PDA

View Full Version : An open challenge to all closed theists



Pages : [1] 2

1Way
March 15th, 2004, 07:56 PM
Everyone - this is a carry over thread prompted by Rolf about my condemning remarks toward Z Man. Rolf’s thread is about 2Pet 3:9, and my interaction with Z Man is in Does Calvinism Limit God, both of which are on this forum. I think this is a fascinating study of the inner workings of how the closed view actually treats God’s word when it comes to scripture that goes directly against their view.

Godrulz made an especially insightful observation when he said something to the effect of the following with my added emphasis, that; Open theism does not necessarily contradict the closed view’s “God does not change” proof text passages, although we disagree with the closed view’s interpretations especially to the extent that God does not change, but the fact is that we accept all these teachings in a way that does NOT violate the “God does change” passages.

But

The closed view does contradict the Open View passages that teach that “God does indeed change”, and their “supposed” harmonization involves some very bad interpretational methods. Thanks godrulz for that core idea comparison.

I call that bad interpretational method

“voiding God’s word and replacing it with nothing specific”

and only generally suggesting that their manmade traditions(*) should suffice the better understanding, even though they never say what the text actually means then.

(*) classic immutability=God (Himself) does not change at all, He exists outside of time, He never learns anything, etc.


So I hope you enjoy this exercise which I think may prove interesting and enlightening on several levels.

Lastly, please see my posts 2 and 3 to for what I am getting at with the open, closed view challenge. Thanks in advance for your time and interest.



Rolf – post 1 of 3 General response

You said
I believe that the real issue concerns your refusal to acknowledge the fact that those scriptures which say God repents or repented do not at all contradict the scriptures which clearly teach that God neither repents nor changes. and is so saying you display the level of misunderstanding you bring to the table. In no way fashion or form do I suppose, let alone teach or believe that divine repentance contradicts other scriptures which clearly teach that God does not repent nor changes.

So as I respond to such remarks, I must consider where you are coming from and simply hope for better from you.

To that regard you also said.
I am 67--old enough to remember a time in this country when men were too honorable to define someone who had taken a position contrary to theirs. They would say instead, "if you want to know that, you will have to ask him. I have no right to speak for him, and I will not do so because I might misrepresent him." I am respectful of your advance age compared to me and others. But with all due respect, our social times and concerns should not focused on anything less than God’s revealed word. The great men of the bible never said what you are proposing, instead, they did right, and risked the consequences. Standing up for the truth of God and His word is a timeless pursuit. The bible teaches us to share good report and bad, and if necessary to even reject from fellowship those who are unrepentantly heretical and sexually immoral, also, you who is spiritual judges all things, and all the many examples of godly men and women judging against someone else and if necessary, proclaiming that reality to others. I agree about your view in terms of idle gospel and such, but no further than that. My charges against Z man are on public record for all to see, nothing is hidden, all is in my opinion fully substantiated and verifiable.

To the point, you are arguing in the negative, anyone can do that, how about you stop making charges against me by providing the reasonable evidence that what I have said is not so. I don’t think you will be able to do that, and perhaps more importantly, I think you are in the same boat as he! But don’t take my word for it, since you are taking this issue off topic and it is your thread, then I presume you are doing so of your own free accordance, please answer the following to demonstrate your position as being not afraid of the text.

I rightly maintain that Z Man is afraid of the text, that is from the observation as stated that he does not come near it other than to quote it and then always do either one or both of the following two things First he voids it of meaning

Then he replaces the meaning he just voided with nothing. And I’ve been very clear that I do not hold this position of condemnation of doing so based upon anything less than God’s revealed word (see the third post in this 3 post installment), all of which you are not directly responding to, but instead you are simply changing me with impropriety, which is a cheap shot.

Continued next post

1Way
March 15th, 2004, 07:57 PM
Rolf – post 2 of 3 specific response w/examles

So lets see if you will fare any better than the Z.

Answer the following directly and without whole scale aversion (= fear) and then you may have room to speak. Until then I think you are in the same boat as Z Man. I would start with the last post I give as an example, it is my open challenge to all closed theists, entitled;

“From God’s word on divine repentance - An open challenge to closed theists”



Quote from the following post http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=480524#post480524

Z Man – We understand your frustrations with not being able to rightly handle scripture over one of dozens of examples of God changing via divine repentance via

demonstrations of God not doing what He said and thought He would do,

but your unwillingness to stop voiding some aspects of scripture from meaning, along you’re your violating it with manmade traditions which contradict the message given, represents a violence against God and His word that we respectable and biblically consistent people can not condone, and of course we feel that God plainly condemns those who do as you do, as previously revealed from God’s word about not voiding scripture of meaning and contradicting it with man’s traditions.

So we consider the source of your remark, your a person who is so educated and biblically trained that you can not even deal with the following half of a verse (Jonah 3:10 subsection “b”) without

contradicting it

and without providing a cogent bible based alternative meaning that does not contradict what the text plainly says,

so frankly Mr. Z, who cares if you can’t tell that smaller’s statements that God does “murder” and (immoral) lying are purely moronic claims, your willfull blindness to such matters speaks louder than all your self (deluded) sense of self righteousness. Your thoughts are here for all to see, as well as my consistent reminder of them. :o You forgot about that? Ok, here it is again, Z Man, the willfully self condemned bible voider and contradictor.

This is the Z in his typical willfully blind splendor.
__________________Jon 3:10b
God repented from the disaster
that He had said He would bring
upon them, and He did not do it.
_________:darwinsm: Z Man = :dunce: duh, says
__God repented from the disaster that He
__had said He would bring. That actually means
__that He did not repent (from doing what He said He
__would do).
________________________. :kookoo:
__Obviously God did not repent and change
__His previous intended course of action. :chuckle:

__Here’s why, it’s because He did do what He
__always was going to do, yep, it’s really simple, so
__that “is” what those words “actually” mean.
_______________ :dunce: :readthis: :freak:
___________God is true :cloud9: and
__________Z Man :freak: is :eek: false :dunce:

End quote (Actually, that was a slightly improved and abrevieated version.)



Also, I realize that this approach involves ridicule, so here is the earlier fully respectful version of the same request.

The following is from this post http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=473461#post473461 dated 2-28
Also, an even earlier post will be re-posted on the next post to show you how far this whole thing goes back and how evasive Z Man has really been.



Quote

Question If God is not saying that He repented from what He said He would do, then, what “is He saying When He says” that He repented from doing what He said He would do? (Restated more simply.) What does that verse mean if you deny that God can repent and change His mind?
:think: :confused:

Jonah’s Nineveh prophesy
(God’s meaningful open view version)
Jon 3:10
Then God saw their works,
that they turned from their evil way;
and God relented from the disaster
that He had said He would bring upon them,
and He did not do it.

Jonah’s Nineveh prophesy
(Man’s meaningless closed view version)
Jon 3:10
...?... God .?.. their works,
..?.. they turned from their evil way;
and God ....?..... ...?... the disaster
..?.. He .?.. ..?.. He ...?.... ..?.. upon them,
and He .?. .?.. do .?.


It’s amazing and sad how some people void scripture of meaning and replace it with nothing and think nothing of doing so.


End quote

Continued next post

1Way
March 15th, 2004, 07:58 PM
****THIS IS THE FORMAL CHALLENGE****
ALONG WITH THE BIBLICAL PROBLEM
WHICH WARNS AGAINST DOING VIOLENCE BY
VOIDING SCRIPTURE AND REPLACING IT WITH
NOTHING BECAUSE OF MANMADE TRADITION
INSTEAD OF SIMPLYCONFORMING TO GOD’S
UNDIVIDED WORD



Rolf – post 3of3

Here is the former challenge that no closed theist has yet to answer without violating the question. And this post is dated 2-21 with about a dozen “responses” from Z Man in which he never answers the challenge without violating the question or without violating God’s word, usually both.


From God’s word on divine repentance
An open challenge to closed theists


Quote


Z Man – Swordsman – closed theists - Consider the following, and please respond by answering the question below each example of God’s word provided.

Notice I am not interested in what you think the passage does not mean.
I am not interested in what you think the passage might mean.
I am not interested in what you think the passage should mean.
I am not interested in what you think the passage implies.
I am not interested in if you think the passage is or is not that important.
I am not interested in if you think the passage is or is not enough to promote the open view.
I am not interested in claims that the word “relent”/”nacham” does not necessarily mean repent/change one’s intended course or mind.
(need I say more? ... ?)


I am “only” interested in what you think the passage “does” mean, specifically concerning divine repentance/”nacham” from doing what He said and or thought He would do.

This is a fair inquiry and I dare say a biblical requirement for not “voiding”/”doing violence against” scripture. Scripture never returns void, and we should never violate/contradict scripture by our traditions/philosophy and “sincere” beliefs.


Question 1’s bible example



Here is my challenge to all closed theists. Any time you “void” the passage of meaning, you must replace it with a reasonable biblically provided replacement meaning. I’ll quote you verse 10 God’s version, and then I will quote you verse 10 in the closed view’s version.
Jonah’s Nineveh prophesy
(God’s meaningful version)

Jon 3:10 Then God saw their works,
that they turned from their evil way;
and God relented from the disaster
that He had said He would bring upon them,
and He did not do it.
Jonah’s Nineveh prophesy
(Man’s meaningless closed view version)

Jon 3:10 .. ? .. God .. ? .. their works,
..?.. they turned from their evil way;
and God ? ... ... ? ... ... the disaster
... ? ... ? ... ? ... ? ... ? ... ? ... ? ... upon them,
and He ...?...?...?.


Question 1


If God is not saying that He repented from what He said He would do, then, what “is He saying When He says” that He repented from doing what He said He would do? (Restated more simply.) What does that verse mean if you deny that God can repent and change His mind?
:think: :confused:




Question 2’s bible example



(Jer 18:1-10 NKJV)

The Potter and the clay


The Vision, figurative speech

“1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the
LORD, saying: 2 "Arise and go down to the
potter’s house, and there I will cause you to
hear My words." 3 Then I went down to the
potter’s house, and there he was, making
something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that
he made of clay was marred in the hand of the
potter; so he made it again into another vessel,
as it seemed good to the potter to make.


God’s explanation of the vision, literal application

5 Then the word of the LORD came to me,
saying: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with
you as this potter?" says the LORD. "Look,
as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you
in My hand, O house of Israel!


The general principle of divine repentance, literal
didactic truism

7 "The instant I speak concerning a nation
and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up,
to pull down, and to destroy it,
8 "if that nation against whom I have spoken
turns from its evil,
(then) I will *relent of the disaster
that I thought to bring upon it.

9 "And the instant I speak concerning
a nation and concerning a kingdom,
to build and to plant it,
10 "if it does evil in My sight
so that it does not obey My voice,
then I will *relent concerning the good
with which I said I would benefit it.



* nacham = Strongs #5162 = repent

“(then)” supplied in verse 8 for emphasis on
the “if then” conditional arrangement.

Question 2

Considering verses 7-10, if God is not saying that God will relent/repent/”nacham” from doing what He said “and” thought He would do, then, what is He saying When He says that He repents from doing what He said and thought He would do?
:think: :confused:


Thanks in advance for your respectful and thoughtful consideration and direct response. :thumb:



End quote



Actually, I gave this same argument using Jer 18:1-10 to Swordsman back on 2-18 at this post, http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=465487#post465487 and the same argument to Z Man using Jonah 3:10 on post 312 dated 2-19, http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=466336#post466336
from what I have since combined to make the fuller version previously displayed.


As to your challenging my authority and reasoning for stating the violence that has been perpetrated against God and His word on this issue, I sight the following.


*******NOTICE*******
THIS IS THE BIBLE’S
“VOIDING OF SCRIPTURE”
***CONDEMNATIONS****


Quote



Z Man – I will keep reflecting God’s word to you or whoever I please, because praise God His word never returns void, let alone goes out void, you are frustrated and (arguably) self condemned for voiding scripture of meaning and replacing that meaning with nothing. Here’s more of God’s authoritative word.


We should always trust, not correct/overturn God’s word.

Pr 30:5 Every word of God [is] pure; He [is] a shield to those who put their trust in Him. 6 Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar. God’s word never returns void.
Isa 55:11 So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper [in the thing] for which I sent it. In vain worship and incredulous hypocrisy, men void God’s word of it’s divinely given meaning and authority.
Mt 15:6 ‘then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 "Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 8 ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 9 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’" Ultimately man must submit to God’s word.
Ro 3:4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: "That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged."
You don’t have to listen to me, but you do have to obey God if you want to please Him. Maybe you reject these as not being literal also.



End quote



So please reckon with what has actually transpired since all this has been placed before Z Man (on repeated occasions) and he has completely failed to respond without violating scripture as mentioned. I am not misrepresenting him, he is simply not dealing which what has been presented to him, and I greatly suspect, you will do the same, so heads up advanced warning, watch the hypocrisy, moral hypocrisy is a sin you know. ;)

1Way
March 15th, 2004, 08:06 PM
******FAIR NOTICE******


I will not accept attempts to show how Z Man or anyone else has already answered this challenge, he has not. We can take up that issue in the thread of origination. This is not specifically about Z Man, this is specifically about the observation that closed theists do not treat these passages with the integrity and respect what God specifically requires as mentioned in the last part of post 3.


I will only accept attempts of directly answering the closed view challenge as presented in my third post with the title

“From God’s word on divine repentance - An open challenge to closed theists”

without violating the question nor the scripture at hand.

Any (unreasonable) deviation from closed theists from answering the challenge may be viewed as being off topic, I do not want more and more obfuscation going on. With the exception of Rolf dealing with my charges of Z Man’s fear of the divine repentance passages, the topic is specifically a request for closed theists to respond to this very simple bible conformity challenge.


***END OF FAIR NOTICE***


Sounds simple enough... ;)

God_Is_Truth
March 15th, 2004, 11:18 PM
1 Way,

Good stuff :up:

Rolf Ernst
March 16th, 2004, 02:57 PM
1Way--There you go again. I believe that you just have problem with understanding people's meaning. I spoke of being 67 not to evoke some compassion or consideration from you. It does not matter how young or how old someone may be, all are due the same consideration. A young whippersnapper like you is due as much consideration from me as I might expect from you. I said I was 67 only to indicate to you how long ago that minimal courtesy toward others might have passed into oblivion. You forget me being 67. My mind is as young (in a sense) and as sharp as yours, plus I have the advantage of years of study--Whippersnapper! Let 'er rip!
Also, I am beginning to believe that there is between us the obstacle of a divide between our cultural heritages. That may very well be the largest obstacle.
Also--you have not yet demonstrated HOW your belief that God both changes and repents does not conflict with those scriptures which clearly teach that God does neither. You have done nothing more than say it doesn't conflict.
I demonstrated to you that the few occasions upon which the words indicating repentance or change in God do not conflict with
those verses which clearly show God's immutability because they are either only figurative or anthropomorhic. I have defended my stance that God is immutable.
Your responsibility, since you maintain that God is mutable, is to show how that stance does not conflict with those verses which speak of God being immutable; but you have done nothing more than say, they don't conflict. OH? Excuse me, sir. They clearly do conflict.
How can your stance not conflict with "Known unto god are all His works from the beginning of the world" Acts 15:18 or this--"The LORD of hosts has sworn, saying, "surely as I have thought so shall it come to pass, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand." Isa. 14:24

Can you really believe that your just saying "they don't conflict" will be sufficient? How IS it that they do not conflict?

Again, I remind you of differences in our cultural heritages. I believe you must be from a different part of the country than i am.
Roll up yer sleeves an' put up yer dukes, youngster!

Rolf Ernst
March 16th, 2004, 03:16 PM
1Way--again, I have already demonstrated how those verses do not conflict with verses which clearly states God's immutability.

Again, you claim that God is not immutable. I have answered the challenge already. You are the one who has not shown how your stance does not conflict. Can you show cause? I believe you switched the thread because you cannot pick up the gauntlet I cast down in the earlier thread. Go ahead. Pick it up. Pick it up, whippersnap. I reckon as how I'll show you yongsters a thang 'er two.!

Berean Todd
March 16th, 2004, 06:00 PM
I have to get to class shortly, so unfortunately I don't have time to go too in depth here, but allow me to address some of your "questions" in brief.


Originally posted by 1Way
Question 1


If God is not saying that He repented from what He said He would do, then, what “is He saying When He says” that He repented from doing what He said He would do? (Restated more simply.) What does that verse mean if you deny that God can repent and change His mind?
:think: :confused:


God is going to smite people group X for doing abomination Y. They stop from doing abomination Y and call out for God's mercy. Now who has changed, the people or God?? They changed, and that change brought about God's mercy. Incidentally, God's prediction to destroy them would ultimately be fulfilled only roughly 150 years later, but that has no bearing on the case here. The fact is that the people changed, not God. That change in the people brought about another circumstance, in which God was able to display His mercy. As simple as that. And that word there is much better translated relented than repented.




Question 2
Considering verses 7-10, if God is not saying that God will relent/repent/”nacham” from doing what He said “and” thought He would do, then, what is He saying When He says that He repents from doing what He said and thought He would do?
:think: :confused:


Again, it is as simple as the answer to the above. God's response to our behavior does not mean that He has changed. He will bring destruction and judgment ultimately upon the unrepentent, but if we turn to Him and seek His face, then His mercy may be shown. That does not mean God has changed, it means that WE have changed and God then is responding to a new situation - that of a repentent person/people as opposed to an unrepentent.

Remember, God is longsuffering, gracious and loving. He will judge all people, and His anger may well be displayed against the unrighteous, but if those people were to turn and repent God would forgive and relent. That is not a change in God, it is God reacting to a change in us.

I need to get to class now, but I don't see the above answer as being either the "mental gymnastics" you claim is required for the closed view, nor is it that hard to grasp, understand, comprehend, or find in Scripture.

Rolf Ernst
March 16th, 2004, 07:31 PM
Thanks, Berean Todd. Well said. I have decided I will not post again my answers to 1Way on the same verses he keeps posting. He has not bothered to justify his stance that God changes and repents even though God has said clearly that he does not. Man's inability to comprehend God's using words in a figurative or anthropomorphic sense does NOT justify their charging Him with being mutable. Our presentation of Scripture's meaning is much clearer than any presentation they can give of THEIR position. The burden is upon them to clear their understanding of scripture from contradictions.

1Way
March 16th, 2004, 08:01 PM
Rolf – I would gladly respond to your questions as I often have done for others about this same issue, so don’t think that I am "unwilling" or "unable" to do so. Just point me to the location where you already asked me of this sort of thing and I’d be glad to respond in short order. I will not go off topic in this thread. I'm sure you can understand that much. Thanks for your time and thoughtful consideration.

1Way
March 16th, 2004, 08:02 PM
I anticipated this might happen.

I did not post the second portion of post three for no good reason. I posted that portion to try to keep you closed theists from violating God’s word according to God’s word as highlighted. Please re-read that in order to better understand where my observation of biblical violence is coming from. And I am NOT saying that people violate and void God’s word of meaning and replace it with nothing on purpose. Ignorance is not condemnable, willful ignorance may be.

Everyone, please re-read the top of post 3 where I go to great pains to be as clear as possible what I am seeking in terms of your response. It should help to remember the problem before you answer so that the solution will fit the problem.

The problem is Don’t void scripture of meaning without replacing it with an appropriately biblically derived meaning. And that is not to say that you closed theists must agree with me as I have been falsely accused of my Z Man and others like him, it is simply to say that the biblical nature of a view must be readily demonstrated or else by necessity it is to be placed in doubt.

Because I realize that such a requirement, although very simple and easy for most free willer’s and open viewer’s to comply with, represents a significant obstacle for those of the “closed view”. So I will do everything possible to alleviate this problem by giving an example that particularly demonstrates the solution for Voiding the passage of it’s literal meaning
and
Replacing it with a biblically derived meaning Please consider the following post (w/a footnote after-post) as an “example” and “general guide” to what I am seeking as a response to this challenge.

1Way
March 16th, 2004, 08:05 PM
******NOTICE THIS POST #12******

AN EXAMPLE AND GENERAL GUIDE
TO REPLACING THE VOIDED MEANING


All closed theists – This post was originally for Z Man, but is now for you.

Z Man – post 1 of 2
Thanks for your patience and respectful cooperation, this can be confusing. I am “only” interested in how this verse should be specifically interpreted/read=exegesis (a) the entire verse. Please consider the following as an example of the type of response I am looking for.


1 - “Hating” loved ones in order to be Christ’s disciple


Lu 14:26 "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.
Is this verse literally teaching that we are required to hate our family and our own life in order to allow anyone to be a disciple of Jesus Christ? Consider the following.

1) Is this a simple direct teaching, or one that involves competing relationships? Jesus contrasts Himself against other normally loving preferential relationships. So there is a deliberate contrast being drawn between Himself and others. 2) Since the literal use for the word hate presents an interpretation problem, consider other uses of the word “hate” w/the various forms to see if God uses this word in figurative ways. If this is not to be taken literally, then we need to show reasonable cause and biblical support for so doing. (b)

The following is the fourth use in the bible of the word hate/hatred, and more importantly, it is the first use in a non-literal sense.


2 - (Jacob) he “also loved” Rachel more than “Leah”


Ge 29:30 And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years. 31 And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren. 32 And Leah conceived, and bare a son, and she called his name Reuben: for she said, Surely the LORD hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me. 33 And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Because the LORD hath heard that I was hated, he hath therefore given me this son also: and she called his name Simeon. God did not simply say that Leah was hated, at first He said she was loved. It was Leah who naturally felt somewhat scorned because of her not being Jacob’s specific choice and desired love, it wasn’t that he didn’t love Leah, it was that in comparison, he loved Rachel more because Rachel was his chosen love and first wife to be, not Leah. Remember, God first said that Jacob “also” loved Leah in that he “loved Rachel more”. (c)


So the figure of speech of using the word “hate/hated” in conjunction with contrasting subjects actually means

“To love or prefer less then the other(s) in comparison.”


3 - The answer to what this particular “hating” means

The text should be interpreted as follows

Lu 14:26 "If anyone comes to Me and does not in comparison to Jesus, love/prefer less his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. Or more simply, restate the same idea in a positive sense, eliminating the double negative.

Lu 14:26 "If anyone comes to Me and does not love/prefer Jesus more than his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. That is the meaning of this passage of text, that is what this text is communicating. It is not about a literal hatred, it’s about preferring or loving Jesus more than others.

:up:

Thank you for your time and effort, I am looking forward to your response, but in particular, and I can’t seem to stress this enough, it must include your suggested replacement meaning of the text that you maintain it does not mean what it literally says, “The text should be interpreted as follows” portion is required.

(a) (b) (c) (Note, for more info and support reasoning, see the 3 additional comments in the following post.)

1Way
March 16th, 2004, 08:06 PM
All closed theists – This post was originally for Z Man, but is now for you.


Z Man – post 2 of 2


(a)
As Jesus said
Lu 10:26 He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading [of it]?" There is a difference between simple recognition of words = “reading”, and understanding what the words mean, “interpretation”. What is written, and what is your “reading” of it? We open and closed theists each “read” the same “written text” of Jonah 3.10 for example, but our “reading/interpretation” of it is very different, Jesus did not want to simply know what text applies, more importantly, He wanted to know what was the interpretation of the text. Thus we have two very different kinds of “reads” and arguably, the more important issue is that of interpretation (granting you have the appropriate text in mind).


(b)
I searched for “hate” along with it’s various forms and found the following uses

Gen 24.60 8130 saw-nay
Gen 26.27 8130 saw-nay
Gen 27.41 7852 saw-tam

All of which treat the word hate in a literal sense.


(c)
So when Rachel says that God heard that I was hated, she was over exaggerating her “affliction” which would be natural if you agreed to marry Rachel, your love, and then instead you are tricked into marrying Leah, the one you had not desired! So naturally she was afflicted in the cause of love and desire, but her admission that she evidently protested to God that she was hated, is obviously not accurate according to the entire contextual development, she was loved, but not desired as Rachel was both loved and desired.
Ge 29:30 And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years. 31 And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren. 32 And Leah conceived, and bare a son, and she called his name Reuben: for she said, Surely the LORD hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me. 33 And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Because the LORD hath heard that I was hated, he hath therefore given me this son also: and she called his name Simeon. I think that God was wise by adopting a very special use of the word hate, instead of simply rejecting Leah’s affliction. Also, there is a strange twist to Leah’s affliction in that it seems all indications are that she was a willing partner in Jacob’s deception. She certainly did not have to go along with her father’s treachery, thereby she imposed her own problems upon herself! So knowing all this, it is also easier to see why her resolution to gain Jacob’s love, was of her own devising, namely that she bare him children, which although is a common blessing and normally serves well to bond the family in love, it again was not God’s idea, but her’s.

Thus, there is a bit of back and forth between verses 30, 31, 32, and 33. It seems the thought progression is revealed backwards from 33, to 31 where verse 32 is the general idea of the problem explaining this figurative use, she was afflicted because of the treachery, therefore v.33 says that from her view, God heard that she was “hated”, as a result, that explains verse 31 where God says that she was hated. In reality, she was loved, but not with a first choice preference, and not without deceit and treachery forcing their union. Thus in v.30 Leah is loved simply less than Rachel, and v.31 she is said to be hated.

1Way
March 16th, 2004, 08:21 PM
Berean Todd – Among your other non-answers to my question, you said
And that word there is much better translated relented than repented. I agree. :thumb: Relenting donates the added inter-relational aspect that is richly provided by the contextual development, the idea of one party giving in to another.

Like the common use of two wrestlers for example, where one pins the other and then requests that the pinned party relent and say “uncle”, or “I give” (up the struggle). Or, after petition and repeated petition, the judge or husband or whoever finally relents because of the constant struggle that he or she no longer desires to engage. Relenting is a wonderful word choice!

As to your misapplied response, the challenge is not as you assumed in your response, I am asking what the words mean that you effectively maintain that they do not mean what they plainly (or literally) say (and of course that the replacement meaning should be rightly derived from scripture).

Berean Todd
March 16th, 2004, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by 1Way
As to your misapplied response, the challenge is not as you assumed in your response, I am asking what the words mean that you effectively maintain that they do not mean what they plainly (or literally) say (and of course that the replacement meaning should be rightly derived from scripture).

And I did exactly what you asked. For example, among your scriptures is:


7 "The instant I speak concerning a nation
and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up,
to pull down, and to destroy it,
8 "if that nation against whom I have spoken
turns from its evil,
(then) I will *relent of the disaster
that I thought to bring upon it.

And I told you plainly what it means. Those people above were doing evil, and God was intending to destroy them. They turn from the evil, causing a new set of circumstances. These are now repentent people, calling on God. God's mercy then is allowed to kick in, in response to their repentence. He has not changed. They did. Simple. Easy. Plain to see.

There's a reason that open theism is the black sheep of theology, and near every theological society is denouncing it, and declaring it heresy. It is un-Biblical. Period.

1Way
March 16th, 2004, 11:30 PM
Berean Todd – You quoted me and then responded by saying

As to your misapplied response, the challenge is not as you assumed in your response, I am asking what the words mean that you effectively maintain that they do not mean what they plainly (or literally) say (and of course that the replacement meaning should be rightly derived from scripture).

And I did exactly what you asked. For example, among your scriptures is:


7 "The instant I speak concerning a nation
and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up,
to pull down, and to destroy it,
8 "if that nation against whom I have spoken
turns from its evil,
(then) I will *relent of the disaster
that I thought to bring upon it.

And I told you plainly what it means. Those people above were doing evil, and God was intending to destroy them. They turn from the evil, causing a new set of circumstances. These are now repentent people, calling on God. God's mercy then is allowed to kick in, in response to their repentence. He has not changed. They did. Simple. Easy. Plain to see.

Not true.

Like I said, and you again did not pay attention to,
I am asking what the words mean that you effectively maintain that they do not mean what they plainly (or literally) say. You did not even mention the concept, let alone give it’s replacement meaning in your supposed answer.

The idea that you were supposed to replace presented by the text in question (according to your example) is God sometimes does not do what He “thought” He was going to do You “claim” that you explained what that concept should instead mean, but the fact is that you have not done that. In fact, since you have presented God’s word without replacing any voided meanings (as you "claim" to have done, but did not do), happily God’s version remains meaningfully intact and still accurately expresses what it plainly says, namely that God does not always do what He previously thought He would do.

So by your repeated non-corresponding responses, apparently your understanding of what this passage means is exactly what it plainly says, which is what we open theists maintain it means. :eek: You little devil you. ;)

Say one thing and then do another.

Looks like yet another closed theist crumbles at arguably one of the simplest bible conformity challenges possible.

Just replace the one single idea

that is literally expressed by God’s word

with a biblically provided replacement meaning,

and they don’t even try.

God_Is_Truth
March 16th, 2004, 11:34 PM
And I told you plainly what it means. Those people above were doing evil, and God was intending to destroy them. They turn from the evil, causing a new set of circumstances. These are now repentent people, calling on God. God's mercy then is allowed to kick in, in response to their repentence. He has not changed. They did. Simple. Easy. Plain to see.


so, when the people were doing evil, God intended to destroy them. now that they have repented, God no longer has any intention to destroy them.

in other words, since God was thinking "a" and is now thinking "~a" wouldn't you agree that he changed his mind? if not, can you ever really say he was thinking "a"?

Berean Todd
March 16th, 2004, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

so, when the people were doing evil, God intended to destroy them. now that they have repented, God no longer has any intention to destroy them.

in other words, since God was thinking "a" and is now thinking "~a" wouldn't you agree that he changed his mind? if not, can you ever really say he was thinking "a"?

He was thinking "a" in response to situation "x". He will likewise almost always or always think "a" in response to situation "x". Situation "x" disapeared though, and was replaced by situation "y". Situation "y" does not require response "a" from God, bur rather it engenders response "b".

1Way
March 16th, 2004, 11:43 PM
Bearan Todd – In both of these examples Jonah and Jer, God says that He did not do, or may not do what He thought(*) He would do (i.e. previously thought He would do).

(*) or said He would do, God honestly speaks what He thinks

If those scriptures do not literally mean that, then you must replace that meaning with a biblically provided meaning.

Berean Todd
March 16th, 2004, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by 1Way
If those scriptures do not literally mean that, then you must replace that meaning with a biblically provided meaning.

I don't know who taught you your voodoo hermeneutics, but I've never heard something that screwy in my life. Hermeneutical principles are simple. You start with what the original author was saying, in context, to the original audience. From that you can then find the theological principle that applies to all people and all times. From there you can go to homiletics, which would be to apply it to your culture and your time.

What you don't have to do, and what I've never seen any homiletical system purport, is that you must find some scripture that you can stick in there to make your meaning more clear. You do judge scripture and theology systematically, in light of other scriptures, and in that sense the Bible is clear - there is no shadow of turning in God.

The one going through mental gymnastics in this exercise 1Way is you, sir.

God_Is_Truth
March 16th, 2004, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by Berean Todd

He was thinking "a" in response to situation "x". He will likewise almost always or always think "a" in response to situation "x". Situation "x" disapeared though, and was replaced by situation "y". Situation "y" does not require response "a" from God, bur rather it engenders response "b".

God was thinking "a". "a" did not happen. why did "a" not happen if God was thinking of it? the answer:something had to change the mind of God (circumstances) so that "a" did not come about.

"a" was clearly "in the mind of God". but since "a" did not come about, "a" must have left the mind of God. and what do we call it when something is thought of and then thought against? a change of mind.

1Way
March 17th, 2004, 01:39 AM
Berean Todd
I don't know who taught you your voodoo hermeneutics, but I've never heard something that screwy in my life. What I said was in full conformity to God’s word as mentioned in my post on this issue. It is not screwy, it is according to God’s word. If you disagree with this understanding of God’s word that plainly teaches that you can never void God’s word of meaning and replace it with nothing, then deal with the passages I already gave you for that instead of pretending like I did not already inform you of God’s word on this issue.

I’m seeing a pattern here where you folks who simply do not appreciate my beliefs actually treat my beliefs with hostility. Here’s my suggestion to help you overcome your repulsions from dealing with these things.

Take a deep breath,

exhale fully,

and then

just,,, deal with it.

It’s not that hard to do.

Please read my 3rd post, the second part, where God condemns folks for doing violence to His word as mentioned. You said
What you don't have to do, and what I've never seen any homiletical system purport, is that you must find some scripture that you can stick in there to make your meaning more clear. You misunderstand the issue. When you suggest that the literal or natural reading of a portion of scripture is not true, it means something else, then that is fine if you would rightly establish what the alternative meaning is. If you do not or can not do that, then you have no basis for saying that the literal/natural meaning does not mean what it says.

It’s the same with any figure of speech. This is not rocket science, this is common sense 101. If anyone ever says that something should be taken figuratively instead of literally, then it is incumbent upon them to reasonably establish why and thus what the figure actually means.

Try this on for consistency’s sake
However, if you want to maintain that it’s ok to void any communication of it’s literal meaning without replacing that meaning with a reasonable alternative, then I have a proposition for you that you can not refuse. Come and work for me and I will pay you $50 dollars an hour, but no more than $100 per hour (not including other perks and bonuses). And we’ll have a great time. Really!

But...

and oh what a cool exception this is,

when it comes time for "me" to pay "you", I will entreat you with the same sort of violence you suggest is fine to do against God’s word by saying that I should no be taken literally when I said how much I would pay you, somehow it was just a figure of speech so I don’t have to pay you anything, but didn’t we have fun though?

See, there is no way that you would go for such dishonesty and perversion from any employer, which is good and right for you to object because it is wrong to violate your own (literal) word. Of course the same thing goes with not violating other people’s word as well. And of course, the same thing goes with God and His word, He is no more worthy of such violent treatment than you or anyone else is.

smaller
March 17th, 2004, 07:47 AM
An example of 1way interpretation.

He cites hating father and mother and self etc. to be a disciple and concludes that it is a comparative hate.

In doing so 1way slices LOVE into PIECES. A lesser love for his family and a greater love for Jesus.

He would disregard scriptures that say people have satan as a father, or that Mystery Babylon is the mother of harlotry, or that our old selves were the slaves of sin. These would appear the obvious winners of HATE over our own families.

In this understanding 1way's FIRMLY FIXED UNMOVING example(s) quickly evaporate.

The fun part is watching the marbles roll out of the container when the sticks are removed from 1way's positions.

Swordsman
March 17th, 2004, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by 1Way
Question 1’s bible example

Jonah’s Nineveh prophesy
(God’s meaningful version)

Jon 3:10 Then God saw their works,
that they turned from their evil way;
and God relented from the disaster
that He had said He would bring upon them,
and He did not do it.

If God is not saying that He repented from what He said He would do, then, what “is He saying When He says” that He repented from doing what He said He would do? (Restated more simply.) What does that verse mean if you deny that God can repent and change His mind?
:think: :confused:

I'm gonna take this verse into context to avoid any misinterpretations.

Jonah 3:1-5
Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the second time, saying, "Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach to it the message that I tell you." So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, a three-day journey in extent. And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day's walk. Then he cried out and said, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!" So the people of Nineveh believed God, proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least of them.

So, Jonah obeyed God and gave His message to the people and they believed. The Ninevites had a change of heart here. We go on......

Jonah 3:6-9
Then word came to the king of Nineveh; and he arose from his throne and laid aside his robe, covered himself with sackcloth and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published throughout Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything; do not let them eat, or drink water. But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily to God; yes, let every one turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands. Who can tell if God will turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish?

Even the king was moved by Jonah's message from God. He even questioned 'Who knows what God will do with us.'

Jonah 3:10
Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.


Now here is the crux of the matter. God pronounced judgement on the people of Ninevah had they not changed their evil ways. God simply let them know the direction they were heading - destruction. Since they obviously changed and believed, He did not destroy them. THEY changed, not God. He wasn't ignorant of the future at all.

I'm sure I didn't answer your question like the way you wanted me to. But then again, I'm not of your Open View either.





Originally posted by 1Way
Question 2’s bible example

(Jer 18:1-10 NKJV)

The Potter and the clay


The Vision, figurative speech

“1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the
LORD, saying: 2 "Arise and go down to the
potter’s house, and there I will cause you to
hear My words." 3 Then I went down to the
potter’s house, and there he was, making
something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that
he made of clay was marred in the hand of the
potter; so he made it again into another vessel,
as it seemed good to the potter to make.


God’s explanation of the vision, literal application

5 Then the word of the LORD came to me,
saying: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with
you as this potter?" says the LORD. "Look,
as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you
in My hand, O house of Israel!


The general principle of divine repentance, literal
didactic truism

7 "The instant I speak concerning a nation
and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up,
to pull down, and to destroy it,
8 "if that nation against whom I have spoken
turns from its evil,
(then) I will *relent of the disaster
that I thought to bring upon it.

