Does Calvinism limit God?

[Z Man]

Re: is this all about mud tossing, or solid firm foundation standing

Re: is this all about mud tossing, or solid firm foundation standing

Originally posted by 1Way

Z Man – You said I was trying to get you to respond to my point counterpoint refutation of everything you posted from that third party site since you did not respectfully respond to it via my humble submission, so I thought I’d call your attention to it again via exaggerated tough guy claims of victory. It was an obvious ploy goading you to actually make a rational reasonable point counter point. It was not my estimation of my person. But really Z Man, you are over the top in this regard, it is sickening about your sickening remarks, including your sickening remarks about sickening this and sickening that, it is really getting sickening all your sick sick sickening sickness of over sickening the whole sickening thing.


Your focus on personalized attacks, yet you attack me for personal attacks when instead I should be presenting biblical and reasonable debate arguments. So I do that, and you turn to mud slinging.

What's the matter 1 Way? Can't take your own medicine?

I am calling you to stand up for what is right and true in these matters.

I've done that already. But you refuse to listen. Your way is the only correct way. Even if you have to denounce sound biblical doctrine and logic to make your point, you'll do just that.

I have denounced the closed view in the face of the closed view with and from scripture, and I have challenged the closed view proponents to counter my points, and so far no one will respond.

Already have. Forget all the long posts and semantics and stuff; all this boils down to is who is in control. If God has to repent to conform to our wills, then we are ultimately in control.

To you, God is limited by human will. And whether you know it or not, that's just not biblical. It's a false doctrine.

Please, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and as you have requested me to do, and as I have done, only you have not returned the same favor, yet. I meant not to goad you to wrath, just to respond, my serious bible presentation has already been established, you should not question my motives in that regard, please respond accordingly.

Don't play innocent now 1Way. Your whole character about debate is that everyone is wrong except you. And the way you look down upon other's when they have done nothing to merit such ridicule from you is disturbing. You have done it to me, to Freak, to Swordfish, and on and on. Get your act together, grow up, humble yourself, and then maybe you'll get a little more respect around here from those of us who wish to have a solid, intelligent debate concerning theological matters.

:zman:

 

[1Way]

An “answer” that answers not the question/challenge is no cogent answer = obfuscation

An “answer” that answers not the question/challenge is no cogent answer = obfuscation

Z Man – It's not that I don't agree nor accept your “answers”, ,,, it's that you have not answered according to the question/challenge. I realize it doesn’t have to be hard to accept correction, but you claim to have already answered my question and challenge about what the scriptures mean when it says that

• God repents from doing what He said and/or thought He would do.

namely, because you do not believe that repents from doing what He said and/or thought He would do (i.e. change His mind against His previously intended course of action)

then what does the scripture/text mean instead of their literal account?

However, I have read your posts very carefully and you have not provided any alternative message to the text in question. None. :nono:

You did try to explain how it is that God does repent, while at the same time you argue that God does not change His mind. :radar: You said

Anyways, I wanna get to the point, plain and simple. (1) God becoming man in no way changed who God is/was. God regreting, or repenting from His decisions never changed who God is/was. As for why God repents, I believe this part of the text I copied from xristian.org to be very true:

God reserves the right to change how He deals with any situation IF the people change how they follow after His ways. That is God's unchanging purpose with man. It is why Jonah was not a false prophet when He declared the destruction of Nineveh1, but was told later to recant the proclamation. (2) God's purpose was to bring about repentance. Had Nineveh NOT repented and God spared the city, then Jonah could be declared to be a false prophet and God mutable. This, however, is not the case in Jonah 3 or any of the passages above. That repentance brings about forgiveness is one of the great solaces of the unchanging gospel of Christ. Without it, there is no gospel and a savior who died in vain.

and then concerning God changing in any way, you go on to say

If God does change, as you so believe, than we do not serve the same God that Moses, Abraham, David, Jesus, or the disciples served in their day. Heck, we don't even serve the same God we did yesterday, if He is a God who changes!

which again is you plainly arguing that God does not change, therefore He does not repent from doing what He said and/or thought He would do, because that directly implies that He changed His mind over His against doing His previously intended course of action. So you talk out of both sides of your mouth saying on the one hand, yes, God repents and here is why He does (to remain unchangingly redemptive/just etc.), and on the other hand, this represents no change in God at all, thus for you, when you say that “God repents”, you mean that He does exactly as He previously planned, there are no changes in God’s mind at all.

