ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Nathon Detroit]

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

The Hebrew word nacham means repent.

After all Lon, you use the word nacham to mean repent in 1st Samuel 15:29 right?

1 Samuel 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.​

Lon, notice how you want your cake and you want to eat it as well? You try to tell us that nacham means "to sigh" (as if that would somewhow help your point) in the dozens of verses where God repents, yet nacham means "repent" in couple verses where God doesn't repent. Your bias for your own theology hurts your credibility.

The settled viewer interprets the word "nacham" to squeeze into his preconceived theology, while the open viewer justly interprets the nacham as written.

The answer to 1st Samuel 15 (and the word "nacham") is simple if you have not ax to grind.

I Samuel 15... the "repent sandwich".

Here we find two verses stating God repented wrapped around one verse stating He won't repent. So what does it all mean?

1Samuel 15:11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king

1Samuel 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

1Samuel 15:35 ...and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

It's pretty simple really... God repented that He made Saul king (God changed His mind about making Saul king). Saul begged God to pardon him. God said nope I am NOT repenting on my judgement against Saul. Finally God reiterated and affirmed that He repented from making Saul king.

A classic example of God demonstrating His ability to repent yet also His ability to not repent on specific judgments if He so chooses.​

 

[Stripe]

Awesome post Knight!

 

[Lon]

The Hebrew word nacham means repent.

After all Lon, you use the word nacham to mean repent in 1st Samuel 15:29 right?

1 Samuel 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.​

Lon, notice how you want your cake and you want to eat it as well? You try to tell us that nacham means "to sigh" (as if that would somewhow help your point) in the dozens of verses where God repents, yet nacham means "repent" in couple verses where God doesn't repent. Your bias for your own theology hurts your credibility.

The settled viewer interprets the word "nacham" to squeeze into his preconceived theology, while the open viewer justly interprets the nacham as written.

The answer to 1st Samuel 15 (and the word "nacham") is simple if you have not ax to grind.

I Samuel 15... the "repent sandwich".

Here we find two verses stating God repented wrapped around one verse stating He won't repent. So what does it all mean?

1Samuel 15:11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king

1Samuel 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

1Samuel 15:35 ...and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

It's pretty simple really... God repented that He made Saul king (God changed His mind about making Saul king). Saul begged God to pardon him. God said nope I am NOT repenting on my judgement against Saul. Finally God reiterated and affirmed that He repented from making Saul king.

A classic example of God demonstrating His ability to repent yet also His ability to not repent on specific judgments if He so chooses.​

How can it be simple when right there in the middle is the statement that He doesn't repent? Yes, PK sought to address this question, but it steers us back to our perceptions. Clearly Samuel did not see a discrepancy here. That Hebrew words have several meanings and a broad conveyance leads to a dichotomy in
our perception. If there was some kind of problem with the terms, we'd expect Samuel to have used a different word or convey this more clearly.

Repent also has a bit of this in discussion. It doesn't lead to 'change in one's mind' but a 'turning away.' Relationally, when two people are expressing emotion to one another toward an action (love or violence, for example), another can come in and steer the action away. It doesn't necessarily change the feelings of the two involved. God can turn away from an action in response, because He is relational, but at the point in which God is infinite, we see the dichotomy: "If God knew, why is it seen as a change?" This is my only point for this discussion. It is asking a question that is locked into a time frame and formed from a time conscious consideration of 'when?' This affects our immutable view of God (what precisely is changeable, what is not). It affects our view of omniscience (if He changed His mind, what didn't He know?), His righteousness (If He is right in all His ways, why would His actions need redirection?). In effect, our answers are directly derived from our premise, and this consideration effects all areas of who God is to us.

 

[Lighthouse]

How can it be simple when right there in the middle is the statement that He doesn't repent? Yes, PK sought to address this question, but it steers us back to our perceptions. Clearly Samuel did not see a discrepancy here. That Hebrew words have several meanings and a broad conveyance leads to a dichotomy in
our perception. If there was some kind of problem with the terms, we'd expect Samuel to have used a different word or convey this more clearly.

