Theology Club: Open Theism Destroys Arminianism??

[Derf]

Hi Jerry,
I have appreciated this conversation with you, and I expect we will get back into some of these thoughts in other threads at other times. So I'm not going to reply to much of what you've said here, except to say that
1. I don't disagree that we will have spiritual bodies that have some different characteristics from our current bodies--I don't know all of what those characteristics will be--and they will be adaptable to different environments OR they won't need to adapt because they will be built for whatever environments are available to us (this would be my preference--for example, these bodies might not need to breathe air if they go up into the "heavens"). But they will still be the same bodies. And the extent of the adaptation is that they can live in heaven or on earth or wherever God wants them to be.
2. I disagree with you that Jesus and we will have different bodies for different uses. If Jesus' body is adaptable, then He wouldn't need to discard it at any time, and doing so would be a death of that body, which is antithetical to His mission and promise of resurrection to everlasting life--if He as a first fruits of everlasting life then "dies" again (casts off His body), His promise of everlasting life is not very convincing.
3. Since you have advocated both of the foregoing ideas--an adaptable body (singular) and exchangeable bodies (plural), you have been inconsistent. Would you like to pick one or the other of the foregoing to advocate?

Whichever the case, you've admitted that invisibility is only a characteristic in comparison to our current environment, and not to our future environment and capabilities. As such, it is hardly worth the discussion--it is either invisible because it's made out of something we can't see (but will be able to in the future) or it's invisible because it hasn't happened yet (but will in the future), or both. You're insistence on the invisibility of the material seems strange to me, but oh well.

Maybe you can help me get us back on-topic for this thread. If I remember correctly, you advocated something that did not include an actual "foreknowledge", but required that God was outside of time in a way that all things on earth happen, to Him, at the same instant, thus He can "see" the future with respect to our now, and can know our decisions in order to elect us. I'm pretty sure that's straight up Arminianism.

Therefore, you are particularly welcome to express your opinion about my OP, which suggested that Arminianism is "destroyed" by Open Theism. Do you think that is true, or not. And why?

Greetings Derf!

Earlier I quoted this verse:

"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is" (1 Jn.3:2).​

if the Lord Jesus is now in a flesh and blood body like the one which the Apostles saw after He was raised from the dead then they would no EXACTLY what He will be like and what they will be like.

to which you replied:



Yes, He experienced a changed. but I am not quite sure how it would be possible for a flesh and blood body could emit light. even after He was raised from the dead His flesh and blood bodyn underwent major changes. Even though He was recognized by those who previously knew Him we can see that somethig happened later which resulted in two of His disciples not to recognize Him (Lk.24:16). He could eat and be touched but He could also appear in locked rooms. He also ascended into heaven.

I believe that the bodies in which we will be raised will be like that. Those bodies will be adaptable to fit the environment in which we exist. When in heaven we will have a heavenly body and while on the earth we will have a earthly, natural body.

Does the body which the Lord Jesus has on now one where He looks like a Lamb with seven horns and seven eyes (Rev.5:6) or a body like the one described by john at Revelation 1:13-17?

I believe that since the Lord is now in a body which we are not equipped to see that John was given a "vision" of the Lord Jesus in heaven. I do not presume that Lord Jesus’ body has to conform to the dimensions that we know. Although we exist in an four dimensational environment I do not presume that the eternal environment is so limited.



I believe that this is a case of the LORD having a supernatural body where He can make Himself conform to any form He wishes.



This can be cleared up in only one way. What was seen of God and what was wrestled with was a "body" which was adapted to the circumstances. The very essence of the LORD God was not seen.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Therefore, you are particularly welcome to express your opinion about my OP, which suggested that Arminianism is "destroyed" by Open Theism. Do you think that is true, or not. And why?

OK Derf. Let us look at what you said here:

I believe what was meant by Open Theism destroying Arminianism is that Arminianism, holding to the idea that God can look into the future to know what will happen, puts God in a box that He can't escape from.

Could you please explain why that would put God in a box?

Thanks!

 

[Derf]

OK Derf. Let us look at what you said here:



Could you please explain why that would put God in a box?

Thanks!

I attempted to in that same post, which I'll quote in toto here, with some emphases added:

Since I didn't get any replies, I'm going to take a hack at it myself.

I believe what was meant by Open Theism destroying Arminianism is that Arminianism, holding to the idea that God can look into the future to know what will happen, puts God in a box that He can't escape from.

For one thing, God either looks into a real future or not. [1] If He looks into a real future, which would of a necessity include His own actions, then He cannot change His own actions, because then the future He looked into would have changed--it wouldn't [have been] "real". Therefore God is as bound by this "future" as we are. And if God is bound by this "future", then He isn't the most powerful thing around--His creation is now more powerful than He is.

