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

[Lon]

I think that what you are saying here is reflecting on your theology and perspective of God: you seem to have an impression that passion is a character flaw. Tertullian (whom I wholly disapprove of on multiple counts) was massively upset that anyone would suggest that our Father in heaven was passionate. He invented the term patrapassionism which he labelled as heresy to use as a label against his opponents, objecting that God the Father would never allow himself to suffer or feel for his creation. He wanted Jesus to be a separate thing that could contain all of "flawed" feeling and ability to feel pain, leaving other portions of a "Perfect" God untouched.

I don't think this is a right view of God nor how he has revealed himself to us.

Neither do I. Specifically, what I mean by passion, is a bit different than the Open Theism view, however. It is passion in perfection and complete control. The O.T. passages hint at a God who is given to uncontrolled passion, but I wholly believe these are anthropomorphisms, most specifically because of the New Testament. Paul and Our Lord Jesus Christ spoke of self-discipline and being perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect. I'm convinced, because of lack of clarity, that some Open Theists believe God is a God give to uncontrolled passion. I'm equally convinced the better number of Open Theists get this right, BUT there is great great need in Open Theism circles for much more clarity on these points. It has to happen because some views some Open Theists hold, are unbiblical. Such needs this kind of discussion and clarity, and thank you for it here.

If you look for what he is seeking, of people after his own heart, he looks for those who have compassion, and mercy, who sigh and cry for the evils of the world. When doctrinal statements of men idolize and elevate Platonic and Gnostic ideas of God as "perfect, untouchable, unable to be touched,

Here all well and good. I'd not blame Gnostics, however. We all bring OUR OWN thoughts to the table. I'm fairly convinced the arm of the Gnostics and Platonists is not so long.

not weakened by feeling" this has a negative effect on the gospel.

Here we depart. God is "Almighty" by self definition which means Omnipotent (ALL mighty). If all? No, not weakened nor given to uncontrolled emotions. Again, I believe the O.T. portrayals are overshadowed by the New. The Lord Jesus Christ overturning tables? Controlled, 100%.

Calvinism seems to proceed on these assumptions and takes it to an additional degree, uncaring (or powerless) to the degree that he cannot be appealed to by prayer.

I watched a child cry for something to his mother. She said no. The child cried. She said no. The child cried louder and longer, "no." After about ten minutes, the child won. The mother needs a parenting class. God does not. I'm not sure if I can get you to understand the Calvinist (or even if you want to) but what we value is the consistency of what is true. God doesn't need to go through a thousand scenarios to know what is appropriate and needed. He knows us. When the Lord Jesus became a man, certainly Hebrews concurs with you and Luke 2:52 Hebrews 4:15 that in the flesh, as High Priest, He empathizes with us, but can God, who is omniscient, 'learn' anything that He didn't have before? The incarnation created a LOT of difficult concepts. As long as we, His body, are struggling to appropriately grasp meaning (like here in thread),I believe we are doing it right. Caveat: Discussion of Plato or Gnostics doesn't help me much. I know Open Theists are big on this, but for me, I know I don't think much like either, so it isn't helpful for discussion for me. I literally have to read up and do homework ONLY to discover I've less agreement than was supposed, such that it is a rabbit trail and not very meaningful. We use the term "Scapegoat" because the sins of a people were laid upon the goat and the goat was turned out and forgotten. For me, scapegoating is the act of attaching something to Plato or Gnostics, and then forgetting about them and whoever is laid upon them (Calvinists). Where sins were appropriate for Scape-goating, I think Calvinism etc. less so. For your consideration...

But Passion is not a character flaw. To the contrary, it is a vital expression of his character, even an essential requirement of our salvation. God's love is passionate, and without his passion there would have been no Passion of the Christ, he would not have gone to the cross and why would he loved the world enough to want to redeem us? I realize that it is very hard to shake impressions, but I think scripture by itself gives a better picture of God than scripture underneath the weight of theological interpretations.

I agreed that Passion is a good trait. Rather, what I think some mean by it is very different than what I mean and understand by it.

Some conversation here in thread, has described 'weakened,' alluded to out-of-control, and described an evolving characteristic, as descriptors for 'passion.' These are wholly outside of my understanding of Passion. My step-father, but example, may have 'seemed' a dispassionate man, but no human is without the trait. Rather, we see a contrast between passionate expressions, some under control, carefully/appropriately expressed, etc. The well-thought-out and deliberate is not passionless.

In brief: I think we mean or think a few differing things when we use the term 'passion' describing our Lord.

 

[Rosenritter]

Neither do I. Specifically, what I mean by passion, is a bit different than the Open Theism view, however. It is passion in perfection and complete control. The O.T. passages hint at a God who is given to uncontrolled passion, but I wholly believe these are anthropomorphisms, most specifically because of the New Testament.

You keep speaking of "uncontrolled passion" but this isn't a term I introduced, nor anyone else on this forum that I've noticed.

Matthew 5:22 KJV
(22) But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.


Anger is not a sin in itself, as anger can be just, but anger without a cause (or without a just case) is of sin. And I have no idea what you mean when you speak of uncontrolled passion of God in the Old Testament, and I hesitate to guess for fear of putting words in your mouth.

I typically hear Calvinists (and only ever from Calvinists) protest that Jesus did not so love the world and provide his sacrifice of atonement for every man because of a supposed "indignity" that someone could reject his love and that this sacrifice be "wasted." I haven't heard you express those words yet, but would you consider Christ's sacrifice for the whole world something "too reckless" and an instance of "uncontrolled passion" that it simply could not be, that "the world" must be "those who are guaranteed to accept?"

Because this is the type of passion I understand of God and Christ, that he willingly endured our transgressions because he loves us enough to want us to fully love him also, not that he could not endure the possibility that even one person might not return his love.

 

[Lon]

You keep speaking of "uncontrolled passion" but this isn't a term I introduced, nor anyone else on this forum that I've noticed.

It depends on what we mean by passion. I'd suggest it is a broad idea that needs adjectives to be meaningful, else we are talking about aspects of the same thing.

Here is a comforting thought: kids need different things, especially coming from different families, so we appreciate different things about our Parent. I'd think this comforting to Open Theism as well, but it is rather how a consistent God relates to our individual needs. That said, we still need to work on being 'one' as He is one. I still look at catering to our needs as specifically 'our' needed growth. 1 Corinthians 13:12

Open Theism focusses on a God who changes. Traditional theology focuses on men who need change. Perhaps 'aspects' are all well-within Christendom as catering to our individual needs, but we yet have to come to truth terms united. John 4:24

Matthew 5:22 KJV
(22) But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.


