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

[Rosenritter]

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.

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:

What choice of humanity was it that changed God's choice in the example above? Dying? It's not like they had a choice about the dying. That's an example of God changing his action in response to the effects of his own action, and if the original account is considered in context, it even stopped short of what he had promised.

1 Chronicles 21:10-12 KJV
(10) Go and tell David, saying, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things: choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee.
(11) So Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee
(12) Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel. Now therefore advise thyself what word I shall bring again to him that sent me.

David chose the punishment of three days. God stopped his own punishment short, and as the account relates, in response to the effect of the punishment itself. For all intensive purposes, it certainly looks like God promised three days punishment, had his mind set to punish for three days, and then changed his mind as he was destroying, as he beheld.

That's what the words actually say. Can anyone be faulted for believing the words he chose to give us?

 

[Lon]

That's what the words actually say. Can anyone be faulted for believing the words he chose to give us?

How selective is YOUR reading comprehension?
:think:

1Ch 21:9

　 And Jehovah spoke to Gad, David's seer, saying,　

1Ch 21:10
　 Go and speak to David, saying, So says Jehovah: I offer you three things. Choose one of them so that I may do it to you.　

1Ch 21:11
　 And Gad came to David and said to him, So says Jehovah, Choose for yourself:　

1Ch 21:12
　 either three years of famine, or three months to be swept away before your foes, while the sword of your enemies overtake you, or else three days of the sword of Jehovah, even the plague in the land, and the angel of Jehovah destroying throughout all the border of Israel. And now say what word I shall bring again to Him who sent me.　

1Ch 21:13
　 And David said to Gad, I am in great distress. Let me fall now into the hand of Jehovah, for His mercies are very great. But do not let me fall into the hand of man.　

1Ch 21:14
　 And Jehovah sent a plague on Israel. And there fell seventy thousand men of Israel.　

1Ch 21:15
　 And God sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it. And as he was destroying, Jehovah looked. And He repented of the evil and said to the angel who destroyed, Enough! Stay your hand now! And the angel of Jehovah stood by the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite.　

1Ch 21:16
　 David lifted up his eyes and saw the angel of Jehovah standing between the earth and the heavens, and his sword drawn in his hand, stretched out over Jerusalem. And David and the elders, clothed in sackcloth, fell on their faces.　

1Ch 21:17
　 And David said to God, Did not I command to number the people? I am the one who has sinned and done evil indeed. But these sheep, what have they done? I pray You, let Your hand be on me, O Jehovah my God, and on my father's house, but not on Your people, that they should be plagued.　

David Builds an Altar

1Ch 21:18
　 And the angel of Jehovah commanded Gad to say to David that David should go up and set up an altar to Jehovah in the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite.　

1Ch 21:19
　 And David went up at the word of Gad which he spoke in the name of Jehovah.　

1Ch 21:20
　 And Ornan turned back and saw the angel. And his four sons with him hid themselves. And Ornan was threshing wheat.　

1Ch 21:21
　 And David came to Ornan, Ornan looked and saw David. And he went out of the threshing-floor and bowed to David with his face to the ground.　

1Ch 21:22
　 Then David said to Ornan, Give me the place of this threshing-floor, so that I may build an altar in it to Jehovah. You shall give it to me for the full price, so that the plague may be stayed from the people.　

 

[Rosenritter]

How selective is YOUR reading comprehension?
:think:

Spoiler

1Ch 21:9

　 And Jehovah spoke to Gad, David's seer, saying,　

1Ch 21:10
　 Go and speak to David, saying, So says Jehovah: I offer you three things. Choose one of them so that I may do it to you.　

1Ch 21:11
　 And Gad came to David and said to him, So says Jehovah, Choose for yourself:　

1Ch 21:12
　 either three years of famine, or three months to be swept away before your foes, while the sword of your enemies overtake you, or else three days of the sword of Jehovah, even the plague in the land, and the angel of Jehovah destroying throughout all the border of Israel. And now say what word I shall bring again to Him who sent me.　

1Ch 21:13
　 And David said to Gad, I am in great distress. Let me fall now into the hand of Jehovah, for His mercies are very great. But do not let me fall into the hand of man.　

1Ch 21:14
　 And Jehovah sent a plague on Israel. And there fell seventy thousand men of Israel.　

1Ch 21:15
　 And God sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it. And as he was destroying, Jehovah looked. And He repented of the evil and said to the angel who destroyed, Enough! Stay your hand now! And the angel of Jehovah stood by the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite.　

1Ch 21:16
　 David lifted up his eyes and saw the angel of Jehovah standing between the earth and the heavens, and his sword drawn in his hand, stretched out over Jerusalem. And David and the elders, clothed in sackcloth, fell on their faces.　

1Ch 21:17
　 And David said to God, Did not I command to number the people? I am the one who has sinned and done evil indeed. But these sheep, what have they done? I pray You, let Your hand be on me, O Jehovah my God, and on my father's house, but not on Your people, that they should be plagued.　

David Builds an Altar

1Ch 21:18
　 And the angel of Jehovah commanded Gad to say to David that David should go up and set up an altar to Jehovah in the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite.　

