Theology Club: Does Open Theism Question/dispute the Omniscience of God

[Lon]

The sums up the problem I have with the Calvinist approach: They read a story like Abraham and Issac and assert that it cannot mean what it says because of "who God is."

Doesn't this story contribute to the picture of who God is?

AMR answered this but if I can contribute any more meaningfully, let me know.

I realize Calvinism gets a bad rap. I'm not really concerned about that. I'm only concerned if it is biblical or not.

In the bible, we have stories where surrounding points are discussed, but the focus of the story is not those surrounding ideas. To me, that is a dangerous place to build one's doctrine. Moreover? No MAD Open Theist would do it anyway. The O.T. is not for them. They aren't (or shouldn't) be building a bunch of gentile understanding doctrine of the O.T. anyway. It is inconsistent.

The best thing about MAD, is that I agree with them on this point (best thing for me).

The Bible is made up of two parts when it comes to teaching: instruction and the road instruction travels to help you understand the truth of the instruction more clearly. As MAD and I would agree, the O.T. can give us example, but it was for the Jews. We learn their lessons, but they don't always apply, not even for a Jew today. Rather our entire focus is on our walk with God and where we should be.

Thankfully, many of us on TOL (and Christendom at large) agree that the Lord Jesus Christ paid for us. That is the gospel. We are His, slaves to sin no longer. Romans 6:6

When you read Romans, you know it is not story. It is instruction and pure teaching. Not so the O.T. story. It is rather, the 'history' of Israel. Genesis is rather story which is informative of 'what happened.' It does have 'what to believe about God' but only insomuch as it is 1) given quite clearly in amidst story, and 2) easily discernible from misinformation, like we'd see in Job, for instance. You just have to be extra careful when reading story, to ensure you are getting the correct doctrine. Then, as I and MAD agree, to be careful moreso what we gentiles take away from the O.T. I do believe, beyond MAD, that there are O.T. principles for gentiles, but not so much that we have stark contrast. I embrace the N.T., all of it, Jewish parts, as mostly being able to apply to gentiles, for instance (totally different discussion, but it does help for our discussion). :e4e:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Can someone translate that into the vernacular of the common folk?

Given the above, why should anyone place any stock in what is to follow?

Genesis 22 does not count as scripture that teaches the knowledge of God? Seeing that Genesis was written before any of these theories of "Closed Time" and knowledge of things unknowable, between these two shouldn't we choose Genesis as our choice of foundation?

...etc
...etc

:idunno:

There is very little that I may write dogmatically that I cannot support Scripturally. In fact, when I am not able to do so, you will find me being quite tentative, prefacing my comments wit, "It seems to me...", "I will speculate...", "I do not know...", "No answer is given..." and so forth. Infelicity is not something I generally practice, nor condone.

I also operate from the assumption that the reader has availed themselves of what I have had to say previously on matters of that which we hold dear. My posts are all quite easily available to search out for one's own review. Why? Well, it is just good manners to know something about one's interlocutor before weighing in unprepared, showing one's self to be given over to reactionary behavior.

If I am your enemy, do your duty to know your enemy. If I am your co-belligerent do your duty to distinguish that which we agree and disagree upon. If I am your brother, then follow that which we ought to do (Amos 3:3).

AMR

 

[Rosenritter]

Given the above, why should anyone place any stock in what is to follow?

:idunno:

I simply meant that your writing style might sometimes be more effective at conveying its intended meaning with fewer words and simpler language. More words and elaborate vocabulary might be technically correct, and perfectly suited for your express style of thought, but not always the best at being best understood by your audience. Sometimes I have wanted to find a very simple answer and the response has been pages, including detailed references to the Westminster Confession and the like. I say this in love and respect.

There is very little that I may write dogmatically that I cannot support Scripturally. In fact, when I am not able to do so, you will find me being quite tentative, prefacing my comments wit, "It seems to me...", "I will speculate...", "I do not know...", "No answer is given..." and so forth. Infelicity is not something I generally practice, nor condone.

Our English teacher told us that it is never required to preface our beliefs with "I believe" as it is redundant. Yet I do appreciate the practical application of such phrases as they help to remind ourselves that we should be humble and reserve the possibility that our feelings may not always lead true.

I also operate from the assumption that the reader has availed themselves of what I have had to say previously on matters of that which we hold dear. My posts are all quite easily available to search out for one's own review. Why? Well, it is just good manners to know something about one's interlocutor before weighing in unprepared, showing one's self to be given over to reactionary behavior.

It is nigh impossible to search out what someone has said in all of these forums. It is like a needle in a haystack simply to find evidence of what someone has said last week when the scope is narrowed down to two or three threads.

If I am your enemy, do your duty to know your enemy. If I am your co-belligerent do your duty to distinguish that which we agree and disagree upon. If I am your brother, then follow that which we ought to do (Amos 3:3).

AMR

Although I may be opposed to your understanding of certain doctrines, you are not an enemy. That is an important distinction which could use more emphasis on these forums. In attempting to distinguish points of agreement (and disagreement) I can seize hold of that you have a high view of scripture, and should I have opportunity to address you concerning that which I believe is most dear and influential to our faith, that is where I would start. That which would add to or take away from the intended application of scripture would be the enemy in that scenario.

 

[Lon]

Can someone translate that into the vernacular of the common folk?

See the attached for a basic introduction of these aspects.


View attachment 26641

Archetypal Ectypal Theology
:doh:

 

[Lon]

I simply meant that your writing style might sometimes be more effective at conveying its intended meaning with fewer words and simpler language. More words and elaborate vocabulary might be technically correct, and perfectly suited for your express style of thought, but not always the best at being best understood by your audience. Sometimes I have wanted to find a very simple answer and the response has been pages, including detailed references to the Westminster Confession and the like. I say this in love and respect.

One thing to note: A professor is going to raise the bar and expect, appropriately, that the student attend. I usually know when I am in such company and do diligence on my part, even when I completely disagree. AMR and I have infrequently disagreed. I must/necessarily raise my bar to do justice else I'm no friend nor respectful of the great efforts that have gone on before I ever got here. There is more of a need, to be studious for the challenge of such men and women.

Our English teacher told us that it is never required to preface our beliefs with "I believe" as it is redundant. Yet I do appreciate the practical application of such phrases as they help to remind ourselves that we should be humble and reserve the possibility that our feelings may not always lead true.

1 Corinthians 7:12 When speaking of things of God, we are representing His thoughts, as with the Apostle. We don't carry the same weight of word, no matter how long we have studied, but it is ever important to distinguish the strength of our biblical convictions, especially when we are talking about the difference between Open Theism and the digression from the rest of Christendom. It needs careful and more precise discussion. The 'simple' answer, in "Theology Club" I think is the less preferable. This section is specifically for heady informative accurate discussion preferred over banter or lower forms of debate. This section IS specifically for this more academic and professional sincere discussion with preferred less debate points. It is rather giving the contrasts in clarity and for thoughtful contemplation and response. :e4e:

It is nigh impossible to search out what someone has said in all of these forums. It is like a needle in a haystack simply to find evidence of what someone has said last week when the scope is narrowed down to two or three threads.

Good point. It IS easier if one has a paid subscription. I've been waiting for the TOL-a-thon because I don't post as much in the summer AND there is a discount during the TOL-a-thon.

Although I may be opposed to your understanding of certain doctrines, you are not an enemy. That is an important distinction which could use more emphasis on these forums.

Hear Here~!

In attempting to distinguish points of agreement (and disagreement) I can seize hold of that you have a high view of scripture, and should I have opportunity to address you concerning that which I believe is most dear and influential to our faith, that is where I would start. That which would add to or take away from the intended application of scripture would be the enemy in that scenario.