Anger is not a sin in itself, as anger can be just, but anger without a cause (or without a just case) is of sin. And I have no idea what you mean when you speak of uncontrolled passion of God in the Old Testament, and I hesitate to guess for fear of putting words in your mouth.

Simply this: Even in the O.T. though it may look like God "suddenly became" angry, this is not accurate. It is merely a conveyance.

To continue to support the O.P. I'm often talking from the viewpoint for the Omniscience of God. We can get lost in details without realizing we are still talking about a specific topic, but I've ever had this in mind. God doesn't 'suddenly' become angry because He doesn't dwell in 'the moment.' He is relational to us in time, but well aware from infinity past, according to Calvinism, if not entirely traditional orthodox theology. None of the terms or groups are important but for the topic and as these ideas collide. Ultimately, we are discussing whether God is Omniscient or not, according to the traditional view. John 21:17 Hebrews 4:13 and Mark 4:22 w/ 1 John 1:5

I typically hear Calvinists (and only ever from Calvinists) protest that Jesus did not so love the world and provide his sacrifice of atonement for every man because of a supposed "indignity" that someone could reject his love and that this sacrifice be "wasted." I haven't heard you express those words yet, but would you consider Christ's sacrifice for the whole world something "too reckless" and an instance of "uncontrolled passion" that it simply could not be, that "the world" must be "those who are guaranteed to accept?"

Yes. Why? Because God is not 'reckless' despite the song that says otherwise. "Reckless" can never apply to God because it means careless and irresponsible. Neither of these can be applied to God who purposes and is always responsible. He doesn't take risks. There is no such thing with God. He knows what He is doing. Again, Omniscience is in full view and discussion/debate here: Whether God knows all, or whether He is a slave to time to know is the debate point of this thread..

There are scriptures that allude (not stated) to God 'discovering' things in time, but according to other scriptures (not Greek Philosophy for our interest) God knows everything thus whatever I or you 'infer' should be driven more by our mind than desires or hopefuls.

Most of us Christians believe God is fully omniscient, not from supposed Greek influence, but from the scriptures themselves. God has given the Omni's in scriptural clarity, we believe. Matthew 10:29-30 Contemplate the verse with me. He doesn't ever (ever) need to "come down to see if what I'm hearing is true." If Matthew 10:29-30 is true (that your hairs are numbered and He knows when you lose one, or when precisely a sparrow falls) then He is Omipresent as well unless someone has a myopic view that He doesn't see my wife's head, my neighbors' and the children in Africa numbered and known at this very second. "God is not like a man nor does He think like one" is of paramount importance to our proper view of Him. As I stated, I do, in fact take great comfort in God coming as man Emanuel, but my hope rests in being brought up to His level more than the simple love expression of Him coming down to mine. He had to reach me in this human existence, but then our existence is 'meant for something else' ever after to brought toward His level (wherever He intends us to be). Thus 'not my will but Thine is not only Christ's in the Garden, but my need and cry as well.

Because this is the type of passion I understand of God and Christ, that he willingly endured our transgressions because he loves us enough to want us to fully love him also, not that he could not endure the possibility that even one person might not return his love.

His love reaching? No question. I simply believe it my immature grasp of love reaching but NOT the extent or end of that love. Rather, it is the first stage of a perfect God reaching us in our lack and sin. Such is incredible, but to be the only contrast for love? I think it doesn't grasp 1 John 3:2, at least it seems that way to me. Sincerely, In Him -Lon

 

[Rosenritter]

I typically hear Calvinists (and only ever from Calvinists) protest that Jesus did not so love the world and provide his sacrifice of atonement for every man because of a supposed "indignity" that someone could reject his love and that this sacrifice be "wasted." I haven't heard you express those words yet, but would you consider Christ's sacrifice for the whole world something "too reckless" and an instance of "uncontrolled passion" that it simply could not be, that "the world" must be "those who are guaranteed to accept?"

Yes. Why? Because God is not 'reckless' despite the song that says otherwise. "Reckless" can never apply to God because it means careless and irresponsible. Neither of these can be applied to God who purposes and is always responsible. He doesn't take risks. There is no such thing with God. He knows what He is doing. Again, Omniscience is in full view and discussion/debate here: Whether God knows all, or whether He is a slave to time to know is the debate point of this thread..

I think you may have answered a different question. Did you mean to say that it would be careless and irresponsible for Christ to offer his sacrifice for sin for the whole world if even one of those in the world would not accept it?

 

[Lon]

I think you may have answered a different question. Did you mean to say that it would be careless and irresponsible for Christ to offer his sacrifice for sin for the whole world if even one of those in the world would not accept it?

If God is omniscient, there is no "dying for one who will not be saved." The problem here is our whole parameter of understanding God is different. I'll give an example in a moment * but I think we both believe God is not careless or irresponsible.

Here is a good article on this recent song/current events discussion (short quote given here):

"When I used the phrase 'the reckless love of God,' when we say it, we're not saying that God himself is reckless. He's not crazy," he explains. "We are, however, saying that the way he loves in many regards is quite so. What I mean is this: He's utterly unconcerned with the consequences of his actions with regard to his own safety, comfort, and well-being....His love doesn't consider himself first. It isn't selfish or self-serving. He doesn't wonder what he'll gain or lose by putting himself on the line." -Cory Asbury, on his song Reckless Love

Not long ago, Michael Card had a song God's Own Fool There was controversy regarding Card's song embracing 1 Corinthians 1:18-31,27

In Asbury's case, He doesn't describe what he means by 'reckless' in his song and in interview, doesn't do very well either (imho). The song is currently #1 on worship charts. I haven't liked it, but If by reckless, one means 'without thought of self,' It'd make better sense, imho, for it to have been written 'selfless' love of God, perhaps.

I'm not sure yet, if I'm giving meaning to your question, but do these song controversies and current event debate touch on, or embrace the question you are asking?

*
My example: My siblings thought and think differently about my parents than I do. I've found, as a parent myself, that kids see us according to how we interact with them because they apply specific things to us. Surprisingly, I found also, that my siblings disagree with me concerning the character of my parents. "That is, or was, just with you" is the comment.

I expect a bit of this in our discussion of God. I'm not really worried deeply about disagreement in a thread like this and am more interested if our views stand up to scriptural scrutiny. I ALSO think we can discover aspects of God from another lover-of-God's perspective.

 

[Rosenritter]

If God is omniscient, there is no "dying for one who will not be saved." The problem here is our whole parameter of understanding God is different. I'll give an example in a moment * but I think we both believe God is not careless or irresponsible.