1Ch 21:19
　 And David went up at the word of Gad which he spoke in the name of Jehovah.　

1Ch 21:20
　 And Ornan turned back and saw the angel. And his four sons with him hid themselves. And Ornan was threshing wheat.　

1Ch 21:21
　 And David came to Ornan, Ornan looked and saw David. And he went out of the threshing-floor and bowed to David with his face to the ground.　

1Ch 21:22
　 Then David said to Ornan, Give me the place of this threshing-floor, so that I may build an altar in it to Jehovah. You shall give it to me for the full price, so that the plague may be stayed from the people.　

Unless you can prove that the verses are not chronologically ordered, God first chose to stay the hand of the angel in reaction to his own destroying, and then David's actions followed. The actions that God gave to David (and his obedience) followed God's decision and change of action that he had already initiated.

By David's word to Ornan in verse 22, we may infer that David believed that the stay of the angel (the continued stay) was dependent upon his obedience in this manner, but the account literally tells us that God changed his action first, then demanded David's compliance. Again, if I am to be faulted, it is for believing that passage as it is written.

 

[Lon]

Unless you can prove that the verses are not chronologically ordered, God first chose to stay the hand of the angel in reaction to his own destroying, and then David's actions followed. The actions that God gave to David (and his obedience) followed God's decision and change of action that he had already initiated.

By David's word to Ornan in verse 22, we may infer that David believed that the stay of the angel (the continued stay) was dependent upon his obedience in this manner, but the account literally tells us that God changed his action first, then demanded David's compliance. Again, if I am to be faulted, it is for believing that passage as it is written.

It doesn't have to be proved. Often Hebrew conveyance is exactly that. Provable? Whatever 'hunch' we follow should be consistent. As I've said, I do believe that my understanding is consistent as well as standard (what most Christians who have read their bible or at least this portion believe).

While I don't try to hold to majority over anybody in these conversations, specifically because OV is not, I do think it ever important to read what most people believe and think for the following reasons 1) 2 Peter 1:20 (scripture no less than prophecy) 2) Galatians 6:6 (Galatians 2:2-6 contextually) 3) Romans 12:5 4) Matt Slick represents the Omniscient view in regard to this scripture to a point. I think Matt also, should read the rest of these scriptures with you and I, however.

Clearly David did intercede. You ask how I know the verses aren't chronological? For me, easy: The destruction had already stopped. Why is that essential? Between 1 Chronicles 21:15 and 16, the action stopped. There is every reason to at least entertain Hebrew form in describing this story giving an overview, then giving details.

 

[Rosenritter]

It doesn't have to be proved. Often Hebrew conveyance is exactly that. Provable? Whatever 'hunch' we follow should be consistent. As I've said, I do believe that my understanding is consistent as well as standard (what most Christians who have read their bible or at least this portion believe).

While I don't try to hold to majority over anybody in these conversations, specifically because OV is not, I do think it ever important to read what most people believe and think for the following reasons 1) 2 Peter 1:20 (scripture no less than prophecy) 2) Galatians 6:6 (Galatians 2:2-6 contextually) 3) Romans 12:5 4) Matt Slick represents the Omniscient view in regard to this scripture to a point. I think Matt also, should read the rest of these scriptures with you and I, however.

Clearly David did intercede. You ask how I know the verses aren't chronological? For me, easy: The destruction had already stopped. Why is that essential? Between 1 Chronicles 21:15 and 16, the action stopped. There is every reason to at least entertain Hebrew form in describing this story giving an overview, then giving details.

Just summarizing this, the straightforward reading (assuming it is normally and chronologically written) did say that God ceased destroying in reaction to the effect, and then ordered David to make a sacrifice. You said this straight-forward reading was "selective reading."

In its place, you say that you can follow a hunch that you don't have to prove, that the passage must be given out of order. Lon, I'm reading this passage carefully for any sort of discrepancy that might allow that type of wiggle room but I'm not seeing anything there for you. I could easily draw this out on a story-board step by step and it would flow perfectly.

David did not intercede, that is not how the account tells us it happened. He did what he was told because the Lord Himself was interceding, and I have little doubt that had David not obeyed that God would have told the angel to finish its course... but as portrayed by that passage as written, the Lord stopped before anyone (other than the angel) did anything at all... except for the people who died, of course. Does dying count?

 

[Lon]

Just summarizing this, the straightforward reading (assuming it is normally and chronologically written) did say that God ceased destroying in reaction to the effect, and then ordered David to make a sacrifice. You said this straight-forward reading was "selective reading."

In its place, you say that you can follow a hunch that you don't have to prove, that the passage must be given out of order. Lon, I'm reading this passage carefully for any sort of discrepancy that might allow that type of wiggle room but I'm not seeing anything there for you. I could easily draw this out on a story-board step by step and it would flow perfectly.

...AND I can do so, even using Genesis 1,2 as an exact model. Sorry, you really have to KNOW (fact) that Hebrew writing does this OFTEN. There is no " :nono: " that would work. It is just special pleading. Now for me to prove it? I can show such and as I stated, Matt Slick does this as well so it isn't just me.