[2] If God looks into a supposed future, one that He can change, then God isn't really looking into the "future", but into the possibilities for a future, turning Arminians into Process Theologians (if I understand the distinctions correctly).

Interestingly then, if Open Theism really destroys Arminianism, then either they aren't really Arminians, or they destroy their own theology.

The yellow highlight gives what I think are the 2 alternatives for Arminianism. The 2 bold sections introduce the discussions on those two alternatives.

Maybe a little discussion on the "reality" of "future" is in order. My thought is that a "real" future is one that is assured of happening--it actually becomes "actualized" at some point. For instance, if my "real" destiny is that I get run over by a bus tomorrow, then we can know it is a real destiny/future when it actually happens. God would have to have a different perspective (He could tell before it happens that it is going to happen), but no different outcome. As soon as the outcome is allowed to change (for whatever reason), it eliminates the "reality" of the future event.

So if God looks into a "real" future, then that "future" can't change--it is as fixed and certain as the past.

Same kind of thing must then be considered for the "past", as discussed here:

Spoiler

If God is not "bound by time" as you intimate, then He can not only change the future, but also the past, right? Past, Present, and Future all look alike to Him (This is derived from Boettner's statement: "...so He sees all events in history, past, present, and future at one glance" (Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination)). But any change in the past ripples into the present and beyond. So if the present is real (like I'm really sitting here typing this right now), and God changes the past (to, for instance, not allow for the invention of the computer), then the present reality of me typing is not real--I would no longer be typing on my computer. Maybe I wouldn't even exist (I might have died due to not having computer-controlled anti-lock braking systems in a car crash 2 months earlier). Such applies even if God is seeing all things at one glance.

Such scenarios are routinely considered in science fiction stories, and the exercise is a good one.

Does that make sense?

Any changes, then, must have come from God "outside of time", which means He determined it all before the world began--not based on seeing what happened, but based on understanding what would happen and making something else happen instead--which is Calvinism.

By the way, I'm not saying Calvinism is inconsistent here--Calvinism allows for a full and logically consistent understanding of God's control over all events in time, all decided before time began. (From Westminster Confession Ch III:1: "God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatever comes to pass.") The thing it doesn't allow for is man's ability to do something contrary to God's plan, which is a suitable definition of free will.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So if God looks into a "real" future, then that "future" can't change--it is as fixed and certain as the past.

What about this idea?

The LORD exists outside of time and He creates the universe and everything in it. Through His power He sets things in motion in the universe. To express my thoughts on this please allow me to use the following analogy. A man creates a motor and yet he is not a part of that motor and he has an existence outside of that motor. Nonetheless he starts that engine and it begins to function on its own apart from the one who created it. He might make some adjustments to the motor along the way but yet he still has an existence outside of that motor.

Just like the man, the LORD makes adjustments in His creation in an attempt to try to heal it. But just like the man He has an existence outside of His creation.

Being outside of time and not bound by time He can see the beginning and the end of His created universe at one glance. So even though He knows our future His knowing it does not in anyway effect the free will of man.

That being true then even though the LORD knows our future does not mean that a man's free will choices are limited in any way and therefore everything in a man's future is left open and his choices are not effected in any way, shape or form.

 

[Derf]

What about this idea?

The LORD exists outside of time and He creates the universe and everything in it. Through His power He sets things in motion in the universe. To express my thoughts on this please allow me to use the following analogy. A man creates a motor and yet he is not a part of that motor and he has an existence outside of that motor. Nonetheless he starts that engine and it begins to function on its own apart from the one who created it. He might make some adjustments to the motor along the way but yet he still has an existence outside of that motor.

Just like the man, the LORD makes adjustments in His creation in an attempt to try to heal it. But just like the man He has an existence outside of His creation.

Being outside of time and not bound by time He can see the beginning and the end of His created universe at one glance. So even though He knows our future His knowing it does not in anyway effect the free will of man.

That being true then even though the LORD knows our future does not mean that a man's free will choices are limited in any way and therefore everything in a man's future is left open and his choices are not effected in any way, shape or form.

Thanks for those thoughts Jerry.

The problem we all struggle with is the time aspect. It's easy to understand how we can look down on some 3-dimensional object that we are not a part of and touch and probe and tweak it. It's outside of our understanding how to do that outside of time. I'm going to tweak your analogy to try to show you the difficulty.

Imagine your man getting ready to start his motor. He puts fuel in the tank and hits the starter. The engine turns over and stops. He tries again with the same results, no success. Suddenly he realizes that it was a gasoline engine, he put diesel in it, and diesel has now flooded through the whole thing.