9 "And the instant I speak concerning
a nation and concerning a kingdom,
to build and to plant it,
10 "if it does evil in My sight
so that it does not obey My voice,
then I will *relent concerning the good
with which I said I would benefit it.



* nacham = Strongs #5162 = repent

“(then)” supplied in verse 8 for emphasis on
the “if then” conditional arrangement.
Question 2

Considering verses 7-10, if God is not saying that God will relent/repent/”nacham” from doing what He said “and” thought He would do, then, what is He saying When He says that He repents from doing what He said and thought He would do?
:think: :confused:

We all know that God abhors evil. God condemns evil. If a nation against whom He had spoken turned from their evil ways, God would spare it. God's covenant with the Israelites stood the test yet again. Had He not used threats to His people to turn them from their evil ways, they would have continued in sin.

Since God is in eternity and we are in a time frame, He has to deal with us in time, since that is all we can understand. The outcome has already been decided. But we don't see it. Therefore, He has to deal with us showing us the result of evil. If we turn and believe, he will save us. This story still applies for us today. God DOES NOT change, WE do.


Originally posted by 1Way
Thanks in advance for your respectful and thoughtful consideration and direct response. :thumb:

Again, I'm sure you're not satisfied with my answers. But I don't know how to please you with an answer, other than me lying to you saying that I believe God doesn't know everything and that He changes His mind based on our actions. I do not believe this since He has not revealed it to me. Also, by the wording of your questions and prerequisites, it seems that you're trying to trap those of us not of your belief.

Forget Boyd, Enyart, Spurgeon, Calvin, Arminius, etc...... Get into the Word for yourself. Ask God to show you the truth. He will. He always does. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He is.

smaller
March 17th, 2004, 03:28 PM
2 Corinthians 5
17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
18 And all things are of God

Rolf Ernst
March 17th, 2004, 05:38 PM
A question for those who weary themselves to read 1Way's rants: How many of you think 1Way understands the not uncommon use of hyperbole by the people among whom Jesus ministered?? This may be a good question for a poll--how many of you believe 1Way understands (1) what hyperbole is and (2) how common it was among the people to whom Jesus ministered?
Another interesting question--What was it which 1Way recently posted that makes me wonder this about him?
My answer to such a poll would be that 1Way neither understands what hyperbole is, nor how common its use was at that time.

P.S. I would be happy if 1Way would correct me by showing that he both knows what it is, and how common its use was. Go ahead, 1Way.

1Way
March 17th, 2004, 07:53 PM
Here is the location for all off topic discussions, either post there, or call my attention to wherever else you request my response. The new thread in this same forum is called


An open challenge to all closed theists Part 2 “Off_topic_issues”

And here is the link

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=485674#post485674



smaller you are offtopic.

Rolf I expect you to answer post 10. This thread has a specific topic and focus, and like I said, I will be glad to engage your questions and challenges wherever else you decide.

smaller
March 17th, 2004, 09:58 PM
only in your onesided view 1way....

typical

1Way
March 18th, 2004, 02:52 AM
This is not about me not “liking” or “agreeing” with your response, nor about me forcing you to become an open theist. This is about providing sufficient reasonable evidence that the text should be understood figuratively instead of literally. Until you do that, God’s word wins, He literally meant what He literally said. I ask a simple bible conformity question and go to great lengths to make sure you understand exactly what I am looking for
I warn against meaningfully voiding God’s word by man’s tradition (quoting God as my source)
I demonstrated an appropriate example of how to establish a non-literal meaning as provided by God’s word
And yet no one has come close to complying with this bible conformity challenge, not one attempt at offering a replacement figurative meaning.

1Way
March 18th, 2004, 02:53 AM
Here is the simplified and focused issue at hand.

The following is the portion of text that the closed view says should be taken figuratively and not literally. Ok, if that is true. ...

What does this figurative text mean?

_____________Jon 3:10b
God repented from the disaster
that He had said He would bring
upon them, and He did not do it.


The form of the answer
Your task is to specifically state the figurative meaning. We should be able to return to the literal words armed with the suggested non-literal meaning, such that when we read the text, we can understand what it means according to this non-literal meaning, i.e. it makes sense, it does not contradict the context, etc.

If you would do just that much, then half of the challenge would be answered. The other half is simply doing a reasonable demonstration establishing the meaning from scripture (so as to not void the meaning with a manmade tradition).

smaller
March 18th, 2004, 07:32 AM
ALL THINGS ARE OF GOD.

What is not of God?

Can 1way name ONE THING that is NOT of GOD?

Swordsman
March 18th, 2004, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by 1Way

This is not about me not “liking” or “agreeing” with your response, nor about me forcing you to become an open theist. This is about providing sufficient reasonable evidence that the text should be understood figuratively instead of literally. Until you do that, God’s word wins, He literally meant what He literally said. I ask a simple bible conformity question and go to great lengths to make sure you understand exactly what I am looking for

See, I think the difference between you, 1Way, and me is that you're looking to push your agenda upon the rest of us, and I merely believe what I believe because it is God, and God alone who has revealed it to me. I know that you probably do not care about my experience, but that aside, I understand what point you're trying to make. I think you have done well making it with the text you're using.

Figuratively, the text does not mean God changed His mind. I answered your question in my previous post. The key concept to remember at all times is that God is not caught up in our time line, but eternity. Knowing that, you can't possibly believe he doesn't know choices His people were going to make. But since you do not believe this, then there really is no argument and you shouldn't expect others to come to grips with your belief.


Originally posted by 1Way
I warn against meaningfully voiding God’s word by man’s tradition (quoting God as my source)
I demonstrated an appropriate example of how to establish a non-literal meaning as provided by God’s word
And yet no one has come close to complying with this bible conformity challenge, not one attempt at offering a replacement figurative meaning.

I'll admit I don't know all the truth, and probably never will. But I do know one thing: the view that God doesn't know everything, or chooses not to know, or can even change His mind is not the God I serve.

If you would like to start another thread on the sovereignty of God making points of what the word "sovereignty" means, please do so. But then again, the OVers say they believe God is sovereign but come back and say He takes risks and can even make mistakes.

So claim victory again over the "closed theists". Maybe one of your cronies will "high-five" ya or give you a POTD. Whatever does it for ya. :thumb:

Turbo
March 18th, 2004, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by Swordsman

See, I think the difference between you, 1Way, and me is that you're looking to push your agenda upon the rest of us, and I merely believe what I believe because it is God, and God alone who has revealed it to me. Well, this is a debate forum. :doh: And if you didn't want to convince others that Open Theists are in error, you wouldn't be participating in these debates. You've even started threads to debate the topic. This business of "1Way has an agenda and I don't" smells like a cop out.



Figuratively, the text does not mean God changed His mind. I answered your question in my previous post. The key concept to remember at all times is that God is not caught up in our time line, but eternity. Knowing that, you can't possibly believe he doesn't know choices His people were going to make. But since you do not believe this, then there really is no argument and you shouldn't expect others to come to grips with your belief.Why not make an effort to prove scripturally that God exists/operates outside of time? What brings you to that conclusion?


But then again, the OVers say [God] can even make mistakes.I think you're being dishonest here. Many OVers on this board have clarified that they do not believe God makes mistakes. Here (point #6) (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=483906#post483906) is one example that I know you read. Please provide a quote of any OVer stating that God makes mistakes.

Swordsman
March 18th, 2004, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by Turbo

Well, this is a debate forum. :doh: And if you didn't want to convince others that Open Theists are in error, you wouldn't be participating in these debates. You've even started threads to debate the topic. This business of "1Way has an agenda and I don't" smells like a cop out.

It isn't I that will convince you or anyone else that Open Theism is not of the Spirit. I merely asked on another thread "Does Open Theism Limit God?" Whether I got a debate or not, it was a question that I was curious about. I don't like "battling" or "debating" as you so eloquently put it. The Bible is "God-breathed". I don't debate anything about what God speaks to me. If so, I would be questioning His truth.


Originally posted by Turbo
Why not make an effort to prove scripturally that God exists/operates outside of time? What brings you to that conclusion?

Please tell me you believe in the One and Only Eternal God.....

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."

Matthew 28:20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.

John 1:1-2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

1 John 2:13 I write to you, fathers, because you have known Him who is from the beginning.

Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.

and on and on and on..............


Originally posted by Turbo
I think you're being dishonest here. Many OVers on this board have clarified that they do not believe God makes mistakes. Here (point #6) (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=483906#post483906) is one example that I know you read. Please provide a quote of any OVer stating that God makes mistakes.

OK. Here is a quote from an OVer John Sanders.


John Sanders in this book The God Who Risks
God's ability to predict the future in this way is far more accurate than any human forecasters, however, since God has exhaustive access to all past and present knowledge. This would explain God's foretelling Moses that Pharoah would refuse to grant his request. Nonetheless, this does leave open the possibility that God might be "mistaken" about some points, as the biblical record acknowledges. For instance, in Exodus God thought that the elders of Israel would believe Moses, but God acknowledges that Moses is correct in suggesting the possibility that they may not believe him (Exodus 3:16-4:9). God also thought the people of Jeremiah's day would repent and return to him, but they did not, to God's dismay (Jer. 3:7, 19-20).

smaller
March 18th, 2004, 10:44 AM
Open View Newsflash!

God makes mankind and crosses his fingers in hopes that they will turn out right...

...but alas He fails not only miserably but nearly completely...

ONLY a few seeds that God Planted actually took root and bore FRUIT...pathetic fruit as it is....a few small bitter figs...

THEN GOD IS forced to burn the majority and balance of them forever in writhing torture

Hopefully the few little bitter figs who actually made it will satisfy you going forward and ripen in your LIGHT, BUT, but, but, you really do not know if even these can sustain themselves FOREVER....

Better Luck next time God.

You will get it right someday....after all, You do have an eternity to work on things...

God, you just NEVER KNOW....

Rolf Ernst
March 18th, 2004, 11:43 AM
I have answered all your objections. You have just not read them or else you have willingly refused to understand.
Question for you, 1Way: your views of scripture and your interpretations are so far off base, I doubt that you can find a systematic theology by anyone who agrees with you. People who believe like that don't have the grasp of scripture necessary to write a book about it. QUESTION: Can you refer me to such a work? Who wrote it, and who published it?
Yet you demand everyone's time and space on this forum to endlessly mistreat the same scriptures over and over; and even though people properly exegete those texts you persist in saying that they have not answered your challenge.
I think you need to find a good systematic theology like Berkhof's
or Robert Reymond's, spend a year in study, and then come back and talk to us. Your continued haranging people about texts which they have already given good responses to is beginning to qualify as harrassment.

Rolf Ernst
March 18th, 2004, 11:50 AM
Smaller--your post above, the 31st on this thread--I don't know if you were deliberately trying to do so, but you can be humorous with a touch of hilarity

smaller
March 18th, 2004, 01:16 PM
Thanks Rolf

Personally I like #35 better as it is a summation of OV beliefs

I will not say 1Way is the 1thing that is not of God...;)

1Way
March 19th, 2004, 02:45 AM
Swordsman – You said the following in response to Turbo
I don't like "battling" or "debating" as you so eloquently put it. The Bible is "God-breathed". I don't debate anything about what God speaks to me. If so, I would be questioning His truth. I realize that you didn’t mean “questioning His truth” as though “seeking answers to sincere questions”, you meant you do not “question His truth” in terms of “doubting it’s righteousness or authority”. And I’m glad to hear you “say” such an honorable thing.

But, I think that you go well beyond “doubting God’s word” by rejecting the dozens of literal scripture teachings and demonstrations of divine repentance and doing so without violating scripture. You seem unwilling to face the fact that you do the following “three step stomp” on God’s word.

____ Presenting Closed Theism’s :freak:
______ very own “time-tested”

. Three . . Step . . Stomp!

Choreographically illustrated “step by step”
from authentic closed theism’s treatment
of God’s word

1
Void scripture’s authoritative teaching
Divine repentance does not mean what it (literally) says, it
is not literal, it is figurative.

2
Violate scripture by not discovering the
voided meaning from God’s revealed word

No one actually “knows” what the figure means, but we
(somehow) :eek: “know” it does NOT mean that God did
not do what He previously thought He would do. :freak:

So, “God repenting and DID NOT DO what He said He
WOULD DO”,

actually means that

He did NOT repent, He DID DO what He previously
thought He would do. :D

3
On top of all that violence, you hold in
higher esteem “closed theism’s” manmade
tradition than you do the literal message
from scripture, conveniently claiming
“no-fault” ignorance over what the figure
actually means

So as a closed theist, although I claim to honor and trust
God’s word, I have a longstanding habit of doing violence
to it because of very important manmade traditions.

And if anyone dare charge us with not conforming our faith
to God’s word, we just appeal to the great men of old,
saying obviously our glorious tradition has dealt with all
that long ago. ------- The proverbial Closed Theist


That is going well beyond just “questioning God’s word”, you actually purposefully reject it, and suppose that you have the standing to overturn what scripture literally says in dozens of places, specifically “knowing” what it can not mean, yet having no idea of what it does mean.
:dunce: :freak: :eek: :doh:

So ultimately Swordsman, as you fundamentally follow this pattern, you do violence to God’s word because of your manmade tradition, and when called to task for so doing, your case rests firmly on no-fault ignorance that is richly provided by the manmade tradition of closed theism.

A proposition (for non-hypocrites) that you “just can’t refuse” ;)
Here is my treatment for folks like you who wish to suggest a figurative meaning while not providing a reasonable “context conforming” figurative alternative.
If you want to maintain that it’s ok to void communications of it’s literal meaning without replacing that meaning with a reasonable and verifiable alternative, then I have a proposition for you that you “can not refuse”. :D Come and work for me and I will pay you $50 dollars an hour, but no more than $100 per hour (not including other perks and bonuses). And we’ll have a great time. Really!

But...

(and oh what a cool (closed theist) exception this is,)

... when it comes time for "me" to pay "you", I will treat you with the same sort of violence you suggest is fine to do against God’s word by saying that I should no be taken literally when I said how much I would pay you, somehow it was just a figure of speech so I don’t have to pay you anything, but didn’t we have fun though?

See, there is no way that you would go for such dishonesty and perversion from any employer, which is good and right for you to object because it is wrong to violate your own (literal) word. Of course the same thing goes with not violating other people’s word as well. And of course, the same thing goes with God and His word, He is no more worthy of such violent treatment than you or anyone else is. So what gives? Will you, or will you not remain consistent with your “literal to figurative” violation process? If you work for me full time for a month straight before I pay you, I’ll give you the full $100/hour! But if have to pay you weekly, then I will only give you $50/hour. :thumb: Sounds like a great deal, DOESN’T IT? Surely your not a hypocrite, if it is godly to do what you do to scripture, then you’ll be happy to demonstrate consistency of your faith in your life when the rubber meets the roads. How about it? I’d even go for giving you $75/hour for a two week plan, just since it is you! :o

Swordsman
March 19th, 2004, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by 1Way
So what gives? Will you, or will you not remain consistent with your “literal to figurative” violation process? If you work for me full time for a month straight before I pay you, I’ll give you the full $100/hour! But if have to pay you weekly, then I will only give you $50/hour. :thumb: Sounds like a great deal, DOESN’T IT? Surely your not a hypocrite, if it is godly to do what you do to scripture, then you’ll be happy to demonstrate consistency of your faith in your life when the rubber meets the roads. How about it? I’d even go for giving you $75/hour for a two week plan, just since it is you! :o

Proof of my faith and trust in God isn't for sale.

I respect your view 1Way, i just do not feel led to believe the way you do. Its only through experiences and seeking His Word has made me what I am today. Nothing else. Not John Calvin, or any church.

Its really pointless to argue about it. There is nothing I can do to try to make you or anyone else believe what or how the truth has been revealed to me. Everytime me or Zman or Rolf or Helmet84 speak of His sovereignty, they get shot down as "taking the Scripture out of context." Believe me, I'm not backing down, but I'm not gonna participate in any "battle" or "debate" with OVers or Arminians or Evangelicals.

I respect your view and what you have to say about it. I really do. You seem to be a man who stands up for what he believes in. And I recognize that.

The mysterious thing about all the different doctrines of the Bible is that we all "think" we have God figured out. I used to be this way back in my semi-Arminian days.

It isn't my agenda to push my belief upon anyone else. Only God can show one the truth. Not me or Greg Boyd or John MacArthur or anyone else. I pray that you seek out his truth daily. I do myself. More and more He opens my eyes and gives me a biblical world view.

In Christ,
swordsman

smaller
March 19th, 2004, 11:55 AM
The open view god is like Bernie Ebbers or some high ranking politician....

this god says, golly, I really didn't know what was going to happen....

...somebody else had control of that area...

I was out of the loop

therefore I am blameless...

Rolf Ernst
March 19th, 2004, 02:10 PM
Boy! If 1Way ever found Ezek. ch. 33 in the Bible, couldn't he lay down the charges against God for repenting despite the fact He had said that He doesn't. Of course, the PROPER exegesis of Ezek. 33 shows that God is explaining His principles of JUSTICE from which BECAUSE OF HIS IMMUTABILITY, He will never depart. He gives to Ezekiel the various scenarios possible in the conduct of men and after each scenario, informs Ezekiel of what His IMMUTABLE principle of justice is for that scenario. When you read through the chapter, it is clear that God is delineating terms--setting down HARD and FAST, IMMUTABLE principles of justice.
There it is, in black and white, oh man, and YOU CAN BE CERTAIN that God will NEVER alter from it. You can take it to the bank, Nineva. You've got forty days--the well known period of testing. The fact that the king responded so appropriately to the warning clearly demonstrates that he knew what the full import of Jonah's message was even though Jonah might not have-likely did not-speak a word about mercy upon repentance to the king--after all, Jonah didn't WANT them to repent--the king knew the God of the Israelites well enough to (1) know what the proper course for them was under that threatening of doom to come in 40 days and (2), had confidence that God, because of His immutability, would be merciful. Therefore he began a stedfast course of the repentance which he understood God would accept.
Immutably true to His principles of justice seen in Ezek. 33 and Jer.18:7-10, God showed mercy on Ninevah.
Now--what 1Way is seemingly incapable of grasping, is that God acted precisely as He had said He would in that scenario. He wavered from it not by one whit. And how glad the king was then for God's immutable faithfulness. Only Jonah was displeased. In the closing verses, God deals with Jonah about his anger. It is clear that God had sent Jonah to the Ninevites because He intended to turn them back to righteousness. Jonah knew God that well too. That is why he had fled in the opposite direction. His intent toward Nineveh was not one of mercy; but knowing his own wish against God's purpose was futile, he did all he could to not be a party to delivering them thar' wascally Ninevites. So Jonah knew what was up. The king knew what was up. Both understood God well enough to know what was in the offing. They knew on the basis of appreciating God's faithfulness to Himself. God did not vary. As a consequence, Jonah ended up in Ninevah despite his wishes to the contrary, and despite his wishes, the king repented which was God's immutable purpose in sending Jonah to nineveh.
God did not repent of His intention to send Jonah, nor did He repent of the PURPOSE for which He had sent Jonah--to show pity upon the Ninevite, (4:11).
Imagine the consternation of BOTH Jonah and the king if, after the repentance of the Ninevites God had not shown mercy. Jonah would have had to question what kind of change, what mutability in God had taken place that He would act so CONTRARY to the principles of Justive set down in Ezek.33 and Jer. 10 THAT--THAT is what would have been mutability on God's part. Now I want you all to notice that all this effort, all this careful consideration of Jonah, Ezek. and Jer. will (I expect) be wasted on 1Way. Why did I trouble myself?

1Way
March 19th, 2004, 09:19 PM
All closed theists

Lovely, so despite all this gathering of (closed theist) minds, and their supposed superior or righteous bible understanding, no one has presented one single reasonable “bible derived” figurative meaning for Jonah 3:10 subsection part B (or any other literal divine repentance passages).

You have no reasonable basis for your claims against the literal understanding of divine repentance, God sometimes does not do what He said/thought He would do. God’s word remains true and shows that you are contrary against it.

I suggest you review God’s word that condemns you for voiding it of meaning because of your tradition.

1Way
March 19th, 2004, 09:28 PM
Swordsman – You said
Proof of my faith and trust in God isn't for sale. Really, you just sold out! You will not live what you say you believe. I’m sorry to see you go back on your words so quickly.

“Void, violate and nullify”, that is what you do, that is how you treat God’s word. If it was truly fine with you to “void, violate and nullify”, then you would be happy to work for anyone who would make figurative what is literal (for no well established reason), but you wont do that exactly because you KNOW that doing such things is wrong. And for that I respect you, but for turning right around and doing that to God’s word, you have no excuse because you know better.

If not, then stop this back and forth bit, come work for me for 2(!) months in a row before payment, and I will upgrade your rate to $150/hr. I'd like to watch as the double minded hypocrisy leaves you for "good".

Lighthouse
March 19th, 2004, 11:25 PM
I'm beginning to think I don't agree with either side.

God_Is_Truth
March 19th, 2004, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

I'm beginning to think I don't agree with either side.

the only two sides are that either the future is open or it's closed.

i really don't see how can you pick neither. it's either open or it's closed. it can't be both open and closed and it can't be neither open or closed. however, just because you choose a particular side it does not mean you have to agree with everything people say about that side. being a closed theist just means you believe that the future is closed. being an open theists means you believe the future is open. THAT'S IT.

*Acts9_12Out*
March 20th, 2004, 11:03 AM
1Way,

As usual, outstanding! I admire your diligence in defending the Faith! I have often asked the same question.

"What does God really mean when He says He REPENTS if God does not in fact repent?"

The answers that have been given thus far have been, "Um, God didn't change, the people changed..." What I find interesting is the inconsistency when dealing with a passage like Jonah 3:1-4:2. The question that must be asked first is,

"What did God mean when He said (through His prophet Jonah) 'Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!'?"

If God intended to overthrow Nineveh in 40 days, why was it not accomplished? Remember, God doesn't change, right? If only the people changed, then God should have destroyed Nineveh, because He doesn't change. :shocked:

One more thing I find interesting is we see that the people of Nineveh repent (they change), the king of Nineveh repents (he changes) and God repents (He DOESN'T change????)

The people changed, the king changed, but God remained the same?? :kookoo:

Yet another interesting point is as follows...


Jonah 3:9
9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish?

The CV'ers here say God does not repent. The king of Nineveh (who 'believed' God) wonders if God will repent. Why would the king of Nineveh wonder if God would repent if God does not repent? :confused:

Jonah also calls God a God who repents...


Jonah 4:2
2 So he prayed to the Lord, and said, “Ah, Lord, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who repents from doing harm.

So, we are to believe that God is gracious, merciful, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, right? Jonah says God is all of these things. However, the CV'ers here want us to dismiss the fact that Jonah calls God One who repents from doing harm. I wonder how that's supposed to work? :confused:

Moses also believes that God repents...


Exodus 32:12b
12b Turn from Your fierce wrath, and repent from this harm to Your people.

Now, why would Moses ask God to repent if God does not repent? :confused:

In fact, when Moses asks God to repent, how does God respond?


Exodus 32:14
14 So the Lord repented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.

God "repented" here, but did not change according to the CV'ers... :confused: Again, this makes no sense in light of the fact that God's intention was to destroy the people.


Exodus 32:9,10
9 And the Lord said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people!
10 “Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation.”

What's really interesting here is that the people never changed, but God still repented! God said He was going to kill them all, and start all over with Moses. Moses prayed, and God stayed the same? Uh, no... God changed His mind about the harm He said he was going to do...

Well 1Way, Jonah believes God repents. Moses believes God repents. Jeremiah and Ezekiel believe God repents... Seems to me that we're in great company! :thumb:

Take care brother,

--Jeremy Finkenbinder

Rolf Ernst
March 20th, 2004, 01:32 PM
Poor, pathetic souls--unable to understand that, as I pointed out in the 42nd post of this thread, God relates to human instrumentalities; threatens them with destruction to provoke them to repentance; reveals to Abraham his servant His interest in Sodom and Gomorrah to provoke Abraham's intercession for those cities (believe it or NOT, OVer, God DOES work through human instruments and reveals to them truths concerning His principles of justice to provoke them to interceed on behalf of others); reveals to Hezekiah his illness to provoke him to prayer; promises a rebuilding of His people's land and then appends to that promise His requirement that though He is going to do that for Judah, yet He will have them plead to Him about doing so.

Poor, pathetic souls--unable to understand that what took place in regard to Nineveh takes place EVERYTIME a sinner is converted to Christ; unable to understand that EVERY sinner, until he is regenerated by the working of god's mighty power, is continually, without relief, under the wrath of God and ALL the threatenings of divine justice; unable to understand that the THREATENINGS of God's justice weigh down upon them just as heavily as those warnings pressed down upon the Ninevites

But Jonah was not as blind as the OVers. He knew what was up and did not want God to have pity on the Ninevites. Therefore he ran in the opposite direction--away from Nineveh--because he was not ignorant of God's ways. Though God had given Him a message of destruction to come in 40 days, Jonah knew 40 days as a period of testing, and that if in those 40 days Nineveh repented, God would be merciful according to His immutable principles of divine justice which God had Ezekiel write down in chapter 33 and Jeremiah express in 18:7-10; knew that if the Ninevites repented, God would be merciful, and he did not want that. so Jonah fled.
And even the Ninevite king understood God's principles of divine justice better than today's OVers; knew that God's threatenings were always withdrawn upon Godly repentance. When the Ninevite king heard the mention of a period of 40 days, he recognized it as a period of testing which the God of the Israelites often applied; recognized it as the length of time he was given to repent and therefore he quickly set out to avert the threatened judgment. He knew, you see, that God was immutable and would therefore be merciful. He was a Gentile--outside the usual reach of God's mercies. Yet He knew God would NOT REPENT of His divine principle of justice which ALWAYS extended mercy upon repentance.

Poor OVers--living in an age where so much of God's grace has been revealed and yet they are unable to understand as much about God's immutable principles of divine justice as that heathen king!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It has been forever true and STILL is that "A man can receive NOTHING except it be given him from heaven." All caps mine. I wash my hands of you!

helmet84
March 20th, 2004, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

It has been forever true and STILL is that "A man can receive NOTHING except it be given him from heaven." All caps mine. I wash my hands of you!

I was wondering when you were going to give up on these guys. The natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God; they are foolishness to him. Neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. We are all OVers and Arminians by birth. We will never change until the Spirit shows us otherwise.

It will be interesting to see people argue with God about these things when the wicked are finally judged. I wonder if He will let them? :think:
-- helmet84

God_Is_Truth
March 20th, 2004, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by helmet84
It will be interesting to see people argue with God about these things when the wicked are finally judged. I wonder if He will let them? :think:
-- helmet84

depends if it was predestined or not :D

Swordsman
March 20th, 2004, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by helmet84
It will be interesting to see people argue with God about these things when the wicked are finally judged. I wonder if He will let them? :think:
-- helmet84

Interesting, indeed.....

helmet84
March 20th, 2004, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

depends if it was predestined or not :D

If you only knew how right you were . . .

:first:

-- helmet84

lee_merrill
March 20th, 2004, 06:18 PM
"What does God really mean when He says He REPENTS if God does not in fact repent?"

What does God mean when he says he has arms if God does not in fact have arms? It means he's describing something to us in terms we can understand.


If God intended to overthrow Nineveh in 40 days, why was it not accomplished? Remember, God doesn't change, right? If only the people changed, then God should have destroyed Nineveh, because He doesn't change.

Jonah sees this differently:

JNH 4:2 I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity.

God is consistent in his responses to people who do change, we know what to expect, his response changes, but he remains the same. "I knew that you are..."


One more thing I find interesting is we see that the people of Nineveh repent (they change), the king of Nineveh repents (he changes) and God repents (He DOESN'T change????)

The people changed, the king changed, but God remained the same??

That's right, gorillas have arms, people have arms, but God does not have an arm. He doesn't change his plan. It means something we can understand, but also something different than what we do when we repent. You could read here "changed his response," instead of "repented", and say here the people changed their response, the king changed his response, and God changed his response. The people were changed in the process, but God was not. There's two answers for the price of one...


Now, why would Moses ask God to repent if God does not repent?

God does not have an arm...


What's really interesting here is that the people never changed, but God still repented! God said He was going to kill them all, and start all over with Moses. Moses prayed, and God stayed the same? Uh, no... God changed His mind about the harm He said he was going to do...

EZE 22:30 "I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it, but I found none."

Moses' prayer is a factor here, too. People repenting is not the only reason God will relent. Prayer is a reason, as well:

AM 7:2-3 When they had stripped the land clean, I cried out, "Sovereign Lord, forgive! How can Jacob survive? He is so small!" So the Lord relented. "This will not happen," the Lord said.

One more comment, about the Nineveh text, I would add that the city *was* overthrown, but by repentance, and not by judgment.

Blessings,
Lee

God_Is_Truth
March 21st, 2004, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by helmet84

If you only knew how right you were . . .

:first:

-- helmet84

must be God's fault for predestining me that way! :D

God_Is_Truth
March 21st, 2004, 12:27 AM
Lee,

the point is that we can determine that when it says that God has an arm that its figurative of say his might or his power or his strenght or perhaps his protectiveness. we replace the literal meaning with what it's figuring. the problem with the repentence passages is that people say they are figurative WITHOUT telling us WHAT they are figuring.

smaller
March 21st, 2004, 12:28 AM
God's Repentence is predetermined

God_Is_Truth
March 21st, 2004, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by smaller

God's Repentence is predetermined

then he's not really changing his mind is he? if it was predetermined then he knew about it in advance and thus his mind was already set for that. repentence becomes an illusion.

*Acts9_12Out*
March 21st, 2004, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by helmet84

I was wondering when you were going to give up on these guys. The natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God; they are foolishness to him. Neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. We are all OVers and Arminians by birth. We will never change until the Spirit shows us otherwise.

It will be interesting to see people argue with God about these things when the wicked are finally judged. I wonder if He will let them? :think:
-- helmet84

helmet,

What I find interesting is the fact that you force a calvinistic conclusion into 1 Corinthians 2:14 that does not need to be there. You seem to imply that a "soulish" man is unable to respond to the gospel. In fact, you fail to realize the entire context of 1 Corinthians 2:14. We need to pick up the context in the first chapter...

I diasgree that verse 14 is saying that the "natural" or soulish man cannot or is unable to become saved. I'm sure this is fine with you since that's why we're here, right? To discuss our wonderful God's Word and try to reach a valid conclusion.

I hope that you'll agree that Paul writes 1 Corinthians soon after his encounter with the philosophers "in the midst of the Areopagus" in Acts 17:22-33. He is frustrated with the "wisdom" (sophia) of the world and spends the first 2 chapters of 1 Corinthians addressing the "sophia" or philosophy (lit. love of wisdom) of the world. He begins his discussion in 1 Cor 1:18,


1 Corinthians 1:18 (The New King James Version)
1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Paul references his encounter with the philosophers on Mars Hill. The message of the cross is foolishness to them, and they even mocked him.


Acts 17:31-32 (The New King James Version)
17:31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead."
17:32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, "We will hear you again on this matter."

Paul goes on to describe God's view of worldly rationalism and philosophy.


1 Corinthians 1:19-21 (The New King James Version)
1:19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
1:20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

helmet, please check out how many times the word "sophia" is used in chapters 1 and 2. This is Paul's emphasis, not the total depravity of mankind. When Paul opens chapter 2, he is still referring to his encounter on Mars Hill.


1 Corinthians 2:2-4 (The New King James Version)
2:2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
2:3 I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling.
2:4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,

Paul goes on to describe men like those he encountered on the Areopagus contrasted with believers. Let's look at how this unfolds.


1 Corinthians 2:9-15 (The New King James Version)
2:9 But as it is written: "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him."
2:10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.

Verse 10 clearly shows that God has revealed "The things which God has prepared for those who love Him." of verse 9. The Spirit searches all thins, yes the deep things of God.


2:11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.

This covers all men, saved or unsaved. The spirit of the man knows the things of the man, saved or unsaved. Only the Spirit of God knows the things of God. Next, Paul addresses Christians.


2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

What are those things that they have been given? The things which God has prepared for those who love Him of verse 9. They have an experetial knowledge of God. They understand His blessings, His peace that surpasses all understanding, etc..


2:13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

This verse shows that man's "philosophy" or "sophia" is nothing compared to the wisdom of the Holy Spirit.


2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Here's our controversial verse. helmet, would you agree that the context suggests that Paul is referring back to the philosophers who mocked him on Mars Hill? He is saying that those men who have not trusted in Christ will not experience God's blessings, peace, or The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.


2:15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.

The natural man, or soulish man does not have the Holy Spirit to judge all things.

helmet, don't you think that if God had wanted us to believe that man is unable to receive the things of God, He would've used a word to convey that idea? Why didn't God use the negative of "dunamai" in the first part of verse 14, which would definitely show the inability to receive the things of God? I think that the context suggests Paul's frustration with the philosophers of the world, and his security in Christ because he is experiencing, "The things which God has prepared for those who love Him."

Please look outside your calvinistic box and consider the true context of Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 2:14.

--Jeremy

smaller
March 21st, 2004, 12:42 AM
then he's not really changing his mind is he? if it was predetermined then he knew about it in advance and thus his mind was already set for that. repentence becomes an illusion.

The "lesson" here is God Himself is NOT CAPTURED or DEFINED by the term "change" or the term "unchanging."

BOTH of these positions SERVE The One who IS Greater than ALL THINGS.

*Acts9_12Out*
March 21st, 2004, 12:51 AM
lee,

As GIT has explained, we can understand what the Bible means when it says He has an "arm" or something like that. The question still stands... What is the Bible trying to say the 20+ times it says God repents? Does God repent or not? Secondly, how do you interpret the passages that say God "does not repent" literally, but choose to interpret the passages that say He "does repent" figuratively?

Now, we would have an issue if God said, "I have an arm," if He does not actually have an arm. However, God never says that about Himself. Rather, OT authors describe physical attributes of God which we are able to explain the meaning behind. Now, I ask, why would God say He repents, if He does not repent?


Jeremiah 15:6
6 "You have forsaken Me,” says the Lord, “You have gone backward. Therefore I will stretch out My hand against you and destroy you; I am weary of repenting!

Now, what does God mean when He says He repents, if He does not repent?

--Jeremy

*Acts9_12Out*
March 21st, 2004, 12:54 AM
Rolf,

Since you fail to respond to any of the points I raised and resort to personal attacks, I must conclude that you concede every point.

Maybe you can wash Pilate's feet after you both finish washing your hands of Christians...

--Jeremy

God_Is_Truth
March 21st, 2004, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by smaller

The "lesson" here is God Himself is NOT CAPTURED or DEFINED by the term "change" or the term "unchanging."

BOTH of these positions SERVE The One who IS Greater than ALL THINGS.

lol ok smaller. hey! i think i just figured out why you picked your name. because you consider yourself "smaller" than the one who is "greater than all things". am i right?

LightSon
March 21st, 2004, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

then he's not really changing his mind is he? if it was predetermined then he knew about it in advance and thus his mind was already set for that. repentence becomes an illusion.
In stead of "an illusion," why can't it be a matter of perspective? From man's perspective, it certainly appears that God repents and is even capricious.

If, ontologically speaking, God does not change, but describes Himself to man as though He does change, then this would amount to an anthropomorphism, just as the closed guys have been saying for centuries.

So from God's position of exhaustive foreknowledge, He did move to adjust man's perspective. God ordained a perspective change, and in doing so, man observes God repenting. That works for me. I just can't get my head around the possibility that God will be caught off guard.
"Surprise" - Adam sinned. :( I don't think God was surprised.
It just doesn't seem very Godlike.

smaller
March 21st, 2004, 01:13 AM
It has been brought up many times in this thread that God's predisposition to lawlessness/evil is to curse it, but IF God LED the instruments of such things to repentence, then He can repent of his predetermined action as REPENTENCE was God's Predetermined action. Is this too difficult to grasp.....?

In either case God is free to do as entirely as He Pleases.

In the case of God's being "unchanging" how broad can the definitions be...??? for example, if ALL THINGS serve The Maker of ALL THINGS then He would be UNCHANGING in this aspect.

LightSon
March 21st, 2004, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

lol ok smaller. hey! i think i just figured out why you picked your name. because you consider yourself "smaller" than the one who is "greater than all things". am i right?

No. :nono:
This kind of rationale would make us all "smaller". In which case I would already be a universalist. :freak:

smaller
March 21st, 2004, 01:21 AM
John the baptists statement comes to mind for all eh?

God_Is_Truth
March 21st, 2004, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by LightSon

In stead of "an illusion," why can't it be a matter of perspective? From man's perspective, it certainly appears that God repents and is even capricious.

If, ontologically speaking, God does not change, but describes Himself to man as though He does change, then this would amount to an anthropomorphism, just as the closed guys have been saying for centuries.