David did not intercede, that is not how the account tells us it happened.

Disagree:

:think:

1Ch 21:17
　 And David said to God, Did not I command to number the people? I am the one who has sinned and done evil indeed. But these sheep, what have they done? I pray You, let Your hand be on me, O Jehovah my God, and on my father's house, but not on Your people, that they should be plagued.　


1Ch 21:22
　 Then David said to Ornan, Give me the place of this threshing-floor, so that I may build an altar in it to Jehovah. You shall give it to me for the full price, so that the plague may be stayed from the people.　

He did what he was told because the Lord Himself was interceding, and I have little doubt that had David not obeyed that God would have told the angel to finish its course... but as portrayed by that passage as written, the Lord stopped before anyone (other than the angel) did anything at all... except for the people who died, of course. Does dying count?

A little confusing. To me, it seems your first statement "...had David not obeyed...God would have told the angel to finish [his/her] course...." acquiesces the whole point I was trying to make about the order. :idunno:

 

[Rosenritter]

...AND I can do so, even using Genesis 1,2 as an exact model. Sorry, you really have to KNOW (fact) that Hebrew writing does this OFTEN. There is no " :nono: " that would work. It is just special pleading. Now for me to prove it? I can show such and as I stated, Matt Slick does this as well so it isn't just me.

Disagree:

A little confusing. To me, it seems your first statement "...had David not obeyed...God would have told the angel to finish [his/her] course...." acquiesces the whole point I was trying to make about the order. :idunno:

There's an important difference here Lon. The mathematical certainty of the creation order and defined events dictate the interweave of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. The only thing dictating an non-chronological order is your own idea that we were challenging with this process, and there's no hints or clues in the text to support it otherwise.

And the literal straight-forward chronological reading works perfectly well in 1 Chronicles 21, unlike the Genesis 1 & 2 combo.

 

[Lon]

There's an important difference here Lon. The mathematical certainty of the creation order and defined events dictate the interweave of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. The only thing dictating an non-chronological order is your own idea that we were challenging with this process, and there's no hints or clues in the text to support it otherwise.

Disagree. I already gave them. Rosen. I really like you so I say this with all charity I can muster: Sometimes you are a hard-head. I've already given the idea with substantiation (verses) why.

And the literal straight-forward chronological reading works perfectly well in 1 Chronicles 21, unlike the Genesis 1 & 2 combo.

Disagree. The angel was already there, holding a sword. David saw and pleaded. THAT is the order. I DO see your thoughts on the matter and give them credence. The ONLY interpretation viable? :nono: John Piper Benson and of course others. Not just what we want to believe, but what scripture may indeed be saying to us. I'm not so invested in traditional theology that I cannot be moved, but I tend to notice when another is getting vested.

 

[Rosenritter]

Disagree. I already gave them. Rosen. I really like you so I say this with all charity I can muster: Sometimes you are a hard-head. I've already given the idea with substantiation (verses) why.


Disagree. The angel was already there, holding a sword. David saw and pleaded. THAT is the order. I DO see your thoughts on the matter and give them credence. The ONLY interpretation viable? :nono: John Piper Benson and of course others. Not just what we want to believe, but what scripture may indeed be saying to us. I'm not so invested in traditional theology that I cannot be moved, but I tend to notice when another is getting vested.

I could animate that passage with storyboards drawn from that precise order that scripture provides and there would be no contradiction.

 

[Derf]

: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.

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

No difference, no change.

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



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:

I think There are at least some of these cases that are talking about God's future actions (or events under God's supervision). If there is a future action of one type, which is replaced by a future action of the opposite type, it indicates a change of God's intentions in that particular, limited scope.

My favorite example is Hezekiah's illness. Isaiah prophesied that Hezekiah would die of the illness. This is a future action of God, imo, and God is telling Hezekiah what is going to happen to him.

2 Kings 20:1. ..."This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover."

and
2 Kings 20:4. Before Isaiah had left the middle courtyard, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, 5“Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of My people, ‘This is what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer; I have seen your tears. I will surely heal you.

Both of these statements are future events. If God is at one time revealing what He will do (or will allow to happen) to Hezekiah IN THE FUTURE, and then tells him He will do the opposite (or allow the opposite to happen), God has either changed His mind about the doing (allowing) or He lied to Hezekiah.

The only way for this not to be a lie is for God to have decided on a different FUTURE. Thus the first future (Hezekiah will die) was not cast in concrete in God's mind, which allowed the second future (Hezekiah will not die) to come to pass. God didn't repent of something He had promised, only something that at the time was the intention--the "future" changed. And both "futures" were expressed as God's intention.

This idea of repenting of future intentions can apply equally to Saul's losing of the kingdom and David's gaining it. God's original intention was that Saul would keep the kingdom, but it wasn't cast in concrete. Thus, it could be "repented" of without violating the "I will not repent" clause, since it wasn't guaranteed by any promise of God--it was conditional.