He gave you benefit of choice over that position. I do sometimes 'assume' an enemy these latter days on TOL (not with you), but greatly appreciate the call to reel it back in and post hoping to win a brother rather than make an 'enemy' more deeply entrenched. When I had more time, I could work on it harder (no excuse, just not as much contemplative time before hitting 'submit' or 'post.'

 

[Rosenritter]

Archetypal Ectypal Theology
:doh:

This is actually a precise example of why I made that comment. Where I would prompt that perhaps the response was overly wordy in such a way as to obfuscate the meaning, the reflexive answer was to supply a ten-page essay. This does not address the problem, it opens up potentially many more "cans of worms" since the style of such a paper is that it proceeds on its own statements and is not allowed to withstand a fair challenge from the reader before it hurtles to its conclusion.

But aside from the form, concerning this theology presented in the paper:

Rom 1:20 KJV
(20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

If I might point out a lack in the specific thought process and conclusions of that paper (concept?) it seems to neglect that God Himself created the world, and that by witnessing his creation we can understand something about God. We know that our creation is complex and could not have formed itself, but also that it is a God that loves beauty and variety.

When God speaks to his creation, he uses the analogies of the very creation that he made to communicate these concepts. As such, a theology that reasons that what we see in the world cannot relate to God has missed something vital, that God himself has created and chosen the figures by which he speaks to us by word and by parable. He created the world as it is for a reason.

Was that what the essay meant to say? Maybe, or maybe not. Then back to the original theme, that sometimes the simple clear answer might be a better fit than the ten-page essay.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

One thing to note: A professor is going to raise the bar and expect, appropriately, that the student attend.

Indeed. If all simply cater to the lowest denominator, the common denominator becomes the lowest denominator in fact and practice. Theology and those that practice it well should teach us not what to say, but how to say the things of sacred matters.

The 'simple' answer, in "Theology Club" I think is the less preferable. This section is specifically for heady informative accurate discussion preferred over banter or lower forms of debate. This section IS specifically for this more academic and professional sincere discussion with preferred less debate points. It is rather giving the contrasts in clarity and for thoughtful contemplation and response.

That. ↑

Good point. It IS easier if one has a paid subscription.

The TOL search function is often not used wisely.

Go here: http://theologyonline.com/search.php?search_type=1

Enter a user name and a key word(s) relevant to a discussion. You will be surprised and informed by the results.

For that matter, nearly all that I have said in various and sundry theological threads is basically summarized in my more lengthy debates, one-on-ones, and my TOL Blog:

Open Theism vs. Reformed Theology:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...vinist-s-Response-(Ask-Mr-Religion-vs-Enyart)
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...What-do-you-think-of-it&p=3415136#post3415136

Christology:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?72555-One-on-One-Ghost-s-Views-of-The-Nature-of-Christ

Trinitarianism:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?97148-One-on-One-AMR-and-God-s-Truth-—-The-Holy-Trinity
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?108058-PneumaPsucheSoma-and-AMR-Discuss-Trinitarianism

Calvinism and Reformed:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...night-with-assuranceagent-and-Ask-Mr-Religion
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...med-Theology&p=4539099&viewfull=1#post4539099
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...med-Theology&p=4540947&viewfull=1#post4540947

God and Time:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?53669-One-on-One-AMR-and-JCWR-on-the-Temporality-of-God

Baptism:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...med-Theology&p=4542760&viewfull=1#post4542760

Original Sin:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...med-Theology&p=4559007&viewfull=1#post4559007

Elect Infants:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...Go-To-Heaven&p=4988291&viewfull=1#post4988291
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...e-God-Unjust&p=4815811&viewfull=1#post4815811

He gave you benefit of choice over that position.

I gave a choice above with a pointed link embedded for those I consider a proper enemy. Those that vehemently and stridently deny the Triune Godhead are enemies of that which we hold dear. When needed, links in my posts amplify or clarify the content of my posts.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

If I might point out a lack in the specific thought process and conclusions of that paper (concept?) it seems to neglect that God Himself created the world, and that by witnessing his creation we can understand something about God.

If you read that paper aright you would discover what you are differing about is actually treated thoroughly. The short paper describes archetypal theology (that only God knows or as only God can know it) and ectypal theology (that known as humans can know them).

Later in the same paper, we find that ectypal theology is the same Truth accommodated to creaturely understanding. God accommodates His truth to human capacity. Ectypal theology is not “another Truth” but is, as it were, God lisping truth to us as a father lisps to His child. This truth consists of the entire body, natural and supernatural, of knowledge that God has been pleased to reveal to His creatures.

God and I know that my house exists, but I certainly do not know of that existence to the same extent that God knows. Our knowledge is derivative. The distinction here is between the archetype and the ectype. God's knowledge is archetypal, the original, ours is ectypal. Our ectypal knowledge is true, but analogical to what God knows. God speaks univocally, and sadly, sinful persons frequently speak equivocally, rather than analogically (thinking God's thoughts after him).

By analogy, I mean our knowledge is parallel to God's knowledge and that knowledge does not intersect God's knowledge. Our derivative knowledge is finite, creaturely, but true knowledge—properly justified true beliefs. In no way is our knowledge univocal, e.g., 1 Cor. 2:11. That not mean our knowledge is equivocal, which would have us believing things contradictorially. We may and do speak equivocally, but we should speak analogically.

God has condescended to man in Scripture, and uses human analogies that hold our hands to understand His revelation. This analogical language in all of Scripture uses correct analogies, for God chose them and it is God's speech in human language, but they are not univocal descriptions. Claims to univocity usually end up in rationalism, holding that we possess autonomous knowledge, and even denial of mystery in Scripture. The Reformed tradition does not pull out the "analogy" card when it suits them, but instead declares that all of Scripture is analogical, as a necessary aspect of the Creator-created distinction. God is not greater than man in degree only. God is in a whole separate category and what God knows about Himself and anything else is qualitatively (and quantitatively, of course)different from what we know.

I am well aware of the arguments of modern era proponents that argue against analogy, often while misunderstanding the nature of the topic, and even unwittingly (and no doubt to their dismay) joining the chorus of open theists in their argumentation. For example, Pinnock, Sanders, Henry, G. Clark, and Nash immediately come to mind, all of whom have argued at one point or another that we can know things univocally from Scripture. This sort of thinking gives rise to the humanistic views we see way too often about God, especially in open theism.

Apparently, some are unwilling to accept a plain didactic that God is above, we are below, and God's thoughts are not our thoughts. The Reformers of old understood this ontological divide between the Creator and the created, making a clear distinction in God's and our knowledge, archetypal-ectypal as an epistemological ground. The Reformed view has always been that since it is God who selects the analogies, they are accurate and appropriate whether or not we know their exact fit.

Extract from Dictionary of Theological Terms entry on "Epistemology":

A consistently Christian epistemology recognizes the ontological Trinity as the ultimate starting point of all knowledge. It sees all the universe as God’s creation and holds that no fact of creation can be properly described without reference to God the Creator. In other words, every fact must be recognized as a created fact, or it cannot be properly recognized at all.

Thus, man’s thinking cannot be creative, but analogical. If he is to speak truly, man must say what God has already said. The triune God who has given us the Bible as His infallible revelation must be the ultimate starting point of all our knowledge. That is not to say that the Bible must become our source book for the study of, say, biochemistry or physics, but it is to say that all investigation into these and all other subjects must be interpreted in the light of the Bible.​

God is the constitutive Creator and interpreter of the facts of the universe. Man can be only a re-interpreter. Man's highest achievement is to think God’s thoughts after Him. That is the true use of analogy—to think of things as God does.

And finally, a nice illustration of God's knowledge from the DTT cited above, entry "Univocality":

If we were to draw a large rectangle to represent God’s knowledge of everything and place a tiny point somewhere in it to represent man’s little knowledge, would we not have to say that at least at that small point man’s knowledge coincides with God’s?

