is thought of when the word is used, including church sects (like "Orthodox Presbyterian Church"). They didn't pick that name because they thought they might be wrong, but because they thought the others WERE wrong.
You aren't quite grasping the difference between pedantic and 'teaching' in general. "Socratic" is also 'teaching' but it is not pedantic teaching. Rather, what theologians are telling you, at that point, is that God does take time, in His bible to clearly and precisely tell you something that you must know and at other times, will be teaching something else. Because of the nature of 'something else' it may be related to your subject interest but it is best said "not about your particular interest.' That is, the context is about something different, it just happens to touch upon another truth, as all truth does. The point is, take home what a passage actually IS trying to tell you about a specific truth. Next? If you have been told something absolute about God such as "God is [ ]." Make sure you do not disbelieve or start questioning that clear teaching.
Let me think about this some more.
This is one of the key features of disagreement between an Open Theist and the rest of Christendom that disagrees. The example given is not in contention, but the point it is made for (God's lack of character or knowledge) certainly is.
I'm starting to lean toward what is God able to do versus what is He unable to do. Can God change the past? why or why not? Is the future of the same substance as the past? Why or why not? Then, based on those answers, can God change the future?
I think reformed faith says, "No" to that last question. With the reason being that God doesn't need to, but also with the reason that it is all determined by God. Arminianism says, "Yes", but illogically. Open Theism says, "Yes", with restrictions from His character (can't lie), and from His plan/purposes.
I may be offline through the weekend, but look forward to reading replies afterward.
Derf