Now, if either of these cases can be shown to be conditional on the behavior of the king, and both outcomes are possible (i.e., God didn't decide before the foundation of the world what would be the outcome), then God can "repent" and "not repent" and maintain His character as described in Jeremiah 18. Jer 18 gives us not just the character of God, that repentance of the people is more important than just fulfilling prophecy (the "relational" component you've mentioned before), but it also gives us the PURPOSE of God, the one that DOESN'T change--He wants those people He has relationship with to be righteous and to seek Him.

Maybe I can tie this thought back into the stopping of the plague by suggesting God had multiple purposes--one to justly punish a wrong and one to establish the means of mercy (or at least a picture of it) in the placement of the temple, and who knows how many other purposes. If the (possibly temporary) halting of the destroying angel were not recognized by David as an invitation to express his repentance for numbering the people, perhaps there was a back-up plan to continue the plague closer to David's home and heart, while still accomplishing the temple site selection in some way. But both justice and mercy are being exhibited here.

 

[Lon]

I think There are at least some of these cases that are talking about God's future actions (or events under God's supervision). If there is a future action of one type, which is replaced by a future action of the opposite type, it indicates a change of God's intentions in that particular, limited scope.

My favorite example is Hezekiah's illness. Isaiah prophesied that Hezekiah would die of the illness. This is a future action of God, imo, and God is telling Hezekiah what is going to happen to him.

2 Kings 20:1. ..."This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover."

and
2 Kings 20:4. Before Isaiah had left the middle courtyard, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, 5“Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of My people, ‘This is what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer; I have seen your tears. I will surely heal you.

Both of these statements are future events. If God is at one time revealing what He will do (or will allow to happen) to Hezekiah IN THE FUTURE, and then tells him He will do the opposite (or allow the opposite to happen), God has either changed His mind about the doing (allowing) or He lied to Hezekiah.

The only way for this not to be a lie is for God to have decided on a different FUTURE. Thus the first future (Hezekiah will die) was not cast in concrete in God's mind, which allowed the second future (Hezekiah will not die) to come to pass. God didn't repent of something He had promised, only something that at the time was the intention--the "future" changed. And both "futures" were expressed as God's intention.

This idea of repenting of future intentions can apply equally to Saul's losing of the kingdom and David's gaining it. God's original intention was that Saul would keep the kingdom, but it wasn't cast in concrete. Thus, it could be "repented" of without violating the "I will not repent" clause, since it wasn't guaranteed by any promise of God--it was conditional.

Now, if either of these cases can be shown to be conditional on the behavior of the king, and both outcomes are possible (i.e., God didn't decide before the foundation of the world what would be the outcome), then God can "repent" and "not repent" and maintain His character as described in Jeremiah 18. Jer 18 gives us not just the character of God, that repentance of the people is more important than just fulfilling prophecy (the "relational" component you've mentioned before), but it also gives us the PURPOSE of God, the one that DOESN'T change--He wants those people He has relationship with to be righteous and to seek Him.

Maybe I can tie this thought back into the stopping of the plague by suggesting God had multiple purposes--one to justly punish a wrong and one to establish the means of mercy (or at least a picture of it) in the placement of the temple, and who knows how many other purposes. If the (possibly temporary) halting of the destroying angel were not recognized by David as an invitation to express his repentance for numbering the people, perhaps there was a back-up plan to continue the plague closer to David's home and heart, while still accomplishing the temple site selection in some way. But both justice and mercy are being exhibited here.

While dying is certainly in God's hands James 4:15, however, this is not a story or instance of a 'change of mind.' It is rather a story of a request. One thing was going to happen. Did God change His mind? How can this but be read 'into' the story? It is a deduction. A way 'you' understand the text but not a necessity 'of' the text. It is clearly an assumption. Is it a 'bad' assumption? No, but we have to test all of our thoughts and lift them up for inspection to others. For this, I simply ask 'what makes you believe so?' It helps you (I hope) to see what is substantiated and what is a bit of our presuppositions. For me, TOL, though tough at times, is best about causing us to look at ourselves and what we read from and into scriptures. Iron sharpening iron is of great service to one another :e4e:

 

[Rosenritter]

While dying is certainly in God's hands James 4:15, however, this is not a story or instance of a 'change of mind.' It is rather a story of a request. One thing was going to happen. Did God change His mind? How can this but be read 'into' the story? It is a deduction. A way 'you' understand the text but not a necessity 'of' the text. It is clearly an assumption. Is it a 'bad' assumption? No, but we have to test all of our thoughts and lift them up for inspection to others. For this, I simply ask 'what makes you believe so?' It helps you (I hope) to see what is substantiated and what is a bit of our presuppositions. For me, TOL, though tough at times, is best about causing us to look at ourselves and what we read from and into scriptures. Iron sharpening iron is of great service to one another :e4e:

I think the natural way that most people would read that is that God changed his mind in reaction to repentance... not that God already knew he was going to repent and had to use a threat to make the decree of repentance efficacious. If we allow that God wrote the passage in the first place, do we allow that he can communicate in such a way that it naturally reads the way he meant it to be understood? It is a great comfort to know that we have a God that actually hears our prayers who is willing to be be moved to mercy.