Repent also has a bit of this in discussion. It doesn't lead to 'change in one's mind' but a 'turning away.' Relationally, when two people are expressing emotion to one another toward an action (love or violence, for example), another can come in and steer the action away. It doesn't necessarily change the feelings of the two involved. God can turn away from an action in response, because He is relational, but at the point in which God is infinite, we see the dichotomy: "If God knew, why is it seen as a change?" This is my only point for this discussion. It is asking a question that is locked into a time frame and formed from a time conscious consideration of 'when?' This affects our immutable view of God (what precisely is changeable, what is not). It affects our view of omniscience (if He changed His mind, what didn't He know?), His righteousness (If He is right in all His ways, why would His actions need redirection?). In effect, our answers are directly derived from our premise, and this consideration effects all areas of who God is to us.

He doesn't repent as a man repents. But He still repents!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

How can it be simple when right there in the middle is the statement that He doesn't repent?

Because He isn't going to repent from that specific judgment!

He isn't going to Pardon Saul this time!

Maybe you don't agree with Open Theism but can you at least acknowledge that?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

In light of open view theology anyone can read 1st Samuel 15 in the most plain, simple, and straightforward manner....

God repented that He made Saul King....

1Samuel 15:10 Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying, 11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.

Saul begs Samuel and asks that God pardon him.

1Samuel 15:24 And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice. 25 Now therefore, I pray thee, pardon my sin, and turn again with me, that I may worship the LORD.

But Samuel says... "nope!" God is not going to repent and pardon you.

1Samuel 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

Then God affirms that He repented that He made Saul King.

1Samuel 15:35 And Samuel came 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. ​

 

[elected4ever]

The Hebrew word nacham means repent.

After all Lon, you use the word nacham to mean repent in 1st Samuel 15:29 right?

1 Samuel 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.​

Lon, notice how you want your cake and you want to eat it as well? You try to tell us that nacham means "to sigh" (as if that would somewhow help your point) in the dozens of verses where God repents, yet nacham means "repent" in couple verses where God doesn't repent. Your bias for your own theology hurts your credibility.

The settled viewer interprets the word "nacham" to squeeze into his preconceived theology, while the open viewer justly interprets the nacham as written.

The answer to 1st Samuel 15 (and the word "nacham") is simple if you have not ax to grind.

I Samuel 15... the "repent sandwich".

Here we find two verses stating God repented wrapped around one verse stating He won't repent. So what does it all mean?

1Samuel 15:11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king

1Samuel 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

1Samuel 15:35 ...and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

It's pretty simple really... God repented that He made Saul king (God changed His mind about making Saul king). Saul begged God to pardon him. God said nope I am NOT repenting on my judgement against Saul. Finally God reiterated and affirmed that He repented from making Saul king.

A classic example of God demonstrating His ability to repent yet also His ability to not repent on specific judgments if He so chooses.​

I think that to use the common understanding of the word repent as it pertains to God is wrong. Where you and I repent for example it means to turn about. To change one's mind and go in the opposite direction. We know that a thief has repented because he doesn't steal anymore.

When God repents it is not that God changed his mind and unchoose what He has chosen. It does reflect God's emotion in that God is capable of regret. That is an emotional response. I have no problem with an emotional God. After all He is loving, tenderhearted , kind, gentle, long sufferings and so on. He is as vengeful and capable of hate as He is love and affection. That is a wide range of emotion in anybodies book.

What is fascinating is that God continues His plan even in the face of the opposition of man. It is not pleasing to God when man chooses against His will but the effect does not change God.That is what is implied by some. A person who repents is not what He once was, where when God repents He does not cease to be what He always is.

 

[PKevman]

The Hebrew word nacham means repent.

After all Lon, you use the word nacham to mean repent in 1st Samuel 15:29 right?

1 Samuel 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.​

Lon, notice how you want your cake and you want to eat it as well? You try to tell us that nacham means "to sigh" (as if that would somewhow help your point) in the dozens of verses where God repents, yet nacham means "repent" in couple verses where God doesn't repent. Your bias for your own theology hurts your credibility.

The settled viewer interprets the word "nacham" to squeeze into his preconceived theology, while the open viewer justly interprets the nacham as written.

The answer to 1st Samuel 15 (and the word "nacham") is simple if you have not ax to grind.