So from God's position of exhaustive foreknowledge, He did move to adjust man's perspective. God ordained a perspective change, and in doing so, man observes God repenting. That works for me. I just can't get my head around the possibility that God will be caught off guard.
"Surprise" - Adam sinned. :( I don't think God was surprised.
It just doesn't seem very Godlike.

regardless of perspective, there are 2 choices. when God says he repents in the bible he either (A) really repented, or (B) did not really repent.

if you believe (B) then you must replace the phrase "God repented" with what it actually means or rather waht it is anthropormophizing. for example, i do not believe that the phrase "shelter of your wings O Lord" means that God literally has wings. i shall deem it to be anthropomorphic and replace it with "God protects us with his power and might, sheltering us. the phrase "shelter of your wings" is anthropomorphic of this truth". now please show what would be replaced if "God repented" is not literally true.

as for the surprise thing, it's not like God didn't know it was possible for adam to sin. God knew it was possible and i'm sure he had a plan set up for the possibility that it occured. he is never surprised by something coming to pass. however, he may be surprised THAT it actually did come to pass. thus, God is surprised and he is not surprised :D

God_Is_Truth
March 21st, 2004, 01:29 AM
Originally posted by LightSon

No. :nono:
This kind of rationale would make us all "smaller". In which case I would already be a universalist. :freak:

dont' worry, i'm not joining smallers theological denomination of "universalism" or anything else he supports like that or that just sounds contradictory in nature or weird :cool:

LightSon
March 21st, 2004, 02:11 AM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

regardless of perspective, there are 2 choices. when God says he repents in the bible he either (A) really repented, or (B) did not really repent.
....

as for the surprise thing, it's not like God didn't know it was possible for adam to sin. God knew it was possible and i'm sure he had a plan set up for the possibility that it occured. he is never surprised by something coming to pass. however, he may be surprised THAT it actually did come to pass. thus, God is surprised and he is not surprised :D
Let us not dismiss the "perspective" angle too soon.

If you can say "God is surprised and he is not surprised",
then I can say "God repented and God does not repent". ;)

Instead of "perspective", I would suggest:
from God's point of view, God does not repent.
from our point of view, God repents.

I'm sure we can agree that scripture cannot be broken, and in God's mind, there are no contradictions in His word.

lee_merrill
March 21st, 2004, 01:43 PM
As GIT has explained, we can understand what the Bible means when it says He has an "arm" or something like that. The question still stands... What is the Bible trying to say the 20+ times it says God repents? Does God repent or not? Secondly, how do you interpret the passages that say God "does not repent" literally, but choose to interpret the passages that say He "does repent" figuratively?

Here is a passage like the one you mention:

1SA 15:11 I repent that I have made Saul king...
1SA 15:29 And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or repent; for He is not a man that He should repent.

God "repented" in verse 11, in verse 29 we are told he does not repent. In the same situation, God is described as both repenting and we are also told he does not repent. But we have more, here, we are told God does not lie, so we know he is not just pretending to repent (or not repent). Whatever it means, means something, it is not just a show.


Now, we would have an issue if God said, "I have an arm," if He does not actually have an arm. However, God never says that about Himself. Rather, OT authors describe physical attributes of God which we are able to explain the meaning behind. Now, I ask, why would God say He repents, if He does not repent?

It's true there's no Scripture verse that says "God doesn't have an arm". The closest I can think of offhand is Jer. 23:24. But Jesus says in John 15, "I am the true vine." Now we don't need Jesus to add somewhere "I am not *really* a vine."

So your question can be repeated here: "Why would Jesus say he is the vine, if he is not a vine?" I would answer: To tell us something about himself, by way of analogy. I don't think everything about a vine tells us something about Jesus, so we have to understand what parts of the analogy apply, and what parts don't.

In "repenting," in saying "the Lamb of God," in picturing the Holy Spirit as a dove, in all that God describes himself being or doing, we have to recognize that all analogies, all descriptions, are partial pictures (though not false pictures).

I think the passages that say "God does not repent" are intended to tell us that not all of what we do when we repent applies to God. And I think Scripture gives us an idea as to what parts don't apply:

MAL 3:6 I the Lord do not change.
JAS 1:17 ... the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation, or shifting shadow.

PS 33:11 But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.

God does not change, nor does he change his plan.

Another point: God oftentimes speaks with us from our point of view:

JN 6:5-6 When Jesus looked up and saw a great crowd coming toward him, he said to Philip, "Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?" He asked this only to test him, for he already had in mind what he was going to do.

GE 32:31 The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel...

Now God was well aware that the sun didn't actually rise. But he doesn't say "the earth rotated." Similarly with God's actions:

JER 26:3 Perhaps they will listen...

This was speaking from Jeremiah's perspective (see Jer. 36:6).

Similarly with "repents", we can say that God has a change of his response, a change even of emotional response, and speaks also from our perspective here.

And we can understand what he means by our own experience of repenting, it means something like what we experience, but it is also different. Like using our arm...

Blessings,
Lee

lee_merrill
March 21st, 2004, 02:05 PM
i do not believe that the phrase "shelter of your wings O Lord" means that God literally has wings. i shall deem it to be anthropomorphic and replace it with "God protects us with his power and might, sheltering us. the phrase "shelter of your wings" is anthropomorphic of this truth". now please show what would be replaced if "God repented" is not literally true.

How anthropomorphic, if people don't have wings? :) (just kidding)

"God repented" means he changed his response, his emotional response, even. The difficulty with explaining analogies is that we have to resort to other analogies, "sheltering us" brings to mind a roof, for instance, "protects us" brings other analogies to mind, such as guards and armor, etc. Language is inherently analogical, it seems, and we have to pick between analogies, instead of choosing whether to use analogies.

So let us stick with the analogies God gives us, they explain best to us what he means, and let us work on explaining what part of the analogies apply, and what do not, how they apply, etc. But to replace one analogy with another one is to lose some of what God is trying to tell us, I would say.


as for the surprise thing, it's not like God didn't know it was possible for adam to sin. God knew it was possible and i'm sure he had a plan set up for the possibility that it occured. he is never surprised by something coming to pass. however, he may be surprised THAT it actually did come to pass. thus, God is surprised and he is not surprised :D

I do think sin "shocks" God, in some way:

MT 26:50 Jesus replied, "Friend, what have you come for?"

If this is the correct translation, Jesus was surprised by Judas' betrayal, though he knew it was coming. But I don't think God has to content himself with possibilities:

ISA 41:4 Who has done this and carried it through, calling forth the generations from the beginning? I, the Lord--with the first of them and with the last--I am he.

I didn't see LightSon's post on perspective before my previous post, I agree, I think that explains how God oftentimes will speak to us.

Blessings,
Lee

God_Is_Truth
March 21st, 2004, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by LightSon

Let us not dismiss the "perspective" angle too soon.

If you can say "God is surprised and he is not surprised",
then I can say "God repented and God does not repent". ;)

Instead of "perspective", I would suggest:
from God's point of view, God does not repent.
from our point of view, God repents.

I'm sure we can agree that scripture cannot be broken, and in God's mind, there are no contradictions in His word.

God is surprised and God is not surprised works because the relationship is different. God repents and God does not repent will not work in the same relationship. so, either God truly repented and we see it as such or he truly did not repent and we just see it as he did. in this relationship he either repented or he did not. we may not see it as it is but either he really did or he really didn't. so, when the bible says "and the Lord repented" what does it mean? did he truly repent or did he truly not repent? and if not, what really happened and why is the verse written like that?

God_Is_Truth
March 21st, 2004, 05:10 PM
How anthropomorphic, if people don't have wings? (just kidding)

"God repented" means he changed his response, his emotional response, even. The difficulty with explaining analogies is that we have to resort to other analogies, "sheltering us" brings to mind a roof, for instance, "protects us" brings other analogies to mind, such as guards and armor, etc. Language is inherently analogical, it seems, and we have to pick between analogies, instead of choosing whether to use analogies.

So let us stick with the analogies God gives us, they explain best to us what he means, and let us work on explaining what part of the analogies apply, and what do not, how they apply, etc. But to replace one analogy with another one is to lose some of what God is trying to tell us, I would say.


repenting means a couple different things based on context. but lets look at jonah. when God repented of the judgement he'd said he would bring upon them, do you believe God really, actually, and truly changed his mind as the word repent leads us to believe?



I do think sin "shocks" God, in some way:

MT 26:50 Jesus replied, "Friend, what have you come for?"

If this is the correct translation, Jesus was surprised by Judas' betrayal, though he knew it was coming. But I don't think God has to content himself with possibilities:

ISA 41:4 Who has done this and carried it through, calling forth the generations from the beginning? I, the Lord--with the first of them and with the last--I am he.


oh i agree. sin is somewhat "shocking" to God, in a sense. all i'm saying is that he's never surprised by something "new" so to speak as he is aware of all possibilities. he is just surprised that particular things indeed come to pass and were in fact done by individuals.

Rolf Ernst
March 21st, 2004, 05:51 PM
Jeremy--Re: post 61--I did not mean to wash my hands of you as individuals, but to no longer entertain your thoughts on this particular topic, 1Way's posts are so long that it is painful to read them; especially since they are always liberally laced with strange errors in doctrine. Looking at them makes me sick at heart. I don't want to look at them any more. I have many times answered his errors and he has not even realized that my posts have answered his errors. Rather than realize the import of what I have posted, he just keeps coming back asking why I haven't answered. If he is not receptive, why go on? I wash my hands of the issue in that sense. Therefore don't presume (as you did just above) that my absence is an admission of defeat. Far from it. It is nothing more than exasperation with those who willfully refuse to LISTEN.

*Acts9_12Out*
March 21st, 2004, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by lee_merrill

Here is a passage like the one you mention:

1SA 15:11 I repent that I have made Saul king...
1SA 15:29 And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or repent; for He is not a man that He should repent.

God "repented" in verse 11, in verse 29 we are told he does not repent. In the same situation, God is described as both repenting and we are also told he does not repent. But we have more, here, we are told God does not lie, so we know he is not just pretending to repent (or not repent). Whatever it means, means something, it is not just a show.

How right you are lee... It most definitely "means something..." I also ask that you consider the context of 1 Samuel 15 which has been discussed at length HERE. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11127) Please feel free to comment on my opening post. I ask that you notice why God repents in verses 11 and 35, but does not repent in verse 29.

Another favorite "God does not repent" verse is Numbers 23:19. Feel free to look at the context HERE (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11655) as well. God does not repent because of a specific reason. You continue,


It's true there's no Scripture verse that says "God doesn't have an arm". The closest I can think of offhand is Jer. 23:24. But Jesus says in John 15, "I am the true vine." Now we don't need Jesus to add somewhere "I am not *really* a vine."

So your question can be repeated here: "Why would Jesus say he is the vine, if he is not a vine?" I would answer: To tell us something about himself, by way of analogy. I don't think everything about a vine tells us something about Jesus, so we have to understand what parts of the analogy apply, and what parts don't.

In "repenting," in saying "the Lamb of God," in picturing the Holy Spirit as a dove, in all that God describes himself being or doing, we have to recognize that all analogies, all descriptions, are partial pictures (though not false pictures).

You see, we are mashing physical ascriptions with God's nature and are trying to make them the same. We agree that physical attributes (arms, feathers, being a vine, etc...) can be explained. Now, we must deal with God's nature. You say He doesn't repent. God is love. God is mercy. God is wrath. The list goes on and on. How are we to decide which of God's attributes are real, and which are anthropomorphic / anthropopathic? As noted in the Jonah passage, Jonah says God repents. Jonah calls God a God who is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who repents from doing harm.

Now, how do we discern which descriptors are literal and which are not? Is God gracious? Is God merciful? Is God slow to anger? Is God abundant in lovingkindness? If you answer "YES" to any of the above, then you must agree that God repents. You continue,


I think the passages that say "God does not repent" are intended to tell us that not all of what we do when we repent applies to God. And I think Scripture gives us an idea as to what parts don't apply:

The definition of "nacham" is simply a change of heart or mind. If God repents, He is changing His heart / mind from a previous statement or decision. Let's look at your verses...


MAL 3:6 I the Lord do not change.

Again, I ask that you read the context. God will not change concerning the promise He made to David. Malachi 3:6 in no way implies God NEVER changes...


JAS 1:17 ... the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation, or shifting shadow.

Context again...


PS 33:11 But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.

Again, ripping a passage out of it's context and making it a pretext is not sound...


God does not change, nor does he change his plan.

This is such a broad statement. What do you mean by "God does not change,"? Did God "empty Himself" and come in the form of a child? Dod God grow into a man? Did He ascend back to heaven in a glorified body? Are those changes or not? How about His plan? What is this unchanging plan?


Another point: God oftentimes speaks with us from our point of view:

JN 6:5-6 When Jesus looked up and saw a great crowd coming toward him, he said to Philip, "Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?" He asked this only to test him, for he already had in mind what he was going to do.

GE 32:31 The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel...

Now God was well aware that the sun didn't actually rise. But he doesn't say "the earth rotated." Similarly with God's actions:

JER 26:3 Perhaps they will listen...

This was speaking from Jeremiah's perspective (see Jer. 36:6).

Huh? Are you implying that the most perfect communicator in the Universe is unable to accurately communicate with His creation? How does one discern what is "God's perspective" and what is "man's perspective?" I'm sorry my friend, but God is an effective communicator.


Similarly with "repents", we can say that God has a change of his response, a change even of emotional response, and speaks also from our perspective here.

And we can understand what he means by our own experience of repenting, it means something like what we experience, but it is also different. Like using our arm...

Huh? So does God repent or not? When God said He intended to destroy the children of Israel in Exodus 32, did He really mean it? Did God really repent of His stated harm in Exodus 32:14 or not?

In Christ,

--Jeremy

*Acts9_12Out*
March 21st, 2004, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Jeremy--Re: post 61--I did not mean to wash my hands of you as individuals, but to no longer entertain your thoughts on this particular topic, 1Way's posts are so long that it is painful to read them; especially since they are always liberally laced with strange errors in doctrine. Looking at them makes me sick at heart. I don't want to look at them any more. I have many times answered his errors and he has not even realized that my posts have answered his errors. Rather than realize the import of what I have posted, he just keeps coming back asking why I haven't answered. If he is not receptive, why go on? I wash my hands of the issue in that sense. Therefore don't presume (as you did just above) that my absence is an admission of defeat. Far from it. It is nothing more than exasperation with those who willfully refuse to LISTEN.

rolf,

Maybe it's because you aren't answering the points. I can't speak for 1Way, but I know for a fact that you totally passed over my claim that 2 Peter 3:9 has a more valid translation showing that God has "counseled" all "to have room for" repentance. You didn't even look at the original language to see if my exegesis was sound. You totally dismissed what I had to say and have done the same here. The fact that you refuse to answer specific points speaks volumes. It seems that you must include yourself "with those who willfully refuse to LISTEN."

God Bless,

--Jeremy

1Way
March 21st, 2004, 08:49 PM
Rolf – You said
Jeremy--Re: post 61--I did not mean to wash my hands of you as individuals, but to no longer entertain your thoughts on this particular topic, 1Way's posts are so long that it is painful to read them; especially since they are always liberally laced with strange errors in doctrine. Looking at them makes me sick at heart. :thumb: Thanks for admitting your personal problems with dealing what I plainly say, you say you have answered my posts and you have not and instead you generally treat me with disgust and you turn to personal attacks on Acts9 so you have a pattern of spite instead of dealing respectfully and intellectually with the bible issues at hand. While we understand your frustrations, we can not condone your treatment of God’s word. My suggestion, is that instead of contradicting God’s word by your traditions, conform to it. :thumb:

Guilt from violence is not pleasant
You stand condemned by God for doing violence to God’s word by voiding it with a manmade tradition and then claiming “no fault ignorance” for what the “so called” figure means, so you should have problems with what I have been saying, you are guilty and that “should” bother you.

The issue is simple and clearly communicated
Also, we are dealing with an issue of interpretation that most any youngster would handle with ease, namely that if you can’t even demonstrate the figure’s meaning, then you have no standing to suggest it is figurative instead of literal. Like I said to Swordsman, if you want to play that toon, come work for me and I’ll pay you handsomely, only when it comes time for me to “literally” pay you, I’ll invoke your little cutesy “no faulty ignorance” of what my figurative speech actually means and not pay you a red cent because my words were not literal, they were somehow figurative. You are living a lie, you know that no one can rightly suggest a figure and at the same time say, uh, well, but I don’t know what the figure means. :duh:

Consider the source
So the fact that ALL you closed theists are completely stumped over this challenge shows everyone rather clearly where you all are coming from, you simply do not want to deal with the bible’s consistent teaching on divine repentance, perhaps the strongest demonstration that God sometimes changes in dramatic and obvious ways. This has been a very productive exercise.

After the initial posts, which were longer in order to sufficiently cover the issue at hand, I have been concise, understandable and helpful via examples and direct feedback, so your “complaint” (more like non-constructive whining) further reflects your personal frustrations which are several, rather than my ability to communicate appropriately. Or do you have a commensurate response to this closed theist challenge?

You have no standing for suggesting that divine repentance is not literally true, you can’t even offer a reasonable figurative replacement meaning.

1Way
March 21st, 2004, 09:27 PM
Jeremy – Thanks much for the support and aid. We OV’ers do NOT void and violate God’s word in the passages that the CV’ers think establish there case, but these CV’ers do violate via contradiction of the literal message WITHOUT replacing the voided out meaning with the contextually evident figurative meaning. And it is this issue that I would like to highlight before wrapping up this bible conformity challenge.

So far no one seems willing to actually answer the challenge, so I guess I’ll have to agree to alter this thread’s otherwise narrow topic and let it be for the closed theist to challenge us. :chuckle: It is clear that they are not able to deal with one half of one small verse because evidently = divine repentance renders them meaningfully ignorant, and apparently willingly so. Hence my charge of no fault ignorance, claiming it’s figurative and not literal without even knowing what the figure means. :kookoo:

Rolf makes some bible based arguments and challenges, so respectfully started another thread with this topic's title for all “off topic” issues, but so far no one has respected my wishes to do so. Go figure, plus it’s a debate forum, and most folks do not read up the first posts that started a particular thread. It was my 10th post on the first page where I respectfully asked Rolf to either deal with this bible conformity challenge, or make other posts in other threads so that I may reply there. Also, see my 4th post, which was the last of a series of introductory posts which clearly stated the focus and topic for this thread. And see my 27 post asking all off topic issues to join me in the off topic spillover thread. But not a single post has been made there to date.

Apparently, since they have come up with nothing useful for their defense for their views in light of God’s condemnation against voiding and violating scripture because of manmade traditions, they are striking out with anything they can, i.e. personal attacks, charges of aversion, and so on, while they have not presented one single commensurate response to the challenge on topic. I don’t mind the change in topic and focus, I just want to make it clear the nature of these charges of our avoiding their points, they are bold hypocrites and I have been willing to respond since the first requests to do so. Insolent and spiteful they seem to be.

1Way
March 21st, 2004, 09:48 PM
Jeremy - Your Jesus with a dainty “white lace” garnished “red puffy pillow” heart is,,, (chuckles) ,,, different. Plus then universal “Hey dude, thumbs up man” gesture, complete with the wink and pointing finger at someone, all represent interesting issues. Is that His tongue hanging out of His mouth too, or am I not seeing things correctly? Very unique indeed. :o

Did you get my posts to you on Rolf’s thread on coming to verses making room for repentance? Here’s the links, it’s about your wishing to be able to post Greek text directly, I think you can.

This was the first one, probably this one has priority
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=474005#post474005

and this was a follow up which included more details and stuff for Mac/Apple people
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=480633#post480633

I hope this helps!

*Acts9_12Out*
March 22nd, 2004, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by 1Way

Jeremy - Your Jesus with a dainty “white lace” garnished “red puffy pillow” heart is,,, (chuckles) ,,, different. Plus then universal “Hey dude, thumbs up man” gesture, complete with the wink and pointing finger at someone, all represent interesting issues. Is that His tongue hanging out of His mouth too, or am I not seeing things correctly? Very unique indeed. :o

Did you get my posts to you on Rolf’s thread on coming to verses making room for repentance? Here’s the links, it’s about your wishing to be able to post Greek text directly, I think you can.

This was the first one, probably this one has priority
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=474005#post474005

and this was a follow up which included more details and stuff for Mac/Apple people
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=480633#post480633

I hope this helps!

1Way,

Thank you for the link to the resources. I will check them out when I get home this evening. I apologize for not responding in the other thread, but sort of gave up on rolf when he said this (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=470470#post470470) and this. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=471143#post471143)

It really showed me that rolf has no interest in reasoning together and checking out another point of view. He refused to look at the original context and language to see that 2 Peter 3:9 actually means God "counsels all to have room for repentance." When I read rolf's comments linked above, I never went back to the thread.

Again, thanks for the Online Bible link. As for my avatar... :D

It is a jpeg from a movie called Dogma. I wouldn't recommend the movie, but I enjoyed the picture (as it is portrayed in the movie as a Catholic statue of the "kinder, more easy going" Buddy Jesus). I don't think that His tongue is out, but rather has a large smile. :D

God Bless,

--Jeremy

Rolf Ernst
March 22nd, 2004, 11:30 AM
How very typical of 1Way--totally ignore the principles of divine justice set forth by Ezekiel and Jer. which, I carefully pointed out, were the same principles which God immutably held to in His dealing with Jonah. I told the forum members in advance that you would learn nothing from it, 1Way and you have proven that you will not repent ofd your erroneous stiff-necked ways.
How you delight in accusing God of repenting contrary to the clear statement from HIMSEF that He does not. How you revel in contradicting Him.
Look at this, everyone--because God held immutably fast to the principles of justice with He had Ezekiel and Jeremiah report, 1Way says he repented or changed. But--1Way would have it both ways, then. If God had NOT held fast to His principles of divine justice, 1Way would have another excuse to taunt--"SEE
God said in Ezekiel and Jeremiah that He would forgive those who turned BUT Nineveh repented and God did NOT FORGIVE and heal them of their backslidings.
I wearied myself to carefully lay that out before the OVers and 1Way cannot even HEAR what I said.
Furthermore, 1Way brings up again the issue of 2Pet.3:9 which I have dealt with at length already. 1Way has a very short memory, I guess.
Let the record be written down for him. I have dealt very thoroughly with sections of scripture which 1Way wanted me to deal with and I have shown in doing so that the Reformed position is the correct position but you can be very certain that the morning sun will rise is total blackness before any Arminian or any OVer will be able to dealt carefully and thoroughly with
Romans 9:14-23. Watch him run now, just as he ran frantically from my suggestion that he show from scripture why his claim that God repents does not conflict with the SCRIPTURE'S statement that God does NOT repent.
Reformed people can deal evenly handed with all of scripture, but certain scriptures are off grounds to Arminians and OVers. For example, ask any of them why Jesus spoke in parables and they will cite a reason absolutely contrary to the reason for speaking in parables which Jesus Himself gave.
There is no reason--absolutely none at all--that I should give anymore of my time to those who are willfully blind, and I won't.
Watch this now--rather than take up his task of explaining Romans 9:14-23 from his perspective, or explaining what the meaning of Jesus' use of parables was, 1Way will just spew more venomous accusations. But the record is on this forum--I have dealt with those verses, and 1Way has NOT dealt with the others.

The verses he obsesses about, I have carefully explained, but the verses he has been challenged on have not been touched upon by him. In one picture, that tells everyone which doctrinal system is scriptural--if they are willing to know the truth

*Acts9_12Out*
March 22nd, 2004, 02:01 PM
rolf,

you said,


How you delight in accusing God of repenting contrary to the clear statement from HIMSEF that He does not. How you revel in contradicting Him.

How do you respond to...

Jeremiah 15:6
15:6 You have forsaken Me," says the Lord, "You have gone backward. Therefore I will stretch out My hand against you and destroy you; I am weary of repenting!

...where God says Himself that He does repent?

The passages that say God does not repent have been discussed at length HERE (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11127) and HERE (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11655). God does not repent because of a specific reason in those specific instances.

Good luck,

--Jeremy

1Way
March 22nd, 2004, 05:34 PM
Rolf – You said
If God had NOT held fast to His principles of divine justice, 1Way would have another excuse to taunt--"SEE God said in Ezekiel and Jeremiah that He would forgive those who turned BUT Nineveh repented and God did NOT FORGIVE and heal them of their backslidings. You resort to perverting what I say and believe in order to attack me. I understand the truth of the matter according to what I have truthfully said and what God truthfully said, specifically that God repented from doing what He said He would do, namely, God said that “God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.” He did not do as you slanderously imply that he repented from healing their backslidings, nor did I ever suggest that God is unfaithful to His ways. You are a pervert.

You constantly charge me with not being responsive, yet I have been willing to respond since the very beginning of this thread and have been responsive to you in your own thread. Also, although I wish you wont not speak falsely, you did when you said you answered my post #10 from the first page which clearly asks you to point out where you already asked me some questions that you then charged aversion against me, and I also asked you to kindly let me know where you will post your questions so that I may answer them, and you never did either of those things, PLUS I also created a spill over thread for all off topic issues where we could deal with whatever you wanted to, however, instead doing so, you have been simply slandering my person. Here it is for all to see, and I warrant all to check this out for themselves. Here is Rolf’s first false charge of aversion from his post #7.
1Way--again, I have already demonstrated how those verses do not conflict with verses which clearly states God's immutability.

Again, you claim that God is not immutable. I have answered the challenge already. You are the one who has not shown how your stance does not conflict. Can you show cause? I believe you switched the thread because you cannot pick up the gauntlet I cast down in the earlier thread. Go ahead. Pick it up. Pick it up, whippersnap. I reckon as how I'll show you yongsters a thang 'er two.! I responded his bogus charges willing to meet his challenges, but Rolf never once complied with my response, yet he said He had already answered me which is simply not true.
Rolf – I would gladly respond to your questions as I often have done for others about this same issue, so don’t think that I am "unwilling" or "unable" to do so. Just point me to the location where you already asked me of this sort of thing and I’d be glad to respond in short order. I will not go off topic in this thread. I'm sure you can understand that much. Thanks for your time and thoughtful consideration. in case you are wondering, first Rolf conveniently ignored my post with his post # 26, then I reminded him of it in my post #27, then in post #36 he says the following, and mind you, there are NO other posts besides these, I covered them all. I add color highlights for emphasis.
I have answered all your objections. You have just not read them or else you have willingly refused to understand. ... That is Rolf’s version of being responsive to my previous post, what a perversion.

I agree with Jeremy, you have no interest in doing mature intelligent objective bible study, and like I have said several times now, you closed theists don’t mind violating God’s word because of your manmade traditions, so that you treat us egregiously is a natural consequence. I dare so you treat the words of Augustine and his role models Plato and Aristotle with more literal respect than you do God’s word.

Lastly, your a willfully ignorant person on this issue of God’s immutability, Arminians are historically closed theists too, they agree with you Calvinistic Reformer types. But thanks again for showing everyone that personal integrity and upright godly treatment of others is secondary when it comes to slanderously defending your own views.

Lastly, this thread was created to expose the closed theist’s inability to explain the meaning of certain texts that they claim they rightly “understand”. Instead they have proven beyond a doubt that the sort of “understanding” they promote in order to defend their views is literally one of no understanding. No closed theist has even attempted to replace the literal meaning with their so called figurative one. Yet Rolf again perverts against the fact of the matter by suggesting that they have properly exegeted the passages in question. Since when is demonstrating that you have no understanding of what a portion of text means, does that qualify as a proper exegesis?
:eek: Yeee haa reformed closed theists, for them, proper exegesis = having no understanding of the text, and same with many many great men of old and renown showing the same glorious tradition of meaningfully voiding God’s word by their manmade tradition.

Rolf Ernst
March 22nd, 2004, 05:40 PM
Acxt9_12Out--concerning your (the 78th) post on this thread.
Both you and 1Way were using for THAT argument a word which is not even in the TEXT of that verse. Both of you were obsessing about choro when the word used in every translation is NOT choro, but choreo.
1Way apologized for the error. That material was left back down the road a long time ago. If you didn't catch it, don't expect me to take you by the hand and go back over it again.

Instead of digging up old carcasses of your errors, why not tackle Romans chapter 9? I told the people on this forum in advance that neither Arminians and OVers would not want to explain how their view of scripture explains Romans 9: 14-23. Sure enough--dead silence from both of you. You just rail at me falsely, saying that I have not answered your points even though I have thoroughly explained Nineveh, 1Tim.2:1-8 and 2Pet. 3:9. I have repeatedly explained how nothing in those texts conflicts with the fact that, as He said, "I am the Lord I change not"
and "The LORD is not a man that He should lie nor a son of man that He should repent."
YOU PEOPLE are the ones who say that there is a contradiction in scripture. Guess what---that is YOUR problem, so rather than rail at me, why don't you two imminent theologians get your heads together and explain how YOUR view of those texts which speak of God repenting do NOT contradict those texts in which God clearly says that He does NOT repent. I have no difficulty with those texts. You all are the ones in a tizzy over them, so deal with your own weaknesses rather than rail at a man who sees no contradiction in Scripture. Of course, I know you would rather rail at the man who has carefully explained them all than try to publicly and openly work your way through Romans 9. See the difference between Reformed and Arminian/OVers? I dealt with the verses openly before the whole forum, but neither of you have dealt with those verses which I suggested that you explain. That SHOULD bother your conscience; but no you just keep throwing up the same type of verses which I have already dealt with whose exegesis is identical to those I have answered before. Look, students, I have cleaned my doorstep very well. When will you begin to sweep your own? I know better than to expect you to deal with verses you find strange.

Rolf Ernst
March 22nd, 2004, 05:57 PM
1Way just let out another diatribe. Did he explain any verses he has been challenged to explain to show how they fit in his twisted view of scripture? Of course not. He can't. Keep your rant going.
Everybody is watching your conduct. I have dealt fairly and fully with the verses you proposed that I explain. Is that why you attack me?
Instead of railing against others on the forum, why don't you just mind your own business--which would be to explain how your view of scripture does not have severe contradictions in it. We know bettewr than to expect you to get off other's backs to try to resolve the difficulties you have with scripture.
Forgetting your presence on this forum will be a pleasure. If you want to criticise someone, do some self-examination about why you have not bothered to explain Roman 9: 14-23 or what Jesus intended in His use of parables.
The next time you post denunciations of me, EVERYONE on this forum will know you are using time making attacks upon me rather than deal with those texts of scripture which you have refused to consider. 1Way, your posts are so full of doctrinal errors that they are greivous to anyone who understands scripture.

1Way
March 22nd, 2004, 06:10 PM
Jeremy – While I did not see the movie, which would be more telling than my observations, it is somewhat inconsistent the amount of detail in this little icon. I saved the file and zoomed in on it a bit and I see that his fingers show attention to finger nail.
He has eyebrows and an eyelash line,
there is a light and dark area in his one open eye,
cheek to nostril differentiation,
the wrinkles in his cloths are full of minute details,
the heart's lace has tiny lace demarkations, but :o supposedly his open smiling mouth area is just a solid white topside with lower rounded shading to it. By all these observations, I’d say that it is his tongue sticking out in the now classic homeboy “in the hood” style. But I can see that it is certainly possible that it is just a wide featureless smile with no otherwise consistent detailing, like the simple upper and lower teeth lines, or perhaps some individual teeth markings. Now I’m curious to see the movie, to discern the mystery of the “open featureless smile” verses the “deployed tongue” debate. LOL Just joking.

How bad was it? And was it a full animation or just cartoon mach-up but featured real people?

1Way
March 22nd, 2004, 06:29 PM
Rolf – You responded to nothing that I provided by way of our “recorded discussion”, so what I say stands as truthful and accurate. You said
1Way just let out another diatribe. LOL that is good, if you respond to you, it’s a diatribe, if I would not respond to you, then I’m a chicken, put up your dukes. You are so full of it.

My post was a response to YOU and YOUR ongoing diatribe of personal attacks against me.



Like I said since the beginning, stop the Tom Foollery, point me to where we can discuss these matters and have at it!

If we must do it here, you would be asking me to 1) change the topic and focus for this thread, and 2) you would be effectively admitting that you have no answer to this thread’s simple bible challenge since you have not provided any figurative replacement meaning for the literal text in question.

The reformed “closed theist” tradition of exegesis = 1) void scripture of meaning, 2) maintain a “meaningless figurative meaning”, :darwinsm: 3) claim no fault ignorance :dunce: over demonstrating the figure and it’s non-meaning.

What a deal. :eek:

1Way
March 22nd, 2004, 06:47 PM
Jeremy – Wait, sorry, I did some research and I stand corrected, you are right, it is a wide smile and not a tongue. I did some web searching, approx 3 minuets or so, and found your graphic. It is much clearer in the original that Jesus has teeth and is not hanging his tongue out. That is still a very thought provoking image, well done.

Here is the image I saw

http://www.dogma-movie.com/pics/church/images/buddychrist1.jpg

from this web site

http://www.dogma-movie.com/pics/church/churchnf.html

which is from www.Dogma-movie.com

Sometimes the details are misleading, the wider more accurate understanding proved conclusive, so I should have known, context, context, context. :o

So how do you like the closed theist’s "three step stomp"? Pretty vicious aren’t they.

Turbo
March 23rd, 2004, 06:37 AM
Originally posted by Turbo
I think you're being dishonest here. Many OVers on this board have clarified that they do not believe God makes mistakes. Here (point #6) (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=483906#post483906) is one example that I know you read. Please provide a quote of any OVer stating that God makes mistakes.


Originally posted by Swordsman

OK. Here is a quote from an OVer John Sanders.


John Sanders in this book The God Who Risks
God's ability to predict the future in this way is far more accurate than any human forecasters, however, since God has exhaustive access to all past and present knowledge. This would explain God's foretelling Moses that Pharoah would refuse to grant his request. Nonetheless, this does leave open the possibility that God might be "mistaken" about some points, as the biblical record acknowledges. For instance, in Exodus God thought that the elders of Israel would believe Moses, but God acknowledges that Moses is correct in suggesting the possibility that they may not believe him (Exodus 3:16-4:9). God also thought the people of Jeremiah's day would repent and return to him, but they did not, to God's dismay (Jer. 3:7, 19-20).There's a reason "mistaken" is in quotes. He's probably referring to attacks from anti-OVers like you. If he thought God were actually mistaken, he wouldn't have put the words in quotes.

5Solas=Truth
March 23rd, 2004, 07:14 AM
OMG... can you say "anal-retentive? gooood, I knew you could....


Originally posted by 1Way

Jeremy – Wait, sorry, I did some research and I stand corrected, you are right, it is a wide smile and not a tongue. I did some web searching, approx 3 minuets or so, and found your graphic. It is much clearer in the original that Jesus has teeth and is not hanging his tongue out. That is still a very thought provoking image, well done.

Here is the image I saw

http://www.dogma-movie.com/pics/church/images/buddychrist1.jpg

from this web site

http://www.dogma-movie.com/pics/church/churchnf.html

which is from www.Dogma-movie.com

Sometimes the details are misleading, the wider more accurate understanding proved conclusive, so I should have known, context, context, context. :o

So how do you like the closed theist’s "three step stomp"? Pretty vicious aren’t they.

5Solas=Truth
March 23rd, 2004, 10:31 AM
Rolf, hang in there... its a sign of this wicked and perverse generation that the elderly are not respected.

here are a few sites that I have found to be helpful re Open Theistic theology; one is from John MacArthur's Seminary, numerous profs and MacArthur have some artices here:
http://www.tms.edu/tmsj01.asp

and of course John Piper has responded many times to Boyd and others, its here:
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/foreknowledge/foreknowledge_index.html

blessings

Swordsman
March 23rd, 2004, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by 5Solas=Truth

Rolf, hang in there... its a sign of this wicked and perverse generation that the elderly are not respected.

here are a few sites that I have found to be helpful re Open Theistic theology; one is from John MacArthur's Seminary, numerous profs and MacArthur have some artices here:
http://www.tms.edu/tmsj01.asp

and of course John Piper has responded many times to Boyd and others, its here:
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/foreknowledge/foreknowledge_index.html

blessings

I would tend to agree with you 5Solas=Truth, and I do think some authors out there do expose the false doctrines of open theology.

However, lately I've just thought the Scriptures are sufficient to refute just about any heretical teachings. We've touched on it a lot lately around these forums. Its just that you'll see an abundance of the Enyart and Boyd followers pounce on us claiming we take God's word out of context.

I will credit them though. At least these guys stick together a lot (it seems). Its like they all played on the same soccer team as kids. When one "scores a goal" they give each other high-fives and thumbs up.


Kids these days.......

*Acts9_12Out*
March 23rd, 2004, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Acxt9_12Out--concerning your (the 78th) post on this thread.

:confused: I didn't post the 78th post...