If the man is outside of the time domain of the engine, he should be able to correct his mistake by going to the time before he fueled the engine and switch fuels, right? But the thing that made him realize that it was the wrong fuel (it wouldn't start) is in the future with respect to the time he needs to make the fuel switch.

You've no doubt already seen the problem with my analogy--we are talking about a fallible man, one that is either forgetful or careless. God is not like that. He would know before He started the engine what kind of fuel it needed and never make a mistake. [And the problem with your part of the analogy is that God is tweaking His own creation--making it run better--which suggests that He didn't make it "very good" in the first place. But that's not important for our discussion.]

But it illustrates the potential problem with free will--if the object of the tweaking (the motor) has free will, then it might select the wrong fuel (warning: analogy breaking down, as a motor has no ability to fuel itself when it's not running!!). Then God, in your scenario, either knows the outcome by wisdom (Calvinism, which doesn't require looking into the future), or He knows the outcome by "looking into the future" (Arminianism), or the third option is that He doesn't know the outcome (Open Theism). And I'd caveat that third one as God not knowing the outcome of a particular motor, but if the motor's purpose was to, say, mow the yard, He would accomplish that plan with a more compliant motor--one that agrees to always ingest the right fuel.

By now you might be sensing dejavu. This sounds eerily like the Garden of Eden story. God gave the man instructions about which fuel to ingest and which not to ingest. God gave the man instructions for how to take care of the yard/garden and the rest of the world (dominion mandate). The man chose the wrong fuel, and everything has been broken since then--except that Jesus came as the more compliant man and has begun to straighten up the world--one less-compliant-man at a time.

My post is getting long, but let me suggest a way that our combined analogy might still work, and incorporate the time aspect. Let's imagine that the motor (which CAN fuel itself, once it gets started) has a life cycle of 2 years. The man, of course, lives so much longer than that, that he is able to design the motor, build the motor, fuel the motor the first time, start the motor, use the motor for its intended purpose, monitor the fuel intake, and be there when the motor finally finishes its mission (all in 2 years). "Time" for the motor would then begin at the beginning and end at 2 years. The man, as far as the motor can tell, has been around forever (before the beginning) and will be around forever (way beyond the 2 years). With respect to the motor's sense of time, the man is eternal. And because he is not bound by the time constraints of the motor, he is "outside" of the motor's time. And in fact, knowing that the potential existed for the motor to pick the wrong fuel, the man had a contingency plan all in place to fix the motor and get it up and running before the end of the life cycle, in time to complete the mission.

What do you think?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

What do you think?

I'm not sure. I still do not understand why what I said is in error? Could you take my conclusion and examine it in detail?":

Being outside of time and not bound by time He can see the beginning and the end of His created universe at one glance. So even though He knows our future His knowing it does not in anyway effect the free will of man.

That being true then even though the LORD knows our future does not mean that a man's free will choices are limited in any way and therefore everything in a man's future is left open and his choices are not effected in any way, shape or form.​

First, for the sake of argument, assume that the LORD does exist outside of time and then critique my conclusion.

Thanks!

 

[Derf]

I'm not sure. I still do not understand why what I said is in error? Could you take my conclusion and examine it in detail?":

Being outside of time and not bound by time He can see the beginning and the end of His created universe at one glance. So even though He knows our future His knowing it does not in anyway effect the free will of man.

That being true then even though the LORD knows our future does not mean that a man's free will choices are limited in any way and therefore everything in a man's future is left open and his choices are not effected in any way, shape or form.​

First, for the sake of argument, assume that the LORD does exist outside of time and then critique my conclusion.

Thanks!

Ok.
The issue comes from USING the future to affect the past. That's what I was trying to express in my tweaked analogy. Just SEEING the future might be something different--as long as God doesn't CHANGE the future by changing the past.

You see, whether God is outside of time by your definition or not, if He changes the "past" using some knowledge of the "future", and it results in a different "future", then the first "future" is not "real", it is imagined.

Your "outside of time" scenario has no answers for that, so the resultant philosophical choices (Calvinism, Arminianism, OTism) are not affected.

We can go through each of them, if you want.

1. Calvinism says that God planned ("ordained") every action before the actions occurred--"before" "time" "began"--so it doesn't require your scenario (which makes you wonder why Calvinists use your scenario).
2. Arminianism says that God can use information from the future to change the present, which changes the future, but then He isn't using info from a "real" future. ***
3. OTism says that God uses current knowledge and wisdom to affect the present, which changes the future (but that's ok, as the future isn't settled).