(1) You say that God becoming “God incarnate in the flesh” represented no change in God’s person because He remained God, yet such a thing was never a part of our contending views, your posing your answer the way you did in light of my evidence that God change because of the incarnation, demonstrates an unfounded and perhaps well developed fear of the evidence for you to cogently and directly respond according to the bible’s teaching that God changes sometimes in dramatic ways.

Next you attempt a response to the divine repentance issue by seemingly granting that God does indeed repent/nacham presumably from doing what He said and/or thought He would do, since that is the biblical contextual use/example.

(2) Again, we are not remotely debating God’s attributes of mercy and willingness to forgive the repentant. Such a thing wasn’t even discussed via contention between us in anyone’s wildest imagination. You should know full well that I agree that God’s character allows for Him to forgive the repentant and to not forgive the unrepentant, so such a response is nothing short of a diversion away from the actual topic at hand. We are talking about the change in God’s mind (or not) when God says that He will repent/nacham away from doing what He said and/or thought He would do, “and” that obviously such a teaching would demonstrate a change of mind concerning God’s previous intended course of action. That remains our topical discussion point, not if God unchangingly responds redemptively and righteously or not.

So, despite these off topic “twist and evade” maneuvers, (not that you did so on purpose thus being deceitful, but that you did indeed directly avoid my clear questions and simple challenge)

not only have you not responded cogently to the challenge plainly set before you,

but(!)

you never even once attempted to replace the meaning of the text that says that God will indeed repent/nacham from what He said and/or thought He would do. Which according to the discussion and bible presentation so far, is a direct contradiction against your false view.

The silence is still loud, or, is it louder?

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Those instances in which it is said God repents--you must either believe that the Bible contradicts itself concerning God's immutability, or else dare believe (HORRORS!) that the fault is in a limit on your human understanding. But that is not at all likely to those who have a reservoir of hatred toward God and are spitefully unwilling to accept THAT possibility. They prefer to charge Him with error.
There are many instances in which God speaks on the level of man's thought processes--refers to Himself as if He were a man. You find anthropomorphisms throughout the Bible. God is a Spirit, but when speaking to man about His power, He speaks of Himself to men as if He were also a man, such as when speaking of the might of His power, He speaks of the power of His right hand. Hint: most men's greatest strength is in their right hand--get it??
When He speaks of a change in action toward certain of His creatures, it in no way shows an alteration in what He has eternally purposed, but if men were to do the new thing He is going to do concerning certain of His creatures, such actions in men would be the result of their changing their mind about an issue. The anthromophorism use by God in Scripture at such times is not the result of any change in God, but the result of the change of position the creature(s) now occupy before Him, such as when the wickedness of the antediluvians reached that point which was the end of God's longsuffering towards them, or as when the Ninevites properly responded to Jonah's preaching. In dealing with humans God speaks on their level for the sake of their comprhension. God did not alter His being in the least. The ninevites altered their conduct before Him and according to His many Biblical promises of mercy upon repentance, showed them mercy.

 

[1Way]

The challenge of conformity to God’s word still prevails against the closed view

The challenge of conformity to God’s word still prevails against the closed view

Rolf – If you believe that God does not change, in that

He never learns anything
and never changes His mind,

then when God’s word says that He does change His mind because of implied new information, then we are plainly asking you to explain,

what does God mean when He says those things?

Anyone can say, it does not mean what it plainly or naturally says.

Ok, that is voiding or negating the text from it’s natural literal meaning.

Ok, so the question remains, then what does God mean when He says that He will/does repent from doing what He said and/or thought He would do?