I Samuel 15... the "repent sandwich".

Here we find two verses stating God repented wrapped around one verse stating He won't repent. So what does it all mean?

1Samuel 15:11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king

1Samuel 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

1Samuel 15:35 ...and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

It's pretty simple really... God repented that He made Saul king (God changed His mind about making Saul king). Saul begged God to pardon him. God said nope I am NOT repenting on my judgement against Saul. Finally God reiterated and affirmed that He repented from making Saul king.

A classic example of God demonstrating His ability to repent yet also His ability to not repent on specific judgments if He so chooses.​

Flawless brother! :up: Very well said indeed!

 

[Lighthouse]

I think that to use the common understanding of the word repent as it pertains to God is wrong. Where you and I repent for example it means to turn about. To change one's mind and go in the opposite direction. We know that a thief has repented because he doesn't steal anymore.

When God repents it is not that God changed his mind and unchoose what He has chosen. It does reflect God's emotion in that God is capable of regret. That is an emotional response. I have no problem with an emotional God. After all He is loving, tenderhearted , kind, gentle, long sufferings and so on. He is as vengeful and capable of hate as He is love and affection. That is a wide range of emotion in anybodies book.

What is fascinating is that God continues His plan even in the face of the opposition of man. It is not pleasing to God when man chooses against His will but the effect does not change God.That is what is implied by some. A person who repents is not what He once was, where when God repents He does not cease to be what He always is.

You can't even make up your mind. The home really should not allow you to play on the computer.:nono:

 

[PKevman]

The Hebrew word nacham means repent.

After all Lon, you use the word nacham to mean repent in 1st Samuel 15:29 right?

1 Samuel 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.​

Lon, notice how you want your cake and you want to eat it as well? You try to tell us that nacham means "to sigh" (as if that would somewhow help your point) in the dozens of verses where God repents, yet nacham means "repent" in couple verses where God doesn't repent. Your bias for your own theology hurts your credibility.

The settled viewer interprets the word "nacham" to squeeze into his preconceived theology, while the open viewer justly interprets the nacham as written.

The answer to 1st Samuel 15 (and the word "nacham") is simple if you have not ax to grind.

I Samuel 15... the "repent sandwich".

Here we find two verses stating God repented wrapped around one verse stating He won't repent. So what does it all mean?

1Samuel 15:11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king

1Samuel 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

1Samuel 15:35 ...and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

It's pretty simple really... God repented that He made Saul king (God changed His mind about making Saul king). Saul begged God to pardon him. God said nope I am NOT repenting on my judgement against Saul. Finally God reiterated and affirmed that He repented from making Saul king.

A classic example of God demonstrating His ability to repent yet also His ability to not repent on specific judgments if He so chooses.​

This gets the PK SPOTD! :first:

 

[Philetus]

Knight nailed the sandwich thing! God is not man that he NEEDS to repent. God repents when he chooses ... and in this case it was for mercy's sake toward Israel, but not toward Saul. Why? Saul was exercising his own independent will in opposition to God’s and God just ran out of patience with him. Why? Saul blew it one to many times. Israel was more important than Saul. But even then, in patience God allowed Saul to destroy himself. God had a back up plan ... another king in the wings. That was no compromise on God's part even though it caused all kinds of havoc in the neighborhood for mortals.

How can it be simple when right there in the middle is the statement that He doesn't repent? Yes, PK sought to address this question, but it steers us back to our perceptions. Clearly Samuel did not see a discrepancy here. That Hebrew words have several meanings and a broad conveyance leads to a dichotomy in our perception. If there was some kind of problem with the terms, we'd expect Samuel to have used a different word or convey this more clearly.

And if our starting point is wrong????? ... we have to force the interpretation or dismiss the verse. If your expectation of scripture were reasonable we wouldn't even be having any discussion about its meaning ... ever!