At first sight it would appear so, but it is only an initial appearance. On closer examination we find a different answer. Imagine that rectangle again, only this time imagine it to be a million miles deep. Imagine that the point we have placed within it is one millionth part of a millimeter deep.

Then imagine that through all the depth of the rectangle there are countless lines of connection relating God’s knowledge of every point to His knowledge of everything else. Now look at our isolated little point of human knowledge, ignorant of the infinite connections that unite all of God’s purpose in the works of creation and providence.

That point may in some way be like, or related to, the great rectangle in which we have placed it, but it is certainly not identical with it. In fact, what is true in geometry is true in theology, a point can never be identical with a rectangle. What this says is that God does not have any isolated points of knowledge. His knowledge of every point is, to use the language of our illustration, the whole rectangle. His knowledge of everything at every point is omniscience. As a point in a rectangle can never be identical with the rectangle, so our knowledge can never be identical with God’s. And yet it clearly stands related to God’s knowledge and expresses it in some degree.
​

AMR

 

[Rosenritter]

Indeed. If all simply cater to the lowest denominator, the common denominator becomes the lowest denominator in fact and practice. Theology and those that practice it well should teach us not what to say, but how to say the things of sacred matters.

Maybe I could put this another way. Jesus and Paul and John are relatively easy to read. If our speech might be as effective we would consider ourselves well blessed.

 

[Rosenritter]

If you read that paper aright you would discover what you are differing about is actually treated thoroughly. The short paper describes archetypal theology (that only God knows or as only God can know it) and ectypal theology (that known as humans can know them).

Later in the same paper, we find that ectypal theology is the same Truth accommodated to creaturely understanding. God accommodates His truth to human capacity. Ectypal theology is not “another Truth” but is, as it were, God lisping truth to us as a father lisps to His child. This truth consists of the entire body, natural and supernatural, of knowledge that God has been pleased to reveal to His creatures.

God and I know that my house exists, but I certainly do not know of that existence to the same extent that God knows. Our knowledge is derivative. The distinction here is between the archetype and the ectype. God's knowledge is archetypal, the original, ours is ectypal. Our ectypal knowledge is true, but analogical to what God knows. God speaks univocally, and sadly, sinful persons frequently speak equivocally, rather than analogically (thinking God's thoughts after him).

By analogy, I mean our knowledge is parallel to God's knowledge and that knowledge does not intersect God's knowledge. Our derivative knowledge is finite, creaturely, but true knowledge—properly justified true beliefs. In no way is our knowledge univocal, e.g., 1 Cor. 2:11. That not mean our knowledge is equivocal, which would have us believing things contradictorially. We may and do speak equivocally, but we should speak analogically.

God has condescended to man in Scripture, and uses human analogies that hold our hands to understand His revelation. This analogical language in all of Scripture uses correct analogies, for God chose them and it is God's speech in human language, but they are not univocal descriptions. Claims to univocity usually end up in rationalism, holding that we possess autonomous knowledge, and even denial of mystery in Scripture. The Reformed tradition does not pull out the "analogy" card when it suits them, but instead declares that all of Scripture is analogical, as a necessary aspect of the Creator-created distinction. God is not greater than man in degree only. God is in a whole separate category and what God knows about Himself and anything else is qualitatively (and quantitatively, of course)different from what we know.

I am well aware of the arguments of modern era proponents that argue against analogy, often while misunderstanding the nature of the topic, and even unwittingly (and no doubt to their dismay) joining the chorus of open theists in their argumentation. For example, Pinnock, Sanders, Henry, G. Clark, and Nash immediately come to mind, all of whom have argued at one point or another that we can know things univocally from Scripture. This sort of thinking gives rise to the humanistic views we see way too often about God, especially in open theism.

Apparently, some are unwilling to accept a plain didactic that God is above, we are below, and God's thoughts are not our thoughts. The Reformers of old understood this ontological divide between the Creator and the created, making a clear distinction in God's and our knowledge, archetypal-ectypal as an epistemological ground. The Reformed view has always been that since it is God who selects the analogies, they are accurate and appropriate whether or not we know their exact fit.

Extract from Dictionary of Theological Terms entry on "Epistemology":

A consistently Christian epistemology recognizes the ontological Trinity as the ultimate starting point of all knowledge. It sees all the universe as God’s creation and holds that no fact of creation can be properly described without reference to God the Creator. In other words, every fact must be recognized as a created fact, or it cannot be properly recognized at all.

Thus, man’s thinking cannot be creative, but analogical. If he is to speak truly, man must say what God has already said. The triune God who has given us the Bible as His infallible revelation must be the ultimate starting point of all our knowledge. That is not to say that the Bible must become our source book for the study of, say, biochemistry or physics, but it is to say that all investigation into these and all other subjects must be interpreted in the light of the Bible.​

God is the constitutive Creator and interpreter of the facts of the universe. Man can be only a re-interpreter. Man's highest achievement is to think God’s thoughts after Him. That is the true use of analogy—to think of things as God does.

And finally, a nice illustration of God's knowledge from the DTT cited above, entry "Univocality":

If we were to draw a large rectangle to represent God’s knowledge of everything and place a tiny point somewhere in it to represent man’s little knowledge, would we not have to say that at least at that small point man’s knowledge coincides with God’s?

At first sight it would appear so, but it is only an initial appearance. On closer examination we find a different answer. Imagine that rectangle again, only this time imagine it to be a million miles deep. Imagine that the point we have placed within it is one millionth part of a millimeter deep.

Then imagine that through all the depth of the rectangle there are countless lines of connection relating God’s knowledge of every point to His knowledge of everything else. Now look at our isolated little point of human knowledge, ignorant of the infinite connections that unite all of God’s purpose in the works of creation and providence.

That point may in some way be like, or related to, the great rectangle in which we have placed it, but it is certainly not identical with it. In fact, what is true in geometry is true in theology, a point can never be identical with a rectangle. What this says is that God does not have any isolated points of knowledge. His knowledge of every point is, to use the language of our illustration, the whole rectangle. His knowledge of everything at every point is omniscience. As a point in a rectangle can never be identical with the rectangle, so our knowledge can never be identical with God’s. And yet it clearly stands related to God’s knowledge and expresses it in some degree.
​

AMR

Nothing said above is disagreeable, but it has less emphasis on that God is making himself known. "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father" is more than a statement about the identity of Jesus, it also implies that God presented himself so that he might be known. I may not know the mysteries of what animates subatomic particles, or explain how spirit intersects with matter, but the love of God is shown through the express image of his person. I am not arguing the validity of your details, but saying that we should have a higher focus on what is shown, on the weightier matters that matter, rather than a focus on what is not yet revealed.

 

[Derf]

Lon, I said I would consider the following paragraph some more. Here are my thoughts.

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.

I think I understand what you are trying to say, and in general I agree with the idea. My issue comes from contrasting verses that must not contradict, else they reveal God to be fickle, at best, and a liar at worst.

So, in comparing the repent and not-repent verses of 1 Samuel 15 (repeated below), it behooves us to discern which are didactic and which are narrative (if I'm understanding the terms correctly).

[1Sa 15:10 KJV] Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying,
[1Sa 15:11 KJV] It repenteth me that I have set up Saul [to be] king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.
[1Sa 15:29 KJV] And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he [is] not a man, that he should repent.
[1Sa 15:35 KJV] And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

While I can see that vs 29 is didactic in nature, it cannot be held to contradict the narrative, which means we need to understand the verses properly (I think both Calvinists and open theists would agree with this). But I would also submit that if there are other didactic passages, they should be brought to bear on figuring out what God meant, because even the didactic passages require some interpretation.