Both you and 1Way were using for THAT argument a word which is not even in the TEXT of that verse. Both of you were obsessing about choro when the word used in every translation is NOT choro, but choreo.

Now I'm convinced that you have no idea what transpired in the other thread. I did use the word choreo in 2 Peter 3:9. Here's what I said, and even gave an example of how the same root word was used in John...


Let me show you how this word is used and that it should be translated "have room for."

Here's the last half of 2 Peter 3:9 in the original...


2 Peter 3:9b
9b mh boulemenoV tinaV apolesqai, alla pantaV eiV metanoian cwrhsai

Notice the word cwrhsai in red. This word means "to have room for." This word is also used in John 2:6.


John 2:6
6 Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of purification of the Jews, having room for cwrousai twenty or thirty gallons apiece.

The same root word, cwrew is used in 2 Peter 3:9. Just as the stone waterpots "have room for" twenty or thirty gallons apiece, God counsels all to "have room for" repentance.

2 Peter 3:9 and John 2:6 both use different forms of "choreo" (Notice the large green greek word above - It's choreo). I never said anything about "choro". You, my friend, are confused...


Instead of digging up old carcasses of your errors, why not tackle Romans chapter 9? I told the people on this forum in advance that neither Arminians and OVers would not want to explain how their view of scripture explains Romans 9: 14-23.

Are you asking for an exegesis of the entire chapter? OK... Fine by me. If you have a specific issue in mind, I will respond to that as well. I am more than happy to respond to your "questions" even though you have yet to respond to any of my questions... You continue,


Sure enough--dead silence from both of you. You just rail at me falsely, saying that I have not answered your points even though I have thoroughly explained Nineveh, 1Tim.2:1-8 and 2Pet. 3:9. I have repeatedly explained how nothing in those texts conflicts with the fact that, as He said, "I am the Lord I change not"

Again, you have no idea what Malachi 3:6 is saying. Are you implying that God never changes based on that one verse? Wow...


and "The LORD is not a man that He should lie nor a son of man that He should repent."

Again, I provided links to 1 Samuel 15 and Numbers 23. I'm sure you never even looked at my comments there. Typical...


YOU PEOPLE are the ones who say that there is a contradiction in scripture. Guess what---that is YOUR problem, so rather than rail at me, why don't you two imminent theologians get your heads together and explain how YOUR view of those texts which speak of God repenting do NOT contradict those texts in which God clearly says that He does NOT repent.

rolf, I'll ask you AGAIN! What does God mean when He says He does repent?


Jeremiah 15:6
15:6
You have forsaken Me," says the Lord, "You have gone backward. Therefore I will stretch out My hand against you and destroy you; I am weary of repenting!

God is fed up with doing something that rolf says He does not do. Nice... Jonah says God repents. Moses says God repents. rolf says God does not repent. Who am I to trust?


I have no difficulty with those texts.

You would if you tried to answer any of them...


You all are the ones in a tizzy over them, so deal with your own weaknesses rather than rail at a man who sees no contradiction in Scripture. Of course, I know you would rather rail at the man who has carefully explained them all than try to publicly and openly work your way through Romans 9. See the difference between Reformed and Arminian/OVers? I dealt with the verses openly before the whole forum, but neither of you have dealt with those verses which I suggested that you explain. That SHOULD bother your conscience; but no you just keep throwing up the same type of verses which I have already dealt with whose exegesis is identical to those I have answered before. Look, students, I have cleaned my doorstep very well. When will you begin to sweep your own? I know better than to expect you to deal with verses you find strange.

You didn't answer anything... Since you're throwing down the gauntlet, let's start something on Romans 9... Good luck...

--Jeremy

God_Is_Truth
March 23rd, 2004, 02:21 PM
You didn't answer anything... Since you're throwing down the gauntlet, let's start something on Romans 9... Good luck...


i'd recommend a new thread if you are going to talk about Romans 9.

Swordsman
March 23rd, 2004, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

i'd recommend a new thread if you are going to talk about Romans 9.

Agree. Start us off GIT. I like the way you discuss your views better than others around here. You don't seem to come at it with "battle" or "debate" in mind. Although I disagree with you on some things, you have a sort of peaceful way of explaining your view. And for what its worth, I respect that.

*Acts9_12Out*
March 23rd, 2004, 02:55 PM
Agree. Start us off GIT. I like the way you discuss your views better than others around here. You don't seem to come at it with "battle" or "debate" in mind. Although I disagree with you on some things, you have a sort of peaceful way of explaining your view. And for what its worth, I respect that.

Actually, it's rolf's challenge... Let him start it...

helmet84
March 23rd, 2004, 04:16 PM
Can anybody recommend a good Christian Forum where issues and differences are 'discussed' instead of 'debated'?

I'm looking for a Christian Forum where people treat each other with "lowliness, gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love" (Eph 4:2)?

You know, where Christians love one another?

Are there any forums out there like that on the web? Or do you think my search is in vain?

Should I start a new thread?

-- helmet84

God_Is_Truth
March 23rd, 2004, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Swordsman

Agree. Start us off GIT. I like the way you discuss your views better than others around here. You don't seem to come at it with "battle" or "debate" in mind. Although I disagree with you on some things, you have a sort of peaceful way of explaining your view. And for what its worth, I respect that.

while i appreciate the compliment, i'm gonna pass on that and let either you, acts, or rolf start it as you three are currently more involved on the issue.

God_Is_Truth
March 23rd, 2004, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by helmet84

Can anybody recommend a good Christian Forum where issues and differences are 'discussed' instead of 'debated'?

I'm looking for a Christian Forum where people treat each other with "lowliness, gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love" (Eph 4:2)?

You know, where Christians love one another?

Are there any forums out there like that on the web? Or do you think my search is in vain?

Should I start a new thread?

-- helmet84

check out the "exclusively christian forum". it's a lot nicer than the other ones although it's not perfect. as for the web, i'd look if it was me. seems like you can find anything on there these days.

good luck :thumb:

helmet84
March 23rd, 2004, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

while i appreciate the compliment, i'm gonna pass on that and let either you, acts, or rolf start it as you three are currently more involved on the issue.

Whoever starts it, how about we specify that this will be a civilized, 'christian' discussion where people will treat each other in love and humility, instead of having a 'debate'.

-- helmet84

God_Is_Truth
March 23rd, 2004, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by helmet84

Whoever starts it, how about we specify that this will be a civilized, 'christian' discussion where people will treat each other in love and humility, instead of having a 'debate'.

-- helmet84

sounds like a good idea to me :thumb:

1Way
March 23rd, 2004, 07:44 PM
Turbo – Bless your sole you are doing a great job, but I think that your post 89 could use a second opinion. I feel that the quote from Sanders is a good quote, I personally agree with what he stated. You said
There's a reason "mistaken" is in quotes. He's probably referring to attacks from anti-OVers like you. If he thought God were actually mistaken, he wouldn't have put the words in quotes. I would have said that the sort of mistake that John was intending was simply provided by scripture and need not be a sort of retort against anti-OVer’s. Much like the issue of “repenting”, there is not only one variety of “mistakes”, and the original word in the Hebrew for repent has other meanings than the two common ones for “man repenting when he sins” and God repenting “when He does not sin” but simply changes His mind.

I think that the quotes sufficiently highlight the word’s “specific attention” as is well provided by the bible examples offered. I especially liked
God also thought the people of Jeremiah's day would repent and return to him, but they did not, to God's dismay (Jer. 3:7, 19-20). Being disappointed in your expectations necessarily means that your hopes was set too high. It’s not wrong to desire for better in our relationships and then be disappointed by their not coming to pass, authentic love is a risky business between success and failure. A mistake may imply nothing more than a judgment or decision that has become no longer right or just. I believe that this sort of “mistake” reflects what happens every time God repents from His previous course of action. Obviously if God followed through with His original plans, He would have been wrong or unjust in so doing, so since standing corrected does not imply guilt on God’s behalf as though He had done wrong, it just means that the circumstance changed such that now God needs to alter His judgment. That sort of “mistake” is no offense to man or God, it is simply a reality of not having exhaustive foreknowledge.

In stark contrast, a closed theist would never say that God makes a mistake or would be found needing to stand corrected and uses the “impeccability of God” approach to try to make us OVer’s feel wrong in our views. Lastly, man can repent just like God does, right? We can make a righteous judgment/decision where later the circumstances change such that we need to change our mind in order to remain godly and righteous. So there is a remarkable kinship between God and man where we would never say that man is perfect in all his ways, yet man can repent just like God can! I hope that comparison highlights the possibility of innocent error that God’s judgments may righteously involve!

There simply is no moral guilt or unrighteousness in changing your mind in order to remain consistent with godly principles. I hope this helps.

Blessings to you and yours!

1Way
March 23rd, 2004, 08:20 PM
Swordsman – helmut – specifically

GIT – generally

Seems like some of you would be ashamed at righteous rebuke and sometimes harsh confrontation in the face of ungodliness. Swordsman, you said
Agree. Start us off GIT. I like the way you discuss your views better than others around here. You don't seem to come at it with "battle" or "debate" in mind. Although I disagree with you on some things, you have a sort of peaceful way of explaining your view. And for what its worth, I respect that. External superficial peace, is FAR different from comprehensive concrete peace. You politely and without rude language violate God’s word. So as for me, I appreciate those who exhibit integrity in all matters, including truth, and justice and righteousness as well as peace. People do terrible violence and sin in their hearts yet appear perfectly peaceful and such that any non-discerning person would agree that they conform to your qualifications for being peaceful. But Jesus said:
Mt 23:27 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead [men’s] bones and all uncleanness. Surely you may disagree with me, and I with you, like now right (???), but I find you closed viewer’s doing violence against God’s word through voiding it of meaning and replacing it with nothing because of manmade tradition.

This is the bible’s “voiding of scripture” condemnations selection of less than peaceful responses from a purely Godly point of view. I gave this to you in post 3 for your thoughtful, godly and “peaceful” consideration. Here it is again since you apparently overlooked it as it applies to this discussion.


Quote


*******NOTICE*******
THIS IS THE BIBLE’S
“VOIDING OF SCRIPTURE”
***CONDEMNATIONS****

...

We should always trust, not correct/overturn God’s word.

Pr 30:5 Every word of God [is] pure; He [is] a shield to those who put their trust in Him. 6 Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar. God’s word never returns void.
Isa 55:11 So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper [in the thing] for which I sent it. In vain worship and incredulous hypocrisy, men void God’s word of it’s divinely given meaning and authority.
Mt 15:6 ‘then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 "Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 8 ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 9 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’" Ultimately man must submit to God’s word.
Ro 3:4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: "That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged."
You don’t have to listen to me, but you do have to obey God if you want to please Him. Maybe you reject these as not being literal also. (?)


End quote


So I charge you with voiding scripture and God condemns you, who am I to disagree with God in order to make an outward appearance of peace with man?

lee_merrill
March 23rd, 2004, 08:35 PM
Hi Jeremy,

I can't keep up with all the posts! Sorry if I skip over someone's similar points or other responses...


Some say that [1 Sam. 15:]29 shows that God never repents. In fact, this same passage shows that He does repent (vv. 11, 35). It's not that God never repents, it's that God will not change His mind in this specific instance.

But God gives the reason he doesn't repent:

1SA 15:29 ... for he is not a man, that he should change his mind.

It's not because Saul's repentance was false, it's because God is not like us. *We* could not change our mind when we see false repentance, too, that reason works fine for man. The reason you give here cannot be the reason God does not repent in this situation, I think.


Another favorite "God does not repent" verse is Numbers 23:19. ... God does not repent because of a specific reason.

Yes, and again, the reason is given, the same as before:

NU 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.

He doesn't change his mind, because he is not like us, not because the situation demands it, this time.


You say He doesn't repent. God is love. God is mercy. God is wrath. The list goes on and on. How are we to decide which of God's attributes are real, and which are anthropomorphic / anthropopathic? As noted in the Jonah passage, Jonah says God repents.

God doesn't repent like we do, nor does he love like we do, or get angry as we do, either.

JAS 1:20 for man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires.

So how is God's repentance different? The above passages tell us, I believe. He is not like us, in that he doesn't change, i.e. his plan doesn't change. In the context of Jonah, God *did*overthrow Ninevah, but through their repentance, and not through destruction. His response changed, but his plan (to overthrow them) did not.


The definition of "nacham" is simply a change of heart or mind. If God repents, He is changing His heart / mind from a previous statement or decision.

Here's Strongs on "nacham":

1) to be sorry, console oneself, repent, regret, comfort, be comforted
1a) (Niphal)
1a1) to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion
1a2) to be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent
1a3) to comfort oneself, be comforted
1a4) to comfort oneself, ease oneself
1b) (Piel) to comfort, console
1c) (Pual) to be comforted, be consoled
1d) (Hithpael)
1d1) to be sorry, have compassion
1d2) to rue, repent of
1d3) to comfort oneself, be comforted
1d4) to ease oneself

Lots of meanings! So I am not restricted to "change of mind or heart." It depends on the context, and on the verb form.


MAL 3:6 I the Lord do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.

Again, I ask that you read the context. God will not change concerning the promise He made to David. Malachi 3:6 in no way implies God NEVER changes.

The implication here is that if God did change, the Israelites would be destroyed. More here is implied than just keeping the promise to David. Where do you see that in the context? This verse is almost by itself, as far as context is concerned, it stands out in the passage. God's power is involved here, God's faithfulness, God's love, all of his character is involved in keeping the Israelites from being destroyed.

JAS 1:17 ... the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation, or shifting shadow.

You say the context refutes the meaning that God doesn't change here, but you do need to state what context you mean. :)


What do you mean by "God does not change,"? Did God "empty Himself" and come in the form of a child? Dod God grow into a man? Did He ascend back to heaven in a glorified body? Are those changes or not? How about His plan? What is this unchanging plan?

PS 33:11 But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.

I will let *him* explain his plan! That I can't answer. God did "empty himself and come as a child." And Jesus grew and developed as a human being, and took on a resurrection body. But this is not changing his plan or his nature. He does change his response. The contention here, I think is, no change to his plan, it's "firm forever."


Lee:
GE 32:31 The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel...

Now God was well aware that the sun didn't actually rise. But he doesn't say "the earth rotated." Similarly with God's actions:

JER 26:3 Perhaps they will listen...

This was speaking from Jeremiah's perspective (see Jer. 36:6).

Jeremy: Huh? Are you implying that the most perfect communicator in the Universe is unable to accurately communicate with His creation? How does one discern what is "God's perspective" and what is "man's perspective?" I'm sorry my friend, but God is an effective communicator.

Yes, what he says is accurate. He speaks the truth, from our perspective, sometimes. "The sun rose," from our perspective, God can speak that way and not deceive or lie in so doing.



So does God repent or not? When God said He intended to destroy the children of Israel in Exodus 32, did He really mean it? Did God really repent of His stated harm in Exodus 32:14 or not?

Yes he did repent, but not like we do, since "he is not a man." Just like his love is not like we love, and his anger different from ours. Yet similar enough that we may understand what he is saying, when he uses these terms.

Blessings,
Lee

1Way
March 23rd, 2004, 08:42 PM
Good point Jeremy, hopefully they will politely allow us to entreat them to their natural counter challenges. But I've been asking Rolf and all the others to do so since the beginning, even giving them a spillover thread to do it in, but so far they have altogether refused to do so, and instead of remaining on topic to this thread’s clear focus, the personal attacks predominate. I agree to a cease fire of these pointless personal attacks, but remain in agreement with God that righteous opposition against false doctrine is appropriate Christian discussion, and furthermore I did not hardly dwell on that issue.

The fact remains that meaningfully voiding scripture is condemnable violence and I even mentioned that I felt that most closed theists do not do this violence on purpose, they believe they are doing the right thing, but are mistaken in that belief, as I have abundantly provided evidence to that end.

God_Is_Truth
March 23rd, 2004, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by 1Way

Swordsman – helmut – specifically

GIT – generally

what exactly was in reference to me?

1Way
March 23rd, 2004, 09:12 PM
Lee – You said
Yes, and again, the reason is given, the same as before:

NU 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.

He doesn't change his mind, because he is not like us, not because the situation demands it, this time. Nu is right, you are wrong. God does not repent like man sometimes needs to, like when he lies (=moral instability, proneness to error) nor the son of man that He should repent.

But what an interesting translation you offered for “repent” by saying that the Hebrew “nacham” means to change one’s mind. Which translation is that? “Nacham” is the Hebrew word for repent, and although I suppose it can infer changing one’s mind, it does not always need to, and the words for change and mind are absent from the text, instead it’s nacham=repent. But to the main point,

God is said to

“repent” = nacham

and to

“not repent” = nacham

and both concepts are true about God, but obviously in different circumstances. So far you are providing no resolution of this fact, and I think that God says that He does not repent like twice, but says that He does repent like nearly 2 dozen times and this repentance that God does is usually fully DEMOSTRATED by the context so even if the word “nacham” was not there, God’s “repentance” from doing what He previously was going to do is replete.

“nacham” = repent because of:
1) sin, immorality
and
2) amorally from new information of changed circumstances
The fact is that God does not repent because of His own sin or moral error, man repents in that fashion, but God does not. But both God and man can repent from doing what they were previously going to do in a purely amoral way, namely that circumstances beyond their moral responsibility changed such that the need to alter our previous course of action is warranted.

Bible conformity challenge awaits your response
By the way Lee, this thread has a bible conformity challenge that you can read about in posts 2 and 3 where post 3 is the actual challenge, and I’ve even provided an example for the form of the answer requested in post 12 to demonstrate just how easy and doable this bible challenge is. Also the top of post 3 explains what I am not asking.

No closed theists have answered yet
Yet for some strange reason, so far not one closed theist has provided a commensurate answer. If you have some idea what the bible text in question means, specifically starting with Jonah 3:10 subsection part b, I’m sure we’d all be much obliged to hear it. Totally up to your free will.

1Way
March 23rd, 2004, 09:24 PM
GIT – That you went along with them without objection, namely their suggestion of impropriety via sometimes harsh confrontation while at the same time and given as a contrast against this nasty confrontation business, you did not reject their praise for being more “peaceful” and thus Christ-like.

Switch places you and I and then reconsider
If it was you they were referring to as being in the wrong for not being peaceful enough,
and it was I that they were praising for being so peaceful and Christ-like,

since naturally I agree with my objection to their peaceful/Christ-like views as stated, then I would have defended whoever they infer was not being Christ-like and opposed them, even rejecting their praise if need be, but instead you passively question me and accept their praise.

I’m not saying you were unChrist-like, they are saying that evidently I am for presuming to know God well enough to condemn others for doing violence to His word. And if you agree with me on all that, then join me against their false understanding.

God_Is_Truth
March 23rd, 2004, 09:51 PM
1 Way,

i definately reject calvinism and am currently in support of the open view. but let us remember what Paul wrote to timothy:

2 Timothy 2
24And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.

2 Timothy 4:2
Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage–with great patience and careful instruction.

i do understand the necessity of opposing doctrine contrary to what we see scripture telings us, but do remember that calvinists, arminians and anyone who is in between are still our brothers and sisters in Christ. we need to help them see the problem with their view about scripture but we need to do it lovingly, patiently, and with careful instruction so that they will come to know the truth.

Swordsman
March 23rd, 2004, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

1 Way,

i definately reject calvinism and am currently in support of the open view. but let us remember what Paul wrote to timothy:

2 Timothy 2
24And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.

2 Timothy 4:2
Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage–with great patience and careful instruction.

i do understand the necessity of opposing doctrine contrary to what we see scripture telings us, but do remember that calvinists, arminians and anyone who is in between are still our brothers and sisters in Christ. we need to help them see the problem with their view about scripture but we need to do it lovingly, patiently, and with careful instruction so that they will come to know the truth.

You see my friend GIT, they do not come from that school of thought. Their leader Father Enyart injects his argumentative spirits into their minds and create these monsters. That is where it is all derived from. They listen to this guy on the radio or read his little web page and get all giddied up about how ole Bob debates the world about everything. Notice that word "debate" too. He has them believing they are called by God to debate any and everybody who doesn't agree with the "one way" (better known as "his way"). He's nothing more than a politician running for office. He rallies all his little sheep up into a tizzie and sends them out. Most of em right here on TOL.

The more and more I look at his site and see the things he's doing, I'm reminded of David Koresh and the like.

Flame on Enyartites.....

1Way
March 24th, 2004, 01:10 AM
Swordsman – You just can’t stand it that you have been shown how you violate and contradict God’s word by your manmade traditions, so you invent cruel slander since you can do nothing better to salvage your views.

I presented everything I said about you because I care for you and that people deal righteously with God’s word. I worship and honor God not any man and that is why you stand condemned because you willingly violate God and His word even after being shown the error of your ways.

1Way
March 24th, 2004, 01:18 AM
God Is Truth – I do love them, that is one unfair and untrue accusation. :nono: By your response Jesus and Paul and the many men of the bible that portrayed anything that was beyond mild peaceful interactions was UNGODLY and wrong? No way.

Are you saying that I was not being loving and did not show an clear escalation of confrontation AFTER they rejected the truth from God’s word?

On what basis do you agree with them that I was not Christ-like but you were? References please. No one can defend themselves with generalizations; give me something to respond to or stand corrected for spreading flimsy careless gossip.

I started out completely on the level sincerely seeking an answer to my bible conformity challenge, and all my early and initial responses were respectful, logical, reasonable and helpful, and I dare say Christ-like.

You even commended me for a good start!

It was not until after people started passing off lies (I answered your challenge) and deceit (it’s ok to void scripture of meaning and replace it with NOTHING) as “eternal truth” and “righteousness” that I was more confronting and harsh. Even then I rest my condemnation upon God’s condemnations, not my own.

Do you disagree with God’s condemnations against voiding scripture by manmade tradition?

1Way
March 24th, 2004, 01:38 AM
LightSon – I am waiting for your response over in the Archeological forum where I hope we could resolve some differences, but by your posts and non-responsiveness, it appears that you are ignoring me for some reason. If you are stalling for time, it's thoughtful to admit it instead of just leaving someone hanging, respectfully waiting for an answer but being ignored instead.

You gave me your tradition, and I gave you God’s word, I would hope that such an issue would prompt you to become responsive.


As to divine repentance
You said the following in your post #69.
Let us not dismiss the "perspective" angle too soon.

If you can say "God is surprised and he is not surprised",
then I can say "God repented and God does not repent".

Instead of "perspective", I would suggest:
from God's point of view, God does not repent.
from our point of view, God repents.

I'm sure we can agree that scripture cannot be broken, and in God's mind, there are no contradictions in His word. Either the future holds at least some contingency, or it does not, there is nothing in between.

We do not say that God both repents and not repents “at the same time”(!!!), that is a gross mischaracterization. If you say that God does not repent, then you risk rending the “God does repent” teachings void of meaning, and God is very clear about not voiding scripture because of manmade tradition.

God’s word is true, but if God can not repent from what He said He would do, then you would not allow Jer 18 the potter and the clay to ever be true then would you. According to your suggestion, it is a false teaching, but instead of that, it is God’s truthful teaching. Also, God said in Jonah 3:10 concerning His prophesy in 3:4, that He DID NOT DO WHAT HE SAID HE WOULD DO, “God repented from the destruction that He said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.” (!!!)

So according to your view, that was wrong too, God did destroy Nineveh in 40 days, even though God said He did not do that!!! God said He did not do what He said He would do, I am not making that up, God said it! Don’t you trust God? Don’t you believe that what God says is true?

Swordsman
March 24th, 2004, 07:42 AM
1Way, there is no need to patronize me. And please do not insult my intelligence by saying you care for me and love me. Nowhere did you ever come across with Christ-like love.

I'm an adult. I can take someone in a dialogue that doesn't agree with me all the time. But you see, all that talk about me "violating the Word" and "standing condemned" is exactly the way I feel about you.

So you see. We're getting nowhere here. I believe what I believe because I have experienced the presence of God speaking to me the truth. You believe what you believe for your reasons. I'm not condemning them or you, I just do not agree with you. That doesn't mean we need to have an all-out-war to "debate" or "battle" each other. This isn't Battleship.

I've spoken my peace. I know you probably think my faith is wholely based on paganism. You're entitled to your opinion. However, I strongly believe otherwise. My faith is in my because God gave it to me. Not developed from Calvin or any other author or preacher.

I expect nothing less than a reply from you, but I shall not give a rebuttal. You know where I stand. I know where you stand.

God_Is_Truth
March 24th, 2004, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by 1Way

God Is Truth – I do love them, that is one unfair and untrue accusation. :nono: By your response Jesus and Paul and the many men of the bible that portrayed anything that was beyond mild peaceful interactions was UNGODLY and wrong? No way.

Are you saying that I was not being loving and did not show an clear escalation of confrontation AFTER they rejected the truth from God’s word?

On what basis do you agree with them that I was not Christ-like but you were? References please. No one can defend themselves with generalizations; give me something to respond to or stand corrected for spreading flimsy careless gossip.

I started out completely on the level sincerely seeking an answer to my bible conformity challenge, and all my early and initial responses were respectful, logical, reasonable and helpful, and I dare say Christ-like.

You even commended me for a good start!

It was not until after people started passing off lies (I answered your challenge) and deceit (it’s ok to void scripture of meaning and replace it with NOTHING) as “eternal truth” and “righteousness” that I was more confronting and harsh. Even then I rest my condemnation upon God’s condemnations, not my own.

Do you disagree with God’s condemnations against voiding scripture by manmade tradition?

i did not mean to imply that you didn't love people who held a different position than you, only that sometimes it comes off as such.

i am not saying that your way of dealing with the misuse of scripture is wrong either, only that it sometimes comes off as harsh. perhaps you mean this and perhaps you don't. all i was establishing is that there is more than one way (:D ) to correct someone in their teachings and that not everyone is willing to be corrected in the same fashion.

some people need to be shown right up front, direct and clear that what they are doing is wrong and incorrect. others need a gradual, step by step, slowly but surely presentation of how their interpretation of scripture is wrong.

the verses i used were just to make the point that no matter what method is used to show that someone is incorrect with their interpretation of scripture, we need to do it gently, patiently and with careful instruction. i was not implying that you were not doing these things, although once in a while they come off as a little harsh and perhaps after a while that's really a good thing.

again, i think most of what you are posting is great stuff. your argument is sound, clearly explained and well thought out. but on occasion your posts come off as a little harsh to your brothers and sisters in Christ and that's just something i want to avoid. 2 Timothy said to gently instruct, not harshly.

now i understand the necessity of pointing out that which is wrong which you have clearly done. but i'm not so sure that the "personal attacks" where you call the people of different positions things similar to the pharisees are necessary. it's only up to you to show them their fault, point it out, show them what it really says and why it should be that and why they need to change. you have clearly done this.

after that it's up to that person if they are willing to accept the correct position or stick with what they now know to be false. it's between God and them at that point; you've done all you are supposed to do. if they will not listen, then move on.

your posts are good 1Way, your points are made. now it's up to the people to either accept it or reject it and everyone one of us will stand before God and give an account of why we believed this or that. all we are called to do is look at the word God has given us and understand it as best we can and to share that with others. you've definately done your part 1Way and it's much appreciated. just remember that you don't have to convert anyone to the correct theology.

I'd rather someone be a calvinist who goes and witnesses to 100 people a day with the gospel then someone be an open theist and not witness at all. correct theology comes second to witnessing and brotherly love. we agree on the basics of christianity, the important doctrines, the essentials. let us not let the less important doctrines come between us and cause disagreement and division among us.

keep preaching what you know to be true 1Way, but don't feel like you have to win them over to your theology or make them believe as you do.

God bless.

In Christ,

God_Is_Truth

LightSon
March 24th, 2004, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by 1Way

LightSon – I am waiting for your response over in the Archeological forum where I hope we could resolve some differences, but by your posts and non-responsiveness, it appears that you are ignoring me for some reason. If you are stalling for time, it's thoughtful to admit it instead of just leaving someone hanging, respectfully waiting for an answer but being ignored instead.

You gave me your tradition, and I gave you God’s word, I would hope that such an issue would prompt you to become responsive.

I would take it as an act of graciousness if you gave me the benefit of a doubt. I was sick for 2 days and have a tremendous backlog of threads to wade through. It is also possible that I just missed your question or otherwise took it as rhetorical. Off hand, I don't even know to what you are referring. If you PM the link, I will attempt to respond in a timely manner.


Originally posted by 1Way

As to divine repentance
You said the following in your post #69. Either the future holds at least some contingency, or it does not, there is nothing in between.

We do not say that God both repents and not repents “at the same time”(!!!), that is a gross mischaracterization. If you say that God does not repent, then you risk rending the “God does repent” teachings void of meaning, and God is very clear about not voiding scripture because of manmade tradition.

God’s word is true, but if God can not repent from what He said He would do, then you would not allow Jer 18 the potter and the clay to ever be true then would you. According to your suggestion, it is a false teaching, but instead of that, it is God’s truthful teaching. Also, God said in Jonah 3:10 concerning His prophesy in 3:4, that He DID NOT DO WHAT HE SAID HE WOULD DO, “God repented from the destruction that He said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.” (!!!)

So according to your view, that was wrong too, God did destroy Nineveh in 40 days, even though God said He did not do that!!! God said He did not do what He said He would do, I am not making that up, God said it! Don’t you trust God? Don’t you believe that what God says is true?
I believe God. God is truth. I do not believe God lies. I also believe that God has given us everything we need to know, which is not to say He has given us everything to know incisively.

If the closed view is correct, then God's repentance is an anthropomorphism. Does God repent? From our perspective - absolutely - God repents. That is why we pray and seek His face. From God's perspective, He is not surprised, nor does He have to wait on us for instruction. Hence "divine repentence" is a matter of perspective. It is not "voiding scripture" or "doing violence to God's word".

You would do well not to lock me in your sights on this issue, as I'm not prepared (positionally or academically) to go to the mat for any view.

I remain open minded about this issue, which is why I speak in subjunctive ways, like "if the closed view is correct". As far as I can tell, OPENNESS is a nascent view, hence that puts (IMO) a slightly greater burden of proof on the OVer. I have much reading to do, and honestly wonder if I'll ever come to a conclusion. I'm leaning towards a belief that perhaps God hasn't given this for us to know dogmatically.

God_Is_Truth
March 24th, 2004, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by LightSon


God is truth.

what about me?

oh.......wait.........never mind :doh:

lee_merrill
March 24th, 2004, 06:51 PM
Hi 1Way,


Lee:
Yes, and again, the reason is given, the same as before:

NU 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.

He doesn't change his mind, because he is not like us, not because the situation demands it, this time.

1Way: Nu is right, you are wrong. God does not repent like man sometimes needs to, like when [man] lies (=moral instability, proneness to error) nor the son of man that He should repent.

Who is Nu? I can't find this post, or any other response than yours. This sounds like you are agreeing with me, not disagreeing. I think I don't understand your point here...


But what an interesting translation you offered for “repent” by saying that the Hebrew “nacham” means to change one’s mind. Which translation is that? “Nacham” is the Hebrew word for repent, and although I suppose it can infer changing one’s mind, it does not always need to, and the words for change and mind are absent from the text, instead it’s nacham=repent.

The translation is the NIV here, for Num. 23:19. 1 Sam. 15:29 has "change his mind" both in the NIV and the NASB. Maybe better would be "does not change his plan" (Ps. 33:11). I did give Strong's definitions of nacham, there are lots of meanings. But maybe nacham=repent here, so we have:

NU 23:19 God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. (NASB)

I can still make my point, that "God is not a man" is given as the reason he doesn't repent, not that the circumstances dictate that he doesn't repent this time. God doesn't repent like men do, I think is the point here.


God is said to

“repent” = nacham

and to

“not repent” = nacham

and both concepts are true about God, but obviously in different circumstances. So far you are providing no resolution of this fact, and I think that God says that He does not repent like twice, but says that He does repent like nearly 2 dozen times and this repentance that God does is usually fully DEMOSTRATED by the context so even if the word “nacham” was not there, God’s “repentance” from doing what He previously was going to do is replete.

When God says he does not repent, I think this explains that God's repentance is different from ours. So how is it different? That is the question.

God speaks from our perspective, and God does not change his plan, that is, I think, clear from Scripture.

Jesus came in the form of a man. So is he a man? Yes. And is he not a man? Yes. To demand a yes to one and a no to the other is to misunderstand that when God reveals himself to us, he speaks by analogy. And with an analogy, you must determine what parts of the analogy apply, and what parts do not apply.

Is Jesus a vine? Yes. Is Jesus not a vine? Yes again.

So does God repent? Yes. Does God not repent? Yes again.

Certainly God does not lie or repent of sin, so we agree there. But you are doing the very same thing you object to when we say God does not change! You are saying "when God repents," it does not mean he does *this* (lies, repents of evil). So why do you say non-OVs are voiding Scripture by saying he doesn't also change? This seems to be the very same type of move you are also making here.


“nacham” = repent because of:
1) sin, immorality
and
2) amorally from new information of changed circumstances
The fact is that God does not repent because of His own sin or moral error, man repents in that fashion, but God does not. But both God and man can repent from doing what they were previously going to do in a purely amoral way, namely that circumstances beyond their moral responsibility changed such that the need to alter our previous course of action is warranted.

But I think Ps. 33:11 rules the interpretation you give out:

PS 33:11 The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of His heart from generation to generation. (NASB)


By the way Lee, this thread has a bible conformity challenge that you can read about in posts 2 and 3 where post 3 is the actual challenge...

Alrighty...

JNH 3:10 When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it.

JER 18:8 ... and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.

We have been discussing these verses, though! My thoughts on these verses are similar enough that I will interpret them together...

"When he does not do what he said he would, we as finite men can say only that he has changed his mind or repented, even though we should recognize, as Jonah did (4:2), that he had intended or desired this all along." (Expositor's Bible Commentary)

From our perspective, we see a change in God's response. Since we know God does not change (JAS 1:17, PS 33:11, MAL 3:6), then God has not changed his plan.

God does not repent like we do, he does not love like we do, he does not get angry like we do. So we must inquire as to what is the difference, and base our decision on what is different on the Scriptures, as much as we can.

Also, you state that God does not lie, which is very true. But how can God be exempted from the charge of lying, if there was no implied condition in Jonah 3:10?

If God really did change his plan, then he misled the people when he warned them. But there is a condition in both passages, implied in Jonah 3:10, and explicit in Jer. 18:8.

Blessings,
Lee

geralduk
March 25th, 2004, 04:41 AM
Even as Paul spoke of WORKS and JAMES spoke of WORKS.
yet were NOT speaking about the SAME works.

Is it then so hard for soem to consider that when God says CLEARLY He does NOT repent and other scriptures CLEARLY say He does.
That if we know God at all then perchance it is OUR thinkign that needs REPENTING of?
and that the CONTRADICTIONS apparent are not contradictions at all but pertain to TWO different PRINCIPLES in action?


and if those who DENY the scriptures and say GOD .......DOES repent and JUSTYFY THEMSELVES with the scriptures that clearly say God DOES repent.
Would it not be wiser to JUSTYFY GOD rather than themsleves and look ALSO at those scriptures which as CLEARLY SHOW GOD DOES NOT repent as the ones they love which as clearly show HE DOES!

If then they LOVE God more than themselves which they claim.
Then they would seek God to be able to "rightly DIVIDE the scriptures" and so fullfill the law of CHRIST.
and see in WHAT MANNER AND WHY God DOES repent.
and in WHAT MANNER and WHY God DOES not!

For it is clear that in SOME matters He DOES .
and in SOME matters He DOES NOT!

Or else if we would deny it so we deny THE SCRIPTURES!
and if we deny them we deny HIM of whom they speak!

Of course we we know not HIM at ALL then it is no use 'arguing' THESE MATTERS at all!
For if we do not fear God then we have NO WISDOM anyway.
For it si the "fear of God which is the BEGINNING of wisdom"
It then would seem to me that those who deny the UNCHANGEABLENESS of God "For I change not" have no fear of God at all?
For they have not the wisdom or the grace to search ALL the scriptures.
and let THEM ALL speak FOR THEMSELVES and so justyfy God.


For those who deny the truth that God does NOT repent would speak not the truth about God.
For clearly in ALL the scriptures HE HAS NOT repented OF THOSE THINGS that HE will NOT repent of!
For He "cannot deny Himself"

Ive said it before and ill say it again...


The 'open veiw' and the closed veiw' are BOTH a SNARE of the devil.
To which men GRAVITATE to by the carnal minds. to one extreme 'position' or the other.
and which is RESOLVED PERFECTLY if we would CONSIDER HIM who died for us.
For IN HIM these 'veiws' are seen as folly in the LIGHT OF HIM who "enlightens every man that cometh into the world.
For you can either have the DEAD theology of the varios 'schools' of theology.
or the LIVING WORD.

and would IF we would so let; bring peace.
by the resolving of all 'contradictions'

smaller
March 25th, 2004, 08:11 AM
Peace Lee

You have written well. Many of these points have been detailed to 1way HOWEVER when a MAN thinks they have the market cornered on GOD as 1way does it is to no avail. 1Way knows EVERYTHING about GOD and is therefore able to tell GOD what GOD can and cannot do.