If you can not or will not answer this simple question, then your conclusion that God never changes is shown for it’s inability to conform to scripture, and in fact, is shown contradicting it without reasonable justification. We all know about your doctrine of divine immutability, and that you reason support for that understanding from scripture. But if you can not reasonably harmonize the divine repentance scriptures to your divine immutability ideas, then it is your position that is demonstrated as insufficient at best.

Our view of God’s immutability is strictly according to God’s word as well. We affirm Gods (biblical) immutability without overstepping scripture’s unified, not contradictory nature.

The challenge is simple, if you believe that God does not change, then exegete/translate/explain the passages that say He does, and please start with my examples because of how succinct and contextually relevant they are.

Again, I believe the following to be an especially good demonstration of what we are dealing with. It is just an illustration, not meant to misrepresent what the closed theist thinks the passage means, but simply to demonstrate the glaring contrast the closed view’s understanding compared to the open view.

[size=4.5]Jonah’s Nineveh prophesy[/size]
(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.

[size=4.5]Jonah’s Nineveh prophesy[/size]
(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 ...?...?...?.

[size=3.5]Question 1[/size]


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:

And remember, saying that it is anthropomorphic or an anthropopathism, implies that you know what the figure means, understanding a figure means that you understand what the figure means. If you can not explain what the figure means, then you have no standing to say that it is such and such figure. Knowing it’s figurative also means you can explain the figure’s meaning and use.

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

 

[1Way]

A righteous faith conforms to, not contradicts against God's entire word

A righteous faith conforms to, not contradicts against God's entire word

The outcome of this predictable. One of two things will ultimately happen.

Either

The person will stand corrected by God’s word that denies the extent of their view on divine immutability,

Or

The person will not stand corrected by God’s word that denies the extent of their view on divine immutability.

There is no way to get around this. The only other option is to remain in ignorance about what these passages teach, while still maintaining an over extended view of God’s immutability. In which case, since they demonstrate their inability to resolve a simple bible conformity challenge, the assurance and integrity of their position is naturally to be doubted. Many people believe many things with little reasonable assurance in the face of direct simple biblical correction. Such is life.

But let’s pray that the scriptures clarity and authority prevails over man’s faith.

 

[Z Man]

Good job....a thought out, insult free post... That's a first for you!

Good job....a thought out, insult free post... That's a first for you!

Originally posted by 1Way

You did try to explain how it is that God does repent, while at the same time you argue that God does not change His mind. :radar: You said

Originally posted by Z Man

Anyways, I wanna get to the point, plain and simple. God becoming man in no way changed who God is/was. God regreting, or repenting from His decisions never changed who God is/was. As for why God repents, I believe this part of the text I copied from xristian.org to be very true:

God reserves the right to change how He deals with any situation IF the people change how they follow after His ways. That is God's unchanging purpose with man. It is why Jonah was not a false prophet when He declared the destruction of Nineveh, but was told later to recant the proclamation. God's purpose was to bring about repentance. Had Nineveh NOT repented and God spared the city, then Jonah could be declared to be a false prophet and God mutable. This, however, is not the case in Jonah 3 or any of the passages above. That repentance brings about forgiveness is one of the great solaces of the unchanging gospel of Christ. Without it, there is no gospel and a savior who died in vain.

and then concerning God changing in any way, you go on to say

If God does change, as you so believe, than we do not serve the same God that Moses, Abraham, David, Jesus, or the disciples served in their day. Heck, we don't even serve the same God we did yesterday, if He is a God who changes!

which again is you plainly arguing that God does not change, therefore He does not repent from doing what He said and/or thought He would do, because that directly implies that He changed His mind over His against doing His previously intended course of action. So you talk out of both sides of your mouth saying on the one hand, yes, God repents and here is why He does (to remain unchangingly redemptive/just etc.), and on the other hand, this represents no change in God at all, thus for you, when you say that “God repents”, you mean that He does exactly as He previously planned, there are no changes in God’s mind at all.