For instance (and not surprisingly), Jeremiah 18:7-10 addresses the same subject, repentance of God, and IS didactic in nature, for God is teaching Jeremiah something about Himself.

[Jer 18:6 KJV] O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay [is] in the potter's hand, so [are] ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
[Jer 18:7 KJV] [At what] instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy [it];
[Jer 18:8 KJV] If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
[Jer 18:9 KJV] And [at what] instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant [it];
[Jer 18:10 KJV] If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

The Jeremiah passage fits quite well with 1Sam 15:11 and 35, validating the idea that God CAN repent in some way. So now, if we understand the didactic passages correctly, we have God described in terms saying He can and will repent under the proper circumstances and in terms saying He doesn't repent.

I would suggest that the 1 Sam 15:29 description is just as much subject to restrictions as the Jeremiah verses are. In other words, if God allows for repentance of the person to trigger His own repentance, there is something about the 1 Sam passage that both allows for repentance and doesn't allow for repentance, depending on which part of the passage we are looking at.

1st, let's consider the thing God was supposedly repenting of. He had set up Saul as king of Israel, and normally a king is allowed to pass the kingdom to his progeny. This appears to be confirmed with Saul in the minds of both David and others after Saul's (and Jonathan's) death--the people expected Saul's son to reign. But we have no record that God had made Saul a promise that his offspring would sit on the throne forever. It was still in the expectation stage, and not confirmed. That's why the passage in 1 Sam 13:13-14 is important. Apparently, God was considering Saul's lineage for permanent status, but Saul failed the test.

What do you think? Can the two verses in 1 Sam 13 count as didactic? Samuel is teaching Saul what the Lord would have done under one set of circumstances, and then contrasts it with what He will do under the actual circumstances. It's not an example of "what the Lord is like" but of "what the Lord would have and will do". If these verses don't count as didactic, then I get the feeling the distinction is distinctly arbitrary, bending at the will of whatever theologian is at hand, which is probably worse than useless.

2nd, let's consider what God was NOT repenting of. He had decided that Saul's kingdom would not continue, and He wouldn't change His mind--it was a done deal. Samuel said it was being rent from Saul. ([1Sa 15:28 KJV] And Samuel said unto him, The LORD hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine, [that is] better than thou.) When did this happen? 1 Sam 13:13-14. And if Saul's family continued to reign afterward, at least for any great length of time, then God would have been shown to be a liar in 1 Sam 13. I also feel that the rift between God and Saul, as illustrated by the relationship between Samuel and Saul, was finalized on the occasion of 1 Sam 15 (1 Sam 15:35).

We have ample evidence that God can install a man as king without making his lineage the permanent benefactor of such installation. The various dynasties of the northern 10 tribes after Solomon give testimony to that.

In the first case, God can't be called a liar because of Saul losing the kingdom--it was never promised as an everlasting kingdom. In the second case, if God had repented, He could be called a liar, because of 1 Sam 13.

So, in my mind, the distinction is that if God promises something to be forever, and there are no conditions, He has to fulfill it, in spite of how the beneficiaries behave. And if He promises death or destruction, the conditions are sometimes implied, ala the didactic Jer 18.

This is getting long, and I didn't deal at all with Gen 22. In short, I agree that it is dangerous to make important doctrinal stands on what the "now" means in "Now I know that you fear God", but it is obviously dealing with the events that just took place, and the meaning God took from it, and it seems to reek of hubris for us to say that God didn't really mean what he told Abraham in that instance, didactic or not. and I can say that because of the result of the episode, where God gave specific reason for transferring to Isaac the blessings He had promised Abraham, in Gen 22:18--And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

 

[Lon]

This is actually a precise example of why I made that comment. Where I would prompt that perhaps the response was overly wordy in such a way as to obfuscate the meaning, the reflexive answer was to supply a ten-page essay. This does not address the problem, it opens up potentially many more "cans of worms" since the style of such a paper is that it proceeds on its own statements and is not allowed to withstand a fair challenge from the reader before it hurtles to its conclusion.

But aside from the form, concerning this theology presented in the paper:

Rom 1:20 KJV
(20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

If I might point out a lack in the specific thought process and conclusions of that paper (concept?) it seems to neglect that God Himself created the world, and that by witnessing his creation we can understand something about God. We know that our creation is complex and could not have formed itself, but also that it is a God that loves beauty and variety.

When God speaks to his creation, he uses the analogies of the very creation that he made to communicate these concepts. As such, a theology that reasons that what we see in the world cannot relate to God has missed something vital, that God himself has created and chosen the figures by which he speaks to us by word and by parable. He created the world as it is for a reason.

Was that what the essay meant to say? Maybe, or maybe not. Then back to the original theme, that sometimes the simple clear answer might be a better fit than the ten-page essay.

:nono: Some atheists assume that God wants the world the way it is and that He is horrible because of it. Yes, all of Creation and indeed everything He touches gives a glimpse of who He is. When it comes, however, to you trying to figure out whether God changes His mind or not, it would be advisable to hear what He has to say first. THEN if your discovery concurs with what He tells about Himself, then great. If not, like "God changes His mind!" :nono: It isn't true. There is absolutely no scripture that ever ever (never) tells you that. Not there. Never going to find it. Therefore the scripture from story one uses to 'infer' that has simply made a horrible inference. It is best to be corrected at that point. There truly, is no scripture that says "God changed His mind." It doesn't happen. You can't do it either: Such a phrase is a recent colloquial and means you traded brains with someone to get to this 'new' place of kindness, or anger, or what-have-you. Never happens :nono:

 

[Lon]

Lon, I said I would consider the following paragraph some more. Here are my thoughts.

Thank you, both for your contemplation, and meaningful feedback. In our Christ.

I think I understand what you are trying to say, and in general I agree with the idea. My issue comes from contrasting verses that must not contradict, else they reveal God to be fickle, at best, and a liar at worst.

I agree, and believe this is all correct. It levels the playing ground for bible study AND you bring up very important points for such study. While the message of the scriptures are indeed divinely shown and interpreted, the clarity of language has strength by type and venue of the truth given (just meaning I agree with a lot of what you observe, some in spoilers).

So, in comparing the repent and not-repent verses of 1 Samuel 15 (repeated below), it behooves us to discern which are didactic and which are narrative (if I'm understanding the terms correctly).

Spoiler

[1Sa 15:10 KJV] Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying,
[1Sa 15:11 KJV] It repenteth me that I have set up Saul [to be] king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.
[1Sa 15:29 KJV] And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he [is] not a man, that he should repent.
[1Sa 15:35 KJV] And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

While I can see that vs 29 is didactic in nature, it cannot be held to contradict the narrative, which means we need to understand the verses properly (I think both Calvinists and open theists would agree with this). But I would also submit that if there are other didactic passages, they should be brought to bear on figuring out what God meant, because even the didactic passages require some interpretation.

For instance (and not surprisingly), Jeremiah 18:7-10 addresses the same subject, repentance of God, and IS didactic in nature, for God is teaching Jeremiah something about Himself.

Spoiler

[Jer 18:6 KJV] O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay [is] in the potter's hand, so [are] ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
[Jer 18:7 KJV] [At what] instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy [it];
[Jer 18:8 KJV] If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
[Jer 18:9 KJV] And [at what] instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant [it];
[Jer 18:10 KJV] If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

The Jeremiah passage fits quite well with 1Sam 15:11 and 35, validating the idea that God CAN repent in some way. So now, if we understand the didactic passages correctly, we have God described in terms saying He can and will repent under the proper circumstances and in terms saying He doesn't repent.

Hebrew was, at one time, a limited language and words fell under multiple intents. Anach is the Hebrew word that means "to sigh." It is the word used for 'changed mind' or more properly 'repented.' The word has mostly to do with 'a heavy sigh.' So, "God breathed a heavy sigh, that He had made Saul king."