As soon as 1way let's go of this "I encompass God" position his entire theology crumbles like the piece of moldy blue cheese that it is...

enjoy!

smaller

1Way
March 28th, 2004, 12:46 AM
Lee – So I take it by your response that you have no idea what the actual words of Jonah chapter four verse ten subsection part b means.

You claim it can not mean what it literally says, yet you do not know what the figure even means.

I will wait for a bit more sense from you on this issue. A meaning is not a non-meaning. So I repeat, if you have a response to this thread’s bible conformity challenge, I’m looking forward to your answer.

Thanks for trying. :thumb:

lee_merrill
March 28th, 2004, 12:00 PM
Hi 1Way,


So I take it by your response that you have no idea what the actual words of Jonah chapter four verse ten subsection part b means.

I do have an idea what it means. It's like what we do when we repent, only God doesn't lie (your point), he doesn't repent from wrongdoing (your point again, I agree), and he doesn't change (where we disagree).

That's mostly negative, though. In positive terms, God changes his response, his emotional response, even.


You claim it can not mean what it literally says, yet you do not know what the figure even means.

Well you qualify here, too! We both qualify what this means. So the discussion should be "what qualifiers are appropriate?" not "should there be qualifiers at all?" We both agree there should be.


I will wait for a bit more sense from you on this issue. A meaning is not a non-meaning. So I repeat, if you have a response to this thread’s bible conformity challenge, I’m looking forward to your answer.

That's my answer! There's meaning there, I didn't remove *all* of the meaning with qualifiers. Just the part that you insist on keeping. :)

But people don't seem to be content with that, sometimes, and want *another* analogy to explain the analogy of "repents." Well how about when God is said to get angry? Can you think of another analogy that explains anger? It's difficult to come up with one! But I *do* think we understand what anger is like, without fishing up further analogies to explain this.

I also made some more comments in my post! Which I would appreciate *your* answer to. Like how do you avoid the charge that your view involved God in a lie, which you say (I agree) he does not do?

Blessings,
Lee

1Way
April 3rd, 2004, 11:57 PM
Lee – You said
I do have an idea what it means. It's like what we do when we repent, only God doesn't lie (your point), he doesn't repent from wrongdoing (your point again, I agree), and he doesn't change (where we disagree). Saying that the following idea

God did not do what He said He would do

does not represent a change in god’s plans,

renders the text into meaningless nonsense, and I remind you, I am not looking for a meaningless meaning, I am looking for a meaning for the figure. Plus you don’t believe that anyway, you believe that God always knew what He was going to do and therefore there was no change in God’s course of action, so you both mince words, and lack meaning, and that is far from an answer to my bible conformity challenge.

You have not said what it “means”, you have danced all around the issue, and suggested what it does not mean.

Example, hit the road is a figure of speech, it does not mean what it literally/naturally says. The meaning emphasizes immediacy of the action, to start right away, to put in other words, it means “lets get it going”, “lets start without delay”.

Now that’s pretty informal, and there may be other associated implications, but that’s basically what it means.

I did not say, this is “like” what it means, I am not dancing around the issue by using terms like “conditions” or “qualifications”. I plainly explained the meaning of the figure. And to the extent that you did try to explain the meaning of the figure, you did 2 main things instead, 1) you made it sound natural and not figurative thus contradicting your figurative position, and then to the tiny extent that you take it figurative, 2) you just say it "does not mean" God changed from His previously intended course of action. That is not a "meaning" offered, that is saying what the figure does not mean! Please clarify or stand corrected into something meaningful and not contradictory.

You said
But people don't seem to be content with that, sometimes, and want *another* analogy to explain the analogy of "repents." No, I do not accept analogy for analogy, I am asking for the meaning of the claimed figure. Right now, because of your nonsense answer, I’d have to ask you exactly what text is literal and what is figurative.

If you will not explain the meaning of the figure, then such incompetence leaves you no standing to claim it is figurative and not literal.

So how about it, will you come work for me for a month or 2 if I pay you $50 per hour, but no more than $100/hour? The rate goes down considerably if you want payment before the job is complete. And don’t worry, when it comes time for me to pay you, I will come through with your variety of godly treatment of communicated ideas, turning what is literal into something figurative without reasonable justification.

lee_merrill
April 4th, 2004, 03:21 PM
Lee – You said Saying that the following idea

God did not do what He said He would do

does not represent a change in god’s plans,

renders the text into meaningless nonsense, and I remind you, I am not looking for a meaningless meaning, I am looking for a meaning for the figure. Plus you don’t believe that anyway, you believe that God always knew what He was going to do and therefore there was no change in God’s course of action, so you both mince words, and lack meaning, and that is far from an answer to my bible conformity challenge.

No, God did not do what he threatened. With an implied condition. If there was no implied condition, this I think involves God in falsehood, but we agree God cannot lie (still awaiting your answer on this one).


You have not said what it “means”, you have danced all around the issue, and suggested what it does not mean.

I did suggest what it means, that God changed his response, his emotional response, even. The qualifiers are to show what it doesn't mean, and then I address what I think it does mean.


Example, hit the road is a figure of speech, it does not mean what it literally/naturally says. The meaning emphasizes immediacy of the action, to start right away, to put in other words, it means “lets get it going”, “lets start without delay”.

Fine, that one was pretty easy. Can you do the same for anger, though? That was my point, that one is difficult.


I did not say, this is “like” what it means, I am not dancing around the issue by using terms like “conditions” or “qualifications”.

Your example is not an anthropomorphism, though, applied to God. Qualifiers are necessary for "God's arm," etc. which (I point out) you also qualify, for "repent", by saying "God doesn't lie or repent from evil."


And to the extent that you did try to explain the meaning of the figure, you did 2 main things instead, 1) you made it sound natural and not figurative thus contradicting your figurative position, and then to the tiny extent that you take it figurative, 2) you just say it "does not mean" God changed from His previously intended course of action. That is not a "meaning" offered, that is saying what the figure does not mean!

I don't understand what you mean by point one. What do you mean by "natural"? I qualified "repent", saying "God does not change his plan", thus making "repent" natural? I do insert qualifiers, and you do, too. So point number two applies to you as well...


Right now, because of your nonsense answer, I’d have to ask you exactly what text is literal and what is figurative.

I'm not sure what you mean here, either, what do you mean by "text". Or by "literal" versus "figurative." I think we both agree that "repents" is an anthropomorphism, that it has real meaning (literal in that sense), which we understand because of our experience of repenting (figurative in that sense).


If you will not explain the meaning of the figure, then such incompetence leaves you no standing to claim it is figurative and not literal.

I did give my explanation. If you insist that my explanation is not an explanation, then please explain :) why "changed his response" is meaningless.

And (speaking of no explanation!) please explain how God did not lie to the Ninevites (on your view).

Anyway!

Blessings,
Lee

Z Man
April 5th, 2004, 07:49 PM
1 Way,

I read most of this thread, and the common response from you after a person gives thier explanation is that they are wrong and avoided answering your question. :rolleyes:

You're a pathetic debater. That's why I could care less in having a discussion with you. No one is right except you. The bible is only meant to be interpreted the way you say so.

:vomit:

Please.... Spare us your religion...

God_Is_Truth
April 5th, 2004, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

1 Way,

I read most of this thread, and the common response from you after a person gives thier explanation is that they are wrong and avoided answering your question. :rolleyes:

You're a pathetic debater. That's why I could care less in having a discussion with you. No one is right except you. The bible is only meant to be interpreted the way you say so.

:vomit:

Please.... Spare us your religion...

i seem to have missed where you originally stated what you think the passage means. could you perhaps direct me as to where it is? i'd be quite interested to read what you wrote. thanks.

Freak
April 5th, 2004, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

1 Way,

I read most of this thread, and the common response from you after a person gives thier explanation is that they are wrong and avoided answering your question. :rolleyes:

wrongway is a poster that types many words but conveys little spiritual meat.


You're a pathetic debater. That's why I could care less in having a discussion with you. No one is right except you. The bible is only meant to be interpreted the way you say so.

:vomit:

Please.... Spare us your religion... A man who places plot materials over the Bible shouldn't be taken seriously.

Z Man
April 6th, 2004, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

i seem to have missed where you originally stated what you think the passage means. could you perhaps direct me as to where it is? i'd be quite interested to read what you wrote. thanks.
Sure thing. Here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=466190#post466190) ya go.

Swordsman
April 6th, 2004, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by Z Man

1 Way..........

No one is right except you.

Hence the username 1 Way :chuckle:

God_Is_Truth
April 6th, 2004, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by Z Man

Sure thing. Here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=466190#post466190) ya go.

thanks :thumb:

so is what you posted off that website, the view you also hold? is that correct?

Z Man
April 6th, 2004, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

thanks :thumb:

so is what you posted off that website, the view you also hold? is that correct?
Yes.

God_Is_Truth
April 6th, 2004, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

Yes.

ok. but i'm not seeing anywhere where you tried to refute 1Way's points about God repenting and changing his mind. is there somewhere you did that?

Z Man
April 6th, 2004, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

ok. but i'm not seeing anywhere where you tried to refute 1Way's points about God repenting and changing his mind. is there somewhere you did that?
Here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12028&perpage=15&pagenumber=24) ya go. If you notice, I replied to his statements. and then he totally ignores my answer and continues to ask the same questions, over and over again. Read the entire page to see how 1Way truely is one way. It's his way or you're wrong.

God_Is_Truth
April 6th, 2004, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

Here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12028&perpage=15&pagenumber=24) ya go. If you notice, I replied to his statements. and then he totally ignores my answer and continues to ask the same questions, over and over again. Read the entire page to see how 1Way truely is one way. It's his way or you're wrong.

ok, thank you. but i do have one question.

was God ever truly planning to destroy ninevah? did he really mean it when he said he was going to destroy them? or was it just a threat he knew he'd never implement because the ninevah people would repent?

thanks.

lee_merrill
April 6th, 2004, 05:59 PM
Hi everyone,

I appreciate what you wrote, Z man!


God is Truth: was God ever truly planning to destroy ninevah? did he really mean it when he said he was going to destroy them? or was it just a threat he knew he'd never implement because the ninevah people would repent?

Here's my 2c...

I agree with Z man, I think there was an implied condition, Jonah certainly thought so, and the Ninevites hoped so, and there was, it turns out. Otherwise God was lying to them (that's John Piper's point, by the way). And God does know what would happen if people act a certain way:

1SA 23:12 Again David asked, "Will the citizens of Keilah surrender me and my men to Saul?" And the Lord said, "They will."

So the Lord knew what would have happened if the Ninevites had not repented, they would have been destroyed.

You could also say that Ninevah was overthrown, but by repentance, and not by destruction, that the implied condition was for the threatened destruction, and not for "will be overthrown."

Blessings,
Lee

smaller
April 6th, 2004, 06:32 PM
God's Promise throughout the entire text is that SIN, EVIL, AND DEATH will be put away.

These "things" are not people, PEOPLE.

So does Calvinism LIMIT GOD?

Undoubtedly. Calvinism LIMITS Sovereignty all the while claiming to HOLD IT UP by saying that GOD CANNOT OVERCOME evil with GOOD. By not SWALLOWING UP death in VICTORY. By not ATONING for ALL.

The Word makes NO SUCH presentations, only MEN do.

God_Is_Truth
April 6th, 2004, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

I appreciate what you wrote, Z man!



Here's my 2c...

I agree with Z man, I think there was an implied condition, Jonah certainly thought so, and the Ninevites hoped so, and there was, it turns out. Otherwise God was lying to them (that's John Piper's point, by the way). And God does know what would happen if people act a certain way:

1SA 23:12 Again David asked, "Will the citizens of Keilah surrender me and my men to Saul?" And the Lord said, "They will."

So the Lord knew what would have happened if the Ninevites had not repented, they would have been destroyed.

You could also say that Ninevah was overthrown, but by repentance, and not by destruction, that the implied condition was for the threatened destruction, and not for "will be overthrown."

Blessings,
Lee

ok, so let's suppose that the ninevah case is in line with Jeremiah and the statement "forty days and ninevah will be overthrown" is, in the mind of God, something that will occur only if they do not repent. but God knows that the ninevah people will in fact repent. so he knows that the statement "ninevah will be overthrown" is not true and is just a threat.

so the question is, did God ever really have in his mind the plan to destroy the ninevah people?


if not, does this mean God never planned to actually destroy ninevah?

Z Man
April 6th, 2004, 10:09 PM
Thanks Lee! Your 2c wasn't bad either. Good post! :thumb:

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

ok, so let's suppose that the ninevah case is in line with Jeremiah and the statement "forty days and ninevah will be overthrown" is, in the mind of God, something that will occur only if they do not repent. but God knows that the ninevah people will in fact repent. so he knows that the statement "ninevah will be overthrown" is not true and is just a threat.

so the question is, did God ever really have in his mind the plan to destroy the ninevah people?


if not, does this mean God never planned to actually destroy ninevah?
God threatened Ninevah so that they would repent. It's as simple as that. There was no destruction for them, obviously, since they repented, and since they never were destroyed!

God was being a Father. What do you do to your child when you desire a certain behavior from them?

God_Is_Truth
April 6th, 2004, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

Thanks Lee! Your 2c wasn't bad either. Good post! :thumb:

God threatened Ninevah so that they would repent. It's as simple as that. There was no destruction for them, obviously, since they repented, and since they never were destroyed!

God was being a Father. What do you do to your child when you desire a certain behavior from them?

so that would be a "no" right?

Z Man
April 6th, 2004, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

so that would be a "no" right?
Ummmm.... what do you think?

Where is this all leading?

God_Is_Truth
April 6th, 2004, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

Ummmm.... what do you think?

Where is this all leading?

i was trying to get a better understanding of the calvinist viewpoint of Jonah and ninevah.

lee_merrill
April 7th, 2004, 05:05 PM
Hi God is Truth and Z man,


so the question is, did God ever really have in his mind the plan to destroy the ninevah people?

No, I don't think he did plan that. The warning was part of his plan, to bring about the repentance, so he would not have to destroy them. That's why he sent Jonah! And why Jonah ran, because he knew (I think) what God's purpose was in sending him.

Blessings,
Lee

Z Man
April 7th, 2004, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by lee_merrill

Hi God is Truth and Z man,



No, I don't think he did plan that. The warning was part of his plan, to bring about the repentance, so he would not have to destroy them. That's why he sent Jonah! And why Jonah ran, because he knew (I think) what God's purpose was in sending him.

Blessings,
Lee
I agree. And the reason Jonah ran is because he didn't want to see Ninevah repent:

Jonah 3:10; 4:1-2
Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he became angry. So he prayed to the Lord, and said, "Ah, Lord, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who relents from doing harm.

Jonah knew that God wasn't intending on destroying Ninevah; God had ordained Ninevah to repent. That's why He told Jonah to go to Ninevah to begin with! But Jonah hated the city of Ninevah; he did not want to see them repent, thus he ran from God. But God not only taught Jonah a lesson through his disobediance, but He also taught Ninevah a greater one as well!

As one can clearly see, the story of Ninevah and Jonah, if truely read in it's entirety and context, is not about a God who changes, but about a God who brings about His purposes and uses evil to bring about a greater cause, most importantly that of repentance.

1Way
April 19th, 2004, 04:35 PM
God says that He did not do what He said He would do, but you closed theists contradict by saying, no, God never intended on doing what He said He would do.

When you finally agree that God did clarify His course of action (Nineveh’s prophesied destruction) as being reversed, you try to say that He was just being figurative about the destruction, He didn’t really mean it, but you will NEVER tell us what the figure actually means, because you have no reasonable idea what it really means.

So either way the Calvinist leans,

1) the prophesy was just a warning with conditional implication,

2) or God actually did the complete opposite of what He said He would do, but He was only being figurative about the destruction, not literal,

either way the closed theist is genuinely presenting an illegitimate argument that he himself has a hard time selling to others because of the inherently falseness of it. Hence none of you will come to work for me for even $200 dollars an hour (waiting a month prior to payment)! Why?!? Because you “know” it is wrong to state a serious proposition in a literal way, and then later just claim it was figurative pretending like I never really intended on paying you any money in the first place. You KNOW that is wrong to do, but you think it would be godly if God did it. Say one thing but do another. God was not wrong when He said the following, and you have no standing to overturn God'says truth.

Jon 3:4 And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!" ...

10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. As to the personal attacks that all I have done is say your wrong, the truth is that I have provided reasons from scripture, not just empty claims. God commands and harshly warns and condemns against taking away from, or altering, His word, but, you do so without even providing a suitable biblically based reason, and without replacing the meaning you void. You don’t have a leg to stand on, so instead you lash out at me personally, holding higher your manmade doctrines than the holy word of God.

lee_merrill
April 19th, 2004, 04:56 PM
When you finally agree that God did clarify His course of action (Nineveh’s prophesied destruction) as being reversed, you try to say that He was just being figurative about the destruction, He didn’t really mean it, but you will NEVER tell us what the figure actually means, because you have no reasonable idea what it really means.

No, the destruction was not figurative, God's statement was this: "If there is no repentance, there will be destruction." Real destruction was threatened, and repentance averted it. God knew that would happen, but the threat was not an illusion.

MT 11:21 "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes."

Jesus knew that the people in Tyre and Sidon would have repented if someone had done the works that Jesus did there. There was real destruction in Tyre and Sidon, because they did not repent. But if someone had gone there and done the works, then there would have been real repentance. This possibility doesn't make the meaning of repentance figurative.

The threatened destruction was as real as the mentioned repentance in Tyre and Sidon.


So either way the Calvinist leans,

1) the prophesy was just a warning with conditional implication,

2) or God actually did the complete opposite of what He said He would do, but He was only being figurative about the destruction, not literal.

I would say it was a threat, with a condition. I think you are saying God really planned to destroy the Ninevites, and then changed his overall plan.

So some questions for you here:

Why didn't God just destroy the Ninevites right away, if that was his intent?

Why did God send Jonah, and spoil his plan to destroy them?

Why did Jonah seem to have a better grasp of the situation? He thought the Ninevites would probably repent, and God apparently did not.

How is it that God did not lie to the Ninevites, if there was no implied condition in the threat of destruction? (repeat question here)


... you “know” it is wrong to state a serious proposition in a literal way, and then later just claim it was figurative pretending like I never really intended on paying you any money in the first place.

Jonah thought there was an implied condition, the Ninevites hoped there was, and they were both correct. They understood God's intent, thus God did not pretend or mislead them.

Blessings,
Lee

1Way
April 20th, 2004, 05:47 AM
Lee – The first thing you said was
No, the destruction was not figurative, God's statement was this: "If there is no repentance, there will be destruction." Real destruction was threatened, and repentance averted it. God knew that would happen, but the threat was not an illusion. There’s no easy way around this, ,,, that is a lie, I know you know the truth about what God actually said, but you still falsified anyway. God did not by His words say nor imply any warning nor condition. What God did in fact say was concerning His prophesied destruction of Nineveh, HE DID NOT DO IT, He did not do what He said HE WOULD DO, He repented of bringing to pass His prophesy, that much is certain. Also, if God DID say as you falsified by saying that God’s word was a conditional warning, then you make God out to being a liar when He said that concerning that so called “conditional warning”, He did not do what He said He would do. By God complying with, and not contradicting against “a conditional warning”, then God would have said, so I will do what I said I would do and not bring destruction (if you repent), and God did do as He said He would do.

Here is God’s word again that you keep rejecting in favor of your manmade traditions.
Jon 3:4 And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!" ...

... 10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. Now watch my take on this, and examine the humble truth conformity as opposed to your outright contradiction. God relented (lit. “repented” as a response to the nation’s repentance, so “relented” is a fabulous translation showing real-time relational synergism) from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. That is perfect, that is what happened, God did not do what He said He would do, He did not do it. God is right and you are wrong for trying to void this easy teaching of meaning.

You said
I would say it was a threat, with a condition. I think you are saying God really planned to destroy the Ninevites, and then changed his overall plan. God said that He did not do what He said He would do. That is God’s position, and I accept it even though you don’t.

You said
So some questions for you here:

(1) Why didn't God just destroy the Ninevites right away, if that was his intent?

(2) Why did God send Jonah, and spoil his plan to destroy them?

(3) Why did Jonah seem to have a better grasp of the situation? He thought the Ninevites would probably repent, and God apparently did not.

(4) How is it that God did not lie to the Ninevites, if there was no implied condition in the threat of destruction? (repeat question here)
... you “know” it is wrong to state a serious proposition in a literal way, and then later just claim it was figurative pretending like I never really intended on paying you any money in the first place. Oh my goodness, I don’t believe it, you are actually admitting that trying to turn a serious honest literal statement into a figurative meaningless statement is wrong to do. Wow, talk about an advancement from the closed view camp. You should watch over your shoulder now that you have sort of left the field behind (if you will).

(1) It was not His intent. I never said nor implied that it was. Have you lost your senses?

(2) Sending Jonah was part of His plan, God clarified His intents of destruction when He later repented from doing what he said He would do, destroy Nineveh. If God was never intending on destroying Neneveh, then there would have been nothing to repent of. Your train of thought does not conform to scripture, it even contradicts it. Please stop pretending that God did not say what He honestly did say.

(3) Jonah understood that God has a reputation for repenting from destruction because of His righteous mercies. “Nothing” is shown that he thought the Ninevites “would probably repent” nor anything about what God thought about that likelihood either. :confused: You pervert, twist, fabricate and falsify a lot. Please stop doing this, I enjoy reasonable honorable discussions.

(4) Because God was going to destroy them based upon the current situation He was perfectly righteous and justified in so prophesying. When the circumstance changed, so did God’s judgment against them. I say that God did not know with absolute certainty that they would repent, He knew that the situation (as is) was on the the virge of destruction, but allowed for the outside chance (however slim or likely) of a phenomenal occurrence of nationwide repentance. !!! What an outstanding and unusual reaction!!! And it was "only after" God learned of their repentance ("Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented") that God contradicted His previously prophesied judgment and did not do what He said He would do (=bring destuction upon Nineveh).


You seem completely afraid to deal uprightly with this biblical fact. God's word is clear that God did not do what He said He would do, quote, "and He did not do it". That eliminates the unsupported notion that the prophesy was just a threat by God's honest and holy word on the matter.


Divine repentance is a glorious godly doctrine that you should stop voiding from scripture.

You said
Jonah thought there was an implied condition, the Ninevites hoped there was, and they were both correct. They understood God's intent, thus God did not pretend or mislead them. More falsifying. You have no basis for overturning scripture. Scripture is true, you words are false. Jonah understood the conditionality within God ("if" God later finds the situation has drastically changed), not about His prophesy, that was God's word preserved without error.

I agree that a part of God’s intent was to allow room for national repentance as revealed by His actions. But that does not do anything to overturn scripture that show God’s repentance by reversing His prophesied word of destruction, it is because God repented from doing what He prophesied He would do, that we know God changed His course of action. If He would not have repented from bring destruction, then He would have destroyed them upon the prophesied 40 days. This is according to what God says, you need to start according your faith to that instead of contradicting it.

1Way
April 20th, 2004, 05:51 PM
Lee - I just re-edited my post for additional clarity. I hope you will respond to this version instead of an older one. Sorry for any hassles this may involve. I just want to be as clear as possible.

Also, I never said there was absolutely no conditionality within God about all this. The fact remains that God repented from bringing the destruction that He said He would bring, and He did not do it. So God's word is clear about Him changing His intentions via repentance from carrying out His prophesied word of imminent destruction.


Thanks.

lee_merrill
April 20th, 2004, 06:15 PM
Hi 1Way,


I just re-edited my post for additional clarity.

Thanks for the editing, I appreciate the discussion, too! And I was just about to press "post". Now here is my revised (maybe not standard) version...


God did not by His words say nor imply any warning nor condition. What God did in fact say was concerning His prophesied destruction of Nineveh, HE DID NOT DO IT, He did not do what He said HE WOULD DO, He repented of bringing to pass His prophesy, that much is certain.

I don't think it is, actually! God didn't actually say he would destroy them. God said he would overthrow them, which he did, by the Ninevite's repentance, instead of by destruction.

Now for the questions! Thank you for your replies...


Lee: Why didn't God just destroy the Ninevites right away, if that was his intent?

1Way: It was not His intent. I never said nor implied that it was.

Well, if God very literally repented, as you say, then what did he repent from, if not from an intent to destroy them?


Lee: Why did God send Jonah, and spoil his plan to destroy them?

1Way: Sending Jonah was part of His plan, God clarified His intents of destruction when He later repented from doing what he said He would do, destroy Nineveh. If God was never intending on destroying Neneveh, then there would have been nothing to repent of.

Now I think you are saying that God did intend to destroy Ninevah. So I ask my first question again, "why didn't God just destroy them right away, if that was his intent?" Also (back to question 2), how was sending Jonah part of that plan? This spoiled it, actually.


Lee: Why did Jonah seem to have a better grasp of the situation? He thought the Ninevites would probably repent, and God apparently did not.

1Way: Jonah understood that God has a reputation for repenting from destruction because of His righteous mercies. “Nothing” is shown that he thought the Ninevites “would probably repent” nor anything about what God thought about that likelihood either.

He did think the Ninevites would probably repent, though:

JNH 4:2 "That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity."

Now Jonah certainly knew that God would relent only if the Ninevites did repent. But according to the OV, I think you have to say Jonah's view was accurate, and God's actually was not. When the Ninevites repented, God had to change his plan. If God thought the Ninevites would repent, then he would have had that as part of his plan in the first place, I expect.


Lee: How is it that God did not lie to the Ninevites, if there was no implied condition in the threat of destruction?

1Way: I say that God did not know with absolute certainty that they would repent, He knew that the situation (as is) was on the the virge of destruction, but allowed for the outside chance (however slim or likely) of a phenomenal occurrence of nationwide repentance.

This is all fine (from an OV perspective), but God made no condition to the Ninevites, according to the OV, though he knew there was a possibility of repentance. Thus, I think this implies he actually misled them, i.e. that he did lie.


God's word is clear that God did not do what He said He would do, quote, "and He did not do it".

Two quotes in one! I will address this after the next quote...


You “know” it is wrong to state a serious proposition in a literal way, and then later just claim it was figurative pretending like I never really intended on paying you any money in the first place.

But if there is an understood, implied condition for paying the money (I won't get paid if I don't work), then if I don't work, you are justified in applying the condition, and not paying me. You didn't have to state that condition, it was implied. So you didn't do what you said, but we both understood the implied condition, you didn't have to say that part.


I agree that a part of God’s intent was to allow room for national repentance as revealed by His actions.

So now I wonder if you are saying that God's intent changed when he repented? Or instead he just changed his pronouncement, from judgment to mercy? Which is pretty close to what I am interpreting this passage as saying...

Blessings,
Lee

1Way
April 20th, 2004, 06:44 PM
Lee – On the creative scale, you are very creative, but on the truth conformity scale, your creativity ruins your understanding of the truth. You said
I don't think it is, actually! God didn't actually say he would destroy them. God said he would overthrow them, which he did, by the Ninevite's repentance, instead of by destruction. God qualified His statement of overthrow as being one of destruction. Again, you are afraid of dealing uprightly with what God actually said, here it is again for truth conformity.
Jon 3:10 subsection part b ... and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. The word for destruction is Hebrew ra`, which is a moral or amoral bad or ruin, to break, etc. And God did not correct the Ninevites who assumed that God’s version of destroying them meant they would perish, i.e. be killed! Now if God did not intend a serious and lethal punishment, then that would be the last impression God would have recorded about His judgment without making a clear correction of the misunderstanding. Surely our loving and righteous God would have given a corrective word so that they would not worry about God killing them if He had no intentions on doing so.

But all that aside, God said that He did not do what He said He would do. There is no getting around that. Here is what He said.
Jon 3:10 subsection part b ... and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. What did God say He would do that He did not do? Bring destruction upon them. That was exactly what God repented from doing, and He did not do it.

It can’t get any planer and simpler and easier and clearer than that.

As to your overthrow comment that God supposedly accomplished. You are so confused it is pitiful. Again, God, not you, not me, not even Augustine, God said that concerning what He said He would do, He repented from doing it, and He did not do it! So you can try to claim that God only wanted to overthrow them and that He did do that, but concerning God’s prophesy of disastrous overthrow, God said that He did not do it! You say He did overthrow them! You might want to get some medical attention, maybe a CAT scan ;) because you just can not seem to be able to deal uprightly with extremely simple ideas.

With all due respect, your fear and contradiction against this text is simply remarkable. You hold in higher esteem your traditions than you do God’s word. Please reconsider the meaning of this text that is arguably below junior high school level. If you can not deal uprightly with this small responsibility, of course larger more complex issues will confound you.

1Way
April 20th, 2004, 11:23 PM
Lee – I guess I should not have read more of your post because what I have read so far is alarming to say the least, and if we can not improving things at this fundamental and basic level, then further productive discussion efforts are certainly futile. But, I did read on to your very next point just now, and I am even more stultified by your lack of understanding. This will be my last issue I raise as these two issues are so basic and simple and fundamental that no progress can be achieved without these issues being already resolved in a reasonable fashion. You can not run before you can walk, and it appears in your case, before you can crawl. To your credit, you seem focused and articulate, but the content of your understandable responses are incredibly void of scriptural truth and meaning.

You said

Lee: Why didn't God just destroy the Ninevites right away, if that was his intent?

1Way: It was not His intent. I never said nor implied that it was. Well, if God very literally repented, as you say, then what did he repent from, if not from an intent to destroy them? God repented of His prophesy of a national disastrous overthrow in yet 40 days. That is what God repented from doing. The 40 days addendum represents a significant time span of prophesied doom. The very act of giving such a prolonged time span is indicative of the desire to allow for nation wide repentance, or perhaps for “whosoever” would place faith in the truth from God, maybe those people could escape the destruction by leaving the nation prior to the nation’s destruction, thus concentrating the punishment on those who remained defiant against God.

How it could be that you can not understand what God literally repented from by willfully ignoring the few and very basic elements of this context, is beyond reasonable scrutiny and justification. You display uncanny willful blindness to scriptures meaning clearly given. I do not, and will not allow such foolishness without clear objection. Please rectify this situation over these last two posts or realize that I will end up leaving you in the preposterous pile of willful ignorance that you have entrenched yourself in.

You do agree that God and by scripture is the highest authority for matters of faith, right, not your theology traditions, God’s word, right?

lee_merrill
April 21st, 2004, 05:55 PM
Hi 1Way,


You said God qualified His statement of overthrow as being one of destruction. ... God did not correct the Ninevites who assumed that God’s version of destroying them meant they would perish, i.e. be killed!

I agree, real destruction was implied, though not mentioned specifically, and the Ninevites understood this, and they were correct.


But all that aside, God said that He did not do what He said He would do. There is no getting around that.

Fine, but in your analogy of coming to work for you, if I don't do the work, you won't do what you said, you won't pay me. Even if you didn't state that condition. So there was an understood, and implied condition, thus you didn't change your overall plan at all. And you didn't do what you said you would do.


Lee: Why didn't God just destroy the Ninevites right away, if that was his intent?

1Way: God repented of His prophesy of a national disastrous overthrow in yet 40 days.

Yes, I know that is what Jonah was given to say. But why was Jonah sent to say that, if it was God's intent to destroy them? Why not destroy them right away, and not even send Jonah, to say this message? I repeat question two here: Why did God send Jonah, and spoil his plan to destroy them?

And I leave the other questions as an exercise for the reader...

Blessings,
Lee

1Way
April 22nd, 2004, 01:35 AM
You have meaningfully sliced up what I have said thin enough to have effectively ignored the bulk of it. And more importantly, you have not lifted a pinky to justify your violence against God’s word as clearly exposed.

I will not stand down on this issue, you will stand corrected or this conversion will end unpleasantly because I have no respect for willful liars and perverts, especially when directed against God’s word. Anyone who does respect such people are trying to be nicer than God, which is foolishness and likely selfish sin.

You tried to stretch my analogy beyond what it was used for, which was simply to point out the immorality of being purposefully dishonest or deceptive. I even congratulated you for doing well on understanding my analogy, but now I have to take it back because now you mishandle it.

God’s positive truth claim = Nineveh’s disastrous overthrow

My positive truth claim = I will pay you $200/hour to work for me with the stipulation that you must wait to be paid until after a month’s time of full time work.

If you want to continue with the analogy, you must consider accurately what happened. God said that He did “not” do what He said He would do, because the people changed such that it contradicted the original circumstances, so God changed His judgment accordingly.

For me to analogously say that I “did not do what I said I would do”, would be for me to pay you even though you did not do the work for me according to the original situation! That would be a very strange analogy, and does not help much. Besides, concerning what actually did happen with God and Nineveh, the situation is simple and easy such that it needs no analogy. So stop avoiding the scripture, deal with it.

So then, why did I give my analogy? Because you folks are so deluded, you don’t even see the hypocrisy in your own lives over this issue about subverting a literal truth into a non-literal and/or meaninglessness.

With your words only, you promote that it can be good and godly to offer an honest serious judgment of harsh condemnation, and then later just say it was not literal, or that it was conditional and thus represents no change in original course of action. But your life betrays your hypocrisy because you will not come and work for me for even $500 bucks an hour because you know that I will just pull the same wicked stunt you are trying to levy against God and His word, in that I would just say, hey, remember what I said at the beginning, all that stuff about me paying you $100, $200, or even $500 bucks an hour, forget all that, that was either

figurative, I did not literally mean what I said,

or

it was actually conditional even though I never stated the condition.

That is why you would not come and work for me, so you live the exact opposite of what you say you believe.

Also, no matter how you look at it, it would be WRONG for me to absolutely KNOW that I was NOT going to pay you, yet still say

1) I will pay you!

2) I repented from doing what I said I would do, and I did not do it.

In both cases, if I absolutely knew that would not pay you, then in both cases I would be dishonest about my intentions.

You KNOW that is wrong, and that is why you would not work for me under this analogy, so you’re a hypocrite. Shucks I might even make it more than what I have generously offered already! But you wont, because when the rubber meets the road and truth becomes undeniable, I’m right, your wrong and you’ve been playing the hypocrite.

As to Jonah being sent, I already answered you fully, and you have presented no new questioning, so until you do, I direct your attention to what I already said. God intended on doing exactly what He did, including sending Jonah, yet He still ended up relenting from doing what He said He would do, and He did NOT DO IT. I see you still will not touch that truth from God’s word with anything but ignorance and violence. At least your consistent.

You suggest that God did do what He said He would do by “overthrowing” Nineveh, so He did what He said He would do. :eek: So God did not mean a lethal disaster, only a moral/spiritual overthrow, but, you also say that the “disaster” implied Nineveh literally perishing(!!!). :kookoo: So evidently you don not even know what you believe. You are lost in a world of contradiction and false teaching. :radar: But I stand on God’s word hoping you would stop violating it. :nono:

I have already given you one chance to stand corrected for your perversions and an outright lie, and you have chosen the path of self defense refusing to be held accountable for violating scripture as you have. Strike one, my patience is wearing thin, you are well aware of what you have done. I strongly suggest that you re-read my exposure of your ill treatment of God’s word and respond accordingly or this conversation may become unpleasant rather quickly for your willful ignorance and violence against God’s word. Not because you do not agree with me, but because you lie and pervert against scripture as clearly exposed.

If you had planned on responding to my very serious charges, then you should have said so without presenting the impression that you are ignoring all that. What a short list, lying against and pervert scripture, combined with a generous helping of hypocrisy.

lee_merrill
April 22nd, 2004, 10:57 AM
Hi 1Way,


I will not stand down on this issue, you will stand corrected or this conversion will end unpleasantly because I have no respect for willful liars and perverts, especially when directed against God’s word. Anyone who does respect such people are trying to be nicer than God, which is foolishness and likely selfish sin.

...

If you had planned on responding to my very serious charges, then you should have said so without presenting the impression that you are ignoring all that. What a short list, lying against and pervert scripture, combined with a generous helping of hypocrisy.

Please calm down! I am not attacking you. Our conduct should commend our comments.

I will repond to your post later, but please adopt a different tone...

Blessings,
Lee

lee_merrill
April 22nd, 2004, 05:59 PM
God’s positive truth claim = Nineveh’s disastrous overthrow

My positive truth claim = I will pay you $200/hour to work for me with the stipulation that you must wait to be paid until after a month’s time of full time work.

Where is the condition for averting "disaster" in the prophecy, though? And where did you say you would not pay me if I did not do the work? Both are implied.