I believe that when God repents, it does not change who He is. God can't change. That's common sense logic. Think about it for a second. What does everyone in the world strive for? When an author writes a piece of literature, what do they do to their first draft before actually publishing it? They revise it several times! Technology, people, ideas, businesses; everything here on earth strives to be perfect. We all want to reach that next step, whether it be in our personal lives, or in our workplaces. In everything we do, we strive for perfection. Thus, change is only neccessary when there is a flaw. God has no flaw within Himself. He is the definition of perfection. He has no need of change. What would He change to? Is there anything better than Him that He could conform to? Is there something least that God needs to change to? Of course not. God is perfect, thus He does not change. That's just simple elementary logic.

But the Bible is very clear, as you have so pointed out, that God does repent. But, we can not forget that the Bible does not contridict itself. Numbers tells us that:

Numbers 23:19
"God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

Why does man repent? To change from their sinful ways in order to strive for perfection. It's an action that is necessary for man because they are not perfect. But the bible clearly tells us that God does not repent like man. He does not need change.

So what does it mean when there are other verses that speak of God repenting? I've already tried to explain my point of view on this issue, but I don't think you understood me. So I'll try and explain it again. I'll use the Jonah and Ninevah story as an example, since you seem to like that one the most. Ok, through Jonah, God said that He would destroy Ninevah IF they did not repent. That if is the key word here. God issued His decree and the consequences of Ninevah's outcome IF they did not repent. God did not make this decree in ignorance of not knowing what Ninevah would do. In fact, God made the statement because He knew exactly what the city of Ninevah would do if they heard such a thing from Him through the prophet Jonah! And what did they do? They repented! That's exactly what God wanted them to do. And because they did repent, God repented from Ninevah His wrath. God didn't change; Ninevah did. And that's exactly what God had ordained.

I hope this clears up your confusion concerning my views. And may this answer whatever questions you had for me in regards to the theology concerning God's repentance.

:zman:

 

[1Way]

ok, not bad, but no answer yet provided

ok, not bad, but no answer yet provided

Z Man – Thank you for your response. The first part of your post you set up perfection instead of God’s attributes of goodness and righteousness and justice as that which is the ultimate goal. But you made a good point about God having no flaws, this is true, God does not change in order to correct His own wrong doing or sin or error or mistake, etc. God changes in order to accommodate changing scenarios that He did not previously have certain knowledge over. But all that is beside the point.

In the second part of your post, you addressed my question about the divine repentance passages, and I am very thankful for that, but you did not answer according to my question.

I realize that you have your presuppositions about divine repentance and Him not changing His mind, but, I am not asking you to share them either. You see, even if you never lived, men everywhere still have God’s word plainly and literally saying that He repents from doing what He said and thought He would do.

So my question is not about anything other than what you think THOSE words mean when God says them. If they don’t mean what they literally/naturally say, then what do those exact same words mean? (Jonah 3:10 subsection part b)

If it would prove helpful, please print out the following with the two examples of Jonah 3:10 and focus on God’s exact words as the focus of your response, and ask yourself to explain the meaning of that verse.

Please consider the following which was my response to Rolf after he also did not respond to the closed theist challenge of bible conformity.

Rolf – If you believe that God does not change, in that

He never learns anything
and never changes His mind,

then when God’s word says that He does change His mind because of implied new information, then we are plainly asking you to explain,

what does God mean when He says those things?

Anyone can say, it does not mean what it plainly or naturally says.

Ok, that is voiding or negating the text from it’s natural literal meaning.

Ok, so the question remains, then what does God mean when He says that He will/does repent from doing what He said and/or thought He would do?

If you can not or will not answer this simple question, then your conclusion that God never changes is shown for its inability to conform to scripture, and in fact, is shown contradicting it without reasonable justification. We all know about your doctrine of divine immutability, and that you reason support for that understanding from scripture. But if you can not reasonably harmonize the divine repentance scriptures to your divine immutability ideas, then it is your position that is demonstrated as insufficient at best.

Our view of God’s immutability is strictly according to God’s word as well. We affirm Gods (biblical) immutability without overstepping scripture’s unified, not contradictory nature.