My understanding: A heavy sigh is much easier to take than 'repented' is for translation. I 'can' grasp God being relational and sad for all that transpired. He had told Saul to tell Israel, just chapters before, the problem with having a king in God's place. Moreover that the real problem was that they were rejecting God. In light, God didn't even want David as king, it was giving a people what they particularly were asking for.

I would suggest that the 1 Sam 15:29 description is just as much subject to restrictions as the Jeremiah verses are. In other words, if God allows for repentance of the person to trigger His own repentance, there is something about the 1 Sam passage that both allows for repentance and doesn't allow for repentance, depending on which part of the passage we are looking at.

Let me ask this: Does it 'change God's mind' or does it 'change God's actions' rather? Both? To me, the mind is the same because it is set on specific actions, already ahead of time, regardless of what they are.

1st, let's consider the thing God was supposedly repenting of. He had set up Saul as king of Israel, and normally a king is allowed to pass the kingdom to his progeny. This appears to be confirmed with Saul in the minds of both David and others after Saul's (and Jonathan's) death--the people expected Saul's son to reign. But we have no record that God had made Saul a promise that his offspring would sit on the throne forever. It was still in the expectation stage, and not confirmed. That's why the passage in 1 Sam 13:13-14 is important. Apparently, God was considering Saul's lineage for permanent status, but Saul failed the test.

This, rather, would be catching God 'unaware.' If so, it is an easier traverse to believe from story, that God 'repented' that He had made Saul king. For me? Nothing in God's mind changed, ONLY the action prompted a change. Of course God 'acts' toward us according to what we deserve. Such is consequences, but let me give example:
"If you wash the dishes, we will go to a movie, if you do no chores for a week, you are grounded." My mind is exactly the same regarding chores with both and never changes, nor do I relent (if I'm being a good and consistent dad and my word means something). Now, even if there is no promise of one action or the other regarding the two (one negative, one positive), MY actions only display one thing: My consistent mind concerning chores and responsibility.

What do you think? Can the two verses in 1 Sam 13 count as didactic? Samuel is teaching Saul what the Lord would have done under one set of circumstances, and then contrasts it with what He will do under the actual circumstances. It's not an example of "what the Lord is like" but of "what the Lord would have and will do". If these verses don't count as didactic, then I get the feeling the distinction is distinctly arbitrary, bending at the will of whatever theologian is at hand, which is probably worse than useless.

It would be, but context for our understanding is important. Having read 1 Samuel, and reading "God repented that He had made Saul king" I immediately went to my bible dictionary, because clearly within 8 to 11 verses, there was a contradiction. One said 'what God did' and the other taught 'God doesn't repent.' In that moment, I held 'my' understanding of 'repent' in question, especially knowing that one was a commentary on what happened, rather than specifically teaching me "God repents." As I'd read the rest of scripture, there is no such instruction, just that we should know He "doesn't."

2nd, let's consider what God was NOT repenting of. He had decided that Saul's kingdom would not continue, and He wouldn't change His mind--it was a done deal. Samuel said it was being rent from Saul. ([1Sa 15:28 KJV] And Samuel said unto him, The LORD hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine, [that is] better than thou.) When did this happen? 1 Sam 13:13-14. And if Saul's family continued to reign afterward, at least for any great length of time, then God would have been shown to be a liar in 1 Sam 13. I also feel that the rift between God and Saul, as illustrated by the relationship between Samuel and Saul, was finalized on the occasion of 1 Sam 15 (1 Sam 15:35).

You are saying He was not repenting of repenting, then? Am I following? You are saying (perhaps) that God repented of making Saul king, but not of removing him from the kingdom? (more in just a second)...

We have ample evidence that God can install a man as king without making his lineage the permanent benefactor of such installation. The various dynasties of the northern 10 tribes after Solomon give testimony to that.

In the first case, God can't be called a liar because of Saul losing the kingdom--it was never promised as an everlasting kingdom. In the second case, if God had repented, He could be called a liar, because of 1 Sam 13.

I'm not sure which 'repenting' we are focused on at this point. I've gotten a little lost in explanation. I've been trying to read it carefully, but need a little help at this venture BUT, I concur with what you surmise in the next sentence. :think:

So, in my mind, the distinction is that if God promises something to be forever, and there are no conditions, He has to fulfill it, in spite of how the beneficiaries behave. And if He promises death or destruction, the conditions are sometimes implied, ala the didactic Jer 18.

Yes. I agree.

This is getting long, and I didn't deal at all with Gen 22. In short, I agree that it is dangerous to make important doctrinal stands on what the "now" means in "Now I know that you fear God", but it is obviously dealing with the events that just took place, and the meaning God took from it, and it seems to reek of hubris for us to say that God didn't really mean what he told Abraham in that instance, didactic or not. and I can say that because of the result of the episode, where God gave specific reason for transferring to Isaac the blessings He had promised Abraham, in Gen 22:18--And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

I'm not sure if my example helped. We do change and because we are moved from darkness to light, the contrast is significant. The promise was indeed a condition met, but we'd agree here, I believe, that the 'blessing' was given, yes toward the obedience, but irrevocably. In other words, I believe we both see the promise as unconditional, though based or given, upon a met condition.

Further, I'd think we all can understand that as a parent, my mind doesn't change really, at all, concerning chores (granted I'm not perfect so have room, but for this analogy, I think it works). Rather, my kids respond to a certain set of criteria set out, where my mind is exactly the same, regardless if they go the positive or negative consequence route. Both are teachable moments about what my mind believes about chores.

Similarly, God's mind didn't truly change about Saul being king, did it? Hadn't just a few chapters before, Samuel given the people the inherent problems of wanting a king other than God? Further, when Saul failed, wasn't it already predicted? If so, did God's mind, in fact change, or was He always of the same mind concerning an obedient and conversely disobedient king?

Open Theists believe God is surprised and that He discovers things He didn't know before. This coming from things "He made" that cannot do a thing without Him. It doesn't make logical sense to me. Moreover, it makes less biblical sense to me as well.

In Him -Lon

 

[Lon]

Maybe I could put this another way. Jesus and Paul and John are relatively easy to read. If our speech might be as effective we would consider ourselves well blessed.

2 Peter 3:16 :think: PERHAPS, it is because I understand much of what AMR writes? I do, occasionally, get ribbed for being too academic and heady (Please don't laugh, I realize that might be hard to believe). I do try to make things as clear and as simple as possible, but people who are more deliberate and exacting, reclaim space by being technical and exacting over functional. I've come to appreciate the latter, even if most of the time, I don't do it. I 'like' being able to use bigger words, but I'm a bit behind on my 'word-a-day' calendar

 

[JudgeRightly]

:nono: Some atheists assume that God wants the world the way it is and that He is horrible because of it. Yes, all of Creation and indeed everything He touches gives a glimpse of who He is. When it comes, however, to you trying to figure out whether God changes His mind or not, it would be advisable to hear what He has to say first. THEN if your discovery concurs with what He tells about Himself, then great. If not, like "God changes His mind!" :nono: It isn't true. There is absolutely no scripture that ever ever (never) tells you that. Not there. Never going to find it. Therefore the scripture from story one uses to 'infer' that has simply made a horrible inference. It is best to be corrected at that point. There truly, is no scripture that says "God changed His mind." It doesn't happen. You can't do it either: Such a phrase is a recent colloquial and means you traded brains with someone to get to this 'new' place of kindness, or anger, or what-have-you. Never happens :nono:

Obviously, the Bible never records God as saying, "I change my mind," at least, not that exact phrase.

However, it does show God changing His mind about things. Here is one example where God even explains that if He DOES change His mind about something, it's not because He's indecisive, but simply that situations change, and He is able to adapt.