Also, no matter how you look at it, it would be WRONG for me to absolutely KNOW that I was NOT going to pay you, yet still say

1) I will pay you!

2) I repented from doing what I said I would do, and I did not do it.

I agree that is wrong, if there was no implied condition, and I do not agree that that is analogous to God's threat to the Ninevites. That is why I restated your analogy with the implied condition, I think that is a good analogy.


As to Jonah being sent ... God intended on doing exactly what He did, including sending Jonah, yet He still ended up relenting from doing what He said He would do, and He did NOT DO IT.

You did say previously that God had some intention of destroying the Ninevites, though. So how did God do exactly what he intended?

And you actually have not given me satisfactory answers to my questions. I did address your answers, and you have not, that I know of, addressed my replies. Apart from this last quote, which I think is inconsistent with what you said previously, so I'm not sure what you are saying about these first two questions.

Here it is again: If God intended in any way, shape or form, to destroy Ninevah, why didn't he just do so? And not send Jonah, which spoiled his plan?


You suggest that God did do what He said He would do by “overthrowing” Nineveh, so He did what He said He would do.

No, you misunderstood me. The "said he would do" applies to the implied destruction, not to the overthrow. Though I'm not going to insist on this interpretation, I think I can do without it, if need be. You need to show me how the Ninevites repenting is not an overthrow, though.


I strongly suggest that you re-read my exposure of your ill treatment of God’s word and respond accordingly or this conversation may become unpleasant rather quickly ...

This is unpleasant, actually. Do please adopt a different tone, that would be appreciated.

Blessings,
Lee

1Way
April 25th, 2004, 10:25 PM
Lee - Twice in a row now I have called you on the carpet for plainly “lying” and “perverting” against God's word, and every time you you continue to ignore any accountability to these evils. So you are racking up a third evil in so doing, you are not above Christian/biblical accountability.

This is your last warning to do right and risk the consequences. You know where to go to deal with the accusations of “wrong doing”, I’ve repeatedly pointed them out to you despite your repeatedly ignoring them. If you have no defense against lying and perversion against God’s word, then my case is done and you are a shame.

You do understand that it is evil and wrong to lie and pervert against God’s word, don’t you?

lee_merrill
April 26th, 2004, 08:34 PM
This is your last warning...

That's why I'm posting here, actually. Do feel free to show me where I am mistaken. How is it that repentance cannot be viewed properly as "overthrow"? I think it can:

AC 17:6 "These men who have upset the world have come here also..."


If you have no defense against lying and perversion against God’s word, then my case is done and you are a shame.

I have not proceeded with my defense, because you have not proceeded with more answers, though! Your case is not done, as well, for I still have my questions waiting for answers:

If God had any intent of destroying the Ninevites, why didn't he simply do so? He even has the power to keep people from repenting, when he warns them, if his plan is to destroy them:

2CH 25:16 "I know that God has determined to destroy you, because you have done this and have not listened to my counsel."

1SA 2:25 His sons, however, did not listen to their father's rebuke, for it was the Lord's will to put them to death.

So if it was God's plan to destroy the Ninevites, then he could have even kept them from repenting at Jonah's message, I believe. But again, why did he send Jonah in the first place?


You do understand that it is evil and wrong to lie and pervert against God’s word, don’t you?

I do understand that. Another repeated question: how is it, on your view, that God did not lie to the Ninevites, if there was no implied condition in the threat of destruction?

Now you may have changed your view, I may have misunderstood if you now have a different thought on these verses. If that's so, that's fine, but I do need to understand now what your position is.

Blessings,
Lee

1Way
April 27th, 2004, 12:36 AM
Lee – You are trying to levy (subjective) artistic license into this new discussion about your wrong doing, and of course I will not allow you to pervert nor contradict here neither. The facts have been recorded in black and white for all to see, and if you persist in this shameful course of action, I will end up re-exposing what you have done as a reminder to all of the kind of violence and perversion you promote against God’s word. You will deal with this issue uprightly, or you will suffer the unresolved charges of wrong doing as plainly levied against you. I reject such insolent and scriptural dishonesty, and I tire of repeating what you keep ignoring.

However, you said
That's why I'm posting here, actually. Do feel free to show me where I am mistaken. How is it that repentance cannot be viewed properly as "overthrow"? I think it can: That is not the case at all. I clearly explained the case for why I charged you with lying and for perverting against the scripture. My words have not changed, and your lie and perversion has not been addressed let alone repented of.

You said
I have not proceeded with my defense, because you have not proceeded with more answers, though! Your case is not done, as well, for I still have my questions waiting for answers: You have no grounds for me doing wrong, I have presented you with “immediate and clear” grounds for doing wrong, and every since then you have utterly ignored it. I will not continue with the discussion until this issue is resolved, no one likes to chat with a liar. You have presented no defense for your actions so the charges of serious wrong doing remain against you. And of course I will not entertain a liar’s charges against anyone because your reputation concerning truth is already obviously challenged and in my opinion sufficiently exposed for being false. You are probably just trying to stall the inevitable, it will not work.

Although the our discussion was the arena of where you perpetrated these things, the ongoing discussion has nothing to do with you standing accountable for what you already have done. You are certainly being held accountable as charged until the matter is remedied and no amount of you trying to wiggle your way out of it will suffice instead. Make amends or remain exposed for being a liar and a pervert against God’s word.

smaller
April 27th, 2004, 08:11 AM
Let's not LIE 1Way



You do understand that it is evil and wrong to lie and pervert against God’s word, don’t you?

Now you KNOW your statement should have read as follows:

You do understand that it is evil and wrong to lie and pervert against 1Way's interpretation of God’s word, don’t you?

He uses this phoney tactic continually...go figure

Z Man
April 27th, 2004, 09:07 AM
1 Way,

You disgust me. Your level of ignorance and close-mindedness is so high that you refuse to receive any sort of new knowledge into your intellect. You have trapped yourself into a world that you have made up, and if no one else fits into your paradigm, which was created from your own isolation in your own world, then they are wrong. You truely are 1 way, but I'm afraid that that "way" is not God's...

1Way
April 28th, 2004, 07:21 AM
Here is my post #146, the one that Lee has completely ignored my immediate claims of wrong doing via violence against God’s word, especially the first occurance.

****
Quoting post 146.
****

Lee – The first thing you said was
No, the destruction was not figurative, God's statement was this: "If there is no repentance, there will be destruction." Real destruction was threatened, and repentance averted it. God knew that would happen, but the threat was not an illusion. There’s no easy way around this, ,,, that is a lie, I know you know the truth about what God actually said, but you still falsified anyway. God did not by His words say nor imply any warning nor condition. What God did in fact say was concerning His prophesied destruction of Nineveh, HE DID NOT DO IT, He did not do what He said HE WOULD DO, He repented of bringing to pass His prophesy, that much is certain. Also, if God DID say as you falsified by saying that God’s word was a conditional warning, then you make God out to being a liar when He said that concerning that so called “conditional warning”, He did not do what He said He would do. By God complying with, and not contradicting against “a conditional warning”, then God would have said, so I will do what I said I would do and not bring destruction (if you repent), and God did do as He said He would do.

Here is God’s word again that you keep rejecting in favor of your manmade traditions.
Jon 3:4 And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!" ...

... 10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. Now watch my take on this, and examine the humble truth conformity as opposed to your outright contradiction. God relented (lit. “repented” as a response to the nation’s repentance, so “relented” is a fabulous translation showing real-time relational synergism) from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. That is perfect, that is what happened, God did not do what He said He would do, He did not do it. God is right and you are wrong for trying to void this easy teaching of meaning.

...

...



...
...

(3) Why did Jonah seem to have a better grasp of the situation? He thought the Ninevites would probably repent, and God apparently did not.

(4) How is it that God did not lie to the Ninevites, if there was no implied condition in the threat of destruction? (repeat question here)
... you “know” it is wrong to state a serious proposition in a literal way, and then later just claim it was figurative pretending like I never really intended on paying you any money in the first place. ...
...
(3) Jonah understood that God has a reputation for repenting from destruction because of His righteous mercies. “Nothing” is shown that he thought the Ninevites “would probably repent” nor anything about what God thought about that likelihood either. :confused: You pervert, twist, fabricate and falsify a lot. Please stop doing this, I enjoy reasonable honorable discussions.

(4) Because God was going to destroy them based upon the current situation He was perfectly righteous and justified in so prophesying. When the circumstance changed, so did God’s judgment against them. I say that God did not know with absolute certainty that they would repent, He knew that the situation (as is) was on the the verge of destruction, but allowed for the outside chance (however slim or likely) of a phenomenal occurrence of nationwide repentance. !!! What an outstanding and unusual reaction!!! And it was "only after" God learned of their repentance ("Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented") that God contradicted His previously prophesied judgment and did not do what He said He would do (=bring destuction upon Nineveh).


You seem completely afraid to deal uprightly with this biblical fact. God's word is clear that God did not do what He said He would do, quote, "and He did not do it". That eliminates the unsupported notion that the prophesy was just a threat by God's honest and holy word on the matter.

Divine repentance is a glorious godly doctrine that you should stop voiding from scripture.


****
End quoting post 146.
****

smaller
April 28th, 2004, 08:50 AM
It's real funny how 1Way preaches DIVINE REPENTENCE yet DISALLOWS GOD from repenting of His (supposed) intent on burning nearly everyone in torture forever...go figure.

Whatcha think 1way? Can God reneg on burning NEARLY everyone after they die??? This is your position that this IS POSSIBLE after all, eh?

I want to see you BACK STROKE 1WAY. You and the balance of your open view buddies.

Can GOD REPENT of BURNING THE UNBELIEVER FOREVER???

"Millions of hells of sinners cannot come near to exhaust infinite grace." -Samuel Rutherford

lee_merrill
April 28th, 2004, 06:12 PM
Hi 1Way,


God did not by His words say nor imply any warning nor condition. What God did in fact say was concerning His prophesied destruction of Nineveh, HE DID NOT DO IT, He did not do what He said HE WOULD DO, He repented of bringing to pass His prophesy, that much is certain.

I don't think it's certain, though. What God said literally was "overthrown," and I think that may well refer to an implied destruction, and then when they repented, to their repentance.


Also, if God DID say as you falsified by saying that God’s word was a conditional warning, then you make God out to being a liar when He said that concerning that so called “conditional warning”, He did not do what He said He would do. By God complying with, and not contradicting against “a conditional warning”, then God would have said, so I will do what I said I would do and not bring destruction (if you repent), and God did do as He said He would do.

That's a good point. I have to take "what he said" to refer to destruction, without the implied condition. I believe the full statement here is "I will destroy Ninevah unless they repent, and forgive them if they do repent." I think that is reasonable to say that God said "I will destroy Ninevah unless they repent", i.e. to quote only part of the full statement, and thus it is reasonable to say God said "I will destroy Ninevah," without including the condition. Here is an example:

MT 8:31 The demons begged Jesus, "If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs."
MK 5:12 The demons begged Jesus, "Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them."

In Matthew, a condition is stated "if you drive us out", in Mark, the condition is not stated. But the demons are said to say "send us" in Mark, without stating the condition mentioned in Matthew.

Also, keeping my view that "overthrow" can mean either destruction or repentance, then the destruction was implied. Thus I also have to explain how "what he said" can mean "what he implied." The word "said" here is the Hebrew word "dabar", which has a wide range of meanings. In one place, the NASB translates "dabar" as "meant", in Ex. 16:23, so I think this word can mean "implied".


Jonah understood that God has a reputation for repenting from destruction because of His righteous mercies. “Nothing” is shown that he thought the Ninevites “would probably repent” nor anything about what God thought about that likelihood either.

But as you say, Jonah understood that "God has a reputation for repenting", thus I think this, along with the fact that he ran, and complains "this is what I said" (Jonah 4:2), implies that he did expect the Ninevites would probably repent. I think he knew that was God's purpose in sending him, that he was being sent on a mission of mercy. If Jonah had thought God was sending him on a mission of judgment, he would have been on the first ship to Ninevah!


I say that God did not know with absolute certainty that they would repent, He knew that the situation (as is) was on the verge of destruction, but allowed for the outside chance (however slim or likely) of a phenomenal occurrence of nationwide repentance. !!! What an outstanding and unusual reaction!!! And it was "only after" God learned of their repentance ("Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented") that God contradicted His previously prophesied judgment and did not do what He said He would do (=bring destruction upon Nineveh).

Now I understand your view better, thank you for the clarification. So now what I wonder is, did God have an overall plan? If so, then what was it? If God had an overall plan to destroy the Ninevites, then some of the questions I have mentioned previously apply. If God had an overall plan to get the Ninevites to repent, then that's pretty much what I believe, too.

Or did he have just contingencies and responses, and no overall plan? Then I'm not sure you can maintain that God "relented", if he apparently had no overall intent.

You do still seem to be saying that God's threat to the Ninevites was made with no implied condition, though, which I think means God said something that was not true, since, as you say, he did not do that.

Blessings,
Lee

1Way
April 28th, 2004, 06:14 PM
Most people go to hell, only the few make it to heaven, so says God. Mt 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide [is] the gate and broad [is] the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 "Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. God teaches His faithful and true and righteous and just character that some things He does not and will not repent from, those would be things that are based in His character and not some unstable thing. Maybe for you oh contrary smaller, maybe God (who is eternally true and loving and faithful, etc) can repent from being true and loving and faithful and then just become an evil lying unrighteous unloving God. You are such a bible contradictor when it comes to what you promote by your errant manmade doctrine of pagan immutability. "Millions of hells of sinners cannot come near to exhaust infinite grace." -Samuel Rutherford Dubious move(!?!) making all other attributes of God inaccurate! Much better is ... ”Millions of hells of sinners cannot come near to exhaust God’s justice
and righteousness, or any other of His eternal attributes.” –Any sentient biblically aware person ... thus wining divine approval by “conforming to”, instead of “contradicting” His word!

Nice try smaller, but your last posts (including Zman’s) were lame attempts at going astray of my discussion with Lee and how the closed view does violence against God’s word, which was particularly well demonstrated by Lee’s example as clearly exposed. He not only meaningfully contradicts God word, he also just plainly lied about it “actually says”.

Don’t worry, no matter how many times you or Z Man or anyone other closed theist tries to run the discussion astray, I can still repost the same post again in order to remain on track with the discussion. Your fear of dealing uprightly with this issue has been demonstrated every since I plainly asked all closed theists to please provide the replacement meaning they void from scripture for the case of divine repentance especially in the case of Jonah 3:10 subsection part b.

The complete silence (sans Lee’s lie) from the entire closed view community is deafening. :D

Lee plainly lied about what God said in order to support his errant theology, the rest of you at least seem to know better than to be so immoral. Well, I don’t know about you smaller, you contradict yourself and God’s word at the drop of a hat. Only one way to know if you have changed your ways or not. ... Can God (The existing, faithful and true, eternal God of the bible) make himself to have never existed? Yes or no are the only two logically suitable answers. It is amazing to see the depths of depravity that “some” Christian’s will go through in order to contradict scripture by various manmade traditions; Lee with lying, you with contradiction, and Z Man with voiding scripture’s meaning without a biblical replacement, all of you violating scripture because of manmade tradition.

1Way
April 28th, 2004, 06:17 PM
Lee - You will either deal with my words to you in the red, or we will not continue our discussion. I do not appreciate/respect liars, nor people who do not conform to biblical accountability for their actions.

1Way
April 28th, 2004, 06:39 PM
Anyone besides me notice that Lee does not deal meaningfully with what I am saying in that he only responds to thin aspects which he must not be terrified of. But my main point remains untouched, which is that God said, not me, not Lee, not even John Calvin or “you the man” of closed theism Plato himself(!), none of them said it, God said that concerning what He said He would do (the prophesy of Nineveh’s lethal disaster), He repented from, and did not do it.

Thus by God's testimony on the matter, His prophecy was not literally a conditional warning that God compiled with, instead, concerning what God actually said about His prophesy, He said that He did not do it (He did not comply with what He said He would do).

GOD SAID IT, YOU IGNORE IT, BUT STILL, GOD SAID IT AND IT IS STILL TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU KEEP IGNORING AND VIOLATING THIS BIBLICAL MEANINGFUL TRUTH.

A thousand times and it’s still true! God said that He did not do what He said He would do. That eliminates the conditional warning aspect of what He prophesied even though it does not eliminate all conditionality within God who has the right to repent from what He said and thought He would do, via Jer. 18 7-10. This teaches that after God speaks a national prophecy He might learn new mitigating information and then because of the altered case that He did not previously know about, He changes His course of action in terms of reversing from doing what He had previously said and THOUGHT He would do.

First (but not foremost) you (Lee) resort to lying in order to support your biblically contrary view, then you completely ignore what God says He did in order to void scripture of meaning in favor of your false manmade tradition.

1Way
April 28th, 2004, 06:53 PM
Here again is my post #146, the one that Lee has completely ignored my immediate claims of wrong doing via violence against God’s word.

****
Quoting post 146.
****

Lee – The first thing you said was
No, the destruction was not figurative, God's statement was this: "If there is no repentance, there will be destruction." Real destruction was threatened, and repentance averted it. God knew that would happen, but the threat was not an illusion. There’s no easy way around this, ,,, that is a lie, I know you know the truth about what God actually said, but you still falsified anyway. God did not by His words say nor imply any warning nor condition. What God did in fact say was concerning His prophesied destruction of Nineveh, HE DID NOT DO IT, He did not do what He said HE WOULD DO, He repented of bringing to pass His prophesy, that much is certain. Also, if God DID say as you falsified by saying that God’s word was a conditional warning, then you make God out to being a liar when He said that concerning that so called “conditional warning”, He did not do what He said He would do. By God complying with, and not contradicting against “a conditional warning”, then God would have said, so I will do what I said I would do and not bring destruction (if you repent), and God did do as He said He would do.

Here is God’s word again that you keep rejecting in favor of your manmade traditions.
Jon 3:4 And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!" ...

... 10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. Now watch my take on this, and examine the humble truth conformity as opposed to your outright contradiction. God relented (lit. “repented” as a response to the nation’s repentance, so “relented” is a fabulous translation showing real-time relational synergism) from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. That is perfect, that is what happened, God did not do what He said He would do, He did not do it. God is right and you are wrong for trying to void this easy teaching of meaning.

...

...



...
...

(3) Why did Jonah seem to have a better grasp of the situation? He thought the Ninevites would probably repent, and God apparently did not.

(4) How is it that God did not lie to the Ninevites, if there was no implied condition in the threat of destruction? (repeat question here)
... you “know” it is wrong to state a serious proposition in a literal way, and then later just claim it was figurative pretending like I never really intended on paying you any money in the first place. ...
...
(3) Jonah understood that God has a reputation for repenting from destruction because of His righteous mercies. “Nothing” is shown that he thought the Ninevites “would probably repent” nor anything about what God thought about that likelihood either. :confused: You pervert, twist, fabricate and falsify a lot. Please stop doing this, I enjoy reasonable honorable discussions.

(4) Because God was going to destroy them based upon the current situation He was perfectly righteous and justified in so prophesying. When the circumstance changed, so did God’s judgment against them. I say that God did not know with absolute certainty that they would repent, He knew that the situation (as is) was on the the verge of destruction, but allowed for the outside chance (however slim or likely) of a phenomenal occurrence of nationwide repentance. !!! What an outstanding and unusual reaction!!! And it was "only after" God learned of their repentance ("Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented") that God contradicted His previously prophesied judgment and did not do what He said He would do (=bring destuction upon Nineveh).


You seem completely afraid to deal uprightly with this biblical fact. God's word is clear that God did not do what He said He would do, quote, "and He did not do it". That eliminates the unsupported notion that the prophesy was just a threat by God's honest and holy word on the matter.

Divine repentance is a glorious godly doctrine that you should stop voiding from scripture.


****
End quoting post 146.
****

Freak
April 28th, 2004, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by Berean Todd to 1 "Nicer then God" way


There's a reason that open theism is the black sheep of theology, and near every theological society is denouncing it, and declaring it heresy. It is un-Biblical. Period. :up: :up: :up: That's it. The Holy Scripures speaks against the newest theological fad--open theism.

Freak
April 28th, 2004, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by 1Way

Lee - You will either deal with my words to you in the red, or we will not continue our discussion. I do not appreciate/respect liars, nor people who do not conform to biblical accountability for their actions. 1Way you're looking like a clown. Stop being nicer then God. We demand repentance from you as you have falsely accused Lee and Zman. :down:

1Way
April 28th, 2004, 09:41 PM
Imagine of all things, Freak straying the issue at hand in order to subjectively attack the messenger instead of dealing with the message, even though it was only highlighted in the immediately proceeding post. Freak is supreme truth avoidance in action! :up: :eek:

smaller
April 29th, 2004, 12:24 AM
Oh 1way, Can GOD REPENT of BURNING BILLIONS in FIRE????

eat your CROW STEW buddy...

smaller
April 29th, 2004, 09:03 AM
1Way may have to drive his truck for several days before a YES OR NO can come out of him for the above question.

After all IF GOD CAN CHANGE HIS MIND as 1WAY and other OPEN VIEWERS purport.....

it would stand to REASON that God can REPENT of burning the WICKED forever in FIRE eh????

Who knows what such a god can do????

He may CHANGE HIS MIND at any moment eh???

Freak
April 29th, 2004, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by 1Way

Freak is supreme truth avoidance in action! Absurd! For I root my faith in the holy Scripture where you derive truth from plot materials. Big difference.

lee_merrill
April 29th, 2004, 04:56 PM
Hi 1Way,


God did not by His words say nor imply any warning nor condition.


God said that He did not do what He said He would do. That eliminates the conditional warning aspect of what He prophesied even though it does not eliminate all conditionality within God who has the right to repent from what He said and thought He would do, via Jer. 18 7-10.

But if all conditionality is not eliminated within God, then I think you are saying that God had an implied condition in mind when he warned the Ninevites. Is that what you are saying?

Assuming that is what you are saying, then for the Ninevites to perceive this implied condition is not so far-fetched. Thus I think it is proper to say a condition was implied, if it did exist, and people could correctly deduce that it existed.


What God did in fact say was concerning His prophesied destruction of Nineveh, HE DID NOT DO IT, He did not do what He said HE WOULD DO, He repented of bringing to pass His prophesy, that much is certain.

It's not certain if you take my view! If overthrow can refer to repentance, as well as destruction. Then the destruction was implied, as well as the condition.


Also, if God DID say as you falsified by saying that God’s word was a conditional warning, then you make God out to being a liar when He said that concerning that so called “conditional warning”, He did not do what He said He would do. By God complying with, and not contradicting against “a conditional warning”, then God would have said, so I will do what I said I would do and not bring destruction (if you repent), and God did do as He said He would do.

Well, I'm tempted to post my reply here again! I did address what you said, and to simply repeat your question is not as appropriate as addressing my answers. Glad to hear where I am mistaken, I'm not anxious to believe a lie, nor to speak one.

Blessings,
Lee

Z Man
April 29th, 2004, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by lee_merrill

Hi 1Way,

.
.
.

Well, I'm tempted to post my reply here again! I did address what you said, and to simply repeat your question is not as appropriate as addressing my answers.
Get use to that when you debate with 1Way. :rolleyes:

I'm beginning to think that he's just an autobot who continues to ask the same stupid questions, over and over again, no matter how many times you answer them. A real human would interact and acknowledge that their questions had been answered and then address those answers in an appropiate manner as such in a human vs human debate. How bout it 1 Way? Are you human? Then prove it by acknowledging Lee's answers and then addressing his questions as well.

This should be etertaining... :chuckle:

1Way
April 29th, 2004, 10:15 PM
Main unanswered offense

Lee – I’ve asked you to respond to the same issue way too many times already. I see that you are nearly doing what I asked you to do, but you have not addressed let alone remedy the specific charge of lying against scripture. Answer the following and then I will post the next issue of offense in hopes that you will finally become accountable for your actions that I immediately exposed and you have not dealt with yet.

God did not say what you said He did. I agree that some conditionality may be implied within God by waiting to bring the disaster upon them and sending the prophet ahead of the disastrous (even lethal) judgment,

but (!!!),

the fact remains that God said that He did not do what He said He would do (bring the prophesied disaster upon Nineveh), so that statement (from scripture!) of non-compliance eliminates conditionality conveyed in the prophesy itself.

Again, if God conveyed a conditional threat or warning, saying effectively, “shape up or else”, then He lied when He said that He repented from doing what He said He would do, and He did not do it! However God did not lie when He admitted non-compliance with what He said He would do. By God saying that He did not do what He said He would do (bring a disastrous overthrow upon Nineveh) eliminates the idea of a conditional warning. God did not comply with His prophesied word, He contradicted it via 100% reversal, saying plainly that He repented from it, and He did not do it.

That fact remains, and if you have some other understanding of Jonah 3:10 subsection part b, then I await your response. Until then, God’s word stands, the prophesy was not conditional even though God has the right to repent from doing what He said He would do.

We should be able to get passed this because we both agree that some gracious conditionality existed in God, but concerning what scripture says, you “lie” against scripture when you said that God’s conveyed prophetic message was conditional. God’s word conveys the opposite of your view concerning the prophetic message because of God’s non-compliance with it, and because of God’s literal testimony of non-compliance concerning it.

Unanswered offense: The lie
Quotes:


No, the destruction was not figurative, God's statement was this: "If there is no repentance, there will be destruction." Real destruction was threatened, and repentance averted it. God knew that would happen, but the threat was not an illusion. There’s no easy way around this, ,,, that is a lie, I know you know the truth about what God actually said, but you still falsified anyway. God did not by His words say nor imply any warning nor condition. What God did in fact say was concerning His prophesied destruction of Nineveh, HE DID NOT DO IT, He did not do what He said HE WOULD DO, He repented of bringing to pass His prophesy, that much is certain. Also, if God DID say as you falsified by saying that God’s word was a conditional warning, then you make God out to being a liar when He said that concerning that so called “conditional warning”, He did not do what He said He would do. By God complying with, and not contradicting against “a conditional warning”, then God would have said, so I will do what I said I would do and not bring destruction (if you repent), and God did do as He said He would do.

Here is God’s word again that you keep rejecting in favor of your manmade traditions.
Jon 3:4 And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!" ...

... 10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. Now watch my take on this, and examine the humble truth conformity as opposed to your outright contradiction. God relented (lit. “repented” as a response to the nation’s repentance, so “relented” is a fabulous translation showing real-time relational synergism) from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. That is perfect, that is what happened, God did not do what He said He would do, He did not do it. God is right and you are wrong for trying to void this easy teaching of meaning.

Unanswered offense: The lie
End quotes.


Please directly, clearly, and commensurately, deal with what you said, and my immediate charge of your wrong doing (especially the highlights and the underlines). I realize that you believe you are right about your bible understanding, but that is besides the point concerning the charge of you lying or not. First make amends for the lying bit, and then our otherwise friendly discussion may re-engage.

I do not accept nor respect liars.

smaller
April 29th, 2004, 10:22 PM
ahem, ONEWAY!

Can GOD REPENT of torturing BILLIONS of unbelieving people in eternal FIRE???

A. YES
B. NO

A is the essence of YOUR POSITION.

You should be able to anticipate such logical conclusions of a god who CHANGES HIS MIND and has NO EXHAUSTIVE FOREKNOWLEDGE.

1Way
April 29th, 2004, 10:50 PM
Z Man and Lee – Welcome back Z, too bad your so plagued with ill temper and such.

I both understand and acknowledge that Lee gave what he feels is an “answer” to my objection about God’s non-compliance stated in Jonah 3:10 subsection part b. But “a response” that does not answer the objection is not a commensurate or fitting answer. And it is not about my disagreement with it, its that it plainly does not answer the objection. Dealing uprightly with the truth of the matter is the struggle, not did someone address a point with some relevant but mismatched response. (Specific and clear answer refuting your point.) I agree that a condition can be stated or simply implied even without specifically stating the condition, and that your example of the demons and the pigs makes that point very well, but that is not the issue we are dealing with. We have a relationship that is engraved in scripture that you can not do away with by aversion, and that is concerning compliance (or non-compliance) with what one previously said he will do. Your demon and pig example does nothing about a later non-compliance with what was earlier truthfully said would happen. And since God did not comply with what He said He would do, then His prophesy could not have been conditional (shape up or else) because He could not rigtheously not comply with that message, yet He did not comply with his prophetic message, He even contradicted it.

Before the fact
“Nineveh will be overthrown in yet 40 days.” Overthrown is also qualified by the following engraved in scripture facts: (“bring disaster upon them”, “Who can tell if God will turn and relent, and ... we may not perish?”), hence the contextually developed meaning of national overthrow was one of national disaster and was accurately recorded without correction that it included national death.

After the fact
God did not do what He said He would do (“bring disaster upon them”), and He did not do it.

So if the prophesy was conditional as you keep suggesting it was, conveying the general meaning that disaster is coming unless you repent, then God lied when He said that He did not do what He said He would do, and He did not do it. Jonah 3:10 subsection part b eliminates your notion that the prophesy was conditional because God admitted that He did not do it, He did not comply with what He said He would do. The conditionality you wish you could insert into scripture of “shape up or else” covers both ends of the spectrum concerning their repentance or non-repentance, and so no matter what would happen, God would end up complying with what He said He would do.

It is this fact of unadulterated scripture from Jonah 3:10 subsection part b that you have not dealt with, you have only insinuated that it is somehow not binding or truthful or applicable to the given prophesy, but clearly it is applicable and truthful and relates to the prophesy even though it serves well to destroy the closed view’s position on divine repentance as God’s word is thankfully faithful and consistent in doing.

1Way
April 29th, 2004, 11:13 PM
God’s word says that His character and ways are holy and righteous and good (loving, merciful, just, wise, etc. etc.). I see no reason to doubt God concerning His character, so your wrong in assuming that concerning matters that rely strictly upon His character, that the open view promotes instability let alone duplicity or immorality in God. A kingdom can not stand if it is divided against itself. Say one thing and do another (without just cause) is the sin of hypocrisy. God is not a hypocrite. The open view specifically addresses the realistic nature of the extent of what is knowable, even what God can know.

My understanding of why God set up heaven and hell with eternal consequences is that God based those decisions upon His righteous and holy character such that I expect God would not repent from complying with Himself. Same question applies to salvation just as equally.

Could God repent and not save anyone? Yes or no? Or is God’s salvation truly based in Himself and His character and ways?

If you understand that “salvation” and “damnation” are more arbitrary and subjective issues that based upon God’s character and ways, then I would require sufficient evidence, otherwise the it is worthless conjecture. But God teaches against standing on anything less than the solid ground of His word. God says that He is “eternal” and “true” and “faithful” and His actions conform to His word 100%, so for you to suggest that God can make Himself to have never existed, is ludicrous yet your view allow for such insanity. Also, the closed view does not allow God to fulfill Jer. 18 by letting God completely reverse from doing what He thought He would do. But I am not so indignant and rebellious as to think that I know better than God’s word! Praise God, He can do what man can do, repent from doing what He previously thought He was going to do. Imagine the thought that man can do that, but God can’t, talk about a superiority complex! The closed view is full of it. :)

Z Man
April 29th, 2004, 11:25 PM
Yep, 1 Way is an autobot alright. :rolleyes:

:think: ..... Knight must of programed it somehow into the forum to get on people's nerves. Like Agent Smith from the Matrix, 1 Way is a negative, trying to "unbalance the equation". Interesting... Nice work Knight! :thumb:

1Way
April 30th, 2004, 04:35 AM
Z Man - We understand if you are frustrated because Jonah 3:10 subsection part b stumps and escapes your understanding, but the fact remains that God did not do what He said He would do, and He even plainly admitted as much, if you can understand the text (taken in context) just mentioned. So here’s what I suggest.

Take a deep breath

then

deal with it.

The challenge just might do your otherwise “no autonomous critical thinking mode” some good. In any event, it will be good to finally see you stop mud slinging and actually present some constructive intellectual and spiritual contributions. Of course, not that you must do as I would ask of you, you are certainly free to be as childish and bitter and vile as you’d prefer, after all, the actual issue at hand has all closed viewers baffled and I am a nearby target. Ummm, you haven’t advanced to flying military weaponry aircraft yet, have you? ...

Like the wings. Say, wouldn’t you like to have a full sized airplane like the one in my avatar? :D Pretty cool ay? It’s a fully aerobatic, even 3D flight capable, RC aircraft. The guy did a half hour video from Japan where it was created, and in the first 3-4 minuets, he just flies his plane into the solid rock stairs! Then he immediately picks it back up, and tosses it into the air, maybe once he had to reset the prop onto the prop saver which can come off the rubber like tie-down setup.

That has to be one of the most fascinating videos I’ve ever seen, that and that kid on a human powered hydroplane setup, called something like the “pogo stick floater” something or another, that was excellent too. He went zooming around the pier doing a pogo stick maneuver and the pontoons came out of the water, and he really did not look like he was working very hard to go that fast. Made me a believer, not going to row if I can pogo instead!

smaller
April 30th, 2004, 07:28 AM
No surprise that you would dodge the question again 1Way. That


God’s word says that His character and ways are holy and righteous and good (loving, merciful, just, wise, etc. etc.). I see no reason to doubt God concerning His character, so your wrong in assuming that concerning matters that rely strictly upon His character, that the open view promotes instability let alone duplicity or immorality in God.

So you would consider GOD REPENTING about his intent to ETERNALLY TORTURE the billions of unbeliever to be "unstable,"duplicitous," and "immoral?"


A kingdom can not stand if it is divided against itself. Say one thing and do another (without just cause) is the sin of hypocrisy.

So you are saying that GOD CANNOT REPENT unless He be COMPELLED to BY the ACTIONS of OTHERS?


God is not a hypocrite. The open view specifically addresses the realistic nature of the extent of what is knowable, even what God can know.

You have already admitted that YOU do not know EVERYTHING that God knows have you not? And if this IS the case how can you DETERMINE what God can and cannot DO. This observation applies even moreso to the closed view.


My understanding of why God set up heaven and hell with eternal consequences is that God based those decisions upon His righteous and holy character such that I expect God would not repent from complying with Himself. Same question applies to salvation just as equally.

I certainly see that you LOVE TO PLAY IT BOTH WAYS 1Way.


Could God repent and not save anyone? Yes or no?

I stay in the GOD CAN DO ANYTHING HE WANTS TO DO camp, and understand that I cannot infringe into that territory. He is simply TOO GREAT for me to fathom entirely. I also expect this to be the case forever.


Or is God’s salvation truly based in Himself and His character and ways?

Salvation is not OF MEN. (Job's determinant)


If you understand that “salvation” and “damnation” are more arbitrary and subjective issues that based upon God’s character and ways, then I would require sufficient evidence, otherwise the it is worthless conjecture.

We are simply contemplating the RESULTs of a God WHO YOU SAY CAN REPENT. So APPLY IT as YOU CALLED IT. Using your own axiom GOD CAN CERTAINLY REPENT of His Intent to ETERNALLY BURN BILLIONS OF UNBELIEVERS.

Of course I know this will STICK IN YOUR CRAW to NO END, but that's why we make these observations of positions eh? Please keep in mind that this is NOTHING against YOU, but the positions, as always.


But God teaches against standing on anything less than the solid ground of His word. God says that He is “eternal” and “true” and “faithful” and His actions conform to His word 100%, so for you to suggest that God can make Himself to have never existed, is ludicrous yet your view allow for such insanity.

I will repeatedly say Mr. 1Way that WHEN YOU KNOW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO POSSIBLY KNOW then and ONLY THEN can you determine WHAT GOD CAN AND CANNOT DO.

Until that time you will remain a MERE MORTAL with the appropriate LIMITATIONS.

The logical analysis here is THE LIMITED cannot define or LIMIT THE UNLIMITED. Get it??? Eternal is beyond YOUR ROPE. You cannot pass that yellow tape with your limited determinants.


Also, the closed view does not allow God to fulfill Jer. 18 by letting God completely reverse from doing what He thought He would do.

Well then YOUR VIEW does confirm my previous OBSERVATION A eh? You just can't quite seem to SPIT IT OUT. You know when you DO OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGE that GOD CAN REPENT from TORTURING THE UNBELIEVERS that the Calvies will be ALL OVER YOU.

So why don't you just say that GOD CANNOT REPENT and SAVE YOURSELF....;)


But I am not so indignant and rebellious as to think that I know better than God’s word!

DEEP CHORTLE. I do so love my daily entertainment.


Praise God, He can do what man can do, repent from doing what He previously thought He was going to do. Imagine the thought that man can do that, but God can’t, talk about a superiority complex! The closed view is full of it.

You just can't quite let the words cross your lips though eh? Very entertaining indeed.

enjoy the ride!

smaller

1Way
April 30th, 2004, 10:01 AM
Smaller – I did not dodge your question. You are a person who lacks understanding, even of fairly basic things like that you should not contradict yourself, or like when I explain myself, you should at least get them right before attempting to rebut them.

