My intention here is to respond to the parts I didn't respond to before. We'll see how well I do.
If "mind" means intentions, and "actions" is referring to future actions, then I don't see any difference. Changing a future action is the exact same as changing one's mind regarding doing or not doing that future action, once the future arrives. But I don't see the necessity of calling EVERYTHING God does an intention (which now shows its relationship to "purpose", as I talked about in the previous thread).
I've been trying to demonstrate to this point in thread, that God doesn't and cannot 'change His mind.' The reason partly falls into the discussion I'm having with Rosenritter regarding perfection. The Bible says God is perfect, consistent, and trustworthy. A 'change of mind' to me, implicates whoever is accused/assessed of it, negatively where 'change of mind' always carries negative connotation either before or after the action. Further, I've problems with the term anyway, because nobody ever really does 'change their mind.' Such is impossible. We only have one mind: More so for God.
I think you're splitting hairs. If God set up King Saul as king, which potentially would include his progeny reigning, then deposed him before his progeny reigned, there was a change in God's mind. But NOT a change in His overall purpose. Obviously He had some purpose for Saul to become king and an opposite purpose to depose him, and there was an over-arching purpose of taking care of His people Israel while also hearing and answering their cries for something that was not good for them. The king thing is not unlike what happened when God first called the people to come listen to Him, and then agreed with the people when they asked for an intermediary.
I disagree, on the above grounds and on the grounds of this quote of mine you are responding to, which is an implication not only that God is given to whim (mind-changes), but fourthly, that I also believe God foreknows as a biblical-given. "
Prognosis" means 'before' and 'knows' (knows, beforehand).
This is a pretty good example. In it you have the aver-arching purpose that doesn't change, and the underlying actions taken due to consequences. But it only works if the underlying actions you take are allowed to vary depending on what your children do. But if you pre-decide (before they are born) both how they are going to act and the underlying actions you are going to take, you aren't relating with them, you are relating with yourself, in a somewhat contradictory manner.
I agree it 'can' follow that logical flow, but I'm not certain such is the only logical outcome of foreknowledge. It goes back, for me, to the Garden. Genesis 3:1 was essential and necessary for Adam and Eve to have fallen, not by God's intent. That He knew the serpent was in the Garden? Yes, I don't think we can contradict God's omnipresence nor what even is a given in Open Theism, concerning "all that 'can' be known." What that means to me is very simply, that for both of us, regardless, there is information that we simply have to equally say "I don't know" to. For me? I can guess and reason a bit, but not very far, as far as mysteries go.
That's why I offered Jer 18. It gives the instruction of what God does and says He will do in repenting. You have to allow the word "repent" to mean the same thing in both cases, and then find out why the one is characteristic of God and the other one is not.
Numbers 23:19 — God is not a man that he should lie, or a son of man that he should repent.
1 Samuel 15:29 — The Glory of Israel will not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent. :think:
John Piper, a Calvinist, agrees with you, btw. I disagree even with John Piper here. He says "God repents." I say, specifically, that such is a translation problem. God does not repent. I agree with the above two verses with no equivocation. Piper (and you guys) are certainly within proper scriptural interpretation, that such can mean specifically, "does not repent 'like a man.'"
However, such can read, and I take it that way: Man repents, God does not.
Nacham, again, is the Hebrew word for 'to sigh.' It is open to context for driving translation and understanding, thus I do believe it is not necessary nor always appropriate to translate the word 'repent.' It can mean "sighed, pitied" etc.
Agreed that this gets a little confusing, but no, I was not suggesting God is not repenting of repenting, but not repenting of something He said He would do. In other words, He regrets the actions he took, because of the effect they had, which He did not intend. This is shown to be possible in numerous examples in the scriptures, based on people being able to effect their own will sometimes in contrast to God's will.
See, this is a change in God, and as I've said, has a negative connotation and negative commentary upon the character and nature of God to me. It carries the idea that "God was not 'righteously' angry and 'now He is sorry." Sanders, a leading Open Theist says about the same: "God makes mistakes." To me? Maligns Gods righteousness, holiness, perfection, and goodness. It means God 'wasn't' as righteous, perfect, holy, good, or appropriate 'prior.' It seems that it does, in fact, suggest God is repenting, and repenting of His repenting. James 1:8 God cannot be accused of the same thing man is accused of, or He cannot be God.