The challenge is simple, if you believe that God does not change, then exegete/translate/explain the passages that say He does, and please start with my examples because of how succinct and contextually relevant they are.

Again, I believe the following to be an especially good demonstration of what we are dealing with. It is just an illustration, not meant to misrepresent what the closed theist thinks the passage means, but simply to demonstrate the glaring contrast between the closed view’s understanding compared to the open view.


[size=3.5]Question 1’s bible example[/size]

[size=4.5]Jonah’s Nineveh prophesy[/size]
(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.

[size=4.5]Jonah’s Nineveh prophesy[/size]
(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 ...?...?...?.

[size=3.5]Question 1[/size]


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:

And remember, saying that it is anthropomorphic or an anthropopathism, implies that you know what the figure means, understanding a figure means that you understand what the figure means. If you can not explain what the figure means, then you have no standing to say that it is such and such figure. Knowing it’s figurative also means you can explain the figure’s meaning and use.

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

Looking forward to your interpretation of Jonah 3:10 as requested.

 

[Z Man]

I'm impressed....keep it up!

I'm impressed....keep it up!

Originally posted by 1Way

So my question is not about anything other than what you think THOSE words mean when God says them. If they don’t mean what they literally/naturally say, then what does those exact same words mean?[/b]

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.

God did not destroy Ninevah like He said He would. Why? Because they repented.

I'm skeptical in using this term, because I don't want people taking this the wrong way or anything, but the way I see it is that God uses reverse pyschology on us. It's the same strategy we use on our children to get a desired effect from them. A parent may tell their child that if they do not behave in public, they will be punished. The child behaves, and the parent does not punish. It's the same strategy God used on Ninevah. He knew their hearts and ordained everything that took place. He wanted to not only teach Jonah a lesson, but to also have Ninevah repent. And His will was carried out because of God's threat against them if they did not repent. They repented, like God had ordained, and therefore the consequences that God had decreed to them would happen were "repented" by God. He no longer needed that "threat" to exist against Ninevah, since they had repented.

God is wiser than man, and His strategies are interpreted the only way that we know how to understand them. The author of the books that comment on God repenting used that word not to indicate that God is stupid concerning the future, or that God is constantly changing and unstable; but rather to show us that God is wise and His will is always carried out, regardless of how stubborn we think we may be. Ninevah may have said in their hearts that there was no way they would give up to God, but God knew otherwise. His strategy in getting them to repent was the best way that He saw fit in bringing about their repentance.

God knows what He is doing.

 

[1Way]

The bible conformity challenge for closed theists remains unanswered

The bible conformity challenge for closed theists remains unanswered

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.


[size=3.5]1 - “Hating” loved ones in order to be Christ’s disciple[/size]

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.


[size=3.5]2 - (Jacob) he “also loved” Rachel more than “Leah”[/size]

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.”


[size=3.5]3 - The answer to what this particular “hating” means[/size]

[size=3.5]The text should be interpreted as follows[/size]

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 when it literally says, “The text should be interpreted as follows” portion is required.

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

 

[1Way]

post 2 of 2

post 2 of 2

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 was her idea, but she implies that God was behind it, perhaps trying to make her efforts more righteous.

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.

It's a simple figure of speech meaning to love less than, or prefer less than, another, and this passage demonstrates the synonymous use quite clearly.

 

[Z Man]

Re: The bible conformity challenge for closed theists remains unanswered

Re: The bible conformity challenge for closed theists remains unanswered

Originally posted by 1Way

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 when it literally says, “The text should be interpreted as follows” portion is required.

I've done that already. I don't know what else to say to you. I've told you what I think that verse means concerning God repenting.

 

[1Way]

steps 2 and 3 remain undone

steps 2 and 3 remain undone

Z Man – You have done 2 things which are not compatible with anyone’s notion of sound biblical interpretation.

1) You quoted the verse, and then explained away the literal meaning, saying it does not mean what it literally says. That is called negating the meaning, or voiding scripture.

You can do that, I did it in my example. But, I didn’t stop there, I replaced the correct meaning as provided by scripture in my second step.