I answered your question and by your varied responses, you do not understand my answer. God’s character is true and faithful, other moral beings, men and angels do not enjoy such trustworthy character attributes. So my answer is only simple and easy to understand if you are willing to accept it. To the extent that the issue depends upon God’s character and ways, then to that extent, the issue is certain and divine repentance need not apply. However, if the issue is dependent upon unstable men or angles, then to that extent the issue may involve divine repentance.

As to the form of your question, since your phraseology is rather strange to scripture if find it pretty philosophical and thus I will not be trapped by your subjective foolishness. Instead, I trust on God’s word which teaches that He is the Lord of salvation, He is our salvation, so according to my understanding of God’s place over salvation, He will plainly not repent from doing what He said He would do since it is not based on anything but Himself, and God cannot reject Himself.

You said
I stay in the GOD CAN DO ANYTHING HE WANTS TO DO camp, and understand that I cannot infringe into that territory. He is simply TOO GREAT for me to fathom entirely. I also expect this to be the case forever. So if God wanted to, can He make Himself to have never existed? Yes, or no, there are not other fitting responses because either He can do that, or He can not do that, yes or no.

Here, the dumb value raises greatly, you said.
I will repeatedly say Mr. 1Way that WHEN YOU KNOW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO POSSIBLY KNOW then and ONLY THEN can you determine WHAT GOD CAN AND CANNOT DO.

Until that time you will remain a MERE MORTAL with the appropriate LIMITATIONS.

The logical analysis here is THE LIMITED cannot define or LIMIT THE UNLIMITED. Get it??? Eternal is beyond YOUR ROPE. You cannot pass that yellow tape with your limited determinants. I highlight the parts that were especially dumb. :eek: I am not a determinant of God’s actions, I am an objective observer. But you just attacked everything you think you know is right about God because you are limited and you can not define or limit God. So every time you claim that God can not be limited, who are you to suggest that you know so much about God to rope Him into your understanding and argue against anyone else’s. Other than the fact that no one knows everything there is to know about God, excepting God of course, your entire train of thought is hypocrisy and because of the number of times that I have pointed this out to you, it seems apparent that you are happy living with the sin of “say one thing but do the opposite”. Your entire post has been about explaining your understanding of God and you seem to put off that on every issue we touched on, that you know full well about it. So which is it, you can not define God, or you can define Him?

It is your own free will, you can sin and contradict yourself if you are so determined to do.

I said
Also, the closed view does not allow God to fulfill Jer. 18 by letting God completely reverse from doing what He thought He would do. and you responded with by not remotely addressing my point. Your mind must be twisted or something. My point remains, closed theists are hypocrites because the insist that God always performs what He says and thinks He would do, yet they will not allow God to do what He says He has a right to do in Jer. 18 7-10 and what He did do in Jonah 3:4 and 10.

I said
Praise God, He can do what man can do, repent from doing what He previously thought He was going to do. Imagine the thought that man can do that, but God can’t, talk about a superiority complex! The closed view is full of it. So how about it mister “God can do anything He wants to do”? Can God repent and not do what He said and thought He would do (granting that He wanted to do that)? If that is so, that God can do that, then obviously His foreknowledge does not fit your view (you affirm exhaustive foreknowledge, unlimited knowledge of everything).

Example
You can not know you are going to do something (A), and then later change your mind and not do it (Non A). Either the first knowledge was wrong (I will do A), or if you knew you were not going to do (A), then you never repented from doing what you thought you were going to do, you always knew that you were not going to do (A). So it is impossible to hold to your view of exhaustive foreknowledge and at the same time hold that God can repent and not do what He previously thought He would do.

Not that you will understand all this with any lasting integrity, but it will remain true even if you disagree with it a thousand times! Stop limiting God by not letting Him do what He says He can do like divine repentance from what He thought He would do. And since God does sometimes repent and not do what He thought He would do, and that is not a lie, then we know that God does not know the future exhaustively. And the more you try to maintain that God does know everything or can do anything, then to that extent you are a hypocrite for claiming to know about God in a way that you say is wrong because God is unlimited and we are limited.

I have to wonder if you will go to the grave never realizing how easy it could be to stop being such a brash hypocrite, because so far, you have only barely altered the frequency of which you promote hypocrisy. Don’t you even sense how dumb it is to say one thing and then do another? Don’t you recognize the sin involved? Surely you must understand that if you can not raise above the level of non-contradiction and hypocrisy, I have no choice but to view you as a person who is challenged beyond a reasonable capacity. I know, I’ll just start calling you hypocrite, smaller poster and larger hypocrite! :D

smaller
April 30th, 2004, 10:27 AM
hehehe...


I did not dodge your question. You are a person who lacks understanding, even of fairly basic things like that you should not contradict yourself, or like when I explain myself, you should at least get them right before attempting to rebut them.

I know, I know. These little conundrums really get your goat.


I answered your question and by your varied responses, you do not understand my answer.

Yeah, right. That little A, B thingy got pretty detailed eh. Was there an answer in your response btw??? What was it again???

Yes, or NO???


God’s character is true and faithful, other moral beings, men and angels do not enjoy such trustworthy character attributes. So my answer is only simple and easy to understand if you are willing to accept it.

It may be MUCH EASIER to accept if you could JUST SAY IT. Waffles are good for breakfast but not for DOCTRINE.


To the extent that the issue depends upon God’s character and ways, then to that extent, the issue is certain and divine repentance need not apply.

So your answer is then that GOD CANNOT REPENT????


However, if the issue is dependent upon unstable men or angles, then to that extent the issue may involve divine repentance.

So your answer then is that GOD REPENTS???


As to the form of your question, since your phraseology is rather strange to scripture if find it pretty philosophical and thus I will not be trapped by your subjective foolishness.

Well of course you won't. To answer will show your FOOLISHNESS in the matter. I certainly understand that you want it BOTHways rather than 1WAY. Perhaps a NAME change is IN ORDER???


Instead, I trust on God’s word which teaches that He is the Lord of salvation, He is our salvation, so according to my understanding of God’s place over salvation, He will plainly not repent from doing what He said He would do since it is not based on anything but Himself, and God cannot reject Himself.

ah, back to the ol' SUBJECT CHANGE...oh well. What more have I come to expect from 1Way???


You said

quote:
I stay in the GOD CAN DO ANYTHING HE WANTS TO DO camp, and understand that I cannot infringe into that territory. He is simply TOO GREAT for me to fathom entirely. I also expect this to be the case forever.

So if God wanted to, can He make Himself to have never existed? Yes, or no, there are not other fitting responses because either He can do that, or He can not do that, yes or no.

Perhaps you can deal not with you NOT KNOWING everything God knows and then you can deal with WHAT GOD CAN AND CANNOT DO eh??? You will not GET PAST that SPOT Mr. I Know What God can and cannot do....

I have repeatedly stated that God can do WHATEVER it is that He wants to and I am not willing to LIMIT God. You seem QUITE EAGER to place your LIMITS upon God as we have well come to SEE eh?


Here, the dumb value raises greatly, you said.
quote:
I will repeatedly say Mr. 1Way that WHEN YOU KNOW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO POSSIBLY KNOW then and ONLY THEN can you determine WHAT GOD CAN AND CANNOT DO.

Until that time you will remain a MERE MORTAL with the appropriate LIMITATIONS.

The logical analysis here is THE LIMITED cannot define or LIMIT THE UNLIMITED. Get it??? Eternal is beyond YOUR ROPE. You cannot pass that yellow tape with your limited determinants.

I highlight the parts that were especially dumb.

The only DUMB PART in the equation is your human arrogance.


I am not a determinan of God’s actions, I am an objective observer.

Oh give it a rest. You continually present what GOD CAN AND CANNOT DO. It is a classic case of the SUBJECTIVE defining the OBJECTIVE. An IMPOSSIBLE feat.


But you just attacked everything you think you know is right about God because you are limited and you can not define or limit God.

I made some very simple and elemental observations that you cannot grasp. Why? Because YOU DEFINED GOD. I take an OPPOSITE position. The "servant" is not GREATER than the MASTER is a very elemental position. The SERVANT does not DEFINE the MASTER....


So every time you claim that God can not be limited, who are you to suggest that you know so much about God to rope Him into your understanding and argue against anyone else’s.

ah, now the old TURNABOUT play. Your little debate games are SO transparent...

btw, can GOD REPENT of torturing billions of unbelievers FOREVER????

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHA! Baited breath still awaits. Actually you are just providing me with a good old belly laugh....as usual Mr. I Limit God.


Other than the fact that no one knows everything there is to know about God, excepting God of course, your entire train of thought is hypocrisy and because of the number of times that I have pointed this out to you, it seems apparent that you are happy living with the sin of “say one thing but do the opposite”.

A DUAL turnabout play....how novel...I know you would like to make my positions YOURS but then you will simply end up agreeing with me. You do understand the danger of that eh??? ahahahahahahahaha


It is your own free will, you can sin contradict yourself if you are so determined to do.
I said
quote:
Also, the closed view does not allow God to fulfill Jer. 18 by letting God completely reverse from doing what He thought He would do.

and you responded with by not remotely addressing my point. Your mind must be twisted or something. My point remains, closed theists are hypocrites because the insist that God always performs what He says and thinks He would do, yet they will not allow God to do what He says He has a right to do in Jer. 18 7-10 and what He did do in Jonah 3:4 and 10.

I simply asked if your GOD REPENTS scenario COULD apply to the ETERNAL TORTURE of billions of unbelievers.

Come on. Step on it just a little teeny tiny bit....see how I laid out the COULD just to ENTICE you????

HA!


I said
quote:
Praise God, He can do what man can do, repent from doing what He previously thought He was going to do. Imagine the thought that man can do that, but God can’t, talk about a superiority complex! The closed view is full of it.

So how about it mister “God can do anything He wants to do”? Can God repent and not do what He said and thought He would do (granting that He wanted to do that)? If that is so, that God can do that, then obviously His foreknowledge does not fit your view (you affirm exhaustive foreknowledge, unlimited knowledge of everything).

Well, since I believe that ALL PEOPLE are saved I will certainly meet you on the ground that GOD CAN SURELY REPENT of His Intent to TORTURE BILLIONS OF UNBELIEVERS since this would please me greatly.

Will you JOIN ME in AGREEMENT with YOUR POSITION????

ha!!!!!

Put your HANDS UP. You are SURROUNDED!

double HA!


Example
You can not know you are going to do something (A), and then later change your mind and not do it (Non A). Either the first knowledge was wrong (I will do A), or if you knew you were not going to do (A), then you never repented from doing what you thought you were going to do, you always knew that you were not going to do (A). So it is impossible to hold to your view of exhaustive foreknowledge and at the same time hold that God can repent and not do what He previously thought He would do.

Can you spell w-a-f-f-l-e??? I have already STEPPED ONTO your ground my friend. You are arguing with YOURSELF at this point. I am will to say that GOD CAN REPENT of HIS (supposed) INTENT to burn BILLIONS OF UNBELIEVERS IN FIRE.

Will you JOIN YOURSELF to your OWN UNDERSTANDING in this???


Not that you will understand all this with any lasting integrity, but it will remain true even if you disagree with it a thousand times! Stop limiting God by not letting Him do what He says He can do like divine repentance from what He thought He would do. And since God does sometimes repent and not do what He thought He would do, and that is not a lie, then we know that God does not know the future exhaustively. And the more you try to maintain that God does know everything or can do anything, then to that extent you are a hypocrite for claiming to know about God in a way that you say is wrong because God is unlimited and we are limited.

Fine...let's leave the subject OPEN. Can God Repent of BURNING BILLIONS OF UNBELIEVERS IN FIRE????

A or B??? Yes or No???


I have to wonder if you will go to the grave never realizing how easy it could be to stop being such a brash hypocrite, because so far, you have only barely altered the frequency of which you promote hypocrisy. Don’t you even sense how dumb it is to say one thing and then do another? Don’t you recognize the sin involved? Surely you must understand that if you can not raise above the level of non-contradiction and hypocrisy, I have no choice but to view you as a person who is challenged beyond a reasonable capacity. I know, I’ll just start calling you hypocrite, smaller poster and larger hypocrite!

I just love to see YOU DANCE little boy...

When you get a 0TUIT you might AGREE with YOURself eh???

enjoy!

smaller

1Way
April 30th, 2004, 10:28 AM
Smaller – I really should be more kind and thankful for your contributions. Thanks for contributing more examples of how inane the closed view is and how contradictory teachings tend to make a person prone to irrationality, and that the sin of hypocrisy is so easy to cease from doing if the soul is humbled and willing. It is always good to be reminded of examples of what not to emulate. So, your contributions are much appreciated.

smaller
April 30th, 2004, 10:31 AM
Was that an A or a B??? A YES or a NO???

lol Mr. Duality/Waffle King....

1Way
April 30th, 2004, 10:51 AM
Smaller – In my opening three paragraphs, I greeted you, denied your false claim against me, levied your willful ignorance against yourself, told you how I answered you, then re-explained my answer again, then explained my problem with the way you phrased your question, then since we agree that God is Lord over salvation, I plainly answered saying
Instead, I trust on God’s word which teaches that He is the Lord of salvation, He is our salvation, so according to my understanding of God’s place over salvation, He will plainly not repent from doing what He said He would do since it is not based on anything but Himself, and God cannot reject Himself. However, you spent the first half of your willfully ignorant post pretending like I had not made myself perfectly clear.

You quoted me and responded saying
Here, the dumb value raises greatly, you said.
quote:
I will repeatedly say Mr. 1Way that WHEN YOU KNOW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO POSSIBLY KNOW then and ONLY THEN can you determine WHAT GOD CAN AND CANNOT DO.

Until that time you will remain a MERE MORTAL with the appropriate LIMITATIONS.

The logical analysis here is THE LIMITED cannot define or LIMIT THE UNLIMITED. Get it??? Eternal is beyond YOUR ROPE. You cannot pass that yellow tape with your limited determinants.

I highlight the parts that were especially dumb. However I did not stop there you shredder, I also said
I am not a determinant of God’s actions, I am an objective observer. But you just attacked everything you think you know is right about God because you are limited and you can not define or limit God. So every time you claim that God can not be limited, who are you to suggest that you know so much about God to rope Him into your understanding and argue against anyone else’s. Other than the fact that no one knows everything there is to know about God, excepting God of course, your entire train of thought is hypocrisy and because of the number of times that I have pointed this out to you, it seems apparent that you are happy living with the sin of “say one thing but do the opposite”. Your entire post has been about explaining your understanding of God and you seem to put off that on every issue we touched on, that you know full well about it. So which is it, you can not define God, or you can define Him?

It is your own free will, you can sin and contradict yourself if you are so determined to do. and you responded
The only DUMB PART in the equation is your human arrogance. You are defending hypocrisy and claiming that I am arrogant while you say we can not define God yet you arrogantly do so on a constant basis. You are a hypocrite and you rip up my thoughts into small bits in order to ignore my line of reasoning and contextual development. So you are back on rejection again, no one respects a hypocrite.

smaller in a bible conforming faith, larger in hypocrisy!

1Way
April 30th, 2004, 11:00 AM
For the record, I do not hold that God tortures anyone forever in hell, your philosophical and false assumptions are rampant and unbiblical. It is fully possible that people who are enemies of God will be tormented by their own unrighteousness and personal grief, and all the pain and destruction and despair they promote. People in heaven will be rewarded to the extent they were godly, so it is reasonable to assume that a similar corresponding reality will befall those in hell. Evil and sin carry guilt and pain and condemnation even if man thinks his is getting away with it, he is not.

Yorzhik
April 30th, 2004, 11:40 AM
1Way... you are a trooper. I'm thankful you have continued to respond for us lukers to be able to gleen some great points between the mud slinging.

But we have to get some rational closed view advocates to bring this thread back.

So when are we getting together for Table Tennis? If you don't want to do the structured Thursday with the pros (what I would prefer since I like watching people that can actually play), I'm getting my garage cleaned up, and I have a table to plink around on. It won't be ready for another month. Let me know.

smaller
April 30th, 2004, 12:05 PM
NEWSFLASH!

Open viewer 1Way says GOD CAN REPENT but....

only if the surrounding questions suit him...

go figure...

CryTears
April 30th, 2004, 12:19 PM
God did in fact say was concerning His prophesied destruction of Nineveh

bit drastic, I know she is simple but really? destruction???

smaller
April 30th, 2004, 12:36 PM
NEWSFLASH!

Open viewer 1Way says PEOPLE MAKE THEMSELVES ETERNAL and then PROCEED TO TORTURE THEMSELVES forever and EVER...

lol

go figure...

smaller
April 30th, 2004, 12:38 PM
Did we get to that YES or NO yet 1Way???

HA!

lee_merrill
April 30th, 2004, 07:10 PM
Hi 1Way,


Again, if God conveyed a conditional threat or warning, saying effectively, “shape up or else”, then He lied when He said that He repented from doing what He said He would do, and He did not do it!

Can "Ninevah will be destroyed" be said to be what God said, even if there is an implied condition? That was my point about the two accounts of the demons in Mt. 8:31 and Mk. 5:12, in one account the condition is expressed, in another it is not, yet in both places we can say "this is what was said." So how do you respond to this reply?

Also, I don't think God lied, if the Ninevites thought there might be an implied condition, and they were correct. How did God mislead anyone, if everyone recognized this possibility? Jonah even thought it was the purpose of the mission, to get them to repent. How do you respond to this reply, again?

I am trying to advance the discussion, and not repeat myself...


However God did not lie when He admitted non-compliance with what He said He would do. By God saying that He did not do what He said He would do (bring a disastrous overthrow upon Nineveh) eliminates the idea of a conditional warning. God did not comply with His prophesied word, He contradicted it via 100% reversal, saying plainly that He repented from it, and He did not do it.

So I don't understand how this is not a lie. You can say it's not, but I think you are saying that God said "I will do X unconditionally", and did not do it. So what he said was not true, and even intentionally not true, if, as you seem to be saying, God had conditionality "within himself" about the destruction.

What I need to know from you, also, is what was God's intent when he sent Jonah:

1) To destroy them.

2) To get them to repent.

3) Some other intent.

4) No real intent.

You seem to be saying that 1) is your choice: "He can do what man can do, repent from doing what He previously thought He was going to do." Not only did God intend to destroy them, he thought it would turn out that way.

So now my previous questions apply:

Why didn't God just destroy them right away?
Why did God send Jonah, and spoil his plan?
Why couldn't God keep the Ninevites from repenting (1 Sam. 2:25)?
Why did Jonah seem to have a better grasp of the situation than God did?

Blessings,
Lee

1Way
April 30th, 2004, 08:55 PM
Yorzhik – Thanks for the contribution towards sane rational discussions, also sans the mud slinging! And for the compliments, it is an honor, and I’m enjoying the discussions anyways, becuase the closed theists keep demonstrating how afraid they are of scripture that denies their view.

I have been thinking about you and our previous plans to get together sometime. I am sorry for not getting back with you for so long. So far my back situation has not improved much despite having one chiropractor visit, so I’m afraid that until that situation improves, I need to watch and not play. My personal life is still in a bad way every since loosing my last job the way I did. So I have become even more withdrawn than I was before. I have a long road of recovery ahead of me. But I do very much so wish to play table tennis again. I would love to meet with you to watch others play but although my back is slightly better than it was before, I am leery of playing just yet.

I did not realize that Thursday was the night for the pros and watching, for some reason I thought that was the night for the unranked or lowest skilled players. I would like to watch and I would like to play, but I’m just not in shape to play yet.

The grace and patience and encouragement are all greatly appreciated. Right now I need to get rent and utilities taken care of, so I am really out of sorts for the next week or two, but I very much look forward to getting together.

1Way
April 30th, 2004, 09:58 PM
(CLICK HERE (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=514678#post514678) to see an improved version of this post.)

Crytahvn – (“CryTears”) Excellent question. You posted

God did in fact say was concerning His prophesied destruction of Nineveha bit drastic, I know she is simple but really? destruction??? That’s ok, the situation is also fairly simple. Consider the following to see if Nineveh’s prophesy was one of destruction or not.
Jon 3:2 "Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach to it the message that I tell you."

4 And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!"

9 Who can tell if God will turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish?
10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

Jon 4:2 So he prayed to the LORD, and said, "Ah, LORD, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You [are] a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who relents from doing harm. In the bible, most (perhaps all?) national overthrows performed by God were violent and even deadly, often terribly so. So even the mildest most lenient understanding of the idea of “God overthrowing a nation” denotes severe wrath, although I agree that exceptions might apply, so the question deserves more investigation. Fortunately for us, God clarified the meaning involved through the simple contextual development (the storyline). The national overthrow is qualified by the following ideas. v.9 perishing
v.10 national “disaster” brought “upon” them, disaster is clearly a bad destructive idea, and disasters tend to befall “upon” people, it happens “to them”, but repentance comes from within people, it is very contrary to say that a repentant overthrow was brought “upon” them.
Ch.4 v.2 The issue is about God’s anger and lovingkindness and from relenting from doing harm! It is not harmful to repent in faith to God, no, this harm was related to God’s prophesied national (even lethal) disaster. God plainly planned on destroying them, but after they repented, He did not do it. Lastly, if 3:4 “overthrow” only implies their turning from their wickedness (i.e. repentance), not a national “disaster” of “harm” to be “brought upon” them, then v.10 is a lie from God because if He intended on bringing “conversion or repentance upon then”, then He would have never said that He failed to do what He said He would do. Instead, He would have said, see, I told you I would overthrow you and your wickedness has been repented of so I accomplished exactly what I said I would do! That is a contradiction to what God says did happen.

So the “overthrow” of Nineveh can not mean, yet forty days and Nineveh will be “converted by nationwide repentance”! That is just silly contradiction given how God describes the rest of the story.

I sincerely hope this helps. :) Isn’t it neat how simple understanding God’s word can be if you just give it half a chance by keeping in mind the whole story instead of focusing too much on a minor issue, like what does this one word mean. Better is asking, what does this whole story teaching and plainly say. :D After you do that, the individual words are easy to figure out what they mean.

1Way
April 30th, 2004, 11:20 PM
Lee – Please, no need to make yourself out to be so ignorant. It’s bad enough that you have been caught red handed lying and perverting against God’s word.

There is such a thing as you can't win an argument with stupid.

If you can not understand

It’s a lie if you know in advance you are absolutely not going to do something, but you say that you will do it anyway
It’s a lie of you say that you (literally) repented and did not do what you (literally) said you would do, if you never said you were (literally) going to do it in the first place
It’s a lie it if was a threat to make then repent if you qualify the “overthrow” accordingly:
lethal v.9, national disaster v.10 that was to be “brought upon them” not enlisted from within them v.10 involving the contrast between God’s anger and lovingkindness 4:2 i.e. God repented from a judgment of anger and harm and disaster harmful 4:2
That “new and different” circumstances alter cases, even justify complete reversals of otherwise righteous judgments
That God did not do what He plainly said He would do, particularly concerning His prophesy of national destruction of Nineveh, God says that “He did not bring the disaster that He said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.”
You can not maintain that the prophecy was of “literal destruction”, and that it was not literal destruction, it was a figure for repentance. Then of course it is not surprising that you do not understand how it is that you lied and perverted against God’s word by falsifying scripture as you so plainly have done. By demonstrating a consistent habit of violating the entire list just mentioned, you are aggressively willfully ignorant, and you have no qualms about lying in order to maintain your views.

See my post to Crytahvn for more on why the overthrow can not mean repentance or that it could not have been a conditional warning. As to all your remaining statements and questions and challenges, who cares, you a liar, just ignore it just like most people treat “Freak” and “smaller” because of their lack of personal integrity over matters of truthfulness.

lee_merrill
May 1st, 2004, 08:18 AM
Hi 1Way,


... if 3:4 “overthrow” only implies their turning from their wickedness (i.e. repentance), not a national “disaster” of “harm” to be “brought upon” them...

This is not what I am saying, though. Your statements about "overthrow" meaning destruction I agree with, I think both were included in "overthrow." What you need to show me is that it cannot mean repentance, as well as destruction. Now you could do this by showing that "overthrow" can only have one meaning here, and not two. Or you could show me how "repentance" is not a possible meaning for "overthrow."


It’s a lie if you know in advance you are absolutely not going to do something, but you say that you will do it anyway

That was what my reply was with the Matthew and Mark illustration. You are repeating your question, and not answering my reply...

Hope your back feels better soon!

Blessings,
Lee

1Way
May 1st, 2004, 06:29 PM
Lee – also pervert and liar - As to your first point, that the prophesy could have been both a literal national disaster, and a figure of national conversion via repentance. Stop pretending like I have not already dealt with that issue at full length. You quote this
... if 3:4 “overthrow” only implies their turning from their wickedness (i.e. repentance), not a national “disaster” of “harm” to be “brought upon” them... and then simply respond saying this
This is not what I am saying, though. Your statements about "overthrow" meaning destruction I agree with, I think both were included in "overthrow." What you need to show me is that it cannot mean repentance, as well as destruction. Now you could do this by showing that "overthrow" can only have one meaning here, and not two. Or you could show me how "repentance" is not a possible meaning for "overthrow." I have dealt with why it can not mean your second meaning. Reconsider this in its entirety with your question in mind and my answers as well.
(Notice: This quote is an improved version.)
Crytahvn – Excellent question. You posted

God did in fact say was concerning His prophesied destruction of Nineveha bit drastic, I know she is simple but really? destruction??? That’s ok, the situation is also fairly simple. Consider the following to see if Nineveh’s prophesy was one of destruction or not.
Jon 3:2 "Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach to it the message that I tell you."

4 And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!"

9 Who can tell if God will turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish?
10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

Jon 4:2 So he prayed to the LORD, and said, "Ah, LORD, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You [are] a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who relents from doing harm. In the bible, most (perhaps all?) national overthrows performed by God were violent and even deadly, often terribly so. So even the mildest most lenient understanding of the idea of “God overthrowing a nation” denotes severe wrath, although I agree that exceptions might apply, so the question deserves more investigation. Fortunately for us, God clarified the meaning involved through the simple contextual development (the storyline). The national overthrow is qualified by the following ideas. v.9 perishing
v.10 national “disaster” brought “upon” them, disaster is clearly a bad destructive idea, and disasters tend to befall “upon” people, it happens “to them”. A case of national repentance can not rightly be said to be a “national disaster”.
Ch.4 v.2 The issue is correlated with God’s anger verses His lovingkindness and from relenting from doing harm! It is not harmful to repent in faith to God, no, this harm was related to God’s prophesied national (even lethal) disaster, that He did not do. So by trusting in God's word, we know that God plainly planned on destroying them, but after they repented, :He did not do it. Lastly, if 3:4 “overthrow” only implies their turning from their wickedness (i.e. repentance), not a national “disaster” of “harm” to be “brought upon” them, then v.10 is a lie from God because if He intended on bringing “conversion or repentance upon then”, then He would have never said that He failed to do what He said He would do. Instead, He would have said, see, I told you I would overthrow you, and your wickedness has been repented of so I accomplished exactly what I said I would do! That is a contradiction to what God says did happen.

So the “overthrow” of Nineveh can not imply conditions because of how God described what happened after the fact of Nineveh's repentance. The words "yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown, can not mean be destroyed or else be “converted by nationwide repentance”! That is pure contradiction given how God describes what actually happened.

I sincerely hope this helps. :) Isn’t it neat how simple understanding God’s word can be if you just give it half a chance by keeping in mind the whole story instead of focusing too much on a minor issue, like what does this one word mean. Better is asking, what does this whole story teaching and plainly say. :D After you do that, the individual words are easy to figure out what they mean. As to your second point, about the demons and the swine. (1) That does not answer my objection you quoted. Are you trying to be mistaken on purpose? You quoted me saying
It’s a lie if you know in advance you are absolutely not going to do something, but you say that you will do it anyway and then you responded ever so incoherently by saying
That was what my reply was with the Matthew and Mark illustration. You are repeating your question, and not answering my reply... And then on top of that complete disassociation subversion attempt, somehow you failed to perceive that (2) I have responded to your point about the swine and demons as prompt as I have any other response of late.

Question
Are you trying to mess everything up, or are you just trying to misunderstand, or are you just willfully being ignorant, or are you purposefully ignoring my points in order to subvert attention from them because they serve well at destroying your views, or are you purposefully being generally aggravating, or perhaps you are purposefully lying and perverting like you have done against God’s word. :idea: Oh, I get it, you can lie against God and scripture with no remorse or Christ like accountability, so since I am of far less importance than God, so you can lie and pervert even more so. :nono:

Seek and ye shall find
Here’s a suggestion that you should implement in the future to help yourself verify your suspicions. If you really care to know if someone has responded to your point or not, do a word search for their handle and include keyword or words that are centrally associated to your issue. You put my handle in the user box, you put demon in the keyword, you select posts not threads, I happened to select the last single month’s worth of posts, and presto, your response was immediately discovered by the aid of (now old technology) database query combined with a reasonable desire to know.

CLICK HERE (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=513494#post513494) to see the post in queston.

"God says" is not good enough for Lee
God's word records the following qualifications that the overthrow was a matter relating to God’s response involving: anger, harm, national disaster, them perishing and all those things being brought “upon them”, not “from them”. Plus, if you simply consider the implications of “national overthrow”, I’m not absolutely sure of this, but I think it is very likely that there are precisely zero biblical records of God overthrowing a nation without it involving mass destruction and calamity and almost always widespread death. I’m sure Israel returned to faith away from their wickedness many times, but I’m almost just as sure that God never said of such a national conversion that He overthrew it, and brought national repentance by bringing His overthrow upon them. And that the overthrow He was thinking of was to be a "national disaster", and that it was right to qualify it as from "anger" and for "harm" in relation to His judgment of "overthrow" and "disaster". (LOL, this is just absurd) You’re such a willfully ignorant person if you can’t see how it can not mean repentance. It’s NOT harmful to repent from sin, it’s not God’s judgment of anger and it’s not a disaster to repent and turn to redemptive faith in God!

What’s lying got to do with it?
Oh wait a minuet, since you act like it is ok to openly lie and pervert against scripture, even to not respond to reasonable Christian accountability for such offenses, so then it naturally follows that “for you” it’s ok for God to lie about what happened! So you just accept that “God is not exactly telling the truth” about all this business of the overthrow being a: national disaster, having lethal connotations, having it “brought upon” them, not “coming from” them, and being associated to God’s “anger” and “intention to do harm”. ... (continued next highlight)...

Lee’s spiritual discernment, that’s what!
... So all that is just a lie from God, so since it is a perversion of the truth, you just accept your manmade tradition (Closed theism, pagan derived divine immutability) in place of God’s bogus lies. Thus apparently “lying” is more crucial and central to your “belief system” than anyone would have ever imagined possible. Wow, it all makes sense now.
:dunce: Truth is not as important since lying is acceptable!

:eek: Maybe your not Lee Merril! Maybe I’m Lee Merril! Maybe no one is Lee. Who knows since it’s perfectly ok to lie, the truth becomes unimportant, because, it’s ok to violate it, it’s ok to lie and to pervert the truth.
:D
So Lee, lets say that for some reason you affirm God’s word as true, that the context is clear that the conditional idea of shape up (repent) or else can not be the meaning “from the prophetic message”, and you are even sorry for lying and perverting against scripture,,, and for not humbly submitting yourself to Christ like accountability. Considering all that happened because you have not once responded to my call for amends on this issue, I should not believe you, right? Because those admissions may also simply be yet another lie from you, right?
No wonder I have been working so hard to restore the trust and integrity towards the truth between us.
:doh:
But you don’t care about how we treat one another, do you.
:dizzy:
What a deal!
:BRAVO:

1Way
May 1st, 2004, 07:14 PM
Lee – I’m sorry, maybe you are privy to some new and improved Holy writ that should be of higher authority than scripture and that has somehow given you an exempt status from the standards of Christian accountability over matters of falsification and perversion.

So has God superceded scripture and given you some sort of extra biblical authority that we do not know about yet? If so, please do tell as the situation under biblical authority is unacceptable. Or haven’t I mentioned that yet?

Hoping my back feels better
Nice try, but how can I be sure your not lying about that either? I love and trust God largely because He is honest, so I base my trust and respect with others in a similar moral fashion. You are openly dishonest against God’s word, so of course your trust and personal integrity is broken, ,,, until you make amends. I have no problem allowing you to make a concession of unintentional impropriety and just chalk it up to standard human error and such. Many people make similar mistakes, but you happened to insert yours at the very heart of our discussion, and so I can not allow that, the truth matters.

lee_merrill
May 1st, 2004, 07:55 PM
Hi 1Way,

I did miss your point about the pigs, I tend to skip over the angry parts, and not read every word.


We have a relationship that is engraved in scripture that you can not do away with by aversion, and that is concerning compliance (or non-compliance) with what one previously said he will do. Your demon and pig example does nothing about a later non-compliance with what was earlier truthfully said would happen.

All I meant by this illustration is that you can be said to have said "A", when the entire statement was "If 'condition' then A". And I think you agreed that that was fine, so that was all I was after.


So the “overthrow” of Nineveh can not mean, yet forty days and Nineveh will be “converted by nationwide repentance”! That is just silly contradiction given how God describes the rest of the story.

This is a misunderstanding, though, I did address this, but maybe I missed your reply again. I mean that "overthrow" meant "destruction" while the Ninevites were unrepentant, and "repentance" after they repented.

I think I'm satisfied that it's not possible to maintain that God intended to destroy the Ninevites, there are just too many difficulties with this interpretation.

After reading some of the rest of your latest post (I couldn't read it all), I guess I give up. I do wish you well, but I hope you will change your approach in these discussions.

2TI 3:2 For men will be ... revilers.

This is what you are doing, 1Way, and it's a sin.

Blessings,
Lee

1Way
May 1st, 2004, 08:15 PM
Lee and anyone unwilling to oppose open lying – Consider the following.
1Co 3:8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building.
10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it.
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
13 each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is.
14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward.
15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
17 If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are. I don’t want to see Lee or any closed theist, or any Christian for that matter, suffer unnecessary loss for the way you lived your life. Build upon the foundation rightly, and with careful biblical conformity, not biblical contradiction and dishonesty.

As to personal Christ like accountability, maybe some of you need to consider the following.
Ro 14:16 Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; That is one comprehensive and clear common sense moral teaching. It is not good, it is evil to lie against scripture. And
Eph 5:9 (for the fruit of the Spirit [is] in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), 10 finding out what is acceptable to the Lord.
11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. I was not harsh and mocking upon the early observations of your dishonesty, I was plain and precise. And it was not until long after you have determined to not even respond to the entire issue that I began to add the additional offense of not submitting to Christian accountability.

If a person’s word can not be trusted as truthful on a simple issue like explaining what scripture says, you have served to undermine your otherwise Christian witness and personal reputation, and I don’t want to see that happen either. Lee, I don’t know you very well, but if you had children, would you expect anything less than them making amends for mishandling the truth of a matter? If you expect for others to treat you with respect and integrity, then being honest is not optional.

We all make mistakes, and that is common. But it matter greatly how we respond to them.
Pr 9:8 Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you; Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you.
Pr 27:5 Open rebuke is better Than love carefully concealed.
Re 3:19 "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent. Don’t resist the truth, submit yourself to it.

1Way
May 1st, 2004, 08:34 PM
Lee – You said
(1) This is a misunderstanding, though, I did address this, but maybe I missed your reply again. I mean that "overthrow" meant "destruction" while the Ninevites were unrepentant, and "repentance" after they repented.

(2) I think I'm satisfied that it's not possible to maintain that God intended to destroy the Ninevites, there are just too many difficulties with this interpretation.
(1) No misunderstanding, God qualified the overthrow as being: allowed to be understood as being “lethal”
a “national disaster” to be “brought upon” them
directly correlating to God’s judgment of “hatred” and intention to do “harm” And God did that AFTER they repented about His prophesy of national overthrow, so all bases are clearly covered by the truth from God that you reject for your manmade false traditions.

(2) You have not presented one single argument from the text to remotely support that view. Talk about stretching the truth here. God said that He did not bring the “disaster”, you know, the one with perishing connotations, the one from His anger and intention of doing harm! He did not bring that disaster which He said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

For you to say that you are satisfied that it is not possible to maintain that God had intended to do what He plainly said He would do, is utter contradiction and rejection of God’s word on the matter. You can not honestly repent and not do what you honestly said you were honestly going to do, and were "honestly" never going to do it. That is complete dishonest and constant contradiction. But such is the nature of the closed view! :eek:

So dishonesty is at the heart of your belief system just like I reluctantly noted it might be.