Here is a good article on this recent song/current events discussion (short quote given here):



Not long ago, Michael Card had a song God's Own Fool There was controversy regarding Card's song embracing 1 Corinthians 1:18-31,27

In Asbury's case, He doesn't describe what he means by 'reckless' in his song and in interview, doesn't do very well either (imho). The song is currently #1 on worship charts. I haven't liked it, but If by reckless, one means 'without thought of self,' It'd make better sense, imho, for it to have been written 'selfless' love of God, perhaps.

I'm not sure yet, if I'm giving meaning to your question, but do these song controversies and current event debate touch on, or embrace the question you are asking?

*
My example: My siblings thought and think differently about my parents than I do. I've found, as a parent myself, that kids see us according to how we interact with them because they apply specific things to us. Surprisingly, I found also, that my siblings disagree with me concerning the character of my parents. "That is, or was, just with you" is the comment.

I expect a bit of this in our discussion of God. I'm not really worried deeply about disagreement in a thread like this and am more interested if our views stand up to scriptural scrutiny. I ALSO think we can discover aspects of God from another lover-of-God's perspective.

I am totally unfamiliar with the songs you mention and as such I'd rather not use those for examples. Perhaps I might use an experience to illustrate why God's love is reckless (close to the way you described above, selfless, not caring about pain to self).

So the story is that I am listening to a radio station, and it has a question and answer session with a Catholic priest. I had a natural suspicion of anything Roman Catholic, and the question that had been submitted to him "Did Jesus have to die on the cross to save us from our sins?" Seems like an easy enough question, right? And this priest said "No."

"What?" I think? And then the priest continues and says that Jesus did not have to die on the cross for our sins, but that was the way that he chose to do it. He certainly had the power and right to choose any method to redeem us from our sins. In spite of my initial prejudice, I felt this was a good answer. This was the way that God had chose, and he could have chosen a different method.

So now let's touch on reckless love. Jesus (God) has loved us first without worrying about whether he will be loved back. He is not like some fearful and frail humans who refuse to love for fear of rejection. God could have chosen another way to redeem mankind that didn't involve him dying in humiliation and under torture. Yet this is what he chose. He did this without regard for Himself, and in so doing he illustrates just how important we are to Him. I wouldn't say this properly fits as "reckless" as given the songwriter, because I believe he was considering what there was to gain, but he did not care how much damage he would need to suffer and how much indignity he must forgive in the process.

I have heard some Calvinists rage at the idea that Jesus would suffer any indignity for someone who wasn't 100% guaranteed to accept him anyway. That is the opposite of "reckless love" in this context. That doesn't actually seem like love at all, it seems extremely selfish! It doesn't meet the description of love we are given in scriptures, anyway.

1 Corinthians 13:5-7 KJV
(5) Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
(6) Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
(7) Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

True love isn't afraid to love someone first without a guarantee that you will be loved back. The closed-view Calvinism refuses to allow God to be "reckless" and (I have heard this multiple times) he would never die for someone who wouldn't love him back first. As such, it seems to me that those who subscribe to this view are missing something very important about the meaning of love, and by this I mean the truest form of love, that which God has for us, that which God is.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I am totally unfamiliar with the songs you mention and as such I'd rather not use those for examples. Perhaps I might use an experience to illustrate why God's love is reckless (close to the way you described above, selfless, not caring about pain to self).

So the story is that I am listening to a radio station, and it has a question and answer session with a Catholic priest. I had a natural suspicion of anything Roman Catholic, and the question that had been submitted to him "Did Jesus have to die on the cross to save us from our sins?" Seems like an easy enough question, right? And this priest said "No."

"What?" I think? And then the priest continues and says that Jesus did not have to die on the cross for our sins, but that was the way that he chose to do it. He certainly had the power and right to choose any method to redeem us from our sins. In spite of my initial prejudice, I felt this was a good answer. This was the way that God had chose, and he could have chosen a different method.

That's a terrible answer to that question, as it ignores what Jesus prayed to His Father not once, not twice, but three times!

Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane, and said to the disciples, “Sit here while I go and pray over there.”And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and He began to be sorrowful and deeply distressed.Then He said to them, “My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death. Stay here and watch with Me.”He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.”7Then He came to the disciples and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, “What! Could you not watch with Me one hour?Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”Again, a second time, He went away and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done.”And He came and found them asleep again, for their eyes were heavy.So He left them, went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.Then He came to His disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners.Rise, let us be going. See, My betrayer is at hand.” - Matthew 26:36-46 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew26:36-46&version=NKJV

"“O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.”"

"“O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done.”"

"So He left them, went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words."

Jesus asked His father if there was any other way to redeem mankind three times. If there had been another way, Jesus would have taken it. But He didn't, because THERE WAS NO OTHER WAY.

Therefore, not only was that priest wrong, but he was also misleading anyone listening to that station at that moment.

 

[Rosenritter]

That's a terrible answer to that question, as it ignores what Jesus prayed to His Father not once, not twice, but three times!

Spoiler

Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane, and said to the disciples, “Sit here while I go and pray over there.”And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and He began to be sorrowful and deeply distressed.Then He said to them, “My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death. Stay here and watch with Me.”He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.”7Then He came to the disciples and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, “What! Could you not watch with Me one hour?Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”Again, a second time, He went away and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done.”And He came and found them asleep again, for their eyes were heavy.So He left them, went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.Then He came to His disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners.Rise, let us be going. See, My betrayer is at hand.” - Matthew 26:36-46 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew26:36-46&version=NKJV

"“O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.”"

"“O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done.”"

"So He left them, went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words."

Jesus asked His father if there was any other way to redeem mankind three times. If there had been another way, Jesus would have taken it. But He didn't, because THERE WAS NO OTHER WAY.

Therefore, not only was that priest wrong, but he was also misleading anyone listening to that station at that moment.

Which brings us to full circle back to our first point, there wasn't another way to do that at that time, because the prophecies had already been given. God isn't a liar and he had given his promise of how this would play out. But if God was outside of time, there would have been another way. Just rewind and replay it differently.

If you are still objecting to that answer, what part of his reasoning did you disagree with? When God lays this plan from the foundation of the world, didn't he have the right to choose whatever method he wanted then? That is, if he even chose to redeem humanity at all? He could have let us perish like the beasts.

 

[Lon]

I am totally unfamiliar with the songs you mention and as such I'd rather not use those for examples. Perhaps I might use an experience to illustrate why God's love is reckless (close to the way you described above, selfless, not caring about pain to self).

So the story is that I am listening to a radio station, and it has a question and answer session with a Catholic priest. I had a natural suspicion of anything Roman Catholic, and the question that had been submitted to him "Did Jesus have to die on the cross to save us from our sins?" Seems like an easy enough question, right? And this priest said "No."

