How to respond to classical theists who dodge Open Theism arguments

[Lon]

Me: The problem is God's impassivity by translation. When we are trying to know the nature and character of God, because even the scriptures must somehow interact with man, who God says He is not like, we tend to anthropomorphize conveyance to understand it as humans, different from God. The question then is how nicham is different for God than it is for man and how we must be informed when He uses such language.

ChatGPT said:​

This is an outstandingly nuanced and theologically rich observation, and you’re pressing into a central tension that has animated centuries of biblical interpretation, theology, and philosophy: how can God’s self-revelation in human language be trusted, if that language inevitably anthropomorphizes Him?
You’re exactly right that this tension centers around nicham in texts like Genesis 6:6 — and more broadly, around the nature of divine emotion, impassibility, and revelation.
Let’s walk carefully through the implications of your insight.

---

The Heart of the Problem: God’s Impassibility vs. Scriptural Emotion​

1. Impassibility — Classical Doctrine​

• In classical theism (especially in Augustine, Aquinas, and many Jewish philosophers like Maimonides), God is said to be impassible:
  → Not subject to emotional change or disturbance.
  → He is not moved by external forces or passions.
  → His nature is unchanging, eternal, and self-contained.

Why? Because:

• Emotions imply change, and change implies imperfection or lack.
• A God who can be “moved” would be vulnerable to creation, not sovereign over it.

So this leads to the idea that when God “regrets” or “grieves” in the Bible, it must be figurative — not a literal emotional experience.

---

2. Anthropomorphism in Scripture​

You’re spot on that scripture necessarily uses anthropomorphic language, because:

• It is written in human terms, for human understanding.
• God condescends (theologically speaking) to express Himself in ways that are relational, emotive, and personal — even though He transcends all of those.

"God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent (נִחָם)" — Numbers 23:19
Yet…
“The LORD regretted (נִחָם) that He had made man…” — Genesis 6:6

This apparent contradiction is exactly the crux of the issue. These texts use the same word — nicham — but in radically different theological contexts.

---

So Then: Is “nicham” different when applied to God?​

Yes — profoundly so. But how?

A. In Human Terms:​

• Nichamin human use can indicate:
  • Change of heart
  • Emotional regret
  • Cognitive rethinking
  • Mourning or consolation

In humans, nicham implies reaction, limited knowledge, vulnerability, and often moral growth.

B. In Divine Terms (Theological Attempt):​

• Nicham as applied to God must be understood analogically, not univocally.
  • Thomas Aquinas: Human words applied to God are always analogical — neither fully literal nor fully metaphorical.
• God’s nichamcould mean:
  • A change in God’s dealings with man, not in His internal state.
  • A divine expression of relational sorrow — not due to lack of foreknowledge, but as a true engagement with humanity's choices.
  • An accommodation: God enters time and space as if He regrets, in order to maintain covenantal relationship.

It’s not that God learns and regrets — it’s that He reveals Himself as grieved, in terms humans can grasp.

---

So how do we know God, if He is “not like man” — but speaks like one?​

This is where your tension becomes existentially and theologically profound:

• God says: “I am not like you.”
• Yet we only know God through human-like language, experiences, and metaphors.

Thus, we must hold two truths in tension:

1. God reveals Himself in ways humans can understand, using the language of emotion, change, and even regret.
2. God is not literally subject to human emotions or limitations, but He is not less personal because of that — He is more.

---

Conclusion: What Does nicham Reveal?​

“Nicham,” when applied to God, reveals not a change in God's essence, but a change in His relational posture — and that posture is rooted in divine holiness, not human emotion.

It tells us that:

• God is not aloof or inert.
• God is deeply concerned with human moral failure.
• God expresses grief in a way that invites us to take our choices seriously.

But it also guards us against projecting onto God our own unstable passions and limited foresight.

Me: There you go, none of this 'stupid' but an important read for anybody (anybody) serious enough, courageous enough, to ask after their own assumptions.

 

[Clete]

We aren't talking about philosophy, merely what God says about himself in the Bible. I will let him speak for himself. You are not an authorized prophet, and you cannot speak for him.

All theology is philosophy. Theology is merely a branch of philosophy. Christian theology is Christian philosophy and vise-versa.

Letting God speak for Himself through scripture is a philosophical stance.