***For instance, God looks into the "future #1" (not future to Him) of your son, and sees that he will be driving his car tomorrow and a truck strikes his car and kills him. To save your son from the crash, God makes the truck driver sick with food poisoning today, so that he is too sick to go to work tomorrow, resulting in "future #2" where your son doesn't die. But God would have used a fake future (#1) to get His information from, since your son didn't die. The other option is that God can see into the "future" (still not future to Him), but can't DO anything with the information--no tweaking allowed--so the "future" is real. That makes the knowledge of little worth to Him in dealing with us in this life. Your son would die and God couldn't do anything about it.

If you don't agree, then you need to explain to me WHY your scenario helps the problem.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Ok.The issue comes from USING the future to affect the past.

My model does not do that. I do not know why you got that idea.

Instead, the LORD does things at our "present" time in order to provide a remedy for man's sin. For instance, once Adam sinned then the LORD must find a way whereby His creatures could be redeemed. Then at that point on that plan began to be realized.

You see, whether God is outside of time by your definition or not, if He changes the "past" using some knowledge of the "future", and it results in a different "future", then the first "future" is not "real", it is imagined.

Again, according to my model nothing which happens in out future is used by the LORD to change anything.

If you don't agree, then you need to explain to me WHY your scenario helps the problem.

Again, there is nothing in my model that even hints that anything which is done in our future is used by the LORD to change anything.

 

[Derf]

My model does not do that. I do not know why you got that idea.

Instead, the LORD does things at our "present" time in order to provide a remedy for man's sin. For instance, once Adam sinned then the LORD must find a way whereby His creatures could be redeemed. Then at that point on that plan began to be realized.

Again, according to my model nothing which happens in out future is used by the LORD to change anything.

Again, there is nothing in my model that even hints that anything which is done in our future is used by the LORD to change anything.

Ok, Jerry. Thanks for the clarification. If that's the case, then what do you think about prophecies like the one to Hezekiah that he would die of his illness (Is 38:1), followed by a prophecy that he would NOT die of his illness (Is 38:5)? Both of these prophecies were emphasized with the phrase "Thus says the LORD...", indicating that it was from God and not Isaiah's opinion. Was God ignoring His knowledge of the "real" future He could see when He gave the first one?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Ok, Jerry. Thanks for the clarification. If that's the case, then what do you think about prophecies like the one to Hezekiah that he would die of his illness (Is 38:1), followed by a prophecy that he would NOT die of his illness (Is 38:5)? Both of these prophecies were emphasized with the phrase "Thus says the LORD...", indicating that it was from God and not Isaiah's opinion. Was God ignoring His knowledge of the "real" future He could see when He gave the first one?

I cannot believe that when the LORD told Hezekiah that he would die and then changed his mind had anything to do with Him seeing Hezekiah's future. I believe that the LORD was aware that he had a fatal disease and was going to die in short order no matter what. It was Zecekiah's plea for a longer life which lead to the Lord to heal him so that he lived another fifteen years.

And of course the LORD's change of mind can only be understood in a "figurative" sense, the figure of speech known as "Anthropopathy--Ascribing to God what belongs to human & rational beings."

Can you see the possibilty of things happening that way?

Thanks!

 

[Derf]

I cannot believe that when the LORD told Hezekiah that he would die and then changed his mind had anything to do with Him seeing Hezekiah's future. I believe that the LORD was aware that he had a fatal disease and was going to die in short order no matter what. It was Zecekiah's plea for a longer life which lead to the Lord to heal him so that he lived another fifteen years.

And of course the LORD's change of mind can only be understood in a "figurative" sense, the figure of speech known as "Anthropopathy--Ascribing to God what belongs to human & rational beings."

Can you see the possibilty of things happening that way?

Thanks!

You're contradicting yourself. What is a fatal disease? One that will kill you IN THE FUTURE.

Also, an anthropopathism is an ascribed FEELING or EMOTION. What feeling is being ascribed to God in these passages?

Sent from my Z992 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You're contradicting yourself. What is a fatal disease? One that will kill you IN THE FUTURE.

That has nothing to do with seeing the future and then as a result of that knowledge changing the present. Instead, by looking at Hezekiah in his present condition the LORD knew that it was fatal. Do you deny that the LORD can know the health of those He created in their present condition and does not have to know anything about their future in order to know that someone will die in short order?

Also, an anthropopathism is an ascribed FEELING or EMOTION. What feeling is being ascribed to God in these passages?

That figurative sense also includes the LORD changing His mind as men do.