The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it,if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it,if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it. - Jeremiah 18:7-10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah18:7-10&version=NKJV

The Hebrew word used where the english (unfortunately; though rather ironically "relent" makes it even worse for the Calvinist position) has "relent" means "to repent."

Spoiler

Strong's h5162

- Lexical: נָחַם
- Transliteration: nacham
- Part of Speech: Verb
- Phonetic Spelling: naw-kham'
- Definition: comfort.
- Origin: A primitive root; properly, to sigh, i.e. Breathe strongly; by implication, to be sorry, i.e. (in a favorable sense) to pity, console or (reflexively) rue; or (unfavorably) to avenge (oneself).
- Usage: comfort (self), ease (one's self), repent(-er,-ing, self).
- Translated as (count): comfort (6), to comfort (6), And repented (5), and repent (4), comforters (4), repented (4), And comforted (3), repent (3), to be comforted (3), and shall be comforted (2), and was comforted (2), comfort me (2), has comforted (2), shall comfort (2), to console (2), and comfort (1), And for comforters (1), and have comforted myself (1), And he comforted (1), and he repented him (1), and I will be comforted (1), and I will repent (1), and let it repent (1), and relent (1), and repented him it (1), and repents (1), And they shall comfort (1), And was sorry (1), and will comfort them (1), and will repent (1), and with him and to comfort (1), and you comforted (1), and you shall be comforted (1), comforter (1), comforts (1), do comforted (1), do I repented (1), do repent (1), do repented (1), does comfort himself (1), for my comfort (1), he was comforted (1), he will comfort (1), he will repent himself (1), I am sorry (1), I repent me (1), I repented (1), I will ease (1), in that you are a comfort (1), is a comforter (1), it repented (1), It repents me (1), one comforts (1), repent himself (1), repented them (1), shall comfort us (1), shall I comfort (1), Should I receive comfort (1), should repent (1), that comforts (1), that he should repent (1), that I may comfort you (1), that I may repent me (1), that you have comforted me (1), then I will repent (1), they comfort (1), to comfort him (1), to console him (1), will I repent (1), will You comfort me (1), with repenting (1), you and you shall be comforted (1), you comfort you (1).

Repent means to feel or express regret or remorse. It's a change in one's mind.

Relent is even moreso of a change, as it means to abandon or mitigate a harsh intention or cruel treatment. But "repent" is used, and not "relent".

 

[Rosenritter]

:nono: Some atheists assume that God wants the world the way it is and that He is horrible because of it. Yes, all of Creation and indeed everything He touches gives a glimpse of who He is.

That opening sentence seems to contain an immediate contradiction. By definition, an atheist assumes not God. Maybe it was meant as "some atheists assume that the God we believe in wants ... etc?

When it comes, however, to you trying to figure out whether God changes His mind or not, it would be advisable to hear what He has to say first. THEN if your discovery concurs with what He tells about Himself, then great. If not, like "God changes His mind!" :nono: It isn't true. There is absolutely no scripture that ever ever (never) tells you that. Not there. Never going to find it. Therefore the scripture from story one uses to 'infer' that has simply made a horrible inference. It is best to be corrected at that point. There truly, is no scripture that says "God changed His mind." It doesn't happen. You can't do it either: Such a phrase is a recent colloquial and means you traded brains with someone to get to this 'new' place of kindness, or anger, or what-have-you. Never happens :nono:

Lon, aside from your denial, there are more than a few passages written by the prophets of old as they were moved by the Holy Ghost that do tell us that God has changed his mind:

1 Chronicles 21:14-15 KJV
(14) So the LORD sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men.
(15) And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.

Jonah 3:10 KJV
(10) And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

Genesis 6:5-7 KJV
(5) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
(6) And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
(7) And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

1 Samuel 15:10-11 KJV
(10) Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying,
(11) It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.

Joel 2:12-14 KJV
(12) Therefore also now, saith the LORD, turn ye even to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning:
(13) And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil.
(14) Who knoweth if he will return and repent, and leave a blessing behind him; even a meat offering and a drink offering unto the LORD your God?

... and last in this list but not least which is certainly not exhaustive,

Exodus 32:9-14 KJV
(9) And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:
(10) Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.
(11) And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?
(12) Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.
(13) Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.
(14) And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Lon, may I point you to your own advice before? Search first as to how God reveals himself. Where you said "never" it took me six minutes to format and post six separate passages. God is capable of changing his mind and his judgment, and he has recorded these instances for us to understand, that we might be "wise unto salvation."

2 Timothy 3:15-17 KJV
(15) And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
(16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Why would you argue so determinedly otherwise? What do you think is really at stake?

 

[Rosenritter]

2 Peter 3:16 :think: PERHAPS, it is because I understand much of what AMR writes? I do, occasionally, get ribbed for being too academic and heady (Please don't laugh, I realize that might be hard to believe). I do try to make things as clear and as simple as possible, but people who are more deliberate and exacting, reclaim space by being technical and exacting over functional. I've come to appreciate the latter, even if most of the time, I don't do it. I 'like' being able to use bigger words, but I'm a bit behind on my 'word-a-day' calendar

For the most part, I do find Paul easier to understand.

 

[Lon]

Obviously, the Bible never records God as saying, "I change my mind," at least, not that exact phrase.

However, it does show God changing His mind about things. Here is one example where God even explains that if He DOES change His mind about something, it's not because He's indecisive, but simply that situations change, and He is able to adapt.

In observation, we agree, I just disagree with terminology after that point, with most Open Theists. It isn't that "God adapts" imho. It is rather that we choose one or another of consequences. I gave an example: Kids and chores. If my kids do the dishes, something nice, if not, something of negative consequences. My mind changes not at all. I've the same mind regarding chores that I ever have had. Further, let's take the kids, as a must: I don't change toward them either. I have always loved them, but the consequence always follows the action. Could it even be accurately said that I 'changed' my action at that point? My problem is and always was, simply this: A "changing" God isn't a perfect God "If" Perfection cannot change (would be against the definition of perfection). Psalm 18:30 Deuteronomy 32:4

The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it,if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it,if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it. - Jeremiah 18:7-10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah18:7-10&version=NKJV

Not sure if you agree with me, but 'relent' is an action, not a character change. I'm not sure where most Open Theists are at on this, but some or a good many may agree God's nature does not, and cannot change according to the above scriptures and many others. Further, the action change is rather the consequence of obedience or disobedience respectfully, thus it is not a change in God (the options are the same) but the preset conditions to be appropriately met. This happened in Saul's case too, he and all Israel were warned what would happen if the king was did not follow God's ordinances.

The Hebrew word used where the english (unfortunately; though rather ironically "relent" makes it even worse for the Calvinist position) has "relent" means "to repent."

Spoiler

Strong's h5162

- Lexical: נָחַם
- Transliteration: nacham
- Part of Speech: Verb
- Phonetic Spelling: naw-kham'
- Definition: comfort.
- Origin: A primitive root; properly, to sigh, i.e. Breathe strongly; by implication, to be sorry, i.e. (in a favorable sense) to pity, console or (reflexively) rue; or (unfavorably) to avenge (oneself).
- Usage: comfort (self), ease (one's self), repent(-er,-ing, self).
- Translated as (count): comfort (6), to comfort (6), And repented (5), and repent (4), comforters (4), repented (4), And comforted (3), repent (3), to be comforted (3), and shall be comforted (2), and was comforted (2), comfort me (2), has comforted (2), shall comfort (2), to console (2), and comfort (1), And for comforters (1), and have comforted myself (1), And he comforted (1), and he repented him (1), and I will be comforted (1), and I will repent (1), and let it repent (1), and relent (1), and repented him it (1), and repents (1), And they shall comfort (1), And was sorry (1), and will comfort them (1), and will repent (1), and with him and to comfort (1), and you comforted (1), and you shall be comforted (1), comforter (1), comforts (1), do comforted (1), do I repented (1), do repent (1), do repented (1), does comfort himself (1), for my comfort (1), he was comforted (1), he will comfort (1), he will repent himself (1), I am sorry (1), I repent me (1), I repented (1), I will ease (1), in that you are a comfort (1), is a comforter (1), it repented (1), It repents me (1), one comforts (1), repent himself (1), repented them (1), shall comfort us (1), shall I comfort (1), Should I receive comfort (1), should repent (1), that comforts (1), that he should repent (1), that I may comfort you (1), that I may repent me (1), that you have comforted me (1), then I will repent (1), they comfort (1), to comfort him (1), to console him (1), will I repent (1), will You comfort me (1), with repenting (1), you and you shall be comforted (1), you comfort you (1).