2) You have not replaced the meaning of the text that you voided.

You are fundamentally saying that the verse is figurative and not literal. Fine, then you are bound to exegete the passage, with this question in mind:

If the text does not mean what it says, then what does the text mean when it says what it says?

Suggesting that it is figurative is not sufficient to void the literal meaning. You must do what I did in parts 2 and 3 to show the reasonable biblical replacement for the text in question. For you to not do that removes all standing for saying that it is “not literal”, “it is figurative”. Again, I demonstrated this entire process for you even using a figure of speech so that you could model the same sort of treatment.

If you can not do this, then we all understand the problem in so doing as mentioned.

 

[1Way]

The challenge for the closed theist remains unanswered

The challenge for the closed theist remains unanswered

Z Man – It’s a simple multi step process.

1. a. Here is the scripture in question, but the text does not mean what it literally says.
   b. The problems with the literal meaning are such and such.
   
2. Here is God’s word demonstrating or otherwise providing reasonable support for the proper figurative use of the text in question.
   
3. Here is the proper exegesis for the text in question, the text is altered from it’s first literal reading, to the resulting biblically corrected figurative reading.

If you won’t demonstrate your view from scripture and replace the meaning of the text you void, then we understand your frustrations, but we do not sympathize nor condone such biblical irresponsibility.

 

[Z Man]

Re: steps 2 and 3 remain undone

Re: steps 2 and 3 remain undone

Originally posted by 1Way

If the text does not mean what it says, then what does the text mean when it says what it says?

It means exactly what it says. However, you take it and run with it, declaring that God "changes", and that He does not know the future, despite the fact that the bible says He does not change, and that He does know the future.

Here's your verse that explains what I mean by the definition of God repenting:

Nu 23:19
"God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent.

God does not repent, or change, as man does. God's repenting in Jonah was to get the desired effect that He ordained from Ninevah; repentance.

How many times do I have to say it before you'll realize that that is my answer?

 

[1Way]

it's gotta conform to God's word, anything less just wont do

it's gotta conform to God's word, anything less just wont do

Z Man – When in doubt, punt.

Since you are unable to provide a reasonable replacement meaning for the text in question, you have no grounds for voiding it of it’s literal meaning.

Such a simple request, yet the closed theist can not provide biblical support for their view. It’s a very sad state of affairs in the closed view camp, voiding scripture of meaning and then pretending like they do not.


Plainly, if you can not meet the simple requirement of

1a) demonstrating from scripture’s use,

1b) or providing a reasonable supporte argument from scripture for your view, (and)

2) replace the literal text with the figurative meaning,

then you have no grounds for voiding the literal meaning, and if you will not accept this,

... we understand your frustrations, but we do not sympathize nor condone such biblical irresponsibility.

 

[1Way]

It's not like you haven't heard this for a dozen times in a row

It's not like you haven't heard this for a dozen times in a row

Z Man – Did you think I was wrong in my demonstration of the figure about hate(d)? Please study it to glean the meaning and logic of it. God’s word is very forceful in meaning when you conform your faith to it, instead of attempting to do the opposite.

1) - If you did agree with my demonstration of the use of a figure of speech, then you acknowledge the appropriate need to “demonstrate” the non-literal interpretation from scripture, or if it is an isolated issue like a one time occurrence such that you can not find another scripture to demonstrate your view, then you must otherwise provide from scripture whatever biblically derived teaching necessary that clearly supports your view, and in the case of such an isolated occurrence, naturally without very strong and clear arguments from scripture, the requirement for a reasonable and convincing argument is even more compelling.

I was able to rely on a previous use of the same figure of speech, so my task was relatively easy, yet without doing all three steps, especially step 2, even though I might think I am in the right, I would have no standing to say that word hate was not to be taken literally. See, I am not just strict on you nor the closed theists, we are hard on everyone to stay in obedient reliance upon God and His word.

2) - Then, after determining valid support, you must make the proper alterations to the text.

Anything less, would be unacceptable.