 

[Derf]

That has nothing to do with seeing the future and then as a result of that knowledge changing the present. Instead, by looking at Hezekiah in his present condition the LORD knew that it was fatal. Do you deny that the LORD can know the health of those He created in their present condition and does not have to know anything about their future in order to know that someone will die in short order?

Of course he could tell what kind of disease it was. And of course he could also tell what the future would be in your view. But you can't tell the difference. It's your systematic that is telling you which to believe.

That figurative sense also includes the LORD changing His mind as men do.

That's not a feeling or emotion. It's a copout to call it such. And ascribing a changing of God's mind to God when he didn't really change His mind seems to be ascribing a lie to God's word.


Sent from my Z992 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Of course he could tell what kind of disease it was. And of course he could also tell what the future would be in your view. But you can't tell the difference. It's your systematic that is telling you which to believe.

The LORD knew that Hezekiah's malady was fatal and He also knew that his death was imminent if He didn't intervene. There is nothing which even hints that the LORD's action in regard to Hezekiah was shaped or formed by something which He saw in the future.

That's not a feeling or emotion. It's a copout to call it such. And ascribing a changing of God's mind to God when he didn't really change His mind seems to be ascribing a lie to God's word.

Do you really think that the LORD did not know beforehand if Abraham actually had faith or not until he took a knife to kill Isaac?:

"And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen.22:12).​

If we are to take this literally then we must believe that before Abraham took the knife the LORD did not know whether or not he feared Him (or had reverence for Him). And then He had a change of mind about that when He saw Abraham actually take a knife to kill Isaac.

But that idea is ridiculous. The LORD know the heart of man and does not need to see anything from man in order to know whether or not a person fears Him:

"But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart" (1 Sam.16:7).​

So it is evident that the LORD knew that Abraham feared Him before He saw Abraham take the knife. His mind did not really change about this when He saw him take the knife. Besides that, earlier the LORD knew that Abraham feared Him (Gen.15:6).

So are you going to say that the Lord was telling a fib when He said those things to Abraham?

 

[Derf]

The LORD knew that Hezekiah's malady was fatal and He also knew that his death was imminent if He didn't intervene. There is nothing which even hints that the LORD's action in regard to Hezekiah was shaped or formed by something which He saw in the future.

Good! so you agree with me that God didn't look into the future for either the first prophecy (he would die of the disease) or the second one (he would survive the disease). That's great. Then if God wasn't going to prolong Hezekiah's life in the first case, but He was going to in the second case, then He must have changed His mind between the two.

So your following diatribe about Abraham is unnecessary.

Do you really think that the LORD did not know beforehand if Abraham actually had faith or not until he took a knife to kill Isaac?:

"And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen.22:12).​

If we are to take this literally then we must believe that before Abraham took the knife the LORD did not know whether or not he feared Him (or had reverence for Him). And then He had a change of mind about that when He saw Abraham actually take a knife to kill Isaac.

But that idea is ridiculous. The LORD know the heart of man and does not need to see anything from man in order to know whether or not a person fears Him:

"But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart" (1 Sam.16:7).​

So it is evident that the LORD knew that Abraham feared Him before He saw Abraham take the knife. His mind did not really change about this when He saw him take the knife. Besides that, earlier the LORD knew that Abraham feared Him (Gen.15:6).

So are you going to say that the Lord was telling a fib when He said those things to Abraham?

 

[Derf]

This is a bad idea on my part, but I wanted to respond to your Abraham scenario after all. I call it a bad idea, because I think it detracts from the progress we might be making on the Hezekiah scenario. My preference of the two is to continue with the Hezekiah scenario. I think it handles both the knowledge of the future issue and the change of mind issue better than the Abraham one.

The biggest thing about the Abraham scenario is that it doesn't purport to have a change of God's mind in it at all. I think it is clear that God told Abraham to sacrifice with his son with the intention of saving Isaac. Abraham thought so (Heb 11:19). Think through the two options:

1. Abraham agrees to sacrifice Isaac, and God intervenes at the last second and stays Abraham's hand.
2. Abraham does not agree to sacrifice Isaac.

In both cases Isaac's life is spared. The more serious one (for Isaac) is the one recorded in scripture. Therefore, if God was going to spare Isaac's life in either case, there's no change of mind issue to deal with.

But you've also brought up the idea that God didn't need Abraham to go through the motions of sacrificing Isaac to know whether he loved God more than Isaac, and because of that mindset, the scriptures don't really mean what they say--I think you've let your systematic dictate your understanding of the scripture. I'll say more below.

Do you really think that the LORD did not know beforehand if Abraham actually had faith or not until he took a knife to kill Isaac?:

"And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen.22:12).​

If we are to take this literally then we must believe that before Abraham took the knife the LORD did not know whether or not he feared Him (or had reverence for Him).

