ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[PKevman]

He's wrathful, because He's loving.

AMEN! His judgement and His wrath are directly tied into His love.

 

[patman]

I believe there is a lot of misunderstanding about the verse "God is not a man that he should repent."

We know from other verses that God says he will relent. So in this case we really need to read the full story.

1 Samuel 15

Saul was instructed by God to utterly destroy a near by king. Saul did not listen to God and allowed the king to live. So God says because Saul disobeyed, he shall no longer be king...

...but the punishment doesn't end there. When Saul made the decision to relent from killing King Agag, God was making the point that he wouldn't relent like Saul did.

28 So Samuel said to him, “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. 29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent. For He is not a man, that He should relent."

It must have been a true slap in the face for Saul. "You may spare the guilty from punishment, but I will not. I'm not a foolish man." Ouch.

So God punished him.

Furthermore he even regretted ever appointing Saul as king.

35B ...Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul, and the LORD regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel.

If you look at the KJV translation, we see something interesting:

9And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

35C ...and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

There is a righteous and an evil time to repent. God isn't a man that he picks the wrong time to repent(like Saul did).

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Oh and AMR, as Knight has so aptly pointed out, why not show how my interpretations are incorrect. You have never done so.

Never? I think you are forgetful and not following the thread closely.

A response to your question about scriptural proofs of time is here and here.
A response to one of your earlier erroneous interpretations appears here.

Knight is just too trigger happy. I posted replies to your most recent posts here, here, and here, minutes after the opener Knight was so taken with. (It does take me a few minutes to pull these together you know.)

Instead of assuming your "never" means I have not posted replies to your simplistic interpretations, I will give you an out to save face by assuming the "never" in your statement above means you have reviewed my posts and will "never" agree with them.

 

[godrulz]

Do you believe God is free to know what He chooses to know?

Most academic Open Theists would not agree with your twist on omniscience/omnipresence. Calvinists make too many verses anthropomorphic, but let us be careful to not make any of them so if the context justifies it.

An omniscient God (knows all that is logically knowable vs exhaustive definite foreknowledge) cannot chose to be ignorant of things that others know.

The reason that God knows some of the future as possible, not actual, is due to His choice to create other free moral agents. It is not a matter of Him chosing to be ignorant one day, but could chose to know the next day.

You are stretching Open Theism to an extreme. It will lead to more barriers from the other camp taking our views seriously.

God cannot Judge all evil, thoughts, and motives, if He could be ignorant of blatant sin in the world (funny how the people and Satan can know, but an omniscient God who is aware of all possible objects of knowledge is ignorant!?).

 

[godrulz]

GOD DID NOT DIE. GOD IS NOT DEAD. WHAT KIND OF LAME BRAINED STATEMENT IS THAT.

The infinite, triune God did not die, but the Word became flesh (who is God) did die. Jesus is God in the flesh, one person with two natures. In His humanity, He could and did die. In His preexistence, He could not die. Jesus died, not the Father or Holy Spirit.

Your rejection of the biblical Deity of Christ and triune nature of God has led you to rudely shout at us true believers. Shoo fly, don't bother me.

 

[godrulz]

Curious how so many of the open theists who are regularly posting to this thread, and who never hesitate to post in opposition to classical theists, and do not deny God's immanence/omnipresence are now suddenly silent.:think:

Speaks volumes about the willingness of some to challenge their own, like PK, when they know them to be spreading ill-formed doctrine. Tells me that this is not a thread that purports to discuss open theism, but merely a thread to denounce opponents to open theism.

The Enyart/TOL views on omniscience/omnipresence are not necessarily those of guys like Boyd, Sanders, Pinnock (I think he has a concept that God has a form, so not classical), Hasker, etc.

I admit that I have a better grasp on omniscience (OT view) then I do with omnipresence (most OT hold to classical view here).

 

[elected4ever]

The infinite, triune God did not die, but the Word became flesh (who is God) did die. Jesus is God in the flesh, one person with two natures. In His humanity, He could and did die. In His preexistence, He could not die. Jesus died, not the Father or Holy Spirit.

Your rejection of the biblical Deity of Christ and triune nature of God has led you to rudely shout at us true believers. Shoo fly, don't bother me.