Your mind on the chores doesn't change. But your reaction to the children does, depending on their actions. This is in keeping with a God who reacts to autonomous people, but not in keeping with a God who plans everything people will do and think before the people exist.
I disagree. Such is letting my passions rule me and the situation, instead of a better level-head. The circumstances of my 'this or that' show both my care and concern as well as give appropriate relational action to my children. They don't need to see me screaming, then 'repenting' of it later. This is a lack of patience and longsuffering. God's character and nature are consistent and trustworthy. While I believe you and every Open Theist agrees with this statement about God, the argument often points to the opposite to me: A God who is 'inconsistent' and not quite as stable as I'd hoped. I can 'win Him over on a dime' by my prayer intervention.
Open Theist: That is good! It means God is relational to us and our prayers!
Me: That is bad! It means God WASN'T as good or intelligent as I was when I happened to pray????? It makes no sense to me (correct any mischaracterization. We all carry our own understandings into other's worldviews and sometimes it just doesn't work, but it IS what it looks like to me, thank you, in Him).
In this you can see that there is a purpose to teach your children responsibility (chores) that doesn't change, but there are other temporary purposes like punishing or rewarding that do change. In other words, if your child ignores or blatantly disobeys, you purpose to punish or withhold reward UNTIL the behavior changes, but you don't know how long that bad behavior will last. With God, if He knows how long it will last, then He either planned it that way (and there's no need to make it last shorter) or He looks into the future to see how long it lasts (and there's no way to shorten it, because it is settled future).
Hebrews 12:5-13 For me: Stability is the one thing I did NOT have growing up. When my mother married a man at 16, I had stability for a few short years. When there is consistency and stability that does NOT change, I was healed. I take GREAT comfort in what seems to disturb Open Theists: "No instability of choice." I'd MUCH rather have Jesus perfecting me, than trying to figure this out on my own. This 'instability' factor of me is certainly nothing I desire and more over, nothing that'd give me comfort about God. His consist, perfect, loving, unchanging, stable nature is exactly what ALL of us need. There is NO stability in my poor choices of sin. I've nothing to teach God. He has everything to teach me and without Him and His correction, I'm lost and hopeless. A settled future excites me, doesn't distress me.
God's mind did change about SAUL being king, but it didn't change about why a king wasn't the best for His people, nor about His overlooking the best for His people in giving them a king. And it also shows God working all things together, even using their desire for a king, for their good, even when some of the kings aren't good.
This assumes God does not have foreknowledge etc. Again, I have no hope or comfort at all in what can change on a whim.
That would be a surprise for me, if something I made chose to do something I didn't intend for it to do (assuming I were a perfect maker). Unless I made the thing to be able to make its own choices. I get the feeling that in our quest for artificial intelligence, we might very well get to experience the chaos of God's similar choice to create man. And we might find out that if we don't destroy the world, like God did for Noah, we can't retain the AI technology.
It'd take something wicked to 'program wicked' into such a thing. We have hackers, so know what malicious code is, but I'm not afraid of AI. I'm afraid of evil getting a hold of something good or potentially good.
I'm not so sure about whether God could be surprised. I believe He is aware of the possibilities, even the grossly repugnant ones. If that's different from the open theist pack, so be it.
I think a good many Open Theists believe God is 'omnicompetent' with you on this, though I believe it is tied to Arminian theology.
But I don't have a problem with God finding out which of the choices His creations pick, not having to know them ahead of time.
That'd have God "surprised" though, to some degree. I'm not sure how it can be both.
I hope I haven't confused with my alternating use of "intentions" and "purposes"
Part of the good of this thread is that we get to put our own ideas and feelings down and trust one another enough to do so. For me, getting to put our ideas down and have them interacted upon is worth a great deal for the effort. I hope so for you too. I don't think we are going to make one another change, but I DO think God uses us to help us see another's perspective and I do see us as brothers and sisters in Christ who do need to care, whether we see eye to eye on everything or not. We often want to cookie-cutter another, but that isn't our greatest need. Our greatest need is to grow in Christ and if we do a good job, He is seen.
For His glory,
Derf
PS
I am likely to bow out of the conversation for a week, as I go on vacation in a couple days, and I don't know for sure what kind of internet access I'll have.
Appreciate your thoughts here. Thank you. -Lon