If we refuse to take it literally, we run the risk of losing the meaning of the passage. What do we know about Abraham? We know that he left his family and home to go to a land that God "would show him". This is an act of great faith. But Abraham also showed lack of faith in a number of areas. He lied twice about Sarah being just his sister. He took Hagar to wife at Sarah's behest. He laughed at God's promise to give him a son by Sarah and instead requested that God fulfill His promise in Ishmael--Gen 17:17-18. And apparently he was so protective of Isaac that he waited until he was 40 years old, and his mother had died, to find a wife for him, when others in his ancestral family (before Terah, anyway) had married younger. (Isaac and Rebekah did the same for Jacob, waiting until he was well past 50, according to most sources.)

And then He had a change of mind about that when He saw Abraham actually take a knife to kill Isaac.

No change of mind, as detailed above.

But that idea is ridiculous. The LORD know the heart of man and does not need to see anything from man in order to know whether or not a person fears Him:

"But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart" (1 Sam.16:7).​

This was not a commentary on David, but a commentary on Eliab. God knew Eliab would not be a good king. For one thing he was a jealous man (see 1 Sam 17:28) and somewhat cowardly. But David had trusted in God to the extent that he had already killed a lion by hand (1 Sam 17:35) and was already known to be mighty, valiant, a man of war, and prudent in matters (1 Sam 16:18--surely these characteristics were not recently developed, were they?). God knew something of David's heart by how he acted--and others could see those things in him, too. Eliab was just a pretty face, and God knew that, probably by his actions, words and thoughts, which come from the heart. I'm not trying to say God can't look at our hearts (whatever that means), but it seems like He also reads our thoughts and sees our actions and makes judgments about us based on those. So faith without works is dead--it's not a real faith if we don't put it into practice in some way. Maybe God likes to see us put our faith into practice to REALLY know if we believe.

So it is evident that the LORD knew that Abraham feared Him before He saw Abraham take the knife. His mind did not really change about this when He saw him take the knife. Besides that, earlier the LORD knew that Abraham feared Him (Gen.15:6).

So are you going to say that the Lord was telling a fib when He said those things to Abraham?

Where's the fib? God wasn't fibbing when He told Abraham to kill Isaac, and He wasn't fibbing when He told Abraham not to kill Isaac. Both those things happened. And a command is not a telling of a fact, so it can't be a fib.

We can discuss this further, but at this point I consider it a red herring, and I'd rather finish our discussion on Hezekiah, first.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The biggest thing about the Abraham scenario is that it doesn't purport to have a change of God's mind in it at all.

If we are going to take the words of the Lord "literally" then let us look what He said:

"And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen.22:12).​

Before Abraham took the knife then in the LORD's mind He didn't know if Abraham feared Him or not. But when He saw Abraham take the knife then what was in His mind changed and now he knew that Abraham feared Him.

That is a change in God's mind.

In regard to 1 Samuel 16:7 you said:

This was not a commentary on David, but a commentary on Eliab. God knew Eliab would not be a good king.

No, what is said at 1 Samuel is not limited to just Elib. David said:

"And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever" (1 Chron.28:9).​

Good! so you agree with me that God didn't look into the future for either the first prophecy (he would die of the disease) or the second one (he would survive the disease). That's great. Then if God wasn't going to prolong Hezekiah's life in the first case, but He was going to in the second case, then He must have changed His mind between the two.

The LORD told Hezekiah that He was going to die when he saw his condition. There is no evidence that the LORD had anything to do with his sickness. Instead, He was just stating a fact. But when he heard his prayer He decided to prolong his life.

What we see here is the fact that the LORD will answer prayers. Not that He changed His mind about anything.

 

[Derf]

You're so funny, Jerry! You say that God changed his mind where I say He didn't, and that He didn't where I say He did. That's sheer argumentativeness.

Maybe we're thinking of different definitions of what a "change of mind" means. Here's what I think it means: God changes His mind when He decides to do something different than what He was previously going to do. A change of mind is NOT just learning something new. (God learning something new is a whole different discussion!)

Now I'll try to apply that definition below.

If we are going to take the words of the Lord "literally" then let us look what He said:

"And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen.22:12).​

Before Abraham took the knife then in the LORD's mind He didn't know if Abraham feared Him or not. But when He saw Abraham take the knife then what was in His mind changed and now he knew that Abraham feared Him.

That is a change in God's mind.