There is no infinite triune god anywhere but your imagination. You a true believer? ha! You who says that God is ignorant? You who says God is schizoid? In a pigs eye. Isn't it you also that says that salvation is not a completed work of God but that man can opt out of son ship if things get a little tough? It is you who has God dieing in you misapplied doctrine of Jesus being God instead of the Son of God which He was. Yes, Jesus died and the Father (God) raised Him from the dead. That in itself should tell you that Jesus is not God. Jesus has nothing that He has not received from the Father. Who is the ignorant one around here? You or God? I think that be you!

 

[Lon]

One of us admitted he had a hard time even making a statement about time not existing without using words that describe time.

One of us doesn't have that problem.

Therefore, one of us should see a giant red flag and it isn't me.

Let me ask you a question.....

Assuming we both agree that God has existed forever into the past, which of the following statements is most accurate....?

A. God has existed a infinite amount of time into the past.
B. God has existed a finite amount of time into the past.

Neither, as 'time' is a perception of segmented duration. Statement #1 is closer in that it may be recognized that the segments continue forever, but this does not express accurately something that is endless (segment vs. nonending).

A logical box in theology does not a right truth make. Try again. Try and explain exactly an eternal past using time and duration. You'll not be able to do it.

 

[Lon]

Neither, as 'time' is a perception of segmented duration. Statement #1 is closer in that it may be recognized that the segments continue forever, but this does not express accurately something that is endless (segment vs. nonending).

A logical box in theology does not a right truth make. Try again. Try and explain exactly an eternal past using time and duration. You'll not be able to do it.

P.S. THAT avatar is my favorite by far "Melvin."

 

[Delmar]

I don't what to go down yet another path while focused upon the incorrect interpretations of PK. The short answer is that God is "all" of all His characteristics. He is not less wrathful than He is loving. He is not less loving than He is wrathful. One characteristic does not cancel or mitigate the other. One is not held to abrogate the other. God is perfect in all things.

God is perfect to be sure, but He was not "all loving" to the people of Sodom.

 

[Lon]

Now if you can just produce the Scriptures that articulate when God created time, then you would have made your case sufficiently..........

Time is a 'conception' of progress and duration: our own duration and all other created things. It does not follow that this progression, which is limited and segmented, can be applied to the eternal. If you cannot measure something, it cannot be measured. God cannot be measured and all our 'concept' of time is, is a measurement. 1) it is segmented (a small glimpse compared to vastness).
2) Limited: you only get a part of the measurement 3) is physically invented by us (hours, feet, decimals) therefore meaningfully random. 4) therefore a created concept. Measuring isn't bad, but we need to see its limitations. It is limited.

At a point where our measurement ends (segments have two points, and all measurement is segment and only applies to segment) at the point where measurement ends, and a plane extends beyond the edge (a ray) measurement stops having meaning (mathematics, algebra/geometry/calculus). In the measurement called time (mathematics) if we come to a time ray that extends forever, we also recognize that measurement is unable to express the ray.
Because this is the case with God never having a beginning, it is mathematically impossible to apply a measured duration to such a concept, therefore we say that God is 'timeless.' In mathematical terms, we have to use substitution for 'infinity' because it cannot be expressed with anything but a symbol. Any equation stemming from a propositions as such stands alone. There is no mathematical expression of the infinite. God is timeless.

 

[Clete]

Some things are very basic. In those we understand the truth, which is why AMR was upset about a discussion with MD where we are supposed to be essentially in agreement.

There are also some truths that we must take on faith and trust God for. I believe in our immutable discussion, such is the case. God says of Himself he does not repent, and about four verses later we see "God sighed deeply over having made Saul king." We must recognize both truthes as given and 'if' we cannot reconcile the difference as a truth from God directly, we may definitely lean more one way than the other (difference between OV and nonOV), but if it is derivative piecing together rather than imperically given, we should be both hesitant in incorporating it into our solid systematic theology, and also careful and truthful to recognize the dichotomy. I live with these dichotomies specifically because I don't want my theology a creation of my own mind and/or delusion. For me, a theology that accounts for dichotomy is the most honest and keeps us humbly in a place that says "I'm wholly dependent upon God."

We absolutely know there is only one way: Jesus. We absolutely know we should be producing fruit of righteousness. We absolutely know we should love all mankind, even our enemies. One may picket an inappropriate act and another may try to befriend the perpetrator in hopes of bringing that one to Jesus, but that is simply the how, the heart issues for us both are the same. We are in essential agreement and devotion.

The theological issues that divide us take a much more careful tread, and it is these where I also agree, it becomes difficult, but I didn't want the blanket statement to carry over to essential agreements. We know much and share those truths in common. We are talking about transcendant things, and that assessment is exactly right, we need to recognize that some of our discussion is hitting a ceiling in our capacity (like God having no beginning).