Like I said, anyone can say that it does not mean what it plainly says, but anyone also knows that if you can not validate your reasoning and provide a cogent replacement meaning, then you have no standing for voiding the text of it’s literal meaning.

And don’t insult yourself by saying that you accept the literal meaning of the text, talk to more of your own why you are wrong in so doing, or, examine all your explanations of what the text means, you freely choose.

 

[Z Man]

Re: It's not like you haven't heard this for a dozen times in a row

Re: It's not like you haven't heard this for a dozen times in a row

Originally posted by 1Way

Z Man – Did you think I was wrong in my demonstration of the figure about hate(d)? Please study it to glean the meaning and logic of it. God’s word is very forceful in meaning when you conform your faith to it, instead of attempting to do the opposite.

1) - If you did agree with my demonstration of the use of a figure of speech, then you acknowledge the appropriate need to “demonstrate” the non-literal interpretation from scripture, or if it is an isolated issue like a one time occurrence such that you can not find another scripture to demonstrate your view, then you must otherwise provide from scripture whatever biblically derived teaching necessary that clearly supports your view, and in the case of such an isolated occurrence, naturally without very strong and clear arguments from scripture, the requirement for a reasonable and convincing argument is even more compelling.

I was able to rely on a previous use of the same figure of speech, so my task was relatively easy, yet without doing all three steps, especially step 2, even though I might think I am in the right, I would have no standing to say that word hate was not to be taken literally. See, I am not just strict on you nor the closed theists, we are hard on everyone to stay in obedient reliance upon God and His word.

2) - Then, after determining valid support, you must make the proper alterations to the text.

Anything less, would be unacceptable.

Like I said, anyone can say that it does not mean what it plainly says, but anyone also knows that if you can not validate your reasoning and provide a cogent replacement meaning, then you have no standing for voiding the text of it’s literal meaning.

And don’t insult yourself by saying that you accept the literal meaning of the text, talk to more of your own why you are wrong in so doing, or, examine all your explanations of what the text means, you freely choose.

This is why it's so frustrating to debate with you. I answer your questions, but because they are not up to your standards, they're wrong.

Your interpretation of the Bible is not the only way to interpret it. I've commented on my interpretation of the verses speaking of God repenting, and used biblical support as well. Yet you ignore my replies and repeatedly ask the same questions, over and over again, as if I won't be correct until I conform to your views.

I don't need a 3 page report on how to interpret the bible. Thanks for your thoughts and ideas on "hate" and the verses concerning "repentance", but as far as I'm concerned, you are avoiding elementary logic and sound biblical doctrine when you believe that God's repenting indicates that He changes to conform to our will. That's a false doctrine.

 

[Swordsman]

Re: Re: It's not like you haven't heard this for a dozen times in a row

Re: Re: It's not like you haven't heard this for a dozen times in a row

Originally posted by Z Man

This is why it's so frustrating to debate with you. I answer your questions, but because they are not up to your standards, they're wrong.

Your interpretation of the Bible is not the only way to interpret it. I've commented on my interpretation of the verses speaking of God repenting, and used biblical support as well. Yet you ignore my replies and repeatedly ask the same questions, over and over again, as if I won't be correct until I conform to your views.

I don't need a 3 page report on how to interpret the bible. Thanks for your thoughts and ideas on "hate" and the verses concerning "repentance", but as far as I'm concerned, you are avoiding elementary logic and sound biblical doctrine when you believe that God's repenting indicates that He changes to conform to our will. That's a false doctrine.

Z Man. Don't fret. The thing you have to remember is that its not up to those who believe in God's sovereignty to spell it out for those who do not. God's will shall come to pass. It did for my sake. I used to believe in conditional salvation (i.e. how I deserve to be saved) and the fact that I could change the will of God for my life. Boy, was I wrong. I like the saying by Rick Warren in his best seller "The Purpose Driven Life" - 'It's not about me.'

Just remember, the arminians or open theists will never really answer quotes of Scripture that defend the faith of God's indisputable sovereignty.