 

[Derf]

While dying is certainly in God's hands James 4:15, however, this is not a story or instance of a 'change of mind.' It is rather a story of a request. One thing was going to happen. Did God change His mind? How can this but be read 'into' the story? It is a deduction. A way 'you' understand the text but not a necessity 'of' the text. It is clearly an assumption. Is it a 'bad' assumption? No, but we have to test all of our thoughts and lift them up for inspection to others. For this, I simply ask 'what makes you believe so?' It helps you (I hope) to see what is substantiated and what is a bit of our presuppositions. For me, TOL, though tough at times, is best about causing us to look at ourselves and what we read from and into scriptures. Iron sharpening iron is of great service to one another :e4e:

I need your help here, Lon. What was my assumption?

 

[Lon]

I think the natural way that most people would read that is that God changed his mind in reaction to repentance... not that God already knew he was going to repent and had to use a threat to make the decree of repentance efficacious. If we allow that God wrote the passage in the first place, do we allow that he can communicate in such a way that it naturally reads the way he meant it to be understood? It is a great comfort to know that we have a God that actually hears our prayers who is willing to be be moved to mercy.

:nono: In fact 'most' people do no believe that but hold to classic,traditional (orthodox) theology on this position. The very phrase "God changed His mind" is 1) not in ANY of our bibles 2) a colloquialism, recent, that doesn't belong in bible interpretation, let alone the Bible 3) a 'sloppy' and confusing terminology for what we do see in scripture and 4) not what 'most' of us believe is legitimate interpretation (deduction, not induction) from scripture. While I very much appreciate you and believe you have a good head on your shoulders, it is a hard sell with 'most' in the description. "Most" in fact, do disagree with you and did not come 'naturally' by such an interpretation. :e4e:

 

[Lon]

I need your help here, Lon. What was my assumption?

You are assuming 1) that God was causing Hezekiah's death. That isn't in the passage. Rather, it is a report: "Your time is up." In other words, the message wasn't "I am going to take your life and take you home, get your house in order.' Though it is certainly true and I agree that such is all within God's hands, it isn't what was said in the passage. Rather "your time is up" is the general communication. THAT God CAN change, but it doesn't require nor need a 'change of mind.' That is being read into the passage and is the assumption.

Help:
1) Thank you for asking, I'm in the same boat. We all have to have our ideas about scripture scrutinized by people we love and trust specifically to see what we may be reading into the passage, rather than from it.
2) I still read 'into' and take 'from' a passage things that aren't there, but I've learned to run my ideas by other people (as you are doing here) whenever I'm of a different opinion/interpretation over a passage. To me, you are helping your self more than I am by allowing such and asking for it. :up:
3) Lift up your ideas. Sometimes, like you, I have an idea from scripture that is not Orthodox or orthodox. It doesn't necessitate what I believe is wrong, but I'm very careful whenever I talk about such things and I lift them up constantly for inspection.

Example: I, unlike most orthodox, believe Hebrews is not written to gentiles and that the dangers listed therein do not apply to us except where it complements Galatians in scope. Because most believe Hebrews carries over more directly to gentiles than I do, I always do like you are doing here: lift up my assumptions that I believe are described in Hebrews and cause my interpretation, and then carefully let others inspect my conclusions and give me feedback and/or counterpoints from a more traditional view. On TOL, not everybody respects orthodox traditional views, but I know they weren't spun on a dime and took long hours in councils to hammer out beliefs. If someone could, for instance, summarize some of our threads in a meaningful way, I think in and of themselves, they carry a lot of weight that we have to respect and give sufficient feedback. :e4e: -Lon

 

[Rosenritter]

:nono: In fact 'most' people do no believe that but hold to classic,traditional (orthodox) theology on this position. The very phrase "God changed His mind" is 1) not in ANY of our bibles 2) a colloquialism, recent, that doesn't belong in bible interpretation, let alone the Bible 3) a 'sloppy' and confusing terminology for what we do see in scripture and 4) not what 'most' of us believe is legitimate interpretation (deduction, not induction) from scripture. While I very much appreciate you and believe you have a good head on your shoulders, it is a hard sell with 'most' in the description. "Most" in fact, do disagree with you and did not come 'naturally' by such an interpretation. :e4e:

I know I just posted this, but it also seems applicable here as well:

Jeremiah 18:7-10 KJV
(7) At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
(8) 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.
(9) And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
(10) 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.

I contend that more people than not would read that passage and conclude that God is willing to change his mind as to his pronouncement, that condition being the repentance or turn to evil of his subject.

 

[Derf]

You are assuming 1) that God was causing Hezekiah's death. That isn't in the passage. Rather, it is a report: "Your time is up." In other words, the message wasn't "I am going to take your life and take you home, get your house in order.' Though it is certainly true and I agree that such is all within God's hands, it isn't what was said in the passage. Rather "your time is up" is the general communication. THAT God CAN change, but it doesn't require nor need a 'change of mind.' That is being read into the passage and is the assumption.