In Him

Lon

How do "we absolutely know there is only one way: Jesus"?

That is not a rhetorical question Lon. I really want for you to answer it, please.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Philetus]

Time is a 'conception' of progress and duration: our own duration and all other created things. It does not follow that this progression, which is limited and segmented, can be applied to the eternal. If you cannot measure something, it cannot be measured. God cannot be measured and all our 'concept' of time is, is a measurement. 1) it is segmented (a small glimpse compared to vastness).
2) Limited: you only get a part of the measurement 3) is physically invented by us (hours, feet, decimals) therefore meaningfully random. 4) therefore a created concept. Measuring isn't bad, but we need to see its limitations. It is limited.

At a point where our measurement ends (segments have two points, and all measurement is segment and only applies to segment) at the point where measurement ends, and a plane extends beyond the edge (a ray) measurement stops having meaning (mathematics, algebra/geometry/calculus). In the measurement called time (mathematics) if we come to a time ray that extends forever, we also recognize that measurement is unable to express the ray.
Because this is the case with God never having a beginning, it is mathematically impossible to apply a measured duration to such a concept, therefore we say that God is 'timeless.' In mathematical terms, we have to use substitution for 'infinity' because it cannot be expressed with anything but a symbol. Any equation stemming from a propositions as such stands alone. There is no mathematical expression of the infinite. God is timeless.

So “time is a ‘conception’ of progress and duration [that cannot] be applied to the eternal.” Then creation exists outside of timelessness and time is an illusion? So how does the infinite God relate to the finite? God has created a measurable world and caused a sequence of events that can indeed be measured or else it is a creation with more illusion than reality; illusions of freedom and divine involvement. (i.e. Calvinism) Timelessness leads to dismissal of all kinds of realities as illusion. Your view has as many problems as the one you argue against. When did God do so? Is it even possible for God to measure creation? When can a timeless God act in time? Why would a timeless God give the impression that He was actually involved in time? If God were timeless, wouldn't the bible be more accurate to simply remain silent and not use such confusing terms?

I grant that divine eternal duration (from everlasting past) has its logical problems for us. Yet those are not the concerns that affect us in any way at all. I can live with the mystery of God beginning to act because I believe God has infinite potentiality to do so. But if timelessness is the present reality of God then duration even in creation is a joke. Even if God has created time then it is in time (not from timelessness) that God must relate to His creation or time is reduced to no more than chimera. Equally, if God is to make Himself know to creation in a way creatures can ultimately understand, He must do so in the flesh and that flesh continues in a resurrected, glorified state.

I think Patman almost got at the real issue. WHY would God ‘be sorry’ He had made Saul King? WHY would the bible say that God repents? If not for the reality of time (sequence/duration) in creation and God’s real time relating to it … WHY INDEED?. Was it merely a biblical statement to preserve our delusion of God's actual involvement in an on going struggle to accomplish His goals for His people? I think not. I’ll live with the difficulties of both an open-ended past (God without beginning), a real beginning for creation, and a partially open future for the sake of reality. God is (at least) no longer timeless with regard to His creation.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Most academic Open Theists would not agree with your twist on omniscience/omnipresence. Calvinists make too many verses anthropomorphic, but let us be careful to not make any of them so if the context justifies it.

An omniscient God (knows all that is logically knowable vs exhaustive definite foreknowledge) cannot chose to be ignorant of things that others know.

The reason that God knows some of the future as possible, not actual, is due to His choice to create other free moral agents. It is not a matter of Him choosing to be ignorant one day, but could chose to know the next day.

You are stretching Open Theism to an extreme. It will lead to more barriers from the other camp taking our views seriously.

God cannot Judge all evil, thoughts, and motives, if He could be ignorant of blatant sin in the world (funny how the people and Satan can know, but an omniscient God who is aware of all possible objects of knowledge is ignorant!?).

I appreciate the perspective here, but as you have expressed God's omniscience, a conundrum arises.

How is the atonement of Christ for sin, decreed before the foundations of the world, reconciled with your observation above that God only knows the sins of free agents once they commit these sins? God's foreknowledge must have included knowledge of the sins of these free agents, else why would He have ordained the atonement in the first place? Or was God just "hedging His bets" ("knowing some of the future") just in case His free agents would act badly? This would make God a cosmic handicapper, no?

 

[Lon]

How do "we absolutely know there is only one way: Jesus"?