 

[1Way]

The closedview cannot conform to God’s openview teachings=they are mutually exclusive

The closedview cannot conform to God’s openview teachings=they are mutually exclusive

Z Man – 1) I am not saying you must believe like I believe, I am asking you to provide elementary biblical and rational support for your view of Jonah 3.10.

2 - I am not saying that you have not provided some biblical support for your view, I accept everything you have said as being in accordance to your position on this issue.

However, it is apparent that you have not answered an extremely basic bible interpretation conformity challenge. If you can not show sufficient reasonable biblical support for voiding the literal meaning, and give the “suitable” replacement meaning “of the text in question”, then you have “no grounds for saying it is not to be taken literally”.

Your inability to understand and conform to such a basic rule of interpretation is remarkably astounding and a serious shame.

• I demonstrated this entire process, not for you to believe what I believe, but so that you can understand the nature of what it means to easily and rightly establish a figure of speech straight from scripture.
  
• Your frustration is simple because you can not do what I easily did, because your understanding for why Jonah 3.10 should be taken figuratively is not derived primarily from scripture, but from manmade doctrines.

If you can’t or wont “sufficiently” and “consistently” demonstrate your view “from scripture”, then we understand you frustrations, but we do not sympathize nor condone such biblical irresponsibility.

3) As to Swordsman’s false allegation that we open theists can not ultimately answer the indisputable “God is sovereign” passages, your willful ignorance is well noted, there are no problems with easily understanding the truth when you are not trying to stuff scripture with a false overstated mindset saying that “God can not change in any way”.

The proof is in the pudding.

Anytime you closed theists want to come work for me, I will pay you $40/hour but not higher than $100/hour, and we will have a great time in so doing, the only catch is, when it comes time for me to actually pay you the wages we “literally” agreed upon, I’ll be using your variety of voiding the literal meaning of what was communicated, and replace it with a my own personal agenda regardless of the clear contextual development our words are naturally connected with. :thumb:

You see, anytime anyone else would void and not replace the literal meaning that you hold to be literal, you would never allow such a thing to happen, and you would say, if it does not mean what it literally says, then you must provide sufficient contextually relevant and reasonable support for saying so, otherwise, if you can not replace the literal message with it’s correct meaning, then you have no standing for saying it was figurative. Which is good when you do that, but, that is exactly what I have been asking you to do, but you will not do it.


The fact is that you are willfully neglecting and even contradicting scripture, voiding it of meaning, and replacing it with nothing. Doing so represents the sort of irresponsibility and violence that should never happen, and in all other areas, you would never allow such things yourself.


While there is life, there is hope

I truly hope that someday you will see the value in not voiding scripture of it’s meaning while at the same time not replacing that “same text” with appropriate sufficient contextually supported meaning. Until then the fact remains that you can not reasonably hold to your closed view in light of the reality that you can not support it without violating scripture via direct contradiction in arguably one of the most basic sorts of bible teachings possible.

Looking toward scripture and not tradition is the key

On the other hand, who am I to say such things, I demonstrated from God’s word the figure of speech about hatre(d), so now I’m somehow wrong for suggesting that such a model of interpreting God’s word from scripture should apply to the closed view, or any view for that matter. The inconsistency is (nearly) unbelievable, except that we have a long standing tradition from the errant closed view camp with hundreds of years of this sort of violence promoting. So the blame hardly stops with Z Man and Swordsman and Rolf etc.

I’ve done my job, I’ve shown a proper and sufficient biblical way to establish a figure’s use, and the closed view acts like they should somehow be exempt from such simple logical necessity.

The bible conformity challenge remains unanswered by the bible violating closed theists. :thumb:

 

[Swordsman]

Re: The closedview cannot conform to God’s openview teachings=they are mutually exclusive

Re: The closedview cannot conform to God’s openview teachings=they are mutually exclusive

Originally posted by 1Way

The bible conformity challenge remains unanswered by the bible violating closed theists. :thumb:

Let God be the judge.

I pray for those searching for the truth, to not take mine or anyone else's views here, but to pray to allow the Holy Spirit to show them the truth.

I'm still doing this.