"What?" I think? And then the priest continues and says that Jesus did not have to die on the cross for our sins, but that was the way that he chose to do it. He certainly had the power and right to choose any method to redeem us from our sins. In spite of my initial prejudice, I felt this was a good answer. This was the way that God had chose, and he could have chosen a different method.

Yes and no are both good answers. For me? :idunno: The point is He did.

Jesus asked His father if there was any other way to redeem mankind three times. If there had been another way, Jesus would have taken it. But He didn't, because THERE WAS NO OTHER WAY.

Therefore, not only was that priest wrong, but he was also misleading anyone listening to that station at that moment.

My mind went here too:
Did Jesus 'have' to die? Great question. There are a good number of answers. When Jesus was in the Garden "...if it is possible, take this cup from me..." To me, context is important and I'm STILL not sure I could answer meaningfully. This is not to say the Catholic priest did a poor job. My answer is simply "I don't know!" Depending on context, sometimes I lean 'yes' and sometimes I lean 'no.' Does this make me a lousy theologian? I hope it does! Why? More questions but I can answer about myself a LOT more easily (I think)...

So now let's touch on reckless love. Jesus (God) has loved us first without worrying about whether he will be loved back. He is not like some fearful and frail humans who refuse to love for fear of rejection. God could have chosen another way to redeem mankind that didn't involve him dying in humiliation and under torture. Yet this is what he chose. He did this without regard for Himself, and in so doing he illustrates just how important we are to Him. I wouldn't say this properly fits as "reckless" as given the songwriter, because I believe he was considering what there was to gain, but he did not care how much damage he would need to suffer and how much indignity he must forgive in the process.

:think: You say "reckless' THEN describe 'calculated' :think: *I like it, just saying is all.... See what I mean?

I have heard some Calvinists rage at the idea that Jesus would suffer any indignity for someone who wasn't 100% guaranteed to accept him anyway. That is the opposite of "reckless love" in this context. That doesn't actually seem like love at all, it seems extremely selfish! It doesn't meet the description of love we are given in scriptures, anyway.

I've seen that too and don't understand it. The act of love will either recruit lovers or not. I see no problem with the Arminian, Open Theist, or anybody else (including a fellow Calvinist like me) saying Christ acted in love toward all men. I embrace John 3:16. Rather I think Jesus did that KNOWING who wouldn't be saved. It is, to me, no less love. When we follow that thought, however, and as an Arminian, then it asks 'why didn't Jesus then love the other more, if He know such love was not going to have a specific result in saving this or that person?

My answer: He did. He loved all He could with all He is. In some ways, this leaves me vulnerable to other Calvinist's attacks because it seems to discount omnipotence. I don't, I simply believe God will save all that 'can' be saved under this economy. Why or how? :idunno: I'm not God. I can quote some scriptures where He weighs in, but putting it all together? A bit above my pay-grade at this time, anyway.

1 Corinthians 13:5-7 KJV
(5) Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
(6) Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
(7) Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

True love isn't afraid to love someone first without a guarantee that you will be loved back. The closed-view Calvinism refuses to allow God to be "reckless" and (I have heard this multiple times) he would never die for someone who wouldn't love him back first. As such, it seems to me that those who subscribe to this view are missing something very important about the meaning of love, and by this I mean the truest form of love, that which God has for us, that which God is.

Interesting that you hear this. I think He did die, and for all. I am a bit with my Calvinist cohorts in saying that the effect was known.
Matthew 21:43-44 Acts 4:11; Ephesians 2:20 1 Peter 2:6-8 1 Corinthians 3:11 Isaiah 28:16

Matthew 7:24 The wise man built his/her house upon the Rock.

Question: Did Jesus die for the stupid/unwise people? Yes, they stumbled upon Him. More questions leave us respectively in differing corners, but asking and answering important questions. One tries to do so asking "what is God's answer." The other "How does this apply to men?"

Both, I think are noble enough, I just am convinced God cares MORE about the lost than I do and that they are more His business. Now, they are my business in that I am a light on a hill BUT not more than mine business in that they are God's, not mine. I'd be wrong and a bit of a busy-body to OVERLY be concerned about that which is God's business. Love is a good thing. Busy-body? Not so good. In Him

 

[Rosenritter]

:think: You say "reckless' THEN describe 'calculated' :think: *I like it, just saying is all.... See what I mean?

Since there is more than one interpretation of the word, I used double quotes. If I reached out to save my child and received permanent burn scars in the process some might also consider that "reckless" even though it was done by reflex (reflex programmed by a pattern of love) rather than by stoic calculation.

I've seen that too and don't understand it. The act of love will either recruit lovers or not. I see no problem with the Arminian, Open Theist, or anybody else (including a fellow Calvinist like me) saying Christ acted in love toward all men. I embrace John 3:16.

I appreciate that answer.

 

[Lon]

Since there is more than one interpretation of the word, I used double quotes. If I reached out to save my child and received permanent burn scars in the process some might also consider that "reckless" even though it was done by reflex (reflex programmed by a pattern of love) rather than by stoic calculation.

I can appreciate your answer, but God already had time (eternity) to think what He'd do. Burnt? Doesn't have to be. With that kind of knowledge one can put on the asbestos. God doesn't need asbestos, however. A lot of analogy 'can' have our minds spinning with complexity and so I understand ever, that God's ways are indeed higher than ours. While Christ has made Him known, we still are left holding to scriptures for our understanding and must recognize that where scripture leaves us, is all we can know for certain about God. We do have His Spirit, but are still left to revelation 1 John 3:2

Stoicism is a hard word to define. It may shun all forms of emotion. I'm not sure if the Stoics were thinking 'machine' as they had none at that point, but they were trying to say our calculated decisions are better than our quick and less-thought ones. Certainly if time is no factor, there is less 'reactionary' implications for an eternal God. We don't have to attach negatives to another's understanding of God, though I certainly do with 'reckless.' Perhaps "stoic" needs the same kind of scrutiny, but again, I'm not advocating passionless. I'm simply saying that God forsees way way ahead of us. I can see how such plays into the idea of Greek philosophy and theology, regarding an impersonal God, but their observation was good as it relates to any biblical ideas: God doesn't have to be passionless, but their idea that God then has eternity to move and isn't moved by sudden impulse is correct. God is consistent. -Lon

 

[Derf]

I can appreciate your answer, but God already had time (eternity) to think what He'd do. Burnt? Doesn't have to be. With that kind of knowledge one can put on the asbestos.

I think this statement gets to the heart of the thread question.

"If God had time (eternity) to think..." only applies if there is time IN eternity. If there is, then God has lots of time to figure things out, but it comes with the consequence that God changes His mind sometimes (in eternity, perhaps, but sometimes nevertheless), which you have rejected as un-godlike.