That is not a rhetorical question Lon. I really want for you to answer it, please.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Scripture. God's direct revelation. John 14:6 You believe the same thing here.

Obviously there are truths so clear they cannot be missed. Do you see dichotomy somewhere on this? Why ask something we both understand to be true?

Are we back to one-liner questions and one-liner answers? Say it. Spend time here. Expand on it. These can so easily rabbit-trail into meaninglessness, so you know I don't prefer the one-line approach.

 

[Lon]

So “time is a ‘conception’ of progress and duration [that cannot] be applied to the eternal.” Then creation exists outside of timelessness and time is an illusion? So how does the infinite God relate to the finite? God has created a measurable world and caused a sequence of events that can indeed be measured or else it is a creation with more illusion than reality; illusions of freedom and divine involvement. (i.e. Calvinism) Timelessness leads to dismissal of all kinds of realities as illusion. Your view has as many problems as the one you argue against. When did God do so? Is it even possible for God to measure creation? When can a timeless God act in time? Why would a timeless God give the impression that He was actually involved in time? If God were timeless, wouldn't the bible be more accurate to simply remain silent and not use such confusing terms?

He is involved in time. This is a faulty assumption that one who understands this would not see Him relational.
I'll try again. A father building his house gives his son a small tape measure. The son's tape is only 3 feet long. He sits there beside his father and measures the boards. The father has a tape measure 110 foot long: he can measure both what his son is measuring and what he needs to measure accurately.
As God's creation, we have the 3foot tape measure.

I grant that divine eternal duration (from everlasting past) has its logical problems for us. Yet those are not the concerns that affect us in any way at all. I can live with the mystery of God beginning to act because I believe God has infinite potentiality to do so. But if timelessness is the present reality of God then duration even in creation is a joke. Even if God has created time then it is in time (not from timelessness) that God must relate to His creation or time is reduced to no more than chimera. Equally, if God is to make Himself know to creation in a way creatures can ultimately understand, He must do so in the flesh and that flesh continues in a resurrected, glorified state.

It is the same kind of question however. It isn't measurable by our increments.
In the same way that father can measure what his son does, God is relational to us. He understands our measurements. He has even given some of these ways of measuring to us (day and night). The problem is that it cannot measure God who is infinite and eternal. This is a true concept. Time is a measure of a segment, it cannot measure the infinite.

I think Patman almost got at the real issue. WHY would God ‘be sorry’ He had made Saul King? WHY would the bible say that God repents? If not for the reality of time (sequence/duration) in creation and God’s real time relating to it … WHY INDEED?. Was it merely a biblical statement to preserve our delusion of God's actual involvement in an on going struggle to accomplish His goals for His people? I think not. I’ll live with the difficulties of both an open-ended past (God without beginning), a real beginning for creation, and a partially open future for the sake of reality. God is (at least) no longer timeless with regard to His creation.

On this we'd agree. Relation is a tie to our time. It has to be, but my contention is that He isn't limited to that. All His measurements are infinite. He absolutely cares enough about us to mark beside us in measurement as the carpenter father/son analogy. When the son calls up "Three feet" on everything, I envision the father smiling. He is relational, but He isn't only relational. He is transcendant, but not only transcendant.

The carpenter is capable of building the house, the son is not. He transcends his son's ability, but he is relational to that son.

 

[Lon]

God does not repent as a man repents in that He needs to repent of sin. God is sinless, and so He doesn't repent in that respect. But REPEATEDLY in Scriptures we see that God repents. Repent is to have a change of mind. God can and does frequently change His mind in Scripture.

From Strong's:

נחם
nâcham
A primitive root; properly to sigh, that is, breathe strongly; by implication to be sorry, that is, (in a favorable sense) to pity, console or (reflexively) rue; or (unfavorably) to avenge (oneself): - comfort (self), ease [one’s self], repent (-er, -ing, self).

Note with me one (1) definition is to repent. Your translations given do translate it as 'repent' or 'relent' for 'to sigh' doesn't explain why God is doing it.

"God was exasperated He'd made Saul king" could be interpretated that He lost control, and we want to avoid that.

"God sighed heavily over making Saul king" seems a little grandmotherly.

So 'repent' is used, but it also leads to the problematic you are bringing up. There is a relational response, but we must be careful in how we equate that. A mind change isn't explicitly stated and we should be careful of our exegesis to not go beyond those texts. "Change of mind," is a colloquial expression rather than a formal term, so also needs to be expounded with clarity. We actually don't ever swap our minds. We may decide differently based on interjection for relational influence, and God is certainly moved by our prayers and petitions. However, as I say, God knows all future and intent of the heart, so that the way He does this is much different that the way you or I do it, thus: "God is not a man...."