Repent also has a bit of this in discussion. It doesn't lead to 'change in one's mind' but a 'turning away.' Relationally, when two people are expressing emotion to one another toward an action (love or violence, for example), another can come in and steer the action away. It doesn't necessarily change the feelings of the two involved. God can turn away from an action in response, because He is relational, but at the point in which God is infinite, we see the dichotomy: "If God knew, why is it seen as a change?" This is my only point for this discussion. It is asking a question that is locked into a time frame and formed from a time conscious consideration of 'when?' This affects our immutable view of God (what precisely is changeable, what is not). It affects our view of omniscience (if He changed His mind, what didn't He know?), His righteousness (If He is right in all His ways, why would His actions need redirection?). In effect, our answers are directly derived from our premise, and this consideration effects all areas of who God is to us.

Exactly! But in the case of righteousness God can remain absolutely righteous and change His mind and future actions in light of changing circumstances (like Saul's sin). Saul can blow-up; God remains faithful. Big God!

You are at at least half right: it affects our understanding of who God is to us (yet doesn't lessen God's being in the least) but even more important ... it affects WHO WE ARE TO GOD!

God's significant other,
Philetus

 

[Philetus]

You can't even make up your mind. The home really should not allow you to play on the computer.:nono:

Another's POTD pick ..... :rotfl:

(I gotta spread it around some more.) Funny line. Your light is on full bright with this one.

 

[Philetus]

What is fascinating is that God continues His plan even in the face of the opposition of man. It is not pleasing to God when man chooses against His will but the effect does not change God.That is what is implied by some. A person who repents is not what He once was, where when God repents He does not cease to be what He always is.

WHO IMPLIED THAT? LET'S GET THAT LOSER! :loser:

God continues His over all plan but dumps Saul and opts for David. That doesn't change God ... nor does that change God's overall direction and ultimate purposes. It does change who is and who isn't included in the accomplishment of those purposes. God doesn't cease to be what He always is because Saul or anybody else sins and disqualifies himself from being an instrument for accomplishing God's purpose.

 

[Nang]

WHO IMPLIED THAT? LET'S GET THAT LOSER! :loser:

God continues His over all plan but dumps Saul and opts for David. That doesn't change God ... nor does that change God's overall direction and ultimate purposes. It does change who is and who isn't included in the accomplishment of those purposes. God doesn't cease to be what He always is because Saul or anybody else sins and disqualifies himself from being an instrument for accomplishing God's purpose.

Well, I am glad you fellas are having a good day, and enjoying all the happy back-thumping, but unfortunately, your human and finite definitions of words, lead you to wrong conclusions, which forces an erroneous (and blasphemous, IMO) premise; that being:

God is changeable, variable, and unpredictable.

God is not all in all, and does not know it all.

God is often wrong.

How you can live with that description of God Almighty, is beyond me . . .but to each his own.

But do not be surprised that those of us who hold that God is . . . immutable, all in all, knowing all, while always perfectly righteous in His ways . . . do not agree with your conclusions, nor your definitions, nor do we respect your self-contratulatory attitudes.

Nang

 

[Lon]

There is so much self-congratulatory that I can only assume that it is hitting a core problem.

It is almost like you can see all the OVers holding their breath.

My desire is not to win a debate here, but if there is a truth to be seen here, it has to be recognized.

I have no problem with repentance on God's part. I believe e4 and Philetus actually used similar words to what I'd have used. God doesn't repent like we do. That much is certain. Again the Hebrew is to sigh. The root word means exactly that.

Vine's says it this way:

In the OT, "repentance" with reference to sin is not so prominent as that change of mind or purpose, out of pity for those who have been affected by one's action, or in whom the results of the action have not fulfilled expectations, a "repentance" attributed both to God and to man, e.g., Gen_6:6; Exo_32:14 (that this does not imply anything contrary to God's immutability, but that the aspect of His mind is changed toward an object that has itself changed,

You consciously or inadvertently are trying to change the subject focus. We were talking about time, and while this particular touches down the rabbit trail upon His relation to us in time, it does not touch upon the fact that God is timeless.

(Knight, yes, with Philetus' and E4's comments, I agree)

 

[Nang]

There is so much self-congratuatory that I can only assume that it is hitting a core problem.

It is my opinion that the core problem of the OV, is that it proves to be illogical. One cannot hold the premise that God's nature does not change, and then conclude that God changes His mind, His choices, prophecies, or even historical events under His control, etc. That breaks the law of non-contradiction, as do most of the OV teachings. Their logic forces the only premise they can rationally hold, and that is that God is variable, unknowing, and often wrong.