I thought about that when I wrote my post. I appreciate that you caught it, too. Here's where I have a hard time talking with settled theists, and especially Calvinists. I think they (you, too, perhaps?) tend to think of everything future as either 1) already settled, and therefore God knows what will happen, or 2) God's sovereignty makes sure everything future will happen as He plan/purposed. And they often go back and forth between those two cases. So I'll respond to both of them, hopefully handling them consistently. I hope you realize that the two are incompatible with each other, except in the special case of #1 where God knows everything because He purposed it from the beginning, in which case the first dissolves into the second.

Case 1) God knows what's going to happen because it is settled. You have chosen this case in your response to me, so please read it carefully.
We touched on this earlier in this thread (I think--or another one like it). The assumption here is that all future things are settled, and that's how God knows what's going to happen. If anything happens that is different from what God told us would happen, then God must have been either guessing (and got it wrong) betraying His lack of omniscience, or the future wasn't settled to begin with. There's another option that God knew the actual future event, but told Hezekiah what He knew was wrong. This is a lie, and God's character makes this untenable.

God told Hezekiah that he would die of his illness (the cause is not at issue, because we're talking about the future of Hezekiah, not who controls his future).
Hezekiah did NOT die of his illness, but recovered.
Thus one of the two things about must be true:
a. God is NOT omniscient.
b. The future isn't settled.
(c. there is a third option--that God knew Hezekiah would recover, but told Hezekiah a falsehood. I reject this possibility in light of God's righteousness. I hope you agree with me.)

Case 2) God knows what is going to happen because He planned it.
In this case God is telling Hezekiah what He has already planned. If a different thing happens than what God planned, then
a. God is not powerful enough to achieve His plans (not omnipotent)
b. God's plans changed
(c. there is a third option--that God planned for Hezekiah to recover, but told Hezekiah a falsehood. I reject this possibility in light of God's righteousness. I hope you agree with me.)

Most reformed folks choose 2.c. But I think it is untenable. Even if we say that God may at some times tell us something that is not true in order to get us to do the right thing, it still is a lie, perhaps with a righteous purpose. And if God needs to lie to us to get us to achieve His purpose, it is a ding against BOTH His character AND His power.

If you disagree with any of the above, please spell it out for me--what I got wrong and why.

Help:
1) Thank you for asking, I'm in the same boat. We all have to have our ideas about scripture scrutinized by people we love and trust specifically to see what we may be reading into the passage, rather than from it.
2) I still read 'into' and take 'from' a passage things that aren't there, but I've learned to run my ideas by other people (as you are doing here) whenever I'm of a different opinion/interpretation over a passage. To me, you are helping your self more than I am by allowing such and asking for it. :up:
3) Lift up your ideas. Sometimes, like you, I have an idea from scripture that is not Orthodox or orthodox. It doesn't necessitate what I believe is wrong, but I'm very careful whenever I talk about such things and I lift them up constantly for inspection.

Example: I, unlike most orthodox, believe Hebrews is not written to gentiles and that the dangers listed therein do not apply to us except where it complements Galatians in scope. Because most believe Hebrews carries over more directly to gentiles than I do, I always do like you are doing here: lift up my assumptions that I believe are described in Hebrews and cause my interpretation, and then carefully let others inspect my conclusions and give me feedback and/or counterpoints from a more traditional view. On TOL, not everybody respects orthodox traditional views, but I know they weren't spun on a dime and took long hours in councils to hammer out beliefs. If someone could, for instance, summarize some of our threads in a meaningful way, I think in and of themselves, they carry a lot of weight that we have to respect and give sufficient feedback. :e4e: -Lon

I appreciate this. And the reason I have been on TOL for these two or three years is because I want to make sure I get some reasoned iron to sharpen against, as I deviate from orthodoxy.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I thought about that when I wrote my post. I appreciate that you caught it, too. Here's where I have a hard time talking with settled theists, and especially Calvinists. I think they (you, too, perhaps?) tend to think of everything future as either 1) already settled, and therefore God knows what will happen, or 2) God's sovereignty makes sure everything future will happen as He plan/purposed. And they often go back and forth between those two cases. So I'll respond to both of them, hopefully handling them consistently. I hope you realize that the two are incompatible with each other, except in the special case of #1 where God knows everything because He purposed it from the beginning, in which case the first dissolves into the second.

Case 1) God knows what's going to happen because it is settled. You have chosen this case in your response to me, so please read it carefully.
We touched on this earlier in this thread (I think--or another one like it). The assumption here is that all future things are settled, and that's how God knows what's going to happen. If anything happens that is different from what God told us would happen, then God must have been either guessing (and got it wrong) betraying His lack of omniscience, or the future wasn't settled to begin with. There's another option that God knew the actual future event, but told Hezekiah what He knew was wrong. This is a lie, and God's character makes this untenable.

God told Hezekiah that he would die of his illness (the cause is not at issue, because we're talking about the future of Hezekiah, not who controls his future).
Hezekiah did NOT die of his illness, but recovered.
Thus one of the two things about must be true:
a. God is NOT omniscient.
b. The future isn't settled.
(c. there is a third option--that God knew Hezekiah would recover, but told Hezekiah a falsehood. I reject this possibility in light of God's righteousness. I hope you agree with me.)