 

[Derf]

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.

Would you feel better about a "change of heart"? A "change of direction"? Is there a limit of change that fits within what you think can "change" about God, since you said God's "changelessness" attribute is focused on His character?

I think you keep moving the goalposts, when you say God doesn't change in character, then say God can't change His mind, even though He gives instances where he does/will, depending on the actions of men.

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).

I think the "whim" characterization is wrong. God is pretty clear why He changes His mind in the cases where He does--it is based on the repentance of the subject(s), either from evil to righteousness or from righteousness to evil. This accentuates His character, rather than diminishing it. In fact, if God DIDN'T acknowledge a move from evil to righteousness with a change in His intention toward that man/nation, assuming the original intention was due to the evil, He would be changing in His character.

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.

Maybe I'm not being very clear, but I don't think I'm saying what Piper is saying. I think God changed His course in some way when He "repented", and then He said he would never change His course in some other way when he said He doesn't "repent". I don't know if I can explain what the difference is, but I will try (again). I feel the need to do this, because despite your desire to define the word "repent" differently to help God save face, it doesn't help unless you can limit your new definition to one of the two cases. Just saying "repent" means "sigh" doesn't help, because God says He "sighed" before and after He says that He never "sighs". But at least I think we are on the right path together, trying to figure out what the word "repent" means in two obviously different connotations.

My suggestion is that God could see the bad that came from Him putting Saul in charge. And before it got worse, God made a change--He decided to put David (I assume by this time David was already chosen in God's mind, but it isn't provided in scripture until the next chapter) in charge. Remember what I said about the lifetime appointment, as well as the continuation with progeny? These are two different things, only one of which was guaranteed to Saul at the beginning. God saw the evil Saul was doing in usurping Samuel's sacrificing role, and took away the possibility (it hadn't been promised yet, but God was considering it) of the progeny's forever continuation as of chapter 13 (this is significant, because I think it means God might have set Saul up to be the ancestor of Jesus). God then saw more evil in Saul's not fulfilling His commands to obliterate the Amalekites, and reduced the reigning of Saul's progeny even more (to "not at all"). There's one other event that suggests God saw one more act of evil in Saul's seeking out the witch of Endor, that resulted in Saul's life being terminated swiftly--an immediate end to Saul's and his progeny's influence on the throne of Israel.

These passages in Samuel can only be read to say that God changed His mind with Saul. Any other understanding has to come at the expense of the actual text. Whether that's right or wrong is what's up for debate here, but it is clear from the text that God was changing in His attitude toward Saul.

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.

I don't like the idea that God makes mistakes. If the future is really unknown, then God is going by the character of men to determine how they will rule. To me, the bible makes more sense if God doesn't know how individuals will continue to act, and He picks those that have good character at the time, because they are more likely to have good actions. But character changes in men. Maybe that idea can tie together all the different repent/not-repent/change-not passages--men exhibit a change in character when they repent, and God exhibits His changeless character when He repents. If that's what Piper was getting at, then I'm on board with it.

Regarding the idea that God was angry in an unrighteous way, I don't see that conclusion as necessary. But can't God decide how far He carries a matter, showing mercy by not carrying it as far as He might have? Is that not part of His character, too, not to carry justice as far as justice is allowed?

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.

I think you're saying here that God can only repent of sin, so He must not ever repent--which is not what I'm saying at all. God repents of actions that didn't work out because of men's sin.

And if God is like the unjust judge (except loving and just), then we DO win Him over. Otherwise He is not at all like the unjust judge, and the parable would have to say that the woman changed her mind and decided to accept the ill treatment.

[Luk 18:1 KJV] And he spake a parable unto them [to this end], that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;...
[Luk 18:7 KJV] And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?

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).

Such is NOT a measure of goodness or intelligence of God, unless Jesus is saying God is not good or intelligent.

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.

This assumes God does not have foreknowledge etc. Again, I have no hope or comfort at all in what can change on a whim.

Even God can't change a settled future. You seem to be relying on something God has no control over. Why not be excited over God's ability to make good things come from bad (Rom 8:28), rather than that bad things cannot change (no scripture reference found )? I don't know very well how to empathize with your experiences with your father and stepfathers, as my father, while not perfect, was pretty stable. But that doesn't allow us to say that God never changes toward us for the good just because some fathers change in a bad way. I'll reiterate that this is not on a whim. God is not blowing in the wind. If He desires that we act righteously today, He won't desire tomorrow that we sin. That would be an unallowable change in his character, which YOU said was the point of the "I change not" passage. Rather, He rewards those who diligently seek Him, meaning He will change the outcome for those that change their behavior.

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.

This might be a good topic for another thread, but rabbit-trailish here. Sorry for bringing it up.

I think a good many Open Theists believe God is 'omnicompetent' with you on this, though I believe it is tied to Arminian theology.

If we're only willing to accept what our theology allows, then our theology is more important than what God is like. If a Calvinist can't say that God knows the possibilities, then He must say God is author of evil. You can see this in AMR's posts regularly--he vacillates between saying that God can see ahead to know how we are going to act under different circumstances and saying that God knows because He causes. It's a bit of a whack-a-mole scenario.:sibbie::aimiel:

That'd have God "surprised" though, to some degree. I'm not sure how it can be both.

Only if you define "surprise" as "not knowing ahead of time". Which begs the question, doesn't it?

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.

Appreciate your thoughts here. Thank you. -Lon

Amen and amen!

 

[Lon]

I think this statement gets to the heart of the thread question.

"If God had time (eternity) to think..." only applies if there is time IN eternity. If there is, then God has lots of time to figure things out, but it comes with the consequence that God changes His mind sometimes (in eternity, perhaps, but sometimes nevertheless), which you have rejected as un-godlike.

Agree: ANY time-constrained example or explanation fails, BUT again, if a day is as a thousand years, He had a thousand years to think before emoting, "even in an Open Theist economy." It do sometimes try to argue from one's own theology. As long as I get another's theology right, it is my endeavor to try and avoid strawmen. To me, this looks true for both the Open Theist and the Calvinist, regardless. :e4e:

 

[Rosenritter]

Agree: ANY time-constrained example or explanation fails, BUT again, if a day is as a thousand years, He had a thousand years to think before emoting, "even in an Open Theist economy." It do sometimes try to argue from one's own theology. As long as I get another's theology right, it is my endeavor to try and avoid strawmen. To me, this looks true for both the Open Theist and the Calvinist, regardless. :e4e:

If I take my computer and add 1000 more processors to it, theoretically it will computer 1000 times faster. I imagine God has no shortage of computational power and can handle trillions (to name a discrete number) and unlimited (acknowledging the power of God) actions at once. I can understand "day as a thousand years" in that way as well, besides the prophetic interpretation of a day for a thousand years.