Repent means to feel or express regret or remorse. It's a change in one's mind.

Speaking for Calvinists, it isn't embarrassing. You've posted 'change mind' as way down on the list, so certainly not the first nor preferable translation. It means literally 'to sigh' and in Hebrew even 'sounds' like a sigh. There is no necessity that such a sigh 'must mean' "repent."

You'd have the same case if I sighed in front of you heavily. You'd expect that I sighed heavily, no question there, but you'd not know exactly what the problem was from 'to sigh.' A translator, looking at the text, figured "God was repentant that He made Saul king." More accurately, "God sighed at making God king." It WOULD allow for a reader such as you or myself, to further wrestle with the text and meaning rather than attempting to make our job easier. Such is the hard task of translation work and I don't begrudge them for what looks to me, a corner-cut. But I definitely prefer to read anachah - to sigh/groan and figure it out from there.

Relent is even moreso of a change, as it means to abandon or mitigate a harsh intention or cruel treatment. But "repent" is used, and not "relent".

Relent means 'desist' and is also a translation of this same 'sigh' word. Again, for both of us, "God groaned" or "sighed" is better as it allows us to discuss the intent of such expression of God. It allows for us to both test our hypothesis better to seek theology that is Him-centered as well. My only duty, in love to you, and you for me, is to bring one another closer to our Lord and Savior in understanding. I appreciate you wrestling therefore, over these scriptures and terms with me. In our Lord and Savior, -Lon

 

[Lon]

That opening sentence seems to contain an immediate contradiction. By definition, an atheist assumes not God. Maybe it was meant as "some atheists assume that the God we believe in wants ... etc?

Yes, or their excuse for said 'atheism.' I do agree at that point, they aren't 'atheists' per say for it, at least not logically. They are rather conscientious objectors of His portrayal or supposed character. You are right.

Lon, aside from your denial, there are more than a few passages written by the prophets of old as they were moved by the Holy Ghost that do tell us that God has changed his mind:

1 Chronicles 21:14-15 KJV
(14) So the LORD sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men.
(15) And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.

Perhaps, at this point, we should talk about what you mean by God "changed His mind." I'm convinced 1) After MANY times through my Bible, that phrase is NEVER said. There is a difference in what you perhaps mean, and the extremely exaggerated colloquial term. It even carries significant negative connotation when connected with Our Lord and God and, as far as I'm scripturally read and hopefully discerning, never is said of God. Now we need to discuss why this is so.

Jonah 3:10 KJV
(10) And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

For me, first off, this word does not mean change of mind or feelings, but rather and simply "a different corresponding action." This is my third time giving this analogy (first to you): I tell my kids to do the dishes because I value chores and I value the character of such action in my children. I give 2 corresponding consequences: Movie and allowance, or reserve allowance and restriction if no dishes are done over a week period.

Several points:
A)My mind never changes and until the Lord comes, never will regarding chores and character development.
B) My mind never changes regarding both terms. This is important. An intermediate 'can' come in and say "Dad, she was helping a student after school to pass." However, my mind has not changed. It is exactly the same. What changed? In grace and in appreciation for values developed, I can forgo and leave a third consequence like not giving allowance, but not giving restriction, etc. Did my 'mind' change on anything? :nono: As far as 'good parenting' held up against the example of a perfect God, His mind is the same, always, about sin. It never changes. In fact, to say God's "mind" changes is older than Greek philosophies and goes back to the pagan gods that are just like men (not to accuse Open Theism, here, just to set a precedent for discussion over against ancient philosophies and current ones that invade our theology).

As I told Judgerightly, Perfection, by definition, does not allow change, else it isn't perfect and such also, theologically points to a God who is less than perfect. Example: When Moses intervened between God and Israel for punishment, it was not that God 'needed His emotional anger held back from an injustice.' It was rather that Moses needed to fill the shoes of Israel's caring leader as well as be a type for the Intercessor to come.

Genesis 6:5-7 KJV
(5) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
(6) And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
(7) And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

"When" did that happen? Did God just not realize the day before that people were using and killing other people? Did He just then figure out what Hamala was doing with Sheiles and His jaw dropped? I'm not being facetious here. I'm asking questions of the text BEFORE I leave the text asserting something hasty, and probably wrong. I know, for fact, how the rest of this story goes, and so I'm not really drawing conclusions at this point because the moment of 'remedy' has not come. I know for a fact that the O.T. is the archetype for Christ. I know, for fact (scripture says) that fixing the sin problem is the plan. Noah shows that evil requires Jesus Christ as Savior and NOTHING else will do. The death of many is/was important history. The way I thus, understand this passage is with the rest of this particular story, and very much couched in the work and life of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Samuel 15:10-11 KJV
(10) Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying,
(11) It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.

Again, and I'm sure you've heard pastors say the same thing: Repentance is a change of action, not of God's mind (an impossibility, there is no greater mind God 'could' change a mind with - it is just not even a good colloquial term and certainly never used in scripture).

Joel 2:12-14 KJV
(12) Therefore also now, saith the LORD, turn ye even to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning:
(13) And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil.
(14) Who knoweth if he will return and repent, and leave a blessing behind him; even a meat offering and a drink offering unto the LORD your God?

Again, change of action, not of mind. It isn't "I changed my mind, I'm not going to destroy you know" but rather "You have stopped doing this one thing, that was to receive this consequence, so you will now not receive that consequence." <-- Not a mind change. Not at all. It is rather a 'different' consequence to a 'different' action. Through Christ, those consequences are no longer there.

... and last in this list but not least which is certainly not exhaustive,

Exodus 32:9-14 KJV
(9) And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:
(10) Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.
(11) And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?
(12) Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.
(13) Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.
(14) And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Let me turn it around to you for a moment or two: Ephesians 5:1

V.9,10 Is God given to emotional outbursts of violence? Yes or no? If not, how would this be 'a change?'
V.11,12 Is God a "mischievous" God? 1 Peter 1:15-16 Where did that come from? Was it true, or was it merely an accusation?
How do you know? Why do you know it? Where else did that answer necessarily have to come from?

Aren't you exercising the same tools that I necessarily have to use to get good biblical knowledge from here? What tools are those?
(Some heavy questions, all not pointed, however).

Lon, may I point you to your own advice before? Search first as to how God reveals himself.

Yes you may, and I will point it back. There is naught else you or I can do, but assess and prayerfully rightly assess, the scriptures. Prayerfully, we are both open to correction. I think at the very least, an appreciation for another's study and impressions left from those scripture readings is in order.

Where you said "never" it took me six minutes to format and post six separate passages. God is capable of changing his mind and his judgment, and he has recorded these instances for us to understand, that we might be "wise unto salvation."

:nono: Judgerightly, an Open Theist agreed here with me that "change of mind" is nowhere in scripture. You've given examples of 'repent' but not of God changing His mind.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 KJV
(15) And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
(16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Why would you argue so determinedly otherwise? What do you think is really at stake?