Here's where you are using the definition of "change of mind" to indicate that God learned something new. I DO believe God learned something new here--He learned that Abraham was willing to obey Him no matter the consequences. It is something that (in my opinion) He could not tell just from knowing Abraham's heart, because a heart is not all that is required to obey. The mind has to command the muscles according to what the heart decides to do (if I'm understanding how the scriptures use the word "heart", and the muscles have to respond.

God picked the biggest consequence of all for Abraham--the loss of his son--and asked Abraham to submit.

In regard to 1 Samuel 16:7 you said:



No, what is said at 1 Samuel is not limited to just Elib. David said:

"And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever" (1 Chron.28:9).​

1 Samuel 16:7 is a reaction to Samuel's assessment of Eliab. God rejected Eliab for the reasons given--that He looks at the heart while men look at outward things. The verse is ONLY about Eliab as the future king of Israel and Samuel's assessment of him. The other brothers were also assessed (by God, as we are not given Samuel's thoughts on them) throughout the next few verses, and God did not select them, either.

Yes, you are correct that your 1 Chron 28:9 passage is similarly about outward appearances and inward submission. Let me say that either one by itself is garbage. If we only submit inwardly, but continue to reject God outwardly, it isn't real submission, is it. (Imagine Abraham telling God, "Yes, Lord, I will go and sacrifice Isaac", but he never sets out on the journey to Moriah.) Or if we submit outwardly, but only do so grudgingly, we aren't really submitting, are we? It takes both. God wanted both from Abraham. God wanted both from Solomon. That's why the verse says "and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind". The "service" is the outward. The "willing mind" is the thoughts. The "perfect heart" is, I think, the intentions--not just to get what we want (which would allow us to serve outwardly with a willing mind, but not necessarily for the right reasons). All three need to be right!

Interestingly enough, Solomon had his own test, when God asked him what he would have of God.

In that night did God appear unto Solomon, and said unto him, Ask what I shall give thee. [2Ch 1:7 KJV]​

And God found out Solomon's answer--he looked at his heart. How? By hearing what Solomon said:

And God said to Solomon, Because this was in thine heart, and thou hast not asked riches, wealth, or honour, nor the life of thine enemies, neither yet hast asked long life; but hast asked wisdom and knowledge for thyself, that thou mayest judge my people, over whom I have made thee king: [2Ch 1:11 KJV]​

The LORD told Hezekiah that He was going to die when he saw his condition. There is no evidence that the LORD had anything to do with his sickness. Instead, He was just stating a fact. But when he heard his prayer He decided to prolong his life.

What we see here is the fact that the LORD will answer prayers. Not that He changed His mind about anything.

If the Lord knew Hezekiah was going to die if He didn't intervene, and He told Hezekiah he was going to die, that's because He wasn't planning on intervening. Whether the sickness was the result of anything God did is immaterial--His intervening was the thing that changed. When Isaiah gave the first prophecy, implicit in it is the thought that God was NOT intervening to save Hez's life, and when Isaiah came back just a few verses later and said Hez would survive, it's because God decided to intervene. Such a scenario fits perfectly with my first "change of mind" definition.

Here's what thefreedictionary.com says "change of mind" means: "1.change of mind - a decision to reverse an earlier decision". As I said above, a command is not a decision, though commands often follow from decisions. You have made the mistake of assuming that Abraham's new command indicated God changed His mind. But you have no basis for that except your assumption. And I've given reason why it must not have been so.

Applying that definition to Hez's case focuses not on God's decision to CAUSE Hez to die of the disease (which is debatable), but on His decision to LET him die of the disease (which is not debatable--if Hez really died of it, then God MUST have LET him die of it by not taking any action against the disease). God's change of mind in this case was to NOT let him die of the disease.

The two results /DYING/ or /NOT DYING/ are polar opposites, you must admit, and God /LETTING HIM DIE/ or /NOT LETTING HIM DIE/ are also polar opposite decisions. If God is in control of all things, and God wasn't /NOT LETTING HIM DIE/ (sorry for the double negative), then He must have been /LETTING HIM DIE/. To say that God did NOT change His mind in this example, you have to say that the scripture here doesn't really mean what it says--perhaps by calling it something like "anthropopathism" (which I've already pointed out doesn't apply).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You're so funny, Jerry! You say that God changed his mind where I say He didn't, and that He didn't where I say He did. That's sheer argumentativeness.

Maybe we're thinking of different definitions of what a "change of mind" means.

This is so simple. If we are going to take a literal view then at first the LORD did not know whether or not Abraham feared Him. But after Abraham took hold of the knife then the LORD knew that he feared Him

So it is evident that the LORD had a change of mind. How can He believe something about one thing and then later believe something else about the same thing but not have a change of mind? Your idea makes absolutely no sense!