Case 2) God knows what is going to happen because He planned it.
In this case God is telling Hezekiah what He has already planned. If a different thing happens than what God planned, then
a. God is not powerful enough to achieve His plans (not omnipotent)
b. God's plans changed
(c. there is a third option--that God planned for Hezekiah to recover, but told Hezekiah a falsehood. I reject this possibility in light of God's righteousness. I hope you agree with me.)

Most reformed folks choose 2.c. But I think it is untenable. Even if we say that God may at some times tell us something that is not true in order to get us to do the right thing, it still is a lie, perhaps with a righteous purpose. And if God needs to lie to us to get us to achieve His purpose, it is a ding against BOTH His character AND His power.

If you disagree with any of the above, please spell it out for me--what I got wrong and why.

I appreciate this. And the reason I have been on TOL for these two or three years is because I want to make sure I get some reasoned iron to sharpen against, as I deviate from orthodoxy.

Excellent post! :thumb:

 

[Lon]

I thought about that when I wrote my post. I appreciate that you caught it, too. Here's where I have a hard time talking with settled theists, and especially Calvinists. I think they (you, too, perhaps?) tend to think of everything future as either 1) already settled, and therefore God knows what will happen, or 2) God's sovereignty makes sure everything future will happen as He plan/purposed. And they often go back and forth between those two cases. So I'll respond to both of them, hopefully handling them consistently. I hope you realize that the two are incompatible with each other, except in the special case of #1 where God knows everything because He purposed it from the beginning, in which case the first dissolves into the second.

Case 1) God knows what's going to happen because it is settled. You have chosen this case in your response to me, so please read it carefully.
We touched on this earlier in this thread (I think--or another one like it). The assumption here is that all future things are settled, and that's how God knows what's going to happen. If anything happens that is different from what God told us would happen, then God must have been either guessing (and got it wrong) betraying His lack of omniscience, or the future wasn't settled to begin with. There's another option that God knew the actual future event, but told Hezekiah what He knew was wrong. This is a lie, and God's character makes this untenable.

God told Hezekiah that he would die of his illness (the cause is not at issue, because we're talking about the future of Hezekiah, not who controls his future).
Hezekiah did NOT die of his illness, but recovered.
Thus one of the two things about must be true:
a. God is NOT omniscient.
b. The future isn't settled.
(c. there is a third option--that God knew Hezekiah would recover, but told Hezekiah a falsehood. I reject this possibility in light of God's righteousness. I hope you agree with me.)

d.? God told Hezekiah he would die. We both (I assume) agree Hezekiah, at the time of the message was indeed going to die.

You may well ask why God would say something, already knowing the outcome and already knowing with certainty in omniscience, Hezekiah's response and request. This is an assumption, however. That is, it 'looks' like a lie from your standpoint because it is the only way you can entertain the idea. This, however, is not how I, as a Calvinist, understand the passage. Rather, I believe God goes through events with us AND interacts with us to appropriate the outcome He desires. Feel manipulated? Love does exactly this. It isn't trying to harm another, it is trying to 'help' another. Hezekiah NEEDED God's help and intervention. Hezekiah was not seeking God and thus his life choices came with consequences. God, in grace, interacted with Hezekiah. Why do it? Why DID God interact with Hezekiah? To affect a change, yes? In God? :nono: In Hezekiah. This, in a nutshell is the problem I have with Open Theism. It assumes God needs to change, not Hezekiah. A 'changing' God is not by any necessity a relational God, and seems to me, the opposite. I rather appreciate a God who knows what He is doing and is in control at all times rather than having any comfort whatsoever in a God who is on a whim. Moreover, scripture (to me) seems to agree with me on many occasions: Matthew 5:48 Galatians 6:3 Jeremiah 1:4,5 Psalm 139:15-16

Case 2) God knows what is going to happen because He planned it.
In this case God is telling Hezekiah what He has already planned. If a different thing happens than what God planned, then
a. God is not powerful enough to achieve His plans (not omnipotent)
b. God's plans changed
(c. there is a third option--that God planned for Hezekiah to recover, but told Hezekiah a falsehood. I reject this possibility in light of God's righteousness. I hope you agree with me.)

Truth unfolds with circumstance. There is no 'lie' to tell someone that something is going to happen. I tell my wife: "That pot is going to boil over." The pot does not boil over. Did I lie? :nono: My interaction was necessary for the pot to not boil over and it surely would have. God interacts with us, to change us. It is strange to me that anyone could take comfort from 'changing God's mind.' He frankly doesn't need fallible and finite you or your (and my) tiny shallow opinion. When I interacted with my children, it was not at all to have my two year old 'change my mind' and he'd have no comfort from a double-minded father. James 1:8 The problem with a God who 'changes His mind' IS double-mindedness. You cannot fix perfect, perfect love, perfect care, perfect concern. The idea that you can assumes a God who is not 'the best' and needs someone's help.

Don't believe me? Let's look at what I'm seeing from your Open Theist view of Hezekiah: You believe God didn't do the best thing and that intervention was needed else God would have done something 'not good' prior to Hezekiah's request. To me? Not a reasonable expectation and it indeed puts man in the driver-seat far too often in other scripture interpretation as well.