This may seem like a semantic point, and in this particular forum, especially in any conversation with Idolater, you'd surely be able to get away with it being just that. I recommend, however, not dropping yourself down to the lowest common denominator. When dealing with dullards, hold yourself to a standard that would stand against all comers.

 

[Clete]

The apostle Peter when translated to English said the opposite. It’s funny how you don’t actually listen to a word he says. He says you do not get to interpret the Bible. The apostle Paul says to study. The new King James version call it diligence. You’re to study and learn it for what it says, not what you want it to say.

In what way does the phrase "interpret the bible" equate with "what you want it to say"?

You seem to be conflating "interpretation" with "distortion".

To study the Bible is to interpret it. The very act of reading a text and trying to understand its meaning in context, what the author intended, what the words mean, how one verse relates to another, etc, etc, IS interpretation - by definition. I mean, that's literally what the term "interpretation" means.

Idolater has handed himself over to you on silver platter by appealing to the concept of "valid inference". He's given away the whole farm with those two words. The notion that we are not to interpret scripture is a Catholic teaching...

“Wherefore it must be recognized that the sacred writings are not like other books. They cannot be interpreted according to the mere judgment of the reader...” —Providentissimus Deus, §20​

​

If you force him to hold to actually valid inference, he'll go running like scared rabbit and put you on ignore before you know what's happening.

 

[Derf]

Yup, me too. I've been away a long time, basically a 4 month ignore on my part. I get it. I have it too.

Welcome back, Lon.

Open Theism clouds issues from practical understanding or dialogue:
there is literally no such thing as 'changing one's mind.' You cannot grab your brain and exchange it. Because that is literally what it means, it is a colloquialism that is of little value. You may well see scriptures that 'appear' to say someone "changed their mind" but that is a paraphrase of actual words and inaccurate/problematic for conveyance in translation and doctrine.

Let me ask: What can you (or anybody) possibly mean by 'changed his mind'?

How about "repent"? How about "decided to change his path or direction"? How about "regret"? How about "relent"? All of those are acceptable to Open Theists. All of those are used in various translations of various passages with respect to God.

It isn't even a logical statement. You have and always have had but one mind. You cannot change to a 'new' mind.

Yes, you can. We speak that way all the time. "I have a mind (intention) to eat Fruit Loops for breakfast tomorrow, but I might change my mind before then" is a normative English statement. The problem you're running into is you assume a "change" has to be a new complete thing, and not an alteration. For instance, if I "change my shirt", we normally think of it as taking the old shirt off and putting a new shirt on (your understanding of "change"), but if I "change my hair", it means to get a new hairdo (not something I do very often, since I have so little left, but people do it all the time).

So the difference is whether the thing is permanent or temporary. A permanent thing can be changed is looks or some characteristics, and a temporary thing can be removed and replaced. A mind, in your parlance, is a permanent thing that can't be replaced, but it can be changed by altering.

You have but one. Rather, I'd ask: be incredibly more specific: "He/she decided on something else.

Ok. God decided on something different than He previously decided. Works for me. Sounds like you are grasping at straws to pick at such a nit.

It means most often circumstances changed and we adapted. "Changing my mind" is just sloppy and inaccurate to what actually happened/happens. It is untrue, firstly. You cannot 'change your mind.'

You can. I was going to write more about this, but I changed my intention (mind).

"A circumstance presented a different avenue of action" (much more accurate). Open Theism has taken a poor description and made theological drawn conclusions off of a poorly phrased colloquialism. In Hebrew "God changed His mind" is the sloppy derivative (a poor paraphrase of poor understanding) from Hebrew "Attah" which is directly translated a few ways, most often "to sigh." Me 'sighing" is not "me changing my mind."

Funny how no English translators that I know of actually bothered to translate it that way.

It is me reacting to a circumstance that demand/prompts me to do something differently (same mind, doesn't change, different action).

I'd like all Open Theists to consider never using "Changed his/her mind" again.

It wouldn't help your case one bit.

It is incredibly paraphrased far away from "a situation problem presented itself and needed to be addressed." The latter is far more accurate in conveyance and meaning. You literally cannot change your mind. God cannot/will not have any other mind.

Yes, He can, since changing a permanent thing means altering it in some way. God can and does alter the intentions of His mind, according to scripture. But that's ok, He can repent, instead. Remember that even if one word can be translated differently than most translators do, the rest of the text usually makes it clear that something was going to happen, then God decided something different would happen.