God doesn't repent like we do. That much is certain. Again the Hebrew is to sigh. The root word means exactly that.

I agree. God is constantly working to bring good out of evil; His repenting and relenting is not turning away from His caused errors or wrongs or mistakes or hapless uncontrolled events, but He works a continuous overruling of the sins of men to fulfill His own good purposes and pleasure. . .immutably, knowledgably, powerfully, and righteously. . . with much long-suffering, but without fail.

Nang

 

[Philetus]

Well, I am glad you fellas are having a good day, and enjoying all the happy back-thumping, but unfortunately, your human and finite definitions of words, lead you to wrong conclusions, which forces an erroneous (and blasphemous, IMO) premise; that being:

God is changeable, variable, and unpredictable.

God is not all in all, and does not know it all.

God is often wrong.

How you can live with that description of God Almighty, is beyond me . . .but to each his own.

But do not be surprised that those of us who hold that God is . . . immutable, all in all, knowing all, while always perfectly righteous in His ways . . . do not agree with your conclusions, nor your definitions, nor do we respect your self-contratulatory attitudes.

Nang

:baby:
Give it up Nang.

And get used to being in the minority. :chuckle:

(We should live so long.)

 

[Philetus]

It is my opinion that the core problem of the OV, is that it proves to be illogical. One cannot hold the premise that God's nature does not change, and then conclude that God changes His mind, His choices, prophecies, or even historical events under His control, etc. That breaks the law of non-contradiction, as do most of the OV teachings. Their logic forces the only premise they can rationally hold, and that is that God is variable, unknowing, and often wrong.



I agree. God is constantly working to bring good out of evil; His repenting and relenting is not turning away from His caused errors or wrongs or mistakes or hapless uncontrolled events, but He works a continuous overruling of the sins of men to fulfill His own good purposes and pleasure. . .immutably, knowledgably, powerfully, and righteously. . . with much long-suffering, but without fail.

Nang

God didn't cause Saul's errors. Saul did. :doh:
God didn't choose poorly. Saul performed badly, disappointingly.

Why does God have to continue to work at it? Wasn't he already in complete control of it? What did God have to do because of Saul's sin/errors/wrongs/mistakes/hapless uncontrolled events?


_______________

Does a murderer change his nature by changing his mind about who to shoot first?

Talk about illogical ...

By the Way ... God is never wrong.

 

[Nang]

God didn't cause Saul's errors. Saul did.

I did not say God causes errors. I should have added the word (supposed) I suppose.

Why does God have to continue to work at it? Wasn't he already in complete control of it? What did God have to do because of Saul's sin/errors/wrongs/mistakes/hapless uncontrolled events?

You do not believe God continually overcomes the evil of mankind by His good works? This priniciple is taught in Genesis 50:20 and Romans 8:28, which explains all of God's dealing with wickedness while accomplishing His own good purposes.

By the Way ... God is never wrong.

Well, of course I do not believe God is ever wrong, but that is not the teaching of you and your OV buddies.

Nang

 

[Nathon Detroit]

One cannot hold the premise that God's nature does not change, and then conclude that God changes His mind, His choices, prophecies, or even historical events under His control, etc. That breaks the law of non-contradiction,

How so?

How is that contradictory? If you are going to assert it you should do us the favor in backing up your assertion with an explanation of how and why it breaks the law of non-contradiction.

There is nothing contradictory about a sovereign God changing His mind or plan based on the actions of freewill agents.

God Himself says it best....

Jeremiah 18:5-10 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: “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 instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, “if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. “And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, “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. ​

God's nature and essence do not change but God is able to adjust in relation to His creation. There is simply nothing contradictory about that.

I agree. God is constantly working to bring good out of evil; His repenting and relenting is not turning away from His caused errors or wrongs or mistakes or hapless uncontrolled events, but He works a continuous overruling of the sins of men to fulfill His own good purposes and pleasure.

Do you know anyone who thinks other than that?

I know of no one who would disagree with your above statement.

Although it does raise a question for you.....

If God ordains all that happens, how could He actually "overrule" anything? Isn't everything that happens (according to you) by His design?