Most reformed folks choose 2.c. But I think it is untenable. Even if we say that God may at some times tell us something that is not true in order to get us to do the right thing, it still is a lie, perhaps with a righteous purpose. And if God needs to lie to us to get us to achieve His purpose, it is a ding against BOTH His character AND His power.

:nono: Rather it is a time-constrained truth. Barring intervention, Hezekiah would indeed have died.

Another instance is 1 Samuel 23:12. David was never turned over to Saul. God's truth was conditional. The same is true with Hezekiah. Follow my reasoning for a second: If Hezekiah would not have asked God for extended life, would he have died? "Yes" I assume. Then how could it possibly have been a lie? Such is rather Open Theism reasoning and imho, always a false if/then statement. A 'lie' is assumed and thus is its own confirmation, in the Open Theist mind, that the outcome is therefore supportive of an Open Theism premise. :nono: I disagree. It is like a self-fulfilling prophecy, it is confirmation bias. Do we all do it? Yes, to a degree because only God is and can actuate any truth. You and I are incapable of actuating or substantiating any truth. Why? Because it is a forced position and can only be done by the One who can change minds rather than His own.

If you disagree with any of the above, please spell it out for me--what I got wrong and why.

Thank you for asking, also.

I appreciate this. And the reason I have been on TOL for these two or three years is because I want to make sure I get some reasoned iron to sharpen against, as I deviate from orthodoxy.

Conversely, I find a good half or so of Open Theists that are respectful and truly interested in looking at orthodox answers and having their own ideas scrutinized and challenged. I appreciate having my theology ironed as well.

 

[JudgeRightly]

d.? God told Hezekiah he would die. We both (I assume) agree Hezekiah, at the time of the message was indeed going to die.

You may well ask why God would say something, already knowing the outcome and already knowing with certainty in omniscience, Hezekiah's response and request. This is an assumption, however. That is, it 'looks' like a lie from your standpoint because it is the only way you can entertain the idea. This, however, is not how I, as a Calvinist, understand the passage. Rather, I believe God goes through events with us AND interacts with us to appropriate the outcome He desires. Feel manipulated? Love does exactly this. It isn't trying to harm another, it is trying to 'help' another. Hezekiah NEEDED God's help and intervention. Hezekiah was not seeking God and thus his life choices came with consequences.

Um, wasn't Hezekiah one of the more righteous kings before this encounter with God, and then become wicked after?

God, in grace, interacted with Hezekiah. Why do it? Why DID God interact with Hezekiah? To affect a change, yes? In God? :nono: In Hezekiah. This, in a nutshell is the problem I have with Open Theism. It assumes God needs to change, not Hezekiah. A 'changing' God is not by any necessity a relational God, and seems to me, the opposite. I rather appreciate a God who knows what He is doing and is in control at all times rather than having any comfort whatsoever in a God who is on a whim. Moreover, scripture (to me) seems to agree with me on many occasions: Matthew 5:48 Galatians 6:3 Jeremiah 1:4,5 Psalm 139:15-16




Truth unfolds with circumstance. There is no 'lie' to tell someone that something is going to happen. I tell my wife: "That pot is going to boil over." The pot does not boil over. Did I lie? :nono: My interaction was necessary for the pot to not boil over and it surely would have. God interacts with us, to change us. It is strange to me that anyone could take comfort from 'changing God's mind.' He frankly doesn't need fallible and finite you or your (and my) tiny shallow opinion. When I interacted with my children, it was not at all to have my two year old 'change my mind' and he'd have no comfort from a double-minded father. James 1:8 The problem with a God who 'changes His mind' IS double-mindedness. You cannot fix perfect, perfect love, perfect care, perfect concern. The idea that you can assumes a God who is not 'the best' and needs someone's help.

Don't believe me? Let's look at what I'm seeing from your Open Theist view of Hezekiah: You believe God didn't do the best thing and that intervention was needed else God would have done something 'not good' prior to Hezekiah's request. To me? Not a reasonable expectation and it indeed puts man in the driver-seat far too often in other scripture interpretation as well.


:nono: Rather it is a time-constrained truth. Barring intervention, Hezekiah would indeed have died.

Another instance is 1 Samuel 23:12. David was never turned over to Saul. God's truth was conditional. The same is true with Hezekiah. Follow my reasoning for a second: If Hezekiah would not have asked God for extended life, would he have died? "Yes" I assume. Then how could it possibly have been a lie? Such is rather Open Theism reasoning and imho, always a false if/then statement. A 'lie' is assumed and thus is its own confirmation, in the Open Theist mind, that the outcome is therefore supportive of an Open Theism premise. :nono: I disagree. It is like a self-fulfilling prophecy, it is confirmation bias. Do we all do it? Yes, to a degree because only God is and can actuate any truth. You and I are incapable of actuating or substantiating any truth. Why? Because it is a forced position and can only be done by the One who can change minds rather than His own.

Thank you for asking, also.



Conversely, I find a good half or so of Open Theists that are respectful and truly interested in looking at orthodox answers and having their own ideas scrutinized and challenged. I appreciate having my theology ironed as well.