??? That the words "God changed His mind" appear nowhere in scripture? Again, it is a colloquial term and mostly an English colloquial term (some of other languages find it very weird to even say because of the oddity of it, nobody literally changes his/her mind). Rather, we have to be careful, imho, NOT to import odd colloquial exaggerations into our theology and this one is pretty bad. God has the same mind regarding sin as He ever did. He cannot 'change His mind' over the matter. There is no other god to trade with.

Rather, in His perfection, He, Himself, moved His Son to take up our stead. There is nothing that will convince me that God is ever going to 'like' sin. There is nothing anyone can do to convince me that God is somehow going to love me more today than yesterday, or that He has a 'new' capacity to do it better today than yesterday. These are all 'change of mind' "change of character" ideas that perfection just doesn't allow (unless we've translated that word incorrectly). Have we? 1 Corinthians 13:10 Matthew 5:48 Psalm 18:30 Deuteronomy 32:4 Question: If all He does is perfect, why WOULD you want Him to change? Wouldn't it be "imperfect?" How is or isn't that possible? Philippians 3:12,15 1 Peter 5:10
1 John 3:2,3

 

[JudgeRightly]

In observation, we agree, I just disagree with terminology after that point, with most Open Theists. It isn't that "God adapts" imho. It is rather that we choose one or another of consequences. I gave an example: Kids and chores. If my kids do the dishes, something nice, if not, something of negative consequences. My mind changes not at all. I've the same mind regarding chores that I ever have had. Further, let's take the kids, as a must: I don't change toward them either. I have always loved them, but the consequence always follows the action. Could it even be accurately said that I 'changed' my action at that point?

So let's use a similar analogy. Let's say I have kids, and I love and have always loved them, and will continue to love them no matter what.

Let's say that I tell them that I will in one month, without fail, take them to the big water park in a neighboring state. I then tell them, separately from telling them about the water park, that this month I want them to obey their mother, and do everything she asks them to do cheerfully.

A month passes, and they have done their chores and obeyed their mother, and even cheerfully. So we pack up, and start driving to the water park. But halfway there, the boy starts to annoy his sister and mother, who tells him to stop multiple times, until it gets to the point where it's unbearable to be in the car with him.

I then tell everyone that because of the actions of the boy, I will turn the car around and we will not go to the waterpark.

"But Dad, you promised!"

"No, don't use that argument on me. I fully intended to take everyone to the water park, without fail (in other words, it was an unconditional promise). But I cannot reward bad behavior with something good. So therefore, I repent of my decision to take everyone to the park, so we are turning around, and going home."

I fully intended to take them to the park, it was my will that I take them, I had no intention to not take them, but the actions of the boy forced my hand, so I could not do that which I said I would do.

Did I sigh? Yes. But more importantly, I changed my mind about taking them to the park, where I had no intention otherwise.

In the same way, God, who has never intended to NOT fulfill His promise to Abraham, has, multiple times in the Bible, changed His mind about establishing them as a great nation because of their rebellion. He went from wanting to establish them, to not wanting to establish them, even to the point where even if Moses and Samuel were around, making intercession on Israel's behalf, He would STILL be angry at them, wanting to wipe them out.

My problem is and always was, simply this: A "changing" God isn't a perfect God "If" Perfection cannot change (would be against the definition of perfection). Psalm 18:30 Deuteronomy 32:4.

Perfection doesn't mean "unchanging." That's a pagan belief that comes from Plato, not the Bible. Plato wrongly taught that anything perfect cannot change, yet a perfect acorn grows into an oak tree (whereas an imperfect acorn doesn't grow at all). Christ, as a boy, grew up from a baby to a man. He was perfect, yet he changed greatly, and the Bible even says Jesus "grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." That's a change in something (someone) perfect.

And to take that one step further, Jesus who for eternity past, changed going from having one nature to two natures when He came to earth as a man.

Not sure if you agree with me, but 'relent' is an action, not a character change. I'm not sure where most Open Theists are at on this, but some or a good many may agree God's nature does not, and cannot change according to the above scriptures and many others. Further, the action change is rather the consequence of obedience or disobedience respectfully, thus it is not a change in God (the options are the same) but the preset conditions to be appropriately met. This happened in Saul's case too, he and all Israel were warned what would happen if the king was did not follow God's ordinances.

Actions are changes. I've never said that the character or nature of God changes. If you are sitting in a chair, and then you stand up, that's a change. You went from sitting to standing. That is the kind of change that most Calvinists seem to actually accept, but unfortunately they still seem to say "God doesn't change at all." Yet if God does one thing, and then does something else, that's a change, which makes the statement "God doesn't change at all" false. God's nature, that He is righteous, just, faithful, has not changed, but that doesn't mean He can't change at all.

Speaking for Calvinists, it isn't embarrassing. You've posted 'change mind' as way down on the list, so certainly not the first nor preferable translation. It means literally 'to sigh' and in Hebrew even 'sounds' like a sigh. There is no necessity that such a sigh 'must mean' "repent."

You'd have the same case if I sighed in front of you heavily. You'd expect that I sighed heavily, no question there, but you'd not know exactly what the problem was from 'to sigh.' A translator, looking at the text, figured "God was repentant that He made Saul king." More accurately, "God sighed at making God king." It WOULD allow for a reader such as you or myself, to further wrestle with the text and meaning rather than attempting to make our job easier. Such is the hard task of translation work and I don't begrudge them for what looks to me, a corner-cut. But I definitely prefer to read anachah - to sigh/groan and figure it out from there.

Relent means 'desist'

Actually, it doesn't. Nor does repent mean desist. Relent means "abandon or mitigate a harsh intention or cruel treatment" or "become less severe or intense." I looked up desist and relent and repent, and the first two are not synonyms, but interestingly enough, relent and repent are sort of synonyms, though not quite 100%. (Using Thesaurus.com.)

As for the previous two paragraphs, I'll address them below.

and is also a translation of this same 'sigh' word.

Except it's not. Nowhere in the Bible does it use the Hebrew word for "relent", which is:
לְהִתְרַכֵּך
Either my Google-fu isn't very good, in that I can't seem to find any place in the bible where this word is used, or it's not used at all.

The Hebrew word for repent is this:
לְהִתְחַרֵט
As opposed to "relent" above, this word is used multiple times in the Bible.

It's a similar word to relent, but only repent is used, as far as I can tell. If you can show me a verse where "לְהִתְרַכֵּך" is used, I will gladly look at it and reconsider my position.

Again, for both of us, "God groaned" or "sighed" is better as it allows us to discuss the intent of such expression of God.

So then let's use "groaned" or "sighed" in Jeremiah 18 instead of "repent", and see if it makes any sense to use those words. I've already established above that "relent" ("לְהִתְרַכֵּך") is not the word used in the passage, the word used is "repent" ("לְהִתְחַרֵט").

The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it,if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will groan of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it,if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will groan concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it. - Jeremiah 18:7-10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah18:7-10&version=NKJV

OR

The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it,if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will sigh of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it,if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will sigh concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it. - Jeremiah 18:7-10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah18:7-10&version=NKJV

OR

The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it,if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it,if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it. - Jeremiah 18:7-10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah18:7-10&version=NKJV

Which of those three makes the most sense?

The third option, right?

It allows for us to both test our hypothesis better to seek theology that is Him-centered as well. My only duty, in love to you, and you for me, is to bring one another closer to our Lord and Savior in understanding. I appreciate you wrestling therefore, over these scriptures and terms with me. In our Lord and Savior, -Lon

It's certainly refreshing to do this kind of study instead of debating fiercely on other topics with those who are uncompromising in their position.