 

[Lon]

Would you feel better about a "change of heart"? A "change of direction"? Is there a limit of change that fits within what you think can "change" about God, since you said God's "changelessness" attribute is focused on His character?

I think you keep moving the goalposts, when you say God doesn't change in character, then say God can't change His mind, even though He gives instances where he does/will, depending on the actions of men.

Not 'change of heart.' Does God's love ever change? Can it be fickle? God is a jealous God, but we often think this means impetuous. I rather always believe God's attributes are always well thought out and ONLY the best reaction to anything, specifically because 1) even in Open Theism God is a 'Master Chess-player' and knows the appropriate response beforehand, unerringly (most of the time), therefore as a Master, there is no flaw to be made, He knows them all AND the appropriate countermove. 2) As far as I understand the scriptures, and agreeing with Calvinism and others: God is all-knowing. There is no room for a problem in one who literally knows all and says of Himself that He is good, and in Him no darkness dwells.

On your other point: A change of direction. I think this is true. Perhaps what you mean by 'change of mind' is 'toward the person responding.' Question: Does a parent 'change' toward their child between when they are obeying and when they are disobeying? Would I, as a parent stop loving my child if they were bullying another? How would my 'mind' change? Isn't it rather that consequences are the things that change? The love hasn't changed. You actually did, and always despised bullying, did that change? Did you, in your imagination, ever believe your child was incapable of such an act? To me, it all looks like no change EXCEPT the consequence AND perhaps how love, anger, etc is EXPRESSED to the child for the appropriate response in conjunction with those consequences. In fact, it helps a child hear: I still love you very much, but I'm very disappointed in you today. True, you WEREN'T disappointed, but that wasn't a 'change of mind' but rather what was already in reserve in you BECAUSE OF YOUR character (not yelling, just emphasizing what 'immutability' means. If you have a 'good' immutable-looking quality, then certainly immutability is a good characteristic in God too). So I'm never saying "God is cement" or "a stone" but I am saying God is our Rock.

I think the "whim" characterization is wrong. God is pretty clear why He changes His mind in the cases where He does--it is based on the repentance of the subject(s), either from evil to righteousness or from righteousness to evil. This accentuates His character, rather than diminishing it. In fact, if God DIDN'T acknowledge a move from evil to righteousness with a change in His intention toward that man/nation, assuming the original intention was due to the evil, He would be changing in His character.

Doesn't it seem, rather, to destabilize the Goodness of God? That is, doesn't it require a 'contingent' in order for God to know His mind? I realize some think it necessary for relationship, but does any of my above parenting example make sense? Do "I" have to change, or do my kids have to change regarding 'their' behavior? I may "Withhold or grant" a consequence, but I really haven't changed my mind about either one, have I? Isn't it rather that 'my child' changed? Isn't the whole goal of raising children, "their" need for change? Does a parent get into it with a need to change themselves? God less so, from my understanding.

Maybe I'm not being very clear, but I don't think I'm saying what Piper is saying. I think God changed His course in some way when He "repented", and then He said he would never change His course in some other way when he said He doesn't "repent". I don't know if I can explain what the difference is, but I will try (again). I feel the need to do this, because despite your desire to define the word "repent" differently to help God save face, it doesn't help unless you can limit your new definition to one of the two cases. Just saying "repent" means "sigh" doesn't help, because God says He "sighed" before and after He says that He never "sighs". But at least I think we are on the right path together, trying to figure out what the word "repent" means in two obviously different connotations.

Agree: Difficult passage. In one we are told "will not do" and then are told 'did it.' Do you agree it is troublesome to all theology perspectives?

My suggestion is that God could see the bad that came from Him putting Saul in charge. And before it got worse, God made a change--He decided to put David (I assume by this time David was already chosen in God's mind, but it isn't provided in scripture until the next chapter) in charge. Remember what I said about the lifetime appointment, as well as the continuation with progeny? These are two different things, only one of which was guaranteed to Saul at the beginning. God saw the evil Saul was doing in usurping Samuel's sacrificing role, and took away the possibility (it hadn't been promised yet, but God was considering it) of the progeny's forever continuation as of chapter 13 (this is significant, because I think it means God might have set Saul up to be the ancestor of Jesus). God then saw more evil in Saul's not fulfilling His commands to obliterate the Amalekites, and reduced the reigning of Saul's progeny even more (to "not at all"). There's one other event that suggests God saw one more act of evil in Saul's seeking out the witch of Endor, that resulted in Saul's life being terminated swiftly--an immediate end to Saul's and his progeny's influence on the throne of Israel.

I see problems with all explanations. I realize we gravitate toward our respective assumptions. One way I think can address this, is the word 'to sigh' carries broad meaning, therefore, in Hebrew, context drives the translation and understanding of broad Hebrew words. There are disagreements even among many in Hebrew circles at times, so it is worth noting and leaving our requests for meaning in God's hands.

That said, the first "God is not a man that He should repent," for me means "God will not make a bad decision." The second then I take to mean "God sighed that He had made Saul king." In a nutshell, it is consistent to me specifically because context drives the meaning of the translated word that can be either of these (as well as a few others).

These passages in Samuel can only be read to say that God changed His mind with Saul. Any other understanding has to come at the expense of the actual text. Whether that's right or wrong is what's up for debate here, but it is clear from the text that God was changing in His attitude toward Saul.

As with above, this logic is based on the idea that 'acham' is static for translation. Not many Hebrew words are. The language was new and so the vocabulary wasn't detailed, nothing like in English or Greek.

I don't like the idea that God makes mistakes. If the future is really unknown, then God is going by the character of men to determine how they will rule. To me, the bible makes more sense if God doesn't know how individuals will continue to act, and He picks those that have good character at the time, because they are more likely to have good actions. But character changes in men. Maybe that idea can tie together all the different repent/not-repent/change-not passages--men exhibit a change in character when they repent, and God exhibits His changeless character when He repents. If that's what Piper was getting at, then I'm on board with it.

Rather, for me to understand God as truly consistent (not to mention Omniscient demands it), God will use circumstances and men to meet His own purposes (which in turn have our best interests in mind as well). Romans 9:16,17

Regarding the idea that God was angry in an unrighteous way, I don't see that conclusion as necessary. But can't God decide how far He carries a matter, showing mercy by not carrying it as far as He might have? Is that not part of His character, too, not to carry justice as far as justice is allowed?