 

[Nathon Detroit]

...so that the way He does this is much different that the way you or I do it, thus: "God is not a man...."

:sigh:

Gen 6:4-9 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. 5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord repented [it repented the LORD] that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I repent that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. 9 This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God.

Ex 32:9-14 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. 11 Then Moses pleaded with the Lord his God, and said: Lord, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, `He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and repent from this harm to Your people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever. 14 So the Lord repented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.

Jud 2:18 And when the Lord raised up judges for them, the Lord was with the judge and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for the Lord repented because of their groaning because of those who oppressed them and harassed them.

1 Sa 15:11,29,35 I repent that I have set up Saul as king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed My commandments. And it grieved Samuel, and he cried out to the Lord all night. 29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent. For He is not a man, that He should repent. 35 And Samuel went no more to see Saul until the day of his death. Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul, and the Lord repented that He had made Saul king over Israel.

2 Sa 24:16And when the angel stretched out His hand over Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord repented from the destruction, and said to the angel who was destroying the people, It is enough; now restrain your hand.

1 Chr 21:1,15 Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel. 15 And God sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it. As he was destroying, the Lord looked and repented of the disaster, and said to the angel who was destroying, It is enough; now restrain your hand. And the angel of the Lord stood by the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.
Psa 90:13 Return, O Lord! How long? And [repent concerning] Your servants.

Psa 106:45 And for their sake He remembered His covenant and repented according to the multitude of His mercies.

Jer 4:28 For this shall the earth mourn and the heavens above be black because I have spoken. I have purposed and will not repent, nor will I turn back from it.

Jer 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!

Jer 18:7-10 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, I will repent 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 repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

Jer 20:16 And let that man be like the cities which the Lord overthrew, and did not repent; Let him hear the cry in the morning and the shouting at noon.

Jer 26:3,13,19 Perhaps everyone will listen and turn from his evil way, that I may repent concerning the calamity which I purpose to bring on them because of the evil of their doings. 13 Now therefore, amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your God; then the Lord will repent concerning the doom that He has pronounced against you. 19 Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah ever put him to death? Did he not fear the Lord and seek the Lords favor? And the Lord repented concerning the doom which He had pronounced against them. But we are doing great evil against ourselves.

Jer 42:10 If you will still remain in this land, then I will build you and not pull you down, and I will plant you and not pluck you up. For I repent concerning the disaster that I have brought upon you.

Eze 24:14 I, the Lord, have spoken it; It shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not hold back, Nor will I spare, Nor will I repent; According to your ways and according to your deeds they will judge you, says the Lord God.

Joel 2:13,14 So rend your heart, and not your garments; Return to the Lord your God, For He is gracious and merciful, Slow to anger, and of great kindness; And He repents from doing harm. 14 Who knows if He will turn and repent, and leave a blessing behind Him – A grain offering and a drink offering for the Lord your God?

Amos 7:3-6 So the Lord repented concerning this. It shall not be, said the Lord. 4 Thus the Lord God showed me: Behold, the Lord God called for conflict by fire, and it consumed the great deep and devoured the territory. 5 Then I said: O Lord God, cease, I pray! Oh, that Jacob may stand, For he is small! 6 So the Lord repented concerning this. This also shall not be, said the Lord God.

Jon 3:9-4:2 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, 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 repented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. 4:1 But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he became angry. 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.

Zec 8:14,15 For thus says the Lord of hosts: Just as I determined to punish you when your fathers provoked Me to wrath, says the Lord of hosts, and I would not repent, 15 so again in these days I am determined to do good to Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.

 

[themuzicman]

I appreciate the perspective here, but as you have expressed God's omniscience, a conundrum arises.

How is the atonement of Christ for sin, decreed before the foundations of the world, reconciled with your observation above that God only knows the sins of free agents once they commit these sins? God's foreknowledge must have included knowledge of the sins of these free agents, else why would He have ordained the atonement in the first place? Or was God just "hedging His bets" ("knowing some of the future") just in case His free agents would act badly? This would make God a cosmic handicapper, no?

No. Propitiation is for all sins (1 John 2:2). A specific list is not necessary.

Muz

 

[Lon]

Knight, all these are the same Hebrew word ( נחם
nâcham) 'to sigh.'