YOU hope I will change MY approach to these discussions!?! Wow, that is rich. I’m not a false accuser; the fact remains recorded what happened, I quoted you exactly and made my objections clear from the get go with only a sincere desire that the offenses be remedied and you have done nothing to make amends for your actions.

1Way
May 1st, 2004, 08:59 PM
Everyone, wow, I can’t believe it. Lee, representing the closed theist viewpoint, is resting his case on the idea that it’s ok to do the following. To (honestly) know in advance that you will absolutely not bring a disastrous overthrow upon the nation in 40 days.

Yet(!!!) (honestly!?!) say you will do that (which is an unavoidable lie!!!), even though you (honestly) know you absolutely will not do that.

Then (honestly!?!) say that you repented from doing what you said you would (honestly!?!) do, emphasizing the reversal of your intended actions by saying plainly that you (honestly) did not do it, thus maintaining that “carrying out the disaster” (doing it) was (honestly!?!) what you originally had in mind (but did not DO).

And at the same time and in the same relationship, honestly(!?!?!?!?!?!?!) maintain that you never honestly intended on bringing the disaster upon the nation in the first place!!! You know, the same one that you honestly said you would bring upon them and that you ended up not bringing it upon them after all, because the situation and case of the matter changed. OUTSTANDING! EXCELLENT! Closed theism is exposed for being dishonest in the highest degree.

1Way
May 1st, 2004, 09:18 PM
:wave: :Party:

:bannana: :thumb: :juggle: :drum:
PARTY!!! Finally the truth comes out, :idea:
the closed view is basically dishonest :readthis:
via their own core beliefs which are :eek:
founded upon lies against scripture. :joker:
:devil: :guitar: :jump: :dunce:

:BRAVO: :chuckle:

1Way
May 1st, 2004, 09:43 PM
As to my alleged “anger”, it is good to note that it’s right to be angry and not sin (Eph 4:26). Really though, I’m not angry, I’m in righteous opposition because of my non-hypocritical love (Rom 12:9) to so much violence against God’s word (see below), in particular because of purposeful efforts to void scripture of meaning by maintaining the closed view (man’s tradition) against scripture. Consider this from my 3rd post for more on why it is really “bad” to violate scripture.

*******NOTICE*******
THIS IS THE BIBLE’S
“VOIDING OF SCRIPTURE”
***CONDEMNATIONS****


Quote



X Xxx – I will keep reflecting God’s word to you or whoever I please, because praise God His word never returns void, let alone goes out void, you are frustrated and (arguably) self condemned for voiding scripture of meaning and replacing that meaning with nothing. Here’s more of God’s authoritative word.


We should always trust, not correct/overturn God’s word.

Pr 30:5 Every word of God [is] pure; He [is] a shield to those who put their trust in Him. 6 Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar. God’s word never returns void.
Isa 55:11 So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper [in the thing] for which I sent it. In vain worship and incredulous hypocrisy, men void God’s word of it’s divinely given meaning and authority.
Mt 15:6 ‘then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 "Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 8 ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 9 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’" Ultimately man must submit to God’s word.
Ro 3:4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: "That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged."
You don’t have to listen to me, but you do have to obey God if you want to please Him. Maybe you reject these as not being literal also.



End quote



As you can see, it is really “bad” to make void the meaning from scripture.

Stop violence against the bible, stop closed theism!

God_Is_Truth
May 1st, 2004, 10:01 PM
Stop violence against the bible, stop closed theism!

good luck on getting that to happen.

1Way
May 1st, 2004, 11:13 PM
Thanks GIT. :) Sounds nice though, doesn't it? Sort of like stop murder and malice, create world peace! Just as I expect that sin will not cease before judgment day, so also I expect manmade false doctrine to continue as well.

But more importantly than focusing on the offenders, the righteous should not stop fighting just because we don’t like the odds. Do right, and risk the consequences. :thumb:



So what is the score so far for the challenge of this thread?!?!?



The number of closed theists who have stepped forward to supposedly make an attempt to answer the Closed theist bible conformity challenge:

Many have tried.

And none have come even close to presenting an answer to the challenge, they are that terrified of the parts of scripture that denies their view.

smaller
May 2nd, 2004, 06:27 AM
NEWSFLASH!

GOD does REPENT/CHANGES, but ONLY if the circumstances of the questions suit 1Way. God must get 1Way's PERMISSION SLIP...go figure...

If the Calvies were paying attention to your nonsense they would be using your GOD REPENTS/CHANGES notion to crucify EVERY DOCTRINE...

After all under your premise it IS entirely possible that God could, you know, change His Mind about ANYthing. Kinda like you in fact. Imagine that?

enjoy!

smaller

Z Man
May 2nd, 2004, 02:12 PM
1Way,

You need to be banned from this website. I've seen Knight ban others before who have never done anything as horrible as you.
The behavior and attitude you have towards other fellow Christians is far more offensive than anyone else have ever displayed that I've seen Knight ban before. I'd ban you in a heartbeat for your stupid irrational angry outlashes, your hypocrisy, slandering, lying, religious dogma, and "I'm-better-than-everyone-else" attitude against your fellow brethren in Christ.

You are definitly not a Christian my friend, because Christians do not tear down each other or try and destroy their fellow brethren in the Lord with their wicked tounges, as you so eagerly do. You do not wish for peace or love for others; your desire is not for them to know what you believe to be the TRUTH. Nope; your intent rather, is to glorify your self-proclaimed intelligence of whatever it is you think you know about the Bible and the Christian faith. You are so insecure about your salvation and everything that you believe in, that you have to look down upon others and "boast" in your "ways" so it'll make you feel more like a Christian. The more you think you know about God and the Bible and are able to tell others what you know, the more "Christian" you feel - it makes you feel that God loves you more. Pitiful, really. You need help. You need grace.

Instead of lashing out and showing such animosity against other Christians, why don't you try to uplift and encourage and express your OPINIONS with love and humilty, in a Christian manner? I mean, I know this is a debate site and all, but you take it too far, especially against your fellow breathren in Christ. If Knight has banned others for their offensive and childish behavior, I see no reason why you shouldn't receive the same.


Luke 9:49-50
Now John answered and said, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow with us." But Jesus said to him, "Do not forbid him, for he who is not against us is on our side."

Yorzhik
May 2nd, 2004, 10:13 PM
I did puruse the thread again to find where you answered the challenge. I didn't see it.

Z, so did you ever try to answer the challenge, and can you link to the post in the thread where you did it?


I am “only” interested in what you think the passage “does” mean, specifically concerning divine repentance/”nacham” from doing what He said and or thought He would do.

These concerned the passages:

Jon 3:10 Then God saw their works,
that they turned from their evil way;
and God relented from the disaster
that He had said He would bring upon them,
and He did not do it.
and Jer 18.

Z Man
May 2nd, 2004, 10:27 PM
You didn't look hard enough. I didn't respond to his questions in this thread, because I already gave a thorough answer in the original thread. He's too stubborn and ignorant to realize that that was my answer. His pride has blinded him and closed his mind to any new knowledge that God may try to instill in his brain.

Yorzhik
May 2nd, 2004, 10:33 PM
Then could you point to your answer in the other thread?

Z Man
May 2nd, 2004, 10:56 PM
Again, here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=468363#post468363) it is. That's not the only post, however. If you continue to read his responses, you'll notice he totally ignores my answers and continues to ask the same question over and over again, no matter what I say to him. Debating with 1Way is like talking to a wall; it's pointless and does more harm than good.

Yorzhik
May 2nd, 2004, 11:14 PM
Thanks for the link.

So if I read correctly, you are saying that "repent"/"relent" is not a word of change. That when it is said of someone that thay "repented"/"relented" that they do not change. Or is is that "repent"/"relent" can mean that whoever "repents"/"relents" that sometimes it means they change and sometimes they do not.

Was that the whole thrust of your argument when you said "the [Jonah passage] means exactly what it says?

Z Man
May 3rd, 2004, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by Yorzhik

Thanks for the link.

So if I read correctly, you are saying that "repent"/"relent" is not a word of change. That when it is said of someone that thay "repented"/"relented" that they do not change. Or is is that "repent"/"relent" can mean that whoever "repents"/"relents" that sometimes it means they change and sometimes they do not.

Was that the whole thrust of your argument when you said "the [Jonah passage] means exactly what it says?
I'm not exactly sure that I understand what your question is.... :confused:

Clete
May 3rd, 2004, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

I'm not exactly sure that I understand what your question is.... :confused:

I think he's asking, "Does repentence require a change of some sort?"

Sorry Yorzhik, I couldn't resist throwing that in, I'll go back to just sitting back and watching this thread now. ;)

Resting in Him,
Clete

Yorzhik
May 3rd, 2004, 08:27 PM
Go ahead and help me be more clear... obviously I cannot do it on my own. :)

Z Man
May 4th, 2004, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Does repentence require a change of some sort?
Sure.

1Way
May 4th, 2004, 03:14 AM
Clete – And others - I think that Yorzhik does not have in mind, any change, from anywhere, from anyone. The issue at hand is more focused than that.

Is repentance possible without the repentant person changing in some meaningful way?

Clete
May 4th, 2004, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by 1Way

Clete – And others - I think that Yorzhik does not have in mind, any change, from anywhere, from anyone. The issue at hand is more focused than that.

Is repentance possible without the repentant person changing in some meaningful way?

All right then, for the sake of clarity...

Z Man,

When God repented/relented, as the Bible repeatedly says, did He change in anyway whatsoever?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Z Man
May 4th, 2004, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

All right then, for the sake of clarity...

Z Man,

When God repented/relented, as the Bible repeatedly says, did He change in anyway whatsoever?

Resting in Him,
Clete
Did God change? No. God never changes. He is always God, Alpha and Omega, beginning and end. His ways are still the same, yesterday, today, and forever. His goal is still to display His glory; He never waivers from that.

When God repents, as the Bible repeatedly says like in Jonah, for example, it's not that God is going to plan B, as if man caught Him off guard or thwarted His original plan; God repenting is just a show of God's mercy and love and patience. God's threat against Ninevah is what drove them to repent; that was His ordained plan the whole time. Because THEY repented, God's threat was no longer needed against them. Thus, He repented from that. It wasn't to conform to man's will, but rather, His repentance was an act of His will being brought forth. He did not plan on destroying Ninevah IF they repented, and He knew that threatening them like that would cause them to repent, thus He knew that He was not going to destroy them. God had ordained that Ninevah repent, and the best way that He saw fit in getting them to repent was to threaten them. Because they repented, God's threat was also repented.

In no way does this imply that God literally changes.

smaller
May 4th, 2004, 10:05 AM
The OPEN VIEW presents that GOD CAN CHANGE and DOES CHANGE both His Mind and His Ways...

EXCEPT of course if you apply their OWN position to THEIR OWN PET DOCTRINES...

go figure....

Clete
May 4th, 2004, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by Z Man

Did God change? No. God never changes. He is always God, Alpha and Omega, beginning and end. His ways are still the same, yesterday, today, and forever. His goal is still to display His glory; He never waivers from that.

When God repents, as the Bible repeatedly says like in Jonah, for example, it's not that God is going to plan B, as if man caught Him off guard or thwarted His original plan; God repenting is just a show of God's mercy and love and patience. God's threat against Ninevah is what drove them to repent; that was His ordained plan the whole time. Because THEY repented, God's threat was no longer needed against them. Thus, He repented from that. It wasn't to conform to man's will, but rather, His repentance was an act of His will being brought forth. He did not plan on destroying Ninevah IF they repented, and He knew that threatening them like that would cause them to repent, thus He knew that He was not going to destroy them. God had ordained that Ninevah repent, and the best way that He saw fit in getting them to repent was to threaten them. Because they repented, God's threat was also repented.

In no way does this imply that God literally changes.

Sounds great except that it is in open conflict with the text.

Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything; do not let them eat, or drink water. 8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily to God; yes, let every one turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands. 9 Who can tell if God will turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish?


Jonah 3:10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

Jeremiah 18:8 IF that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.

Notice the conditional "if, then" statement in Jeremiah 18. IF the nation repents THEN I will repent, IF they don't then I won't. Perhaps someone reading this knows the original languages well enough to tell us if these statements are in fact communicated in the original as genuinely conditional statements or if something else is going on.

What else could these passages mean? If you are right, they mean precisely the opposite of what they say. Do you have anything besides you theology that would compel us to think that these passages are saying the opposite of what they seem to be saying?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Z Man
May 4th, 2004, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Sounds great except that it is in open conflict with the text.

Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything; do not let them eat, or drink water. 8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily to God; yes, let every one turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands. 9 Who can tell if God will turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish?


Jonah 3:10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

Jeremiah 18:8 IF that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.

Notice the conditional "if, then" statement in Jeremiah 18. IF the nation repents THEN I will repent, IF they don't then I won't. Perhaps someone reading this knows the original languages well enough to tell us if these statements are in fact communicated in the original as genuinely conditional statements or if something else is going on.

What else could these passages mean? If you are right, they mean precisely the opposite of what they say. Do you have anything besides you theology that would compel us to think that these passages are saying the opposite of what they seem to be saying?

Resting in Him,
Clete
Clete,

In both cases, God did exaclty as He said He would. Ninevah repented, thus God relented from destroying them, just as He said He would do. Nothing changed. If Ninevah had repented, and God destroyed them anyway, then yes, that would mean that God does indeed change His mind. But that's not what happened. Ninevah repented, and God did exactly what He said He would do; He repented His wrath from them. No change there. Just a fulfillment of His will being carried out, as planned.

God_Is_Truth
May 4th, 2004, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

Clete,

In both cases, God did exaclty as He said He would. Ninevah repented, thus God relented from destroying them, just as He said He would do. Nothing changed. If Ninevah had repented, and God destroyed them anyway, then yes, that would mean that God does indeed change His mind. But that's not what happened. Ninevah repented, and God did exactly what He said He would do; He repented His wrath from them. No change there. Just a fulfillment of His will being carried out, as planned.

was God's mind ever set on actually destroying ninevah?

Swordsman
May 4th, 2004, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

was God's mind ever set on actually destroying ninevah?

Good question GIT. However, the Scripture never indicates this.

God was testing Jonah throughout this whole ordeal. Jonah did know that God told him Ninevah would be destroyed. That is why he warned the Ninevites and they repented. He pleaded with God to deliver him from the great fish so that he may go do God's will.

Why do you think God told the fish to spit Jonah back up onto dry ground? Perhaps to carry our His will? That is absolutely apparent. God knew His servant Jonah. And through Jonah, God would spare or save Ninevah from destruction.

God_Is_Truth
May 4th, 2004, 02:01 PM
Swordsman,

in my bible, Jonah doesn't want to go preach to the ninevites because he knows that they could repent and be spared. that is why he get's thrown into a whale, because he was trying to run away from ninevah and God's work. he didn't want them saved and knew that God was the kind of person who would spare them if they repented.

are we reading the same bible? :D

Clete
May 4th, 2004, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

Clete,

In both cases, God did exaclty as He said He would.....

NO!!! This is precisely the opposite of what the text says...

Jonah 3:10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented from the disaster that HE HAD SAID He would bring upon them, and HE DID NOT DO IT.

Swordsman
May 4th, 2004, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

Swordsman,

in my bible, Jonah doesn't want to go preach to the ninevites because he knows that they could repent and be spared. that is why he get's thrown into a whale, because he was trying to run away from ninevah and God's work. he didn't want them saved and knew that God was the kind of person who would spare them if they repented.

Jonah 1:1-3
1 Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Amittai, saying, 2 "Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry out against it; for their wickedness has come up before Me." 3 But Jonah arose to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord. He went down to Joppa, and found a ship going to Tarshish; so he paid the fare, and went down into it, to go with them to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord.

Where does this imply that Jonah knew the Ninevites could repent and be spared? And where does this imply "he didn't want them saved and knew that God was the kind of person who would spare them if they repented."?


are we reading the same bible? :D

Now that I think about it, I don't know. I'm reading the NKJV.

Clete
May 4th, 2004, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by Swordsman

Jonah 1:1-3
1 Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Amittai, saying, 2 "Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry out against it; for their wickedness has come up before Me." 3 But Jonah arose to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord. He went down to Joppa, and found a ship going to Tarshish; so he paid the fare, and went down into it, to go with them to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord.

Where does this imply that Jonah knew the Ninevites could repent and be spared? And where does this imply "he didn't want them saved and knew that God was the kind of person who would spare them if they repented."?



Now that I think about it, I don't know. I'm reading the NKJV.

:doh:

Try reading the whole book Swordsman.

Clete
May 4th, 2004, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

was God's mind ever set on actually destroying ninevah?
Yes.

Z Man
May 4th, 2004, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

NO!!! This is precisely the opposite of what the text says...

Jonah 3:10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented from the disaster that HE HAD SAID He would bring upon them, and HE DID NOT DO IT.
Clete,

If Ninevah had repented, yet God destroyed them anyway, like He said He would, would that mean that God does not change? You see, if you believe that God changes because He relented from destroying them after they had repented, then you must believe that if God destroyed them even after they did repent, that God does not change. Or in both cases does it mean that God changes? Could you clarify?

Originally posted by Clete

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

was God's mind ever set on actually destroying ninevah?
Yes.
If that was the case, why did God send Jonah?

Swordsman
May 4th, 2004, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

:doh:

Try reading the whole book Swordsman.

I have. But there is a difference in reading Scripture with the Spirit guiding you and reading it like you would read Oliver Twist.


Originally posted by God_Is_Truth
was God's mind ever set on actually destroying ninevah?

Originally posted by Clete
Yes.

Originally posted by Z Man
If that was the case, why did God send Jonah?

Exactly. See Z Man, what they do not see is that God uses chosen vessels to carry out His will. They just think God arbitrarily changes His will on a whim responding to His creation. And they just love those few verses in the OT that they twist to create their ideology.

Yorzhik
May 5th, 2004, 02:17 AM
I believe that when God repents, it does not change who He is.
We agree.


God can't change.
This isn't what you just said in the previous statement. I change everyday, but I don't change who I am.

Can you explain this?

1Way
May 5th, 2004, 02:52 AM
This is the tenor of this entire debate. Demonstrated by correlating (hypothetical) example.



General overview


OV
The open view (more so) reasons by quoting God's word and rests it’s case on that. We literally accept it without violating it's contextual development.

Concerning His previous spoken honest intended course of action (What God said He “was going to DO”).

God’s word says that He repented from it (changed His mind) and did not do what He said He would DO.

CV
The closed view (more so) reasons extra biblically and rests their case primarily on sources other than what is specifically provided by scripture. They reject (void of meaning) entire portions of scripture that deny their view and they also violate the context by doing so. And they effectively make God out to be a liar in order to maintain their views as being more authoritative. All while claiming “spiritual” correctness.

Concerning His previous spoken honest intended course of action (What God said He “was going to DO”).

Who cares about what God said about Him changing His intended course of action by not doing what He said He would do, the closed view maintains that God can not change even if God says He does, so we are right and that is that.



Specific arguments


OV

God’s word is true and authoritative
It is a clear case of divine repentance against complying
with what God said and/or thought He was going to do

So what do the words mean then if they don’t literally mean what they literally say? Jonah 3:10 subsection part b
... and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. CV
It does not mean (bla bla bla, wha wha wha, bla wha bla) and it does not mean (bla bla bla, wha wha wha, bla wha bla), man changed and therefore God simply did not need to punish them, so God did not change and that is that.

OV
That does not tell me what those specific words mean, it tells me that you are ignoring and perhaps violating them instead. If you do not have a suitable (specific) biblically provided replacement meaning for the text in question, then you have no standing to effectively deny it’s literal meaning.

CV
Oh, it means what it says alright, but there’s simply no Change in God.

OV
You mean where God says that He did not do what He said He would do, and He did not do it, you mean THAT means that He DID DO what He said He would DO? And He did do it?
CV
God always gets His will done, it all happened with out any change in God. Your wrong and we’re right, stop trying to confuse us with details.
:doh:

OV

The context denies the prophesy message was conditional
It was honestly going to be a national disaster and
it was honestly going to be brought upon them

It could not have been a conditional warning of possible destruction as in “shape up or else”. God described the prophesy with the following contextual build up. This is the truth, and you are in error for violating scripture. Please reconsider the following.

The prophesied “overthrow” was said to be: understood as lethal (3:9)
A national disaster (3:10)
that God would “bring upon them” (3:10)
correlated with God’s anger verses His lovingkingness (4:2)
correlated with God doing harm (4:2) And remember, God recorded this account after the fact of it all happening. He would not have allowed the context to be falsifying what actually did happen.

If a nation repents from doing great wickedness, and puts their faith in God for their very lives, that is a good and righteous thing, it is not harmful, it is not a demonstration of God’s disapproving anger, it is not a national disaster that was brought upon them. So every single contextual consideration about God’s prophesy contradicts the idea that it was conditional, including the conclusive example, that God said concerning that prophesy of intended course of action, that He did not do it, God did "not" comply with what He said He would do.

CV
No, since God sent Jonah ahead of time, the condition is only obvious, get real and read your bible, we’re right and your wrong. They repented which is what God ordained the entire time, they were overthrown, so God accomplished His intentions.

OV
You argue that God did overthrow Nineveh by their repentance. But God said that concerning what He said He would do, He did not do it, so if the prophecy was primarily or literally to get them to repent, and they did repent, they why did God lie when He said that He did not accomplish what He said He would do?

CV
God does not lie, and He does not change, your wrong, we’re right. Actually, it was a conditional prophesy, that is why we know that God never changed His mind, since it was conditional, there was no possible way for God to reverse from complying with His prophesy. It was a shape up or else conditional prophecy, why else would God send His prophet 40 days in advance if He only had in mind destroying them.

OV
The conditionality rests within God, His word was not conditional, it was honest and truthful just as is described in scripture. For God’s nature to hold conditionality, necessarily means He can change depending upon what happens with newly brought about circumstances.

CV
No, the condition was not in God, it was in His word. God did do what He said He would do.
:eek:

OV

The law of non-contradiction and moral integrity
It’s dishonest to contradict the truth
even if you use a lie to cover up a lie
to cover up a lie

Surely you can see the dishonesty in: Absolutely and perfectly knowing that you will not do something
and then
lying by saying you will do it anyway
and then
lying again (after the fact of you not doing it) by saying, that you repented and did not do what you (honestly) said you would do, and you did not do it. Making double statement that this was an issue of intended action, it was unequivocally an issue of honest course of action.

CV
No, it just was not, we don’t care what you think it means, your wrong, we’re right, God never intended on destroying them.

OV
No, your wrong for violating what God’s word plainly says, along with violating the entire context involved, and for promoting your manmade traditions that contradict scripture, voiding scripture and replacing it’s meaning with nothing (scripturally and contextually) fitting.

CV
We’ve already answered all your questions, just because you don’t like them does not mean their wrong.

OV
You have? Then what does Jonah 3:10 subsection part b specifically mean?

CV
(go back to the beginning and replay the same story without ever answering the question about what those words mean.)
:doh:


Conclusion


What a state of affairs! I love it that this is going on in the thread who’s entire quest is over one single bible conformity challenge, and yet not one single closed theist has even come close to answering it. :) They are absolutely terrified of the text because it is in direct contradiction against their beliefs and thus it perfectly denies their viewpoint, so they just ignore and violate it because there is no middle ground on this issue. As long as they believe they are right (i.e. their false manmade presupposition of classic divine immutability), then they can not agree with God repenting as is literally and repeatedly described in scripture. The two ideas are contradictory and can not be reconciled.


Conform your faith to the bible!!! :up:

Don’t violate against the bible
because of manmade tradition! :down:

smaller
May 5th, 2004, 06:57 AM
but but but 1Way GOD DIRECTED LYING in the O.T.

1 Kings 22:22
And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.

1 Kings 22:23
Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

You see IF GOD SPOKE EVIL concerning THEE 1Way He will roll you over.

Z Man
May 5th, 2004, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by Yorzhik

We agree.


This isn't what you just said in the previous statement. I change everyday, but I don't change who I am.

Can you explain this?
God repenting does not change who He is; good, we agree on that. Does it mean that God has changed His mind? I don't believe so. Again, I'll use the Ninevites as an example. If they had not repented, yet God repented from destroying them, then yes, God could be said to change His mind. But that's not the case; Ninevah repented, thus God no longer needed to threaten them. God's threat of destroying Ninevah is what led to their repentance; it was all planned by God. He knew that threatening to destroy them would cause them to repent; that's why He sent Jonah.

Jonah 3:5, 10; 4:1-2
So the people of Nineveh believed God, proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least of them. . . . Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he became angry. So he prayed to the Lord, and said, "Ah, Lord, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who relents from doing harm.

Jonah knew that the reason God sent him was so that Ninevah would repent; he knew that God's purpose was to have Ninevah repent, not to destroy them. God's plan was not thwarted by the Ninevites repentance; it was precisly carried out, as He had ordained it to be done, through His prophet Jonah.

Yorzhik
May 6th, 2004, 01:03 AM
Does it mean that God has changed His mind? I don't believe so.
Are you sure? Let's try it:

Jonah 3:5, 10; 4:1-2
So the people of Nineveh believed God, proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least of them. . . . Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God did not change His mind from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

Does that work? Can you replace the bolded words with something better (without using the words "repented" or "relented"?

1Way
May 6th, 2004, 04:19 AM
Yorzhik - What sorta little critter fur ball munchkin :D you got there in your avatar? And what sort of hat is that? Is it sitting or standing or what? I can’t tell if it has a tale or legs, etc.

I realize that you are asking Z Man, and I realize that you understand my view, but while were waiting, maybe we can (shhh) type quietly amongst ourselves a bit. The answer to your question is the opposite of what he said.

(Answer is) God “repented” means God “changed His mind”
or better yet,
God “reversed His intended course of action”.

God doubly emphasizes that this repentance was concerning action. It was concerning what He said was going to “do” (bring disaster upon them), but did not “do”. That is a hard cold bible fact.

God plainly repented from complying with His previous intended course of action. So the point is that He did not just simply “change His mind”, He also reversed His intended course of action in the process of changing His mind. And, as if that was not enough, God’s repentance also involved Him contradicting by way of reversal His own prophetic word as to what He was going to do!

All you have to do to make all that fit perfectly together without a problem, is to accept instead of violating the bible’s doctrine of divine repentance and that God can acquire new knowledge as it comes into existence. I.E. God waited until “after” they repented to honestly say “now” I know...

So because of their much learning in the tradition of the closed view, when God says that He did not do what He said He would do, that effectively means that He did do what He said He would do. Go figure. :)

Yorzhik
May 6th, 2004, 11:17 AM
My avatar is a hedgehog, which is what my username is in Russian. The little guy I show has a russian hat on.

Yes, it seems obvious now, but I didn't switch to the OV until a few things fell into place. The first was that I heard a Rabbi destroy some Christian scholars in a debate about what "Now I know" means. That was the seed that started it all. I didn't realize the Jews held the OV! When did the Christian church change to the closed view? Was it all Augustine?

When I realized this was a new view, that to change views means to lose your friends at church. It's a pretty high mountain to get over. The OV has to be incredibly convincing to actually get people to pay the price. But I'm glad I paid it - the truth is better in the end.

Swordsman
May 6th, 2004, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by Yorzhik

Are you sure? Let's try it:

Jonah 3:5, 10; 4:1-2
So the people of Nineveh believed God, proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least of them. . . . Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God did not change His mind from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

Does that work? Can you replace the bolded words with something better (without using the words "repented" or "relented"?

It looks to me that Z Man was clear in his statement


Originally posted by Z Man
God repenting does not change who He is; good, we agree on that. Does it mean that God has changed His mind? I don't believe so. Again, I'll use the Ninevites as an example. If they had not repented, yet God repented from destroying them, then yes, God could be said to change His mind. But that's not the case; Ninevah repented, thus God no longer needed to threaten them. God's threat of destroying Ninevah is what led to their repentance; it was all planned by God. He knew that threatening to destroy them would cause them to repent; that's why He sent Jonah.

Why is it thrilling to read into those passage that "God changed?" Its merely an assumption to one who thinks the Almighty God changes because His creation forced Him to.

This is the fundamental problem in open theism: It raises man's sovereignty so much, that God's qualities and attributes must be lessened; namely, God is not all knowing.

Yorzhik
May 6th, 2004, 01:42 PM
Swordsman,

Jonah 3:5, 10; 4:1-2
So the people of Nineveh believed God, proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least of them. . . . Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God did not change His mind from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

Can you replace the bolded words with something better (without using the words "repented" or "relented"?

Swordsman
May 6th, 2004, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Yorzhik

Swordsman,

Jonah 3:5, 10; 4:1-2
So the people of Nineveh believed God, proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least of them. . . . Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God did not change His mind from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

Can you replace the bolded words with something better (without using the words "repented" or "relented"?

I sense sarcasm here. But I'll play along.

Actually from the Greek, relent can mean to show mercy.

Praytell, what is the meaning behind all of this? Serving a god who is humanistic in his attributes. When God wrote this program called "human nature" did he have some defects in his code? According to open theism, he did, and still does.

Yorzhik
May 6th, 2004, 10:32 PM
S, No sacasm. Just trying to find a way to get a CV person to say what the figure means.

As you already read, figures in written speech (spoken speech as well, of course) mean something other than what the words mean literally.

For instance, when a person "burns a favor", they don't actually start a fire. Then what does it mean to "burn a favor"? It means to get something done by someone else that owes you. And when that work is done, you cannot ask them to do it again, because their debt is paid and the opportunity to ask for the debt to be paid is gone - like wood is gone after it is burned.

So that is all. No tricks. Since God did not really repent/relent/show mercy in Jonah 3:10, what [i]does[/q] the figure mean?

Z Man
May 6th, 2004, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by Yorzhik

Are you sure? Let's try it:

Jonah 3:5, 10; 4:1-2
So the people of Nineveh believed God, proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least of them. . . . Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God did not change His mind from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

Does that work? Can you replace the bolded words with something better (without using the words "repented" or "relented"?
If one does not dive deeper into this study, and reads this verse and takes it as it is, then of course one could assume that God changes His mind based on human actions. But that's not the case. Let me explain, again.

If Ninevah had repented, yet God destroyed them anyway, then He wouldn't be the God of mercy that we know; the same God who sacrificed His own Son for our sins. Throughout the Bible, we are told of a God who is patient and merciful. Jonah said it himself:

Jonah 4:1-2
So [Jonah] prayed to the Lord, and said, "Ah, Lord, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who relents from doing harm.

If God's orginal intended purpose was to destroy Ninevah, than why did He send Jonah? Jonah knew that the reason he was sent by God to Ninevah was so that they would repent after hearing the Word of God through him. God was never going to destroy Ninevah; He threatened them, and that threat is what led them to repent. That's why God threatened them - so they would repent. That was His purpose; that was what was ordained. Therefore, God repenting from His threat against Ninevah wasn't something that surprised Him, or had not orginally planned on doing. He didn't change His mind. If He had, then He would have never let that fish spit Jonah out on dry land - He would of made sure that Jonah never made it to the city.

Z Man
May 6th, 2004, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by Yorzhik

Since God did not really repent/relent/show mercy in Jonah 3:10, what [i]does[/q] the figure mean?
Oh, He repented/relented/showed mercy to the Ninevites alright. But it wasn't something He had not orginally planned. It didn't surprise Him that the Ninevites repented...

1Way
May 6th, 2004, 11:41 PM
Yorzhik - ! Wow, what an ordeal you must have went through. I was not so sure about your position and was going to edit my post about assuming that you well understand my views, but I see no need to do that now. :) It’s good to have you aboard.

The open view and the closed view issue does seem to easily brake fellowship over it, but with Christ’s leading, hopefully the friendships can be spared so much pain. I’d be very interested in hearing the info about that Rabbi proponent for the OV. I’ve heard that the CV did not come into vogue until folks like Augustine and such.

In much the same way that Protestantism was a new view and yet has been accepted as the correct view, it took a very long time to finally come into being! Same with the Open View. It is derived directly from scripture and directly refutes the false teaching of the CV.

Although many issues around the CV and OV debate have been separately discussed, like the following:

Classic immutability
man’s free will
causality and moral responsibility
God’s role in the final outcomes of events
Predestination
Foreknowledge
Divine repentance

It seems rather obvious that Christianity as a whole has not come to grips with both sides of the debate between the OV and the CV until recently, so if folks try to dismiss the view as heresy because it is “new”, then you have two wonderful retorts.

1 – So was Protestantism, yet it was biblical and true
2 – The history of Christianity does not show the Open and Closed view’s being brought to a clear confrontation until very recently.

So it’s not a case of re-inventing the wheel, it’s a case of the fact that Christianity has not arrived yet, there are still issues of faith that need further refining and the discovery of the OV and the CV is wonderful because now we have that much more opportunity to stand firmly and correctly on God’s word instead of errant manmade tradition!

The truth is better in the end. ... :)

Hedgehog, chuckles, pretty cool, he looks snug as a bug in a rug.

God_Is_Truth
May 6th, 2004, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by Z Man
If God's orginal intended purpose was to destroy Ninevah, than why did He send Jonah? Jonah knew that the reason he was sent by God to Ninevah was so that they would repent after hearing the Word of God through him. God was never going to destroy Ninevah; He threatened them, and that threat is what led them to repent. That's why God threatened them - so they would repent. That was His purpose; that was what was ordained. Therefore, God repenting from His threat against Ninevah wasn't something that surprised Him, or had not orginally planned on doing. He didn't change His mind. If He had, then He would have never let that fish spit Jonah out on dry land - He would of made sure that Jonah never made it to the city.

what if the people of ninevah had NOT repented? or did they HAVE to repent? was their repentence ordained?

was it God's will that Jonah run away from what he'd told him to do? that doesn't make very much sense now does it? why would God ordain that someone run away from what he wants done? that sure doesn't sound efficient to say the least.

1Way
May 7th, 2004, 12:12 AM
Yorzhik – Did you notice where Swordsman stopped his honest response? He gave an honest response that repentance can mean to show mercy, and you would immediate glance over at the text to see how that meaning would naturally fit in, AND LOW AND BEHOLD IT WOULD MEAN THAT GOD WITHELD SHOWING MERCY ...

Which is complete contradictory nonsense to what actually happened, but instead of Swordsman dealing with this fact with any personal integrity, he just ignores this specific fact immediately, and takes a general approach as though he had not nearly presented the full case of how he contradicts scripture by his errant manmade traditions.

They are not primarily very interested in their faith conforming to what the bible teaches, they are more interested in conforming their faith to manmade tradition, even if it plainly contradicts the bible.

And Z Man is saying that God knew the entire time that He would not do what He said He would do, yet he finds no lying in God for purposely contradicting the truth about the ENTIRE issue of His prophecy as God describes it even AFTER the fact of them repenting! If Z Man was right, then God would stop the charade of untruth and not say what He did in verse 10 and 4:2. It is this entire contextual consideration that people of the CV just can not or will not accept, and sadly, they constantly violate.

Last I checked it is not a “national disaster” nor doing “harm” when a nation repents and trusts God for their very lives. But evidently Z Man must think Nineveh’s repentance was really a national disaster and correlates to God bringing harm upon them! What a funny guy that Z Man is. Nice, fun loving, easy to get along with, but funny. ;)

I am way excited for you for taking the stance you have against the CV. I want to know more about what happened and how you and your family is doing in the mean time. This is making me even more sorry than I already am that I have been letting domestic issues overwhelm me. Since loosing my job the way I did I’ve felt like giving up, it is so painful, but I will not give up. Soon enough I will get a job and my back will be better and we’ll get together, no doubts.

1Way
May 7th, 2004, 12:39 AM
G I T – It gets better than that. God was so much in control that He had the bible record the correlation of His prophetic judgment against Nineveh as being as follows A national disaster (3:10)
To be brought upon them by His anger and not His lovingkindness (4:2)
And Coincides with His intention of doing harm (4:2) even AFTER the nation repented!!! So the reverse psychology bit does not wash out, it is refuted by the truth from scripture that does NOT make God out to being a liar as the CV seems to enjoy promoting.

Also, people like Z Man think that through the entire charade God was fibbing in order to trick them into having things turn out His way! When if the truth is that
if
everything always happens the way God wants it to happen,
then
He would have never keep compromising the truth and His own personal reputation as being truthful and honest an trustworthy just to perpetuate a purposeful lie! After they repented, if it was according to the way Z Man thinks it was, then God would have indicated that what happened was not according to His intended course of action towards national disaster, from his anger instead of His lovingkindness, and from His intention of bringing harm upon them! But the truth is, that is exactly how God’s word describes what did happen, so Z Man’s fabricated version is denied by scripture on the bases of contradiction and contextual violence.

(See my last post to Yorzhik for more of this posts point which directly relates to your post.)

I wonder if Z Man will actually deal with this bible fact that refutes his position, or if he will continue to ignore and violate what God has to say on the matter while teaching his manmade traditions instead.