Yes, but let me ask: Isn't His character entirely consistent and in harmony? How could it 'get' that far that He has to 'relent' or 'repent?' Isn't His character already perfect that this wouldn't/couldn't happen? I realize 'relationship' is key to the Open Theist theology paradigms (why I'm not too upset toward them, I think they have something good in mind), but I learned and learn much better from a Master than one still learning and figuring it out as they go. The better parents are the ones that have consistent and effective parenting down. For God? I'd think perfect, thus there are none of those 'ah ha' moments that you'd have even with a very good parent. They are not omniscient, thus are not able to anticipate every eventuality. Even Open Theists believe God is at least 'omnicompetent' that no unforeseen 'oops' moments happen. There is no surprise, in other words, but this idea is held inconsistently. It is the 'circular reasoning' of Open Theism in my estimation.

I think you're saying here that God can only repent of sin, so He must not ever repent--which is not what I'm saying at all. God repents of actions that didn't work out because of men's sin.

Let me ask according to the OP: Hypothetical - God knows what happens as well as determines what happens, therefore, there is no 'change' but that which actually does take place. Some would say God then is at the mercy of 'fatalism' but this isn't true: He is at the 'mercy' of His own character. He simply doesn't wish or desire anything else. It happens exactly according to His character.

And if God is like the unjust judge (except loving and just), then we DO win Him over. Otherwise He is not at all like the unjust judge, and the parable would have to say that the woman changed her mind and decided to accept the ill treatment.

[Luk 18:1 KJV] And he spake a parable unto them [to this end], that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;...
[Luk 18:7 KJV] And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?

Let me ask, when you pray, do you say "God please do this" or do you pray "God, if it is best, I don't know, but I want to bring this to you and ask for this specifically (for myself or another person), but I don't know what is really best and I'm asking You for what is best for them (or myself). Thank You that You love them [me], even more than I do, and thank You for listening to my prayers."
I 'think' we wrestle with this specifically because 'we' have problems. I truly believe that God's will for me, is ALWAYS better than my will for me or another's. I truly believe this.

Such is NOT a measure of goodness or intelligence of God, unless Jesus is saying God is not good or intelligent.

The whole parable is that God is NOT like an unjust judge, Jesus is rather saying "Pray! God is listening!" Luke 18:1-8
Sometimes God gives us what 'we' desire but I'd suggest we'd do a lot better asking God what He wants for us most of the time.

Even God can't change a settled future.

You say this like "Even God cannot create a rock He cannot pick up." It is simply a strawman with a strawman problem that doesn't exist. I get this a lot, but I never understand it. God's character is good. Who cares if a future 'less than settled' is worse off than the 'fate' of the 'settled one?' :idunno:

Why would anybody care? Isn't that the end of all things? We are all like Him? 1 John 3:2 I've been called a robot and puppet for a long time now. I'm not really that bothered by it. It just doesn't bother me. I WANT to be like Him. 1 Corinthians 11:1 Luke 9:23 It seems to me "bring on the strings!" is an appropriate thought.

You seem to be relying on something God has no control over. Why not be excited over God's ability to make good things come from bad (Rom 8:28), rather than that bad things cannot change (no scripture reference found )? I don't know very well how to empathize with your experiences with your father and stepfathers, as my father, while not perfect, was pretty stable. But that doesn't allow us to say that God never changes toward us for the good just because some fathers change in a bad way. I'll reiterate that this is not on a whim. God is not blowing in the wind. If He desires that we act righteously today, He won't desire tomorrow that we sin. That would be an unallowable change in his character, which YOU said was the point of the "I change not" passage. Rather, He rewards those who diligently seek Him, meaning He will change the outcome for those that change their behavior.

Hopefully you see where immutable is a good characteristic from what I've said above. It is the 'dependable' character of parents, grandparents, and those adults we love[d] that give comfort, NOT some idea they can change. Why do I want a perfect loving God to change? Change to what? Isn't He ALREADY perfect? Isn't this a lack of trust in His character to do perfect and right already? Abraham asked 'will not the Lord do right?' Why? Because he was afraid the Lord was NOT doing right. A 'change of mind' was rather anthropomorphic: It was 'becoming' what Abraham already hoped God was but was afraid He was not that caused the problem in the first place. It is no bad thing to wrestle with God, but it may very well cause a hip out of socket for the effort. God isn't, imho, reluctant to bless us. If such is held back, there is a reason. I admit to having times and seasons in my life where I wonder what in the world He is doing, but those are 'my' moments of weakness. I know, beyond doubt, God knows what He is doing.

This might be a good topic for another thread, but rabbit-trailish here. Sorry for bringing it up.

Naw, I think it was good for passing comment and tied in. Thanks for asking. Moving on...

If we're only willing to accept what our theology allows, then our theology is more important than what God is like. If a Calvinist can't say that God knows the possibilities, then He must say God is author of evil. You can see this in AMR's posts regularly--he vacillates between saying that God can see ahead to know how we are going to act under different circumstances and saying that God knows because He causes. It's a bit of a whack-a-mole scenario.:sibbie::aimiel:

See, to me, same topic so not a rabbit trail persay. God Interacts with us. I think there is some credibility to 'another avenue' or 'the road not taken.' God 'can' use avenues that wind up in the exact same result for good because He works all things for good. It is my estimation that 'rocks will cry out' if we don't speak, for instance. That said, there is but one road taken, and another never taken. Does God know it? I'd at least say 'sure,' such is within foreknowledge parameters. The Arminian thinks God made choice due to man's choices, where as Calvinists believe man's choice are subject to God's guidance ala James 4:15

Only if you define "surprise" as "not knowing ahead of time". Which begs the question, doesn't it?

It does. If 'time' is always a factor when trying to talk about 'no time' then that analogy can only go so far down the road. For me? Not a problem, I'm finite moving TOWARD the infinite. Ecclesiastes 3:11 I'm just not there yet 1 John 3:2

Amen and amen!

Again, I appreciate your input and query. Those "oh I see why you hold to Open Theism (or any other theology other than our own), it helps if God and scriptures get the spotlight for it. We may not agree, but I've learned to appreciate another. There are just not very many Calvinists. It'd be a lonelier heaven without thinking that a great many outside of my specific theology aren't with me in paradise where a lot of this will either be resolved or 'just not really matter.' Both ideas bring hope.

 

[Rosenritter]

That said, the first "God is not a man that He should repent," for me means "God will not make a bad decision." The second then I take to mean "God sighed that He had made Saul king." In a nutshell, it is consistent to me specifically because context drives the meaning of the translated word that can be either of these (as well as a few others).

It seems a lot simpler to me to understand that "God is not a man that He should repent" has its intended scope for that specific action and instance. Given that other passages (even a few verses above) it did say God repented, it cannot be setting an iron-clad rule. Even if it was setting a general rule, general rules may have exceptions, but clearly this was applying to whether he would put Saul back as king, and shouldn't be construed as an iron-clad degree extending past its intended scope.