One of the meanings for "change of mind" is "to change one's opinion" (Dictionary.com). There can be no doubt that if Genesis 22:12 is taken literally then the LORD had a change of mind.

I DO believe God learned something new here--He learned that Abraham was willing to obey Him no matter the consequences.

If we stick to what the Scriptures actually say and take a literal reading of this verse then the subject is in regard to whether or not Abraham feared Him:

"And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen.22:12).​

As I said earlier, since the LORD knows the heart of man then He did not need to see any actions of Abraham in order to know if He feared Him or not:

"And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever" (1 Chron.28:9).​

Despite what is said in this verse you try to argue that the LORD really did not know if Abraham feared Him so He really does not understand all the imaginations of Abraham's thoughts. Do you really believe that the LORD who made us cannot even know if a man fears Him just by looking at that man's heart?

If the Lord knew Hezekiah was going to die if He didn't intervene, and He told Hezekiah he was going to die, that's because He wasn't planning on intervening.

The episode here is showing that the LORD changed His mind in regard to the timing of Hezekiah's death. But what is being said here cannot be taken in a literal manner because the LORD does not change His mind:

"In addition, the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind, because he is not a mortal who changes his mind" (1 Sam.15:29).​

If you say that in only some cases the Lord will not change His mind but in other cases He will then the same standard must be applied to Him in regard to lying.

 

[Derf]

This is so simple. If we are going to take a literal view then at first the LORD did not know whether or not Abraham feared Him. But after Abraham took hold of the knife then the LORD knew that he feared Him

So it is evident that the LORD had a change of mind. How can He believe something about one thing and then later believe something else about the same thing but not have a change of mind? Your idea makes absolutely no sense!

One of the meanings for "change of mind" is "to change one's opinion" (Dictionary.com). There can be no doubt that if Genesis 22:12 is taken literally then the LORD had a change of mind.

I'll bend on this one, Jerry. If you want that to mean God had a change of mind, I can live with that.

If we stick to what the Scriptures actually say

which I'm quite willing to do. Are you?

and take a literal reading of this verse then the subject is in regard to whether or not Abraham feared Him:

"And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen.22:12).​

As I said earlier, since the LORD knows the heart of man then He did not need to see any actions of Abraham in order to know if He feared Him or not:

"And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever" (1 Chron.28:9).​

Despite what is said in this verse you try to argue that the LORD really did not know if Abraham feared Him so He really does not understand all the imaginations of Abraham's thoughts. Do you really believe that the LORD who made us cannot even know if a man fears Him just by looking at that man's heart?

I'm only asking that you let the Lord speak for Himself. If He says He wants to see our faith worked out, who am I and who are you to tell Him it's not necessary?

Besides, I never said God CAN'T search all hearts or understand all imaginations of the thoughts. But I can imagine TWO opposite things. I can imagine that I am going to go rob a bank tomorrow, and I can imagine that I'm NOT going to go rob a bank tomorrow. Which one do you think I will do? Does God know what I am going to do tomorrow? Maybe. Or maybe He doesn't until I decide. That doesn't mean that He doesn't know my heart, just that He doesn't know whether I will sin or not. Maybe that's because He made me with a will that can obey or disobey. That's called free will--if I'm not already scheduled to make a particular choice at a particular time.

The episode here is showing that the LORD changed His mind in regard to the timing of Hezekiah's death. But what is being said here cannot be taken in a literal manner because the LORD does not change His mind:

"In addition, the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind, because he is not a mortal who changes his mind" (1 Sam.15:29).​

If you say that in only some cases the Lord will not change His mind but in other cases He will then the same standard must be applied to Him in regard to lying.

I think it depends on the cases. If God never changes His mind about anything, then does He really respond to our prayers? If God doesn't respond to our prayers, does He respond to us at all? If God does not respond to us, then is He really our heavenly father? Jesus seemed to think that our Father would be more kind than the judge who just gave the woman what she wanted to get rid of her. You are saying God is less kind than that--that God won't even give us what we ask for just to get rid of us, much less because He loves us.

So if God really hears our prayers, if He really heard Hezekiah's prayer that day, and answered it, then He had a change of mind. If that bothers you, read the rest of the chapter in 1 Sam 15. You don't even have to leave the chapter to find not one, but two seeming contradictions. Even within the same chapter, you've chosen to disregard 2 instances of God saying He HAS changed His mind in favor of 1 instance where Samuel says God doesn't. As much as I respect Samuel, I'd rather go with what God says, if they are going to diverge.

Or perhaps we need to find how both can be true. Are you interested?