 

[Lon]

It seems a lot simpler to me to understand that "God is not a man that He should repent" has its intended scope for that specific action and instance. Given that other passages (even a few verses above) it did say God repented, it cannot be setting an iron-clad rule. Even if it was setting a general rule, general rules may have exceptions, but clearly this was applying to whether he would put Saul back as king, and shouldn't be construed as an iron-clad degree extending past its intended scope.

Disagree. Such imho is poor conceptual grasp of context. There is no qualifier for 'does not repent.' It is said, unequivocally. THEN when the next is read, context would, for me, CLEARLY mean something else. It to me, is more linguistically and contextually consistent.

 

[Rosenritter]

Disagree. Such imho is poor conceptual grasp of context. There is no qualifier for 'does not repent.' It is said, unequivocally. THEN when the next is read, context would, for me, CLEARLY mean something else. It to me, is more linguistically and contextually consistent.

If there is no context then it is a contradiction inherent in the text. God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33) and the scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35) so such cannot have been the intent. This is not a complete list, but look at all these instances involving God and repentance. Most of them state that God repents or repented, only a few say he will not repent.

The normal resolution of this language would be that the repenting has a specific scope, just like if you said "I will not leave" no one holds you to that forever for the rest of your life simply because you didn't state the obvious qualifier.

Numbers 23:19 KJV
(19) God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Jeremiah 26:13 KJV
(13) Therefore now amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the LORD your God; and the LORD will repent him of the evil that he hath pronounced against you.

Ezekiel 24:14 KJV
(14) I the LORD have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent; according to thy ways, and according to thy doings, shall they judge thee, saith the Lord GOD.

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?

Jonah 3:9-10 KJV
(9) Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?
(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.

1 Chronicles 21:15 KJV
(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.

Amos 7:2-6 KJV
(2) And it came to pass, that when they had made an end of eating the grass of the land, then I said, O Lord GOD, forgive, I beseech thee: by whom shall Jacob arise? for he is small.
(3) The LORD repented for this: It shall not be, saith the LORD.
(4) Thus hath the Lord GOD shewed unto me: and, behold, the Lord GOD called to contend by fire, and it devoured the great deep, and did eat up a part.
(5) Then said I, O Lord GOD, cease, I beseech thee: by whom shall Jacob arise? for he is small.
(6) The LORD repented for this: This also shall not be, saith the Lord GOD.

Genesis 6:5-6 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.

Exodus 32:14 KJV
(14) And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Judges 2:18 KJV
(18) And when the LORD raised them up judges, then the LORD was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented the LORD because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them.

1 Samuel 15:11 KJV
(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.

1 Samuel 15:35 KJV
(35) 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.

2 Samuel 24:16 KJV
(16) And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD was by the threshingplace of Araunah the Jebusite.

Psalms 110:4 KJV
(4) The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

Jeremiah 26:19 KJV
(19) Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him at all to death? did he not fear the LORD, and besought the LORD, and the LORD repented him of the evil which he had pronounced against them? Thus might we procure great evil against our souls.

 

[Lon]

If there is no context then it is a contradiction inherent in the text. God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33) and the scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35) so such cannot have been the intent. This is not a complete list, but look at all these instances involving God and repentance. Most of them state that God repents or repented, only a few say he will not repent.

The normal resolution of this language would be that the repenting has a specific scope, just like if you said "I will not leave" no one holds you to that forever for the rest of your life simply because you didn't state the obvious qualifier.

Numbers 23:19 KJV
(19) God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Jeremiah 26:13 KJV
(13) Therefore now amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the LORD your God; and the LORD will repent him of the evil that he hath pronounced against you.

:nono: Greatly disagree: "I will 'stop' my pronouncement against you." Not a "change of mind." It is and always will be a change of condition based on conditional action. Such is the 'child' changing his mind and actions, not God changing. Relational? Yes.

Ezekiel 24:14 KJV
(14) I the LORD have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent; according to thy ways, and according to thy doings, shall they judge thee, saith the Lord GOD.

Similarly, 'according to "thy" ways an appropriate consequence. There is no change of mind (as you also acquiesce).

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?

No difference, no change.

Jonah 3:9-10 KJV
(9) Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?
(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.

1) said in both "who knows?" 2) It is regarding consequences and the appropriate one for appropriate actions. Some of this lends to 'scale balance' theology and works based theology among many Christians and cults, but this isn't about scales and balances nor about changing what cannot change in God. It is about recognizing consequences of actions. "Perhaps" then becomes 'this may be the consequence for this change of behavior.' God changing His mind? :nono: It is about imperfect man trying to understand the perfect ways of God and the consequences and grace between imperfection and Him.

1 Chronicles 21:15 KJV
(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.

Not a change of mind: "It is enough" is a staying hand.

Amos 7:2-6 KJV
(2) And it came to pass, that when they had made an end of eating the grass of the land, then I said, O Lord GOD, forgive, I beseech thee: by whom shall Jacob arise? for he is small.
(3) The LORD repented for this: It shall not be, saith the LORD.
(4) Thus hath the Lord GOD shewed unto me: and, behold, the Lord GOD called to contend by fire, and it devoured the great deep, and did eat up a part.
(5) Then said I, O Lord GOD, cease, I beseech thee: by whom shall Jacob arise? for he is small.
(6) The LORD repented for this: This also shall not be, saith the Lord GOD.

Genesis 6:5-6 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.

Exodus 32:14 KJV
(14) And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Judges 2:18 KJV
(18) And when the LORD raised them up judges, then the LORD was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented the LORD because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them.

1 Samuel 15:11 KJV
(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.

1 Samuel 15:35 KJV
(35) 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.

2 Samuel 24:16 KJV
(16) And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD was by the threshingplace of Araunah the Jebusite.

Psalms 110:4 KJV
(4) The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

Jeremiah 26:19 KJV
(19) Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him at all to death? did he not fear the LORD, and besought the LORD, and the LORD repented him of the evil which he had pronounced against them? Thus might we procure great evil against our souls.

I believe you collect my thoughts and understanding of scriptures here without going through every one. God never does change His mind. The 'action' is changed according to our choices. Grace certainly is a change of consequence where the bulk lands upon the Lord Jesus Christ. Because God cannot change, Christ was necessary. People ask often: Why did God have to choose this way? One of the foremost answers is that God cannot change those consequence and they fell upon the Lord Jesus Christ. He took them. God planned from creation to save mankind (as far as I know theology) by removing the consequences of sin and death. That's good news for both of us, whether we agree on the rest of this :e4e: